Baptizing Small Children
16 comments | Permalink
Here's an opportunity for good iron-sharpening-iron discussion, in a spirit of gentleness and respect, regarding baptism.
If you're up for it, read this article by Vern Poythress: Indifferentism and Rigorism in the Church: With Implications for Baptizing Small Children (originally published in 1997 in the Westminster Theological Journal). It's a rapprochement of sorts between baptists and paedobaptists.
Poythress set forth four truths: (1) baptism marks the inception of life with Christ and the joining of the church; (2) credible profession of faith rather than infallible evidence of regeneration is required; (3) credible profession must be appropriate to the age and gifts of the person; (4) faith consists primarily in trust in Christ rather than intellectual mastery, precise verbal articulation of the truth, or self-conscious, autonomous decision-making.
If you agree, then it's very hard to avoid the conclusion that children--even young children--should be baptized.
Poythress also has a sequel to this article, Linking Small Children with Infants in the Theology of Baptizing. {link fixed} As with virtually everything Poythress pens, this article is filled with provocative points and insights. However, as a convinced credobaptist, my sense is that one would not come to these conclusions regarding the linkage of baptism with nascent infant faith unless one first believed in paedobaptism or was seeking validation for it.
But going back to the first article: what do you think? Are Poythress' arguments, especially concerning rigorism, persuasive? (I'd love for the 9Marks guys to weigh in, too!)
If you're up for it, read this article by Vern Poythress: Indifferentism and Rigorism in the Church: With Implications for Baptizing Small Children (originally published in 1997 in the Westminster Theological Journal). It's a rapprochement of sorts between baptists and paedobaptists.
Poythress set forth four truths: (1) baptism marks the inception of life with Christ and the joining of the church; (2) credible profession of faith rather than infallible evidence of regeneration is required; (3) credible profession must be appropriate to the age and gifts of the person; (4) faith consists primarily in trust in Christ rather than intellectual mastery, precise verbal articulation of the truth, or self-conscious, autonomous decision-making.
If you agree, then it's very hard to avoid the conclusion that children--even young children--should be baptized.
Poythress also has a sequel to this article, Linking Small Children with Infants in the Theology of Baptizing. {link fixed} As with virtually everything Poythress pens, this article is filled with provocative points and insights. However, as a convinced credobaptist, my sense is that one would not come to these conclusions regarding the linkage of baptism with nascent infant faith unless one first believed in paedobaptism or was seeking validation for it.
But going back to the first article: what do you think? Are Poythress' arguments, especially concerning rigorism, persuasive? (I'd love for the 9Marks guys to weigh in, too!)
posted by JT at Thursday, August 09, 2007
16 Comments:
The links to the two articles go to the same url.The second link should be: http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/1997Linking.htm
Thanks for these articles, Justin. They are encouraging and thought-provoking. I agree that much of what Vern Poythress writes is very humble and helpful.
Perhaps a majority of Baptists affirm a "sinner's prayer" methodology, that requires saving faith to be able to be verbalized in a crisis-prayer moment in time. This would make them less likely to agree with Vern's points here.
Yet if a full-orbed, doctrinally precise expression of faith is not required of children, does a mature repentance that demands the child verbalize that he recognizes he is lost, is not needed either. Many children at young ages (I speak as a father of 3 girls aged 4, 2, and 1) are able to understand sin and evidence repentance of specific instances of sin.
I think the many Biblical testimonies to the Spirit's work in infants and younger, give much credence to Poythress' view. And his points about rigorism and indefference are excellent.
Too often Baptist miss the fuller meaning of Baptism. The fact that water is used symbolizes cleansing, and helps with the inaugaral aspect of it.
Plenty to think on here, and I do appreciate the links.
