I approve of this diversion.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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I approve of this diversion.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.
I have been curious about this as well! If anyone has information relating to credobaptists in England and Scotland during this period, please share. @Reformed CovenanterI 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.
I think there's some danger in assigning writings in which the Church has upheld as being well representative of its dogmas as quaint or outdated. Sure, there have been revisions made to accommodate a fundamental difference held in belief about the Church and the state, but this was done, as far as I understand it to be, in order to maintain the purity of doctrine held under a new type of governmental regime.I believe this topic shows the errors of the Westminster Confession of Faith and how it was a cultural product of its times.
Just like the section on civil government that was revised in 1788 and still embarrasses most Presbyterians to this day, this section on baptism is over-stated due to the times in which it was written.
If this neglect of baptism of children is such a great sin then the parents ought to be church-disciplined for refusal. But most church leaders intuitively know that this isn't the right move and find excuses not to do so. But very few things are spelled out as sin in the confessions...and especially not a lot of things are described as "great" sin in the WCF, but BAM...this IS described not only as a sin, but as a "great sin" and yet we do not treat it as such.
And so to neglect punishment for such a great sin is to act inconsistently with the confessions.
Let's face it, if the WCF was re-written in 2020, this wording of "great sin" would not survive...there are not many reformed who really believe this part of the WCF anymore. They sort of ignore it or explain it away. This is almost like the "descended into hell" phrase found in the Apostle's Creed. Most people read it and think, "How'd that get in there?"
I have been curious about this as well! If anyone has information relating to credobaptists in England and Scotland during this period, please share. @Reformed Covenanter
@Pergamum said:
"If this neglect of baptism of children is such a great sin then the parents ought to be church-disciplined for refusal. But most church leaders intuitively know that this isn't the right move and find excuses not to do so."
Or more likely, most Presbyterian church leaders recognize that Westminster is not targeting believers who believe differently concerning who ought to be baptized and when. You quoted the confession incorrectly. It does NOT say "neglect of baptism of children." Rather, it speaks about neglecting baptism more broadly.
The conclusion some here have reached—that their informal survey of Puritan-Board opinions reflects the views and practices of most Presbyterian churches, and that the vast majority would label disagreement over who should be baptized as a great sin—is a false conclusion. I feel confident in asserting that you are correct: the majority of Presbyterian elders, even in churches still faithful to the confessions, would not hurl the "great sin" label at a Baptist who had misgivings. They would address things much more gently. They recognize that there is a difference between neglecting baptism as a whole and disagreeing about who should be baptized.
The conclusion some here have reached—that their informal survey of Puritan-Board opinions reflects the views and practices of most Presbyterian churches, and that the vast majority would label disagreement over who should be baptized as a great sin—is a false conclusion.
I approve of this diversion.
You did say something like that, I think. And the new guy, Wretched Man, seemed to be reaching the same conclusion. So I guess I had both of you somewhat in mind (as well as any other, lurking Baptists), in case anyone might be drawing those conclusions. My concern was that Baptists not get the wrong idea about what to expect from a typical OPC, PCA, ARP, or similar Presbyterian church. I'm glad you weren't doing that, and I am sorry for thinking you might be, but I also had others I was thinking about.
I would never suggest this board is a bad place to ask good questions. I love learning from this board. However, opinions here are not necessary an accurate reflection of what one is most likely to hear from the elders in a typical church in XYZ denomination.
If I understand what you and @Jack K are asking, the clause in the Westminster Confession was specifically aimed at Baptists. Dr Jonathan D. Moore has an essay in the Westminster Theological Journal on this subject. PM me if you wish to know more.
I believe this topic shows the errors of the Westminster Confession of Faith and how it was a cultural product of its times.
Just like the section on civil government that was revised in 1788 and still embarrasses most Presbyterians to this day, this section on baptism is over-stated due to the times in which it was written.
