# A Question for my Credo-Baptist Brethren



## Semper Fidelis

As many of you know, and attested to in my signature, I attend a Southern Baptist Church. Many of you know I am rabidly paedo-baptist in my convictions as well. I love the brethren, however, and I am not ashamed, nay, I rejoice to call the dear saints at the Church I attend brother and sister.

This past year and a half I have learned much about the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S. My new pastor just graduated from Southwest Baptist Seminary. I'm encouraged by the quality of some of the men who are coming out and that he seems to be a new breed of men returning to their Biblical roots. One of his favorite profs there was Greg Welty.

He has a real heart for making sure that the Church grows and especially from the families outward. He recently played an MP3 for us that is shaking up many Churches within the convention. I'm going to try to get a copy of it. The speaker is talking about the way in which the Southern Baptist Church is literally imploding and dying from within. The reasons for this are many - especially the methodology that never trains fathers to lead their families in the faith.

He presented an alarming statistic: Anywhere from 70-85% of Southern Baptist children completely reject the faith by the time they are 21.

I want to ask the Baptists a hard question:

What do you think of that in light of your view of election and the idea that God no longer deals with households in this epoch of redemptive history?


----------



## Herald

SemperFideles said:


> As many of you know, and attested to in my signature, I attend a Southern Baptist Church. Many of you know I am rabidly paedo-baptist in my convictions as well. I love the brethren, however, and I am not ashamed, nay, I rejoice to call the dear saints at the Church I attend brother and sister.
> 
> This past year and a half I have learned much about the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S. My new pastor just graduated from Southwest Baptist Seminary. I'm encouraged by the quality of some of the men who are coming out and that he seems to be a new breed of men returning to their Biblical roots. One of his favorite profs there was Greg Welty.
> 
> He has a real heart for making sure that the Church grows and especially from the families outward. He recently played an MP3 for us that is shaking up many Churches within the convention. I'm going to try to get a copy of it. The speaker is talking about the way in which the Southern Baptist Church is literally imploding and dying from within. The reasons for this are many - especially the methodology that never trains fathers to lead their families in the faith.
> 
> He presented an alarming statistic: Anywhere from 70-85% of Southern Baptist children completely reject the faith by the time they are 21.
> 
> I want to ask the Baptists a hard question:
> 
> What do you think of that in light of your view of election and the idea that God no longer deals with households in this epoch of redemptive history?



Rich - while I am grieved at the statistics you cited (and for the sake of discussion I will accept them as accurate), I don't see them as an indictment of credobaptists or a validation of your last paragraph. The unregenrate are like tares among the wheat. They are there. They have always been there. I don't see the connection between being credo and having a child not believe or being a paedo and having a child not believe. Conversely I don't see the connection between being a credo and having a believing child or being a paedo and having a believing child. 

I am resistant to put God in box when it comes to the manner in which He calls His elect. Does He call His elect from within covenant families or does He call His elect as individuals? I would assume it is some of both. If a child is born to believing parents, and those parents raise thier child up in the nuture and admonition of the Lord (and without hypocrisy), I would agree with my paedo brethren that the likelihood of that child coming to faith in Christ is higher than the child who grows up in a reprobate home. But I don't know any godly credo families who would disagree. As a credo I believe that my daughter's professed faith is real. I base that on evidences of faith. I also base that on God's mercy in allowing her to be born into a believing household. Laurie and I purposed to raise our daughter biblically. Could God have called her if she was raised in an unbelieving family? Certainly. Likely? Much less unlikely. As I understand the paedo position a child is considered part of the covenant community until such time as they reject the faith, proving their position within the covenant community is false by reprobation. 

A fact that was not brought out in the stats you cited is that most SBC churches are Arminian. Arminian theology corrupts everything it touches. It is the reason for 20th century "easy-believism" that is prevelant in many Baptist churches. In fact, a case can be made that a high rate of reprobation in Baptist churches can be directly linked to flawed soterioglogy. A profession is as good as possession! That is the cry of the easy-believism churches. I would be interested in stats for churches that correctly teach the doctrines of sovereign grace. I would be dismayed if those reprobation numbers did not drop exponentially in the light of correct doctrine. Rich, this is why I believe the stats you referenced are skewed. The SBC is the largest Baptist denomination in the world. The majority of SBC churches are Arminian. Founders Movement churches (within the SBC) are a drop in the bucket compared to the conference membership.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Not a credo (anymore)...but was raised IFB and was SBC through highschool (still having SBC family and friends). I don't believe the issue lies (entirely) with baptism (credo vs paedo). Like alot of other denominations, I see the issue lying with the view of family and the training of men and women in their roles.


----------



## satz

Dear Rich,

I don't know if you would consider me a baptist in the historic sense of the word, in that I am not very knowledgeable nor do I have an emotional attachment to baptist history or some of their other traditions. I do however, hold to believer's baptism.

I hope do do not mind me asking a question to clarify yours. Does believe in credo-baptism necessarily mean that God no longer deals with households, or that unbaptised children of christian parents are any less part of the covenant? 

My view is that baptism is a New Testament ordinance, and God has specified in the New testament the specifics of how it is to be applied (ie repent and be baptised). I do not see how it _necessarily_ means that children in the NT without baptism are any less a part of God's people, or that the household principle ceases to apply. God has simply changed the specifics of when and to whom the sign applies (if you believe that baptism is the new circumcision), and he has every right to do that. A chrisitan parent can still labour to bring up his or her children in the fear and admonition of the Lord, hoping and trusting in God for the day when the child makes a profession of faith and can receive christian baptism. Just like a paedo parent would similarly be hoping and trusting for that profession of faith.

Some will bring up the idea of circumcision being an sign from the book of Genesis. But while reading genesis alone that may seem to be the case, Paul later says that circumcision or uncircumcision means nothing. Even if you believe God has replaced circumcision with baptism, you still must admit he has changed the ordinance is someway. And, I believe, that can include changing the specifics, and when a child of his receives it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Let me clarify the question. 

I am not ascribing this statistic to the fact that the SBC is a credo denomination. I'm merely trying to get a sense of what Reformed Baptists think about the apostasy and its causes. Are you indifferent to it and chalk it up to Election?

This is interesting:


> A fact that was not brought out in the stats you cited is that most SBC churches are Arminian. Arminian theology corrupts everything it touches. It is the reason for 20th century "easy-believism" that is prevelant in many Baptist churches. In fact, a case can be made that a high rate of reprobation in Baptist churches can be directly linked to flawed soterioglogy. A profession is as good as possession! That is the cry of the easy-believism churches. I would be interested in stats for churches that correctly teach the doctrines of sovereign grace. I would be dismayed if those reprobation numbers did not drop exponentially in the light of correct doctrine. Rich, this is why I believe the stats you referenced are skewed. The SBC is the largest Baptist denomination in the world. The majority of SBC churches are Arminian. Founders Movement churches (within the SBC) are a drop in the bucket compared to the conference membership.


So you're saying that apostasy should be _less_ in a Church and household that teaches better? How does that square with the Reformed Baptist view that God does not deal with households any more?


----------



## Herald

> So you're saying that apostasy should be less in a Church and household that teaches better? How does that square with the Reformed Baptist view that God does not deal with households any more?



Rich, you're assuming something that may not be true. Does God deal with households? Yes, He does. It stands to reason that God deals with households because children in believing families are more likely to come to faith in Christ than children in non-Christian families. But how much of this is covenantal in the Covenant Theology scheme of things, and how much of it can be attributed to believing parents who have the attention and trust of their children? 

Theologically speaking, a paedo parent may assume his child is saved until such time as the child displays evidence to the contrary. A credo parent is looking for evidence of faith. Unfortunately there are credo parents who assume that a "sinners" prayer made by a five year old is tantamount to being saved. I'm not so sure of that. I am not wholly convinced on early childhood conversions. I look for evidence of faith. I believe that is where paedo's and credo's would disagree. 

Rich, as a side note. I believe that when a person comes to faith in Christ they become part of the family of God, a covenantal family. I do not believe in "Lone Ranger" Christian's. We are not saved into individualism. We are saved into a larger community of believers. But I also believe that my being in that community is based on God's effectual call of me as an individual. That God may providentially choose to work within believing families does not negate the fact that the individual must come to faith. I cannot assume that a child is in the faith just because they never denied the faith. 

 
 

I'm up to four cents now!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I'm not sure I have an anser to my question yet.

I'm not assuming anything here. I'm trying to understand what you guys believe. I'm not the one arguing for the credo-baptist position and I merely want credo-baptist reflections on the problem of apostasy.

Is this a problem that can be attributed to the visible Church or not? It seems to bother the few Baptists that have come in who attributed part of the reason to Arminianism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

trevorjohnson said:


> Hey Rich;
> 
> The SBC on the other hand focuses on new growth and does not stress the other two kinds of growth enough. Therefore, they often do what the reformed fail to do with new beleivers. We all know that many even on this board were saved as arminians are in a church like them and was later converted to the reformed faith. Therefore, they grow quicker than the reformed do (and much of this IS true growth of beleivers and not just chaff) but they fail to educate their children and teach the catechism, and family devotions are almost unheard of in some circles. Yes, they have forgotten the very biblical family principle of training up the kids. But they also far exceed the efforts of the Reformed concerning missions.



Trevor,

This is not accurate. The sustained growth of the SBC for years has been biological growth. The reason they are dying out is because Americans are having less kids and the kids they're having are leaving the faith.

They predict that, if things don't change, they could be down from several million to 250,000 within a couple of generations.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

trevorjohnson said:


> The Reformed often recruit Arminians and often their view of conversion is making an Arminian Christian into a Calvinistic Christian. Also, they tend to have lots of kids. Yet, these church's rates of growth are slower and some churches are terribly inward focused and not very evangelitic. Therefore, they tend to be smaller, but more stable and the kids - though far, far less of them - grow up in a Christian nurture that keeps these high "fall out" rates from happening.
> 
> A "seeker" if you accept that term has far more hurdles joining a reformed church than a SBC because, quite truthfully, often a SBC make them feel more welcome. This has been confirmed by surveys done on new members, etc (if you accept the use of statistical analysis in the study of religion to see its trends).



By the way, I largely agree with this assessment. Pastor Greco and I were just discussing this. It's not the mission of the Christian Church to "fix Arminians". I also think that some of our Churches are so distinctive as to require a humongous commitment to much more than the Gospel to want to join them.


----------



## Herald

SemperFideles said:


> I'm not sure I have an anser to my question yet.
> 
> I'm not assuming anything here. I'm trying to understand what you guys believe. I'm not the one arguing for the credo-baptist position and I merely want credo-baptist reflections on the problem of apostasy.
> 
> Is this a problem that can be attributed to the visible Church or not? It seems to bother the few Baptists that have come in who attributed part of the reason to Arminianism.



Rich - I thought I did answer. *scratches head* I know you're not arguing for or from the credo position. Help me out here. Tell me how this following paragraph does not detail my position:



> Rich, as a side note. I believe that when a person comes to faith in Christ they become part of the family of God, a covenantal family. I do not believe in "Lone Ranger" Christian's. We are not saved into individualism. We are saved into a larger community of believers. But I also believe that my being in that community is based on God's effectual call of me as an individual. That God may providentially choose to work within believing families does not negate the fact that the individual must come to faith. I cannot assume that a child is in the faith just because they never denied the faith.



I don't know what else I can say. I already stated that I believe God works through families, but I also believe He does not work through families _exclusively._ I also explained my reasons why the SBC is having so many reprobations. Yes, it is about election if you come down to it. People leave the faith because they were never in the faith. I'm not in an SBC church, so I can't answer for them. I can only answer as a Reformed Baptist.

Rich, if I am not answering your question, please tell me what exactly I am not answering.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Rich - I thought I did answer. *scratches head* I know you're not arguing for or from the credo position. Help me out here. Tell me how this following paragraph does not detail my position:
> 
> I don't know what else I can say. I already stated that I believe God works through families, but I also believe He does not work through families _exclusively._ I also explained my reasons why the SBC is having so many reprobations. Yes, it is about election if you come down to it. People leave the faith because they were never in the faith. I'm not in an SBC church, so I can't answer for them. I can only answer as a Reformed Baptist.
> 
> Rich, if I am not answering your question, please tell me what exactly I am not answering.



What do you tell a young couple with small kids that worries whether or not their children might apostasize some day?

You seem to indicate that there is a family of faith. I'm trying to sense the way in which a Reformed Baptist connects the idea of nurture to apostasy.

Would you just tell them that, no matter what they do, their child may not be elect?


----------



## Chris

SemperFideles said:


> As many of you know, and attested to in my signature, I attend a Southern Baptist Church. Many of you know I am rabidly paedo-baptist in my convictions as well. I love the brethren, however, and I am not ashamed, nay, I rejoice to call the dear saints at the Church I attend brother and sister.
> 
> This past year and a half I have learned much about the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S. My new pastor just graduated from Southwest Baptist Seminary. I'm encouraged by the quality of some of the men who are coming out and that he seems to be a new breed of men returning to their Biblical roots. One of his favorite profs there was Greg Welty.
> 
> He has a real heart for making sure that the Church grows and especially from the families outward. He recently played an MP3 for us that is shaking up many Churches within the convention. I'm going to try to get a copy of it. The speaker is talking about the way in which the Southern Baptist Church is literally imploding and dying from within. The reasons for this are many - especially the methodology that never trains fathers to lead their families in the faith.
> 
> He presented an alarming statistic: Anywhere from 70-85% of Southern Baptist children completely reject the faith by the time they are 21.
> 
> I want to ask the Baptists a hard question:
> 
> What do you think of that in light of your view of election and the idea that God no longer deals with households in this epoch of redemptive history?




It appears - from my perspective - that you're grossly overanalyzing the issue, trying to force paedobaptism to be the answer to a problem when it's not. 

The SBC's weaknesses and lack of growth can be attributed to a number of factors:

-bad evangelism, as a result of
-bad theology, as a result of 
-unwillingness to offend, as a result of 
-trying to be attractive to a carnal world, which all boils down to 
-*compromise. *

*Compromise almost always produces short-term results at long term expense. We're now seeing the long-term expense. * The sins of the fathers.........

You mentioned that the guy (I'd love a link to the sermon, BTW) highlighted a lack of spiritual leadership in SBC fathers. I'd agree with this - and attribute it back to the list I gave above. Worldiness has infected us (the SBC) to a horrid degree. I can't see blaming this on credobaptism. I *can* see blaming it on a wide variety of factors that are more-or-less summed up in the list I gave above. 

I can also see that it's a natural byproduct of engaging the world and its sin. The SBC, for all its faults, works disproprtionately hard to engage the world, and has in the process got much of the world on its hands. 

I can also tell you that there's a stirring within the SBC that appears to be ready to address some of these problems. The founder's movement has helped greatly, and is spreading. 



> What do you think of that in light of your view of election and the idea that God no longer deals with households in this epoch of redemptive history?



If I directly and deliberately address this question, the result wouldn't be edifying nor unifying. I hope that you understand that.

In short, this issue is so complex that I really don't see trying to force credobaptism into it as being a worthwhile endeavour, no more than if I tried to blame paedobaptism for the PCUSA's problems.


----------



## Herald

> What do you tell a young couple with small kids that worries whether or not their children might apostasize some day?



