Since we found out that we’re to become parents, my wife and I have been giving the topic of baptism some serious thought and discussion.
The church of which we’re members, has an open view on baptism. Open on the mode (sprinkling, pouring, and immersion), and on the subjects, (believers and infants).
That being the case, it ought to beg the question, ‘why’. Why have an open view? And if it’s open, shouldn’t I understand all sides and figure out by the grace of God, where my conviction lies?
It hasn’t been easy, and I’ve still much to think about. Nevertheless, I thought I’d share my struggle up to this point.
My big problem with Infant baptism…
Where are children baptised in scripture? How can the infant baptist prove that children were baptised?
In the strictest sense (specific mentions of children), there are no scriptural references whatsoever. None!
This seemed to me to end the argument.
That was until it was suggested to me, that the burden of proof is actually upon the credobaptist to prove that God has changed how he deals with the children of His people.
Yes, that hit me like a tonne of bricks, too.
As long as I’m not dispensational, and believe that God only has one people in all ages, how can I prove that God has changed how he deals with the children of His people?
We all are aware of the fact that all the male children of Israelites were to be circumcised. It was a sign of the covenant (the promise that Jehovah would be their God, and they would be His people) made between God and Abraham, and to be carried out upon all under him. And although the infants would not have grasped this promise, it was to be administered to them anyway.
Preaching this new sacrament to the Jews…
On the day of Pentecost, when the Jewish hearers said, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” we read:
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Acts 2:38-39
The promise (or covenant) was still for them, and their children. Peter did not say, this is for you and only them that consciously believe. He made it clear, that God was still dealing in a familial manner with His people.
This, to me at least, shows that the real question is, where in the scriptures does it say God deals with the children of believers differently?
I can’t see anywhere that He does.
But, baptism is an outward sign of an inward work…
How can baptism be administered to those who have not consciously come to a knowledge of their sin, repented and believed on Christ?
It stands to reason, that if baptism represents what happens at conversion, how or why should a child be baptised?
I read this afternoon, something which (in part at least) initiated my desire to write this post.
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also.
Rom 4:11
So, circumcision wasn’t only a sign of covenant made, but a seal of Abraham’s faith. A faith he had before his circumcision, and which imputed to him the righteousness of his Messiah.
What struck me was this. In essence, circumcision was also an outward sign of an inward work. A sign of the change wrought in Abraham’s life by the saving grace of God.
This being the case, why did God command Abraham to also circumcise all those born into his household at eight days old?
I’m not sure if I can give a proper answer to that. All I know is that He did. He was to carry out the seal of that which symbolised faith in the only Redeemer.
It didn’t seem to matter to God that some would be elect and others would not. This sign and seal was to be administered to all.
What does it mean if children are baptised?
Well, it certainly doesn’t mean they are regenerated. Not every circumcised child had a circumcised heart, so to speak. Israel were not brought into the promised land, not because they were or were not circumcised, but because they believed not. Countless numbers of circumcised Israelites went to hell.
Yet, those same Israelites enjoyed privileges those of heathen nations did not. Every time a male Israelite went to the toilet, he was reminded that he was not as the heathens, and he should live in repentance and obedience to his God.
In a similar fashion, the NT tells us that the children of believing parents are “holy” 1 Cor 7:14.
To be honest, I’m not sure I fully know what that means. However, at the very least it tells me that they are different. Whether or not a child has believed in Jesus Christ, if one or both its parents are Christians, then it’s different.
Just like an Israelite, the child of a Christian has privileges which it cannot ignore.
I’m still studying this, but I thought I’d share these thoughts as they might be helpful to you.
Have you studied this topic? Have your views changed over time?
Do you forget to visit the blog? Get free updates via email. Or via RSS if you use a feedreaderWant to read other articles? Try these...
Want to pray intelligently for this preacher? Go here to learn more!
Added Commentary
By David Mc Climond
on 01.09.09
Hello bro!
No doubt peado baptisim is like many other doctrines in that it takes study to grasp its true meaning and how it is valid. However the coverts of todays easy believisim are not taught to think. “doctrine divides” is the cry! Well I thank God it does!
Keep up the good work enjoyed that blog!
By Armen
on 01.09.09
Hey David,
True. Though we must seek to encourage fellowship with those of like precious faith. Yet, it must not, and it cannot, come at the expense of fundamental truth.
Neither should the division found in certain doctrines, defer people away from giving them some serious personal study.
