# How is the church to view their baptized infants?



## Pergamum (Dec 20, 2010)

How should the church view their baptized infants? 

As believers? As possible believers? As probable believers? As unregenerate until a profession or other evidences?


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Dec 20, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> How should the church view their baptized infants?
> 
> As believers? As possible believers? As probable believers? As unregenerate until a profession or other evidences?


 
1. Yes. 2. No. 3. No. 4. No. (*NOTE*: When I hear, "How is the church to *view* their baptized infants?", I take it to mean, "How is the church to *treat* their baptized infants?" So, what is meant is not that we should necessarily believe these are Lord's, but TREAT them as such, just as we TREAT all our older Brothers/Sisters as truly Lord's DESPITE their failures. Just as a Brotherly admonition, Even though you have authority over your children, you are older and wiser than them, etc., you should not see yourself any different from your covenant children who are Lord's just as you are Lord's. We are all bought by the same grace, and therefore should not despise those who yet have not experienced as much grace as we have (1 Tim. 4:12).)

Here are some very helpful, profound and astoundingly clear (and I mean that!) articles defending the Paedobaptist position of baptism:

"*The Meaning of Baptism - with Special Reference to the Baptist View*" by Rev. Angus Stewart, a member of Covenant Protestant Reformed Church (CPRC),
*The Meaning of Baptism*

"*A Presbyterian View of Covenant Children*" by Mark L. Shand, a member of Protestant Reformed Church (PRC),
*Protestant Reformed Theological Journal: November 2004 Presbyterian View of Covenant Children (1)*
*Protestant Reformed Theological Journal: April 2005 Presbyterian View of Covenant Children (2)*

"*How To View Our Covenant Children*" by Chris Coleborn, a member of Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC),
*EPC Australia*

"*An Answer to Baptistic Imaginations*" by Samuel Watterson, a member of Limerick Reformed Fellowship (a group of Reformed Christians who meet together in Limerick City, Ireland, to worship the LORD according to the biblical and Reformed faith as summarised in the historic confessions of faith, namely the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession and the Canons of Dort. These people meet twice each Lord's Day for public worship centred around the preaching of the Word, which is done by their missionary Martyn McGeown, sent and ordained by the Covenant Protestant Reformed Church (CPRC), Ballymena, Northern Ireland, with whom they are affiliated,)
*An Answer to Baptistic Imaginations*


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 20, 2010)

As members of the visible church, to be raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Not necessarily members of the invisible church, but by faith knowing of the promises of God to the children of believers. And believing this is an ordinary way God works salvation.


----------



## jwithnell (Dec 20, 2010)

Covenant children who are to be treated as full (though non-communicant) members of the church until and unless they prove themselves to be covenant breakers. I think this is more than a semantic issue because it involves the expectations parents have for their children. We tell our children that they must believe and that this house seeks after God. God certainly isn't under any obligation to bless our parenting, but I do believe the scriptures show blessings to those who hold to the covenant.


----------



## CharlieJ (Dec 20, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> How should the church view their baptized infants?
> 
> As believers? As possible believers? As probable believers? As unregenerate until a profession or other evidences?


 
This is a good question, and I think it uncovers an embarrassment in the American Presbyterian churches. If we believe that baptism admits the infant to membership in the church, then we take a certain stance toward them that we wouldn't take toward unbaptized children. The rub is that we aren't really in the habit of treating church members very differently than non-members. In your average Presbyterian church, could you tell the members from the non-members? Well, the members can vote on things. Yes, but the children can't, even if they are "members." So, I think your question reveals how infant baptism has become more sentiment than anything else, verging toward baby dedication. If we don't really distinguish between member and non-member, then it doesn't seem that important to distinguish between member infants and non-member infants. 

Note: I don't really have a solution to the problem.


----------



## jwithnell (Dec 20, 2010)

Very real Charlie, but I can say that I have a very real sense of obligation to the children of my congregation that does not extend to outsiders. I don't recall if it was an independent action or something actually written into the PCA BOCO, but In a PCA church where I was once a member, we were asked as a congregation to make a spoken commitment during a baptism. That seems most appropriate to me.


