# Praying Children: should we teach our children to pray?



## Preach

Since a person can only approach the Father through the shed blood of Christ on his behalf, what about the prayers of covenant children. Should covenant parents encourage their children to pray (as in presumptive regeneration)? Thanks.



[Edited on 6-27-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Bobby,
It is absolutely a requirement. God has commanded that we as parents raise our children in the way they should go; to teach them to pray etc.

1 Cor says that our children are 'holy'. Christ says that the kingdom belongs to children as these.......

The question remains, how is the 1 Cor passage interpreted. From a covenantal standpoint, we believe our children are indeed holy. We believe God creates a heritage from our children, and our childrens children. We see God as immutable; a God of families; He is [i:13d7bacaef]the[/i:13d7bacaef] promise keeper.

The credo has one insurmountable wall in the way. They see their children as [i:13d7bacaef]unholy[/i:13d7bacaef]. Yet, they seem to try and raise them like the covenanter; yet in the same breath, when taken to task on the conflict, they struggle with trying to make the two ends meet. Their theology denies the concept.

So, coming at the idea from a credo perspective, if it was me, to at the least keep my theology consistant, I would not teach my children that they can yet pray to God. They should not think that God is considerate of their prayers; they should not call him father. They should only pray the prayer that seeks Gods grace in saving them.

[Edited on 6-26-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Don A

&quot;Non-covenant&quot; people shouldn't pray to God, for he is not considerate of their prayers. Hmmmm. That's a novel concept:

[b:a560bc874d]Acts 10[/b:a560bc874d]
1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,
2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, [b:a560bc874d]and prayed to God alway[/b:a560bc874d].
3 He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.
4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.

27 And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together.
28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

[edited to add signature]

[Edited on 6-27-04 by pastorway]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Don,
First of all, you have taken me out of context. That is not what I said.........

What I said, in context is:
&quot;coming at the idea from a credo perspective, if it was me, to at the least keep my theology consistant, I would not teach my children that they can yet pray to God. They should not think that God is considerate of their prayers; they should not call him father. They should only pray the prayer that seeks Gods grace in saving them. &quot;

Don, 
How is this theologically erred? Does God hear the reprobate, the unregenerate?

In regards to Cornelius:
Does not the passage state that Cornelius [i:68cb0fd246]feared God with all his house,[/i:68cb0fd246]. What do you think the extent of this fear was?

Calvin writes:
&quot;2. He saith that he was a godly man, and one that feared God; secondly, that like a good householder he had a care to instruct his families; he praiseth him afterward for the offices of love, because he was beneficial [beneficent] toward all the people; and, lastly, that he prayed [to] God continually. The sum is this, that Cornelius was a man of singular virtues, wherein the integrity of the godly consisteth, so that his life was framed, in all points, according to the rule which God prescribeth unto us. And because the law is contained in two tables, Luke commendeth, in the former place, Cornelius' godliness; secondly, he descendeth unto the second part, that he exercised the offices of love toward men. This is very profitable to be marked, because we have a way to live well described in his person.

Wherefore, in ordering the life well, let faith and religion be the foundation, which being taken away, all other virtues are nothing else but smokes. Luke reckoneth up the fear of God and prayer as fruits and testimonies of godliness and of the worship of God, and that for good causes. For religion cannot be separated from the fear of God and the reverence of him, neither can any man be counted godly, save he who acknowledging God to be his Father and Lord, doth addict himself wholly to him. And let us know that voluntary fear is commended in this place when those men submit themselves to God willingly and from their heart, who duly consider themselves what is due to him.

Moreover, because a great part of the world doth, with reigned trifles, corrupt and deprave the worship of God, Luke added, for good causes, that Cornelius prayed continually; whereby he doth signify, that he proved not his godliness only with external ceremonies, but that he worshipped God spiritually, when as he exercised himself in prayer. We must also note the continuance of his prayer; whence we gather, that he did not pray only coldly, after the common custom, but that he was earnestly bent to prayer, as the continual benefits of God do exhort us and prick us forward thereunto, and the force of faith ought there to show itself. Wherefore let every one of us exhort himself to persevere in prayer by the example of Cornelius.

With all his house. We must not lightly pass over this commendation that Cornelius had a church in his house. And, surely, a true worshipper of God will not suffer so much as in him lieth God to be banished from his house. For how unmeet a thing is it for him to maintain his own right stoutly, that his wife, children, servants, and maids may obey him, and not to regard that God is disobeyed. It shall sometimes fall out so that a godly man cannot have even his wife to be of his mind; yet he, which ruleth others, must endeavor by all means to have God obeyed; and there is nothing more meet than that we should consecrate all ours to God as ourselves. Therefore, if a godly man have children which are unlike him, or a wife of evil conditions, or lewd and wicked servants, let him not wink, nor yet suffer his house to be polluted through his slothfulness. The diligence of Cornelius is not so much commended as the blessing of God, whereby it came to pass that he had his house obedient unto him in godliness. And we must not omit the circumstance, that he instructed his family in the fear of God, setting light by the fear of danger, which did hang over his head therefore. For the Jewish religion was in great contempt; 646 and no citizen of Rome might freely 647 receive any strange religion, as they called it. Wherefore, although the sincere profession of the gospel be evil spoken of in the world, yet is it too corrupt frightfulness 648 if that unjust hatred hinder any man from offering his family to God for a sacrifice, by godly instruction.&quot;

Obviously, Cornelius placed the sign of baptism upon his family........

@@ Also, PS:
You need to place a signature in your profile for your posts. Board rules Don.



[Edited on 6-27-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## luvroftheWord

There is no hate or animosity against Baptists in any shape or form in this messageboard. The paedobaptists make points and wonder why Baptists are not consistent with their theology of children. But this is somehow considered &quot;hate&quot; or &quot;disrespect&quot;. But that is simply ridiculous, and honestly, it sounds like the response of modern day postmoderns to the absolute claims of Christianity against paganism. You can teach your kids to pray if you want to, but have a consistent answer for why you do so. That's all we're asking.

[Edited on 6-27-2004 by luvroftheWord]


----------



## Scott Bushey

[quote:e464c94755][i:e464c94755]Originally posted by A_Wild_Boar[/i:e464c94755]
[quote:e464c94755][i:e464c94755]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:e464c94755]
Bobby,
It is absolutely a requirement. God has commanded that we as parents raise our children in the way they should go; to teach them to pray etc.

1 Cor says that our children are 'holy'. Christ says that the kingdom belongs to children as these.......

The question remains, how is the 1 Cor passage interpreted. From a covenantal standpoint, we believe our children are indeed holy. We believe God creates a heritage from our children, and our childrens children. We see God as immutable; a God of families; He is [i:e464c94755]the[/i:e464c94755] promise keeper.

The credo has one insurmountable wall in the way. They see their children as [i:e464c94755]unholy[/i:e464c94755]. Yet, they seem to try and raise them like the covenanter; yet in the same breath, when taken to task on the conflict, they struggle with trying to make the two ends meet. Their theology denies the concept.

So, coming at the idea from a credo perspective, if it was me, to at the least keep my theology consistant, I would not teach my children that they can yet pray to God. They should not think that God is considerate of their prayers; they should not call him father. They should only pray the prayer that seeks Gods grace in saving them.

[Edited on 6-26-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:e464c94755]

All right, I was wondering if this would turn into a credo vs paedo debate. 
Oh well.

The argument that children should not pray is about as deranged as saying that unbelievers should not call upon the name of the Lord. Just because we dont know the exact status or even assume that someone is or isnt saved is no reason to forbid them to seek the Lord.

Sorry but to tell me that teaching my children to pray is in error disgusts me. Jesus said to forbid them not to come to Him. And you tell me that only baptized children have the right to do so? I should forbid my children? Jesus didnt prevent the children from comming to Him. Its safe to say NONE of those children were baptized as infants. 

Keep that blasphemous teaching in the pit where it belongs. 

Sorry, thats it for me. 

God bless.


PS, to all the members here. Thank you for the good debate and learning experience. I just do not feel comfortable being here anymore. 





[Edited on 6-27-2004 by A_Wild_Boar] [/quote:e464c94755]


Roger, 
I have seen some excellent posts by you in the past. This one however, puzzles me as it reveals some theological anomolies; If I may say so. For instance:

You write:
&quot;The argument that children should not pray is about as deranged as saying that unbelievers should not call upon the name of the Lord.&quot;

Outside of Gods omniscience, does He hear the prayers of the unregenerate? Is He inclined to the prayers of the reprobate? How is this idea deranged? 

Roger adds:
&quot;Just because we dont know the exact status or even assume that someone is or isnt saved is no reason to forbid them to seek the Lord.&quot;

Roger,
Seeking God is a different item. If you'll look closer at the previous post, I made mention of the type of prayer the unregenerate should make. I wrote:

&quot;They should only pray the prayer that seeks Gods grace in saving them&quot;

You continue:
&quot;Sorry but to tell me that teaching my children to pray is in error disgusts me. Jesus said to forbid them not to come to Him. 

Scott inquires:

So God is inclined towards all children??? For how long? Are all children &quot;elect&quot;? God is inclined to all children, elect or non elect; for how long??? The passage you speak of, is an example of Christ showing His love for the covenant child. If you look closer, Christ actually [i:e464c94755]blesses[/i:e464c94755] them. Christ does not [i:e464c94755]bless[/i:e464c94755] all children; does He???


Roger adds:
And you tell me that only baptized children have the right to do so? 

Answer:
Yes Roger, Covenant children. Again, complain to God; He said it, not I.

Roger adds:
I should forbid my children? Jesus didnt prevent the children from comming to Him. Its safe to say NONE of those children were baptized as infants. 

Answer:
Correct. They were not baptized, but they were circumcised. They did have the sign of promise placed upon them by their parents; according to Gods command.


Keep that blasphemous teaching in the pit where it belongs. 


Roger,
The covenant sign is blasphemous? What does that say for the originator of it? Calvin, Luther, Edwards, Sproul....


----------



## pastorway

First, teaching our kids to pray has nothing to do with any covenant!

Here is why we should teach our kids to pray:

1. The Bible commands Christian parents to raise their children in the &quot;training and admonition of the Lord.&quot; Eph 6:4.

2. Training and Admonition lead to instruction in how to fear God, having a proper attitude and view of Him. Deut 4:10, 6:24, 10:12, 31:12.

2. Those who fear the Lord seek Him and pray to Him. Acts 10:22; Psalm 22:23, 25:14, 33:8, 34:11, 103:13, 111:10, 112:1, 115:11; Prov 1:7, 15:33, 19:23; Rev 15:4.

&quot;Come, you children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the LORD.&quot;

3. Christ Himself told the disciples to allow the little children to come to Him and not keep them away. Luke 18:16 
(note: He did not require circumicision, baptism, or any covenantal status. The text says He welcomed ALL of the children from those in the crowd....and many in that crowd were likely those who later rejected Christ and proved that they were not His people!)

4. The Bible never says that the prayers of the lost/unregenerate are ignored or unheard!

5. In the great commission we are told to go and make disciples....you make disciples by teaching people to seek Christ and follow Him. We start by making disciples in our own families. Our children are born sinners, estranged from God, and our first duty is to teach them to seek Him! Matt 28:19-20.

Phillip


----------



## Scott Bushey

Phillip,
Sorry, but you are looking at this through the eyes of a fractured theology. Based upon that fracture, you are seeing the covenant and it's requirements in a disorganized fashion.

God is immutable, He has always been a covenant God. This premise, the idea that God is a covenant God, must be used as the eyeglasses for which men view the God of the scriptures through; it must be, else, you will not see the scriptures in the proper light and alignment.

Now, I am not implying this has any relevance in a salvific manner. But for men to know God, in the way that God must be known, one of the first principles that must be gleaned, is that God is a covenant God and that He has, and will always be a God of families.

