Paedo-Baptism Answers Still Investigating PCA or POC

[DepravedButForgiven]

Hello brethren,

I have been investigating more reformed traditions and reviewing some events in church history through a different lens. Events and dialogues from reformers towards Anabaptists that a Baptist seminary will never teach you about. I can understand now that other denominations cannot take Baptists seriously, because of the same reason Martin Luther could not.
“Turning it into an experience, rather than covenants practice.”
Yet, I am still having a hard time understanding the biblical case for paedobaptism.
Can you help me to understand it better?

~Nathan Webster
M.M.C.M. in Progress

 

[erickinho1bra]

This discussion is a huge one. I'd ask:
1. How well do you think you understand the paedobaptist argument?
2. And what is your biggest issue with paedobaptism (as far as you understand it)?

 

[DepravedButForgiven]

This discussion is a huge one. I'd ask:
1. How well do you think you understand the paedobaptist argument?
2. And what is your biggest issue with paedobaptism (as far as you understand it)?

I understand that paedobaptism is a covenantal practice. Verses shifting theology, one confession after another in the Baptist world.
And Baptists make the presumption that in the book of Acts, when the jailer is commanded to baptize everyone in his household it means everyone except any infants. Which I am starting to see as a strawman argument.

I guess my main quandary or sense of conflict between paedobaptism and profession of faith. How do PCA and POC churches approach profession of faith?

But I also know that there were a lot of assumptions I was probably raised to think against any other denomination except Baptist.

#landmarxism

Thank you,

Nathan Webster

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I understand that paedobaptism is a covenantal practice. Verses shifting theology, one confession after another in the Baptist world.
And Baptists make the presumption that in the book of Acts, when the jailer is commanded to baptize everyone in his household it means everyone except any infants. Which I am starting to see as a strawman argument.

I guess my main quandary or sense of conflict between paedobaptism and profession of faith. How do PCA and POC churches approach profession of faith?

But I also know that there were a lot of assumptions I was probably raised to think against any other denomination except Baptist.

#landmarxism

Thank you,

Nathan Webster

Brother,
It could be that you are a short way, or possibly quite a long way, from the clarity you hope to find. That's simply an observation from years of watching investigations like yours play out. I don't know or presume why you may be conducting the investigation. Some are curious, others may be wondering if they *should* be Presbyterian/Reformed (P&R) even as they don't really understand how the practice of infant baptism comports with a P&R theological mindset.

I think understanding, and possibly agreeing with infant baptism should be a conclusion--fairly reasonable and straightforward--that comes at the end of an understanding of what classic, covenant-theology teaches. One should understand that this theology is both a product of, and a method of getting at, reading the Bible a certain way or "the right way," in other words: a hermeneutic. Infant baptism "makes sense," it makes perfect sense, if this form of covenant theology is part and parcel of the structure of special revelation, of revealed religion in the Christian sense.

Some people suppose that "if [the other side} just gets consistent, they would agree with me, and be [side X] and abandon [side Y]." Meanwhile, some of the same folk say, "You [X's] should just be consistent, and be [Z]; otherwise, be [my side]." Perspectives like these are the real proof that "X" and "Y" don't actually agree on some significantly deep level. This fact can be confusing, because there is quite a bit of happy-overlap in LBC theology and WCF theology. Yet, it is not the case that these positions are arrived at by a common manner of reading the Bible, between them.

Failure to identify what makes the difference leads to frustration and often to pointless argument. But it is not typically a matter of one being "obtuse" and stubborn in error; rather, it is usually the case of assuming agreements exist at a deeper level than actually do exist. Major agreement in important matters like justification and election, faith and moral duty--not always arrived at by the same routes--cover over contrary opinion on the best route to those theological places. The methods further impact our varied choices respecting secondary doctrine, or what actually is secondary or primary or tertiary.

So, a short and sweet "explanation"--if one is or has been attempted, given your expressed difficulty already in understanding--does not suffice for your need. You should convince yourself that patience is required, if you will gain clarity of the Reformed paedobaptist position; and not necessarily to the end you will embrace it provided you do understand it with correct sympathy. You could appreciate the force of the conclusion, yet feel you have reason gained from a better understanding of your own hermeneutic (which you might maintain) to continue holding on your present conviction. You come to know better what you believe, and why. Or you might change your mind, but it would be wiser to do that with an abundance of cautious awareness, not rash leaps.

