How to handle covenant baptism

[Larry Hughes]

This question is for those who have crossed this path or may have words of wisdom to the same.

My family and I (wife, two infants) are in the process of becoming members of a reformed PCA church. A wonderful place, they were huge to my wife and I during a trying time with our last baby 10 days in the NICU (a long story).

We have been visiting for a while and talking. And to make a long story short we've come to embrace the truth of Covenant including of our children in Scripture.

So, we intend after membership to have our children baptized. The issue is how do you handle other family members, specifically grandparents without raising a debate?

One set of grandparents will probablly listen well and have no problem. The other set are strongly baptistic, and I don't even mean reformed either. I fear a debate. We don't even see eye to eye in terms of "calvinism".

This won't stop us, but we wondered about how anyone might have handled this in terms of "do you invite them?" "Tell them, if so how?"

Thanks in advance,

Larry

 

[LadyFlynt]

You don't? Actually, we only told the one that would understand and my FIL, who is baptist, but reformed...he didn't come, didn't agree, but didn't throw a fit either. It was more a matter of being honest with him. We didn't say anything to the rest of the family as we would be considered heretics for doing so.

 

[biblelighthouse]

My wife and I plan to have our 3 daughters baptized within a few months, as well. And some members of my family will probably have a similar reaction. So it would be helpful to hear people's thoughts about how to share this with family members who are opposed to the idea.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Baptize them too! That'll teach em!

 

[Larry Hughes]

Its tough not too, because they make such a big deal, and rightly so, about other family members who profess and are baptized into the Baptist church. It kind of bothers my wife that our children will likely not have this internal family support.

She is leaning toward telling them and explaining it to them. I'm not, I remember our last calvin discussion and really just don't feel like raising a debate now.

Thanks, hoping to hear more.

Ldh

 

[RamistThomist]

Ask them which covenant is superior and why, according to their position, did Old Covenant children have more priveleges than New Covenant children.

The argument that professing members in New Covenant obey the law will not work because there are professing "christians" today who backslide.

Therefore, to follow Warfield, we must assume that the same benefits and privileges still apply to the children of believers

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Larry Hughes
Its tough not too, because they make such a big deal, and rightly so, about other family members who profess and are baptized into the Baptist church. It kind of bothers my wife that our children will likely not have this internal family support.

She is leaning toward telling them and explaining it to them. I'm not, I remember our last calvin discussion and really just don't feel like raising a debate now.

Thanks, hoping to hear more.

Ldh

Larry,

I understand your hesitation to bring it up. I have similar circumstances with my family (with the calvinist issue anyway) in which many times we come together, debate occurs.

My outlook on it is that the issues ARE that important. Not that I think simply arguing in and of itself can change people's mind, but the Holy Spirit, working through the Word CAN change people's minds!

That's part of the reformed (uh hum...christian) system, is that we realize that it isn't up to us to change people's mind, just to exhort, using the word of God, and tearing down their strongholds using logical arguments from God's word! That's what apologetics are all about.

Don't refrain from proclaiming God's word out of fear of losing the peace, but do it all in love with respect.

Jeremiah 6:14
They have also healed the hurt of My people slightly, Saying, "Peace, peace!' When there is no peace.

 

[Larry Hughes]

Jacob,

I never thought about that angle. That's a good simple starting point!


Jeff,

You are so right. I should remember that apologetics is my heart beat, coming from a atheistic/agnostic science background. That side of the family are Christians but they can be the kind that put tremendous not so good spiritual pressure on you. They are very very charismatic but in a wierd way - not your typical pentecostic that jumps around (they would ironically look at that as being wierd too) but kind of a mutated arminian-lingering anabaptistic, charismatic, gnostic Southern Baptist. It is the wierdest mixture of sectarian thinking under the label of SB I've encountered. It really is regional though because most, even non-reformed SB, would look at it as odd. They rely so much on "hearing God's voice" its hard to discuss with them. I wont even get into the demon chaser, casting out that my wife grew up under. Some of the stories she tells me!

