At What Age Should A Child NOT Be Baptized?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Bible is replete with descriptions of households, and we certainly know that many of them explicitly included "little ones," or babes in arms.

So, unless one has already decided that these households simply cannot, for some theological a priori, contain such persons, then the presumption favors the abandonment of any prejudgment as to what such a household might contain. The word must be accepted according to the general biblical usage, and not restricted. The whole authority structure is assumed by the language.

Presumption seems to me to be a very thin rope upon which to suspend a doctrine of baptism (cf. Post #5 above).

Do you really think that our practice is suspended on a presumption? I'm positive you don't.

All I'm pointing out is that the Bible gives us the definition of a household. We aren't interested after that with trying to explain why that definition has to be circumscribed. As far as we are concerned, it didn't have to be explained so by Luke, Paul, or anyone else.
 
Anyone under the authority of the head of the household would be baptized. There would be different ages depending on different cultures...but for instance, in the U.S.A. the age of no longer being under your parents authority is 18. Therefore at 18 they would no longer be baptized as part of those under the head of the household.

I think this really demarcates an excellent distinction between living in a household and actually being under the sovereignty of the head of the household. It might be a hard age exactly to pinpoint, but my answer would be whenever the person is considered not to be under the head of the household.

Until then, even if the person is an incorrigible and reprobate seventeen-year-old, if he is under the care of the head of the household and attending church with his family, then I would say he gets baptized. He is part of the covenant community at that point. Baptism is supposed to more reflect a jurisdictional claim than a soteriological claim, anyway.

I would not baptize one like that. I don't think Abraham circumcised any who refused the knife either. He just said, "Thanks for coming; here are some nice parting gifts..." and they were out of the covenant community, having "broken my covenant."

A person who is obviously a candidate for immediate, punitive discipline by the church is in no position to be admitted to the church. He may be living under that roof, but he is already a stiffened rebel in his heart. On the other hand, a meek, open-to-teaching, being under the authority of his parents with cheer--if his father will avouch for him then perhaps.

Unless there were extenuating circumstances, however, I would want him immediately to begin a communicant's class. He is mentally capable of handling the instruction. He needs, by that age (barring some retardation) to be prepared to "answer for himself" (John 9:21). And if that, why not simply put him through the same examination as the parents to begin with?
 
Anyone under the authority of the head of the household would be baptized. There would be different ages depending on different cultures...but for instance, in the U.S.A. the age of no longer being under your parents authority is 18. Therefore at 18 they would no longer be baptized as part of those under the head of the household.

I think this really demarcates an excellent distinction between living in a household and actually being under the sovereignty of the head of the household. It might be a hard age exactly to pinpoint, but my answer would be whenever the person is considered not to be under the head of the household.

Until then, even if the person is an incorrigible and reprobate seventeen-year-old, if he is under the care of the head of the household and attending church with his family, then I would say he gets baptized. He is part of the covenant community at that point. Baptism is supposed to more reflect a jurisdictional claim than a soteriological claim, anyway.

I would not baptize one like that. I don't think Abraham circumcised any who refused the knife either. He just said, "Thanks for coming; here are some nice parting gifts..." and they were out of the covenant community, having "broken my covenant."

A person who is obviously a candidate for immediate, punitive discipline by the church is in no position to be admitted to the church. He may be living under that roof, but he is already a stiffened rebel in his heart. On the other hand, a meek, open-to-teaching, being under the authority of his parents with cheer--if his father will avouch for him then perhaps.

Unless there were extenuating circumstances, however, I would want him immediately to begin a communicant's class. He is mentally capable of handling the instruction. He needs, by that age (barring some retardation) to be prepared to "answer for himself" (John 9:21). And if that, why not simply put him through the same examination as the parents to begin with?

:)

When I was typing this, I figured either I would be right and receive no answer or wrong and receive a right answer. I had a feeling some rebuke was coming. Thank you.
 
Pardon me if I am wrong but I don't believe there is any Biblical evidence to support the idea of drawing a line when they are too young or old for Baptism. "And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway." (Acts 16:33)

I hate to engage in casuistry, but your statement is best answered with an extreme situation.

