# Covenant Children and Church Discipline



## B.J. (May 21, 2007)

How do PaedoBaptist churches handle Covenant children and their sin insofar as church discipline is concerned?

It certainly is not the same as a "professing" adult, or is it?


How can you tell a covenant child to repent? And if they repent of said sin are they then eligible to partake of the Lord's Supper?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 22, 2007)

B.J. said:


> How do PaedoBaptist churches handle Covenant children and their sin insofar as church discipline is concerned?
> 
> It certainly is not the same as a "professing" adult, or is it?
> 
> ...



These questions are always so difficult. If the covenant child is 18 then it's pretty obvious.

If they're 2 years old then mom or dad spank them.

If they're 3-5 years old then mom or dad spank them and pray with them as they repent to God for dishoring Him by disobeying Mommy and Daddy. I discipline my children with an eye toward Gospel trust when they receive forgiveness at the end of discipline.

They would have to be of the appropriate age to partake of the Lord's Supper. We had this discussion in a recent thread that it is my belief that the person ought to be a young adult (teens) prior to communicant membership and fully aware of what they are receiving and of sufficient age to give account of their faith in a mature fashion.

So much of this answer is caught up in the diligence (or lack thereof) of the parents and session.

If a child has really been brought up diligently and there has been a sincere (and honest) effort to train a child in godliness from the knee. If a session has properly examined a child for communicant membership as well. If all these things have been done, a child becomes a communicant member and then suddenly rebels a couple of years later (say age 17) then I think we would all be shocked if none of the conditions changed. It's simply highly unusual to see kids acting in a disruptive way in families that are taking interest in their children. I've never seen a rebellious teenager that I couldn't correspond to some issues in the home.

If we're talking about a kid in a home who's a communicant member and falls into some heinous sin then you would treat them like another communicant member: the session may or may not bar from the Table depending upon the child's repentance. It's not like they have a juveinelle hall version of the Lord's Supper.


----------



## Tirian (May 22, 2007)

I'm not sure I follow the question.

Dicipline of a child who is less than adult age is the parents responsibility. If the child is misbehaving, the parents should correct the child. Sometimes parents may need to be lovingly instructed to correct their child if they are unaware of a particular sin, or if they don't appear to be addressing a given problem.

I'm not sure where this fits into the issue of Baptism though. Are you making a case that it's hard to convince a child of their need of salvation because they have been baptised as a child? 

Matt


----------



## B.J. (May 22, 2007)

Matthew, 
I guess another way to ask it is like this.


Children are born into the church community (Covenant), hence the term "Covenant Children." They are baptized and viewed as a "Church" member. In time they are also exspected to make a credible profession of faith, and are then allowed to partake of the Lord's Table. After this, Church Discipline seems to be a no-brainer for the brother or sister is in sin. It is addressed and disciplined accordingly. 

My question is aimed at the period of time, whatever it might be, from their(Covenant Child) baptism until the time they make that "profession." In this period how are they disciplined by the Church? The reason I ask is because I have a new born baby and if I join a Presbyterian Church and baptize him what is his status insofar as chruch discipline is concerned.


In a Baptist church this does not seem to be a problem becasue it is only professers that are baptized. It does not seem to be a problem for "professers" in a Paedo Church. I only see a problem in the Paedo view for the period of time between their baptism and credible profession. 

If you discipline the child during this time period and demand they repent, isn't that like making a credible profession? That is, "professers" repent of sin and non-professers do not. Now that I think about it, if I am thinking rightly, are Covenant Children believers or unbelievers? If they make a profession then they are believers, until that time are they unbelievers, or is it some type of "limbo" where they are being protected and nurtured until their profession? That might be loaded with Baptistic assumptions though. Also, is it possible a Covenat Child be excommunicated before a profession of faith is made since they are in fact visible members of the Covenant like everyone else, only lacking in the "credible profession" department?


