# Baptists and Their Children



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jan 6, 2018)

This is primarily for the Baptists:

I have a friend who wants to be consistent with his Baptist views, and it sure shows in how he views his children.
1. He won't let them pray.
2. They don't confess their sins to God, but to the parents only.
3. They can't sing worship songs.

These are just a few of the points. So if he allows his children to do these things, then they would be acting as Christians and therefore would need to be treated as Christians. As I said, he wants to be consistent.

To me, this is very sad. Even Jesus taught to not hinder the children from coming to Him. What if they truly do have faith? They are being hindered. If they have nightmares, they can't come to the Lord in prayer for comfort. They can't rest on the promises of the Bible. They can't delight in singing to their God, etc.

Is this a bad representation of Baptists? If so, why?

Thanks!


----------



## Beezer (Jan 6, 2018)

I've never met any Christians who treat their children this way. What sort of Baptist fellowship is your friend associated with?

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 6, 2018)

I recently read a little book about J. C. Philpot (a leader among the Gospel Standard Baptists). He had very much the same philosophy about child-rearing.


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 6, 2018)

Here is the quote about Philpot. Note that it was written by his son.
There was nothing, I should mention, that he mistrusted more than infant piety. For long he was opposed to Sunday schools, till he had to give way before the general consensus of his followers. But he did not cease to insist that children should never be taught or allowed to use the language of appropriation, to sing, for instance, 'Rock of ages, cleft for me'; or, 'My Jesus hath done all things well'. Herein he was quite logical. For though by early influence and example you can bring up a child to be a little patriot, a little Catholic, a little Calvinist, a little Bolshevist, and perhaps even a little 'citizen of the world', no power on earth, he would have maintained, can make him a child of God unless his name has been written in the Lamb's book of life. He took care that we, his children, attended the means of grace, and never missed chapel or family prayers, but he did not expect us to be anything but little heathen. (Philpot, J.H., _The Seceders_. Banner of Truth Trust. 160-161).​In my opinion, his imbalance was clearly rooted in his weak covenant theology.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jan 6, 2018)

I guess the question is, how is this practice wrong for a Baptist? It should be the standard, right? If the children are unbelievers, the bible teaches that the prayers of the ungodly are an abomination to Him, so they rightly shouldn't be able to pray. If the children are taking part of the means of grace, and are being discipled, then there is no reason why they shouldn't be counted as God's people and be in the church.

Any thoughts? Thanks.


----------



## KMK (Jan 6, 2018)

Baptists and Presbyterians alike do not pretend to know whether a man is a 'believer' or 'unbeliever'. They judge the credibility of a profession of faith. Therefore, both deny baptism to those who do not have a credible profession of faith. (For a Presbyterian infant it is the confession of one of the parents that is judged.)

As for prayer, the church holds only those keys of heaven which were instituted for the church. Prayer is not something that belongs exclusively to the church, or the state, or the family. Although the church, the state, and the family are encouraged to engage in corporate prayer, the majority of Scripture insists on sincere _personal_ prayer. For anyone, in any station, to deny a person their God-given right to _personal_ prayer, is in violation of the 5th Commandment.

I doubt that is what your Baptist friend is doing.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 7, 2018)

I once met a man who forbade his children from praying , "our Father, who art in heaven.." because he could not be sure whether God was, in fact, their father in heaven. He was a Reformed Baptist.

This seems very foolish to me. I have met maybe 2 people my whole life who has expressed this view and so I would say it is not a consistent baptist view. 

Even though baptists do not presume their children are elect, we must admit that there are many promises to the children of believers such that we should ordinarily expect them to believe and also that all mankind have God as their father even if not in a salvific sense and it is appropriate (and commanded) that all men everywhere ought to pray. 

To forbid confession and prayer to God is sinful on the part of this parent.

When comparing the sin of praying as an unbeliever versus the greater sin of not praying as an unbeliever the sin of praying as an unbeliever is far overshadowed by the heinousness of being a prayerless unbeliever.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 7, 2018)

I’ll come out and say I had difficulty with singing ”Jesus loves me” to my girls. Didn’t seem consistent with the idea that children are outside the Covenant. Even to teach them to pray “our Father” seemed strange too. After all, they are in no covenant with God and don’t have a credible profession, and being born to Christian parents does nothing, and they are not Holy on our account, so wouldn’t teaching them to pray in this way be presumptuous? “Our Father” implies a relationship that an unbeliever or a covenant outsider does not have, and all the rest of the prayer is longings and desires that only a true Christian could have. God is in a real way a father to all, but can an unbeliever pray it in the way intended here? If I heard an unbeliever praying this, one who showed plainly he was unconverted and no signs of repentance, I’d probably burn inside rather than rejoice, as God says in Psalm 50, “What right have you to recite my Law or take my covenant on your lips?” 

Promises? Many of them yes, but hearing Baptists admit this seems to admit the premises of the Paedos, as many of the promises are given in covenantal context (Deut 30:6, Jer 32, as just a few examples). The most encouraging and illustrious ones come in the passages about the New Covenant.

