I have been challenged by a paedo-baptist brother for teaching children that they are sinners and that they need to repent. This brother said, “The children have done nothing to repent of.” This brother claimed that I should baptize all my children and treat them as if they are regenerate, because who knows maybe they are. And if they are then I am impoverishing them by not treating them like a saint but telling them that they need to repent. Furthermore, I am keeping the sign of the covenant unfairly from them if they are elect and I don’t know it and baptize them. So, I should treat them as if they have nothing to repent of and only treat them otherwise if they one day deny the faith.
Well, I know some kids that really, really need to repent. They have been corrected over and over but rebellion is deep in them. But maybe they are just backslid and not really unregenerate. Maybe I should bring them before the elders and have them excommunicated from the church. Less mouths to feed!!!!
No, I don’t buy it. This sounds convoluted to me. I think I will just continue to teach them the whole council of God’s Word, plant the seeds, pray for the Holy Spirit’s work in their heart — and when they ask, “What must I do to be saved?” I will say, “Repent, child, and be baptized.”
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
This paedobaptist of whom you speak has not read his Bible clearly AT ALL! All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. From the womb we are totally depraved creatures in need of a Savior! You have been talking to an ill-informed paedobaptist and I can we now why you so vehemently disagree with what you think paedobaptists believe! This is the worst sort of thinking I have ever heard in my life! Does he not know of original sin? The Bible clearly teaches us to raise children in the way that they should go…that we should teach them God and His ways. Even if a person is of the elect, they must learn about Christ. Scripture states that the Word is powerful unto salvation. Without hearing about Christ, they would not become regenerated. Of course, the elect would never not hear about Christ, but this person’s thinking is certainly twisted and boarders on heresy…are you sure you weren’t talking to a Roman Catholic? To be honest with everyone, I don’t think that infants who die in infancy are of the elect because they didn’t hear of Christ and profess Him and ask for forgiveness for at least their original sin. Now, I am the only one that I know of who believes this, but I really don’t see it in Scripture. I think people just can’t stand to think that little babies or even mentally delayed people go to hell…the problem with that is that their souls have no age because they are eternal and their souls are not mentally delayed…both are just totally depraved. Now you’re asking me why I am a paedobaptist, right? The elect children will grow up to an age where they can profess their faith and repent of their sins. It’s ok if no one agrees with me…I don’t expect anyone to and I don’t ever say this around my brothers and sisters who know me and have infants/small children, because it doesn’t do anything for them except bring them extreme pain if their child does die. I really do hope I’m wrong about this, but for now I don’t see it any differently in Scripture.
The problem I see with the argument posed against you is that it insinuates salvation by election not repentance.
Sister luvvom,
Here is, I believe, the problem with the application of water to infants and calling it New Testament baptism. It creates a separate category of individuals that in effect receive a covenant sign devoid of substance. It creates a category of those that; 1) have not the circumcision of Christ through faith (Col 2:11-13); 2) are not buried with Christ into His death and resurrection; are not crucified in Christ; are not freed from slavery to sin (Rom 6:1-6) 3) have not an appeal of a good conscience by the resurrection of Christ (1Pet 3:21) 4) have not the washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5) 5) have not the washing away of sin by the calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16) 6) have no remission of sin (Acts 2:38), and so forth. All the other discussion aside, it seems to me one has to address how one can biblically show the way in which all these benefits associated with baptism relate to the infant without admitting that the baptism of the infant puts them in the exact standing as the believer being baptized.
I hope you guys iron all this out soon so I can know exactly when my kids get saved. Which answers do they have to check off? How much do they have to know? What exactly do they have to affirm at their baptism (or confirmation) to make it exactly right?
I tell ya, I’m losing sleep.
David,
Just don’t do anything. If they’re part of the elect, then you have nothing to worry about. If they aren’t part of the elect…well, then you can’t do anything about it anyway.
Jason,
Good post. I also appreciated an earlier one entitled “Do Babies Go to Heaven?” Frankly, I’m surprised that issue wasn’t brought up in the Cook-Manata debate. Might we see more on that issue in upcoming posts?
Lee,
Yes, that is an interesting issue. We actually dealt with it last Sunday night at the debate follow-up Q&A with the pastors and Gene. It was a fun discussion.
