A Question for my Credo-Baptist Brethren

[Semper Fidelis]

As many of you know, and attested to in my signature, I attend a Southern Baptist Church. Many of you know I am rabidly paedo-baptist in my convictions as well. I love the brethren, however, and I am not ashamed, nay, I rejoice to call the dear saints at the Church I attend brother and sister.

This past year and a half I have learned much about the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S. My new pastor just graduated from Southwest Baptist Seminary. I'm encouraged by the quality of some of the men who are coming out and that he seems to be a new breed of men returning to their Biblical roots. One of his favorite profs there was Greg Welty.

He has a real heart for making sure that the Church grows and especially from the families outward. He recently played an MP3 for us that is shaking up many Churches within the convention. I'm going to try to get a copy of it. The speaker is talking about the way in which the Southern Baptist Church is literally imploding and dying from within. The reasons for this are many - especially the methodology that never trains fathers to lead their families in the faith.

He presented an alarming statistic: Anywhere from 70-85% of Southern Baptist children completely reject the faith by the time they are 21.

I want to ask the Baptists a hard question:

What do you think of that in light of your view of election and the idea that God no longer deals with households in this epoch of redemptive history?

 

[Herald]

As many of you know, and attested to in my signature, I attend a Southern Baptist Church. Many of you know I am rabidly paedo-baptist in my convictions as well. I love the brethren, however, and I am not ashamed, nay, I rejoice to call the dear saints at the Church I attend brother and sister.

This past year and a half I have learned much about the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S. My new pastor just graduated from Southwest Baptist Seminary. I'm encouraged by the quality of some of the men who are coming out and that he seems to be a new breed of men returning to their Biblical roots. One of his favorite profs there was Greg Welty.

He has a real heart for making sure that the Church grows and especially from the families outward. He recently played an MP3 for us that is shaking up many Churches within the convention. I'm going to try to get a copy of it. The speaker is talking about the way in which the Southern Baptist Church is literally imploding and dying from within. The reasons for this are many - especially the methodology that never trains fathers to lead their families in the faith.

He presented an alarming statistic: Anywhere from 70-85% of Southern Baptist children completely reject the faith by the time they are 21.

I want to ask the Baptists a hard question:

What do you think of that in light of your view of election and the idea that God no longer deals with households in this epoch of redemptive history?

Rich - while I am grieved at the statistics you cited (and for the sake of discussion I will accept them as accurate), I don't see them as an indictment of credobaptists or a validation of your last paragraph. The unregenrate are like tares among the wheat. They are there. They have always been there. I don't see the connection between being credo and having a child not believe or being a paedo and having a child not believe. Conversely I don't see the connection between being a credo and having a believing child or being a paedo and having a believing child.

I am resistant to put God in box when it comes to the manner in which He calls His elect. Does He call His elect from within covenant families or does He call His elect as individuals? I would assume it is some of both. If a child is born to believing parents, and those parents raise thier child up in the nuture and admonition of the Lord (and without hypocrisy), I would agree with my paedo brethren that the likelihood of that child coming to faith in Christ is higher than the child who grows up in a reprobate home. But I don't know any godly credo families who would disagree. As a credo I believe that my daughter's professed faith is real. I base that on evidences of faith. I also base that on God's mercy in allowing her to be born into a believing household. Laurie and I purposed to raise our daughter biblically. Could God have called her if she was raised in an unbelieving family? Certainly. Likely? Much less unlikely. As I understand the paedo position a child is considered part of the covenant community until such time as they reject the faith, proving their position within the covenant community is false by reprobation.

A fact that was not brought out in the stats you cited is that most SBC churches are Arminian. Arminian theology corrupts everything it touches. It is the reason for 20th century "easy-believism" that is prevelant in many Baptist churches. In fact, a case can be made that a high rate of reprobation in Baptist churches can be directly linked to flawed soterioglogy. A profession is as good as possession! That is the cry of the easy-believism churches. I would be interested in stats for churches that correctly teach the doctrines of sovereign grace. I would be dismayed if those reprobation numbers did not drop exponentially in the light of correct doctrine. Rich, this is why I believe the stats you referenced are skewed. The SBC is the largest Baptist denomination in the world. The majority of SBC churches are Arminian. Founders Movement churches (within the SBC) are a drop in the bucket compared to the conference membership.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Not a credo (anymore)...but was raised IFB and was SBC through highschool (still having SBC family and friends). I don't believe the issue lies (entirely) with baptism (credo vs paedo). Like alot of other denominations, I see the issue lying with the view of family and the training of men and women in their roles.

