Praying Children: should we teach our children to pray?

[C. Matthew McMahon]

[quote:6d734a4222]
It surely appears to me that the position that Matt and Scott are holding assumes that the SIGN ALONE is enough to ensure that it is valid to instruct a child in prayer.
[/quote:6d734a4222]

Not at all. The validity rests in a covenant relationship, not on water and bloodletting.

I think what makes this hard to follow is our RADICAL differecne of opinion on HOW God redemptively works through Covenants and Families. If this is missed on one side or the other, then we will always come to an impass.

Apart from that, let's stick with the question -

If the unregenerate are not heard, should Baptists allow thier children to pray?

Let's also dispense with the "batpismal regeneration idea". No one beleives that except for the auburn heretics, and Papists.


[quote:6d734a4222]
I can't see how it makes sense from a Baptist one though.
[/quote:6d734a4222]

David, neither can I.

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by webmaster]

 

[daveb]

[quote:cbdbd173d9][i:cbdbd173d9]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:cbdbd173d9]
Dave,
God does not hear the prayers of the unregenerate; He does however hear prayers and types of prayers of covenant members........ [/quote:cbdbd173d9]

Thanks for the clarification, I see where you are coming from.

 

[luvroftheWord]

Here is the covenant principle:

Deuteronomy 29:29--
The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do the words of this law.

The problem with this whole debate is that people spend their time trying to see things that are invisible, and as such, belong to God. But through God's gracious covenant, he has given us visible things to relate to him by. We have baptism and the Lord's table as tangible elements of our faith. We have the fellowship of one another and the audible preaching of the word to point us to God and his promises. These are all that we have to go by. When we witness a baptism, it is not our place to sit and decide, "Hmmm... I wonder if he is truly regenerate or not." Receive the baptism and believe the promise. That's all we can do. Let God work out the invisible things, i.e. regeneration, election, etc. It is our responsibility to receive our baptized brethren into our fellowship and treat them as they deserve to be treated, according to what baptism symbolizes. The same is true of the Lord's table.

We baptize our children and we believe God's promises, promises that are to us and to our children. We teach our children to believe these promises as well. As for regeneration, election, etc, leave that to God to take care of. He's got it under control and he doesn't need our help. He's determined who will be covenant keepers and breakers. Just believe the promises. And if our children are not part of the covenant, what promises have been made to them?

I don't know. These were just some thoughts that ran through my head as I read through this thread. You can decide if they are related or not.

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by luvroftheWord]

 

[cupotea]

Craig,

I guess it boils down to, is it possible for a baptized child of a covenant family to grow up rebellious against the Lord and never come to the saving knowledge of Christ?

If so, where does that leave God's promise in regards to His covenant family? Have we failed in our faith, or deep down we were never a part of God's covenant family, but only assumed that we were?

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by CajunBibleBeliever]

 

[pastorway]

Scott, your argument simply makes no sense.

You are saying:

1. God does not hear the unregenerate.
2. God hears the regenerate.
3. God makes an exception for the unregenerate who have been baptized and hears them sometimes.

Say what???

uzzled:

What you are really saying is that because a parent is a believer then God overlooks the unregenerate state of their children and treats them like believers. Faith by proxy.

Again, you have removed Christ from the covenant.

Phillip

 

[daveb]

[quote:e2ac21a397][i:e2ac21a397]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:e2ac21a397]
Here is the covenant principle:

Deuteronomy 29:29--
The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do the words of this law.

The problem with this whole debate is that people spend their time trying to see things that are invisible, and as such, belong to God. But through God's gracious covenant, he has given us visible things to relate to him by. We have baptism and the Lord's table as tangible elements of our faith. We have the fellowship of one another and the audible preaching of the word to point us to God and his promises. These are all that we have to go by. When we witness a baptism, it is not our place to sit and decide, "Hmmm... I wonder if he is truly regenerate or not." Receive the baptism and believe the promise. That's all we can do. Let God work out the invisible things, i.e. regeneration, election, etc. It is our responsibility to receive our baptized brethren into our fellowship and treat them as they deserve to be treated, according to what baptism symbolizes. The same is true of the Lord's table.