If there’s any passage that fries Philpot’s sacred cow it’s Jesus saying, “Let the children come unto me and do not hinder them, for to such belong the kingdom of heaven.”

If anyone wonders, I am teaching my daughter to pray “our Father,” and I have no issues with “Jesus loves me.”

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 7, 2018)

Ah, Harley, what a blessing you are experiencing! I rejoice to read about it!

This from one who went to WTS as a Reformed Baptist and came properly to understand the implications of covenant theology. I will say that in the church that I was reared in, we might sing "Jesus Loves Me," or the like, in Sunday School, and yet, there was always the sense, both from my parents and the pulpit of "not really." 

In a variety of ways it was made clear, in my particular context, that unless and until one experienced a "crisis-conversion" (usually after a false one or two and a lengthy period of "awakening"), it was presumption to sing or pray in the way reserved for those who had such experiences and who could give a proper "narrative of grace" relating the same. None of this is even slightly exaggerated and appears less disturbing in this simple retelling than it actually was. 

Press on in the way of the covenant of grace and its promises, brother Harley!

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Beezer (Jan 7, 2018)

I've been thinking about this issue since reading it last night. I think the Christian (Baptist) who is prohibiting his children from praying to God, confessing to God, and singing to God is doing unintentional harm to his children and I would not consider this approach normative/consistent for a Christian parent who holds to Baptist views. I personally have never encountered this view and if I'm understanding the circumstances correctly it seems like this person has elevated prayer, confession, and singing to church ordinances (baptism and the Lord's supper) that only one who has a credible profession of faith can participate in.

I'm wrestling with some of the comments that have been made so far. I suppose part of the issue on my part is understanding the nature of the new covenant and who has the privilege/right to approach God in prayer, confession, and singing. I'll need to study this longer to give a response that is more than just my opinion.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 7, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I have a friend who wants to be consistent with his Baptist views



It does seem consistent to me. I notice a few people in this thread have had or continue to have or be confused about the raising of children on this topic who were or are from the baptist perspective. That should, in my mind, raise some red flags and bring about questions: why is this a common problem amongst baptists?


----------



## lynnie (Jan 7, 2018)

I would give this to your friend:

https://frame-poythress.org/indifferentism-and-rigorism/

( Don't let the title throw you)

I find his stance to be awful. How can he claim that his child of two or three or five does not have simple faith and trust in the Lord? Beware of putting stumbling blocks in front of children.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward (Jan 7, 2018)

The original post made me think of millstones.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 7, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Ah, Harley, what a blessing you are experiencing! I rejoice to read about it!
> 
> This from one who went to WTS as a Reformed Baptist and came properly to understand the implications of covenant theology. I will say that in the church that I was reared in, we might sing "Jesus Loves Me," or the like, in Sunday School, and yet, there was always the sense, both from my parents and the pulpit of "not really."
> 
> ...



Dr. Strange I almost can’t believe I’m saying all of this because I never thought I’d see paedobaptism as credible, nevertheless so wonderful, but so far it’s the Word bringing me to think this way. Thank you for your encouragement.

I’ll throw on another cow to fry, but what goes hand in hand with this view of discipleship is the delay of baptism until a certain minimum age. In some churches it can be age 16. To quote one RB pastor who will remain anonymous, the reason at his church has been that many professed faith at a young age, been baptized, and apostatized at 18 (end quote). It’s a serious thing since children living at home don’t face the rigors of the world like they do when they leave, and so it’s easy to profess to be one, but the reality of the profession only becomes apparent when the kid leaves the house. So, if only those with true faith get baptized, then in RB circles a young child will likely never see baptism until they are effectively adults. So, few or no kids baptized.

My experience in RB circles is not wide, but I’ve only known two children below age sixteen to be baptized. With both it was quite apparent they wer the real thing, though others usually have to wait it out. For what my wife tells me, it’s a painful thing for a child who professes faith and may have the real thing, but because of this age minimum they have to be such-and-such years old. 

It seems that the underlying assumption is that the child’s profession is not credible simply because of age, which almost amounts to saying they can’t be disciples until a certain age. Maybe that’s not intended,but it’s the logical conclusion, and I can say that because the logic worked for me. The unwillingness to let them sing or pray or confess to God, and the suspicion of allowing baptism of a professing child, seem to have the same root. Either way, isn’t this hindering the children?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 7, 2018)

I have so many friends in the OPC, URC, PCA, and other churches in GR: I am sure that any of them would be glad to see you!

I was not baptized until 18, because one has to live a bit before having that sort of spiritual experience (as I described). And even then, many people marveled that "one so young" was being baptized!

And as for the switch to paedo-baptist, mine too came about largely through Scripture and its exposition (my "conversion" happened at Sinclair Ferguson's, with whom I then lived, as he held forth in his kitchen on Acts 2:39). 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 7, 2018)

To my knowledge, I have never encountered the types of things that are being tossed around as normative Reformed Baptist practice and belief.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jan 7, 2018)

E.R. CROSS said:


> To my knowledge, I have never encountered the types of things that are being tossed around as normative Reformed Baptist practice and belief.



