I understand RB confusion on sign/seal/paedo

Ivanhoe · #1 (**permalink**) 06-15-2008, 04:25 PM

We define sacraments as "signs," among other things.

Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 27, verse 1.

Quote:

Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,

While providing us with a nice summary of doctrine (and I largely agree with above), I also understand why credobapists are confused with paedos. The following quote from St Augustine will illustrate:

Quote:

Augustine defined a sign as "a thing which of itself makes something come to mind, besides the impression that it presents to the senses" (On Christian Teaching, 2.1)

Cool. But this is meaningless to an infant. They probably aren't recalling anything relevant to mind. We are assuming a lot on the definition of sign and then applying to infants, which would strain baptist credulity understandably.

Now, I am hard-line infant paedo. Seriously. More so than most people. But if we consistently hold to the Augustinian definition of sign, shall we always run into these problems? I apologize for giving RBs good ammo.

Daniel Ritchie · #2 (**permalink**) 06-15-2008, 04:40 PM

Jacob

The sign has relevance to the infant as he gets older and is reminded of his covenantal responsibilities. The same was true of circumcision.

While I am also a hard-core infant baptist, I am not a bigot, and understand that many other Christians of greater learning and godliness see things differently.

Ivanhoe · #3 (**permalink**) 06-15-2008, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Jacob

The sign has relevance to the infant as he gets older and is reminded of his covenantal responsibilities. The same was true of circumcision.

That still doesn't do justice to Augustine's definition of a sign. For Augustine (see above) it was a mental recollection. When the Bible uses signs, God is doing something. In biblical use, a sign is an act.

Many uses of "sign" in Scripture, moreover, refer to God's actions, particularly His works of power against Egypt (Deut. 4:34; 6:22; 7:19; 11:3; 26:3; 29:3; 34:11; Ps. 78:43) or Jesus' miracles among the Jews (Jn. 2:18, 23; 4:48, 54; 6:26; 9:16). Again, Augustine's definition of "sign" doesn't easily fit these passages. God did indeed communicate with Pharaoh through plagues of frogs and lice and pestilence. Far more than that, however, God did something to Pharaoh, and by doing that demanded that Pharaoh do something in response.

Daniel Ritchie · #4 (**permalink**) 06-15-2008, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Jacob

The sign has relevance to the infant as he gets older and is reminded of his covenantal responsibilities. The same was true of circumcision.

That still doesn't do justice to Augustine's definition of a sign. For Augustine (see above) it was a mental recollection. When the Bible uses signs, God is doing something. In biblical use, a sign is an act.

Many uses of "sign" in Scripture, moreover, refer to God's actions, particularly His works of power against Egypt (Deut. 4:34; 6:22; 7:19; 11:3; 26:3; 29:3; 34:11; Ps. 78:43) or Jesus' miracles among the Jews (Jn. 2:18, 23; 4:48, 54; 6:26; 9:16). Again, Augustine's definition of "sign" doesn't easily fit these passages. God did indeed communicate with Pharaoh through plagues of frogs and lice and pestilence. Far more than that, however, God did something to Pharaoh, and by doing that demanded that Pharaoh do something in response.

Yes, but is Augustine absolutely right?

a mere housewife · #5 (**permalink**) 06-15-2008, 04:50 PM

Jacob, wouldn't a paedo-baptist argue that the sign is being impressed on the senses of the visible church as to the baby being a member of the covenant community; also that since the grace is not tied to the time of the administration the baby might have the benefit of proper impressions about his baptism later on?

I'm actually not a paedo baptist, though Ruben andI have tried to be convinced. It's not this kind of thing that stops us. For us it's a matter of the RPW.

Daniel Ritchie · #6 (**permalink**) 06-15-2008, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

Jacob, wouldn't a paedo-baptist argue that the sign is being impressed on the senses of the visible church as to the baby being a member of the covenant community; also that since the grace is not tied to the time of the administration the baby might have the benefit of proper impressions about his baptism later one?

I'm actually not a paedo baptist, though Ruben and I have tried to be convinced. It's not this kind of thing that stops us. For us it's a matter of the RPW.

Oh right, you're Ruben's wife.

I really am slow on the uptake.

The RPW - when properly understood - allows for good and necessary consequence, valid logical deductions from Scripture, so infant baptism would not - if it is a valid deduction - be contrary to the RPW.

