WCF Ch 28 - Is neglecting/rejecting paedobaptism a sin?

[Andres]

Someone brought it up in another thread that they understand the WCF to teach that holding to a credobaptist position is a sin. I posted the entire chapter of WCF 28 for context, but specifically let's reference section 5.

When the WCF speaks of it to be "a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance" is it speaking of the rejection of the specific ordinance of paedobaptism being sinful or is it refering to the neglect of the ordinance of baptism in general? Of course, if it's the first, then yes, we have to understand the WCF to state that are credo subscribers are in sin. If it's the latter, then they are okay. So what did the framers of the WCF intend here?

The WCF Ch 28 states:

1. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church; but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.

2. 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.

3. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.

4. 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, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

6. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; 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 belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.

7. The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

To contemn is to treat the ordinance with scorn or contempt. To neglect is to fail to obey it.

When we say we confess something as a Church it is because we believe that the Scriptures teach that it is a sin to treat Baptism with scorn or to neglect to baptize those whom God has commanded be baptized. We believe God has commanded the baptism of the children of believers and it is a sin to both despise this notion or to fail to obey that command.

 

[TimV]

Good work, Andres. An important subject.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I missed the poll questions and will not vote for the following reasons:

1. We don't determine the meaning of a document by a straw poll but by original intent of the authors.
2. Even if I did vote, the questions are phrased wrong. "Contemn or neglect" is not the same thing as "reject".

 

[Andres]

Well, according to the Framers' understanding of Baptism (and I believe the most biblical position), then we'd agree that Baptism includes both credobaptism and paedobaptism. Neither practice comes at the expense of the other. Ergo, if one neglects either aspect of this baptism (for example, Reformed Baptists are antipaedobaptists), then we would assert, Confessionally, that it is "a great sin." I think an additional option is in order on your poll, because your qualification of "Baptism in General" didn't allow for what I've asserted above, ergo, I could not vote.

My apologies for not wording my poll better. Can you help me understand what you are saying a little more clearly Josh? I understand what you mean that paedo's are really both paedo and credo in that we would baptize both infants and older professing believers. But let me give an example to you (and anyone else that would so kindly weigh in) - Let's say a Christian couple who have both been baptized themselves have a baby. Let us then say that they decided not to baptize their child until the child professes faith years down the road. Is this couple sinning? If one holds to an interpretation of WCF 28.5 that understands the "ordinance" referenced to specifically relate to paedobaptism then I assume they would answer yes. However if one holds to an interpretation that "ordinance" here refers simply to the sacrament of baptism in general, then it would be okay (not a sin) for the couple to hold off on baptizing their child unto he's made profession of faith. With the latter interpretation, the sin would come into play if a man became a Christian when he was 21, he publicly professed Christ, yet refused to be baptized.

 

[Notthemama1984]

It is sin. I would even say that if an elder or leader in the church refused to have their child baptized, the church should exercise discipline.

(I will not include each and every member, because I realize that many members of the church are in the process of learning and may not be convinced of Reformed sacramentology)

 

[Andres]

I missed the poll questions and will not vote for the following reasons:

1. We don't determine the meaning of a document by a straw poll but by original intent of the authors.
2. Even if I did vote, the questions are phrased wrong. "Contemn or neglect" is not the same thing as "reject".

Rich, I by no means am attempting to determine the meaning of the WCF, which I hold very dearly, by means of a simple internet poll. I freely admit this is a point I am unclear on. The poll was just to see what others opinions where. If it is out of line in any way, then a mod can please remove it.

As for the phrasing, again my apologies for my poor wording. But whether someone fails to do something by rejection of neglection, they still fail to do it, correct? Or am I completely missing the real issue?

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Just to clarify, the WCF is not scripture. Of course it is based on scripture and was written by very godly men, but it is still merely an interpretation of scripture and as such is not fit to be the sole arbiter of sin.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Just to clarify, the WCF is not scripture. Of course it is based on scripture and was written by very godly men, but it is still merely an interpretation of scripture and as such is not fit to be the sole arbiter of sin.

As a Confessional Presbyterian, the WCF does have the power to state what is a sin and what is not.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I missed the poll questions and will not vote for the following reasons:

1. We don't determine the meaning of a document by a straw poll but by original intent of the authors.
2. Even if I did vote, the questions are phrased wrong. "Contemn or neglect" is not the same thing as "reject".

Rich, I by no means am attempting to determine the meaning of the WCF, which I hold very dearly, by means of a simple internet poll. I freely admit this is a point I am unclear on. The poll was just to see what others opinions where. If it is out of line in any way, then a mod can please remove it.

As for the phrasing, again my apologies for my poor wording. But whether someone fails to do something by rejection of neglection, they still fail to do it, correct? Or am I completely missing the real issue?

I wasn't posting to reprove you but only to point out why I'm not voting. I think that rewording to ask whether the sin spoken of applies to the baptism of infants or the whole ordinance. It is clearly the latter.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Just to clarify, the WCF is not scripture. Of course it is based on scripture and was written by very godly men, but it is still merely an interpretation of scripture and as such is not fit to be the sole arbiter of sin.

