Infant baptism and crisis conversions

[DTK]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
To the above responses to me on my response to Meg;
Unless I misunderstood Meg, I believe she was referring to the communicants class or an outward confession. When something like 'the close' or 'closing with Christ' is mentioned, it sounds Arminian. It smacks of these ridiculous events that the Arminian requires and even the present day PCA seek.

Megs statement had to do with PE and the "closing". The closing is something that the Arminian does, i.e. the altar call, the confession, the prayer. These things the Arminian needs. He does not trust God. He is like Thomas; he must put his fingers in the hole before he will believe.

The terminology of "closing with Christ" is standard language employed by the Puritans and the Scottish Covenanters as the equivalent of "coming to Christ." This language was used by Puritains like John Owen, Work, Vol. 9, pp. 362ff.; John Flavel, Works, Vol. 2, pp. 362f.; William Gurnal; Samuel Rutherford; William Guthrie's The Christian's Great Interest; James Durham in his An Exposition of the Song of Solomon and The Way of Covenanting with God, and of a Sinner's obtaining Justification before Him; John Welsh of Irongray in his sermons, Jonathan Edwards in his sermons, e.g. sermon 12 on "Charity and Its Fruits"; Robert Murray M'Cheyne in his sermons; Andrew Bonar in his sermons, etc.

None of these men were Arminians. I suspect that Meg has simply expressed her acquaintance with standard Puritan theology.

As J. I. Packer put it, this was standard language employed by the older Reformed writers:

The necessary means, or instrumental cause, of justification is personal faith in Jesus Christ as crucified Savior and risen Lord (Rom. 4:23-25; 10:8-13). This is because the meritorious ground of our justification is entirely in Christ. As we give ourselves in faith to Jesus, Jesus gives us his gift of righteousness, so that in the very act of "œclosing with Christ," as older Reformed teachers put it, we receive divine pardon and acceptance which we could not otherwise have (Gal. 2:15-16; 3:24). See his Concise Theology.

I guess I didn't know that this "elementary" and standard language of the Puritans and those after them had fallen on hard times on the Puritan Board.

Blessings,
DTK

PS. My apologies, I see now that Mr. Greco has already addressed this.


[Edited on 24-11-2004 by DTK]

[Edited on 24-11-2004 by DTK]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Out until later... or I will get sucked in {Darth Vader breathing noise}

Cool stuff!

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Out until later... or I will get sucked in {Darth Vader breathing noise}

Cool stuff!

Yet another reason to use Firefox. There is an extension that allows you to insert smilies that are not included on the board!

https://update.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?id=375&vid=1191

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Out until later... or I will get sucked in {Darth Vader breathing noise}

Cool stuff!

Yet another reason to use Firefox. There is an extension that allows you to insert smilies that are not included on the board!

https://update.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?id=375&vid=1191

Freddy-1-Kenobi you're our only hope...Freddy-1-Kenobi, you're our only hope.

[Edited on 24-11-2004 by crhoades]

 

[Scott]

The terminology of "closing with Christ" is standard language employed by the Puritans and the Scottish Covenanters as the equivalent of "coming to Christ."

I think that everyone agrees that personal faith in Christ is necessary. The main issue is whether a child can acquire the faith imperceptibly (and indeed is disciplied as a member of the covenant, as opposed to evangelized to like a pagan) or if instead the child must have a crisis conversion, as revivalists contend. Does "closing with Christ" involve a crisis conversion?

[Edited on 11-29-2004 by Scott]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Scott

The terminology of "closing with Christ" is standard language employed by the Puritans and the Scottish Covenanters as the equivalent of "coming to Christ."

I think that everyone agrees that personal faith in Christ is necessary. The main issue is whether a child can acquire the faith imperceptibly (and indeed is disciplied as a member of the covenant, as opposed to evangelized to like a pagan) or if instead the child must have a crisis conversion, as revivalists contend. Does "closing with Christ" involve a crisis conversion?

[Edited on 11-29-2004 by Scott]

My contention exactly. I believe that the interpretation, even in the reformed circle is skewed.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott

The terminology of "closing with Christ" is standard language employed by the Puritans and the Scottish Covenanters as the equivalent of "coming to Christ."

I think that everyone agrees that personal faith in Christ is necessary. The main issue is whether a child can acquire the faith imperceptibly (and indeed is disciplied as a member of the covenant, as opposed to evangelized to like a pagan) or if instead the child must have a crisis conversion, as revivalists contend. Does "closing with Christ" involve a crisis conversion?

