Are baptized covenant children more likely to believe in Christ than non-baptized?

[Pergamum]

Bill, may I ask if it would it be a fair characterization to say that you believe baptism is rightly administered upon an outwardly "credible" profession of faith, as distinct from a necessarily "authentic" inward conversion?

Phil, well, since there is no way to determine an "authentic inward conversion" then yes, baptism is to be administered upon a credible profession of faith.

Bill, that makes perfect sense to me when considering things from a credo perspective. The reason I asked is because, for the reason you note, I actually think it is more sensible and realistic than the all too common practice of re-baptizing persons following every bout of doubt or moment of clarity that they might experience.

Phil, to be honest, the view I hold to is a minority among Baptists. The majority of Baptists will continue to dunk 'em as long as they think they need it. I believe that is a travesty. I mean, it's not like any of us (credo or paedo) are able to ascertain the condition of the heart. Presbyterians baptize adult converts on the same criteria that Baptists do, a credible profession. We are simply acknowledging an outward indication of faith. Church discipline exists to deal with those who, once baptized, display actions that would repudiate their faith. But even if a person struggles with unbelief (after being baptized), is that an indication that they are not saved? Could they not be in a period of disobedience of which they could repent? I believe we cheapen the ordinance by applying it over and over again to the same person. Baptism's relevance is not in the sign but in the substance the sign represents. I think some Baptists fear that if they hold to this view that it will somehow threaten the rest of what they believe. That is an unnecessary fear, but I certainly understand why they would have it.

Bill,

Again, if the timing does not matter, I don't understand why you aren't a paedobaptist.

If there is a reasonable expectation that the children of believers will be saved (which there is), why not baptize them as infants?

I would love to hear a more in-depth defense of your minority view.

---------- Post added at 12:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 AM ----------

An attempted summary:

So, it appears that most would agree that a baptized child would NOT be more likely to be saved over a non-baptized child, if both were raised in Christian homes.

Baptism is a means of grace but only to the one possessing faith and thus faith is of prime importance.

It appears that Paedobaptists baptize their infants out of their perceived obedience and not to gain any advantage to the child (except for the advantage of committing themselves and the church to raise the child in a godly way.

Paedo baptists have an expectation that their children will believe, and this expectation is a valid one since the general rule of the proverbs and other Scriptures is that if we raise our children in the right way, they will not depart from it.


--
--
--

Is this a fair summary?

 

[Herald]

Again, if the timing does not matter, I don't understand why you aren't a paedobaptist.

What do you mean by "the timing does not matter"? Did I indicate, or even infer, that baptism is to be administered to anyone other than a professing believer?

If there is a reasonable expectation that the children of believers will be saved (which there is), why not baptize them as infants?

Because expectation of salvation is not a reason to baptize. It is without scriptural warrant.

I would love to hear a more in-depth defense of your minority view.

My view is a minority among mainline Baptists, but I am far from the only covenantal Baptist to hold this view.

 

[Pergamum]

Again, if the timing does not matter, I don't understand why you aren't a paedobaptist.

What do you mean by "the timing does not matter"? Did I indicate, or even infer, that baptism is to be administered to anyone other than a professing believer?

If there is a reasonable expectation that the children of believers will be saved (which there is), why not baptize them as infants?

Because expectation of salvation is not a reason to baptize. It is without scriptural warrant.

I would love to hear a more in-depth defense of your minority view.

My view is a minority among mainline Baptists, but I am far from the only covenantal Baptist to hold this view.

If you had a person in your church convinced that they were not truly baptised at age 18 due to a false profession, but had true faith at age 30 instead, would you then baptize them? What about if they were again convinced absolutely at age 42 of the same thing? Would you then baptize them at age 42 if they remained convinced that they were a false professor at age 30? What about again at age 54?

If you say no, that is a gap of 12 years between a baptism at first followed by a true profession. Most infants who are baptized display some external evidences of faith before age 12.

I feel that your minority view has sold the farm to the paedobaptists.

However, the majority view of the baptists which would immerse again and again if the recipient was convinced of a previous false profession is very distasteful and is good fodder for paedos to poke fun at the baptists.

What is my way out of this predicament? Please explain your view further.

