Scenario for Paedobaptists

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quatchu

Quatchu

Puritan Board Sophomore
I have a scenario which I want to put forth for the Paedobaptists that I have been curious about.
Let’s say a child is born and is baptised in a protestant denomination. The parents are not believers and are only baptising there child because it just is what is done in there nominally Christian upbringing. They never go to a church after this but the child later on in life is regenerated and becomes a Christian. During his Christian walk he comes to wonder if he should be baptised by immersion and does just that. Later on however after actual study he comes to believe fully in the Paedobaptists position. I know in most situations paedos would say the first baptism is the valid one however since the parents were not beliers does that make the baptism by immersion the valid baptism? Does the baptism as a child count since the parents were not believers?
 
Westminster Confession of Faith 28:7, "The Sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person."

Praise God that He is faithful to His promises.
 
There is some deep theology on this.

Basically, the first baptism, even though the parents (later?) prove out to be nonbelievers is valid, and therefore it stands for life as a sacrament, once.

You will get some differences of opinion here, even in the reformed house, about this but I think it has to be a church communion that at least holds by charitable esteem, a biblical gospel. On this reasoning, that would not include a Roman baptism because it officially repudiates a biblical gospel.

But assuming all that, the child's original baptism is valid and ought not be repeated.
 
Quatchu said:
Scott1 said:
Basically, the first baptism, even though the parents (later?)
Click to expand...

Lets assume the baptism takes place in a liberal protestant denomination such as PCUSA.
Click to expand...

It is, basically, based on the faithfulness of the promises of God.

Charitably, and that is to be our view, the baptism is valid. Even in mostly fallen away "mainline" denominations.

Remember, it is GOD that makes it "valid."
 
I along with others believe the first Baptism to be valid. Tha sacrament of baptism does not depend on the ones (parents) to take the child there, but on the One whom instituted the Sacrement and is Faithful to Complete it.
 
I was baptized in the PC(USA) under parents who, at the time, were shallow believers at best. I have no intention of repeating the sacrament.
 
Jeffriesw said:
Tha sacrament of baptism does not depend on the ones (parents) to take the child there, but on the One whom instituted the Sacrement and is Faithful to Complete it.
Click to expand...

This is very important to remember. There are important lessons to be learned from the Novatians and (especially) the Donatists in the early church. The former reacted strongly to what they believed were lax practices for readmitting lapsed Christians back into the churches; they went so far as to re-baptize their followers. The latter denied that a sacrament like baptism was invalid if it was administered by a priest or bishop who had fallen away during a time of persecution. In both cases, too much emphasis is placed upon frail humans instead of an always faithful Lord who does not fail us.
 
My paedobaptist reaction is to think your question is unnecessary. In your scenario, the person was baptized as an infant and then again later as a believing adult. You ask which baptism was valid.

Well, the second was unnecessary and thus the wrong thing to do. But this individual has no need to worry himself over which one really counts in God's eyes. It's enough to know he that is baptized. And we have better things to do than to poke around in the baptisms other churches decide to perform, pronouncing some of them to be valid and others not.
 
Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 27.

Section I.–Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him: as also to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word.

Was this person received into the body of a Church at that time?

Section III.–The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorising the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

Just saying......
(Rom 4:17) (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Sometimes God just says what is before it is. ​Maybe it is a misapplication of Scripture but the principle is there.
 
PuritanCovenanter said:
Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 27.

Section I.–Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him: as also to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word.

Section III.–The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorising the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

Just saying......
(Rom 4:17) (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Sometimes God just says what is before it is. ​Maybe it is a misapplication of Scripture but the principle is there.
Click to expand...

Where is Norseman Randy going with this?? I sure like it! ;)
 
PuritanCovenanter said:
Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 27.

Section I.–Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him: as also to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word.

Was this person received into the body of a Church at that time?

Section III.–The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorising the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

Just saying......
(Rom 4:17) (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Sometimes God just says what is before it is. ​Maybe it is a misapplication of Scripture but the principle is there.
Click to expand...

Good line of thinking because it is putting this in context.

We might also add that the church is both "visible" and "invisible"- the former belongs to believers with a credible profession of faith and their children. That is a covenant community, those bound by covenant (vow) to serve God individually and in community, in this world.

The latter is the sense of true believers that, although there be basis for determining them (by their good works, and by their profession), God alone can truly know.

But the covenant community is set apart, just like in Israel, by the sacrament of baptism.
 
Thank you posting this thread. This is essentially my story. I would not say I was a covenant child, my parents had me baptized because it was what was expected of them. Then, after some heavy "let Jesus into your heart" mentality was baptized by immersion in a less than solid theologically church. I've actually been meaning to ask this recently, knowing that there is only one true baptism, but that my parents had no real intention of covenant keeping when they had me baptized.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top