Infant Faith Revisited

[BaptistCanuk]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
It looks as if Christ disagrees with you.

Scripture says that babies can't believe? Please enlighten me.

[Edited on 5-1-2006 by Scott Bushey]

If Christ disagreed with me don't you think He would have specified that babies can believe? I don't see that anywhere, even in the verse that you gave me. I would imagine He saves them because of His own grace and mercy. If He didn't, then He'd have no choice but to cast them to hell because I find nowhere in Scripture where it says babies have faith. For me to believe that to be the case would require me to misinterpret Scripture and that is sin of the highest order.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Brian,
I am going to split the thread. I want you to look at the material I sent you, the passages I am providing here and as well, please provide me with biblical support that babies cannot believe.

Here's another paper by Dr. Nigel Lee on infant faith/belief before baptism:

http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs7/bbbb/index.html

Luke 1:15 on John the Baptist: "For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb."

Theodore Beza, "œIt cannot be the case that those who have been sanctified by birth and have been separated from the children of unbelievers, do not have the seed or germ of faith." (Confessio Chrsitanae Fidei, Book 4, Page 48

Francis Turretin, "œThe orthodox occupy the middle ground between Anabaptism and the Lutherans. They deny actual faith to infants against the Lutherans and maintain a seminal or radical and habitual faith is to be ascribed to them against the Anabaptists. Here it is to be remarked before all things: that we do not speak of the infants of any parents whomsoever (even of infidels and heathen), but only of believers, or Christians and the covenanted. (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Volume 2, Page 583.)

Italian Reformer Dr. Jerome Zanchius (Professor of Old Testament at Strassburg) "The precondition of receiving baptism, is that the baptizees have been gifted with the Spirit of faith...." Jerome Zanchius: Theological Works on External Worship IV c. 440. Cited in Kramer's op. cit. pp. 277f.

Caspar vander Heyden

"Seed rests for a time in the earth, and takes root before one sees from its fruit that it has germinated.... The root of understanding and of reason has been poured into all children, as soon as they receive life.... God has planted a seed and a root of regeneration in the children of the covenant.... In time, the fruits of the Spirit germinate from it. For he who has been baptized with Christ in His death, also grows from Him, like a tender shoot on a vine....
Caspar vander Heyden, Short and Clear Proofs of Holy Baptism, (Moderator of the great Dutch Reformed Synods of Emden in 1571 and Dordrecht in 1574)

Polyander
"We do, with the Scripture, pre-require faith and repentance in all that are to be baptized, at least according to the judgment of charity.... And that -- also in infants that are within the covenant, in whom...we affirm that there is the seed and Spirit of faith and repentance." Polyander and Others: Synopsis of Purer Theology, 1581, Disp. 44c & 47 v. 9. Cited in H. Heppe's Reformed Dogmatics, Baker, 1950 rep., p. 609.

Francis Junius
Junius stated, "faith in its first action...is required.... For it is inseparable from the person covenanted or to be baptized.... It is an error to maintain absolutely that children cannot believe. For they have the beginning of possessing faith, because they possess the Spirit of faith (Spiritum fidei)...." Francis Junius' Theological Theses on Paedobaptism, page 139.

Lucas Trelcatius Senior (1587) (Professor of Reformed Theology at Leyden) "œinfants have the seed of faith" -- 'fidem habent infantes in sementi.'"¦"the child of believing parents is sanctified, although not producing the fruits of conversion." Junius: op. cit. II c. 287, and his Nature and Grace, pp. 83ff (as cited in Warfield's Two Stud. p. 203). Cf. too his On Paedobaptism 7 & 26.

William Bucanus (1609)
"œIt is not to be denied that the seed even of faith is poured into elect infants."

R. Puppius's Proof of Infant Baptism (1611).
As Calvinists, "our first position against the Lutherans who teach that baptism produces an active faith, is that tiny little children do not have an active faith...."Our second position, against the Anabaptists, is that the tiny little children are implanted with a seed of faith from which the later act of faith is born." In actual fact, however, "infants of believers have some seed of faith. At a more mature age, it goes forth to act. It accedes outwardly by human initiation, but inwardly by the Holy Spirit -- with a greater effect."

