Why delay in baptism a no-no?

[steadfast7]

If,

VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.

... why would a delay in baptism (ie. when the child is able is able understand the gospel) be denounced?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

If the delay is in order to make an (erroneous) theological point, then it qualifies as an "undue" delay. Why was death threatened, when Moses and family were coming back to Egypt, and Moses had failed to circumcise his son (Ex.4:24-26)? If he'd had a "good reason" (what might qualify?), would that have changed the scene?

Everyone agrees: the ordinance is to be performed according to Christ's commandment. So, if infant children of one or both believing parents so ought to be baptized, then careless delays or unreasonable delays are unjustifiable. If baptism is a means of grace, then even if we don't understand the mystery of God's communication in and through his ordained means, we have no right to withhold those means from his authorized recipients.

Why not delay taking the child along with you to church, until... say, he's eight yrs old, and can actually follow a typical sermonic exposition? After all, he can't understand the gospel (Word=means of grace) before then, so clearly it isn't for him--same logic.

 

[steadfast7]

So, if infant children of one or both believing parents so ought to be baptized, then careless delays or unreasonable delays are unjustifiable.

But could not one delay baptism, not out of carelessness, but out of a firm belief in what the confession states, that is, that baptism and the Spirit's working need not correspond in time? I think this was written to combat Roman and Lutheran views which held that efficacy was occurring at the moment of baptism, no?

So, Just as an early baptism could point to something that becomes reality later, could not a later baptism could point to something that was a reality earlier, or whenever?

Moses' circumcision of his son is probably the best argument against this, and this would lead to another question of mine: do paedobaptists believe it is SIN not to baptize one's infant?

---------- Post added at 03:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:12 PM ----------

Also, if baptism takes its cue from the Abrahamic and not Mosaic example, then isn't it significant that most of Abraham's house were not infants, but already grown up?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

in order:
1) The point of the confessional statement, not tied to the moment of administration, is to deny that baptism of an infant or an adult necessarily effects a saving work of grace at the time of baptism, even to an elect person. Parse the after-words, and they come forth thus: 1) the grace of the promise is certainlyoffered at the time of administration; 2) the grace of the promise is really exhibited and conferred unto faith... in [God's] appointed time. That time could be at the time of baptism, for an adult or an infant. The point is, we confess that God is not bound to act on a human time-table. But it's the "right use" that attaches to God's promise, so why do we want to monkey with that? What is the reason for delaying the "offer?"

The desire to delay is based on... what? One might as well advocate plainly for delays in joining the church that are the product of human wisdom. Where is the Scriptural warrant? There were those in the early church who started to delay baptism until later in life, eventually till the deathbed. They thought they were demonstrating true piety (and they had some mistaken realist views of sacramental elements, and the "substance" of grace). The point is: one doesn't act on his spiritual intuitions or self-determined theological whim, but according to precept, respecting divine things.

2) Um... I suppose. I've heard of new Christians, or a group waiting for a church to form, who are eager in part because they want the ordinances that come with church-membership. Why would anyone wish to delay this any longer than absolutely necessary? I truly think this qualifies as a species of that "neglect" the confession speaks of...

3) 28:5 Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance (Lk.7:30 with Ex.4:24-26), yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it (Act.10:2,4,22,31,45,47; Rom.4:11); or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated (Act.8:13,23).

4) We have no idea how many little ones were among the rather large household of Abraham. He had a trained force of 318 fighting militia, Gen.14:14. At some point, "how many" of a certain age is completely irrelevant to the picture. Far more significant is the fact that the ages must have "run the gamut."

 

[Mushroom]

do paedobaptists believe it is SIN not to baptize one's infant?

This one does. The event regarding Moses' sons is evidence of the Lord's displeasure with neglect of the sacrament. The only two causes for delay I can ascertain are 1) negligence (disdain for the ordinance) or 2) insertion of a false doctrine of self-determination into the gospel. Neither are acceptable in my view, and both exhibit a sinful attitude.

 

[steadfast7]

isn't the "great sin" of neglecting baptism speaking of those who neglect it altogether (like the Salvation Army)?

Also, re: circumcision of Moses' son ... I don't think this is a good passage to derive our doctrine of the sin of delaying baptism. First, it was not Moses who circumcised him, but Zipporah. Would you consider her a covenant mediator, or authorized priest? Second, I always thought that the command to circumcise/baptize flows out of the Abrahamic covenant, not some obscure Mosaic narrative, nor the Mosaic law (lest we be obligated to perform it on the 8th day). In Abraham's covenant, we have him circumcising his house, and more importantly, his son, Ishmael, who was not an infant at the time. just sayin..