 

[jd.morrison]

This notion of does infants being baptized give them greater chance of being saved over and against those who are not seems so absolutely and entirely silly to me. This is not "Outcome Based" Sacraments... Asking such questions seems so entirely un-Reformed and presumes to get at the secret will of God, as only God knows His elect and he has not revealed who they are to us prior to their regeneration, and then we only know by the fruit of a persons entire life, and even then we can error.

===================

It is also very much Lutheran...

 

[MW]

Do you assert that all covenant infants are saved?

There was no use of "all" in my post. There is therefore no basis for raising the question.

 

[Herald]

Pergy,

The hypotheticals you have provided contain both a theological and pastoral component. I am going to address each of them in detail. But let me start by saying that my disagreement with the paedobaptist view of the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant is so substantial that it cannot be reconciled this side of glory. I believe the paedobaptist view to be inherently and systemically wrong. There is no bridge between paedobaptism and credobaptism. I would rather the disagreement between us be seen for what it is than to try and cloak it. Unfortunately there is a lack of consensus on the issue of baptism between non-covenantal Baptists and covenantal Baptists. Your criticism of my position is proof of that.

First, the theological component. Why do Baptists only baptize professed believers? We do so because there is a positive command in scripture to baptize believers (Mat. 28:19; Acts 2:38-41; Acts 8:12; Acts 8:36-38; Acts 10:47-48). We are never instructed to baptize those who do not profess faith. Baptists also see a material difference between circumcision and water baptism. There is not a one for one correlation. We disagree with the reasons given by paedobaptists as to why circumcision was only performed on Jewish males, whereas baptism is applied to all regardless of gender or ethnicity. We disagree with paedobaptists on the temporal construction of the New Covenant. While we believe there are false sheep in the fold, they are there because of deception, not because scripture proves they are valid members of the New Covenant. The New Covenant, both in its temporal and eternal construction, contains only believers. These beliefs set as at odds with our paedobaptist brethren; odds that are irreconcilable. Thankfully, there is much that paedobaptists and credobaptists agree on, and for that I am glad. But when it comes to baptism we are miles apart.

Now, why do I hold to the opinion of baptize once and once only? Well, I make my appeal to scripture. Show me one reference in the New Testament where rebaptism is even hinted at. Why would rebaptism even be necessary? Well, for starters, you cite instances where a person claims his earlier profession of faith was false, but now it is supposedly real. The New Testament provides a mechanism for dealing with a profession-apostasy-repentance situation. It's called church discipline (Mat. 18). The goal of church discipline is to restore the wayward brother or sister (2 Cor. 2:7). It is interesting to point out that there is no apostolic command to rebaptize a repentant brother or sister. We also never see this command given in the gospels. Why is that? Could it be that baptism, while an important ordinance of the church, is never elevated in scripture beyond what it is supposed to be? Is baptism a means of grace? To the extent that is a sign of our faith and our inclusion in the New Covenant community, yes. But baptism does not convey salvation. In the absence of saving faith baptism is impotent.

It is at about this time that you may ask, “If baptism is impotent, without saving faith, then should we not baptize a person who claims that a previous profession was false?” Well, if I viewed the ordinance in the way a paedobaptist views it I may be tempted to agree with you. Paedobaptists view baptism as a sign and a seal. The only seal that confirms our faith is the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 1:21; Eph. 1:13). I dispute the notion that somehow the Holy Spirit seals us at our baptism. The Holy Spirit seals us at the moment of our salvation. Baptism is a visible sign of that sealing, but it is not the sealing itself. Equipped with that knowledge we do not have to make sure we baptize a person every time they claim a previous profession was false. As a sign baptism points to the redemptive work of Christ. Even if it is mistakenly applied to an unbeliever baptism still points to the redemptive work of Christ. Do not make the mistake in concluding that I am advocating a laissez-faire view of baptism. Baptism is meant to be applied to professed believers. But how do we definitively decide that a person was/wasn't/now is a believer? In a previous post I quoted this portion of the 1689 LBC:

17.3 And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God's displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.*

How do we determine the validity/invalidity of a previous or current profession? The short answer is that we cannot. We are under obligation to receive a credible profession as real. In fact, we must position ourselves in order to be defrauded and deceived. False brethren are a reality in every church. We cannot protect against them. It is possible for us to be fooled. As I pointed out earlier, scripture provides a mechanism for dealing with possible false brethren if/when they become known to us.