A man and his wife become believers at the ripe young age of 62. They have a son who is pursuing his doctorate at whatever-U. He lives at home, since the school happens to be three blocks away, they have an unused in-law-suite, and it doesn't really make sense financially for him to live elsewhere. He's 27, and claims to be an agnostic.

Does he get baptized?

On the one hand, you've got the command to Abraham to circumcise even his household servants -- but not many of us would demand that our pool-guy be circumcised. Even in the OT, if someone would convert, he was to be circumcised. So there is a distinction between coming in of your own accord, and being brought in through your parents. Where's the line? At what point would you need to be brought in of your own accord?

My answer has already been given -- at the point at which he or she would be able to profess. I'm reluctant to give an age -- just as I don't like putting an age on communicant membership. I think this is an issue for the wisdom of elders. And, thankfully, for that calling, God equips.

It's scenarios like this that still have me on the fence about paedobaptism. My husband is thoroughly convinced and I'm about 90% there, but this poses a huge problem for me. I can't find scripture to support NOT baptizing the 27 year old if he is in the household. I'm under the impression that baptism in the paedo view is not about personal profession, but rather membership in the church (I KNOW I'll be corrected if I'm wrong on this). Of course, on the face of it, it would be absurd to baptize an agnostic. *sigh* help.

-----Added 4/28/2009 at 06:50:32 EST-----

I was baptized when I was about 15 yr old and I wasn't a Christian. My pastor said I was still under my mother's authority so it counted.

:confused:
 
It's scenarios like this that still have me on the fence about paedobaptism. My husband is thoroughly convinced and I'm about 90% there, but this poses a huge problem for me. I can't find scripture to support NOT baptizing the 27 year old if he is in the household. I'm under the impression that baptism in the paedo view is not about personal profession, but rather membership in the church (I KNOW I'll be corrected if I'm wrong on this). Of course, on the face of it, it would be absurd to baptize an agnostic. *sigh* help.

:amen:
 
We must also keep in mind the context of our current culture versus the context of the culture during biblical times...and during the times of the Confession being written.

We look at splintered families and wonder how it all fits in...but when the Confession was drafted there were not as many problems within families as we see today.

It seems to me that the context of the Confession on the point of Baptism is taking for granted Christian parents having a baby. I don't think that it specifically addresses a family who later comes to faith in Christ and what to do with their teenagers.

Scripturally there may be more data in this regard...as has already been mentioned with slaves and such being circumcised.
Abraham may not have circumcised those who refused it...but he wouldn't keep them in his home either...so i'm not sure where that leaves the issue.
 
This is a Paedo Answers Forum.

Baptist's, please refrain from answering.

Sorry, I didn't realize there was a seperate forum for paeto answers only. I was thinking, earlier: "I wonder why a baptist started this and only prebyterians answered."

:oops:
 
It's scenarios like this that still have me on the fence about paedobaptism. My husband is thoroughly convinced and I'm about 90% there, but this poses a huge problem for me. I can't find scripture to support NOT baptizing the 27 year old if he is in the household. I'm under the impression that baptism in the paedo view is not about personal profession, but rather membership in the church (I KNOW I'll be corrected if I'm wrong on this). Of course, on the face of it, it would be absurd to baptize an agnostic. *sigh* help.

Gloria,
The scenario could confuse you, but did you notice this part of my post
Even in the OT, if someone would convert, he was to be circumcised. So there is a distinction between coming in of your own accord, and being brought in through your parents. Where's the line? At what point would you need to be brought in of your own accord?

Even in the OT, there is a distinction between paedo-circumcision and a convert being circumcised. So once you have accepted the connection between circumcision and baptism (for which, see my post here Clark H. Brooking: Colossians 2, Circumcision and Baptism) you should not be dissuaded of it by a challenging scenario. While in the OT, given that God's people was a nation, such a scenario would have been met with grave consequences for the agnostic son, the point I was making was that there was already a distinction in the OT between being born into the covenant and being converted to it. I'm sorry I brought more confusion than clarity.