To give you a feel for it - I would have more credibility in their eyes if I said, "The Lord spoke to me and told me xyz..." rather than, "Romans 1:1-17 says xyz..." I'm not being very hyperbolic either. Now if I dared to say for clarity, "You know Calvin/Luther commenting on Romans..." Then its over with - I'm a poor deceived ignorant boob believing a man's teaching (and in Calvin's case the devil incarnate, Luther might get cut a little slack because they are unaware of "Bondage of the Will") and not believing the Bible (which is code for the direct communication of the "Spirit"). The "Spirit" moving is always highest. Which from my view of their view is "my conscience and inner mind whom I call the spirit is directing me".

Thanks,

Larry

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Baptize them too! That'll teach em!

Gabe, you slay me. Sometimes your brashness rubs me wrong and then other times I just role over cracking up.

 

[Arch2k]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Baptize them too! That'll teach em!

Some people baptize by sprinkling.

Some people baptize by dunking.


And some people just hold them under until they really repent!

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Well, that would be fitting the immersion signification, would it not? Don't want to immerse someone into Christ and then take them back out of Christ!

 

[smhbbag]

Ask them which covenant is superior and why, according to their position, did Old Covenant children have more priveleges than New Covenant children.

As a Baptist, I would simply answer "The New Covenant is superior" and "Straw-man. I don't have to defend the "why's" of a position that I don't agree with."

The argument that professing members in New Covenant obey the law will not work because there are professing "christians" today who backslide.

Where has any Reformed Baptist ever said this? I'm serious, because I have honestly never heard of such an argument. It's a ridiculous assertion.

[Edited on 7-3-2005 by smhbbag]

 

[Puddleglum]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Well, that would be fitting the immersion signification, would it not? Don't want to immerse someone into Christ and then take them back out of Christ!

Um, the way the baptist argument goes is that going under shows your union with Christ in His death, and coming up shows your union with Christ in His resurrection. So, leaving them down wouldn't make any sense . . . though, if you want to take a humerous angle, immersing for 3 days could make sense!

 

[smhbbag]

hahahahahaha, not much on the puritanboard makes me laugh, but that did. Thanks Jessica

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by smhbbag

Ask them which covenant is superior and why, according to their position, did Old Covenant children have more priveleges than New Covenant children.

As a Baptist, I would simply answer "The New Covenant is superior" and "Straw-man. I don't have to defend the "why's" of a position that I don't agree with."

You got the first part of the question right and then ignored the second as irrelevant. It is highly relevant. Why are children of believers in the "better Covenant" denied the same status as those in the inferior covenant?

The argument that professing members in New Covenant obey the law will not work because there are professing "christians" today who backslide.

Where has any Reformed Baptist ever said this? I'm serious, because I have honestly never heard of such an argument. It's a ridiculous assertion.

[Edited on 7-3-2005 by smhbbag]

Remember the context of the question asked. Larry Hughes had said:

One set of grandparents will probablly listen well and have no problem. The other set are strongly baptistic, and I don't even mean reformed either. I fear a debate. We don't even see eye to eye in terms of "calvinism".

Granted, most Reformed Baptists do not use that argument, but the people in question are not Reformed so I think it is a valid approach.

[Edited on 7--3-05 by Draught Horse]

 

[RamistThomist]

Anyway, you skipped the conclusion in my argument, which I said:

Therefore, to follow Warfield, we must assume that the same benefits and privileges still apply to the children of believers

Show me why New Covenant children (if we can even assume that they are in the New Covenant), or rather, children of New Covenant believers do not have this privilege.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Show me why New Covenant children (if we can even assume that they are in the New Covenant), or rather, children of New Covenant believers do not have this privilege.

Jacob, Do you even know what the Reformed Baptist position is about children.

