Validity of Baptism: Child of Unbelievers

[Sebastian Heck]

How do we answer if a child having grown up with unbelieving/not confessing parents becomes convinced as a teenager (or later) that her/his baptism was invalid.

Obviously, we are not talking about the "wrong baptism" because the baptism was done in the visible (i.e. a Christian) church in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, but about baptism done to "the wrong person", namely a child that is not a covenant child (because of two unbelieving parents!).

Thanks for your help.

 

[Herald]

Sebastian, I am going to move your post to the paedobaptist section. The answer from Baptists is going to be obvious.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Let God be true and every man a liar.

The efficacy of baptism is not in the mode of administration, who administered it, how sincere the person was who was baptized, or when it was administered.

The Promise of God is everything.

The saving work of God is everything.

As I've reflected increasingly on Reformed theology a pretty consistent refrain seems to arise from those that struggle with the Christian faith: how much X do I need to exhibit to be saved?

Where X might be:

1. Faith: How sincere must I be? What propositions must I understand and grasp? What if my understanding is imperfect?
2. Repentance: What if I'm repenting out of fear? What if I'm not fully turning from my sin?
3. Sanctification: How dedicated am I to the Lord? What kind of indwelling Sin can I still have and still be a Christian?

I want to be clear that there are important things that are connected to union with Christ. We are not to completely ignore fruit but, at the heart of God's promise is this: While we were still Sinners Christ died for the ungodly. While we were at the bottom of a pit, Christ rescued us. We didn't climb to Christ by our faith and repentance but He came down from heaven because we were powerless. Every evangelical fruit flows out of that glorious Truth.

The Reformed view of baptism is that grace precedes faith. We bring people into the visible Church because that is the place where the means of grace are found. That is where Christ is held forth. It is the nurse mother for faith that God might do His work that He has ordained beforehand.

The Church is not a place where the already converted, apart from the means of grace, come forward to note their intellectual and sanctified sense of maturity so they can announce to the Church that they weren't "saved enough" at the time of their baptism as a child for God's Promise to "take."

A short way to answer him might simply be this: Have you ever thought of thanking God that He promised to save all who put their trust in Him? Isn't it wonderful that you now believe by His grace? Isn't that Promise that God made to you wonderful? You believe and you are saved because God Promised. Praise be to God.

 

[Nathan Riese]

Rich makes a very very good point

 

[Houston E.]

Let God be true and every man a liar.

The efficacy of baptism is not in the mode of administration, who administered it, how sincere the person was who was baptized, or when it was administered.

Rich, just out of curiousity, have you changed your stance on RCC baptism?

While we were at the bottom of a pit.....

(Couldn't pass this up!) Interesting picture comes to mind here, especially for the baptist!

 

[Sebastian Heck]

Sorry, but I cannot see the "good point". How does thanking God for his wonderful promise answer my question as to the validity of the baptism of a child who has grown up with unbelieving parents?

 

[BertMulder]

Baptism is God's sign and seal of His covenant promise...

The sinful act of the parents in presenting their child for baptism does not deminish God's promise...

 

[Sebastian Heck]

What "promise" are we talking about? Not 1 Cor 7:14. Not Acts 2:39. Both of these refer to children of parents who are in the covenant, even "believing", themselves.

 

[TimV]

Sorry, but I cannot see the "good point". How does thanking God for his wonderful promise answer my question as to the validity of the baptism of a child who has grown up with unbelieving parents?

Exo 4:24 At a lodging place on the way the LORD met him and sought to put him to death.
Exo 4:25 Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and touched Moses' feet with it and said, "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!"
Exo 4:26 So he let him alone. It was then that she said, "A bridegroom of blood," because of the circumcision.

Here seems to be an example of parents who weren't too thrilled about having the sign of the covenant preformed on their kid. The act seems the most important thing.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

What "promise" are we talking about? Not 1 Cor 7:14. Not Acts 2:39. Both of these refer to children of parents who are in the covenant, even "believing", themselves.

