Einwechter on Baptism

[PuritanCovenanter]

I didn't use the word reprobate. I used unregenerate.

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?

Maybe I misunderstood this but you use the word reprobate here.

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 believe we must be cognizant before we can assent and trust. A child needs to know of Christ before he can be justified in time and a Covenant Member. If you want to use John the baptist as an argument I will only say that His mom is assuming and there is not proof of what she said. He may just have been quickened in the true sense of the word but that doesn't necessarily mean he was regenerate yet? And we can discuss this till we are blue in the face. It isn't normative even if the scriptures confirm he is not born a child of wrath. I am not offended by the tone of truth. I am trying to get you to tone down on your assumptions and rhetoric concerning Reformed Baptist Theology and our Children. We are acting according to our systematic understanding of Scripture. And we also can make the same claims against you and your beliefs being inconsistent with the Word and practices of the Everlasting Covenant from our view.

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 neighbour?

Yes, I did ratchet it up. I usually don't and am not sure I needed to but I wanted to be a little stingy as I believe you are overly stingy sometimes.

And here is where your rhetoric is found. You keep making claims about what every baptist states. I never said I am suppose to train a child by proclaiming the Gospel to him just like you would a neighbour. I don't even proclaim the Gospel the same way to each neighbour. I use different approaches with the same message. I also believe I have more of a responsibility to a friend than I do a stranger. I do have a responsibility to both though. I do have the same message though. Repent, believe, call upon the Lord and you will be saved. The message is the same but my responsibility is different in degree.

Yes, I agree there is a difference between my child and my neighbor but it lays in my responsibility not in their condition before God. I would point to...

(1Ti 5:8) But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

and the passages in Epesians which instruct parents how to deal with their children.

I am not commanded to provide for my neighbor. I am not to raise grown men to adulthood where they already are. I am not even responsible for raising another mans child. Those are his obligations. I am responsible to try to help them when they are in need as Love and the book of James would compel me. It is a level of responsibility that is distinguishable. Their status before God is the same if they are Born Again. All men are born children of wrath because of the CoW.

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?

Let me ask you a question. Just because a man is born in Adam does that make him free to keep disobeying the Moral law? The Covenant of Works is sufficient to make a man bound to obey God's desire for his life. God doesn't quit being the Sovereign over creation because a of a broken Covenant. All men everywhere will be held accountable for every deed and every word spoken while he is in the body. I don't have to appeal to the Covenant of Abraham or Moses for this. All men will be held accountable as Romans 1 through 4 states.

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.

Here is more rhetoric. I am given authority over my children because God gave them to me. They are responsible to me in a moral way under the Creator's Moral law. You are neglecting the fact that everyman lives in God's sight and under his precepts from Creation. It is not "ad-hoc" arguing. It is systematic.

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.

First off we are not trying to pin the tail on the regenerate necessarily. God knows how is and who isn't. We are doing what the early church did in receiving repentant, believing, confessing persons into the membership of the church. Yes we believe that the Church should represent the true church and those who are in the Everlasting Covenant, but we can not see the hearts of men. We are called to judge those and ourselves who are in the faith. And you can not deny this. A credible confession is necessary to us as it should be to you before you offer the right hand of fellowship to another. And it seems to be important to Paul and the other writers of the New Testament also. And maybe you just don't understand what is going on even though you are closely related to us. It is possible. Many a husband and wife who live together don't understand each other.

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.

Much of my problem is hearing you think you know what we are saying and I don't think you do.... As I have pointed out above. I believe our thought is actually more harmonious with the scripture than yours. I think you have some things misplaced which makes your system out of accord with the Scriptures which reveals that all children are born under a covenant that pervades or permeates all born men. The Covenant of Works. And you want to place them in Covenants that administered this Covenant of Works along with the Covenant of Grace where in they may not be placed sometimes.

Well, that was my point.

I was refering to how my thoughts were put down in the post. Not what I was saying by definition. I have thought this through a bit more than you give me credit for. From beginning to end. It isn't just a hodge podge. Read Nehemiah Coxe Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ when you get a chance.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I didn't use the word reprobate. I used unregenerate.

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?

Maybe I misunderstood this but you use the word reprobate here.

Sloppy use of terms. You caught me.

I believe we must be cognizant before we can assent and trust. A child needs to know of Christ before he can be justified in time and a Covenant Member. If you want to use John the baptist as an argument I will only say that His mom is assuming and there is not proof of what she said. He may just have been quickened in the true sense of the word but that doesn't necessarily mean he was regenerate yet? And we can discuss this till we are blue in the face. It isn't normative even if the scriptures confirm he is not born a child of wrath. I am not offended by the tone of truth. I am trying to get you to tone down on your assumptions and rhetoric concerning Reformed Baptist Theology and our Children. We are acting according to our systematic understanding of Scripture. And we also can make the same claims against you and your beliefs being inconsistent with the Word and practices of the Everlasting Covenant from our view.

I'm not making any assumptions are Baptist theology. I live amongst them and pray with them. I know what you do with your children and how you argue for your version of Covenant theology. I honestly believe you guys are comfortable with the dissonance which is why you don't detect it. You may claim dissonance in our theology but, because we see ourselves and our children to be participating in the same substantial Covenant as the one made with Abraham and that all the commands for children and parents are still intact, you would have to show that God's theology of child-rearing in the Proverbs and the Psalms is incoherent.

Yes, I did ratchet it up. I usually don't and am not sure I needed to but I wanted to be a little stingy as I believe you are overly stingy sometimes.

OK.

And here is where your rhetoric is found. You keep making claims about what every baptist states. I never said I am suppose to train a child by proclaiming the Gospel to him just like you would a neighbour. I don't even proclaim the Gospel the same way to each neighbour. I use different approaches with the same message. I also believe I have more of a responsibility to a friend than I do a stranger. I do have a responsibility to both though. I do have the same message though. Repent, believe, call upon the Lord and you will be saved. The message is the same but my responsibility is different in degree.

Well, it might be easier, Randy, if Baptists were monolithic in their arguments about what their responsibilities are to their children. Trying to find a large group of Baptists that agree on these specifics is very difficult. I have to deal with strains of arguments. The point, however, is that you made an argument that training a child in the fear and admonition of the Lord was merely a special case of gospel presentation and a calling of them to repentance.

Yes, I agree there is a difference between my child and my neighbor but it lays in my responsibility not in their condition before God. I would point to...


and the passages in Epesians which instruct parents how to deal with their children.

And that's the problem. You have a grand total of a paragraph that you believe applies to your children and you are left "filling in the blanks". It is this filling in of the blanks that is unique to each Baptist I interact with.

I am not commanded to provide for my neighbor. I am not to raise grown men to adulthood where they already are. I am not even responsible for raising another mans child. Those are his obligations. I am responsible to try to help them when they are in need as Love and the book of James would compel me. It is a level of responsibility that is distinguishable. Not their status before God. All men are born children of wrath because of the CoW.

Yet, this is about all you can say about your children. All the rest about what you do with them in the Church is ad hoc.

Let me ask you a question. Just because a man is born in Adam does that make him free to keep disobeying the Moral law? The Covenant of Works is sufficient to make a man bound to obey God's desire for his life. God doesn't quit being the Sovereign over creation because a of a broken Covenant. All men everywhere will be held accountable for every deed and every word spoken while he is in the body. I don't have to appeal to the Covenant of Abraham or Moses for this. All men will be held accountable as Romans 1 through 4 states.

Now, again, you are falling back to the application of how men, in general are supposed to obey the Law. Yet, these passages are not intended to show a man how he is supposed to turn to his neighbor to get him to obey the Law but to show that men cannot do so. Thus, you cannot appeal to Romans 1-3 as the basis for your children's obedience except to note that they will never obey according to the Law as found in Romans 1-3. For you to teach them to obey on the basis of human strength, which is what Romans 1-3 speaks of, would be to send them on a failed errand of self-reliance.

Here is more rhetoric. I am given authority over my children because God gave them to me. They are responsible to me in a moral way under the Creator's Moral law. You are neglecting the fact that everyman lives in God's sight and under his precepts from Creation. It is not "ad-hoc" arguing. It is systematic.

