泥巴

聖禮=洗禮+聖餐
https://yimawusi.net/2021/04/26/infant-baptism-collections/

#聖禮是恩典之約的記號與印證 sign and seal，是上帝設立，為要表明基督以及基督的恩惠（記號），和確認我們有份於基督和祂的恩惠（印證）。見 WCF 27.1; WLC 162

#洗禮與聖餐差別：洗禮只有一次，代表人進入約（initiates; 太28:19; 羅6:3-4）；聖餐重複領受，代表人持續在約裡面（sustains; 林前11:25-26）

洗禮

#聖禮=外在記號+內在屬靈實體；太26:27-28

WCF 27.2在每一聖禮中，在「記號」與「記號代表的實體」之間都有一種屬靈的關係，或說聖禮上的聯合;因此一個聖禮的名稱與功效可歸給另一個聖禮

#洗禮的外在媒介（element）是水（WCF 28.2），表達的是：

#WCF 28.1 洗禮是耶穌基督所設立的新約聖禮，不但為了嚴肅承認受洗者加入有形教會，對受洗者是記號與印證，（標示與印證）：恩典之約，與基督連結，重生，罪得赦免，透過基督將自己託付給上帝，行事有新生樣式；基督親自指定這聖禮在教會中繼續施行，直到世界的末了。

# 簡言之，洗禮表示受洗的人是教會成員，領受恩典之約之好處（WCF 7.3），與基督聯合，重生，罪得赦免，藉著基督信靠上帝，成聖（治死罪+活出新人）。

誰該受洗

# WCF 28.4 不但確實宣稱相信並順服基督者應當受洗，而且相信的父母親的一方或者雙方是信主的，他們的嬰孩也應當受洗。

【新福嬰兒洗要理問答】

1. 問：一個人受洗的原因是什麼？
答：主的命令；太28:19-20

2. 問：我們怎麼知道一個人該受洗？主命令要誰受洗？
答：壹，確實宣稱自己相信並順服基督的人，就是所稱的信徒；貳，信徒的嬰孩；徒2:38-39

3. 問：這些人受洗的基礎是什麼？
答：大人小孩嬰孩受洗的基礎都是一樣的，就是主在恩典之約中表達的應許；也就是說，不論是成人還是嬰兒，若他們有份於恩典之約，就該領受約的記號。

4. 問：我們憑什麼認定人有份於恩典之約、是約的成員？
答：一般人——憑著他們確實宣稱自己相信並順服基督；信徒嬰孩——憑著上帝的應許。

5. 問：約的成員享有什麼好處？
答：約的成員與世界有別，享有約一切的好處：領受救贖之恩典（WCF 28.1），也有權使用一切恩典媒介，包括敬拜、團契、聽道、領受聖禮、禱告、受教會教導督責懲戒等等。

6. 問：約的成員是否有義務？
答：當然有；簡言之，就是要愛上帝與愛鄰舍，活出符合所領受恩典的樣式。

7. 問：是否凡約的成員都重生得救有永生？
答：我們分辨。並非所有領受約的記號（洗禮）的人都擁有那記號所印證的屬靈事實（蒙揀選、重生、信心、稱義、成聖等）。因此，我們回答，事實也告訴我們：並非所有領受約的記號的人，都是蒙揀選的人；換言之，並非所有受洗的人都得救。

8. 問：那麼，我們是否只能看待我們受洗的孩子為約的成員、享有約的外在記號和好處，但對他們是否重生得救則無法確定？我們該如何看我們的孩子？他們是否得救？
答：我們的孩子們當然「不僅是」約的成員，只享有約的外在好處。雖然我們無法對他人之得救有百分之百的確據，但是基於上帝的應許（是救恩，不是會員身份！）、和憑著寬容的判斷，我們應該視我們兒女為上帝兒女，是蒙主所愛的，領受恩典之約的記號與印證，是在主的恩典之下而非在祂的震怒之下。孩子們或許無法如成年人表達他們的信心，然而基於聖靈自己的工作，改革宗的先賢們甚至可稱我們的兒女為「信徒」。在沒有任何負面證據顯明之前，我們理當視我們兒女為重生得救的人、為基督徒（參考西敏公共敬拜指南）！我們沒有理由質疑上帝的應許（參考 WCF 10.3, Dort 1.17）。

9. 問：上帝是否用兩種不同的方式分別拯救成人和嬰孩？
答：不。上帝都是按照恩典之約拯救所有得救的罪人。也就是說，凡得救者，皆為蒙揀選、與基督聯合、蒙基督寶血潔淨、由聖靈重生、稱義、得上帝兒女名份、成聖、得榮耀的人——不論這人活在肉身時間或長或短。因人若不重生，就沒有永生（約3:3）。選民通常可以也必須透過眼見行動（悔改、歸信）展示內在重生；然而，有些選民則在無法展現可眼見之歸信行動時就被天父招回天家，如夭折的蒙揀選嬰兒（路1:15，41）。

