The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Infant baptism

Pilgrim<br><br>If I was a Baptist pastor and you came to me requesting membership, knowing what I know about you, I certainly would recommend you for membership. But then again, like you I might be one of those rare birds. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<br>Actually, I would be doing it with a big grin hidden inside, because down the road I would want you on the elder board. I would even like to put your knowledge to use in both teaching and preaching capacities. Of course I would ask you to refrain from preaching paedo-baptism. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rofl.gif" alt="rofl" title="rofl[/img]<br><br>Tom<br>

Susan, baptists do not look at their children the same way paedobaptists look at theirs. Baptists withold a means of grace to their children , unwittingly through lack of knowledge perhaps, but baptists are themselves rebelling against the Covenant and force their rebellion upon their own children.<br><br>Paedobaptists look upon children in the same manner as OT saints looked at theirs.<br><br>howard

Hi Tom. So you would not allow Pilgrim to preach the whole counsel of God ? <br><br>howard

Howard,<br><br>I know you asked this question of Tom:<blockquote>Hi Tom. So you would not allow Pilgrim to preach the whole counsel of God ?</blockquote>but I am compelled to answer because it reflects on the truth which I posted above. When we as a Reformed (paedobaptist) church approved the membership of the several families which had left their Reformed Baptist church, yet remained committed to the Credobaptist position, although some were given teaching responsibilities in the church, it was asked of them to refrain from teaching on the subject of Credo/Paedo baptism. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] In other words, we realized that there existed differences between us regarding the baptism of infants. But we were not willing to disfellowship these godly families over it. We felt that showing mutual respect for each other was demanded of us as they professed genuine faith in Christ and desired to raise their children, not less than we did, in the Lord. Our church, unlike so many paedobaptist churches today, believed that our "covenant children" should indeed receive the sign of the covenant; baptism. But we did not presume on God's grace, our children's election or regeneration, but rather we looked upon our children as "little vipers in covenant diapers" who were in dire need of Christ. We believed our children to be wonderfully blessed, "holy", i.e., set apart from the world and given the special privilege of being reared in a home where God was honored, Christ exalted and love for one another was paramount as unto the Lord.<br><br>Truly, brother..... should men bought with the same shed blood of God Himself war against each other over a matter of water? What consequence is it should a parent refuse the sprinkling/pouring of water on an infant, but raises them in the fear and admonition of the Lord compared to someone who brings their baby to the baptismal fount but considers it to be already saved and never speaks to that child as it grows in years of their total depravity and enmity against God and of their dire need of being given repentance and of falling to their knees and receiving Christ as their own, but rather simply encourages them to "keep the covenant"?? I tell you in all sincerity, that Baptist child will more likely be found at the feet of Jesus in heaven than the child who was baptized as an infant and reared under the erroneous presumption that it was a "Christian".<br><br>In His Grace,

Is that advisable to give baptists teaching responsibilities in a Reformed church Pilgrim ?<br><br>It sounds like a recipe for disaster IMHO. How do you think the Reformers would react to such a practise ?<br><br>howard

I too, wouldn't war over the issue of water, my intent is ever just to stimulate and discuss. As for our children, I would never allow my children to grow without any type of teaching. We use Starr Meade's book "Training Hearts and Teaching Minds" as an evening devotional book. For anyone that still has young children, it is an excellent book for devotions. Teaching in a church that holds different views than the teacher, doesn't always work, even if there are good intentions. The teacher is going to feel obligated to teach their convictions if they are questioned. I was teaching for a while, and the people kept asking me about predestination. I tried to keep away from it, but the subject came up because I was teaching thru the book of Romans. Long story short, I was canned because I taught the WHOLE counsel of God. I tried to avoid the issue but it kept being pressed. I even informed the class that this is my stance, not the church's, and they should search the scriptures themselves, but it didn't fare well with the pastor. I'm a little gun shy about teaching anymore, because I'm unable to find a church whose doctrine agrees with mine concerning predestination in this area. That reminds me, I'm reading another excellent book right now called "Whatever Happened to the Reformation". Really gives a good view of "Openness Theology" [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/puke.gif" alt="puke" title="puke[/img].<br><br>Mike

