The Consequences of Sinning in Baptism

[Grant]

Sure, yet what, more specifically, would you have in mind?

Phil in my mind it would really fall into what God sees fit or NOT fit to give or retract in spiritual blessings. I hope that makes sense. In other words, it could be any number of spiritual setbacks or none at all depending on the providence of God.

Sin can cause separation from God. Sin can cause lack of prayer, lack of bible study, more temptation to be disobedient in other areas and more prone to other sins. However, at the same time those same things can occur for other reasons (think Job). So the answer would/could be the same as one who abuses the table.

I am not trying to dodge an answer, but rather trying to be careful because the what/how/when, regarding temporal judgements for sin, is not my lane.

 

[Phil D.]

I am not trying to dodge an answer, but rather trying to be careful because the what/how/when, regarding temporal judgements for sin, is not my lane.

I can appreciate your response (...considering you're a Popey's Chicken Sandwich fiend...).

I think Henry's notion about having to endure a "cross providence", though cautious in proposing it, is a stretch in the context of baptism performed differntly yet in good conscience. I mean, does anyone really want to say that either paedos or credos enjoy fewer divinely ordered trials or strictures? How would such even be quantified, let alone demonstrated?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I believe that we are authorised from scripture to say that those who neglect to baptise their children are committing a great sin; I do not believe that we can really say much other than that.

 

[Phil D.]

I believe that we are authorised from scripture to say that those who neglect to baptise their children are committing a great sin; I do not believe that we can really say much other than that

OK, but that's not really the question under consideration. Credos typically feel the same way about the paedo position.

 

[Ethan]

I don’t believe consequences for sin are quantifiable from a creaturely perspective.

 

[Phil D.]

I don’t believe consequences for sin are quantifiable from a creaturely perspective.

But even in that case, if there's nothing observable, how is there a consequence?

 

[Ethan]

But even in that case, if there's nothing observable, how is there a consequence?

If there is something observable, who am I to determine what sin it is the result of? I sin a lot.

 

[Romans678]

I don’t believe consequences for sin are quantifiable from a creaturely perspective.

Agreed. There are probably consequences far beyond our comprehension. We may not see the effects for several generations.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Phil D.]

If there is something observable, who am I to determine what sin it is the result of? I sin a lot.

I would largely agree, although I tend to think in circumstances involving "great" sins the consequences can generally be discerned (cf. Psalm 38:3-5). I know that's been the case in my life before.

 

[Romans678]

If there is something observable, who am I to determine what sin it is the result of? I sin a lot.

>>>SHAME ON YOU!
Just kidding [emoji16].

God's grace over my own sin is impossibly un-quantifiable. The depths of His love for His people are immeasurable. His blood shed hath covered a multitude of sins that dwarfs time and space itself. God is good!

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

OK, but that's not really the question under consideration. Credos typically feel the same way about the paedo position.

But it is an answer to the question under consideration; you have been given an answer, though perhaps not one to your satisfaction.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I am getting up in my years now. I have seen a lot of things. What are the consequences of Adultery? The Consequences of sinning because of a doctrine declaring a Union with Christ are ... I don't know. I have seen a lot of things in life and we have it pretty good right now. We need to focus on our Unity more than the things that can cause division. Just my insight and opinion here.

 

[Phil D.]

But it is an answer to the question under consideration; you have been given an answer, though perhaps not one to your satisfaction.

Fair enough. I just think your answer is posed in an ideological manner that ignores the parity of the spiritual implications in potential relation to both positions on baptism - which is more specifically the question I'm asking...

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Going back to Phil D's OP – and I am probably known here on PB as a staunch, unvanquished defender of paedobaptism against those who oppose our view – I see the anti-paedos as in error rather than in great sin.

Here we are, friends, nearing the end of this age, with the forces of antichrist slowly circling our camp, plotting our being silenced – and, failing that, destruction – and what are we doing? going after one another! Like the heathens in the OT who sought to attack Jerusalem and the LORD turning them against one another to their utter ruination, and the Jew's victory through God's intervening mercy and grace.