10. 問：我們怎麼確認我們兒女得救？尤其無法展現信心的兒女們？
答：再一次：沒有人可百分之百「確認」任何人得救，因為上帝沒有賜下一張得救名單。然而，我們憑著上帝賜下的應許，沒有理由懷疑我們兒女得救的事實——除非他們展現負面證據。其實我們應該自問：我憑什麼懷疑他們不得救？然而，對於非信徒的兒女，我們沒有上帝的應許，也沒有這樣的確據。

11. 問：了解！我們理當視我們兒女為得救的人！但若這樣，他們是否就不須要「悔改以致得救」
答：當然不是！正如我們相信重生在悔改與相信以先，而重生的人必相信且悔改、以致得救，我們的兒女到可行動的年紀當然就須要悔改、要信！若他們不信也不悔改，就印證他們只有領受恩典之約的外在記號，卻沒有屬靈事實。

12. 問：那麼，這樣我們還須要為他們施洗嗎？
答：當然！我們不是憑著人的信心而施洗，而是按照主的命令、憑著祂的應許為人施洗，大人小孩都一樣。

13. 問：若我們視兒女為得救的人，這是否導致我們鬆懈對於他們的教導，也忽略向他們傳福音？
答：當然有這個可能，就如在教會的成年人也可能妄想自己已經得救，就從來沒有相信悔改以致得救。

14. 問：那怎麼辦？
答：我們必須「照著主的教訓和警戒、養育他們」（弗6:4），要求他們「要在主裡聽從父母、這是理所當然的」 (弗 6:1)。我們不應把他們看為沒有得救的外邦人——要是如此，我們如何要求他們「在主裡」聽從父母？而正因為我們視他們為屬於主的人，就更應該教導他們活出主的樣式（羅6:4；加3:27）。先確認身分，再有其要求 indicative-imperative：這個原則對成年信徒也是一樣！我們總是勸勉所有屬於主的人確認而活出自己的身分！我們總是勸戒所有的人，大人小孩，「應當更加殷勤、使你們所蒙的恩召和揀選堅定不移」 (彼後 1:10)。

15. 問：那麼，受洗對我們兒女有什麼好處？

答：大有好處。聖禮是恩典媒介。受洗的人確實藉著聖禮領受恩典，不外乎就是我們的主祂自己。聖靈依照自己的意思和時間將這恩典施行在人的身上（WCF 28.6）。我們理當鼓勵兒女們不斷「更新 improve」自己的洗禮（WLC 167）。洗禮告訴我們和我們的兒女：他們是在主裡的人！洗禮提醒父母：你的兒女屬於主！洗禮不是我們兒女信心的記號，但是我們兒女的信心擁抱這記號！

西敏大要理 167問：如何使我們的洗禮更加有效呢?（王志勇牧師版本）

答：要使我們洗禮更加有效，是人人常常忽視的當盡的責任，是我們一生一世都當履行的事，特別是在受試探的時候，當我們出席他人洗禮的時候，更當如此；(西2:11-12；羅6:4, 6, 11)。使我們的洗禮更加有效的方法就是:

（1）以感恩的心認真地思考洗禮的性質，基督設立洗禮的目的，洗禮所施與並印證的特權和恩惠，以及我們受洗時所發的莊重誓言（羅6:3－5）；
（2）要因我們的罪污，對洗禮之恩和承諾的虧負、背離而謙卑下來；林前1:11-13；羅6:2-3
（3）越加確信罪已蒙赦，以及其它在洗禮中所印證的各樣福分（羅4:11－12；彼前3:21）；
（4）從基督的受死與復活中吸取力量，我們受洗是歸入祂，為要我們治死罪，在恩典裡甦醒（羅6:35）；
（5）努力靠信心生活（加3:26-27），行事為人聖潔公義（羅6:22），正如那些在洗禮中把自己的名字交託給基督的人一樣（徒2:38）；
（6）兄姊妹彼此相愛，因為我們由同一聖靈受洗，歸入同一身體（林前12:13，25-27）。

****** ******

Kline, M. G. (2006). Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (pp. 364–365). Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers.
https://www.facebook.com/peddrluo/posts/10158979338399653

M. Kline 说，我们不应该诉诸 “应许” 来作为给信徒儿女施洗的根据。因为应许就相当於拣选（选民的范围比圣约共同体成员的范围窄）；我们应该诉诸于上帝赋予父母的权柄。因为上帝已经指示在圣约群体里的父母（也就是认信的父母），要给在他们权柄下的儿女圣约群体成员的记号（在旧约时是割礼，而在新约中是洗礼）。

以旧约为例，虽然亚伯拉罕明知道以实玛利不是应许的后裔，却仍然遵照耶和华的吩咐，给了他圣约的记号，为他行了割礼。因为他就算不是选民，仍然隶属于这个圣约的共同体，要受这个群体的圣约所管辖。

