# For our Baptist Brethern and Sisteren:



## wsw201 (Mar 1, 2007)

I normally don't get into the baptism discussions anymore because they just wear me out. But with the latest threads on the subject I began wondering at what age would a Baptist Church expect to see a child make a profession of faith? 

I'm sure there is no specific age since you wouldn't want it to be a contrived profession, but I would guess that when a child, who has been raised in the Church, gets around a certain age, one would expect them to make their profession. I would certainly think that a Pastor or Board of Deacons would want to see all the children of the church make a profession sooner rather than later and would be concerned with a particular child who grew up in the church and was say 15 and had not made a profession of faith.

For instance, Kevin mentioned in another thread that his wife was baptized at 3 based on her profession. In the Presbyterian Church, that would be considered way to young to make a "credible" profession of faith. Historically, though less know, the Presbyterian church would not consider a profession from anyone younger than 12.

So what say ye?


----------



## Chris (Mar 1, 2007)

wsw201 said:


> I normally don't get into the baptism discussions anymore because they just wear me out. But with the latest threads on the subject I began wondering at what age would a Baptist Church expect to see a child make a profession of faith?



When God saves them. 

It may be 5, 50, or never.


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 1, 2007)

wsw201 said:


> Historically, though less know, the Presbyterian church would not consider a profession from anyone younger than 12.
> 
> So what say ye?



I commented on Rich's thread sort of to this issue. My personal opinion would probably track the historical Presbyterians that you mention. But I have seen some remarkable professions of faith by younger people. It really boils down to whether they can articulate who they think they are believing in and why they believe it. 

As an example, a very young child saying, "I want to eat the bread and drink the wine, I believe in Jesus" doesn't seem sufficient. It seems more like a superficial desire to be part of the crowd. I could certainly be wrong, but it doesn't quite seem credible.

But if the very young child said something to acknowledge his sin, his hopeless condition without help, and his belief in Christ as God and Redeemer and his Savior, I'd certainly be concerned about discounting that.

I suppose the discernment required needs to focus on whether the child has words put into his mouth or is spontaneous. Sometimes it is very hard to tell, so we, like the old Presbyterians, wait a bit.


----------



## Herald (Mar 1, 2007)

wsw201 said:


> I normally don't get into the baptism discussions anymore because they just wear me out. But with the latest threads on the subject I began wondering at what age would a Baptist Church expect to see a child make a profession of faith?
> 
> I'm sure there is no specific age since you wouldn't want it to be a contrived profession, but I would guess that when a child, who has been raised in the Church, gets around a certain age, one would expect them to make their profession. I would certainly think that a Pastor or Board of Deacons would want to see all the children of the church make a profession sooner rather than later and would be concerned with a particular child who grew up in the church and was say 15 and had not made a profession of faith.
> 
> ...



Wayne, it should be the desire of all Christian parents to see their children come to faith in Christ at the earliest possible age. That said, I do not subscribe to any specific age for conversion. In fact, I won't even suggest a "ballpark" age. Children will come to faith when the Lord regenerates them and according to His timetable. Now, I certainly would be a concerned parent if my I had an 18 year old child who showed no signs of repentance or faith. But I ask the question, wouldn't _*any*_ Christian parent, regardless of denominational affiliation, be concerned? 

Oh, and echoing comments I made in a previous thread, a person who is "in Christ" is evidenced by repentance, faith and good works. This is one of the reasons why I do not have a high regard for childhood conversions. I am not saying they cannot happen, just that my confidence in them is not high.


----------



## Bob Hanks (Mar 1, 2007)

I agree , Bill. As a member of a Reformed Baptist church, it seems to me that the prevailing thinking ( at least among our elders ) is that regardless of age , a young person desiring baptism should be able to demonstrate seriouseness ,reverance, and humility, be willing to participate in a series of interviews (or one thorough interview),and ,of course, have a working knowledge of what they are doing. 
A regenerate young person will not find this troubling or invasive in any way. Their attitude will be willing and eager............. wow! I just disqualified half the church !!


----------



## Herald (Mar 1, 2007)

> I normally don't get into the baptism discussions anymore because they just wear me out.



They don't seem to have worn you out completely. Why do I get the feeling the hook has just been baited with a nice juicey worm?