For example; though I remember saying for a time that I was a ‘pan-millennialist’ (that everything will just pan out as God has planned), I was really saying that I don’t care enough to study what God has revealed.
That’s wrong.
By Andrew
on 01.09.09
Whenever I become settled in one opinion I come across another which unsettles me.
I tend towards infant baptism. I think infant baptism has a certain richness within the context of Covenant Theology that is missing from the alternative within the same context. This doesn’t at all rise to an exegetical presentation of infant baptism, I don’t think I could make a robust case at present.
I just mean to say that systematically I think it makes sense.
Where there is an open policy I do think there is a requirement to hammer these issues out more fully than commonly is the case. So I’m glad you’ve brought the subject up even if I cannot add much to the discussion.
By Armen
on 01.09.09
Andrew,
I think I’ve made clear too, that I’m not in a position to be bold about what I’m seeing in the scriptures.
My first questions started to arise the first time I witnessed the ‘dedication’ of an infant. It confused me. The passages quoted during the service didn’t make sense. I just wasn’t sure what to think.
As years have passed, I suppose you apply yourself to learn more about those things which are relevant to you. In the case of how to raise children, it’s a rather recent matter for me to study properly.
By Andew
on 01.09.09
Dedication is interesting. It is clearly practised as a diluted substitute for infant baptism. In my mind this makes it a somewhat embarrassed practice. If someone confesses believers baptism I do not think they should look to dedication for their children.
I’m not sure when I will study baptism further. I suppose, as you say, you tend to study what is relevant to your situation.
By Jermayn
on 01.09.09
Hey!
I personally lean towards dedication rather than Infant Baptism.
Even with your scriptures and research, it still does to me show why we should baptize our kids. Also circumcision has more health benefits than spiritual benefits.
Dedication to me, means you dedicate yourself as a church and parents to raise the kid in your best way possible in the truths of God etc. It does not mean the kid is saved or dedicated to God, because the kid has his own choice to make. All it means is that the parents will raise the kid as best as they can in a Christian environment, at home, at church, at school etc.
Anyway that’s my 2c
By Shaun Green
on 01.09.09
Keep up the diligent studies, Armen.
You will make good father!
Regards
Shaun
(Father of four)
By Armen
on 01.09.09
Hey Jermayn,
I have never witnessed with my own two eyes, anything other than dedication. Infant baptism isn’t commonly practised in our churches (even though we’re presbyterian by name).
However, I would encourage you to give the matter real study and not just be influenced by what you’ve always known. If infant baptism is scriptural, then to disregard it is a disobedience.
Also, it matters little of the health benefits of circumcision. It is a law enacted by God himself (Gen 17:9-10), which cannot be removed until it is either fulfilled or repealed.
It hasn’t been fulfilled or repealed, but replaced by a sacrament which it identical in what it signifies; baptism.
Concerning dedication, read what Andrew said above. It is a meant to be a substitute for infant baptism, implying that Christian parents recognise that their children are recipients of all the promises and privileges which have been given to the Church.
Anyway, I’m not out to change minds on the matter. It’s a doctrine which few on either side give any real objective study to. Unless one is open to study the matter objectively (I’m not implying that you aren’t), it’s a waste of time.
Welcome Shaun,
All I can say to that is, only by the grace of God.
By Peter
on 01.09.09
Just when I think I’ll be heading off for an early night you spring this on me
I’ve sat on both sides of this fence at various times and freely admit I haven’t fallen on either side in my own conscience. I’m probably 60/40 in favour of believers baptism (and was baptised on that basis) but that’s just as much a result of the influence of time spent in dispensational Baptist circles as it is the result of any serious study on my part.
As was pointed out in the post, infant baptism seems to fit well with the covenant perspective. One key query for me in building the foundations of infant baptism is the “baton-pass” between Passover->Lord’s Supper, and Circumcision->Baptism? Is it an association that stems from one’s interpretive framework or is it clearly stated in Scripture?
It’s probably Covenant Theology 101 but I must’ve missed that class
Footnote:
Hasn’t happened on this post yet, thankfully, but what is most unsettling about these types of discussion points is the speed at which Christians stoop to name calling and stereotyping of fellow-believers. Kind of like politics, if your own position is on shaky ground, or you left your notes at home, go for the controversy or the straw men - makes for great television, but not so great in the shining lights before men department….
By Armen
on 02.09.09
Peter,
First, I hope everyone reads your footnote.
