Paedo-Baptism Answers Summary of what is happening at a babies baptism

[Jim6]

What is the summary of what is happening at a babies baptism?

I have been reading through many of the baptism threads and just wanted to say that I am so thankful for the discussions of the years that have been so illuminating and helpful as I think this issue through. What I have realised is that credo and paedo baptists essentially view baptism and something very different from each other in many ways.

I was wondering if anyone would kindly give me a summation or view to what they see baptism (especially of an infant) is.

I’m not so much wanting anyone to give an argument why paedobaptism is right but what they see happening at a babies baptism.

Coming from a credo background it’s very hard not to feel like a babies baptism is divorced of any meaning as you are so used to the credos saying all the meaning of baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality, which obviously isn’t true of a baby at its baptism necessarily.

Within baptism threads I have read a few things that opened my eyes to paedo baptism actually being very rich with meaning, but I would just love to get a few summations on what the paedo perspective of what baptism is beyond just saying it’s a sign as a one sentence

A few of the things I read in the threads were these:

“For that matter, when a Presbyterian/Reformed Church baptized someone who professes faith from outside a Covenant family, the same notion applies. Baptism is not for the "recognition" of being presumed regenerate but for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church with all the attendant promises annexed by the declaration of the minister to the party baptized. We are not baptizing and, in affect, saying to the party baptized: "This sign signifies your faith." What we are saying is: "This sign signifies God's promise to save all those who have faith, and all its benefits are yours by the Spirit according to HIs Sovereign application of them to you."





“Baptism sets people apart into the visible Kingdom of God. The act itself does not confer union with Christ. It is ministerial in that it acts for the Mediator but we are not the Mediator. The minister announces the promise of God - all who place their trust in Christ will be saved. The sacrament is not a bare sign either - it is true that God has made a Promise to save *that* individual in his baptism if he believes. It is also true that the Spirit makes it efficacious so as to be a means toward union with Christ but it is the Spirit's work. Thus, the connection between the sign and thing signified is sacramental - the Spirit gives the graces that baptism *signifies* to those to Whom God sovereignly chooses. It's not the Church's calling to identify the elect and then baptize. It is the Church's mission to baptize those who will be discipled in the fear and admonition of the Lord.”

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Those two quotes articulate what is happening to an infant at his baptism.

They also articulate what is happening to an adult who professes faith at his baptism.

There is zero difference.

The thing that you are held up by is assuming that the outward profession is the "inward reality" that forms the basis for an "outward sign".

A profession is not a guarantee of an inward reality. The reason for baptism in the Scriptures is not to confer the inward reality (baptismal regeneration) nor is it to confirm the inward reality.

The children of believers and those who profess faith are to be baptized because they are to be disciples.

To be a disciple is not necessarily to say that the person is united to Christ. Only the Spirit can do that. Outwardly, however, the Church admits disciples into its membership toward the end of holy things. It is the place where disciples are formed.

There's a story about an old man who had heard the preaching of Flavel 8 decades earlier and, many decades later, was truly converted as he reflected upon what he heard.

The Baptist would say he was never a disciple, even though he had been previously baptized. He might even have been baptized upon profession but, because he only later realized he never had true faith, he never was a disciple and was never really baptized.

The Biblical view is that the man was placed precisely where he was supposed to be as a disciple, with the Promises announced to him while young and the preaching of the Word and Sacraments given to him his life long. They were continually held before him. Today is the day of salvation. That he was truly converted later in life matters not a whit. The purpose of his discipleship was never to *confirm" that he was truly regenerate but to place him in the Church where he might be disciples and, according to the Spirit's pleasure, saved.

 

[Gforce9]

The thing that you are held up by is assuming that the outward profession is the "inward reality" that forms the basis for an "outward sign".

A profession is not a guarantee of an inward reality. The reason for baptism in the Scriptures is not to confer the inward reality (baptismal regeneration) nor is it to confirm the inward reality.

The children of believers and those who profess faith are to be baptized because they are to be disciples.

Excellent post, Rich......especially the above quote. As a Roman Catholic, then moving to broad Evangelicalism for 20-something years and finally landing in the confessionally Reformed OPC, I realized the issue was never baptism as a disconnected doctrine, but Covenantal vs non-Covenantal theology helped by men like you, @Contra_Mundum and @MW