# Baptism trend in the SBC



## Bill The Baptist

Here is an interesting article about the troubling trend of baptizing children under 5 years old in the SBC. I use the word troubling because such baptisms qualify as neither paedobaptism nor credobaptism and seem to be a relatively new phenomenon. I cannot think of any good reason to baptize a four year old since they would be too young to make a credible profession of faith and too old to be a candidate for any type of infant baptism. I'm curious to know what others think of this. http://betweenthetimes.com/index.php/2016/09/02/in-case-you-missed-it-100/


----------



## Edward

I recall being corrected here several years ago when I expressed concern about baptizing walking children (I don't recall how I characterized it at the time; certainly not in that fashion) and was told that the age in question would fall within the historic understanding of 'infant'. So there isn't any issue of recognizing the baptism of a previously unbaptized 5 year old as infant baptism. (In our church, such baptisms usually occur when the parents join from a Baptist or Bible church. Rarely, it will occur in connection with the baptism of the parents upon their profession).


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Edward said:


> I recall being corrected here several years ago when I expressed concern about baptizing walking children (I don't recall how I characterized it at the time; certainly not in that fashion) and was told that the age in question would fall within the historic understanding of 'infant'. So there isn't any issue of recognizing the baptism of a previously unbaptized 5 year old as infant baptism. (In our church, such baptisms usually occur when the parents join from a Baptist or Bible church. Rarely, it will occur in connection with the baptism of the parents upon their profession).



Thank you Edward. I was not aware of that. Regardless, it is still problematic within the context of the SBC since these baptisms are not being performed under any kind of paedobaptistic understanding.


----------



## Tyrese

Bill The Baptist said:


> Here is an interesting article about the troubling trend of baptizing children under 5 years old in the SBC. I use the word troubling because such baptisms qualify as neither paedobaptism nor credobaptism and seem to be a relatively new phenomenon. I cannot think of any good reason to baptize a four year old since they would be too young to make a credible profession of faith and too old to be a candidate for any type of infant baptism. I'm curious to know what others think of this. http://betweenthetimes.com/index.php/2016/09/02/in-case-you-missed-it-100/



This is one of those issues that causes me question the validity of believers (only) baptism. There's so much confusion in Baptist circles when it comes to who should and should not be baptised. The funny thing is Baptist spend so much time criticizing Paedobaptist without realizing they share many of the same problems. For example, one Church says a qualified candidate ought to be a 'young adult' (giving no specifics), while another will say a candidate must at least be 10 years of age. My question is who determines these things? Brothers say 'we have to be wise', ignoring the fact that the Bible offers no practical wisdom on the matter. I've wondered for a long time if Baptist make baptism more important than everything else?

If a 5yr old says 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God', who are we to say the confession is false? Maybe it is, but we don't know that. In fact we can never know that. Is it not our duty to disciple our Children just like every other man or woman who professes Christ? This idea that people have to prove they are Christians by bearing all of this fruit as NEW Christians is silly to me. 

I'm a Baptist but I refuse to ignore these words: 'And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. 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.'


----------



## Romans922

I'm not a baptist but how could you actually say this? Why can't a 4 year old make a credible profession of faith? Is there an age in Scripture that one has to be older than to be able to give a 'credible profession of faith'?



Bill The Baptist said:


> I cannot think of any good reason to baptize a four year old *since they would be too young to make a credible profession of faith*


----------



## Parakaleo

The way that Confessional Presbyterians fence the Lord's Table is basically the way that Baptists, according to their theology, "fence" the Baptismal waters. Those who are found "ignorant" or "scandalous" should be denied. Many Presbyterian churches admit young children to the Table who give professions of faith that would be seen credible, and rejoiced over, if coming from a 50-year-old. These should never be confused with paedocommunionists.

I think (for Presbyterians and Baptists alike) this becomes a problem when the children are so young there is no way to really know if the profession is sincere, conscious assent and trust vs. parroting answers. I don't like putting a number on it, but I will agree with the OP that professions of faith would be incredibly difficult to judge as credible from children under five years old.


----------



## toddpedlar

Is it still the case today in the SBC (I presume it is decidedly not in confessional Baptist churches) for young children, before they are baptized, to partake of the Lord's Supper? When I was growing up in a baptist church in the 1970's, I never was baptized (until we moved to a Lutheran church, and I was baptized upon profession at the age of 14) but took the Lord's Supper, with the approbation of the pastor and all, for years before that - as did all of my friends that had yet to make profession in that church. Were we just quirky, or is this common outside of the 1689ers?


----------



## DMcFadden

In my experience (four of my adult children are in non-denom (baptistic) churches), any Sunday school kid of 4 or 5 can say "I want Jesus in my heart" parroting what their teachers and parents coach them to say. Increasingly they become the subjects of baptism at much earlier ages than what they taught me growing up in a Baptist church. All of my 11 grandkids old enough to walk and talk have been encouraged by their parents to make such professions. And, if memory serves me, most of them were baptized by the time they reached age 6. A few of them are not to that age yet, so we will see how their parents and pastors handle it for them.

During my three decades as a Baptist pastor, I always refused to baptize young children. 9 was about the limit of my comfort. My argument was that since baptism was "merely symbolic" it would not hurt to wait until a child was old enough to truly know what he or she was doing.

Now, as a paedobaptist, such arguments ring hollow. However, here the practice in the churches is running contrary to the theology of good paedobaptists and credobaptists alike. It would not seem to be driven by a desire to bolster the baptismal stats. Baptist pastors I know have more integrity than that! But, after WWII we live in an age when denominational affiliation is fungible. People seem to move from one theology to another based on the church they attend, driven more by the available youth program, style of preaching, or children's ministry than by a conviction regarding baptism. Those coming from a paedobaptist background may put pressure on the pastor to baptize their child at the earliest possible time. Don't miss the grandparent angle either. Grandparents from churches that baptize infants may engage in a pretty sustained campaign to get their kids to baptize the grandkids, even if that family now worships in a credobaptist fellowship.


----------



## Jack K

toddpedlar said:


> Is it still the case today in the SBC (I presume it is decidedly not in confessional Baptist churches) for young children, before they are baptized, to partake of the Lord's Supper? When I was growing up in a baptist church in the 1970's, I never was baptized (until we moved to a Lutheran church, and I was baptized upon profession at the age of 14) but took the Lord's Supper, with the approbation of the pastor and all, for years before that - as did all of my friends that had yet to make profession in that church. Were we just quirky, or is this common outside of the 1689ers?



In the Baptist church I attend, nearly every "church kid" who is baptized has taken the Lord's Supper for years before being baptized (provided the parents brought them into the service). There's much I appreciate about my church but this is one thing that feels out of order. I think it happens not so much because the leadership wants it to be that way, but because they don't want to dictate who may partake. Where there's no rule, children tend to just go ahead and partake.


----------



## KGP

Jack K said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it still the case today in the SBC (I presume it is decidedly not in confessional Baptist churches) for young children, before they are baptized, to partake of the Lord's Supper? When I was growing up in a baptist church in the 1970's, I never was baptized (until we moved to a Lutheran church, and I was baptized upon profession at the age of 14) but took the Lord's Supper, with the approbation of the pastor and all, for years before that - as did all of my friends that had yet to make profession in that church. Were we just quirky, or is this common outside of the 1689ers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the Baptist church I attend, nearly every "church kid" who is baptized has taken the Lord's Supper for years before being baptized (provided the parents brought them into the service). There's much I appreciate about my church but this is one thing that feels out of order. I think it happens not so much because the leadership wants it to be that way, but because they don't want to dictate who may partake. Where there's no rule, children tend to just go ahead and partake.
Click to expand...



Jack, Just wanted to hop in and say how much I appreciate hearing your approach to church life when you struggle with a certain element of corporate life. It is encouraging to me.


----------



## DMcFadden

toddpedlar said:


> Is it still the case today in the SBC (I presume it is decidedly not in confessional Baptist churches) for young children, before they are baptized, to partake of the Lord's Supper? When I was growing up in a baptist church in the 1970's, I never was baptized (until we moved to a Lutheran church, and I was baptized upon profession at the age of 14) but took the Lord's Supper, with the approbation of the pastor and all, for years before that - as did all of my friends that had yet to make profession in that church. Were we just quirky, or is this common outside of the 1689ers?