I add:
Do not take what I am saying out of context. Everyone knows that God is omniscient. He hears everything! However, the scriptures say clearly that God does not hear sinners (the unregenerate), in the way He hears His people.
In fact, the unregenerate, this to include the children of believers whom are not saved, are at odds with God. 

[Edited on 6-27-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

[quote:08b5368990][i:08b5368990]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:08b5368990]
 Fred

And for Scott - does the Bible teach us to tell the lost to run away from God, or to seek after Him?

Yes our children who are lost are at odds with God and children of wrath - but a child of wrath must still obey the gospel and repent and believe, seeking Christ. Christ invited men to come to Him. He did not say wait until I come for you - He said, &quot;Come to Me, [i:08b5368990]all[/i:08b5368990] you....&quot;

Teaching our children to pray is teaching them to come to Christ!!

And fractured theology or not, you did not answer my Scriptural reasons for teaching children to pray. I provided an answer that shows that the covenant has no bearing on whether we should pray for not. You did not answer what I posted.

Phillip [/quote:08b5368990]

* First of all, I submitted this post prior to seeing Freds post. My mind started to tell me to remove my post.......the other side did not. I don;t understand. I did not ask the initial question; I only responded to it. I don't know why this topic is so trying. I guess if I was credo, it would be. Why? Because it is, in light of their theology, irreconcilable. Why get offended? deal with the problem. Why get upset with me? I didn't make it up. I'm with craig on this one. Everytime this topic comes up, it is brushed under the table. It is ecumenism city. It makes me think of this guy from Cali who was beat up by the police years ago: &quot;Can we all just get along&quot;? 

The bible has hard lines. If hard lines are not your cup of tea, do not endeavor into the thread. I was asked a question; I answered it, according to the Holy Spirits prompting. Does this mean I love Phillip or Lawrence or Fred or Daniel any less; no, of course not. When I was Arminian, did I get ruffled when someone told me I was still perishing? Yes. Was it good for me? Yes!


I am leaving this post up. Continue your involvement or do not. Be men; make a decision.



Phillip,
With all due respect, I did answer your question. Those admonitions are obviously there in the scriptures; you can't miss them. Unfortunately, for them to be understood corectly, they are to be seen through the glasses of Gods covenants. As I had said, the Baptists theology is fractured. This fracture causes a gulf. This gulf is by and large is the reason the baptist misunderstands what God means in regards to their children and how to rear them; how they should pray with them; if they should pray with them. In light of the baptists fractured theology, they have difficulty in reconciling the idea that the unregenerate are at odds with God, yet they believe their children are immunized to this by some strange means. They do not treat their children like they would the heathens child down the street. What the paedo's here have been contesting is the way the credo views these scriptures that you've quoted. 


In regards to teaching your children to pray, you say that it is simply teaching them to &quot;seek&quot;. But cmon now, I was previously a credo w/ children. I know how the credo thinks. We didn't treat our children as the pagan child down the street. I taught my kids to call God father, to repent, to come, to believe. I should have been saying. &quot;Pray that God will save you-now, before it is too late, any other prayer God will not bend his ear towards; you are at odds with God, and as Edwards said, you are hanging by a thin string, and at any moment, Gods patience for you may out and you will fall for eternity into the place where people whom are at odds with God go.........&quot;

Having said that, the point is, the bible is consistant. It is covenantal. God is a God of families. Naturally, the intellect picks tjhis up, that is why, as a credo, I taught my children in such a manner, and in fact that manner was disconnected and inconsistant from my theology. One cannot deny this.

Phillip,
You make mention of the Matthew passage and the children. As I have asked Roger, did Jesus feel this way about all children? How about all the Egyptian children whom perish? These children were obviously covenant children; I mean they were in Judea-no? Christ actually &quot;blessed&quot; them. Christ would not have blessed reprobate children, sorry. I have children and I must acknowledge this fact. What did Jesus tell the apostles in regards to the Gentiles? &quot;Do not go the way of....&quot;? How about the woman at the table? &quot;Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.&quot; You cannot tell me that God has a special eye to all children. 

Again, let me restate what I am saying: I am not saying that the credo does not evangelize their child; or that the way they evangelize their child is wrong. I am saying though, that they may evangelize them, but they also train them up in a covenant fashion, a harmonious biblical fashion, which in fact their theology contradicts. Comprised within the scope of this fashion is teaching them in a different way then they would suggest to the pagan accross the street in how they should raise the child. In other words, the suggestion to the pagan would be less than what they do themselves; this is error.

To Daniel:
Dan, you mention, &quot;quick jabs and insults&quot;. I have not insulted anyone intentionally. If someone has insulted me, I have not been affected by it. I have a thick skin most of the time. If the scriptures and Gods word have offended anyone; so be it. Please offend me!!!! I would rather fear Him who is able to toss my body into hell for all eternity thatn men whom may destroy my body. peace you cry??? 

1 Th 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
1 Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

Amos 6:1 Woe to them that are at ease in Zion, and trust in the mountain of Samaria, which are named chief of the nations, to whom the house of Israel came!

I am against complacency and fake peace for the sake there of.........Besides that, this is a theological discussion list. This is what we do here; we discuss, we debate. The subjects are going to be &quot;hot&quot;. This is not a mens club. It is a debate forum. Let us hold on to our hats and endeavor under the bonds of love and the attitude of Christ Jesus. Discussing these things do not break fellowship, in my opinion, ignoring them does.


To the watching world:
Men of God are called under Gods Holy Spirit to &quot;test all things&quot;. We are to make sure that what we believe is true and right. We are much like you. Even though Christians, still, in many ways, sinful. This is why we need Christ. It is by His holiness we have been reconciled to God. he is holy, we are not. He is right, apart from Him, we are still wrong. he is true, we are hypocrites! Do not be suprised in our struggle. In our hypocrasy. This is the point. You need Christ for the same reason. Outside of Him, even now, we all perish. be saved..................


[Edited on 6-27-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Ianterrell

Scott,


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

I split this thread.

If you want to continue it, then continue from here and report anything from the other thread that you think is relevant. Do not paste over the &quot;argumentation&quot; stuff that went on.

Phillip some of your stuff was mingled in. Repost what is relevent by copy and paste.

[Edited on 6-27-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

How does this scripture affect our thoughts about our children praying:

Proverbs 21:27 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination; How much more when he brings it with wicked intent!

I know no one here believes that God is not omniscient. God hears everyone's prayers. Some are abominable, others are not.

Would an unregenerate's prayer by God be accepted by God (not heard - we know he hears them)?

If God does not &quot;hear&quot; (and I use the term hear here as &quot;reply, love, answer&quot; etc.), then should unregenerate children be taught to pray?

Wouldn't that be compounding wrath for them?

[Edited on 6-27-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## luvroftheWord

Phillip,

I'd like to comment on the arguments you made earlier and the Scriptures you cited.

First, the command to parents to raise their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and particularly as it occurs in Eph 6:4, is a command that goes back to the Mosaic Covenant, which means that your statement that teaching children to pray has nothing to do with the covenant is false. If you go back and read Deuteronomy, which is where the command originated (and of course, you cited a handful of Scriptures from Deuteronomy) you will see that the reason the command was given was because the covenant was &quot;to you and to your children&quot;. The children of the community were not simply among the people of God in the OT, but they WERE the people of God. They were children of the covenant, and as such, they had to be taught by their parents to fear the Lord and pray from their birth. Our children are still children of the covenant today and as such are Christians (I'm using &quot;Christian&quot; as theological shorthand for saying that our children are true members of the people of God, but not that they are, as such, necessarily elect/regenerate).

The thing about your argument is that there is very little of it that I disagree with, except maybe the points about the Bible not teaching that God doesn't hear the prayers of unbelievers and that the issue has nothing to do with the covenant.

I think that Baptists are justified in teaching their children to pray because there is clearly a Scriptural warrant to do so, and you have quoted Scriptures proving this. But the point I want to make goes back to Scott's statement that your view is &quot;fractured&quot; in that he and I both believe you are overlooking the glue that holds all the evidence together. If our children are Christians, they should expect that God hears their prayers because of God's covenant promises. But this is not a promise God has given to unbelievers.

By the way, concerning your statement that the Bible doesn't say that God doesn't hear the prayers of unbelievers, (1) the Bible does say that if we regard iniquity in our hearts, God will not hear us (Psalm 66:18). I know this is not a logical deduction and is more of an inference, but do we really think that God will NOT hear the prayers of his people when they are in sin, but he WILL hear the prayers of those that are DEAD in their trespasses and sins? (2) To say that the Bible doesn't say that God doesn't hear the prayers of unbelievers would be like saying the Bible doesn't say that purgatory doesn't exist. The question is, given the Biblical evidence, do we have reason to believe God DOES hear the prayers of unbelievers?

I've been thinking about this issue all day today, and I've decided that I don't want to blow this thing out of proportion. I am very glad that Baptists do teach their children to pray, and I believe that they are right to do so. Scripture commands it, as you pointed out, Phillip. I just believe that Baptistic theology in general cannot account for the practice and that in doing so, they are functioning practically as Presbyterians. But as I said, I think it is good and right for Baptists to teach their children to pray, and I think that the fact that God commands Christian parents to teach their children to do this, and that this is something that both paedo and credobaptists agree upon, that we should all keep our cool and discuss this issue in a cordial and reasonable fashion. I'm convinced that there is really no reason to do otherwise.


----------



## fredtgreco

Excellent post Craig.

I would also agree that God does not hear the prayers of the heathen. It is one of the main reasons for praying in the name of Christ:

[quote:aad73493a3][b:aad73493a3]WLC 181.[/b:aad73493a3] Why are we to pray in the name of Christ?
The sinfulness of man, and his distance from God by reason thereof, being so great, as that [b:aad73493a3]we can have no access into his presence without a mediator; (John 14:6, Isa. 59:2, Eph. 3:12)[/b:aad73493a3] and there being none in heaven or earth appointed to, or fit for, that glorious work but Christ alone, (John 6;27, Heb. 7:25-27, 1 Tim. 2:5) we are to pray in no other name but his only. (Col. 3:17, Heb. 13:15)
[/quote:aad73493a3]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.



What about the issue of not placing the sign upon your child and it's repercussion. Is there no longer a repercussion?


----------



## luvroftheWord

Scott, who is your post directed to?


----------



## SmokingFlax

Finally!!! 

I've gained a small measure of understanding in this credo vs. paedo controversy...and, as an impartial observer who is not so emotionally invested as it (obviously) seems that some here are (or were -unfortunately) I must say that Scott has put his finger on an issue that points straight to a problem in the credo camp -as far as following the theology to it's logical conclusion in this matter of prayer.

Pastor Way...it seems to me that he's got ya' on this one. But I'm still open...perhaps there is something in your position that I'm failing to grasp. I'm not seeing a good rebuttal of Scott's position in your response. If you could be so kind, I would hear more from you on this.

Finally, I have to say that I'm really disappointed that some have felt so insulted as to break from this cyber-fellowship. A part of me is rather angry actually. It seems that it is just this kind of weakness for controversy and disagreement that has plagued the church since its inception. To think that some here on the board, who have much more knowledge on these issues than I, could be so sensitive as to dis-fellowship is rather disturbing to me. It seems that knowledge does not transfer over to maturity. Frankly, I'm almost disgusted -it seems to me a whole lot like cowardice or just being a plain sore loser. I know these are strong words but I really didn't see the reason for such a sour reaction.

Please keep in mind that there are people like me out here that are not so entrenched and/or learned in these issues who are feeling our way through the labyrinth of issues and consequences of the ideas behind these theological schools of thought. We are learning not only from your knowledge and theology but from your actions and character as well.

Peace.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Craig,
I was simply making the statement in regards to what you have posted.


