Paedo-Baptism Answers An adopted Child refused baptism
- Thread starter Grant
- Start date
- Status
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
Assuming that "adoption" applies to a similar context as it did in the author's time, I think his argumentation is deplorable and is contrary to household baptism.
It is ironic to me that he stated at the end that "the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father" but does not include those in the household, though adopted, for to the sins of the (biological) father.
Again, assuming that there was no significant difference in the meaning/context of adoption, A’Brakel is woefully incorrect.
All four of my adopted children would not have received baptism under his criteria.
It is ironic to me that he stated at the end that "the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father" but does not include those in the household, though adopted, for to the sins of the (biological) father.
Again, assuming that there was no significant difference in the meaning/context of adoption, A’Brakel is woefully incorrect.
All four of my adopted children would not have received baptism under his criteria.
Last edited:
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
Tim,
Those were some of my thoughts too bud, maybe just not as bold.. ha
We have a couple in church who adopted a newborn from pagan parents. The adopted baby was indeed baptized.
I was a little taken back to read this in A’ Brakel as other than geocentricty nothing has seemed too left field.
Last edited:
Susan777
Puritan Board Sophomore
Not much mercy there. In the early church abandoned babies were routinely rescued and brought up in the faith. We are all God’s adoptees anyway.In reading some A’Brakel today, he stated the following on pg. 504-505 of RHB edition The Christians’s Reasonable Service:
Thoughts? I am thinking he might be a little off.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
I think I recall noting my disapproval in the margins when reading this section in The Christian's Reasonable Service. I too think his concept of adopted children not being within the external administration of the covenant is truly deplorable (and not in the good sense of Deplorable 
).
).
Ed Walsh
Puritan Board Senior
In reading some A’Brakel today, he stated the following on pg. 504-505 of RHB edition The Christians' Reasonable Service:
Thoughts? I am thinking he might be a little off.
I think you might be right. Adoption is near to the heart of the God of Salvation. He adopts us into His family.
CHAPTER XII. Of Adoption [there were too many Scripture references to post]
All those that are justified, God vouchsafeth, in and for his only Son Jesus Christ, to make partakers of the grace of adoption: by which they are taken into the number, and enjoy the liberties and privileges of the children of God; have his name put upon them, receive the Spirit of adoption; have access to the throne of grace with boldness; are enabled to cry, Abba, Father; are pitied, protected, provided for, and chastened by him as by a father; yet never cast off, but sealed to the day of redemption, and inherit the promises, as heirs of everlasting salvation.
Westminster Assembly. (1851). The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition (pp. 71–72). Philadelphia: William S. Young.
All those that are justified, God vouchsafeth, in and for his only Son Jesus Christ, to make partakers of the grace of adoption: by which they are taken into the number, and enjoy the liberties and privileges of the children of God; have his name put upon them, receive the Spirit of adoption; have access to the throne of grace with boldness; are enabled to cry, Abba, Father; are pitied, protected, provided for, and chastened by him as by a father; yet never cast off, but sealed to the day of redemption, and inherit the promises, as heirs of everlasting salvation.
Westminster Assembly. (1851). The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition (pp. 71–72). Philadelphia: William S. Young.
wcf_linux
Puritan Board Freshman
<nitpick> In fairness to A’Brakel, I think it is the father's (covenant) status that's the issue, not so much the sins. One under censure is presumably badly misbehaved, but they have not earned the distinction of being declared to be heathens. </nitpick>
That said, it would seem that it should be household membership and not birth that mark covenant status. Even adult slaves were considered part of the household for circumcision/baptism purposes in biblical times. Surely a lawfully adopted child would not be less a member of the covenant household!
It does make me wonder how the secular law of adoption has developed, and if it was somewhat different in A’Brakel's time and place.
A previous discussion from PB: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/an-oddity-in-À-brakel.72431/
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
I wonder how Brakel would interact with the Lord's commandment to circumcise those who were not born into a Jewish household but instead were brought into it after their birth. I would say it's more than reasonable to say if slaves and other sojourners are to be given the sign and seal, why wouldn't adopted children from heathens be give the sign and seal?
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
Great minds, my friend.
Ed Walsh
Puritan Board Senior
I added a few words before your phrase "adopted children from..." for emphasis.
How much more so should "adopted children from heathens be given the sign and seal."
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
Indeed. No mere human has perfect doctrine and no one is 100% consistent. Our brother A’ Brakel likely has the right answer now..... whatever that may be.Great minds, my friend.
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
At a used book sale, I picked up what appeared to have been a Book of Church order for one of the Continental reformed denominations. I was appalled when I saw that it rejected baptism for adopted children on the grounds stated above. At the time, I though it sounded cult-like.
I haven't seen the book in quite a few years. It should be around the house somewhere.
I haven't seen the book in quite a few years. It should be around the house somewhere.
TheBruisedReed
Puritan Board Freshman
Yeah, this is pretty disturbing. As it has been said above, no mere man is 100% sound in his theology.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
I have emailed Dr. Joel Beeke about this question, and will post what he says in response, specifically, if adoption meant something quite different to 17th Netherlands than what it does for us today.
