How Ought Baptists To Consider Their Children?

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

That was my first thought as well.

The two sides are defining this differently though.

———

The P&R have a category and explanation why they treat their children as they do. I understand that.

I still see an inconsistency for a Baptist to treat their children in the same way. Nothing said here from the Baptist view has really helped alleviate the sense I have that something is wrong, that there is a disconnect.

Let’s assume Baptist covenant theology to be correct, wouldn’t it logically follow that parents must treat their children as outsiders of the church, and speak to them in the same way as to the unbelieving children next door?

 

[Polanus1561]

Brother, I am sure your pastor has answers to from his/Baptist view. Have you asked and considered his words?

 

[Northern Crofter]

This is why many Baptists, unaccountably, dedicate their babies; they know that they are, and are to be, distinguished from the world. Rather than applying the sacrament, however, that would indicate their solemn admission into the visible church, good Baptist folks develop a sub-sacrament whereby they might distinguish their children from the world.

"Child dedications" are really just dry baptisms.

 

[Polanus1561]

"Child dedications" are really just dry baptisms.

Don't most 1689ers not do child dedications?

 

[Northern Crofter]

Let’s assume Baptist covenant theology to be correct, wouldn’t it logically follow that parents must treat their children as outsiders of the church, and speak to them in the same way as to the unbelieving children next door?

Not necessarily. They are set apart/holy from conception because of their parent/-s position within the covenant. Baptism is no more necessary to make that a reality than it is to make salvation a reality. Children do not become holy in God's eyes because they are baptized; they are baptized because they are holy. But the visible, external sign is an important mark for the eyes of men and angels.

 

[Taylor]

Don't most 1689ers not do child dedications?

I would imagine not.

"Child dedications" are really just dry baptisms.

This reminds me of a crazy thing I saw some years ago. My cousin and her husband had their first baby. They went to a quasi-Pentecostal, evangelical, non-denominational church at the time. They had her dedicated, and the service was live-streamed, so I tuned in out of curiosity. I am not lying; the pastor got up on stage, took the baby in his arm, grabbed a white rose with his other hand, looked at the baby, and said, "I dedicate you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." He then proceeded to dip the rose in water and place the wet rose on the baby's forehead.

I was flabbergasted...

 

[retroGRAD3]

I would imagine not.



This reminds me of a crazy thing I saw some years ago. My cousin and her husband had their first baby. They went to a quasi-Pentecostal, evangelical, non-denominational church at the time. They had her dedicated, and the service was live-streamed, so I tuned in out of curiosity. I am not lying; the pastor got up on stage, took the baby in his arm, grabbed a white rose with his other hand, looked at the baby, and said, "I dedicate you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." He then proceeded to dip the rose in water and place the wet rose on the baby's forehead.

I was flabbergasted...

Well, that's one way to do it I guess.

 

[Physeter]

My church has a dedication service for infants. We do not treat them as outsiders. I think it shameful to treat a child as an outsider.

I do understand the reasoning behind infant baptism and don't really have any issues with it personally.

 

[Ben Zartman]

The two sides are defining this differently though.

———

The P&R have a category and explanation why they treat their children as they do. I understand that.

I still see an inconsistency for a Baptist to treat their children in the same way. Nothing said here from the Baptist view has really helped alleviate the sense I have that something is wrong, that there is a disconnect.

Let’s assume Baptist covenant theology to be correct, wouldn’t it logically follow that parents must treat their children as outsiders of the church, and speak to them in the same way as to the unbelieving children next door?

I wonder how you think that pagan children ought to be spoken to? You should live out your Christian testimony before the pagan and his children just like you do before your own. If you have a chance to share the Gospel with them, do so. If you can persuade them to come to church and sit under the ministry of the Word, you should do so. Above all, treat them as fallen image-bearers to whom the Gospel call is to go, not as something beneath your dignity!

The heathen and the Christian have the same responsibility to God: to repent and believe. They begin the same, as sinners in Adam. That the children of the Christian are at a distinct advantage does not in any way negate their birthright (birthwrong?) in Adam. That they will have more to answer for on Judgment Day if they rejected Christ doesn't mean they are different than the rest of fallen man. As Pastor Sheffield pointed out, there are only two groups: the regenerate, and the unregenerate. But if you treat an obviously converted child differently than you do one who is not saved, you're a jerk.
(Edited to say: by which I mean they all deserve kindness, to be taken to church, to be prayed with and sung with and read to from the Bible. Whether to be received into membership with it's privileges of communion and discipline is a matter for the church, but it should not affect how you interact with them day-to-day)

 

[Polanus1561]

OP, I agree with Ben in terms of how you are thinking too much situationally.

