A plea for condescension (in response to article on Infant Dedication by Donald Macleod)

When Donald Macleod speaks, I, for one, want to listen. And just this morning I awoke to read an article he has written in defence of the Reformed faith and worship - and of the practice of infant baptism.

I tread carefully, as by no means do I, a Baptist, wish to say anything which would disparage the Free Church of Scotland, its confession, its form of worship or its ministry. I agree that the Reformed faith is a 'package' which includes a comprehensive confession of faith, a form of worship, a form of church government and a discipline in respect of the administration of the sacraments. It is not open to a pick-and-mix approach or to be tampered with.

At the same time, I am one of those Baptist incomers to whom he refers, although I can honestly say I have not yet prevailed upon a Presbyterian minister to conduct an infant dedication for any of my three covenant daughters.

My aim is much less ambitious. I wish to offer my Presbyterian brethren a rationale for the practice of praying for covenant children before they are baptised. I want to give you a way of thinking about infant dedication - and of practising it in a church context - which doesn't injure your Reformed conscience or violate your confession and form of worship.

There is a sacrament of Baptism. There is no such sacrament as Infant Dedication. There, I have said it. In praying for newborn infants or children it is not being claimed that some new Biblical ordinance has been invented. And, it goes without saying, that no one is doing away baptism. Prayers are being offered for covenant children that they would come to faith and receive baptism. The baptism of those covenant children is simply being postponed until they are of age to answer for themselves. In much the same way as participation at the Table is postponed in a Presbyterian context.

So why pray for newborn children? You could say, either covenant baptise them properly or don't do anything at all. However it seems to me that one could treat such prayers for newborns as a preliminary to their baptism, rather like the ancient church prayed for catechumens or indeed like the Free Church offers preliminary prayers and petitions parental vows prior to administering the sacrament.

Far be it for me to suggest liturgical innovation, but this could be made clearer if the parents in question came forward with their children at the same time as others brought forward their children for baptism. The Baptists could participate up to a point, answering the vows, but, at the relevant time, not present their children for baptism. From a Presbyterian viewpoint this could be seen as offering infant baptism as something they are missing out on - and to be received in due course.

The Confession doesn't specify any time-frame for covenant baptism. If there were a Biblical precedent it would be on the eighth day. I think we all know that is not the current practice (although I believe one of the Reformers did do it that way). While the practice of covenant children receiving baptism when of age on profession of faith isn't what is being prescribed in the Confession, I don't think comes under the censure of the Confessional phrase "it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance".

It terms of the historical Reformed faith, the position is clear: the baptism of infants is both permissible and required for children born of Christian parents: "the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized." But even covenant baptism requires consent, in this case the consent of the parents. To say that all Christian parents should have their children baptised is like saying that all believers should be baptised or indeed that God commands all people everywhere to repent. Yes, he does. But that doesn'to obviate the need for our response. We Baptist parents in Free Churches are not ready yet.

Are there not in every Free Church of Scotland believers who have never come forward to profess faith and have never shared at the Table? Are they not, regardless, treated with understanding as Christian brothers and sisters - with the longing and hope that one day they will be ready to receive the convenant signs? Are not prayers offered on behalf of such adherents that they might in due time come forward? Could not the same condescension be extended to us, the unworthy sons of Hubmaier and Simons, Carey and Spurgeon?

Pax ecclesiae Christi! 

One of us (thoughts on Liam Goligher's move to Presbyterianism)

A famous preacher on the conservative evangelical circuit, pastor Liam Goligher, has become a Presbyterian. It all happened in the last few years. Prior to that he had been pastor of Duke Street (Baptist) church, where our friends are members. During this time Liam kindly met up with me on one occasion and we would also converse briefly after church during our annual home trips to the UK.

As I hope everyone knows, I am hugely indebted to my presbyterian brethren and hold them and their churches in the highest regard. However, since believers' baptism is being publicly challenged by a former Baptist, I shall defend it.

During the final period of pastor Goligher's pastoral charge at Duke Street on at least one occasion he shared his change of mind from the pulpit and I understand that covenant baptisms were performed in private. I have no doubt that the charge of heart was genuine. I imagine there are similar cases in the other direction - with ministers of paedo-baptist churches performing 'rebaptisms' while still serving as the ordained ministers of churches which profess the validity of baptism prior to profession of faith. In such cases of conscience it does seem best to formally resign from active ministry before changing practice, particularly when one has been inducted based on a different belief and practice. Presbyterians, in the tradition of Jean Calvin and David Dickson (and many others) have always placed unity and edification first, even in cases of differences of opinion.

Understandably, Liam Goligher is keen to share his change of views and has done so recently on the Gospel Coalition website. While pastoral busyness and the fact that he did not force credo-baptism on others are mitigating factors, Liam Goligher is well-known for his high view of Scripture and the pulpit ministry. He rightly expects those who hear him to take his stated views on Scripture at face value. And likewise members of a church expect the pastor to hold to the official teaching position of that church - particularly on such an important issue as the subjects of baptism. With all due respect, it is not fair to refer to 'their' church order in respect of a church of which one was serving as pastor: if you were the pastor it was your church order.

Pastor Goligher presents several lines of argument in favour of believers' baptism.

The New Covenant should be more inclusive than the Old. Why, if including women and Gentiles, would one exclude children? No-one is excluded "whom the Lord shall call" (Acts 2:39). The question boils down to whether one understands "all those the Lord will call" to refer to the *general* call of the gospel - in which case mere hearing the gospel qualifies one for baptism - or *effective* calling - in which case it is a response of faith which qualifies.

The passages in Hebrews about falling away. Yes, the hearers had received the Word and the sacraments, but were not of the elect. However there is nothing to suggest that they did so in infancy and everything points to an apostasy from adult faith (10:27,32).

The continuity of the covenant. Again, yes by all means, but there is also a discontinuity, isn't there? Abraham circumcised all this physical descendants, but in Galatians 3 Paul contrasts such physical descendants with the real seed of Abraham: those who believe and have been baptised.  

Raising the children of believers as the heirs of the covenant. I entirely agree, and I likewise charge parents of newborns from Ephesians 6:1-3. The question for me is the distinction again as to whether baptism is for hearers or receivers. I think the questions posed to those baptised - a universal practice in all traditions - speak for themselves.

The arguments in favour of paedo-baptism are well-known. In their presbyterian guise they are Biblical and do not obviate but demand personal repentance and faith. I don't find them conclusive; they rely on what is implicit within the New Testament, rather than direct command. And they are heavily deductive, hanging on a certain system of doctrine and church tradition. Which is actually where I see the clinching argument. I wonder whether the change of heart is not so much about a single issue (the subjects of baptism), but about identity and affiliation. There are some paedo-baptists in the Congregationalist tradition, for example in the FIEC, but pastor Goligher has not sought fellowship with them. Why not? Is there not a sociological dimension? Do the ethnic and historical heritage, prestige, level of education and demographic of Presbyterianism not present a certain appeal? I think they do. Quote: "... it gives me more joy than I can express to belong to a church that takes seriously the creeds, confessions, and catechisms of the Reformation."

I wish pastor Goligher every blessing in his new charge at Tenth Presbyterian Church. My only wish is that he not be too eager to disparage the churches, theology and church practice he himself espoused (or at least did not deny) not so long ago. I trust that it was the Lord who foreordained that pastor Goligher would serve as a Baptist pastor before becoming a presbyterian. Maybe the church practice of our 'tin chapels' is not all negative and might have something to contribute to the broader Christian church. One can but hope.