Todd, Lifeway did a survey of SBC churches a few years ago. They found that only 35% make baptism a requirement prior to participating in communion. During my baptist days, I always restricted communion to baptized Christians. However, given the low level of sacramentology in non confessional churches generally, it would be difficult to know how one would draw a hard line. I think Jack is also correct that in many cases it has less to do with leadership's intentions than with a reticence to tell parents that they may not allow their children to commune prior to baptism.

People receiving communion without baptism is probably more common in churches practicing "open" communion, particularly if the elements are distributed by passing them down the pew rather than having people come forward to receive them. A friend of mine pastors a LARGE Baptist church (6 services!) and he (somewhat uncharacteristically) offers communion to all in attendance, whether they identify as Christians or not! I won't go into the torturous theological route he takes to rationalizing the elements being given to unbelievers. But, in Baptist circles, there is no hierarchy that can tell him to act otherwise.

So the trend toward baptizing younger children has its accompanying problem in the tendency not to make baptism a requirement for communion either. From my perspective, this reflects a logical consequence of taking a lower view of the sacraments/ordinances in the baptistic tradition.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Jack K said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it still the case today in the SBC (I presume it is decidedly not in confessional Baptist churches) for young children, before they are baptized, to partake of the Lord's Supper? When I was growing up in a baptist church in the 1970's, I never was baptized (until we moved to a Lutheran church, and I was baptized upon profession at the age of 14) but took the Lord's Supper, with the approbation of the pastor and all, for years before that - as did all of my friends that had yet to make profession in that church. Were we just quirky, or is this common outside of the 1689ers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the Baptist church I attend, nearly every "church kid" who is baptized has taken the Lord's Supper for years before being baptized (provided the parents brought them into the service). There's much I appreciate about my church but this is one thing that feels out of order. I think it happens not so much because the leadership wants it to be that way, but because they don't want to dictate who may partake. Where there's no rule, children tend to just go ahead and partake.
Click to expand...


I always make it clear that the Lord's Supper is only for those who have already been baptized. I have had parents ask me why this is the case, or where does it say this in Scripture. I generally take them to 1 Corinthians 11 and demonstrate that only a believer can rightly take communion, and a believer who has not been baptized is in open disobedience to God. Most people understand this once it is explained to them.


----------



## Pilgrim

Romans922 said:


> I'm not a baptist but how could you actually say this? Why can't a 4 year old make a credible profession of faith? Is there an age in Scripture that one has to be older than to be able to give a 'credible profession of faith'?
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot think of any good reason to baptize a four year old *since they would be too young to make a credible profession of faith*
Click to expand...


Would you admit a 4 year old to the Lord's Table?


----------



## Pilgrim

toddpedlar said:


> Is it still the case today in the SBC (I presume it is decidedly not in confessional Baptist churches) for young children, before they are baptized, to partake of the Lord's Supper? When I was growing up in a baptist church in the 1970's, I never was baptized (until we moved to a Lutheran church, and I was baptized upon profession at the age of 14) but took the Lord's Supper, with the approbation of the pastor and all, for years before that - as did all of my friends that had yet to make profession in that church. Were we just quirky, or is this common outside of the 1689ers?



That is basically the culmination of a decades long declension from Baptist principles that was the result of various influences such as liberalism, (including doctrinal indifferentism) revivalism, pragmatism and maybe dispensationalism (which in some manifestations (such as DTS) has been very indifferent when it comes to ecclesiology.) In general, it seems to me that those churches who are very loose in their practice on this issue are also soft on a good many other things and are mainly focused on the numbers. 

Among Calvinistic Baptists and others who have been influenced by 9 Marks (and some who have not) now practice close communion, which is the historic Southern Baptist practice. 

There are some non-Calvinist Southern Baptists who have been alarmed at the trend of baptizing young children. If memory serves, Paige Patterson has referred to it as "late stage paedobaptism." Mark Dever has documented how the age of those has kept trending younger and younger since about the mid 19th Century, culminating in the trend being discussed here. Back then, it was common to wait until a person was in his late teens.

Perhaps the trend of baptizing young children reached its nadir with the fire engine baptistry.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Pilgrim said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a baptist but how could you actually say this? Why can't a 4 year old make a credible profession of faith? Is there an age in Scripture that one has to be older than to be able to give a 'credible profession of faith'?
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot think of any good reason to baptize a four year old *since they would be too young to make a credible profession of faith*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you admit a 4 year old to the Lord's Table?
Click to expand...


No, not of they had not been baptized, and I would not baptize a four year old.


----------



## Romans922

Pilgrim said:


> Would you admit a 4 year old to the Lord's Table?


 That would be up to my session, and it depends on the child. They would also have to be baptized first, of course. God gives no limit in age to His saving grace nor a declaration of age when a child is able to have a certain knowledge/understanding, so a Session cannot put an age limit on such things either in the sacraments of baptism and the Supper. Elders of a congregation are granted the keys of the kingdom and must exercise them according to the Word alone, not according to some man-made tradition set up to keep other commandments.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

If the child can't stay awake for the sermon and understand it, are they mature enough to examine themselves in the light of the word going along with the sacrament?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

NaphtaliPress said:


> If the child can't stay awake for the sermon and understand it, are they mature enough to examine themselves in the light of the word going along with the sacrament?



I think that comment answers a thousand questions.


----------



## Romans922

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I think that comment answers a thousand questions.



Yet does not exclude the possibility of a godly child who does understand what is going on to be able to participate in the sacraments of Christ's Church.

However, there are many adults who fall asleep during the Worship of the Lord and who do participate in the sacraments.


----------



## DMcFadden

> That is basically the culmination of a decades long declension from Baptist principles that was the result of various influences such as liberalism, (including doctrinal indifferentism) revivalism, pragmatism and maybe dispensationalism (which in some manifestations (such as DTS) has been very indifferent when it comes to ecclesiology.) In general, it seems to me that those churches who are very loose in their practice on this issue are also soft on a good many other things and are mainly focused on the numbers.



Chris, I think that you are on target on this. Your reference to indifference towards ecclesiology reminds me of Bebbington's famous quadrilateral of evangelical distinctives. Nowhere in there will you find ecclesiology. And, coupled with the post WWII phenom of "shopping" for churches based on youth program, children's program, or what have you, there is an even more studied laxity towards matters of ecclesiology.

People move from one flavor of evangelicalism to another, more concerned with the brand new multimillion dollar children's center extravaganza than with the position the church takes on theological issues. One of my kids pastors a non-denom church that dedicated a new multimillion dollar building this year, pretty much dedicated to providing an uber stimulating bunch of rooms in which to entertain each developmental year from birth to kindergarten during the morning worship services! It is the most "successful" church in town which means that it draws former Roman Catholics, and pretty much every version of Protestant, regardless of their "position" on baptism or communion.

The only thing that tends to temper the issue of children receiving communion early is that they are generally in the children's program during most evangelical services. This may reduce the incidence of early baptism, but for the reasons identified in my early post, it is not necessarily the case.


----------



## Edward

Romans922 said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you admit a 4 year old to the Lord's Table?
> 
> 
> 
> That would be up to my session, and it depends on the child. They would also have to be baptized first, of course. God gives no limit in age to His saving grace nor a declaration of age when a child is able to have a certain knowledge/understanding, so a Session cannot put an age limit on such things either in the sacraments of baptism and the Supper. Elders of a congregation are granted the keys of the kingdom and must exercise them according to the Word alone, not according to some man-made tradition set up to keep other commandments.
Click to expand...


It would be a shame if the civil authorities showed more discernment and judgment than did a Session of the Church. There is a good reason that a 4 year old would not be subjected to criminal prosecution nor have his or her testimony admitted in court in this country. And even the ancient Saxons recognized that one under the age of 12 did not have the capacity to commit a capital crime. (Blackstone, Bk IV, Ch. 2)


----------



## Pilgrim

Romans922 said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you admit a 4 year old to the Lord's Table?
> 
> 
> 
> That would be up to my session, and it depends on the child. They would also have to be baptized first, of course. God gives no limit in age to His saving grace nor a declaration of age when a child is able to have a certain knowledge/understanding, so a Session cannot put an age limit on such things either in the sacraments of baptism and the Supper. Elders of a congregation are granted the keys of the kingdom and must exercise them according to the Word alone, not according to some man-made tradition set up to keep other commandments.
Click to expand...


Many of us are loath to insist on some more or less arbitrary minimum age, such as 12 or 13. But the reason I mentioned it is that many (including most confessionalists that I have known) consider admitting a 4 year old to the table to be paedocommunion, essentially.


