"Do you consider your children to be Christians?"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brother David, can I in love point out that you are banging the same drum in your answers. Different contributors have raised many points which we believe prove our view what scripture teaches on the matter in hand. Now if you don’t accept these points, it is up to you to disprove them point by point and teach us a better way. That is only fair and reasonable to ask of you. As an ex Baptist myself, persuade me to return to the fold by giving alternatives to the arguments made.
 
So, you can't become a member there, be a disciple and a Christian there: unless you have Faith (believing in Christ for salvation) and Works (evidence of fruit) already. Could the Ethiopian Eunuch qualify for Baptism in your church? How much (quality/quantity) is enough works? "Listen to Christian music." Hoo boy.

Regardless, you are making Baptism contingent on a claim to something beyond knowledge-assent-trust.

"God will take you by faith alone. But we're just a bit more stringent around here. A little suspicion is a good thing, eh? Keep coming for a while, and we'll check your progress betimes. When we see your works-account is actually growing, not stagnating, then we'll approve you for Baptism so folks can regard you as a true Christian, knowing they don't have to keep a wary eye on ya anymore."
I am just saying that one makes a profession, a belief statement that to them Jesus died for them, was raised again for them, trust in him alone to save them, and that based upon that profession, and showing ANYTHING that reflects the new nature has happened, they are welcomed in as members, as the water Baptism itself states that based upon their profession of faith and belief in Jesus alone to have saved them, now are baptized.
 
David,
I know you're catching it from all sides just now, but I'd really like to know where in the Bible the Lord Himself has decreed to apply saving grace to all dying infants. Just the verses you're using to reach this conclusion will do.
I cannot state with absolute certainty, but based this belief upon King david experience with his own son who died as an infant, and Jesus many times speaking of children coming unto Him. I am trusting upon the God of the scriptures to be able to rightly judge in all cases regarding each person salvation.
 
Brother David, can I in love point out that you are banging the same drum in your answers. Different contributors have raised many points which we believe prove our view what scripture teaches on the matter in hand. Now if you don’t accept these points, it is up to you to disprove them point by point and teach us a better way. That is only fair and reasonable to ask of you. As an ex Baptist myself, persuade me to return to the fold by giving alternatives to the arguments made.
I am not really trying to argue anyone over to the Baptist position, as I see this board as a safe place to engage each other in a Christian way, and learn from each others differing viewpoints on certain issues.
 
I cannot state with absolute certainty, but based this belief upon King david experience with his own son who died as an infant, and Jesus many times speaking of children coming unto Him.
It is one thing to hope in this case, but not demand. Your unqualified statement is that all infants who die in infancy are elect infants.
 
My last post garnered a "funny" notice. So, I feel compelled to say: I do not wish to be judged a mocker. The sarcastic tone in my post could easily be misread as personally abusive, and I don't want David to feel like I'm putting him down, or his church.

Exasperation was a danger I considered when I earlier replied to David's quote of a post of mine and his question. So, I'm now drawing back from the engagement. "Be ye kind to another." Eph.4:32
 
My last post garnered a "funny" notice. So, I feel compelled to say: I do not wish to be judged a mocker. The sarcastic tone in my post could easily be misread as personally abusive, and I don't want David to feel like I'm putting him down, or his church.

Exasperation was a danger I considered when I earlier replied to David's quote of a post of mine and his question. So, I'm now drawing back from the engagement. "Be ye kind to another." Eph.4:32
I would ask you to stay in this conversation. I have been blessed by your presence in it. I am still a baptist, but I understand the many good reasons Presbyterians believe thusly and I sometimes think it would be easier if I could just believe in infant baptism. That is quite a confession I know.
 
Brother David, can I in love point out that you are banging the same drum in your answers. Different contributors have raised many points which we believe prove our view what scripture teaches on the matter in hand. Now if you don’t accept these points, it is up to you to disprove them point by point and teach us a better way. That is only fair and reasonable to ask of you. As an ex Baptist myself, persuade me to return to the fold by giving alternatives to the arguments made.
As an ex-baptist what was your final "Aha" moment before you turned? And what was your process?
 
I do not mean to offend anyone here, but those who see infant baptist mentioned directed in the NT are either making assumptions, or is just trying to see a direct continuity from the OC to the NC era.

David,
This is patently false. The Reformed understanding of covenantal ecclesiology is well established and the scholarship is equally sound. We don't have to "just trying to see a direct continuity from the OC to the NC era"; sufficient continuity is there. When you can point me to N.T. scripture that has "shrunk" the promises to now neglect children from participation, you will have my ear. Similarly, I can't find any N.T. passage that says something like "thou shalt no longer give children the sign and seal that has been the covenant promise since Abe".....
 
