Practical Outworking of CT In Childrearing

  • Thread starter Deleted member 12919 by request
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted member 12919 by request

Guest
When comparing the different ways that children are viewed/considered within the paedobaptist and credobaptist systems, could you share how this affects things in day to day practice? Is there a substantive difference?

Also, one thing I am struggling with as a RB is how to talk to my kids about their personal salvation and relationship with God, not wanting to give them a false sense of security, but at the same time not wanting to discourage them.

Any advice?

Thanks.
 
Although I am tempted to say it is as easy as saying paedobaptists speak to their children as if they are covenantally holy (which they are), it's not always as clear cut as that. John Gerstner in his Church History lectures came very close to seeing covenant kids as reprobate until proven otherwise.

The Federal vision types early on presumed that the children were already regenerate. That's going to far. It's best just to presume God's covenant promises that were signed as sealed.

As to specifics, I'll see what others say.
 
In theory, paedobaptists are trying to teach their children what to believe about God and how to live before him. They teach them what it means to live by faith in Christ, and that God had made promises to them which they must embrace by faith. Regarding actual regeneration, it doesn't really matter when that happens as far as child rearing goes. If they are already regenerate, then you are nurturing them in the faith. If they are unregenerate, then you are preparing them for faith, so they will know what to do whenever they realize they are finally regenerate. But as for nuts and bolts of parenting, I'm not sure there's a practical difference between paedo vs. credo other than paedo's will presume that children are officially part of the church whereas credo's tend to wait until their is a distinct conversion experience or profession before officially including them in the church. But even there, both are practically raising their children as part of the Christian community.

But even more practically speaking, the example of your own upbringing probably has the most influence on your own parenting (for good or ill), not your stated theology. Your parenting reflexes were trained by your own parents/gaurdians and reinforced by your personality. Even if you have the theology correct in your head, the trials of life push you to your default training. And it takes time and reflection to bring your own parenting skills into line with your stated theology, especially if you are coming from a non-Reformed tradition. We could say the same about marriage roles and expectations as well.

Just my two cents...
 
It doesn't matter one bit, credo or paedo.

We have this:

Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.
Ephesians 6:4

Do that.
 
It doesn't matter one bit, credo or paedo.

We have this:

Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.
Ephesians 6:4

Do that.
I have a feeling some on the other side will disagree.
 
It doesn't matter one bit, credo or paedo.

We have this:

Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.
Ephesians 6:4

Do that.
"In the Lord"

If Paul wrote the letter to the church in Ephasus, and the letter addresses the believers in said fellowship, wouldn't that mean that the children he is referring to (born or otherwise) belong to the church as well?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 
I have a feeling some on the other side will disagree.
I agree with him. Your question was asking is there is any practical difference. In terms of childrearing, I would say no. Presbyterians and Baptists alike, when they have children, involve them in the worship of the church, teach them in the home, and exhort them in the gospel, encouraging them to trust in and embrace Christ for themselves. Now, there are theological differences, of course. I would argue that Presbyterians and Baptists have a fundamentally different view of their children in some regards, but the practical outworking seems largely if not entirely the same.
 
Personally, I wasn't overly impressed with Malone's Baptism of Disciples Alone, but one line has always stuck with me: "Paedobaptists seem to think Baptists leave their children in the parking lot when they go to church."
 
I will tell you of some differences. I was raised by parents who are (still) Baptists, but I will raise my children as a member of a Reformed church.

The first major difference is that I was never, even once, told about God's covenant promises to me. As far as I was concerned, God had no interest, whatsoever in my salvation, any more than he did anyone else's. But that wasn't true, because he put me in a Christian home out of his sovereign good pleasure, to the intent that I would receive the instruction of my parents and grow up into a true and living faith.

I was also never, even once, told that I was "holy" - that is, set apart by God, for God. I was also never told, even once, that as a holy child and member of God's covenant community, that I was obligated to live for him, and that if I did not, I would receive a harsher judgment than a heathen person would.

My children, on the other hand, will be told all of these things, all the time.

Secondly, we have peace and comfort that if God so chooses to take one of our little ones out of this life, we at least have some basis (the covenant of grace) to be comforted about the eternal state of that child, recognizing that this point has been debated and is not settled in the reformed circles. As I see it, the Baptist would have precious little comfort in this matter because they do not consider their children to have any relation to the covenant of grace until they profess faith which evidences regeneration. Of course, they will claim that our comfort in this matter is a vain one, but that's another discussion - I'm just pointing out a difference.

With all of this said, I would still say that I am indebted to my parents, and if it were not for God working through them, I am sure I would not be a Christian today.
 