I would tell them (if they asked) that saving faith produces evidence that it is real (Eph. 2:10; 2 Cor. 5:17; Jas. 2:1-26). How does this differ for the paedo? Are you not looking for evidence of faith in your children as they grow older and mature? Could any of us tell a parent that their child will _never_ apostasize? Rich, let me provide a real life story:

My brother-in-law attended the same Baptist church as my wife. From what I was told he was "on fire" for the Lord. He was involved in evangelistic outreaches and was bold in proclaiming his faith. He was plugged into all the church ministries that were available for a young man of his age. His parents were convinced of his salvation. Today he claims that Jesus is just one way to heaven. He has rejected the teachings of his youth. He has adopted a pluralistic view of God.

The question I have to ask regarding my brother-in-law is "why"? _*Why?*_ Did it have anything to do with anything that anybody did? Did he apostasize because he was not baptized as an infant? Did he apostasize because some wrong done on the part of the parents? The truth is, his life story is not yet over. My brother-in-law may still come to faith in Christ. That is my hope and my prayer. 

Back to that family you mentioned. That thought crossed my mind when my daughter was small. I wondered if she would actually come to faith in Christ. I prayed for her. Even now I hope and pray that her faith is real. I have confidence it is because I have witnessed the evidence of "the repentance that leads to life" (Acts 11:18) in her life. Is that a guarantee? No. But it is my confident hope. Only God knows.



> You seem to indicate that there is a family of faith. I'm trying to sense the way in which a Reformed Baptist connects the idea of nurture to apostasy.



A Reformed Baptist would "nurture" their child in the ways of the Lord. The parent would be looking for the evidence of repentance and saving faith. The nuturing would continue even after that evidence is witnessed. 



> Would you just tell them that, no matter what they do, their child may not be elect?



Talk about a quilt laden question! First off, let me take the implied emphasis off the parents. If a child is elect there is nothing the parents can or can't do to prevent their child from coming to faith. That aside, I would tell a parent that they are to raise their child in the nuture and admonition of the Lord and pray for their child's salvation. I would tell the parents that the work of salvation is God's. How could I tell a parent that their child is or is not elect? That would be not only arrogant, but theologically flawed. Rich, with all Christian charity, let me turn the question around. Could you just tell a paedo family that, no matter what they do, their child is probably elect? 

 
 
 

Up to six cents now!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Chris said:


> It appears - from my perspective - that you're grossly overanalyzing the issue, trying to force paedobaptism to be the answer to a problem when it's not.


Me thinks somebody read into what I wrote. I did not propose a solution. I asked a question about your thoughts. One is hardly able to "grossly" overanalyze a subject as complex as the apostasy of millions in a paragraph. Interestingly, what follows, is your analysis of the situation, which is more extensive than my own. Gross analysis?



> The SBC's weaknesses and lack of growth can be attributed to a number of factors:
> 
> -bad evangelism, as a result of
> -bad theology, as a result of
> -unwillingness to offend, as a result of
> -trying to be attractive to a carnal world, which all boils down to
> -*compromise. *
> 
> *Compromise almost always produces short-term results at long term expense. We're now seeing the long-term expense. * The sins of the fathers.........
> 
> You mentioned that the guy (I'd love a link to the sermon, BTW) highlighted a lack of spiritual leadership in SBC fathers. I'd agree with this - and attribute it back to the list I gave above. Worldiness has infected us (the SBC) to a horrid degree. I can't see blaming this on credobaptism. I *can* see blaming it on a wide variety of factors that are more-or-less summed up in the list I gave above.


It's always useful if you read the rest of the thread instead of responding directly to the OP. I never offered paedobaptism as the solution or credobaptism as the problem.



> I can also see that it's a natural byproduct of engaging the world and its sin. The SBC, for all its faults, works disproprtionately hard to engage the world, and has in the process got much of the world on its hands.
> 
> I can also tell you that there's a stirring within the SBC that appears to be ready to address some of these problems. The founder's movement has helped greatly, and is spreading.


Why will the founder's movement address apostasy?



> If I directly and deliberately address this question, the result wouldn't be edifying nor unifying. I hope that you understand that.
> 
> In short, this issue is so complex that I really don't see trying to force credobaptism into it as being a worthwhile endeavour, no more than if I tried to blame paedobaptism for the PCUSA's problems.



So you entered the thread to merely accuse me of something I did not do only to refuse to answer the question I did pose?


----------



## Herald

Rich - I want to let you know that I realize you did not start this thread as a debate between credo and paedo. Unfortunately the paedo position is brought into the discussion for the purpose of comparison. In my answers I am not questioning the paedo position. Just want to make sure that is clear.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

BaptistInCrisis said:


> I would tell them (if they asked) that saving faith produces evidence that it is real (Eph. 2:10; 2 Cor. 5:17; Jas. 2:1-26). How does this differ for the paedo? Are you not looking for evidence of faith in your children as they grow older and mature? Could any of us tell a parent that their child will _never_ apostasize?


I didn't argue _for_ a position. I've been asking questions. I'm interested in your exegesis of the passages that do speak of apostasy and our responsibility in it.



> Rich, let me provide a real life story:
> 
> My brother-in-law attended the same Baptist church as my wife. From what I was told he was "on fire" for the Lord. He was involved in evangelistic outreaches and was bold in proclaiming his faith. He was plugged into all the church ministries that were available for a young man of his age. His parents were convinced of his salvation. Today he claims that Jesus is just one way to heaven. He has rejected the teachings of his youth. He has adopted a pluralistic view of God.
> 
> The question I have to ask regarding my brother-in-law is "why"? _*Why?*_ Did it have anything to do with anything that anybody did? Did he apostasize because he was not baptized as an infant? Did he apostasize because some wrong done on the part of the parents? The truth is, his life story is not yet over. My brother-in-law may still come to faith in Christ. That is my hope and my prayer.


Not sure anyone cares when he was baptized. Do you think the parents have no culpability in his apostasy?



> Back to that family you mentioned. That thought crossed my mind when my daughter was small. I wondered if she would actually come to faith in Christ. I prayed for her. Even now I hope and pray that her faith is real. I have confidence it is because I have witnessed the evidence of "the repentance that leads to life" (Acts 11:18) in her life. Is that a guarantee? No. But it is my confident hope. Only God knows.


Not arguing for certainty here. Your answer indicates that you believe your prayers and efforts were used of God somehow. Had you not prayed with her and witnessed to her do you suppose it would have made a difference?



> A Reformed Baptist would "nurture" their child in the ways of the Lord. The parent would be looking for the evidence of repentance and saving faith. The nuturing would continue even after that evidence is witnessed.


How does a Reformed Baptist nurture a child that is not in the Lord? If half are reprobate and half are elect then how does one nurture the reprobate ones?



> Talk about a quilt laden question! First off, let me take the implied emphasis off the parents. If a child is elect there is nothing the parents can or can't do to prevent their child from coming to faith. That aside, I would tell a parent that they are to raise their child in the nuture and admonition of the Lord and pray for their child's salvation. I would tell the parents that the work of salvation is God's. How could I tell a parent that their child is or is not elect? That would be not only arrogant, but theologically flawed. Rich, with all Christian charity, let me turn the question around. Could you just tell a paedo family that, no matter what they do, their child is probably elect?


I'm asking what you would say to the parents. I've heard your brethren say that they have some kids that aren't elect. I just want to know what you'd tell the parents. Nothing is implied in the idea as to knowledge of the hidden counsel of God. I know what I would tell the paedo family but this is a thread for questions to Reformed Baptists.

There is a strange dialectic here. You want to nurture your children and argue that nurture is important in the salvation of the child but you don't seem to think that parents have any ultimate culpability or responsibility therein for their apostasy. On the one hand, you seem to argue that the apostasy in other bodies is attributed to a lack of nurture but on the other hand the "nurturers" bear no responsibility because God didn't elect their kids.


----------



## Chris

If you'd be willing to reconsider the tone of that last post, I'd love to delve further into this. 

If not, I'll restate that this thread may not be particulary edifying, and take leave of it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Chris said:


> If you'd be willing to reconsider the tone of that last post, I'd love to delve further into this.
> 
> If not, I'll restate that this thread may not be particulary edifying, and take leave of it.



I am sorry for stating that you grossly overanalyzed the reason why Southern Baptists are apostasizing.

Better?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

SemperFideles said:


> What do you tell a young couple with small kids that worries whether or not their children might apostasize some day?
> 
> You seem to indicate that there is a family of faith. I'm trying to sense the way in which a Reformed Baptist connects the idea of nurture to apostasy.
> 
> Would you just tell them that, no matter what they do, their child may not be elect?



Rich, what do we tell them? We tell them what any other should. We don't expect God to save them; we want Him and we pray for their salvation, but we tell them to raise their childeren up in the Word. We tell them to be godly parents. 

By the way, the Founders ministry is so awsome. Also, I'm thankful for people like Mark Dever and Al Mohler.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

And for the discussion on election:

People are individually elected. Just because a child is raised up in a believeing family, that does not make him elected too. We have no idea who the elect are. To say that we do is to say we are God.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Andrew P.C. said:


> Rich, what do we tell them? We tell them what any other should. We don't expect God to save them; we want Him and we pray for their salvation, but we tell them to raise their childeren up in the Word. We tell them to be godly parents.



Why do you tell them to raise their children up in the Word? What part does a person outside of the Covenant have with the Word of God?

What passages do you refer them to when they ask what it means to be a godly parent?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

BaptistInCrisis said:


> A fact that was not brought out in the stats you cited is that most SBC churches are Arminian. Arminian theology corrupts everything it touches. It is the reason for 20th century "easy-believism" that is prevelant in many Baptist churches. In fact, a case can be made that a high rate of reprobation in Baptist churches can be directly linked to flawed soterioglogy.



This is sad. I am a youth intern at my church(SBC). The Founders ministry, who are in the SBC, have wrote many articles, books, and so forth about the SBC losing the gospel. How sad. The SBC used to be so strong, starting with the strong teachings of James Boyce and now the SBC is weak. They are what John Piper would say "a bunch of wimps." That's why i am thankful for the Founders and also individuals like Al Mohler and Mark Dever.


----------



## Herald

> I didn't argue for a position. I've been asking questions. I'm interested in your exegesis of the passages that do speak of apostasy and our responsibility in it.



Rich, are you referring to any specific passages re: apostasy?



> Not sure anyone cares when he was baptized. Do you think the parents have no culpability in his apostasy?



To the degree that that they failed in their spiritual responsibility to their child, the answer is yes. (A theological note: responsibility does not negate God's sovereignty, but it also does not allow the sinner off the hook.)



> Not arguing for certainty here. Your answer indicates that you believe your prayers and efforts were used of God somehow. Had you not prayed with her and witnessed to her do you suppose it would have made a difference?



Without a doubt! God used my wife and I for that very purpose. 



> How does a Reformed Baptist nurture a child that is not in the Lord? If half are reprobate and half are elect then how does one nurture the reprobate ones?



Technically speaking you cannot nuture something that is not alive. I am using the term nurture in reference to teaching. The unsaved child can be taught about God. The parent will not know the exact moment a child comes to faith. It is the parents prayer they will be used by God to proclaim the gospel to their children. Once a child does so evidence of repentance and faith true nuturing (according to the actual definition) can begin.



> I'm asking what you would say to the parents. I've heard your brethren say that they have some kids that aren't elect. I just want to know what you'd tell the parents. Nothing is implied in the idea as to knowledge of the hidden counsel of God. I know what I would tell the paedo family but this is a thread for questions to Reformed Baptists.



I can't speak for my "brethren." If anyone is telling parents that their children are not elect they should be taken behind a barn and horse whipped! How can anyone say such a thing? As far as what I would tell the parents, I already answered that in my previous post. And about this being a question directed towards Reformed Baptist's, that does not exclude honest comparative questions being asked of you. Your question(s) do not exist in a vacuum. I am providing you answers (although I would like to see some of my fellow Baptist brethren step up to the plate). I'm curious as to what you think.



> There is a strange dialectic here. You want to nurture your children and argue that nurture is important in the salvation of the child but you don't seem to think that parents have any ultimate culpability or responsibility therein for their apostasy.



If I gave that impression, I am correcting it. I stated earlier in this post that parents are accountable. It is within God's sovereignty, but they are still accountable.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

SemperFideles said:


> Why do you tell them to raise their children up in the Word? What part does a person outside of the Covenant have with the Word of God?
> 
> What passages do you refer them to when they ask what it means to be a godly parent?



Outside the Covenant? Brother, I believe this was what Brother Bill was refering to when he said "I am resistant to put God in box when it comes to the manner in which He calls His elect." I feel you are implying that God only calls those who are inside a believing family.

Also, We only tell believing parents what the word gives wisdom on:

"Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it."(Prov. 22:6)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Rich, are you referring to any specific passages re: apostasy?


I know some but I'm waiting for a Baptist to produce some verses that deal with apostasy.



> To the degree that that they failed in their spiritual responsibility to their child, the answer is yes. (A theological note: responsibility does not negate God's sovereignty, but it also does not allow the sinner off the hook.)


Sounds good.



> Without a doubt! God used my wife and I for that very purpose.
> 
> Technically speaking you cannot nuture something that is not alive. I am using the term nurture in reference to teaching. The unsaved child can be taught about God. The parent will not know the exact moment a child comes to faith. It is the parents prayer they will be used by God to proclaim the gospel to their children. Once a child does so evidence of repentance and faith true nuturing (according to the actual definition) can begin.


So you treat them like believers? Interesting.



> I can't speak for my "brethren." If anyone is telling parents that their children are not elect they should be taken behind a barn and horse whipped! How can anyone say such a thing? As far as what I would tell the parents, I already answered that in my previous post. And about this being a question directed towards Reformed Baptist's, that does not exclude honest comparative questions being asked of you. Your question(s) do not exist in a vacuum. I am providing you answers (although I would like to see some of my fellow Baptist brethren step up to the plate). I'm curious as to what you think.


So am I.



> If I gave that impression, I am correcting it. I stated earlier in this post that parents are accountable. It is within God's sovereignty, but they are still accountable.


But just not Covenantally accountable? What has the child violated except the Covenant of Works?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Andrew P.C. said:


> Outside the Covenant? Brother, I believe this was what Brother Bill was refering to when he said "I am resistant to put God in box when it comes to the manner in which He calls His elect." I feel you are implying that God only calls those who are inside a believing family.


Hmm...nope, not implying anything of the sort. I asked a question. As somebody who is looking to Scripture for the normative way of dealing with those outside the Covenant, how can you expect them to obey the Word?



> Also, We only tell believing parents what the word gives wisdom on:
> 
> "Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it."(Prov. 22:6)


But that was written by a father to give his son instructions on how to keep the Covenant. How does that apply to children who are outside of it until they profess faith?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

SemperFideles said:


> Hmm...nope, not implying anything of the sort. I asked a question. As somebody who is looking to Scripture for the normative way of dealing with those outside the Covenant, how can you expect them to obey the Word?



Rewording the sentence would be best.




SemperFideles said:


> But that was written by a father to give his son instructions on how to keep the Covenant. How does that apply to children who are outside of it until they profess faith?



Really, which son of Solomon are you referring to?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Andrew P.C. said:


> Rewording the sentence would be best.


Assuming Scripture is the place where you go for your norms, what does the Scripture say about the person outside of the Covenant? Why is a child, outside the Covenant, expected to obey the Word?


> Really, which son of Solomon are you referring to?



