For our Baptist Brethern and Sisteren:

[Ezekiel3626]

You may very well be right, Bill. I am still getting used to the dynamic of a public, open forum discussion board. If I have indeed , then I apologize to those who tire of the redundency. I assure you that was not my intent. I respect Paul M., and I value his opinions. I am edified by Rich also, and Rev. Winzer to name but a few. Perhaps I am just naive, and forgot where I was when I asked the questions. Again, I am still trying to get used to the "discussion board" dynamic.

 

[Herald]

Back to the original question, historically Baptist churches didn't baptize children until they reached somewhere around 16-20 or even higher, but in recent generations, it has become common to baptize younger and younger.

Don, part of the lowering of baptismal ages has a lot to do with a flawed soteriology and ecclesiology within the Finney-type Baptist churches. As the focus of many Baptist churches shifted to conversions, so did baptisms. Baptisms actually became a way of completing the profession. Salvation and baptism were inexorably linked. Instead of one following the other, both were seen as part of one transaction. While denying baptismal regeneration, baptism became the way of doing the math. Baptisms proper place needs, in a sense, to be rediscovered.

With all due respect to Rich and Paul et al. , this really isn't a debate between paedo's and credo's. Wayne's OP was concerned about how Baptist's viewed the baptism of children. As was bound to happen, it has turned down that paedo vs. credo road. Can't avoid it no matter how hard we try! To quote one of my favorite movies, "It is the question that drives us." What is the Baptist approach towards baptizing children, and what is our rationale for it?

Paedo's, you will bristle at this (you always do), but it is a Baptist distinctive that we only baptize upon a credible profession of faith. If you gents really want to debate this position, start a thread on it. But between Baptist's, baptism upon a credible profession is not in question. What is in question is how credible is a profession from a child? When the two year old says to Mommy and Daddy, "I wuv Jasus too!", is that tantamount to a credible profession? Or how about the eight year old who wants to "accept Jesus" in AWANA or Sunday School? How much responsibility do we place on the parents to explain to the elders that they are satisfied that their child actually has come to faith? These questions (and more like them) deserved to be developed. Wayne, I hope this isn't hijacking your thread. If it is, we can start a new thread.

 

[elnwood]

OK, so you don't believe there should be any elder examination for either baptism or the Lord's Supper. Why do you do it?

Oh, so you do..

I don't think that scripture mandates it, but I think it is good practice.

I gave you Scripture. I gave you both the requirements for adult males to be at the Tabernacle during the Passover and I gave you the passage of Christ's first participation in the Sacrament of the Passover at age 12.

You should be Biblically knowledgeable enough to find those passages.

I don't want to make a mistake and think you're referring to one particular passage when you're referring to a different one. Could you please tell me which passages you are referring to?

 

[elnwood]

So you know others can defend it exegetically but you just don't know how it's done? I'm sorry, my plate is full with too many other sermons to listen to (a few Baptists in the mix). I'll have to rely on another Baptist to give me that 16-20 year old passage in the Scriptures.

I know how it's done, but I don't hold dogmatically to that position though I see some wisdom in it. You're better off listening to someone who actually practices it if you actually want to hear an argument.

Does everything have to turn into an argument? The original question was not an exegetical debate, it was a question of how Baptists do things in practice, and so I answered it.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Bill,

Believe it or not, I'm not trying to sidetrack. I was merely demonstrating to Don that he could not project his soteriology and understanding upon Paul and level it as a criticism. To use technical jargon for the criticism: Paul is rubber and Don is glue.

Wayne asked a question about baptism of children and what age you would wait until.

You give historical examples of how long you wait and you also say:

Paedo's, you will bristle at this (you always do), but it is a Baptist distinctive that we only baptize upon a credible profession of faith.

Actually, I don't bristle at it. Wayne doesn't either apparently. We're seeking to understand it.

When you answer, ought not your answer be given from Scripture and not an appeal to Finneyism or easy-believism (unless you find warrant for warning in the Scriptures)? I don't know if you just think you should be able to give an "...it seems like the right age to us..." answer and have us acede that this is a Scriptural principle.

If you believe that Baptism ought to be given to only a crebible professor then you should define your terms and define them with Scripture.

That's all we're asking.

I think Paul's challenge was a reasonable one: Prove it from Scripture. If Baptists want to criticize how a Presbyterian would give a Scriptual defense then they had my recent thread to do so and still may ask me to defend my practice. I promise not to base my answer on merely history nor on saying that Baptists are as un-Scriptural as we.

 

[MrMerlin777]

Regarding agreeing with me, as we said in Navy SEAL training, "You don't have to like it, you just have to do it.".

