Practical Outworking of CT In Childrearing

[Ben Zartman]

Today is still not that day. This may be evidence of the common charge of over-realized ecclesiology. This reality you describe as “salvific union before inclusion” is only true of heaven.

I think Lane was exposing that in your Post # 288 you seem to conflate the idea of the visible church and the invisible church. You seem to diminish that outward administration does exist in the NT. But then you seperate visible/invisible and highlight administration to interpret Hebrews 6 in Post # 295. This at best seems a little inconsistent.

I think it obvious when you visit any Church that children are indeed part of the visible gathering. I have never attended a Baptist church (SBC or Reformed) that treated their children as unrepentant Pagans. From your view, if a child has not made a credible profession they are in rebellion. But often kids are not only present, they even can be seen participating (singing, praying, listening, learning). While I disagree with the practice, some even let them sing in front of the congregation or help pass the offering plate. In my experience, Baptist seem to withhold baptism to later ages NOT because they want to withold baptism (because even my 4 year old confesses faith in Christ and knows herself to be a sinner), but rather withold baptism because said child might not be ready for the Lord’s Supper. However this seems to lead to the reformed (including Presbyterian) distinction between entry (baptism) and accessing maturity (Lord’s Supper). The Baptist conflation of the 2 sacraments (or ordinances) seems like an unbiblical conflation. This same mistake is also made by Federal Vision and Doug Wilson as they conflate the 2 sacraments (or ordinances) and fail to see the distinction between visible entry sign/maturity sign. They also say, if a subject is ready for one, then they are ready for the other. Yes your subjects are not infants, but it is the same issue with not seeing this distinction between baptism and the table.

NT outward inclusion/entry still seems to be defined as household administration. Granted in the OT the household administration of circumcision was through male children and male strangers, BUT the women were still included in the visible covenant community. The household concept seems to still be upheld and not struck down as some shadow in the NT. Think of the NT household baptisms, Christ’s words to children, the faith of a parent sanctifying an unbelieving spouse and making their children holy. The Great Commission also hints to the order in that we Baptize and then we teach in order to make a disciple. Generally, IF parents do their job (as faith should produce), most kids will make profession at a very young age. IF they walk away forever, then that is to their judgment (Hebrews 6 ). Baptism is for entry into the visible church and yes is still tied to faith, household faith. The table is to be fenced for those in the visible church exhibiting maturity and the ability to deeply discern their walk with Christ and any malice they might have towards fellow believers. The elect partaking unto spiritual blessing while the reprobate in sheep’s clothing partake unto judgment and condemnation.

If you treat unrepentant pagans with anything other than charity and mercy, perhaps that's one of the roots of your problem. I regard my children as unsaved--certainly, in rebellion against God by nature: "the carnal mind is enmity against God"--until they make a credible profession, but I treat them as people made in God's image who are to be treated lovingly and kindly and brought under the preaching of the word. Moreover, I have the responsibility to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and there's no reason they have to be church members to do that.

You mistake baptist polity in saying that we don't baptize until we think they're ready for the Supper. Baloney. If a church baptizes a 9-year-old, they are admitted to the supper, because the Supper is for professing believers. The metric we seek is not an age, but an ability to credibly profess faith; the grace to wait on the church's decision to accept that profession as credible will go far toward confirming it.

Your last paragraph is a re-hash of things we've been over time and time again. The big divide between baptists and presbyterians is partly this household thing--the notion that one person's belief can be counted as that of others. I don't think we need to go over it yet again.

 

[Tom Hart]

@Ben Zartman,

In Post #300 I asked a question to which I would appreciate a reply:

Simon Magus was baptized on the basis of a(n apparently credible) profession. Was he in the covenant or outside it?

 

[Grant]

If you treat unrepentant pagans with anything other than charity and mercy, perhaps that's one of the roots of your problem. I regard my children as unsaved--certainly, in rebellion against God by nature: "the carnal mind is enmity against God"--until they make a credible profession, but I treat them as people made in God's image who are to be treated lovingly and kindly and brought under the preaching of the word. Moreover, I have the responsibility to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and there's no reason they have to be church members to do that.

