# Baptism of a precocious five year old from the Reformed Baptist View of New Covenant



## Pilgrim's Progeny

Baptist brethren, do you believe a five year old has the cognitive ability to have true faith in Christ and be baptized. Do, you believe that God draws His elect out at such a young age to embrace him by faith? If not, what do you tell a five year old who comes up to you and says, " I believe Jesus died for my sins and I am forgiven of my sins", and this child produces fruit in accordance to repentance? I already have my own take on this, I just want to hear other views.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Paul G. Woods said:


> Baptist brethren, do you believe a five year old has the cognitive ability to have true faith in Christ and be baptized. Do, you believe that God draws His elect out at such a young age to embrace him by faith? If not, what do you tell a five year old who comes up to you and says, " I believe Jesus died for my sins and I am forgiven of my sins", and this child produces fruit in accordance to repentance? I already have my own take on this, I just want to hear other views.




I don't believe a child has the full capacity to understand what an adult or adolescent can. A child of this age is also to young to participate in any of the functions of the Church except for worship. While the conversion may be true I think it is wise to examine the Child for a few more years. I did this with my kids and it was a wise decision. The youngest any of mine were baptized is 12 years of age. And it was wise to wait to examine their lives. Their mother persuaded them to pray a prayer when they were all very young. Preschool. But they really didn't understand the faith. The did believe in Jesus but biblical concepts were way over their heads.


----------



## Coram Deo

Our children could really be saved... And we pray they are... But they could also be toss to and fro by every wind of doctrine... Both Good and Bad...... They could believe they are saved but absent of a regenerate heart..... In most Reformed Baptist Circles I know, we hold off Baptism to between 17 and 25.... When they are mature and can give a Credible profession of faith... a Child can give a Profession of Faith, but not a *credible* Profession of Faith...

So If my child at the age of 5 or even at the age of 12 comes to me and tells me they have accepted Jesus Christ into their hearts and believe they are saved I would tell them *GOOD* Keep calling on the name of the heart... But neither will I allow nor any of the pastors I know will baptize the child until they have reached a mature age... Somewhere in between 17 and 25... It is a judgment call but when the child exhibit maturity and is an adult who can make a credible profession.....

This prevents the error of Rebaptism and of making Mockery of the Sacrament of Baptism. Since baptism happens 3, 4, 6 times on one person throughout their teenage years... "I know I am saved, they get baptize", Then they say 3 years later "I was not saved, now I know I am saved and wish to be rebaptized" then again 2 years later.....

Michael




Paul G. Woods said:


> Baptist brethren, do you believe a five year old has the cognitive ability to have true faith in Christ and be baptized. Do, you believe that God draws His elect out at such a young age to embrace him by faith? If not, what do you tell a five year old who comes up to you and says, " I believe Jesus died for my sins and I am forgiven of my sins", and this child produces fruit in accordance to repentance? I already have my own take on this, I just want to hear other views.


----------



## Calvibaptist

Having just recently (within the last few years) fallen into the Reformed camp, I can say that I have baptized a 5-year old. The family has since left the church (since I turned Reformed) to go to a more seeker-sensitive church. My concern in doing such a thing is wondering if the child understands sin, repentance, the cross, etc. This is why I currently make it a practice to wait.

Sometimes this view upsets parents who are absolutely sure their child is a believer and wonder why they can't be baptized. My concern is that I rightly administer the ordinance (sacrament, if you will) of baptism. I have to answer to God first, then the parents!


----------



## JonathanHunt

Firstly, I hold to believers only baptism, not adults only baptism.

Secondly, each case is different. I wouldn't make a child wait until they were 17 if they had made a profession of faith at 5 and continued to walk with the Lord. I would certainly require that there was SOME wait involved, to gauge the response. Someone who is genuinely converted and wants to be baptised will wait. Someone who is being childishly impetuous will not. My own son is ten. If he professed faith and brought forth the fruits of the spirit (and it would be OBVIOUS if God was working in his life) then I would be happy to baptise him after about a year I suppose- but I would be able to observe him closely for that period of time. Every person is different.


----------



## PastorFaulk

I'm also dealing with this question in my ministry here. I have had a 9 yr old come, walk the isle and profess Christ. He has come to me several times asking for baptism, and I have deferred. I have spoken with him in regard to what it means, and he can communicate what faith is clearly. I have taken by his own insistence and determination (not his parents) that the lord is calling him at this young age.


----------



## timmopussycat

PastorFaulk said:


> I'm also dealing with this question in my ministry here. I have had a 9 yr old come, walk the isle and profess Christ....



Goodness that must have been a long altar call. I know Okinawa is small but it isn't that small.


----------



## Barnpreacher

This thread is proof that if you ask 10 different credo's who are the proper recipients of baptism, you'd get 10 different answers.

At least paedo's are consistent in this area.


----------



## PastorFaulk

timmopussycat said:


> PastorFaulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also dealing with this question in my ministry here. I have had a 9 yr old come, walk the isle and profess Christ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Goodness that must have been a long altar call. I know Okinawa is small but it isn't that small.
Click to expand...



He came on several different ocasions. Finally when I had certenty to his decision, I told him he could walk the isle.


----------



## PastorFaulk

Barnpreacher said:


> This thread is proof that if you ask 10 different credo's who are the proper recipients of baptism, you'd get 10 different answers.
> 
> At least paedo's are consistent in this area.



I think we all agree that baptism is an ordinance observed when one evidences faith in Christ. This is the biblical model seen through out the book of Acts, and taught clearly in the New Testament. That said goodness knows there are plenty of credo paedo discussions going on. This is really as discussion on when, if an age of accountability exists.


----------



## Barnpreacher

PastorFaulk said:


> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is proof that if you ask 10 different credo's who are the proper recipients of baptism, you'd get 10 different answers.
> 
> At least paedo's are consistent in this area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we all agree that baptism is an ordinance observed when one evidences faith in Christ. This is the biblical model seen through out the book of Acts, and taught clearly in the New Testament. That said goodness knows there are plenty of credo paedo discussions going on. This is really as discussion on when, if an age of accountability exists.
Click to expand...


I was not trying to hijack the thread with a credo/paedo discussion. My point was, credo's don't believe that infants are the proper recipients of baptism. But I've just sat here and read that some believe 5 year olds are proper recipients of baptism. Some believe you have to be between 17 and 25 to be proper recipients of baptism. Others probably believe you have to be at least 7 or 8 to be the proper recipient of baptism. Still others would say somewhere between 13-15.

????????? 

Where's the consistency?


----------



## PastorFaulk

Barnpreacher said:


> I was not trying to hijack the thread with a credo/paedo discussion. My point was, credo's don't believe that infants are the proper recipients of baptism. But I've just sat here and read that some believe 5 year olds are proper recipients of baptism. Some believe you have to be between 17 and 25 to be proper recipients of baptism. Others probably believe you have to be at least 7 or 8 to be the proper recipient of baptism. Still others would say somewhere between 13-15.
> 
> ?????????
> 
> Where's the consistency?



I think the consistency lies in the always challenging task of sharpening oneself by the word of God so that a person might believe and follow what God's word says. From our beginnings we have felt that post conversion baptism is the biblical pattern. Though an age of accountability is not specifically in the bible it does not invalidate it. The trinity is not specifically in the bible, yet one would hardly say it is not biblical. To place an age on a person as to salvation is often a hard task. God calls many to salvation at different ages. Would not a paedo baptize a 40 year old man if he is new to the faith? We are simply asking at what age can a child, teenager, or adult recognize the call of the lord. 

In regards to unity as means of correctness, the argument is flawed. Would not the entire religion of Christianity fail the test of complete unity of belief? Our disagreement means that we are continuing to cut away at the traditions of man so as to find what is right and biblical. Calvin was a great scholar, but his words are not inspired. One should not go to the works of Calvin to define baptism; they should go to the word of God. Baptists feel they have done this, kept (those of us who are reformed) the fact that Salvation belongs to God, and cut away the traditions of men... paedo baptism. Would this disagreement invalidate the entire reformation, or is it a continued search for the sole truth of scripture. Unity is not correctness.


----------



## Barnpreacher

PastorFaulk said:


> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was not trying to hijack the thread with a credo/paedo discussion. My point was, credo's don't believe that infants are the proper recipients of baptism. But I've just sat here and read that some believe 5 year olds are proper recipients of baptism. Some believe you have to be between 17 and 25 to be proper recipients of baptism. Others probably believe you have to be at least 7 or 8 to be the proper recipient of baptism. Still others would say somewhere between 13-15.
> 
> ?????????
> 
> Where's the consistency?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the consistency lies in the always challenging task of sharpening oneself by the word of God so that a person might believe and follow what God's word says. From our beginnings we have felt that post conversion baptism is the biblical pattern. Though an age of accountability is not specifically in the bible it does not invalidate it. The trinity is not specifically in the bible, yet one would hardly say it is not biblical. To place an age on a person as to salvation is often a hard task. God calls many to salvation at different ages. Would not a paedo baptize a 40 year old man if he is new to the faith? We are simply asking at what age can a child, teenager, or adult recognize the call of the lord.
> 
> In regards to unity as means of correctness, the argument is flawed. Would not the entire religion of Christianity fail the test of complete unity of belief? Our disagreement means that we are continuing to cut away at the traditions of man so as to find what is right and biblical. Calvin was a great scholar, but his words are not inspired. One should not go to the works of Calvin to define baptism; they should go to the word of God. Baptists feel they have done this, kept (those of us who are reformed) the fact that Salvation belongs to God, and cut away the traditions of men... paedo baptism. Would this disagreement invalidate the entire reformation, or is it a continued search for the sole truth of scripture. Unity is not correctness.
Click to expand...


I wasn't arguing from a standpoint of unity. I am arguing from a standpoint of consistency. Yes, a paedo would baptize a 40 year old man if he is new to the faith. Philip did when he baptized the eunech. Other examples include Lydia and the jailor in Acts 16. What is true of all those converts is that they were baptized immediately upon their profession of faith. Yet, I heard many on here say this isn't possible with children. That's my argument of inconsistency. Either baptists don't understand the true meaning of baptism or they are inconsistent in their understanding of it. That has nothing to do with unity, brother.


----------



## PastorFaulk

Barnpreacher said:


> I wasn't arguing from a standpoint of unity. I am arguing from a standpoint of consistency. Yes, a paedo would baptize a 40 year old man if he is new to the faith. Philip did when he baptized the eunech. Other examples include Lydia and the jailor in Acts 16. What is true of all those converts is that they were baptized immediately upon their profession of faith. Yet, I heard many on here say this isn't possible with children. That's my argument of inconsistency. Either baptists don't understand the true meaning of baptism or they are inconsistent in their understanding of it. That has nothing to do with unity, brother.



I apologize, I misunderstood your argument. We as Baptists do believe that once one professes Christ, then they are immediately baptized. The problem often is with parents who are eager to get the kids fire insurance box checked, that the kids do what their parents want them to do. This is why we ask the question, when can a child understand God's calling? The fear of parents has always diluted the act of baptism. It was the fear of parents for their children’s souls that created the problem of paedo baptism. Now even in believer’s baptism churches, parents in their fear that their children might go to hell, push them down the isle.


----------



## Coram Deo

My previous pastor gave a sermon on this a number of years ago... Let me dig it out so I can get every point he brings out regarding why we wait.... Maybe if I can copy the sermon into an MP3 and upload it might be better..... Let me see what I can do.....

