Parents who refuse to baptize their infants in paedobaptist congregations?

[Sherwin L.]

I fully admit that I am a novice in the ongoing debate between credobaptism and paedobaptism. I have been raised in a credobaptist tradition and still mostly adhere to that view. However, I'm now looking for a new reformed congregation to worship with, and most of the ones in my area seem to be Presbyterian. I anticipate having children sometime in the next five years, but I do not feel like my conscience would permit me to baptize my infant, until they are of an age where they could profess faith and repentance.

Do reformed Presbyterian denominations permit membership for those parents who deny infant baptism? I found an OPC article on this matter:

The committee considers, however, that to admit to communicant membership those who "refuse" to present their children for baptism would constitute a weakening of the witness the church bears to the ordinance of infant baptism as one of divine warrant, authority, and obligation. Of greater weight is the fact that infant baptism is the way in which God continues to remind and assure us of that which belongs to the administration of his redemptive, covenantal purpose. The defect of the person not persuaded of this aspect of God's revealed counsel is not concerned with what is peripheral but with what is basic in the Christian institution. And the person who resolutely refuses to present his or her children for baptism is rejecting the covenant promise and grace which God has certified to his people from Abraham's day till now. It is this perspective that lends gravity to the offense. It is this estimate of baptism that underlies the statement of our subordinate standards when the Confession says that it is "a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance" (XXVIII, v) and the Directory for Worship that the children of the faithful "are holy in Christ, and as members of his church ought to be baptized" (IV, B, 4). It cannot be denied that the person refusing baptism for his children is delinquent in doctrine. It is the obligation of the session (in the case envisioned in this study) to apprise him of this. It is scarcely compatible with honesty, therefore, for such a person to answer in the affirmative such a question or any other form of question of similar purport as must be asked of those being received into communicant membership, namely, "Do you agree to submit in the Lord to the government of this church and, in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life, to heed its discipline?" (ibid., V, 5, 4).

I understand the covenant promises argument of the paedobaptist view, but given that there are wonderful reformed thinkers on both sides of the issue, I am very surprised that the OPC would say that parents who deny their infants baptism are committing "a great sin" and that they are "delinquent in doctrine." Does anyone from the OPC want to shed some light on this issue? Is there no room for strict credobaptist parents in a reformed Presbyterian congregation?

 

[Leslie]

This is one thread I intend to follow. Since this board admits both positions and demands tolerance of both, it is evidently its position that holding to credobaptism is not a great sin. Frankly, I think that God sovereignly ordained that the scriptures be ambiguous on this point for the following reason: Either position taken to its extreme is in error. Children of believers are different than children of unbelievers. Yet having believing parents is not a sure ticket through the pearly gates.

 

[Jack K]

It will depend on the church. It is quite common in some Presbyterian denominations (PCA, certainly) to admit a person for membership even if they disagree on the paedobaptist position. Certainly, most Presbyterian churches in your area will have dealt with the issue before, and if you find a church you like you should ask about it. One likely possibility is that you would find yourself accepted fully as a member and your conscience honored, but would not be elegible to hold office. A more conservative church might get pushier than that on the issue.

Additionally, I think that if you decide to join a Presbyterian church you should at least make yourself open to being taught about paedobaptism and learning more fully why it is done. Many people come around to seeing its rightness after a few years in such a church, and Presbyterian churches are aware of this and tend to be patient.

 

[earl40]

Many people come around to seeing its rightness after a few years in such a church, and Presbyterian churches are aware of this and tend to be patient.

Indeed this is so true. I am glad the church we joined were such. Now if I can talk my wife into having more children we could baptize them at the proper time in their life. Just kidding because our time has passed and it would be a miracle for us to have babies. Though if she had another child I would be in a heap of trouble because I would become a continuist and have to join an AoG church.

