How Ought Baptists To Consider Their Children?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 12919 by request
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
By "believer," we mean one who credibly professes to be born again. They claim to be trusting in Jesus for the remission of sins, and their life bears that out.
By "unbeliever," we mean one who does not claim to be born again, and whose life bears that reality out, as far as we can judge.
 
I simply don't see the hangup.
Right. In the time I've been browsing this board, in these types of threads I've also not heard a peep about any hangup with regular visitors who may attend the church where it's clear they are not believers. Following this line of thinking, I'd assume it's a church member's job, or at the very least the pastor's job, to give them a friendly reminder, "hey, love that you're here, but please don't sing along and definitely don't say amen during the service!" It's patently absurd. We ought only to fence the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper.

My fellow Baptist @Lowlander, just to reiterate, I am interested in your response to my question at the bottom of post #62! Doesn't have to be lengthy. But what is keeping you from stepping over the fence?
 
Last edited:
Right. In the time I've been browsing this board, in these types of threads I've also not heard a peep about any hangup with regular visitors who may attend the church where it's clear they are not believers. Following this line of thinking, I'd assume it's a church member's job, or at the very least the pastor's job, to give them a friendly reminder, "hey, love that you're here, but please don't sing along and definitely don't say amen during the service!" It's patently absurd. We ought only to fence the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper.
I see the same problem, as I pointed out in #56:
If your difficulty is how they ought to be treated at church, then you also need to question how you treat a visiting unbeliever. Can they sit under the preaching? Can they sing the hymns? Obviously they cannot partake of the supper, same as the unregenerate child (in both traditions).
I’m assuming this type of precaution is not happening towards guests in R/P churches. Likewise it is not happening in Baptist churches. Aren’t we happy when a guest enters the doors? I understand that the church is the fellowship of believers, but I think we ought to rejoice when God’s providence brings an unbelieving guest to our celebration of the work of Christ, which God may use to convert them.

How much more, then (from a Baptist perspective), should we to be glad that our children are sitting under gospel teaching, even if they have not made a profession of faith?

Their attendance is happening through the providence of God, and I rejoice.
 
That's right you did, and my apologies. I should have been clearer and also referenced your earlier post. I more meant that I don't think I've seen this complaint raised by someone who is considering, or holds to, the P/R position.
Oh, I wasn’t salty. I am interested to see a Paedo response to this idea.
 
I simply don't see the hangup.
Fair enough, brother. I appreciate your efforts at explaining your view.

I do have a hangup, just as others have in the thread have voiced; but, as I’ve said already, I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, it is simply a current personal dilemma that hasn’t been helped yet by anything I’ve read.
 
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?
I am at the very beginning of my study of Reformed covenant theology. Therefore, until I really understand how they get to their answers, I can’t really assess them.

I believe the topic is so large, so complex, that to assess these end results of their covenantal view without understanding how and why they believe such things, would be premature.

I’m also not convinced/convicted of the Baptist covenantal view, where I’m using it as the rule against which to judge the P/R view.

The Baptist position, as far as I understand it, makes sense to me. But until I have studied the P/R view as well, I can’t say I hold to the RB view with deep conviction.

So, I am a Baptist on the fence you could say. Or at least a Baptist who hasn’t come by it honestly (i.e. deep conviction from studying both sides of the argument).
 
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.
Yet infant baptism didn't come into practice for another 2 centuries. Didn't seem to discourage the spread of the church.
 
I am at the very beginning of my study of Reformed covenant theology. Therefore, until I really understand how they get to their answers, I can’t really assess them.

I believe the topic is so large, so complex, that to assess these end results of their covenantal view without understanding how and why they believe such things, would be premature.

I’m also not convinced/convicted of the Baptist covenantal view, where I’m using it as the rule against which to judge the P/R view.

The Baptist position, as far as I understand it, makes sense to me. But until I have studied the P/R view as well, I can’t say I hold to the RB view with deep conviction.

So, I am a Baptist on the fence you could say. Or at least a Baptist who hasn’t come by it honestly (i.e. deep conviction from studying both sides of the argument).
I appreciate your response and transparency! Based on what you said, may I suggest that you first study the RB view at a deeper level? Use resources perhaps suggested by your pastor and what has been recommended by proponents of baptist covenant theology in other threads on this board. Or maybe just start by studying the 1689! In my opinion, trying to dive into the topic and study both sides simultaneously is not wise - as you said, it's so large and complex. I'm not saying or hoping doing this will automatically result in deep conviction on the RB position, but some of the questions you are asking seem to indicate you may be examining the P/R position without having sufficient understanding of our view. In other words, I wouldn't start a study on the topic by asking an online forum, largely consisting of paedobaptists, for the fatal flaw in baptist covenant theology.