This is very Consistent in Montvillian Reformed Baptist Circles.... Ala Pastor Al Martin, Pastor Greg Nichols, Pastor Mark Chanski, Pastor John Price, etc... It is very heavy in the New England and Eastern Coast Reformed Baptist circles that follow the Montvillian mold......... 




joshua said:


> puritancovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> While the conversion may be true I think it is wise to examine the Child for a few more years. I did this with my kids and it was a wise decision. The youngest any of mine were baptized is 12 years of age. And it was wise to wait to examine their lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thunaer said:
> 
> 
> 
> In most Reformed Baptist Circles I know, we hold off Baptism to between 17 and 25....
> 
> So If my child at the age of 5 or even at the age of 12 comes to me and tells me they have accepted Jesus Christ into their hearts and believe they are saved I would tell them *GOOD* Keep calling on the name of the heart... But neither will I allow nor any of the pastors I know will baptize the child until they have reached a mature age... Somewhere in between 17 and 25... It is a judgment call but when the child exhibit maturity and is an adult who can make a credible profession.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I currently make it a practice to wait.
> 
> My concern is that I rightly administer the ordinance (sacrament, if you will) of baptism. I have to answer to God first, then the parents!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is really interesting and something I've not seen in all my years going to Baptist Churches.
> 
> What is the _biblical _reason for waiting?
Click to expand...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

joshua said:


> puritancovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> While the conversion may be true I think it is wise to examine the Child for a few more years. I did this with my kids and it was a wise decision. The youngest any of mine were baptized is 12 years of age. And it was wise to wait to examine their lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thunaer said:
> 
> 
> 
> In most Reformed Baptist Circles I know, we hold off Baptism to between 17 and 25....
> 
> So If my child at the age of 5 or even at the age of 12 comes to me and tells me they have accepted Jesus Christ into their hearts and believe they are saved I would tell them *GOOD* Keep calling on the name of the heart... But neither will I allow nor any of the pastors I know will baptize the child until they have reached a mature age... Somewhere in between 17 and 25... It is a judgment call but when the child exhibit maturity and is an adult who can make a credible profession.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I currently make it a practice to wait.
> 
> My concern is that I rightly administer the ordinance (sacrament, if you will) of baptism. I have to answer to God first, then the parents!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is really interesting and something I've not seen in all my years going to Baptist Churches.
> 
> What is the _biblical _reason for waiting?
Click to expand...


I can't speak for many Baptists because I have not had much interaction with them. But at the last Baptist Church I attended the Elders and Parents both met together to examine the child to make a decision concerning the child's qualifications or candidacy for baptism. I think that is a wise way to do it because maturity and understanding are arrived at during different ages for each child. I do know of adults who after examination were held off until they had a better grasp of the gospel and how their lives related to it. It should be the same way for children also. And some adults have wanted to be baptised just so they could be members of the Church. Elder examinations are very wise and it was practised in the early church. That is a consistent way of looking at the situation.


----------



## Calvibaptist

Barnpreacher said:


> I wasn't arguing from a standpoint of unity. I am arguing from a standpoint of consistency. Yes, a paedo would baptize a 40 year old man if he is new to the faith. Philip did when he baptized the eunech. Other examples include Lydia and the jailor in Acts 16. What is true of all those converts is that they were baptized immediately upon their profession of faith. Yet, I heard many on here say this isn't possible with children. That's my argument of inconsistency. Either baptists don't understand the true meaning of baptism or they are inconsistent in their understanding of it. That has nothing to do with unity, brother.



What is also true of all of those converts is that they were adults that could clearly evidence by profession and change of life that they had been converted. The question of the OP is whether a very young child can evidence this. You will have a variety of answers because each child is different. Some may be good liars or just parrot answers. If we truly believe that baptism must be administered after a person is converted (the way it was done in the New Testament) then we must be cautious with young children.


----------



## Barnpreacher

Calvibaptist said:


> What is also true of all of those converts is that they were adults that could clearly evidence by profession and change of life that they had been converted. The question of the OP is whether a very young child can evidence this. You will have a variety of answers because each child is different. *Some may be good liars or just parrot answers. * If we truly believe that baptism must be administered after a person is converted (the way it was done in the New Testament) then we must be cautious with young children.



And how did Philip know that the eunuch wasn't doing the same thing? How did Paul know within the first hour of the jailor's salvation that he had a change of life? Have you known this about every single person you have baptized? Have I? 

This is what I'm talking about when I say there is inconsistency on the credo's part. That doesn't mean I'm renouncing the credo position, but it is definitely something to think about. I really don't think baptists have a proper understanding of what baptism is, else there wouldn't be these inconsistencies on our part.


----------



## Coram Deo

Uh, As a Baptist, I Take exception to this...........

Michael




PastorFaulk said:


> We as Baptists do believe that once one professes Christ, then they are immediately baptized.


----------



## Coram Deo

By the way, I do not believe in the "Age of Accountability"... A child is still held accountable for his sins... And must repent... A child must be saved but baptism does not save and I say hold off on Baptism until maturity..........


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Barnpreacher said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Some may be good liars or just parrot answers. * .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how did Philip know that the eunuch wasn't doing the same thing? How did Paul know within the first hour of the jailor's salvation that he had a change of life? .
Click to expand...


Philip saw a man searching for the truth. He had no motive to deceive. Paul knew the jailer had a change of life because he staked his own life upon it. Jailer's were killed for escaped prisoners. 

There is evidence that becomes apparent. If not Jesus wouldn't have told us to examine a tree by it's fruit or John wouldn't have told us to test the spirits.


----------



## Barnpreacher

thunaer said:


> Uh, As a Baptist, I Take exception to this...........
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PastorFaulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as Baptists do believe that once one professes Christ, then they are immediately baptized.
Click to expand...


Michael,

By your taking exception to what Pastor Faulk said, are you admitting that there is inconsistency in the baptist understanding of baptism? Why did Philip immediately baptize the eunuch? Why was the jailor and his household baptized within the hour of his profession of faith?

Does the Bible give specific rules of baptizing children, or is there misundersanding in there somehwere?


----------



## Barnpreacher

puritancovenanter said:


> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Some may be good liars or just parrot answers. * .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how did Philip know that the eunuch wasn't doing the same thing? How did Paul know within the first hour of the jailor's salvation that he had a change of life? .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Philip saw a man searching for the truth. He had no motive to deceive. Paul knew the jailer had a change of life because he staked his own life upon it. Jailer's were killed for escaped prisoners.
> 
> There is evidence that becomes apparent. If not Jesus wouldn't have told us to examine a tree by it's fruit or John wouldn't have told us to test the spirits.
Click to expand...


And what was the "supernatural" revelation about Lydia that couldn't be true in a child's conversion?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Barnpreacher said:


> puritancovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how did Philip know that the eunuch wasn't doing the same thing? How did Paul know within the first hour of the jailor's salvation that he had a change of life? .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philip saw a man searching for the truth. He had no motive to deceive. Paul knew the jailer had a change of life because he staked his own life upon it. Jailer's were killed for escaped prisoners.
> 
> There is evidence that becomes apparent. If not Jesus wouldn't have told us to examine a tree by it's fruit or John wouldn't have told us to test the spirits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what was the "supernatural" revelation about Lydia that couldn't be true in a child's conversion?
Click to expand...


So, tell me why you used the word supernatural? And I am not sure what you are getting at with Lydia's conversion. Lydia responded because the Lord drew her and opened her heart. That is the way it is done with everyone who is converted. A child can not be converted without being converted the same way Lydia was. Plus, a childs life should be examined the same way also. It is noted that Lydian attended unto the things which were spoken by Paul. In other words her faith was probably evident and active. Plus, she responded in an appropriate manner evidently. Plus, Lydia's life was already one marked by seeking God. She found him. Aye?


whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. KJV

(Act 16:14) Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. NKJV


----------



## Coram Deo

I do not have a problem with baptizing an adult with a profession of faith like the jailer or Philip.... They were mature and were "Of age" to speak for themselves and able to make a credible profession of faith... A child can make a profession of faith, but not a credible profession of faith... An adult can say I stand with the people of God and here is my testimony but a child only does what his parents want him to do and is unable to make a public stand that is credible......

Think of it like voting in our country... A child can only vote what his parents tell him to vote for, so it is an extension of his parents vote. In essence the parents gets two votes out of it... So our country does not allow for a minor to vote until he is of age... An Age of maturity... An age that he can publicly stand on his own... The same holds true for signing contracts... a Child can not sign a contract.. It is taught to us by Common Grace through Natural law. We also see when a child is no longer a child in the scripture and can stand apart from his parents... When Moses was "of age" he was able to say I am not the son of Pharoah's Daughter. The same in the New Testament regarding the man who was blind and the people went to the parents of the man by what way does this man see and his parents told them He is "Of age" go ask him..... So a child is only an extension of his parents until he is of age.. A Child can only parrot what his parents tell him too... A Child can be toss to and fro by every wind of doctrine whether good or bad. He can be tossed to good doctrine absent of a regenerate heart.... It is hard enough trying to discern if an adult is truly saved HOW much more so for a child.... I believe through the common grace of natural law and the biblical examples of when a child is no longer an extension of his parents and can stand on his own to profess a credible confession then we need to hold off on baptism.

Also a child who is baptized is a full member of the church with all the voting rights of the church and all the discipline of the church... Are you going to allow a child to vote in serious church affairs for which he has no understanding... Or what if a child said he is saved, gets baptize, and later commits sin... Now he is liable to the church disciple of the church when he should be still under the disciple of the parents...

There is more, but this should be enough for people to ask why we baptize children and should we wait....






Barnpreacher said:


> thunaer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, As a Baptist, I Take exception to this...........
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PastorFaulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as Baptists do believe that once one professes Christ, then they are immediately baptized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Michael,
> 
> By your taking exception to what Pastor Faulk said, are you admitting that there is inconsistency in the baptist understanding of baptism? Why did Philip immediately baptize the eunuch? Why was the jailor and his household baptized within the hour of his profession of faith?
> 
> Does the Bible give specific rules of baptizing children, or is there misundersanding in there somehwere?
Click to expand...


----------



## Barnpreacher

puritancovenanter said:


> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Some may be good liars or just parrot answers. * .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how did Philip know that the eunuch wasn't doing the same thing? How did Paul know within the first hour of the jailor's salvation that he had a change of life? .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Philip saw a man searching for the truth. He had no motive to deceive. *Paul knew the jailer had a change of life because he staked his own life upon it. Jailer's were killed for escaped prisoners. *
> There is evidence that becomes apparent. If not Jesus wouldn't have told us to examine a tree by it's fruit or John wouldn't have told us to test the spirits.
Click to expand...


Actually, this argument kind of works against you, Brother. The other prisoners had already escaped. The jailer was going to die for those prisoners that had already escaped regardless of whether Paul or Silas did or not. So, technically Paul could have thought, "This guy is just making some profession of faith because he knows he is going to die." 

Not to mention that the jailor's household was baptized within the first hour of his conversion as well. Even if we approach that from a credo perspective, what change did Paul see in the WHOLE household that couldn't be seen in a conversion of a child today?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Barnpreacher said:


> puritancovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how did Philip know that the eunuch wasn't doing the same thing? How did Paul know within the first hour of the jailor's salvation that he had a change of life? .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philip saw a man searching for the truth. He had no motive to deceive. *Paul knew the jailer had a change of life because he staked his own life upon it. Jailer's were killed for escaped prisoners. *
> There is evidence that becomes apparent. If not Jesus wouldn't have told us to examine a tree by it's fruit or John wouldn't have told us to test the spirits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, this argument kind of works against you, Brother. The other prisoners had already escaped. The jailer was going to die for those prisoners that had already escaped regardless of whether Paul or Silas did or not. So, technically Paul could have thought, "This guy is just making some profession of faith because he knows he is going to die."
> 
> Not to mention that the jailor's household was baptized within the first hour of his conversion as well. Even if we approach that from a credo perspective, what change did Paul see in the WHOLE household that couldn't be seen in a conversion of a child today?
Click to expand...


Ryan... I am quite perplexed that you don't know the scriptures. No Prisoners escaped read the text. 

(Act 16:25) But at midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them.

(Act 16:26) Suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone’s chains were loosed.

(Act 16:27) And the keeper of the prison, awaking from sleep and seeing the prison doors open, supposing the prisoners had fled, drew his sword and was about to kill himself.

(Act 16:28) But Paul called with a loud voice, saying, *"Do yourself no harm, for we are all here.” *

Where are you a Baptist Pastor at? What confession do you hold to?