Proverbs 1


> 1The proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel:
> 2To know wisdom and instruction,
> to understand words of insight,
> 3to receive instruction in wise dealing,
> in righteousness, justice, and equity;
> 4to give prudence to the simple,
> knowledge and discretion to the youth--
> 5Let the wise hear and increase in learning,
> and the one who understands obtain guidance,
> 6to understand a proverb and a saying,
> the words of the wise and their riddles.
> 7The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge;
> fools despise wisdom and instruction
> 8Hear, my son, your father's instruction,
> and forsake not your mother's teaching,
> 9for they are a graceful garland for your head
> and pendants for your neck.


----------



## Gryphonette

"Why is a child, outside the Covenant, expected to obey the Word?"

Isn't it_ every_ person's responsibility to obey the Word? Are there people who have escaped this responsibility? "Oh well, _you're_ not in the Covenant so you needn't obey"?

I cannot imagine that's what you're _intending _to say, but it's rather how it's coming across...as if we're FIRST to determine who is expected to obey and subsequently instruct them - and _only_ them - in the admonishment of the Lord.

When it comes to Dmitry, our 16 year old son from Russia, I point out to him that God has sovereignly placed him in a position to hear the gospel and know what it is the LORD requires, so it behooves him to pay attention. I point out how many other kids from his orphanage were never adopted so will likely_ never_ hear the gospel. I point out how this is a sign of favor from the LORD that isn't given to everyone on the planet, and that if he rejects "so great a salvation" it will be the worse for him.

I do not, however, tell him he's "elect."

For the life of me I can't figure out whether you think I should or not.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Gryphonette said:


> "Why is a child, outside the Covenant, expected to obey the Word?"
> 
> Isn't it_ every_ person's responsibility to obey the Word? Are there people who have escaped this responsibility? "Oh well, _you're_ not in the Covenant so you needn't obey"?
> 
> I cannot imagine that's what you're _intending _to say, but it's rather how it's coming across...as if we're FIRST to determine who is expected to obey and subsequently instruct them - and _only_ them - in the admonishment of the Lord.
> 
> When it comes to Dmitry, our 16 year old son from Russia, I point out to him that God has sovereignly placed him in a position to hear the gospel and know what it is the LORD requires, so it behooves him to pay attention. I point out how many other kids from his orphanage were never adopted so will likely_ never_ hear the gospel. I point out how this is a sign of favor from the LORD that isn't given to everyone on the planet, and that if he rejects "so great a salvation" it will be the worse for him.
> 
> I do not, however, tell him he's "elect."
> 
> For the life of me I can't figure out whether you think I should or not.



Why do you care if _I_ think you should tell him he's elect? 

I think it's good that you warn Dmitry to pay attention but where did you get that language? I'm not aware of a parallel you could point to in Scripture to guide that idea you're communicating to a person outside of the Covenant.

This has been interesting. It's 1300 here and I have a meeting to get to. Enjoyed the discussion.


----------



## Herald

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by BaptistInCrisis
> Rich, are you referring to any specific passages re: apostasy?
> 
> I know some but I'm waiting for a Baptist to produce some verses that deal with apostasy.



Brother Rich, go ahead and share the passages you have in mind. Let's discuss them. In the spirit of open discussion there is no need to be holding them back.



> So you treat them like believers? Interesting.



No. I won't phrase it that way. We treat them as unbelievers who need to hear the gospel. They are children. They start off as infants, progress to toddlers, enter adolesence and reach adulthood. It is the parents responsibility to impart spiritual knowledge with the prayerful hope that God will grant the repentance that leads to life. I did not expect my daughter to understand the spiritual truth of scipture (1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:1) prior to coming to faith in Christ. But God may have used our biblical instruction to bring her to faith. 



> But just not Covenantally accountable? What has the child violated except the Covenant of Works?



The child has violated many things. Everytime an unbeliever sins he increases his sin debt. Regarding being "covenantally accountable", it depends on how you define the word "covenant." I will assume (correct me if I am wrong) that your definition would fit the standard Covenant Theology protocol which is, children of believing families are part of the visible church until disqualified by reprobation. Obviously Reformed Baptist's do not believe this. We believe that no one is part of the visible church until they are regenerated by God and believe by faith. Rich, this gets to the root of the debate between the paedo and credo positions on baptism. While this is not a baptism thread, the discussion inexorably leads there. 



> I'm curious as to what you think.
> 
> So am I.



Huh? You're curious as to what you think?  "Houston, we've got a problem here." Seriously Rich, I really am interested in what you think. Care to share?


----------



## Herald

Gryphonette said:


> "Why is a child, outside the Covenant, expected to obey the Word?"
> 
> Isn't it_ every_ person's responsibility to obey the Word? Are there people who have escaped this responsibility? "Oh well, _you're_ not in the Covenant so you needn't obey"?
> 
> I cannot imagine that's what you're _intending _to say, but it's rather how it's coming across...as if we're FIRST to determine who is expected to obey and subsequently instruct them - and _only_ them - in the admonishment of the Lord.
> 
> When it comes to Dmitry, our 16 year old son from Russia, I point out to him that God has sovereignly placed him in a position to hear the gospel and know what it is the LORD requires, so it behooves him to pay attention. I point out how many other kids from his orphanage were never adopted so will likely_ never_ hear the gospel. I point out how this is a sign of favor from the LORD that isn't given to everyone on the planet, and that if he rejects "so great a salvation" it will be the worse for him.
> 
> I do not, however, tell him he's "elect."
> 
> For the life of me I can't figure out whether you think I should or not.



Anne, may you and your husband be blessed of the Lord for adopting Dimitri. It thrills my heart to know that you have rescued him from a life that may not have included being exposed to the gospel. We have friends who have adopted two children from Russia. May God be praised for His marvelous grace!


----------



## bob

Rich,

I grew up within a credobaptist context and currently am an elder at a Baptist Church. I do believe that God is pleased to work covenantally through families. Within the Baptist churches that I have been associated, a very high percentage of the children growing up within the church married godly spouses and are now adding their own children to the church. We have several three generational families in our church.

We are warned of apostacy throughout the Scriptures, but perhaps the passage that makes me weep the most is the passage in 1 Cor. 10: "Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall." 

There are many things that we can boast in. Perhaps I would be tempted to boast in my credobaptism. Perhaps you are so convinced that you are correct in your view that you might dare boast in your paedobaptism. God was pleased to allow the history of His covenant people to serve as a constant reminder that if we dare to think we stand in anything at all to take great care, lest we fall. "If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the sinner and ungodly appear?"

The children of Israel had their law, their circumcision, the glorious history of their fathers, and even their taste of the spiritual Rock. They had, in Paul's words, an advantage in every way. Yet they fell, staggering in the wilderness. Why? Because of their sin and unbelief.

If the numbers of the Southern Baptists are correct, they mirror only the sad history of many denominations and sects of the Christian church throughout the pages of church history. Ever read of the state of the Scottish church in the days of the Erskines? The Anglican church before the Awakening? I think every church group has enjoyed a zenith, a decline, and at times an awakening, and so forth.

A friend of mine pastors in southwest Michigan, an area steeped in the traditions of the Reformed Church of America. Truly there was an impressive heritage and history in that region years ago, and yet sadly there is a great degeneration within the denomination that even some aged saints still committed to the denomination weep daily over.

In the area in which I live, there were numerous rural Methodist churches that served their parishess faithfully and for the most part, quite well, if I may so in spite of doctrinal differences! Many of these churches are vacant and the ones still existing house only a few very old people who recollect the grand days of a full and thriving church house, open air evangelism, and daily interaction among neighbors. Oh, there are hundreds of baptized "members" still on the rolls, yet one by one these churches fade into the history book as their children and grandchildren tread the path of unbelief.

From whence does apostacy stem? Well, I know that we can argue over baptism and the covenant till the cows come home. I suspect the cows will be heading back to pasture and we'll still be arguing! I think that Lady Flynt hit the nail on the head in the third posting - apostacy begins when the church begins to set aside biblical expostion and thus begins to ignore the duties that we have as parents to teach and commit to our children.

The Israelites enjoyed all their observances. I suspect they were rigorous in their feasts, circumcisions, sabbaths, and sacrifices. They perished in the desert because of their unbelief. They became fornicators, complainers, Christ mockers, idolaters, and lusters after wickedness. They remain a constant example to us, to tell us that it is not enough to trust in our creeds, our confession - to boast in our history and our upbringing. These things are important to be sure, but we must not become so vain and arrogant that we cease to recognize that we are sinners saved but by the grace of God and that we must impress upon our children that the whole duty of man is to fear God and to keep His commandments.

It is my belief that if my wife and I are faithful to train up our children, that God will be pleased to regenerate their hearts and that they will grow up to be fine saints. We baptize them when they first profess with their mouths the Lord Jesus. We do so because that is what we perceive the Scriptures to teach. From the day that we are born, we preach the gospel to them, we sing the gospel to them, and we teach them to sing, to pray, and to read their Bible. Thankfully, God has been gracious to us and our children all show evidences of spiritual fruit. To God be the glory! I tremble at my unworthiness and rejoice that God can be pleased to work through an ignorant fool such as myself. Any time I see something that I implement see a measure of success, I wish to always return to 1 Cor 10, lest I be vain enough to begin to imagine that there is something within me that is standing! 

When were my children made partakers of the covenant? Goodness, I've grappled with this and read and studied until my mind quivers under the strain. For now, I reckon the secret things belong to the Lord and I will strive to live my life as well as I can in the manner in which I perceive the Scriptures to teach. If I am wrong, then I pray that God might be merciful to a poor, ignorant man who has been mistaken.

In Christ,

Bob


----------



## tellville

Rich,

I must first begin by saying that your one of the few Padeo's who obviously strongly disagrees with the Credo position but yet doesn't make myself feel like I am a second rate Christian who has probably already condemned his future children (Lord willing) to Hell! (BTW, I doubt most Padeo's who make me feel that way actually mean for me to feel that way, so no offense is taken!)(and just to be safe, the Lord willing is for having children, not for them to go to Hell!)

Lets answer your OP question first:



SemperFideles said:


> What do you think of that in light of your view of election and the idea that God no longer deals with households in this epoch of redemptive history?



Probably that God is pouring judgment upon the SBC?

Next question:



SemperFideles said:


> What do you tell a young couple with small kids that worries whether or not their children might apostasize some day?



Given that I am newly married, and will probably have small kids in the future, I can tell you what I would expect to hear, and what I have told myself: "Pray". Their salvation is completly in God's sovereign hands. If God uses my household to bring them to faith, then so be it. If not, then so be it. At the end of the day, all I can do is fall to my knees and pray to my creator. 



SemperFideles said:


> How does a Reformed Baptist nurture a child that is not in the Lord? If half are reprobate and half are elect then how does one nurture the reprobate ones?



_How_ does a Credo nurture a child that is not in the Lord? Probably the same way a Padeo does! From your questions it seems to me that only our "why" would be different, not our "how". My "why" would be because I am instructed by the Lord to teach all people about His Word, regardless if they are my children or not. My children just get more of it because they live in my household. Thus, they do get more of a blessing then they would if they grew up in a non-Christian household because in my household they will receive more Biblical teaching then they otherwise would - but this does not guarantee they are of the elect.



SemperFideles said:


> But just not Covenantally accountable? What has the child violated except the Covenant of Works?



A violation is a violation. And while they may not have disobeyed the new covenant per se (as they were never in it), they did have knowledge of it and thus, like Bethsaida, Chorazin, and Capernaum they will receive greater judgment then Sodom and Gomorrah.



SemperFideles said:


> Why is a child, outside the Covenant, expected to obey the Word?



Because the child is a Son of Adam? Don't we all have to obey the Word, regardless if I am a child in or out of the New Covenant? I thought the call to repent was given to all people, big and _small_?

Rich, I've tried answering your main questions. I've asked you some within my post. I hope they have not offended you. You have been sort of ambiguous in this thread, so my questions are probably more like shots in the dark!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Bob et al,

As I keep repeating, I'm not attempting to make a causal link between credo-baptism and apostasy. I'm trying to determine why Baptists would be concerned about apostasy of children.

You're one of the rare Baptists that will actually affirm that their children enjoy any Covenantal status. Most sense it and act as if they do but then protest that they have any part in the Covenant.

I've been trying to press Bill, and any other Baptist, as to why they sense themselves accountable to God for their children's belief/unbelief. I'm glad that Bill affirmed the fact that he is accountable to God for the belief of his daughter while not assuming that it means he's responsible for her election.

What I'm trying to get at is what the nature of that accountability is and upon what basis does that accountability exist. If it's not Covenantal then what is it? He seemed to talk as if he had special accountability initially but then backed off as if his daughter is just another possible pagan that's guilty under the Covenant of Works.

I singled out Baptist reaction to the SBC apostasy ongoing because I want to find out the sense in which it is apostasy and Baptists feel any weight for the apostasy. I've noticed you, and others, keep raising the issue of other Bodies' apostasy. That's fine but it would just merely seem to be the state of things that some are elect and some aren't if those children don't have any status whatsoever in the Kingdom. Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, URC, CRC all have apostate children. 

To state it indelicately: so what? They're not in the Covenant to begin with (excepting the COW).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

tellville said:


> Rich,
> 
> I must first begin by saying that your one of the few Padeo's who obviously strongly disagrees with the Credo position but yet doesn't make myself feel like I am a second rate Christian who has probably already condemned his future children (Lord willing) to Hell! (BTW, I doubt most Padeo's who make me feel that way actually mean for me to feel that way, so no offense is taken!)(and just to be safe, the Lord willing is for having children, not for them to go to Hell!)


Well, for that I'm glad. Far be it from me to ever make a Baptist feel like he wasn't a brother.



> _How_ does a Credo nurture a child that is not in the Lord? Probably the same way a Padeo does! From your questions it seems to me that only our "why" would be different, not our "how". My "why" would be because I am instructed by the Lord to teach all people about His Word, regardless if they are my children or not. My children just get more of it because they live in my household. Thus, they do get more of a blessing then they would if they grew up in a non-Christian household because in my household they will receive more Biblical teaching then they otherwise would - but this does not guarantee they are of the elect.


The idea of nurture, however, contains within it a desire to train _affection_ to the things of God and not merely compliance. I'm not talking about training a child not to murder or steal but are you supposed to train a child to obey the command to love the Lord with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his might? How does a parent train his child to obey that command?



> A violation is a violation. And while they may not have disobeyed the new covenant per se (as they were never in it), they did have knowledge of it and thus, like Bethsaida, Chorazin, and Capernaum they will receive greater judgment then Sodom and Gomorrah.


All 3 of those cities were in the Covenant.



> Because the child is a Son of Adam? Don't we all have to obey the Word, regardless if I am a child in or out of the New Covenant? I thought the call to repent was given to all people, big and _small_?


Can a son of Adam call upon the name of the Lord?



> Rich, I've tried answering your main questions. I've asked you some within my post. I hope they have not offended you. You have been sort of ambiguous in this thread, so my questions are probably more like shots in the dark!


Thanks for your responses. It's good to be the minority in a post for a while.


----------



## tellville

Rich,



SemperFideles said:


> I'm glad that Bill affirmed the fact that he is accountable to God for the belief of his daughter while not assuming that it means he's responsible for her election.



I would agree with Bill here.



