Einwechter on Baptism

Status
Not open for further replies.

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
To my Baptist brethren...

I have just finished listening to William O. Einwechter's "The Great Debate Over Baptism and the Covenant". It had been a couple of years since I last listened to it and found it even better the second time around. It is 11 cds and about 12 hours long altogether. It is available through Vision Forum for $45 and worth every penny. However, I know that money can be tight so I would be willing to let you borrow it for a month or so if any are interested. (I would not agree to pirating it as I think Einwechter and Vision Forum deserve the $45) The supporting notes and charts are available for download on the VF site to help you follow along.

PM me if you are interested.
 
Ken,

If I'm not mistaken, doesn't Einwechter have some sort of strange almagem of paedo- and credo- views?

I think he maintains that children are, in a sense, in the Covenant by virtue of their familial affiliation but yet Baptism should only be administered after they profess. Is that a basic summary?
 
Ken,

If I'm not mistaken, doesn't Einwechter have some sort of strange almagem of paedo- and credo- views?

I think he maintains that children are, in a sense, in the Covenant by virtue of their familial affiliation but yet Baptism should only be administered after they profess. Is that a basic summary?

From what I understand, Dr. Einwecher's view of children of believers is that they are in a covenant. The covenant institution of the family and therefore the child has some covenant affiliation with the church through the head of the family. I do not think he has any 'strange amalgam' of views unless you are looking at him from a dispensational baptist lens in which case his views are probably very strange. (Which I know you are not.)

In fact, one of his beefs with paedos is their ubiquitous use of the phrase 'the covenant'. He points out that we need to be careful in keeping our covenantal categories intact. Because of this, his views may seem strange to a paedo.

If anything I would assume that it is his views on theonomy that many might find strange.
 
To my Baptist brethren...

I have just finished listening to William O. Einwechter's "The Great Debate Over Baptism and the Covenant". It had been a couple of years since I last listened to it and found it even better the second time around. It is 11 cds and about 12 hours long altogether. It is available through Vision Forum for $45 and worth every penny. However, I know that money can be tight so I would be willing to let you borrow it for a month or so if any are interested. (I would not agree to pirating it as I think Einwechter and Vision Forum deserve the $45) The supporting notes and charts are available for download on the VF site to help you follow along.

PM me if you are interested.


I would advise anyone to listen to these lectures, they are excellent!
Actually when i was struggeling alot concerning the paedo-credo baptism debate, the lectures of Einwechter convince me of the credo-Biblical-baptist poistion.
 
Einwechter holds a very different view than most baptists including Reformed Baptists.

In the series in question he affirms the doctrine of sacramental union and the special covenant membership of children within the covenant of the Christian family. The former is a historically Reformed (not baptistic) view while the later is just weird. I found his argument for the inclusion of the children in a 'family covenant' utterly unconvincing. I don't recall he even made much of an argument for it, but rather just stated it as a statement of fact.

I too saw his view as an attempted amalgam of baptistic and Reformed views. My take is that that it doesn't work out logically. In time those holding to his position will either go Presbyterian or backup to a more traditional Baptist understanding.


Ken,

If I'm not mistaken, doesn't Einwechter have some sort of strange almagem of paedo- and credo- views?

I think he maintains that children are, in a sense, in the Covenant by virtue of their familial affiliation but yet Baptism should only be administered after they profess. Is that a basic summary?
 
Einwechter holds a very different view than most baptists including Reformed Baptists.

In the series in question he affirms the doctrine of sacramental union and the special covenant membership of children within the covenant of the Christian family. The former is a historically Reformed (not baptistic) view while the later is just weird. I found his argument for the inclusion of the children in a 'family covenant' utterly unconvincing. I don't recall he even made much of an argument for it, but rather just stated it as a statement of fact.

I too saw his view as an attempted amalgam of baptistic and Reformed views. My take is that that it doesn't work out logically. In time those holding to his position will either go Presbyterian or backup to a more traditional Baptist understanding.


Ken,

If I'm not mistaken, doesn't Einwechter have some sort of strange almagem of paedo- and credo- views?

I think he maintains that children are, in a sense, in the Covenant by virtue of their familial affiliation but yet Baptism should only be administered after they profess. Is that a basic summary?

I have to give him some credit at least. One thing that I've noticed that Reformed Baptist theology lacks in its Systematic presentation is what to do with their kids. All of their Systematic Theology is primarily designed to show that children have no participation in the faith of their parents. Children and babies are addressed in the third person and spoken of clinically.

Yet, when they live out their practical theology, they bring their kids to Church, they pray with them, they catechize them, etc. They even get upset when you extend the logic of their Systematic theology to ask them why they do these things and say: "You really don't understand Baptists very well at all do you?"

It's sort of like a neumenal/phenomenal split for many Baptists where their Systematics don't impact their Church life with their kids and their Church life doesn't inform their systematics. Asked why they do all these things, they cannot go to their Systematic theology to account for it but, rather, begin to construct an "on the fly" presentation that places children somewhere between rank pagans and believers.

Thus, though I agree with your assessment that his theology is faulty, you have to give him credit as a Baptist who's actually created a systematic view of why Baptists actually bring their kids to Church with them.
 
snip One thing that I've noticed that Reformed Baptist theology lacks in its Systematic presentation is what to do with their kids. All of their Systematic Theology is primarily designed to show that children have no participation in the faith of their parents. Children and babies are addressed in the third person and spoken of clinically.