I am sorry if this is a little scatter-brained. I am taking an inquiriers class at a Paedo church, and the teacher is the Senior Pastor. During his lesson on Presbyterian distinctives he basically said that although we baptize infants it is still up to them to confess Christ in faith. Though until this time they are also visible members like everybody else. This troubles me. I fully intend on asking him about it I just thought I would discuss it out on the Puritan Board as well.


Rich,
Can you link me to the thread that this was discussed. I looked and could not find one.Thanks.


----------



## tcalbrecht (May 22, 2007)

You might want to check out Chapter 28 of the PCA Book of Church Order. It covers Disciplining of Non-communing Members.



> 28-1. The spiritual nurture, instruction and training of the children of the
> Church are committed by God primarily to their parents. They are
> responsible to the Church for the faithful discharge of their obligations. It is
> a principal duty of the Church to promote true religion in the home. True
> ...


----------



## non dignus (May 22, 2007)

B.J. said:


> Also, is it possible a Covenat Child be excommunicated before a profession of faith is made since they are in fact visible members of the Covenant like everyone else, only lacking in the "credible profession" department?



Junior members who are put out are _excluded_, adult members would be _excommunicated._


----------



## Reformed Baptist (May 22, 2007)

I have no covenant children except those who have been born again.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 22, 2007)

B.J. said:


> Rich,
> Can you link me to the thread that this was discussed. I looked and could not find one.Thanks.



The specific issue I said was recently discussed was eligibility for the Lord's Supper: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=21492

It actually might overlap on some of the questions you're asking.



> If you discipline the child during this time period and demand they repent, isn't that like making a credible profession? That is, "professers" repent of sin and non-professers do not. Now that I think about it, if I am thinking rightly, are Covenant Children believers or unbelievers? If they make a profession then they are believers, until that time are they unbelievers, or is it some type of "limbo" where they are being protected and nurtured until their profession? That might be loaded with Baptistic assumptions though. Also, is it possible a Covenat Child be excommunicated before a profession of faith is made since they are in fact visible members of the Covenant like everyone else, only lacking in the "credible profession" department?


One of the things that is a real huge disconnect in Baptist theology is this idea that faith spontaneously manifests itself in a cognitive, adult fashion. I used the analogy in the other thread about the nature of faith: is it something that grows like a seed into a tree or is it more like a tree that spontaneously generates.

Baptist theology, in addition to running roughshod over the Proverbs and other portions of the Covenant that speak of Covenant growth, ignores the very light of nature and the way they treat their children. They can't get away from the fact that they actually treat their children as those who are growing in discernment and capacity. I dare say that if their 4 year old spontaneously started talking with an adult understanding of the Sacraments that it would scare them to death. Frankly, it would probably scare them to death if a pagan, who had never read the Scriptures, upon repentance and the sign of new birth, started uttering profound truths of the Scriptures. Yet, this is precisely the seeming expectation when questions like "...well how do you discipline a child who is not an adult..." come up.

Frankly, on this point, Baptist theology leaves men impotent with respect to Christian nurture. I've challenged Baptists repeatedly to give account for the fact that they bring their children to Church with them. I challenge them that they teach them to pray. This inconsistency has never been resolved satisfactorily. They'll claim they have Scriptural warrant to train their children but can then only cite passages that are clearly intended for Covenant use. The whole book of Proverbs has to be thrown out the window.

The question is, frankly, a no-brainer for me. My son and my daughters have been given to me. I don't parse my life into spiritual aspects (the Church) and non-spiritual aspects (my children who are outside of the Church). I've been commanded to raise them in the fear and admonition of the Lord and that presumes that I have to have an expectation of them that they have some capacity to respond at an age-appropriate level. I don't presume they are unregenerate and thereby commend them in their rebellion for being consistent with their nature. Rather, I am commanded to drive folly from their hearts.

I recently heard a Baptist call up Gene Cook with a question about his kids. He had nailed the problem of raising them. Because he had to presume they were little pagans, he was concerned about how he could train them up except in a way that a Pharisee would force a man to obey the externals of the Law with no affection for the Lawgiver. Gene was, of course, unwisely forced to essentially agree that, at best, all he could do as a Baptist would be to require external conformity to the Law because he assumes his kids have no capacity to learn to obey with proper motiviations.

