How Ought Baptists To Consider Their Children?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 12919 by request
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 12919 by request

Guest
Having been a confessional Baptist for the better part of a decade now, there’s an apparent issue within the Baptist system that has troubled me, but I’ve found no satisfying answers.

It’s with regards to how Baptists ought to view and treat their children. I can’t quite put my finger on the exact problem, but I sense that something is amiss.

It seems wrong for me to think of, and treat, my children the same as an outsider of the church, but how else ought I to think of them?

There’s no covenant status of children in the Baptist system that I am aware of that would have me view them as anything other than unbelievers under my charge.

We do family worship, I teach them as best as I can at different times throughout the day, etc., because I believe I am commanded to do so and because I love them and I want them to learn and grow and believe.

Of course I treat them as my own and want to bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord—but there still seems to be something missing.

It feels like I have “keep them at arms length” whenever I talk about the church or being a Christian. All I can give them is “repent and believe,” and not anything about God’s particular care.

The Baptist would say, “Yes, they are unbelievers and have no claim to Christ or God’s particular care.” The Reformed would say, “We tell our children God has a claim on them, and they must act accordingly.”

I haven’t done a perfect job here of explaining precisely what is this feeling. Hopefully something I’ve said makes sense.

Thoughts, brothers? I don’t want to discuss or debate the merits of the underlying covenantal differences between Baptists and the Reformed per se; but all are free to join in.

Assess or critique the Baptist system. Correct my possible wrong views of Baptist belief and practice in this area.

Am I right to sense that something is amiss, even as a Baptist? Am I expecting too much as a Baptist?
 
Lowlander said:
It feels like I have “keep them at arms length” whenever I talk about the church or being a Christian. All I can give them is “repent and believe,” and not anything about God’s particular care.

The Baptist would say, “Yes, they are unbelievers and have no claim to Christ or God’s particular care.”
Click to expand...
Brother, perhaps you've heard a Baptist say those exact words and even if not, I am sure you are not intentionally making a caricature or being overly simplistic. But think of all the blessings and privileges you can show your children that God has given them - specifically, them as individuals. If you struggle to express it, I suggest starting with Chapter 20 of the 1689, paragraph 3. Of course, simplify as needed based on their age and understanding. But I presume they have been blessed with the opportunity to sit under the revelation of the gospel unto sinners in clear, pointed, preaching. That is the sovereign will and good pleasure of God unto them. They have heard the gospel and must act accordingly. I could go on and on in regards to the spiritual blessings they have been given because of God's particular care for them. Did He not foreordain whatsoever comes to pass according to the counsel of His will?

What is keeping them at arm's length when urging them to repent and believe? Was Peter keeping the crowd at arms length in Acts 2:38-40? Repent and believe. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord God will call to Himself. And what happens next? Those who receive the word, join the church in the very next verse.

Maybe I'm just oversimplifying it too, but something did seem amiss in your post. However, I would suggest the cure is not to embrace paedobaptism.
 
Last edited:
Lowlander said:
It seems wrong for me to think of, and treat, my children the same as an outsider of the church, but how else ought I to think of them?
Click to expand...
The difference between the WCF and the LBC isn't just over the issue of baptism. They view the sacraments differently - the former has a chapter on the sacraments (Ch.27), the latter does not. The WCF chapter begins with this powerful statement: "Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him: as also to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word." Perhaps you are torn because you sense your children are outside the visible Church, there being no visible sign to set them apart. We may tend to discount earthly, visible signs in our modern age, but we shouldn't. We certainly don't with the Lord's Supper (see also I Cor.11.10?) so it should feel odd to treat baptism the same way. Admission: I considered myself a "Reformed Baptist" until I had children so I identify with your struggle.
 
Lowlander said:
I haven’t done a perfect job here of explaining precisely what is this feeling.
Click to expand...
I think that you've well expressed the matter in your post. You sense the distinction that pertains to those born within the covenant (as are your children) and those born without (as are those who have no Christian father or mother).

You know that you should not treat your children as "outsiders," though your theology does and cannot account for what you know them to be: born within the covenant and, thus, having a right to all the privileges that appertain thereunto.

I could say much more but will leave it here as Sinclair Ferguson did with me many years ago, as he expounded the significance to me, upon my questions to him, of Peter's Pentecost proclamation at the end of his sermon. The promise of old that was to sons of Abraham and their offspring remains to you and your children, only better (as Hebrews declares)--in New Covenant fulfillment.

