A recent article by Robert L. Franck entitled A Father's Responsibility (Part III): Salvation and Baptism received a comment challenging one of his statements. Bob's reply is too long to be placed in the 'comments' section at the end of the article, so we are posting it here. Click here to read the entire article and the comments at the end.
Here is Bob's response:
Dari, Covenant infant baptism teaching is complex, but let me attempt to detail it more thoroughly to support my statements in the article.
Chapter XXVIII of the Westminster Confession of Faith states:
“I. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins….”
“VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time.”
I have only excerpted two paragraphs, but you can read the whole context yourself.
Paragraph I states that there are two separate purposes in baptism: 1) admission into the visible Church, and 2) a “sign and seal of the covenant of grace.” Setting aside the first purpose until another day, the second purpose begs the question that if baptism is the sign and seal of grace, ingrafting, regeneration and remission of sins, how can it be applied to an infant that can neither profess nor demonstrate this salvation? The basis of the baptism is the infant’s relationship to a believing parent.
Paragraph VI makes the awkward argument that grace is “really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost” but only to those to whom “grace belongeth.” Or, to put it all together more bluntly – without the eloquence of the Westminster divines – infant baptism is the stamp of grace, conferring grace, based on a parent’s grace, but only if the infant is in grace.
Such gymnastics are more suitable for the Olympics than theology. It is no wonder that Covenant adherents have such difficulty expressing the significance of infant baptism. Here is an example from The Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America, paragraph 56-5. Here are the first two questions the minister asks the parents of the infant being baptized: “Do you acknowledge your child’s need of the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ, and the renewing grace of the Holy Spirit?” So far so good. But then, “Do you claim God’s covenant promises in (his) behalf, and do you look in faith to the Lord Jesus for (his) salvation, as you do for your own?”
You could ask a Covenant person to carefully cut apart all the elements and aspects of baptism in these statements and some may be able to do it. But there is an easier way to see if what I have said is true. Ask this, “Do you think a baptized infant will go to heaven if he dies?”