I was only trying to respond to the original post, which, though cast in terms of age, with which I disagree, was raising what I thought to be a legitimate question.
 
and the ages of "he and all his" are?
The ESV says "all his family". Household baptisms would include everyone living in one's house, under the leadership of the householder. It would include infants, small children who could speak intelligible words, and even slaves.

You are assuming there were such in his household. Scripture does not say.

When I was a credo I used to 'assume' there was enough water to immerse the Ethiopian in Acts 8 when the scripture does not say how much water there was.
 
It's scenarios like this that still have me on the fence about paedobaptism. My husband is thoroughly convinced and I'm about 90% there, but this poses a huge problem for me. I can't find scripture to support NOT baptizing the 27 year old if he is in the household. I'm under the impression that baptism in the paedo view is not about personal profession, but rather membership in the church (I KNOW I'll be corrected if I'm wrong on this). Of course, on the face of it, it would be absurd to baptize an agnostic. *sigh* help.

:amen:

LOL...That's no help. Something is telling me you're not going to help me though. :think::p

-----Added 4/28/2009 at 07:01:24 EST-----

It's scenarios like this that still have me on the fence about paedobaptism. My husband is thoroughly convinced and I'm about 90% there, but this poses a huge problem for me. I can't find scripture to support NOT baptizing the 27 year old if he is in the household. I'm under the impression that baptism in the paedo view is not about personal profession, but rather membership in the church (I KNOW I'll be corrected if I'm wrong on this). Of course, on the face of it, it would be absurd to baptize an agnostic. *sigh* help.

Gloria,
The scenario could confuse you, but did you notice this part of my post
Even in the OT, if someone would convert, he was to be circumcised. So there is a distinction between coming in of your own accord, and being brought in through your parents. Where's the line? At what point would you need to be brought in of your own accord?

Even in the OT, there is a distinction between paedo-circumcision and a convert being circumcised. So once you have accepted the connection between circumcision and baptism (for which, see my post here Clark H. Brooking: Colossians 2, Circumcision and Baptism) you should not be dissuaded of it by a challenging scenario. While in the OT, given that God's people was a nation, such a scenario would have been met with grave consequences for the agnostic son, the point I was making was that there was already a distinction in the OT between being born into the covenant and being converted to it. I'm sorry I brought more confusion than clarity.

I was only trying to respond to the original post, which, though cast in terms of age, with which I disagree, was raising what I thought to be a legitimate question.

Thanks for the part in blue!
 
I am going with the Whole Family Baptism, As for me and My household we serve the Lord. Our son is 10 and if he was 16 it would not change any thing, I would and I am training him up in the Lord, so I would want him Baptized. I feel and Believe it is a sign.

Just my 2 cents
 
My wife and I left a credobaptist church for our present paedo church at a time when we were soteriologically Reformed but did not yet embrace paedobaptism. At that point, we could just as well have become happily involved in a Reformed Baptist congregation (and have joked since that perhaps we should have worked our way up to the rigors of the PCA by sojourning there a while). We figured we would remain members of the loyal opposition, having our young children baptized upon a later profession of faith, and not raising a ruckus about it in the meantime.

Well, it was a nice plan, promptly ruined by engagement with the Session on this issue, and with various Presbyterian authors. I came around, and then helped my wife to do the same, and we brought our children forth for baptism when the three of them ranged between four and eight years old. My eldest was being catechized and was coming along well enough for his age, but we did not consider him able to make his own profession at that time.

I bring no learned answers to this question, but heartily agree with the several comments about the value of the elders' wisdom.
 
Lower limite: in utero. Upper limit: ask the Session.

Of course, the problem with the second half of that statement is that it creates a lack of uniformity within a single denomination regarding a very significant practice. This is how we tend to function in the PCA, but I think it a problem. Various sessions have differing levels of theological understanding and/or care about the issue. Stating it in this manner assumes that the session is competent or caring enough to figure it out on their own, and even if they do take a stand on it, what happens when that stand differs from another PCA in the area?

I have seen this before with the issue of communion where a family had been at a previous PCA at which their older children were admitted to the Lord's supper, but then when they transferred to the congregation at which we were then attending the session said "No, they will have to take communicant membership classes all over again from our own session" (it was a case of at "TR" session not giving any credibility to the actions of a session that they believed was "BR").