SemperFideles said:


> What I'm trying to get at is what the nature of that accountability is and upon what basis does that accountability exist. If it's not Covenantal then what is it? He seemed to talk as if he had special accountability initially but then backed off as if his daughter is just another possible pagan that's guilty under the Covenant of Works.





SemperFideles said:


> To state it indelicately: so what? They're not in the Covenant to begin with (excepting the COW).



Just because my child may not be part of the New covenant doesn't mean I can ignore _my_ covenantal responsibilities of raising up my children in the Lord. 



SemperFideles said:


> I singled out Baptist reaction to the SBC apostasy ongoing because I want to find out the sense in which it is apostasy and Baptists feel any weight for the apostasy.



I'm a member of the SBC (CCSB). We have no one to blame but ourselves. If it wasn't for God's grace, our whole denomination would be condemned, and we would be responsible for it.


----------



## tellville

Rich,

I really should go to bed.  



SemperFideles said:


> The idea of nurture, however, contains within it a desire to train affection to the things of God and not merely compliance. I'm not talking about training a child not to murder or steal but are you supposed to train a child to obey the command to love the Lord with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his might? How does a parent train his child to obey that command?



When you put it that way, I don't see how anybody can _train_ their child to love the Lord with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his might without God first regenerating them. 

Now with that in mind: I would train my child the exact same way as I would imagine any Padeo would (minus the Padeo Baptist postion of course  ). How my child responds to my training is up to God. 



tellville said:


> A violation is a violation. And while they may not have disobeyed the new covenant per se (as they were never in it), they did have knowledge of it and thus, like Bethsaida, Chorazin, and Capernaum they will receive greater judgment then Sodom and Gomorrah.



[quote="SemperFideles] All 3 of those cities were in the Covenant.[/quote]

But they were not in the New Covenant. They are rejecting the New Covenant. A non-elect child is being condemned for failing under the Covenant of Works and for rejecting the New Covenant offered to them. 

[quote="SemperFideles] Can a son of Adam call upon the name of the Lord? [/quote]

Not without God first regenerating them.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Lots to chew on Trevor.

I wish the growth of credo-Baptist denominations in some sectors was all positive. Unfortunately Pentecostalism is sweeping South America and Africa and outstripping even relatively sound denominations. I fear that it will burn over many parts of the world and make them immune to the Gospel.

I do have to comment the SBC for taking an aggressive turn away from liberalism. As I stated, I'm generally impressed with the reliance on the Word of God that I see out of new Seminarians. The fact that the SBC is taking notice of the conditions that have made themselves ripe for not only apostasy but the Emergent Church movement is heartening. I just hope they complete the turn. I reported on the statistic with absolutely no delight at all.

I really need to get that MP3 of that lecture and post it here. I never thought I'd find a greater sense of the need to go after fathers and husbands in a Baptist Church. The zeal of my pastor far outstrips a few PCA Churches I've been in. When a Pastor actually has the backbone to criticize efforts to evangelize children and women primarily (at the expense of the men) then you know you have a man who wants to honor Scripture.


----------



## Herald

> I've been trying to press Bill, and any other Baptist, as to why they sense themselves accountable to God for their children's belief/unbelief. I'm glad that Bill affirmed the fact that he is accountable to God for the belief of his daughter while not assuming that it means he's responsible for her election.
> 
> What I'm trying to get at is what the nature of that accountability is and upon what basis does that accountability exist. If it's not Covenantal then what is it? He seemed to talk as if he had special accountability initially but then backed off as if his daughter is just another possible pagan that's guilty under the Covenant of Works.



Rich - your "pressing" resulted it what I have always belived, that parents are accountable for their children. But how is a parent held accountable? What is the means of accountability? That is different discussion, but suffice to say that I believe all parents will answer to Christ as to how they raised their children. Children are, after all, a stewardship. And what is required of stewards?

[bible]1 Corinthians 4:2[/bible]

So our accountability is a stewardship, and our stewardship is from God.

Regarding my daughter, my stewardship is not backed off from, not in the least. I am responsible for raising her in the ways of the Lord. I am not responsible as to whether she believes. I find nothing in scripture that holds the parent responsible for the belief or unbelief of their child. Am I accountable for the manner in which I have raised her? Certainly. If my child does not believe, is it possible that I may bear responsibility. Possibly. If I have failed in my stewardship by not instructing my child in the ways of the Lord, I would expect to be held accountable. But what do you say to the parent who has raised his or her child in the ways of the Lord, yet thier child does not come to faith? Would anyone dare to presume that they failed? If the answer to that is "yes", then that would be parental Arminianism.


----------



## Herald

Trevor - excellent post.


----------



## Herald

trevorjohnson said:


> Rich;
> 
> I really appreciate your ministry in this church. They have the zeal..maybe you can help them with the knowledge part. Yes, pray for the SBC as a whole. They have come out of a horrible pit of liberalism and their missions has, in the last 12-15 years taken a very healthy turn. The Founders are also at work.
> 
> God is often pleased to bless the needle of truth in the haystack of error and he is blessing the SBC despite itself.



Trevor - lets not lose sight of the fact that there are many non-affiliated Baptist and Baptistic-type churches that are faithful to scripture. We should pray for the SBC and that the Founders Movement will gain even more influence within the convention. But lets not forget those churches outside of the SBC. My church is not SBC, although casual discussions have been held on that topic. We're praying for direction in that area for the future.


----------



## Chris

SemperFideles said:


> When a Pastor actually has the backbone to criticize efforts to evangelize children and women primarily (at the expense of the men) then you know you have a man who wants to honor Scripture.



You've made reference to this issue more than once here. 

If you ever care to set aside the issue of baptism and discuss this issue, I'd love to be a part of that discussion.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Chris said:


> You've made reference to this issue more than once here.
> 
> If you ever care to set aside the issue of baptism and discuss this issue, I'd love to be a part of that discussion.



Chris,

If you don't like the Baptism forum (read the forum guidelines) then *stay out of it*. I don't know how to be clearer on this issue but this forum is for the discussion of baptism and not a place to continue to complain that baptism is being discussed herein.

I also give you permission to start a new thread in the forum you care to discuss it in. (Actually you don't need my permission but you seem like you want to discuss it.)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Rich - your "pressing" resulted it what I have always belived, that parents are accountable for their children. But how is a parent held accountable? What is the means of accountability? That is different discussion, but suffice to say that I believe all parents will answer to Christ as to how they raised their children. Children are, after all, a stewardship. And what is required of stewards?
> 
> [bible]1 Corinthians 4:2[/bible]
> 
> So our accountability is a stewardship, and our stewardship is from God.
> 
> Regarding my daughter, my stewardship is not backed off from, not in the least. I am responsible for raising her in the ways of the Lord. I am not responsible as to whether she believes. I find nothing in scripture that holds the parent responsible for the belief or unbelief of their child. Am I accountable for the manner in which I have raised her? Certainly. If my child does not believe, is it possible that I may bear responsibility. Possibly. If I have failed in my stewardship by not instructing my child in the ways of the Lord, I would expect to be held accountable. But what do you say to the parent who has raised his or her child in the ways of the Lord, yet thier child does not come to faith? Would anyone dare to presume that they failed? If the answer to that is "yes", then that would be parental Arminianism.



Don't have much time. Have to head out the door (about 0520 here).

Leaving aside the "...what would one say to a person who has raised a child in the Lord..." it is interesting that you believe it is your responsibility to raise someone in the eyes of the Lord who you believe does not belong to Him in a covenantal sense. That is to say, what is the difference between your daughter and your Muslim neighbor's child? The easy answer is "...she's blessed to be in my home..." but they're both out of Covenant with God according to you.

Why, simply because she's in your house, do you believe a person, not in God's Covenant, needs to be raised "...in the Lord..."? Where do you get that idea from the Scriptures?


----------



## Chris

SemperFideles said:


> Chris,
> 
> If you don't like the Baptism forum (read the forum guidelines) then *stay out of it*. I don't know how to be clearer on this issue but this forum is for the discussion of baptism and not a place to continue to complain that baptism is being discussed herein.
> 
> I also give you permission to start a new thread in the forum you care to discuss it in. (Actually you don't need my permission but you seem like you want to discuss it.)




I made no reference to 'not liking' the baptist forum. And I didn't ask permission to start a new thread. I made no complaint that baptism is being discussed here. I have read and understand the rules. 

Rich, you are being exceedingly rude here. You appear to be wanting to pick a fight - I've read the rules for the forum, I understand them, and you appear to be trying to test them. Odd behavior for an administrator. 

I simply ASKED if you'd be interested in discussing an important issue aside from the issue at hand. It wasn't a comment on your theology nor a complaint; it was what it was - an attempt at dialogue. 

I actually JOINED this forum in response to a post you made on the topic of women/children in baptist churches several weeks ago. I replied to that thread and you ignored it. 

(see here: http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=231649&postcount=1)

Rich, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about this issue. Possibly it's a result of your being forced to attend a church that rejects a theology you hold dear. I can't say for sure - I can just say that you come across as exceedingly rude here, and it is totally unbecoming of a Christian. 

I did NOT join this forum to be belittled and attacked for no reason, and I do NOT expect such behavior from people who claim to be my brethren.

The behavior you've shown towards me in this thread is embarassing.


----------



## CDM

Chris said:


> I made no reference to 'not liking' the baptist forum. And I didn't ask permission to start a new thread. I made no complaint that baptism is being discussed here. I have read and understand the rules.
> 
> Rich, you are being exceedingly rude here. You appear to be wanting to pick a fight - I've read the rules for the forum, I understand them, and you appear to be trying to test them. Odd behavior for an administrator.
> 
> I simply ASKED if you'd be interested in discussing an important issue aside from the issue at hand. It wasn't a comment on your theology nor a complaint; it was what it was - an attempt at dialogue.
> 
> I actually JOINED this forum in response to a post you made on the topic of women/children in baptist churches several weeks ago. I replied to that thread and you ignored it.
> 
> (see here: http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=231649&postcount=1)
> 
> Rich, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about this issue. Possibly it's a result of your being forced to attend a church that rejects a theology you hold dear. I can't say for sure - I can just say that you come across as exceedingly rude here, and it is totally unbecoming of a Christian.
> 
> I did NOT join this forum to be belittled and attacked for no reason, and I do NOT expect such behavior from people who claim to be my brethren.
> 
> The behavior you've shown towards me in this thread is embarassing.



Friend, you are completely wrong about Rich. Ask anyone on the board that knows him.

The chip on the shoulder appears to be yours not his. This response of yours in an over reaction to perceived wrongdoing. Privately message him if you think otherwise. 

To say Rich "ignored" you is completely out of line. How do you know he even read your post? Maybe he had nothing to say? Maybe some other reason? To comment on his motives and his church affiliation is hitting below the belt. 

Reconsider your post please.


----------



## Herald

SemperFideles said:


> Don't have much time. Have to head out the door (about 0520 here).
> 
> Leaving aside the "...what would one say to a person who has raised a child in the Lord..." it is interesting that you believe it is your responsibility to raise someone in the eyes of the Lord who you believe does not belong to Him in a covenantal sense. That is to say, what is the difference between your daughter and your Muslim neighbor's child? The easy answer is "...she's blessed to be in my home..." but they're both out of Covenant with God according to you.
> 
> Why, simply because she's in your house, do you believe a person, not in God's Covenant, needs to be raised "...in the Lord..."? Where do you get that idea from the Scriptures?



Rich - I think you are missing my point. My daughter is under my charge. I am responsible for her. Food, shelter, protection are all my responsibiity to provide as a parent. My daughter was taught the word of God as a means of evangelism. God is the one who regenerated her and allowed His word to take root. I no longer am evangelizing my daughter, I am training her. 

What is the difference between my daughter and a Muslim neighbor's child? You're right, she lives in my house. She is under my parental authority. The decalogue recognized this with, "Obey your father and your mother." Not every Jew was regenerate, but they were still commanded to obey. I believe it is implied in the commandment that the the child is going to receive instruction from the parent. Indeed, isn't this what Paul had in mind when he wrote:

[bible]Ephesians 6:1-4[/bible]

Rich - I have a question for you. Do you consider a newborn child, who is born into a believing family, to be saved without excercising faith or showing evidence thereof? If you are a good Covenant Theologian you should answer "yes" to that question. If the answer is not yes, please elaborate.


----------



## smhbbag

> What do you think of that in light of your view of election and the idea that God no longer deals with households in this epoch of redemptive history?



From my own anecdotal experience, I do not doubt at all the statistic you cited. And it is a tragedy. The causes of it are, of course, legion, so I'll try and stick to the question at hand.

In light of my view of election, I think it is a matter of, primarily, the consequences for a people/denomination losing sight of the gospel. Its children go astray. Just as we can probably assume that more children in OT Israel abandoned the faith of their fathers during times where the priesthood and people were corrupted. Sins of fathers have far-reaching consequences down his line.

As for the second part, I do think the radical individualism in the SBC is partly to blame. Households and families are viewed more as single people who happen to be related to each other, rather than a sanctified, set apart unit through which God works uniquely. This has certainly had a cost, and I hate to see this pervasive, yet mostly subconscious, attitude in our congregations. 

I only skimmed the thread as I was short on time, but Rich seemed to want to avoid making a causal connection between current SBC views of the family and the tragic statistic. I don't believe it's the primary cause, but it certainly is one of many. More important, I believe, is the loss of a fear of God, the doctrine of total depravity, and easy-believism. But that's an aside.

Baptists today tend not to take their responsibility to their own children any more seriously than they do all other individuals around them. They do not recognize any additional duty placed on them and their children due to living in a house of faith. And there can be no question that not recognizing the uniqueness of their children, and the loss of the extra imperatives on them, is devastating to the family and the children's faith.


----------



## tellville

<insert Bill's last post here>

 

Trevor, keep up the excellent posts!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Chris,

Gotta run to a meeting.

Helps in a new relationship not to unfairly read and then accuse a man of "grossly overanalyzing" a subject in your first interaction with him. I found you petulent in your first post in this thread. I apologize for letting that get to me.

I honestly did not see your other post that you just placed here. I'll respond when I return.

As far as any misunderstandings go. I apologize. It is not my intent to pick a fight.

Grace and Peace,

Rich


----------



## Chris

SemperFideles said:


> Chris,
> 
> Gotta run to a meeting.
> 
> Helps in a new relationship not to unfairly read and then accuse a man of "grossly overanalyzing" a subject in your first interaction with him. I found you petulent in your first post in this thread. I apologize for letting that get to me.



Unintended consequences - I had no idea it would be seen that way. I admit, I could have used a better choice of words. 

The internet's lack of tone/inflection conveyance may have struck again. 



> I honestly did not see your other post that you just placed here. I'll respond when I return.



No problem. You're certainly not obligated to respond - more on that other post later. 



> As far as any misunderstandings go. I apologize. It is not my intent to pick a fight.



And certainly not mine. 


> Grace and Peace,
> 
> Rich



And the same to you. 

I'm sorry for being thin-skinned here. Knowing the RoE on this sub-forum, it's sort of hard to ease into a thread here, and I could have taken a more tactful route. 

About this issue of women/children in churches: 

I'll start another thread addressing this. Maybe we could collectively ponder ways to address it based on commonly held beliefs without delving into differences. As such, I'll go cobble a new thread together in the E/M/PC forum.


----------



## VictorBravo

SemperFideles said:


> What do you think of that in light of your view of election and the idea that God no longer deals with households in this epoch of redemptive history?



