# Is Dr. James White Consistent on the Subject of Baptism?



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 1, 2007)

{I was going to leave this at the bottom of an exhausted thread but I wanted it out in the open as a new discussion. You'll see that the thread begins in response to a question Andrew asks Paul and then drifts into the question that this thread is meant to answer.}



Andrew P.C. said:


> This is it though, the interpretation that I'm getting from you suggests that they were never in the faith to begin with since the direct charge is to the jailer. How would you raise a family in the Lord when we know the non-regenerate "walk accoring to the course of this world" and they would obey their lust rather then God.(I know that goes the same for me and my "someday" childeren.)



Andrew,

If I may answer this for a second: Paul doesn't say the children are unregenerate. Paul is merely saying that the jailer does not know, for certain, that they are regenerate.

Brother, this is true of _every single person in your Church_. You don't even know if your Pastor is regenerate, without a shadow of a doubt.

I was listening to Dr. James White yesterday. Dr. White is a friend of mine so I say this with no malice in my heart toward him. He was answering a call about the Shishko debate and the discussion of the way that Presbyterians treat their children come up. He said, in effect, that Presbyterians treat their children inconsistently with their theology.

For himself, he believed he was consistent, with his theology in the way he treated his children because he calls them to repentance and to believe the Gospel.

Newsflash: So do we. That's what we do for adults too. Dr. White had created a straw man: Presbyterians train their kids to assume they're elect and saved upon Baptism. Baptized children don't have to ever properly "repent and believe" according to his caricature. Not true. He needs to deal with actual teaching on the subject - *Confessional* teaching.

Further, I almost drove off the road in Dr. White's blindness to his own inconsistency. For instance, whoat you said is very useful here:


> we know the non-regenerate "walk accoring to the course of this world" and they would obey their lust rather then God.


These are the sons of Adam. Presbyterians are called "inconsistent" because they don't treat their children _as if_ they are unregenerate.

OK, are you ready to be consistent?

If you know your children are unregenerate and you wish to be consistent then:

Do not pray with them, they cannot pray in Jesus' name.
Do not teach them the Word of God, they cannot understand.
Do not tell them to repent and believe.
Do not expect them to obey the Word of God at all.

Brother, the above are things that only the regenerate can be expected to do.

You don't need to *know* that a person is regenerate to treat someone *as if* they are. The Baptist insistence that their children are unregenerate is a strange one given they neither know they are nor do they treat them like they are!


----------



## Ezekiel3626 (Mar 1, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Brother, this is true of _every single person in your Church_. You don't even know if your Pastor is regenerate, without a shadow of a doubt.
> 
> If you know your children are unregenarate and you wish to be consistent then:
> 
> ...



Rich, this is profound, In my humble opinion. This is another piece of the puzzle for me. I have to chase you around from post to post, but when I find you, you usually end up helping me. Thank you.


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 1, 2007)

I was going to chime in on the other post, but I'll do it here. 

I think one of the real problems we are having is how we treat the early practices set out in the New Testament. I think we Baptists seek to be faithful to scripture, as do the Paedos. The rub seems to be whether we treat what is recorded as normative. I don't think it completely is.

For example, the jailer's household believed and was baptized. That is a given, pronounced by the Holy Spirit through scripture. And Peter relates how the gentiles believed because they were given the gift of the Holy Spirit just as the believing Jews were. 

It seems apparent that during apostolic times, there was some sort of clear evidence available to the early church that prevented a discussion along the lines of "how do you determine a credible faith?"

But clearly, we don't have that sort of evidence in our times. The Baptist and the Paedobaptist wrestle with this issue in their different ways. I don't know if we will ever really reconcile on this. 

But Rich, I grant your points if I'm willing to accept that I _know_ the children are unregenerate. The problem is that we do not know.

I'll ramble just a bit more. My own personal experience colors my view. I believed in God and Jesus as a little child, even though my parents were pagans. In my young adulthood I consciously rebelled against God, demanding that he deal with me on my own terms. I even spent a period trying to be an atheist. The Holy Spirit defeated my will and converted me.

The question is, was I regenerate as a child when I had my simple belief? Perhaps, perhaps not. I cannot tell. I wasn't baptized until my 40s, and that upon public profession and perhaps 2 years of seriously believing in Christ.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 1, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> But Rich, I grant your points if I'm willing to accept that I _know_ the children are unregenerate. The problem is that we do not know.
> 
> I'll ramble just a bit more. My own personal experience colors my view. I believed in God and Jesus as a little child, even though my parents were pagans. In my young adulthood I consciously rebelled against God, demanding that he deal with me on my own terms. I even spent a period trying to be an atheist. The Holy Spirit defeated my will and converted me.
> 
> The question is, was I regenerate as a child when I had my simple belief? Perhaps, perhaps not. I cannot tell. I wasn't baptized until my 40s, and that upon public profession and perhaps 2 years of seriously believing in Christ.


It sounds like you're saying that you are willing to concede that it's OK to treat somebody _as if_ they are regenerate without knowing they are. Even a child. Am I hearing you correctly?


----------



## Davidius (Mar 1, 2007)

Is there a difference between Presumptive Regeneration and treating someone as regenerate even though you don't know whether they really are?


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 1, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> It sounds like you're saying that you are willing to concede that it's OK to treat somebody _as if_ they are regenerate without knowing they are. Even a child. Am I hearing you correctly?



I am willing to do that if the child professes faith, but I think I'd have to say I would "keep it in my heart". In other words, I leave it to the church assembly to determine whether to actually perform the baptism. I certainly don't think a Baptist could conscionably say he "knew" a child (or anyone else) is regenerate.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 1, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> I am willing to do that if the child professes faith, but I think I'd have to say I would "keep it in my heart". In other words, I leave it to the church assembly to determine whether to actually perform the baptism. I certainly don't think a Baptist could conscionably say he "knew" a child (or anyone else) is regenerate.



I'm asking a more fundamental question here. I'm not asking you whether you would assume that the child has cleared the hurdle of demonstrable faith that Baptists require for Baptism, I'm asking you if you act _as if_ the child is regenerate in the way you train and pray with them and do the other things that Baptists do with their kids.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 1, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Is there a difference between Presumptive Regeneration and treating someone as regenerate even though you don't know whether they really are?



