# Are paedobaptized children by nature children of wrath?



## Radar (Jun 13, 2004)

uzzled:


----------



## pastorway (Jun 13, 2004)

Every human being born by natural generation is a child of wrath until they are born again (supernatural regeneration).

[b:1cb5e7535b]Ephesians 2[/b:1cb5e7535b]
1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. 

[b:1cb5e7535b]Romans 3[/b:1cb5e7535b]
23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

In fact, to deny this is to say that Christ's sacrifice as a substitute was not necessary for the child, but only the parent. The wages of sin is death, we are all conceived sinners and go astray from the womb, and we are all children of wrath, hence Christ had to bear that wrath on Himself on our behalf.

Paedobaptist or not, everyone is or was a child of wrath, and that status does not change until conversion.

Phillip


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 13, 2004)

[quote:cb24ef3284]
Every human being born by natural generation is a child of wrath until they are born again (supernatural regeneration). 
[/quote:cb24ef3284]

You got it. 

Radar, why do you ask this? Did you think they were not?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 13, 2004)

[quote:83c448dfcf][i:83c448dfcf]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:83c448dfcf]
[quote:83c448dfcf]
Every human being born by natural generation is a child of wrath until they are born again (supernatural regeneration). 
[/quote:83c448dfcf]

You got it. 

Radar, why do you ask this? Did you think they were not? [/quote:83c448dfcf]


However, this [i:83c448dfcf]regeneration, this conversion[/i:83c448dfcf] can ocur at birth and even baptism.

I believe Radars query borders more upon the idea that the paedobaptised child is now [i:83c448dfcf]holy[/i:83c448dfcf] (as per the 1st Corinthian passage), so how can they be both, a child of wrath and holy??? 

[Edited on 6-13-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 13, 2004)

God does not change. He is immutable. He hates those in adam, and loves those in Christ. I am both in Adam and in Christ. One imputation is overruled by another, and one takes precedence, but I am hates in Adam, and loved in Christ. If I were ONLY hated in Adam, then I would be damned. But since god loves me in Christ, God hates my sin in Adam, and myimperfection, on Christ instead of on me. Not just for a second, but an eternal hatred which is epitomized upon the cross of Christ. Christ's perpetual scars demosntrate God inifnite anger at my sin. He hates my sin still, but it has been imputed to Christ instead of me. At the same time, then, I could be a child of wrath in Adam, and a child of Christ ont he other. One overruling the other. 

Without dividing this into one sense and another sense in this way, it woudl be contradictory to say God hates me and lvoes me in Christ. Rather, God hates me in Adam (but that is impute dot Jesus so the hatred he bore instead of me) and he loves me in Christ (Christ' righteouness is imputed to me so that I am covered.)

Children are chidlren of wrath in Adam, but they can also be in Christ, and Federally holy.


----------



## pastorway (Jun 13, 2004)

The text says we &quot;were&quot; children of wrath. All of us who are saved were at one time (prior to our regeneration) children of wrath.

You are born a child of wrath and remain so until you are born again and then you are no longer a child of wrath.

Phillip


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 13, 2004)

Correct Phillip, but go further.

God does not change. He has an eternal hatred of my sin. Where does he vent his anger for my sin? On Christ, infinitely.

His eternal hatred of my sin is taken out on Christ's infinite sacrifice, thus I am no longer responsible for that sin (Christ is), but that does not turn God's anger away from Christ for that sin, rather He appeases the Father on the Cross for that sin infinitely. Now I am loved in Christ.

Remember that Paul does not say &quot;we were children of wrath&quot; but &quot;we were [b:2502a221af]by nature[/b:2502a221af] children of wrath...&quot;

Its relational. That sin, imputed to Christ, in Adam, for me, is now relational to &quot;Christ and God&quot; not &quot;me&quot;, (rather &quot;for&quot; me) but is still, in effect, hated. God hates my sin in Adam (imputed to Christ) and loves me in Christ (his righteousness imputed to me).

[Edited on 6-13-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 13, 2004)

But God chose to love us first and then sent Christ to save those He loves. That is important to remember. God loved us first and because of that He atoned for our sins in Christ.