I'm heading off to sleep, but I will offer this answer to one question you raised: "How do PCA and POC churches approach profession of faith?" If you mean the profession of faith by a "covenant child," someone who was baptized as the minor child of believers and raised in the church: these children (though members non-communicant from the start) should at some appropriate age make a clear profession of faith, as prelude to engaging in the mature responsibilities and privileges of communicant membership such as partaking in the Lord's Supper, or participating in church meetings where a vote is called.

In our congregations, a "public profession" often takes place by means of verbal assent to several basic questions of the Christian faith; but to be clear, the sign of public profession is not the vows but accepting invitation to the Table of the Lord. That invitation has come ordinarily through a private interview of the child--moving to maturity--conducted by the elders, who's task and role it is to judge the credibility of an individual's profession. It is the same basic investigation that comes about when an adult seeks membership in the body, but in the child's case he has grown up under the observation of the elders. The adult may be a new believer and had less time with the congregation; this one may need also to be baptized upon his profession, and then be admitted to the Table.

This answer may instigate further questions, which I or some other person may reply. That's is fine.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Antonius Walaeus, a member of the Synod of Dort, lays out his arguments for the baptism of infants here. Perhaps you will find it useful.

 

[Gforce9]

Hello brethren,

I have been investigating more reformed traditions and reviewing some events in church history through a different lens. Events and dialogues from reformers towards Anabaptists that a Baptist seminary will never teach you about. I can understand now that other denominations cannot take Baptists seriously, because of the same reason Martin Luther could not.
“Turning it into an experience, rather than covenants practice.”
Yet, I am still having a hard time understanding the biblical case for paedobaptism.
Can you help me to understand it better?

~Nathan Webster
M.M.C.M. in Progress

Nathan,
As they helped me greatly when I was going through this myself, let me point you to their many and wise answers: @Contra_Mundum, @Semper Fidelis and @MW in particular helped me understand the issue is not baptism as a stand-alone issue, but a covenantal issue. In other words, the issue isn't really baptism at all, but how one understands God's relations to his people; paedo-baptism is a natural by-product of a covenantal theology. I encourage you to study past threads with their thoughts as you go through this; I believe you will find it very helpful to you. My God be gracious to you in this matter.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm tied up right now and would write more, but I know some Baptists probably winced when you write about them in the same paragraph as the Anabaptists. There was a lot more than simply the issue of baptism by profession going on. Some of them denied the essentials of the Christian faith concerning God, etc. Others were total weirdos. Particular Baptists were still wrong in their Covenant Theology but were a far cry from the Anabaptists in very important ways. Dispensationalism as a formal movement didn't come until much later.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Nathan (@DepravedButForgiven ),

I'd forget about Anabaptists for now, as they don't play a part in the essence of this discussion you've initiated.

You said (in post 3),

And Baptists make the presumption that in the book of Acts, when the jailer is commanded to baptize everyone in his household it means everyone except any infants. Which I am starting to see as a strawman argument.​

​

I guess my main quandary or sense of conflict between paedobaptism and profession of faith. How do PCA and POC churches approach profession of faith?​

First, it's OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church), not POC).

Second, about "paedobaptism and profession of faith". Profession of faith is distinct from and different than regeneration — a soul being made alive to God, and He made alive to a soul, however young or old that soul may be. As in the case of John the Baptist, who was "filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb" (Luke 1:15), and Luke 1:44 KJV, when Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, "the babe leaped in my womb for joy". Even in the womb John was alive to his God and Saviour. Christ's presence was manifest to him. Can an infant be aware of his or her mother's presence? Indeed they can.

Or Jeremiah, to whom the LORD said, "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations" (Jer 1:5); also king David, who said, "For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well" (Psalm 139:13-14 NIV).

All that to say, profession of faith may well not come till later in the life of an elect — and even regenerated — child.

About baptizing an infant, it is written of us, "if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Gal 3:29). Being Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise that God would be our God, and we would be His people, we — as our father Abraham — put the covenant sign upon our infants. For him it was circumcision, for us in the New Covenant it is baptism, and as Abraham's offspring we continue obediently to place that sign and seal upon our infants.