Yikes! Let's not bring that word in here. I think there is but that's a totally different discussion altogether and needs its own thread.


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 1, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I'm asking a more fundamental question here. I'm not asking you whether you would assume that the child has cleared the hurdle of demonstrable faith that Baptists require for Baptism, I'm asking you if you act _as if_ the child is regenerate in the way you train and pray with them and do the other things that Baptists do with their kids.



Yes, absolutely. I would do it in faith that they will be professing believers.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 1, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> Yes, absolutely. I would do it in faith that they will be professing believers.



OK, so how is this _consistent_ with Reformed Baptists who don't think their children are in the Covenant and _inconsistent_ for Presbyterians who do believe their children are in the Covenant?

Gotta run to a meeting. Looking forward to yours (or any other Baptist's) response. Good stuff!


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 1, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> OK, so how is this _consistent_ with Reformed Baptists who don't think their children are in the Covenant and _inconsistent_ for Presbyterians who do believe their children are in the Covenant?
> 
> Gotta run to a meeting. Looking forward to yours (or any other Baptist's) response. Good stuff!



I saw the setup from a mile away.  But I'm in a tax class right now, so I'll defer as well. Hasta!


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 1, 2007)

Proverbs 22:6
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.


----------



## Herald (Mar 1, 2007)

> If you know your children are unregenerate and you wish to be consistent then:
> 
> Do not pray with them, they cannot pray in Jesus' name.
> Do not teach them the Word of God, they cannot understand.
> ...



Rich - I can't speak for Dr. White, but I find no problem with any of the "Do not's" you just listed. I consider the first three to be methodolgy in evangelism. The last one I consider to be the rules for living in my home. Come to think of it, that is also a part and parcel with evangelism.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Mar 2, 2007)

I find it interesting that Genesis 17, with the classic declaration of "you and your children" being in the covenant, is followed by Genesis 18 -- "And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do; seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him" (vs. 17-19). Christian training and instructing of children (catechizing) only makes sense within the context of children being included in the covenant. This is why New Testament commands to _*continue*_ the practice of instructing our children (i.e., Eph. 6:4) are so significant, because they demonstrate that children _*continue*_ to be included in the covenant.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 2, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> Proverbs 22:6
> Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.



Ah yes, beautiful _Covenantal_ language.


----------



## MW (Mar 2, 2007)

Kaalvenist said:


> This is why New Testament commands to _*continue*_ the practice of instructing our children (i.e., Eph. 6:4) are so significant, because they demonstrate that children _*continue*_ to be included in the covenant.



 The Bible always commands us to act "relationally." It is in the capacity of children of God that we are to follow God; it is as the elect of God that we are to put on love, whiich is the bond of perfectness; and the list could be multiplied. We stand related to God according to the gracious dispensation of God towards us, and on that basis are we to act worthy of the calling we have received. Now how do you bring up a child IN the nurture and admonition of the Lord while teaching him he is a stranger to the Lord and His ways? If the child does not act in the capacity of a child of the covenant, all that he does in obedience to this nurture and admonition is hypocritical religiosity.


----------



## satz (Mar 2, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> OK, so how is this _consistent_ with Reformed Baptists who don't think their children are in the Covenant and _inconsistent_ for Presbyterians who do believe their children are in the Covenant?
> 
> Gotta run to a meeting. Looking forward to yours (or any other Baptist's) response. Good stuff!



This series of threads has really got me thinking a bit. I hope you don’t mind me blundering in here again.

Lets say _ hypothetically _ I throw my arms in the air and say: “Alright, you’ve got me. I have to admit that to be consistent with the way I treat my children I must admit they are in covenant with God ( I say hypothetically because while I would be happy to admit I think believer’s children are in some kind of relationship with God, I would not like to use the word covenant, for the time being).”

But just because I grant that fact must I baptize my infant children to be consistent? We can argue as much as we want about the sign of the covenant etc etc, but I believe strongly the bible says “Believe, and be baptized”. The bible says baptism (unlike circumcision) is the “_answer of a good conscience toward God_” (1 Peter 3:21). Infants can’t answer God though baptism. Even if we grant they could have faith, they could not comprehend that they were answering God _though baptism_, for God does not even give them credit for discerning between their left and right hands (Jonah 4:11).

Why would it be wrong to say that God may have changed the nature and the timing of giving the ‘sign’?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 2, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> > If you know your children are unregenerate and you wish to be consistent then:
> >
> > Do not pray with them, they cannot pray in Jesus' name.
> > Do not teach them the Word of God, they cannot understand.
> ...



You consider these means of Evangelism? Let's pretend, for a moment, that these aren't your kids but they're adult strangers - unregenerate men. You mean to tell me that you _consistently_ use those three as means of Evangelism?

To my knowledge, the only means of Grace that I know of, in Reformed Baptist Confessions, is the preaching of the Word. I believe it's consistent to preach to Pagans but _pray with_ them? Where do we see evidence of that in the NT?


----------



## Herald (Mar 2, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> You consider these means of Evangelism? Let's pretend, for a moment, that these aren't your kids but they're adult strangers - unregenerate men. You mean to tell me that you _consistently_ use those three as means of Evangelism?
> 
> To my knowledge, the only means of Grace that I know of, in Reformed Baptist Confessions, is the preaching of the Word. I believe it's consistent to preach to Pagans but _pray with_ them? Where do we see evidence of that in the NT?



Rich, I saw the word "children" and was responding with young children in mind. It is primarily the responsibility of the parents to instruct their children in the word of God. It is the word of God that leads to salvation:

*2 Timothy 1:5 5 For I am mindful of the sincere faith within you, which first dwelt in your grandmother Lois, and your mother Eunice, and I am sure that it is in you as well. *

*2 Timothy 3:14-15 14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them; 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. *

It is obvious that Lois and Eunice taught Timothy the word of God. The Lord used that knowledge to call Timothy to Himself.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 2, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Rich, I saw the word "children" and was responding with young children in mind. It is primarily the responsibility of the parents to instruct their children in the word of God.


Brother, I know that, but my point is that it is not _consistent_ with the idea that they are presumed unregenerate _just like all other unbelievers_. Now, you may say that you escape this inconsistency because you're children are not like all other unbelievers but is this the _consistent_ Reformed Baptist answer? If they are like all other unbelievers then you can't be _consistent_ and say "...well I'm talking about my children now...."


