# "Do you consider your children to be Christians?"



## Pergamum (Jan 19, 2018)

Here is a sample conversation:

Person: "People should not be forced into any faith. We should not coerce anyone into our own belief system."

Me: "What about my own children, I raise them up from young to become Christians and teach them all other faiths are wrong."

Person: "Do you consider your children to be Christians?"

How do I answer as a baptist? I replied, "I believe they may have the seed of faith from very young." After all, they are raised in a Christian home. So what are they?

What do baptists call their children?


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (Jan 19, 2018)

Consistently, you would have to call them unregenerate heathen...


----------



## lynnie (Jan 19, 2018)

https://frame-poythress.org/indifferentism-and-rigorism/

I think every Baptist should read this. I thought my little kids had more simple faith than my husband I did. Age has nothing to do with it. I called mine Christians.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## KMK (Jan 19, 2018)

Define 'Christian'.


----------



## Jeff Low (Jan 19, 2018)

“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 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.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭2:38-39‬ ‭

“Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭16:30b-31‬ 

From my understanding, this properly pertains to our understanding of the covenant. In the Old Testament, the children of covenant parents are to be circumcised and seen as part of the covenant family and community. 

In the same strand, supported by the above passages, our children ought to be seen as organic members of the covenant family and community, also known as Christians.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 19, 2018)

Disciples are to be considered, Christians.
Discipleship is never equated, in the absolute sense, with regeneration and conversion.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## AnnaBanana (Jan 19, 2018)

Oh gosh, I'm chiming in here.


Can a child really be considered a Christian until he/she confesses with their own mouth that the Lord Jesus Christ is their Savior? Because, I remember around the age of six my parents had me baptized and I'm just being honest here, I didn't really know what was going on. I knew it had to do with God, but it wasn't until I found Him on my own that I now understand my relationship with Him. I appreciate Him, I desire to please Him and long to be with Him. But, I cannot say that I felt the same way when I was younger.

This kind of reminds me of a post that was recently posted about a new baby being born (Ryan&Amber) and the thread topic was something along the lines of a new worshiper of God. How do we know, for sure, that our children will be a worshiper of the Lord? Do you just assume and pray that they will because they will be brought up in that environment of knowing the Lord?

I do understand that children can talk and speak for themselves when they are around the age of...four, five? And truly may confess to know the Lord. BUT, Can that just be because of the environment that they've been around? I don't know, I guess I'm rambling on about my own experience.

Sorry for hijacking your thread!


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 19, 2018)

Jeff Low said:


> “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 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.”
> ‭‭Acts‬ ‭2:38-39‬ ‭
> 
> “Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.”
> ...


Yes, once they have received Jesus through faith and now have the Holy Spirit and Eternal Life.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 19, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> Here is a sample conversation:
> 
> Person: "People should not be forced into any faith. We should not coerce anyone into our own belief system."
> 
> ...


Our children, who still needs to get saved and become Christian due to the grace of God operating in their lives, just as we did as their parents.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 19, 2018)

AnnaBanana said:


> Oh gosh, I'm chiming in here.
> 
> 
> Can a child really be considered a Christian until he/she confesses with their own mouth that the Lord Jesus Christ is their Savior? Because, I remember around the age of six my parents had me baptized and I'm just being honest here, I didn't really know what was going on. I knew it had to do with God, but it wasn't until I found Him on my own that I now understand my relationship with Him. I appreciate Him, I desire to please Him and long to be with Him. But, I cannot say that I felt the same way when I was younger.
> ...


Christians are only those who have received the Lord Jesus as their Savior, and now have the Holy Spirit indwelling them.


----------



## Parakaleo (Jan 19, 2018)

My children are Christians in that they are baptized and have an outward connection to Christ and are counted among the people of God. However, they are warned nearly every day that if they do not have faith and do not believe the gospel that is preached to them, they are not true children of promise but are instead the children of bondage. We admonish them each day, saying, "Do you believe? Has God shown you grace? Where is your grace for your brother/sister?"


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 19, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> My children are Christians in that they are baptized and have an outward connection to Christ and are counted among the people of God. However, they are warned nearly every day that if they do not have faith and do not believe the gospel that is preached to them, they are not true children of promise but are instead the children of bondage. We admonish them each day, saying, "Do you believe? Has God shown you grace? Where is your grace for your brother/sister?"


Christians have to be indwelt though by the Holy Spirit, and to have eternal life in Christ Jesus.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jan 19, 2018)

AnnaBanana said:


> Can a child really be considered a Christian until he/she confesses with their own mouth that the Lord Jesus Christ is their Savior?



So, we lost our first child through a miscarriage. According to this logic you would have to say our child is under the judgment of God at this very moment. Through our understanding of the Scriptures, we think optimistically that our little one is safe in the Lord's love, worshipping Him, and we can agree with David and say "I know I will go to where our little one is." 

Do all infants who die go to a place of damnation for lack of profession and understanding? Surely not. Thankfully it is the work of God which saves apart from anything we can do.

A Biblical understanding of covenant theology, in my opinion, will give us a more optimistic view of our children.

Grace and peace.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 19, 2018)

> Can a child really be considered a Christian until he/she confesses with their own mouth that the Lord Jesus Christ is their Savior?



ANNA,
I notice you are PCA; Do u understand that what you have written is a credo Baptist principle?

We do look for outward confession as the child grows...for the supper and communication to the local church.

In Reformed circles, discipleship is synonymous with being a Christian. My daughter has been discipled since she was a babe; she is a Christian-possibly externally, but none the less. The church is made up of true believers and false; all have made a confession and have been baptized. So, to answer your question, yes, they can and are. Consider the Gen 17 and the Abrahamic covenant. All infants had the sign placed and were considered the 'people of God'. No covenant is abrogated.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## GlorytoGod (Jan 19, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Christians have to be indwelt though by the Holy Spirit, and to have eternal life in Christ Jesus.


I agree with you and also AnnaBanana. I am a life long Southern Baptist and walked the isle and was Baptized and “thought I was a Christian” as a late teen. I confessed my sins and that I believed that Jesus was my Lord and Savior and I was trying to be a good “moral” individual. I realized later after my real confession, repentance and conversion in my 20s that, as a teen, I was only just responding to the intense peer pressure of being one of the only young people left in the pew during the last night of a great revival week event with emotions and guilt running super high after what seemed like the twentieth stanza of just as I am. However, was I really regenerated as a result of being indwelt with the Holy Spirit. I don’t believe I was. Contrast that with my mid twenties real conversion when knew I was a Christian because I was a completely new creation in every way and hungered for God and his word and wanted to serve him with every ounce of my being. I believed the Holy Spirit was in my life giving me direction, guidance and discernment. I have 5 children and they are almost all full grown adults now (one is still a late teen) but each one has been raised in the church and witnessed their parents intense love of God and frequent praying and serving, teaching etc. They realize what is expected of them living in a Christian household so they all made confessions of faith earlier in their lives and were baptized and are very good moral-behaving kids and most of them teach and serve in the church. Do I believe they are all Christians. I do not but it is not something I can change and their salvation is not some conscious decision I can persuasively talk them into or something they have as a result of me being a Christian. Their salvation is only in the hands of our sovereign Lord. I can observe them and make an educated guess about their salvation based on my “fruit inspection” but I really do not know. I can only pray and hope they they are chosen and given the spirit but that is all. Sorry for the long post.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 19, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> So, we lost our first child through a miscarriage. According to this logic you would have to say our child is under the judgment of God at this very moment. Through our understanding of the Scriptures, we think optimistically that our little one is safe in the Lord's love, worshipping Him, and we can agree with David and say "I know I will go to where our little one is."
> 
> Do all infants who die go to a place of damnation for lack of profession and understanding? Surely not. Thankfully it is the work of God which saves apart from anything we can do.
> 
> ...


The Lord can freely decide to place infants under the saving Grace of the Cross, but would see the normal process as being receiving Jesus through faith in Him and His work upon the Cross.
I do see all aborted babies and those who die as babies as being covered by the Cross of Christ.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 19, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> ANNA,
> I notice you are PCA; Do un understand that what you have written is a credo Baptist principle?
> 
> We do look for outward confession as the child grows...for the supper and communication to the local church.
> ...


The NC includes as members only those in Christ now, and that would be when they received Jesus through faith, and was baptized by the Spirit into Christ and the one true Church.


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 19, 2018)

There is an old thread wherein @Joshua was searching online for a pair of Regeneration Goggles and couldn't find them.....this thread indicates that maybe this needs to be revisited......

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 19, 2018)

GlorytoGod said:


> I agree with you and also AnnaBanana. I am a life long Southern Baptist and walked the isle and was Baptized and “thought I was a Christian” as a late teen. I confessed my sins and that I believed that Jesus was my Lord and Savior and I was trying to be a good “moral” individual. I realized later after my real confession, repentance and conversion in my 20s that, as a teen, I was only just responding to the intense peer pressure of being one of the only young people left in the pew during the last night of a great revival week event with emotions and guilt running super high after what seemed like the twentieth stanza of just as I am. However, was I really regenerated as a result of being indwelt with the Holy Spirit. I don’t believe I was. Contrast that with my mid twenties real conversion when knew I was a Christian because I was a completely new creation in every way and hungered for God and his word and wanted to serve him with every ounce of my being. I have 5 children and they are almost all full grown adults now (one is still a late teen) but each one has been raised in the church and witnessed their parents intense love of God and frequent praying and serving, teaching etc. They realize what is expected of them living in a Christian household so they all made confessions of faith earlier in their lives and were baptized and are very good moral-behaving kids and most of them teach and serve in the church. Do I believe they are all Christians. I do not but it is not something I can change and only in the hands of a sovereign God. I can observe them and make a guess based on my “fruit inspection” but I really do not know. I can only pray and hope they they are chosen but that is all. Sorry for the long post.


the defining mark and evidence of being now included in the NC was the Holy Spirit now residing in you as per the scriptures.


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 19, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The NC includes as members only those in Christ now, and that would be when they received Jesus through faith, and was baptized by the Spirit into Christ and the one true Church.



Rev. Law and Scott have given ample reason to think otherwise....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Cymro (Jan 19, 2018)

Ah David, your repeated insistence of applying your experience as an adult onto a child is unbalanced. You are denying that the work of the Spirit is limited to adult responses, and not to children. How could you as an adult in the days of Zachariah and Elizabeth disqualify John the Baptist on the grounds of your interpretation “Christians have to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit,”when we are told otherwise in scripture? Luke1:41, “Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.” (V67) “Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost,” and baby John, a foetus in the womb (v15) “he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.” So he was indwelt before he was born! Having the same experience as the adults!
Children of believers are members of the visible church and of the covenant community before baptism. And when baptised thereafter, are to be reminded of the sign and seal of the promise placed upon them and urged to exercise faith in the Christ of the promise.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Cymro (Jan 19, 2018)

Anna, the sign and seal of the promise placed upon you as a child remained with you, for the promise does not deteriorate in the passage of time or is removed. The work of the Spirit is secret and indiscernible in a young life generally, but the seed grew and bore fruit in the blessed conversion you experienced.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 19, 2018)

Cymro said:


> Ah David, your repeated insistence of applying your experience as an adult onto a child is unbalanced. You are denying that the work of the Spirit is limited to adult responses, and not to children. How could you as an adult in the days of Zachariah and Elizabeth disqualify John the Baptist on the grounds of your interpretation “Christians have to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit,”when we are told otherwise in scripture? Luke1:41, “Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.” (V67) “Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost,” and baby John, a foetus in the womb (v15) “he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.” So he was indwelt before he was born! Having the same experience as the adults!
> Children of believers are members of the visible church and of the covenant community before baptism. And when baptised thereafter, are to be reminded of the sign and seal of the promise placed upon them and urged to exercise faith in the Christ of the promise.


All of those that you mentioned though fulfilled being indwelt by the Holy Spirit, so they would have met that requirement of having the Holy Spirit within them residing now.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 19, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> Rev. Law and Scott have given ample reason to think otherwise....


One has to be born again, per Jesus Himself, in order to be into his Kingdom, as the natural person is still lost in Adam and the Kingdom of Satan.


----------



## Parakaleo (Jan 19, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Christians have to be indwelt though by the Holy Spirit, and to have eternal life in Christ Jesus.



We must have language that can be used to distinguish between those who are outwardly and visibly part of the church (whom we hope are converted) and those who are elect and spiritually united to Christ (who really are converted). Without such language, how does a minister exhort those who are merely "called Jacob" to repent of their hypocrisy and be reconciled to God?

What do you call someone who calls Christ, "Lord" and does mighty works in his name? A Christian, I would hope. Yet, there will be many like this who will be told to depart from Christ on the last day.


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 19, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> One has to be born again, per Jesus Himself, in order to be into his Kingdom, as the natural person is still lost in Adam and the Kingdom of Satan.



I


Parakaleo said:


> We must have language that can be used to distinguish between those who are outwardly and visibly part of the church (whom we hope are converted) and those who are elect and spiritually united to Christ (who really are converted). Without such language, how does a minister exhort those who are "called Jacob" to repent of their hypocrisy and be reconciled to God?
> 
> What do you call someone who calls Christ, "Lord" and does mighty works in his name? A Christian, I would hope. Yet, there will be many like this who will be told to depart from Christ on the last day.



@Dachaser : I was going to respond, but Rev. Law has stated the issue so much better than I........


----------



## GlorytoGod (Jan 19, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> All of those that you mentioned though fulfilled being indwelt by the Holy Spirit, so they would have met that requirement of having the Holy Spirit within them residing now.


Agree


----------



## GlorytoGod (Jan 19, 2018)

Cymro said:


> Ah David, your repeated insistence of applying your experience as an adult onto a child is unbalanced. You are denying that the work of the Spirit is limited to adult responses, and not to children. How could you as an adult in the days of Zachariah and Elizabeth disqualify John the Baptist on the grounds of your interpretation “Christians have to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit,”when we are told otherwise in scripture? Luke1:41, “Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.” (V67) “Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost,” and baby John, a foetus in the womb (v15) “he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.” So he was indwelt before he was born! Having the same experience as the adults!
> Children of believers are members of the visible church and of the covenant community before baptism. And when baptised thereafter, are to be reminded of the sign and seal of the promise placed upon them and urged to exercise faith in the Christ of the promise.


I certainly Believe children as well as adults can be Christians. Regardless of age I think the requirement would be an indwelt Holy Spirit in order to be a true Christian.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jan 19, 2018)

Here are the two definitions of Christian:

Relating to or professing Christianity or its teachings.

A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 19, 2018)

Some context:

In the country where I serve and in other countries every citizen must have an identity card. And on that card a religion must be written. For children of Christian parents "Christian" is written. 

I believe this leads to "Identity Card Christianity" without personal conversion.


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 19, 2018)

My answer would be this: "I have no idea if they are truly God's child or ever will be. However, that is neither here nor there. What is important is what God has commanded that I do. God has commanded me as their parent to baptize them when they are born and raise them up learning about him and his commandments. I am to train them according to his word and teach them about salvation. Their salvation lies in his hands just as my salvation lies in God's hands and just as your salvation lies in God's hands. While they are under my supervision, I will correct their behavior to align with Scripture. If they make a profession of faith, then they can become a full member of the church and partake of the Lord's Supper. If at the age of 18 they refuse to make a profession of faith, then this becomes a matter of the church." 

I would want the guidance of the church to help me and my husband (who doesn't exist but neither do my children lol) to help us decide what the next steps are.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 19, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> Some context:
> 
> In the country where I serve and in other countries every citizen must have an identity card. And on that card a religion must be written. For children of Christian parents "Christian" is written.
> 
> I believe this leads to "Identity Card Christianity" without personal conversion.



This is a very strange law. What is the point?


----------



## Nate (Jan 19, 2018)

My answer is similar to Sarah's. Although, as they grow and mature and exhibit behaviors and perform actions that comport with Christian behaviors and actions, and verbally express faith in Christ and sorrow for sin, then in charitable judgment I consider and call them Christians when they are still children.

An important action of husband and wife is to actively discuss this both between themselves and with their children.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 19, 2018)

OPC'n said:


> This is a very strange law. What is the point?


To respect all the religions in the country. Serving your own religion is okay, but evangelizing other religions is frowned upon.


----------



## GlorytoGod (Jan 19, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Here are the two definitions of Christian:
> 
> Relating to or professing Christianity or its teachings.
> 
> A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.


I live in a community which is fairly typical of many communities in America where people are constantly professing to be Christians and getting baptized but yet are truly not Christians as defined by having been chosen by God and having the spirit within them.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jan 19, 2018)

GlorytoGod said:


> I live in a community which is fairly typical of many communities in America where people are constantly professing to be Christians and getting baptized but yet are truly not Christians as defined by having been chosen by God and having the spirit within them.


That is a good point. I would say though, that no human knows who is chosen and has the Holy Spirit. From our perspective, we must simply rely on what is outwardly seen and professed. 

So based upon this mainstream definition, a baptised child at the age of one who says "I am a Christian", should be called a Christian.

Maybe I'm wrong though brother.


----------



## GlorytoGod (Jan 19, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> That is a good point. I would say though, that no human knows who is chosen and has the Holy Spirit. From our perspective, we must simply rely on what is outwardly seen and professed.
> 
> So based upon this mainstream definition, a baptised child at the age of one who says "I am a Christian", should be called a Christian.
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong though brother.


I’ve been enjoying this board for a while and have never commented until my initial post on this thread today which was my inaugural post. I appreciate what I’ve learned from you all as brothers and sisters in Christ and will continue to learn from you all. Thank you for the many good posts.


----------



## Parakaleo (Jan 19, 2018)

GlorytoGod said:


> I’ve been enjoying this board for a while and have never commented until my initial post on this thread today which was my inaugural post. I appreciate what I’ve learned from you all as brothers and sisters in Christ and will continue to learn from you all. Thank you for the many good posts.



Very nice to have you. This is an outstanding attitude, brother. The Lord bless you for it.

For further study on this topic, I would commend this work on the the doctrine of the visible/invisible church distinction, found in Scripture.

Here's an excerpt:

_It needs to be recognized that although God deals with the visible church as one church, as one people of God, the external administration of the church with the preaching of the word, the ordinances and discipline in the present and in the long run (e.g., after the final judgment, in the eternal state) only truly benefit the invisible church or the elect. While outward professors receive temporary benefits resulting from intellectual insights from the word, pressure to conform to God's law, the outward influence from a society of family-oriented, ethical people, etc., they receive greater damnation on the day of judgment for spurning the great light to which they were exposed under continual gospel preaching._

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 20, 2018)

I would say: My children are being raised by Christians. But my definition of Christian is far narrower than that of many on this board. Albert Martin has a wonderful sermon: "What is a Christian?" that many would do well to listen to.
Spoiler: he is a Baptist.
Perg, since you must select one for the ID card, put "Christian," since that is the religion they are being taught. When the conundrum is discussed, you'll have a great opportunity to bring up the necessity of the New Birth.