 

[davdavis]

When I lived in NH I was in an OPC congregation and there was a couple who didn't believe in infant baptism who had been admitted to membership. The Minister told me that it was because, being older they were not going to have more children. Since ours was the only Reformed church in the area and they were reformed it seemed compassionate. I know that, unfortunately the Free Presbyterians in Northern Ireland and America are Infant Baptist optional, which seems to me to be a clear violation of Presbyterian doctrine and practice.

David Davis
PCA
Montgomery

 

[Romans922]

I am very surprised that the OPC would say that parents who deny their infants baptism are committing "a great sin" and that they are "delinquent in doctrine."

This is what our Confession says so anyone who holds to the Westminster Standards would be right to say as much simply from that fact alone.

But to say this is primarily because of what Josh said --> It is commanded in Scripture.

 

[Gforce9]

Well, it is not as if we confess that applying the sign of the NT Administration of the Covenant of Grace to children of professing believers is something we just dreamt up for our fancies. Rather, we believe such is by divine command; ergo, those failing properly and fully to execute -according to place and station- this sacrament (which includes, not only professing believer's baptism of new converts, but also the baptism of their seed) should be called sin. The Lord calls professing Christians His people, and He calls their children, His children. We believe it is a serious matter to neglect that which we believe God has commanded in His Word pertaining to His children. We would permit those who do not subscribe to infant baptism to join the church, I believe, but whether they agree or not, they *must* submit their children for baptism, because it's a Confessional matter, and we believe by divine mandate.

To add to Josh's statements, it is the Westminster Confession that asserts the sinfulness of neglect (Sec. 5, ch. 28 I think). That OPC is restating the Confession on this matter. A congregation who states they hold to the Westminster Confession and "lets this slide" would probably be one I avoided; for who knows what else may be on the negotiating table at such a place?

 

[Gforce9]

Excellent point, Josh.....thanks for that.

 

[Rom]

Either the Church believes what it says in its Confession, or it does not and should have it changed. The Westminster Confession of Faith is quite clear about this, that it is a "great sin" to neglect baptism - and that infants of 1 or more believing parents are to be baptized. Well, if this is the case, then it makes no sense to have baptists as members - because as soon as they have a child they do not baptize, if they are members they should be brought up on disciplinary actions for "greatly sinning" if they refuse to baptize their children. Either it is a "great sin" or it is not. You cannot have it both ways. If Presbyterians in XYZ denominations don't want to view it that way, they should go rewrite the Confession (these same groups might as well, they usually have a low view of the Lord's Day as well). Those who want to keep the Confession as they find it accurate, should not then allow baptists to be members.

Being in a PCA church for a couple of years, the middle-road view of infant baptism caused all sorts of havoc, sad to say. It wasn't compassionate, it just made no sense and caused division and scandal.

We had Baptists who were members running off to other churches outside of our session's authority to get their children baptized after a profession of faith, because mode was also important to them (they didn't think that sprinkling or pouring was scriptural!). This caused all sorts of shepherding issues. There are good reasons why Baptists and Presbyterians differ. We are indeed brothers in Christ, but until we are glorified it makes little sense for us to worship under one roof as members of the same denomination.

Were I to go to a baptist church, they would view my 4 children's baptism as invalid and would probably refuse to administer the Lord's Supper to them until they have been rebaptized. So let's not pretend it's just cold Presbyterians who are divisive over this, my own children's baptisms are invalid in the Baptist church!

 

[Andres]

While I strongly agree that paedobaptism is confessional, and more importantly biblical, and should thusly be practiced by all Christians, I do have to note that the OPC does not require subscription to the Westminster Standards for membership. Now, whether that should be the case or not is for another thread, but to respond to the OP, yes, you could join an OPC church as a member without ascribing to paedobaptism.

From the OPC's BCO IV.B.2:

The minister shall then require the person to profess publicly his Christian faith by giving assent to these or equivalent questions:

(1) Do you believe the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, to be the Word of God, and its doctrine of salvation to be the perfect and only true doctrine of salvation?