This leads me to yet another question: what is it about infants that causes the hush to fall over the crowd and everyone to become very sensitive theologically? And why is infancy the period that causes all the exceptions to the rules? ie. we all require faith prior to baptism, except in the case of infants; the sacrament of the Lord's supper is to be administered to all the church, except in the case of infants. We cannot have certain confidence of the election of church members who die, except in the case of infants ... ?

why are the two categories of humans in Reformed thought - adults and infants?

Does it have to with high infant mortality and the need for pastoral theology in this regard?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

1) I would call it merely a matter of degree: neglecting entirely or neglecting in part. Either we follow precept, or there isn't any precept to follow, and the whole baptism thing is much ado about nothing.

2) Moses WAS the mediator. Zipporah had her authority from him, and in any case he was presiding. She was an emergency assistant (and not too happy about it). The text is somewhat tricky, in part because it's hard to say who was under-the-gun, Moses or his son? Was the boy circumcised to save his own life (having broken the covenant), or was he circumcised to save Moses' life, who was disobedient to his duty (a very serious breach because he was the great mediator). The boy should have been circumcised the eighth day, and as it was he was probably at least a toddler, if not significantly older.

It was an unwarranted delay. And God had pronounced the curse on the uncircumcised infant as covenant-breaker in his own right, read Gen.17:14.

3) its scripture that recognizes two basic classes of participants in covenant life: 1) those who may speak for themselves, and 2) those who require others to speak for them. So, its a Scriptural distinction we are following. John 9:20-23 is a classic expression of this distinction, found all over Scripture. Take up this (non-) problem with the text.

 

[steadfast7]

its scripture that recognizes two basic classes of participants in covenant life: 1) those who may speak for themselves, and 2) those who require others to speak for them. So, its a Scriptural distinction we are following. John 9:20-23 is a classic expression of this distinction, found all over Scripture. Take up this (non-) problem with the text.

Rev. Bruce, how does this square with the household baptisms in Acts, where RCT proponents are happy to entertain the idea that persons who might have been able to answer for themselves, slaves, employees, grown children, etc, were still baptized on the basis of the faith of the head of the household? I remember in another thread where you finely exegeted Acts 16:34, "And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God" showing the emphasis that it was the jailer that believed.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Dennis,
I'm not sure what your question is about. The point of Jn.9:20-23 is that the blind man was being treated (if not in fact) as a man not under parental-authority, not a "subordinate" of their house. In some respects, if not in most relevant respects, he was his own man and not subject to his parent's rule. His parents distance themselves from him, because they want to avoid giving impression that their son's "sin" implicates them as responsible parties.

What is your understanding of "answering for oneself"? When such a right is granted, is it absolute? Or is it granted, sometimes, by degrees? And who grants the right? If I ask my child if he wants a spoonful of pudding or jello for dessert, I am letting him "speak for himself," though but a small child. But I won't be letting him decide when he may set foot off our property any time soon. The issues at stake are greater or lesser.

Some people "answer for themselves" because they can, or they should. Others do not so answer because they cannot (actually or legally), or they will not. Sometimes, someone tries to speak for someone else, and they fail or are contradicted. Other times, someone refuses to speak for someone else, because he doesn't want the responsibility. Gen.24:54-57 contains an episode where the opportunity to "speak for oneself" is granted to Rebekah from those who are originally asked for permission. In Israel, a husband or father could nullify a wife's or daughter's oath, Num.30:3-8. As my children grow up, they will be allowed to "speak for themselves" in greater and greater degree. But I do not let them make "big decisions" for themselves right now. This is life, and the Bible accommodates ordinary human experience.

I believe, and have stated on the PB many times, that recalcitrant servants were NOT circumcised in Abraham's house--but were certainly excluded from family life in significant ways, if not dismissed (perhaps after being given some time to think about their decision) to find other employment. It is absurd to think that Abraham grabbed a knife, and with a mad glittering in his eye roared like a Pirate,

"Grab ye a whiskey, and get ye in line, mateys! We're having an initiation! Hold him down, lubbers! Wot, if y' squirm like that, y' may end up with more on the floor! hahahahaha!"​

If one felt duty-bound in some sense to proceed, well that's still voluntary. Sorry, but I cannot imagine an "involuntary" circumcision, outside of the designated children. Abraham would have sent those people away, before he subjected them to a cut they refused.

Many of these people were men of faith anyway. Long before circumcision, Abraham left Ur (and later Haran) "not knowing whither he went." He preached faith in an alien and invisible God whom he had come to know by grace out of his idolatry. And he told folks he was going to uproot his settled life and follow the Lord's leading... somewhere (I dunno?). And the same Spirit who moved him to abandon his country and comforts for the sake of an elusive "promise" also moved others to abandon the rest of their lives and families to sojourn with him in the same journey of faith.