Yet, when they live out their practical theology, they bring their kids to Church, they pray with them, they catechize them, etc. They even get upset when you extend the logic of their Systematic theology to ask them why they do these things and say: "You really don't understand Baptists very well at all do you?"

It's sort of like a neumenal/phenomenal split for many Baptists where their Systematics don't impact their Church life with their kids and their Church life doesn't inform their systematics. Asked why they do all these things, they cannot go to their Systematic theology to account for it but, rather, begin to construct an "on the fly" presentation that places children somewhere between rank pagans and believers.

Thus, though I agree with your assessment that his theology is faulty, you have to give him credit as a Baptist who's actually created a systematic view of why Baptists actually bring their kids to Church with them.

Speaking as one real reformed Baptist, I don't see the difficulty. We bring our kids to church and pray with them for exactly the same reasons that you might bring an unbelieving friend to church and pray with them if they let you. We chatechize our kids and teach them the Christian faith a) so that they know what it is, b) it is our duty to evangelize and most important of all (I hope) c) out of love for both neighbours and kids. We would offer to teach the same lessons to any interested unbelievers because we know that it is through hearing Christian truth that the Holy Spirit draws Christ's elect to him.
 
Speaking as one real reformed Baptist, I don't see the difficulty. We bring our kids to church and pray with them for exactly the same reasons that you might bring an unbelieving friend to church and pray with them if they let you. We chatechize our kids and teach them the Christian faith a) so that they know what it is, b) it is our duty to evangelize and most important of all (I hope) c) out of love for both neighbours and kids. We would offer to teach the same lessons to any interested unbelievers because we know that it is through hearing Christian truth that the Holy Spirit draws Christ's elect to him.

I always found this an anomaly in Spurgeon's revision of the catechism:

22 Q What offices does Christ execute as our Redeemer?

A Christ as our Redeemer executes the offices of a prophet (Ac 3:22), of a priest (Heb 5:6), and of a king (Ps 2:6), both in his state of humiliation and exaltation.

23 Q How does Christ execute the office of a prophet?

A Christ executes the office of a prophet, in revealing to us (Joh 1:18), by his Word (Joh 20:31), and Spirit (Joh 14:26), the will of God for our salvation.

24 Q How does Christ execute the office of a priest?

A Christ executes the office of a priest, in his once offering up himself a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice (Heb 9:28), and to reconcile us to God (Heb 2:17) and in making continual intercession for us (Heb 7:25).

25 Q How does Christ execute the office of a king?

A Christ executes the office of a king in subduing us to himself (Ps 110:3), in ruling and defending us (Mt 2:6 1Co 15:25) and in restraining and conquering all his and our enemies.

The catechism is personalised from the standpoint that infants are church-members, and at least by profession partakers of the blessings of the covenant.
 
Speaking as one real reformed Baptist, I don't see the difficulty. We bring our kids to church and pray with them for exactly the same reasons that you might bring an unbelieving friend to church and pray with them if they let you. We chatechize our kids and teach them the Christian faith a) so that they know what it is, b) it is our duty to evangelize and most important of all (I hope) c) out of love for both neighbours and kids. We would offer to teach the same lessons to any interested unbelievers because we know that it is through hearing Christian truth that the Holy Spirit draws Christ's elect to him.

Really? I want to examine this for a moment. You state that you bring your kids exactly the same way you might bring an unbelieving friend.

You see, the last time I checked, Baptists were against compelling their friends to attend. When was the last time you invited your children to attend worship with you? I assume you are not telling your unbelieving friends that they must attend worship with you.

In fact, if you wanted to consistently treat your children as your unbelieving friends you would give them the option every week. "Tim Jr., would you like to attend worship with me today?"

Then, as a good Baptist, who doesn't want to force an unbeliever to attend worship, you would drop him off at a friend's house so you could attend worship without him.

I'm sorry but I don't find this argument about the way your treat your children to be just like your neighbor to be a credible argument.
 
Einwechter holds a very different view than most baptists including Reformed Baptists.

By what standard are you comparing Einwechter? Which theologian or book embodies the views of *most* Reformed Baptists? This would be helpful for me to know.

In addition, which theologian or book embodies the views of *most* Reformed Presbyterians? I've read Charles Hodge. Is he the standard? This would also be of great help to me.
 
One thing that I've noticed that Reformed Baptist theology lacks in its Systematic presentation is what to do with their kids.

I do not think you need a theological system to tell you what to do with your children. That seems to grow out of your love for them. I would imagine that there are Presbyterian parents who do not fully understand the system behind the reformed paedo view and yet they know what to do with their children. I know non-confessional Christians who do not understand a lick about baptism one way or the other and yet they know what to do with their children as well.
 
Speaking as one real reformed Baptist, I don't see the difficulty. We bring our kids to church and pray with them for exactly the same reasons that you might bring an unbelieving friend to church and pray with them if they let you. We chatechize our kids and teach them the Christian faith a) so that they know what it is, b) it is our duty to evangelize and most important of all (I hope) c) out of love for both neighbours and kids. We would offer to teach the same lessons to any interested unbelievers because we know that it is through hearing Christian truth that the Holy Spirit draws Christ's elect to him.

