Thread: The place of regeneration in a paedo baptist model

Brethren,

I think your explanations of covenant continuities presents a very attractive model. Now I have a more mundane question: what about regeneration?

In the Baptist model, a parent reads to, takes to church, prays with, etc. a child in hopes that the young person will come to a point of repenting and being baptized as evidence of evident regeneration. Granted the ordo salutis for the Reformed Baptist and the Arminian Baptist would differ significantly on the logical order. However, all Baptists would pray that their children would be "born again."

With the covenant child, I understand that few Reformed folks follow Kuyper in the direction of presumptive regeneration and even fewer argue for regeneraton within the womb (based on the prima facie case of Jeremiah and John the Baptist). Pastor Shishko speaks eloquently of the way in which a loving Christian parent encourages a child to trust in God, to grow in grace, etc. But how does the parent introduce the issue of regeneration in a paedo system?

Honestly ignorant here.

But how does the parent introduce the issue of regeneration in a paedo system?

If I am understanding your question, the parent is responsible to raise the child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. As in the Old Testament... teach your children, so in the New Testament.

This is why family worship is important in Reformed Theology, it is related to duties in the Fifth Commandment (see WLC Q 128).

While there is no guarantee God will save the believer's child, there is real grace present on account of the believing parent. The believing parent(s) are called to look in faith to God for their children and particularly the promises made for believers and their children (covenant children) and to model that for their children.

Maybe one difference here is that the "paedo" believes there is real grace for the covenant family and real promises to draw on.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Brethren,

I think your explanations of covenant continuities presents a very attractive model. Now I have a more mundane question: what about regeneration?

In the Baptist model, a parent reads to, takes to church, prays with, etc. a child in hopes that the young person will come to a point of repenting and being baptized as evidence of evident regeneration. Granted the ordo salutis for the Reformed Baptist and the Arminian Baptist would differ significantly on the logical order. However, all Baptists would pray that their children would be "born again."

With the covenant child, I understand that few Reformed folks follow Kuyper in the direction of presumptive regeneration and even fewer argue for regeneraton within the womb (based on the prima facie case of Jeremiah and John the Baptist). Pastor Shishko speaks eloquently of the way in which a loving Christian parent encourages a child to trust in God, to grow in grace, etc. But how does the parent introduce the issue of regeneration in a paedo system?

Honestly ignorant here.

For the paedo-sytem, regeneration is entirely in the hands of God, who brings the children to faith when he so pleases. Our part as parents is to teach them who the one true God is and what he has done, their need for Christ (just as their baptism symbolizes), encourage them to call unto him, live out a godly example before them, pray for them, and leave the rest in His hands. The Holy Spirit will make all the means of grace effectual as He sees fit.

The Spirit works when and how He wills. The child of the covenant is to be reared in covenant consciousness, "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Whereas the non-paedobaptist is obliged to speak to their children of their estrangement to God with a need of reconciliation, the paedobaptist should lay hold of the covenant promises and curses, teaching that God is the child's God in Christ. As the child grows, he should be encouraged to personally rest in Christ as his prophet, priest, and king (note the first person plural appropriation language of the Westminster Shorter Catechism), and as he does so he should be encouraged to persevere in a steadfast confession of the faith; but if he shows no signs of any interest then he is to be warned of the dangers of selling one's birthright and incurring the curses of the covenant.

So... if I read John Murray correctly, he argues that infants could be regenerated and justified. Do all or only some paedobaptists believe this?

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The Spirit works when and how He wills. The child of the covenant is to be reared in covenant consciousness, "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Whereas the non-paedobaptist is obliged to speak to their children of their estrangement to God with a need of reconciliation, the paedobaptist should lay hold of the covenant promises and curses, teaching that God is the child's God in Christ. As the child grows, he should be encouraged to personally rest in Christ as his prophet, priest, and king (note the first person plural appropriation language of the Westminster Shorter Catechism), and as he does so he should be encouraged to persevere in a steadfast confession of the faith; but if he shows no signs of any interest then he is to be warned of the dangers of selling one's birthright and incurring the curses of the covenant.

