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.
And here we have arrived at one of the more contentious statements in the Confession. The dispute between conscientious Christians over the proper recipients of baptism that has been conducted in earnest since the early days of the Protestant Reformation is not easily resolved. Both sides (it tends to be a polar debate) claim to have the weight of Scripture. In this regard, it is helpful to point out that there are three types of baptism described in the New Testament: Baptismal accounts naming no individuals; baptismal accounts where the individual has no identifiable household; and accounts of household baptisms. Only nine persons are specifically mentioned as recipients of baptism in the New Testament, and of those two did not have households and two we know nothing more about, while the remaining five persons had households that received baptism. Infants are not specifically mentioned, one way or the other. So both sides argue from silence when it is claimed, on the one hand, that Scripture does not command the baptism of infants, and, on the other hand, that Scripture does not forbid the baptism of infants.
Covenant theologians, in which category the Westminster divines belong, have looked to the parallel between circumcision and baptism (see the previous post on the correlation and continuity between the ordinances of the old and new covenants) as favoring including infants as recipients of baptism. If one does not accept this parallel/continuity then the argument is harder to sustain. Persons interested in learning more about the paedobaptist position should consult John Murray's elegant discussion.
Tomorrow: Is baptism essential to salvation?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment