# Tom Schreiner on Baptism



## panicbird (Jan 15, 2007)

Justin Taylor has an interview with Tom Schreiner (NT professor at Southern) here. He has a new book out on the topic.

What are your thoughts?

Lon


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 15, 2007)

No. He's responsible for himself now. He is obligated to confess Christ his savior now, and there really is no ambiguity here. If the scenario (such as it is) teaches us anything, I think it teaches us that slighting the _means_ of grace, ignoring them or presuming on God's providence and not attending them, is a recipie for confusion later. God doesn't just promise to bless certain ends, but to bless *toward* those ends in specified ways.

The scenario doesn't present us with many details, so it really doesn't serve us well as a "hard-case/test-case" kind of question. But every man must be _converted_ in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. He's an adult now.


----------



## Archlute (Jan 15, 2007)

I always get a chuckle out of the standard Baptist rhetoric regarding children of believing parents. They continue to state the concern that if we "baptize all them babies" then the church will be compromised by including all sorts of unregenerate members. If they were consistent with this line of reasoning, then they would leave their kids home every week, because whether they are baptized or not, if you bring a slew of (those whom they presume to be) unregenerate kids to church every week for eighteen years, the effects will be the same on the body, with or without the water. 

There is also the common cry of, "Church discipline becomes a problem, for how can a church discipline anyone when it has many unbelieving members?". It's easy, you discipline them. Do Baptists let their kids run around, getting into all sorts of sin, just because they refuse to see them as members of the church? Actually, they do. That is why I remember so much trouble in the youth groups of my day; they church was so busy trying to "evangelize" us poor, lost souls with movie nights and pizza fests that they never got around to the serious things of the faith (for fear that we might be driven away). The sad thing about their view of children is the results that it ultimately had upon them. Of the members of my high school youth group, one is now a practicing homosexual in the San Fran community, two are in jail, one is a crack whore, several are mothers without husbands, at least three are generally rebellious, church rejecting, casual drug using partiers. Nothing has changed after thirteen years, and in fact, much of that fruit wasn't born out until they were able to break free of the confines of their parents.

Refusing to baptize your children and to instruct them in the faith, is a refusal to love them in Christ and to fulfill your parental obligation.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jan 15, 2007)

Archlute said:


> I always get a chuckle out of the standard Baptist rhetoric regarding children of believing parents. They continue to state the concern that if we "baptize all them babies" then the church will be compromised by including all sorts of unregenerate members. If they were consistent with this line of reasoning, then they would leave their kids home every week, because whether they are baptized or not, if you bring a slew of (those whom they presume to be) unregenerate kids to church every week for eighteen years, the effects will be the same on the body, with or without the water.
> 
> There is also the common cry of, "Church discipline becomes a problem, for how can a church discipline anyone when it has many unbelieving members?". It's easy, you discipline them. Do Baptists let their kids run around, getting into all sorts of sin, just because they refuse to see them as members of the church? Actually, they do. That is why I remember so much trouble in the youth groups of my day; they church was so busy trying to "evangelize" us poor, lost souls with movie nights and pizza fests that they never got around to the serious things of the faith (for fear that we might be driven away). The sad thing about their view of children is the results that it ultimately had upon them. Of the members of my high school youth group, one is now a practicing homosexual in the San Fran community, two are in jail, one is a crack whore, several are mothers without husbands, at least three are generally rebellious, church rejecting, casual drug using partiers. Nothing has changed after thirteen years, and in fact, much of that fruit wasn't born out until they were able to break free of the confines of their parents.
> 
> Refusing to baptize your children and to instruct them in the faith, is a refusal to love them in Christ and to fulfill your parental obligation.




Refusing to baptize your children is one thing, refusing to instruct them in the faith is another. Would having water sprinkled on the above mentioned sinners when they were babies have stopped them from thier deviant behaviour? I think not. Any Bible believing Baptist takes great pains to instruct his children in the ways Of the Lord, as any God fearing Presbyterian does.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 15, 2007)

Blueridge reformer said:


> Refusing to baptize your children is one thing, refusing to instruct them in the faith is another. Would having water sprinkled on the above mentioned sinners when they were babies have stopped them from thier deviant behaviour? I think not. Any Bible believing Baptist takes great pains to instruct his children in the ways Of the Lord, as any God fearing Presbyterian does.



I would think with faith it WOULD make a difference. Abraham believed the promises of God and it was counted to him as righteousness.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jan 15, 2007)

WrittenFromUtopia said:


> I would think with faith it WOULD make a difference. Abraham believed the promises of God and it was counted to him as righteousness.