Now, let me address the pastoral side of the equation. What would I say to a person who made a profession of faith, was baptized, strayed from that profession, and now has repented? Well, I would welcome them back into the household of faith with much joy. In fact, this happened a few short years ago in my church. A man came to our church who had been put out of another church sixteen years ago through church discipline. This man wanted to be reconciled to his former church. Contact was made with his former pastor who arranged to fly this man down to his former church. This man met with his former pastor and was presented in front of the whole church where he formally repented of his sin and asked for forgiveness. He was accepted back with love. He was then commended to our church where he is an active and faithful member. Did we discuss rebaptism with this brother? No. We discussed the precious promises contained in the Gospel and the strength to be found from joining with a local body of believers. Was he saved those many years ago before he was put out of the church? I do not know. Perhaps he was. Perhaps he was not. Does that make the baptism he submitted to invalid? No. The substance behind his baptism is just as real today as it was on the day he was baptized. If he brought up the subject of being rebaptized I would have sat down and discussed with him the substance behind baptism. That same substance remains regardless of whether he was truly a Christian when he was baptized. His former pastor baptized him in good faith; believing that he had made a credible profession of faith. Perhaps his profession was real and he had just fallen into sin for a season. His subsequent repentance may be proof that he was never in a state of unbelief. Then again, maybe he was. Do you see the conundrum? We are not called to be salvation detectives.

Is there ever a good pastoral reason for rebaptizing a person? Perhaps, although I believe those reasons to be few and far between.

Pergy, the question I want to ask you is whether you are actually a covenantal Baptist? We use the term “Reformed Baptist”, but at its root a Reformed Baptist is really a covenantal Baptist. A Calvinistic Baptist does not necessarily make a covenantal Baptist. If you view your theology covenantally then perhaps what I have written will make sense.

 

[Pergamum]

Pergy,

The hypotheticals you have provided contain both a theological and pastoral component. I am going to address each of them in detail. But let me start by saying that my disagreement with the paedobaptist view of the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant is so substantial that it cannot be reconciled this side of glory. I believe the paedobaptist view to be inherently and systemically wrong. There is no bridge between paedobaptism and credobaptism. I would rather the disagreement between us be seen for what it is than to try and cloak it. Unfortunately there is a lack of consensus on the issue of baptism between non-covenantal Baptists and covenantal Baptists. Your criticism of my position is proof of that.

First, the theological component. Why do Baptists only baptize professed believers? We do so because there is a positive command in scripture to baptize believers (Mat. 28:19; Acts 2:38-41; Acts 8:12; Acts 8:36-38; Acts 10:47-48). We are never instructed to baptize those who do not profess faith. Baptists also see a material difference between circumcision and water baptism. There is not a one for one correlation. We disagree with the reasons given by paedobaptists as to why circumcision was only performed on Jewish males, whereas baptism is applied to all regardless of gender or ethnicity. We disagree with paedobaptists on the temporal construction of the New Covenant. While we believe there are false sheep in the fold, they are there because of deception, not because scripture proves they are valid members of the New Covenant. The New Covenant, both in its temporal and eternal construction, contains only believers. These beliefs set as at odds with our paedobaptist brethren; odds that are irreconcilable. Thankfully, there is much that paedobaptists and credobaptists agree on, and for that I am glad. But when it comes to baptism we are miles apart.

Now, why do I hold to the opinion of baptize once and once only? Well, I make my appeal to scripture. Show me one reference in the New Testament where rebaptism is even hinted at. Why would rebaptism even be necessary? Well, for starters, you cite instances where a person claims his earlier profession of faith was false, but now it is supposedly real. The New Testament provides a mechanism for dealing with a profession-apostasy-repentance situation. It's called church discipline (Mat. 18). The goal of church discipline is to restore the wayward brother or sister (2 Cor. 2:7). It is interesting to point out that there is no apostolic command to rebaptize a repentant brother or sister. We also never see this command given in the gospels. Why is that? Could it be that baptism, while an important ordinance of the church, is never elevated in scripture beyond what it is supposed to be? Is baptism a means of grace? To the extent that is a sign of our faith and our inclusion in the New Covenant community, yes. But baptism does not convey salvation. In the absence of saving faith baptism is impotent.

