# Those Holding To believers baptism See Children Included!



## Dachaser (May 1, 2017)

Those of us who hold to believers only water Baptism do see our children as included under the promise of salvation, its just that we would tend to see that all children are saved until the Age of Accountability, which in the Exodus seem to be roughly 20 years of age...

So we would not not see as needing to be dunked until the time if/when they were adult believers in Christ...


----------



## Romans922 (May 1, 2017)

Is this for baptists only? [If not, where do you get all of that from the Scriptures?]

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gforce9 (May 1, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Those of us who hold to believers only water Baptism do see our children as included under the promise of salvation, its just that we would tend to see that all children are saved until the Age of Accountability, which in the Exodus seem to be roughly 20 years of age...
> 
> So we would not not see as needing to be dunked until the time if/when they were adult believers in Christ...



I would expect some strong disagreement from confessional Baptists on the content of this post...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## kodos (May 1, 2017)

With all of the site changes -- I am glad to see that this little guy was retained:

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Dachaser (May 1, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> I would expect some strong disagreement from confessional Baptists on the content of this post...


I would think that Baptists would think alike on this issue!


----------



## Dachaser (May 1, 2017)

Romans922 said:


> Is this for baptists only? [If not, where do you get all of that from the Scriptures?]


I was just saying that is how Baptists tend to view this issue...


----------



## KMK (May 1, 2017)

This is what 'we' Baptist believe:

LBC Chapter 29; Paragraph 1. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.

Paragraph 2. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.

Other ideas about age and covenant status are for intramural discussion among Baptists. I have never heard of any Baptist church that believes that children up to the age of 20 are by default included in some kind of special promise.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## arapahoepark (May 1, 2017)

No clue where you get this. Plus if they hold to 1689 Federalism and the covenant of circumcision as past, as well as the Mosaic covenant, then the idea of the age of accountability in the Exodus would be moot.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Josh Williamson (May 1, 2017)

As a Baptist, I have no idea how you reached that conclusion.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## reaganmarsh (May 1, 2017)

KMK said:


> This is what 'we' Baptist believe:
> 
> LBC Chapter 29; Paragraph 1. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.
> 
> ...



Hear, hear.

David, how did you arrive at your conclusion? Not to dogpile, brother, but is not consistent with 1689 theology...I'm curious. 

I've never heard of AoA doctrine reaching much beyond 10 or 12 years old (and typically much younger, i.e., 6-8). Though there is certainly precedent in Baptist history for waiting until the late teens or early adulthood for _baptism_, it has never been a monolithic practice -- and it has never been tied to the AoA error. 

Please don't hear an attack here; it's not the intention. How did you reach your conclusion? Will you walk us through your reasoning?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (May 2, 2017)

Romans922 said:


> Is this for baptists only? [If not, where do you get all of that from the Scriptures?]


This thread is posted in the discuss and debate section, *so this is open to all comers.*


----------



## Dachaser (May 2, 2017)

reaganmarsh said:


> Hear, hear.
> 
> David, how did you arrive at your conclusion? Not to dogpile, brother, but is not consistent with 1689 theology...I'm curious.
> 
> ...


My church hold to the age of baptizing children as being 12 years of age, but my understanding on tht issue was when God had all of those up to age of roughly 20 as not being held in accountability to him , so were able to enter into the promised land...


----------



## Dachaser (May 2, 2017)

KMK said:


> This is what 'we' Baptist believe:
> 
> LBC Chapter 29; Paragraph 1. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.
> 
> ...


The water Baptism was a sign of the remission of sins, not to where they were actually remitted, correct?


----------



## Dachaser (May 2, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> I would expect some strong disagreement from confessional Baptists on the content of this post...


On what, that children under a certain age are not to be baptized?


----------



## Romans922 (May 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> my understanding on tht issue was when God had all of those up to age of roughly 20 as not being held in accountability to him , so were able to enter into the promised land...



Scripture?

So far I have seen none, and someone has shown it is contrary to the 1689 LBC.