I don't say this with an ounce of disrespect or lack of affection for all my good Baptist brethren here. It's just that your children, by virtue of their birth, are, in that sense, in the covenant. I think that the reality and sense of this are what presently grips you.

Peace,
Alan
 
You slaughtered My children and offered them to idols by making them pass through the fire. / Ezek 16:21

When one wrestles with God with the needs of our children… to wrestle with God saying that “would you grant my children… your children…” that’s a comfort.
The zealousness of God for His children is a hope. The mercy we plead for our children is not the mercy we plead for a typical stranger but a covenantal mercy. Grant them the faith to apprehend what baptism symbolizes. Have them to see the beauty of You and of the promise.

Israel children were to have their physical sign circumcision be a reality. Deut 30:6

Do we have enough evidence to overturn this “sign given and the thing signified to be embraced” economy in the New Covenant?

Some Baptists would argue their understanding of the Abrahamic covenant and how since Jesus the promised seed has come, the seed principle is no longer in place. You study both views and come to your own conclusion.

Children are deemed holy and called to regulate their lives around the 10 commandments.
Aren’t Baptists at least a little bit puzzled why (in their view) there is no sign given to children? For the sake of discussion, conceding this does not mean conceding their view entirely.
 
Last edited:
My wife and I had this same struggle some years ago. I prayed and wrestled with what I was coming to see about my convictions. I had been a Baptist my whole Christian life as had my wife. We never seriously engaged the claims of Reformed theology (the mere, and yes, beautiful, 5-points are not what constitutes embracing Reformed doctrine). We had been "Calvinists" our whole Christian life up to that point. I was sick with the implications of the claims of Reformed doctrine and the inadequacies perceived in our doctrine. When I searched out a more confessional position, comparing and contrasting the views of God's administration of his covenants, I found what the Presbyterians and Continental Reformed confessed able to account for the inadequacies of my own doctrine. I didn't want to arrive there, mind you. So, I fought it for a time.

I recently read Thomas Kuhn's book The Structure of Scientific Revolution, and a concept now adopted in common parlance is helpful for what I, and it would seem so now for yourself, struggled through at that time. It was that our paradigm could not account for the data we gathered and reasoned through. A paradigm shift was necessary in order to account for this data.

What you are describing is the data you are observing both in Scripture and in the light of nature. You read your Bible and, perhaps, see a level of continuity in how God deals with his people while fulfilling his progressing message of redemption. The old paradigm (that is, your convictions) now struggle to account for this data. You look at your children, relate to them, but feel there is more that can and should be said with regards to their providentially given lives. The old paradigm (conviction) is struggling to account for this data. However, here's where Kuhn and other unbelievers might "eat their hearts out;" we have the Holy Spirit to illumine the Scriptures unto us with eyes of faith. With those eyes of faith, we then can rightly interpret the discrepancies we feel in the natural witness: look at our children and knowing there is something more. It isn't so much of a divinely appointed opportunity to witness the blessedness of a Christian life, though that is true, but it is that they have some status different than the children of the unbelieving family next door.

As another brother has pointed out, how else can our children, not yet professed of faith, be assailed by the world if they of the world? This is one question swirling in a storm of questions. This is a question that needs a paradigm (conviction) able to account for it.
 
Your children are born as you were; as all humanity is: in Adam, with a fallen nature. What better way to teach them their need of repentance and faith than to show them that until God has given them new hearts, they are aliens and strangers? Baptists believe that unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. To give anyone some sort of special status because one of their parents was born again is to foster a false sense of belonging. Jesus told the Pharisees, who were Covenant Children under the OT: "Ye are of your father the Devil." John the Baptist told them not to presume on their birth, but to repent and believe.
So likewise, believing the Scripture, we teach our children that God has a claim on them, as on all humanity: He requires perfect obedience in order to enjoy His presence. We teach them that by nature and birth they are sinners, and that God sent a mediator to obey perfectly in their behalf. And we teach them that when they repent and believe in Jesus--but not until then--they are not only justified, but adopted into God's family. We take them to church, we teach them the Scriptures at home, because we believe that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. We believe that the preached word is God's principal means for calling sinners--which our children are--unto Himself.
I don't see why people think that's harsh: that's what the Bible teaches. All have sinned in Adam; all are offered remission of sins in Christ.
 