There are many "Reformed Baptists" (i.e., Doctrines of Grace baptists – for a genuinely Reformed distinctive is the full continuity of the command to circumcise the infants as a mark of the covenant and the command to baptize the NT infants, seeing as we, "if [we] be Christ's, then are [we] Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" -Gal 3:29); to continue, there are many "Reformed Baptists" who are godlier than we paedos in many respects, and I would think it would behoove us to accord them the liberty of conscience to err even while in good faith before Christ in their error, and thus not under a sense of condemnation. Their view makes sense to them and they hold to it. The LORD will sort us out when we stand before Him.

In the meanwhile, I will, in my own congregation, as an under-shepherd of THE Shepherd, welcome credos as full members so long as they – from the heart – honor our views and not disturb our peace in our communion with Christ by undermining our standards, thus remaining with us in the peace of God in which we stand.

Given the murderous intent of our mortal adversaries, it is but godly-fitting we welcome into our spiritual house our Baptist brethren, that they have access to the One who is the Refuge of His precious flock, amidst the ravagers roaming the wastelands of this world. In some areas of the world there are very few sound Reformed refuges, and I would not exclude from the Table a Baptist brother.

 

[Taylor]

Going back to Phil D's OP – and I am probably known here on PB as a staunch, unvanquished defender of paedobaptism against those who oppose our view – I see the anti-paedos as in error rather than in great sin.

Here we are, friends, nearing the end of this age, with the forces of antichrist slowly circling our camp, plotting our being silenced – and, failing that, destruction – and what are we doing? going after one another! Like the heathens in the OT who sought to attack Jerusalem and the LORD turning them against one another to their utter ruination, and the Jew's victory through God's intervening mercy and grace.

There are many "Reformed Baptists" (i.e., Doctrines of Grace baptists – for a genuinely Reformed distinctive is the full continuity of the command to circumcise the infants as a mark of the covenant and the command to baptize the NT infants, seeing as we, "if [we] be Christ's, then are [we] Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" -Gal 3:29); again, there are many "Reformed Baptists" who are godlier than we paedos in many respects, and I would think it would behoove us to accord them the liberty of conscience to err even while in good faith before Christ in their error, and thus not under a sense of condemnation. Their view makes sense to them and they hold to it. The LORD will sort us out when we stand before Him.

In the meanwhile, I will, in my own congregation, as an under-shepherd of THE Shepherd, welcome credos as full members so long as they – from the heart – honor our views and not disturb our peace in our communion with Christ by undermining our standards, thus remaining with us in the peace of God in which we stand.

Given the murderous intent of our mortal adversaries, it is but godly-fitting we welcome into our spiritual house our Baptist brethren, that they have access to the One who is the Refuge of His precious flock, amidst the ravagers roaming the wastelands of this world. In some areas of the world there are very few sound Reformed refuges, and I would not exclude from the Table a Baptist brother.

Edifying as always, Mr. Steve. Thank you, brother.

 

[JH]

– and I am probably known here on PB as a staunch, unvanquished defender of paedobaptism against those who oppose our view –

Let another man praise thee, and not thine own lips.

 

[Ethan]

Steve is known here on PB as a staunch, unvanquished defender of paedobaptism against those who oppose our view

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I like Steve. He's a good ole boy. I mean Old Man. lol

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Jerrod, it wasn't meant as self-praise, but to show that, despite unwavering and effective defense of the paedo view (i.e., I am not "soft" on the credo view), I will not reckon their position as sin. When I think of such godly men as Al Martin, Alistair Begg, John Bunyan, Charles Spurgeon etc – all with fine-tuned consciences in the presence of our King and High Priest – I recoil at the thought of standing against such saints in condemnation. If we do stand so, it would mean disfellowshipping them, excommunicating them! That's just not right.

 

[Phil D.]

