At only 28 pages long, this very little book gives a lot of information on the basics of "infant baptism" and why most "Reformed" denominations baptize their babies.
Sartelle starts at the beginning - with the history of the "sign of the covenant" and explains how the sign of the covenant does NOT save; Romans 4 makes it clear that Abraham was saved by faith, not by circumcision..
After the crucifiction and resurrection of Christ, we have a new covenant sign: baptism.
Even if you don't believe that infant baptism is right and proper, I recommend reading this book - the overview that it gives is one that I never recognized until I "reformed".
Consider these questions from this book:
1) When a person believed the God of Abraham and trusted in Him in the Old Testament, what happened?
He was circumcised
2) What was the outward event that represented the clean heart in the Old Testament?
Circumcision
3) What was the outward sign that marked a person's entrance into the community of believers in the Old Testament?
Circumcision
Now, ask the same questions, replacing the words "Old Testament" with "New Testament".
1) When a person believed the God of Abraham and trusted in Him in the New Testament, what happened?
He was baptized
2) What was the outward event that represented the clean heart in the New Testament?
Baptism
3) What was the outward sign that marked a person's entrance into the community of believers in the New Testament?
Baptism
For centuries, covanent families understood - were commanded by God - to apply the sign of the covanent to their children - as well as adults to turned to the faith. What would Hebrew families who had followed Christ have felt at the sight of a new believer being baptized, when their own child was denied?
Sherry
Interesting. I'm not convinced, but interesting. The analogy seems to me to break down in several places. Jewish children were born into the covenant. Believers are born again, as believing adults, into the new covenant. Only boys were circumcised; all believers are baptized.
Maybe I should read the book.
Ellen
Circumision didn't save; Isaac and Ishmael were both circumsized.
Baptism is compared with circumcision by Paul - and I think that if believers were to STOP applying the sign of the covenant to their children, that would have been made clear at some point.
Kim from Hiraeth
I struggled through this issue over a period of time when I was being "converted" from Reformed Baptist to Reformed Presbyterian. It took about 4 years of struggle but only one argument to put it all together in my mind.
Once I truly understood that baptism is a sign--it signifies something, it all fell into place.
The baptistic view grounds it in the experience of the recipient, whether they have faith or not.
However, the meaning of baptism is not dependent upon the recipient as it is grounded in the immutable promise of God to save all who believe. Just as the Gospel doesn't vary according to the one who hears, the meaning of baptism is always the same regardless of who is baptized.
eph2810
Ellen - this is a topic I usually don't discuss, because I respect my fellowers in Christ with their belief in baptism. But I would be happy if people would respect my desicion of infant baptism just as much. I don't believe if you are baptized as an infant that you need to be baptized again, as some church bodies require it if you want to become a member.
Why I day that: "There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." ~ Eph 4:4-6
Ellen
I agree - I come from a family of credo-baptist and I respect their beliefs; shoot, I came from their beliefs! My dad is at the point where if one of his grandkids (or great-grand kids) was baptized as an infant, he'd be ok.
It's my brother-in-law (the Methodist pastor) that - well, there's a few digs.
😉
Carrie
I agree with Sherry, it just doesn't come together for me.
So, if you don't baptize an infant, what happens (from the point of view of the paedobaptist)?
Also curious about reformed denomins (as Kim mentioned). Which one baptizes babies, baptist or Presbyterian?
Ellen
So, if you don’t baptize an infant, what happens (from the point of view of the paedobaptist)
It depends on the denomination. I think it's Lutherans (along with Roman Catholics) that believe that (my words) baptism functions as a conduit for grace for an infant - there can be no spiritual regeneration without baptism.
There are also some Protestant denominations that believe this as credo-baptists - you can accept the Lord as an adult, but if you die before you can get baptized, you go to hell.
Most Reformed denominations believe that if a person is not baptized as a baby, they'll grow up and (if they accept Christ as savior) they'll be baptized as an adult. For us, this is not a point to get all upset over.
If I had another, I would want to get him or her baptized. But if that weren't possible, that would be ok also.
gina
Carrie,
"Also curious about reformed denomins (as Kim mentioned). Which one baptizes babies, baptist or Presbyterian? "
Presbyterian
Kim from Hiraeth
Presbyterians baptise babies (paedobaptists) , Baptists do not (credobaptists).
Pingback:
Semicolon