I will tell you of some differences. I was raised by parents who are (still) Baptists, but I will raise my children as a member of a Reformed church.

The first major difference is that I was never, even once, told about God's covenant promises to me. As far as I was concerned, God had no interest, whatsoever in my salvation, any more than he did anyone else's. But that wasn't true, because he put me in a Christian home out of his sovereign good pleasure, to the intent that I would receive the instruction of my parents and grow up into a true and living faith.

I was also never, even once, told that I was "holy" - that is, set apart by God, for God. I was also never told, even once, that as a holy child and member of God's covenant community, that I was obligated to live for him, and that if I did not, I would receive a harsher judgment than a heathen person would.

My children, on the other hand, will be told all of these things, all the time.

Secondly, we have peace and comfort that if God so chooses to take one of our little ones out of this life, we at least have some basis (the covenant of grace) to be comforted about the eternal state of that child, recognizing that this point has been debated and is not settled in the reformed circles. As I see it, the Baptist would have precious little comfort in this matter because they do not consider their children to have any relation to the covenant of grace until they profess faith which evidences regeneration. Of course, they will claim that our comfort in this matter is a vain one, but that's another discussion - I'm just pointing out a difference.

With all of this said, I would still say that I am indebted to my parents, and if it were not for God working through them, I am sure I would not be a Christian today.
That’s something to chew on. Thank you.
 
I will tell you of some differences. I was raised by parents who are (still) Baptists, but I will raise my children as a member of a Reformed church.

The first major difference is that I was never, even once, told about God's covenant promises to me. As far as I was concerned, God had no interest, whatsoever in my salvation, any more than he did anyone else's. But that wasn't true, because he put me in a Christian home out of his sovereign good pleasure, to the intent that I would receive the instruction of my parents and grow up into a true and living faith.

I was also never, even once, told that I was "holy" - that is, set apart by God, for God. I was also never told, even once, that as a holy child and member of God's covenant community, that I was obligated to live for him, and that if I did not, I would receive a harsher judgment than a heathen person would.

My children, on the other hand, will be told all of these things, all the time.

Secondly, we have peace and comfort that if God so chooses to take one of our little ones out of this life, we at least have some basis (the covenant of grace) to be comforted about the eternal state of that child, recognizing that this point has been debated and is not settled in the reformed circles. As I see it, the Baptist would have precious little comfort in this matter because they do not consider their children to have any relation to the covenant of grace until they profess faith which evidences regeneration. Of course, they will claim that our comfort in this matter is a vain one, but that's another discussion - I'm just pointing out a difference.

With all of this said, I would still say that I am indebted to my parents, and if it were not for God working through them, I am sure I would not be a Christian today.
This is what is pushing me to the other side. I believe my children are distinct from the world in that God would allow them to be born in a Christian home. That has to count for something. God seeks godly offspring, but we treat our children as though they deserve to be outside the camp away from the assembly (to put it in Ancient Israel terms).

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 
Forgive me if my way of speaking is off-putting. It's difficult for me to express the nuances of human emotion over text. I can sometimes sound disgruntled and angry, when in reality I am simply being inquisitive. God bless.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 
I will tell you of some differences. I was raised by parents who are (still) Baptists, but I will raise my children as a member of a Reformed church.

The first major difference is that I was never, even once, told about God's covenant promises to me. As far as I was concerned, God had no interest, whatsoever in my salvation, any more than he did anyone else's. But that wasn't true, because he put me in a Christian home out of his sovereign good pleasure, to the intent that I would receive the instruction of my parents and grow up into a true and living faith.

I was also never, even once, told that I was "holy" - that is, set apart by God, for God. I was also never told, even once, that as a holy child and member of God's covenant community, that I was obligated to live for him, and that if I did not, I would receive a harsher judgment than a heathen person would.

My children, on the other hand, will be told all of these things, all the time.

Secondly, we have peace and comfort that if God so chooses to take one of our little ones out of this life, we at least have some basis (the covenant of grace) to be comforted about the eternal state of that child, recognizing that this point has been debated and is not settled in the reformed circles. As I see it, the Baptist would have precious little comfort in this matter because they do not consider their children to have any relation to the covenant of grace until they profess faith which evidences regeneration. Of course, they will claim that our comfort in this matter is a vain one, but that's another discussion - I'm just pointing out a difference.

With all of this said, I would still say that I am indebted to my parents, and if it were not for God working through them, I am sure I would not be a Christian today.
That was well said and an edifying reminder for me, thanks!
 
I will tell you of some differences. I was raised by parents who are (still) Baptists, but I will raise my children as a member of a Reformed church.