If this neglect of baptism of children is such a great sin then the parents ought to be church-disciplined for refusal. But most church leaders intuitively know that this isn't the right move and find excuses not to do so. But very few things are spelled out as sin in the confessions...and especially not a lot of things are described as "great" sin in the WCF, but BAM...this IS described not only as a sin, but as a "great sin" and yet we do not treat it as such.
And so to neglect punishment for such a great sin is to act inconsistently with the confessions.
Let's face it, if the WCF was re-written in 2020, this wording of "great sin" would not survive...there are not many reformed who really believe this part of the WCF anymore. They sort of ignore it or explain it away. This is almost like the "descended into hell" phrase found in the Apostle's Creed. Most people read it and think, "How'd that get in there?"
Nothing personal, I’m just responding to your sentiments, and we are both sinners saved by grace, but of course I have to disagree with you. I don’t think we should make any changes or revisions. That’s bad precedent. Infant baptism is either proper or no. I think we should respect the original intent and the solemnity and consider if we are on the wrong side of the issue. I respect those who take it seriously one way or another.
You realize that your church ALREADY uses a revised version of the Westminster Confession of Faith, right?
http://www.upper-register.com/papers/1788_revision.pdf
Sorry for a little off topic...You realize that your church ALREADY uses a revised version of the Westminster Confession of Faith, right?
http://www.upper-register.com/papers/1788_revision.pdf
Our friend said:
I find that not just simplistic but dangerously misleading as a false-dichotomy. Not all great sins should be censured by the church.
If this neglect of baptism of children is such a great sin then the parents ought to be church-disciplined for refusal.
But most church leaders intuitively know that this isn't the right move and find excuses not to do so. But very few things are spelled out as sin in the confessions...and especially not a lot of things are described as "great" sin in the WCF, but BAM...this IS described not only as a sin, but as a "great sin" and yet we do not treat it as such.The neglect to baptize infants is indeed great sin but not worthy of rendering one as living like an infidel. (We can even assume the Baptist position as true and make the same argument as I submit below.)
That outrageous claim overlooks the relevant distinction between (a) laws written on the heart that are repeated in Scripture and (b) precepts that can only be derived from Scripture. What we know by nature that’s not revealed in Scripture is most relevant this discussion as it relates to ecclesiastical censure.
For instance, not to recognize the Lord’s Day as the Christian Sabbath and not to baptize infants are examples of the latter sort of transgression. Although they can be construed as great sins of neglect, those sorts of transgressions strictly have to with not discerning the Scriptures aright. Also, they are not matters of heresy. As such, they may not be attributed to an unrepentant heart with respect to the moral law of nature or the doctrines of God and salvation. Consequently, a session would have absolutely no ground to find one’s manner of faith or practice at odds with a credible profession of faith for such omissions of conduct. That we can’t figure all things out because of the noetic effects of sin or some other blindness for which we are still culpable does not equate to a refusal to obey God’s moral law in a way that would bring into question one’s regenerate state. Excommunication pertains to unregenerate acts - not to how far we are sanctified in our theological understanding.
Our friend said:
I find that not just simplistic but dangerously misleading as a false-dichotomy. Not all great sins should be censured by the church.
If this neglect of baptism of children is such a great sin then the parents ought to be church-disciplined for refusal.
But most church leaders intuitively know that this isn't the right move and find excuses not to do so. But very few things are spelled out as sin in the confessions...and especially not a lot of things are described as "great" sin in the WCF, but BAM...this IS described not only as a sin, but as a "great sin" and yet we do not treat it as such.The neglect to baptize infants is indeed great sin but not worthy of rendering one as living like an infidel. (We can even assume the Baptist position as true and make the same argument as I submit below.)
That outrageous claim overlooks the relevant distinction between (a) laws written on the heart that are repeated in Scripture and (b) precepts that can only be derived from Scripture. What we know by nature that’s not revealed in Scripture is most relevant this discussion as it relates to ecclesiastical censure.
