Paedo-Baptism Answers Do You Believe it Sin to Neglect Baptism of Infants?

[B.L.]

Greetings friends,

I was curious whether my Presbyterian brothers and sisters affirm the section in Chapter 28 of the WCF about it being a "great sin" to contemn or neglect Baptism, specifically in scenarios where parents refuse to have their infants baptized?

Do you think the language here is too strong ("great sin")? Presuming not, how would you or your session respond to parents who refuse to have their infants baptized? Is this "great sin" something that needs to be repented of? Is church discipline a must in this situation?

I'd love to hear folk's thoughts on this section of the WCF and specifically how their family of churches (any in NAPARC) treat this practically.

4. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience to Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents, are to be baptized.

5. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.​

 

[Solparvus]

Yes, I agree with that statement. No neglect of the ordinances of God are a light thing, and it's never acceptable to either add to or take from His Word.

Just as serious as baptizing by an unacceptable mode someone who has made no profession of faith, if indeed the baptizing of an infant is never to be done, and baptism is exclusively by immersion.

I think the focus of the statement in the second paragraph is on the fact that the neglect of baptism does not mean automatic damnation, as professed by the Roman Catholic church. In RC theology you may not be saved if you are not baptized. I believe that the WCF intends to buttress a strong commitment to the ordinance of baptism while also denying that it is determinant of whether you may be saved.

 

[TylerRay]

Greetings friends,

I was curious whether my Presbyterian brothers and sisters affirm the section in Chapter 28 of the WCF about it being a "great sin" to contemn or neglect Baptism, specifically in scenarios where parents refuse to have their infants baptized?

Do you think the language here is too strong ("great sin")? Presuming not, how would you or your session respond to parents who refuse to have their infants baptized? Is this "great sin" something that needs to be repented of? Is church discipline a must in this situation?

I'd love to hear folk's thoughts on this section of the WCF and specifically how their family of churches (any in NAPARC) treat this practically.

4. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience to Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents, are to be baptized.

5. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.​

Yes, it is sin. However, if someone doesn't understand that it is his duty to have his children baptized, his sin is considerably less heinous than one who understands and neglects his duty.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Yes, I agree with that statement. No neglect of the ordinances of God are a light thing, and it's never acceptable to either add to or take from His Word.

From Fisher's Catechism:
After quoting the Confession's statement about it being a great sin to neglect to baptize children, this question and answer follows.

Q. 42. In what consists the greatness of the sin of contemning and slighting this ordinance?
A. It consists in despising an express and positive institution of Christ, appointed to be administered in his church to the end of the world, Matt. 28:19, 20; and in slighting all the great and glorious benefits and privileges signified and sealed by it, Luke 7:30.

Since there is a kind of truce between the Paedo and Credo Baptists in our day, I think that rather than discipline the parents, they would be counseled to look for a new, more like-minded Church home. As I recall it, I think that's what the OPC church I was a member of did on one occasion.

 

[Wretched Man]

Is there an official policy the OPC (or PCA) church has on this?

Full disclosure: this topic is currently weighing heavily on me as I am attending an OPC church and would like to become a member, however am a credo-baptist with three children under the age of 5 who my wife and I have no intentions to baptize until they are ready to profess.

 

[Jack K]

A person who has listened to and followed his Baptist church's teaching on the matter, or who has searched the Scriptures on the issue and come to the conviction that baptism ought to wait until a child can give a credible profession, is not neglecting the ordinance. Rather, such a person is seeking to keep the ordinance properly.

I believe that person is in error. It's a weighty error that has real consequences. But, assuming the person is conscientiously attempting to obey God on the matter of baptism, this is not "neglect" and should not be thought of as a great sin.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Is there an official policy the OPC (or PCA) church has on this?

I found this on the OPC website. It should be helpful.
https://opc.org/qa.html?question_id=515

This is the report that the above page links to:
Report of the Committee to Consider the Matter Proposed to the Assembly by the Presbytery of the West Coast
https://opc.org/GA/refuse_bapt.html

 

[Wretched Man]

I found this on the OPC website. It should be helpful.
https://opc.org/qa.html?question_id=515

This is the report that the above page links to:
Report of the Committee to Consider the Matter Proposed to the Assembly by the Presbytery of the West Coast
https://opc.org/GA/refuse_bapt.html

Thanks!

