Romans 6:3 and Infant Union with Christ

[SlaveofChrist]

Romans 6:3 "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?" How would you answer a credobaptist who observes that Paul assumed that all who were baptized in Rome were said to have union with Christ? How could an infant without the ability to exercise faith be said to have union with Christ?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

With respect to the adults in Rome, Paul's judgment is charitable. He doesn't speak infallibly here, or inerrantly, with regard to those about whom he speaks, if one takes his words as if he addresses the professing church as a whole and makes reference to both sign and significance. We believe that the sign and the reality belong together; albeit they are not always found together even among adults. And the order of events does not disturb us--we do not rebaptize in order to achieve such a thing. So, let alone the issue of infant-baptism for a minute; and the "problem" (as described) doesn't disappear, but it remains.

You may also read the words as referring not to baptism with water at all, but to the baptism of the Spirit of which water baptism is a kind of sign or witness. In which case, "as many of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus," refers to our (true believers) actual union with Christ (and not to symbolic baptism), and Paul's explicit referents are plainly ONLY those who have that union in fact.

And, is it possible for an infant (any possible infant, not a particular infant) to have union with Christ? There are at least extraordinary cases in the Bible (John the Baptist, famously) where infants believe in utero. I would argue that David expresses a case not-extraordinary (Ps.22:9). But, regardless it is possible, if only for any elect infant dying in infancy to be saved; and salvation always includes union with Christ. The "ability to exercise saving faith" is not principally an intellectual exercise, but a spiritual endowment; which has intellectual expression in those who attain maturity. It is bestowed in God's timing, and by his chosen means (ordinary or extraordinary), and is effectual by grace.

 

[SlaveofChrist]

Thank you for the reply. So if I understand you correctly, the tension is relieved when we realize that a paedobaptist has the right to make the same charitable judgment with infants as a credobaptist would make only with adults. We can speak of a baptized infant as having union with Christ and wait for evidences to follow in their life as they mature?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

That's one way, perhaps not the best way. For my part, I would make a more cautious statement about anyone, grown or infant with respect to Rom.6:3.

You have the relative pronoun, "whoever." Whoever-of-us was baptized into Christ--not whomsoever was baptized with water and thereby publicly and signally identified as someone united to Christ. No, this class: any of us who have in fact the spiritual benefit of union with Christ. This benefit is being described using the language of baptism (of the Spirit). The subjects are actual recipients of divine mercies.

Any conclusion about what water baptism signifies or actually does is secondary to the purpose of Paul in this passage. There isn't any water in the text. Can you legitimately connect water to this text, as to most discussions of baptism? Sure, just don't talk as if Paul aims to describe any group of folk baptized by the church.

The Baptist brother probably doesn't believe that Paul ever meant to say: if baptized with water, then united spiritually to Christ. There are some people who might say something like that, Church of Christ folk maybe. But since the Baptist doesn't mean that, why does he think that a Presbyterian would?

The Baptist places a huge emphasis on the intent of the person being baptized. If the intent is false, then the work of getting wet is basically meaningless. Proper spiritual intent must precede the event, not even simple sincerity (so far as the person knows his own heart) is enough. Because if he comes to think he was so deluded and misguided when he sought baptism the first time, he concludes he could not have been legitimately baptized.

That is the lens through which the Baptist brother reads Rom.6:3. And I don't think you, as a Presbyterian, need to feel the weight of his obligation. Our aim is to conform the visible and the invisible facts, regardless of the "order" of events. Is this infant already united to Christ, sometime (re. timing) close to his baptism? I don't know that, I can't know it, I don't worry about that in the slightest.

If I meet a grown professor of the Christian faith, I don't judge his spiritual condition by his baptism, recent or long since. I urge him to make his calling and election sure, and to live the life of someone who supposedly is united to Christ. "Look man (or lad), you've been baptized (in water), so consider that serious fact and the spiritual connection it was designed to witness. Believe and walk like you mean conformity to that sign."

 

[Colin]

How does the Orthodox Presbyterian Church view credobaptism?

"John Calvin, Martin Luther and the Magisterial Reformers would all dissent loudly at Baptists accusing them of error." (Kevin J. Bidwell, https://tinyurl.com/y9q4xh9z

"Therefore, a correct doctrine of the sacraments is essential for the life, purity and health of the church. A right understanding of the sacraments, including baptism, cannot be supposed to be a secondary and non-essential topic for the church of Jesus Christ." Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1

My question in no way is meant to be polemic.
Thank you for your time

 

[Contra_Mundum]

What do you mean by the question? That is, on the one hand the OPC (and sister churches) believes that new converts should be baptized upon their profession of faith. In that sense, so far our habit mirrors the Baptist's; we believe in credobaptism.

But, on the other hand, the credobaptist (or the antipaedobaptist) does not on principle baptize the infants of professing Christians (baptized members). So, perhaps you mean what does the OPC believe concerning the principles of credobaptism considered as a system that exclusively baptizes those making profession. I do suppose this is your primary intention.

Confessionally (WCF 28:5), we consider all despite or negligence, with respect to the proper conduct of the sacrament, as sin. So, whether one fails to procure of himself baptism, or for his infant where appropriate--both are wrong. But there are degrees of failure to follow the will of God; and we understand that not all men have an properly informed conscience in these matters.

Baptist churches may be true churches, albeit with an irregular practice as to conducting baptisms. And, the typical insistence by the Baptist on the particular mode (full body immersion) is also rather sectarian to us (WCF 28:3). Baptists that are baptized are thought by us to be baptized. This may not be reciprocated, inasmuch as many in our churches were baptized as infants (and not later on) and were sprinkled/poured, not dunked.