 

[satz]

Dear Rich,

I don't know if you would consider me a baptist in the historic sense of the word, in that I am not very knowledgeable nor do I have an emotional attachment to baptist history or some of their other traditions. I do however, hold to believer's baptism.

I hope do do not mind me asking a question to clarify yours. Does believe in credo-baptism necessarily mean that God no longer deals with households, or that unbaptised children of christian parents are any less part of the covenant?

My view is that baptism is a New Testament ordinance, and God has specified in the New testament the specifics of how it is to be applied (ie repent and be baptised). I do not see how it necessarily means that children in the NT without baptism are any less a part of God's people, or that the household principle ceases to apply. God has simply changed the specifics of when and to whom the sign applies (if you believe that baptism is the new circumcision), and he has every right to do that. A chrisitan parent can still labour to bring up his or her children in the fear and admonition of the Lord, hoping and trusting in God for the day when the child makes a profession of faith and can receive christian baptism. Just like a paedo parent would similarly be hoping and trusting for that profession of faith.

Some will bring up the idea of circumcision being an sign from the book of Genesis. But while reading genesis alone that may seem to be the case, Paul later says that circumcision or uncircumcision means nothing. Even if you believe God has replaced circumcision with baptism, you still must admit he has changed the ordinance is someway. And, I believe, that can include changing the specifics, and when a child of his receives it.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Let me clarify the question.

I am not ascribing this statistic to the fact that the SBC is a credo denomination. I'm merely trying to get a sense of what Reformed Baptists think about the apostasy and its causes. Are you indifferent to it and chalk it up to Election?

This is interesting:

A fact that was not brought out in the stats you cited is that most SBC churches are Arminian. Arminian theology corrupts everything it touches. It is the reason for 20th century "easy-believism" that is prevelant in many Baptist churches. In fact, a case can be made that a high rate of reprobation in Baptist churches can be directly linked to flawed soterioglogy. A profession is as good as possession! That is the cry of the easy-believism churches. I would be interested in stats for churches that correctly teach the doctrines of sovereign grace. I would be dismayed if those reprobation numbers did not drop exponentially in the light of correct doctrine. Rich, this is why I believe the stats you referenced are skewed. The SBC is the largest Baptist denomination in the world. The majority of SBC churches are Arminian. Founders Movement churches (within the SBC) are a drop in the bucket compared to the conference membership.

So you're saying that apostasy should be less in a Church and household that teaches better? How does that square with the Reformed Baptist view that God does not deal with households any more?

 

[Herald]

So you're saying that apostasy should be less in a Church and household that teaches better? How does that square with the Reformed Baptist view that God does not deal with households any more?

Rich, you're assuming something that may not be true. Does God deal with households? Yes, He does. It stands to reason that God deals with households because children in believing families are more likely to come to faith in Christ than children in non-Christian families. But how much of this is covenantal in the Covenant Theology scheme of things, and how much of it can be attributed to believing parents who have the attention and trust of their children?

Theologically speaking, a paedo parent may assume his child is saved until such time as the child displays evidence to the contrary. A credo parent is looking for evidence of faith. Unfortunately there are credo parents who assume that a "sinners" prayer made by a five year old is tantamount to being saved. I'm not so sure of that. I am not wholly convinced on early childhood conversions. I look for evidence of faith. I believe that is where paedo's and credo's would disagree.

Rich, as a side note. I believe that when a person comes to faith in Christ they become part of the family of God, a covenantal family. I do not believe in "Lone Ranger" Christian's. We are not saved into individualism. We are saved into a larger community of believers. But I also believe that my being in that community is based on God's effectual call of me as an individual. That God may providentially choose to work within believing families does not negate the fact that the individual must come to faith. I cannot assume that a child is in the faith just because they never denied the faith.