> It is the word of God that leads to salvation:
> *2 Timothy 1:5 5 For I am mindful of the sincere faith within you, which first dwelt in your grandmother Lois, and your mother Eunice, and I am sure that it is in you as well. *
> 
> *2 Timothy 3:14-15 14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them; 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. *
> ...



Agreed. I'm not saying that the Word does not regenerate and convert. You said that the first three above were means. Those are not the Word. Those are all things that only the regenerate are capable of.

Further, I simply cannot accept the quoting of a text that speaks of children that begs the question that they are not in the Covenant. To be consistent, one needs to show how what you would do with one's children is precisely the same as you would deal with an unregenerate adult.

I'm challenging consistency here.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 2, 2007)

satz said:


> But just because I grant that fact must I baptize my infant children to be consistent? We can argue as much as we want about the sign of the covenant etc etc, but I believe strongly the bible says “Believe, and be baptized”. The bible says baptism (unlike circumcision) is the “_answer of a good conscience toward God_” (1 Peter 3:21). Infants can’t answer God though baptism. Even if we grant they could have faith, they could not comprehend that they were answering God _though baptism_, for God does not even give them credit for discerning between their left and right hands (Jonah 4:11).
> 
> Why would it be wrong to say that God may have changed the nature and the timing of giving the ‘sign’?



Mark,

Should have responded first to you. 

I don't really want to answer this question because then it deflects from what the challenge is here. You're starting a new thread if you want that question answered.

You see, you want me to agree with the premise but ignore the necessary conclusion that is drawn from it. I'm challenging the conclusions of your premise. I want you to show how the premises can lead to the conclusions you are drawing about how your children relate to you. We know there are certain things that must be true about what parents are supposed to do with their children. I believe that Presbyterians can consistently account for all the NT responsibilities they have for their children. I'm trying to figure out how Dr. White (or Reformed Baptists in general) can consistently account for the way he deals with children in the Church. 

If a Reformed Baptist cannot, then they should at least refrain from claiming that Presbyterians are inconsistent in the matter.


----------



## Herald (Mar 2, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Brother, I know that, but my point is that it is not _consistent_ with the idea that they are presumed unregenerate _just like all other unbelievers_. Now, you may say that you escape this inconsistency because you're children are not like all other unbelievers but is this the _consistent_ Reformed Baptist answer? If they are like all other unbelievers then you can't be _consistent_ and say "...well I'm talking about my children now...."
> 
> 
> Agreed. I'm not saying that the Word does not regenerate and convert. You said that the first three above were means. Those are not the Word. Those are all things that only the regenerate are capable of.
> ...



Rich, and I think you're missing the role of the parent in regards to children. I will grant you that the 78 year old unsaved senior citizen and the 8 year old ungenerate child are in the same condition. I will grant you that it is the word of God that leads them to repentance and faith. But I do believe that parents are primarily responsible for reaching their children with the gospel. 



> Do not pray with them, they cannot pray in Jesus' name.
> Do not teach them the Word of God, they cannot understand.
> Do not tell them to repent and believe.
> Do not expect them to obey the Word of God at all.



Rich, I honestly don't see the inconsistency. Praying, teaching and calling on children to repent and believe are all consistent with preaching the gospel. Parents are the only ones who are best equipped to reach their children for Christ. The power is in the gospel (Romans 1:16). And while the first three items in your "do not" list are means, they do spring forth from the gospel. Jesus is the center of the gospel, thus He is prayed to. The Word of God *is* the gospel, therefore it is appropriate to teach it. Repent and believe is the commanded response to the gospel. In all, I would say that is very consistent.

How can I separate the child and the adult? Easy. The adult is not under direct parental guidance and authority, the child is. The gospel is proclaimed to both, but the child has the privelege of witnessing the gospel being lived in the life of his parents. The adult may not have that type of exposure. It is still the power of the gospel that leads to repentance and faith, but for a short number of years the parents have 24/7/365 access to their children. As someone who believes in the covenant family, certainly you can see the impact of what I am saying.


----------



## smhbbag (Mar 2, 2007)

> If you know your children are unregenerate and you wish to be consistent then:
> 
> Do not pray with them, they cannot pray in Jesus' name.
> Do not teach them the Word of God, they cannot understand.
> ...




A) "Pray with" can have a couple of meanings. Christ Himself taught unregenerates to pray in the Sermon on the Mount. I will teach my children to pray, and pray in front of them - just as Christ did for unbelievers. I don't know if this qualifies under your meaning of "pray with." But until I am reasonably assured of their genuine faith, I will not make them pray - for that would just be heaping sin on sin if they, in God's will, are not elect.

B) Christ Himself knowingly taught unregenerates the Word of God. Scripture tells us to do this. 

If you evangelize at all then, by definition, you have taught unregenerates the Word of God. I can't for the life of me figure out the problem here. It doesn't bother me that they can't understand it....._until the spirit of the Lord raises them to life_. Their natural state in sin of non-comprehension does not phase us - because we all have hopeful expectation that God can change that natural state. No matter how much I *know* them to be currently unregenerate. The power of the Word of God is unaffected.

I have, on many occasions, taught unregenerates the Word of God without it always necessitating or leading to the gospel itself. This, to me, is obvious - any time we encourage unbelievers to stop killing their unborn children - are we not instructing them what the Word of God says, and exhorting them live according to it in that area? The same goes for any number of issues.

C) Christ Himself knowingly told unregenerates to repent and believe. Which, again, is what every one of us does any time we preach the gospel to a sinner in need of grace. So why is it "inconsistent" for us to do that when the unregenerate is our child? Just as in B, their inability to comply is not a factor in whether I can say it to them and remain consistent.

D) God expects _all_men to obey _all_ of the Word of God. All men are held to it, regardless of their exposure to it or acceptance of it. And as believers, we should expect the same. And if they don't conform, there are temporal and eternal consequences. 