----------



## Romans922

Edward said:


> It would be a shame if the civil authorities showed more discernment and judgment than did a Session of the Church. There is a good reason that a 4 year old would not be subjected to criminal prosecution nor have his or her testimony admitted in court in this country. And even the ancient Saxons recognized that one under the age of 12 did not have the capacity to commit a capital crime. (Blackstone, Bk IV, Ch. 2)



This has nothing to do with the civil magistrate. The civil magistrate does not deal with or have authority over the means of grace. Partaking of baptism or the Supper has nothing to do with breaking the law of the civil magistrate, but completely to do with God's command(s) and God's Word.



Pilgrim said:


> Many of us are loath to insist on some more or less arbitrary minimum age, such as 12 or 13. But the reason I mentioned it is that many (including most confessionalists that I have known) consider admitting a 4 year old to the table to be paedocommunion, essentially.



It would be paedocommunion if the child had no credible profession of faith (etc) as determined by the Session of a church. But it would be wholly unwise to put an age limit on the means of grace. In this I am not saying the Session should be unwise, I am saying the Scripture puts no age limit therefore there is no authority for the elder/Session to do so either.


----------



## Edward

Romans922 said:


> This has nothing to do with the civil magistrate. The civil magistrate does not deal with or have authority over the means of grace. Partaking of baptism or the Supper has nothing to do with breaking the law of the civil magistrate, but completely to do with God's command(s) and God's Word.



It has everything to do with the capacity of a 4 year old to make oaths and vows. Anglo-Saxon history recognizes that a 4 year old lacks capacity. And if a session claims a new revelation, I'd probably want to look and see why they are charting new ground, and whether it is theologically or pragmatically driven.


----------



## Romans922

Edward said:


> Anglo-Saxon history


 Again this has nothing to do with the Church or what God says in His word.

Once we begin to erect tradition as doctrine, we set in motion a web of pharisaical folly that can be expanded ad infinitum.

Using God's standard may require of us to do the hard pastoral work of exercising judgment and the sticky pastoral work of interacting with one another, all of us being sinners. But it is better than usurping Christ's authority in His church and creating rules and standards where He has not.


----------



## Pilgrim

Romans922 said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anglo-Saxon history
> 
> 
> 
> Again this has nothing to do with the Church or what God says in His word.
> 
> Once we begin to erect tradition as doctrine, we set in motion a web of pharisaical folly that can be expanded ad infinitum.
> 
> Using God's standard may require of us to do the hard pastoral work of exercising judgment and the sticky pastoral work of interacting with one another, all of us being sinners. But it is better than usurping Christ's authority in His church and creating rules and standards where He has not.
Click to expand...


Where does catechism come in? In the confessional churches I've been familiar with, covenant children generally have to memorize the Shorter Catechism prior to making a public profession of faith and becoming communicant members. Some see this as a double standard since adults or perhaps even older teens who come into the church don't have to do this.


----------



## Edward

Romans922 said:


> Once we begin to erect tradition as doctrine, we set in motion a web of pharisaical folly that can be expanded ad infinitum.



Once we start to ignore the wisdom of history, we set in motion a web of bowing to the breezes of modern society that expands _ad infinitum_.


----------



## Edward

Romans922 said:


> Using God's standard may require of us to do the hard pastoral work of exercising judgment and the sticky pastoral work of interacting with one another, all of us being sinners. But it is better than usurping Christ's authority in His church and creating rules and standards where He has not.



You might start by looking at the history behind Luke 2:42.


----------



## Romans922

Pilgrim said:


> Where does catechism come in



The Standards are a trusted exposition of Scripture. Where is there an age minimum?




Edward said:


> Once we start to ignore the wisdom of history, we set in motion a web of bowing to the breezes of modern society that expands ad infinitum.



The issue perhaps is, you've ignored the wisdom of God Himself, and have taken up first secular history.



Edward said:


> You might start by looking at the history behind Luke 2:42.



I don't really understand the purpose of your use of this verse, but if it means that Jesus was examined by the Session at 12 years old and therefore all children must be 12 when they come to the Session (minimum), then I think you'd be eisegeting. Not to mention the verse prior shows Jesus came up every year to Jerusalem. Of course the verse is descriptive of what Jesus did. And every year, He remained perfect in His law keeping and did so with perfect righteousness from conception on.

Perhaps in keeping with your own suggestion, you might start by looking not first at anglo saxon history, but with the Scriptures themselves where true and perfect history is found as well as perfect prescription of what is commanded by God concerning children.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Instead of one liners, I for one would like to see a discussion of the history of Presbyterian practice. The Scottish practice speaks of reaching a communicant age for instance.


----------



## Romans922

I'd just like to start with Scripture, where is there a minimum age for this in Scripture? Let's start with what God says.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

From what I can gather, Edward's basic point is that grace does not abrogate nature and the Bible does not abolish common sense. If a four year old is not in a position to take an oath in things natural and civil, then how much less is it able to adequately participate in the mystery of holy communion.


----------



## Edward

Reformed Covenanter said:


> From what I can gather, Edward's basic point is that grace does not abrogate nature and the Bible does not abolish common sense. If a four year old is not in a position to take an oath in things natural and civil, then how much less is it able to adequately participate in the mystery of holy communion.



Thanks.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

In Presbyterianism historically one was catechized before communion. Drs. F Nigel Lee (following Calvin, who sets an age at 10 to 13) and Richard Bacon make the case for catechism before communion in their works against the paedocommies from places like Exodus 12:26 (what mean ye by this service?). Some level of maturity has to be reached that affords instruction and understanding and of course the ability to examine oneself. If age is set simply as a general guideline 'from the light of nature' for managing such classes for instruction with exceptions granted for the precocious, does that resolve the issue for you?


Romans922 said:


> I'd just like to start with Scripture, where is there a minimum age for this in Scripture? Let's start with what God says.


----------



## Romans922

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Edward's basic point is that grace does not abrogate nature and the Bible does not abolish common sense



And what's my point? My point is that I haven't even seen any reasoning from Scripture yet on how to handle this situation for a child. What I have seen is man made law (a few times on this thread). I have not seen statements such as the following, "I agree the Session cannot make a hard and fast rule/law about one's age and participating in the sacraments, however it is also wise to be very cautious with those who are on the younger side..." I have no problem with that statement. Yet, what I am seeing is lawmaking by men.


----------



## Edward

NaphtaliPress said:


> I for one would like to see a discussion of the history of Presbyterian practice.



Closest I could quickly turn up was Table III on page 247 (and associated text) of this article showing mean age for admission to the table at First Church Milford, Conn. 1639 - 1699 (Generally upper 20s for males, mid 20s for females for those whose age could be determined). https://www.jstor.org/stable/1922266 

See, particularly, the text associated with footnotes 32 - 38 on page 248 - 249.


----------



## Reepicheep

I just wish my Baptist brothers would call "Believer's Baptism" what it really is, based on their practice- "When the pastor thinks you have made a credible-enough profession of faith to be considered a believer's Baptism." 

I mean, I know it's long, but......


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Since this thread has been derailed from its original topic, I've not wanted to derail it further. But no one has yet--to my surprise--mentioned what should be a signal part of this discussion--what the WLC has to say respecting it. 

WLC 177 seems quite to the point: "Q. Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper differ? A. The sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper differ, in that baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the Lord's supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves."

If one goes back to WLC 169 and follows through to this point, you don't come away from that thinking that a four year old could do what is therein mentioned. Chris asks the right question then about the history of this, and I am not aware that up until comparatively recent times a session contemplated that a young child (less than 6 or 8) could or should be admitted to the Table of the Lord. For practical, developmental purposes, Calvin's 10-13 has generally been thought minimal. 

I suspect that the push to admit children at increasingly earlier ages (and I have certainly detected such) is a dual reaction both to those who are thought to wait too late (you must be 16-18, a common practice among continental churches) and an attempt, perhaps, to head off the paedocommunionists (which the CRC now officially is) at the pass. This is all quite wrongheaded and dangerous for the church, in my estimation.

Sorry for further derailing, but I thought that the WLC must be brought into this discussion.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## alexandermsmith

Tyrese said:


> If a 5yr old says 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God', who are we to say the confession is false? Maybe it is, but we don't know that. In fact we can never know that. Is it not our duty to disciple our Children just like every other man or woman who professes Christ? This idea that people have to prove they are Christians by bearing all of this fruit as NEW Christians is silly to me.



They have to be able to give a credible profession though. I'm assuming in an antipaedobaptist congregation the qualification for baptism is the same as that of admittance to the Lord's Supper in a Presbyterian congregation, i.e. a credible (accredited) profession of faith. A mere verbal confession of faith isn't- or at least shouldn't- be enough.


