Jared at Mysterium Tremendum and Dead Man Blogging are both wrestling with the covenant infant baptism issue. I especially value Jared's post for his honesty and vulnerability in writing it.
Someone recently rediscovered this thread here, so I thought I'd repost it. It's NOT about covenant infant baptism, but about the presuppositions of people who reject it.
Original Post:
"The LORD is far from the wicked: but he heareth the prayer of the righteous." -Prov 15:29
I'm thankful that Christian parents that aren't Reformed are healthier in their practice than in their beliefs. Because while they claim credobaptistic principles, on a functional level they operate as if they were Covenantalists.
Because in their view, there's generally no difference in the spiritual status of their young children than that of the neighborhood drug pusher. Both are equally out of fellowship with God and with no place in either the church or the covenant. They're both "the wicked."
If they practiced what they believe, they could never pray wth their children, or sing to the Lord with them. For what spiritual fellowship could Christian parents have with those still dead in sin and rebellion against God? If the children have no intercessor in Christ, and no position within the Covenant, by what right do they come before God in prayer?
But they do have a right. And these children do have a position in the Covenant, whether baptized or not. God promised the New Covenant would be for us, and for our children. So these parents ARE justified in doing these things. They just seem to be intellectually dissonant when doing so.
I'm interested to hear from some of the Evangelicals here. If you don't take a Reformation view of things (regardless of your view on covenant infant baptism), on what basis do you pray and worship with your pre-"Sinner's Prayer" children?
Keywords: baby sprinkling, covenant infant baptism, covenant theology
Keywords: Infant baptism, baby sprinkling, covenant infant baptism
Posted by Discoshaman at février 24, 2005 03:25 AM | TrackBack
This is an excellent way to frame the question. I have actually been taken aback by statements of credobaptists to the effect that PSP children are considered pagans. Is that a generally accepted view on the part of credobaptists?
Posted by: Jon Luker at août 20, 2003 10:50 PMThat is indeed disheartening. Being in a immersion oriented denomination but a "Baby Sprinkling" church, I always find this kind of stuff interesting. I'm rather apolitical when it comes to whether immersion or christening is to be preferred, but either way I would tend to agree with those who have felt that children under the age of 12-13 are not pagan even if they are "PSP." That figure being from the timeframe of the Jewish Right of Passage that even Jesus himself participated in... I'd tend to think that's about the age when a child can really consciously understand the concepts of the Gospel and accept (or reject them) them and not just superficially accept or reject them.
Posted by: Timothy R. Butler at août 21, 2003 03:22 AMDisco, you'd have loved to see the Promotional Video my church made a year ago for our children's ministry. It featured a bunch of cherubic little ones (up to not-so-cherubic fifth graders) saying "I am the Church." Um.
The systematic consistency you present is, incidentally, one of the two big appeals paedobaptism has to me. Neat: my kids have a place! Alas, wanting things to fit well is not the old end of systematic theology.
In answer to your actual question, I could cite Ephesians 6:4. It's a direct command to do things probably like singing and praying with my children, so if I was pretending I was satisfied with any particular solution to this problem, I could say that whatever issues are raised by my PSP children's positional unrighteousness are apparently overridden. I don't think keeps any self-satisfied Credos up at night. Me, I never really sleep.
Posted by: Tim Berglund at août 21, 2003 06:49 AMTim-
"Alas, wanting things to fit well is not the old end of systematic theology."
I agree. The end result of right theology should be right practice. And that's my point -- if credobaptists believe something, why do they also not practice it? And if they are practicing something else, ie -- a functional covenantalism, why don't they also believe it?
"In answer to your actual question, I could cite Ephesians 6:4 -- 'Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.'"
That's really the point though, isn't it? Shouldn't the fact that we've been commanded to do this give us pause to look and see on what basis God has done this? That perhaps it isn't just an arbitrary exception He's granted, but rather perfectly in line with redemptive history and practice, and seamlessly fitting within his Covenant?