----------



## CharlieJ (Dec 20, 2010)

jwithnell said:


> Very real Charlie, but I can say that I have a very real sense of obligation to the children of my congregation that does not extend to outsiders. I don't recall if it was an independent action or something actually written into the PCA BOCO, but In a PCA church where I was once a member, we were asked as a congregation to make a spoken commitment during a baptism. That seems most appropriate to me.


 
I too have a sense of special obligation to the children in my congregation, but that's not exactly the point. I'd estimate my church has 400 Sunday attenders, with at least 50 of those being children. Many of those children are baptized, but some are not. Recently, several families have had their children baptized, but their children have been in the congregation for several years. I doubt that anyone treats those children differently than they had been treating them for the past few years. We don't divide our Sunday schools into baptized vs. non-baptized children. We don't give the baptized ones different snacks in the nursery than we give the non-baptized ones. 

I know those examples are silly, but that's the point. If a family with elementary-school aged children attended your church for several years, but never had their children baptized, would you really treat them any differently than you treat the baptized children? I doubt it, and I think that's why infant baptism is implausible to many people. In an earlier time in congregational America, the failure to baptize your children carried serious social consequences. Your family really would be treated differently. Now, that's not the case, and it's not surprising that a lot of people are asking, "What's the point?"


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Dec 20, 2010)

Joshua said:


> The same way we "view" other members of the visible church.


 
Exactly.


----------



## jwithnell (Dec 20, 2010)

Quite frankly, I've never been a member of a conservative Presbyterian church where this divide occurred. Within a year or so of joining our church, most credo-baptist families come around to understanding the need to baptize their children. I can think of an example of a single woman who took many, many years to join our church over this difference (her choice). We treated her with love, respect, and patience.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 20, 2010)

In response to the OP, and to Charlie, let me begin with an analogic question:

How is my child,--born of USA citizens, in the USA, with a State birth certificate--any different from the child of parents who are visiting this country long-term on a Student (tourist) visa (i.e. living here for a decade). My child can't vote, so really, is he a citizen? He is disallowed from the "sacrament" of driving, what's that? Why should he have to jump through some legalistic hoop, where he has to demonstrate some "road-knowledge and capability," and get a "license." Apparently, there's *no difference* between my kid, and any member of the tourist-family, right? Sometimes, they even speak our language better than we do.

You can't say education makes any difference, because the tourists' son is enrolled in the local public school. In fact, there's so much that's available to the non-citizen, one might well ask if there is any difference. The "meaningful" factors are practically indistinguishable.

Are they? Have we come to the place where _it really doesn't matter_ that my children are citizens, and these other people aren't? At the end of all our side-by-side participation in countless activities of life, my kids belong here--and those folks DON'T. They are still human beings. They are still worthy of dignity and respect for their personal qualities. But, without proper transference, this place isn't their home. It isn't the home of their kid, who spent more than half his life here.

They are not entitled to the foundational privilege of all: belonging. And if at any time the benefits of belonging are restricted to members, they will be left out. And, they don't have any right to complain about that. Why? because this is not their home--and no amount of wishful thinking will change that. There is a way for that to change, but if they refuse to take that route, how does that help them?

As for my child, he is a citizen. He may only be able to fully participate in the life of the community _in ways that are suitable to his minority status,_ but he's still a citizen, and he will get those other abilities and privileges in due time, all things being equal. And no one should be able to strip him of his citizenship or freedoms without due process. No one can deport him, because this is his homeland.

If we (in this country) NEVER make any difference between citizens and non-citizens, then our membership standards are useless. When our leaders pad the rolls of their supporters by "buying" the votes of non-citizens, and refusing to enforce any laws that discriminate between those who OWN the privileges by a true membership, and those who are interlopers, that does not mean that the concept of citizenship itself has been destroyed. It only means it has been devalued.

Likewise, if we never make it clear that church-membership is desirable, better, and worth more than non-membership, we are only devaluing membership, not _invalidating_ it.


Here's the original question:
*How should the church view their baptized infants? As believers? As possible believers? As probable believers? As unregenerate until a profession or other evidences?*

I will answer the question in a way that is NOT related to the possibilities offered. I answer the question, based on what we can SEE, not on what we can't. 

We treat these children as citizens; that's based on their "birth-certificate," which is a baptism (again, something we can SEE). We baptized them, because they were born to "citizens;" that is, persons who also have a "birth certificate" (however it was obtained), who have matured as they ought to have within the church (the kingdom), and continue under the discipline of the church. They are disciples (being under discipline), and so is that child a "disciple." To be under discipline is to be a disciple. "The disciples were first called 'Christians' at Antioch," Act.11:26. So these children are "Christians."

