A Question for my Credo-Baptist Brethren

[Gryphonette]

Keep in mind that at home we have one unsaved 16 year old Russian boy who's only been home a little over three years.

So my situation's a bit different, I daresay, that most everyone else's here.

I think I'm training Dmitry "in the LORD" by telling Him about God the Father, His Son, the Holy Spirit, Dmitry's (and our!) need of a Savior, God's commandments and expectations for ALL His creation, etc.

He isn't permitted to play "M" rated video games, for instance (and to his disgust, as "all his friends at school" get to do so), for I don't believe the LORD approves of them. What movies and television are permitted is based on what is pleasing to the LORD. On the rare occasions he gets snippy with me he's rebuked based upon "Honor thy father and thy mother", which is surely an across-the-board commandment, applicable to everyone on the planet, in Christ or not. Even though he's not a professed Christian he's stuck attending "chapel" (to use his term) whether he wants to or not (he doesn't...it has been one of the most intense points of friction in the family since his arrival) because this is a CHRISTIAN family and our children living in our house attend church with us.

We cannot force him to turn to Christ in faith but by jingo, we can make sure he knows Whom he's rejecting.

Which is a depressing thought, but my first allegiance is to God, which entails making sure He is talked about to anyone who'll stay put long enough to let me do it, and that most definitely includes Dmitry.

Maybe this doesn't fit your definition of raising a child "in the LORD" however?

I can't think what else I can do, other than what we're doing. We certainly don't tell him "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life."

We do tell Dmitry that God has sovereignly placed him so he can learn the truth about Him, and that being taught this truth places him under a greater obligation than if he'd remained in Russia. This warning is softened by pointing out this is a sign of favor by the LORD toward him, and that we are hopeful the LORD will enable him to turn to Him in faith, and we regularly pray for his salvation.

How this fits within your personal framework, I don't know. He's our child, exactly as much as our other five biological children; out of curiosity, would you count him - a nonbelieving 16 year old - as being in the Covenant, since his parents are believers?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Anne,

I'll break my rule in this thread for this case and offer my thoughts.

Keep in mind that at home we have one unsaved 16 year old Russian boy who's only been home a little over three years.

So my situation's a bit different, I daresay, that most everyone else's here.

I think I'm training Dmitry "in the LORD" by telling Him about God the Father, His Son, the Holy Spirit, Dmitry's (and our!) need of a Savior, God's commandments and expectations for ALL His creation, etc.

He isn't permitted to play "M" rated video games, for instance (and to his disgust, as "all his friends at school" get to do so), for I don't believe the LORD approves of them. What movies and television are permitted is based on what is pleasing to the LORD. On the rare occasions he gets snippy with me he's rebuked based upon "Honor thy father and thy mother", which is surely an across-the-board commandment, applicable to everyone on the planet, in Christ or not. Even though he's not a professed Christian he's stuck attending "chapel" (to use his term) whether he wants to or not (he doesn't...it has been one of the most intense points of friction in the family since his arrival) because this is a CHRISTIAN family and our children living in our house attend church with us.

We cannot force him to turn to Christ in faith but by jingo, we can make sure he knows Whom he's rejecting.

Which is a depressing thought, but my first allegiance is to God, which entails making sure He is talked about to anyone who'll stay put long enough to let me do it, and that most definitely includes Dmitry.

Maybe this doesn't fit your definition of raising a child "in the LORD" however?

I think it differs a bit in his case. You cannot control the previous circumstances that he found himself by the Providence of God but think about the beautiful Providence that landed him in the home of believers.

I can't think what else I can do, other than what we're doing. We certainly don't tell him "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life."

I agree that the Gospel is not "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life." You can speak of the benevolence of God that placed him in your home.

We do tell Dmitry that God has sovereignly placed him so he can learn the truth about Him, and that being taught this truth places him under a greater obligation than if he'd remained in Russia. This warning is softened by pointing out this is a sign of favor by the LORD toward him, and that we are hopeful the LORD will enable him to turn to Him in faith, and we regularly pray for his salvation.