You mistake baptist polity in saying that we don't baptize until we think they're ready for the Supper. Baloney. If a church baptizes a 9-year-old, they are admitted to the supper, because the Supper is for professing believers. The metric we seek is not an age, but an ability to credibly profess faith; the grace to wait on the church's decision to accept that profession as credible will go far toward confirming it.

Your last paragraph is a re-hash of things we've been over time and time again. The big divide between baptists and presbyterians is partly this household thing--the notion that one person's belief can be counted as that of others. I don't think we need to go over it yet again.

Ben,

I appreciate you getting back with me. I was raised a Baptist from birth and did not make the move until around 25 years of age. I say that just to give some backdrop to my knowledge of how things tend to go in a stereotypical Baptist setting (SBC strain & Calvinistic strain). I would still have concerns with your reasoning here, as I know you do with mine, but I will leave that be.

1). However, I don’t think you addressed my charge of an over realized-ecclesiology regarding your remark that now we have “salvific union before inclusion”. Again, this can only be true in heaven.

2). Nor did you address the this portion:

I think Lane was exposing that in your Post # 288 you seem to conflate the idea of the visible church and the invisible church. You seem to diminish that outward administration does exist in the NT. But then you seperate visible/invisible and highlight administration to interpret Hebrews 6 in Post # 295. This at best seems a little inconsistent.

3. Lastly, do you have any thoughts/concerns regarding conflating the requirements for baptism/Lord’s supper? Do you believe the Bible conflates the 2 with regard to the proper Recipients? If my 5 year old daughter confesses faith in Christ, understands herself to be a sinner in need of the perfect work of Christ should she be baptized? Admitted to the super?

I think your forced to say either “no to both” OR “yes to both”, since Baptist interlock the 2 ….right?

I certainly could have missed a previous answer, but I think I have read all 300 post as best I can. If I did please forgive me.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I just wanted to pop in again with a few thoughts. Circumcision of male infants wasn’t done of course upon the infant’s profession of faith, but was the sign placed upon him, by command of God, of God’s covenant and promise to be God to his people. It was a sign of belonging and inclusion in that covenant and promise. It meant something.

So that paedobaptists believe that baptism by water is a gracious expansion of that wonderful earlier sign, which once was only for their sons, of covenant and promise. It now includes all, both male and female, Jew and Greek. Like circumcision, baptism is for the children of parents who are visibly members and partakers in God’s covenant promises. Their children automatically belong, as did the children in the under-age church; but as God commanded the visible sign on the children then, represented by the male children, paedobaptism understands the command now to place the visible sign on all its children, with its greater blessing in being extended to both male and female.

So— whether baptized or not, God sees the children of faithful members in the visible church as included in those certain household and covenant promises. But— this brings me back to the OP and questions about what difference the visible sign and it’s practical outworkings may make.

I’ve observed what I think are practical outcomes of this sign of inclusion (and all it represents) being placed on children in the church. As these children are brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, with all that entails, I think that such a child’s knowledge that he or she received this public sign of inclusion, by command of God, enveloped in the warmth and acceptance of the nurturing bosom of the church, in which he or she is a true member, seems huge in their life. There is, I observe, a sense of belonging and responsibility as they grow, recognized as fellow members along with their parents and the other adults and children— true and welcome citizens and fellow heirs— in this godly society. Already having that comfort, there seems to be a sense of God’s love for them in placing them in such a home, in such a church, having been born by his sovereign will into this citizenship, again into this pleasant society and family. A sense of privilege, not in a boastful way, but in a grateful way— which seems to lead to an early sense of duty, and recognition of the need to prepare for future duties as they grow in their citizenship. I can’t think that all this wouldn’t make a subtle difference in well-being in their station as children in the godly home and in the church. (Forgive all my repetitions!)

 

[Phil D.]

