Baptism trend in the SBC

[Bill The Baptist]

Here is an interesting article about the troubling trend of baptizing children under 5 years old in the SBC. I use the word troubling because such baptisms qualify as neither paedobaptism nor credobaptism and seem to be a relatively new phenomenon. I cannot think of any good reason to baptize a four year old since they would be too young to make a credible profession of faith and too old to be a candidate for any type of infant baptism. I'm curious to know what others think of this. http://betweenthetimes.com/index.php/2016/09/02/in-case-you-missed-it-100/

 

[Edward]

I recall being corrected here several years ago when I expressed concern about baptizing walking children (I don't recall how I characterized it at the time; certainly not in that fashion) and was told that the age in question would fall within the historic understanding of 'infant'. So there isn't any issue of recognizing the baptism of a previously unbaptized 5 year old as infant baptism. (In our church, such baptisms usually occur when the parents join from a Baptist or Bible church. Rarely, it will occur in connection with the baptism of the parents upon their profession).

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I recall being corrected here several years ago when I expressed concern about baptizing walking children (I don't recall how I characterized it at the time; certainly not in that fashion) and was told that the age in question would fall within the historic understanding of 'infant'. So there isn't any issue of recognizing the baptism of a previously unbaptized 5 year old as infant baptism. (In our church, such baptisms usually occur when the parents join from a Baptist or Bible church. Rarely, it will occur in connection with the baptism of the parents upon their profession).

Thank you Edward. I was not aware of that. Regardless, it is still problematic within the context of the SBC since these baptisms are not being performed under any kind of paedobaptistic understanding.

 

[Tyrese]

Here is an interesting article about the troubling trend of baptizing children under 5 years old in the SBC. I use the word troubling because such baptisms qualify as neither paedobaptism nor credobaptism and seem to be a relatively new phenomenon. I cannot think of any good reason to baptize a four year old since they would be too young to make a credible profession of faith and too old to be a candidate for any type of infant baptism. I'm curious to know what others think of this. http://betweenthetimes.com/index.php/2016/09/02/in-case-you-missed-it-100/

This is one of those issues that causes me question the validity of believers (only) baptism. There's so much confusion in Baptist circles when it comes to who should and should not be baptised. The funny thing is Baptist spend so much time criticizing Paedobaptist without realizing they share many of the same problems. For example, one Church says a qualified candidate ought to be a 'young adult' (giving no specifics), while another will say a candidate must at least be 10 years of age. My question is who determines these things? Brothers say 'we have to be wise', ignoring the fact that the Bible offers no practical wisdom on the matter. I've wondered for a long time if Baptist make baptism more important than everything else?

If a 5yr old says 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God', who are we to say the confession is false? Maybe it is, but we don't know that. In fact we can never know that. Is it not our duty to disciple our Children just like every other man or woman who professes Christ? This idea that people have to prove they are Christians by bearing all of this fruit as NEW Christians is silly to me.

I'm a Baptist but I refuse to ignore these words: 'And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.'

 

[Romans922]

I'm not a baptist but how could you actually say this? Why can't a 4 year old make a credible profession of faith? Is there an age in Scripture that one has to be older than to be able to give a 'credible profession of faith'?

I cannot think of any good reason to baptize a four year old since they would be too young to make a credible profession of faith

 

[Parakaleo]

The way that Confessional Presbyterians fence the Lord's Table is basically the way that Baptists, according to their theology, "fence" the Baptismal waters. Those who are found "ignorant" or "scandalous" should be denied. Many Presbyterian churches admit young children to the Table who give professions of faith that would be seen credible, and rejoiced over, if coming from a 50-year-old. These should never be confused with paedocommunionists.

I think (for Presbyterians and Baptists alike) this becomes a problem when the children are so young there is no way to really know if the profession is sincere, conscious assent and trust vs. parroting answers. I don't like putting a number on it, but I will agree with the OP that professions of faith would be incredibly difficult to judge as credible from children under five years old.

 

[toddpedlar]

Is it still the case today in the SBC (I presume it is decidedly not in confessional Baptist churches) for young children, before they are baptized, to partake of the Lord's Supper? When I was growing up in a baptist church in the 1970's, I never was baptized (until we moved to a Lutheran church, and I was baptized upon profession at the age of 14) but took the Lord's Supper, with the approbation of the pastor and all, for years before that - as did all of my friends that had yet to make profession in that church. Were we just quirky, or is this common outside of the 1689ers?