Blessings from the Cross,
Bob Hayton
This is still an aspect if baptism that I am thinking about, but I have found a couple of good books from different perspectives enlightening:
Dennis Gundersen, Your Child's Profession of Faith
Ted Christman, Forbid Them Not: Rethinking the Baptism and Church Membership of Children and Young People
Thanks for the post Justin. I think it is urgent that Baptists think through this issue, especially as it related to the identity of our children and frequent communion. I mentioned a few things to consider in light of these articles on my blog
I like Spurgeon's words on childhood conversions taken from Spiritual Parenting:
"Some people expect almost infinite wisdom in a child before they can believe him to be the subject of divine grace. This is monstrous. ... It was a sort of understood thing that as soon as a child was converted, he was to turn into an old man! I never see anything in Scripture to support this theory. ... So learn from the Master's words that you are not to try to make the child like yourself, but you are to be transformed until you yourself are like the child."
These words by Spurgeon obviously do not negate the fact that a child must have a credible profession of faith prior to being baptized. Obviously, there is great wisdom in waiting and teaching the importance and significance of what it means and why we do it. Generally, at the church I serve, I encourage parents to wait until their son or daughter is in their upper elementary years before proceeding with baptism as we walk through a process together. But like Spurgeon, (and Jesus for that matter), we must not let the children be hindered in coming to the Savior both to trust him and follow him in baptism.
I wonder if we are not guilty in our age of over-individualization, as well. We think that *we* need to be the one professing our own faith. Is it impossible that a less individualistic society would have fewer problems with the parents making the profession of faith for the infant? Was this not the case in the OT context of circumcision?
Here's a link to Mark Dever's sermon: "At What Age Should Believers Be Baptized?" If you don't have the new book edited by Shreiner & Wright, then I think this is the most accessible way to get Dever's arguments against baptizing young children.
I'm not an official "9 marks guy", but have been influenced by Dever's argument on this subject. Point 2 seems like a false dichotomy to me. It actually sounds like somewhat of a straw man (which is uncharacteristic from Poythress). Do any Baptists claim to look for "infallible evidence of regeneration" in baptismal candidates. Do Baptist even believe that a finite, human pastor or group of elders could discern such evidence?
The key concern motivating those who would postpone baptism is regenerate church membership. I know this is important to all Baptists, but where you fall on the issue of the baptism of children seems to be a matter of which concerns you prioritize.
That's an interesting point, Kyle, but I think there is still a point here: does baptism have to follow regeneration? If it does, then if a person doesn't feel that he was truly saved before, he will have to be baptized again. If it doesn't, then there can be no principial objection to infant baptism.
Lane,
It is good to see a Presbyterian brother joining in the discussion. You may not remember, but I was at WTS when you were there and you and your wife were kind enough to have me to dinner while I was attending Tenth College Union for a while. I remember being very impressed by your library of commentaries.
Anyway, the Baptist position, which I hold, is that Baptism should follow regeneration. For a Baptist, any "baptism" that precedes regeneration is, in the words of Monty Python, a "farcical aquatic ceremony." But Baptists admit that wisdom is needed to determine what evidence of regeneration is since we can't infallibly determine who is and who isn't regenerate. For some, the credible profession of faith of a small child is evidence enough. But others are a bit more cautious.
I believe that children should constantly be encouraged to rely on the work of Christ and to learn more about Him, and time will tell whether the well intentioned profession at a young age was a true expression of faith, or simply the eagerness a child to please his parents, or perhaps even more enticing: to get to go swimming at church.
I think with point 2, Vern is hitting the common practice of waiting for an adult believer to go through a membership class or a baptism class, or possibly even a weeks long discipleship stage. Some churches purposefully wait with specific people because they fear a relapse or something too.
Of course at some churches, people mill around for years before finally deciding to apply for baptism. In those cases its the people's fault more than the church's stance, I'd think.
I personally think Dever's position is detrimental to the faith and growth of our children. The only way we can hold off baptism until that age is if the Lord's Supper does not play a prominent role in the life of the church. If we were to practice weekly communion, we would be faced with some very pressing issues involving the children of our church and their identity. What kind of message does that send to a 14, 15, 16, etc., year old who cannot take communion?
