I have asked this question (or a variation of it) twice and it has been ignored. So, I figured I would start off a thread with it and figured that Paul couldn't stay out of the fray. I am honestly trying to understand the consistency of the paedo view as it pertains to covenant families.

My question is a hypothetical based on the idea that children of believers are considered in God's covenant and, therefore, deserving of baptism.:

Suppose a couple in their mid-80's come to your church, hear the gospel, are converted and become covenant members through baptism. Would you also feel the necessity to baptize their children who are in their mid-50's and their grandchildren who are in their mid-20's and their great-grandchildren who are young children? If so, why? And if not, why not?

__________________

I don't recall ever reading this question, anyway....

Let me ask a question(s) so I can answer you better:

Did the children in their 50s reject or accept the Gospel?

Same for the Grandchildren?

The answer to the last on will help with the great great grandchildren (1, 2, 3, yr old?), who are children of the Grandchildren in their 20s.

__________________
Regards,

J.J.
PCA
Suffix

Why does it matter whether they reject the gospel or not? Are they not covenant children?

This is the crux of my question. I am trying to understand how far along in life you consider one to be a "covenant child." One of the complaints against us Baptists is that we don't recognize that God works covenantally through families. I am trying, through this hypothetical question, to figure out exactly what is meant by that.

BTW, any one else is free to respond. I just wanted to draw attention, and I knew Paul wouldn't shy away from responding.

__________________

Doug - what a cheesy method of getting Paul to respond. I'm sure glad I wouldn't use a tactic like that.

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Grace Baptist Church
Anne Arundel County, Maryland

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

An infant cannot rebel against his parents, so he is still under the covenant headship of his parent. If they rebel against their parent's faith, they are cut-off from the covenant. So it depends on whether the 50 year old accept or reject the Gospel. Contrary to popular belief, we don't go about and baptize people who are openly rejecting the Gospel, just because their parents are believers.

__________________
Polo
Layman, Chinese Evangelical Church/Independent
San Diego

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. (Romans 11:36)

Thanks for that response. I am still trying to get how the continuity of the covenants work and why you say that Baptists have discontinuity because we wait until a profession of faith occurs.

Abraham circumcised everyone in his household, including Ishmael, whom he knew was not the child of promise. He also circumcised his male servants, etc. Would not continuity in the covenants dictate that baptism should be given to even adult children of converts no matter what their response to the gospel in the hope that the means of grace would work upon them just as it does upon young children? What is the difference?

Forgive me if this sounds like a set-up and you are waiting for me to spring a trap. I am not setting anyone up. I am just trying to fine-tune my understanding based on what I have read in the other threads.

__________________

I'm confused. I thought that a person who was cut off from the covenant people was still in the covenant, they were just breakers of the covenant and would be judged at the end? I think that is what I read.

__________________

Given your hypothetical, and if we grant that there's a connection between OT circumcision and NT baptism, how would this question have been answered in the OT for circumcision? (if a couple in their mid-80's came to the temple...)

Since households were circumcised, for the purpose of your hypothetical, are all the generations living in the same house? I'd assume that typically (at least in our culture) most mid-50 year olds wouldn't be living with their parents, so they'd have their own, separate households. (am I wrong about the extent of households?).

__________________
Bob Howes
Framingham, MA

A reoccurring thought:

Rev 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

In response to your question, I would assume that everyone in that couple's family (who was male) would have also been circumcised. This is what happened to Abraham. This is the example that is used for the Philippian jailer in the corresponding household text for baptism in the NT.

But shouldn't the principle supersede cultural norms of the day? If the promise is to you and to your children, as paedos use Acts 2 to say, should it matter whether the children have, in our culture, moved out of the house or whether it is like the culture of the Old Testament?

__________________

Yes, good point.

From your understanding, how would household have been defined in the OT?

Gen 12:1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will show thee:

Gen 18:19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

When Abraham left his father's house, didn't his family then become a separate household?

