# How Ought Baptists To Consider Their Children?



## Lowlander (Oct 25, 2022)

Having been a confessional Baptist for the better part of a decade now, there’s an apparent issue within the Baptist system that has troubled me, but I’ve found no satisfying answers.

It’s with regards to how Baptists ought to view and treat their children. I can’t quite put my finger on the exact problem, but I sense that something is amiss. 

It seems wrong for me to think of, and treat, my children the same as an outsider of the church, but how else ought I to think of them? 

There’s no covenant status of children in the Baptist system that I am aware of that would have me view them as anything other than unbelievers under my charge. 

We do family worship, I teach them as best as I can at different times throughout the day, etc., because I believe I am commanded to do so and because I love them and I want them to learn and grow and believe. 

Of course I treat them as my own and want to bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord—but there still seems to be something missing. 

It feels like I have “keep them at arms length” whenever I talk about the church or being a Christian. All I can give them is “repent and believe,” and not anything about God’s particular care. 

The Baptist would say, “Yes, they are unbelievers and have no claim to Christ or God’s particular care.” The Reformed would say, “We tell our children God has a claim on them, and they must act accordingly.”

I haven’t done a perfect job here of explaining precisely what is this feeling. Hopefully something I’ve said makes sense. 

Thoughts, brothers? I don’t want to discuss or debate the merits of the underlying covenantal differences between Baptists and the Reformed per se; but all are free to join in. 

Assess or critique the Baptist system. Correct my possible wrong views of Baptist belief and practice in this area. 

Am I right to sense that something is amiss, even as a Baptist? Am I expecting too much as a Baptist?


----------



## Taylor (Oct 25, 2022)



Reactions: Funny 7


----------



## Lowlander (Oct 25, 2022)

Taylor said:


>


The Reformed allow their children to eat popcorn within the church service?

Reactions: Funny 7


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart (Oct 25, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> It feels like I have “keep them at arms length” whenever I talk about the church or being a Christian. All I can give them is “repent and believe,” and not anything about God’s particular care.
> 
> The Baptist would say, “Yes, they are unbelievers and have no claim to Christ or God’s particular care.”


Brother, perhaps you've heard a Baptist say those exact words and even if not, I am sure you are not intentionally making a caricature or being overly simplistic. But think of all the blessings and privileges you can show your children that God has given them - specifically, them as individuals. If you struggle to express it, I suggest starting with Chapter 20 of the 1689, paragraph 3. Of course, simplify as needed based on their age and understanding. But I presume they have been blessed with the opportunity to sit under the revelation of the gospel unto sinners in clear, pointed, preaching. That is the sovereign will and good pleasure of God unto them. They have heard the gospel and must act accordingly. I could go on and on in regards to the spiritual blessings they have been given *because of *God's particular care for them. Did He not foreordain whatsoever comes to pass according to the counsel of His will?

What is keeping them at arm's length when urging them to repent and believe? Was Peter keeping the crowd at arms length in Acts 2:38-40? Repent and believe. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord God will call to Himself. And what happens next? Those who receive the word, join the church in the very next verse.

Maybe I'm just oversimplifying it too, but something did seem amiss in your post. However, I would suggest the cure is not to embrace paedobaptism.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Northern Crofter (Oct 26, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> It seems wrong for me to think of, and treat, my children the same as an outsider of the church, but how else ought I to think of them?


The difference between the WCF and the LBC isn't just over the issue of baptism. They view the sacraments differently - the former has a chapter on the sacraments (Ch.27), the latter does not. The WCF chapter begins with this powerful statement: "Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him: as *also to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world*; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word." Perhaps you are torn because you sense your children are outside the visible Church, there being no visible sign to set them apart. We may tend to discount earthly, visible signs in our modern age, but we shouldn't. We certainly don't with the Lord's Supper (see also I Cor.11.10?) so it should feel odd to treat baptism the same way. Admission: I considered myself a "Reformed Baptist" until I had children so I identify with your struggle.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Oct 26, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> I haven’t done a perfect job here of explaining precisely what is this feeling.


I think that you've well expressed the matter in your post. You sense the distinction that pertains to those born within the covenant (as are your children) and those born without (as are those who have no Christian father or mother). 

You know that you should not treat your children as "outsiders," though your theology does and cannot account for what you know them to be: born within the covenant and, thus, having a right to all the privileges that appertain thereunto. 

I could say much more but will leave it here as Sinclair Ferguson did with me many years ago, as he expounded the significance to me, upon my questions to him, of Peter's Pentecost proclamation at the end of his sermon. The promise of old that was to sons of Abraham and their offspring remains to you and your children, only better (as Hebrews declares)--in New Covenant fulfillment. 

I don't say this with an ounce of disrespect or lack of affection for all my good Baptist brethren here. It's just that your children, by virtue of their birth, are, in that sense, in the covenant. I think that the reality and sense of this are what presently grips you. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Polanus1561 (Oct 26, 2022)

You slaughtered *My children* and offered them to idols by making them pass through _the fire. / Ezek 16:21_

When one wrestles with God with the needs of our children… to wrestle with God saying that “would you grant my children… *your* children…” that’s a comfort.
The zealousness of God for His children is a hope. The mercy we plead for our children is not the mercy we plead for a typical stranger but a covenantal mercy. Grant them the faith to apprehend what baptism symbolizes. Have them to see the beauty of You and of the promise.

Israel children were to have their physical sign circumcision be a reality. Deut 30:6

Do we have enough evidence to overturn this “sign given and the thing signified to be embraced” economy in the New Covenant?

Some Baptists would argue their understanding of the Abrahamic covenant and how since Jesus the promised seed has come, the seed principle is no longer in place. You study both views and come to your own conclusion.

Children are deemed holy and called to regulate their lives around the 10 commandments.
Aren’t Baptists at least a _little bit puzzled_ why (in their view) there is no sign given to children?_ For the sake of discussion, conceding this does not mean conceding their view entirely._

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## J.L. Allen (Oct 26, 2022)

My wife and I had this same struggle some years ago. I prayed and wrestled with what I was coming to see about my convictions. I had been a Baptist my whole Christian life as had my wife. We never seriously engaged the claims of Reformed theology (the mere, and yes, beautiful, 5-points are not what constitutes embracing Reformed doctrine). We had been "Calvinists" our whole Christian life up to that point. I was sick with the implications of the claims of Reformed doctrine and the inadequacies perceived in our doctrine. When I searched out a more confessional position, comparing and contrasting the views of God's administration of his covenants, I found what the Presbyterians and Continental Reformed confessed able to account for the inadequacies of my own doctrine. I didn't want to arrive there, mind you. So, I fought it for a time. 

I recently read Thomas Kuhn's book _The Structure of Scientific Revolution_, and a concept now adopted in common parlance is helpful for what I, and it would seem so now for yourself, struggled through at that time. It was that our paradigm could not account for the data we gathered and reasoned through. A paradigm shift was necessary in order to account for this data.

What you are describing is the data you are observing both in Scripture and in the light of nature. You read your Bible and, perhaps, see a level of continuity in how God deals with his people while fulfilling his progressing message of redemption. The old paradigm (that is, your convictions) now struggle to account for this data. You look at your children, relate to them, but feel there is more that can and should be said with regards to their providentially given lives. The old paradigm (conviction) is struggling to account for this data. However, here's where Kuhn and other unbelievers might "eat their hearts out;" we have the Holy Spirit to illumine the Scriptures unto us with eyes of faith. With those eyes of faith, we then can rightly interpret the discrepancies we feel in the natural witness: look at our children and knowing there is something more. It isn't so much of a divinely appointed opportunity to witness the blessedness of a Christian life, though that is true, but it is that they have some status different than the children of the unbelieving family next door.

As another brother has pointed out, how else can our children, not yet professed of faith, be assailed by the world if they of the world? This is one question swirling in a storm of questions. This is a question that needs a paradigm (conviction) able to account for it.

Reactions: Like 4 | Love 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 26, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> It seems wrong for me to think of, and treat, my children the same as an outsider of the church, but how else ought I to think of them?



You should view them as holy, set apart (1 Cor 7).

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Oct 26, 2022)

Your children are born as you were; as all humanity is: in Adam, with a fallen nature. What better way to teach them their need of repentance and faith than to show them that until God has given them new hearts, they are aliens and strangers? Baptists believe that unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. To give anyone some sort of special status because one of their parents was born again is to foster a false sense of belonging. Jesus told the Pharisees, who were Covenant Children under the OT: "Ye are of your father the Devil." John the Baptist told them not to presume on their birth, but to repent and believe.
So likewise, believing the Scripture, we teach our children that God has a claim on them, as on all humanity: He requires perfect obedience in order to enjoy His presence. We teach them that by nature and birth they are sinners, and that God sent a mediator to obey perfectly in their behalf. And we teach them that when they repent and believe in Jesus--but not until then--they are not only justified, but adopted into God's family. We take them to church, we teach them the Scriptures at home, because we believe that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. We believe that the preached word is God's principal means for calling sinners--which our children are--unto Himself.
I don't see why people think that's harsh: that's what the Bible teaches. All have sinned in Adam; all are offered remission of sins in Christ.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 26, 2022)

Moved to the Baptism Forum.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Oct 26, 2022)

Your children are either in Adam, or in Christ. Their is no third option. In Adam all die. In Christ all are made alive. If you would be with your children in the kingdom of God, you must earnestly plead with them for Christ and earnestly plead with Christ for them. Anything less than this is foolish presumption.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## J.L. Allen (Oct 26, 2022)

Ben Zartman said:


> Your children are born as you were; as all humanity is: in Adam, with a fallen nature. What better way to teach them their need of repentance and faith than to show them that until God has given them new hearts, they are aliens and strangers? Baptists believe that unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. To give anyone some sort of special status because one of their parents was born again is to foster a false sense of belonging. Jesus told the Pharisees, who were Covenant Children under the OT: "Ye are of your father the Devil." John the Baptist told them not to presume on their birth, but to repent and believe.
> So likewise, believing the Scripture, we teach our children that God has a claim on them, as on all humanity: He requires perfect obedience in order to enjoy His presence. We teach them that by nature and birth they are sinners, and that God sent a mediator to obey perfectly in their behalf. And we teach them that when they repent and believe in Jesus--but not until then--they are not only justified, but adopted into God's family. We take them to church, we teach them the Scriptures at home, because we believe that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. We believe that the preached word is God's principal means for calling sinners--which our children are--unto Himself.
> I don't see why people think that's harsh: that's what the Bible teaches. All have sinned in Adam; all are offered remission of sins in Christ.


Presbyterian and Reformed _do_ teach their children to repent and believe. They teach them all that you have described. Pointing to the Pharisees and their abuse of the covenantal sign given to them is not a reason to withhold the sign. There are no P&Rs who would want their children to presume upon the Lord in the same fashion as the Pharisees. I exhorted on Isaiah 59 this last weekend and brought out this very theme from the passage (with chapters 56-58 setting a context of presumption). This abuse can occur regardless of when the sign is administered. This doesn't nullify what the sign signifies. In fact, the sign, such as in the case of the Pharisees, stands to call them to repentance all the more lest it be a mark of judgment upon them.

