Response to Questions Asked

CalvinandHodges · #1 (**permalink**) 06-18-2008, 11:20 PM

Hi:

On a different thread Jonathan Clemens asked of me a few questions. I started this thread because I did not wish to co-opt that particular thread. He wrote:

Quote:

C&H

I have some Q's about the your following statments. I'm new to the P boards, and don't have much experience with reformed folk... so I'm not much up on this baptism debate .

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

Jesus says that the children of Godly parents are "members of the Kingdom of Heaven," Mt 19:13, Mk 10:13.

Could you please explain to me where you see this in the text?

Mathew 19

13 Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” 15 And He laid His hands on them and departed from there.

Mark 10

13 Then they brought little children to Him, that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked those who brought them. 14 But when Jesus saw it, He was greatly displeased and said to them, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. 15 Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”

It takes humility for a rabi such as Jesus halt His buisy schedule and recieve children. Is it possible that Jesus is telling His desciples that they have to humbly recieve the kingdome of God as they would have to humbly recieve a child?

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges
1 Cor 7:14 - The faith of a believer sanctifies his/her spouse for the sake of their children who are then considered "holy." The word can also be translated "saint."

If we baptisme unbelieving children, should we not also baptise unbelieving spouses too?

Thanks

These are good questions. In partial answer to your first objection I will quote from C.H. Spurgeon's Commentary on Matthew 19:13:

Quote:

We see how gentle was our King in the fact that anyone thought of bringing boys and girls to him. Their friends brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and besow a blessing; and also lift up his hands to God, and pray for them. This was a very natural desire on the part of devout parents, and it showed much faith in the Lord's condescension. We feel sure that the mothers brought them, for still holy women are doing the same, pg. 264.

It seems to me that the great Credo-Baptist (CB) teacher has no complaint against the Paedo-Baptist (PB) view on this text here, and, in fact, agrees with it. What is more interesting is what he says on verse 14:

Quote:

The Lord is more lowly than his servants. He bids them cease to hinder the little children; he calls them to himself; he declares that they are the very kind of people of whom his heavenly kingdom is made up. "Of such is the kingom of heaven" - this is the banner of the Sunday school. Children, and those like them, may freely come into the kingdom of the Lord of heaven; yea, these are the characters who alone can enter into that kingdom, pg. 264,265 bold mine.

I will restate what Spurgeon says here, "Children, and those like them, may freely come into the kingdom of the Lord of heaven." Spurgeon underlines this point by stating that this is "the banner of the Sunday School." In the passage in Mark the word "infants" is used as well as "children."

How do infants "freely come into the kingdom of the Lord of heaven"? We are told in the previous verse that their parents brought them to Jesus. If Children and infants of godly parents can be considered members of the Kingdom of Heaven, then how can you refuse water baptism. If they are members of the Kingdom of Heaven, then should they not then be accounted as members of the Kingdom here on Earth? Which is greater Heaven or Earth?

The PB view is that children and infants are talked about as being members of the Kingdom of God. The CB view is that Jesus is using some kind of metaphor to state that unless you receive the Kingdom like a child or infant, then you cannot enter the Kingdom of God. (It seems to me that if the CB view is all of what Jesus is talking about, then He is being unusually cruel to the godly parents who brought their children to Him to be blessed).

Spurgeon relieves the tension by saying that both views are correct. I agree with Spurgeon on this matter. The logic of Spurgeon's interpretation of this event favors the PB view that Children of godly parent(s) should be baptized.

This leads to your next objection concerning unbelieving spouses in 1 Cor. 7:14:

Quote:

If we baptize unbelieving children, should we not also baptize unbelieving spouses too?

No. There are many different responses to this.

1) Children and spouses are in different relations to each other. Children are under their parents decision-making process. A spouse can make decisions on his/her own.

2) Though the Greek words describing the unbelieving spouse being "sanctified" and the child of a believing parent as "holy" carry the same root word - they do not mean the same thing. The unbelieving parent is hegiastai (Strongs, 37) or, "to make holy" by the believing parent. The child of the believing parent is "hagia" (Strongs, 40) or "holy" or "a saint." In reference to the unbelieving parent it is a ceremonial holiness. In reference to the child of a believing parent it is holiness - or being set apart. The use of the word "hegiastai" indicates an ongoing process:

a) In the Lord's prayer, Luke 11:2, "Hallowed be thy name." Not only now, but forevermore "holiness" be ascribed to Your Name, c.f. John 12:28.

b) The gold of the Temple and the gift thereon, Mat. 23:17.

c) Jesus is "sanctified" by the Father, John 10:36.

d) The believer is being "separated" from the world, John 17:17, 19.

3) The question comes to mind as to why the Holy Spirit, through Paul, used two different words? If the same thing were intended for the unbelieving spouse as it was for the child, then should not the same word be used for both?

4) The word "else" here indicates that Paul is addressing a question concerning the child rather than the unbelieving parent:

Quote:

...the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband, else were your children unclean, but now they are holy.

