Parenting Like a Baptist
What’s the Difference in a Baptist and Presbyterian?
At our church, we are going through a Sunday school series on different denominations. One of the questions I often get as a pastor is “What does my uncle Bobby, a Catholic, really believe?” Or, “I have an aunt who is United Methodist, what does that church believe?” It is much easier to talk about what a church asserts than what an individual member of that church believes, so we have walked through various confessional documents, historical situations, and contemporary issues in order to clearly draw lines between different groups of believers. All in all, I think this is a helpful exercise.
Last week, I taught about Presbyterianism. I tried to demonstrate at the very beginning of our time together that historically, Baptists and Presbyterians stand together on many, many important topics. In some ways, the dividing line is the issue of paedobaptism, or the sprinkling of infants. In the simplest terms, Baptists believe that it is only those who personally express faith in Jesus Christ that belong to the New Covenant community called the church. Therefore, Baptists only baptize those who have made professions of faith.
A Presbyterian, on the other hand, understands that the church does not only consist of believers but also includes the children of believers. They assert this because of the nature of the nation of Israel under the Old Covenant, which they maintain is a different administration of the covenant of grace. Therefore, Presbyterians baptize anyone who converts to Christianity and also the children of those who have converted to Christianity.
I have a great appreciation for this view, but I do not hold it. I maintain the Baptist view that it is only those who truly do express faith in Christ that are able to truly be called members of the Church. This is no reason to draw swords over doctrine, but there are good reasons that Presbyterians and Baptists have formed different churches, because these views of the sacrament of Baptism are at odds with one another.
After the class, someone approached me and asked the question, “What is the difference between the way a Presbyterian would view their child and the way a Baptist would view their child?” I stated that I have heard Presbyterians make the distinction that they disciple their children while Baptists evangelize their children. However, both Baptists and Presbyterians encourage their children to make a profession of faith in Jesus. While there may be a few distinctions between the two viewpoints, I said if you look at a faithful Baptist home and a faithful Presbyterian home, there really is no significant difference in the practical realities between the two. Both groups should emphasize church attendance, family worship, scripture memory, and even learning catechisms.
The following week, I came across an article by Mark Jones, a minister in the PCA. The assertion of the article is that only a paedobaptist can be a Christian parent, because only a paedobaptist will view their children as belonging to the covenant of grace. Brother Jones is a faithful man and has done so much good work for the kingdom of God in his laboring and writing. I have some of his books on my bookshelf. But is this true? Does faithful parenting require a view that our children are already Christians?
The example that Mark Jones cites is that two little boys are playing on the playground and one pushes the other down in some kind of physical altercation, a situation far too common amongst children of all creeds. The first child, Johnny, who has faithful Presbyterian parents, is assured by his parents that if he asks for forgiveness and repents of his sin, then God will forgive him. Because this child has received baptism as an infant, he is treated as a Christian. Jones asserts that such assurance is only available to a Baptized child. He contends it is nonsensical to assure the child that his sins are forgiven if he has not also received the sign of baptism.
Jones writes the following: “Because, as I see it, if you are going to offer the greater to Johnny (i.e., forgiveness from above), how can he not also receive the visible sign of that forgiveness (i.e., baptism)? As a baptized individual, Johnny is living out the reality of his baptism when he calls upon God for forgiveness in particular circumstances.”
2 Points of Disagreement
Jones asserts that little Johnny can really know God’s forgiveness and that God really does forgive little Johnny when little Johnny asks God for forgiveness. He asserts that only a paedobaptist can have such a confidence when parenting his child, because only a paedobaptist has given the sign of forgiveness of sins to the covenant child.
I would disagree with this conclusion and would proceed by simply making two arguments.
First, it is clear that in the PCA, children who have not made a profession of faith are not permitted to come to the Lord’s table until they have made a profession of faith (PCA BCO 57-4). So while Brother Jones is assuring little Johnny that his sins are forgiven because he has been baptized, he is also telling little Johnny not to receive the bread and the cup “which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins (Matt. 26:28).” To me, this seems like an inconsistency. If we are going to assure little Johnny that his sins are forgiven in baptism, and we are going to assure him of what Jones calls “the greater” (forgiveness from above), is it not then inconsistent to hold him back from the visible sign of that forgiveness in the supper? While baptism is certainly given “for the remission of sins,” the Lord’s Supper is also an assuring sign that such sin is forgiven.
It is at this point that many Presbyterians will point to Paul’s remarks in 1 Corinthians where Paul expressly tells the church that they should not partake in an unworthy manner, lest they eat and drink judgment on themselves (1 Cor 11:28-29). To be clear, I think there is agreement between Baptists and Presbyterians on this point: only those who can discern the body should eat and drink at the Lord’s table.
The difference is that a Baptist would not assure someone who could not come to the Lord’s table that they ought to be baptized. In both Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, the one receiving the sacrament is receiving, by faith, the grace of Jesus Christ. The Baptist logic, then, is simply that faith is the instrumental means that saves. Nothing else unites a person to Christ, who is the Mediator who grants forgiveness to his people.
In my perspective, here is where the rubber meets the road. In all actuality, Johnny’s parents have no assurance that Johnny’s sins are actually forgiven, for Johnny may very well walk away from the covenant community in his later years. Surely we all know those who have wayward children, a heartbreaking thing to be certain. But imagine Mr. and Mrs. Presbyterian assured Johnny that his sins were forgiven when he is 4 years old, but when Johnny is 24, he leaves the church and never returns. The parents have assured Johnny that God has forgiven his sins. Has he? Or on judgment day, will he face the wrath of God for failing to believe God’s promise in Jesus Christ? (Of course, we pray for Johnny’s return to the faith. This is a hypothetical situation but sadly all too common).
