May those who are unregenerate, and yet have done 'confession of faith', and are thus otherwise 'members in good standing' present their infant children for baptism?

By extension, may those that are able to do an intellectual 'confession of faith', without knowing Christ as their Redeemer, be admitted to church membership?

(am involved in a debate about this on a Dutch forum - refoforum.nl • Toon onderwerp - Mogen ongelovigen hun kinderen laten dopen?

and wish to see if the insights and opinions here differ...)

__________________
Bert Mulder
Elder of the First Protestant Reformed Church of Edmonton
Edmonton Alberta Canada

How does one know if they're unregenerate, if they have confessed their faith and are members of the church in good standing?

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCGA
Facebook - The Calvinist Vent
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

It is God that multiplies our sorrows.... God, as a righteous Judge, does it, which ought to silence us under all our sorrows; as many as they are, we have deserved them all, and more: nay, God, as a tender Father, does it for our necessary correction, that we may be humbled for sin, and weaned from the world by all our sorrows; and the good we get by them, with the comfort we have under them, will abundantly balance our sorrows, how greatly soever they are multiplied. - Matthew Henry

Joshua, we are here talking about those churches that admit people as members on a academic confession only, while by their own admission they are unregenerate.

I believe that is the very thing we are not allowed to judge. If someone says they have faith in Christ we must accept them as a brother. If they are acting in a way that is contrary to how a regenerate person should live they should be shown their error by their elders in scripture. However, I don't believe one can tell one who confesses that they believe in Christ that they are not saved. The name of Christ is far too powerful for that. We should use scripture to convict any possible unbelievers in our midst. They will either repent and stay or rebel and leave. If they refuse to recant then they are subject to Church discipline.

John 3:18 KJV
[18] He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

1 John 2:3-6 KJV
[3] And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
[4] He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
[5] But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
[6] He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

-----Added 10/6/2009 at 06:21:53 EST-----

If they believe they are unregenerate why would they want to join a Church?

__________________
David
PCA
Richardson, Texas

Saving faith is an immediate relation to Christ, accepting, receiving, resting upon Him alone, for justification, sanctification, and eternal life by virtue of God's grace.
--C.H. Spurgeon

I'm baffled. I can't imagine why folks would allow professing unregenerate folks to join the Church. Obviously, it follows that their children should not be baptized, except on profession of faith when they become believers.

If they fully admit they are unregenerate then the church is utterly in the wrong to accept them as members in good standing in the first place. Therein is the problem then - what such churches do vis a vis baptism is completely unimportant... there are much bigger fish to fry.

__________________
Todd K. Pedlar
member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA
http://inprincipiodeus.solideogloria.com
http://puritanwisdom.blogspot.com

"As God did not at first choose you because you were high, He will not now forsake you because you are low."
John Flavel in Keeping the Heart



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

David, they by their own open admission are 'comfortably unconverted'...

They (generally) do not celebrate communion, yet wish their children to be baptized....

This is a weird scenario. Because you have to confess faith in Christ to join a Christian Church, you must be regenerate to make that confession because regeneration PRECEEDS faith, not the other way around. So, I don't think this scenario could happen in an orthodox Church.

Elder Mulder, are you referring to people who confess both faith and a-faith ?

Isn't that... contradicting?


David: There are many differing definitions of faith and I don't think Elder Mulder is referring to saving faith in this case.

__________________
Ewen
1689 LBCF
Assemblies of God Bible College
Singapore

So, they openly admit that they do not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God lived to perfection and obediently died for sinners to satisfy the requirements of the law?

yeah.

They do an 'academic confession', also called a 'historic faith' in some circles. They do not confess to belong to Christ, but instead they confess that they 'need conversion'.... and confess that they are still dead in their sins....

I would then say that they cannot be addmitted to a Church because they don't have faith that Christ has saved them. In baptism do they not have to promise that they will raise their children as christians? How can they promise that if they are not christians?

I think a realization of one's own sinfulness and deadness is the first sign of saving faith being wrought upon. Though just not to the point of fully being assured of redemption fully accomplished and applied for them in a personal way.

Not till they are aware of their inclusion in the Covenant themselves, I'd withhold their children baptism. But I'm no Presbie elder, so my words aren't worth much. Hehe.

I'd agree there are bigger fish to fry.

No. Neither parent is a believer thus their children are not holy.

"For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy."

- I Corinthians 7:14

__________________
David E Yoder II
Deacon, serving at Covenant Presbyterian Church in Oak Ridge, TN (PCA)
Living in Knoxville, TN

The state church over here baptizes everything, but I say no!
the parets need to be believers!

__________________
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

Baptism belongs to all those who profess the true religion and their children. The question of regeneration should not enter into it.

Samuel Rutherford: "All the Infants borne within the visible Church, what ever be the wickednesse of their nearest Parents, are to be received within the Church by Baptisme."