----------



## KMK (Jan 20, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> So based upon this mainstream definition, a baptised child at the age of one who says "I am a Christian", should be called a Christian.



What kind of one year old can say, "I am a Christian?"


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 20, 2018)

KMK said:


> What kind of one year old can say, "I am a Christian?"



Psalm 22 :

Yet you are he who took me from the womb;
you made me trust you at my mother's breasts.
10 On you was I cast from my birth,
and from my mother's womb you have been my God.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 20, 2018)

We use the label "Christian" because of Acts 11:26, "And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch." Being disciples, our little children would be included as those who may be called Christian. Especially for paedobaptists, perhaps, since they have been baptized into membership in the visible church where disciples are discipled.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Beezer (Jan 20, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> Psalm 22 :
> 
> Yet you are he who took me from the womb;
> you made me trust you at my mother's breasts.
> ...



I believe the meaning of these verses should be understood figuratively and do not intend to communicate that David literally trusted/hoped in God as his deliverer and sustainer while a babe nursing on the breasts of his mother. It's a beautiful expression meant to convey that David trusted in the Lord from his earliest days.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 20, 2018)

Brian,
Why is this statement by David, irrational? Why is it unreasonable to think an infant has the ability to trust God if God gives that trust?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 20, 2018)

As well, these are in their truest sense the words of Christ himself, David being the type.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 20, 2018)

Brian:

You seem to be making a distinction without a difference. Why is this figurative if "David trusted in the Lord from his earliest days?"

Of course our children should be identified as Christian (they aren't Muslims, Jews, Hindi, "nones," etc.), even if you mean by that, as credo-baptists, only that they are being brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord by Christians who are encouraging them to trust in Christ alone.

I, of course, as a paedo-baptist, regard the children of my Baptist friends as much Christian as I would my own (mine have all grown up and made professions of faith), though such Baptist children have not received the sign and seal of admission into the visible church.

By virtue of their birth to believers, all such children, I believe, have an interest in the covenant of grace and a right to the sign and seal of it (by baptism, solemnly admitting them into the visible church), even if their parents do not bring them for baptism. I regard them as properly part of the Christian community, even if their parents don't, because I believe, with all my heart, that God says that they are.

If you were asking, Trevor, whether they are Christians from your perspective as a credo-baptist, my answer is "yes, particularly for purposes of religious identification to the civil government." But, in truth, I believe them to be Christians, as they are part of Christ's church, being taught the truth, and encouraged to love and trust Him who is our only Lord and Savior. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 1


----------



## Beezer (Jan 20, 2018)

Scott & Allan,

Good questions and comments. 

I suppose the point I wanted to make is the verses in Psalm 22 shouldn't be used as a proof text of sorts to support the notion that a one year old can personally declare "I am a Christian" as it appeared Perg was implying in response to Ryan's quote below. 

The treatment and identification of that one year old as a Christian by his/her parents is one thing; the ability of that one-year old to self-identify as one is quite another. In this sense I meant to convey I don't think Psalm 22:9 should be taken so literally.

Does this make sense?



Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> So based upon this mainstream definition, a baptised child at the age of one who says "I am a Christian", should be called a Christian.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jan 20, 2018)

KMK said:


> What kind of one year old can say, "I am a Christian?"


Lol, is it rare for a one year old to talk? Our son will be 2 tomorrow and he speaks clear full sentences.


----------



## Beezer (Jan 20, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Lol, is it rare for a one year old to talk? Our son will be 2 tomorrow and he speaks clear full sentences.



Your boy sounds exceptionally bright to me! However, I only have my son to compare to. My poor guy seems to have inherited his father's smarts (j/k). Hahaha.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 20, 2018)

I began talking, they say, at quite an early age and have not stopped since (my Dad used to playfully say)! We taught our children to self-identify as Christians as soon as we began teaching them anything, which was right away. 

We also taught them that they needed to trust Christ alone and repent of their sins, over and again. I made all this quite clear in the recent discussion of why our children, and all of us, need to be converted, and why I don't presume anything but seek to embrace God's promises and to come to Christ myself (as He has commanded/invited in Matt. 11:28-30) and to urge all about me (certainly including my children) to do the same. 

As Bruce said recently, we all need the gospel, and part of being a Christian is coming more and more to realize that. Children of believers are partakers of the covenant outwardly. The encouragement to us all is to be inwardly what we are outwardly by virtue of our baptism. For paedo-baptists, this encouragement applies not only to us and others who have professed faith, but to our children, who have been baptized because they, as the seed of the faithful, are properly part of the visible church (WCF 25.2).

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 20, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> I
> 
> 
> @Dachaser : I was going to respond, but Rev. Law has stated the issue so much better than I........


Within the physical body, the local churches, there are both saved and lost, but only those saved are to be seen as included under the NC now.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 20, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> We must have language that can be used to distinguish between those who are outwardly and visibly part of the church (whom we hope are converted) and those who are elect and spiritually united to Christ (who really are converted). Without such language, how does a minister exhort those who are merely "called Jacob" to repent of their hypocrisy and be reconciled to God?
> 
> What do you call someone who calls Christ, "Lord" and does mighty works in his name? A Christian, I would hope. Yet, there will be many like this who will be told to depart from Christ on the last day.


There is the Church, as in both lost and saved assembling together, and just the saved in the true Church of Christ, Church of the Firstborn.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 20, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Here are the two definitions of Christian:
> 
> Relating to or professing Christianity or its teachings.
> 
> A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.


Neither definition though seems to fit the biblical definition given to us though.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 20, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Brian:
> 
> You seem to be making a distinction without a difference. Why is this figurative if "David trusted in the Lord from his earliest days?"
> 
> ...


They would be come members of the one true Church at time of conversion, when they have received Jesus as their Lord, and then have the Holy Spirit in them.


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 20, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Within the physical body, the local churches, there are both saved and lost, but only those saved are to be seen as included under the NC now.



This is a good summary of the difference between threshold Christianity and covenantal Christianity.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 20, 2018)

Are y'all drawing from 19th-century decisionalism theology? Yes, we are filled by the Holy Spirit -- how else would we be converted? This would be true of the infant, the gross sinner, the invalid, or the average Joe.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 20, 2018)

jwithnell said:


> Are y'all drawing from 19th-century decisionalism theology? Yes, we are filled by the Holy Spirit -- how else would we be converted? This would be true of the infant, the gross sinner, the invalid, or the average Joe.


The infant cannot receive Jesus through faith in order to have the Holy Spirit, as he does not come through the water baptism being administered on the person, but by and through faith in Jesus Christ.
Would be drawing from the scriptures that salvation theology.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 20, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> This is a good summary of the difference between threshold Christianity and covenantal Christianity.


When you say threshold, do you mean one must receive Jesus by faith as messiah/Lord first in order to be in the Church?
As Reformed baptists do see the distinction between the visible/invisible Church, and just who would be include din the NC itself, and still hold to Covenant theology.


----------



## Cymro (Jan 20, 2018)

David I am confused as to what you are driving at. You wrote that,”an infant cannot receive Jesus by faith in order to have the Holy Spirit.” I point you to my previous post respecting John the Baptist who was filled with the Holy Ghost in the womb before He could exercise faith! Regeneration by the Spirit is the prerogative of God whether in the womb or in an old people’s home! God’s sovereignty has no limitations. If you note Luke1:44 Elisabeth records that “ the babe leaped in my womb for joy.” Is not joy one of the first fruits of the Spirit?

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 20, 2018)

Bryan,


Dachaser said:


> The infant cannot receive Jesus through faith in order to have the Holy Spirit, as he does not come through the water baptism being administered on the person, but by and through faith in Jesus Christ.
> Would be drawing from the scriptures that salvation theology.



Preposterous.

Who are u to say that God cannot regenerate and convert at whatever time He so pleases. Consider the elect infant dying in infancy. He must be converted, just like anyone else, under the preaching of the word and in response, accept, believe, agree, receive, repent, etc.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 20, 2018)

"Accept, agree, receive" are terms that came into usage with Finney, Moody, et al. They reflect an axiom that God is wringing His hands hoping someone will believe Him. He commanded that I believe; He commanded me to rear my Christian children in the faith; and He irresistibly drew us to Him so we could respond in faith. He will keep us to the end.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 20, 2018)

Cymro said:


> David I am confused as to what you are driving at. You wrote that,”an infant cannot receive Jesus by faith in order to have the Holy Spirit.” I point you to my previous post respecting John the Baptist who was filled with the Holy Ghost in the womb before He could exercise faith! Regeneration by the Spirit is the prerogative of God whether in the womb or in an old people’s home! God’s sovereignty has no limitations. If you note Luke1:44 Elisabeth records that “ the babe leaped in my womb for joy.” Is not joy one of the first fruits of the Spirit?


John was an exception to the normal way the Lord does things regarding a person being born again and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. He was the chosen Forerunner before Messiah, the one who was to come in the very spirit and power to preach as Elijah had from the Lord. can the lord save infants, yes He can, but that would be unusually, and not the normal way that He saves us.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 20, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Bryan,
> 
> 
> Preposterous.
> ...


I agree with you that God can save whenever and whoever he wills, but that it is still not the normal scriptural way that he gives His saving grace to infants while dunked into the water.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 20, 2018)

jwithnell said:


> "Accept, agree, receive" are terms that came into usage with Finney, Moody, et al. They reflect an axiom that God is wringing His hands hoping someone will believe Him. He commanded that I believe; He commanded me to rear my Christian children in the faith; and He irresistibly drew us to Him so we could respond in faith. He will keep us to the end.


Yes, the Lord commands us as the saved parents to raise up our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord, but they are saved at His ordained and sovereign time . that can be at age 5, 10, or right on the death bed.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 20, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> No one has suggested what you underhandedly accuse in the last sentence.


I will go back and reedit that out, as I do not desire to offend anyone here.


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 20, 2018)

jwithnell said:


> "Accept, agree, receive" are terms that came into usage with Finney, Moody, et al. They reflect an axiom that God is wringing His hands hoping someone will believe Him. He commanded that I believe; He commanded me to rear my Christian children in the faith; and He irresistibly drew us to Him so we could respond in faith. He will keep us to the end.



Brian is a blessed man, Jean!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 20, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I agree with you that God can save whenever and whoever he wills, but that it is still not the normal scriptural way that he gives His saving grace to infants while dunked into the water.
> 
> John was an exception to the normal way the Lord does things regarding a person being born again and indwelt by the Holy Spirit





Sir,
Again, first of all, no one mentioned 'water'. However, If God wants to use the sacrament to regenerate his elect infant, He can and does at times. When u mention 'normal', you miss the theological ordo in that all peoples are regenerated apart from anything, except God's good pleasure. See John 3:3. As well, conversion (faith and repentance) occurs in elect infants that die in infancy at times, else, no infant dying could be saved. Having said all of that, I don't believe your ducks are in their rows.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 20, 2018)

jwithnell said:


> "Accept, agree, receive" are terms that came into usage with Finney, Moody, et al. They reflect an axiom that God is wringing His hands hoping someone will believe Him. He commanded that I believe; He commanded me to rear my Christian children in the faith; and He irresistibly drew us to Him so we could respond in faith. He will keep us to the end.



I disagree that these terms are contemporary:

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, _even_ to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Jn 1:10–13.

My usage of the other treatments are synonymous terms in respect to the gospel call. Agreeing with the call, agreeing with the terms of the gospel, etc. A man repenting agrees that he is in sin and lost. Our salvation is in one way, monergistic and in the other not; for example, it is I who repents-God does not repent for me! It is I who accepts! It is _I who receives. _


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 20, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Sir,
> Again, first of all, no one mentioned 'water'. However, If God wants to use the sacrament to regenerate his elect infant, He can and does at times. When u mention 'normal', you miss the theological ordo in that all peoples are regenerated apart from anything, except God's good pleasure. See John 3:3. As well, conversion (faith and repentance) occurs in elect infants that die in infancy at times, else, no infant dying could be saved. Having said all of that, I don't believe your ducks are in their rows.


The ordinances are means /channels of grace unto us from the Lord, but not saving grace unto us from the Lord, as he saves us through the hearing of the Gospel, and the Holy Spirit granting to us the means to receive Jesus through faith in Him and become born again. The ordinances are to us after we have been reborn from above.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 20, 2018)

Uhhh, not entirely
WCF ch 28:
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.

VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is 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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 20, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Uhhh, not entirely
> WCF ch 28:
> 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.
> 
> VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is 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.


http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/personal/baptism_faq.html
Reformed Baptists views on this issue.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 20, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Is that the same as in the 1689 Confession of Faith?



29:1 of the LBC is similar:

29.1 Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be to the person baptized a sign of fellowship with Christ in his death and resurrection, of being grafted into him,1 of remission of sins,2 and of giving up oneself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.

The other section, for obvious reasons, is excluded.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 20, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> the Lord can the lord save infants, yes He can, but that would be unusually, and not the normal way that He saves us.


David,

Your statement seems to me to be at odds with your claimed confession:

Paragraph 3. *Elect infants* _dying in infancy_ are *regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit*;*10* who works when, and where, and how He pleases;11 so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. 
*10* John 3:3, 5, 6 
*11* John 3:8​
Please elaborate.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 20, 2018)

What seems to be missing from the equation here is the actual day-to-day practice of child-raising within the church. You are raising your children to profess faith the whole time, even though they have not made an official profession. If I were to inquire of your children who the true God was, or how they could find forgiveness of sins, I suspect I would hear Christian answers both from Baptist and Presbyterian children, not Muslim or Atheist answers. These children are visibly professing faith along with their parents, even though they are not yet capable of interpreting their own experience yet to know if they are born again. This is where the judgment of charity comes in. You can't know your children are visibly unregenerate until they self-consciously contradict the profession you are raising them to make. Until that point, these children are joining their public voices with that of the visible church (i.e. the baptized). This is a credo dilemma. How can you raise your children to publicly profess faith in Christ during their whole childhood and yet at the same time say they are not part of the visible church?

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jan 20, 2018)

Puritan Sailor said:


> This is where the judgment of charity comes in. You can't know your children are visibly unregenerate until they self-consciously contradict the profession you are raising them to make. Until that point, these children are joining their public voices with that of the visible church (i.e. the baptized).



And the Paedos hit a walk off home run! The game's all over folks. 

Just kidding, but that was really good.


----------



## TheInquirer (Jan 20, 2018)

Puritan Sailor said:


> What seems to be missing from the equation here is the actual day-to-day practice of child-raising within the church. You are raising your children to profess faith the whole time, even though they have not made an official profession. If I were to inquire of your children who the true God was, or how they could find forgiveness of sins, I suspect I would hear Christian answers both from Baptist and Presbyterian children, not Muslim or Atheist answers. These children are visibly professing faith along with their parents, even though they are not yet capable of interpreting their own experience yet to know if they are born again. This is where the judgment of charity comes in. You can't know your children are visibly unregenerate until they self-consciously contradict the profession you are raising them to make. Until that point, these children are joining their public voices with that of the visible church (i.e. the baptized). This is a credo dilemma. How can you raise your children to publicly profess faith in Christ during their whole childhood and yet at the same time say they are not part of the visible church?



I never tell my children to profess anything they dont really believe. No dilemma here.


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 21, 2018)

Puritan Sailor said:


> What seems to be missing from the equation here is the actual day-to-day practice of child-raising within the church. You are raising your children to profess faith the whole time, even though they have not made an official profession. If I were to inquire of your children who the true God was, or how they could find forgiveness of sins, I suspect I would hear Christian answers both from Baptist and Presbyterian children, not Muslim or Atheist answers. These children are visibly professing faith along with their parents, even though they are not yet capable of interpreting their own experience yet to know if they are born again. This is where the judgment of charity comes in. You can't know your children are visibly unregenerate until they self-consciously contradict the profession you are raising them to make. Until that point, these children are joining their public voices with that of the visible church (i.e. the baptized). This is a credo dilemma. How can you raise your children to publicly profess faith in Christ during their whole childhood and yet at the same time say they are not part of the visible church?



I don't want to raise my children to publicly profess faith in Christ; I want to raise them to see their need of the Saviour, while I pray He gives them saving faith.

They can believe that God exists, and that Christ is the way of salvation, without being born again. It's regeneration by the Holy Spirit that they need. You are mistaking the assent of facts about God with a placing of trust in God for eternal salvation.

EDIT: I also have a problem with your statement, "You can't know your children are visibly unregenerate until they self-consciously contradict the profession you are raising them to make."

The presupposition is wrong; the stated goal is wrong; the emphasis is wrong. You are trying to judge credobaptist practices as if we built them using paedobaptist presuppositions, and then claim we have a dilemma. This so-called 'dilemma' is the product of either a poor understanding of our beliefs and practices, or an unknowing misrepresentation of the same.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheInquirer (Jan 21, 2018)

> WCF ch 28:
> 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.
> 
> VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is 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.



As a Baptist I just cant see how VI. possibly coheres with I. I keep trying to understand because I love Reformed theology and how much P&R brothers and sisters love God and honor his word and I’ve been incredibly blessed by the tradition but for me, it just doesnt compute. I’ve read Calvin, I’ve read Berkhof, I’ve read others, I’ve read many of the posts here at PB, I’ve read the proof texts and for the life of me, I just dont get how you can have that definition of baptism and then try to fit unregenerate kids into it.

Maybe in eternity we’ll all laugh at how slow and dull I was during my pilgrimage on planet earth....

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Von (Jan 21, 2018)

Three points I would like to throw in at this:

1) Love hopes all things: I teach my children in the way of the Lord so that they will see their need for Christ and repent from their sins. Sometimes I do see sparks that look like the Lord is working with them and other times, I do not.
But I continue to hope that they are saved. (because i love them)

2) Shouldn't every Christian continually test themselves to see whether they are in the faith? Let me rephrase: Shouldn't every Christian child continually test themselves to see whether they are indeed a Christian child?

3) John the Baptist was saved from infancy (and he was John...the BAPTIST ).

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 21, 2018)

I'm thankful for the voices of the various ordained ministry on the PB, such as Patrick's (Puritan Sailor) above. It's good to remember sometimes that such voices well represent the Reformed and Puritan covenantal view of baptized children and other members of the visible church. Baptists and other traditions shouldn't take offense when Reformed and Presbyterian distinctions are expressed on a R&P board. Questions are great, pushback is great when respectfully done with a desire to understand.

