The WCF and correct Biblical Baptism

[DD2008]

The Westminster Confession of Faith is the confession that I confess as true Christian doctrine. It is the confession of the denomination I am a member of, The Presbyterian Church in America.

Here is our position on baptism:

WCF Chapter 28 Sections 4 and 5.

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12]
V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]

Link: Westminster Confession of Faith

Note: Numerical links hold the scriptural support for the WCF.

All who hold to the WCF correctly and biblically confess that it is a sin for believers in Christ to neglect their Christian duty to baptize their children.

This is the position of all other Churches who confess the Westminster Confession of Faith as well.

Note: It is nice to have a Presbyterian forum where I am free to post my denomination's position on baptism, a most important and beloved sacrament. Thanks for making a Presbyterian forum.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

Yep, and by using the words "condem or neglect" in the WCF shows that parents cannot just willfully shrug off the baptism of their children.

 

[kenrapoza]

Yep, and by using the words "condem or neglect" in the WCF shows that parents cannot just willfully shrug off the baptism of their children.

Do you guys remember earlier this year when there was a whole bru-haha about Mark Dever calling infant baptism a sin? He posted it on his blog as one of the things he can't live with as a pastor. Some people got all up in arms about it, but others, like R. Scott Clark (excellent reformed theologian), recognized that he made sense.

I like Mark Dever, but I disagree with him on this point. He views my position as a sin and I view his position as a sin. But the fact that he has the guts to say that is encouraging to me because it says that he takes the Word seriously, even though he has a different understanding of it. We should not hesitate to affirm these words from the WCF (thanks DD!) but neither should it cause offense to those who disagree.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

Do you guys remember earlier this year when there was a whole bru-haha about Mark Dever calling infant baptism a sin? He posted it on his blog as one of the things he can't live with as a pastor. Some people got all up in arms about it, but others, like R. Scott Clark (excellent reformed theologian), recognized that he made sense.

I like Mark Dever, but I disagree with him on this point. He views my position as a sin and I view his position as a sin. But the fact that he has the guts to say that is encouraging to me because it says that he takes the Word seriously, even though he has a different understanding of it. We should not hesitate to affirm these words from the WCF (thanks DD!) but neither should it cause offense to those who disagree.

Why not? Since when is our Faith politically correct?

Jesus never taught not to offend others. The Truth is offensive.
And no matter how you slice it, others have it wrong plain and simple.
If I cause offense to one who disagrees, that means that one MAY think further about why I'm disagreeing with him/her. I'm not talking of being abusive but offensive is not wrong.

This subject is a very basic practice of the Truth.

 

[kenrapoza]

Why not? Since when is our Faith politically correct?

Jesus never taught not to offend others. The Truth is offensive.
And no matter how you slice it, others have it wrong plain and simple.
If I cause offense to one who disagrees, that means that one MAY think further about why I'm disagreeing with him/her. I'm not talking of being abusive but offensive is not wrong.

This subject is a very basic practice of the Truth.

I agree with you, I think my post unintentionally conveyed the wrong idea. What I meant to say was that if we believe that the Bible supports infant baptism then it necessarily follows that with-holding that sacrament to children is not in God's will and is therefore sinful. However, the Baptist that believes baptism is an ordinance and a testimony to our profession of faith and is therefore only given to believers, will take the position that it is a sin to baptize infants who haven't professed faith in Christ yet.

What I was trying to get at was that we should not be offended by the baptist who says infant baptism is a sin. They're just being true to their convictions, it necessarily follows from their theology. If it is against God's will then of course it is sinful by definition. Likewise the baptist should not be offended by the Presbyterian who believes that not baptizing covenant children is sinful. We are not attacking each other with those statements, only stating what we believe the Bible teaches.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

I agree with you, I think my post unintentionally conveyed the wrong idea. What I meant to say was that if we believe that the Bible supports infant baptism then it necessarily follows that with-holding that sacrament to children is not in God's will and is therefore sinful. However, the Baptist that believes baptism is an ordinance and a testimony to our profession of faith and is therefore only given to believers, will take the position that it is a sin to baptize infants who haven't professed faith in Christ yet.

What I was trying to get at was that we should not be offended by the baptist who says infant baptism is a sin. They're just being true to their convictions, it necessarily follows from their theology. If it is against God's will then of course it is sinful by definition. Likewise the baptist should not be offended by the Presbyterian who believes that not baptizing covenant children is sinful. We are not attacking each other with those statements, only stating what we believe the Bible teaches.

And now I understand what you were trying to convey. I agree with you 100%.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Well said guys. We must speak the truth, and we must speak it in a loving and godly manner.

