Age Limit on Paedobaptism

[Marrow Man]

The children I have baptized as a minister have always been infants (almost all a month or so old). We have a family which will soon be joining as members, and their daughter (whom they want baptized) is 2 years old.

Of course, the child is still young and a member of a believing household, so there are not issues here. But it got me to thinking -- do other paedobaptist churches place some sort of an "age limit" on such baptisms? Is there some cut-off point where a profession of faith is instead insisted upon before baptism? What have some of you other pastors done with regard to this?

 

[Andres]

Just last month we had a new family join our church, including their four sons. Our pastor baptized all but the oldest boy, who was 14 years old. The younger three boys were approximately 11, 9, and 8. I believe Rom has photos he might be able to share of the baptisms.

 

[Kevin]

Tim of the 17 or 18 baptisms I have done in the last 2 years only one was an infant. Half were profession of faith and the rest were chdren between the age of 2-10.

I have had the privilege twice to baptize a single mother upon her conversion and her children
. Once I baptized the boyfriend and then married them a few months later.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Is there some cut-off point where a profession of faith is instead insisted upon before baptism? What have some of you other pastors done with regard to this?

I have not encountered this but it would make sense that about the time the child is becoming a young adult--that is about the time they are mature enough to understand what it means to partake of the Lord's Supper--is about the time they would make a credible profession of faith. And that before baptism. Below that level they would be baptized by virtue of being born in the covenant.

In the old days (1500s onward), they would require anything from knowing the 10 Commandments, Lord's Prayer and Catechisms (or more) before admission to the Lord's Supper and the training would be from one year or longer. The starting of training seemed to be around age 10-12 (the youngest I have found is in a French Confession for nine years old). So after a year, it would be ages 11 on up or so.

 

[Romans922]

Those who are to be baptized are you and your household. If one is under your authority in your household they ought to be baptized. There is no age limit in Scripture. It clearly is you and your household.

 

[Scott Bushey]

The children I have baptized as a minister have always been infants (almost all a month or so old). We have a family which will soon be joining as members, and their daughter (whom they want baptized) is 2 years old.

Of course, the child is still young and a member of a believing household, so there are not issues here. But it got me to thinking -- do other paedobaptist churches place some sort of an "age limit" on such baptisms? Is there some cut-off point where a profession of faith is instead insisted upon before baptism? What have some of you other pastors done with regard to this?

I side w/ Andrew B. on this. Unless the older child rejects outwardly a confession I would place the sign as commanded.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Then what does "under authority" mean? Would you baptize an 18 year old without a confession of faith? A 25 year old? If that is what it says and the light of nature is never a guide (contrary to the WCF) then there is no upper age limit.

 

[Rom]

I concur with everyone that posted that said that members of the household should receive the sign (with the caveats mentioned above). Andrew is spot on. I have photos of the baptism of the older children from our church, I am incredibly tardy in (digitally) processing them - but once I get permission from the family to post it in public areas, I'll post it here on the PB hopefully. It was a blessing to see older covenant children receive the sign and seal of the covenant.

Seeing the outward sign of the promise that is to us and our children is a tremendous strengthening to our faith as we see how God blesses His People. I certainly wouldn't withhold the covenant sign from older children!

 

[Marrow Man]

I agree that there is no Scriptural or Confessional statement on an "age limit," which is why I asked the question in the OP. But there has to be some prudence involved in this as well. I would guess that if a formerly credo husband and wife in their 60s joined a paedo church, no one is going to insist that they present their 33 year old son who lives in the basement and who has no interest in the gospel and refuses to attend church for baptism. I certainly would have a problem with that. Or am I wrong here?

 

[Scott Bushey]

I agree that there is no Scriptural or Confessional statement on an "age limit," which is why I asked the question in the OP. But there has to be some prudence involved in this as well. I would guess that if a formerly credo husband and wife in their 60s joined a paedo church, no one is going to insist that they present their 33 year old son who lives in the basement and who has no interest in the gospel and refuses to attend church for baptism. I certainly would have a problem with that. Or am I wrong here?

If the person agrees to baptism, he is essentially confessing. If he refuses to have the sign placed then obviously he is not a recipient.

 

[fredtgreco]

I agree that there is no Scriptural or Confessional statement on an "age limit," which is why I asked the question in the OP. But there has to be some prudence involved in this as well. I would guess that if a formerly credo husband and wife in their 60s joined a paedo church, no one is going to insist that they present their 33 year old son who lives in the basement and who has no interest in the gospel and refuses to attend church for baptism. I certainly would have a problem with that. Or am I wrong here?

If the person agrees to baptism, he is essentially confessing. If he refuses to have the sign placed then obviously he is not a recipient.

But Scott, what about the 33 year old in this case who agrees to be baptized, in his words "to shut his mother up and get her off his back" with no intention of ever coming to church?

 

[Edward]

It seems that you are asking for the definition of 'infant'.

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

I recall an older thread, which I can't currently locate, which suggested that those who drafted the Confession had in mind older children than I might consider 'infants'. And I have seen older pre-teen children baptized with their families when the parents joined our church.

