Baptists and Their Children

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr. Cross:...

...

...Now, please permit me to turn the tables. Since we don't presume that our children automatically believe but should ever be encouraged to do so (and not presumed to be unbelievers either), how is it with you as a particular Baptist?

Do you presume that your infant, because incapable of evidencing saving faith, is an unbeliever? And if your child is an unbeliever until you determine otherwise, would you invite them to sing and pray that which seems to pertain to believers?

Peace,
Alan

I believe the Bible teaches that the only way to discern the spiritual condition of a person is by the fruit of their life; and, even then, we cannot make a judgment with absolute certainty. Therefore, I do not presume that my 10 month old boys are believers at this point, seeing as I am unable to really discern anything heart-related other than bursts of anger.

I also believe that I am commanded to bring up my children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. By God's grace, they will be raised under the ministry of our local church, and in a home, where the Word is taught and obeyed; and therefore, they will be taught the gospel, and encouraged to repent and trust in Christ, and to worship God.

I will indeed encourage and teach my children to pray and to sing. I do not know when the Spirit may be working in their hearts; I am concerned with being a faithful parent, and raising them to the best of my ability to those ends.

Will there eventually come a time as they age when I will have to reevaluate? Yes, I am sure there will. But, for now, these are my plans.

Now, my Presbyterian brothers may think this inconsistent with my Baptist beliefs, but I do not.
Any other hypothetical unbeliever in these discussions is not under my charge in a parent/child relationship, with all of the commands that come with it. These are my children, it is a special relationship, and I must bring them up a certain way.

Please do forgive me for being so long winded; I have been known to like the sound of my own QWERTY keyboard.

If I have erred at some point, please tell me how, so that I may be corrected. I most certainly do not have everything figured out.
 
And if they believe this, which they will automatically because this is what they are taught and will display child-like faith, can they then be baptized?

The other thing is that parents are becoming the judges of their child's status before God, rather than embracing that profession.
I only wish they would automatically believe what they are taught, but the fact is, they do not. Remember they are born at enmity with God because they are in Adam, and no amount of teaching and upbringing can make them have saving faith--only God can give that, and He gives it when and where He will.
I don't believe that any regenerate child will rebel against the eldership when they say, "we, not knowing fully the hearts of men, must witness your profession for a time before we are convinced you can be rightly baptized." Since the child will understand that baptism will not make him more saved than he already is, he will wait with patience and bring forth fruits meet for repentance.
The elders at our church are pretty good about weeding out false professors, and many adults have been made to wait a year and more before being admitted to baptism. It isn't a sacrament we just toss around like flapjacks--we take it seriously.
 
I believe the Bible teaches that the only way to discern the spiritual condition of a person is by the fruit of their life; and, even then, we cannot make a judgment with absolute certainty. Therefore, I do not presume that my 10 month old boys are believers at this point, seeing as I am unable to really discern anything heart-related other than bursts of anger.

I also believe that I am commanded to bring up my children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. By God's grace, they will be raised under the ministry of our local church, and in a home, where the Word is taught and obeyed; and therefore, they will be taught the gospel, and encouraged to repent and trust in Christ, and to worship God.

I will indeed encourage and teach my children to pray and to sing. I do not know when the Spirit may be working in their hearts; I am concerned with being a faithful parent, and raising them to the best of my ability to those ends.

Will there eventually come a time as they age when I will have to reevaluate? Yes, I am sure there will. But, for now, these are my plans.

Now, my Presbyterian brothers may think this inconsistent with my Baptist beliefs, but I do not.
Any other hypothetical unbeliever in these discussions is not under my charge in a parent/child relationship, with all of the commands that come with it. These are my children, it is a special relationship, and I must bring them up a certain way.

Please do forgive me for being so long winded; I have been known to like the sound of my own QWERTY keyboard.

If I have erred at some point, please tell me how, so that I may be corrected. I most certainly do not have everything figured out.
This is what I was trying to say earlier, only you said it better. Thanks!
 