 

[DMcFadden]

In my experience (four of my adult children are in non-denom (baptistic) churches), any Sunday school kid of 4 or 5 can say "I want Jesus in my heart" parroting what their teachers and parents coach them to say. Increasingly they become the subjects of baptism at much earlier ages than what they taught me growing up in a Baptist church. All of my 11 grandkids old enough to walk and talk have been encouraged by their parents to make such professions. And, if memory serves me, most of them were baptized by the time they reached age 6. A few of them are not to that age yet, so we will see how their parents and pastors handle it for them.

During my three decades as a Baptist pastor, I always refused to baptize young children. 9 was about the limit of my comfort. My argument was that since baptism was "merely symbolic" it would not hurt to wait until a child was old enough to truly know what he or she was doing.

Now, as a paedobaptist, such arguments ring hollow. However, here the practice in the churches is running contrary to the theology of good paedobaptists and credobaptists alike. It would not seem to be driven by a desire to bolster the baptismal stats. Baptist pastors I know have more integrity than that! But, after WWII we live in an age when denominational affiliation is fungible. People seem to move from one theology to another based on the church they attend, driven more by the available youth program, style of preaching, or children's ministry than by a conviction regarding baptism. Those coming from a paedobaptist background may put pressure on the pastor to baptize their child at the earliest possible time. Don't miss the grandparent angle either. Grandparents from churches that baptize infants may engage in a pretty sustained campaign to get their kids to baptize the grandkids, even if that family now worships in a credobaptist fellowship.

 

[Jack K]

Is it still the case today in the SBC (I presume it is decidedly not in confessional Baptist churches) for young children, before they are baptized, to partake of the Lord's Supper? When I was growing up in a baptist church in the 1970's, I never was baptized (until we moved to a Lutheran church, and I was baptized upon profession at the age of 14) but took the Lord's Supper, with the approbation of the pastor and all, for years before that - as did all of my friends that had yet to make profession in that church. Were we just quirky, or is this common outside of the 1689ers?

In the Baptist church I attend, nearly every "church kid" who is baptized has taken the Lord's Supper for years before being baptized (provided the parents brought them into the service). There's much I appreciate about my church but this is one thing that feels out of order. I think it happens not so much because the leadership wants it to be that way, but because they don't want to dictate who may partake. Where there's no rule, children tend to just go ahead and partake.

 

[KGP]

Is it still the case today in the SBC (I presume it is decidedly not in confessional Baptist churches) for young children, before they are baptized, to partake of the Lord's Supper? When I was growing up in a baptist church in the 1970's, I never was baptized (until we moved to a Lutheran church, and I was baptized upon profession at the age of 14) but took the Lord's Supper, with the approbation of the pastor and all, for years before that - as did all of my friends that had yet to make profession in that church. Were we just quirky, or is this common outside of the 1689ers?

In the Baptist church I attend, nearly every "church kid" who is baptized has taken the Lord's Supper for years before being baptized (provided the parents brought them into the service). There's much I appreciate about my church but this is one thing that feels out of order. I think it happens not so much because the leadership wants it to be that way, but because they don't want to dictate who may partake. Where there's no rule, children tend to just go ahead and partake.

Jack, Just wanted to hop in and say how much I appreciate hearing your approach to church life when you struggle with a certain element of corporate life. It is encouraging to me.

 

[DMcFadden]

Is it still the case today in the SBC (I presume it is decidedly not in confessional Baptist churches) for young children, before they are baptized, to partake of the Lord's Supper? When I was growing up in a baptist church in the 1970's, I never was baptized (until we moved to a Lutheran church, and I was baptized upon profession at the age of 14) but took the Lord's Supper, with the approbation of the pastor and all, for years before that - as did all of my friends that had yet to make profession in that church. Were we just quirky, or is this common outside of the 1689ers?

