Finalizing an Understanding on Baptism

[HollandReformed]

Edit: *Help, I accidentally posted in the wrong section and can’t figure out how to delete or move the post*

Brothers, please bear with me as I deliver what I believe is important and useful context for hopefully offering me gracious counsel.

I’m currently taking my Elders advice and doing a final review of credobaptism and Paedobaptism before I move to submit my children for baptism. We have a third daughter coming soon, which has sort of brought more fuel to the fire of desiring to discern what we ought to do in regard to baptism. For a great deal of time, I’ve been firmly convinced that infant baptism was a least valid. A sacrament instituted by our Lord did not vanish for 1500 years. That being said, the question is,

“What is the prescribed and right way wherein we ought to baptize disciples?”

Some time ago, I asked some dear brothers on the PB questions in this regard to this same topic, and I was greatly aided. Over the course of a few months I alerted my elders that I was considering Paedobaptism, which I believe they had suspected being that they gifted me a book by Fred Malone. That being said, I had not read the book, because I am currently not in a great point in life wherein I can allot a great deal of time to read about baptism, rather than more spiritually edifying materials. My time is divided between my current academic commitment, work, church, my family, and what little time I can gird up my loins and feed my spirit. I some time ago had to step down from teaching.

In leu of that, it’s almost crazy that I’ve taken on the burden, as it were, of correct baptism, but my oldest is soon to turn 4, and I’ve been in conformity to the Westminster more than the 1689 for some time. I’ve steadily drifted toward historic Reformed Theology since being brought out of Pentecostal exile. I joined the Baptist church we attend now about two years ago, so my elders are also concerned that I’m being blown by “every wind of doctrine” so I do want to be wary of this as well, but do not believe it to apply.

This past Lord’s Day, I had the conversation with my elders, and they were understandably unhappy. I love them and do know they love me, so I’ve decided to re-examine the information, and will put my effort to reading Fred Malone’s work on the matter and Christ of the Covenants. Another brother in the congregation who had been priorly convinced of Paedobaptism has now been established in Credobaptism, as a result of reading, and though I found the logic from what he put forth as reasons for being convinced inconsistent, I may be missing too much of the context to get what he is arguing.

So, that is most of the context that is immediately relevant. I’ve posted previously, as aforementioned, if one is curious to get context from the previous post on the topic and favors having more information before offering counsel.

My most pressing concern as I go into the is that I am somewhat familiar with some of Fred Malone’s arguments and to me it seems difficult to penalize Paedobaptists by the Baptist standard confining available information on the topic to the New Testament. If I used the New Covenant, exclusively, to decide administration of the covenant, when the covenant is purposely repeated in the same way it always has been, would it not be consistent to finish the divorce and follow a normative principle of worship? Worship is in Spirit and in Truth after all, and this can be interpreted as sincerity rather than in form and spirit, so how can I restrict general baptists to the practice of the Lord’s Day, as the Christian Sabbath, which is a carry over from the Old Testament, (justly so, I speak only hypothetically) or even their worship to make it more reverent?

Furthermore, if I stay in this position, should not all the more encourage the positive command to sing the Psalms? The majority of Reformed Baptist churches, including mine, are majority hymnody, including mine even despite nudgings for the increased use of Psalms. The fact that hymnody had not yet been standardized in the early church with verifiably solid hymns should suggest and support the interpretation of Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs as pertaining to psalms. This is not to support exclusive Psalmody necessarily, but to give credence to at least majority Psalmody, or even just a regular and familiar use of the psalms…

Even still, the early church was far more connected, and seemed clearly to have a more Presbyterian government, far more connected than independent Presbyterian or congregational polity. The doctrine of apostasy also goes back to being more confusing for me, should I shift back to a Baptist position.

If I forgo a reformed Covenantal framework for a Baptist Covenantal framework, does that not in some way take on an admixture of dispensational principles?

These are just the systematic hang ups I’m having, let alone the historical and practical conversations.

I’m happy to hear from anyone on this, Baptist or Presbyterian, as well as take any amount of advice you brethren may have to offer in any aspect that I’ve mentioned. If anyone has similar experiences, I would be happy to hear from you. If I’ve betrayed my own ignorance, please enlighten me. Above all, please spare time to pray for me. This has been nerve racking.




P.S. It’s not at all my intention to start a debate. I would that we not divide fellowship on baptism, but the situation as it is, I have to make the decision as the head of my household.

