Practical Outworking of CT In Childrearing

[Ben Zartman]

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

I also feel that you have not answered our questions, but let's put that aside and address your edit. By obeying the scripture as we understand it in the matter of baptism, we place no stumbling blocks for children to come to faith: we bring them weekly under the preaching of the Word, which God says will accomplish all His purpose; we read Scripture and pray and sing with them daily--at least many of us do. We bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. We urge them to lay hold on Christ, and we live before them a consistent Christian life of repentance toward God and faith toward Jesus Christ.
As for programs and councils and centers--away with all that stuff. The foolish inventions of those who recognize neither the Regulative Principle of Worship nor the sufficiency of what God has given is not an argument against good theology, it is just nonsense in itself. Perhaps you're confused because you've only been in churches that add all that rubbish--the solution is to seek a church that teaches and practices Baptist theology consistently. Sadly, those are getting harder to find.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Since this thread is about child rearing I think I will mention something a buddy of mine wrote.

The Legacy of Faithful Parents​

I first read this article in Table Talk magazine in 1992. The author, Russ Pulliam, is my Elder and faithful friend at Second Reformed Presbyterian Church in Indianapolis, Indiana. This article reveals the level of importance that we need to place upon our availability and accessibility in the lives of our children. I have known Russ for about 30 years now and I am watching him perform at the same level and with the same results that Dr. Charles Hodge did. I pray this article will benefit you as it did me and all those whom I have shared it with these past many years.

I posted the above paragraph in 2014. It remains true today and even so much more.​

The Legacy of Faithful Parents

 

[Romans678]

Since this thread is about child rearing I think I will mention something a buddy of mine wrote.

The Legacy of Faithful Parents​

I first read this article in Table Talk magazine in 1992. The author, Russ Pulliam, is my Elder and faithful friend at Second Reformed Presbyterian Church in Indianapolis, Indiana. This article reveals the level of importance that we need to place upon our availability and accessibility in the lives of our children. I have known Russ for about 30 years now and I am watching him perform at the same level and with the same results that Dr. Charles Hodge did. I pray this article will benefit you as it did me and all those whom I have shared it with these past many years.

I posted the above paragraph in 2014. It remains true today and even so much more.​

The Legacy of Faithful Parents

"What we tolerate a little bit of in our lives, our children may carry to an excess..."

This quote alone just gave me the chills. God help us.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[LilyG]

Since this thread is about child rearing I think I will mention something a buddy of mine wrote.

The Legacy of Faithful Parents​

I first read this article in Table Talk magazine in 1992. The author, Russ Pulliam, is my Elder and faithful friend at Second Reformed Presbyterian Church in Indianapolis, Indiana. This article reveals the level of importance that we need to place upon our availability and accessibility in the lives of our children. I have known Russ for about 30 years now and I am watching him perform at the same level and with the same results that Dr. Charles Hodge did. I pray this article will benefit you as it did me and all those whom I have shared it with these past many years.

I posted the above paragraph in 2014. It remains true today and even so much more.​

The Legacy of Faithful Parents

Love that!

 

[LilyG]

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

Our 4th is due this summer as well!

We are going to frame their baptism certificates for them. That they may see and wonder and rest.

 

[Romans678]

Our 4th is due this summer as well!

We are going to frame their baptism certificates for them. That they may see and wonder and rest.

Praise God and congratulations!

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

Since this thread is about child rearing I think I will mention something a buddy of mine wrote.

The Legacy of Faithful Parents​

I first read this article in Table Talk magazine in 1992. The author, Russ Pulliam, is my Elder and faithful friend at Second Reformed Presbyterian Church in Indianapolis, Indiana. This article reveals the level of importance that we need to place upon our availability and accessibility in the lives of our children. I have known Russ for about 30 years now and I am watching him perform at the same level and with the same results that Dr. Charles Hodge did. I pray this article will benefit you as it did me and all those whom I have shared it with these past many years.

I posted the above paragraph in 2014. It remains true today and even so much more.​

The Legacy of Faithful Parents

Thank you for this.

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

@greenbaggins could you outline your recommended sources and order of study on this topic? I know you recommended some things in the thread, but I’d like something of a laid out plan if you’re willing.