*My comment here also applies to what @C. M. Sheffield has said.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Oct 26, 2022)

J.L. Allen said:


> Presbyterian and Reformed _do_ teach their children to repent and believe. They teach them all that you have described. Pointing to the Pharisees and their abuse of the covenantal sign given to them is not a reason to withhold the sign. There are no P&Rs who would want their children to presume upon the Lord in the same fashion as the Pharisees. I exhorted on Isaiah 59 this last weekend and brought out this very theme from the passage (with chapters 56-58 setting a context of presumption). This abuse can occur regardless of when the sign is administered. This doesn't nullify what the sign signifies. In fact, the sign, such as in the case of the Pharisees, stands to call them to repentance all the more lest it be a mark of judgment upon them.
> 
> *My comment here also applies to what @C. M. Sheffield has said.


Ahhemmm... I believe he was answering the question, "How Ought *Baptists* To Consider Their Children?" That paedobaptists will object to how Baptists answer this question goes without saying.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## J.L. Allen (Oct 26, 2022)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Ahhemmm... I believe he was answering the question, "How Ought *Baptists* To Consider Their Children?" The objections of paedobaptists on how Baptists will answer this question go without saying.





Lowlander said:


> Thoughts, brothers? I don’t want to discuss or debate the merits of the underlying covenantal differences between Baptists and the Reformed per se; but all are free to join in.


I believe I've operated according to spirit of the thread. However, I wish not to cause undue affliction or consternation. I've stated what I think is appropriate to the conversation and will bow out unless necessary.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Oct 26, 2022)

J.L. Allen said:


> I believe I've operated according to spirit of the thread.





Lowlander said:


> I don’t want to discuss or debate the merits of the underlying covenantal differences between Baptists and the Reformed


----------



## De Jager (Oct 26, 2022)

Ben Zartman said:


> Your children are born as you were; as all humanity is: in Adam, with a fallen nature. What better way to teach them their need of repentance and faith than to show them that until God has given them new hearts, they are aliens and strangers? Baptists believe that unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. *To give anyone some sort of special status because one of their parents was born again is to foster a false sense of belonging.* Jesus told the Pharisees, who were Covenant Children under the OT: "Ye are of your father the Devil." John the Baptist told them not to presume on their birth, but to repent and believe.
> So likewise, believing the Scripture, we teach our children that God has a claim on them, as on all humanity: He requires perfect obedience in order to enjoy His presence. We teach them that by nature and birth they are sinners, and that God sent a mediator to obey perfectly in their behalf. And we teach them that when they repent and believe in Jesus--but not until then--they are not only justified, but adopted into God's family. We take them to church, we teach them the Scriptures at home, because we believe that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. We believe that the preached word is God's principal means for calling sinners--which our children are--unto Himself.
> I don't see why people think that's harsh: that's what the Bible teaches. All have sinned in Adam; all are offered remission of sins in Christ.



God himself is guilty of your charges, because he did this very thing with every single child born in Israel, whether they were of Hebrew stock or of other ethnicities residing in Israel (Genesis 17:13).

The NT in no way abrogates this practice. In fact, the New Testament also teaches that the children of believers do have a special status: they are considered holy (1 Corinthians 7:14). We are not the ones who came up with that: God did. He specifically and clearly distinguishes them from those that are without.

And all of this does not negate Jesus' words to the unbelieving Jews "ye are of your father, the devil". This is because while there is an invisible church, where you're either "in" or "out", there is also a visible church, which is larger than the invisible church. The administration of the church, the work of the elders, the administration of the sacraments deals with a visible body that you can see and name. Their regeneration is known only infallibly to God.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## J.L. Allen (Oct 26, 2022)

C. M. Sheffield said:


>


Then perhaps this thread would be better segregated to a Baptist-only designation.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Oct 26, 2022)

De Jager said:


> God himself is guilty of your charges, because he did this very thing with every single child born in Israel, whether they were of Hebrew stock or of other ethnicities residing in Israel (Genesis 17:13).
> 
> The NT in no way abrogates this practice. In fact, the New Testament also teaches that the children of believers do have a special status: they are considered holy (1 Corinthians 7:14). We are not the ones who came up with that: God did. He specifically and clearly distinguishes them from those that are without.
> 
> And all of this does not negate Jesus' words to the unbelieving Jews "ye are of your father, the devil". This is because while there is an invisible church, where you're either "in" or "out", there is also a visible church, which is larger than the invisible church. The administration of the church, the work of the elders, the administration of the sacraments deals with a visible body that you can see and name. Their regeneration is known only infallibly to God.


Again, from the opening post...


Lowlander said:


> I don’t want to discuss or debate the merits of the underlying covenantal differences between Baptists and the Reformed


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Oct 26, 2022)

J.L. Allen said:


> Then perhaps this thread would be better segregated to a Baptist-only designation.


Or, just don't use this thread to make your case as to why Baptists are all wrong.


----------



## Phil D. (Oct 26, 2022)

Baptists should consider and raise their children according to everything the Bible says on the matter: Deut. 6:6-7; Psalm 78:2-7; Prov. 22:6, 15, 29:17; Matt. 19:14; Eph. 6:4; Col. 3:21; 1 Thess. 2:11; etc. 

Of course paedobaptists also believe that baptism is a_ literal replacement_ for circumcision, from which other things are then derived, but credobaptists believe the case for that is lacking.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Oct 26, 2022)

Further, how is your church to relate to your children formally?


----------



## Northern Crofter (Oct 26, 2022)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Or, just don't use this thread to make your case as to why Baptists are all wrong.


The OP started thus:


Lowlander said:


> Having been a confessional Baptist for the better part of a decade now, there’s an apparent issue within the Baptist system that has troubled me, but I’ve found no satisfying answers.
> 
> It’s with regards to how Baptists ought to view and treat their children. I can’t quite put my finger on the exact problem, but I sense that something is amiss.
> 
> ...


and ended with:


Lowlander said:


> Assess or critique the Baptist system. Correct my possible wrong views of Baptist belief and practice in this area.
> 
> Am I right to sense that something is amiss, even as a Baptist? Am I expecting too much as a Baptist?


Several of us had a similar experience when we had children and it eventually led to us moving on from being "Reformed Baptist." We no doubt sense that this brother is similarly struggling with this issue. It is not inappropriate in this discussion to offer up some of the thinking that led to such changes for the OP's consideration.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## ZackF (Oct 26, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> The Reformed allow their children to eat popcorn within the church service?


At the age of accountability.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1 | Funny 3


----------



## Miss Marple (Oct 26, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> Having been a confessional Baptist for the better part of a decade now, there’s an apparent issue within the Baptist system that has troubled me, but I’ve found no satisfying answers.
> 
> It’s with regards to how Baptists ought to view and treat their children. I can’t quite put my finger on the exact problem, but I sense that something is amiss.
> 
> ...




Our former OPC pastor, who was raised Baptist by his wonderful Baptist pastor father, has commented on this similarly.

He mentioned often that he was taught to sing "Jesus loves me," which he found blessedly incongruous. Expected in church, expected to behave as a Christian, to pray and etc. As though he were a Christian, from his earliest years.

I won't wade into the theological discussion, just saying, it is a conundrum.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JH (Oct 26, 2022)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Or, just don't use this thread to make your case as to why Baptists are all wrong.


Pastor Chris, I think the OP left that open to discussion, saying — "I don’t want to discuss or debate the merits of the underlying covenantal differences between Baptists and the Reformed per se; _but all are free to join in. Assess or critique the Baptist system._"

To me, that says that OP's intention was not to start a debate about covenantal views necessarily, but he's open to critiques of the position from any side. It seems to me the thread is open for all to share their thoughts.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Lowlander (Oct 26, 2022)

JH said:


> Pastor Chris, I think the OP left that open to discussion, saying — "I don’t want to discuss or debate the merits of the underlying covenantal differences between Baptists and the Reformed per se; _but all are free to join in. Assess or critique the Baptist system._"
> 
> To me, that says that OP's intention was not to start a debate about covenantal views necessarily, but he's open to critiques of the position from any side. It seems to me the thread is open for all to share their thoughts.


I can see how my comments could be viewed both ways. My apologies.

I’ll clarify.

Let’s progress along these lines:

“To me, that says that OP's intention was not to start a debate about covenantal views necessarily, but he's open to critiques of the position from any side. It seems to me the thread is open for all to share their thoughts.”

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Oct 26, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> “To me, that says that OP's intention was not to start a debate about covenantal views necessarily, but he's open to critiques of the position from any side. It seems to me the thread is open for all to share their thoughts.”


That's the way I took what you'd originally said, and thus, was not deterred, nor will I be, in commenting on this thread. Your reiteration here validates what others of us have understood to be your meaning all along, even in the face of partial reconstructions of your original post that clearly does not capture what you intended to communicate. I don't think that you need either to apologize or clarify.

You expressed, brother, a tension that you observed and felt in your system. As a former baptist, like J. Allen and others here, I too sensed a tension years ago that I found only to be resolved in coming to affirm that children of one believing parent are distinguished from the world, as were the children of the Jews of old.

I recognize that Baptists and P/R differ on this, but you're the one who mentioned the tension, you brought the subject up, so I don't apologize in saying what others and I have suggested: the tension is there because your children really are born within covenantal bounds and are not simply like anyone in the rest of the world who is a stranger to God's promises contained in the covenant of grace. You intuit that your children are not merely like those outside, like the world that lieth in wickedness, but that God has given you to them to rear for Him in his nurture and admonition. This is why many Baptists, unaccountably, dedicate their babies; they know that they are, and are to be, distinguished from the world. Rather than applying the sacrament, however, that would indicate their solemn admission into the visible church, good Baptist folks develop a sub-sacrament whereby they might distinguish their children from the world.

Your sense of this thing, Elijah, is not wrong and I would urge you to press on in it!

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 4 | Love 2


----------



## Parakaleo (Oct 26, 2022)

We were singing Psalm 84 this past Lord's day and I thought, "Wow, verse 3 would be a good passage to preach next time I'm called on to baptize someone's children."

_Yea, the sparrow hath found an house, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young, even thine altars, O Lord of hosts, my King, and my God._ Psalm 84:3

The psalmist uses common birds to illustrate something very powerful. Like a sparrow or swallow finding a nest for herself, so she may lay her young in some part of the altars of God, the believer also searches to find a place of nurture for their children within the household of God.

_...bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord._ Ephesians 6:4

Reactions: Love 3


----------



## VictorBravo (Oct 26, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> You should view them as holy, set apart (1 Cor 7).


That was my first thought as well.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Lowlander (Oct 26, 2022)

VictorBravo said:


> That was my first thought as well.


The two sides are defining this differently though. 

———

The P&R have a category and explanation why they treat their children as they do. I understand that.

I still see an inconsistency for a Baptist to treat their children in the same way. Nothing said here from the Baptist view has really helped alleviate the sense I have that something is wrong, that there is a disconnect. 