I haven't seen anyone say that these things are a universal practice among Baptists or anything approaching it. I was baptist for most of my life and have never seen it either. However, the practice does exist and the question being posed is whether this is a consistent application of Baptist principles and it causes one to wonder whether the majority of baptists who encourage their unbaptized children to pray are being inconsistent.

Given that it would seem to be the height of wicked presumption to come before the throne of God in prayer and address the creator of the universe as one's father while being an unbeliever and apart from the mediatorial work of Christ and the covenant of grace, shouldn't unbaptized children be discouraged from attempting this? If I were still a baptist I think that I would struggle mightily with this. I would never encourage an unbelieving adult to pray to or speak of God as his father.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 7, 2018)

As for me, I would never claim that the experiences that I've recounted were normative. 

They did happen, however, and they correspond to the question(s) posed in the thread. If you wish to dismiss them as aberrant or so singular as to be irrelevant, you are certainly free to do so. 

But it must be of more than passing interest that Ryan has found several people who can identify with his concerns and either know of someone who has, or have themselves, experienced something of what he describes. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Beezer (Jan 7, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> Given that it would seem to be the height of wicked presumption to come before the throne of God in prayer and address the creator of the universe as one's father while being an unbeliever and apart from the mediatorial work of Christ and the covenant of grace, shouldn't unbaptized children be discouraged from attempting this? If I were still a baptist I think that I would struggle mightily with this. I would never encourage an unbelieving adult to pray to or speak of God as his father.



This is unrelated to whether the individual in the OP is being consistent to his Baptist principles or not...I'm curious what your thoughts are on allowing an unbelieving child who _was_ baptized as an infant to approach the same throne of God in prayer. If the unbelieving child is encouraged to pray due to the sign and seal they received in covenantal infant baptism would you one day discourage them at a certain age from praying when they continue to show no signs of being a believer? You said you would never encourage an unbelieving adult to pray to or speak to God as his father (nor would I)...what if that unbelieving adult was baptized as an infant in a Presbyterian Church? Does the unbelieving adult in this case ever lose his/her covenant sign and seal when he/she is unregenerate and still dead in their trespasses and sins?

Thanks in advance for any views/opinions shared! I appreciate it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 7, 2018)

Fair enough. I will try to find the time (twin 10 month old boys) to think through these issues more so as to add to this discussion.

I am interested to see if any solid, noteworthy Reformed Baptist saints of the past have touched upon this issue. Anyone know of some names?

Edit: I too would like to see an answer to the above post.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 7, 2018)

Beezer said:


> You said you would never encourage an unbelieving adult to pray to or speak to God as his father (nor would I)...what if that unbelieving adult was baptized as an infant in a Presbyterian Church? Does the unbelieving adult in this case ever lose his/her covenant sign and seal when he/she is unregenerate and still dead in their trespasses and sins?



There's a whole process involved with this that would need to be followed.

When someone baptized as an infant professes his faith in a Presbyterian church, he becomes a communicant. If that person comes persistently and impenitently to live in serious sin, he should be duly censured. Upon excommunication, he would be treated as someone who is outside the visible church and not eligible to address God as his Father.

When someone baptized as an infant never comes to a profession of faith (or is impenitent as a covenant youth, for which he is liable for discipline), he is to be dealt with by the Session. At the discretion of the Session, he may be removed from the visible church as someone who was baptized but never professed faith. He, too, would be treated as someone outside the visible church and not eligible to address God as his Father.

They don't lose the covenant sign and seal. Rather, that which was meant for their blessing (and would have been in the exercise of faith) testifies against them in their unbelief. It also continuingly calls them to repent and believe.

Does all of this sort of thing correspond to what you mean by "unregenerate and still dead in their trespasses and sins?" How in your mind does one who is baptized as an infant come to be regarded as "unregenerate and still dead in their trespasses and sins?"

I've laid the Presbyterian cards out on the table. Perhaps you could tell me precisely how you (one hopes you mean a body of elders) comes to the determination that one who has been baptized as an infant is "unregenerate and still dead in...sins."

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jan 7, 2018)

Beezer said:


> This is unrelated to whether the individual in the OP is being consistent to his Baptist principles or not...I'm curious what your thoughts are on allowing an unbelieving child who _was_ baptized as an infant to approach the same throne of God in prayer. If the unbelieving child is encouraged to pray due to the sign and seal they received in covenantal infant baptism would you one day discourage them at a certain age from praying when they continue to show no signs of being a believer? You said you would never encourage an unbelieving adult to pray to or speak to God as his father (nor would I)...what if that unbelieving adult was baptized as an infant in a Presbyterian Church? Does the unbelieving adult in this case ever lose his/her covenant sign and seal when he/she is unregenerate and still dead in their trespasses and sins?
> 
> Thanks in advance for any views/opinions shared! I appreciate it.



The short answer to your question is yes. If my child had demonstrated that they are unbelieving I would not urge them to pray to God as father. Baptism apart from faith gives no title to safe passage in courts of God, it only magnifies the guilt of the unbeliever in the same manner as hypocritical, unbelieving prayer does. Until such time as they, negatively, refuse to acknowledge Christ or, positively, demonstrate the fruits of unbelief, however, they are treated as members of the covenant community according to the judgment of charity like any other member.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 7, 2018)

At the risk of oversimplifying, it seems as though Presbyterianism practices "innocent (believing) until proven guilty (unbelieving)".