Andre Rivetus (French Reformed theologian, 1581) Professor at Leyden in 1620. Covenant children have "the beginnings of possessing...the seed of faith.... For as the Kingdom of heaven belongs to them, so too does the Spirit of faith (Matthew 19:14)....
A. Rivetus: Disputes 13, para. 13, p. 306; Synopsis of Purer Theology, III p. 305a, in Summa cont. tract.

Dr. William Ames
"Regeneration is a part of the promises, and applies to the children of the believers in a special way.... People are baptized because they are regarded as children of God, and not so that they should begin to become sons. Otherwise, there would be no reason not to baptize the children of unbelievers as well as children of believers."
William Ames: Bellarmine Unnerved, II:1 p. 337.

Dr. Voetius (Professor of Theology, Utrecht)
"Covenant Infants, "are entitled to baptism: not because they are 'regarded' as members of the covenant, but because as a rule they actually already 'possess' the first grace. And for this reason, and this reason alone, it (the Formula) reads 'that our children...have been sanctified in Christ, and therefore ought to be baptized.'"

"From the seed (e semine)..., the actual dispositions and habits are sustained by the ingrafted operation of the Holy Spirit in His Own time.... Just like a seed, the abilities and possession of faith make their appearances by fresh acts of the Holy Spirit in their own time." All born in the covenant, who die before coming to an age of discretion, are believed to partake of heavenly salvation
Voetius, Dutch Reformed Baptismal Formula of 1581, 238), as cited in A. Kuyper Sr.'s The Work of the Holy Spirit, ET, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1941, p. 300. 239) G. Voetius: Theological Disputations (Biblical Preface IV pp. 254f). Cited in Kuyper's E Voto III pp. 57f. 240) Ib. II p. 417.

Dr. Richard Sibbes
"Infants that die in their infancy...are within the covenant.... They have the seed of believing, the Spirit of God, in them.... If when they come to years, they answer not the covenant of grace and the answer of a good conscience..., all is frustrate....we leave infants to the mercy of God." Richard Sibbes: Works, Banner of Truth, Edinburgh, 1983 ed., VI pp. 22f, & VII pp. 486f.

Dr. Stephen Marshall (Westminster Divine)
"œEver since God gathered a...select number out of the world to be His kingdom..., He would have the infants of all who are taken into covenant with Him to be accounted His -- to belong to Him...and not to the devils.... "Being only passive in them all..., of this first grace is the sacrament of baptism properly a seal.... Who ever will deny that infants are capable of these things, as well as grown men "“ must deny that any infants dying in their infancy are saved by Christ."
Stephen Marshall: A Sermon on the Baptizing of Infants, Coates, Bowtell, London, 1644, pp. 14, 25f, 32, 26f, 39, 41f, 45f & 51f.

Rev. Samuel Rutherford
"Who they are, who are to be baptized -- it is presumed they give some professed consent to the call.... What ground is there to exclude sucking children? For...there is no Name under heaven by which men may be saved, but by the Name of Jesus...."Since Christ prayed for infants and blessed them -- which is a praying for them -- He must own them as 'blessed' in Christ in Whom all the nations of the earth are blessed.... It is false that the promise is made only to the aged... It is made to their children.... For the way of their believing -- we leave it to the Lord."
Samuel Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, Anderson, Edinburgh, 1655, I, chs. 13-14, pp. 72-91f; cf. too his Triumphof Faith (in his Sermons VIII).315) Id., cited in Coleborn's op. cit. pp. 21f.

