Another Post on Infant Baptism

I was asleep at the switch and managed to miss this post by Jeremy Pierce called "Baptism Into God's Family."  Jeremy is arguing against infant baptism and there is a lengthy section of the post that I want to quote and respond to.  First of all, in regards to the Presbyterian view that baptism is a means of grace, he says:

The extent to which they see baptism as a means of grace isn't any more than Baptists see baby dedications as a means of grace, which is pretty much equivalent to how all Christians see preaching, godly correction, Bible study, or the gift of encouragement as a means of grace.

Then, the meat of the post is:

IntolerantElle says, "I know I couldn't stand to look my newborn in the eyes and know I was the one responsible for keeping him from being part of God's family."

That's what I think is the biggest anomaly in the paedobaptist view. The idea is that baptism brings you into God's family, as if outward washings are the effective agent of who is in Christ and who isn't in Christ. I think you'd be hard-pressed to convince Paul that what brings someone into Christ is outward baptism rather than an inner work of God. Presbyterians are more likely to say that a baptized infant is now in the covenant, but it amounts to the same thing. Those in the covenant are those in God's family. What's odd to me is that they end up denying that someone in the covenant is saved, which amounts to saying that those in God's family aren't all saved. There are genuine reprobates in the new covenant and thus in the family of God, which means there are genuine reprobates who are in Christ. They won't remain in Christ, and thus they're not elect, but that doesn't stop this view from undermining the fundamental biblical divide between those in Christ and those not in Christ.

I'm a Presbyterian, not a Lutheran, so my response only speaks for this point of view.

1. Presbyterians believe that baptism is a means of grace but we are a little more restrictive in our definition of a means of grace than Jeremy was here.  We believe that the Word, the sacraments and prayer are the means of grace.  However, this is just a quibble, I do agree with Jeremy that godly correction and the gift of encouragement can convey grace in a sense.  But we think that God does something in the ministry of the Word, sacraments and prayer that He doesn't do in other ways.

I am sure that Baptists wouldn't use the phrase "means of grace" to describe what they are doing in a baby dedication, but Jeremy's point is that they mean the same thing in that as we presies mean in infant baptism.  Insofar as that is the case we commend our Baptist friends.  I think Jeremy is correct in what he is saying here, Baptists don't view a dedication as an empty ritual.  They pray for that child and set that child apart unto God believing that God will actually do something through their prayers and dedicatory rituals. 

But we also argue that the Bible doesn't enjoin a mere dedication, it enjoins the giving of a covenant sign to the child of a believer.  Hence, we believe that rather than merely dedicating a child, we must apply the covenant sign of baptism.

2. We don't believe that baptism brings you into God's family nor that outward washings are the effective agent of who is in Christ and who isn't.  Jeremy gives us Presbyterians credit for not believing that.

3. When Presbyterians say that a baptized infant is now in the covenant it does not amount to the same thing as the above statement.  This is one particular area where I disagree with Jeremy.  Baptism is a sacrament that recognizes an infant's membership in the covenant, it does not convey covenant membership.  Membership in the covenant community comes through being the child of a believer.  Baptism recognizes the fact.

4. To be "in the covenant" is not equivalent to being "saved."

Jeremy seems to be using the phrases "covenant," "God's family," and "in Christ," synonymously (please correct me if I have misunderstood Jeremy).   This is how it appears to me when he says "those in the covenant are those in God's family" and "there are genuine reprobates in the new covenant and thus in the family of God, which means there are genuine reprobates who are saved."

We Presbyterians contend that we are simply trying to do justice to all of the biblical data on this matter.  In the Old Testament there were members of the covenant community of Israel who were unsaved, they are the ones referred to as having "uncircumcised hearts."  They still were addressed as "Israel," which is the name of the covenant community, but they were not what we would call "saved."   