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Yes, I believe that the Westminster Confession is correct on this issue and that Baptist brethren are in great sin on this subject by disobeying the Lord's command to administer the sign of the covenant onto their offspring. That recognition does not mean that I neither regard them as brethren nor believe that the Reformed have nothing to learn from them (would we want to live in a world without John Gill's commentaries or C. H. Spurgeon's sermons?), yet we cannot water down the truth of what we believe to appease our friends.

Notice also that the Westminster Confession criticises those who contemn (not merely neglect) the sacrament. To contemn means to despise or make light of the ordinance. A Baptist, if he is consistent, must despise infant baptism as will-worship and an offering of strange fire before the Lord. Hence, it makes sense for a Reformed confession to view such a position as a significant theological deviation.

I also think that it is important to be honest with people about the subject. Confessional Reformed theology believes that the error of the Baptists is a serious one; they, likewise, must believe that the Reformed are also in serious error by wrongly administering a sacrament to those who are not entitled to it. Pretending these differences are not significant is not going to help anyone in the long run.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

A person who has listened to and followed his Baptist church's teaching on the matter, or who has searched the Scriptures on the issue and come to the conviction that baptism ought to wait until a child can give a credible profession, is not neglecting the ordinance. Rather, such a person is seeking to keep the ordinance properly.

I believe that person is in error. It's a weighty error that has real consequences. But, assuming the person is conscientiously attempting to obey God on the matter of baptism, this is not "neglect" and should not be thought of as a great sin.

Jack (and others) what demoralizing, or confusing, or upsetting, or other negative effect might it have on members in a paedobaptist church to see Baptist members not baptizing their children? If the church members take their confession, and what they believe to be true Scripturally on baptism seriously, isn't this a sort of dangerous or at least potentially so thing, to the peace and well-being of a church?

 

[User20004000]

A person who has listened to and followed his Baptist church's teaching on the matter, or who has searched the Scriptures on the issue and come to the conviction that baptism ought to wait until a child can give a credible profession, is not neglecting the ordinance. Rather, such a person is seeking to keep the ordinance properly.

I believe that person is in error. It's a weighty error that has real consequences. But, assuming the person is conscientiously attempting to obey God on the matter of baptism, this is not "neglect" and should not be thought of as a great sin.

Jack,

How do you know this to be true? Assume for a moment the Baptist position is false. If a person follows a false teaching because he has been misled or has on his own drawn incorrect inferences from Scripture, how does that suggest he is not “neglecting the ordinance” as you say? Since when does “seeking to keep the ordinance properly” completely exonerate one who errs on the matter?

 

[De Jager]

Yes we believe neglecting it is sin. Thankfully, we worship a gracious God, who does not punish us as our sins deserve. Does that mean we can go on acting like having 2 positions on this is OK? No. I think everyone should dig in to the word and try to figure it out.

 

[B.L.]

Thanks to all who have taken time out of their day to respond. I appreciate everyone's response. Considering the seriousness of sin, which nearly all here believes neglecting infant baptism is, what courses of action should or would your church take to address this sin directly with the offending party (i.e. parents)? How would you go about reasoning with them from the scriptures that to neglect infant baptism is not just mistaken, but in fact a serious sin committed against God?

WSC Question 14:

Q: What is Sin?
A: Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.​

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I would simply want a sincere person who wanted to be part of a church I was leading, but who had conscience issues over baptism, to be open as long as he was a part of our body to being taught on the subject.

Unlike a particular sinful activity that someone needs to stop doing, whether he understands fully or not; unlike a duty that someone needs to start doing, whether he fully appreciates the benefit or not--the fact a Christian parent should bring his child for baptism may be a significant undoing of a serious aspect of a man's walk of faith, a change in his worshipping mind.

If someone tells me, "I'm not interested in what you have to teach on this topic," he might as well tell me he's not interested in hearing me preach on the 7C, or on stewardship, or on the doctrine of perseverance. If a man decides in advance that he's not "teachable" by the teacher God has appointed in a particular place (often by the call of the congregation), if he decides he will not assemble together on the day and occasion of an infant baptism, or if the text is Rev.20 and the topic "Amillennialism"--the man isn't actually in submission to authority. He is a law to himself, whatever he vowed.

