The Westminster Confession's teaching on who is to be baptised

[a mere housewife]

My question was raised on a baptism thread and I had posted it there, but while boiling the polenta I realized that it is not actually a question about baptism but about how to understand what the Westminster Confession means when it states who is to receive the sacrament.

The Westminster Confession seems to define 'belief' in the parents in the same sense as a 'profession of faith in and obedience unto Christ' by referring to 'believing parents' in context of this kind of profession in Chapter 28.4:

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

The answer to question q.166 of the larger catechism also seems to support this (emphasis mine): 'Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptised.'

This seems to militate against baptizing an unbelieving wife since descent seems to be the relation that would constitute an infant being in the covenant --as against baptising unbelieving servants and so on. It would also militate against baptising an infant of a baptised parent who had never made a profession of faith in Christ. Yet this contradicts views expressed here by people who have far more familiarity with the Westminster Confession than I do. Am I reading this incorrectly?

 

[toddpedlar]

My question was raised on a baptism thread and I had posted it there, but while boiling the polenta I realized that it is not actually a question about baptism as about how to understand what the Westminster Confession means when it states who is to receive the sacrament.

The Westminster Confession seems to define 'belief' in the parents in the same sense as a 'profession of faith in and obedience unto Christ' by referring to 'believing parents' in context of this kind of profession in Chapter 28.4:

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

The answer to question q.166 of the larger catechism also seems to support this (emphasis mine): 'Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptised.'

This seems to militate against baptizing an unbelieving wife or husband since descent seems to be the relation that would constitute an infant being in the covenant --as against baptising servants and so on. It would also militate against baptising an infant of a baptised parent who had never made a profession of faith in Christ. Yet this contradicts views expressed here by people who have far more familiarity with the Westminster Confession than I do. Am I reading this incorrectly?

I'm not sure who has been advocating the baptizing of an infant of a baptized, but non-professing parent. Certainly this is out of bounds confessionally. You've read the Confession and Catechism perfectly properly on this point, Heidi.

 

[wsw201]

You are reading the Standards just fine.

 

[a mere housewife]

Ruben has Johannes Vos on the Larger Catechism, and John Brown on the Shorter, and they both seem to take a 'face value' position on this. I was wondering if anyone has access to other commentaries/sources and could paste in anything relevant as to how this was and is generally understood? I just want to make sure I'm not overlooking something --practice of the time, etc-- that might qualify the meaning.

 

[toddpedlar]

A few links:

Hodge's Commentary on Chapter 28 of the WCF

Shaw on the same:

Various commentaries on:

Baptism:
Bible Presbyterian Church Online: WSC Question 94

The recipients of baptism:
Bible Presbyterian Church Online: WSC Question 95

This is from the Shorter Catechism project of the Bible Presbyterian Church.
The pages above include commentary links from John Flavel, Thomas Watson,
Thomas Vincent, Matthew Henry, etc.

 

[MW]

It would also militate against baptising an infant of a baptised parent who had never made a profession of faith in Christ. Yet this contradicts views expressed here by people who have far more familiarity with the Westminster Confession than I do. Am I reading this incorrectly?

This touches on an intramural debate in Presbyterianism. The traditional view is that the infants of members of the visible church are to be baptised whether the parents make a personal profession of faith or not. This is well argued by Samuel Rutherford in his Peaceable and Temperate Plea. The Confession undoubtedly adopts this position because it specifically speaks of "members of the visible church."

 

[a mere housewife]

Rev. Winzer, I was hoping you would explain the support for the other view.

Johannes Vos says in answer to 'Into what two classes are members of the visible church divided?' that 'The visible church is composed of two classes of people, namely, (a) those who have made a personal profession of faith in Christ and obedience to him; and (b) their infant children, that is, their children who have not yet made a personal profession of faith.' --the visible church is defined by him simply as adults who have faith and obedience and their children, which seems to be in agreement what John Brown of Haddington says in his Questions and Answers on the Shorter catechism

(--'Q. To whom then is baptism to be administered? A. To all such as profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him and their children, Acts ii. 38,39. Q. When have children a right to baptism? --A. The infants who have one or both parents visible saints, have a right to it before men; and the infants of real believers have a right to it before God, 1 Cor. vii. 14.')