I'd also point out that this is essentially a restatement of the command in Duet. 6 (which was given to fathers of Covenant children who had been given the OT sign of covenanatal inclusion.)
You've been kind enough to answer, and I can see you aren't overly partisan about the whole thing. But I am curious as to how you interpret 1Cor.7:14 :
"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy."
In what sense do believing parents make children "clean" in a way that other children are "unclean?" This isn't a practical 'believer's children get to hear Bible stories' situation -- it's clearly a black and white division into two groupings.
Posted by: Discoshaman at août 21, 2003 09:35 AMJon and y'all-
"Is that a generally accepted view on the part of credobaptists?"
In the discussions I've had in the past with them, they've always said that there is no difference between their children and those of any other parent's.
One reason I won't let my kids in a Baptist children's church without first talking with the girls there is because they seem to throw the strongarm on every 4 year old that crosses their path. They seem to have a talismanic faith in the SP, as if the mere recitation saves these children from hellfire. Regardless of the fact that I could get a 4-year-old to say a prayer to Ghandi just as easily as to God. But in their Arminian world, salvation is essentially reduced to fire insurance, and this insurance policy is purchased through the SP. The key to ministry is to get as many people to say the magic words as possible. (Please note -- not ALL Baptists fall into this. There are lots of good ones.)
As for our family, we're raising our children within the covenant, and they are learning the duties that come with covenantal faithfulness. There may be a time when they choose to become covenant-breakers, but until then we treat them as Christian children.
BTW, the PSP thing was said tongue-in-cheek. Our church culture has so imbibed Arminian beliefs that most people can't imagine a world where the SP isn't the cornerstone of every person's religious experience.
Tim Butler-
"I'd tend to think that's about the age when a child can really consciously understand the concepts of the Gospel and accept (or reject them) them and not just superficially accept or reject them."
Exactly... The children are raised as believers, and as members of the visible body of Christ. They're members of the community of faith, just as they were in Israel. And just as within Israel, they may grow up and decide to break the covenant and leave the faith. That seems so much more Biblical to me than to treat them as Pagans and then talk them into reciting a rote prayer when they hit about 6.
Children are members of our church, but they aren't admitted to the communion table, because as you said, they only superficially understand these things. But when they're old enough to comprehendingly affirm their faith (and discern the Lord's Body), then they're given access to the sacrament of communion.
(Please no paedocommunionists jump into this. I'm not going to let the thread digress off into a side discussion.)
Posted by: Discoshaman at août 21, 2003 09:59 AMThought currently a member of a non-denominational church, I was raised Southern Baptist. And though I was not raised in any Reformed tradition, nor did I have Calvinist parents or family, I am currently a 5-Pointer with a lot of affection for the Reformed tradition.
I think your question presupposes that we (credobaptists) automatically avoid association with non-family "pagans." I don't. I befriend, engage, etc with unsaved folks ("pre-Christians," if you are a member of the optimistic emerging church movement).
So in that sense, my singing of Christian songs, praying, sharing Bible verses, and teaching about Jesus to my PSP daughters is no different than the optimistic evangelism I express outside my family.
But naturally, I am more earnest in my efforts with my children because of an emotional attachment, fatherly love, and a dedication to being the spiritual leader in my home. And, yes, there is a sense in which I accept the Reformed idea of covenantalism (although as a fairly "new" Calvinist, I hope you will grant me some liberty as I am still sorting through it).
As it pertains to baptism, however, I am less opposed to the idea behind paedobaptism (covenant, promise, commitment, etc) than I am the practice itself. I just don't see clear evidence of the practice in the Bible. The "whole household" arguments don't persuade me. I see primarily adults being baptized (although I wouldn't exclude believing children), and I see them being baptized, if not after their belief confession, then somewhat in unison with their conversion experience.
"That seems so much more Biblical to me than to treat them as Pagans and then talk them into reciting a rote prayer when they hit about 6."
