Thread: How does baptism affirm our faith?

In a recent baptism thread ("Valid Baptism Presumes Actual Union w/ Christ?"), Rev. Matthew Winzer stated, regarding paedo-baptism:

Without it, there is no point at which a person can say, I am a believer.

I find this an interesting statement since nowhere else in his post does Rev. Winzer make a appeal to faith, a product of divine grace,that results in justification and the ability to make the claim of being a Christian. I am wary of putting words in the mouth of any man, and with the great respect in which I hold Rev. Winzer, I will allow him the opportunity to explain the role of divine grace and saving faith (Eph. 2:8,9) in the salvation of the sinner. I just found it odd that an appeal to paedo-baptism is made in order to claim to be a believer.

In my non-Calvinist days, while I knew regeneration took place invisibly, the "sinners prayer" was a necessary component of the ordo salutis. No self respecting Arminian Baptist would even think of sharing the gospel without the transaction that was proof-positive that a decision for Christ was made. I cringe when I think back on those days, and grieve that I held and perpetuated that gross misrepresentation of the gospel. But if the sinners prayer cannot be used as a sign of faith, what can? Baptism? You may be surprised at my answer, but as a credo I would say, "Yes, baptism can be a sign of faith." Note the operative word - faith.

Unless Rev. Winzer is advocating baptismal regeneration, or the iron-clad guarantee that a baptized infant is a de facto elect infant (and I don't believe that is his position), what is the real message we are sending to a person who was baptized as an infant? Are they to accept their baptism as a sign of being in eternal union with Christ? Is their baptism a sign of invisible church membership? I believe most Presbyterians on this board would say, "No. Paedo-baptism does not impart saving faith." Kudos to those who would say that. It seems to me that the paedo and credo positions share some similarities in this regard. If an adult can look back at their infant baptism and say, "I was baptized into Christ, therefore I am saved"; yet their life is marked by rank unbelief and reprobation, what profit is their baptism? Likewise, the adult convert who is baptized on the basis of a credible profession may hang is hat on the fact that his baptism signified becoming a Christian, even in the face of the same rank unbelief or repudiation of what their baptism stood for. So, is baptism worthless in this regard? Not at all.

For the person who displays the genuine evidence of a changed life, their baptism can be looked at as the day in which they publicly declared their faith in Christ. The Presbyterian would look back to their infant baptism as declaring the same thing if their life displayed the same genuine evidence. But in the absence of a new heart and new affections, what benefit is baptism? I was baptized when I was one week old in a Roman Catholic Church. Evidence of faith? Absolutely none - from childhood through young adulthood. At nearly eighteen I heard the gospel preached for the first time and, shortly thereafter, placed my faith in Christ. I was baptized a few weeks later. Is there a sign I can hold onto regarding my faith in Christ? My Roman baptism? I see no comfort in that, seeing that I was an unbeliever. My adult baptism? More so, because I now understood the gospel. My adult baptism becomes a remembrance of my faith in Christ. Imperfect as it is, my Christian walk has validated the substance behind my adult baptism, which is faith in Christ.

Rev. Winzer, it is not my intention to lift your words out of context, nor to misrepresent your opinion on saving faith and it's connection to baptism. Your comment did provoke a long-held opinion I've had regarding baptism as a sign of our faith, and I thought this a good time to express this opinion.

Originally Posted by Herald

I find this an interesting statement since nowhere else in his post does Rev. Winzer make a appeal to faith, a product of divine grace,that results in justification and the ability to make the claim of being a Christian.

This is a false finding. It was specifically stated, "therefore, now, as you look back as a believer on your baptism, you can say with confidence that you are baptised into Christ by the grace of God."

Matthew, I suppose I don't understand exactly what you mean by being a "believer on your baptism." That terminology is foreign to me. If you are saying that term is synonymous with having saving faith, I'll gladly stand corrected.

Originally Posted by Herald

Unless Rev. Winzer is advocating baptismal regeneration, or the iron-clad guarantee that a baptized infant is a de facto elect infant (and I don't believe that is his position), what is the real message we are sending to a person who was baptized as an infant?

