The discussion of Paedo vs Credo baptism over the last few weeks have been enlightening, educational, and entertaining for the most part. I thought I had a pretty good grasp on the purpose behind Paedo baptism, but have learned more in the past few days than I even knew before.
Like all theology the thing I am the most interested in is how do certain beliefs effect practice. Obviously what you believe effects what you do, and as a Pastor I am always concerned with the practical aspects of beliefs. What has peaked my interest the most was how does Paedo-baptism effect the ecclesiology of the local congregation in areas such as, discipleship, church discipline, communion, etc. I still have question like, at what point do children partake of communion and what happens to allow such? How does it effect a rebellious child in the area of church discipline?
After reading different blogs including Fide-o and some forums I keep seeing the discussion concerning profession of faith among Baptist verses infant baptism. There has been a lot of accusations tossed around about Baptist getting it wrong and baptizing unregenerate. Baptist are obviously taking a persons word on their profession of faith, the paedos have been accused of baptizing them all and letting God sort out who is elect and who is not. So the accusation of intention have been debated.
However, I have a question that stems from my desire to see how this practically plays out and I would love for anyone that has an answer to help me. In terms of baptizing unregenerate we have seen quotes like, “what have these children done to repent of” or “treat them as regenerate because who knows maybe they are” or “since we believe it is possible for babies to be regenerated we should baptize them all”.
Here is my question. Unless you believe in “eternal justification” wouldn’t it be fair to say that the majority of baptized infants are unregenerate at baptism? I am not making accusations, so don’t freak out and act punktilicious. I am just asking a question. Whether the Paedos agree or not when I a Credo hears your arguments for Paedo baptism I hear salvation by birth or election, not faith. Now I know that you say you don’t believe this and I believe you. Nevertheless I get 759 pages of why baptize your infants with a disclaimer at the end about how this doesn’t mean salvation by election or birth into a Christian family.
One more question along the same lines. When do children get to partake in communion and what happens to allow such?
Tweet
36 year old husband, father, pastor, singer, musician, reader, eater, rider, watcher,
There has been a lot of accusations tossed around about Baptist getting it wrong and baptizing unregenerate. Baptist are obviously taking a persons word on their profession of faith, the paedos have been accused of baptizing them all and letting God sort out who is elect and who is not. So the accusation of intention have been debated.
I’ve said before and I’ll say it again, the Baptist position is not that we have an infallible procedure in place. Rather, believers baptism serves the purpose of weeding out the unregenerate better than paedobaptism, because we avoid the question about “do you consider a child regenerate or not?” This is well covered by our theologians.
I’d add that Manata did observe in his studies before the debate that it’s Paedos who regularly don’t interact with what we say properly, not the other way around. Baptists generally do a much better job. That was quite a statement from him.
n terms of baptizing unregenerate we have seen quotes like, “what have these children done to repent of” or “treat them as regenerate because who knows maybe they are” or “since we believe it is possible for babies to be regenerated we should baptize them all”.
This relates to a fundamental tension in Paedobaptist theological traditions, for they are not all of one piece on this. Again this is admitted by their theologians. So, since I’ve written on this before in relation to regeneration and infants to Bob L. Ross, I’ll quote the pertinent part for you to help you understand where the Paedos are coming from.
In essence, the Old Princeton tradition tends toward presuming children to be unregenerate, but the Dutch Reformed strand tends toward presuming them regenerate. This is at the root, in part, of some Federal Vision theology.
The Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed tradition allow for infant regeneration. Some Reformed Baptists (James Boyce) do as well, but for different reasons. Hardshells also affirm that infants can be regenerated.
Difference between Hardshell doctrine and dominant Reformed doctrine:
In Hardshell doctrine, infants regenerated may come to Christ very late in life. In Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed churches (and as abstract limiting cases in the views of some Baptists), an infant that is regenerated will come to faith, not as an adult, but at an exceptionally young age.
On this latter view, they are reared in believing homes, exposed from infancy to the Word of God, the gospel, etc. and make a saving and credible profession very early. Therefore, their conversion is not separated from instrumentality at all. They may through their behavior prove not to be “problem children” at all, but behavior itself is not a measure of their status with God at this age. This is considered the exception to the rule in God’s dealings with people and is very rare. It is put forward to account for those who either have no memory of their conversion (like Ruth Graham) or were converted at the ages of 3 or 4 and generally shown the fruits of conversion (faith, understanding of truth, apprehension and love for God and Christ, sorrow over sin, etc.). Shedd epitomizes this view, in his discussion of regeneration in adults vs. infants. After his discussion of preaching, prayer, etc. and its connection to regeneration and conversion, he writes:
The regenerate child, youth, and man, believe• and repent* immediately. The regenerate infant believe• and repent• when his• faculties will admit of the exercise and manifestation of faith and repentance. In the latter instance, regeneration in potential or latent faith and repentance.