How do we know if anyone who has their children baptized actually believes? The power of baptism is in the name of the Trinity. God predestined that child to be baptized in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost. He witnessed it. The child is baptized even if his parents have no idea what is going on. God knows he was baptized so does the Church and the minister of the Church. Why repeat a sacrament that was already done and need be done only once?

Ephesians 4:5 KJV
[5] One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

 

[Sebastian Heck]

Here seems to be an example of parents who weren't too thrilled about having the sign of the covenant preformed on their kid. The act seems the most important thing.

How funny! And how true!

 

[Marrow Man]

From the Westminster Confession of Faith, 27:3:

The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

 

[Scott1]

Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter XXVIII
Of Baptism

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8]

II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.[9]

III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.[10]

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12]

V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]

VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.[17]

VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.[18]

.

 

[Sebastian Heck]

Yes, that very document also says:

Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized. (WCF 28:4)​

Again, I am asking about those who are/were not the "infants of one, or both, believing parents", but of none! If they come to faith, what about their baptism?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

What "promise" are we talking about? Not 1 Cor 7:14. Not Acts 2:39. Both of these refer to children of parents who are in the covenant, even "believing", themselves.

Though the parents may have presented the children, the Promise is made by God ministerially. If the Baptism was made by the Church then, in a manner of speaking, the person who baptized the child, was "commissioned" by God to announce the Promise in the administration of the Sacrament. It's not a superstitious thing. One could ask why God even has us go through the trouble at all of doing something physical that relates to spiritual promises but I think the Heidelberg has great language that speaks to our creatureliness and need for public, historical administrations of grace.

One of the things that has increasingly struck me as I study proper hermeneutics and worldview together is how historical theology is. Liberals and neo-Orthodox want to de-historicize theology and flatten out all the historical contours that exist in God's revelation. Yet, the more I study the Word, the more I realize that salvation is not an abstraction but a story. It is a story that is unfolding in time and space and we're all caught up in this wonderful plan of redemption.

It's the Potter with clay and we see only parts where we might wonder if one of the pots is a vessel for destruction but then see God's handiwork unfold in a way that is completely unexpected and surprising.

In a microcosm of the overall plan of salvation, baptism and discipleship are an unfolding of God using historical means of grace to convert, sanctify, and glorify. I'm increasingly thankful, in fact, for the idea of preparatory grace, which Kuyper describes in one of his works. It parrots some portions of Augustine where he looks back over his life and just glorifies God for every Providential step that he took from the moment he was sucking on his mother's breast, through schoolteachers that taught an ungrateful kid, to a mom that prayed for him while a pagan, etc. Everything is working together.

There's a lot more that can be said and I don't mean to imply that we just need to baptize everybody but I think we need to remind people that there's not a point at which we can look at a particular point and say: "That's when God acted and let's baptize on the basis of this." I think it tends to de-historicize redemption for the individual and disconnects him from the "working out" that God is doing gloriously in him and through the Church. God gets glory from beginning to end and His Promises ought to be trusted and praised even when it takes years for us to come to a realization that what happened to us when we could not speak for ourselves was remarkable.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Yes, that very document also says:

Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized. (WCF 28:4)​

Again, I am asking about those who are/were not the "infants of one, or both, believing parents", but of none! If they come to faith, what about their baptism?

How did the kid get baptized? His parents must have believed enough to consent to it. He was baptized in the name of the Trinity. His baptism is valid and has nothing to do with his parents loss of faith.

 

[Sebastian Heck]

No one said anything about "loss of faith", but about no faith to begin with. It happens ALL THE TIME here in good ol' Europe that parents are self-confessed atheists but still think their children better be baptized, 'cause "you never know what good it might do". Faith? Never.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Let God be true and every man a liar.

The efficacy of baptism is not in the mode of administration, who administered it, how sincere the person was who was baptized, or when it was administered.

Rich, just out of curiousity, have you changed your stance on RCC baptism?

I don't know that I ever had a "stance". I had an opinion (and still do) that lacks authority. If it is the determination of a Church that a baptism was lawfully administered then that is enough for me and I would never presume to tell somebody they are not really baptized and of the Church because of my own remaining questions.