----------



## Barnpreacher

puritancovenanter said:


> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> puritancovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Philip saw a man searching for the truth. He had no motive to deceive. *Paul knew the jailer had a change of life because he staked his own life upon it. Jailer's were killed for escaped prisoners. *
> There is evidence that becomes apparent. If not Jesus wouldn't have told us to examine a tree by it's fruit or John wouldn't have told us to test the spirits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, this argument kind of works against you, Brother. The other prisoners had already escaped. The jailer was going to die for those prisoners that had already escaped regardless of whether Paul or Silas did or not. So, technically Paul could have thought, "This guy is just making some profession of faith because he knows he is going to die."
> 
> Not to mention that the jailor's household was baptized within the first hour of his conversion as well. Even if we approach that from a credo perspective, what change did Paul see in the WHOLE household that couldn't be seen in a conversion of a child today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ryan... I am quite perplexed that you don't know the scriptures. No Prisoners escaped read the text.
> 
> (Act 16:25) But at midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them.
> 
> (Act 16:26) Suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone’s chains were loosed.
> 
> (Act 16:27) And the keeper of the prison, awaking from sleep and seeing the prison doors open, supposing the prisoners had fled, drew his sword and was about to kill himself.
> 
> (Act 16:28) But Paul called with a loud voice, saying, *"Do yourself no harm, for we are all here.” *
> 
> Where are you a Baptist Pastor at? What confession do you hold to?
Click to expand...



O.k. that's my fault. In trying to decipher my questions I made a mistake there. I got a head of myself there and should have went to the text. Don't be too perplexed, brother. Everyone makes mistakes when posting in a hurry on these boards. Plus, it's good to humble me when I make a mistake that evident.


----------



## Barnpreacher

puritancovenanter said:


> Where are you a Baptist Pastor at? What confession do you hold to?



What does that matter at this point? Because I'm asking baptists tough questions that I have asked myself, all of the sudden I have to defend that I'm a baptist pastor. That's beautiful.

Or was it my forgetting that no prisoners escaped in Acts 16? Sorry, I already said I posted too quickly and for some reason I was thinking that some of the prisoners escaped.


----------



## Barnpreacher

I must confess that often times I have been very edified by the Puritan Board, but I have to get something off my chest. 

I spend day after day after day staring at the Word of God, along with theological works in preparation for my sermons as a pastor. I work two other part time jobs, and I take care of a wife, 3 year old child, and another soon on the way. I am going to school online to try and finish my MDiv. I spend countless hours staring at a computer, listening to lectures and writing papers. Like many of the other members of this board I am sleep deprived and have more than I can say grace over.

But tonight has shown me that it is my time to go here at the PuritanBoard. I slipped up tonight and made a simple biblical mistake that I shouldn't have made. It was a simple oversight. But since then I have been asked where I was a pastor at. I have been PM'd and told that my scriptural understanding concerning the Philippian jailor and other matters was lacking. 

Am I offended? No. Nor am I perfect. I made an oversight in forgetting that no prisoners escaped, but I think I also made an oversight in asking tough questions to my baptist brothers. It was a brash PM, but perhaps it was just what I needed to let me know that I already have too much going on in my life, I don't need one more thing keeping me up at night.

God's blessings upon my brothers and sisters here.


----------



## PastorFaulk

Barnpreacher said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is also true of all of those converts is that they were adults that could clearly evidence by profession and change of life that they had been converted. The question of the OP is whether a very young child can evidence this. You will have a variety of answers because each child is different. *Some may be good liars or just parrot answers. * If we truly believe that baptism must be administered after a person is converted (the way it was done in the New Testament) then we must be cautious with young children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *And how did Philip know that the eunuch wasn't doing the same thing*? *How did Paul know within the first hour of the jailor's salvation that he had a change of life*? Have you known this about every single person you have baptized? Have I?
> 
> This is what I'm talking about when I say there is inconsistency on the credo's part. That doesn't mean I'm renouncing the credo position, but it is definitely something to think about. I really don't think baptists have a proper understanding of what baptism is, else there wouldn't be these inconsistencies on our part.
Click to expand...




Barnpreacher said:


> puritancovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are you a Baptist Pastor at? What confession do you hold to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that matter at this point? Because I'm asking baptists tough questions that I have asked myself, all of the sudden I have to defend that I'm a baptist pastor. That's beautiful.
> 
> Or was it my forgetting that no prisoners escaped in Acts 16? Sorry, I already said I posted too quickly and for some reason I was thinking that some of the prisoners escaped.
Click to expand...



Ryan, it seems that you are going to great lengths to use scripture in a way it should not be used. It is implicit in the story that Paul or Philip saw the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the new converts. That is why baptism is a sign of one entering the new covenant. It shows circumcision of the heart. The problem with the paedo position is that they see the sign as entrance into the new covenant, not simply what it is a sign of the action. 

I do wonder, as it seems you are not asking questions about baptism, but instead attempting, through attacking it consistency, to prove the paedo position. If that is true, by which you have defended the paedo position throughout the thread, then why be a Baptist. Is not post conversion baptism intrinsic in being a Baptist?


----------



## Barnpreacher

PastorFaulk said:


> Ryan, it seems that you are going to great lengths to use scripture in a way it should not be used. It is implicit in the story that Paul or Philip saw the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the new converts. That is why baptism is a sign of one entering the new covenant. It shows circumcision of the heart. The problem with the paedo position is that they see the sign as entrance into the new covenant, not simply what it is a sign of the action.
> 
> I do wonder, as it seems you are not asking questions about baptism, but instead attempting, through attacking it consistency, to prove the paedo position. If that is true, by which you have defended the paedo position throughout the thread, then why be a Baptist. Is not post conversion baptism intrinsic in being a Baptist?



brother. Faulk,

I don't know how much longer I will be baptist. Is that so bad? I am a born again, God called, redeemed by the Blood elect child of God before I'm Baptist or Presbyterian. I just want to believe what the Scriptures teach. I went almost 30 years of my life hearing dispensationalism/semi-pelagianism shoved down my throat. I studied under men like Peter Ruckman, so I had the ability to get on here and argue dispensationalism or the KJV only position with rigour. But I don't think I've ever done that because I don't believe much of what I've studied all my life. 

My point is, I don't get hung up with my baptist title or titles at all for that matter. Will I be baptist much longer? I don't know. One thing I know, I will continue to remain a Blood bought elect child of God.

I apologize to my baptist brethren for seeming antagonistic and contentious as I have been called tonight. It was the farthest thing from my intentions. I am simply on a learning quest right now in my life, having left dispensationalism and the other things I've studied most of my life. I just try and ask questions that I can learn from the answers. And just because I was a baptist asking my baptist brethren tough questions, I can't believe some of what I've seen here tonight.

God's blessing upon you and your ministry, Brother.


----------



## Barnpreacher

In trying to defend the precious knowledge of God's Holy Word that He has given me, my mind must have been on this passage tonight without looking it up as I posted.

Ac 5:17
Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation,
Ac 5:18
And laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison.
Ac 5:19
But the angel of the Lord by night opened the prison doors, and brought them forth, and said,
Ac 5:20
Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.
Ac 5:21
And when they heard that, they entered into the temple early in the morning, and taught. But the high priest came, and they that were with him, and called the council together, and all the senate of the children of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought.
Ac 5:22
But when the officers came, and found them not in the prison, they returned, and told,
Ac 5:23
Saying, The prison truly found we shut with all safety, and the keepers standing without before the doors: but when we had opened, we found no man within.


----------



## Barnpreacher

But to mess up was still good to humble me! I need to stay humble under the grace of our Lord Jesus!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Ryan,

No one is going to fault you for struggling with an issue. Many members on this board have changed positions based upon how they perceive the scriptures work. No one here is going to be overly critical if you change your position. Many have. And we are all still friends. If you need a break, take one. You seemed curt in a few places with us. And you do seem over charged at this time. Your accusations of inconsistency seemed rather pointed and frustrated. And they seemed to be rather simple things for us to answer. Maybe they are not as simple for you. Maybe you are pressing yourself to much and you need to back off so you can take things in a little better. Maybe it is just gonna be a hard subject for you. Some things that are simple for other guys doctrinally are not so simple for me. We all have our areas. 

Please return if the board isn't taking away from your life. If it is, you should make sure you are doing the work of a Family man first, and a pastor Second. Then you can come play with us. If there is anything left.


----------



## Barnpreacher

puritancovenanter said:


> Ryan,
> 
> No one is going to fault you for struggling with an issue. Many members on this board have changed positions based upon how they perceive the scriptures work. No one here is going to be overly critical if you change your position. Many have. And we are all still friends. If you need a break, take one. You seemed curt in a few places with us. And you do seem over charged at this time. Your accusations of inconsistency seemed rather pointed and frustrated. And they seemed to be rather simple things for us to answer. Maybe they are not as simple for you. Maybe you are pressing yourself to much and you need to back off so you can take things in a little better. Maybe it is just gonna be a hard subject for you. Some things that are simple for other guys doctrinally are not so simple for me. We all have our areas.
> 
> Please return if the board isn't taking away from your life. If it is, you should make sure you are doing the work of a Family man first, and a pastor Second. Then you can come play with us. If there is anything left.




I appreciate that Randy. I really do. I guess I was hurt a little at the accusation of not knowing the Scriptures. My mind was on the Philippian jailor, but I was trying to tie Acts 16 in with Acts 5. I am way overcharged right now.

I just want to get this baptism thing down. It has been a learning experience, but one that definitely hasn't always been easy.

I don't feel like I've ever really fit in here at the Puritan Board. I think part of the problem is how I've come across in the baptism or eschatology threads. I don't mean to be curt or antagonistic. I'm just looking for answers when it comes to baptism and the millennium.

Like I said, it's been a major 180 degree turn I've made. There's no turning back now to my dispensational days and I thank God for that. But a lot about Covenant Theology and its issues of paedobaptism still cause me to struggle. And with all I have on my plate I can't just sit down and try and put it all together at once. 

I really covet everyone's prayers. I don't usually open up like this, but I need brothers and sisters praying for me. And even if I don't post doesn't mean that I won't check out the threads from time to time. 

Thanks.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I will pray Ryan.

I recently came to the conclusion that these conversations tend to belie the division betwen credo- and paedo- baptists on this issue. I recently thought to myself while listening to the Narrow Mind that Gene Cook must really think we don't believe the Gospel the way he's talking right now. The issue is often painted that actual salvation is different for some than it is for others. The fact is that both parties believe that only those united to Christ in His death and resurrection will be saved. I realized the other day that I'm glad I have these discussions only with Reformed Baptists because I would literally go postal if I had to discuss this with a free willer. At least we have the common ground on election.

When you figure that out, it makes the conversations seem less dire.

You fit in the same way I do: joint heirs of Christ.

Blessings!

Rich


----------



## Barnpreacher

SemperFideles said:


> I will pray Ryan.
> 
> I recently came to the conclusion that these conversations tend to belie the division betwen credo- and paedo- baptists on this issue. I recently thought to myself while listening to the Narrow Mind that Gene Cook must really think we don't believe the Gospel the way he's talking right now. The issue is often painted that actual salvation is different for some than it is for others. The fact is that both parties believe that only those united to Christ in His death and resurrection will be saved. I realized the other day that I'm glad I have these discussions only with Reformed Baptists because I would literally go postal if I had to discuss this with a free willer. At least we have the common ground on election.
> 
> When you figure that out, it makes the conversations seem less dire.
> 
> You fit in the same way I do: joint heirs of Christ.
> 
> Blessings!
> 
> Rich




Thank you for those words, Rich. I was just telling Randy that sometimes it gets awful lonely on this island I'm on right now because I really have no one in the ministry that is Reformed who I can talk to face to face about these issues I struggle with. All of the contacts I have made over the years seems to have been fundamental, Independent, dispensational baptists.

Your post is very true, and your prayers are received with great thanks, my Brother.


