Practical Outworking of CT In Childrearing

[Tom Hart]

Jesus is God. Jesus said to take the Gospel to the world, to make disciples, to baptize them. The Bible is His word, and when His ministers spoke and tied baptism to repentance, they were speaking on His behalf. Are you suggesting that the words of the Apostles recorded in Scripture can't be taken for requirements of God?

With this, I am going to step away from the discussion. I have plenty else to see to, and I do not count it a profitable use of my time to swat away silly suggestions that I have some kind of low view of the words of Scripture.

Finally, I would direct you to a study of the Greek grammar of Matthew 28:19-20. As I said before, you are operating on some faulty assumptions.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Red herring. The Kingdom of Christ is not an earthly kingdom. It's a spiritual kingdom, and it has spiritual children added to it every day.

Sean, I think you would prefer to rewrite that to say maybe that the Kingdom of God is a spiritual Kingdom that is in this world. It is spiritual as well as physical. I didn't quit being a physical person when I was regenerate. The Kingdom of God is more than you are stating. The Church here is made up of wheat and tares.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Sean, I think you would prefer to rewrite that to say maybe that the Kingdom of God is a spiritual Kingdom that is in this world. It is spiritual as well as physical. I didn't quit being a physical person when I was regenerate. The Kingdom of God is more than you are stating. The Church here is made up of wheat and tares.

The visible church here is made up of wheat and tares (but in any case, this is a misapplication of Christ's parable, since per Jesus the field is the world, not the church).

But in any case, that's irrelevant. Non-regenerate members of the visible church are not members of the Kingdom of God.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

The visible church here is made up of wheat and tares (but in any case, this is a misapplication of Christ's parable, since per Jesus the field is the world, not the church).

But in any case, that's irrelevant. Non-regenerate members of the visible church are not members of the Kingdom of God.

Yeah, we have very different views concerning the Kingdom of God. I believe it is bigger and more encompassing than just the Elect.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

The visible church here is made up of wheat and tares (but in any case, this is a misapplication of Christ's parable, since per Jesus the field is the world, not the church).

But in any case, that's irrelevant. Non-regenerate members of the visible church are not members of the Kingdom of God.

Sean, Matthew 13:24- “The kingdom of Heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field…”

vs. 41, “The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things which offend..”

 

[Jeri Tanner]

John Gill:

“Another parable put he forth unto them, saying,.... “

“Somewhat like the former, but with a different view: for whereas the design of the former was to show the different sorts of hearers that attend upon the ministry of the word, three parts in four being bad; this is to show the difference of members in churches, some being comparable to good seed, and others to tares.

“The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: by "the kingdom of heaven" is not meant the ultimate glory of the saints in heaven, or the state of happiness in the other world; for there will be no tares there; nor the Gospel, and the ministration of it, but the Gospel dispensation, and times, and kingdom of the Messiah; or rather the Gospel visible church state, on earth, called a "kingdom", of which Christ is king, and in which the saints are subject to him; where proper laws are made for the orderly government of it, and proper officers appointed to explain, and put those laws in execution; and which consists of various persons, united under one head, and independent of any other government: and it is styled the kingdom of heaven, in distinction from the kingdoms of this world; the subjects of it are, or should be, heaven born souls; the word, laws, and ordinances of it are from heaven; and there is some resemblance between a Gospel church state and heaven, and it is very near unto it, and is even the suburbs of it…

“by "the tares" sown among them, are meant "the children of the wicked one"; Satan, the enemy and adversary, as in Matt 13:38 who are to be understood, not of profane sinners; though these are the children of the devil; but of professors of religion, men either of bad principles, or of bad lives and conversations; whom Satan, by some means or another, gets into churches, and they become members thereof: at first they look like wheat, like true believers, have a show of religion, a form of godliness, an appearance of grace, but are destitute of it; and prove tares, unfruitful, unprofitable, and of no account, yea hurtful, and whose end is to be burned.”

 

[Phil D.]