Really? I want to examine this for a moment. You state that you bring your kids exactly the same way you might bring an unbelieving friend.

You see, the last time I checked, Baptists were against compelling their friends to attend. When was the last time you invited your children to attend worship with you? I assume you are not telling your unbelieving friends that they must attend worship with you.

In fact, if you wanted to consistently treat your children as your unbelieving friends you would give them the option every week. "Tim Jr., would you like to attend worship with me today?"

Then, as a good Baptist, who doesn't want to force an unbeliever to attend worship, you would drop him off at a friend's house so you could attend worship without him.

I'm sorry but I don't find this argument about the way your treat your children to be just like your neighbor to be a credible argument.


I did not say we bring our kids in the "same way" as we bring unbelievers. What I said was that we bring our kids to worship for the "same reasons" as we bring unbelievers. I freely admit that "the way" we bring our friends to church is not the same way as we bring our children to church. As friends of unbelievers, we do not have the right to force them to do that which is good for them i.e. obtain a detailed knowledge of the Christian faith, so we just invite them to church and do not force them to come. But, as parents, we do have the right to require our children to do that which is good for them. Since we know it is good for them to acquire a detailed knowledge of the Christian faith, we bring our kids to church without offering the option of declining attendence.
 
Speaking as one real reformed Baptist, I don't see the difficulty. We bring our kids to church and pray with them for exactly the same reasons that you might bring an unbelieving friend to church and pray with them if they let you. We chatechize our kids and teach them the Christian faith a) so that they know what it is, b) it is our duty to evangelize and most important of all (I hope) c) out of love for both neighbours and kids. We would offer to teach the same lessons to any interested unbelievers because we know that it is through hearing Christian truth that the Holy Spirit draws Christ's elect to him.

Really? I want to examine this for a moment. You state that you bring your kids exactly the same way you might bring an unbelieving friend.

You see, the last time I checked, Baptists were against compelling their friends to attend. When was the last time you invited your children to attend worship with you? I assume you are not telling your unbelieving friends that they must attend worship with you.

In fact, if you wanted to consistently treat your children as your unbelieving friends you would give them the option every week. "Tim Jr., would you like to attend worship with me today?"

Then, as a good Baptist, who doesn't want to force an unbeliever to attend worship, you would drop him off at a friend's house so you could attend worship without him.

I'm sorry but I don't find this argument about the way your treat your children to be just like your neighbor to be a credible argument.


I did not say we bring our kids in the "same way" as we bring unbelievers. What I said was that we bring our kids to worship for the "same reasons" as we bring unbelievers. I freely admit that "the way" we bring our friends to church is not the same way as we bring our children to church. As friends of unbelievers, we do not have the right to force them to do that which is good for them i.e. obtain a detailed knowledge of the Christian faith, so we just invite them to church and do not force them to come. But, as parents, we do have the right to require our children to do that which is good for them. Since we know it is good for them to acquire a detailed knowledge of the Christian faith, we bring our kids to church without offering the option of declining attendence.

My thoughts exactly.
 
Speaking as one real reformed Baptist, I don't see the difficulty. We bring our kids to church and pray with them for exactly the same reasons that you might bring an unbelieving friend to church and pray with them if they let you. We chatechize our kids and teach them the Christian faith a) so that they know what it is, b) it is our duty to evangelize and most important of all (I hope) c) out of love for both neighbours and kids. We would offer to teach the same lessons to any interested unbelievers because we know that it is through hearing Christian truth that the Holy Spirit draws Christ's elect to him.

I always found this an anomaly in Spurgeon's revision of the catechism:

22 Q What offices does Christ execute as our Redeemer?

A Christ as our Redeemer executes the offices of a prophet (Ac 3:22), of a priest (Heb 5:6), and of a king (Ps 2:6), both in his state of humiliation and exaltation.

23 Q How does Christ execute the office of a prophet?

A Christ executes the office of a prophet, in revealing to us (Joh 1:18), by his Word (Joh 20:31), and Spirit (Joh 14:26), the will of God for our salvation.

24 Q How does Christ execute the office of a priest?

A Christ executes the office of a priest, in his once offering up himself a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice (Heb 9:28), and to reconcile us to God (Heb 2:17) and in making continual intercession for us (Heb 7:25).

25 Q How does Christ execute the office of a king?

A Christ executes the office of a king in subduing us to himself (Ps 110:3), in ruling and defending us (Mt 2:6 1Co 15:25) and in restraining and conquering all his and our enemies.

The catechism is personalised from the standpoint that infants are church-members, and at least by profession partakers of the blessings of the covenant.

These exerpts from Spurgeon's catechism appear to refer to church members by the words "us" and "our". nowhere in these excerpts does Spurgeon include infants within his definitions of the words "us" and "our" nor within the category of church membership.

To make your point you need to show where Spurgeon, in his catechism, includes infants in church membership or defines them within the category "us" and "our". Notice I said "infants" and not children. Baptists have historically recognized that credible professions of faith could on occasion be made by children of early years. (I hope you know the case of Phoebe Bartlett, documented by Jonathan Edwards, who made a credible profession at 4 or 5 years of age.)
 