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 1, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> They don't seem to have worn you out completely.



 I'm a glutton for punishment!


----------



## Herald (Mar 1, 2007)

Paul,

As rare as it is for me to agree with you, I have to concur on this particular point. The model is to believe and be baptized. The elders should display a certain level of spiritual maturity and discernment regarding a person who professes to believe. That aside, the model is still believe and be baptized.

I add a caveat regarding childhood conversions. Children often act to please their parents. I would want to make sure that the evidence of faith is observable in a child before I would agree to baptism.


----------



## Herald (Mar 1, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> Bill,
> 
> Regarding agreeing with me, as we said in Navy SEAL training, "You don't have to like it, you just have to do it."
> 
> ...



Paul - *whew* Thank goodness we are back to disagreeing. I thought you were turning Baptist and it sent a shiver up my spine.  

Nah, gonna have to depart with you regarding childhood conversions. Children are _*especially*_ susceptible to parental/adult influence. I have seen numerous instances of teens and young adults "re-dedicating" their lives to Christ at campfire and church services (yes, I was once a flaming Arminian). Most of these individuals believed they were saved as young children and had strayed from Christ. The sad truth is they probably were _*never*_ in Christ and had just then come to faith. You're right regarding your comments on adults. But children have a certain dynamic that often dissipates by adulthood. As a shepherd in God's church, I would proceed circumspectly before I would baptize a young child. If you care for me to expound on what I mean by that I would be happy to do so upon request.


----------



## 5solasmom (Mar 1, 2007)

I find it amazing that it was a _child's_ faith that Christ used as a model and example of the faith adults should possess....not the other way around.

When a child exhibits belief and faith, Christ takes it seriously.


----------



## Bob Hanks (Mar 1, 2007)

Do you honestly feel that to ask a young person to sit down and discuss matters of eternal life before baptism in un-Biblical ?

Many a false profession has been discovered by patiently leading the applicant through a few basic questions.

It's not legalism ,it's Love.


----------



## Herald (Mar 1, 2007)

5solasmom said:


> I find it amazing that it was a _child's_ faith that Christ used as a model and example of the faith adults should possess....not the other way around.
> 
> When a child exhibits belief and faith, Christ takes it seriously.



Do you really think that passage is about a child's faith, or child-like faith? There is a difference.


----------



## 5solasmom (Mar 1, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Do you really think that passage is about a child's faith, or child-like faith? There is a difference.





> 18:1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them 3 and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
> 
> 5 “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, [1] it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
> Matthew 18:1-6 ESV



I don't see a difference. If we are to have child-like faith, then our faith is to be trusting and unwavering - _like_ a child's. If they are not capable of _real_ faith until they "mature", then why does Christ use it as a model for our faith?

I guess my thoughts on this are that it's not biblical to "wait" until my 8yo is a teen before I take her faith as "credible". Though her faith may be immature, I believe it is still genuine.


----------



## 5solasmom (Mar 1, 2007)

Slight hijack...

Which means that I also don't agree that a child needs to reach a specific age (say 12, 15, 18 whatever) before they can partake in the Lord's Supper. I'm not necessarily ready for my 8yo to do so YET because of the serious warnings in scripture, but I hope it will be within the next few years at least.


----------



## Ezekiel3626 (Mar 1, 2007)

Paul, I am addressing these questions to you because, on the whole, I am able to follow your line of thinking and your methods of explanation. There are many times I do get lost in the deep water, but I suppose that just makes me stronger. Please allow me to preface these questions with the explanation that I enquire with a desire to pursue and know truth, and nothing more. I have no hidden agenda, nor do I desire to bait or argue. Having said this, I have tried to follow these threads over the past few weeks, and this particular object of confusion seems to float to the top of my mind each time. How do you (Presbyterians, not necessarily you personally) address children who have made a profession? I realize the faulty Arminian methods typical of most Baptist churches are incorrect. (Now, before any of you get beside yourself with indignation, I attend a Reformed Baptist church and I was raised all my life in a Baptist church. I am not attacking Baptists, merely stating my perception of Baptist methods and doctrine.) By this I mean the "easy grace", "all you have to do is repeat this and you will be saved" methods. Should we (believing adults) move forward with these children, in the same manner as we do with professing adults? Do we just assume that there has been a conversion? I do not want to give these children a false assurance any more than I would want to give it to professing adults.