The first major difference is that I was never, even once, told about God's covenant promises to me. As far as I was concerned, God had no interest, whatsoever in my salvation, any more than he did anyone else's. But that wasn't true, because he put me in a Christian home out of his sovereign good pleasure, to the intent that I would receive the instruction of my parents and grow up into a true and living faith.

I was also never, even once, told that I was "holy" - that is, set apart by God, for God. I was also never told, even once, that as a holy child and member of God's covenant community, that I was obligated to live for him, and that if I did not, I would receive a harsher judgment than a heathen person would.

My children, on the other hand, will be told all of these things, all the time.

Secondly, we have peace and comfort that if God so chooses to take one of our little ones out of this life, we at least have some basis (the covenant of grace) to be comforted about the eternal state of that child, recognizing that this point has been debated and is not settled in the reformed circles. As I see it, the Baptist would have precious little comfort in this matter because they do not consider their children to have any relation to the covenant of grace until they profess faith which evidences regeneration. Of course, they will claim that our comfort in this matter is a vain one, but that's another discussion - I'm just pointing out a difference.

With all of this said, I would still say that I am indebted to my parents, and if it were not for God working through them, I am sure I would not be a Christian today.
This is not a failure of Baptist-ism itself, but of your parents. My baptist parents were always pointing me to Christ, always telling me the promise of salvation if I repented and believed. They read me the Scriptures daily, exhorted me in my duties, caused me to memorize scripture, brought me weekly into the preaching of the Word, and believed that if I was elect, I would most surely be saved in God's own time.
Those who think that baptists have no comfort in the death of a child have not read the LBCF, which states that even being unborn is no hindrance to God's regeneration of His elect. We have the same comfort, knowing that if our children are elect, even if they die in the womb, God will gather them unto himself.
We believe that baptism means something different than the paedobaptists do, but like every Reformed person, we regard our children as fallen in Adam, salvable by electing grace, and we believe that God does all things well.
 
This is not a failure of Baptist-ism itself, but of your parents. My baptist parents were always pointing me to Christ, always telling me the promise of salvation if I repented and believed. They read me the Scriptures daily, exhorted me in my duties, caused me to memorize scripture, brought me weekly into the preaching of the Word, and believed that if I was elect, I would most surely be saved in God's own time.
Those who think that baptists have no comfort in the death of a child have not read the LBCF, which states that even being unborn is no hindrance to God's regeneration of His elect. We have the same comfort, knowing that if our children are elect, even if they die in the womb, God will gather them unto himself.
We believe that baptism means something different than the paedobaptists do, but like every Reformed person, we regard our children as fallen in Adam, salvable by electing grace, and we believe that God does all things well.
Love this explanation.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 
Practically speaking, there most definitely is a difference. Izaak's eloquent post points out some of the differences. In answer to Ben, I would say that although you are correct in saying that the particular parents make a huge difference, I would respond by saying that Baptist theology does not inherently lend itself to covenantal modes of speaking to children, because of how that mindset views children.

If paedo households have a tendency to err on the presumptive regeneration side (though I don't see this too often, actually, since the FV error is a rather small minority in Reformed circles), credo households have a tendency to err on the presumptive pagan side. The FV error will assume children are regenerate until proven otherwise. The credo error (yes, I see it as an error) will tend to assume children are not regenerate. I think it unwise to assume either situation. It is right to tell our children of the covenantal promises. It is also right to tell them that the covenantal promises consist in the gospel, that if they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, they are saved, and they then need to live out that identity in Christ.

Ultimately, we always need to share the gospel, because we always need the gospel, and the best families in both paedo and credo families will do this. To paedo families, I recommend, in addition to catechism and family worship, that they press home the covenantal promises to seek to make sure the children have not only understood, but also believe (knowing that only God converts sinners' hearts, so no manipulation!). To credos, I urge them to believe their children if they say, even at a very young age that they believe in Jesus. Do not make the mistake of thinking that a believable profession can only happen at a mythical age of accountability, or at least "older." You will quite possibly teach believing children to doubt their faith, and this can create lifelong problems.
 