 

[JvMill]

Hunter,

I won't speak to your actual questions, since there are more qualified people here to do so (on both sides). I just want to encourage you. I recently worked through this question and it is indeed nerve racking, especially when children are involved. You feel pressured to come to a decision so as not to wrong them (either way).

But know this: God is patient with us as we wrestle with our understanding of His word. He is not disappointed in you, waiting for you to 'catch up.' He is the One, by His Spirit, guiding into all truth. I think he would rather have you baptize your children in faith than in doubt, if that is the way things fall. You want to be confident in your decision, lest the anxiety compound after taking the next step. So, be sure you are solidly convinced and not fearful you may waffle in the future (again, either way).

Last thing - don't look for 'breakthrough moments' in your understanding. They can happen, sure. But if you look for them and expect them, that adds to the anxiety. "Why am I not getting it??" It takes time to shift a paradigm, one way or another. I know it's cliché, but trust the process and trust God.

Praying for you.

 

[HollandReformed]

Hunter,

I won't speak to your actual questions, since there are more qualified people here to do so (on both sides). I just want to encourage you. I recently worked through this question and it is indeed nerve racking, especially when children are involved. You feel pressured to come to a decision so as not to wrong them (either way).

But know this: God is patient with us as we wrestle with our understanding of His word. He is not disappointed in you, waiting for you to 'catch up.' He is the One, by His Spirit, guiding into all truth. I think he would rather have you baptize your children in faith than in doubt, if that is the way things fall. You want to be confident in your decision, lest the anxiety compound after taking the next step. So, be sure you are solidly convinced and not fearful you may waffle in the future (again, either way).

Last thing - don't look for 'breakthrough moments' in your understanding. They can happen, sure. But if you look for them and expect them, that adds to the anxiety. "Why am I not getting it??" It takes time to shift a paradigm, one way or another. I know it's cliché, but trust the process and trust God.

Praying for you.

Thank you, brother. I appreciate that encouragement. I suppose at this point, my paradigm has actually shifted. I’m not sure exactly when that took place, but I think in terms of a Presbyterian at this time. I suppose there remains a willingness to be corrected, since I am fallible, and reluctant to grow apart from the current congregation I belong to.

This may be a pointless last endeavor toward the London Baptist Confession, but I suppose more surprising things have happened than a flip-flop of the mind. That being said, your advice means a great deal to me, and even more so, your prayers do. Thank you, kindly, and God bless!

 

[Jake]

I encourage you to do the reading, and compare all things to Scripture. It can be helpful to see the best arguments from each side. We should not take doctrines lightly or based on how we are feeling. And make sure you consider other differences between Presbyterianism and Baptist theology such as church government and view of the Lord's Supper too.

 

[DanSSwing]

I personally don't see an open-and-shut case on baptism per se on either side. So I go back to the covenant. I think everyone agrees that members of the covenant are to be baptized. Under the Old Covenant, that was the visible church. That's why all male babies were circumcised and Aaron interceded for the entire congregation, both elect and non-elect members. But Ezekiel and Jeremiah tell us that the New Covenant is different. The New Covenant is only with the elect and Jesus, our high priest, atoned in earth and intercedes in heaven only for the elect. This is a big reason why I think it puts the onus on the elders to use their best judgment that someone appears to be elect before baptizing them.

Now I've heard Doug Wilson make analogies that suggest paedobaptists are only assuming their children to be elect or in the New Covenant. But I generally hear Presbyterians insisting their children are in the New Covenant whether elect or not, which is the main problem I have with the paedobaptist position.

That said, I was a member of a CRC church (the best church near me) at the time my son was born, so I actually had him baptized there because my belief in submitting to the church is strong than my belief re: baptism. So if you believe God has called you to continue as a member of your Baptist church, my advice would be to submit to their position on baptism even if you personally disagree with it.

 

[No Other Name]

Be careful on "finalizing". Once I thought my position was "finalized" and I was wrong. Dead wrong. Believe it or not, I am not "finalized" even now. I still don't know if there is/is not a clinching argument so Biblically persuasive that one side will become orthodox and the other side with become heterodox like Arminians, Socinians, etc. I still don't know that.

 

[HollandReformed]

I encourage you to do the reading, and compare all things to Scripture. It can be helpful to see the best arguments from each side. We should not take doctrines lightly or based on how we are feeling. And make sure you consider other differences between Presbyterianism and Baptist theology such as church government and view of the Lord's Supper too.