在新约中，当父母给孩童施行时，不必猜测他们究竟是否是蒙拣选的选民，这不是洗礼要表达的含义。当父母给孩童施洗时，不表示他们在基督裏是圣洁的（是真选民），只是表示他们与圣约有分，在圣约里是“圣洁”的（林前七）。

藉着洗礼的宣誓，儿童被托付在主的圣约管辖权之下，同时也被邀请藉着信心认同救主，而与救主的受死—洗礼有份，从而进入到圣约的丰满祝福中。

This also means that when we are establishing the ground for baptizing our children into the church our appeal should not be to the “promise,” for the promised seed is the election and the covenantal constituency is not delimited by election, nor do we know whether or not our children are elect. In fact, in the case of Esau, it was with awareness, resulting from divine foreannouncement, that he was not the seed of promise (Gen 25:23) that his parents nevertheless circumcised him, in accordance with the Lord’s requirement. Speculative considerations about the election or regeneration of our children are irrelevant to their being baptized. It is not a matter of the promise but of the parental authority principle. By virtue of the Lord’s directive children under the authority of confessing parents are to be accorded their proper status as members of the holy covenant and are to receive the appointed sign of incorporation into the consecrated community. In presenting them for baptism we do not regard them as holy “in Christ” (which is the equivalent of election) but as covenantally holy. By baptismal oath they are consigned under the covenantal jurisdiction of the Lord and at the same time they are invited to participate by faith-identification with the Savior in his death-baptism and thereby to enter into the fullness of the blessings covenanted unto father Abraham.

****** ******

《救恩出于主耶和华》第21章

作者: 约翰 M. 傅瑞姆翻译：刘立国；校对：何新东；编辑：陈彪

http://c.thirdmill.org/books/translated.asp#books

關於洗禮的第二個爭論，就是是否應該給嬰孩施洗。認為應當的人被稱作是「嬰孩洗禮者」，意思就是「給嬰孩施洗的人」。認為嬰孩應該被排除在洗禮之外的人，被稱為浸信會人士，或者「反嬰孩洗禮者」。但是浸信會人士真正要說明的要點是，只應當給承認相信基督的人施洗，而嬰孩是不可能做到這一點的。所以最近人們經常把他們稱為「認信洗禮者」，就是只為認信，承認相信為根據實施洗禮的人。

這是一個難題，因為正如形式的問題一樣，聖經並沒有明確討論這個問題。新約聖經並沒有命令要給嬰孩施洗，或者不可給嬰孩施洗。浸信會人士說，聖經沒有命令要給嬰孩施洗，我們就不應該這樣做。嬰孩洗禮者說，整本聖經表明的證據，要求我們為信徒的兒女施洗，除非有一條新約聖經的命令禁止這樣做。因為沒有這樣的命令，我們就一定要給信徒的兒女施洗。所以這成了一個舉證責任的問題。浸信會人士說，舉證的責任落在那些主張給嬰孩施洗的人身上，因為沒有明確的證據，我們就不應該這樣做。嬰孩洗禮者說正相反：舉證的責任是落在那些禁止給嬰孩施洗的人身上，正因為缺乏這樣的證據，所以我們一定要這樣做。

以下是具體的論證。浸信會信徒論證說，首先新約聖經沒有給信徒兒女施洗的命令。第二他說，在新約聖經中洗禮總是和承認相信聯繫在一起的，當然，這種聯繫的例子很多（徒2:41，8:12；10:44-48；16:14-15；16:32-33）。

改革宗的嬰孩施洗者持有不同觀點。我使用「改革宗嬰孩施洗者」這個說法，並不是因為我相信認信洗禮者不是改革宗 —— 確實他們很多人是改革宗的 —— 而是為了把改革宗支持嬰孩受洗的論據和羅馬天主教的論據，以及其他非改革宗傳統之人的論據區分開來。

所以我不會論證說，我們給嬰孩施洗，是為了使他們上天堂，或者為了使他們得到新生。我的論證而是這樣：在舊約，割禮是加入以色列的禮儀，正如現在洗禮是加入有形教會的禮儀一樣。很清楚，上帝命令以色列人在他們男孩出生的第八天給他們行割禮。割禮這個禮儀印證了上帝對百姓的應許，正如洗禮印證了那些給相信基督之人的應許一樣。保羅在羅馬書4:11說，亞伯拉罕「受了割禮的記號，作他未受割禮的時候因信稱義的印證。」割禮印證了因信稱義 —— 今天洗禮也為我們印證了同樣的事情。所以，任何反對給嬰孩施洗的論據，也應該適用在反對給嬰孩行割禮這件事上。確實，嬰孩不能承認相信，因此有因信而得的義，但是在亞伯拉罕的時候，嬰孩也不能承認相信。

很清楚，在舊約和新約裡，上帝的聖約都是為我們和為我們的兒女立的（創26:3-4；28:13-14；申 29:9-13；書5:2-9）。舊約聖約的話語是向不分大小的以色列人宣讀的（書8:35；代下20:13；珥2:15-16）。在新約聖經中用來描繪洗禮的洪水（彼前3:20-21）和出埃及過紅海（林前10:1-2），是不分大小灑在人身上的。