__________________
Bob Howes
Framingham, MA

A reoccurring thought:

Rev 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Relatedly, as many Baptists believe, immersion is the only valid method of Baptism. So if an 80 year old sickly woman in the Ukraine in the month of January professed faith, and there were no buildings / indoor plumbing for submersion, would you plunge her into the nearest -20 degree lake?

__________________
Chris Mangum
Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte
student, GPTS
.357 Mangum

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. James 1:27

Isn't this off topic?

__________________
J. M. - Baptist - Ontario, Canada - Feileadh Mor

Abraham was told that Ishmael was not the child of promise, he didn't know whether Ishmael will be cut-off in the future, at the time of circumcision. But that's not really the point, the point is covenant sign is applied based primarily on God's promise and command. God told him to circumcise the whole household, because the promise is not only to Abraham but to his children as well, therefore he did it.

The difference is, we were not told any of his household member rebel against the Lord at the time of circumcision. A similar case can be argued for the cases in Acts, where household baptism was mentioned but no rebellion against the Lord was mentioned.

Esau was in the covenant when he was circumcised. He was cut-off later in life when he rebel against the covenant by marrying pagan and despising his birthright. So, your newborn infant will be considered in the covenant until they show that they are covenant breakers.

Here is my 2 cents. In the Abrahamic covenant, the children were considered in the covenant and receive the covenant sign, they might show that they are covenant breakers later in life by their rebellion, and be cut-off from the covenant. We considered our children to be in the covenant and give them the covenant sign. But you consider your children not in the covenant. Even if they later profess their faith, you still won't consider them to be in the covenant with 100% confidence, because in your view the NC belongs only to the elect (I assume that you haven't change your view on Jer 31).

Hope that I am not too confusing.

__________________
Polo
Layman, Chinese Evangelical Church/Independent
San Diego

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. (Romans 11:36)

-20 degree water? Thinking which I'd prefer - to be dunked, sprinkled, or have it poured on me. Each would involve a (cold) step of faith.

__________________
Bob Howes
Framingham, MA

A reoccurring thought:

Rev 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Hey Pastor Doug,

I would say that the adult child in your example, if still living in the household, should be baptised.

In the case of our Father Abraham he circumcised all males within his houshold. That is, all those who were adults were circumsized based on his "decision" (bad word choice I know). This does not mean that they are passsive recipients. They could have left his "household" rather than submit to this sign. I think (!) that this indicates an acceptance on the part of those capable of "deciding" for themselves.

So I would say that the Abraham circumcision narative tells us that his household consistes of at least 2 and possibly 3 groups;

Group one, is those underage who played no role and recieved circumcision.

Group two, is those of age who submit to the god of Abraham and so recieve the sign.

Group three, is (possibly) those who do not submit and thus leave the household.

__________________
Kevin Rogers
Sovereign Community Church, PCA
Moncton NB

To clarify, Yes the Adult child should be baptised, because an adult, who is under authority, would either accept the faith of his father, or leave the household.

__________________
Kevin Rogers
Sovereign Community Church, PCA
Moncton NB

Yes.

Although it has just as much relevance to the proper subjects of Baptism as the OP.

Now, that I'm thinking about it, what did baptistic sects do during times and at places where there were no baptistries in very cold climates?

__________________
Chris Mangum
Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte
student, GPTS
.357 Mangum

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. James 1:27

I don't know what the sects did, but I know at least some churches waited until they could find warm water. But that's another thread. . . .

__________________
R.Vic Bottomly
Providence Reformed Baptist Church, Tacoma, WA

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Thanks for the humor!

__________________

Just trying to retrace your steps...

Exo 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
Exo 12:49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

In the case of a stranger, in order to keep the passover with the children of Israel, all the males needed to be baptized. Those that weren't, couldn't keep the passover.

Does the Bible say somewhere that the children of a stranger would either have to accept their father's faith, or leave the household?

__________________
Bob Howes
Framingham, MA

A reoccurring thought:

Rev 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.