Second, I should make it abundantly clear to all reading this, I was baptised as a believer after my conversion. I wasn’t brought up as a Christian, so there was never going to be an alternative. Also, at the time of my baptism (shortly after my conversion), my stated thoughts on baptism would have been very much on the credo side. Believers only, and preferably by immersion.
As for the “baton-pass”, I’ll do my best.
1. Careful study of both sacraments in the OT, will reveal that they represented the same thing as both sacraments in the NT.
2. In the case of circumcision, it was the rite of initiation into the church under the OT dispensation. It was by this rite that men became Jews. Baptism is the rite of initiation into the church under the NT dispensation. It is by this rite that we become or are recognized as Christians. Like I said, their significance is the same. Circumcision was intended to signify purity of heart. Deut 10:16; Deut 30:5; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29.
Baptism, of course, signifies the same thing.
Did the 8 day old child consciously know that a sign was being applied which signified his faith in God? Nope. Yet, God required it to be so, as sign that this child is part of the visible church, not as the heathens.
Now, coming into the NT, imagine trying to explain to a converted Jew, that the sign of God’s covenantal promise to his children, has been removed. He wouldn’t get it. Jehovah wouldn’t do that to his people (speaking as a Hebrew). It was an everlasting token of the covenant between God and His people (Gen 17:11), and nowhere is there any explanation given that God now sees children of His people differently (as I pointed out in the post).
Now, the argument may be offered that that only applies to the national Jew, because he was of the seed of Abraham, and that covenant was made to Abraham’s seed. But, such an argument ignores passages like Gal 3:29.
3. Frankly, the “baton-pass” is largely by strong implication, where in the NT we find the introduction of a sacrament which means the same thing as circumcision, but is executed differently.
However, if I believe in covenant theology, and that God has been progressively working in every generation through one people, then I must prove where in the scripture God nullified the sign of the covenant made to Abraham.
I can’t find that, and that’s really where the rubber hits the road. The covenant theologian credobaptist, when trying to argue against a sacrament which means the same thing as circumcision, has to prove where it’s no longer applied to infants as circumcision was.
I hope this is somewhat coherent
By Andrew
on 02.09.09
Peter,
It depends what you mean by ‘clearly stated in Scripture’. You will not find a ‘proof text’ for the supersession of the Passover/circumcision with the Lord’s Supper/Baptism. But there is strong exegetical support for the position. As far as I am aware the New Testament sacraments have generally been understood throughout church history to be replacements for Old Testament counterparts with or without CT. So it is isn’t the case that if you hold to this view of the NT sacraments that you must also confess CT. Although if you hold to CT then you are sure to hold to the other.
So the issue of replacement and infant baptism, in my mind at any rate, are not necessarily linked. Most Reformed Baptists (those that would hold to some form of CT) would be quite willing to say that the New Testament sacraments replace the Old Testament counterparts. The breach concerns in what sense are they replacements. This involves how CT is understood and how the sacraments are understood.
I doubt there are many dispensationalists that hold to infant baptism simply because dispensationalism introduces, depending on which version you consult, a [radical] discontinuity between the two testaments. There is no need to relate the sacraments of the OT/NT because of this discontinuity. I would qualify that I am speaking very generally here about dispensationalism.
By Kenny Jeffers
on 02.09.09
Hi,
As a reformed baptist I am utterly oppossed to infant baptism. It is a sad thing that Calvin , Berkoff and others of that ilk cannot find infant baptism in the bible, but still defended it. I highly recommend a little book that only costs buttons from EVANGELICAL PRESS….by T.E. WATSON….SHOULD CHILDREN BE BAPTISED. It shows the reformers, puritans, etc. in their own words…say it simply isn’t there…please read this book and pass it on to others. In defense of the scriptures..
Kenny Jeffers
By Armen
on 02.09.09
Welcome Kenny,
Thank you for visiting. I invite discussion from all sides, but what you’ve said makes me beg the question, have you ever read either Calvin or Berkoff on this subject?
Aside from that, it would be helpful if you’d add to the discussion by commenting on what has been written, rather than pointing to reading material. Make your comments, and then suggest other books for those interested in further study.
By Irwin
on 02.09.09
Phew Armen you’ve caused quite a discussion there. I havn’t been one for infant baptism, mind you I didn’t get the girls ‘dedicated’ either, but I did pray for their salvation long before they were born and believed they would be.
However our old friend Alan holds to Infant Baptism. I heard his view a long time ago and it sounded plausable at the time -perhaps if you emailed him he might join the discussion!
Having heard him & some others e.g. LH I would still lean towards dedication if anything.