----------



## grace2U

Come on, you Baptists! Lighten up a little!
Where's your sense of humour?
Isn't it obvious that Scott has been having a joke at our expense? No one could be so silly as to suppose that you should forbid someone to pray until you are absolutely certain of their salvation Of course not! As you teach a child about the Lord Jesus, you encourage them to pray, and when they are naughty, you encourage them to confess 'saying sorry to Jesus'. What could be more natural?

No, Scott's been having a joke at our expense; and in just the same spirit of brotherly love and good humour, perhaps I can offer some suggestions to those who subscribe to PR.

First, you must never ever tell your child to trust in the Lord. According to your theology, he has already done so. 'He who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is judged by no man.' Despite the fact that the Bible tells you that he was 'born in sin and shapen in iniquity', you have presumed that he is spiritual, and you must never doubt this by seeking to convert him. According to 1John 2:20, he has 'an anointing from the Holy One and [he] knows all things.' Any attempt to teach him about the Lord Jesus is a blasphemy because he already knows all about Him. Give your two-year old Witsius to read instead.

Secondly, you must on no account pray to God to save your child. How can you? He is already saved. How inconsistent it would be to ask God to do what, according to your theology, He has already done.

But if, after all, your child should prove not to be converted, I can only suggest that you implement Deut 21:21. After all, where in the NT does it clearly say that this law has been revoked?

In the spirit of Prov 26:5.
Blessings to all,
Steve


~Added by administrator:

[color=Red:c21646ec4a]Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.[/color:c21646ec4a]

[Edited on 6-28-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## luvroftheWord

Steve,

Did you read the webmaster's email he sent out to everyone in the PB? Did you read his comments in the thread concerning some of our departed fellowship?

First of all, the implications of your comments are quite disturbing because evidently, you don't believe that regenerate persons should ever be taught to trust in the Lord. Have you not every told your congregation to seek the blood of Jesus Christ on their behalf? When regenerate persons are struggling with sin, should they never cry out to God for forgiveness of their sins? Given what you said, we should never do this because we are already forgiven, just like our children. So what was David thinking in Psalm 51?

Given your comment about giving your kid Witsius to read instead of the Bible, I'm curious as to why you even bother to post in the PB. Do you not come here seeking to reason and learn from other brothers and sisters? Reading my posts is no different than reading Witsius, except that Witsius is far more learned than I ever will be. Your radical individualism/subjectivism does not allow you to consistently post in the PB. (I'm not saying you should leave the PB... you definitely should not, I'm just saying your comments are not consistent)

Have you, Steve, as a regenerate person ever cried out to God to save you? Or do you deny the doctrine of perseverance? Crying out to God in faith is a DAILY practice.

In the spirit of Colossians 4:6,

Craig


----------



## cupotea

[quote:06fa2eb221][i:06fa2eb221]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:06fa2eb221]
Steve,

Did you read the webmaster's email he sent out to everyone in the PB? Did you read his comments in the thread concerning some of our departed fellowship?

First of all, the implications of your comments are quite disturbing because evidently, you don't believe that regenerate persons should ever be taught to trust in the Lord. Have you not every told your congregation to seek the blood of Jesus Christ on their behalf? When regenerate persons are struggling with sin, should they never cry out to God for forgiveness of their sins? Given what you said, we should never do this because we are already forgiven, just like our children. So what was David thinking in Psalm 51?

Given your comment about giving your kid Witsius to read instead of the Bible, I'm curious as to why you even bother to post in the PB. Do you not come here seeking to reason and learn from other brothers and sisters? Reading my posts is no different than reading Witsius, except that Witsius is far more learned than I ever will be. Your radical individualism/subjectivism does not allow you to consistently post in the PB. (I'm not saying you should leave the PB... you definitely should not, I'm just saying your comments are not consistent)

Have you, Steve, as a regenerate person ever cried out to God to save you? Or do you deny the doctrine of perseverance? Crying out to God in faith is a DAILY practice.

In the spirit of Colossians 4:6,

Craig [/quote:06fa2eb221]

Craig, if you reread his statements, Steve prefaced them by saying &quot;[b:06fa2eb221]According to your theology,[/b:06fa2eb221]&quot;.


----------



## fredtgreco

And this would be the practical difference between presumptive election and presumptive regeneration perhaps.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Steve,
Are the prayers of the unregenerate an abomination unto God?

Yes or no sir?


----------



## Puritan Sailor

[quote:528b0bef28][i:528b0bef28]Originally posted by grace2U[/i:528b0bef28]
First, you must never ever tell your child to trust in the Lord. According to your theology, he has already done so. 'He who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is judged by no man.' Despite the fact that the Bible tells you that he was 'born in sin and shapen in iniquity', you have presumed that he is spiritual, and you must never doubt this by seeking to convert him. According to 1John 2:20, he has 'an anointing from the Holy One and [he] knows all things.' Any attempt to teach him about the Lord Jesus is a blasphemy because he already knows all about Him. Give your two-year old Witsius to read instead.
[/quote:528b0bef28]
Since no one answered your objection from our perspective I will try. We tell our children to trust in the Lord because God tells them to do so. We see in Romans 9 that not all Israel are Israel, yet all physical Israel was still raised with teh blessings of the covenant, [i:528b0bef28]&quot;3For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen[1] according to the flesh, 4who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen. [/i:528b0bef28]
So from our perspective, just because we presume them regenerate doesn't mean they actually are. And so we preach the whole counsel of God to our children, just as the Israelite parents were to teach their children all that God had revealed, not just the stuff that &quot;applied.&quot; We are called to make our calling and election sure. That requires self examination. I would assume that baptists hodl to this concept as well. Not all professing baptists are truly regenerate and so you preach the whole counsel of God to them, just as we would to to both adults and children. 

[quote:528b0bef28]
Secondly, you must on no account pray to God to save your child. How can you? He is already saved. How inconsistent it would be to ask God to do what, according to your theology, He has already done.
[/quote:528b0bef28]
We pray for our children to grow in grace and in the knowledge of God. If they begin to evidence that they do not in fact have the fruits of regeneration, then we indeed pray that they would be saved and remind them of the God who set them apart form the pagan world to be raised in His ways. 

Hope that helps you understand our perspective a little better.


----------



## grace2U

Hey, lighten up, guys!

It was a joke
Humourous
Not to be taken seriously



Just like Scott's posts

Blessings,
Steve


----------



## grace2U

Hi Scott,
Exactly which text of the Bible are you thinking of? Is it Prov 28:9?

I note that the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord (Prov 15:8).

Indeed, even the way of the wicked (15:9) and his very thoughts (15:26) are an abomination to Him.

I can't really see how praying is going to make things worse!

Blessings,
Steve


----------



## luvroftheWord

Brent,

[quote:3e5589b2df]Craig, if you reread his statements, Steve prefaced them by saying &quot;According to your theology,&quot;.[/quote:3e5589b2df]

I know that. But if Steve holds the same view of what it means to be regenerate as what I and other Presbyterians do, then his comments are not &quot;according to our theology&quot; because nobody believes that Christians do not need to cry out to God every day and teach one another to do the same.

But since he was &quot;joking&quot; and I can't take a joke, it matters not.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Steve,
It absolutely makes it worse; by doing this, the unregenerate is heaping up more condemnation; but this is another thing. This is diverting the topic at hand.


Let's clearify; Are you saying that God is inclined to the prayers of the pagan across the street, in the same capacity as He is mine?

If not, how is your child any different from this pagan neighbor?



[Edited on 6-28-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## grace2U

Scott,
I asked you which verse of the Bible you had in mind.
Would you answer that first, please?

Steve


----------



## Scott Bushey

Sorry Steve,
I am not going to let you derail the idea with some exegetical hoop you want me to jump through. The doctrine is very simple and you are trying to complicate it to monopolize the thread; this will not work. God is not inclined to the prayers of the unregenerate in the same capacity as His people.

[Edited on 6-28-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## grace2U

You're a clever fellow, Scott.
You almost had me thinking you were serious for just a moment there

Blessings,
Steve


----------



## Scott Bushey

Steve,
Since you are adding nothing to this discussion, I am going to insist that you resist from further posting on this thread. Your patronization will not be tolerated; in fact I will edit out your infuriating posts for the benefit of those whom are seriously following.


----------



## luvroftheWord

Scott,

[quote:b459ce8c3b]Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. 

What about the issue of not placing the sign upon your child and it's repercussion. Is there no longer a repercussion?[/quote:b459ce8c3b]

I'm curious as to the nature of this question. I want to deal with it, but I'm not really sure what you are asking. I think you and I both agree that it is sin to withold the covenant sign from our children. But I think it is also sin for us not to teach our children to pray. So I think that Baptists are doing the right thing in teaching their kids to pray, even though I think they should be baptizing their kids as well, which puts a rift in their theology. Would you agree with that? Is that the direction you wanted to go with that question?


----------



## JonathonHunt

[quote:2c0f53dee1][i:2c0f53dee1]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:2c0f53dee1]
Steve,
Since you are adding nothing to this discussion, I am going to insist that you resist from further posting on this thread. Your patronization will not be tolerated; in fact I will edit out your infuriating posts for the benefit of those whom are seriously following. [/quote:2c0f53dee1]

All he did was ask for a scripture, Scott. We know that 'the prayer of a righteous man availeth much', but where is the scripture which states that the prayer of the unrighteous is an abomination? I AM seriously following this thread and I would like to know!

Jonathan


----------



## Scott Bushey

Craig,
Two things:
1) Is there a repercusion to witholding the covenant sign?
2) The baptist, theologically see's their children as outside the covenant. How is their unregenerate child any different than their pagan neighbor in regards to prayer? God surely is not inclined to the prayers of the pagan, why would the baptist see their children as otherwise?

The command to teach one's children to pray is held together by the covenant, no? No covenant participation, no acknowledgement from the Father in regards to prayers heard or answered. The glue to this command is anchored in the covenant and one's obedience to it.

The baptist thinks outside the parameters of the covenant. They acknowledge that the unregenerates have no access to God therough prayer; why would they consider their own unregenerate children immune?


Johnathan,
The passages that Steve cited as well as this John example:

31 But we know that God does not hear sinful ones, but if anyone is God fearing, and does His will, He hears that one. 

[Edited on 6-28-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Jonathan, a couple....

Proverbs 21:27 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination; How much more when he brings it with wicked intent! 

Proverbs 15:8 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD, But the prayer of the upright is His delight.

Isaiah 66:2-4 &quot;But on [b:3a584fc928]this one[/b:3a584fc928] will I look: On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, And who trembles at My word. 3 &quot; He who kills a bull is as if he slays a man; He who sacrifices a lamb, as if he breaks a dog's neck; He who offers a grain offering, as if he offers swine's blood; He who burns incense, as if he blesses an idol. Just as they have chosen their own ways, And their soul delights in their abominations, 4 So will I choose their delusions, And bring their fears on them; Because, when I called, no one answered, When I spoke they did not hear; But they did evil before My eyes, And chose that in which I do not delight.&quot;


----------



## Scott Bushey

I just want to mention the imperative nature to Christs mediation in relation to prayer; outside of His intervention, prayer is fruitless.


----------



## JonathonHunt

Should we teach our children to pray?

How could we not - they hear us pray daily in family worship (I hope) and as with most things, they copy us. My son understands in his head that he needs his sins forgiven and that he needs to trust in Christ. That is different from him actually doing it.

Seeing as all men are under a command to repent, that is what I urge upon the children above all else - I urge them to seek the Lord for salvation, not to seek him for success in exams or any other little thing. They know that the Lord hears his people's prayers.

I teach children every week who are from non-christian homes, at Sunday School. Assuming CT, what should I teach them? Well, they are not in the covenant, assuming CT, and I should teach them, as I would any adult, to call upon the Lord for salvation. That is what I do to them, and that is what I do to my son.