Thank brother Jake,

I would agree, and am thankful for the counsel. Those have been my major hang ups actually. If I only look at the New Testament, the view would almost clearly turn to Credobaptism. In the consideration of the Old Testament, specifically the Covenants, the pendulum seems to swing back to Paedobaptism. Most of my contemplation has been comparing Scripture, getting my own take findings, and the. Seeing if others have found the same thing, which seems to be validated thus far. I find Paul doing the same thing after returning from Damascus to confer with the other Saints his doctrine, and have thus found that a fruitful method.

In the way I am viewing things, a Covenantal theology nearly demand’s Paedobaptism, or we may even doubt the regulative principle, which is tied to fulfilled temple practice in a, “fulfilled” covenant. But the Covenant is supposed to last forever. If it were only directed to Christ as the, “seed” whereas is it most purely is, why would Peter deliver the covenant the same way as it has always been delivered? God is sovereign, and if He wanted to protect baptism, I do not know why He would allow the covenant to be delivered in that way through Peter.

The government of the Church and the Lord’s Supper among other things definitely lend toward Presbyterianism, at least in my estimation, hence what brought me to seriously consider Paedobaptism. I initially thought the only difference between Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists was baptism but have found that not necessarily to be the case. To my dismay, this has fueled things to a head.

 

[HollandReformed]

I personally don't see an open-and-shut case on baptism per se on either side. So I go back to the covenant. I think everyone agrees that members of the covenant are to be baptized. Under the Old Covenant, that was the visible church. That's why all male babies were circumcised and Aaron interceded for the entire congregation, both elect and non-elect members. But Ezekiel and Jeremiah tell us that the New Covenant is different. The New Covenant is only with the elect and Jesus, our high priest, atoned in earth and intercedes in heaven only for the elect. This is a big reason why I think it puts the onus on the elders to use their best judgment that someone appears to be elect before baptizing them.

Now I've heard Doug Wilson make analogies that suggest paedobaptists are only assuming their children to be elect or in the New Covenant. But I generally hear Presbyterians insisting their children are in the New Covenant whether elect or not, which is the main problem I have with the paedobaptist position.

That said, I was a member of a CRC church (the best church near me) at the time my son was born, so I actually had him baptized there because my belief in submitting to the church is strong than my belief re: baptism. So if you believe God has called you to continue as a member of your Baptist church, my advice would be to submit to their position on baptism even if you personally disagree with it.

I do appreciate your emphasis on submitting to the elders. I actually hold that same view. That’s a major reason I’ve tried to deal with this carefully. As for whether or not God has called me to this church, I know not for certain. I was teaching within the church for sometime, and have, with outward encouragement and inward conviction, found that I believe the Lord may be calling me into the ministry through seminary at PRTS, Lord willing and I grow further in my discipline to sustain the responsibility of seminary and bi-vocation. That, with the consideration of my children has urged me to ensure I will be able to teach per conviction and not per current confession, and loosely so, as our congregation does not encourage sabbatarian practice on the Lord’s Day, the which I have come to believe that it is very important. The Lord’s Day is easier to keep not only passively by surrendering work (which is not difficult), but actively by fixing devotion unto the Lord, when you have continuous encouragement to do so with the fellowship of the saint and admonition of the elders.

On your submission of the New Covenant, via Ezekiel and Jeremiah, it seems to me that the substance of the promise is so great in fact, that it is speaking even further to a future fulfillment. The reason I partially have this sense is because of the way our Lord speaks to the 7 Churches in Revelation, as well as how things are spoken of by Peter and the writer of Hebrews about apostates, in tying to false teachers in Israel. In some way, there seems to be a way in someone be in Covenant with the Lord, and be bought, or even taste of Him, but be cast off. We know that election is not lost. So, what is the third category, as it were? Especially in the case of the Laodiceans, they seem to have His love in some form, but the church itself was cut off of history is any indication. Few consider it regenerate, but as many as He loves He rebukes, and He rebukes the Laodiceans. It may be said the He loves all the world but to different degrees. Children being holy unto the Lord and unbelieving spouses being consecrated that the children be considered clean adds more support to this.


My problem wherein I have herein been is with the Baptist position I have no method of dealing with those texts that really seems to honestly contend with the nuance. That’s not to say there isn’t a convincing explanation of their meaning, I’ve just not been blessed with the wisdom to interpret one myself, nor have I been able to find a convincing dividing of those texts. I doubt there’s a seamless systematic theology with the principle of Antinomy, but if I have to teach verse by verse in the future, I want to have an understanding of these things enough to expound upon them in a useful way.