Dr. Thomas Manton
"Of those children, dying in infancy, I assert that they have...the seed of faith...in the covenant.... It must be so.... Socinians...count the faith of infants a thing so impossible, that they say it is a greater dotage than the dream of a man in a fever....So those expressions of trusting God from the mother's womb. David speaks it of his own person, as a type of Christ. Psalm 22:9, 'Thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts'.... Job saith, chapter 31:18, 'from my youth, he was brought up with me as with a father; and I have guided her, from my mother's womb' -- meaning, he had a...disposition of pity put into him at his nativity. So also -- why may not a principle of faith be put into us in the womb, if God will work it?" "What is the faith which children have?... They have the seed of faith or some principle of grace conveyed into their souls by the hidden operation of the Spirit of God, which gives them an interest in Christ and so a right to His merit for their salvation...." Thomas Manton: Complete Works, Maranatha, Worthington Pa, rep. ed., n.d. (ca. 1975), XIV pp. 81-89 & 205.

Dutch Calvinist Cornelius Poudroyen
Believers' children "have the Holy Spirit and the redemption from sin -- just as the adults do." "First Corinthians 7:14 -- 'Otherwise your children would be unclean; but now, they are holy.'" "œ"¦one cannot be holy, without the Holy Spirit.... Children have faith."

"The root and seed of faith, from which the Holy Spirit ignites and inflames their spiritual zeal when they increase in years.... They have the Spirit of Christ.... Wherever the Spirit of Christ is, there too is faith -- whether an active faith, as in adults; or whether the root and origin of faith, as in small children."
Wendelin of Heidelberg (1656, German Reformed theologian)
Christian System of Theology.
Collation of Christian Doctrine from the Calvinists and the Lutherans

"œThe 'possessed faith' which we attribute to infants, we truly call -- either 'the root' or 'the seed' of faith."
M.F. Wendelin: Christian System of Theology, Cassel, 1656. Cited in Kuyper's On the Sacraments p. 142 (in his Dog. Dict. IV). Also Wendelin's Collation of Christian Doctrine from the Calvinists and the Lutherans, Cassel, 1660, p. 352. See in Heppe's op. cit. pp. 624 & 714.

Dr. Herman Witsius
"There can hardly be any doubt that the statement regarding the regeneration of the children before baptism, according to the judgment of love, is the accepted view of the Dutch Church. In her Baptismal Formula, this question is put to parents who offer their children in baptism: 'Do you acknowledge that they are sanctified in Christ, and should be baptized as members of His congregation?' "Now this strengthens the views of those who place the initial regeneration of elect covenant children before baptism. So, I acknowledge I submit to this."

Dr. Francis Turretin
Covenant "children are just as much to be baptized as adults"¦the faith of covenant infants...consists of an initial action in them." That infant faith is "in root, not in fruit." It is characterized "by an internal action of the Spirit, not by an external demonstration in works."
Francis Turretin: Theological Elencthics p. 427.

Dr. Peter á Mastricht (Professor of Theology at Utrecht)
Children of the covenant should be baptized "because they partake of the benefits of the covenant of grace, of regeneration, and of the forgiveness of sin.... We are ordered in Holy Scripture to baptize as many as have received the Holy Spirit.... According to that Holy Scripture "“ Luke 1:15 & Jeremiah 1:5 -- tiny children receive the Holy Spirit."
Peter Van Mastricht: Theoretical-Practical Theology, Amsterdam, 1725, III p. 617. Cited in Kuyper's E Voto III p. 58.


http://public.csusm.edu/guests/rsclark/administration.html

Here's a thread on the topic:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=16513#pid249759

[Edited on 5-1-2006 by Scott Bushey]

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Scott, I'm looking all of this over and taking my time. I do have one thing to comment on right away though. Wouldn't the fact that the Bible had to mention John the Baptist having the Holy Spirit in the womb suggest that he was an exception? How many others in Scripture does it say that about? And even him having the Holy Spirit doesn't mean he had faith.

I don't see how a baby can have faith. And with all due respect shouldn't others have to scripturally prove that babies do believe? How am I supposed to prove that they don't when it doesn't say so?

Off to read...

 

[Scott Bushey]

Brian,
Why can't John be the norm? Presupositions from the evangelical trend cloud the senses. We are not taught to think in these ways about Gods ordo.