Your children are either in Adam, or in Christ. Their is no third option. In Adam all die. In Christ all are made alive. If you would be with your children in the kingdom of God, you must earnestly plead with them for Christ and earnestly plead with Christ for them. Anything less than this is foolish presumption.
 
Ben Zartman said:
Your children are born as you were; as all humanity is: in Adam, with a fallen nature. What better way to teach them their need of repentance and faith than to show them that until God has given them new hearts, they are aliens and strangers? Baptists believe that unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. To give anyone some sort of special status because one of their parents was born again is to foster a false sense of belonging. Jesus told the Pharisees, who were Covenant Children under the OT: "Ye are of your father the Devil." John the Baptist told them not to presume on their birth, but to repent and believe.
So likewise, believing the Scripture, we teach our children that God has a claim on them, as on all humanity: He requires perfect obedience in order to enjoy His presence. We teach them that by nature and birth they are sinners, and that God sent a mediator to obey perfectly in their behalf. And we teach them that when they repent and believe in Jesus--but not until then--they are not only justified, but adopted into God's family. We take them to church, we teach them the Scriptures at home, because we believe that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. We believe that the preached word is God's principal means for calling sinners--which our children are--unto Himself.
I don't see why people think that's harsh: that's what the Bible teaches. All have sinned in Adam; all are offered remission of sins in Christ.
Click to expand...
Presbyterian and Reformed do teach their children to repent and believe. They teach them all that you have described. Pointing to the Pharisees and their abuse of the covenantal sign given to them is not a reason to withhold the sign. There are no P&Rs who would want their children to presume upon the Lord in the same fashion as the Pharisees. I exhorted on Isaiah 59 this last weekend and brought out this very theme from the passage (with chapters 56-58 setting a context of presumption). This abuse can occur regardless of when the sign is administered. This doesn't nullify what the sign signifies. In fact, the sign, such as in the case of the Pharisees, stands to call them to repentance all the more lest it be a mark of judgment upon them.

*My comment here also applies to what @C. M. Sheffield has said.
 
J.L. Allen said:
Presbyterian and Reformed do teach their children to repent and believe. They teach them all that you have described. Pointing to the Pharisees and their abuse of the covenantal sign given to them is not a reason to withhold the sign. There are no P&Rs who would want their children to presume upon the Lord in the same fashion as the Pharisees. I exhorted on Isaiah 59 this last weekend and brought out this very theme from the passage (with chapters 56-58 setting a context of presumption). This abuse can occur regardless of when the sign is administered. This doesn't nullify what the sign signifies. In fact, the sign, such as in the case of the Pharisees, stands to call them to repentance all the more lest it be a mark of judgment upon them.

*My comment here also applies to what @C. M. Sheffield has said.
Click to expand...
Ahhemmm... I believe he was answering the question, "How Ought Baptists To Consider Their Children?" That paedobaptists will object to how Baptists answer this question goes without saying.
 
C. M. Sheffield said:
Ahhemmm... I believe he was answering the question, "How Ought Baptists To Consider Their Children?" The objections of paedobaptists on how Baptists will answer this question go without saying.
Click to expand...
Lowlander said:
Thoughts, brothers? I don’t want to discuss or debate the merits of the underlying covenantal differences between Baptists and the Reformed per se; but all are free to join in.
Click to expand...
I believe I've operated according to spirit of the thread. However, I wish not to cause undue affliction or consternation. I've stated what I think is appropriate to the conversation and will bow out unless necessary.
 
Ben Zartman said:
Your children are born as you were; as all humanity is: in Adam, with a fallen nature. What better way to teach them their need of repentance and faith than to show them that until God has given them new hearts, they are aliens and strangers? Baptists believe that unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. To give anyone some sort of special status because one of their parents was born again is to foster a false sense of belonging. Jesus told the Pharisees, who were Covenant Children under the OT: "Ye are of your father the Devil." John the Baptist told them not to presume on their birth, but to repent and believe.
So likewise, believing the Scripture, we teach our children that God has a claim on them, as on all humanity: He requires perfect obedience in order to enjoy His presence. We teach them that by nature and birth they are sinners, and that God sent a mediator to obey perfectly in their behalf. And we teach them that when they repent and believe in Jesus--but not until then--they are not only justified, but adopted into God's family. We take them to church, we teach them the Scriptures at home, because we believe that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. We believe that the preached word is God's principal means for calling sinners--which our children are--unto Himself.
I don't see why people think that's harsh: that's what the Bible teaches. All have sinned in Adam; all are offered remission of sins in Christ.
Click to expand...