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (May 2, 2017)




----------



## Dachaser (May 2, 2017)

reaganmarsh said:


> Hear, hear.
> 
> David, how did you arrive at your conclusion? Not to dogpile, brother, but is not consistent with 1689 theology...I'm curious.
> 
> ...


I hold to the 1689 as regarding the purpose of water baptism, but how would that affect the Age of accountability issue, isn't that a separate issue?


----------



## Dachaser (May 2, 2017)

Romans922 said:


> Scripture?
> 
> So far I have seen none, and someone has shown it is contrary to the 1689 LBC.


Numbers 14:28-30

_Say to them, ‘As I live, declares the LORD, what you have said in my hearing I will do to you: your dead bodies shall fall in this wilderness, and of all your number, listed in the census from twenty years old and upward, who have grumbled against me, not one shall come into the land where I swore that I would make you dwell, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun._

Am I really misunderstanding this?


----------



## KMK (May 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Those of us who hold to believers only water Baptism do see our children as included under the promise of salvation, its just that we would tend to see that all children are saved until the Age of Accountability, which in the Exodus seem to be roughly 20 years of age...
> 
> So we would not not see as needing to be dunked until the time if/when they were adult believers in Christ...



It is your belief that "all children are saved until the Age of Accountability, which in the Exodus seem to be roughly 20 years of age," that is not confessed by any flavor of Baptist church that I know of.

Generally speaking, Baptists disagree on the eternal state of children dying in infancy. They also disagree on what age a person can make a credible profession of faith. But none that I have heard of believe that an 18 year old is 'saved' simply by being under the age of 20.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## kodos (May 2, 2017)

I have never heard that passage in Numbers used in such a ... novel ... way. On what basis do you believe you have the authority to interpret a narrative passage like that one to come up with this doctrine of "age of accountability"?

If you are going to use a narrative like this in such a way, how do you square other narratives with it -- such as the killing of Egypt's firstborn? Such as the command to kill all of the children in Canaan? Achan's family?

What we do know is this: all men are born in Original Sin and are corrupted from conception (Psalm 51), save three persons: Adam, Eve, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Since the Fall, all of us are liable to sin and death (Romans 3) and that surely includes children. We are a race of sinners thanks to the Fall and no one can squirm out of that accountability. Children included.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Gforce9 (May 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> On what, that children under a certain age are not to be baptized?



In like mind with our brother Reagan, I also do not wish to "pile on".....and I believe that about the brothers that have raised enough concern for you to rethink the position. Our respective confessions differ in these matters, but both keep our ever-wandering feet inside the green pastures of orthodoxy......


----------



## reaganmarsh (May 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I hold to the 1689 as regarding the purpose of water baptism, but how would that affect the Age of accountability issue, isn't that a separate issue?



Good question, David. 

AoA is inescapably tied to one's view of federal headship. If Jesus is indeed the federal head of the elect by the covenant of grace (i.e., Rom 5.12ff; LBCF ch's 7-8, but esp. 7.3), then AoA is irrelevant; and if he is not, then the 1689 is irrelevant. 

AoA is an intramural Baptist debate, for sure; but it's intramural among broadly evangelical Baptists -- not confessional. Biblical covenant theology more than answers the question. 

Our practice of baptism flows from our understanding of covenant theology and the regulative principle of worship. 

Does that help, brother?

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Warren (May 3, 2017)

Age of Accountability doctrine seems to neglect imputed sin entirely, so to amplify God's niceness over goodness, as well as release a great confusion in distinguishing muh (progressive) choice, or a cult of the will, from true religion, which is fidelity to the Lord. There must be 1689 Baptists who confront these things, am I just ignorant?


----------



## TooManySystematics (May 3, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Those of us who hold to believers only water Baptism do see our children as included under the promise of salvation, its just that we would tend to see that all children are saved until the Age of Accountability, which in the Exodus seem to be roughly 20 years of age...
> 
> So we would not not see as needing to be dunked until the time if/when they were adult believers in Christ...