SEAL training eh... Got your trident have ya?

 

[Ezekiel3626]

You know what, Bill? I cannot speak for Rich, or Paul, or anyone else. If they want to or if they are debating, that is out of my hands. I can, however, speak for myself. I do not desire to debate any of the aforementioned men on the subject of baptism. Notice if you will the disclaimer at the beginning of this forum. It says,

This forum is for those who desire to DEBATE and DISCUSS. All others please refrain from this Forum.

I want to discuss some things with others. I understand that there are differences in how we worship and what we believe, but I assure you I am not "lining up with the Baptists" or trying to bait anyone who might be labeled differently from me.
If we are not part of the solution, then perhaps we are part of the problem.

Or how about the eight year old who wants to "accept Jesus" in AWANA or Sunday School?

Where do you suppose the 8 year old in question heard about "accepting" Jesus? AWANA and Sunday School are simply man-made traditions with the usual intent of occupying children while adults feed on the meat of the Word. I don't care about "we" or "they". I care about being right. I care about learning more about what Scripture has to teach us about our majestic and wonderful Saviour. I can regurgitate snippets of confessions or plagiarize sermons with the best of them, but at the end of the day, what have I gained. I want to flesh it out, I want to work it out, I want to learn.

With all due respect to Rich and Paul et al. , this really isn't a debate between paedo's and credo's. ..... Paedo's, you will bristle at this (you always do), but it is a Baptist distinctive that we only baptize upon a credible profession of faith. If you gents really want to debate this position, start a thread on it.

Perhaps I was too quick to apologize for . Comments like these could easily be labeled as doing that.
I have read Waynes OP, and I fail to see how we have digressed even marginally from it. I have no quarrel with you, brother. Let's work together toward being obedient to Acts 17:11, so it may be said of us that we "received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so".

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Here is a question that is related:

Since it appears that the Lord's Supper often functions like baptism in a few ways for Presbyterians (i.e. needing discnerment to participate), at what age does a child have to wait before taking the cup?

Do they always have to wait until after confirmation and is the age of the child confirmed always the same?

Also, where does this concept of a confirmation class occur in Scripture? How does it relate to the Regulative Principle of Worship?

If in a small church that has no confirmation class, is merey an interview with an elder enough?

It appears some of the same arguments/objections concerning baptism can be applied to the Lord's Supper. Some would respond that there is a specific command to examine yourself before partaking, but isn't this a command to examine yourself and not have an elder examine a child? If an extended interview process is not biblical before baptism, why is it biblical before letting a child who is clearly in the church to partake of all of its sacraments should they child state their beleif?

Trevor,

Are you asking this of Baptists? I don't really want to get into this here. Remember what I said: we don't conflate Covenant initiation with Covenant renewal. You can move this question to that thread we were interacting on if you want it answered by me. If it's a question for the Baptists then please clarify.

 

[Herald]

Why do we (Baptists) baptize upon a credible profession of faith?

Acts 2:38
Acts 8:12-13
Acts 8:27-38
Acts 9:3-18
Acts 10:47-48
Acts 16:14-15
Acts 16:33
Acts 18:8 (one of my personal favorites)
Acts 19:5

No argument from Baptists on this....right? So why would we withhold baptism from children? Rich, you want scriptural warrant...right? Let me borrow something from the "other" thread. Do the parents have a role in teaching their children about God? We know they do, right (Eph. 6:4)? Should not the parent be the driving force in discerning the spiritual condition of their young child? Let me back up for a moment. What age range are we talking about? 5 or less? 10 or less? Teenagers? Or are we discussing the cognitive ability of a child? I think it is important to define these parameters.

Oh, let me intercept a question I am anticipating. When the family of Cornelius and Lydia was baptized does that mean the children were baptized too? I have to admit it was a possibility. I have heard thee takes on these baptisms. The first is that all of the family members were baptized. The second holds to the opinion that only the adults were baptized. The third view is that the family was baptized as a sign that the family was no longer pagan or steeped in dead Judaism, but was now following Christ. This did not mean that all within that family believed, seeing that there is nothing salvific in baptism. Which one do I believe? I gravitate to the third explanation, but I'm not willing to take a bullet for it.