Also, for everyone, what is the best of the RB side that I should dig into?

 

[Mr. Great-Heart]

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...

Follow the math of Scripture. The new covenant is a different formula (different members). Take the excerpts from Ephesians I previously referenced, for example, and look at them in the full context. Where do you see the "invisible Church" vs. "visible Church" bifurcation there, or in the New Testament at all? The Lord divorced his bride in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 3:8). Do you think Christ would ever divorce his New Testament bride, the church? Those "taken away" (John 15:2) are hypocrites and apostates alone.

 

[Romans922]

Follow the math of Scripture. The new covenant is a different formula (different members). Take the excerpts from Ephesians I previously referenced, for example, and look at them in the full context. Where do you see the "invisible Church" vs. "visible Church" bifurcation there, or in the New Testament at all? The Lord divorced his bride in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 3:8). Do you think Christ would ever divorce his New Testament bride, the church? Those "taken away" (John 15:2) are hypocrites and apostates alone.

The last sentence. They were taken away…but they were part of the vine…

They were part of Christ….


There’s your visible.

They went out FROM US….

 

[Romans678]

Follow the math of Scripture. The new covenant is a different formula (different members). Take the excerpts from Ephesians I previously referenced, for example, and look at them in the full context. Where do you see the "invisible Church" vs. "visible Church" bifurcation there, or in the New Testament at all? The Lord divorced his bride in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 3:8). Do you think Christ would ever divorce his New Testament bride, the church? Those "taken away" (John 15:2) are hypocrites and apostates alone.

I have to go back and read what you said about the excerpts in Ephesians. Please bear with me. Until then here is my response to your last comment.

The Lord said to me in the days of King Josiah: “Have you seen what she did, that faithless one, Israel, how she went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and there played the whore? And I thought, ‘After she has done all this she will return to me,’ but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce. Yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but she too went and played the whore. Because she took her whoredom lightly, she polluted the land, committing adultery with stone and tree. Yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah did not return to me with her whole heart, but in pretense, declares the Lord.” And the Lord said to me, “Faithless Israel has shown herself more righteous than treacherous Judah. Go, and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, “‘Return, faithless Israel, declares the Lord. I will not look on you in anger, for I am merciful, declares the Lord; I will not be angry forever. Only acknowledge your guilt, that you rebelled against the Lord your God and scattered your favors among foreigners under every green tree, and that you have not obeyed my voice, declares the Lord. Return, O faithless children, declares the Lord; for I am your master; I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion.
Jeremiah 3:6‭-‬14

In this passage I see God's decree of divorce AND a demonstration of His unfailing mercy in spite of their unfaithfulness. I see God threatening to divorce and speaking mercy over His wayward people in the same chapter. I cannot understand what you are trying to say regarding Jeremiah 3:8.

From my point of view I see the fullness of God's mercy unveiled in the OT as well as the NT. The bride in the OT is the same as the Bride in the NT. They looked to the same Messiah we look to. I cannot separate the two any longer. I'm sorry brother, I just can't concede.

As for the church herself:

Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits. For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned.
Hebrews 6:1‭-‬8

Who is capable of tasting the heavenly gift, share in the Holy Spirit, and taste the goodness of the word of God and still fall away? Who are these people? In what realm and jurisdiction are we referring to? It's the church. Where else can one experience these things? It can't be anything else but the church.

The hypocrites are in the visible church, brother. The church you see with your eyes. The people you talk to and pray with. You have no idea who the elect are. No matter how hard you try to identify fruit or make sure the person is credible, you will only be relegated to outward appearances which accounts for nothing to God. Even the people with the most visible "fruit", Christ said there will be many that say Lord, Lord and will not enter into His kingdom.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Romans678]

Follow the math of Scripture. The new covenant is a different formula (different members). Take the excerpts from Ephesians I previously referenced, for example, and look at them in the full context. Where do you see the "invisible Church" vs. "visible Church" bifurcation there, or in the New Testament at all? The Lord divorced his bride in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 3:8). Do you think Christ would ever divorce his New Testament bride, the church? Those "taken away" (John 15:2) are hypocrites and apostates alone.

