To what extent should Baptism extend to children of believers?

[Zenas]

Hypotheticals: (For Presbyterians!)

1. Parents have a child. 18 years later the parents convert and are Baptized. The child, though 18, is still under their authority and in their house. Should the child be Baptized?

2. Same facts, except change the child's age to 25. He is unmarried and still under his parents authority, technically.

3. Same facts as #1 except the 18 year-old is a well known fornicator and drunkard.

At what point do we require a profession of faith from the child an thus engage in credo-Baptism and at what point do we apply the ordinance to the child on the merit of him now being a child in a Covenant family and thus practice paedo-Baptism?

I have never myself thought through this before. Though I find the practice of paedo-Baptism consistent with a Covenantal view of Scripture, I can surmise no criterion to draw a bright-line between paedo and credo practice. At risk of being known as ignorant and unlearned, I leave it to you.



Clarification, I meant I am the ignorant and unlearned, not those replying.

 

[travis]

Hmmm, good question. I think that the church should do everything they can to have them baptized, even without a profession of faith, however if the child is openly hostile to the request then the answer would be 'no'.

And with that, I have no idea how to back up my answer

 

[MOSES]

Hypotheticals: (For Presbyterians!)

1. Parents have a child. 18 years later the parents convert and are Baptized. The child, though 18, is still under their authority and in their house. Should the child be Baptized?

2. Same facts, except change the child's age to 25. He is unmarried and still under his parents authority, technically.

3. Same facts as #1 except the 18 year-old is a well known fornicator and drunkard.

At what point do we require a profession of faith from the child an thus engage in credo-Baptism and at what point do we apply the ordinance to the child on the merit of him now being a child in a Covenant family and thus practice paedo-Baptism?

I have never myself thought through this before. Though I find the practice of paedo-Baptism consistent with a Covenantal view of Scripture, I can surmise no criterion to draw a bright-line between paedo and credo practice. At risk of being known as ignorant and unlearned, I leave it to you.

I hope you don't mind a couple of quick thoughts from the "ignorant and unlearned."

- I did not present my children for baptism because of my "headship" over them but because of God's promises to them...(not to take away from the importance of headship in covenant).

- In all the scenarious you give, the person should be baptized if he desires baptism (that also includes desiring what baptism is a sign of, union with Christ). He should not be baptized if he rejects it.

- Those that desire baptism should be baptized...period. No confession of faith necessary, they are part of the covenant household and should be given the covenant sign.

I think my last thought hints at what your really wanting to know. At what point do we presbyterians become creedo in these scenarious...Never. Because the child is given baptism, because the adult child is also given baptism if he does not reject it.

Note: I take an exception to scenario two if that child is not in the "household", but on their own.

 

[Iconoclast]

Nobody likes to deal with what if scenerio's. Pastor Shishko said that he would not baptize children that old,who deny Christ openly.
When dealing with adults I do not believe there is a difference between the two camps. Believe and be baptized is still the rule.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Hypotheticals: (For Presbyterians!)

1. Parents have a child. 18 years later the parents convert and are Baptized. The child, though 18, is still under their authority and in their house. Should the child be Baptized?

2. Same facts, except change the child's age to 25. He is unmarried and still under his parents authority, technically.

3. Same facts as #1 except the 18 year-old is a well known fornicator and drunkard.

At what point do we require a profession of faith from the child an thus engage in credo-Baptism and at what point do we apply the ordinance to the child on the merit of him now being a child in a Covenant family and thus practice paedo-Baptism?

I have never myself thought through this before. Though I find the practice of paedo-Baptism consistent with a Covenantal view of Scripture, I can surmise no criterion to draw a bright-line between paedo and credo practice. At risk of being known as ignorant and unlearned, I leave it to you.

Since the child, in such a case, has reached years of understanding, they should not be baptised except upon profession of faith.

 

[Zenas]

Clarification, I meant I am the ignorant and unlearned, not those replying.

 

[Zenas]

Nobody likes to deal with what if scenerio's. Pastor Shishko said that he would not baptize children that old,who deny Christ openly.
When dealing with adults I do not believe there is a difference between the two camps. Believe and be baptized is still the rule.

When is one an adult and when is one a child?

 

[Zenas]

Hypotheticals: (For Presbyterians!)

1. Parents have a child. 18 years later the parents convert and are Baptized. The child, though 18, is still under their authority and in their house. Should the child be Baptized?