What folly! Find me the Proverb for that one! Where are we ever commanded to train our children like Pharisess up to the point of a crisis of conversion? Then, at that point, we can start training them like Christians and undo all the bad habits we instilled in them throughout their whole life. It's like you're training them to play golf right-handed up until a certain point and then tell them: Now that you're a Christian the correct way is to play left-handed. This is what I mean about how Baptist theology over-rides the very light of nature that God has given us in the way that people develop and grow.

Thus, when my children rebel against me, here is the basic procedure:
1. I bring them into the bathroom and tell them they have sinned against me and against God for disobeying me.
2. I tell them to say: "I was wrong for...."
3. I discipline them.
4. I pray with them and have them repeat after me as they repent to God for their sin. In the prayer, they pray that God will help them glorify Him and will save them from their sins.
5. I hug them, tell them I forgive them, and tell them I love them.
6. If I sin against them in discipline by becoming angry or overly harsh then I repent to them and ask them to forgive me.

It's Gospel from start to finish. I'm training my children to understand that sin has consequences and that Christ is the One who takes away sin and causes us to walk in newness of life. I'm causing their small minds and hearts to fix upon him at the earliest possible age, before they can speak, so that they never get infected with the notion that they are saved on their own righteousness but Christ's alone. I'm trying to keep them away from all the bad habits of self-righteousness and self-loathing that I became well practiced at in my youth and am still undoing due to how profound a childhood affects adulthood.

This does not exclude regeneration, repentance, and faith - it merely doesn't give in to the un-Biblical notion that only adults have this capacity and that only cognitive, fully developed faith is the only faith that exists. It also doesn't compartmentalize parenting as some strange addendum that is immaterial to the spiritual nurturing and means that God uses to raise up a Godly seed.


----------



## shelly (May 22, 2007)

What if they don't want to pray and they don't repent? Should you teach them to be a pharisee and say it anyway?

shelly


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 22, 2007)

shelly said:


> What if they don't want to pray and they don't repent? Should you teach them to be a pharisee and say it anyway?
> 
> shelly



Never seen that to be the case. What do your children desire when you discipline them?

Granted, they don't completely understand what is being said yet. It's a process of modelling activity. All spiritual discipline begins, to some extent, with practice of the externals. You practice the fundamentals until it is internalized.

All virtuoso's started learning by playing scales. Everybody sings the A,B,C song when learning their alphabet. If my son got stilted to the point that he could only sing his A,B,C's because "...that's the way it's done..." and never learned to read then it would be an issue for concern.


----------



## eternallifeinchrist (May 23, 2007)

Your baby is adorable!!!


B.J. said:


> How do PaedoBaptist churches handle Covenant children and their sin insofar as church discipline is concerned?
> 
> It certainly is not the same as a "professing" adult, or is it?
> 
> ...


----------



## Herald (May 23, 2007)

I was going to stay out of this discussion (really, I was!) until Rich took umbrage with Baptist theology, yet again. How Baptists got drawn into the discussion beats me. I don't think B.J. was concerned so much about Baptist theology as he was about covenant children within Reformed churches. 

B.J., you ask, "are Covenant Children believers or unbelievers?" I suppose it depends on the age of the child. Is the child able to understand their sinfulness and comprehend the gospel? Until those two things happen I don't believe it is possible for anyone to become a believer. I've never read a convincing proof that baptizing a child into the covenant grants them salvation. Now to be fair, most of the Presbyterians in here don't believe paedo baptism is salvific either. I'm just trying to answer B.J's question. 



> If they make a profession then they are believers, until that time are they unbelievers, or is it some type of "limbo" where they are being protected and nurtured until their profession? That might be loaded with Baptistic assumptions though.