It might be "systematic" but it's not Reformed. The Law only brings death for the man who tries to walk in it. You do not approach the Law in this fashion and it would be monstrous for a Reformed man to tell his children to obey the Law in their own strength.

First off we are not trying to pin the tail on the regenerate necessarily. God knows how is and who isn't. We are doing what the early church did in receiving repentant, believing, confessing persons into the membership of the church. Yes we believe that the Church should represent the true church and those who are in the Everlasting Covenant, but we can not see the hearts of men. We are called to judge those and ourselves who are in the faith. And you can not deny this. A credible confession is necessary to us as it should be to you before you offer the right hand of fellowship to another. And it seems to be important to Paul and the other writers of the New Testament also. And maybe you just don't understand what is going on even though you are closely related to us. It is possible. Many a husband and wife who live together don't understand each other.

Again, you miss the point. In other words, you are confirming exactly what I stated to Doug to begin with. You are not basing fellowship on the knowledge of regeneration but on perceived fruit. That's it.

Much of my problem is hearing you think you know what we are saying and I don't think you do.... As I have pointed out above. I believe our thought is actually more harmonious with the scripture than yours. I think you have some things misplaced which makes your system out of accord with the Scriptures which reveals that all children are born under a covenant that pervades or permeates all born men. The Covenant of Works. And you want to place them in Covenants that administered this Covenant of Works along with the Covenant of Grace where in they may not be placed.

Well, I guess that's why we debate. I think I do understand you and I see Baptist continually left wanting with respect to giving account for the way they live their practical theology when their systematic theology is so ideally insistent about the perfection of the New Covenant whose membership only God knows. I also believe that the fact that you don't really believe that you baptize or fellowship on the basis of election is borne out in the way you live your lives.

I was refering to how my thoughts were put down in the post. Not what I was saying by definition. I have thought this through a bit more than you give me credit for. From beginning to end. It isn't just a hodge podge. Read Nehemiah Coxe Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ when you get a chance.

You see, the difference between us is that, if you wanted to know how I train my child in the fear and admonition of the Lord I have entire Books of the Bible dedicated to it. I don't need to refer you to an external source. But, even as you have confounded the passages of the New Covenant that were meant to speak of the invisible Church and tried to apply it to all the Church, so you have in the process severed the very means that God gave to you in order to train and admonish your young ones. Show me a place in the Scriptures where God does not equip for the very thing He commands. As I noted in another thread:

1. OT saints were saved by Union with Christ
2. They always were.
3. They were commanded to train their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord.
4. They were given a Covenant, Commands, and instruction on how to be the means that God would use to save those who were united to Christ by faith.

What you claim is that 1-3 are true of NT saints but God has completely swept aswy all the means that he used to offer to OT saints that were saved in the exact same manner as we.

Why?

And so you are left with a whole paragraph in the New Testament and you have to try and pull together bits and pieces about man's general obedience to the Law to argue that children must obey you with a capacity that God says they do not have.

 

[timmopussycat]

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.

I am not speaking for other Baptists you may have heard or read: just from what I have seen. The fact that I may have children under my authority does not give me additional reasons to want to see them at church: it gives me the authority to bring them there. That children have a relationship to their parents who are members of a church does not entail, as necessary consequence that the children have a relationship to the church. Although Paul clearly expects that some children were believers because his command is obey your parents "in the Lord", it a not a necessary consequence of Paul's charges to children that he regarded all children in the congregations as in the covenant: when Paul addresses the saints of a given city, we don't presume that all members of those churches were truly regenerate.

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.

I don't think so. You are confusing motives and means. The reasons (motives) why a parent may exercise authority (means) in the one case may be the same reasons (motives) as he exercises pursuasion (different means) in the other case. Finally, you are begging the question whether all kids feel compelled to attend church. This is simply not the case. Keep in mind that if we are parents who truly live our faith, we will be introducing our kids to it at home not only by the words we say but by the lives we live and with all the winsomeness we, with the help of the Holy Spirit can bring to the task, and the churches we attend (at least in my experience) will attempt to do likewise. Having watched many such parents and the Sunday school in action at my church I can testify that many of our kids simply do not experiece church attendence as compulsion. After exposure to our church, a great many kids want to come back. This has had some surprising results. One young lady 8 years of age, was the evangelist God recently used to bring her father to faith!

[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.

Not so. For I draw from the equity of the family law teachings of the OT that it is a parent's responsibility to ensure that their children know the truth of God in detail. But our evangelistic responsibility to our neighbours is specifically qualiifed "to give an answer for the hope within us" in "gentleness and respect keeping a clear conscience so that those who speak against your good behaviour in Christ may be ashamed of your slander". This would seem to rule out the use of force in evangelism whether by individual or by state. Finally, you seem to be confusing bringing children who know little or nothing of the gospel and who often will not experience church attendence as compulsion with compelling those who have rejected the gospel to attend.

[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.

Christianity is spread by inviting people to hear the gospel. If we offend them by our manner of inviting them, we make it harder for them to hear the gospel. We do not want to set obstacles in the way of coming to faith. Legally compelling our neighbours to atted does set such an obstacle in neighbour's paths; while the gentle bringing of our children to church in the above described context does not do so.

[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?

Once again you beg the question of the children's desire.

[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?

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.

I beg to differ; what you are seeing is not ad hoc theology, nor is Baptist worldview necessarily inconsistent with our practice. From my perspective you are having trouble grasping a worldview different from your own. I have often observed that paedos tend to find it difficult to follow the inner logic of what to us credos is straightforward. (By the way I have also observed that some credo's do not even attempt to discern the inner logic of paedo's AS IT APPEARS TO THE PAEDO) and that is a mistake I try to avoid.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I am not speaking for other Baptists you may have heard or read: just from what I have seen. The fact that I may have children under my authority does not give me additional reasons to want to see them at church: it gives me the authority to bring them there. That children have a relationship to their parents who are members of a church does not entail, as necessary consequence that the children have a relationship to the church. Although Paul clearly expects that some children were believers because his command is obey your parents "in the Lord", it a not a necessary consequence of Paul's charges to children that he regarded all children in the congregations as in the covenant: when Paul addresses the saints of a given city, we don't presume that all members of those churches were truly regenerate.

I don't think so. You are confusing motives and means. The reasons (motives) why a parent may exercise authority (means) in the one case may be the same reasons (motives) as he exercises pursuasion (different means) in the other case. Finally, you are begging the question whether all kids feel compelled to attend church. This is simply not the case. Keep in mind that if we are parents who truly live our faith, we will be introducing our kids to it at home not only by the words we say but by the lives we live and with all the winsomeness we, with the help of the Holy Spirit can bring to the task, and the churches we attend (at least in my experience) will attempt to do likewise. Having watched many such parents and the Sunday school in action at my church I can testify that many of our kids simply do not experiece church attendence as compulsion. After exposure to our church, a great many kids want to come back. This has had some surprising results. One young lady 8 years of age, was the evangelist God recently used to bring her father to faith!

It is amazing to me how you start out with such a clear parallel to your neighbor, virtually making your child indistinguishable from him as for "reason" but then end up, more and more, distinguishing your children from the world. You prove, in fact, by especially the last statment how you have an expectation for them and even note their warmth to the things of God.

Indeed, you are correct that children of believers are very typically NOT hostile to the things of God and, in so doing, confirm the Biblical data about the very nature of children of believers having a disposition different than that of the world.

As much as you seem to say that I don't understand Baptists, you are confirming everything I know about Baptists but we have to move from the Systematic insistence of the Baptists' children being indistinguishable from the world to the point that you are speaking very fondly of their cooperation in the means of grace. Yet, when I have a very typical conversation on the nature of children with respect to the Covenant (visible or invisible), Children are spoken of, in the abstract, as at enmity with God. That Baptists call their children enemies of God but, when pressed, don't treat them as enemies of God, this only confirms my initial observation.

Not so. For I draw from the equity of the family law teachings of the OT that it is a parent's responsibility to ensure that their children know the truth of God in detail. But our evangelistic responsibility to our neighbours is specifically qualiifed "to give an answer for the hope within us" in "gentleness and respect keeping a clear conscience so that those who speak against your good behaviour in Christ may be ashamed of your slander". This would seem to rule out the use of force in evangelism whether by individual or by state. Finally, you seem to be confusing bringing children who know little or nothing of the gospel and who often will not experience church attendence as compulsion with compelling those who have rejected the gospel to attend.