2. Same facts, except change the child's age to 25. He is unmarried and still under his parents authority, technically.

3. Same facts as #1 except the 18 year-old is a well known fornicator and drunkard.

At what point do we require a profession of faith from the child an thus engage in credo-Baptism and at what point do we apply the ordinance to the child on the merit of him now being a child in a Covenant family and thus practice paedo-Baptism?

I have never myself thought through this before. Though I find the practice of paedo-Baptism consistent with a Covenantal view of Scripture, I can surmise no criterion to draw a bright-line between paedo and credo practice. At risk of being known as ignorant and unlearned, I leave it to you.

Since the child, in such a case, has reached years of understanding, they should not be baptised except upon profession of faith.

When do years of understanding begin? What if the child is 12, or 8?

 

[larryjf]

Hypotheticals: (For Presbyterians!)

1. Parents have a child. 18 years later the parents convert and are Baptized. The child, though 18, is still under their authority and in their house. Should the child be Baptized?

2. Same facts, except change the child's age to 25. He is unmarried and still under his parents authority, technically.

3. Same facts as #1 except the 18 year-old is a well known fornicator and drunkard.

Since the "child" in these scenarios is actually legally an adult, and legally responsible for himself, he should not be baptized based on the parents.

However, if the child was 16 and he was legally under the headship of his parents, then yes he should be baptized.

If the 16 yr old is a drunkard or something similar, then of course not. Even a baptized adult drunkard who is unrepentant is to be removed from the church, so there would be no reason to admit a drunkard into fellowship at all.

 

[Zenas]

Do we go by the law of our country then as to who is an adult?

What about 6 year olds who are clearly rebellious?

 

[Presbyterian Deacon]

Hypotheticals: (For Presbyterians!)

Since the child, in such a case, has reached years of understanding, they should not be baptised except upon profession of faith.

think: I think).

But, that brings up another subject perhaps , but what is everyone's opinion of this "years of understanding"? I've heard it referred to as "the age of accountibility" at times ... is such a concept biblical?

 

[larryjf]

Do we go by the law of our country then as to who is an adult?

What about 6 year olds who are clearly rebellious?

Yes, we would go by the laws of the country. After all, the governing authorities are God-ordained.

When we speak of an individual being under their parents authority we must take into consideration if legally they are really under that authority or not. Eighteen year olds are not legally under the authority of their parents, and we must obey all laws that don't directly go against the Scriptures.

The baptism of a child has to do with the parents faith in God's promise to them and their children, the 6 year old would be baptized based on that, not based on his rebelliousness per say. After all, i've been rebellious since my baptism, but that doesn't make it an invalid baptism (and i was baptized as an adult).

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Hypotheticals: (For Presbyterians!)

1. Parents have a child. 18 years later the parents convert and are Baptized. The child, though 18, is still under their authority and in their house. Should the child be Baptized?

2. Same facts, except change the child's age to 25. He is unmarried and still under his parents authority, technically.

3. Same facts as #1 except the 18 year-old is a well known fornicator and drunkard.

At what point do we require a profession of faith from the child an thus engage in credo-Baptism and at what point do we apply the ordinance to the child on the merit of him now being a child in a Covenant family and thus practice paedo-Baptism?

I have never myself thought through this before. Though I find the practice of paedo-Baptism consistent with a Covenantal view of Scripture, I can surmise no criterion to draw a bright-line between paedo and credo practice. At risk of being known as ignorant and unlearned, I leave it to you.

Since the child, in such a case, has reached years of understanding, they should not be baptised except upon profession of faith.

When do years of understanding begin? What if the child is 12, or 8?

This is a complex question, though it is worth keeping in mind that it is one the people in the OT would also have had to grapple with when a pagan - who professed faith in the God of Israel - wished to join the church. It would appear from our Lord's example in Luke 2 that children did not partake of the passover until 12 (or is it 13?), so perhaps that gives us some indication.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Do we go by the law of our country then as to who is an adult?

What about 6 year olds who are clearly rebellious?

All children are rebellious, they have Adam's sin imputed to them, and so foolishness is bound up in their hearts.

 

[larryjf]

This is a complex question, though it is worth keeping in mind that it is one the people in the OT would also have had to grapple with when a pagan - who professed faith in the God of Israel - wished to join the church. It would appear from our Lord's example in Luke 2 that children did not partake of the passover until 12 (or is it 13?), so perhaps that gives us some indication.

The tradition was to go up and take part in the fastings, to learn a trade, etc. at 12; then at 13 they were considered an adult.