Example: A properly God-fearing civil government expects all people (including unbelievers under them) not to steal. That is, it is the govrnment's duty, given to them by God, to expect unbelievers to conform to that part of the Word of God and to punish non-compliance. As head of household, I too am an "administration" in my own "sphere of sovereignty," so to speak, established by God with authority over my children. And I can rightly expect conformity to the Word of God. If they don't, there are valid punishments. Just because they, in the flesh, are incapable of full compliance is irrelevant. It is the order God has established.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 2, 2007)

smhbbag said:


> A) "Pray with" can have a couple of meanings. Christ Himself taught unregenerates to pray in the Sermon on the Mount.


So unregenerates can address God as "Our Father?"


> I will teach my children to pray, and pray in front of them - just as Christ did for unbelievers. I don't know if this qualifies under your meaning of "pray with." But until I am reasonably assured of their genuine faith, I will not make them pray - for that would just be heaping sin on sin if they, in God's will, are not elect.


OK, this I find consistent. Sad, but consistent.



> B) Christ Himself knowingly taught unregenerates the Word of God. Scripture tells us to do this.
> 
> If you evangelize at all then, by definition, you have taught unregenerates the Word of God. I can't for the life of me figure out the problem here. It doesn't bother me that they can't understand it....._until the spirit of the Lord raises them to life_. Their natural state in sin of non-comprehension does not phase us - because we all have hopeful expectation that God can change that natural state. No matter how much I *know* them to be currently unregenerate. The power of the Word of God is unaffected.
> 
> I have, on many occasions, taught unregenerates the Word of God without it always necessitating or leading to the gospel itself. This, to me, is obvious - any time we encourage unbelievers to stop killing their unborn children - are we not instructing them what the Word of God says, and exhorting them live according to it in that area? The same goes for any number of issues.


The question is not whether we teach unregenerates but whether or not we believe they can understand and make application of it. Properly speaking, an unregenerate person is not "trainable". This is what I mean by teach. I don't mean that they sit around the Word of God but whether or not there is expectation that there is progress in understanding and wisdom. This is why Baptists struggle with the idea of "nurture and admonition". One cannot nurture and admonish an unregenerate because "...the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom..." and the unregenerate have no fear of the Lord.



> C) Christ Himself knowingly told unregenerates to repent and believe. Which, again, is what every one of us does any time we preach the gospel to a sinner in need of grace. So why is it "inconsistent" for us to do that when the unregenerate is our child? Just as in B, their inability to comply is not a factor in whether I can say it to them and remain consistent.


Yes, this is part of the Gospel call but, until converted, the unregenerate cannot repent and they cannot believe. If a child sins against you, you cannot apply Matthew 18 principles. An unregenerate cannot even be said to be under discipline but under punishment. The goal of discipline and repentance is for restoration and preservation of Covenant Body peace. The unregenerate cannot repent and are not subjects of discipline - only reproach. Treating a child like an unregenerate is like allowing a foreigner in the midst of the Covenant Body who is constantly disrupting Body life in the family and Church.



> D) God expects _all_men to obey _all_ of the Word of God. All men are held to it, regardless of their exposure to it or acceptance of it. And as believers, we should expect the same. And if they don't conform, there are temporal and eternal consequences.
> 
> Example: A properly God-fearing civil government expects all people (including unbelievers under them) not to steal. That is, it is the govrnment's duty, given to them by God, to expect unbelievers to conform to that part of the Word of God and to punish non-compliance. As head of household, I too am an "administration" in my own "sphere of sovereignty," so to speak, established by God with authority over my children. And I can rightly expect conformity to the Word of God. If they don't, there are valid punishments. Just because they, in the flesh, are incapable of full compliance is irrelevant. It is the order God has established.



You miss the point. The question is not whether or not God expects man to obey His Word. The notion that nurture consists of a Pharisaical "obey God's Word and here is the punishment if you do not because I'm His minister of Justice" is antithetical to Grace. It's precisely not Grace. Is this the way a children is trained in the way He should go? You raise them like legalists up to the point of their conversion and then teach them about Grace only after?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 2, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Rich, and I think you're missing the role of the parent in regards to children. I will grant you that the 78 year old unsaved senior citizen and the 8 year old ungenerate child are in the same condition. I will grant you that it is the word of God that leads them to repentance and faith. But I do believe that parents are primarily responsible for reaching their children with the gospel.


I am not missing the role of the parent in regards to children. I have a consistent soteriology that encompasses the corpus of Scripture concerning my responsibility. Parents are more than just Gospel heralds to their children.



> Rich, I honestly don't see the inconsistency. Praying, teaching and calling on children to repent and believe are all consistent with preaching the gospel. Parents are the only ones who are best equipped to reach their children for Christ. The power is in the gospel (Romans 1:16). And while the first three items in your "do not" list are means, they do spring forth from the gospel. Jesus is the center of the gospel, thus He is prayed to. The Word of God *is* the gospel, therefore it is appropriate to teach it. Repent and believe is the commanded response to the gospel. In all, I would say that is very consistent.


Well, I just have no idea where you get the idea that having the unregenerate pray to God and teaching unregenerate as if they can progress in understanding is part of the Gospel Call. That is a stretch. You cannot merely affirm it as "seeming" to be inferred from the idea of the Gospel. Perhaps you could show me in the LBCF where these are listed as means of Grace.



> How can I separate the child and the adult? Easy. The adult is not under direct parental guidance and authority, the child is. The gospel is proclaimed to both, but the child has the privelege of witnessing the gospel being lived in the life of his parents. The adult may not have that type of exposure. It is still the power of the gospel that leads to repentance and faith, but for a short number of years the parents have 24/7/365 access to their children. As someone who believes in the covenant family, certainly you can see the impact of what I am saying.



Well, of course I can. The point is that Baptists happily live lives inconsistent with their confession. I'm not arguing with the way you live your life. I'm arguing that your premises do not consistently line up with how you act toward your children. I would obviously prefer to see Baptists see that their struggle to pull their premises toward their needed conclusion would cause them to re-evaluate their premises.


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 2, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> OK, so how is this _consistent_ with Reformed Baptists who don't think their children are in the Covenant and _inconsistent_ for Presbyterians who do believe their children are in the Covenant?
> 
> Gotta run to a meeting. Looking forward to yours (or any other Baptist's) response. Good stuff!



OK, I'm finally back and I hope I can address your question, Rich. I may be straying out of my assigned orbital, but that's nothing new.