The first thing you need to deal with is can someone be filled with the HS and not have faith. Faith is NOT something that a person conjurs up; it is NOT something that is brought about by mathematics and logic. it is solely a gift from God. I have faith because God gave it to me. As Eph 2:8,9 state:

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;

There are other examples: Samson; a Nazarite from birth:

Jdg 13:5 For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.

David:

Psa 22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.

Jeremiah:

Jer 1:4 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Jer 1:6 Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! behold, I cannot speak: for I am a child.
Jer 1:7 But the LORD said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak.
Jer 1:8 Be not afraid of their faces: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the LORD

 

[Larry Hughes]

Scott,

If I could interject in this discussion with all sobriety something I´ve already posted but reduce its volume some. Because I think the issue of "œinfant faith" is a non-issue concerning baptism.

This is why I´ve said all along that the sign of baptism is FOR faith and not BECAUSE of faith. And I don´t presume them to be or not be regenerate, but that I presume and TRUST on and into the promise of God to be a God to me and my children both to give them the Gospel, regeneration and faith. That "œthe promise is to me and my children and all who are far off to whom the Lord our God shall call." I fully trust that my children WILL be saved, have faith, be regenerate. This may show immediately or it may be later in life, but until I rest in heaven with the Lord I will trust in HIS word of promise to me and that given in baptism as sign to me and my household.

And I think we have to face the serious reality that Reformed folk and Baptist folk do not view believer´s baptism alike fundamentally. Baptist "˜believers baptism´ though similar in many ways is fundamentally not the same as Reformed "˜believers baptism´. There is a deeper difference than just infants here. We can pretend and hedge all we want but we simply do not think nor believe the same here at all.

This is easily proven. The Baptist if pressed will re-baptize an adult/immersed baptized person who thinks or even to some degree proves he/she did not have faith when they where baptized clearly as adults a first time. The answer may be hedged a bit so as to not reveal the reality and make a show of solidarity on the issue with the Reformed by saying we don´t do it flippantly or often and strive to discern, but at length they must admit that they would if the evidence forces them to conclude that an adult immersed as an adult did not possess faith FIRST. Otherwise their whole position is over thrown and then they would not be baptizing infants arbitrarily and with prejudice. But the clear implications of basing it upon faith and/or regeneration must be faced. Likewise a reformed, or Lutheran for that matter, would not re-baptize under the same circumstances. Why, for this shows forth obviously the difference and NOT similarity? Now here we are not analyzing infant baptism but baptism itself, what it fundamentally is and is not. To do this we must stop talking past one another and honestly speak.

Some logic and language 101 and this is unavoidable even in reading Scriptures. When formulating words to stand for a "˜thing´ or "˜thought idea´ we define it by its basic fundamental common elements. That is to say reduced a thing or thought idea to the rudiments of minimum thought elements or real elements that are necessary for a thing or idea to remain that very thing or idea, and what less than or greater than elements changes it entirely though it can retain some of the other elements that are similar. Some call this "œthought comprehensions" or a similar term. A single thought idea or thing will have a strict rudimentary set of comprehensions whereby it is that thing or idea. Reduce or add to the comprehensions and one may have a similar thing or thought idea in many ways but is altogether different in sum total. Example: The comprehensions for an animal are: living, bodily, sentient. Take away say "œsentient" and we have a similar "˜thing´ but in sum total is a plant. Add to it "œrational" and we have a similar thing but in sum total a different thing called man. The same goes for "œcause" and "œeffect". Is the ground wet because it rained or did it rain because the ground is wet. This one is obvious but for the point it serves well. Both statements or thought ideas contain exactly the same information but how that information is understood defines two entirely and contrary paradigms. It is one thing to say and base the cause of the ground being wet (its reality, truth, being and validity) due to the rain, quite another to say and base the cause of the rain (its reality, truth, being and validity) due to the ground being wet. Now with that being set forth we may at least look at the two views without emotion and affection but serious analysis of the positions.