“There are four things which are too wonderful, which I know not. The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid.” All too wonderful and inexplicable, (which I knew not!)
Such could be said of grace in a child. Who would dare to fathom its mysterious workings in so tender a plant? Can grace be limited to an age of consent, or to the imperfect eye of a parent, or to the restriction of an oral confession? Grace is a sovereign inplanting, for the wind bloweth where it listeth,so is everyone that is born of the Spirit.
Surely scripture gives examples of the Spirit’s work even in the womb.Children of believers are under the umbrella of the Covenant, remaining so even to adulthood, until they prove to be covenant breakers. The sign and seal of baptism is not tied to the immediacy of its application, but it’s promise and responsibility continues.
Children are not to be considered as”little heathen,” but as covenant children and taught and urged to their obligations.
As for prayer, Swinnock wrote, “the precept is for all, the promises for His people.”
 
As a Presbyterian you must not deep fry.
I beg to differ. It is altogether appropriate for a Presbyterian to deep fry.

This reminds me of reading John Owen's defense of eating sausages made with blood in his Biblical Theology--it seemed that he had a personal bias in the matter!
 
I guess the question is, how is this practice wrong for a Baptist? It should be the standard, right? If the children are unbelievers, the bible teaches that the prayers of the ungodly are an abomination to Him, so they rightly shouldn't be able to pray. If the children are taking part of the means of grace, and are being discipled, then there is no reason why they shouldn't be counted as God's people and be in the church.

Any thoughts? Thanks.
My Baptist church allows for children to be raised up in Sunday school and taught them the ways of the Lord, as those scriptures are used by the Holy Spirit to get the elct of God saved and secured. We do not allow to have children baptized until age 12, and they need to have a profession of faith in Jesus as witnessed to by either the pastors or the elders. they also are not allowed to take communion until that point where they have confirmed being now saved in Jesus.
 
I beg to differ. It is altogether appropriate for a Presbyterian to deep fry.
My friend, the Westminster Confession 28:3 states "Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water".So to be a true Presbyterian you must sprinkle the oil on. :)
 
It does seem consistent to me. I notice a few people in this thread have had or continue to have or be confused about the raising of children on this topic who were or are from the baptist perspective. That should, in my mind, raise some red flags and bring about questions: why is this a common problem amongst baptists?

I don't think baptists have a monopoly on what you perceive to be confusion/inconsistency when it comes to raising children in the church. The paedocommunion debates within the PCA are still fresh in the minds of many.

This thread has really been good at shining the light on some issues I haven't thoroughly considered and for that I'm thankful.
 
I only wish they would automatically believe what they are taught, but the fact is, they do not. Remember they are born at enmity with God because they are in Adam, and no amount of teaching and upbringing can make them have saving faith--only God can give that, and He gives it when and where He will.
I don't believe that any regenerate child will rebel against the eldership when they say, "we, not knowing fully the hearts of men, must witness your profession for a time before we are convinced you can be rightly baptized." Since the child will understand that baptism will not make him more saved than he already is, he will wait with patience and bring forth fruits meet for repentance.
The elders at our church are pretty good about weeding out false professors, and many adults have been made to wait a year and more before being admitted to baptism. It isn't a sacrament we just toss around like flapjacks--we take it seriously.

I think there is much wisdom in not rushing a professing child, as does much of 'Evangelicanism' today.

As a side note, a large proportion of my church's congregation are relatively new to us, and therefore, so we are all 'on the same page', we are having a set of sermons on baptism, the Lord's Supper, church polity, and church discipline, as well as a new adult Sunday school teaching about an eventual church covenant that we are hoping to adopt. Very exciting times.

This past Lord's Day our pastor taught about baptism; a very timely sermon indeed.
 
I only wish they would automatically believe what they are taught, but the fact is, they do not. Remember they are born at enmity with God because they are in Adam, and no amount of teaching and upbringing can make them have saving faith--only God can give that, and He gives it when and where He will.
I don't believe that any regenerate child will rebel against the eldership when they say, "we, not knowing fully the hearts of men, must witness your profession for a time before we are convinced you can be rightly baptized." Since the child will understand that baptism will not make him more saved than he already is, he will wait with patience and bring forth fruits meet for repentance.
The elders at our church are pretty good about weeding out false professors, and many adults have been made to wait a year and more before being admitted to baptism. It isn't a sacrament we just toss around like flapjacks--we take it seriously.
I don't see it in Scripture that anyone was made to wait a year or more for baptism. How do you justify that? Not saying it is wrong, because the early church had very long catechism periods but why is baptism done so quickly in the New Testament?
 
I don't see it in Scripture that anyone was made to wait a year or more for baptism. How do you justify that? Not saying it is wrong, because the early church had very long catechism periods but why is baptism done so quickly in the New Testament?