在新約聖經中，耶穌向嬰孩宣告上帝的祝福（路18:15-17）。耶穌不僅僅是在向嬰孩表明他的關愛。在聖經中，祝福是一件非常嚴肅的事情。在祝福的時候，上帝把他的名字歸在他百姓的身上，就像大祭司在民6:27中所做的那樣。耶穌祝福孩子的時候，他是把他的名歸在他們身上。很重要的是，新約聖經中的洗禮是歸入耶穌的名的洗禮（徒2:38；8:12，16；10:48；19:5；參見22:16）。

另外，彼得在徒2:39宣告，新約的應許是「是給你們，和你們的兒女的」。這是舊約聖經中立約所講的話。對一個第一世紀的猶太人來說，這樣的話表明，就像上帝把亞伯拉罕的子孫包括在與他所立的約中，同樣上帝把信徒的兒女包括在新約中。

我們也留意到，在耶穌復活後，新約聖經中的洗禮傾向是全家受洗（徒 16:15,31-34；11:14；林前1:16），就像在舊約的時候，上帝把一家人歸給他自己一樣。很有可能這些一家一家的人當中有孩子。但就算沒有，原則還是上帝召聚家庭，而不僅僅是個人，進入他的國。當家庭進入上帝的國時，孩子也來，像在舊約一樣，由他們的父母代表。

浸信會人士對這種論據的回應就是，新約和舊約很不一樣：舊約是建立在肉身的出生、家庭和國民之上的；新約是建立在屬靈的事實，如信心之上的。但是在聖經本身當中，我們很難找到這種分別。亞伯拉罕給他的孩子行割禮，作為因信稱義的記號。上帝與他所立的約，和上帝在基督裡與我們所立的約一樣都是屬靈的。因而，他的孩子就是那個約的一部分，就像按照嬰孩洗禮者的觀點，我們的孩子同樣是我們與基督立約關係的一部分。

也請留意哥林多前書7:14，兒女，就算在只有父母一方是信徒的婚姻當中，也是「聖潔的」，這就是說，他們是屬於上帝的。保羅在他的信中，把孩子連同成年人一樣稱為聖徒，就是聖潔的人（參見弗1:1和6:1）。這就是我自己為什麼相信信徒的兒女是恩典之約的成員，應該受洗的原因。我認為基督徒不應該因為這個問題而斷彼此之間的團契。確實，我希望要是有一種方法，在這個問題上持不同意見的信徒能屬於同一家教會，那就好了。但在今天的福音派教會中，這似乎並不是一個廣泛為人所接受的立場。

****** ******

上帝的国 The Kingdom of God

作者/ 译者/编校：David J. Engelsma/ Kal Sentinel/诚之

http://www.cprf.co.uk/pamphlets/kingdomofGod.htm

http://peddrluo.blog.163.com/blog/static/194801312201210228041884/

神国的子民也包括被拣选的信徒的小孩，特别是婴孩。改革宗的牧者和教会低估重洗派异端的严重性，是极重大的错误（译按：英文原文是 “浸信会异端”[Baptist heresy]比较强烈，作者所反对的是浸信会承袭了重洗派在拒绝婴儿洗礼上的错误，应该不是要把浸信会全部的教义当作是异端，因此这里译为重洗派）。的确，这个错误会给改革宗教会带来致命性的伤害。改革宗牧者犯这个错误是有罪的。他们与重洗派在公开的宗教活动里合作。他们断然拒绝斥责重洗派将那些耶稣基督为之而死、和神的灵所应许的人排斥在圣约和神的国之外（见海德堡要理问答，第74问）。这完全违反了他们的信条，改革宗信条明确宣告改革宗信仰对重洗派的错误是深恶痛绝的（见比利时信条，第34条），他们在婴儿洗的问题上，公开地写到，婴儿洗并不是绝对必要的。

借着婴儿洗礼，把信徒的儿女也包括在神的国里，是神国很重要的一项真理。改革宗信仰若要作它独特的见证，就必须强力地护卫并推广这个真理。这个真理对新旧约神的国的单一性，也是最基础的教导。这个真理对拒绝时代论对国度的毁坏，也是最基本的。

关于幼儿（infant children）（经文中使用的希腊文就是这个意思），路加福音十八17说：「让小孩子到我这里来，不要禁止他们，因为神的国正属于这样的人。」（新译本）耶稣把幼儿当作是神国的国民，神的国正是像这样的幼儿组成的。在马可福音十14，耶稣很生气，因为门徒们想要把幼儿排除在耶稣的国度之外。哪一个地上的君王不会因为一些部属想要剥夺一大群子民在国度里的身分，把他们排除在他的国土之外，而感到非常愤怒呢？

