# (for paedobaptists only) when should we not baptise?



## Solo Christo (May 25, 2005)

This question is intended for paedobaptists only (of which I am one).

When should we not baptise an infant or child? This question is relevant to some adoption issues as well as missionary work.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Solo Christo_
> This question is intended for paedobaptists only (of which I am one).
> 
> When should we not baptise an infant or child? This question is relevant to some adoption issues as well as missionary work.



If the parents of the child are NOT covenant members.

Ch 28 of the WCF states:

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

(l) Mark 16:15, 16; Acts 8:37, 38.
(m) Gen. 17:7, 9, 10 with Gal. 3:9, 14 and Col. 2:11, 12 & Acts 2:38, 39 & Rom. 4:11, 12; I Cor. 7:14; Matt. 28:19; Mark 10:13, 14, 15, 16; Luke 18:15.

[Edited on 5-25-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Solo Christo (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Solo Christo_
> ...


Not to get nit-picky here (I have my own conclusions), but based on reformed practice how does this apply to...

1. Adopted children (do genetics matter?)
2. Orphans who's parent's standing with God is in question
3. Orphans of whom we have no knowledge of the parents at all
4. Children of parents who fell away, or even seemingly fell away

Suppose any of these senarios involved a child with an acute terminal illness. How, if any way, would this affect the decision?


----------



## Solo Christo (May 25, 2005)

btw, that last bit was not to suggest in any way that baptism=salvation, but rather to stress the level of urgency (or lack thereof) in sealing the child with the covenantal sign of God.


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Solo Christo_
> Not to get nit-picky here (I have my own conclusions), but based on reformed practice how does this apply to...
> 
> 1. Adopted children (do genetics matter?)



No, as Ruth comes to mind, being a Moabite that was brought into the covenant through somewhat of an adoption to Naomi. Although she was certainly of an age at which she could understand the Gospel (unlike many of the children we baptize), she was continually referred to as Naomi's daughter-in-law, and the illustrated principle still stands that God relationally brought people into the covenant in spite of genetics - and that was even under the Old Covenant, where the entire visible covenant community as a whole was ethnically-based; so how much more does that principle of adoption apply today under the New Covenant?



> _Originally posted by Solo Christo_
> 4. Children of parents who fell away, or even seemingly fell away



Because of the Perseverance of the Saints, if they truly "fell away," then of course they were never in the invisible covenant, and would have broken the visible covenant, and thus would have no promise from God at the moment regarding themselves or their children, which would make immediate baptism vain. On the other hand, if it is only a seeming or temporary falling away, they will of course bear the fruit of repentance in God's due timing, and would only then show themselves worthy to be considered covenant members, and thus only once the Church judged them to be in repentance would there be a biblical warrant for their children to be baptized.



> _Originally posted by Solo Christo_
> Suppose any of these senarios involved a child with an acute terminal illness. How, if any way, would this affect the decision?



I don't believe it should.

Your questions involving orphans seem to have a greater potential for "gray" areas, but I would be inclined to say that they should not be baptized until they are considered to be a full part of a covenantal family, which an orphanage (or a foster home) is not.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Solo Christo_
> 
> 1. Adopted children (do genetics matter?)



Without trying to sound too Federal Visionist, would the adopted father be the federal head of the covenant family. That way the adopted child would be qualified for baptism. ???


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 25, 2005)

Exactly.


----------



## Solo Christo (May 25, 2005)

I most definitely concur on the practice of baptising adopted children. I firmly believe that adoption is one of the incredible ways our Lord brings his sheep into his fold. This is especially evident in the adoption of babies and children from areas of the world where the Gospel is seldom heard. 

Chris, while it may seem a "gray" area, I also see no reason why certain orphans should not be baptised, given that they are under the care of a covenant believer. For instance, there are many orphans who are looked after by missionaries. To whose household do they belong? I see God's providence as leading them to partake of his covenantal blessing. 

While I agree that a terminal condition is not something to play any decisive role in the outcome of the matter, it is important in at least one regard. What wrong shall be done if you as a covenantal believer refuse baptism to a child who is _solely_ under your care and household? This will not effect the child's salvation, but does indeed affect your obedience to God's command.