Kenith

 

[Evenstar253]

To ask an open-ended and rather vague question, where do you (in the plural sense) think one should draw the line between sin and simply differing interpretations of Scripture, and thus differing practices, in different denominations?

 

[kenrapoza]

To ask an open-ended and rather vague question, where do you (in the plural sense) think one should draw the line between sin and simply differing interpretations of Scripture, and thus differing practices, in different denominations?

That's a good question Evenstar, my answer would be that the two are not mutually exclusive. I sin everyday, even without knowing it. What God has declared to be true cannot change because I may sincerely think otherwise. Total depravity (see Rom. 3) teaches us that even our best moments are mixed with sin. The prophet Isaiah declares that all our righteousness is as filthy rags (Is. 64:6). That's not our bad times he's talking about, it's our righteousness, as fallen creatures it's the best we have to offer!

And it's not just that sin has tainted our intentions, there are also the effects on our intellect. Theologians call this the noetic effects of the fall. Our minds are darkened and our intellect is not up to its full potential. This also comes into play when sincere brothers and sisters in Christ come to different conclusions about certain matters.

So, to answer your question, as Reformed Protestants we hold to sola Scriptura. The bible is alone our standard of faith and practice and it is sufficient to declare to us the counsel of God. So where do we draw the line between what is sin and what is not? It is what we find in Scripture that is the benchmark. Let me use another example. We know that baptism is commanded in Scripture (e.g., Matt. 28:19), but the mode of baptism is not. Historically, the church has recognized freedom in that area, whether it be by immersion or sprinkling I think would be in the category of adiaphora. Adiaphora refers to things that aren't explicit in Scripture and we therefore have latitude in practicing. So is it a sin to baptize via sprinkling or immersion? No. Do Christians come to different conclusions? Yep, but most acknowledge the freedom available.

I hope some of this helps!

 

[Evenstar253]

That's a good question Evenstar, my answer would be that the two are not mutually exclusive. I sin everyday, even without knowing it. What God has declared to be true cannot change because I may sincerely think otherwise. Total depravity (see Rom. 3) teaches us that even our best moments are mixed with sin. The prophet Isaiah declares that all our righteousness is as filthy rags (Is. 64:6). That's not our bad times he's talking about, it's our righteousness, as fallen creatures it's the best we have to offer!

And it's not just that sin has tainted our intentions, there are also the effects on our intellect. Theologians call this the noetic effects of the fall. Our minds are darkened and our intellect is not up to its full potential. This also comes into play when sincere brothers and sisters in Christ come to different conclusions about certain matters.

So, to answer your question, as Reformed Protestants we hold to sola Scriptura. The bible is alone our standard of faith and practice and it is sufficient to declare to us the counsel of God. So where do we draw the line between what is sin and what is not? It is what we find in Scripture that is the benchmark. Let me use another example. We know that baptism is commanded in Scripture (e.g., Matt. 28:19), but the mode of baptism is not. Historically, the church has recognized freedom in that area, whether it be by immersion or sprinkling I think would be in the category of adiaphora. Adiaphora refers to things that aren't explicit in Scripture and we therefore have latitude in practicing. So is it a sin to baptize via sprinkling or immersion? No. Do Christians come to different conclusions? Yep, but most acknowledge the freedom available.

I hope some of this helps!

That makes sense. I do believe that we all see through a glass darkly, so to speak. I've never heard of the term Adiaphora, but I do remember the discussions of that principle from Bible classes in college. Of course, different practices and even different beliefs (within reason, of course) come from different interpretations of the same passages of Scripture, even among churches that hold to Sola Scriptura as a core doctrine. It's interesting how these varying interpretations do lead to differing ideas about what is sinful and what isn't. For example, I realize there are certain practices of more liberal churches that conservative denominations would probably consider beyond the limits of simple freedom and into the realm of outright sin, such as the ordination of women and gays and lesbians.

For the record, I'm only bringing up those last issues as examples and not because I want to start a discussion of the issues themselves at the moment! I wouldn't mind engaging in a friendly debate about the ordination of women at some point (gays and lesbians I think I'll leave for WWMC), but at the moment I'm pretty brain-dead and would likely do a poor job representing the PC(USA) viewpoint. On a positive note, although I haven't contributed much thus far to theological discussions (mostly because of mental exhaustion), reading posts here has motivated me to want to brush up on some of the theology I learned in college and to delve deeper into my own denomination's theology and views

 

[kenrapoza]

It's good to hear that you've at least found something to think about in these posts! I understand the whole mental exhaustion thing, I've been working crazy hours and going to school. I tend to feel like a wet noodle nowadays!

 

[Evenstar253]

Oh yeah, I did the working odd hours and going to school thing during grad school--it was crazy! Although somehow I still did manage to slip in some time to feed my World of Warcraft addiction...