In I Corinthians 7:14 we have the curious case of the "holy" or "sanctified" unbeliever.  Presbyterians believe that there are genuine reprobrates who are members of the covenant community, but there are no genuine reprobates in Christ.  Being a member of the covenant community and being regenerate are not the same thing.  Thus, if it seems incongruous to say that there is such a thing as a genuine reprobate in the covenant community, by the same reasoning it would be just as incongruous to say that there is an unbeliever who is sanctified or holy. 

If I may quibble a bit further with the terminology here, I want to be careful to distinguish "new covenant" and "covenant community."   I would equate participation in the "new covenant" with what we typically call salvation.  Jeremiah 31:33 says:

³³ “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.

“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.

I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

The Holy Bible  : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

This passage shows that it is that "inner work of God" that is new in the new covenant.  So, my point is that membership in the covenant community is not to be equated with our spiritual union with Christ represented by the term "new covenant."

The bottom line here is that in the Bible there has always been a people within a people, a group of those who are genuinely saved within the covenant community. Without this paradigm I don't see how you can make sense of biblical references to Israelites who are uncircumcised in heart, to sanctified or holy unbelievers, or to the whole of Hebrews 6. 

5. The Presbyterian version of paedobaptism doesn't undermine the fundamental biblical divide between those in Christ and those not in Christ. 

I suppose I should say it is our covenant theology, of which paedobaptism is a subset for purposes of this discussion, which doesn't undermine the fundamental biblical divide between those in Christ and those not in Christ.  The Presbyterian view affirms the great privilege given to the children of believers while calling them to embrace the faith of their parents, lest they perish like the rest.

Jeremy closes his post by pointing out that he is a member of a congregation that happily honors a parent's conviction on this issue, so that if a parent wants a baby baptized they will accomodate this.  Similarly, at least in the PCA we will accomodate the parents wishes to a point.  Although we try to persuade parents to baptize their children, we aren't coercive about it.  If a parent has the conviction that the Bible does not teach infant baptism then we'll stand with Luther and let their consciences be bound to the Word of God.  I suppose we are a little more uptight than Jeremy's congregation though, in that we don't do baby dedications.  But, we still respect the parent's convictions in these matters.

I join Jeremy in his conciliatory tone in the last paragraph of his post.  He thinks paedobaptism is false, I think it is true.  But I respect his convictions and we both respect the convictions of those who disagree with us.  I just wanted to provide a Presbyterian response here.

Comments

[brian]

Let me just say that you're a lot more exact than a lot of people who throw these terms around and I appreciate that. The IntolerantElle quote is a good example where the phrase "family of God" is used in a way that implies "saved" to most non-Covenant people.

One thing that is confusing to me, and I suspect to others, is the idea of children being "blessed" because they have been brought into the covenant community via baptism.

Are these blessings that say, Nazarene children do not partake of because they have been brought into the Covenant family. And then, what do these blessings actually consist of?

Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.

[David Wayne]

Ugh Brian - I'm afraid I may confuse you more by answering this but I'll give it a shot.

We do believe that baptism conveys a blessing in a sense because it is a means of grace.

We believe that a child of believing parents is blessed by virtue of having believing parents.

So, children of Nazarene believers are blessed in the same way that children of Presbyterian believers are blessed.

But yes, we believe there is some sort of additional blessing that comes from baptism. Since we believe it is a biblical requirement we believe that the parents are blessed as they obey this biblical requirement.

But the real issue comes down to how the grace itself, or the blessing, is conferred.

The Roman Catholic view is that the sacraments convey the grace ex opere operato - by the working of the works. In other words, the administration of the sacrament conveys grace in and of itself.

For us there is no virtue in the sacrament itself - the Westminster Shorter Catechism says:

The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, (1 Pet. 3:21, Matt. 3:11, 1 Cor. 3:6–7) and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them. (1 Cor. 12:13)

Notice that there are three elements by which grace is conferred - the blessing of Christ the working of the Spirit and the reception of them by faith.