Ivanhoe · #7 (**permalink**) 06-15-2008, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Jacob

The sign has relevance to the infant as he gets older and is reminded of his covenantal responsibilities. The same was true of circumcision.

That still doesn't do justice to Augustine's definition of a sign. For Augustine (see above) it was a mental recollection. When the Bible uses signs, God is doing something. In biblical use, a sign is an act.

Many uses of "sign" in Scripture, moreover, refer to God's actions, particularly His works of power against Egypt (Deut. 4:34; 6:22; 7:19; 11:3; 26:3; 29:3; 34:11; Ps. 78:43) or Jesus' miracles among the Jews (Jn. 2:18, 23; 4:48, 54; 6:26; 9:16). Again, Augustine's definition of "sign" doesn't easily fit these passages. God did indeed communicate with Pharaoh through plagues of frogs and lice and pestilence. Far more than that, however, God did something to Pharaoh, and by doing that demanded that Pharaoh do something in response.

Yes, but is Augustine absolutely right?

I don't think so but his definition is largely foundational for the Western church.

Daniel Ritchie · #8 (**permalink**) 06-15-2008, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

That still doesn't do justice to Augustine's definition of a sign. For Augustine (see above) it was a mental recollection. When the Bible uses signs, God is doing something. In biblical use, a sign is an act.

Many uses of "sign" in Scripture, moreover, refer to God's actions, particularly His works of power against Egypt (Deut. 4:34; 6:22; 7:19; 11:3; 26:3; 29:3; 34:11; Ps. 78:43) or Jesus' miracles among the Jews (Jn. 2:18, 23; 4:48, 54; 6:26; 9:16). Again, Augustine's definition of "sign" doesn't easily fit these passages. God did indeed communicate with Pharaoh through plagues of frogs and lice and pestilence. Far more than that, however, God did something to Pharaoh, and by doing that demanded that Pharaoh do something in response.

Yes, but is Augustine absolutely right?

I don't think so but his definition is largely foundational for the Western church.

Largely, but not absolutely is probably the best way to look at it.

Ivanhoe · #9 (**permalink**) 06-15-2008, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

Jacob, wouldn't a paedo-baptist argue that the sign is being impressed on the senses of the visible church as to the baby being a member of the covenant community; also that since the grace is not tied to the time of the administration the baby might have the benefit of proper impressions about his baptism later on?

I'm actually not a paedo baptist, though Ruben and I have tried to be convinced. It's not this kind of thing that stops us. For us it's a matter of the RPW.

Greetings Heidi,
That could work, and no doubt many use that argument. I would answer that the confession implies the sign being placed on the recipient (which would certainly be the case of an adult conver) and not on the church.

Quote:

but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,

Ivanhoe · #10 (**permalink**) 06-15-2008, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Yes, but is Augustine absolutely right?

I don't think so but his definition is largely foundational for the Western church.

Largely, but not absolutely is probably the best way to look at it.

I'm assuming, and I am not familiar if Williamson et al deal with the Augustinian definition, that the writers of the confession presupposed the definition. I am saying that said definition is functional. This can be seen, with some variations, in Turretin.

As Keith Mathison has put it in his fine recent study, Given For You, "For Turretin, the connection between the signs and the things signified is a connection that occurs in our minds." (I can get source info later).

Pilgrim · #11 (**permalink**) 06-15-2008, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

Jacob, wouldn't a paedo-baptist argue that the sign is being impressed on the senses of the visible church as to the baby being a member of the covenant community; also that since the grace is not tied to the time of the administration the baby might have the benefit of proper impressions about his baptism later on?

I'm actually not a paedo baptist, though Ruben and I have tried to be convinced. It's not this kind of thing that stops us. For us it's a matter of the RPW.

As Jacob just noted in another thread, often we try to be convinced due to not wanting to have to deal with perceived problems that sometimes seem insurmountable in Baptist life today. But as we have seen on this board and as some of us have realized through our experiences, there are significant problems in Presbyterian churches as well, (what church doesn't have its problems?) and some presbyteries are in practically as much need of "reform" as are many Baptists.

Of course I totally agree on the RPW.

Ivanhoe · #12 (**permalink**) 06-15-2008, 05:12 PM

I still have a secret move to be employed in defense of paedo, but not yet.

larryjf · #13 (**permalink**) 06-15-2008, 07:08 PM

First, i think the baptism part that you quoted is from chapter 28 verse 1, not chapter 27.

verse 6 of the same chapter tells us that the efficacy of the sign is not tied to the moment of time in which it is administered.