[Edited on 11-29-2004 by Scott]

Actually Scott,

I don't think anyone - except extreme RefCats - is really concerned with the need for a *crisis* conversion. I know I am not; and I don't think I have ever argued that point. The problem that I have (and you may not disagree at all) is that by setting up this crisis/revivalistic straw man, many today in our circles set up baptism as the end all be all, and do not look for fruit.

 

[Scott]

Fred: For what it's worth, I definitely think that we need to look at the fruits. A baptized person can be an unsaved hypocrite. Baptism is a beginning and not an end. I think there can and should be several sources of assurance, and baptism should be one (indeed, that is a function of a "seal" - to attest to the authenticity of something).

From what I have read of the American puritans, it was common for them to require crisis conversions from their children. Impercetible acquisition of the faith was not an option.

 

[turmeric]

What's a crisis - point-in-time conversion or huge emotional experience? Point-in-time conversions do happen, but in young children it may not be a huge emotional deal and they may never remember when it happened. In an adult it will probably be somewhat of a crisis in the emotional sense and he/she will probably remember it until Alzheimer's sets in. (Those people, BTW, still remember that they love Jesus, usually). I was raised in the church, with salvation & "charismatic experience", but wasn't a Christian. My conversion was definitely a crisis, in all respects, but I swear it wasn't Charles Finney's fault!

 

[Scott]

From my reading of American Puritans it is at least an intensely emotional experience that involves extreme and sharp pangs of guilt for having been an unbeliever until that point. It involves deep remorse, crying, and the like.

BTW, I had a crisis conversion myself, as I had never been baptized, never had any Christian instruction, was never apart of a church or even nominally Christian until my early twenties when I had a crisis conversion that would count in any evangelical theological worldview. However, I don't expect this of covenant children, as they are members of the covenant and are being discipled as such.

 

[Scott]

I don't think anyone - except extreme RefCats - is really concerned with the need for a *crisis* conversion. I know I am not; and I don't think I have ever argued that point. The problem that I have (and you may not disagree at all) is that by setting up this crisis/revivalistic straw man, many today in our circles set up baptism as the end all be all, and do not look for fruit.

The need for a crisis conversion is common in evangelical circles and is even present to a degree in reformed circles. Some reformed people want a candidate for communion to be able to give a date of conversion, for example.

D.G. Hart writes of the problems with crisis conversion in his Recovering Mother Kirk. He is definitely not a RefCat and is very old-line reformed (psalms only, no church calendar, etc.). It is a common problem (not on this board, perhaps). Perhaps my experience in the South attunes me to it more, as we have so man Southern Baptists and bible churches, both of which hold the crisis conversion paradigm. People who grow up loving God in Christian homes are treated skeptically unless they had their crisis.

 

[turmeric]

What do you think of THIS crisis?

Of course it occurred in a Dispensational church. The subject was 7yrs old.

I noticed one Sunday morning that our adult Sunday-school teacher wasn't in the morning service though I knew he was there in the building. He has small children so I assumed that was the reason. I was right.

He said his 7yr old son told him after Sunday school that he wanted to be a Christian, because he wanted to tell people about God. He said he had wanted to become one the night before but didn't want to wake his parents. His father asked him some questions to see if the boy understood what Jesus did for us on the Cross, and he seemed to understand well - for a 7yr old, so his dad prayed with him.

Okay, I understand that the "sinners' prayer" doesn't save anyone, and that the little boy didn't have to wait to pray with someone, but it does seem like a point-in-time event which probably would look different in a Reformed community.
Whaddaya think?

 

[Scott]

Meg:

Frankly, I think this would be consistent with the practices of many Reformed communities. The last PCA church I was in had a practice of having children give up and give conversion testimonies, often pinpointing specific days of conversion.

Children are often taught from the beginning that they need to convert, as if they are little pagans - in spite of their baptism and church membership. If that is the model that children are taught, that is how they will respond. In those situations, infant baptism is essentially meaningless and the child is not treated materially differently than he would be in a non-covenantal church.

Scott

 

[AdamM]

Children are often taught from the beginning that they need to convert, as if they are little pagans - in spite of their baptism and church membership.

So baptism and church membership means our covenant children have no need to be converted (close with Christ by personal faith)?

[Edited on 30-11-2004 by AdamM]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by AdamM

Children are often taught from the beginning that they need to convert, as if they are little pagans - in spite of their baptism and church membership.

So baptism and church membership means our covenant children have no need to be converted (close with Christ by personal faith)?

[Edited on 30-11-2004 by AdamM]

Good point Adam. This issue was the thrust of this whole thread.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Adam,
Here is what the WCF says:

Of Baptism


I. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church; but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.