Historically, the Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed traditions have oscillated between 2 views on the treatment of children. Abraham Kuyper, for example, advocated a position by which children born to believers (and of course baptized) should be presumed to be elect (and thus presumptively regenerate) until they show signs otherwise. They appeal to Maccovius, Voetius, Gomarus and others, but this is far from conclusive. (See: http://members.aol.com/RSIGRACE/neo3.html) Presently, those Presbyterians favoring Auburn Ave./Federal Vision theology tend toward this direction. This view also seems to involve the a time gap between regeneration and effectual calling.
Archibald Alexander summarizes the dominant view among Presbyterians in the Princeton tradition (emphasis mine): “The education of children should proceed on the principle that they are in an unregenerate state, until evidences of piety clearly appear, in which case they should be sedulously cherished and nurtured. . . . Although the grace of God may be communicated to a human soul, at any period of its existence, in this world, yet the fact manifestly is, that very few are renewed before the exercise of reason commences; and not many in early childhood.” (Archibald Alexander, Thoughts on Religious Experience (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1967), pp. 13-14.) So, the first presumption is not that the child is regenerate, rather it is that s/he is unregenerate. What then is the age about which we are speaking here? The only possible exception may have been Charles Hodge who could be viewed to presume baptized infants as regenerate/elect, who was very concerned about the failure of some to practice infant baptism within his denomination and argued for not accepting adults who failed to baptize their infants as members. However, his views on that point were largely ignored, including by his own son, J. Aspinwald Hodge..
Vern Poythress articulates this dominant Princetonian position today (emphasis mine) from http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/1997Linking.htm
It might seem that I have pushed hard in the direction of finding genuine faith even in very young children. But it would be artificial and speculative to place any great weight on demonstrating the character of the child’s response. It is much more important that we recognize that God can meet and spiritually bless such young children. Obviously the very young child is more passive, and the signs of response may be very vague. But the blessing of God, his spiritual care, rebuke, comfort, and strengthening are quite vividly real, as they come largely through the channel of the child’s parents. To a large extent, these very young children are receiving the substance of the care that ought to characterize participation in the Christian community.
The experience of the Christian community also shows what happens to children who are raised in this kind of environment. Let us suppose that the parents and the larger community are diligent in practicing their faith and in raising children “in the training and instruction of the Lord” (Eph 6:4). Let us suppose that they are diligent in praying for their children to be saved and to grow spiritually. Then the children will be professing faith in Christ when they are two and three and four. There are no four-year-old apostates in a healthy Christian community.
Infants do not directly manifest their faith by verbal confession. But the prayers of their parents, the training of their parents, and the power of the Holy Spirit in the Christian community are evidence that they will give credible professions by the time they are a few years old. One might then argue that this evidence is in practice just as convincing as a verbal confession. There is no more danger that the children will apostasize when four years old than that an adult convert would apostasize after four years in the faith.
This is, therefore in contrast to the Kuyperian and Old Hardshell traditions which state that infant regeneration can occur (and in the Old Hardshell tradtion, regeneration can occur at any time), and the individual is not converted either immediately or in a very short period thereafter.
Thus we can outline these 2 positions as follows:
A. Kuyperian/Old Hardshell*
Order:
Infant Regeneration
Time Gap, even into adulthood
Effectual Calling
Conversion, even in adulthood
*In Old Hardshell doctrine any person, not only an infant, may be regenerated by the immediate agency of the Holy Spirit and not become conscious of it for a lengthy interval, even a great many years. From this comes their doctrines of “time salvation” and “eternal justification.” In contrast, View 2 above states that, while the agency of the Holy Spirit is immediate and, technically, His own work apart from means, in all but infants (the exception to the rule), this does not happen apart from instrumentality of the Word, and the first conscious action of the person is to repent and believe, and, moreover, because of the use of instrumentality, they are actively engaged in the psychology of this process.
B. Princetonian:
Infant Regeneration
No time gap
Effectual calling commences immediately
Conversion at very early age “as soon as his faculties will admit”; very rare.