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
Thanks! I was hoping for a footnote when I read it but
It seems clear from the excerpt that for a Brakel the issue of the timing of birth is very important. Thus the clarifying comment about both parents being excommunicated. If we could ask him about the statement, it seems likely that he would emphasize the role of God's providence in controlling the circumstances of the birth of each child, and remind us that God is the one who determines which children have a right to baptism. If by God's action they were born outside the covenant, can the human act of adoption bring them within?
I say this not to agree with him, but to try to understand the logic of his position.
I say this not to agree with him, but to try to understand the logic of his position.
Ed Walsh
Puritan Board Senior
I think that the adoption by the godly family makes all the difference. Both of my parents were reprobates and both died a horrible death. But the Lord chose me, and not even by adopting parents. How much more hope would there have been for me if I was adopted into a godly family.
Gesetveemet
Puritan Board Sophomore
This may have influenced a’Brackel
Baptism in the Dutch East Indies
Synod met during the Dutch Golden Age. The Dutch had established a merchant colony in the East Indies. Dutch families who moved there had adopted or enslaved some of the native children. At session 18 (December 1, 1618), the delegates from North Holland (the province from which ships were ready to sail) asked whether these children could be baptized if the ones bringing them for baptism promised to raise them according to the Christian faith.
On December 3 (session 19), Synod answered that baptism should be administered only to those children who have been instructed in the faith and have made profession of faith. Often the Dutch had not instructed these children: many of these children did not understand the Dutch language, and some Dutchmen may have been concerned more with their own earthly interests than with teaching the gospel to such children.
Baptism in the Dutch East Indies
Synod met during the Dutch Golden Age. The Dutch had established a merchant colony in the East Indies. Dutch families who moved there had adopted or enslaved some of the native children. At session 18 (December 1, 1618), the delegates from North Holland (the province from which ships were ready to sail) asked whether these children could be baptized if the ones bringing them for baptism promised to raise them according to the Christian faith.
On December 3 (session 19), Synod answered that baptism should be administered only to those children who have been instructed in the faith and have made profession of faith. Often the Dutch had not instructed these children: many of these children did not understand the Dutch language, and some Dutchmen may have been concerned more with their own earthly interests than with teaching the gospel to such children.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
Dr. Beeke's reply makes the following points: 1. adoption was unusual back then. 2. his strong views on baptism are pre-Kuyperian, obviously. 3. Beeke would need to do further research to find out if adoption meant something different than it does today. He did say that a'Brakel was not alone in asking such questions, but also that the Reformed view changed rather quickly shortly after a'Brakel's time. Sorry this isn't a very definitive answer, but he is a busy man.
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
Still very helpful Pastor. Thank you for your efforts.
Regi Addictissimus
Completely sold out to the King
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
Hey... it’s okay. I would have more concerns if an uninspired work of that size was “perfect”. Feel free to do as you like. I still recommend the man and am glad this will be my first ST to read cover to cover!
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
What is the source? I'm quite interested.
May I ask what you mean as a layman whose strengths in history are not these areas?
Eoghan
Puritan Board Senior
In secular society social services (SS) would have adopted children brought up in their culture. If you adopt an asian child you would be under an obligation to bring them up knowing their cultural, religious and diet.
I was rather under the impression that any children coming into my home should embrace our Scottish culture, faith and diet. Any Indian child would be expected to try haggis, celebrate burns night with the family and attend church. I recall watching one of the reality TV series about " little people" in which the Indian adopted kid was encouraged to celebrate duwali ?
Christians are I think much more disposed to understand adoption, we are after all Abraham's sons. I think the SS is much more of the opinion that you cannot change your religious/cultural origins. If your parents were Muslims that is your culture, if Jewish you are a jew. The SS seems more in tune with Pakistan than modern Scotland.
I was rather under the impression that any children coming into my home should embrace our Scottish culture, faith and diet. Any Indian child would be expected to try haggis, celebrate burns night with the family and attend church. I recall watching one of the reality TV series about " little people" in which the Indian adopted kid was encouraged to celebrate duwali ?
Christians are I think much more disposed to understand adoption, we are after all Abraham's sons. I think the SS is much more of the opinion that you cannot change your religious/cultural origins. If your parents were Muslims that is your culture, if Jewish you are a jew. The SS seems more in tune with Pakistan than modern Scotland.
Gesetveemet
Puritan Board Sophomore
dordt400.org
Gesetveemet
Puritan Board Sophomore
Kevin,
I am not making an argument one way of the other or am I qualified I am just posting information and using your quote. Please receive it with my best intentions.
Thanks,
Bill
The British theologians, among others, said yes, because Abraham also circumcised heathen children, Gen. 17:12, 13. But the Synod answered: No. The fact that such heathen children are adopted by Christian families and are brought up in a Christian manner does not give them a right to baptism. Abraham did not circumcise all the heathen children in that vicinity, but only the children of his slaves, who had learned to serve Abraham’s God and had first become circumcised themselves.
.
I am not making an argument one way of the other or am I qualified I am just posting information and using your quote. Please receive it with my best intentions.
Thanks,
Bill
The British theologians, among others, said yes, because Abraham also circumcised heathen children, Gen. 17:12, 13. But the Synod answered: No. The fact that such heathen children are adopted by Christian families and are brought up in a Christian manner does not give them a right to baptism. Abraham did not circumcise all the heathen children in that vicinity, but only the children of his slaves, who had learned to serve Abraham’s God and had first become circumcised themselves.
.
- Status