How shall we look at our children in light of this? As the credo?

Lets also define, along some biblical examples, of what the closing truly is. Closing may be expressed as fruit?

[Edited on 11-30-2004 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by AdamM

Children are often taught from the beginning that they need to convert, as if they are little pagans - in spite of their baptism and church membership.

So baptism and church membership means our covenant children have no need to be converted (close with Christ by personal faith)?

[Edited on 30-11-2004 by AdamM]

Adam,
I believe you have redefined conversion. There is none other than God whom converts men. And as expressed in Titus 3:5, nothing that we do. Conversion is a result of hearing only Rom 10:17

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by AdamM

Children are often taught from the beginning that they need to convert, as if they are little pagans - in spite of their baptism and church membership.

So baptism and church membership means our covenant children have no need to be converted (close with Christ by personal faith)?

[Edited on 30-11-2004 by AdamM]

Adam,
I believe you have redefined conversion. There is none other than God whom converts men. And as expressed in Titus 3:5, nothing that we do. Conversion is a result of hearing only Rom 10:17

Adam has not redefined conversion. Conversion is an act of God that takes place in men. It is the work of God, but it must be seen in the justified sinner

Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: (John 1:12, Rom. 3:28, Rom. 5:1) yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love. (James 2:17,22,26, Gal. 5:6) (WCF 11.2)

The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, (Heb. 10:39) is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, (2 Cor. 4:13, Eph. 1:17"“19, Eph. 2:8) and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, (Rom. 10:14,17) by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened
(WCF 14.1.)

With conversion being effected (ordinarily and instrumentally) by the preaching of the Word:

WCF 159: How is the Word of God to Be Preached by Those that are Called Thereunto?

Answer:
They that are called to labour in the ministry of the word, are to preach sound doctrine, diligently, in season and out of season; plainly, not in the enticing words of man´s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit, and of power; faithfully, making known the whole counsel of God; wisely, applying themselves to the necessities and capacities of the hearers; zealously, with fervent love to God and the souls of his people; sincerely, aiming at his glory, and their conversion, edification, and salvation.

Thus the Confession can speak of repentance as a "saving grace" (WCF 15)

And justifying faith as a saving grace (WLC 72):

Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

So baptism and church membership means our covenant children have no need to be converted (close with Christ by personal faith)?

Maybe or maybe not. But again, who are we to question what God says? We remain optomistic. "I WILL be a God to you and your children after you." Is God a liar?

Unless otherwise instructed (i.e. we see thier non-conversion in God's providence) we would rest on the promises that God is a God to them already. If we find they are not converted, again, at the age of discretion, we would continue to 1) remind them of their covenant status and refresh them again (as usual) as to their obligations, and 2) we would continue to teach them everything about Christ.

In presuming we remain optomistic that God will make good on what He says about Covneant Children. If He is a God to them, we believe Him. This topic overall encompasses both how parents react to the reality of the word, and the status of the child.

This ALL hinges on how one interprets the Scriptures based either on the compouind sense or divided sense. It is a matter of hermeneutics.

 

[Scott]

Adam: Think of it this way. To be saved every person musy be able to affirmatively answer the question "Do you have faith in Christ?" A negative answer indicates no salvation.

There is another question that some require. "On what date did you convert?" Knowing a date of conversion is not required.

On a broader level, we do not seek to convert our children like they were rank pagans. We instruct them in the faith as heirs of the covenant. They must adopt this teaching as their own or their status as covenant heirs will not help them. For example, we teach them to pray in the name of Jesus. We don't do this for pagans. If we do not presume that the children are real deal believers, teaching them to pray in Jesus' name is teaching them falsely, as they are not properly able to do this.

Fred: I know you are a revivalist at heart - I just don't know why you won't admit it!

Scott

 

[Scott]

BTW, a popular child rearing program I think illustrates an important distinction in a covenant view vs a revivalist view. This program (the Ezzo Growing Kids God's Way program) expressly teaches that parents are NOT to teach children to pray to Jesus until they have their conversion experience. Of course the Ezzos are credobaptists, which is the logical position for their position (as it would be for those who hold Fred's views ). Anyway, they warn parents against having their children pray to Jesus or in His name, as He is not their savior yet. Children are to pray to the Father alone.

This is error. We may properly teach children to pray to Jesus, as they are heirs of the covenant and truly and really members of the Church by virtue of their baptism. They are different than pagan children, and not only in that they have better access to teaching.

