Wow! So it has been quite a while since I’ve last posted. Our family now resides in Rochester MN while we save money for seminary and take some much needed time off from school. I’m currently working at a Starbucks directly across from the Mayo Clinic, we are members of a wonderful PCA church (Trinity Presbyterian), and I’ve pretty much devoted most of my time to reading books I’ve been unable to read throughout the past few years due to the intensity of school work. All this to say that our family has been greatly blessed by our good Lord.
Earlier this morning, our family had the incredible privilege of visiting our former church in Dickson City, PA (Faith Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church.) Pastor Bell’s sermon was an exposition of 2 Tim 1:1-18 and was centered around the idea of the centrality of the family in Christian discipleship. One comment was particularly engaging and I’ve been meditating on it ever since.
“We believe in infant baptism because we reject the premise that the Christian life begins when a personal decision for Christ is made. The Christian life of a covenant child begins with the faith of Christian parents, and the administration of the covenant sign and seal.”
Now this is a very succinct statement concerning the historic Reformed formulation of paedobaptism and Christian nurture. While this truth remains a very basic tenet of Reformed thought and practice, its profundity addresses the radical individualism running rampant in both Baptist and Reformed circles. It’s become standard evangelical dogma in most circles that the most fundamental of spiritual realities is a “personal relationship with Jesus” mediated through personal reading of Scripture, personal prayer, individual acts of service, and individual encounters with God. The thoroughgoing ecclesial faith of our confessions has been all but lost on a generation fueled by enlightenment ideals of individuality and spiritual self-ownership. If there is one area of theology the church needs desperately to recover, it’s a robust ecclesiology informed by the Reformed confessions and regulated by the holy Scriptures. Christian discipleship begins not with revivalistic conversion experiences or personal professions of faith. Reformed ecclesiology demands that genuine Christian discipleship for a covenant child begins with the faith of Christian parents and the administration of the sign and seal of the covenant in baptism.
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 11, 2009 at 2:47 am
Richard Zuelch
The trouble with your former pastor’s comments on paedobaptism (and I’m a paedobaptist) is that they do not take into account (and, of course, I have not heard the entire sermon) that some children of Christian parents are not members of the elect. All human beings are born sinners, and all need to have the gospel presented to them as they grow and mature within their families.
Since we Reformed people believe neither in presumptive regeneration nor baptismal regeneration, I’d be interested to know how your former pastor can justify his remarks (again, not having heard the entire sermon). We cannot just assume that all children born into covenant homes are covenant children.
May 11, 2009 at 7:34 pm
sacramentalpiety
Richard, thanks so much for visiting the blog and putting your perspective out there. I’ll try to critically address your concerns here as best I can.
“Since we Reformed people believe neither in presumptive regeneration nor baptismal regeneration, I’d be interested to know how your former pastor can justify his remarks (again, not having heard the entire sermon). We cannot just assume that all children born into covenant homes are covenant children.”
I think this comment manifests a profound misunderstanding of Reformed sacramentology and its history in the thinking of Reformed divines throughout the centuries. Sure there is a basic Reformed consensus on what constitutes the integral components of Reformation sacramentology, but I’d like to propose that comments like yours tend to be a bit reductionistic.
First, to say that “we Reformed people believe in neither presumptive regeneration and baptismal regeneration” is assuming that Reformed theology is entirely monolithic in its nature and scope, a mistake easily remedied by actually consulting primary source material. A number of Reformed divines postulated views of baptism which regarded its efficacy as regenerative in nature, the most notable example being Westminster divine Cornelius Burgess whose most famous book makes the point clear- “The Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants.” Also Samuel Ward, a Puritan-leaning Anglican who died before he could take part in the Assembly dealt with baptism and its relationship to justification and faith. There are also Bucer, Vermigli, Zanchi, Calvin, Beza- all divines with a very high view of the sacrament’s efficacy and its relationship to regeneration.
As to presumptive regeneration, it’s also a mistake to hands down say that “we Reformed folk” don’t believe in presumptive regeneration. Have you ever read Abraham Kuyper or consulted the minutes of the 1905 CRC Synod in the Netherlands which essentially dogmatized presumptive regeneration as the denominations official position? The Dutch Reformed have debated this subject for years, and it’s far from resolved.
Don’t take me to say that I believe Reformed theology to be some kind of theological soup where everyone thinks for themselves. That’s called evangelicalism. I’m a confessionalist to the core. I’m only suggesting that apart from the essential aspects of our common faith embodied in the Westminster Standards, there is plenty of room for a variety of opinion on secondary issues. Now what exactly constitutes a “secondary issue” is a different conversation altogether.
All this to say that while I don’t believe in “baptismal regeneration”, at least in its most popular usage, the term being way too overused and misunderstood these days, and while I don’t embrace Kuyper’s theological formulations on presumptive regeneration, I think we need to be a little more careful in hands down dismissing positions we just don’t like, or personally don’t want to fit into our personal “Reformed” paradigms. We need to be careful to avoid reductionism and allow for the variety of positions held by legitimate Reformed divines throughout history to be taught, explained, and clarified.
As to my pastors comment, nothing he said in any way contradicts the historic Reformed position on paedobaptist thought and praxis. I actually find it really surprising that this most basic of all Reformed tenets would trouble you in any way.
Who even brought up the issue that some children of Christian parents aren’t members of the elect? This is a non-sequitir if I’ve ever seen one. The Reformed Confessions have always recognized that both regenerate and unregenerate infants of Christian parents ARE indeed covenant children and legitimate members of the visible church. This doesn’t mean that every covenant child is bound for the promised land, or that baptism automatically secures them a permanent place within the covenant for all eternity. This all comes down to the issue of the distinction between the visible and invisible church. According to WCF 25:2, all children of believing parents are partakers of the covenant and members of the visible church.
And I think a pastor in his 80’s, having ministered in the Free Church of Scotland and the ARP most of his life, having sat under D. Martyn Lloyd Jones’s pulpit for over 10 years, and having received his PhD at Cambridge in Reformation related studies, would have a very good grasp on total depravity and Christian discipleship. The point was simply that the beginning of the Christian life begins NOT with some kind of personal decision, but with the administration of baptism. This has always been the standard Reformed position. Seems plain and simple to me.
No this doesn’t mean that all infants are immediately regenerated when water touches skin, or that baptism is some kind of regenerating magic working by mere virtue of its administration. We Reformed, to use your language, according to the Westminster Standards, believe that the blessings of the covenant are signified, sealed, and applied to the covenant child whether regenerate or not.
And as to your statement concerning “not all children born into covenant homes are covenant children”, I only direct your attention to our confessional standards.
“The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.” -WCF 25:2
Now that’s some strong language. According to our Confession, the children of believers, regenerate and unregenerate, are citizens of Christ’s kingdom and members of the house and family of God.
Also, take a look at my “notable quotables” section. There are a number of quotes from Reformed divines like Calvin, Bucer, and others on the subject of baptism. Didn’t mean to be too harsh here. I appreciate your questions and concerns. God bless.