We baptize our children and we believe God's promises, promises that are to us and to our children. We teach our children to believe these promises as well. As for regeneration, election, etc, leave that to God to take care of. He's got it under control and he doesn't need our help. He's determined who will be covenant keepers and breakers. Just believe the promises. And if our children are not part of the covenant, what promises have been made to them?

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by luvroftheWord] [/quote:e2ac21a397]

Thank you for sharing Craig, this is very helpful to me.

I wholeheartedly agree we have to go by the visible elements. The Lord has prescribed these for us to have as signs that indicate that what is signified by the signs are being done unseen. I do not believe we can separate the visible sign from the invisible work (wow, never thought I'd say that).

As you mention I do not know if the one being baptized is regenerate, how could I? I would have to presume that they were. I can believe that they might be, or have a real possibility of the being saved but I cannot know for certain.

Part of what I'm drawing from your post is whether or not one believes in the promises of God against the testimony of men. Those are the only true options are they not? If that is the choice I believe I will take the promises of God, they are the only sure things I can hold on to.

I think things are starting to gel for me.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Contemplative Dave is on the track baby!!!

There is the answer:

[quote:6fdceb5c44]
I would have to presume that they were.
[/quote:6fdceb5c44]



And THEN, he follows up with THE STATEMENT of the thread:

[quote:6fdceb5c44]If that is the choice I believe I will take the promises of God, they are the only sure things I can hold on to. [/quote:6fdceb5c44]

Dave, not only is it gelling for you, [b:6fdceb5c44]but I see it[/b:6fdceb5c44] gelling for you right before my eyes.

Stick with it brother!



[Edited on 6-29-2004 by webmaster]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Phillip writes:
"Again, you have removed Christ from the covenant. "

Scott reiterates:
Again Phillip, you are not understanding the covenant and it's relationships..........

Gen 21:16 And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bowshot: for she said, Let me not see the death of the child. And she sat over against him, and lift up her voice, and wept.
Gen 21:17 And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is.
Gen 21:18 Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation.
Gen 21:19 And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink.
Gen 21:20 And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer.

Why did God hear the prayers of Hagar and Ishmael??? Why did God bless Ishmael?

Mark 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Mark 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
Mark 10:16 And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.

These children were not necessarily regenerate; yet Christ blesses them.

Gen 17:20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.

All of these apparent conflicts in regards to prayer are reconciled in the embrace of Gods covenant and promises.

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by Scott Bushey]

 

[blhowes]

Scott and others,
Just so I understand, are you saying:

If a child of covenant parents is taught to pray, yet when they are older prove that they are not of the elect, are you saying that it was ok for them to pray because they're part of a covenant family and considered holy (though unsaved)?

If a child of baptist parents are taught to pray, its really ok, but it can't be justified by baptist theology? The baptist presumes the child is ungenerate and therefore no different in many respects from the heathen. Therefore, if its an abomination for heathen to pray, its an abomination (according to baptist theology) for unregenerate baptist children to pray as well. You can't have one with the other.

So the burden of proof is for baptists to either prove that its ok for the heathen to pray, or to explain why the unsaved heathen should not pray but its ok for unsaved baptist children to pray? That sounds reasonable.

Bob

 

[luvroftheWord]

Brent,

[quote:3068d84bb2][i:3068d84bb2]Originally posted by CajunBibleBeliever[/i:3068d84bb2]
I guess it boils down to, is it possible for a baptized child of a covenant family to grow up rebellious against the Lord and never come to the saving knowledge of Christ?[/quote:3068d84bb2]

Yes, it is possible, but why do you take the time to think in those terms? Just believe the promises. There are far more covenant children that grow up and remain faithful to the covenant than those that fall away. The problem is that we always hear about the castaways, but never the faithful. We are far too pessimistic.