Again, I'm not sure what you mean by treating them as Pagans. In a soteriological sense, I suppose this is true (because I believe in original sin). And in a practical sense I suppose it is true, for the reasons I mentioned above. But for the record, I don't believe a rote prayer saves anyone, no matter what age they are. I plan on teaching my kids that God saves them. Any prayers said after that are in response, acceptance, repentance, devotion, etc.
I should mention a book that was key in convincing me of paedobaptism. It was written by a former Baptist minister by the name of Robert (Randy) Booth. It's called Children of the Promise: A case for infant baptism. I highly recommend it.
Posted by: Jon Luker at août 21, 2003 05:01 PMConfusion of terms here: when i hear "pagan" i think of individuals or groups who intentionally disassociate with God. I consider myself in the kingdom of God now, developing an eternal relationship with Him. Children who do not fully understand relationships or only intuitively understand paternal and/or maternal relationships in my view are not going to fall into the "pagan" category, regardless of their parents.
Perhaps that is a narrow view, but in the sense that folks here are using it, I think, aren't we all pagan in that we have fallen short of the glory of God?
For example, "Because in their view, there's no difference in the status of their young children than that of the neighborhood drug pusher." Of course there isn't; we are all sinners. And I have to bring back another note, who are we to decide if one is "pagan" or not? Certainly we want to do all we can to cultivate a relationship with Christ and our children; but in the end, as later in 1Cor.17:15 -
"God has called us to live in peace. (16)How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? " I think the same goes for children.
This is definitely a doctrinal curiosity, but I miss the point of why one side or the other is so important.
Posted by: undertree at août 21, 2003 09:20 PMI'm a member of a credobaptist/SP denomination so I'll throw in my two cents. In fact you couldn't get more credobaptist/SP than this particular denomination. It has always been our practice to "dedicate" infants. This is typically done in front of the congregation with the pastor praying with the parents, charging them to raise the child as the Lord commands. During this dedication the infant is anointed with oil and sometimes a passage like Hannah's prayer is recited. I was dedicated in this manner as well as my wife and my child. I could be the exception but I always felt this was the process of formally accepting the children into the covenant. Why else would it be done? You are right, however, that the "talk" afterward is that these children are PSP pagans, but not the practice, and I do agree that this is inconsistent with the whole baby dedication process and the subsequent raising of the children as if they are post-SP Christians. I think most of these folks would never consider their children pagans if the question was put to them. In fact, many feel that their children are in the covenant until an age of understanding, so to speak, has been reached when a decision will be made to accept or reject Christ. So that's my insider's take. A little disclaimer before Disco so ably dissects my post: I'm speaking from experience and observation and my personal views on this are that my child is NOT a pagan -- indeed he is a member of the covenant. Given my Calvinist leanings I put much less stock in those "magic" words than most.
Posted by: inkling at août 21, 2003 09:46 PMGeneral Clarification-
"A little disclaimer before Disco so ably dissects my post"
Gosh, you tell a few inbreeder jokes and suddenly people think you're Frank Nitti... ;-)
I want to clarify that NONE of this is an attack on credobaptists. I'm definitely not approaching this with an aggressive attitude. I feel like most of us are friends at this point. My motivations in writing this thread were to: 1. point out an inconsistency I see in credobaptist practice, and 2. to make people consider the implications of it. One thing I've observed is that a ton of people are becoming Reformed. Which is very cool. But so often they accept Calvinism on a soteriological level, but neglect to really explore Covenant theology, which is easily as integral to Reformed thought as the 5-points. This blog is a long-term endeavor, and I hope to raise points and questions along the way that will perhaps cause people to consider things from a new perspective.
All and Sundry-
People seem to be getting hung up on the word 'pagan.' Drop the word if it's unhelpful. Go back to the original post -- "Both are equally out of fellowship with God and with no membership in either the church of God or His covenant. They are both positionally "unrighteous."