I think the difficulty we are having really has to do with the term Covenant. In fact, I'm sure this is the case because I've heard others accuse Baptists of being dispensational in their view of the Covenant. Without getting into that distinction (I admit not understanding what that means if applied to a Reformed Baptist), I'll attempt to give my weak understanding and why it seems to be generating this confusion.

I think we are talking about the Covenant of Grace, or more broadly, the Covenant God has made with his chosen people. That seems fair enough. The question arises: what is our role as believers if we find ourselves in the Covenant? Do we have certain duties? I think it is clear that we do. 

The first duty would be obedience to God's Word. In direct answer to why a Baptist would treat his child differently from perhaps a non-related person, this can be answered merely by acknowledging that God's Word directs this. We are told how to raise a child, and we are not told to discern (or how to discern) whether the child is part of the Covenant or not. For me, at least, the question is simple, treat the child in a fashion that instructs him to honor God.

But another facet of obedience to God's Word is to not presume knowledge that God has not given us. This seems to be the great issue. Your view seems to require some kind of knowledge or belief that children are in the Covenant in order to determine how we treat them. I don't see it the same way. 

I think it is fairly plain that we do not, and cannot, know the timing of regeneration. "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." John 3:8. We cannot know who the elect are either. Reinforcing this truth is the history of Israel. Other than Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, can we point to other instances of a "Covenant family" maintaining faith for three or more generations? Perhaps, but there are plenty of examples of unbelieving offspring of believers.

So, given this history, and the plain teaching that " they are not all Israel, which are of Israel," I think we can agree that the Covenant does not pass by generation or by heredity. 

Given these scriptural facts, the Baptist (at least this Baptist) seeks to be obedient and discerning, but not to go too far in presuming. We don't presume regenerate children because we are aware that God, in his infinite wisdom and good pleasure, may not bring them to faith. But we do know that we are commanded to baptize the believers. I don't think it is more complicated than that. It is a balance that I believe we are commanded to make.


----------



## Chris (Mar 2, 2007)

deleted in the interest of peace.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Mar 2, 2007)

I think Vic (B) has made a very clear statement in his post above and I completely agree with his balanced comments about our parental duties.

JH


----------



## CDM (Mar 2, 2007)

> Rich, I honestly don't see the inconsistency. Praying, teaching and calling on children to repent and believe are all consistent with preaching the gospel.
> 
> ...
> 
> Rich - I can't speak for Dr. White, but I find no problem with any of the "Do not's" you just listed. I consider the first three to be methodolgy in evangelism. The last one I consider to be the rules for living in my home. Come to think of it, that is also a part and parcel with evangelism.



Teaching and encouraging people we regard as cut off by God, and outside of the Covenant (i.e., Muslims, unbelievers in general, Mormons, baptist children) to pray "Our Father" is using God's name in vain. It is mocking God. To be consistent the baptist ought not encourage unbelievers (your children) to pray to the Father in the same way you don't encourage any other unbeliever - like a Muslim or Atheist.

Why would one encourage unbelievers to do such things? In my mind, this would "make hell hotter" for them.

One day, I'm going to get a baptist to answer my question I have posted on each and every recent Baptism/Covenant thread:



> Where exactly is the doctrine that God has cut off the children of believers from this new and better covenant?" Where is it taught that children of believers are accounted as heathen in God's sight? *Not one Jew, not even one, made a peep about God casting aside their children that have always been in covenant with Him?*



The messiah arrives, He and his disciples declare all of your [Jews] children are now cut off by God....oh, and this is the new and better covenant.....Hosanna! ...Never mind the curses the Patriarchs told you of about those outside of the Covenant....this is better!



joshua said:


> OK, as has had to be addressed in other threads, don't throw out one-liners intended as jabs, then fail to back up such assertions with *how* what you've quoted makes the conclusion you've drawn.



Chris, heed the sound advice the Moderator gave:



joshua said:


> Chris, the whole point of the portion you quoted from Rich was tongue-in-cheek. He's not advocating such things. He's showing that which he perceives as being inconsistent within Credo practice as compared to teaching/theory. Please pay more careful attention before you start accusing people of using hyper-Calvinist logic. Thanks!



 

Again, listen to brother Josh, the baptist moderator that called you out on your offensive and useless posts.

[EDIT] Good job removing those posts, Chris.


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 2, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Is there a difference between Presumptive Regeneration and treating someone as regenerate even though you don't know whether they really are?



PR resumes that a person is actually regenerate. When one is not willing to presume upon the activity of the Holy Spirit it would be called "a judgment of charity".


----------



## satz (Mar 2, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Mark,
> 
> Should have responded first to you.
> 
> ...



Hi Rich,

Point taken, I agree my response was somewhat off topic. Let me try again… 

I’ll confess I am having a tad of difficulty understanding what exactly your question is, despite having read the thread over again. But as I said before I believe this issue is worthy of pursuing, so I will try my best.

Regarding this question you asked Vic:



> I'm asking you if you act as if the child is regenerate in the way you train and pray with them and do the other things that Baptists do with their kids.



I would (and perhaps I’ am digging a hole for myself here, but we’ll see) say that yes, Christian parents must inevitably treat their children in some sense _as if_ they are regenerate. Eph 6 tells fathers to bring up their children in the fear and nurture of the Lord. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God (1 Cor 2:14) so the command would be meaningless and any effort on the parent’s part vain if they could not at least treat their children as being regenerate. As I mentioned in another thread, I do not believe in the gospel means of regeneration. I believe God regenerates by himself, without means, as and when he likes. So I would have even greater cause to believe that for the command in Eph 6 (and other epistles) to have any meaning at all, Christian parents must be able to act _as if_ their children are regenerate, to a certain extent.

Regarding the consistency of such a position with the belief that children are no longer automatic church members, I think I mentioned in the other thread that I see no problem in simply taking Eph 6 and similar NT passages as not only setting out a parent’s duty to his or her children, but also telling us that the principles of child training are brought forward from the Old to the New Testament (ie Paul’s quote of an OT verse in Eph 6).

I would also question the idea that there can be no meaningful godly child training if the children are not part of the covenant. It seems to me that the relationship between parents and child and the duties both owe to each other is something that is part of the moral order of the world God created and not dependent on the covenant God made with his people. So even outside of that covenant parents have the duty to care for children and children the duty to obey parents. Hence disobedience to parents is listed as one of the sins God gave people over to in Romans 1. And Jesus made reference to the duties of parents when he made the comparison of which man, even an evil one, will give his children a scorpion when they ask for a fish?