Let’s assume Baptist covenant theology to be correct, wouldn’t it logically follow that parents must treat their children as outsiders of the church, and speak to them in the same way as to the unbelieving children next door?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Polanus1561 (Oct 26, 2022)

Brother, I am sure your pastor has answers to from his/Baptist view. Have you asked and considered his words?


----------



## Northern Crofter (Oct 26, 2022)

Alan D. Strange said:


> This is why many Baptists, unaccountably, dedicate their babies; they know that they are, and are to be, distinguished from the world. Rather than applying the sacrament, however, that would indicate their solemn admission into the visible church, good Baptist folks develop a sub-sacrament whereby they might distinguish their children from the world.


"Child dedications" are really just dry baptisms.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Polanus1561 (Oct 26, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> "Child dedications" are really just dry baptisms.


Don't most 1689ers not do child dedications?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Northern Crofter (Oct 26, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> Let’s assume Baptist covenant theology to be correct, wouldn’t it logically follow that parents must treat their children as outsiders of the church, and speak to them in the same way as to the unbelieving children next door?


Not necessarily. They are set apart/holy from conception because of their parent/-s position within the covenant. Baptism is no more necessary to make that a reality than it is to make salvation a reality. Children do not become holy in God's eyes because they are baptized; they are baptized because they are holy. But the visible, external sign is an important mark for the eyes of men and angels.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Oct 26, 2022)

Polanus1561 said:


> Don't most 1689ers not do child dedications?


I would imagine not.



Northern Crofter said:


> "Child dedications" are really just dry baptisms.



This reminds me of a crazy thing I saw some years ago. My cousin and her husband had their first baby. They went to a quasi-Pentecostal, evangelical, non-denominational church at the time. They had her dedicated, and the service was live-streamed, so I tuned in out of curiosity. I am not lying; the pastor got up on stage, took the baby in his arm, grabbed a white rose with his other hand, looked at the baby, and said, "I dedicate you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." He then proceeded to dip the rose in water and place the wet rose on the baby's forehead.

I was flabbergasted...

Reactions: Wow 6


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Oct 26, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I would imagine not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, that's one way to do it I guess.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 2


----------



## Physeter (Oct 26, 2022)

My church has a dedication service for infants. We do not treat them as outsiders. I think it shameful to treat a child as an outsider.

I do understand the reasoning behind infant baptism and don't really have any issues with it personally.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Oct 26, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> The two sides are defining this differently though.
> 
> ———
> 
> ...


I wonder how you think that pagan children ought to be spoken to? You should live out your Christian testimony before the pagan and his children just like you do before your own. If you have a chance to share the Gospel with them, do so. If you can persuade them to come to church and sit under the ministry of the Word, you should do so. Above all, treat them as fallen image-bearers to whom the Gospel call is to go, not as something beneath your dignity!

The heathen and the Christian have the same responsibility to God: to repent and believe. They begin the same, as sinners in Adam. That the children of the Christian are at a distinct advantage does not in any way negate their birthright (birthwrong?) in Adam. That they will have more to answer for on Judgment Day if they rejected Christ doesn't mean they are different than the rest of fallen man. As Pastor Sheffield pointed out, there are only two groups: the regenerate, and the unregenerate. But if you treat an obviously converted child differently than you do one who is not saved, you're a jerk.
(Edited to say: by which I mean they all deserve kindness, to be taken to church, to be prayed with and sung with and read to from the Bible. Whether to be received into membership with it's privileges of communion and discipline is a matter for the church, but it should not affect how you interact with them day-to-day)

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Polanus1561 (Oct 26, 2022)

OP, I agree with Ben in terms of how you are thinking too much situationally.

I think there is enough data here and in other threads for you to move from that, to the biblical data.

Blessings


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Oct 26, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> Children do not become holy in God's eyes because they are baptized; they are baptized because they are holy


Quite right. Children of believers are holy (set apart) from birth. They are in the covenant outwardly by their first birth and inwardly by their second.

And because they are, in that sense, in the covenant, they are to be baptized. Baptism does not bring them into the covenant. It recognizes their standing and status within it by virtue of Christian parentage.

Children of all believers, whether paedo- or credo-baptist, according to the P/R conception of things, are in the covenant outwardly. We would say that baptism, as the sign and seal of covenantal membership, belongs to them all, Baptists and P/R alike. But the absence of baptism does not mean that Baptist children are not in the covenant, at least as far as P/R churches see it: they are in the covenant, though lacking its sign and seal.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart (Oct 26, 2022)

I'm not picking on words anyone has used in this thread because these are things I've seen repeated a number of times by various posters in different threads. But I really don't understand the offense that this statement seems to bring - a baptist must treat his child like an outsider _*gasp*_! Well, unless they profess the faith of the gospel and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, based on how the Head of the church calls, institutes, orders, and governs His church, they are not in the church and they should not be called or treated as visible saints (1689 chapter 26, paragraphs 2 & 4). Yet I still have a great responsibility to them as one who IS a visible saint and has been given specific instructions by my Lord as to how to rear them (which, by the way, does not include sprinkling them as infants - there is neither command nor example in the Holy Scriptures, nor certain inference from them, to baptize such).

Do I then treat them the same as my pagan neighbor's children? An absurd question. I treat children of other adults - believers or unbelievers - differently in many ways than I do my own children. For example, unless I am specifically instructed by the parent to do so, I do not discipline them. On the other hand, there are ways I treat them the same as my children. For example, if they are at my house at the appropriate time, they would participate in family worship.

"Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me." Not, 'let the children alone who are speculatively in covenant, but treat the other children like outsiders.' (and, of course, it ought to go without saying that that is a completely _dry_ text.. but in this thread it probably needs to be said)


Taylor said:


> I would imagine not.


That is correct, at least in my limited experience. If a baptist church has child dedications as part of a worship service, they probably also call themselves "non denominational" and most definitely do not hold to a confession such as the 1689, though they may be calvinistic. I wouldn't even call it a sub-sacrament. More like pseudo.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Lowlander (Oct 26, 2022)

Ben Zartman said:


> I wonder how you think that pagan children ought to be spoken to? You should live out your Christian testimony before the pagan and his children just like you do before your own. If you have a chance to share the Gospel with them, do so. If you can persuade them to come to church and sit under the ministry of the Word, you should do so. Above all, treat them as fallen image-bearers to whom the Gospel call is to go, not as something beneath your dignity!
> 
> The heathen and the Christian have the same responsibility to God: to repent and believe. They begin the same, as sinners in Adam. That the children of the Christian are at a distinct advantage does not in any way negate their birthright (birthwrong?) in Adam. That they will have more to answer for on Judgment Day if they rejected Christ doesn't mean they are different than the rest of fallen man. As Pastor Sheffield pointed out, there are only two groups: the regenerate, and the unregenerate. But if you treat an obviously converted child differently than you do one who is not saved, you're a jerk.
> (Edited to say: by which I mean they all deserve kindness, to be taken to church, to be prayed with and sung with and read to from the Bible. Whether to be received into membership with it's privileges of communion and discipline is a matter for the church, but it should not affect how you interact with them day-to-day)


Thanks, brother. 

In saying treating my children different than unbelieving neighbour children, I meant more how the message to the neighbours is simply “repent and believe;” whereas within my own home I can’t _merely _say that. I can’t stop there. That’s where the sense I have that something is amiss is coming in. 

I can’t have my children be mere spectators to family religion. I can’t bring them into the life of the church and yet say, “This is not for you. Do not sing these songs. Do not pray along with the congregation. One day perhaps you can join us.”

Instead, I feel pulled to raise them essentially as disciples, being taught everything in a way that applies to them more than the proverbial pagan. 

If you subbed out a neighbour child for mine at bedtime, I couldn’t speak to them in the same manner as I lay them down to sleep as I would to my own children. There is a difference. And that’s what I’m trying to figure out. 

I’m not saying I have the answers. 

The P&R have their answers. You and other Baptists have your answers. 

I’m trying to square my intuition with what’s right, biblical, logical, etc.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart (Oct 26, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> If you subbed out a neighbour child for mine at bedtime, I couldn’t speak to them in the same manner as I lay them down to sleep as I would to my own children. There is a difference. And that’s what I’m trying to figure out.


That would be rejecting the providence of God in whom he specifically chose to give you as your own child. Why speculate about that?


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart (Oct 26, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> I can’t bring them into the life of the church and yet say, “This is not for you. Do not sing these songs. Do not pray along with the congregation. One day perhaps you can join us.”


I don't know what hymnal your church uses, but I suspect there are some hymns - at least there is in ours - that this would describe even if you were coming from a paedobaptist position. Perhaps you'd narrow down a bit the songs that these children would be forbidden to sing, but you'd still have the same dilemma.


----------



## Lowlander (Oct 26, 2022)

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> That would be rejecting the providence of God in whom he specifically chose to give you as your own child. Why speculate about that?


Perhaps I wasn’t clear. 

I meant that in those tender minutes of parent and child communication while they are laying in their beds, I most certainly do not speak to them about the things of God in the exact same way as I would to an unbelieving child unrelated to my family. 

I wasn’t emphasizing a providential swap; I was using the tenderness of the moment as a backdrop.


----------



## Lowlander (Oct 26, 2022)

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> I don't know what hymnal your church uses, but I suspect there are some hymns - at least there is in ours - that this would describe even if you were coming from a paedobaptist position. Perhaps you'd narrow down a bit the songs that these children would be forbidden to sing, but you'd still have the same dilemma.


I’d actually argue it would be best for us to be singing psalms.

Do you mean hymns that have explicit Christian experience as their theme? Or professions of faith?


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart (Oct 26, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> I’d actually argue it would be best for us to be singing psalms.
> 
> Do you mean hymns that have explicit Christian experience as their theme? Or professions of faith?


Ok, there are still psalms that a so-called covenant child who does not have the substance of it, cannot rightly appropriate to themselves and sing with their lips. "In God I have put my trust, I shall not be afraid", etc.


Lowlander said:


> Perhaps I wasn’t clear.
> 
> I meant that in those tender minutes of parent and child communication while they are laying in their beds, I most certainly do not speak to them about the things of God in the exact same way as I would to an unbelieving child unrelated to my family.
> 
> I wasn’t emphasizing a providential swap; I was using the tenderness of the moment as a backdrop


I understand. My statement still stands. You speak to them differently _because they are your family member, your child_.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Oct 26, 2022)

@Mr. Great-Heart; @Lowlander 

Jake, 

I appreciate your vehemence and zeal about your position as a Baptist. I used to be right there, saying just what you are saying to shore up Elijah, your fellow Baptist.

Elijah, however, is finding your articulation of the Baptist position, which I think is accurate, inadequate to account for matters as he has come to see them. It's your fellow Baptist, Jake, who has raised the concerns that he has and who admits that the P/R position can account for what he finds lacking in his own position.