----------



## VictorBravo

Ryan, please know that I'm one who has been challenged and helped by your posts here. 

And let me echo Rich. The Baptism threads can be the most trying of all on this board because we (credos and paedos) really do want to be obedient to our God's word. I'm grateful that Paul M. has reminded us that there is a real difficulty here that probably won't be resolved until we are united, praising the Worthy Lamb, in glory. Nevertheless, we are brothers in Christ. 

Stay strong, brother, and remember your weaknesses. We all have them. Stay in touch.


----------



## Barnpreacher

victorbravo said:


> Ryan, please know that I'm one who has been challenged and helped by your posts here.
> 
> And let me echo Rich. The Baptism threads can be the most trying of all on this board because we (credos and paedos) really do want to be obedient to our God's word. I'm grateful that Paul M. has reminded us that there is a real difficulty here that probably won't be resolved until we are united, praising the Worthy Lamb, in glory. Nevertheless, we are brothers in Christ.
> 
> Stay strong, brother, and remember your weaknesses. We all have them. Stay in touch.



Thank you very much, Vic. Those were extremely gracious words. 

I'm starting to feel like a pampered baby that needed a little attention. If you guys knew my personality you would laugh because that is just not me. I'm the one that stands in the corner all alone at a dinner party. Even my family get onto me about not opening up enough. I feel like I'm on Dr. Phil tonight.


----------



## VictorBravo

Barnpreacher said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan, please know that I'm one who has been challenged and helped by your posts here.
> 
> And let me echo Rich. The Baptism threads can be the most trying of all on this board because we (credos and paedos) really do want to be obedient to our God's word. I'm grateful that Paul M. has reminded us that there is a real difficulty here that probably won't be resolved until we are united, praising the Worthy Lamb, in glory. Nevertheless, we are brothers in Christ.
> 
> Stay strong, brother, and remember your weaknesses. We all have them. Stay in touch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you very much, Vic. Those were extremely gracious words.
> 
> I'm starting to feel like a pampered baby that needed a little attention. If you guys knew my personality you would laugh because that is just not me. I'm the one that stands in the corner all alone at a dinner party. Even my family get onto me about not opening up enough. I feel like I'm on Dr. Phil tonight.
Click to expand...





Most people don't know that I'm an extreme introvert either. The only difference is that I stand by the food!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

victorbravo said:


> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan, please know that I'm one who has been challenged and helped by your posts here.
> 
> And let me echo Rich. The Baptism threads can be the most trying of all on this board because we (credos and paedos) really do want to be obedient to our God's word. I'm grateful that Paul M. has reminded us that there is a real difficulty here that probably won't be resolved until we are united, praising the Worthy Lamb, in glory. Nevertheless, we are brothers in Christ.
> 
> Stay strong, brother, and remember your weaknesses. We all have them. Stay in touch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you very much, Vic. Those were extremely gracious words.
> 
> I'm starting to feel like a pampered baby that needed a little attention. If you guys knew my personality you would laugh because that is just not me. I'm the one that stands in the corner all alone at a dinner party. Even my family get onto me about not opening up enough. I feel like I'm on Dr. Phil tonight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people don't know that I'm an extreme introvert either. The only difference is that I stand by the food!
Click to expand...


 I am no introvert but I like standing by the food.


----------



## KMK

Paul G. Woods said:


> Baptist brethren, do you believe a five year old has the cognitive ability to have true faith in Christ and be baptized.



This seems like a strange question. Should the questions be, "Do you believe a five year old has the cognitive ability to have true faith in Christ and *therefore *be baptized?"

If you are asking whether it is possible that a 5 year old could have true faith in Christ, then the answer is 'absolutely'! I know several five year olds that have greater faith than myself!

The question as to whether they should be baptized lies in the decision of the elders. 

Personally I don't see any biblical reason to wait. We are baptists. We take the command 'believe and be baptized' literally. If you find a command in the Bible for a probationary period between profession and baptism wouldn't it apply to adults as much, if not more so, as children? Wouldn't we be adding to the word of God by requiring more of children than the Phillipian jailer?

But, once again, the elders must be unified in the decision and I would respect their decision.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

joshua said:


> puritancovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't speak for many Baptists because I have not had much interaction with them. But at the last Baptist Church I attended the Elders and Parents both met together to examine the child to make a decision concerning the child's qualifications or candidacy for baptism. I think that is a wise way to do it because maturity and understanding are arrived at during different ages for each child. I do know of adults who after examination were held off until they had a better grasp of the gospel and how their lives related to it. It should be the same way for children also. And some adults have wanted to be baptised just so they could be members of the Church. Elder examinations are very wise and it was practised in the early church. That is a consistent way of looking at the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not really asking about the practical reasons why, but the _biblical_ substantiation for waiting to baptize a professing child.
> 
> I was converted at age 9 and baptized in a lake a week later.
Click to expand...


Well as I stated earlier Josh... My wife had my kids saying the sinners prayer at age 5. I knew they didn't comprehend the fulness of it. In fact Joshua Caleb just is really coming to fully understand the grips his baptism has on him. He didn't understand the Gospel until the last year or so. I am glad I waited. It was kind of a discipleship thing between he and I. I have made a habit of examining my kids. And watching them to find out most of the time I have perceived things correctly. 

Now concerning your situation I really can't comment on. I didn't know you. I do know of children who were about 9 who were baptised and they did comprehend. I know that because I have seen their lives for the past 7 years. And they went through the situation of parental and Elder examiniation as I have mentioned above. I truly believe the Parent along with the Church Elders can examine and discern what is going on in a persons life. Adults and Children alike. 

You must have been one of the good ones....


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

One more thing Josh... The early church fathers thought it wise to make people go through pre baptism teaching before they were baptised. They even started a thing called exorcism which a person was purified by before he or she was baptised. Baptismal practices in the early church grew into some strange practices. 

This is really a good read and worth your penny to invest in. 

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Baptism-Early-Church-H-Stander/dp/0952791315"]http://www.amazon.com/Baptism-Early-Church-H-Stander/dp/0952791315[/ame]


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

> Originally posted by SemperFideles, I recently came to the conclusion that these conversations tend to belie the division betwen credo- and paedo- baptists on this issue.



In putting forth this question, I was looking for dialogue and other points of view, not amplification of division.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Paul G. Woods
> Baptist brethren, do you believe a five year old has the cognitive ability to have true faith in Christ and be baptized.
> 
> This seems like a strange question. Should the questions be, "Do you believe a five year old has the cognitive ability to have true faith in Christ and therefore be baptized?"
> 
> If you are asking whether it is possible that a 5 year old could have true faith in Christ, then the answer is 'absolutely'! I know several five year olds that have greater faith than myself!
> 
> The question as to whether they should be baptized lies in the decision of the elders.
> 
> Personally I don't see any biblical reason to wait. We are baptists. We take the command 'believe and be baptized' literally. If you find a command in the Bible for a probationary period between profession and baptism wouldn't it apply to adults as much, if not more so, as children? Wouldn't we be adding to the word of God by requiring more of children than the Phillipian jailer?
> 
> But, once again, the elders must be unified in the decision and I would respect their decision.



I could have stated the question differently as KMK noted. The reason I do not put therefore in is because the Bible says


> "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 "For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself." 40 And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation!"
> Acts 2:38-40 (NASB77)



Proffession and baptism go hand in hand.

My five year old was baptized because I refused to tell her that even though the Bible says repent, believe and be baptized it does not mean you. I cannot find anywhere in the Bible where one is to deny baptism to a believer. 

As to voting and church discipline:


> Originally Posted by thunaer ,Think of it like voting in our country... A child can only vote what his parents tell him to vote for, so it is an extension of his parents vote. In essence the parents gets two votes out of it... So our country does not allow for a minor to vote until he is of age... An Age of maturity... An age that he can publicly stand on his own... The same holds true for signing contracts... a Child can not sign a contract.. It is taught to us by Common Grace through Natural law. We also see when a child is no longer a child in the scripture and can stand apart from his parents... When Moses was "of age" he was able to say I am not the son of Pharoah's Daughter. The same in the New Testament regarding the man who was blind and the people went to the parents of the man by what way does this man see and his parents told them He is "Of age" go ask him..... So a child is only an extension of his parents until he is of age.. A Child can only parrot what his parents tell him too... A Child can be toss to and fro by every wind of doctrine whether good or bad. He can be tossed to good doctrine absent of a regenerate heart.... It is hard enough trying to discern if an adult is truly saved HOW much more so for a child.... I believe through the common grace of natural law and the biblical examples of when a child is no longer an extension of his parents and can stand on his own to profess a credible confession then we need to hold off on baptism.
> 
> Also a child who is baptized is a full member of the church with all the voting rights of the church and all the discipline of the church... Are you going to allow a child to vote in serious church affairs for which he has no understanding... Or what if a child said he is saved, gets baptize, and later commits sin... Now he is liable to the church disciple of the church when he should be still under the disciple of the parents...



Our daughter cannot vote concerning the affairs of the church. One can be a member with restrictions. I am a citizen of the US but I have limitations. I could not vote until I was 18. I could not drink until I was 21 and so on and so on. 

Discipline, right now our daughter falls under the discipline of the church through its oversight of the head of the household. If my daughter is in sin and refuses to repent the church goes to the head of the household and discipline is administered by him outside the context of the congregation but possibly before the elders if the situation should warrant.

As a Baptist I will point my daughter back to her baptism and encourage her to improve it much like our Presbyterian brethren do there children(except she will remember her baptism). 

As far as making a case for our maturity before baptism, I believe one could slip into extremes here. Why, maybe one should get a seminary education before he is baptized.

John Piper says it well in a sermon on Romans 5:20 - 6:4, he says,



> One of the great things about this text is that it shows that, if you understand what baptism portrays, you understand what really happened to you when you became a Christian. Many of us came to faith and were baptized at a point when we did not know very much. This is good. It is expected that baptism happens early in the Christian walk when you do not know very much. So it is also expected that you will learn later more and more of what it means.
> 
> Don't think, "Oh, I must go back and get baptized again. I didn't know it had all this meaning." No. No. That would mean you would be getting re-baptized with every new course you take in Biblical theology. Rather, rejoice that you expressed your simple faith in obedience to Jesus and now are learning more and more of what it all meant. That is what Paul is doing here: he is hoping that his readers know what their baptism meant, but he goes ahead and teaches them anyway, in case they don't or have forgotten. Learn from these verses what you once portrayed in the eyes of God, and what actually happened to you in becoming a Christian. http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByTopic/23/998_What_Baptism_Portrays/




If we should baptize an unbeliever, church discipline will take care of that by bringing them to faith and repentance or they will leave the church willingly and have no desire to be a part of the church. I believe in regenerate church membership and that is preserved(though not 100%) through church discipline, not denying baptism. There will be tares among the wheat.

There's my


----------



## Herald

Paul - please forgive me for not weighing in on your thread ealier. 



Paul G. Woods said:


> Baptist brethren, do you believe a five year old has the cognitive ability to have true faith in Christ...



Yes. Normative? No. Possible? Yes.



> ...and be baptized.



If person is saved (child or adult) they are to be baptized. Confidence in a childs salvation rests with the parents and the leadership of the church.



> Do, you believe that God draws His elect out at such a young age to embrace him by faith?



Yes, I do. Again, normative? No.


----------



## Herald

Barnpreacher said:


> PastorFaulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is proof that if you ask 10 different credo's who are the proper recipients of baptism, you'd get 10 different answers.
> 
> At least paedo's are consistent in this area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we all agree that baptism is an ordinance observed when one evidences faith in Christ. This is the biblical model seen through out the book of Acts, and taught clearly in the New Testament. That said goodness knows there are plenty of credo paedo discussions going on. This is really as discussion on when, if an age of accountability exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was not trying to hijack the thread with a credo/paedo discussion. My point was, credo's don't believe that infants are the proper recipients of baptism. But I've just sat here and read that some believe 5 year olds are proper recipients of baptism. Some believe you have to be between 17 and 25 to be proper recipients of baptism. Others probably believe you have to be at least 7 or 8 to be the proper recipient of baptism. Still others would say somewhere between 13-15.
> 
> ?????????
> 
> Where's the consistency?
Click to expand...