How this fits within your personal framework, I don't know. He's our child, exactly as much as our other five biological children; out of curiosity, would you count him - a nonbelieving 16 year old - as being in the Covenant, since his parents are believers?

I don't believe it's a personal framework of mine.

I think the idea of a blessed Providence is a sound one. He's old enough to speak for himself to the Elders that he does not have faith in Christ. God has brought him this far and means of Grace are before him constantly.

I do have much hope for Dmitry due to the blessed Providence of God. I will be praying for him.

 

[satz]

Not really. What is the "real and meaningful" sense? Where do you get your category for a child of a believer from the New Testament? The Old Covenant family had Covenantal status and parents were held directly responsible for their children's apostasy. How do you appeal to those passages when you've grown to a new and better Covenant that the kids aren't in?

I would say basically that since the bible commands fathers (and parents) to raise their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, it is not an unreasonable assumption to believe there is an inherent promise that if fathers obey the command, they will be able to achieve the results, ie the child will grow up as someone who fears the Lord. For this reason, I believe Christian parents can still trust in the promises and commands given by the Lord about child training, whether in proverbs or the other narrative examples in the Old Testament, regardless of the fact that their children are not automatically considered part of the church as they were in the Old Testament.

Though I am open to correction, I do not at this point in time see a contradiction between that and the denial of baptism or church membership to children before they profess faith in Christ. Children were given the sign of circumcision in the OT, but the NT specifically rejects circumcision as having any more relevance for Christians. Even if you view baptism as the ‘new’ circumcision, I think you must still admit God has changed the ordinance in between the two Testaments. One involves cutting of a part of a male child, the other involves water and a child of any sex. Likewise it is God’s right to change other aspects of the ordinance, including when a child will receive it. Neither the acts of circumcision or baptism – the removal of the foreskin or getting a child wet – have any inherent spiritual benefit. They have only whatever significance God assigns to them. If God does not intend for a child to receive baptism until he or she makes a profession of faith, the child cannot be disadvantaged in anyway. Hence I do not see it as inconsistent that God can change the timing of when the children receive baptism while at the same time keeping intact the principle of child training.

 

[Gryphonette]

We appreciate your prayers, Rich. ;^)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Mark,

I don't want to ignore you. I'll respond and then I need to hit the rack. I'm beat.

I would say basically that since the bible commands fathers (and parents) to raise their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, it is not an unreasonable assumption to believe there is an inherent promise that if fathers obey the command, they will be able to achieve the results, ie the child will grow up as someone who fears the Lord. For this reason, I believe Christian parents can still trust in the promises and commands given by the Lord about child training, whether in proverbs or the other narrative examples in the Old Testament, regardless of the fact that their children are not automatically considered part of the church as they were in the Old Testament.

Why does a command to raise your children in the fear and admonition of the Lord that was given to one category of father-son relationship (Old Covenant - fathers in, sons in) apply to you in this completely new and different category of father-son relationship (New Covenant - fathers in, sons out)? Why, if you argue that things are new, changed, and better must I assume that the father-son relationship remains in stasis regarding this promise? Where do you find the Scriptural warrant to exclude training from the list of changes?

Children were given the sign of circumcision in the OT, but the NT specifically rejects circumcision as having any more relevance for Christians. Even if you view baptism as the ‘new’ circumcision, I think you must still admit God has changed the ordinance in between the two Testaments. One involves cutting of a part of a male child, the other involves water and a child of any sex. Likewise it is God’s right to change other aspects of the ordinance, including when a child will receive it.

Where do you go to find the didactic passage that tell you that God changed the ordinance regarding when children receive the sign?