Okay...back to the kiddies. My position is not to withhold baptism from any credible profession. My question is the credibility of that profession. This is why I put emphasis on the parents. If the parents are living by faith, then their opinion of thier child's spiritual condition should weigh heavily on the opinion of the elders. For instance: Joe and Mary have been believers for 20 years. They have displayed genuine repentance and the evidence of true faith. By all account they are mature believers (Eph. 4:13). They have a son named James. James is raised by two faithful (Eph. 1:1) Christian parents. He is exposed to the church and the word of God. At the age of 8 James makes a profession of faith in Jesus Christ. His parents, diligent to make sure their sons profession is real, talk to their son, pray and finally determine that his profession is real. They broach the subject of baptism with the elders. I would say that the likelihood of James being baptised is good. Now what if James was raised in a home that was not particularly faithful? What if the parents displayed more of the world than Christ? If the ages were exactly the same I would put more of an emphasis on observing James' life for a period of time. Why? To ascertain whether the profession is real.

Bottom line? Once convinced of a credible profession, baptism should occur with all due speed. It should not be delayed or denied. For me the issue is the credible profession and the ability of a young child to make that profession.

 

[Herald]

Believe it or not, I'm not trying to sidetrack. I was merely demonstrating to Don that he could not project his soteriology and understanding upon Paul and level it as a criticism. To use technical jargon for the criticism: Paul is rubber and Don is glue.

Rich - it's not personal. It's just so easy to "get into it." I'm curious to see what this thread will look like at the end of its life span.

 

[Herald]

So, you may have missed my argument. My argument is that in ever case of baptism in the Bible, the baptizees *never* are put through a class and examined. The baptisms all appear to be done *immediately.*

Paul, this wasn't specifically addressed to you but I thought it was an appropriate response to your last post:

Okay...back to the kiddies. My position is not to withhold baptism from any credible profession. My question is the credibility of that profession. This is why I put emphasis on the parents. If the parents are living by faith, then their opinion of thier child's spiritual condition should weigh heavily on the opinion of the elders. For instance: Joe and Mary have been believers for 20 years. They have displayed genuine repentance and the evidence of true faith. By all account they are mature believers (Eph. 4:13). They have a son named James. James is raised by two faithful (Eph. 1:1) Christian parents. He is exposed to the church and the word of God. At the age of 8 James makes a profession of faith in Jesus Christ. His parents, diligent to make sure their sons profession is real, talk to their son, pray and finally determine that his profession is real. They broach the subject of baptism with the elders. I would say that the likelihood of James being baptised is good. Now what if James was raised in a home that was not particularly faithful? What if the parents displayed more of the world than Christ? If the ages were exactly the same I would put more of an emphasis on observing James' life for a period of time. Why? To ascertain whether the profession is real.

Paul, I am narrowing my response to the context of young children and young children only.

 

[Herald]

Okay, now show that from the Bible.

Show were *any* professions required an extended period of examination.

The examination comes as the elders watch their life after they have profesed, to see growth in sanctification.

I'd also add that you define "credible" as you use it in "credible profession" and please make said definition not go beyond Scripture.

I'd also ask, why is it that you want an example of infant baptism? Apparently you're willing to do things with professors that we have no examples for.

Seems highly autonomous to me. Not only that, there's zero biblical warrant.

Paul - FIRST, I don't answer to you. I am not about to have demanded of me a litany of things that YOU want satisfied. Second, you are instructing me not to go beyond scripture? What exactly is your implication? You may disagree with my exegesis, but don't think for one moment that I intend to take liberties with scripture. I will provide you my thoughts and reasons, but I do so out of my sincere desire to explain.

My biblical warrant is the autonomy parents have to raise their children. Part of that rearing is spiritual (Prvb. 22:6, Eph. 6:4, 2 Tim. 3:15). In fact 2 Tim. 3:15 is a perfect example of God's word being used in order to lead a child to faith. This is what I believe the bible teaches. I do not believe I am stretching it when I put responsibility on the parents to determine the spiritual condition of their young children. You glossed right over my previous post where I gave (what I thought to be) a detailed, and biblical, argument for parental responsibility. I have no litmus test to determine whether a child is worthy to be baptized. Believe and be baptized is the model. Parents bear the chief role in determining whether their young child has believed.

Paul, btw...who said I want and example of infant baptism? I never said that.

Wayne, this really is for you. I'm wondering whether any of this answers the questions in your OP.

 

[MrMerlin777]

Got kicked out of the Navy diuring SEAL training. Using illegal steroids.

Ouch! Yep, the USN don't like that. That's for sure.

 

[Herald]

Bill,

Not sure I get you? Answer to me? Let's not get over emotional now.

Anyway, in response to number 2:

I hear what you're saying. Parents have responsibilities. Okay, we're agreed there. Now, all you need to do is show that these baptist parents who try to argue against the paedo's view that infants should be baptised by saying that "only professors" should be baptised, have biblical warrant for saying that some professors should not be baptised.