The same is with baptism. If baptism (we will call for short hand C-baptism) must necessarily find its reality, truth, being and validity upon the existence or pre-existence of "œfaith" (even truly God given faith which is not the Gospel), which is the receiving vessel of the Gospel; then that "˜idea´ of baptism is entirely different than a baptism (we will call for short hand P-baptism) that finds its reality, truth, being and validity based upon the Word of God or promise of God or Gospel or Good News of God to justify sinners by Christ´s cross and resurrection alone. C-baptism manifestly and openly requires faith to pre-exist and is thus grounded, otherwise to use Baptistic language, "œit is not a real baptism". No baptist denies this. To do so over-throws their whole paradigm and again to not baptize infants by denying this for the sake of winning an argument (the basis of faith) is to not have believer´s children baptized with prejudice. Thus, it must be affirmed as the definition or else one´s doctrine is arbitrary and changes with the wind in order to not loose an argument.

Though the definitions contain similar elements, like our rain example, their order and understanding and emphasis define two sum totally different ideas. It is true that P-baptism includes faith and regeneration in parts of its definition but that faith is not its founding basis. It is true that C-baptism places the idea of Gospel in its definition but that is not its found basis. The later might be rejected by Baptist as it can sound harsh but to reject it is to reject the very foundation C-baptism claims is its basis and we are back to arbitrarily not baptizing infants. If one says baptism is based on the Gospel (recall the cause/effect concept) then one has no reason for rejecting a baptism by re-baptism if the subject, even an adult, did not first possess faith when their first baptism occurred. To require re-baptism at any point because of the lack of the existence of faith or regeneration is to necessarily base baptism primarily and solely into faith and regeneration, and not the Gospel or for that matter Christ and Him crucified.

This is why in baptistic circles re-baptism occurs and it is said that a baptism before faith is "œno baptism at all". "œNo baptism at all or not baptism" is another way of saying baptism didn´t exist or transpire. When it is argued by Baptist that "œwe don´t "˜re-baptize´", what is being said is true from that paradigm, they are being consistent with their basis for baptisms reality being or coming into being if you will. For if baptism took place sans faith/rebirth, then it was not baptism according to the fundamental of that paradigm, thus "œre-baptism" is incorrect but and rather it is called by Baptist the first and only baptism. Under the paradigm it is accurate, but the paradigm cannot be later denied when its implications come out, unless one rejects it altogether. And this reinforces the concrete and inescapable fact that C-baptism find its reality, truth, being and validity upon those very things; namely faith (the receptacle of the Gospel and/or regeneration which comes by the Gospel but is itself NOT the Gospel of Jesus Christ).

Now P-baptism does not root itself in faith or regeneration, rather finds its reality, truth, being and validity in the Gospel of Jesus Christ directly immediately itself, the promise of God (thus Peter says in Acts 2, "œFor the promise"¦etc"¦). It bears direct witness to the Good News of Jesus Christ, the Gospel, and not to faith the receptacle. Yes, it does have the elements of faith and regeneration pictured in it, but it´s a matter of the order and basis not whether or not they are there or not. I can build a car with all the elements and parts of a car, but if I order them wrong all I have is a dysfunctional hunk of metal containing the same exact elements of a functioning car. I can say, "œSee I have a car too, it has a steering wheel, engine and etc"¦see we both have cars". But my folly is shown when it doesn´t run at all but sits in a heap.

This is why Baptist and Reformed do not at length even understand "œbeliever´s baptism" of adults, mode aside, the same. In short "œbelievers baptism" doesn´t come into being for the Baptist unless faith precedes it but yet it does come into being for the reformed regardless of the recipients possession of actual faith or regeneration.

It could come down to this simple analogy: If Bill Gates wrote you a check for 1 million dollars, would it be good because you believe him/it and not be good if you did not believe him/it. Or is the check good in spite of your trust or lack thereof? You could not believe in it one year upon receiving it, then in ten years believe and cash it, the check gives what it signifies irrespective of your faith. This would be the reformed understanding of this situation. Thus, checks are given to professing adults and their children and checks are never re-written as if the first was fraudulent or false from the giver, Bill Gates in this analogy.

