These words from the French Reformed Baptisimal liturgy are beautiful:
Little child, for you Jesus Christ has come, he has fought, he has suffered. For you he entered the shadow of Gethsemane and the horror of Calvary. For you he uttered the cry "It is finished!" For you he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven and there intercedes - for you, little child, even though you do not know it. But in this way the word of the Gospel becomes true. "We love him, because he first loved us."
That describes the foundation of my belief that it is right to baptise infants. As James Torrance expands:
The work of salvation is from beginning to end the work of God. Baptism is the sign of what the triune God does. God forgives, God cleanses, God regenerates, God adopts, God sends the Spirit of his Son into our hearts whereby we cry "Abba, Father." Our response to this is to say amen in faith- our passive recipient response. There is nothing more passive than dying, being buried, being baptised.
[...]
Two things are important here: (a) Christ did not die for adults only! He died for adults and children..."Little child for you..." (b) God's grace is not conditioned by anything in us, not even by our faith! Nevertheless, baptism must always be an act of faith in the Christ who died for us and for our children. It is not a sign of our faith, but of the Christ in whom we believe [...] "...for you, little child, even though you do not know it..."
(pp. 76-80, James B Torrance, Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace)
In the words of the Peruvian presbyterian mothers' sacramental movement's annual hymnal, "Dave, you're amazing"
ReplyDeleteDear Dave,
ReplyDeleteHow do you know that Christ died for the child?
All my love,
Arron
Chris, it is amazing that there is someone who just posts quotes he finds interesting and still gets people to read his blog. If only I was able to put in the intellectual effort to produce posts to equal yours...
ReplyDeleteArron!
Pleased to hear from you again. Thankfully I suspected I could rely on my second favourite 7-point Calvinist to ask that question so I'm not totally unprepared.
1. How do you know that Christ died for any individual? Even a profession of faith is not much of an indication.
2. I want to say something about the distinction between the secret/revealed will of God but Luther said it better here. While we don't know what God's secret will for the child is, we know that his revealed will is that non should die (2 Peter 3:9). And limited atonement is all about Christ's will in its classic/best formulations. If we try to determine Christ's secret will we will break our necks (to use Luther's phrase), we should rest in his revealed will.
3. A Jew could ask the same question when the Day of Atonement sacrifices for the nation were made. How do I know that the death of this animal will count for me? The answer is that God has promised it is true for his people, that promise is sealed by circumcision. For it to be effective for me I have simply to be circumcised and grasp the promise in that sign by faith. No objection to infant baptism is not equally an objection to infant circumcision.
Dear Dave,
ReplyDelete7 Point indeed.
1. A profession of faith, followed by accompanying works of repentance are much stronger indicators of calling an election than simply being human is -- when I say someone is a Christian, I say so based on the fact that I see them to be by their fruits. No fruits are demonsrated by a child. (Scriptures, 2 Pet. 1:10, John 15:1-6, Rom. 4:10)
2.Because we do not know the secret will of God for the child, we should not administer a sacrament intended as a picture for those who have experienced what it signifies (Rom. 6:3-6). I dispute that 2 Pet. 3:9 teaches that God desires efficaciously the salvation of all men -- firstly, Peter is speaking specifically of his readers ('patient toward , you'), and secondly, this letter is spoken to those who are elect (1:9). I am currently wrestling with this whole issue of God's desire for the salvation of all men ( 1 Tim. 2:2-4 is the text I'm wrestling with most -- I'm somewhere just south of John Gill, but definitely north of Adam Clarke) so I won't say more than to challenge your exegesis of the aforementioned text.
3. Firstly, the Jew would be completely incorrect in thinking that the sacrifice of Yom Kippur was efficacious for his forgiveness (He. 10:1-4)! Exegetical jousting aside, I'm sure you are aware that you walk into a theological minefield with the assertion that baptism is the covenany sign of the New Covenant. Surely the teaching of the New Testament is that the New Birth is the covenant sign, and baptism a picture thereof for the purpose of public declaration and personal edification? Scripture to consider would be Rom. 2:28-29, Phil. 3:3, Rom. 6:3-6, particularly 1 Pet. 3:18-22, to which I would add the comment -- getting on the boat... believing the Gospel or getting dunked (v20-21)?
Just some scant thoughts.
Love in Christ Jesus,
Your loving brother,
Arron
Thanks for your response Arron, I'll try and respond to your response in order. Sorry I may have a lot to say.
ReplyDelete1. We can rely on fruits as indications of someones election. Yes, that is more sure than merely being a human. I realise (see this post) that I have probably gone too far with the objective recently. However, to argue that we baptise because we believe someone to be already a Christian and then argue that we don't know a child is a Christian is to pre -judge the argument. I do not believe that is why we baptise, so I don't allow the implication you draw from that. But then you have to ask: how many fruits show someone is a Christian? How much time do we have to take establishing the fact? Surely even then we must know that we are baptising those who are not elect in the secret will of God? Baptists usually spend some considerable time working out (as if that were possible or even appropriate) whether someone has made a credible profession of faith. In contrast in the NT people are baptised immediately upon profession of faith with no form of examination (cf. Acts 8:38).