Strictly speaking, from a Baptist perspective, both views seem to involve a time gap between regeneration and effectual calling, judging from a surface level comparison. Moreover, because Baptists deny that children are part of the new covenant, Reformed / Sovereign Grace Baptists have no conceptual mechanism by which to presume infants regenerate, making the Old Hardshell position seem grossly illogical as a result. However, Baptists standing in the broader Reformed tradition do often, as Boyce demonstrates, affirm the possibility of infant regeneration under the Princetonian, not the Kuyperian, paradigm, because of their pastoral experience, not because of any theology of covenant children.
William Young, responding to the Kuyperian position taken by the hyper-covenantalists / Federal Visionists responds to this idea (emphasis mine):
The view of Voetius and Kuyper involves the anomaly of a time gap between regeneration and effectual calling, particularly appalling in the case of the apostle Paul, of whom, on the basis of Gal. 1:15, the younger Kuyper is reported to have preached as an example of a regenerated blasphemer.
In his detailed exposition in E Voto, Kuyper devotes a chapter to documentation and argumentation for his claim that he is introducing no novelty, but simply returning to the doctrine of Calvin and the Reformed fathers which a later generation allowed to fall into oblivion.(32) Does he make out his case?
Kuyper quotes from Institutes IV.xvi.17-20 to find support in Calvin, who does teach: “That some infants are saved; and that they are previously regenerated by the Lord, is beyond all doubt.” What Kuyper fails to quote is Calvin’s rejoinder to the Anabaptist evasion that the sanctification of John the Baptist in his mother’s womb “was only a single case, which does not justify the conclusion that the Lord generally acts in this manner with infants.” Calvin’s rejoinder is: “For we use no such argument.”(33) But Kuyper does use such an argument, in contending that children of the covenant are to be presumed to be regenerated because in fact that is the general manner of the Lord’s dealing with them. Calvin does speak of a seed of future repentance and faith implanted by the Spirit,(34) but does not state the false proposition that this is the case with all baptized infants, nor the highly disputable thesis of Voetius that this is the case with all elect children of believers. Certainly there is no hint of the presumptive doctrine of Kuyper in any of these texts of Calvin. (Historic Calvinism and Neo-Calvinism Westminster Theological Journal, vol. 36 (1973-74).)
Maccovius, Voetius, Gomarus, Archibald, and Aspinwald…my name is so boring.
So are the majority of infants in Christian homes unsaved? This gets into the “age of accountability” area.
One Salient I don’t know if this question raises as much about “age of accountability as it does a question of the nature of regeneration. I am not familiar with Presbyterian culture so I can only speak from a Baptist perspective, but I think the question that needs to be addressed is regeneration an event.
However, I do believe the age of accountability “theology” is part of this discussion.
Gene, as always you helped me. Thanks.
NO infant is regenerate…I don’t see that in Scripture. That’s my personal opinion. There are people on BOTH sides who believe some infants go to heaven when they die and thus conclude that God regenerated them at some point in time before their death…I don’t. So, no infant is regenerated. There are infants that are elect and will grow up to be saved by faith alone by grace alone through Christ alone. Baptism is a SEAL of the promises God makes to His children.
Just to add a note of debate: Was John the baptist who was filled with the Spirit from the womb saved? And David said he will see his child from Bathsheba again. Did this mean in eternity or only in a common death?
Personally, I don’t know what to do with the idea that some infants that die are elect. Here’s my thinking on this.
All men are born in Adam and thereby sinners and under God’s wrath from the moment of conception.
Salvation comes by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
Babies can’t repent and believe in Christ therefore can’t be saved. The didactic protions of the bible make it clear that faith is a necessary component of salvation, even though faith is a gift from God it’s still a real thing that understands that a person is a sinner and is under God’s wrath and that Christ is his savior.
How can a baby have that kind of faith? Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God right? That’s the means by which God grants faith and repentance.
How can a baby repent a believe?
We are not dammned for personal sins in so much as we are damned for being in Adam.
Babies aren’t innocent, they are just as much sinners as you and I and I’m sure that I don’t need to tell anyone who had children that they can see original sin in their children from a very early age.
So anyway, that’s my thinking on this. Any thoughts guys?
Chad,
Your question hurts my brain, I admit, but I do think that it is possible for an infant to be regenerated and thereby given the gift of faith. I believe that we are saved “by faith alone” and that faith may not necessarily been proven to me or you, but as long as God is in charge then we have to trust Him.
