Is it correct that the church should only baptise the children of church members in good standing?

If so is the baptism of children whose parents were not members of the visible church valid?

My own view (which I am now wondering if it is correct) is yes to the first question and perhaps no to the second, but I would really like to have some input on what the confessional answer is here.

__________________
Mike
London City Presbyterian Church
London
England

"Surely, we wish to be orthodox, but we must first learn what real orthodoxy is. Surely, we wish to be progressive, but we must first have a basis to progress from."

Baptism is a sacrament of the church given to the church. As such it is our responsibility to administer it unto those whom Christ has said to administer it unto. As such, only those who are members of a local body (by profession or birth to a professing family) may receive the sign since it is not administered apart from those who are in Christ but administered in and by those who are in Christ. This much is assumed in the Belgic Confession (BC, Article 33) & Heidelberg Catechism (Q&A 74) when they state that baptism is "by which we are received into the Church of God, and separated from all other people and strange religions, that we may wholly belong to Him whose mark and ensign we bear" and an "ingrafting into the Christian Church".

So no child should be baptized whose parents are not members of the church, nor should children be baptized if their parents are under discipline (see HC Q&A 85).

With respect to the second question, I would lean towards 'yes' if they are baptized in a Christian church but, at least as our (Reformed churches) form of baptism goes, the parents really wouldn't be allowed to have their child baptized because the questions assume faithful membership and godly living in the ones who answer them.

However if the church administers the sacrament unfaithfully the child is still baptized, whether we like it or not. Perhaps the parents and child have been unfaithful as well but that does not undermine the legitimacy of the sacrament itself because it is, in the end, it is what God promised, signed and sealed unto us that makes it valid.

__________________
Rev. Daniel Kok
Pastor of Grace Reformed Church (URCNA)
Leduc, Alberta CANADA

"What sort of pledge and how great is this of love towards us! Christ lives for us not for himself!"
John Calvin, Commentary on the Hebrews (7:25)

I am not sure just my

Of course I also mean that the sacrament is given to the church and is and should be handled by the members of the church.
But that being said God promised that he would act in the sacrament, so even if the parents are unbelievers would God not act anyway.

If this is not the case it seems to me some of the sacraments "power" rests with people, and then we are back in the discussion of another thread (about the lord´s supper) that if the people are "unworthy" then the sacrament is non-valid.

It just seems to me that God would not, not hold to his word just because we do it "wrong" or "non complete"

But please correct me if I am completly wrong here.

But ofcourse I am not saying that this is the ideal situation, there I agree with Poimen that it is and should be fore the church.

__________________
Martin - Reformed
Husband to the most godly, honorable and loyal wife Line
Searching for a Church
Webpage www.5solas.dk
Free Online Reformed Seminary - http://www.tnars.net
Soli Deo Gloria