Edited to say that I also really appreciate the voice of the ordained Baptist brethren on the board! They are without fail wise, and speak with maturity on these important matters.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Cymro (Jan 21, 2018)

All Presbyterians believe and teach what David calls the “normal “ means, that sinners must have repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ. And they do so to those of an age of understanding. On that there is no disagreement, but the debate is about infants.
Do we agree that God elects and predestinates before the seed is in the womb or even before the foundation of the world? Do we agree that He is not dependent on powers, opinions and determinations outside of His inscrutable wisdom? Do we agree as with Jeremiah’s experience “before I formed thee in the belly (no existence) I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto many nations” Being set apart to a determined course and calling in life? Again with Samson, “For the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb.” His future determined when he was not!
If then He predetermined all things, our existence, our course of life, and our salvation, by His good pleasure, then why do we restrict Him in His determination to send grace to the soul of an elect infant? We cannot curtail the Almighty and tie Him to a crisis experience of an adult, for His grace must encompass the children of promise. Some die, others with the same seed of grace are fostered, developed and matured under the teaching of covenant parents and mother church.
As a young Christian I worked with an older believer. In the the rashness of my youth I probed him concerning when he was converted. He graciously answered,”I don’t know, but as far back as my infancy I have always loved the Lord Jesus.”

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 1


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 21, 2018)

E.R. CROSS said:


> I don't want to raise my children to publicly profess faith in Christ; I want to raise them to see their need of the Saviour, while I pray He gives them saving faith.
> 
> They can believe that God exists, and that Christ is the way of salvation, without being born again. It's regeneration by the Holy Spirit that they need. You are mistaking the assent of facts about God with a placing of trust in God for eternal salvation.
> 
> ...





TheInquirer said:


> As a Baptist I just cant see how VI. possibly coheres with I. I keep trying to understand because I love Reformed theology and how much P&R brothers and sisters love God and honor his word and I’ve been incredibly blessed by the tradition but for me, it just doesnt compute. I’ve read Calvin, I’ve read Berkhof, I’ve read others, I’ve read many of the posts here at PB, I’ve read the proof texts and for the life of me, I just dont get how you can have that definition of baptism and then try to fit unregenerate kids into it.
> 
> Maybe in eternity we’ll all laugh at how slow and dull I was during my pilgrimage on planet earth....



@Dachaser said:
When you say threshold, do you mean one must receive Jesus by faith as messiah/Lord first in order to be in the Church?
As Reformed baptists do see the distinction between the visible/invisible Church, and just who would be include din the NC itself, and still hold to Covenant theology.



Fellas,
The O.T. and N.T. use the concepts and language of "closer" and "farther" from God and His kingdom. Why? In a covenantal system, the language and concepts make perfect sense. God knows whom He has foreordained and will will bring those results to pass, come the proverbial "hell or high water". In a "threshold" system, they make no sense for this reason: if one is right-outside-the-threshold" or 10,000 miles away, the distinction between the two is utterly irrelevant since the person is on the wrong side of the threshold.
*diclaimer up front: I am not saying one does not need to trust in the person and work of Christ, rather I am saying this is not done once, but day after day, year after year. This is the difference between covenantal thinking and threshold thinking.

If God has revealed Himself covenantally (to which both of our confessions claim ascent), why would we or should we impose a "threshold" framework upon it? Neither the Presbyterian nor the Baptist knows whether our children are/will be ultimate children of the King in the ultimate, salvific sense. But we bring them to the means of grace, we talk of the Law and of the Gospel so they (at least) intellectually understand their natural estate before God, and, yes, we baptize them. Not because they crossed the threshold, but because God gave the sacraments to the visible church to disseminate to "them and their seed"; to visibly identify them with the people of God and to put the kingdom right in front of their (and everyone else's) eyes.

When the Gospel is preached, week after week, Lord's Day after Lord's Day, it is to the people of God. Why? Because I or they need to go across the threshold? No, rather because I'm a fickle man with ever-fickle desires (as a Christian) and I have un-godly desires often (as a Christian) and because, frankly, sometimes I don't believe the things God has told me (as a Christian) and I need to hear them again and again and again. This is not because I haven't crossed the threshold, but because sometimes I am "closer" and sometimes I am "farther".

It is my belief, as @jwithnell stated so well above, that the "threshold" theology is revivalistic and decidedly, anti-covenantal. It corrupts the covenantal way in which God has revealed Himself and His kingdom. This cannot lead to a good end. It needs to be jettisoned.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## nick (Jan 21, 2018)

AnnaBanana said:


> How do we know, for sure, that our children will be a worshiper of the Lord?



How do you know for sure the person next to you at church is a true Christian? God does not require that we know someone's heart, because we can never truly know this side of Heaven.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## lynnie (Jan 21, 2018)

Bingo.
_
How do you know for sure the person next to you at church is a true Christian? God does not require that we know someone's heart, because we can never truly know this side of Heaven._

I know an apostate. Gloriously saved ( apparently) at about age 20, walked with the Lord for many years and led scores of people to the Lord here and on the mission field- people who are still serving the Lord and some of them missionaries as well.

So now he is an apostate blasphemer. Not just a private one, but one who tries to deliver evangelicals from the same cult born-again Christian faith in our alleged God Jesus. If you knew the guy before and after it is mind boggling.

Once you know an apostate up close, it makes all these worries about kids no different from such worries about an older convert. Age 3, age 20, you don't know who will make it to the end.


----------



## ZackF (Jan 21, 2018)

Was Jesus a Christian when he was an infant?


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 21, 2018)

Jesus was given the sign of the covenant as an infant. He was welcome into the parts of the temple open to males within the covenant. He was as much a part of the church as one of my children. Clearly he was taught the scriptures and the faith as was evident before the temple teachers who were amazed at his knowledge. (While I acknowledge it's hard to parse out what he knew as a covenant child and what he knew as God.)

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 21, 2018)

Zack:

Is that a serious question or an attempt at humor (sardonic, ironic, or the like)?

In any case, it's simply inappropriate. To be a Christian is to have faith in Jesus Christ, either under the shadows of the older dispensation of the covenant of grace or the substance of the newer.

Christ is the source and object of faith, but He's not a sinner needing saving, who must look to another to provide it. Yes, He perfectly trusted His Father, but it was always as the unique person (the God-man) who came to do what He uniquely did (in His active and passive obedience). 

It is appropriate to speak only of mere men as "Christians," not any of the members of the Blessed Holy Undivided Trinity (including the Second Person at and after the Incarnation; Heb. 13:8). 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 21, 2018)

Cymro said:


> All Presbyterians believe and teach what David calls the “normal “ means, that sinners must have repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ. And they do so to those of an age of understanding. On that there is no disagreement, but the debate is about infants.
> Do we agree that God elects and predestinates before the seed is in the womb or even before the foundation of the world? Do we agree that He is not dependent on powers, opinions and determinations outside of His inscrutable wisdom? Do we agree as with Jeremiah’s experience “before I formed thee in the belly (no existence) I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto many nations” Being set apart to a determined course and calling in life? Again with Samson, “For the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb.” His future determined when he was not!
> If then He predetermined all things, our existence, our course of life, and our salvation, by His good pleasure, then why do we restrict Him in His determination to send grace to the soul of an elect infant? We cannot curtail the Almighty and tie Him to a crisis experience of an adult, for His grace must encompass the children of promise. Some die, others with the same seed of grace are fostered, developed and matured under the teaching of covenant parents and mother church.
> As a young Christian I worked with an older believer. In the the rashness of my youth I probed him concerning when he was converted. He graciously answered,”I don’t know, but as far back as my infancy I have always loved the Lord Jesus.”


As a Baptist, I agree with all of this, and will add that in my RB circles, the "Crisis event" is not sought for even among adults. Some in my church DO remember exactly the moment of conversion, many of us do not--it doesn't matter. What matters is whether we are now, this moment, repenting and believing. We are not exhorted to examine ourselves to see if we ever entered the faith, but to examine and see whether we are now there.
The LBCF chapter on assurance of grace is a wonderful resource on this.


----------



## ZackF (Jan 21, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Zack:
> 
> Is that a serious question or an attempt at humor (sardonic, ironic, or the like)?



No humor intended at all. Of course Jesus did not need a Messiah. With the utmost respect to your position as a doctor and minister I disagree about my question's propriety. Did the human _infant_ Child of God know the Father or not? Surely He did! He was perfect. I'm sure Aquinas or other medieval scholastics addressed the topic. Now how young a wicked and rebellious child of Adam can come to the faith by the Spirit is up to Him. Four, three, two, one....?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 21, 2018)

E.R. CROSS said:


> I don't want to raise my children to publicly profess faith in Christ; I want to raise them to see their need of the Saviour, while I pray He gives them saving faith.
> 
> They can believe that God exists, and that Christ is the way of salvation, without being born again. It's regeneration by the Holy Spirit that they need. You are mistaking the assent of facts about God with a placing of trust in God for eternal salvation.
> 
> ...



Where did I say they do not need to see their need for Christ? That is what publicly professing faith is all about. You are teaching them to know and embrace Christ. And I do not at all deny the need for regeneration. The problem as a parent is I can't give it to them. Only God can. And for a child raised in the church, he may never know the moment when regeneration occurred. What is repentance going to look like in a child who has been taught the faith from infancy? Unless he has a rebellious phase, you aren't going to see a significant outward change. Regeneration will show itself more by the self-realization that he does truly believe rather than a dramatic conversion experience.

Again, I was emphasizing the dimension of daily practice in child rearing. How do you treat your children? Are you teaching them to how to know and obey God and believe the gospel? Are you teaching them to pray? Are you teaching them Christian standards of conduct? If so, you are teaching them to visibly/outwardly profess faith in Christ. That is your default. You are not training them to be atheists. Credobaptists, at least the ones I know, still take this approach to parenting, even though they deny their children visible church membership. That is the inconsistency I was pointing out. 

If you have a different approach in Christian parenting I'd like to hear it.


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 21, 2018)

Puritan Sailor said:


> Where did I say they do not need to see their need for Christ? That is what publicly professing faith is all about. You are teaching them to know and embrace Christ. And I do not at all deny the need for regeneration. The problem as a parent is I can't give it to them. Only God can. And for a child raised in the church, he may never know the moment when regeneration occurred. What is repentance going to look like in a child who has been taught the faith from infancy? Unless he has a rebellious phase, you aren't going to see a significant outward change. Regeneration will show itself more by the self-realization that he does truly believe rather than a dramatic conversion experience.
> 
> Again, I was emphasizing the dimension of daily practice in child rearing. How do you treat your children? Are you teaching them to how to know and obey God and believe the gospel? Are you teaching them to pray? Are you teaching them Christian standards of conduct? If so, you are teaching them to visibly/outwardly profess faith in Christ. That is your default. You are not training them to be atheists. Credobaptists, at least the ones I know, still take this approach to parenting, even though they deny their children visible church membership. That is the inconsistency I was pointing out.
> 
> If you have a different approach in Christian parenting I'd like to hear it.



We must have a different understanding of what professing faith in Christ actually means. You seem to be equating a child going through with the teaching process as a profession of faith in and of itself, while I hope that the process results in a profession of faith.

Also, no man can teach his child "how to...believe the gospel." Again, that is the work of the Holy Spirit alone. You know that, so perhaps you misspoke here. 

To summarize, I want to raise my children in the church and in a Christian home, hoping they will one day, purposefully and conscientiously, place their faith in Christ - make a profession of faith, if you will. Until that day, they will not be admitted as members of the local church.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 21, 2018)

Here's an analogy I've found helpful.
The Baptist view is similar to one that says: all citizens of a certain country become so by an oath of allegiance. They are all, to a man,_ naturalized_ citizens; which would be a misnomer of sorts, because there aren't ANY who were_ natural_ citizens. There is a kind of "act of the will" that is part and parcel of the very notion of citizen in this perspective.

The Reformed view is similar to one that says: the children of citizens are citizens--minor citizens, citizens lacking in full privilege (i.e. voting, driving, etc.), but who are expected to grow up with the proper training for assuming those duties expected of full citizens. If such repudiate their responsibilities, it will at best make them lackadaisical citizens, barely worthy or unworthy of the name; and more likely to get them into felon status, where their citizen rights are curtailed. Some of these are, in fact, agents of another country working contrary to the interests of the nation (or advancing self-interest at the expense of the good the people).

There are bound to be arguments as to why one or the other of these is to be preferred to the other, for illustrating the relationship of Christians to the Kingdom of Heaven. But both sides will mount a biblical defense for why their view seems most consistent with the Bible's teaching.

Reactions: Like 5 | Edifying 1


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 21, 2018)

E.R. CROSS said:


> We must have a different understanding of what professing faith in Christ actually means. You seem to be equating a child going through with the teaching process as a profession of faith in and of itself, while I hope that the process results in a profession of faith.


Not exactly. I'm talking about the visible appearance in contrast to the world. Yes, our children may parrot or at least intellectually follow what they are taught by their parents as they grow up. At some point, they must be regenerated and exercise saving faith on there own. No one disputes that. Some children know when that change happens, some don't know when it happened, they just know they've always believed. But they are still visibly distinct from the world by their conduct and what they say they believe even before regeneration. If a Muslim or Atheist were to ask your children who God is, what answers would they give? Most likely they give the Christian answers which you taught them. They are not visibly different from those who have officially professed faith and joined the church.



> Also, no man can teach his child "how to...believe the gospel." Again, that is the work of the Holy Spirit alone. You know that, so perhaps you misspoke here.


I did not misspeak. If you ever explain what saving faith is to your child, you are explaining how to believe the gospel. Knowing what it means to believe and actually exercising saving faith are distinct things. And yet in a child growing up in the church, he may not know when that shift took place, especially if you have been teaching him the whole time that he must trust and obey Christ and has been following your lead from infancy.



> To summarize, I want to raise my children in the church and in a Christian home, hoping they will one day, purposefully and conscientiously, place their faith in Christ - make a profession of faith, if you will. Until that day, they will not be admitted as members of the local church.



But are you teaching them to pray? Are you teaching them how to ask forgiveness? Are you teaching them how to obey God? Or are you waiting for a conversion experience to teach them those things? And if you are teaching them, and they are doing them, even though they have not made an official profession, where do they then fit in visibly in comparison to the world?

I understand as a baptist you will not admit them as members. But at the same time you are not raising your children to be atheists either. You are treating them differently than the world treats their own. In practice you are setting your child apart and discipling them in the faith (unless of course you are waiting for a conversion experience before you start that). The problem is that you don't have a category as a baptist for someone who is visibly different from the world, and yet has not made an official "adult" profession of faith yet (please correct me if I'm wrong there). Hopefully you understand better what I have been trying to say. Presbyterians don't have that category problem, because we accept that our children are part of the visible church, and their "adult" profession will hopefully come later as the Lord works in them.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## LilyG (Jan 21, 2018)

God included children of believers into the visible church in the days of Abraham. Why would we exclude them now? Would Israelite babies have made a profession of faith?


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 21, 2018)

ZackF said:


> Now how young a wicked and rebellious child of Adam can come to the faith by the Spirit is up to Him.



Zack:

We are both Westminster Confessionalists and are thus in agreement on this subject. I certainly agree with the quoted sentiment.

We can have an extended discussion on Christ's Messianic consciousness, his growing in wisdom and stature and favor with God and man, what his humanity and divinity entailed (and why both were necessary) as well as the integrity of the theanthropic person. We can talk about the character of the faith of Christ not only as source and object but as example. If any of that is what you have in mind, that's all fair game.

But it's simply not fitting to talk about Jesus as a Christian. He is the one in whom all Christians, in both Testaments, believe, but He Himself is not a Christian, though maybe we could conceive of such in some sort of Nestorian or adoptionist construction (which we all disdain).

I assume that you simply want to affirm the same kind of things that all us Presbyterian and Reformed want to affirm on this thread, so I'll say no more but simply urge you to re-think approaching this by way of speaking of Jesus as a Christian, whether as an infant, child, youth or man.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## ZackF (Jan 21, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Zack:
> 
> so I'll say no more but simply urge you to re-think approaching this by way of speaking of Jesus as a Christian, whether as an infant, child, youth or man.
> 
> ...



Agreed. Will do.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 22, 2018)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Here's an analogy I've found helpful.
> The Baptist view is similar to one that says: all citizens of a certain country become so by an oath of allegiance. They are all, to a man,_ naturalized_ citizens; which would be a misnomer of sorts, because there aren't ANY who were_ natural_ citizens. There is a kind of "act of the will" that is part and parcel of the very notion of citizen in this perspective.
> 
> The Reformed view is similar to one that says: the children of citizens are citizens--minor citizens, citizens lacking in full privilege (i.e. voting, driving, etc.), but who are expected to grow up with the proper training for assuming those duties expected of full citizens. If such repudiate their responsibilities, it will at best make them lackadaisical citizens, barely worthy or unworthy of the name; and more likely to get them into felon status, where their citizen rights are curtailed. Some of these are, in fact, agents of another country working contrary to the interests of the nation (or advancing self-interest at the expense of the good the people).
> ...


I really like this analogy. Thanks.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 22, 2018)

Hi Patrick,

We Baptists don't see our view as a "Category Problem,"--there's no problem at all. We recognize two types of people in the world: the regenerate, and everyone else. Regardless of how raised or what taught, every person is a sinner until God gives them a new heart. I would that we could raise everyone in the world as Christians do their children, but upbringing will not save; salvation belongs to the Lord.
However, we do see Presbyterians as having a category problem, since they must have "Communicant Members" and "Noncommunicant Members," and some groups even have a "confirmation" before allowing communion to a church child. You all probably don't see it as a problem either....



> I understand as a baptist you will not admit them as members. But at the same time you are not raising your children to be atheists either. You are treating them differently than the world treats their own. In practice you are setting your child apart and discipling them in the faith (unless of course you are waiting for a conversion experience before you start that). The problem is that you don't have a category as a baptist for someone who is visibly different from the world, and yet has not made an official "adult" profession of faith yet (please correct me if I'm wrong there). Hopefully you understand better what I have been trying to say. Presbyterians don't have that category problem, because we accept that our children are part of the visible church, and their "adult" profession will hopefully come later as the Lord works in them.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 22, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Hi Patrick,
> 
> We Baptists don't see our view as a "Category Problem,"--there's no problem at all. We recognize two types of people in the world: the regenerate, and everyone else. Regardless of how raised or what taught, every person is a sinner until God gives them a new heart. I would that we could raise everyone in the world as Christians do their children, but upbringing will not save; salvation belongs to the Lord.
> However, we do see Presbyterians as having a category problem, since they must have "Communicant Members" and "Noncommunicant Members," and some groups even have a "confirmation" before allowing communion to a church child. You all probably don't see it as a problem either....