I’ve observed what I think are practical outcomes of this sign of inclusion (and all it represents) being placed on children in the church. As these children are brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, with all that entails, I think that such a child’s knowledge that he or she received this public sign of inclusion, by command of God, enveloped in the warmth and acceptance of the nurturing bosom of the church, in which he or she is a true member, seems huge in their life. There is, I observe, a sense of belonging and responsibility as they grow, recognized as fellow members along with their parents and the other adults and children— true and welcome citizens and fellow heirs— in this godly society. Already having that comfort, there seems to be a sense of God’s love for them in placing them in such a home, in such a church, having been born by his sovereign will into this citizenship, again into this pleasant society and family. A sense of privilege, not in a boastful way, but in a grateful way— which seems to lead to an early sense of duty, and recognition of the need to prepare for future duties as they grow in their citizenship. I can’t think that all this wouldn’t make a subtle difference in well-being in their station as children in the godly home and in the church. (Forgive all my repetitions!)

I know we all agree that ultimately election is not affected by baptism, and I believe that's an important place to begin.

My wife and I have been members of both credo and peado churches over extended periods of times, and in terms of the spirtual outlook or well-being of one's children it is pretty obvious to me such is most impacted by the particular actions and dilegence of the parents.

I've seen credos who I think are a bit too intense or even harsh in driving home the point that their child is by nature "lost" and needs to repent in order to be saved. They almost discourage their children from becoming baptized, somehow fearing it might be "too soon".

On the other hand I've seen paedos who seem to "rest" in the thought that their child is baptized, then neglecting to some extent the fact that repentance is an integral step in the practical process of salvation. (This indeed seems to be much more of a chronic problem in non-Reformed paedo churches.)

Of course neither extreme is necessary, nor, in my expereince, even the norm among solid evangelical and Reformed churches. My observation has been that there is relative parity in credo and paedo parents' approach to effectively discipling their children - much intercessory prayer, godly parental love, dilegently teaching the truths - even the hard truths - of the Bible, and patiently encouraging their children's personal establishment in the faith once delivered.

 

[Romans678]

There is no kingdom without the church. There is no church without members.
There is no member without family.
There is no family without children.

I can't imagine any earthly nation or kingdom that excludes children from its membership. Nations would topple left and right. Kindoms would crumble under the weight of other more poplulous realms vying for their territory. A kingdom with no offspring is no kingdom at all.

No children, no kingdom.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

I can't imagine any earthly nation or kingdom that excludes children from its membership. Nations would topple left and right. Kindoms would crumble under the weight of other more poplulous realms vying for their territory. A kingdom with no offspring is no kingdom at all.

No children, no kingdom.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Red herring. The Kingdom of Christ is not an earthly kingdom. It's a spiritual kingdom, and it has spiritual children added to it every day.

 

[Romans678]

Red herring. The Kingdom of Christ is not an earthly kingdom. It's a spiritual kingdom, and it has spiritual children added to it every day.

A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question (or discussion).

For instance, if I get caught committing a crime red-handed and say "what about rac1sm, that is worse than what I did", that would be considered a red herring.

In what way did my comment detract or mislead from the OP of this thread? In what way is my comment irrelevant to OP?


Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question (or discussion).

For instance, if I get caught committing a crime red-handed and say "what about rac1sm, that is worse than what I did", that would be considered a red herring.

In what way did my comment detract or mislead from the OP of this thread? In what way is my comment irrelevant to OP?


Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

"I can't imagine any earthly nation or kingdom that excludes children from its membership"

This is a red herring. What earthly nations or kingdoms do is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[Eyedoc84]

"I can't imagine any earthly nation or kingdom that excludes children from its membership"

This is a red herring. What earthly nations or kingdoms do is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

I think he was arguing from the lesser to the greater.

 

[Romans678]

"I can't imagine any earthly nation or kingdom that excludes children from its membership"

This is a red herring. What earthly nations or kingdoms do is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

Yes, it is. Christ is King, ruler over all nations. All of creation cries out the to the glory of the Lord. There is no-thing outside of God's realm of influence. He is Sovereign over all and all belongs to Him.

