Originally Posted by Pilgrim
1. True enough that the Gentiles did not have this Jewish heritage/teaching/practice, but the apostles and disciples of the Lord at that time who were evangelizing the Gentile world did have that heritage to which they adhered. So again, the baptizing of infants of believing parent(s) was the God-ordained covenantal command that continued without abrogation for the Church. It was a matter of teaching the Gentiles about God's covenant with believers and their children along with all the truths concerning God, the Messiah, Church polity, etc., etc., that had to be done. Gentiles were virtually totally ignorant of true religion compared to the Jews who had to be reminded and corrected of these things.

Pilgrim,

I understand your line of reasoning, but I do not find that it satisfactorily answers my question. I am not saying that I believe oikos-baptism should be used, but only that I have not found a convincing argument that it should not be yet.

Quote
2. This matter of the demarcation line as to age has always been a subject of debate. I think one could say safely and rightly say that there is no definitive age since age isn't the determining factor but rather the ability of a child to rightly understand the Gospel, discern conviction of sin and know their need of Christ. Some, particularly the continental churches, set the age at 16 for being admitted into membership. Others leave it open. Just recently, we became aware of an OPC congregation that allowed children as young as 7 to make a confession of faith and be received into membership; an anomaly to be sure in the OPC.

Do you have any thoughts on this age question?

First, I think we may not be 100% addressing the same issue. One issue is the age at which one can make a confession of faith. The other issue is the age at which a child no longer a subject of baptism due to his parents confession. We have two possibilities: A) the age at which a child can no longer be baptized due to his parents is the same age at which they show the maturity to make a valid confession of faith (but not that they will) and B) the age at which a child can no longer be baptized due to his parents is not necessarily equal to the same age at which they show they maturity to make a valid confession of faith.

Also, as far as church membership goes, I would say there is a difference between being baptized and being able to make a confession of faith. To be a full, communing member, one has to make a valid confession of faith. For a child/infant, baptism would place them as a non-communing member. I do agree 100% that a child should be mature enough to truly understand what their confession means and not just "agreeing to what mommy and poppy have taught them." To me, seven years old is most likely too young and to restrict confessions to over-16-year-olds is too harsh. I have not doubt a seven year old can confess the facts of the Gospel well enough, but I doubt that in most cases the seven year old truly understands. That is not to say that a seven year old can not be truly saved or that there are some seven-year-olds that could make a valid profession. I cannot give a specific age either. Regardless of age, I think the parents and elders should be responsible to thoroughly examine the child to determine the validity of the confession.

Back to the original point. Do you see the age which a child can not be baptized due to his parents is the same age at which a child shows the cognitive ability to make a valid confession? Or, should a church restrict paedo-baptism to say under 3-year-olds even though a 3-year old would not be expected to be able to make a confession of faith. Then, any non-baptized child whose parents entered the church when they were three would be barred from the church until that time at which they could make a valid confession.

I don't have the answer to this, that is why I am asking.

John