Correct, that is not my position; although I do recognise the fact of "elect infants," and therefore who am I to forbid them the sign and seal of that salvation which they have been elected to obtain?

The message we send is this: faith is not a decision to follow Christ, but a conscious receiving and resting upon Him. Regeneration is the source from which faith comes into exercise, but no person consciously exercises faith on the ground that they have been regenerated. Faith is a response to the revealed will of God, and God's revealed will is that the promise is to us and to our children. Salvation is for sinners; new-born infants are sinners; salvation is for the new-born infant. Paedobaptists have the "means of grace" whereby this truth can be proclaimed and appropriated. Antipaedobaptists reject it. Paedobaptist rear their children in the consciousness of the full and free provision of grace, while antipaedobaptists permit their children to suffer the ravages of being consciously alienated from God before they can be partakers of God's grace, or, "Let us do evil that good may come."

-----Added 1/18/2009 at 08:56:35 EST-----

Originally Posted by Herald

Matthew, I suppose I don't understand exactly what you mean by being a "believer on your baptism." That terminology is foreign to me. If you are saying that term is synonymous with having saving faith, I'll gladly stand corrected.

Prudence might have thought of clarifying this point before outrightly representing what was written as nowhere making an appeal to faith.

It is clear to me that an antipaedobaptist cannot receive the teaching of our Lord that the kingdom of God begins as a small seed and develops into a great organism. They must have the developed organism before they will acknowledge that there is life.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Herald

Unless Rev. Winzer is advocating baptismal regeneration, or the iron-clad guarantee that a baptized infant is a de facto elect infant (and I don't believe that is his position), what is the real message we are sending to a person who was baptized as an infant?

Correct, that is not my position; although I do recognise the fact of "elect infants," and therefore who am I to forbid them the sign and seal of that salvation which they have been elected to obtain?

The message we send is this: faith is not a decision to follow Christ, but a conscious receiving and resting upon Him. Regeneration is the source from which faith comes into exercise, but no person consciously exercises faith on the ground that they have been regenerated. Faith is a response to the revealed will of God, and God's revealed will is that the promise is to us and to our children. Salvation is for sinners; new-born infants are sinners; salvation is for the new-born infant. Paedobaptists have the "means of grace" whereby this truth can be proclaimed and appropriated. Antipaedobaptists reject it. Paedobaptist rear their children in the consciousness of the full and free provision of grace, while antipaedobaptists permit their children to suffer the ravages of being consciously alienated from God before they can be partakers of God's grace, or, "Let us do evil that good may come."

Matthew, I obviously disagree with the latter part of your post, but I am glad to read your explanation of faith as "receiving and resting upon Him." Thank you.

I believe by the statement "as you look back as a believer on your baptism" Rev. Winzer meant "as you (now as a believer) look back on (or at) your baptism as an infant."

The phrase "believer on your baptism" isn't a special theological phrase. It is meant to say you are looking back at your baptism.

Once again, a good summary of the paedobaptist position can be summarized by the notion that grace precedes faith. As it is true in salvation (Eph 2:4-8), so also in the visible means that God has ordained. To reverse the order in the visible ordinances actually undermines the message of the Gospel. Timing is immaterial for baptism as well as the disposition of the recipient at the time of baptism because God is Sovereign and the Holy Spirit is not bound by time or space. Hence, God can really announce a Promise where grace is really conferred even if the fruit of cognitive and fully flowered faith follows years later.

To insist that grace is dependent upon the flowering and profession of faith turns the Gospel on it head.

Originally Posted by Calvibaptist

I believe by the statement "as you look back as a believer on your baptism" Rev. Winzer meant "as you (now as a believer) look back on (or at) your baptism as an infant."

The phrase "believer on your baptism" isn't a special theological phrase. It is meant to say you are looking back at your baptism.

