Some Paedo Baptist Clarification Needed.

[Osage Bluestem]

I am a Paedo Baptist Presbyterian. I think we are supposed to baptize infants so I support baptizing them. However, it doesn't guarantee that the baptized are elect so I really don't understand why we do it other than it appears that scripture requires that of us if baptism has replaced circumcision, because if this is the case (and I think it is) then it is a sin not to baptize our children.

But I logically don't understand why God would want us to baptize infants when the baptism doesn't really mean they are saved, instead of waiting for them to make a profession of faith and then follow the Lord in obedience by submitting to baptism. But it appears if I am correct that baptism has replaced circumcision this is what he wants...so we must do it.

It is by grace that the child was born into a christian home, but that doesn't guarantee his salvation either.

So how is it that the covenant is really guaranteed by God if a baptized person is not elect and does indeed wind up in hell? If baptism is showing that the child is in covenant, then that child should be guaranteed by that covenant to be saved right?

I understand that all of the circumcised were not saved either.

Is baptism just ultimately the responsibility to God of the parents? And is it the parents that are doing God's will by baptizing the children, but the children who are baptized have no promises of God to them in and of themselves? I know the confession says that real promises are given.

From the WCF Chapter 28:

VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time

Link: http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

How can the above really be true in the words it was written if not every baptized child is elect?

I was asked this question by a guy on another site and I did my best to answer it months ago, but I have always felt incomplete about it, like I got one over somehow about something that really didn't make much sense, so it has haunted me, and now I bring it up with you guys hoping you can show me what I am missing.

Thanks.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

A quick answer:

Notice what the Great Commission commands:
Make disciples
- baptizing them
- teaching them

It does not command:
Find people
-teach them
-see if they are truly saved
--if yes, they are disciples
---therefore baptize them

Baptism and teaching is what is done at the initiation and not the end of the discipleship process. It is not done after we've already determined that the fruit of all that effort has saved the soul.

This is about the nature of discipleship. Is baptism simply something we do retrospectively after we've seen the fruit of the Gospel or is baptism and teaching something that leads unto that fruit.

Grace precedes faith and baptism is a sign of that. It is not saying that the person baptized is saved (whether professor or infant) but that the person is marked out as a disciple and is now an object of the Church's care and teaching. The Church is then an incubator of faith. It enjoins. It encourages. It holds forth Christ. It strives with the soul.

And this is the means that God has ordained to convert and sanctify the soul.

Presbyterians are not in the habit (per Scripture) of defining who is/isn't "truly saved" but, while it is called Today, hold forth Christ in Word and Sacrament and let the Holy Spirit convert according to His Sovereign timing and will.

Thus:
1. We baptize disciples.
2. Our children are, in every way, disciples (called holy and to be trained in the fear and admonition of the Lord)
3. We baptize our children

 

[Mushroom]

We baptize our babes in expectation of their salvation. God is sovereign over where and to whom children are born. Those born to covenantal Christian parents have much advantage in every way. The benefits accrued to them are many, and the reprobation of any of them is the exception, not the norm. God blesses those who love Him to a thousand generations, and that is no hyperbole, it is the promise of our God who reigns.

 

[MW]

The secret things belong to the Lord, but the things revealed to us and to our children. There is a temporal administration of the covenant of grace. Those who were circumcised under the OT or baptised under the NT were regarded as children of the covenant. They are brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. They call God their God and Father through Jesus Christ and are admonished to believe, repent, obey, and persevere on a daily basis. Whether they are elect and inwardly members of the covenant of grace and true participants of its spiritual blessings is known only to God. Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated; yet both enjoyed the external promise of having God to be their God and both were "blessed" on account of their covenant privilege.

 

[Scott1]

This won't answer all your questions, but perhaps this may be helpful.

The children of believers are baptized as a sign of their being placed in a position of privilege- being born to at least one believing parent and into a covenant community where the ordinary means of grace occur. This is not true of the children of unbelievers.

Also, think of the covenant community of Israel in the Old Testament- visibly there were many members, but certainly not all were saved. It's similar today- the covenant community is composed of those who profess Christianity and their children. But not every one of them is elect (there are what the Westminster Divines term "hypocrites," etc.)

And so it has been, and so it will be... until the end of the age.