 

[Northern Crofter]

If I forgo a reformed Covenantal framework for a Baptist Covenantal framework, does that not in some way take on an admixture of dispensational principles?

In the way I am viewing things, a Covenantal theology nearly demand’s Paedobaptism, or we may even doubt the regulative principle, which is tied to fulfilled temple practice in a, “fulfilled” covenant.

There is a current thread you might find worth perusing - this post of mine from it sounds like it might be of interest to you: https://puritanboard.com/threads/credobaptist-objection.117738/post-1409945

 

[HollandReformed]

Be careful on "finalizing". Once I thought my position was "finalized" and I was wrong. Dead wrong. Believe it or not, I am not "finalized" even now. I still don't know if there is/is not a clinching argument so Biblically persuasive that one side will become orthodox and the other side with become heterodox like Arminians, Socinians, etc. I still don't know that.

Thank you for this, brother. That’s very wise counsel to strengthen humility. Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda soli Deo gloria.
[automerge]1770751660[/automerge]

There is a current thread you might find worth perusing - this post of mine from it sounds like it might be of interest to you: https://puritanboard.com/threads/credobaptist-objection.117738/post-1409945

Thank you, I will check it out, brother!

 

[Gforce9]

Hunter,
I was in very much your shoes about 15 years ago. I washed my feet, btw. I can offer you prayer. May God be gracious to your family, may you be unified, may there be no conflict with your current elders as you work through this and may you be free from the burden of this difficult decision in good time.

 

[HollandReformed]

Hunter,
I was in very much your shoes about 15 years ago. I washed my feet, btw. I can offer you prayer. May God be gracious to your family, may you be unified, may there be no conflict with your current elders as you work through this and may you be free from the burden of this difficult decision in good time.

Greg,

I am very very grateful for your prayers. My sincerest hope is to overcome my flesh through Christ and be bound in soul, conscience and practice to faithfully amend my position and conversation to Scripture on this elementary matter that my spiritual formation, and Lord willing, that of my wife and children, may be unhindered. I understand this isn’t salvific, however, as a sacrament it’s scary to possibly abuse it. The greatest hope is that the Lord is merciful in our weakness. Regardless, prayer is most treasured above all things right now, that the Spirit might enlighten my study and cleanse my conscience from vain tradition, whichever side that might be. Never imagined how heavy a burden this would be. Hopefully I soon will also wash my feet.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Hunter,

Perhaps you have already seen what I will introduce below. I’m not sure. Very much has to do with a correct understanding of the covenants. This thread I name below, and then link to, is an extensive examination. Please let me know if you want further clarity.

A caveat: I have recently been very ill, and only now am recovering – though I don’t think I will fully recover my cognitive faculties – 30 days in a "furnace of pain" can do that! But I’m at peace with that, as my days are numbered, and the Saviour has given me other benefits in return. And I am content, and in His care and joy.

A mod or admin can move what you want elsewhere if they think it fitting. Give that a try if you want.

Here's a thread and a series of posts you may find edifying; I fully enter the discussion in a post on page 2 and on.

Critique of Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology and Biblical Theology (Renihan)

And then on the following page 3 I go even further into the matter.

More recently, and briefly, there’s this. I hope this helps!

 

[Ed Walsh]

Hi Hunter,
Good to meet you.
I'm considering an attempt at an answer but first, I would like to know what your preferred translation of the Bible is so I could use that as my primary go to Scripture when speaking with you.

Whatever translation you suggest, I'll probably still check up to 10 translations to see if there is a uniformity in meaning. When I find that, it saves me a lot of time from heading to the Greek and Hebrew tools, which I barely know how to use, and several good commentaries on the verse.

 

[lynnie]

Read this. Poythress is/was a prof at WTS. He may be retired. I think it is the best thing I ever read on the subject of baptizing children, especially for a credo. Don't let the title throw you. I would ask your elders respectfully to read it if you like it, and maybe they will accept the idea of a tender hearted young child with faith being baptized, instead of waiting until the kid is a teenager who can recite the entire 1689 in their sleep.

