My question was raised on a baptism thread and I had posted it there, but while boiling the polenta I realized that it is not actually a question about baptism but about how to understand what the Westminster Confession means when it states who is to receive the sacrament.

The Westminster Confession seems to define 'belief' in the parents in the same sense as a 'profession of faith in and obedience unto Christ' by referring to 'believing parents' in context of this kind of profession in Chapter 28.4:

"Not only those that do actually profess faith and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptised."

The answer to question q.166 of the larger catechism also seems to support this (emphasis mine): 'Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptised.'

This seems to militate against baptizing an unbelieving wife since descent seems to be the relation that would constitute an infant being in the covenant --as against baptising unbelieving servants and so on. It would also militate against baptising an infant of a baptised parent who had never made a profession of faith in Christ. Yet this contradicts views expressed here by people who have far more familiarity with the Westminster Confession than I do. Am I reading this incorrectly?

__________________
Heidi
Indianapolis, Indiana

After two days, he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.
Let us know; let us press on to know the LORD; his going out is sure as the dawn; he will come to us as the showers, as the spring rains that water the earth.

I'm not sure who has been advocating the baptizing of an infant of a baptized, but non-professing parent. Certainly this is out of bounds confessionally. You've read the Confession and Catechism perfectly properly on this point, Heidi.

__________________
Todd K. Pedlar
member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA
http://semperubi.rtrc.net

"Many men, after a long conversion, see more of the workings of sin in their hearts than ever they did before or at their first conversion. Now, such men have not an increase of sin, but an increase of illumination and light" (Christopher Love)


Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

You are reading the Standards just fine.

__________________
~Wayne Wylie~
Member, Mid Cities Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Ruling Elder - Inactive
http://www.mcopc.org
Bedford, TX

Job 28:28 - And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Ruben has Johannes Vos on the Larger Catechism, and John Brown on the Shorter, and they both seem to take a 'face value' position on this. I was wondering if anyone has access to other commentaries/sources and could paste in anything relevant as to how this was and is generally understood? I just want to make sure I'm not overlooking something --practice of the time, etc-- that might qualify the meaning.

__________________
Heidi
Indianapolis, Indiana

After two days, he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.
Let us know; let us press on to know the LORD; his going out is sure as the dawn; he will come to us as the showers, as the spring rains that water the earth.

A few links:

Hodge's Commentary on Chapter 28 of the WCF

Shaw on the same:

Various commentaries on:

Baptism:
Bible Presbyterian Church Online: WSC Question 94

The recipients of baptism:
Bible Presbyterian Church Online: WSC Question 95

This is from the Shorter Catechism project of the Bible Presbyterian Church.
The pages above include commentary links from John Flavel, Thomas Watson,
Thomas Vincent, Matthew Henry, etc.

__________________
Todd K. Pedlar
member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA
http://semperubi.rtrc.net

"Many men, after a long conversion, see more of the workings of sin in their hearts than ever they did before or at their first conversion. Now, such men have not an increase of sin, but an increase of illumination and light" (Christopher Love)


Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

This touches on an intramural debate in Presbyterianism. The traditional view is that the infants of members of the visible church are to be baptised whether the parents make a personal profession of faith or not. This is well argued by Samuel Rutherford in his Peaceable and Temperate Plea. The Confession undoubtedly adopts this position because it specifically speaks of "members of the visible church."

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Rev. Winzer, I was hoping you would explain the support for the other view.

Johannes Vos says in answer to 'Into what two classes are members of the visible church divided?' that 'The visible church is composed of two classes of people, namely, (a) those who have made a personal profession of faith in Christ and obedience to him; and (b) their infant children, that is, their children who have not yet made a personal profession of faith.' --the visible church is defined by him simply as adults who have faith and obedience and their children, which seems to be in agreement what John Brown of Haddington says in his Questions and Answers on the Shorter catechism

(--'Q. To whom then is baptism to be administered? A. To all such as profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him and their children, Acts ii. 38,39. Q. When have children a right to baptism? --A. The infants who have one or both parents visible saints, have a right to it before men; and the infants of real believers have a right to it before God, 1 Cor. vii. 14.')