[quote:3068d84bb2]If so, where does that leave God's promise in regards to His covenant family? Have we failed in our faith, or deep down we were never a part of God's covenant family, but only assumed that we were?[/quote:3068d84bb2]

When God made his covenant with Abraham, he promised him that all the nations of the world would be blessed through him and that he would be a God to him and to his children. But God also told Abraham to walk before him and be blameless. Now, if Abraham had not believed God and done what he was commanded, would God's promises to him have failed? Of course not. God's promises never fail because he also promises cursing to those who do not believe. Faith receives the promise of covenant blessing. Unbelief receives the promise of covenant cursing.

And to be honest, I really do not feel like debating the issue of whether or not our children are actually included in the covenant family at all (unless they are elect, of course). The Scriptures are so numerous and I've quoted them all so many times that I have a hard time wondering why people deny it.

Dave,

I am very happy to see your thought development.

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by luvroftheWord]

 

[blhowes]

If a heathen (or a baptist child) opened the Bible and read:

1Th 5:17 Pray without ceasing.
or
Luk 18:1 And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;

...and did not obey those commands, wouldn't they be held accountable on the day of judgment because they didn't obey these commands? It would have been a sin for them not to pray. Its something they're expected to do, but couldn't and didn't. Even though it something they couldn't and didn't do, they still should have prayed and prayed without ceasing.

And then, what about when Paul addressed the heathen at Mars Hill:

Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

Isn't everybody expected to seek God, and part of that seeking is praying? If they didn't seek the Lord as per this verse, wouldn't it be a sin as well?

Bob

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by blhowes]

 

[turmeric]

[i:fb7d58affc]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:fb7d58affc]
Brent,

[quote:fb7d58affc][i:fb7d58affc]Originally posted by CajunBibleBeliever[/i:fb7d58affc]

[quote:fb7d58affc]If so, where does that leave God's promise in regards to His covenant family? Have we failed in our faith, or deep down we were never a part of God's covenant family, but only assumed that we were?[/quote:fb7d58affc]

And to be honest, I really do not feel like debating the issue of whether or not our children are actually included in the covenant family at all (unless they are elect, of course). The Scriptures are so numerous and I've quoted them all so many times that I have a hard time wondering why people deny it.

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by luvroftheWord] [/quote:fb7d58affc]


Luv; Cajun is new to the board and probably hasn't seen all yr posts, why not patiently refer him to them so he can read them instead of sounding snippy? I think he's trying to come to grips w/aspects of election, which it's good to do.

 

[luvroftheWord]

[quote:c8c18105db][i:c8c18105db]Originally posted by turmeric[/i:c8c18105db]
Luv; Cajun is new to the board and probably hasn't seen all yr posts, why not patiently refer him to them so he can read them instead of sounding snippy? I think he's trying to come to grips w/aspects of election, which it's good to do. [/quote:c8c18105db]

Okay, fair enough. The following passages are some of my favorite. They are all prophecies about the New Covenant, and notice the explicit inclusion of our children.

Ezekiel 37:24-28--
"My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes. They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They [i:c8c18105db]and their children[/i:c8c18105db] and their [i:c8c18105db]children's children[/i:c8c18105db] shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever. I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD who sanctifies Israel, when my sanctuary is in their midst forevermore."

Isaiah 59:21--
"And as for me, this is my covenant with them," says the LORD: "My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your [i:c8c18105db]offspring[/i:c8c18105db], out of the mouth of your [i:c8c18105db]children's offspring[/i:c8c18105db]," says the LORD, "from this time forth and forevermore."

Jeremiah 32:37-41--
"Behold, I will gather them from all the countries to which I drove them in my anger and my wrath and in great indignation. I will bring them back to this place, and I will make them dwell in safety. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good [i:c8c18105db]and the good of their children[/i:c8c18105db] after them. I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul."