I understand Sebastian's concern and don't want to dismiss it. I think the language for believing parents is not meant to indicate that the belief of the parents "activates" the Promise of God. The reason is fairly basic: why join a child visibly to a Covenant that he will break? I think that issue is very basic.

In this case, the child has come to faith so whatever one thinks of the Church that might have administered the Sacrament to an unbelieving household, their lack of ministerial diligence in administering carelessly, believing carelessly, or training carelessly does not nullify the Promise of God.

The real question is: Who can administer the Sacrament? If you've determined that then all questions of sincerity or belief or the like are important but not ultimately at the heart of the efficacy of the Promise.

 

[Scott1]

A question comes up in light of our standards summary of the doctrine of Scripture.

On one reading it appears that at least one parent must be a believer for infant baptism to be valid.

On another, it is understood the covenant community (visible church) ordinarily includes some unbelievers (e.g. "hypocrites, children who at that time have not come to faith, etc.)

It would seem as though the "efficacy" of baptism is in that which it represents (e.g. a work of redemption by our Triune God) so, even a "hypocrite" parent presenting a child for baptism could be valid.

(In my understanding, that would require a biblical trinity and gospel, held officially, at least by that communion, even if the administrator did not believe).

 

[Marrow Man]

No one said anything about "loss of faith", but about no faith to begin with. It happens ALL THE TIME here in good ol' Europe that parents are self-confessed atheists but still think their children better be baptized, 'cause "you never know what good it might do". Faith? Never.

Do you ever have a pastor/minister say "no" when said parents present a child for baptism?

 

[Scott1]

No one said anything about "loss of faith", but about no faith to begin with. It happens ALL THE TIME here in good ol' Europe that parents are self-confessed atheists but still think their children better be baptized, 'cause "you never know what good it might do". Faith? Never.

Do you ever have a pastor/minister say "no" when said parents present a child for baptism?

I'm understanding your point here- the pastor would not second guess the actual salvation of a parent presenting an infant child for baptism.

But, so that those reading would understand, actually, in (biblical) presbyterian churches one would have to be a member to have their infant baptized, and that would have required an examined, credible profession of faith on the part of the parent for membership, even in the visible church.

If I'm understanding, that's the dilemma Mr. Heck is describing here,
the parent never has made even pretense of professing faith in Christ, let alone being an (examined) member of the visible church. Still, the church let them in, and performed the baptism.

I know this happens, because it happened with me, unbelieving parents present their infant child for baptism- what happens to make them want to do it? In my case, my parents were the product of "common grace" in the godly homes they were raised in but had not yet come to faith. My grandfather's faith was instrumental in having the infant baptized.

So why do unbelievers, at least at that time do it? Is it any evidence of God working in their life? Common grace?

Even deeper, could this be an example of theological concurrence, where the intent of the parents is evil really (don't believe in God but covet something He gives), but God's good purpose is redeeming the infant, in spite of all that?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

It seems to me the question is no different than the question of those who came to true faith in the wake of the Reformation. Their parents may not have been "genuine" believers, and the church (RCC) that baptized them filled with faithless prelates and minor clergy, and having a gospel most terribly obscured.

But that did not lessen the strength of God's own proclaimed promise. The Reformers were not rebaptized.

An unbeliever may not have any "right" to present his child for baptism, and perhaps a gospel-church should only baptize a proper member's children, but irreguarity aside, a baptism has still occurred in a historic, Christian church.

 

[Peairtach]

Even if neither of the immediate parents were believers at the time the child was baptised, or the grandparents or great grandparents, by getting the child baptised, they are bringing the child into the visible church and the visible bond of the covenant and formally engaging the child to be Christ's in marriage, even if they don't understand/fully understand what they are doing.

In the OT the efficacy of circumcision of a child of a Gentile who had himself and his family engrafted into the covenant people, didn't depend upon the Gentile parents having true faith, but that they clearly professed to have the true faith is shown by them getting their child circumcised.

The visible church consists of those who profess to have the true faith and their children, not the elect and their (elect) children.