Please don't misunderstand this post, and I realize I have limited information so perhaps you have already done what I suggest above before posting on this forum. And by the way, I would whole heartedly agree with giving the same advice to someone who comes from a P/R background but is just beginning to explore the topic.
 
Last edited:
I appreciate your response and transparency! Based on what you said, may I suggest that you first study the RB view at a deeper level? Use resources perhaps suggested by your pastor and what has been recommended by proponents of baptist covenant theology in other threads on this board. In my opinion, trying to dive into the topic and study both sides simultaneously is not wise - largely because as you said, the topic is so large and complex. I'm not saying or hoping doing this will automatically result in deep conviction on the RB position, but some of the questions you are asking seem to indicate you may be examining the P/R position without having sufficient understanding of our view. In other words, I wouldn't start a study on the topic by asking an online forum, largely consisting of paedobaptists, for the fatal flaw in baptist covenant theology.

Please don't misunderstand this post, and I realize I have limited information so perhaps you have already done what I suggest above before posting on this forum. And by the way, I would whole heartedly agree with giving the same advice to someone who comes from a P/R background but is just beginning to explore the topic.
agreed. @Lowlander your pastor ought to be involved in this (if he isn't). We all owe it to our overseers on topics that potentially makes us leave the church.
 
I appreciate your response and transparency! Based on what you said, may I suggest that you first study the RB view at a deeper level? Use resources perhaps suggested by your pastor and what has been recommended by proponents of baptist covenant theology in other threads on this board. Or maybe just start by studying the 1689! In my opinion, trying to dive into the topic and study both sides simultaneously is not wise - largely because as you said, it's so large and complex. I'm not saying or hoping doing this will automatically result in deep conviction on the RB position, but some of the questions you are asking seem to indicate you may be examining the P/R position without having sufficient understanding of our view. In other words, I wouldn't start a study on the topic by asking an online forum, largely consisting of paedobaptists, for the fatal flaw in baptist covenant theology.

Please don't misunderstand this post, and I realize I have limited information so perhaps you have already done what I suggest above before posting on this forum. And by the way, I would whole heartedly agree with giving the same advice to someone who comes from a P/R background but is just beginning to explore the topic.
Thanks for your advice.
 
Here are some resources that helped me in my study of covenant theology for its worth. I started with the traditional Reformed view (wasn't aware of any unique Baptist views at the time I began my study).

Traditional Reformed View:

- Ligon Duncan's Covenant Theology class at RTS - https://subsplash.com/reformtheosem/lb/ms/+635a671 - good overview but quite a time commitment.
- Berkhof's Systematic Theology - very good concise overview of the covenants in the relevant sections and won't take that long to read through. I would probably start here for Traditional Reformed view.

Others here have recommended good resources in the past in this category including one done by a PB member here (I can't remember the title exactly).

Baptist Views:

- The Mystery of Christ (Samuel Renihan) - presents the 1689 Federalist view of Baptist Covenant theology. Personally I think the book is absolute gold and I highly recommend it for any Baptist. I would start here for the 1689 Federalist Baptist view.

- There is another Baptist view of Covenant Theology that is more similar to the Traditional Reformed view but I don't know of a single work to point to that lays it out clearly. Others can probably help with that.

Last but not least, the Puritan Board was possibly the most helpful resource on my journey as well.

Forgot to add - there is no substitute for the word of God. Definitely become very familiar with where Scripture speaks about each of the covenants (including NT comments on OT covenants).
 
Here are some resources that helped me in my study of covenant theology for its worth. I started with the traditional Reformed view (wasn't aware of any unique Baptist views at the time I began my study).

Traditional Reformed View:

- Ligon Duncan's Covenant Theology class at RTS - https://subsplash.com/reformtheosem/lb/ms/+635a671 - good overview but quite a time commitment.
- Berkhof's Systematic Theology - very good concise overview of the covenants in the relevant sections and won't take that long to read through. I would probably start here for Traditional Reformed view.

Others here have recommended good resources in the past in this category including one done by a PB member here (I can't remember the title exactly).

Baptist Views:

- The Mystery of Christ (Samuel Renihan) - presents the 1689 Federalist view of Baptist Covenant theology. Personally I think the book is absolute gold and I highly recommend it for any Baptist. I would start here for the 1689 Federalist Baptist view.

- There is another Baptist view of Covenant Theology that is more similar to the Traditional Reformed view but I don't know of a single work to point to that lays it out clearly. Others can probably help with that.

