The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Thoughts on 1Cor 7:12ff

Amen! From my own studies over the years on this issue of baptism, it became evident to me that one of the major differences between the two camps is how they define baptism. The Credo camp wants to define it as something subjective, e.g., it is most often voiced as, "Baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality". Thus, what we visibly perceive outwardly, i.e., (in their case) the immersion in water; the washing of the body, is representative of what has taken place inwardly. The Paedo camp wants to define it as something objective, e.g., what we witness as taking place at baptism is a sign of God's immutable and infallible promise to save all who have faith as did Abraham.

Now, an insurmountable problem arises here for the Credo camp. They are most quick to qualify their definition by saying that there are indeed cases where a person's profession of faith is spurious and thus baptism does NOT signify "an inward reality". But then their definition is spurious. So, it must be asked again, what DOES baptism mean/signify? Is it legitimate to say that the definition of an object changes depending upon the circumstances? For example, does the definition of a Rolls Royce change depending upon who owns it? I would submit, that one cannot define nor truly understand the significance of baptism based upon the recipient of it. But rather the definition and its significance must be based upon something immutable; i.e., the immutable promise of God given to Abraham and his "seed", which is first Christ and then to all who believe. Most simply put, Baptism is the Gospel physically demonstrated; as the water washes away the filth of the body externally, so does Christ's blood wash away the filth of sin internally, to all who have faith.

As you have repeatedly emphasized, and which I too in myriad places and times said, baptism is NOT an infallible indication nor necessarily the sign of the recipient's salvation. But it IS the immutable promise of God to save all who are joined to Christ by faith. Is this promise no longer applicable to children? If it is not, then they should not be submitted for baptism. Are the children to be included in the covenant community as those who have been "sanctified", i.e., set apart unto God having been providentially blessed with all the means of grace which the world is without? If so, then they should be given the sign and seal of the covenant and the gospel pressed upon them, praying that the Lord our God will hear the prayers of their believing parents and bring them to Christ.

What many on both sides of this chasm fail to recognize is the unity which they share with each other. That unity, in many cases, albeit certainly not all, e.g., with those who hold to some forms of presumption, is in the practice in rearing their children. BOTH camps, again with exceptions, believe that their children are in need of salvation and do all in their power to use the means to that end. The parents in both camps pray for their children's salvation, both bring their children to church to hear the Word preached, both impress the child with their need of Christ, etc. The fact that there are abuses on both sides, e.g., Paedo's and their "presumptive: election, regeneration, and/or Christian status, and Credo's a quick and easy salvation by having children simply say, "I love Jesus!", etc. So, for me personally, and I realize that my view is odious to many Paedobaptists as well as Credobaptists, the issue is not nearly as important as others want to make it who put far too much emphasis upon baptism itself and/or the mode because at the end of the day, what is important, again to me personally, is how believing parents rear their children, i.e., in the Lord, doing all within their power to impress upon them the necessity of being united to Christ by faith.

Enough said on my part! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,