-where he takes the visible church to be co-extensive with 'visible saints' and their children? It is difficult to think he would have called one a 'visible saint' (esp given the context) who had not even made a profession of faith (even if their profession were false)? Indeed he seems to indicate that the children of false professors, those who were only saints in the eyes of men, only have a right to baptism in the eyes of men and not of God. --How could he, on this logic, think the children of a person who did not claim to be a saint in the eyes of men could have any right to be baptised? I understand that Samuel Rutherford was at the Assembly and John Brown was not --but it seems there must have been good reason to believe this was the meaning of the assembly (or at least a meaning accommodated by their language) for him to think this? Is there something I could read (as well as the Rutherford, which I think we have on cd and will try to find) that would give more information about this and how the writers of the Assembly settled on this language/what it can mean?

added, from Fisher's Catechism, as he seems to take 'members of the visible church' as those who have made a profession of faith as well?

__________________
Heidi
Indianapolis, Indiana

After two days, he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.
Let us know; let us press on to know the LORD; his going out is sure as the dawn; he will come to us as the showers, as the spring rains that water the earth.

There is no doubt that the Westminster divines advocated the traditional view that members of the visible church are to be baptised. Historically, the most one might argue is that the question came to be agitated around that time whether or not baptism should be restricted to the children of those who had made a personal profession of faith; but it was those of the congregational (church rule by believers) mindset which raised it, and they did so in the awareness that they were opposing the traditional view.

Thomas Boston devotes one of his Miscellaneous Questions (Works, vol. 6) to the subject, and comes out against the old view. Here, again, there is a consciousness that he is going against the tradition. Though Boston died before the Secession church was constituted, his theology was very influential on the Seceders, and it may be that they took his view on the matter; hence the comments of Fisher and Brown. OTOH, their wording does not necessarily mean a personal profession of faith was required before infants could be baptised.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Thank you, Rev. Winzer. Ruben found that section and we were reading some of it last night. He does seem to have an impressive ability to lay out arguments, even those he doesn't agree with. Having read his language though, of which John Brown would almost certainly have been aware (?), I find it very difficult to believe that he didn't come down squarely on Boston's side of the issue, using the same concepts, etc. Fischer in his own explanation seems to leave little doubt that he means a personal adherence in manner of life to the things confessed?

I did have a further question: while Boston makes it clear that he disagrees with 'some', and lists about four names (of whom Richard Baxter is one --he doesn't seem to stand very much in line with reformed tradition in some other things?), he does not make it clear that this position was the 'older' tradition or the 'majority' tradition: and says that 'some' also agree with him. Is there some other source for this being an older tradition, and a majority view at the Westminster Assembly?

__________________
Heidi
Indianapolis, Indiana

After two days, he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.
Let us know; let us press on to know the LORD; his going out is sure as the dawn; he will come to us as the showers, as the spring rains that water the earth.

Dear Mrs Zartman, I can't think of a single source which documents this. It might require some historical reconstruction to decide which divines would have adhered to the position on the basis of their writings; but I would have thought it was an accepted fact that the reformers and their children maintained the Christendom perspective. The Puritans (non-separatists) and Scottish Presbyterians adhered to it, whilst the Brownists and their followers challenged it. Both Samuel Rutherford and Daniel Cawdrey specifically affirm the covenant position against the Independents. Oliver Bowles is quoted by Thomas Boston (p. 140) as maintaining the covenant position in his work on pastoral theology. But the fact that the Westminster Standards adopt covenant language and nowhere require a personal profession of faith is conclusive evidence in favour of it. The Directory for Public Worship specifically extends the privilege of baptism to the children of those "born within the church." And at the end of the day it should be the Westminster Standards which determine what was the consensus view of the Westminster divines. Blessings!

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Boston did quote from Oliver Bowles, and also summarized the argumentation. It was very convincing --but then he started listing his reasons for not being convinced, and those were also quite convincing.

Regarding the quote above, the larger catechism answer to Q. 166 does make the condition of one or both parents as 'professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him' to be the requirement for an infant to be baptized: does the larger catechism explain the Confession on this point? The men Boston were quoting did not see the need for profession or obedience as they represented baptism explicitly to be a sort of succession to church membership based on previous baptisms: the scenario of those who did not believe, and were not obedient, was exactly the case at issue. The Confession is certainly not so explicit as they were if it is affirming their view; and the language of the larger catechism is more consistent with the language that Boston uses to urge his own. It simply throws my whole understanding of how to read something, giving natural weight to words chosen and not chosen esp in the light of what would have been current controversies, into doubt.