I think there is enough data here and in other threads for you to move from that, to the biblical data.

Blessings

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Children do not become holy in God's eyes because they are baptized; they are baptized because they are holy

Quite right. Children of believers are holy (set apart) from birth. They are in the covenant outwardly by their first birth and inwardly by their second.

And because they are, in that sense, in the covenant, they are to be baptized. Baptism does not bring them into the covenant. It recognizes their standing and status within it by virtue of Christian parentage.

Children of all believers, whether paedo- or credo-baptist, according to the P/R conception of things, are in the covenant outwardly. We would say that baptism, as the sign and seal of covenantal membership, belongs to them all, Baptists and P/R alike. But the absence of baptism does not mean that Baptist children are not in the covenant, at least as far as P/R churches see it: they are in the covenant, though lacking its sign and seal.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Mr. Great-Heart]

I'm not picking on words anyone has used in this thread because these are things I've seen repeated a number of times by various posters in different threads. But I really don't understand the offense that this statement seems to bring - a baptist must treat his child like an outsider *gasp*! Well, unless they profess the faith of the gospel and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, based on how the Head of the church calls, institutes, orders, and governs His church, they are not in the church and they should not be called or treated as visible saints (1689 chapter 26, paragraphs 2 & 4). Yet I still have a great responsibility to them as one who IS a visible saint and has been given specific instructions by my Lord as to how to rear them (which, by the way, does not include sprinkling them as infants - there is neither command nor example in the Holy Scriptures, nor certain inference from them, to baptize such).

Do I then treat them the same as my pagan neighbor's children? An absurd question. I treat children of other adults - believers or unbelievers - differently in many ways than I do my own children. For example, unless I am specifically instructed by the parent to do so, I do not discipline them. On the other hand, there are ways I treat them the same as my children. For example, if they are at my house at the appropriate time, they would participate in family worship.

"Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me." Not, 'let the children alone who are speculatively in covenant, but treat the other children like outsiders.' (and, of course, it ought to go without saying that that is a completely dry text.. but in this thread it probably needs to be said)

I would imagine not.

That is correct, at least in my limited experience. If a baptist church has child dedications as part of a worship service, they probably also call themselves "non denominational" and most definitely do not hold to a confession such as the 1689, though they may be calvinistic. I wouldn't even call it a sub-sacrament. More like pseudo.

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

I wonder how you think that pagan children ought to be spoken to? You should live out your Christian testimony before the pagan and his children just like you do before your own. If you have a chance to share the Gospel with them, do so. If you can persuade them to come to church and sit under the ministry of the Word, you should do so. Above all, treat them as fallen image-bearers to whom the Gospel call is to go, not as something beneath your dignity!

The heathen and the Christian have the same responsibility to God: to repent and believe. They begin the same, as sinners in Adam. That the children of the Christian are at a distinct advantage does not in any way negate their birthright (birthwrong?) in Adam. That they will have more to answer for on Judgment Day if they rejected Christ doesn't mean they are different than the rest of fallen man. As Pastor Sheffield pointed out, there are only two groups: the regenerate, and the unregenerate. But if you treat an obviously converted child differently than you do one who is not saved, you're a jerk.
(Edited to say: by which I mean they all deserve kindness, to be taken to church, to be prayed with and sung with and read to from the Bible. Whether to be received into membership with it's privileges of communion and discipline is a matter for the church, but it should not affect how you interact with them day-to-day)

Thanks, brother.

In saying treating my children different than unbelieving neighbour children, I meant more how the message to the neighbours is simply “repent and believe;” whereas within my own home I can’t merely say that. I can’t stop there. That’s where the sense I have that something is amiss is coming in.

I can’t have my children be mere spectators to family religion. I can’t bring them into the life of the church and yet say, “This is not for you. Do not sing these songs. Do not pray along with the congregation. One day perhaps you can join us.”

Instead, I feel pulled to raise them essentially as disciples, being taught everything in a way that applies to them more than the proverbial pagan.

If you subbed out a neighbour child for mine at bedtime, I couldn’t speak to them in the same manner as I lay them down to sleep as I would to my own children. There is a difference. And that’s what I’m trying to figure out.