As already stated, a Confession serves the function of the Church confessing together what the Scriptures teach. The authority to declare something a sin is grounded in the Scriptures, which alone bind the consciences of men.

To argue that the WCF is not scripture misses the point. It would be equivalent to hearing a sermon on Romans 3 where the minister declares, on the basis of exegesis, that Christ is the Just and Justifier of all who believe. The person might say: "Reverend X is not Scripture and has no authority to say such things." Insofar as the minister is accurately declaring the Word of God, it is to be heeded and believed upon.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

As already stated, a Confession serves the function of the Church confessing together what the Scriptures teach. The authority to declare something a sin is grounded in the Scriptures, which alone bind the consciences of men.

To argue that the WCF is not scripture misses the point. It would be equivalent to hearing a sermon on Romans 3 where the minister declares, on the basis of exegesis, that Christ is the Just and Justifier of all who believe. The person might say: "Reverend X is not Scripture and has no authority to say such things." Insofar as the minister is accurately declaring the Word of God, it is to be heeded and believed upon

I am not arguing the value of confessions, I just feel that if we are going to debate whether or not a practice is sin then we should argue with scripture and not with confessions. If you can show me a verse that indicates that credobaptism constitutes sin, then I would be the first to convert. Since that is clearly not the case, then I think it is a bit weak to try to assert as much on the basis of a confession.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I am not arguing the value of confessions, I just feel that if we are going to debate whether or not a practice is sin then we should argue with scripture and not with confessions. If you can show me a verse that indicates that credobaptism constitutes sin, then I would be the first to convert. Since that is clearly not the case, then I think it is a bit weak to try to assert as much on the basis of a confession.

Sir, you are out of order. The question concerns whether the WCF confesses if it is a grave sin to contemn or neglect the ordinance. Full stop. This is not a thread to debate whether or not the WCF accurately interprets the Scriptures on this point. Those debates are saved for the Baptism forum. Furthermore, the WCF does not confess that credobaptism is a sin. It confesses credobaptism as well as the baptism of the children of believers.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

No one in their right mind would assert that credobaptism is a sin. It's the neglect of paedobaptism that constitutes such. The whole context of the thread, by the way, is pertaining to the Confession of Faith. Ergo, that's the direction of the discussion.

OK, well then to clarify, are we asserting that the WCF teaches that baptism as practiced by baptists is a sin? I understand that technically paedobaptists also practice credobaptism, but when one generally refers to credobaptism they are referring to a baptist understanding of the ordinance/sacrament.

---------- Post added at 10:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 PM ----------

Sir, you are out of order. The question concerns whether the WCF confesses if it is a grave sin to contemn or neglect the ordinance. Full stop. This is not a thread to debate whether or not the WCF accurately interprets the Scriptures on this point. Those debates are saved for the Baptism forum. Furthermore, the WCF does not confess that credobaptism is a sin. It confesses credobaptism as well as the baptism of the children of believers

It was certainly not my intention to derail the OP, and if that is the case I apologize. However I would still assert that the general tone of the thread portrays baptism as practiced by baptists as being sin, and with that I would disagree and take offense.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

However I would still assert that the general tone of the thread portrays baptism as practiced by baptists as being sin, and with that I would disagree and take offense.

I don't know what to do about the fact that you're offended by what the WCF confesses concerning the subject but it's still out of order.

We're not going to debate baptism here.

 

[Andres]

Thanks Rich. I considered posting this in one of the baptism forums, but Rich and Josh are correct, it's not a baptism question but rather a WCF question.

 

[dudley]

To contemn is to treat the ordinance with scorn or contempt. To neglect is to fail to obey it.

When we say we confess something as a Church it is because we believe that the Scriptures teach that it is a sin to treat Baptism with scorn or to neglect to baptize those whom God has commanded be baptized. We believe God has commanded the baptism of the children of believers and it is a sin to both despise this notion or to fail to obey that command.

I voted that I was not sure, after Rich's instruction above ..I change my vote and I agree with Rich...It is whay I like the PB becuase I am always learning more about my faith as a Presbyterian.

 

[Pilgrim]

Andres,

It seems to me that the WCF here is asserting that the rejection of baptism in general is sin, which includes infant baptism. The Baptist view is that infant baptism is strange fire and is thus sinful.

A couple of years I blogged about this part of the WCF. This was in the wake of a small controversy that erupted when Mark Dever published an article when he called infant baptism sinful, a characterization which some prominent PCA pastors objected to. Further Thoughts on the Reactions to Mark Dever Calling Infant Baptism Sin « One Pilgrim’s Progress

I had blogged a good bit around that time and my blog evidently had further reach at that time than I imagined. Prior to that most of my online interaction had been here or on similar groups where you had to register first to begin commenting. The nature of the blogosphere is such that when you mention someone, even a prominent leader, in a blog post and question something he wrote, he just might show up in the comments!

As you can see from the post and the comments, seeing the divide as being as wide as it was historically seen up until the early 20th Century has some implications for such ecumenical ventures as Together for the Gospel, The Gospel Coalition, the Phila. Conference on Reformed Theology and others. Both Fundamentalism and the New Evangelicalism that began in the 1950's tended to downplay denominational differences. The above named conferences are obviously more focused on Calvinism, but basically do the same WRT ecclesiology.