It is the third element that I would focus on for now. The participation in the sacrament must be by faith. So, for the parents, the blessing or the grace of baptism comes to them not merely from the ceremony itself but as they believe and have faith in the promises which are signified in the sacrament of baptism. For the child, the blessing or grace in baptism comes as they embrace by faith the covenant promises in baptism.

The question then arises as to why we should even bother with baptizing infants. After all, it will be some time before they come to understand and believe the covenant promises portrayed in baptism, right?

I suppose we could make an analogy to the preaching of the Word. The Spirit always attends the preaching ofthe word but some who hear it are stony ground hearers and because of their unbelief the hearing of the Word of God does them no good. Some might then ask why we would preach the word to those who will reject it?

We preach the word not because of the effect it may or may not have, but because we are commanded to do so, trusting that God will do with it what He will.

For those who hear the Word and believe it, it is a means of grace leading to salvation. For those who hear the Word and reject it, the Word becomes a means of condemnation.

I think there is a good analogy to baptism here. To kids who come to faith and embrace the covenant promises, their baptism is a tremendous means of grace an blessing to them. To those who go through life rejecting the gospel and never coming to faith, their baptism stands as a witness against them. Its the principle of "to whom much is given much is required."

Hope that helps - its probably way more than you wanted to hear.

[David Wayne]

Oh yeah - one more thing - they are not brought into the covenant community by baptism, they are brought in by birth to believing parents.

[Glenn]

David,
As usual (which is not so usual elsewhere in the Christian blogosphere), you address an issue that has lots of ideology and emotion attending it, and you do it with care and grace.

I think the most crucial point you highlight is that many Baptists don't understand that the Reformed draw a distinction between "being in the covenant" and "being saved." Most Baptist critiques I read by laypeople and even some with theological credentials end up criticizing a straw man because the Baptist critic thinks the Reformed equate "covenant" with "saved."

If more Baptists (and I assume Baptist thinkers like Mohler and Piper have been well aware of this Reformed distinction for many years) "got it" on this point, they could end up having a more productive debate with the Reformed on whether the Reformed distinction between "covenant" and "saved" is sound. As it is, most debates I see end up being ships passing in the night because this crucial distinction that you highlight is missed.

[David Wayne]

Bingo Glenn - you nailed it!

[brian]

"Oh yeah - one more thing - they are not brought into the covenant community by baptism, they are brought in by birth to believing parents."

Got it, and I see that now in your point three above. So would you say then that IntolerantElle didn't have a full understanding of what baptism was "doing" according to her quote above? Or maybe she just phrased it badly?

More comments but they'll have to wait until later on tonight.

Thanks - and no, this time I would say you didn't write near enough. :-)

[Ellen]

If you have time for a great little book (emphasis on little - 28 pages) "What Christian Parents Should Know About Infant Baptism" is very good.

the first two chapters:
1. Circumcision: A Great Heritage
2. Baptism: A New Sign

The 9th chapter is "Questions to Consider. One of the questions is: "If you had lived in the Old Testament period, would you have applied the sign of salvation, circumcision, to your child?"

Or: "What would you have said to God if you had been Abraham? Lord, I don't think I ought to circucise Isaac. We had better wait until he professes his own faith before we apply the sign of salvation to him..."

[WeekendFisher]

Hi there

I'm coming from a Lutheran perspective and I thought I'd put in my two cents' worth. Now, on our side of the fence, we don't hold the "once-saved-always-saved" theology. But here's how it looks from our view:

Christ *is* the covenant (Isaiah 42:6, Isaiah 49:8)
Grace comes through Christ (John 1:17).
Baptism joins us to Christ (Romans 6:3-4 et al)
The Lord's Supper conveys Christ (I Corinthians 10:16)
God's Word is Christ (John 1:1, 1:14)
He who has Christ has life (1 John 5:11-12)

On that basis, we don't make a distinction between being "in the covenant" and "in Christ" and "in a state of grace" and "saved". They're all of a piece, since Christ himself *is* the covenant, he is the life, and grace comes through him.

