"Do you consider your children to be Christians?"

[jwithnell]

"Accept, agree, receive" are terms that came into usage with Finney, Moody, et al. They reflect an axiom that God is wringing His hands hoping someone will believe Him. He commanded that I believe; He commanded me to rear my Christian children in the faith; and He irresistibly drew us to Him so we could respond in faith. He will keep us to the end.

 

[Dachaser]

David I am confused as to what you are driving at. You wrote that,”an infant cannot receive Jesus by faith in order to have the Holy Spirit.” I point you to my previous post respecting John the Baptist who was filled with the Holy Ghost in the womb before He could exercise faith! Regeneration by the Spirit is the prerogative of God whether in the womb or in an old people’s home! God’s sovereignty has no limitations. If you note Luke1:44 Elisabeth records that “ the babe leaped in my womb for joy.” Is not joy one of the first fruits of the Spirit?

John was an exception to the normal way the Lord does things regarding a person being born again and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. He was the chosen Forerunner before Messiah, the one who was to come in the very spirit and power to preach as Elijah had from the Lord. can the lord save infants, yes He can, but that would be unusually, and not the normal way that He saves us.

 

[Dachaser]

Bryan,


Preposterous.

Who are u to say that God cannot regenerate and convert at whatever time He so pleases. Consider the elect infant dying in infancy. He must be converted, just like anyone else, under the preaching of the word and in response, accept, believe, agree, receive, repent, etc.

I agree with you that God can save whenever and whoever he wills, but that it is still not the normal scriptural way that he gives His saving grace to infants while dunked into the water.

 

[Dachaser]

"Accept, agree, receive" are terms that came into usage with Finney, Moody, et al. They reflect an axiom that God is wringing His hands hoping someone will believe Him. He commanded that I believe; He commanded me to rear my Christian children in the faith; and He irresistibly drew us to Him so we could respond in faith. He will keep us to the end.

Yes, the Lord commands us as the saved parents to raise up our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord, but they are saved at His ordained and sovereign time . that can be at age 5, 10, or right on the death bed.

 

[Dachaser]

No one has suggested what you underhandedly accuse in the last sentence.

I will go back and reedit that out, as I do not desire to offend anyone here.

 

[Gforce9]

"Accept, agree, receive" are terms that came into usage with Finney, Moody, et al. They reflect an axiom that God is wringing His hands hoping someone will believe Him. He commanded that I believe; He commanded me to rear my Christian children in the faith; and He irresistibly drew us to Him so we could respond in faith. He will keep us to the end.

Brian is a blessed man, Jean!

 

[Scott Bushey]

I agree with you that God can save whenever and whoever he wills, but that it is still not the normal scriptural way that he gives His saving grace to infants while dunked into the water.

John was an exception to the normal way the Lord does things regarding a person being born again and indwelt by the Holy Spirit

Sir,
Again, first of all, no one mentioned 'water'. However, If God wants to use the sacrament to regenerate his elect infant, He can and does at times. When u mention 'normal', you miss the theological ordo in that all peoples are regenerated apart from anything, except God's good pleasure. See John 3:3. As well, conversion (faith and repentance) occurs in elect infants that die in infancy at times, else, no infant dying could be saved. Having said all of that, I don't believe your ducks are in their rows.

 

[Scott Bushey]

"Accept, agree, receive" are terms that came into usage with Finney, Moody, et al. They reflect an axiom that God is wringing His hands hoping someone will believe Him. He commanded that I believe; He commanded me to rear my Christian children in the faith; and He irresistibly drew us to Him so we could respond in faith. He will keep us to the end.

I disagree that these terms are contemporary:

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Jn 1:10–13.

My usage of the other treatments are synonymous terms in respect to the gospel call. Agreeing with the call, agreeing with the terms of the gospel, etc. A man repenting agrees that he is in sin and lost. Our salvation is in one way, monergistic and in the other not; for example, it is I who repents-God does not repent for me! It is I who accepts! It is I who receives.

 

[Dachaser]

Sir,
Again, first of all, no one mentioned 'water'. However, If God wants to use the sacrament to regenerate his elect infant, He can and does at times. When u mention 'normal', you miss the theological ordo in that all peoples are regenerated apart from anything, except God's good pleasure. See John 3:3. As well, conversion (faith and repentance) occurs in elect infants that die in infancy at times, else, no infant dying could be saved. Having said all of that, I don't believe your ducks are in their rows.

