May unbelievers have their children baptized (for Paedo's only)

[Peairtach]

I don't think people need to be taking the Lord's Supper before they get baptism for their children.

If they are baptised themselves and are attending church with their children, but are not taking, or have never taken the Lord's Supper, they may be regenerate and struggling with lack of assurance and/or they may be disobedient to this particular command but still be saved. The kirk session can only go by a credible profession of faith, rather than an accredited profession of faith, as for the Lord's Supper.

A covenantal line/golden chain may have been established by the believing/professing grandparents who, if at hand, may be able to help with the child's covenantal upbringing e.g. II Timothy 1:5.

But if both parents avowedly deny that they are believers, that's a different thing. I don't see how the child can or should be baptised.

 

[KMK]

If it were to be somehow a "profession of obedience" (which is an odd concept) the language would be "professing faith in Christ and obedience to him" The comma clearly delineates it as two things: (1) a profession of faith, and (2) obedience to Christ (which shows the fruit of that profession).

The Latin of the Shorter Catechism is as follows: "donec se in Christum credere, eique obedientes fore professi fuerint." This is not an "odd concept," but traditional reformed teaching.

THE SHORTER CATECHISM EXPLAINED by James Fisher:

Q. 16. May infidels in no event be baptised?

A. Yes, they may, so soon as they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him.

Q. 17. What is it to profess faith in Christ?

A. It is to profess a belief of the whole doctrines of the Christian religion, Acts 8:37.

Q. 18. What is it to profess obedience to him?

A. It is to yield an external subjection to all the ordinances and institutions of Christ, Acts 2:46.

Q. 24. Is a bare profession of the true religion sufficient?

A. No; for "faith without works is dead." James 2:26.

FIsher seems to teach that a profession of obedience is more than a 'bare profession' of faith, but less than actual 'fruit'. As if the 'profession of obedience' is the only necessary 'fruit'.

Am I reading this correctly?

 

[kvanlaan]

Was this not part of the reason for the failure of the Pilgrim church in Massachusetts? I think it was called the "Halfway Compromise" and lead to no end of trouble, but I can't find any links online... (Paging Andrew Myers!)

-----Added 10/8/2009 at 11:15:20 EST-----

Sorry! It was the Halfway Covenant:

WikiAnswers - What was the Halfway Covenant

So I would say: baaad idea.

 

[BertMulder]

Was this not part of the reason for the failure of the Pilgrim church in Massachusetts? I think it was called the "Halfway Compromise" and lead to no end of trouble, but I can't find any links online... (Paging Andrew Myers!)

-----Added 10/8/2009 at 11:15:20 EST-----

Sorry! It was the Halfway Covenant:

WikiAnswers - What was the Halfway Covenant

So I would say: baaad idea.

Yes, there is indeed similarities with that idea....

 

[apaleífo̱]

I don't know if I agree with baptizing children before they have reached the Age of Reason, so to speak, but as to the morality of the Half-Way Covenant -- from what I have read of the controversy surrounding it, it was an inevitable solution to the problem confronting many New England churches that were facing dwindling congregations. I don't think that this had anything to do with a dwindling spirituality (this was the time of the Great Awakening, for goodness' sake!) but had a lot to do with the fact that the system of approving a person into a congregation was unduly slow, tedious, and relied a little too much on the discretion of the pastor rather than the actual faith of the parishioner.

 

[Peairtach]

It was followed in the North of Scotland for many years, and still is to a certain extent.

(a) Many people were slow to come to the Lord's Table for the first time because of lack of assurance.

(b) Many of the lives of those who did not take Communion were as godly or sometimes more godly than those who didn't.

Therefore for baptism a credible profession was accepted. For the Lord's Table an accredited profession was required.

Baptism was viewed as the outer door of the kingdom/tabernacle. The Lord's Supper was viewed as the inner door of the kingdom/tabenacle. See Dr John Kennedy, "The Days of the Fathers in Ross-shire" (Christian Focus)

When we remember that we believe in the priesthood of all believers there always has been a certain duality within the Covenant. Only the priests were allowed to eat the shewbread. Even they didn't get to drink drink-offerings of wine but they were poured out before the Lord.

If there are spiritual priests (or maybe spiritual priests) in a congregation who are only baptismal members and not only communicant members, should they be denied baptism for their children.

Obviously if they come to the Session for baptism, they can be challenged on their not taking the Lord's Supper, but they don't need to be bounced into partaking of the Supper in order to get baptism for their children. This happened in Lowland Scotland with deleterious results - see Kennedy.

It wasn't called the Half-Way Covenant in the Highlands of Scotland. It was just accepted as the right way to do things for centuries. It has been foregone to some extent, partly because you don't get so many Christian people these day who aren't also believers and/or take the Lord's Supper. Partly because of baptistic influence.

There was a distinction made between Christians, and the sub-set of believers within that. Some people were (maybe are?) so outwardly godly and church-going, it would be difficult to tell if they were believers or not without a careful examination.

The accredited or careful examination by the Kirk Session only happened when an individual came forward for communicant membership.

I would say e.g. that the Pope was a Christian, but not a true Christian or believer.

 

[yeutter]

How did Steenblok answer this question? Didn't he side with Jonathan Edwards over against Stoddard on the issue of the halfway covenant.