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Even if the council of the church determine they are lying, in that they can not honestly answer to the required questions?

If this is within your own church, that church leadership needs to exercise the gentle discipline to make sure these folks know the danger of their position. And no, the children should not be baptized. If you are observing another congregation, we might be observing a sad circle of adults being admitted into membership because the congregation is "loving" and "inclusive" so the children would be baptized, likely grow up as unbelievers, then start the sad process all over again -- if indeed they'll have anything to do with religion.

__________________
JWithnell
Member Bethel OPC
Virginia
http://learningyesican.blogspot.com/

Belief is spiritual, not academic.
Confession is based on the spiritual, not the academic.
I am concerned that this question is even being asked. There is no spiritual ground for baptism on the basis of "academic confession."

Ever heard of the Law of Non-contradiction? You can't be A and Not-A at the same time and in the same sense.

They cannot confess that Jesus is the Lord of their life, that they have repented of their sins, and that they faithfully trust in Jesus' death and resurrection as the perfect Lamb who is God AND at the same time not confess that. It annuls itself out of its own basic contradiction.

A confession bears out of a spiritual change. Although we cannot measure whether regeneration has truly happened or not, if they openly confess to the negation of Christ as their Savior, then a reasonable judgment would be to the neglecting of allowing baptism for them (if not done already) and for their children until a reasonable judgment by the presbyters can be made.

__________________
Nathan Riese
Under Care, PCA
Trinity Presbyterian Church, Aledo, Illinois
Current student at MBBC
Future student of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
www.gpts.edu

Wouldn't WCF 21.4 be applicable here?
Believing appears to get at more than a profession or membership in the visible Church. Membership in the visible church is required, of course, but it is not the end. That is not to say that we believe we can know with infallibility the regeneration of persons, but rather we look to both profession and obedience to that professions:

If the parents are not in obedience to Christ and showing fruit of their profession, their child should not be baptized, and they should be disciplined.

__________________
Fred Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
Christ Church Blog

"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

I still don't understand that there are Reformed Churches out there who accept unregenerate (self-professed) folks into the visible church membership?

Is this church a victim of Dutch High Calvinism? (i.e. that strand that says you can't possibly have assurance of salvation or take communion until you are 90 years old?)

If so, then I would ask more probing questions about their faith than just what they "know" of their experience. Some may actually be putting all their hope in Christ, but becasue they haven't had a conversion "experience" they doubt their salvation. But the fact they say they are "comfortably unconverted" would seem to indicate not a lack of assurance but a genuine lack of faith.

If in fact they are professing to not be Christians, then they must be excommunicated if they are members, or not permitted to become members if they are seeking it. It sounds like (and this is just conjecture based upon the info you have provided) they are only pursing a cultural or traditional Christianity for the sake of satisfying family tradition or superstition. Their children would not be elegible for baptism because they are not professing believers.

__________________
Patrick
MDiv, RTS Jackson
Pastor, Grace Presbyterian Church (OPC), Lisbon, NY

"He does well, that discourses of Christ; but he does infinitely better, that by experimental knowledge, feeds and lives on Christ." Thomas Brooks.
"Let us not please ourselves that we have deep understandings, but let us shew our understandings by our practice." Richard Sibbes

Thank you, Pat.

And in answer to Joshua as well,

The situation is a combination of both. In that it is common, no the majority of the members of the 'conservative' churches of the reformed churches in the Netherlands are unregenerate by their own admission. There may be perhaps 5% (or less) who profess to be regenerate.

The (historical) cause of this is because of a number of factors. There is the case which you brought up, Patrick, that many members, who you and I would take as being sincere christians, simply lack any assurance of faith, because of so called 'Dutch high calvinism'. The preaching is very much contributing to that, by 'knocking down' anyone who cannot give a 'credible conversion experience', in fear of 'going to hell with an imagined heaven'.

Which leads to a preaching which is leaving the membership without any hope. If the Holy Spirit works in them, the church will discredit that work.

In addition, there is the factor that already in the 16th century, shortly after the reformation, the state leaned on the church to not question prospective members on their inner life, but limit the confession of faith to academic knowledge and outward behavior. While this was never officially accepted (the request was before the 1578 Synod of Dordt), it did become practice in many churches, especially as secular benefits were attached to church membership (the state church phenonemon). Which also, in a certain sense, led to arminianism and all the upheaval associated with that....

In adddition, there is the cultural aspect. In order not to make waves, one makes confession of faith, goes along with friends and family, leads an outward christian life....

But there are also those, who although they maybe only attend church once a year or less, still find it important to have their children baptized... of course, out of custom or superstition...)