Zechariah 10:6-10--
"I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the house of Joseph. I will bring them back because I have compassion on them, and they shall be as though I had not rejected them, for I am the LORD their God and I will answer them. Then Ephraim shall become like a mighty warrior, and their hearts shall be glad as with wine. [i:c8c18105db]Their children[/i:c8c18105db] shall see it and be glad; their hearts shall rejoice in the LORD. I will whistle for them and gather them in, for I have redeemed them, and they shall be as many as they were before. Though I scattered them among the nations, yet in far countries they shall remember me, and [i:c8c18105db]with their children[/i:c8c18105db] they shall live and return. I will bring them home from the land of Egypt, and gather them from Assyria, and I will bring them to the land of Gilead and to Lebanon, till there is no room for them."

 

[heartoflesh]

[quote:a5b33f0c94][i:a5b33f0c94]Originally posted by daveb[/i:a5b33f0c94]
As I was reading this thread something came to my mind. At my church (Baptist) we have a "children's time" where all the children come up to the front, hear something for the Bible and then they all pray together. They are told God is their Father and that they should read their Bibles and pray everyday...and this is all good.

Now I'm (as a Baptist) honestly trying to understand the Baptist position here. On what basis do we do this? Simply because it's a good practice for them to get into? Because they might be saved? If our children have no special place in God's eyes why do we teach them to call him Father? Aren't they just like the heathen?

From a paedo perspective this "children's time" makes sense (as far as I understand it anyway), I can't see how it makes sense from a Baptist one though.

Any ideas?

[/quote:a5b33f0c94]

I'd like to see a response to this.

I'd also like to see a response to Phillip's statement that according to the Paedo interpretation of 1 Cor. 7 we would have to consider the unbelieving spouse as in the covenant as well. Sorry if this has been covered and I just missed it.

~Rick (undecided whether credo/paedo)

 

[Radar]

I still don't understand the necessity

of baptizing my infants in order to believe the promise and the holiness belongs to them.

Paul said circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing. What matters is spiritual heart issues...not trusting physical marks. Thus to quote the injunction that a noncircumcised manchild must be cut off from the people, insinuating that a nonbaptized child is in the same boat, well, any New Testament epistle would have been the opportune vehicle to make this incredibly important point clear. They do not do so.

It is hard to believe that Paul would turn around and hold this opinion: baptism is very much something, and unbaptism is very much something; by such you are either securing or jeopardizing your infants!

Maybe as a credobaptist I am more of a dry presbyterian. I don't see the necessity of paedobaptism in order to make the covenantalism work. The lack of clear and direct command for something soooo important is ever bearing upon me.

Peace

 

[daveb]

[quote:d2fd06621e][i:d2fd06621e]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:d2fd06621e]

Dave, not only is it gelling for you, [b:d2fd06621e]but I see it[/b:d2fd06621e] gelling for you right before my eyes.

Stick with it brother!

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by webmaster] [/quote:d2fd06621e]


[quote:d2fd06621e][i:d2fd06621e]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:d2fd06621e]

Dave,

I am very happy to see your thought development.

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by luvroftheWord] [/quote:d2fd06621e]

Thanks for the encouragement guys, I really appreciate it.

 

[daveb]

[quote:58e30247b4][i:58e30247b4]Originally posted by Rick Larson[/i:58e30247b4]
[quote:58e30247b4][i:58e30247b4]Originally posted by daveb[/i:58e30247b4]
As I was reading this thread something came to my mind. At my church (Baptist) we have a "children's time" where all the children come up to the front, hear something for the Bible and then they all pray together. They are told God is their Father and that they should read their Bibles and pray everyday...and this is all good.

Now I'm (as a Baptist) honestly trying to understand the Baptist position here. On what basis do we do this? Simply because it's a good practice for them to get into? Because they might be saved? If our children have no special place in God's eyes why do we teach them to call him Father? Aren't they just like the heathen?

