What are the differences in how Paedobaptists & Credobaptists view children of believers? I know the basic difference would be that the Paedobaptist sees promises applying to their covenant children but even the Credobaptist would not view the children of believers the same as the children of unbelievers, correct? (1 Corinthians 7:14). I don't want to get into a discussion on whether baptism should be administered to them or not but how does each side view children of believers? What are the promises unique to them?
Children of Believers
- Thread starter JML
- Start date
- Status
John Bunyan
Puritan Board Freshman
I would say, basically, that "The son of a baptist, a baptist is not (at least until he grows up)".
(just to get the post going on)
(just to get the post going on)
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Maybe I'm wrong, but you'll find baptists unwilling to ascribe any covenantal promises to their children at least in the context of a debate on baptism with Presbyterians lest they give away their whole system.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/baptists-promises-60767/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/baptists-promises-60767/
Miss Marple
Puritan Board Junior
As a paedobaptist (Presbyterian), I consider my children Christians until and unless they deny Christ, either verbally or by living unrepentantly in sin.
I don't think they are necessarily cognitive of their salvation in the very early years, similar to how a comatose or senile or severely impaired person may not be cognitive. But unless there is active denial, I assume their salvation based on the covenant.
I don't think they are necessarily cognitive of their salvation in the very early years, similar to how a comatose or senile or severely impaired person may not be cognitive. But unless there is active denial, I assume their salvation based on the covenant.
So, this would lead to 2 questions, 1 for the Credobaptist and one for the Paedobaptist:
1) For the Paedobaptist: I understand the paedobaptist view of baptized covenant children as being a part of the visible church as mentioned in post #5. However, I was unaware that they were referred to as Christians as stated in posts #5 & 8 until they proved otherwise. I guess I am confused about that because they have not believed. I was under the assumption that baptism was a sign and seal of what would "hopefully" become a reality not what already was a reality. Sorry for my confusion.
2) For the Credobaptist: What is the meaning of 1 Corinthians 7:14 if children of believers are essentially no different from the children of pagans? (post #7).
1) For the Paedobaptist: I understand the paedobaptist view of baptized covenant children as being a part of the visible church as mentioned in post #5. However, I was unaware that they were referred to as Christians as stated in posts #5 & 8 until they proved otherwise. I guess I am confused about that because they have not believed. I was under the assumption that baptism was a sign and seal of what would "hopefully" become a reality not what already was a reality. Sorry for my confusion.
2) For the Credobaptist: What is the meaning of 1 Corinthians 7:14 if children of believers are essentially no different from the children of pagans? (post #7).
Kim G
Puritan Board Junior
I grew up in an independent fundamental baptist church, and that is exactly what was taught. Children were considered heathens, "vipers in diapers," manipulative liars, needed their wills broken, etc. When disciplining a child, you would sometimes hear "you need to obey your parents, but you can't because you are a sinner. You need to get saved so God will give you the power to obey." But they still went to children's church and were taught to pray and sang songs about loving Jesus.
Of course, this was not a reformed church, so other Baptist experiences may be different.
I used the term "visible" because they are not presumed regenerate (that would be "presumptive regeneration," which is not my position). They are, however, Christians in the visible sense. I hope that clarifies it.
The timing of regeneration -- if the child is elect, though this cannot be known -- is part of God's secret will and is not for us to presume one way or another. It can happen early or late. In non-elect infants it never happens. Likewise, some Baptist adults fall away from the faith and were never regenerate. Some Baptists were baptized before they were regenerate and may not even know it. This is a Baptist problem. Paedobaptists don't care about knowing the timing of regeneration when it comes to defining the visible church.
---------- Post added at 05:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:14 PM ----------
Mr. Lanier, it may also help you to note that Baptist culture, being the predominant evangelical culture these days, generally reserves the word Christian for regenerate people, but this is an historical novelty. A professing Christian and church member who is not really regenerate is "not a true Christian," and in a certain sense (the true, invisible sense), that is quite correct. However, I think Christian has meant historically a professor of the Christian faith and practitioner of the Christian religion, i.e. a visible Christian, a member of the visible church. So Bob and Jane and their infant in a paedobaptist church are visible Christians, but I don't know with 100% certainty whether any one of them is truly regenerate or will ever be. One of the reasons this concept is difficult for some credobaptists is because they are accustomed to making little distinction between the visible and invisible church, whereas paedobaptists maintain a sharp distinction and try to be careful to avoid confusing the two. This is also the reason some former Baptists who become Presbyterian end up going to Federal Vision (regrettably), because FVists also confuse the visible and invisible church, but in the opposite -- and more dangerous -- way.
Last edited:
By "Christians" then, you mean they are disciples of Christ but may or may not be converted?
I'm going to say "yes" because I understand what you're asking, but I would word it differently. The reason I say that is because both the terms "disciple" and "converted" can be used in a visible and invisible sense. I hope this doesn't add to the confusion. When a Muslim converts to the Christian religion, we say he has converted. He may or may not be internally so. Likewise we use the word "disciple" in both senses. This has been true as long as there have been false professors, i.e. always.