----------



## Augusta (Jun 13, 2004)

A question about God imputing wrath due us onto Jesus. We know God is perfectly just and therefore His punishment will be perfectly just. Why then is Jesus' death on the cross and brief decent into hell enough for our sins but the reprobate will suffer eternally??


----------



## Radar (Jun 13, 2004)

*just asking, guys.*

In that letter, Paul writes to the church that they were dead, were children of wrath, etc. Yet he is writing to a church, paedos say, that contained a large number of paedobaptized members. Some still infants, some having grown up a little. He says they once &quot;were&quot; dead, once &quot;were&quot; children of wrath, yet here on the forum it is suggested that many of those paedobaptized members Paul writes to &quot;are&quot; still dead and &quot;are&quot; still children of wrath who have yet to become &quot;were.&quot;


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 13, 2004)

Radar,
The reference by Paul is to the believers and what state they were in prior to conversion.


----------



## Radar (Jun 13, 2004)

To understand better, can I boil it down to this:

In the credosphere
parents are diligent to convert their children,
and then children are baptized,

while

In the paedosphere,
children are baptized, and then
parents are diligent to convert their children.

Hmmm???


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 13, 2004)

[quote:c529a75eee][i:c529a75eee]Originally posted by Radar[/i:c529a75eee]
To understand better, can I boil it down to this:

In the credosphere
parents are diligent to convert their children,
and then children are baptized,

while

In the paedosphere,
children are baptized, and then
parents are diligent to convert their children.

Hmmm??? [/quote:c529a75eee]

The credo side of the coin is correct. However, in the realm of the reformed, our children are now holy. We believe them to be [i:c529a75eee]Christians[/i:c529a75eee] and part of the visible body. We trust that Gods promise will prevail; holiness will reign and sin will be destroyed. The exhortation to the believer is to raise our children in the way they should go and they will not depart.....The promise is to our children, and our childrens children......

Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

So, ultimately, we are faith filled about [i:c529a75eee]conversion[/i:c529a75eee]. Much like the saints mentioned in Hebrews ch 11, we look to Gods faithfullness and not our &quot;dilligence&quot;.

[Edited on 6-14-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Radar (Jun 13, 2004)

*are they Christians, and part of the body, while yet unconve*


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 13, 2004)

The bible calls them &quot;holy&quot; and are thus part of the covenant community of believers......


----------



## Radar (Jun 13, 2004)

*but still in need of conversion, right?*


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 13, 2004)

[quote:f272f8e92b][i:f272f8e92b]Originally posted by Radar[/i:f272f8e92b]
[b:f272f8e92b]are they Christians, and part of the body, while yet unconverted?[/b:f272f8e92b][/quote:f272f8e92b]

One issue that is very relevant to your current question is the doctrine of presumptive regeneration. No one can be [i:f272f8e92b]sure[/i:f272f8e92b] of your conversion completely except yourself. I may think that a fellow external brother in Christ has been born again, but in principle, neither I nor my brother in Christ's pastor can know for sure. So we have to [i:f272f8e92b]presume[/i:f272f8e92b] it on [i:f272f8e92b]some[/i:f272f8e92b] grounds, whether we're paedo or credo. The credobaptist sees biblical warrant to believe that a personal profession of faith and a changed external life on someone's part are the [i:f272f8e92b]only[/i:f272f8e92b] grounds upon which to presume this regeneration. The paedobaptist, on the other hand, sees biblical warrant to believe that in addition to profession of faith and fruit of repentance, another biblical ground upon which to presume this regeneration is God's various promises to bless the children of believers, and the graces He promises to them (see Gen. 17:7, Deut. 30:6, Ps. 22:9-10, Ps. 103:17-18, Prov. 3:33, Prov. 11:21, Isa. 54:13, Isa. 59:21, Isa. 65:23, Jer. 32:39, Luke 1:14-15, Acts 2:39, 1 Cor. 7:14). [b:f272f8e92b]We argue that [i:f272f8e92b]surely[/i:f272f8e92b] such promises from God (though [i:f272f8e92b]general[/i:f272f8e92b] and not universal in nature) are [i:f272f8e92b]at least[/i:f272f8e92b] an [i:f272f8e92b]equal[/i:f272f8e92b] ground on which to presume regeneration as is that ground of man's imperfect testimony and actions.[/b:f272f8e92b] Thus, in principle, we presume our baptized, covenant infant to be regenerate with the same hope that we presume our 12-year-old who just professed faith to be regenerate.