I sincerely don't mean to be troublesome or obtuse. I understand that all of this happening so long ago, there might not be answers; and that how we view past events is often almost hopelessly influenced by what we believe now. Thank you for your time.

__________________
Heidi
Indianapolis, Indiana

After two days, he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.
Let us know; let us press on to know the LORD; his going out is sure as the dawn; he will come to us as the showers, as the spring rains that water the earth.

First entrance into the covenant certainly requires profession of faith. This is granted by all. (Although there is a question whether personal appropriation is required or simply an acceptance of "the faith.") But note how the Larger Catechism differentiates between this first entrance and subsequent acknowledgement that one is in covenant with God -- it speaks of infants descending from parents professing faith in Christ. It does not require a "believing pedigree," but simply that the infant be "born in the church," to use the language of the Directory.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Do I understand correctly the "intramural debate" is about whether a parent of an infant child is merely attending church versus having been examined for membership, taken a vow as a profession of faith, etc. (something like a "regular attenders" v "church member" status in some denominations)?

__________________
__________________

Scott
PCA
North Carolina

Soli Deo Gloria

It affects this question -- members and adherents or members only; but it is broader than that. The issue fundamentally pertains to the constitution of the visible church.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

This is a fascinating discussion. It seems that the issue boils down to whether or not a Church should have some sort of examination of the parents to see if they're fit for their kids to be baptized or not.

There's sort of an unspoken problem that I want to highlight here. I think Heidi is highlighting the portion about the fact that the parent(s) of a child presented for baptism have to be believing and obedient.

I started thinking about the scenarios here and I came to the conclusion that we really need to consider Presbyterian Ecclesiology as a whole here.

It should go without saying that the Westminster Standards require more than a passing interest on the part of the Elders about the catechesis and discipline of the members of a Church.

So the question arises: Is it possible for a marginal Presbyterian to just walk into Church one day and ask for their kids to be baptized? Wouldn't a couple (or individual parent) already have been under the discipline of the Church if they were not attending worship?

It seems, at least to me, that part of the obedience that a Christian parent would pay would be faithful Church membership. People are not disciplined by the Church for their need to grow in faith and I don't think a theological examination or test for dedication is really in order if a person is earnest to bring their children before the Church and promises to commit them to the Church's discipleship.

I don't know if I rambled and didn't make any sense but it seems there are a couple of questions:

1. Do we check to see if a person's faith is genuine before we baptize their children?
2. If we believe they are not living lives with fruit that manifests a trust in the Gospel then do we discipline them as a Church in appropriate cases?
3. If they are under discipline do we baptize the child?
4. If they are not under discipline and are still willing to be discipled then why would we not baptize the child?

__________________
Rich
Northern VA
OPC

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Perhaps these suggestive hints might help in thinking through these important questions.

1. Wheat and tares. We cannot see whose faith is genuine.
2. Vine and branches. The Father disciplines in order to bring forth fruit. The church disciplines only in the case of bad fruit, not non-fruit.
3. The olive tree. The promises belonged to the children of those Israelites who were forbidden to enter the land of Cannan, and later of those who were cast out of the land.
4. Smoking flax. Why does discipline come into it at all? They were granted baptism on the condition that they would be taught the Christian faith. No age limit was set for that period of instruction. If they abide in the church as ones willing to learn the Christian faith then there is no reason why their children should not be baptised.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Matthew,

My questions were somewhat rhetorical. I agree with your answers. There just seems to be something being implied here by some in the overall discussion of "profession and obedience" that I'm trying to draw out. I think some would make it a difficult litmus test on parents to baptize their children as if the nature of the child's discipleship and training is contingent on the quality of the parents' faith. I have a problem with this given the nature of discipleship itself.

Further, I was trying to draw out some points for others to consider because the implication might be that what was in view was that people could just roll in with their kids even though the parents themselves hadn't darkened to door of a Church in years. In such cases, however, the parents would be under Church discipline and likely have been put out of the Church. Until they repent and return, I would think that this would be a clear case where the children would not be baptized.

__________________
Rich
Northern VA
OPC

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?