It seems to me that Matthew 13:41 compared with John 3:3 clearly shows that the term "Kingdom of God/heaven" is used in two related yet distinct senses. The given contexts also indicate that differnce is reasonably expressed by visible vs. invisible.

 

[Romans922]

The vine and branches in John 15. The branches that don't bear fruit WERE in union with the vine...

 

[Romans678]

“I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. These things I command you, so that you will love one another."
John 15:1‭-‬17

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Ben Zartman]

Ben, you may want to go back and look at your own confession, Chapter 26:1-3.

I said exactly what that portion of the LBCF does.

 

[Eyedoc84]

I said exactly what that portion of the LBCF does.

No you didn’t.

You said:

the visible church is the local assembly, those baptized believers who join together week after week to worship God. The invisible church is used for the Church universal--all the local assemblies writ large; Christ's church in all the world.

So the invisible church is the sum of the visible churches.

But the LBC says the invisible church is made up of the elect in all ages, even those who don’t yet profess faith. So the invisible church consists even of those who are not currently among those called “visible saints”.

 

[Ben Zartman]

No you didn’t.

You said:

So the invisible church is the sum of the visible churches.

But the LBC says the invisible church is made up of the elect in all ages, even those who don’t yet profess faith. So the invisible church consists even of those who are not currently among those called “visible saints”.

I see your quibble. But those who are not yet regenerated are not yet part of it. Though they will become part of the invisible church, and the language of 'will be' is used so that we know that the whole number of the redeemed is still being added to and will be until Christ returns, that isn't saying that they are members before they are converted. That those who are elect surely will be saved does not negate the fact that they are natively not in union with Christ.

 

[Romans678]

I see your quibble. But those who are not yet regenerated are not yet part of it. Though they will become part of the invisible church, and the language of 'will be' is used so that we know that the whole number of the redeemed is still being added to and will be until Christ returns, that isn't saying that they are members before they are converted. That those who are elect surely will be saved does not negate the fact that they are natively not in union with Christ.

There is union in Christ in election, brother. Way before we make any profession of faith God chose us in him before the foundation of the world. There is union before we are born, union after birth and subsequent regeneration by the Holy Ghost, and union after in heavenly dwelling. Union with Christ starts and finishes with God, man is just a witness to His works.

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth."
Ephesians 1:3‭-‬10 ESV

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Romans678]

Reformed Forum's video on "Aspects of Union with Christ"

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Eyedoc84]

The problem as I see it, @Ben Zartman , is that the way you have defined things, the local assembly is always and infallibly made up of the elect. The baptist always and only baptizes elect persons. No person is ever admitted to the visible number who is not elect, and no elect person is ever missed.

I know you say baptist elders are not infallible when sorting out credible professions, but you see how I think that is completely incompatible with your definitions. Mistakes of church admission/baptism are logically impossible with what you’ve given. You have collapsed the invisible into the visible, and collapsed the elect into “wet professors”.

Yet when it comes to sacramentology, on one hand you deny any “physical administration” in the new covenant, but reduce the sacraments into ordinances that are mere symbols (does our God command vanities?), and that based not on God’s promises to us, but on our promise to Him. Which incidentally leads to a functional anabaptism, where if at some point I or the elders have reason to doubt my original profession, but now I really show fruit, theology would require me to get dunked again (and potentially again, and again, and again) because I didn’t truly get baptized the first time. But all this for a mere symbol. So does it matter, or not matter if we “get it right”?

The last two paragraphs are hopelessly muddled (in my mind), which is partly what led to my “reformation”:

I was a credobaptistic Arminian for 20 years, and marshalled Reformed Baptist arguments in discussions with Calvinistic paedos. They fit quite well when it all came down to my profession as evidence that I had become part of God’s elect (I was an Arminian of the corporate election stripe). While the two dominoes of Arminian/credo did not fall simultaneously for me, they did fall inevitably.

Thanks for your continued diligence, Ben (I would at least include Sean and Phil as well). You are in fact an encouragement to me as you continue to hold fast your convictions despite opposition from many sides. Would that I do the same in my daily battles with the flesh and oppressors from without!

