Household Baptism and Adult Responsibility

[Cotton Mather]

I was recently engaged in a conversation with a baptist who objected to my point about household baptism in acts as a non-sequitur. She said that no Presbyterian actually practices household baptisms, and that if a head of a household were saved, only the infants would be baptized and not the adults if unrepentant. I responded by saying that adult baptism if fundamentally different in nature than infant baptism. Infants are baptized on the basis of their federal union with their parents upon their profession of faith and inclusion into the covenant community. Adults, with the rational capabilities to make a conscious act of faith would be baptized upon their repentance and belief in the gospel. In an attempt to get a question answered let me post a hypothetical: A head of a household is saved by God later in his life. He has a 3 month old and a 15 year old. The 3 month old would obviously be baptized. Yet the 15 year old refuses the baptism, spurns the gospel, and wants nothing to do with the church in any way. Naturally, because of his rejection of the gospel he would not be baptized. Nevertheless, would this person still be considered a member of the covenant community in light of his federal union with his parents? I basically have a clue into what these answers would be, but I would love to hear some of your thoughts.

 

[Seb]

This previous thread discusses some of this.

 

[Christusregnat]

Jordan,

Adults, with the rational capabilities to make a conscious act of faith would be baptized upon their repentance and belief in the gospel.

To me, this is an open question. I am less certain that children are incapable of faith. If they are the image of God from conception, then, ipso facto, they have a rational and volitional capacity. Can they articulate what they know and believe? No. But as you will find out soon (at least, I think you're wife is having a baby), your infants know much more than you could ever imagine. Our first daughter, at three weeks, was playing peek-a-boo with us. Sort of anecdotal, but I think she was using her reason, and even her whit.

In an attempt to get a question answered let me post a hypothetical: A head of a household is saved by God later in his life. He has a 3 month old and a 15 year old. The 3 month old would obviously be baptized. Yet the 15 year old refuses the baptism, spurns the gospel, and wants nothing to do with the church in any way. Naturally, because of his rejection of the gospel he would not be baptized. Nevertheless, would this person still be considered a member of the covenant community in light of his federal union with his parents? I basically have a clue into what these answers would be, but I would love to hear some of your thoughts.

I think the 15 year old, or any age group, who is under the household must be baptized. But, as Genesis 17 makes clear, anyone who rejects the sign is himself to be rejected:

13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

Thus, if there were a rebellious son who refused baptism, he should be "cut off from his people" (note, this also applies to infants that are not baptized). In other words, judicially declared by the church that he is going to hell. The church, in such a case, would need to sever them from the people by a judicial act, and they would not be considered a part of the church. Note, however, that in Gen 17, Scripture presumes them to be a part of the church until they are cut off.

Cheers,

 

[Cotton Mather]

Adam,
Thanks so much. I figured as much that a rebellious son or daughter would be ecclesiastically disciplined for their sin. When I mentioned the bit about rationality and consciousness, I wasn't at all saying that infants are incapable of faith. I believe that God saves infants before, during, or after baptism. I was merely pointing out the fact that infants are incapable of visibly articulating a conscious act of faith in the person and work of Christ. Thanks so much for your response. It was really helpful.

 

[Christusregnat]

Jordan,

Welcome! Thanks for clarifying what you meant.

Adam

Adam,
Thanks so much. I figured as much that a rebellious son or daughter would be ecclesiastically disciplined for their sin. When I mentioned the bit about rationality and consciousness, I wasn't at all saying that infants are incapable of faith. I believe that God saves infants before, during, or after baptism. I was merely pointing out the fact that infants are incapable of visibly articulating a conscious act of faith in the person and work of Christ. Thanks so much for your response. It was really helpful.

 

[KMK]

Adam,
Thanks so much. I figured as much that a rebellious son or daughter would be ecclesiastically disciplined for their sin. When I mentioned the bit about rationality and consciousness, I wasn't at all saying that infants are incapable of faith. I believe that God saves infants before, during, or after baptism. I was merely pointing out the fact that infants are incapable of visibly articulating a conscious act of faith in the person and work of Christ. Thanks so much for your response. It was really helpful.

How would you 'ecclesiastically discipline' a 15 year old who is living with parents who are members of your church?

 

[Cotton Mather]

I think we're talking about blatant apostasy and marked rejection of the gospel wherein church discipline would be necessary. Nothing more, nothing less. Teenagers are capable of apostasy, are they not? Sorry if my wording was ambiguous.

 

[Christusregnat]

Hello Ken,

Much the same way as a 16 or 61 year old. Charges would be brought, a case would ensue, and if the person is unrepentant, then they would be declared a heathen, and excluded from the visible church.

Cheers,

Adam

Adam,
Thanks so much. I figured as much that a rebellious son or daughter would be ecclesiastically disciplined for their sin. When I mentioned the bit about rationality and consciousness, I wasn't at all saying that infants are incapable of faith. I believe that God saves infants before, during, or after baptism. I was merely pointing out the fact that infants are incapable of visibly articulating a conscious act of faith in the person and work of Christ. Thanks so much for your response. It was really helpful.