Dennis,

Again, I think a distinction between those that profess faith and are baptized to mark them out as disciples and those that are baptized as infants because they are disciples by the warrant of Scripture ought not to be made.

In other words, how is anyone who is in the congregation exhorted? Believe! Do not shrink back. How can you neglect so great a salvation?

I think there is an erroneous assumption that such statements are only useful or warranted if we assume the people are already regenerate but these are the very things the people in the desert were commanded. Also, think about this: the preaching of the Word (believe upon Christ) and the means of grace are the very means by which God may regenerate a child or a professing adult who is not yet regenerate.

Hence, the place of regeneration is in the hands of the Spirit. The place of the Church is the means of grace that are used by the Spirit. The place of the parent is to continue to encourage the child, pray with the child, and bring the child close to the Church and its means where salvation is proclaimed and nurtured.

It is helpful to think of a disciple as one who the Church is committed to ensure no effort was spared to hold forth Christ to and train in everything He commanded. We don't know any are regenerate but this is quite immaterial to the mission or approach for every disciple. With respect to the activity of the Church toward exhorting and training up disciples there is no distinction between the elect and reprobate. The reprobate disciple is under extremely strict judgment for neglecting what was held forth even as the elect gives glory to God that he believed on the basis of the same means.

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

So... if I read John Murray correctly, he argues that infants could be regenerated and justified. Do all or only some paedobaptists believe this?

I assume you mean Confessional Presbyterians, and not the variegated paedobaptists out there...

How else would one of them get into heaven, if he was elect, and died in his infancy?

John the Baptist (Lk. 1:44), Jeremiah (1:5), David (Ps.71:6; cf. Ps. 22:9)--just three saints the Bible describes as knowing God from infancy.

We try not to act on "assumptions" but on faith. God makes promises to his people. Believers act on the basis of those promises. We usually do not know at what moment God regenerates his elect. For many children, it could be very young. We understand that we parents are God's ordained means for our children's conversion (typically), so we are the means for their conversion. And we look for evidence of that conversion; we look for spiritual fruit, not a "decision" for Christ, leading to a baptismal event.

Rich,

Your answer was exactly how I suspected it would all fit together. Thanks. After fifty some years in Baptist churches, it is difficult to get beyond the mindset of "believe and be baptized" where the profession represents a point-in-time consequence of regeneration. Even Calvinistic Baptists (5 pt. Calvinist soteriology as opposed to those Baptists with a covenantal approach as well) tend to locate regeneration immediately proximate to the profession of faith, even when they see the regeneration as coming in a standard Calvinist order.

I merely wondered how Presbyterian parents handled the issue of regeneration. Since the diligent application of the means of grace and exposure to them at church and home involves repeated calls to trust Christ, to repent of sins, and to embrace the assurance of full pardon, I can see where the putative "time" of regeneration might be of less interest to a Presbyterian. This would be especially true of those who assumed that their infants had already been regenerated in the womb or in infancy. Obviously Baptists have historically emphasized decisional regeneration with all of the problems that that entails.

From the point of view of this unlearned layman, why would our sovereign Father ordain the birth of children into the homes of those whom He has set apart for Himself, if it were not His intent that they also should be the beneficiaries of His covenantal promises?

Am I wrong?

Obviously Baptists have historically emphasized decisional regeneration with all of the problems that that entails.

You can see the implications of a God-centered (Reformed) theology versus a more Arminian influenced theology here.

The former views regeneration as a Holy Spirit initiative ([effectual] inward calling) whereas the latter views it as man's decision (based on outward call). That's why concepts like one's "spiritual birthday" and "crusade rallies" and even "re-dedicating one's life to the Lord" are not priority concepts in Reformed Theology. God can use them, often based on man's misunderstanding of Scripture, that it is even sinful to misrepresent God in these ways, but that God takes all things and works them together for the good, according to His purposes (cf Romans 8:28).