I think I would try to focus on the fact that the children get to grow up in a godly home whether or not they ever become regenerate or not. It is a far cry from growing up in a Pagan home where who knows what goes on.
I am not saying Malone is great or anything but who have you read concerning children and the New Covenant from a Reformed Baptist perspective? Maybe we ought to start a thread about the benefits of children baptized and children who are not baptized. Is one considered less in the sight of Jesus?

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Maybe we ought to start a thread about the benefits of children baptized and children who are not baptized. Is one considered less in the sight of Jesus?

Since baptists refuse to notice that circumcision and baptism both are signs and seals of the same thing, this argument will probably fall on deaf ears. But nevertheless, to answer your question, here goes:

If an infant failed to be circumcized in the Old Testament, then that infant was automatically considered a covenant breaker.

Likewise, an infant who fails to be baptized is a covenant breaker.

(The same goes for adults, by the way . . . if a person confesses salvation in Christ, attends church, etc., and yet fails to be baptized, then that adult is sinning against God . . . breaking covenant with Him.)


Of course, now that I think about it, the above statements may not phase the baptists at all. After all, they already consider their children to be unregenerate, covenant-breaking pagans anyway.




[Edited on 7-4-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[Larry Hughes]

Randy has apoint; I'll admit there is a big gulf between the R. Bap. & every other Bap. out there, though most of the "Calvinistic" (& I use that term very generically here) SB would disagree.

That is the RB come right to the brink of full blown Ref. Cov. theology as opposed to the general bap.

& many solid bap. do raise their children very faithfully - in my opinion "vitual" covenant people though they miss the point of the signs drastically.

But at the end of the day the doctrine of believers only leads the same way - baptism is primarily a "works", "my baptism", "my sign" hence the second baptisms of some people to "get the work right". It is a terribly wrong view of the sign, asa my wife's experience could attest.

L

 

[Texas Aggie]

We know that a child can be born with the Holy Spirit (such as John the Baptist). A baby inside the mother's womb may in fact be a partaker of the New Covenant without making a "profession of faith."

Now, with that said, a fetus in the womb "œmay" have the Spirit (as indicated by the scripture). If that child is aborted or miscarried, there is no physical baptism at birth (except down the toilet or in the clinic's dumpster).

The water does not save.... the Spirit does. I am amazed at the legalism involved with such a basic principal of God. The commandment is to baptize as a physical representation of a spiritual application.

The question you must ask: Is my child a partaker of the New Covenant? The answer is: only if their name is written in the Book of Life from before the foundation of the world (which is something you can not determine).

How is this wrought in man? Matthew 3:11-12.

Baptize your babies if it makes you feel better... I see nothing wrong with this (it shows man and the devils how you, the parent, will raise the child as a covenant member). The sprinkling itself; however, will not save your child. Leave that to God.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Show me why New Covenant children (if we can even assume that they are in the New Covenant), or rather, children of New Covenant believers do not have this privilege.

Jacob, Do you even know what the Reformed Baptist position is about children.

I think I would try to focus on the fact that the children get to grow up in a godly home whether or not they ever become regenerate or not. It is a far cry from growing up in a Pagan home where who knows what goes on.
I am not saying Malone is great or anything but who have you read concerning children and the New Covenant from a Reformed Baptist perspective? Maybe we ought to start a thread about the benefits of children baptized and children who are not baptized. Is one considered less in the sight of Jesus?

I wish people would quote me in full. I had also said

Remember the context of the question asked. Larry Hughes had said:

One set of grandparents will probablly listen well and have no problem. The other set are strongly baptistic, and I don't even mean reformed either. I fear a debate. We don't even see eye to eye in terms of "calvinism"."

Me: Granted, most Reformed Baptists do not use that argument, but the people in question are not Reformed so I think it is a valid approach.

Who have I read? Wayne Grudem, Millard Erickson, shorter essays by Malone, whom I have seen in person. I was a Reformed Baptist until last year. I eagerly devoured Baptist Systematics as a Baptist. I am VERY familiar with the work done by Doug Phillips (mainly audio on this and I agree with a lot of points he made. In fact, it was RB's like Phillips who helped me make the switch.).