It would not apply to babies, but if they won't let you obey your conscience at least with the 4 year old, well, we used to go to a Baptist church where the pastor ( WTS guy) sent people to his Presbyterian pastor friend when they wanted to baptize their babies. He wouldn't do it himself but he understood the paedo position and you could be a full member even if you baptized your baby elsewhere ( or had been baptized as a baby and saw it as valid. Some Baptist churches make you get rebaptized). You can't ask your elders to go against their conscience, but if they won't accept your conscience, then that's sad, but not your fault. I'm sorry it is nerve wracking and will pray for you. I hope you can find time for this Poythress essay.

Indifferentism and Rigorism

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

frame-poythress.org

 

[HollandReformed]

Hi Hunter,
Good to meet you.
I'm considering an attempt at an answer but first, I would like to know what your preferred translation of the Bible is so I could use that as my primary go to Scripture when speaking with you.

Whatever translation you suggest, I'll probably still check up to 10 translations to see if there is a uniformity in meaning. When I find that, it saves me a lot of time from heading to the Greek and Hebrew tools, which I barely know how to use, and several good commentaries on the verse.

That is a kind and gracious consideration, brother. Thank you. My preferred translation in terms of use is the KJV, but I am comfortable with any. If you believe there is one that is better in terms of the original languages, you are welcome to utilize that one!
[automerge]1770861701[/automerge]

Read this. Poythress is/was a prof at WTS. He may be retired. I think it is the best thing I ever read on the subject of baptizing children, especially for a credo. Don't let the title throw you. I would ask your elders respectfully to read it if you like it, and maybe they will accept the idea of a tender hearted young child with faith being baptized, instead of waiting until the kid is a teenager who can recite the entire 1689 in their sleep.

It would not apply to babies, but if they won't let you obey your conscience at least with the 4 year old, well, we used to go to a Baptist church where the pastor ( WTS guy) sent people to his Presbyterian pastor friend when they wanted to baptize their babies. He wouldn't do it himself but he understood the paedo position and you could be a full member even if you baptized your baby elsewhere ( or had been baptized as a baby and saw it as valid. Some Baptist churches make you get rebaptized). You can't ask your elders to go against their conscience, but if they won't accept your conscience, then that's sad, but not your fault. I'm sorry it is nerve wracking and will pray for you. I hope you can find time for this Poythress essay.

Indifferentism and Rigorism

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

frame-poythress.org

I am more than grateful for this, and will make time for it. I have a brother who has sent me a great deal of things to read in my inbox as well, so this will go on the list. I’ve been meeting with a couple of Presbyterian pastors from churches nearby me, and today had long discussions with both. After thorough conversations, they believe I’ve dropped the penny. So, this will greatly assist me in stabilizing my position.

I’m afraid my elders will not be willing to allow me to baptize my children. I’m going to attempt to finish this book by Malone, but I’m not seeing it as the silver bullet they believed it to be. If anything, I’ve found that I don’t really think he ever held fully to Presbyterian baptism. It was said that his “conscience fumed” every time he sprinkled a child. The arguments he utilizes thus far are also refuting the 1689, if applied consistently, which I do not believe is his goal.

More than anything though, I appreciate your prayers brother. I’m grateful the Lord works through the prayers of His people. When I’ve read through this article, I’ll try to remember to update you!

 

[HollandReformed]

Hello Hunter,

Perhaps you have already seen what I will introduce below. I’m not sure. Very much has to do with a correct understanding of the covenants. This thread I name below, and then link to, is an extensive examination. Please let me know if you want further clarity.

A caveat: I have recently been very ill, and only now am recovering – though I don’t think I will fully recover my cognitive faculties – 30 days in a "furnace of pain" can do that! But I’m at peace with that, as my days are numbered, and the Saviour has given me other benefits in return. And I am content, and in His care and joy.

A mod or admin can move what you want elsewhere if they think it fitting. Give that a try if you want.

Here's a thread and a series of posts you may find edifying; I fully enter the discussion in a post on page 2 and on.

Critique of Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology and Biblical Theology (Renihan)

And then on the following page 3 I go even further into the matter.

More recently, and briefly, there’s this. I hope this helps!

I thanked you in your messages brother, but just to be sure it is seen, this was a splendid help. You are a treasure to this young saint. Please let me know if there is anyway I might pray for you in regard to your health or your work in Cyprus.

 

[jwithnell]

I’m afraid my elders will not be willing to allow me to baptize my children

we used to go to a Baptist church where the pastor ( WTS guy) sent people to his Presbyterian pastor friend when they wanted to baptize their babies.