From a paedo perspective this "children's time" makes sense (as far as I understand it anyway), I can't see how it makes sense from a Baptist one though.

Any ideas?

[/quote:58e30247b4]

I'd like to see a response to this.
[/quote:58e30247b4]

I too would still like to see a baptist response to my initial post. Any takers?

 

[Scott Bushey]

[quote:11413aae19]

I'd like to see a response to this.

I'd also like to see a response to Phillip's statement that according to the Paedo interpretation of 1 Cor. 7 we would have to consider the unbelieving spouse as in the covenant as well. Sorry if this has been covered and I just missed it.

~Rick (undecided whether credo/paedo) [/quote:11413aae19]


If the spouse submits to the sign being placed, they are members in the covenant. Whether internal or external is between God and this person.
Esau, Ishmael, were covenant members; unfortunately, they rejected the covenant and it's promises, eventually being cut off.

A disciple does not necessarily equate with regeneration.

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Radar]

I can't speak for any church that does this...

[quote:336fd95d2f][i:336fd95d2f]Originally posted by daveb[/i:336fd95d2f]
As I was reading this thread something came to my mind. At my church (Baptist) we have a "children's time" where all the children come up to the front, hear something for the Bible and then they all pray together. They are told God is their Father and that they should read their Bibles and pray everyday...and this is all good.

Now I'm (as a Baptist) honestly trying to understand the Baptist position here. On what basis do we do this? Simply because it's a good practice for them to get into? Because they might be saved? If our children have no special place in God's eyes why do we teach them to call him Father? Aren't they just like the heathen?

From a paedo perspective this "children's time" makes sense (as far as I understand it anyway), I can't see how it makes sense from a Baptist one though.

Any ideas?

[/quote:336fd95d2f]

I think you offer several prevalent reasons. Some may do it because it is cute, and kids are cute. Some may do it to preach at the kids in hopes they will convert because of it. The old saying goes that even arminians are calvinisitc in their prayers. Thus maybe we can say that even churches that view their children as god-hating unholy non-covenant sinners are somewhat covenantal when it comes to "children's time."

But few churches in my experience do this kid's time anyway (but all do have sunday school, where they color pictures of Moses and hear Bible stories and learn about the "Heavenly Father;" little practical difference there!)

I would also suggest that there are other baptist churches that are more reflective of a dry covenantal view, i.e. the children are a holy seed, etc., who will in time be regenerated by God's grace and then be baptized, rather than first be baptized at a week old, then in time be regenerated.

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by Radar]

 

[heartoflesh]

[quote:1e0b98ffbf]But few churches in my experience do this kid's time anyway (but all do have sunday school, where they color pictures of Moses and hear Bible stories and learn about the "Heavenly Father;" little practical difference there!)
[/quote:1e0b98ffbf]

Which is what everyone agrees they should be doing, right? If I understand all of this correctly, the accusation is that the Baptist churches shouldn't be doing this, if they are being consitent with their theology?

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

On a different subject, but applicable to what we are talking about, we should understand, faithfully, the doctrine of SEEKING.

For those who really want to understand this, I would suggest reading this article:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Puritan Evangelism/McMahonThePreacherAndTheSeeker.htm

The Puritans had this down pat, as did Edwards. The article is a fictional account of the SEEKER. If you understand it, then you will understand how someone may be commanded to follow the command "pray without ceasing", be held accountable, but still is henious sin that makes no brownie points with God whatsoever, but further damns them - it increases thier torment by heeding the command.

Seeking in this way is sinful, but better than not seeking while alive, but worse for judgment when you are dead.