This type of mini-papacy via sessional discretion is something that really needs to be addressed. It does a great deal of damage and confusion to the faith of a child who, say as in the example above, was admitted to the table (or was baptized at a late age w/o profession) to then be told that his first acceptance to the table was wrong, or that he should not have been baptized. It is at this point that we are acting like practical congregationalists, and to be honest, I would rather be a congregationalist fully than I would only half-way, suffering the flaws of Presbyterianism and Congregationalism under one roof, as it were.
 
My wife and I left a credobaptist church for our present paedo church at a time when we were soteriologically Reformed but did not yet embrace paedobaptism. At that point, we could just as well have become happily involved in a Reformed Baptist congregation (and have joked since that perhaps we should have worked our way up to the rigors of the PCA by sojourning there a while). We figured we would remain members of the loyal opposition, having our young children baptized upon a later profession of faith, and not raising a ruckus about it in the meantime.

Well, it was a nice plan, promptly ruined by engagement with the Session on this issue, and with various Presbyterian authors. I came around, and then helped my wife to do the same, and we brought our children forth for baptism when the three of them ranged between four and eight years old. My eldest was being catechized and was coming along well enough for his age, but we did not consider him able to make his own profession at that time.

I bring no learned answers to this question, but heartily agree with the several comments about the value of the elders' wisdom.

I am really appreciating this thread. We had a similar experience. We left a credo church for a PCA. At the time, our eldest had made a profession of faith and been immersed. We had 3 other children at the time. We joined the PCA church and my dh, myself and my dd (who I think was around 11) were accepted into membership. There was NO mention of our other children being baptized. My dh and I don't even remember being asked about it.

While we were there, we asked several people questions about infant baptism and were given a couple of books. We were totally confused. The Lord blessed us with another child during this time and we remember being asked about baptism for *him*. We replied that we were confused and undecided. That was that. It was never mentioned again....aside from one older woman whom I DO remember being freaked out by when she mentioned we were in sin by NOT doing it....but neither our elder nor our pastor addressed our reluctance. That pastor left and after 3 years with no pastor, we left. We went to a sovereign grace baptist church so it became, what we thought, was a moot point. (I will note that while at the sgb church, I had two other children make professions of faith, meet with the pastor and two elders re:baptism...and when we left a year later, they STILL had not been baptized!! (When we asked about it, we were told they were waiting for *more people*)

It was actually during our time *there* that we revisited the whole issue and NOW we understand and hold to paedobaptism. We have mentioned this to the elders overseeing our church plant and will be dealing with this soon. It never occurred to us that any of them would be too old now.

All I can say is, I praise God for His grace and mercy in our ignorance. He has continued to lead us and teach us in spite of our circumstances.

My dc who have not made profession of faith are still younger than 10.

(My dh just commented that he remembers that we attended the *immersion* of an 11yo girl in an elder's hot tub. Obviously, this PCA church was not typical to what I am reading *here*)
 
Pardon me if I am wrong but I don't believe there is any Biblical evidence to support the idea of drawing a line when they are too young or old for Baptism. "And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway." (Acts 16:33)

I hate to engage in casuistry, but your statement is best answered with an extreme situation.

A man and his wife become believers at the ripe young age of 62. They have a son who is pursuing his doctorate at whatever-U. He lives at home, since the school happens to be three blocks away, they have an unused in-law-suite, and it doesn't really make sense financially for him to live elsewhere. He's 27, and claims to be an agnostic.

Does he get baptized?

On the one hand, you've got the command to Abraham to circumcise even his household servants -- but not many of us would demand that our pool-guy be circumcised. Even in the OT, if someone would convert, he was to be circumcised. So there is a distinction between coming in of your own accord, and being brought in through your parents. Where's the line? At what point would you need to be brought in of your own accord?

My answer has already been given -- at the point at which he or she would be able to profess. I'm reluctant to give an age -- just as I don't like putting an age on communicant membership. I think this is an issue for the wisdom of elders. And, thankfully, for that calling, God equips.