Yes, I view him as no different than his peers in Sunday School, whose parents are of the world. But you knew that anyway.

I'm probably missing the point again 

:blah1:


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Regardless of whether we are talking about childrne or anyone else, Scott is absolutely right. Here I think is the tension:

Without Christ, how CAN we pray?

As Calvinists are we really going to say that God &quot;attends&quot; to the prayer of the wicked? Or are we moved by our theology to say that God attends His Son, Jesus Christ, and thus, those adopted into His family - those who have the rights as children. 

Think of it in this way - 

[b:fd8a0deb9f]Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ.[/b:fd8a0deb9f][12] And that they may be enabled thereunto, beside the graces they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them to will, and to do, of his good pleasure:[13] yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.[14]

12. John 15:4-6; Rom. 8:4-14; Ezek. 36:26-27
13. Phil. 2:13; 4:13; II Cor. 3:5; Eph. 3:16
14. Phil. 2:12; Heb. 6:11-12; II Peter 1:3, 5, 10-11; Isa. 64:7; II Tim. 1:6; Acts 26:6-7; Jude 1:20-21

If this is true (and I believe it is) then how COULD we say the prayers of the wicked are &quot;heard&quot; as in &quot;attended unto?

Q178: What is prayer? 
A178: Prayer is an offering up of our desires unto God,[1] [b:fd8a0deb9f]in the name of Christ,[2] by the help of his Spirit;[/b:fd8a0deb9f][3] with confession of our sins,[4] and thankful acknowledgment of his mercies.[5] 

1. Psa. 62:8
2. John 16:23
3. Rom. 8:26
4. Psa. 32:5-6; Dan. 9:4
5. Phil. 4:6

Will we be bold enough to say that the Spirit helps the wicked, no matter how young or old?


----------



## luvroftheWord

Scott

[quote:1f63336dce][i:1f63336dce]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:1f63336dce]
Craig,
Two things:
1) Is there a repercusion to witholding the covenant sign?
2) The baptist, theologically see's their children as outside the covenant. How is their unregenerate child any different than their pagan neighbor in regards to prayer? God surely is not inclined to the prayers of the pagan, why would the baptist see their children as otherwise?

The command to teach one's children to pray is held together by the covenant, no? No covenant participation, no acknowledgement from the Father in regards to prayers heard or answered. The glue to this command is anchored in the covenant and one's obedience to it.

The baptist thinks outside the parameters of the covenant. They acknowledge that the unregenerates have no access to God therough prayer; why would they consider their own unregenerate children immune?[/quote:1f63336dce]

Concerning #1, this is a question my roommate and I have talked about off and on for a while now. As I said, I do believe we are commanded to baptize our infants, and the failure to do so is sin. As to what the repercussions of witholding the covenant sign are, that is what I have a hard time deciding. At one point, I felt that to withold the sign was to cut them off from the covenant entirely (based upon Genesis 17). But then at other times I have wondered if maybe the covenant is thicker than the water of baptism. I was witheld baptism until I was 10 years old when I made my profession of faith to prove to the world I really &quot;meant it&quot;, but I still &quot;came out alright&quot;, if you know what I mean. So as it stands right now, I don't have a clear answer to your question. What is your opinion (or any other paedo opinions)?

And of course, my answer to #1 effects my answer to #2. If the covenant is thicker than water, then their children are in the covenant anyway, whether they believe it or not. But if witholding baptism cuts them off from the covenant, then there is no need to consider them any different from other reprobate kids.

As to why Baptists treat their kids the way they do, I don't know why other than adhering to all those verses that teach Christian parents to teach their kids to pray, which makes sense in a covenantal framework, but not in an individualistic framework. In other words, the Baptists know the verses are there, but they don't understand WHY they are there. And the answer is God's covenant. I think you put it best when you said it is a &quot;fractured&quot; perspective.

That may not have made any sense, but that's my stab at it. I feel bad for not having a better answer to #1, as I feel like I should at this point, given how much I've studied and defended paedobaptism. Maybe you or Matt or someone else can answer that for me.


----------



## smhbbag

Ok guys, good discussion going on here....I've got a few questions for the Paedo guys, because there are a few points that it appears you all are not entirely consistent. This is most likely from me not 'getting' your line of thought, so I'm just lookin for some clarification. So here goes:

1) If you had a child around 4-6 years old (by your view, a covenant member by his baptism and heritage) that showed zero signs of regeneration - he's just an unruly kid, hates family prayer time, may acknowledge the Lordship of Christ if only because it's what he's been taught, but shows absolutely no fruit or positive emotion towards the things of God.......would you still guide and lead him in prayer? Tell/ask him to pray? From most in this thread, I would take that answer to be yes. If yes, then I have a second question.....

2) Whether you presume his election or not, you still have very good reason to doubt his regeneration and saving faith at this time. All signs point that he is a God-hater, lost in his rebellion, totally depraved and wicked in every fiber of his being.....and in this state you would tell/ask him to pray? Are you not leading him into grievous sin against a holy God? God certainly does despise the prayers of the wicked....they are an abomination. If you would tell/ask this child to pray, I only see a few reasonsthat would could possibly justify you doing so (none of which are pleasant) : something about his covenant status allows him to approach a holy God rightly [i:776c738147]despite[/i:776c738147] his totally degenerate nature OR because he is a covenant child, his nature in sin is somehow different than the unbaptized pagan child who is equally without faith.

More questions to come, but I'll stop there for now. I have many more pointed questions than I have answers....and I agree that the Baptist position (with which I am pretty firmly aligned) has plenty of thorny questions to deal with on this too.

and by the way - I DO think it is totally acceptable to teach an unregenerate how to pray (Christ did!) and tell them that they should have a heart for God such that they can pray as you teach - but to get them to pray while you have good certainty that they are not regenerate, and not praying their first prayer of faith, is very dangerous indeed.


:book: 

[Edited on 6-28-2004 by smhbbag]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Craig,
The covenant cannot be graded upon a curve.........if it is to be seen as a wax nose which we can mold and tweak as the need presents itself, we have much larger fish to fry my friend. 

The question then remains: What exactly are the limitations to the covenant and what are the ramifications to not keeping with it's decree's.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Jeremy,

[quote:9853ebe2c9]
From most in this thread, I would take that answer to be yes.
[/quote:9853ebe2c9]

Why do you think this?

How does the Age of Discretion come into play on this?

How does deal with those included in covenant with him DIFFERENT than those outside the covenant, unregenerate or not?

How does Jesus teaching his COVENANTED JEWISH DISCIPLES to pray differ from teaching the pagans to pray (which Christ never did)?

[Edited on 6-28-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## smhbbag

I got a good chuckle out of your post cuz it reminds me of the story about :

&quot;Rabbi, why do you Jews always want to answer a question with a question??&quot;

-&quot;Well, what's wrong with a question?&quot; 


I honestly didn't get much of anything out of your post, but perhaps you are just asking the right questions to get me to think about it.....but still, it's not helping =). 

All unregenerates, in the covenant or not (I don't recognize there being any in the New Covenant, but that's another story), elect or not, hate God. All their prayers are an abomination to Him. This tells me that to purposely lead an unregenerate in a prayer, when you are fully convinced of his degenerate status, is grave sin. Is this statement agreed to?

I'll go back and copy and paste some of the quotes that made me think many in this thread would guide their covenant child in prayer and petition to God - regardless of evidence of regeneration.

ScottBushey said: [quote:202ad3ec22]In regards to teaching your children to pray, you say that it is simply teaching them to &quot;seek&quot;. But cmon now, I was previously a credo w/ children. I know how the credo thinks. We didn't treat our children as the pagan child down the street. I taught my kids to call God father, to repent, to come, to believe. I should have been saying. &quot;Pray that God will save you-now, before it is too late, any other prayer God will not bend his ear towards; you are at odds with God, and as Edwards said, you are hanging by a thin string, and at any moment, Gods patience for you may out and you will fall for eternity into the place where people whom are at odds with God go.........&quot; [/quote:202ad3ec22]

and that's just it - I will not view my children as any different than the pagan child down the street. He has absolutely no special rights because of my faith, no better ability to approach God than the pagan child. If he is unregenerate, his prayers are sin and will not be heard. The only thing that will separate my child from that pagan child is that, by God's grace, he will have a father who will raise him with a knowledge of the gospel.


[Edited on 6-28-2004 by smhbbag]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Jeremy,
What is implied in the term &quot;Holy&quot; in this passage:

1 Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.


Is it just the regenerate child that is included?


----------



## smhbbag

^Scott - what is the purpose of that question?

If that verse includes unregenerates....would you therefore try to make a case that a totally depraved, wicked, God-hating sinner has a right for his prayers to be heard because of who his parents are? Or that they are 'holy' in that they have had Christ's righteousness automatically credited to their account because of who their parents are??

as for the text - no, I see no reason in the text to limit that to regenerate children. From the text, I would be forced to say that every child of those believers, elect or not, regenerate or not, are included.

I am not trying to be contentious or stir up trouble....I seek only the truths of scripture. I am asking genuine questions because, as we all know, there is a GREAT chasm separating the entire paedo and credo approach to pretty much everything....and I am not entirely satisfied with either (much more satisfied and in-line with the Credo position, but perhaps that is because I simply know it better). Please, make your points, and argue them strongly - I [i:9729c94679]want[/i:9729c94679] to have my arguments demolished if they are bad.


[Edited on 6-28-2004 by smhbbag]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Jeremy,

Let's ask another question that may be of help 

Does GOD want, or desire, unregenerate covenant people in any age (i.e. those who are in a special covenant relationship with God) to talk with Him? And does he want non-covenant people to talk with Him?

For example: what is the difference between an Israelite speaking with Him and an Amalekite? Or Judas praying to Him, and Peter praying to Him?


----------



## smhbbag

[quote:8f4c7958a3]Does GOD want, or desire, unregenerate covenant people in any age (i.e. those who are in a special covenant relationship with God) to talk with Him? And does he want non-covenant people to talk with Him? [/quote:8f4c7958a3]

1) God does not listen to any unregenerate's prayers. When you use the word &quot;want&quot; it gets a little fuzzy.....because we can obviously say that God 'wants,' or has ordained and is pleased to regenerate the still unregenerate elect and hear their prayers and be their God. Because He wants it, He ensures it will happen. Yet, while they are unregenerate, is He pleased with their prayers? Certainly not. That which is not from faith is sin.

[quote:8f4c7958a3]For example: what is the difference between an Israelite speaking with Him and an Amalekite? Or Judas praying to Him, and Peter praying to Him? [/quote:8f4c7958a3]

2) There is no difference between an unregenerate Israelite's prayer and an unregenerate Amalekite's prayer (open to scripture that says otherwise) - both are sin. Judas' prayers are viewed likewise, with the same abhorrence.


----------



## pastorway

Now I am worried.

Scott, your theology can be summed up by saying that you believe God treats an unregenerate child as if he were regenerate on the basis of his parents presuming he is regenerate and so in faith putting the covenant sign on him of baptism. Yet for the Baptist, who does not so act in faith, the child IS and IS TREATED as one who is unregenerate and his prayers are an abomination to the Lord.

Your theology here misses the whole point of 1 Cor 7. A child of a believing parent is holy (legitimate, not regenerate), just as the marriage is legitimate even though one spouse in not a believer. In fact, the way you are using 1 Cor 7, you MUST baptize the unbelieving spouse, admit them to the Table, the Church, and assure them that God is hearing their prayers. Both the children and hte unbelieving spouse are HOLY in your proof text.

I have given ample evidence for training your children to pray from the Scriptures. You have not cornered me, and in fact, have cornered yourself into a place where you are saying that a child of paedo parents is right with God by virtue of the parents faith with no requirement at all for him to believe! 

