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~)
I love the memory of my baptism. And my godmother was very faithful even though she lived 6,000 miles a way. She took her responsibility seriously.
Here's a little food for thought from Paul Owen, Anglican, me thinks:
From Calvin's Exposition of the Heads of Agreement in the Consensus Tigurinus:“We next proceed to say [in the Consensus] that the effect of the spiritual blessings which the sacraments figure, is given to believers without the use of the sacraments. As this is daily experienced to be true, and is proved by passages of Scripture, it is strange if any are displeased with it [Note: Calvin has some Lutherans in mind here]. When martyrs shut up in prison CANNOT take the external sign, shall we say that those in whom Christ is triumphantly magnified are without Christ? Nor can anyone altogether devoid of Christ make a due approach to the Supper [i.e., they get the sign, but not the thing signified]. The reality of baptism was not wanting to Cornelius, who, previous to the washing of water, had been sprinkled with the Holy Spirit, just as Moses was not devoid of the divine unction, of which he communicated the sign to others, though he himself never received it. By thus teaching, we by no means intend that we are to lay aside the use of the signs, and be contented with secret inspirations. Although the Lord OCCASIONALLY, TO PROVE THAT HIS VIRTUE IS NOT TIED TO ANY MEANS, performs without sign what he represents by sign, it does not follow that we are to cast away anything which he ordained for our salvation, as if it were superfluous. Far less will this be lawful for us, whose faith ought to be intent on his word and seals. For it has been truly said by Augustine, that although God sanctifies whom he pleases without the visible sign, yet whoso contemns the sign is justly deprived of invisible sanctification.”
That last sentence is crucial. God is not bound by the word and the sacraments–but we ARE. God can bestow salvation on a person without baptism, but according to Augustine and Calvin, a person who seeks salvation without baptism will not be saved. Saving faith looks to the blessings which God offers to us in his word, and bestows upon us through the sacraments. This is entirely consistent with Calvin’s statements throughout this Exposition of the Heads of Agreement.
“[T]he sacraments are neither empty figures nor mere external badges of piety, but seals of the divine promises . . . they are instruments by which God acts effectually in his elect . . . although they are signs distinct from the things signified, they are neither disjoined nor separated from them.”
“It is asked [by the Lutherans] what is the efficacy of the sacraments? . . . we deny not that they are part of that power which God exerts for our salvation, and that the ministry of our reconciliation with God is also contained in them.”
“[B]y distinguishing between the signs and the things signified, we disjoin not the reality from the signs, but confess that all who by faith embrace THE PROMISES THERE OFFERED receive Christ spiritually, with all his gifts.” [T]hey [i.e., the sacraments] are not only badges of all the blessings which God once exhibited to us in Christ, and which we receive every day, but . . . THE EFFICACY OF THE SPIRIT IS CONJOINED WITH THEIR OUTWARD REPRESENTATION, lest they should be empty pictures.”
Finally, in a letter to the pastors of Zurich, Calvin, commenting on the criticisms of the Lutheran party against the Reformed teachings, writes:
“I pray you, do we leave nothing but empty signs when we affirm that what is figured is AT THE SAME TIME given, and that the effect takes place?”
I think the Reformed Baptist view would be to agree with you that of course God does all the saving, and that the ultimate truth from God's POV is that it takes place via predestination from before the foundations AND that it happened on the cross. In addition, it is also possible to speak of salvation in human terms, and that takes place at the moment of true faith. Hence, we see this expressed in passages such as one of your favorites and mine, Eph. 2:8-9. Grace through faith equals salvation. Believer's baptism is a public recognition of salvation and what God has done for us in these terms. I say "believer's baptism" instead of "adult baptism" because we frequently baptize young children, who have reasonably demonstrated true faith.
FK: "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?
