There's been a recent post by a well-known Baptist pastor on making church membership more meaningful. One of his points advocates that children be denied baptism and church membership. (See point 5 here.) I can see why my Presbyterian friends would object to this. As a 1689 Baptist, I would respectfully disagree with the Presbyterians on who is a member of the covenant of grace, but I would also respectfully disagree with Pastor Dever.
(Of note, what follows is solely my opinion and not meant to reflect the opinions of my local church.)
If Baptists believe that those who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and given new life are members of the covenant of grace, why would we deny them baptism? If adults and children are saved in the same manner, then why is the covenant sign denied to one group and not the other? If children need to grow in maturity and may have lapses, don't adults? Does anyone walk so perfectly as a Christian that there was never a moment of doubt?
This is especially pertinent if baptism is a requirement to partake of the Lord's table, which I also respectfully disagree with. It seems contradictory to say, "We want you to grow as a Christian, but we are going to deny you not just one but two means of grace until you are a legal adult." What kind of message does that send? Does it imply that somehow a child's profession is less valid and less trustworthy? Do we forget that they are also image bearers of God and not inferior in personhood? What magically happens when someone turns 18? And more importantly, is there a scriptural mandate for this threshold?
Or is the denial of baptism a reaction to the easy believe-ism in many churches where people are encouraged to walk the aisle and get baptized immediately for the sake of church rolls? There are plenty of people who were led into making false profession and baptized, but this is the result of an inadequate understanding of the gospel, which falls squarely on the leaders, not the age of the followers. If a person in this situation comes to faith later in life, does this make them a 2nd class believer because of this error? I think we would all rejoice that they no longer have false assurance but genuine assurance.
My daughter was baptized at age 12. We formally joined the church a month later. There was no question in her mind, my mind, or the pastor who interviewed her, that she was a believer. But this was not a hasty decision as she was saved for several years. She was a normal kid and not a spiritual prodigy, but there were signs that she was regenerate in her response to sin and the sensitivity of her conscience. She did not vote on church matters until she was 18, but being a part of a church family, not just on her mother's coattails, was very important to her during an extremely difficult time. She needed the means of grace and benefited from them.
Even though this is not directly related to baptism, Samuel was chosen by God as a child whereas Eli's adult sons were profaning the tent of meeting. If God is no respecter of persons regarding who He will save and at what age He will save them, then shouldn't we do the same and not deny the means of grace?
From the 1689 London Baptist Confession 29.2 on Baptism. Note there is no distinction about age.
Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance. (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36, 37; Acts 2:41; Acts 8:12; Acts 18:8 )
Addendum:
As I was discussing this issue with my daughter, she made the following insight - "It's like being held guilty until proven innocent. In an effort to keep the "wrong" people out, the "right" people are being hurt in the process."
(Of note, what follows is solely my opinion and not meant to reflect the opinions of my local church.)
If Baptists believe that those who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and given new life are members of the covenant of grace, why would we deny them baptism? If adults and children are saved in the same manner, then why is the covenant sign denied to one group and not the other? If children need to grow in maturity and may have lapses, don't adults? Does anyone walk so perfectly as a Christian that there was never a moment of doubt?
This is especially pertinent if baptism is a requirement to partake of the Lord's table, which I also respectfully disagree with. It seems contradictory to say, "We want you to grow as a Christian, but we are going to deny you not just one but two means of grace until you are a legal adult." What kind of message does that send? Does it imply that somehow a child's profession is less valid and less trustworthy? Do we forget that they are also image bearers of God and not inferior in personhood? What magically happens when someone turns 18? And more importantly, is there a scriptural mandate for this threshold?
Or is the denial of baptism a reaction to the easy believe-ism in many churches where people are encouraged to walk the aisle and get baptized immediately for the sake of church rolls? There are plenty of people who were led into making false profession and baptized, but this is the result of an inadequate understanding of the gospel, which falls squarely on the leaders, not the age of the followers. If a person in this situation comes to faith later in life, does this make them a 2nd class believer because of this error? I think we would all rejoice that they no longer have false assurance but genuine assurance.
My daughter was baptized at age 12. We formally joined the church a month later. There was no question in her mind, my mind, or the pastor who interviewed her, that she was a believer. But this was not a hasty decision as she was saved for several years. She was a normal kid and not a spiritual prodigy, but there were signs that she was regenerate in her response to sin and the sensitivity of her conscience. She did not vote on church matters until she was 18, but being a part of a church family, not just on her mother's coattails, was very important to her during an extremely difficult time. She needed the means of grace and benefited from them.
Even though this is not directly related to baptism, Samuel was chosen by God as a child whereas Eli's adult sons were profaning the tent of meeting. If God is no respecter of persons regarding who He will save and at what age He will save them, then shouldn't we do the same and not deny the means of grace?
From the 1689 London Baptist Confession 29.2 on Baptism. Note there is no distinction about age.
Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance. (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36, 37; Acts 2:41; Acts 8:12; Acts 18:8 )
Addendum:
As I was discussing this issue with my daughter, she made the following insight - "It's like being held guilty until proven innocent. In an effort to keep the "wrong" people out, the "right" people are being hurt in the process."
Comments
Post a Comment
Civil and pertinent comments are appreciated. Trolling will be deleted. Thanks.