I believe this because my first baptism was not a willing baptism, and I am STILL angry about it. I refuse to acknowledge it as a baptism, as I was old enough to refuse and I DID refuse and they did it anyway. I stand by that refusal, and I believe it should have been respected.
Scriptural support for this? Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger.
I can understand your feelings. I was disappointed that the baptists dunked me and later when I understood the scriptures I wanted to be sprinkled but the presbyterian church wouldn't let me be baptized with the Biblical mode because they said mode was not that important and my baptism was valid.
So I felt cheated too.
But I understood as I hope you do too, that your baptism was valid because you do not have to consent to baptism.
**
Can you imagine how those older boys and men resisted when they were told they had to be circumcised because their father became a believer??
Yet it was valid.
You do have to make your own profession of faith and I do think some parents are a bit too pushy on their kids to make a profession. Sessions allow young children to make a simple profession a child could make and later when they grow up they realize it was not a real profession.
They had no real reasonable concept of the ramifications of Christ as Lord and the demands of the law before a holy God. Yes they know mommy and daddy's authority and right and wrong but this is not the same thing.
If they had a proper view of the covenant promises and paedo baptism this would not be an issue. The child or infant even is baptized into the visible covenant and grows up in the nurture of the Lord.
If this is made effectual to them by God they continue in true faith.
If they do not have faith and reject the Lord at an accountable age, then they are excommunicated if they refuse counsel.
This is why the accountable age should be much higher.
Society as a whole knows children are not reasonable and rational enough to make contracts before 18. They are not held as accountable for decisions. And they are protected by law. They can not give consent until they are older.
For the church to think differently baffles me. The child is a child of the covenant. Put your trust in god for the child. Ask of God for the child instead of asking the child to decide for God.
God will do right b the child. There is no rush. The child is either elect or not. And if so may have been converted in the womb. And if not he will in god's time. So pushing them when they can barely do more than recite memorized catechism is wrong n my mind.
It also causes them to think there is nothing to religion if they walk away later. They say well I was a Christian or I made profession and nothing.
Instead of having waited until they lacked signs of conversion and were warned by the church and the means of grace applied to them, counsel and discipline and excommunication. Rather than letting the think they were or are a Christian.
Then the parents can lay hold of the covenant promises of God and cry out to Him more for the child's soul rather than lower our standards of what conversion does to a person.
So to those who criticize early professions and not baptizing older children I agree you are right. Those who will baptize an infant coming into the covenant but not the older child who comes in with believing parents do not show that they follow the OT circumcision as the sign.
They switch to credo baptism, at this point and say the child must make their own profession to be baptized. Well why would that be? Where is that in scripture?
This is very inconsistent with scripture and gives the credo baptists cause to find fault and inconsistency with Presbyterians.
Yes a reasonable age child would need to make credal profession to be communicant member, but not to be in the visible church.
Now if a 16- 18 year old came to church on their own and their parents were not in the church we would not baptize them until they made profession. But that is different.