Granted, it is a lot better than growing up in a pagan home, or even a nominal Christian home. In fact, give me an RB household any day over a modern Evanjellyfish household. Still, the sign of the covenant is not applied. Are they different in Christ's eyes? I don't think so. Still, the sign of the covenant (and all that it entails) is still not applied. At this point, we rehash the old debates.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Texas Aggie

The water does not save.... the Spirit does. I am amazed at the legalism involved with such a basic principal of God. The commandment is to baptize as a physical representation of a spiritual application.

<snip>

Baptize your babies if it makes you feel better... I see nothing wrong with this (it shows man and the devils how you, the parent, will raise the child as a covenant member). The sprinkling itself; however, will not save your child. Leave that to God.

straw man

Straw Man

STRAW MAN!


Who are you arguing against? To my knowledge, there is not one person on the puritanboard who thinks that baptism saves ANYBODY, whether adult or infant.

So why make the obvious comment that baptism will "not save your child"? Are you intentionally building a straw man just so you can knock it down?


We do not baptize our babies to make us "feel better".

We baptize our babies because they are covenant members, and God commands that they be baptized. If they fail to be baptized, then they are in a state of covenant-breaking in that way.

Please stop arguing with straw men.

 

[Texas Aggie]

Give me a break Joseph.... people do baptize their infants because it makes them feel better (this is a credo perspective). Is it a commandment... sure. You and I seem to have multiple disconnects because you read right through my posts.

I could also be insulting and accuse you of arguing with straw men because there is no thought (no brain) involved with some of these issues..... but I won't do that.

Legalism comes with Paedo vs. Credo and the amount of family strife involved. I'm just giving Larry something to argue his case to his credo relatives (didn't mean to strike a nerve with you).

Take a look at the other posts on this same subject.... you see the same thing over and over. The real issue lies with the covenant itself and how the parents are involved (especially for the benefit of their children). I would be more concerned about God visiting the iniquities to the third and forth generation because of sin.... not arguing with relatives over Paedo vs. Credo baptism.


[Edited on 7-5-2005 by Texas Aggie]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Texas Aggie
Give me a break Joseph.... people do baptize their infants because it makes them feel better (this is a credo perspective). Is it a commandment... sure. You and I seem to have multiple disconnects because you read right through my posts.

I could also be insulting and accuse you of arguing with straw men because there is no thought (no brain) involved with some of these issues..... but I won't do that.

So . . . you have determined that the early church fathers, the reformers, the puritans, and all modern paedobaptists have "no brain" involved regarding baptism. Astounding.

Originally posted by Texas Aggie
Legalism comes with Paedo vs. Credo and the amount of family strife involved. I'm just giving Larry something to argue his case to his credo relatives (didn't mean to strike a nerve with you).

If family strife should be avoided at all costs, especially in regard to baptism, then 100% of the church should still be paedobaptistic. It is the baptists of the 1500s that decided to introduce the novelty of credobaptism into the church. And there has been plenty of strife over it since then. And specifically in regard to this thread, the original post voiced concern over the fact that some *baptist* family members would probably be the ones to *cause* strife over the issue.

The original poster did not say that he was going into the homes of his baptist relatives and demanding them to baptize their infants. He just wants to obey God's command to baptize HIS infant, and wants to know how to deal with the strife that the *baptists* in his family may cause.

So if you really want to avoid strife, why not encourage the whole church to just go back to the same paedobaptism it practiced for the vast majority of its history, so that there won't be any more "strife"?

Originally posted by Texas Aggie
Take a look at the other posts on this same subject.... you see the same thing over and over. The real issue lies with the covenant itself and how the parents are involved (especially for the benefit of their children). I would be more concerned about God visiting the iniquities to the third and forth generation because of sin.... not arguing with relatives over Paedo vs. Credo baptism.