My reference to Ephesians was regarding those in union with Christ. The Reformed Baptist view of the church:

Of the Church, Section 3: The purest Churches under heaven are subject to mixture, and error; and som have so degenerated as to become no Churches of Christ, but Synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a Kingdome in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his Name. —Chapter 26, 1689 London Baptist Confession

I would like to think they were referring to the visible church vs the invisible church which is further explained in this section here:

Of the Church, Section 1: The Catholick or universal Church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit, and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the Elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. —Chapter 26, 1689 London Baptist Confession

Does this help with the invisible/visible distinction or am I missing the mark?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Romans678]

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.”

Just wanted to quote this to bring to the front of the thread. This is super relevant to where we are in the conversation. Thank you [emoji846]

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Mr. Great-Heart]

I think I can confidently say we all agree that some visible saints - professing believers - are hypocrites and/or will apostatize. How you get from there to declaring that there is a visible church consisting of professing believers together with their children, is a leap too great for me.

 

[Romans922]

I think I can confidently say we all agree that some visible saints - professing believers - are hypocrites and/or will apostatize. How you get from there to declaring that there is a visible church consisting of professing believers together with their children, is a leap too great for me.

Go to worship tomorrow and you will see the visible church with your eyes, you'll see the sacraments administered (outward visible signs). Are you say that you do not see any indication in Scripture of a visible church on earth gathered to worship the living God? If you do not, why do you worship on the Lord's day with a gathering of God's professing people mixed with apostates and the wicked?

 

[Romans678]

I think I can confidently say we all agree that some visible saints - professing believers - are hypocrites and/or will apostatize. How you get from there to declaring that there is a visible church consisting of professing believers together with their children, is a leap too great for me.

Simply because their children are participating in the same activities as their parents. We can't just count them out because of an age difference. That's all I'm saying.

Lets look at this from a different view. Let's pretend we are just talking about the visible aspect of the church: the people attending each Sunday. Lets focus in on the physical people, not the invisible inner working of the Spirit in salvation and sanctification.

I want to use an example in nature. Just a simple observation without going too deep into it. There are parents that like baseball and participate in baseball. The odds of the children picking up a glove are very high. Another example: race car driving. Let's assume that a child is in the sphere of racing since he was a baby. What are the odds of that child winning the F1 Drivers Championship? Sinners baptize their children in the world everyday in the last of the flesh, eyes, and pride of life. While we wait for a "proper time" the world has already placed their waters over our kids heads...

My entire point in this thread boils down to this: our children participate in every means of grace available in the church but we do not baptize them. We don't include them. We in turn ostracize them and figuratively send them "outside the camp" labeled as "other". Our own children, that God calls a heritage, we treat as second rate citizens in the kingdom. Please consider what I am saying before you cry out "strawman". I am a Baptist. I have done these things myself of over ten years. I've done the things I am referring to in this very post for a decade. I no longer feel comfortable treating my kids as "other".

Those is a big deal, brother. Not something to be taken lightly. And I confess I have neglected these weightier matters for far too long. Pray for us please.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

The Lord divorced his bride in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 3:8). Do you think Christ would ever divorce his New Testament bride, the church? Those "taken away" (John 15:2) are hypocrites and apostates alone.

Who does he say this too?

Rev 2:1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
Rev 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:
Rev 2:3 And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.
Rev 2:4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

 

[Romans678]

Who does he say this too?

Rev 2:1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
Rev 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:
Rev 2:3 And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.
Rev 2:4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

I didn't even think to look there, brother. This is good.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Mr. Great-Heart]

Go to worship tomorrow and you will see the visible church with your eyes, you'll see the sacraments administered (outward visible signs). Are you say that you do not see any indication in Scripture of a visible church on earth gathered to worship the living God? If you do not, why do you worship on the Lord's day with a gathering of God's professing people mixed with apostates and the wicked?

The question is a non sequitur from the baptist position but I understand why you are asking. In a similar vein, my response will not be satisfactory to you but I do not wish to ignore your post as I appreciate the dialogue.

"So then you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit." Ephesians 2:19-22 The context of this passage is certainly interesting as well, given our topic of discussion.