Wow, a lot of stuff here. I have only read some of the comments and skimmed the rest because of time constraints, so I probably may be repeating some people, but a couple of things jump out at me.

I have very little experience with the SBC world. My circle involves Reformed Baptists steeped in the 1689 Confession. We also deeply appreciate Westminster and other Reformed Confessions/statements. I am certain there is a difference in approach to Rich's question among us compared to some in the SBC.

I can only speak from personal experience, but I don't at all see the idea that God no longer deals with households. All of the families in my congregation take their responsibilities toward their children seriously--they are gifts from God to be cultivated and nurtured. I believe that all the families catechize their children, worship with them at home, teach them the Bible, and seek to live Godly lives as examples. I have never heard or seen anybody treat their children as less important objects of evangelism than the world in general. Quite the contrary, the children are the primary work before them. No question that they are considered sanctified, in the sense of having protection and blessing, because they have believing parents. I wish I had had that experience.

Our congregation takes baptism very seriously. It is not something lightly done to meet quotas. In the same sense, we take apostacy seriously too. It is a frightening thing to hear of one who has consciously and publicly made profession of belief and trust in Christ turn away. We treat it very solemnly, and, in certain cases, publicly.

I think as a practical matter, we don't treat apostacy much different from the paedobaptists, except that perhaps open apostacy is somewhat more of a solemn surprise. I also think, as a practical matter, that our view of election is not a factor in how children are treated. Parents have faith that God will regenerate their children and, at the same time, acknowledge that God is sovereign. Certainly that doesn't dissuade them from doing whatever they can do to raise them in knowledge of God's Word.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

SemperFideles said:


> Don't have much time. Have to head out the door (about 0520 here).
> 
> Leaving aside the "...what would one say to a person who has raised a child in the Lord..." it is interesting that you believe it is your responsibility to raise someone in the eyes of the Lord who you believe does not belong to Him in a covenantal sense. That is to say, what is the difference between your daughter and your Muslim neighbor's child? The easy answer is "...she's blessed to be in my home..." but they're both out of Covenant with God according to you.
> 
> Why, simply because she's in your house, do you believe a person, not in God's Covenant, needs to be raised "...in the Lord..."? Where do you get that idea from the Scriptures?



Ok, here's where I turn to Matt. 22:36 and Prov. 22:6. I'm going to start with Prov. 22:6, and clear something up that Rich and me discussed earlier.

6(A)Train up a child in the way he should go,
Even when he is old he will not depart from it.

Rich stated this when i used the text. 



SemperFideles said:


> But that was written by a father to give his son instructions on how to keep the Covenant. How does that apply to children who are outside of it until they profess faith?



Now, to make something clear. There is no, and i mean no, hint, implication, or imagination about this child being "part of the covenant." This simply states "a child." Secondly, when i asked him which son of "Solomon's" was he refering to, there was no reply. Proverbs is wisdom literature and does not specify to whom Solomon was writing but rather he was just giving wisdom.

Matthew 22:34-40 reads:

34(A)But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced (B)the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together. 

35One of them, [a](C)a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, 

36"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" 

37And He said to him, " '(D)YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' 

38"This is the great and foremost commandment. 

39"The second is like it, '(E)YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' 

40"(F)On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." 


Yes, the first and foremost of all is love. The second is loving your neighbor. You do not treat your neighbor like a heathen but rather with compassion. Always sharing the gospel with them. Now if you treat them with love, should you not treat your daughter better then your neighbor and raise her up in the Word? This is the greatest form of love there is for your childeren: Raising them up in the Word, praying that God will save them.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Wow. Gone for an hour and look what's here!


BaptistInCrisis said:


> What is the difference between my daughter and a Muslim neighbor's child? You're right, she lives in my house. She is under my parental authority. The decalogue recognized this with, "Obey your father and your mother." Not every Jew was regenerate, but they were still commanded to obey.


Because they were under Covenantal obligation to do so. How does this apply to your child?


> I believe it is implied in the commandment that the the child is going to receive instruction from the parent. Indeed, isn't this what Paul had in mind when he wrote:
> 
> [bible]Ephesians 6:1-4[/bible]


An interesting passage to quote. What kind of promise is made to a child who is not in Covenant with God?



> Rich - I have a question for you. Do you consider a newborn child, who is born into a believing family, to be saved without excercising faith or showing evidence thereof? If you are a good Covenant Theologian you should answer "yes" to that question. If the answer is not yes, please elaborate.


Bill,

Why do you call me a _good_ Covenant Theologian. There is nobody good except God.  Sorry, I couldn't resist. Hey! What do you think you're doing bringing paedo beliefs into this thread? The answer is yes and no if you must know. Since the answer is "not yes", I will not elaborate.  


smhbbag said:


> Baptists today tend not to take their responsibility to their own children any more seriously than they do all other individuals around them. They do not recognize any additional duty placed on them and their children due to living in a house of faith. And there can be no question that not recognizing the uniqueness of their children, and the loss of the extra imperatives on them, is devastating to the family and the children's faith.


Great post all the way through Jeremy. Let me state that you have a better grasp of your responsibility before God than the majority of Presbyterians I have met. That's not meant as a backhanded compliment. Well done. You will make a great husband and father if you keep that idea ever before you.


Chris said:


> I'll start another thread addressing this. Maybe we could collectively ponder ways to address it based on commonly held beliefs without delving into differences. As such, I'll go cobble a new thread together in the E/M/PC forum.


God Bless you Brother. I wish I could embrace you.
 



victorbravo said:


> I can only speak from personal experience, but I don't at all see the idea that God no longer deals with households. All of the families in my congregation take their responsibilities toward their children seriously--they are gifts from God to be cultivated and nurtured. I believe that all the families catechize their children, worship with them at home, teach them the Bible, and seek to live Godly lives as examples. I have never heard or seen anybody treat their children as less important objects of evangelism than the world in general. Quite the contrary, the children are the primary work before them. No question that they are considered sanctified, in the sense of having protection and blessing, because they have believing parents. I wish I had had that experience.
> 
> Our congregation takes baptism very seriously. It is not something lightly done to meet quotas. In the same sense, we take apostacy seriously too. It is a frightening thing to hear of one who has consciously and publicly made profession of belief and trust in Christ turn away. We treat it very solemnly, and, in certain cases, publicly.
> 
> I think as a practical matter, we don't treat apostacy much different from the paedobaptists, except that perhaps open apostacy is somewhat more of a solemn surprise. I also think, as a practical matter, that our view of election is not a factor in how children are treated. Parents have faith that God will regenerate their children and, at the same time, acknowledge that God is sovereign. Certainly that doesn't dissuade them from doing whatever they can do to raise them in knowledge of God's Word.


Fascinating. I'm running into more credo-Baptist positions like this who are very nearly identical to the paedos in the sense of family solidarity. How do you view this organic union within the family _apart from_ the Covenant? That is to say, that everything sounds really good, but where do you account for this view of your children apart from a Covenantal sense of union with them? Specifically, what Scripture verses would you appeal to in order to proof text all the ideas developed in your post.


Andrew P.C. said:


> Now, to make something clear. There is no, and i mean no, hint, implication, or imagination about this child being "part of the covenant." This simply states "a child." Secondly, when i asked him which son of "Solomon's" was he refering to, there was no reply. Proverbs is wisdom literature and does not specify to whom Solomon was writing but rather he was just giving wisdom.


Wow. You really need to read Proverbs 1 again. I stand by what I stated and I gave a reply. You may _disagree_ with the reply but cannot state that I did not reply. Further, you need to address how Proverbs 1 does not form the prelude for everything that follows thereafter.


----------



## non dignus

Is it correct to say Presbyterians catechize their children, while Baptists evangelize their children?


----------



## satz

> Fascinating. I'm running into more credo-Baptist positions like this who are very nearly identical to the paedos in the sense of family solidarity. How do you view this organic union within the family apart from the Covenant? That is to say, that everything sounds really good, but where do you account for this view of your children apart from a Covenantal sense of union with them? Specifically, what Scripture verses would you appeal to in order to proof text all the ideas developed in your post.



Rich, 

This is something I alluded to in my first post above. Could I ask again, do you think believer's only baptism is inconsistent with the idea that a believer's child today is still considered 'special' by being born to believing parents, and those parents can claim God's promises with regards to godly child training etc.

Would it really be too simplistic to say that God has simply changed the specifics of his ordinance, ie from indiscriminate application of circumcision to baptism after a profession of faith? This would not necessarily have any effect on the way he views christian families under either testament.


----------



## VictorBravo

SemperFideles said:


> Fascinating. I'm running into more credo-Baptist positions like this who are very nearly identical to the paedos in the sense of family solidarity. How do you view this organic union within the family _apart from_ the Covenant? That is to say, that everything sounds really good, but where do you account for this view of your children apart from a Covenantal sense of union with them? Specifically, what Scripture verses would you appeal to in order to proof text all the ideas developed in your post.



The assignment is larger than I can bear! Seriously, right now I'm preparing for an LL.M. Tax class, so I can only be brief.

First, I want to thank you for setting this discussion in motion. It has helped me figure out better some of the issues driving the debate.

I think our respective understandings of the covenant is where the debate really meets. I acknowledge the majority view here, and I take the idea of covenant seriously too. But, as a good Baptist, am very reluctant to apply it beyond what I understand Scripture to say. So I don't see it as a covenant that attaches based upon birth or descent. Without being exhaustive, I nod toward Romans 9:6 et seq. "Not all Israel is of Israel . . ." Also, it seems the history of "covenant families" is fairly spotty throughout the OT. How many examples of faithful offspring can we find extending beyond a couple of generations?

So, if we, as Baptists, cannot definitively say our children are in the covenant, what are we to do? My simplistic response is that we are to be obedient. Proverbs is full of directives toward parents, one example:

Pro 29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame. 

I actually think that Prov. 1 is a great example of a father being obedient to God's directive in how to raise a child. Of course, that particular father, to a large extent, did not succeed in having faithful offspring. That result was God's doing (although I think the Bible attributes fault to Solomon as well, especially given his bad example in having all those wives and following their worship practices).

Some verses from Proverbs 1 indicating the proper pattern, the fact that some do not listen, and the promise to those who hear:

Pro 1:8 My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother: 

Pro 1:29 For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD: 

Pro 1:33 But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil. 

I'll follow with interest later, but I have to run.

Vic


----------



## VictorBravo

non dignus said:


> Is it correct to say Presbyterians catechize their children, while Baptists evangelize their children?



Not quite, at least in my experience. I understand that to catechize is to train children in doctrine by questions and answers. Or more expansively, by memorization, discussion, and examination. Baptists do that too (or they should, I think). And in so doing, they evangelize as well.


----------



## Herald

> Why do you call me a good Covenant Theologian. There is nobody good except God. Sorry, I couldn't resist. Hey! What do you think you're doing bringing paedo beliefs into this thread? The answer is yes and no if you must know. Since the answer is "not yes", I will not elaborate.



Oh no, you didn't! Don't tell me you played the part of a politician. Why won't you elaborate? It was a fair question. 

What say you all? Fair question to Rich, or no?


----------



## Herald

> Because they were under Covenantal obligation to do so. How does this apply to your child?



There is a Covenantal obligation for all parents to their children. I just happen to believe that obligation does not assume these children are part of the visible church until regenerate. Parents are to train, children are to obey. Children cannot obey completely until they are regenerate. They may obey parental commands, but they are unable to obey God until such time as they come to faith (1 Cor. 2:14).


----------



## non dignus

" Do you consider a newborn child, who is born into a believing family, to be saved without excercising faith or showing evidence thereof? "

Yes, I consider him to be saved. That is, I believe he is saved.

(edit) After posting, I realized we're headed for a derailment. My apologies, Rich.


----------



## Herald

non dignus said:


> Is it correct to say Presbyterians catechize their children, while Baptists evangelize their children?



No, it is not correct. Credo parents, in the process of catechizing, are evangelizing those children that are not saved. When they come to faith in Christ the evangelism aspect of catechizing ends.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

satz said:


> Rich,
> 
> This is something I alluded to in my first post above. Could I ask again, do you think believer's only baptism is inconsistent with the idea that a believer's child today is still considered 'special' by being born to believing parents, and those parents can claim God's promises with regards to godly child training etc.


Instead of answering whether or not I believe it is consistent, I would like to know how you believe it is consistent with that idea. Where is the idea formed from that a Christian trains up his child when that child has no status in the Church except being related to the person in the Church?



> Would it really be too simplistic to say that God has simply changed the specifics of his ordinance, ie from indiscriminate application of circumcision to baptism after a profession of faith? This would not necessarily have any effect on the way he views christian families under either testament.


I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying:

God views the children of both adminstrations to be particpants in the life of the Covenant Body but in the OT he marked them and in the NT He wants us to wait to signify their participation until they express faith?

I'm purposefully not giving my opinion here. I don't want to be a foil to the questions I'm asking. I'm pursuing how the Baptists form these ideas about their children.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

victorbravo said:


> The assignment is larger than I can bear! Seriously, right now I'm preparing for an LL.M. Tax class, so I can only be brief.
> 
> First, I want to thank you for setting this discussion in motion. It has helped me figure out better some of the issues driving the debate.
> 
> I think our respective understandings of the covenant is where the debate really meets. I acknowledge the majority view here, and I take the idea of covenant seriously too. But, as a good Baptist, am very reluctant to apply it beyond what I understand Scripture to say. So I don't see it as a covenant that attaches based upon birth or descent. Without being exhaustive, I nod toward Romans 9:6 et seq. "Not all Israel is of Israel . . ." Also, it seems the history of "covenant families" is fairly spotty throughout the OT. How many examples of faithful offspring can we find extending beyond a couple of generations?
> 
> So, if we, as Baptists, cannot definitively say our children are in the covenant, what are we to do? My simplistic response is that we are to be obedient. Proverbs is full of directives toward parents, one example:
> 
> Pro 29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.
> 
> I actually think that Prov. 1 is a great example of a father being obedient to God's directive in how to raise a child. Of course, that particular father, to a large extent, did not succeed in having faithful offspring. That result was God's doing (although I think the Bible attributes fault to Solomon as well, especially given his bad example in having all those wives and following their worship practices).
> 
> Some verses from Proverbs 1 indicating the proper pattern, the fact that some do not listen, and the promise to those who hear:
> 
> Pro 1:8 My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother:
> 
> Pro 1:29 For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:
> 
> Pro 1:33 But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.
> 
> I'll follow with interest later, but I have to run.
> 
> Vic



Vic,

How do those Proverbs apply to your child? I know you have to run but I'd be curious how your relationship to your son is like unto the relationship of the Proverbial father whose shoulder we're looking over.


----------



## Herald

non dignus said:


> " Do you consider a newborn child, who is born into a believing family, to be saved without excercising faith or showing evidence thereof? "
> 
> Yes, I consider him to be saved. That is, I believe he is saved.
> 
> (edit) After posting, I realized we're headed for a derailment. My apologies, Rich.



David - derailment? Not at t'all. I expected that answer from a C.T. I have to give you kudos for being the first C.T. in here to state it plainly. By doing so we recognize the elephant sitting in the room for what it is. We have a fundamental disagreement on ecclesiology and soteriology. We may agree on the doctrines of sovereign grace, but we part on the topics discussed in this thread. That's okay. Every credo and paedo who has participated on the PB for more than a short while can identitfy this most basic disagreement. 

