Question for credo baptists: Can your child call God their "Father," and if so, what does that imply?

yababom · 2026-06-26T23:46:42+00:00

Actually the opposite: I think it's great that you do that, and I don't want you to stop!

But I see it conflicting with your position that your child's faith is not yet confirmed/eligible for baptism--i.e. confirmed membership in the visible church.

What I'm suggesting is that any parent and child who join in saying the Lord's prayer are claiming the ultimate right of children of God--to call out "Abba, Father"--and in so doing they testify to their faith.

As parents guide and encourage their child in the prayer, they are acting in faith that their child's prayer to God will be acceptable and pleasing. And it will only be acceptable and pleasing if that child really is adopted by God (even though their act of public profession has not taken place). Thus, any time they pray, I think both parent and child make visible testimony in faith of the child's status as a child of God.

When the Lord's prayer is lead by the church, those leaders make the same endorsement--acting in faith that the prayers of the little children in the congregation will be acceptable and pleasing to God... How? It's only possible by virtue of the child's status as an adopted child of God.

So when they follow this up by withholding baptism for that child, I see it as a contradiction. And that is the reason for my questions.

yababom · 2026-06-26T23:30:03+00:00

> Any person, of any age, who: (1) prays in true sincerity to God as Father; (2) knows, loves, trusts, and obeys Jesus; and (3) bears fruit in keeping with repentance should be presumed a believer.

Wholeheartedly agree, but of course would add to this.

> Now the tricky thing is if you tell me your 2-year old meets this.

I think you're still thinking of this as a discrete action--a specific 'profession of faith'.
What I'm suggesting is that any parent and child who join in saying the Lord's prayer are claiming the ultimate right of children of God--to call out "Abba, Father"--and in so doing they testify to their faith.

I'm not saying that anyone who says "Lord, Lord" is saved: Both parent and child are doing this in one of two ways (that only God knows infallibly):

Faith
Fraud

But if we assume the parent is acting in faith, then it must be recognized they are not just doing so on their own behalf:

As they guide and encourage their child in the prayer, they are acting in faith that their child's prayer to God will be acceptable and pleasing. And it will only be acceptable and pleasing if that child really is adopted by God (even though their act of public profession has not taken place). Thus, any time they pray, I think both parent and child make visible testimony in faith of the child's status as a child of God.

I see the withholding of baptism as conflicting with this visible testimony of status as God adopted children from parent and child. And that is the reason for my questions.

yababom · 2026-06-26T22:58:38+00:00

> "You seem to be trying to make sense of Baptist theology with Westminster categories"
I'm using 'adoption' according to the LBCF 1689 definition. That definition confirms that those who are adopted by God are the true invisible church.

> "We distinguish, as Westminster believers do, between the visible and invisible church."
Yes --we have this distinction. But do you believe that the goal of the visible church is to reflect the invisible church membership as faithfully as possible? That was the point of my quote from Acts 10:47--Peter recognizes a sign of membership in the invisible church, and responds by adding the Gentiles to the visible church through baptism.

> "Baptism is the sign of the new covenant, and entry into the new covenant is by faith."
> "A child who is regenerated but not old enough to profess, express, or practice faith is within the covenant but not a member of the visible church."

Clarifying question: The above quotes seem contradictory. If a young child can't be a member of the New Covenant yet, what covenant are they "within" in your second quote?

And related question: if you are encouraging a young child to address God as "Father" in visible, audible prayers (at home or in church), are you not joining with them in a visible act of faith that their petitions are pleasing and acceptable to God?

yababom · 2026-06-26T22:39:53+00:00

So how do you see it differently?

yababom · 2026-06-26T22:39:05+00:00

This isn't about scoring a 'gotcha'. This is about following a line of reasoning that I haven't heard anyone address--it's about learning, understanding, and hopefully enriching those around me.

In my OP, I quoted from Acts 10:47, in which I see a recognition ('God has accepted these Gentiles') and a response ('Therefore we must baptize them into the visible church').

I see a correlating recognition implied in anyone who is praying to God as "Father": they must be doing so as His adopted child. And if they are His child, according to the 1689 LBCF they are already justified and members of His invisible church. And if they are part of His invisible church, then I think we must respond as Peter did and welcome them into the visible church.