Todd, Lifeway did a survey of SBC churches a few years ago. They found that only 35% make baptism a requirement prior to participating in communion. During my baptist days, I always restricted communion to baptized Christians. However, given the low level of sacramentology in non confessional churches generally, it would be difficult to know how one would draw a hard line. I think Jack is also correct that in many cases it has less to do with leadership's intentions than with a reticence to tell parents that they may not allow their children to commune prior to baptism.

People receiving communion without baptism is probably more common in churches practicing "open" communion, particularly if the elements are distributed by passing them down the pew rather than having people come forward to receive them. A friend of mine pastors a LARGE Baptist church (6 services!) and he (somewhat uncharacteristically) offers communion to all in attendance, whether they identify as Christians or not! I won't go into the torturous theological route he takes to rationalizing the elements being given to unbelievers. But, in Baptist circles, there is no hierarchy that can tell him to act otherwise.

So the trend toward baptizing younger children has its accompanying problem in the tendency not to make baptism a requirement for communion either. From my perspective, this reflects a logical consequence of taking a lower view of the sacraments/ordinances in the baptistic tradition.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Is it still the case today in the SBC (I presume it is decidedly not in confessional Baptist churches) for young children, before they are baptized, to partake of the Lord's Supper? When I was growing up in a baptist church in the 1970's, I never was baptized (until we moved to a Lutheran church, and I was baptized upon profession at the age of 14) but took the Lord's Supper, with the approbation of the pastor and all, for years before that - as did all of my friends that had yet to make profession in that church. Were we just quirky, or is this common outside of the 1689ers?

In the Baptist church I attend, nearly every "church kid" who is baptized has taken the Lord's Supper for years before being baptized (provided the parents brought them into the service). There's much I appreciate about my church but this is one thing that feels out of order. I think it happens not so much because the leadership wants it to be that way, but because they don't want to dictate who may partake. Where there's no rule, children tend to just go ahead and partake.

I always make it clear that the Lord's Supper is only for those who have already been baptized. I have had parents ask me why this is the case, or where does it say this in Scripture. I generally take them to 1 Corinthians 11 and demonstrate that only a believer can rightly take communion, and a believer who has not been baptized is in open disobedience to God. Most people understand this once it is explained to them.

 

[Pilgrim]

I'm not a baptist but how could you actually say this? Why can't a 4 year old make a credible profession of faith? Is there an age in Scripture that one has to be older than to be able to give a 'credible profession of faith'?

I cannot think of any good reason to baptize a four year old since they would be too young to make a credible profession of faith

Would you admit a 4 year old to the Lord's Table?

 

[Pilgrim]

Is it still the case today in the SBC (I presume it is decidedly not in confessional Baptist churches) for young children, before they are baptized, to partake of the Lord's Supper? When I was growing up in a baptist church in the 1970's, I never was baptized (until we moved to a Lutheran church, and I was baptized upon profession at the age of 14) but took the Lord's Supper, with the approbation of the pastor and all, for years before that - as did all of my friends that had yet to make profession in that church. Were we just quirky, or is this common outside of the 1689ers?

That is basically the culmination of a decades long declension from Baptist principles that was the result of various influences such as liberalism, (including doctrinal indifferentism) revivalism, pragmatism and maybe dispensationalism (which in some manifestations (such as DTS) has been very indifferent when it comes to ecclesiology.) In general, it seems to me that those churches who are very loose in their practice on this issue are also soft on a good many other things and are mainly focused on the numbers.

Among Calvinistic Baptists and others who have been influenced by 9 Marks (and some who have not) now practice close communion, which is the historic Southern Baptist practice.

There are some non-Calvinist Southern Baptists who have been alarmed at the trend of baptizing young children. If memory serves, Paige Patterson has referred to it as "late stage paedobaptism." Mark Dever has documented how the age of those has kept trending younger and younger since about the mid 19th Century, culminating in the trend being discussed here. Back then, it was common to wait until a person was in his late teens.

Perhaps the trend of baptizing young children reached its nadir with the fire engine baptistry.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I'm not a baptist but how could you actually say this? Why can't a 4 year old make a credible profession of faith? Is there an age in Scripture that one has to be older than to be able to give a 'credible profession of faith'?

I cannot think of any good reason to baptize a four year old since they would be too young to make a credible profession of faith

Would you admit a 4 year old to the Lord's Table?