Posted by: Discoshaman at août 22, 2003 08:29 AMJared-
"I think your question presupposes that we (credobaptists) automatically avoid association with non-family "pagans." I don't. I befriend, engage, etc with unsaved folks"
My question doesn't suppose anything like that at all. It does assume though, that you don't consider yourself spiritually united with unbelievers. And that you don't consider unbelievers to be your brothers and sisters in Christ. As an example, that you wouldn't ask an unbeliever to pray for you, since the only path for our prayers to God is through Christ as an intercessor. My point is that modern baptistic beliefs by and large place children in a completely analogous situation to these unbelievers. Because while they maintain a strong view of Original Sin (and admirably so!) they've weakened their view of the covenant over time due to Dispensationalism. Sadly, this wasn't always the case. The London Baptist Confession of 1689, as I understand it, took a very covenantal view of things. They disagreed with Westminster on the signs of the covenant, but not on the nature of the thing itself.
"So in that sense, my singing of Christian songs, praying, sharing Bible verses, and teaching about Jesus to my PSP daughters is no different than the optimistic evangelism I express outside my family."
But I think it should be. Because of their membership in the Covenant of God, you have a spiritual fellowship with them that you don't have with your unbelieving relatives. Paul promised at Pentecost that this New Covenant was to us, AND to our children. And because of this they are in the visible family of God. The worship you do with your children takes place in a vastly different context than with your unbelieving relatives. Because it is true worship of the living God coming from His people, rather than optimistic evangelism. (This doesn't discount that these children have a child's understanding, or the need to actively teach and disciple them through this worship.)
"And, yes, there is a sense in which I accept the Reformed idea of covenantalism (although as a fairly "new" Calvinist, I hope you will grant me some liberty as I am still sorting through it)."
I'd grant you liberty even if you weren't sorting through it. :)
"As it pertains to baptism, however, I am less opposed to the idea behind paedobaptism (covenant, promise, commitment, etc) than I am the practice itself."
We'll definitely delve into this in the future... But I think it's more important to understand the nature of the covenant. The covenant signs only make sense within the context of the Covenant itself...
Jon Luker-
That is a good book. Also, my buddy Gregg Strawbridge is editing a book on the subject that's going to have chapters by RC and several others. I'll post about it when it comes out.
Posted by: Discoshaman at août 22, 2003 08:35 AMUndertree-
"Because in their view, there's no difference in the status of their young children than that of the neighborhood drug pusher." Of course there isn't; we are all sinners. And I have to bring back another note, who are we to decide if one is "pagan" or not?"
Because of the effects of democracy and Dispensationalism, it's difficult for us to think of salvation in anything other than atomistic terms. If you look at redemptive history as it's laid out in the Bible though, God generally works through families. Salvation comes to 'houses'. That doesn't mean that each and every individual in the family will come to faith. But it does mean that that household has come into the community of faith. We see this pattern in the OT, and then it's repeated explicitly in the NT both in the New Covenant promises, and the household baptisms (regardless of whether the infants were baptized at those times or not, that's a side issue.)
Our children are sinners, and only faith in Christ will save them. But that doesn't mean that I need to wait until they reach a mythical age of accountability in order to treat them as Christians. They don't remember a time when they DIDN'T have faith in Christ. Being a Calvinist, I don't see the regenerative work of the Spirit as bound by the cognitive abilities of my kids.
"This is definitely a doctrinal curiosity, but I miss the point of why one side or the other is so important."
It's important because it's an element of one of a much larger problem within the Church. Many churches have reduced salvation to fire insurance, and church to a weekly gathering. The idea that there is a Covenant that binds us together as a holy nation just as surely as the OC bound together the people of Israel has been lost. Our Christian walk is now often conceived in individualistic terms, with other Christians cast in a supporting role for our own self-fulfillment.
Christianity isn't an individualistic religion (though obviously we do have personal relationships with God,) it is a communalistic one. And the thread that binds all of these individuals together, and to God, is the Covenant. One of the factors in the disunity and vacillation of the modern church is that we've lost our sense of being a special people consecrated to God in Covenant.
