# Practical Benefits of Infant Baptism



## Scott

A day or two ago I was talking to a mother who recently has come to accept infant baptism. Her tesimony was very moving. She has a number of children, ages 7 and below. She was often faced the question of exactly how to handle spirituality with her children. The children would want to pray, seek wisdom from the scriptures and the like, but her baptist friends would scold (her word) her for allowing them to do so. According to them, the children were not Christians yet, because they were too young to understand the gospel. According to her Baptist friends, the parent's focus of the child's spiritual formation should be as with any other heathen, simple evangelism. As the children were not Christians, they had no right to pray in Christ's name or the like. They were not Christians, or members of the covenant, but rather just unbelievers and should be treated as such. 

I have seen this viewpoint in some baptist child-rearing materials, as well. The Ezzo's Growing Kids God's Way teaches this, for example. It says expressly not to let them pray in Jesus name or anything like that until they reach a certain age and are able to make a credible profession. 

Anyway this dear lady had a troubled conscious, saying she felt like the children were asking for bread but that she was forced by her theological beliefs to give them stones, at least until they reached the right age and could make a credible profession of faith. 

After she was taught about infant baptism, she wept, seeing the beauty of God's covenant and God's love for families. It was quite moving. 

I know not all Baptists take the view of the Ezzos or of this lady's friends, but to the extent they do not, they are (thankfully) engaging in a blessed inconsistency. Children are either disciples (the covenant view) or heathen (the Baptist view). Those ideas have consequences, at least if one really lives by them. Logically one should treat a disciple differently than a heathen. 

Anyway, it was quite wonderful.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Come on Scott.
I always encourage unregenerates to seek God's counsel and to ask him questions. I even ask them to seek his guidance and pray for supplication. He is their creator. He is the Father of all creation. He is the source. He rains on the just and unjust. God loves the Elect in a way that differs from others. Not all of our Children are Elect and to presume so is just wrong and deceitful. 

I see the beauty in God's Truth also.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

I have never in my 24 yrs of Baptist life heard a baptist tell thier children not to pray in Jesus' name. This is a new one on me. I encouraged my child to pray from the moment she could say da-da.


----------



## jogri17

While now i believe in infant baptism I do want to warn about the idea of presumptive regeneration. You must instruct your children in the ways of the Lord. Even most baptist churches have sunday school classes for children. The problem with the traditional southern baptist (Not the Mohler and Dever types) is that they carry on the Finnylike tradition of decisional regeneration and making claims to faith as the sign of conversion as opposed to spiritual fruits. We baptize children because of the promise of faith not because they have that saving faith. But God is not obligated to save someone just because of their parents... that undermines the doctrine of unconditional election.


----------



## Davidius

I've never understood how one can teach their children to pray without presuming their regeneration. God does not hear the prayers of the wicked. Wouldn't teaching someone whom you assume is not regenerate until they reach a certain age when they can "comprehend" be having your child heap up condemnation on itself?


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

Scott,
I tell my children to pray to God in Jesus name, I tell them that Jesus is the Savior of all who confess their sins, repent, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. When my son, who is four, says he belives in Jesus I encourage him to continue to believe. I refuse to tell him he is not a Christian. The following words of Christ always resound in my conscience:


> But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and _that_ he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
> Matt 18:6 (KJV)


for all I know he has already been regenerated, and quite frankly he even at time shows signs of conversion. I savor these things and ponder them in my heart and encourage his faith. He does has faith, as far as I can see, and it is faith like his that all must have to be citizens of the kingdom. When he is five he will most likely be baptized and begin to partake of communion. I know this sounds inconsistent for a Baptist, but I am still working through these things, and this is where I am at.


----------



## Davidius

Pilgrim's Progeny said:


> for all I know he has already been regenerated, and quite frankly he even at time shows signs of conversion. I savor these things and ponder them in my heart and encourage his faith. He does has faith, as far as I can see, and it is faith like his that all must have to be citizens of the kingdom. When he is five he will most likely be baptized and begin to partake of communion. I know this sounds inconsistent for a Baptist, but I am still working through these things, and this is where I am at.



That's refreshing to hear, even as a Presbyterian.


----------



## Scott

Pilgrim's Progeny said:


> I know this sounds inconsistent for a Baptist, but I am still working through these things, and this is where I am at.