That would be my understanding as well. I would surmise that Matthew has in mind what the Larger Catechism calls "improving our baptism":

WLC 167 How is our baptism to be improved by us? A. The needful but much neglected duty of improving our baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others;(1) by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein;(2) by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements;(3) by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament;(4) by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace;(5) and by endeavouring to live by faith,(6) to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness,(7) as those that have therein given up their names to Christ;(8) and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body.(9)

(1) Col. 2:11,12; Rom. 6:4,6,11
(2) Rom. 6:3-5
(3) 1 Cor. 1:11-13; Rom. 6:2,3
(4) Rom. 4:11,12; 1 Pet. 3:21
(5) Rom. 6:3-5
(6) Gal. 3:26,27
(7) Rom. 6:22
(8) Acts 2:38
(9) 1 Cor. 12:13,25,26,27

Thankyou to Calvibaptist and Fred Greco for clearing up the meaning of my statement.

I find G.I. Williamson’s comment (The Westminster Confession Of Faith for Study Classes, p. 215) on WCF XXVIII.6 helpful.

WCF XXVIII.6 The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; 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.

We must not limit the efficacy of baptism to the moment of administration. For example, we are not to think that when a child is baptized the effect of his baptism terminates then and there. Again we cite the case of Jacob and Esau. (1) Both were given the sacrament by divine commandment. (2) Esau never received the grace of which he had the sign and seal. And (3) Jacob did not experience the efficacy of the sacrament until his conversion many years later (Gen. 25-32, esp. 32:24-28). Opponents of infant baptism frequently point out that in a great many cases there seems to be no evidence of the work of God’s grace in those who have been baptized as infants. They truly state the fact that baptism has no saving effect upon such infants at the time they are baptized. But we must not allow this truth to mislead us; to say that baptism has no effect at the time is not the same as to say that it has no effect at all. Baptism never causes union with Christ. It never has that effect. That is not the purpose of baptism. The purpose of baptism is not to effect union with Christ but rather to confirm and testify such. And this is precisely why baptism is of increased efficacy not being tied to the moment of administration only. In this way baptism testifies that God gives union with Christ to whom he will, as he will, and when he will. The effect of baptism is not that it causes union with Christ, but that it testifies of this union. Baptism, like circumcision, may have no such effect upon some people. But infant baptism, like infant circumcision, does have a profound effect upon some who are converted long after they are baptized. The order then may be either (1) baptism, then effectual calling into union with Christ, and then the efficacy of baptism, or (2) effectual calling, then baptism, and then the efficacy of baptism. It cannot be in any other order. For one cannot experience the efficacy of baptism prior to baptism, nor can one experience the efficacy of baptism prior to effectual calling.

Originally Posted by Calvibaptist

I believe by the statement "as you look back as a believer on your baptism" Rev. Winzer meant "as you (now as a believer) look back on (or at) your baptism as an infant."

The phrase "believer on your baptism" isn't a special theological phrase. It is meant to say you are looking back at your baptism.

Nice of you to weigh in. Hey, didn't I see your twin this morning?

Originally Posted by Herald

But in the absence of a new heart and new affections, what benefit is baptism? I was baptized when I was one week old in a Roman Catholic Church. Evidence of faith? Absolutely none - from childhood through young adulthood. At nearly eighteen I heard the gospel preached for the first time and, shortly thereafter, placed my faith in Christ. I was baptized a few weeks later. Is there a sign I can hold onto regarding my faith in Christ? My Roman baptism? I see no comfort in that, seeing that I was an unbeliever. My adult baptism? More so, because I now understood the gospel. My adult baptism becomes a remembrance of my faith in Christ.

Hi Herald,

Given the OP question and your quote above, when you witness the baptism of someone (and for the sake of argument let's say that this is someone who has professed Christ), does that affirm your faith? And if so, how?

Blessings!

Originally Posted by Houston E.

Originally Posted by Herald

But in the absence of a new heart and new affections, what benefit is baptism? I was baptized when I was one week old in a Roman Catholic Church. Evidence of faith? Absolutely none - from childhood through young adulthood. At nearly eighteen I heard the gospel preached for the first time and, shortly thereafter, placed my faith in Christ. I was baptized a few weeks later. Is there a sign I can hold onto regarding my faith in Christ? My Roman baptism? I see no comfort in that, seeing that I was an unbeliever. My adult baptism? More so, because I now understood the gospel. My adult baptism becomes a remembrance of my faith in Christ.