Christ will not be to our benefit if we reject him (er, we don't hold to irresistible grace either). What you said in the original post was to the point about the comparisons between baptism and to hearing God's word. It may be that it saves them, and it may be that their hard-heartedness condemns them. But all the same we put Christ forward.

Take care & God bless
WF

[brian]

"The 9th chapter is "Questions to Consider. One of the questions is: "If you had lived in the Old Testament period, would you have applied the sign of salvation, circumcision, to your child?""

This is a great example of why us non-Covenant people get confused. Cirucumcision the sign of salvation? And then baptism is a replacement for circumcision. So baptism must be.....

See what I mean? Not intending to be snarky here. Just honestly trying to understand.

[David Wayne]

Brian - no snarkiness inferred.

Actually, we covenantalists think this makes our point perfectly. At what point do you think Abraham was saved? Most of us would say his "salvation experience" is described in Genesis 15:6 - "Abram believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."

Circumcision was then given to him as a sign of his faith. What is circumcision? Romans 4:11 -

And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.

Isn't that pretty much what Baptists believe about baptism? Baptism is a sign of faith, a sign marking their salvation. Baptism is entered into as a result of a profession of faith.

Similarly, circumcision was given to Abraham as a result of his faith.

So, the Baptist argues that, since baptism symbolizes/represents faith/salvation it should only be given to those who have professed faith.

By the same logic, since circumcision symbolizes/represents faith/salvation we would have to argue that circumcision should only be given to those who had professed faith as Abraham had.

So, Ellen's question is right on. Using the Baptist logic Abraham should have withheld circumcision from Isaac until he had professed faith in the same way his father had.

But this is not how it happened - the same covenant sign that was given to Abraham after his profession of faith was given to his children before their profession of faith. We think baptism should follow this biblical pattern.

Calvin once said that all of the arguments against infant baptism, if valid, would also prevail against circumcision.

[brian]

David,

The confusion comes in when the language of being "in the covenant" is mixed with with the terms "saved" and "salvation".

Glen says 'I think the most crucial point you highlight is that many Baptists don't understand that the Reformed draw a distinction between "being in the covenant" and "being saved."'

You agreed with Glen's statement, which denotes a difference in "being in the covenant" and "being saved".

And then you also agree with Ellen when she quotes "If you had lived in the Old Testament period, would you have applied the sign of salvation, circumcision, to your child?", which implies a link between circumcision(baptism) and being saved. Perhaps it should be read as a sign of future salvation?

I realize a lot of this is semantics, but the way the terms get used and seemingly interchanged is all very confusing.

[Diane R]

I have the same question as Brian asked above. Although I am a Presbyterian, I have really wrestled with this topic.
I also have another question--if these baptised chidlren then come to Christ later, are they then rebaptised? If not, why not? If someone comes to Christ who was not baptised as a child, I am assuming they do get baptised, right?

[Ellen]

the Reformed draw a distinction between "being in the covenant" and "being saved."

I absolutely do - I was just accurately quoting the book...

[WeekendFisher]

Question for the Calvinists/Baptists:

The prophet Isaiah, speaking of the new covenant, said the Messiah *is* the covenant (Isaiah 42:6, Isaiah 49:8). So how can someone "be in the covenant" (be in Christ) and not be saved (be in Christ)? Why do you think that's a valid distinction?

[ellen]

I have a technical questions - in answer to weekendfisher's question, about being "in the covenent" but not "in Christ" - Kim Riddlebarger wrote a good paper, but there's a prohibition against "remote loading by any method". Does that include links?

In a nutshell, the children are not so much "in the covenent", but are brought under the authority of the covenent, as the sons of the Jews were when they were circumcised.

[ellen]

I would like to add a little something - I jumped to the wrong semantics -

I have heard most reformers say (not welcome into the covenent) that they are welcoming the child into "the covenant family" (being under the authority of a head of household under the covenant).