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Psalm 19:1 ESV

Not just the heavens, but ALL of creation declares the glory of our God. Whether it be fathers to their children, husband's to their wives, masters to slaves, subjects to kings, etc. all earthly creatures and kingdoms are demonstrative of the character of God to some degree. I am not saying creation IS God, but I am saying our Lord desires to be known and His glory to be shown by his handiwork.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Romans678]

I think he was arguing from the lesser to the greater.

This is exactly what I was saying. Christ used many parables to demonstrate the same principle.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Phil D.]

Christ used many parables to demonstrate the same principle.

There being many, can you point to at least several you have in mind as most applicable to this topic?

 

[Romans678]

There being many, can you point to at least several you have in mind as most applicable to this topic?

The principle I was referring to is comparing lessor to greater. As to the topic of rearing children, I cannot recall a parable at the moment. How that qualifies as a red herring is beyond my understanding. I said what I said to help strengthen the argument I have been presenting since the beginning of this thread.

I believe what I said is pretty cut and dry. You guys know exactly what I am talking about here. I used an example of creation to describe something spiritual. Forgive me for my shortness, but I am getting ready for work. I shall return later in the day.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Romans678]

There being many, can you point to at least several you have in mind as most applicable to this topic?

Quick break.

Here are a few that might be related to child rearing and the Covenant. God bless!

The Sower - Matthew 13:1-23

The Weeds Among the Wheat - Matthew 13:24-30

The Mustard Seed - Matthew 13:31-32

The Net - Matthew 13:47-50

The Two Sons - Matthew 21:28-32

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Ben Zartman]

@Ben Zartman,

In Post #300 I asked a question to which I would appreciate a reply:

Simon Magus was baptized on the basis of a(n apparently credible) profession. Was he in the covenant or outside it?

Sorry I missed it, Tom. He was outside the covenant; a false professor.

 

[Ben Zartman]

Ben,

I appreciate you getting back with me. I was raised a Baptist from birth and did not make the move until around 25 years of age. I say that just to give some backdrop to my knowledge of how things tend to go in a stereotypical Baptist setting (SBC strain & Calvinistic strain). I would still have concerns with your reasoning here, as I know you do with mine, but I will leave that be.

1). However, I don’t think you addressed my charge of an over realized-ecclesiology regarding your remark that now we have “salvific union before inclusion”. Again, this can only be true in heaven.

2). Nor did you address the this portion:


3. Lastly, do you have any thoughts/concerns regarding conflating the requirements for baptism/Lord’s supper? Do you believe the Bible conflates the 2 with regard to the proper Recipients? If my 5 year old daughter confesses faith in Christ, understands herself to be a sinner in need of the perfect work of Christ should she be baptized? Admitted to the super?

I think your forced to say either “no to both” OR “yes to both”, since Baptist interlock the 2 ….right?

I certainly could have missed a previous answer, but I think I have read all 300 post as best I can. If I did please forgive me.

1) Well, no--it's true now. Baptists require credible evidence of salvific union before inclusion in the visible covenant community. So what if unsaved people who are hearing the preaching are not members? Do they hear it less? So what if the visible throng aren't all members? It's to be hoped that the visitors and unsaved children will hear the Gospel and repent and believe, but they are not admitted to membership until they do. I'm not sure why this is so complicated.
2) I guess I don't know what you all mean by visible/invisible administration. For baptists, the visible church is the local assembly, those baptized believers who join together week after week to worship God. The invisible church is used for the Church universal--all the local assemblies writ large; Christ's church in all the world. We don't see a visible/invisible thing going on in the local church though--you're saved or you're not. If you're saved, you partake of Baptism on entry, then the Lord's Supper, and church discipline and oversight, which are not extended to non-members.

3) I have no concerns about having the same standard for baptism as for the Supper. The Supper is for believers who have made a credible profession and been baptized. If the elders judged in good conscience that your 5yo daughter's profession was credible and baptized her, it would be inconsistent to deny her the Table. That there is a hesitancy to accept a profession from a young age is more because it is harder to detect fruit in the young, and most elders in my experience would rather wait until their consciences are satisfied, knowing that the youth is in God's hands regardless, their discipline is mostly under parental authority, and the grace to patiently wait for their profession to be believable is one of the fruits of the spirit that they must display. These are things that any child would understand.