You are quite right, Elijah, about what you can press home with your own children, as you speak to them of the undoubted love of God for them and encourage them in the never-failing care that He has for them. You speak to someone out of the church about Christ as the only hope, to be sure, and encourage them to believe and repent very winsomely _as they are open to it_. If they are not, you don't throw pearls before swine. 

But you speak to your child, _even in his rebelling_, entreatingly and tenderly in a way that you'd never speak to an unbeliever who "doesn't want to hear it." It's hard even to fully describe this, but we intuit, as you are doing in this thread, that our children whom we are to nurture for Him are clearly not the same as the unbelieving world that lies outside our doors, even when those children have not yet professed their faith in Christ. Not only do we expect and anticipate them to do so, but we also wait, perhaps through turmoil and struggle, always pleading to God his promises to them, and never failing to point them to Christ, however far away they may be, or seem to be, from Him.

Your basic sense, Elijah, is that the child in the next room of your house is not to be treated by you spiritually as the unbelieving man next door and you are precisely right about that. Don't move away from this insight, my dear brother. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 6 | Love 1 | Amen 2


----------



## Lowlander (Oct 26, 2022)

If I could ask a more specific, practical question to everybody:

In light of how you view your children, how ought you disciple your children? Would you even use the word “disciple”?

What exactly are you telling them when it comes down to how they should believe and act? Is there anyone out there prefacing every taught command with, “you are powerless to obey because you aren’t saved”?

Please answer more specifically than, “teach them the Bible.”


----------



## Lowlander (Oct 26, 2022)

Alan D. Strange said:


> @Mr. Great-Heart; @Lowlander
> 
> Jake,
> 
> ...


Thank you, brother. I appreciate the encouragement as I work through these things.


----------



## Lowlander (Oct 26, 2022)

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> Ok, there are still psalms that a so-called covenant child who does not have the substance of it, cannot rightly appropriate to themselves and sing with their lips. "In God I have put my trust, I shall not be afraid", etc.
> 
> I understand. My statement still stands. You speak to them differently _because they are your family member, your child_.


Do you mean I speak to them differently because of my love for them as my own children? What sets apart them from other children in this instance is my personal love for them?


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart (Oct 27, 2022)

Alan D. Strange said:


> You are quite right, Elijah, about what you can press home with your own children, as you speak to them of the undoubted love of God for them and encourage them in the never-failing care that He has for them. You speak to someone out of the church about Christ as the only hope, to be sure, and encourage them to believe and repent very winsomely _as they are open to it_. If they are not, you don't throw pearls before swine.
> 
> But you speak to your child, _even in his rebelling_, entreatingly and tenderly in a way that you'd never speak to an unbeliever who "doesn't want to hear it." It's hard even to fully describe this, but we intuit, as you are doing in this thread, that our children whom we are to nurture for Him are clearly not the same as the unbelieving world that lies outside our doors, even when those children have not yet professed their faith in Christ. Not only do we expect and anticipate them to do so, but we also wait, perhaps through turmoil and struggle, always pleading to God his promises to them, and never failing to point them to Christ, however far away they may be, or seem to be, from Him.


Because you are speaking in general terms, I agree with much of what you've posted that I've quoted above, though of course we would diverge as we move to specifics. But I would just mention that I don't believe it's quite so cut and dry with the distinctions as you made it seem in these two paragraphs above. Though I am, of course, not suggesting we apply it literally, I think Deut. 21:18-21 has some principles that we could apply and that would contradict the clean bifurcation you've made above.


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart (Oct 27, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> Do you mean I speak to them differently because of my love for them as my own children? What sets apart them from other children in this instance is my personal love for them?


Fathers, do not provoke *your* children to anger, but bring them [YOUR children] up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

We have specific duties to our own children, not to the children of others. How we talk to them follows. More could be said, but it is way past my bedtime and soon my children will be not-so-tenderly waking me up!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Lowlander (Oct 27, 2022)

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> Fathers, do not provoke *your* children to anger, but bring them [YOUR children] up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.
> 
> We have specific duties to our own children, not to the children of others. How we talk to them follows. More could be said, but it is way past my bedtime and soon my children will be not-so-tenderly waking me up!


I agree with you there certainly.

But in addition to that familial duty, I sense there is something more. Hence this thread.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## John The Baptist (Oct 27, 2022)

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> I understand. My statement still stands. You speak to them differently _because they are your family member, your child_.



I think you’re right on here. 

To OP:
We have personal relationships with unbelievers which go deeper than “repent and believe.” This could include siblings, parents, coworkers, or close friends. Knowing they’re unbelievers doesn't mean we treat them “like the neighbor next door.” 

I think in both traditions the unconverted child need not moralistic instruction (the likes of which I grew up with) rather they need gospel preaching. This is needed especially from the parents, the most trusted relationship in their eyes. 

If your difficulty is how they ought to be treated at church, then you also need to question how you treat a visiting unbeliever. Can they sit under the preaching? Can they sing the hymns? Obviously they cannot partake of the supper, same as the unregenerate child (in both traditions). 

I’m having a hard time understanding the difficulty here. An unbeliever needs the gospel taught to them, that they may receive faith by hearing. This is true of the baptized kid and the unbaptized kid. And since you have been entrusted with this dear child, you ought to train them up in the way they should go, in the gospel. 

So, teach your child the gospel and the Bible, and do not feel guilty about it. The internal call does not always come at the first external call, so we persistently teach the gospel to our children, knowing and trusting that God is sovereign over their salvation.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## J.L. Allen (Oct 27, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> If I could ask a more specific, practical question to everybody:
> 
> In light of how you view your children, how ought you disciple your children? Would you even use the word “disciple”?
> 
> ...


I'm so very far from being a perfect parent, and it is God's grace that I do anything right by them. Disciple is absolutely the appropriate word to use. My wife and I take daily catechism seriously. By teaching them the doctrines of Bible as summarized in the catechisms, we are laying the groundwork that Paul speaks of in Colossians (that they grow in understanding, rooted in the preeminence of Christ) or John in his second epistle (that they hold fast to truth and love revealed in the doctrine of Christ). Daily family worship is essential (more so), too. Nearly every time we do family worship, one of the kids mentions the catechism they did with their mother in the morning. These are heart warming moments. We also go through a Bible curriculum as part of their schooling, too, so they make connections to other parts of Scripture often.

Part of being a disciple means submitting to discipline. When they act up (sin), we take a moment to talk through repentance and pray for it, asking forgiveness from God. We conclude these times by talking about the big picture of how the promises of God are yes and amen in Christ Jesus. We talk about how they must take for themselves these promises; promises given by God that are held out before them in their baptisms. He will be their God, and they will be his people. My wife and I plead for their souls in our own prayers. When times have been really sour, we rebuke or admonish them for looking like the world and not like the saints they are called to be. "For it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy."

By going through doctrine, they learn that they are helpless to be saved according to their own power (or the power anyone else around them has). As I've heard it said, "every baptism is an infant baptism. For we are all as helpless as infants to save ourselves."

Again, my wife and I are so very far from perfect. Yet even our failure is gracious opportunity to share in the joy of salvation and forgiveness of sins we have in Christ. Our failure provides opportunities to practice reconciliation amongst each other.

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 4


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Oct 27, 2022)

J.L. Allen said:


> For we are all as helpless as infants to save ourselves."


That is a favorite point of mine to make at an infant baptism: "this child is an especially apt picture of us all spiritually. We are entirely unable to save ourselves, as much as this child is spiritually, and in every other way! We must clothe, feed, shelter, and teach our children. So must our God do the same for us as his utterly dependent sheep. This little lamb we baptize is who we all really are before our great and good God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Peace
Alan

Reactions: Love 1 | Amen 4


----------



## Ben Zartman (Oct 27, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> I agree with you there certainly.
> 
> But in addition to that familial duty, I sense there is something more. Hence this thread.


That you desire anything more than what God has clearly commanded in Scripture is a reflection of your own heart. "man has sought out many inventions"
It is ever our nature to want _more _than what God has supplied: the Israelites wanted flesh; the Papists want rituals and statues; the Pentecostals want feelings.
But God has simply given us children and told us to teach them His ways. "For what, if they're not saved yet?" Because God says so. Why do you desire more? The child who grew up singing Zion's songs, even though unconverted, will love them better when he is, because they're familiar. The child who knows scripture by heart will be advanced in his Christian walk when he is saved because God's word is already hid therein.
The same God who declares that your child is born a sinner and needs to be born again if he would see His kingdom is the God who commands you to teach him His laws, His ways, His fear, and His praise. Why not trust God to know what He's about, and not look for more?

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 1


----------



## lynnie (Oct 27, 2022)

You might enjoy this article. It is by a prof at WTS. Don't let the title throw you off. It is wonderfully encouraging especially about children. 









Indifferentism and Rigorism


by Vern Sheridan Poythress [Published in Westminster Theological Journal 59/1 (1997) 13-29. Used with permission.] pdf. Westminster Theological Seminary P.O. Box 27009 Philadelphia, PA 19118-0009 A…




frame-poythress.org

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Oct 27, 2022)

Just sticking to the OP question: what is Baptist thought on Paul addressing children directly, within a category of specific church members (husbands, wives, fathers), making no differentiation; and the implications of the childrens’ obedience being “in the Lord”; the commands and promises applying to them no differently than to their parents? (Ephesians 6:1-3).

(I edited this to make it a question, as I didn’t care for the way I initially put it.)

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart (Oct 27, 2022)

Polanus1561 said:


> *Children are deemed holy* and called to regulate their lives around the 10 commandments.
> Aren’t Baptists at least a _little bit puzzled_ why (in their view) there is no sign given to children?_ For the sake of discussion, conceding this does not mean conceding their view entirely._


No, but I am puzzled by your application of the verse that I presume leads you to say what I've highlighted in bold.


Polanus1561 said:


> Brother, I am sure your pastor has answers to from his/Baptist view. Have you asked and considered his words?


Great question. 


Lowlander said:


> I'm not saying I have the answers.
> 
> The P&R have their answers. You and other Baptists have your answers.
> 
> I’m trying to square my intuition with what’s right, biblical, logical, etc.


Out of curiosity, since you've expressed something of your hesitation or struggle with the (Reformed) Baptist answers, what is your struggle with the P&R answers?


----------



## Polanus1561 (Oct 27, 2022)

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> No, but I am puzzled by your application of the verse that I presume leads you to say what I've highlighted in bold.


if you think there is 0% reason for puzzlement at how children deemed holy are not given a sign of being set apart, then I guess that answers my question.


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart (Oct 27, 2022)

Polanus1561 said:


> if you think there is 0% reason for puzzlement at how children deemed holy are not given a sign of being set apart, then I guess that answers my question.


I disagree with the presupposition in your question. I assume you realize that, but am just stating it explicitly for the benefit of others.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Polanus1561 (Oct 27, 2022)

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> I disagree with the presupposition in your question. I assume you realize that, but am just stating it explicitly for the benefit of others.


Fair enough.