Luvmom, I am not sure how old you are, but when I was in school back in the 80′s we had these things called paragraph breaks. Maybe the rules have changed on me, but in my typing class we were taught to use the “enter” key they the “tab” key.
I am just messing with you, but a paragraph break would help.
As far as what Jason is referring to, I am familiar with the Presbyterians he is speaking of and they are not crazy fringe Presby’s. These are well informed, mainline Presbyterians who have stated this, and it is way more than one.
Jason,
One of my favorite paedobaptist quotes is this, from the pen of Charles Hodge no less:
“Those parents sin grievously against the souls of their children who neglect to consecrate them to God in the ordinance of baptism. Do let the little ones have their names written in the Lamb’s book of life, even if they afterwards choose to erase them. Being thus enrolled may be the means of their salvation” (Systematic Theology, 3:588).
I wonder how many paedobaptists would stand by these words today.
Scott,
). You would be stunned to know that I was an excellent student in Grammar during high school and college! 
) Anyhow, the contents of this post is DEFINATELY not mainline PCA or OPC doctrine. My brother-in-law and sister are PCA and I used to be but now I’m OPC and I have never heard such nonsense in all my life. You must be talking to members of the USA Presbyterian church. I would have to read with my own eyes this type of heresy on the OPC or PCA headquarters’ website in order to believer you. If you can should me that, then I’ll become a Baptist…wiping my tongue now. 
)
I’m 39 and I don’t use paragraphs etc when commenting….you are not the first Baptist to complain about that
Paragraph break: ;o)
Matt,
you would need to tell us the author of the Systematic Theology book of which you speak. There are many, many of them which are written by dispensationalists…your page number resembles those of dispensationalists’…a lot of words on a lot of pages with nothing meaningful to say.
luvvom: If you reread my comment, you will find that I identified the paedobaptist author as Charles Hodge. I know what you mean about him seeming dispensational in the way he numbered his pages. In fact, if you compare the numbering system in Hodge’s three-volume systematic theology to the numbering system used in the multi-volume theology set by dispensationalist Lewis Sperry Chafer, you’ll find that the two are virtually identical. Hodge was reformed in every other way, but here he compromises. Go figure.
Matt,
). Anyway, I don’t know this person…I probably should…and so I can’t take your one quote by him and come to a conclusion about whether he really followed the Bible first and foremost and the WMC on this issue or if this quote is just his longing for what he wants and what isn’t found in Scripture. Know what I mean? I can’t judge him based on one quote…now if he were a dispensationalist…. ;o)
oops! Didn’t see Charles Hodge’s name there in your comment…maybe too many paragraphs in your comment for me
Matt,
this is the part that sounds like an Arminian to me: “Do let the little ones have their names written in the Lamb’s book of life, even if they afterwards choose to erase them. Being thus enrolled may be the means of their salvation” We, OPC, are strongly against the thinking that baptism saves ANYONE. I guess if a preacher was 100% correct in everything he said he would be God. Anyway, this one quote is certainly wrong and I nor any other OPC member who believes in reformed theology would agree with it.
Matt,
Thanks for that quote.
I was talking to a Presbyterian today and said the following.
“I feel that paedo’s are off theologically, but it seems paedo’s think credo’s are actually sinning by not baptizing their infants. Do you think this is a fair assessment? If so, it may explain why Presbyterians are so suspicious of Baptist, and Baptist just don’t understand Presbys.”
My presby brother responded with the following:
Probably a fair assessment. I think the sin is not volitional so I view it as more of a sad thing that they think of Baptists as sinners.
I know that at the end of the day, I listened to Paul M.’s arguments and thought, “OK, I disagree with this guy theologically on points concerning baptism and the nature of the New Covenant… but so what? I have more in common with this brother — and that which we have in common is more important that this issue alone. I can fellowship with him and work with him doing kingdom work.”
But I know that some presbys that I have talked to aren’t so charitable to Baptist. Why? Because this is not just a theological issue, but a moral issue. They think that Baptist are “impoverishing” the elect by withholding the grace of baptism from them waiting for a credible profession. Thus is a sense we are abusing these children spiritually. There take offense at that, moral offense, and thus in some ways begin to despise the Baptist.
This is not good, to say the least.
I hope that our church can be a instrument in God’s hands to unite the Reformed community of S.Cal. at least.
You know me, I don’t just sweep our differences under the proverbial rug and say they don’t matter. But I do know that there are some things that matter more!