By Armen
on 02.09.09
Irwin,
Was there any specific reason why you didn’t dedicate the girls?
Yeah, I’m aware of Alan’s view, though I’ve never discussed it with him. Likewise for LH. I don’t think he’s shared his reasoning with me, but I remember him telling me he has been called a ‘Romanist’ in the past.
By Jessica Raymond
on 02.09.09
I am pleased to see that you have come to the conclusion of infant baptism, even though you still have questions. There is alot of proof for infant baptism. I can provide for you many Biblical texts, commentaries, and articles on the subject. My church is well-armed. I would be happy to help strengthen your conviction.
You ask the question, in so many words, that if God telling Abraham to circumcise his house, being an outward show of an inward work, why did He require the whole house be baptised, since babies can’t show outwardly what is wrought in them…and you say you are not sure, but all you know is that God did command that the whole house be involved.
I think I know the answer to why God would require the whole house be circumcised (and therefore, the whole house be baptised), but in order for it to work, the view of both circumcision and baptism must change. Baptism and circumcision are not outward shows of an inward work. Rather, each is a sign pointing to a future of dedication to Christ. Children were circumcised, because their parents promised to raise their children in the fear of the Lord in the FUTURE, as the child got older. (8 days old can’t be old enough for teaching…) Baptising infants, the parents are asked in the ceremony, if they promise to raise their child in the FUTURE, as a God-fearing child. It’s a sign of God’s family covenant being passed on generationally. This also works for when an adult or older child is baptised, newly coming into the faith, if they were not raised in a covenant home. He is being received into the covenant of the Church family, oversight of church leaders or whatever, or newly converted family…and he makes a promise to dedicate his life in the FUTURE unto God’s service, now as a member of Christ’s church, which he was not privileged to be raised in as an infant.
With this said, it makes sense that Abraham was circumcised as an adult and yet his children as well were circumcised. Because Abraham, newly converted, branded himself to God’s dedication, and he swore that he would raise his children to do the same.
There’s also a question as to the similarities between circumcision and baptism, and one asks “why then do we baptise girls?” - read Gal. 3, especially verse 28, after Paul goes through everything, he explains that in the case of dedicating one’s life, there’s neither Jew nor Greek, Male nor Female.
By Ian
on 02.09.09
Hi Armen. i haven’t read all the above discussion but I have two points. Number one is that circumcision was on the eighth day because that is when vitamin k ( a clotting factor of blood ) is at its highest level. I read this in a chick tract. God knows best.
Secondly, Did you ever think that the Free Church offers this contradiction. When you become a minister you are asked if you believe all the doctrines contained in the Westminster confession of faith. Then you are asked if you believe the statement of faith of the Free church. Every minister says they do. Are they not therefore lying as the Westminster confession teaches infant baptism and the free church allows to not believe it, and in fact elders discriminate against those who wish it on a matter of conscience. Is this not hypocrisy. Not to mention the mode of baptism or amillenialism taught in the Westminster confession is left open also. is this not contardiction. Does leaving it open create Baptist Free P’s and presbyterian free p’s. What of ministers who wear collars and those who are adamant not to. Those who prefer red and those blue. Those who take the honoured title of Rev as being worthy of double honour and those who prefer Mr. Has this anything to do with the doc being baptist in belief like his dad. He is certainly premill. Anyhow, just a wee thought.
By Armen
on 02.09.09
Welcome Jessica,
“Baptism and circumcision are not outward shows of an inward work. Rather, each is a sign pointing to a future of dedication to Christ.”
At first, I wasn’t sure if you were right. Then I thought you were, and I was wrong. However, now I think what I said, and what you say, are compatible.
Circumcision and baptism are outward signs of an inward work. But, this necessarily implies that there will be a future working out of that sign. That believers will walk in newness of life and henceforth not serve sin (Rom 6:4-6).
Parents, on the other hand, promise to do all in their power under God, to endeavour that their children will do the same.
Am I wrong to conclude this?
Welcome Ian,
My my…you’ve brought more baggage than an A380!
The vitamin K is interesting. Nowadays, most children (in the UK at least) are given vitamin K shortly after birth, to help avoid potential (though rare, I think) complications.
As for the matter concerning the FPC of Ulster. The Confession is clear that baptism should be administered to the infants of believing parents. I’m not sure of all that happens at an ordination, so I can’t comment on the Ministers.
Neither have I experienced first hand, any discrimination.
The open view on the mode of baptism, is upheld by the Confession. Read it.