It's scenarios like this that still have me on the fence about paedobaptism. My husband is thoroughly convinced and I'm about 90% there, but this poses a huge problem for me. I can't find scripture to support NOT baptizing the 27 year old if he is in the household. I'm under the impression that baptism in the paedo view is not about personal profession, but rather membership in the church (I KNOW I'll be corrected if I'm wrong on this). Of course, on the face of it, it would be absurd to baptize an agnostic. *sigh* help.

-----Added 4/28/2009 at 06:50:32 EST-----

I was baptized when I was about 15 yr old and I wasn't a Christian. My pastor said I was still under my mother's authority so it counted.

:confused:

It's in the Old Testament. A son such as this would have been sent out of the house a long time ago. In the Old Testament, he would have been put out of the camp and possibly executed as an idolater (the details escape me); however, since the civil magistrate no longer enforces Biblical Laws such as these, the most Christian parents can do is boot a rebellious child out of the house (in essence excommunicating him from their home).
 
Deuteronomy 21:18-21

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
 
Deuteronomy 21:18-21

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Thanks for the legwork.
 
It's fresh on my mind because the kids around here still think it's in effect. I wonder how that happened...

(Just kidding, by the way)
 
The scripture tells us very plainly the answer.
Gen 17:24 Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. 25 And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. 26 That very same day Abraham was circumcised, and his son Ishmael; 27 and all the men of his house, born in the house or bought with money from a foreigner, were circumcised with him. NKJV

Ex 12:43 And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "This is the ordinance of the Passover: No foreigner shall eat it. 44 But every man's servant who is bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then he may eat it. 45 A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat it.NKJV

Ex 12:48 And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it. 49 One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you."
NKJV

The beauty of the covenant.

Yes the answer is A. All under the covenantal headship of the believer living in the household.

So when the believer is baptized so are all in his household.
Not his married daughter living somewhere else. Not his son living elsewhere. Not the parents of a son who makes profession. But only those under the headship of the believer and the NT includes the husband of the believing wife sine our cultures are to be different in ongoing years.

Why not? This saves no one. It is no certainty one is saved. It is a sign they have come into the visible covenant and will receive special treatment as the people of God.
But they must each still come to their own saving knowledge of Christ.

The baptists think they can baptize believers but they can't. They only baptize people who are admitted to the visible covenant also. They are members of the visible church not for certain of the invisible.

They should call it credible professor's baptism, based on the judgment of a falible man trying to determine if they are a believer.

So those who call it credo baptism are much more consistent.

Unfortunately God's promise is to the children as well and was not revoked in the NT
Deut 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live KJV

1 Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. NKJV

So when Lydia believed or the jailer their whole house was baptized just as it would have been circumcised in the OT unless we have some new very clear instruction not to continue as they always had/

All they knew was whole households being in the covenant.
Where would they have come up with a new idea to do it differently?

Would they treat the man as in the covenant and his wife and kids as heathen??
Of course not they all got the benefit of being members of the visible covenant.

This is no way means they did not each have to come to a saving faith and profession of Christ to be saved or else they would go to hell

This is why the church makes the distinction of communicant or confessing members, as different from non-confessing, or some called them adherents.

Thanks for considering this
 
My kids were baptised at ages 1, 7, 11, and 16 (I think ... that's a little bit of guesswork, and I'm too lazy to calculate right at the moment), and all on the same day. So I do think that baptizing at all ages is appropriate IF a parent secures the agreement of the child. And I mean WILLING agreement, not coerced.

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.
 
For what it's worth, Caroline,
I certainly will not baptize a child who is old enough to plainly reject the ordinance of God.

I'm sorry you had to endure that as a child. It seems a bit shocking, that anyone would do that.
 
For what it's worth, Caroline,
I certainly will not baptize a child who is old enough to plainly reject the ordinance of God.

I'm sorry you had to endure that as a child. It seems a bit shocking, that anyone would do that.

Thanks. Yes, sorry .... hope it didn't come across as too abrupt for me to say that but with all the 'I would want my teen baptized', etc, I thought maybe it should be said for the sake of balance.

