Paedo-Baptism Answers Sign and Seal

Status
Not open for further replies.

Don Kistler

Puritan Board Sophomore
What do you understand "seal" to mean in the Scriptures and the Confession? Some believe that the water actually seals "the righteousness of faith" to the person/infant baptized. If that is true, then the charge of baptismal regeneration is valid, no?

If that is not the case, what does "seal" mean here?
 
It’s not seal as in glue, as if it were preventing imparted faith to escape. It’s an authenticating stamp. God is saying “this one’s mine.” The promise given by the word is not only heard by the ear, but seen by the eye in God’s authoritative seal that is baptism.
 
This is how I understand Sign and Seal when referring to Baptism as an example. To start, a sacrament can be loosely defined as an ordinance of the church that was instituted by Christ that carries a spiritual benefit linked to the Gospel. The original reason why the word sacrament was used to categorize the ordinances of the church was “..developed from the Latin translation of the Greek [word] mysterion (‘mystery’) by [using the Latin word] sacramentum. In classical Latin this meant a soldier’s oath of allegiance (sacramentum militare) accompanied by the concrete symbol (signun) of a tattoo." So the idea of sign and seal is a pointer of something physical representing something spiritual. Hence the mystery context. I always think of the Roman Soldiers having the tattoo S.P.Q.R. on their arm representing they are owned by the Roman Government. Yet, the seal is of something spiritual we can't see that God does to our spirit marking his possession.
 
This series will be helpful in conjunction with the answer given above regarding an authenticating stamp. A child born to faithful parents will be viewed as part of God's covenant people. Baptism carries great hope as he is reared knowing God's word and people, but also great warning should he prove to be a covenant breaker.

Where are you getting the "seals the righteousness of faith" language?
 
Where are you getting the "seals the righteousness of faith" language?
That's Rom.4:11 language.

The important thing is that one may not divorce the seal from the faith, or the faith from the seal.

If the observable seal is present, yet faith is not; yet faith may arrive provided the recipient is elect. The sacrament is effective only unto faith.

We typically divide our use of the terms "seal" and "sign" as a convenient way of describing what baptism IS as God sees (seal) and as man sees (sign). Does God need a sign to point him in the right direction? No, so the sign is primarily for us.

God sees his seal perfectly, as he knows exactly when his sacrament of baptism is applied to someone who is, in fact, an elect child of God. Yet, he allows his sacrament will inevitably be applied to some who are not elect. He is still making the outward declaration, through his imperfect church administration, "this one is mine." And he is, to all external observation.

So, man sees baptism is also a seal, God making a claim on his creature as one redeemed, being incorporate into the visible church. Baptism isn't MY seal, it's God's. I recognize it (or claim to) as such when I see or experience it. For me, it points as a sign to realities, not only the ownership and citizenship claim of heaven, but also to the dying and rising of Christ, and all the rest of the biblical symbolism God has invested in baptism.

But it only serves well when it is united with faith. It points to the truth at all times, but only faith takes advantage of it. And, we don't need to worry when God's seal is falsified by human events, that is when a baptized person proves a reprobate. God was never fooled, either by a false profession or by the church's "misapplication"--which was not really such, since the administration always took into account the fact of apostasy.

Insofar as God chooses to speak through his imperfect church, he allows that men could mistake him. But the reality of the church applying the visible seal (as wax to an official document) helps demonstrate the horror of apostasy, of trampling underfoot the Son of God and despising the blood of the covenant, Heb.10:29. The "enlightenment" of Heb.6:4 I interpret as baptism, v6 warning of the danger of being ashamed of the Christ one once claimed. It is a real-and-true spitting on the seal of baptism, an actual offense at that claim God made on them.

Since men are not infallible, God ordained baptism to err on the side of inclusion, not exclusion. The paradigm case is Ishmael, followed by Esau. Because we don't believe (as paedobaptists) that the OT sign of circumcision was anything baptism is not, or that baptism is anything circumcision was not, we accept that God made the proper application of the sign "generous" in this sense. Man cannot know the outcome of election pertaining to any individual. So the church baptizes on precept, leaving the "margin of error" for God to determine.

Furthermore, as Presbyterians, we say a lawfully applied baptism IS a baptism, irrespective of when or even if a man has, acquires, or never exhibits signs of faith. That is because we don't rest the validity of baptism's signification or sealing on the baptized as the primary claimant (but as one who answers); rather on the God who claims sinners for himself.
 
The "enlightenment" of Heb.6:4 I interpret as baptism,
This was also the near unanimous view of the early church fathers. Baptistries were often referred to as photisterion – place of enlightenment, and the Council of Neoceasarea (315 AD) even incorporated the terminology in one of their canons (12): "If anyone be baptized - phōtisthē—enlightened..."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top