The covenantal bond between parents and children is only one aspect of this larger context. But I had to start somewhere. :)
Posted by: Discoshaman at août 22, 2003 08:38 AMInkling!
Hi buddy, I haven't seen you in awhile. :)
"I was dedicated in this manner as well as my wife and my child. I could be the exception but I always felt this was the process of formally accepting the children into the covenant. Why else would it be done? "
That's VERY encouraging to hear. Credobaptists aren't a monolith, and it's awesome to hear about churches where an understanding of the covenant is taught.
"In fact, many feel that their children are in the covenant until an age of understanding, so to speak, has been reached when a decision will be made to accept or reject Christ."
This is essentially what we believe as well. All of the covenants come with both covenantal blessings (for obedience) and curses (for covenant-breakers.) In every covenant, true faith was the only means by which to gain the blessings. The New Covenant is no exception. To gain the blessings of the C, one must have faith in Christ. Those who break the Covenant come under the curses. The warnings against apostasy that give so many 'eternal security' types exegetical problems are no difficulty for covenantalists. Those who break the covenant come under these curses. It isn't the falling away of true believers, but rather the apostasy of those who were in the covenant without faith -- false professors and covenant-breaking offspring.
Posted by: Discoshaman at août 22, 2003 08:38 AMAll-
I'm curious what you make of this:
"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy."
Other than in a positional, covenantal context, what sense could this verse possible have?
Posted by: Discoshaman at août 22, 2003 08:40 AM"It does assume though, that you don't consider yourself spiritually united with unbelievers. And that you don't consider unbelievers to be your brothers and sisters in Christ."
shaman - you've got something here. I remember a while back talking about this with my wife, and I wondered how Christians would act differently if they didn't consider everyone as "saved or unsaved" but as all being part of the same "children of God" that He came to redeem. I'll have to develop that more, I don't have any references handy.
"Many churches have reduced salvation to fire insurance, and church to a weekly gathering."
and
"Christianity isn't an individualistic religion ... it is a communalistic one."
Excellent; my point too. I was fearing the debate was more or less focusing on "when" one is "saved" and not "what it means to live in community with Christ and His children". The whole line about "if you were the only one on earth, Christ would have died for you" totally puts the focus on the individual; God never says anything like this throughout the Bible and I don't think you see it lived out in the world. He created a race(s), told us to multiply, and relishes in diversity of souls.
RE: ICor17... that had me stumped the first time. What I don't get is why he uses the word "unclean" when the concept of clean and unclean was just more or less thrown out in a strict doctrinal sense. I'll be thinking about this one.
Posted by: undertree at août 22, 2003 06:09 PMHmm...well, I don't think the concept of "clean and unclean" was thrown out in a doctrinal sense. What was said was that we are not to call that unclean which God has declared clean. That would seem to me to indicate that actually that which is clean or not is a very important concept still, it is just applied differently.
Posted by: pentamom at août 22, 2003 06:54 PMHi,
I'm a credobaptist, but I'm not sure if I'm a good one. The passage I use to support the salvation of my son who was stillborn, the the salvation of my son who just turned two is this:
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.
1 Corinthians 7:14
Posted by: Russell Mann at janvier 19, 2004 08:43 PMI should probably clarify. I'm a credobaptist, but also subscribe to the Doctrines of Grace. Therefore, it isn't the saying of a prayer that saves my children. I tend to hang around Arminians, and I think their "age of accountability" doctrine has zero Scriptural backing. Arguing about it is about as useful as shoveling snow around here, because it boils down to an emotional reaction for most of them: "God loves ALL of us, so its not possible that MY child could be lost!" There's an effect of antinomianism as well, especially regarding rebellious offspring who are kept in the church even though they're obviously not bearing the fruit of a Christ centered life.
Posted by: Russell Mann at janvier 19, 2004 08:49 PMDiscoshaman,
About 1 Cor.7:14 -- it doesn't say anything about infant baptism, the only condition is that the husband or wife is a believer.