Hmm, good question. Does it have anything to do with the Apostles? A man who had personally spoken to the resurrected Christ, or had seen the third heaven, or who had written Scripture, could/would be a better judge than myself if someone had been born again.

But, I know this idea is just conjecture, and not expressly mentioned in Scripture.
 
I don't see it in Scripture that anyone was made to wait a year or more for baptism. How do you justify that? Not saying it is wrong, because the early church had very long catechism periods but why is baptism done so quickly in the New Testament?
I don't know about the waiting period--it seems that in Scripture they baptized on the spot. And even the apostles were fooled, in the case of Ananias and Sapphira, and Simon the Magician.
But in those days quite often the Holy Spirit came a little more visibly on new believers (Cornelius), so perhaps there was an ingredient that has now passed away.
The best defense for waiting that I can see is that Peter says we must baptize upon the "answer of a good confession". The church can only be sure of a person's good confession as they see it played out in the bringing forth of fruits answering to repentance, which takes time.
In our day, also, because baptizing someone makes them a member of our church, the membership procedure often takes them--the applicant--a while to navigate. We insist that they read and mostly understand the LBCF, and read the church constitution--nothing like a little required reading to weed the sheep from the goats! Now where are my LBCF Cliff's Notes?
 
I have so many friends in the OPC, URC, PCA, and other churches in GR: I am sure that any of them would be glad to see you!

I was not baptized until 18, because one has to live a bit before having that sort of spiritual experience (as I described). And even then, many people marveled that "one so young" was being baptized!

And as for the switch to paedo-baptist, mine too came about largely through Scripture and its exposition (my "conversion" happened at Sinclair Ferguson's, with whom I then lived, as he held forth in his kitchen on Acts 2:39).

Peace,
Alan

For me it was Sinclair Ferguson and the Marrow in combination. About two years ago I understood the Mosaic Covenant to be gracious. Though, I also had a sense that my credobaptist covenantal foundation may have been undermined. I owe such a debt to Ferguson for a time when I was in spiritual depression that could only be cured by Gospel light.

I don't see it in Scripture that anyone was made to wait a year or more for baptism. How do you justify that? Not saying it is wrong, because the early church had very long catechism periods but why is baptism done so quickly in the New Testament?

Especially considering how Simon Magus was in and out almost in a breath but it was no sin to baptize him. There’s no way either that close examination of 3000 people happened in six hours time at Pentecost, so inevitably they just had to accept the professions as real. I think it says much about permitting children to be baptized, even from a credo perspective, without imposing an age limit. And of course, the eunuch had no catechism class and so far as I can see was not baptized with witnesses at hand. The profession just seemed to be believable and that was it.

The point of the age minimum seems to one the Baptist pastors’ concern that only the truly believing be baptized, as it is highly important that the membership only be made of those with a genuine profession, and children not having the understanding of adults are difficult to evaluate, so they wait. But I wonder, is that even possible to baptize only believers? The apostles couldn’t do it (for that matter, Jesus didn’t do it, ie. baptism of Judas), so regardless our level of care how today could we? Then, of course, you effectively never/rarely see children baptized, and you have churches with no children (is that even Biblical?).

I do remember one pastor saying that he’s seen some people who appeared to be the real thing but later turned away, but others who seemed dubious at first glance and yet turned out to be genuine. Of course, I don’t know how he applies that to baptism, but I know that he baptizes professing children.

But if the NT teaches believers only baptism, these weren’t such a big concern, or at least not cause for delaying pending the completion of a catechism class or a period of evaluation.

At the least, is it possible that we make the door more narrow than warranted?
 
Last edited:
Especially considering how Simon Magus was in and out almost in a breath but it was no sin to baptize him. There’s no way either that close examination of 3000 people happened in six hours time at Pentecost, so inevitably they just had to accept the professions as real. I think it says much about permitting children to be baptized, even from a credo perspective, without imposing an age limit. And of course, the eunuch had no catechism class and so far as I can see was not baptized with witnesses at hand. The profession just seemed to be believable and that was it.

Though I am no longer a baptist, the argument I've seen (from people like Mark Dever, if I recall) is that times are different now. In the early church, being part of the church meant that your violent death was a real possibility, which might rule out the majority of false conversions. In much of the American church, however, going through the motions truly might unlock a better standing with one's family and peers, at least until Johnny heads off to college and meets his first liberal arts professor.