The ordinances are means /channels of grace unto us from the Lord, but not saving grace unto us from the Lord, as he saves us through the hearing of the Gospel, and the Holy Spirit granting to us the means to receive Jesus through faith in Him and become born again. The ordinances are to us after we have been reborn from above.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Uhhh, not entirely
WCF ch 28:
I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world.

VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.

 

[Dachaser]

Uhhh, not entirely
WCF ch 28:
I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world.

VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.

http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/personal/baptism_faq.html
Reformed Baptists views on this issue.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Is that the same as in the 1689 Confession of Faith?

29:1 of the LBC is similar:

29.1 Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be to the person baptized a sign of fellowship with Christ in his death and resurrection, of being grafted into him,1 of remission of sins,2 and of giving up oneself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.

The other section, for obvious reasons, is excluded.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

the Lord can the lord save infants, yes He can, but that would be unusually, and not the normal way that He saves us.

David,

Your statement seems to me to be at odds with your claimed confession:

Paragraph 3. Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit;10 who works when, and where, and how He pleases;11 so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
10 John 3:3, 5, 6
11 John 3:8​

Please elaborate.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

What seems to be missing from the equation here is the actual day-to-day practice of child-raising within the church. You are raising your children to profess faith the whole time, even though they have not made an official profession. If I were to inquire of your children who the true God was, or how they could find forgiveness of sins, I suspect I would hear Christian answers both from Baptist and Presbyterian children, not Muslim or Atheist answers. These children are visibly professing faith along with their parents, even though they are not yet capable of interpreting their own experience yet to know if they are born again. This is where the judgment of charity comes in. You can't know your children are visibly unregenerate until they self-consciously contradict the profession you are raising them to make. Until that point, these children are joining their public voices with that of the visible church (i.e. the baptized). This is a credo dilemma. How can you raise your children to publicly profess faith in Christ during their whole childhood and yet at the same time say they are not part of the visible church?

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

This is where the judgment of charity comes in. You can't know your children are visibly unregenerate until they self-consciously contradict the profession you are raising them to make. Until that point, these children are joining their public voices with that of the visible church (i.e. the baptized).

And the Paedos hit a walk off home run! The game's all over folks.

Just kidding, but that was really good.

 

[TheInquirer]

What seems to be missing from the equation here is the actual day-to-day practice of child-raising within the church. You are raising your children to profess faith the whole time, even though they have not made an official profession. If I were to inquire of your children who the true God was, or how they could find forgiveness of sins, I suspect I would hear Christian answers both from Baptist and Presbyterian children, not Muslim or Atheist answers. These children are visibly professing faith along with their parents, even though they are not yet capable of interpreting their own experience yet to know if they are born again. This is where the judgment of charity comes in. You can't know your children are visibly unregenerate until they self-consciously contradict the profession you are raising them to make. Until that point, these children are joining their public voices with that of the visible church (i.e. the baptized). This is a credo dilemma. How can you raise your children to publicly profess faith in Christ during their whole childhood and yet at the same time say they are not part of the visible church?

I never tell my children to profess anything they dont really believe. No dilemma here.

 

[Username3000]

What seems to be missing from the equation here is the actual day-to-day practice of child-raising within the church. You are raising your children to profess faith the whole time, even though they have not made an official profession. If I were to inquire of your children who the true God was, or how they could find forgiveness of sins, I suspect I would hear Christian answers both from Baptist and Presbyterian children, not Muslim or Atheist answers. These children are visibly professing faith along with their parents, even though they are not yet capable of interpreting their own experience yet to know if they are born again. This is where the judgment of charity comes in. You can't know your children are visibly unregenerate until they self-consciously contradict the profession you are raising them to make. Until that point, these children are joining their public voices with that of the visible church (i.e. the baptized). This is a credo dilemma. How can you raise your children to publicly profess faith in Christ during their whole childhood and yet at the same time say they are not part of the visible church?

I don't want to raise my children to publicly profess faith in Christ; I want to raise them to see their need of the Saviour, while I pray He gives them saving faith.