----------



## Tyrese

alexandermsmith said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a 5yr old says 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God', who are we to say the confession is false? Maybe it is, but we don't know that. In fact we can never know that. Is it not our duty to disciple our Children just like every other man or woman who professes Christ? This idea that people have to prove they are Christians by bearing all of this fruit as NEW Christians is silly to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have to be able to give a credible profession though. I'm assuming in an antipaedobaptist congregation the qualification for baptism is the same as that of admittance to the Lord's Supper in a Presbyterian congregation, i.e. a credible (accredited) profession of faith. A mere verbal confession of faith isn't- or at least shouldn't- be enough.
Click to expand...


Are you saying the confession 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God' is not a credible profession of faith? If so, than perhaps your view could come across as wiser than God. You can say 'a person needs to do this and he needs to do that first', but I think that enters into salvation by works- another conversation for a different day. My point is (from experience as a Baptist) there's no way to know if a persons profession is credible simply because they wrote out a lengthy testimony. Our confidence is no in our ability to maintain a 'regenerate' membership, rather, in the fact that Gid will separate the wheat from the tares on judgment day.

Please don't misunderstand me! I'm not saying we should 'do whatever' becuase we can't know the hearts of men, for that would be unbiblical as well. I'm just saying I do my very best to avoid Baptist dogma that's based on the wisdom of men and not the word of God. It's wrong to discredit children because they're children and we need to be reminded that the Lord is displeased with such behavior.

Btw, baptism and the Lords supper are not the same thing.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Tyrese said:


> Are you saying the confession 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God' is not a credible profession of faith?



I think he is saying that historical faith is not enough, as it is the faith of demons. I believe that communicants should make a profession of _saving_ faith. That is not the same thing as demanding that they give a conversion narrative, however. In addition, the oversight should ensure that they are not doctrinally ignorant (especially concerning Eucharistic theology) and are not unrepentedly living in scandalous sin.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Romans922 said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anglo-Saxon history
> 
> 
> 
> Again this has nothing to do with the Church or what God says in His word.
> 
> Once we begin to erect tradition as doctrine, we set in motion a web of pharisaical folly that can be expanded ad infinitum.
> 
> Using God's standard may require of us to do the hard pastoral work of exercising judgment and the sticky pastoral work of interacting with one another, all of us being sinners. But it is better than usurping Christ's authority in His church and creating rules and standards where He has not.
Click to expand...


Andrew,

While "history" is not the basis of God's Word and teaching, the decision on whom to admit to the Table is an issue guided by the light of nature since we're not going to find a Scripture verse that tells us whether a four-year-old ought to be admitted to the Table.

The point that Edward is making is a valid one, we understand (from the light of nature) that small children do not understand the weight of vows and oaths. From a polity perspective, that child is now able to vote for Session members and can be the subject of excommunication.

I'm sympathetic to the question posed by the Baptist brother because it is my own conviction that there is a quality of maturity in my understanding of what the Lord's Supper requires. It is not faith itself. That's a different question as I believe a child can possess saving faith but I also believe that the Table requires more than faith - it requires discernment. I have five children with more or less very tender consciences but, as much as I see glimpses of faith in Christ, I do not yet recognize the level of maturity that I would want them to have before approaching the Table. All my children will always be my children but it doesn't mean I give them the keys to the car even if they can demonstrate the ability to drive a car at age 12.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Alan D. Strange said:


> Since this thread has been derailed from its original topic, I've not wanted to derail it further. But no one has yet--to my surprise--mentioned what should be a signal part of this discussion--what the WLC has to say respecting it.
> 
> WLC 177 seems quite to the point: "Q. Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper differ? A. The sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper differ, in that baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the Lord's supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves."
> 
> If one goes back to WLC 169 and follows through to this point, you don't come away from that thinking that a four year old could do what is therein mentioned. Chris asks the right question then about the history of this, and I am not aware that up until comparatively recent times a session contemplated that a young child (less than 6 or 8) could or should be admitted to the Table of the Lord. For practical, developmental purposes, Calvin's 10-13 has generally been thought minimal.
> 
> I suspect that the push to admit children at increasingly earlier ages (and I have certainly detected such) is a dual reaction both to those who are thought to wait too late (you must be 16-18, a common practice among continental churches) and an attempt, perhaps, to head off the paedocommunionists (which the CRC now officially is) at the pass. This is all quite wrongheaded and dangerous for the church, in my estimation.
> 
> Sorry for further derailing, but I thought that the WLC must be brought into this discussion.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan



Thanks Alan. I saw this after I posted (didn't read the whole thread through). Great points.

One thing I've noticed among some people who react to the "childishness" of culture is sort of an imbalanced tack in the other direction. What I mean is that our culture idolizes youth culture and, increasingly, boys and girls are not encouraged to be mature but to express themselves and rejoice in folly and youth with the expectation that now is the time to play and party. That age keeps getting pushed further and further to the right where men are expected to grow up.

On the other hand, however, there are some weird "conservative Christian" ideas floating around that all age distinctions were manufactured by modernism - that "in the good 'ole days" a boy was a man at age 13 and we need to treat our kids as grown ups as soon as possible. Any talk of "age appropriate" instruction is met with suspicion that we're buying into the spirit of the age.

Now, I certainly believe the aim of childhood is maturity and not celebrating in folly. But that does not mean that we have some sort of crazy notion that modernity created out of whole cloth the idea that young children are really naive and that teenagers may be able to work in some cultures but still ahve a lot of growing up to do. Even Paul tells Timothy something to tell to "young men" (and I increasingly realize how immature I was even in my 30's!)

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that there are some parents out there who either think of their kids as exceptional (who doesn't?) or who buy into the idea that age distinctions are manufactured and we need to be reminded (as you have reminded us) that human nature really hasn't changed in 500 years. The authors of the WLC certainly understood this.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

What Edward and Rich have argued for is fully congruous with Westminster Confession 1.6. This circumstance of the worship of God must be determined by the light of nature and Christian prudence, both of which preclude us from admitting four year-olds to the Lord's Table.


----------



## Tyrese

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying the confession 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God' is not a credible profession of faith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think he is saying that historical faith is not enough, as it is the faith of demons. I believe that communicants should make a profession of _saving_ faith. That is not the same thing as demanding that they give a conversion narrative, however. In addition, the oversight should ensure that they are not doctrinally ignorant (especially concerning Eucharistic theology) and are not unrepentedly living in scandalous sin.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree with you. I wouldn't be a Baptist if I didn't agree with you. We're talking past one another. Keep in mind the OP brought up the issue of baptism, not The Lords supper. I know other Reformed Baptist would disagree with me here, but I don't think baptism and the Lords supper should be approached the same way. No need to bring up whether or not the demons believe- we know they do. Like you, I'm talking about saving faith, which is a lifelong process; not this instant christian maturity attitude that many Baptist have. Bearing fruit is a process. This implies discipling. We should be discipling children who profess faith just like everyone else; assuming we agree that people need ongoing discipling.


----------



## Edward

Tyrese said:


> Are you saying the confession 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God' is not a credible profession of faith? If so, than perhaps your view could come across as wiser than God.



With work, one might be able to train a parrot to say that. It's probably a bit easier to train a 4 year old to say it. 

You might take a look at Acts 2:38, and you might end up with fewer of what used to be called Carnal Christians.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Edward said:


> With work, one might be able to train a parrot to say that. It's probably a bit easier to train a 4 year old to say it.





Edward, you crack me up.


----------



## Parakaleo

Semper Fidelis said:


> as much as I see glimpses of faith in Christ, I do not yet recognize the level of maturity that I would want them to have before approaching the Table.



You are their father and know your children better than anyone in this area. With respect, allow me to address you with one challenge. We confess the Lord's Supper is a means of grace. When taken rightly, it is efficacious to the building up of our faith. You watch your children sin and fall and grieve their sin and seek the Lord's help in turning away from it. Could they not do this better, with the consistency and maturity you are looking for, if they came to His means of grace? How would you be doing in your walk with Christ if you went a year without the Lord's Supper?

Just a friendly challenge.


----------



## Tyrese

Edward said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying the confession 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God' is not a credible profession of faith? If so, than perhaps your view could come across as wiser than God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With work, one might be able to train a parrot to say that. It's probably a bit easier to train a 4 year old to say it.
> 
> You might take a look at Acts 2:38, and you might end up with fewer of what used to be called Carnal Christians.
Click to expand...