BTW, good to hear from you again, Matt.
And let me add, OldVanTillian hit the nail on the head.
Jason: I have found that most paedobaptists would not go so far as to say that baptists are rebelliously in sin, but rather that we are simply ignorant of biblical teaching. At the same time, to be consistent it seems that they would have to say that our infants are “cut off” from the people of God because the sign has not been applied to them (Gen 17:14).
I should mention that I am highly in favor of approaching and discussing this issue peacefully. Some of my very best friends are paedobaptists, and I enjoy incredibly sweet fellowship with these brothers. I probably should have left off the first sentence of that quote from Hodge, since it wasn’t the point I was hoping to emphasize anyway.
luvvom: Charles Hodge is considered one of the most highly revered spokesman for reformed theology to this day, and his Systematic Theology is one of the standards in the reformed community, so you may not want to say that nobody who is reformed agrees with him. Frankly, I do think his quote is a bit off the wall (although I would say that Berkhof rivals him at times), and that very few paedobaptists would state it that way, but it really gets at what I believe is a difficult question for the paedobaptist: What exactly does baptism accomplish for the baby?
In an earlier comment you addressed this by saying that baptism “seals” the infants “with all the promises He has promised His children,” and yet I am guessing you would say that these promises are conditioned upon the faith of the infant. In other words, the forgiveness that is promised to the infant is only granted to him if and when he actually repents and believes in Christ. The problem I see here is that the infant growing up in a pagan home has exactly the same promise extended to him: If he repents and believes in Christ, God will forgive him as well.
Put another way, regardless of whether the infant is (a) a baptized child of believers, (b) an unbaptized child of believers, or (c) an unbaptized child of unbelievers, he still has the promise that if he repents and believes in Christ, he will be forgiven.
What exactly does it mean that baptism has “sealed” the infant of believers with the covenant promise of forgiveness? What exactly is the difference between a “sealed” promise and an “unsealed” promise if both of them are conditional and both will indeed be fulfilled if the conditions of the promise are met?
Matt, I just wanted to commend you for your clarity and charity. Good points — I’ve been trying to say the same thing with such clarity, but I have failed miserably. Thank you for the help.
Matt,
“What exactly does it mean that baptism has “sealed” the infant of believers with the covenant promise of forgiveness? What exactly is the difference between a “sealed” promise and an “unsealed” promise if both of them are conditional and both will indeed be fulfilled if the conditions of the promise are met?”
Ask yourself this question for adults and you’ll have your answer.
I’m not the one who came up with Baptism God is. If that is how He chooses to give a physical sign of sealing to His children, who are we to cry about it?
No one is saying that Baptism effects salvation so your question is…well, strange. No one is saying that pagans’ children will never get saved. When he does get saved then he will get baptized and have the physical sign of being sealed…baptism I can’t help it that he wasn’t brought up in a Christian home and he has to wait until he gets saved. Him having to wait doesn’t impact his eventual salvation….but you don’t see him being apart of the visible church as an infant with his parents. So it doesn’t matter that he didn’t get baptized when he was an infant because he wasn’t in the visible church.
Maybe I’m not following you on your thought processes. I start from election and the visible church and move from there…is that what you are doing or are you starting from the day of someone’s salvation? Maybe that’s why we are not connecting.
Scott,
is that good paragraphing or what? Hope it helps to convert you! ;o)
luvvom: I think the reason we’re not connecting is because you haven’t answered my question. I will keep things simpler this time: What does it mean that baptism has “sealed” infant children of believers with the New Covenant promise of forgiveness? This was part of your own definition of baptism, and I’m simply asking you what you meant by what you said.
The closest you came to answering this question in your comment above was to say: “Ask yourself this question for adults and you’ll have your answer,” which is basically a non-answer. I myself would never attempt to answer this question because I don’t believe that baptism functions as a seal. But since you do, and since it was part of your original definition of baptism, I am eager to hear your explanation.
Matt,
sorry. I didn’t know that you didn’t view baptism as a seal for adults…that was my own assumption. I guess I just assumed this based on what you said here: “and yet I am guessing you would say that these promises are conditioned upon the faith of the infant. In other words, the forgiveness that is promised to the infant is only granted to him if and when he actually repents and believes in Christ.”