Most in this thread have given my thoughts, stated much better than I likely would have. I'd add just a couple of things: the role of the covenant community cannot be minimized. I've been a member in at least one church that succinctly asked the congregation if it vowed to assist the parents in rearing the child in Christ. Also, as parents, it is essential that we show our children the stark realities of being a covenant breaker versus the blessings of continuing in the covenant promises.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

We try not to act on "assumptions" but on faith. God makes promises to his people. Believers act on the basis of those promises. We usually do not know at what moment God regenerates his elect. For many children, it could be very young. We understand that we parents are God's ordained means for our children's conversion (typically), so we are the means for their conversion. And we look for evidence of that conversion; we look for spiritual fruit, not a "decision" for Christ, leading to a baptismal event.

And this spiritual fruit would presumably include some sort of confession of faith in Christ for the child to become a communicant member?

Scott is exactly right. Actually, this whole discussion has further application in the realm of preaching and evangelism. It bothers me when guys in my Presbytery ask a candidate how many people he has led to the Lord. The question in and of itself is designed to show that the candidate is sharing the Gospel. I have no problem with wanting to know whether a candidate is evangelistic. However, some in my Presbytery rank ministerial worth with conversions. As a result several other equally important things are slighted, such as sowing the seed indiscriminately without knowing what the fruit is (as in many sermons) and discipling those already converted (which people overly concerned about conversion tend to neglect).

The same thing is true of parents and children. Parents can sometimes be so concerned about knowing whether their children are converted that they neglect discipleship in the things of God. Furthermore, they may choose not to believe a child when the child says, "I believe," because it isn't a "violent" enough conversion experience (and by that I mean a very evident darkness to light model) to measure up to what they think is needed. Why is it impossible for a child never to remember a time when he did not know Jesus? Why does a conversion have to be "violent?" Why can't it be a gradual awakening to spiritual things? So, Old School Presbyterians constantly harp on things like catechisms, Bible-reading, prayer, attendance on the Sacraments, because that is how we grow. This is a primary emphasis for OSP, much more so than conversion, though I think they do not downplay conversion. But, as some have said, the vast majority of Christians in the world have probably come to the faith through covenantal nurture rather than violent conversion experience.

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Scott is exactly right. Actually, this whole discussion has further application in the realm of preaching and evangelism. It bothers me when guys in my Presbytery ask a candidate how many people he has led to the Lord. The question in and of itself is designed to show that the candidate is sharing the Gospel. I have no problem with wanting to know whether a candidate is evangelistic. However, some in my Presbytery rank ministerial worth with conversions. As a result several other equally important things are slighted, such as sowing the seed indiscriminately without knowing what the fruit is (as in many sermons) and discipling those already converted (which people overly concerned about conversion tend to neglect).

The same thing is true of parents and children. Parents can sometimes be so concerned about knowing whether their children are converted that they neglect discipleship in the things of God. Furthermore, they may choose not to believe a child when the child says, "I believe," because it isn't a "violent" enough conversion experience (and by that I mean a very evident darkness to light model) to measure up to what they think is needed. Why is it impossible for a child never to remember a time when he did not know Jesus? Why does a conversion have to be "violent?" Why can't it be a gradual awakening to spiritual things? So, Old School Presbyterians constantly harp on things like catechisms, Bible-reading, prayer, attendance on the Sacraments, because that is how we grow. This is a primary emphasis for OSP, much more so than conversion, though I think they do not downplay conversion. But, as some have said, the vast majority of Christians in the world have probably come to the faith through covenantal nurture rather than violent conversion experience.

!!!! Viewing Christianity through the lens of making disciples by baptizing and teaching has profound consequences to every realm of the Church. So many things are minimized (and consequently undermined) when we focus on a "how many souls have you won for Jesus" mentality. I've seen this mantra used to excuse blatant violations of ethical behavior among ministers who got a pass because "...we need to focus on telling people about Jesus...."

Enthusiasm to tell of the great things God has done in Christ should never wane. That means it ought never wane that we would tell the lost and disciples about such things. We're never too secure in our faith to be warned that those that shrink away in disbelief will not inherit eternal life and another disciple is never so "obviously" lost that we stop telling him the same thing.

Once we let God be God in who are His own then it makes the work of the Church crystal clear. We don't minimize the need for regeneration or the need for belief. On the contrary, our constant refrain to all should be to believe! This we know, is quite impossible apart from the Holy Spirit's work. Though God could work apart from the foolishness of preaching and other means, these are the very things He has ordained to accomplish the calling out and preservation of His own.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Brethren,

I think your explanations of covenant continuities presents a very attractive model. Now I have a more mundane question: what about regeneration?