----------



## Lowlander (Oct 27, 2022)

Ben Zartman said:


> That you desire anything more than what God has clearly commanded in Scripture is a reflection of your own heart. "man has sought out many inventions"
> It is ever our nature to want _more _than what God has supplied: the Israelites wanted flesh; the Papists want rituals and statues; the Pentecostals want feelings.
> But God has simply given us children and told us to teach them His ways. "For what, if they're not saved yet?" Because God says so. Why do you desire more? The child who grew up singing Zion's songs, even though unconverted, will love them better when he is, because they're familiar. The child who knows scripture by heart will be advanced in his Christian walk when he is saved because God's word is already hid therein.
> The same God who declares that your child is born a sinner and needs to be born again if he would see His kingdom is the God who commands you to teach him His laws, His ways, His fear, and His praise. Why not trust God to know what He's about, and not look for more?


I said that in response to “why talk to my children differently than other peoples children.” 

I was saying that, in addition to a mere familial duty to speak to them thusly, there seems to be something additional driving me to it. 

I said nothing of “doing” or “adding” to what God has commanded. 

You said, “But God has simply given us children and told us to teach them His ways.”

My question has to do with *how are we* to teach them his ways. Meaning, what exact words does one use?

I don’t see that as trying to add to the commandments of God.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 27, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> I said that in response to “why talk to my children differently than other peoples children.”
> 
> I was saying that, in addition to a mere familial duty to speak to them thusly, there seems to be something additional driving me to it.
> 
> ...



Exactly. For example, can I use *covenantal* words to teach them his ways?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Oct 27, 2022)

Or when the family says ‘Our God’. Is it covenantal or just a reference to God as Creator? Do parents and children refer differently?

Just questions here.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## LilyG (Oct 27, 2022)

Polanus1561 said:


> Or when the family says ‘Our God’. Is it covenantal or just a reference to God as Creator? Do parents and children refer differently?
> 
> Just questions here.



"Our Father who art in heaven..."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Lowlander (Oct 27, 2022)

It’s never really dawned on me how the Baptist view of the Covenants means that the day of Pentecost in Acts would have been a day of great excommunication for thousands in Jerusalem. 

Men would have returned home and had to tell their children (and wives) that they are complete outsiders to the religion of Abraham, and that their circumcision means nothing now. Imagine how hearing that would have been.

Of course they would tell them to now believe on Christ; but logically wouldn’t they also have to stop speaking to them using covenant language?

Just thinking out loud.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## JH (Oct 27, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> Of course they would tell them to now believe on Christ; but logically wouldn’t they also have to stop speaking to them using covenant language?


Peter used the selfsame language of Genesis 17, "to thee and to thy seed" c.f. "to you and to your children." Surely if Peter meant to convey what you mentioned, he wouldn't have used the language of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## LilyG (Oct 27, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> It’s never really dawned on me how the Baptist view of the Covenants means that the day of Pentecost in Acts would have been a day of great excommunication for thousands in Jerusalem.
> 
> Men would have returned home and had to tell their children (and wives) that they are complete outsiders to the religion of Abraham, and that their circumcision means nothing now. Imagine how hearing that would have been.
> 
> ...



I think about that often! Why in the world would children of believers now be excluded?


----------



## Polanus1561 (Oct 27, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> It’s never really dawned on me how the Baptist view of the Covenants means that the day of Pentecost in Acts would have been a day of great excommunication for thousands in Jerusalem.
> 
> Men would have returned home and had to tell their children (and wives) that they are complete outsiders to the religion of Abraham, and that their circumcision means nothing now. Imagine how hearing that would have been.
> 
> ...


That’s the question I pose to Baptists. Isn’t it _at least interesting there is no historical quarrel over this? _

but often the ”you cannot argue from silence” card is played back as a reply.

then there leaves no more room for _at least discussing this interesting point. _


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart (Oct 27, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> Men would have returned home and had to tell their children (and wives) that they are complete outsiders to the religion of Abraham, and that their circumcision means nothing now. Imagine how hearing that would have been.
> 
> Of course they would tell them to now believe on Christ; but logically wouldn’t they also have to stop speaking to them using covenant language?


I am curious to hear your answer to my question to you in post #62. The way you are phrasing things is interesting.

But to briefly respond - I would flip your hypothetical upside down and say men would have returned home and had the privilege to tell their children (and wives) there is a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises, and there is a High Priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord set up, not man.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 27, 2022)

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> But to briefly respond - I would flip your hypothetical upside down and say men would have returned home and had the privilege to tell their children (and wives) there is a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises, and there is a High Priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord set up, not man.


All Reformed padeobaptists hold to this. The key issue is the yet - not yet aspect of the New Covenant. See Heb 8:11.


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart (Oct 27, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> All Reformed padeobaptists hold to this. The key issue is the yet - not yet aspect of the New Covenant. See Heb 8:11.


Yes, I know, and of course we would disagree on the interpretation of Heb. 8:11. My point was that I don't think Lowlander's hypothetical description of the situation on the day of Pentecost accurately described the RB perspective and, perhaps unintentionally, painted it in nearly the worst possible light.


----------



## LilyG (Oct 27, 2022)

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> I would flip your hypothetical upside down and say men would have returned home and had the privilege to tell their children (and wives) there is a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises, and there is a High Priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord set up, not man.



Well, a "new" and better covenant than which: Mosaic or Abrahamic?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 27, 2022)

The New Covenant is better than the Mosaic. No one disputes that. But the Mosaic =/= all OT covenants.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## TheInquirer (Oct 27, 2022)

I haven't read this entire thread so please excuse if the points have been made:

1) Give your kids the gospel and the rest of God's truth
2) Treat them according to what they confess. If they confess to be Christians, teach them to believe and live accordingly.
3) If they reject Christ, don't force them to do things God would consider hypocrisy


----------



## Polanus1561 (Oct 27, 2022)

TheInquirer said:


> I haven't read this entire thread so please excuse if the points have been made:
> 
> 1) Give your kids the gospel and the rest of God's truth
> 2) Treat them according to what they confess. If they confess to be Christians, teach them to believe and live accordingly.
> 3) If they reject Christ, don't force them to do things God would consider hypocrisy


Is there a minimum age to Baptise a child who says he believes in Jesus for the forgiveness of sins ?


----------



## TheInquirer (Oct 27, 2022)

> Well, a "new" and better covenant than which: Mosaic or Abrahamic?



The way some of you pose this debate sounds like things were better under Abraham, somehow got worse under Moses, and then got back to Abraham when Jesus came. It's as if Redemptive-Historical theology isn't even a thing.

I'm sorry but it is frankly astonishing to me that any Christian would not see that God's people in the New Covenant, even if you believe in the one covenant/two administrations view, have things better than Abraham.

As New Covenant believers:

1) You have fullness of revelation in Christ which Abraham did not have

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Heb 1:1–2.

2) You have a better high priest who has offered his sacrifice and is now interceding in heaven. No high priest had been instituted under the Abrahamic Covenant. Furthermore, you understand the significance of the role of the high priest, his sacrifice, and his intercession in a way Abraham never did.

3) You benefit from the foundational ministries of all the apostles and prophets who had not come in Abraham's time.

4) You understand the significance of the Old Covenant types and shadows in a way that hand't yet been revealed to Abraham.

5) You see the fullness of the promises offered to Abraham as fulfilled in Christ.

6) You have more of God's promises revealed since the time of Abraham.

7) You have received the command, and get to participate, in the Great Commission which was not given to Abraham but merely given as a promise to bless the world thorugh Abraham's offspring (Christ and us as Abraham's offspring through faith in Christ).

That should be enough for now.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## TheInquirer (Oct 27, 2022)

> Is there a minimum age to Baptise a child who says he believes in Jesus for the forgiveness of sins ?



Not for me there isn't and I have had some strong disagreements with a couple of my pastors in the past over this. I do think there is a legtimate criticism of putting too many roadblocks in front of professing kids receiving covenant signs.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## TheInquirer (Oct 27, 2022)

> Just sticking to the OP question: what is Baptist thought on Paul addressing children directly, within a category of specific church members (husbands, wives, fathers), making no differentiation; and the implications of the childrens’ obedience being “in the Lord”; the commands and promises applying to them no differently than to their parents? (Ephesians 6:1-3).


Depends what you are asking here:

I believe the moral law is for all humanity and I can tell an unbelieving child to obey their parents as much as a believing child (granting the parent isn't asking the child to sin).

If you are inquiring as to what the "in the Lord" phrase refers to, and how that might differ between a baptist and paedobaptist understanding, I think that is a good question.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Oct 27, 2022)

TheInquirer said:


> Depends what you are asking here:
> 
> I believe the moral law is for all humanity and I can tell an unbelieving child to obey their parents as much as a believing child (granting the parent isn't asking the child to sin).
> 
> If you are inquiring as to what the "in the Lord" phrase refers to, and how that might differ between a baptist and paedobaptist understanding, I think that is a good question.


 but the children here have the promise attached v.2… can simply any child on the street claim this?


----------



## Lowlander (Oct 27, 2022)

To my fellow Baptists, when you say to your family something like, “Perhaps our God will have mercy on us in (scenario x),” do you instead say, “Perhaps _my_ God will have mercy on us”?

The second would seem logical.


----------



## Romans678 (Oct 27, 2022)

Good day everyone! I can't help but to notice a trend when reading these threads on baptism and the covenants. I keep seeing the words "unbeliever", "unbelieving", "believer", etc. If someone could be so kind as to provide definitions from both sides on what it means to believe and...err...unbelieve? Just to get a better understanding of each other's positions.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Oct 27, 2022)

Romans678 said:


> Good day everyone! I can't help but to notice a trend when reading these threads on baptism and the covenants. I keep seeing the words "unbeliever", "unbelieving", "believer", etc. If someone could be so kind as to provide definitions from both sides on what it means to believe and...err...unbelieve? Just to get a better understanding of each other's positions.


The use of 'unbeliever' so far is clear, someone who clearly does not believe. Someone who does not attend church.
Believer would refer to someone who confesses the faith.


----------



## Grafted In (Oct 27, 2022)

TheInquirer said:


> I'm sorry but it is frankly astonishing to me that any Christian would not see that God's people in the New Covenant, even if you believe in the one covenant/two administrations view, have things better than Abraham.


The question isn't whether or not Christians "have things better than Abraham," but rather, are they in and under the same, better covenant? He certainly lived in the age of types and shadows, while we live viewing the already-not-yet fulfillment and substance in Christ. But when the author of Hebrews speaks of a better covenant made on better promises, he is contrasting the New Covenant with the Mosaic not the Abrahamic. The New Testament confirms that those better promises were made to Abraham and fulfilled in Jesus Christ (e.g. Hebrews 7:11-20; Galatians 3:15-29), which you noted in your post, though while appearing to argue for discontinuity between the Abrahamic Covenant and the New. It is also significant that Abraham gave a tithe to Melchizedek not Aaron, so Abraham's priest was of another kind than the priesthood given in the Mosaic Covenant, which the author of Hebrews also makes much of in chapter 7.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TheInquirer (Oct 27, 2022)

Since I believe 1689 Federalism to be the best expression of the progress of revelation in the covenants from my reading of Scripture, I do argue for elements of continuity and discontinuity. I do not hold to the one covenant/two administrations view. Therefore, I believe the person and work of Christ and the New Covenant to be the fulfillment of the substance of the Abrahamic Covenant and better in every way while noting that God fulfilled some elements of the Abrahamic Covenant in the Old Testament.