You are doing the right thing and I am sure your children will be blessed by it!


----------



## Gryphonette

*Mercy Maud! I've never heard that.*



Scott said:


> A day or two ago I was talking to a mother who recently has come to accept infant baptism. Her tesimony was very moving. She has a number of children, ages 7 and below. She was often faced the question of exactly how to handle spirituality with her children. The children would want to pray, seek wisdom from the scriptures and the like, but her baptist friends would scold (her word) her for allowing them to do so. According to them, the children were not Christians yet, because they were too young to understand the gospel. According to her Baptist friends, the parent's focus of the child's spiritual formation should be as with any other heathen, simple evangelism. As the children were not Christians, they had no right to pray in Christ's name or the like. They were not Christians, or members of the covenant, but rather just unbelievers and should be treated as such.
> 
> I have seen this viewpoint in some baptist child-rearing materials, as well. The Ezzo's Growing Kids God's Way teaches this, for example. It says expressly not to let them pray in Jesus name or anything like that until they reach a certain age and are able to make a credible profession.
> 
> Anyway this dear lady had a troubled conscious, saying she felt like the children were asking for bread but that she was forced by her theological beliefs to give them stones, at least until they reached the right age and could make a credible profession of faith.
> 
> After she was taught about infant baptism, she wept, seeing the beauty of God's covenant and God's love for families. It was quite moving.
> 
> I know not all Baptists take the view of the Ezzos or of this lady's friends, but to the extent they do not, they are (thankfully) engaging in a blessed inconsistency. Children are either disciples (the covenant view) or heathen (the Baptist view). Those ideas have consequences, at least if one really lives by them. Logically one should treat a disciple differently than a heathen.
> 
> Anyway, it was quite wonderful.


I'm not saying it doesn't happen, mind, but I don't believe it's at all common. Christ Chapel Bible Church, where we attend, is doggedly credobaptist but children are discipled from the get-go, and definitely pray in Jesus' name.

My son, Alex, attends a Baptist church in Yokosuka and my three year old granddaughter, Hannah, prays in Jesus' name and is being discipled.

Good grief! "Oh, oh...! Mustn't pray in Jesus' name until you're older!"?

Unbelievable. But also not an integral part of credobaptist theology.

If this whoppy-jawed teaching is what that woman had been involved in, for sure a hearty, heart-felt "Praise God!" is in order that she has come out of it.


----------



## Scott

BTW, I want to stress again, that I am not saying that all Baptists refuse to allow their children to pray in Jesus' name, receive comfort from God's promises to believers, and the like. But there are many who do take this approach, including the very popular Growing Kids God's Way child rearing materials. 

I do think it is inconsistent for Baptists on the one hand to teach that their children are heathen and outside of God's saving love and promises and on the other hand to teach them as if they were. But it is a blessed inconsistency from which the children benefit.


----------



## Scott

Anne: You do see it in popular child-rearing materials, like GKGW. Perhaps it is less common in reformed leaning baptist churches.


----------



## Scott

For those Baptists who teach their unsaved kids to pray in Christ's name, how does this make sense?

From the Larger Catechism:
Q. 180. What is it to pray in the name of Christ?
A. To pray in the name of Christ is, in obedience to his command, and in confidence on his promises, to ask mercy for his sake; not by bare mentioning of his name, but by drawing our encouragement to pray, and our boldness, strength, and hope of acceptance in prayer, from Christ and his mediation.

Can an unsaved heathen really expect to draw on the mediatorial work of Christ, something reserved only for the elect? Praying in Christ's name is reserved only for the saved.


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

Scott said:


> For those Baptists who teach their unsaved kids to pray in Christ's name, how does this make sense?
> 
> From the Larger Catechism:
> Q. 180. What is it to pray in the name of Christ?
> A. To pray in the name of Christ is, in obedience to his command, and in confidence on his promises, to ask mercy for his sake; not by bare mentioning of his name, but by drawing our encouragement to pray, and our boldness, strength, and hope of acceptance in prayer, from Christ and his mediation.
> 
> Can an unsaved heathen really expect to draw on the mediatorial work on Christ, something reserved only for the elect? Praying in Christ's name is reserved only for the saved.


 
I do not have an answer here, then again I do not call my children unsaved heathen. They are holy by virtue of their place in the covenant entity of my household. What is a proper classification to give your unconverted children in this context?