I believe that there is a difficulty in how the credo raises that child practically. On one hand, the credo acknowledges the child is a 'viper in a diaper' and on the other, 'God is your Father'. It seems as if the terminology changes from moment to moment. The Presbyterian child that has rec'd the sign of the covenant is personally responsible to that sign, whereas, the credo child has absolutely no relationship with the church at all; the Presbyterian child does have a relationship, just like the Old Testament person who was circumcised, else why would Paul tell us that the child is 'holy'?

http://www.semperreformanda.com/pre...m-index/various-reformed-quotes-on-1-cor-714/

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 22, 2018)

When Baptist, I could see the Presbyterian argument for the covenant status of children and mostly agree with it, except for the need for baptism. But at some point I was struck that baptism might not mean what I believed it meant (this was what was being said on this board but it took me a while to hear it). I realized I was conditioned to read the NT Scripture pertaining to baptism through a certain lens so I studied NT passages again to see if a new view on baptism could really fit, and it not only did fit, but fully fleshed out 
the covenantal view of God's grace I had already seen and embraced. 

Baptism isn't what I'd always thought it was , but is admission or initiation into the external aspect of the covenant of grace, i.e. the visible church.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 22, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Hi Patrick,
> 
> We Baptists don't see our view as a "Category Problem,"--there's no problem at all. We recognize two types of people in the world: the regenerate, and everyone else. Regardless of how raised or what taught, every person is a sinner until God gives them a new heart. I would that we could raise everyone in the world as Christians do their children, but upbringing will not save; salvation belongs to the Lord.
> However, we do see Presbyterians as having a category problem, since they must have "Communicant Members" and "Noncommunicant Members," and some groups even have a "confirmation" before allowing communion to a church child. You all probably don't see it as a problem either....



I know you don't see it as a category problem, otherwise you would not be a baptist  Regarding the noncommunicant vs. communicant distinction, I'll simply refer you to Bruce's analogy above. We practically make that distinction all the time when it comes to citizenship, or any other context where we recognize the difference between child and adult privileges/responsibilities.

The problem though with viewing all as "regenerate vs. unregenerate" is that you don't live practically in that realm. That is something only God sees. You must live in the practical realm of analyzing and comparing professions and fruit, what is seen visibly in distinction from the world. As a baptist, you can only accept someone into the church as regenerate who looks regenerate. The problem is that children raised in the church (unless they rebel) do not look unregenerate, other than perhaps their inability to tell you about a conversion experience (due to their immaturity). If you ask them who Jesus is, you will get a Christian answer. If you ask them how to be saved, you will get a Christian answer. If you ask them whether murder or stealing is wrong, you get a Christian answer. And if you asked them, "do you really believe all that" they would likely say "yes", because that is what you taught them or what they learned in church. They are visibly Christian in comparison to the world, not atheists or Muslims. In addition to that, they are being raised in the visible church. And yet they are not counted as part of the visible church (for baptists). That's the practical category problem for baptists. Even you do not actually live in the realm of "regenerate vs. unregenerate". You just have different criteria for what you count as a visible Christian.

Reactions: Like 7 | Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 22, 2018)

Puritan Sailor said:


> What seems to be missing from the equation here is the actual day-to-day practice of child-raising within the church. You are raising your children to profess faith the whole time, even though they have not made an official profession. If I were to inquire of your children who the true God was, or how they could find forgiveness of sins, I suspect I would hear Christian answers both from Baptist and Presbyterian children, not Muslim or Atheist answers. These children are visibly professing faith along with their parents, even though they are not yet capable of interpreting their own experience yet to know if they are born again. This is where the judgment of charity comes in. You can't know your children are visibly unregenerate until they self-consciously contradict the profession you are raising them to make. Until that point, these children are joining their public voices with that of the visible church (i.e. the baptized). This is a credo dilemma. How can you raise your children to publicly profess faith in Christ during their whole childhood and yet at the same time say they are not part of the visible church?


Children of Baptist parents, such as mine, would be seen as being part of the local church assemble, but not seen as being aprt of the invisible true Church until time of their profession in Christ.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 22, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> David,
> 
> Your statement seems to me to be at odds with your claimed confession:
> 
> ...


I would fully agree with that, and I do take it further, as my position would be that God has chosen to elect unto salvation all infants who have died, whether in the womb or as new born babes. He saves them, by my position is that election and salvation is not caused/forced to them through the ordinance of the water baptism.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 22, 2018)

TheInquirer said:


> As a Baptist I just cant see how VI. possibly coheres with I. I keep trying to understand because I love Reformed theology and how much P&R brothers and sisters love God and honor his word and I’ve been incredibly blessed by the tradition but for me, it just doesnt compute. I’ve read Calvin, I’ve read Berkhof, I’ve read others, I’ve read many of the posts here at PB, I’ve read the proof texts and for the life of me, I just dont get how you can have that definition of baptism and then try to fit unregenerate kids into it.
> 
> Maybe in eternity we’ll all laugh at how slow and dull I was during my pilgrimage on planet earth....


Baptis


Jeri Tanner said:


> I'm thankful for the voices of the various ordained ministry on the PB, such as Patrick's (Puritan Sailor) above. It's good to remember sometimes that such voices well represent the Reformed and Puritan covenantal view of baptized children and other members of the visible church. Baptists and other traditions shouldn't take offense when Reformed and Presbyterian distinctions are expressed on a R&P board. Questions are great, pushback is great when respectfully done with a desire to understand.
> 
> Edited to say that I also really appreciate the voice of the ordained Baptist brethren on the board! They are without fail wise, and speak with maturity on these important matters.


I see all of the redeemed as being in Christ, and just appreciate that we still have differing views even among reformed/Calvinists on some of these main issues.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 22, 2018)

jwithnell said:


> Jesus was given the sign of the covenant as an infant. He was welcome into the parts of the temple open to males within the covenant. He was as much a part of the church as one of my children. Clearly he was taught the scriptures and the faith as was evident before the temple teachers who were amazed at his knowledge. (While I acknowledge it's hard to parse out what he knew as a covenant child and what he knew as God.)


He was also born under the law, under the OC, so He followed what was ascribed to them as one who was a Jew.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 22, 2018)

ZackF said:


> Was Jesus a Christian when he was an infant?


Jesus had no need to be born again!


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jan 22, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> We recognize two types of people in the world: the regenerate, and everyone else.



Ben, does that include the church when you say the world? If so, here's where I would struggle:

As we all know, in the church, there are people who any serious Christian would look at and think when observing their fruit, "Are they truly in the state of grace?" I'm not even saying we should make those judgment calls, but this is what Baptists have to do to bring members into the church. So as a Baptist, you automatically have to view every member as regenerate. This means in your eyes, every single member is a true Christian. Based off of the same criteria you would judge a child's condition before God to make sure they are a true Christian, would you say this is true of every member of your church? Are you sure they should all be called regenerate?

The problem is that I know children who Baptists would consider unregenerate based off of age only, who otherwise are living lives devoted to God, repenting of sin, and appearing to be genuine Christians. And at the same time it appears that many grown-ups who appear to be much less of Christians than these children, are counted as regenerate based off of age and profession alone by the Baptists.

Something doesn't seem right with the judgments to me. If I am wrong, please correct me brother.

Grace and peace.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 22, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I would fully agree with that, and I do take it further, as my position would be that God has chosen to elect unto salvation all infants who have died, whether in the womb or as new born babes. He saves them, by my position is that election and salvation is not caused/forced to them through the ordinance of the water baptism.


What you say above is not what you said and to which I responded:


Dachaser said:


> can the lord save infants, yes He can, but that would be unusually, and not the normal way that He saves us.


The issue was the salvific process you claimed to be unusual, not normal. Now you agree with my response, and then move on to water baptism, which was not related to my response, nor your statement about normality.

I feel like we are two ships passing in the night, failing to actually communicate. Slow down a wee bit, David, and take care to consider what is being discussed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 22, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> What you say above is not what you said and to which I responded:
> 
> The issue was the salvific process you claimed to be unusual, not normal. Now you agree with my response, and then move on to water baptism, which was not related to my response, nor your statement about normality.
> 
> I feel like we are two ships passing in the night, failing to actually communicate. Slow down a wee bit, David, and take care to consider what is being discussed.


Can and does God choose to save infants by applying saving grace towards them is affirmative, but that saving grace is not normally applied by the water baptism is what I was saying here.


----------



## TheInquirer (Jan 22, 2018)

If you have Baptist friends who raise their kinds in a way that is inconsistent with RB theology, all you’ve demonstrated is that you have friends who raise their kids inconsistently witn RB theology.
If someone, regardless of age, professes Christ (and has the ability to basically understand what they are professing) and shows fruit of repentence, I personally would treat them as Christians and baptize them. I know some Baptists are uncomfortable with that and want to wait for a certain age to baptize but I would disagree.
Regarding children who die in infancy, the best answer I have found is that all elect infants are saved. Do I know who the elect are? No, but I’m ok with that. Salvation belongs to the Lord.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 22, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Ben, does that include the church when you say the world? If so, here's where I would struggle:
> 
> As we all know, in the church, there are people who any serious Christian would look at and think when observing their fruit, "Are they truly in the state of grace?" I'm not even saying we should make those judgment calls, but this is what Baptists have to do to bring members into the church. So as a Baptist, you automatically have to view every member as regenerate. This means in your eyes, every single member is a true Christian. Based off of the same criteria you would judge a child's condition before God to make sure they are a true Christian, would you say this is true of every member of your church? Are you sure they should all be called regenerate?
> 
> ...


There are only 2 types of persons in the world, those in Adam still and lost, and those now in Christ and born again, and children , unless infants, are saved the same way as Adults.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 22, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> and children, unless infants, are saved the same way as Adults.



Everyone is saved in the same fashion, infants included. There is only one gospel.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 22, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> I believe that there is a difficulty in how the credo raises that child practically. On one hand, the credo acknowledges the child is a 'viper in a diaper' and on the other, 'God is your Father'. It seems as if the terminology changes from moment to moment. The Presbyterian child that has rec'd the sign of the covenant is personally responsible to that sign, whereas, the credo child has absolutely no relationship with the church at all; the Presbyterian child does have a relationship, just like the Old Testament person who was circumcised, else why would Paul tell us that the child is 'holy'?
> 
> http://www.semperreformanda.com/pre...m-index/various-reformed-quotes-on-1-cor-714/


Scott, I'm in the camp that believes that "holy" in this case does not mean "separated unto God," but means the child, having two visible parents, doesn't have the stigma of being considered illegitimate. There was a time when a single mom who was not a widow was considered irregular, and her children were treated differently by a society who judged them bastards.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 22, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Ben, does that include the church when you say the world? If so, here's where I would struggle:
> 
> As we all know, in the church, there are people who any serious Christian would look at and think when observing their fruit, "Are they truly in the state of grace?" I'm not even saying we should make those judgment calls, but this is what Baptists have to do to bring members into the church. So as a Baptist, you automatically have to view every member as regenerate. This means in your eyes, every single member is a true Christian. Based off of the same criteria you would judge a child's condition before God to make sure they are a true Christian, would you say this is true of every member of your church? Are you sure they should all be called regenerate?
> 
> ...


Hi Ryan,
It is the ideal that every member in the church be regenerate, and we Baptists strive to allow into membership only those who can convince the elders that they truly are. Yes, we have to make judgment calls, and sometimes we judge wrongly and allow an hypocrite to be baptized and partake of other membership privileges. But I as a layman can approach any member and ask them the reason for the hope that is in them, and if even in the judgment of charity I find reason to think they are unsaved, I have recourse to the steps in Matthew 18, and to counsel with the elders, who probably know the person better than I do.
I personally do not make judgments on children based on age--many members have very sweetly-disposed children, and I bless God that they are so, and we pray that new hearts will be given to all those who do not have them yet. But children who are unable to make many choices for themselves, and are restrained from gross external evils by their parents, are hard to read. The Lord knows those who are truly His, and those who will surely be His when He is pleased to regenerate them. We as adults do well not to rush to judgment either way, and if that means a saved child must wait longer before being baptized and admitted, if he/she is truly saved, patience will be one of the fruits displayed.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 22, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I would fully agree with that, and I do take it further, as my position would be that God has chosen to elect unto salvation all infants who have died, whether in the womb or as new born babes. He saves them, by my position is that election and salvation is not caused/forced to them through the ordinance of the water baptism.


The confession you claim to hold to does not allow for your view that all children dying unborn are automatically elect. That God saves elect infants who die is affirmed: that all infants who die are elect is assuming something that God has not declared.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 22, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Scott, I'm in the camp that believes that "holy" in this case does not mean "separated unto God," but means the child, having two visible parents, doesn't have the stigma of being considered illegitimate. There was a time when a single mom who was not a widow was considered irregular, and her children were treated differently by a society who judged them bastards.



Ben,
Do u have any historic citations ascribing such a position on this verse? I'd be willing to entertain it, but up until now, this is a first for me.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 22, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> The confession you claim to hold to does not allow for your view that all children dying unborn are automatically elect. That God saves elect infants who die is affirmed: that all infants who die are elect is assuming something that God has not declared.



Just for the record, I did a lot of research on this conundrum; the reformed camp is split down the middle. A good number held that all infants dying in infancy are elect and the other, some infants were elect.

http://www.semperreformanda.com/2015/08/more-on-the-infant-who-dies-in-infancy/


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 22, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> I believe that there is a difficulty in how the credo raises that child practically. On one hand, the credo acknowledges the child is a 'viper in a diaper' and on the other, 'God is your Father'. It seems as if the terminology changes from moment to moment. The Presbyterian child that has rec'd the sign of the covenant is personally responsible to that sign, whereas, the credo child has absolutely no relationship with the church at all; the Presbyterian child does have a relationship, just like the Old Testament person who was circumcised, else why would Paul tell us that the child is 'holy'?
> 
> http://www.semperreformanda.com/pre...m-index/various-reformed-quotes-on-1-cor-714/


Not true.

Both credo and paedo can say that the children of believers are raised up under the external blessings of the Covenant of Grace.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 22, 2018)

Puritan Sailor said:


> That's the practical category problem for baptists. Even you do not actually live in the realm of "regenerate vs. unregenerate". You just have different criteria for what you count as a visible Christian.


In reality paedobaptists do make the Christian- non Christian distinction. Ie, you baptise children of *believers*.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jan 22, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Hi Ryan,
> It is the ideal that every member in the church be regenerate, and we Baptists strive to allow into membership only those who can convince the elders that they truly are. Yes, we have to make judgment calls, and sometimes we judge wrongly and allow an hypocrite to be baptized and partake of other membership privileges. But I as a layman can approach any member and ask them the reason for the hope that is in them, and if even in the judgment of charity I find reason to think they are unsaved, I have recourse to the steps in Matthew 18, and to counsel with the elders, who probably know the person better than I do.
> I personally do not make judgments on children based on age--many members have very sweetly-disposed children, and I bless God that they are so, and we pray that new hearts will be given to all those who do not have them yet. But children who are unable to make many choices for themselves, and are restrained from gross external evils by their parents, are hard to read. The Lord knows those who are truly His, and those who will surely be His when He is pleased to regenerate them. We as adults do well not to rush to judgment either way, and if that means a saved child must wait longer before being baptized and admitted, if he/she is truly saved, patience will be one of the fruits displayed.



Thanks brother. It sounds like accountability is key.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 22, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> Not true.
> 
> Both credo and paedo can say that the children of believers are raised up under the external blessings of the Covenant of Grace.


Right...but practically speaking, the out-workings of credo theology run across the grain in many ways. Do you consider that covenantal blessing on your children? Are they 'holy'?


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 22, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Right...but practically speaking, the out-workings of credo theology run across the grain in many ways. Do you consider that covenantal blessing on your children? Are they 'holy'?


The children of one believer and one unbeliever is "holy" in that they are legitimate. Any other talk of "holy" children is nonsense unless you affirm presumptive regeneration. They are under the blessings of the Covenant of Grace and God has given general promises to all families of believers whether baptist or paedo, but they are no more holy than anyone else. Any supposed holy condition does not do away with their personal need for individual faith and repentance.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 22, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> The children of one believer and one unbeliever is "holy" in that they are legitimate. Any other talk of "holy" children is nonsense unless you affirm presumptive regeneration.



Wrong. Good try trying to discredit me by using PR. In an earlier post w/ Ben Z, I believe post 117, he mentioned the same treatment you do above; please enlighten me with some historic treatments along the line u are positing-outside of J. Gill. 

Let me ask u, were the goblets used in temple worship, 'holy' vessels?

*1 Kings 8:4 *

4 And they brought up the ark of the Lord, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and all the holy vessels that _were_ in the tabernacle, even those did the priests and the Levites bring up. 

*1 Chronicles 22:19 *

19 Now set your heart and your soul to seek the Lord your God; arise therefore, and build ye the sanctuary of the Lord God, to bring the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and the holy vessels of God, into the house that is to be built to the name of the Lord.

*2 Chronicles 5:5 *

5 And they brought up the ark, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and all the holy vessels that _were_ in the tabernacle, these did the priests _and_ the Levites bring up. 

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 1 Ki 8:4–2 Ch 5:5.



> They are under the blessings of the Covenant of Grace and God has given general promises to all families of believers whether baptist or paedo, but they are no more holy than anyone else. Any supposed holy condition does not do away with their personal need for individual faith and repentance.



Never said that this 'holiness' does away with a need for personal faith and repentance-however, there is a distinction between my unregenerate child and the devil worshipper's child down the street-given the covenantal commitment this family has taken-which God sees and hears. To that, which the credo disregards. Hence, there is a difference. 

So, as a credo, your kids are not 'vipers in diapers'? On one hand they are blessed via the C of G and on the other, what? or is there not 'on the other hand' hand for you, because most credo's falter here. They refuse to side with the Paedobaptist and how we see our children in relation to God and covenant. You are seeming to take a different route, If I am understanding you, now. Most all credo's say that there children are enemies of God until that time when they confess and are baptized-yet they still confuse the terms when it comes to prayer etc. even though Christ Himself tells us that God 'does not hear the prayers of sinners', i.e. those outside of Christ and yet u give them the impression that God does hear (and I am not speaking omnisciently).

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## ZackF (Jan 22, 2018)

ZackF said:


> Agreed. Will do.



Rev. Strange, I did some more careful thinking and discovered a serious category error in how I presented my argument. Thank you for the respectful yet firm correction. It probably won't be the last time that it is needed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 22, 2018)

What practical difference is there between a believing baptist family and a believing Presbyterian family, both of whom raise their children up in the Lord?

Nothing.

But somehow some Presbyterians says that baptism benefits them extra in some magical manner. What does the water add?