 

[Mr. Great-Heart]

Here are a few that might be related to child rearing and the Covenant. God bless!

The Sower - Matthew 13:1-23

The Weeds Among the Wheat - Matthew 13:24-30

The Mustard Seed - Matthew 13:31-32

The Net - Matthew 13:47-50

The Two Sons - Matthew 21:28-32

I take this to mean you believe the kingdom of heaven = the church. Is that correct? I might not be following the argument you're trying to make - so help me out if I'm making wrong assumptions in this post - but I think you are trying to provide Scriptural evidence of why children of at least one believing parent ought to be baptized as infants and be included in the "visible" church. Yet I'm not following how some of these parables have anything to do with the question of "what is the condition of membership in Christ's church?".

How do you understand John 3:3 in the light of the texts referenced above? Christ there declares being born again is a requirement for admission into the kingdom. So with that in mind, please help me understand how you are interpreting passages such as "The Net" and "The Weeds Among the Wheat" to further your point.

If the plea is for "more serious exegetical considerations" as a brother mentioned on the last page, let's at least apply that standard to both sides of the discussion. And to maintain the focus of this post, I won't mention the 4+ folks in this thread who've used a passing reference to household baptisms as support for the paedobaptist position!

P.S. Anthony don't tell me you think the "kingdom of heaven" is different from the "kingdom of God"!

 

[Romans922]

II. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;b and of their children:c and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,d the house and family of God,e out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

 

[Romans678]

I take this to mean you believe the kingdom of heaven = the church. Is that correct? I might not be following the argument you're trying to make - so help me out if I'm making wrong assumptions in this post - but I think you are trying to provide Scriptural evidence of why children of at least one believing parent ought to be baptized as infants and be included in the "visible" church. Yet I'm not following how some of these parables have anything to do with the question of "what is the condition of membership in Christ's church?".

How do you understand John 3:3 in the light of the texts referenced above? Christ there declares being born again is a requirement for admission into the kingdom. So with that in mind, please help me understand how you are interpreting passages such as "The Net" and "The Weeds Among the Wheat" to further your point.

If the plea is for "more serious exegetical considerations" as a brother mentioned on the last page, let's at least apply that standard to both sides of the discussion. And to maintain the focus of this post, I won't mention the 4+ folks in this thread who've used a passing reference to household baptisms as support for the paedobaptist position!

P.S. Anthony don't tell me you think the "kingdom of heaven" is different from the "kingdom of God"!

The parables I posted started from a "sidequest" of sorts. Originally I was accused of presenting a red herring when making comparisons regarding creation and God's nature. I then began to explain my reasoning throughout posts 306 to 314. If you go back and read those, it would explain the weird tangent you witness here.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Mr. Great-Heart]

The parables I posted started from a "sidequest" of sorts. Originally I was accused of presenting a red herring when making comparisons regarding creation and God's nature. I then began to explain my reasoning throughout posts 306 to 314. If you go back and read those, it would explain the weird tangent you witness here.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Then why did you say in post #315 that the parables you go on to reference might relate to child rearing and the covenant? I am asking you to explain why it is that you think that.

 

[Romans678]

Then why did you say the parables in post #315 might relate to child rearing and the covenant? I am asking you to explain why it is that you think that.

I was asked by a dear brother to point out a parable that might be related to the topic...then I got frustrated because I felt like my original point about Christ using parables wasn't understood. Admittedly I was not at my best in that moment and got a little snappy. I was rushing for work and didn't take the time to consider my response. I sinned in my impatience. No bones about it.

