Child Disciples and Baptism

Status
Not open for further replies.
I found out this weekend that my grandpa (SBC pastor) baptized my aunt 3 times during her life because she would doubt her salvation and claim she wasn't saved before, but she believed she was saved then, and requested to be baptized for the first time again.
 
I found out this weekend that my grandpa (SBC pastor) baptized my aunt 3 times during her life because she would doubt her salvation and claim she wasn't saved before, but she believed she was saved then, and requested to be baptized for the first time again.

I was baptized five times spanning from about grades 4 - 12.
 
I found out this weekend that my grandpa (SBC pastor) baptized my aunt 3 times during her life because she would doubt her salvation and claim she wasn't saved before, but she believed she was saved then, and requested to be baptized for the first time again.

I was baptized five times spanning from about grades 4 - 12.

Insane. Simply insane. I find American 'babdist' practice so hard to understand - totally different culture I know.
 
I found out this weekend that my grandpa (SBC pastor) baptized my aunt 3 times during her life because she would doubt her salvation and claim she wasn't saved before, but she believed she was saved then, and requested to be baptized for the first time again.

I was baptized five times spanning from about grades 4 - 12.

There is obviously a disconnect somewhere. How does a baptist avoid baptizing a christian many times?

I think that Taylor's question leads into this scenario.
 
JonathanHunt said:
Insane. Simply insane. I find American 'babdist' practice so hard to understand - totally different culture I know.

Jonathan, that is not Reformed (Particular) Baptist practice. The fundies keep a bar of soap and a towel handy because they baptize so often.
 
jwithnell said:
Perhaps a little clarification is needed here. We baptize our babies because they are part of the church by virtue of their birth. Someone who is not part of the church has no right to participate in the the sacraments of the church.

And thus the difference on how paedos & credos view the nature
of the church & the New Covenant.
 
Who is considered a child of Abraham in the New Covenant and in the book of Galatians. One who has faith like Abraham. Come on. This isn't rocket science. Is there not some cognizant relationship here? Just my humble opinion.

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/covenant-head-covenant-children-349/

This is a major part of Chapter 2 of Alan Conner’s book Covenant Children Today. I received permission from Rich Barcellos the publisher of the book to post this in my blog for the benefit of others.

Christ and the New Covenant Family


There is a lot of talk today about the “covenant family.” But, many who are teaching on this topic assume that the “covenant family” today is based on the same principles as found in the Old Covenant. That is to say, the children of believers are automatically considered as members of the New Covenant. But, does the Bible support this assumption?

An important principle in determining the nature of covenant children is to realize the role that the covenant heads play in this process. In God’s covenant with Abraham, he established that Abraham would have both a physical and a spiritual seed. The promise of a physical seed (Genesis 12:2) would begin with the miraculous birth of Isaac by the power of God (Romans 4:18-21). Isaac’s birth initiated the principle of a physical seed which would govern the covenant’s progress and fulfillment down through the centuries, consummating in Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:16). But Abraham also had a spiritual seed. Since Abraham was a believer (Galatians 3:6, 9; Genesis 15:6), his spiritual seed constitutes both the believing remnant of Israel and believing Gentiles (Romans 9-10; Galatians 3:8, 14). Thus, God ordained that the nature of covenant children in Abraham’s covenant would be established by Abraham himself as the covenant head, both by his faith and his physical children.

But, what about the New Covenant? Should the nature of covenant children established with Abraham continue on in the New Covenant as well? The New Testament is clear that the New Covenant administration of the Abrahamic Covenant does not require the principle of a physical seed descended from Abraham for “be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham” (Galatians 3:7). This indicates that in the New Covenant we are dealing with Abraham’s spiritual seed. The unbelieving Jews have been broken off of the olive tree of the people of God (Romans 11:17-20).

This shift to an emphasis on the spiritual seed is also clearly demonstrated in the covenant head of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ. As God established in Abraham the nature of his covenant seed, so also he established in Christ the nature of his covenant seed. The same pattern holds for both covenants: the covenant head determines the nature of the covenant seed. Thus, as the head of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ would personally initiate the principle of his covenant seed just as Abraham did for his covenant. But, what kind of children (seed) did Christ have? As the head of the New Covenant, what is the nature of his seed?