They can believe that God exists, and that Christ is the way of salvation, without being born again. It's regeneration by the Holy Spirit that they need. You are mistaking the assent of facts about God with a placing of trust in God for eternal salvation.

EDIT: I also have a problem with your statement, "You can't know your children are visibly unregenerate until they self-consciously contradict the profession you are raising them to make."

The presupposition is wrong; the stated goal is wrong; the emphasis is wrong. You are trying to judge credobaptist practices as if we built them using paedobaptist presuppositions, and then claim we have a dilemma. This so-called 'dilemma' is the product of either a poor understanding of our beliefs and practices, or an unknowing misrepresentation of the same.

 

[TheInquirer]

WCF ch 28:
I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world.

VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.

As a Baptist I just cant see how VI. possibly coheres with I. I keep trying to understand because I love Reformed theology and how much P&R brothers and sisters love God and honor his word and I’ve been incredibly blessed by the tradition but for me, it just doesnt compute. I’ve read Calvin, I’ve read Berkhof, I’ve read others, I’ve read many of the posts here at PB, I’ve read the proof texts and for the life of me, I just dont get how you can have that definition of baptism and then try to fit unregenerate kids into it.

Maybe in eternity we’ll all laugh at how slow and dull I was during my pilgrimage on planet earth....

 

[Von]

Three points I would like to throw in at this:

1) Love hopes all things: I teach my children in the way of the Lord so that they will see their need for Christ and repent from their sins. Sometimes I do see sparks that look like the Lord is working with them and other times, I do not.
But I continue to hope that they are saved. (because i love them)

2) Shouldn't every Christian continually test themselves to see whether they are in the faith? Let me rephrase: Shouldn't every Christian child continually test themselves to see whether they are indeed a Christian child?

3) John the Baptist was saved from infancy (and he was John...the BAPTIST ).

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I'm thankful for the voices of the various ordained ministry on the PB, such as Patrick's (Puritan Sailor) above. It's good to remember sometimes that such voices well represent the Reformed and Puritan covenantal view of baptized children and other members of the visible church. Baptists and other traditions shouldn't take offense when Reformed and Presbyterian distinctions are expressed on a R&P board. Questions are great, pushback is great when respectfully done with a desire to understand.

Edited to say that I also really appreciate the voice of the ordained Baptist brethren on the board! They are without fail wise, and speak with maturity on these important matters.

 

[Cymro]

All Presbyterians believe and teach what David calls the “normal “ means, that sinners must have repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ. And they do so to those of an age of understanding. On that there is no disagreement, but the debate is about infants.
Do we agree that God elects and predestinates before the seed is in the womb or even before the foundation of the world? Do we agree that He is not dependent on powers, opinions and determinations outside of His inscrutable wisdom? Do we agree as with Jeremiah’s experience “before I formed thee in the belly (no existence) I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto many nations” Being set apart to a determined course and calling in life? Again with Samson, “For the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb.” His future determined when he was not!
If then He predetermined all things, our existence, our course of life, and our salvation, by His good pleasure, then why do we restrict Him in His determination to send grace to the soul of an elect infant? We cannot curtail the Almighty and tie Him to a crisis experience of an adult, for His grace must encompass the children of promise. Some die, others with the same seed of grace are fostered, developed and matured under the teaching of covenant parents and mother church.
As a young Christian I worked with an older believer. In the the rashness of my youth I probed him concerning when he was converted. He graciously answered,”I don’t know, but as far back as my infancy I have always loved the Lord Jesus.”

 

[Gforce9]

I don't want to raise my children to publicly profess faith in Christ; I want to raise them to see their need of the Saviour, while I pray He gives them saving faith.

They can believe that God exists, and that Christ is the way of salvation, without being born again. It's regeneration by the Holy Spirit that they need. You are mistaking the assent of facts about God with a placing of trust in God for eternal salvation.

EDIT: I also have a problem with your statement, "You can't know your children are visibly unregenerate until they self-consciously contradict the profession you are raising them to make."

The presupposition is wrong; the stated goal is wrong; the emphasis is wrong. You are trying to judge credobaptist practices as if we built them using paedobaptist presuppositions, and then claim we have a dilemma. This so-called 'dilemma' is the product of either a poor understanding of our beliefs and practices, or an unknowing misrepresentation of the same.

