Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenas  Hypotheticals: (For Presbyterians!)
1. Parents have a child. 18 years later the parents convert and are Baptized. The child, though 18, is still under their authority and in their house. Should the child be Baptized?
2. Same facts, except change the child's age to 25. He is unmarried and still under his parents authority, technically.
3. Same facts as #1 except the 18 year-old is a well known fornicator and drunkard.
At what point do we require a profession of faith from the child an thus engage in credo-Baptism and at what point do we apply the ordinance to the child on the merit of him now being a child in a Covenant family and thus practice paedo-Baptism?
I have never myself thought through this before. Though I find the practice of paedo-Baptism consistent with a Covenantal view of Scripture, I can surmise no criterion to draw a bright-line between paedo and credo practice. At risk of being known as ignorant and unlearned, I leave it to you.  |
I hope you don't mind a couple of quick thoughts from the "ignorant and unlearned."
- I did not present my children for baptism because of my "headship" over them but because of God's promises to them...(not to take away from the importance of headship in covenant).
- In all the scenarious you give, the person should be baptized if he desires baptism (that also includes desiring what baptism is a sign of, union with Christ). He should not be baptized if he rejects it.
- Those that desire baptism should be baptized...period.
No confession of faith necessary, they are part of the covenant household and should be given the covenant sign.
I think my last thought hints at what your really wanting to know. At what point do we presbyterians become creedo in these scenarious...Never. Because the child is given baptism, because the adult child is also given baptism if he does not reject it.
Note: I take an exception to scenario two if that child is not in the "household", but on their own.