Luke 2 says that Jesus was 12, but it doesn't say that it was the first time they went to participate in Passover. Besides, that's a question more for the Lord's Supper than Baptism.

 

[Zenas]

Do we go by the law of our country then as to who is an adult?

What about 6 year olds who are clearly rebellious?

All children are rebellious, they have Adam's sin imputed to them, and so foolishness is bound up in their hearts.

True!

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

This is a complex question, though it is worth keeping in mind that it is one the people in the OT would also have had to grapple with when a pagan - who professed faith in the God of Israel - wished to join the church. It would appear from our Lord's example in Luke 2 that children did not partake of the passover until 12 (or is it 13?), so perhaps that gives us some indication.

The tradition was to go up and take part in the fastings, to learn a trade, etc. at 12; then at 13 they were considered an adult.

Luke 2 says that Jesus was 12, but it doesn't say that it was the first time they went to participate in Passover. Besides, that's a question more for the Lord's Supper than Baptism.

Does the text not indicate though that that was the first time Christ went with his parents? If there has to be a 'cut off' point for children receiving baptism why not make it here?

 

[Presbyterian Deacon]

Does the text not indicate though that that was the first time Christ went with his parents?

NO. I think they went every year. It was their custom to go every year. But it was when He was twelve, that He stayed behind in the temple and taught the teachers.

Luke 2:41-42 says:
"Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast."

 

[larryjf]

This is a complex question, though it is worth keeping in mind that it is one the people in the OT would also have had to grapple with when a pagan - who professed faith in the God of Israel - wished to join the church. It would appear from our Lord's example in Luke 2 that children did not partake of the passover until 12 (or is it 13?), so perhaps that gives us some indication.

The tradition was to go up and take part in the fastings, to learn a trade, etc. at 12; then at 13 they were considered an adult.

Luke 2 says that Jesus was 12, but it doesn't say that it was the first time they went to participate in Passover. Besides, that's a question more for the Lord's Supper than Baptism.

Does the text not indicate though that that was the first time Christ went with his parents? If there has to be a 'cut off' point for children receiving baptism why not make it here?

And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. (Luk 2:42)

It doesn't appear to me to state that it was His first time at passover. It seems to simply indicate that at this particular trip He was 12. Most likely to contrast His age and understanding with that of the doctors He was conversing with.

In 2:40 we are told of His wisdom, in 2:42 we are told of His young age, in 2:47 we are told that the doctors were were astonished at His understanding.

Even if it was His first time, it has nothing to do with Baptism as Christ would have been circumcised as a baby.

 

[Iconoclast]

Legally a person is considered an adult in most states at either 18, or 21.
In other cultures it must vary. Children can believe the gospel before adulthood if God saves them. Most confessional baptists are not in a rush to baptize very young children. Young children say they believe many things, that as they grow older they change their mind on.
Some baptist parents are over-eager to baptize young children so they{ the parents can comfort themselves} that in their mind the child is now on His or her way to heaven. It is probably best to wait until the Holy Spirit saves the child first however.
We went into a fundamental baptist church once when my second son was 5yrs old. One of the deacons was talking to him and my son said he believed in Jesus. The deacon wanted to baptize him right away. We explained that we would prefer to wait until we had reason to believe that the Spirit had given him new life.
Laws are written to protect children in our society. At what age can someone drive? Drink? Give Consent for medical treatment? Get married? Sign a legal document?
Some day they will do all these things , but it is probably not good to allow them to while they are young and lack understanding.
Why push to tell your child -you are saved- you are a christian- you are a disciple- you can live a life pleasing to God just as you are- live up to your baptism- improve your baptism.... When more than likely they have not been regenerated yet! So you expect them to be, act, or live as a christian without the indwelling Spirit? In the stength of their flesh they will do no more than give an outward conformity to an external standard, when God will give a new heart. A false and fleshly "church member" is a hypocrite at best and a dried out dead formilist at their worst.
Cults indoctrinate their children, it is religion without the Spirit. Nobody here wants that for their children.
Baptists do not tell their children that much different than a presbyterian tells their children hopefully. Jesus saves sinners, Jesus saves His people.Jesus saves all who believe. All died in Adam.All In Christ live.
You {the child} live in a home with believing parents. If God is merciful to you , you also will believe and be saved as your parents were saved by God.
We { your parents} cannot save you. You must deal with God personally. We can only tell you the truth as it is In Christ. The promise of life is only to those who believe by a God given faith.
Anyone who remains seperated from God and dies without Christ will die in their sins.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I think the answer is prudential. It depends on an age, not of acountability but of discretion. As an elder, I would not have any problem approving the baptism of a 2 year old, and I would have a significant problem baptizing an 18 year old, on the basis of their parent's profession. You would need to persuade me that the 18 year old was (for example) handicapped, or truly a meek, but slow individual. A person this old is capable of defining his acceptance of "disciple" status, even if his primary early motivations are somehow related to his status as a dependent.