If "profession of the true religion" is the only prerequisite, "the council of the church" really should not be asking the kinds of personal questions which might require one to lie about their personal condition. Once the door is opened to examining the spiritual estate and experience of individuals all kinds of personal prejudice can enter into the process, which can result in tearing the true wheat out of the field of the kingdom.

WLC 166 says nothing about fruit. It only requires profession.

Joshua, you need to spend some time in traditional churches where assurance of salvation is a real struggle for folk who have been brought up with the full gospel. Then I think you will understand the problem better.

The required questions at a 'confession of faith' being:

1. Do you acknowledge the doctrine contained in the Old and New Testaments and in the Articles of the Christian faith and taught here in this Christian Church to be the true and complete doctrine of salvation?
2. Have you resolved by the grace of God to adhere to this doctrine; to reject all heresies repugnant thereto and to lead a new, godly life?
3. Will you submit to church government, and in case you should be delinquent (which may God graciously forbid) to church discipline?

How can an unbeliever answer sincerely to these questions? Especially the second question, as it asks the candidate about a 'new, godly life'?

Just as in the questions prior to the baptism:

Beloved in the Lord Jesus Christ, you have heard that baptism is an ordinance of God, to seal unto us and to our seed his covenant; therefore it must be used for that end, and not our of custom or superstition. That it may then be manifest, that you are thus minded, you are to answer sincerely to these questions:

First. Whether you acknowledge, that although our children are conceived and born in sin, and therefore are subject to all miseries, yea, to condemnation itself; yet that they are sanctified [My children. Ezek. 16:21. They are holy. I Cor. 7:14.] in Christ, and therefore, as members of his Church ought to be baptized?

Secondly. Whether you acknowledge the doctrine which is contained in the Old and New Testament, and in the articles of the Christian faith, and which is taught here in this Christian Church, to be the true and perfect [Dutch-- Volkomene, complete.] doctrine of salvation?

Thirdly. Whether you promise and intend to see these children, when come to the years of discretion (whereof you are either parent or witness), instructed and brought up in the aforesaid doctrine, or help or cause them to be instructed therein, to the utmost of your power?

How can the parents answer this sincerely, if they are unregenerate? As the unregenerate could not baptize their children except due to custom or superstition?

These are not tricky, misleading or intrusive questions, to 'trick' the candidate or disparage their salvation....

Sadly enough, however, as also posted above, many of the involved churches have the practice of disparaging the eternal salvation of their members, if their 'salvation experience' is not convincing enough. Thus discouraging those people from assurance of salvation, since any indication by them that they are converted will only meet with official disbelief. Thus the church councils do sit in judgment on the heart, but still permit, no encourage, confession of faith and (infant) baptism. Those people, however, will often encounter severe problems if they dare to approach the Lord's Table.... Since they could not 'communicate' their salvation experience to the elders and minister....

It depends on what is meant by "unbeliever." If it is one who does not believe these declarations, then no, he has no right to baptism. But if he is one who believes these declarations, but has not come to a point of personal assurance as to being in a state of salvation, then yes, he should be baptised because he can answer these questions honestly.

Ezekiel 16:21 states, "That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them?" They are God's children notwithstanding the wickedness of the parents.

My misunderstanding was in the context of what I understood to be professing unbelievers, not those who were merely struggling with assurance.

Actually it does. The bolded portion is clearly that. If it were to be somehow a "profession of obedience" (which is an odd concept) the language would be "professing faith in Christ and obedience to him" The comma clearly delineates it as two things: (1) a profession of faith, and (2) obedience to Christ (which shows the fruit of that profession).

This issue is precisely that faced in the halfway-covenant in colonial America.

But that does not mean that one who simply lacks assurance (as it is not of the "essence of faith") should have his children denied baptism. I took the OP to be a case where the parent has professed to be "comfortably unconverted" and who are "by their own admission they are unregenerate." I further took as evidence the fact that they do not take communion.

The Latin of the Shorter Catechism is as follows: "donec se in Christum credere, eique obedientes fore professi fuerint." This is not an "odd concept," but traditional reformed teaching.

Correct Joshua, we are here taling about those who profess to be unregenerate. Although it may include those who lack assurance to such an extent that they deny any work of regeneration in themselves.

So perhaps it can be divided into 3 groups:

Those that are sincere christians, but due to their church environment, do not dare to say they are converted.

Those that, due to the circumstances they are in, are struggling with assurance to a severe extent, denying any work of regeneration in themselves.

Those that truly are 'comfortably unconverted', only go to church to fit the cultural pattern, etc.

My aunts on my father's side are "comfortably unconverted" but have had their children baptized in the PCUSA because our family is Presbyterian (in name only - no one besides my father is actually a Christian and my father isn't even Presbyterian, but our grandparents, great-grandparents etc always attended a Presbyterian church). I actually think this is pretty common... Lots of people expect their children to be baptized and confirmed without actually believing that any of its valid, they just do it because its tradition in their family.

