# Proper age for Baptism



## Phil D. (Oct 11, 2019)

Just thinking about some issues raised in another restricted-response thread about household baptisms. It does seem that paedobaptist churches face an unavoidable dilemma with regard to the age of non-professing members of households.

Take for instance the following theoretical, yet for the sake of discussion I think legitimate scenario: The newly saved parents (or parent) of a number of children join an evangelical paedobaptist church. Let’s suppose the children are 3 months, 1½, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17... years in age (alright, so it would be a really large family, but again it serves the question). If none of the children profess conversion, which of them should be baptized?

I’ve read about at least one Presbyterian church that addresses this predicament by enforcing an official age cutoff of 12. But are they really then saying that on the sole basis of the children’s physical age they would baptize the 12-year-old, but not the 13 or 14-year-olds? Regardless of where an age limit is placed, one can go down the line asking the same question: Would you really baptize a 1½-year-old, but not a 3-year-old?—or a 7-year-old, but not an 8 or 9-year-old?—etc.?

In the same context one can't help also wondering about the unbelieving adult children of Christians. Are they not, regardless of any other circumstances, still the physical offspring of covenant members, and therefore, on the same principle that their younger siblings are so received, might not they be deemed eligible for baptism as well? There is nothing obvious in the Old Testament standards associated with circumcision to suggest otherwise—in fact quite the contrary.

Yet to avoid the prospect in certain cases of even non-professing adult children of such parents being baptized, some limitations largely dependent on age does seem necessary.

So, I have a couple of honest questions about this.

1. What is the biblical basis for determining such an age limit – or for establishing other possible solutions?

2. In essence, how do decisions in this area really differ from those based on the often scorned “age of accountability” concept?​


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Oct 11, 2019)

I can tell right now this thread is going to be fast and furious. 

I do remember an older PB thread about this very thing. I’ll see if I can find it. The bottom line was that if a not yet converted spouse and older children were amenable, they are to be baptized.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## hammondjones (Oct 11, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I do remember an older PB thread about this very thing.



I recalled this one

https://puritanboard.com/threads/should-an-unbelieving-spouse-be-baptized.86894


Wouldn't have thought it was 4 years ago.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Phil D. (Oct 11, 2019)

hammondjones said:


> I recalled this one
> 
> https://puritanboard.com/threads/should-an-unbelieving-spouse-be-baptized.86894



Thanks, that is a good discussion of the topic.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 11, 2019)

Phil D. said:


> Just thinking about some issues raised in another restricted-response thread about household baptisms. It does seem that paedobaptist churches face an unavoidable dilemma with regard to the age of non-professing members of households.
> 
> Take for instance the following theoretical, yet for the sake of discussion I think legitimate scenario: The newly saved parents (or parent) of a number of children join an evangelical paedobaptist church. Let’s suppose the children are 3 months, 1½, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17... years in age (alright, so it would be a really large family, but again it serves the question). If none of the children profess conversion, which of them should be baptized?
> 
> ...


My Baptist Church requires a credible profession of faith in Christ, and to be 12. I see no real age though, as depends upon a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Oct 11, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I can tell right now this thread is going to be fast and furious.



I was gonna say he picked a small family.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RJ Spencer (Oct 11, 2019)

I don't believe you can actually set an age. Children grow and learn at different paces, it should depend on each individual family. 
I do not support baptism for an unbelieving spouse.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 12, 2019)

RJ Spencer said:


> I don't believe you can actually set an age. Children grow and learn at different paces, it should depend on each individual family.
> I do not support baptism for an unbelieving spouse.


What does it really benefit someone to be water baptized if they never come to faith in Lord Jesus?


----------



## Kinghezy (Oct 12, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> What does it really benefit someone to be water baptized if they never come to faith in Lord Jesus?



The premise of the question was a church that is paedobaptis[t]. I do not think debating that premise helps the conversation, and probably deserves a different thread.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 12, 2019)

Kinghezy said:


> The premise of the question was a church that is paedobaptis[t]. I do not think debating that premise helps the conversation, and probably deserves a different thread.


Are there churches who baptize both infants and adults, using same scripture reasons for each then?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 12, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> What does it really benefit someone to be water baptized if they never come to faith in Lord Jesus?



Did it present any benefit to Ishmael?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 12, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Are there churches who baptize both infants and adults, using same scripture reasons for each then?



baptism is a sign and seal. A sign to some and both to others, i.e ‘not tied to the moment’ of administration.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 12, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> baptism is a sign and seal. A sign to some and both to others, i.e ‘not tied to the moment’ of administration.


Would you baptize older children who were not expressing faith in Jesus then? If in a saved home, would they not be under the administration of the church if baptized or not when older ?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 12, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Would you baptize older children who were not expressing faith in Jesus then? If in a saved home, would they not be under the administration of the church if baptized or not when older ?