It is at about this time that you may ask, “If baptism is impotent, without saving faith, then should we not baptize a person who claims that a previous profession was false?” Well, if I viewed the ordinance in the way a paedobaptist views it I may be tempted to agree with you. Paedobaptists view baptism as a sign and a seal. The only seal that confirms our faith is the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 1:21; Eph. 1:13). I dispute the notion that somehow the Holy Spirit seals us at our baptism. The Holy Spirit seals us at the moment of our salvation. Baptism is a visible sign of that sealing, but it is not the sealing itself. Equipped with that knowledge we do not have to make sure we baptize a person every time they claim a previous profession was false. As a sign baptism points to the redemptive work of Christ. Even if it is mistakenly applied to an unbeliever baptism still points to the redemptive work of Christ. Do not make the mistake in concluding that I am advocating a laissez-faire view of baptism. Baptism is meant to be applied to professed believers. But how do we definitively decide that a person was/wasn't/now is a believer? In a previous post I quoted this portion of the 1689 LBC:

17.3 And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God's displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.*

How do we determine the validity/invalidity of a previous or current profession? The short answer is that we cannot. We are under obligation to receive a credible profession as real. In fact, we must position ourselves in order to be defrauded and deceived. False brethren are a reality in every church. We cannot protect against them. It is possible for us to be fooled. As I pointed out earlier, scripture provides a mechanism for dealing with possible false brethren if/when they become known to us.

Now, let me address the pastoral side of the equation. What would I say to a person who made a profession of faith, was baptized, strayed from that profession, and now has repented? Well, I would welcome them back into the household of faith with much joy. In fact, this happened a few short years ago in my church. A man came to our church who had been put out of another church sixteen years ago through church discipline. This man wanted to be reconciled to his former church. Contact was made with his former pastor who arranged to fly this man down to his former church. This man met with his former pastor and was presented in front of the whole church where he formally repented of his sin and asked for forgiveness. He was accepted back with love. He was then commended to our church where he is an active and faithful member. Did we discuss rebaptism with this brother? No. We discussed the precious promises contained in the Gospel and the strength to be found from joining with a local body of believers. Was he saved those many years ago before he was put out of the church? I do not know. Perhaps he was. Perhaps he was not. Does that make the baptism he submitted to invalid? No. The substance behind his baptism is just as real today as it was on the day he was baptized. If he brought up the subject of being rebaptized I would have sat down and discussed with him the substance behind baptism. That same substance remains regardless of whether he was truly a Christian when he was baptized. His former pastor baptized him in good faith; believing that he had made a credible profession of faith. Perhaps his profession was real and he had just fallen into sin for a season. His subsequent repentance may be proof that he was never in a state of unbelief. Then again, maybe he was. Do you see the conundrum? We are not called to be salvation detectives.

Is there ever a good pastoral reason for rebaptizing a person? Perhaps, although I believe those reasons to be few and far between.

Pergy, the question I want to ask you is whether you are actually a covenantal Baptist? We use the term “Reformed Baptist”, but at its root a Reformed Baptist is really a covenantal Baptist. A Calvinistic Baptist does not necessarily make a covenantal Baptist. If you view your theology covenantally then perhaps what I have written will make sense.

If you are not willing to "re-baptize" or truly baptize a new believer, then what would you do with new believers who were baptized as babies?

Is the baptism of an infant, then, an invalid baptism or merely an irregular one? Does baptism by means other than immersion count as invalid or merely irregular? Does baptism of infants who do not yet have a credible profession of faith then an irregular or an invalid baptism?

P.s. Acts 19:1-5 gives an instance fo rebaptism but I am not sure if this has any bearing on our discussion.

If the substance behind baptism is an outward sign pointing to an inward reality of the new birth, then the baptism of an unbeliever is no true baptism. Therefore, to be consistent only a baptism occuring AFTER a credible profession of faith which points to the new birth is a valid baptism. If the recipient of baptism believes he has only backslid, then yes, there is no need for him to be re-baptized. But, if the recipient is convinced that his previous profession of faith was a false one, then I see no other choice but to baptize him truly (this is no re-baptism).

I don't understand why you ask me whether I am truly a covenantal baptist. Most all Reformed Baptists I know would side with me and tell you that you are being inconsistent and have already given up one of the main arguments against paedobaptism. Most Reformed Baptists that I know count a baptism without faith and repentance or a baptism by the wrong mode to be invalid and not a true baptism. No baptist advocates "re-baptism" - we merely advocate one baptism in the Scriptural manner.