In Haran, there was another opportunity for some to abandon Abraham and this journey of faith. And we know that some of the family did--because they were still there when it was time to get a wife for Isaac, and later Jacob as well. Abraham did not rope them all up, and drag them along captive because he was the clan-chief, and everyone did what he said, "or else."

So, do we really think there was much opposition in the house to following Abraham in circumcision? Do we really think that he acted like an inscrutable dictator, giving forth no reason for his mutilating commandment? Or is it more likely that he preached the Word he was given (concerning circumcision) to his church, as he must have been since the beginning in Chaldea? And his people hung onto that Word.

We know that in Israel, there were households with sojourners, hired servants, and slaves who were not circumcised, and those were forbidden to participate in Passover. So, there must have been some obvious limits on "forcing" people to become members in Israel.

re. Act.16:34,
1) The point the text makes utilizes an emphasis on the faith of one, which has cumulative effects on his household. Th Jailer's story follows another episode (Lydia) in which the same emphasis is made. For some reason, at two opportunities, the faith of one is Luke's textual ground for the baptism of the whole house. Comparatively, when Cornelius' household is evangelized (Act.10), the infilling of Holy Spirit is upon all, the faith of many is manifested, and the many's possession of Holy Spirit is the noted textual ground for the baptism that follows. So, Act.16 does not simply make the exact same point in different words; it broadens our understanding.

2) I've always entertained the reasonable hope that there were some other household members who were thoroughly converted that same night.

3) The text doesn't have to affirm the ages/status of any in particular, because the definition of "household" is inclusive. A cursory review of Scriptural data confirms this. Exclusionary exceptions are always "noted," where relevant, precisely because of the assumptions otherwise conveyed by the terminology. Because I do not accept the theological a priori that infants do not receive the sign of the covenant of grace in the New Covenant, I have every reason to read "household" as inclusionary in ANY case whatsoever, whether Lydia's or the Jailer's had such in fact.

I don't believe people were forced to be baptized any more than I believe they were forced into circumcision. I think there have been people who were baptized, who certainly were capable of objecting--in heart or by mouth--but who did not. No, but they consented. Just because one is able to do something doesn't imply obligation to do so. These baptized allowed, properly or improperly, someone else to speak on their behalf. The thing to recall is: that allowance doesn't get one "off the hook" when time comes to give another answer, namely to justify the association.


So, to sum up my reply, I don't think "slaves, employees, grown children, etc," were baptized with any more haste than the corresponding persons were circumcised in the OT. The issue isn't whether such persons were ever marked, properly so, and that on the basis of their association with a head of house who was faithful. Nor is it an issue if some persons in similar circumstances have received different treatment. The issue is whether any who resisted, or who asserted their right or were granted a right to speak for themselves, were marked by the sign of the covenant without regard to their objections. My position doesn't compel me to the view that they were.

 

[steadfast7]

Thanks for that clarification. I was under the impression that the expectation to fall in line with the federal head in ancient times was given and to receive the snip/sprinkle whether you wanted it or not.

Even so, moving away from the idea of being physically or otherwise "forced" to receive the snip/sprinkle, is it not consistently covenantal for the head of the household's baptism to be the basis for the rest of the whole house (inclusively) to be baptized? As you wrote, "the faith of one is Luke's textual ground for the baptism of the whole house."

If so, then there are not only 2 categories: (those who can speak for themselves and those who require another to speak for them), but a third: those would can speak for themselves, but due to covenantal/household associations have their decision made for them.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Thanks for that clarification. I was under the impression that the expectation to fall in line with the federal head in ancient times was given and to receive the snip/sprinkle whether you wanted it or not.

Is the picture of Abraham given to us in Scripture one in which we would expect coercion or persuasion to color our impression of him? As a "gospel" figure, I would think the latter. I don't think he was little more than an "enlightened despot."

Even so, moving away from the idea of being physically or otherwise "forced" to receive the snip/sprinkle, is it not consistently covenantal for the head of the household's baptism to be the basis for the rest of the whole house (inclusively) to be baptized? As you wrote, "the faith of one is Luke's textual ground for the baptism of the whole house."

Why would you see the physical act (baptism) as the ground/basis for other physical acts performed on others? Or are you using baptism as metonymy for faith? Some human profession of faith furnishes one indispensable criteria for human acts of baptism; correlative to the presence of justifying faith being an indispensable criteria for the Spirit's cleansing baptism.

If so, then there are not only 2 categories: (those who can speak for themselves and those who require another to speak for them), but a third: those would can speak for themselves, but due to covenantal/household associations have their decision made for them.