I’m not aware of the Confession teaching any particular eschatological. It merely upholds the major details, which all traditional views agree on.
As for Rev or no Rev, collars, and the influence of Dr. Paisley, I have no idea.
By Andrew
on 02.09.09
Where there is an open policy it is implied that you will have some of one opinion and some of another. The point of an open policy is that this division does not matter. This is the same for eschatology and other non-confessional beliefs.
There are problems with an open policy for baptism and I don’t think they should be swept away. Are baptised infants under the Covenant of Grace or not? Well it seems the answer to this will depend on who you talk to within your church, for some yes, for some no. A baptised infant in a church with an open policy will be regarded as in and out. They receive the same promises as professing believers and they do not, depending on who you ask.
The crucial issue for an open policy is how one understands sacrament. The symbolic view changes nothing, baptism has no bearing on your position in the New Covenant. Contrary to this most of the Reformed confessions state that baptism effects a change in your relationship with God. If you hold to this view then I think support for an open policy, whether you are paedo or credo, becomes impossible.
So I guess I am saying you must hold to a symbolic view of the sacraments to sit under an open view of baptism. Either this or you ignore the problem in the pew and the pulpit.
By Irwin
on 03.09.09
Armen I’ve been racking my brains (such as they are) for reasons why I didn’t dedicate the girls. With no 1 it was probably time slipping by & I wasn’t focused on the need. With no 2 we were between churches. As I said I had prayed for them before they were born and also left it to the Lord to use them in whatever service God had for them. (perhaps a kind of dedication) However now if in the same situation I would have a public dedication as well.
Just on some of the other contributors comments (and I’m no expert as you know) does it have to be an either/or situation or is there merit in both. If in infant baptism there is as quoted the-
“promise to raise their child in the FUTURE, as a God-fearing child.” &” It’s a sign of God’s family covenant being passed on generationally.”
then is dedication a step further like Hannah bringing Samuel to the temple specifically for the work of the Lord?
Just a thought & I’m sure someone will have a take on it.
By Armen
on 03.09.09
Andrew,
That’s an interesting point, but I need you to clarify.
What do you mean by, “baptism effects a change in your relationship with God”? Do you mean by “relationship” the difference between being counted ‘in’ the Church or ‘out’ of the Church? Hence, when an infant is baptised, it is counted as ‘in’ the Church, and when it’s not it is ‘out’ of the Church?
Irwin,
I was reading a discussion between a few paedobaptists and reformed baptists recently. One of the reformed baptists (who does not believe in baptising infants) said their churches do not dedicate children, because it’s simply not in scripture. I had previously thought all baptists dedicate their children, but it seems that’s not the case.
I read this last night. I found it enlightening. You might too.
“The difference in baby dedication versus infant baptism:
Baby dedication assumes the baby does not belong to God, and the parents are giving Him a present.
Infant Baptism assumes that God owns the fruit of His people, and claims the infant children of believers as His own.”
In the case of Hannah’s dedication of Samuel…to be honest bro, from the first time I heard it quoted to sustain a scriptural warrant of the dedication of a child, I didn’t get it. To be even more frank, I cannot see how anyone can use that singular, unique case, to suggest that’s what they’re doing with their children.
If it was done as Hannah did, ministers would be running a sort of spiritual 24/7 day care centre.
By Andrew
on 03.09.09
Armen,
That is more or less what I mean. Compare the WCF Chapters 27 & 28 with the 1689 Baptist Confession Chapters 28 & 29. WCF refers to baptism as a sign and seal in which grace is communicated to the recipient whereas the LBC refers to baptism as a sign only.
The question is this, what, if anything, does baptism do?
To elaborate, Turretin writes:
‘Our opinion is that the sacraments do not work grace physically and ex opere operato as if they possessed a force implanted and inherent in them of conferring and effecting grace; But only morally and hyperphysically, inasmuch as they are signs and seals which in their lawful use hold forth and seal grace to believers (God by the power of the Holy Spirit truly performing and fulfilling in them whatsoever he promises and figures by the signs). Therefore a twofold efficacy is ascribed to the sacraments according to us: the one moral and objective, by which the sacraments make present to our mind that object, to signify and seal which they are destined…the other covenantal by which God (sealing by the sacraments his promise or covenant) confers the very things promised upon the believing soul or even a greater sense and perception of these already conferred and produces by both greater operations‘ Inst. Elenctic Theology Vol.3 Pg 363
Again…
‘The end of baptism is twofold: (1) to aid our faith with God; (2) to aid our confession among men. The primary is on the part of God; sealing the covenant of grace and its benefits; our union with Christ and what flows from it; remission of sins or justification and regeneration by the Holy Spirit’ Ibid. Pg383
Then to infants…
Sacraments without faith in the user are said to be empty ceremonies with regard to adults; not with regards to infants, in whom (for a salutary use of baptism) the promise is sufficient and the grace of the covenant (which is sealed on the part of God) even though as yet there is not an answer and restipulation on the part of the baptised’ Ibid. Pg419
If we believe this concerning baptism, if we believe this is what baptism does, then I can’t see how an open policy can exist peacefully.
