Now what? Newly unequally yoked?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Devoted

Puritan Board Freshman
I've been staunchly paedo-baptist for 25 years. I grew up in credo churches, but when I was 15 and after my mother married a Reformed guy who introduced the paedo view to me, I studied it (even did a paper on it for 10th grade) and came to my current convictions. I met and married my husband in the OPC when I was 19. Fast forward 21 years and after having to leave our OPC congregation and attending a couple different credo-churches over the last couple years.... my husband told me last night that he thinks he's changing his mind on it.

All our kids have been baptized as infants. None of them had made a public profession of faith before leaving the OPC. So there would be some major implications for our parenting moving forward if he's now credo- and I'm still paedo-. I'm finding it hard not to be distressed over this. It's not my husband's convictions in general that bothers me but being disunited and wondering how on earth we teach our children from wildly differing understandings.
 
Be a good wife and don't nag or argue with him. Marriage in the West is in trouble; having a good husband who is a baptist is not a huge crisis. Don't make it one.
 
ZackF said:
You’re a baptist.
Click to expand...
As we all should be.

But if I were a woman (and thank God I am not) I would follow my husband on secondary issues for the sake of peace and unity in the home. If a marriage is basically good and unified why make this an issue when most marriages in America either fail or are unhappy. Why search for reasons to be unhappy? Keep the peace and focus on the family.
 
As a convinced “paedobaptist,” I think Perg is right. That’s not to say this is going to be easy. It likely won’t, and it may be a source of stress, but you must not allow this to be a source of strife or contention. Submit to your husband, yet also pray for and with him, and discuss these things with him earnestly and humbly. It might be distressing, but I agree with Perg, it doesn’t appear to me to be a crisis.
 
Taylor said:
As a convinced “paedobaptist,” I think Perg is right. That’s not to say this is going to be easy. It likely won’t, and it may be a source of stress, but you must not allow this to be a source of strife or contention. Submit to your husband, yet also pray for and with him, and discuss these things with him earnestly and humbly. It might be distressing, but I agree with Perg, it doesn’t appear to me to be a crisis.
Click to expand...
If one is out of child bearing years, that makes it easier.
 
is your biggest concern teaching the children or that your husband will want to rebaptize them?
 
Stephen L Smith said:
Are you going to tell the tribal peoples you work with that it is their loss they are not Americans?
Click to expand...
I tell them that there is no better knowledge than to know they are children of God. Of course when I pointed up to the moon at night and told them Americans landed on the moon a group of them just laughed and laughed at me and said I was joking to them. So I dropped it. The greatness of America is hard to believe, after all.
 
Pergamum said:
I tell them that there is no better knowledge than to know they are children of God. Of course when I pointed up to the moon at night and told them Americans landed on the moon a group of them just laughed and laughed at me and said I was joking to them. So I dropped it. The greatness of America is hard to believe, after all.
Click to expand...
But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. 1 Cor 15:9
 
As a mom I'd be very much rejoicing that they got baptized. A mercy and an obedient sign of the covenant.

He knows your convictions and (used to?) share them. So I doubt any plea would have an impact.

I'd hold my convictions, be honest with the kids as to what they are, and not make a big deal about it in the family. Should a fifteen year old get rebaptized upon a profession of faith due to his dad's conviction that this is the way, I do not think God would hold you or the teenager accountable for any error. As far as I could know.
 
Pergamum said:
Be a good wife and don't nag or argue with him. Marriage in the West is in trouble; having a good husband who is a baptist is not a huge crisis. Don't make it one.
Click to expand...
I agree. To me this is one of those many "gray areas" in Scripture. I feel that my Baptist brothers and sisters in Jesus do not have wildly different views regarding Baptism; different, yes. I think it would probably be quite a hurdle to overcome if you were going into a marriage with opposing views; I would think at least one person would have to have not so strong a conviction regarding this for there to be a compromise attained. In the present situation, perhaps you might consider instructing your children in both views. I feel there are strong arguments for both in God's revelation. And, I feel that in either view one is able to have a strong and close walk with Jesus which is ultimately the most important thing for your children to strive for.