I don't know with infallible certainty that you are regenerate (though I charitably hope so and I believe you show fruit), but you are a Christian (visibly) because you profess the Christian religion and are a baptized member of the visible Church. Children of believers I also regard to be Christians (visibly), but I don't know infallibly whether they are regenerate now, will be regenerate later, or will never be regenerate, any more than I know that for you. And I don't think they should be baptized on the basis of any presumption about their regeneration, whether now, later, or ever.
This distinction is important and there are two ways people are prone to confusing it: they either seek to define the visible church in terms of the invisible (Baptist theology) or they seek to define the invisible church in terms of the visible (Federal Vision and New Perspective -- admittedly much worse).
Austin,
So you would disagree with the above or perhaps I am reading it wrong? It seems the above is considering Christian & regenerate the same thing.
Yes, sir. It seems like Miss Marple holds to presumptive regeneration, though I don't want to misread her and could be wrong. Those who hold to presumptive regeneration, as I understand it, believe that ordinarily the infants of believers are already regenerate as infants, and this is part of the basis of infant baptism for them (if I recall correctly). I believe that regeneration can happen in infancy, but would not presume upon it one way or the other and do not base infant baptism on it.
Miss Marple
Puritan Board Junior
That's a fair account of what I believe.
I think it is inconsistent to baptize an infant if you don't presume its salvation; acknowledging, or course, that they might fall away. As a professing adult, gets baptized, and still might fall away.
Similarly Esau was circumcised, signifying he was part of the covenant people. Yet he later fell away.
---------- Post added at 04:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:53 PM ----------
"Children were considered heathens, "vipers in diapers," manipulative liars, needed their wills broken, etc. When disciplining a child, you would sometimes hear "you need to obey your parents, but you can't because you are a sinner. You need to get saved so God will give you the power to obey.""
Oh, Kim, hearing of such a thing puts my heart into agony. Perhaps it is misplaced but it seems so terrible to me.
When disciplining a child, I say something more along the lines of "You are a Christian. Your behavior is to glorify God. When you lie to me you are sinning, and it is not your place as a Christian to do so."
I think it is inconsistent to baptize an infant if you don't presume its salvation; acknowledging, or course, that they might fall away. As a professing adult, gets baptized, and still might fall away.
Similarly Esau was circumcised, signifying he was part of the covenant people. Yet he later fell away.
---------- Post added at 04:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:53 PM ----------
"Children were considered heathens, "vipers in diapers," manipulative liars, needed their wills broken, etc. When disciplining a child, you would sometimes hear "you need to obey your parents, but you can't because you are a sinner. You need to get saved so God will give you the power to obey.""
Oh, Kim, hearing of such a thing puts my heart into agony. Perhaps it is misplaced but it seems so terrible to me.
When disciplining a child, I say something more along the lines of "You are a Christian. Your behavior is to glorify God. When you lie to me you are sinning, and it is not your place as a Christian to do so."
Consistency is not important; being Biblical is. If the infant is presumed saved, then why not let him partake of the Supper? If so, then why ever ask him to be able to articulate a profession of faith in Christ? And if so, why not simply look for the absence of disciplinable offenses, rather than a profession of Christ and a life worthy of the calling with which we are called?
Presumptive regeneration is dangerous and unbiblical. It has shown where it leads in the FV.
But "regenerate now" and "might fall away" are not the only two possibilities. The child might be effectually called at seven. He (or she) did not "fall away" between infancy and the age of seven, denying the faith and leaving the church, but nevertheless he was only now granted true saving faith in the religion he may have professed since he could speak.
To be clear, I also do not believe in presumptive nonregeneration. I don't believe in presumptive anything. I believe that secret things are God's and revealed things are ours ([KJV]Deuteronomy 29:29[/KJV]).
Miss Marple
Puritan Board Junior
"Presumptive regeneration is dangerous and unbiblical. It has shown where it leads in the FV. "
I don't mean to start an argument, particularly with a pastor! Just explaining what I believed, as asked.
True, consistency in and of itself is not necessary; biblical consistency is. That's all I'm striving for.
We, at least most of us, know the differences between the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper. I don't think it's inconsistent to wait for the ability for a child to examine themselves before they take communion; it's the biblical command. Similarly, covenant children were circumcised as infants, and from what I understand circumcision is no longer the sign of the covenant. It's been replaced with baptism, and it seems to me that belongs to infants, as well.
I am trying to be biblical in my thought and certainly agree that nothing else matters. I don't think that believing your children are covenant children - Christians - necessarily makes you a Federal Vision supporter.
I don't mean to start an argument, particularly with a pastor! Just explaining what I believed, as asked.
True, consistency in and of itself is not necessary; biblical consistency is. That's all I'm striving for.
We, at least most of us, know the differences between the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper. I don't think it's inconsistent to wait for the ability for a child to examine themselves before they take communion; it's the biblical command. Similarly, covenant children were circumcised as infants, and from what I understand circumcision is no longer the sign of the covenant. It's been replaced with baptism, and it seems to me that belongs to infants, as well.