Edward, I'm guessing you were expecting a lengthy disagreement. I'm afraid I'm gonna have to disappoint ya. In fact your belief that it's ok to baptise children (if thats your view) who make no profession of faith ought to make you go back and see if your really challenging yourself with that last comment.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Parakaleo said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> as much as I see glimpses of faith in Christ, I do not yet recognize the level of maturity that I would want them to have before approaching the Table.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are their father and know your children better than anyone in this area. With respect, allow me to address you with one challenge. We confess the Lord's Supper is a means of grace. When taken rightly, it is efficacious to the building up of our faith. You watch your children sin and fall and grieve their sin and seek the Lord's help in turning away from it. Could they not do this better, with the consistency and maturity you are looking for, if they came to His means of grace? How would you be doing in your walk with Christ if you went a year without the Lord's Supper?
> 
> Just a friendly challenge.
Click to expand...


Blake,

I don't follow your logic. The Confessional view is that there is a level of discernment necessary for participation that comes by way of maturity. It does not follow that the means to achieve maturity is the Lord's Supper itself. If I believed that then I would advocate paedocommunion. In other words, if there is a requirement to be met _before_ a person is admitted then you don't admit the person as a _means_ to meet that requirement.


----------



## Parakaleo

Semper Fidelis said:


> if there is a requirement to be met before a person is admitted then you don't admit the person as a means to meet that requirement.



I am not saying to throw out or relax the requirements of making a credible profession of faith and being able to examine oneself before coming to the Table. However as this thread shows, these things are subjective and will be differently assessed by different sessions. I am saying that a session should factor in to their thinking that a non-communicant child is trying to follow Christ, put their sin to death, and grow in sanctification _all without the means of grace that communicant believers regularly enjoy_.

Does your wife ever buy clothes for your children a size too big? Mine does, especially with shoes. Why? Because the children have been growing since they were born. She would only buy their current size if they stopped growing, or if a disease stunted their growth. If children give profession of faith that they have been born of God, show sorrow for their sin, examine themselves, desire to follow Christ, can give answer for the nature of the Lord's Supper, but are not admitted due to misgivings about the level of their maturity, it is to say they are not growing. It is not reckless to admit such children and count upon growth taking place through their coming to the Table. It is trusting to God's means.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Blake,

I'm not comfortable with your analogy. If they need to be at a level of maturity then they need to be at that level of maturity. Am I looking for sinless perfection or some sort of really high standard? Not really. It's hard to describe but I've been an elder long enough to know what I'm comfortable with in terms of the Table. Deciding that they might be a "size too small" but letting them "grow into" maturity for the Lord's Table is not an option.


----------



## MW

Parakaleo said:


> You watch your children sin and fall and grieve their sin and seek the Lord's help in turning away from it. Could they not do this better, with the consistency and maturity you are looking for, if they came to His means of grace? How would you be doing in your walk with Christ if you went a year without the Lord's Supper?



This is a difficult question to tackle. It seems there are some things assumed in it which are not plainly stated. It is hard to comprehend what grace and strength the person is going to receive from the Lord's supper that he is not going to receive from Christ; and if he may receive it from Christ then the Lord's supper is only going to help him as a means of feeding on Christ and His benefits; but then the Lord's supper only helps him to feed on Christ and His benefits in so far as the person has the ability to examine himself and discern his faith to feed on Christ and His benefits, in connection with the exercise of repentance, love, and new obedience.

The Lord's supper has no instrumentality to initiate grace. It is only confirmatory of grace which is being exercised, and it only increases grace reflexively. Where there is no reflex action of grace in the soul the Lord's supper only commemorates the death of Christ objectively; it has no subjective benefit in terms of signifying or sealing communion with Christ. There must be an action feeding on Christ by faith and reflexively discerning that in the soul in order for grace to be increased and strengthened by means of the Lord's supper.


----------



## alexandermsmith

Tyrese said:


> Are you saying the confession 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God' is not a credible profession of faith? If so, than perhaps your view could come across as wiser than God. You can say 'a person needs to do this and he needs to do that first', but I think that enters into salvation by works- another conversation for a different day. My point is (from experience as a Baptist) there's no way to know if a persons profession is credible simply because they wrote out a lengthy testimony. Our confidence is no in our ability to maintain a 'regenerate' membership, rather, in the fact that Gid will separate the wheat from the tares on judgment day.
> 
> Please don't misunderstand me! I'm not saying we should 'do whatever' becuase we can't know the hearts of men, for that would be unbiblical as well. I'm just saying I do my very best to avoid Baptist dogma that's based on the wisdom of men and not the word of God. It's wrong to discredit children because they're children and we need to be reminded that the Lord is displeased with such behavior.
> 
> Btw, baptism and the Lords supper are not the same thing.



If someone confesses "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" whilst at the same time going out at the weekend partying, or is engaging in a non-marital sexual relationship, or is a swearer, then I think the Session has every right- and duty- to question the credibility of that person's confession. A credible profession is a profession which is reflected in the person's walk and conversation. If a person makes such a profession, but shows no interest in living according to Scripture, spends his week in idleness and living in the world, reading novels, spending all their time playing video games, watching movies &c. then I think the Session should question how credible that profession is. This would particularly apply to children making such a profession as they are unlikely- one would hope!- to be out drinking &c.

Many young people grow up in the church and live an outwardly moral life but are as far from grace as the drunkard in the gutter or the prostitute on the street corner. Further, even, as they could be being hardened under the Gospel due to their refusal to go to Christ. This is why a mere verbal profession from our young people isn't enough.

The Session may not be able to "read the heart", but they can examine the person of their experiences of the Lord's work in their lives; for marks of grace. If these are not there then it doesn't matter how vehement he is in his profession, it's not a credible profession.

And I agree that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are different, with different qualifications. But I was looking at from an antipaedobaptist's perspective where, I assume, they treat the requirements for Baptism as similar to the requirements for admittance to the Lord's Supper in a Presbyterian church, i.e. a credible profession. I myself am Presbyterian.


----------



## Eoghan

*I agree!*



DMcFadden said:


> In my experience (four of my adult children are in non-denom (baptistic) churches), any Sunday school kid of 4 or 5 can say "I want Jesus in my heart" parroting what their teachers and parents coach them to say. Increasingly they become the subjects of baptism at much earlier ages than what they taught me growing up in a Baptist church. All of my 11 grandkids old enough to walk and talk have been encouraged by their parents to make such professions. And, if memory serves me, most of them were baptized by the time they reached age 6. A few of them are not to that age yet, so we will see how their parents and pastors handle it for them.
> 
> During my three decades as a Baptist pastor, I always refused to baptize young children. 9 was about the limit of my comfort. My argument was that since baptism was "merely symbolic" it would not hurt to wait until a child was old enough to truly know what he or she was doing.
> 
> Now, as a paedobaptist, such arguments ring hollow. However, here the practice in the churches is running contrary to the theology of good paedobaptists and credobaptists alike. It would not seem to be driven by a desire to bolster the baptismal stats. Baptist pastors I know have more integrity than that! But, after WWII we live in an age when denominational affiliation is fungible. People seem to move from one theology to another based on the church they attend, driven more by the available youth program, style of preaching, or children's ministry than by a conviction regarding baptism. Those coming from a paedobaptist background may put pressure on the pastor to baptize their child at the earliest possible time. Don't miss the grandparent angle either. Grandparents from churches that baptize infants may engage in a pretty sustained campaign to get their kids to baptize the grandkids, even if that family now worships in a credobaptist fellowship.




My own experience was that both my kids were making professions of faith way too early. Putting it bluntly my son was saying he wanted to be a Christian while still believing in Santa.

I think there is a lot of prudence in waiting a few years until kids are really starting to think for themselves. Prematurely calling someone a christian can lead them to believe they have "given christianity a try" and subsequently grown out of it. That may well be their experience but it is not the new birth and I think we do well not to confirm them in their belief that what they have experienced is Biblical Christianity.

As a parent I want to rejoice in the slightest spark of spiritual interest, but as a believer I should not confuse interest with being born again.

Incidentally in Judaism girls go through their Bat- Mitzvah at 12, boys have to wait another year until they are 13 for their Bar-Mitzvah. Something to do with maturity...