The problem with that "general equity", as you call it, is that it is not something that can be applied indiscriminately to humanity. Those commands and promises were not for Hittites and Amorites. It's not as if they could just observe the "general equity" of the Abrahamic promise and, accordingly, raise their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. The only reason you can speak of your children differently in this case, yet again, is because you really don't believe they are "just like your neighbor" in terms of their ability. You also know, full well, that a Hindu cannot just look at the general equity of the Proverbs and tell his son to obey him as unto the Lord. All those commands - to both parents and children - were in a Covenant framework. If the the New Covenant, in its nature, severs children from the Covenant of Grace then children are in the same relationship to it as their Hindu neighbors.

Notice the immediate shift in your talking. When you were talking about your children you fondly recount how they are warm to Church and the things of God and that there is no sense that being brought close to the things of God is of compulsion. Yet, now we're talking about your neighbor at large and you immediately recognize that his reaction will be different. Yet again you draw more distance from your neighbour in general and the children in your Church.

Christianity is spread by inviting people to hear the gospel. If we offend them by our manner of inviting them, we make it harder for them to hear the gospel. We do not want to set obstacles in the way of coming to faith. Legally compelling our neighbours to atted does set such an obstacle in neighbour's paths; while the gentle bringing of our children to church in the above described context does not do so.

Yet, again, you don't see it naturally as an obstacle for children of believers because you have confirmed there is something very different about them that is more than just their relation to you.

Once again you beg the question of the children's desire.

And, once again, I point out that it's not my theology that typically teaches that children are, by nature, children of wrath and have no desire for such things. Notice how in answering my reductio, you end up repudiating a typical Baptist motif.

Put another way, your worldview is incoherent with your practice.

I beg to differ; what you are seeing is not ad hoc theology, nor is Baptist worldview necessarily inconsistent with our practice. From my perspective you are having trouble grasping a worldview different from your own. I have often observed that paedos tend to find it difficult to follow the inner logic of what to us credos is straightforward. (By the way I have also observed that some credo's do not even attempt to discern the inner logic of paedo's AS IT APPEARS TO THE PAEDO) and that is a mistake I try to avoid.

Well, I do appreciate your irenic tone and promise to do better myself. I am certain you will not be bowled over by it but it is my contention that you are refuting your own "inner logic" as to the status of children.

It's really this simple Tim: are your children to be considered, by nature, children of wrath and all that this means from what we know about an unregenerate heart? If you say "Yes" then you would repudiate practically every beautiful thing you said above about how your children naturally follow after their parents in the faith and, in contrast to their pagan neighbors, do not feel "compelled" to worship.

You see, the fact is that I've worshipped with both and I know that credo-Baptist parents are practically indistinguishable in the way they treat their kids and teach them to pray in Jesus' name. While I rejoice at this activity I also know that this cannot be accounted for systematically if they continue to insist that they are children of wrath. Mormon, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist children (or adults) have no access to God in prayer nor are they do they naturally want to be at Christian worship.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Well, it might be easier, Randy, if Baptists were monolithic in their arguments about what their responsibilities are to their children. Trying to find a large group of Baptists that agree on these specifics is very difficult. I have to deal with strains of arguments. The point, however, is that you made an argument that training a child in the fear and admonition of the Lord was merely a special case of gospel presentation and a calling of them to repentance.

Honestly, Rich, it's nice that most paedos on this board are monolithic in their arguments about what their responsibilities are to their children (at least the ones that get in these debates). But to make the charge that Baptists aren't while ALL paedos are is ridiculous. I know quite a few Presbyterians and Lutherans in my area and quite a few Reformed churches that fail to articulate any kind of systematic view of how they should raise their children and fail to do even what some Baptists would consider their biblical parental duty. I've heard everywhere from "they're saved by their baptism" to "they are members of our local church" to "it's just a baby dedication like what you do." This is why I sometimes am confused when you talk of a monolithic paedo argument. It doesn't exist.

And that's the problem. You have a grand total of a paragraph that you believe applies to your children and you are left "filling in the blanks". It is this filling in of the blanks that is unique to each Baptist I interact with.

So, you think that, because we don't believe our children are "in covenant" with God under the New Covenant (which in our view means saved) that all the teaching of the Old Testament doesn't apply to them. Here is where you are wrong: the teaching of the Old Testament involved parents and children who may or may not have been saved. They were all considered in covenant under the Old Covenant and were responsible to obey the commands on how to raise children, etc. The parents who are believers under the New Covenant are considered in covenant with God and are responsible to obey the commands on how to raise children, etc. Therefore, we have the same Scripture that you have at your disposal to apply to the raising of your children.

Again, you miss the point. In other words, you are confirming exactly what I stated to Doug to begin with. You are not basing fellowship on the knowledge of regeneration but on perceived fruit. That's it.

We are basing fellowship on the profession of faith, which is what they did in the book of Acts and in the Epistles. There is no (read that zero, nada, nil) evidence that they ever received anyone into fellowship (as a member of the church) that did not make a profession of faith. They did not presume regeneration, they baptized and received into fellowship based on profession.

Show me a place in the Scriptures where God does not equip for the very thing He commands.

Careful, Rich. Augustine prayed a prayer about this in his Confessions, didn't he? There are plenty of commands that God gives that he does not equip people to do.

As I noted in another thread:

1. OT saints were saved by Union with Christ
2. They always were.
3. They were commanded to train their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord.
4. They were given a Covenant, Commands, and instruction on how to be the means that God would use to save those who were united to Christ by faith.

What you claim is that 1-3 are true of NT saints but God has completely swept aswy all the means that he used to offer to OT saints that were saved in the exact same manner as we.

Wrong! We claim that all 4 are true, but that the Covenant functions differently because it is NOT the Old Covenant. One of the major points of Paul's writings is that participation in the covenant is not based on physical descent. You gladly accept that not all physical Jews are in the New Covenant. But, if the promise was made to Abraham's descendants, shouldn't they have been? Why are they not? They are not because the New Covenant is not based on physical birth. It is based on spiritual birth. The New Covenant functions differently than the Old Covenant. It is not yet complete or perfect because Christ hasn't returned. Yes, there will be people that are not members of the universal church that make a profession and become members of the visible church. That happened in Acts under the noses of the Apostles. But that doesn't change the fact that they baptized based on profession and told those who were professed believers to train their children in the ways of the Lord in the same way those who were circumcised members of the Old Covenant church were told to train their children.

 

[timmopussycat]

I am not speaking for other Baptists you may have heard or read: just from what I have seen. The fact that I may have children under my authority does not give me additional reasons to want to see them at church: it gives me the authority to bring them there. That children have a relationship to their parents who are members of a church does not entail, as necessary consequence that the children have a relationship to the church. Although Paul clearly expects that some children were believers because his command is obey your parents "in the Lord", it a not a necessary consequence of Paul's charges to children that he regarded all children in the congregations as in the covenant: when Paul addresses the saints of a given city, we don't presume that all members of those churches were truly regenerate.

I don't think so. You are confusing motives and means. The reasons (motives) why a parent may exercise authority (means) in the one case may be the same reasons (motives) as he exercises pursuasion (different means) in the other case. Finally, you are begging the question whether all kids feel compelled to attend church. This is simply not the case. Keep in mind that if we are parents who truly live our faith, we will be introducing our kids to it at home not only by the words we say but by the lives we live and with all the winsomeness we, with the help of the Holy Spirit can bring to the task, and the churches we attend (at least in my experience) will attempt to do likewise. Having watched many such parents and the Sunday school in action at my church I can testify that many of our kids simply do not experiece church attendence as compulsion. After exposure to our church, a great many kids want to come back. This has had some surprising results. One young lady 8 years of age, was the evangelist God recently used to bring her father to faith!

[It is amazing to me how you start out with such a clear parallel to your neighbor, virtually making your child indistinguishable from him as for "reason" but then end up, more and more, distinguishing your children from the world. You prove, in fact, by especially the last statment how you have an expectation for them and even note their warmth to the things of God

Indeed, you are correct that children of believers are very typically NOT hostile to the things of God and, in so doing, confirm the Biblical data about the very nature of children of believers having a disposition different than that of the world.