In Christ,


----------



## Radar (Jun 13, 2004)

*if the covenant paedobaptized infant is presumed regenerate,*

then is conversion not necessary for him?

If it is necessary for later conversion, there seems no need to presume his regeneration as an infant.

If there is no need for conversion, there seems to be no need to tell him about the time when he &quot;was&quot; dead, and &quot;was&quot; by nature a child of wrath.

Congratulations on your graduation. Now you can stay up all hours!


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 13, 2004)

[quote:bbab90e4e6][i:bbab90e4e6]Originally posted by Radar[/i:bbab90e4e6]
are they Christians, and part of the body, while yet unconverted? [/quote:bbab90e4e6]
MDB has made a good point for the paedo's here. I would only add that we are presuming the children to have the realities which the church confesses of all her members. It does not mean that they actually have them, no more than an adult believer may not actually have what he professes. This is why self-examination and the preaching of the whole counsel of God to the congregation is important. The Word will convict and convert both adult and young Pharisee's in her midst if there are some within who are not in fact converted yet despite their profession.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 13, 2004)

Exactly. As Patrick said, it does not [i:f21aa9a67e]necessarily[/i:f21aa9a67e] mean that they definitely have regeneration already, just that we treat them with the same hope we treat the rest of the external covenant. And as to your question about conversion being &quot;necessary,&quot; I assume you're talking about the external profession of conversion. And in that case, that simply further confirms what we already presumed to be promised by God when we baptized our child, analogously to how the fruit of a changed life greatly confirms and corroborated people's salvation after a profession of conversion.

BTW, thanx Radar - and yep, I'm definitely having a bunch of late nights!

In Christ,


----------



## Radar (Jun 13, 2004)

[quote:0f0fa26ee0][i:0f0fa26ee0]Originally posted by Me Died Blue[/i:0f0fa26ee0]
Exactly. As Patrick said, it does not [i:0f0fa26ee0]necessarily[/i:0f0fa26ee0] mean that they definitely have regeneration already, just that we treat them with the same hope we treat the rest of the external covenant. And as to your question about conversion being &quot;necessary,&quot; I assume you're talking about the external profession of conversion. And in that case, that simply further confirms what we already presumed to be promised by God when we baptized our child, analogously to how the fruit of a changed life greatly confirms and corroborated people's salvation after a profession of conversion.

BTW, thanx Radar - and yep, I'm definitely having a bunch of late nights!

In Christ, [/quote:0f0fa26ee0]

If it is true that &quot;it does not [i:0f0fa26ee0]necessarily[/i:0f0fa26ee0] mean that they definitely have regeneration already,&quot; then is it also true that [i:0f0fa26ee0]it [b:0f0fa26ee0]can[/b:0f0fa26ee0] possibly mean that they already definitely have regeneration already?[/i:0f0fa26ee0]

If so, why does Paul address the church about how all of them &quot;were&quot; dead and &quot;were&quot; by nature children of wrath, if Paul believed, as a paedo, that such a description is of little practicality to many in the congregation who were paedobaptized?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 14, 2004)

Because what he was referencing, to adult and infant, was their [i:f8b02c508d]past[/i:f8b02c508d] nature of wrath, thus his language &quot;were.&quot; Regenerate infants were once unregenerate just as much as was the elect thief crucified next to Jesus - and thus their total nature as children of wrath before God changed them is just as relevant for them as it is to any adult convert.


----------



## Radar (Jun 14, 2004)

I guess I was expecting that point to be made. I just do not find it to be satisfying.