****** ******

1998年美国正统长老会OPC刊物上发表的一篇文章。里面提到1965年有几个OPC的教会遇到一些新加入教会的信徒，拒绝为自己的孩子受洗。结果这些教会不知道该怎么办，就在当年总会上提出请求帮助。当时的讨论很有意思。有人用拣选的教义来做平行比较，他们说OPC整个宗派里有多少人并不明白拣选的教义，但不影响他们做OPC的成员，所以不明白婴儿洗的信徒也应该有权利加入OPC的教会。当时OPC的一位开疆元老级牧师Robert Churchill 反驳说，拒绝婴儿洗和不明白拣选的教义是两码事。他说我们得救可以没有足够的教义知识，但是我们得救绝不是可以不顺服。（For while we may be saved with limited knowledge, we are not saved in disobedience.）文章里还提到，早在OPC的讨论之前，老普林斯顿神学院院长查尔斯·贺智在1857年就院刊上就写过一篇《婴儿洗的忽视》（Neglect of Infant Baptism）。他提到在十九世纪上半叶，美国长老会里有三分之二的信徒儿女被剪除在上帝的圣约团体之外，只因为他们父母的悖逆。贺智非常明确的指出，其原因有四个：1.长老会会众里越发的个人独立（the rise of independency of congregations），2.教会失败未能教导他们基督徒的责任，3.信徒未能认识到他们的儿女也是教会成员，4.长老会成员越来越忽视的家庭敬拜。

------王一翻译自

http://opc.org/OS/html/V7/4c.html

****** ******

初代教會文獻顯示，教父認為嬰兒洗乃當時大公教會沿襲自使徒的正統。

Alex Shaokai Tseng 编摘

https://www.facebook.com/alex.s.tseng/posts/10153079264941365?pnref=story

愛任紐（主後190年，《Fragments 34》）：“‘For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]”

俄利根解釋嬰兒有罪、需要救恩時，提及嬰兒洗是當時教會普遍的傳統（主後248年，《利未記證道》）：“In the Church, baptism is given forthe remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.”

俄利根的救恩論固然有問題，但這不是現在討論的重點。現在的重點是，嬰兒洗的傳統在初代教會已經有明確的文獻記載。俄利根在主後248年的《羅馬書註釋》中講得更清楚，初代教會從使徒承襲了嬰兒洗的傳統：“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.”

的確，在初代教會文獻中，沒有為嬰兒洗辯護的例證，只有反駁嬰兒洗的例證，即特土良："Why should innocent infancy be in such a hurry to come to the forgiveness of sins? Let them come while they are maturing, while they are learning, while they are being taught what it is they are coming into. Let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ."

然而，這豈不正說明，當時嬰兒洗是教會主流，不需要辯護，而辯論的負擔（burden）在於反對嬰兒洗的人？事實是，特土良在這段文字的下文中見證了嬰兒洗是當時教會的普遍傳統： "The delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary . . . that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? "

如教會史學家Philip Schaff所言，"The usage of sponsors, to which Tertullian himself bears witness, although he disapproves of it, and still more, the almost equally ancient abuse of infant communion, imply the existence of infant baptism."

****** ******

The Christian Faith A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way

Chapter 24: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper

By Michael Horton

d. The Proper Subjects: The Question of Infant Baptism

THE PROPER SUBJECTS: THE QUESTION OF INFANT BAPTISM

It is as ironic as it is tragic that although baptism is the sacrament of union with Christ and the communion of saints, the question concerning the proper subjects of baptism is one of the most divisive issues in Christianity today. All Christians affirm that adult converts should be baptized only after they have made a profession of faith. However, disagreement arises over whether children of believers ought to be baptized as well. “Under the influence of Socinians, Arminians, Anabaptists, and Rationalists,” Berkhof notes, “it has become quite customary in many circles to deny that baptism is a seal of divine grace, and to regard it as a mere act of profession on the part of man.”11 Missing from Berkhof’s list, however, is the important heritage of Calvinistic Baptists. Affirming the priority and sovereignty of God’s grace, these brothers and sisters hold that God alone saves but that baptism is a visible sign of one’s profession of God-given faith and may therefore be administered only to adults. Like Anabaptists, however, contemporary Baptists generally hold that they are not rebaptizing Christians as adults but administering baptism to them for the first time.

Anabaptists and Baptists argue that in the New Testament baptism is a symbol of the believer’s profession to be a follower of Jesus Christ (therefore excluding infants) and that nowhere does it teach that children are to be baptized. In defense of the first point, appeals are made to the examples of baptism in the book of Acts, where the rite clearly follows the profession of faith. For the second point, the lack of any command to baptize children places the burden of proof on paedobaptists (i.e., those who do baptize children).