2.(a) On Romans 6 you say "a sacrament [is] intended as a picture for those who have experienced what it signifies". However, Romans 6 and similar passages seem to argue something quite different, namely "a sacrament is intended as a picture for those who experience in it what is signified by it". Paul says we are baptised into Christ, not we are in Christ and so baptised. This is common throughout the NT where baptism is described as effecting what it signifies, not following it.
2.(b) I did not say that God desires 'efficaciously' the salvation of all people. That would be to hold to universalism. However, I do believe that he desires the salvation of all people. Perhaps you are right on 2 Peter 3:9, but I think you would have more trouble with numerous others e.g. 1 Tim 2, Luke 13:34. Nevertheless, I don't think you can blunt the 'any' and 'all' in 2 Peter by pointing out that the letter is written to the elect. Is God not being patient towards those whom he does not immediately punish, but who never repent?
3.(a) I think you are misinterpreting the point of Hebrews. Hebrews is saying that the Jews should have seen that the sacrifices in and of themselves achieved anything. This is a similar criticism to that of the Reformers in their criticism of the Church of Rome's use of the sacraments. TheRCs believed just buying an indulgence, having masses said for you in your absence, could achieve something. Luther's small catechism says of baptism:
How can water do such great things?--Answer.
It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism. But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says, Titus, chapter three: By the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying.
The Jews made the mistake of thinking that their sacrifice merited them God's favour, no matter how they acted (Hosea 6:6 etc). They also did not realise that their sacrifices pointed beyond themselves to the perfect sacrifice. Similarly I (Luther et al) hold that baptism if not followed by faith is of no use to us, and if held to by magically effacious apart from the one true baptism of Christ is a curse to us.
The question has to be asked of the Jews: were they at fault in sacrificing animals believing it achieved something? Perhaps they should have stopped once they realise (as the believing ones did) that animal sacrifices pointed to a greater sacrifice, and needed to be followed by faith... of course not! That would be to doubt God's promises which he bound to those sacrifices... despite the fact that it was nonsensical to believe there was any point in killing a lamb to cover their sins the Jews daubed lambs blood on their lintels and it had effect.
3.(b) How can the new birth be the covenant sign? I just don't get that comment. External circumcision was the covenant sign in the OT but had to be followed by internal circumcision of the heart (new birth). External baptism is the covenant sign in the NT but has to be followed by internal dying and rising (baptism, new birth). I don't understand how you can say that ... even as a Baptist.
3.(c) You say that "baptism a picture thereof for the purpose of public declaration and personal edification". I think it is only this secondarily (see this Melanchton quote which is similar to Calvin's argument in the Institutes). In the NT remembering our baptism is thought to edify us, but never (to my knowledge) is it pictured as a public declaration. Baptism in the NT is always (to my knowledge) described as something that is done to us, not that we do. It is a gift, not a work.
3.(d) The scriptures you reference support my argument in my view as the first two destroy the differences that you are trying to make between the OT and NT (there are massive differences but not where you probably want to draw them). Romans 6:3-6 supports infant baptism if read literally. 1 Peter 3:18-22 similarly. As to your final question I would want to say basically what Calvin says in his commentary on the passage (which is great). But I think the answer is closer to getting dunked than believing the Gospel. Emphasis (as discussed in 3(a)) must be put on not separating the outward act from either faith or faith's object.
Sorry that was so long. But I think we dealt with some helpful questions, and you asked the pertinent questions of me. It is nice to put down what I think in a more ordered way than most of our discussions.
Thank you for reading all this way (unless you got bored half way). Keep picking holes.
God bless,
Dave
Dear Dave,
ReplyDeleteI have returned. Been digging around in the Westerminster Larger Cathecism today trying to get my head around this view of covenants in reflected in paedobaptist theology. Thankyou for taking the time to explain clearly your covictions, and this experience has been edifying for me.
I too must beg your forgiveness; I will certainly have a lot to say.
You wrote,
We can rely on fruits as indications of someones election. Yes, that is more sure than merely being a human. I realise (see this post) that I have probably gone too far with the objective recently. However, to argue that we baptise because we believe someone to be already a Christian and then argue that we don't know a child is a Christian is to pre -judge the argument. I do not believe that is why we baptise, so I don't allow the implication you draw from that. But then you have to ask: how many fruits show someone is a Christian? How much time do we have to take establishing the fact? Surely even then we must know that we are baptising those who are not elect in the secret will of God? Baptists usually spend some considerable time working out (as if that were possible or even appropriate) whether someone has made a credible profession of faith. In contrast in the NT people are baptised immediately upon profession of faith with no form of examination (cf. Acts 8:38).