I'm up to four cents now!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm not sure I have an anser to my question yet.

I'm not assuming anything here. I'm trying to understand what you guys believe. I'm not the one arguing for the credo-baptist position and I merely want credo-baptist reflections on the problem of apostasy.

Is this a problem that can be attributed to the visible Church or not? It seems to bother the few Baptists that have come in who attributed part of the reason to Arminianism.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Hey Rich;

The SBC on the other hand focuses on new growth and does not stress the other two kinds of growth enough. Therefore, they often do what the reformed fail to do with new beleivers. We all know that many even on this board were saved as arminians are in a church like them and was later converted to the reformed faith. Therefore, they grow quicker than the reformed do (and much of this IS true growth of beleivers and not just chaff) but they fail to educate their children and teach the catechism, and family devotions are almost unheard of in some circles. Yes, they have forgotten the very biblical family principle of training up the kids. But they also far exceed the efforts of the Reformed concerning missions.

Trevor,

This is not accurate. The sustained growth of the SBC for years has been biological growth. The reason they are dying out is because Americans are having less kids and the kids they're having are leaving the faith.

They predict that, if things don't change, they could be down from several million to 250,000 within a couple of generations.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The Reformed often recruit Arminians and often their view of conversion is making an Arminian Christian into a Calvinistic Christian. Also, they tend to have lots of kids. Yet, these church's rates of growth are slower and some churches are terribly inward focused and not very evangelitic. Therefore, they tend to be smaller, but more stable and the kids - though far, far less of them - grow up in a Christian nurture that keeps these high "fall out" rates from happening.

A "seeker" if you accept that term has far more hurdles joining a reformed church than a SBC because, quite truthfully, often a SBC make them feel more welcome. This has been confirmed by surveys done on new members, etc (if you accept the use of statistical analysis in the study of religion to see its trends).

By the way, I largely agree with this assessment. Pastor Greco and I were just discussing this. It's not the mission of the Christian Church to "fix Arminians". I also think that some of our Churches are so distinctive as to require a humongous commitment to much more than the Gospel to want to join them.

 

[Herald]

I'm not sure I have an anser to my question yet.

I'm not assuming anything here. I'm trying to understand what you guys believe. I'm not the one arguing for the credo-baptist position and I merely want credo-baptist reflections on the problem of apostasy.

Is this a problem that can be attributed to the visible Church or not? It seems to bother the few Baptists that have come in who attributed part of the reason to Arminianism.

Rich - I thought I did answer. *scratches head* I know you're not arguing for or from the credo position. Help me out here. Tell me how this following paragraph does not detail my position:

Rich, as a side note. I believe that when a person comes to faith in Christ they become part of the family of God, a covenantal family. I do not believe in "Lone Ranger" Christian's. We are not saved into individualism. We are saved into a larger community of believers. But I also believe that my being in that community is based on God's effectual call of me as an individual. That God may providentially choose to work within believing families does not negate the fact that the individual must come to faith. I cannot assume that a child is in the faith just because they never denied the faith.

I don't know what else I can say. I already stated that I believe God works through families, but I also believe He does not work through families exclusively. I also explained my reasons why the SBC is having so many reprobations. Yes, it is about election if you come down to it. People leave the faith because they were never in the faith. I'm not in an SBC church, so I can't answer for them. I can only answer as a Reformed Baptist.

Rich, if I am not answering your question, please tell me what exactly I am not answering.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich - I thought I did answer. *scratches head* I know you're not arguing for or from the credo position. Help me out here. Tell me how this following paragraph does not detail my position:

I don't know what else I can say. I already stated that I believe God works through families, but I also believe He does not work through families exclusively. I also explained my reasons why the SBC is having so many reprobations. Yes, it is about election if you come down to it. People leave the faith because they were never in the faith. I'm not in an SBC church, so I can't answer for them. I can only answer as a Reformed Baptist.

Rich, if I am not answering your question, please tell me what exactly I am not answering.

What do you tell a young couple with small kids that worries whether or not their children might apostasize some day?

You seem to indicate that there is a family of faith. I'm trying to sense the way in which a Reformed Baptist connects the idea of nurture to apostasy.