(2) Do you believe in one living and true God, in whom eternally there are three distinct persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit—who are the same in being and equal in power and glory, and that Jesus Christ is God the Son, come in the flesh?

(3) Do you confess that because of your sinfulness you abhor and humble yourself before God, that you repent of your sin, and that you trust for salvation not in yourself but in Jesus Christ alone?

(4) Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ as your sovereign Lord, and do you promise that, in reliance on the grace of God, you will serve him with all that is in you, forsake the world, resist the devil, put to death your sinful deeds and desires, and lead a godly life?

(5) Do you promise to participate faithfully in this church's worship and service, to submit in the Lord to its government, and to heed its discipline, even in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life?

If a person can affirm the above five questions, then they would qualify for membership. (Of course an interview with the session would be in order too, but you get my point). As you can see, nowhere in the above five questions does it require paedobaptism to be affirmed.

Now with that being said, I would also note however that all officers in the OPC are required to subscribe to the Westminster Standards, including paedobaptism. I would also note that question 5 requires affirmation that one will "promise to participate faithfully in this church's worship and service, to submit in the Lord to its government, and to heed its discipline..." The way I would explain all this to a credobaptist who desires to become a member is that paedobaptism will be taught in all of our classes and from the pulpit. It is what our ministers, elders, and denomination believe to be biblical. The member who refuses to subscribe to this view may still join as a member, but they may not espouse their credobaptist views because this would essentially violate their fifth vow of membership.

 

[Unoriginalname]

Being in a PCA church for a couple of years, the middle-road view of infant baptism caused all sorts of havoc, sad to say. It wasn't compassionate, it just made no sense and caused division and scandal.

We had Baptists who were members running off to other churches outside of our session's authority to get their children baptized after a profession of faith, because mode was also important to them (they didn't think that sprinkling or pouring was scriptural!). This caused all sorts of shepherding issues. There are good reasons why Baptists and Presbyterians differ. We are indeed brothers in Christ, but until we are glorified it makes little sense for us to worship under one roof as members of the same denomination.

Beyond unity in worship and unity in a theology of the sacraments, having "rogue" baptist members also means you are also inevitably giving them a platform to spread their error, which erodes confessional unity and undermines the session.

 

[Sherwin L.]

As others have pointed out, if you believe that this is a mandate from God, than you must equally believe that it is a sin to disobey it. The same is true of Baptist churches, while we may not refer to infant baptism as a "great sin", I am not aware of a single Baptist church that would allow someone into membership who had not been baptized by immersion upon a profession of faith.

I'm not troubled with the belief that disobeying a mandate from God can be considered a "great sin"-- that simply makes sense. I'm just intrigued that, given the lack of consensus on this issue within reformed circles, both sides have diametrically opposed views of whether or not refusing infants for baptism is a "great sin." Obviously, one side is right and the other is wrong.

 

[Herald]

MODERATOR NOTE: Only paedobaptists are allowed to respond in this forum.

Sent from my iPhone killing Galaxy S-4

 

[Phil D.]

Sent from my iPhone killing Galaxy S-4

Whatever...

 

[THE W]

Is there no room for strict credobaptist parents in a reformed Presbyterian congregation?

No, and there shouldn't be.

There also shouldn't be room for paedobaptists in baptists congregations.

There is no middle ground. One is right and the other is wrong.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The difference of opinion is not whether or not it is a great sin to contemn baptism, the issue is over the manner of discipline. Those who believe discipline only entails excommunication will never understand why people aren't hammered the moment they disagree with what the Scriptures teach.

 

[nicnap]

Beyond unity in worship and unity in a theology of the sacraments, having "rogue" baptist members also means you are also inevitably giving them a platform to spread their error, which erodes confessional unity and undermines the session.

Actually, if a Session allows a Baptist family to join their ranks, that family is generally warned against spreading their thoughts on the subject, or any disagreement with the Westminster Standards. To speak out of turn is to bring discipline on yourself.