For this reason I do not see it as inconsistent to say that a Baptist parent has a duty to raise their children while at the same time saying they are not automatic church members. The idea of bringing up children in the fear and nurture of the Lord was a covenant obligation, but that is explicitly repeated for us in the New Testament by Paul so we know it applies to us today.

Again, I hope I am remaining on topic here, but I would disagree with the conclusion you seem to be making that the principles and promises regarding child training were inextricably bound up in membership in the external covenant (ie being church members, in today’s terms). I don’t see that they are. I believe that there are promises God gives to his children regarding _their_ children that are not bound up with that external administration of the covenant that was circumcision. 

I hope that was more on point…


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 2, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> OK, I'm finally back and I hope I can address your question, Rich. I may be straying out of my assigned orbital, but that's nothing new.
> 
> I think the difficulty we are having really has to do with the term Covenant. In fact, I'm sure this is the case because I've heard others accuse Baptists of being dispensational in their view of the Covenant. Without getting into that distinction (I admit not understanding what that means if applied to a Reformed Baptist), I'll attempt to give my weak understanding and why it seems to be generating this confusion.


I honestly believe the confusion is generated because you want to turn and run away as soon as what you're doing with your children is, in any way, described as Covenantal.



> I think we are talking about the Covenant of Grace, or more broadly, the Covenant God has made with his chosen people. That seems fair enough. The question arises: what is our role as believers if we find ourselves in the Covenant? Do we have certain duties? I think it is clear that we do.
> 
> The first duty would be obedience to God's Word. In direct answer to why a Baptist would treat his child differently from perhaps a non-related person, this can be answered merely by acknowledging that God's Word directs this. We are told how to raise a child, and we are not told to discern (or how to discern) whether the child is part of the Covenant or not. For me, at least, the question is simple, treat the child in a fashion that instructs him to honor God.


Fair enough. But is your presupposition that he can or cannot be instructed to honor God? If he _can_ be instructed to honor God then how is this consistent that all our children are born in Adam.

I'm sorry but you simply cannot pull out the "obedience" card here and ignore the "man of flesh" inability to make any sense or grow in such things. You need to harmonize them.



> But another facet of obedience to God's Word is to not presume knowledge that God has not given us. This seems to be the great issue. Your view seems to require some kind of knowledge or belief that children are in the Covenant in order to determine how we treat them. I don't see it the same way.


Well, I don't have to _presume_ the are in the Covenant at all according to the way I understand God's Word because of my view of baptism. I think the work you are trying to use here is that you believe I have to presume to have knowledge of their _regeneration_. No, I do not. As I've pointed out, you don't have to presume to have knowledge of *anybody's* regeneration within the Church. Do you presume to have knowledge of your pastor's regeneration? You do, nevertheless, give the judgment of charity to the people in your Church. The _manner_ in which you train and instruct your children is _indistinguishable_ from the way you train and instruct those that are baptized. This I find very, very, very _inconsistent_. The thing that you believe baptism represents (regeneration) is not given to those who you treat, with the judgment of charity, _as if_ they _are_ regenerate!



> I think it is fairly plain that we do not, and cannot, know the timing of regeneration. "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." John 3:8. We cannot know who the elect are either.


Except that Reformed Baptist sacramentology is completely tied up in the idea that you claim that you withold Baptism to administer it to the elect.



> Reinforcing this truth is the history of Israel. Other than Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, can we point to other instances of a "Covenant family" maintaining faith for three or more generations? Perhaps, but there are plenty of examples of unbelieving offspring of believers.


I'm not sure I see the relevance here. Are you saying that the promise that God made to Abraham is of no effect because not all who were in physical Israel (visible Covenant) were in the Israel of God (invisible). 



> So, given this history, and the plain teaching that " they are not all Israel, which are of Israel," I think we can agree that the Covenant does not pass by generation or by heredity.


If, by this, you mean that we cannot run a genetic test to see election being passed down I would say "Of course not". This is an extremely simplistic view of how the Covenant functioned. If this is the totality of the Covenant and that all language that pertains to a man's responsibilities to his children in the Law, Proverbs, Psalms, and Prophets is bound up in the mere fact of relation then all of those pieces of instruction have zero application for you. You cannot degrade the Covenant meaning to this degree and then take "train a child in the way he should go" when this is undergirded by mere DNA.



> Given these scriptural facts, the Baptist (at least this Baptist) seeks to be obedient and discerning, but not to go too far in presuming. We don't presume regenerate children because we are aware that God, in his infinite wisdom and good pleasure, may not bring them to faith. But we do know that we are commanded to baptize the believers. I don't think it is more complicated than that. It is a balance that I believe we are commanded to make.



Well, I think the complication you're finding is trying to make application of texts where you are trained to nurture and train a child and he's even given promises by Paul and you can't line up the fact that you say, with your mouths, that he's unregenerate but act, with your lives, _as if_ he's regenerate.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 2, 2007)

satz said:


> I would (and perhaps I’ am digging a hole for myself here, but we’ll see) say that yes, Christian parents must inevitably treat their children in some sense _as if_ they are regenerate. Eph 6 tells fathers to bring up their children in the fear and nurture of the Lord. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God (1 Cor 2:14) so the command would be meaningless and any effort on the parent’s part vain if they could not at least treat their children as being regenerate. As I mentioned in another thread, I do not believe in the gospel means of regeneration. I believe God regenerates by himself, without means, as and when he likes. So I would have even greater cause to believe that for the command in Eph 6 (and other epistles) to have any meaning at all, Christian parents must be able to act _as if_ their children are regenerate, to a certain extent.


I think some of your conclusions are inevitable. Now, I acknowledge that we cannot _know_ that they are unregenerate but it needs to be continually underlined that this is not just a problem for children.



> I would also question the idea that there can be no meaningful godly child training if the children are not part of the covenant. It seems to me that the relationship between parents and child and the duties both owe to each other is something that is part of the moral order of the world God created and not dependent on the covenant God made with his people. So even outside of that covenant parents have the duty to care for children and children the duty to obey parents. Hence disobedience to parents is listed as one of the sins God gave people over to in Romans 1. And Jesus made reference to the duties of parents when he made the comparison of which man, even an evil one, will give his children a scorpion when they ask for a fish?