-where he takes the visible church to be co-extensive with 'visible saints' and their children? It is difficult to think he would have called one a 'visible saint' (esp given the context) who had not even made a profession of faith (even if their profession were false)? Indeed he seems to indicate that the children of false professors, those who were only saints in the eyes of men, only have a right to baptism in the eyes of men and not of God. --How could he, on this logic, think the children of a person who did not claim to be a saint in the eyes of men could have any right to be baptised? I understand that Samuel Rutherford was at the Assembly and John Brown was not --but it seems there must have been good reason to believe this was the meaning of the assembly (or at least a meaning accommodated by their language) for him to think this? Is there something I could read (as well as the Rutherford, which I think we have on cd and will try to find) that would give more information about this and how the writers of the Assembly settled on this language/what it can mean?

added, from Fisher's Catechism, as he seems to take 'members of the visible church' as those who have made a profession of faith as well?

Q. 13. To whom is baptism not to be administered?
A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church.
Q. 14. Whom do you understand by those that are out of the visible church?
A. All infidels, or such as are Jews, or Heathens, and their children.
Q. 15. Why may not these be baptised?
A. Because being strangers from the covenant of promise, they can have no right to the seals of it, Eph. 2:12.
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. 19. Whom does such a profession respect?
A. It respects only the adult, or such as are grown up to ripeness of age.
Q. 20. Have not INFANTS (who can make no such profession) a right to baptism?
A. Yes; the infants of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptised.
Q. 21. Who are the members of the visible church?
A. They "are all such as profess the true religion, and their children."[147]
Q. 22. What are we to understand by the true religion?
A. We are to understand by it the whole of those doctrines deduced from the holy scriptures, which are contained in our Confession of Faith, and Catechisms, as agreeing, in the main, with the Confessions of other reformed churches, 2 Tim. 1:13 -- "Hold fast the form of sound words."
Q. 23. What is it to profess the true religion?
A. It is openly to acknowledge, on all proper occasions, a steadfast adherence to the whole of divine truth; without espousing or countenancing any opposite error, Psalm 119:105. Rom. 10:10.
Q. 24. Is a bare profession of the true religion sufficient?
A. No; for "faith without works is dead." James 2:26.

 

[MW]

Is there something I could read (as well as the Rutherford, which I think we have on cd and will try to find) that would give more information about this and how the writers of the Assembly settled on this language/what it can mean?

There is no doubt that the Westminster divines advocated the traditional view that members of the visible church are to be baptised. Historically, the most one might argue is that the question came to be agitated around that time whether or not baptism should be restricted to the children of those who had made a personal profession of faith; but it was those of the congregational (church rule by believers) mindset which raised it, and they did so in the awareness that they were opposing the traditional view.

Thomas Boston devotes one of his Miscellaneous Questions (Works, vol. 6) to the subject, and comes out against the old view. Here, again, there is a consciousness that he is going against the tradition. Though Boston died before the Secession church was constituted, his theology was very influential on the Seceders, and it may be that they took his view on the matter; hence the comments of Fisher and Brown. OTOH, their wording does not necessarily mean a personal profession of faith was required before infants could be baptised.

 

[a mere housewife]

Thank you, Rev. Winzer. Ruben found that section and we were reading some of it last night. He does seem to have an impressive ability to lay out arguments, even those he doesn't agree with. Having read his language though, of which John Brown would almost certainly have been aware (?), I find it very difficult to believe that he didn't come down squarely on Boston's side of the issue, using the same concepts, etc. Fischer in his own explanation seems to leave little doubt that he means a personal adherence in manner of life to the things confessed?

I did have a further question: while Boston makes it clear that he disagrees with 'some', and lists about four names (of whom Richard Baxter is one --he doesn't seem to stand very much in line with reformed tradition in some other things?), he does not make it clear that this position was the 'older' tradition or the 'majority' tradition: and says that 'some' also agree with him. Is there some other source for this being an older tradition, and a majority view at the Westminster Assembly?

 

[MW]

Is there some other source for this being an older tradition, and a majority view at the Westminster Assembly?