Parents may want good things for their children, and baptism is a good thing. But if such things become overly coercive, I think children can end up resenting the church and their parents. Certainly, if my children didn't want to be baptized, then I would ask them why. Possibly it is some small fear that can be easily put to rest. But ultimately, I think a big qualification on baptizing 'a household' is whether 'the household' agrees.
 
For what it's worth, Caroline,
I certainly will not baptize a child who is old enough to plainly reject the ordinance of God.

I'm sorry you had to endure that as a child. It seems a bit shocking, that anyone would do that.

Thanks. Yes, sorry .... hope it didn't come across as too abrupt for me to say that but with all the 'I would want my teen baptized', etc, I thought maybe it should be said for the sake of balance.

Parents may want good things for their children, and baptism is a good thing. But if such things become overly coercive, I think children can end up resenting the church and their parents. Certainly, if my children didn't want to be baptized, then I would ask them why. Possibly it is some small fear that can be easily put to rest. But ultimately, I think a big qualification on baptizing 'a household' is whether 'the household' agrees.

You are certainly not alone in this feeling. I mentioned this in another thread, but several of my friends were coerced into making professions of faith. Although almost all of them are now Christians and have made true profession of faith, they still struggle with bitterness over this issue. I do not understand why a session would want to pressure someone into making a false profession or to be baptized against their will.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
But I understood as I hope you do too, that your baptism was valid because you do not have to consent to baptism.

Well, that's an interesting question. I do accept that infant baptisms are valid. It seems to me that there is a difference between someone unable to consent and someone actually opposed.

Supposing a Mormon elder walked into your house, tied you up, and forcibly baptized you (yes, far-fetched example, I know). Would you be a member of the Mormon church? Or just a really angry Presbyterian?

Now if you had been baptized as an infant (do Mormons baptize infants? I'm not sure), you might say, "I was a Mormon as a child, but now I am a Presbyterian." But if you were simply forced into a baptism to which you voiced disagreement, you would likely say, "It was an invalid baptism. I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the Mormon church, no matter what they say."

Edited to add: I don't think we know whether the older boys mentioned in the Bible were opposed. But, regardless, at some point, the circumcision analogy does break down. A circumcision would have to be accepted as valid, no matter whether it was coerced or not, whether it was a Jewish circumcision or part of a pagan ritual or medical procedure or even some sort of bizarre accident ... because circumcision (unlike baptism) is inherently unrepeatable, so the 'first' circumcision (regardless of the circumstances) had to be the only one.

If we follow the 'circumcision' analogy too closely, the we would have to accept ALL baptisms, including Oneness Pentecostal, Mormon, and Hindu, and baptisms performed by someone who is not a minister, etc ... because it didn't matter whether circumcision was done by the right person or the right religious group, it is still circumcision.

It seems to me that sometimes baptism arguments get muddled on that analogy because there is confusion over 'can't' vs. 'shouldn't'. If my best friend falls over a cliff (just an example--I don't know anyone who has died that way), it is tragic if I CAN'T save him. However, simply because I CAN'T save my friend doesn't mean that you shouldn't save your friend if you can. Likewise, I don't think we can say for sure that just because people in the OT COULDN'T declare invalid and repeat a circumcision because it was an unrepeatable procedure means that we SHOULDN'T ever declare invalid and repeat a baptism.
 
Last edited:
Hello all.
Interesting thread but reading through it, I'm not sure if i'm getting confused by all the different folks replying: is there a uniform paedo answer to the OP's question? Or does it vary by Reformed denomination or individual church or individual situation?
Thanks.
 
But I understood as I hope you do too, that your baptism was valid because you do not have to consent to baptism.

Well, that's an interesting question. I do accept that infant baptisms are valid. It seems to me that there is a difference between someone unable to consent and someone actually opposed.

Supposing a Mormon elder walked into your house, tied you up, and forcibly baptized you (yes, far-fetched example, I know). Would you be a member of the Mormon church? Or just a really angry Presbyterian?

If that happened to you it would not be a valid baptism.

But that may have been similar to OT circumcision. I can't imagine.

Read my previous posts in this thread before yours. They show the verses of forced circumcision. I am sure no one volunteered except a true believer.

Even Moses wife did not want to do it to her infant. But God started to kill Moses so she did it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top