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 7, 2018)

Mr. Cross:

It's quite curious to me how this question has been turned around from what the original post asked. It was a question about how Baptists regard their unbaptized children. I'll return to that after answering your question immediately above.

Presbyterians do regard baptized youth as in the visible church, and thus eligible for what appertains thereunto: they may heartily sing "Jesus Loves Me" and may pray "Our Father, which are in heaven." 

They may not come to the Table, however, until they profess their faith in Christ and they are not presumed inherently to believe but, by virtue of their birth, to have an interest in and right to the covenant of grace. 

We don't treat them as unbelievers, to be sure (as those described in the original post do). Rather, we treat them as those to whom the promise is given and who, at every point, are encouraged, never to be presumptuous, but to rest and trust in Christ alone. 

Now, please permit me to turn the tables. Since we don't presume that our children automatically believe but should ever be encouraged to do so (and not presumed to be unbelievers either), how is it with you as a particular Baptist?

Do you presume that your infant, because incapable of evidencing saving faith, is an unbeliever? And if your child is an unbeliever until you determine otherwise, would you invite them to sing and pray that which seems to pertain to believers?

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## bookslover (Jan 7, 2018)

Harley said:


> I’ll throw on another cow to fry. . .



I'm trying to imagine how large a frying pan one would need to fry a cow. . .

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## bookslover (Jan 7, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Mr. Cross:
> 
> It's quite curious to me how this question has been turned around from what the original post asked. It was a question about how Baptists regard their unbaptized children. I'll return to that after answering your question immediately above.
> 
> ...



It's important to stress, in this context (as you have, Alan), that Presbyterians believe neither in presumptive regeneration nor in baptismal regeneration.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 7, 2018)

While children are not members of the New Covenant until they are converted, they must still be taught the Law of God; they must still attend the ministry of the Word, and be taught from the Scriptures, which are able to make them wise unto salvation. And by all means they must be taught that they can pray.
A little child, praying as he is taught to, having been told that Jesus receives little children, does not sin like did the Pharisee hardened in his unbelief and pride. A child's capacity for understanding is far more different and limited than an adult's--and Jesus' statement of suffrage surely makes allowance for the limited understanding of children.
My encouragement to children would be: you may by all means approach God in prayer, but you must approach owning your sins and knowing that He hears you for the sake of Christ the Mediator. There's so much they cannot possibly understand until they're older: damnation; substitutionary atonement; imputed righteousness--but they can be taught, from early on, that Jesus is the way to God, and they can pray to God because of the work that Jesus did.
So yes, they should pray, and we should teach them from the earliest moment possible about sin, and righteousness, and judgment, and we should cry to God to save their souls, which He alone can do.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 7, 2018)

bookslover said:


> I'm trying to imagine how large a frying pan one would need to fry a cow. . .


You would be advised to get a large deep fryer and lower the cow down like some folks do their Thanksgiving turkeys. Perhaps a construction crane could be utilized. The result should be nice and crispy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jan 7, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> While children are not members of the New Covenant until they are converted, they must still be taught the Law of God; they must still attend the ministry of the Word, and be taught from the Scriptures, which are able to make them wise unto salvation. And by all means they must be taught that they can pray.
> A little child, praying as he is taught to, having been told that Jesus receives little children, does not sin like did the Pharisee hardened in his unbelief and pride. A child's capacity for understanding is far more different and limited than an adult's--and Jesus' statement of suffrage surely makes allowance for the limited understanding of children.
> My encouragement to children would be: you may by all means approach God in prayer, but you must approach owning your sins and knowing that He hears you for the sake of Christ the Mediator. There's so much they cannot possibly understand until they're older: damnation; substitutionary atonement; imputed righteousness--but they can be taught, from early on, that Jesus is the way to God, and they can pray to God because of the work that Jesus did.
> So yes, they should pray, and we should teach them from the earliest moment possible about sin, and righteousness, and judgment, and we should cry to God to save their souls, which He alone can do.


And if they believe this, which they will automatically because this is what they are taught and will display child-like faith, can they then be baptized? 

The other thing is that parents are becoming the judges of their child's status before God, rather than embracing that profession.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Jan 7, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> You would be advised to get a large deep fryer and lower the cow down like some folks do their Thanksgiving turkeys. Perhaps a construction crane could be utilized. The result should be nice and crispy.



Sounds good. But for a deep fryer large enough to hold a cow, how much oil are you going to need? LOL


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jan 7, 2018)

bookslover said:


> Sounds good. But for a deep fryer large enough to hold a cow, how much oil are you going to need? LOL


I can see it already, a new 2018 study Bible - "Premium deep-fried cowhide for $250"


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 7, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Premium deep-fried cowhide


As a Presbyterian you must not deep fry. You would simply 'sprinkle' the oil on the food


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 7, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Mr. Cross:...
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



I believe the Bible teaches that the only way to discern the spiritual condition of a person is by the fruit of their life; and, even then, we cannot make a judgment with absolute certainty. Therefore, I do not presume that my 10 month old boys are believers at this point, seeing as I am unable to really discern anything heart-related other than bursts of anger. 