Would you just tell them that, no matter what they do, their child may not be elect?

 

[Chris]

As many of you know, and attested to in my signature, I attend a Southern Baptist Church. Many of you know I am rabidly paedo-baptist in my convictions as well. I love the brethren, however, and I am not ashamed, nay, I rejoice to call the dear saints at the Church I attend brother and sister.

This past year and a half I have learned much about the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S. My new pastor just graduated from Southwest Baptist Seminary. I'm encouraged by the quality of some of the men who are coming out and that he seems to be a new breed of men returning to their Biblical roots. One of his favorite profs there was Greg Welty.

He has a real heart for making sure that the Church grows and especially from the families outward. He recently played an MP3 for us that is shaking up many Churches within the convention. I'm going to try to get a copy of it. The speaker is talking about the way in which the Southern Baptist Church is literally imploding and dying from within. The reasons for this are many - especially the methodology that never trains fathers to lead their families in the faith.

He presented an alarming statistic: Anywhere from 70-85% of Southern Baptist children completely reject the faith by the time they are 21.

I want to ask the Baptists a hard question:

What do you think of that in light of your view of election and the idea that God no longer deals with households in this epoch of redemptive history?

It appears - from my perspective - that you're grossly overanalyzing the issue, trying to force paedobaptism to be the answer to a problem when it's not.

The SBC's weaknesses and lack of growth can be attributed to a number of factors:

-bad evangelism, as a result of
-bad theology, as a result of
-unwillingness to offend, as a result of
-trying to be attractive to a carnal world, which all boils down to
-compromise.

Compromise almost always produces short-term results at long term expense. We're now seeing the long-term expense. The sins of the fathers.........

You mentioned that the guy (I'd love a link to the sermon, BTW) highlighted a lack of spiritual leadership in SBC fathers. I'd agree with this - and attribute it back to the list I gave above. Worldiness has infected us (the SBC) to a horrid degree. I can't see blaming this on credobaptism. I *can* see blaming it on a wide variety of factors that are more-or-less summed up in the list I gave above.

I can also see that it's a natural byproduct of engaging the world and its sin. The SBC, for all its faults, works disproprtionately hard to engage the world, and has in the process got much of the world on its hands.

I can also tell you that there's a stirring within the SBC that appears to be ready to address some of these problems. The founder's movement has helped greatly, and is spreading.

What do you think of that in light of your view of election and the idea that God no longer deals with households in this epoch of redemptive history?

If I directly and deliberately address this question, the result wouldn't be edifying nor unifying. I hope that you understand that.

In short, this issue is so complex that I really don't see trying to force credobaptism into it as being a worthwhile endeavour, no more than if I tried to blame paedobaptism for the PCUSA's problems.

 

[Herald]

What do you tell a young couple with small kids that worries whether or not their children might apostasize some day?

I would tell them (if they asked) that saving faith produces evidence that it is real (Eph. 2:10; 2 Cor. 5:17; Jas. 2:1-26). How does this differ for the paedo? Are you not looking for evidence of faith in your children as they grow older and mature? Could any of us tell a parent that their child will never apostasize? Rich, let me provide a real life story:

My brother-in-law attended the same Baptist church as my wife. From what I was told he was "on fire" for the Lord. He was involved in evangelistic outreaches and was bold in proclaiming his faith. He was plugged into all the church ministries that were available for a young man of his age. His parents were convinced of his salvation. Today he claims that Jesus is just one way to heaven. He has rejected the teachings of his youth. He has adopted a pluralistic view of God.

The question I have to ask regarding my brother-in-law is "why"? Why? Did it have anything to do with anything that anybody did? Did he apostasize because he was not baptized as an infant? Did he apostasize because some wrong done on the part of the parents? The truth is, his life story is not yet over. My brother-in-law may still come to faith in Christ. That is my hope and my prayer.

Back to that family you mentioned. That thought crossed my mind when my daughter was small. I wondered if she would actually come to faith in Christ. I prayed for her. Even now I hope and pray that her faith is real. I have confidence it is because I have witnessed the evidence of "the repentance that leads to life" (Acts 11:18) in her life. Is that a guarantee? No. But it is my confident hope. Only God knows.