Going back to Phil D's OP – and I am probably known here on PB as a staunch, unvanquished defender of paedobaptism against those who oppose our view – I see the anti-paedos as in error rather than in great sin.

Here we are, friends, nearing the end of this age, with the forces of antichrist slowly circling our camp, plotting our being silenced – and, failing that, destruction – and what are we doing? going after one another! Like the heathens in the OT who sought to attack Jerusalem and the LORD turning them against one another to their utter ruination, and the Jew's victory through God's intervening mercy and grace.

There are many "Reformed Baptists" (i.e., Doctrines of Grace baptists – for a genuinely Reformed distinctive is the full continuity of the command to circumcise the infants as a mark of the covenant and the command to baptize the NT infants, seeing as we, "if [we] be Christ's, then are [we] Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" -Gal 3:29); to continue, there are many "Reformed Baptists" who are godlier than we paedos in many respects, and I would think it would behoove us to accord them the liberty of conscience to err even while in good faith before Christ in their error, and thus not under a sense of condemnation. Their view makes sense to them and they hold to it. The LORD will sort us out when we stand before Him.

In the meanwhile, I will, in my own congregation, as an under-shepherd of THE Shepherd, welcome credos as full members so long as they – from the heart – honor our views and not disturb our peace in our communion with Christ by undermining our standards, thus remaining with us in the peace of God in which we stand.

Given the murderous intent of our mortal adversaries, it is but godly-fitting we welcome into our spiritual house our Baptist brethren, that they have access to the One who is the Refuge of His precious flock, amidst the ravagers roaming the wastelands of this world. In some areas of the world there are very few sound Reformed refuges, and I would not exclude from the Table a Baptist brother.

Thanks, Steve. I've always admired your candor and ability to articulate things so well.

Flip the baptismal positions with their accompanying implications in your statements, and your sentiments largely reflect my own. I too will continue to advocate for what I believe is correct doctrine, yet I differ from most Baptists in that I refuse to consider many who were baptized as infants as being unbaptized in the ultimate sense. I believe theirs' is an irregular and unintended practice of baptism (both subjects and mode), but true faith and a good conscience are much more important and acceptable to God (1 Peter 3:21). Historically there have been a few Baptists that have shared my view, with Bunyan probably being the most notable. ...On the other hand, I've been implicated as being too liberal, among other sordid things, for holding this position...

Of course our views also put us is in a minority within our respective camps, and one prickly issue raised is that they don't fully align with what is stated, or pretty plainly implied in our respective confessions. What are your thoughts on that problem?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Phil, what in my confession (3FU, but you may include the WCF and Catechisms) states or implies such I am not in alignment with in this matter of baptism and Baptists?

 

[Phil D.]

Phil, what in my confession (3FU, but you may include the WCF and Catechisms) states or implies such I am not in alignment with in this matter of baptism and Baptists?

Steve, you said: "I see the anti-paedos as in error rather than in great sin."

WCF 28.4-5. 4. states: "Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto 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..."

On my side, the 89'LBCF 29:2, 4 says: "Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance. ... Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance."

 

[Romans678]

Steve, you said: "I see the anti-paedos as in error rather than in great sin."

WCF 28.4-5. 4. states: "Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto 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..."

On my side, the 89'LBCF 29:2, 4 says: "Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance. ... Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance."

That WCF 28.4-5. 4. is pretty cut and dry. I have to look at some more commentary on this ASAP.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Phil D.]

I've always found it a happy inconsistancy that in many cases paedos and credos will share the Lord's Supper together, putting primacy on the fact that both are blood-bought by Jesus Christ and beloved of Our Father, wheras such grace would be diffictult to reconcile if one party deems the other as truly unbaptized, and the next deems the other to be unrepentant of a great sin.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Sometimes it takes 30 years to come to the right doctrine and practice. LOL Patience is a good thing.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I suppose this thread is a subjective off-take of another current thread that concerns some of the practical implications of differing views on baptism.

