10.
Yet another objection raised by those who reject infant baptism is that those
of us who practice it are not consistent with ourselves in that we do not treat
our children as if they were members of the church. They point out that despite
all our claims for the validity of infant church membership, we seldom see
churches treating their baptized children as church members, that is, instructing
and discipling them in the same way that is done for adult members.
We
cannot deny that many churches do act inconsistently in this matter. But we
must hasten to point out that logical inconsistency in a person's practice says
nothing about the logical consistency of the system he professes to believe.
Indeed, the same thing can be said of Baptists. If they were consistent with
their own system, they would not teach their children to pray, they would not
teach their children to read the Bible, nor would they teach their children to
do anything consistent with what could be called a Christian lifestyle. It is
not an indictment against the doctrine of infant church membership when a
church is profligate in her duties.
This neglect has a
long history. The very beginning of the book of Judges informs us that the
generation under consideration in the following narrative had not been taught
by their parents. Scripture not only informs us that this generation did not
know God, but it further points out that they were unaware of the rich
spiritual history of their nation. This means they had not been taught the
principles of life in the covenant. In 17th century England, it
appears that the same was the case. Thomas Manton, in his preface to the
Westminster Standards, pointed out that in what was considered a Christian
nation there was a perpetual complaint about “bad children.” Manton put the
blame squarely on the shoulders of the parents. In fact, the Westminster
Standards were written to address this very issue. Through the means of the
Shorter and Larger Catechisms parents could train up their children in the
nurture and admonition of the Lord. God has always enjoined upon parents the
duty of catechizing their children. This idea comes up 3 or 4 times in the book
of Deuteronomy. If we are consistent with our belief in the doctrine of infant
church membership, and we demonstrate this belief by the logically consistent
practice of infant baptism, then we are wholly without excuse and infinitely
culpable when we do not disciple our children after we have acknowledged their
church membership by administering covenant baptism.
Your response to the cavil is correct: the Reformed baptize our children because they ARE members of the visible church. The Westminster Confession XXV:2 says, "The visible church ... consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, and of their children." The fact that so many paedobaptists are lackadaisical about the obligation that this puts on us is because of so much arminianism that has seeped into our churches. God will certainly not hold guiltless those parents, elders, and congregations, who treat our covenantal responsibilities with such contempt.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment, Chris. Your insights are always welcome.
Delete