I cannot state with absolute certainty, but based this belief upon King david experience with his own son who died as an infant, and Jesus many times speaking of children coming unto Him. I am trusting upon the God of the scriptures to be able to rightly judge in all cases regarding each person salvation.
One passage of dubious interpretation is a very fragile peg on which to hang such a weighty matter! And isn't it funny that Jesus was allowing little ones to come--that means THEY wanted to approach, not that they were helpless infants still in the womb or new-born: again it seems quite a jump from that to a belief in universal paedosalvation (if I just made up a word, I want full credit if someone uses it :D).
Would it not be better to believe that God is good, as He has declared, and good even in the reprobation of the wicked? Would it not be better to believe that whatever God chooses to do with unborn infants who die is perfectly just and good, rather than to put words in His mouth that He has NOT declared? When people invent things to believe about God because it makes them feel good, or less scared, or comforted or whatever, they are making a god in their own image, which opens the door to all sorts of error and confusion.
God has nowhere promised to save all infants who die. Whether He chooses to do so or not is not for us to invent things about--we may go only where His word clearly leads, beyond that is presumption. :soapbox:
 
I do not mean to offend anyone here, but those who see infant baptist mentioned directed in the NT are either making assumptions, or is just trying to see a direct continuity from the OC to the NC era.

This doesn't make sense and is inflammatory. If there is direct continuity then it will be seen.
 
I would ask you to stay in this conversation.
If I think I can be helpful, add light and not heat, then I will consider a new offering. Thank you. My aim is accuracy, fairness, clarity. It is not to move someone from a deep conviction.

I sometimes think it would be easier...
I say, with utter sincerity, do not under any circumstances adopt or believe IB for simplicity's sake. No church's theology of baptism (doctrine and practice) is as "easy" as it appears; even of those who pay so little attention to it, one might be excused for thinking so. Baptism sends forth "roots," such that even if it is spread more widely than deeply, to "pull oneself up by his baptism" is to become uprooted or unmoored.

Baptismal practice should be a conclusion, not a commitment in search of support (a saying I use often).
 
I am not really trying to argue anyone over to the Baptist position, as I see this board as a safe place to engage each other in a Christian way, and learn from each others differing viewpoints on certain issues.
David,

You are right that this is - or certainly is intended to be - a "safe place" to discuss and debate matters of faith and conviction. That being said, it seems to me that many of your positions/arguments (on this and other threads) are rooted in that oft-unmovable rock: "That's what I've always been taught."

I mean this in the kindest of ways; I, myself, grew up in a broadly evangelical Baptist home, and I was taught many of the "truths" I have seen you espouse on this forum. However, I was forced to reevaluate my whole belief system as I began to realize that I couldn't make convincing arguments (even to myself!) of those positions from the Bible. Similarly, I often see you state something - as if it should simply be accepted as true - without providing any meaningful, substantial, biblical justification.

To be sure, there are substantive arguments from the Reformed Baptist side of this and other debates, but those aren't the arguments that I see you advocating. Rather, you latch on to anything that buttresses your "that's what I've always been taught" conviction.

Please, for the sake of informed discussion (and, more importantly, for your own assurance), own your convictions because you believe that they are scripturally sound. Justify your arguments with scripture (chapter and verse!) and a cogent interaction with historical and systematic theology, rather than just saying that "this is what it means to me." Such subjective theology is diametrically opposed to the objective perspective that is promoted by both the Presbyterians and the Reformed Baptists on this forum.

If and when you are unable to contribute meaningfully to the discussion in this way, consider staying silent and simply reading and learning. As well, spend time searching God's Word for the clear basis for your positions. Having done so, your future participation will be so much more helpful and valued.

I implore you: don't "toe the party line" when it comes to your theology. Do the hard work of verifying your belief system. If it is indeed verified, you will be all the richer. If you are forced to recant or modify a position, so be it. Let God be true and every man (even those well-meaning men who "taught us what we've always believed") be liars, insofar as their teaching drifted from the sure foundation of Holy Writ. As one who has traveled down the road of "theological realignment," I can tell you that change was hard but worth it; perhaps, your journey will, in fact, confirm you in your convictions. Either way, the value of confidence borne of serious investigation cannot be overstated.
 
Last edited:
paedosalvation (if I just made up a word, I want full credit if someone uses it :D

I sincerely believe that there is scriptural warrant for paedosalvation* of elect infants dying in infancy.

*Zartman, Ben. "Do you consider your children to be Christians?" PuritanBoard. Jan 26, 2018: post 222.
 
I am late to the party but I do want to share my opinion.

I do not think a child has to be converted in order to be a disciple, chiefly because one can follow a manner of teaching externally without having appropriated it internally. However, is it appropriate to call a child a Christian in the absence of a confession of faith and/or the evidence of faith in their life? I do not believe it is appropriate. What should they be called? Nothing besides their name or "my child". While I am decidedly Baptist, I am not looking for a sinners prayer or raised hand. I am more concerned with what a child confesses and the evidence (however juvenile it may be) of faith in their life.
 