The rapid growth of the Christian church in the first century would produce an abundance of questions for the Apostles. Clearly, the question of mixed marriages (one Christian, one unbeliever) would be brought up, 1 Cor. 7:12,13. But Paul continues and writes about the status of their children. This is a clear indication that Paul, and the 1st Century Church, were not under the CB conviction of "Believers Only." Because, if the children are now to be considered outside of the New Covenant, then there would be no question or answer concerning their status in the Church. Or, Paul's answer would be something like this:

"Children of a believing parent must first come to faith before they can be considered holy."

There is no indication anywhere in the New Testament that the Church treated its children the way the CB position claims.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

armourbearer · #2 (**permalink**) 06-18-2008, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

I will restate what Spurgeon says here, "Children, and those like them, may freely come into the kingdom of the Lord of heaven." Spurgeon underlines this point by stating that this is "the banner of the Sunday School." In the passage in Mark the word "infants" is used as well as "children."

This is how one can have children in the kingdom but not in the kingdom: by creating a second level kingdom called "children's church."

North Jersey Baptist · #3 (**permalink**) 06-18-2008, 11:35 PM

We have a children's church and I want it abolished.

CalvinandHodges · #4 (**permalink**) 06-18-2008, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

I will restate what Spurgeon says here, "Children, and those like them, may freely come into the kingdom of the Lord of heaven." Spurgeon underlines this point by stating that this is "the banner of the Sunday School." In the passage in Mark the word "infants" is used as well as "children."

This is how one can have children in the kingdom but not in the kingdom: by creating a second level kingdom called "children's church."

Is a "children's church" not an attempt to ignore the very weight of the Scripture passages in question?

Thanks,

-CH

Barnpreacher · #5 (**permalink**) 06-18-2008, 11:42 PM

I got an invite to a meeting this weekend in my area that Don Fortner would be speaking at. I was somewhat intrigued and perhaps willing to go until I read this part of the announcement:

Quote:

Two separated nurseries are available for infants and toddlers age 4 and under. We insist ALL children under the age of 4 be in the nursery!

(The bold was their emphasis, not mine.)

I hope they have a nice meeting.

North Jersey Baptist · #6 (**permalink**) 06-18-2008, 11:42 PM

Actually, it's a babysitting service. Parents want to worship without distraction so they ship their kids into children's church.

North Jersey Baptist · #7 (**permalink**) 06-18-2008, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

I got an invite to a meeting this weekend in my area that Don Fortner would be speaking at. I was somewhat intrigued and perhaps willing to go until I read this part of the announcement:

Quote:

Two separated nurseries are available for infants and toddlers age 4 and under. We insist ALL children under the age of 4 be in the nursery!

(The bold was their emphasis, not mine.)

I hope they have a nice meeting.

I'm fine with the nurseries. The insisting part? I wouldn't go either.

armourbearer · #8 (**permalink**) 06-18-2008, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

I will restate what Spurgeon says here, "Children, and those like them, may freely come into the kingdom of the Lord of heaven." Spurgeon underlines this point by stating that this is "the banner of the Sunday School." In the passage in Mark the word "infants" is used as well as "children."

This is how one can have children in the kingdom but not in the kingdom: by creating a second level kingdom called "children's church."

Is a "children's church" not an attempt to ignore the very weight of the Scripture passages in question?

I think it is. Imagine trying to recast the NT teaching of the kingdom so as to make it fit within this two-storey dimension. It is impossible. Almost like trying to make some passages refer to the church and others to the kingdom, as in dispensationalism.

Pilgrim · #9 (**permalink**) 06-19-2008, 12:16 AM

For the record, Charles Spurgeon said of Mark 10: 13-16: THIS TEXT HAS NOT THE SHADOW OF THE SHADE OF THE GHOST OF A CONNECTION WITH BAPTISM. (emphasis his.)

Here is the full text of his sermon: Children Brought to Christ, and Not to the Font

Daniel Ritchie · #10 (**permalink**) 06-19-2008, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

For the record, Charles Spurgeon said of Mark 10: 13-16: THIS TEXT HAS NOT THE SHADOW OF THE SHADE OF THE GHOST OF A CONNECTION WITH BAPTISM. (emphasis his.)

Here is the full text of his sermon: Children Brought to Christ, and Not to the Font

Yes, but the idea that children can be in the eternal kingdom, but not in the visible church (and thus not entitled to the sign of entrance into the visible church) is not logical.

CalvinandHodges · #11 (**permalink**) 06-19-2008, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

For the record, Charles Spurgeon said of Mark 10: 13-16: THIS TEXT HAS NOT THE SHADOW OF THE SHADE OF THE GHOST OF A CONNECTION WITH BAPTISM. (emphasis his.)

Here is the full text of his sermon: Children Brought to Christ, and Not to the Font

I agree, Baptism is not specifically mentioned in the text at all - probably because Jesus did not baptize anyone.

What it does state is that children of believing parent(s) are considered members of the Kingdom of Heaven. This is a premise of an argument used by Paedo-Baptists to prove Baptism:

1) Children of believers are considered members of the Kingdom of Heaven.
2) Baptism indicates membership in the Kingdom of Heaven.
3) Therefore, Children of believers should be baptized.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Blessings,

-CH

CalvinandHodges · #12 (**permalink**) 06-19-2008, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

For the record, Charles Spurgeon said of Mark 10: 13-16: THIS TEXT HAS NOT THE SHADOW OF THE SHADE OF THE GHOST OF A CONNECTION WITH BAPTISM. (emphasis his.)