> Most of these individuals believed they were saved as young children and had strayed from Christ.


 I borrow this quote from Bill to illustrate part of what I mean. Upon reflection, I wonder if the fault lies with "us", the adults, for giving the children this "false assurance". 
 
In addition, I must confess that I am having trouble articulating "what baptism means" or "signifies". To help me with this, I would like to hear your definition or explanation of the meaning and/or significance of baptism. I assure you, I am not approaching this as "paedo vs. credo" or "Baptist vs. Presbyterian". I want to know the truth. My desire is to know the Lord Jesus Christ and his truth, his word, and nothing more. Help me search the scriptures to this end.


----------



## elnwood (Mar 1, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> How unbiblical.
> 
> Where in the Bible is there *ever* this demand, *ever?*
> 
> When the 3,000 were baptised in one day, did the apostles put all three thousand through a "thorough interview," let alone a "series" of them?



The same place where it says that the elders need to examine a child before they take communion. Oh, wait, it doesn't. "A man ought to examine himself" has nothing to do with elders.

Does that make elders giving interviews for communicant membership unbiblical?


----------



## Puddleglum (Mar 1, 2007)

wsw201 said:


> I normally don't get into the baptism discussions anymore because they just wear me out. But with the latest threads on the subject I began wondering at what age would a Baptist Church expect to see a child make a profession of faith?
> 
> I'm sure there is no specific age since you wouldn't want it to be a contrived profession, but I would guess that when a child, who has been raised in the Church, gets around a certain age, one would expect them to make their profession. I would certainly think that a Pastor or Board of Deacons would want to see all the children of the church make a profession sooner rather than later and would be concerned with a particular child who grew up in the church and was say 15 and had not made a profession of faith.
> 
> ...




At the RB church I grew up in, 14 was the typical age for someone to make profession (I was baptized 2 weeks before my 14th birthday) . . . 12 was about the absolute youngest (my sister was 12 when she was baptized - but we knew that we'd be moving soon, and probably end up in a Presbyterian church, so they were willing to baptize her at that age, considering the circumstances!). It wasn't unusual for people not to make profession until the end of high school or beginning of college/university. (And there were a lot of "church kids" who got to that point without making profession at all). 
(Admittedly, this was on the other side of the pond . . . my experience with American RBs is more limited).


----------



## elnwood (Mar 1, 2007)

wsw201 said:


> I normally don't get into the baptism discussions anymore because they just wear me out. But with the latest threads on the subject I began wondering at what age would a Baptist Church expect to see a child make a profession of faith?
> 
> I'm sure there is no specific age since you wouldn't want it to be a contrived profession, but I would guess that when a child, who has been raised in the Church, gets around a certain age, one would expect them to make their profession. I would certainly think that a Pastor or Board of Deacons would want to see all the children of the church make a profession sooner rather than later and would be concerned with a particular child who grew up in the church and was say 15 and had not made a profession of faith.
> 
> ...



Back to the original question, historically Baptist churches didn't baptize children until they reached somewhere around 16-20 or even higher, but in recent generations, it has become common to baptize younger and younger.

Mark Dever has a sermon on this topic. Although Capitol Hill Baptist Church doesn't have an official policy on age, in practice they rarely baptize anyone younger than 18.

http://www.chbcaudio.org/2004/01/14/children-and-baptism/


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 1, 2007)

elnwood said:


> The same place where it says that the elders need to examine a child before they take communion. Oh, wait, it doesn't. "A man ought to examine himself" has nothing to do with elders.



Yes, it does, and the context of the admonition makes it clear that it does. Who gives the admonition? Paul. An apostle. An elder.

Also, if you actually believe this then it undermines your position and not Paul's.

Your criticism begs the question because we don't agree that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are rites to be admitted to all baptized members. Baptism, like circumcision, is a Covenant initiation rite. The Lord's Supper, like the Passover, is a Covenant renewal rite. Only male adults were required to go up to the tabernacle during that feast. A male child had to be confirmed (bar mitzvah) before he was required to attend that feast. Christ first attended the Passover with his parents at age 12 as was the custom of His time.

