Baptism: Man speaking to God or God to Man?

[TheThirdandReformedAdam]

So I'm trying to solidify my own thinking concerning paedobaptism and I was wondering: Is it fair to say that credos view baptism as more of a statement from man to God (i.e. a profession of faith) rather than a statement of God to man of the blessings that are available through faith? This impression came upon me as I thought about how Paul deals with the circumcision of Abraham and its relationship to the Jews. Namely, the sign was able to be applied to infants precisely because the sign was a message from God, not a message from man (if its primary purpose was for man to speak to God, then we have a different story). It seems that the burden of proof would be on the credo to explain how the New Covenant sign shifts in its ultimate significance as a God-message to a Man-message. Am I off-base here?

 

[arapahoepark]

As a credo who flirted woth paedo for awhile, I can say paedos view it as a sign from God to man. Its a covenant sign that I will be a God to you and your offspring.

 

[greenbaggins]

I think you are correct that most credos believe that baptism is a man message. However, not all credos believe that it is a profession of faith. I think Rick Barcellos, in his book on the means of grace, argues that both sacraments are a means of grace, in which case it automatically becomes something that God gives to us, and Barcellos is a credo-baptist. So I don't think you can necessarily make a hard and fast line between credos and paedos on this particular issue, although I don't know of any paedos who believe that baptism is a profession of faith. Most connect it with a profession as a result or incidental to the primary message of God speaking to us.