Brother, the "...moral order of the world God created..." is Covenantal. This parent-child connection you're talking about is why they're in the Covenant. Now children can become apostate but apostasy is always represented as rending asunder a familial connection. If you have unbelieving parents and sibilings, as I do, you know the joy of being redeemed but also the pain of having deep covenantal (with small c) connections torn apart. I have no Fellowship with them, only fellowship. (Small text added for emphasis). This is why women, children, and animals were place under the ban.



> For this reason I do not see it as inconsistent to say that a Baptist parent has a duty to raise their children while at the same time saying they are not automatic church members. The idea of bringing up children in the fear and nurture of the Lord was a covenant obligation, but that is explicitly repeated for us in the New Testament by Paul so we know it applies to us today.
> 
> Again, I hope I am remaining on topic here, but I would disagree with the conclusion you seem to be making that the principles and promises regarding child training were inextricably bound up in membership in the external covenant (ie being church members, in today’s terms). I don’t see that they are. I believe that there are promises God gives to his children regarding _their_ children that are not bound up with that external administration of the covenant that was circumcision.
> 
> I hope that was more on point…



Great response brother. Don't stop what you're doing. I do believe your premise is still clouding your ability to see that everything you're talking about is parroting words of Covenant found throughout Scripture. I believe the historical narrative and prophecy that those premises are built upon is far more instable than the consistent (and inescapable) nature of the father-son Covenantal relationship found in the Scriptures. I think you need to do better than just assert the ability to take all those Covenant responsibilities, pull out the offending word's of Covenant, and adopt them for your own based on premises that are forcing you to. You really owe it to yourself to find the Scripture that tells you, didactically, to do this.


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 2, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I honestly believe the confusion is generated because you want to turn and run away as soon as what you're doing with your children is, in any way, described as Covenantal.



That might be a reasonable belief on your part, friend, but I sure don't feel like I'm running away. I'm trying to see your point of view and understand it, but it seems to me like you are charging at me using the Covenant as a sword.

But I think I've done the best I can for now. I'll keep pondering your objections. Frankly, I acknowledge and confess the charge of being simplistic. 



> Fair enough. But is your presupposition that he can or cannot be instructed to honor God? If he _can_ be instructed to honor God then how is this consistent that all our children are born in Adam.



I really don't see what my presuppostion has to do with it. I have faith that he can be instructed, but I do not presuppose one way or another. I think it is genuine to act in faith even without maintaining such a presuppostion. I honestly don't see how this view is inconsistent. 



> I'm sorry but you simply cannot pull out the "obedience" card here and ignore the "man of flesh" inability to make any sense or grow in such things. You need to harmonize them.



Personally, I am comfortable with a certain level of the unknown. I don't really think I need to harmonize these things at all. 



> Except that Reformed Baptist sacramentology is completely tied up in the idea that you claim that you withold Baptism to administer it to the elect.



I certainly wouldn't make this claim. I would never claim to administer to the elect, only to professing believers. 



> I'm not sure I see the relevance here. Are you saying that the promise that God made to Abraham is of no effect because not all who were in physical Israel (visible Covenant) were in the Israel of God (invisible).
> 
> 
> If, by this, you mean that we cannot run a genetic test to see election being passed down I would say "Of course not". This is an extremely simplistic view of how the Covenant functioned. If this is the totality of the Covenant and that all language that pertains to a man's responsibilities to his children in the Law, Proverbs, Psalms, and Prophets is bound up in the mere fact of relation then all of those pieces of instruction have zero application for you. You cannot degrade the Covenant meaning to this degree and then take "train a child in the way he should go" when this is undergirded by mere DNA.



I'm merely saying that I don't comprehend fully how the Covenant functioned or functions now, pointing out that it must function differently from the simplistic example you argue against. I really don't follow your point here. I'll contemplate what you are saying. Right now I'm tired and dense.



> Well, I think the complication you're finding is trying to make application of texts where you are trained to nurture and train a child and he's even given promises by Paul and you can't line up the fact that you say, with your mouths, that he's unregenerate but act, with your lives, _as if_ he's regenerate.



As I pointed out earlier, I admit that my thinking on this is colored by my own experience. I cannot say that I was regenerate as a child, even though I professed faith in Christ back then. I don't even know if I was baptized as an infant or not, my parents were quite literally pagan. I consciously came to faith in my middle age. I would think, regardless of the timing, that it would have been a great blessing to have been raised in a Christian home. Then I wouldn't have had to wrestle with learning the WSC in my 40s. (At least I had John Owen to help me understand some of these things  .) Still, I just can't see the problem proceeding in that fashion even if you cannot presuppose your children are regenerate.

BTW, I should say that I have no small children. I have a grown and married step-daughter who happily rests in her atheism. I was not converted until she was grown and gone. We pray for her and her husband every day. But, I thought you should know that I'm not raising a child now, even though I take great interest in the children of our church.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 2, 2007)

Thanks Vic. You've been a friendly contributor to this dialogue. I did not mean to say you were "running away" in a pejorative sense. It was metaphorical in the sense that Baptists are uncomfortable with the term. It's my general observation that they'll _act_ like their children are in Covenant with them as long as they don't have to _say_ that they are. Again, it's an observation For what it's worth.

I'm not naive about children and instruction. I know there are unregenerate children. Being in Covenant is no panacea for the Christian family and, as I told Trevor in another thread, some dangerously presume upon their status and do not nurture it. The strawman above that James White speaks of is true _for some Presbyterians_. It is, nevertheless, not representative of our _Confession_ and how we nurture faith. I believe those that simply baptize their children and do not nurture them are like those who take a seed and place it on a rocky path.

I was driving home yesterday, listening to Dr. Sinclair Ferguson's sermons on the Prodigal Son. I've become quite a fan of his preaching after recently subscribing to the podcast. He was talking about the Prodigal Son coming to his senses and sharing a story about how a friend's son had once listened to a sermon by Dr. Ferguson for 30 days straight (same sermon) and then, one day, suddenly, the words _did something to him._

At that moment, sitting in my car, I suddenly remembered that I had spent over two decades of weekly attendance in a Roman Catholic Church. I had been a Sunday School teacher. I had grown up and loved being Roman Catholic. I felt I had a vibrant relationship with Christ. I thought I even had been baptized in the Holy Spirit (it was a charismatic Church as many are these days).