Hence, the Church has a long history of confirming a child in the faith before admitting the child to the Table. Paedobaptist do not think the ordinances of the New Covenant are dissonant from those of the Old but the type helps inform the anti-type.

Likewise, when an adult is brought into the Church baptism and confirmation are conflated and he/she is admitted to the Table at once.

Baptists treat all believers as adult converts so, again, the criticism of Paul's position begs the question. It can be aimed at yourself but not at the paedo-baptist position.


----------



## Herald (Mar 1, 2007)

> In addition, I must confess that I am having trouble articulating "what baptism means" or "signifies". To help me with this, I would like to hear your definition or explanation of the meaning and/or significance of baptism.



Brant, do you really want to do this? This thread is on the cusp of becoming a paedo vs. credo debate. It was inevitable. Paul is going to come back with the classic paedo response, and thus launch the paedo vs. credo tug of war. Not Paul's fault, but your question invariably leads there.


----------



## Herald (Mar 1, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Yes, it does, and the context of the admonition makes it clear that it does. Who gives the admonition? Paul. An apostle. An elder.
> 
> Also, if you actually believe this then it undermines your position and not Paul's.
> 
> ...



I take my last post back. The debate has already begun.

_*"...it is inevitable. It is your destiny." *_


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 1, 2007)

elnwood said:


> Back to the original question, historically Baptist churches didn't baptize children until they reached somewhere around 16-20 or even higher, but in recent generations, it has become common to baptize younger and younger.



While interesting historically, how does this square with Scripture? Where would you go to find the didactic teaching to wait until age 16-20? Where would you find the historical narrative for example (since example is so determinative for believer only baptism)?


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Mar 1, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> _*"...it is inevitable. It is your destiny." *_



NOOOO....!!! You're not my father! That's impossible...!! 

Sorry to sidetrack the thread but ya know us Sci fi buffs.


----------



## Ezekiel3626 (Mar 1, 2007)

con·flate /kənˈfleɪt/ [kuhn-fleyt] 
–verb (used with object), -flat·ed, -flat·ing. to fuse into one entity; merge: to conflate dissenting voices into one protest. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1600–10; < L conflātus, ptp. of conflāre to fuse together, equiv. to con- con- + flāre to blow2] 


I had to look that one up, Rich !


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 1, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> I take my last post back. The debate has already begun.
> 
> _*"...it is inevitable. It is your destiny." *_



Bill,

This need not be a debate. Baptists can simply answer the question Wayne asked. I have no interest in putting forward the paedo position again in this thread except, in the above case, to delineate how Don is projecting his Baptistic understanding upon Presbyterians to deflect answering a question and providing a positive exegetical defense of his own practice.


----------



## elnwood (Mar 1, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Yes, it does, and the context of the admonition makes it clear that it does. Who gives the admonition? Paul. An apostle. An elder.



I don't see it. Paul tells them to examine themselves. That does not mean that Paul ought to examine them. If an elder told the congregation to bathe themselves, does that mean the elders ought to bathe their church members? Of course not.



SemperFideles said:


> Also, if you actually believe this then it undermines your position and not Paul's.



I don't, but I find the paedo argument against examination before baptism to be hypocritical. That was my only point. I think elder examination before communion is fine.



SemperFideles said:


> Your criticism begs the question because we don't agree that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are rites to be admitted to all baptized members. Baptism, like circumcision, is a Covenant initiation rite. The Lord's Supper, like the Passover, is a Covenant renewal rite. Only male adults were required to go up to the tabernacle during that feast. A male child had to be confirmed (bar mitzvah) before he was required to attend that feast. Christ first attended the Passover with his parents at age 12 as was the custom of His time.
> 
> Hence, the Church has a long history of confirming a child in the faith before admitting the child to the Table. Paedobaptist do not think the ordinances of the New Covenant are dissonant from those of the Old but the type helps inform the anti-type.



Could you give Scripture references? I don't recall anything in Scripture about confirmation or a bar mitzvah at age 12, or unconfirmed children being barred from Passover.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 1, 2007)

Ezekiel3626 said:


> con·flate /kənˈfleɪt/ [kuhn-fleyt]
> –verb (used with object), -flat·ed, -flat·ing. to fuse into one entity; merge: to conflate dissenting voices into one protest.
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, thank Dr. R. Scott Clark. He got me in the habit of using that term.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 1, 2007)

elnwood said:


> I don't see it. Paul tells them to examine themselves. That does not mean that Paul ought to examine them. If an elder told the congregation to bathe themselves, does that mean the elders ought to bathe their church members? Of course not.