Again, please keep this thread's original post in view. He's not want to go "argue" with his relatives. He wants help because he expects some of *them* to come try to argue with him.

Larry said, "I fear a debate". He did not say that he was looking for one. So if there is strife over this, it will be due to the baptists in his family.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

"If Infant Baptism were not right, then for one thousand years there was no baptism and no Christian Church."
(Martin Luther, Works of Martin Luther, Vol. 1, p. 52)

 

[Texas Aggie]

Whatever Joseph.... Larry has some ammo if the subject arises with his relatives. One who fears debate usually knows there will probably be one. You know that.

The comment of "straw men" was on your argumentation, not reformed doctrine. You just made my point.... and yes it is "astounding" you read through that post as well.

If you go back to my first post, you "may" see why it is perfectly fine for Larry to baptize his child and present this commandment to credo relatives (since he is concerned about debate). Not sure what all your fuss is about?

 

[Larry Hughes]

Good quote Gabriel where did you find it in Luther's works? What exactly did he mean by it? I'm a bit slow a lot of times!!

The fear of debate. There are a few reasons why I fear the debate. Just to be clear. Perhaps I should have chosen better language.

First, I don't fear it because I'm a compromiser not at all. But I do want to keep some familial peace for the sake of my wife. We are going to be the waaaay outsiders on this issue trust me our brother-in-law is a SB pastor. And my poor wife grew up in re-baptism city and so confused.

If I go in guns slinging that will be a sign to them that I'm dead wrong, right or wrong, that's what will be perceived.

Also, you'd have to understand what I'd be up against. These are the kind of baptist that would view "liturgy" as Roman Catholic based solely upon the term alone. Never mind the "non-liturgy" liturgy they pass out every sunday (a.k.a a church bulletin). A year ago I had to show them where "catechism" was in Scripture before they realized, "Hey, it's not RC". Imagine their surprise when I showed them the LBCF!

Also, if I hand them a book to at least "open" their minds to thoughts heretofore never considered - that would be "a man's teaching" - just like Calvinism was 4 years ago. Never mind the fact that their position was/is taught by mere men. I never understood this argument from the baptist side (some that is)? We can both see that men teach both positions and both claim from Scripture - so from a purely neutral stand point if I had to side with one man or another man and that alone (not that is what we should do but hypothetically to show the folly in this), the Lutheran, Reformed, Puritans have it hands down. But I digress too much.

There are two ways to be dispensational: 1. By confusing the theological Law/Gospel distinctions and 2. By confusing Covenants. Really both of these run parallel. None-the-less, they are deeply dispensational, Law and Gospel to them is more OT/NT not theological. And theological, at least in concept, Law and Gospel is pretty easy to grasp compared to Covenants along the same lines (CoW/CoG).

We, my wife and I, were debating on "do you tell them/invite them" to participate in something they would struggle with? At the end of the day I'm not going to delay it over this, as I told my wife my decission is final on my children - just wanting to approach it without a battle.

I do appreciate all the input!

Larry

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

I can identify with all you could potentially be going through, Larry. Half of my family is Southern Baptist, ignorant, dispensational (ignorantly so) and fundamentalist/legalistic. The other half is Roman Catholic (the Italian side). I'm definitely at enmity with both camps, and neither of them are really that interested in doctrine, theology, or anything beyond the tamest milk of Scripture (like, for example.. Jesus is the Son of God... oooo!). It is frustrating because 1) I love them, but 2) I don't want to offend them or debate with them, especially grandparents and to a lesser extent my parents. Going home and visiting my parents' church is akin to Chinese water torture for me, especially during worship.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I have a question. I am not trying to be devisive. If a Child or adult is not a partaker in the Covenant of Redemption from time past, what covenant matters. What does the Covenant of Grace do for him if he or she will perish in there sin? Won't they only be more condemned because they forsake the truth that they were never predestined for?

oops, misspelled devisive

[Edited on 7-5-2005 by puritancovenanter]