Then I caught a break in between my hectic work schedule to try and present some parables for discussion. To try my best at presenting parables that might relate to childrearing per his request. That's all, nothing too fancy or extravagant here [emoji106]

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Romans678]

1) Well, no--it's true now. Baptists require credible evidence of salvific union before inclusion in the visible covenant community. So what if unsaved people who are hearing the preaching are not members? Do they hear it less? So what if the visible throng aren't all members? It's to be hoped that the visitors and unsaved children will hear the Gospel and repent and believe, but they are not admitted to membership until they do. I'm not sure why this is so complicated.
2) I guess I don't know what you all mean by visible/invisible administration. For baptists, the visible church is the local assembly, those baptized believers who join together week after week to worship God. The invisible church is used for the Church universal--all the local assemblies writ large; Christ's church in all the world. We don't see a visible/invisible thing going on in the local church though--you're saved or you're not. If you're saved, you partake of Baptism on entry, then the Lord's Supper, and church discipline and oversight, which are not extended to non-members.

3) I have no concerns about having the same standard for baptism as for the Supper. The Supper is for believers who have made a credible profession and been baptized. If the elders judged in good conscience that your 5yo daughter's profession was credible and baptized her, it would be inconsistent to deny her the Table. That there is a hesitancy to accept a profession from a young age is more because it is harder to detect fruit in the young, and most elders in my experience would rather wait until their consciences are satisfied, knowing that the youth is in God's hands regardless, their discipline is mostly under parental authority, and the grace to patiently wait for their profession to be believable is one of the fruits of the spirit that they must display. These are things that any child would understand.

Ben, I admire your tenacity and rigidness in your defense of your convictions. We need more of this in the world today.

Can you describe once more what it means to be "saved" again from your perspective? Forgive me if I missed it in an earlier post or if you already answered the question. If you did already I would be happy to be pointed to the number of the post that explains it. No worries [emoji846][emoji106]

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Tom Hart]

If the plea is for "more serious exegetical considerations" as a brother mentioned on the last page…

To be clear, I was objecting to the claim that God said something which he has not in fact said. It is one thing to make a reference to a doctrine like covenant baptism without necessarily going into every detail, and another thing to say, “God says such and such,” when there is no place in Scripture where he does.

 

[Ben Zartman]

II. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;b and of their children:c and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,d the house and family of God,e out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

I subscribe to a different confession.....

 

[Ben Zartman]

Ben, I admire your tenacity and rigidness in your defense of your convictions. We need more of this in the world today.

Can you describe once more what it means to be "saved" again from your perspective? Forgive me if I missed it in an earlier post or if you already answered the question. If you did already I would be happy to be pointed to the number of the post that explains it. No worries [emoji846][emoji106]

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Sure. Someone who is saved has repented of their sins and is believing that Jesus made atonement for them.
Someone who is saved has been born again--God has taken out his native heart of stone and given him an heart of flesh.
Someone who is saved has been made alive when he was dead in trespasses and sins.

What's your understanding of salvation?

 

[Ben Zartman]

To be clear, I was objecting to the claim that God said something which he has not in fact said. It is one thing to make a reference to a doctrine like covenant baptism without necessarily going into every detail, and saying “God says such and such,” when there is no place in Scripture where he does.

Jesus is God. Jesus said to take the Gospel to the world, to make disciples, to baptize them. The Bible is His word, and when His ministers spoke and tied baptism to repentance, they were speaking on His behalf. Are you suggesting that the words of the Apostles recorded in Scripture can't be taken for requirements of God?

 

[Eyedoc84]

the visible church is the local assembly, those baptized believers who join together week after week to worship God. The invisible church is used for the Church universal--all the local assemblies writ large; Christ's church in all the world. We don't see a visible/invisible thing going on in the local church though--you're saved or you're not.

Ben, you may want to go back and look at your own confession, Chapter 26:1-3.

 

[JH]

Ben, you may want to go back and look at your own confession, Chapter 26:1-3.

While the LBCF acknowledges such thing as visible saints, it avoids the language of a "visible church". You can see more here, and the distinctions between each paragraph: https://www.proginosko.com/docs/wcf_lbcf.html

(Now whether or not I think it's consistent to allow for visible saints without a visible church, is a different dilemma)

 

[Eyedoc84]

It also defines invisible church differently than he did.