In practice, I can see problems with both sides.

If we baptize kinder of parents who only make an academic confession; do we understand them to be heirs of the covenant? If so such children should be treated as lambs in God's flock.

If we do not see such children as heirs of the covenant should we admit them to our Christian day schools?

This question is an issue for not only Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed. Newly separated Anglicans are now struggling with this question.

 

[BertMulder]

Not sure if Steenblok ever did directly answer the question...

Although his answer would be interesting, as he came from the GKN, where Dr. Bouwman and Dr. Rutgers advice was NOT to baptize...

However, the practice in the GGN which he joined was to not only allow, but to encourage the practice...

 

[Peairtach]

I think respect must be had to the fact that a covenantal line or branch is established by believers who have children. A branch has been placed in the Abrahamic Olive Tree and care must be taken of it. Respect must be had to the preservation of the covenantal line.

But there comes a point at which if (a) intervening generation(s)

(i) Do not take the Lord's Supper

(ii) Show no or little evidence of Christianity in their lives

(iii) Will not even agree to take their children to church

That the sacrament of baptism and the generational covenantal principle will come into disrepute by giving their children the sacrament of baptism.

Respect must also be had to the parents ability to fulfil their baptismal vows in any meaningful way, depending on what those vows are.

Kennedy has a whole chapter in his book explaining the different approaches of the Reformed church in the Highlands of Scotland to the sacraments vis-a-vis the Lowland church.

We want unbelievers, and believers who are not communicant members to maintain their association with God's people, even though they do not take communion.

 

[MW]

Am I reading this correctly?

It would appear so.

 

[MW]

Was this not part of the reason for the failure of the Pilgrim church in Massachusetts? I think it was called the "Halfway Compromise" and lead to no end of trouble, but I can't find any links online... (Paging Andrew Myers!)

The half-way covenant was a problem for Independents, who required explicit church membership. Sadly modern Presbyterians have followed the Independents in adding congregational membership as a third sacrament of the church, and are therefore bound to struggle with the same problems.

 

[Kevin]

I think that this is only an issue in certain strains of the Dutch Reformed tradition. Such as the "black stocking" groups like HR (nee HNR) & others of that ilk.

When I first got to know some of these people I was shocked to discover that only a tiny fraction of the "members" actualy took part in Holy Communion. Out of several hundred only a couple of dozen might participate.

They teach a form of hyper-conversionism (my term) that distinguishes between "church-goers" & "true Christians". A church-goer has been baptised & would (to outsiders) call themselves a christian, AND WOULD LEAD A HOLY LIFE. These people in any other setting would have no trouble confessing their faith AND calling themselves a christian, HOWEVER within the group they lack a dramatic, emotional story so they declare themselves to be unregenerate.

Since they have added an extra-scriptural experiance, that is only discernable internally & always open to second guessing, doubt is very common.

I believe that it is this context that a person would be a baptised member of the church with a "head-knowledge" (their term) BUT LACKING A DRAMATIC STORY OF CONVERSION, would meet the situation described by Bert.

 

[Peairtach]

I don't think it was/is as stratified in the Highland situation, as it is in what Kevin describes among some Dutch Christians, but there would often be a large number of people whom many were certain were true believers who didn't take communion because of lack of assurance or whatever. Many would not become communicant members until their later years.

I've sometimes wondered if the KJV translation of "judgment" as "damnation" in I Corinthians 11:29 had a deterrent effect on some sensitive, ignorant/simple souls in this respect?

 

[Gesetveemet]

The situation is a combination of both. In that it is common, no the majority of the members of the 'conservative' churches of the reformed churches in the Netherlands are unregenerate by their own admission. There may be perhaps 5% (or less) who profess to be regenerate.

The (historical) cause of this is because of a number of factors. There is the case which you brought up, Patrick, that many members, who you and I would take as being sincere christians, simply lack any assurance of faith, because of so called 'Dutch high calvinism'. The preaching is very much contributing to that, by 'knocking down' anyone who cannot give a 'credible conversion experience', in fear of 'going to hell with an imagined heaven'.

Which leads to a preaching which is leaving the membership without any hope. If the Holy Spirit works in them, the church will discredit that work.

In addition, there is the factor that already in the 16th century, shortly after the reformation, the state leaned on the church to not question prospective members on their inner life, but limit the confession of faith to academic knowledge and outward behavior. While this was never officially accepted (the request was before the 1578 Synod of Dordt), it did become practice in many churches, especially as secular benefits were attached to church membership (the state church phenonemon). Which also, in a certain sense, led to arminianism and all the upheaval associated with that....

Bert,

In my opinion 5% (or less) seems to be a rather low guesstimation and a disservice to some dear people of God. Nor would I say say it's attributed to a so called "Dutch high calvinism" in the church, we have that here in America, but rather an over emphasis on experiential religion in order to fight off the theologians and scholastics which have devastated the church. Many of these dear people weep over their Bibles or upon thinking of the lostness of their family members. Yes, many lack the assurance of salvation, because they are a poor people of God, and wonder if their beginning is of God or themselves. Nevertheless if Christ is being preached to sinners and the workings of God within the soul are being proclaimed in the church then it is never a message "without any hope".