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by webmaster]

 

[Radar]

[quote:1111f6fc04][i:1111f6fc04]Originally posted by Rick Larson[/i:1111f6fc04]
[quote:1111f6fc04]But few churches in my experience do this kid's time anyway (but all do have sunday school, where they color pictures of Moses and hear Bible stories and learn about the "Heavenly Father;" little practical difference there!)
[/quote:1111f6fc04]

Which is what everyone agrees they should be doing, right? If I understand all of this correctly, the accusation is that the Baptist churches shouldn't be doing this, if they are being consitent with their theology? [/quote:1111f6fc04]

That is somewhat of a broad brush. I tried to point out that some baptist churches are more inconsistent than others, while some may not be inconsistent at all. Those who do believe that their children are god-hating dogs outside the covenantal promises of holy-seed blessings are certainly inconsistent, just like them praying arminians. But other baptist churches are credo-baptistic covenantalists. They should have no trouble on the consistency issue. Instead of baptizing infants and then presuming they will come to be regenerated and place faith in Christ, they view that the children will come to be regenerated and place faith in Christ, at which time be baptized. So then, the dryness of the infant's forehead does not help nor hinder his standing with a view to the promises of God.

 

[Scott Bushey]

[quote:e9a3fdd6cd][i:e9a3fdd6cd]Originally posted by Radar[/i:e9a3fdd6cd]
[quote:e9a3fdd6cd][i:e9a3fdd6cd]Originally posted by Rick Larson[/i:e9a3fdd6cd]
[quote:e9a3fdd6cd]But few churches in my experience do this kid's time anyway (but all do have sunday school, where they color pictures of Moses and hear Bible stories and learn about the "Heavenly Father;" little practical difference there!)
[/quote:e9a3fdd6cd]

Which is what everyone agrees they should be doing, right? If I understand all of this correctly, the accusation is that the Baptist churches shouldn't be doing this, if they are being consitent with their theology? [/quote:e9a3fdd6cd]

That is somewhat of a broad brush. I tried to point out that some baptist churches are more inconsistent than others, while some may not be inconsistent at all. Those who do believe that their children are god-hating dogs outside the covenantal promises of holy-seed blessings are certainly inconsistent, just like them praying arminians. But other baptist churches are credo-baptistic covenantalists. They should have no trouble on the consistency issue. Instead of baptizing infants and then presuming they will come to be regenerated and place faith in Christ, they view that the children will come to be regenerated and place faith in Christ, at which time be baptized. So then, the dryness of the infant's forehead does not help nor hinder his standing with a view to the promises of God. [/quote:e9a3fdd6cd]

The above idea flies in the face of covenant theology. CT is anchored in placing the sign, standing upon faith, the unseen. What you describe is entirely Credo and borders upon semi-Pelagianism.

Also, according to the scriptures, not placing the sign assuredly 'hinders'.......

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Radar]

[quote:ef1b6b4a07][i:ef1b6b4a07]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:ef1b6b4a07]
The above idea flies in the face of covenant theology. CT is anchored in placing the sign, standing upon faith, the unseen. What you describe is entirely Credo and borders upon semi-Pelagianism.

Also, according to the scriptures, not placing the sign assuredly 'hinders'.......

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:ef1b6b4a07]

Will you leave me hanging? Explain further.

[quote:ef1b6b4a07]Also, according to the scriptures, not placing the sign assuredly 'hinders'.......[/quote:ef1b6b4a07]
Can you explain the NT text that says this?

[quote:ef1b6b4a07]entirely credo[/quote:ef1b6b4a07]
As if that is impermissible? An embarassment for myself?

[quote:ef1b6b4a07]borders upon semi-Pelagianism[/quote:ef1b6b4a07]
Uncalled for.

 

[RamistThomist]

[quote:d048fe450e][i:d048fe450e]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:d048fe450e]
On a different subject, but applicable to what we are talking about, we should understand, faithfully, the doctrine of SEEKING.

