C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
I was reading Wilhelmus À Brakel's treatment on baptism when I get to the section on "The Baptism of Children" and he begins by identifying what children are NOT to be baptized. Even as a Baptist, I was more than a little off-put by his statement. This is what he says:
This statement would seem to be wildly at odds with Reformed doctrine and practice. Especially in light of the New Testament doctrine of Adoption. I was hoping to hear some of your thoughts.
I obviously don't agree with infant baptism, however this particular statement has piqued my interest simply because 1) I have never heard anything like this in other Reformed theologians and 2) on account of how strange it seems to exclude adopted children from the sign given to natural born children or even children adopted from believing parents. It comes across as even cruel, and 3) À Brakel makes no attempt to justify this statement.
I was interested in hearing your thoughts.
First, children to be baptized must not be children of Jews, Muslems, heathens, or heretics, even if a member of the covenant has adopted them as children, for such adoption does not change the fact that they were not born within the covenant.
Wilhelmus À Brakel
The Christian's Reasonable Service, Vol. 2, pp. 504-505
This statement would seem to be wildly at odds with Reformed doctrine and practice. Especially in light of the New Testament doctrine of Adoption. I was hoping to hear some of your thoughts.
I obviously don't agree with infant baptism, however this particular statement has piqued my interest simply because 1) I have never heard anything like this in other Reformed theologians and 2) on account of how strange it seems to exclude adopted children from the sign given to natural born children or even children adopted from believing parents. It comes across as even cruel, and 3) À Brakel makes no attempt to justify this statement.
I was interested in hearing your thoughts.