How Ought Baptists To Consider Their Children?

[Jeri Tanner]

Just sticking to the OP question: what is Baptist thought on Paul addressing children directly, within a category of specific church members (husbands, wives, fathers), making no differentiation; and the implications of the childrens’ obedience being “in the Lord”; the commands and promises applying to them no differently than to their parents? (Ephesians 6:1-3).

(I edited this to make it a question, as I didn’t care for the way I initially put it.)

 

[Mr. Great-Heart]

Children are deemed holy and called to regulate their lives around the 10 commandments.
Aren’t Baptists at least a little bit puzzled why (in their view) there is no sign given to children? For the sake of discussion, conceding this does not mean conceding their view entirely.

No, but I am puzzled by your application of the verse that I presume leads you to say what I've highlighted in bold.

Brother, I am sure your pastor has answers to from his/Baptist view. Have you asked and considered his words?

Great question.

I'm not saying I have the answers.

The P&R have their answers. You and other Baptists have your answers.

I’m trying to square my intuition with what’s right, biblical, logical, etc.

Out of curiosity, since you've expressed something of your hesitation or struggle with the (Reformed) Baptist answers, what is your struggle with the P&R answers?

 

[Polanus1561]

No, but I am puzzled by your application of the verse that I presume leads you to say what I've highlighted in bold.

if you think there is 0% reason for puzzlement at how children deemed holy are not given a sign of being set apart, then I guess that answers my question.

 

[Mr. Great-Heart]

if you think there is 0% reason for puzzlement at how children deemed holy are not given a sign of being set apart, then I guess that answers my question.

I disagree with the presupposition in your question. I assume you realize that, but am just stating it explicitly for the benefit of others.

 

[Polanus1561]

I disagree with the presupposition in your question. I assume you realize that, but am just stating it explicitly for the benefit of others.

Fair enough.

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

That you desire anything more than what God has clearly commanded in Scripture is a reflection of your own heart. "man has sought out many inventions"
It is ever our nature to want more than what God has supplied: the Israelites wanted flesh; the Papists want rituals and statues; the Pentecostals want feelings.
But God has simply given us children and told us to teach them His ways. "For what, if they're not saved yet?" Because God says so. Why do you desire more? The child who grew up singing Zion's songs, even though unconverted, will love them better when he is, because they're familiar. The child who knows scripture by heart will be advanced in his Christian walk when he is saved because God's word is already hid therein.
The same God who declares that your child is born a sinner and needs to be born again if he would see His kingdom is the God who commands you to teach him His laws, His ways, His fear, and His praise. Why not trust God to know what He's about, and not look for more?

I said that in response to “why talk to my children differently than other peoples children.”

I was saying that, in addition to a mere familial duty to speak to them thusly, there seems to be something additional driving me to it.

I said nothing of “doing” or “adding” to what God has commanded.

You said, “But God has simply given us children and told us to teach them His ways.”

My question has to do with how are we to teach them his ways. Meaning, what exact words does one use?

I don’t see that as trying to add to the commandments of God.

 

[RamistThomist]

I said that in response to “why talk to my children differently than other peoples children.”

I was saying that, in addition to a mere familial duty to speak to them thusly, there seems to be something additional driving me to it.

I said nothing of “doing” or “adding” to what God has commanded.

You said, “But God has simply given us children and told us to teach them His ways.”

My question has to do with how are we to teach them his ways. Meaning, what exact words does one use?

I don’t see that as trying to add to the commandments of God.

Exactly. For example, can I use covenantal words to teach them his ways?

 

[Polanus1561]

Or when the family says ‘Our God’. Is it covenantal or just a reference to God as Creator? Do parents and children refer differently?

Just questions here.

 

[LilyG]

Or when the family says ‘Our God’. Is it covenantal or just a reference to God as Creator? Do parents and children refer differently?

Just questions here.

"Our Father who art in heaven..."

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

It’s never really dawned on me how the Baptist view of the Covenants means that the day of Pentecost in Acts would have been a day of great excommunication for thousands in Jerusalem.

Men would have returned home and had to tell their children (and wives) that they are complete outsiders to the religion of Abraham, and that their circumcision means nothing now. Imagine how hearing that would have been.

Of course they would tell them to now believe on Christ; but logically wouldn’t they also have to stop speaking to them using covenant language?

Just thinking out loud.

 

[JH]

Of course they would tell them to now believe on Christ; but logically wouldn’t they also have to stop speaking to them using covenant language?

Peter used the selfsame language of Genesis 17, "to thee and to thy seed" c.f. "to you and to your children." Surely if Peter meant to convey what you mentioned, he wouldn't have used the language of the Abrahamic Covenant.

 

[LilyG]

It’s never really dawned on me how the Baptist view of the Covenants means that the day of Pentecost in Acts would have been a day of great excommunication for thousands in Jerusalem.