This has gone beyond presumptive regeneration and is treading along at a rapid pace toward BAPTISMAL regeneration!

Phillip


----------



## Scott Bushey

Sorry Phillip,
You misunderstand the covenant...........I do not embrace baptismal regeneration anymore than I embrace the Church Of Christ (The Boston Movement).


----------



## Scott Bushey

[quote:fcc6ffa731][i:fcc6ffa731]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:fcc6ffa731]
Now I am worried.

Scott, your theology can be summed up by saying that you believe God treats an unregenerate child as if he were regenerate on the basis of his parents presuming he is regenerate and so in faith putting the covenant sign on him of baptism. Yet for the Baptist, who does not so act in faith, the child IS and IS TREATED as one who is unregenerate and his prayers are an abomination to the Lord.

Your theology here misses the whole point of 1 Cor 7. A child of a believing parent is holy (legitimate, not regenerate), just as the marriage is legitimate even though one spouse in not a believer. In fact, the way you are using 1 Cor 7, you MUST baptize the unbelieving spouse, admit them to the Table, the Church, and assure them that God is hearing their prayers. Both the children and hte unbelieving spouse are HOLY in your proof text.

I have given ample evidence for training your children to pray from the Scriptures. You have not cornered me, and in fact, have cornered yourself into a place where you are saying that a child of paedo parents is right with God by virtue of the parents faith with no requirement at all for him to believe! 

This has gone beyond presumptive regeneration and is treading along at a rapid pace toward BAPTISMAL regeneration!

Phillip [/quote:fcc6ffa731]

[quote:fcc6ffa731]
Scott, your theology can be summed up by saying that you believe God treats an unregenerate child as if he were regenerate on the basis of his parents presuming he is regenerate and so in faith putting the covenant sign on him of baptism. [/quote:fcc6ffa731]

The covenanter places the sign upon their child because of the faith they have in Gods promises. It is a reflection of what God has done, not what man does; water will save no one. On top of that, it is a command! The covenant comes with precepts. Reject it and there are consequences.


Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.


Exo 4:25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.
Exo 4:26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.


----------



## pastorway

Are you saying that God hears your child because you have baptised her, but will not hear mine (if I had one) because they were NOT baptized?

Phillip


----------



## Scott Bushey

Phillip,
My responsibility to Gods command has it's outcomes. What we have said here is that God has always been a God of families. This is why he commands obedience in the idea of placing the sign on our children; outwardly expressing our relationship to Him and Him to us. How is this practically played out in my children. Well, God see's them as Holy. He see' s them as covenant members and yes, he will hear their prayers.........The command to rear one's child in the Lord is seen fully comprised within the covenant. In this way, you are able to reconcile the idea that God is not looking on your child as the heathen; the child is in covenant with God; externally possibly, but the child could be even internal. here is the fracture I spoke of. If God does not hear the heathen, and we know he does not, why would he hear a child whom is not [i:89d29b6019]holy[/i:89d29b6019]? he woudn't! But obviously, the scriptures exhort raising our children in the Lord. How is this reconciled? The covenant.

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## pastorway

BUT....

you have argued that God DOES NOT hear the unregenerate.

And yet you also argue that to be in the covenant, while maybe it does not mean you are regenerate, does mean God will hear your prayers.

So you are saying that the covenant puts you in a working (communing) relationship with God with or without regeneration.

You have just excised Christ from the covenant.

Phillip


----------



## LawrenceU

[quote:60f84107a8]This has gone beyond presumptive regeneration and is treading along at a rapid pace toward BAPTISMAL regeneration! 

[/quote:60f84107a8]

Well, Philip you beat me to it. All day today, while at work, I've been 'cogitating' on this thread. It surely appears to me that the position that Matt and Scott are holding assumes that the SIGN ALONE is enough to ensure that it is valid to instruct a child in prayer. This seems to me a great inconsistency in your own rubric. Either the child is regenerate or he is not. In your logic, as I understand it, if he is not (and none can determine that until he is able to profess faith) then one is committing grievious error to train him in prayer. 

I don't get. Or, then again, maybe I do.

I am a bit troubled by Steve 'bannishment' from this thread. I saw nothing offensive in his posts; merely a mild sarcasm to make a point. That is as old as time itself.


----------



## daveb

As I was reading this thread something came to my mind. At my church (Baptist) we have a &quot;children's time&quot; where all the children come up to the front, hear something for the Bible and then they all pray together. They are told God is their Father and that they should read their Bibles and pray everyday...and this is all good.

Now I'm (as a Baptist) honestly trying to understand the Baptist position here. On what basis do we do this? Simply because it's a good practice for them to get into? Because they might be saved? If our children have no special place in God's eyes why do we teach them to call him Father? Aren't they just like the heathen?

From a paedo perspective this &quot;children's time&quot; makes sense (as far as I understand it anyway), I can't see how it makes sense from a Baptist one though.

Any ideas?


----------



## Scott Bushey

God does not hear their prayers in the same manner that he hears the regenerates; But He is inclined to their cries because of His covenant and promises.

Mark 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Mark 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
Mark 10:16 And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.

These children were not necessarily regenerate; yet Christ [i:eae273cfbc]blesses[/i:eae273cfbc] them.

Gen 17:20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.


----------



## turmeric

It appears that God answered some of my prayers before I was converted.


----------



## daveb

[quote:3908e5cabf][i:3908e5cabf]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:3908e5cabf]
God does not hear their prayers in the same manner that he hears the regenerates; But He is inclined to their cries because of His covenant and promises.

Mark 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Mark 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
Mark 10:16 And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.

These children were not necessarily regenerate; yet Christ [i:3908e5cabf]blesses[/i:3908e5cabf] them.

Gen 17:20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. [/quote:3908e5cabf]

This is an interesting post.

I believe that God would not hear their prayers the same as one who is regenerate, that is true. I'm a little fuzzy on the &quot;covenant&quot; and &quot;promises&quot; part. As a Baptist I would not think the children were in any covenant, at least not until God had regenerated them and they came to Christ in faith, then they would be in the new covenant. Until then he would not view them in a special manner.

I admit I am unsure what to think of the Mark passage, I don't know [i:3908e5cabf]why[/i:3908e5cabf] Jesus blesses them, just that he did. Perhaps this is the hole I need to fill.


----------



## Scott Bushey

[quote:2a1be4a130][i:2a1be4a130]Originally posted by daveb[/i:2a1be4a130]
[quote:2a1be4a130][i:2a1be4a130]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:2a1be4a130]
God does not hear their prayers in the same manner that he hears the regenerates; But He is inclined to their cries because of His covenant and promises.

Mark 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Mark 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
Mark 10:16 And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.

These children were not necessarily regenerate; yet Christ [i:2a1be4a130]blesses[/i:2a1be4a130] them.

Gen 17:20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. [/quote:2a1be4a130]

This is an interesting post.

I believe that God would not hear their prayers the same as one who is regenerate, that is true. I'm a little fuzzy on the &quot;covenant&quot; and &quot;promises&quot; part. As a Baptist I would not think the children were in any covenant, at least not until God had regenerated them and they came to Christ in faith, then they would be in the new covenant. Until then he would not view them in a special manner.

I admit I am unsure what to think of the Mark passage, I don't know [i:2a1be4a130]why[/i:2a1be4a130] Jesus blesses them, just that he did. Perhaps this is the hole I need to fill. [/quote:2a1be4a130]

Dave,
God does not hear the prayers of the unregenerate; He does however hear prayers and types of prayers of covenant members........


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

[quote:6d734a4222]
It surely appears to me that the position that Matt and Scott are holding assumes that the SIGN ALONE is enough to ensure that it is valid to instruct a child in prayer. 
[/quote:6d734a4222]

Not at all. The validity rests in a covenant relationship, not on water and bloodletting.

I think what makes this hard to follow is our RADICAL differecne of opinion on HOW God redemptively works through Covenants and Families. If this is missed on one side or the other, then we will always come to an impass.

Apart from that, let's stick with the question - 

If the unregenerate are not heard, should Baptists allow thier children to pray?

Let's also dispense with the &quot;batpismal regeneration idea&quot;. No one beleives that except for the auburn heretics, and Papists.


[quote:6d734a4222]
I can't see how it makes sense from a Baptist one though. 
[/quote:6d734a4222]

David, neither can I.

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## daveb

[quote:cbdbd173d9][i:cbdbd173d9]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:cbdbd173d9]
Dave,
God does not hear the prayers of the unregenerate; He does however hear prayers and types of prayers of covenant members........ [/quote:cbdbd173d9]

Thanks for the clarification, I see where you are coming from.


----------



## luvroftheWord

Here is the covenant principle:

Deuteronomy 29:29--
The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do the words of this law.

The problem with this whole debate is that people spend their time trying to see things that are invisible, and as such, belong to God. But through God's gracious covenant, he has given us visible things to relate to him by. We have baptism and the Lord's table as tangible elements of our faith. We have the fellowship of one another and the audible preaching of the word to point us to God and his promises. These are all that we have to go by. When we witness a baptism, it is not our place to sit and decide, &quot;Hmmm... I wonder if he is truly regenerate or not.&quot; Receive the baptism and believe the promise. That's all we can do. Let God work out the invisible things, i.e. regeneration, election, etc. It is our responsibility to receive our baptized brethren into our fellowship and treat them as they deserve to be treated, according to what baptism symbolizes. The same is true of the Lord's table.

We baptize our children and we believe God's promises, promises that are to us and to our children. We teach our children to believe these promises as well. As for regeneration, election, etc, leave that to God to take care of. He's got it under control and he doesn't need our help. He's determined who will be covenant keepers and breakers. Just believe the promises. And if our children are not part of the covenant, what promises have been made to them?

I don't know. These were just some thoughts that ran through my head as I read through this thread. You can decide if they are related or not.

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by luvroftheWord]


----------



## cupotea

Craig,

I guess it boils down to, is it possible for a baptized child of a covenant family to grow up rebellious against the Lord and never come to the saving knowledge of Christ?

If so, where does that leave God's promise in regards to His covenant family? Have we failed in our faith, or deep down we were never a part of God's covenant family, but only assumed that we were?

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by CajunBibleBeliever]


----------



## pastorway

Scott, your argument simply makes no sense.

You are saying:

1. God does not hear the unregenerate.
2. God hears the regenerate.
3. God makes an exception for the unregenerate who have been baptized and hears them sometimes. 

Say what???

uzzled:

What you are really saying is that because a parent is a believer then God overlooks the unregenerate state of their children and treats them like believers. Faith by proxy.

Again, you have removed Christ from the covenant.

Phillip


----------



## daveb

[quote:e2ac21a397][i:e2ac21a397]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:e2ac21a397]
Here is the covenant principle:

Deuteronomy 29:29--
The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do the words of this law.

The problem with this whole debate is that people spend their time trying to see things that are invisible, and as such, belong to God. But through God's gracious covenant, he has given us visible things to relate to him by. We have baptism and the Lord's table as tangible elements of our faith. We have the fellowship of one another and the audible preaching of the word to point us to God and his promises. These are all that we have to go by. When we witness a baptism, it is not our place to sit and decide, &quot;Hmmm... I wonder if he is truly regenerate or not.&quot; Receive the baptism and believe the promise. That's all we can do. Let God work out the invisible things, i.e. regeneration, election, etc. It is our responsibility to receive our baptized brethren into our fellowship and treat them as they deserve to be treated, according to what baptism symbolizes. The same is true of the Lord's table.

We baptize our children and we believe God's promises, promises that are to us and to our children. We teach our children to believe these promises as well. As for regeneration, election, etc, leave that to God to take care of. He's got it under control and he doesn't need our help. He's determined who will be covenant keepers and breakers. Just believe the promises. And if our children are not part of the covenant, what promises have been made to them?