Here is the full text of his sermon: Children Brought to Christ, and Not to the Font

Yes, but the idea that children can be in the eternal kingdom, but not in the visible church (and thus not entitled to the sign of entrance into the visible church) is not logical.

You and I think too much alike - it is scary.

Daniel Ritchie · #13 (**permalink**) 06-19-2008, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

For the record, Charles Spurgeon said of Mark 10: 13-16: THIS TEXT HAS NOT THE SHADOW OF THE SHADE OF THE GHOST OF A CONNECTION WITH BAPTISM. (emphasis his.)

Here is the full text of his sermon: Children Brought to Christ, and Not to the Font

Yes, but the idea that children can be in the eternal kingdom, but not in the visible church (and thus not entitled to the sign of entrance into the visible church) is not logical.

You and I think too much alike - it is scary.

North Jersey Baptist · #14 (**permalink**) 06-19-2008, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

For the record, Charles Spurgeon said of Mark 10: 13-16: THIS TEXT HAS NOT THE SHADOW OF THE SHADE OF THE GHOST OF A CONNECTION WITH BAPTISM. (emphasis his.)

Here is the full text of his sermon: Children Brought to Christ, and Not to the Font

Yes, but the idea that children can be in the eternal kingdom, but not in the visible church (and thus not entitled to the sign of entrance into the visible church) is not logical.

Brother Daniel, the sign is for those who have believed. You know the Baptist stand on that.

History is not without those who have enjoyed benefits of a thing without being identified with that thing. Citizenship is an imperfect example. If you legally immigrated to the United States you would be considered a legal alien. You could enjoy the some of the benefits of this country, but not all. You could not vote, own a handgun, hold public office etc. until you were naturalized. If you bring minor children with you they will enjoy limited benefits as well. It's an imperfect example because all analogies fail.

We will baptize upon a credible profession of faith. It matters not whether the profession is made by a child or an adult. If it is credible baptism will be administered. I believe it is logical because I also believe Baptists have scriptural warrant. To go into that warrant now will just cover ground that has been tread on ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

Daniel Ritchie · #15 (**permalink**) 06-19-2008, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

For the record, Charles Spurgeon said of Mark 10: 13-16: THIS TEXT HAS NOT THE SHADOW OF THE SHADE OF THE GHOST OF A CONNECTION WITH BAPTISM. (emphasis his.)

Here is the full text of his sermon: Children Brought to Christ, and Not to the Font

Yes, but the idea that children can be in the eternal kingdom, but not in the visible church (and thus not entitled to the sign of entrance into the visible church) is not logical.

Brother Daniel, the sign is for those who have believed. You know the Baptist stand on that.

History is not without those who have enjoyed benefits of a thing without being identified with that thing. Citizenship is an imperfect example. If you legally immigrated to the United States you would be considered a legal alien. You could enjoy the some of the benefits of this country, but not all. You could not vote, own a handgun, hold public office etc. until you were naturalized. If you bring minor children with you they will enjoy limited benefits as well. It's an imperfect example because all analogies fail.

We will baptize upon a credible profession of faith. It matters not whether the profession is made by a child or an adult. If it is credible baptism will be administered. I believe it is logical because I also believe Baptists have scriptural warrant. To go into that warrant now will just cover ground that has been tread on ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

But again Bill you have to face the problem that infants can be part of the invisible church, but not part of the visible church.

FWIW, I believe that infants are not entitled to all privileges of the visible church - they are not allowed to take communion or vote in elections. But being members, they must be baptized, because the idea of an unbaptized church member is a contradiction in terms.

North Jersey Baptist · #16 (**permalink**) 06-19-2008, 12:47 PM

Daniel, all of us would love to have all weak points of our arguments glossed over by ourselves or others. I think our respect for one another would increase exponentially if we were willing to call attention to our weak points. That's not commonplace in theological discussion because we are often centered on being right.

A question that Baptist needs to address is whether an infant or child is part of the visible church. Indeed, is the idea of a visible church a classic Baptist distinctive? I won't answer that right now because I'll have to plead ignorance. Allow me time to do my homework.

Daniel Ritchie · #17 (**permalink**) 06-19-2008, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Daniel, all of us would love to have all weak points of our arguments glossed over by ourselves or others. I think our respect for one another would increase exponentially if we were willing to call attention to our weak points. That's not commonplace in theological discussion because we are often centered on being right.

A question that Baptist needs to address is whether an infant or child is part of the visible church. Indeed, is the idea of a visible church a classic Baptist distinctive? I won't answer that right now because I'll have to plead ignorance. Allow me time to do my homework.

FWIW I rarely opine on baptism threads as I think that both sides can make an idol out of the doctrine. I do not know what has come over me recently.

Backwoods Presbyterian · #18 (**permalink**) 06-19-2008, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Daniel, all of us would love to have all weak points of our arguments glossed over by ourselves or others. I think our respect for one another wo