__________________
Kathleen M
nondenominational
Montana

That is true. Some of these people are later led to take their tradition seriously and are eventually brought to gospel conversion. In their cases, the faithfulness of God to His ordinance is clearly demonstrated. The unfaithfulness of others should not nullify the ordinance of God.

I don't think people need to be taking the Lord's Supper before they get baptism for their children.

If they are baptised themselves and are attending church with their children, but are not taking, or have never taken the Lord's Supper, they may be regenerate and struggling with lack of assurance and/or they may be disobedient to this particular command but still be saved. The kirk session can only go by a credible profession of faith, rather than an accredited profession of faith, as for the Lord's Supper.

A covenantal line/golden chain may have been established by the believing/professing grandparents who, if at hand, may be able to help with the child's covenantal upbringing e.g. II Timothy 1:5.

But if both parents avowedly deny that they are believers, that's a different thing. I don't see how the child can or should be baptised.

__________________
Richard
communicant member, FCoS
Perth, Scotland UK

His Name forever shall endure;
last like the sun it shall:
Men shall be blessed in Him,
and blessed all nations shall Him call (Ps. 72:17)

THE SHORTER CATECHISM EXPLAINED by James Fisher:

FIsher seems to teach that a profession of obedience is more than a 'bare profession' of faith, but less than actual 'fruit'. As if the 'profession of obedience' is the only necessary 'fruit'.

Am I reading this correctly?

__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/


"Preparing a sermon is like cooking a meal. You need pots and pans and utensils, but you don't bring them out to the table where people are eating." Derek Thomas


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

Was this not part of the reason for the failure of the Pilgrim church in Massachusetts? I think it was called the "Halfway Compromise" and lead to no end of trouble, but I can't find any links online... (Paging Andrew Myers!)

-----Added 10/8/2009 at 11:15:20 EST-----

Sorry! It was the Halfway Covenant:

WikiAnswers - What was the Halfway Covenant

So I would say: baaad idea.

__________________
Kevin, husband of a truly angelic woman, and father to ten.
Zion United Reformed Church of Sheffield
Ontario, Canada

Yes, there is indeed similarities with that idea....

I don't know if I agree with baptizing children before they have reached the Age of Reason, so to speak, but as to the morality of the Half-Way Covenant -- from what I have read of the controversy surrounding it, it was an inevitable solution to the problem confronting many New England churches that were facing dwindling congregations. I don't think that this had anything to do with a dwindling spirituality (this was the time of the Great Awakening, for goodness' sake!) but had a lot to do with the fact that the system of approving a person into a congregation was unduly slow, tedious, and relied a little too much on the discretion of the pastor rather than the actual faith of the parishioner.

__________________
Christabella Warren
Fourth Presbyterian Church
Bethesda, MD
========================
These evils I deserve, and more . . . . Justly, yet despair not of his final pardon, Whose ear is ever open, and his eye Gracious to re-admit the suppliant. -- John Milton's Samson Agonistes

It was followed in the North of Scotland for many years, and still is to a certain extent.

(a) Many people were slow to come to the Lord's Table for the first time because of lack of assurance.

(b) Many of the lives of those who did not take Communion were as godly or sometimes more godly than those who didn't.

Therefore for baptism a credible profession was accepted. For the Lord's Table an accredited profession was required.

Baptism was viewed as the outer door of the kingdom/tabernacle. The Lord's Supper was viewed as the inner door of the kingdom/tabenacle. See Dr John Kennedy, "The Days of the Fathers in Ross-shire" (Christian Focus)

When we remember that we believe in the priesthood of all believers there always has been a certain duality within the Covenant. Only the priests were allowed to eat the shewbread. Even they didn't get to drink drink-offerings of wine but they were poured out before the Lord.

If there are spiritual priests (or maybe spiritual priests) in a congregation who are only baptismal members and not only communicant members, should they be denied baptism for their children.

Obviously if they come to the Session for baptism, they can be challenged on their not taking the Lord's Supper, but they don't need to be bounced into partaking of the Supper in order to get baptism for their children. This happened in Lowland Scotland with deleterious results - see Kennedy.

It wasn't called the Half-Way Covenant in the Highlands of Scotland. It was just accepted as the right way to do things for centuries. It has been foregone to some extent, partly because you don't get so many Christian people these day who aren't also believers and/or take the Lord's Supper. Partly because of baptistic influence.

There was a distinction made between Christians, and the sub-set of believers within that. Some people were (maybe are?) so outwardly godly and church-going, it would be difficult to tell if they were believers or not without a careful examination.

The accredited or careful examination by the Kirk Session only happened when an individual came forward for communicant membership.

I would say e.g. that the Pope was a Christian, but not a true Christian or believer.