At least from the Reformed perspective, both objections are best addressed by attending to the continuity of the covenant of grace.12 New covenant believers are children of Abraham, belonging to the same covenant that was pledged to him (Mt 19:14; Mk 10:13 — 16; Ac 2:39; 4:12; 10:43; 15:10 — 11; Rom 3:27—4:25; 1Co 7:14; Gal 3:16; 1Ti 2:5 — 6; 1Pe 1:9 — 12). Abraham was justified before he was circumcised, and this is the pattern also for baptism of adult converts; but the patriarch obeyed the command to circumcise his sons unto repentance and faith. Only males were circumcised, but now females are baptized as well — as they were in John’s baptism (Jesus mentions even “prostitutes” in Mt 21:32), in fulfillment of the prophecy that the Spirit would be poured out on all flesh, males and females alike.

Yet the principle of covenant succession — that is, the inclusion of believers’ children — is constant. It is still true, as Peter announced, that “the promise is for you and for your children …” — and this is said in the context of baptism (Ac 2:39). As the Belgic Confession argues, children in the new covenant, as in the old, should be baptized, since “Christ has shed his blood no less for washing the little children of believers than he did for adults…. Furthermore, baptism does for our children what circumcision did for the Jewish people. That is why Paul calls baptism the ‘circumcision of Christ’ [Col 2:11].”13

From a covenantal perspective, it is impossible to separate the claim that the children of believers are holy (1Co 7:14) from the sign and seal of the covenant.

According to the traditional Anabaptist/Baptist view, the children are not regarded as holy until they personally repent and believe. However, the New Testament preserves the clean/unclean distinction, only now it pertains not to Jew and Gentile, circumcised and uncircumcised, but to believing and unbelieving families, with baptism as the covenant’s ratification. In fact, Paul especially labors the point that all, Jew and Gentile, circumcised and uncircumcised, are Abraham’s children and heirs of the Abrahamic covenant through faith alone, just like Abraham (Ro 4:3 with Ge 15:6; cf. Gal 3 – 4). The church, in its unity of Jew and Gentile in Christ, is understood as the fulfillment of Israel’s existence (Mt 21:43; Rom 9:25 – 26; 2Co 6:16; Tit 2:14; 1Pe 2:9; Gal 6:16; Rev 5:9). Everything turns on whether we assume continuity or discontinuity as most fundamental to interpreting the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. Given the way that the New Testament itself interprets the Old, we should privilege continuity.

If this is the case, then the burden of proof shifts from paedobaptists (i.e., infant baptizers) to Baptists. Given the Jewish background of the first Christians, it would not be the command to administer the sign and seal of the covenant to their children that would have been surprising but the command to cease administering it to them. However, we are not left to an argument from silence. This promise for believers and their children is exhibited in the conversion and of Lydia. After she believed the gospel, “she was baptized, and her household as well” (Ac 16:15). Later in the same chapter, we read of the conversion of the Philippian jailer. He too is told, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household … and he was baptized at once, he and all his family” (vv. 31, 33). Paul recalls having baptized the household of Stephanas (1Co 1:16). If children are included in the covenant of grace under its Old Testament administration, surely they are not excluded in the new covenant administration, which the writer to the Hebrews calls “better” than the old (Heb 7:22).

According to Baptist theologians, however, such arguments ignore the discontinuity between old and new covenants. Wayne Grudem argues that the old covenant “had a physical, external means of entrance into the ‘covenant community,’” while “[t]he means of entrance into the church is voluntary, spiritual, and internal.”14 Reflecting a more Greek (indeed, modern) dichotomy, this interpretation would seem to count against recognizing even the baptism of adults as their entrance into the church. According to this argument, the church might be regarded as entirely invisible and as constituted not by Christ’s promise through Word and sacrament, made effectual by the Spirit in the communion of saints, but by the decision and commitment of individuals apart from any necessary connection to the visible church. As we will see, this view of baptism has enormous implications for ecclesiology more generally.

The New Testament certainly distinguishes the new covenant (promise) from the old covenant (law), but when it does so the new covenant is the realization of the Abrahamic covenant, a realization to which the now-obsolete old covenant (Sinaitic law) pointed. Just as the former cannot be abrogated by the latter (Gal 3:15 — 18), the obsolescence of the types and shadows of the Mosaic economy cannot include the covenant to which circumcision was originally attached. If the Abrahamic covenant remains in effect, then so too does its promise to include our children among the people of God. Paul explicitly refers to the Abrahamic Abrahamic covenant remains in effect, then so too does its promise to include our children among the people of God. Paul explicitly refers to the Abrahamic covenant and the Sinai covenant as “two covenants” that must be distinguished (Gal 4:21 — 31). It is not the Old and New Testaments, then, but the Abrahamic and Sinai covenants that Paul contrasts.

Therefore, one would be on solid exegetical ground (with Paul and the writer to the Hebrews) in contrasting a merely external circumcision, national/ethnic identity, outward observance, and earthly form of the temple worship belonging to the old covenant theocracy, on the one hand, with the true circumcision of the heart, renewal, and forgiveness of sins fulfilled in the new covenant, on the other. However, Grudem’s contrast with the New Testament not only encompasses the Abrahamic covenant but evidences a philosophical dualism between visible and invisible, material and spiritual, external and internal, covenantal nurture and voluntary decision.