The very fact that it doesn't mention infant baptism seems to point against it. It's tempting to try to interpet Scripture by positing extra traditions/ideas to make things more sense, but I believe we really have to stick to Sola Scripura.
Posted by: Coyote at février 10, 2005 05:26 PMCoyote-
"About 1 Cor.7:14 -- it doesn't say anything about infant baptism, the only condition is that the husband or wife is a believer."
I agree. Which is why I said that credobaptist parents are justified in praying with their kids. It isn't baptism which brings us into the covenant, whether as children or as adults. Just as with the Old Covenant. Circumcision and baptism are both external signs of a spiritual reality.
What you aren't answering is WHY having a believing parent makes the child "righteous" in this sense. The answer is covenantal.
"The very fact that it doesn't mention infant baptism seems to point against it."
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Paul was writing to a church full of people whose children had been covenant children since the time of Abraham. Children who had ALWAYS received the sign of covenant membership. Why in the world would Paul feel the need to mention "by the way, your centuries-old practice hasn't changed."
What is much more reasonable is that he would have said something if YOUR position was the true one. Something along the lines of "your children were always in covenant with God, but have now been excluded. And so stop marking them as covenant children." That message is found nowhere in the Bible.
What we DO find is Paul promising the Jews that the new covenant was for them "and for your children." The exact language used of the old covenant. And we see households being baptized, once again using language identical to that used of the old covenant circumcisions.
"It's tempting to try to interpet Scripture by positing extra traditions/ideas to make things more sense, but I believe we really have to stick to Sola Scripura."
Sola Scriptura doesn't mean reading the Bible with 21st Century eyes. We have to ask ourselves what these statements would have meant to Paul and his audience.
Thanks for weighing in, btw. Sorry it took me awhile to respond. :-)
Posted by: Discoshaman at février 24, 2005 02:10 AMI am not a theologist, and I do not play one on tv.
With regards to the covenant also being "for your children", could Paul not be saying merely that the new covenant would be extended to future generations as well as the genereation he was addressing? Kind of like with the reference to "God of their fathers" meaning the God of the previous generations, rather than referring strictly to a particular set of male parents.
I'm sure you are more right on this than wrong, although I still don't understand the baby sprinkling thing. What scriptural support do you have for baptising the child? Is this a requirement of the covenant?
Posted by: gaw at février 24, 2005 03:40 AMgaw-
Just a quick post for tonight, it's late here. :) If we were just reading Paul's announcement without context, the bare words would definitely allow for your idea as a possible reading. But when we look at it in the context -- the rest of the Bible, who is being addressed, etc., I don't think so in any way.
First, the language is the same as God used with Abraham -- where children were very much literally in the covenant. Second, Paul's telling a group of people whose children have always been covenant children. His announcement could only mean one thing to them -- that the covenant is for their children as children. As it always had been.
Think also how weird it would be for Paul to announce this "good news" to them if what he was really announcing was that before their children were in covenant with God, but they were now being expelled from it.
The New Covenant is in every way greater and MORE inclusive than the Old.
As for infant baptism, yeah, it's the sign of entry into the New Covenant. Just as circumcision was for the Old. Here again we can see the inclusion thing -- while only males received circumcision, now everyone receives baptism.
We believe that children of believers, as members of the covenant, deserve the sign of the covenant. This has never changed from the time of Abraham. The biblical basis runs deeper than this, but it'll have to suffice for tonight. My eyes are closing.
When adults convert to Christianity, they're also baptized -- just as converts to Judaism were in the OC. So this isn't an infant baptism vs. adult baptism thing. We do both. :-)
Posted by: Discoshaman at février 24, 2005 04:00 AMHmmm - this is what I was asking about on Feb 8 (http://megan.navstaff.com/index.php?p=189).