This is a very big distinction that sees the baptism of infants being as much a part of the covenant responsibility of the head of household as circumcision was under the Old Testament.

If you see baptism as the sign of the New Covenant, as circumcision was the sign of the Old Covenant - then you must also ask if if being circumcised in the Old Testament meant that every Jew believed.

Consider Samuel's sons. I'm sure they were circumcised and they were even priests! Yet they did not walk in his ways.

[Cavman]

Hmmmmm,

I'm reading all of this. Formerly a Reformed Baptist, I went through all of these loops of reasoning before. David has done a good job.

I am not sure why people confuse in the covenant with 'saved'. Don't credo baptists and paedobaptists recognize the difference between the visible and invisible church. Not everyone in the visible church is saved (nor are all individuals baptized on the basis of a confession of faith). In the same way, not all circumcised individuals were saved- probably starting with Ishmael. Scripture itself answers all of these objections to to the practice of infant baptism.

[weekendfisher]

Hi there

Ellen, if circumcised children such as Isaac, Jacob and so forth were *not* "in the covenant" at circumcision as you say, then when do you say they entered the covenant, and based on what? You bring up later whether they believed. Granted, unbelief would take them out of the covenant, but it is a covenant-relationship that was already theirs to lose. When Moses' law finally does come along, there are a number of things that can cause people to be "cut off" from the covenant people, to which they once belonged. I'd note that in the case of baptism, the children are baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- a direct connection with God.

Cavman, it sounds like you're bringing out the fact that people who are in a covenant relationship with God can in fact be lost (and lose their covenant relationship) through unbelief. If that's what you're saying, then I agree. If that's not what you're saying, maybe you could comment on that.

[Ellen]

Are the children of believers holy? Paul says that even if a child has only one believing parent, they are holy.

Were Jewish babies that were circumcised *in* the Covenant? or part of the Covenant family? Do reformers use "covenant family" instead of "in the covenant" in order to prevent confusion?

What I know is that baptism is the sign of the New Covenent, as circumcision was the sign of the Old Covenant.

[weekendfisher]

Hi Ellen

How can someone be "in the covenant family" if they are not in the covenant? If someone is a non-member in the covenant, then they are a non-member in the "covenant family" as well. Sure, the circumcised Jewish babies were in the covenant. As are our baptized children. We baptize into the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; there is a direct tie from the child to God. It looks like the reformed make a distinction between being "in the covenant" and "in the covenant family" where there is none, and as a result cause confusion rather than avoid it.

But trading words just leads to endlessness. Do you have any Scriptural support for the notion that there is a "covenant family" that meaningfully includes people who are not "in the covenant"? Doesn't the Torah repeatedly insist that those "out of the covenant" be cut off from their people?

And I still don't really understand what the payoff is for adding this extra level of "covenant family", which I haven't found in Scripture. Why not just accept that someone circumcised into a covenant of circumcision is actually in the covenant? Someone can despise and reject God's gift, be "uncircumcised of heart", and be cut off; God can blot out their names from the book of life (Psalm 69:28).

"Covenant theologians" can go on all day long and never mention what Isaiah said plainly, more than once, that the Messiah *is* the new covenant. Our assurance of salvation is having the covenant, which is to say, having Christ. There is no assurance outside of Christ. "Predestination" makes people doubt not trust. "You must believe" makes people doubt not trust. "Covenant" v. "covenant family" makes people doubt not trust. Christ is our salvation.

[weekendfisher]

Hi again -- btw I think it's likely getting unproductive continuing to post on this thread. I'm unlikely to respond again. If you leave notes of any Scriptural support for your position, I'll read it.

Take care & God bless.

[pilgrim]

Often people group various sorts of paedo baptism together as if they are one and the same.

These posts help clarify this, for which I am grateful.