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

As the one who originally asked the question, I’d like to chime in.

It seems as though raising your children under the paedobaptist system as members of the covenant people of God would have a greater benefit to them than treating them as outsiders and perpetually downplaying their profession until you see more fruit.

***I know this is not necessarily how it plays out everywhere. I’m just generalizing.***

That said, I know we don’t reverse engineer our theology from something we like; rather we want to know what Scripture says.

I need to keep studying the issue.

Thanks for this ongoing conversation everyone. Very appreciated.

 

[Ben Zartman]

The problem as I see it, @Ben Zartman , is that the way you have defined things, the local assembly is always and infallibly made up of the elect. The baptist always and only baptizes elect persons. No person is ever admitted to the visible number who is not elect, and no elect person is ever missed.

I know you say baptist elders are not infallible when sorting out credible professions, but you see how I think that is completely incompatible with your definitions. Mistakes of church admission/baptism are logically impossible with what you’ve given. You have collapsed the invisible into the visible, and collapsed the elect into “wet professors”.

Yet when it comes to sacramentology, on one hand you deny any “physical administration” in the new covenant, but reduce the sacraments into ordinances that are mere symbols (does our God command vanities?), and that based not on God’s promises to us, but on our promise to Him. Which incidentally leads to a functional anabaptism, where if at some point I or the elders have reason to doubt my original profession, but now I really show fruit, theology would require me to get dunked again (and potentially again, and again, and again) because I didn’t truly get baptized the first time. But all this for a mere symbol. So does it matter, or not matter if we “get it right”?

The last two paragraphs are hopelessly muddled (in my mind), which is partly what led to my “reformation”:

I was a credobaptistic Arminian for 20 years, and marshalled Reformed Baptist arguments in discussions with Calvinistic paedos. They fit quite well when it all came down to my profession as evidence that I had become part of God’s elect (I was an Arminian of the corporate election stripe). While the two dominoes of Arminian/credo did not fall simultaneously for me, they did fall inevitably.

Thanks for your continued diligence, Ben (I would at least include Sean and Phil as well). You are in fact an encouragement to me as you continue to hold fast your convictions despite opposition from many sides. Would that I do the same in my daily battles with the flesh and oppressors from without!

I don't see anything incompatible with my definitions, nor have all baptists ever. Just because the sign gets mistakenly administered is no reason to throw it out, or to include everyone willy-nilly. That's like throwing the baby out with the font water. Nor is it a reason to despise a "mere" sign, as you call, since it is a requirement of Christ, who does all things well. Is it not blessed to see someone publicly profess their faith in the waters of baptism? I find it an occasion of great joy and blessing in the church when someone is baptized.

I'm not sure about denying a physical administation--there is the local church doing all that the local church is commanded to do, we could take that as a visible administration: but unsaved people are not properly part of that church. They might attend, and hopefully repent and be baptized and join, but until they do they are neither members of the New Covenant, nor should be members in the church.

 

[Ben Zartman]

There is union in Christ in election, brother. Way before we make any profession of faith God chose us in him before the foundation of the world. There is union before we are born, union after birth and subsequent regeneration by the Holy Ghost, and union after in heavenly dwelling. Union with Christ starts and finishes with God, man is just a witness to His works.

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth."
Ephesians 1:3‭-‬10 ESV

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

The kindest thing I can say is that we're looking at this from different angles. Sure, Christ loved every one of the elect before the world began, and died specifically for each, and their redemption was guaranteed before ever God began to create the world. But because they fell in Adam, they still require redemption. Union with Christ-the New Birth-happens in time. Otherwise Jesus' words to Nicodemus make no sense; nor do Paul's when he said "you hath He quickened, who were dead."
And while God knows whom Jesus died for, we do not. We have established that not all children of believers turn out to have been elect. The "you and your children" language does not vouchsafe salvation if the promises aren't claimed. So this digression about union is not really relevant to the thread.
Or if you think it is, can you explain why?
While you're at it, do you mind answering the other questions I asked you in posts above? It's difficult to engage when you don't answer questions but instead take off on tangents.