However, my question concerns the spiritual or eternal consequences of how one sees and practices baptism.

• Confessional Reformed Paedobaptists believe that to neglect the baptism of infants is a great sin.
• Reformed Baptists don't typically use the same language, but those who reckon people only baptized as infants as not being truly baptized in essence have to believe infant baptism (or neglecting baptism upon profession) is a great sin.

So, again, what are the spiritual or eternal consequences of those believers deemed to be sinning in their practice of baptism?

I can't recall off-hand seeing any theologians deal directly with this specific aspect of the topic. If anyone can direct me to where this is addressed by reputable theologians I would appreciate it. I would also be interested in other PB members' (especially any pastors or scholars) thoughts on the matter.

I think we must leave the consequences in God's hands and acknowledge our own limitations. It's clear in Scripture, that the Father disciplines his sons, and yet in a situation where two sons disagree on what the Father commands, it's better to be charitable in light of the honest disagreements over baptism that have gone on for hundreds of years. Yes, there is discipline from God for the one who is in the wrong, but who are we to judge what that discipline looks like? Are there more sick or dying people in Baptist vs. Presbyterian churches like in Corinth (1 Cor. 11:30)? Are there more lampstands being removed in one vs. the other (Rev. 2:5)? You certainly could not tell by comparing their histories. Both are familiar with trials and apostacy.

So when they agree on 90% or more of the Christian faith, especially the cardinally clear doctrines (i.e. Scripture, Trinity, Christology, justification, etc.) it's best to take an approach of charity. We cannot ignore the fact that both paedo-baptism and credo-baptism are built on a more comprehensive interpretations of Scripture and covenant theology, and such comprehensive changes take more time to work out, especially when they were nurtured within godly communities for a long time. I know for myself, it took years to make that transition from credo to paedo, because I had been taught my whole life before that paedo was wrong by sincere and godly people, and I could not break from that upbringing and experience lightly until I could see it clearly in the Word and be willing to accept the cost.

That is in part why Presbyterians (at least in the OPC and PCA) for a long time now have not required communicant members to subscribe to their Confessions of Faith, only officers. They recognize members need time to grow in understanding. And that charity is usually extended to Baptists who join their churches as well. It may be a great sin to neglect baptism, but not one which requires emergency confrontation to save their soul, in light of their sincere desire to follow the Lord and his Word and bear fruit accordingly. In other words, they are in general following the right path, so we can wait for the more comprehensive implications to fall into place in due time. And I have witnessed that patient transition occurring in my own pastoral ministry.

I do not know how many Reformed Baptists would take the same approach of charity. But I imagine some would.

My two cents...

 

[Phil D.]

I think we must leave the consequences in God's hands and acknowledge our own limitations. It's clear in Scripture, that the Father disciplines his sons, and yet in a situation where two sons disagree on what the Father commands, it's better to be charitable in light of the honest disagreements over baptism that have gone on for hundreds of years. Yes, there is discipline from God for the one who is in the wrong, but who are we to judge what that discipline looks like? Are there more sick or dying people in Baptist vs. Presbyterian churches like in Corinth (1 Cor. 11:30)? Are there more lampstands being removed in one vs. the other (Rev. 2:5)? You certainly could not tell by comparing their histories. Both are familiar with trials and apostacy.

So when they agree on 90% or more of the Christian faith, especially the cardinally clear doctrines (i.e. Scripture, Trinity, Christology, justification, etc.) it's best to take an approach of charity. We cannot ignore the fact that both paedo-baptism and credo-baptism are built on a more comprehensive interpretations of Scripture and covenant theology, and such comprehensive changes take more time to work out, especially when they were nurtured within godly communities for a long time. I know for myself, it took years to make that transition from credo to paedo, because I had been taught my whole life before that paedo was wrong by sincere and godly people, and I could not break from that upbringing and experience lightly until I could see it clearly in the Word and be willing to accept the cost.