This is not a failure of Baptist-ism itself, but of your parents. My baptist parents were always pointing me to Christ, always telling me the promise of salvation if I repented and believed. They read me the Scriptures daily, exhorted me in my duties, caused me to memorize scripture, brought me weekly into the preaching of the Word, and believed that if I was elect, I would most surely be saved in God's own time.
Those who think that baptists have no comfort in the death of a child have not read the LBCF, which states that even being unborn is no hindrance to God's regeneration of His elect. We have the same comfort, knowing that if our children are elect, even if they die in the womb, God will gather them unto himself.
We believe that baptism means something different than the paedobaptists do, but like every Reformed person, we regard our children as fallen in Adam, salvable by electing grace, and we believe that God does all things well.
I never said that my parents weren't pointing me to Christ. They were, all the time, and for that I am eternally indebted. What they didn't do was tell me that God had a special interest in me, by virtue of the very fact that he had placed me in a covenant home. Because of this, and because of my own sinful stupidity, I had no concept of the fact that God had made a claim upon my life, and that it was my duty and obligation to respond in faith and repentance. I also dealt with an extreme lack of assurance of God's willingness to save me, which I believe could have been alleviated if I had known of his covenant mercies that were toward me already. So in summary, I don't think my parents failed, I just think that they were consistent. They didn't believe that I was a member of God's covenant and a specific recipient of God's promises, and it showed in the lack of emphasis on these subjects.

Secondly, the comfort that you describe from the LBCF is a far cry from what is presented in the Canons of Dort, but admittedly similar in thrust to the WCF. The idea of "they are in heaven if they are elect" is essentially no comfort whatsoever. That provides no practical comfort to the parents because the parents have no basis on which to conclude that God's mercy was to their specific child. A reformed person however, more specifically someone who subscribes to the Canons of Dort, would be comforted that their child is indeed with the Lord. So the comfort is not nearly the same.

Canons 1.17 "We must judge concerning the will of God from his Word, which declares that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they are included with their parents.1 Therefore, God-fearing parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in their infancy.2"

Whether you believe the above article or not is one thing, but one cannot argue that it presents a much stronger level of comfort to grieving parents than what is presented in the LBCF (or the WCF for that matter). This, as mentioned, is a practical difference, for at least some reformed families. Even those who subscribe to the WCF, I would contend, have a stronger basis for deriving comfort in the horrible scenario of the loss of an infant, purely because they believe that their children are members of God's covenant of Grace, which is a very significant detail. The baptist has no basis to believe that his child is a member of the CoG until professing faith which evidences regeneration. Until then, they are bound to assume that their child is not a member of this covenant, but only the covenant of works.
 
What they didn't do was tell me that God had a special interest in me, by virtue of the very fact that he had placed me in a covenant home. Because of this, and because of my own sinful stupidity, I had no concept of the fact that God had made a claim upon my life, and that it was my duty and obligation to respond in faith and repentance.
Right.


Child: "Dad, am I a Christian?"

This question is answered differently in the two systems. (And frankly, the meaning of the word "Christian" is different, too. )
 
Right.


Child: "Dad, am I a Christian?"

This question is answered differently in the two systems. (And frankly, the meaning of the word "Christian" is different, too. )

Mt. 28 - the Presbyterian's child is a disciple of Christ, and is thus baptized. I'd assume, if being consistent with their doctrine, the Baptist child is not treated as a disciple and is thus not baptized. Otherwise if a disciple, they would be baptized.
 
Last edited:
Until then, they are bound to assume that their child is not a member of this covenant, but only the covenant of works.

This is terrifying. I can't imagine Noah shutting the doors on his sons and their wives. Or Isreal placing the lambs blood on every door post and placing the child OUTSIDE of the home. Or the Isrealites leaving their children in Egypt...I could go on but I wont.

This is starting to make sense to me each more and more each passing. God help us.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 
Mt. 28 - the Presbyterian's child is a disciple of Christ, and is thus baptized. I'd assume, if being consistent with their doctrine, the Baptist child is not treated as a disciple and is thus not baptized. Otherwise if a disciple, they would be baptized.
Baptize to disciple. Disciple to teach. Teach to observe. Am I hitting the mark?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 
Baptize to disciple. Disciple to teach. Teach to observe. Am I hitting the mark?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
Mt. 28 says, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

Teach all nations. How? By baptizing them and teaching them God's Word. Do you make disciples based on their faith? No. This is the method of evangelism - make disciples by baptizing and teaching them God's Word. Now, we aren't debating this. If the baptist is consistent in their doctrine, the Baptist child is not treated as a disciple and thus are not baptized, and thus are not taught (IF THEY ARE CONSISTENT).

But the inconsistent baptist will withhold baptism and yet still teach their child the Word.
 
Mt. 28 says, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

Teach all nations. How? By baptizing them and teaching them God's Word. Do you make disciples based on their faith? No. This is the method of evangelism - make disciples by baptizing and teaching them God's Word. Now, we aren't debating this. If the baptist is consistent in their doctrine, the Baptist child is not treated as a disciple and thus are not baptized, and thus are not taught (IF THEY ARE CONSISTENT).

But the inconsistent baptist will withhold baptism and yet still teach their child the Word.
Roger that. I understand. Thank you!

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top