I sincerely believe that there is scriptural warrant for paedosalvation* of elect infants dying in infancy.

*Zartman, Ben. "Do you consider your children to be Christians?" PuritanBoard. Jan 26, 2018: post 222.
Awesome! This may be the first time I've ever been cited. Thanks brother!
BTW, I too believe in the paedosalvation of elect children dying in infancy. I just don't find warrant to assume that all infants who die are elect.
 
It is one thing to hope in this case, but not demand. Your unqualified statement is that all infants who die in infancy are elect infants.
That is what I believe is happening in regards to how the Lord treats all dead infants who have passed either as aborted/miscarriage /died, but I cannot point to a specific scripture to 100% support that position, but can have hope that it how it is, due to the nature of God that the scriptures have revealed to us.
I will say that this is my position as of right now, but can be changed if further support for another position can be shown to me.
 
My last post garnered a "funny" notice. So, I feel compelled to say: I do not wish to be judged a mocker. The sarcastic tone in my post could easily be misread as personally abusive, and I don't want David to feel like I'm putting him down, or his church.

Exasperation was a danger I considered when I earlier replied to David's quote of a post of mine and his question. So, I'm now drawing back from the engagement. "Be ye kind to another." Eph.4:32
I have never felt that you were mocking me or making fun of me, and do enjoy reading your postings here as have learned from you on how Presbyterians view some of the more interesting theological issues in the scriptures.
 
Awesome! This may be the first time I've ever been cited. Thanks brother!
BTW, I too believe in the paedosalvation of elect children dying in infancy. I just don't find warrant to assume that all infants who die are elect.

How does it feel to be famous (well, at least here), Ben?
 
I will continue to rest in the nature and person of God to do the right thing as regarding the salvation of infants, so I think that we all here can agree that whatever happens, it will be the right and nest thing that has be done in this issue, as the lord is perfect, and His ways are always just and true.
I see this issue as being one of those secret areas that God says has been reserved only for Him to fully knew.
 
David,

You are right that this is - or certainly is intended to be - a "safe place" to discuss and debate matters of faith and conviction. That being said, it seems to me that many of your positions/arguments (on this and other threads) are rooted in that oft-unmovable rock: "That's what I've always been taught."

I mean this in the kindest of ways; I, myself, grew up in a broadly evangelical Baptist home, and I was taught many of the "truths" I have seen you espouse on this forum. However, I was forced to reevaluate my whole belief system as I began to realize that I couldn't make convincing arguments (even to myself!) of those positions from the Bible. Similarly, I often see you state something - as if it should simply be accepted as true - without providing any meaningful, substantial, biblical justification.

To be sure, there are substantive arguments from the Reformed Baptist side of this and other debates, but those aren't the arguments that I see you advocating. Rather, you latch on to anything that buttresses your "that's what I've always been taught" conviction.

Please, for the sake of informed discussion (and, more importantly, for your own assurance), own your convictions because you believe that they are scripturally sound. Justify your arguments with scripture (chapter and verse!) and a cogent interaction with historical and systematic theology, rather than just saying that "this is what it means to me." Such subjective theology is diametrically opposed to the objective perspective that is promoted by both the Presbyterians and the Reformed Baptists on this forum.

If and when you are unable to contribute meaningfully to the discussion in this way, consider staying silent and simply reading and learning. As well, spend time searching God's Word for the clear basis for your positions. Having done so, your future participation will be so much more helpful and valued.

I implore you: don't "toe the party line" when it comes to your theology. Do the hard work of verifying your belief system. If it is indeed verified, you will be all the richer. If you are forced to recant or modify a position, so be it. Let God be true and every man (even those well-meaning men who "taught us what we've always believed") be liars, insofar as their teaching drifted from the sure foundation of Holy Writ. As one who has traveled down the road of "theological realignment," I can tell you that change was hard but worth it; perhaps, your journey will, in fact, confirm you in your convictions. Either way, the value of confidence borne of serious investigation cannot be overstated.
I appreciate your kind remarks to me regarding continuing to grow up in my theology doctrines , as I have come so far from Charismatic/Pentecostal theology to freewill Baptist, and now heading firmly into Reformed Baptist waters.
 
Awesome! This may be the first time I've ever been cited. Thanks brother!
BTW, I too believe in the paedosalvation of elect children dying in infancy. I just don't find warrant to assume that all infants who die are elect.
I think this is where we can fully agree, as you and I would see God elected at least some to eternal life in Christ, and how many would have to be left to the Lord.
 