20 years? Are you talking about Exodus 30:14 "Everyone who is numbered in the census, from twenty years old and upward, shall give the LORD’s offering."?


----------



## Dachaser (May 3, 2017)

KMK said:


> It is your belief that "all children are saved until the Age of Accountability, which in the Exodus seem to be roughly 20 years of age," that is not confessed by any flavor of Baptist church that I know of.
> 
> Generally speaking, Baptists disagree on the eternal state of children dying in infancy. They also disagree on what age a person can make a credible profession of faith. But none that I have heard of believe that an 18 year old is 'saved' simply by being under the age of 20.
> 
> ...


Would be saying that God, to my understanding, would be saying to us that he provide for the sins to be passed over for those not yet personally accountable to Him for their sin, so He has selected to save all who are infantss and children who have died before that threshold was reached...


----------



## Dachaser (May 3, 2017)

kodos said:


> I have never heard that passage in Numbers used in such a ... novel ... way. On what basis do you believe you have the authority to interpret a narrative passage like that one to come up with this doctrine of "age of accountability"?
> 
> If you are going to use a narrative like this in such a way, how do you square other narratives with it -- such as the killing of Egypt's firstborn? Such as the command to kill all of the children in Canaan? Achan's family?
> 
> ...


The children, especially infants, are all under the wrath of God and died in their sin natures, but just saying that believe the Lord had decided to not remet/impute to them their deserved judgment, as in the Cross paid for them and elected to apply that grace effectual towards them?


----------



## Dachaser (May 3, 2017)

reaganmarsh said:


> Good question, David.
> 
> AoA is inescapably tied to one's view of federal headship. If Jesus is indeed the federal head of the elect by the covenant of grace (i.e., Rom 5.12ff; LBCF ch's 7-8, but esp. 7.3), then AoA is irrelevant; and if he is not, then the 1689 is irrelevant.
> 
> ...


I am just suggesting that the Lord is saying to us that all infants/children are elected for salvation by Him, as though all of them are under the Fall and sinners, in the Cross he has decided to atone for their sins in full and not to hold that against the?


----------



## Dachaser (May 3, 2017)

Warren said:


> Age of Accountability doctrine seems to neglect imputed sin entirely, so to amplify God's niceness over goodness, as well as release a great confusion in distinguishing muh (progressive) choice, or a cult of the will, from true religion, which is fidelity to the Lord. There must be 1689 Baptists who confront these things, am I just ignorant?


there re Baptists like myself who would tend to see that in Christ, God had decided to save all infants/small children, by atoning for their sins and not holding them against them?


----------



## Romans922 (May 3, 2017)

David, you are saying up to 20 years old approximately, that Christ saved sinners, but by implication you'd have to say then that some at age 20 approx. that they lose their salvation. Christ atoned for their sins, and then He takes His atonement for them away. 

It is either that or God saves all infants/small children, which means all are saved no matter who they are or what they believe at any age; if one holds to perseverance/preservation of the saints. If Christ atoned for their sins, then their sins are atoned for (period). 

Further, I'd ask for you to provide any commentary or theologian prior to 1900 who would say what your saying and exegete the census passages as you have with relation to baptism.

What this amounts to is eisegesis and some form of Arminianism or Universalism. It is surely not Confessional in the slightest.


----------



## KMK (May 3, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The children, especially infants, are all under the wrath of God and died in their sin natures, but just saying that believe the Lord had decided to not remet/impute to them their deserved judgment, as in the Cross paid for them and elected to apply that grace effectual towards them?





Dachaser said:


> I am just suggesting that the Lord is saying to us that all infants/children are elected for salvation by Him, as though all of them are under the Fall and sinners, in the Cross he has decided to atone for their sins in full and not to hold that against the?



These statements are too convoluted to answer. I think it would be a good idea to take a break from this thread and meditate on what the confession does say, and leave alone what the confession does not say.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------