----------



## Tyrese

alexandermsmith said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying the confession 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God' is not a credible profession of faith? If so, than perhaps your view could come across as wiser than God. You can say 'a person needs to do this and he needs to do that first', but I think that enters into salvation by works- another conversation for a different day. My point is (from experience as a Baptist) there's no way to know if a persons profession is credible simply because they wrote out a lengthy testimony. Our confidence is no in our ability to maintain a 'regenerate' membership, rather, in the fact that Gid will separate the wheat from the tares on judgment day.
> 
> Please don't misunderstand me! I'm not saying we should 'do whatever' becuase we can't know the hearts of men, for that would be unbiblical as well. I'm just saying I do my very best to avoid Baptist dogma that's based on the wisdom of men and not the word of God. It's wrong to discredit children because they're children and we need to be reminded that the Lord is displeased with such behavior.
> 
> Btw, baptism and the Lords supper are not the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If someone confesses "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" whilst at the same time going out at the weekend partying, or is engaging in a non-marital sexual relationship, or is a swearer, then I think the Session has every right- and duty- to question the credibility of that person's confession. A credible profession is a profession which is reflected in the person's walk and conversation. If a person makes such a profession, but shows no interest in living according to Scripture, spends his week in idleness and living in the world, reading novels, spending all their time playing video games, watching movies &c. then I think the Session should question how credible that profession is. This would particularly apply to children making such a profession as they are unlikely- one would hope!- to be out drinking &c.
> 
> Many young people grow up in the church and live an outwardly moral life but are as far from grace as the drunkard in the gutter or the prostitute on the street corner. Further, even, as they could be being hardened under the Gospel due to their refusal to go to Christ. This is why a mere verbal profession from our young people isn't enough.
> 
> The Session may not be able to "read the heart", but they can examine the person of their experiences of the Lord's work in their lives; for marks of grace. If these are not there then it doesn't matter how vehement he is in his profession, it's not a credible profession.
> 
> And I agree that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are different, with different qualifications. But I was looking at from an antipaedobaptist's perspective where, I assume, they treat the requirements for Baptism as similar to the requirements for admittance to the Lord's Supper in a Presbyterian church, i.e. a credible profession. I myself am Presbyterian.
Click to expand...


brother Alexander,

You brought up quite a few issues here so to save time and avoid any appearance of idleness on the Puritanboard I'll quickly make my point. However before making my point I have to ask why do you all keep pointing to the worst case scenarios (drinking, partying, etc.) as examples? In no way do I believe a person can live any sort of way and yet be thought of as a genuine Christian. Does anyone here believe that? Please don't assume the worst about what others are saying. I think if we'd all stop assuming we would be on the same page on a lot of issues. 

All I'm saying is we cant expect a new convert whether they be a child or an adult to display this superior life style that some of you obviously promote. I'm sorry but I'm not ready to say a person who reads novels, watches movies, or plays video games is not a Christian. I'm not ready to say a child who is still confused about Santa Claus is probably not really born again. Yes we need to be wise when it comes to children, but how many of us are still confused about other matters, as yet we're looked up to by other Christian men and women? I believe sanctification is a PROCESS. When I became a Christian I played a lot of video games. But then this strange thing happened- I repented over a period of time by Gods grace. Was I not a Christian until I officially stopped gaming? There's plenty of examples of this. The apostle Peter took the Lords supper and then betrayed Jesus soon after- you know the rest of the story.

Clearly Jesus is far more gracious than we are, and we should rejoice at the thought.

Tyrese


----------



## MW

Tyrese said:


> Clearly Jesus is far more gracious than we are, and we should rejoice at the thought.



It is not gracious to confirm one in a life that is overtly contrary to following Christ. And let's be clear, that the Lord's supper is a confirming ordinance. The person who participates in the Lord's supper is, by a judgment of charity, considered to be in good standing and full communion with the body of Christ.

Video games have an indifferency about them. There are other factors which determine whether they are bad or not. Fornication is evil in itself. The two should not be brought into comparison in this discussion.


----------



## Parakaleo

Rev. Winzer's earlier comments make me think twice about the validity of looking for growth to happen spontaneously from coming to the Table. Perhaps a term can be borrowed from military terminology? For the one with faith, the Lord's Super is a "force multiplier". I also agree with him and Tyrese that a judgment of charity is inherent in admitting anyone to the Table. That is why I find Rich's words to be a bit jarring.



Semper Fidelis said:


> Am I looking for sinless perfection or some sort of really high standard? Not really.



"Not really"? It's like meeting your future father-in-law for the first time to talk to him about pursuing his daughter. On the way to meet him, the daughter says, "Don't worry! I asked him if he was looking for perfection from a young man who wants to court me. He said, 'Not really.' So just be close to perfect."


----------



## Tyrese

MW said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly Jesus is far more gracious than we are, and we should rejoice at the thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not gracious to confirm one in a life that is overtly contrary to following Christ. And let's be clear, that the Lord's supper is a confirming ordinance. The person who participates in the Lord's supper is, by a judgment of charity, considered to be in good standing and full communion with the body of Christ.
> 
> Video games have an indifferency about them. There are other factors which determine whether they are bad or not. Fornication is evil in itself. The two should not be brought into comparison in this discussion.
Click to expand...


Rev Winzer,

Like I asked Alexander, do you think anyone on the board believes we should consider a person who walks contrary to the word of God a Christian? If so, I'd be just as suprised as you are if that is the case. Just know I don't believe that. The word of God is the standard by which we judge all Christian behavior. 

With that said, I don't think there's a contradiction in anything I have said.

Tyrese


----------



## Edward

Parakaleo said:


> Does your wife ever buy clothes for your children a size too big? Mine does, especially with shoes. Why? Because the children have been growing since they were born. She would only buy their current size if they stopped growing, or if a disease stunted their growth. If children give profession of faith that they have been born of God, show sorrow for their sin, examine themselves, desire to follow Christ, can give answer for the nature of the Lord's Supper, but are not admitted due to misgivings about the level of their maturity, it is to say they are not growing. It is not reckless to admit such children and count upon growth taking place through their coming to the Table. It is trusting to God's means.



I would urge you to re-evaluate your position in light of 1 Cor 11:27-30. Is that a risk to which you would really want to subject a child in the hope that he will eventually 'grow into' his responsibilities with regard to the Sacrament?


----------



## MW

Tyrese said:


> Just know I don't believe that. The word of God is the standard by which we judge all Christian behavior.



I accept that, Tyrese; but some of the comments seem to miss the point as to the nature of the communion.


----------



## alexandermsmith

MW said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly Jesus is far more gracious than we are, and we should rejoice at the thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not gracious to confirm one in a life that is overtly contrary to following Christ. And let's be clear, that the Lord's supper is a confirming ordinance. The person who participates in the Lord's supper is, by a judgment of charity, considered to be in good standing and full communion with the body of Christ.
> 
> Video games have an indifferency about them. There are other factors which determine whether they are bad or not. Fornication is evil in itself. The two should not be brought into comparison in this discussion.
Click to expand...


I would disagree on the issue of video games. They are an utter waste of time. A puzzle game on one's phone to pass the time when travelling is perhaps one thing; but actually going to the bother and expense of purchasing a games console, and games, and spending the time necessary to play them- and immersing oneself in the world of those games- is quite another.

The reason I mention video games is because the conversation has been focusing on our young people. This is a more pertinent example of what one should be looking at in judging a young person's claim to being converted. Video games may not be "as bad" as fornication- though sin is sin- but if we're talking about a 12 or 13 year old, then the fact they're not fornicators probably- hopefully- won't mean much.

Tyrese,

No-one is arguing that one must be perfect in order to receive the sacrament (although the Christian should be striving to obey Christ's commands and not to be content with the sinful state he still finds himself in). But I'm afraid your comments come across as special pleading.

You're also confusing being converted with being admitted to the Lord's Table: these are not the same thing and don't tend to happen at the same time. In Scottish Presbyterian churches the old practice was that there would be some time between a person's conversion and their going before the Session to be admitted to the sacrament. This would allow the change in the person to be observed by the church at large (and for the person himself to see the change in his own life); for the fruits of conversion to begin to appear. Rather than the invitation approach where one goes forward at the first notion one might be converted. It's not that the Session is waiting for the person to become sinless- that won't happen in this life- but rather it's taking account of the danger of false conversion, or self-delusion. We've all read of those who felt they were converted during some great revival and then a few months later they are back to their old ways.

A person may well be converted when they are quite young, and sanctification certainly is a lifelong process. So why rush the person into membership and partaking of the sacrament? The Session should use wisdom. Perhaps they might think it better for the teenager to come back at a later time. That doesn't mean they're saying the child isn't converted, but that prudence dictates in this case they wait. It is far, far worse for the unconverted to be admitted to the sacrament than for the converted to be kept back from it.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

MW said:


> Video games have an indifferency about them. There are other factors which determine whether they are bad or not. Fornication is evil in itself. The two should not be brought into comparison in this discussion.