&quot;in which you formerly [b:c86e4dee63]walked[/b:c86e4dee63] according to the course of this world&quot;

&quot;of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience&quot;

&quot;we [b:c86e4dee63]all[/b:c86e4dee63] formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, [b:c86e4dee63]indulging[/b:c86e4dee63] the desires of the flesh and of the [b:c86e4dee63]mind[/b:c86e4dee63]&quot;

&quot;which God prepared beforehand that we would [b:c86e4dee63]walk[/b:c86e4dee63] in them.&quot;

I do not find these to be descriptors of a 7 day old infant, who was then set free in Christ when he was 8 days old. The genres of walking, course, disobedience, lived in the lusts, indulging the desires, mind... are words of cognizance, malice, intent, choice. I am not denying that newborns are in Adam and fallen, but I am arguing that the descriptors Paul uses in this passage are not of my drooling newborn daughter, but of me as a cognative wilful person. I am not denying my daughter's spiritual state. I am merely affirming that Pauls' words do not describe her or any other infant. 

So here is my point: I affirm that God has kind promises to my children that do not apply to the reprobates children. I deny that such promises circumvent having ones heart opened to receive the gospel, performing cognative repentance, taking up a cross and following Christ. Rather, I affirm that God's kind promises to my child is a promise to me that His kindness will lead my child to repentance, in the Lord's timing. If God is Sovereign, and my children are a holy seed unto Him, there is no necessity to be, may I say, impatient with the timing of God's work in their heart. So, I view my children as a holy seed, sheep that Christ must gather, and will gather, but not during drooling infancy.

The promise about my seed is because of my relationship with Christ. They are a holy seed because they are my kids, not because they get baptized as infants. I really get a sense from some, perhaps mistaken on my part, that if I do not baptize my infants, then that promise is not for me.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 14, 2004)

[quote:30c02ee9c2][i:30c02ee9c2]Originally posted by Radar[/i:30c02ee9c2]
I guess I was expecting that point to be made. I just do not find it to be satisfying.

&quot;in which you formerly [b:30c02ee9c2]walked[/b:30c02ee9c2] according to the course of this world&quot;

&quot;of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience&quot;

&quot;we [b:30c02ee9c2]all[/b:30c02ee9c2] formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, [b:30c02ee9c2]indulging[/b:30c02ee9c2] the desires of the flesh and of the [b:30c02ee9c2]mind[/b:30c02ee9c2]&quot;

&quot;which God prepared beforehand that we would [b:30c02ee9c2]walk[/b:30c02ee9c2] in them.&quot;

I do not find these to be descriptors of a 7 day old infant, who was then set free in Christ when he was 8 days old. The genres of walking, course, disobedience, lived in the lusts, indulging the desires, mind... are words of cognizance, malice, intent, choice. I am not denying that newborns are in Adam and fallen, but I am arguing that the descriptors Paul uses in this passage are not of my drooling newborn daughter, but of me as a cognative wilful person. I am not denying my daughter's spiritual state. I am merely affirming that Pauls' words do not describe her or any other infant.[/quote:30c02ee9c2]

You seem to be minimizing the reality of total depravity in very young ones. Note Psalm 58:3 (ESV) &quot;The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies,&quot; and Psalm 51:5 &quot;Behold, I [David] was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.&quot; The biblical truth that we are [i:30c02ee9c2]all[/i:30c02ee9c2] slaves to sin and dead in our trespasses before being saved perfectly applies to infants, or so the above passages would seem to indicate. You admit that infants are fallen in Adam by nature, but seem to be either denying or minimizing the reality of that nature's affect on their being, and the truth of sin ruling their hearts. However, infants experience greed, and even the most subtle forms of sin are truly abominable to God. If it were not so, what are we to say of elect persons who die in infancy? Do they not have as much to thank Christ for as we do?

[quote:30c02ee9c2][i:30c02ee9c2]Originally posted by Radar[/i:30c02ee9c2]
So here is my point: I affirm that God has kind promises to my children that do not apply to the reprobates children. I deny that such promises circumvent having ones heart opened to receive the gospel, performing cognative repentance, taking up a cross and following Christ. Rather, I affirm that God's kind promises to my child is a promise to me that His kindness will lead my child to repentance, in the Lord's timing. If God is Sovereign, and my children are a holy seed unto Him, there is no necessity to be, may I say, impatient with the timing of God's work in their heart. So, I view my children as a holy seed, sheep that Christ must gather, and will gather, but not during drooling infancy.[/quote:30c02ee9c2]

Who are we to say that God will not perform such saving acts in &quot;drooling infancy&quot;? What about David? Psalm 22:9-10 (ESV) &quot;Yet you [God] are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts. On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother's womb you have been my God.&quot; And what of John the Baptist, who was &quot;filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb&quot;? With infants, all we have to go by are His promises, which are not time-specific. And when we have reason to believe His promise, we are commanded to then follow it with the sign He has placed upon that promise, otherwise the sign is not a reflection of our faith in His saving power at all.