The Baptist, applying this analogy, would say the check is not true or valid unless the recipient believes it. So that a check given to an unbelieving recipient is not a check at all and is empty. They refuse to see the negative side of the check (or baptism) for those rejecting it, just like there is a negative side in rejecting the Gospel that is greater than those who never hear it.

In their minds the thing signified is only really real and really given when it is really received. In reformed circles the thing is really real and really given EVEN when it is NOT really received. That is the fundamental difference.

Here the Baptist refuses to understand the Reformed understanding of baptism and always directly relates it to Rome´s and goes back there and argues the issue of possession of faith and regeneration. The hidden things! Thus, in order to react against Rome´s tremendous error the baptist over reacts and empties baptism of Christ/Gospel by defining it upon the receptacle of faith. Both Calvin and Luther saw this between Rome and the Anabaptist. The error ended up being the same, that one to one relationship between baptism and actual faith, the sign and the thing signified. The Reformed do not have a one to one relationship with baptism. In Reformed circles a complete hypocrite can be baptized and the baptism is real regardless of the hypocrite, Lutheran´s though different than Reformed are the same here. The Baptist, and no Baptist would disagree, would say that a hypocrite that was "œbaptized" really didn´t receive baptism though a ceremony actually took place that outwardly acted and appeared as "œbaptism".

Now what I´ve said here I don´t mean to be polemic. I´ve endeavored to just state the facts as baldly as I can. And the definitions I´ve given would not be denied by either side without hypocrisy. I cannot help what they lead to. It is my attempt, as a poor instrument that I am with all the sins and flaws of a great sinner to open up the purity of the Gospel for all involved, not obscure it.

In Christ´s Love,

Larry H.

PS: Scott I'm going to read your posts above as well, thanks.

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Ok I read through this offline. Larry, I still am not completely understanding you. You could believe that it is because I'm Baptist but even when I was baptized in a pentecostal church I believed that we are baptized because OF faith and not FOR faith. I was taught (and believe) that if you didn't already have faith when you were baptized then you got nothing but wet.

[Edited on 5-2-2006 by BaptistCanuk]

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Brian,
Why can't John be the norm? Presupositions from the evangelical trend cloud the senses. We are not taught to think in these ways about Gods ordo.

Scott, maybe John can be the norm. It would just be a huge stretch from what I've been taught for me to believe that.

The first thing you need to deal with is can someone be filled with the HS and not have faith. Faith is NOT something that a person conjurs up; it is NOT something that is brought about by mathematics and logic. it is solely a gift from God. I have faith because God gave it to me.

True, I am aware that faith is a gift from God. This is something that could take some time for me to work out because it is so different from what I have been taught. It could be true, as God is able to give faith to those who are "mentally challenged", etc. so it wouldn't be impossible for Him to give it to a baby. I still believe baptism should be held off until the child grows older and can demonstrate and articulate that he/she does indeed have faith.

As Eph 2:8,9 state:

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;

There are other examples: Samson; a Nazarite from birth:

Jdg 13:5 For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.

David:

Psa 22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.

Jeremiah:

Jer 1:4 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Jer 1:6 Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! behold, I cannot speak: for I am a child.
Jer 1:7 But the LORD said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak.
Jer 1:8 Be not afraid of their faces: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the LORD

Fine examples, thank you. Heavy stuff...I'm definitely moving beyond "Jesus loves me, this I know...".

 

[Larry Hughes]

Brian,

It is an ontological type of argument. The question there is what is the basis or foundation upon which baptism IS and IS REAL, the promise of God or the recepticle of that promise, namely faith. Please don't take it polemical that's not my intent, just an honest discussion that's all. I'm not discussing anything here that I myself have/did not go through both as a baptist and up to this very day. I'm not point fingers AT people but trying to as much as possible honestly analyze the ideas as neutral as one can. The language should not be taken as affections but as factors in the equations to see how the equations function and what they mean. It helps to kind of put on a mathematical hat because mathematics don't engender the emotions, at least for normal folks. Maybe this, below, for Scott may help.

