"Do you consider your children to be Christians?"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Where did I say they do not need to see their need for Christ? That is what publicly professing faith is all about. You are teaching them to know and embrace Christ. And I do not at all deny the need for regeneration. The problem as a parent is I can't give it to them. Only God can. And for a child raised in the church, he may never know the moment when regeneration occurred. What is repentance going to look like in a child who has been taught the faith from infancy? Unless he has a rebellious phase, you aren't going to see a significant outward change. Regeneration will show itself more by the self-realization that he does truly believe rather than a dramatic conversion experience.

Again, I was emphasizing the dimension of daily practice in child rearing. How do you treat your children? Are you teaching them to how to know and obey God and believe the gospel? Are you teaching them to pray? Are you teaching them Christian standards of conduct? If so, you are teaching them to visibly/outwardly profess faith in Christ. That is your default. You are not training them to be atheists. Credobaptists, at least the ones I know, still take this approach to parenting, even though they deny their children visible church membership. That is the inconsistency I was pointing out.

If you have a different approach in Christian parenting I'd like to hear it.

We must have a different understanding of what professing faith in Christ actually means. You seem to be equating a child going through with the teaching process as a profession of faith in and of itself, while I hope that the process results in a profession of faith.

Also, no man can teach his child "how to...believe the gospel." Again, that is the work of the Holy Spirit alone. You know that, so perhaps you misspoke here.

To summarize, I want to raise my children in the church and in a Christian home, hoping they will one day, purposefully and conscientiously, place their faith in Christ - make a profession of faith, if you will. Until that day, they will not be admitted as members of the local church.
 
Here's an analogy I've found helpful.
The Baptist view is similar to one that says: all citizens of a certain country become so by an oath of allegiance. They are all, to a man, naturalized citizens; which would be a misnomer of sorts, because there aren't ANY who were natural citizens. There is a kind of "act of the will" that is part and parcel of the very notion of citizen in this perspective.

The Reformed view is similar to one that says: the children of citizens are citizens--minor citizens, citizens lacking in full privilege (i.e. voting, driving, etc.), but who are expected to grow up with the proper training for assuming those duties expected of full citizens. If such repudiate their responsibilities, it will at best make them lackadaisical citizens, barely worthy or unworthy of the name; and more likely to get them into felon status, where their citizen rights are curtailed. Some of these are, in fact, agents of another country working contrary to the interests of the nation (or advancing self-interest at the expense of the good the people).

There are bound to be arguments as to why one or the other of these is to be preferred to the other, for illustrating the relationship of Christians to the Kingdom of Heaven. But both sides will mount a biblical defense for why their view seems most consistent with the Bible's teaching.
 
We must have a different understanding of what professing faith in Christ actually means. You seem to be equating a child going through with the teaching process as a profession of faith in and of itself, while I hope that the process results in a profession of faith.
Not exactly. I'm talking about the visible appearance in contrast to the world. Yes, our children may parrot or at least intellectually follow what they are taught by their parents as they grow up. At some point, they must be regenerated and exercise saving faith on there own. No one disputes that. Some children know when that change happens, some don't know when it happened, they just know they've always believed. But they are still visibly distinct from the world by their conduct and what they say they believe even before regeneration. If a Muslim or Atheist were to ask your children who God is, what answers would they give? Most likely they give the Christian answers which you taught them. They are not visibly different from those who have officially professed faith and joined the church.

Also, no man can teach his child "how to...believe the gospel." Again, that is the work of the Holy Spirit alone. You know that, so perhaps you misspoke here.
I did not misspeak. If you ever explain what saving faith is to your child, you are explaining how to believe the gospel. Knowing what it means to believe and actually exercising saving faith are distinct things. And yet in a child growing up in the church, he may not know when that shift took place, especially if you have been teaching him the whole time that he must trust and obey Christ and has been following your lead from infancy.

To summarize, I want to raise my children in the church and in a Christian home, hoping they will one day, purposefully and conscientiously, place their faith in Christ - make a profession of faith, if you will. Until that day, they will not be admitted as members of the local church.