I believe that water baptism gets you wet. It is an ordinance. We dedicate our children to the Lord and pray over them with faith and try, by God's grace to lead them in the right path.


----------



## Davidius (Jan 15, 2007)

Blueridge reformer said:


> Refusing to baptize your children is one thing, refusing to instruct them in the faith is another. Would having water sprinkled on the above mentioned sinners when they were babies have stopped them from thier deviant behaviour? I think not. Any Bible believing Baptist takes great pains to instruct his children in the ways Of the Lord, as any God fearing Presbyterian does.





WrittenFromUtopia said:


> I would think with faith it WOULD make a difference. Abraham believed the promises of God and it was counted to him as righteousness.



Abraham was told that his children would be cut off from their people if they did not receive the sign of the covenant, was he not?


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jan 15, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Abraham was told that his children would be cut off from their people if they did not receive the sign of the covenant, was he not?




Does that mean that children of believing parents will not be saved unless they are baptized as infants?


----------



## Croghanite (Jan 15, 2007)

Blueridge reformer said:


> I believe that water baptism gets you wet. It is an ordinance. We dedicate our children to the Lord and pray over them with faith and try, by God's grace to lead them in the right path.



Where in Scripture do Baptists get instructions to dedicate their children? This is done in the Publick worship service and I have wondered where they come up with that.


----------



## Davidius (Jan 15, 2007)

Blueridge reformer said:


> Does that mean that children of believing parents will not be saved unless they are baptized as infants?



No, it means that God ordinarily works through certain means (WCF XIV. I.). He can choose to deviate from them if it serves His purposes which are unknown to us, but he has still given us means and those special occasions are not considered "ordinary."


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 15, 2007)

LAYMAN JOE said:


> Where in Scripture do Baptists get instructions to dedicate their children? This is done in the Publick worship service and I have wondered where they come up with that.




 and Im a baptist. I want to know why.


----------



## panicbird (Jan 15, 2007)

I did not want this thread to devolve into another paedo vs. credo free-for-all. I linked to Taylor's interview with Schreiner and was looking for people to interact with that.

Lon


----------



## Croghanite (Jan 15, 2007)

What Tom says here is outrageous. He assumes that all credos are saved. The discipline comment is sad. Discipline when people need to be disciplined!

Q. You also argue that several negative consequences follow from a paedobaptistic view--what are they? 


> I will list several negative consequences briefly. (1) Unregenerate people become members of the church, which violates the New Testament’s teaching that the church is to be made up of regenerate church members. (2) Church discipline becomes a problem, for how can a church discipline anyone when it has many unbelieving members?


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jan 15, 2007)

LAYMAN JOE said:


> Where in Scripture do Baptists get instructions to dedicate their children? This is done in the Publick worship service and I have wondered where they come up with that.




The same place where Presbyterians get infant baptism.


----------



## Croghanite (Jan 15, 2007)

James,
would you be more specific please. Thanks


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jan 15, 2007)

LAYMAN JOE said:


> James,
> would you be more specific please. Thanks




There are no set in stone NT examples of dedicating children just like there are no NT examples of sprinkling or pouring water on babies. Lot's of baptists like to dedicate thier children unto the Lord and ask that prayers be made for the child's salvation and future consecration to the Lord's service. True, there are no NT examples of this but that does not mean it is a bad thing. Face it brethren, we all do SOME things in our churches that are not altogether scriptual.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 15, 2007)

Blueridge reformer said:


> There are no set in stone NT examples of dedicating children just like there are no NT examples of sprinkling or pouring water on babies. Lot's of baptists like to dedicate thier children unto the Lord and ask that prayers be made for the child's salvation and future consecration to the Lord's service. True, there are no NT examples of this but that does not mean it is a bad thing. Face it brethren, we all do SOME things in our churches that are not altogether scriptual.



Actually, no, I won't "face that." I believe everything we do is out of Biblical conviction and faith. We may still err, but not intentionally or knowingly. Also, calling for "examples in the NT" for a particular practice tells a lot about your hermeneutic. We don't need explicit examples in the NT to formulate doctrine, we need the whole testimony of ALL of God's Word and the aid of the Spirit.


----------



## Davidius (Jan 15, 2007)

Blueridge reformer said:


> There are no set in stone NT examples of dedicating children just like there are no NT examples of sprinkling or pouring water on babies. Lot's of baptists like to dedicate thier children unto the Lord and ask that prayers be made for the child's salvation and future consecration to the Lord's service. True, there are no NT examples of this but that does not mean it is a bad thing. Face it brethren, we all do SOME things in our churches that are not altogether scriptual.