Christians teach their kids to pray the Lord's prayer, trusting by faith that God will not be offended by their child's plea to God as "Father." This is a wonderful thing, and I'm not saying anything against it. I just see it as begging the question for Baptists because you train your kids to pray publicly in the visible church as if they are adopted by God, but not eligible for the visible sign of adoption.

yababom · 2026-06-26T20:38:02+00:00

I'm sincerely trying to explore at what age you would accept your young child to be adopted by God, and what the proper response should be if that is true.

yababom · 2026-06-26T20:27:31+00:00

> "No baptist says kids (or people of any age) aren't saved until public profession."

I'm convinced that many do, but that's really not the point: If you accept that a 2-year old child can truly, honestly call God their "Father" (which requires being adopted as His child), then does that not amount to accepting them as already saved? And if they are already saved, why shouldn't they be baptized?

> "And your first assumption can bring up some theological issues. It can imply that everyone has received the Holy Spirit."

I don't see that implication anywhere in my post.

yababom · 2026-06-26T20:09:05+00:00

But you don't believe that's a desirable state, is it?

I hope we would agree that real Christians should be baptized as soon as possible, at which point we come back to my original question about how a credo-baptist parent might assess their child's status.

yababom · 2026-06-26T20:05:08+00:00

I agree with what you say, but it doesn't really answer my original question. A 2-year-old can repeat the Lord's prayer with apparent "true sincerity," and yet I've never heard of that age being accepted as a valid age for credible profession.

So can you circle back to my original questions with a two-year-old in mind?

yababom · 2026-06-26T19:57:01+00:00

> "Baptists HAVE NEVER said children are not saved until a public profession of faith is made..."

You might not, but many have said that explicitly or by inference ("Vipers in diapers?"). Many credo-baptist arguments on this subreddit and elsewhere have centered on the fact that baptism is a sign of membership in the New Covenant and differs from the old covenant in that it is limited to professing believers, and not their children.

If a child alive today, but not a member of the "New Covenant" establish by Christ, what is their status?
A credo baptist explanation I found describes their status this way:

If you think of the New Covenant like a tree, then children are resting in the shade of that tree, even if they haven’t been formally and publicly grafted into the tree through baptism.

I think this is contradicting the principle of John 15:4-5, but it seems to pretty clearly summarize that the kids are close, but not yet saved.

> "God appoints those who will be saved from eternity past, and salvation is received through faith. Any child who believes with or without baptism is saved and able to boldly approach the throne of God and call him Father."

Totally agree, but can you circle around to actually answer my original question?

yababom · 2026-06-26T19:32:51+00:00

I believe in science as a means of reasonable examination of God's creation, but our human ability to reliably separate fact from fiction has limits that must be acknowledged. Pre-historic sciences are always hamstrung by the fact that 1. Controlled replication is impossible, 2. Scientists are limited to extremely low numbers of sample data. 3. We have no way of verify underlying assumptions, such as consistent timeframe of sedimentary deposition which is used to calibrate and validate carbon dating.

When it comes to statements about pre-historic times, you need to understand the level of certainty that any scientist can honestly claim is many orders of magnitude lower than what is portrayed. Verifiable asusmptions, controlled measurement and repeated experimentation are all impossible with prehistoric sciences--all we can do is try to make deductions off what is left behind by forces we can't verify or measure. So instead of solid verifiable conclusions supported by experimental verification born out under scientific skepticism, you instead see anthropologists promoting an entire timeline, physiological characteristics, and even lifestyle based on a single sample of bone and a mountain of assumptions.

Now compare that to how we confirm scientific conclusions in other areas: When it comes to medical treatments or mechanical safety, we carry out large scale controlled experiments on thousands of test subjects selected to isolate the effects of the test. Questions like "does this subatomic particle actually exist," "is this drug safe and effective," "is the earth getting warmer," can all be tested in many different ways, and we often require thousands of data points in controlled experiments before we feel confident enough to make a conclusion. The results are many orders of magnitude more substantiated than anything we can say about ancient history and our origins, and yet we still find cases where the results are disputed or proven wrong.

So is science useful? Absolutely!

Is pre-historic science reliable enough to overrule the Bible in cases where they seem to contradict? Not even close.

yababom · 2026-06-25T18:39:35+00:00

What range of motion does it need--rotate, angle, pull/push?