Ryan - excellent point. Having participated in a thread that Rich started, it's obvious that Baptists have problems with cohesion in doctrine, especially on baptism. I believe this stems from our independence and disdain of ecclesiastical authority. It's one of the negative aspects of independency. For those Baptist churches that are truly confessional there should be more unity on the issue of Baptism, although there are always going to remain inherent problems. This thread is proof of that. How young is too young to make a profession of faith? How young is too young to be baptized? I'm probably wishing with this next statement, but I would like to see unity among confessional Baptists on these (and other) questions. Would it stop a Baptist from being a Baptist if he was in doctrinal agreement with other Baptists?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

joshua said:


> puritancovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well as I stated earlier Josh... My wife had my kids saying the sinners prayer at age 5. I knew they didn't comprehend the fulness of it. In fact Joshua Caleb just is really coming to fully understand the grips his baptism has on him. He didn't understand the Gospel until the last year or so. I am glad I waited. It was kind of a discipleship thing between he and I. I have made a habit of examining my kids. And watching them to find out most of the time I have perceived things correctly.
> 
> Now concerning your situation I really can't comment on. I didn't know you. I do know of children who were about 9 who were baptised and they did comprehend. I know that because I have seen their lives for the past 7 years. And they went through the situation of parental and Elder examiniation as I have mentioned above. I truly believe the Parent along with the Church Elders can examine and discern what is going on in a persons life. Adults and Children alike.
> 
> You must have been one of the good ones....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> puritancovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more thing Josh... The early church fathers thought it wise to make people go through pre baptism teaching before they were baptised. They even started a thing called exorcism which a person was purified by before he or she was baptised. Baptismal practices in the early church grew into some strange practices.
> 
> This is really a good read and worth your penny to invest in.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Baptism-Early-Church-H-Stander/dp/0952791315
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No offense, Randy, but I'm still waiting for a _scriptural_ case supporting the aforementioned subect matter. Where is it even implied in Scripture, by good and necessary inference/consequence, to have this waiting period of which has been discussed in the thread.
Click to expand...



Josh, I am not sure you can find one. I have just taken it upon myself as a parent to discern where my kids are and to try to assess their standing before God by what they exhibit. I surely don't want them to make a false confession or be baptised so that they could be a member of the Church just for status sake. I think that is a damnable thing to do whether it be a child or adult. It would be like partaking of the LORD's Table in an unworthy manner in my estimation. Is it full proof? No. But it is my responsibility to make sure they are right and to train them up right and honest? Yes, to the best of my ability. And it is my responsibility to keep them from making decisions based upon a wrong motive? Yes it is.

I am called to train them up in the way they should go.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

My daughter came to my room one night around 2 am when she was about 7 years old. She was crying and told me she couldn't sleep. She told me through her tears that she was not saved that that she was afraid of going to hell. I told her to repent of her sin and look unto Jesus to save her and trust only in him to save her and keep her. I prayed with her asked the Lord to open her eyes and give her the faith to believe. I can still here her little voice crying Jesus, please save me, Jesus please save me. She was baptized about a month later.
She's 19 now. She has manifested the grace of Christ in her life since that time and has managed for the most part, though not perfectly, to control youthfull lusts that hinder the service of many her age. The Lord has truly blessed me through my daughter and we have a great relationship. She's even hinted to me about going to the mission field.
Yes, I believe that young children can truly believe.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

joshua said:


> puritancovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be like partaking of the LORD's Table in an unworthy manner in my estimation.
> 
> 
> 
> But we have a _biblical _reason and command concerning this. I don't see how something can be _damnable_ (your words) and yet not be commanded (either explicit or by implication) or addressed in Scripture.
Click to expand...



Josh.. Do you believe someone can be blaspheming God by being Baptised when their heart is not right with God, knowingly or unknowingly? And wouldn't it be better to discover this before they stepped over the cliff, so to speak?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Paul G. Woods said:


> Originally posted by SemperFideles, I recently came to the conclusion that these conversations tend to belie the division betwen credo- and paedo- baptists on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In putting forth this question, I was looking for dialogue and other points of view, not amplification of division.
Click to expand...

Paul,

My comments were meant to encourage Ryan - not to discourage you in starting the thread.


----------



## Herald

Blueridge Baptist said:


> My daughter came to my room one night around 2 am when she was about 7 years old. She was crying and told me she couldn't sleep. She told me through her tears that she was not saved that that she was afraid of going to hell. I told her to repent of her sin and look unto Jesus to save her and trust only in him to save her and keep her. I prayed with her asked the Lord to open her eyes and give her the faith to believe. I can still here her little voice crying Jesus, please save me, Jesus please save me. She was baptized about a month later.
> She's 19 now. She has manifested the grace of Christ in her life since that time and has managed for the most part, though not perfectly, to control youthfull lusts that hinder the service of many her age. The Lord has truly blessed me through my daughter and we have a great relationship. She's even hinted to me about going to the mission field.
> Yes, I believe that young children can truly believe.



Brother James - amen! Thank you for that post. My Bethany provided a similar experience. At five years old she came home from the first day of Christian School (K-5) and told her mom that she accepted Christ in class. Apparently the teacher shared the gospel with the students to start off the school year. My wife was excited, but I was more sober. It was a few years later when Bethany truly had a changing experience; recognizing her sinfulness and placing her faith solely on Christ. As with your daughter, Bethany has displayed the evidence of faith in her life. She has been a joy that words cannot express. I understand this is anecdotal and has little to do with the OP, but this is where our theology hits the road and leaves the theoretical.


----------



## Herald

joshua said:


> puritancovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we have a _biblical _reason and command concerning this. I don't see how something can be _damnable_ (your words) and yet not be commanded (either explicit or by implication) or addressed in Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Josh.. Do you believe someone can be blaspheming God by being Baptised when their heart is not right with God, knowingly or unknowingly? And wouldn't it be better to discover this before they stepped over the cliff, so to speak?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Randy, such is irrelevant, in that I cannot possibly know if their baptism would be "blasphemous" or not. I'm just asking for a biblical case for waiting up to years to baptize a professor of faith.
Click to expand...


Josh - I can't speak for Randy, God knows his heart, but I I don't know of a good biblical reason for withholding baptism upon a credible profession of faith. Perhaps the angst in the conversation has more do with what constitutes a credible profession as opposed to withholding baptism. But as far as refusing baptism to a child or adult who has made a credible profession, I don't believe there is scriptural warrant. 

Believe and be baptized.


----------



## KMK

There are several baptists in this thread whose comments suggest that they believe that the decision of whether or not to baptize is the father's to make. I am all for patriarchy but where does the Bible teach that it is the father's decision to baptize? Baptism is an ordinance given to the church, not the family. I am sure that the elders of the church would want the parents' opinions, but it is ultimately up to the elders. (Unless there is something I am not seeing)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Perhaps the angst in the conversation has more do with what constitutes a credible profession as opposed to withholding baptism. But as far as refusing baptism to a child or adult who has made a credible profession, I don't believe there is scriptural warrant.
> 
> Believe and be baptized.



AMEN and


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

joshua said:


> I've also always been curious, since I've grown up as Baptist-by-Default, what constitutes a credible profession?



Do you believe you have a credible profession of your faith Josh? What does that look like to you?


----------



## Herald

joshua said:


> I've also always been curious, since I've grown up as Baptist-by-Default, what constitutes a credible profession?



Josh - I'll take a stab at it.

Allow me to quote Charles Spurgeon in a message titled, "Baptism, Essential to Obedience."



> Why do you suppose that baptism is put into this prominent position? I think that it is for this reason, *Baptism is the outward expression of the inward faith.* *He who believes in Christ with his heart confesses his faith before God and before the Church of God by being baptized. *Now, the faith that speaks thus is not a dumb faith; it is not a cowardly faith; it is not a sneaking faith. Paul puts the matter thus, "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."
> 
> 
> *But why is confession so necessary to prove true faith? I answer that it is necessary to the very existence of the Church of God; for, if I may be a believer, and never confess my faith, you may be a believer, and never confess your faith, and all round we should thus have a company of men believing, and none of them confessing; and where would be the outward ordinances of the Church of Christ at all? Where would be any minister? Where would be the setting up and growing of the kingdom of Christ? For a hundred reasons, it is absolutely needful for Christ’s kingdom that the believer should openly confess his faith.* Do you not see that? And hence baptism, being God’s way of our openly confessing our faith, he requires it to be added to faith, that the faith may be a confessing faith, not a cowardly faith; that the faith may be an open faith, not a private faith; that so the faith may be a working faith, influencing our life, and the life of others, and not a mere secret attempt for self-salvation by a silent faith which dares not own Christ. Remember those words of the Lord Jesus, "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me" (and in that place it means, "he who does not confess me") "before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." There is, therefore, no regenerating efficacy about water, or about immersion, or about baptism in any shape or form; but it is needful as the outward visible expression of the inward spiritual faith by which the soul is saved.



Spurgeon believed that baptism itself was an expression of faith. He also believed that baptism was to follow regeneration. I would argue that the paedo would look for evidence of salvation (a credible profession) in an adult candidate for baptism. I know paedos who have said just that. I am suggesting that children and adults be eliminated as separate categories in regards to baptism. If baptism is an expression of faith (as argued by Spurgeon), then I want to make sure that the applicant for baptism can articulate their faith in a convincing manner. And unless there is evidence of blatant sin that would belie their faith I see no reason why baptism should be withheld.


----------



## Calvibaptist

joshua said:


> I've also always been curious, since I've grown up as Baptist-by-Default, what constitutes a credible profession?



That, I think, is the crux of the matter. Unfortunately, I think if you ask 15 different Baptists (or Presbyterians) you will get 15 different answers, especially when talking about children. The problem with children is that they can simply say things so that they please whatever adult is asking them. Adults tend to ask leading questions to children in these types of cases.

I think if a child understands that they are a sinner and have offended a holy God, they understand the cross of Christ, repent and believe, we can in all probability assume (dangerous word!) that this is a credible profession. I see no biblical warrant for withholding Baptism from this child.


----------



## Herald

joshua said:


> puritancovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've also always been curious, since I've grown up as Baptist-by-Default, what constitutes a credible profession?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe you have a credible profession of your faith Josh? What does that look like to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are we using the socratic method?
> 
> I simply want to know the biblical criterion for discerning what is a "credible" profession of faith? Did the apostles and early church practice this? This is a sincere question.
Click to expand...


1689 LBC:

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. 
( Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36, 37; Acts 2:41; Acts 8:12; Acts 18:8 ) *<---- Scriptural Support*

WCF:

Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.

Aside from the paedo implications of the WCF, what is the material difference between the LBC and the WCF on baptizing a professed believer? And what profession that would qualify for baptism would be considered anything short of credible?

Josh - it is easy to move past the "believe" part of "believe and be baptized." I'm simply making a case that the applicant for baptism show evidence that they have believed. This need not be a formal process that involves a class followed by a waiting period. It may be as simple as an on the spot evaluation of their faith. Certainly this is what happened in Acts.


----------



## Herald

joshua said:


> NOTE: I'm not asking these questions within the context of Credo-Only or Paedo-Baptism.
> 
> Bill, as I understand thus far, I agree with both you and Pastor Mixer...in that you've both said you wouldn't have some kind of waiting period based on age.
> 
> On the other hand, it seems that Michael (thunaer) and Randy think it fine to withold until a certain age. These are the instances about which I'm asking.



Josh - I understand brother. I wanted to find some common ground between both theological camps on the what consitutes a credible profession. I thought that would give a proper perspective.

As to Michael and Randy - well there is the inherent problem of being baptistic rearing it's head again. I believe if Baptists were _truly_ confessional there would more unity and less discontinuity on this issue.