Your question goes back to the original posters question. in my opinion, I would, unless the youngster was emphatically against it. The federal heads responsibility is to place the sign on his family. The sign and thing signified are not one and the same. The sign is a sign, only. The seal follows, either immediately (if God so wills) or at a later time. As I have tried to convey to u a number of times in the past, discipleship and placing the sign are not equated with regeneration or conversion.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 12, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Your question goes back to the original posters question. in my opinion, I would, unless the youngster was emphatically against it. The federal heads responsibility is to place the sign on his family. The sign and thing signified are not one and the same. The sign is a sign, only. The seal follows, either immediately (if God so wills) or at a later time. As I have tried to convey to u a number of times in the past, discipleship and placing the sign are not equated with regeneration or conversion.


God would already have marked them out as His own Elect without the baptism to them as older children, correct?


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 12, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> God would already have marked them out as His own Elect without the baptism to them as older children, correct?


David,

You keep saying declarative statements with question marks at the end which both Baptist’s and Presbyterians both affirm in the positive. Your above statement has similarly been made in a couple of recent threads. YES election occurred BEFORE the world was made. @Scott Bushey has already patiently answered that the “sign is a sign” and God does the work (or not) in His time.

Westminster 3.5:

“V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory,i out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto;k and all to the praise of his glorious grace.”

1689 LBCF 3.5:

“5. Those people who are predestined to life were chosen by God before the foundation of the world, according to his eternal and unchangeable purpose and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will. He chose them in Christ for eternal glory, purely as a result of his free grace and love,11 without anything else about them serving as a condition or cause moving him to do so.12”

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 12, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> David,
> 
> You keep saying declarative statements with question marks at the end which both Baptist’s and Presbyterians both affirm in the positive. Your above statement has similarly been made in a couple of recent threads. YES election occurred BEFORE the world was made. @Scott Bushey has already patiently answered that the “sign is a sign” and God does the work (or not) in His time.
> 
> ...


I am not disagreeing with Scott, just trying to understand why older children are even baptized per Reformed WCF understanding?


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 12, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> I am not disagreeing with Scott, just trying to understand why older children are even baptized per Reformed WCF understanding?


Because we see it in scripture. Because they are the children of professing parents. The children of Christian parent(s) are to be set apart (holy) . One of the ways we feel compelled by scripture to do this is by water baptism.

After several generations of being faithful Paedobaptist, the norm will be mostly infants aside from new families.

Example: When I became a Presbyterian I had a 4yr. Old and a 1yr. Old. They were both baptized on my (wife included) profession. Even if they were older (but still in my household), I would still have supported them being baptized even if they were not yet ready to be full communicate members (assuming the session supported it).

Now with a newborn on the way, she will be baptized as an infant. Some parents have mentally ill children who are in there upper late 30’s, in my opinion if they are willing they would still need to be baptized though not mentally being able to profess faith as their mental capacity is that of a 6 yr old. We have someone like this in our congregation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 12, 2019)

I'm with Scott on this one. Abraham circumcised all the males in his household, not just the children. All who were under his headship were under the covenant and circumcision was the sign of that covenant. Thus I believe all the children should be baptized and brought in as covenant children.


----------



## B.L. (Oct 12, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Because we see it in scripture. Because they are the children of professing parents. The children of Christian parent(s) are to be set apart (holy) . One of the ways we feel compelled by scripture to do this is by water baptism.
> 
> After several generations of being faithful Paedobaptist, the norm will be mostly infants aside from new families.
> 
> ...



Grant, 

I appreciate your post a lot. Very helpful to see things from your perspective, our differences aside. Thank you brother. Praise the Lord for adding to your household. What a joy!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 12, 2019)

B.L. McDonald said:


> Grant,
> 
> I appreciate your post a lot. Very helpful to see things from your perspective, our differences aside. Thank you brother. Praise the Lord for adding to your household. What a joy!


I too appreciate your demeanor on this thread.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Oct 12, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Did it present any benefit to Ishmael?



Probably not, since I can't find any evidence that Ishmael was ever baptized, and circumcision isn't baptism.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 12, 2019)

OPC'n said:


> I'm with Scott on this one. Abraham circumcised all the males in his household, not just the children. All who were under his headship were under the covenant and circumcision was the sign of that covenant. Thus I believe all the children should be baptized and brought in as covenant children.


Are they then assumed to be saved due to that baptism then?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Oct 12, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Are they then assumed to be saved due to that baptism then?


Hi David, since your queries are taking away from the OP which concerns appropriate age to be baptized, and will create a rabbit trail into the doctrine of baptism, please check the many other threads that speak to your question. (I believe you’ve participated in quite a few.)

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 12, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Hi David, since your queries are taking away from the OP which concerns appropriate age to be baptized, and will create a rabbit trail into the doctrine of baptism, please check the many other threads that speak to your question. (I believe you’ve participated in quite a few of them.)


I will do as requested, thanks.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 12, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Are they then assumed to be saved due to that baptism then?



No, we don't baptize anyone BECAUSE they got saved. Baptism isn't a prize for getting saved. It's a sign of God's covenant with his people and their children. So we baptize people as a sign that they are within the covenant of God. So if a couple in the church has a baby, that infant is within the covenant of God because its parents are within God's covenant and thus the baby is baptized as a sign of that covenant. If an adult who was never baptized is saved, they are then baptized as a sign of them now being in the covenant of God.


----------