As I have written elsewhere,

When the LORD commanded Abraham to circumcise all his children—including the males and the male children of all those in his house, servants or otherwise—that they may partake of the covenant He was unilaterally making with Abraham, it was to put the seal and sign of the covenant upon them—God’s elect—and it obviously could not require of them a profession of belief, at least not the very little ones. But for the sake of the elect children among them, all were circumcised. Yes, there will be the non-elect in their midst, as we see with Esau and many others up though the centuries, leading Paul to say, “they are not all Israel which are of Israel…That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed” (Rom 9:6, 8). But the elect were marked and sealed. The others, reprobate imposters among them, were not in God’s covenant, despite appearances.​

​

The New Testament manifestation of the covenant of grace, inaugurated and ratified by Jesus Christ with His blood, was the final stage of the covenant with Abraham: “if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29).​

​

This is the point: if we are Abraham’s seed (in Christ), then God’s command to Abraham to put the sign and seal on his infant offspring, for the sake of the elect among them, this command applies to us as well: “for the sake of the elect children among us, all are baptized”. For adult converts, the command to be baptized applies to them also (Mark 16:16; Matt 28:19). The LORD will make manifest who are elect and who reprobate, by their fruit.​

I hope this is helpful, Nathan.

 

[DepravedButForgiven]

Hello Nathan (@DepravedButForgiven ),

I'd forget about Anabaptists for now, as they don't play a part in the essence of this discussion you've initiated.

You said (in post 3),

And Baptists make the presumption that in the book of Acts, when the jailer is commanded to baptize everyone in his household it means everyone except any infants. Which I am starting to see as a strawman argument.​

​

I guess my main quandary or sense of conflict between paedobaptism and profession of faith. How do PCA and POC churches approach profession of faith?​

First, it's OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church), not POC).

Second, about "paedobaptism and profession of faith". Profession of faith is distinct from and different than regeneration — a soul being made alive to God, and He made alive to a soul, however young or old that soul may be. As in the case of John the Baptist, who was "filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb" (Luke 1:15), and Luke 1:44 KJV, when Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, "the babe leaped in my womb for joy". Even in the womb John was alive to his God and Saviour. Christ's presence was manifest to him. Can an infant be aware of his or her mother's presence? Indeed they can.

Or Jeremiah, to whom the LORD said, "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations" (Jer 1:5); also king David, who said, "For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well" (Psalm 139:13-14 NIV).

All that to say, profession of faith may well not come till later in the life of an elect — and even regenerated — child.

About baptizing an infant, it is written of us, "if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Gal 3:29). Being Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise that God would be our God, and we would be His people, we — as our father Abraham — put the covenant sign upon our infants. For him it was circumcision, for us in the New Covenant it is baptism, and as Abraham's offspring we continue obediently to place that sign and seal upon our infants.

As I have written elsewhere,

When the LORD commanded Abraham to circumcise all his children—including the males and the male children of all those in his house, servants or otherwise—that they may partake of the covenant He was unilaterally making with Abraham, it was to put the seal and sign of the covenant upon them—God’s elect—and it obviously could not require of them a profession of belief, at least not the very little ones. But for the sake of the elect children among them, all were circumcised. Yes, there will be the non-elect in their midst, as we see with Esau and many others up though the centuries, leading Paul to say, “they are not all Israel which are of Israel…That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed” (Rom 9:6, 8). But the elect were marked and sealed. The others, reprobate imposters among them, were not in God’s covenant, despite appearances.​

​

The New Testament manifestation of the covenant of grace, inaugurated and ratified by Jesus Christ with His blood, was the final stage of the covenant with Abraham: “if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29).​

​

This is the point: if we are Abraham’s seed (in Christ), then God’s command to Abraham to put the sign and seal on his infant offspring, for the sake of the elect among them, this command applies to us as well: “for the sake of the elect children among us, all are baptized”. For adult converts, the command to be baptized applies to them also (Mark 16:16; Matt 28:19). The LORD will make manifest who are elect and who reprobate, by their fruit.​

I hope this is helpful, Nathan.

This was very helpful, thank you for elaborating.

~Nathan