I would shy away from using the phrase, "If they make a profession." Professions are not as convincing as evidence. My daughter wanted to "get saved" when she was five. Her Christian school teacher prayed with her to receive Jesus (please understand this was right at the time I was leaving Arminianism). After talking with Bethany I wasn't convinced she truly understood the gospel. It was a few years later when she finally "got it" and her "profession" was accompanied by evidence of her faith. Do I know the day and the hour that she came to faith? No. Does that bother me? No. I was praying, and expecting, for God to work in her life to bring her to repentance and faith.

As far as this "limbo" thing you ask about, the only limbo I know of is the Caribbean dance. You are either saved or you're not. I do believe their is a process whereby God calls and leads a person to the point where they will come to faith. I have always viewed the story of Cornelius in Acts 10 as an example of that kind of process. If God is going to call a child, He may use a process to bring that child to faith. I believe it was a process that brought Bethany to faith. Can paedo baptism be part of that process? I have no problem saying that it might. If I were a paedo-Reformed parent, I would (regularly) make reference to my childs baptism as I chatacized him/her. I would point to it as a sign of the covenant and call my child to repentance and faith. As a credo parent I used the word of God as the instrument whereby I called my daughter to repentance and faith. The point is not whether one is paedo or credo in this instance, it is the process that God uses to call a person (in this discussion, a child) to faith. 

B.J., I'm not too sure what your "Baptist assumptions" may be. Perhaps they are the Baptist belief that everyone (child or adult) is lost until they make a profession accompanied by evidence of faith? Let me provide one more insight into "profession" issue. I said earlier that I placed a great deal of weight on the evidence of faith in my daughters life as opposed to her profession. Much of that had to do with the fact she was a child and was thinking with the mind of a child. But there reaches a point (it's nebulus really. Each person is different) when a person is able to intellectually understand their sinfulness and the message of the gospel. At that point their profession should be met _immediately_ with baptism. There is not good reason for baptism to be withheld. Their willingness to be obedient to Christ in the waters of baptism is one evidence of their faith. The behavorial aspect of their obedience will be observed as the days, weeks and months go by. The point I am trying to make (and forgive me for being so long winded) is that the profession should be on the bottom of the totem pole. 



> Also, is it possible a Covenat Child be excommunicated before a profession of faith is made since they are in fact visible members of the Covenant like everyone else, only lacking in the "credible profession" department?



As a Baptist this one is hard for me to answer, but I would guess that the child is under the authority of the parents and is "not of age." I am reminded of what the parents of the blind man (whom Jesus healed) said to the council, "Ask him; he is of age, he shall speak for himself." (John 9:21) Once a child is of age they should be dealt with more as an individual, although parental involvement may still be preferable until such time as they take on adult responsibility.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 23, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> I was going to stay out of this discussion (really, I was!) until Rich took umbrage with Baptist theology, yet again. How Baptists got drawn into the discussion beats me. I don't think B.J. was concerned so much about Baptist theology as he was about covenant children within Reformed churches.



Not umbrage.  B.J. started asking things that revealed Baptist thinking. I know I tend to be ponderous and _seem_ to bring more into the discussion than was asked but it's to try and bring the reasoning full circle so people can see my thinking as I develop it and to answer the common objections that I assume will arise. I'm surprised it took so long for someone to write something in response.

I'm glad to see that you distinguished between Baptist theology and "...Covenant children within Reformed Churches." They're two different things.


----------



## Herald (May 23, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I'm glad to see that you distinguished between Baptist theology and "...Covenant children within Reformed Churches." They're two different things.



Rich - and why not?  For all my verbosity (is that a word?) I do understand the crux of the disagreement between credos and paedos. I've never tried to be a Baptist who coddles up to the covenant-Reformed perspective. That is why I often describe myself as "Reformed-friendly." I'm at peace with the disagreement, although I believe it is profitable to continue discussion on the matter.

btw...don't diss the word umbrage. It's a good word. I've been waiting months to find the right context in which to use it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 23, 2007)

Well, don't take umbrage at the dissing of umbrage.

It's good to be friendly with the Reformed. You'd have no very little good theology to read without them.