Speaking as one real reformed Baptist, I don't see the difficulty. We bring our kids to church and pray with them for exactly the same reasons that you might bring an unbelieving friend to church and pray with them if they let you. We chatechize our kids and teach them the Christian faith a) so that they know what it is, b) it is our duty to evangelize and most important of all (I hope) c) out of love for both neighbours and kids. We would offer to teach the same lessons to any interested unbelievers because we know that it is through hearing Christian truth that the Holy Spirit draws Christ's elect to him.

Really? I want to examine this for a moment. You state that you bring your kids exactly the same way you might bring an unbelieving friend.

You see, the last time I checked, Baptists were against compelling their friends to attend. When was the last time you invited your children to attend worship with you? I assume you are not telling your unbelieving friends that they must attend worship with you.

In fact, if you wanted to consistently treat your children as your unbelieving friends you would give them the option every week. "Tim Jr., would you like to attend worship with me today?"

Then, as a good Baptist, who doesn't want to force an unbeliever to attend worship, you would drop him off at a friend's house so you could attend worship without him.

I'm sorry but I don't find this argument about the way your treat your children to be just like your neighbor to be a credible argument.


I did not say we bring our kids in the "same way" as we bring unbelievers. What I said was that we bring our kids to worship for the "same reasons" as we bring unbelievers. I freely admit that "the way" we bring our friends to church is not the same way as we bring our children to church. As friends of unbelievers, we do not have the right to force them to do that which is good for them i.e. obtain a detailed knowledge of the Christian faith, so we just invite them to church and do not force them to come. But, as parents, we do have the right to require our children to do that which is good for them. Since we know it is good for them to acquire a detailed knowledge of the Christian faith, we bring our kids to church without offering the option of declining attendence.

I don't understand the distinction. Are such things not good for your neighbor as well? If the reason "...We chatechize our kids and teach them the Christian faith..." is that it is good for neighbors in general then why distinguish between "reprobate" minors and those of majority status?

Let's keep putting those building blocks together "on the fly", shall we?
 
One thing that I've noticed that Reformed Baptist theology lacks in its Systematic presentation is what to do with their kids.

I do not think you need a theological system to tell you what to do with your children. That seems to grow out of your love for them. I would imagine that there are Presbyterian parents who do not fully understand the system behind the reformed paedo view and yet they know what to do with their children. I know non-confessional Christians who do not understand a lick about baptism one way or the other and yet they know what to do with their children as well.

Ken,

Isn't it interesting how God gave a theological system to those in the Covenant of Grace but this, apparently, has been abrogated:
Proverbs 1

1 The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel:
2 To know wisdom and instruction,
To perceive the words of understanding,
3 To receive the instruction of wisdom,
Justice, judgment, and equity;
4 To give prudence to the simple,
To the young man knowledge and discretion—
5 A wise man will hear and increase learning,
And a man of understanding will attain wise counsel,
6 To understand a proverb and an enigma,
The words of the wise and their riddles.
7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,
But fools despise wisdom and instruction.
8 My son, hear the instruction of your father,
And do not forsake the law of your mother;
9 For they will be a graceful ornament on your head,
And chains about your neck.
 
One thing that I've noticed that Reformed Baptist theology lacks in its Systematic presentation is what to do with their kids.

I do not think you need a theological system to tell you what to do with your children. That seems to grow out of your love for them. I would imagine that there are Presbyterian parents who do not fully understand the system behind the reformed paedo view and yet they know what to do with their children. I know non-confessional Christians who do not understand a lick about baptism one way or the other and yet they know what to do with their children as well.

Ken,

Isn't it interesting how God gave a theological system to those in the Covenant of Grace but this, apparently, has been abrogated:
Proverbs 1

1 The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel:
2 To know wisdom and instruction,
To perceive the words of understanding,
3 To receive the instruction of wisdom,
Justice, judgment, and equity;
4 To give prudence to the simple,
To the young man knowledge and discretion—
5 A wise man will hear and increase learning,
And a man of understanding will attain wise counsel,
6 To understand a proverb and an enigma,
The words of the wise and their riddles.
7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,
But fools despise wisdom and instruction.
8 My son, hear the instruction of your father,
And do not forsake the law of your mother;
9 For they will be a graceful ornament on your head,
And chains about your neck.

I have no idea what you are getting at, but praise God for Pro 1. (Are you saying I am not a good student?)
 
To make your point you need to show where Spurgeon, in his catechism, includes infants in church membership or defines them within the category "us" and "our".

The catechism is taught to children regardless of personal profession of faith.
 
I do not think you need a theological system to tell you what to do with your children. That seems to grow out of your love for them. I would imagine that there are Presbyterian parents who do not fully understand the system behind the reformed paedo view and yet they know what to do with their children. I know non-confessional Christians who do not understand a lick about baptism one way or the other and yet they know what to do with their children as well.