You seem to indicate that there is a family of faith. I'm trying to sense the way in which a Reformed Baptist connects the idea of nurture to apostasy.

A Reformed Baptist would "nurture" their child in the ways of the Lord. The parent would be looking for the evidence of repentance and saving faith. The nuturing would continue even after that evidence is witnessed.

Would you just tell them that, no matter what they do, their child may not be elect?

Talk about a quilt laden question! First off, let me take the implied emphasis off the parents. If a child is elect there is nothing the parents can or can't do to prevent their child from coming to faith. That aside, I would tell a parent that they are to raise their child in the nuture and admonition of the Lord and pray for their child's salvation. I would tell the parents that the work of salvation is God's. How could I tell a parent that their child is or is not elect? That would be not only arrogant, but theologically flawed. Rich, with all Christian charity, let me turn the question around. Could you just tell a paedo family that, no matter what they do, their child is probably elect?





Up to six cents now!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It appears - from my perspective - that you're grossly overanalyzing the issue, trying to force paedobaptism to be the answer to a problem when it's not.

Me thinks somebody read into what I wrote. I did not propose a solution. I asked a question about your thoughts. One is hardly able to "grossly" overanalyze a subject as complex as the apostasy of millions in a paragraph. Interestingly, what follows, is your analysis of the situation, which is more extensive than my own. Gross analysis?

The SBC's weaknesses and lack of growth can be attributed to a number of factors:

-bad evangelism, as a result of
-bad theology, as a result of
-unwillingness to offend, as a result of
-trying to be attractive to a carnal world, which all boils down to
-compromise.

Compromise almost always produces short-term results at long term expense. We're now seeing the long-term expense. The sins of the fathers.........

You mentioned that the guy (I'd love a link to the sermon, BTW) highlighted a lack of spiritual leadership in SBC fathers. I'd agree with this - and attribute it back to the list I gave above. Worldiness has infected us (the SBC) to a horrid degree. I can't see blaming this on credobaptism. I *can* see blaming it on a wide variety of factors that are more-or-less summed up in the list I gave above.

It's always useful if you read the rest of the thread instead of responding directly to the OP. I never offered paedobaptism as the solution or credobaptism as the problem.

I can also see that it's a natural byproduct of engaging the world and its sin. The SBC, for all its faults, works disproprtionately hard to engage the world, and has in the process got much of the world on its hands.

I can also tell you that there's a stirring within the SBC that appears to be ready to address some of these problems. The founder's movement has helped greatly, and is spreading.

Why will the founder's movement address apostasy?

If I directly and deliberately address this question, the result wouldn't be edifying nor unifying. I hope that you understand that.

In short, this issue is so complex that I really don't see trying to force credobaptism into it as being a worthwhile endeavour, no more than if I tried to blame paedobaptism for the PCUSA's problems.

So you entered the thread to merely accuse me of something I did not do only to refuse to answer the question I did pose?

 

[Herald]

Rich - I want to let you know that I realize you did not start this thread as a debate between credo and paedo. Unfortunately the paedo position is brought into the discussion for the purpose of comparison. In my answers I am not questioning the paedo position. Just want to make sure that is clear.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I would tell them (if they asked) that saving faith produces evidence that it is real (Eph. 2:10; 2 Cor. 5:17; Jas. 2:1-26). How does this differ for the paedo? Are you not looking for evidence of faith in your children as they grow older and mature? Could any of us tell a parent that their child will never apostasize?

I didn't argue for a position. I've been asking questions. I'm interested in your exegesis of the passages that do speak of apostasy and our responsibility in it.

Rich, let me provide a real life story:

My brother-in-law attended the same Baptist church as my wife. From what I was told he was "on fire" for the Lord. He was involved in evangelistic outreaches and was bold in proclaiming his faith. He was plugged into all the church ministries that were available for a young man of his age. His parents were convinced of his salvation. Today he claims that Jesus is just one way to heaven. He has rejected the teachings of his youth. He has adopted a pluralistic view of God.

The question I have to ask regarding my brother-in-law is "why"? Why? Did it have anything to do with anything that anybody did? Did he apostasize because he was not baptized as an infant? Did he apostasize because some wrong done on the part of the parents? The truth is, his life story is not yet over. My brother-in-law may still come to faith in Christ. That is my hope and my prayer.