I also believe that I am commanded to bring up my children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. By God's grace, they will be raised under the ministry of our local church, and in a home, where the Word is taught and obeyed; and therefore, they will be taught the gospel, and encouraged to repent and trust in Christ, and to worship God. 

I will indeed encourage and teach my children to pray and to sing. I do not know when the Spirit may be working in their hearts; I am concerned with being a faithful parent, and raising them to the best of my ability to those ends. 

Will there eventually come a time as they age when I will have to reevaluate? Yes, I am sure there will. But, for now, these are my plans. 

Now, my Presbyterian brothers may think this inconsistent with my Baptist beliefs, but I do not. 
Any other hypothetical unbeliever in these discussions is not under my charge in a parent/child relationship, with all of the commands that come with it. These are my children, it is a special relationship, and I must bring them up a certain way. 

Please do forgive me for being so long winded; I have been known to like the sound of my own QWERTY keyboard. 

If I have erred at some point, please tell me how, so that I may be corrected. I most certainly do not have everything figured out.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 8, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> And if they believe this, which they will automatically because this is what they are taught and will display child-like faith, can they then be baptized?
> 
> The other thing is that parents are becoming the judges of their child's status before God, rather than embracing that profession.


I only wish they would automatically believe what they are taught, but the fact is, they do not. Remember they are born at enmity with God because they are in Adam, and no amount of teaching and upbringing can make them have saving faith--only God can give that, and He gives it when and where He will.
I don't believe that any regenerate child will rebel against the eldership when they say, "we, not knowing fully the hearts of men, must witness your profession for a time before we are convinced you can be rightly baptized." Since the child will understand that baptism will not make him more saved than he already is, he will wait with patience and bring forth fruits meet for repentance.
The elders at our church are pretty good about weeding out false professors, and many adults have been made to wait a year and more before being admitted to baptism. It isn't a sacrament we just toss around like flapjacks--we take it seriously.

Reactions: Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 8, 2018)

E.R. CROSS said:


> I believe the Bible teaches that the only way to discern the spiritual condition of a person is by the fruit of their life; and, even then, we cannot make a judgment with absolute certainty. Therefore, I do not presume that my 10 month old boys are believers at this point, seeing as I am unable to really discern anything heart-related other than bursts of anger.
> 
> I also believe that I am commanded to bring up my children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. By God's grace, they will be raised under the ministry of our local church, and in a home, where the Word is taught and obeyed; and therefore, they will be taught the gospel, and encouraged to repent and trust in Christ, and to worship God.
> 
> ...


This is what I was trying to say earlier, only you said it better. Thanks!


----------



## Cymro (Jan 8, 2018)

“There are four things which are too wonderful, which I know not. The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid.” All too wonderful and inexplicable, (which I knew not!)
Such could be said of grace in a child. Who would dare to fathom its mysterious workings in so tender a plant? Can grace be limited to an age of consent, or to the imperfect eye of a parent, or to the restriction of an oral confession? Grace is a sovereign inplanting, for the wind bloweth where it listeth,so is everyone that is born of the Spirit. 
Surely scripture gives examples of the Spirit’s work even in the womb.Children of believers are under the umbrella of the Covenant, remaining so even to adulthood, until they prove to be covenant breakers. The sign and seal of baptism is not tied to the immediacy of its application, but it’s promise and responsibility continues.
Children are not to be considered as”little heathen,” but as covenant children and taught and urged to their obligations.
As for prayer, Swinnock wrote, “the precept is for all, the promises for His people.”

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 8, 2018)

Stephen L Smith said:


> As a Presbyterian you must not deep fry.


I beg to differ. It is altogether appropriate for a Presbyterian to deep fry.

This reminds me of reading John Owen's defense of eating sausages made with blood in his Biblical Theology--it seemed that he had a personal bias in the matter!

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 8, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I guess the question is, how is this practice wrong for a Baptist? It should be the standard, right? If the children are unbelievers, the bible teaches that the prayers of the ungodly are an abomination to Him, so they rightly shouldn't be able to pray. If the children are taking part of the means of grace, and are being discipled, then there is no reason why they shouldn't be counted as God's people and be in the church.
> 
> Any thoughts? Thanks.


My Baptist church allows for children to be raised up in Sunday school and taught them the ways of the Lord, as those scriptures are used by the Holy Spirit to get the elct of God saved and secured. We do not allow to have children baptized until age 12, and they need to have a profession of faith in Jesus as witnessed to by either the pastors or the elders. they also are not allowed to take communion until that point where they have confirmed being now saved in Jesus.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Jan 8, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> .
> 
> This reminds me of reading John Owen's defense of eating sausages made with blood in his Biblical Theology--it seemed that he had a personal bias in the matter!


Boudin??? The sausage that infiltrates everything!


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 8, 2018)

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> Boudin??? The sausage that infiltrates everything!