I just started reading 'Whatever happened to the Reformation' too.<br><br>howard

Howard,<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I just started reading 'Whatever happened to the Reformation' too.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Maybe you have more in common with some Baptists than you think! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink[/img]<br>Susan

Dear Mike,<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Susan,<br><br>I do not disrespect any posts, I just share my convictions concerning issues brought up in the discussion groups, its the main reason I'm here, to learn and grow. I have read through a good portion of what was posted, and it wearied me. I tried to keep an open mind, but there wasn't anything I read that persuaded me that infant baptism is acceptable.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>I really didn't think you had disrespected anyone's posts. You have been very honest and gracious throughtout your posts. I just added that as my view at the end, not in any way implying you had been disrespectful. Sorry I wasn't clear. I have been through quite a few of these "baptism battles" and hate to see brothers divided over it. We are members of an OPC, but have promised to not cause divisions in our church over this issue.<br>I understand your objections and if I did not agree with you, I would be a paedo too! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] <br>Susan

Howard<br><br>Considering I am a Baptist and don't believe in Paedo-baptism, but don't think it is important enough to divide believers on. As long as any Paedo-baptist agreed not to make it an issue (which would happen if Pilgrim preached or taught Paedo-baptism), then I would have no problem allowing Pilgrim to preach.<br>I understand you don't think that would be allowing someone to teach the whole council of God. But then again, as Baptists we don't agree with you that it is the whole council of God.<br>As for allowing you into membership, somehow I doubt that I would recommend you. <br>Why? Not because you are not a true believer, but because you probably would make this a big deal.<br><br>Please understand, I wouldn’t mind a Paedo-baptist preaching on baptism as long as they were willing to preach both sides of the issue and let their listeners decide for themselves what the truth is. As a matter of fact I kind of like it when my own pastor does that, because it helps people to understand the issue from opposing positions.<br><br>By the way Howard, did you read the reply I made to you further up on this thread?<br><br>Tom<br>

Howard,<br><br>Would you ever read Spurgeon?

Ron said: <blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]In a word, I suppose we differ in that I treat my little ones as Christians, who definitely stand in the need of prayer and nurturing in the Lord. They need to be converted to Christ, but I can say based upon the evidence that “Jesus died for your sins,” just as I say it to my wife. The evidence I have for my wife’s Christianity is based upon her faith and practice, whereas the only evidence I have that my two year old is a Christian is that she was born into my household, which is more than I can say for a child born of unbelieving parents. I'll leave you with this last thought; which is, I invite my little ones to pray, whereas I would never invite my neighbor across the street to pray. In other words, only those I may treat as Christians will I invite to pray on my behalf.</font><hr></blockquote><p> <br>While I agree with much of what you have written, I would differ about calling a child a Christian before they have made a profession of faith. I don't disagree that a child might actually be a Chrisitan from a very young age, but I see a danger in giving reassurance of salvation before the actual fact of conversion. <br> I remember taking my nieces to see a fresco of the Last Supper at a church in our area. I explained the gospel to them briefly [knowing my sister who was there would never tell them] and I also told them that "Jesus died for your sins". My boys later told me that I sounded like a Universalist! After I thought about it, I realized that they were right. But, they may be elect, and if they are then I told them the truth, but I cannot know if they are or not. Their parents aren't Christians. My parents are not Christians either, but thankfully God is not limited by our parents being believers or non believers regarding our election. Your daughter is indeed blessed to have two believing parents and a Christian home to grow up in. May God be pleased to show her mercy and bring her into His Kingdom, as He has done for you and your wife. A child before their adoption does not have the same benefits as a son does after the adoption is finalized. Likewise, before our conversion, we are not yet heirs of the Kingdom, even if we are elect. The Holy Spirit does not indwell an unbeliever. Even if we are unhappy about this truth, our children before conversion are not yet in God's Kingdom any more than we were in His Kingdom before our conversions! We cannot call someone a Christian honestly until there is some real evidence that this is the truth. As for prayer, we are to teach our little ones to pray, even before they are actually born again, but the child across the street may be one of God's elect too, even without Christian parents. Who knows if God might be pleased to use your family to tell that child about the Savior. <br>Susan<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Is that advisable to give baptists teaching responsibilities in a Reformed church Pilgrim ?<br><br>It sounds like a recipe for disaster IMHO. How do you think the Reformers would react to such a practise ?<br><br>howard</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>How would Jesus react? That is what really matters!<br><blockquote>John 17 v. 13 But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.<br><br>20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. 24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. 26 I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.”</blockquote><br><br> <br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]The Holy Spirit does not indwell an unbeliever. Even if we are unhappy about this truth, our children before conversion are not yet in God's Kingdom any more than we were in His Kingdom before our conversions!</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Susan,<br><br>If someone is elect, then Christ died for his sins whether they are yet regenerate or not. Accordingly, the question we should be discussing is not whether one is regenerated and in the kingdom, but rather whether God would have us say to the child of a professing believing parent that Christ died for his sins. You will only allow such a statment if one claims to be a Christian and has a life that is not contrary to his profession. However, baptism is membership into the visible church and the letters of Paul indicate that although he is addressing the elect in Christ he treats those in the visible church as such. Obviously, you being a baptist don't think that infants should be baptized. So, it is quite consistent of you to think that infants of professing believers should not be considered ones for whom Christ died.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]We cannot call someone a Christian honestly until there is some real evidence that this is the truth. </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Do you have anything to back this up? There is evidence that the children of believers are ones whom Christ died for. You just don't accept the evidence as persuasive enough. In fact, I would have more confidence that my infant is one of God's elect and one whom Christ died for than many of the communicate members in my church who profess Christ though are getting into the world. Please appreciate that none of whom I am referring to should be banned from the table due to doctrine or lifestyle. I'll let you think about that one.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]As for prayer, we are to teach our little ones to pray, even before they are actually born again, but the child across the street may be one of God's elect too, even without Christian parents. Who knows if God might be pleased to use your family to tell that child about the Savior. </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Mustn't one be regenerated in order to have an effectual prayer? In allowing little ones to pray you are giving them a status, which you deny in doctrine. As for the neighbor across the street, I'm not sure I see the relevance.<br><br>Blessings,<br><br>Ron<br>