In the Baptist model, a parent reads to, takes to church, prays with, etc. a child in hopes that the young person will come to a point of repenting and being baptized as evidence of evident regeneration. Granted the ordo salutis for the Reformed Baptist and the Arminian Baptist would differ significantly on the logical order. However, all Baptists would pray that their children would be "born again."

With the covenant child, I understand that few Reformed folks follow Kuyper in the direction of presumptive regeneration and even fewer argue for regeneraton within the womb (based on the prima facie case of Jeremiah and John the Baptist). Pastor Shishko speaks eloquently of the way in which a loving Christian parent encourages a child to trust in God, to grow in grace, etc. But how does the parent introduce the issue of regeneration in a paedo system?

Honestly ignorant here.

Abraham Kuyper's view is considered somewhat heterodox by most paedo-baptists. Apparently, some Canadian Reformed Churches subconsiously hold to presumptive regeneration (according to my pastor) but the URCNA is opposed to it.

I think it is the CRC that was a big proponent of PR in the more BR churches. (But I may be wrong there).

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

...we look for spiritual fruit, not a "decision" for Christ, leading to a baptismal event.

And this spiritual fruit would presumably include some sort of confession of faith in Christ for the child to become a communicant member?

We conduct catechism classes or preparatory classes as part of our standard elder oversight. Admission to the Lord's Table is a matter of church discipline, and elders need to be satisfied that their charges can exercise the proper discernment.

And I will add here, that it is by no means a point of common agreement that the commemorative Passover was participated in by any and all in ancient days. Of-age Jewish males were required to come and celebrate the feast. Jesus and the other 12 men in the upper room on the night in which he was betrayed would have been a very typical gathering (not atypical at all, with no women and children around) that evening, in rooms all over the city of Jerusalem.

Jesus himself as a youth was examined by the eldership (how else should we describe his Jerusalem visit, noted at age 12?). Examination for Communion-meal participation is an ancient practice.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The Spirit works when and how He wills.

Of course, Jesus says it best in John 3:8-10:

8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

9Nicodemus said to him, "How can these things be?" 10Jesus answered him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?


Jesus is essentially saying that you can control your own regeneration about as much as you can control the wind. What is amazing here is His rebuke of Nicodemus, saying this should have been obvious to him as a teacher of Israel. Can someone quote an OT passage that refers to this aspect of regeneration?

The child of the covenant is to be reared in covenant consciousness, "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." . . . but if he shows no signs of any interest then he is to be warned of the dangers of selling one's birthright and incurring the curses of the covenant.

This is the essence of the teaching of Hebrews, is it not? When I was dispensational, Hebrews caused me great confusion and angst regarding salvation; after I became Reformed and understood the unity of the Covenant and its structure, Hebrews became very clear and made perfect sense to me. In fact, I honestly do not see how a dispensationalist can truly understand Hebrews at all.

OK. This is a difficult paradigm shift. You may all have to be patient with me.

I'm ok with saying that God may regenerate an infant dying in infancy, but I struggle with the idea that he would regenerate an infant whom He has ordained to live to an age of understanding.

Originally Posted by WCF X

I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ: enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good; and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.

If I am understanding this correctly, the calling produces a new mind, heart, and will. How could this apply to an infant?

I'm ok with saying that God may regenerate an infant dying in infancy, but I struggle with the idea that he would regenerate an infant whom He has ordained to live to an age of understanding.


Quote:
Originally Posted by WCF X

I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ: enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good; and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.

If I am understanding this correctly, the calling produces a new mind, heart, and will. How could this apply to an infant?

Essentially, God changes the nature of a person so that person is free now to "choose" (that is "love" God). Before that miracle, which God alone can do, every person is born with a tendency, a bias, a bondage toward his sin nature. "Freely" exercising his will at that point will not result in a bias toward loving, obeying God because the fallen nature biases the person the other way- toward self and disobedience of God.