I think the addition of another category is an unnecessary complication. Some form of law--rather than simple ability, inability, desire, self assertion, repression, or any other factor--properly determines whether or not a person may speak for themselves, or require another to speak for them. I say, that third category is already conceived under the second. Any person who rejects the second category, but fails to attain to the first, is simply "voiceless."

 

[steadfast7]

Thanks for that clarification. I was under the impression that the expectation to fall in line with the federal head in ancient times was given and to receive the snip/sprinkle whether you wanted it or not.

Is the picture of Abraham given to us in Scripture one in which we would expect coercion or persuasion to color our impression of him? As a "gospel" figure, I would think the latter. I don't think he was little more than an "enlightened despot."

We need not impute such negativities on Abraham when that culture, much like Asian cultures with which I am familiar, may have been community rather than individual-oriented, and may have easily submitted to circumcision as expected on them, even if no personal conviction was forthcoming.

Would RCT proponents approve of baptizing adult children today (who have no personal faith, but are willing to follow along) on the basis of the faith of the father who decides to change the religion of the family? I've seen this done in a Korean and other asian families, so it is not far removed from biblical times.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

We need not impute such negativities on Abraham when that culture, much like Asian cultures with which I am familiar, may have been community rather than individual-oriented, and may have easily submitted to circumcision as expected on them, even if no personal conviction was forthcoming.

I actually quite agree with you: that a kind of instinctive, culturally ingrained submission fits into the scenario. But I think many folks adopt the mental impression that, ordinarily, "submission is only skin deep." I question that "default" assumption.

Everyone is different. And we really aren't competent to judge of the "quality" of the "profession" that accompanies the submission. All we have left to go on is whether that person DID or DID NOT submit. That's the "profession" of allegiance. And if we start to bring in "deeper" questions of "personal conviction," if we start out with the skeptical attitude, that says, "Oh no, submission isn't enough, prove something else to me, that you really mean it," we are demanding more than we have a right to expect.

Fact is, there are very relatively few Bible characters that we have more to go on than their names. Doesn't the fact that they were members of the church count as something for us? Don't we owe them the judgment of charity? It's true that many people, sometimes most folks in certain generations were apostate. But we are still required by our own submission to the law of charity, absent anything witness against them, to hope for their eternal bliss, if only because they are named among the church.

Skepticism is a poor stance for a believing reader of Scripture to take. It seems to me we owe Abraham the dignity of assuming him to be an effective spiritual leader, a preacher of righteousness like Noah. And we owe those who sat submissively under his preaching for years the honor of expecting more spiritual reality from them than mere superficiality. Eliezer of Damascus (Gen.15:2, perhaps also 24:2)--was he even a believer? Surely the man who went to find Rebecca was. Was he a strange exception to the "rule" of stupid, cloddish obstinacy to spiritual things, despite regular exposure to the preached Word?

I cannot understand why we consistently project the worst expectations of church-apostasy upon all the previous generations--including those with the best potential--without any reason other than a general contempt for the OT age.

Would RCT proponents approve of baptizing adult children today (who have no personal faith, but are willing to follow along) on the basis of the faith of the father who decides to change the religion of the family? I've seen this done in a Korean and other asian families, so it is not far removed from biblical times.

Hypothetical situations are good for planning or what-iffing, but they do nothing for telling us whether or not a viewpoint is biblical. How do I handle situation-X when my theology commits me to belief-M, is a different question from should I hold to belief-M.

I think the question of whether or not some child should be baptized is answered by asking whether that person (man or woman) is in fact in a position of true subordination to his parent/master. The Bible knows limits to intergenerational and social solidarity, based on the Gen.2:24, "leave and cleave." Different eras, different cultures have different rules as to when or where a person is emancipated.

The standard in Abraham's day was different from the standard in Jesus' day. In Israel, the "age of majority" by Jesus' day was marked (as it is to this day) by the bar-mitzvah, at age 13. The West, following a hyper-individualistic program, have sought to totally emancipate the individual younger and younger. But it wasn't that long ago that daughters remained in their parent's house if they never married. That wasn't better, or now worse; it's just the way it was/is. We can apply our theology in either situation.

The story is famously told of a Frankish (?) king submitting himself and his army to baptismal "conversion." I do not think this is in fact a genuine application of the biblical principle of family solidarity. However, it does raise a interesting question: Why would the early church--even if we grant the argument that paedobaptism is error--make the "leap" to baptizing an army of men in subjection to a king, unless the representational principle was already ingrained? This, rather than the notion that paedobaptism grew up entirely out of a fear of babies dying without cleansing from original sin. That fear doesn't map well to "corporate" baptism of grown men who are capable of hearing and believing and dealing with their own sin. But the behavior does follow plausibly, though not accurately, from the principle of submission.