----------



## Scott

I call children of Christian parents Christians, covenant children and the like (unless and until they show themselves otherwise). BTW, I think your view of them being holy is dead-on.


----------



## tcalbrecht

> 9. It remains briefly to indicate what benefit redounds from the observance, both to believers who bring their children to the church to be baptised, and to the infants themselves, to whom the sacred water is applied, that no one may despise the ordinance as useless or superfluous: though any one who would think of ridiculing baptism under this pretence, would also ridicule the divine ordinance of circumcision: for what can they adduce to impugn the one, that may not be retorted against the other? Thus the Lord punishes the arrogance of those who forthwith condemn whatever their carnal sense cannot comprehend. But God furnishes us with other weapons to repress their stupidity. His holy institution, from which we feel that our faith derives admirable consolation, deserves not to be called superfluous. For the divine symbol communicated to the child, as with the impress of a seal, confirms the promise given to the godly parent, and declares that the Lord will be a God not to him only but to his seed: not merely visiting him with his grace and goodness, but his posterity also to the thousandth generation. When the infinite goodness of God is thus displayed, it, in the first place, furnishes most ample materials for proclaiming his glory, and fills pious breasts with no ordinary joy, urging them more strongly to love their affectionate Parent, when they see that, on their account, he extends his care to their posterity. I am not moved by the objection, that the promise ought to be sufficient to confirm the salvation of our children. It has seemed otherwise to God, who, seeing our weakness, has herein been pleased to condescend to it. Let those, then, who embrace the promise of mercy to their children, consider it as their duty to offer them to the Church, to be sealed with the symbol of mercy, and animate themselves to surer confidence, on seeing with the bodily eye the covenant of the Lord engraven on the bodies of their children. On the other hand, children derive some benefit from their baptism, when, being ingrafted into the body of the church, they are made an object of greater interest to the other members. Then when they have grown up, they are thereby strongly urged to an earnest desire of serving God, who has received them as sons by the formal symbol of adoption, before, from nonage, they were able to recognise him as their Father. In fine, we ought to stand greatly in awe of the denunciations that God will take vengeance on every one who despises to impress the symbol of the covenant on his child, (Genesis 17: 15) such contempt being a rejection, and, as it were, abjuration of the offered grace.


John Calvin, _Institutes_, 4.16


----------



## KMK

Scott said:


> I do think it is inconsistent for Baptists on the one hand to teach that their children are heathen and outside of God's saving love and promises and on the other hand to teach them as if they were.



Of course you do! I would expect nothing less from a paedo. I don't see how a paedo could look at us baptists and not see inconsistancy.

It is the same kind of inconsistancy that we creedos see in the two-tiered church membership system in a paedo church. But I am sure the paedo does not see it as an inconsistancy.

The Arminian looks at a Calvinist and sees the desire to preach as an inconsistancy.

The hyperpreterist sees the orthodox preterist as inconsistant.

I guess the whole world looks at us Christians as being inconsistant.

Just because someone sees an inconsistancy does not mean that an inconsistancy exists.

Regardless, I am glad the woman was delivered from the false teaching.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Scott said:


> For those Baptists who teach their unsaved kids to pray in Christ's name, how does this make sense?
> 
> From the Larger Catechism:
> Q. 180. What is it to pray in the name of Christ?
> A. To pray in the name of Christ is, in obedience to his command, and in confidence on his promises, to ask mercy for his sake; not by bare mentioning of his name, but by drawing our encouragement to pray, and our boldness, strength, and hope of acceptance in prayer, from Christ and his mediation.
> 
> Can an unsaved heathen really expect to draw on the mediatorial work of Christ, something reserved only for the elect? Praying in Christ's name is reserved only for the saved.



God is not required to hear the heathen but I prayed as a heathen and I am sure God heard me. He rains upon the just and unjust it says. As I said in my first post I encourage every person to call upon God in the name of Christ. And I believe God even heals pagans. He does good to those who are his enemies even. Why wouldn't a heathen be able to be heard by God?

Who was the guy who dipped seven times and was healed?

One more thing. Is the unregenerate unconverted spouse considered a Christian along with their children just because one parent is a converted Christian? Are they a saint? I don't think so. Holy has a different connotation in the context of 1 Cor. 7:14 as I noted in the Baptism thread Pilgrim started.