[quote:30c02ee9c2][i:30c02ee9c2]Originally posted by Radar[/i:30c02ee9c2]
The promise about my seed is because of my relationship with Christ. They are a holy seed because they are my kids, not because they get baptized as infants. I really get a sense from some, perhaps mistaken on my part, that if I do not baptize my infants, then that promise is not for me. [/quote:30c02ee9c2]

Indeed, they get baptized [i:30c02ee9c2]because[/i:30c02ee9c2] they are a holy seed, not vice-versa. Moreover, God looks with favor upon the placing of that sacramental sign in their lives, and of our trusting enough in His promises for them to give them the sacramental sign commanded to those God has promised life. And since He uses the sacraments to further confirm and confer His grace, God then [i:30c02ee9c2]further[/i:30c02ee9c2] blesses them as members of the external covenant, as a blessing both for us because of our obedience in giving it to them, and for them because it is the sign He ordained to symbolize their own entrance into the external covenant community.

In Christ,


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 14, 2004)

*Just thought I'd address this related question*

[quote:9be79c01d3][i:9be79c01d3]Originally posted by Augusta[/i:9be79c01d3]
A question about God imputing wrath due us onto Jesus. We know God is perfectly just and therefore His punishment will be perfectly just. Why then is Jesus' death on the cross and brief decent into hell enough for our sins but the reprobate will suffer eternally?? [/quote:9be79c01d3] Jesus endured an [i:9be79c01d3]eternity[/i:9be79c01d3] of God's infinite wrath due to be poured out on not just one person but all of the elect. He was able to do this because he was himself God. In his infinite person he was able to sustain and absorb [i:9be79c01d3]and exhaust,[/i:9be79c01d3] infinity into infinity, all that holy indignation, whereas the wicked have a personal, infinite debt still to pay. The debt is infinte because God is infinite. 

The severity of the offense is related not so much to the one committing it as the person against whom it is committed. Think of stepping on a bug. You just killed it. Have you just committed a &quot;crime&quot; against it? No, not really. What about the dog who kills a kid? He's put down, and rightly so. But isn't he just a dumb animal? The offense was against a superior being. The penalty is his life. All sin, even the least, is the seed of an attempt to throw God off his throne.

Somebody here has it on their signature line: Sin is cosmic treason (crime). That about says it. 
This issue is also being discussed in the &quot;5 points&quot; thread.

[Edited on 6-14-2004 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 14, 2004)

[quote:e767e002b1][i:e767e002b1]Originally posted by Radar[/i:e767e002b1]
I do not find these to be descriptors of a 7 day old infant, who was then set free in Christ when he was 8 days old. The genres of walking, course, disobedience, lived in the lusts, indulging the desires, mind... are words of cognizance, malice, intent, choice. I am not denying that newborns are in Adam and fallen, but I am arguing that the descriptors Paul uses in this passage are not of my drooling newborn daughter, but of me as a cognative wilful person. I am not denying my daughter's spiritual state. I am merely affirming that Pauls' words do not describe her or any other infant. 

So here is my point: I affirm that God has kind promises to my children that do not apply to the reprobates children. I deny that such promises circumvent having ones heart opened to receive the gospel, performing cognative repentance, taking up a cross and following Christ. Rather, I affirm that God's kind promises to my child is a promise to me that His kindness will lead my child to repentance, in the Lord's timing. If God is Sovereign, and my children are a holy seed unto Him, there is no necessity to be, may I say, impatient with the timing of God's work in their heart. So, I view my children as a holy seed, sheep that Christ must gather, and will gather, but not during drooling infancy.
[/quote:e767e002b1]

So then, do you believe there is any hope for infants who die in infancy? You seem to be arguing that someone must live a conscious life of sin before he can be saved. If this is the case, then there is no hope for our infants who die in infancy. 

