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.

A Practical Example on Baptismal Issues

First, if you haven't done so already, read the posts on baptism below.
Then go read this. It's by a credobaptist, questioning Baptist practice on Church Membership. I'm going to checking back as well to see his follow up posts. Thanks to Dave at Rotundus for sharing it with me.

A Note on the Baptism Posts

Just so nobody gets the wrong idea.

Recently I have posted here on baptism, and left comments on various blogs about baptism. In those comments I have tried to make it clear I consider Baptists my brothers and sisters in the Lord. As far as I can tell we do not teach a different gospel, nor do we worship a different Christ.

What my main concern has been is how we interact with each other in terms of fellowship. This then affects how we view and practice the Lord's Supper and church membership in addition to other areas of Christian life. From my perspective I understand why a Baptist holds to their beliefs and practices. But I see inconsistencies in that. If we are all brothers & sisters--why the barriers?

From their point of view I hold to inconsistencies, and some have pointed out to me we have a "two tiered membership." (For example-elders in a PCA church must hold to Presbyterian distinctives such as paedobaptism, but members do not need to-they only need a credible confession of faith.)

I have explained before that they are adding conditions not found in the Bible, by not admitting all believers into membership. Also a "two tiered membership" is Biblical as the Bible gives extra conditions and accountability to elders. (See
1 Tim 3:1-7 (& verses 8-13 speak of deacons);Titus 1:5-9; and James 3:1

James 3:1, while it doesn't mention elders, does speak about teachers-and in 1 Tim 3:2 elders are to be able to teach. The elders are responsible for the teaching in the church. (Although others may teach in some settings, the elders are still overseers of that teaching.) So when James writes, "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness" he is showing that those who teach have a higher level of accountability.

I am under no delusion that my posts will be turning all Baptists to my views, nor am I condemning them for holding those views. What I am saying is this: Even though we have some disagreements on important issues, we do agree on the essentials. That is we agree on what is needed for salvation. So let's act like that more often.

A Baptist Proves that Baptism is not by Immersion; well sort of

This is no ways meant to actually prove anything. But it was amusing, and has a point to think about.
A Baptist Proves that Baptism is not by Immersion; well sort of.

Interesting Quote from an Interesting Book on Baptism

I just finished reading the book, The Waters that Divide, by Donald Bridges and David Phypers. Bridge, a Baptist minister in England, and Phypers, and Anglican wrote this book together. They didn't do it in a debate style, but co-wrote it. They presented both sides. While the paedo-baptist position ion this book is more geared to the Anglican view, it does try to cover other paedo-baptist views. (Unfortunately this book seems to be out of print.)

While the Biblical reasons are the most important reasons, their section on hostory is quite interesting and informative. The John Owen quote I provided in the post below this one isn't from this book, but I found it after trying to verify the context of a quote they use from Owen. In fact they compare Owen with Bunyan. And they come out quite similar, despite Bunyan being claimed by Baptists. This is not referred to to "prove" paedobaptism. The chapter is more in relationship to how paedobaptists and credobaptists interact and fellowship. And that is currently an active issue on the internet and in some churches.

Two of the later chapters are titled "Problems for Paedobaptists" and "Problems for Baptists." These chapters are not about problems with either view, but are about problems those with either view could face. The paedobaptist chapter does concern Anglicans more, but contained these words I found quite illuminating. After discussing how there are churches that will baptize any infant that is requested (which they both disagree with-as do I) and lament how baptisms are often done before, after or otherwise separate from the main Sunday service, they write:

If baptism is the means of entry into the church, then it should take place in the presence of the church congregation, not merely on church premises. If paedobaptism involves obligations for the church then as many church members as possible must attend baptisms that they might be aware of the obligations involved in receiving new members into fellowship. If paedobaptism is to mean anything at all to those who are baptized it must constantly nbe dispalyed before them, and its significance explained as they grow in the life of the church, but as long as baptism remains a hole-in-a-corner affair this can never be.

(Bridges, Donald & David Phypers, The Waters that Divide, Inter-Varsity Press, 1977, p. 155)

Good stuff to think about, and part of the reason I am glad our congregation has baptisms during the service and we remind the congregation of the responsibilities and we are reminded of our own baptisms--no matter what age we were baptised at.

(And if you can get a copy of the book, check it out.)

