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



## A_Wild_Boar (Jun 26, 2004)

[quote:a90e960836][i:a90e960836]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:a90e960836]
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;


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


[Edited on 6-27-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:a90e960836]

So if a child is not baptized the child is unregenerate and reprobate? 

Disgusting, if you thought that as a Baptist I not only feel sorry for you now, but then as well. 

Good Lord.


and God bless.


-fin


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 27, 2004)

Cmon,
Lets hash it out.........Is the theology consistant or not? This is a big issue. The rearing of one's child and the concept of inclining them to pray [i:1ad89ae523]should[/i:1ad89ae523] be of the utmost importance. Can the baptist reconcile this in light of their theology?

Why is it so offensive; reconcile it then?

Also, I will add that many moons ago it was decided that if this forum is in any way offensive to you, you should avoid it.

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


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 27, 2004)

I'll say this now for the umpteenth time (run a search): can we all stop bickering and whining in this forum? In all love, I'm tired of the &quot;he doesn't like my theology&quot; &quot;Oh he makes fun of my position&quot; &quot;Oh, you're inconsistent&quot; &quot;no, you're inconsistent&quot; &quot;no, you are really inconsistent&quot; back and forth.

It is unprofitable and is tiresome to read. And it happens both ways, and baptists leave, and Presbyterians leave.

When we are in the middle of a battle for the gospel itself, and we live in an age that loves to trample the Sabbath, break the 2nd Commandment, and run after every purpose driven tomfoolery that comes up, you would think we could discuss things in a civil manner.

I don't want anyone to leave, but for Pete's sake, if you don't want to get bruised in the incessant credo/paedo debates, avoid this forum. I do, like the plague. And the result is that we never discuss things like VanVos' excellent question about the Mosaic Covenant. I haven't had time to think and post on it, and I'm afraid before I do, it will degenerate quickly into a paedo/credo debate.

Can we all lighten up here a bit?

[Edited on 6-27-2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## pastorway (Jun 27, 2004)

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:fda3b30f22]all[/i:fda3b30f22] 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


----------



## FrozenChosen (Jun 27, 2004)

For someone who is new to trying to understand Covenant Theology, it's hard for me to read this particular board and enjoy the relative level of peace on the other boards. All the quick jabs and insults make me want to avoid this forum, not because of the subject or debate, but because of the attitude.

If the goal of this board is thoughtful discussion or teaching, well, in my small experience, it's amazingly hard to learn from someone who jabs at your beliefs which you hold dear.

The rules say &quot;Don't want to get hurt, don't come here&quot; but I don't see how that's a license to insult other people.

I imagine this particular board is why Chris and Roger left.

I'm with Fred. Chillllllllllllllllll out folks.


----------



## LawrenceU (Jun 27, 2004)

This debate is just one more example of gnat straining and camel swallowing in the middle of an entire culture running headlong into hell. There are much better ways to spend time and energy. If this lesson is not learned, and quickly, what was once a great forum of encouragement and education will rapdily become an incredible wast of time. One of the greatest concerns of the Puritans and other reformed fold in general throughout time have been their relentless pursuit of cutural transformation via the gospel. When the reformed community becomes so concerned with the 'chiggers' of theology we become an ineffective, ungainly, to be pitied ogre. Let's learn a lesson from the past.


----------



## dkicklig (Jun 27, 2004)

[quote:b426c5f384][i:b426c5f384]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:b426c5f384]
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 [/quote:b426c5f384]
 from a paedo

Teaching our children to pray falls into the practical category of practices we need to teach our children. They should never be hindered in approaching God with their petitions in order to satisfy a theological idea.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 27, 2004)

And I would say to Lawrence the additional point that the &quot;straining&quot; is most often done with quick, stabbing semi-insults and insults, with little or no room for actual discussion.

Whether Scott intended it or not, he ratched up the debate:

[quote:562d5cf7a7]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.[/quote:562d5cf7a7]

I understand the theological point, but it was bound to overly stir the pot by coming out of the blocks (it was the second post), before even the positive case was made (i.e. it could easily been seen as taking advantage of an opportunity to attack). Again, I know Scott pretty well, and I am sure that was not his motive, but others don't know him as well.