If I remember correctly, John Piper's church covered this issue a year or two ago when there was a motion made about receiving people into church membership who were baptized as infants. I believe that Piper's church voted against such a move. Do you recall the details?

You have admitted that your position is a minority one; why is that? Perhaps because it is inconsistent with the belief in believer's baptism by immersion?

---------- Post added at 04:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:46 AM ----------

Pergy,

The hypotheticals you have provided contain both a theological and pastoral component. I am going to address each of them in detail. But let me start by saying that my disagreement with the paedobaptist view of the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant is so substantial that it cannot be reconciled this side of glory. I believe the paedobaptist view to be inherently and systemically wrong. There is no bridge between paedobaptism and credobaptism. I would rather the disagreement between us be seen for what it is than to try and cloak it. Unfortunately there is a lack of consensus on the issue of baptism between non-covenantal Baptists and covenantal Baptists. Your criticism of my position is proof of that.

First, the theological component. Why do Baptists only baptize professed believers? We do so because there is a positive command in scripture to baptize believers (Mat. 28:19; Acts 2:38-41; Acts 8:12; Acts 8:36-38; Acts 10:47-48). We are never instructed to baptize those who do not profess faith. Baptists also see a material difference between circumcision and water baptism. There is not a one for one correlation. We disagree with the reasons given by paedobaptists as to why circumcision was only performed on Jewish males, whereas baptism is applied to all regardless of gender or ethnicity. We disagree with paedobaptists on the temporal construction of the New Covenant. While we believe there are false sheep in the fold, they are there because of deception, not because scripture proves they are valid members of the New Covenant. The New Covenant, both in its temporal and eternal construction, contains only believers. These beliefs set as at odds with our paedobaptist brethren; odds that are irreconcilable. Thankfully, there is much that paedobaptists and credobaptists agree on, and for that I am glad. But when it comes to baptism we are miles apart.

Now, why do I hold to the opinion of baptize once and once only? Well, I make my appeal to scripture. Show me one reference in the New Testament where rebaptism is even hinted at. Why would rebaptism even be necessary? Well, for starters, you cite instances where a person claims his earlier profession of faith was false, but now it is supposedly real. The New Testament provides a mechanism for dealing with a profession-apostasy-repentance situation. It's called church discipline (Mat. 18). The goal of church discipline is to restore the wayward brother or sister (2 Cor. 2:7). It is interesting to point out that there is no apostolic command to rebaptize a repentant brother or sister. We also never see this command given in the gospels. Why is that? Could it be that baptism, while an important ordinance of the church, is never elevated in scripture beyond what it is supposed to be? Is baptism a means of grace? To the extent that is a sign of our faith and our inclusion in the New Covenant community, yes. But baptism does not convey salvation. In the absence of saving faith baptism is impotent.

It is at about this time that you may ask, “If baptism is impotent, without saving faith, then should we not baptize a person who claims that a previous profession was false?” Well, if I viewed the ordinance in the way a paedobaptist views it I may be tempted to agree with you. Paedobaptists view baptism as a sign and a seal. The only seal that confirms our faith is the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 1:21; Eph. 1:13). I dispute the notion that somehow the Holy Spirit seals us at our baptism. The Holy Spirit seals us at the moment of our salvation. Baptism is a visible sign of that sealing, but it is not the sealing itself. Equipped with that knowledge we do not have to make sure we baptize a person every time they claim a previous profession was false. As a sign baptism points to the redemptive work of Christ. Even if it is mistakenly applied to an unbeliever baptism still points to the redemptive work of Christ. Do not make the mistake in concluding that I am advocating a laissez-faire view of baptism. Baptism is meant to be applied to professed believers. But how do we definitively decide that a person was/wasn't/now is a believer? In a previous post I quoted this portion of the 1689 LBC:

17.3 And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God's displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.*

How do we determine the validity/invalidity of a previous or current profession? The short answer is that we cannot. We are under obligation to receive a credible profession as real. In fact, we must position ourselves in order to be defrauded and deceived. False brethren are a reality in every church. We cannot protect against them. It is possible for us to be fooled. As I pointed out earlier, scripture provides a mechanism for dealing with possible false brethren if/when they become known to us.

