If a paedo postpones baptizing their child...

blhowes · #1 (**permalink**) 05-25-2008, 03:05 PM

I just wanted to nail down something in my thinking. To the Presbyterian, to postpone baptism of your child until they've professed faith, as baptists do with their children, would deprive your child of what?

Joshua · #2 (**permalink**) 05-25-2008, 03:11 PM

Well, for starters, I think the paedobaptist would say that their children are being deprived of the application of the sign and seal of the covenant, not to mention, according to the paedobaptist understanding, a poor example of what Christian reformed paedobaptists should be practicing.

JoelYrick · #3 (**permalink**) 05-25-2008, 03:22 PM

I'll point out some relevant sections of the WCF.

Quote:

WCF CHAP. XXVIII. - Of Baptism.

1. 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, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.

Also note that neglect is considered a "great sin."

Quote:

5. Although it be a great sin to condemn or neglect his ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

The exhibition of grace in your scenerio would be postponed.

Quote:

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 belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.

MOSES · #4 (**permalink**) 05-25-2008, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blhowes

I just wanted to nail down something in my thinking. To the Presbyterian, to postpone baptism of your child until they've professed faith, as baptists do with their children, would deprive your child of what?

What do creedo's believe would be deprived if an adult believer was denied baptism?

IMO,,,If I denied my child baptism, I would be denying him membership into the church, the covenant community (the household of God) AND I would be denying him visible union with Christ...(thus, in a "visible" way, I would be denying him salvation...I would be shutting up the kigdom of God to him)

blhowes · #5 (**permalink**) 05-25-2008, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoelYrick

I'll point out some relevant sections of the WCF.

Thanks. I think slowly, so bear with me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoelYrick

Quote:

WCF CHAP. XXVIII. - Of Baptism.

1. 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, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.

By applying the sign and seal to an adult, you are saying you believe they have been ingrafted into Christ, they are regenerated, they have remission of sins, etc., based on their profession. Am I correct so far? If so are you saying the same thing about an infant who is baptized?

blhowes · #6 (**permalink**) 05-25-2008, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoelYrick

Also note that neglect is considered a "great sin."

Quote:

5. Although it be a great sin to condemn or neglect his ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

Why did they say "great sin" as opposed to just "sin".

blhowes · #7 (**permalink**) 05-25-2008, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOSES

IMO,,,If I denied my child baptism, I would be denying him membership into the church, the covenant community (the household of God) AND I would be denying him visible union with Christ...(thus, in a "visible" way, I would be denying him salvation...I would be shutting up the kigdom of God to him)

Shawn, I'm not being argumentative, just inquisitive. How would you be denying him salvation by not baptizing your child.

blhowes · #8 (**permalink**) 05-25-2008, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoelYrick

The exhibition of grace in your scenerio would be postponed.

Quote:

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 belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.

Can you elaborate on the grace promised? Specifically, what is it referriing to?

MOSES · #9 (**permalink**) 05-25-2008, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blhowes

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOSES

IMO,,,If I denied my child baptism, I would be denying him membership into the church, the covenant community (the household of God) AND I would be denying him visible union with Christ...(thus, in a "visible" way, I would be denying him salvation...I would be shutting up the kigdom of God to him)

Shawn, I'm not being argumentative, just inquisitive. How would you be denying him salvation by not baptizing your child.

We both know that we cannot restrain God's hand. We cannot hinder his salvation. I or you or anyone else cannot deny anyone salvation. That is the work of God alone.

But...by denying baptism, you are outwardly, in a visible sense denying one salvation...(baptism being that picture of salvation).
If I'm the decision maker and I tell someone "nope, you don't get baptism" I am essentially telling that person that he is not saved, and I am forbidding him from partaking in the visible sign and seal of that salvation. I am shutting him up from all the visible benefits of the kingdom.

blhowes · #10 (**permalink**) 05-25-2008, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOSES

We both know that we cannot restrain God's hand. We cannot hinder his salvation. I or you or anyone else cannot deny anyone salvation. That is the work of God alone.