How would you 'ecclesiastically discipline' a 15 year old who is living with parents who are members of your church?

 

[KMK]

Hello Ken,

Much the same way as a 16 or 61 year old. Charges would be brought, a case would ensue, and if the person is unrepentant, then they would be declared a heathen, and excluded from the visible church.

By this do you mean they would be denied the sacrements?

How can you deny something to someone who has already denied it of himself?

How can you exclude someone when they have already excluded themselves?

I am not arguing, just trying to picture how this would happen practically.

 

[Christusregnat]

By this do you mean they would be denied the sacrements?
How can you deny something to someone who has already denied it of himself?
How can you exclude someone when they have already excluded themselves?
I am not arguing, just trying to picture how this would happen practically.

Ken,

I didn't take you to be arguing, so thanks for confirming my suspicion.

The reason someone under a household receives the sign of the covenant is because they are (according to God's directive) joined as part of the people of God. When someone refuses the sign, they should be severed from the people. In the case of the 15 year old, he would be declared an unbeliever by a church court, warned that he is definitely going to hell, unless he repents.

The suspension of the sacraments is not the main issue with discipline, in my understanding. The basic issue is that someone is delivered over to satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. In other words, the discipline would be a solemn judgment and warning, with a view to bringing the person to repentance.

I hope that helps,

Adam

 

[KMK]

By this do you mean they would be denied the sacrements?
How can you deny something to someone who has already denied it of himself?
How can you exclude someone when they have already excluded themselves?
I am not arguing, just trying to picture how this would happen practically.

Ken,

I didn't take you to be arguing, so thanks for confirming my suspicion.

The reason someone under a household receives the sign of the covenant is because they are (according to God's directive) joined as part of the people of God. When someone refuses the sign, they should be severed from the people. In the case of the 15 year old, he would be declared an unbeliever by a church court, warned that he is definitely going to hell, unless he repents.

The suspension of the sacraments is not the main issue with discipline, in my understanding. The basic issue is that someone is delivered over to satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. In other words, the discipline would be a solemn judgment and warning, with a view to bringing the person to repentance.

I hope that helps,

Adam

This is a different view than what I have encountered by the 'closed communionists' on PB. The majority opinion seems to be that the main way you 'deliver a man over to Satan' is by denying sacraments and, of course, that cannot be done when the 15 year old has already denied himself.

I understand the idea of warning the 15 year old that he is in danger of hell-fire, which is the warning that you give to all unbelievers whenever the Gospel is preached. In other words,, it is the same warning you would give to a 15 year old visitor to your church.

I am trying to figure out what practical steps would be taken to discipline a child who is technically still under the authority of his father.

 

[Christusregnat]

This is a different view than what I have encountered by the 'closed communionists' on PB. The majority opinion seems to be that the main way you 'deliver a man over to Satan' is by denying sacraments and, of course, that cannot be done when the 15 year old has already denied himself.

I understand the idea of warning the 15 year old that he is in danger of hell-fire, which is the warning that you give to all unbelievers whenever the Gospel is preached. In other words,, it is the same warning you would give to a 15 year old visitor to your church.

I am trying to figure out what practical steps would be taken to discipline a child who is technically still under the authority of his father.

Ken,

Good points.

Warning someone of hell fire is not the same as warning an apostate of hell fire. Apostates have a very severe judgment. This is why Gen 17 mentions "cutting the person off".

Practically speaking, there would be (as I said) a trial to confirm the person's damnation, as far as the church goes. This, by the by, is much more solemn than a general verbal warning issued from the pulpit; this is Christ speaking, and assigning the person to hell fire.

As for the family, the basic rules for excommunicated persons would apply. Do not wish them God's blessing, do not fellowship with them as saints, etc.

I wonder if anyone who's seen this sort of situation can comment.

Cheers,

Adam

 

[KMK]

This is a different view than what I have encountered by the 'closed communionists' on PB. The majority opinion seems to be that the main way you 'deliver a man over to Satan' is by denying sacraments and, of course, that cannot be done when the 15 year old has already denied himself.

I understand the idea of warning the 15 year old that he is in danger of hell-fire, which is the warning that you give to all unbelievers whenever the Gospel is preached. In other words,, it is the same warning you would give to a 15 year old visitor to your church.

I am trying to figure out what practical steps would be taken to discipline a child who is technically still under the authority of his father.

Ken,

Good points.

Warning someone of hell fire is not the same as warning an apostate of hell fire. Apostates have a very severe judgment. This is why Gen 17 mentions "cutting the person off".

Good point. (I did not see this one initially, of course, because, being a Baptist I would not consider the 15 year old to be an apostate.)

Practically speaking, there would be (as I said) a trial to confirm the person's damnation, as far as the church goes. This, by the by, is much more solemn than a general verbal warning issued from the pulpit; this is Christ speaking, and assigning the person to hell fire.

