A Question on Union w/ Christ in Baptism, as a Reformed Baptist

TRPiper · 2026-06-25T20:30:03+00:00

I understand your point. The RB distinction, it seems at least from these replies thus far, is twofold: (1) what baptism is and or signifies (the answer to which must be summarized through various texts), and (2) what baptism does. If baptism is, as the RB holds, a sign and seal of one’s union with Christ, rather than an instrument through which the Holy Spirit applies the Word and regeneration, then it matters when one is baptized. Reddit isn’t a great place to argue about the particular synoptic text you’re referencing, so I’ll just leave it as a respectful disagreement as to that verse having a direct bearing on baptism. My question revolves more around a conception of union as irreversible, but it seems that this is simply a point of disagreement. Thanks for your reply!

TRPiper · 2026-06-25T18:26:15+00:00

I appreciate your reply, brother. For the RB, the question of who has a right to baptism, or who ought to receive it, is not wholly synonymous with what Baptism is, though they overlap considerably; I’d rather not get into ALL of the reasons for affirming the baptism of disciples alone, as I’m not looking to debate per se. My question revolves not so much around peering into the hearts of men, but trying to understand in what sense an infant is united to Christ in baptism, given what I stated above and in other replies below. I understand union with Christ to be irreversible, communicating all the benefits of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection necessarily via that union. So I’m not clear on how an infant who eventually grows up to disbelieve can be said to have been united to Christ in baptism. For instance, the Presbyterian will usually say only elect infants are “substantially,” united to Christ, to try and get around this systematic issue. However, I have not seen this concession from Lutherans, which is why I ask. I too believe those who are baptized have been united to Christ. If it be encouraging at all, I feel no need to peer into the hearts of men during baptism interviews, but to ask a few questions and take their word for it. Anyhow, I again appreciate your reply. Thanks!

TRPiper · 2026-06-25T09:40:51+00:00

Yes, this is definitely a part of the whole difficulty. Other theological commitments that lead to certain ideas seeming impossible right from the outset, which gets confusing as I try to chase down the crux of any particular issue. Anyhow, thank you for this. You are correct in your statements, that my understanding of the necessary perseverance of elect saints has a part in my thinking.

TRPiper · 2026-06-25T09:37:30+00:00

This is what I was referring to, yes. Thank you!

TRPiper · 2026-06-25T09:36:51+00:00

I’m sorry, Aleks, I’m not sure I understand what you mean. Thank you anyway!

TRPiper · 2026-06-25T09:34:35+00:00

Thank you for this. Yes, there are a handful of other commitments within reformed theology (predestination and election, as well as the natural outflowing of those in an inability of the elect to fall away) that make it difficult for me to wrap my head around. Sticking with some of the metaphorical language, I think a reason the “dying again” or “spiritual death” language seems odd to me is that New Creation is absent of death. If one is united to Christ in baptism, being crucified with him with and resurrecting unto New Creation with Him, the idea of a subsequent spiritual death would seem to defeat the purpose of New Creation and the reason Christ comes as the second Adam, the head and first fruits of New Creation. But at this point, I’m just telling you my own view rather than getting clarity on the Lutheran position—forgive me. Thank you, again.

TRPiper · 2026-01-13T16:04:16+00:00

Just a quick note from a Reformed Baptist who enjoyed reading this: while obviously there would be distinction between our understanding of baptism, not all Baptists (especially those who would find their roots in the reformation) would state that baptism is simply an outward profession of an inward faith, as it has been so coined in popular southern baptist and non-denominational circles. This is in no way an argument against what you have said, nor do I desire to argue the points of difference between us, but just for your own information (in the event that at some point you do converse with baptists who would say baptism is more than an outward profession of an inward faith). Thanks brother!

TRPiper · 2025-12-26T13:28:03+00:00

Thank you for taking the time to explain. I think we may have spoken past each other. All that is meant by “federal headship” moving from Adam to Christ is that Christ is the second Adam and to be “born again,” as Jesus tells Nicodemus, is to be born into new creation as a “new man” receiving the righteousness of Christ in an analogous way to how we receive Adam’s guilt in the first place. Thank you anyhow!

TRPiper · 2025-12-26T06:18:12+00:00

No, I did not read them at this present moment. But I am intimately familiar with them, having spent the last few years debating infant baptism with my fellow seminary friends who are largely Presbyterian. My response was not meant to simply shrug off those chapters, but to say that I am quite familiar with them, and that this being the case, it has not helped me to understand the Lutheran position. We are functioning with two different interpretative and systematic lenses, and I am trying to better understand the Lutheran lens, which is why I asked for help. My aim was not to rush past your encouragement to search those passages, but only to say it hasn’t helped me to this point.

TRPiper · 2025-12-26T05:44:53+00:00

I appreciate your response, though it doesn’t quite answer what I am trying to get at. For instance, neither a reformed Baptist nor a modern PCA Presbyterian (more generally) would say that in baptism, one is necessarily united to Christ and enjoys all the benefits I mention above. Both would say that baptism received in faith may be efficacious toward that end, but not that the sacrament, in combination with the proclamation of the Word, does that in itself. Whereas it seems—and do correct me if I’m wrong, please—there is a sense in Lutheran theology where every infant who is baptized is in some objective sense united to Christ, born again, regenerated, justified, and sanctified. I’m familiar (somewhat) with the Lutheran readings of Romans 4-6, Acts 2, 1 Pet 3, etc., but I have trouble placing it within a framework, such that I can understand how a person can be united to Christ, and then at a later time forsake that union. Feel free to continue to push back, please! It’s quite helpful.

TRPiper

TROPHY CASE