----------



## non dignus (May 23, 2007)

shelly said:


> What if they don't want to pray and they don't repent? Should you teach them to be a pharisee and say it anyway?



I agree with Rich.

But I don't force the kids to pray; I do force them to learn the catechism. My main motivation for this is that if, God forbid, I was removed from their lives they will have internalized the necessary knowledge to not be led astray by doctrines of demons later on.

I don't approve of early profession of faith in children under 12 partly because it confuses the authority structure over them. Childish folly is a parental issue, not a consistory issue.


----------



## non dignus (May 23, 2007)

B.J. said:


> If you discipline the child during this time period and demand they repent, isn't that like making a credible profession? That is, "professers" repent of sin and non-professers do not. Now that I think about it, if I am thinking rightly, are Covenant Children believers or unbelievers? If they make a profession then they are believers, until that time are they unbelievers, or is it some type of "limbo" where they are being protected and nurtured until their profession?



For children, when I think of 'repent' I think of profession of faith. I don't think, for example, "Have you _repented_ of lying to me?". Repentance cannot be mere law keeping. It is a work of the Holy Spirit wherein one not only assents to the gospel but also trusts in it. 

Rich's tree analogy is superb. Covenant children have a simple trust at the very beginning sometimes, and it grows into full trust commensurate with their full ability as adults. They should come to the table when they manifest that full ability independent of parental influence.


----------



## shelly (May 29, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Never seen that to be the case. What do your children desire when you discipline them?
> 
> Granted, they don't completely understand what is being said yet. It's a process of modelling activity. All spiritual discipline begins, to some extent, with practice of the externals. You practice the fundamentals until it is internalized.
> 
> All virtuoso's started learning by playing scales. Everybody sings the A,B,C song when learning their alphabet. If my son got stilted to the point that he could only sing his A,B,C's because "...that's the way it's done..." and never learned to read then it would be an issue for concern.



My youngest is 9 and oldest will be thirteen in a few weeks and I have a couple in between. The prob is w/ the oldest. Discipline is difficult. He rarely acknowledges that he is wrong in any way. Maybe 2-3 times since Christmas has he admitted wrong on his own. He is angry, he definitely is old enough to understand. I don't know how far to push for him to acknowledge his sin, and how can I force him to ask for forgiveness when he isn't even sorry? What do I do in this type of situation?

HINT: Spank more; spank less; don't spank at all are not the answer to this question.


Catechism. Yes we are working on that. He is learning it in spite of himself. I feel like an ogre making him say things he says he doesn't believe. Am I making things worse by forcing externals?


----------



## Chris (May 29, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> It's good to be friendly with the Reformed. You'd have no very little good theology to read without them.




We appreciate the works you guys did on theology. We'd have done it ourselves, but we were too busy being slaughtered for our beliefs......


----------



## jenney (May 29, 2007)

BJ,
Well, I'm a Baptist, so you might not care what I think, but I'm warning you now so you can skip this post if you want!

Of course, I disagree, as usual, with Rich's portrayal of Baptist parenting, but i don't think he's ever lived with a reformed baptist family to see any of us parent in real life anyway... 

I don't see why we would discipline them differently for breaking the covenant than we would for breaking God's Law. If my child is being sinful and rebellious, I can just point her to God's Law to say, "look, you have sinned against God!" The Law the means by which the Lord convicts of sin, both unbelievers and believers.

Shelly,
I'm sorry about your son's difficulties. I'm sure it breaks your heart to see him unresponsive to your discipline. I can only encourage you to press on, and trust the sovereignty, wisdom and love of God!

Even when my clearly _unbelieving_ children disobey, I tell them what God says about it. They don't have to believe it, but they are going to hear it. They face the consequences of their actions, but I have to tell them that spanking teaches them to change their behavior, but it doesn't get rid of their sin, which is against God. I take them to the Cross for that. Again, they don't have to believe it, but they are going to hear it.

