One of the more interesting questions that has been put to me came from a young man who was diligently thinking through the paedobaptism issue. He asked: What benefit(s) is it to baptize children, if they are unable to profess their faith themselves? This was an interesting question not because it caused me to rethink the paedobaptism question or because it was unanswerable, rather it was because it hit at a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the nature of the sacraments. What I want to do in this post is consider the signs and seals of the church.
In most Reformed churches baptism and the Lord’s Supper are often referred to in three ways: sacraments, signs, and seals. The first of those words communicates that they are God-given and God-used for the edification of his people (see also WSC, Question 92). The second and third words are connected to the first, they help us understand how God uses them. Paul uses both terms in Romans 4:11, where he writes:
And he, that is Abraham, received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also…
In a clear way, Paul asserts that circumcision was a sign and a seal. While the New Testament never explicitly calls baptism and the Lord’s Supper signs or seals, I believe that it is reasonable and right to characterize them as a sign or a seal. And so if we want to better understand the function of them, we must go back to the Old Testament. In Genesis 17 we see God giving Abraham the sign of circumcision. The question that confronts the reader or provides context for the giving of the sign is this: Why did God give the sign? In answering this question we go a long way towards understanding the purpose and utility of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
In terms of the “why” of circumcision, we can see that it flowed from Abraham’s question, which was centered on the faithfulness of God and the certainty of his promises. We can say that God gave him the sign and seal as a testimony to encourage and strengthen Abraham’s trust in God. How does this help reveal the misunderstanding associated with the question that I opened this post with? The question presupposes that signs, particularly baptism in this case, is about the individual professing their faith or testifying to their decision to follow Christ. I would say that to a certain degree this is true, but it is secondary to what God declares and promises.
Just as the sign of circumcision pointed to God’s faithfulness, so too does baptism point to what God has and is doing. In baptism, God declares that he has cleansed the individual from sin in justification, is cleaning in sanctification, and ultimately will do it when the believer is glorified. The believer, in faith, can look to these glorious promises of God, a la Abraham via his circumcision.
Returning back to the young man’s original question, what good is it? Well it is good not because of what the child professes or does not profess, rather the good comes from the fact that the child has God’s promises declared to them through the waters of baptism. When these promises are taught and embraced by faith, baptism becomes a powerful motivator and source of encouragement.