Ron,<br><br>Let me say right out front, that I enter into this discussion with much reluctance.... but I feel compelled to do so no less than I felt of necessity to expose the errors being promoted by "Drs. MacMahon". [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/igiveup.gif" alt="igiveup" title="igiveup[/img]<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I suppose we differ in that I treat my little ones as Christians, who definitely stand in the need of prayer and nurturing in the Lord. They need to be converted to Christ, but I can say based upon the evidence that “Jesus died for your sins,” just as I say it to my wife.</font><hr></blockquote><p>First off, let's deal with what appears to be a direct contradiction, a horrid thing to suggest of a VanTillian to be sure! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/laugh.gif" alt="laugh" title="laugh[/img]<br><br>First, you state that you "treat my little ones as Christians . . . in need of prayer and nurturing in the Lord." IF . . . one is considered to be a Christian, then of necessity we are confessing that as best as we are able, we are believing that the individual, adult or child, has been ingrafted into Christ by faith and thus lives as one justified before God, having received remission of sins, the adoption, etc.... and whose greatest responsibility and need is that of SANCTIFICATION, aka: "nurture" in the Lord. Such a one is also qualified to attend to the Lord's Table if he/she is able to "discern the body". But immediately before and then again after this statement you then said, "An infant of a believing parent will need to repent of his sins and place his trust in Christ alone for his justification before God. . . . They need to be converted to Christ, . . ." To my limited knowledge of the Bible and theology, a "Christian" is one who HAS BEEN justified, not one who NEEDS TO BE justified. Is my understanding of the definition of Christian and/or of Justification correct? or is either one or both in error?<br><br>Now, on what basis do you "presume" that your covenant children are "Christian", i.e., justified in Christ? You say this: ". . . but I can say based upon the evidence that “Jesus died for your sins,” just as I say it to my wife. Now, I can certainly understand how you can rightly say that "Jesus died for your sins," in regard to your wife, who it is "presumed" has made a valid profession of faith. But what is the basis for your "presuming" that your infant child was atoned for? This should get us to the crux of the issue, I "presume". [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,