Now, let me address the pastoral side of the equation. What would I say to a person who made a profession of faith, was baptized, strayed from that profession, and now has repented? Well, I would welcome them back into the household of faith with much joy. In fact, this happened a few short years ago in my church. A man came to our church who had been put out of another church sixteen years ago through church discipline. This man wanted to be reconciled to his former church. Contact was made with his former pastor who arranged to fly this man down to his former church. This man met with his former pastor and was presented in front of the whole church where he formally repented of his sin and asked for forgiveness. He was accepted back with love. He was then commended to our church where he is an active and faithful member. Did we discuss rebaptism with this brother? No. We discussed the precious promises contained in the Gospel and the strength to be found from joining with a local body of believers. Was he saved those many years ago before he was put out of the church? I do not know. Perhaps he was. Perhaps he was not. Does that make the baptism he submitted to invalid? No. The substance behind his baptism is just as real today as it was on the day he was baptized. If he brought up the subject of being rebaptized I would have sat down and discussed with him the substance behind baptism. That same substance remains regardless of whether he was truly a Christian when he was baptized. His former pastor baptized him in good faith; believing that he had made a credible profession of faith. Perhaps his profession was real and he had just fallen into sin for a season. His subsequent repentance may be proof that he was never in a state of unbelief. Then again, maybe he was. Do you see the conundrum? We are not called to be salvation detectives.

Is there ever a good pastoral reason for rebaptizing a person? Perhaps, although I believe those reasons to be few and far between.

Pergy, the question I want to ask you is whether you are actually a covenantal Baptist? We use the term “Reformed Baptist”, but at its root a Reformed Baptist is really a covenantal Baptist. A Calvinistic Baptist does not necessarily make a covenantal Baptist. If you view your theology covenantally then perhaps what I have written will make sense.

If you are not willing to "re-baptize" or truly baptize a new believer, then what would you do with new believers who were baptized as babies?

Is the baptism of an infant, then, an invalid baptism or merely an irregular one? Does baptism by means other than immersion count as invalid or merely irregular? Does baptism of infants who do not yet have a credible profession of faith then an irregular or an invalid baptism?

P.s. Acts 19:1-5 gives an instance fo rebaptism but I am not sure if this has any bearing on our discussion.

If the substance behind baptism is an outward sign pointing to an inward reality of the new birth, then the baptism of an unbeliever is no true baptism. Therefore, to be consistent only a baptism occuring AFTER a credible profession of faith which points to the new birth is a valid baptism. If the recipient of baptism believes he has only backslid, then yes, there is no need for him to be re-baptized. But, if the recipient is convinced that his previous profession of faith was a false one, then I see no other choice but to baptize him truly (this is no re-baptism).

I don't understand why you ask me whether I am truly a covenantal baptist. Most all Reformed Baptists I know would side with me and tell you that you are being inconsistent and have already given up one of the main arguments against paedobaptism. Most Reformed Baptists that I know count a baptism without faith and repentance or a baptism by the wrong mode to be invalid and not a true baptism. No baptist advocates "re-baptism" - we merely advocate one baptism in the Scriptural manner.

If I remember correctly, John Piper's church covered this issue a year or two ago when there was a motion made about receiving people into church membership who were baptized as infants. I believe that Piper's church voted against such a move. Do you recall the details?

You have admitted that your position is a minority one; why is that? Perhaps because it is inconsistent with the belief in believer's baptism by immersion?

 

[Pergamum]

An attempted summary:

So, it appears that most would agree that a baptized child would NOT be more likely to be saved over a non-baptized child, if both were raised in Christian homes.

Baptism is a means of grace but only to the one possessing faith and thus faith is of prime importance.

It appears that Paedobaptists baptize their infants out of their perceived obedience and not to gain any advantage to the child (except for the advantage of committing themselves and the church to raise the child in a godly way.

Paedo baptists have an expectation that their children will believe, and this expectation is a valid one since the general rule of the proverbs and other Scriptures is that if we raise our children in the right way, they will not depart from it.

Josh, note my attempted summary above.

---------- Post added at 06:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:45 AM ----------

It appears that baptism does nothing if not joined by faith. This appears to be a consensus that both credos and paedos can agree on.

 

[JP Wallace]

Bill that's about as clear and concise a view of my view of baptism as I have ever read (or ever expressed myself), apart from the aforementioned difference our view of baptism as a "seal". BTW I think my concept of that is that the HS does not actually "seal" until baptism is understood by true faith - but that's a side point.

