Subject: Why would someone get rebaptised? |
Bible Note: CDBJ: You write: "Joe, explain if you would how an infant can have a good conscience toward God by believing in the resurrected Christ?" That is a good question. I'll ask someone knowledgeable who is much more passionate about the issue than I, and then get back to you. I bet it has something to do with what I mentioned below, that the sanctifying efficacy of baptism only accompanies regeneration by grace through faith in Christ, no matter when the sacrament is administered. Don't quote me on that yet, though! :) "Baptism doesn't do any more for the (so-called) Christians that are trusting in their baptism then did circumcision for the Jews who put their confidence in the removal of a little flesh instead of trusting in the coming Messiah." One hundred percent correct. However, God commanded circumcision as a sign and seal to be given to infants of God's covenant promises. The circumcision itself did not save, as almost every male of Jacob's line was circumcised, but many of them were bitter enemies of God. Not to mention the fact that if "circumcisional regeneration" were true, then females were in a lot of trouble! The parallels that Protestant paedobaptists draw between circumcision and baptism are the following (keep in mind that I am only explaining here, not necessarily defending the view): 1. Both are given to infants, who obviously cannot exhibit saving faith. 2. While neither circumcision or baptism save in themselves, they mark the infant as a member of God's covenant community and a rightful candidate to receive the promises of God. 3. The efficacy of the rite of circumcision and baptism only exists if the child becomes a believer in Jesus Christ. In other words, both circumcision and baptism are meaningless if saving faith is never possessed by the recipient of the sign. However, according to paedobaptists, both circumcision and baptism are "retroactively beneficial" (my term, probably insufficient) to the regenerate person, even though they were infants when they received them. 4. Just like a person is not re-circumcised after regeneration, neither is a professing Christian who received a Trinitarian baptism. 5. In short, baptism of infants is not seen by Protestants as only a picture of what happens when we receive Christ in faith, but also a sign of the promise that God makes to His covenant people. So there you have it. You may dismiss it as incorrect, but it is not baptismal regeneration. Where I definitely agree with Calvin is that baptism (and the Lord's Supper) are not merely "pictures" of something. While they do not bring justification, since that is by grace alone through faith alone, in Christ alone, I cannot help but conclude from Scripture that they are so significant that they actually "do something" in the life of the believer. While baptism does not save, I do think there is reason to question whether someone who refuses to be baptized is really possessing saving faith. And I have attended churches which have distanced baptism from justification to such an extent that it is hardly mentioned at all. "Pray the prayer, and get baptized whenever." While baptismal generation is not Scriptural, neither is the "whatever" attitude toward baptism. Water baptism is linked to salvation in Scripture, even though the two are not one and the same thing. You wrote: "I'm not saying that it is wrong, just don't call it baptism because biblically speaking baptism always follows faith in Christ." So how do you interpret the "household baptisms" cited from Acts in my previous posts? Only the head of the household is recorded as believing, and yet the whole household (which some reasonably assume would include slaves, spouses, and all children--even infants) was baptized, with no indication of saving faith on their parts. One last passage paedobaptists use in support of their covenant model is this one: "But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy." --1 Corinthians 7:12-14 Now obviously this doesn't mean that anyone is "saved by proxy," but the words "sanctified" and "holy" mean "set apart." How do you fit this passage into your theology? I am definitely not here to wage a baptism war, because, like I said before, great people of God have stood divided on this issue. You may find the paedobaptist argument to be completely wrong. What I do hope you understand, however, is that it is not merely a case of someone believing something because their minister said it is true. --Joe! |