I also wonder how much we have over-intellectualized the faith due to the fact that we have to wait such a long period of time before we get a "credible" profession of faith. If we take the NT as a guide at all, we see no amount of "wait time" for those who profess their faith. Even if this should not be the norm, we should at least seriously consider what its significance is concerning baptism.
Wow, small world, Kyle. I can't quite place your face, though I am striving mightily, Maybe a last name would help.
Is it impossible for a parent to confess faith for their children? Or does a person have to do it for themselves no matter what age they are? I see no biblical command that says that each person has to confess their own faith at every time in their life. In fact, I see parents coming to Jesus with their children, confessing the faith of their children (such confession could of course be false) by asking His blessing to be upon them. Jesus gave it. Even if Jesus isn't talking about baptism proper there, isn't the principle the same? Isn't Jesus giving His blessing to the covenantal idea?
This is an issue we as a church have been wrestling through for some time and we are still wrestling.
Our major hang up is the issue of church discipline/removal from the fellowship-communion.
We believe there are only two ordinances for the church. Baptism and Communion.
We don't see how we can baptize a child and yet withhold communion with all its privileges, responsibilities and consequences.
So if we were to baptize an 11 year old child and that child is unrepentant in a sin, then we would need to remove the child from the fellowship/communion.
But we believe that authority for a child at that age (when this ends is somewhat arbitrary) lies with the father. If the child sins, it is the father's responsibility to teach, correct, reprove, discipline/train the child.
So we are holding loosely to the position that we will not baptize a child until he/she is no longer under the covering/oversight of the parents to "discipline" him/her. Sometime between 16 years old - 18 years old.
I know there are gaps in our thinking...we just don't know where they are:-)
Your thoughts are appreciated!
Baptism is ritual child abuse. It begins the process that subjects innocent children to complex dogmatic issues and ideas which even adults have difficulty in grasping (transsubstantiation, virgin birth, salvation by grace or works, revelation as truth or fiction, etc.) and presents these ideas as truth. When the child matures and begins to see other worldviews as conflicting with those which they were indoctrinated into, a sense of chaos...betrayal if you will, begins to take over and they repel against the church as having lied to them. This is psychologically devestating to the person and many abandon the church from this deception.
It is better to set an example by your actions, as a parent, than to indoctrinate your babies. When they are old enough, teach them about ALL religions and let them make an informed decision. The Unitarian Universalist church has an excellent Religious education program that educates, rather than indoctrinates, the youth to make their own spiritual decisions and emerge as a spiritually confidant adult. If Christianity cannot survive this kind of religious education as THE truth, then it isn't the truth after all, is it?
I haven't read that work of Poythress, but I have read Paul Jewett's "Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace". Not convincing as it ignores 1/2 of Scripture. I used to be a Believers-Only Baptist, but in the past 3 years, my beliefs have become Covenanted Presbyterian. I still strongly believe that Believers-Only Baptism is not Scriptural at all and is, as the elder RC Sproul says, a "thinly veiled insult against God".
Growing up in a traditional Afrian American Baptist church, what I have learned from experience is that many children are baptized and the majority are not believers. To give an example, out of about 30 children that I grew up with all of us were baptized, but only 3 have any evidence of Saving Faith. After seeing the Blasphemy Challenge, one has to wonder how many of their children are being duped or coerced into walking in their parents religious footsteps, without having a clear grasp of the Gospel. I have seem to encounter two strawmans from the previous post. 1. Using Israel as an example for Baptism as it relates to circumcision. 2. Christ's statement about "do not forbid the children". The problems are this. 1. Every Child was commanded to be circumcised (no options) 2. How many of these children were actually baptized by the disciples? So the believers baptism is the only scriptural baptism that we can find. Unless you use a loose exegesis throughout the household baptisms in Acts.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home