Scott

[Edited on 12-1-2004 by Scott]

 

[Scott]

For what it's worth and not to exagerate the differences we have, as part of our discipleship, we expressly teach children of the necessity of personal faith in Jesus and that without this there is no hope. It is presented as instruction and discipleship (as a holy seed this what you must believe), not as evangelization (hey you unholy seed, have you heard the good news).

 

[AdamM]

Adam,
I believe you have redefined conversion. There is none other than God whom converts men. And as expressed in Titus 3:5, nothing that we do. Conversion is a result of hearing only Rom 10:17

Scott, I am using conversion in the biblical sense as expressed so well by Rev. King earlier in this thread. Pastor King is as solidly orthodox as you can get and what he writes about the Puritans and their views is what they taught. It is just standard A-B-C Westminster Theology.

In regards to the sacraments, the mistake I see getting made by some in our circles is confusing the sign with the thing signified by the sign. It is a concern in our denominations, because our standards and the scriptures clearly reject both an ex opere operato and an opus operatum view, yet I seldom read any mention of the faith of the recipient by those who complain about a "œlow" view of the sacraments. Faith is the hinge upon which the Westminster Standards teaching on the efficacy of the sacraments swings, but you would never know it reading some of the reformed sacramentalists today. Faith simply never makes it into their teaching, yet the standards are crystal clear that baptism has no efficacy apart from the reception of it in FAITH (before, during or after the moment of baptism.) That faith is conferred (or not conferred) sovereignty by the Holy Spirit, in God´s appointed time.

For what it's worth, here are some notes I made from a lecture given by Sinclair Ferguson earlier this year at the Westminster Confession into the 21st Century Conference held at Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Pittsburgh on The Westminster Doctrine of Baptism and Current Reformed Trajectories that I think will be helpful to the discussion:

In the Westminster Standards the language of conferral needs to be understood in the context of FAITH. WCF 28-6 "œthe grace promised not only offered. But really exhibited, and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God´s own will, in His appointed time.

WCF 28-6
-Efficacy is not ties to the moment of time in which baptism is administered.
-Emphasis is on the conferral by the Holy Spirit of that which is signified, sealed and exhibited. Not tied to the moment of baptism.
-Efficacy takes place in God´s appointed time and in God´s appointed way.

The Westminster Standards take account of the following:
- Regeneration may take place at baptism.
-Regeneration may tale place before baptism.
-Regeneration may take place after baptism.
-Regeneration may never take place.

Baptism is related to regeneration as sign and seal are related to the efficacious reality of the regenerating power of God, but the chronological / temporal way in which it is related is matter of gracious divine sovereignty.


General consensus of the Westminster Standards about baptism:

The conviction that regeneration has taken place or will take place in baptism does not provide us with the appropriate biblical grounds for baptism. Instead baptism is administered in terms of the administration of the covenant and the promise enshrined in the covenant. This is made clear in WLC 166 "œ but infants descending from parents either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized. & WSC 95 "œbut the infants of such as are member of the visible church are to baptized."
1.The sacraments put a visible difference between those that belong to the church and to the world. (WCF 27-1)
2.The visible church consists of all those that profess true religion and their children. (WCF 25-2)
3.Children of believers belong to the visible church. (WSC 25)
4.Children of believers are within the covenant. (WLC 166)
5.Children of believers have an interest in the covenant and are federally holy. (WDPW)

In conclusion:

1.The Westminster Standards have a very high view of baptism.
2.The Westminster Standards teach a covenant consciousness approach rather then presumed regeneration.
3.The warrant for baptism is not our knowledge or presumed knowledge of an individuals regeneration, but the relation of the individual to the administration of the covenant.

The great danger is that the presumed regeneration position implies that the unlike the children of the Turks and Indians that covenant children have no need to flee to Christ in repentance and faith. However, the whole message of the covenant is flee to Christ in repentance and faith.

 

[AdamM]

Scott, I would be dead set against requiring a date or some type of crisis conversion experience. I think it is great to hear the testimony of folks who can´t remember a day when they don´t remember believing the gospel, but the Lord has a unique spiritual journey for everyone, so I am dead set against creating a template (on either pole) that we try to impose upon people. Of course the revivalists want to see buckets of tears, but on the other pole there are those that would claim the only valid conversion experience is no conversion experience. Both miss the mark in my opinion.

The Lord has given our covenant children their parents and the elders of the church to be attentive to their spiritual condition. I think if we as parents (and elders) make a point to treat each child as an individual, pray for insight and open our eyes and ears, the Lord will bless our efforts. Some kids the Lord will bring to a knowledge of the faith and an ability to manifest that knowledge at an early age and to those children as a parent (and elder,) I approach in a different way then I would the child who I just don´t see any sings of an awakened heart.