I am trying to be biblical in my thought and certainly agree that nothing else matters. I don't think that believing your children are covenant children - Christians - necessarily makes you a Federal Vision supporter.
The issue is not with covenant children. It is not even with using the term "Christians" (although as an aside, it may be more helpful in an apologetical sense for us to use the term as it is used today, rather than historically in the 16th-18th centuries). The issue I have is with your statements:
"presume its salvation" and "until and unless they deny Christ, either verbally or by living unrepentantly in sin"
It is not enough to have the absence of the negative (sin). There must be a closing with Christ (to use a phrase from Westminster's Sum of Saving Knowledge) and a life that shows fruit of conversion, repentance and faith.
EDIT:
And I should be clear on another front: Mrs. Rothenbuhler, I don't think you are a Federal Vision supporter, or that every instance of presumptive regeneration leads to FV. I don't mean to cast aspersion against you. I am merely concerned that so dangerous a doctrine unwittingly grasp people. I have seen more than my share of that in the OPC/PCA, and in fact, this board had a huge brouhaha about it nearly 6 or 7 (?) years ago in which I argued veraciously against it.
"presume its salvation" and "until and unless they deny Christ, either verbally or by living unrepentantly in sin"
It is not enough to have the absence of the negative (sin). There must be a closing with Christ (to use a phrase from Westminster's Sum of Saving Knowledge) and a life that shows fruit of conversion, repentance and faith.
EDIT:
And I should be clear on another front: Mrs. Rothenbuhler, I don't think you are a Federal Vision supporter, or that every instance of presumptive regeneration leads to FV. I don't mean to cast aspersion against you. I am merely concerned that so dangerous a doctrine unwittingly grasp people. I have seen more than my share of that in the OPC/PCA, and in fact, this board had a huge brouhaha about it nearly 6 or 7 (?) years ago in which I argued veraciously against it.
Fair point, Pastor Greco, although I would point out that unbelievers in modern culture generally use the term Christian to refer to members of Christian churches who profess the Christian religion, whether most evangelical Baptists like it or not. In some contexts Baptists use the term the same way, e.g., in political conversations. However, I see your point and tried to avoid confusion by using "visible" as a modifier. I agree we should be careful to maintain clarity with whomever we are engaged in conversation with.
Last edited:
Mushroom
Puritan Board Doctor
Very good conversation. Thanks, folks. So, where does the biblical view lie? Presumptive regeneration may be too far toward the heresy of baptismal regeneration, and the antipaedobaptist view of pagan progeny being the other extreme, so is there a descriptive term for the scriptural position? Is expectational election adequate? Or is hopeful uncertainty a better term?
My view is one of presumptive election. Derek Thomas helped me think through the difference between presumptive election and presumptive regeneration.
Presumptive election posits that we treat our children as elect - that is we expect them to profess faith in Christ because God works in families, and through His covenant. Yet we still must call our children to an active profession of Christ, and a walk with Christ. I don't know if the old threads are searchable, but again, I have written pretty extensively on the PB on this in the past.
Miss Marple
Puritan Board Junior
I think I could go along with presumptive election.
Mushroom
Puritan Board Doctor
That sounds good to me, Pastor, thanks.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Precisely what is presumptive election and where would one learn of it?
asc
Puritan Board Sophomore
I'm know there are Credos on the forum better qualified to answer your questions, but since you hadn't gotten much response on this end, here's my 2 cents:
I do consider my children as heirs to the promise and so different than children of pagans. So I follow the idea of presumptive election and
tell them that "God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their life" (Campus Crusade reference).
I'm just waiting for them to publicly proclaim their faith before letting them be baptized.
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
While not using a doctrinal term to describe the relationship, but in referring to them as "covenant children," I'm comfortable with the description used by GI Williamson in The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes,, (Christian parents, for their children's salvation),
"We have reason to hope, not demand."
---------- Post added at 07:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:59 PM ----------
I think the Westminster Confession is extremely wise in expressing the doctrine of Scripture to say that God can save infants, but does not speculate on how many or how few that might be.
And as that continues for non-infant children, raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord,
there is reason to hope,
but not demand.
"We have reason to hope, not demand."
---------- Post added at 07:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:59 PM ----------
I think the Westminster Confession is extremely wise in expressing the doctrine of Scripture to say that God can save infants, but does not speculate on how many or how few that might be.
And as that continues for non-infant children, raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord,
there is reason to hope,
but not demand.
Our Standards do not teach presumptive election any more than they teach presumptive regeneration. We baptise on the basis of God's command and promise. That is all. As with the free offer of the gospel, we do not know who are elect and who are reprobate; we simply seek to be faithful with what our Lord has given us. As parents we hold out a hope for our children based upon God's promise, but we dare not presume election in their case any more than we would in our own case.
Please excuse my ignorance, but what is the promise that you are referring to?
- Status
Similar threads