But, hopefully his duty to come and worship when called brings him in, in spite of his misgivings. Hopefully he is docile to the Spirit (not the skill of the preacher), and is honest when he desires to gain some measure of understanding and awareness from the preached word; even if he doubts that he will be moved by reasoning he may have listened to previously. Hopefully, he appreciates that many around him are also at some stage of learning also, and are practicing reception of the ingrafted word.

Pick another subject. I know a man who claimed he was not convinced X was a sin, but he was determined to follow the church's teaching, to rest on many centuries of consistent exegetical treatment. He said he was bound less to his present conviction, as much as he was to his duty to his vows of membership. Now, as long as he maintained that stance, he was not a proper subject of church discipline. He stayed away (as far as anyone knew) from that sin.

Today, I have my doubts of his complete sincerity; however, the point is not that he was or wasn't free from sin, or from that sin. But that he put himself under the proclamation of the law, which convicts; and the gospel that gives hope of salvation and of the power to put sin away. I do not know for sure, but I have some reason to think that God's convicting law eventually drove him away from hearing it, rather than unto a complete acknowledgement of God's ways for his own.

So, whether it is behavior or doctrine, what I want in a sincere believer is not total conviction of all that is contained in the WCF, on day1. Church membership class will cover many of the "big items." It is the Bible, being faithfully taught week in and week out, that will change people, indeed it is the only thing that will change and grow anyone in spiritual matters. What I want is someone whose heart has been opened by the Spirit to make him receptive to sound teaching.

 

[Jack K]

Jack (and others) what demoralizing, or confusing, or upsetting, or other negative effect might it have on members in a paedobaptist church to see Baptist members not baptizing their children? If the church members take their confession, and what they believe to be true Scripturally on baptism seriously, isn't this a sort of dangerous or at least potentially so thing, to the peace and well-being of a church?

Certainly, creating discord in an infant-baptizing church would add some serious sin to the scenario I described. In the case of a convinced Baptist not presenting his children for baptism in a Presbyterian church, all involved should watch out for this. Depending on the situation, the people involved, and the attitudes taken, the peace of the church may be an issue. But I don't think it necessarily will be. Handled with care, that might not be a danger.

Much depends on attitude. I hesitate to label a sin "great" unless the person is willfully or carelessly refusing to obey God. A neglectful or contemptuous attitude toward baptism, or toward the peace of the church, would qualify (as Westminster says it does). But I've seen scenarios where the parent's attitude remained teachable and was marked by a conscientious desire to obey God as fully as possible. In a few notable cases I witnessed, the children were baptized some years later when, after diligent study of the Scriptures, the parents were able to present the kids for baptism with a clear conscience. I just don't see why we would label that "neglect."

 

[JTB.SDG]

A person who has listened to and followed his Baptist church's teaching on the matter, or who has searched the Scriptures on the issue and come to the conviction that baptism ought to wait until a child can give a credible profession, is not neglecting the ordinance. Rather, such a person is seeking to keep the ordinance properly.

I believe that person is in error. It's a weighty error that has real consequences. But, assuming the person is conscientiously attempting to obey God on the matter of baptism, this is not "neglect" and should not be thought of as a great sin.

Jack, I agree with the spirit of your comments. At the same time, in the Law, there were sacrifices offered up for even unintentional sins, that though unintentional, were still great (Lev. 5:17 etc).

 

[Edward]

Full disclosure: this topic is currently weighing heavily on me as I am attending an OPC church and would like to become a member, however am a credo-baptist with three children under the age of 5 who my wife and I have no intentions to baptize until they are ready to profess.

The PCA statement is brief, basically reaffirming the Westminster standards.
http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/studies/2-078a.html

While you might find more flexibility in the PCA than the OPC, at this point I'm reluctant to recommend the PCA in St. Louis.

 

[Jack K]

Jack, I agree with the spirit of your comments. At the same time, in the Law, there were sacrifices offered up for even unintentional sins, that though unintentional, were still great (Lev. 5:17 etc).

Well yes, it's still an unintentional sin, and any sin is bad. But if it is a conscientious attempt to obey God, is it a sin of neglect and contempt?