 

[Jack K]

I fear we're going to scare Sherman, the poor fellow who asked the opening question, away from ever exploring a Presbyterian church even though he finds himself drawn to a Reformed congregation. I think it's worth saying again that the overwhelming majority of Bible-believing Presbyterian churches I know would deal gently and patiently with a believer who was raised credobaptist and was struggling with his conscience over the issue of baptizing a baby. Most would probably let him join, too, though that decision is not a one-issue matter and overall beliefs, expectations, circumstances and fit ought to be discussed by the church and the potential member.

 

[sevenzedek]

We are not demanding that they believe everything the Confession teaches, but we are requiring that they submit to the government and discipline of whichever Confessional Presbyterian denomination they're coming into. One of those orders of discipline is submitting children to baptism, which is a responsibility of elders over those children as part of their spiritual care, believing children are a part of the visible church.

What he said...

 

[sevenzedek]

Sherwin,

If you go to an OPC, they will let you join their church as a baptist thinker kind of person.

 

[One Christian Dad]

Not a Presbyterian here but a paedobaptist nonetheless. In my church federation (CanRC) I doubt we would readily accept into membership a person who was of a credo-baptist persuasion. You would be welcomed as a regular visitor in my congregation for sure...but a member? Not so sure about that. If we did accept a credo-baptist into membership you'd be quite irritated I think... because of our very high of the covenant and of the promises which God makes to the children of believers, we would be pestering you non stop with questions and nudges every time you had a child... Also a credo-baptist would never attain office (pastor, elder deacon) as they would be required to adhere to our paedo-baptistic confessions.


But if I was in an area of the world where the only solid Reformed church was of credo-baptist orientation I would join it and not the paedo baptist Roman Catholic church down the road. Why? Because I am obliged by my Lord to join with the true body of believers. I tend to agree with what Josh said and it goes both ways, "We are not demanding that they believe everything the Confession teaches, but we are requiring that they submit to the government and discipline of whichever Confessional Presbyterian denomination they're coming into. One of those orders of discipline is submitting children to baptism, which is a responsibility of elders over those children as part of their spiritual care, believing children are a part of the visible church."

 

[ZackF]

I think there is also a distinction between a family being regular attenders and members of the church.

 

[THE W]

Is there no room for strict credobaptist parents in a reformed Presbyterian congregation?

No, and there shouldn't be.

There also shouldn't be room for paedobaptists in baptists congregations.

There is no middle ground. One is right and the other is wrong.

This is too rigid. There should be room for sound Gospel-believing folk who do not have other feasible options geographically, etc. But those folks should submit to the discipline and government of their respective churches . . . or uproot and go to where a place that shares their convictions is.

I'm in agreement with you on this point but I believe the OPs inquiry is whether it's okay for them to go RP if they refuse to baptize their kid in the next 5 years.

 

[MW]

Geography or length of time has nothing to do with it.

The sacrament is administered by a lawfully ordained minister. It is the individual who comes forward for baptism, and it is the parent who presents the child for baptism. If there is something in the conscience of the parent which debars the use of a sacrament the church has no authority to coerce him by means of discipline. The faith and willingness of the individual participating in the sacrament must be respected.

The Confession does not say that non-participation in an ordinance is the contemning of it. If such a conclusion were required it would mean that those who examine themselves and find themselves unworthy of the Lord's supper must be regarded as contemners of the Supper. This would be cruel. Their reason could well be based on a faulty view of the sacrament, just as the antipaedobaptist's view is regarded as faulty by the paedobaptist church. The answer is not discipline, but patient instruction. "Apt to teach" means a disposition to teach rather than punish.

 

[THE W]

Pastor Winzer,

would you make someone a communicant member of your church who rejects paedobaptism?

 

[py3ak]

Geography or length of time has nothing to do with it.