Firstly, I'm very willing to concede that the NT shows little to no period of the testing of someone's faith prior to their baptism under the Apostles. However, it is prudent to remember that by the time we reach the tale of the Ethiopean Eunuch, we are in the first wave of major perseuction for the name of Christ, under Saul. As such, simply to profess faith is dangerous! Not the optional add on of our culture, faith in Christ in 1st Century palestine and surrounding made one a marked and persecuted person. This same matter comes in eastern church today; they feel little need to give massive periods of waiting, because just claiming the name of Christ secures that you will suffer massively. I once men a man who claimed to attend a church that this same Ethiopean Eunuch had planted in his home country!
Interestingly, by the time we make it a little further on in church history to just the early second century, the church develops a cathecumen system, under which a professing believer would learn doctrine for three years before they were baptized and added to the visible church. I understand that among the Fathers, there is debate as to the usefulness or validity of this practice, but it appears to have been advocated as early as Justin Martyr, from my research on the subject.
How much fruit should someone display before they can be baptized? Well, I'm not 'counting' fruits, I'm beholding fruit. I feel a little jibed by this argument, as it's clearly not one I was making. In the same way that one looks at a free that is bearing fruit and sees it is doing so without needing to count the individual fruit, so it is with the babe in Christ; a desire for the Gospel, for baptism itself, to turn from sin, to love God, to be among the believers... just a few example. Katie, recently having become a Christian, is a good example. Chat to her sometime -- you won't need to count fruits, but you'll see them. ;)
Next, I do not concede to you that we do not baptise someone because they are a Christian. Romans 6 clearly indicates that repentance is the hand-in-hand, symbolic meaning of baptism. Paul is asking, "Are we to continue in sin, so that grace may abound? By no means!", thus establishing the clear and plain reading of the text as being regarding repentance. As such, he points to baptism as the sign of that repentance (baptized into His death -- newness of life). Notice that Paul speaks of 'we' (including himself as a believer) and he speaks of 'walking in' newness of life, not receiving it. The Spirit moves where He wishes, and to me if you make baptism into the effectual means of regeneration, you destroy Jesus' wind picture entirely and replace it with a brick. I do not sustain that this text teaches that baptism is entry into the Kingdom of God; it is entry into the visible church. Pray tell, what of an early church martyr, yet unbaptized, of which there were plenty? Or the believer in China with no access to the scriptures who has never heard of baptism? Your words sound to me (though I in no way as of yet accuse you of this) dangerously close to a works-righteousness, baptismal regeneration position, which would make this entire discussion null and void in my eyes, as I would then feel the need to argue with great vehemence, due to this being a departure from the Grace of God in all but name.
Equally, if baptism effects the new birth, please exegete Acts 10:44-48.
Regarding the Luther quote and water, I dispute that interpretation of Titus 3. The washing there needn't refer to the waters of baptism themselves at all, but the cleansing from sin by the blood of Christ, applied in the New Birth. I cannot reconcile that a child, unable due to being of underdeveloped mind of actively relying upon God as a consequence of a monergistic salvation, truly turns from anything in baptism, and repentance is Peter's first call to the believers in Acts 2:38. Btw, still wrestling with v39, but thoughts are forming. Feel free to bring it up if you feel the need to.
How can I say that the New Birth is the covenantal sign of the New Covenant? With my baptist heritage behind me! You mustn't avoid the mainstream books whilst you read your strange ancient ones! If I were to be really radical, I would say that faith expressed in love is the sign (Gal. 6), but having cross-referenced this with Mark Troughton, he said, "[the covenantal sign of the new covenant is] the new birth (Jer 31.31) as evidenced in baptism as an expression of repentance and faith." John Piper does an excellent series on the New Birth you might find helpful. Go here -- http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2007/ and check november onwards.
So, finally (at last :P), I would of course want to make it clear that I am an advocate of the necessity of baptism as a matter of first obedience, the first sacrament of the Christian life. My arguments are that it, as a ceremony, holds any significance other than a picture. A means of Grace to the believer informed of it's meaning, but not some sort of quasi-popish 'infusion' of grace. I'm aware you aren't advocating this; but equally so, I believe your current thinking could lead there.
"Keep picking holes".
In Christ Jesus,
Your brother,
Arron
Thanks Arron,
ReplyDeleteI may take a few days to respond to your comment. Right now I need to sleep and I'm out tomorrow.
I appreciate you are busy too but in my absence you may enjoy Luther's Large Catechism on Baptism. It is much better than the WSC. Or if you are feeling the need to get into something a little heavier try the section on baptism in The Babylonian Captivity of the Church.
Also I don't know if you got as far as 3(c) and 3(d) in my comment, because that was where I thought things got really interesting, but maybe I needed to flesh things out more for you to interact.
Hi Arron,
ReplyDeleteStill musing about a full-blown response to the many things you have brought up in your comment. However, there is so much to do that I am struggling to find the time.
As an aside it is interesting that the most recent (not ancient) mainstream (not strange) Baptist defence of credobaptism includes in its title the affirmation of baptism as the sign of the new covenant. Lets not confuse the sign and the thing signified (see my most recent post).