If on the other hand we confess that baptism is only a sign or symbol of a present reality the difficulty doesn’t disappear but it is minimised.
–
I know historically Reformed Baptists argued that infant baptism was a violation of the Regulative Principle of Worship, I think John Gill made much of this argument. Thus precluding infant dedication on the same grounds. Leaving aside baptism, all that confess the RPW, as per the WCF, should not be dedicating infants.
I’m guessing but I think infant dedication is a fairly modern practice originating in the American Pietist/Holiness movement during the 19th century. This movement is something of a bulwark for fundamentalism so I suspect this has something to do with dedication in the FPC, amongst other things.
By kristarella
on 06.09.09
Hi Armen,
Interesting you should bring this up. I hadn’t thought much about it for a long time and then last week I heard the bishop of my area speak for infant baptism (although he didn’t like that term, I can’t remember what he said was a more useful way of saying it) on a podcast, The Pilgrim’s Podcast.
I don’t feel strongly one way or the other, but I thought his argument was compelling. It’s pretty similar to what you quoted above and I think it’s supported by 1 Cor 7:14, or at least loosely related. I would recommend listening to the podcast itself; it is the 12th episode and the bishop is Glenn Davies. Paraphrasing what I remember of it, he said,
Do you as Christian parents raise your children as pagans? No! You raise them as Christians, they are Christians.
He said some other stuff to build up his argument that was useful too.
I see the realism in dedication, that children will grow up and need to make their own decisions. However, the bible warns Christians against turning away… My current thinking is to raise your children as Christians and pray they don’t turn away, rather than raising them as unbelievers and praying they turn to Christ.
By kristarella
on 06.09.09
Oh and I should have said:
I remember more of the argument, but didn’t quite trust myself to paraphrase it faithfully. And, episode 12 isn’t yet on the page for the Pilgrim’s Podcast yet, but it is in iTunes.
By Jessica Raymond
on 06.09.09
..Thinking what you said and what I said, perhaps it is compatible. Maybe it even should be, instead of not just one or the other. Because after all, adults do get baptized.
I wrote this on another discussion thought you’d be interested: “Reminds me of the “which came first, the chicken or the egg” argument. We all know the chicken came first, God created it on the fifth day. After the chicken, then the eggs. When Jesus and the Disciples were establishing the New Testament church…which had to come first, adults or infants in that establishment? Adults. But that doesn’t mean infants dont follow and must be accepted as part of the construction project.”
Continue to search. I don’t have much time to read over all these discussions and get involved, but it seems you’re doing all right.
By Armen
on 08.09.09
Andrew,
I’m not sure. Would I be right in saying, that the significance of the particulars of baptism has little to do with the administrator (ordained pastor), and more to do with what God does, and how He views the baptised?
As the confession states, it is a great sin to not be baptised, but it is not so wholly tied to grace that salvation is impossible without it.
I can see how it’s difficult to permit two views where ultimately one is wrong, but I’m not sure if it’s impossible to have them coexisting within the same church. Though it may be seen as less critical, the second coming of Christ is a vital doctrine in the church, and to certain degrees, people are allowed to favour different views.
kristarella,
I can’t speak for the particular bishop you’re referring to, but if he’s anything like many of the anglican bishops in the UK, I’d be afraid he’d go to the extreme of baptismal regeneration.
I’m downloading the podcast now.
Jessica,
Thanks for the analogy.
By Andrew
on 08.09.09
Armen,
The Reformed position, as far as I understand it, is that grace is conferred in the sacraments by the operation of the Holy Spirit apart from the elements of the sacrament. In baptism the grace given is a sign and seal of entrance into the New Covenant.
In the symbolic view baptism is a sign of an existing reality, there is no seal, nothing is given and nothing changes. In baptism God does not seal your membership in the New Covenant. Your membership in the New Covenant was sealed at conversion when baptised by the Holy Spirit. Baptism is a visible sign, and a visible sign only.