Neither the acts of circumcision or baptism – the removal of the foreskin or getting a child wet – have any inherent spiritual benefit. They have only whatever significance God assigns to them. If God does not intend for a child to receive baptism until he or she makes a profession of faith, the child cannot be disadvantaged in anyway. Hence I do not see it as inconsistent that God can change the timing of when the children receive baptism while at the same time keeping intact the principle of child training.

So can I sum this up: you seem to have a Scriptural warrant for the idea that Sacramental administration is delayed and a Scriptural warrant that training is not. Is that correct? Given the list of changes you've enumerated, can you point me to the passages that you appeal to in order to determine what's still in and what's out?

 

[non dignus]

Thoughts on covenant children:

As a Baptist, I see that God has blessed my children by providentially placing them in my home under the use of means, such as prayer and Bible readings. There is nothing in the bloodline and nothing ontological about being a "covenant" child.

In fact, when the Muslims took over huge swaths of Europe and carted off Europe's children as slaves, concubines and janisseries, these children did not magically become more receptive to Christianity due to being an ontological covenant child. Once the nurture of a Christian home was removed providentially, these children became Muslim.

Here's an experiment: Take a bunch of mixed orphans, some from Muslim families and some from Christian families from birth. Raise them all in a Christian home. Statistically I would challenge you to show a difference. Or, take a bunch and put them in Muslim homes. From birth. God, having providentially allowed the external cirucmstances, which include religious instruction, will produce results that reflect those providential circumstances.

Good point, Trevor.

Is it then correct to say that the covenant household is a means of grace?


(justing ducking in here while Rich is asleep)

 

[non dignus]

Hello non dignus:

What would you mean by "means of grace"..is it sacramental in some way?

Would a Christian friend who lives near you also be considered a means of grace then? Or living in a Christian country? Every way in which God makes his Word known consistently would then have to be defined as a means by which God gives His grace.

No, not sacramental.

Right. Anyone bringing the gospel would be a means of grace. You and I agree that God gives special blessing to those born into covenant households. Paul calls them 'holy'. 1 Cor 7

 

[non dignus]

14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

Resolved: covenant households are a special means of grace.

 

[Gryphonette]

I don't think that necessarily follows.

14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

Resolved: covenant households are a special means of grace.

"Holy" and "sanctified" can mean 'set apart from the general mass of humanity' as regards knowledge of the LORD, from what I understand.

When Dmitry was adopted and brought to America when he was 13 years old, and exposed to the gospel, this was sovereignly arranged by God. Most other kids at the orphanage were not "set apart" in a similar manner.

The LORD dealt with Dmitry differently than he did poor Vitaly, who came over with a Bright Futures' camp but was never adopted (he's now too old).

It seems to me this type of "set apart" is essentially an increased responsibility to turn to Christ in faith. Certainly someone living in a Christian home (whether spouse or child) has a familiarity with the things of God in a way someone living in a remote village in New Guinea does not, so for the former to "reject so great a salvation" will increase their condemnation at judgment.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

No more Paedo commentary in this thread. Gotta run but any "debates" in here with Paedobaptists coming in and offering their rebukes of Baptist thought will be deleted. We managed to go 100 posts and 2 days before this began.

 

[tellville]

I'm sure this has been brought up elsewhere, but I would like your take Rich.

If you were to adopt a child from a staunchly atheistic family, say a 10 day old infant, would you instruct him in the ways of the Lord? This child is not in the covenant as it is a child of a non-covenantal family. So, given from the way your questions have been worded, if you were to instruct this child in the ways of the Lord, you would have no scriptural support to do so, at least this seems what you think about Baptists teaching their children the ways of the Lord.

If I am totally missing the point with this question, please let me know! It just seems that the point you are trying to get across to us Baptists is that we have no scriptural support for teaching our non-covenant children the ways of the Lord and thus are borrowing from the Padeo worldview to do so.

So, to sum up: A non-covenantal child is approaching you at 50 mph - what do you do?