Why are you presuming that the lady I cite was a child of believing parents? At least one of her parents was not, and the other whose history I don't fully know was certainly not living as a Christian at the time. Erica was dropped off at our Sunday school by her parents who did not attend the services because they wanted her to get "moral training". In addition, we have an outreach to the local public school in the form of an after school club and most of those families are not Christian. Yet those kids come, repeatedly and many eagerly.

Why are you presuming that the only possible attitude of an unbeliever to the church is total hostility? People's attitudes toward something are also influenced by that something whether they are young or old. While there is a fundamental hostility of unbelievers to the gospel, that hostility can be mitigated by the Holy Spirit as people encounter godly Christians and churches even before it is removed in conversion.

[As much as you seem to say that I don't understand Baptists, you are confirming everything I know about Baptists but we have to move from the Systematic insistence of the Baptists' children being indistinguishable from the world to the point that you are speaking very fondly of their cooperation in the means of grace. Yet, when I have a very typical conversation on the nature of children with respect to the Covenant (visible or invisible), Children are spoken of, in the abstract, as at enmity with God. That Baptists call their children enemies of God but, when pressed, don't treat them as enemies of God, this only confirms my initial observation.

What you are not understanding is the Baptist perception that not yet regenerate are in the same position as as yet unregenerate adults who are also attending church. And you are misunderstanding: I said nothing about children of believers cooperating in the means of grace while children of unbelivers do not. In this discussion, you are also refusing to grant of unbelieving children, that which you would most certainly grant of adults, that even minimal exposure to means of grace may be the means the Holy Spirit uses to begin to draw them to Christ. So while both unbelieving child and unbelieving adult are not yet regenerate, they may indeed be on their way to that point.

[The problem with that "general equity", as you call it, is that it is not something that can be applied indiscriminately to humanity. Those commands and promises were not for Hittites and Amorites. It's not as if they could just observe the "general equity" of the Abrahamic promise and, accordingly, raise their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. The only reason you can speak of your children differently in this case, yet again, is because you really don't believe they are "just like your neighbor" in terms of their ability. You also know, full well, that a Hindu cannot just look at the general equity of the Proverbs and tell his son to obey him as unto the Lord. All those commands - to both parents and children - were in a Covenant framework. If the the New Covenant, in its nature, severs children from the Covenant of Grace then children are in the same relationship to it as their Hindu neighbors.

And once again you misunderstand the credo position. When I said that we draw from the equity of the OT command the duty to teach our children, I did not say anything about equity guaranteeing the children's covenant status or guaranteeing the success of our efforts, I was only pointing to our duty. I have no different expectations of credo children than I do of unbelievers children. If God will have mercy, he will; if he won't that is his prerogative.

[Notice the immediate shift in your talking. When you were talking about your children you fondly recount how they are warm to Church and the things of God and that there is no sense that being brought close to the things of God is of compulsion. Yet, now we're talking about your neighbor at large and you immediately recognize that his reaction will be different. Yet again you draw more distance from your neighbour in general and the children in your Church.

Actually I am not talking about my children: we have none. I am talking about children of unbelieving parents who come to our church and then come to faith by means of the witness and teaching here. And our neighbours who are come because of something they see in the lives and words of members are also visibly influenced while on their way to conversion.

[And, once again, I point out that it's not my theology that typically teaches that children are, by nature, children of wrath and have no desire for such things. Notice how in answering my reductio, you end up repudiating a typical Baptist motif.

Now it may be that the Baptists you have talked to do not distinguish between an unbelieving child's innate sinful hatred of God in the abstract and how the Holy Ghost can mitigate the hostility before regeneration so that the means of grace may be heard, (if your theology says that regeneration takes place immediately before conversion). If your theology allows that one may be regenerated before one expresses conscious faith in Christ, which is why one hears the gospel rather than rejecting it out of hand,) then your Baptist friends need to make the distinction between an unregenerate child and a regenerate yet not yet professing child.

The point I am trying to get you to see is that in any case of regeneration and conversion there are three elements in play, the unregnerate nature of the unbeliever is not the only one, the Holy Spirit is also involved and the third element is how his work is mediated through the witnessing believers.

Put another way, your worldview is incoherent with your practice.

I beg to differ; what you are seeing is not ad hoc theology, nor is Baptist worldview necessarily inconsistent with our practice. From my perspective you are having trouble grasping a worldview different from your own. I have often observed that paedos tend to find it difficult to follow the inner logic of what to us credos is straightforward. (By the way I have also observed that some credo's do not even attempt to discern the inner logic of paedo's AS IT APPEARS TO THE PAEDO) and that is a mistake I try to avoid.

Well, I do appreciate your irenic tone and promise to do better myself. I am certain you will not be bowled over by it but it is my contention that you are refuting your own "inner logic" as to the status of children.

[It's really this simple Tim: are your children to be considered, by nature, children of wrath and all that this means from what we know about an unregenerate heart? If you say "Yes" then you would repudiate practically every beautiful thing you said above about how your children naturally follow after their parents in the faith and, in contrast to their pagan neighbors, do not feel "compelled" to worship.

Notice how your entire argument is predicated on your erroneous assumption that all the children I was referring to were children of believing parents. They arn't.

[You see, the fact is that I've worshipped with both and I know that credo-Baptist parents are practically indistinguishable in the way they treat their kids and teach them to pray in Jesus' name.

Do you think that maybe the Baptist parents you know might also have taught their kids, that the prerequisite to praying in Jesus name is that they commit themselves to Jesus as Saviour and Lord before doing so? ;-)

[While I rejoice at this activity I also know that this cannot be accounted for systematically if they continue to insist that they are children of wrath. Mormon, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist children (or adults) have no access to God in prayer nor are they do they naturally want to be at Christian worship.

And as I say again I was not talking about children of believers.

 

[aleksanderpolo]

We are basing fellowship on the profession of faith, which is what they did in the book of Acts and in the Epistles. There is no (read that zero, nada, nil) evidence that they ever received anyone into fellowship (as a member of the church) that did not make a profession of faith. They did not presume regeneration, they baptized and received into fellowship based on profession.

From http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/som...y humble opinion-25283/index2.html#post310618

OK, I'll bite! I acknowledge that in the example of Lydia, it is clear that she believed, but says nothing about her household believing. And it does show her household getting baptized. Thus there is at least one example of persons being baptized in the NT of whom no profession of faith is recorded.

Interesting, do you have a twin who also happened to post on PB?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Tim,

It's too hard to get through where you quoted yourself and where you quoted me. we're going to keep going in circles on this.

Notice how your entire argument is predicated on your erroneous assumption that all the children I was referring to were children of believing parents. They arn't.

You really do need to make up your mind then. Either children of believers may be compelled to attend as they are under the parents authority or they may not.

This whole interchange began with you asserting that children of believers were brought to Church for the same reasons as unbelievers. You have completely undermined your own contention by distinguishing between children and adults, who can and who cannot be compelled, who Church is good for, etc.

And once again you misunderstand the credo position. When I said that we draw from the equity of the OT command the duty to teach our children, I did not say anything about equity guaranteeing the children's covenant status or guaranteeing the success of our efforts, I was only pointing to our duty. I have no different expectations of credo children than I do of unbelievers children. If God will have mercy, he will; if he won't that is his prerogative.

This is not a misunderstanding on my point but a continued error on yours in believing that there is a "general equity" to train your children. Every command to train children in the OT is predicated upon a Covenant relationship and a command to both parents and children within it. You cannot say that the Covenant relationship has died and just keep the principles alive as a result. It's rather like selective reading of every passage that deals with childrearing and ignore the surrounding context that drips with the Covenant of Grace. Thus, as much as you might like to conveniently take back those passages, you've already given them up when you state that children have no Covenenantal status.

It even more monstrous, in my opinion, to state that those passages on child-rearing have a general equity toward unbelieving parents and children. It's rather like the homosexual couple who quotes 1 Cor 13 at their wedding based on the "general equity" of love. What is the general equity of a command to serve Yahweh (the Covenant God) and, consequently the command to teach them to your children and in your going in and going out?