God can redeem someone at any time, even in infancy. This could even apply to a pre-born infant because absolutely nothing limits God. He is sovereign over His Creation, including every human life. He can operate any way He pleases including through or outside of physical laws or ordinary means because He created, sustains and governs them all. Every single molecule that ever was, is, or ever will be.

It may be hard to immediately ascertain salvation in an infant but over time, grace shows in the form of faith and repentance and become more evident in the regenerated person's life. Not perfection (that comes only later in the state of Glory), but the changed nature and the grace of God abiding on the person becomes more evident over time because God has truly, miraculously changed the constituent nature of a human being- for His own Honor and His own glory!

Jesus' sheep hear His voice and follow Him ... it doesn't matter how old they are. A child's expression of faith is going to be far simpler than someone of greater years, but it is indeed there. My 4-year-old (with developmental delays) has understood since he could talk that all of scripture is "a book about Jesus," and is more excited about going to church "to worship God!" than anything else in his life. Where would this come from except by the work of the Spirit? His now-married older sister has shown similar faith all of her life. She doesn't remember a day when she wasn't trusting in Christ and taking interest in His word. What a blessing!

Originally Posted by Scott1

God can redeem someone at any time, even in infancy. This could even apply to a pre-born infant because absolutely nothing limits God. He is sovereign over His Creation, including every human life. He can operate any way He pleases including through or outside of physical laws or ordinary means because He created, sustains and governs them all. Every single molecule that ever was, is, or ever will be.

I understand that God can do anything. I'm asking what He does do, which is a different matter.

Originally Posted by WCF XI

I. Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.

If by redeem you mean "justify" then how is a redeemed infant confessional? Doesn't this teach that to be justified the person must receive and rest on Christ and his righteousness? What else can "Faith ... is the alone instrument of justification" mean? Of course, excepting those special cases referred to in Chapter X: III-IV.

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

Originally Posted by Scott1

God can redeem someone at any time, even in infancy. This could even apply to a pre-born infant because absolutely nothing limits God. He is sovereign over His Creation, including every human life. He can operate any way He pleases including through or outside of physical laws or ordinary means because He created, sustains and governs them all. Every single molecule that ever was, is, or ever will be.

I understand that God can do anything. I'm asking what He does do, which is a different matter.

Originally Posted by WCF XI

I. Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.

If by redeem you mean "justify" then how is a redeemed infant confessional? Doesn't this teach that to be justified the person must receive and rest on Christ and his righteousness? What else can "Faith ... is the alone instrument of justification" mean? Of course, excepting those special cases referred to in Chapter X: III-IV.

Redemption broadly involves election, inner calling, justification, and adoption. God does each one 100%. Faith then immediately follows as the inevitable result. The faith is also a gift from God (read Ephesians 2:8,9- the "gift" is faith) It is not limited, for example, by an infant being able to explain the Gospel to you.

We are limited in our ability to really ascertain what the object of the infant's faith is, but the infant's (saving) faith is not limited to his being able to clearly articulate it. (Think also of someone unable to speak or with other severe limitations- God can give them faith and save them too).

The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter X.

3. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth: so also are all other elect person who are uncapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

Originally Posted by R Harris

Jesus is essentially saying that you can control your own regeneration about as much as you can control the wind. What is amazing here is His rebuke of Nicodemus, saying this should have been obvious to him as a teacher of Israel. Can someone quote an OT passage that refers to this aspect of regeneration?

I take it that the whole of the Old Testament bears witness to regeneration in its eschatological hope. Readers of modern versions often miss the redemptive historical significance of the statement in John 3:7, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." The Lord Jesus taught Nicodemus that the kingdom of God is a heavenly reality which penetrates the present time, and only those who are born into the reality of this age to come shall partake of the blessings of the kingdom. To this eschatological kingdom the law and the prophets bear witness. It is similar to John 7:38, where "the scripture" is cited as saying "out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." But if there is one passage where the hope of regeneration is explicitly taught it would have to be Ezekiel 36, especially verses 25-38.

As Lane will tell you, I am neither unsympathetic to your points, nor attempting to play devil's advocate. Rather, I am trying to understand that which is quite foreign to my experience.

The following comments are meant to be descriptive (not evaluative).