I wonder (and someone here can probably tell us) if the Westminster Assembly had conscientious Baptists attending non-Baptist churches in mind when it wrote that line. I've always assumed it had in mind people who lacked devoutness—those who would not bother with baptism or felt themselves too good to submit to any church—rather than people with strong but differing convictions. But I may well be wrong about that. I'd like to know.

Since when does “seeking to keep the ordinance properly” completely exonerate one who errs on the matter?

No. I did not say that. It does not "completely exonerate" one who is in error. They are still doing wrong. But if we are talking about a person whose conscience tells them God does not wish for them to have the child baptized, but they are seriously studying the issue and wrestling with it in their new Presbyterian church, I have a hard time labelling such a person as guilty specifically of "neglect" and "contempt" for baptism. Rather, they are engaged and serious about the matter, which is commendable.

In such cases, elders should have some patience when they can do so without disrupting the peace of the church. What else are they to do? Insist that Christians who still have much to learn and need to grow in obedience cannot join the church? Pressure parents to act against their consciences? Insist that the Holy Spirit not take so long to grow insight and conviction in former Baptists?

 

[Ed Walsh]

It is the Bible, being faithfully taught week in and week out, that will change people, indeed it is the only thing that will change and grow anyone in spiritual matters. What I want is someone whose heart has been opened by the Spirit to make him receptive to sound teaching

Rev. Buchanan,
Great post! I should say as usual. Thanks for it.
I'm wondering about one thing. Do you see the word 'it' in the quote of yours above? The one I highlighted red. Does it refer to the Bible? or to it being faithfully taught? Or, as I take it, the combination of the two? as the only way anyone grows in spiritual matters?

I asked this for the sake of those, perhaps on the list, who find it difficult to be fully fed by their current ministry. They that have to hunt-and-peck for every bit of truth to be gleaned.

I want to remind us that there are many Bible teachers, living and dead, that can assist us in becoming truer to the knowledge and practice of the faith. In some cases these supplementary teachers are almost the only resources they have.

Thanks

 

[User20004000]

Well yes, it's still an unintentional sin, and any sin is bad. But if it is a conscientious attempt to obey God, is it a sin of neglect and contempt?

I wonder (and someone here can probably tell us) if the Westminster Assembly had conscientious Baptists attending non-Baptist churches in mind when it wrote that line. I've always assumed it had in mind people who lacked devoutness—those who would not bother with baptism or felt themselves too good to submit to any church—rather than people with strong but differing convictions. But I may well be wrong about that. I'd like to know.



No. I did not say that. It does not "completely exonerate" one who is in error. They are still doing wrong. But if we are talking about a person whose conscience tells them God does not wish for them to have the child baptized, but they are seriously studying the issue and wrestling with it in their new Presbyterian church, I have a hard time labelling such a person as guilty specifically of "neglect" and "contempt" for baptism. Rather, they are engaged and serious about the matter, which is commendable.

In such cases, elders should have some patience when they can do so without disrupting the peace of the church. What else are they to do? Insist that Christians who still have much to learn and need to grow in obedience cannot join the church? Pressure parents to act against their consciences? Insist that the Holy Spirit not take so long to grow insight and conviction in former Baptists?

No. I did not say that. It does not "completely exonerate" one who is in error. They are still doing wrong.​

My “completely exonerates” strictly pertained to your claim that certain persons are not guilty of neglect and great sin. These are the certain persons you’ve exonerated from neglect and great sin: “A person who has listened to and followed his Baptist church's teaching on the matter, or who has searched the Scriptures on the issue and come to the conviction that baptism ought to wait...”

“But if we are talking about a person whose conscience tells them God does not wish for them to have the child baptized, but they are seriously studying the issue and wrestling with it in their new Presbyterian church...”​

We weren’t talking of anyone who was in the process of studying. You spoke of two other categories: (i) one who listened to his baptist pastor and followed his church’s teaching and (ii) one who developed Baptist convictions through personal study. The first guy neglected to do what the second guy did (study hard on his own...), and the second guy neglected to righty divide the Word of Truth and discern the voice of God in Scripture.

Anyway, I think you’re missing something rather fundamental to Reformed doctrine. It has nothing to do with baptism but everything to do with the deceitfulness of sin.