This, Brother, is ad hoc theology at its worst. To simply assert that the passages on child-rearing in the OT belong to all people, regardless of creed, is completely un-Biblical and cannot be sustained exegetically. I note you didn't cite any Scriptures to that end but merely asserted it.

Finally, I find this to be strange:

Now it may be that the Baptists you have talked to do not distinguish between an unbelieving child's innate sinful hatred of God in the abstract and how the Holy Ghost can mitigate the hostility before regeneration so that the means of grace may be heard, (if your theology says that regeneration takes place immediately before conversion). If your theology allows that one may be regenerated before one expresses conscious faith in Christ, which is why one hears the gospel rather than rejecting it out of hand,) then your Baptist friends need to make the distinction between an unregenerate child and a regenerate yet not yet professing child.

My theology is Reformed. It says, with the Scriptures, that the unregenerate mind is hostile to the things of God and cannot see them. There is no "praying in Jesus' name" for the person we presume to be unregenerate. As for the regnerate, not yet professing, child - that is the point I've been trying to make. Interacting with Baptists is very difficult. Within this very thread we have a Brother who is arguing that we can presume no such thing. The point is, however, that Baptists treat their children as if they are regenerate all the time by constantly doing things with them that they assume they can perform - praying in Jesus' name is just one of them.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Well, it might be easier, Randy, if Baptists were monolithic in their arguments about what their responsibilities are to their children. Trying to find a large group of Baptists that agree on these specifics is very difficult. I have to deal with strains of arguments. The point, however, is that you made an argument that training a child in the fear and admonition of the Lord was merely a special case of gospel presentation and a calling of them to repentance.

Honestly, Rich, it's nice that most paedos on this board are monolithic in their arguments about what their responsibilities are to their children (at least the ones that get in these debates). But to make the charge that Baptists aren't while ALL paedos are is ridiculous. I know quite a few Presbyterians and Lutherans in my area and quite a few Reformed churches that fail to articulate any kind of systematic view of how they should raise their children and fail to do even what some Baptists would consider their biblical parental duty. I've heard everywhere from "they're saved by their baptism" to "they are members of our local church" to "it's just a baby dedication like what you do." This is why I sometimes am confused when you talk of a monolithic paedo argument. It doesn't exist.

We're talking about Reformed paedobaptists. I wasn't talking about credo-Baptists in the main but a pretty small slice of all credo-Baptists whose approaches to the subject are almost unique to the individual. As our Covenant-rearing strategies are based in the OT, there is a more uniform presentation.

And that's the problem. You have a grand total of a paragraph that you believe applies to your children and you are left "filling in the blanks". It is this filling in of the blanks that is unique to each Baptist I interact with.

So, you think that, because we don't believe our children are "in covenant" with God under the New Covenant (which in our view means saved) that all the teaching of the Old Testament doesn't apply to them. Here is where you are wrong: the teaching of the Old Testament involved parents and children who may or may not have been saved. They were all considered in covenant under the Old Covenant and were responsible to obey the commands on how to raise children, etc. The parents who are believers under the New Covenant are considered in covenant with God and are responsible to obey the commands on how to raise children, etc. Therefore, we have the same Scripture that you have at your disposal to apply to the raising of your children.

Well I believe they do apply to your children but not for the erroneous nature you stated. The fact is that those "unsaved" people that you generically talk about were circumcised into the Covenant or within Covenant families. I've quoted Proverbs that shows a father's Covenant expectation. I could quote Deuteronomy and the Psalms that show the direct correlation between Covenant participation and respsonsibility. For me to agree with you that the childrearing passages simply apply broadly to people outside of the Covenant would be to completely destroy the Covenant. You might as well say that a Amorite could have picked up the Proverbs and said: "That's for me and my kids too!"

We are basing fellowship on the profession of faith, which is what they did in the book of Acts and in the Epistles. There is no (read that zero, nada, nil) evidence that they ever received anyone into fellowship (as a member of the church) that did not make a profession of faith. They did not presume regeneration, they baptized and received into fellowship based on profession.

The Epistles? Where does it teach in the Epistles that profession is the basis for fellowship? In fact, did the man who was living with his father's wife cease to profess? Was that why he was excommunicated? I'm glad you acknowledge by the way that you noted that they did not presume regeneration for that has been my point all along. Profession is but a fruit.

Show me a place in the Scriptures where God does not equip for the very thing He commands.

Careful, Rich. Augustine prayed a prayer about this in his Confessions, didn't he? There are plenty of commands that God gives that he does not equip people to do.

OK, what are they? Which is it now - God does or doesn't have commands for your children? Above you stated that you still had access to them.

As I noted in another thread:

1. OT saints were saved by Union with Christ
2. They always were.
3. They were commanded to train their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord.
4. They were given a Covenant, Commands, and instruction on how to be the means that God would use to save those who were united to Christ by faith.

What you claim is that 1-3 are true of NT saints but God has completely swept aswy all the means that he used to offer to OT saints that were saved in the exact same manner as we.

Wrong! We claim that all 4 are true, but that the Covenant functions differently because it is NOT the Old Covenant. One of the major points of Paul's writings is that participation in the covenant is not based on physical descent.

Really, like Romans 10-11. Nothing physical there at all. They weren't in the covenant at all were they? I've heard this repeatedly but this is not Paul's main argument to show that participation in the covenant is not based on physical descent. His point is that election is based on God's grace and not on Him who wills.

You gladly accept that not all physical Jews are in the New Covenant.

Not gladly for my hope is that some will be brought to jealousy by God's people and re-enter the fold. I accept that some have rejected the promise and are justly condemned in doing so.

But, if the promise was made to Abraham's descendants, shouldn't they have been? Why are they not? They are not because the New Covenant is not based on physical birth.

No, they are not, because they rejected the promise. Why don't you just quote the Scriptures here? Romans 9 doesn't say: "Esau didn't believe because salvation is not based on physical birth."

This is such a consistent line of eisegesis that it is accepted as a normal connection - as if the Scriptures actually state what you just wrote. The Jews are not said to never have been in the Covenant but are said to be cut out so that wild branches could be grafted in.

It is based on spiritual birth. The New Covenant functions differently than the Old Covenant. It is not yet complete or perfect because Christ hasn't returned. Yes, there will be people that are not members of the universal church that make a profession and become members of the visible church. That happened in Acts under the noses of the Apostles. But that doesn't change the fact that they baptized based on profession and told those who were professed believers to train their children in the ways of the Lord in the same way those who were circumcised members of the Old Covenant church were told to train their children.

And so you show that you deny point number 4 because you deny that children are members and that the full means of grace and full responsibilities that were laid upon both parents and children in the OT are not intact. You also err in bifurcating the OT into a semi-dispensational schema and claiming that the Abrahamic Covenant is somehow physical and was not aimed toward spiritual birth. This you must do, of course, because the moment you agree with Romans 4 that circumcision was a sign and seal of faith then you'll be using every argument to argue against paedo-circumcision. The fact is that, because you see a spiritual thing in the OT as fundamentally physical, you do not see how the idea that you're arguing that your children have no status with God on the basis of their household is erroneous. What I continue to find remarkable is how the OC was this physical thing and this repeated assertion that it had a different purpose but, yet, these are systematic and not Biblical assertions. Please quote me one prophet that does not condemn the nation for their unbelief but, yet, commends them for fundamentally keeping the Covenant because they're still cranking out babies.

 

[KMK]

I've quoted Proverbs that shows a father's Covenant expectation. I could quote Deuteronomy and the Psalms that show the direct correlation between Covenant participation and respsonsibility. For me to agree with you that the childrearing passages simply apply broadly to people outside of the Covenant would be to completely destroy the Covenant. You might as well say that a Amorite could have picked up the Proverbs and said: "That's for me and my kids too!"

This is new to me. I've never seen Proverbs in the same covenantal light as the law. Doesn't the wisdom literature reflect general principles for living that could apply to anybody, inside or outside the covenant? For example:

Pro 23:21 For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty

Wouldn't this general principle be just as true for an Amorite?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I've quoted Proverbs that shows a father's Covenant expectation. I could quote Deuteronomy and the Psalms that show the direct correlation between Covenant participation and respsonsibility. For me to agree with you that the childrearing passages simply apply broadly to people outside of the Covenant would be to completely destroy the Covenant. You might as well say that a Amorite could have picked up the Proverbs and said: "That's for me and my kids too!"