OK, so you don't believe there should be any elder examination for either baptism or the Lord's Supper. Why do you do it?


> I don't, but I find the paedo argument against examination before baptism to be hypocritical. That was my only point. I think elder examination before communion is fine.


 Oh, so you do..



> Could you give Scripture references? I don't recall anything in Scripture about confirmation or a bar mitzvah at age 12, or unconfirmed children being barred from Passover.


I gave you Scripture. I gave you both the requirements for adult males to be at the Tabernacle during the Passover and I gave you the passage of Christ's _first_ participation in the Sacrament of the Passover at age 12.

You should be Biblically knowledgeable enough to find those passages.


----------



## elnwood (Mar 1, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> While interesting historically, how does this square with Scripture? Where would you go to find the didactic teaching to wait until age 16-20? Where would you find the historical narrative for example (since example is so determinative for believer only baptism)?



I'm merely making historical commentary to answer the original question. If you want to hear someone defend the practice, listen to the sermon. I have nothing further to add.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 1, 2007)

elnwood said:


> I'm merely making historical commentary to answer the original question. If you want to hear someone defend the practice, listen to the sermon. I have nothing further to add.



So you know others can defend it exegetically but you just don't know how it's done? I'm sorry, my plate is full with too many other sermons to listen to (a few Baptists in the mix). I'll have to rely on another Baptist to give me that 16-20 year old passage in the Scriptures.


----------



## Ezekiel3626 (Mar 1, 2007)

You may very well be right, Bill. I am still getting used to the dynamic of a public, open forum discussion board. If I have indeed  , then I apologize to those who tire of the redundency. I assure you that was not my intent. I respect Paul M., and I value his opinions. I am edified by Rich also, and Rev. Winzer to name but a few. Perhaps I am just naive, and forgot where I was when I asked the questions. Again, I am still trying to get used to the "discussion board" dynamic.


----------



## Herald (Mar 1, 2007)

> Back to the original question, historically Baptist churches didn't baptize children until they reached somewhere around 16-20 or even higher, but in recent generations, it has become common to baptize younger and younger.



Don, part of the lowering of baptismal ages has a lot to do with a flawed soteriology and ecclesiology within the Finney-type Baptist churches. As the focus of many Baptist churches shifted to conversions, so did baptisms. Baptisms actually became a way of completing the profession. Salvation and baptism were inexorably linked. Instead of one following the other, both were seen as part of one transaction. While denying baptismal regeneration, baptism became the way of doing the math. Baptisms proper place needs, in a sense, to be rediscovered. 

With all due respect to Rich and Paul _et al. _, this really isn't a debate between paedo's and credo's. Wayne's OP was concerned about how Baptist's viewed the baptism of children. As was bound to happen, it has turned down that paedo vs. credo road.  Can't avoid it no matter how hard we try! To quote one of my favorite movies, *"It is the question that drives us."* What is the Baptist approach towards baptizing children, and what is our rationale for it? 

Paedo's, you will bristle at this (you always do), but it is a Baptist distinctive that we only baptize upon a credible profession of faith. If you gents *really* want to debate this position, start a thread on it. But between Baptist's, baptism upon a credible profession is not in question. What is in question is how credible is a profession from a child? When the two year old says to Mommy and Daddy, "I wuv Jasus too!", is that tantamount to a credible profession? Or how about the eight year old who wants to "accept Jesus" in AWANA or Sunday School? How much responsibility do we place on the parents to explain to the elders that they are satisfied that their child actually has come to faith? These questions (and more like them) deserved to be developed. Wayne, I hope this isn't hijacking your thread. If it is, we can start a new thread.


----------



## elnwood (Mar 1, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> OK, so you don't believe there should be any elder examination for either baptism or the Lord's Supper. Why do you do it?
> 
> Oh, so you do..



I don't think that scripture mandates it, but I think it is good practice.



SemperFideles said:


> I gave you Scripture. I gave you both the requirements for adult males to be at the Tabernacle during the Passover and I gave you the passage of Christ's _first_ participation in the Sacrament of the Passover at age 12.
> 
> You should be Biblically knowledgeable enough to find those passages.