For those who really want to understand this, I would suggest reading this article:
[/quote:d048fe450e]

That link was awesome! I looked at it and thought that it would be too long to read, but I was hooked! I just had to know how it would end. I especially liked the part: "Armenians live in Armenia. Arminians live in "happy contradictions." "

 

[Scott Bushey]

[quote:f18ce99435][i:f18ce99435]Originally posted by Radar[/i:f18ce99435]
[quote:f18ce99435][i:f18ce99435]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:f18ce99435]
The above idea flies in the face of covenant theology. CT is anchored in placing the sign, standing upon faith, the unseen. What you describe is entirely Credo and borders upon semi-Pelagianism.

Also, according to the scriptures, not placing the sign assuredly 'hinders'.......

[Edited on 6-29-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:f18ce99435]

Will you leave me hanging? Explain further.

[quote:f18ce99435]Also, according to the scriptures, not placing the sign assuredly 'hinders'.......[/quote:f18ce99435]
Can you explain the NT text that says this?

[quote:f18ce99435]entirely credo[/quote:f18ce99435]
As if that is impermissible? An embarassment for myself?

[quote:f18ce99435]borders upon semi-Pelagianism[/quote:f18ce99435]
Uncalled for. [/quote:f18ce99435]

Radar,
Forgive me for using the term. I didn't mean for it to be a stab. In fact, I am mistaken. It isn't SP, it's Arminian. Seriously. The idea that one must have an outward confession.......don't you see this as a work? I mean, you won't baptise anyone unless they what? outwardly confess?

In regards to your other questions, they have already been dealt with in this thread. Please re-read it. Your answer to the "hindrance" question is addressed.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

[quote:83e24b8eb0]
That link was awesome! I looked at it and thought that it would be too long to read, but I was hooked! I just had to know how it would end. I especially liked the part: "Armenians live in Armenia. Arminians live in "happy contradictions." "
[/quote:83e24b8eb0]

Gave me a good chuckle reading it again. Sometimes I forget what I've said...

 

[pastorway]

So there we have it then. Anyone remotely related to a believer (by marriage or blood) can pray and be heard, even if they are unregenerate, but any unbeliever who is not related to a believer is ignored by God.

And I thought you had to be [i:8defc2bab6]in Christ[/i:8defc2bab6] to be in the covenant. I didn't realise that if you were married to or born to a believer that you were automatically qualified for covenant communion with God in the absence of the work of Christ offered on your behalf.

This is what the Judaizers taught is it not? Just get circumcised, nothing else matters. And if you and your kids don't get circumcised then neither you nor they can talk to God........but if you do get circumcised, low and behold, you can talk to God without a Mediator!!!!

Phillip

 

[Contra_Mundum]

To All... isn't this applicable?

Works done by unregenerate men, although, for the matter of them, they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others: yet because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner according to the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God; they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, or make man meet to receive grace from God. [b:243c7c0ab3]And yet their neglect of them is more sinful, and displeasing unto God.[/b:243c7c0ab3] WCF. XVI.7

Doesn't this teach that, whatever the condition of our children, it is [i:243c7c0ab3]worse[/i:243c7c0ab3] if they pray not than if they do. Better that they pray as we teach them, properly, to the Father, in the name of the Son, for things lawful, etc., than that they not pray. Let God the Holy Ghost use the means of grace--including prayer--in their lives to [i:243c7c0ab3]start[/i:243c7c0ab3] them in grace and [i:243c7c0ab3]grow[/i:243c7c0ab3] them in grace in his sovereign timing.

 

[daveb]

[quote:6d65e59cde][i:6d65e59cde]Originally posted by Radar[/i:6d65e59cde]

But other baptist churches are credo-baptistic covenantalists. They should have no trouble on the consistency issue. Instead of baptizing infants and then presuming they will come to be regenerated and place faith in Christ, they view that the children will come to be regenerated and place faith in Christ, at which time be baptized. So then, the dryness of the infant's forehead does not help nor hinder his standing with a view to the promises of God. [/quote:6d65e59cde]

So they trust in covenantal promises that their children will be regenerated one day, yet they fail to administer the sign based on those same promises. They still take personal testimony over God's promises as the basis for giving the sign.

Is that a fair assessment or am I missing something?