A. You stated that if one remained a baptist after being convinced by his church’s teaching or personal study of the Scriptures, he is not neglecting the ordnance nor committing great sin.
I disagree with this subjective opinion that would excuse spiritual neglect and severity of sin under the caveat of sincerity. I learned early on in my Christian life that the road to hell is paved with “sincerity.”

Accordingly, I believe the Divines are correct in not placing an unwarranted exception on the neglect and the sin.

B. Even if the Scriptures aren’t abundantly clear on the matter, (which I deny), doctrine is “difficult” only due to sin. The “sinfulness of sin” and deceitfulness of heart forbids me from assuming one can be “sincerely” wrong on the ordinance.

Here’s the basic logic. If the problem is 100% with man’s sin, then there is always neglect. You deny this neglect when there’s “sincerity.” Therefore, you deny the problem is 100% with man’s sin. We disagree on the conclusion because either we disagree on the major premise or you’ve not considered the major premise.

C. The problem isn’t that God’s word is not perspicuous on baptism. The problem is men can be self-deceived. We too often fear men and not God. Through an allegiance to baptistic presuppositions, family members and peer groups, it’s easy for men to miss God’s plain word. Those are just a few examples of what might be the sin. The point is, sincerity has nothing to do with it.

Regardless, in the face of man’s depravity and sin, there’s no reason to believe (and it’s impossible to prove) that one can sincerely search the Scriptures and miss infant baptism.

D. Presumably your reasoning is that given you find no neglect due to an alleged sincere error, there cannot be great sin associated with it. You do acknowledge, however, that such a practice would entail error with serious consequences. I know of no such example in Scripture of sincere error that results in severe spiritual consequences that doesn’t contemplate great sin.

“In such cases, elders should have some patience when they can do so without disrupting the peace of the church. What else are they to do? Insist that Christians who still have much to learn and need to grow in obedience cannot join the church? Pressure parents to act against their consciences? Insist that the Holy Spirit not take so long to grow insight and conviction in former Baptists?”​

That doesn’t pertain to anything I’ve said or believe.

 

[De Jager]

Is there an official policy the OPC (or PCA) church has on this?

Full disclosure: this topic is currently weighing heavily on me as I am attending an OPC church and would like to become a member, however am a credo-baptist with three children under the age of 5 who my wife and I have no intentions to baptize until they are ready to profess.

I have a hard time believing you can become a member, then. To be truly honest.

I think if you study the issue than your objections to the reformed practice will go away. I believe that every baptist argument is able to be turned back. There is a good reason that the vast majority of the best theologians in church history have been reformed.

 

[Ed Walsh]

I think if you study the issue than your objections to the reformed practice will go away. I believe that every baptist argument is able to be turned back. There is a good reason that the vast majority of the best theologians in church history have been reformed

Here's one argument that was helpful to me.
Did you ever consider that of the thousands that came to the Lord on Pentecost many we're not re-baptized having been already baptized by John's baptism? Besides, even if I'm wrong, how did 3000 people get baptized by immersion that day? Acts 2:41 says that this happened that day.

But the real change in my view came when my wife was about three months pregnant with our first child. The Covenant truths of the Old and New Testament were made so real to me that I became convinced of the paedo Baptist position that very day.

A bit of history from the old reformed.org discussion group.
One day the paedo and credo truce between the two sides broke down and a full-fledged war raged for days. Hundreds of messages went back and forth. And when the smoke cleared no less than 23 Credo Baptists changed sides being convinced by the overwhelming arguments presented by ministers, elders, seminary professors, and commoners like me. It was a day to remember.

 

[Solparvus]

Here's one argument that was helpful to me.
Did you ever consider that of the thousands that came to the Lord on Pentecost many we're not re-baptized having been already baptized by John's baptism? Besides, even if I'm wrong, how did 3000 people get baptized by immersion that day? Acts 2:41 says that this happened that day.

But the real change in my view came when my wife was about three months pregnant with our first child. The Covenant truths of the Old and New Testament were made so real to me that I became convinced of the paedo Baptist position that very day.