To presume them regenerate, or to include them as members of Christ's church, is not being inpatient with the soveriegn work of God. God commands us to bring our children up in the ways of the Lord, because they are His covenant children. They are set apart from the world to know Him. They are set apart to be disciples. Baptism is this public initiation of setting our children apart from the pagan world to be raised in the covenant blessings of God, just as for an adult disciple, baptism publically sets him apart from the world and consecrates him to God. 

MDB, also rightly points out, they are baptized because they are covenant children, not to make them covenant children. The promise is to them, and we as parents are required to teach our children what God requires of them and promises to them, with the hope that they grow into maturity of faith. If they, like Esau, reject the promise, then they will face severe judgment for their rejecting the God who so graciously raised them in the promises.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 14, 2004)

Exo 4:24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.
Exo 4:25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.
Exo 4:26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

Gen 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.


----------



## Radar (Jun 14, 2004)

*thanks for all of the offered clarifications*

For all of the controversy and importance of the subject, why does the New Testament not come out directly and say:

Infants must be baptized.

I know it neither says:

Infants must not be baptized.

It seems each side is drawing out implied theology, with each side disagreeing what is implied.

Teachably,

DopplerDude


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 14, 2004)

Do not the scriptures &quot;imply&quot; things and concepts?


----------



## Saiph (Jun 14, 2004)

Because God is immutable Radar:


Psalm 103:11-18

For as the heavens are high above the earth, 
So great is His mercy toward those who fear Him; 
As far as the east is from the west, 
So far has He removed our transgressions from us. 
As a father pities his children, 
So the LORD pities those who fear Him. 
For He knows our frame; 
He remembers that we are dust. 

As for man, his days are like grass; 
As a flower of the field, so he flourishes. 
For the wind passes over it, and it is gone, 
And its place remembers it no more. 
[b:ba732215dc]But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to 
everlasting on those who fear Him, 
And His righteousness to children's children, 
To such as keep His covenant, 
And to those who remember His commandments 
to do them. [/b:ba732215dc]

[Edited on 6-14-2004 by Wintermute]


----------



## Radar (Jun 14, 2004)

*presumptive...*

repentance.

I read the posts about presumptive regeneration and all, how both paedos and credos hold to it in some form, and that both sides end up baptizing non elect.

Thinking about credodom, there is the element of presumptive repentance. Credos presume the repentant one coming for baptism is in fact repentant, without being able to climb into his head or judge his heart.

In paedodom, where is one to find presumptive repentance? Do they presume the infant in fact did so (sorta like Lutherans?), or do they believe the infant will grow up and one day do so? Or do they believe the child is saturated in his holy home, and has no &quot;Repent!!!&quot; moment to refer to?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 14, 2004)

[quote:90ff0452ec]
Why then is Jesus' death on the cross and brief decent into hell enough for our sins but the reprobate will suffer eternally??
[/quote:90ff0452ec]

It would not have been accepted if he was not God. It had to be INFINITE, like Him. His divine nature fulfills the infinite nature of the atonement.

Its like asking, why do people spend eternity in hell for sinning for 80 years or so?

Each sin is an inifnite sin against an inifnite God because of the one to whom it is committed against.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 14, 2004)

[quote:e0624c3c04][i:e0624c3c04]Originally posted by Radar[/i:e0624c3c04]
repentance.

I read the posts about presumptive regeneration and all, how both paedos and credos hold to it in some form, and that both sides end up baptizing non elect.

Thinking about credodom, there is the element of presumptive repentance. Credos presume the repentant one coming for baptism is in fact repentant, without being able to climb into his head or judge his heart.

In paedodom, where is one to find presumptive repentance? Do they presume the infant in fact did so (sorta like Lutherans?), or do they believe the infant will grow up and one day do so? Or do they believe the child is saturated in his holy home, and has no &quot;Repent!!!&quot; moment to refer to? [/quote:e0624c3c04]

Radar,
The ordo salutis is sometimes seperate events (of course, it could be simultaneous). John the Baptist was regenerated in the womb; since scripture demnands repentance, he assuredly had to repent along some line of his life. The paedo demand, in Gods name that his children practice biblical repentance immediately; whenever that may be..........

Try and keep the ideas seperate;
regeneration, conversion, justification, sanctification and perseverance.


----------

