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.

One True Church?

Pope Benedict seems "paper happy" these days. I saw a couple of newspaper articles about this one today:
"Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church." (This is a link to the Vatican website.)

Here are a couple of links to news stories about the paper.
Vatican re-asserts belief Catholicism one true church
Catholic Church only true church, Vatican says

One of the articles I read in the paper spoke about how this would rile Protestants. (I couldn't find any links to those articles.) And I saw similar contents on a Catholic discussion board.

Personally, I'm not riled. Why should I be? I do disagree with Benedict, but he is the pope, after all. Why would anybody be surprised by this? If anything this statement helps to clarify a line of demarcation between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. There are signifcant and essential differences between Catholic & many Protestant doctrines of salvation and the church, as well as issues of authority. I don't believe the Roman Catholic Church (as an organization) is a true church.

Too many people seem to forget that we can disagree without anger. But I'm not surprised some people don't like this, especially those who think all roads lead to God (or a god or gods.) There are also those who seek an outward unity at the expense of the truth.

I might expand upon this in future posts.

An Answer to a Question I was Once Asked About Prayer

Back when I was recovering from my medical emergency and posted several times about it, I was asked how I feel about Roman Catholics praying for me. I meant to address this question here, but never did. In fact I know Roman Catholics were praying for me, as I was born and raised in it, and most of my extended family would still claim some level of allegiance to it. Some are quite devout, some are more nominal.

Basically I would not support the idea of prayer to Mary or any saint. But I did tend to focus on the concern and love that was shown by people taking time out of their day to pray for me. I know God's will would be done, and it would not be thwarted or changed by people praying in a way I believe is incorrect at best. So my hope and trust was in God all along, but I also was encouraged that people would take time to pray for me. So while I would discount some of the prayers said for me, I would never discount the person who did the praying. Some who said they prayed for me would not call themselves Christians of any sort. They prayed to an impersonal god or force of some sort. I would definitely discount that prayer, but again not discount the person.

I think it's important to make that distinction. No matter what disagreements you have with another person--they are still a human being, and deserve to be treated as one. So if you prayed for my health, to any god, being, person or whatever--I may strongly disagree with you and your prayer, but I do appreciate the time you took and concern and love that shows. (If you prayed for me not to be a Christian/Protestant/Presbyterian/Reformed believer, etc--well, I would disagree with that as well.)

For more on this, with a different reason behind it, see this post on the Beggars All blog.

A Silly Story about Roman Catholicism

I call this a silly story, because if you're not a Roman Catholic it shouldn't bother you. It shouldn't bother you because you probably don't believe the premise to start with, so the story doesn't matter. If you are Roman Catholic you may or may not put stock in the premise. If you don't, again it doesn't matter. Only Roman Catholics who take the premise seriously need worry--and I'd think most of those would be likely to believe the offical version of it from the Vatican. Maybe it was a slow news day. Maybe, like me, they found it oddly amusing.

Vatican denies hiding the full truth about the end of the world

As I am not a Roman Catholic anymore, and I don't believe Mary really appeared to the three children and she didn't give them any visions I don't believe in the "Secrets of Fatima." Subsequently, even if the Vatican is hiding details, it doesn't matter. But still, for some reason, I do find this oddly amusing.