As a Baptist I just cant see how VI. possibly coheres with I. I keep trying to understand because I love Reformed theology and how much P&R brothers and sisters love God and honor his word and I’ve been incredibly blessed by the tradition but for me, it just doesnt compute. I’ve read Calvin, I’ve read Berkhof, I’ve read others, I’ve read many of the posts here at PB, I’ve read the proof texts and for the life of me, I just dont get how you can have that definition of baptism and then try to fit unregenerate kids into it.

Maybe in eternity we’ll all laugh at how slow and dull I was during my pilgrimage on planet earth....

@Dachaser said:
When you say threshold, do you mean one must receive Jesus by faith as messiah/Lord first in order to be in the Church?
As Reformed baptists do see the distinction between the visible/invisible Church, and just who would be include din the NC itself, and still hold to Covenant theology.



Fellas,
The O.T. and N.T. use the concepts and language of "closer" and "farther" from God and His kingdom. Why? In a covenantal system, the language and concepts make perfect sense. God knows whom He has foreordained and will will bring those results to pass, come the proverbial "hell or high water". In a "threshold" system, they make no sense for this reason: if one is right-outside-the-threshold" or 10,000 miles away, the distinction between the two is utterly irrelevant since the person is on the wrong side of the threshold.
*diclaimer up front: I am not saying one does not need to trust in the person and work of Christ, rather I am saying this is not done once, but day after day, year after year. This is the difference between covenantal thinking and threshold thinking.

If God has revealed Himself covenantally (to which both of our confessions claim ascent), why would we or should we impose a "threshold" framework upon it? Neither the Presbyterian nor the Baptist knows whether our children are/will be ultimate children of the King in the ultimate, salvific sense. But we bring them to the means of grace, we talk of the Law and of the Gospel so they (at least) intellectually understand their natural estate before God, and, yes, we baptize them. Not because they crossed the threshold, but because God gave the sacraments to the visible church to disseminate to "them and their seed"; to visibly identify them with the people of God and to put the kingdom right in front of their (and everyone else's) eyes.

When the Gospel is preached, week after week, Lord's Day after Lord's Day, it is to the people of God. Why? Because I or they need to go across the threshold? No, rather because I'm a fickle man with ever-fickle desires (as a Christian) and I have un-godly desires often (as a Christian) and because, frankly, sometimes I don't believe the things God has told me (as a Christian) and I need to hear them again and again and again. This is not because I haven't crossed the threshold, but because sometimes I am "closer" and sometimes I am "farther".

It is my belief, as @jwithnell stated so well above, that the "threshold" theology is revivalistic and decidedly, anti-covenantal. It corrupts the covenantal way in which God has revealed Himself and His kingdom. This cannot lead to a good end. It needs to be jettisoned.

 

[nick]

How do we know, for sure, that our children will be a worshiper of the Lord?

How do you know for sure the person next to you at church is a true Christian? God does not require that we know someone's heart, because we can never truly know this side of Heaven.

 

[lynnie]

Bingo.

How do you know for sure the person next to you at church is a true Christian? God does not require that we know someone's heart, because we can never truly know this side of Heaven.

I know an apostate. Gloriously saved ( apparently) at about age 20, walked with the Lord for many years and led scores of people to the Lord here and on the mission field- people who are still serving the Lord and some of them missionaries as well.

So now he is an apostate blasphemer. Not just a private one, but one who tries to deliver evangelicals from the same cult born-again Christian faith in our alleged God Jesus. If you knew the guy before and after it is mind boggling.

Once you know an apostate up close, it makes all these worries about kids no different from such worries about an older convert. Age 3, age 20, you don't know who will make it to the end.

 

[ZackF]

Was Jesus a Christian when he was an infant?

 

[jwithnell]

Jesus was given the sign of the covenant as an infant. He was welcome into the parts of the temple open to males within the covenant. He was as much a part of the church as one of my children. Clearly he was taught the scriptures and the faith as was evident before the temple teachers who were amazed at his knowledge. (While I acknowledge it's hard to parse out what he knew as a covenant child and what he knew as God.)

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Zack:

Is that a serious question or an attempt at humor (sardonic, ironic, or the like)?

In any case, it's simply inappropriate. To be a Christian is to have faith in Jesus Christ, either under the shadows of the older dispensation of the covenant of grace or the substance of the newer.