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Jan 22, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Wrong. Good try trying to discredit me by using PR. In an earlier post w/ Ben Z, I believe post 117, he mentioned the same treatment you do above; please enlighten me with some historic treatments along the line u are positing-outside of J. Gill.



Will St. John Chrysostom do?

From Homily XIX on Corinthians:
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf112.iv.xx.html

And an article concerning same with relevant passages quoted:
https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2018/01/01/chrysostom-on-1-cor-714/


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 23, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> What practical difference is there between a believing baptist family and a believing Presbyterian family...What does the water add?



That was my question! Over time I saw these things:
The command to include children of believing parents into covenantal standing was never abrogated, therefore baptizing them adds obedience, and therefore blessing;

The realization that these kiddos are to be considered, from the beginning, fellow members of God's household surely promotes a difference in our dealings with them and how we view their standing;

The realization of children that God ordained their being added into this holy community will surely add a weightiness to their comprehension of who they are and their obligations and duty to God and the church.

The fact that God ordains that infants and children receive the sign puts the focus on God, and takes it off of us. Baptism is God's testimony to the one baptized, not the testimony of the infant or adult. This should be a great cause for worship and thanksgiving!

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## Parakaleo (Jan 23, 2018)

After reading some of the most recent comments here, I keep thinking of the section on infant baptism from James Bannerman, _The Church of Christ_, and how he addresses this dilemma so expertly. Here's a sample of some of his propositions, which touch on nearly everything discussed in this thread so far:

————

The covenant of grace, as revealed by God at different periods for the salvation of His people, has been essentially the same in former and in later times, and has always comprehended infants within it.

————

If the Church of God, made up of His professing people, be one and the same society at all times, and under all its different dispensations, then the proof that infants were members of it at one period must be a proof that they are competent to be members of it at any subsequent period; unless, indeed, some express and positive enactment can be produced, altering the charter of the society, and excluding, as incompetent to be admitted by the new and altered terms of the deed, those formerly comprehended within it. If no such proof of alteration in the charter or constitution of the society can be produced,—if the society itself remains the same in character and terms of admission as before,—then the proof that infants were once its members may suffice for proof that they are still competent to be so.

————

The opponents of infant Baptism feel considerable difficulty in giving any explicit or consistent explanation of the relation sustained by infants either to the covenant or to the Church. Some of them deny absolutely that infants have any place either in the covenant or in the visible Church as members; while others of them hesitate about such a sweeping denial in the face of the strong Scripture evidence available to establish the fact, and rather consider infants as possessed of an inchoate and undeveloped right to be members, and as put under the care of the Church in order to be prepared for claiming and exercising the full right afterwards. But the covenant state and the Church state of infants, once fairly established, as they can readily be from Scripture, and the absence of any express bar interposed by Divine authority to the contrary, seem unquestionably to lead to a conclusion in favour of infant Baptism, even were there no further evidence that could be adduced in support of it. But there is much additional evidence at hand.

————

That God may act towards infants in a way of sovereignty, without regard to their connection with their parents, may be true. But when He deals with them, and desires at the same time to manifest to us His rule or method of dealing, He does so on the principle of representation; a principle revealed to us both in His providential and spiritual economies. And such is unquestionably the principle according to which, in the constitution of the Old Testament Church, infants were dealt with. God made His covenant with infants as well as with adults; and the way in which He did so was never in connection with any personal act of theirs, which was impossible, but in connection with their filial relationship. God made His Church to include infants among its members as well as adult believers; and this too He did not in connection with their personal act, which was impossible, but in connection with the act of their parents. The membership of the father was counted to the infant; and the circumcision of the father gave a right to the infant to be circumcised also.

The principle of representation found under the Old Testament is the very principle introduced by the Apostle to explain the position and character of children in the case where no more than one parent is a believer and member of the Church. That the contrasted terms, "unclean" and "holy," are to be understood in the Old Testament sense of not set apart and set apart to the service or fellowship of God, seems to be undoubted. And the assertion of the Apostle is, that one of the parents being a believer, although the other is not, avails, so that the infants are to be accounted clean, or fit for the service of God and the fellowship of His Church.

————

What is the virtue or efficacy of the ordinance when administered to infants incapable of faith, although not incapable of being made partakers in the grace which the Spirit confers? In entering on the consideration of this delicate and difficult subject, it is necessary, in order to clear our way to it, to lay down one or two preliminary propositions of much importance in the discussion.

First, *The proper and true type of Baptism, as a Sacrament in the Church of Christ, is the Baptism of adults, and not the Baptism of infants*...

Second, The virtue of infant Baptism, whatever that may be, is not more mysterious than the virtue ascribed to adult Baptism, although it may have the appearance of being so. It is a very common idea, that the difficulty in framing an explanation of the efficacy of Baptism in the case of infants, is peculiar to the ordinance in its administration to them, and does not attach to it in its administration to adults. I believe that this is not the case. There may be greater difficulty in gathering from the statements of Scripture what the virtue of Baptism really is in its application to infants, than in ascertaining what it is in its application to adults. But to explain the supernatural virtue itself is just as difficult in the one case as in the other, and simply from this reason, that it is supernatural. Up to a certain point it is easy enough to explain the efficacy of adult Baptism, but beyond that fixed point it is impossible to explain it. That point is where the natural efficacy of the ordinance passes into the supernatural efficacy.

————

Full text here. See section on Infant Baptism and Objections.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 23, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> After reading some of the most recent comments here, I keep thinking of the section on infant baptism from James Bannerman, _The Church of Christ_, and how he addresses this dilemma so expertly. Here's a sample of some of his propositions, which touch on nearly everything discussed in this thread so far:
> 
> ————
> 
> ...


Thanks. That is good stuff.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 23, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Ben,
> Do u have any historic citations ascribing such a position on this verse? I'd be willing to entertain it, but up until now, this is a first for me.


Sorry Scott,
Being largely illiterate, I haven't read much in the church fathers and thus cannot cite. I know I've heard the vewpoint several times, but cannot say exactly where or when. I'm pretty sure I didn't make it up, though, since there is nothing new under the sun.

If this thread is still alive tonight I'll add more. For now I must go and work for a penny.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 23, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> What practical difference is there between a believing baptist family and a believing Presbyterian family, both of whom raise their children up in the Lord?
> 
> Nothing.
> 
> But somehow some Presbyterians says that baptism benefits them extra in some magical manner. What does the water add?



Nothing? And in this, there rests the difference between the credo camp and Presbyterian

WCF ch 28:
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.

VI. *The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment* of time *wherein it is administered;* yet, notwithstanding, *by the right use of this ordinance*, *the grace promised is 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.

The sacrament is not an empty rite...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 23, 2018)

John Owen

“The end of his message and of his coming was, that those to whom he was sent might be “blessed with faithful Abraham,” or that “the blessing of Abraham,” promised in the covenant, “might come upon them,” Galatians 3:9, 14. To deny this, overthrows the whole relation between the old testament and the new, the veracity of God in his promises, and all the properties of the covenant of grace, mentioned 2 Samuel 23:5…Infants are made for and are capable of eternal glory or misery, and must fall, dying infants, into one of these estates for ever. All infants are born in a state of sin, wherein they are spiritually dead and under the curse. Unless they are regenerated or born again, they must all perish inevitably, John 3:3. Their regeneration is the grace where of baptism is a sign or token. Wherever this is, there baptism ought to be administered. It follows hence unavoidably that infants who die in their infancy have the grace of regeneration, and consequently as good a right unto baptism as believers themselves…In brief, a participation of the seal of the covenant is a spiritual blessing. This the seed of believers was once solemnly invested in by God himself This privilege he hath nowhere revoked, though he hath changed the outward sign; nor hath he granted unto our children any privilege or mercy in lieu of it now under the gospel, when all grace and privileges are enlarged to the utmost. His covenant promises concerning them, which are multiplied, were confirmed by Christ as a true messenger and minister; he gives the grace of baptism unto many of them, especially those that die in their infancy, owns children to belong unto his kingdom, esteems them disciples, appoints households to be baptized without exception. And who shall now rise up, and withhold water from them?” (Works, Volume 16, Banner of Truth Trust (Carlisle, 1988) Pages 335-337)


http://www.semperreformanda.com/2018/01/the-benefit-of-baptism/

Calvins Catechism helps here:
Q321-346

http://www.semperreformanda.com/creeds/calvins-catechism/

Heidelberg Cat Q74

*Question 74*
Are infants also to be baptized?
*Answer 74*
Yes: for since they, as well as the adult, are included in the covenant and church of God; (Genesis 17:7) and since redemption from sin (Matthew 19:14) by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult; (Luke 1:15; Psalms 22:10; Isaiah 44:1-3; Acts 2:39) they must therefore by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, be also admitted into the christian church; and be distinguished from the children of unbelievers (Acts 10:47) as was done in the old covenant or testament by circumcision, (Genesis 17:14) instead of which baptism is instituted (Colossians 2:11-13) in the new covenant.

The 39 Articles:

*XXVII. Of Baptisme.*

Baptisme is not only a signe of profession, and marke of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from other that be not christened: but is also a signe of regeneration or newe byrth, whereby as by an instrument, they that receaue baptisme rightly, are grafted into the Church: the promises of the forgeuenesse of sinne, and of our adoption to be the sonnes of God, by the holy ghost, are visibly signed and sealed: fayth is confyrmed: and grace increased by vertue of prayer vnto God. The baptisme of young children, is in any wyse to be retayned in the Churche, as most agreable with the institution of Christe.


WLC Q35

Q. 35. _How is the covenant of grace administered under the New Testament?_
A. Under the New Testament, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the same covenant of grace was and still is to be administered in the preaching of the word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper; in which grace and salvation are held forth in more fullness, evidence, and efficacy, to all nations.


Q. 165. _What is baptism?_
A. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself, of remission of sins by his blood, and regeneration by his Spirit; of adoption, and resurrection unto everlasting life; and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord’s.

Q. 166. _Unto whom is baptism to be administered?_
A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, 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.

Q. 167. _How is baptism to be improved by us?_
A. The needful but much neglected duty of improving our baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others; by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein; by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements; by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament; by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace; and by endeavoring to live by faith, to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness, as those that have therein given up their names to Christ; and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body.

WSC

Quest. 94. What is baptism?
Ans. 94. Baptism is a sacrament, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,(1) doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord’s.(2)

(1) Matt. 28:19.
(2) Rom. 6:4; Gal. 3:27.

Quest. 95. To whom is baptism to be administered?
Ans. 95. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him;(1) but the infants of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptized.(2)

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 23, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> After reading some of the most recent comments here, I keep thinking of the section on infant baptism from James Bannerman, _The Church of Christ_, and how he addresses this dilemma so expertly. Here's a sample of some of his propositions, which touch on nearly everything discussed in this thread so far:
> 
> ————
> 
> ...



This is about the third, albeit brief, exposure to Bannerman. I think I would do well to read him.........

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 23, 2018)

Greg,
U must!


----------



## Parakaleo (Jan 23, 2018)

More from Bannerman on a really important element of this discussion (see below). Be careful reading Bannerman, though; you may just have to join the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) or Presbyterian Reformed Church after you get through his works.

First, *The proper and true type of Baptism, as a Sacrament in the Church of Christ, is the Baptism of adults, and not the Baptism of infants*...

It is abundantly obvious that adult Baptism is the rule, and infant Baptism the exceptional case; and we must take our idea of the ordinance in its nature and effects not from the exception, but from the rule. The ordinance of Baptism is no more to be judged of from its ministration to children, than is the ordinance of preaching to be judged of from its ministration to children. The Sacrament in its complete features and perfect character is to be witnessed in the case of those subjects of it whose moral and intellectual nature has been fully developed and is entire, and not in the case of those subjects of it whose moral and intellectual being is no more than rudimental and in embryo. Infants are subjects of Baptism in so far as, and no farther than their spiritual and intellectual nature permits of it. And it is an error, abundant illustration of which could be given from the writings both of the advocates and opponents of infant Baptism, to make Baptism applicable in the same sense and to the same extent to infants and to adults, and to form our notions and frame our theory of the Sacrament from its character as exhibited in the case of infants. It is very plain, and very important to remember, that the only true and complete type of Baptism is found in the instance of those subjects of it who are capable both of faith and repentance, not in the instance of those subjects of it who are not capable of either. The Bible model of Baptism is adult Baptism, and not infant.

With adults, Baptism is not regeneration or justification, but the seal of both to the regenerated and justified man. And in the case of infants, the Sacrament cannot be regarded as accomplishing without their faith, what in the case of adults with their faith, it fails to accomplish. In other words, infant Baptism is not infant regeneration or justification, any more than in the instance of adults. The Baptism with water to a child is not the same thing as the birth by the Spirit. It is not a supernatural charm. It is not a magic spell to confer the washing of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Ghost. Sacraments in the case of infants, as in the case of adults, have no mysterious and supernatural power of their own to impart, by the bare administration of them, spiritual life. Let us endeavour to understand what are the effects of Baptism in the case of infants.

*Baptism, in the case of all infants baptized, gives them a right of property in the covenant of grace; which may in after life, by means of their personal faith, be supplemented by a right of possession.*

In regard to this matter, I would have recourse again to a distinction, which in other discussions we have found it necessary to adopt, and which has more than once helped us to clear our way to a right understanding of the question in debate. A man may have a right of property in an estate, and yet a stranger may be in possession of it; and he may require to add to his right of property a right of possession, acquired by making good the former in a court of law, before the stranger is extruded, and he himself introduced into the enjoyment of the inheritance. Now, to apply this distinction to the case in hand, a right of property in the blessings of the covenant of grace is conferred by the gift and promise of God, made over to every man who hears the Gospel message addressed to him. "And this is the record, that God has given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son." This right of property in the blessings of the covenant of grace, belonging to every man, is written down in these words. The charter which every man has, bearing in it inscribed his right of property to these blessings, is the revealed Word of God. This is the first and superior title. But in itself it is incomplete, and inadequate to put him into the personal possession of his heritage. It requires to be supplemented by another title, before he can actually enjoy the salvation so made over to him by right of property, and certified by God's word and promise. To his right of property there must be added a right of possession; and this latter is obtained by means of his own personal act of faith, appropriating to himself the salvation before made over to him. The Word of God addressed to him, giving him a right of property in the blessings of the covenant, and his faith receiving that Word, giving him a right of possession, complete the full and perfect title to the blessing; and both together admit him to the enjoyment of it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 23, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> The confession you claim to hold to does not allow for your view that all children dying unborn are automatically elect. That God saves elect infants who die is affirmed: that all infants who die are elect is assuming something that God has not declared.


I understand on that, as I am saying what my position on this issue is, and seeing what the scriptures declare to me regarding just who would be elect children.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 23, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Just for the record, I did a lot of research on this conundrum; the reformed camp is split down the middle. A good number held that all infants dying in infancy are elect and the other, some infants were elect.
> 
> http://www.semperreformanda.com/2015/08/more-on-the-infant-who-dies-in-infancy/


I am just following someone like a Spurgeon, whose view on children and election would be mine own. You are correct, this has been discussed and had those 2 main views expressed, so would be an area that literally is known for sure only to God.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 23, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> Not true.
> 
> Both credo and paedo can say that the children of believers are raised up under the external blessings of the Covenant of Grace.


The Paedo language though does seem to support in the notion that those infants are being baptized into the COG, and are now to be seen as actual members of the NC now, which is not what Credo language would be saying.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 23, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Right...but practically speaking, the out-workings of credo theology run across the grain in many ways. Do you consider that covenantal blessing on your children? Are they 'holy'?


Yes, as being under external blessings of being in a local church, being raised up on the scriptures, but still need to have a profession of faith in Christ to be seen as being "holy" in the sense saved and under the NC.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 23, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> More from Bannerman on a really important element of this discussion (see below). Be careful reading Bannerman, though; you may just have to join the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) or Presbyterian Reformed Church after you get through his works.
> 
> First, *The proper and true type of Baptism, as a Sacrament in the Church of Christ, is the Baptism of adults, and not the Baptism of infants*...
> 
> ...


he seems to be making the case that the ordinance of the water baptism avails nothing if not accompanied by and being shown to have a valid profession of faith in Christ.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 23, 2018)

I believe it would be beneficial if we see the remainder of what Bannerman says on the issue: 

"The supernatural efficacy connected with Baptism, and owing to the presence of the Spirit of God with the ordinance, is an efficacy competent to infants as much as to adults. Even upon their unconscious natures the Spirit is free to work His work of grace, not less than upon the natures of adults whose understandings and hearts are consciously consenting to the work. The work of regeneration by the Holy Ghost is a work which it is as easy for Him to accomplish upon the infant of days as upon the man of mature age,—upon the child who enjoys but the rudiments of his moral and intellectual life, as upon the adult whose moral and intellectual powers are co-operating in and consenting to the gracious change. But broadly marked although the regeneration of the infant and the regeneration of the adult be, by the absence in the one instance, and the presence in the other, of a capacity moral and intellectual for faith and repentance, yet it is never to be lost sight of or forgotten that the work is the work of the Spirit of God, and not to be explained on any natural principle either in the former case or in the latter. The presence of his complete and perfect intellectual and moral powers in the case of the baptized adult, and the exercise of those powers in connection with the truths represented and signified in the Sacrament, afford no adequate explanation of the sacramental grace or efficacy connected with the ordinance in consequence of the power of the Spirit in it. At this point we have got beyond the limits of the natural, and into the region of the supernatural; and it is not more and not less supernatural in the case of infants than in the case of adults. Sacramental grace, properly so called, is a mystery of which there is no explanation, except that it is the grace of the Spirit of God. Admit that this grace is conveyed in any given case through the channel of Baptism to the believing adult, and you admit a mystery, which the presence and active exercise of his moral and intellectual powers do not in the least explain. Admit that this grace is conveyed in any given case through the channel of Baptism to the infant incapable of believing, and you admit a mystery too, but one not more mysterious than the former, and not more difficult to explain, from the absence or incapacity of his moral and intellectual faculties. In one word, the efficacy of infant Baptism, whatever that may be shown from Scripture to be, is not more mysterious than the sacramental virtue ascribed to adult Baptism.


III. There seems to be reason for inferring that, in the case of infants regenerated in infancy, Baptism is ordinarily connected with that regeneration.

