Wondering what other Paedobaptists believe about punishment for refusing to baptize

Davidius · #1 (**permalink**) 06-23-2008, 08:53 AM

When I began to study paedobaptism I saw that it was linked to God's dealings with Abraham in Genesis 15 and 17. At one point, God promises that those who do not receive the sign of the covenant will be cut off from their people. I am wondering whether the paedobaptists here believe that this is still God's ordinary means of dealing with the Church. Does this warning apply to the children of believers today?

If you answer in the affirmative, do you believe that the modern state of the Church, by which I partially mean the numbers that are leaving in droves, may have something to do, not totally but perhaps to some extent, with the move away from traditional covenant theology toward Baptistic dispensationalism and even "Baptistic covenant theology"?

Semper Fidelis · #2 (**permalink**) 06-23-2008, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davidius

When I began to study paedobaptism I saw that it was linked to God's dealings with Abraham in Genesis 15 and 17. At one point, God promises that those who do not receive the sign of the covenant will be cut off from their people. I am wondering whether the paedobaptists here believe that this is still God's ordinary means of dealing with the Church. Does this warning apply to the children of believers today?

If you answer in the affirmative, do you believe that the modern state of the Church, by which I partially mean the numbers that are leaving in droves, may have something to do, at least in some areas of the Church, with the move away from traditional covenant theology toward Baptistic dispensationalism and even "Baptistic covenant theology"?

On the first question, I think the issue points to willful rebellion - an apostasy in refusing to identify with God's people. I would also point out that the children of the generation in the desert weren't circumcised until they had entered the Promised Land. Had they refused to be circumcised at that point they would have revealed their Apostasy. They had no control, obviously, that their parents had been negligent in circumcising them up to that point.

On the second point, I'm not given to speculate on how Providence works itself out. I think a cause of Evangelical decline is clearly (and always is) related to a lack of diligence in training in the fear and admonition of the Lord but I would be lying if I laid that neglect solely at the feet of credo-Baptists who are, in many cases, more diligent than those who technically confess a paedo-baptist understanding.

Davidius · #3 (**permalink**) 06-23-2008, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davidius

When I began to study paedobaptism I saw that it was linked to God's dealings with Abraham in Genesis 15 and 17. At one point, God promises that those who do not receive the sign of the covenant will be cut off from their people. I am wondering whether the paedobaptists here believe that this is still God's ordinary means of dealing with the Church. Does this warning apply to the children of believers today?

If you answer in the affirmative, do you believe that the modern state of the Church, by which I partially mean the numbers that are leaving in droves, may have something to do, at least in some areas of the Church, with the move away from traditional covenant theology toward Baptistic dispensationalism and even "Baptistic covenant theology"?

On the first question, I think the issue points to willful rebellion - an apostasy in refusing to identify with God's people. I would also point out that the children of the generation in the desert weren't circumcised until they had entered the Promised Land. Had they refused to be circumcised at that point they would have revealed their Apostasy. They had no control, obviously, that their parents had been negligent in circumcising them up to that point.

Thanks, Rich. Your last sentence is something I thought about, too. I wonder whether we aren't programmed to react in shock that God would threaten children because of their parents' neglect. It reminds me, however, of certain impreccatory psalms in which judgment is called down upon the enemies of Israel and their children. Does some kind of qualification need to be made, or do I just have a presupposition that needs to be changed?

What I mean is, I understand that their own refusal to be circumcised once they had such a capacity would have revealed their apostasy, but the threat given to Abraham seems to actually deal with punishment that would affect the next generation because of the parents' neglect.

Quote:

On the second point, I'm not given to speculate on how Providence works itself out. I think a cause of Evangelical decline is clearly (and always is) related to a lack of diligence in training in the fear and admonition of the Lord but I would be lying if I laid that neglect solely at the feet of credo-Baptists who are, in many cases, more diligent than those who technically confess a paedo-baptist understanding.

Certainly! This is why I framed my question to only include some circles. There are surely Paedobaptists who don't teach their children well. On the other hand, is it wrong to speculate on how Providence works itself out? For example, many on this board see the decline of strict subscriptionism as an impetus for decline. In the realm of theology we could look at fundamental departures from certain biblical truths that have caused a disaster in the Church. If the threat mentioned in the first question is for today, could we not point to that as a possible (probable?) cause of decline since it's something that God Himself declared?

Semper Fidelis · #4 (**permalink**) 06-23-2008, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davidius

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davidius

When I began to study paedobaptism I saw that it was linked to God's dealings with Abraham in Genesis 15 and 17. At one point, God promises that those who do not receive the sign of the covenant will be cut off from their people. I am wondering whether the paedobaptists here believe that this is still God's ordinary means of dealing with the Church. Does this warning apply to the children of believers today?

If you answer in the affirmative, do you believe that the modern state of the Church, by which I partially mean the numbers that are leaving in droves, may have something to do, at least in some areas of the Church, with the move away from traditional covenant theology toward Baptistic dispensationalism and even "Baptistic covenant theology"?

On the first question, I think the issue points to willful rebellion - an apostasy in refusing to identify with God's people. I would also point out that the children of the generation in the desert weren't circumcised until they had entered the Promised Land. Had they refused to be circumcised at that point they would have revealed their Apostasy. They had no control, obviously, that their parents had been negligent in circumcising them up to that point.

Thanks, Rich. Your last sentence is something I thought about, too. I wonder whether we aren't programmed to react in shock that God would threaten children because of their parents' neglect. It reminds me, however, of certain impreccatory psalms in which judgment is called down upon the enemies of Israel and their children. Does some kind of qualification need to be made, or do I just have a presupposition that needs to be changed?

What I mean is, I understand that their own refusal to be circumcised once they had such a capacity would have revealed their apostasy, but the threat given to Abraham seems to actually deal with punishment that would affect the next generation because of the parents' neglect.

It seems to me that the warning should not be neglected. I think the threads about Baptism recently and being cut off from the visible Church are apropos here. Apart from the means of Grace we can certainly expect apostasy.

Obviously, if we unpack this a bit we're not going to presume that the mere act of circumcision is missing and that everything else is present in the life of the neglected recipient. Everything is neglected.

I think the fact that the generation that went into the Promised Land is a sign of God's tremendous mercy toward that generation considering the large scale apostasy of their parents. Their parents were used as a byword for Apostasy throughout the Scriptures and especially in the Book of Hebrews where they are paradigmatic of unbelief. I think the obedience of their children was extra-ordinary.