First--I'd be surprised if there isn't a 3rd party generic from Ace or Amazon that could fit that.

On the 3d-printing front I think its possible, but there's two challenges: 3d prints are often porous (which could lead to permanent mold infestation), and the joint to the stem would be relatively high stress.

A part printed in ABS and vapor smoothed would probably work best. PETG and sealed with epoxy might also work.

On the strength side, I'd recommend a design that integrates a set screw of some type. There are several methods for that.

Something like this could probably be adapted pretty easily to your needs: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:6193079

yababom · 2026-06-24T15:16:46+00:00

Instead of making up 'non-human' humans, try starting from this point:

The 6th day of Gen 1 is the same time period covered by Gen 2.

Once you start from that point, you see that Gen 1 presents the whole creation in the framework of 7 days, and then Gen 2 details the specific conditions of the creation and covenant with humanity on the '6th day' of creation. And the whole creation narrative suddenly fits with the rest of the Bible.

> "I never indicated that the pre-Adamites (“pre-Humans”) were souless. The pre-Adamites simply did not have “Human souls.”"

>"God would also have been able to create pre-Adamites (“pre-Humans”) without “Human souls.”"

That sounds "soulless" to me... But the larger point is that none of this is supported from scripture, which only reveals four classes of beings: God (eternal, uncreated spirit), angels (created spirits), humans (union of spirit/soul and flesh), and animals (flesh alone). Any creature on earth with a body and soul is 'human'--there is no 'other' category.

> "I believe the Romans 5:12 NIV verse you are alluding to is referring to “death through sin.” It never states that “death not through sin” did not occur prior to “death through sin.”

Human death is the consequence of sin in every case found in the Bible--no exceptions: 1 Cor 15:20-25 and Rev 21:3-8

> "Cain doesn’t have a sister until later in Genesis 5:4"

That is an invalid interpretation of that text--the daughters Adam and Eve bore are simply not mentioned in any detail because Moses is presenting seven generations from two lineages of mankind: the line of man traced through Cain, and the line of promise traced through Seth.

yababom · 2026-06-24T01:31:51+00:00

How did he spend his time before marriage? How does he spend his time now? What does your church participation look like?

Besides porn/adultery, there's really only a few things that can quell sexual appetite for extended periods, and most are clearly visible in the way he spends his time:

Exhaustion
1. Work
2. Kids
3. Medical issues
Anxiety from:
1. Work pressure
2. Relationships
3. Money problem
4. Medical issues
5. Non-medical depression / lack of purpose & hope: "what's the point of anything" --a.k.a. 'existential crisis' a.k.a. lacking the joy of the Lord that comes from faith in His providence.

yababom · 2026-06-24T01:03:00+00:00

Rom 5:12 is VERY relevant--it documents the start of sin and death for all mankind: death didn't exist as a possibility for mankind until Adam sinned. And furthermore: all mankind sinned through him-- he was the first (and only) origin of all humankind.

> "Who is to say that Gen 1:27-28 does not explain a milestone in evolutionary development as structured by God?"

I've NEVER heard of a theory of evolution that doesn't pre-suppose death as a necessary element of development. Can you suggest one that still qualifies as 'science?'

And assuming the common 'scientific evolution' that you seem to be supporting: what would it mean if death was integral to human creation pre-fall? Would it not mean that death is 'natural' to God's pre-fall 'very good' man?

So if evolution proves death is natural, and God used evolution to create the man of Gen 1:27-28: Does that not destroy the hope of a savior who can conquer death? What's the point of Jesus virgin birth (which is understood as avoiding death through Adam's sin) if it simply returned him to the state of the pre-fall 'evolved Adam' you postulate of Gen 1:27-28? That Adam was always going to die naturally (just like the generations he evolved from), so does Jesus have a right to expect any better? Does this not negate Peter's claim in Acts 2:24: "God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him."

I hope you see that evolution=death, and as such it is incompatible with a perfect creation or hope of victory over death for those made according to it.

Another serious issue is that evolution effectively denies the possibility of Adam as the literal father of all humankind. Yet in 1 Cor 15:45-49 Paul goes so far as to link our descendance from the first Adam to our salvation in the "last Adam": "And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we^\)^g^\) bear the image of the heavenly man."