That is in part why Presbyterians (at least in the OPC and PCA) for a long time now have not required communicant members to subscribe to their Confessions of Faith, only officers. They recognize members need time to grow in understanding. And that charity is usually extended to Baptists who join their churches as well. It may be a great sin to neglect baptism, but not one which requires emergency confrontation to save their soul, in light of their sincere desire to follow the Lord and his Word and bear fruit accordingly. In other words, they are in general following the right path, so we can wait for the more comprehensive implications to fall into place in due time. And I have witnessed that patient transition occurring in my own pastoral ministry.

I do not know how many Reformed Baptists would take the same approach of charity. But I imagine some would.

My two cents...

Thank you, pastor, for your willingness to respond. I agree with a lot of what you said and, as a Baptist, recipricate your sentiments of charity toward others with whom we disagree on baptism. The only thing I might point out is that if, as you suggest, neglecting infant baptism may in fact be a great sin, then I think my previous comments on there being a happy inconsistancy would have some bearing on your willingness to commune with credos.

 

[Romans678]

I think we must leave the consequences in God's hands and acknowledge our own limitations. It's clear in Scripture, that the Father disciplines his sons, and yet in a situation where two sons disagree on what the Father commands, it's better to be charitable in light of the honest disagreements over baptism that have gone on for hundreds of years. Yes, there is discipline from God for the one who is in the wrong, but who are we to judge what that discipline looks like? Are there more sick or dying people in Baptist vs. Presbyterian churches like in Corinth (1 Cor. 11:30)? Are there more lampstands being removed in one vs. the other (Rev. 2:5)? You certainly could not tell by comparing their histories. Both are familiar with trials and apostacy.

So when they agree on 90% or more of the Christian faith, especially the cardinally clear doctrines (i.e. Scripture, Trinity, Christology, justification, etc.) it's best to take an approach of charity. We cannot ignore the fact that both paedo-baptism and credo-baptism are built on a more comprehensive interpretations of Scripture and covenant theology, and such comprehensive changes take more time to work out, especially when they were nurtured within godly communities for a long time. I know for myself, it took years to make that transition from credo to paedo, because I had been taught my whole life before that paedo was wrong by sincere and godly people, and I could not break from that upbringing and experience lightly until I could see it clearly in the Word and be willing to accept the cost.

That is in part why Presbyterians (at least in the OPC and PCA) for a long time now have not required communicant members to subscribe to their Confessions of Faith, only officers. They recognize members need time to grow in understanding. And that charity is usually extended to Baptists who join their churches as well. It may be a great sin to neglect baptism, but not one which requires emergency confrontation to save their soul, in light of their sincere desire to follow the Lord and his Word and bear fruit accordingly. In other words, they are in general following the right path, so we can wait for the more comprehensive implications to fall into place in due time. And I have witnessed that patient transition occurring in my own pastoral ministry.

I do not know how many Reformed Baptists would take the same approach of charity. But I imagine some would.

My two cents...

This is it.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[De Jager]

At the end of the day, there will be many baptists and paedobaptists in heaven, praising God for all eternity, and all having many, many sins being forgiven by God. And I guarantee that some of the forgiven sins will be those we committed in ignorance (for both sides). I love and appreciate the Baptists on this forum. Sometimes I can't help myself, I just get fired up. I'm that way about a lot of things.

 

[iainduguid]

If our credo-baptist brothers are in great sin, it is well for them that in Jesus we have a great savior, who came to save sinners (Matt. 1:21). I myself am in need of just such a savior, so I am not ashamed to call them brothers. That is not to lessen the significance of a proper understanding of the sacraments in the least. We should all study to grow in our understanding of these beautiful gifts that the Lord has given us to strengthen our faith in his promises. On the last day, however, I doubt that my greatest sins will be points where I was confused in my doctrine; it is far more likely that they will be situations where I plunged ahead knowingly into selfish, self-promoting and unloving actions. May God have mercy on us all.