Pergamum said:
As we all should be.
Click to expand...
Ah-hem. Now we can be tolerable of others--BUT! : )

Pergamum said:
But if I were a woman (and thank God I am not) I would follow my husband on secondary issues for the sake of peace and unity in the home. If a marriage is basically good and unified why make this an issue when most marriages in America either fail or are unhappy. Why search for reasons to be unhappy? Keep the peace and focus on the family.
Click to expand...
Yes, definitely agreed again. It's a secondary issue. Peace and unity in the home comes before the gray areas. Now--if a spouse were to talk about things like he or she now believes the Bible is not the inspired word of God and that there are errors in it... Okay--now we have a problem. But I would not borrow trouble. Especially as ZackF pointed out, if the OP is out of her child-bearing years the issue is much easier.

Eyedoc posed a good question though--if her husband wishes to have the children re-baptized, would this be an issue? At my present understanding I don't see that it would be. Before I became a member of the RPCna (the first church I joined when I was converted), there was a question if the baptism I received under Roman-Catholicism would be valid. It was decided to be accepted, but if not I would have had no issue being re-baptized.
 
Last edited:
Eyedoc84 said:
is your biggest concern teaching the children or that your husband will want to rebaptize them?
Click to expand...
If he becomes a convinced credo then he will need to rebaptize the children as that would be part of them joining the church. In fact, unless you were already baptized as adults, everyone would need to be baptized.
 
retroGRAD3 said:
If he becomes a convinced credo then he will need to rebaptize the children as that would be part of them joining the church. In fact, unless you were already baptized as adults, everyone would need to be baptized.
Click to expand...
@Devoted

You need to take this one step at a time, not as if this has all in any sense been decided or that he is a "convinced credo."

All you said to us was that he said to you that "he thinks he's changing his mind."

Here's how I suggest you proceed:
  1. Ask him how has he come to this, given your previous commitments, and let him know that you've not come to this and do not share his convictions.
  2. Ask him if he'd be willing to talk with your former OP pastor or some other paedo-baptist pastor about this.
  3. Make it clear that you've together presented your children for baptism in united belief; if he now thinks otherwise, it is he who is proposing changes; it is he who is "upsetting the apple cart."
  4. He does not have the right simply to require the children to do otherwise than they were taught: this needs to be carefully worked through (what if their convictions at age 15, say, at the time of a profession of faith, differ from his and they are convinced paedo-baptists?) This is not a matter of simple filial submission, involving as it does religious beliefs.
  5. In any case, even if he got rebaptized and the children as well (age for them is a big issue here), he could under no circumstances, none whatsoever, "require" you to be rebaptized. I hope that you (and everyone here) are clear about that.
Peace,
Alan
 
Alan D. Strange said:
@Devoted

You need to take this one step at a time, not as if this has all in any sense been decided or that he is a "convinced credo."

All you said to us was that he said to you that "he thinks he's changing his mind."

Here's how I suggest you proceed:
  1. Ask him how has he come to this, given your previous commitments, and let him know that you've not come to this and do not share his convictions.
  2. Ask him if he'd be willing to talk with your former OP pastor or some other paedo-baptist pastor about this.
  3. Make it clear that you've together presented your children for baptism in united belief; if he now thinks otherwise, it is he who is proposing changes; it is he who is "upsetting the apple cart."
  4. He does not have the right simply to require the children to do otherwise than they were taught: this needs to be carefully worked through (what if their convictions at age 15, say, at the time of a profession of faith, differ from his and they are convinced paedo-baptists?) This is not a matter of simple filial submission, involving as it does religious beliefs.
  5. In any case, even if he got rebaptized and the children as well (age for them is a big issue here), he could under no circumstances, none whatsoever, "require" you to be rebaptized. I hope that you (and everyone here) are clear about that.
Peace,
Alan
Click to expand...
An elder saying that a father "does not have a right" is troubling. He is their father. The father has many rights that an elder does not have over the care and teaching of his own children. If the wife or elder tries to usurp or minimize the authority he has over his own children, only trouble will result.
 
Last edited:
Pergamum said:
An elder saying that a father "does not have a right" is troubling. He is their father. The father has many rights that an elder does not have over the care and teaching of his own children.
Click to expand...
No, it's not, brother, depending on the circumstances. No human authorities, I trust you agree, enjoy unqualified rights of submission from their proper subjects, especially when such an authority seeks to impose his rule contrary to the subject's biblically defensible beliefs.