To back into an analysis, at what age do you generally offer the communicants' class in your church? - I'd back up a couple of years from that. So if your communicants' class generally is 12 to early teens, I'd cut off at 10. If your communicants class is usually 14-15 year olds, I'd cut off about 12.

My personal view is that if the child is too big to be held in his or her father's arms during the entirety of the baptism , then they need to wait until they make a profession. But based upon the prior thread, that might not be the correct answer.

 

[Marrow Man]

I agree that there is no Scriptural or Confessional statement on an "age limit," which is why I asked the question in the OP. But there has to be some prudence involved in this as well. I would guess that if a formerly credo husband and wife in their 60s joined a paedo church, no one is going to insist that they present their 33 year old son who lives in the basement and who has no interest in the gospel and refuses to attend church for baptism. I certainly would have a problem with that. Or am I wrong here?

If the person agrees to baptism, he is essentially confessing. If he refuses to have the sign placed then obviously he is not a recipient.

But Scott, what about the 33 year old in this case who agrees to be baptized, in his words "to shut his mother up and get her off his back" with no intention of ever coming to church?

After posting this example, I realized that there are probably greater issues at work here -- like why the parents would tolerate the 33 year old living as a part of their household while rejecting Christianity. It is a complicated issue, of course, and one that would necessarily need to be explored by the session. But I could not in good conscience administer the covenant sign to someone who is so obviously in rejection of the covenant and its promises.

 

[Marrow Man]

Andrew is spot on.

Andrew Silva or Andrew Barnes?

 

[Scott Bushey]

I agree that there is no Scriptural or Confessional statement on an "age limit," which is why I asked the question in the OP. But there has to be some prudence involved in this as well. I would guess that if a formerly credo husband and wife in their 60s joined a paedo church, no one is going to insist that they present their 33 year old son who lives in the basement and who has no interest in the gospel and refuses to attend church for baptism. I certainly would have a problem with that. Or am I wrong here?

If the person agrees to baptism, he is essentially confessing. If he refuses to have the sign placed then obviously he is not a recipient.

But Scott, what about the 33 year old in this case who agrees to be baptized, in his words "to shut his mother up and get her off his back" with no intention of ever coming to church?

Hi Fred, Happy Holidays!

Many people do this anyways. If a person is confessing, by submitting, we should place the sign. The sign never denoted conversion, but discipleship. If the person submits, much like all the other reprobates in scripture who submitted, the sign is a sign of condemnation.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

I recall an older thread, which I can't currently locate, which suggested that those who drafted the Confession had in mind older children than I might consider 'infants'. And I have seen older pre-teen children baptized with their families when the parents joined our church.

It is true "infant" had a broader usage than today. I do know that, at least, in the early 1800s it meant those under five or so (for the "infant schools").

 

[Scott Bushey]

I agree that there is no Scriptural or Confessional statement on an "age limit," which is why I asked the question in the OP. But there has to be some prudence involved in this as well. I would guess that if a formerly credo husband and wife in their 60s joined a paedo church, no one is going to insist that they present their 33 year old son who lives in the basement and who has no interest in the gospel and refuses to attend church for baptism. I certainly would have a problem with that. Or am I wrong here?

If the person agrees to baptism, he is essentially confessing. If he refuses to have the sign placed then obviously he is not a recipient.

But Scott, what about the 33 year old in this case who agrees to be baptized, in his words "to shut his mother up and get her off his back" with no intention of ever coming to church?

Fred,
I just re read your post. If the 33 yo actually said that, I would not place the sign. As I have said however, most, even those that are confessing out of compulsion, generally would not admit to this and hence have the sign of condemnation placed in them.

 

[Rom]

Andrew is spot on.

Andrew Silva or Andrew Barnes?

Yes

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Jn.9:20-21, " His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son.... He is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself."

 

[Romans922]

Bruce it is hard to grasp what you are implying there. He is of age of what? To speak for himself. He's old enough to speak for himself. But that doesn't mean he is any less apart of their household or any less under the authority of the head of the home.

And it may be just that they were shrinking back from their responsibilities there anyway as parents, since they said it in fear of the Jews. Hard to take that passage to imply anything in the context of this post.

But then again, I'm not quite sure what you mean in bringing up that verse.

 

[Romans922]

To add to the conversation, I think Abraham and those examples in Acts are good enough to show that the whole household regardless of age was baptized (circumcised). I'm pretty sure Abraham's household consisted of old people (servants/slaves). And they were all (males) circumcised not because of their own faith but because of Abraham's.

A better term when asking this question may be, what is the age limit of covenant baptism, unless you are of course asking when does it cease being 'paedobaptism' to become just plain covenant baptism.

 

[reformedminister]

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Andrew,
If you think that a 20yr old man (or a 60yr old) in Abraham's house wasn't applying meaningful mental consent to this new "condition of employment," or that Abraham with a gleam in his eye and a glittering knife just had all his dudes "held down" by burly men-at-arms for the circumcision, I just have to disagree.

If a man would not voluntarily submit to the knife... OK, the bus back to Egypt or Haran or just over the hill to the Amorites in Hebron, the ride would be along shortly, along with doubtless some nice parting gifts.