No, not of they had not been baptized, and I would not baptize a four year old.

 

[Romans922]

Would you admit a 4 year old to the Lord's Table?

That would be up to my session, and it depends on the child. They would also have to be baptized first, of course. God gives no limit in age to His saving grace nor a declaration of age when a child is able to have a certain knowledge/understanding, so a Session cannot put an age limit on such things either in the sacraments of baptism and the Supper. Elders of a congregation are granted the keys of the kingdom and must exercise them according to the Word alone, not according to some man-made tradition set up to keep other commandments.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

If the child can't stay awake for the sermon and understand it, are they mature enough to examine themselves in the light of the word going along with the sacrament?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

If the child can't stay awake for the sermon and understand it, are they mature enough to examine themselves in the light of the word going along with the sacrament?

I think that comment answers a thousand questions.

 

[Romans922]

I think that comment answers a thousand questions.

Yet does not exclude the possibility of a godly child who does understand what is going on to be able to participate in the sacraments of Christ's Church.

However, there are many adults who fall asleep during the Worship of the Lord and who do participate in the sacraments.

 

[DMcFadden]

That is basically the culmination of a decades long declension from Baptist principles that was the result of various influences such as liberalism, (including doctrinal indifferentism) revivalism, pragmatism and maybe dispensationalism (which in some manifestations (such as DTS) has been very indifferent when it comes to ecclesiology.) In general, it seems to me that those churches who are very loose in their practice on this issue are also soft on a good many other things and are mainly focused on the numbers.

Chris, I think that you are on target on this. Your reference to indifference towards ecclesiology reminds me of Bebbington's famous quadrilateral of evangelical distinctives. Nowhere in there will you find ecclesiology. And, coupled with the post WWII phenom of "shopping" for churches based on youth program, children's program, or what have you, there is an even more studied laxity towards matters of ecclesiology.

People move from one flavor of evangelicalism to another, more concerned with the brand new multimillion dollar children's center extravaganza than with the position the church takes on theological issues. One of my kids pastors a non-denom church that dedicated a new multimillion dollar building this year, pretty much dedicated to providing an uber stimulating bunch of rooms in which to entertain each developmental year from birth to kindergarten during the morning worship services! It is the most "successful" church in town which means that it draws former Roman Catholics, and pretty much every version of Protestant, regardless of their "position" on baptism or communion.

The only thing that tends to temper the issue of children receiving communion early is that they are generally in the children's program during most evangelical services. This may reduce the incidence of early baptism, but for the reasons identified in my early post, it is not necessarily the case.

 

[Edward]

Would you admit a 4 year old to the Lord's Table?

That would be up to my session, and it depends on the child. They would also have to be baptized first, of course. God gives no limit in age to His saving grace nor a declaration of age when a child is able to have a certain knowledge/understanding, so a Session cannot put an age limit on such things either in the sacraments of baptism and the Supper. Elders of a congregation are granted the keys of the kingdom and must exercise them according to the Word alone, not according to some man-made tradition set up to keep other commandments.

It would be a shame if the civil authorities showed more discernment and judgment than did a Session of the Church. There is a good reason that a 4 year old would not be subjected to criminal prosecution nor have his or her testimony admitted in court in this country. And even the ancient Saxons recognized that one under the age of 12 did not have the capacity to commit a capital crime. (Blackstone, Bk IV, Ch. 2)

 

[Pilgrim]

Would you admit a 4 year old to the Lord's Table?

That would be up to my session, and it depends on the child. They would also have to be baptized first, of course. God gives no limit in age to His saving grace nor a declaration of age when a child is able to have a certain knowledge/understanding, so a Session cannot put an age limit on such things either in the sacraments of baptism and the Supper. Elders of a congregation are granted the keys of the kingdom and must exercise them according to the Word alone, not according to some man-made tradition set up to keep other commandments.

Many of us are loath to insist on some more or less arbitrary minimum age, such as 12 or 13. But the reason I mentioned it is that many (including most confessionalists that I have known) consider admitting a 4 year old to the table to be paedocommunion, essentially.

