Tags
Westminster Confession: New Birth is Unnecessary
The Westminster Assembly has written:
"The seed and posterity of the faithful, born within the Church, have by their birth, interest in the covenant and right to the seal of it…. Children by baptism are solemnly received into the bosom of the Visible Church…. They are Christians and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized." – Westminster Directory for the Publick Worship of God (1645).
“Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents, are to be baptized.” – Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 28, 4., p 114, Baptism
Two Ways of Being A Christian?
So, according to Westminster and paedobaptists, there are two groups of people who are Christians:
- Those who ‘actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ’
- but also ‘infants of one or more believing parents’
In addition, according to WCF and in regard to infants of believers, they
- are Christians, and
- have a right to Baptism
Can the teachings and belief of Westminster and paedobaptists be more clear?
Yet Scripture tells us clearly:
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1:12,13
Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again [lit. from above] he cannot see the kingdom of God.” – John 3:3
Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ [lit. from above] – John 3:5-7
That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as seed. – Romans 9:8
According to God
Unless one is born again, from above (i.e. regenerated) he:
- has not been given the right – from God – to be baptized
- has not been given the right – from God – to become a child of God
- cannot see the kingdom of God
- cannot enter the kingdom of God, and
- cannot be a child of God, that is, a Christian
God says all born after the flesh are not Christians, not children of God.
Westminster and the paedobaptists say “Oh yes they are!”
Brethren, they have declared as unnecessary, contrary to the holy Word of God, repentance, faith and the new birth. They have invented in their own eyes Christians after the flesh. There is no such thing.
The Right to Baptism
Scripture is clear brethren. The right to Baptism belongs only to those who repent and “whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” Acts 2:38,39. An infant who has not personally known the effectual call of God unto salvation is neither a Christian nor has a right to baptism as a seal of the promise given in the call.
No minister, nor loving parents have any biblical authority to declare by proxy their infants to be called of God unto salvation, and those ministers who baptize non-confessing, unrepentant infants do deceive and defraud.
The Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God declares, “The seed of the faithful are Christians.”
Our Lord God tells us plainly, “You must be born again.”
Turning A Blind Eye
To dismiss the necessity of the new birth is a great error. For one to have the right to baptism and to see and enter the kingdom of God as a true child of God, one must be born again, from above, by the sovereign act of the Spirit of God.
Which will the Church hold higher before the world, God’s Word or tradition? Christians, to be faithful to God’s Word, as the pillars of His truth, the Church, we must not turn a blind eye to these inconvenient facts, but must regard this teaching of Westminster and the paedobaptists as a rejection of biblical truth. Indeed, we must call this error what it truly is:
Heresy.
Addendum
My only contention in this post, and my only position, is that what Westminster has written dismisses the need for spiritual rebirth. As it opposes what our Lord has spoken, “You must be born again”, yes, the teaching is heretical, a deviation from foundational biblical truth.
Confessions and catechisms have their place, and can be a great help to Christians. Subscribing to the Westminster Confession does not mean such a one enjoys error or condones it; and, adherence to or advocation of paedobaptism is not in itself evidence of a lack of salvific grace. Yet it still opposes Scripture and still opposes the teaching of our Lord Jesus, and there I must stand. It most certainly reflects a lack of Scriptural understanding on the matter. That, of course, does not call for condescending attitude, but grace and understanding. It also calls for a firm stand upon Scripture regardless of consequences. If all those puritans and reformers whom I admire were, if possible, to insist they are correct when my Lord says otherwise, then I must say those whom I admire are opposing my Lord. I have no other choice.
- Joel Taylor
It appears to me that in your picture on this site you are reading Wm. Hendricksen’s Commentary. Do you believe Hendricksen was a heretic?
I could not agree more! Thanks for showing how wrong the confession gets this issue!
Well — I had to think about this a bit, though I did not have to ponder the Biblical propriety of infant baptism itself. There is no NT example of…. or Biblical justification for infant baptism. Thus, it is a practice at odds with truth, and at this point (and not at this point alone, I’m afraid) the Westminster Confession of Faith and kindred documents are in error. Since the definiton of “heresy” varies mightily from source to source (sometimes meaning nothing more extensive than being at odds with established truth) it is often difficult to know what any user of the word intends outside of very specific context and their establishing a definite definition.
I prefer to look at this issue by way of germane Scripture, such as Gal 1: 8-9 and 2 Pet 2:1. Now, if one teaches men may become Christian via baptism that seems to me “another gospel” that Paul says the preachers of such are to be seen as “accursed.” An interesting dilemma for many of us who read after the Puritans and Reformed, and keep active company with, and even attend the churches of men who baptize (or what they call baptize) unbelieving children. When we do so, are we winking at heresy- or more to the point – are we winking at “another gospel?”
If intant baptism is heretical, and it’s teachers thereby heretics, , are they likewise “false teachers” who bring in “destructive heresies?” (2 Peter 2:1) I confess, though I find the Puritans, and Hodge and Edwards and all the Reformed authors in my library and my Reformed friends at variance with Scripture, I have a hard time finding their lives and overall works reflected in 2 Peter 2:1. I see the Jehovah’s Witnesses (so-called) in that verse, I confess I do not see the OPC church down the road in that company.
