Ryan&Amber2013
Puritan Board Senior
I can see it already, a new 2018 study Bible - "Premium deep-fried cowhide for $250"Sounds good. But for a deep fryer large enough to hold a cow, how much oil are you going to need? LOL
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I can see it already, a new 2018 study Bible - "Premium deep-fried cowhide for $250"Sounds good. But for a deep fryer large enough to hold a cow, how much oil are you going to need? LOL
As a Presbyterian you must not deep fry. You would simply 'sprinkle' the oil on the foodPremium deep-fried cowhide
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 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.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.
This is what I was trying to say earlier, only you said it better. Thanks!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.
I beg to differ. It is altogether appropriate for a Presbyterian to deep fry.As a Presbyterian you must not deep fry.
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 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.
Boudin??? The sausage that infiltrates everything!.
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 was thinking more in terms of black pudding. Perhaps they're the same thing, more or less, though. I'm no expert on blood sausages.Boudin??? The sausage that infiltrates everything!
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.I beg to differ. It is altogether appropriate for a Presbyterian to deep fry.
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 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 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 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.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 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
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.
Those are pretty convincing arguments I have to admit even as a baptist.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?
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.
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 OrderSingling out Reformed Baptist for examining new converts who present themselves for Baptism and church membership is just the clover calling the grass green.
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’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???
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.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.