Salvation is not by the will or works of a person, but by the power of the God. And since I believe that infants in the womb are people, then I believe that if God wants to He can regenerate them in the womb, give them faith, and that may not have time to evidence itself to us — especially if that infant never reaches physical maturity.
(Obviously I do not baptize anyone who does not evidence their faith by at least confession that Jesus is their Lord, but I do believe that it is possible for God to regenerate one of His elect at any time.)
But what about the necessity of hearing the Gospel… well that is the part of this question that makes my brain hurt.
I don’t know for sure. I know what smarter men than me have said. And I trust them, and I trust God. And I am totally confident that I do not understand all the ways that God communicates the Gospel to people. I believe in the norm. I preach the norm. But I am fully aware that God has means beyond my understanding.
And, I know that God never makes mistakes.
Yeah, it hurts my brain too. The last time I thouhgt about this too hard I had to have an ace bandage wrapped around my head for a week.
BTW, I’m a Baptist also. It’s just that I saw that the subject of what happens to infants when they die came up so I thought I’d throw in my two cents and see if any one had a response that I had not yet considered.
I shared the gospel to a friend once who had an abortion. She came to believe the gospel and was saved but she did ask what happened to her baby. Was it with God or in hell? I don’t rightly remember what I told her. I was an arminian back then so I probably said he was in heaven.
But now that I’m Reformed and a Calvinist and I have a much better understanding of the scriptures I don’t know if I could give her the same answer.
After all, if God sends an infant to hell he’s perfectly just for doing so. He’s still a sinner in Adam and under God’s wrath.
The best answer I could give her now is, “I don’t know for sure.”
Chad,
The argument that infants who die isn’t that they are saved by election. Rather, it is that they are saved by regeneration and regeneration always leads to faith.
Part of the problem here is that we perceive the infant as always an infant, but is this true? Does you grandmother who died at 90 remain 90 during the whole intermediate state or does she age down? If she ages down, wouldn’t an infant age upward?
And the argument for infant salvation goes argues precisely that, and therefore, the infant who dies and is saved is an infant who comes to faith and, indeed, continues to grow in the Faith, during the intermediate state. The sin of Adam allows them to die and thus be taken by the Lord, but the mercy of God in Christ allow them to be elected and regenerated and thus come to faith.
Saving faith is a conscious, cognitive state of mind which also requires a revealed object of knowledge.
A prenatal infant (to take one example) is incapable of exercising faith in Christ. He lacks the cognitive development, and he also lacks the object of knowledge.
He hasn\’t heard the gospel, and even if he had, he would be quite unable to process what he heard since he lacks the linguistic skills and powers of abstract reasoning.
A \”seed\” of faith is simply a predisposition to believe which is not at all the same thing as faith.
It is a precondition for faith, not faith.
At the same time, saving faith is the fruit of a regenerate root.
Hence, even elect infants who died in infancy do not, presumably, remain in their infantile state for all eternity. Rather, they will mature in mind and body. They will grow up. And they will grow into the faith.
Point being, God doesn’t regenerate an individual to leave him in a state of unbelief.
Gene: God doesn’t regenerate an individual to leave him in a state of unbelief.
Gene, you are right. And it is this truth [that quoted above]that we credo’s believe that paedo’s disagree with.
They believe that God regenerates the infants of believers but the faith that those infants are given at regeneration does not germinate and produce fruit until years later.
By the way, you would think that Paedo’s would not be so hard on the easy-believism proponents who say, “God saved me when was a child, but Jesus didn’t become my Lord until I was much older.” :0
Gene, the way you explain that, it makes more sense to me. I see now why Calvinists that I have read typically say that ‘elect infants’ are saved.
Thanks.
Presbyterians, namely PCA, would not say the infants are regenerate, but sanctified (set apart) covenantally for faith in Christ.
By the way, in a PCA church the children are baptized but generally not admited to partake of communion until they make a profession of faith. They go through a communicants class upon which time they officially join the church (if) they profess faith in Christ. As for church discipline, the infants don’t usually need it, and the older children are dealt with by believing parents, the more serious issues would be dealt with by the church, but on this level they are not quite the children they were.
In our Baptist church, all who profess Christ are baptized and welcomed to the Lord’s table. Church discipline is carried out by the parents for children who are believers and escalates from there.