This is new to me. I've never seen Proverbs in the same covenantal light as the law. Doesn't the wisdom literature reflect general principles for living that could apply to anybody, inside or outside the covenant? For example:

Pro 23:21 For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty

Wouldn't this general principle be just as true for an Amorite?

It's not too far into the Proverbs:

Proverbs 1 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.



Proverbs 1
The Beginning of Knowledge
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.

Question: Can knowledge be attained from the Proverbs by a fool?

 

[timmopussycat]

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.

Then the question is in what context is the catechism taught? Are the children taught that they have the right to consider themselves within "us" and "our" unless they have committed themselves to Christ first?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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.

Then the question is in what context is the catechism taught? Are the children taught that they have the right to consider themselves within "us" and "our" unless they have committed themselves to Christ first?

Tim,

It misses the larger point. Why would one train someone to say something that cannot apply to them?

I was reflecting on our conversation a bit more this AM on the elliptical trainer.

The thing I found fascinating was how you acknowledge the parental "umbrella" that children fall within but then you deny that the children are really under the auspices of the Church. It's as if a man can be a citizen of the U.S. and be subject to the laws of the land but his children are merely part of his family and not part of the U.S.

Thus, you acknowledge that your (and by that I mean the Church's) children are under their parents who are under the Church but then you claim they are not part of the Church. Somehow the parents are under Elder authority but the children are not under their spiritual care. Covenant life stops at the "parental boundary".

Part of the disconnect here I understand: you want to preserve the perfection of the NC and you believe that Covenant membership only consists of the elect. Of course we could press this and you would have to acknowledge, then, that at best the visible Body does not represent the NC but that, you hope, at least a good portion of them are the elect.

But the fact remains that, visibly, you treat the members without distinction and call them brother and, practically, deny that you're only part of the Elect. Romans 12-14 would be quite unworkable if we had to stop to ask "are you really my brother?" every time we had to live out the Body life.

But, as Matthew noted, here is a catechism Q&A that parents couldn't expect their children to answer unless they presumed something of them. To ask the question if children have the "...right to consider themselves within "us" and "our" unless they have committed themselves to Christ first..." is to ask the same thing of yourself. It's to ask it of every member of the Church. Of course, whether or not children have the "right" to consider themselves "within" you is kind of strange since you have given them no choice in the matter. Their "right" is immaterial when they are very much within your Body life. Now you can claim that Body life is more than visible membership and I obviously agree there is a salvific component but, as I pointed out, you are completely blind to the state of everyone else's election - children are not some special category where you can state with any more or less certainty.

 

[timmopussycat]

Tim,

It's too hard to get through where you quoted yourself and where you quoted me. we're going to keep going in circles on this.

Notice how your entire argument is predicated on your erroneous assumption that all the children I was referring to were children of believing parents. They aren't.

You really do need to make up your mind then. Either children of believers may be compelled to attend as they are under the parents authority or they may not.

This whole interchange began with you asserting that children of believers were brought to Church for the same reasons as unbelievers. You have completely undermined your own contention by distinguishing between children and adults, who can and who cannot be compelled, who Church is good for, etc.

While that was the point I began with, it was not the point the discussion had reached. Where I introduced children of unbelievers into the discussion was in the following. "Finally, you are begging the question whether all kids feel compelled to attend church. This is simply not the case. Keep in mind that if we are parents who truly live our faith, we will be introducing our kids to it at home not only by the words we say but by the lives we live and with all the winsomeness we, with the help of the Holy Spirit can bring to the task, and the churches we attend (at least in my experience) will attempt to do likewise. Having watched many such parents and the Sunday school in action at my church I can testify that many of our kids simply do not experiece church attendence as compulsion. After exposure to our church, a great many kids want to come back. This has had some surprising results. One young lady 8 years of age, was the evangelist God recently used to bring her father to faith!"

I should have been more explicit that I was using the children of unbelievers to prove only the point that the Holy Spirit working through Christian wtness in word and life (and Christians expressing concern and care for unbelievers is attractive to unbelievers quite often!) can draw children of unbelievers to Christ as easily as He draws the children of believers, and the carnal hostility to God in unbelievers, whether children or mature is not an insuperable obstacle.

And once again you misunderstand the credo position. When I said that we draw from the equity of the OT command the duty to teach our children, I did not say anything about equity guaranteeing the children's covenant status or guaranteeing the success of our efforts, I was only pointing to our duty. I have no different expectations of credo children than I do of unbelievers children. If God will have mercy, he will; if he won't that is his prerogative.

This is not a misunderstanding on my point but a continued error on yours in believing that there is a "general equity" to train your children. Every command to train children in the OT is predicated upon a Covenant relationship and a command to both parents and children within it. You cannot say that the Covenant relationship has died and just keep the principles alive as a result.

First of all I am not using the term general equity, but equity. Even though God's commands to Israel were predicated on a Covenant relationship now superseded by the new in which not yet regenerate children have not yet entered what may be their predestined place, teaching our nyr children God's ways is as surely an application of "Love thy neigbour as thyself" as teaching God's ways to our nyr neighbour is. Teaching our nyr children the way of salvation is simply the right thing to do.

It even more monstrous, in my opinion, to state that those passages on child-rearing have a general equity toward unbelieving parents and children. It's rather like the homosexual couple who quotes 1 Cor 13 at their wedding based on the "general equity" of love. What is the general equity of a command to serve Yahweh (the Covenant God) and, consequently the command to teach them to your children and in your going in and going out?

This, Brother, is ad hoc theology at its worst. To simply assert that the passages on child-rearing in the OT belong to all people, regardless of creed, is completely un-Biblical and cannot be sustained exegetically. I note you didn't cite any Scriptures to that end but merely asserted it.

So by the same reason it is "monstrous" to teach our nyr neigbour the gospel. The applicable equity of the commands is to teach our children that God is, the ways that please and displease him, that that he is a rewarder of those that diligently seek him and that our children have the best of reasons to seek him and the best of rewards if they find him
Or let me try it another way. If we are to teach our not yet regenerate neighbour holiness justice, love, mercy and grace of God together with His commands and ways how much more ought we to teach them to our children to whom we have much closer ties of natural affection?

Finally, I find this to be strange:

Now it may be that the Baptists you have talked to do not distinguish between an unbelieving child's innate sinful hatred of God in the abstract and how the Holy Ghost can mitigate the hostility before regeneration so that the means of grace may be heard, (if your theology says that regeneration takes place immediately before conversion). If your theology allows that one may be regenerated before one expresses conscious faith in Christ, which is why one hears the gospel rather than rejecting it out of hand,) then your Baptist friends need to make the distinction between an unregenerate child and a regenerate yet not yet professing child.

My theology is Reformed. It says, with the Scriptures, that the unregenerate mind is hostile to the things of God and cannot see them. There is no "praying in Jesus' name" for the person we presume to be unregenerate. As for the regnerate, not yet professing, child - that is the point I've been trying to make. Interacting with Baptists is very difficult. Within this very thread we have a Brother who is arguing that we can presume no such thing. The point is, however, that Baptists treat their children as if they are regenerate all the time by constantly doing things with them that they assume they can perform - praying in Jesus' name is just one of them.[/QUOTE]

Then you may need to further query those Baptists on their pedagogy. I think you may find that they will teach their children that they may pray to God as his children only after they have so committed themselves to him. As for your Reformed theology, if I understand you correctly you would assert that a late teen aged child of Reformed parents and hence in the covenant of grace must be presumed to be regenerate yet not believing if we found him for the moment implacably hostile to the things of God. Baptists don't presume him regenerate yet. But my point about when regeneration takes place was only intended to cover two possible options I have found held in "Reformed" circles (and I didn't know which of the two you held) where some argue that regeneration is synomymous with conversion and others argue that it takes place before. I just wanted to cover whichever position you were coming from without knowing which it was.

 

[MW]

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.

Then the question is in what context is the catechism taught? Are the children taught that they have the right to consider themselves within "us" and "our" unless they have committed themselves to Christ first?