----------



## queenknitter

Scott said:


> Anne: You do see it in popular child-rearing materials, like GKGW. Perhaps it is less common in reformed leaning baptist churches.



Yes, yes. You do. Maybe it's my (former?) neck of the woods -- very Ezzo-focused. It blows my mind. Do you remember which edition of GKGW this was in? I assume you're familiar with ezzo.info. 

My brother and I were having a lengthy discussion about this very thing last week. I do _not _remember hearing anything of this sort as a young child growing up as a fundy (Arminian-ish) Baptist. I do not hear it in the PCA churches we've been visiting as we have been finding a new church home. I did hear it often and just recently in our former Bible church here in Greenville, SC -- from the pulpit and in the Mother's Room. 

Ezzo goes to the multi-campused Seacoast Church conglomerate here in South Carolina now. I assume you all know his spotty church history. But his ideas are very popular down there. . . . Maybe it's the SC soil or something.


----------



## Scott

I went through the course about 10 years ago and so it was whatever version was around then. I remember the Ezzo wife on the tapes expressly explaining why we should prevent kids from praying in Christ's name and the like. 




queenknitter said:


> Scott said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anne: You do see it in popular child-rearing materials, like GKGW. Perhaps it is less common in reformed leaning baptist churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, yes. You do. Maybe it's my (former?) neck of the woods -- very Ezzo-focused. It blows my mind. Do you remember which edition of GKGW this was in? I assume you're familiar with ezzo.info.
> 
> My brother and I were having a lengthy discussion about this very thing last week. I do _not _remember hearing anything of this sort as a young child growing up as a fundy (Arminian-ish) Baptist. I do not hear it in the PCA churches we've been visiting as we have been finding a new church home. I did hear it often and just recently in our former Bible church here in Greenville, SC -- from the pulpit and in the Mother's Room.
> 
> Ezzo goes to the multi-campused Seacoast Church conglomerate here in South Carolina now. I assume you all know his spotty church history. But his ideas are very popular down there. . . . Maybe it's the SC soil or something.
Click to expand...


----------



## Scott

PuritanCovenanter said:


> God is not required to hear the heathen but I prayed as a heathen and I am sure God heard me. He rains upon the just and unjust it says. As I said in my first post I encourage every person to call upon God in the name of Christ. And I believe God even heals pagans. He does good to those who are his enemies even. Why wouldn't a heathen be able to be heard by God?
> 
> Who was the guy who dipped seven times and was healed?
> 
> One more thing. Is the unregenerate unconverted spouse considered a Christian along with their children just because one parent is a converted Christian? Are they a saint? I don't think so. Holy has a different connotation in the context of 1 Cor. 7:14 as I noted in the Baptism thread Pilgrim started.



I was careful to note in my posts that unbelievers should not pray in Christ's name or be comforted _with promises made to believers_. I was not suggesting that an unbeliever could not receive some common grace. The Ezzos agree that unbelievers can receive grace from God. The Ezzos even teach that it is ok to let kids to pray to God the Father, just not in Christ's name. In other words, there is a path to God apart from Christ that kids can take. Still, when they are of age, they will need to be saved and then they will need to pray in Christ's name. (I am not suggesting agreement with the Ezzos on this point, just relaying what they taught). 

It is wrong to teach unbelievers, adult heathen or otherwise, to pray in Christ's name. It is teaching hypocrisy. To pray in Christ's name, of course, means more than the bare mentioning of His name. It is to draw on Christ's mediation, which is available only for believers. To pray in Christ's name is to say implicitly that the person praying belongs to and is in union with Christ. Unbelievers do not.