Rich started this thread with a microscope pointed towards the answers of credo's. Fair enough. All us credo's willingly (gotta love that word!) jumped on the glass strip and have been examined by doctor Rich.  But seriously, that does exempt him or any other paedo from the pendulum swinging back the other way. We can't keep providing answers in the absence of some conclusion.

David - thanks for the direct answer.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Oh no, you didn't! Don't tell me you played the part of a politician. Why won't you elaborate? It was a fair question.
> 
> What say you all? Fair question to Rich, or no?


To quote Kirsten Dunst. This is not a Cheerocracy. This is a Cheertatorship.

Seriously. I want to know what you think. I will tell you simply that I do not believe, like the FV, that baptism confers real union with Christ. I don't want to derail the discussion.


BaptistInCrisis said:


> There is a Covenantal obligation for all parents to their children. I just happen to believe that obligation does not assume these children are part of the visible church until regenerate. Parents are to train, children are to obey. Children cannot obey completely until they are regenerate. They may obey parental commands, but they are unable to obey God until such time as they come to faith (1 Cor. 2:14).


Which members of your Church are regenarate Bill? Could you please rephrase that?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

BaptistInCrisis said:


> David - derailment? Not at t'all. I expected that answer from a C.T. I have to give you kudos for being the first C.T. in here to state it plainly. By doing so we recognize the elephant sitting in the room for what it is. We have a fundamental disagreement on ecclesiology and soteriology. We may agree on the doctrines of sovereign grace, but we part on the topics discussed in this thread. That's okay. Every credo and paedo who has participated on the PB for more than a short while can identitfy this most basic disagreement.
> 
> Rich started this thread with a microscope pointed towards the answers of credo's. Fair enough. All us credo's willingly (gotta love that word!) jumped on the glass strip and have been examined by doctor Rich.  But seriously, that does exempt him or any other paedo from the pendulum swinging back the other way. We can't keep providing answers in the absence of some conclusion.
> 
> David - thanks for the direct answer.



Don't make me turn into the steely-eyed killer that I've been trained to be over 16 years! We'll only tolerate so much paedo spillage into this thread.

You have no idea how much discipline it's taken not to editorialize some of my responses.


----------



## Herald

> Seriously. I want to know what you think. I will tell you simply that I do not believe, like the FV, that baptism confers real union with Christ. I don't want to derail the discussion.



Rich, considering how many posts I have made in this thread, and considering that I have answered (to the best of my ability) your questions without dodging them, I have to believe you know what I think. Don't you?  




> Which members of your Church are regenarate Bill? Could you please rephrase that?



Brother, as an elder I look for evidence of faith in the lives of our members. Do they practice what they profess? Are they making their election sure? Is there evidence of good works? Is there a hunger for God's word? Do they love the brethren? I could go on with a list of evidences. Applying this in my family, I look for the same thing in my child. Those same (plus more) evidences tell me that her profession is real. Is it possible that I may be duped? Sure. Any believer can be duped. Pastors, Elders, Sunday School teachers, parents etc. can be fooled. But I would say that if these evidences of faith are real and unabating, I would be confident in that individuals profession of faith.


----------



## Herald

> You have no idea how much discipline it's taken not to editorialize some of my responses.



Serioulsy...all joking aside. Are you eventually going to provide a conclusion to your questions? Is this _*just*_ about collecting information, or do you intend to take what you have gleaned and provide a SemperFideles polemic? 

Inquiring minds "eventually" want to know.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

trevorjohnson said:


> Thoughts on covenant children:
> 
> As a Baptist, I see that God has blessed my children by providentially placing them in my home under the use of means, such as prayer and Bible readings. There is nothing in the bloodline and nothing ontological about being a "covenant" child.
> 
> In fact, when the Muslims took over huge swaths of Europe and carted off Europe's children as slaves, concubines and janisseries, these children did not magically become more receptive to Christianity due to being an ontological covenant child. Once the nurture of a Christian home was removed providentially, these children became Muslim.
> 
> Here's an experiment: Take a bunch of mixed orphans, some from Muslim families and some from Christian families from birth. Raise them all in a Christian home. Statistically I would challenge you to show a difference. Or, take a bunch and put them in Muslim homes. From birth. God, having providentially allowed the external cirucmstances, which include religious instruction, will produce results that reflect those providential circumstances.


But is your son a biology experiment? He's in your home right now, adopted or seminally, he's yours. Hypotheticals aside, I'm interested in how you train the real child in your home.



> Again, Christ is Irael. Only those IN Christ are in Israel. To be in Christ is to be in covenant. Unregenerate children of believers may or may not be the Elect. No one can know who the Elect are, but we should wait on some fruit or cognitive confession before they are assumed to be so (aside from the evidence of being an offspring of a believer). They grow up under covenant blessings and can thus be referred to as "under" the blessings of the covenant, but only true beleivers are part of the invisible church and only those who knowingly and willingly confess Christ (though they can be lying and be a goat all along...the Lord will separate this chaff) are to be admitted into the visible church.


How does the connection from true believers (invisibly) and "knowing and willing confessors of Christ" (visible members) run? How do they connect to each other? Also, in what sense is that confessor now admitted to the Church that your son is not? What will change in the way that you treat your son the day after he confesses and is baptized? Will you begin instructing him in a way that you did not the day before his baptism? Will he have access to parts of the Church that he did not have previously? Israel at least has a "Court of the Gentiles" in the Temple to keep those outside of the Covenant outside. Is there any way in which children are kept from the visible Church prior to their baptism?



> Also, just because we don't use the Shorter Catechism does not mean that calvinistic baptists do not teach their children.
> 
> The dividing line between those that teach their children and those that don't is not a baptism issue. It is not dependant on ecclesiology beleifs but on soteriological beleifs. Calvinistic teach their children better, whether or not they are PCA or SBC. Non-calvinistis don't. That is why the most vocal criticisms of the SBC comes from fellow baptists in the Founders movement.
> 
> And yes guys; there is a definite family principle in Scripture. Whole families often came to Christ. We in the West focus on individuals and so are often very confused if going to Indonesia or Irian Jaya and seeing whole tribes or extended families all making allegience to Christ at once. Baptists do this more than Presbyterians in the US and yes, you all are absoluely right that we ought to stress this family principle more.
> 
> I thank God that many of the small, calvinistic baptists churches that I have gone too actually count their members in family units and engage vigorously in teaching. I also thank God for the Reformed who take the biological growth of the church seriously.



I'm not spitting on this. I'm still trying to determine the sense in which you have this obligation to _your_ child. What is this family principle you're talking about? I'm trying to understand how a Baptist catechizes and trains his child _just like_ he's in the Church but he's not.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Serioulsy...all joking aside. Are you eventually going to provide a conclusion to your questions? Is this _*just*_ about collecting information, or do you intend to take what you have gleaned and provide a SemperFideles polemic?
> 
> Inquiring minds "eventually" want to know.



I'm not going to use this to beat Baptists over the head with. When people stop answering questions or I'm going in pointless circles with them then I won't browbeat them.

I've just engaged in a lot of debates and usually Baptists get their hackles up because they are defending themselves. I wanted to examine their beliefs without them having to get distracted by their distaste for my own.

I'm also trying to turn over this sense of family solidarity that I see in some Baptists and see if they can account for it Scripturally.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Rich,

The question should be asked then(and yes, i'm looking for an answer from you), where in scripture does it say that being raised up in the word(Parent to child discipline) is ONLY for the "elect"?

The second(multiple) question is: Who judges who are elected and who are not? Would you not tell your child to obey God, even if they are not believers? How do you compare a believing child to a believing adult?(or in other words, since the fruit can be more obvious in an adult then a child, how do you tell?)

Now here is something I'm telling you: You do not know who the elect are. Therefore, do you raise your child up in the Word still? or pretend that he/she is regenerate?

I'm asking honest questions. I don't understand your position so i'm asking to find out.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

BaptistInCrisis said:


> There is a Covenantal obligation for all parents to their children. I just happen to believe that obligation does not assume these children are part of the visible church until regenerate. Parents are to train, children are to obey. Children cannot obey completely until they are regenerate. They may obey parental commands, but they are unable to obey God until such time as they come to faith (1 Cor. 2:14).



Bill,

I'm sorry. I forgot to follow-up on this. Paul quoted a Promise in that passage to the children. I was asking how that promise applied to the children and why is Paul addressing children who are not in the visible Church?


----------



## Herald

> I'm not going to use this to beat Baptists over the head with. When people stop answering questions or I'm going in pointless circles with them then I won't browbeat them.



Rich - fair enough. For my part I don't believe I have anything more to add to the discussion. My hot air has probably added to the fallacy of human-induced global warming (but that is a whole other topic!). Seriously, I've said about all that is on my mind on the topic. I'll audit the thread, but I now leave it in the hands of my esteemed fellow Baptists. 

Have at it fellas!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Andrew P.C. said:


> Rich,
> 
> The question should be asked then(and yes, i'm looking for an answer from you), where in scripture does it say that being raised up in the word(Parent to child discipline) is ONLY for the "elect"?
> 
> The second(multiple) question is: Who judges who are elected and who are not? Would you not tell your child to obey God, even if they are not believers? How do you compare a believing child to a believing adult?(or in other words, since the fruit can be more obvious in an adult then a child, how do you tell?)
> 
> Now here is something I'm telling you: You do not know who the elect are. Therefore, do you raise your child up in the Word still? or pretend that he/she is regenerate?
> 
> I'm asking honest questions. I don't understand your position so i'm asking to find out.



Andrew,

I've never stated that anyone should judge who the elect are. I asked Bill to clarify because he stated that visible Church membership is limited to the regenerate (i.e. elect). Keep in mind that I've been trying not to put forward any positions. I've been asking for clarifications. Bill clarified.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Rich - fair enough. For my part I don't believe I have anything more to add to the discussion. My hot air has probably added to the fallacy of human-induced global warming (but that is a whole other topic!). Seriously, I've said about all that is on my mind on the topic. I'll audit the thread, but I now leave it in the hands of my esteemed fellow Baptists.
> 
> Have at it fellas!



Quoting Swiper the Fox: "Oh man!"


----------



## Andrew P.C.

SemperFideles said:


> Andrew,
> 
> I've never stated that anyone should judge who the elect are. I asked Bill to clarify because he stated that visible Church membership is limited to the regenerate (i.e. elect). Keep in mind that I've been trying not to put forward any positions. I've been asking for clarifications. Bill clarified.



I know you've said that, but yet, you keep criticizing the Credo's(or correcting them) and i just honestly wanted to see what you believe, that way i can know how you are interpreting certain passages.


----------



## Gryphonette

*Perhaps....?*



SemperFideles said:


> Paul quoted a Promise in that passage to the children. I was asking how that promise applied to the children and why is Paul addressing children who are not in the visible Church?


The same judgment of charity that Paul uses to address those in the assembly, even though he surely didn't actually believe they were all, without exception, redeemed?

If he can apply the JoC to the assemblies, I don't see why Christian parents cannot reasonably apply it to their children.


----------



## satz

Rich,

Let me first say I am certainly not coming here to attempt to be a teacher, but also trying to understand these things better.



> Instead of answering whether or not I believe it is consistent, I would like to know how you believe it is consistent with that idea. Where is the idea formed from that a Christian trains up his child when that child has no status in the Church except being related to the person in the Church?



I would say a Christian parent trains up his or her child simply because God commands it, for example in Eph 6:4 and all its parallels in the other epistles. I would then look back at other places like the book of proverbs to see that training of children, and its promised effects is a principle in the bible from beginning to end. I suppose I would simply state my position like this, I do not see that not applying a ‘sign’ to a child would it anyway overthrow this principle. I might have under the OT, since that would have been direct rebellion against God, but if God has not commanded the sign (yet) to children under the New Testament, I see no reason why a parent cannot claim God’s promises with regards to child training and bringing up their children.



> I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying:
> 
> God views the children of both adminstrations to be particpants in the life of the Covenant Body but in the OT he marked them and in the NT He wants us to wait to signify their participation until they express faith?



Yes, this would, boardly speaking, be my position. However, I am not sure I would use the word ‘covenant body’. I do not think children having not made a profession of faith yet are joined to the church. But they are still part of a Christian family in a real and meaningful sense.

Is that clearer?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

trevorjohnson said:


> Good disitnctions Rich;
> 
> Noah is only two, but he can repeat back 8 answers to questions we ask him every night on the Christian faith. We pray for his salvation every night in his midst. _God, save Noah from his sins and make Him look to you for salvation_.


Beautiful. When does Noah turn 3? He's very advanced. My son James could only answer about three until he turned 3 and he actually started talking. Anna, who turns 3 in March, knows as many as James at this point (about 38). She's way more advanced than he is. Sorry to digress.



> He is able to sit under most all the blessings of the church due to his position in a Christian family. When he brings forth _fruit meet for repentance _and confesses Christ, then (though no one can ever be sure) we treat him as a believer and he has more access to the life of the church, i.e. baptism and then the Lord's Supper.
> 
> God gives a general promise that He will bless this Christian nurture, though case studies such as Ismail and Esau always exist. This blessing is conveyed by the providential environment, not by any ontolological standing. There is nothing either in the bloodline or in the rite of baptism that gurantees this.
> 
> Thus, that is why I gave my hypothetical examples (which DID happen in history, so maybe they have a little more weight than a mere hypothetical).


So, is it fair to say that it's not that you disagree with the family solidarity aspect but you just wouldn't call it part of being in Covenant with God? In other words, you don't see what you're doing as being Covenantal in any sense? Not biological but covenantal?



> I am not sure we would differ a great deal practically on our approach, unless you are lying to your kids and telling them that they are, right now, sons of God and are going to heaven without any fruits thereof. Many (nominal) Presbyterians have made their children twice the sons of hell because they were told that they were already in the kingdom.


Is it because they were told they were already in the kingdom or is it because they were told they were sons of God and going to heaven without any fruits thereof?



> I catechise. We train. We pray. We treat Noah as our responsibility to raise up to become a Christian. We are even planning on training him in a way to fit him for the ministry and pray and trust that God will call him to such a task.
> 
> A side note: I heard either John Gerstner or Joel Beeke speak of not allowing their children to say "Our father who art in heaven.." because they could not be sure, until fruits were seen, that they were indeed GOd's children. This seems extreme, but I use it as an evidence that not all the Reformed assume their children are heaven bound (presumptive regeneration). We should only treat those who are cognitively and willingly living a Christian life and after having confessed Christ, as Christians. We do not know this, but assume so on the basis of their confession (though the Day fo Judgment will unveil all).
> 
> I will throw a bone to you also: Yes, baptists often make their cause look presumptous by speaking of those who confess Christ publickly as "saved". We can never know for sure. We can never ensure a regenerate church membership and baptists are wrong to assume that they can. We can, however, wait for some sort of fruit of a change of heart - and a confession and change in life seem appropriate to allow them into the visible church. Unless we presume the election of our children, then we ought not to let the children of believers into the church UNTIL they display these fruits - trusting in God that He generally honors the family principle. The calling is after all, to Abraham and his children...as many as THE LORD SHALL CALL.....



{bark}

Let me see if I can clear something up because there is in this discussion something very interesting.

What if the New Covenant was both the invisible and visible Church?

and

What if Baptism signified union with Christ and was a _promise_ to the person baptized that God would save all who have true faith in him? 