God himself is guilty of your charges, because he did this very thing with every single child born in Israel, whether they were of Hebrew stock or of other ethnicities residing in Israel (Genesis 17:13).

The NT in no way abrogates this practice. In fact, the New Testament also teaches that the children of believers do have a special status: they are considered holy (1 Corinthians 7:14). We are not the ones who came up with that: God did. He specifically and clearly distinguishes them from those that are without.

And all of this does not negate Jesus' words to the unbelieving Jews "ye are of your father, the devil". This is because while there is an invisible church, where you're either "in" or "out", there is also a visible church, which is larger than the invisible church. The administration of the church, the work of the elders, the administration of the sacraments deals with a visible body that you can see and name. Their regeneration is known only infallibly to God.
 
De Jager said:
God himself is guilty of your charges, because he did this very thing with every single child born in Israel, whether they were of Hebrew stock or of other ethnicities residing in Israel (Genesis 17:13).

The NT in no way abrogates this practice. In fact, the New Testament also teaches that the children of believers do have a special status: they are considered holy (1 Corinthians 7:14). We are not the ones who came up with that: God did. He specifically and clearly distinguishes them from those that are without.

And all of this does not negate Jesus' words to the unbelieving Jews "ye are of your father, the devil". This is because while there is an invisible church, where you're either "in" or "out", there is also a visible church, which is larger than the invisible church. The administration of the church, the work of the elders, the administration of the sacraments deals with a visible body that you can see and name. Their regeneration is known only infallibly to God.
Click to expand...
Again, from the opening post...
Lowlander said:
I don’t want to discuss or debate the merits of the underlying covenantal differences between Baptists and the Reformed
Click to expand...
 
Baptists should consider and raise their children according to everything the Bible says on the matter: Deut. 6:6-7; Psalm 78:2-7; Prov. 22:6, 15, 29:17; Matt. 19:14; Eph. 6:4; Col. 3:21; 1 Thess. 2:11; etc.

Of course paedobaptists also believe that baptism is a literal replacement for circumcision, from which other things are then derived, but credobaptists believe the case for that is lacking.
 
C. M. Sheffield said:
Or, just don't use this thread to make your case as to why Baptists are all wrong.
Click to expand...
The OP started thus:
Lowlander said:
Having been a confessional Baptist for the better part of a decade now, there’s an apparent issue within the Baptist system that has troubled me, but I’ve found no satisfying answers.

It’s with regards to how Baptists ought to view and treat their children. I can’t quite put my finger on the exact problem, but I sense that something is amiss.

It seems wrong for me to think of, and treat, my children the same as an outsider of the church, but how else ought I to think of them?

There’s no covenant status of children in the Baptist system that I am aware of that would have me view them as anything other than unbelievers under my charge.
Click to expand...
and ended with:
Lowlander said:
Assess or critique the Baptist system. Correct my possible wrong views of Baptist belief and practice in this area.

Am I right to sense that something is amiss, even as a Baptist? Am I expecting too much as a Baptist?
Click to expand...
Several of us had a similar experience when we had children and it eventually led to us moving on from being "Reformed Baptist." We no doubt sense that this brother is similarly struggling with this issue. It is not inappropriate in this discussion to offer up some of the thinking that led to such changes for the OP's consideration.
 
Lowlander said:
Having been a confessional Baptist for the better part of a decade now, there’s an apparent issue within the Baptist system that has troubled me, but I’ve found no satisfying answers.

It’s with regards to how Baptists ought to view and treat their children. I can’t quite put my finger on the exact problem, but I sense that something is amiss.

It seems wrong for me to think of, and treat, my children the same as an outsider of the church, but how else ought I to think of them?

There’s no covenant status of children in the Baptist system that I am aware of that would have me view them as anything other than unbelievers under my charge.

We do family worship, I teach them as best as I can at different times throughout the day, etc., because I believe I am commanded to do so and because I love them and I want them to learn and grow and believe.

Of course I treat them as my own and want to bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord—but there still seems to be something missing.