 

[Romans678]

The kindest thing I can say is that we're looking at this from different angles. Sure, Christ loved every one of the elect before the world began, and died specifically for each, and their redemption was guaranteed before ever God began to create the world. But because they fell in Adam, they still require redemption. Union with Christ-the New Birth-happens in time. Otherwise Jesus' words to Nicodemus make no sense; nor do Paul's when he said "you hath He quickened, who were dead."
And while God knows whom Jesus died for, we do not. We have established that not all children of believers turn out to have been elect. The "you and your children" language does not vouchsafe salvation if the promises aren't claimed. So this digression about union is not really relevant to the thread.
Or if you think it is, can you explain why?
While you're at it, do you mind answering the other questions I asked you in posts above? It's difficult to engage when you don't answer questions but instead take off on tangents.

I didn't go on a digression, brother. Read your own comment on union with Christ in #342.

Union with Christ is the foundation of this discussion. I answered the question about salvation in the post #343 about union with Christ.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Mr. Great-Heart]

There is union in Christ in election, brother.

"In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved."

Our children are either in Adam or in Christ. God has no grandchildren in the church. Keep reading through Ephesians.

"And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and made Him head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all." Christ Jesus Himself is the cornerstone of the church. The Spirit dwells within those who are of God's household. There is one body and one Spirit. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. All who are in the body of Christ will attain to the unity of the faith, to a mature man, etc. Christ is the Savior of the church. The church is subject to Christ. Christ nourishes and cherishes his own body, the church.

How in any of this do you draw the conclusion there is a "visible church" consisting of professors of true religion, and their children?

 

[Romans678]

Our children are either in Adam or in Christ. God has no grandchildren in the church. Keep reading through Ephesians.

"And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and made Him head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all." Christ Jesus Himself is the cornerstone of the church. The Spirit dwells within those who are of God's household. There is one body and one Spirit. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. All who are in the body of Christ will attain to the unity of the faith, to a mature man, etc. Christ is the Savior of the church. The church is subject to Christ. Christ nourishes and cherishes his own body, the church.

How in any of this do you draw the conclusion there is a "visible church" consisting of professors of true religion, and their children?

See comment #343. When I get a break from work I will consider your question a little deeper. Blessings.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Mr. Great-Heart]

See comment #343. When I get a break from work I will consider your question a little deeper. Blessings.

Thank you! Unless you are seeking to assert all children of believers are elect, I'm not sure how #343 answers my question.

 

[Romans678]

Thank you! Unless you are seeking to assert all children of believers are elect, I'm not sure how #343 answers my question.

Help me understand brother, where in this thread did someone assert all children of believers are elect? I don't recall seeing that honestly.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Grafted In]

In answer to the questions of the OP from a covenant, household baptism perspective, I believe it is instructive to observe the ways in which the Lord Himself used the covenant sign in the rearing of His children, which is the pattern we should use in rearing our own. The book of Deuteronomy is very instructive in this regard. Consider the following observations.

• Deuteronomy begins with Moses rehearsing the history of the children of Israel from their deliverance from Egypt and subsequent forty year wilderness wanderings, which was due to their stiff-necked lack of faith and disobedience. The Ten Commandments are restated and the people are warned not to forget the Lord when they enter the Land. This large introductory section (I'm not offering a detailed outline of the book, just making general observations), is about the necessity of obedience to the Lord for taking possession of the Land. It appears to climax in chapter 10 with the command of 10:16--"Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer." By this the Lord indicates that the sign of circumcision is first of all making a demand of the covenant community, both male and female. Chapter 11 highlights the blessings of obeying the Lord with a circumcised heart.
• As others have observed, chapters 12 to 26 largely focus on how the Ten Commandments are to be applied to life in covenant with the Lord through the various laws enumerated there.
• Chapters 27-29 detail the blessings for obedience and the curses for disobedience to the covenant made on Sinai.
• Chapter 30 starts by dispelling any illusion that God's stiff-necked, uncircumcised-of-heart people will escape the curses written in the book. But it speaks of the promise that the Lord will, then, have compassion on His sin-cursed people and bring them back from their captivity in the world to give them the Land of Promise. This time, however, their entrance into the Land will be founded on better promises, the promise of 30:6--"And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live."