I’m not saying I have the answers.

The P&R have their answers. You and other Baptists have your answers.

I’m trying to square my intuition with what’s right, biblical, logical, etc.

 

[Mr. Great-Heart]

If you subbed out a neighbour child for mine at bedtime, I couldn’t speak to them in the same manner as I lay them down to sleep as I would to my own children. There is a difference. And that’s what I’m trying to figure out.

That would be rejecting the providence of God in whom he specifically chose to give you as your own child. Why speculate about that?

 

[Mr. Great-Heart]

I can’t bring them into the life of the church and yet say, “This is not for you. Do not sing these songs. Do not pray along with the congregation. One day perhaps you can join us.”

I don't know what hymnal your church uses, but I suspect there are some hymns - at least there is in ours - that this would describe even if you were coming from a paedobaptist position. Perhaps you'd narrow down a bit the songs that these children would be forbidden to sing, but you'd still have the same dilemma.

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

That would be rejecting the providence of God in whom he specifically chose to give you as your own child. Why speculate about that?

Perhaps I wasn’t clear.

I meant that in those tender minutes of parent and child communication while they are laying in their beds, I most certainly do not speak to them about the things of God in the exact same way as I would to an unbelieving child unrelated to my family.

I wasn’t emphasizing a providential swap; I was using the tenderness of the moment as a backdrop.

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

I don't know what hymnal your church uses, but I suspect there are some hymns - at least there is in ours - that this would describe even if you were coming from a paedobaptist position. Perhaps you'd narrow down a bit the songs that these children would be forbidden to sing, but you'd still have the same dilemma.

I’d actually argue it would be best for us to be singing psalms.

Do you mean hymns that have explicit Christian experience as their theme? Or professions of faith?

 

[Mr. Great-Heart]

I’d actually argue it would be best for us to be singing psalms.

Do you mean hymns that have explicit Christian experience as their theme? Or professions of faith?

Ok, there are still psalms that a so-called covenant child who does not have the substance of it, cannot rightly appropriate to themselves and sing with their lips. "In God I have put my trust, I shall not be afraid", etc.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear.

I meant that in those tender minutes of parent and child communication while they are laying in their beds, I most certainly do not speak to them about the things of God in the exact same way as I would to an unbelieving child unrelated to my family.

I wasn’t emphasizing a providential swap; I was using the tenderness of the moment as a backdrop

I understand. My statement still stands. You speak to them differently because they are your family member, your child.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

@Mr. Great-Heart; @Lowlander

Jake,

I appreciate your vehemence and zeal about your position as a Baptist. I used to be right there, saying just what you are saying to shore up Elijah, your fellow Baptist.

Elijah, however, is finding your articulation of the Baptist position, which I think is accurate, inadequate to account for matters as he has come to see them. It's your fellow Baptist, Jake, who has raised the concerns that he has and who admits that the P/R position can account for what he finds lacking in his own position.

You are quite right, Elijah, about what you can press home with your own children, as you speak to them of the undoubted love of God for them and encourage them in the never-failing care that He has for them. You speak to someone out of the church about Christ as the only hope, to be sure, and encourage them to believe and repent very winsomely as they are open to it. If they are not, you don't throw pearls before swine.

But you speak to your child, even in his rebelling, entreatingly and tenderly in a way that you'd never speak to an unbeliever who "doesn't want to hear it." It's hard even to fully describe this, but we intuit, as you are doing in this thread, that our children whom we are to nurture for Him are clearly not the same as the unbelieving world that lies outside our doors, even when those children have not yet professed their faith in Christ. Not only do we expect and anticipate them to do so, but we also wait, perhaps through turmoil and struggle, always pleading to God his promises to them, and never failing to point them to Christ, however far away they may be, or seem to be, from Him.

Your basic sense, Elijah, is that the child in the next room of your house is not to be treated by you spiritually as the unbelieving man next door and you are precisely right about that. Don't move away from this insight, my dear brother.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

If I could ask a more specific, practical question to everybody:

In light of how you view your children, how ought you disciple your children? Would you even use the word “disciple”?

What exactly are you telling them when it comes down to how they should believe and act? Is there anyone out there prefacing every taught command with, “you are powerless to obey because you aren’t saved”?

Please answer more specifically than, “teach them the Bible.”