Perg , sorry for the delay to your query ,I overlooked that it was directed to me. Go back at least 50yrs and I had been a Christian about six years. This coastal plain was blest with many Evangelical churches. But sadly the teaching ommited, or perhaps was weak, on the Reformed doctrines. So that the doctrines of grace, EP, Paedobaptism, Presbyterianism etc, were treated on a surface level only. There had been a movement of the Spirit, and that brought many of us young married couples into the church, and conversion. But many other churches had weekly news of souls being saved. A blessed time, but there was no follow up teaching.
A party of us decided to go to the Isle of Lewis after reading of the Revivals there. In God’s providence I got friendly with A Free Church Minister there. He sounded us out and could see that we were deficient in our doctrinal knowledge. We debated and he passed us two books to read when we got home. The Singing of Psalms in the worship of God By Williamson, and a work on the Larger Catechism.(which we had never heard of). He would phone me, and I Him, and our arguments would continue, and as a family we returned there to visit, and have done ever since. Nightly we entered the lists over EP and argued till one or two o clock in the morning. Gradually my position was weakened, and I realised my arguments were tradional to the culture I was born in, and the practice of the church I had been born again in. Thus I had to lay down ny arms and concede my colours.
He then moved to Baptism by phone, and when we visited, and so the battle ensued.(with more heat than light on my part). My pride would not give ground, though I was losing my armour. Slowly I was beginning to see, though not admit, that my defence was emotional rather than blblical. Also I was totally unaware of the unity of the covenant of grace in the OT and NT. It spiritually and logically began to shape and make sense. But the Ah ha moment came when he gave me another book, William the Baptist. The simplest of books to read, an engrossing story, and clear biblical answers to my confused approach to the doctrine. Light dawned and it was an experience similar to the salvation experience. Another factor that was influential, was, that I was driven to read and read. Having no teaching,the only resort was the Puritans. I thank God especially for the Banner of Truth whose productions have garrisoned my soul, and with the Spirit kept my soul fed and afloat in these desolate days. Happy to say, my arguments never ruptured the friendship begun, but that it has grown beautifully over the succeeding years. This is a bit longwinded, but I have nad to leave much out, to shorten. Amazingly from this initial visit to Lewis, these doctrines went first to London, then Singapore, China, Malawi and Thailand, and changed and planted churches. So that Singaporeans, Malawese, Chinese are singing Scottish Metrical Psalms in English and in their own languages, and without musical instruments, and being taught Paedobaptism. Better finish!
 
Perg , sorry for the delay to your query ,I overlooked that it was directed to me. Go back at least 50yrs and I had been a Christian about six years. This coastal plain was blest with many Evangelical churches. But sadly the teaching ommited, or perhaps was weak, on the Reformed doctrines. So that the doctrines of grace, EP, Paedobaptism, Presbyterianism etc, were treated on a surface level only. There had been a movement of the Spirit, and that brought many of us young married couples into the church, and conversion. But many other churches had weekly news of souls being saved. A blessed time, but there was no follow up teaching.
A party of us decided to go to the Isle of Lewis after reading of the Revivals there. In God’s providence I got friendly with A Free Church Minister there. He sounded us out and could see that we were deficient in our doctrinal knowledge. We debated and he passed us two books to read when we got home. The Singing of Psalms in the worship of God By Williamson, and a work on the Larger Catechism.(which we had never heard of). He would phone me, and I Him, and our arguments would continue, and as a family we returned there to visit, and have done ever since. Nightly we entered the lists over EP and argued till one or two o clock in the morning. Gradually my position was weakened, and I realised my arguments were tradional to the culture I was born in, and the practice of the church I had been born again in. Thus I had to lay down ny arms and concede my colours.
He then moved to Baptism by phone, and when we visited, and so the battle ensued.(with more heat than light on my part). My pride would not give ground, though I was losing my armour. Slowly I was beginning to see, though not admit, that my defence was emotional rather than blblical. Also I was totally unaware of the unity of the covenant of grace in the OT and NT. It spiritually and logically began to shape and make sense. But the Ah ha moment came when he gave me another book, William the Baptist. The simplest of books to read, an engrossing story, and clear biblical answers to my confused approach to the doctrine. Light dawned and it was an experience similar to the salvation experience. Another factor that was influential, was, that I was driven to read and read. Having no teaching,the only resort was the Puritans. I thank God especially for the Banner of Truth whose productions have garrisoned my soul, and with the Spirit kept my soul fed and afloat in these desolate days. Happy to say, my arguments never ruptured the friendship begun, but that it has grown beautifully over the succeeding years. This is a bit longwinded, but I have nad to leave much out, to shorten. Amazingly from this initial visit to Lewis, these doctrines went first to London, then Singapore, China, Malawi and Thailand, and changed and planted churches. So that Singaporeans, Malawese, Chinese are singing Scottish Metrical Psalms in English and in their own languages, and without musical instruments, and being taught Paedobaptism. Better finish!
Yes, thank you for sharing. I have also read William the Baptist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top