But are you teaching them to pray? Are you teaching them how to ask forgiveness? Are you teaching them how to obey God? Or are you waiting for a conversion experience to teach them those things? And if you are teaching them, and they are doing them, even though they have not made an official profession, where do they then fit in visibly in comparison to the world?

I understand as a baptist you will not admit them as members. But at the same time you are not raising your children to be atheists either. You are treating them differently than the world treats their own. In practice you are setting your child apart and discipling them in the faith (unless of course you are waiting for a conversion experience before you start that). The problem is that you don't have a category as a baptist for someone who is visibly different from the world, and yet has not made an official "adult" profession of faith yet (please correct me if I'm wrong there). Hopefully you understand better what I have been trying to say. Presbyterians don't have that category problem, because we accept that our children are part of the visible church, and their "adult" profession will hopefully come later as the Lord works in them.
 
Last edited:
God included children of believers into the visible church in the days of Abraham. Why would we exclude them now? Would Israelite babies have made a profession of faith?
 
Now how young a wicked and rebellious child of Adam can come to the faith by the Spirit is up to Him.

Zack:

We are both Westminster Confessionalists and are thus in agreement on this subject. I certainly agree with the quoted sentiment.

We can have an extended discussion on Christ's Messianic consciousness, his growing in wisdom and stature and favor with God and man, what his humanity and divinity entailed (and why both were necessary) as well as the integrity of the theanthropic person. We can talk about the character of the faith of Christ not only as source and object but as example. If any of that is what you have in mind, that's all fair game.

But it's simply not fitting to talk about Jesus as a Christian. He is the one in whom all Christians, in both Testaments, believe, but He Himself is not a Christian, though maybe we could conceive of such in some sort of Nestorian or adoptionist construction (which we all disdain).

I assume that you simply want to affirm the same kind of things that all us Presbyterian and Reformed want to affirm on this thread, so I'll say no more but simply urge you to re-think approaching this by way of speaking of Jesus as a Christian, whether as an infant, child, youth or man.

Peace,
Alan
 
Last edited:
Here's an analogy I've found helpful.
The Baptist view is similar to one that says: all citizens of a certain country become so by an oath of allegiance. They are all, to a man, naturalized citizens; which would be a misnomer of sorts, because there aren't ANY who were natural citizens. There is a kind of "act of the will" that is part and parcel of the very notion of citizen in this perspective.

The Reformed view is similar to one that says: the children of citizens are citizens--minor citizens, citizens lacking in full privilege (i.e. voting, driving, etc.), but who are expected to grow up with the proper training for assuming those duties expected of full citizens. If such repudiate their responsibilities, it will at best make them lackadaisical citizens, barely worthy or unworthy of the name; and more likely to get them into felon status, where their citizen rights are curtailed. Some of these are, in fact, agents of another country working contrary to the interests of the nation (or advancing self-interest at the expense of the good the people).

There are bound to be arguments as to why one or the other of these is to be preferred to the other, for illustrating the relationship of Christians to the Kingdom of Heaven. But both sides will mount a biblical defense for why their view seems most consistent with the Bible's teaching.
I really like this analogy. Thanks.
 
Hi Patrick,

We Baptists don't see our view as a "Category Problem,"--there's no problem at all. We recognize two types of people in the world: the regenerate, and everyone else. Regardless of how raised or what taught, every person is a sinner until God gives them a new heart. I would that we could raise everyone in the world as Christians do their children, but upbringing will not save; salvation belongs to the Lord.
However, we do see Presbyterians as having a category problem, since they must have "Communicant Members" and "Noncommunicant Members," and some groups even have a "confirmation" before allowing communion to a church child. You all probably don't see it as a problem either....

I understand as a baptist you will not admit them as members. But at the same time you are not raising your children to be atheists either. You are treating them differently than the world treats their own. In practice you are setting your child apart and discipling them in the faith (unless of course you are waiting for a conversion experience before you start that). The problem is that you don't have a category as a baptist for someone who is visibly different from the world, and yet has not made an official "adult" profession of faith yet (please correct me if I'm wrong there). Hopefully you understand better what I have been trying to say. Presbyterians don't have that category problem, because we accept that our children are part of the visible church, and their "adult" profession will hopefully come later as the Lord works in them.
 