The believing children who are baptized are fully operative within the church life. Obviously, their lack of maturity limits their participation in certain responsibilities, but then again there are certain young people who are filled with the Spirit of wisdom and are out-serving some adult believers.
Children [of believers] who are not baptized believers are welcomed in the church, sit under the teaching of Scripture and are thereby evangelized but not considered members of the church. They are blessed by the covenantal environment (1 Cor 7:14).
The comments about saying “baptizing everyone let God sort ‘em out” has not only been put forth as “the main reason I baptize infants” (a demonstyrably false claim), but the context of my talk about knowing or not knowing has been ignored and left out of the discussion.
Let’s remember that gene Cok said that I was “knowingly baptizing the unregenerate.” Note that well. I responded that I couldn’t be because even he said we couldn’t know that. In fact, if we could “know who was unregenerate,” then why not round ‘em all up and then everyone left would be regenerate – then we’d never mess up a baptism.
So, my comment was in response to the false claim made against me. I nowhere used it asd “my main” (as Jason says) argument, or even a sub, sub argument.
So, my birthday is coming up this month. I wish that people would stop distorting the facts of the debate. That’s all I want for my birthday.
~PM
Robert thanks for actually answering the question I posed.
Paul, I think you need to visit this website. It is less controversial than Fide-o.
http://www.waaaaaaaambulance.blogspot.com
Also Paul, Gene’s comment about knowingly baptizing the regenerate makes sense to everyone except the Paedos. I think you guys have spent so much time coming up with rebuttals to disagreements and conjuring up accusations against your character you forgot how to step back for a second.
If you baptize all infants of believers in your church. Unless you believe that all infants of believers are regenerate then the logical conclusion is that you baptize some of these infants knowing that some of them are not regenerate. Just because you don’t know which ones doesn’t change the fact that you know you baptize unregenerate children.
While you may turn this around and say baptist do the same thing, it is different in the fact that we are taking someone’s word they are regenerate when we baptize them. Similar to what the Apostles did with Simon. So we can with good conscience assume they are regenerate. If this is later proven wrong the responsibility for the error is on the person being baptized not the one doing the baptizing. That is the difference.
True, Scott. And the case of Simon is a good example. Who was rebuked? Simon was. And then placed considered an unbeliever who needed to repent.
While you may turn this around and say baptist do the same thing, it is different in the fact that we are taking someone’s word they are regenerate when we baptize them. Similar to what the Apostles did with Simon. So we can with good conscience assume they are regenerate. If this is later proven wrong the responsibility for the error is on the person being baptized not the one doing the baptizing. That is the difference.
I would say this is true, insofar as the administrator and the local church are making a reasonable effort to screen these individuals. I would think this would be assumed by folks, but I don’t know, so I’m pointing this out.
Simon Magus is a paradigm case for screening converts before baptizing them. We have to remember, not every example in Acts is to be followed. Some are there to show what not to do.
The issue for Paedos is that, while they interpret the promises to be covenantal, they must contend with the reality that God is seen not be faithful to those promises if not every infant baptized comes to faith later in life.
We Baptists, by way of contrast, avoid that whole question. The question is not “what does God promise in the future” (and if He does why do these promises not come to fruition?), but “What has God actually done.”
To say that we don’t know for sure who is regenerate or not is simply to say that we can only evaluate a person according to the credibility of his profession, but if the Paedo objection is true, then it would prove too much, for, in Paedo ecclesiology, the credible profession of faith has a role within the local church as well, for they can only go by that for any person who professes faith in Christ.
The distinction lies, of course, in that it is one thing to base baptism upon a profession of faith in Christ, which makes the ordinance/sacrament answer properly to regeneration, which is the pattern of Scripture itself rather than making it signify a promise – a promise that may not come to pass.
The real issue, of course, is the way the Abrahamic covenant is being construed. The Paedo is simply moving the significance of circumcision as a shadow to a “promise,” but the Bible makes it answer not to a “promise” but to regeneration. The Paedo is thus seeing more continuity than discontinuity in the text of Scripture than the Baptist, and the Baptist is being quite consistent in viewing the Abrahamic Covenant as a shadow of something else, whereas the Paedo is not.
What do you do (brother Jason and Scott) in the instance that a person who was once baptized as a believer, but now realizes they were not really saved, and now having had a true conversion experience, want to be rebaptized–do you baptize them again?
Of course — Acts 19 supports the re-baptizing of disciples who were not properly baptized.
Gene, you always say things so much better than me.