Nowhere in the NT do we find evidence that a professor was made to wait, atend classes, have his/her life watched for two years, etc. Nowhere.

And, wrt the responsibility of the parent, I believe that in almost all cases what the parent could say about the child could be said of the parent:

Young 6 yr. old proffesor: I believe that Jesus died for me and is my king. I want to be baptised. I love Jesus. I don't like sin."

Parent: "Hmmm, I don't buy it, after all, look at the way he sins and rebels and has idols before him - like his PS2, for example."

Jehovah: "Look at my child, who is a parent of this little one, he has so many idols in his heart, he sins all the day long - though hides it better. He rebels against my Lordship over his life. Even though he can hide his feelings better than the young ones, and his fellows at his church do not know, I know that every argument he brings against his child I could bring against him."



Look, bottom _________:

1) You cannot show any examples in Scripture of professors having to wait extended perionds of time to be baptised. This is a frequent complaint of the baptist with regards to infant baptism - I only ask for consistency here. That is, if they have no examples, and *all* the examples are to the contrary, then, on their own method of argumentation, they must accept my argument.

2) Every case you offer to show that a child's profession should be doubted, I can give you a half dozen where this same criteria applies to adult professors.

3) All Christians have set backs and are at different levels of sanctification in their life. To hold a young Christain to the standard of an adult who has been a Christian for 20 years is not only Pharisaical, but self-refuting since a Christian of 40 years could do the same to you, and Jehovah could do much worse.

4) I say this in all humility, to actually think you are *worthy* of the sign of baptism because your life is so good, while a striggling professing believer isn't as adept at covering his sin, has problematic implications. We are all only worthy because we are clothed in Christ's righteousness.

5) Jesus didn't "hinder" the little ones who came to him. They probably said, as you said so sarcastically, "I wuv Jesus."

6) Jesus has no problem saying that "little ones" can very easily believe in Him:



6) Do you let "little children" come to Jesus? Bill, do you "hinder" them? The way you're arguing says sounds like you hinder them. So, don't get upset with me, your argument is with Jesus:



7) Cool thing is, you don't even necessarily need to become a paedo to accept my above argument. You just need to be a consistent baptist. But, I think your thinking sheds a big white light on some problems within the baptist mentality.

Paul, it's 2:58 AM and I need to get to bed. I will respond later today. Until then, God bless you.

 

[wsw201]

WOW!!!

I leave y'all alone for just a minute and look what happens!!

I do find it interesting that historically, Baptists waited quite awhile before baptizing. But it appears that its not too long compared to the historical position of the Presbyterian Church and children becoming communing members.

What Bill noted about the influence of Finneyism on baptism today is somewhat paralleled in the Presbyterian Church with the old New Side/Old Side contraversy of the late 1700's. On the Presbyterian side I would also say that the influences of the Peadocommunion debate has infected how Presbyterians are now allowing children younger and younger to become communing members with a profession of faith that is truly child-like (or childish).

With all the back and forth discussion about examing a child before being baptized, doesn't the Baptist Church allow the newly baptized child to participate in the Lord's Supper as well as make membership vows?

If I were a Baptist I might just argue that we examine a child, or any person, before baptism because they are also going to be partaking in the Lord's Supper! Presbyterian's examine a child before they can partake. All Baptists are doing is killing two birds with one stone!

But then again I may not be able to since as a Baptist, we have a different view of the Supper than Presbyterian's do?

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Let's try this one out, though: You go to a 75 yr. old's death bed. You witness to him. He then says he wants to believe. Would you "doubt" is profession? One could argue that he's trying to get fire insurance.

Not to mention this poor guy on his death bed then needs to be completely dunked underwater before his baptism is legit.

 

[Herald]

Paul - I prepared a long post in response to your post from last evening. My finger was just about to click on the mouse when I decided not to reply. Why? I am worn out with all these threads on baptism. I have yet to read anything new. About the only benefit that I have experienced is to move closer to a Puritanboard Senior due to all the posts I have made. Everyone seems to be preaching to the choir. The divide between credo's and paedo's is rooted in more than just baptism. The differences are systemic. I'm going to avoid the baptism threads for a period of time. I'm just worn out.

Blessings.

 

[matt01]

...I began wondering at what age would a Baptist Church expect to see a child make a profession of faith?
...and would be concerned with a particular child who grew up in the church and was say 15 and had not made a profession of faith.

I do not look to a particular age. It is the Lord's decision as to when or if He will work in a person's heart. We pray that the Lord would save our daughter from a young age (she is four months of age), but realize that the Lord works according to His plan.