* A Baptist emphasizes the "point" of change from darkness to light.
Upside consequence: It promotes serious self-examination and an effort to assure oneself that a person has truly repented and received by faith the gift of regenerate life made possible by the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit in effectual calling (Calvinist Baptist).
Downside consequence: People often mistake this to transfer the locus of responsibility for regeneration from the Spirit to the sinful will of the person ("I have decided to follow Jesus . . ."). In addition to Arminian pandering to "free will," it can also result in presumptuous pseudo-conversion when people (often children) are induced to ape the language of Christianity without having been regenerated by the Spirit.

* A paedo Baptist emphasizes the regular use of the means of grace and the nurture and admonition of the Lord as the evangelistic tool the Lord most often uses to bring covenant children to faith.
Upside consequence: It seems to follow what most Christian parents of all baptismal stripes intuitively know. It is organically connected to the whole covenantal structure of the Bible.
Downside consequence: Emphasis upon "regular nurture and admonition" might overlook the critical need for a child (like any other Chistian) to move from darkness to light.

Lane, I agree that the Baptist emphasis upon "decisional" regeneration is theologically deficient and problematic. I can see, however, how a Presbyterian parent might take a covenant child's conversion as virtually automatic and assume that reasonable compliance with parental wishes, attendance at church, and an absence of delinquent behaviors = genuine Christianity.

In Shishko's 23 tapes on infant baptism, in tape 22 he finally gets around to chiding Presbyterians for neglecting to confront their children with the Gospel in a bold and definitive enough way.

My original question had to do with the practicalities of raising covenant children. I understand and truly appreciate the discipleship model and the sense that for most children of believers, conversion is more of a awakening over time than a crisis experience). The question was, how do Presbyterian parents "confront" their children with the Gospel? Is it a case of "nurture and admonition" as the regular method coupled with confrontation with the child's sinfulness, calling him/her to repentance and trusting in Christ alone when there are examples of non-Christian behavior???

Obviously, both models have more than their share of parents in pain, weeping over their prodigal sons and daughters. Regardless of whether a child of 6 is baptized in a Baptist church or as an infant in a Presbyterian church, some kids have been socialized to be compliant and affect the outward signs of Chrisitanity, later to abandon it entirely in college.

The child of the covenant is to be reared in covenant consciousness, "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." . . . but if he shows no signs of any interest then he is to be warned of the dangers of selling one's birthright and incurring the curses of the covenant.

This is the essence of the teaching of Hebrews, is it not? When I was dispensational, Hebrews caused me great confusion and angst regarding salvation; after I became Reformed and understood the unity of the Covenant and its structure, Hebrews became very clear and made perfect sense to me. In fact, I honestly do not see how a dispensationalist can truly understand Hebrews at all.

Regardless of where I end up the baptism debate, Hebrews makes infinitely more sense in a paedo baptist understanding than it does with a model of regenerate membership.

The confrontational aspect of covenant nurture comes to the fore in Jesus' training of the disciples. They are confronted as ones who should know and do better given the privileges bestowed upon them. "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me?" "Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me." But at no point does the disciple's failures demonstrate a lack of sufficiency in the covenant. "Greater works than these shall he do."

We are what we are by God's grace. This is the wonder of the covenant of grace -- He makes us what we are not, and what we could never be if left to ourselves. It is all of grace, and grace by definition is receptive, and receptivity implies inactivity in its first workings. Hence the "unconscious conversion experience" is the true conversion experience. While I can agree with the much esteemed Prof. William Cunningham that the union with Christ signified in baptism is properly realised in the case of an adult professing faith, I nevertheless maintain that the converting grace signified in baptism is best illustrated in the case of a little child receiving the kingdom of heaven and having nothing to add to it.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

As Lane will tell you, I am neither unsympathetic to your points, nor attempting to play devil's advocate. Rather, I am trying to understand that which is quite foreign to my experience.

The following comments are meant to be descriptive (not evaluative).

* A Baptist emphasizes the "point" of change from darkness to light.
Upside consequence: It promotes serious self-examination and an effort to assure oneself that a person has truly repented and received by faith the gift of regenerate life made possible by the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit in effectual calling (Calvinist Baptist).
Downside consequence: People often mistake this to transfer the locus of responsibility for regeneration from the Spirit to the sinful will of the person ("I have decided to follow Jesus . . ."). In addition to Arminian pandering to "free will," it can also result in presumptuous pseudo-conversion when people (often children) are induced to ape the language of Christianity without having been regenerated by the Spirit.