----------



## Davidius

Scott said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is not required to hear the heathen but I prayed as a heathen and I am sure God heard me. He rains upon the just and unjust it says. As I said in my first post I encourage every person to call upon God in the name of Christ. And I believe God even heals pagans. He does good to those who are his enemies even. Why wouldn't a heathen be able to be heard by God?
> 
> Who was the guy who dipped seven times and was healed?
> 
> One more thing. Is the unregenerate unconverted spouse considered a Christian along with their children just because one parent is a converted Christian? Are they a saint? I don't think so. Holy has a different connotation in the context of 1 Cor. 7:14 as I noted in the Baptism thread Pilgrim started.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was careful to note in my posts that unbelievers should not pray in Christ's name or be comforted _with promises made to believers_. I was not suggesting that an unbeliever could not receive some common grace. The Ezzos agree that unbelievers can receive grace from God. The Ezzos even teach that it is ok to let kids to pray to God the Father, just not in Christ's name. In other words, there is a path to God apart from Christ that kids can take. Still, when they are of age, they will need to be saved and then they will need to pray in Christ's name. (I am not suggesting agreement with the Ezzos on this point, just relaying what they taught).
> 
> It is wrong to teach unbelievers, adult heathen or otherwise, to pray in Christ's name. It is teaching hypocrisy. To pray in Christ's name, of course, means more than the bare mentioning of His name. It is to draw on Christ's mediation, which is available only for believers. To pray in Christ's name is to say implicitly that the person praying belongs to Christ. Unbelievers do not.
Click to expand...


Then why would we teach our children to pray in Christ's name,if we don't know that all of our children belong to Christ and are united to Him through His mediatorial work?


----------



## tcalbrecht

Pilgrim's Progeny said:


> I do not have an answer here, then again I do not call my children unsaved heathen. They are holy by virtue of their place in the covenant entity of my household. What is a proper classification to give your unconverted children in this context?



How do you know they are unconverted?


----------



## MOSES

jogri17 said:


> While now i believe in infant baptism I do want to warn about the idea of presumptive regeneration. ... We baptize children because of the promise of faith not because they have that saving faith.




A question from one OPC paedo to another...

What about adult baptism. As is the practice in the OPC an adult must give a credible profession of faith before receiving the sacrament of baptism.
Thus, the session must "presume" such a one is regenerate.

Why then does the same OPC church when baptizing other people (i.e., infants, children) NOT presume regeneration?

in my opinion, that is an inconsistency.

Note: From what I have read, it seems that there are 2 types of paedos..those who are actually creedo-baptist that make an "exception" for the baptism of infants (e.g., Hodge's systematic theology) and those who presume regeneration of the covenant child until or unless such a one apostasizes. And perhaps a 3rd, those who hold to a baptismal regeneration in a visible sense only.

Note: Only God knows his eternal decree in election...therefore *man is always "presuming" or "not-presuming" upon ones regeneration.*


----------



## KMK

MOSES said:


> Note: From what I have read, it seems that there are 2 types of paedos..those who are actually creedo-baptist that make an "exception" for the baptism of infants (e.g., Hodge's systematic theology) and *those who presume regeneration of the covenant child until or unless such a one apostasizes.* And perhaps a 3rd, those who hold to a baptismal regeneration in a visible sense only.
> 
> Note: Only God knows his eternal decree in election...therefore *man is always "presuming" or "not-presuming" upon ones regeneration.*



Is this what is called 'covenant succession'?


----------



## MOSES

KMK said:


> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note: From what I have read, it seems that there are 2 types of paedos..those who are actually creedo-baptist that make an "exception" for the baptism of infants (e.g., Hodge's systematic theology) and *those who presume regeneration of the covenant child until or unless such a one apostasizes.* And perhaps a 3rd, those who hold to a baptismal regeneration in a visible sense only.
> 
> Note: Only God knows his eternal decree in election...therefore *man is always "presuming" or "not-presuming" upon ones regeneration.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this what is called 'covenant succession'?
Click to expand...


Is what? (My view, the other views I give, or the thought on presuming regeneration of elect infants).



> . . . it will be evident that baptism is properly administered to infants
> as something *owed* to them. For in early times the Lord did not
> deign to have them circumcised without making them participants
> in all those things which were then signified by circumcision.[Institutes, IV, xvi, 5.]



If baptism is owed to the children of believers, as Calvin thought, then covenant sucession would be legitimate.
If baptism is "earned" by coming of age and professing faith, thus by earning the right to be baptized...then there would be no covenant succession (e.g., the baptist position, in my opinion)

Note: As for scripture, covenant succession seems to be a very popular idea.


KMK...I am not sure what you are really asking me though...sorry if my reply adds nothing.


----------



## wsw201

> A question from one OPC paedo to another...
> 
> What about adult baptism. As is the practice in the OPC an adult must give a credible profession of faith before receiving the sacrament of baptism.
> Thus, the session must "presume" such a one is regenerate.
> 
> Why then does the same OPC church when baptizing other people (i.e., infants, children) NOT presume regeneration?
> 
> in my opinion, that is an inconsistency.