I don't want to make a mistake and think you're referring to one particular passage when you're referring to a different one. Could you please tell me which passages you are referring to?


----------



## elnwood (Mar 1, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> So you know others can defend it exegetically but you just don't know how it's done? I'm sorry, my plate is full with too many other sermons to listen to (a few Baptists in the mix). I'll have to rely on another Baptist to give me that 16-20 year old passage in the Scriptures.



I know how it's done, but I don't hold dogmatically to that position though I see some wisdom in it. You're better off listening to someone who actually practices it if you actually want to hear an argument.

Does everything have to turn into an argument? The original question was not an exegetical debate, it was a question of how Baptists do things in practice, and so I answered it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 1, 2007)

Bill,

Believe it or not, I'm not trying to sidetrack. I was merely demonstrating to Don that he could not project his soteriology and understanding upon Paul and level it as a criticism. To use technical jargon for the criticism: Paul is rubber and Don is glue.

Wayne asked a question about baptism of children and what age you would wait until.

You give historical examples of how long you wait and you also say:


> Paedo's, you will bristle at this (you always do), but it is a Baptist distinctive that we only baptize upon a credible profession of faith.


Actually, I don't bristle at it. Wayne doesn't either apparently. We're seeking to understand it.

When you answer, ought not your answer be given from Scripture and not an appeal to Finneyism or easy-believism (unless you find warrant for warning in the Scriptures)? I don't know if you just think you should be able to give an "...it seems like the right age to us..." answer and have us acede that this is a Scriptural principle.

If you believe that Baptism ought to be given to only a crebible professor then you should define your terms and define them with Scripture.

That's all we're asking.

I think Paul's challenge was a reasonable one: Prove it from Scripture. If Baptists want to criticize how a Presbyterian would give a Scriptual defense then they had my recent thread to do so and still may ask me to defend my practice. I promise not to base my answer on merely history nor on saying that Baptists are as un-Scriptural as we.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Mar 1, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> Regarding agreeing with me, as we said in Navy SEAL training, "You don't have to like it, you just have to do it.".



SEAL training eh... Got your trident have ya?


----------



## Ezekiel3626 (Mar 1, 2007)

You know what, Bill? I cannot speak for Rich, or Paul, or anyone else. If they want to or if they are debating, that is out of my hands. I can, however, speak for myself. I do not desire to debate any of the aforementioned men on the subject of baptism. Notice if you will the disclaimer at the beginning of this forum. It says,


> This forum is for those who desire to DEBATE and DISCUSS. All others please refrain from this Forum.


 I want to discuss some things with others. I understand that there are differences in how we worship and what we believe, but I assure you I am not "lining up with the Baptists" or trying to bait anyone who might be labeled differently from me. 
If we are not part of the solution, then perhaps we are part of the problem.


> Or how about the eight year old who wants to "accept Jesus" in AWANA or Sunday School?


 Where do you suppose the 8 year old in question heard about "accepting" Jesus? AWANA and Sunday School are simply man-made traditions with the usual intent of occupying children while adults feed on the meat of the Word. I don't care about "we" or "they". I care about being right. I care about learning more about what Scripture has to teach us about our majestic and wonderful Saviour. I can regurgitate snippets of confessions or plagiarize sermons with the best of them, but at the end of the day, what have I gained. I want to flesh it out, I want to work it out, I want to learn.


> With all due respect to Rich and Paul et al. , this really isn't a debate between paedo's and credo's. ..... Paedo's, you will bristle at this (you always do), but it is a Baptist distinctive that we only baptize upon a credible profession of faith. If you gents really want to debate this position, start a thread on it.


 Perhaps I was too quick to apologize for  . Comments like these could easily be labeled as doing that.
I have read Waynes OP, and I fail to see how we have digressed even marginally from it. I have no quarrel with you, brother. Let's work together toward being obedient to Acts 17:11, so it may be said of us that we "received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so".


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 1, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Here is a question that is related:
> 
> Since it appears that the Lord's Supper often functions like baptism in a few ways for Presbyterians (i.e. needing discnerment to participate), at what age does a child have to wait before taking the cup?
> 
> ...