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

@Mr. Great-Heart; @Lowlander

Jake,

I appreciate your vehemence and zeal about your position as a Baptist. I used to be right there, saying just what you are saying to shore up Elijah, your fellow Baptist.

Elijah, however, is finding your articulation of the Baptist position, which I think is accurate, inadequate to account for matters as he has come to see them. It's your fellow Baptist, Jake, who has raised the concerns that he has and who admits that the P/R position can account for what he finds lacking in his own position.

You are quite right, Elijah, about what you can press home with your own children, as you speak to them of the undoubted love of God for them and encourage them in the never-failing care that He has for them. You speak to someone out of the church about Christ as the only hope, to be sure, and encourage them to believe and repent very winsomely as they are open to it. If they are not, you don't throw pearls before swine.

But you speak to your child, even in his rebelling, entreatingly and tenderly in a way that you'd never speak to an unbeliever who "doesn't want to hear it." It's hard even to fully describe this, but we intuit, as you are doing in this thread, that our children whom we are to nurture for Him are clearly not the same as the unbelieving world that lies outside our doors, even when those children have not yet professed their faith in Christ. Not only do we expect and anticipate them to do so, but we also wait, perhaps through turmoil and struggle, always pleading to God his promises to them, and never failing to point them to Christ, however far away they may be, or seem to be, from Him.

Your basic sense, Elijah, is that the child in the next room of your house is not to be treated by you spiritually as the unbelieving man next door and you are precisely right about that. Don't move away from this insight, my dear brother.

Peace,
Alan

Thank you, brother. I appreciate the encouragement as I work through these things.

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

Ok, there are still psalms that a so-called covenant child who does not have the substance of it, cannot rightly appropriate to themselves and sing with their lips. "In God I have put my trust, I shall not be afraid", etc.

I understand. My statement still stands. You speak to them differently because they are your family member, your child.

Do you mean I speak to them differently because of my love for them as my own children? What sets apart them from other children in this instance is my personal love for them?

 

[Mr. Great-Heart]

You are quite right, Elijah, about what you can press home with your own children, as you speak to them of the undoubted love of God for them and encourage them in the never-failing care that He has for them. You speak to someone out of the church about Christ as the only hope, to be sure, and encourage them to believe and repent very winsomely as they are open to it. If they are not, you don't throw pearls before swine.

But you speak to your child, even in his rebelling, entreatingly and tenderly in a way that you'd never speak to an unbeliever who "doesn't want to hear it." It's hard even to fully describe this, but we intuit, as you are doing in this thread, that our children whom we are to nurture for Him are clearly not the same as the unbelieving world that lies outside our doors, even when those children have not yet professed their faith in Christ. Not only do we expect and anticipate them to do so, but we also wait, perhaps through turmoil and struggle, always pleading to God his promises to them, and never failing to point them to Christ, however far away they may be, or seem to be, from Him.

Because you are speaking in general terms, I agree with much of what you've posted that I've quoted above, though of course we would diverge as we move to specifics. But I would just mention that I don't believe it's quite so cut and dry with the distinctions as you made it seem in these two paragraphs above. Though I am, of course, not suggesting we apply it literally, I think Deut. 21:18-21 has some principles that we could apply and that would contradict the clean bifurcation you've made above.

 

[Mr. Great-Heart]

Do you mean I speak to them differently because of my love for them as my own children? What sets apart them from other children in this instance is my personal love for them?

Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them [YOUR children] up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

We have specific duties to our own children, not to the children of others. How we talk to them follows. More could be said, but it is way past my bedtime and soon my children will be not-so-tenderly waking me up!

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them [YOUR children] up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

We have specific duties to our own children, not to the children of others. How we talk to them follows. More could be said, but it is way past my bedtime and soon my children will be not-so-tenderly waking me up!

I agree with you there certainly.

But in addition to that familial duty, I sense there is something more. Hence this thread.

 

[John The Baptist]

I understand. My statement still stands. You speak to them differently because they are your family member, your child.

I think you’re right on here.

To OP:
We have personal relationships with unbelievers which go deeper than “repent and believe.” This could include siblings, parents, coworkers, or close friends. Knowing they’re unbelievers doesn't mean we treat them “like the neighbor next door.”

I think in both traditions the unconverted child need not moralistic instruction (the likes of which I grew up with) rather they need gospel preaching. This is needed especially from the parents, the most trusted relationship in their eyes.