----------



## turmeric (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Solo Christo_
> Chris, while it may seem a "gray" area, I also see no reason why certain orphans should not be baptised, given that they are under the care of a covenant believer. For instance, there are many orphans who are looked after by missionaries. To whose household do they belong? I see God's providence as leading them to partake of his covenantal blessing.



I think this would also apply to children who are in permanent foster care in a believer's home.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 25, 2005)

Is anyone familiar w / the half-way covenant? Some of the responses above smack of that..........


----------



## Robin (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Solo Christo_
> 
> When should we not baptise an infant or child? This question is relevant to some adoption issues as well as missionary work.



based on reformed practice how does this apply to...

2. Orphans who's parent's standing with God is in question
4. Children of parents who fell away, or even seemingly fell away

Suppose any of these scenarios involved a child with an acute terminal illness. How, if any way, would this affect the decision? [/quote]

Number 2. is the only one to be considered; #4. is unlikely in this case, the parents would not allow baptism?? 

Why worry about adoptions and birth parents? Isn't every Gentile believer adopted anyway?

Besides, baptism is not essential in the sense if the person is ignorant or prevented against their will; or suddenly taken by death where there's no time....remember the thief on the cross with Jesus?



Robin


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Solo Christo_
> ...



The _permanent_ foster home situation, as well as the missionary situation, are good examples of why I called it a question with potential for gray area. We certainly do not want to baptize without a biblical warrant, while inversely we of course do not want to withold baptism where it is biblically warranted. In light of that, each situation would ultimately depend on the relationship's nature as a "familial" group or not, since biblically speaking, it is uniquely through the institution of the family that God's covenantal blessing is given and declared by the Church.

Thus, if a missionary looks after an orphaned child as if the child were the missionary's own, the Church may possibly decide to baptize the child after analyzing the relationship. One thing that could potentially make me somewhat hesitant in such a situation would be why the missionary would hesitate to adopt the child if he was truly viewing and trying to raise the child in a covenantal way. Furthermore, with something like a Christian orphanage, it would be even harder to see it as a familial (and thus covenantal) unit.



> _Originally posted by Solo Christo_
> While I agree that a terminal condition is not something to play any decisive role in the outcome of the matter, it is important in at least one regard. What wrong shall be done if you as a covenantal believer refuse baptism to a child who is _solely_ under your care and household? This will not effect the child's salvation, but does indeed affect your obedience to God's command.



I see your point - and since we agree that such a factor should not influence the decision by clouding judgment or lowering the standard for defining visible covenant membership, I think your point about the urgent nature of such situations should serve to remind us to _always_ treat God's commands and our responsibility in correctly following them and carrying them out with such a sense of urgency in all situations.


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Is anyone familiar w / the half-way covenant? Some of the responses above smack of that..........



I assume you're referring to my use of the word "gray." Perhaps my above post clarified what I meant by that some more, but I'll elaborate here to make sure: Of course one is either in the covenant of grace and entitled to baptism or one is not, and I was not saying there can be any grayness in a person's declared covenant status, since it is either fully there or not, and thus should likewise be either recognized or not recognized by the Church. The thing that might be somewhat gray in nature is the process of deciding just which groups of people are and are not of familial (covenantal) nature, as the orphan examples illustrate well.

In other words, even though the situations such as the missionary caring for (but not adopting) a couple children and the permanent foster child's situation must each be decided on one way or the other (with no grayness in the declaration or denial of covenant status), the aspect that may prove challenging and gray with varying situations is the process of the Church determining which arrangements are to be considered familial in nature and which ones are not, which would certainly be influenced by how the guardian or caring party viewed his or her relationship to the child in question.


----------



## Solo Christo (May 25, 2005)

You've made yourself clear, Chris, and I agree with you. On the individual level there is no gray area, but speaking of broad terms there may be a need for clarification.

I began this post because I am currently having a dialogue with a credobaptist who is terribly misinformed about the paedo-position. This was an attempt of sorts to fish for oddball answers from my own camp of understanding to see if I could find anything that has negatively influenced him. Looks like he is on his own so far. :bigsmile:

[Edited on 5-25-2005 by Solo Christo]


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Chris,
I was not referring speciffically to your post; forgive me if it came across as such. I was working and really just breezed over the posts.