We do insist that they behave outwardly. We just make sure to tell them that they can't make up for sin by obeying later. We also deal with the heart a lot. I will tell them, "you are using a disrespectful voice with me, and that shows me that you have disrespect in your heart. You are breaking the fifth commandment in your heart," or "You yelled at your sister because you were loving yourself more than her, and that is not loving your neighbor as yourself the way Jesus said to."

I don't make my children pray if they don't even claim to believe. I make them sit through me praying for them, though!

All this _could_ create a pharisee, if the child thought that starting to obey it would buy some merit in His eyes, but that just means we have to be careful to present the whole counsel of God, and make sure they understand that obedience doesn't get rid of sin. They need the Mediator for that.

I still make them learn Scripture and catechism and talk about the meanings of the words, but I warn them of the danger of unbelief.

Those are just quick thoughts off the top of my head. Sort of disjointed, I'm afraid, but I have to get my children to an orthodontist appointment now!

Oh, one more thing, Shelly, with the anger thing, I recommend Lou Priolo's book Heart of Anger. It's geared toward parenting our children, but you will learn a lot about your own anger too. I found it convicting and really helpful. He writes from a Calvinist perspective. PM me if you want more info about it.

off to the orthodontist!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 29, 2007)

Chris said:


> We appreciate the works you guys did on theology. We'd have done it ourselves, but we were too busy being slaughtered for our beliefs......



Yeah, yeah, what's your excuse for the last 300 years? Isn't it ironic how Baptists have to turn to us stinky paedobaptists for all their good Systematic Theology texts.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 29, 2007)

shelly said:


> My youngest is 9 and oldest will be thirteen in a few weeks and I have a couple in between. The prob is w/ the oldest. Discipline is difficult. He rarely acknowledges that he is wrong in any way. Maybe 2-3 times since Christmas has he admitted wrong on his own. He is angry, he definitely is old enough to understand. I don't know how far to push for him to acknowledge his sin, and how can I force him to ask for forgiveness when he isn't even sorry? What do I do in this type of situation?
> 
> HINT: Spank more; spank less; don't spank at all are not the answer to this question.
> 
> ...


Shelly,

I hope this advice is good since you asked. I'm not trying to be indelicate but are you a single parent?

I believe that 13 is too old to spank and a 9 year old is getting to that point. Children at that age need to start learning to be self-disciplined. If external controls are the only thing restraining them then in 5 years, your 18 year old will lack those controls.

Discipline of teenagers should take the form of making them have to provide restitution for their sins. That is, if they break something, they should have to pay for it. Grounding simply imprisons but doesn't teach the idea of restition.

The rest is prayers and tears Shelly. Make sure your child understands the Gospel and if he still rebels just tell him plainly that he's sinning and needs to repent. You may not get a verbal acknowledgement from him but, if you demonstrate your own willingness to repent when sin is evident in yourself, eventually he'll see that modelled. A mother's quiet trust in God is a powerful witness.


----------



## jenney (May 29, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> if you demonstrate your own willingness to repent when sin is evident in yourself, eventually he'll see that modelled.



How important it is for our children to see us repent and ask forgiveness! We will always be sinners in this life. Our children will see it in us throughout our lives together. The question is how we deal with it--confession? excuse? denial? 

It is an incredible witness of God's mercy if we can allow our children to see the process of sanctification.


----------



## shelly (May 29, 2007)

Rich,
No, I'm not a single parent. Just feel like it sometimes. In about a month I will be functioning as such for a time. We're moving out of state and my husband will be coming later, maybe by Christmas.

We haven't known what to do with our son since he was about 5. He is now what I feared he would be, but not all the time, just most of the time.

Isn't there supposed to be wisdom in a multitude of counselors? We haven't found any and our son just gets older and angrier. We are making another attempt to figure this out...after this, I don't know.



> A mother's quiet trust in God is a powerful witness.


I wish that was me. It's more like a desparate, must trust or else questioning.

Jenny,
I have that book. I get angry just reading it. It's probably a great book and I could learn a lot from it if I would read it when things are going well with my son. When he is going through a angry spell of time is when I read it and I get angry at the illustrations because it sounds like us and it infuriates me to "experience" it again in a book and I throw it down.--it's a very beat up book-- (obviously I should read it, he's not the only one with anger probs)



Writing helps me think. I have a lot to think on these days.