A bit of history from the old reformed.org discussion group.
One day the paedo and credo truce between the two sides broke down and a full-fledged war raged for days. Hundreds of messages went back and forth. And when the smoke cleared no less than 23 Credo Baptists changed sides being convinced by the overwhelming arguments presented by ministers, elders, seminary professors, and commoners like me. It was a day to remember.

Any chance you can send this legendary exchange to me? I've been wanting to read it ever since you had mentioned it a year ago.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Any chance you can send this legendary exchange to me? I've been wanting to read it ever since you had mentioned it a year ago.

I have searched and searched. I contacted a discussion group that has some of the former members and no one can find it. It was the old Majordomo email program so the Internet archives will not have it.
Sorry

 

[Jack K]

We weren’t talking of anyone who was in the process of studying.

Well, I certainly was. A person who is constantly seeking to obey God is trying to improve that obedience, and so he will be studying. When it comes to a life of obedience, we are all in process.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I'm wondering about one thing. Do you see the word 'it' in the quote of yours above? The one I highlighted red. Does it refer to the Bible? or to it being faithfully taught? Or, as I take it, the combination of the two? as the only way anyone grows in spiritual matters?

It is the Spirit working in and by the Word that produces sanctification in the lives of believers. It is not a natural effect, self-improvement is not sanctification, neither is "mellowing with age."

It stands to reason that the instrument, the means of the Spirit should be of a quality that can be relied upon. The teacher of the Word is an ordinary, vital servant whose appointment is the delivery of the nourishing substance.

The teacher is not simply a "nice thing to have, if you can get it." It is the standard; Christ gave teachers to his church, so no one should think he can regularly get by without the benefit of a faithful one.

Are there exceptions to the rule? No doubt, but it seems many more today regard themselves as "exceptional," and skip the teacher. While many others suffer from the detriment of crummy and false teachers.
*******************

One unrelated point, but does touch on the topic. It may have been mentioned already, and the title of the thread specifically addresses IB; but it should be recognized that WCF 28.5 refers to the whole doctrine of baptism explained in the full four paragraphs above it.

Baptism (for Presbyterians) includes infants in the doctrine; and the expression "a great sin" does not only refer to the contemning and neglect of the baptism of infants, but a general contemning and neglect of the holy ordinance of baptism.

I think the Baptist brethren would largely agree with the contention that despising or disregarding divine appointment (disagree with us as they may on the proper subjects) is properly sinful.

 

[B.L.]

Thanks everyone for engaging me (and each other) in this thread. I appreciate the dialogue that has ensued and the thoughtfulness of the responses.

As a follow-up question or two...

1. What is the criteria you use to distinguish beliefs and practices that are held/done in "error" from those that are inherently "sinful"? More to the point, specific to the baptizing of infants, what is it that makes the neglect of it a sin as opposed to an error?

2. Since the WCF is abundantly clear that to neglect the baptism of infants is a sin and considering the near unanimity here in affirming the confession on this point, do you think the elders of Presbyterian churches that allow members to continue in this "great sin" -- either through indifference, compromise, or disagreeing with the WCF on this point -- should be themselves disciplined?

---

I hate to "reply and run", but my children and I have a big Lego building night ahead of us and they'll have my undivided attention for the rest of the night.

Blessings to you all...

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Perhaps, it might be first beneficial to remember that even our "good works" are so tainted by our sin natures, and by our mixed motives, that they too must be repented of.

"Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." That being the case, it seems to me that the doctrines of the church must be weighed in some sense, so that we recognize some elements of the truth are exceeding dangerous to deny (or be unpersuaded of); while of others, the dangers of a false impression (if sincere) do not strike the vitals of holy religion.

I think it is quite unhelpful, perhaps even detrimental, to have a mistaken eschotology; but not all those expectations impact the present faith and life of the Christian equally. I think it is possible for some of the redeemed ardently to believe the faith which saved them was actuated by their own unfazed will.

All error has the nature of sin in sinners (I think Adam unfallen could err in some ways, but not be in sin). As I wrote already, sin may not be wholly comprised of error, but may have considerable truth mixed in the effort.

So far as "neglect" of IB, first we agree with Warfield, "No rite or ceremony enters into the essence of Christianity" (thesis of this article: https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/warfield/warfield_baptism.html). Therefore, an error in the practice of Christian duties may be more or less blameworthy according various individual factors; but can never rise (alone) to the level of heresy or rejection of the faith.