Hi Herald,

Given the OP question and your quote above, when you witness the baptism of someone (and for the sake of argument let's say that this is someone who has professed Christ), does that affirm your faith? And if so, how?

Blessings!

When I witness the baptism of a new convert, it certainly does affirm (strengthen) my faith. As a visible sign of the invisible, it is a reminder of the reality of the New Covenant. The church of God should rejoice when a sinner is converted. In that sense my faith is affirmed.

Originally Posted by Herald

When I witness the baptism of a new convert, it certainly does affirm (strengthen) my faith. As a visible sign of the invisible, it is a reminder of the reality of the New Covenant. The church of God should rejoice when a sinner is converted. In that sense my faith is affirmed.

So your faith is affirmed or grace is conferred to you by God. (I hope that is a fair comparison) Would you say that this is dependent upon whether or not the person being baptized is truly regenerate?

So your faith is affirmed or grace is conferred to you by God.

It's not an either/or proposition. My faith is affirmed by the baptism of another saint in the same way it is affirmed by the reading of the Word and partaking of the Lord's supper. My confidence in God's promises deepens. I see the visible church increase in size. As a baptized brother progresses in their sanctification, my faith is encouraged even more, as I am confident that the invisible church has increased! I'm sure most Christians must feel the same way. Their hearts should rejoice when they see a fellow brother or sister walk in obedience to the Lord's commands.

As far as grace being conferred -- that is not the sole domain of baptism. The term "means of grace" is often used to in conjunction with baptism and the Lord's supper. It is grace that saves us (through faith), and baptism is a means by which we enter into fellowship with the visible church (entrance into the invisible church being by regeneration). The Lord's supper is fellowship with Christ Himself. This is an invisible church function, even while recognizing that impostors may be partaking. We receive grace, and the strengthening of our faith, by communing with Christ. Our Father has not left us bereft of His presence. He has given us the Holy Spirit, and the sacraments, as means of great encouragement and fellowship with Him, along with the rest of the saints.

Sticking with baptism. If the person is not regenerate, how does his baptism affirm your faith?

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Sticking with baptism. If the person is not regenerate, how does his baptism affirm your faith?

That's immaterial. I presume a person who has made a profession of faith in Jesus Christ is actually regenerate. As they grow in their faith it's a joy to behold. I'm not singling out baptism for this honor, although the sacraments are commanded by God, and as such they are to be obeyed. Now, the next question may be, "If they walk away from God, is your faith weakened?" Not at all. "Let God be found true, and every man a liar." I am saddened as I witness the one I called "brother" repudiate his faith by word and/or deed. But even then my faith is strengthened as I see the church employ loving discipline; first to call the wayward saint to repentance, and secondly to honor the purity of Christ's church.

Bill, you're moving away from the actual baptism in your answer. How is the issue immaterial to baptism if the individual is unregenerate? The fact that the New Covenant is with the elect alone is what moors Credo-Baptist thinking on this issue.

Is it not the case that his baptism is invalid if he is not regenerate?

If so, then how does the baptism of an unregenerated person affirm your faith?

...how does the baptism of an unregenerated person affirm your faith?

Rich, to answer your question, in the manner in which you ask it, presupposes that I know who is and is not regenerate. It's a hypothetical question because no one can answer definitively whether a person being baptized is actually regenerate. We must assume that they are unless provided with evidence to the contrary.

-----Added 1/19/2009 at 08:59:04 EST-----

Rich, is a paedo parent's faith strengthened when their child is baptized? If that child proves reprobate later in life, is the parent's faith necessarily weakened?

Originally Posted by Herald

...how does the baptism of an unregenerated person affirm your faith?

Rich, to answer your question, in the manner in which you ask it, presupposes that I know who is and is not regenerate. It's a hypothetical question because no one can answer definitively whether a person being baptized is actually regenerate. We must assume that they are unless provided with evidence to the contrary.