Trevor,

Are you asking this of Baptists? I don't really want to get into this here. Remember what I said: we don't conflate Covenant initiation with Covenant renewal. You can move this question to that thread we were interacting on if you want it answered by me. If it's a question for the Baptists then please clarify.


----------



## Herald (Mar 1, 2007)

Why do we (Baptists) baptize upon a credible profession of faith?

Acts 2:38
Acts 8:12-13
Acts 8:27-38
Acts 9:3-18
Acts 10:47-48
Acts 16:14-15 
Acts 16:33
Acts 18:8 (one of my personal favorites)
Acts 19:5

No argument from Baptists on this....right? So why would we withhold baptism from children? Rich, you want scriptural warrant...right? Let me borrow something from the "other" thread. Do the parents have a role in teaching their children about God? We know they do, right (Eph. 6:4)? Should not the parent be the driving force in discerning the spiritual condition of their young child? Let me back up for a moment. What age range are we talking about? 5 or less? 10 or less? Teenagers? Or are we discussing the cognitive ability of a child? I think it is important to define these parameters. 

Oh, let me intercept a question I am anticipating. When the family of Cornelius and Lydia was baptized does that mean the children were baptized too? I have to admit it was a possibility. I have heard thee takes on these baptisms. The first is that all of the family members were baptized. The second holds to the opinion that only the adults were baptized. The third view is that the family was baptized as a sign that the family was no longer pagan or steeped in dead Judaism, but was now following Christ. This did not mean that all within that family believed, seeing that there is nothing salvific in baptism. Which one do I believe? I gravitate to the third explanation, but I'm not willing to take a bullet for it.

Okay...back to the kiddies. My position is not to withhold baptism from any credible profession. My question is the credibility of that profession. This is why I put emphasis on the parents. If the parents are living by faith, then their opinion of thier child's spiritual condition should weigh heavily on the opinion of the elders. For instance: Joe and Mary have been believers for 20 years. They have displayed genuine repentance and the evidence of true faith. By all account they are mature believers (Eph. 4:13). They have a son named James. James is raised by two faithful (Eph. 1:1) Christian parents. He is exposed to the church and the word of God. At the age of 8 James makes a profession of faith in Jesus Christ. His parents, diligent to make sure their sons profession is real, talk to their son, pray and finally determine that his profession is real. They broach the subject of baptism with the elders. I would say that the likelihood of James being baptised is good. Now what if James was raised in a home that was not particularly faithful? What if the parents displayed more of the world than Christ? If the ages were exactly the same I would put more of an emphasis on observing James' life for a period of time. Why? To ascertain whether the profession is real. 

Bottom line? Once convinced of a credible profession, baptism should occur with all due speed. It should not be delayed or denied. For me the issue is the credible profession and the ability of a young child to make that profession.


----------



## Herald (Mar 1, 2007)

> Believe it or not, I'm not trying to sidetrack. I was merely demonstrating to Don that he could not project his soteriology and understanding upon Paul and level it as a criticism. To use technical jargon for the criticism: Paul is rubber and Don is glue.



Rich - it's not personal. It's just so easy to "get into it." I'm curious to see what this thread will look like at the end of its life span.


----------



## Herald (Mar 1, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> So, you may have missed my argument. My argument is that in ever case of baptism in the Bible, the baptizees *never* are put through a class and examined. The baptisms all appear to be done *immediately.*



Paul, this wasn't specifically addressed to you but I thought it was an appropriate response to your last post:



> Okay...back to the kiddies. My position is not to withhold baptism from any credible profession. My question is the credibility of that profession. This is why I put emphasis on the parents. If the parents are living by faith, then their opinion of thier child's spiritual condition should weigh heavily on the opinion of the elders. For instance: Joe and Mary have been believers for 20 years. They have displayed genuine repentance and the evidence of true faith. By all account they are mature believers (Eph. 4:13). They have a son named James. James is raised by two faithful (Eph. 1:1) Christian parents. He is exposed to the church and the word of God. At the age of 8 James makes a profession of faith in Jesus Christ. His parents, diligent to make sure their sons profession is real, talk to their son, pray and finally determine that his profession is real. They broach the subject of baptism with the elders. I would say that the likelihood of James being baptised is good. Now what if James was raised in a home that was not particularly faithful? What if the parents displayed more of the world than Christ? If the ages were exactly the same I would put more of an emphasis on observing James' life for a period of time. Why? To ascertain whether the profession is real.