Your brother - Larry

Scott,

I don´t think you and I are in disagreement. Perhaps "œtalking" past each other.

I was arguing what baptism is based upon, its ontology if you will and that being the promise of God not the faith of man that receives that promise. That firms up baptism as not really based upon faith but points me to Christ in the Baptism for baptism does not cause faith but does indeed strengthen it, and it cannot strengthen faith if it is itself based in faith, the very thing needing strengthening.

It seems, and I´ll stand for correction if I´m wrong, that from the point of view of the parent that the believer should fully trust that the children do possess faith and regeneration itself and hence give them baptism. But that doesn´t necessitate that baptism finds its being on that same faith. Hence the warning for charity to not baptize those without faith. They are baptized (the action of baptism) upon the presumption of having faith already by the covenant (against the Lutheran position), but yet that baptism so given is not itself defined or based upon that same faith (against the Baptist position) but God´s promise. This is why the Reformed trust in the faith and regeneration of their children but yet do not "œre-baptize" anyone, not even an adult baptizee that did not possess faith but later truly comes to faith. The baptist mingle this distinction and say until faith is possessed by infants, for they don´t believe believer´s children to possess it per se, they cannot be baptized (because again they base baptism upon THAT faith that they don´t believe infants of believers have).

To WHOM baptism is given does not necessitate why baptism IS.

I think the positions can be summed up:

Rome: Baptism IS a work in itself that saves, Baptism is the work itself to save so it is given. Baptism on the personal level reduces to a naked work.
Baptist: Baptism IS obedience to faith, it is a work proving faith and so it is given. Baptism on the personal level reduces to a work proving faith.
Lutheran: Baptism IS the Gospel, Baptism is the package of this Gospel so it is given FOR faith. Baptism on the personal level reduces to Gospel.
Reformed: Baptism IS the Gospel/Promise of God/Covenant of Grace. Baptism is the sign and seal of this covenant believed/trusted into. Baptism on the personal level reduces to Gospel.

The Lutheran and Reformed on the personal level engender faith by their use of sacraments in a similar way, heaven to earth "“ Rome and Baptist are similar in that their views engender a work/law category and the communication concerning the Sacraments is earth to heaven. Ironically the churches function this way. The difference between Lutheran and Reformed, however, is that the former still sees the Sacraments in Aristotelian like Rome and Baptist, that is Greek philosophical and metaphysical categories. While the later, Reformed, fundamentally see the Sacraments in relational categories (i.e. covenantal frame work). With Lutheran´s we see that they are Gospel and against Rome and Baptist we see them not as Law (we never redo them are add other means of grace). But against all three including Lutheran´s we see them relationally not in Greek philosophical/metaphysical categories.

I think that´s a bit more clear to me, those quotes were quite helpful.

--Larry

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Larry, I think I see what you are saying. But just to be clear, you aren't saying that baptism saves us right?

This may go off in a tangent but what is one to do who was baptized as a baby in the RC church, got baptized as an adult in a pentecostal church, fell away for a while and now consider himself a staunch Baptist?

Basically I am driving myself insane wondering if my first baptism was sufficient, or my second one was real, or whether or not I need to be baptized again. I am not in a pretty position. I know you don't believe in re-baptism but what if my first two baptisms weren't real?

[Edited on 5-2-2006 by BaptistCanuk]

 

[wsw201]

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
Larry, I think I see what you are saying. But just to be clear, you aren't saying that baptism saves us right?

This may go off in a tangent but what is one to do who was baptized as a baby in the RC church, got baptized as an adult in a pentecostal church, fell away for a while and now consider himself a staunch Baptist?