A final point in relation to the exegetical argument should be made. The Anabaptist/Baptist traditions have in general defended the notion of an age of accountability, when individuals are old enough to decide for themselves whether they will become Christians.15 In addition, many of these bodies practice infant dedication. Nevertheless, there is no reference to an age of accountability or to the practice of infant dedication in the New Testament, while there are references to household baptism.

With respect to the historical argument, Baptists point out the paucity of evidence for infant baptism in the earliest postapostolic communities. This has been a matter of considerable debate among church historians for some time, but there is considerable evidence in favor of infant baptism in the early church.16 Regardless, the same response can be made here as is offered in relation to the lack of New Testament commands to baptize infants. We have no evidence of any commands to forbid infant baptism, and by the second century the literature is replete with references to the practice.

Just as the exclusion of believers’ children would have provoked controversy among early Jewish Christians, surely such a radical change from apostolic to

postapostolic practice on such an important matter would have sparked considerable debate. On the contrary, Tertullian in the second century, largely because of his involvement in the Montanist movement, questioned the propriety of infant baptism, though he did not question that it was a generally accepted practice in his day (On Baptism, ch. 18). His contemporary, Origen, testified to the practice: “The Church has received the tradition from the apostles to give baptism even to little children.”17 Taking infant baptism for granted, the Council of Carthage (253) debated whether it should be performed on the eighth day (like circumcision).18

Given these and similar arguments, it follows that children of believers are baptized because they are visible members of the covenant of grace. Some Reformed theologians held to presumptive regeneration as the ground of infant baptism.19 However, more widely held is the view that the ground of baptizing the children of believers is that they are the heritage of the Lord and therefore are included in his visible company, receiving his sure pledge that he will be their God and they will be his people. In the words of the Canons of Dort, “Since we are to judge of the will of God from His Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they together with their parents are comprehended, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom it pleases God to call out of this life in their infancy.”20 Far from making parents lax, the baptism of covenant children obligates them to raise their children in the Lord, leading them (as far as it is up to them) to public profession of their faith.21

Nevertheless, the priority of baptism is placed on God’s gracious action. Although baptism may certainly be considered a testimony to the world and an answer of a clear conscience before God’s throne (1Pe 3:21), the New Testament elsewhere associates baptism with the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Spirit, which are divine acts. Therefore, even apart from the question of the proper subjects, the very nature of baptism is understood in radically different ways by those who believe that sacraments are God’s means of grace and those who treat them exclusively as the believer’s act of commitment.

****** ******

John Stott 在他早期的一本書（Christian Basics: An Invitation to Discipleship）中說：

我並不想在這裏為嬰兒洗禮的做法作出詳盡的辯護，如果有人想進一步探討這個問題，我建議Michael Green所寫的Baptism（Hodder＆ Stoughton，1987）。我只提出三點。（1）嬰兒洗禮的做法只適用於已經信主的基督徒夫婦的子女。（2）當我們記得聖經中的神是以家庭作為思考和工作的關係點時就會有意義。舊約中施行的割禮表示出信徒的子女也在神的約中（創世記十七章），耶穌的態度和教訓顯示出小孩子也在神國中（馬可福音十13-16），並且保羅稱他們為「聖潔」時顯示他們在神的教會中（哥林多前書七12～14）。如果這是他們出生時的地位，那麼以水禮作為一種外加的記號也似乎是正確的。再者，早期的「全家」受水禮（例如使徒行傳十六15，33；哥林多前書一16）很可能包括嬰孩，因為Oikos和oikia都是「全家」的意思，通常是指一家大小而包括孩童在內（比較提摩太前書三4-5）（3）嬰兒洗禮雖然從聖經中有跡可尋，但卻不能以聖經作為印證，因此也不能強加施行，教會也不應該為此而分裂，反而應當互相尊重對方的浸禮或洗禮。將來教會聯合時，父母應該有自由去決定是否要求為他們的嬰兒施行洗禮。

Yes, The Reformed Churches Do Baptize On The Basis Of The Abrahamic Promise

https://heidelblog.net/2019/06/yes-the-reformed-churches-do-baptize-on-the-basis-of-the-abrahamic-promise/?fbclid=IwAR2T8WncFvO085JXsxZ5OMLn4mxIEl-FGYB2BM2ZlJc8NCAi-CwMKzdLAAM

https://www.facebook.com/peddrluo/posts/10157644128169653

和天主教、路德宗或其他支持婴儿洗礼的教派有不同的理由，改革宗神学乃是根据亚伯拉罕之约（恩典之约）的应许来为婴孩施洗的。

……从创十七的上下文来看，不可能解释成「懂事」的孩子，因为在整本旧约里，是指婴孩在第八天受割礼。正如这篇文章一开始指出的，改革宗不是因为传统而接受婴儿洗礼，而是从圣经本身的圣约神学脉络来解释。当然，我同意你的看法，这个脉络不是那么容易就看得出来的，需要一代一代人所累积的解经功夫。尊重你的选择。

