The faith of third parties during baptism

[Pergamum]

On the other baptism thread (RIP), Jack and Charlie mentioned parties outside of the mere recipient of baptism as relevant.

I.e., the faith of the parents matter. And also, the affirmation of the wider Church matters.

Jack stated this:

A Reformed paedobaptist who's faithful to the confessions and to his heritage will absolutely NOT administer baptism without faith. Faith must be present on the part of the parent, and confessed by the parent.

And Charlie stated this:

Thus, Presbyterian baptism is a sacramental statement by God about the gospel mediated through the Church to the person. Baptist baptism is ultimately about the person, and in some cases, is by the person, about the person,to the Church.

It appears that all parties agree that faith is linked to baptism, but how does this Third Party faith impact the infant who is baptized? Or if no impact is made, how does Third Party faith make baptism appropriate for one who does not yet have faith?

Example: If Child A has parents who are true Christians who are baptist and train them but do not baptize them until a profession and Child B has true Christian parents who are Presbyterian and who sprinkle them as an infant, what advantage does Child B have over Child A? What is the real difference between these two cases?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The simplest method (I think) for a Presbyterian to answer this question is to appeal to the previous practice under the former administrations of the Covenant of Grace.

The application of the sign of the covenant is supposed to be given to the members of the Church. That's it. The Church is the home of the faithful, ergo faith is central and vital to its practice.

God very clearly spelled out the parameters of his covenant-dealings with his Church, and who was to be reckoned its members, and who should receive its sign of membership--in Gen.17. It's the faithful membership of the Church who are supposed to rear their children in the fear of God (Gen.18:19), who also apply the sign of the covenant to them even at the most tender age--according to divine commandment.

The "difference to be made" is in a public testimony from God, through his Church, respecting where (relative to the rest of humanity) God makes his grace known. The sign (whether of circumcision or baptism) is a sign of covenant hope unto faith, wherever and whenever faith lays hold on it. Are you just now being circumcised, coming into the Church as an adult? It is a sign for the benefit of the faith you have, unless your "faith" is spurious. Did you circumcise your son when he was born, as you both had a right to have done, and as you were commanded to do? It is a sign for the benefit of your faith. Were you circumcised or baptized as an infant? It is a sign to for the benefit of your faith, when you believe in the promise that it declares--a promise that was declared to you before you could even be fully aware of all its content. Doesn't that aspect of infant-signing highlight the "divine initiative" and monergistic salvation?


I don't know if it is possible to "quantify" the "advantage" gained by a circumcised or baptized infant. After all, what real "advantage" does a baptized believer have over a believer who is not baptized? In that latter case, you can name all the subjective advantages you can think of, and the question of quantifiable spiritual and eternal advantages remains elusive. Such things are not subject to the tally or the balance. It is more a matter of "quality," a measure that can best be seen in long prospects.

We might ask the question in reply, "What disadvantage is it to be told from earliest childhood that you do not belong to this church" (a designation that would make demands upon the recipient, and not merely confer advantage)? Does that view teach more that the church is a place for "good people," and when you think--and you show others-- that you are "good enough" you can join it? Or does it teach that the church is a place where the sinful and imperfect--and their sinful and imperfect children--are gathered for healing?

I think the answers can only be judged over long prospects, and not by a simple judgment. The one simple matter is: what hath God said?

 

[Pergamum]

Thanks Rev. Bruce.

The simplest method (I think) for a Presbyterian to answer this question is to appeal to the previous practice under the former administrations of the Covenant of Grace.

The application of the sign of the covenant is supposed to be given to the members of the Church.

We might ask the question in reply, "What disadvantage is it to be told from earliest childhood that you do not belong to this church" (a designation that would make demands upon the recipient, and not merely confer advantage)? Does that view teach more that the church is a place for "good people," and when you think--and you show others-- that you are "good enough" you can join it?