As we consider what the Bible teaches about the covenant seed connected to Jesus Christ, we need to consider the Fatherhood of Jesus Christ in relation to his covenant children. Then, we will examine the way in which Christ defines his covenant family. When we do this, we will see that the New Covenant family is not based on physical relationships at all, but on spiritual qualities alone. Christ’s covenant seed and family is not based on the flesh as it was in the Old Covenant, but is a “household of faith” (Galatians 6:10 - KJV); a “family of believers” (Galatians 6:10 - NIV).

The Fatherhood of Jesus Christ

The Bible teaches that Christ’s relationship with his redeemed people is one that is rich and many-colored. The glory of Jesus Christ cannot be contained in one simple description. The Bible sets forth his redemptive character with many different analogies and pictures. To the Father, he is the eternal Son of God, but to Christians he is many things. Christ is the sacrificial Lamb of God who died in our place; the Vine and we are the branches; the Head and we are his body; the good Shepherd and we are his sheep; the Husband and we are his bride. In addition to all of this, Christ Jesus is also a Father and we are his children.

This last truth has important implications for how we are to view membership and the concept of covenant children in the New Covenant. What we will discover is that the Fatherhood of Jesus Christ argues strongly for the concept of spiritual children in the New Covenant, rather than children of physical descent.

Christ as our Eternal Father

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)


As Isaiah looked ahead to the coming of Christ who would inaugurate the New Covenant, he describes him as a Father to his followers. This relationship is verified in the way that our Lord loves his disciples as a father, cares for them as a father, provides for them as a father, and instructs and disciplines them as a father. What a precious thought. Our Savior is also our spiritual Father so that, in a sense, within the holy Trinity we have no less than two Fathers: God the Father, and God the incarnate Son, both of whom watch over us as spiritual Fathers in their own unique way.

Second, the obvious result of the fact that Christ is an Eternal Father is that he must also have children – since a father is such only if he has children. But who are his children? The children of Christ cannot be based on the genealogical principle found in the Old Covenant. But, if they cannot be his physical children, then who are they? The obvious suggestion is that they are his spiritual children.

The Gospels also indicate the idea that Christ has spiritual children; namely, his disciples. We see this in the following passages where Christ refers to his disciples as children:

And the disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! (Mark 10:24)

Little children, I am with you a little while longer. (John 13:33)

Jesus therefore said to them, Children, you do not have any fish, do you? (John 21:5)

Now what is the significance of Jesus calling his disciples children? Is he saying that they are immature and prone to error like children? This is possible, but the example from John 13 which took place during the Passover feast suggests that Jesus was assuming the paschal role of the head of the family who would preside at the meal and explain its meaning to his children. So, at least in John 13:33, the use of “children” would fit with the concept that Jesus is looking upon his disciples as his spiritual children. The other examples above can also be understood in the same way.

This concept of a spiritual father with spiritual children was also used by the apostles in the way they sometimes addressed those who came to faith under their ministry (see Galatians 4:19; 1 Corinthians 4:14; 1 John 2:1). And, most notably, it is used of all believers in their relationship with God since he is our heavenly Father and we are his children through the new birth and adoption into his family (John 1:12; Romans 8:14-17). All believers are “children of God.”

Christ’s Covenant Children

Behold, I and the children whom God has given Me. (Isaiah 8:18 in Hebrews 2:13)

Not only does the prophet Isaiah teach us about Christ’s role as a spiritual Father, he also has something to say about Christ’s spiritual children as well. These children are mentioned in Isaiah 8:18, which is also quoted in Hebrews 2:13 as the very words of Christ, “Behold, I and the children whom God has given Me.”