Of course, Simon is the first argument I would run to in order to counter this. We see a blatant false conversion, so obviously they are possible even in the persecuted church, and yet the church does not change their practice.
 
For me it was Sinclair Ferguson and the Marrow in combination. About two years ago I understood the Mosaic Covenant to be gracious. Though, I also had a sense that my credobaptist covenantal foundation may have been undermined. I owe such a debt to Ferguson for a time when I was in spiritual depression that could only be cured by Gospel light.



Especially considering how Simon Magus was in and out almost in a breath but it was no sin to baptize him. There’s no way either that close examination of 3000 people happened in six hours time at Pentecost, so inevitably they just had to accept the professions as real. I think it says much about permitting children to be baptized, even from a credo perspective, without imposing an age limit. And of course, the eunuch had no catechism class and so far as I can see was not baptized with witnesses at hand. The profession just seemed to be believable and that was it.

The point of the age minimum seems to one the Baptist pastors’ concern that only the truly believing be baptized, as it is highly important that the membership only be made of those with a genuine profession, and children not having the understanding of adults are difficult to evaluate, so they wait. But I wonder, is that even possible to baptize only believers? The apostles couldn’t do it (for that matter, Jesus didn’t do it, ie. baptism of Judas), so regardless our level of care how today could we? Then, of course, you effectively never/rarely see children baptized, and you have churches with no children (is that even Biblical?).

I do remember one pastor saying that he’s seen some people who appeared to be the real thing but later turned away, but others who seemed dubious at first glance and yet turned out to be genuine. Of course, I don’t know how he applies that to baptism, but I know that he baptizes professing children.

But if the NT teaches believers only baptism, these weren’t such a big concern, or at least not cause for delaying pending the completion of a catechism class or a period of evaluation.

At the least, is it possible that we make the door more narrow than warranted?
Those are pretty convincing arguments I have to admit even as a baptist.
 
I understand this is mainly for baptist. :) What I have seen here is that the difference between baptism and The Lord's Supper, so far as a being a baptist is concerned, is who gets to participate in these sacraments is based on factors that are not distinguished, and makes them in a sense sacraments without a difference other than frequency.
 
I have heard it said that Baptists can be reactionary. It makes sense in my mind that Baptists being very careful with baptism could be a reaction to the 'easy believism' and Sinner's Prayer era of the Western Church. But, I believe there is much wisdom in the practice still.

Either way, I need to study the issue to have a biblical conviction.
 
Though I am no longer a baptist, the argument I've seen (from people like Mark Dever, if I recall) is that times are different now. In the early church, being part of the church meant that your violent death was a real possibility, which might rule out the majority of false conversions. In much of the American church, however, going through the motions truly might unlock a better standing with one's family and peers, at least until Johnny heads off to college and meets his first liberal arts professor.

Of course, Simon is the first argument I would run to in order to counter this. We see a blatant false conversion, so obviously they are possible even in the persecuted church, and yet the church does not change their practice.

I’d be interested to know anyone’s thoughts on the risk of persecution as of the Day of Pentecost? The worst that we think about didn’t happen for some months, though the disciples had just been fearing for their lives after the crucifixion.

Next question is, if the way the apostles worked wasn’t exemplary because there is such a difference in the working of the Spirit and the state of persecution, where are the instructions for easier times, or duller times, however you look at it? Is the change of events a warrant for a different example of dealing with candidates?

Thoughts???
 
Do Presbyterians baptize adults the instant they make a profession of faith? Certainly not. They do essentially the same thing Reformed Baptists do; they take the necessary time and steps to determine the credibility of one's profession:

Before permitting anyone to make profession of his faith in the presence of the congregation, the session shall announce his name to the congregation on a prior Lord's Day in order that the members of the church may have opportunity to acquaint the session with such facts concerning him as may appear to be irreconcilable with a credible profession. In order for the session to assure itself so far as possible that the candidate makes a credible profession, it shall examine him to ascertain that he possesses the doctrinal knowledge requisite for saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, relies on the merits of Christ alone, and is determined by the grace of God to lead a Christian life.--OPC Book of Church Order
Singling out Reformed Baptist for examining new converts who present themselves for Baptism and church membership is just the clover calling the grass green.
 