WrittenFromUtopia said:


> Actually, no, I won't "face that." I believe everything we do is out of Biblical conviction and faith. We may still err, but not intentionally or knowingly. Also, calling for "examples in the NT" for a particular practice tells a lot about your hermeneutic. We don't need explicit examples in the NT to formulate doctrine, we need the whole testimony of ALL of God's Word and the aid of the Spirit.



 No offense, brother, but speak for yourself. Our elders wouldn't allow us to do anything that we knew to be unscriptural.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jan 15, 2007)

WrittenFromUtopia said:


> Actually, no, I won't "face that." I believe everything we do is out of Biblical conviction and faith. We may still err, but not intentionally or knowingly. Also, calling for "examples in the NT" for a particular practice tells a lot about your hermeneutic. We don't need explicit examples in the NT to formulate doctrine, we need the whole testimony of ALL of God's Word and the aid of the Spirit.




Fair enough. We all "err" albeit unknowingly. I know your postion. Give me some scripture on multimillion dollar buildings, sunday school, electric lights, christian universitys, $100,000 dollar a year pastor, youth pastors, music directors ect..


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jan 15, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> No offense, brother, but speak for yourself. Our elders wouldn't allow us to do anything that we knew to be unscriptural.



None taken brother. And with that I bid you goodbye brethren. I will not beat this any longer.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 15, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> If a child of saved parents grows up never circumcised and is an adult and member of the covenant community, should he be circumcised for the sake of the parents.
> 
> How did paedocircumcisionists deal with this scenario?



Bingo!!!! The problems with credobaptist position comes from a misunderstanding/lack of understanding of the OT.


----------



## Davidius (Jan 15, 2007)

ChristianTrader said:


> Bingo!!!! The problems with credobaptist position comes from a misunderstanding/lack of understanding of the OT.



This is why I tend to think there's always some form of primitive, unconscious Dispensationalism in any Baptist's theology, no matter how many times they call themselves Reformed or say they adhere to Covenant Theology.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 15, 2007)

Hopefully this is close enough to the subject/spirit of the thread, but I'm trying to answer Trevor's explicit questions.

Basically, I think the "age cut-off question" can't be _defined_ according to Scripture or it would have been as explicit as the "8th day" command. The basic reason for that is--there isn't (and never has been) a one-size-fits-all answer for every household. And cultures vary as well, as far as what constitutes a household, or the limits/extent of HoH authority, or what is the "age of majority."

The question then turns into a "wisdom" issue. And Presbyterians have traditionally assigned the application of biblical wisdom in these situations to the session.

Personally, I think that if a child _ought,_ in the eyes of the session, to be professing his own faith, evidencing his own conversion and belief in the Covenant God, then baptizing him on the basis of his parentage is questionable at best, and possibly erroneous. I believe the Jews of old established a generally fixed age (12-13) for induction to "full communicant membership." This age established cultural majority then, at least in religious affairs, and that would be a general rule for circumcising the young.

Interestingly, that was the approximate age of Ishmael when Abraham involuntarily circumcised him. It is incomprehensible that without a voluntary profession of faith and willing submission, the rite of circumcision could have been given to anyone who was a great deal older than that.

So, I conclude that submission to authority is implicit in the youngest of children, and explicit in older ones, but eventually a child must be responsible for himself to God, and not through any HoH mediation. And the elders have a duty to exercise discernment in every case.

The child from a broken home--sad as it is, I think the law of the land and primary/shared/full custody questions must be considered. Sin (from whatever source) has rippling effects that have to be taken into account. Is it in the child's best interest to be used like a ping pong ball? Better that the parents reach some agreement on the issue, rather than make baptism an occasion for distress, not joy. But if the Christian has full custody, then I say YES, by all means baptism is most fitting.

Foster care, grandparents, etc. Simply put, "hard (or special) cases make bad law." Sometimes it might be perfectly acceptable/reasonable to baptize, other times out of the question (and this would be just as situationally true for credo-fosterparents). The foster-system strikes me as being an especially messed up government intrusion in societal (covenantal) charity. But sometimes a Christian should be involved in it in some way to try to help just a little (go Adam!).

So, trying to *fix* the definition of household for all time also seems like something the Bible avoids doing. All we can do is try to apply what we think the Bible teaches to a given scenario. The Christian faith was always designed to be implemented in a covenant-context. Hopefully the application of biblical/covenantal truth impacts disordered, non-covenantal societies even beyond our own churches and families. But that takes time, generations even.


----------