This lady should thank God for the way that He has led her to Him in in His Providence, and that in His Providence she was placed in the visible Church, among the outwardly covenantal people, at her baptism.

She should also medidate upon and improve her baptism every day. See Larger Catechism Q. 167. She should meditate upon the fact that she was baptised as a child, that baptism involves the washing away of filth from the flesh, and that it signifies the washing of regeneration in Christ's blood by the Holy Spirit from the filthiness of sin, that she experienced at regeneration/baptism in the Holy Spirit. She is truly engrafted into Christ by Holy Spirit baptism/regeneration which was anticipated in her water baptism and entered the fellowship of the Triune God, into whose Name she was baptised.
Her faith will be strengthened (sealed) by meditating on all these things which her water baptism signifies.

How much of this meditating on the meaning of water baptism by the unsaved and saved goes on, is a moot point.

Are people more often baptised and then forget about it, or are given no encouragement to remember it and to contemplate its meaning ? For the unsaved it is an encouragement to seek the reality of the thing signified. For the save it is an encouragement to seek daily spiritual cleansing.

Peter said to him, "You shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered him, "If I do not wash you, you have no share with me. Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!Jesus said to him, "The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean. And you are clean, but not every one of you." (John 13:8-10, ESV)

It signifies these things whether or not her parents were true believers. It is impossible for us to know as infallibly as we would like whether another person is a true believer or not, anyway. They professed to be Christians.

She should reflect on the fact that her baptism as a child was Christ's engagement ring and ceremony to her, that by God's grace she has responded in love to Christ, and that this true love should be outwardly celebrated in the Lord's Supper, the formal marriage feast of Christ and His people and the outward sign of those who have responded in faith to Christ's overtures of love, and wish to continue in the covenantal bond and love.

Baptism properly done in the Name of God, shouldn't be repeated, anymore than circumcision should be repeated. Part of the symbolism of water baptism is that it's only done once. Spiritual baptism can only happen once to a person.

Can someone be born again, unborn again and then born again again? Sounds like an extreme form of Arminianism.

-----Added 12/8/2009 at 11:43:40 EST-----

No one said anything about \"loss of faith\", but about no faith to begin with. It happens ALL THE TIME here in good ol' Europe that parents are self-confessed atheists but still think their children better be baptized, 'cause \"you never know what good it might do\". Faith? Never.

Do you ever have a pastor/minister say "no" when said parents present a child for baptism?

I'm understanding your point here- the pastor would not second guess the actual salvation of a parent presenting an infant child for baptism.

But, so that those reading would understand, actually, in (biblical) presbyterian churches one would have to be a member to have their infant baptized, and that would have required an examined, credible profession of faith on the part of the parent for membership, even in the visible church.

If I'm understanding, that's the dilemma Mr. Heck is describing here,
the parent never has made even pretense of professing faith in Christ, let alone being an (examined) member of the visible church. Still, the church let them in, and performed the baptism.

I know this happens, because it happened with me, unbelieving parents present their infant child for baptism- what happens to make them want to do it? In my case, my parents were the product of "common grace" in the godly homes they were raised in but had not yet come to faith. My grandfather's faith was instrumental in having the infant baptized.

So why do unbelievers, at least at that time do it? Is it any evidence of God working in their life? Common grace?

Even deeper, could this be an example of theological concurrence, where the intent of the parents is evil really (don't believe in God but covet something He gives), but God's good purpose is redeeming the infant, in spite of all that?

In some Biblical Presbyterian churches e.g. the Free Church of Scotland, a baptised/baptismal member ("adherent") who is not a communicant member, if the session has reason to believe that they have a credible profession of faith, inspite of the fact that the person has not yet "come forward" to take the Lord's Supper for the first time - maybe because of lack of assurance of faith - will receive baptism for his/her child.

See e.g.

The Days of the Fathers in Ross-Shire: Amazon.co.uk: John Kennedy: Books

which discusses this.

 

[Kevin]

Are the parents baptised? If they are, then they have a legitimate claim to have the child baptised.