Practical Benefits of Infant Baptism

[jogri17]

I've never understood how one can teach their children to pray without presuming their regeneration. God does not hear the prayers of the wicked. Wouldn't teaching someone whom you assume is not regenerate until they reach a certain age when they can "comprehend" be having your child heap up condemnation on itself?

It is simple, of course God hears the prayer's of the wicked. But wicked can mean one thing in one context another in another text. I would argue those verses are about those who know the truth and are outright rebellious like Sodom. Children have a special place in scripture. I think the Bible makes it clear. After all look at samuel. He was raised in a godly home sent to work as a priest at a young age. Regeneration is a sovereign act of God not a decision.

 

[MOSES]

Is this what is called 'covenant succesion'?

in my opinion, no, not quite.

Covenant succession is based on the promise of God to, what I call "elect", Children.
It is not based on our presuming regeneration, but soley on the promise of God.
Covenant succession is much more solid then mere presumption.

Do you mean 'elect children of believing parents'?

NO...I mean all children of believing parents.

I refer to such children as "elect" in that they were placed in the covenant (VISIBLY) by God's providence. All Christian children are "elect" in the visible sense and they recieve the covenant sign.

note: I am not talking about the eternal decrees of God in election. I am not using the word elect in that way.

 

[Davidius]

I've never understood how one can teach their children to pray without presuming their regeneration. God does not hear the prayers of the wicked. Wouldn't teaching someone whom you assume is not regenerate until they reach a certain age when they can "comprehend" be having your child heap up condemnation on itself?

It is simple, of course God hears the prayer's of the wicked. But wicked can mean one thing in one context another in another text. I would argue those verses are about those who know the truth and are outright rebellious like Sodom. Children have a special place in scripture. I think the Bible makes it clear. After all look at samuel. He was raised in a godly home sent to work as a priest at a young age. Regeneration is a sovereign act of God not a decision.

I don't see what Samuel or regeneration being a sovereign act of God have to do with my statement.

"The LORD is far from the wicked, but He hears the prayer of the righteous" (Proverbs 15:29).

"We know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is God-fearing, and does His will, He hears him" (John 9:31).

 

[Scott]

I've never understood how one can teach their children to pray without presuming their regeneration. God does not hear the prayers of the wicked. Wouldn't teaching someone whom you assume is not regenerate until they reach a certain age when they can "comprehend" be having your child heap up condemnation on itself?

It is simple, of course God hears the prayer's of the wicked. But wicked can mean one thing in one context another in another text. I would argue those verses are about those who know the truth and are outright rebellious like Sodom. Children have a special place in scripture. I think the Bible makes it clear. After all look at samuel. He was raised in a godly home sent to work as a priest at a young age. Regeneration is a sovereign act of God not a decision.

I think we are talking about praying in the name of Christ, which implies union with Christ (something the unbelievers do not have).

 

[Pilgrim's Progeny]

I do not have an answer here, then again I do not call my children unsaved heathen. They are holy by virtue of their place in the covenant entity of my household. What is a proper classification to give your unconverted children in this context?

How do you know they are unconverted?

I speak of conversion as in showing forth a living active faith in God, my 10 month old and two year old do not. My 4 year old and 6 year old do. I do not hesitate to call my 4 and 6 year old Christians. I suppose, in answer to my question above, I will call them covenant children, or children of promise. I fully expect that they will come to faith.

 

[MOSES]

Presumption

A question from one OPC paedo to another...

What about adult baptism. As is the practice in the OPC an adult must give a credible profession of faith before receiving the sacrament of baptism.
Thus, the session must "presume" such a one is regenerate.

Why then does the same OPC church when baptizing other people (i.e., infants, children) NOT presume regeneration?

in my opinion, that is an inconsistency.

Not the same OPC peado but what the heck.

When an adult requests baptism they are required to make a credible profession of faith. That not only includes what they actually profess but whether they actually live out that credible profession. A Session should not have to "presume" regeneration. A Session would take them at their word and based on their life. In fact it would be dangerous for the Church to presume upon the activity of the Holy Spirit at all.

It should also be noted that the grounds for Baptism of an adult or infant is not based upon regeneration (which is the Baptist view) but on the command of Christ and the promise of the covenant. But that promise is not a guarantee. Therefore, presumption in any form is not necessary or warranted by Scripture.