Based specifically on Paul's teaching on why the Law was given to God's children (e.g. Romans 7 and Galatians 3), I believe that Deuteronomy not only gives us an overview of the history of salvation but displays to us the order of salvation. God must first show His children how desperately wicked are their hearts, the terror of being in that condition, and that they cannot do for themselves through the law what they most need, which is circumcising their hearts. After the Law and the curses for disobedience have taught them that and they cry out in their need, then He circumcises their hearts so that they can live with Him.

The Lord commanded that Abraham and his children put the sign of circumcision on their infant males (though the command to circumcise their hearts was given to all--male and female), because the Lord brings His children to faith through both the demand that physcial circumcise signifies ("Circumcise the foreskins of your heart and be stiff-necked no longer") and the gift that it points to ("I will circumcise your hearts that you may live"). This is how He rears His children to know Him as their God.

When the sign of baptism was put upon my children, it was telling me how to rear them to know the Lord. Constantly (Deut. 6:5-9) tell them that from the day of their birth they are filthy of heart. Their baptism signifies that God judges and declares that their natural born hearts are unfit for His kingdom and makes the demand that they get a clean heart. But they cannot meet the Lord's righteous demands nor wash their own hearts clean through their works. God must wash their hearts clean and give them the righteousness of Jesus Christ, which is the gift of grace baptism was also pointing them toward and calling them to embrace by faith. So we tell them on the Lord's behalf that until they receive the gift their baptism holds out to them they are living under the terror of the demand that their baptism also signifies to them.

All of that to say, baptism is a means of grace to the children of believers, which God uses to make our children disciples of Jesus Christ. If it is withheld from the children of believers, it substantively truncates the means of grace God has graciously provided for us to bring to bear on their lives.

Peace in Christ,

 

[Mr. Great-Heart]

Help me understand brother, where in this thread did someone assert all children of believers are elect? I don't recall seeing that honestly.

I am asking you to explain why you think the church should include professing believers AND their children (and based on your recent posts across this forum, I believe that is your viewpoint or at least your strong "leaning"), especially in light of what we see written in the book of Ephesians. I drew from Ephesians because you quoted Ephesians in post #343. In response, you pointed me back to post #343 in which you talk ONLY about those who are in union to Christ. Ok, so do you believe all children of believers are in union with Christ?

I think my questions to you in post #252, which have also not received a response, were trying to probe at the same issue, perhaps from a slightly different angle.

EDIT: Actually, Ben was asking the exact same thing about what union with Christ means to you, in post #250 - which also did not receive a direct response - so I guess we really are going in circles.

 

[Romans678]

In your view, how do you see a non-elect infant who has just received an involuntary sprinkling meeting the Biblical definition of a hypocrite?

Did you mean to say that baptists ended up establishing arbitrary requirements for baptism? If you did mean what you typed (salvation), what do you assert are the arbitrary requirements for salvation established by the baptist? Baptism? A credible profession of faith? Based on my understanding, I don't think either of those are an accurate representation of baptist preaching or practice.

The Shorter Catechism: A Baptist Version
Q.89: What does God, in His gospel, require of sinners that they may be saved?
A: God, in His gospel, requires of sinners faith in Jesus Christ and repentance unto life that they may escape His wrath due for their sin, and be saved.

Found it! Give me some time. I'm about to go back in for work [emoji106]

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Romans678]

I am asking you to explain why you think the church should include professing believers AND their children (and based on your recent posts across this forum, I believe that is your viewpoint or at least your strong "leaning"), especially in light of what we see written in the book of Ephesians. I drew from Ephesians because you quoted Ephesians in post #343. In response, you pointed me back to post #343 in which you talk ONLY about those who are in union to Christ. Ok, so do you believe all children of believers are in union with Christ?