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by luvroftheWord] [/quote:e2ac21a397]

Thank you for sharing Craig, this is very helpful to me. 

I wholeheartedly agree we have to go by the visible elements. The Lord has prescribed these for us to have as signs that indicate that what is signified by the signs are being done unseen. I do not believe we can separate the visible sign from the invisible work (wow, never thought I'd say that).

As you mention I do not know if the one being baptized is regenerate, how could I? I would have to presume that they were. I can believe that they might be, or have a real possibility of the being saved but I cannot know for certain.

Part of what I'm drawing from your post is whether or not one believes in the promises of God against the testimony of men. Those are the only true options are they not? If that is the choice I believe I will take the promises of God, they are the only sure things I can hold on to.

I think things are starting to gel for me.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Contemplative Dave is on the track baby!!! 

There is the answer:

[quote:6fdceb5c44]
I would have to presume that they were.
[/quote:6fdceb5c44]



And THEN, he follows up with THE STATEMENT of the thread:

[quote:6fdceb5c44]If that is the choice I believe I will take the promises of God, they are the only sure things I can hold on to. [/quote:6fdceb5c44]

Dave, not only is it gelling for you, [b:6fdceb5c44]but I see it[/b:6fdceb5c44] gelling for you right before my eyes. 

Stick with it brother!



[Edited on 6-29-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Phillip writes:
&quot;Again, you have removed Christ from the covenant. &quot;

Scott reiterates:
Again Phillip, you are not understanding the covenant and it's relationships..........

Gen 21:16 And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bowshot: for she said, Let me not see the death of the child. And she sat over against him, and lift up her voice, and wept.
Gen 21:17 And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is.
Gen 21:18 Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation.
Gen 21:19 And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink.
Gen 21:20 And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer.

Why did God hear the prayers of Hagar and Ishmael??? Why did God bless Ishmael?

Mark 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 
Mark 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. 
Mark 10:16 And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them. 

These children were not necessarily regenerate; yet Christ blesses them. 

Gen 17:20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. 

All of these apparent conflicts in regards to prayer are reconciled in the embrace of Gods covenant and promises.

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## blhowes

Scott and others,
Just so I understand, are you saying:

If a child of covenant parents is taught to pray, yet when they are older prove that they are not of the elect, are you saying that it was ok for them to pray because they're part of a covenant family and considered holy (though unsaved)? 

If a child of baptist parents are taught to pray, its really ok, but it can't be justified by baptist theology? The baptist presumes the child is ungenerate and therefore no different in many respects from the heathen. Therefore, if its an abomination for heathen to pray, its an abomination (according to baptist theology) for unregenerate baptist children to pray as well. You can't have one with the other.

So the burden of proof is for baptists to either prove that its ok for the heathen to pray, or to explain why the unsaved heathen should not pray but its ok for unsaved baptist children to pray? That sounds reasonable.

Bob


----------



## luvroftheWord

Brent,

[quote:3068d84bb2][i:3068d84bb2]Originally posted by CajunBibleBeliever[/i:3068d84bb2]
I guess it boils down to, is it possible for a baptized child of a covenant family to grow up rebellious against the Lord and never come to the saving knowledge of Christ?[/quote:3068d84bb2]

Yes, it is possible, but why do you take the time to think in those terms? Just believe the promises. There are far more covenant children that grow up and remain faithful to the covenant than those that fall away. The problem is that we always hear about the castaways, but never the faithful. We are far too pessimistic.

[quote:3068d84bb2]If so, where does that leave God's promise in regards to His covenant family? Have we failed in our faith, or deep down we were never a part of God's covenant family, but only assumed that we were?[/quote:3068d84bb2]

When God made his covenant with Abraham, he promised him that all the nations of the world would be blessed through him and that he would be a God to him and to his children. But God also told Abraham to walk before him and be blameless. Now, if Abraham had not believed God and done what he was commanded, would God's promises to him have failed? Of course not. God's promises never fail because he also promises cursing to those who do not believe. Faith receives the promise of covenant blessing. Unbelief receives the promise of covenant cursing.

And to be honest, I really do not feel like debating the issue of whether or not our children are actually included in the covenant family at all (unless they are elect, of course). The Scriptures are so numerous and I've quoted them all so many times that I have a hard time wondering why people deny it.

Dave,

I am very happy to see your thought development. 

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by luvroftheWord]


----------



## blhowes

If a heathen (or a baptist child) opened the Bible and read:

1Th 5:17 Pray without ceasing.
or
Luk 18:1 And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint; 

...and did not obey those commands, wouldn't they be held accountable on the day of judgment because they didn't obey these commands? It would have been a sin for them not to pray. Its something they're expected to do, but couldn't and didn't. Even though it something they couldn't and didn't do, they still should have prayed and prayed without ceasing. 

And then, what about when Paul addressed the heathen at Mars Hill: 

Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: 

Isn't everybody expected to seek God, and part of that seeking is praying? If they didn't seek the Lord as per this verse, wouldn't it be a sin as well? 

Bob

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by blhowes]


----------



## turmeric

> [i:fb7d58affc]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:fb7d58affc]
> Brent,
> 
> [quote:fb7d58affc][i:fb7d58affc]Originally posted by CajunBibleBeliever[/i:fb7d58affc]
> 
> [quote:fb7d58affc]If so, where does that leave God's promise in regards to His covenant family? Have we failed in our faith, or deep down we were never a part of God's covenant family, but only assumed that we were?[/quote:fb7d58affc]
> 
> And to be honest, I really do not feel like debating the issue of whether or not our children are actually included in the covenant family at all (unless they are elect, of course). The Scriptures are so numerous and I've quoted them all so many times that I have a hard time wondering why people deny it.
> 
> [Edited on 6-29-2004 by luvroftheWord] [/quote:fb7d58affc]
> 
> 
> Luv; Cajun is new to the board and probably hasn't seen all yr posts, why not patiently refer him to them so he can read them instead of sounding snippy? I think he's trying to come to grips w/aspects of election, which it's good to do.


----------



## luvroftheWord

[quote:c8c18105db][i:c8c18105db]Originally posted by turmeric[/i:c8c18105db]
Luv; Cajun is new to the board and probably hasn't seen all yr posts, why not patiently refer him to them so he can read them instead of sounding snippy? I think he's trying to come to grips w/aspects of election, which it's good to do. [/quote:c8c18105db]

Okay, fair enough. The following passages are some of my favorite. They are all prophecies about the New Covenant, and notice the explicit inclusion of our children.

Ezekiel 37:24-28-- 
"My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes. They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They [i:c8c18105db]and their children[/i:c8c18105db] and their [i:c8c18105db]children's children[/i:c8c18105db] shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever. I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD who sanctifies Israel, when my sanctuary is in their midst forevermore." 

Isaiah 59:21-- 
"And as for me, this is my covenant with them," says the LORD: "My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your [i:c8c18105db]offspring[/i:c8c18105db], out of the mouth of your [i:c8c18105db]children's offspring[/i:c8c18105db]," says the LORD, "from this time forth and forevermore." 

Jeremiah 32:37-41-- 
"Behold, I will gather them from all the countries to which I drove them in my anger and my wrath and in great indignation. I will bring them back to this place, and I will make them dwell in safety. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good [i:c8c18105db]and the good of their children[/i:c8c18105db] after them. I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul." 

Zechariah 10:6-10-- 
"I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the house of Joseph. I will bring them back because I have compassion on them, and they shall be as though I had not rejected them, for I am the LORD their God and I will answer them. Then Ephraim shall become like a mighty warrior, and their hearts shall be glad as with wine. [i:c8c18105db]Their children[/i:c8c18105db] shall see it and be glad; their hearts shall rejoice in the LORD. I will whistle for them and gather them in, for I have redeemed them, and they shall be as many as they were before. Though I scattered them among the nations, yet in far countries they shall remember me, and [i:c8c18105db]with their children[/i:c8c18105db] they shall live and return. I will bring them home from the land of Egypt, and gather them from Assyria, and I will bring them to the land of Gilead and to Lebanon, till there is no room for them."


----------



## heartoflesh

[quote:a5b33f0c94][i:a5b33f0c94]Originally posted by daveb[/i:a5b33f0c94]
As I was reading this thread something came to my mind. At my church (Baptist) we have a &quot;children's time&quot; where all the children come up to the front, hear something for the Bible and then they all pray together. They are told God is their Father and that they should read their Bibles and pray everyday...and this is all good.

Now I'm (as a Baptist) honestly trying to understand the Baptist position here. On what basis do we do this? Simply because it's a good practice for them to get into? Because they might be saved? If our children have no special place in God's eyes why do we teach them to call him Father? Aren't they just like the heathen?

From a paedo perspective this &quot;children's time&quot; makes sense (as far as I understand it anyway), I can't see how it makes sense from a Baptist one though.

Any ideas?

 [/quote:a5b33f0c94]

I'd like to see a response to this.

I'd also like to see a response to Phillip's statement that according to the Paedo interpretation of 1 Cor. 7 we would have to consider the unbelieving spouse as in the covenant as well. Sorry if this has been covered and I just missed it.

~Rick (undecided whether credo/paedo)


----------



## Radar

*I still don't understand the necessity*

of baptizing my infants in order to believe the promise and the holiness belongs to them.

Paul said circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing. What matters is spiritual heart issues...not trusting physical marks. Thus to quote the injunction that a noncircumcised manchild must be cut off from the people, insinuating that a nonbaptized child is in the same boat, well, any New Testament epistle would have been the opportune vehicle to make this incredibly important point clear. They do not do so.

It is hard to believe that Paul would turn around and hold this opinion: baptism is very much something, and unbaptism is very much something; by such you are either securing or jeopardizing your infants!

Maybe as a credobaptist I am more of a dry presbyterian. I don't see the necessity of paedobaptism in order to make the covenantalism work. The lack of clear and direct command for something soooo important is ever bearing upon me.

Peace


----------



## daveb

[quote:d2fd06621e][i:d2fd06621e]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:d2fd06621e]

Dave, not only is it gelling for you, [b:d2fd06621e]but I see it[/b:d2fd06621e] gelling for you right before my eyes. 

Stick with it brother!

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by webmaster] [/quote:d2fd06621e]


[quote:d2fd06621e][i:d2fd06621e]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:d2fd06621e]

Dave,

I am very happy to see your thought development. 

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by luvroftheWord] [/quote:d2fd06621e]

Thanks for the encouragement guys, I really appreciate it.


----------



## daveb

[quote:58e30247b4][i:58e30247b4]Originally posted by Rick Larson[/i:58e30247b4]
[quote:58e30247b4][i:58e30247b4]Originally posted by daveb[/i:58e30247b4]
As I was reading this thread something came to my mind. At my church (Baptist) we have a &quot;children's time&quot; where all the children come up to the front, hear something for the Bible and then they all pray together. They are told God is their Father and that they should read their Bibles and pray everyday...and this is all good.

Now I'm (as a Baptist) honestly trying to understand the Baptist position here. On what basis do we do this? Simply because it's a good practice for them to get into? Because they might be saved? If our children have no special place in God's eyes why do we teach them to call him Father? Aren't they just like the heathen?

From a paedo perspective this &quot;children's time&quot; makes sense (as far as I understand it anyway), I can't see how it makes sense from a Baptist one though.

Any ideas?

 [/quote:58e30247b4]

I'd like to see a response to this.
[/quote:58e30247b4]

I too would still like to see a baptist response to my initial post. Any takers?


----------



## Scott Bushey

[quote:11413aae19]

I'd like to see a response to this.

I'd also like to see a response to Phillip's statement that according to the Paedo interpretation of 1 Cor. 7 we would have to consider the unbelieving spouse as in the covenant as well. Sorry if this has been covered and I just missed it.