Ken,

Isn't it interesting how God gave a theological system to those in the Covenant of Grace but this, apparently, has been abrogated:
Proverbs 1

1 The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel:
2 To know wisdom and instruction,
To perceive the words of understanding,
3 To receive the instruction of wisdom,
Justice, judgment, and equity;
4 To give prudence to the simple,
To the young man knowledge and discretion—
5 A wise man will hear and increase learning,
And a man of understanding will attain wise counsel,
6 To understand a proverb and an enigma,
The words of the wise and their riddles.
7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,
But fools despise wisdom and instruction.
8 My son, hear the instruction of your father,
And do not forsake the law of your mother;
9 For they will be a graceful ornament on your head,
And chains about your neck.

I have no idea what you are getting at, but praise God for Pro 1. (Are you saying I am not a good student?)

No, I am disagreeing with you when you state: "I do not think you need a theological system to tell you what to do with your children."

I don't think God leaves us ignorant of such things just to figure it out on the basis of our love for them. Is not the entire Law summed up in two Commandments: Love God and Love Neighbor. If we could figure out everything for ourselves on the basis of love then Scripture would be really brief.
 
I'm sorry, I reread the statement and it does sound broad but I was applying it to the topic of bringing you children up in the admonition of the Lord.

A parent who has seen what a blessing salvation is in their own life and what blessings obedience to God's Word brings, will, out of love, want to bestow those same blessings on their children, In my humble opinion.

A man who has been blessed through participation in athletics or the arts or boy scouts will probably, out of love, want to bestow those same blessings on their children.

Surely you have some baby Christians at your church who do not know a lick about Berkhof or the WCF but they, out of love, want to bring their children up in the admonition of the Lord.
 
It's not a matter of them loving or not loving them Ken. It's a matter of knowing how to train a child. I'm not purposefully being mean right now but I must point out, again, what is happening as we speak. You are creating an ad-hoc argument for the motivation that parents have toward their children based on a common love for neighbor. I'm pointing out that the Scriptures are not silent with respect to how parents ought to raise their children but it is all premised on their Covenant participation. There is obligation placed upon both the parents to train and the children to obey.

Even if I accepted your premise that children are nothing more than our "neighbors" now with respect to the Covenant, then I could only apply general patterns of behavior that I have towards neighbors but not, specifically, principles that are meant to help parents in their covenantal responsibilities toward their children.
 
It's not a matter of them loving or not loving them Ken. It's a matter of knowing how to train a child. I'm not purposefully being mean right now but I must point out, again, what is happening as we speak. You are creating an ad-hoc argument for the motivation that parents have toward their children based on a common love for neighbor. I'm pointing out that the Scriptures are not silent with respect to how parents ought to raise their children but it is all premised on their Covenant participation. There is obligation placed upon both the parents to train and the children to obey.

Even if I accepted your premise that children are nothing more than our "neighbors" now with respect to the Covenant, then I could only apply general patterns of behavior that I have towards neighbors but not, specifically, principles that are meant to help parents in their covenantal responsibilities toward their children.

Rich,

I am not getting into a paedo/credo argument with you, but I continue to be amazed that you claim to not understand why Baptists bring their kids to church and teach them about God if we don't believe they are yet in covenant with Him. The reason(s) are fairly simple:

1) We are commanded to by God.
2) We hope (yes, hope!) that God will use the appointed means to bring the ones we love the most (our children) into the New Covenant.

To suggest that we feel the same about our children as we do about somebody that happens to live next to us is ludicrous. Obviously, there is a reason God put our children in our families. And our children have benefits that children of unbelievers do not have. We get it. We understand your point. But I don't think your point is such a strong one.

I would suggest that the greater mystery is why paedos treat their children as if they are already saved when really they know they are not but could grow up and reject the God they think they are in covenant with and end up unsaved. As much as you deny it, there is an assumed election of your children.

In practice, there is probably little importance to the difference. The same means of grace gets applied (except, of course, for baptism). The same Gospel is proclaimed. God saved the elect.
 
It's not a matter of them loving or not loving them Ken. It's a matter of knowing how to train a child. I'm not purposefully being mean right now but I must point out, again, what is happening as we speak. You are creating an ad-hoc argument for the motivation that parents have toward their children based on a common love for neighbor. I'm pointing out that the Scriptures are not silent with respect to how parents ought to raise their children but it is all premised on their Covenant participation. There is obligation placed upon both the parents to train and the children to obey.

Even if I accepted your premise that children are nothing more than our "neighbors" now with respect to the Covenant, then I could only apply general patterns of behavior that I have towards neighbors but not, specifically, principles that are meant to help parents in their covenantal responsibilities toward their children.

Rich,

I am not getting into a paedo/credo argument with you, but I continue to be amazed that you claim to not understand why Baptists bring their kids to church and teach them about God if we don't believe they are yet in covenant with Him. The reason(s) are fairly simple:

1) We are commanded to by God.
2) We hope (yes, hope!) that God will use the appointed means to bring the ones we love the most (our children) into the New Covenant.

To suggest that we feel the same about our children as we do about somebody that happens to live next to us is ludicrous. Obviously, there is a reason God put our children in our families. And our children have benefits that children of unbelievers do not have. We get it. We understand your point. But I don't think your point is such a strong one.

I would suggest that the greater mystery is why paedos treat their children as if they are already saved when really they know they are not but could grow up and reject the God they think they are in covenant with and end up unsaved. As much as you deny it, there is an assumed election of your children.

In practice, there is probably little importance to the difference. The same means of grace gets applied (except, of course, for baptism). The same Gospel is proclaimed. God saved the elect.