Basically I am driving myself insane wondering if my first baptism was sufficient, or my second one was real, or whether or not I need to be baptized again. I am not in a pretty position. I know you don't believe in re-baptism but what if my first two baptisms weren't real?

[Edited on 5-2-2006 by BaptistCanuk]

What makes a baptism "not real"?

For what it's worth, I would recommend that you talk to your pastor at your church about this issue.

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Hey Wayne, what I meant by not real was a "baptism" without the necessary faith in conjunction with it. Maybe I thought I had faith when I was baptized as an adult and I didn't. That was back when I believed the "sinner's prayer" thing (which I said a million times...a week). Yes, I should talk to my pastor. Thank you.

 

[Larry Hughes]

Bian,

I would give the same advice as Wayne. I do not want to supplant your pastor, I'm just discussing the issue. One layman to another. That's all.

For what its worth I went through the whole rebaptism issue and I understand your struggle, though mine was purely from an adult/immersion issue. So, mine was simpler, it became a simple question of the issue of when.

I can only with all honesty point you to Christ in your first baptism. This is what I myself learned. Your first baptism is the real one, your baptism is to help your faith, it is "to you". Whether you converted before or after is where the terror sets in and baptism is made a law. And you know exactly what I'm talking about in that it is a law to you right now, because that is why your tearing your hair out, driving yourself crazy. I know brother, I've been there! Truly.

My wife had 4, I gave her the same explanation. Remember that faith is ALWAYS looking upon Christ and Him crucified, never itself. That's the very terror your in, correct? Is my faith real, was it real at X time, if not was my baptism real, thus should I get rebaptized and if I don't is that not a sign of disobedience whereby I prove that I don't really have faith - after all if I have faith I'll be re-baptized (or baptized for the first time). Do you see the Law and works righteousness and heavy heavy heavy burden that is being laid upon you? Of course you do because you are the one feeling it right now, just like I did, and baptism becomes not a strength for your faith that is weak but a terror to it.

But what happens the next time you fail in sin, as we all do and will and the devil re-accuses you, "see you don't have faith how could you do x, y, and z". And again you doubt your baptism/timing? See how the devil and flesh work by piling up that burden upon you and taking the Gospel in baptism away from and in its place give you a law and a burden you cannot carry...to the terror and anxiety of your soul! See how that "law" is pointing you inward TO yourself and NOT outward unto Christ and HIM crucified, all by the issue of 'did I have faith', 'my ever present sin', and 'did I get baptism timed correctly'.

This is were the rubber meets the mat and doctrine is more than just getting ducks lined up for a theology exam!

You should rest in Christ alone, look to the bronze snake which typified Christ on the cross and Him alone...and that very looking, even ever so weak IS FAITH. And your first baptism was God's baptism TO YOU. The sacraments come individually TO YOU and TO ME so that we might know the Gospel, the Good unconditional NEWS of Christ is not just generically broadcast to an unnamable mass, but that it has COME to YOU, FOR YOU. It is exactly Good News when it is FOR YOU. And the sacraments are for this very reason for the individual takes them and is corporately swept up into the body of Christ.

Sorry for the length but you plight reminded me of myself so much.

In Christ's Sufficiency Alone Your Brother,

Larry

[Edited on 5-2-2006 by Larry Hughes]

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Thanks Larry, no problem. I will talk to him. God bless.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Larry,
I would agree that we are not that far apart on our understanding. The differences may rest in what I know historically in regards to the sign and why it was placed. Did you read Nigel Lee's paper I provided? It is very clear and historically sound. As well, there is a myriad of other information on his site dealing with some of the other things that have sprung up over the years.

Brian,
In regards to your baptism. The reformed idea is to perfect your baptism, make it better, more sound. Shine it up! Here is a peper from Lee on the validity of Roman Catholic baptisms:

http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs3/cotvorcb/cotvorcb.html

http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs6/acts19/acts19.html

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Exactly Larry! You know what you are talking about. Thank you very much brother. I will remember to put my focus on Christ and not upon myself.

Thank you Scott. I'm reading those now.