Here again it is quite clear from the context that these “children” who are given to the Messiah by God are not physical children but his spiritual followers united to him by faith. In the context of Hebrews chapter two, they are called “many sons” who are brought to glory (verse 10), his “brethren” (verses 11-12) for whom Christ made “propitiation…” (verse 17) and they are those who, along with Christ himself, put their trust in God (verse 13). No other kind of children is in view here. It is impossible that these covenant children of Christ are based on any principle of physical descent. They can only be spiritual children of faith. The principle of the Old Covenant family no longer applies to Christ and his New Covenant family.
Also of interest in this passage is the observation that these spiritual children that are given to Christ by God the Father are the reason for his incarnation:

Since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil. (Hebrews 2:14)

Christ came down from heaven to assume our human nature that he might set his children free from the power of death held by the devil (verses 14-15) and deliver them from their sins (verse 17). Christ does not bring this help to the angels, but rather to “the descendant (seed) of Abraham” (verse 16).

This is an important designation. To call the covenant children of Christ (verses 13-14) the seed of Abraham (verse 16) makes another important statement about the nature of Christ’s covenant family. Clearly, they are not defined in terms of physical descent as they were in the Old Covenant. Christ’s spiritual children are now the New Covenant equivalent to the seed of Abraham. They are his spiritual followers, his brethren for whom he died, and those who trust in God. Here we have a clear redefining of the “seed of Abraham” in the New Covenant. The genealogical principle of inclusion in the covenant by physical lineage is replaced by the spiritual principle of faith.

Christ’s Covenant Offspring

He will see His offspring. (Isaiah 53:10)

This same truth about the identity of Christ’s covenant children is also seen in Isaiah 53:10, when Isaiah speaks prophetically of Christ’s reward for his self-sacrifice for our sins. The prophet announces, “He will see His offspring.” Now what is the prophet speaking about? In what sense did our Lord have offspring? Again, it cannot be physical children in view. So, it must refer exclusively to his spiritual offspring who are connected to him through faith.

Thus, both testaments teach that the children of Christ are not physical children at all. Clearly, the genealogical principle of the Old Covenant cannot apply to him. And, as the head of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ establishes in himself the new governing principle of membership in his Church. As clearly as Abraham established his seed according to the principle of physical birth, so Christ establishes his seed according to the principle of spiritual birth. The old genealogical principle of being a member of the covenant by physical descent has come to an end. A new principle is established with Jesus Christ. Being numbered among Christ’s covenant children is now based on the principle of faith alone. As John 1:12 states, “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name.” The New Covenant has a new standard for membership. Abraham’s physical principle of membership is replaced by Christ’s spiritual principle of membership.

Thus, the belief that the covenant family today follows the pattern of the Old Covenant is nothing but an assumption. It is based on so-called covenant logic that does not reflect accurately the teachings of the prophets as they foretold the coming of Jesus Christ and the New Covenant. Christ, as the head of the New Covenant, clearly establishes in himself the new standard for what it means to be a covenant child. It is a standard based on faith, not physical descent.

Christ Defines His Covenant Family

Not only is Jesus Christ our “Eternal Father,” and as such establishes a new principle for what it means to be his covenant child, but he also gave specific instruction on the nature of his covenant family. We find this in such passages as Luke 8:19-21:

19 And His mother and brothers came to Him, and they were unable to get to Him because of the crowd. 20 And it was reported to Him, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, wishing to see You.” 21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”

In the parallel account, Matthew gives these words, “whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother” (Matthew 12:50). What is clear is that Christ is redefining the nature of his family. He uses this request from his physical family to teach about his covenant family. As his words indicate, the principle of the physical family is no longer the determining factor in establishing his covenant family. Hearing the word and doing it now comprise the spiritual qualifications for being one of Christ’s covenant family members.

This shows a deliberate intent on the part of Christ to distance himself and his covenant family from the physical principles of the covenant family established with Abraham. If Christ defined his “mother and brothers,” and also his “children” (see above) exclusively in terms of spiritual qualities, then where is there continuity with the Old Covenant? Where do children automatically become covenant members based on their physical descent from covenant parents? Christ’s words clearly exclude from his covenant family those who are connected only by physical ties. “My mother and My brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.” He does not say that they are “those who hear the word of God and do it and their physical seed.” His New Covenant family is comprised only of those who hear the word of God and obey it. Infants cannot hear and obey the word of God.