I have never met a Reformed Baptist who espoused the view of children mentioned in the OP. But I was aware of Philpot's views. I can see how someone might take that position. And while I don't agree with it, I think the concern to be clear with one's children about being in a converted state is commendable. Which is more than can be said for at least some paedobaptists. If the Baptist position has a slippery slope, the Presbyterians are not without their own. I have had conversations with paedobaptist parents who were not the least bit solicitous for their children's conversion to Christ because they didn't think they needed to be! On one occasion, after preaching, a Presbyterian gentleman visiting our church chided my pleas to the children in our congregation as off-putting because he said it should be assumed they were already Christians!
 
Last edited:
Do Presbyterians baptize adults the instant they make a profession of faith? Certainly not. They do essentially the same thing Reformed Baptists do; they take the necessary time and steps to determine the credibility of one's profession:

Before permitting anyone to make profession of his faith in the presence of the congregation, the session shall announce his name to the congregation on a prior Lord's Day in order that the members of the church may have opportunity to acquaint the session with such facts concerning him as may appear to be irreconcilable with a credible profession. In order for the session to assure itself so far as possible that the candidate makes a credible profession, it shall examine him to ascertain that he possesses the doctrinal knowledge requisite for saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, relies on the merits of Christ alone, and is determined by the grace of God to lead a Christian life.--OPC Book of Church Order
Singling out Reformed Baptist for examining new converts who present themselves for Baptism and church membership is just the clover calling the grass green.

I hope I don’t have seemed to single any one out with my last post, but I sorry that I had that tone. I did mean it as honest inquiry, and I’m beating against not a few positions I held myself until recently.

If I were to go to any passage as merit to examine an adult for baptism I would argue that for an adult you want them to be able to partake of the Lord’s Table as soon as they are baptized, as an adult should be able to examine himself. If an adult is not qualified for the Table, then that puts into question the wisdom of baptizing them.

Still curious though on thoughts of the baptisms in Acts happening so quickly.
 
There are many factors that make interpreting the book of Acts as normative for today unwise. Chief among them is the unique role of the Apostles (and other extraordinary officers) and the unique gifts afforded to the Apostolic church.
 
Pastor Sheffield is right: anyone professing his faith in a Presbyterian church, whether as an adult (who is being baptized upon a profession of his faith) or as a baptized covenant youth, customarily receives a course of training/instruction prior to coming before the Session to profess his faith.

As I've noted (and I recall Richard Z. making this clear), we neither presume regeneration when we baptize an infant nor do we believe that the outward act of baptism causes the regeneration of the infant. But Pastor Sheffield is not wrong that some Presbyterians err in assuming that their children don't need to be converted.

I've been asked more than once: "Do baptized youth need to be converted?" And my response is--"Who doesn't need to be converted? Our Lord said that we all need to be converted" (Matthew 18:3).

Now I understand that when people ask whether baptized children need to be converted what they mean is "do they need to undergo a crisis-conversion, one that is dramatic and obvious?" My answer to that is "no." Such can be scarcely perceptible to one reared in the Christian faith, particularly one who never knows a time in which they did not trust in Christ and repent of their sin.

But conversion means turning to God from idols to serve the living and true God. Once one begins it, it never stops. Edwards, in fact, spoke of sanctification as a sort of "continuous conversion." And it is. This is why I say to anyone who asks whether children need to be converted: "Who doesn't?"

Peace,
Alan
 
I’d be interested to know anyone’s thoughts on the risk of persecution as of the Day of Pentecost? The worst that we think about didn’t happen for some months, though the disciples had just been fearing for their lives after the crucifixion.

Next question is, if the way the apostles worked wasn’t exemplary because there is such a difference in the working of the Spirit and the state of persecution, where are the instructions for easier times, or duller times, however you look at it? Is the change of events a warrant for a different example of dealing with candidates?

Thoughts???
I was thinking that the immediate baptisms at Pentecost and of the Ethiopian don't rule out any examination or questions at all, even if it was an interview at the baptismal waters by the apostles and their associates. The text leaves it open for Simon to have been examined as well. Perhaps a practice of more thorough examination came along after enough Simons had joined with the church.
 
I have heard it said that Baptists can be reactionary. It makes sense in my mind that Baptists being very careful with baptism could be a reaction to the 'easy believism' and Sinner's Prayer era of the Western Church. But, I believe there is much wisdom in the practice still.

Either way, I need to study the issue to have a biblical conviction.
Many Baptists , such as myself, would understand the practice of water baptism now rooted into just who is to be included under the NC, and to that viewpoint, it includes only those who have received the promised Holy Spirit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top