To all infants without exception, Baptism, as we have already asserted, gives an interest in the Church of Christ as its members. To all infants without exception, Baptism, as we have also already asserted, gives a right of property in the covenant of grace, which may, by their personal faith in after life, be completed by a right of possession, so that they shall enter on the full enjoyment of all the blessings sealed to them by their previous Baptism. And beyond these two positions, in so far as infants are concerned, it is perhaps hazardous to go, in the absence of any very explicit Scripture evidence; and certainly, in going further, it were the reverse of wisdom to dogmatize. But I think that there is some reason to add to these positions the third one, which I have just announced, namely, that in the case of infants regenerated in infancy, Baptism is ordinarily connected with such regeneration. I would limit myself to the case of baptized infants regenerated in infancy,—a class of course to be distinguished broadly from baptized infants who never at any time in their lives experience a saving change; and also to be distinguished from baptized infants who experience that change, not in infancy, but in maturer years. There are these three cases, plainly to be distinguished from one another. There are, first, those infants baptized with an outward Baptism who never at any period come to know a saving change of state or nature. To such Baptism may be an ordinance giving them a place in the visible Church, and giving them also a right of property in the covenant of grace, never completed by a right of possession, and therefore given to them in vain; but it can be nothing more. There are, secondly, those infants baptized with water in infancy, but not regenerated in infancy by the Spirit of God, whose saving change of state and nature is experienced by them in after life. To such Baptism is an ordinance giving them a place in the visible Church, and giving them also a right of property in the covenant, at the moment of its administration; and in after years, when born again by the Spirit through faith, Baptism becomes to them, in addition, the seal, as it had previously been the sign, of the covenant,—their right of property having been completed by the right of possession, and the Sacrament, although long past, having become in consequence a present grace to their souls. But there are, thirdly, those infants baptized with water in infancy and also regenerated in infancy; and with regard to them I think there is reason to believe that this Baptism with water stands connected ordinarily with the Baptism of the Spirit.

That many an infant is sanctified and called by God even from its mother’s womb, and undergoes, while yet incapable of faith or repentance, that blessed change of nature which is wrought by the Spirit of God, there can be no reason to doubt. There are multitudes born into this world who die ere their infancy is past,—who open their unconscious eyes upon the light only to shut them again ere they have gazed their fill,—and who, in the brief moment of their earthly being, know nothing of life save the sorrow which marks both its beginning and its close. And with regard to such infants dying in infancy, there is a blessed hope, which the Scriptures give us to entertain, that they are not lost but saved,—that they suffer, and sorrow, and die here from their interest in Adam’s sin, but that, not knowing sin by their own personal act or thought, they are redeemed through their interest in Christ’s righteousness. But saved though infants dying in infancy may be, yet there is no exemption, even in their case, from the universal law of God’s spiritual dispensation towards men, that “except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Within the brief hour of an infant’s life, and ere the unconscious babe passes through the avenue of death into the Divine presence, must that mighty change of regeneration be undergone, which none but the Spirit of God can work; and among the rudiments of its intellectual and moral life, sleeping in the germ, there must be planted the seed of that higher life, which in heaven is destined to expand and endure through all eternity. And where, in the brief history of the young life and early death of these baptized little ones, shall we say that this mysterious work is wrought? At what moment, rather than another, is this regeneration by the Spirit accomplished? We dare not limit the free Spirit of God. The beginning of the life that comes from Him may be contemporaneous with the commencement of natural life in the infant, or it may be contemporaneous with its close. The Spirit of God is free to do His own work at His own time. But in the appointment of an ordinance to signify and represent that very work,—in the command to administer that ordinance as a sign to the little infant during the brief hour of its earthly life and ere it passes into eternity, there does seem to me some ground to believe that in such a case, of infants regenerated in infancy, the sign is meant to be connected with the thing signified,—that the moment of its Baptism is the appointed moment of its regeneration too,—and that, ordinarily, its birth by water and its birth by the Spirit of God are bound in one. It is Baptism which gives the baptized infant a right of property in the blessings of the covenant of grace; and when the infant is placed,—not from its own fault,—in such circumstances as to bar the possibility of its completing its title to those blessings by seeking through its personal faith a right of possession in them also, then it is consistent with the analogy of God’s appointments in other departments of His Church, that in such extraordinary cases the absence of a right of possession should not exclude from the blessings, but that the right of property alone should avail to secure them; or in other words, that in the case of infants regenerated and dying in infancy, their Baptism should coincide with their regeneration.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 23, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> I believe it would be beneficial if we see the remainder of what Bannerman says on the issue:
> 
> "The supernatural efficacy connected with Baptism, and owing to the presence of the Spirit of God with the ordinance, is an efficacy competent to infants as much as to adults. Even upon their unconscious natures the Spirit is free to work His work of grace, not less than upon the natures of adults whose understandings and hearts are consciously consenting to the work. The work of regeneration by the Holy Ghost is a work which it is as easy for Him to accomplish upon the infant of days as upon the man of mature age,—upon the child who enjoys but the rudiments of his moral and intellectual life, as upon the adult whose moral and intellectual powers are co-operating in and consenting to the gracious change. But broadly marked although the regeneration of the infant and the regeneration of the adult be, by the absence in the one instance, and the presence in the other, of a capacity moral and intellectual for faith and repentance, yet it is never to be lost sight of or forgotten that the work is the work of the Spirit of God, and not to be explained on any natural principle either in the former case or in the latter. The presence of his complete and perfect intellectual and moral powers in the case of the baptized adult, and the exercise of those powers in connection with the truths represented and signified in the Sacrament, afford no adequate explanation of the sacramental grace or efficacy connected with the ordinance in consequence of the power of the Spirit in it. At this point we have got beyond the limits of the natural, and into the region of the supernatural; and it is not more and not less supernatural in the case of infants than in the case of adults. Sacramental grace, properly so called, is a mystery of which there is no explanation, except that it is the grace of the Spirit of God. Admit that this grace is conveyed in any given case through the channel of Baptism to the believing adult, and you admit a mystery, which the presence and active exercise of his moral and intellectual powers do not in the least explain. Admit that this grace is conveyed in any given case through the channel of Baptism to the infant incapable of believing, and you admit a mystery too, but one not more mysterious than the former, and not more difficult to explain, from the absence or incapacity of his moral and intellectual faculties. In one word, the efficacy of infant Baptism, whatever that may be shown from Scripture to be, is not more mysterious than the sacramental virtue ascribed to adult Baptism.
> 
> ...


Do you see a distinction between children asserting to Jesus and infants who cannot though?And does that mean just baptized infants have the hope of salvation, due to being somehow seen as being in the COG now?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 23, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Do you see a distinction between children asserting to Jesus and infants who cannot though?And does that mean just baptized infants have the hope of salvation, due to being somehow seen as being in the COG now?



The efficacy is not necessarily tied to the moment of the administration--though there is no logical reason why it cannot.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 23, 2018)

"1. The efficacy of baptism is not confined to the moment of administration; but though not effectual at the time it is administered, it may afterwards be effectual, through the working of the Spirit.—John iii. 5, 8."
~Robert Shaw on ch 28:6

"(4.) Infants were members of the Church under the Old Testament from the beginning, being circumcised upon the faith of their parents. Now as the Church is the same Church; as the conditions of membership were the same then as now; as circumcision signified and bound to precisely what baptism does; and since baptism has taken precisely the place of circumcision, it follows that the church membership of the children of professors should be recognized now as it was then, and that they should be baptized. The only ground upon which this conclusion could be obviated would be that Christ in the gospel explicitly turns them out of their ancient birth-right in the Church."

Archibald Alexander Hodge, _A Commentary on the Confession of Faith: With Questions for Theological Students and Bible Classes_ (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath-School Work, 1869), 472.

"(_a_.) That baptism does not only signify, but really and truly seal and convey, grace to those to whom it belongs according to covenant—that is, to the elect.

(_b_.) But that this actual conveyance of the grace sealed is not tied to the moment in which the sacrament is administered, but is made according to the precise provisions as to time and circumstance predetermined in the eternal covenant of grace. So property may be sealed and conveyed in a deed to a minor, but the minor may not actually enter into the fruition of it until such time and upon such conditions as are predetermined in his father’s will.

(_c_.) The efficacy of the sacrament is not due to any spiritual or magical quality communicated to the water.

(_d_.) But this efficacy does result (1) from the moral power of the truth which the rite symbolizes. (2.) From the fact that it is a seal of the covenant of grace, and a legal form of investing those persons embraced in the covenant with the graces promised therein. (3.) From the personal presence and sovereignly gracious operation of the Holy Spirit, who uses the sacrament as his instrument and medium.

(_e_.) That through these channels the grace signified is really conveyed to the persons to whom, according to the divine counsel, it truly belongs, yet this grace and the influences of the Holy Ghost are not so tied to the sacrament that they are never, or even infrequently, conveyed in any other way. The very grace conveyed by the sacrament must be possessed by the adult as a prerequisite to baptism, and is often subsequently experienced through other channels."



Archibald Alexander Hodge, _A Commentary on the Confession of Faith: With Questions for Theological Students and Bible Classes_ (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath-School Work, 1869), 477–478.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 23, 2018)

"The word used in the New Testament for the holy ordinances which we call sacraments is _mystery_, implying that there is in the holy rite more than meets the eye in the visible element. As means of grace the sacraments are closely related to the word of God. The sacrament, indeed, has no independent existence, and cannot be administered apart from the word. It also teaches and imparts no new thing, but only presents in another form what has been already set forth in the word. The word has all that is essential to the sacrament, and the sacrament is, to use a phrase of the Reformers borrowed from Augustine, a _verbum visibile_, a visible word. ‘Faith’, says Durham, ‘takes Christ in the word, and strikes hands with Him in the sacrament.’ The sacrament, therefore, comes after the word, as helping to secure the end for which the word is given".

John Macpherson, _The Sum of Saving Knowledge_, ed. Marcus Dods and Alexander Whyte, Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, n.d.), 106.


"Erroneous views of the meaning of baptism appeared early in the Church. The sacrament of regeneration was spoken of by some of the early Fathers in a way that was suitable only if used of regeneration itself. This tendency, developed into a dogma of Baptismal Regeneration, is current not only in the Romish Church, but also in the High Church section of the Church of England. The error results from confounding the sign with the thing signified, and thinking of the sacrament as conferring grace by some power in itself. While opposing this error, we must guard against the contrary extreme of the Socinians and others (perhaps Zwingli should be included), who look upon baptism as nothing more than an initiatory rite, for if this be all, it is then no means of grace. [See _Confession of Faith_, chap. xxviii. § 1; Author’s _Handbook_, p. 150.]"

John Macpherson, _The Sum of Saving Knowledge_, ed. Marcus Dods and Alexander Whyte, Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, n.d.), 108–109.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 23, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> "The word used in the New Testament for the holy ordinances which we call sacraments is _mystery_, implying that there is in the holy rite more than meets the eye in the visible element. As means of grace the sacraments are closely related to the word of God. The sacrament, indeed, has no independent existence, and cannot be administered apart from the word. It also teaches and imparts no new thing, but only presents in another form what has been already set forth in the word. The word has all that is essential to the sacrament, and the sacrament is, to use a phrase of the Reformers borrowed from Augustine, a _verbum visibile_, a visible word. ‘Faith’, says Durham, ‘takes Christ in the word, and strikes hands with Him in the sacrament.’ The sacrament, therefore, comes after the word, as helping to secure the end for which the word is given".
> 
> John Macpherson, _The Sum of Saving Knowledge_, ed. Marcus Dods and Alexander Whyte, Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, n.d.), 106.
> 
> ...


Baptists tend to call them ordinances, is there really some differences or not?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 23, 2018)

Big difference. Presbyterians see the sacraments as means of actual grace, i.e physical representations of the gospel.

However, Presbyterians call them ordinances as well, for the puritans often called them ordinances more than sacraments, though they meant both as one and the same. However, their meaning in comparrison to Baptist theology differs greatly.


----------



## Grant Van Leuven (Jan 24, 2018)

*Raise Up Your Covenant Children as Christians (Christian Parenting in the Church)*
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1219162170


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 24, 2018)

I don't really get the talk about the "efficacy of baptism" - what exactly does it do?

If we speak of children of believers later believing, it is due to the influence of Christian nurture and not a magical sprinkle of water on the head. What exactly does the water add except for real or perceived obedience? 

Are children raised up in a Christian Presbyterian home better off than children raised up in a Christian baptist home given that both provide Christian nurture to their children? I don't see the water adding anything? In fact, many Presbyterian denominations have gone astray, and their baptized children quickly fell away from sound doctrine.

In the NT we see baptism being a sign of belief and repentance. 


I have heard one Presbyterian man speak of the baptized infants of believers going to heaven if they die in infancy whereas the infant children of nonbelievers go to hell if they die in infancy, but this seems to have no warrant in Scripture and seems to lend a magical belief to baptism.

So what does baptism DO except to symbolize one's new birth? I do not see it DOING anything except representing an inner reality, an inner reality that we cannot be sure of in infants. You guys seem to put magical power into the sacraments. While it is not full-blown sacerdotalism, it is a sacramentalism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 24, 2018)

Trevor,
Here is a post from 2013 that Bruce B. answered your question succinctly:

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/the-efficacy-of-baptism.80722/#post-1017725

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 24, 2018)

http://www.apuritansmind.com/covenant-theology/difficulties-about-baptism-by-dr-douglas-bannerman/


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 24, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> I don't really get the talk about the "efficacy of baptism" - what exactly does it do?



Baptism isn't just a sign. It's a seal. It seals the efficacy to us, but not always necessarily at the time of the applicaton.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 24, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Baptism isn't just a sign. It's a seal. It seals the efficacy to us, but not always necessarily at the time of the applicaton.


The Holy Spirit Himself though is the seal of now being under and in the NC itself, not the water baptism, as that would be the sign of one now being in it.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 24, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The Holy Spirit Himself though is the seal of now being under and in the NC itself, not the water baptism, as that would be the sign of one now being in it.



The sacraments can seal the work of the Spirit, though the efficacy is not always then applied.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 24, 2018)

Sacerdotalism is religious practice or ideology wherein a priesthood of some kind (those vested with dispensary power) dole out grace, or blessing, or privilege/access, and suchlike. This is not a Reformed view of Christ's ministry.

"Sacrament" is chiefly a Christian term today, though it may have been around and used in a religious sense before the A.D. era. Certainly Gnostics in the early Christian period were using similar terms and concepts. Once cause of elaboration and proliferation in Christian sacraments was a foolish "contest" mentality with the Gnostics. A proper, Christian definition should resist "watering down" to a common denominator with other religions, which may for some reason borrow the Christian terminology.
​Sacramentalism is religious practice or ideology wherein sacraments are viewed as powers-in-themselves, God or some religious authority uniquely investing them with spiritual services, perhaps a sanctifying or cleansing substance (RCC "grace" for instance).

Sacerdotalism and sacramentalism may go together handily, but there is no logical reason why they must be twin-ideology. It is hard to imagine the first without utilization of the latter in various forms; however it is easily possible to imagine the latter without demand of the first. Holy "places," holy "things," a spinning-prayer-wheel or a burning candle--these are means through which a kind of sacramentalism is exercised by pilgrimage, by touching, by some votive act; no direct priestly intervention needed. (Rome's use of such variety of forms are tied back into her sacerdotal system.)

A distinction needs to be made between Protestant doctrine(s) of sacrament and Roman and Eastern doctrine(s). There's a fundamental divide there, even if for example the Presbyterian thinks the Lutheran or Anglican doctrine is not sufficiently distinguished from Rome. Just so, if the Baptist doesn't think there's much difference between a Reformed doctrine and practice and that of Rome, the problem could be either in his discriminating faculty, or in the aberrant/confused doctrine and practice of some Reformed claimant.

Sacramentalism is connected to an_ ex opere operato_ apprehension of sacramental use. Such is not what Presbyterians and Reformed confess. Nor do we confess as the Lutherans do: that a properly administered sacrament_ effects_ what it signifies because the conjoined Word _invariably_ produces faith in the recipient (faith which can be repudiated after the fact). We think that's _too-close _an identification of sign and thing signified. We confess a distinction between sign and signification. We confess both the divinely ordained connection between promise and means, and the sovereign freedom of the Spirit of application.

There is a difference, typically, between a kind of "catechism of a sign" which many Baptists see as the purpose of the church's *ordinances* (a term they prefer, precisely because of the connotation of the term 'sacrament'); and the confessed doctrine of the P&R. Many P&R have more of a typical Baptist understanding for their sacraments, than they have of what their Confession teaches.

The P&R confess the sacraments (both) are properly "means of grace." Grace is not a substance; it is fellowship, a relationship of blessing--it has an outward (visible) and an inward (spiritual) component, which belong together and for the elect are finally found together. It is property by grant of the elect, and no others. Those who openly or secretly despise their grant are those we call apostates and reprobates. And all this is perfectly applicable to anyone, of any age, baptized at any age.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 3


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 24, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The sacraments can seal the work of the Spirit, though the efficacy is not always then applied.


Faith in Jesus is when the conversion occurs, and is when the Holy Spirit seals the saved person to now be in Christ spiritually.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 24, 2018)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Sacerdotalism is religious practice or ideology wherein a priesthood of some kind (those vested with dispensary power) dole out grace, or blessing, or privilege/access, and suchlike. This is not a Reformed view of Christ's ministry.
> 
> "Sacrament" is chiefly a Christian term today, though it may have been around and used in a religious sense before the A.D. era. Certainly Gnostics in the early Christian period were using similar terms and concepts. Once cause of elaboration and proliferation in Christian sacraments was a foolish "contest" mentality with the Gnostics. A proper, Christian definition should resist "watering down" to a common denominator with other religions, which may for some reason borrow the Christian terminology.
> ​Sacramentalism is religious practice or ideology wherein sacraments are viewed as powers-in-themselves, God or some religious authority uniquely investing them with spiritual services, perhaps a sanctifying or cleansing substance (RCC "grace" for instance).
> ...


As a Baptist, my real big difficulty in understanding the Presbyterian reformed viewpoint on water baptism is that the very wording itself seems to be saying that the infant is now sealed and confirmed into the NC, into Community of faith, so much as the Anglican church sees it, something supernaturally happen in that baptism to regenerate/seal that infant into salvation? How am I misunderstanding this?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 24, 2018)

Make a distinction between being in Covenant internally and externally. Both Esau and Ishmael were in Covenant; externally, but yet still part of the Covenant community.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 24, 2018)

The water/baptism is:
1) a sign
2) a seal

The sign and the thing the sign signifies are not one and the same thing. Some have a sign of condemnation in their flesh and others, grace.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 24, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Make a distinction between being in Covenant internally and externally. Both Esau and Ishmael were in Covenant; externally, but yet still part of the Covenant community.


Would this be like saying one would be in Covenant as in Israel, by being part of the nation of Israel, but covenant spiritually only was to those saved?


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 24, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> The water/baptism is:
> 1) a sign
> 2) a seal
> 
> The sign and the thing the sign signifies are not one and the same thing. Some have a sign of condemnation in their flesh and others, grace.