Paul, I am narrowing my response to the context of young children and young children only.


----------



## Herald (Mar 2, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> Okay, now show that from the Bible.
> 
> Show were *any* professions required an extended period of examination.
> 
> ...



Paul - FIRST, I don't answer to you. I am not about to have demanded of me a litany of things that YOU want satisfied. Second, you are instructing me not to go beyond scripture? What exactly is your implication? You may disagree with my exegesis, but don't think for one moment that I intend to take liberties with scripture. I will provide you my thoughts and reasons, but I do so out of my sincere desire to explain. 

My biblical warrant is the autonomy parents have to raise their children. Part of that rearing is spiritual (Prvb. 22:6, Eph. 6:4, 2 Tim. 3:15). In fact 2 Tim. 3:15 is a perfect example of God's word being used in order to lead a child to faith. This is what I believe the bible teaches. I do not believe I am stretching it when I put responsibility on the parents to determine the spiritual condition of their young children. You glossed right over my previous post where I gave (what I thought to be) a detailed, and biblical, argument for parental responsibility. I have no litmus test to determine whether a child is worthy to be baptized. Believe and be baptized is the model. Parents bear the chief role in determining whether their young child has believed. 

Paul, btw...who said I want and example of infant baptism? I never said that. 

Wayne, this really is for you. I'm wondering whether any of this answers the questions in your OP.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Mar 2, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> Got kicked out of the Navy diuring SEAL training. Using illegal steroids.




Ouch! Yep, the USN don't like that. That's for sure.


----------



## Herald (Mar 2, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> Bill,
> 
> Not sure I get you? Answer to me? Let's not get over emotional now.
> 
> ...



Paul, it's 2:58 AM and I need to get to bed. I will respond later today. Until then, God bless you.


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 2, 2007)

WOW!!!  

I leave y'all alone for just a minute and look what happens!!  

I do find it interesting that historically, Baptists waited quite awhile before baptizing. But it appears that its not too long compared to the historical position of the Presbyterian Church and children becoming communing members.

What Bill noted about the influence of Finneyism on baptism today is somewhat paralleled in the Presbyterian Church with the old New Side/Old Side contraversy of the late 1700's. On the Presbyterian side I would also say that the influences of the Peadocommunion debate has infected how Presbyterians are now allowing children younger and younger to become communing members with a profession of faith that is truly child-like (or childish).

With all the back and forth discussion about examing a child before being baptized, doesn't the Baptist Church allow the newly baptized child to participate in the Lord's Supper as well as make membership vows?

If I were a Baptist I might just argue that we examine a child, or any person, before baptism because they are also going to be partaking in the Lord's Supper! Presbyterian's examine a child before they can partake. All Baptists are doing is killing two birds with one stone!  

But then again I may not be able to since as a Baptist, we have a different view of the Supper than Presbyterian's do?


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Mar 2, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> Let's try this one out, though: You go to a 75 yr. old's death bed. You witness to him. He then says he wants to believe. Would you "doubt" is profession? One could argue that he's trying to get fire insurance.



Not to mention this poor guy on his death bed then needs to be completely dunked underwater before his baptism is legit.


----------



## Herald (Mar 2, 2007)

Paul - I prepared a long post in response to your post from last evening. My finger was just about to click on the mouse when I decided not to reply. Why? I am worn out with all these threads on baptism. I have yet to read anything new. About the only benefit that I have experienced is to move closer to a Puritanboard Senior due to all the posts I have made. Everyone seems to be preaching to the choir. The divide between credo's and paedo's is rooted in more than just baptism. The differences are systemic. I'm going to avoid the baptism threads for a period of time. I'm just worn out.

Blessings.


----------



## matt01 (Mar 2, 2007)

wsw201 said:


> ...I began wondering at what age would a Baptist Church expect to see a child make a profession of faith?
> ...and would be concerned with a particular child who grew up in the church and was say 15 and had not made a profession of faith.



I do not look to a particular age. It is the Lord's decision as to when or if He will work in a person's heart. We pray that the Lord would save our daughter from a young age (she is four months of age), but realize that the Lord works according to His plan.


----------