Dear Mrs Zartman, I can't think of a single source which documents this. It might require some historical reconstruction to decide which divines would have adhered to the position on the basis of their writings; but I would have thought it was an accepted fact that the reformers and their children maintained the Christendom perspective. The Puritans (non-separatists) and Scottish Presbyterians adhered to it, whilst the Brownists and their followers challenged it. Both Samuel Rutherford and Daniel Cawdrey specifically affirm the covenant position against the Independents. Oliver Bowles is quoted by Thomas Boston (p. 140) as maintaining the covenant position in his work on pastoral theology. But the fact that the Westminster Standards adopt covenant language and nowhere require a personal profession of faith is conclusive evidence in favour of it. The Directory for Public Worship specifically extends the privilege of baptism to the children of those "born within the church." And at the end of the day it should be the Westminster Standards which determine what was the consensus view of the Westminster divines. Blessings!

 

[a mere housewife]

But the fact that the Westminster Standards adopt covenant language and nowhere require a personal profession of faith is conclusive evidence in favour of it.

Boston did quote from Oliver Bowles, and also summarized the argumentation. It was very convincing --but then he started listing his reasons for not being convinced, and those were also quite convincing.

Regarding the quote above, the larger catechism answer to Q. 166 does make the condition of one or both parents as 'professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him' to be the requirement for an infant to be baptized: does the larger catechism explain the Confession on this point? The men Boston were quoting did not see the need for profession or obedience as they represented baptism explicitly to be a sort of succession to church membership based on previous baptisms: the scenario of those who did not believe, and were not obedient, was exactly the case at issue. The Confession is certainly not so explicit as they were if it is affirming their view; and the language of the larger catechism is more consistent with the language that Boston uses to urge his own. It simply throws my whole understanding of how to read something, giving natural weight to words chosen and not chosen esp in the light of what would have been current controversies, into doubt.

I sincerely don't mean to be troublesome or obtuse. I understand that all of this happening so long ago, there might not be answers; and that how we view past events is often almost hopelessly influenced by what we believe now. Thank you for your time.

 

[MW]

First entrance into the covenant certainly requires profession of faith. This is granted by all. (Although there is a question whether personal appropriation is required or simply an acceptance of "the faith.") But note how the Larger Catechism differentiates between this first entrance and subsequent acknowledgement that one is in covenant with God -- it speaks of infants descending from parents professing faith in Christ. It does not require a "believing pedigree," but simply that the infant be "born in the church," to use the language of the Directory.

 

[Scott1]

This touches on an intramural debate in Presbyterianism. The traditional view is that the infants of members of the visible church are to be baptised whether the parents make a personal profession of faith or not. This is well argued by Samuel Rutherford in his Peaceable and Temperate Plea. The Confession undoubtedly adopts this position because it specifically speaks of "members of the visible church."

Do I understand correctly the "intramural debate" is about whether a parent of an infant child is merely attending church versus having been examined for membership, taken a vow as a profession of faith, etc. (something like a "regular attenders" v "church member" status in some denominations)?

 

[MW]

Do I understand correctly the "intramural debate" is about whether a parent of an infant child is merely attending church versus having been examined for membership, taken a vow as a profession of faith, etc. (something like a "regular attenders" v "church member" status in some denominations)?

It affects this question -- members and adherents or members only; but it is broader than that. The issue fundamentally pertains to the constitution of the visible church.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

This is a fascinating discussion. It seems that the issue boils down to whether or not a Church should have some sort of examination of the parents to see if they're fit for their kids to be baptized or not.

There's sort of an unspoken problem that I want to highlight here. I think Heidi is highlighting the portion about the fact that the parent(s) of a child presented for baptism have to be believing and obedient.

I started thinking about the scenarios here and I came to the conclusion that we really need to consider Presbyterian Ecclesiology as a whole here.

It should go without saying that the Westminster Standards require more than a passing interest on the part of the Elders about the catechesis and discipline of the members of a Church.

So the question arises: Is it possible for a marginal Presbyterian to just walk into Church one day and ask for their kids to be baptized? Wouldn't a couple (or individual parent) already have been under the discipline of the Church if they were not attending worship?