~Rick (undecided whether credo/paedo) [/quote:11413aae19]


If the spouse submits to the sign being placed, they are members in the covenant. Whether internal or external is between God and this person.
Esau, Ishmael, were covenant members; unfortunately, they rejected the covenant and it's promises, eventually being cut off.

A disciple does not necessarily equate with regeneration.

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Radar

*I can't speak for any church that does this...*

[quote:336fd95d2f][i:336fd95d2f]Originally posted by daveb[/i:336fd95d2f]
As I was reading this thread something came to my mind. At my church (Baptist) we have a &quot;children's time&quot; where all the children come up to the front, hear something for the Bible and then they all pray together. They are told God is their Father and that they should read their Bibles and pray everyday...and this is all good.

Now I'm (as a Baptist) honestly trying to understand the Baptist position here. On what basis do we do this? Simply because it's a good practice for them to get into? Because they might be saved? If our children have no special place in God's eyes why do we teach them to call him Father? Aren't they just like the heathen?

From a paedo perspective this &quot;children's time&quot; makes sense (as far as I understand it anyway), I can't see how it makes sense from a Baptist one though.

Any ideas?

 [/quote:336fd95d2f]

I think you offer several prevalent reasons. Some may do it because it is cute, and kids are cute. Some may do it to preach at the kids in hopes they will convert because of it. The old saying goes that even arminians are calvinisitc in their prayers. Thus maybe we can say that even churches that view their children as god-hating unholy non-covenant sinners are somewhat covenantal when it comes to &quot;children's time.&quot;

But few churches in my experience do this kid's time anyway (but all do have sunday school, where they color pictures of Moses and hear Bible stories and learn about the &quot;Heavenly Father;&quot; little practical difference there!)

I would also suggest that there are other baptist churches that are more reflective of a dry covenantal view, i.e. the children are a holy seed, etc., who will in time be regenerated by God's grace and then be baptized, rather than first be baptized at a week old, then in time be regenerated.

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by Radar]


----------



## heartoflesh

[quote:1e0b98ffbf]But few churches in my experience do this kid's time anyway (but all do have sunday school, where they color pictures of Moses and hear Bible stories and learn about the &quot;Heavenly Father;&quot; little practical difference there!) 
[/quote:1e0b98ffbf]

Which is what everyone agrees they should be doing, right? If I understand all of this correctly, the accusation is that the Baptist churches shouldn't be doing this, if they are being consitent with their theology?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

On a different subject, but applicable to what we are talking about, we should understand, faithfully, the doctrine of SEEKING.

For those who really want to understand this, I would suggest reading this article:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Puritan Evangelism/McMahonThePreacherAndTheSeeker.htm

The Puritans had this down pat, as did Edwards. The article is a fictional account of the SEEKER. If you understand it, then you will understand how someone may be commanded to follow the command &quot;pray without ceasing&quot;, be held accountable, but still is henious sin that makes no brownie points with God whatsoever, but further damns them - it increases thier torment by heeding the command.

Seeking in this way is sinful, but better than not seeking while alive, but worse for judgment when you are dead.

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## Radar

[quote:1111f6fc04][i:1111f6fc04]Originally posted by Rick Larson[/i:1111f6fc04]
[quote:1111f6fc04]But few churches in my experience do this kid's time anyway (but all do have sunday school, where they color pictures of Moses and hear Bible stories and learn about the &quot;Heavenly Father;&quot; little practical difference there!) 
[/quote:1111f6fc04]

Which is what everyone agrees they should be doing, right? If I understand all of this correctly, the accusation is that the Baptist churches shouldn't be doing this, if they are being consitent with their theology? [/quote:1111f6fc04]

That is somewhat of a broad brush. I tried to point out that some baptist churches are more inconsistent than others, while some may not be inconsistent at all. Those who do believe that their children are god-hating dogs outside the covenantal promises of holy-seed blessings are certainly inconsistent, just like them praying arminians. But other baptist churches are credo-baptistic covenantalists. They should have no trouble on the consistency issue. Instead of baptizing infants and then presuming they will come to be regenerated and place faith in Christ, they view that the children will come to be regenerated and place faith in Christ, at which time be baptized. So then, the dryness of the infant's forehead does not help nor hinder his standing with a view to the promises of God.


----------



## Scott Bushey

[quote:e9a3fdd6cd][i:e9a3fdd6cd]Originally posted by Radar[/i:e9a3fdd6cd]
[quote:e9a3fdd6cd][i:e9a3fdd6cd]Originally posted by Rick Larson[/i:e9a3fdd6cd]
[quote:e9a3fdd6cd]But few churches in my experience do this kid's time anyway (but all do have sunday school, where they color pictures of Moses and hear Bible stories and learn about the &quot;Heavenly Father;&quot; little practical difference there!) 
[/quote:e9a3fdd6cd]

Which is what everyone agrees they should be doing, right? If I understand all of this correctly, the accusation is that the Baptist churches shouldn't be doing this, if they are being consitent with their theology? [/quote:e9a3fdd6cd]

That is somewhat of a broad brush. I tried to point out that some baptist churches are more inconsistent than others, while some may not be inconsistent at all. Those who do believe that their children are god-hating dogs outside the covenantal promises of holy-seed blessings are certainly inconsistent, just like them praying arminians. But other baptist churches are credo-baptistic covenantalists. They should have no trouble on the consistency issue. Instead of baptizing infants and then presuming they will come to be regenerated and place faith in Christ, they view that the children will come to be regenerated and place faith in Christ, at which time be baptized. So then, the dryness of the infant's forehead does not help nor hinder his standing with a view to the promises of God. [/quote:e9a3fdd6cd]

The above idea flies in the face of covenant theology. CT is anchored in placing the sign, standing upon faith, the unseen. What you describe is entirely Credo and borders upon semi-Pelagianism.

Also, according to the scriptures, not placing the sign assuredly 'hinders'.......

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Radar

[quote:ef1b6b4a07][i:ef1b6b4a07]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:ef1b6b4a07]
The above idea flies in the face of covenant theology. CT is anchored in placing the sign, standing upon faith, the unseen. What you describe is entirely Credo and borders upon semi-Pelagianism.

Also, according to the scriptures, not placing the sign assuredly 'hinders'.......

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:ef1b6b4a07]

Will you leave me hanging? Explain further.

[quote:ef1b6b4a07]Also, according to the scriptures, not placing the sign assuredly 'hinders'.......[/quote:ef1b6b4a07]
Can you explain the NT text that says this?

[quote:ef1b6b4a07]entirely credo[/quote:ef1b6b4a07]
As if that is impermissible? An embarassment for myself? 

[quote:ef1b6b4a07]borders upon semi-Pelagianism[/quote:ef1b6b4a07]
Uncalled for.


----------



## RamistThomist

[quote:d048fe450e][i:d048fe450e]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:d048fe450e]
On a different subject, but applicable to what we are talking about, we should understand, faithfully, the doctrine of SEEKING.

For those who really want to understand this, I would suggest reading this article:
[/quote:d048fe450e]

That link was awesome! I looked at it and thought that it would be too long to read, but I was hooked! I just had to know how it would end. I especially liked the part: &quot;Armenians live in Armenia. Arminians live in "happy contradictions." &quot;


----------



## Scott Bushey

[quote:f18ce99435][i:f18ce99435]Originally posted by Radar[/i:f18ce99435]
[quote:f18ce99435][i:f18ce99435]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:f18ce99435]
The above idea flies in the face of covenant theology. CT is anchored in placing the sign, standing upon faith, the unseen. What you describe is entirely Credo and borders upon semi-Pelagianism.

Also, according to the scriptures, not placing the sign assuredly 'hinders'.......

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:f18ce99435]

Will you leave me hanging? Explain further.

[quote:f18ce99435]Also, according to the scriptures, not placing the sign assuredly 'hinders'.......[/quote:f18ce99435]
Can you explain the NT text that says this?

[quote:f18ce99435]entirely credo[/quote:f18ce99435]
As if that is impermissible? An embarassment for myself? 

[quote:f18ce99435]borders upon semi-Pelagianism[/quote:f18ce99435]
Uncalled for. [/quote:f18ce99435]

Radar,
Forgive me for using the term. I didn't mean for it to be a stab. In fact, I am mistaken. It isn't SP, it's Arminian. Seriously. The idea that one must have an outward confession.......don't you see this as a work? I mean, you won't baptise anyone unless they what? outwardly confess?

In regards to your other questions, they have already been dealt with in this thread. Please re-read it. Your answer to the &quot;hindrance&quot; question is addressed.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

[quote:83e24b8eb0]
That link was awesome! I looked at it and thought that it would be too long to read, but I was hooked! I just had to know how it would end. I especially liked the part: &quot;Armenians live in Armenia. Arminians live in "happy contradictions." &quot; 
[/quote:83e24b8eb0]

 Gave me a good chuckle reading it again. Sometimes I forget what I've said...


----------



## pastorway

So there we have it then. Anyone remotely related to a believer (by marriage or blood) can pray and be heard, even if they are unregenerate, but any unbeliever who is not related to a believer is ignored by God.

And I thought you had to be [i:8defc2bab6]in Christ[/i:8defc2bab6] to be in the covenant. I didn't realise that if you were married to or born to a believer that you were automatically qualified for covenant communion with God in the absence of the work of Christ offered on your behalf.

This is what the Judaizers taught is it not? Just get circumcised, nothing else matters. And if you and your kids don't get circumcised then neither you nor they can talk to God........but if you do get circumcised, low and behold, you can talk to God without a Mediator!!!!

Phillip


----------



## Contra_Mundum

*To All... isn't this applicable?*

Works done by unregenerate men, although, for the matter of them, they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others: yet because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner according to the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God; they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, or make man meet to receive grace from God. [b:243c7c0ab3]And yet their neglect of them is more sinful, and displeasing unto God.[/b:243c7c0ab3] WCF. XVI.7

Doesn't this teach that, whatever the condition of our children, it is [i:243c7c0ab3]worse[/i:243c7c0ab3] if they pray not than if they do. Better that they pray as we teach them, properly, to the Father, in the name of the Son, for things lawful, etc., than that they not pray. Let God the Holy Ghost use the means of grace--including prayer--in their lives to [i:243c7c0ab3]start[/i:243c7c0ab3] them in grace and [i:243c7c0ab3]grow[/i:243c7c0ab3] them in grace in his sovereign timing.


----------



## daveb

[quote:6d65e59cde][i:6d65e59cde]Originally posted by Radar[/i:6d65e59cde]

But other baptist churches are credo-baptistic covenantalists. They should have no trouble on the consistency issue. Instead of baptizing infants and then presuming they will come to be regenerated and place faith in Christ, they view that the children will come to be regenerated and place faith in Christ, at which time be baptized. So then, the dryness of the infant's forehead does not help nor hinder his standing with a view to the promises of God. [/quote:6d65e59cde]

So they trust in covenantal promises that their children will be regenerated one day, yet they fail to administer the sign based on those same promises. They still take personal testimony over God's promises as the basis for giving the sign.

Is that a fair assessment or am I missing something?


----------



## Scott Bushey

[quote:bd177a0139][i:bd177a0139]Originally posted by daveb[/i:bd177a0139]
[quote:bd177a0139][i:bd177a0139]Originally posted by Radar[/i:bd177a0139]

But other baptist churches are credo-baptistic covenantalists. They should have no trouble on the consistency issue. Instead of baptizing infants and then presuming they will come to be regenerated and place faith in Christ, they view that the children will come to be regenerated and place faith in Christ, at which time be baptized. So then, the dryness of the infant's forehead does not help nor hinder his standing with a view to the promises of God. [/quote:bd177a0139]

So they trust in covenantal promises that their children will be regenerated one day, yet they fail to administer the sign based on those same promises. They still take personal testimony over God's promises as the basis for giving the sign.