As you cannot answer me, how can you answer to yourself if his baptism strengthens faith? This presupposes you must know he is regenerate as you answered. Why assume that your faith is strengthened? Why not reflect on your own baptism and wonder if your faith was true at the time of your baptism and question whether you ought to be re-baptized?

Rich, is a paedo parent's faith strengthened when their child is baptized? If that child proves reprobate later in life, is the parent's faith necessarily weakened?

The answer to that question ought to be apparent from my above presentation on baptism from a paedo perspective.

As you cannot answer me, how can you answer to yourself if his baptism strengthens faith? This presupposes you must know he is regenerate as you answered. Why assume that your faith is strengthened? Why not reflect on your own baptism and wonder if your faith was true at the time of your baptism and question whether you ought to be re-baptized?

Rich, you asked a question that cannot be answered. You engineered that question and now you're suggesting to me that the baptism of another "professed" saint cannot encourage, strengthen or affirm my own faith? Honestly, where are you going with this?

If an individual professes faith in Christ and submits to the waters of baptism, it's a joyous event! None of us are to have such a cynical view of the church that we hold lingering doubts as to whether that professor is actually a possessor. We assume they are regenerate, and rejoice with them in their passing from death to life. When they follow in obedience via baptism we continue to rejoice. How can these things not strengthen the faith of the witnesses?

Why not reflect on your own baptism and wonder if your faith was true at the time of your baptism and question whether you ought to be re-baptized?

I've already done that. I pretty much concluded that my Roman baptism was at a time when in my life when I neither understood nor believed the gospel. My adult baptism was on the basis of a professed faith in Christ. As far as I am concerned, that is wondering enough.

Bill,

I don't see how that is "cynical". I doubt anyone questions a profession since they can hear that but profession does not make the baptism valid. Regeneration does. I'm told that Al Martin re-baptized his son 4 times. I don't think anyone thought it "cynical" when his son got re-baptized.

It seems to me that if baptism is invalid if the person is not regenerated then the event ought to spark more soul-searching than not. You were re-baptized once because your faith was not legitimate at the time of baptism. Why oughtn't all question the legitimacy of their faith even after a baptism on profession? Why should it be affirmed necessarily?

Presumption, it seems to me, is a strange place to ground assurance.

Gee Rich, talk about stealing some of my follow-up!!

Rich, you asked a question that cannot be answered. You engineered that question and now you're suggesting to me that the baptism of another "professed" saint cannot encourage, strengthen or affirm my own faith? Honestly, where are you going with this?

I'm not sure if this is where Rich is going, but one that is plaguing my mind at this juncture is this...

Bill, you mentioned earlier of your baptism as an infant, then as an adult. I know you would not call that re-baptism (and agree with you at this point). But where does it end? What if 5 years down the road you believe that your time to truly profess Christ? Are you baptized again then? What about 5 years after that?

And if none of the previous baptisms were valid in any way, then how can anyone who witnesses the baptism ever take any comfort in what they witness?

It seems that we are the ones who decide when God confers grace through the act if we say that (given the example above) all the previous baptisms were invalid.

Now that I've re-read Rich's post, I think I just said the same thing...apologies...

Ah! Here we go....Is baptism really only for the one baptized and not those witnessing?

Rich, there are Baptist churches that re-baptize if a person falls away and then claims to "really"come to faith this time. I believe they are in error. The proper use of church discipline should preclude this short of practice. If a professed brother wanders from the faith, the church is to employ discipline, with the goal of restoring the brother. Even when put out of the church, we want to see the individual restored through repentance. It could be argued that if such a one repents and comes back to the church that their repentance is proof of their being saved. Should they be baptized again? I state emphatically, "No!"

You were re-baptized once because your faith was not legitimate at the time of baptism.

Actually, I had no faith to be considered legitimate or illegitimate. I was one week old when baptized in the Roman manner. I know Roman baptism is another discussion, but I consider that baptism to be no baptism at all on two grounds: 1. The absence of a profession of faith. 2. Administered in and by a non-Christian entity.

Why oughtn't all question the legitimacy of their faith even after a baptism on profession?