What does it mean, if anything, to a person water baptized as a baby, and never professed faith in Christ though later on?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 24, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> What does it mean, if anything, to a person water baptized as a baby, and never professed faith in Christ though later on?



It is still a sign of covenant-if elect, of covenant keeping. If rebellious reprobate, covenant breaking. It is still is a seal, possibly immediately (if God wills) or later in life if u are elect; it is still a seal to the reprobate as well, unto condemnation.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 24, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Faith in Jesus is when the conversion occurs, and is when the Holy Spirit seals the saved person to now be in Christ spiritually.



Yes. I understand that is what Baptists teach. But saying it is not the same as proving it. As we've said: you are using covenantal language while denying the reality.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 24, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> It is still a sign of covenant-if elect, of covenant keeping. If rebellious reprobate, covenant breaking. It is still is a seal, possibly immediately (if God wills) or later in life if u are elect; it is still a seal to the reprobate as well, unto condemnation.


So the person who was infant baptized who be considered to have been saved until the time they stated not a believer in Jesus?


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 24, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Yes. I understand that is what Baptists teach. But saying it is not the same as proving it. As we've said: you are using covenantal language while denying the reality.


When does the born again experience happen as per the Presbyterian viewpoint?
Baptists see that as being a decisive one time event, would you see it more as being a gradual process then?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 24, 2018)

Here,
Read this as it will help answer your question:

http://www.semperreformanda.com/2015/03/4398/


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 24, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> When does the *born again experience* happen as per the Presbyterian viewpoint?
> Baptists see that as being a decisive one time event, would you see it more as being a gradual process then?



We are not saved by an experience. John the Baptists leaped in the womb when he met Jesus.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 24, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> We are not saved by an experience. John the Baptists leaped in the womb when he met Jesus.


We are saved by the work and person of Jesus on our behalf, but there still has to be a deciding moment in time when he became our Lord, correct?


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 24, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Here,
> Read this as it will help answer your question:
> 
> http://www.semperreformanda.com/2015/03/4398/


The Holy Spirit enabling a sinner to be able to receive Jesus through saving faith that God gives to His own happens in regeneration/conversion, as both seem to be happening from our point of view at same time.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 24, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> We are saved by the work and person of Jesus on our behalf, but there still has to be a deciding moment in time when he became our Lord, correct?



Then all infants who died in infancy are in hell.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 24, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The Holy Spirit enabling a sinner to be able to receive Jesus through saving faith that God gives to His own happens in regeneration/conversion, as both seem to be happening from our point of view at same time.



No one truly knows when they were actually regenerated and converted. The ordo is logical in order-chronological in time.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 24, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Baptism isn't just a sign. It's a seal. It seals the efficacy to us, but not always necessarily at the time of the applicaton.


That is what I don't get. "It seals the efficacy to us" - what does that mean? Unless all those or even the majority of those baptized end up saved then it is not a very good seal at all....a broken seal that only seals about 30% perhaps.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 24, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Make a distinction between being in Covenant internally and externally. Both Esau and Ishmael were in Covenant; externally, but yet still part of the Covenant community.


The children of believers are already part of the covenant community by virtue of the fact that their parents always take them to church and under the preaching of the Word. They are under the external administration of the covenant but not in the Covenant unless they be elect. This is already true whether or not the child is baptized.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 24, 2018)

In a previous thread Rev Bruce says the following: "The sacrament of baptism has a word of promise attached to it, a gospel word; that is whoever believes in the things that baptism intimates will be saved."

But...baptists could believe in that. And, why not just apply baptism at the point when faith is professed? It seems in the NT that baptism is a symbol of one's belief, not a seal unto belief.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 24, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> The children of believers are already part of the covenant community by virtue of the fact that their parents always take them to church and under the preaching of the Word.



Not necessarily. Is a person that rejects local church membership a member? Just because someone goes to church does not make them part of the covenant community. Many people do this and have never been baptized. 



> They are under the external administration of the covenant but not in the Covenant unless they be elect.



The covenant is made up of internal and external distinctions; Ishmael and Esau were in covenant-just externally. 



> This is already true whether or not the child is baptized.



U say so.....I disagree. What was it that Ziporrah said to Moses? 'Father of blood!'


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 24, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> That is what I don't get. "It seals the efficacy to us" - what does that mean?



The sign is efficacious in the two ways I described earlier-whatever the case, it is always efficacious. One, to the elect-maybe immediately, maybe later. Secondly, in regard to the reprobate, sealing add'l condemnation, by rejecting and rebelling against the covenant.

Keep in mind, it is Christ who is the one who is actually baptizing...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 24, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> In a previous thread Rev Bruce says the following: "The sacrament of baptism has a word of promise attached to it, a gospel word; that is whoever believes in the things that baptism intimates will be saved."
> 
> But...baptists could believe in that. And, why not just apply baptism at the point when faith is professed? It seems in the NT that baptism is a symbol of one's belief, not a seal unto belief.



Well Trevor, the difference in how the credo views the sacrament is obvious. Keep in mind, you cannot avoid the fact that when we see the local credo church placing the sign upon a person, you are doing nothing more than presuming anyways; and what are the chances that this person apostatizes one day? 50-50? No credo baptist knows for sure, in the absolute sense that you are not applying the sign on a reprobate. It happens. Both of us have witnessed it. This is where the delaying in placing the sign, in light of the OT principle, which Presbyterianism follows, doesn't make any sense to me, given this fact. Waiting and watching proves nothing, and that coming from someone who used to be credo-baptist!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Parakaleo (Jan 24, 2018)

One thing I have asked my Baptist brethren before is how they know their last baptism was real? If they ever backslide or else show themselves to be unbelieving in some way, but are then dramatically restored to belief, of course they will need to get a _true baptism _after that. However, the question could be asked again: how do you know it's true _this time_?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 24, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> As a Baptist, my real big difficulty in understanding the Presbyterian reformed viewpoint on water baptism is that the very wording itself seems to be saying that the infant is now sealed and confirmed into the NC, into Community of faith, so much as the Anglican church sees it, something supernaturally happen in that baptism to regenerate/seal that infant into salvation? How am I misunderstanding this?


I my view, you seem to place inordinate confidence in the verbal claims a man makes: is he "sealed and confirmed into the NC" because he says so? If you qualify your own adults' professions, yet say their baptism witnesses a truth of union with Christ; why strenuously object when we too speak in terms of what baptism ideally witnesses? 

But this also speaks to the difference between us regarding WHO each thinks is the primary "speaker" in regard to baptism. We say that God is the primary speaker; but your side can't get to the edge of the baptistery until the man invokes _his _Lord. Baptism is (we hear it frequently, but I don't want to put words in your mouth) "Christian's first obedience."

We don't baptize adults who don't first profess, but it's not his obedience. Baptism is a promise. It's a promise in a picture, in the feel of water on the skin, but the same promise as comes in the Word:_ I will save you, even you Bruce (or David) if you have faith in me; I'll wash your soul as sure as this water washes your body._ It is no different for an adult than an infant.

Who benefits from such a promise, whether in verbal or signal form? Believers, that's who. But because an unbeliever doesn't make the most of the gospel he listened to, does that make the promise any less true? It doesn't have the slightest impact on the promise. God's promise is sure and sealed: "The Lord knoweth them that are his," 2Tim.2:19. In addition, I can't tell from your comment, if you think "regeneration" and "sealing" are one-and-the-same, but I don't think they are.

God knows his believers before they believe in history. He wrote their names from all eternity. He makes his promise to them before they_ can_ respond appropriately. And as for those who only take that promise in a superficial way (whether superficially in verbal or watery mode) and ultimately reject it; you can't blame the promise.

We don't claim that God's promise is: "Everyone who is baptized in water I seal in perfection." We even have to qualify the "faith" we hear from the mouth of professors with _perseverance. _The promise isn't conditionless; the condition (for blessing) is always faith; which, if true faith, endures.

Nor does the symbol (the water, or the bare Word) confer faith; but the Spirit, working by so simple and ordinary things, he confers faith through regeneration. If he please to start his supernatural work with an infant, around or about his baptism, who are we to say he may not? He has begun such work with certain biblical characters (if we read that evidence correctly). He just tells us what to do; not when he'll start his efficient work, or how much he'll accomplish by when.

So, if an Anglican asserts that the priest's baptism has infallibly made a supernatural change then and there, and he knows it is so because _baptism_; we think he's saying more than the Bible actually promises. On the other hand, supposing the child is elect (only God knows); then, as an actual matter of fact what looks like a seal IS THAT VERY THING, that is to say its outward form, like stamped wax on parchment. It's time that will tell, as well as the final judgment for all to see the confirmation, viz. what God sealed in the spiritual. He gave us baptism to serve that function.

As P&R understand it, God told us to regard it as such all along. It is_ effectual_ unto faith, not before it, nor without it. But even faith is possible for infants--though you may doubt it happens very often. However, we don't baptize infants because their faith is possible, but because God wills the sign for them. He ordained the (OT) sign should be given to the infant; the kingdom of heaven belongs to this sort said Jesus; seems (to us) like nothing (essential) has changed. Except now in Christ (NT) there's no more male (had) and female (had not), Gal.3:28.

That's my effort at answering. As you will...

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 24, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> One thing I have asked my Baptist brethren before is how they know their last baptism was real? If they ever backslide or else show themselves to be unbelieving in some way, but are then dramatically restored to belief, of course they will need to get a _true baptism _after that. However, the question could be asked again: how do you know it's true _this time_?


That is a good question.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 24, 2018)

If we speak of baptism as a seal, but then say it can seal either salvation or destruction, then that is like saying the seal really does nothing practically. The end-result is the same as doing it the baptist way. 

It is like saying it is a seal that doesn't really seal, so I will call its failure to seal also a seal, too. 

Or you must say that the seal+belief is what seals a person to salvation, but that is the same thing the baptist says. There is nothing added by baptism except obedience. There is no magical addition that the application of the sign gives, that is why many baptists call it an ordinance and not a sacrament. It is the faith that mattters and (in the case of the baptist) one's personal obedience to the ordinance, instead of the obedience of the parents. 

If you took 1000 children of believers baptized as infants from a Presbyterian church versus 1000 children of believers not baptized until they profess faith from a Reformed baptist church, do you think the baptized infants will grow up to become real Christians in a greater percentage of the cases?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 24, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> If we speak of baptism as a seal, but then say it can seal either salvation or destruction, then that is like saying the seal really does nothing practically. The end-result is the same as doing it the baptist way.


I don't think we're thinking of what this seal is about in the same way.

In the first place, we must distinguish between sign and thing signified. The sign is visible; the seal--the actual sealing as a truth--is Spirit work, it's invisible. The wax blob-and-mark is itself a sign of the will of the king. If it fell off and was lost in the mud, the sealing is recorded unto ME in the place that matters. But, my diploma is still of real value to me, even if it be perishable. It is the genuine article, issued by genuine authority. It has been counterfeited; yet, I don't get rid of my copy, just because someone else has a fake.

Saying baptism's_ visible_ sign (seal) will bring damnation to the false witness is no different than saying the counterfeit diploma will bring wrath when it is discovered. But its even more like when the spy is caught, and he tries to catch a break by proving he was really a native-born son and shows his sealed birth certificate to prove it. Better for him, or worse?



Pergamum said:


> It is like saying it is a seal that doesn't really seal, so I will call its failure to seal also a seal, too.


You're clearly thinking about this sealing in a very different way, as evidenced by these words. You are saying that the wax-on-the-paper "sealing" is literally doing what the promises written down say. Instead of the Power making the promise, and including the provisos stated and implied. Moreover, you're saying that the seal should_ effect_ the promise wherever it is attached. But actually, it is the enforcement arm of the Power that effects what is written and sealed.

And no one--absolutely no one in this conversation--says that everyone given a baptism takes that secret sealing. Baptism's water stands at the intersection of human activity and divine activity. If the Spirit seals, then when "he cometh to make up his jewels," he will identify them as his--not because of what men did, but what he did. And the faithless possession of the extrinsic wax alone will obtain less than nothing. It will matter nothing when his claim was asserted.



Pergamum said:


> Or you must say that the seal+belief is what seals a person to salvation, but that is the same thing the baptist says. There is nothing added by baptism except obedience. There is no magical addition that the application of the sign gives, that is why many baptists call it an ordinance and not a sacrament. It is the faith that mattters and (in the case of the baptist) one's personal obedience to the ordinance, instead of the obedience of the parents.


From where we're standing, you might as well toss these cavils at Abraham. "Your sons have nothing added to them." Not sure Moses would agree, or Paul, Rom.3:1ff. Is the "magical" term a veiled accusation at what we're saying?

I think once more, the difference is in "WHO" each of us really thinks is the principal "speaker" in a baptism. We assert that it is God, making a conditional promise, one that's connected to another promise: "I will be God to you, and to your children." It was always a conditional promise, from the first, requiring faith of them receiving it for a benefit.

And it is not this way for you. I'm hearing you say, "It's fundamentally my promise to God. And if I'm not actually serious (even if I think I am, and then later reconsider where I was at the time), then my failure nullifies the act." If you can do that, then we're not talking about God making an objective statement of any kind. Man makes or breaks the deal.



Pergamum said:


> If you took 1000 children of believers baptized as infants from a Presbyterian church versus 1000 children of believers not baptized until they profess faith from a Reformed baptist church, do you think the baptized infants will grow up to become real Christians in a greater percentage of the cases?


This really isn't worth a response, because it's trying to decide what should be done, by judging the "results" of both sides doing what they believe God ordains. As if "success" by some numerical metric, some percentage, was the way to sort out which side had the "most faithful" practice. Reformed worship should just give way to the Charismatics', I suppose? No one can answer anyway, but God alone.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 25, 2018)

So if a counterfeit seal brings greater damnation upon the unbeliever, why not wait until there are outward signs of conversion and an intentional confession, like the baptists do?


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 25, 2018)

Rev. Bruce, 

I am considering this quote by you:

"I think once more, the difference is in "WHO" each of us really thinks is the principal "speaker" in a baptism. We assert that it is God, making a conditional promise, one that's connected to another promise: "I will be God to you, and to your children." It was always a conditional promise, from the first, requiring faith of them receiving it for a benefit.

And it is not this way for you. I'm hearing you say, "It's fundamentally my promise to God. And if I'm not actually serious (even if I think I am, and then later reconsider where I was at the time), then my failure nullifies the act." If you can do that, then we're not talking about God making an objective statement of any kind. Man makes or breaks the deal."

Do you have further proof of this? That is a line of argument that most baptists do not consider. I want to consider it further. 

But doesn't ALL mankind now have that promise, "If you believe, I will be your God and you will be my children." This cannot be restricted merely to the children of believers but to all the world.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 25, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> So if a counterfeit seal brings greater damnation upon the unbeliever, why not wait until there are outward signs of conversion and an intentional confession, like the baptists do?


Again, we don't do what we do because we do/don't care about sparing someone grief. It's out of our hands, what a man brings upon himself by his unbelief. If God wills us to baptize the child, then we do it.



Pergamum said:


> "I think once more, the difference is in "WHO" each of us really thinks is the principal "speaker" in a baptism. We assert that it is God, making a conditional promise, one that's connected to another promise: "I will be God to you, and to your children." It was always a conditional promise, from the first, requiring faith of them receiving it for a benefit.
> ..........
> Do you have further proof of this? That is a line of argument that most baptists do not consider. I want to consider it further.
> 
> But doesn't ALL mankind now have that promise, "If you believe, I will be your God and you will be my children." This cannot be restricted merely to the children of believers but to all the world.


Pergy,
I assume you want to know why I think this is the "message" of baptism.

It's because it is the sign of the covenant. What is the covenant? It is the promise of salvation. It's a grace-covenant because God makes all the offers, and the guarantees; and if there's a stipulation for men (i.e. faith), God supplies us with the requirement. We read grace right through the whole ordo salutis.

The sign of the covenant is like the wedding band. My wife wears my ring, and I hers; in a sense they are one ring.... In any event, she looks down and sees my promise, my oaths from way back when, right there on her finger. God doesn't wear my promise, I don't wear my promise; I wear his promise.

He gave that promise specially to Abraham and his children, at one point in history constraining all men into one channel of blessing, one church-family, eventually a church-state; to which the whole world should look to await the Savior. Even back in the OT days, Israel was a genetic core, into which a whole host of non-natives were incorporated.

What's the promise then and now? *Salvation is freely available: through my Mediator. My way. Not your way, or any way you'd like to have Me. I am the God of the One Faithful Son, my Israel, my Messiah, the Hope of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. You can be Abraham's children, through being joined to his Son and Heir. And thus, my children.*

There's no lukewarm reoriented promise to the world that there's no more restrictions or limitations on being God's children, like there was once.
<insert BUZZER emoji here>​Wrong. Foreigners could join the children of Israel, and be incorporated into the holy nation of old. And in the NT Gentiles and Jews can be grafted on the Vine, and be regarded as renegades no more.

This is the deal at Pentecost. There's no one left of Israel, none. Everyone is disinherited. Except the Man God raised from the dead. He's the One True Israelite. He is the Sole Heir. He gets it all, his enemies nothing; his erstwhile friends, they deserve nothing, they abandoned him too. But that's the point, isn't it? He is completely rejected by men, and approved by God, Is.53. And instead of bringing death to all, he offers forgiveness, life, and salvation. In him. Only IN HIM.

Want to be a child of God? Want to bring you and your family back into fellowship with God? Got to be connected to Abraham's sole Heir. And those wonderful promises will be reinstated to you.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 25, 2018)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Again, we don't do what we do because we do/don't care about sparing someone grief. It's out of our hands, what a man brings upon himself by his unbelief. If God wills us to baptize the child, then we do it.
> 
> Pergy,
> I assume you want to know why I think this is the "message" of baptism.
> ...


Rev. Bruce,
Allow me to say that I love your responses. They explain the paedo position more clearly than any other person I've read, and make it beautiful as well. With the help of these posts and others, I'm understanding better and better the Presbyterian position.
I still reject it, but I do delight to know what my paedo brethren think.
Thanks for the time you take to post.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 25, 2018)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Again, we don't do what we do because we do/don't care about sparing someone grief. It's out of our hands, what a man brings upon himself by his unbelief. If God wills us to baptize the child, then we do it.
> 
> Pergy,
> I assume you want to know why I think this is the "message" of baptism.
> ...



Thank you for this answer. And your other answers. 

I will read through this again and your other threads on baptism and come back in a day or two after I have tried to understand your point better.

I appreciate your time and Scott's and the others on this thread. Thanks for being so thorough.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 25, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> So if a counterfeit seal brings greater damnation upon the unbeliever, why not wait until there are outward signs of conversion and an intentional confession, like the baptists do?