Second, a man is most sinful when he agrees what duty is taught accurately, but still he contemns or neglects to practice it! That is, the person most guilty of "great sin" in regard of IB is the parent who agrees IB is taught in the Bible, but doesn't care if his child is baptized or not.

Third, a man is more apt to be guilty (or guiltier) if having adopted truth at first, then rejects truth in favor of falsehood. Supposing, in regard to IB--and that of a Reformed doctrine, not RCC or EO--if a man should have been well catechized in baptismal doctrine, but then turned away (assuming for argument's sake that IB is true); I think it would be fair to say that this was more sinful, than if someone first rejected IB as inherently Roman, according to his first catechism.

Compare with a person who has been taught, "Here's how a person comes to faith;" and who is also taught a caricature of Calvinism, and how that view is allegedly contrary to true conversion. Is this original hater of what Spurgeon once identified as simply the gospel truth, Calvinism, in error? Is he sinning? Probably fair to say "yes" to both, but not equally; and not equal to the person who was brought up being taught monergistic salvation, and later rejected it in favor of synergism.

Fourth, every believer is on a trajectory of sanctification, including sanctification of knowledge, possession and grasp and use of divine truth. It seems to me as men we are not fully capable of the finer detections, figuring out how much blame or praise a person deserves for his progress.

One student in a class gets a "C," working as hard as the smartest kid in the room. Another gets a "C" because he's lazy. Another student gets an "A" and is also lazy and lacks diligence, yet gets by and more than that because of his natural gift. The teacher may have some insight into all three sorts, along with the diligent "A" student. But one question may be more significant than any related to the grades: Who is willing to learn? Perhaps all four have at least enough willingness to call them true students. This outweighs the various deficiencies of each. Only indolent fool doesn't deserve the designation, "student," disciple.

The person who deserves to be disciplined by the church is the person who, while desiring for some reason the cachet of membership, and has formally agreed to submit to the church's teaching, then refuses the duties of membership which begins at the place of being teachable. He is a law unto himself, who having taken vows to submit in the Lord to his ministry (government and preaching) then takes exception to that authority.

I would advise any man professing to want membership in a church where I had a part of that ministry: do not take that vow, if you know in advance you shall openly resist and fight against the hammer of the Word, Jer.23:29. The subject could be IB, or any other doctrine.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I believe two passages give us good principles to apply to your question.

2Ti 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
2Ti 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
2Ti 2:26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

Gal 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
Gal 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
Gal 6:3 For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.
Gal 6:4 But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.
Gal 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.
Gal 6:6 Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.
Gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Gal 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
Gal 6:9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.
Gal 6:10 As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

 

[De Jager]

Thanks everyone for engaging me (and each other) in this thread. I appreciate the dialogue that has ensued and the thoughtfulness of the responses.

As a follow-up question or two...

1. What is the criteria you use to distinguish beliefs and practices that are held/done in "error" from those that are inherently "sinful"? More to the point, specific to the baptizing of infants, what is it that makes the neglect of it a sin as opposed to an error?

2. Since the WCF is abundantly clear that to neglect the baptism of infants is a sin and considering the near unanimity here in affirming the confession on this point, do you think the elders of Presbyterian churches that allow members to continue in this "great sin" -- either through indifference, compromise, or disagreeing with the WCF on this point -- should be themselves disciplined?

---

I hate to "reply and run", but my children and I have a big Lego building night ahead of us and they'll have my undivided attention for the rest of the night.

Blessings to you all...

I hope you and your covenant children had a wonderful time.

Something to remember is that in the OT sacrifices were even made for unintentional sins. These were sins that only God knew about - the people who did them didn't even know about them. The fact is that we all need to be forgiven for so many sins we have committed out of ignorance. I think there is overlap between sin and error. Sometimes we aren't sure of what to do. I have dealt with that a lot in my life. I think we have to learn to say "God, I am not sure what to do. I admit that I am sinful and also inherently biased. Please guide me into the way that I should go, lead me in paths of righteousness, even if that path follows a way that is unfamiliar to me. Notwithstanding I know that no matter what I do I can only offer you works that are tainted with sin, and that's why I look to Christ alone".