I really have tried to put what it means for infants to be sealed by baptism into understandable words but I’m failing, so let me define it for adults and then maybe you can relate to that better. When an adult who is a heathen comes to our church; hears the Word of God; and receives salvation, we then ask for a profession of faith and he is baptised. His baptism is a seal of the promises in God which are: the ingrafting into Christ, receiving of grace which is bestowed upon him, and being God’s child. I think you will be able to understand that. Now you want to know how that can be an infant’s, right? I think of it in this way. Election isn’t decided upon for a person just a few days before their salvation, right? Election was decided upon before the foundations of the world. God has set His heart upon the elect and nothing will turn Him from us. Before our salvation we are God-hating rebels. There are some reformers who think that God hates us too because we are evil, but I don’t think that is the case with the elect only the unelect. If God hated us, there would be no hope for us for man wouldn’t in himself become good enough for God to even sort of like. Anyway, so think about the many years that span between election and our salvation…lots! But times isn’t an issue with God. Even when we are dead in our trespasses and sins He directs our life and what will happen in it. Even though we haven’t been brought into His invisible church before salvation, He still keeps His hand upon us and guides us along in our life until we arrive to the moment in time of salvation….He bears with us with much longsuffering. Actually, both the elect and the unelect’s life is directed by God. The only difference is one is directed toward everlasting life and the other toward everlasting death. So, when you consider the care that we receive from our heavenly Father before our salvation, is any great wonder that He bestows the seal of baptism upon His elect children at infancy? OT saints looked into the future at the cross and received salvation and we look back and receive salvation. The elect infants receive these promises on the mere fact that they are elect and NOTHING shall keep them from salvation at which time they experience the actual benefits of grace that was promised to them at their baptism and the bringing of them into the invisible church. Remember they already experience the grace of election before salvation. Another way to think of about another kind of “sealing” is this way: the Godhead made out a salvational plan before the foundations of the world. They agreed upon it and sealed through a Godly contract. Is that better? If not, I don’t think I can do much better. Maybe talk to a paedobaptist who is smarter that I.
luvvom: What I’m getting at is actually much narrower and simpler than you may think. You said that baptism “is a seal of the promises of God.” I’m just wondering what that means. What precisely does it mean that baptism “seals” God’s promises? In other words, pretend that I am ready and willing to believe whatever you say, but I just don’t understand what you’re saying—i.e., I don’t know what a “seal” is, and I don’t what it means that baptism functions as a “seal” of God’s covenant promises—and so I’m simply asking you.
To get at it another way, I think your position is that infants of believers are the recipients of God’s covenant promises, and that these promises are sealed in baptism. With this in mind, what actually happens either to the infant or to the promises themselves when those promises are sealed in baptism? What happens or changes when the water is applied to the infant? Put yet another way, what is true after the baptism that was not true before the baptism? Keep in mind that I’m simply trying to understand what exactly baptism accomplishes when an infant is baptized.
Incidentally, the reason I don’t view baptism as a seal is because the Bible does not identify it as a seal.
Sarah,
In your last post you have just made Jason’s case for “baptizing them all and let God sort them out.”
1)You are saying that baptism is based upon election 2)Since no one knows who the elect are, and some of the elect come out of the heathen 3) we ought to therefore baptize all the heathen right along with the children of believers.
Now I know you did not make those exact statements, but that is how what you wrote plays out.
It therefore makes no sense in marking a distinction between all the heathen and the children of believers if the reason to baptize is seen through the eyes of election rather than as a profession of faith.
Matt,
( Anyway, I will try again. A seal for example can be a king’s seal on a new law that he established. So he makes a new law and writes it down on paper which he will seal with his ring. Without the king’s seal, it’s still a law he made and is no less his law which will be enforced. However, his seal makes it official…there’s no dispute that the law came from the king’s hand. That’s how baptism seals us as his children. Better?
LOL! This is driving me crazy because I’m not understanding what it is you want…wish we could talk verbally.
John 6:26-27 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27 Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.”
Oldvantillian,
(
I’ve never talked to you before so this isn’t directed at you….your statement is an old one and one with which I’ve dealt. If you go and read other comments in other posts, you’ll find my comment back to “you”. I don’t want to say it all over again.
I want to make a few observations based on the Hodge quote. This is going to sound like a generalization, which usually doesn’t work on blogs, but I am not accusing anyone of anything.
If Hodge is correct in his attitude towards us Credos, and many I have read recently would agree with him. Then how do Paedo’s deal with situation such as the hypothetical below. I am trying to get a handle on the practical implications of this.