This leads me to my second point, which is the fact that the sacrament is only valid insofar as it is received by faith. As Herman Bavinck says, “…Scripture clearly teaches that the sacraments are signs and seals of the covenant of grace, that they are meant only for believers and therefore always presuppose faith….Only when faith is present are they means in God’s hand of signifying and sealing the invisible goods of grace…Moreover, Scripture makes absolutely no distinction between the sanctifying grace granted in the sacrament and a special sacramental grace that differs from it, for the grace sealed in the sacrament is not inferior to and not even different from the grace granted in the Word and received in faith. (Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 3, p 486).”
Bavinck writes the above words in his chapter on “the sacraments.” He takes a different view, apparently, when applying this to the question of baptism. The question I am left asking is simply this: if a child never professes faith, does his baptism profit him in God’s economy? It is a blessing to be raised in a believing home, but are the believers of children actually Christians? If so, by what standard? Are baptized infants in Adam, or in Christ? In one sense, they are not treated as Christians, as they are barred from the Lord’s table because they have not made a profession of faith. On the other hand, they are treated as Christians, but not by virtue of personal faith in Christ.
The Baptist would say that any child who believes in Jesus is a Christian. The paedobaptist, apparently, views it quite differently, creating a category of pseudo-Christians, who are a part of the visible community yet strangers to the essence of the promise, which is Christ himself.
I would simply contend that when paedobaptists lob the criticism at credobaptists that they do not view their children as Christians, that we are not treating our children in any substantially different way concerning baptism than any presbyterian does concerning the Lord’s table. Both groups require professions of faith to partake of the sacraments. The Baptists require such a profession before the initiating sign of the covenant. The paedobaptists require it before admitting anyone to the sustaining sign. If one states a Baptist is inconsistent on this point, hopefully he is also willing to admit there is a measure of inconsistency in his own position as well as it relates to the table.
Further questions arise for the paedobaptist that are answered with clarity by the credobaptist position. Does paedobaptism mean that the child is “in Christ” or is the baptized child “in Adam?” If the child is “in Christ,” is he not able, by Spirit of God, to examine himself before coming to the Lord’s table? If he is unsure that he is a Christian, isn’t the supper given “for the relief of weak and doubting Christians?” (WLC, Q172). If not, then in what sense is he a Christian? If the child is “in Adam,” why should he be considered as one who is in Christ?
Mark Jones states that paedobaptist parenting is the only one that makes sense, because only a paedobaptist can assure a child that his sins are forgiven. I disagree. I often tell my unbelieving son that he can go to Jesus with his sins and Jesus will forgive him every time. However, he has not been baptized, as he has not made a personal profession of faith.
To complicate things, my child is in the process of adoption. Legally, the process is not complete. However, he has lived in my house for many years and I treat him as my son. Perhaps he’s in a halfway status between two families. So if I were a paedobaptist, what do I do when he sins? Is he in the covenant? Is he out of the covenant? Is it up to the session to decide? Should I baptize a child who lives in my house, who isn’t legally related to me, who has lived with me for many years, who is a teenager, but has clearly not made a profession of faith?
Thankfully, none of these questions bother me in the slightest. I simply rest on God’s sovereignty and abide by the following principles:
I tell him that if he asks my forgiveness, he will always receive it, because I love him and care for him. I also tell him that he can always go to Jesus, and Jesus will always forgive him of his sin, not because he has been baptized, but because anyone who believes on the Son will have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through Him (John 3:17). I also trust in the means of grace, just as any of my Presbyterian brothers would. I firmly believe that as my son hears the word preached, observes the sacraments being administered, reads the Bible, and has prayers offered by other Christians for God to save his soul, God will work through his divinely appointed means to accomplish his purposes.
Is my model so different from the paedobaptist? Maybe it tilts a few degrees further towards evangelism than discipleship, but both evangelism and discipleship must be rooted in the gospel to be fruitful in any respect. I contend that any difference is really not all that different.
Conclusion
To conclude, I think I would boil down the difference between the two positions to the issue of assurance. The paedobaptist position assures a child that his sins are forgiven because he was born to believing parents and has received the sign of the covenant. At 4 years old, Johnny is not able to come to the Lord’s table (at least he’s not supposed to in the PCA), but he can be assured of forgiveness by his parents. However, this assurance is not granted to him because of his personal faith, but because he has received the sign of the covenant of grace.
On the flip side, I have no interest in assuring my child he is a Christian if he does not personally have faith in the Savior. I want to be proactive in teaching him about the gospel, but I cannot make my child believe. Only God can give the growth (1 Cor. 3:7). I want the word of God to do it. Because when God effectually calls a child to come to himself, such a call is irrevocable. I want to parent my children in such a way that God’s grace is not simply an idea that is talked about, but a reality that is experienced through faith in the finished work of Christ.
Brother Jones is going to keep being a paedobaptist, and that is fine. God will work all things for good. However, those who are credobaptists do not need to pretend as if their parenting is somehow inferior if they are regularly bringing the promises of God to bear on the lives of their children. We must be confident that faith comes by hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ (Rom 10:17).