It is important to recognize the distinctions between the Anabaptist radicals of the Reformation period, and descendants of English (primarily) Baptist tradition. There are connections and affinities; however those of English heritage were at pains to connect themselves with the Protestant stream, only with certain reservations departing. On the other hand, most of the early continental Anabaptist--against whom Luther and Calvin and many others inveighed--were kooks.

This is not a defense of the most extreme measures taken against certain of their leaders, or their mobs; but some recognition of their extreme actions and doctrines should also be noted, when considering how firmly they were opposed by the magisterial reformers. So, one must take contemporary history into account, when quoting Luther & Calvin etc. regarding those who insisted on anabaptism. One must turn to contemporaries of the later English Baptists, and there the criticism of their sectarian impulses is measured against their far less radical commitments.

 

[Colin]

"What do you mean by the question?"
Thank you Rev. Bruce, I do appreciate your candor and time.
I believe you have answered my initial question. I do respectfully take exception to the last 30 words.
"Confessionally (WCF 28:5), we consider all despite or negligence, with respect to the proper conduct of the sacrament, as sin. So, whether one fails to procure of himself baptism, or for his infant where appropriate--both are wrong. But there are degrees of failure to follow the will of God; and we understand that not all men have an properly informed conscience in these matters.
Baptist churches may be true churches, albeit with an irregular practice as to conducting baptisms.


Verbum Domini Manet in Aeternum

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Of course. I'm sure your own reply to a similar question could be worded in a substantially similar manner, witnessing your own conviction.

 

[Colin]

...Agreed, If you would help me understand, the distinction between 2 of your quotes: "If I meet a grown professor of the Christian faith, I don't judge his spiritual condition by his baptism, recent or long since." (Thursday at 9:12 AM #4)
"Baptist churches may be true churches, albeit with an irregular practice as to conducting baptisms."

Thank you Rev. Bruce, I appreciate your patience

 

[Contra_Mundum]

One difference is that in one place I'm speaking of an individual Christian, the other of a church. Whatever the place of baptism in his thinking--and I hope he is not putting any stock in ritual for securing his standing with God--I want to know not what has transpired at some place definite or indefinite in the past. Our salvation confidence in the present moment is not to depend on a past profession of faith, but whether at this hour I cling to Christ alone for grace. "The hour I first believed" may be a precious memory, but repentance and faith is a lifestyle. Saints persevere.

A Baptist church may be a true church, just as a Presbyterian church may be a true church. The sine qua non of a true exhibit of the church is the presence of the gospel, the pure preaching of the Word.

Traditionally, the Reformed define the "marks" of the church as 1) the pure preaching of the gospel, 2) the right administration of the sacraments, and 3) church discipline. To answer the question, "Which church should I find and commit to?" one must look for these things. It is not too hard a task, finding some faithful expression of Christ's body, though at times it takes additional effort, or it takes willingness to endure hardship (such as traveling further than one might like) in order to have the blessing.

But sometimes, one is forced to manage in a poorly disciplined church. Or, one may deplore the abuse or misuse of the sacraments; while still being committed to a place that is better than the second best option (on whatever calculus). The gospel is still found there. I will add, that a "church" with some legitimate gospel ministry, but does not have any recognizable sacramental ministry, may be something positive, but it's not a church.

But take away the gospel, and there is nothing of the true church there. A Presbyterian church, where the sacraments appear to me to be formally preserved, and elders keep good moral order, but is gospel-free... is no true church. A Baptist church may be a true church, if the pure gospel is preached there, and provided that some pattern of the sacraments remain. As a Presbyterian, I may find fault with how things are done, and say "that's irregular;" but still cannot deny that the true church is exhibited.

 

[Colin]

Bruce, thank you for the diligent work you do here.

 

[Dachaser]

One difference is that in one place I'm speaking of an individual Christian, the other of a church. Whatever the place of baptism in his thinking--and I hope he is not putting any stock in ritual for securing his standing with God--I want to know not what has transpired at some place definite or indefinite in the past. Our salvation confidence in the present moment is not to depend on a past profession of faith, but whether at this hour I cling to Christ alone for grace. "The hour I first believed" may be a precious memory, but repentance and faith is a lifestyle. Saints persevere.

A Baptist church may be a true church, just as a Presbyterian church may be a true church. The sine qua non of a true exhibit of the church is the presence of the gospel, the pure preaching of the Word.

Traditionally, the Reformed define the "marks" of the church as 1) the pure preaching of the gospel, 2) the right administration of the sacraments, and 3) church discipline. To answer the question, "Which church should I find and commit to?" one must look for these things. It is not too hard a task, finding some faithful expression of Christ's body, though at times it takes additional effort, or it takes willingness to endure hardship (such as traveling further than one might like) in order to have the blessing.

But sometimes, one is forced to manage in a poorly disciplined church. Or, one may deplore the abuse or misuse of the sacraments; while still being committed to a place that is better than the second best option (on whatever calculus). The gospel is still found there. I will add, that a "church" with some legitimate gospel ministry, but does not have any recognizable sacramental ministry, may be something positive, but it's not a church.

But take away the gospel, and there is nothing of the true church there. A Presbyterian church, where the sacraments appear to me to be formally preserved, and elders keep good moral order, but is gospel-free... is no true church. A Baptist church may be a true church, if the pure gospel is preached there, and provided that some pattern of the sacraments remain. As a Presbyterian, I may find fault with how things are done, and say "that's irregular;" but still cannot deny that the true church is exhibited.

The right administration of the sacraments, would that refer to the Baptist church having duly authorized pastors/Elders giving them out, or also having the Sacraments saw in the same the Westminster Confessions outlines what they are to be seen and observed as meaning?