I don't know what Spurgeon had in mind when he didn't revise the personal pronouns. I would only say that the covenant itself is a divine commitment to the the child which warrants a personal appropriation of the mediatorial work of Christ.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Tim,

Too much to untangle. There are points where we agree and points we disagree. I know the quote feature is a pain sometimes and understand why the post flows with such difficulty.

My point about equity with respect to childrearing is that there are specific instructions given to Covenant children and covenant children alone in the Scriptures that are predicated on ability to receive them. Proverbs is not written to humanity at large. If all you meant to say was that we can use the equity of the Ten Commandments then I wouldn't have disagreed with you on that specific point but I would disagree with the broader point that the 10 commandments are a guide to parents on how to train specifically "...in the fear and admonition of the Lord...."

My position regarding regeneration for adults and children is that such information is left to God to know and Him alone. I believe Baptists err fundamentally in ascribing far too much to one element of discipleship - profession. This, they assume, is grounds then for Baptism because they infer from profession that they can give more confidence to the baptized that "...now we'll baptize you because we have good assurance in you that what Baptism signifies is true of you...."

While I agree profession is important, I see Baptism as that which joins men, women, and children into the process of discipleship. Even in a professing individual, we're not saying: "Now we baptize you because you've given us greater assurance that the thing signified is really true of you." We baptize because the person expresses willingness to be discipled and has expressed faith in Christ. We then baptize and baptism signifies the same thing.

Either way, what is presumed then of any man, woman, or child baptized is the same - as long as you are visibly present among us we will exhort, rebuke, and reprove with great patience and instruction. We will pray for you. We will cry with you. We will teach you. We will work to build you up to the perfect man. The Gospel will be presented to you. If mature and not visibly rebellious, you will receive the means of Grace through the Sacraments.

In short, we assume the best of all. I don't look down at the immature adults in my current Church and think "I wonder if they are regenerate." I know you'll say "Neither do we..." but if I was to go by what I could glean from a man's profession and the weak profession we find among baptized men and women then I might have to start picking who was/wasn't my brother and sister. You see, Baptists typically will not do this with a man no matter how weak his profession is, once baptized, but will seek to mature him. They won't say to him: "You're no Christian" if he just messes up on his theology but is seeking to learn. Yet, a Baptist will say of a young child that hasn't had the opportunity to rebel that they "...are not of us..." until they are even more mature in their profession than the men you might find in your very midst.

Thus, here is my assumption: if a man, woman, or child be baptized then they are in the Church and I am sworn to build them up in the faith! If they be not regenerate then that is for God to know and not me but it is sin for me to put myself in place of God and state who is/isn't worthy of my hand, my tears, and my labors.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Well I believe they do apply to your children but not for the erroneous nature you stated. The fact is that those "unsaved" people that you generically talk about were circumcised into the Covenant or within Covenant families.

I like you, Rich. You make me think! My point was that you agree that not all Jews were saved in the Old Covenant even when they had the sign of circumcision. In fact, that is one of the paedos major arguments to bring it forward to the New Covenant in the same way. But, simply put, the responsibility of the parents in the Old Covenant was to bring their children up to know God. "When your children ask, 'why do we do this'..." The purpose was to tell them what God had done for them as a people and teach them about God. Now, was this to tell them that they already knew God? No, it was to teach them about the God they could know.

I've quoted Proverbs that shows a father's Covenant expectation.

The Proverbs you quoted was to, this is important, teach the child how to know the Lord. This is what we credos have been saying all along. Our children do not know the Lord and we instruct them that they may. I don't see how your Proverbs quote shows anything backing up your point.

I could quote Deuteronomy and the Psalms that show the direct correlation between Covenant participation and respsonsibility.

The passages you would show me would show the direct correlation between the PARENT'S covenant participation and responsibility. The only responsibility passages I see related to children involve obedience to parents. There is one specifically in the 10 Commandments (moral law) which would be true even of those not in covenant with God.

For me to agree with you that the childrearing passages simply apply broadly to people outside of the Covenant would be to completely destroy the Covenant. You might as well say that a Amorite could have picked up the Proverbs and said: "That's for me and my kids too!"

I never suggested the childrearing passages applied broadly to people outside the Covenant. I said they applied to parents that were in covenant and told them how to rear their children so they would come to know the God of their fathers. The Amorite would have nothing to do with it, then or now. (unless, of course, he was a believer)

The Epistles? Where does it teach in the Epistles that profession is the basis for fellowship?

1 John says that fellowship (both with God and with other believers) is based on response to the message of the gospel:

1 John 1:1-3 - That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life -- 2 the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us -- 3 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians shows that the church has fellowship with other churches and bases that fellowship on the profession of the members of those churches:

1 Corinthians 1:2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

Acts 2 says that those who received his words were baptized and continued in fellowship:

Acts 2:41-42 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.

2 Corinthians indicates that believers can have no true fellowship with unbelievers:

2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?

In fact, did the man who was living with his father's wife cease to profess? Was that why he was excommunicated? I'm glad you acknowledge by the way that you noted that they did not presume regeneration for that has been my point all along. Profession is but a fruit.

I don't know if he continued to profess or not. He probably did, based on the context of 1 Corinthians. He was excommunicated because his actions did not match his profession. Baptists do not suggest (or at least we shouldn't) that fellowship is based continually on a point in time profession of faith. But the example of Acts and the Epistles is that baptism is. 1 John is all about knowing whether your profession is reality. "If you say that you know him..."

OK, what are they? Which is it now - God does or doesn't have commands for your children? Above you stated that you still had access to them.

My point was that God has given a lot of commands that we can not achieve in this life-time. You made a very general statement that needed to be qualified.

Really, like Romans 10-11. Nothing physical there at all. They weren't in the covenant at all were they? I've heard this repeatedly but this is not Paul's main argument to show that participation in the covenant is not based on physical descent. His point is that election is based on God's grace and not on Him who wills.

If you read my sentence in context, you will notice that I was saying that Paul was pointing out that not all Jew were in the New Covenant because the New Covenant wasn't based on physical descent. This does not mean that NO Jews were in the covenant. It also doesn't mean that Paul wasn't concerned for his fellow physical Jews. But it was his major point that, while all physical Jews were in the Old Covenant, it obviously was not so in the New Covenant. If it was so, then either all the Jews should have then been baptized or the Jewish Christians should have stopped circumcising their children (which they did not).

Not gladly for my hope is that some will be brought to jealousy by God's people and re-enter the fold. I accept that some have rejected the promise and are justly condemned in doing so.

"Gladly" was a poor choice of words. I meant that you are willing to accept that fact with no theological problems.

No, they are not, because they rejected the promise. Why don't you just quote the Scriptures here? Romans 9 doesn't say: "Esau didn't believe because salvation is not based on physical birth."

Romans 9:8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.

What, then, is Paul's point? The question at hand in Romans 9 is, "We've just heard the promise of Romans 8 that nothing can separate God's elect from His love. But how can we be sure that is true? Weren't the Israelites God's elect? Weren't they in covenant with Him? How come they lost out? And if God isn't faithful to his promise to them, how can we be sure that He will be faithful to us?"

Paul's answer is that God is faithful. But not every child of Abraham was a child of promise (what promise is he talking about, I wonder). The point of Romans 9 is exactly that Esau didn't believe because he was not elect and election (or the result) is not based on physical birth.

This is such a consistent line of eisegesis that it is accepted as a normal connection - as if the Scriptures actually state what you just wrote. The Jews are not said to never have been in the Covenant but are said to be cut out so that wild branches could be grafted in.

But the Jews are obviously never said to have been in the New Covenant. Just a remnant of the Jews are in the New Covenant. This was said from the Law onward all the way through the prophets. Most of the Jews would be cut off and the remnant would be saved.

Isaiah 6:9 - 7:1 And He said, "Go, and tell this people: 'Keep on hearing, but do not understand; Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.' 10 "Make the heart of this people dull, And their ears heavy, And shut their eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And return and be healed." 11 Then I said, "Lord, how long?" And He answered: "Until the cities are laid waste and without inhabitant, The houses are without a man, The land is utterly desolate, 12 The LORD has removed men far away, And the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land. 13 But yet a tenth will be in it, And will return and be for consuming, As a terebinth tree or as an oak, Whose stump remains when it is cut down. So the holy seed shall be its stump."

