beggars all

credocovenant:

jxd1689:

beggarsalll:

jxd1689:

At What Age Should We Baptize?

from Challies Dot Com

Though by definition baptists agree that a person should be baptized only after confessing faith in Jesus Christ, there are several views on how old a believer must be, or should be, before such a confession can be trusted and acted upon. The views range, on the one end, from baptizing a confessing believer no matter how young to, on the other end, not baptizing them until they are practically independent from their parents.

I’ve linked to statements from solid churches that stand on opposite ends of this spectrum and to two other notable churches that fall more in the middle. There’s a summary of each view under the church’s name; you’ll want to follow the link to read more of their rationale.

“Any Age” View

Heritage Baptist Church, written by pastor Ted Christman:

For more than thirty years Heritage Baptist Church has been baptizing only those who give credible evidence of true conversion. There is nothing remarkable about that claim. It is simply a part of what it means to be a biblical Baptist church. What might be noteworthy, however, is the fact that for the same period of time we have been baptizing everyone who gives credible evidence of true conversion - including young people and children.

“Grown Up” View

Capitol Hill Baptist Church, written by the elders:

While it is difficult to set a certain number of years which are required for baptism, it is appropriate to consider the candidate’s maturity. The kind of maturity that we feel it is wise to expect is the maturity which would allow that son or daughter to deal directly with the church as a whole, and not, fundamentally, to be under their parents’ authority. As they assume adult responsibilities (sometime in late high school with driving, employment, non-Christian friends, voting, legality of marriage), then part of this, we would think, would be to declare publicly their allegiance to Christ by baptism.

“In Between” Views

Grace Community Church, compiled from material by pastor John MacArthur and others:

Here at Grace Community Church, our general practice is to wait until a professing child has reached the age of twelve. Because baptism is seen as something clear and final, our primary concern is that when a younger child is baptized he tends to look to that experience as proof that he was saved. Therefore, in the case of an unre- generate child who is baptized—which is not uncommon in the church at large—baptism actually does him a disservice. It is better to wait until the reality to which baptism testifies can be more easily discerned.

Bethlehem Baptist Church, written by pastor David Michael:

It is our practice to wait until a child is at least age eleven before considering him for baptism. More importantly it is our practice to wait until there is evidence of regeneration and enough maturity to articulate the Gospel and give a credible profession of faith. For further consideration of this topic see “Why Wait? Four Practical Reasons for Withholding Baptism Until Children Are Older” by Pastor David Michael.

I agree with the espoused by Capitol Hill Baptist Church.

beggarsalll replied to your photo: At What Age Should We Baptize? from Challies Dot…

Which view do you hold?

I see the wisdom in Capitol Hill’s “Grown Up” view, but I can’t argue against the “Any Age” view [Biblically] :-/ don’t have a firm conviction on this quite yet. 

I’ve yet to hear a non-pragmatic argument for Capitol Hill’s view. It seems as though the main two reasons behind withholding the sign of a covenant from a believing child are to avoid having to discipline him / her later and to prevent a child from voting in a congregational meeting. In both instances, I would argue that withholding the sign of a covenant from a true believer is still wrong for the following reasons:

1. We are nowhere ordered in the new testament to withhold the sign of the covenant from covenant members until they somehow meet some external standard to be determined by the local church. By contrast, we see people in the New Testament being baptized in accordance with their profession. All this requires is that they have an adequate profession and not exhibit any ongoing unrepentance.

2. Nowhere in Scripture is the practice of withholding the sign of the covenant commended. Though Paul says he is glad he did not baptize any of the Corinthians, there is much information of which we are not privy. Were they baptized by any others at the time they came to faith? Had he even met any of the ones he said he had not baptized or were they converted and brought into the church at Corinth after Paul planted the church? He did say he baptized a couple of the members at the church of Corinth. Is Paul even saying in the context that he desires for churches to wait long periods of time before baptizing and, if so, can we from that draw the conclusion that we can set some sort of age limit on baptism?

3. To assume that it would be wrong to allow a child to be put under church discipline is to have a faulty view of church discipline. If a child is in unrepentant sin, he / she can discreetly and gently be deemed an unbeliever and removed from the church rolls. This does not mean that the church is excommunicating the child or ostracizing him / her in any way. It simply means that they child had a false profession. If the child did have a false profession, such a process could alert him / her to this fact early and be used by the Lord to lead him / her to repentance and prevent much pain and suffering later in life. When done properly, church discipline is a blessing to those who are being saved. How can we deprive our children of this blessing?

4. As far as voting is concerned, there is nothing wrong with using discretion when determining which members are and are not allowed to vote. As far as I am concerned, since voting is a pragmatic solution to the question of how we are to discern the will of the congregation, no one needs vote at all (NOTE: Here I am not using the term pragmatism in a derogatory fashion. There are clearly some areas where the Bible leaves certain decisions of church life up to the wisdom of local church leaders. Such decisions, though pragmatic, are not necessarily sinful.). However, since many churches do decide to vote in order to discern the will of the congregation, they have the liberty to exercise the same pragmatism that led to their voting system to determine the age or level of maturity that must be met before a member can vote. Churches, however, are not given liberty in such instances to deny any believer the sign of the covenant.

This is my conviction on the issue. Don’t know if it is helpful. Let me know what you think.

(Apparently Billy doesn’t have comments turned on : )

Point 1: Agree.
Point 2: Agree.

“I would argue that withholding the sign of a covenant from a true believer is still wrong for the following reasons:”

I for one do not promote withholding the sign of the covenant from a “true” believer.

“All this requires is that they have an adequate profession and not exhibit any ongoing unrepentance.”

For me the point of debate is, Who is capable of having an “adequate” profession?

“True” believer and “adequate” profession are subjectively interpreted, hence the debate.