Hi Patrick,

We Baptists don't see our view as a "Category Problem,"--there's no problem at all. We recognize two types of people in the world: the regenerate, and everyone else. Regardless of how raised or what taught, every person is a sinner until God gives them a new heart. I would that we could raise everyone in the world as Christians do their children, but upbringing will not save; salvation belongs to the Lord.
However, we do see Presbyterians as having a category problem, since they must have "Communicant Members" and "Noncommunicant Members," and some groups even have a "confirmation" before allowing communion to a church child. You all probably don't see it as a problem either....

I believe that there is a difficulty in how the credo raises that child practically. On one hand, the credo acknowledges the child is a 'viper in a diaper' and on the other, 'God is your Father'. It seems as if the terminology changes from moment to moment. The Presbyterian child that has rec'd the sign of the covenant is personally responsible to that sign, whereas, the credo child has absolutely no relationship with the church at all; the Presbyterian child does have a relationship, just like the Old Testament person who was circumcised, else why would Paul tell us that the child is 'holy'?

http://www.semperreformanda.com/pre...m-index/various-reformed-quotes-on-1-cor-714/
 
When Baptist, I could see the Presbyterian argument for the covenant status of children and mostly agree with it, except for the need for baptism. But at some point I was struck that baptism might not mean what I believed it meant (this was what was being said on this board but it took me a while to hear it). I realized I was conditioned to read the NT Scripture pertaining to baptism through a certain lens so I studied NT passages again to see if a new view on baptism could really fit, and it not only did fit, but fully fleshed out
the covenantal view of God's grace I had already seen and embraced.

Baptism isn't what I'd always thought it was , but is admission or initiation into the external aspect of the covenant of grace, i.e. the visible church.
 
Hi Patrick,

We Baptists don't see our view as a "Category Problem,"--there's no problem at all. We recognize two types of people in the world: the regenerate, and everyone else. Regardless of how raised or what taught, every person is a sinner until God gives them a new heart. I would that we could raise everyone in the world as Christians do their children, but upbringing will not save; salvation belongs to the Lord.
However, we do see Presbyterians as having a category problem, since they must have "Communicant Members" and "Noncommunicant Members," and some groups even have a "confirmation" before allowing communion to a church child. You all probably don't see it as a problem either....

I know you don't see it as a category problem, otherwise you would not be a baptist :) Regarding the noncommunicant vs. communicant distinction, I'll simply refer you to Bruce's analogy above. We practically make that distinction all the time when it comes to citizenship, or any other context where we recognize the difference between child and adult privileges/responsibilities.

The problem though with viewing all as "regenerate vs. unregenerate" is that you don't live practically in that realm. That is something only God sees. You must live in the practical realm of analyzing and comparing professions and fruit, what is seen visibly in distinction from the world. As a baptist, you can only accept someone into the church as regenerate who looks regenerate. The problem is that children raised in the church (unless they rebel) do not look unregenerate, other than perhaps their inability to tell you about a conversion experience (due to their immaturity). If you ask them who Jesus is, you will get a Christian answer. If you ask them how to be saved, you will get a Christian answer. If you ask them whether murder or stealing is wrong, you get a Christian answer. And if you asked them, "do you really believe all that" they would likely say "yes", because that is what you taught them or what they learned in church. They are visibly Christian in comparison to the world, not atheists or Muslims. In addition to that, they are being raised in the visible church. And yet they are not counted as part of the visible church (for baptists). That's the practical category problem for baptists. Even you do not actually live in the realm of "regenerate vs. unregenerate". You just have different criteria for what you count as a visible Christian.
 
Last edited:
What seems to be missing from the equation here is the actual day-to-day practice of child-raising within the church. You are raising your children to profess faith the whole time, even though they have not made an official profession. If I were to inquire of your children who the true God was, or how they could find forgiveness of sins, I suspect I would hear Christian answers both from Baptist and Presbyterian children, not Muslim or Atheist answers. These children are visibly professing faith along with their parents, even though they are not yet capable of interpreting their own experience yet to know if they are born again. This is where the judgment of charity comes in. You can't know your children are visibly unregenerate until they self-consciously contradict the profession you are raising them to make. Until that point, these children are joining their public voices with that of the visible church (i.e. the baptized). This is a credo dilemma. How can you raise your children to publicly profess faith in Christ during their whole childhood and yet at the same time say they are not part of the visible church?
Children of Baptist parents, such as mine, would be seen as being part of the local church assemble, but not seen as being aprt of the invisible true Church until time of their profession in Christ.
 