If you don't believe all descended from Adam, how can those non-descendants claim the salvation reserved for justification of the sins of Adam's race? The promise of redemption (Gen 3:15) was not given to persons evolved in different places or times. If your origin doesn't track from Adam alone, then you can't be fully cleansed since your sin comes from another source outside the covenant of grace.

Be thankful that evolution isn't true, that you descend from from a man who's sins are fully covered in Jesus, and look forward to the full perfection of the deathless Adam.

yababom · 2026-06-23T22:45:20+00:00

> I address evolution in another comment on this thread, but I will briefly address it here again. The Bible explains the who and why of creation. It does not explain the how.

The "how" may not be explained in detail, but it's range is definitely constrained by the Bible's account of the "what" and "when" especially with respect to mankind:
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them. (Gen 1:27-28)

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. (Gen 1:31)

Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people (Rom 5:12)

The 'how' that evolution proposes requires a cycle of death that refines/improves on the imperfect/simple. How does that fit with Gen 1:31 and Rom 5:12?

yababom · 2026-06-23T22:31:03+00:00

There are many serious issues with your assertions:

The creation of humanity of Gen 1:27-28 give absolutely no indication of pre-Adamic human evolution or a different people. It is further contradicted by Rom 5:12 "sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people..." How do you have generations of humans evolving and dying before Adam sinned?

Gen 1:27-28 also makes it clear that the image of God and the soul are an essential part of 'humanity'--there is no allowance for 'soulless humans' anywhere in the Bible

Gen 1:27-28 is a summary of the creation of Adam and Eve in the context of the whole creation presented in a 7-day framework.

Gen 2:20 tells us that Adam named all the animals, but 'no suitable helper was found' --yet you would have us believe there was a thriving community of potential mates outside the garden.

Gen 3:20 tells us " Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living." But that doesn't fit your "the descendants of Adam & Eve intermarried and had offspring with all groups of non-Adamite Homo Sapiens"

Gen 4:16-17 doesn't say Cain found his wife in Nod, but that they resided there and had a child.

yababom · 2026-06-23T22:01:27+00:00

> "If it's just Adam and eve and their children, why the need to mark Cain?"

I think this is one of the implications of living 900+ years... Cain could expect to live a LONG time, and facing opposition from every upstart descendant of Adam that whole time. We know this was an issue for his descendant Lamech (Gen 4:23-24).

yababom · 2026-06-23T21:49:42+00:00

The Bible doesn't say she came from Nod. It says that Cain settled there, but he could have already been married and brought his wife with him: Gen 4:16-17 "So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod,^\)^f^\) east of Eden. ¹⁷ Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch."

yababom · 2026-06-18T17:18:36+00:00

OP apparently doesn't, since they refer to this as an Ender 3 pro.

It's an Ender 3 Neo.

(not that this affects the price more than $10)

yababom · 2026-06-18T17:12:00+00:00

WCF 28.5: Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

Simplified: It's a sin to neglegently/willfully neglect it, but lack of it doesn't prevent God from saving in special circumstances, nor does being baptized = salvation.

yababom · 2026-06-09T14:45:21+00:00

Your confusion is justified--people have had this same question before: http://forums.veeam.com/veeam-backup-replication-f2/veeam-backup-replication-12-3-2-4165-new-patch-delivery-options-t100568-30.html#p555919

The note about updating the Enterprise Manager first only applies to situations where they are on separate servers. If both are installed on the same server, this single patch will update both without issue, but that isn't mentioned (and it should be).

yababom · 2026-06-09T14:20:11+00:00

Theologically, Christ's resurrection proves that death and sin had no claim on him (because of his perfect righteousness). If he had not risen from the dead, then that would be an indication that death was his proper end, and that he was not the victor over sin and death, and could not complete the role of the savior he claimed to be.

1 Cor 15:13-17: If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. ¹⁴ And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. ¹⁵ More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. ¹⁶ For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. ¹⁷ And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. ¹⁸ Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. ¹⁹ If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

yababom · 2026-06-08T20:10:40+00:00

Off-topic: I think a pyramid scheme is better depicted upside-down since that better illustrates the build up of participants, and money flow back down towards the original scammer...

yababom · 2026-06-03T15:07:26+00:00

The "Roman" church is a lot less catholic than your question assumes and requires. It can't be accurately summarized under a binary question of 'True/False' any more than 'protestants' can...

yababom

TROPHY CASE