It seems, at least to me, that part of the obedience that a Christian parent would pay would be faithful Church membership. People are not disciplined by the Church for their need to grow in faith and I don't think a theological examination or test for dedication is really in order if a person is earnest to bring their children before the Church and promises to commit them to the Church's discipleship.

I don't know if I rambled and didn't make any sense but it seems there are a couple of questions:

1. Do we check to see if a person's faith is genuine before we baptize their children?
2. If we believe they are not living lives with fruit that manifests a trust in the Gospel then do we discipline them as a Church in appropriate cases?
3. If they are under discipline do we baptize the child?
4. If they are not under discipline and are still willing to be discipled then why would we not baptize the child?

 

[MW]

1. Do we check to see if a person's faith is genuine before we baptize their children?
2. If we believe they are not living lives with fruit that manifests a trust in the Gospel then do we discipline them as a Church in appropriate cases?
3. If they are under discipline do we baptize the child?
4. If they are not under discipline and are still willing to be discipled then why would we not baptize the child?

Perhaps these suggestive hints might help in thinking through these important questions.

1. Wheat and tares. We cannot see whose faith is genuine.
2. Vine and branches. The Father disciplines in order to bring forth fruit. The church disciplines only in the case of bad fruit, not non-fruit.
3. The olive tree. The promises belonged to the children of those Israelites who were forbidden to enter the land of Cannan, and later of those who were cast out of the land.
4. Smoking flax. Why does discipline come into it at all? They were granted baptism on the condition that they would be taught the Christian faith. No age limit was set for that period of instruction. If they abide in the church as ones willing to learn the Christian faith then there is no reason why their children should not be baptised.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Matthew,

My questions were somewhat rhetorical. I agree with your answers. There just seems to be something being implied here by some in the overall discussion of "profession and obedience" that I'm trying to draw out. I think some would make it a difficult litmus test on parents to baptize their children as if the nature of the child's discipleship and training is contingent on the quality of the parents' faith. I have a problem with this given the nature of discipleship itself.

Further, I was trying to draw out some points for others to consider because the implication might be that what was in view was that people could just roll in with their kids even though the parents themselves hadn't darkened to door of a Church in years. In such cases, however, the parents would be under Church discipline and likely have been put out of the Church. Until they repent and return, I would think that this would be a clear case where the children would not be baptized.

 

[a mere housewife]

I'm glad this is being discussed more thoroughly, as one of the questions this raised when I read the larger catechism question, and the statements made by John Brown, was how the baptist position is essentially different than the paedobaptist position. Thomas Boston quotes approvingly some statements about what the sacraments seal to an unbeliever --nothing. It is only those infants of believing parents who have a right to baptism in the eyes of God; and only the infants of visible believers --those who are believers in the judgment of the church -- have a right to baptism before men. Baptism is still based on confession of faith and obedience. The aim is still to keep the church pure, but infants of believers are conceived of as within a pure church, being inheritors of the promises of God, by paedobaptists, whereas baptists simply do not see warrant for their inclusion as infants in Scripture.

I would point out that all sides believe we are obligated to discern between wheat and tares when it comes to the Lord's Supper and practicing church discipline. At the table, all parties believe the church has an obligation to purity to the best of its judgment.

Also I would agree, as being yet a baptist (though I confess to tottering on the brink, and not being sure if I've fallen in) that we don't judge without reason. We judge in charity, a man is assumed innocent until proven guilty. I didn't get the sense from those Thomas Boston* was quoting in disagreement, that he was advocating that we judge those who passively and humbly learned from week to week; but those who evidently had some unwillingness to profess faith in Christ, and who did not demonstrate obedience in their manner of life. Lack of willingness to associate with Christ, and lack of obedience is bad fruit?

*I had originally written 'John Brown' here. Sorry if that caused confusion.

 

[MW]

Until they repent and return, I would think that this would be a clear case where the children would not be baptized.