I didn't say I do not understand why you bring your kids to Church, I said that your Practical Theology is dissonant with your Systematic Theology. Even in your statement that He commands you to bring them, you are only able to appeal to NT commands that don't really give you much data as you reject the covenantal implications of all the data concerning childrearing that precedes the New Testament. You may wish to apply these passages to your kids as "general principles" but the Covenantal framework of those passages is inescapable.

As for any "mystery" as to how we treat our children, I would say that I could state that I would find it "mysterious" the way you treat any member of your Church as if they are saved. This thread ought to be merged with the other thread about conversion. The things I said there about conversion "experience" are apropos. I treat everyone in the Church as if they are part of the Church and I build them all up to maturity. I don't look at a man's profession and say: "OK, good! Now I can move on to the next guy that hasn't professed." They are all in need of maturity.

The irony is that you organically act in the same fashion but, as I said, your systematics force you to speak in a way that is dissonant to your actions.
 
It's not a matter of them loving or not loving them Ken. It's a matter of knowing how to train a child. I'm not purposefully being mean right now but I must point out, again, what is happening as we speak. You are creating an ad-hoc argument for the motivation that parents have toward their children based on a common love for neighbor. I'm pointing out that the Scriptures are not silent with respect to how parents ought to raise their children but it is all premised on their Covenant participation. There is obligation placed upon both the parents to train and the children to obey.

Actually, I had no intention of arguing at all. You misunderstand my point. (I think) I was not saying that without systematics we know *how* to train a child. I was saying that the *impulse* to do so comes from love. In fact, it is this impulse that leads many people to learn about systematics by reading books by Sproul Jr. and Wilson and Ryle et al.

Let me just say that I am truly indebted to the reformed paedobaptists for their contribution to the theology of child rearing! I meant no disrespect.
 
Roger Ken. I didn't feel "disrespected". We're having a conversation here Brother. I understand that Baptists love their children. I see it every day.
 
I did not say we bring our kids in the "same way" as we bring unbelievers. What I said was that we bring our kids to worship for the "same reasons" as we bring unbelievers. I freely admit that "the way" we bring our friends to church is not the same way as we bring our children to church. As friends of unbelievers, we do not have the right to force them to do that which is good for them i.e. obtain a detailed knowledge of the Christian faith, so we just invite them to church and do not force them to come. But, as parents, we do have the right to require our children to do that which is good for them. Since we know it is good for them to acquire a detailed knowledge of the Christian faith, we bring our kids to church without offering the option of declining attendence.

I don't understand the distinction. Are such things not good for your neighbor as well? If the reason "...We chatechize our kids and teach them the Christian faith..." is that it is good for neighbors in general then why distinguish between "reprobate" minors and those of majority status?

Sure church is equally good for our mature, yet not yet regenerate neighbours and our minor, yet not yet regenerate children. (I use "not yet regenerate" deliberately: it is given to none of us in this life to know who will or will not be regenerated in the future: we cannot know who the truly reprobate are unless they die spurning Christ.) But the goodness of church is not the only issue in play; we must consider the question of our legitimate authority in particular relationships. We have the authority as parents to force our children to attend church; we lack the authority as neighbours to force our neighbours to do likewise.

Let's keep putting those building blocks together "on the fly", shall we?

And let's not keep putting forward erroneous ad hominem arguments "on the fly," shall we? There is a specific notice header at the top of this thread that it is for those looking for discussion and debate. I was not replying "on the fly": my post specifically distinguished what I had said originally from your misunderstanding of the same. And if you read my reply again you will see that I drew no distinction about the relative goodness of church for our kids or for our neighbours, so I don't know why you misunderstood me in the way you did. The distinction I drew was:

As friends of unbelievers, we do not have the right to force them to do that which is good for them i.e. obtain a detailed knowledge of the Christian faith, so we just invite them to church and do not force them to come. But, as parents, we do have the right to require our children to do that which is good for them.

Maybe you should ask yourself how you came to misundertand me?
 
Let me just say that I am truly indebted to the reformed paedobaptists for their contribution to the theology of child rearing!

I must agree that I am indebted to those on the other side of the baptism debate for what they have taught me about dealing with my own children.

As far as the systematic theology compared to practical theology is concerned, I'm not sure that I understand the problem. You teach your children the ways of the Lord because they are children of the covenant and you want them to grow in their understanding of the blessings that flow from that relationship. We teach our children the ways of the Lord because God has given them to us and also given us the means of grace to bring them into a relationship with Him. The systematic theology is different from yours, but the practical theology seems to be naturally the same.
 
I did not say we bring our kids in the "same way" as we bring unbelievers. What I said was that we bring our kids to worship for the "same reasons" as we bring unbelievers. I freely admit that "the way" we bring our friends to church is not the same way as we bring our children to church. As friends of unbelievers, we do not have the right to force them to do that which is good for them i.e. obtain a detailed knowledge of the Christian faith, so we just invite them to church and do not force them to come. But, as parents, we do have the right to require our children to do that which is good for them. Since we know it is good for them to acquire a detailed knowledge of the Christian faith, we bring our kids to church without offering the option of declining attendence.