The sacrament is administered by a lawfully ordained minister. It is the individual who comes forward for baptism, and it is the parent who presents the child for baptism. If there is something in the conscience of the parent which debars the use of a sacrament the church has no authority to coerce him by means of discipline. The faith and willingness of the individual participating in the sacrament must be respected.

The Confession does not say that non-participation in an ordinance is the contemning of it. If such a conclusion were required it would mean that those who examine themselves and find themselves unworthy of the Lord's supper must be regarded as contemners of the Supper. This would be cruel. Their reason could well be based on a faulty view of the sacrament, just as the antipaedobaptist's view is regarded as faulty by the paedobaptist church. The answer is not discipline, but patient instruction. "Apt to teach" means a disposition to teach rather than punish.

I believe that Richard Bacon has expressed similar views - the refusal of an antipaedobaptist parent to present their child for baptism does not result from despising the sacrament, but from valuing it highly, and hence not practicing it in a way that goes beyond their current light. However deficient we may feel that light or understanding to be, the ideal of limiting baptism to those Biblically warranted to receive it does not arise from slighting the ordinance. We agree with the principle, though we disagree with the understanding of Biblical warrant.

 

[Jack K]

Geography or length of time has nothing to do with it.

The sacrament is administered by a lawfully ordained minister. It is the individual who comes forward for baptism, and it is the parent who presents the child for baptism. If there is something in the conscience of the parent which debars the use of a sacrament the church has no authority to coerce him by means of discipline. The faith and willingness of the individual participating in the sacrament must be respected.

The Confession does not say that non-participation in an ordinance is the contemning of it. If such a conclusion were required it would mean that those who examine themselves and find themselves unworthy of the Lord's supper must be regarded as contemners of the Supper. This would be cruel. Their reason could well be based on a faulty view of the sacrament, just as the antipaedobaptist's view is regarded as faulty by the paedobaptist church. The answer is not discipline, but patient instruction. "Apt to teach" means a disposition to teach rather than punish.

I believe that Richard Bacon has expressed similar views - the refusal of an antipaedobaptist parent to present their child for baptism does not result from despising the sacrament, but from valuing it highly, and hence not practicing it in a way that goes beyond their current light. However deficient we may feel that light or understanding to be, the ideal of limiting baptism to those Biblically warranted to receive it does not arise from slighting the ordinance. We agree with the principle, though we disagree with the understanding of Biblical warrant.

Well put. To take it further, I have never felt as if the Baptists I worship with are contemning or even neglecting baptism, and therefore committing a "great sin" according to the Westminster (as some seem eager to frame those actions). On the contrary, these Baptists are trying to be careful to observe the rite and to do it properly and attentively. As I have become familiar with their approach, it seems to me to be a substantial misunderstanding of what is right but not a great sin, even by the Westminster's standard.

 

[fredtgreco]

I agree with Matthew. I also find it ironic that many who would not want someone to join a Presbyterian church who is conscience bound not to baptize his children, find it perfectly acceptable for said person to be a perpetual "visitor" for years (even decades). It seems to me that failure to join a church and be under authority is at least a significant a sin as refusing infant baptism.

 

[MW]

would you make someone a communicant member of your church who rejects paedobaptism?

A Presbyterian minister cannot make someone a communicant member. That is the function of the elders governing in parity, which is the kirk session. Whether such a person should become a church member depends on what the rejection entails. If it is merely non-practice I believe the overseers are bound to care and nurture souls in grace, which entails admiitting them into full communion and fellowship on the basis of a credible profession of faith. If, however, rejection entails unchurching the church then non-admittance is necessary. If it entails disturbing the peace of the church to some degree, lesser measures of discipline like admonition, censure, debarring might be used. In such a case, it should be pointed out that it is not the person's views per se, but the person's actions, which require discipline.

 

[sevenzedek]

I guess there are matters more weighty to consider than infant baptism. Another ten years in the faith may prove useful toward such considerations.