John Owen-"Grounds and reasons of nonconformity" and Baptism

There has been a renewed interest on some blogs about how baptism affects fellowship, church membership and communion. Here are some links (which will also link to other comments as well):
John Piper
Wayne Grudem comments posted on another blog (with permission.)
Baptizoblogodebate Roundup
Ligon Duncan joins in

Just do a search for "john piper paedobaptist membership" and you'll get plenty. Now not all the discussion is Piper and Grudem.

A while back Bethlehem Baptist (Where Piper is the pastor) did consider allowing Paedobaptists-This is Worldmagblog's first mention of it. Eventually it was rejected, but it did receive lots of debate. (I searched Bethlehem Baptist's site and Piper's Desiring God for references, but found none.

The Presbyterian Church in America, of which I am a member, teaches and practices paedobaptism. We also allow Baptists who don't hold to it to be members. For the most part I believe a Baptist would be allowed to take communion in a PCA church.

The main reason for this, as far as I understand it, is so that we are not adding conditions to these that Scripture does not add. As baptism does not secure salvation, it is not an essential in that sense. We are not to bind people's consciences with what is not explicitly commanded in Scripture. (Yes, baptism is commanded in the Bible, but it is nowhere said to be necessary for salvation. There are those who hold to baptism being essential, but they do so by inference, and that is a separate issue. Here I am referring to Baptists who do not hold to baptismal regeneration.)

Which brings me to John Owen.
In his work, Discourse concerning Evangelical Love, Church Peace, and Unity he does speak of these things. In fact at the time he was involved in addressing these issues, and he had marvelous insight that I believe we should listen to today. Here's Chapter V, the most relevant chapter in the work. I give you that link for context of this statement by Owen, to which I say, "Amen."

...for in his worship we are forbidden to add to the things that he hath appointed no less than to pretend commands from him which he hath not given. He, therefore, who professeth and pleadeth his willingness to observe and do in church-communion whatever Christ hath instituted and commanded cannot regularly be refused the communion of any church, under any pretence of his refusal to do other things which confessedly are not so required.

"Don't they baptize babies?"

(There is a point here, please bear with me. Thanks.)
A while back I posted a link to a page on baptism on mongergism.com-(This one here.) On that page there are a large number of links to articles on baptism, especially ones defending either paedo (infant/child) or credo (believers) baptism. One of my readers asked about the similarities between the Presbyterian & Roman Catholic views on paedobaptism. I've been working on that, but other things keep coming up and I am not happy with the current state of what I've written. But it is coming.

In writing it I did realize that credobaptists may read it and say, "So what?" From their perspective neither Presbyterians nor Roman Catholics have the correct view. The point of the article is not to defend paedobaptism, but to show the differences between two views on it.

This train of thought reminded me of when I first started attending a Presbyterian Church. My non-Presbyterian Christian friends often seemed amazed or concerned. I would often hear some form of the question, "Don't they baptize babies?" Often the tone of their voice was as if they were asking, "Don't they eat babies?" or some other atrocity. They were often amazed that although, yes, Presbyterians baptize babies, it isn't the cornerstone of their existence, belief and practice. It still happens, and we hear it from visitors.

Yes, Presbyterians do baptize babies. No, it doesn't make us aliens, monsters, or outcasts. We value our credobaptist brothers and sisters, and we share the same gospel, especially with those who are reformed. We learn from them, and they learn from us. Not all who hold to paedobaptism are Christians. Neither are all who hold to credobaptism. What you hold to about baptism may not affect your salvation, unless you tie salvation directly to baptism (for example those who hold to some form of baptismal regenration.) The PCA doesn't require members to hold to paedobaptism. The reason is we don't wish to add conditions to salvation that are not in the Bible.

LOTW October 9, 2006

Thanksgiving Day is almost over for us Canadians, and so to celebrate a new edition of Links of the Whenever---

First up a link on baptism.
This is actually a link to a page of links on
monergism.com

At this link you'll find several articles on baptism, defending both Paedobaptism (or covenant baptism--baptising children of believers) and Credobaptism (baptising believers only). There are also articles linked on this page on the baptsim of the Holy Spirit and also on baptismal regenration.

As a Presbyterian I hold to Paedobaptism, but there are well written articles on both sides.

Baptism (Credobaptism & Paedobaptism & other articles too.)

Then, if you're looking for a new game to play try this one-
Calvinball
It has nothing to do with John Calvin, except that cartoonist Bill Watterson named the character Calvin after John Calvin.
It's a fun read.