Thoughts:
I don't know if I agree that we should baptize foster children. The problem I see is that if we were to do this, would we not be breaking a command in rearing them if the state takes them back or they are returned to their biological parents? You couldn't fulfill the command........


----------



## Solo Christo (May 25, 2005)

Scott, unless it is made clear otherwise, I believe foster parents need to handle their adopted children as if they are to stay. There is much to be said about God's providence in the matter as well, and if he guides a child into the household of a covenant believer, he is doing so with good purpose. In the Old Testament we learn that even slaves were circumcised among the households that they were a part of, but those slaves did not necessarily stay for good.

[Edited on 5-26-2005 by Solo Christo]


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Solo Christo_
> Scott, unless it is made clear otherwise, I believe foster parents need to handle their adopted children as if they are to stay. There is much to be said about God's providence in the matter as well, and if he guides a child into the household of a covenant believer, he is doing so with good purpose. In the Old Testament we learn that even slaves were circumcised among the households that they were a part of, but those slaves did not necessarily stay for good.
> 
> [Edited on 5-26-2005 by Solo Christo]



From the NFPA

*How long will foster children remain in my home?* 
That depends on the family case plan. The length of stay, however, is influenced by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. The goal is to seek a permanent placement for the child as quickly as possible, be it reunification with the birth parents, kinship care, or adoption.

http://www.nfpainc.org/aboutFP/FAQ.cfm?page=2

I was under the impression that once a bondservant always a bondservant?


----------



## Solo Christo (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I was under the impression that once a bondservant always a bondservant?


Keeping with that train of thought...once a foster parent takes custody of a child, they are always a "parent".


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Solo Christo_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Sorry, but one is not consistant with the other. I placed the answer above; it came directly from the National Foster Parent Association. Is that not clear?


----------



## Solo Christo (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Solo Christo_
> ...


I believe you have misunderstood my comment and its application, and yes, it is very consistant with what you posted. Let me try to explain...

In the Old Testament, slaves were circumcised and considered part of both the household (micro) and the covenant (macro). This is perfectly clear as they even participated in the Passover meal....

Exo 12:43 And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "This is the statute of the Passover: no foreigner shall eat of it, 
Exo 12:44 *but every slave that is bought for money may eat of it after you have circumcised him.*

But slaves were not always slaves forever. Some would stay, but the plan was for them to move on...

Exo 21:1 "Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. 
Exo 21:2 *When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. *

Did a slave physically leaving the household take away their circumcision or remove them from God's covenant? Of course not. So please explain to me how this would be any different regarding a foster situation? If the Lord saw fit to place an infant or child in a covenant household, he did so with good reason. The foster parent should accept the child as a gift from God. If at some point down the line the child is removed, that physical removal doesn't take away the providence of God bringing him/her into his covenant household. Hence my comment: once you are a parent, you are always a "parent". 

Take, for example, the scenario of a terminally ill child. Would you, as a foster parent, not baptise the babe because he/she would only be in your household for a limited period of time? I pray not, for it would mean sorrowful disobedience.

Hope this clears up my point.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 26, 2005)

Mike,
Sorry about the misunderstanding. However, don't you believe that by baptising we are submitting to a responsibility. That responsibility means that we will rear them. If in fact the law says that the foster child is temporary, how can we rear them appropriately. Would it not be as grave a sin if I was to stop rearing my daughter Zoe today?


----------



## Solo Christo (May 26, 2005)

Your point should never be forgotten that paedobaptism comes with great responsibility. I could not agree more. But are not foster parents responsible for their children? If not, who is? Certainly not the genetic parents, and certainly not the state--in any real meaningful way.

Let me say again that this needs to be taken on a case by case basis with close guidance from the church. If a child is going to be staying in your home for a week while arrangements are made to send him/her off to Nebraska to live with the grandparents, then no, Baptism would not be commendable. But many of these children spend their entire youth with their foster parents and many are adopted by them. Obviously, the intent to adopt must be mandatory for the foster parent to baptise. Otherwise there would be no receiving into the household, as Christ has received us.

And yes, it would be a most heinous and despicable sin to stop rearing your daughter Zoe---based on cuteness alone.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 26, 2005)




----------

