I was intrigued when my card-carrying Reformed mama friend told me that when she looks at her daughters, she sees not a pagan, but a sister in Christ. Upon baptism, her babes are in the Covenant.
So what do we see when we see a child? I’ve got a book coming on Tuesday that answers this question from perspective of Augustine, Aquinas, Edwards, etc. So I’ll be back.
You may also like
3 thoughts on “What do you see?”
Comments are closed.
Always glad to intrigue ;o)
Technically (and sometimes I get technicalities wrong, especially on the fly) they are in the covenant by virtue of being our children. Their baptism makes them members of the visible church. So, when our dear friend baptized Kate he said, “Kathryn Lilia S—-, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” (cold water all over her during that) and then he kissed her and said, “Welcome to the family, Kate.” Baptism is an outward symbol of the covenant relationship that is already there, and it’s a visible entrance into the visible body of Christ, but not being Lutheran, it’s not a regenerating work. It’s a tattoo saying “We the church, God’s people on earth, recognize that you belong to Christ.”
I bet the book is interesting and I can’t wait to hear about it.
Funny you should post this. Having been raised basically Baptist, i’ve been wrestling with this very issue. I see the point that Covenantal Believers make… the OT says that the covenant God made with Abraham would be unending… yet for all practical purposes, many Baptist-view churches just skip over verses such as in I Corinthians when children of a believer and un-believer are called “holy” as a mystery. Could it be that the solution to the mystery is the extension of the Abrahamic covenant to the children of gentile believers is a valid one. That just as not all circumcised children of the Chosen were circumcised at heart or true followers of the Lord, they were still part of the visible OT church? And just as those children received a promise, so to the children of NT believers receive a sign and seal of the covenant even before the profess faith in Christ…
Is Baptism as physical demonstration of the sign and seal God makes with His children or is it a physical demonstration of our repentance and acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord? Is the argument that just because the NT doesn’t specifically state infants weren’t baptized when household were baptized (Lydia, the jailer) we should assume their were no children in the house? Is the “parallel language” that Dr. George Grant says is used in the OT in reference to circumcision and NT in reference to Baptism just a coincidence?
Like I said… still wrestling with this. But if our God gave us the ability to draw inferences and conclusions, to have complex thought patterns in how we write… are we limiting God to say the only correct interpretation and practice of baptism is “Believer’s Baptism”? Why would he give us the ability to use literary devices in our literature but make everything “obvious” in his Word?
I can’t argue the point… still prayerfully studying and wondering myself….. looking forward to your insights.
The following link provides a “reformed defense of infant Baptism”. I found it very interesting:
http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/Infant_Baptism.html