I was thinking more in terms of black pudding. Perhaps they're the same thing, more or less, though. I'm no expert on blood sausages.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 8, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> I beg to differ. It is altogether appropriate for a Presbyterian to deep fry.


My friend, the Westminster Confession 28:3 states "Baptism is *rightly administered* by pouring, or sprinkling water".So to be a true Presbyterian you must sprinkle the oil on.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Beezer (Jan 8, 2018)

Romans922 said:


> It does seem consistent to me. I notice a few people in this thread have had or continue to have or be confused about the raising of children on this topic who were or are from the baptist perspective. That should, in my mind, raise some red flags and bring about questions: why is this a common problem amongst baptists?



I don't think baptists have a monopoly on what you perceive to be confusion/inconsistency when it comes to raising children in the church. The paedocommunion debates within the PCA are still fresh in the minds of many.

This thread has really been good at shining the light on some issues I haven't thoroughly considered and for that I'm thankful.


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 8, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> I only wish they would automatically believe what they are taught, but the fact is, they do not. Remember they are born at enmity with God because they are in Adam, and no amount of teaching and upbringing can make them have saving faith--only God can give that, and He gives it when and where He will.
> I don't believe that any regenerate child will rebel against the eldership when they say, "we, not knowing fully the hearts of men, must witness your profession for a time before we are convinced you can be rightly baptized." Since the child will understand that baptism will not make him more saved than he already is, he will wait with patience and bring forth fruits meet for repentance.
> The elders at our church are pretty good about weeding out false professors, and many adults have been made to wait a year and more before being admitted to baptism. It isn't a sacrament we just toss around like flapjacks--we take it seriously.



I think there is much wisdom in not rushing a professing child, as does much of 'Evangelicanism' today. 

As a side note, a large proportion of my church's congregation are relatively new to us, and therefore, so we are all 'on the same page', we are having a set of sermons on baptism, the Lord's Supper, church polity, and church discipline, as well as a new adult Sunday school teaching about an eventual church covenant that we are hoping to adopt. Very exciting times. 

This past Lord's Day our pastor taught about baptism; a very timely sermon indeed.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 8, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> I only wish they would automatically believe what they are taught, but the fact is, they do not. Remember they are born at enmity with God because they are in Adam, and no amount of teaching and upbringing can make them have saving faith--only God can give that, and He gives it when and where He will.
> I don't believe that any regenerate child will rebel against the eldership when they say, "we, not knowing fully the hearts of men, must witness your profession for a time before we are convinced you can be rightly baptized." Since the child will understand that baptism will not make him more saved than he already is, he will wait with patience and bring forth fruits meet for repentance.
> The elders at our church are pretty good about weeding out false professors, and many adults have been made to wait a year and more before being admitted to baptism. It isn't a sacrament we just toss around like flapjacks--we take it seriously.


I don't see it in Scripture that anyone was made to wait a year or more for baptism. How do you justify that? Not saying it is wrong, because the early church had very long catechism periods but why is baptism done so quickly in the New Testament?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 8, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> I don't see it in Scripture that anyone was made to wait a year or more for baptism. How do you justify that? Not saying it is wrong, because the early church had very long catechism periods but why is baptism done so quickly in the New Testament?



Hmm, good question. Does it have anything to do with the Apostles? A man who had personally spoken to the resurrected Christ, or had seen the third heaven, or who had written Scripture, could/would be a better judge than myself if someone had been born again. 

But, I know this idea is just conjecture, and not expressly mentioned in Scripture.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 9, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> I don't see it in Scripture that anyone was made to wait a year or more for baptism. How do you justify that? Not saying it is wrong, because the early church had very long catechism periods but why is baptism done so quickly in the New Testament?


I don't know about the waiting period--it seems that in Scripture they baptized on the spot. And even the apostles were fooled, in the case of Ananias and Sapphira, and Simon the Magician.
But in those days quite often the Holy Spirit came a little more visibly on new believers (Cornelius), so perhaps there was an ingredient that has now passed away.
The best defense for waiting that I can see is that Peter says we must baptize upon the "answer of a good confession". The church can only be sure of a person's good confession as they see it played out in the bringing forth of fruits answering to repentance, which takes time.
In our day, also, because baptizing someone makes them a member of our church, the membership procedure often takes them--the applicant--a while to navigate. We insist that they read and mostly understand the LBCF, and read the church constitution--nothing like a little required reading to weed the sheep from the goats! Now where are my LBCF Cliff's Notes?


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 9, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> I have so many friends in the OPC, URC, PCA, and other churches in GR: I am sure that any of them would be glad to see you!
> 
> I was not baptized until 18, because one has to live a bit before having that sort of spiritual experience (as I described). And even then, many people marveled that "one so young" was being baptized!
> 
> ...



For me it was Sinclair Ferguson and the Marrow in combination. About two years ago I understood the Mosaic Covenant to be gracious. Though, I also had a sense that my credobaptist covenantal foundation may have been undermined. I owe such a debt to Ferguson for a time when I was in spiritual depression that could only be cured by Gospel light.