David,

Your statement seems to me to be at odds with your claimed confession:

Paragraph 3. Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit;10 who works when, and where, and how He pleases;11 so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
10 John 3:3, 5, 6
11 John 3:8​

Please elaborate.
I would fully agree with that, and I do take it further, as my position would be that God has chosen to elect unto salvation all infants who have died, whether in the womb or as new born babes. He saves them, by my position is that election and salvation is not caused/forced to them through the ordinance of the water baptism.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As a Baptist I just cant see how VI. possibly coheres with I. I keep trying to understand because I love Reformed theology and how much P&R brothers and sisters love God and honor his word and I’ve been incredibly blessed by the tradition but for me, it just doesnt compute. I’ve read Calvin, I’ve read Berkhof, I’ve read others, I’ve read many of the posts here at PB, I’ve read the proof texts and for the life of me, I just dont get how you can have that definition of baptism and then try to fit unregenerate kids into it.

Maybe in eternity we’ll all laugh at how slow and dull I was during my pilgrimage on planet earth....
Baptis
I'm thankful for the voices of the various ordained ministry on the PB, such as Patrick's (Puritan Sailor) above. It's good to remember sometimes that such voices well represent the Reformed and Puritan covenantal view of baptized children and other members of the visible church. Baptists and other traditions shouldn't take offense when Reformed and Presbyterian distinctions are expressed on a R&P board. Questions are great, pushback is great when respectfully done with a desire to understand.

Edited to say that I also really appreciate the voice of the ordained Baptist brethren on the board! They are without fail wise, and speak with maturity on these important matters.
I see all of the redeemed as being in Christ, and just appreciate that we still have differing views even among reformed/Calvinists on some of these main issues.
 
Jesus was given the sign of the covenant as an infant. He was welcome into the parts of the temple open to males within the covenant. He was as much a part of the church as one of my children. Clearly he was taught the scriptures and the faith as was evident before the temple teachers who were amazed at his knowledge. (While I acknowledge it's hard to parse out what he knew as a covenant child and what he knew as God.)
He was also born under the law, under the OC, so He followed what was ascribed to them as one who was a Jew.
 
We recognize two types of people in the world: the regenerate, and everyone else.

Ben, does that include the church when you say the world? If so, here's where I would struggle:

As we all know, in the church, there are people who any serious Christian would look at and think when observing their fruit, "Are they truly in the state of grace?" I'm not even saying we should make those judgment calls, but this is what Baptists have to do to bring members into the church. So as a Baptist, you automatically have to view every member as regenerate. This means in your eyes, every single member is a true Christian. Based off of the same criteria you would judge a child's condition before God to make sure they are a true Christian, would you say this is true of every member of your church? Are you sure they should all be called regenerate?

The problem is that I know children who Baptists would consider unregenerate based off of age only, who otherwise are living lives devoted to God, repenting of sin, and appearing to be genuine Christians. And at the same time it appears that many grown-ups who appear to be much less of Christians than these children, are counted as regenerate based off of age and profession alone by the Baptists.

Something doesn't seem right with the judgments to me. If I am wrong, please correct me brother.

Grace and peace.
 
I would fully agree with that, and I do take it further, as my position would be that God has chosen to elect unto salvation all infants who have died, whether in the womb or as new born babes. He saves them, by my position is that election and salvation is not caused/forced to them through the ordinance of the water baptism.
What you say above is not what you said and to which I responded:
can the lord save infants, yes He can, but that would be unusually, and not the normal way that He saves us.
The issue was the salvific process you claimed to be unusual, not normal. Now you agree with my response, and then move on to water baptism, which was not related to my response, nor your statement about normality.