Not the same OPC peado but what the heck.

When an adult requests baptism they are required to make a credible profession of faith. That not only includes what they actually profess but whether they actually live out that credible profession. A Session should not have to "presume" regeneration. A Session would take them at their word and based on their life. In fact it would be dangerous for the Church to presume upon the activity of the Holy Spirit at all.

It should also be noted that the grounds for Baptism of an adult or infant is not based upon regeneration (which is the Baptist view) but on the command of Christ and the promise of the covenant. But that promise is not a guarantee. Therefore, presumption in any form is not necessary or warranted by Scripture.


----------



## MOSES

wsw201 said:


> When an adult requests baptism they are required to make a credible profession of faith. That not only includes what they actually profess but whether they actually live out that credible profession. A Session should not have to "presume" regeneration. A Session would take them at their word and based on their life.



So, if "presume" means: _to accept that something is almost certain to be correct even though there is no proof of it_

Are your saying that a session does not have to "presume" regeneration, because they have proof?

For an adult then, some sort of evidence is required to baptize them. The session does not "presume", it takes the person at their word and examines their life (for living out the profession) and takes this as "evidence".

Ok...then the same "evidence" is required for others in the church who are baptized (e.g., infants). The session does not presume regeneration of the infant, just like it did not presume regeneration of the adult...rather, like the adult, there was evidence (no presumption necessary). Thus, if the infant recieves baptism (like the adult did) then it was so because of evidence, and if there was evidence (and baptism administered) then we do not have to presume regeneration...Rather, we speak as such as really regenerate.




wsw201 said:


> It should also be noted that the grounds for Baptism of an adult or infant is not based upon regeneration (which is the Baptist view) but on the command of Christ and the promise of the covenant.



Yes I agree. That statement clarifies the whole argument.


----------



## KMK

MOSES said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note: From what I have read, it seems that there are 2 types of paedos..those who are actually creedo-baptist that make an "exception" for the baptism of infants (e.g., Hodge's systematic theology) and *those who presume regeneration of the covenant child until or unless such a one apostasizes.* And perhaps a 3rd, those who hold to a baptismal regeneration in a visible sense only.
> 
> Note: Only God knows his eternal decree in election...therefore *man is always "presuming" or "not-presuming" upon ones regeneration.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this what is called 'covenant succession'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is what? (My view, the other views I give, or the thought on presuming regeneration of elect infants).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . . it will be evident that baptism is properly administered to infants
> as something *owed* to them. For in early times the Lord did not
> deign to have them circumcised without making them participants
> in all those things which were then signified by circumcision.[Institutes, IV, xvi, 5.]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If baptism is owed to the children of believers, as Calvin thought, then covenant sucession would be legitimate.
> If baptism is "earned" by coming of age and professing faith, thus by earning the right to be baptized...then there would be no covenant succession (e.g., the baptist position, in my opinion)
> 
> Note: As for scripture, covenant succession seems to be a very popular idea.
> 
> 
> KMK...I am not sure what you are really asking me though...sorry if my reply adds nothing.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, I was refering to the phrase that I bolded: 



> *those who presume regeneration of the covenant child until or unless such a one apostasizes*



Is this what is called 'covenant succesion'?


----------



## MOSES

KMK said:


> *those who presume regeneration of the covenant child until or unless such a one apostasizes*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this what is called 'covenant succesion'?
Click to expand...


in my opinion, no, not quite.

Covenant succession is based on the promise of God to, what I call "elect", Children.
It is not based on our presuming regeneration, but soley on the promise of God.
Covenant succession is much more solid then mere presumption.


----------



## KMK

MOSES said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *those who presume regeneration of the covenant child until or unless such a one apostasizes*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this what is called 'covenant succesion'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> in my opinion, no, not quite.
> 
> Covenant succession is based on the promise of God to, what I call *"elect", Children.*
> It is not based on our presuming regeneration, but soley on the promise of God.
> Covenant succession is much more solid then mere presumption.
Click to expand...


Do you mean 'elect children of believing parents'?


----------



## jogri17

Davidius said:


> I've never understood how one can teach their children to pray without presuming their regeneration. God does not hear the prayers of the wicked. Wouldn't teaching someone whom you assume is not regenerate until they reach a certain age when they can "comprehend" be having your child heap up condemnation on itself?