 

[Gryphonette]

I'm not Rich, obviously, but having adopted (okay, fine, he was 13 years old instead of 10 days old), I'd say the question isn't valid since once the child is adopted he is a member of his adopted family.

Meaning, if he's adopted into a Christian, covenantal family, then whatever applies to the family's biological children (if any) now applies to him.

 

[staythecourse]

Ignorant question

A young man asked this question on another thread and I have wanted to ask at a good time.

Why did the Lord instruct Abraham to circumcise Isaac? What covenant did he fall into since he received the sign yet was "hated" by God - temporal blessings aside. He DID go to hell correct?

This thread is being very helpful to me.

 

[MrMerlin777]

A young man asked this question on another thread and I have wanted to ask at a good time.

Why did the Lord instruct Abraham to circumcise Isaac? What covenant did he fall into since he received the sign yet was "hated" by God - temporal blessings aside. He DID go to hell correct?

This thread is being very helpful to me.

Are you refering to Isaac or Ishmael?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm sure this has been brought up elsewhere, but I would like your take Rich.

If you were to adopt a child from a staunchly atheistic family, say a 10 day old infant, would you instruct him in the ways of the Lord? This child is not in the covenant as it is a child of a non-covenantal family. So, given from the way your questions have been worded, if you were to instruct this child in the ways of the Lord, you would have no scriptural support to do so, at least this seems what you think about Baptists teaching their children the ways of the Lord.

If I am totally missing the point with this question, please let me know! It just seems that the point you are trying to get across to us Baptists is that we have no scriptural support for teaching our non-covenant children the ways of the Lord and thus are borrowing from the Padeo worldview to do so.

I'm not necessarily saying you have no Scriptural support. I'm asking the Baptists to provide one if they have it.

So, to sum up: A non-covenantal child is approaching you at 50 mph - what do you do?

I'd probably have to duck so I didn't get hurt by all the kinetic energy of a body travelling at 50 mph.

I didn't answer Anne's question to have a line of hypotheticals open up. If I answer the question according to a paedo worldview then it defeats the purpose of this thread.

If you adopted a child from an atheist household that was 10 days old, what would you do any different than the child that was born, naturally, to you?

I will tell you that I have an adopted sister and I've never thought of her as anything other than my sister.

 

[tellville]

I'm not Rich, obviously, but having adopted (okay, fine, he was 13 years old instead of 10 days old), I'd say the question isn't valid since once the child is adopted he is a member of his adopted family.

Meaning, if he's adopted into a Christian, covenantal family, then whatever applies to the family's biological children (if any) now applies to him.

This just blows me away. But I must admit the answer is consistent with the Padeo worldview. I feel dumb for not noticing such an obvious consistent answer!

I also believe instructing my children in the ways of the Lord, even though they have shown no sign of being in the New Covenant, is Biblical (for reasons shown by my very capable Baptist brethren). Assuming Baptist theology, I do not think Rich would find it Biblically inconsistent for me to teach toddlers in the streets about Christ, so why would the children in my own home be an exception? How do I have Biblical warrant to teach other children but not my own?

I realize Rich you are in no way saying that we Baptists should not train our kids in the ways of Lord, but rather you are saying we have no Biblical warrant to do so. Would you think it without Biblical warrant for me to teach toddlers in the street about Christ, and if not, how are they different from my own children (besides the fact that I don't have any!)?

 

[Gryphonette]

I wouldn't have thought that was a paedo worldview, particularly. Scripture refers to believers as God's 'adopted sons' (and daughters, of course), so we have a share in Christ's inheritance.

Reflecting on my status as God's adopted child is even more meaningful since we adopted Dmitry. ;^)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I realize Rich you are in no way saying that we Baptists should not train our kids in the ways of Lord, but rather you are saying we have no Biblical warrant to do so.

No, I'm asking you what you think your Biblical warrant is.

Would you think it without Biblical warrant for me to teach toddlers in the street about Christ, and if not, how are they different from my own children (besides the fact that I don't have any!)?