Yes, individual stones come together every Lord's Day in particular places (congregations) to worship the living God. During that time, some are present who are not believers, whether they profess to be or not. There is a great chasm set between that reality and propping up the building with those who do not profess repentance towards God, faith in and obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Simply because their children are participating in the same activities as their parents. We can't just count them out because of an age difference. That's all I'm saying.

Lets look at this from a different view. Let's pretend we are just talking about the visible aspect of the church: the people attending each Sunday. Lets focus in on the physical people, not the invisible inner working of the Spirit in salvation and sanctification.

I want to use an example in nature. Just a simple observation without going too deep into it. There are parents that like baseball and participate in baseball. The odds of the children picking up a glove are very high. Another example: race car driving. Let's assume that a child is in the sphere of racing since he was a baby. What are the odds of that child winning the F1 Drivers Championship? Sinners baptize their children in the world everyday in the last of the flesh, eyes, and pride of life. While we wait for a "proper time" the world has already placed their waters over our kids heads...

My entire point in this thread boils down to this: our children participate in every means of grace available in the church but we do not baptize them. We don't include them. We in turn ostracize them and figuratively send them "outside the camp" labeled as "other". Our own children, that God calls a heritage, we treat as second rate citizens in the kingdom. Please consider what I am saying before you cry out "strawman". I am a Baptist. I have done these things myself of over ten years. I've done the things I am referring to in this very post for a decade. I no longer feel comfortable treating my kids as "other".

Those is a big deal, brother. Not something to be taken lightly. And I confess I have neglected these weightier matters for far too long. Pray for us please.

As with most of your posts, I agree in general with the sentiments you express but differ on some specifics.

First, whether unconverted children or a random visitor joins us on the Lord's Day, my church - a congregation constituted of visible saints - does not make any unbeliever feel like an "other" or "send them outside the camp." They are warmly welcomed to join us and "participate in the means of grace" (to use your words), at least those which are available to them. However, just because someone is a regular visitor, or the child of a church member, does not mean new covenant sacraments are administered to them. It's not an Exodus 12:48 scenario where all the person has to do is circumcise the males of his household to celebrate the Passover. We are part of a new and better covenant, enacted on better promises.

Second, the imagery you've used here and in the past about the world "baptizing" our children.. well, dramatic to be sure, and there are some real implications there for us as Christian parents, but I don't know that it has relevance to the actual sacrament of baptism. You're using "baptism" to talk about something else entirely. Sorry, I'm not going to pragmatically try and beat the world to the punch at "baptizing" my child when it is clear in Scripture who should be the recipient of the new covenant sacrament of baptism. Now, I will follow Ephesians 6:4 to address the reality of what you are describing, but that doesn't include an infant being involuntarily sprinkled and pronounced a member of the "visible church."

Brother, I don't know if you once firmly believed in the baptist understanding of the means of grace, sacraments, etc., and are now wavering, or if this is the first time you are weighing these matters in your heart, but I strongly suggest you study the 1689 LBCF chapters #26-30 and associated proof texts as well as catechism questions on these topics. As one good resource, I recommend Q.s 94-105 in The Shorter Catechism: A Baptist Version.

Who does he say this too?

Rev 2:1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
Rev 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:
Rev 2:3 And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.
Rev 2:4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

Regarding this passage, I fully agree with Derek Thomas, Senior Minister of First Presbyterian Church, when he says, "The danger is formalism. Failure to repent is catastrophic: Jesus threatens to remove the lampstand! Licence leads to apostasy, which in turn leads to death."

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

Sad to see it end like this. We could have made history with this thread.

 

[Ben Zartman]

Sad to see it end like this. We could have made history with this thread.

How did you wish it to end? With everyone agreeing together? You'll have to start a thread that ends in Glory for that.

 

[Romans678]

Sad to see it end like this. We could have made history with this thread.

We can keep it going. What are some traditions you guys enjoy doing with your families? Just looking for some ideas for my family.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Taylor]

We can keep it going. What are some traditions you guys enjoy doing with your families? Just looking for some ideas for my family.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Let’s not keep the thread going just for the sake of keeping it going, especially with off-topic content. If the thread is done, let it be done.