I feel like we are two ships passing in the night, failing to actually communicate. Slow down a wee bit, David, and take care to consider what is being discussed.
 
What you say above is not what you said and to which I responded:

The issue was the salvific process you claimed to be unusual, not normal. Now you agree with my response, and then move on to water baptism, which was not related to my response, nor your statement about normality.

I feel like we are two ships passing in the night, failing to actually communicate. Slow down a wee bit, David, and take care to consider what is being discussed.
Can and does God choose to save infants by applying saving grace towards them is affirmative, but that saving grace is not normally applied by the water baptism is what I was saying here.
 
  1. If you have Baptist friends who raise their kinds in a way that is inconsistent with RB theology, all you’ve demonstrated is that you have friends who raise their kids inconsistently witn RB theology.
  2. If someone, regardless of age, professes Christ (and has the ability to basically understand what they are professing) and shows fruit of repentence, I personally would treat them as Christians and baptize them. I know some Baptists are uncomfortable with that and want to wait for a certain age to baptize but I would disagree.
  3. Regarding children who die in infancy, the best answer I have found is that all elect infants are saved. Do I know who the elect are? No, but I’m ok with that. Salvation belongs to the Lord.
 
Ben, does that include the church when you say the world? If so, here's where I would struggle:

As we all know, in the church, there are people who any serious Christian would look at and think when observing their fruit, "Are they truly in the state of grace?" I'm not even saying we should make those judgment calls, but this is what Baptists have to do to bring members into the church. So as a Baptist, you automatically have to view every member as regenerate. This means in your eyes, every single member is a true Christian. Based off of the same criteria you would judge a child's condition before God to make sure they are a true Christian, would you say this is true of every member of your church? Are you sure they should all be called regenerate?

The problem is that I know children who Baptists would consider unregenerate based off of age only, who otherwise are living lives devoted to God, repenting of sin, and appearing to be genuine Christians. And at the same time it appears that many grown-ups who appear to be much less of Christians than these children, are counted as regenerate based off of age and profession alone by the Baptists.

Something doesn't seem right with the judgments to me. If I am wrong, please correct me brother.

Grace and peace.
There are only 2 types of persons in the world, those in Adam still and lost, and those now in Christ and born again, and children , unless infants, are saved the same way as Adults.
 
I believe that there is a difficulty in how the credo raises that child practically. On one hand, the credo acknowledges the child is a 'viper in a diaper' and on the other, 'God is your Father'. It seems as if the terminology changes from moment to moment. The Presbyterian child that has rec'd the sign of the covenant is personally responsible to that sign, whereas, the credo child has absolutely no relationship with the church at all; the Presbyterian child does have a relationship, just like the Old Testament person who was circumcised, else why would Paul tell us that the child is 'holy'?

http://www.semperreformanda.com/pre...m-index/various-reformed-quotes-on-1-cor-714/
Scott, I'm in the camp that believes that "holy" in this case does not mean "separated unto God," but means the child, having two visible parents, doesn't have the stigma of being considered illegitimate. There was a time when a single mom who was not a widow was considered irregular, and her children were treated differently by a society who judged them bastards.
 
Ben, does that include the church when you say the world? If so, here's where I would struggle:

As we all know, in the church, there are people who any serious Christian would look at and think when observing their fruit, "Are they truly in the state of grace?" I'm not even saying we should make those judgment calls, but this is what Baptists have to do to bring members into the church. So as a Baptist, you automatically have to view every member as regenerate. This means in your eyes, every single member is a true Christian. Based off of the same criteria you would judge a child's condition before God to make sure they are a true Christian, would you say this is true of every member of your church? Are you sure they should all be called regenerate?

The problem is that I know children who Baptists would consider unregenerate based off of age only, who otherwise are living lives devoted to God, repenting of sin, and appearing to be genuine Christians. And at the same time it appears that many grown-ups who appear to be much less of Christians than these children, are counted as regenerate based off of age and profession alone by the Baptists.

Something doesn't seem right with the judgments to me. If I am wrong, please correct me brother.