And looking at Gen 17:7 we see that what is to be brought to mind is the covenant between the believer and their children. So certainly the idea of something being brought to mind doesn't have to be for the child himself, but for the parent to bring to mind that promise.

taking that together with the Confession's statement...
"but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace"

We need not tie the "unto him" with the specific time of the administration of the sacrament.

Ivanhoe · #14 (**permalink**) 06-15-2008, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larryjf

First, i think the baptism part that you quoted is from chapter 28 verse 1, not chapter 27.

verse 6 of the same chapter tells us that the efficacy of the sign is not tied to the moment of time in which it is administered.

And looking at Gen 17:7 we see that what is to be brought to mind is the covenant between the believer and their children. So certainly the idea of something being brought to mind doesn't have to be for the child himself, but for the parent to bring to mind that promise.

taking that together with the Confession's statement...
"but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace"

We need not tie the "unto him" with the specific time of the administration of the sacrament.

My point is that the Augustinian definition of a sign is lacking. It is for mental recollection, which an infant cannot do. Even if the "unto him" is later, the problem remains: he won't remember the sign.

PuritanCovenanter · #15 (**permalink**) 06-15-2008, 07:26 PM

There is another thing that holds us to our position. It is the fact that we see the Covenant Children of the New Testament as being spiritual Children of Christ's. They are spiritual Children who can call God Abba Father. They are the ones whom Baptism is a sign for. Baptism is a statement about one being in union with Christ already having had his heart circumcised by Christ. When Paul speaks about Baptism, he speaks about it as someone who puts on Christ as a reality in the persons life when it happens.

(Gal 3:27) For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

(Rom 6:3) Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

(Rom 6:4) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

A person who puts on Christ has a union with him having their sins forgiven. I can't get over this fact. Covenant Children in the New are spiritual children of Christ.

larryjf · #16 (**permalink**) 06-15-2008, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

My point is that the Augustinian definition of a sign is lacking. It is for mental recollection, which an infant cannot do. Even if the "unto him" is later, the problem remains: he won't remember the sign.

If the Augustinian definition is...

"a thing which of itself makes something come to mind, besides the impression that it presents to the senses"

then it doesn't necessitate the actual event being brought to mind. An adult who was baptized as an infant will have "something" come to mind as he thinks on his baptism, and it will present an impression to the senses, though it is not of the actual event.

Semper Fidelis · #17 (**permalink**) 06-15-2008, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

There is another thing that holds us to our position. It is the fact that we see the Covenant Children of the New Testament as being spiritual Children of Christ's. They are spiritual Children who can call God Abba Father. They are the ones whom Baptism is a sign for. Baptism is a statement about one being in union with Christ already having had his heart circumcised by Christ. When Paul speaks about Baptism, he speaks about it as someone who puts on Christ as a reality in the persons life when it happens.

(Gal 3:27) For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

(Rom 6:3) Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

(Rom 6:4) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

A person who puts on Christ has a union with him having their sins forgiven. I can't get over this fact. Covenant Children in the New are spiritual children of Christ.

Except that you don't baptize those who have union with Christ, you baptize those who profess. Profession does not equate to union with Christ any more than being the infant child of a professing believer does.

This, in fact, is the standard RB confusion.

PuritanCovenanter · #18 (**permalink**) 06-15-2008, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

There is another thing that holds us to our position. It is the fact that we see the Covenant Children of the New Testament as being spiritual Children of Christ's. They are spiritual Children who can call God Abba Father. They are the ones whom Baptism is a sign for. Baptism is a statement about one being in union with Christ already having had his heart circumcised by Christ. When Paul speaks about Baptism, he speaks about it as someone who puts on Christ as a reality in the persons life when it happens.

(Gal 3:27) For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

(Rom 6:3) Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

(Rom 6:4) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

A person who puts on Christ has a union with him having their sins forgiven. I can't get over this fact. Covenant Children in the New are spiritual children of Christ.

Except that you don't baptize those who have union with Christ, you baptize those who profess. Profession does not equate to union with Christ any more than being the infant child of a professing believer does.

This, in fact, is the standard RB confusion.

I am not confused about it. While I acknowledge that there may be hypocrites that claim to be something they are not, Confession is important and a general rule for equating something with conversion and salvation as per Romans 10:9-11.

(Rom 10:9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

(Rom 10:10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

(Rom 10:11) For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Doesn't sound confusing to me. I am not confused about it.