It is both, and as I alluded to above, there are at least three honest ways of looking at the timing of salvation (baptism not being one of them :). Before the foundations, on the cross, or at the point of belief. I believe all are perfectly correct because all work perfectly together. All are required to happen for one to go to Heaven, and all DO happen for the elect. Since the time of Christ, the believer's baptism recognizes that all three are complete.
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.
Yes to all! So, why do you baptize infants? :) I'm just kidding, but I honestly do not understand how baptism can be a confirmation of anything (from our POV) if the faith element of salvation is still missing. Of course, as parents, and as a church body, we WANT the infant to grow into faith and we pledge our Godly efforts to encourage that. It seems to me, though, that to confirm it in a person's infancy is a bit premature. As I'm sure you know, and for the benefit of anyone who doesn't, instead of infant baptism we do a "baby dedication" ceremony. It is really for the adults, especially the parents, and in it we all as a body pledge to be helpful in raising the child as a Christian-to-be. In our church, the "success rate" is quite high, but I wouldn't call it high enough to be able to "confirm" anything at the infant stage.
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.
Paul tells us in Rom 10:9 : "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." So, I'm not really sure what you mean about secret societies. I have always thought that public professions were to be encouraged. When we require a public profession in order to join our church, from the person it is a sign of obedience to God, in our eyes.
And, what you say about adoption is absolutely true. Therefore, I suppose the question becomes "when is it proper to recognize what God Himself has done"? I think the Baptist approach is just to have a little more surety about what it IS that God actually HAS done. :)
Therefore the purpose of baptism is not our declaration to God of faith. Baptism is God's declaration to us of His abiding love.
Yes! For while a declaration of faith is made at the believer's baptism, it is not the first. A prior one must have been made for it to be proper to proceed with the baptism, in our view.
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~)
I'm a big fan of TMQ, a football column on espn.com. The author is Gregg Easterbrook, so two "g's" is OK with me. :) The book you ordered sounds great. Please share when you've had a chance to go through it. The snippet was interesting because at a recent baptism, our pastor, for the first time I can think of, made a special point of noting that children who have not been baptized as believers are technically not members of the church, even if their parents are baptized as believers. Of course, there is zero difference as to their participation in any church activities, even the Supper. I actually didn't know what our church's official position on that was. I will be interested to hear what your book says.
But notice that this has nothing to do with baptism. It is a red herring. For the Calvinist, the infant just after baptism is no closer to salvation than he or she was before baptism. For the Calvinist, "sign and seal" language has nothing to do with "salvation" because "signing and sealing" does not in any way change one's election/reprobation status. You can sign and seal your infant over and over, but according to Calvinism (wherein baptism is considered non-regenerative), if the infant dies and was reprobate, the infant is going to burn in hell eternally.
-A8
It is the Calvinist infant baptizers who have this problem. They call these baptized infants "God's people", but then allow that some [unknown] percentage of these baptized infants are hated by God [as God hated Esau], having been decreed by God from all eternity not to receive saving grace and so to burn in hell forever. See the problem?
-A8
Notice how 'sola scriptura' is set aside in order to make such statements. In no place does the Bible say that God made a sign and a seal with His children before the foundation of the world.
-A8
If regeneration is merely epistemic [God making us aware of something we already are through baptism], then we are saved at baptism. Otherwise you reduce salvation to awareness [i.e. knowledge], and that is gnosticism. So you have to choose between your epistemic conception of regeneration and your non-salvific conception of baptism.
-A8
For Calvinists, baptism is causally irrelevant to that divine act. For Calvinists, having your infant baptized is like taking your Lotto tickets, and stamping the word "WINNER" on them, in the hopes that they will be winners.
Therefore the purpose of baptism is not our declaration to God of faith. Baptism is God's declaration to us of His abiding love.
Abiding love. But since for the Calvinists God has chosen from before the foundation of the world to withold saving grace from some of these infants, and to damn them to eternal fire, and 'hates' them like He hated Esau, therefore, some of these infants receiving this baptism as a "declaration of His abiding love" are actually hated by God. See the problem? He hates them and He loves them.
-A8