On several occasions, the Lord emphasized this New Covenant principle which stresses the importance of the spiritual family. In Luke 11:27, Christ was teaching truths that were so profound that one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” But the Lord responded, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it” (verse 28). The exact same principle is revealed here as above. Christ is saying in the most emphatic way that blessedness is not based on the ties of the physical family. Notice his words, “On the contrary.” The Lord is downplaying the blessedness of his biological mother in order to draw attention to the greater blessedness of those who are connected to him spiritually. Those who hear the word of God and obey it are esteemed as more blessed than his physical mother. Mary’s blessedness would be rooted far more in her faith than in her merely being the physical mother of our Lord (cf. Luke 1:46-55). I’m sure these were shocking words indeed to this woman.
 
Last edited:
BTW, just because someone is labeled a disciple doesn't make them covenantally inclusive. Just my humble opinion.
 
As I have been trying to take in the various arguments on both sides of the baptism issue, one thing that appears evident to me is that both sides have to agree that the children of believers are sort of a "special case". This is simple enough from the paedo view, as they see children of believers already included in the covenant. It seems to me like it's a little more complicated for us baptists and I've just been trying to think through it. I take my children to church. I teach them to sing the hymns and songs of praise. I teach them to pray to God, learn to listen to the preaching of the Word and, generally, to participate in the corporate worship. All the while, until they profess and are baptized, I must also say that they are not part of the church. In this sense, I see them as a "special category," because we don't practice adult evangelism that way. In other words, we wouldn't (at least I wouldn't) that the normal method for making disciples is that we try to get unbelievers to come and participate in the regular worship of the church in the same way we do with our children.
All that said, I'm not really making a point. Just stating that I find this somewhat counter-intuitive. Theologically, my children are not part of the church in any sense, because, from my perspective, the new covenant only includes believers. Yet, in a practical sense, it's hard to say that they are not part of the visible church.

Also, I have found it somewhat frustrating that at least some reformed Baptists do not want to baptize children on a simple profession of faith. In one particular instance, I know someone who's daughter (I think she was somewhere around 7 or 8) wanted to be baptized. She was interviewed by the elders of the church. They said that she was able to articulate her faith well enough, but they felt she needed to wait until she was older and had had her faith "tested" sufficiently to demonstrate it's reality. Do we do that with adult converts? Also, I've noticed that in Mark Dever's church, they advise holding off on baptism till, basically, adulthood. I thought that was really unusual.
 
A
Also, I have found it somewhat frustrating that at least some reformed Baptists do not want to baptize children on a simple profession of faith. In one particular instance, I know someone who's daughter (I think she was somewhere around 7 or 8) wanted to be baptized. She was interviewed by the elders of the church. They said that she was able to articulate her faith well enough, but they felt she needed to wait until she was older and had had her faith "tested" sufficiently to demonstrate it's reality. Do we do that with adult converts? Also, I've noticed that in Mark Dever's church, they advise holding off on baptism till, basically, adulthood. I thought that was really unusual.

We had this happen with two of our children in a Sovereign Grace Church.
 
My wife is also expecting .... and I look to Jesus' command to go and "make disciples ... baptizing them." Who? Those who you are making disciples. Can someone make a convert? All would agree that the answer is no. Only God. But we can disciple. We can teach. We can teach what Jesus has taught us to those in our care. We can answer the charge to "bring our children up in the discipline of the Lord." Eph.6:4.

So, it seems curious to me why so many parents follow the first part of Jesus' command, "to make disciples" of their children, but not the second, to baptize their child who is being discipled. I may be missing something here, :think: but Taylor is hitting on an important point that is central to discipleship and the sign given to those being discipled ... that is, baptism.

Good thread, T.

Hello Jeremy,
So with this view, if a believer is talking with an unbelieving friend who he begins to disciple he gets him baptized in order to make him a disciple? Even if he is an unbeliever? He is not yet a convert{as God has not converted him} but mt 28 has us baptize unbelievers making them disciples?
You did not really intend to say that did you?

---------- Post added at 09:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:19 PM ----------

Paedobaptists believe that their baptized infants become part of the visible church and members of the temporal administration of the New Covenant.

