Paedo-Baptism Answers An adopted Child refused baptism

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grant

Grant

Puritan Board Graduate
In reading some A’Brakel today, he stated the following on pg. 504-505 of RHB edition The Christians’s Reasonable Service:

The Baptism of Children
First, children to be baptized must 1) not be children of Jews, Muslims, heathens, or heretics, even if a member of the covenant has adopted them as children, for such adoption does not change the fact that they were not born within the covenant; 2) not be abandoned children in a country where the true church is not found, or if the true church is present, is filled with Jews, Muslims, heathens, Socinians, and other heretics, for such children can belong to the latter as well as to members of the covenant; 3) not be children of parents who have both been excommunicated—having been born subsequent to this excommunication—since such parents must be considered as heathens (Matt 18:17); and 4) not be children who as yet are unborn, or who are miscarried—as the Papists do.
Instead, they must be 1) children of members of the covenant; that is, one or both must be members of the covenant (1 Cor 7:14); 2) they may also be children of members of the covenant who are born as a result of adultery; or 3) children of those who are under censure, for the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.
Click to expand...

Thoughts? I am thinking he might be a little off.:detective:
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
timfost said:
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 different 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.
Click to expand...
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:
G said:
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.:detective:
Click to expand...
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.
 
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 ;)).
 
G said:
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.:detective:
Click to expand...

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.​
 
timfost said:
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.
Click to expand...

<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.
 
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?
 
W.C. Dean said:
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 given the sign and seal?
Click to expand...

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."
 
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 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.
 
greenbaggins said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
py3ak said:
If by God's action they were born outside the covenant, can the human act of adoption bring them within?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
greenbaggins said:
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.
Click to expand...
Still very helpful Pastor. Thank you for your efforts.
 
Reformed Bookworm said:
I wish I had an answer for you, Grant. This portion of Brakel always troubled me. I have a few people that I can reach out to as well in regards to Brakel's comments.
Click to expand...
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!
 
Gesetveemet said:
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.
Click to expand...
What is the source? I'm quite interested.
greenbaggins said:
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.
Click to expand...
May I ask what you mean as a layman whose strengths in history are not these areas?
 
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.
 
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

wcf_linux said:
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!
Click to expand...

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
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top