Churches that believe Presbyterianism best represents the system of doctrine taught in the Bible will not baptize a baby unless there is at least one believing, member parent in the congregation. The child is admitted to a particular, visible church. In the PCA, members of the congregation vow to support the family in rearing the child in Christ. In the OPC, the congregation is generally instructed to do the same, but no vow is taken.

I do appreciate, though, how a father may struggle with this as the head of his household. Blessings, brother, as you think through the Bible's teaching on this matter.

 

[Ed Walsh]

That is a kind and gracious consideration, brother. Thank you. My preferred translation in terms of use is the KJV, but I am comfortable with any. If you believe there is one that is better in terms of the original languages, you are welcome to utilize that one!

Thank you Hunter.
The KJV is my default Bible because I know it's so well for so many years. But I do check other translations as I mentioned. But you'll probably be hearing from me via the KJV unless I see something from another translation that would help clarify things. I won't be able to get back tonight because I was up at 4:30 for my devotions and then at work by 8:00 and I just quitting now. I'll try to get back tomorrow morning.
Ed Walsh

 

[HollandReformed]

Churches that believe Presbyterianism best represents the system of doctrine taught in the Bible will not baptize a baby unless there is at least one believing, member parent in the congregation. The child is admitted to a particular, visible church. In the PCA, members of the congregation vow to support the family in rearing the child in Christ. In the OPC, the congregation is generally instructed to do the same, but no vow is taken.

I do appreciate, though, how a father may struggle with this as the head of his household. Blessings, brother, as you think through the Bible's teaching on this matter.

Thank you kindly, sister, and thank you for the information as well.
[automerge]1770867676[/automerge]

Thank you Hunter.
The KJV is my default Bible because I know it's so well for so many years. But I do check other translations as I mentioned. But you'll probably be hearing from me via the KJV unless I see something from another translation that would help clarify things. I won't be able to get back tonight because I was up at 4:30 for my devotions and then at work by 8:00 and I just quitting now. I'll try to get back tomorrow morning.
Ed Walsh

Take your time brother Ed. I far prefer quality of time anyhow. I’m just thankful you’re taking time to provide me with wisdom.

 

[No Other Name]

instead of waiting until the kid is a teenager who can recite the entire 1689 in their sleep.

Amen. That is error unto sin.

 

[HollandReformed]

Amen. That is error unto sin.

Indeed, to be very fair, that is no expectation of my elders. They do want to see fruit of diligence in obedience to parents, however, and an understanding of the gospel with accompanying love of Christ. From a Credobaptistic standpoint, I believe they’re pretty standard.

Just out of curiosity, what lends you to the LCBF and not the 1689?

 

[No Other Name]

Indeed, to be very fair, that is no expectation of my elders. They do want to see fruit of diligence in obedience to parents, however, and an understanding of the gospel with accompanying love of Christ. From a Credobaptistic standpoint, I believe they’re pretty standard.

Just out of curiosity, what lends you to the LCBF and not the 1689?

I am not sanguine on what that means: "fruit of diligence" but I am not there so I will refrain.

And I am 1689. See my signature.

 

[HollandReformed]

I appreciate the diligence. It’s nothing controversial I do not believe. Essentially, they’re looking for evidence of regeneration before they allow their children to be baptized. In children, that looks like diligence to obey parents. The way I worded it is in no way a phrase priorly coined. It’s just a byproduct of how my brain works in phraseology.

Ah my apologies. I checked your profile but saw, “London Baptist Confession” underneath the Confession section. I’ll check the signature from now on.

 

[lynnie]

Churches that believe Presbyterianism best represents the system of doctrine taught in the Bible will not baptize a baby unless there is at least one believing, member parent in the congregation. The child is admitted to a particular, visible church. In the PCA, members of the congregation vow to support the family in rearing the child in Christ. In the OPC, the congregation is generally instructed to do the same, but no vow is taken.

I do appreciate, though, how a father may struggle with this as the head of his household. Blessings, brother, as you think through the Bible's teaching on this matter.

Jean, your experience is different from mine in past PCA relationships. We knew of PCA churches with Baptist elders, and various departures from the Confession or BCO among the leaders. We met one PCA pastor on a vacation who went to WTS who says he "isn't into doctrine", and it was obvious at the church. You would be surprised at what a PCA church might do.
I am not putting down the PCA at all. Our church pastor recently retired and the pastor search is on ( Calvinist Baptist). We would prefer to stay but if the new guy is an adamant d.i.s.p.y we are going to the PCA south of us as our first church shopping stop. I am pro-PCA. But, the ideal and the reality can be very different. I could tell you stories but I wont bother, lol. Thanks for the reply.