 

[Romans922]

It would be a shame if the civil authorities showed more discernment and judgment than did a Session of the Church. There is a good reason that a 4 year old would not be subjected to criminal prosecution nor have his or her testimony admitted in court in this country. And even the ancient Saxons recognized that one under the age of 12 did not have the capacity to commit a capital crime. (Blackstone, Bk IV, Ch. 2)

This has nothing to do with the civil magistrate. The civil magistrate does not deal with or have authority over the means of grace. Partaking of baptism or the Supper has nothing to do with breaking the law of the civil magistrate, but completely to do with God's command(s) and God's Word.

Many of us are loath to insist on some more or less arbitrary minimum age, such as 12 or 13. But the reason I mentioned it is that many (including most confessionalists that I have known) consider admitting a 4 year old to the table to be paedocommunion, essentially.

It would be paedocommunion if the child had no credible profession of faith (etc) as determined by the Session of a church. But it would be wholly unwise to put an age limit on the means of grace. In this I am not saying the Session should be unwise, I am saying the Scripture puts no age limit therefore there is no authority for the elder/Session to do so either.

 

[Edward]

This has nothing to do with the civil magistrate. The civil magistrate does not deal with or have authority over the means of grace. Partaking of baptism or the Supper has nothing to do with breaking the law of the civil magistrate, but completely to do with God's command(s) and God's Word.

It has everything to do with the capacity of a 4 year old to make oaths and vows. Anglo-Saxon history recognizes that a 4 year old lacks capacity. And if a session claims a new revelation, I'd probably want to look and see why they are charting new ground, and whether it is theologically or pragmatically driven.

 

[Romans922]

Anglo-Saxon history

Again this has nothing to do with the Church or what God says in His word.

Once we begin to erect tradition as doctrine, we set in motion a web of pharisaical folly that can be expanded ad infinitum.

Using God's standard may require of us to do the hard pastoral work of exercising judgment and the sticky pastoral work of interacting with one another, all of us being sinners. But it is better than usurping Christ's authority in His church and creating rules and standards where He has not.

 

[Pilgrim]

Anglo-Saxon history

Again this has nothing to do with the Church or what God says in His word.

Once we begin to erect tradition as doctrine, we set in motion a web of pharisaical folly that can be expanded ad infinitum.

Using God's standard may require of us to do the hard pastoral work of exercising judgment and the sticky pastoral work of interacting with one another, all of us being sinners. But it is better than usurping Christ's authority in His church and creating rules and standards where He has not.

Where does catechism come in? In the confessional churches I've been familiar with, covenant children generally have to memorize the Shorter Catechism prior to making a public profession of faith and becoming communicant members. Some see this as a double standard since adults or perhaps even older teens who come into the church don't have to do this.

 

[Edward]

Once we begin to erect tradition as doctrine, we set in motion a web of pharisaical folly that can be expanded ad infinitum.

Once we start to ignore the wisdom of history, we set in motion a web of bowing to the breezes of modern society that expands ad infinitum.

 

[Edward]

Using God's standard may require of us to do the hard pastoral work of exercising judgment and the sticky pastoral work of interacting with one another, all of us being sinners. But it is better than usurping Christ's authority in His church and creating rules and standards where He has not.

You might start by looking at the history behind Luke 2:42.

 

[Romans922]

Where does catechism come in

The Standards are a trusted exposition of Scripture. Where is there an age minimum?

Once we start to ignore the wisdom of history, we set in motion a web of bowing to the breezes of modern society that expands ad infinitum.

The issue perhaps is, you've ignored the wisdom of God Himself, and have taken up first secular history.

You might start by looking at the history behind Luke 2:42.

I don't really understand the purpose of your use of this verse, but if it means that Jesus was examined by the Session at 12 years old and therefore all children must be 12 when they come to the Session (minimum), then I think you'd be eisegeting. Not to mention the verse prior shows Jesus came up every year to Jerusalem. Of course the verse is descriptive of what Jesus did. And every year, He remained perfect in His law keeping and did so with perfect righteousness from conception on.

Perhaps in keeping with your own suggestion, you might start by looking not first at anglo saxon history, but with the Scriptures themselves where true and perfect history is found as well as perfect prescription of what is commanded by God concerning children.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Instead of one liners, I for one would like to see a discussion of the history of Presbyterian practice. The Scottish practice speaks of reaching a communicant age for instance.