This symbolic view is the traditional Baptist understanding of Baptism. Only those that can offer a ‘credible profession of faith’, those which in theory have been brought into the New Covenant by the work of the Holy Spirit in conversion, should be administered the visible sign of this present reality, baptism.
How would this square with infant baptism? Well, the children of believing parents are part of the New Covenant even before they are baptised. So baptising an infant is a visible sign of this existing reality, on the same terms and conditions as the Reformed view. So whether you baptise infants or not has no bearing on their position within the covenant. They are still the beneficiaries of the promise, albeit without the visible sign in the case of not.
This brings other problems which I don’t want to get into, for now I’m only interested in showing that the symbolic view of baptism underpins an open policy.
On the symbolic view all that are in the church are in the church. For the credobaptist only believers are in the church and baptism is administered as a visible sign of this. For the paedobaptist believers and their children are in the church and baptism is administered as a visible sign of this. The credobaptist believes this baptism is invalid but because it is only symbolic it doesn’t really make any difference. The paedobaptist also isn’t pleased, they think the credobaptist should baptise their infants, but they also know that the child by virtue of their believing and baptised parent(s) is subject to the promises of the New Covenant. Not ideal (Is there such a thing as a perfect church?) but workable.
If, however, we return to the view expressed by the WCF and the Reformed Orthodox such amity cannot prevail. In all likelihood credobaptists will hold to the symbolic view so I will lay that aside. To the paedobaptist, the kind that believes that baptism is a sign and seal , the credobaptist is denying their child the promises of the New Covenant by refusing to have them baptised. This is a serious problem, God extends the benefit of the covenant to the children but the parent would rather have them pagans outside of Israel. To reconcile this with an open policy is impossible.
I hope this explains what I am getting a bit better.
By kristarella
on 08.09.09
I had to look baptismal regeneration up, but I’m quite sure he wouldn’t go that far. From what I’ve heard from him and the archbishop of the area, I’m pretty sure that they would say the only thing required for salvation is trust in the work of Jesus Christ. I guess he views baptism as an important outworking of faith, but considers the children of Christians to be Christian, not to have to wait until their cognitive functions catch up.
I’d be interested to hear what you think of what he says.
By Armen
on 01.10.09
Andrew,
With your understanding, are you not almost pushing the reformed position into baptismal regeneration for infants?
To me, infant baptism is the acceptance of the children into the visible church, but does not guarantee their position in the invisible church.
Such is the case for adults too, I suppose.
If there is any grace conferred then, it must only be when the subject is already in actual, living union with Christ.
This being the case, the only difficulty with the open view is perhaps how to treat the children of believers. But, I believe even credobaptists with a right understanding of scripture, will train their children in the same way as a.
paedobaptist
Perhaps in time I’ll understand the details more in the near future.
kristarella,
I listened to the podcast. He seems sound enough. Definitely doesn’t believe in baptismal regeneration.
I also liked his preference for the term ‘covenantal baptism’. I’d agree with the point he makes about this.
By Andrew
on 01.10.09
Hi Armen,
I thought you had done a runner!
From what I have read the Reformed position is that grace, in some sense, is conferred in baptism. It is not saving grace, and as you say does not guarantee that the child will exercise saving faith in the future. I think the wheel turns upon what is meant by seal.
I don’t really get it myself I much prefer the symbolic view, but I still do think infants should baptised which leaves me in a rather odd position.
I have a lot to learn about the subject also so I am open to changing my mind.
By kristarella
on 03.10.09
Andrew, I’d be curious to see what you read that suggested that. I’m pretty sure it’s against the reformed view to say that grace is conferred by any human action. To be able to receive grace through baptism or communion or any of those rituals is a Roman Catholic concept. I don’t think the bible ever describes us as receiving grace in bits, we are either under grace (saved) or we are not.
I’m not sure if it’s good to count baptism as a work, I would count it as an outward sign. However if one was doing it in order to receive grace, I think they would be using it as a work.
By Andrew
on 03.10.09
Hi Kristella,
The distinction that should be noted is ‘in baptism’ and ‘by baptism’.
As quoted above Francis Turretin writes ‘Our opinion is that the sacraments do not work grace physically and ex opere operato as if they possessed a force implanted and inherent in them of conferring and effecting grace’ This is the Roman Catholic view. They believe that the physical elements of the sacraments have power in themselves and that this power is not disturbed by the piety of the priest.
The Westminster Confession is conclusive:
‘The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.’