Exactly. There is nothing inherently wrong with video games any more than there is with board games, though both may be abused for sinful purposes. I gave up playing video games when I was 19. I now see that that was a mistake, and that a moderate usuage of them would have seriously reduced my stress levels. Moreover, when people are using such adiaphora in moderation, that means that they are not spending their time watching or listening to filth. People cannot read theology 24/7; they need time to relax. Having a healthy view of both the Sabbath day and the primacy of other spiritual duties will permit them to enjoy such wholesome recreations in moderation. If they do not do so, then it is likely that they will replace such things with material that is inherently bad.


----------



## alexandermsmith

Reformed Covenanter said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Video games have an indifferency about them. There are other factors which determine whether they are bad or not. Fornication is evil in itself. The two should not be brought into comparison in this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. There is nothing inherently wrong with video games any more than there is with board games, though both may be abused for sinful purposes. I gave up playing video games when I was 19. I now see that that was a mistake, and that a moderate usuage of them would have seriously reduced my stress levels. Moreover, when people are using such adiaphora in moderation, that means that they are not spending their time watching or listening to filth. People cannot read theology 24/7; they need time to relax. Having a healthy view of both the Sabbath day and the primacy of other spiritual duties will permit them to enjoy such wholesome recreations in moderation. If they do not do so, then it is likely that they will replace such things with material that is inherently bad.
Click to expand...


Well at the risk of taking the discussion off topic, again I disagree. It's a false choice to say that it's either video games or something even worse. What about something better? One can't read theology 24/7- read a Christian biography. There are other forms of Christian literature than theology. Video games are also different from board games. Video games immerse the player in a virtual world, whereas board games don't; video games are often inherently anti-social and whilst being on one's own can be a very beneficial thing, video games cultivate an individualistic, narcissistic mentality. And whilst there are multi-player games which one might argue cultivate sociability, they do so in the way facebook and twitter cultivate social activity: in a fake, empty way.

You were right to give up video games at 19, I would argue earlier is better. They are for children. Christians were able to de-stress before video games came along. It's another example of our inability to be alone with our own thoughts, in the quiet, in a way which is productive: reading, meditating upon the Word; or with a friend, in quiet conversation. The "alone time" of video games is not healthy, and I don't even think they reduce stress. I played video games as a teenage: they were not relaxing.

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."


----------



## earl40

MW said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly Jesus is far more gracious than we are, and we should rejoice at the thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not gracious to confirm one in a life that is overtly contrary to following Christ. And let's be clear, that the Lord's supper is a confirming ordinance. The person who participates in the Lord's supper is, by a judgment of charity, considered to be in good standing and full communion with the body of Christ.
> 
> Video games have an indifferency about them. There are other factors which determine whether they are bad or not. Fornication is evil in itself. The two should not be brought into comparison in this discussion.
Click to expand...


Nor should partying without the proper context of what that means.


----------



## alexandermsmith

earl40 said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly Jesus is far more gracious than we are, and we should rejoice at the thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not gracious to confirm one in a life that is overtly contrary to following Christ. And let's be clear, that the Lord's supper is a confirming ordinance. The person who participates in the Lord's supper is, by a judgment of charity, considered to be in good standing and full communion with the body of Christ.
> 
> Video games have an indifferency about them. There are other factors which determine whether they are bad or not. Fornication is evil in itself. The two should not be brought into comparison in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor should partying without the proper context of what that means.
Click to expand...


There's a context in which partying is acceptable?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I'm sure Earl means lawful celebrating rather than excessive partying (which sounds redundant). Let's get the thread back to topic if it still has life. Start a new one for discussing lawful and unlawful pastimes.


----------



## Parakaleo

Edward said:


> Is that a risk to which you would really want to subject a child in the hope that he will eventually 'grow into' his responsibilities with regard to the Sacrament?



A thousand times no, that's why I would not admit a child who does not:



> ...give profession of faith that they have been born of God, show sorrow for their sin, examine themselves, desire to follow Christ, can give answer for the nature of the Lord's Supper...



The analogy about growth may have been a poor one, but it was intended to address what I called general "misgivings", not an absence of requirements. If the child meets the basic responsibilities the same as a recently converted adult, in both cases judgments of charity should be made and additional maturity should be looked for as the individual avails themselves of God's means.


----------



## Parakaleo

In other words, if I wouldn't make a recently converted 40-year-old go through a five year probation period before coming to the Table, why would I make a seven-year-old with the same, exact profession and even understanding of the 40-year-old do it? The seven-year-old covenant child even has several years of church experience, catechesis, and daily discipleship that the 40-year-old does not.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Parakaleo said:


> Rev. Winzer's earlier comments make me think twice about the validity of looking for growth to happen spontaneously from coming to the Table. Perhaps a term can be borrowed from military terminology? For the one with faith, the Lord's Super is a "force multiplier". I also agree with him and Tyrese that a judgment of charity is inherent in admitting anyone to the Table. That is why I find Rich's words to be a bit jarring.
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Am I looking for sinless perfection or some sort of really high standard? Not really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Not really"? It's like meeting your future father-in-law for the first time to talk to him about pursuing his daughter. On the way to meet him, the daughter says, "Don't worry! I asked him if he was looking for perfection from a young man who wants to court me. He said, 'Not really.' So just be close to perfect."
Click to expand...


Things become "jarring" when you violate the 9th Commandment and don't treat my words in the context they were presented but create an example that doesn't fit the context of my remarks. I have no clue how you can equate what I stated to what you gave as an example in response. Can you enlighten me about my specific words in context and how they relate, in substance, to the example you offered?


----------



## MW

alexandermsmith said:


> I would disagree on the issue of video games. They are an utter waste of time.



A "waste of time" would be one of those "other factors" I mentioned; so basically you are making the same point.

To apply this to the present discussion, this is not something which would debar from the Lord's supper unless it created a scandal. Fornication, on the other hand, is scandalous in and of itself, and immediately debars from the Lord's supper.

We must be careful to distinguish things that differ.


----------



## MW

Parakaleo said:


> In other words, if I wouldn't make a recently converted 40-year-old go through a five year probation period before coming to the Table, why would I make a seven-year-old with the same, exact profession and even understanding of the 40-year-old do it? The seven-year-old covenant child even has several years of church experience, catechesis, and daily discipleship that the 40-year-old does not.



There are numerous reasons. Foremost among them is the fact that every society recognises a time in a person's life when he "comes of age" and is regarded as capable of speaking for himself. The Bible itself recognises this as a natural principle of life and development. In one's minority a person is under the government of others since he is not fitted to enter into political, commercial, or social arrangements for himself.


----------



## Tyrese

MW said:


> alexandermsmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would disagree on the issue of video games. They are an utter waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "waste of time" would be one of those "other factors" I mentioned; so basically you are making the same point.
> 
> To apply this to the present discussion, this is not something which would debar from the Lord's supper unless it created a scandal. Fornication, on the other hand, is scandalous in and of itself, and immediately debars from the Lord's supper.
> 
> We must be careful to distinguish things that differ.
Click to expand...


Rev Winzer,

What you just said here is exacltly what I've been trying to say. There's a difference between hobbies that are a 'waste of time', and those that bring scandal. 

Btw, I just saw your Church denominations new web page. Very nice! A friend recently told me about the spiritual challenges you brothers are facing in Austrailia. If you ever get a chance do share about your Church and how we can pray for your ministry.

Tyrese


----------



## MW

Tyrese said:


> Btw, I just saw your Church denominations new web page. Very nice! A friend recently told me about the spiritual challenges you brothers are facing in Austrailia. If you ever get a chance do share about your Church and how we can pray for your ministry.



Thankyou, Tyrese. Please pray that we remain steadfast, unmovable, and always abound in the work of the Lord; and that the Lord might be pleased to glorify His name and bless the preaching of the truth for the conversion and confirming of souls. Blessings to you, brother.


----------



## Parakaleo

Semper Fidelis said:


> Things become "jarring" when you violate the 9th Commandment and don't treat my words in the context they were presented but create an example that doesn't fit the context of my remarks. I have no clue how you can equate what I stated to what you gave as an example in response. Can you enlighten me about my specific words in context and how they relate, in substance, to the example you offered?



