May unbelievers have their children baptized (for Paedo's only)

yeutter · #41 (**permalink**) 10-08-2009, 05:39 PM

How did Steenblok answer this question? Didn't he side with Jonathan Edwards over against Stoddard on the issue of the halfway covenant.

In practice, I can see problems with both sides.

If we baptize kinder of parents who only make an academic confession; do we understand them to be heirs of the covenant? If so such children should be treated as lambs in God's flock.

If we do not see such children as heirs of the covenant should we admit them to our Christian day schools?

This question is an issue for not only Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed. Newly separated Anglicans are now struggling with this question.

BertMulder · #42 (**permalink**) 10-08-2009, 05:44 PM

Not sure if Steenblok ever did directly answer the question...

Although his answer would be interesting, as he came from the GKN, where Dr. Bouwman and Dr. Rutgers advice was NOT to baptize...

However, the practice in the GGN which he joined was to not only allow, but to encourage the practice...

Richard Tallach · #43 (**permalink**) 10-08-2009, 05:57 PM

I think respect must be had to the fact that a covenantal line or branch is established by believers who have children. A branch has been placed in the Abrahamic Olive Tree and care must be taken of it. Respect must be had to the preservation of the covenantal line.

But there comes a point at which if (a) intervening generation(s)

(i) Do not take the Lord's Supper

(ii) Show no or little evidence of Christianity in their lives

(iii) Will not even agree to take their children to church

That the sacrament of baptism and the generational covenantal principle will come into disrepute by giving their children the sacrament of baptism.

Respect must also be had to the parents ability to fulfil their baptismal vows in any meaningful way, depending on what those vows are.

Kennedy has a whole chapter in his book explaining the different approaches of the Reformed church in the Highlands of Scotland to the sacraments vis-a-vis the Lowland church.

We want unbelievers, and believers who are not communicant members to maintain their association with God's people, even though they do not take communion.

**armourbearer** · #44 (**permalink**) 10-08-2009, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

Am I reading this correctly?

It would appear so.

**armourbearer** · #45 (**permalink**) 10-08-2009, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

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!)

The half-way covenant was a problem for Independents, who required explicit church membership. Sadly modern Presbyterians have followed the Independents in adding congregational membership as a third sacrament of the church, and are therefore bound to struggle with the same problems.

Kevin · #46 (**permalink**) 10-08-2009, 08:51 PM

I think that this is only an issue in certain strains of the Dutch Reformed tradition. Such as the "black stocking" groups like HR (nee HNR) & others of that ilk.

When I first got to know some of these people I was shocked to discover that only a tiny fraction of the "members" actualy took part in Holy Communion. Out of several hundred only a couple of dozen might participate.

They teach a form of hyper-conversionism (my term) that distinguishes between "church-goers" & "true Christians". A church-goer has been baptised & would (to outsiders) call themselves a christian, AND WOULD LEAD A HOLY LIFE. These people in any other setting would have no trouble confessing their faith AND calling themselves a christian, HOWEVER within the group they lack a dramatic, emotional story so they declare themselves to be unregenerate.

Since they have added an extra-scriptural experiance, that is only discernable internally & always open to second guessing, doubt is very common.

I believe that it is this context that a person would be a baptised member of the church with a "head-knowledge" (their term) BUT LACKING A DRAMATIC STORY OF CONVERSION, would meet the situation described by Bert.

Richard Tallach · #47 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 04:41 PM

I don't think it was/is as stratified in the Highland situation, as it is in what Kevin describes among some Dutch Christians, but there would often be a large number of people whom many were certain were true believers who didn't take communion because of lack of assurance or whatever. Many would not become communicant members until their later years.

I've sometimes wondered if the KJV translation of "judgement" as "damnation" in I Corinthians 11:29 had a deterrent effect on some sensitive, ignorant/simple souls in this respect?

Gesetveemet · #48 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BertMulder

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....

Bert,

In my opinion 5% (or less) seems to be a rather low guesstimation and a disservice to some dear people of God. Nor would I say say it's attributed to a so called "Dutch high calvinism" in the church, we have that here in America, but rather an over emphasis on experiential religion in order to fight off the theologians and scholastics which have devastated the church. Many of these dear people weep over their Bibles or upon thinking of the lostness of their family members. Yes, many lack the assurance of salvation, because they are a poor people of God, and wonder if their beginning is of God or themselves. Nevertheless if Christ is being preached to sinners and the workings of God within the soul are being proclaimed in the church then it is never a message "without any hope".