Then we have the gracious and exemplary response of Roger, well in line with Proverbs 18:19,

[quote:562d5cf7a7]Keep that blasphemous teaching in the pit where it belongs.[/quote:562d5cf7a7]

Followed by a quick &quot;I'm gone.&quot;

Here is my question - how would we treat this issue IF we were a church? I know what I would do, and neither Scott nor Roger would be very happy about it.

The problem may be that many of us are like me, who simply does not have the time to engage in lengthy Biblical debate on this issue. I have a life to lead, responsibilitis to family, church, seminary, my denomination, etc. So I avoid the issue entirely in hopes of avoiding jabbing.

A final point to follow up on Lawrence's good post: how many baptists or presbyterians engaged the dozens of pro-Papist posts that inundated the board last month? Very few. How many baptist have jumped to the defense of a presbyterian brother or presbyterians to a baptist brother in these &quot;debates&quot;? Especially when the tone gets bad? Even less.

The problem is not that baptists (or presbyterians for that matter) are getting &quot;picked on&quot;. Nor is it that we shoudn't discuss the issues (as Craig pointed out in another thread). It is that for some reason, we can't seem to be civil on these issues. We have to find out a way to be, because the world around us is watching (and needs us, per Lawrence's post).

Before you post on this issue again - be aware that there are very likely unbelievers who are &quot;watching&quot; this board, perhaps from good motives (to find out more) and perhaps from bad (to get juicy material - I've seen quotes from here on other web sites). Act as if you were talking to a fellow believer of the opposite persuasion on baptism in the narthex of a church, with an unbelieving visitor standing nearby. Then think of Genesis 13:

[quote:562d5cf7a7]5Lot also, who went with Abram, had flocks and herds and tents. 6Now the land was not able to support them, that they might dwell together, for their possessions were so great that they could not dwell together. 7And there was strife between the herdsmen of Abram's livestock and the herdsmen of Lot's livestock. [b:562d5cf7a7]The Canaanites and the Perizzites then dwelt in the land[/b:562d5cf7a7].[/quote:562d5cf7a7]

And see Abram's response, because he knew a hostile world was watching, in spite of the fact that the promises were his, not Lot's:

[quote:562d5cf7a7]8So Abram said to Lot, &quot;Please let there be no strife between you and me, and between my herdsmen and your herdsmen; for we are brethren. 9Is not the whole land before you? Please separate from me. If you take the left, then I will go to the right; or, if you go to the right, then I will go to the left.&quot;[/quote:562d5cf7a7]

May the Lord bless each of you this Lord's day as you worship Him.

 {humming Psalm 133}


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 27, 2004)

Remember that there are two aspects to this:




[*:4b79edd356]Not giving offense
[*:4b79edd356]Not taking offense
[/list:4b79edd356]

Far too often people are thin skinned in these threads. Far too often there is more heat than light.

I am not saying (and have never said) that this issue should be avoided. I am saying that because of the makeup of the board it must be handled well.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 27, 2004)

I want to add: This is not the only discussion list I am involved in. In fact, one of the largest is the Yahoo community's RTDISC group. The same discussions go on there. Never have I seen the reaction on RTDISC that we get here on PB from topics such as these. The items are discussed in a scholarly fashion. Generally, no one is personally offended. The subjects are not swept under the rug in liu of fear of offense.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rtdisc/messages/72173?viscount=-30



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


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 27, 2004)

True. But that is dependent on the makeup of the list as well. Personally, I would not tolerate the &quot;discussion&quot; that Barry does about paedocommunion on RTDISC. It is the main reason I gave up on the list. PC advocates were allowed to trash the Standards and waive off 2000+ years of united Christendom, and place the burden on the orthodox to prove to them that PC was not Biblical.

And we've never had an exchange here where members have to agree not to address one another ever.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 27, 2004)

Where this began was great. 

Where this ended up was ridiculous.

Let's start over. 

I am going to close this thread, and repost Bobby's question. Let's try it in round 2.


----------