Citizens. Disciples. Christians. That's how these little baptized persons are to be viewed. ALL we citizens/disciples/Christians are in need of the gospel, all the time, every week in worship. We LIVE by faith in the gospel. We breathe gospel-air. Our children are being incubated in a gospel-environment (or they should be). So, in these children we are looking for signs of conversion, such as evident sorrow for sin; love for God, for Christ, for his Word; fruit of the Spirit; profession; understanding and belief of the truth we confess (catechism anyone?).

I preach the Word with the expectation that the children who are present are _getting_ something from our worship, from the gospel especially. I believe the Spirit is at work there, and everywhere he promises. In the homes of diligent parents, for instance, rearing their children in the fear of God. But especially he's there at his audience-chamber, the gathered church, to meet and to bless those who belong there. For anyone there--old or young--I expect that they could start the worship an unbeliever (secret or apparent); and by the end, they may be a believer, regenerated, whole. I preach and speak according to the judgment of charity, generally. Although, I am not adverse to demanding that the hearer do some self-examining, to see if he is indeed in the faith.

Judging anyone according to [actual] belief/unbelief is (in my view) trying to see the UNSEEABLE. We expect a normal adult to be able to articulate his faith, in a quasi-intelligible way. We don't expect the same of our children. We judge of these different parties according to the facts that we DO know, not what we do not. ANY professing "Christian" today, tomorrow may fall away. ANY "disciple" who is today simply receiving ordinary discipline, may tomorrow face strict discipline, even unto excommunication. Just as any citizen may find himself free today, and tomorrow clapped in irons.


One of the differences I've pointed out before, between Baptists and Presbyterians, is our views of the church's composition on earth. The former sees the church as an "imperfect" (mixed) institution, made up of "perfect" (regenerate) people. Whereas the latter sees the church as a "perfect" (heavenly/ideal) institution, made up of "imperfect" (sinful, error-rid, susceptible to apostasy) people. It really would help for us to understand this distinction, and to follow it out, because it is a true and accurate description of the differences between us.

The Baptist locus of "perfection" is in the personal versus the corporate; the "church" on earth is _supposed_ to be an ideal Christian fellowship, in which certain assumptions are made about the spiritual "perfection" (regeneration) of your fellow professors. But they will be the first to tell you, they do not suppose their "church" on earth is perfect, being a mixed company (possibly).

The Reformed locus of "perfection" is in the corporate, versus the individual; the "church" is those _who actually gather_ for a meeting with all the saints who are in heaven. As Calvin said, true worship actually takes place in heaven, and believers go there to worship spiritually. Unbelievers don't really participate in what is going on. What we profess about ourselves _in the church_ is not our "regeneration" (perfection), but our sinfulness, and our need of the gospel and the Savior, today as much as yesterday; tomorrow as much as today, until we actually GET to heaven. This is what we understand as the necessity of perseverance.

Please understand that I'm not saying that the Baptist doesn't find things to agree with about the latter paragraph; or that the Reformed guy doesn't understand that the individual is significant as far as church goes, or that professing faith is irrelevant to how we treat one another in the church. But this is a question about *how we understand the CHURCH*. How do we view our baptized infants? In the same we view our baptized adults. As sinners in need of the gospel of Jesus Christ for salvation. Believe and live.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 20, 2010)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> > The same way we "view" other members of the visible church.
> ...


 
But this is not true regarding the Lord's Supper and, I presume, voting patterns.

---------- Post added at 01:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:03 AM ----------




Contra_Mundum said:


> In response to the OP, and to Charlie, let me begin with an analogic question:
> 
> How is my child,--born of USA citizens, in the USA, with a State birth certificate--any different from the child of parents who are visiting this country long-term on a Student (tourist) visa (i.e. living here for a decade). My child can't vote, so really, is he a citizen? He is disallowed from the "sacrament" of driving, what's that? Why should he have to jump through some legalistic hoop, where he has to demonstrate some "road-knowledge and capability," and get a "license." Apparently, there's *no difference* between my kid, and any member of the tourist-family, right? Sometimes, they even speak our language better than we do.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks Bruce.


----------