……旧约如此吩咐，是因为割礼是立约的记号；不接受这个记号，就代表背约（创十七14）。这说明神如何看重祂与人立的约，祂也如此要求人看重。

……割礼本身的确预表重生的洗，是里面的；旧约的割礼也强调内在性（例如：耶四4），和洗礼一样；而当新约到来，割礼就由洗礼取代了（西二10-12）。新约强调信心，旧约不也是如此吗（创十五6）？

神在旧约时如此看重割礼，难道在新约时代不也如此看重洗礼吗？因此搞清楚圣经的教导的确是关乎我们生命的。

……改革宗给婴儿施洗，是因为我们认为圣徒的儿女是上帝圣约里的孩童，既然上帝让他们生在与上帝立约的家庭当中，他们就是圣约的儿女。而上帝在旧约中给了他们圣约的记号——割礼，因此在新约中，也给了他们新约的恩约记号——洗礼。不给婴儿洗礼，就是不承认他们与上帝的恩约有分，不承认他们是上帝家中的人。

……难道你们认为圣徒家中所有还无法表达他们信心（在受洗之前）的孩童，都不在……上帝恩约的范围内吗？都是灭亡的吗？

不受割禮的以色列人必須處死

请问经文出处？

保罗说受割礼、不受割礼都无关紧要（加六15）是有其上下文脉络的。保罗在这里是针对那些要求人行割礼的假教师说的，他们传的是靠性律法称义的“另一个福音”。因此，保罗不是在说受不受洗跟灭亡无关。当然，我们也同意洗礼不会带来救恩，这不是支持婴儿洗礼者的论证，请明察。这说明你还不太明白婴儿洗礼究竟是什么意义。

……这篇文章本身已经提供很多经文支持了，请问您看了没有？这里的经文支持当然不是你所谓的那种“明显经文”的证据——这在解经学上叫做“圣经字句主义”（biblicism）。如同我之前指出的，那不是圣经本身的解经原则。但是这篇文章是从整体经文的总原则来为婴儿洗礼辩护的（包括对改革宗来说，洗礼究竟是什么意义；话说，要理解加尔文对婴儿洗礼的解释，也必须从他对圣礼的本质的教导来看，不能只看婴儿洗礼那部分）。如果你不先明白这点，光从一两节经文是达不到你要求的那种标准的。

……还是请您多看看其他书籍和文章（不要只看加尔文的基督教要义）再决定你的立场吧。

……信而受洗（credobaptism）是相对於婴儿洗礼（paedobaptism）的另一个解经总原则。很高兴您喜欢改革宗神学。但是如果有机会，我建议您继续深入到改革宗神学的精华之处——恩约神学。不了解恩约神学（covenant theology），就还没有真正进入改革宗神学的殿堂。

……时代论者按照字义解经的原则（圣经的明确命令），使他们不愿意接受婴儿洗礼。问题出在这种解经原则并不是圣经本身所支持的。看新约作者如何解释旧约就明白，这种解经原则是不符合圣经本身的脉络的。

改革宗為嬰兒施洗（或為成人施洗）的基礎是主的命令（太28:19）、上帝應許（徒2:38-39）、上帝的恩典（羅4:11）、上帝賜下的約（創17:7-8），而非基於人的信心。但這是否代表我們（信徒）看我們的孩子「只不過」是享有約之外在記號和好處的人，而他們得救與否其實我們並不確定？不盡然如此。16、17世紀的先賢們甚至可（對浸信會的弟兄姊妹）說基於上帝的恩典和約，我們不僅視信徒的兒女為領受恩約記號的人、甚至應該看他們為有信心的人。當然，要這麼說，對信心的定義就要更細膩，而現代一般教會教導缺乏這種細膩 —— 這很可惜，因為這不只是神學細節的討論，更關乎教牧上可否對我們孩子得救有確據。。。也就是說，當有人提到「presumptive regeneration 重生預設」的時候，你必須有足夠神學素養問「什麼 presumptive regeneration 重生預設？」而非一味否定重生預設，因為，畢竟我們不是浸信會。
以下只不過是諸多改革宗先賢們對此論述的其中之一：
And so we do not bind the efficacy of baptism to the precise moment when the outward water moistens the body, but—following Scripture—we require faith and repentance beforehand in all who are to be baptized, at least according to the judgment of love. **This holds both for the infant members of the covenant, in whom we assert that the seed and spirit of faith and repentance must be determined to be present by virtue of divine blessing and the evangelical covenant, as well as for adults in whom a profession of actual faith and repentance is necessary**. Thereupon, just as seed that has been sown into the ground does not always take on growth at that very moment but when the rain or the sky’s warmth comes over it, so also the word* or the sacramental sign is not always effective at the very first instant, but only then when the blessing of the Holy Spirit is added.
—— Synopsis of Purer Theology v3 Disp. 44 p154-155
https://www.facebook.com/modusvelo/posts/3994984883898415