Last but not least, the Puritan Board was possibly the most helpful resource on my journey as well.

Forgot to add - there is no substitute for the word of God. Definitely become very familiar with where Scripture speaks about each of the covenants (including NT comments on OT covenants).
Thank you, brother.
 
Is there a minimum age to Baptise a child who says he believes in Jesus for the forgiveness of sins ?
I think there is no hard-and-fast rule. Our pastor has stated that the youngest person he baptised was a girl of 8 (or 10, can't remember exactly). He emphasised the fact that we do not baptise adults, but believers (hence, a credible confession of faith). The girl had a strong desire to be baptised and demonstrated an understanding of Christ's atonement for the sins of those who repent and believe.
 
Question: At what point in history did the definition of baptism change? Clearly there is an aberration, from an emphasis on the promises of God to man to a mere outward declaration towards God from man. When did this change occur?
 
Question: At what point in history did the definition of baptism change? Clearly there is an aberration, from an emphasis on the promises of God to man to a mere outward declaration towards God from man. When did this change occur?

Probably the Anabaptists.
 
Clearly there is an aberration, from an emphasis on the promises of God to man to a mere outward declaration towards God from man.
I think this is a faulty question. I'm not aware of any right-thinking Christian, including Reformed Baptists, that would regard baptism as "a mere outward declaration towards God from man."

LBC 29:1: Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.
 
I'm not aware of any right-thinking Christian, including Reformed Baptists, that would regard baptism as "a mere outward declaration towards God from man."
It might not be described as such in any written confession, but I have heard it colloquially many, many times.
 
And there is of course an "appeal" "profession" and "vow" component of baptism on the part of the recipient. 1 Pet 3:21 ESV; WLC 165; 167. Perhaps this aspect is under emphasized in certain non-Baptist circles.
 
Last edited:
Then they're un-confessional, not right-thinking, and badly taught.
Of course, on that particular point, I agree. I was just noting that there are Christians who, while right-thinking in general, on this particular point believe baptism to be a sign from man to God.
 
I think this is a faulty question. I'm not aware of any right-thinking Christian, including Reformed Baptists, that would regard baptism as "a mere outward declaration towards God from man."

LBC 29:1: Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.
From the Founders Ministry's version of the 1689 BCF in Modern English:

"Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ. To those baptized it is a sign of their fellowship with Him in His death and resurrection, of their being grafted into Him, of remission of sins, and of submitting themselves to God through Jesus Christ to live and walk in newness of life."

A sign of their fellowship with Him...that sounds like it's written in a "Man-to-God" order if I'm not mistaken.
 
A sign of their fellowship with Him...that sounds like it's written in a "Man-to-God" order if I'm not mistaken.
That phrasing is unfortunately more ambiguous, but I highly doubt Founders intended to change the original meaning.
 
From the Founders Ministry's version of the 1689 BCF in Modern English:

"Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ. To those baptized it is a sign of their fellowship with Him in His death and resurrection, of their being grafted into Him, of remission of sins, and of submitting themselves to God through Jesus Christ to live and walk in newness of life."

A sign of their fellowship with Him...that sounds like it's written in a "Man-to-God" order if I'm not mistaken.
I think you’re misreading this. “TO those baptized it is a sign of their fellowship with Him…” it is a sign TO them, not FROM them.
 
However, there is passive (grafted & remission of sins) and active (submitting themselves to God… love and walk in newness of life).

I agree with Phil, unfortunately ambiguous.
 
From the Founders Ministry's version of the 1689 BCF in Modern English:

"Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ. To those baptized it is a sign of their fellowship with Him in His death and resurrection, of their being grafted into Him, of remission of sins, and of submitting themselves to God through Jesus Christ to live and walk in newness of life."

A sign of their fellowship with Him...that sounds like it's written in a "Man-to-God" order if I'm not mistaken.
It sounds from your posts that you're suggesting that baptism is something that God does to You, and that's what you want to see. But Baptism is not about God doing something to you--it's about several other things.
1: In submitting to baptism, YOU are obeying the second part of God's requirement to repent and be baptized.
2: When you do so, you publicly declare, not to God, who already knows your heart, but to the assembled church, that you have been regenerated, and raised to walk in newness of life. It is a divinely appointed sign, performed by humans on humans, for the benefit of humans. The visible church formally accepts your profession, and has a duty to hold you to it.
3: The ministers who baptize you formally declare to the visible church that they believe your profession to be credible, and bind themselves to the duties of pastors toward their flock.

Of course we could say that God is present with His assembled people, and will surely hold you to the promises and commitments you make in the Assembly, and moreover that everything you do should be in reference to God, but the sign is primarily for yourself and others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top