Perhaps a little clarification is needed here. We baptize our babies because they are part of the church by virtue of their birth. Someone who is not part of the church has no right to participate in the the sacraments of the church.

Some of us believe that a person is only a "part of the church" by virtue of new birth not physical birth, so as you say someone who is not part of the church has no right to participate in the ordinances of the church. That is at the heart of our views being different.
 
jwithnell said:
Perhaps a little clarification is needed here. We baptize our babies because they are part of the church by virtue of their birth. Someone who is not part of the church has no right to participate in the the sacraments of the church.

iconoclast said:
Some of us believe that a person is only a "part of the church" by virtue of new birth not physical birth, so as you say someone who is not part of the church has no right to participate in the ordinances of the church. That is at the heart of our views being different.

I'm pleased to read this because this is the real substance of the debate. There is a fundamental difference in how paedos and credos view covenantalism.
 
I think these are valid questions, Taylor. One of the hardest things for me, while before as a baptist, was to know when I should baptize?. I found that everyone had different answers to this, and it seemed to be a mystery, but everyone was quick to say when you should not(babies). And my questions always fell flat. It always hinged on credible, as if there was any good in man to determine credible, let alone a child.
So, if a child were to be moral on the outside and say all the right things, then we should baptize him? And the time while being taught and shown the Gospel, they are not disciples in the real sense, because they have done nothing in and of themselves to determine that fact, or at least until the SAY they believe, which they are taught, then we can trust the fact? I was always told that it would take great discernment and prayer to know when to baptize your child and that it depended on the child and if they had shown the signs of a changed heart.

In some RB churches that I had been to, I would hear from children that they are not saved yet, and until they are, they will not be baptized. But you ask them how they know they are not saved and they would say, because they have not yet shown the fruit. Then in others there would be no fruit in the children at all, with minds completely on this world, but they would profess, and quickly be baptized. Others parents would teach their children about baptism, belief and and what repentance means, what the Gospel is, and really truly 'disciple' them, but only baptize them when they would come and ask to be baptized.(this I found most consistent), but that only depends on how old you are, because if you are 4 years old, your words are not credible.

And I was always told that being discipled comes before baptism. So, disciple does not equate to Christian or to one being saved, or that should be baptized, it was always that you make disciples and then baptize them when they profess. So, disciple seemed always like the preNotYetQualified-Christian, the evaluation period before you decide if you want to take the job or not.


Bill-
There is nothing more required of a credible profession than it be credible.

Define credible?

Has a person believed the Gospel message?

How would one determine if one truly believed?

Have they repented of their sins and trusted in Christ?

How would one determine who really repented and trusted Christ?

Wouldn't this take time? Is not sanctification what grows us in grace and where the fruit comes from?

Unless there is a visible contradiction to their profession we are to accept it and baptize them.

Any examples of a visible contradiction of profession as a child?

We could ask you the same series of questions about your pastor,or any member of your congregation; Ask this about your pastor;
Define credible?

Has a person believed the Gospel message? How would one determine if one truly believed?

Have they repented of their sins and trusted in Christ? How would one determine who really repented and trusted Christ?

Wouldn't this take time? Is not sanctification what grows us in grace and where the fruit comes from?

Unless there is a visible contradiction to their profession we are to accept it and baptize them. Any examples of a visible contradiction of profession as a child?
Robert
Member of Stillwater Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCNA

In other words...can we ever know about anyone at all? We can not know if an elder is saved, or called, or gifted at all, yet we go to churches that have elders whose gifts are evaluated. We are not called upon to know the secret things of God, but we can go by someones public confession/profession of Christ.
A three year old might learn to say the name of Jesus. That is good and should be built upon,no one says not to continue to teach them. Is that child saying that because the Spirit is at work or because he loves and wants to please mommy and daddy? Should a three year old who wants to drive a car, be given the car keys and turned loose? What is the rush? Trust in God and His word to do what he has purposed to do.
 
Last edited:
"Ye Shall know them by their fruit." But we are not omniscient. I have seen tares that look like wheat till the time for a tare to look like a tare. Sometimes that only happens when God sees. Somethings die before they reach maturity. That goes for both sides of the argument.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top