Pergamum said:


> I don't see it in Scripture that anyone was made to wait a year or more for baptism. How do you justify that? Not saying it is wrong, because the early church had very long catechism periods but why is baptism done so quickly in the New Testament?



Especially considering how Simon Magus was in and out almost in a breath but it was no sin to baptize him. There’s no way either that close examination of 3000 people happened in six hours time at Pentecost, so inevitably they just had to accept the professions as real. I think it says much about permitting children to be baptized, even from a credo perspective, without imposing an age limit. And of course, the eunuch had no catechism class and so far as I can see was not baptized with witnesses at hand. The profession just seemed to be believable and that was it.

The point of the age minimum seems to one the Baptist pastors’ concern that only the truly believing be baptized, as it is highly important that the membership only be made of those with a genuine profession, and children not having the understanding of adults are difficult to evaluate, so they wait. But I wonder, is that even possible to baptize only believers? The apostles couldn’t do it (for that matter, Jesus didn’t do it, ie. baptism of Judas), so regardless our level of care how today could we? Then, of course, you effectively never/rarely see children baptized, and you have churches with no children (is _that_ even Biblical?).

I do remember one pastor saying that he’s seen some people who appeared to be the real thing but later turned away, but others who seemed dubious at first glance and yet turned out to be genuine. Of course, I don’t know how he applies that to baptism, but I know that he baptizes professing children.

But if the NT teaches believers only baptism, these weren’t such a big concern, or at least not cause for delaying pending the completion of a catechism class or a period of evaluation.

At the least, is it possible that we make the door more narrow than warranted?


----------



## Username4000 (Jan 9, 2018)

Harley said:


> Especially considering how Simon Magus was in and out almost in a breath but it was no sin to baptize him. There’s no way either that close examination of 3000 people happened in six hours time at Pentecost, so inevitably they just had to accept the professions as real. I think it says much about permitting children to be baptized, even from a credo perspective, without imposing an age limit. And of course, the eunuch had no catechism class and so far as I can see was not baptized with witnesses at hand. The profession just seemed to be believable and that was it.



Though I am no longer a baptist, the argument I've seen (from people like Mark Dever, if I recall) is that times are different now. In the early church, being part of the church meant that your violent death was a real possibility, which might rule out the majority of false conversions. In much of the American church, however, going through the motions truly might unlock a better standing with one's family and peers, at least until Johnny heads off to college and meets his first liberal arts professor.

Of course, Simon is the first argument I would run to in order to counter this. We see a blatant false conversion, so obviously they are possible even in the persecuted church, and yet the church does not change their practice.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 9, 2018)

Harley said:


> For me it was Sinclair Ferguson and the Marrow in combination. About two years ago I understood the Mosaic Covenant to be gracious. Though, I also had a sense that my credobaptist covenantal foundation may have been undermined. I owe such a debt to Ferguson for a time when I was in spiritual depression that could only be cured by Gospel light.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Those are pretty convincing arguments I have to admit even as a baptist.


----------



## earl40 (Jan 9, 2018)

I understand this is mainly for baptist.  What I have seen here is that the difference between baptism and The Lord's Supper, so far as a being a baptist is concerned, is who gets to participate in these sacraments is based on factors that are not distinguished, and makes them in a sense sacraments without a difference other than frequency.


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 9, 2018)

I have heard it said that Baptists can be reactionary. It makes sense in my mind that Baptists being very careful with baptism could be a reaction to the 'easy believism' and Sinner's Prayer era of the Western Church. But, I believe there is much wisdom in the practice still. 

Either way, I need to study the issue to have a biblical conviction.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 10, 2018)

koenig said:


> Though I am no longer a baptist, the argument I've seen (from people like Mark Dever, if I recall) is that times are different now. In the early church, being part of the church meant that your violent death was a real possibility, which might rule out the majority of false conversions. In much of the American church, however, going through the motions truly might unlock a better standing with one's family and peers, at least until Johnny heads off to college and meets his first liberal arts professor.
> 
> Of course, Simon is the first argument I would run to in order to counter this. We see a blatant false conversion, so obviously they are possible even in the persecuted church, and yet the church does not change their practice.



I’d be interested to know anyone’s thoughts on the risk of persecution as of the Day of Pentecost? The worst that we think about didn’t happen for some months, though the disciples had just been fearing for their lives after the crucifixion.

Next question is, if the way the apostles worked wasn’t exemplary because there is such a difference in the working of the Spirit and the state of persecution, where are the instructions for easier times, or duller times, however you look at it? Is the change of events a warrant for a different example of dealing with candidates?

Thoughts???