The Reformed view is that grace is conferred apart from the elements used by the Holy Spirit and that the grace given is a seal to membership of the New Covenant. The Confession goes on to say ‘The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered’. But in baptising infants the grace is promised and the benefit of the promise is theirs as worthy receivers.
It is not saving grace or baptismal regeneration as in Romanism or in Eastern Orthodoxy it is a ’seal’ of what is (in the case of adults) or what is promised (in the case of infants) of entrance into the New Covenant. All infants that receive baptism, which have the promise upon them, but do not repent of their sin and believe in Christ as saviour are covenant breakers.
This is at least what I understand the Reformed position to be. If I have misspoken I am open to correction.
By kristarella
on 03.10.09
I won’t pretend not to struggle with the old language and words like “efficacy”. And I’ll admit that I haven’t done extensive reading on the topic of baptism. So, though I consider myself to be a Christian and member of the reformed church, I might think differently to others who would also describe themselves thus.
I can see where the distinction might lie in “in baptism” and “by baptism”, although I still disagree that grace would be conferred in baptism at all. You are right in saying grace is conferred apart from the elements and the Holy Spirit works there. The Westminster Confession states that the grace is exhibited in the sacrements rightly used. I think that grace is already upon the person and baptism is an outward sign or working of that, and yes, a sign of membership in the New Covenant. I don’t think there is any more grace, or promise or benefit after the baptism than before, except for a visible recognition of the recipient’s dependence on God’s grace.
I won’t comment on the “benefit to worthy receivers” at this point because I think that is referring to “the word of institution” and I’m not quite sure what that is at this point, I’ve never heard that phrase before. Will try to look more into it.
By Andrew
on 12.11.09
I would recommend listening to Dr. Douglas Kelly’s two lectures on the sacraments found in Systematic Theology II at RTS on iTunes U.
They don’t directly deal with the baptism issue, at least not the subjects, but they are very helpful nevertheless.
By Berend de Boer
on 27.11.09
Jermayn: “I personally lean towards dedication rather than Infant Baptism.”
But are you allowed to invent your own sacraments? What Scripture basis do you have to do this?
And isn’t the fact that you see the need for “dedication” an indication that something is missing, and that perhaps God has provided for that already?
By Michael
on 04.01.10
Hi I am very happy to read all of your comments and will definitely spend more time studying this question. I am unconvinced about child baptism for the moment for several reasons.
1. I do not see any scripture that shows a case of child baptism unless we consider crossing the red sea a collective (and symbolic) baptism of the children of Israel. On the other hand I do see clear instances of children being dedicated to God’s service either by birth (levites) or by specific instruction of God (Samson) or by parental choce (Samuel) and in all instances I can find, the children did not choose to be dedicated. This to me is in line with the law as understood by the Israelites f the old testament.
2. Baptism and circumcision for me are two different issues even if they are both signs to God that the individual belongs to or claims citizenship to His family. I see in circumcision an instruction that was followed without necessarily understanding of the spiritual portent and implications as was often the case for many instructions in the old testament. On the other hand, baptism is a voluntrary decison also taken in obedience to God, but based on a recognition of and repentance from sin, and aligned with the principle of free will that underlies the new testament gospel.
I therefore believe that
1. dediction also existed since the old testament and cannot be seen as a substitute to baptism. It doesnt depend on the child but on his/her authority and doesnt require the understanding or prior repentance of the child.
2. Circumcision is also more of a choce made for the child that does not also require his/her understanding or prior repentance.
3. Baptism is based on and understanding of sin, repentance from eveil, and since the new testament, acceptance of Jesus Christ as saviour.
Consequently, I think there should be no rule for or against child baptism, so long as the child professes to turn away from a life of sin (which implies and understanding by the child of what sin is) and embrace Jesus Christ as saviour (which is a choice made by the child and not the parent). A child who by special grace of God has an understanding of these things and makes the choice is eligible for baptism whatever his/her age. Those who whatever their age and even as adults do not have that understanding or make the choice of Jesus Christ, are not eligible for baptism.
I remain open to learning more from the Holy Spirit, through this discussion or otherwise but I have shared my beliefs and hope they are useful
By Travis Seitler
on 06.03.10
Hey, I just wanted to pop in with a quick thought:
“[T]he burden of proof is actually upon the credobaptist to prove that God has changed how he deals with the children of His people.”
It’s already been pointed out that OT girls weren’t circumcised.
Case closed! (Ha ha — as if!)
Haven't you got anything to say?