As for the family, the basic rules for excommunicated persons would apply. Do not wish them God's blessing, do not fellowship with them as saints, etc.

This is where it seems to get sticky. Any prayers for blessings for the father are going to naturally fall on the 15 year old. And what do you do when it is time for the church picnic? Do you invite the father but tell him that his son must stay at home?

 

[Christusregnat]

This is where it seems to get sticky. Any prayers for blessings for the father are going to naturally fall on the 15 year old. And what do you do when it is time for the church picnic? Do you invite the father but tell him that his son must stay at home?

Ah, I see what you're getting at.

I can't say that I've ever seen this situation in real life, since most churches (Reformed or otherwise) don't discipline in such cases.

I can't honestly say that I have an answer for you, but I think that the treatment would be the same as any other apostate. If a 15 year old covenant child rejects the sign of the covenant, then I would say that if the father has done his duty then he is no longer responsible for his son. His son has left the protection of God's family, and therefore a prayer for blessing on the father IS NOT a prayer for blessing on his son.

If the father thinks bibilcally, he would stand by the sentence of the church, and be careful to exclude his son from the means of grace, and from Christian fellowship until he repents. How this looks, "I wot not" as they used to say.

I will say this; in our modern era, we think of an "adult" as someone who finally gets out of the "teen-age" stage. This, to me, is nonsense. Once someone leaves off being a child, he is a man (see 1 Cor 13). Thus, there is no such thing as a teenager; the 15 year old ought to be treated like a man.

Sorry I can't be more helpful, but I hope this helps a little bit.

Cheers,

Adam

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Adam,
Thanks so much. I figured as much that a rebellious son or daughter would be ecclesiastically disciplined for their sin. When I mentioned the bit about rationality and consciousness, I wasn't at all saying that infants are incapable of faith. I believe that God saves infants before, during, or after baptism. I was merely pointing out the fact that infants are incapable of visibly articulating a conscious act of faith in the person and work of Christ. Thanks so much for your response. It was really helpful.

How would you 'ecclesiastically discipline' a 15 year old who is living with parents who are members of your church?

Just taking this question at face value, he can't be taken down the line of church discipline, since he's not "in" the church.

One may ask this question: is this person even "at" church? Does he attend? If he has actively refused baptism, this would not be a matter strictly speaking for church discipline. He is not baptized, therefore he is NOT a member of the church. He is a candidate for evangelism.

If he comes to church, dragged along as it were, or even willing for his parents sake, evangelize him. He is a self-excluded individual. Let the Spirit do his work. Preach him the gospel.

 

[Houston E.]

Adam,
Thanks so much. I figured as much that a rebellious son or daughter would be ecclesiastically disciplined for their sin. When I mentioned the bit about rationality and consciousness, I wasn't at all saying that infants are incapable of faith. I believe that God saves infants before, during, or after baptism. I was merely pointing out the fact that infants are incapable of visibly articulating a conscious act of faith in the person and work of Christ. Thanks so much for your response. It was really helpful.

How would you 'ecclesiastically discipline' a 15 year old who is living with parents who are members of your church?

Just taking this question at face value, he can't be taken down the line of church discipline, since he's not "in" the church.

One may ask this question: is this person even "at" church? Does he attend? If he has actively refused baptism, this would not be a matter strictly speaking for church discipline. He is not baptized, therefore he is NOT a member of the church. He is a candidate for evangelism.

If he comes to church, dragged along as it were, or even willing for his parents sake, evangelize him. He is a self-excluded individual. Let the Spirit do his work. Preach him the gospel.

But since his father is "in" the church, wouldn't his refusal make him a covenant breaker?

Genesis 17

14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Trey,
The boy in your example surely has, in one sense, "broken God's covenant" through his relationship to his believing father. But, in the case of the 8-day old the child has "broken the covenant" as well. But how? His father has made a covenant-breaker out of him, by not circumcising him. "Thanks a lot, Dad!" This is why Moses was terribly guilty when he was heading back to Egypt with his uncircumcised son (Ex. 4:24ff).

But the boy IS outside it, and he can't participate in any of the household's religious expression. But can he be brought under the hearing of the Law and Prophets, for his hopeful conversion? Why not?

But I think it is abundantly evident that Israel had to deal with the kind of "older-son" scenario you present on a regular basis. Let's look at church history. In what respect would a OT proselyte have handled this? This is the true comparison. The proselyte and his male household--those not "old enough" to make their own decisions, or resist their father's will--would be circumcised.

If one refused, a son wouldn't cease being a biological son, though perhaps as a servant he might be dismissed. He might even still live in the house. How many parents today kick out their unconverted children just for being unconverted? Certainly, the son would be excluded from identification from his father' future, perhaps even disinherited. He would simply be a "stranger or sojourner in the land," and there were enough of those.

Anyone who refused circumcision in Abraham's house was surely sent packing. But Abraham didn't have a land and cities in which strangers could settle. But before Israel even goes in the land, the laws that will regulate the aliens are incorporated.

 

[Houston E.]

Thanks Bruce,
That clears up some things for me.