Where the practical difference lies for Abraham as a believer, it gets a little like splitting hairs at times (regarding the practical benefit to him as an individual, not the debate over covenants per se). We believe he was saved by the benefits of the New Covenant applied to Him that was progressively revealed in the prior covenants whereas a one covenant/two administrations view holds he is benefitting from the blessings of the Covenant of Grace instituted in Gen. 3. If I am understanding correctly, the benefits are the same and the argument is over which covenant, and what point in time that covenant is instituted, is the point of disagreement.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Oct 27, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> To my fellow Baptists, when you say to your family something like, “Perhaps our God will have mercy on us in (scenario x),” do you instead say, “Perhaps _my_ God will have mercy on us”?
> 
> The second would seem logical.


Whether they are saved or not, there is only one God, who is their creator, and who will judge them at the last day. They owe Him their life and breath and everything, even if they refuse to submit to His rule. As the head of my family, I use the "our" language, because I am leading them in prayer and worship, even if they are unregenerate as yet, just the same as when I pray in public at church prayer meetings I use "our" language even though there are unconverted people there, and when unsaved family members are at my house I use "our" language when I pray.
I simply don't see the hangup.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ben Zartman (Oct 27, 2022)

Romans678 said:


> Good day everyone! I can't help but to notice a trend when reading these threads on baptism and the covenants. I keep seeing the words "unbeliever", "unbelieving", "believer", etc. If someone could be so kind as to provide definitions from both sides on what it means to believe and...err...unbelieve? Just to get a better understanding of each other's positions.


By "believer," we mean one who credibly professes to be born again. They claim to be trusting in Jesus for the remission of sins, and their life bears that out.
By "unbeliever," we mean one who does not claim to be born again, and whose life bears that reality out, as far as we can judge.


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart (Oct 27, 2022)

Ben Zartman said:


> I simply don't see the hangup.


Right. In the time I've been browsing this board, in these types of threads I've also not heard a peep about any hangup with regular visitors who may attend the church where it's clear they are not believers. Following this line of thinking, I'd assume it's a church member's job, or at the very least the pastor's job, to give them a friendly reminder, "hey, love that you're here, but please don't sing along and definitely don't say amen during the service!" It's patently absurd. We ought only to fence the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper.

My fellow Baptist @Lowlander, just to reiterate, I am interested in your response to my question at the bottom of post #62! Doesn't have to be lengthy. But what is keeping you from stepping over the fence?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## John The Baptist (Oct 27, 2022)

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> Right. In the time I've been browsing this board, in these types of threads I've also not heard a peep about any hangup with regular visitors who may attend the church where it's clear they are not believers. Following this line of thinking, I'd assume it's a church member's job, or at the very least the pastor's job, to give them a friendly reminder, "hey, love that you're here, but please don't sing along and definitely don't say amen during the service!" It's patently absurd. We ought only to fence the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper.


I see the same problem, as I pointed out in #56:


John The Baptist said:


> If your difficulty is how they ought to be treated at church, then you also need to question how you treat a visiting unbeliever. Can they sit under the preaching? Can they sing the hymns? Obviously they cannot partake of the supper, same as the unregenerate child (in both traditions).


I’m assuming this type of precaution is not happening towards guests in R/P churches. Likewise it is not happening in Baptist churches. Aren’t we happy when a guest enters the doors? I understand that the church is the fellowship of believers, but I think we ought to rejoice when God’s providence brings an unbelieving guest to our celebration of the work of Christ, which God may use to convert them.

How much more, then (from a Baptist perspective), should we to be glad that our children are sitting under gospel teaching, even if they have not made a profession of faith? 

Their attendance is happening through the providence of God, and I rejoice.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart (Oct 27, 2022)

John The Baptist said:


> I see the same problem, as I pointed out in #56


That's right you did, and my apologies. I should have been clearer and also referenced your earlier post. I more meant that I don't think I've seen this complaint raised by someone who is considering, or holds to, the P/R position.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## John The Baptist (Oct 27, 2022)

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> That's right you did, and my apologies. I should have been clearer and also referenced your earlier post. I more meant that I don't think I've seen this complaint raised by someone who is considering, or holds to, the P/R position.


Oh, I wasn’t salty. I am interested to see a Paedo response to this idea.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Lowlander (Oct 28, 2022)

Ben Zartman said:


> I simply don't see the hangup.


Fair enough, brother. I appreciate your efforts at explaining your view. 

I do have a hangup, just as others have in the thread have voiced; but, as I’ve said already, I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, it is simply a current personal dilemma that hasn’t been helped yet by anything I’ve read.


----------



## Lowlander (Oct 28, 2022)

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> Out of curiosity, since you've expressed something of your hesitation or struggle with the (Reformed) Baptist answers, what is your struggle with the P&R answers?


I am at the very beginning of my study of Reformed covenant theology. Therefore, until I really understand how they get to their answers, I can’t really assess them.

I believe the topic is so large, so complex, that to assess these end results of their covenantal view without understanding how and why they believe such things, would be premature.

I’m also not convinced/convicted of the Baptist covenantal view, where I’m using it as the rule against which to judge the P/R view.

The Baptist position, as far as I understand it, makes sense to me. But until I have studied the P/R view as well, I can’t say I hold to the RB view with deep conviction.

So, I am a Baptist on the fence you could say. Or at least a Baptist who hasn’t come by it honestly (i.e. deep conviction from studying both sides of the argument).

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Jason F. (Oct 28, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> It’s never really dawned on me how the Baptist view of the Covenants means that the day of Pentecost in Acts would have been a day of great excommunication for thousands in Jerusalem.
> 
> Men would have returned home and had to tell their children (and wives) that they are complete outsiders to the religion of Abraham, and that their circumcision means nothing now. Imagine how hearing that would have been.
> 
> ...


Yet infant baptism didn't come into practice for another 2 centuries. Didn't seem to discourage the spread of the church.


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart (Oct 28, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> I am at the very beginning of my study of Reformed covenant theology. Therefore, until I really understand how they get to their answers, I can’t really assess them.
> 
> I believe the topic is so large, so complex, that to assess these end results of their covenantal view without understanding how and why they believe such things, would be premature.
> 
> ...


I appreciate your response and transparency! Based on what you said, may I suggest that you first study the RB view at a deeper level? Use resources perhaps suggested by your pastor and what has been recommended by proponents of baptist covenant theology in other threads on this board. Or maybe just start by studying the 1689! In my opinion, trying to dive into the topic and study both sides simultaneously is not wise - as you said, it's so large and complex. I'm not saying or hoping doing this will automatically result in deep conviction on the RB position, but some of the questions you are asking seem to indicate you may be examining the P/R position without having sufficient understanding of our view. In other words, I wouldn't start a study on the topic by asking an online forum, largely consisting of paedobaptists, for the fatal flaw in baptist covenant theology.

Please don't misunderstand this post, and I realize I have limited information so perhaps you have already done what I suggest above before posting on this forum. And by the way, I would whole heartedly agree with giving the same advice to someone who comes from a P/R background but is just beginning to explore the topic.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Oct 28, 2022)

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> I appreciate your response and transparency! Based on what you said, may I suggest that you first study the RB view at a deeper level? Use resources perhaps suggested by your pastor and what has been recommended by proponents of baptist covenant theology in other threads on this board. In my opinion, trying to dive into the topic and study both sides simultaneously is not wise - largely because as you said, the topic is so large and complex. I'm not saying or hoping doing this will automatically result in deep conviction on the RB position, but some of the questions you are asking seem to indicate you may be examining the P/R position without having sufficient understanding of our view. In other words, I wouldn't start a study on the topic by asking an online forum, largely consisting of paedobaptists, for the fatal flaw in baptist covenant theology.
> 
> Please don't misunderstand this post, and I realize I have limited information so perhaps you have already done what I suggest above before posting on this forum. And by the way, I would whole heartedly agree with giving the same advice to someone who comes from a P/R background but is just beginning to explore the topic.


agreed. @Lowlander your pastor ought to be involved in this (if he isn't). We all owe it to our overseers on topics that potentially makes us leave the church.

Reactions: Edifying 1 | Amen 1


----------



## John The Baptist (Oct 28, 2022)

Jason F. said:


> Yet infant baptism didn't come into practice for another 2 centuries. Didn't seem to discourage the spread of the church.


Just curious, what is your reference here?


----------



## Lowlander (Oct 28, 2022)

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> I appreciate your response and transparency! Based on what you said, may I suggest that you first study the RB view at a deeper level? Use resources perhaps suggested by your pastor and what has been recommended by proponents of baptist covenant theology in other threads on this board. Or maybe just start by studying the 1689! In my opinion, trying to dive into the topic and study both sides simultaneously is not wise - largely because as you said, it's so large and complex. I'm not saying or hoping doing this will automatically result in deep conviction on the RB position, but some of the questions you are asking seem to indicate you may be examining the P/R position without having sufficient understanding of our view. In other words, I wouldn't start a study on the topic by asking an online forum, largely consisting of paedobaptists, for the fatal flaw in baptist covenant theology.
> 
> Please don't misunderstand this post, and I realize I have limited information so perhaps you have already done what I suggest above before posting on this forum. And by the way, I would whole heartedly agree with giving the same advice to someone who comes from a P/R background but is just beginning to explore the topic.


Thanks for your advice.


----------



## TheInquirer (Oct 28, 2022)

Here are some resources that helped me in my study of covenant theology for its worth. I started with the traditional Reformed view (wasn't aware of any unique Baptist views at the time I began my study).

Traditional Reformed View:

- Ligon Duncan's Covenant Theology class at RTS - https://subsplash.com/reformtheosem/lb/ms/+635a671 - good overview but quite a time commitment.
- Berkhof's Systematic Theology - very good concise overview of the covenants in the relevant sections and won't take that long to read through. I would probably start here for Traditional Reformed view.

Others here have recommended good resources in the past in this category including one done by a PB member here (I can't remember the title exactly).

Baptist Views:

- The Mystery of Christ (Samuel Renihan) - presents the 1689 Federalist view of Baptist Covenant theology. Personally I think the book is absolute gold and I highly recommend it for any Baptist. I would start here for the 1689 Federalist Baptist view.

- There is another Baptist view of Covenant Theology that is more similar to the Traditional Reformed view but I don't know of a single work to point to that lays it out clearly. Others can probably help with that.

Last but not least, the Puritan Board was possibly the most helpful resource on my journey as well.

Forgot to add - there is no substitute for the word of God. Definitely become very familiar with where Scripture speaks about each of the covenants (including NT comments on OT covenants).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Lowlander (Oct 28, 2022)

TheInquirer said:


> Here are some resources that helped me in my study of covenant theology for its worth. I started with the traditional Reformed view (wasn't aware of any unique Baptist views at the time I began my study).
> 
> Traditional Reformed View:
> 
> ...