----------



## Iconoclast

*gifts*

One complicating factor in this discussion is that many times there was an outward sign gift
that was manifested when someone believed. There would be a vision or tongue as a sign to the unbelieving Jewish people, to show that gentiles had indeed received the Holy Spirit
|After the apostles they would perhaps wait until any fruit the Spirit, or grace gifts became evident.


----------



## KMK

Calvibaptist said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've also always been curious, since I've grown up as Baptist-by-Default, what constitutes a credible profession?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That, I think, is the crux of the matter. Unfortunately, I think if you ask 15 different Baptists (or Presbyterians) you will get 15 different answers, especially when talking about children. The problem with *children* is that they can simply say things so that they please whatever adult is asking them.
Click to expand...


You may as well change that word to 'people'.


----------



## Iconoclast

*yes*

|Joshua
Yes. In 1tim. Paul gives much instruction concerning false teachers 
1tim1:3-11, 19,20 
1tim 5:3-12 widows who were widows indeed,exhibiting grace gifts
1tim6:3-6 contentious ,fleshly men
1tim 3:1-13 qualifications of office bearers
|They were to look for grace gifts, to qualify, or dis-qualify them


----------



## KMK

> Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.





> 1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God...





> 1 John 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.





> Matt 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.



I don't think it is that easy to make a false confession. The Bible teaches that there are hypocrites and thieves of course but by and large I think confessions are trustworthy. (Or nonconfessions for that matter)

I know in my unregenerated days it would be unthinkable for me to go around telling people that I loved Jesus Christ. We don't have to make things so hard in my very humble opinion.


----------



## turmeric

I grew up Baptist, then we switched to Pentecostal. I made a profession, got re-dedicated, got baptized and was supposedly "baptized in the Spirit", and during this whole time I was unregenerate! I didn't do it on purpose, the thing is that if one is uregenerate, it's possible not to realize that. After all, you don't know what it's like to be regenerate, how would you know the difference?

Well, a few years ago thank God, I found out...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Josh, 

Would you as a Pastor Baptize a gentleman who had not repented of sin. Was living a sinful life with a woman. An habitual liar, who says he wants to be baptized and it is obvious he just wants to become a member of your church so he can fleece the women by wearing a Sunday suite. I do know guys who have done this. I do think we are called to be careful of wolves in sheep clothing. 

Children and even teens can have false motives. And I believe the Pastor is suppose to guard and guide the sheep. Repentance is usually pretty obvious even in a child. Something just changes in their attitude toward spiritual things.

2 Corinthians 5:17


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

joshua said:


> puritancovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Josh,
> 
> Would you as a Pastor Baptize a gentleman who had not repented of sin. Was living a sinful life with a woman. An habitual liar, who says he wants to be baptized and it is obvious he just wants to become a member of your church so he can fleece the women by wearing a Sunday suite. I do know guys who have done this. I do think we are called to be careful of wolves in sheep clothing.
> 
> Children and even teens can have false motives. And I believe the Pastor is suppose to guard and guide the sheep. Repentance is usually pretty obvious even in a child. Something just changes in their attitude toward spiritual things.
> 
> 2 Corinthians 5:17
> 
> 
> 
> He says he wants to be baptized? That's hardly a confession/profession of faith, Randy.
Click to expand...



That is my point. I have seen people pray a prayer to get gain as Paul saw people preach Christ to get gain.


----------



## Iconoclast

|Joshua,
I was giving you examples of where they were looking at the conduct of these persons in reference to whether or not their was evidence of the indwelling spirit, not for their baptism.
What I meant before was, after the apostles were gone from the first century and signs of the apostles ceased. I believe it would be more difficult and might take some time to see what was easily seen in Acts 10:43-47

43To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. 

44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 

45And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 

46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 

47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 

48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

They saw it. it was instantly visible. Not so today.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

joshua said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> |Joshua,
> I was giving you examples of where they were looking at the conduct of these persons in reference to whether or not their was evidence of the indwelling spirit, not for their baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about withholding baptism. Not observing the fruit of a person (or lack thereof).
> 
> 
> 
> They saw it. it was instantly visible. Not so today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What of Simon the Magician? Did they miss him? Do you suppose everyone the Apostles baptized was regenerate?
Click to expand...



I am not sure you are asking the right question here? Were baptisms which were performed by the apostles and church fathers always correct? Could they have done something they regretted? Peter did some things he later regretted. Even doctrinally. So could they have regretted they baptized Simon the magician. I am not sure that Simon didn't just have a lapse into sin and greed because he pleads with Peter to pray for him. 

If a child's profession/confession meets up with their life, by george go ahead and baptize.


----------



## Wannabee

I think there are some culturally significant factors that are being overlooked here. 

Historically, and geographically, it is dangerous to be identified as a Christian. That, in and of itself, it a major deterrent to being baptized. Here it can easily be a social "blessing," so to speak. If my friends are doing it, then I want to also. It's just what we do. Say a prayer and be baptized. After all, how many have you baptized this year? Because of these factors baptism has become muddled in many circles within our country, and I'm sure many other countries. 
In China to be baptized can be your warrant for arrest. If you are Jewish then you can be considered dead by your family. If you are from a Muslim family you can be killed, beaten or ostracized. If you're in a Catholic family you can be disowned. Etc. But if you're a typical American family you might get a certificate and party for being baptized. 
In most of the world there can be difficult ramifications if one is baptized. That, in and of itself, is a deterrent to false professions resulting in the baptism of the unregenerate. Of course it's not fool proof. But it is a factor. Here there is no such deterrent. It's socially acceptable, and encouraged in many circles. It makes one need to consider baptism from a slightly different perspective. This is the challenge we face when children are involved. The last thing we want is to give them a false sense of security, as if baptism was some sort of magical spell or something.
Case in point - A friend just returned from Croatia. A young girl, about 14, has professed that she believes what is being taught, but she refuses to receive Christ. When asked why, she said her parents, Catholic, would not allow it and would kick her out of her family. We simply don't have to face this sort of pressure here. For her, to be baptized would be to become an orphan.

Another consideration is that baptism is an essential part of the Gospel. We divorce it for some reason, as though it is parenthetical. We want to get to sin, guilt, the cross and forgiveness, but often forget to identify Christ with the one we're witnessing to, and identify him with Christ. Does baptism portray this or not? If so, then why do we not weave it into our evangelistic efforts so that this confusion is less likely? I hadn't thought about that until just recently when a missionary friend of mine said that this is what they do. In doing so the one being witnessed to will have a clear understanding of the commitment being made by their profession through baptism.

Finally, it seems that the wrong question comes up repeatedly in regard to credo/paedo. Paedos agree that new believers should be baptized, so they see no fault in the Baptist position of baptizing believers. They take issue with us not baptizing infants. We have nothing to defend. We practice believers baptism, which all agree on. The claimant says that infant baptism is Scriptural. The burden of proof falls 100% in their lab to prove, incontrovertibly, that Scripture clearly teaches infant baptism. If they cannot then their is no debate. If they can then there is no debate. From our perspective they're still looking for a few good verses. 

Well, it's late and I'm tired too. I hope my musing made sense.


----------



## Jim Johnston

There are no good reasons for a baptist to withhold baptism from a child who professes faith.

Adults are often more coy and able to hide their true heart.

Children belive what their parents tell them. I mean, they even believe in Santa Clause. They honestly and truly do - if that's what they've been taught. None of us would say that they don't believe in Santa. But, when it comes to Jesus, we say that they cannot believe this. But why not? God made them to function properly when they believe and listen to their parents (this is expecially helpful when we tell them not to drink bleach!).

Given my view of warrant and knowledge, I don't see any reason to say that a child who has been taught by their parents that they are a sinner, that they need Jesus as their only hope in life and death, doesn't really believe that. Now, the only thing lacking is a big emotional experience where they walk down the isle and prostrate themselve's, "prooving" that they are probably on eof the elect.

Lastly, it's the example of the Bible - immediate baptisms, that is. I see no warrant to include all these speculations about people in the times of the Apostles being really sincere. In fact, this should undermine the profession = probable election argument all the more. In the time when professors were supposed to have made the most credible of professions, apostacy and turning away seemed rampant! After all look at Hebrews. Look at Paul pointing out how many have forsaken him. I can keep going.

The point is, I see no warrant to withhold baptism from someone who professes. In fact, to do so really undermines the Baptist's other argument from Scriptural examples i.e., "everyine who was baptized repented and believed." To use this as normative, but not the other -immediate baptisms - smacks of arbitrariness.


----------



## 5solasmom

The idea that my child was able to have a "valid" conversion at a young age but that it was better to "wait" to give them baptism was always a major cog in my theological wheel as a former credobaptist. I knew all the "reasonable" and "pragmatic" reasons why they should wait....but the reality was that I was looking for adult like faith in a child - when God Himself uses a child's faith as the example of what adults should possess! That was a serious chastisement to me. I was teaching my child that adult like faith was not only the goal but the bar for my child - who was obviously unable to reach that as a child! I was teaching them that the the church would only "validate" (through baptism) adult faith. To me, that was teaching that my child was not worthy of the kingdom YET....


----------



## MW

5solasmom said:


> I was teaching my child that adult like faith was not only the goal but the bar for my child - who was obviously unable to reach that as a child! I was teaching them that the the church would only "validate" (through baptism) adult faith. To me, that was teaching that my child was not worthy of the kingdom YET....



This is really the crux of the matter. It is not working faith that justifies, but receiving faith.


----------



## Herald

Tom Bombadil said:


> There are no good reasons for a baptist to withhold baptism from a child who professes faith.



Paul - as a Baptist, I concur. I would be in agreement with a statement made by Bruce:



> ...we will baptize an adult who gives us a credible profession of faith.



If the profession is credible (meaning that the profession displays satisfactory evidence of being real) then baptism should be administered without undue delay. I would apply this rule to believing children and adults as I see no material difference in the work of faith in anyone who believes.

That still leaves us with an inherent credo-paedo disagreement, and I am at peace with that. But it seems, at least to you and I, that we have an agreement on not withholding baptism to a child who has made a credible profession.


----------



## Jim Johnston

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no good reasons for a baptist to withhold baptism from a child who professes faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul - as a Baptist, I concur. I would be in agreement with a statement made by Bruce:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...we will baptize an adult who gives us a credible profession of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the profession is credible (meaning that the profession displays satisfactory evidence of being real) then baptism should be administered without undue delay. I would apply this rule to believing children and adults as I see no material difference in the work of faith in anyone who believes.
> 
> That still leaves us with an inherent credo-paedo disagreement, and I am at peace with that. But it seems, at least to you and I, that we have an agreement on not withholding baptism to a child who has made a credible profession.
Click to expand...



We are agreed. And, we both disagree with credobaptists Mark Dever and Charles Spurgeon! For Dever's view, read his chapter in "Believer's Baptism" edited by Schreiner and Wright.

But, just to be fair, both you and I agree with eachother about the proper subjects of Lord's Table and disagree with Paedobaptists G.I. Williamson and Vern Poythress!

Anyway, Bill, it looks like we only have about 2.5-3 yrs. to whittle away at before you become a paedo!


----------



## Herald

Tom Bombadil said:


> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no good reasons for a baptist to withhold baptism from a child who professes faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul - as a Baptist, I concur. I would be in agreement with a statement made by Bruce:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...we will baptize an adult who gives us a credible profession of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the profession is credible (meaning that the profession displays satisfactory evidence of being real) then baptism should be administered without undue delay. I would apply this rule to believing children and adults as I see no material difference in the work of faith in anyone who believes.
> 
> That still leaves us with an inherent credo-paedo disagreement, and I am at peace with that. But it seems, at least to you and I, that we have an agreement on not withholding baptism to a child who has made a credible profession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We are agreed. And, we both disagree with credobaptists Mark Dever and Charles Spurgeon! For Dever's view, read his chapter in "Believer's Baptism" edited by Schreiner and Wright.
> 
> But, just to be fair, both you and I agree with eachother about the proper subjects of Lord's Table and disagree with Paedobaptists G.I. Williamson and Vern Poythress!
> 
> Anyway, Bill, it looks like we only have about 2.5-3 yrs. to whittle away at before you become a paedo!
Click to expand...