The main point is that while I have never encountered a practical need for re-baptism in my ministry yet, that I would be extremely uncomfortable with the idea, and I believe I would take the route you set down. Ultimately the NT does not suggest, command or imply re-baptism, but as you so excellently point out it does demand church discipline.

So Pergamum, slate down a second Reformed Baptist as being off the "mainline".

 

[Pergamum]

Bill,


Have you changed your position since you argued for the very same position that I am now advocating here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/baptism-re-baptism-church-membership-34473/

In that thread you ably defend the very same position I am now advocating when you say:

Ken, I loathe the word re-baptize in the context you used. You are either scripturally baptized (by mode and administration) or you are not. If you are not baptized by an ordained minister of the gospel via immersion you are not scriptural baptized. Therefore, you need to be scripturally baptized for the first time. Not only will this result in a scriptural baptism but it will also maintain the continuity of the ordinance and protect it from abuse. Compromise in one aspect of baptism will eventually lead to more compromise. This is why I am pleased the elders in John Piper's church opposed his recommendation.

and when you say:

Todd, not trying to dodge the tough question here. RB's consider an infant baptism to be invalid. We belive in baptism upon a credible profession of faith. Therefore we would require a new member to be baptized in a valid manner. We do not consider this re-baptism but baptism being properly administered the first time. This is pretty standard practice for all Baptists, not just RB's.

 

[Herald]

Pergy, I do not consider an infant baptism to be a valid baptism because it is administered to an unworthy recipient. That is far different than the sign being applied upon a credible profession of faith.

Sent using my most excellent Android device.

 

[Peairtach]

An attempted summary:

So, it appears that most would agree that a baptized child would NOT be more likely to be saved over a non-baptized child, if both were raised in Christian homes.

I don't think we can know enough of how the Spirit uses baptism.

My position is that the Spirit can use baptism to the ultimate salvation of children in both RB and Presbyterian households. Obviously in RB households that would mean that the child only saw baptisms of others, and there would be a slightly different story about the Covenant and Baptism to the child from the parents and pastors in the pulpit.

Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.(Deut 10:16)

If it was worthwhile of Moses to remind the unconverted Israelites of the meaning of circumcision, it is worthwhile reminding unconverted covenant children in Presbyterian and RB churches of the meaning of baptism, although there will be a slightly different story, but not a fundamentally different Gospel.

Therefore we should do baptism the biblical way, as we are persuaded what is biblical and encourage the improvement of baptism by believers and unbelievers - although we are not infallible on who they are.

But there are numerous other variables anyway. E.g. Hypothetically a child can be baptised and yet never have his/her baptism taught to him/her.

All talk of "chance" and "likelihood" is ridiculous on a Calvinistic MB. Doing baptism the right way may be important for a number of reasons, but at the end of the day we follow what we believe God has commanded us on this.

 

[Herald]

A brother I greatly respect told me why he doesn't participate in the baptism threads. He said they are a "time sink". For the purpose of this thread I agree.

Pergy, mull over what I've said and see if you can make sense of it. I just can't keep restating the same things in different ways.

Sent using my most excellent Android device.

 

[Pergamum]

A brother I greatly respect told me why he doesn't participate in the baptism threads. He said they are a "time sink". For the purpose of this thread I agree.

Pergy, mull over what I've said and see if you can make sense of it. I just can't keep restating the same things in different ways.

Sent using my most excellent Android device.

Yes, brother, I understand what you are saying. We seem to believe the very same thing, but we seem to apply these beliefs differently when it comes to an adult, already-baptised person that is CONVINCED of his previous unbelief (and convinced that he was not merely backslidden but actually a false professor).

But no matter. Thanks for your interaction. I think I am done on this thread too.


Thank you to all the paedos that participated. I like to banter, but I have learned more about how you reason and the reasons for baptizing infants.

An admission: there does seem to be a promise to the children of believers that they, too, will believe. If paedobaptists baptize on the basis of that promise as well as their perceived obedience to the command, than I can certainly sympathize and understand their reasoning.

An attempted summary:

So, it appears that most would agree that a baptized child would NOT be more likely to be saved over a non-baptized child, if both were raised in Christian homes.

