The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Infant Baptism not found in Scripture?

Yes, I am VERY familiar with what the LBCF says. And, the first Q&A is exactly what my problem is in this discussion. READ that Q&A again carefully!! Do you remember my contentions against the Dutch Reformed churches who use "The Form For the Baptism of Infants"? Both that Form and the LBCF make the declaration that baptism is a SIGN, i.e., it points to something and that something is the salvation of the recipient. Both teach "presumptive regeneration"; in the case of the Dutch Reformed churches and many in Presbyterian churches it is the presumption of salvation of infants and in the LBCF and with MANY (most?) Baptists it is the presumption of salvation of adults. Read the Q&A again..... According to the LBCF, baptism is to be a sign to the person baptized of: fellowship with Christ, being grafted in him (Christ), of remission of sins, and of his (recipient) commitment to live a holy life.

There is no escaping the conclusion that this view teaches and declares the recipient to be saved. And IF that is true, as I have previously stated above, then ALL who receive baptism MUST BE saved, because according to this teaching, baptism is a SIGN of the salvation owned by the one baptized. Now, if you object to the conclusion, which I know you do, or should, then fix the problem. And what is the problem? It is not that you and all Baptists believe that only adults are warranted to receive baptism. The problem is with the definition of baptism used. IF as you and most all Baptists will undoubtedly strongly reject the idea that ALL who submit to baptism are infallibly saved before baptism, then how can baptism be a SIGN of the recipients salvation? What is wrong is that the definition doesn't accord with reality, the truth that some (many?) who are baptized are NOT SAVED.

So, what is the solution? Again, a change needs to be made to the definition so that it represents something propositional, i.e., it is ALWAYS true regardless of who receives baptism, whether the person is regenerate and a true believer, one who is deceived into thinking he/she is saved, one who is deliberately feigning faith, or an infant. The "fix" is actually extremely simple... remove the subjective element about the recipient from the definition and substitute it with "true believer" so that it would read thus:

Do you see the advantage of such a statement vs. that of the LBCF, The Form for the Baptism of Infants, and all such statements? The definition is a propositional statement which is ALWAYS true regardless of who receives baptism. It doesn't say anything about that particular person's salvation, but rather it is a statement concerning the Gospel; God saves sinners. SUBJECTIVELY, these things are true for the recipient IF and ONLY IF the recipient has received the saving mercy and grace of God and has received Christ with a true living faith. I won't get into the matter of infants at this point but it is no less applicable to them too. The two sacraments/ordinances of the NT are baptism and the Lord's Supper and BOTH are only applicable to those who are believers. Those who are deceived or feign faith and who take of the Lord's Supper eat and drink condemnation upon themselves but the definition, what the Lord's Supper means is always true regardless of the spiritual state of those who partake of it.

To summarize in extremely brief form... Baptism is a visual proclamation of the Gospel; of God's salvation in Christ to all who believe. That salvation does NOT belong to those who necessarily PROFESS faith, but only to those who POSSESS faith.