The real question for you to consider is this: Do you have the same responsiblity, before God, for the toddler in the street that you do for the toddler in your household?

 

[tellville]

Good point Anne.

The real question for you to consider is this: Do you have the same responsiblity, before God, for the toddler in the street that you do for the toddler in your household?

Rich, while I think your question is a good one, I don't think answering my question with a question answers my question! So I still await your answer on that one, so I can better understand the critique being leveled.

Now for your question: Yes and no. As Christians, we have a responsibility to bring the Gospel to everyone, and everyone we pass over on telling the Gospel to, depending on the reasons why, will result in judgment. So, in that sense, yes.

However, in another sense, no. My children will live in my household. I am in constant contact with them. The Lord has entrusted me with these children. Thus, just as the servants with the talents, how I handle what the Lord has entrusted me with will be judged higher then how I handle things (in this case people) not directly entrusted to my care.

It seems to me that to not train my children in the ways of the Lord, when it was the Lord Himself who gave them to me, seems contra-Biblical, regardless if they are in the Covenant or not.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It seems like you just answered the question for me. The neighbor's toddler may be like your own but he's not your responsibility to train.

I didn't ask the question to critique and have not leveled any critiques here. I've certain leveled them in other threads but I'm letting the Baptists do the talking here and merely trying to clarify their positions and asking questions based on the consequences of their responses.

 

[satz]

Rich,

Do forgive my slow response.

Why does a command to raise your children in the fear and admonition of the Lord that was given to one category of father-son relationship (Old Covenant - fathers in, sons in) apply to you in this completely new and different category of father-son relationship (New Covenant - fathers in, sons out)? Why, if you argue that things are new, changed, and better must I assume that the father-son relationship remains in stasis regarding this promise? Where do you find the Scriptural warrant to exclude training from the list of changes?

The passage I was referring to was Eph 6, which is a New Testament epistle. So I would say we can tell directly that God is telling us right here that the parent child relationship still continues into the New Testament regardless of other changes that might have occurred between Old and New Testaments. I would also note that Paul refers here back to the ten commandments (ie an OT command about children and parents) in his command to children, which I would take as additional evidence that in this area – parent/child relations – there is continuity between both Testaments.

Ephesians 6:1-4 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise; ) That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

Where do you go to find the didactic passage that tell you that God changed the ordinance regarding when children receive the sign?

So can I sum this up: you seem to have a Scriptural warrant for the idea that Sacramental administration is delayed and a Scriptural warrant that training is not. Is that correct? Given the list of changes you've enumerated, can you point me to the passages that you appeal to in order to determine what's still in and what's out?

As you yourself said, you were starting this thread so you could see the logical consistency (or inconsistency) of Baptist reasoning. Hence I wrote that passage more as a hypothetical to make a logical point. I used the idea of God changing the sign because I think it is one that many (some?) Presbyterians hold to. My own belief, at the moment, is not that God ‘changed’ the sign but rather that circumcision and baptism are two unrelated ordinances. They might have some logical relationship we can see, but I do not believe they are related in the sense of baptism being the NT circumcision. I believe that under the OT God have circumcision as a sign to his people, but it ended with the coming of the NT.

Galatians 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

Galatians 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

Romans 2:28-29 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Basically the story in Acts 15, though I cannot think of a good representative verse.

I then see that at the starting of the New Testament men started to be baptized, a new ordinance, which required faith and repentance before it was administered.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:


Hence I would base my position on three separate facts I see from the bible:

1) The New Testament presumes the continuance of OT principles regarding child training.

2) The New Testament states that circumcision is no longer an ordinance of God’s religion after the coming of Jesus Christ.

3) The New Testament introduces baptism, and states that faith and repentance are to come before its administration.

 

[tellville]

Rich,

I'm glad your questions have been answered! I found this thread very informative and thought provoking. Kudos to all those involved!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Ephesians 6:1-4 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise; ) That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

Hence I would base my position on three separate facts I see from the bible:

1) The New Testament presumes the continuance of OT principles regarding child training.