Is that a fair assessment or am I missing something? [/quote:bd177a0139]

Dave,
Do not let this confuse you. One cannot have it both ways. The covenant is not graded on a curve. God did not addend a [i:bd177a0139]default[/i:bd177a0139] to the command............


----------



## luvroftheWord

[quote:da321dca04][i:da321dca04]Originally posted by Pastorway[/i:da321dca04]
And I thought you had to be in Christ to be in the covenant. [/quote:da321dca04]

In other words, &quot;And I thought Baptist theology was correct.&quot; 

Sorry, couldn't resist. 

In all seriousness though, it does no good to misrepresent one another's positions. Nobody is saying, &quot;Just get baptized and that's all that matters.&quot; There is nothing magical about baptism that makes prayer pleasing to God. But baptism is a tangible element pointing to the promise of God that gives us a reason to PRESUME things about those who have been baptized into the covenant community.

[Edited on 6-30-2004 by luvroftheWord]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Bruce - 

[quote:c79b35878c]And yet their neglect of them is more sinful, and displeasing unto God. WCF. XVI.7 [/quote:c79b35878c]

It is. But then, if they are not converted, it would have been better for them by way of judgment never to have done this. it is the difference between talking about &quot;decrees&quot; and &quot;preceptive will.&quot;


----------



## Radar

*I have only suggested a difference in timing of administerin*

[quote:7d1e338e51][i:7d1e338e51]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:7d1e338e51]
Dave,
Do not let this confuse you. One cannot have it both ways. The covenant is not graded on a curve. God did not addend a [i:7d1e338e51]default[/i:7d1e338e51] to the command............ [/quote:7d1e338e51]

How I am semi-Pelagian, er, how I am Arminian, is beyond me. If I am wrong, I want to know via argument, not by fighting words.

What I am tending to hear is that:

1. Reformed Theology = taking a birth mark; and that to schedule that mark after the tree is displayed by its fruit instead of before is worthy of scorn.

2. And that I am endangering my children.

3. And that the Judaizers were wrong, not for demanding adherents to receive a physical mark, but for demanding adherents to receive an obsolete physical mark instead of a new one.

4. Circumcision and baptism are equated in Col 2.

5. Yet when Paul says neither circumcision is anything nor uncircumcision is anything, that does not equate to baptism / unbaptism.

6. Previous threads state that Reformed do not believe that regeneration occurs generally at baptism, but later. Paedos baptize in lieu of the promised regeneration (which doesn't always happen 100% of the time). Why can't a &quot;Gasp, you're a Credo!&quot; believe that regeneration will usually occur with his seed too, according to the promises, and give the sign at that time? In this regard, I think I see the argument careening toward a timing debate. Certainly one side is right and one wrong in this issue I raise, but it maybe has more kinship with people who in the big picture are premillenialists, arguing incessantly over the timing issue of pre or post trib. Here, we have people who in the big picture are covenantal, but irreconciliably arguing over baptism at 7 days or 7 years.

&quot;Arminian.&quot;


----------



## Contra_Mundum

[quote:96b1c60888][i:96b1c60888]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:96b1c60888]
Bruce - [quote:96b1c60888]And yet their neglect of them is more sinful, and displeasing unto God. WCF. XVI.7 [/quote:96b1c60888] It is. But then, if they are not converted, it would have been better for them by way of judgment never to have done this. it is the difference between talking about &quot;decrees&quot; and &quot;preceptive will.&quot; [/quote:96b1c60888]True. 

And the same is true for presbyterian covenant children, with (we would say) even greater understanding of covenant obligations, blessings and curses. God forbid, that any of my precious children should be a castaway. But whether or not, [i:96b1c60888]I'm[/i:96b1c60888] still obliged to be obedient myself to God's command to teach my children to pray. With regard to the thread's main subject, I think even a baptist can argue (without violence to his theology) that he ought to teach his child to pray. Since the point can be established without appealing to CT, it's not germane to the point to club the credo-baptist for his supposed inconsistencies regarding his practice. The same problem of &quot;storing up wrath&quot; against the child is also part and parcel of the paedo's position. Even more so. Do I stop teaching my (baptized) kid to pray even when he acts like a total reprobate? Not if I believe my duty says otherwise. Whether God pays attention, to what degree he pays attention, and for what reasons and purposes he answers--in whole or in part or at all--these seem like subsidiary questions to the main point. The paedo, I argue, has much [i:96b1c60888]better[/i:96b1c60888] and fuller, more consistent and richer theological reasons to encourage his children to pray, along with greater responsibility. That's not the same thing as saying the credo is violating some tenet of his theology. He is (say I, being full of errors in my own thinking, 1 Cor. 8:2) sailing a three-masted schooner with only one sail. Inefficient perhaps, but not the same thing as dipping the sail in the water. Which would be the case if he refused to teach his shildren to pray.

Many baptists (and presbyterians) obviously recognize their holy duty. Attack someone's family committments, and you are hitting him below the belt. Why should we assume this intensely practical point would be considered [i:96b1c60888]less[/i:96b1c60888] fundamental (hence subject to less vociferous defense), than more abstract points of doctrine? Instead of saying something like, &quot;I know this point is something you won't ever compromise/fail on, but how do you square that with...?&quot; instead we say &quot;Ha! you're committed to this {abstract point} and so you just can't pray with your kids, now can you? C'mon now! I know you ...&quot; and we just turn them off to the whole conversation. Or the whole PB. 

While I don't countenance the departed's reactionary response, and I think they were, on the whole, unduly sensitive, I think we've got to see how we failed to act in full charity on this topic. On the other hand, it has been eye-opening to read some of the frank admissions by a few (not all, I'm sure) of our baptist brethren (not just 'formers' like SB) as to how they view their children. And how they wrestle with some of those implications. For the life of me, I can't understand why it's so hard to recognize a third category, not merely [i:96b1c60888]pragmatic[/i:96b1c60888] but [i:96b1c60888]biblical[/i:96b1c60888]--one that falls outside of the supreme Categorical Distinction of Saved and Lost; something parallel to it, useful and practical.

Offered in this spirit: &quot;And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know&quot; (1 Cor. 8:2).


----------



## JonathonHunt

Bruce.

Thank you for your thoughtful, reasoned, brotherly post. It was refreshing reading.

We will all agree in heaven, brothers and sisters - and I am sure that we will all discover that some (or many) aspects of our secondary theology were wrong.

Jonathan


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

[quote:38fe68a961]
And the same is true for presbyterian covenant children, with (we would say) even greater understanding of covenant obligations, blessings and curses. God forbid, that any of my precious children should be a castaway. But whether or not, I'm still obliged to be obedient myself to God's command to teach my children to pray. 
[/quote:38fe68a961]


----------



## Radar

*webmaster, do you ever ever sleep???*

I mean, ever??


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Never. It gets in the way of other things....


----------



## fredtgreco

Bruce,

Thank you for your post. It was helpful, charitable and uncompromising.


----------



## luvroftheWord

Thanks, Bruce.


----------



## Scott Bushey

[quote:6c6918309b]

How I am semi-Pelagian, er, how I am Arminian, is beyond me. If I am wrong, I want to know via argument, not by fighting words.

What I am tending to hear is that:

1. Reformed Theology = taking a birth mark; and that to schedule that mark after the tree is displayed by its fruit instead of before is worthy of scorn.

2. And that I am endangering my children.

3. And that the Judaizers were wrong, not for demanding adherents to receive a physical mark, but for demanding adherents to receive an obsolete physical mark instead of a new one.

4. Circumcision and baptism are equated in Col 2.

5. Yet when Paul says neither circumcision is anything nor uncircumcision is anything, that does not equate to baptism / unbaptism.

6. Previous threads state that Reformed do not believe that regeneration occurs generally at baptism, but later. Paedos baptize in lieu of the promised regeneration (which doesn't always happen 100% of the time). Why can't a &quot;Gasp, you're a Credo!&quot; believe that regeneration will usually occur with his seed too, according to the promises, and give the sign at that time? In this regard, I think I see the argument careening toward a timing debate. Certainly one side is right and one wrong in this issue I raise, but it maybe has more kinship with people who in the big picture are premillenialists, arguing incessantly over the timing issue of pre or post trib. Here, we have people who in the big picture are covenantal, but irreconciliably arguing over baptism at 7 days or 7 years.

&quot;Arminian.&quot; [/quote:6c6918309b]


Radar,
I will address your points:

1) Reformed Theology IS covenant theology. Historically, all the reformed were paedo baptists. The framers of the WCF were all paedo baptists. The main idea behind CT is that God is immutable. That God has made promises via covenants and that those covenants are mans responsibility in obedience. Reject the command, there is no covenant and no promise. &quot;Scheduling&quot; the mark after the tree displays it's truth is not always wrong. When adults come to faith in the Presbyterian community, they are baptised in front of the congregation. This is not to be [i:6c6918309b]scorned[/i:6c6918309b], but applauded (not literally). What is scornful, is witholding a blessing of God; that being, to be in covenant with Him whom is wonderful.

Mark 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

2) What do the scriptures say?

3) The Judaizers were NOT wrong. What was wrong was that they broke covenant in more ways than one. They had the right motive, but the wrong plan. Their claims that Abraham was their father was substantial, just not for them!

The sign has not changed, only the process.

4) Yes

5) Paul is correct. However, he is in no way advocating abrogating the idea or sign; is he?

6) Because that is not how God intended it to be done. He didn't imply that was the process in the old, did he? God is immutable no? The great commision, seen correctly, is to [i:6c6918309b]baptise and make disciples. [/i:6c6918309b] A disciple is not necessarily a regenerate. In fact, a disciple does not have to be a regenerate.

In regards to the charge of Arminianism. Clinically, you are not. The credo is not. But absolutely the tendencies are there. How? Well, I already cited one: The concept of [i:6c6918309b]needing[/i:6c6918309b] to see a confession. These outward signs are prerequisites to baptism as well as membership.

John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.


----------



## Scott Bushey

In conclussion:

Thank you all for the hearty exchanges. Granted this topic caused alot of sparks. It was my intent that that would occur. Not in a negative fashion, but a positive light. The conviction on my end is great. As a baptist, the conviction might have been greater. I had never thought along these lines. Today my thinking is different. In my case, as a credo, it would have been a blessing to have been enlightened to these facts. As I have said, I want to know Christ better. If being offended by Gods truth assaults me; so be it!

The whole point of this thread was to establish a biblical mandate for praying with our children under the understanding of CT and how it is an obvious conflict otherwise. The scriptures are seen through the glasses of CT; they were intended to be seen as such. Prayer is not a new testament concept, it is a old testament one. The question to ask yourself is did the old testament saint interpret the scriptures, the command to pray, through the lenses of Gods covenant? 

The suggestion that the command to parents to raise their children in prayer are strewn throughout all the scriptures, and based upon that, the Baptist is justified, to me, is false; still. Because, as I have explained, the scriptures are anchored in the covenant and it's precepts and requirements; they have to be. The ambiguosity that is implied to support the latter, is a bail of hay that is easily torched when one is honest with themselves. 

The covenant theologian can easily reconcile the perplexity of this subject; Being a former Baptist, under that theology, it is perplexing. I would have had to cast it off as a conundrum of sorts with one eye shut. I am not saying that is what my credo brothers are doing, but in my case, it is what I would have had to do to reconcile it.

This last post is not meant to again open the discussion (as it has cooled off sort of) but to close it out with my official statement on the matter. I pray you may consider God and His covenant and all that is comprised in His immutable decree, to His Glory.

Food for thought.


----------



## daveb

[quote:01063bcf76][i:01063bcf76]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:01063bcf76]
In my case, as a credo, it would have been a blessing to have been enlightened to these facts. [/quote:01063bcf76]

It certainly has been a blessing to me, thank you for raising the issue. I have much to think through in light of it.


----------