What's different about you and me other than you won't call what you're doing to your children Covenant nurture?

I'm still having trouble seeing how a Baptist applies the blessings of the Church without recognizing the children have any status. You state, Providentially, that they have status but I don't see a passage in Scripture to sustain that idea. What do you appeal to for that idea?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

satz said:


> Yes, this would, boardly speaking, be my position. However, I am not sure I would use the word ‘covenant body’. I do not think children having not made a profession of faith yet are joined to the church. But they are still part of a Christian family in a real and meaningful sense.
> 
> Is that clearer?



Not really. What is the "real and meaningful" sense? Where do you get your category for a child of a believer from the New Testament? The Old Covenant family had Covenantal status and parents were held directly responsible for their children's apostasy. How do you appeal to those passages when you've grown to a new and better Covenant that the kids aren't in?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Gryphonette said:


> The same judgment of charity that Paul uses to address those in the assembly, even though he surely didn't actually believe they were all, without exception, redeemed?
> 
> If he can apply the JoC to the assemblies, I don't see why Christian parents cannot reasonably apply it to their children.



But the assemblies are in the visible Church. The children are not. What category are they in, according to Scripture, that Paul can apply Covenant promises to them and why would he expect any outside of the visible Church to obey?


----------



## Gryphonette

First, you seem to be indulging in a bit of question-begging with your unsupported assertion that children in Christian families, attending Christian churches, are not part of the visible Church.

Yes, yes, that's what _you_ believe but it's not necessarily what everyone _else_ believes, is it? It's hardly reasonable to expect those who don't believe as you do to answer in a way that aligns neatly with your personal belief, yet this seems to be what you're pushing for.

Second, I - and others - have quite specifically pointed out elsewhere in this thread that just because someone is not in the Covenant doesn't remove the obligation to obey the LORD's commands. It's rather peculiar, for based on your questions, you appear to believe the LORD doesn't make demands on _anyone_ outside of it.

Which is why I believe the New Covenant is comprised of the redeemed and them only, as _all _people are commanded to obey the LORD (seeing as how His laws are written on their hearts*), but only the redeemed have any possible chance of doing so (and even they are going to screw up regularly).

Your theory that the _only_ people required by God to be taught the truth about Him and His creation are those in the New Covenant is quite fascinating; I've never run across it before. 


*Romans 2:14-16: "So, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, instinctively do what the law demands, they are a law to themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts. Their consciences testify in support of this, and their competing thoughts either accuse or excuse them on the day when God judges what people have kept secret, according to my gospel through Christ Jesus."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Gryphonette said:


> First, you seem to be indulging in a bit of question-begging with your unsupported assertion that children in Christian families, attending Christian churches, are not part of the visible Church.
> 
> Yes, yes, that's what _you_ believe but it's not necessarily what everyone _else_ believes, is it? It's hardly reasonable to expect those who don't believe as you do to answer in a way that aligns neatly with your personal belief, yet this seems to be what you're pushing for.


That is a common Baptist belief. You're the first Reformed Baptist I've met that considers their un-Baptised children to be members of the Church. It's not my belief. I'm asking a "How can this be _if_ question... Look at Bill and Trevor and others' posts here. Children are not members of the Church according to them.



> Second, I - and others - have quite specifically pointed out elsewhere in this thread that just because someone is not in the Covenant doesn't remove the obligation to obey the LORD's commands. It's rather peculiar, for based on your questions, you appear to believe the LORD doesn't make demands on _anyone_ outside of it.


I clarified. How does a child, raised in the Lord, obey commands that command him to love God. We don't expect the unbeliever to do this.



> Which is why I believe the New Covenant is comprised of the redeemed and them only, as _all _people are commanded to obey the LORD (seeing as how His laws are written on their hearts*), but only the redeemed have any possible chance of doing so (and even they are going to screw up regularly).


Does that mean that your visible Church is composed solely of the redeemed?



> Your theory that the _only_ people required by God to be taught the truth about Him and His creation are those in the New Covenant is quite fascinating; I've never run across it before.


I've clarified this already. The type of commands that I'm referring to are those where people are expressly talking about raising a child "...in the Lord." It is all you're saying is that your child is like unto the Pagan man you meet? Do you teach a child to pray? Do you instruct him in the things of God? Do you instruct pagans the same way? Are you saying that, categorically, a child before baptism has the same status as the pagan and your Covenantal communion with both is identical until that time?


----------



## Chris

> How does a child, raised in the Lord, obey commands that command him to love God. We don't expect the unbeliever to do this.



I really want to be careful in this thread - I'm not up to wading in too deep - but I saw this, and wanted to offer a thought:

Could it be possible that this may be parallel to the law being used as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ? We couldn't obey the law; all we could do is hold ourselves up to it and see persistent failure and shortcoming. 

The same may work with children, as over the years they come to realize that they can't meet the demands of God's Law - which manifests itself in conversion. 



(disclaimer: the above is strictly an off-the-cuff, from-the-hip sort of thought)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Chris said:


> I really want to be careful in this thread - I'm not up to wading in too deep - but I saw this, and wanted to offer a thought:
> 
> Could it be possible that this may be parallel to the law being used as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ? We couldn't obey the law; all we could do is hold ourselves up to it and see persistent failure and shortcoming.
> 
> The same may work with children, as over the years they come to realize that they can't meet the demands of God's Law - which manifests itself in conversion.
> 
> (disclaimer: the above is strictly an off-the-cuff, from-the-hip sort of thought)



But the schoolmaster language of Galatians 3 was speaking of the Covenant Body - the Mosaic administration of the COG. How does this apply to children who are outside of the Covenant?


----------



## Gryphonette

*How would one train someone else in the truth...*

...._without_ bringing Christ into it?

One either teaches the truth or one does not, surely. 

Look, if _I'm_ "in the LORD" and He's given me children to raise in the truth (which is surely a given, seeing as how one would scarcely expect Him to want children raised in untruth), then I'm blanking on how else I'm going to raise them _other_ than "in the LORD." 

What would that look like, precisely? How would believing parents raise their children _except_ "in the LORD"?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Gryphonette said:


> ...._without_ bringing Christ into it?
> 
> One either teaches the truth or one does not, surely.
> 
> Look, if _I'm_ "in the LORD" and He's given me children to raise in the truth (which is surely a given, seeing as how one would scarcely expect Him to want children raised in untruth), then I'm blanking on how else I'm going to raise them _other_ than "in the LORD."
> 
> What would that look like, precisely? How would believing parents raise their children _except_ "in the LORD"?



Anne,

I'm asking for clarifications. Let me state, emphatically, that I'm not arguing that you should not raise them in the Lord. I'm asking you how you develop your Scriptural sense of it. They're not in Covenant with you, by your admission, so what are they _to you_ "...in the Lord"? Where do you find the Scriptural principles guiding you in the performance of those duties?


----------



## Chris

SemperFideles said:


> But the schoolmaster language of Galatians 3 was speaking of the Covenant Body - the Mosaic administration of the COG.



Conceded.




> How does this apply to children who are outside of the Covenant?




Does the same principle (Psalm 19:7) become ineffective outside of the covenant? 

We use the law when witnessing to the lost. Is this not the same? 



(I'm backing out now - I threw out my $0.02 for the evening; it's bedtime, and it's clear to me that most folks here have spent a LOT more time pondering this issue than I have, so I'll probably shrink back to 'lurker' on this one.)


----------



## Gryphonette

Keep in mind that at home we have one unsaved 16 year old Russian boy who's only been home a little over three years.

So my situation's a bit different, I daresay, that most everyone else's here.

I think I'm training Dmitry "in the LORD" by telling Him about God the Father, His Son, the Holy Spirit, Dmitry's (and our!) need of a Savior, God's commandments and expectations for ALL His creation, etc.

He isn't permitted to play "M" rated video games, for instance (and to his disgust, as "all his friends at school" get to do so), for I don't believe the LORD approves of them. What movies and television are permitted is based on what is pleasing to the LORD. On the rare occasions he gets snippy with me he's rebuked based upon "Honor thy father and thy mother", which is surely an across-the-board commandment, applicable to everyone on the planet, in Christ or not. Even though he's not a professed Christian he's stuck attending "chapel" (to use his term) whether he wants to or not (he doesn't...it has been one of the most intense points of friction in the family since his arrival) because this is a CHRISTIAN family and our children living in our house attend church with us.

We cannot force him to turn to Christ in faith but by jingo, we can make sure he knows Whom he's rejecting.

Which is a depressing thought, but my first allegiance is to God, which entails making sure He is talked about to anyone who'll stay put long enough to let me do it, and that most _definitely_ includes Dmitry.

Maybe this doesn't fit your definition of raising a child "in the LORD" however?

I can't think what else I can do, other than what we're doing. We certainly don't tell him "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life."

We _do_ tell Dmitry that God has sovereignly placed him so he can learn the truth about Him, and that being taught this truth places him under a greater obligation than if he'd remained in Russia. This warning is softened by pointing out this is a sign of favor by the LORD toward him, and that we are hopeful the LORD will enable him to turn to Him in faith, and we regularly pray for his salvation.

How this fits within your personal framework, I don't know. He's our child, exactly as much as our other five biological children; out of curiosity, would you count him - a nonbelieving 16 year old - as being in the Covenant, since his parents are believers?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Anne,

I'll break my rule in this thread for this case and offer my thoughts.


Gryphonette said:


> Keep in mind that at home we have one unsaved 16 year old Russian boy who's only been home a little over three years.
> 
> So my situation's a bit different, I daresay, that most everyone else's here.
> 
> I think I'm training Dmitry "in the LORD" by telling Him about God the Father, His Son, the Holy Spirit, Dmitry's (and our!) need of a Savior, God's commandments and expectations for ALL His creation, etc.
> 
> He isn't permitted to play "M" rated video games, for instance (and to his disgust, as "all his friends at school" get to do so), for I don't believe the LORD approves of them. What movies and television are permitted is based on what is pleasing to the LORD. On the rare occasions he gets snippy with me he's rebuked based upon "Honor thy father and thy mother", which is surely an across-the-board commandment, applicable to everyone on the planet, in Christ or not. Even though he's not a professed Christian he's stuck attending "chapel" (to use his term) whether he wants to or not (he doesn't...it has been one of the most intense points of friction in the family since his arrival) because this is a CHRISTIAN family and our children living in our house attend church with us.
> 
> We cannot force him to turn to Christ in faith but by jingo, we can make sure he knows Whom he's rejecting.
> 
> Which is a depressing thought, but my first allegiance is to God, which entails making sure He is talked about to anyone who'll stay put long enough to let me do it, and that most _definitely_ includes Dmitry.
> 
> Maybe this doesn't fit your definition of raising a child "in the LORD" however?


I think it differs a bit in his case. You cannot control the previous circumstances that he found himself by the Providence of God but think about the beautiful Providence that landed him in the home of believers.



> I can't think what else I can do, other than what we're doing. We certainly don't tell him "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life."


I agree that the Gospel is not "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life." You can speak of the benevolence of God that placed him in your home.



> We _do_ tell Dmitry that God has sovereignly placed him so he can learn the truth about Him, and that being taught this truth places him under a greater obligation than if he'd remained in Russia. This warning is softened by pointing out this is a sign of favor by the LORD toward him, and that we are hopeful the LORD will enable him to turn to Him in faith, and we regularly pray for his salvation.
> 
> How this fits within your personal framework, I don't know. He's our child, exactly as much as our other five biological children; out of curiosity, would you count him - a nonbelieving 16 year old - as being in the Covenant, since his parents are believers?



I don't believe it's a personal framework of mine. 

I think the idea of a blessed Providence is a sound one. He's old enough to speak for himself to the Elders that he does not have faith in Christ. God has brought him this far and means of Grace are before him constantly.

I do have much hope for Dmitry due to the blessed Providence of God. I will be praying for him.


----------



## satz

SemperFideles said:


> Not really. What is the "real and meaningful" sense? Where do you get your category for a child of a believer from the New Testament? The Old Covenant family had Covenantal status and parents were held directly responsible for their children's apostasy. How do you appeal to those passages when you've grown to a new and better Covenant that the kids aren't in?




I would say basically that since the bible commands fathers (and parents) to raise their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, it is not an unreasonable assumption to believe there is an inherent promise that if fathers obey the command, they will be able to achieve the results, ie the child will grow up as someone who fears the Lord. For this reason, I believe Christian parents can still trust in the promises and commands given by the Lord about child training, whether in proverbs or the other narrative examples in the Old Testament, regardless of the fact that their children are not automatically considered part of the church as they were in the Old Testament.

Though I am open to correction, I do not at this point in time see a contradiction between that and the denial of baptism or church membership to children before they profess faith in Christ. Children were given the sign of circumcision in the OT, but the NT specifically rejects circumcision as having any more relevance for Christians. Even if you view baptism as the ‘new’ circumcision, I think you must still admit God has changed the ordinance in between the two Testaments. One involves cutting of a part of a male child, the other involves water and a child of any sex. Likewise it is God’s right to change other aspects of the ordinance, including when a child will receive it. Neither the acts of circumcision or baptism – the removal of the foreskin or getting a child wet – have any inherent spiritual benefit. They have only whatever significance God assigns to them. If God does not intend for a child to receive baptism until he or she makes a profession of faith, the child cannot be disadvantaged in anyway. Hence I do not see it as inconsistent that God can change the timing of when the children receive baptism while at the same time keeping intact the principle of child training.


----------



## Gryphonette

We appreciate your prayers, Rich. ;^)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Mark,

I don't want to ignore you. I'll respond and then I need to hit the rack. I'm beat.


satz said:


> I would say basically that since the bible commands fathers (and parents) to raise their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, it is not an unreasonable assumption to believe there is an inherent promise that if fathers obey the command, they will be able to achieve the results, ie the child will grow up as someone who fears the Lord. For this reason, I believe Christian parents can still trust in the promises and commands given by the Lord about child training, whether in proverbs or the other narrative examples in the Old Testament, regardless of the fact that their children are not automatically considered part of the church as they were in the Old Testament.


Why does a command to raise your children in the fear and admonition of the Lord that was given to one category of father-son relationship (Old Covenant - fathers in, sons in) apply to you in this completely new and different category of father-son relationship (New Covenant - fathers in, sons out)? Why, if you argue that things are new, changed, and better must I assume that the father-son relationship remains in stasis regarding this promise? Where do you find the Scriptural warrant to exclude training from the list of changes?



> Children were given the sign of circumcision in the OT, but the NT specifically rejects circumcision as having any more relevance for Christians. Even if you view baptism as the ‘new’ circumcision, I think you must still admit God has changed the ordinance in between the two Testaments. One involves cutting of a part of a male child, the other involves water and a child of any sex. Likewise it is God’s right to change other aspects of the ordinance, including when a child will receive it.


Where do you go to find the didactic passage that tell you that God changed the ordinance regarding when children receive the sign?



> Neither the acts of circumcision or baptism – the removal of the foreskin or getting a child wet – have any inherent spiritual benefit. They have only whatever significance God assigns to them. If God does not intend for a child to receive baptism until he or she makes a profession of faith, the child cannot be disadvantaged in anyway. Hence I do not see it as inconsistent that God can change the timing of when the children receive baptism while at the same time keeping intact the principle of child training.