Thank you, brother.


----------



## Romans678 (Oct 28, 2022)

Here's some more resources that can help you. A podcast to help you connect the dots between covenants and how are children are treated underneath them: https://heidelblog.net/2018/08/heidelcast-series-i-will-be-a-god-to-you-and-to-your-children/

...and a book to help you do the same. God bless brother.


----------



## Santiago DO (Oct 28, 2022)

TheInquirer said:


> Baptist Views


In which view would you put Nehemiah Coxe's works?


----------



## TheInquirer (Oct 28, 2022)

Santiago DO said:


> In which view would you put Nehemiah Coxe's works?



1689 Federalists like James Renihan and his son Sam, who have read Coxe extensively and republished some of his works, quote Coxe often so I would have to defer to their scholarship on that one.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## pgwolv (Oct 31, 2022)

Polanus1561 said:


> Is there a minimum age to Baptise a child who says he believes in Jesus for the forgiveness of sins ?


I think there is no hard-and-fast rule. Our pastor has stated that the youngest person he baptised was a girl of 8 (or 10, can't remember exactly). He emphasised the fact that we do not baptise adults, but believers (hence, a credible confession of faith). The girl had a strong desire to be baptised and demonstrated an understanding of Christ's atonement for the sins of those who repent and believe.


----------



## Romans678 (Oct 31, 2022)

Question: At what point in history did the definition of baptism change? Clearly there is an aberration, from an emphasis on the promises of God to man to a mere outward declaration towards God from man. When did this change occur?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 31, 2022)

Romans678 said:


> Question: At what point in history did the definition of baptism change? Clearly there is an aberration, from an emphasis on the promises of God to man to a mere outward declaration towards God from man. When did this change occur?



Probably the Anabaptists.


----------



## Phil D. (Oct 31, 2022)

Romans678 said:


> Clearly there is an aberration, from an emphasis on the promises of God to man to a mere outward declaration towards God from man.


I think this is a faulty question. I'm not aware of any right-thinking Christian, including Reformed Baptists, that would regard baptism as "a mere outward declaration towards God from man."

LBC 29:1: Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, *ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him*, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Oct 31, 2022)

Phil D. said:


> I'm not aware of any right-thinking Christian, including Reformed Baptists, that would regard baptism as "a mere outward declaration towards God from man."


It might not be described as such in any written confession, but I have heard it colloquially many, many times.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Phil D. (Oct 31, 2022)

Taylor said:


> It might not be described as such in any written confession, but I have heard it colloquially many, many times.


Then they're un-confessional, not right-thinking, and badly taught.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Phil D. (Oct 31, 2022)

And there is of course an "appeal" "profession" and "vow" component of baptism on the part of the recipient. 1 Pet 3:21 ESV; WLC 165; 167. Perhaps this aspect is under emphasized in certain non-Baptist circles.


----------



## Taylor (Oct 31, 2022)

Phil D. said:


> Then they're un-confessional, not right-thinking, and badly taught.


Of course, on that particular point, I agree. I was just noting that there are Christians who, while right-thinking _in general_, on this particular point believe baptism to be a sign from man to God.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans678 (Oct 31, 2022)

Phil D. said:


> I think this is a faulty question. I'm not aware of any right-thinking Christian, including Reformed Baptists, that would regard baptism as "a mere outward declaration towards God from man."
> 
> LBC 29:1: Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, *ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him*, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.


From the Founders Ministry's version of the 1689 BCF in Modern English:

"Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ. To those baptized it is a sign of their fellowship with Him in His death and resurrection, of their being grafted into Him, of remission of sins, and of submitting themselves to God through Jesus Christ to live and walk in newness of life."

A sign of their fellowship with Him...that sounds like it's written in a "Man-to-God" order if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## Phil D. (Oct 31, 2022)

Romans678 said:


> A sign of their fellowship with Him...that sounds like it's written in a "Man-to-God" order if I'm not mistaken.


That phrasing is unfortunately more ambiguous, but I highly doubt Founders intended to change the original meaning.


----------



## John The Baptist (Oct 31, 2022)

Romans678 said:


> From the Founders Ministry's version of the 1689 BCF in Modern English:
> 
> "Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ. To those baptized it is a sign of their fellowship with Him in His death and resurrection, of their being grafted into Him, of remission of sins, and of submitting themselves to God through Jesus Christ to live and walk in newness of life."
> 
> A sign of their fellowship with Him...that sounds like it's written in a "Man-to-God" order if I'm not mistaken.


I think you’re misreading this. “TO those baptized it is a sign of their fellowship with Him…” it is a sign TO them, not FROM them.


----------



## John The Baptist (Oct 31, 2022)

However, there is passive (grafted & remission of sins) and active (submitting themselves to God… love and walk in newness of life).

I agree with Phil, unfortunately ambiguous.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Nov 1, 2022)

Romans678 said:


> From the Founders Ministry's version of the 1689 BCF in Modern English:
> 
> "Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ. To those baptized it is a sign of their fellowship with Him in His death and resurrection, of their being grafted into Him, of remission of sins, and of submitting themselves to God through Jesus Christ to live and walk in newness of life."
> 
> A sign of their fellowship with Him...that sounds like it's written in a "Man-to-God" order if I'm not mistaken.


It sounds from your posts that you're suggesting that baptism is something that God does to You, and that's what you want to see. But Baptism is not about God doing something to you--it's about several other things.
1: In submitting to baptism, YOU are obeying the second part of God's requirement to repent and be baptized.
2: When you do so, you publicly declare, not to God, who already knows your heart, but to the assembled church, that you have been regenerated, and raised to walk in newness of life. It is a divinely appointed sign, performed by humans on humans, for the benefit of humans. The visible church formally accepts your profession, and has a duty to hold you to it.
3: The ministers who baptize you formally declare to the visible church that they believe your profession to be credible, and bind themselves to the duties of pastors toward their flock.

Of course we could say that God is present with His assembled people, and will surely hold you to the promises and commitments you make in the Assembly, and moreover that everything you do should be in reference to God, but the sign is primarily for yourself and others.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Lowlander (Nov 1, 2022)

Ben Zartman said:


> When you do so, you publicly declare, not to God, who already knows your heart, but to the assembled church, that you have been regenerated


This seems like an overstatement. At this very moment I have no clue whether I was regenerate at the time of my baptism.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Nov 1, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> This seems like an overstatement. At this very moment I have no clue whether I was regenerate at the time of my baptism.



If you don't think you were regenerate (or didn't know), why did you seek baptism?


----------



## Lowlander (Nov 1, 2022)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> If you don't think you were regenerate (or didn't know), why did you seek baptism?


As best as I can reminder it, because I was seeking to be obedient as a “follower of Christ.”

As my assurance ebbs and flows, must I get baptized again accordingly?


----------



## Ben Zartman (Nov 1, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> As best as I can reminder it, because I was seeking to be obedient as a “follower of Christ.”
> 
> As my assurance ebbs and flows, must I get baptized again accordingly?


Perhaps you didn't understand the nature and meaning of baptism--perhaps you still don't.
It has nothing to do with your current assurance: it has to do with your profession. Properly, one seeks baptism when one has repented of his sins and believed in Jesus. Properly, it is administered by a church who believes that profession of faith, and puts their stamp on it. What to do if a person realizes they were baptized before their conversion is up to the individual churches: some re-baptize, others hold you to that declaration that you made earlier--it's irregular, but mercifully whether we were baptized rightly or wrongly doesn't affect our salvation. And surely multitudes have been wrongly baptized, not baptized, multi-baptized, and every other variation throughout history who are still safe in Jesus' arms.
However, if you waffle between knowing and doubting whether you're saved, it begs the question: where are you looking? Are you looking to Christ? If so, why a lack of assurance? If not, how can you ever presume to be saved at all? Look to Christ, don't take your gaze away, and you will find no place for doubt.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Lowlander (Nov 1, 2022)

I wasn’t so much making a personal statement about my assurance as trying to use an example where having to know that you’re regenerate before baptism occurs could be an issue.

As I mentioned earlier I think, I know someone who’s been baptized three or four times, because it’s always based on self-knowledge. If they have doubts about their previous baptism again, will it then be number five? 

There are many people who have no idea about the moment that they were saved. What are they supposed to do when looking back at their baptism if it occurred in the same general timeframe as their conversion?


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Nov 1, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> I wasn’t so much making a personal statement about my assurance as trying to use an example where having to know that you’re regenerate before baptism occurs could be an issue.



The bar for baptism isn't "I *know* I am *regenerate*" it's "my _*claim of belief*_ is *credible*".

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Lowlander (Nov 1, 2022)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> The bar for baptism isn't "I *know* I am *regenerate*" it's "my _*claim of belief*_ is *credible*".


That’s not what it seemed like you were saying before. My mistake.


----------



## Romans678 (Nov 1, 2022)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> The bar for baptism isn't "I *know* I am *regenerate*" it's "my _*claim of belief*_ is *credible*".


I lovingly and respectfully disagree.

The bar for baptism is "God's Promise to bless all the families of the world through Abraham is credible, so here is a sign to signify His promises."

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1


----------



## Phil D. (Nov 1, 2022)

Romans678 said:


> The bar for baptism is "God's Promise to bless all the families of the world through Abraham is credible, so here is a sign to signify His promises."



Even confessional paedobaptism requires a credible proffession, or claim of belief. Its just once removed from most recipients.

WCF 28.4: Not only those that do actually *profess faith *in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, *believing parents*, are to be baptized.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Nov 1, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> As best as I can reminder it, because I was seeking to be obedient as a “follower of Christ.”
> 
> As my assurance ebbs and flows, must I get baptized again accordingly?


No. I see no command for rebaptism in the Bible.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Nov 2, 2022)

Romans678 said:


> I lovingly and respectfully disagree.
> 
> The bar for baptism is "God's Promise to bless all the families of the world through Abraham is credible, so here is a sign to signify His promises."


This is not the confessional Baptist position. But in your signature you claim to be Baptist.
What are you, really?


----------



## Polanus1561 (Nov 2, 2022)

5 pages in.. where is this thread going?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 2, 2022)

I understand the original Q and belive a sincere motive behind the inquiry; a self-professed Baptist initiated the thread. But I can't help but wonder if a better phrasing for the question might have asked _how DO Baptists consider their children in relation to the church?, _and left it primarily to Baptists to answer and defend. In saying this, I am not criticizing the tone of the thread, or any contributor. I think (in spite of many words, 5pp worth) transgression has made little appearance, Prv.10:19.

The issue of "ought" is exactly correlated in our circles to debate over 1) what the Bible teaches, and 2) what our Confession(s) declare is agreed-upon with respect to biblical teaching, thus limiting the debate to arguments within certain bounds on certain topics. There are other places existing for more wide-ranging exchanges, so at the PB we're happy with the forum we have and its rules of decorum. Baptism is one topic where confessional differences make for a jousting arena. There is disparity on the issue of "ought."