Men would have returned home and had to tell their children (and wives) that they are complete outsiders to the religion of Abraham, and that their circumcision means nothing now. Imagine how hearing that would have been.

Of course they would tell them to now believe on Christ; but logically wouldn’t they also have to stop speaking to them using covenant language?

Just thinking out loud.

I think about that often! Why in the world would children of believers now be excluded?

 

[Polanus1561]

It’s never really dawned on me how the Baptist view of the Covenants means that the day of Pentecost in Acts would have been a day of great excommunication for thousands in Jerusalem.

Men would have returned home and had to tell their children (and wives) that they are complete outsiders to the religion of Abraham, and that their circumcision means nothing now. Imagine how hearing that would have been.

Of course they would tell them to now believe on Christ; but logically wouldn’t they also have to stop speaking to them using covenant language?

Just thinking out loud.

That’s the question I pose to Baptists. Isn’t it at least interesting there is no historical quarrel over this?

but often the ”you cannot argue from silence” card is played back as a reply.

then there leaves no more room for at least discussing this interesting point.

 

[Mr. Great-Heart]

Men would have returned home and had to tell their children (and wives) that they are complete outsiders to the religion of Abraham, and that their circumcision means nothing now. Imagine how hearing that would have been.

Of course they would tell them to now believe on Christ; but logically wouldn’t they also have to stop speaking to them using covenant language?

I am curious to hear your answer to my question to you in post #62. The way you are phrasing things is interesting.

But to briefly respond - I would flip your hypothetical upside down and say men would have returned home and had the privilege to tell their children (and wives) there is a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises, and there is a High Priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord set up, not man.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

But to briefly respond - I would flip your hypothetical upside down and say men would have returned home and had the privilege to tell their children (and wives) there is a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises, and there is a High Priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord set up, not man.

All Reformed padeobaptists hold to this. The key issue is the yet - not yet aspect of the New Covenant. See Heb 8:11.

 

[Mr. Great-Heart]

All Reformed padeobaptists hold to this. The key issue is the yet - not yet aspect of the New Covenant. See Heb 8:11.

Yes, I know, and of course we would disagree on the interpretation of Heb. 8:11. My point was that I don't think Lowlander's hypothetical description of the situation on the day of Pentecost accurately described the RB perspective and, perhaps unintentionally, painted it in nearly the worst possible light.

 

[LilyG]

I would flip your hypothetical upside down and say men would have returned home and had the privilege to tell their children (and wives) there is a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises, and there is a High Priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord set up, not man.

Well, a "new" and better covenant than which: Mosaic or Abrahamic?

 

[RamistThomist]

The New Covenant is better than the Mosaic. No one disputes that. But the Mosaic =/= all OT covenants.

 

[TheInquirer]

I haven't read this entire thread so please excuse if the points have been made:

1) Give your kids the gospel and the rest of God's truth
2) Treat them according to what they confess. If they confess to be Christians, teach them to believe and live accordingly.
3) If they reject Christ, don't force them to do things God would consider hypocrisy

 

[Polanus1561]

I haven't read this entire thread so please excuse if the points have been made:

1) Give your kids the gospel and the rest of God's truth
2) Treat them according to what they confess. If they confess to be Christians, teach them to believe and live accordingly.
3) If they reject Christ, don't force them to do things God would consider hypocrisy

Is there a minimum age to Baptise a child who says he believes in Jesus for the forgiveness of sins ?

 

[TheInquirer]

Well, a "new" and better covenant than which: Mosaic or Abrahamic?

The way some of you pose this debate sounds like things were better under Abraham, somehow got worse under Moses, and then got back to Abraham when Jesus came. It's as if Redemptive-Historical theology isn't even a thing.

I'm sorry but it is frankly astonishing to me that any Christian would not see that God's people in the New Covenant, even if you believe in the one covenant/two administrations view, have things better than Abraham.

As New Covenant believers:

1) You have fullness of revelation in Christ which Abraham did not have

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Heb 1:1–2.

2) You have a better high priest who has offered his sacrifice and is now interceding in heaven. No high priest had been instituted under the Abrahamic Covenant. Furthermore, you understand the significance of the role of the high priest, his sacrifice, and his intercession in a way Abraham never did.

3) You benefit from the foundational ministries of all the apostles and prophets who had not come in Abraham's time.

4) You understand the significance of the Old Covenant types and shadows in a way that hand't yet been revealed to Abraham.

5) You see the fullness of the promises offered to Abraham as fulfilled in Christ.

6) You have more of God's promises revealed since the time of Abraham.

7) You have received the command, and get to participate, in the Great Commission which was not given to Abraham but merely given as a promise to bless the world thorugh Abraham's offspring (Christ and us as Abraham's offspring through faith in Christ).

That should be enough for now.

