Thursday, February 02, 2006

Beyond Paedo

When my then fiancĂ© and I first started attending the church we now belong to, we were warned by a well-intentioned relative that, "they baptize babies, you know." Well, yes, we did know that. We also knew this church would baptize teens, thirtysomethings, and octogenarians if opportunity presented itself. However hazy on the details, that warning does point to the general perception of the Presbyterian/Reformed view of the sacrament-—that we’re only focused on baptizing infants.

And, we must admit, all too often, we perpetuate the stereotype. Our conferences, books, tracts and other teaching materials focus all too often on words like "infant" or "paedo-" and feature cute pictures of smiling newborns and pastel colors. Of course, the name for our position, "paedobaptism" does not help either. I’m not sure when that label was first applied, but it was a mistake to let it stick. (I half-way expect polymathis to hit me with an answer to this in the comments).

Let’s take a quick look at the Reformed Confessional Standards. How much emphasis do they place on infant baptism?

  • It’s about ¼ of the Belgic Confession’s Article 24, "Holy Baptism"
  • The Heidelberg Catechism has 6 questions on Baptism, only 1 of which mentions infants
  • The Second Helvetic Confession devotes 1 of its 6 paragraphs on Baptism to the subject (in passing, I’d note that paragraph is against the Anabaptist position, not a positive teaching on the doctrine)
  • Our Larger Catechism mentions it in 1 of 3 questions
  • Our Confession gives one of its seven paragraphs on Baptism to the idea (with a passing reference in another)
It is also interesting to note that on the whole, the topic of infants is the last thing mentioned by the Reformation-era standards.

What’s the point of this survey? As Lyle Bierma wrote recently,
The proportion of space is significant. It suggests that from the perspective of the confessions, there is no such thing as a separate doctrine of infant baptism, only a doctrine of baptism—a baptism of which adults and infants alike are the legitimate recipients. Whether one is an adult being baptized after conversion or an infant being baptized before conversion, the situation is basically the same…Both are called to embrace those promises [of forgiveness and the Holy Spirit] by faith, the adult immediately, and the infant as he or she grows older. Both are saved, not by their baptism, but by God’s grace as they live in faith and obedience as members of the covenant community. The confessions speak of only one doctrine of baptism, therefore, because there is only one covenant, one people of God, one promise, one set of conditions, and one covenantal sing—for adults and children alike.
What really separates us from our baptistic brethren is not that they withhold baptism from their children; it is our doctrine of baptism. Who we consider to be the objects of baptism comes out of that, it does not determine it.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

This article seems familier...

I think, being new to this issue, the issue is at the forefront with craedo's because they believe that paedo's think their children are saved-ergo they do not believe in salvation by grace alone. That is why it is such a big deal.

I now know that this is not the case so...

Hobster said...

yeah, familiar :) sheesh...DrP is always telling us never do anything we can use once when we can use it to do multiple things....

rustypth said...

just to be clear, I'm a RB (in the deep end of the pool with my goggles on, taking long dives to the bottom =)) who understands that not all paedo's believe in water baptismal regeneration.

CoB

tired said...

I anticipate the rest of this series. Dealing with anguishing realities from professing Christians caused a revolution in my concepts of the covenant and baptism; an argument for a seemingly similar shift via history and the confessions thus can only whet my appetite.

The american church is fixated on baptism ideally delineating true and false believers from one another in the church. From your post, if the Reformers held the view they had a funny way of going about it.

Since any professing Christian is or will soon be baptized, the modern view must tend to either shallowness or paralytic schizophrenia. We are called to discern the sheep from the goats, but not according to whether they graze, and that like they mean it. Baptism separates the city of God from the city of man. It is holiness that separates true believers from false.

polymathis said...

Well, you haven't caused a fire-storm yet--try harder.
As for that slam at that polymathis dude, he's humble enough to know when he's licked! However, if you can come up with a better name... :-)

Hobster said...

No slam intended! I seriously wouldn't have been surprised if you'd pulled that out of your hat.

A better name? Wait a bit...in the meantime, everyone study and memorize tired's last 2 paragraphs...