Not sure anyone cares when he was baptized. Do you think the parents have no culpability in his apostasy?

Back to that family you mentioned. That thought crossed my mind when my daughter was small. I wondered if she would actually come to faith in Christ. I prayed for her. Even now I hope and pray that her faith is real. I have confidence it is because I have witnessed the evidence of "the repentance that leads to life" (Acts 11:18) in her life. Is that a guarantee? No. But it is my confident hope. Only God knows.

Not arguing for certainty here. Your answer indicates that you believe your prayers and efforts were used of God somehow. Had you not prayed with her and witnessed to her do you suppose it would have made a difference?

A Reformed Baptist would "nurture" their child in the ways of the Lord. The parent would be looking for the evidence of repentance and saving faith. The nuturing would continue even after that evidence is witnessed.

How does a Reformed Baptist nurture a child that is not in the Lord? If half are reprobate and half are elect then how does one nurture the reprobate ones?

Talk about a quilt laden question! First off, let me take the implied emphasis off the parents. If a child is elect there is nothing the parents can or can't do to prevent their child from coming to faith. That aside, I would tell a parent that they are to raise their child in the nuture and admonition of the Lord and pray for their child's salvation. I would tell the parents that the work of salvation is God's. How could I tell a parent that their child is or is not elect? That would be not only arrogant, but theologically flawed. Rich, with all Christian charity, let me turn the question around. Could you just tell a paedo family that, no matter what they do, their child is probably elect?

I'm asking what you would say to the parents. I've heard your brethren say that they have some kids that aren't elect. I just want to know what you'd tell the parents. Nothing is implied in the idea as to knowledge of the hidden counsel of God. I know what I would tell the paedo family but this is a thread for questions to Reformed Baptists.

There is a strange dialectic here. You want to nurture your children and argue that nurture is important in the salvation of the child but you don't seem to think that parents have any ultimate culpability or responsibility therein for their apostasy. On the one hand, you seem to argue that the apostasy in other bodies is attributed to a lack of nurture but on the other hand the "nurturers" bear no responsibility because God didn't elect their kids.

 

[Chris]

If you'd be willing to reconsider the tone of that last post, I'd love to delve further into this.

If not, I'll restate that this thread may not be particulary edifying, and take leave of it.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

If you'd be willing to reconsider the tone of that last post, I'd love to delve further into this.

If not, I'll restate that this thread may not be particulary edifying, and take leave of it.

I am sorry for stating that you grossly overanalyzed the reason why Southern Baptists are apostasizing.

Better?

 

[Andrew P.C.]

What do you tell a young couple with small kids that worries whether or not their children might apostasize some day?

You seem to indicate that there is a family of faith. I'm trying to sense the way in which a Reformed Baptist connects the idea of nurture to apostasy.

Would you just tell them that, no matter what they do, their child may not be elect?

Rich, what do we tell them? We tell them what any other should. We don't expect God to save them; we want Him and we pray for their salvation, but we tell them to raise their childeren up in the Word. We tell them to be godly parents.

By the way, the Founders ministry is so awsome. Also, I'm thankful for people like Mark Dever and Al Mohler.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

And for the discussion on election:

People are individually elected. Just because a child is raised up in a believeing family, that does not make him elected too. We have no idea who the elect are. To say that we do is to say we are God.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich, what do we tell them? We tell them what any other should. We don't expect God to save them; we want Him and we pray for their salvation, but we tell them to raise their childeren up in the Word. We tell them to be godly parents.

Why do you tell them to raise their children up in the Word? What part does a person outside of the Covenant have with the Word of God?

What passages do you refer them to when they ask what it means to be a godly parent?

 

[Andrew P.C.]

A fact that was not brought out in the stats you cited is that most SBC churches are Arminian. Arminian theology corrupts everything it touches. It is the reason for 20th century "easy-believism" that is prevelant in many Baptist churches. In fact, a case can be made that a high rate of reprobation in Baptist churches can be directly linked to flawed soterioglogy.

