Westminster Confession would seem to question the big fuss made over Presbyterian baptism ban

THE controversy in relation to the Presbyterian Church in Ireland decision to deny baptism to the children of gay parents rumbles on. Verses from the Bible, references to biblical truths and scripture have peppered the letters of those seeking to defend/support the General Assembly’s decision.

One letter also referred to the Westminster Confession of Faith. This particular document states the following in relation to baptism: “Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptised into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins and of his giving up to God through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.”

There is no reference in the New Testament to infant baptism and the above definition cannot possibly refer to such baptism. How can an infant, subjected to the ritual of baptism, possibly understand that he/she is being admitted to the visible Church, or see it as a sign and seal the covenant of grace? How can he/she possibly understand the concept of regeneration?

I understand Christians believe that remission of sins by God takes place subsequent to confession and repentance, which can only be initiated from within the person; an infant is unable to understand such a process.

Yet, the same Westminster Confession of Faith can state: “Not only those that actually do profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptised.” I can only presume it is this piece of dogma which the General Assembly was seeking to observe. It might have served the Assembly better to have reviewed this piece of dogma, rather than to seek to perpetuate it.

Finally, the same Westminster Confession states that: “Although it is a great sin to contemn, or neglect, this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparately annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptised are undoubtedly regenerated.”

In other words, if you are not baptised, you can still be saved and even if you are baptised, you may not be saved.

Makes one wonder why such a fuss was made about it in the first place.

NAME AND ADDRESS WITH EDITOR