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOSES

But...by denying baptism, you are outwardly, in a visible sense denying one salvation...(baptism being that picture of salvation).
If I'm the decision maker and I tell someone "nope, you don't get baptism" I am essentially telling that person that he is not saved, and I am forbidding him from partaking in the visible sign and seal of that salvation.

Is the converse also true? By baptizing them, are you essentially telling that person that he is saved? (in a different way than baptismal regeneration, of course)

MOSES · #11 (**permalink**) 05-25-2008, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blhowes

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOSES

We both know that we cannot restrain God's hand. We cannot hinder his salvation. I or you or anyone else cannot deny anyone salvation. That is the work of God alone.

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOSES

But...by denying baptism, you are outwardly, in a visible sense denying one salvation...(baptism being that picture of salvation).
If I'm the decision maker and I tell someone "nope, you don't get baptism" I am essentially telling that person that he is not saved, and I am forbidding him from partaking in the visible sign and seal of that salvation.

Is the converse also true? By baptizing them, are you essentially telling that person that he is saved? (in a different way than baptismal regeneration, of course)

Visibly speaking , YES...That is also why it is considered a sign and seal.

Hippo · #12 (**permalink**) 05-25-2008, 05:04 PM

The child gets exactly what an adult gets in baptism, if you want to understand what a child is being deprived of it is the same things that an adult would be deprived of.

Craig · #13 (**permalink**) 05-25-2008, 05:05 PM

What are you depriving your child by not baptizing him?

You're denying your children your faith.

InevitablyReformed · #14 (**permalink**) 05-25-2008, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blhowes

I just wanted to nail down something in my thinking. To the Presbyterian, to postpone baptism of your child until they've professed faith, as baptists do with their children, would deprive your child of what?

You are FUNCTIONALLY excluding the child from a rite of the covenant community. IMHO, this discussion is about biblical PRINCIPLES. In other words, does Scripture teach us to exclude our children from the covenant community or not? If it does, then no baptism, no status in the Church, nothing.

In Christ,

Daniel

blhowes · #15 (**permalink**) 05-25-2008, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InevitablyReformed

You are FUNCTIONALLY excluding the child from a rite of the covenant community.

...which is what the church does with the Lord's Supper. How is that different from excluding them from baptism?

2Co 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

I'm unclear. Based on God's promises, (the way I understand it) you presume the child to be saved, until proven otherwise. In the case of the Lord's Supper, does the church presume that the child is not in the faith? That Christ is not in them? That they are reprobates?

Thank-you for your patience with this thick headed, inquiring baptist.

Hippo · #16 (**permalink**) 05-25-2008, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blhowes

Quote:

Originally Posted by InevitablyReformed

You are FUNCTIONALLY excluding the child from a rite of the covenant community.

...which is what the church does with the Lord's Supper. How is that different from excluding them from baptism?

2Co 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

I'm unclear. Based on God's promises, (the way I understand it) you presume the child to be saved, until proven otherwise. In the case of the Lord's Supper, does the church presume that the child is not in the faith? That Christ is not in them? That they are reprobates?

Thank-you for your patience with this thick headed, inquiring baptist.

As has been repeated most do not presume regeneration (although some do), we accept God's covenant promise for our children. I trust, I do not presume.

Semper Fidelis · #17 (**permalink**) 05-25-2008, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blhowes

I just wanted to nail down something in my thinking. To the Presbyterian, to postpone baptism of your child until they've professed faith, as baptists do with their children, would deprive your child of what?

1. A richer understanding of the Covenant of Grace.

2. A Sacramental view of Baptism that forever grounds its surety in two immutable things over an ordinance that finds its chief significance in the inner disposition of the baptized.

3. The Proverbs and every other Scripture that is written for Covenant fathers in how they might disciple their Covenant children in the fear and admonition of the Lord.