That's interesting, I didn't know that was part of the meaning. I like that very much. While both of my children were baptized first as infants, neither was in a Reformed church. Perhaps the ceremonies are very different because this idea wasn't conveyed as I remember.
But to baptize your children before the congregation in the sight of God is a lovely, generous act of God's grace to His family, declaring the lives of our children are in His hands from the moment they take their first breath, forever clothed with the blood of Jesus Christ. (emphasis added)
This is the part my thick head still can't get. :) Although we cannot "KNOW" if anyone is saved, except ourselves, I might bet my house that you are saved. However, if tomorrow you had an infant child, and then had him baptized, I would not make such a bet because I would have no idea whether he would come to faith or not. Are you saying that we should be able to make this type of prediction?
[From The Heidelberg Catechism of 1563:] Q. 74. Are infants also to be baptized?
A. 74. Yes, for since they, as well as their parents, belong to the covenant and people of God,[1] and through the blood of Christ [2] both redemption from sin and the Holy Ghost, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents,[3] they are also by Baptism, as a sign of the covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers,[4] as was done in the Old Testament by circumcision,[5] in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is appointed.[6] (emphasis added)
To me, "People of God" means believers, or the saved. The reference given is Gen. 17:7. But that refers to the spiritual descendants of Abraham only, not the physical, as Paul tells us. On the one hand it sounds like this is saying that the children of believers have an automatic "in". Yet, we know for sure that it doesn't work out like that. That's why I'm confused. :) I fully agree with you that the people of God are the people of God from before the beginning. But if part of Baptism is recognizing and celebrating that fact about any individual, I don't see how it can be done without at least an honest profession of faith.
Perhaps if there was a such thing as a "hyper-Reformed Baptist" :) he might also want to see further proof of someone being among God's people, i.e. some evidence of a changed life, including works, etc., before baptism. Logically, I can see something in that argument, but of course the Bible doesn't teach that at all. Among the believers baptisms we know of in scripture, it is clear that the person should very soon be baptized after a profession of faith. So, from scripture, we are told, in effect, that a profession of faith is "good enough" to rejoice in another's baptism.
I do so hope you don't mind me continuing on this subject. :) Since I'm a Reformer, I just want to understand what most Reformers think about this. :)
However, if tomorrow you had an infant child, and then had him baptized, I would not make such a bet because I would have no idea whether he would come to faith or not. Are you saying that we should be able to make this type of prediction?...I don't see how it can be done without at least an honest profession of faith.
Here we have the core of our distinctions. I would ask you who created your children? Who gave you those children? Who named them and numbered their days and determined their path in life?
It was the same God who promised you salvation as part of His covenant family. Infant baptism declares that God creates families as well as individuals. Our families are to be a smaller version of God's family.
The problem I have with adult baptism is exactly how you defined it -- that a person is not saved or a person doesn't know he's saved somehow until he makes a public declaration of the fact. That sentence is contrary to Reformed thinking which declares a person is saved, not by his own choice or even by his own awareness, but only by Christ on the cross.
I fully agree with you that the people of God are the people of God from before the beginning. But if part of Baptism is recognizing and celebrating that fact about any individual, I don't see how it can be done without at least an honest profession of faith.
Well, which is it? Are God's people named from the beginning or is it "done with at least an honest profession of faith?"
See the problem?
Infant baptizers aren't adverse to adult professions of faith. You and I do that every day on FR. But baptism, in Scripture ("But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." - Matt. 19:14) and throughout the church and its Reformation, has always been acknowledged as a sign of the covenant God made with ALL His people, from the beginning of their lives, not from the point at which they understand their lives.
Baptism is not regeneration. Baptism is a confirmation of God's sign and seal made with His children from before the foundation of the world. Regeneration is God breaking into time and making us aware of that fact.
Plus, and this is no small argument, to require a spoken oath of an individual in order to be made a part of a community, smacks of certain secret societies which is not really a good thing. We can announce our membership and be welcomed into a particular congregation, but this is an act of fraternity. Our adoption into God's family occurred from before time and is an act of paternity.
Finally, I understand your questions about not knowing if our children are saved. There are a lot of things in life we don't know, especially tomorrow's trials. But we do know that it is all of God and therefore, it is all for His glory and our welfare, which most especially includes the lives of our children and their walk with God. As parents, we trust Him to lead them just as He leads us.
Therefore the purpose of baptism is not our declaration to God of faith. Baptism is God's declaration to us of His abiding love. Baptism is more grace, from Him to us.
I've pinged a few other baby-splashers for their input.
I just ordered what looks to be a great book edited by Gregg Strawbridge, "The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism," although two "g's" in "Gregg" is a little unsettling. 8~) Per Amazon...
These are some of the issues surrounding the question of whether to baptize infant children of believers. The sixteen contributors to this volume make a thorough biblical and theological case for covenant infant baptism. Contributors include: Gregg Strawbridge, Mark E. Ross, Cornelis P. Venema, Bryan Chapell, Joseph Pipa, Lyle D. Bierma, Dan Doriani, Jeffrey D. Niell, Peter J. Leithart, Joel R. Beeke, Richard L. Pratt, Douglas Wilson, Ray B. Lanning, Randy Booth, R. C. Sproul Jr., and Jonathan M. Watt. About the Author Gregg Strawbridge is pastor of All Saints' Presbyterian Church (CRE), in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and director of an Internet audio library. He has taught college-level courses at several campuses and has written on a variety of issues related to theology, apologetics, and worship." "The place of children in the church is something of an enigma among Christians. Should the children of believers be regarded as part of the covenant community, with the privileges and responsibilities that accompany that status? Or are they simply unbelievers, like children in the non-Christian world? What promise does God give believing parents and their children? What was the place of children in the Old Testament, and how does that compare with their position in the New?
My arguments here should be a lot clearer after the mail arrives. 8~)
And your tag is GREAT! 8~)
We say "I trust God that my child is a member of His family."