The specific words are "not really". The context is you asking out loud if _sinless perfectionism_ is to be looked for in a young applicant seeking admission to the Lord's Table. Perhaps your use of the words "sinless perfectionism" was hyperbolic? I assumed not, because the answer you gave was "_not really_", as opposed to "not at all" or "of course not". The more mild negative was unexpected after such a bold statement. "A bit jarring" is the phrase I used.

I further used an example to try and illustrate the sound and force of those words, "not really", upon someone in a very comparable situation (seeking permission from an authority with very high standards). You had no clue that's what I was getting at?

The above is my honest take of your words in their context and my thoughts behind what I wrote as one who differs with you and would love for you to consider whether your approach is not over scrupulous. Just as I examine my own positions in light of everything that is said. If I have misread you, or rushed to judgment, please forgive me, but do not accuse me of violating the Ninth Commandment because I made an attempt to express my mild surprise over your words as I honestly read them in context.

I would invite anyone else reading to please let me know if it is thought I have sinned. Thank you.


----------



## Tyrese

Parakaleo said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Things become "jarring" when you violate the 9th Commandment and don't treat my words in the context they were presented but create an example that doesn't fit the context of my remarks. I have no clue how you can equate what I stated to what you gave as an example in response. Can you enlighten me about my specific words in context and how they relate, in substance, to the example you offered?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The specific words are "not really". The context is you asking out loud if _sinless perfectionism_ is to be looked for in a young applicant seeking admission to the Lord's Table. Perhaps your use of the words "sinless perfectionism" was hyperbolic? I assumed not, because the answer you gave was "_not really_", as opposed to "not at all" or "of course not". The more mild negative was unexpected after such a bold statement. "A bit jarring" is the phrase I used.
> 
> I further used an example to try and illustrate the sound and force of those words, "not really", upon someone in a very comparable situation (seeking permission from an authority with very high standards). You had no clue that's what I was getting at?
> 
> The above is my honest take of your words in their context and my thoughts behind what I wrote as one who differs with you and would love for you to consider whether your approach is not over scrupulous. Just as I examine my own positions in light of everything that is said. If I have misread you, or rushed to judgment, please forgive me, but do not accuse me of violating the Ninth Commandment because I made an attempt to express my mild surprise over your words as I honestly read them in context.
> 
> I would invite anyone else reading to please let me know if it is thought I have sinned. Thank you.
Click to expand...


I think a few of my comments were misunderstood not becuase of what I said but because of what I didn't say. What happenes is another brother reads your post and assumes you MUST be saying the exact opposite of what they're saying, or, you've taken your position to the extreme. I think this is why brothers bring up the worst case scenario and then write a lengthy response based on that assumption. For example, in one post you said we need to be charitable. Soon after someone else took that same idea to mean we baptise and admit to the Lords table those who are living in open sin.  Being that you both share the same views concerning paedobaptism I'm confident your comments are being misunderstood, or there's an effort on the part of others to be argumentative. Since we're all brothers in Christ I'm going to go with the idea that you're being misunderstood.

I think Rev Winzer summed it up best. We have to be able to see the difference between those who 'waste time', and those committing scandalous sins. That's all I was trying to say this whole time. And if we go back to the original topic concerning Baptism in the SBC, I stand by my comments that young children are treated unfairly in Baptist Churches. I've been in Baptist Churches all my life and I've seen young children who are far more mature (when it comes to spiritual matters) than adults, and yet, they were not able to get baptised because they were children. In my opinion, something is wrong with that.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Parakaleo said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Things become "jarring" when you violate the 9th Commandment and don't treat my words in the context they were presented but create an example that doesn't fit the context of my remarks. I have no clue how you can equate what I stated to what you gave as an example in response. Can you enlighten me about my specific words in context and how they relate, in substance, to the example you offered?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The specific words are "not really". The context is you asking out loud if _sinless perfectionism_ is to be looked for in a young applicant seeking admission to the Lord's Table. Perhaps your use of the words "sinless perfectionism" was hyperbolic? I assumed not, because the answer you gave was "_not really_", as opposed to "not at all" or "of course not". The more mild negative was unexpected after such a bold statement. "A bit jarring" is the phrase I used.
> 
> I further used an example to try and illustrate the sound and force of those words, "not really", upon someone in a very comparable situation (seeking permission from an authority with very high standards). You had no clue that's what I was getting at?
> 
> The above is my honest take of your words in their context and my thoughts behind what I wrote as one who differs with you and would love for you to consider whether your approach is not over scrupulous. Just as I examine my own positions in light of everything that is said. If I have misread you, or rushed to judgment, please forgive me, but do not accuse me of violating the Ninth Commandment because I made an attempt to express my mild surprise over your words as I honestly read them in context.
> 
> I would invite anyone else reading to please let me know if it is thought I have sinned. Thank you.
Click to expand...


Well, no, you could invite me and ask: "Did I construe your words correctly?"

How do you know how scrupulous I am with my children? Apparently, you believe you can speak so uncharitably about it as to present an analogy about whom I would permit to date my daughter (since I am a father who would need to make that decision).

I began this conversation in this thread by noting that certain things are guided by the "light of nature". There is no absolute yardstick one can hold up to a child and say: "If he says X and prays Y times a week and pays attention for Z minutes throughout a sermon and is praying and repenting on his own then he is ready for the Lord's Table."

Wisdom doesn't work that way.

I don't know what words you would like me to state but you have accused me in your latest reply of being "over scrupulous". I inferred as much in my first reply when I said (speaking of what I'm looking for):

"Am I looking for sinless perfection *or some sort of really high standard?*" 

Notice that I did not merely ask whether I'm looking for sinless perfection. The conjuction OR implies that I'm not really or, if you prefer, I'm _really_ not looking for either sinless perfection or a really high standard.

READ: I am not over-scrupulous in this matter (not a really high standard).

I've been an elder for several years and have admitted many communicants to the Table. I can't tell you in scientific terms what I'm looking for but I am neither looking for sinless perfection NOR am I looking at some sort of really high standard that is unreasonable for a person to acheive. I am, however, looking for some level of maturity that I do not yet see in my children that I believe is necessary for them to approach the Table.

Why, you, a complete stranger to me and my family would feel like you have the right to infer from that that I do not have the requisite maturity or wisdom to be able to determine whether my _own_ children are mature enough is beyond me but it is, at best, extremely rude.

For you to then create an analogy in which you construe, with the worst possible construction possible, and compare it to a scenario in which a father (presumably ME since I'm that shockingly unsure about what's good for my kids), can't describe to my own daugther what is good for her is beyond the pale.

I really don't have time for this Blake. You either modify your tone or drop the issue because you have given needless offense where my own point in interaction was to discuss the issue. I didn't attack your position or call into question your wisdom but merely interacted theologically with the idea of using the Table as a means for achieving maturity necessary. If you want to keep accusing me of such things then I'll remove you from the conversation.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

As a divorced father who raised three boys (without their mother in the picture at all) who were raised in a Baptist Church during their early years, seen their professions of faith and baptisms at early ages (7-12... they were all baptized by their Papaw the same day), watched them grow through their teen years and into their mid 20's, and see where they are today, I can say something is being left out. The Lord tests the faith of those who confess him. That testing is hard and very real even when they have been given and know the correct answers to the right questions.

Just like God tested Israel he tests us. 


> (Deu 13:1) If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
> 
> (Deu 13:2) And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
> 
> 
> (Deu 13:3) Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
> 
> 
> (Deu 13:4) Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.


 
We should look at the wisdom of our heritage, even Israel. They were given wisdom as pertains to the Covenant and their Children. The promise is for us and our children. Even for those who will come into the faith and their children also (Acts 2:39). But there is a distinction between being children and those who are not. I agree with Chris Coldwell that we should look into these things from a historical perspective. It has been written about. Can anyone give us those references?


----------



## Parakaleo

Semper Fidelis said:


> Well, no, you could invite me and ask: "Did I construe your words correctly?"



Would you believe that this question was at the base of everything I said regarding your comments? Please accept my apologies and forgive me for doing a terrible job of this and speaking instead in a way that made it sound like I thought you were irresponsible or lacked maturity.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Parakaleo said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no, you could invite me and ask: "Did I construe your words correctly?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you believe that this question was at the base of everything I said regarding your comments? Please accept my apologies and forgive me for doing a terrible job of this and speaking instead in a way that made it sound like I thought you were irresponsible or lacked maturity.
Click to expand...


Thank you. I forgive you. I understand that this medium does not always lend itself to clarity.


----------