The original Q was deliberately set forth in the general Baptism subforum, so that non-Baptists might also chime in. This has allowed some non-Baptists with Baptist backgrounds to (hopefully) offer some edifying content as to their own wrestlings with similar uncertainties. Hence, I judge the setting for the original Q was not misplaced.

Still, the wording of the Q could (and may have) incite some incautious non-Baptist responses. Baptists and non-Baptists alike have a habit of judging the "inconsistencies" of the other side's position. "It seems to me, you should conclude *this* as a result of your commitment to *that*." Sounds good, to the person comfortably settled within the bounds of his own convictions. The man who was challenged, however, sees none of the alleged fatal inconsistencies; his foundation and reasoning seem secure to him.

In the present case, I think a non-Baptist (especially one who was never Baptist) should be extra cautious when advising a Baptist on the "oughts" of his theological conclusions. I've explained elsewhere: thoughtful practice of baptism flows from prior certainties, from axioms and intermediate conclusions. Conversing with someone entertaining doubts about his current beliefs re. baptismal practice requires investigation into _why _these doubts are arising.

Superficial reasoning means that he likely has little principled cause to doubt; he's really a convinced Baptist whose curiosity of the paedobaptist position has temporarily made him unsteady. On the other hand, he may inadvertently have a mixed set of axioms and faulty steps of reasoning therefrom that are actually bringing him to the point of choosing to be more consistent, one way or the other. The Baptist way may be his destination, only more firmly rested on an understanding of what properly leads there; or possibly the P&R way will result, again as a clear conclusion from a firm grasp of those theological postulates.

Clearly, there are Baptist-consistent answers to the original Q, which replies (when good) reveal their connections to deeper facts, or to the "network" of interlocking ideas, values, and presuppositions that make serious Baptists what they are. And, there are those who themselves (once with similar questions) were moved to a different pattern of stability in the Faith, and are now capable of communicating in love to address the same Q. It isn't true that no one else has reason to speak to the Q, but these folk especially should guard against the habit of imposing "ought" on another, absent a basis in him for that duty.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Nov 2, 2022)

@Contra_Mundum 

Wonderfully put, Bruce, as is customarily the case, though perhaps even better than usual!

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Romans678 (Nov 2, 2022)

Ben Zartman said:


> This is not the confessional Baptist position. But in your signature you claim to be Baptist.
> What are you, really?



I'm Reformed.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Nov 2, 2022)

Romans678 said:


> I'm Reformed.


Should your signature not reflect that? Usually here when someone is attending a church they are at odds with confessionally, they will indicate that in their signature. Otherwise how can the baptist or paedo only subforums be policed?
Your trumpet is giving an uncertain sound.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans678 (Nov 3, 2022)

Ben Zartman said:


> Should your signature not reflect that? Usually here when someone is attending a church they are at odds with confessionally, they will indicate that in their signature. Otherwise how can the baptist or paedo only subforums be policed?
> Your trumpet is giving an uncertain sound.


No it isn't. My signature reflects my current confessional subscription and the fellowship I attend.

Within the last two years, the reality of God's Covenant promises carried over from OT to NT and the historical Reformed view has been a relatively new discovery for me. It may be easy for some people to just walk away from their church brethren, but not for me.

I hope that I don't have to leave my church right away after growing in knowledge of confessional Reformed doctrine. We've been going there for over a decade. They are my brothers and sisters and I love them.


----------



## Romans678 (Nov 3, 2022)

@Ben Zartman I'd be happy to talk with you about my experiences in the last few years if you'd like. It'll at least put personality to my profile. Nuance and sincerity is quite difficult to convey over keys on a keyboard. We fail to do that often and I'm guilty as charged.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Nov 3, 2022)

Romans678 said:


> No it isn't. My signature reflects my current confessional subscription and the fellowship I attend.
> 
> Within the last two years, the reality of God's Covenant promises carried over from OT to NT and the historical Reformed view has been a relatively new discovery for me. It may be easy for some people to just walk away from their church brethren, but not for me.
> 
> I hope that I don't have to leave my church right away after growing in knowledge of confessional Reformed doctrine. We've been going there for over a decade. They are my brothers and sisters and I love them.


But you're saying things that are against your confessional subscription. There are Reformed confessions that more closely align with your stated views--why not amend your signature to reflect that? Many here state a confessional subscription that is different from the one of the church they're attending.
I'm not suggesting you leave your church: I'm suggesting that for the sake of clarity on this forum you align your signature with your views.
We all have very little information to work with when interacting with others here, and the signature is an important data point in processing answers and making replies. Your signature says one thing: your statements another. The sound is uncertain.
If you want to take this up privately I'm glad to receive a PM from you, lest we derail this thread, though ambiguities like these may just be why the OP had to ask his question.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Nov 3, 2022)

Romans678 said:


> I lovingly and respectfully disagree.
> 
> The bar for baptism is "God's Promise to bless all the families of the world through Abraham is credible, so here is a sign to signify His promises."


This would be the difference between credo and paedo.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart (Nov 3, 2022)

Ben Zartman said:


> But you're saying things that are against your confessional subscription. There are Reformed confessions that more closely align with your stated views--why not amend your signature to reflect that? Many here state a confessional subscription that is different from the one of the church they're attending.
> I'm not suggesting you leave your church: I'm suggesting that for the sake of clarity on this forum you align your signature with your views.


Just to provide a concrete example of what I think you're trying to convey, here is an excerpt from one PB member's signature: _Currently Baptist by membership but affirming the Three Forms of Unity_

So @Romans678, for you this might be "....affirming WCF", or whatever the appropriate statement would be. As Ben is trying to highlight, this would alleviate the real confusion/conflict between the posts you make on this topic and your current signature.


retroGRAD3 said:


> This would be the difference between credo and paedo.


As was already pointed out, it's not actually a confessional paedo statement. But to be charitable to our brother, I'm sure it was not meant as an absolute general statement and no doubt he would qualify it.


----------



## Romans678 (Nov 3, 2022)

Ben Zartman said:


> But you're saying things that are against your confessional subscription. There are Reformed confessions that more closely align with your stated views--why not amend your signature to reflect that? Many here state a confessional subscription that is different from the one of the church they're attending.
> I'm not suggesting you leave your church: I'm suggesting that for the sake of clarity on this forum you align your signature with your views.
> We all have very little information to work with when interacting with others here, and the signature is an important data point in processing answers and making replies. Your signature says one thing: your statements another. The sound is uncertain.
> If you want to take this up privately I'm glad to receive a PM from you, lest we derail this thread, though ambiguities like these may just be why the OP had to ask his question.


What does my signature say? Honestly, I'm on mobile so it's hard for me to tell.


----------



## Taylor (Nov 3, 2022)

Romans678 said:


> What does my signature say? Honestly, I'm on mobile so it's hard for me to tell.






(Hint: If you turn your phone sideways, it might show signatures. At least that works on iPhone.)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Nov 3, 2022)

@Romans678; @Ben Zartman 

To be fair to both parties, I can see that Ben, since Anthony's signature indicates that he is a Baptist, may have assumed that Anthony's confessional subscription reflected that. 

However, that should not be assumed, at least in my view, since Anthony makes clear that the church he is in is an SBC, a non-confessional association of churches. If one goes to Anthony's Member's page (under "About"), one will see quite readily that Anthony subscribes to the WCF. His church obliges no confessional identity as does the PB; thus, it is not a safe assumption that his confessional identity is Baptistic when his membership is not in a confessional church. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Love 1 | Informative 1


----------



## ccravens (Nov 3, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> To my fellow Baptists, when you say to your family something like, “Perhaps our God will have mercy on us in (scenario x),” do you instead say, “Perhaps _my_ God will have mercy on us”?
> 
> The second would seem logical.



I'm struggling to see the problem here, which was answered a few posts later than the above quote. I will chalk it up to my ignorance, but this seems like looking for a solution without a problem. I can't envision a scenario where I would be overwrought in trying to decide whether I told my kids "our God" or "my God." How about "Perhaps God will have mercy on us." Or explain to them that God _has_ had mercy on us by sending his son to be a propitiation for our sins: "*And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."*

I hope my words did not give offense; if so, I apologize.


----------



## Romans678 (Nov 3, 2022)

Alan D. Strange said:


> @Romans678; @Ben Zartman
> 
> To be fair to both parties, I can see that Ben, since Anthony's signature indicates that he is a Baptist, may have assumed that Anthony's confessional subscription reflected that.
> 
> ...


Yes sir you are correct! My current fellowship subscribes to the 1689 LBCF and are loosely affiliated with the SBC. We are more Founders than Southern Baptist.

I love my church. They provided the safety we needed with expository preaching, plurality of elders, and confessional standards. A very solid foundation to help us leave Pentecostal Charis-mania for good.

I don't know where we'd be if it wasn't for PBC. I'd probably be doing backflips off of the pulpit or something.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Nov 3, 2022)

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> As was already pointed out, it's not actually a confessional paedo statement. But to be charitable to our brother, I'm sure it was not meant as an absolute general statement and no doubt he would qualify it.


Correct, I was not making a confessional statement. I was pointing out the statement is a general difference between the two positions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart (Nov 3, 2022)

Alan D. Strange said:


> @Romans678; @Ben Zartman
> 
> To be fair to both parties, I can see that Ben, since Anthony's signature indicates that he is a Baptist, may have assumed that Anthony's confessional subscription reflected that.
> 
> ...


Wouldn't it be safe to assume an SBC church agrees with the Baptist Faith and Message, an excerpt of which states "baptism is the immersion of a believer"? And the members of the church, likewise? I appreciate what you are saying about the About page, but I'll just raise my hand and say maybe I'm the only one, but I generally do not click into a user's profile.

I would guess the point of the information PB requires we all put into our signatures is, at least in part, so that we have that pertinent information underneath each post the user makes. As it's not a current requirement (clarifying confessional affiliation if different than your church's) for signatures, our brother is certainly within his freedom to keep it as is. Perhaps, if not already considered, it should just be a future consideration for the admins of the forum.

Edit: I actually tried clicking into someone else's profile (not Romans678) and got an error message saying that the person limits who can see their profile. Another reason to emphasize the content of our signatures.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Nov 3, 2022)

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> Wouldn't it be safe to assume an SBC church agrees with the Baptist Faith and Message, an excerpt of which states "baptism is the immersion of a believer"? And the members of the church, likewise?


As I understand PB requirements, Jake, all members must identify (a) specific Reformed confession(s) to which they subscribe. Since the SBC subscribes to no Reformed confession, the PB member who is an SBC member but provides no Reformed confession in his signature leaves us informed and we must have recourse to his member's page. 

I am not sure in the case of a PB member who belongs to an SBC congregation that the Baptist Faith and Message has any particular standing. It is not a Reformed confession and members of the SBC, as I understand it, need not affirm it: it's a statement of what the church and not necessarily its members believe. 

This is why I looked where I did to see to what he subscribed and saw that it was not a Reformed Baptist confession but the WCF. 

Peace,
Alan


----------