The parents of a 14 year boy comes to the elders and says, “my son who was baptized at this church as an infant is out doing (insert sin here) and will not listen to us any longer, he says he hates church and doesn’t want to go any longer.
Do you as a Paedo-baptist.
A. Pray for his repentance and salvation.
B. Excommunicate him from the visible church
C. Tell the parents if they were better parents he wouldn’t have rebelled.
D. Say well he must not be in the elect.
E. All or none of the above.
How does this work?
Luvmom, you said, “His baptism is a seal of the promises in God which are: the ingrafting into Christ, receiving of grace which is bestowed upon him, and being God’s child. I think you will be able to understand that.”
That sounds like salvation.
Scott,
“Luvmom, you said, ‘His baptism is a seal of the promises in God which are: the ingrafting into Christ, receiving of grace which is bestowed upon him, and being God’s child. I think you will be able to understand that.’
That sounds like salvation.”
That’s why I said Baptism is the seal. The rest is salvation.
Also, as a credo how would you deal with the 14yr old boy?
luvvom: Based on what you have written, here is how I would summarize your view: Children of believers are the recipients of the promises of the covenant. Baptism seals these promises in the sense that it guarantees (or makes official) that God has indeed made these promises to the covenant child who is baptized. Is that about right?
My next question is this: Are the covenant promises which are sealed in baptism conditional promises or unconditional promises?
I think you would say that they are conditional, meaning that the one baptized only receives that which is promised if he personally repents and believes in Christ. For example, take the forgiveness of sins, which is one of the most prominent promises of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:34). As a child of the covenant, the infant of at least one believing parent is promised the forgiveness of sins, and his baptism seals this promise in that it guarantees (or makes official) that God has indeed promised the forgiveness of sins to this particular infant. And yet this covenant promise is conditional in that he is only actually forgiven if he repents and believes in Christ. In this way, the seal of baptism guarantees that when the condition of faith in Christ is met, that individual will indeed receive the forgiveness of sins.
Is this a fair summary of your position? And yes, I am going somewhere with this.
Luvmom I would pray for the salvation of the 14 year old and encourage his parents and our church to do the same.
However, the question was posed directly to Paedos in an effort to understand practical theology.
So I ask you. What would you do? What would your elders do?
Matt,
yes, that is a good summation of what I believe!…I know there’s a trap coming but I’m ready!
Scott,
good job…we would do the same.
BTW, Scott, I really do love my mom, but that’s not my blog name it’s luvvom. Why not just call me sarah…it’s easier to spell.
luvvom: No trap. In fact, all I’m trying to do is to circle back and help you see the significance of what I wrote earlier in this same comment section. We didn’t connect then, but perhaps you will understand now.
To repeat what I wrote then: The problem I see is that the infant growing up in a pagan home has exactly the same conditional promise extended to him (as the so-called covenant child): If he repents and believes in Christ, God will forgive him as well. In fact, why don’t we just make God’s conditional promise official and baptize the pagan infant too? See the difficulty here?
I’m about to leave down for the weekend, so I will leave you in peace for a few days. Shalom.
Have a good trip Matt. And I do hope that all understand point you are making. It really goes to the heart of what the definition of baptism is and why a person should or should not be baptized.
I am saddened that paedobaptism has turned New Covenant baptism into something as meaningless as New Covenant circumcision (and yes I meant “New Covenant”).
Let me ask again the original question of this post: “Do you, if you are a paedobaptist, call upon your children, that you have already put the “sign and seal” of the NC upon, to repent and believe in Christ?”
Matt,
“To repeat what I wrote then: The problem I see is that the infant growing up in a pagan home has exactly the same conditional promise extended to him (as the so-called covenant child): If he repents and believes in Christ, God will forgive him as well. In fact, why don’t we just make God’s conditional promise official and baptize the pagan infant too? See the difficulty here?”
Good question Matt. The reason we don’t is because his parents are not apart of the visible or invisible church and therefore the infant isn’t apart of the visible church. This is a big thing. We are called to be separate from the world and this is just one part of how that is accomplished. Being apart of the visible church doesn’t guarantee that a child will be saved anymore than a child not being apart of the visible will deny him salvation. That’s not the issue. It has to do with being set apart as community of believers to Christ.
Have a great time…on your vacation?