Christ is the source and object of faith, but He's not a sinner needing saving, who must look to another to provide it. Yes, He perfectly trusted His Father, but it was always as the unique person (the God-man) who came to do what He uniquely did (in His active and passive obedience).

It is appropriate to speak only of mere men as "Christians," not any of the members of the Blessed Holy Undivided Trinity (including the Second Person at and after the Incarnation; Heb. 13:8).

Peace,
Alan

 

[Ben Zartman]

All Presbyterians believe and teach what David calls the “normal “ means, that sinners must have repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ. And they do so to those of an age of understanding. On that there is no disagreement, but the debate is about infants.
Do we agree that God elects and predestinates before the seed is in the womb or even before the foundation of the world? Do we agree that He is not dependent on powers, opinions and determinations outside of His inscrutable wisdom? Do we agree as with Jeremiah’s experience “before I formed thee in the belly (no existence) I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto many nations” Being set apart to a determined course and calling in life? Again with Samson, “For the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb.” His future determined when he was not!
If then He predetermined all things, our existence, our course of life, and our salvation, by His good pleasure, then why do we restrict Him in His determination to send grace to the soul of an elect infant? We cannot curtail the Almighty and tie Him to a crisis experience of an adult, for His grace must encompass the children of promise. Some die, others with the same seed of grace are fostered, developed and matured under the teaching of covenant parents and mother church.
As a young Christian I worked with an older believer. In the the rashness of my youth I probed him concerning when he was converted. He graciously answered,”I don’t know, but as far back as my infancy I have always loved the Lord Jesus.”

As a Baptist, I agree with all of this, and will add that in my RB circles, the "Crisis event" is not sought for even among adults. Some in my church DO remember exactly the moment of conversion, many of us do not--it doesn't matter. What matters is whether we are now, this moment, repenting and believing. We are not exhorted to examine ourselves to see if we ever entered the faith, but to examine and see whether we are now there.
The LBCF chapter on assurance of grace is a wonderful resource on this.

 

[ZackF]

Zack:

Is that a serious question or an attempt at humor (sardonic, ironic, or the like)?

No humor intended at all. Of course Jesus did not need a Messiah. With the utmost respect to your position as a doctor and minister I disagree about my question's propriety. Did the human infant Child of God know the Father or not? Surely He did! He was perfect. I'm sure Aquinas or other medieval scholastics addressed the topic. Now how young a wicked and rebellious child of Adam can come to the faith by the Spirit is up to Him. Four, three, two, one....?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I don't want to raise my children to publicly profess faith in Christ; I want to raise them to see their need of the Saviour, while I pray He gives them saving faith.

They can believe that God exists, and that Christ is the way of salvation, without being born again. It's regeneration by the Holy Spirit that they need. You are mistaking the assent of facts about God with a placing of trust in God for eternal salvation.

EDIT: I also have a problem with your statement, "You can't know your children are visibly unregenerate until they self-consciously contradict the profession you are raising them to make."

The presupposition is wrong; the stated goal is wrong; the emphasis is wrong. You are trying to judge credobaptist practices as if we built them using paedobaptist presuppositions, and then claim we have a dilemma. This so-called 'dilemma' is the product of either a poor understanding of our beliefs and practices, or an unknowing misrepresentation of the same.

Where did I say they do not need to see their need for Christ? That is what publicly professing faith is all about. You are teaching them to know and embrace Christ. And I do not at all deny the need for regeneration. The problem as a parent is I can't give it to them. Only God can. And for a child raised in the church, he may never know the moment when regeneration occurred. What is repentance going to look like in a child who has been taught the faith from infancy? Unless he has a rebellious phase, you aren't going to see a significant outward change. Regeneration will show itself more by the self-realization that he does truly believe rather than a dramatic conversion experience.

Again, I was emphasizing the dimension of daily practice in child rearing. How do you treat your children? Are you teaching them to how to know and obey God and believe the gospel? Are you teaching them to pray? Are you teaching them Christian standards of conduct? If so, you are teaching them to visibly/outwardly profess faith in Christ. That is your default. You are not training them to be atheists. Credobaptists, at least the ones I know, still take this approach to parenting, even though they deny their children visible church membership. That is the inconsistency I was pointing out.

If you have a different approach in Christian parenting I'd like to hear it.