If your difficulty is how they ought to be treated at church, then you also need to question how you treat a visiting unbeliever. Can they sit under the preaching? Can they sing the hymns? Obviously they cannot partake of the supper, same as the unregenerate child (in both traditions).

I’m having a hard time understanding the difficulty here. An unbeliever needs the gospel taught to them, that they may receive faith by hearing. This is true of the baptized kid and the unbaptized kid. And since you have been entrusted with this dear child, you ought to train them up in the way they should go, in the gospel.

So, teach your child the gospel and the Bible, and do not feel guilty about it. The internal call does not always come at the first external call, so we persistently teach the gospel to our children, knowing and trusting that God is sovereign over their salvation.

 

[J.L. Allen]

If I could ask a more specific, practical question to everybody:

In light of how you view your children, how ought you disciple your children? Would you even use the word “disciple”?

What exactly are you telling them when it comes down to how they should believe and act? Is there anyone out there prefacing every taught command with, “you are powerless to obey because you aren’t saved”?

Please answer more specifically than, “teach them the Bible.”

I'm so very far from being a perfect parent, and it is God's grace that I do anything right by them. Disciple is absolutely the appropriate word to use. My wife and I take daily catechism seriously. By teaching them the doctrines of Bible as summarized in the catechisms, we are laying the groundwork that Paul speaks of in Colossians (that they grow in understanding, rooted in the preeminence of Christ) or John in his second epistle (that they hold fast to truth and love revealed in the doctrine of Christ). Daily family worship is essential (more so), too. Nearly every time we do family worship, one of the kids mentions the catechism they did with their mother in the morning. These are heart warming moments. We also go through a Bible curriculum as part of their schooling, too, so they make connections to other parts of Scripture often.

Part of being a disciple means submitting to discipline. When they act up (sin), we take a moment to talk through repentance and pray for it, asking forgiveness from God. We conclude these times by talking about the big picture of how the promises of God are yes and amen in Christ Jesus. We talk about how they must take for themselves these promises; promises given by God that are held out before them in their baptisms. He will be their God, and they will be his people. My wife and I plead for their souls in our own prayers. When times have been really sour, we rebuke or admonish them for looking like the world and not like the saints they are called to be. "For it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy."

By going through doctrine, they learn that they are helpless to be saved according to their own power (or the power anyone else around them has). As I've heard it said, "every baptism is an infant baptism. For we are all as helpless as infants to save ourselves."

Again, my wife and I are so very far from perfect. Yet even our failure is gracious opportunity to share in the joy of salvation and forgiveness of sins we have in Christ. Our failure provides opportunities to practice reconciliation amongst each other.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

For we are all as helpless as infants to save ourselves."

That is a favorite point of mine to make at an infant baptism: "this child is an especially apt picture of us all spiritually. We are entirely unable to save ourselves, as much as this child is spiritually, and in every other way! We must clothe, feed, shelter, and teach our children. So must our God do the same for us as his utterly dependent sheep. This little lamb we baptize is who we all really are before our great and good God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Peace
Alan

 

[Ben Zartman]

I agree with you there certainly.

But in addition to that familial duty, I sense there is something more. Hence this thread.

That you desire anything more than what God has clearly commanded in Scripture is a reflection of your own heart. "man has sought out many inventions"
It is ever our nature to want more than what God has supplied: the Israelites wanted flesh; the Papists want rituals and statues; the Pentecostals want feelings.
But God has simply given us children and told us to teach them His ways. "For what, if they're not saved yet?" Because God says so. Why do you desire more? The child who grew up singing Zion's songs, even though unconverted, will love them better when he is, because they're familiar. The child who knows scripture by heart will be advanced in his Christian walk when he is saved because God's word is already hid therein.
The same God who declares that your child is born a sinner and needs to be born again if he would see His kingdom is the God who commands you to teach him His laws, His ways, His fear, and His praise. Why not trust God to know what He's about, and not look for more?

 

[lynnie]

You might enjoy this article. It is by a prof at WTS. Don't let the title throw you off. It is wonderfully encouraging especially about children.

Indifferentism and Rigorism

by Vern Sheridan Poythress [Published in Westminster Theological Journal 59/1 (1997) 13-29. Used with permission.] pdf. Westminster Theological Seminary P.O. Box 27009 Philadelphia, PA 19118-0009 A…

frame-poythress.org