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 10, 2018)

Do Presbyterians baptize adults the instant they make a profession of faith? Certainly not. They do essentially the same thing Reformed Baptists do; they take the necessary time and steps to determine the credibility of one's profession:

Before permitting anyone to make profession of his faith in the presence of the congregation, the session shall announce his name to the congregation on a prior Lord's Day in order that the members of the church may have opportunity to acquaint the session with such facts concerning him as may appear to be irreconcilable with a credible profession. In order for the session to assure itself so far as possible that the candidate makes a credible profession, it shall examine him to ascertain that he possesses the doctrinal knowledge requisite for saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, relies on the merits of Christ alone, and is determined by the grace of God to lead a Christian life.--OPC Book of Church Order​Singling out Reformed Baptist for examining new converts who present themselves for Baptism and church membership is just the clover calling the grass green.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 10, 2018)

I have never met a Reformed Baptist who espoused the view of children mentioned in the OP. But I was aware of Philpot's views. I can see how someone might take that position. And while I don't agree with it, I think the concern to be clear with one's children about being in a converted state is commendable. Which is more than can be said for at least _some_ paedobaptists. If the Baptist position has a slippery slope, the Presbyterians are not without their own. I have had conversations with paedobaptist parents who were not the least bit solicitous for their children's conversion to Christ because they didn't think they needed to be! On one occasion, after preaching, a Presbyterian gentleman visiting our church chided my pleas to the children in our congregation as off-putting because he said it should be assumed they were already Christians!


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 10, 2018)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Do Presbyterians baptize adults the instant they make a profession of faith? Certainly not. They do essentially the same thing Reformed Baptists do; they take the necessary time and steps to determine the credibility of one's profession:
> 
> Before permitting anyone to make profession of his faith in the presence of the congregation, the session shall announce his name to the congregation on a prior Lord's Day in order that the members of the church may have opportunity to acquaint the session with such facts concerning him as may appear to be irreconcilable with a credible profession. In order for the session to assure itself so far as possible that the candidate makes a credible profession, it shall examine him to ascertain that he possesses the doctrinal knowledge requisite for saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, relies on the merits of Christ alone, and is determined by the grace of God to lead a Christian life.--OPC Book of Church Order​Singling out Reformed Baptist for examining new converts who present themselves for Baptism and church membership is just the clover calling the grass green.



I hope I don’t have seemed to single any one out with my last post, but I sorry that I had that tone. I did mean it as honest inquiry, and I’m beating against not a few positions I held myself until recently.

If I were to go to any passage as merit to examine an adult for baptism I would argue that for an adult you want them to be able to partake of the Lord’s Table as soon as they are baptized, as an adult should be able to examine himself. If an adult is not qualified for the Table, then that puts into question the wisdom of baptizing them.

Still curious though on thoughts of the baptisms in Acts happening so quickly.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 10, 2018)

There are many factors that make interpreting the book of Acts as normative for today unwise. Chief among them is the unique role of the Apostles (and other extraordinary officers) and the unique gifts afforded to the Apostolic church.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 10, 2018)

Pastor Sheffield is right: anyone professing his faith in a Presbyterian church, whether as an adult (who is being baptized upon a profession of his faith) or as a baptized covenant youth, customarily receives a course of training/instruction prior to coming before the Session to profess his faith. 

As I've noted (and I recall Richard Z. making this clear), we neither presume regeneration when we baptize an infant nor do we believe that the outward act of baptism causes the regeneration of the infant. But Pastor Sheffield is not wrong that some Presbyterians err in assuming that their children don't need to be converted.

I've been asked more than once: "Do baptized youth need to be converted?" And my response is--"Who doesn't need to be converted? Our Lord said that we all need to be converted" (Matthew 18:3). 

Now I understand that when people ask whether baptized children need to be converted what they mean is "do they need to undergo a crisis-conversion, one that is dramatic and obvious?" My answer to that is "no." Such can be scarcely perceptible to one reared in the Christian faith, particularly one who never knows a time in which they did not trust in Christ and repent of their sin.

But conversion means turning to God from idols to serve the living and true God. Once one begins it, it never stops. Edwards, in fact, spoke of sanctification as a sort of "continuous conversion." And it is. This is why I say to anyone who asks whether children need to be converted: "Who doesn't?"

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 10, 2018)

Harley said:


> I’d be interested to know anyone’s thoughts on the risk of persecution as of the Day of Pentecost? The worst that we think about didn’t happen for some months, though the disciples had just been fearing for their lives after the crucifixion.
> 
> Next question is, if the way the apostles worked wasn’t exemplary because there is such a difference in the working of the Spirit and the state of persecution, where are the instructions for easier times, or duller times, however you look at it? Is the change of events a warrant for a different example of dealing with candidates?
> 
> Thoughts???


I was thinking that the immediate baptisms at Pentecost and of the Ethiopian don't rule out any examination or questions at all, even if it was an interview at the baptismal waters by the apostles and their associates. The text leaves it open for Simon to have been examined as well. Perhaps a practice of more thorough examination came along after enough Simons had joined with the church.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 12, 2018)

E.R. CROSS said:


> I have heard it said that Baptists can be reactionary. It makes sense in my mind that Baptists being very careful with baptism could be a reaction to the 'easy believism' and Sinner's Prayer era of the Western Church. But, I believe there is much wisdom in the practice still.
> 
> Either way, I need to study the issue to have a biblical conviction.


Many Baptists , such as myself, would understand the practice of water baptism now rooted into just who is to be included under the NC, and to that viewpoint, it includes only those who have received the promised Holy Spirit.


----------