This is sad. I am a youth intern at my church(SBC). The Founders ministry, who are in the SBC, have wrote many articles, books, and so forth about the SBC losing the gospel. How sad. The SBC used to be so strong, starting with the strong teachings of James Boyce and now the SBC is weak. They are what John Piper would say "a bunch of wimps." That's why i am thankful for the Founders and also individuals like Al Mohler and Mark Dever.

 

[Herald]

I didn't argue for a position. I've been asking questions. I'm interested in your exegesis of the passages that do speak of apostasy and our responsibility in it.

Rich, are you referring to any specific passages re: apostasy?

Not sure anyone cares when he was baptized. Do you think the parents have no culpability in his apostasy?

To the degree that that they failed in their spiritual responsibility to their child, the answer is yes. (A theological note: responsibility does not negate God's sovereignty, but it also does not allow the sinner off the hook.)

Not arguing for certainty here. Your answer indicates that you believe your prayers and efforts were used of God somehow. Had you not prayed with her and witnessed to her do you suppose it would have made a difference?

Without a doubt! God used my wife and I for that very purpose.

How does a Reformed Baptist nurture a child that is not in the Lord? If half are reprobate and half are elect then how does one nurture the reprobate ones?

Technically speaking you cannot nuture something that is not alive. I am using the term nurture in reference to teaching. The unsaved child can be taught about God. The parent will not know the exact moment a child comes to faith. It is the parents prayer they will be used by God to proclaim the gospel to their children. Once a child does so evidence of repentance and faith true nuturing (according to the actual definition) can begin.

I'm asking what you would say to the parents. I've heard your brethren say that they have some kids that aren't elect. I just want to know what you'd tell the parents. Nothing is implied in the idea as to knowledge of the hidden counsel of God. I know what I would tell the paedo family but this is a thread for questions to Reformed Baptists.

I can't speak for my "brethren." If anyone is telling parents that their children are not elect they should be taken behind a barn and horse whipped! How can anyone say such a thing? As far as what I would tell the parents, I already answered that in my previous post. And about this being a question directed towards Reformed Baptist's, that does not exclude honest comparative questions being asked of you. Your question(s) do not exist in a vacuum. I am providing you answers (although I would like to see some of my fellow Baptist brethren step up to the plate). I'm curious as to what you think.

There is a strange dialectic here. You want to nurture your children and argue that nurture is important in the salvation of the child but you don't seem to think that parents have any ultimate culpability or responsibility therein for their apostasy.

If I gave that impression, I am correcting it. I stated earlier in this post that parents are accountable. It is within God's sovereignty, but they are still accountable.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Why do you tell them to raise their children up in the Word? What part does a person outside of the Covenant have with the Word of God?

What passages do you refer them to when they ask what it means to be a godly parent?

Outside the Covenant? Brother, I believe this was what Brother Bill was refering to when he said "I am resistant to put God in box when it comes to the manner in which He calls His elect." I feel you are implying that God only calls those who are inside a believing family.

Also, We only tell believing parents what the word gives wisdom on:

"Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it."(Prov. 22:6)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich, are you referring to any specific passages re: apostasy?

I know some but I'm waiting for a Baptist to produce some verses that deal with apostasy.

To the degree that that they failed in their spiritual responsibility to their child, the answer is yes. (A theological note: responsibility does not negate God's sovereignty, but it also does not allow the sinner off the hook.)

Sounds good.

Without a doubt! God used my wife and I for that very purpose.

Technically speaking you cannot nuture something that is not alive. I am using the term nurture in reference to teaching. The unsaved child can be taught about God. The parent will not know the exact moment a child comes to faith. It is the parents prayer they will be used by God to proclaim the gospel to their children. Once a child does so evidence of repentance and faith true nuturing (according to the actual definition) can begin.

So you treat them like believers? Interesting.

I can't speak for my "brethren." If anyone is telling parents that their children are not elect they should be taken behind a barn and horse whipped! How can anyone say such a thing? As far as what I would tell the parents, I already answered that in my previous post. And about this being a question directed towards Reformed Baptist's, that does not exclude honest comparative questions being asked of you. Your question(s) do not exist in a vacuum. I am providing you answers (although I would like to see some of my fellow Baptist brethren step up to the plate). I'm curious as to what you think.