We all are to examine ourselves regularly (2 Cor. 13:5).

Presumption, it seems to me, is a strange place to ground assurance.

You're absolutely right. My assurance is based on Christ and His promise of eternal life to all who believe (Acts 16:31; 1 John 5:13). While my assurance is based on Christ and His promise, my faith is strengthened often by His various acts of mercy and grace in my life and the life of the saints.

Originally Posted by Herald

Rich, is a paedo parent's faith strengthened when their child is baptized? If that child proves reprobate later in life, is the parent's faith necessarily weakened?

Bill,

I would answer that the faith of everyone in the congregation is strengthened, and when I perform a baptism, I specifically address the congregation (especially the children who have not made a profession of faith) to give attention to, and receive the benefits of, observing the baptism. I can do this because the baptism is not about the faith or profession of the one baptized, but about the promises of God. So even if a child was baptized (or an adult who is baptized upon a profession of faith) proves to be reprobate, there is no loss in the blessing of the baptism. It was never really about them, it was about God.

I hope that makes sense. I don't expect you to agree, but I think that is one of the main differences in the way a Baptist looks at baptism in the way a paedoaptist looks at baptism.

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Originally Posted by Herald

Rich, is a paedo parent's faith strengthened when their child is baptized? If that child proves reprobate later in life, is the parent's faith necessarily weakened?

Bill,

I would answer that the faith of everyone in the congregation is strengthened, and when I perform a baptism, I specifically address the congregation (especially the children who have not made a profession of faith) to give attention to, and receive the benefits of, observing the baptism. I can do this because the baptism is not about the faith or profession of the one baptized, but about the promises of God. So even if a child was baptized (or an adult who is baptized upon a profession of faith) proves to be reprobate, there is no loss in the blessing of the baptism. It was never really about them, it was about God.

I hope that makes sense. I don't expect you to agree, but I think that is one of the main differences in the way a Baptist looks at baptism in the way a paedoaptist looks at baptism.

Fred, remove the paedo-baptism emphasis and you and I are in total agreement! It is all about God, that is why the faith of the saints can be encouraged! Perhaps I didn't bring that part out (that it is all about God). I am not encouraged by the individual submitting to baptism, as though it is some great thing that individual is doing. It is the promise of God that under-girds baptism that conveys grace to the one being baptized and to the church of Christ that stands as witnesses.

Bill,

While I agree that Baptist Churches that re-baptize a person who was baptized previously on profession are in error, you need to acknowledge that you are in the minority on this point among Particular Baptists. Baptism, in the normal schema, is invalid if on the basis of a false profession.

You're sort of fusing a Paedobaptist sacramental view with a Credo view. In fact, as you acknowledge timing is immaterial as well as validity of profession, you are left with only one argument for Credo-baptism and that is on pretty weak exegetical ground in my estimation.

I obviously am encouraged to see Baptists abandon what I view to be cancerous to assurance and the fact that more Baptists don't get re-baptized owes to a lack of real soul-searching in my estimation. The question of "Do I really have faith" is so fundamental to the true Christian walk that altar calls were created for those that impoverished the sacramental view of God's sovereignty and Promise to save.

Rich,

Perhaps I am not the normal Reformed Baptist. If so, I'll take that as a compliment.

I can find no scriptural warrant for re-baptism, even after a shaky profession of faith. You know me well enough not to jump on that statement. I don't consider believers baptism to be a re-baptism in any sense of the word. That is why I believe my baptism after profession to be valid while my Roman baptism was not (see my previous post for an explanation).

Baptist churches, particularly those of the fundamentalist camp, historically have either a micro or macro view of baptism. Baptism is nothing more than a visible testimony of faith or a form of sacramentalism. This is partly the result of a deficient soteriology. I wonder how rare the view Doug and I hold to is within the Reformed Baptist camp. If there are true RB's who are reading this thread, what is your opinion? Would you require a brother who was put out because of church discipline to be re-baptized upon repentance?

Originally Posted by Herald

Would you require a brother who was put out because of church discipline to be re-baptized upon repentance?