It feels like I have “keep them at arms length” whenever I talk about the church or being a Christian. All I can give them is “repent and believe,” and not anything about God’s particular care.

The Baptist would say, “Yes, they are unbelievers and have no claim to Christ or God’s particular care.” The Reformed would say, “We tell our children God has a claim on them, and they must act accordingly.”

I haven’t done a perfect job here of explaining precisely what is this feeling. Hopefully something I’ve said makes sense.

Thoughts, brothers? I don’t want to discuss or debate the merits of the underlying covenantal differences between Baptists and the Reformed per se; but all are free to join in.

Assess or critique the Baptist system. Correct my possible wrong views of Baptist belief and practice in this area.

Am I right to sense that something is amiss, even as a Baptist? Am I expecting too much as a Baptist?
Click to expand...


Our former OPC pastor, who was raised Baptist by his wonderful Baptist pastor father, has commented on this similarly.

He mentioned often that he was taught to sing "Jesus loves me," which he found blessedly incongruous. Expected in church, expected to behave as a Christian, to pray and etc. As though he were a Christian, from his earliest years.

I won't wade into the theological discussion, just saying, it is a conundrum.
 
C. M. Sheffield said:
Or, just don't use this thread to make your case as to why Baptists are all wrong.
Click to expand...
Pastor Chris, I think the OP left that open to discussion, saying — "I don’t want to discuss or debate the merits of the underlying covenantal differences between Baptists and the Reformed per se; but all are free to join in. Assess or critique the Baptist system."

To me, that says that OP's intention was not to start a debate about covenantal views necessarily, but he's open to critiques of the position from any side. It seems to me the thread is open for all to share their thoughts.
 
JH said:
Pastor Chris, I think the OP left that open to discussion, saying — "I don’t want to discuss or debate the merits of the underlying covenantal differences between Baptists and the Reformed per se; but all are free to join in. Assess or critique the Baptist system."

To me, that says that OP's intention was not to start a debate about covenantal views necessarily, but he's open to critiques of the position from any side. It seems to me the thread is open for all to share their thoughts.
Click to expand...
I can see how my comments could be viewed both ways. My apologies.

I’ll clarify.

Let’s progress along these lines:

“To me, that says that OP's intention was not to start a debate about covenantal views necessarily, but he's open to critiques of the position from any side. It seems to me the thread is open for all to share their thoughts.”
 
Lowlander said:
“To me, that says that OP's intention was not to start a debate about covenantal views necessarily, but he's open to critiques of the position from any side. It seems to me the thread is open for all to share their thoughts.”
Click to expand...
That's the way I took what you'd originally said, and thus, was not deterred, nor will I be, in commenting on this thread. Your reiteration here validates what others of us have understood to be your meaning all along, even in the face of partial reconstructions of your original post that clearly does not capture what you intended to communicate. I don't think that you need either to apologize or clarify.

You expressed, brother, a tension that you observed and felt in your system. As a former baptist, like J. Allen and others here, I too sensed a tension years ago that I found only to be resolved in coming to affirm that children of one believing parent are distinguished from the world, as were the children of the Jews of old.

I recognize that Baptists and P/R differ on this, but you're the one who mentioned the tension, you brought the subject up, so I don't apologize in saying what others and I have suggested: the tension is there because your children really are born within covenantal bounds and are not simply like anyone in the rest of the world who is a stranger to God's promises contained in the covenant of grace. You intuit that your children are not merely like those outside, like the world that lieth in wickedness, but that God has given you to them to rear for Him in his nurture and admonition. This is why many Baptists, unaccountably, dedicate their babies; they know that they are, and are to be, distinguished from the world. Rather than applying the sacrament, however, that would indicate their solemn admission into the visible church, good Baptist folks develop a sub-sacrament whereby they might distinguish their children from the world.

Your sense of this thing, Elijah, is not wrong and I would urge you to press on in it!

Peace,
Alan
 
We were singing Psalm 84 this past Lord's day and I thought, "Wow, verse 3 would be a good passage to preach next time I'm called on to baptize someone's children."

Yea, the sparrow hath found an house, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young, even thine altars, O Lord of hosts, my King, and my God. Psalm 84:3

The psalmist uses common birds to illustrate something very powerful. Like a sparrow or swallow finding a nest for herself, so she may lay her young in some part of the altars of God, the believer also searches to find a place of nurture for their children within the household of God.

...bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Ephesians 6:4
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top