Funny Paul....I was gonna say the same thing to you? 

I may disagree with Dever and Spurgeon, but I believe I am faithul to the 1689 LBC.

Peace, brother!


----------



## Pilgrim

joshua said:


> Does anyone have any new thoughts concerning the subject matter of this thread?



I haven't read the whole thread, but I see this controversy among Baptists as being similar to the issue of young child (not necessarily paedocommunion) issue among Presbyterians, where there is increasingly a move to accept "age appropriate" professions from young children and admit them to the table. Some of those advocating this, like Raymond, are doing it to get as close to paedocommunion as their church permits and others are opposed to paedocommunion. Likewise, some baptists like Paige Patterson and Mark Dever have referred to the increasingly popular practice of baptising pre-schoolers and kindergardeners as essentially late stage paedobaptism.


----------



## toddpedlar

thunaer said:


> I do not have a problem with baptizing an adult with a profession of faith like the jailer or Philip.... They were mature and were "Of age" to speak for themselves and able to make a credible profession of faith... A child can make a profession of faith, but not a credible profession of faith... An adult can say I stand with the people of God and here is my testimony but a child only does what his parents want him to do and is unable to make a public stand that is credible......
> 
> Think of it like voting in our country... A child can only vote what his parents tell him to vote for, so it is an extension of his parents vote. In essence the parents gets two votes out of it... So our country does not allow for a minor to vote until he is of age... An Age of maturity... An age that he can publicly stand on his own... The same holds true for signing contracts... a Child can not sign a contract.. It is taught to us by Common Grace through Natural law. We also see when a child is no longer a child in the scripture and can stand apart from his parents... When Moses was "of age" he was able to say I am not the son of Pharoah's Daughter. The same in the New Testament regarding the man who was blind and the people went to the parents of the man by what way does this man see and his parents told them He is "Of age" go ask him..... So a child is only an extension of his parents until he is of age.. A Child can only parrot what his parents tell him too... A Child can be toss to and fro by every wind of doctrine whether good or bad. He can be tossed to good doctrine absent of a regenerate heart.... It is hard enough trying to discern if an adult is truly saved HOW much more so for a child.... I believe through the common grace of natural law and the biblical examples of when a child is no longer an extension of his parents and can stand on his own to profess a credible confession then we need to hold off on baptism.



Seems you have a pretty cynical view of what a child can understand, and what his words mean... 



> Also a child who is baptized is a full member of the church with all the voting rights of the church and all the discipline of the church... Are you going to allow a child to vote in serious church affairs for which he has no understanding... Or what if a child said he is saved, gets baptize, and later commits sin... Now he is liable to the church disciple of the church when he should be still under the disciple of the parents...



Much of what you say depends quite strongly on a congregationalistic/baptistic polity. In an ecclesiastical setting in which all matters of any importance are voted on, with the decision going to the democratic majority, there is certainly a problem if all members in full are given the vote. However, this polity isn't required (or even in my opinion preferable) and so to argue against infant baptism based on this kind of polity is a bit logically off.


----------



## Herald

> *1689 London Baptist Confession on Baptism*
> 
> Chapter 29: Of Baptism
> 
> 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.
> ( Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2;12; Galatians 3:27; Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:4 )
> 
> 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.
> ( Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36, 37; Acts 2:41; Acts 8:12; Acts 18:8 )
> 
> 3. The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, wherein the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
> ( Matthew 28:19, 20; Acts 8:38 )
> 
> 4. Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance. ( Matthew 3:16; John 3:23 )



This is the Baptist confession of faith. If you are a Baptist, and are truly confessional, you need to wrestle with this chapter. According to the LBC, what is required for Baptism?



> 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.



In my humble opinion the term "credible profession" is used by paedos to attack the credo argument. Credos are partly to blame for this because they have gone beyond the clear teaching of scripture (ala the 1689 LBC) and added what is not there. Can a five year old "profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ"? The more I think about it the more I am convinced that question starts with a false premise. Is age the determining factor in baptism or is it repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ? If it's the latter (which I hold to) then it is the responsibility of the pastor and elders to determine, to the best of their ability, that an individual possess the repentance, faith and obedience that the LBC speaks about in reference to baptism. It is the same standard that a paedo pastor and elder would use in determining whether to baptize an adult convert. Unfortunately the majority of Baptists are not confessional which has resulted in problems regarding the administration of baptism.


----------



## Coram Deo

Wow, this is an old resurrected thread.......

A few thoughts...... I am Presbyterian in Government not Congregational... I am also heavily leaning towards Pouring or Sprinkling as the Mode of Baptism, Not Immersion... Now with that said in regards to the rest of my old post...

I am currently uncertain _as of this week_ as to the *"WHO"* of Baptism. There are a few things I need to think through logically. 

Even if what I said previously still holds up in my thinking I had already lowered the Age of Maturity to between 14 and 15 years of Age from 17 years of age due to my understanding of Marriageable Age in Ezekiel 16.

I am holding off further comments right now....







toddpedlar said:


> thunaer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not have a problem with baptizing an adult with a profession of faith like the jailer or Philip.... They were mature and were "Of age" to speak for themselves and able to make a credible profession of faith... A child can make a profession of faith, but not a credible profession of faith... An adult can say I stand with the people of God and here is my testimony but a child only does what his parents want him to do and is unable to make a public stand that is credible......
> 
> Think of it like voting in our country... A child can only vote what his parents tell him to vote for, so it is an extension of his parents vote. In essence the parents gets two votes out of it... So our country does not allow for a minor to vote until he is of age... An Age of maturity... An age that he can publicly stand on his own... The same holds true for signing contracts... a Child can not sign a contract.. It is taught to us by Common Grace through Natural law. We also see when a child is no longer a child in the scripture and can stand apart from his parents... When Moses was "of age" he was able to say I am not the son of Pharoah's Daughter. The same in the New Testament regarding the man who was blind and the people went to the parents of the man by what way does this man see and his parents told them He is "Of age" go ask him..... So a child is only an extension of his parents until he is of age.. A Child can only parrot what his parents tell him too... A Child can be toss to and fro by every wind of doctrine whether good or bad. He can be tossed to good doctrine absent of a regenerate heart.... It is hard enough trying to discern if an adult is truly saved HOW much more so for a child.... I believe through the common grace of natural law and the biblical examples of when a child is no longer an extension of his parents and can stand on his own to profess a credible confession then we need to hold off on baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems you have a pretty cynical view of what a child can understand, and what his words mean...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also a child who is baptized is a full member of the church with all the voting rights of the church and all the discipline of the church... Are you going to allow a child to vote in serious church affairs for which he has no understanding... Or what if a child said he is saved, gets baptize, and later commits sin... Now he is liable to the church disciple of the church when he should be still under the disciple of the parents...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much of what you say depends quite strongly on a congregationalistic/baptistic polity. In an ecclesiastical setting in which all matters of any importance are voted on, with the decision going to the democratic majority, there is certainly a problem if all members in full are given the vote. However, this polity isn't required (or even in my opinion preferable) and so to argue against infant baptism based on this kind of polity is a bit logically off.
Click to expand...


----------



## Pilgrim

BaptistInCrisis said:


> *1689 London Baptist Confession on Baptism*
> 
> Chapter 29: Of Baptism
> 
> 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.
> ( Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2;12; Galatians 3:27; Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:4 )
> 
> 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.
> ( Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36, 37; Acts 2:41; Acts 8:12; Acts 18:8 )
> 
> 3. The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, wherein the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
> ( Matthew 28:19, 20; Acts 8:38 )
> 
> 4. Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance. ( Matthew 3:16; John 3:23 )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the Baptist confession of faith. If you are a Baptist, and are truly confessional, you need to wrestle with this chapter. According to the LBC, what is required for Baptism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my humble opinion the term "credible profession" is used by paedos to attack the credo argument. Credos are partly to blame for this because they have gone beyond the clear teaching of scripture (ala the 1689 LBC) and added what is not there. Can a five year old "profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ"? The more I think about it the more I am convinced that question starts with a false premise. Is age the determining factor in baptism or is it repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ? If it's the latter (which I hold to) then it is the responsibility of the pastor and elders to determine, to the best of their ability, that an individual possess the repentance, faith and obedience that the LBC speaks about in reference to baptism. It is the same standard that a paedo pastor and elder would use in determining whether to baptize an adult convert. Unfortunately the majority of Baptists are not confessional which has resulted in problems regarding the administration of baptism.
Click to expand...


To confuse things further, it seems that the prevailing practice in Particular Baptist churches until around the turn of the 20th century if not later was to wait until children were in their late teens to baptize although evidently this is not explicitly spelled out in the LBCF. As someone stated earlier, perhaps the congregational polity, with all members voting, was an issue. Church discipline was much more widely practiced then and church membership was seen as a much more serious matter than it typically is today.


----------



## Herald

> A few thoughts...... I am Presbyterian in Government not Congregational... I am also heavily leaning towards Pouring or Sprinkling as the Mode of Baptism, Not Immersion... Now with that said in regards to the rest of my old post...



Michael, then you are not a confessional Baptist. The confession clearly states:



> Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.



I know this seems like I'm straining a gnat, but the mode of baptism is not optional for a Baptist. Michael, it seems like you're holding on to the last vestiges of being a Baptist before crossing over to Presbyterianism. That's not a criticism, just an observation.


----------



## KMK

BaptistInCrisis said:


> In my humble opinion the term "credible profession" is used by paedos to attack the credo argument. Credos are partly to blame for this because they have gone beyond the clear teaching of scripture (ala the 1689 LBC) and added what is not there. Can a five year old "profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ"? The more I think about it the more I am convinced that question starts with a false premise. Is age the determining factor in baptism or is it repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ? If it's the latter (which I hold to) *then it is the responsibility of the pastor and elders to determine*, to the best of their ability, that an individual possess the repentance, faith and obedience that the LBC speaks about in reference to baptism. It is the same standard that a paedo pastor and elder would use in determining whether to baptize an adult convert. Unfortunately the majority of Baptists are not confessional which has resulted in problems regarding the administration of baptism.



I think this is the important part. Unity among the elders of a particular church should be more important in a Baptist's mind than uniformity with other churches. These things should be considered on a case by case basis.

Also, it is the elders job to make the determination, not the parents. Not that the parents shouldn't have imput, of course. But the elders should not be in subjection to the wishes of the parents. 

Question: What do elders do with parents who do not agree with the elders that their child has repented before God, and faith in and obedience to Jesus Christ and should be baptized? The same question could be made for Paedos as well. Would this be a matter of church discipline?


----------



## Herald

> Question: What do elders do with parents who do not agree with the elders that their child has repented before God, and faith in and obedience to Jesus Christ and should be baptized? The same question could be made for Paedos as well. Would this be a matter of church discipline?



Ken, if a parent believes their child is ready to be baptized and the elders determine that the child does not display, "repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ", then the child is not to be baptized. It should be the same for an adult who wishes to be baptized. After counsel from the elders the parents should submit to the decision of the church. If they persist in their disagreement and make an issue of it then discipline would be appropriate. If the elders believe a child displays the evidence of saving faith, and the parents refuse to allow the child to be baptized, then discipline would be appropriate only after the parents are counseled by the elders and then still refuse to allow their child to be baptized.


----------



## Coram Deo

If you were to call me a Non-Baptist a year ago I would have been offended... If you were to call me a Non-Baptist a week ago I would have said you were crazy.

I just have alot of uncertainty right now... I was reading Vos's Commentary on the Westminster Larger Catechism the other night and a few things stood out at me... A number of questions arose with regards to Jeremiah 31:34 and some questions with regards to Abraham's Covenant and Baptism.... So I do not know if I am on the path to Paedobaptism or Not at this time.....