No. First baptism was valid. The intent, as you have previously stated, is restoration.
But what about one not under church discipline? Do we rebaptize the member (who is in good standing) who has previously made a profession (let's say 10 years ago), been baptized, but now suddenly feels that was not valid and that he was not saved then?

Rich, the Reformed Baptist hermeneutic that results in a credo-baptist position is based on the nature of the New Covenant. I have argued in other Baptism threads that the New Covenant is the pivot on which both baptismal positions turn. Who is the New Covenant with? How does one enter the New Covenant? Is it possible to be part of the New Covenant and not be saved? How a person answers questions like these will, although not exclusively, determine their stand on baptism. I would argue that many strains of Baptists have sullied their understanding of the New Covenant with a deficient soteriology.

When a Baptist pastor administers baptism, he usually announces, "Upon your profession of faith, and according to our Lord's command, I baptize you..." Some Baptists have used dogmatic statements such as, "We believe in a regenerate church membership" or, "We only baptize believers." A more accurate rendering of these two statements would be, "We believe in professed regenerate church membership" and, "We only baptize professed believers." Based on what I know of my fellow RB brethren, they would agree with the wording of the latter two statements while not objecting to the former. We would understand the former as representing the latter, and since we're not mounting a defense against paedo criticism there is no one that needs convincing.

I'm still waiting to hear from some RB pastors and elders regarding baptism and re-baptism. I communicated with Doug about this earlier today and we're in agreement. I sure hope we're not the only ones!

Originally Posted by Herald

Perhaps I am not the normal Reformed Baptist. If so, I'll take that as a compliment.

The 1689 Confession deletes Westminster's first statement about the corporate nature of baptism, and most Baptist works (reformed or otherwise) stress that it is an individualistic ordinance, including Samuel Waldron's "Modern Exposition." Bill, you seem to be throwing your Baptist position into crisis by adopting a distinctive Presbyterian idea.

Originally Posted by Houston E.

Originally Posted by Herald

Would you require a brother who was put out because of church discipline to be re-baptized upon repentance?

No. First baptism was valid. The intent, as you have previously stated, is restoration.
But what about one not under church discipline? Do we rebaptize the member (who is in good standing) who has previously made a profession (let's say 10 years ago), been baptized, but now suddenly feels that was not valid and that he was not saved then?

No. They could be battling with assurance. As an elder I tend to shy away from feelings as concrete reason to make spiritual decisions. A brother who is battling with lack of assurance may need pastoral counsel. There are so many ways to answer your hypothetical. I stated earlier that I see no biblical grounds for re-baptism -- ever. And just so you know, I do not consider a person who was baptized as an infant and then is baptized after a profession of faith to be re-baptized. I do not consider their infant baptism to be a valid baptism.

-----Added 1/19/2009 at 08:57:59 EST-----

1689 LBC 29.1
Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.

Matthew, I certainly will not impugn Sam Waldron or attempt to speak for him. I don't see where the opinions I have expressed about baptism conflict with the 1689 LBC. Certainly baptism is administered to the individual, and the term "individualistic" would not be inaccurate. But who is the recipient of baptism engrafted into? Answer: Christ.

Romans 12:5 so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

If the individual is engrafted into Christ -- and all believers are members of one another -- baptism is a sign of engrafting that took place at the moment of regeneration.

Not being a 1689 LBC scholar, my initial opinion is perhaps the framers of the confession wanted to avoid any confusion on the nature of the New Covenant. Baptists believe that entrance into the New Covenant is via regeneration, not baptism. Of course, that's a whole other discussion.

Originally Posted by Herald

Matthew, I certainly will not impugn Sam Waldron or attempt to speak for him. I don't see where the opinions I have expressed about baptism conflict with the 1689 LBC. Certainly baptism is administered to the individual, and the term "individualistic" would not be inaccurate. But who is the recipient of baptism engrafted into? Answer: Christ.

Again, Bill, I think you are imputing too much Presbyterian thought into your Baptist answers, because the Baptist removes the idea of sacramental union, and so has no basis for saying "the recipient of baptism" is ingrafted into Christ. The Baptist maintains he is baptised because he is ingrafted into Christ; hence nothing can be drawn from the baptism per se.