What do you think about the following statement made by A.A. Hodge in his commentary on the WCF?

The sacraments are the seals of his [Christ's] covenant. All have a right to claim admitance . . . who are presumptively the people of Christ

Chapter 1 page 3

 

[queenknitter]

I have never in my 24 yrs of Baptist life heard a baptist tell thier children not to pray in Jesus' name. This is a new one on me. I encouraged my child to pray from the moment she could say da-da.

I'm coming back to this point because I just found another source that is pretty adamant about NOT praying with children.

From Steve Lehrer's "How Should We Treat Our Children?":

Prayer is the privilege to “approach the throne of grace boldly” and cry out to God as our Father.15 Prayer is the ultimate expression that one has peace with God.16 Our unbelieving children do not have the privilege to approach the throne of grace because they have not repented of their sins. God only has wrath for them. God is not their father. Their father is the devil until they repent and are adopted into God’s family.17 Singing is simply prayer in song. If my child has not repented and yet he is singing out in church about his love for God and the blessing of being forgiven, he needs to understand that the words do not apply to him. He needs to be told that it is hypocrisy to sing about your love for God and yet continue to live an unrepentant life.18 But if after hearing this, your child decides to pray or sing to the Lord anyway, let him. Look at this as an opportunity to explain again what prayer and singing are and why they don’t mean anything before God until he repents and finds peace with God.

 

[Gryphonette]

Is this Steve Lehrer a widely-known and heeded theologist?

I'm hardly going to set myself out as the Last Word on Who's Who in modern America Christendom, but I'm not familiar with him.

Is this really and truly a wide-spread, frequently held viewpoint, or is it part of the fringe?

Goodness knows Calvinists have suffered for years by being tied to whoever he is that has the "Outside the Camp" site.

There's a lot to legitimately criticize about the RCC, but even it has its fringe groups...those who though possessing their own enthusiastic adherents, are definitely outside the mainstream of the RCC.

Are we absolutely positive this isn't that sort of thing?

For I know heaps of credos - why, I'm related to some of 'em ;^) - and they most assuredly do not advocate Lehrer's position.

I have never in my 24 yrs of Baptist life heard a baptist tell thier children not to pray in Jesus' name. This is a new one on me. I encouraged my child to pray from the moment she could say da-da.

I'm coming back to this point because I just found another source that is pretty adamant about NOT praying with children.

From Steve Lehrer's "How Should We Treat Our Children?":

Prayer is the privilege to “approach the throne of grace boldly” and cry out to God as our Father.15 Prayer is the ultimate expression that one has peace with God.16 Our unbelieving children do not have the privilege to approach the throne of grace because they have not repented of their sins. God only has wrath for them. God is not their father. Their father is the devil until they repent and are adopted into God’s family.17 Singing is simply prayer in song. If my child has not repented and yet he is singing out in church about his love for God and the blessing of being forgiven, he needs to understand that the words do not apply to him. He needs to be told that it is hypocrisy to sing about your love for God and yet continue to live an unrepentant life.18 But if after hearing this, your child decides to pray or sing to the Lord anyway, let him. Look at this as an opportunity to explain again what prayer and singing are and why they don’t mean anything before God until he repents and finds peace with God.

 

[Pergamum]

I've never understood how one can teach their children to pray without presuming their regeneration. God does not hear the prayers of the wicked. Wouldn't teaching someone whom you assume is not regenerate until they reach a certain age when they can "comprehend" be having your child heap up condemnation on itself?

The prayers of the wicked are sin, but the non-prayers of the wicked are even bigger sin. The unbeleiver is sinning either way, so might as well pray. Plus, the Bible commands repentance and repentance occurs by prayer it seems.

 

[queenknitter]

Is this really and truly a wide-spread, frequently held viewpoint, or is it part of the fringe?

I don't know. I really, really don't. That's kinda why I pointed it out here because I'd like to gauge others' reactions.

This document kind of fell into my lap. Long story. But I'm hoping that it's fringe. And that it stays fringe. And yet I've heard similar things out here in SC.

Steve Lehrer, btw, is the major writer for the New Covenant Theology. So if that's fringe. . . .

C

 

[Pergamum]

One practical benefit of infant baptism: they use less water.

Paedo baptism is eco-friendly!



(this message approved by Al Gore)