2) The New Testament states that circumcision is no longer an ordinance of God’s religion after the coming of Jesus Christ.

3) The New Testament introduces baptism, and states that faith and repentance are to come before its administration.

This is what I have a hard time connecting. I know you quoted the Ephesians 6 passage but that's a re-statement of OT language and bound up in the Covenant. Nothing new is presented there, except Paul targums a land promise as a spiritual promise.

All of the training and nurturing principles that you state are carried over were bound up in the Covenant. In other words, Fathers were expected to train and nurture as a Covenant obligation and children were expected to obey as part of their Covenant obligation. How do you see the obligation to train and the obligation to obey to exist divorced from their Covenantal mooring?

In other words, you're not merely stating proposition 1) above but you're saying that the command to nurture in the Lord continues as before except there is no Covenantal obligation on the part of the child anymore for they are not part of it. How do you account for this? Is there, at least, a Covenant obligation on the part of the father even though he has no Covenantal connection with his child anymore?

 

[satz]

Rich,

Keep in mind I would still consider myself in the process of learning. Not that I find any reason to doubt my beliefs on baptism at the moment, but my participation in this thread is not to try to be a teacher, but to also see if there are any inconsistencies in what I believe.

I know this answer may not be very satisfactory, but I would simply say God tells, me in the New Testament that the training and nurturing principles still apply. Hence regardless of what changes might have occurred in the administration of the Covenant between testaments, I can trust God that my child training need not be in vain. I believe by Paul giving this command, and using the langugue of the an OT command, God is telling us that child training as thought by the OT did not go out the window when the New Testament came in.

I would also note that while I do not believe children are in covenant with God before faith in the same way as they would have been in the Old Testament – they are not considered church members from birth – but the relationship between parents and child is not something I believe is inherently tied up with God’s covenant with his OT people. So to be disobedient to one’s parents was a sin even for gentiles under none of the OT covenant obligations. Likewise parent’s obligation to their children is, I believe something tied up in the moral way God created the world and not restricted to any of the covenants between God and his people in the OT. Off course the specific detail that parents should raise their children to fear God is part of the covenantal obligations, but like I said, that is expressly repeated in the NT.

Consider also 1 Cor 7:14 “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.”

Firstly, I would not care in this thread to comment upon what I means for the children to be holy, but just to focus on the what it says about the spouse. To my knowledge, paedobaptists would not claim an adult, unbelieving spouse is in covenant with God simply by virtue of marriage to a Christian. But the verse says they are sanctified. So I would use this just to prove the logical point that it does matter that one is in a Christian family. To phrase it another way, in an earlier post on this thread you asked the question: where do you get this half-way kind of category (my langugue, not yours) where a Baptist child is not yet in covenant with God, yet God considers him special in some way such that the parents can call upon the promises and commands regarding child training. So I would use this verse to say such a proposition is not inherently inconsistent with the scriptures. But I would not use this verse to explain exactly what is a Baptist child’s standing before God. Again, I would go back to Eph 6- God tells his or her parents to bring him or her up the fear and nurture of the Lord.

As a final note, and I am just thinking out loud here, logically speaking, what really matters is if a child is elect or not, right? And being a member of the external covenant cannot affect the fact of a child’s election at all. So what benefit can a child gain from being a member of the external covenant? My answer would be, what ever benefit God says he or she gets. My point being, logically speaking, there is no necessary disadvantage a child has by having his or her inclusion into the external covenant delayed, if that delay is something which God himself introduced. It would be a disadvantage – a tempting of God by the parents – in the OT since God commanded their inclusion under that testament. But if he has changed the administration under the new, there is no inherent disadvantage to the child. And I believe it is not inconsistent to say God has the right to change the administration in such a way, if he pleases. (Paedobaptists would, off course, disagree that he did.)