It is simple, of course God hears the prayer's of the wicked. But wicked can mean one thing in one context another in another text. I would argue those verses are about those who know the truth and are outright rebellious like Sodom. Children have a special place in scripture. I think the Bible makes it clear. After all look at samuel. He was raised in a godly home sent to work as a priest at a young age. Regeneration is a sovereign act of God not a decision.


----------



## MOSES

KMK said:


> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this what is called 'covenant succesion'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in my opinion, no, not quite.
> 
> Covenant succession is based on the promise of God to, what I call *"elect", Children.*
> It is not based on our presuming regeneration, but soley on the promise of God.
> Covenant succession is much more solid then mere presumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you mean 'elect children of believing parents'?
Click to expand...


NO...I mean all children of believing parents.

I refer to such children as "elect" in that they were placed in the covenant (VISIBLY) by God's providence. All Christian children are "elect" in the visible sense and they recieve the covenant sign.

note: I am not talking about the eternal decrees of God in election. I am not using the word elect in that way.


----------



## Davidius

jogri17 said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never understood how one can teach their children to pray without presuming their regeneration. God does not hear the prayers of the wicked. Wouldn't teaching someone whom you assume is not regenerate until they reach a certain age when they can "comprehend" be having your child heap up condemnation on itself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is simple, of course God hears the prayer's of the wicked. But wicked can mean one thing in one context another in another text. I would argue those verses are about those who know the truth and are outright rebellious like Sodom. Children have a special place in scripture. I think the Bible makes it clear. After all look at samuel. He was raised in a godly home sent to work as a priest at a young age. Regeneration is a sovereign act of God not a decision.
Click to expand...


I don't see what Samuel or regeneration being a sovereign act of God have to do with my statement. 

"The LORD is far from the wicked, but He hears the prayer of the righteous" (Proverbs 15:29).

"We know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is God-fearing, and does His will, He hears him" (John 9:31).


----------



## Scott

jogri17 said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never understood how one can teach their children to pray without presuming their regeneration. God does not hear the prayers of the wicked. Wouldn't teaching someone whom you assume is not regenerate until they reach a certain age when they can "comprehend" be having your child heap up condemnation on itself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is simple, of course God hears the prayer's of the wicked. But wicked can mean one thing in one context another in another text. I would argue those verses are about those who know the truth and are outright rebellious like Sodom. Children have a special place in scripture. I think the Bible makes it clear. After all look at samuel. He was raised in a godly home sent to work as a priest at a young age. Regeneration is a sovereign act of God not a decision.
Click to expand...


I think we are talking about praying in the name of Christ, which implies union with Christ (something the unbelievers do not have).


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

tcalbrecht said:


> Pilgrim's Progeny said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not have an answer here, then again I do not call my children unsaved heathen. They are holy by virtue of their place in the covenant entity of my household. What is a proper classification to give your unconverted children in this context?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *How do you know they are unconverted?*
Click to expand...

I speak of conversion as in showing forth a living active faith in God, my 10 month old and two year old do not. My 4 year old and 6 year old do. I do not hesitate to call my 4 and 6 year old Christians. I suppose, in answer to my question above, I will call them covenant children, or children of promise. I fully expect that they will come to faith.


----------



## MOSES

*Presumption*



wsw201 said:


> A question from one OPC paedo to another...
> 
> What about adult baptism. As is the practice in the OPC an adult must give a credible profession of faith before receiving the sacrament of baptism.
> Thus, the session must "presume" such a one is regenerate.
> 
> Why then does the same OPC church when baptizing other people (i.e., infants, children) NOT presume regeneration?
> 
> in my opinion, that is an inconsistency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the same OPC peado but what the heck.
> 
> When an adult requests baptism they are required to make a credible profession of faith. That not only includes what they actually profess but whether they actually live out that credible profession. A Session should not have to "presume" regeneration. A Session would take them at their word and based on their life. In fact it would be dangerous for the Church to presume upon the activity of the Holy Spirit at all.
> 
> It should also be noted that the grounds for Baptism of an adult or infant is not based upon regeneration (which is the Baptist view) but on the command of Christ and the promise of the covenant. But that promise is not a guarantee. Therefore, presumption in any form is not necessary or warranted by Scripture.
Click to expand...



What do you think about the following statement made by A.A. Hodge in his commentary on the WCF?



