The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Household Baptisms

It may be. Nor would I say that the framers of the Westminster Confession are the last word. But what I would say is that the reformed creeds and confessions teach the same precise doctrine that I do. No more and no less. It is therefore the historic and credal view of paedobaptism that I am setting forth. You may not like it and that is certainly your privilege as a student of the word of God. I would not deny that to you. But what I would point out is that my view is not some aberration from the historic credal paedobaptist view of the reformers -- it is, in fact, precisely their view, be it right or wrong. I do not quote the fathers to demonstrate something is biblical. I quote the fathers to demonstrate that it is not I who has departed from the historic reformed understanding.


That is not the question at hand, though. The question at hand is whether they are to be regarded as belonging to the world or the church. This is not speaking of children qua children, but baptized children qua baptized. And again, you are free to agree or disagree with Ursinus. I merely quoted him as an authority on the HC because he was its primary author -- not because he is himself infallible.


The very creeds that I quoted maintain the same thing. There is not a reformed creed that avers that children of believers are born sinless or without a corrupt nature. Whether they are "in need" of regeneration depends upon whether they have already been regenerated. But the WCF again clearly states at 28.6 that regeneration is not so tied to the time of baptism that it may not occur before or after such baptism takes place.


Look, the fact is that the reformation doctrine of infant baptism was precisely the same as mine in every regard. I have demonstrated that by numerous proofs from not only Scottish documents, but from the reformed continental creeds as well. You are entitled to your opinion. But your opinion is not the opinion of the Westminster divines or the Belgic divines or the churches that have adopted the Heidelberg Catechism. That is fine. You are not held to that as your ultimate standard. We believe sola Scriptura. But you cannot escape the fact that it is you who differs from the reformed standards on this subject and not I. Bringing up this old bugaboo about confessions not being infallible is simply beside the point of the discussion.


Let's put it in more precise terms. Anyone who has departed from the reformed creeds has ipso facto departed from them. One cannot rightly and fairly depart from those standards and then accuse one who continues to maintain them of some aberration from the reformed faith.


Fine, you disagree with the Westminster Directory. You are not the first and I doubt you will be the last. But it is not correct for you then to imply that those of us who continue to believe the very things that the reformers of both the first and second reformation maintained are somehow the ones who have departed from the reformed understanding of paedobaptism.


And I have repeatedly stated that you have every right to that opinion. But the language of the Westminster standards and of the continental reformed confessions do not teach what you are objecting against. You are importing ideas onto the language that are simply not there. Alternatively, you may simply disagree with the [historic] reformed view of paedobaptism. I cannot say with certainty that you are doing one or the other. But the language I use is not different from the language of the historic creeds, be it right or wrong.

God bless