The main gist of that was this: Here is my main question, and perhaps my only one - All of the arguments of children being in a “covenant” I understand and even can agree with. I do not, however, see the actual evidence of children being baptised in the Bible. So my question - why is the actual sprinkling process necessary? Can we say that since I believe all this about children of believers being in the covenant, despite the fact that our kids have not been sprinkled, that they are still in the covenant?And if not, why?
Here is the other thing I've been trying to figure out - Is it better to do something I don’t understand (have the girls baptized) and later be sorry I did it because I understand better then why I don’t believe that? Or is it better not to do something I don’t understand and later be sorry because I then do believe that and wish I had had it done for my kids.
Which I guess brings me back to my original question – it is the sprinkling that brings kids into the covenant, or is it simply fact that children of believers are in the covenant regardless of whether they are actually baptized?
Thanks...
Posted by: Megan at février 24, 2005 05:26 AMMegan (and others),
If you look for evidence in the Bible for infant baptism, there is none.
The question of the status of believers' children is difficult; the Bible does not give a clear answer. Yes, I Cor 7:14 [not I Cor 17, btw--doesn't exist!] does say our children are "holy," but perhaps this should be taken in the literal sense of "set apart." (See earlier tossed clog about "dedicating" infants.)
What is our response to the silence (or whispers) of the New Testament? Since the Bible does not speak clearly to this question, Christian practice is very varied. Some sprinkle infants, some come up with an idea of "the age of accountability," some catechize....
And now for the truly open minded: (Calivinists: before reading any further, remember you were predestined to read this, so think before you get out the flaming sword ;)
The idea of the "sinner's prayer," so deeeeeeply entrenched in evangelical circles is also not scriptural. Nowhere in the Bible is a prayer associated with salvation--unless you count that last page after Revelation 22.
So, as a Christian parent, pray and consider what your guide will be. Some argue to use the Bible only, while others rely on centuries of tradition and wisdom.
Peace.
Posted by: Joe St at février 24, 2005 11:24 AMJoe St-
I didn't intend for this to turn into an infant baptism thread. I'm much more interested in the question I originally posted, which was "on what basis do non-covenantal parents worship or pray with their small children?"
I'm very happy to discuss paedobaptism with you though. Tonight I'll post a convo thread on the subject, and a response to your post.
I'll ask everyone to respect this, and to hold fire on the infant baptism thing. I would really appreciate any responses people have to the posted question. Thanks!
Posted by: Discoshaman at février 24, 2005 04:35 PMThis is an interesting piece of commentary.
Like one of the other commenters above, I grew up in a non-denominational church that didn't practice infant baptism, but did practice "child dedication". Even stranger, there was no set age for the practice. If a family was new to the body, and had three children (aged 2-10), all the children were prayed over and dedicated to the Lord.
This method was meant to encourage a covenantal-style method of dealing with children.
When baptism came around, the event of baptism was treated as a person "coming fully into the family of God". We also didn't have a set formula, an official Sinner's Prayer to lead the poor sinners through. However, there was an expectation of testimony to confession, repentance, forgiveness, and growing relationship with God.
The church had a structure such that there were periodic influxes of people who had come to the faith, but never been baptized. There were also new believers, and children of believers. Usually, more than one representative of each group was present during a baptism service. (Again, a result of cultural patterns and the number of baptisms--the pastor baptized people in large groups, several times a year, as need and occasion arose.)
I can't seem to recall ever settling whether the church was officially "covenantal" or "unsaved children totally out of fellowship with God" pattern of thought. However, the practice followed the covenantal pattern.
Posted by: karrde at février 24, 2005 05:36 PMOn what basis do non-covenantal parents worship or pray with their small children?"
You're rather begging the question here, aren't you? Who says we aren't covenantal?
But to answer your question, I'd say we pray with them for the same reason females who never received the OT sign of the covenant got to pray.
Tell you what...apparently females truly were treated by the LORD as second class citizens under the OC, seeing as how they were presumably shut out of it because they were excluded from the sign of the covenant.
Permit me to turn the question around, if I may...