The Old Testament says that the New Covenant will be made with the remnant of the house of Israel.

Romans 9:27 Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, The remnant will be saved.

The New Testament says that this remnant is elect for salvation.

And so you show that you deny point number 4 because you deny that children are members and that the full means of grace and full responsibilities that were laid upon both parents and children in the OT are not intact. You also err in bifurcating the OT into a semi-dispensational schema and claiming that the Abrahamic Covenant is somehow physical and was not aimed toward spiritual birth.

Well, at least you only called me "semi-dispensational." Actually, Credos do see some discontinuity in the covenants. We don't see that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the members of the covenants nor of the signs. But you already know that. I don't think it's dispensational. I do believe that the responsibilities of the parents and children under the New Covenant do not correspond exactly. The responsibilities of parents and children under the Old Covenant involved shadows. Now we have reality in Christ.

This you must do, of course, because the moment you agree with Romans 4 that circumcision was a sign and seal of faith then you'll be using every argument to argue against paedo-circumcision.

I don't agree that circumcision is a sign and seal of everyone's faith. I agree that Paul said that circumcision was a sign and seal of Abraham's faith. This is all Romans 4 says. It says nothing about anyone who came after Abraham or the purpose of circumcision to them. BTW, Romans 4 is clear that circumcision came after faith for Abraham.

The fact is that, because you see a spiritual thing in the OT as fundamentally physical, you do not see how the idea that you're arguing that your children have no status with God on the basis of their household is erroneous. What I continue to find remarkable is how the OC was this physical thing and this repeated assertion that it had a different purpose but, yet, these are systematic and not Biblical assertions.

The OT had both physical and spiritual aspects. You accuse credos of being dispensational because they (supposedly) ignore spiritual aspects of the OC to emphasize physical aspect. That could be true of a lot of credos and is true of dispensationalists. But I would suggest that paedos ignore physical aspects of the OC to emphasize spiritual aspects and this has you baptizing your babies when you shouldn't.

Please quote me one prophet that does not condemn the nation for their unbelief but, yet, commends them for fundamentally keeping the Covenant because they're still cranking out babies.

I'm not sure I get your point. The prophets condemn the people for their unbelief as evidenced in their breaking the law. Again, there are both physical and spiritual aspects of the OC. What is this supposed to prove or disprove?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Doug,

I'm out of steam on this discussion. I know I opened the but I've probably typed out a chapter already on this. I just can't respond to point/counterpoint but I appreciate your interaction. I'll try to take the points up again. It's not that I don't see you guys trying to be faithful. I just don't see concurrence with the reasons why you insist on believer's only baptism. I know you've done a good job of trying to make the case and if I was prone to agree with you I would.

 

[timmopussycat]

The catechism is taught to children regardless of personal profession of faith.

Then the question is in what context is the catechism taught? Are the children taught that they have the right to consider themselves within "us" and "our" unless they have committed themselves to Christ first?

I don't know what Spurgeon had in mind when he didn't revise the personal pronouns. I would only say that the covenant itself is a divine commitment to the the child which warrants a personal appropriation of the mediatorial work of Christ.

You are a Reformed believer so its obvious that you believe that the covenant involves a divine commitment to children of believing parents. Remember however that Baptists such as Spurgeon see no such commitment. His catechism (which I have not seen) will probably have in it somewhere a statement defining the standards of church membership somewhere around ch. 29. If it does and if it is at all like the OLConfession, it will have a clear statement that it is only those who are able to make profession of faith (which may include some surprisingly young childen) who are included in "us" and "our".

 

[MW]

You are a Reformed believer so its obvious that you believe that the covenant involves a divine commitment to children of believing parents. Remember however that Baptists such as Spurgeon see no such commitment. His catechism (which I have not seen) will probably have in it somewhere a statement defining the standards of church membership somewhere around ch. 29. If it does and if it is at all like the OLConfession, it will have a clear statement that it is only those who are able to make profession of faith (which may include some surprisingly young childen) who are included in "us" and "our".

This is what Spurgeon says in "Come ye Children:"

Let your little ones, then, see the Lord's Supper, and let them be told most clearly what it sets forth. And if not the Lord's Supper—for that is not the thing itself, but only the shadow of the glorious fact—dwell much and often in their presence upon the sufferings and death of our Redeemer Let them think of Gethsemane, and Gabbatha, and Golgotha, and let them learn to sing in plaintive tones of Him who laid down His life for us. Tell them who it was that suffered, and why.

 

[non dignus]

Christian parents are unequally yoked to their un-professing children?!!!!

 

[Calvibaptist]

Doug,

I'm out of steam on this discussion. I know I opened the but I've probably typed out a chapter already on this. I just can't respond to point/counterpoint but I appreciate your interaction. I'll try to take the points up again. It's not that I don't see you guys trying to be faithful. I just don't see concurrence with the reasons why you insist on believer's only baptism. I know you've done a good job of trying to make the case and if I was prone to agree with you I would.

I understand and feel the same! I enjoy your interaction because you keep me on my toes and make me evaluate my beliefs. Semper reformanda

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Christian parents are unequally yoked to their un-professing children?!!!!

David,
This is not a laughing matter. And I have never heard that children are yoked together as a married couple are. Even so if one spouse is a believer and the other is not they are unequally yoked. And that is the intent of the passage. To reveal that even in marriage there may be an unequally yoked couple. Even Paedo's have this problem with Children who rebel and forsake God and remain in their original sin. It is truly sad and not something that should be laughed at.

 

[KMK]

And that is the intent of the passage. To reveal that even in marriage there may be an unequally yoked couple.

I agree. It is interesting how this NT teaching is different than the OT.

Ezra 10:3 Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.

 

[timmopussycat]

You are a Reformed believer so its obvious that you believe that the covenant involves a divine commitment to children of believing parents. Remember however that Baptists such as Spurgeon see no such commitment. His catechism (which I have not seen) will probably have in it somewhere a statement defining the standards of church membership somewhere around ch. 29. If it does and if it is at all like the OLConfession, it will have a clear statement that it is only those who are able to make profession of faith (which may include some surprisingly young childen) who are included in "us" and "our".

This is what Spurgeon says in "Come ye Children:"

Let your little ones, then, see the Lord's Supper, and let them be told most clearly what it sets forth. And if not the Lord's Supper—for that is not the thing itself, but only the shadow of the glorious fact—dwell much and often in their presence upon the sufferings and death of our Redeemer Let them think of Gethsemane, and Gabbatha, and Golgotha, and let them learn to sing in plaintive tones of Him who laid down His life for us. Tell them who it was that suffered, and why.

So? Given the limits of your excerpt, "us" in this context could equally refer to all humans, all elect humans, or all church members.

 

[MW]

This is what Spurgeon says in "Come ye Children:"

Let your little ones, then, see the Lord's Supper, and let them be told most clearly what it sets forth. And if not the Lord's Supper—for that is not the thing itself, but only the shadow of the glorious fact—dwell much and often in their presence upon the sufferings and death of our Redeemer Let them think of Gethsemane, and Gabbatha, and Golgotha, and let them learn to sing in plaintive tones of Him who laid down His life for us. Tell them who it was that suffered, and why.

So? Given the limits of your excerpt, "us" in this context could equally refer to all humans, all elect humans, or all church members.

"Let your little ones ... let them learn to sing." Spurgeon didn't hold to universal redemption.

 

[non dignus]

Christian parents are unequally yoked to their un-professing children?!!!!

David,
This is not a laughing matter. And I have never heard that children are yoked together as a married couple are. Even so if one spouse is a believer and the other is not they are unequally yoked. And that is the intent of the passage. To reveal that even in marriage there may be an unequally yoked couple. Even Paedo's have this problem with Children who rebel and forsake God and remain in their original sin. It is truly sad and not something that should be laughed at.

Randy,
You are right. It is a sad thing when children grow up and fall away. It means there is a separation of a union. But that union should not be characterized as unequally yoked. This is what the Baptist seems to say, that they are unequally yoked. Well I'm sorry, it's ludicrous.

And BTW, I don't mind mentioning that I unapologetically believe my children were saved, are saved and will be saved everlastingly. And I think you believe the same for your children as well. All thanks to Him who died and rose again.