Baptism is a means of grace but only to the one possessing faith and thus faith is of prime importance.

It appears that Paedobaptists baptize their infants out of their perceived obedience and not to gain any advantage to the child (except for the advantage of committing themselves and the church to raise the child in a godly way.

Paedo baptists have an expectation that their children will believe, and this expectation is a valid one since the general rule of the proverbs and other Scriptures is that if we raise our children in the right way, they will not depart from it.

---------- Post added at 01:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:46 PM ----------

An attempted summary:

So, it appears that most would agree that a baptized child would NOT be more likely to be saved over a non-baptized child, if both were raised in Christian homes.

I don't think we can know enough of how the Spirit uses baptism.

My position is that the Spirit can use baptism to the ultimate salvation of children in both RB and Presbyterian households. Obviously in RB households that would mean that the child only saw baptisms of others, and there would be a slightly different story about the Covenant and Baptism to the child from the parents and pastors in the pulpit.

Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.(Deut 10:16)

If it was worthwhile of Moses to remind the unconverted Israelites of the meaning of circumcision, it is worthwhile reminding unconverted covenant children in Presbyterian and RB churches of the meaning of baptism, although there will be a slightly different story, but not a fundamentally different Gospel.

Therefore we should do baptism the biblical way, as we are persuaded what is biblical and encourage the improvement of baptism by believers and unbelievers - although we are not infallible on who they are.

But there are numerous other variables anyway. E.g. Hypothetically a child can be baptised and yet never have his/her baptism taught to him/her.

All talk of "chance" and "likelihood" is ridiculous on a Calvinistic MB. Doing baptism the right way may be important for a number of reasons, but at the end of the day we follow what we believe God has commanded us on this.

Most paedos above denied that baptism does anything apart from faith.

My position is that the Spirit can use baptism to the ultimate salvation of children in both RB and Presbyterian households

I find this a troubling statement. Do other paedos agree with this?


Finally, about "likelihood": Do you believe that the children of believers are more likely to believe than the children of pagans? This appears to be so from the proverbs. We should expect that God will save the children of believers in large numbers.

 

[Peairtach]

I find this a troubling statement. Do other paedos agree with this?

I couldn't speak for other paedos. The Spirit of God uses the Word to work on unbelievers, but ultimately they won't have saving faith unless He works on them irresistably. So the Spirit of God can use the Word along with the sacraments (another type of Word) on unbelievers, but at the end of the day unless He works irresistibly there will be no saving faith.

Sacraments must also be accompanied by the Word to be of any benefit/application to the saved or unsaved, and to engender saving faith there must be the sovereign irresistible grace of God the Holy Spirit.

There's nothing automatic about preaching the Gospel, administering the sacraments, praying for unbelievers, etc. It's not a slot machine or talisman. We are reliant on the sovereign mercy of God, and at the same time we are responsible to raise our children to the best of our ability by God's grace.

Moses believed it was worthwhile reminding unbelieving Israelites of their sacrament of circumcision and its meaning, and it would be the same Spirit of God that would have blessed that to the Israelites if any of them believed, so I don't see how it can be denied that unbelievers shouldn't be reminded of (their, if they are in a Presbyterian church) baptism and its meaning, and that this can't be blessed to them along with the Word.

Finally, about "likelihood": Do you believe that the children of believers are more likely to believe than the children of pagans? This appears to be so from the proverbs. We should expect that God will save the children of believers in large numbers.

Yes. Although I can't give any easy answers about the human and proximate reasons why one believes and another doesn't.

See the examples here of good parenting not leading to salvation, on this link ("Covenant Succesion") from a post above:

Quote from Richard Tallach

On the other hand others, such as this man, Jeff Meyers, about whom I know little, have rightly pointed out that people like Rayburn may be overstating their case:

Covenant Succession

Along with the good points that Myers makes, it is also the case that Jesus had four younger brothers and at least two sisters (Mark 6:3). So these siblings of Jesus' were growing up in Mary and Josephs' godly household, with a sinless elder brother. But we only read of two of them believing (Yehudah and Ya'acov) and that only at the time of the resurrection.

Probably would merit another thread.

 

[Herald]

BTW I think my concept of that is that the HS does not actually "seal" until baptism is understood by true faith

JP, food for thought:

Ephesians 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-- having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, (emphasis mine)

Peace, brother.