Presbyterian Paedobaptism and Roman Catholic Paedobaptism Part 1

Once upon a time, in the comments of a post, a Roman Catholic asked me the difference between the Presbyterian and RC views on paedo-baptism (baptizing infants/children.) Both baptize infants. Are the views that different? Sometimes I see critiques of paedobaptism that only deal with one view, yet the writer acts as if they have vanquished all paedobaptists. There are four broad categories of paedobaptism I am aware of-Presbyterian/Reformed, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran. (Possibly Eastern Orthodox should be included as a separate category. I would include the Methodist view as a subset of the Anglican. Anglicans also have some differences among themselves.) These posts will only be dealing with the first two. I may address the others later.

These posts are also not intended as a defense for paedobaptism itself, nor are they intended as an examination of the credobaptist (Believer only) view. What they are intended to be is an overview of the differences between the Presbyterian/Reformed view and the Roman Catholic view. Undoubtedly, I may miss some of the finer nuances in doing this. So I welcome comments if anybody feels I miss anything, or misrepresent either view. If such comments are left I may interact with them in the comments section or in a new post. I may not interact with them here, but I will not ignore them. Which response I give will depend on the comments’ relevancy and on my time. Of course, it’s possible no comments will be left as well.

I will be presenting the two views primarily from the Roman Catholic Church’s most recent catechismCatechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) and the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). These documents are seen as having validity for Roman Catholicism and Presbyterianism. (If anybody wants to jump in with the Heidelberg Catechism, which is the Reformed denominations’ counterpart to the WCF, please go ahead.)

Both Roman Catholics and Presbyterians refer to baptism as a sacrament and a means of grace, but they mean different things by this. Using the same terminology can certainly lead to confusion. I have seen more than one Baptist assuming we mean the same thing, and so “disproving” the Presbyterian view. In Roman Catholicism baptism is a means of grace as it wipes the slate clean and provides the recipient with grace with which they can co-operate to gain merit. The Presbyterian view is tied to the idea that baptism is tied to God’s covenant with His people and the promises and blessings of that Covenant. It is a means of grace in that sense. Both these descriptions are only scratching the surface, but it does show there are distinct differences.

In the CCC sacraments are described this way-

1131 The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions.

1132 The Church celebrates the sacraments as a priestly community structured by the baptismal priesthood and the priesthood of ordained ministers.

1133 The Holy Spirit prepares the faithful for the sacraments by the Word of God and the faith which welcomes that word in well-disposed hearts. Thus the sacraments strengthen faith and express it.

1134 The fruit of sacramental life is both personal and ecclesial. For every one of the faithful an the one hand, this fruit is life for God in Christ Jesus; for the Church, on the other, it is an increase in charity and in her mission of witness.

Chapter 27 of the WCF describes sacraments this way-

1. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word.

2. There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.

3. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

4. There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.

5. The sacraments of the old testament in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new.

While there is some similar language used, when you read these you see the different emphases of each. The corresponding sections on baptism show the differences more clearly. I'll take a look at those in part 2.