Visble/invisible church are helpful and Biblical distinctions.

[cavman]

Sorry to be away for so long Weekendfisher. Otherwise I would have followed up more quickly. Perhaps you will be back.

Yes, I'm saying that members of the visible church can be lost. Indeed, many are. Scripturally we see this in the Parable of the Sower, and the example of Demas. See also Hebrews 6 & 10. Not all who profess faith in Messiah possess saving faith.
In Bonhoffer's view, they believed in a cheap grace, which is no grace at all (see Cost of Discipleship).
In Jonathan Edwards' view, they had a counterfeit grace (see Charity and Its Fruit). This can happen for a variety of reasons- self-deception, idolatry etc.

Ellen, yes, Messiah is the New Covenant and we are saved in Him alone. But how do we know we are in Him. Faith (self abandoning trust in the person and works of Christ- Packer)is the means by which we are united to Him. Saving faith is not a momentary decision, but persistent.
The doctrine of predestination is not intended to make people don't. The point is not introspective questioning "Am I one of the elect?" The point is that all those who live by faith do so because God has freely chosen them (so HE gets all the glory). The question for us all is, Do I trust Jesus to save me, even from my inconsistent love for Him?
Like circumcision, baptism makes us members of the VISIBLE church. We can still break faith and apostasize.
Romans 4 shows that circumcision is a sign that righteousness is by faith (very objective). It Abraham's case, it also pointed to a subjective reality- he had that faith. In the case of his children, it was a sign of the faith they should profess.
This, combined with Colossians 2:9ff shows me at least that circumcision & baptism represent the same things. With the new covenant, we received a new sign, but how we apply it is found in the OT. As 2 Tim. 3:16 teaches all of Scripture (and Paul was refering to the OT!) makes us wise for salvation, and prepares us for righteous living.
Hope that wasn't overwhelming.

[Adam Smith]

I am currently a seminary student in the Reformed tradition. I thought I might add a little to this discussion. I have also posted a blog similar to this because I, too, had questions and clarifications for others.

I wanted to add a few comments to a few issues:

1. To the issue involving Scriptural reference to infant baptism. As for direct Scriptural reference, there is none. The norm is adult baptism. But many theologians agree that the select passages where certain individuals were baptized with their entire families. You can find these in Acts 16:15 and 18:8 and 1 Corinthians 1:16.

2. 'Baptism became the symbolism by which we acknowledge one's birth into a Christian family, both parents and church congregation, and in which we acknowledge that Christ's sacrifice was for the entire world. Aidan Kavanagh quotes, "Christian baptism is seen by them (New Testament writers) - not as an attempt to mimic Jesus' baptism in the Jordan but as the primary if still developing event by which the Church responds to and appropriates under grace the 'total redemptive action which the baptism of Jesus set in motion."'

3. "Baptism enacts and seals what the Word proclaims: God's redeeming grace offered to all people. Baptism is God's gift of grace and also God's summons to respond to that grace. Baptism calls to repentance, to faithfulness, and to discipleship. Baptism gives the church its identitiy and commissions the church for ministry to the world."
-Book of Order
This is one definition that I happen to agree with.

4. I have heard it talked around many different ways, but aside from believing parents, the Body, the Church, is making a commitment, along with the parents, to help raise and nurture the child as he/she grows in the Church. Many denominations tend to put focus on a person's profession of faith, rather than the bigger picture of everyone being born into the grace of God. I see many arguements on this, but in reality, the views are not that different. It all really goes back to the definition of what sacraments really are. I don't have time to get into it, but have a few published articles on the matter of sacraments, that get to the heart of Christian Sacraments. To make a long story short, many people see sacraments (baptism included) as a personal or individualistic undertaking, putting more emphasis on the self and less on God and the Church. A personal profession of faith is not necessary for the sacrament of baptism. "Jesus transformed the meaning of baptism, through his own, and through his sacrifice."

Crud...dog barking...comment more later.