What do you think my baptistic brethren?
What greater deviation from the foundational truth of Christianity – ‘You must be born again’? If to deny the necessity of the new birth for one to be saved from the wrath of God is not heresy, what is? This is a foundational doctrine of Christianity, regeneration. Westminster calls those Christians, who are not, and declares those to have a right to baptism when Scripture opposes such a thought. Have I missed something?
Joel – No, you are technically corrrect. We do not disagree about the nature of the error. I have found that sometimes men can agree on the nature and description of error, but disagree on the implication of error. We both agree that baptism is by immersion and is for believers only. What though, are we to think of those who do not understand that, or even worse – oppose it? It is in the details of all this that it seems far murkier. Are you suggesting that the Reformed error concerning baptism confirms that no Reformed person is genuinely Christian?
You see, we agree the WCF is wrong on baptism. Infant baptism is NO baptism at all. But what can I fairly extrapolate from this? That all Reformed folk see baptism as having soteriological connotations? Whatever conclusion we come to about the intent of the framers of the WCF, this much is certain to me: WCF or no, I have not personally met any Presbyterian when pressed about this …who believes regeneration takes place any differently than most sovereign grace Baptists believe. Are they inconsistent? You bet. Are they fuzzy and sloppy here? I would say so.
However, I am reluctant to de-Christianize folk simply because they are poorly taught or are inconsistent. God brings salvation to all men who are saved the same way, by His sovereign grace, but not all Christian men arrive at ever facet of truth at the same speed, and some never seem to come around to certain issues. I have known Reformed men who became Baptist – were they coverted via that change of baptismal
doctrine, or where they Christian men who came to a Scriptural understanding of baptism out of the fog of errant Reformed thinking? Certainly it seems to me, the latter.
Now – if it is your contention that no one who subscribes to the Westminster Confession is saved (or any other document advocating for infant baptism) then you have jumped off into a pit of problems that extends beyond my pay grade. I am unprepared to say that adherence to a pedobaptist view is ipso facto evidence of a want of salvific grace. Even in my narrowest of Baptist days when I was a Landmarker in the mid 70′s to early 80′s, I believed that Reformed people were in gross error about baptism, and that their churches were NO churches at all, but I did not believe that error proved a lack of a fundamental work of grace. Joel, am I to believe that you do believe just that?
My only contention in this post, and my only position, is that what Westminster has written dismisses the need for spiritual rebirth. As it opposes what our Lord has spoken, “You must be born again”, yes, the teaching is heretical, a deviation from foundational biblical truth. I have, as you put it “de-Christianized” no one.
Confessions and catechisms have their place, and can be a great help to Christians. Subscribing to the Westminster Confession does not mean such a one enjoys error or condones it; and, adherence or advocation of paedobaptism is not in itself evidence of a lack of salvific grace. Yet it still opposes Scripture, and there I must stand. It most certainly reflects a lack of Scriptural understanding on the matter. That, of course, does not call for condescending attitude, but grace and understanding. It also calls for a firm stand upon Scripture regardless of consequences. If all those puritans and reformers whom I admire were, if possible, to insist they are correct when my Lord says otherwise, then I must say those whom I admire are opposing my Lord. I have no other choice.
I see you have added this as an addendum of sorts and I am glad you did. Perhaps part of what I am pressing you about in my previous post you might prefer to deal with privately, though I happily see we are largely in agreement when you say “…adherence or advocation of paedobaptism is not in itself evidence of a lack of sallvific grace.” I confess, you did have me wondering. Thanks for the clarification. As for the rest in your answer above, I agree.
Paedobaptism is unscriptural, and we embrace NO unscriptural standard without consequence to our spiritual life. We may not recognize it, but we always do some harm to ourselves, our families and our churches when we hold errant doctrine. Much mischief is done with infant baptism, and personally I could never unite with a Reformed church. Even still, some of my Reformed brethren are so much better informed in key doctrinal areas than the fifty plus “free-will” Baptist churches within a 30 mile radius of my house.
I am (as usual) a little confused.
Is the Westminster Directory for the Publick Worship of God part of the Westminster Confession of Faith? Are they one in the same? Or are they two separate things?
I ask because the WCF does not state that baptised infants become Christians after the baptism.
Wayne, my brother. This post has nothing – absolutely nothing – to do with baptized infants becoming Christian after they are baptized. Did you honestly read the post? Really? WCF says infants of one or more believing parents are Christians – without baptism, faith, repentance, or the new birth.
Comment deleted by host. Off topic. Please see comment policy under main menu.
You make an argument from a partial statement and this time purposely not including the part in the Confession on justification, salvation, redemption and On Saving Faith.
The federal visionists among the paedos are being consistent with what’s in the WCF.
http://www.joelgarver.com/writ/sacr/wcf.htm
Those who won’t teach a distinction between water baptism and the baptism by God that saves will always end up teaching regeneration by water. And this applies not only to paedos but to “sacramental baptists” who affirm the teaching of the 1689 baptist confession. This is why we need to affirm the first London Baptist confession, which denies such “sacramental efficacy”. I recommend David Gay’s book warning againt the “Baptist sacramentalism” of people like Haykin and Timothy George.