For instance, not to recognize the Lord’s Day as the Christian Sabbath and not to baptize infants are examples of the latter sort of transgression. Although they can be construed as great sins of neglect, those sorts of transgressions strictly have to with not discerning the Scriptures aright. Also, they are not matters of heresy. As such, they may not be attributed to an unrepentant heart with respect to the moral law of nature or the doctrines of God and salvation. Consequently, a session would have absolutely no ground to find one’s manner of faith or practice at odds with a credible profession of faith for such omissions of conduct. That we can’t figure all things out because of the noetic effects of sin or some other blindness for which we are still culpable does not equate to a refusal to obey God’s moral law in a way that would bring into question one’s regenerate state. Excommunication pertains to unregenerate acts - not to how far we are sanctified in our theological understanding.
Right. It isn't causing scandal. Not all sins are scandal-causing sins.
Question for you and others: Is it a common belief that only scandalous sins ought to be addressed by church discipline? Maybe this is a good topic for a new OP. I would agree with you, but I see many churches practicing differently (even disciplining for lax attendance).
I believe this topic shows the errors of the Westminster Confession of Faith and how it was a cultural product of its times.
Just like the section on civil government that was revised in 1788 and still embarrasses most Presbyterians to this day, this section on baptism is over-stated due to the times in which it was written.
If this neglect of baptism of children is such a great sin then the parents ought to be church-disciplined for refusal. But most church leaders intuitively know that this isn't the right move and find excuses not to do so. But very few things are spelled out as sin in the confessions...and especially not a lot of things are described as "great" sin in the WCF, but BAM...this IS described not only as a sin, but as a "great sin" and yet we do not treat it as such.
And so to neglect punishment for such a great sin is to act inconsistently with the confessions.
Let's face it, if the WCF was re-written in 2020, this wording of "great sin" would not survive...there are not many reformed who really believe this part of the WCF anymore. They sort of ignore it or explain it away. This is almost like the "descended into hell" phrase found in the Apostle's Creed. Most people read it and think, "How'd that get in there?"
I believe that that portion of the WCF is correct as well as that of WCF 29.8 which, speaking of the Lord's Supper, says that the unworthy "cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereof" (emphasis mine).
Which is instructive because it appears that the importance of baptism and the seriousness of the neglect thereof was not considered to be an isolated matter but readily joined with the other sacrament of the church. So while it is true that the wording reflects the times in which it was written, it is also true that in those times they generally had a higher view of worship and the sacraments in particular. If the laxity of our time to the holy things of God is considered to be an improvement, then I know which "overstatement" I should embrace.
In regards to the matter of church discipline, it hardly seems becoming to the nature of infant baptism -which is a sign of inclusion in the covenant- to ignore the scriptures which warn us about the abuse or rejection of its application: Genesis 17:14, Exodus 4:24, Deuteronomy 30:6, Romans 2:25 & Philippians 3:3 (noting this was also true of the Lord's Supper: 1 Corinthians 11:27ff.). Whether Presbyterian churches apply discipline or not for the neglect of the sacrament amongst members who are in their purview indicates the purity (or lack thereof) of the particular church itself (WCF 25.4).
Personally I suspect that, in the West, being surrounded by a predominantly Baptistic culture we are not so inclined to deal with our members so "harshly" lest our membership be culled, and I also suspect that if the opposite were the case, we would not be so generous. That is, we are not so much embarrassed by our confession but find it more difficult and thus more reluctant to carry out its sanctions.
To clarify: 1. You feel that church discipline is demanded if parents don't baptize their babies, but 2. US churches are too embarrassed/afraid to do this?
Yes to 1, no to 2 -or not without caveats. Not the US, I said the West. That includes Canada, Europe, NZ and Australia. And I wrote: "not so much embarrassed..." but "more difficult and thus more reluctant." Like it or not, we (all) are pragmatic more often principal. That doesn't make the Westminster divines wrong, it just means that we are not very consistent.
Thanks for your clarification. And sorry again that I am even replying. Thanks for bearing with me. Your answer makes sense.
You are welcome. I cannot speak for the moderators but I don't see that you are trying to be disruptive and it seems only fair that you be given an opportunity to reply when I was responding to your post.