Notice that I said "simply," which means, taken together with what I also said, that a father does not have the unqualified right to require submission in a religious matter in the case in which he's taught his son otherwise, has changed, but the son retains convictions with respect to the original teachings, especially in a matter like this in which good persons differ (it's not that the father is now a true Christian and seeks to teach this to his otherwise Hindi family--every circumstance may differ).

We don't really know the facts on the ground or how this might unfold. I am unwilling simply to grant what you apparently are willing to grant: in any and all cases, regardless of the child's age and previous dual parental training, if the father changes his religious mind, which may not even actually be the case, all the children are bound to do so regardless of every other consideration. If that sounds extreme, that's the direction your counsel leads (you're the one arguing this way) and that is why I am trying to put the brakes on and indicate that the situation requires a more careful approach than that.

Peace,
Alan
 
For perspective:

My sister-in-law is adjusting to my brother "losing his faith" into full-on Dawkins-style anti-theistic atheism.

There are worse situations out there, OP. Praying and go with God's blessing on you and your family.
 
Alan D. Strange said:
No, it's not, brother, depending on the circumstances. No human authorities, I trust you agree, enjoy unqualified rights of submission from their proper subjects, especially when such an authority seeks to impose his rule contrary to the subject's biblically defensible beliefs.

Notice that I said "simply," which means, taken together with what I also said, that a father does not have the unqualified right to require submission in a religious matter in the case in which he's taught his son otherwise, has changed, but the son retains convictions with respect to the original teachings, especially in a matter like this in which good persons differ (it's not that the father is now a true Christian and seeks to teach this to his otherwise Hindi family--every circumstance may differ).

We don't really know the facts on the ground or how this might unfold. I am unwilling simply to grant what you apparently are willing to grant: in any and all cases, regardless of the child's age and previous dual parental training, if the father changes his religious mind, which may not even actually be the case, all the children are bound to do so regardless of every other consideration. If that sounds extreme, that's the direction your counsel leads (you're the one arguing this way) and that is why I am trying to put the brakes on and indicate that the situation requires a more careful approach than that.

Peace,
Alan
Click to expand...
Yet he can sprinkle an unknowing infant without its permission and call him baptized from henceforth forward. But a father cannot begin to teach his children his new baptism belief? Very inconsistent.

A father teaching his children is different than him requiring submission to that ordinance, for believer's baptism must be voluntary or else it is no baptism. But a father has a right to teach his children doctrine. He can also expect that the wife does not continually contradict his teaching when it concerns 2ndary Christian doctrines. The unity of the home is more important than one's baptismal position and the elders should not try to whittle away at a man's authority in his own home (which I often see done in churches).
 
retroGRAD3 said:
If he becomes a convinced credo then he will need to rebaptize the children as that would be part of them joining the church. In fact, unless you were already baptized as adults, everyone would need to be baptized.
Click to expand...

I know Pergamum already addressed this, but credo-baptists do not baptize our children. We wait until they can affirm saving faith by professing repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ [1689 LBCF 29] ( Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36, 37; Acts 2:41; Acts 8:12; Acts 18:8 )
 
Pergamum said:
Yet he can sprinkle an unknowing infant without its permission and call him baptized from henceforth forward.
Click to expand...
That's simply argumentative and non-responsive, brother, due to your own theological position. I get it, but it does not advance the discussion in any way.

I certainly believe that the father, if he's really come to a baptistic conviction, which has never been clearly established, may teach his children accordingly. I've not addressed, and certainly do not question, such. I do think that he should talk with his wife about how best to do this, and to do so with great humility, in a way that does not overly confuse the children from their previous teaching.

Additionally, I appreciate the point that credo-baptists do not baptize until the subjects for such profess faith and seek baptism. Much of the previous talk of this thread, however, assumed an almost coercive role of the father in this regard and I appreciate the sane reminders of those who are our good Baptist brethren that young people would be baptized only upon their own personal desire, in this case, to be rebaptized.