* A paedo Baptist emphasizes the regular use of the means of grace and the nurture and admonition of the Lord as the evangelistic tool the Lord most often uses to bring covenant children to faith.
Upside consequence: It seems to follow what most Christian parents of all baptismal stripes intuitively know. It is organically connected to the whole covenantal structure of the Bible.
Downside consequence: Emphasis upon "regular nurture and admonition" might overlook the critical need for a child (like any other Chistian) to move from darkness to light.

Lane, I agree that the Baptist emphasis upon "decisional" regeneration is theologically deficient and problematic. I can see, however, how a Presbyterian parent might take a covenant child's conversion as virtually automatic and assume that reasonable compliance with parental wishes, attendance at church, and an absence of delinquent behaviors = genuine Christianity.

In Shishko's 23 tapes on infant baptism, in tape 22 he finally gets around to chiding Presbyterians for neglecting to confront their children with the Gospel in a bold and definitive enough way.

My original question had to do with the practicalities of raising covenant children. I understand and truly appreciate the discipleship model and the sense that for most children of believers, conversion is more of a awakening over time than a crisis experience). The question was, how do Presbyterian parents "confront" their children with the Gospel? Is it a case of "nurture and admonition" as the regular method coupled with confrontation with the child's sinfulness, calling him/her to repentance and trusting in Christ alone when there are examples of non-Christian behavior???

Obviously, both models have more than their share of parents in pain, weeping over their prodigal sons and daughters. Regardless of whether a child of 6 is baptized in a Baptist church or as an infant in a Presbyterian church, some kids have been socialized to be compliant and affect the outward signs of Chrisitanity, later to abandon it entirely in college.

The child of the covenant is to be reared in covenant consciousness, "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." . . . but if he shows no signs of any interest then he is to be warned of the dangers of selling one's birthright and incurring the curses of the covenant.

This is the essence of the teaching of Hebrews, is it not? When I was dispensational, Hebrews caused me great confusion and angst regarding salvation; after I became Reformed and understood the unity of the Covenant and its structure, Hebrews became very clear and made perfect sense to me. In fact, I honestly do not see how a dispensationalist can truly understand Hebrews at all.

Regardless of where I end up the baptism debate, Hebrews makes infinitely more sense in a paedo baptist understanding than it does with a model of regenerate membership.

This is exactly what I wrestle with! Especially considering the fact that I have two young daughters. I am trying to find the balance that this post speaks of. Thank you, Dennis, for expressing what has been on my heart (remarkably tonight especially). I just got through praying to God for the grace to understand how to find this balance. And while my mind was on this balance as I prayed the Spirit continually brought these words to my heart, "LORD, GIVE MY DAUGHTERS A LOVE FOR THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. GIVE THEM HEARTS THAT ARE RECEPTIVE TO HIS WORD AND THAT LOVE HIS WORD. GIVE THEM FAITH THAT TRUSTS THE PROMISES OF CHRIST AND BELIEVE ON HIS GOSPEL AND THAT ALONE! GIVE THEM REPENTANCE AND A HATRED FOR THEIR SINS THROUGH THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE GRACE OF GOD!"

And there I rest in the gracious, saving promises of my wonderful Lord. I know nothing else to do.

The question was, how do Presbyterian parents "confront" their children with the Gospel?

In prayer with and for. In regular worship. In the reading and study of scripture. In diligent catechesis. And in day to day experience understood by the light of God's word.

Originally Posted by Brad

The question was, how do Presbyterian parents "confront" their children with the Gospel?

In prayer with and for. In regular worship. In the reading and study of scripture. In diligent catechesis. And in day to day experience understood by the light of God's word.

And then by resting in the wonderful, gracious promise of our Soveriegn Lord to be a God not only to us, but to our children as well. This is what I keep preaching to myself as I raise my children. It's hard when you come from such a "pound it into them and hammer out a decision" background. I tell you it's hard to find that balance.