Originally Posted by Herald

No. They could be battling with assurance. As an elder I tend to shy away from feelings as concrete reason to make spiritual decisions.

They "could" be...but with our view of who belongs in the New Covenant we would be refusing what would be a valid sign this time if they were not just battling but truly making a profession.
(Just so you know Bill, I'm on your side in this and are one of those who join you in your view. The problem is I'm not sure our argument is very consistent at this point. Will be surprised if many RB's join us. )

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Herald

Matthew, I certainly will not impugn Sam Waldron or attempt to speak for him. I don't see where the opinions I have expressed about baptism conflict with the 1689 LBC. Certainly baptism is administered to the individual, and the term "individualistic" would not be inaccurate. But who is the recipient of baptism engrafted into? Answer: Christ.

Again, Bill, I think you are imputing too much Presbyterian thought into your Baptist answers, because the Baptist removes the idea of sacramental union, and so has no basis for saying "the recipient of baptism" is ingrafted into Christ. The Baptist maintains he is baptised because he is ingrafted into Christ; hence nothing can be drawn from the baptism per se.

Matthew, I want to make sure I am being clear. I do not believe baptism engrafts the recipient into Christ. That is done by regeneration. Baptism is a sign only.

-----Added 1/19/2009 at 09:40:11 EST-----

Originally Posted by Houston E.

Originally Posted by Herald

No. They could be battling with assurance. As an elder I tend to shy away from feelings as concrete reason to make spiritual decisions.

They "could" be...but with our view of who belongs in the New Covenant we would be refusing what would be a valid sign this time if they were not just battling but truly making a profession.
(Just so you know Bill, I'm on your side in this and are one of those who join you in your view. The problem is I'm not sure our argument is very consistent at this point. Will be surprised if many RB's join us. )

Trey, RB's need not fear when the sign of baptism is applied, so long as it follows a profession of faith. My dear brother, Matthew, seems to think I am adopting a Presbyterian view of the sacrament in how it engrafts the recipient into the body of Christ. That view certainly would be problematic for the RB, for we would be elevating baptism from simply a sign into a portal by which we enter into the New Covenant. The New Covenant is entered into by regeneration. If we start getting into how an individual feels about his position in Christ, baptism becomes the least of our concerns. There is much pastoral work to do with the person who is struggling with their assurance.

Originally Posted by Herald

I am not encouraged by the individual submitting to baptism, as though it is some great thing that individual is doing. It is the promise of God that under-girds baptism that conveys grace to the one being baptized and to the church of Christ that stands as witnesses.

I went back and read through the posts and can you clarify if baptism is simply a sign, or given the above agreement with Fred, that God conveys grace through the use of the sign? I think there's a big difference here.

Originally Posted by Houston E.

Originally Posted by Herald

I am not encouraged by the individual submitting to baptism, as though it is some great thing that individual is doing. It is the promise of God that under-girds baptism that conveys grace to the one being baptized and to the church of Christ that stands as witnesses.

I went back and read through the posts and can you clarify if baptism is simply a sign, or given the above agreement with Fred, that God conveys grace through the use of the sign? I think there's a big difference here.

Trey, I believe baptism is a sign. The grace is in the promise, not the application of water. It's possible that I may have clouded that distinction, and if I have I offer clarity here.

Bill, after reading this thread I am convinced that you should no longer call yourself a baptist!

From now on you should use "deepwater presbyterian"!

(although a bit of work on the whole sign/seal dynamic might help bring you over to the "right side")

Originally Posted by Kevin

Bill, after reading this thread I am convinced that you should no longer call yourself a baptist!

From now on you should use "deepwater presbyterian"!

That was a good one.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Bill, after reading this thread I am convinced that you should no longer call yourself a baptist!

From now on you should use "deepwater presbyterian"!

(although a bit of work on the whole sign/seal dynamic might help bring you over to the "right side")

See? I do have a sense of humor. Bob says it's over developed.