For what it's worth, to the child who hasn´t shown signs of being spiritually awakened the last thing in the world I would want to do is focus our attention on sanctification issues (external conformity to the law) because that will obscure the gospel with moralism. I think that is one of the big problems when people jettison the idea of conversion for our kids is that moralism is right there to fill the vacuum. If we presume all of children are converted and start them on steady diet of teaching on sanctifcation "“ where does that leave the child who has not been awakened yet? I fear that child gets the idea that the Christian faith equals external righteousness, do this "“ do that, instead of believe on the Lord. This is where the discernment of parents and elders that I mentioned earlier comes into play.

[Edited on 1-12-2004 by AdamM]

 

[Scott]

Adam: I think you are mistaken. Neglecting a covenant child's moral instruction (on the ground that they don't appear converted or for any other reason) is serious error. I think this really highlights the dangers of a revivalistic or evangelical view. It is certainly not in line with the PCA's written standards (which may differ from actual practice, given the heavy influence of evangelicalism).

Consider this from the PCA Book of Church Order. This is the instruction to the minister to charge the parents of a child during a baptism ceremony.

He [the minister] is to exhort the parent to consider the great mercy of God to him and his child; to bring up the child in the knowledge of the grounds of the Christian religion, and in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; and to let him know the danger of God´s wrath to himself and child, if he be negligent; requiring his solemn promise for the performance of his duty.

The minister is also to exhort the parents to the careful performance of their duty, requiring:

a. That they teach the child to read the Word of God;

b. that they instruct him in the principles of our holy religion, as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, an excellent summary of which we have in the Confession of Faith, and in the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly, which are to be recommended to them as adopted by the Church, for their direction and assistance, in the discharge of this important duty;
. . .

Note that the parent is to teach the child the true religion, which is summarized in the Confessional Standards. The confessional standards teach the whole Christian religion, including morality. Indeed, the largest portion of the catechisms address morality.

The parent is required to vow that he will do this. The minister is to warn the parent of the danger of God's wrath toward him and his child if the parent neglects his duties.

Scott

 

[AdamM]

Adam: I think you are mistaken. Neglecting a covenant child's moral instruction (on the ground that they don't appear converted or for any other reason) is serious error. I think this really highlights the dangers of a revivalistic or evangelical view. It is certainly not in line with the PCA's written standards (which may differ from actual practice, given the heavy influence of evangelicalism).

The question boils down the different uses of the law. Of course as a part of raising kids we teach them to obey the law, but I think for an unconverted person the first use of the law ought to be primary while not neglecting the other uses. It appears to me that you rule out the first use of the law for our children (since all are assumed already converted,) which is exactly the danger I see in the pr position. Actually I think the relevant parallel in this case is to the mainline churches that abandoned the doctrine of conversion, presumed everybody regenerate and therefore made moral-ism the primary focus of the nurture of children. It's those do's and don't's that are disconnected from the gospel call of repentance and personal faith that when they become the primary focus of "Christian" nurture succeed in bringing up good little Mormons.

[Edited on 1-12-2004 by AdamM]

 

[Scott]

Adam: I think it is important to remember that the fundamental covenant obligation that we teach the children is personal faith in Christ.

 

[Scott]

Adam: Do you believe covenant children are holy?

 

[AdamM]

Adam: I think it is important to remember that the fundamental covenant obligation that we teach the children is personal faith in Christ.

Scott, that is precisely the point we have been trying to make. Our first obligation is for us to seek for the salvation of our children, to encourage them to close with Christ by personal faith. That closing need not be some dramatic crisis conversion, but we ought to encourage them to look to the Lord Jesus Christ in repentance and personal faith.

Adam: Do you believe covenant children are holy?

Federally Holy (Westminster Directory of Public Worship "“ "œThat they are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized:" - Set apart from the world, members of the visible church, under the administration of the Covenant of Grace and therefore receive the sign of the COG, baptism.

[Edited on 1-12-2004 by AdamM]

 

[Scott]

Adam: We don't teach the necessity of faith in an evagelistic sense (you are in darkness but need the light) but in a discipleship sense (as a member of the covenant, your primary responsibility is to have faith). We also don't tell them they donb't have it or act toward them like they don't have it.

If the children are holy then they are presumed to be with Christ. As Jesus said, people are either for him or against him. The revivalistic views that have dominated American presbyterianism for a long time create a third category. The use of infant baptism by those with revivalistic views (those who view their children as essentially pagans with a baptism that does not really seal (authenticate) their status before God) really have a third category. I think baptist criticisms of this use of baptism make allot of sense.

Scott