Certainly. Baptism and teaching go hand in hand. They must be communing with the church in the hearing of the Word.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Also I would agree, as being yet a baptist (though I confess to tottering on the brink, and not being sure if I've fallen in) that we don't judge without reason. We judge in charity, a man is assumed innocent until proven guilty etc on his own profession. I didn't get the sense that those John Brown was quoting were advocating that we judge those who passively and humbly learned from week to week; but those who evidently had some unwillingness to profess faith in Christ, and who did not demonstrate obedience in their manner of life. Lack of willingness to associate with Christ, and lack of obedience is bad fruit?

You see, it's that last point that I'm not sure I want to press too hard.

I know this might sound odd to some but I'm willing to consider a person a disciple if he is submitting to the elders of the Church and is faithful to attend. Now that doesn't mean he's got saving faith and he still needs to be called to faith but we're not going to put him out of the Church while he's still willing to be taught. I'm not saying you're arguing for this but some presentations of being a disciple imply that, if a person is not demonstrably regenerate, then they need to be removed from visible membership too.

Now, the Church should never become lazy about preaching Truth or accepting people who just go through the motions but I think there can be a true discipleship in a person who is not yet convinced and I believe they fall into the category of the bruised reed or smoldering wick (as above).

My view is that a person has been put under obligation simply in the hearing of the Gospel even one time. If that person is attending worship and willing to be taught then the Church should bend over backwards to fear together with that person and ensure that he believes and does not shrink back. I reject a version of Church membership that seeks the ideal regenerate membership and achieves it by trimming away all the smoldering wicks from Church membership.

Hence, such disciples can and do exist that may not have yet believed and the Church is under obligation to disciple them visibly and leave the fruit to God. By extension, then, such are bringing their kids and are visibly commanded to train them in the fear and admonition of the Lord and not simply on the basis that they know for sure they're elect parents and therefore have that responsibility or know they're not elect parents so they do not. It's enough that they're in the visible Church and to them now belong the revealed things and that means that their children are disciples and under obligation along with the household that has heard the Gospel.

 

[MW]

It is only those infants of believing parents who have a right to baptism in the eyes of God; and only the infants of visible believers --those who are believers in the judgment of the church -- have a right to baptism before men. Baptism is still based on confession of faith and obedience.

The problem I have with Boston's miscellany is that he ties the baptism of the infant to the faith of the parent rather than the promise of the covenant. The faith of the parent cannot produce faith in the child; faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

 

[a mere housewife]

Rich, I haven't made up my mind about any of this. I wasn't trying to argue my own point, but to point out that views expressed by some paedos here, though not others, are different than what I had been reading various Presbyterian authors say this weekend --and in arguing against the baptists on certain scores, one is also arguing against John Brown, Thomas Boston, etc.

No, I do not think we trim people away. But the Westminster Confession seems to state unequivocally that an adult must profess faith and demonstrate obedience to receive baptism. It is not trimming them off if they haven't made any profession of being united. It is simply admitting along with them, that they have made no such profession. This is not judging some sort of hidden thing. If a man openly acknowledges that he does not believe then he is not a believer (If thou shalt confess with thy mouth, etc). I do think this involves a different view of discipleship than some I've heard here. That is exactly where my confusion comes in.

We had a man in Mexico who came to us because his wife was a professing Christian. They were living together and had a child without being married. The first time he came to us it was because he had been out doing drugs all night, and had been kidnapped and had his wife and child's safety threatened, then released. Ruben told him he needed to stop doing drugs and alcohol, and that he needed to marry his girlfriend, stop abandoning her (which he did routinely), and be a father to his son; and that he needed to be saved. The man did change significantly over the next few months but refused to commit to the girlfriend. We did not jump down his throat, presume him to have no work of grace being done etc., demand that he change all at once. But when he came flat out after months of discipleship and told us that he would not marry her, and that he was not a believer, were we supposed to still allow him to be baptised because he wanted to still be in the church? Praise God that when he was disciplined he repented. He is married and they are raising their son in the fear of the Lord. I don't think we are necessarily trying to advocate dealing with people in different ways. But we couldn't consider him part of the church, with a right to baptism, to the table though he wanted these things, when he professed lack of faith in Christ, and refused to obey Him.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It is only those infants of believing parents who have a right to baptism in the eyes of God; and only the infants of visible believers --those who are believers in the judgment of the church -- have a right to baptism before men. Baptism is still based on confession of faith and obedience.