I had heard the Prodigal Son story probably over 100 times. I had it memorized practically. I always thought that the older son was a good kid and that the father, in the story, was praising him. He was the obedient son. He was a bit stingy at the time but the bottom line of the story, for me, was now the little brother could be a good son like the older brother had been. That makes a lot of sense to a kid and then a man that grows up trying to please God by what he does.

After being converted (reformed) and reading it years later it hit me, like a ton of bricks, that the older brother was a Pharisee. The end of the story pictures him hating his father, in "outer darkness", while a celebration is ongoing inside the house. I realized yesterday, driving in my car, "That's what spiritual blindness is like!"

I don't know how this whole thing works in the Covenant precisely either Vic in terms of how election and means weave together in our Covenant lives. I do know, though, that my son will not suffer for decades with the Prodigal Son story being explained to him as the older brother being commended. I sincerely believe that my organic connection to a false profession of the covenant of Grace for decades in the Roman Catholic Church severely stilted my Spiritual growth. I was naturally inclined to agree with and respond to the Scriptures in the way my Roman Catholic mother and father were.

Children are born to follow their parents in the direction that their parents lead them. They simply do not form independent opinions from the womb. What you are describing about children above in their natural inclinations to their parents is very true. It's why they sound like them, laugh like them, and use the same euphemisms. They are connected so closely to their father and mother that the Scriptures judge them altogether as a unit repeatedly - outside and inside of the Covenant of Grace.

Thus, let me say to Baptists that I agree with your practice. Don't stop training your kids. Just know that I believe what you have trouble describing is not too hard to describe because the figerprints of it are all over Scripture. Read the beginning of Proverbs anew as a father writing a letter to his son (for it is clearly identified as such) and you start thinking: "You know what?! This is about training a faithful, naive kid how to grow up to be a faithful, wise man!"


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 3, 2007)

Amen brother. I'll keep reading. 

Your discussion of the prodigal son was right on. It describes me.

Edit: I meant, I used to interpret it that way too, long ago. Then I realized I was the one eating the pig food.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 3, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Do not pray with them, they cannot pray in Jesus' name.
> Do not teach them the Word of God, they cannot understand.
> Do not tell them to repent and believe.
> Do not expect them to obey the Word of God at all.




First, I wanted to say, I enjoy these discussions with you brother. 

Also, I agree 100% with Bill when he states that he does not find inconsistency with these statements.

The reason I believe the paedo is inconsistent is the fact that they really do consider the child to be regenerate, since they accept them as part of the covenant. Brother, only the elect/regenerate are part of the covenant, and to say that your child takes part in it, suggests that you know the child is one of the regenerate. 

I also read that Bill said these are used as evangelism. Amen! They really are. The child sees the changed person in you. 

Brother, the thing we keep coming back to is presuming that they are part of the regenerate. (One thing that I need to stop doing by the way is using elect and regenerate interchangably.) If you treat them like they are regenerate, you presume that they are. Yet, the Bible tells us to raise up our childeren in the Lord. Somehow you find this inconsistent, and I understand your position (now) why you find it to be inconsistent.

Our biggest concern for our childeren should be that we do share the gospel with them because the gospel is the power of God for salvation. 

Anyways, I wanted to say thank you for these discussions. I look forward to more of these.  

In Christ with love to my Brother Rich,

Andrew Cunningham


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 3, 2007)

Andrew,

You don't understand the paedo-baptist position.



> The reason I believe the paedo is inconsistent is the fact that they really do consider the child to be regenerate, since they accept them as part of the covenant. Brother, only the elect/regenerate are part of the covenant, and to say that your child takes part in it, suggests that you know the child is one of the regenerate.


This begs the question. Baptists believe that to be in Covenant is to be regenerate because you don't have a visible/invisible distinction. We do.

You cannot project your understanding of the Covenant upon a paedobaptist and claim an inconsistency that does not exist. Covenant membership does not equal regneration in any of the historical Reformed creeds.

I really labor to understand and represent an opposing view accurately before levying what I believe are inconsistencies within that view. One has to be very careful. In this, I believe James White erred in ascribing inconsistency. As one who must regularly answer caricatures in his apologetic work, he should be more careful himself as he critiques the historic Reformed faith.



> Anyways, I wanted to say thank you for these discussions. I look forward to more of these.
> 
> In Christ with love to my Brother Rich


Grace and Peace Andrew.


----------



## satz (Mar 3, 2007)

Rich,



> Great response brother. Don't stop what you're doing. I do believe your premise is still clouding your ability to see that everything you're talking about is parroting words of Covenant found throughout Scripture. I believe the historical narrative and prophecy that those premises are built upon is far more instable than the consistent (and inescapable) nature of the father-son Covenantal relationship found in the Scriptures. I think you need to do better than just assert the ability to take all those Covenant responsibilities, pull out the offending word's of Covenant, and adopt them for your own based on premises that are forcing you to. You really owe it to yourself to find the Scripture that tells you, didactically, to do this.



Those are good points, and to an extent I will agree with you with regards to the ‘parroting words of Covenant’ part. I would go so far as this, I would have no problem with a Baptist pastor when exhorting parents in their duties using words like ‘We don’t want to lose our children to the world.’ Which implies that the children are in some sense considered the church’s, even if they are not given full membership yet. 

Regarding what you wrote here:



> This parent-child connection you're talking about is why they're in the Covenant.



I agree with the idea that the parent child connection makes children of a Christian couple ‘special’ in some sense that distinguishes them from the children of pagans. I guess this is why I made the first post I did in this thread, the off topic one. I agree to an extent with some of the inconsistencies you say are present in Baptist thinking to the degree that thinking says their children have absolutely no connection whatsoever with the church until they profess faith. I am happy to admit I may need to think more about the exact relation infants of Christian parents have to God and the church.

But, and you might think me stubborn for this, as far as getting them baptized… I just can’t go there. I believe the bible says too much about faith before baptism, and too little about associating circumcision with baptism.


----------