I don't understand the distinction. Are such things not good for your neighbor as well? If the reason "...We chatechize our kids and teach them the Christian faith..." is that it is good for neighbors in general then why distinguish between "reprobate" minors and those of majority status?

Sure church is equally good for our mature, yet not yet regenerate neighbours and our minor, yet not yet regenerate children. (I use "not yet regenerate" deliberately: it is given to none of us in this life to know who will or will not be regenerated in the future: we cannot know who the truly reprobate are unless they die spurning Christ.) But the goodness of church is not the only issue in play; we must consider the question of our legitimate authority in particular relationships. We have the authority as parents to force our children to attend church; we lack the authority as neighbours to force our neighbours to do likewise.
Hence, my point that you do not bring children to Church for the same reasons. It is convenient to cite this but, in fact, children are not just your "neighbor" in interpersonal relations but are, in fact, under your charge and you are responsible for their well being. It is a consistent Baptist refrain in the Systematic presentation that the relationship of God's Church to the unregenerate is spread out like vanilla. Children have no relationship to the Church. Yet, in fact they do because, as you have argued, their Christian parents are in authority to compel them to attend worship to bring them in proximity to the means of Grace. Thus, their relationship to the Church is not simply as a neighbor but their relationship is as those under the authority of people in the Church. In fact, Paul is permitted to address them as an Elder and give commands to them to obey their parents in the Lord.

Thus, you have defeated your original assertion that children are brought for the same reasons as all other neighbors by noting the real authority of the parents, which parents do not have toward their neighbors in general. You may insist that the "reason" your children are there is because it is good for them but, in fact, you acknowledge the real reason they are there is because it's good for them and you can force them to attend.

Of course, this creates another problem for you for you would seem to advocate the idea that if a person of majority status is under the authority of another, then that person would have the authority to compel that person to come to Church for their spiritual good. Thus, perhaps the State could mandate to its citizens that it attend worship.

But the Baptist would typically protest at this point even if we left the spheres of authority issue aside. Why? Because, they will argue, Christianity is not spread by compelling people to attend worship. We are commanded to influence our neighbors so that they willingly attend and not, as it were, under compulsion.

Thus, again, if children are unregenerate just like our unregenerate neighbors then, even if parents have the authority to do so, why do you think it's a "good" thing that they compel children to do something they do not want while it is an inherently "bad" thing to compel adults to attend worship? Or, perhaps, is it your contention that it would also be a good thing to compel adults to attend for the same reasons that it's good to compel children if we just had the authority to do so?

Let's keep putting those building blocks together "on the fly", shall we?

And let's not keep putting forward erroneous ad hominem arguments "on the fly," shall we? There is a specific notice header at the top of this thread that it is for those looking for discussion and debate. I was not replying "on the fly": my post specifically distinguished what I had said originally from your misunderstanding of the same. And if you read my reply again you will see that I drew no distinction about the relative goodness of church for our kids or for our neighbours, so I don't know why you misunderstood me in the way you did. The distinction I drew was:

As friends of unbelievers, we do not have the right to force them to do that which is good for them i.e. obtain a detailed knowledge of the Christian faith, so we just invite them to church and do not force them to come. But, as parents, we do have the right to require our children to do that which is good for them.

Maybe you should ask yourself how you came to misundertand me?

I comprehended your presentation well and it was not intended as an ad hominem but a repetition of my initial point. My point remains that your practical theology is ad hoc. It doesn't nest with your Systematic theological insistence that children are just like any other unregenerate neighbor. As we continue to dialogue, the "ad hoc" quality of your explanation on how you "work it all out" keeps exposing holes. Thus, I'm interested in how you will address this next issue and see what new systematic inconsistencies are exposed as a result.

Put another way, your worldview is incoherent with your practice.
 
Talk about Grandstanding Rich. You make assumptions and charges that have basis in your thinking but not necessarily in reality. You sure talk stronger than you like to be talked to also. You could tone it down a bit. Your representations of Baptists and their Children are lacking concerning my life. My children were born children of wrath till they put on Christ or till faith became assent and trust in the Saviour. I am not assuming they are reprobate "minors' as you seem to claim we are declaring but we are claiming they are born in sin and need to repent and believe so that they may be just like faithful Abraham. Plus we are telling the whole world to repent and be baptised. As Luke recorded in Acts God now commands every man everywhere to repent. We are commanded to admonish our children in the Lord. We are not commanded to lie to them and say they are in the everlasting Covenant with God without them repenting, believing, and confessing. If they respond to the Gospel by repenting, believing, calling upon the Lord and Confessing Christ then we should give them assurances based upon God's word.

Another thing. I am personally charged with raising my Kids to know about God and their responsibility to Him. I am personally charged with this responsibility to a greater degree than I am to my neighbour. That does not necessarily place them in any covenant though. The only relationship my children have with the church is that they grew up in her shadow. Just as the Church is responsible to Proclaim the Gospel to the World they are responsible for making sure I am doing my job in admonishing them also. My children are growing up in her shadow and mine but not necessarily in her Covenant with God. We have already discussed the Covenant of Circumcision and that it is not fully the Covenant of Grace.