> The sacraments are the seals of his [Christ's] covenant. All have a right to claim admitance . . . who are *presumptively* the people of Christ


Chapter 1 page 3


----------



## queenknitter

Blueridge Baptist said:


> I have never in my 24 yrs of Baptist life heard a baptist tell thier children not to pray in Jesus' name. This is a new one on me. I encouraged my child to pray from the moment she could say da-da.



I'm coming back to this point because I just found another source that is pretty adamant about NOT praying with children.

From Steve Lehrer's "How Should We Treat Our Children?":



> Prayer is the privilege to “approach the throne of grace boldly” and cry out to God as our Father.15 Prayer is the ultimate expression that one has peace with God.16 Our unbelieving children do not have the privilege to approach the throne of grace because they have not repented of their sins. God only has wrath for them. God is not their father. Their father is the devil until they repent and are adopted into God’s family.17 Singing is simply prayer in song. If my child has not repented and yet he is singing out in church about his love for God and the blessing of being forgiven, he needs to understand that the words do not apply to him. He needs to be told that it is hypocrisy to sing about your love for God and yet continue to live an unrepentant life.18 But if after hearing this, your child decides to pray or sing to the Lord anyway, let him. Look at this as an opportunity to explain again what prayer and singing are and why they don’t mean anything before God until he repents and finds peace with God.


----------



## Gryphonette

*Is this Steve Lehrer a widely-known and heeded theologist?*

I'm hardly going to set myself out as the Last Word on Who's Who in modern America Christendom, but I'm not familiar with him.

Is this really and truly a wide-spread, frequently held viewpoint, or is it part of the fringe?

Goodness knows Calvinists have suffered for years by being tied to whoever he is that has the "Outside the Camp" site.

There's a lot to legitimately criticize about the RCC, but even it has its fringe groups...those who though possessing their own enthusiastic adherents, are definitely outside the mainstream of the RCC.

Are we absolutely positive this isn't that sort of thing?

For I know heaps of credos - why, I'm related to some of 'em ;^) - and they most assuredly do not advocate Lehrer's position.



queenknitter said:


> Blueridge Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never in my 24 yrs of Baptist life heard a baptist tell thier children not to pray in Jesus' name. This is a new one on me. I encouraged my child to pray from the moment she could say da-da.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm coming back to this point because I just found another source that is pretty adamant about NOT praying with children.
> 
> From Steve Lehrer's "How Should We Treat Our Children?":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prayer is the privilege to “approach the throne of grace boldly” and cry out to God as our Father.15 Prayer is the ultimate expression that one has peace with God.16 Our unbelieving children do not have the privilege to approach the throne of grace because they have not repented of their sins. God only has wrath for them. God is not their father. Their father is the devil until they repent and are adopted into God’s family.17 Singing is simply prayer in song. If my child has not repented and yet he is singing out in church about his love for God and the blessing of being forgiven, he needs to understand that the words do not apply to him. He needs to be told that it is hypocrisy to sing about your love for God and yet continue to live an unrepentant life.18 But if after hearing this, your child decides to pray or sing to the Lord anyway, let him. Look at this as an opportunity to explain again what prayer and singing are and why they don’t mean anything before God until he repents and finds peace with God.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Pergamum

Davidius said:


> I've never understood how one can teach their children to pray without presuming their regeneration. God does not hear the prayers of the wicked. Wouldn't teaching someone whom you assume is not regenerate until they reach a certain age when they can "comprehend" be having your child heap up condemnation on itself?



The prayers of the wicked are sin, but the non-prayers of the wicked are even bigger sin. The unbeleiver is sinning either way, so might as well pray. Plus, the Bible commands repentance and repentance occurs by prayer it seems.


----------



## queenknitter

Gryphonette said:


> Is this really and truly a wide-spread, frequently held viewpoint, or is it part of the fringe?



I don't know. I really, really don't. That's kinda why I pointed it out here because I'd like to gauge others' reactions. 

This document kind of fell into my lap. Long story. But I'm hoping that it's fringe. And that it stays fringe. And yet I've heard similar things out here in SC.

Steve Lehrer, btw, is the major writer for the New Covenant Theology. So if that's fringe. . . .

C


----------



## Pergamum

One practical benefit of infant baptism: they use less water. 

Paedo baptism is eco-friendly!



(this message approved by Al Gore)


----------