So can I sum this up: you seem to have a Scriptural warrant for the idea that Sacramental administration is delayed and a Scriptural warrant that training is not. Is that correct? Given the list of changes you've enumerated, can you point me to the passages that you appeal to in order to determine what's still in and what's out?


----------



## non dignus

trevorjohnson said:


> Thoughts on covenant children:
> 
> As a Baptist, I see that *God has blessed my children by providentially placing them in my home under the use of means, such as prayer and Bible readings.* There is nothing in the bloodline and nothing ontological about being a "covenant" child.
> 
> In fact, when the Muslims took over huge swaths of Europe and carted off Europe's children as slaves, concubines and janisseries, these children did not magically become more receptive to Christianity due to being an ontological covenant child. *Once the nurture of a Christian home was removed providentially, these children became Muslim. *
> 
> Here's an experiment: Take a bunch of mixed orphans, some from Muslim families and some from Christian families from birth. Raise them all in a Christian home. Statistically I would challenge you to show a difference. Or, take a bunch and put them in Muslim homes. From birth. God, having providentially allowed the external cirucmstances, which include religious instruction, will produce results that reflect those providential circumstances.



Good point, Trevor.

Is it then correct to say that the covenant household is a means of grace? 


(justing ducking in here while Rich is asleep)


----------



## non dignus

trevorjohnson said:


> Hello non dignus:
> 
> What would you mean by "means of grace"..is it sacramental in some way?
> 
> Would a Christian friend who lives near you also be considered a means of grace then? Or living in a Christian country? Every way in which God makes his Word known consistently would then have to be defined as a means by which God gives His grace.



No, not sacramental. 

Right. Anyone bringing the gospel would be a means of grace. You and I agree that God gives special blessing to those born into covenant households. Paul calls them 'holy'. 1 Cor 7


----------



## non dignus

14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

Resolved: covenant households are a special means of grace.


----------



## Gryphonette

*I don't think that necessarily follows.*



non dignus said:


> 14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
> 
> Resolved: covenant households are a special means of grace.



"Holy" and "sanctified" can mean 'set apart from the general mass of humanity' as regards knowledge of the LORD, from what I understand.

When Dmitry was adopted and brought to America when he was 13 years old, and exposed to the gospel, this was sovereignly arranged by God. Most other kids at the orphanage were not "set apart" in a similar manner.

The LORD dealt with Dmitry differently than he did poor Vitaly, who came over with a Bright Futures' camp but was never adopted (he's now too old).

It seems to me this type of "set apart" is essentially an increased responsibility to turn to Christ in faith. Certainly someone living in a Christian home (whether spouse or child) has a familiarity with the things of God in a way someone living in a remote village in New Guinea does not, so for the former to "reject so great a salvation" will increase their condemnation at judgment.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

No more Paedo commentary in this thread. Gotta run but any "debates" in here with Paedobaptists coming in and offering their rebukes of Baptist thought will be deleted. We managed to go 100 posts and 2 days before this began.


----------



## tellville

I'm sure this has been brought up elsewhere, but I would like your take Rich.

If you were to adopt a child from a staunchly atheistic family, say a 10 day old infant, would you instruct him in the ways of the Lord? This child is not in the covenant as it is a child of a non-covenantal family. So, given from the way your questions have been worded, if you were to instruct this child in the ways of the Lord, you would have no scriptural support to do so, at least this seems what you think about Baptists teaching their children the ways of the Lord. 

If I am totally missing the point with this question, please let me know! It just seems that the point you are trying to get across to us Baptists is that we have no scriptural support for teaching our non-covenant children the ways of the Lord and thus are borrowing from the Padeo worldview to do so. 

So, to sum up: A non-covenantal child is approaching you at 50 mph - what do you do?


----------



## Gryphonette

I'm not Rich, obviously, but having adopted (okay, fine, he was 13 years old instead of 10 days old), I'd say the question isn't valid since once the child is adopted he is a member of his adopted family.

Meaning, if he's adopted into a Christian, covenantal family, then whatever applies to the family's biological children (if any) now applies to _him_.


----------



## staythecourse

*Ignorant question*

A young man asked this question on another thread and I have wanted to ask at a good time.

Why did the Lord instruct Abraham to circumcise Isaac? What covenant did he fall into since he received the sign yet was "hated" by God - temporal blessings aside. He DID go to hell correct?

This thread is being very helpful to me.


----------



## MrMerlin777

staythecourse said:


> A young man asked this question on another thread and I have wanted to ask at a good time.
> 
> Why did the Lord instruct Abraham to circumcise Isaac? What covenant did he fall into since he received the sign yet was "hated" by God - temporal blessings aside. He DID go to hell correct?
> 
> This thread is being very helpful to me.



Are you refering to Isaac or Ishmael?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

tellville said:


> I'm sure this has been brought up elsewhere, but I would like your take Rich.
> 
> If you were to adopt a child from a staunchly atheistic family, say a 10 day old infant, would you instruct him in the ways of the Lord? This child is not in the covenant as it is a child of a non-covenantal family. So, given from the way your questions have been worded, if you were to instruct this child in the ways of the Lord, you would have no scriptural support to do so, at least this seems what you think about Baptists teaching their children the ways of the Lord.
> 
> If I am totally missing the point with this question, please let me know! It just seems that the point you are trying to get across to us Baptists is that we have no scriptural support for teaching our non-covenant children the ways of the Lord and thus are borrowing from the Padeo worldview to do so.


I'm not necessarily saying you have no Scriptural support. I'm asking the Baptists to provide one if they have it.


> So, to sum up: A non-covenantal child is approaching you at 50 mph - what do you do?


I'd probably have to duck so I didn't get hurt by all the kinetic energy of a body travelling at 50 mph.

I didn't answer Anne's question to have a line of hypotheticals open up. If I answer the question according to a paedo worldview then it defeats the purpose of this thread.

If you adopted a child from an atheist household that was 10 days old, what would you do any different than the child that was born, naturally, to you?

I will tell you that I have an adopted sister and I've never thought of her as anything other than my sister.


----------



## tellville

Gryphonette said:


> I'm not Rich, obviously, but having adopted (okay, fine, he was 13 years old instead of 10 days old), I'd say the question isn't valid since once the child is adopted he is a member of his adopted family.
> 
> Meaning, if he's adopted into a Christian, covenantal family, then whatever applies to the family's biological children (if any) now applies to him.



This just blows me away. But I must admit the answer is consistent with the Padeo worldview. I feel dumb for not noticing such an obvious consistent answer!

I also believe instructing my children in the ways of the Lord, even though they have shown no sign of being in the New Covenant, is Biblical (for reasons shown by my very capable Baptist brethren). Assuming Baptist theology, I do not think Rich would find it Biblically inconsistent for me to teach toddlers in the streets about Christ, so why would the children in my own home be an exception? How do I have Biblical warrant to teach other children but not my own? 

I realize Rich you are in no way saying that we Baptists should not train our kids in the ways of Lord, but rather you are saying we have no Biblical warrant to do so. Would you think it without Biblical warrant for me to teach toddlers in the street about Christ, and if not, how are they different from my own children (besides the fact that I don't have any!)?


----------



## Gryphonette

I wouldn't have thought that was a paedo worldview, particularly. Scripture refers to believers as God's 'adopted sons' (and daughters, of course), so we have a share in Christ's inheritance.

Reflecting on _my_ status as God's adopted child is even more meaningful since we adopted Dmitry. ;^)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

tellville said:


> I realize Rich you are in no way saying that we Baptists should not train our kids in the ways of Lord, but rather you are saying we have no Biblical warrant to do so.


No, I'm asking you what you think your Biblical warrant is.



> Would you think it without Biblical warrant for me to teach toddlers in the street about Christ, and if not, how are they different from my own children (besides the fact that I don't have any!)?


The real question for you to consider is this: Do you have the same responsiblity, before God, for the toddler in the street that you do for the toddler in your household?


----------



## tellville

Good point Anne. 



SemperFideles said:


> The real question for you to consider is this: Do you have the same responsiblity, before God, for the toddler in the street that you do for the toddler in your household?



Rich, while I think your question is a good one, I don't think answering my question with a question answers my question! So I still await your answer on that one, so I can better understand the critique being leveled. 

Now for your question: Yes and no. As Christians, we have a responsibility to bring the Gospel to everyone, and everyone we pass over on telling the Gospel to, depending on the reasons why, will result in judgment. So, in that sense, yes.

However, in another sense, no. My children will live in my household. I am in constant contact with them. The Lord has entrusted me with these children. Thus, just as the servants with the talents, how I handle what the Lord has entrusted me with will be judged higher then how I handle things (in this case people) not directly entrusted to my care. 

It seems to me that to not train my children in the ways of the Lord, when it was the Lord Himself who gave them to me, seems contra-Biblical, regardless if they are in the Covenant or not.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

It seems like you just answered the question for me. The neighbor's toddler may be like your own but he's not your responsibility to train.

I didn't ask the question to critique and have not leveled any critiques here. I've certain leveled them in other threads but I'm letting the Baptists do the talking here and merely trying to clarify their positions and asking questions based on the consequences of their responses.


----------



## satz

Rich,

Do forgive my slow response.



> Why does a command to raise your children in the fear and admonition of the Lord that was given to one category of father-son relationship (Old Covenant - fathers in, sons in) apply to you in this completely new and different category of father-son relationship (New Covenant - fathers in, sons out)? Why, if you argue that things are new, changed, and better must I assume that the father-son relationship remains in stasis regarding this promise? Where do you find the Scriptural warrant to exclude training from the list of changes?



The passage I was referring to was Eph 6, which is a New Testament epistle. So I would say we can tell directly that God is telling us right here that the parent child relationship still continues into the New Testament regardless of other changes that might have occurred between Old and New Testaments. I would also note that Paul refers here back to the ten commandments (ie an OT command about children and parents) in his command to children, which I would take as additional evidence that in this area – parent/child relations – there is continuity between both Testaments.

_Ephesians 6:1-4 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise; ) That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. _



> Where do you go to find the didactic passage that tell you that God changed the ordinance regarding when children receive the sign?





> So can I sum this up: you seem to have a Scriptural warrant for the idea that Sacramental administration is delayed and a Scriptural warrant that training is not. Is that correct? Given the list of changes you've enumerated, can you point me to the passages that you appeal to in order to determine what's still in and what's out?



As you yourself said, you were starting this thread so you could see the logical consistency (or inconsistency) of Baptist reasoning. Hence I wrote that passage more as a hypothetical to make a logical point. I used the idea of God changing the sign because I think it is one that many (some?) Presbyterians hold to. My own belief, at the moment, is not that God ‘changed’ the sign but rather that circumcision and baptism are two unrelated ordinances. They might have some logical relationship we can see, but I do not believe they are related in the sense of baptism being the NT circumcision. I believe that under the OT God have circumcision as a sign to his people, but it ended with the coming of the NT. 

_Galatians 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

Galatians 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

Romans 2:28-29 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Basically the story in Acts 15, though I cannot think of a good representative verse._

I then see that at the starting of the New Testament men started to be baptized, a new ordinance, which required faith and repentance before it was administered.

_Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 

1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: _


Hence I would base my position on three separate facts I see from the bible:

1) The New Testament presumes the continuance of OT principles regarding child training.

2) The New Testament states that circumcision is no longer an ordinance of God’s religion after the coming of Jesus Christ.

3) The New Testament introduces baptism, and states that faith and repentance are to come before its administration.


----------



## tellville

Rich,

I'm glad your questions have been answered! I found this thread very informative and thought provoking. Kudos to all those involved!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

satz said:


> _Ephesians 6:1-4 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise; ) That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. _
> 
> Hence I would base my position on three separate facts I see from the bible:
> 
> 1) The New Testament presumes the continuance of OT principles regarding child training.
> 
> 2) The New Testament states that circumcision is no longer an ordinance of God’s religion after the coming of Jesus Christ.
> 
> 3) The New Testament introduces baptism, and states that faith and repentance are to come before its administration.



This is what I have a hard time connecting. I know you quoted the Ephesians 6 passage but that's a re-statement of OT language and bound up in the Covenant. Nothing new is presented there, except Paul targums a land promise as a spiritual promise.

All of the training and nurturing principles that you state are carried over were bound up in the Covenant. In other words, Fathers were expected to train and nurture as a Covenant obligation and children were expected to obey as part of their Covenant obligation. How do you see the obligation to train and the obligation to obey to exist divorced from their Covenantal mooring?

In other words, you're not merely stating proposition 1) above but you're saying that the command to nurture in the Lord continues as before _except_ there is no Covenantal obligation on the part of the child anymore for they are not part of it. How do you account for this? Is there, at least, a Covenant obligation on the part of the father even though he has no Covenantal connection with his child anymore?


----------



## satz

Rich,

Keep in mind I would still consider myself in the process of learning. Not that I find any reason to doubt my beliefs on baptism at the moment, but my participation in this thread is not to try to be a teacher, but to also see if there are any inconsistencies in what I believe.

I know this answer may not be very satisfactory, but I would simply say God tells, me in the New Testament that the training and nurturing principles still apply. Hence regardless of what changes might have occurred in the administration of the Covenant between testaments, I can trust God that my child training need not be in vain. I believe by Paul giving this command, and using the langugue of the an OT command, God is telling us that child training as thought by the OT did not go out the window when the New Testament came in.

I would also note that while I do not believe children are in covenant with God before faith in the same way as they would have been in the Old Testament – they are not considered church members from birth – but the relationship between parents and child is not something I believe is inherently tied up with God’s covenant with his OT people. So to be disobedient to one’s parents was a sin even for gentiles under none of the OT covenant obligations. Likewise parent’s obligation to their children is, I believe something tied up in the moral way God created the world and not restricted to any of the covenants between God and his people in the OT. Off course the specific detail that parents should raise their children to fear God is part of the covenantal obligations, but like I said, that is expressly repeated in the NT.

Consider also 1 Cor 7:14 “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.”

Firstly, I would not care in this thread to comment upon what I means for the children to be holy, but just to focus on the what it says about the spouse. To my knowledge, paedobaptists would not claim an adult, unbelieving spouse is in covenant with God simply by virtue of marriage to a Christian. But the verse says they are sanctified. So I would use this just to prove the _logical_ point that it does matter that one is in a Christian family. To phrase it another way, in an earlier post on this thread you asked the question: where do you get this half-way kind of category (my langugue, not yours) where a Baptist child is not yet in covenant with God, yet God considers him special in some way such that the parents can call upon the promises and commands regarding child training. So I would use this verse to say such a proposition is not inherently inconsistent with the scriptures. But I would not use this verse to explain exactly what is a Baptist child’s standing before God. Again, I would go back to Eph 6- God tells his or her parents to bring him or her up the fear and nurture of the Lord.

As a final note, and I am just thinking out loud here, logically speaking, what really matters is if a child is elect or not, right? And being a member of the external covenant cannot affect the fact of a child’s election at all. So what benefit can a child gain from being a member of the external covenant? My answer would be, what ever benefit God says he or she gets. My point being, logically speaking, there is no _necessary_ disadvantage a child has by having his or her inclusion into the external covenant delayed, if that delay is something which God himself introduced. It would be a disadvantage – a tempting of God by the parents – in the OT since God commanded their inclusion under that testament. But if he has changed the administration under the new, there is no inherent disadvantage to the child. And I believe it is not inconsistent to say God has the right to change the administration in such a way, if he pleases. (Paedobaptists would, off course, disagree that he did.)


----------