 

[TheInquirer]

Is there a minimum age to Baptise a child who says he believes in Jesus for the forgiveness of sins ?

Not for me there isn't and I have had some strong disagreements with a couple of my pastors in the past over this. I do think there is a legtimate criticism of putting too many roadblocks in front of professing kids receiving covenant signs.

 

[TheInquirer]

Just sticking to the OP question: what is Baptist thought on Paul addressing children directly, within a category of specific church members (husbands, wives, fathers), making no differentiation; and the implications of the childrens’ obedience being “in the Lord”; the commands and promises applying to them no differently than to their parents? (Ephesians 6:1-3).

Depends what you are asking here:

I believe the moral law is for all humanity and I can tell an unbelieving child to obey their parents as much as a believing child (granting the parent isn't asking the child to sin).

If you are inquiring as to what the "in the Lord" phrase refers to, and how that might differ between a baptist and paedobaptist understanding, I think that is a good question.

 

[Polanus1561]

Depends what you are asking here:

I believe the moral law is for all humanity and I can tell an unbelieving child to obey their parents as much as a believing child (granting the parent isn't asking the child to sin).

If you are inquiring as to what the "in the Lord" phrase refers to, and how that might differ between a baptist and paedobaptist understanding, I think that is a good question.

but the children here have the promise attached v.2… can simply any child on the street claim this?

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

To my fellow Baptists, when you say to your family something like, “Perhaps our God will have mercy on us in (scenario x),” do you instead say, “Perhaps my God will have mercy on us”?

The second would seem logical.

 

[Romans678]

Good day everyone! I can't help but to notice a trend when reading these threads on baptism and the covenants. I keep seeing the words "unbeliever", "unbelieving", "believer", etc. If someone could be so kind as to provide definitions from both sides on what it means to believe and...err...unbelieve? Just to get a better understanding of each other's positions.

 

[Polanus1561]

Good day everyone! I can't help but to notice a trend when reading these threads on baptism and the covenants. I keep seeing the words "unbeliever", "unbelieving", "believer", etc. If someone could be so kind as to provide definitions from both sides on what it means to believe and...err...unbelieve? Just to get a better understanding of each other's positions.

The use of 'unbeliever' so far is clear, someone who clearly does not believe. Someone who does not attend church.
Believer would refer to someone who confesses the faith.

 

[Grafted In]

I'm sorry but it is frankly astonishing to me that any Christian would not see that God's people in the New Covenant, even if you believe in the one covenant/two administrations view, have things better than Abraham.

The question isn't whether or not Christians "have things better than Abraham," but rather, are they in and under the same, better covenant? He certainly lived in the age of types and shadows, while we live viewing the already-not-yet fulfillment and substance in Christ. But when the author of Hebrews speaks of a better covenant made on better promises, he is contrasting the New Covenant with the Mosaic not the Abrahamic. The New Testament confirms that those better promises were made to Abraham and fulfilled in Jesus Christ (e.g. Hebrews 7:11-20; Galatians 3:15-29), which you noted in your post, though while appearing to argue for discontinuity between the Abrahamic Covenant and the New. It is also significant that Abraham gave a tithe to Melchizedek not Aaron, so Abraham's priest was of another kind than the priesthood given in the Mosaic Covenant, which the author of Hebrews also makes much of in chapter 7.

 

[TheInquirer]

Since I believe 1689 Federalism to be the best expression of the progress of revelation in the covenants from my reading of Scripture, I do argue for elements of continuity and discontinuity. I do not hold to the one covenant/two administrations view. Therefore, I believe the person and work of Christ and the New Covenant to be the fulfillment of the substance of the Abrahamic Covenant and better in every way while noting that God fulfilled some elements of the Abrahamic Covenant in the Old Testament.

Where the practical difference lies for Abraham as a believer, it gets a little like splitting hairs at times (regarding the practical benefit to him as an individual, not the debate over covenants per se). We believe he was saved by the benefits of the New Covenant applied to Him that was progressively revealed in the prior covenants whereas a one covenant/two administrations view holds he is benefitting from the blessings of the Covenant of Grace instituted in Gen. 3. If I am understanding correctly, the benefits are the same and the argument is over which covenant, and what point in time that covenant is instituted, is the point of disagreement.

 

[Ben Zartman]

To my fellow Baptists, when you say to your family something like, “Perhaps our God will have mercy on us in (scenario x),” do you instead say, “Perhaps my God will have mercy on us”?

The second would seem logical.

Whether they are saved or not, there is only one God, who is their creator, and who will judge them at the last day. They owe Him their life and breath and everything, even if they refuse to submit to His rule. As the head of my family, I use the "our" language, because I am leading them in prayer and worship, even if they are unregenerate as yet, just the same as when I pray in public at church prayer meetings I use "our" language even though there are unconverted people there, and when unsaved family members are at my house I use "our" language when I pray.
I simply don't see the hangup.