The problem I have with Boston's miscellany is that he ties the baptism of the infant to the faith of the parent rather than the promise of the covenant. The faith of the parent cannot produce faith in the child; faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

Interesting that many present the Presbyterian position as if the child is being baptized because the parents are believing for the child. That's not what the Standards teach, however.

I actually think that this view leads to a sort of hyper-Paternalism/Covenantalism that you see in the Federal Vision that views parenting itself as a means of Grace. Good, faithful parents are seen as practically ensuring the salvation of a child.

I agree with you completely, Rev Winzer, we need to constantly view the ground of our baptism as the Promise of God and not that we had faith or our parents had faith. This is not to despise parents with faith or the profound importance of catechism but it's all about keeping categories straight.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich, I haven't made up my mind about any of this. I wasn't trying to argue my own point, but to point out that views expressed by some paedos here, though not others, are different than what I had been reading various Presbyterian authors say this weekend --and in arguing against the baptists on certain scores, one is also arguing against John Brown, Thomas Boston, etc.

No, I do not think we trim people away. But the Westminster Confession seems to state unequivocally that an adult must profess faith and demonstrate obedience to receive baptism. It is not trimming them off if they haven't made any profession of being united. It is simply admitting along with them, that they have made no such profession. This is not judging some sort of hidden thing. If a man openly acknowledges that he does not believe then he is not a believer (If thou shalt confess with thy mouth, etc). I do think this involves a different view of discipleship than some I've heard here. That is exactly where my confusion comes in.

We had a man in Mexico who came to us because his wife was a professing Christian. They were living together and had a child without being married. The first time he came to us it was because he had been out doing drugs all night, and had been kidnapped and had his wife and child's safety threatened, then released. Ruben told him he needed to stop doing drugs and alcohol, and that he needed to marry his girlfriend, stop abandoning her (which he did routinely), and be a father to his son; and that he needed to be saved. The man did change significantly over the next few months but refused to commit to the girlfriend. We did not jump down his throat, presume him to have no work of grace being done etc., demand that he change all at once. But when he came flat out after months of discipleship and told us that he would not marry her, and that he was not a believer, were we supposed to still allow him to be baptised because he wanted to still be in the church? Praise God that when he was disciplined he repented. He is married and they are raising their son in the fear of the Lord. I don't think we are necessarily trying to advocate dealing with people in different ways. But we couldn't consider him part of the church, with a right to baptism, to the table though he wanted these things, when he professed lack of faith in Christ, and refused to obey Him.

Heidi,

I wasn't referring to you above. I was speaking aloud about a view and trying to interact with it to do your concern justice.

I also think that it's fair to say that what Rev. Winzer is saying is that the intramural debate is over what it means that the parents "believe and obey". I think my view of discipleship above with a parent willing to be taught and submitting to the Church is a form of belief and obedience and we need to be careful how strict we make the litmus test.

I think the above example of a man who is in open sin in one area would have been an example of something requiring Church discipline. If he lived in fornication and would not repent then he would have to be put out of the Church.

 

[a mere housewife]

I also think that it's fair to say that what Rev. Winzer is saying is that the intramural debate is over what it means that the parents "believe and obey". I think my view of discipleship above with a parent willing to be taught and submitting to the Church is a form of belief and obedience and we need to be careful how strict we make the litmus test.

I do understand and agree that the meaning of believe and obey is the point at issue. But I am inclined to think that to read in the standards some other meaning than personal faith and obedience (as evidences of regeneration) where they speak of adults is unnatural: and many of paedos closer to the time, all the way up through the present, do not read the standards like that. If one is to confess with one's mouth the Lord Jesus, then though the church cannot judge the heart they can judge the confession, at least as to whether not it has been made?

I don't have more to say and don't want to go on reiterating my confusion: I just don't see this reconciling. I don't see how the language of the Assembly (or of Scripture, which they were interpreting) can be made to support that a public confession of personal faith is a secret thing, or that it is unrelated to baptism.