You have also claimed that you would find it "mysterious" the way we treat any member of our Church as if they are saved. Well you guys do it also when you look for Elders and deacons. And maybe you lack the need to discern where a brother is because you consider all who are in the Church as covenant members, whether in Christ or not. That is mysterious to me. We can lay the same charges against you.

My point is that I wish you would tone down a bit and try to find out more without as much accusation. I think you misrepresent us sometimes and unnecessarily when you are trying to get at the facts, or trying to get us to see our supposed inconsistencies.

Sorry if my thoughts are just thrown together. I do implore you to read Nehemiah Coxe's Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ. Particularly the part on the Abrahamic Covenant.

Be Encouraged brother,
Randy
 
Talk about Grandstanding Rich. You make assumptions and charges that have basis in your thinking but not necessarily in reality.
Reality is what we're determining here Randy. We're determining if the two can be "meshed". If you follow the thread what I am noting is the dissonance between the love that Baptists show toward their children and the things they do for them that do not have a place in their Systematic insistence about the unregenerate at large. The ire you are experiencing is a man repeating back to you what Baptists say of children in general and that they have zero claim to spiritual things.
You sure talk stronger than you like to be talked to also. You could tone it down a bit.
Sometimes true. I don't believe I've been harsh in my tone in this thread.
Your representations of Baptists and their Children are lacking concerning my life. My children were born children of wrath till they put on Christ or till faith became assent and trust in the Saviour.
That is toning it down? What if you are wrong concerning your children? What if they had faith before they could articulate it with an adult understanding? If salvation is not of him who wills and him who runs but of him who shows mercy then you just undermined that notion for, indeed, by your statement the lads were certainly objects of wrath on the basis of their intellectual capacity.

You see, to me, this is an example of the "tone" that I'm repeating that causes so much consternation.

I am not assuming they are reprobate "minors' as you seem to claim we are declaring but we are claiming they are born in sin and need to repent and believe so that they may be just like faithful Abraham.
I didn't use the word reprobate. I used unregenerate.

Plus we are telling the whole world to repent and be baptised. As Luke recorded in Acts God now commands every man everywhere to repent. We are commanded to admonish our children in the Lord. We are not commanded to lie to them and say they are in the everlasting Covenant with God without them repenting, believing, and confessing. If they respond to the Gospel by repenting, believing, calling upon the Lord and Confessing Christ then we should give them assurances based upon God's word.
Now, who is ratcheting up the dialogue Randy. Lie to them?

As to "how" you developed this theology on how you're commanded to admonish our children in the Lord - is what you just presented the instruction that God has given us concerning our children? Again, you acknowledge a difference between neighbor and child by a specific command but then you just applied a general principle about neighbors. Where would you go in Scripture that says that you are just supposed to train a child by proclaiming the Gospel to him just like you would a neighbor?

Another thing. I am personally charged with raising my Kids to know about God and their responsibility to Him. I am personally charged with this responsibility to a greater degree than I am to my neighbour. That does not necessarily place them in any covenant though.
So, again, their relationship to God is somehow different but you just can't seem to define how other than the fact that they are somehow "responsibility" to Him. Are they under any obligation to obey you? Why does Paul tell them to obey you if they are not in any Covenant? What authority does Paul have to command them?

The only relationship my children have with the church is that they grew up in her shadow. Just as the Church is responsible to Proclaim the Gospel to the World they are responsible for making sure I am doing my job in admonishing them also. My children are growing up in her shadow and mine but not necessarily in her Covenant with God. We have already discussed the Covenant of Circumcision and that it is not fully the Covenant of Grace.
Again, I hate to be blunt Randy, but this is another "ad-hoc" presentation. Where in the NT do you find this? Where did you go to develop this last paragraph? You see, I find it fascinating that you acknowledge that God has given you greater responsibilities toward them to admonish them in the Lord but you have absolutely no idea what that specifically means other than to put together a general idea based on the fact that they are of the mass of unregenerate humanity but that you have authority over them.

You have also claimed that you would find it "mysterious" the way we treat any member of our Church as if they are saved. Well you guys do it also when you look for Elders and deacons. And maybe you lack the need to discern where a brother is because you consider all who are in the Church as covenant members, whether in Christ or not. That is mysterious to me. We can lay the same charges against you.
If you note the context of that reply to Doug then you would note that my point is that it is a Baptistic bifurcation of membership I was challenging. This is why I noted that Doug ought to check out the recent thread about crisis conversion. It's really the Baptist that tries to pin the tail on the regenerated guy and not me. My point is that, since you guys are insisting on regeneration, then to be consistent you would have to cast a wary eye toward all. I was highlighting another incoherence to a typical systematic presentation where you will start by insisting that paedobaptists are monstrously assuming their children to not be unregenerate but then don't consider it monstrous that you are presuming a professor is regenerate. In other words, you guys don't eat your own dog food.

My point is that I wish you would tone down a bit and try to find out more without as much accusation. I think you misrepresent us sometimes and unnecessarily when you are trying to get at the facts, or trying to get us to see our supposed inconsistencies.
And I would suggest that I can improve but that much of the ire is actually hearing your systematic theology put into a practical mold. Just as above when you missed the whole point about the "mystery", it is my belief that the dissonance between your systematics and practice creates a tension that you guys get irked about when I press you on it.

Sorry if my thoughts are just thrown together.
Well, that was my point. :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top