The question of NT slaves/servants has come up before. Aside from the fact of household baptisms, we are largely speculating as to how much of a man or woman's human "property" was considered under his sovereign mastery, and to what degree. Our cultures are radically dissimilar. Onesimus might have given us a bit more data, if we could have known a bit more about him--too bad.

I would say that the OT age of majority already mentioned (13) serves as a useful marker for the median. Below it, fewer questions regarding the wisdom, above it, more and more.

 

[MW]

Since the child, in such a case, has reached years of understanding, they should not be baptised except upon profession of faith.

This leaves no alternative but for them to disobey their parents in the Lord, which is contrary to Eph. 6. Whilst they are submissively living with their parents, and have not yet left father and mother, they are included in the covenant promises, and should therefore be granted the sign of inclusion in the covenant.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The tradition was to go up and take part in the fastings, to learn a trade, etc. at 12; then at 13 they were considered an adult.

Luke 2 says that Jesus was 12, but it doesn't say that it was the first time they went to participate in Passover. Besides, that's a question more for the Lord's Supper than Baptism.

Does the text not indicate though that that was the first time Christ went with his parents? If there has to be a 'cut off' point for children receiving baptism why not make it here?

And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. (Luk 2:42)

It doesn't appear to me to state that it was His first time at passover. It seems to simply indicate that at this particular trip He was 12. Most likely to contrast His age and understanding with that of the doctors He was conversing with.

In 2:40 we are told of His wisdom, in 2:42 we are told of His young age, in 2:47 we are told that the doctors were were astonished at His understanding.

Even if it was His first time, it has nothing to do with Baptism as Christ would have been circumcised as a baby.

True enough, but if one is old enough to receive the passover/Lord's Supper, does that not imply that they are too old to receive baptism as a covenant child rather than upon a profession of faith?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Since the child, in such a case, has reached years of understanding, they should not be baptised except upon profession of faith.

This leaves no alternative but for them to disobey their parents in the Lord, which is contrary to Eph. 6. Whilst they are submissively living with their parents, and have not yet left father and mother, they are included in the covenant promises, and should therefore be granted the sign of inclusion in the covenant.

Not really, they can (if enabled by the Holy Spirit) obey their parents by repenting and believing the gospel. Nowadays, it is not uncommon for people over 30 to be living at home with their parents, this would mean that if their parents were converted, we would have to baptise them, then automatically excommunicate them for being unbelievers.

 

[Zenas]

Daniel, should we be excommunicating the children of believers who show themselves to be reprobate later in life?

 

[MW]

Not really, they can (if enabled by the Holy Spirit) obey their parents by repenting and believing the gospel. Nowadays, it is not uncommon for people over 30 to be living at home with their parents, this would mean that if their parents were converted, we would have to baptise them, then automatically excommunicate them for being unbelievers.

You are forcing providence into an either/or situation, whereas the terms of the covenant of grace allow them the opportunity to be learners of the Christian faith like every other covenant child living in a Christian home. The NT states the household as an entity came into covenant with God. You are reflecting the individualism of your times.

 

[MOSES]

Clarification, I meant I am the ignorant and unlearned, not those replying.

Yea I know...

But being I was replying, and I am "ignorant and unlearned," I figured I had better tell you that right up front...(i.e., I was confessing that I am not the right man for the job of answering your question...but would interact as one like you.)...

 

[satz]

1 Peter 3:21 tells us that baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God. How can a child who does not profess faith in God answer him with a good conscience?

 

[MW]

1 Peter 3:21 tells us that baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God. How can a child who does not profess faith in God answer him with a good conscience?

Heb. 11:20, "By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come."

 

[Semper Fidelis]

1 Peter 3:21 tells us that baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God. How can a child who does not profess faith in God answer him with a good conscience?

How can a reprobate man, who is baptized on the basis of a false profession, who does not have faith in God, answer him with a good conscience in your understanding?