----------



## Chris (May 30, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Yeah, yeah, what's your excuse for the last 300 years? Isn't it ironic how Baptists have to turn to us stinky paedobaptists for all their good Systematic Theology texts.




That's sort of how I thought you'd reply.

Rich, if you can't drop the arrogance, maybe you ought to reconsider whether you even post. 

There are plenty of reasons why you guys write more than we do - first and foremost, there's no use in our re-inventing the wheel, and second, we've traditionally focused where Jesus focused - namely, on world missions. 

Could we have been better balanced in the past? Certainly. Are we perfect? Oh, heavens, no. We have serious issues. But your posts seem to be trying toi further division here, and they're simply beyond the pale of being edifying.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (May 30, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Yeah, yeah, what's your excuse for the last 300 years? Isn't it ironic how Baptists have to turn to us stinky paedobaptists for all their good Systematic Theology texts.



Here's Rich with a Baptist recruit:


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 30, 2007)

Chris said:


> That's sort of how I thought you'd reply.
> 
> Rich, if you can't drop the arrogance, maybe you ought to reconsider whether you even post.


Chill Chris. If you're going to give me a hard time, you need to be willing to get it in return without getting uptight. I assumed your statement about the murder of baptists was done in jest. If not, then YOU are the arrogant person my friend, and not I. I thought you were joking about that. Was that intended to be a serious comment in response to my clear jesting to Bill?



> There are plenty of reasons why you guys write more than we do - first and foremost, there's no use in our re-inventing the wheel, and second, we've traditionally focused where Jesus focused - namely, on world missions.
> 
> Could we have been better balanced in the past? Certainly. Are we perfect? Oh, heavens, no. We have serious issues. But your posts seem to be trying to further division here, and they're simply beyond the pale of being edifying.


Oh, I don't know about all that. I think they're still within the pale. Of course the Reformed weren't busy focusing on the Gospel, just busy studying. Is that it Chris? I suppose this is your second non-arrogant comment?

Back on topic.


----------



## JM (May 31, 2007)

I made a post in this thread and it's gone, anyone seen it?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 31, 2007)

JM said:


> I made a post in this thread and it's gone, anyone seen it?



Yes, I saw it, and deleted it. JM, and any others, not clear about the forum guidelines need to re-read. I'm honestly tired of the whining.

Find me a post where I attack a man and call him arrogant. I'm not going to put up with personal attacks anymore. If some of you would spend more time dealing with the arguments and less time being offended by the arguments then you might be better at defending your viewpoint or proposing a viewpoint. I have bullied no man in this thread. I have expressed my convictions about Baptistic views regarding Covenant Children. This is met with claims that I'm arrogant and sarcastic when I should be angry with a man who is impugning my character with no justification.

Decide for yourselves if you would like to continue to view the Baptism forum. If you cannot participate without constantly being ruffled and engaging in name calling then I will remove the temptation.


----------



## JM (May 31, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Yes, I saw it, and deleted it. JM, and any others, not clear about the forum guidelines need to re-read. I'm honestly tired of the whining.
> 
> Find me a post where I attack a man and call him arrogant. I'm not going to put up with personal attacks anymore. If some of you would spend more time dealing with the arguments and less time being offended by the arguments then you might be better at defending your viewpoint or proposing a viewpoint. I have bullied no man in this thread. I have expressed my convictions about Baptistic views regarding Covenant Children. This is met with claims that I'm arrogant and sarcastic when I should be angry with a man who is impugning my character with no justification.
> 
> Decide for yourselves if you would like to continue to view the Baptism forum. If you cannot participate without constantly being ruffled and engaging in name calling then I will remove the temptation.



My post didn't break any rules.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 31, 2007)

It was snide J.


----------



## JM (May 31, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> It was snide J.




You have to admit, the pic was funny.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 31, 2007)

Yes, it was funny.


----------