It wasn't mindless service in Abraham's house, a bunch of drones. Abraham led these people in worship. Some number of them willingly left all they had and knew about behind in Ur to follow this man and the preaching of his vision. Do we really think he dragged them away from home and family on a one way trip, regardless of what they thought or wanted? Wouldn't it make sense to take only devoted and converts along, and minimize the likelihood of his crew abandoning him?

I'm sure Abraham preached the basic content of God's Word (recorded for posterity in Gen.17) first to those men who would undergo circumcision with him. The idea that he just whistled them in, lined them up like a bunch of robots to cut their privates, before sending them back to tend flocks without a word of explanation (just a command and a band-aid), seems... unbelievable to me.

With due allowance for differences in attitude (from today) concerning submission, as inculcated in people in those ancient days, I just don't see Abraham as a mere dictator to the people who looked up to him. The best people working for you (or in your house) are those who can think--and speak--for themselves.

 

[Romans922]

Bruce, I think you are taking this to something I was not referring to (perhaps my wording was slightly off).

The OP asks the question of 'is there an age limit' to someone who is in a believing household? This is what I have been answering in my responses. So it quite frankly has no bearing whether or not someone is consenting or not. The question that must be asked to get to the answer is "What does God command?" That's all we should be concerned with. What does He command?

Gen 17:9 And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations.
Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.
Gen 17:11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.
Gen 17:12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring,
Gen 17:13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.
Gen 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."


In the application of the sign of the covenant (circumcision/baptism), what is commanded is not anything based on an 'age limit'. But every male, whether born in your house or bought with your money who is not your offspring...they shall surely be circumcised.

That's it. SHOULD they be baptized if they are part of a believer's household? Absolutely. WILL they be baptized (the question you seem to be answering)? Unknown.

Do I believe that Abraham and his household, in this situation, obeyed the Lord in these commands? I have no reason to think otherwise from Scripture. No indications seem to point to disobedience on this point.

I don't know, it seems pretty clear from Scripture, but maybe I am not understanding the OP, not understanding what you are saying, and/or perhaps we are speaking past one another.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Does it not seem reasonable that if someone is not of years and ability to understand the rudiments of the faith, to examine his own heart and discern the work of the spirit in him, that he should be baptized for the sake of his parents' faith; but if he is able to answer for himself concerning personal religion, he should be baptized on his profession (or not baptized on his lack thereof)?

What I'm proposing is not an age limit, but a matter of judgment.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Andrew,
You asked why I dropped Jn.9:21 in the conversation. The reason is, because it is evidence that even in a culture with infant circumcision as the sign of the covenant of grace, there was still a time and place where a son passed into the realm of personal responsibility.

We may reasonably infer that the man born blind was actually still living with the parents who brought him into the world, since begging isn't likely to lead to robust self-sufficiency. The summoning of his parents by the Pharisees makes this practically certain. In other words, the situation presents itself as one in which an older child appears to be continuing "under covenant authority," inasmuch as his parents still (of necessity) provide at least a roof for him, and probably food. But they are not entirely agreeable to the officials' proposition that they bear the same relation to his adult claims, as they did when they had him circumcised at 8 days.

There is talmudic evidence that proselytes to Judaism considered the age of a parent's children when incorporating the individual and family into Jewish identity. So, it seems the questions are perennial. Family/household dynamics compel reconsideration in each situation, within the bounds of basic principle.


I agree, what should happen is not always ideally realized. Sometimes the missed "ought to" is a parental failure, as the case of Moses (Ex.4) seems to indicate; or a religious failure. Sometime the "ought to" doesn't happen because of some natural or man-made obstacle which, despite the will of the godly, prevents perfect fulfillment. And sometimes what ought to happen (when everything is in alignment) doesn't take place, because in the judgment of those with the God-given duty to make an evaluation there is sufficient reason to question the propriety of a given course of action. God will review that decision.

Should ALL people who are bona fide household participants be accorded the privilege of membership in the head-of-household's religious commitment? Yes, but not over their stiff-necked, up front objection to such incorporation. And not, I say, merely as a matter of forcing people to "go along" with the boss' dictates, and without concern for the temporal and eternal well-being of one's charges.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

It is too simplistic (see Bruce's observations for the complexity) to simply cite a verse. Consider the WCF 1.6 and the usage of natural law with respect to worship, yes, even baptism:

"and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed."

 

[MW]

Household headship in the case of teens and older children should be exercised by instructing and influencing them to take responsibility for themselves, make wise choices for the future, and be ready to accept the consequences of their actions. Even if they did not make a personal profession of faith, and were baptised on the basis of their parents' profession, they should still be taught the significance and cost of "consenting" to baptism, and of the engagement to which they are submitting themselves. They are still able to give intelligent "assent" to the articles of faith and duty. They have a need for personal development as thinking, willing creatures. It may even be, given the present context in which they will be called upon to live out their religion, that it would be best to leave the choice of baptism to themselves. On the other hand, it might create an unnecessary divide in the religious commitments of the home. That is something which should be worked out according to the requirements of the situation. It would be unwise to insist on a specific action on the basis of age.