I think my questions to you in post #252, which have also not received a response, were trying to probe at the same issue, perhaps from a slightly different angle.

EDIT: Actually, Ben was asking the exact same thing about what union with Christ means to you, in post #250 - which also did not receive a direct response - so I guess we really are going in circles.

How does my answer in #343 not satisfy your question about union with Christ? I don't understand. What exactly are you looking for? I'm pretty sure I answered your question about what I believe union with Christ means. Am I missing something here?

Is it the subject of children that you want me to expound upon? Brother, I already did that all throughout this thread. I'm not going to repeat everything I said. I'm sorry, I'm not doing it.

EDIT: By arbitrary requirements, I refer to 1) the depth a person is to be baptized (mode) and 2) the age requirement for baptism. In an effort to be "less catholic" we have placed several stumbling blocks in front of genuine young believers preventing them from coming to the King. Why? For the sake of a "pure" church? We have turned from one extreme to the other, from "too much inclusion" to "not including enough". Then we create "programs" and "councils" and "centers" to try to integrate children in the church, when all this time we had means to do it in baptism. This is how I feel about this entire issue. We move heaven and earth to exclude our children from the new covenant, and I cannot for the life of me understand why.

You're probably going to pick this apart. That's ok. You're probably going to ask me to drill into each and every subject I just brought up. That's ok, you have every right to. Just know that I love you either way, brother. No feelings of malice come from my words here.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Romans678]

Now I'm going back to work LoL. I'll be back [emoji106].

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Mr. Great-Heart]

How does my answer in #343 not satisfy your question about union with Christ? I don't understand. What exactly are you looking for? I'm pretty sure I answered your question about what I believe union with Christ means. Am I missing something here?

Is it the subject of children that you want me to expound upon? Brother, I already did that all throughout this thread. I'm not going to repeat everything I said. I'm sorry, I'm not doing it.

EDIT: By arbitrary requirements, I refer to 1) the depth a person is to be baptized (mode) and 2) the age requirement for baptism. In an effort to be "less catholic" we have placed several stumbling blocks in front of genuine young believers preventing them from coming to the King. Why? For the sake of a "pure" church? We have turned from one extreme to the other, from "too much inclusion" to "not including enough". Then we create "programs" and "councils" and "centers" to try to integrate children in the church, when all this time we had means to do it in baptism. This is how I feel about this entire issue. We move heaven and earth to exclude our children from the new covenant, and I cannot for the life of me understand why.

You're probably going to pick this apart. That's ok. You're probably going to ask me to drill into each and every subject I just brought up. That's ok, you have every right to. Just know that I love you either way, brother. No feelings of malice come from my words here.

Thank you for the response, and although more could be said, I think I at least at a high level grasp the "complaint" (my one word summary) you bring against how some practice the baptist position.

Is the answer to sprinkle every child of a believer as a newborn infant? It seems to me that you are going from one "extreme" that you have encountered in baptist circles to an entirely different extreme. Your complaint may be resolved, yet other significant problems arise.

 

[Romans678]

Thank you for the response, and although more could be said, I think I at least at a high level grasp the "complaint" (my one word summary) you bring against how some practice the baptist position.

Is the answer to sprinkle every child of a believer as a newborn infant? It seems to me that you are going from one "extreme" that you have encountered in baptist circles to an entirely different extreme. Your complaint may be resolved, yet other significant problems arise.

That is fair assessment, brother. I don't know yet. I am caught in between seeing a deficit but not knowing how to resolve it.
Not in a prideful "AH HA GOTCHA!" way, but from a mathematical and more logical way. Like 2+2 type of stuff, you know? My intention is to resolve the deficit in my own lack of understanding of things. Pulling out the mote in my own eye of ignorance so to speak. Plus we are having our 4th child in July so the heat is on...[emoji102][emoji102][emoji102][emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787] Pray for us brother. I shall do likewise.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk