Confession of faith and severe mental handicap

[steadfast7]

A question for the Credo

How are fully grown adults with severe mental handicaps viewed in a credo framework. They are not able to articulate and confess their faith; they may or may not be able to grasp the gospel - it's difficult to know. How is their baptismal eligibility ascertained?

cheers.

 

[rbcbob]

Those eligible for baptism are those who believe that Jesus is the Christ and confess Him as Lord. If, as in your example, an adult attending upon the preaching is unable to to make it known that he has done so then it would be imprudent for the elders merely to assume or take for granted that such has occurred. The Lord knows the true state of that persons soul and will judge rightly. We have dealt in time past with severely impaired young persons for whom we prayed that in the realm beyond which mortals cannot see that our God may have been pleased to make His Son known to the dear boy or girl.

 

[KSon]

How is their baptismal eligibility ascertained?

In the case you describe, particularly the lack of ability to articulate and confess their faith, what then would you use as a basis for baptizing? In such cases, we must be faithful in teaching them the Gospel and pray for the Lord to do His regenerating work. There is a beauty in the simplicity of the Good News that is able to be shared with people of any cognitive level. We must be faithful in taking the time to do that work and leave the rest to our merciful, gracious God.

 

[Herald]

I concur with my two brothers, Kipp and Bob. Withholding baptism, from those who have severe cognitive disorders, does not mean we consider them beyond God's saving grace. Reformed Baptists understand that the ordinance is to be applied to those who have displayed repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. If cognitive impairment impedes the ability to ascertain those two things, than the elders must prohibit such a person from being baptized.

 

[Wayne]

Recognizing that this is a Credo only thread, I will nonetheless take my moderatorial privileges to interject this much:

WCF (1647) 10.3

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how he pleases. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

London Baptist Confession (1689), 10.3

10.3 Infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit who works when and where and how he pleases. So also are all elect persons regenerated who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word.

Those who are incapable of being outwardly called, who are born into a Christian family, are covenant children (regardless of their eventual age). They may never make a profession of faith, but their are covenant children if they are the children of believers. The Holy Spirit works where and how He will to save all those whom the Father has elected to salvation. In a Presbyterian context, it is enough that they were baptized as an infant; they do not need to receive communion. In a Baptist context, I would assume the proper answer is that it is enough that they are members of a covenant family and are themselves covenant children; they do not need to be baptized.

[And as Warfield ably demonstrated, the concern of Chapter X is "what happens to the elect?" The question of whether infants dying in infancy are saved is not in view in this chapter.]

 

[Herald]

Paedos, please cease and desist posting in this thread. Feel free
to start your own thread if you desire. Thanks.

 

[Wayne]

As I gently push Ben out the door, leaving with him, slowly closing the door so as to listen in, would you please speak to my 'expectation':

In a Baptist context, I would assume the proper answer is that it is enough that they are members of a covenant family and are themselves covenant children; they do not need to be baptized.

 

[steadfast7]

I think I can now see some of the difference between the two frameworks. for Credos, baptism is not as much a covenantal sealing act, as it is an obligatory first act of a new believer/convert - hence, calling it an ordinance, not a sacrament. Would this be an accurate statement?
thanks.

 

[Barnpreacher]

Paedos, please cease and desist posting in this thread. Feel free
to start your own thread if you desire. Thanks.

Yikes! I apologize, Bill. I didn't realize the rules of this thread. I told you it's been a long time since I posted anything on this board. In fact, the last time I did post something on the PB I think I was credo.

 

[Herald]

I think I can now see some of the difference between the two frameworks. for Credos, baptism is not as much a covenantal sealing act, as it is an obligatory first act of a new believer/convert - hence, calling it an ordinance, not a sacrament. Would this be an accurate statement?
thanks.

In Suk,

Your assessment may reflect general Baptist opinion, but Reformed Baptists would see more of a covenantal connection between baptism and the New Covenant. Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant. Any sealing is accomplished by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13) at the moment of regeneration. Since we view baptism as a sign of the New Covenant we hold to a covenantal view of the ordinance; although different from the paedo understanding.

 

[steadfast7]

Thanks Brother