 

[jwithnell]

Jean, your experience is different from mine in past PCA relationships. We knew of PCA churches with Baptist elders, and various departures from the Confession or BCO among the leaders. We met one PCA pastor on a vacation who went to WTS who says he "isn't into doctrine", and it was obvious at the church. You would be surprised at what a PCA church might do.
I am not putting down the PCA at all. Our church pastor recently retired and the pastor search is on ( Calvinist Baptist). We would prefer to stay but if the new guy is an adamant d.i.s.p.y we are going to the PCA south of us as our first church shopping stop. I am pro-PCA. But, the ideal and the reality can be very different. I could tell you stories but I wont bother, lol. Thanks for the reply.

Sadly, you are quite right. I was going by the Book of Church Order and paraphrasing my first pastor who led us in planting a PCA church in Statesboro, Georgia. I was pleased to see the standard order when my grandson was baptized a few weeks ago in a PCA church here in Virginia. But yes, a great deal of "variety" seems to exist.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Furthermore, if I stay in this position, should not all the more encourage the positive command to sing the Psalms? The majority of Reformed Baptist churches, including mine, are majority hymnody, including mine even despite nudgings for the increased use of Psalms. The fact that hymnody had not yet been standardized in the early church with verifiably solid hymns should suggest and support the interpretation of Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs as pertaining to psalms. This is not to support exclusive Psalmody necessarily, but to give credence to at least majority Psalmody, or even just a regular and familiar use of the psalms…

Just wanted to say that my coming to an EP conviction was my stepping stone into paedobaptism.

 

[HollandReformed]

Just wanted to say that my coming to an EP conviction was my stepping stone into paedobaptism.

The psalms were instrumental in my initial consideration of the position. I can see the argument for exclusive Psalmody, and honestly, I could happily enjoy, and possibly prefer an EP church. It almost a non issue though because the nearest to me is probably a hundred miles away.

However, when I began to realize the importance and advocating for psalms in worship, I began getting funny looks and halfhearted placating with slight resistance. No one could argue against my reasoning, they were just resistant. They’ve thrown one a month into the “worship set” (terminology I’m not a massive fan of) but that’s it. That coupled with a very absent sabbatarian view, which PB convinced me of, told me I may should reconsider my position, having learned the principle of good and necessary consequences.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

...because the nearest to me is probably a hundred miles away.

Well... I'm a 69 year old lady who travels over 100 miles down to Opelika, AL on the Lord's day, as does another family with young children, and two other people (laboring in prayer, of course, for a church plant in our area). Not just for the singing of Psalms; but for the preaching, and great love we have among us, and so much more. We live in such irregular times for the church; and so some choose to do irregular things for the kingdom's sake.

 

[DanSSwing]

On your submission of the New Covenant, via Ezekiel and Jeremiah, it seems to me that the substance of the promise is so great in fact, that it is speaking even further to a future fulfillment. The reason I partially have this sense is because of the way our Lord speaks to the 7 Churches in Revelation, as well as how things are spoken of by Peter and the writer of Hebrews about apostates, in tying to false teachers in Israel. In some way, there seems to be a way in someone be in Covenant with the Lord, and be bought, or even taste of Him, but be cast off. We know that election is not lost. So, what is the third category, as it were? Especially in the case of the Laodiceans, they seem to have His love in some form, but the church itself was cut off of history is any indication. Few consider it regenerate, but as many as He loves He rebukes, and He rebukes the Laodiceans. It may be said the He loves all the world but to different degrees. Children being holy unto the Lord and unbelieving spouses being consecrated that the children be considered clean adds more support to this.

I'd love to hear a good explanation of apostasy from a Presbyterian perspective, because I really don't have a great handle on it myself, and I've found Calvin's "evanescent grace" idea to be less than satisfying. I do have that "sense" you're talking about, but I need to hear it in terms related to the covenant. Do Presbyterians hold that the priest atones and intercedes for all members of the covenant and only them? Does Jesus intercede in heaven entirely successfully? If the answer to both is in the affirmative, then it seems to me that the New Covenant consists only of the elect, and our explanation of apostasy needs to account for that. Right now, my default is to interpret it based on the visible/invisible church distinction.