So am I.

If I gave that impression, I am correcting it. I stated earlier in this post that parents are accountable. It is within God's sovereignty, but they are still accountable.

But just not Covenantally accountable? What has the child violated except the Covenant of Works?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Outside the Covenant? Brother, I believe this was what Brother Bill was refering to when he said "I am resistant to put God in box when it comes to the manner in which He calls His elect." I feel you are implying that God only calls those who are inside a believing family.

Hmm...nope, not implying anything of the sort. I asked a question. As somebody who is looking to Scripture for the normative way of dealing with those outside the Covenant, how can you expect them to obey the Word?

Also, We only tell believing parents what the word gives wisdom on:

"Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it."(Prov. 22:6)

But that was written by a father to give his son instructions on how to keep the Covenant. How does that apply to children who are outside of it until they profess faith?

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Hmm...nope, not implying anything of the sort. I asked a question. As somebody who is looking to Scripture for the normative way of dealing with those outside the Covenant, how can you expect them to obey the Word?

Rewording the sentence would be best.

But that was written by a father to give his son instructions on how to keep the Covenant. How does that apply to children who are outside of it until they profess faith?

Really, which son of Solomon are you referring to?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rewording the sentence would be best.

Assuming Scripture is the place where you go for your norms, what does the Scripture say about the person outside of the Covenant? Why is a child, outside the Covenant, expected to obey the Word?

Really, which son of Solomon are you referring to?

Proverbs 1

1The proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel:
2To know wisdom and instruction,
to understand words of insight,
3to receive instruction in wise dealing,
in righteousness, justice, and equity;
4to give prudence to the simple,
knowledge and discretion to the youth--
5Let the wise hear and increase in learning,
and the one who understands obtain guidance,
6to understand a proverb and a saying,
the words of the wise and their riddles.
7The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge;
fools despise wisdom and instruction
8Hear, my son, your father's instruction,
and forsake not your mother's teaching,
9for they are a graceful garland for your head
and pendants for your neck.

 

[Gryphonette]

"Why is a child, outside the Covenant, expected to obey the Word?"

Isn't it every person's responsibility to obey the Word? Are there people who have escaped this responsibility? "Oh well, you're not in the Covenant so you needn't obey"?

I cannot imagine that's what you're intending to say, but it's rather how it's coming across...as if we're FIRST to determine who is expected to obey and subsequently instruct them - and only them - in the admonishment of the Lord.

When it comes to Dmitry, our 16 year old son from Russia, I point out to him that God has sovereignly placed him in a position to hear the gospel and know what it is the LORD requires, so it behooves him to pay attention. I point out how many other kids from his orphanage were never adopted so will likely never hear the gospel. I point out how this is a sign of favor from the LORD that isn't given to everyone on the planet, and that if he rejects "so great a salvation" it will be the worse for him.

I do not, however, tell him he's "elect."

For the life of me I can't figure out whether you think I should or not.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

"Why is a child, outside the Covenant, expected to obey the Word?"

Isn't it every person's responsibility to obey the Word? Are there people who have escaped this responsibility? "Oh well, you're not in the Covenant so you needn't obey"?

I cannot imagine that's what you're intending to say, but it's rather how it's coming across...as if we're FIRST to determine who is expected to obey and subsequently instruct them - and only them - in the admonishment of the Lord.

When it comes to Dmitry, our 16 year old son from Russia, I point out to him that God has sovereignly placed him in a position to hear the gospel and know what it is the LORD requires, so it behooves him to pay attention. I point out how many other kids from his orphanage were never adopted so will likely never hear the gospel. I point out how this is a sign of favor from the LORD that isn't given to everyone on the planet, and that if he rejects "so great a salvation" it will be the worse for him.

I do not, however, tell him he's "elect."

For the life of me I can't figure out whether you think I should or not.

Why do you care if I think you should tell him he's elect?

I think it's good that you warn Dmitry to pay attention but where did you get that language? I'm not aware of a parallel you could point to in Scripture to guide that idea you're communicating to a person outside of the Covenant.

This has been interesting. It's 1300 here and I have a meeting to get to. Enjoyed the discussion.