Nothing that I have said should be interpreted to say that dad cannot share with and teach his family in accordance with baptistic convictions. Rather, my point has been that such does not then make the whole family bound to imbibe the convictions of husband and dad so that all must become baptists both in belief and practice. Any fair reader of the thread may admit that such has been herein intimated by some remarks and I wanted to make it clear that the situation is far more complex than "whatever religious convictions dad may come to plainly and simply bind the whole family. and that's that!"

Peace,
Alan
 
Alan D. Strange said:
That's simply argumentative and non-responsive, brother, due to your own theological position. I get it, but it does not advance the discussion in any way.

I certainly believe that the father, if he's really come to a baptistic conviction, which has never been clearly established, may teach his children accordingly. I've not addressed, and certainly do not question, such. I do think that he should talk with his wife about how best to do this, and to do so with great humility, in a way that does not overly confuse the children from their previous teaching.

Additionally, I appreciate the point that credo-baptists do not baptize until the subjects for such profess faith and seek baptism. Much of the previous talk of this thread, however, assumed an almost coercive role of the father in this regard and I appreciate the sane reminders of those who are our good Baptist brethren that young people would be baptized only upon their own personal desire, in this case, to be rebaptized.

Nothing that I have said should be interpreted to say that dad cannot share with and teach his family in accordance with baptistic convictions. Rather, my point has been that such does not then make the whole family bound to imbibe the convictions of husband and dad so that all must become baptists both in belief and practice. Any fair reader of the thread may admit that such has been herein intimated by some remarks and I wanted to make it clear that the situation is far more complex than "whatever religious convictions dad may come to plainly and simply bind the whole family. and that's that!"

Peace,
Alan
Click to expand...

But dad is the head of the house and even if disagreed with, must be brought under submission to his view as long as it is Biblical, yes?

You said:
Alan D. Strange said:
  1. Ask him how has he come to this, given your previous commitments, and let him know that you've not come to this and do not share his convictions.
  2. Ask him if he'd be willing to talk with your former OP pastor or some other paedo-baptist pastor about this.
  3. Make it clear that you've together presented your children for baptism in united belief; if he now thinks otherwise, it is he who is proposing changes; it is he who is "upsetting the apple cart."
  4. He does not have the right simply to require the children to do otherwise than they were taught: this needs to be carefully worked through (what if their convictions at age 15, say, at the time of a profession of faith, differ from his and they are convinced paedo-baptists?) This is not a matter of simple filial submission, involving as it does religious beliefs.
  5. In any case, even if he got rebaptized and the children as well (age for them is a big issue here), he could under no circumstances, none whatsoever, "require" you to be rebaptized. I hope that you (and everyone here) are clear about that.
Click to expand...

There are no issues with 1-2 as I see it.

3 seems superfluous. True but largely irrelevant in terms of headship.

4 is where I believe the issue lies. By definition of credo-baptism, he cannot "require the children" otherwise he is in fact NOT credo. Carefully working through convictions is mandatory and the process can vary from church to church but always involves strict Scriptural adherence.

When you say "This is not a matter of simple famial submission" is where there seems to be a big question of what you mean and why. If Christ is the head of every man and in so being, every man is the head of the wife (1 Cor. 11:3) then what is your Scriptural basis for rebelling if he lays out a case for believers' baptism for his children?

That does indeed seem as if you are advocating the advice of an elder over and against the (heretofore hypothetical) desires of the God-ordained head. If I am wrong, I am wide open to see where I am misinterpreting you.
 
I think the key word in this is "require". A father should not "require" a son or daughter to be rebaptized against his or her conscience. A father does not have lawful authority to do such.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MRC
  • Locked
Once credo, now paedo?
2
Replies
42
Views
6K
Marrow Man
Marrow Man
Reformation Monk
  • Locked
Lifelong Presbyterian is now Baptist
2
Replies
39
Views
6K
pianoman
pianoman
P
  • Locked
Reverend Ian Brown (Londonderry & Now Belfast)
Replies
0
Views
2K
ProtestantBankie
P
Pilgrim
  • Locked
Why I am now a Baptist
11 12 13
Replies
387
Views
71K
Semper Fidelis
Semper Fidelis
R. Scott Clark
  • Locked
MP3 re: Baptismal Union with Christ now online
Replies
26
Views
4K
R. Scott Clark
R. Scott Clark
Back
Top