But if in the end I still come out as a CredoBaptist, I totally disagree with you that the mode of baptism is not optional... It might not be So optional for the 1689 Baptist Confession but that is not the only baptist confession and Particular Baptist are not the only "Baptist" group in the world.

I have found out that the English Baptist with a small minority group of Dunker Baptist on the Continent of Europe are the only Immersionist groups of Baptist. That is a staggering minority of Baptistic Groups.....

Many Baptistic Groups on the Continent of Europe historically and those who are descended from the those Baptistic Groups here in America and Abroad STILL Pour or Sprinkle for Baptism.... From Mennonite to Amish to German Baptist to other Baptistic groups who are all CredoBaptist but Sprinkle and as I have learned more recently symbolizes pouring forth or Sprinkling of the Spirit of God on the Baptized..

Even the English Baptist did not accept Immersion until almost 50 years after the first Baptist Church in England....

So to Say that Immersion is required to be a Baptist is unsupported by the historical data....






BaptistInCrisis said:


> I know this seems like I'm straining a gnat, but the mode of baptism is not optional for a Baptist. Michael, it seems like you're holding on to the last vestiges of being a Baptist before crossing over to Presbyterianism. That's not a criticism, just an observation.


----------



## KMK

joshua said:


> Other than a confession, and a desire to be Baptized, what constitutes a "credible profession?" What was the Apostles' practice?



Ummm "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be baptized"?


----------



## Davidius

KMK said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other than a confession, and a desire to be Baptized, what constitutes a "credible profession?" What was the Apostles' practice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be baptized"?
Click to expand...


Are you sure it wasn't "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, be examined for 7 years, and then be baptized?" That's what happened at Pentecost, right?

Come on, guys. Jesus suffered the little children to come to him, and said that our faith should be like theirs. Small children may not be ready for the meat, but I have no idea where some people are getting that a five-year-old can't understand simple propositions. The bible never talks about an "intellectual difficulty" of the message. It is merely sin that causes us not to want what God has.


----------



## KMK

Davidius said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other than a confession, and a desire to be Baptized, what constitutes a "credible profession?" What was the Apostles' practice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be baptized"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure it wasn't "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, be examined for 7 years, and then be baptized?" That's what happened at Pentecost, right?
> 
> Come on, guys. Jesus suffered the little children to come to him, and said that our faith should be like theirs. Small children may not be ready for the meat, but I have no idea where some people are getting that a five-year-old can't understand simple propositions. The bible never talks about an "intellectual difficulty" of the message. It is merely sin that causes us not to want what God has.
Click to expand...


I agree. And I would go one step further that children might have an easier time believing than adults! Adults normally have years and years of truth suppression under their belts. They have numerous strongholds and high things erected that exalt themselves against the gospel. 

BTW, David brings up an interesting point about Pentecost. Can you imagine what it would have been like to baptize three thousand people at one time? Will any of us live to see a similar revival?


----------



## Barnpreacher

joshua said:


> Does anyone have any new thoughts concerning the subject matter of this thread?



Yes:

1. It really is true that no prisoners escaped in Acts 16 - I looked it up.  (That may have been my most boneheaded post of all time) 

2. It makes me chuckle to re-read my "I'm leaving the PB" post being as how I stayed gone all of a few weeks.  (That may have been my second most boneheaded post of all time)

3. I still believe that many baptists are inconsistent in their understanding of baptism.


----------



## Herald

Davidius said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other than a confession, and a desire to be Baptized, what constitutes a "credible profession?" What was the Apostles' practice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be baptized"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure it wasn't "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, be examined for 7 years, and then be baptized?" That's what happened at Pentecost, right?
> 
> Come on, guys. Jesus suffered the little children to come to him, and said that our faith should be like theirs. Small children may not be ready for the meat, but I have no idea where some people are getting that a five-year-old can't understand simple propositions. The bible never talks about an "intellectual difficulty" of the message. It is merely sin that causes us not to want what God has.
Click to expand...


What does a paedo do with an adult convert who wants to be baptized? Do they question the convert first to see if he understands the faith or is the only requirement that they claim to be a Christian?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

joshua said:


> Also, how long would it take to immerse 3,000 people? Where did they baptize them?



I think the more interesting questions are these: 

Where did they find a set of waders on such short notice so the baptizers could get in the pool without getting their trousers wet?

or

How were they able to fill and heat the baptistry on such short notice?


----------



## Davidius

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be baptized"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure it wasn't "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, be examined for 7 years, and then be baptized?" That's what happened at Pentecost, right?
> 
> Come on, guys. Jesus suffered the little children to come to him, and said that our faith should be like theirs. Small children may not be ready for the meat, but I have no idea where some people are getting that a five-year-old can't understand simple propositions. The bible never talks about an "intellectual difficulty" of the message. It is merely sin that causes us not to want what God has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does a paedo do with an adult convert who wants to be baptized? Do they question the convert first to see if he understands the faith or is the only requirement that they claim to be a Christian?
Click to expand...




joshua said:


>



I assume that they do, although I've never seen an examination for adult baptism so I'm not sure. But I have been interviewed for church membership and have seen visitors interviewed before being allowed to receive the Lord's Supper. None of these examinations took an amount of time which would be unreasonable if inferred back into accounts in Acts.

However, your question, which points the finger back at me, so to speak, ignores the fact that what has been discussed thus far in this thread is not simply a conversation in which questions are asked to see whether the professor understands the faith. Most, if not all, of those Baptists who have posted have made mention of a period of time spanning anywhere from five years to twelve or more. And not only this, but they desire to see certain conduct, not merely understanding.


----------



## Herald

Davidius said:


> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure it wasn't "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, be examined for 7 years, and then be baptized?" That's what happened at Pentecost, right?
> 
> Come on, guys. Jesus suffered the little children to come to him, and said that our faith should be like theirs. Small children may not be ready for the meat, but I have no idea where some people are getting that a five-year-old can't understand simple propositions. The bible never talks about an "intellectual difficulty" of the message. It is merely sin that causes us not to want what God has.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does a paedo do with an adult convert who wants to be baptized? Do they question the convert first to see if he understands the faith or is the only requirement that they claim to be a Christian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume that they do, although I've never seen this so I'm not sure. However, your question ignores the fact that what has been discussed thus far in this thread is not simply a conversation in which questions are asked to see whether the professor understands the faith. Most, if not all, of those Baptists who have posted have made mention of a period of time spanning anywhere from five years to twelve or more. And not only this, but they desire to see certain conduct, not merely understanding.
Click to expand...


I'm not ignoring anything. Look at my previous posts in this thread dated today. Tell me where I put requirements, other than what the confession states, on anyone who confesses Christ. I'm simply asking what is the paedo practice for adult converts?


----------



## Davidius

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does a paedo do with an adult convert who wants to be baptized? Do they question the convert first to see if he understands the faith or is the only requirement that they claim to be a Christian?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume that they do, although I've never seen this so I'm not sure. However, your question ignores the fact that what has been discussed thus far in this thread is not simply a conversation in which questions are asked to see whether the professor understands the faith. Most, if not all, of those Baptists who have posted have made mention of a period of time spanning anywhere from five years to twelve or more. And not only this, but they desire to see certain conduct, not merely understanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not ignoring anything. Look at my previous posts in this thread dated today. Tell me where I put requirements, other than what the confession states, on anyone who confesses Christ. I'm simply asking what is the paedo practice for adult converts?
Click to expand...


Sorry about that. So you didn't give any requirements; I direct that point mainly to the others then. You did, however, say that it is not "normative" for God to call a five year old. I don't see how you could possibly know that.


----------



## Pilgrim

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be baptized"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure it wasn't "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, be examined for 7 years, and then be baptized?" That's what happened at Pentecost, right?
> 
> Come on, guys. Jesus suffered the little children to come to him, and said that our faith should be like theirs. Small children may not be ready for the meat, but I have no idea where some people are getting that a five-year-old can't understand simple propositions. The bible never talks about an "intellectual difficulty" of the message. It is merely sin that causes us not to want what God has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does a paedo do with an adult convert who wants to be baptized? Do they question the convert first to see if he understands the faith or is the only requirement that they claim to be a Christian?
Click to expand...


They are examined just as anyone else desiring church membership would be.


----------



## Iconoclast

joshua said:


> Other than a confession, and a desire to be Baptized, what constitutes a "credible profession?" What was the Apostles' practice?



Joshua,
Having re-read the thread I will try to help with your question's.

1] What constitutes a "credible profession"?

Someone who has professed Christ as His Lord and Saviour should have a knowledge of his sinful condition before a Holy God, and has become aware of The work of the Spirit in convicting him of sin and his need of the righteousness that comes from God alone.
The person will speak of what the Lord is doing in their life. They might speak of a desire to fellowship with the people of God . To learn more about Jesus. Mal.3:


> 16Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name.


 They will attend to the means of grace, individual and corporate prayer ,and bible study.
They will demonstate an ability to comprehend divine truth.
They will seek a way, to serve their Lord.
They will confess to be those alive from the dead, not just in order to be baptized but this confession will be ongoing, and growing.
Their will be evidence of a pursuit of holiness, accompanied by a holy joy,and a desire to comform to all lawful commands , as covenant keeping persons. Not in order to be saved, but because they are saved.
They will seek to edify others, as well as obey the one anothering passages
They will manifest love of the brethren- love is a fulfilling of the law.

A credible profession is not an infallible profession. If however the person has the Spirit indwelling them the fruit of the Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit will be somewhat manifest.
Some of the baptist brothers who were responding on this thread where trying to indicate some of these things . This is just a partial list of what the NT. indicates are "things that accompany salvation"



> 9But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.
> 
> 10For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.
> 
> 11And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end:
> 
> 12That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.


 Joshua, it is hard enough to observe these characteristics in adults ,over time. I think KMK was trying to indicate that the pastors are to oversee the flock and look for the evidences of someone being a sheep.
It might become more apparent if you make a list of what the Nt. indicates are the fruit of the Spirit, that it is very hard to see in a 5yr old, or a 7yr old some of the evidences of these things. You are dealing with so many inconsistent factors. ie, maturity level, vocabulary, later on , hormonal changes, puberty , increased sex drive, peer pressure, exposure to worldly temptations.
That is why you see so many "inconsistent responses to the OP."
There are way to many variables. What is the goal? Is it to comform to an outward standard, being told to * remember your baptism?* or is it to see Christlikeness formed in the new heart by the sanctifying work of the Spirit. To *Know God*.

2] What was the Apostles practice?

We can see what they did. I see their practice as being reformed baptist except they still had direct and special revelation before we had a completed word.
I tried to explain that earlier in this thread. Sometimes they saw tongues , or some manifestation of the Spirit indwelling someone who said they believed.
They then baptized them. We do not know if the Spirit told them as apostles any special things as in Acts 8, with Philip and the eunuch.
We do not have Apostles walking around on earth now, nor tongues ,or visions or prophecy, so it seems as if we are bound to those indicators that are written in scripture. 
It takes time to examine any of these areas. I do not know of any church who immeadiately accepts into membership, or baptises anyone on the spot.
Just like it takes time to see if someone is qualified for the office of elder, or deacon. Is this what you are looking for?


----------



## Herald

Pilgrim said:


> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure it wasn't "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, be examined for 7 years, and then be baptized?" That's what happened at Pentecost, right?
> 
> Come on, guys. Jesus suffered the little children to come to him, and said that our faith should be like theirs. Small children may not be ready for the meat, but I have no idea where some people are getting that a five-year-old can't understand simple propositions. The bible never talks about an "intellectual difficulty" of the message. It is merely sin that causes us not to want what God has.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does a paedo do with an adult convert who wants to be baptized? Do they question the convert first to see if he understands the faith or is the only requirement that they claim to be a Christian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are examined just as anyone else desiring church membership would be.
Click to expand...


I can't answer for other Baptists but that's exactly what we do at our church with either an adult or child convert. They are examined, questioned if you will in order to determine, to our satisfaction as elders, that they understand the faith of which they are confessing.


----------