I am also confused as to how it is possible that the Confession of faith, which is supposed to interpret Scripture, cannot be plainly or easily interpreted. How does one escape always needing another confession to confess what one means by one's confession? I don't mean that to sound as ridiculous as it does. It's a sincere confusion.

 

[MW]

The Confession is able to be interpreted within its historical context and needs no extra confession to understand it; although the ministry has an obligation to expound the biblical principles of the confession. It seems to me that the confusion only emerges because of the teaching of a later age. If the Confession is permitted to speak for itself without this imposition then it is apparent what it understands to to be the constitution of the visible church and who are to be baptised.

 

[MW]

If one is to confess with one's mouth the Lord Jesus, then though the church cannot judge the heart they can judge the confession, at least as to whether not it has been made?

Isn't it the "heart" which makes the confession "personal?" Isn't an assent to the articles of the Christian faith a confessing of the Lord Jesus?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I also think that it's fair to say that what Rev. Winzer is saying is that the intramural debate is over what it means that the parents "believe and obey". I think my view of discipleship above with a parent willing to be taught and submitting to the Church is a form of belief and obedience and we need to be careful how strict we make the litmus test.

I do understand and agree that the meaning of believe and obey is the point at issue. But I am inclined to think that to read in the standards some other meaning than personal faith and obedience (as evidences of regeneration) where they speak of adults is unnatural: and many of paedos closer to the time, all the way up through the present, do not read the standards like that. If one is to confess with one's mouth the Lord Jesus, then though the church cannot judge the heart they can judge the confession, at least as to whether not it has been made?

Well, I suppose it is a difference of opinion about what is "plain". These are really Pastoral question when it comes right down to it. What we're trying to do is to describe what the boundary markers are for the visible Church in an abstract manner when each case depends upon the flesh and blood person standing in front of us.

I view the confession of the father of the epliptic to Christ as a perfect example of where we all find ourselves to greater or lesser degrees: "Lord I believe, help thou my unbelief!" (Mark 9:24) Is that a confession of belief or is it a confession of doubt? Is ther father to become a disciple or is He not?

I suppose whatever picture is in your mind of this unbelief might be different than yours. It seems, perhaps, your picture might be much more rebellious in attitude than what I'm picturing. This is why I noted what the role of a good Session would be in terms of knowing the sheep within a congregation. If a husband/wife express open hostility and hatred toward God in their Confession then there is a matter of discipline that would potentially lead to excommunication. If, however, a husband/wife is attending because they want to be taught the things of God and are convinced enough to submit to the Christ's ordinances then who are we to judge the heart and insist they dispel of all doubts first?

Thus, I don't disagree that it's a difficult thing to ascertain but, in the end, it's a pastoral decision and not one that will be easily solved here by coming up with every hypothetical.

I don't have more to say and don't want to go on reiterating my confusion: I just don't see this reconciling. I don't see how the language of the Assembly (or of Scripture, which they were interpreting) can be made to support that a public confession of personal faith is a secret thing, or that it is unrelated to baptism.

I think, like a number of things, we all need to learn another's vocabulary before we're certain of a proposition. I've seen Clarkians tripped up on the phrase "light of nature" trying to have the Puritans speak of knowledge only as justified true belief in the ideal philosophical language of a 20th Century philosopher.

I am also confused as to how it is possible that the Confession of faith, which is supposed to interpret Scripture, cannot be plainly or easily interpreted. How does one escape always needing another confession to confess what one means by one's confession? I don't mean that to sound as ridiculous as it does. It's a sincere confusion.

I understand and I'm not saying that it's going to lend itself to easy explanation as above. I would submit that trying to go the other way and determine what a definitive confession of believe and obedience is. We've all seen discussions amongst ourselves where Baptists are asked what a minimal age for Baptism is, whether or not a simple confession is enough, etc. It's not a matter of whether or not we're using the same words but different judgments of charity are being employed and we're trying to come up with a good Scriptural guideline that will always require actual Teaching and Ruling Elders to examine each case and use the best judgment that they can given the circumstances.