If having gone through the sign of the covenant is a strict necessity before being permitted to approach the LORD through prayer, what right had any female in the OT to pray?
Anne-
"You're rather begging the question here, aren't you? Who says we aren't covenantal?"
Um. . . No. :-) When it explicitly says "non-covenantal", then that means the question is directed to people who are "non-covenantal." Thank you for pointing out, however, that there is a third category of people -- those who accept a covenantal view while maintaining a credobaptistic viewpoint.
I didn't address them in the main thread, because this isn't a post about baptism, but about the covenant. I also didn't address them because their numbers are dwarfed by the number of people who believe their children have no place in the covenant until they consciously convert to Christ. Perhaps that won't be the case on this thread, but it is certainly so in generic North American Evangelicalism.
"If having gone through the sign of the covenant is a strict necessity before being permitted to approach the LORD through prayer, what right had any female in the OT to pray?"
Where is this coming from? Did you skip the paragraph which said: "And these children do have a position in the Covenant, whether baptized or not"?
Posted by: Discoshaman at février 24, 2005 10:00 PMIt's perfectly possible I did miss it.
When it comes to Old 5 Watt here, you wouldn't believe the stuff that gets past the synapses.
[meekly] So sorry. Carry on.
Posted by: Anne at février 24, 2005 10:44 PM;^)
Posted by: Anne at février 24, 2005 11:30 PMGreetings brothers and sisters. Discoshaman sent me the link to this discussion, and invited me to check it out. It's going to take me more than one post to do this any justice. It's even more challenging when I have a 17 month old vying for my attention as well.
I can empathize with our credo-baptist friends, because I was one of you. How did I become paedo-baptist? Great question. I went back to Genesis, and worked my way through to Revelation. That is where I became convinced. I'll give specifics in subsequent posts.
We must always remember that Scripture interprets Scripture. The New Testament must be clearly understood in light of the Old Testament. We should also remember that God has always and continues to deal with His people within the framework of a Covenant. Consider these verses:
Exodus 6:7 And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.
Leviticus 26:12 And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people.
Jeremiah 7:23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.
Ezekiel 36:28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.
As we know, the fulfillment of this Covenant is our Lord Jesus Christ.
Revelation 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
I must also add that God is immutable, which is to say that He does not change. Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
Where am I going with this? There are two points that I am making. 1) God deals with His people by way of Covenant. 2) God does not change.
It's late. Let me come back to you with my next installment. I thought it was important to lay the groundwork.
Keep in mind I have seen both sides of the issue. This is certainly not an issue that should divide Christians. There are verses that can support both positions.
As for me, I have Baptized all of my children. It doesn't save them, but it places a watermark on them. It's a sign to all saying this is God's child. It's a reminder to me that I am to raise them as Christians. I will continue to remind them that they have obligations to live in ways that are becoming of Christians.
Have a good night. Thanks for letting me chime in.
Barry, from the ruins of Kelly Air Force Base, Texas.
The New Testament indicates Baptism is important. Other than the "whole household" thing though, which is very iffy, there is no evidence of infant baptism in the New Testament. Everything else points to believer's baptism. That's just the way it is. It seems to those in my camp that infant baptism is just left over catholicism that was never excised. Tradition, not scripture.
We do not believe saying a prayer saves you - (that is such a straw man BTW, I have never met anyone who believes that.) OTOH since prayer is how we talk to God, expressing what we believe about him in a prayer seems reasonable.
Now as to main question - I treat my children like my children! I love them and do with them what people do. I do not see how infant baptism has any affect either practically or theologically. No one can be sure who is predestined, so why would there be any difference. Because you baptize them, do you force God to do something? This seems arrogant actually. I would also assert that the covenant aspect is once again relying on tradition, rather than scripture. God isn't dealing with families or tribes or nations, but with individuals whom He unites into the body of Christ. The New Covenant is not like the Old.
But I can still love Christians I disagree with :)
Posted by: anselm at février 27, 2005 07:28 AM