Grace and peace.
Hi Ryan,
It is the ideal that every member in the church be regenerate, and we Baptists strive to allow into membership only those who can convince the elders that they truly are. Yes, we have to make judgment calls, and sometimes we judge wrongly and allow an hypocrite to be baptized and partake of other membership privileges. But I as a layman can approach any member and ask them the reason for the hope that is in them, and if even in the judgment of charity I find reason to think they are unsaved, I have recourse to the steps in Matthew 18, and to counsel with the elders, who probably know the person better than I do.
I personally do not make judgments on children based on age--many members have very sweetly-disposed children, and I bless God that they are so, and we pray that new hearts will be given to all those who do not have them yet. But children who are unable to make many choices for themselves, and are restrained from gross external evils by their parents, are hard to read. The Lord knows those who are truly His, and those who will surely be His when He is pleased to regenerate them. We as adults do well not to rush to judgment either way, and if that means a saved child must wait longer before being baptized and admitted, if he/she is truly saved, patience will be one of the fruits displayed.
 
I would fully agree with that, and I do take it further, as my position would be that God has chosen to elect unto salvation all infants who have died, whether in the womb or as new born babes. He saves them, by my position is that election and salvation is not caused/forced to them through the ordinance of the water baptism.
The confession you claim to hold to does not allow for your view that all children dying unborn are automatically elect. That God saves elect infants who die is affirmed: that all infants who die are elect is assuming something that God has not declared.
 
Scott, I'm in the camp that believes that "holy" in this case does not mean "separated unto God," but means the child, having two visible parents, doesn't have the stigma of being considered illegitimate. There was a time when a single mom who was not a widow was considered irregular, and her children were treated differently by a society who judged them bastards.

Ben,
Do u have any historic citations ascribing such a position on this verse? I'd be willing to entertain it, but up until now, this is a first for me. ;)
 
The confession you claim to hold to does not allow for your view that all children dying unborn are automatically elect. That God saves elect infants who die is affirmed: that all infants who die are elect is assuming something that God has not declared.

Just for the record, I did a lot of research on this conundrum; the reformed camp is split down the middle. A good number held that all infants dying in infancy are elect and the other, some infants were elect.

http://www.semperreformanda.com/2015/08/more-on-the-infant-who-dies-in-infancy/
 
I believe that there is a difficulty in how the credo raises that child practically. On one hand, the credo acknowledges the child is a 'viper in a diaper' and on the other, 'God is your Father'. It seems as if the terminology changes from moment to moment. The Presbyterian child that has rec'd the sign of the covenant is personally responsible to that sign, whereas, the credo child has absolutely no relationship with the church at all; the Presbyterian child does have a relationship, just like the Old Testament person who was circumcised, else why would Paul tell us that the child is 'holy'?

http://www.semperreformanda.com/pre...m-index/various-reformed-quotes-on-1-cor-714/
Not true.

Both credo and paedo can say that the children of believers are raised up under the external blessings of the Covenant of Grace.
 
That's the practical category problem for baptists. Even you do not actually live in the realm of "regenerate vs. unregenerate". You just have different criteria for what you count as a visible Christian.
In reality paedobaptists do make the Christian- non Christian distinction. Ie, you baptise children of believers.
 
Hi Ryan,
It is the ideal that every member in the church be regenerate, and we Baptists strive to allow into membership only those who can convince the elders that they truly are. Yes, we have to make judgment calls, and sometimes we judge wrongly and allow an hypocrite to be baptized and partake of other membership privileges. But I as a layman can approach any member and ask them the reason for the hope that is in them, and if even in the judgment of charity I find reason to think they are unsaved, I have recourse to the steps in Matthew 18, and to counsel with the elders, who probably know the person better than I do.
I personally do not make judgments on children based on age--many members have very sweetly-disposed children, and I bless God that they are so, and we pray that new hearts will be given to all those who do not have them yet. But children who are unable to make many choices for themselves, and are restrained from gross external evils by their parents, are hard to read. The Lord knows those who are truly His, and those who will surely be His when He is pleased to regenerate them. We as adults do well not to rush to judgment either way, and if that means a saved child must wait longer before being baptized and admitted, if he/she is truly saved, patience will be one of the fruits displayed.

Thanks brother. It sounds like accountability is key.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top