 

[a mere housewife]

The heart does make a confession personal, but this confession comes out of the mouth. The 'I' is necessarily involved in profession. Certainly hypocrites can simulate it. But if I am confessing the Lord Jesus to be Saviour and Lord, and trying to live in obedience to Him, then the judgment of the church is that I am a believer. This is not something hidden or complicated. One of the difficulties I have with the view that is being advocated is that what seems to be confessed is the church rather than Christ. The church seems to be looking in its disciples for submission and union to herself, rather than union to Christ. She is capable of judging the one, despite the fact that many will want to be baptised and receive the table who require to be disciplined. But somehow she is incapable of judging a profession of faith in Christ, though equally a public matter, because some professions are false?

What I have been trying to point out about terminology is that the terminology used in the confession as regards believing and obeying is not the terminology of the people Thomas Boston is quoting (in disagreement), but the terminology of Thomas Boston. The people Thomas Boston is quoting are speaking of those who do not believe, and who are not obedient: this is exactly the case in point. This was much closer to the time than we are. Given what was said about how we would have to do historical reconstruction to find out what views actually were about this at the Assembly, how are we not all far more hopelessly removed by the historical process from being able to understand the Confession? And is not this historical process in part why we need a Confession to approach Scripture? Did the people who received Paul's letters understand them without a confession? How can the Confession hope to be more perspicuous through the generations than Scripture? (Indeed, why should other writings of the time be more perspicuous than the Confession?) No one is exempt from the historical processes that produce confusion. How then can we know which view is actually right, even as regards the context in which things were written? Boston and Brown evidently got it wrong. They were unconfessional, according to what is being presented here, and that on such a major point as their ecclesiology and sacramentology: what constitutes the visible church and what is the purpose of it; and who are to receive the sacraments/what they then signify. If Boston and Brown, so much closer to the historical context, are unconfessional not because they meant to take an exception but because they misunderstood the confession, what hope do I have of ever being so? If great hordes of paedobaptists after them up to the present time have misunderstood their own confession on these major things, how can I hope to understand it aright?

I'm going to step out of the discussion because I am not able to come to clarity on this by further representation of why I am confused. I was telling Ruben the other day that I would dearly love to hear this issue discussed by those whose learning (and whose patience) I have come to greatly respect here, with John Brown. But that's impossible; & I'm no substitute. Many thanks for the explanations and answers.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Thanks Heidi. I have to claim ignorance for what John Brown or Thomas Boston said about this or really the history surrounding that period. I was just trying to give my own thoughts (such as they are) to the subject of what I think the Church's role in discipleship is and what I think the Confession teaches regarding it. Perhaps one of these days I'll study their writings more and be able to interact more intelligently on the historical point.

If I'm not mistaken, however, Rev. Winzer did say that this was an intramural debate so I don't think he's called anyone who disagrees on all these points un-Confessional. I'll let him clarify.

Next, I don't agree that what is being called for is faith in the Church. I think what I've tried to note is that the Church's role is always to cause its members to look to Christ and to have faith in Him. The issue, really, is whether or not the Church recognizes those that have weak hands and knees as being among those who it is striving together with. The visible Church is not represented in the Scriptures as possessing the perfectly convinced and the non-struggling. I don't disagree that a form of Confession needs to be made but, fundamentally, the Church's mission isn't merely to identify those that it is most certain are regenerate so it can invest its sole visible energy on building them up but to consider all within her walls as needing to press forward to the hope of the Cross and the wrath that awaits those that shrink back.

Finally, even the Churches of Paul's day were confused about their Confession and had to be reminded of it. Since this is an intramural debate it may be that some come to harder conclusions on how to administer the Sacraments. As I noted previously, this is a decision for a Session to make. My own opinion (and that's all that it's worth) is that the Scriptures do emphasize great care be taken with the weak and the doubting. There is correspondingly no patience for the openly rebellious but not all doubting/unbelief is open rebellion. Hebrews makes that point a few times. The role of a session is to guard against open rebellion and the spread of heresy within her walls but its role is not to attempt to purge her ranks of every one who doubts and still needs instruction. As I noted: "Help my unbelief" is as much a part of a Confession to Christ as "I believe" and I think disciples need to have under-shepherds who don't expect everyone to have already arrived and, if not, come back when you do. Where else is the person to go to become convinced?