Trevor,
The seal is never counterfeit. It is always efficacious. It does exactly what it is intended to do, dependent upon the election you hold.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 26, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Then all infants who died in infancy are in hell.


No, for the Lord Himself has decreed that he will applying the saving Grace of the Cross towards their sins and save them Himself. Infants/aborted babies/special needs persons to me all fall under God deciding to provide for them salvation, to do what they could not do for themselves.
The real question would be are all in those specials situations elected by God unto salvation, or just some?


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 26, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> No one truly knows when they were actually regenerated and converted. The ordo is logical in order-chronological in time.


I can remember in detail, not the exacr time/date, but where was saved though.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 26, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> The sign is efficacious in the two ways I described earlier-whatever the case, it is always efficacious. One, to the elect-maybe immediately, maybe later. Secondly, in regard to the reprobate, sealing add'l condemnation, by rejecting and rebelling against the covenant.
> 
> Keep in mind, it is Christ who is the one who is actually baptizing...


The baptizing that is really effectually towards us though would be the one done by the Holy Spirit, when he places us into Christ and thus under now the NC blessings.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 26, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> One thing I have asked my Baptist brethren before is how they know their last baptism was real? If they ever backslide or else show themselves to be unbelieving in some way, but are then dramatically restored to belief, of course they will need to get a _true baptism _after that. However, the question could be asked again: how do you know it's true _this time_?


The water Baptism would be valid if one was ordained to do such an ordinance, and if we are restored back into fellowship with the lord, would not affect that at all. Baptists tend to see the Baptism of the believer as a sign external that they have already been Spirit Baptized into the NC and the body of Christ.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 26, 2018)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I don't think we're thinking of what this seal is about in the same way.
> 
> In the first place, we must distinguish between sign and thing signified. The sign is visible; the seal--the actual sealing as a truth--is Spirit work, it's invisible. The wax blob-and-mark is itself a sign of the will of the king. If it fell off and was lost in the mud, the sealing is recorded unto ME in the place that matters. But, my diploma is still of real value to me, even if it be perishable. It is the genuine article, issued by genuine authority. It has been counterfeited; yet, I don't get rid of my copy, just because someone else has a fake.
> 
> ...


What marks us out though as belonging to Christ would be the sealing of the Holy Spirit at time of conversion, not the water baptism whenever it was applied.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I can remember in detail, not the exacr time/date, but where was saved though.



What does the above mean? I don't understand what u are trying to say.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The baptizing that is really effectually towards us though would be the one done by the Holy Spirit, when he places us into Christ and thus under now the NC blessings.



Think, Godhead....


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> What marks us out though as belonging to Christ would be the sealing of the Holy Spirit at time of conversion, not the water baptism whenever it was applied.


_*Marks*_ how? Your eyes cannot see such a sealing as the H.S. does, whenever he does it (and he is _at work_ before you know it; conversion isn't a "zapping" of him into your life at specific space-time coordinates). And, you cannot see him, Jn.3:8. Abraham's circumcision token was the "sign"--something you can see--of a "sealing" you cannot see, Rom.4:11.

The idea is of two things that belong together, but in a world with confusion sometimes they aren't found together. Baptism is for disciples; the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch; baptism marks those we identify in the world--however imperfectly--as Christians.

May we call some folk who aren't baptized "Christians?" Yes, in an improper sense, but it's a situation that cries out for congruity. Yes, there will be some who are baptized "Christians" who shouldn't be--in the sense that the two things (sign & seal) will never be in alignment. But the church still baptizes them (adults and/or infants) as they read God's command.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Cymro (Jan 26, 2018)

The debate about what profit is there in an infant being baptised really concerns God’s promise which is conveyed under the covenantal sign and seal. The promise is to the parents and to the infant. The parents do not rest their faith upon the grounds that the infant has to have knowledge of God, but squarely on the Covenant promise that God has graciously given. The Lord is not hamstrung to one way of fulfilling His will when an elect child has no comprehension of the gospel, which is particularly true when death takes away the tender plant. This is true also of infants that have mental disabilities and understand little.
All promises of scripture are not the personal possession of the believer, but only those that are specifically given for certain circumstances in life. BUT this promise is the personal possession of every believing parent. This I suggest is the difference between the Baptist and Paedobaptist position. One prays out of parental love and concern, the other also having the same, but with the greater and safer motive of this exceeding great and precious promise.
The child’s natural ignorance because of its age, does not prevent the regenerative power and purpose of Almighty God. Which of us knows the moment when we ere regenerated? We may know the day when we were converted (though I don’t), but regeneration may have occurred well before that event.
Schenck quotes Calvin as using “the term regeneration in a broad sense, not only for the inception of new life in Christ, but it includes also sanctification of development or growth in the new life. Regeneration is only begun, and goes on making progress during the whole of life.” So that being true of an adults experience, it is also can be applicable to children of believers even from the womb.
If then circumcision is the sign and seal of the promise, and Abraham applied it to his children before they exercised faith, it follows that baptism is similarly applied to the seed of those who are of the faith of father Abraham before they 
exercise faith.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 26, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> What does the above mean? I don't understand what u are trying to say.


I was just saying that I do remember when I passed over from being a sinner to a saint.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 26, 2018)

One can the evidence though that the sinner has now been converted into a Christian, as a true follower of Christ, as their new lifestyle will show some fruits to some degree.
Just saying that to the NT, the sealing of the holy Spirit would appear to be the sign that one is now a saved person, not any ordinance that has been done to them.
The Ordinance would mark them as now being part of the locak church, but the sealing of/by the Spirit marks them as also being part of the one true church.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 26, 2018)

Cymro said:


> The debate about what profit is there in an infant being baptised really concerns God’s promise which is conveyed under the covenantal sign and seal. The promise is to the parents and to the infant. The parents do not rest their faith upon the grounds that the infant has to have knowledge of God, but squarely on the Covenant promise that God has graciously given. The Lord is not hamstrung to one way of fulfilling His will when an elect child has no comprehension of the gospel, which is particularly true when death takes away the tender plant. This is true also of infants that have mental disabilities and understand little.
> All promises of scripture are not the personal possession of the believer, but only those that are specifically given for certain circumstances in life. BUT this promise is the personal possession of every believing parent. This I suggest is the difference between the Baptist and Paedobaptist position. One prays out of parental love and concern, the other also having the same, but with the greater and safer motive of this exceeding great and precious promise.
> The child’s natural ignorance because of its age, does not prevent the regenerative power and purpose of Almighty God. Which of us knows the moment when we ere regenerated? We may know the day when we were converted (though I don’t), but regeneration may have occurred well before that event.
> Schenck quotes Calvin as using “the term regeneration in a broad sense, not only for the inception of new life in Christ, but it includes also sanctification of development or growth in the new life. Regeneration is only begun, and goes on making progress during the whole of life.” So that being true of an adults experience, it is also can be applicable to children of believers even from the womb.
> ...


The examples given to us in the NT though are to be done towards the true spiritual seed of Abraham, those now included under the NC, already in that administration.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 26, 2018)

Contra_Mundum said:


> _*Marks*_ how? Your eyes cannot see such a sealing as the H.S. does,



Exactly. I am firmly committed to the idea that we are a body + soul duality. But as I tell people, you can't empirically touch or see a soul, or any operations thereto.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> One can the evidence though that the sinner has now been converted into a Christian, as a true follower of Christ, as their new lifestyle will show some fruits to some degree.
> Just saying that to the NT, the sealing of the holy Spirit would appear to be the sign that one is now a saved person, not any ordinance that has been done to them.
> The Ordinance would mark them as now being part of the locak church, but the sealing of/by the Spirit marks them as also being part of the one true church.


How many children you've known, grown up in church, had a noticeable "lifestyle change" once they began to articulate their faith in their own terms? How many seamlessly transitioned into typical "baptized life" in your church, without skipping a beat? Even if there's someone who's got his life "turned around" or appears to be "got on fire for Jesus," you still don't have access to the Spirit's seal.

Are they converted when they are reading a chapter in the Bible a day, or when they read through it once a year? If they miss their "quiet time," and they tell someone they feel "guilty" that day, is that a sure sign they are converted? What if they decide that a chapter a day is too much, and they'd rather use "Our Daily Crumb," is that "backsliding?" Maybe the Holy Spirt never was really there, Oh No!

You're right, that the Spirit's sealing identifies them, but it's not doing it in a way that will ever be known until there are only believers anywhere to be seen--in the eschaton, the world to come.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The examples given to us in the NT though are to be done towards the true spiritual seed of Abraham, those now included under the NC, already in that administration.



There are examples of both, a "believer's" baptism (eg., someone in pagan Greece who hears about Christ and His work for the first time) and household baptism. It only takes one example of the latter to cast a great shadow upon your premises........

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I was just saying that I do remember when I passed over from being a sinner to a saint.



Assent to facts is more related to conversion. You may be right; however, to say that you know for sure that this event is the actual time, is at best, presumptuous. Regeneration, is another issue altogether.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 26, 2018)

Contra_Mundum said:


> How many children you've known, grown up in church, had a noticeable "lifestyle change" once they began to articulate their faith in their own terms? How many seamlessly transitioned into typical "baptized life" in your church, without skipping a beat? Even if there's someone who's got his life "turned around" or appears to be "got on fire for Jesus," you still don't have access to the Spirit's seal.
> 
> Are they converted when they are reading a chapter in the Bible a day, or when they read through it once a year? If they miss their "quiet time," and they tell someone they feel "guilty" that day, is that a sure sign they are converted? What if they decide that a chapter a day is too much, and they'd rather use "Our Daily Crumb," is that "backsliding?" Maybe the Holy Spirt never was really there, Oh No!
> 
> You're right, that the Spirit's sealing identifies them, but it's not doing it in a way that will ever be known until there are only believers anywhere to be seen--in the eschaton, the world to come.


I would take anyone's profession of faith in Jesus, and showing some kind of fruit as physical evidence that they have been now converted by God. Can be now want to read Bible, listen to Christian music, want to get rid of known sins, etc.
Any wanted to becoming members in my church, and to get water Baptized, will ahv e meetings with either pastors and /or Elders just to see what they think being saved means, have they evidenced any fruit.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 26, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> There are examples of both, a "believer's" baptism (eg., someone in pagan Greece who hears about Christ and His work for the first time) and household baptism. It only takes one example of the latter to cast a great shadow upon your premises........


I do not mean to offend anyone here, but those who see infant baptist mentioned directed in the NT are either making assumptions, or is just trying to see a direct continuity from the OC to the NC era.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 26, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Assent to facts is more related to conversion. You may be right; however, to say that you know for sure that this event is the actual time, is at best, presumptuous. Regeneration, is another issue altogether.


I agree that regeneration and conversion may not have been at the same time, but do know that I was lost and woke up the next morning now saved/born again.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I do not mean to offend anyone here, but those who see infant baptist mentioned directed in the NT are either making assumptions, or is just trying to see a direct continuity from the OC to the NC era.



Do you assume women can take the Lord's Supper?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Any wanted to becoming members in my church, and to get water Baptized, will [have] meetings with either pastors and/or Elders just to see what they think being saved means, have they evidenced any fruit.


So, you can't become a member there, be a disciple and a Christian there: unless you have Faith (believing in Christ for salvation) and Works (evidence of fruit) already. Could the Ethiopian Eunuch qualify for Baptism in your church? How much (quality/quantity) is _enough_ works? "Listen to Christian music." Hoo boy.

Regardless, you are making Baptism contingent on a claim to something beyond knowledge-assent-trust.

"God will take you by faith alone. But we're just a bit more stringent around here. A little suspicion is a good thing, eh? Keep coming for a while, and we'll check your progress betimes. When we see your works-account is actually growing, not stagnating, then we'll approve you for Baptism so folks can regard you as a true Christian, knowing they don't have to keep a wary eye on ya anymore."

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> No, for the Lord Himself has decreed that he will applying the saving Grace of the Cross towards their sins and save them Himself. Infants/aborted babies/special needs persons to me all fall under God deciding to provide for them salvation, to do what they could not do for themselves.
> The real question would be are all in those specials situations elected by God unto salvation, or just some?


David,
I know you're catching it from all sides just now, but I'd really like to know where in the Bible the Lord Himself has decreed to apply saving grace to all dying infants. Just the verses you're using to reach this conclusion will do.


----------



## Cymro (Jan 26, 2018)

Brother David, can I in love point out that you are banging the same drum in your answers. Different contributors have raised many points which we believe prove our view what scripture teaches on the matter in hand. Now if you don’t accept these points, it is up to you to disprove them point by point and teach us a better way. That is only fair and reasonable to ask of you. As an ex Baptist myself, persuade me to return to the fold by giving alternatives to the arguments made.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 26, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Do you assume women can take the Lord's Supper?


I know there are many positions on Communion, but my understanding would be that the Supper is open to all who have been born again now in Christ.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 26, 2018)

Contra_Mundum said:


> So, you can't become a member there, be a disciple and a Christian there: unless you have Faith (believing in Christ for salvation) and Works (evidence of fruit) already. Could the Ethiopian Eunuch qualify for Baptism in your church? How much (quality/quantity) is _enough_ works? "Listen to Christian music." Hoo boy.
> 
> Regardless, you are making Baptism contingent on a claim to something beyond knowledge-assent-trust.
> 
> "God will take you by faith alone. But we're just a bit more stringent around here. A little suspicion is a good thing, eh? Keep coming for a while, and we'll check your progress betimes. When we see your works-account is actually growing, not stagnating, then we'll approve you for Baptism so folks can regard you as a true Christian, knowing they don't have to keep a wary eye on ya anymore."


I am just saying that one makes a profession, a belief statement that to them Jesus died for them, was raised again for them, trust in him alone to save them, and that based upon that profession, and showing ANYTHING that reflects the new nature has happened, they are welcomed in as members, as the water Baptism itself states that based upon their profession of faith and belief in Jesus alone to have saved them, now are baptized.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 26, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> David,
> I know you're catching it from all sides just now, but I'd really like to know where in the Bible the Lord Himself has decreed to apply saving grace to all dying infants. Just the verses you're using to reach this conclusion will do.


I cannot state with absolute certainty, but based this belief upon King david experience with his own son who died as an infant, and Jesus many times speaking of children coming unto Him. I am trusting upon the God of the scriptures to be able to rightly judge in all cases regarding each person salvation.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 26, 2018)

Cymro said:


> Brother David, can I in love point out that you are banging the same drum in your answers. Different contributors have raised many points which we believe prove our view what scripture teaches on the matter in hand. Now if you don’t accept these points, it is up to you to disprove them point by point and teach us a better way. That is only fair and reasonable to ask of you. As an ex Baptist myself, persuade me to return to the fold by giving alternatives to the arguments made.


I am not really trying to argue anyone over to the Baptist position, as I see this board as a safe place to engage each other in a Christian way, and learn from each others differing viewpoints on certain issues.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I know there are many positions on Communion, but my understanding would be that the Supper is open to all who have been born again now in Christ.



That wasn't my point. Where do you see the command in the NT for women to take communion?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I cannot state with absolute certainty, but based this belief upon King david experience with his own son who died as an infant, and Jesus many times speaking of children coming unto Him.


It is one thing to _hope_ in this case, but not _demand_. Your unqualified statement is that all infants who die in infancy are elect infants.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 26, 2018)

My last post garnered a "funny" notice. So, I feel compelled to say: I do not wish to be judged a mocker. The sarcastic tone in my post could easily be misread as personally abusive, and I don't want David to feel like I'm putting him down, or his church.

Exasperation was a danger I considered when I earlier replied to David's quote of a post of mine and his question. So, I'm now drawing back from the engagement. "Be ye kind to another." Eph.4:32


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 26, 2018)

Contra_Mundum said:


> My last post garnered a "funny" notice. So, I feel compelled to say: I do not wish to be judged a mocker. The sarcastic tone in my post could easily be misread as personally abusive, and I don't want David to feel like I'm putting him down, or his church.
> 
> Exasperation was a danger I considered when I earlier replied to David's quote of a post of mine and his question. So, I'm now drawing back from the engagement. "Be ye kind to another." Eph.4:32


I would ask you to stay in this conversation. I have been blessed by your presence in it. I am still a baptist, but I understand the many good reasons Presbyterians believe thusly and I sometimes think it would be easier if I could just believe in infant baptism. That is quite a confession I know.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 26, 2018)

Cymro said:


> Brother David, can I in love point out that you are banging the same drum in your answers. Different contributors have raised many points which we believe prove our view what scripture teaches on the matter in hand. Now if you don’t accept these points, it is up to you to disprove them point by point and teach us a better way. That is only fair and reasonable to ask of you. As an ex Baptist myself, persuade me to return to the fold by giving alternatives to the arguments made.


As an ex-baptist what was your final "Aha" moment before you turned? And what was your process?


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I do not mean to offend anyone here, but those who see infant baptist mentioned directed in the NT are either making assumptions, or is just trying to see a direct continuity from the OC to the NC era.



David,
This is patently false. The Reformed understanding of covenantal ecclesiology is well established and the scholarship is equally sound. We don't have to "just trying to see a direct continuity from the OC to the NC era"; sufficient continuity is there. When you can point me to N.T. scripture that has "shrunk" the promises to now neglect children from participation, you will have my ear. Similarly, I can't find any N.T. passage that says something like "thou shalt no longer give children the sign and seal that has been the covenant promise since Abe".....


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I cannot state with absolute certainty, but based this belief upon King david experience with his own son who died as an infant, and Jesus many times speaking of children coming unto Him. I am trusting upon the God of the scriptures to be able to rightly judge in all cases regarding each person salvation.


One passage of dubious interpretation is a very fragile peg on which to hang such a weighty matter! And isn't it funny that Jesus was allowing little ones to come--that means THEY wanted to approach, not that they were helpless infants still in the womb or new-born: again it seems quite a jump from that to a belief in universal paedosalvation (if I just made up a word, I want full credit if someone uses it ). 
Would it not be better to believe that God is good, as He has declared, and good even in the reprobation of the wicked? Would it not be better to believe that whatever God chooses to do with unborn infants who die is perfectly just and good, rather than to put words in His mouth that He has NOT declared? When people invent things to believe about God because it makes them feel good, or less scared, or comforted or whatever, they are making a god in their own image, which opens the door to all sorts of error and confusion.
God has nowhere promised to save all infants who die. Whether He chooses to do so or not is not for us to invent things about--we may go only where His word clearly leads, beyond that is presumption.


----------



## ZackF (Jan 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I do not mean to offend anyone here, but those who see infant baptist mentioned directed in the NT are either making assumptions, or is just trying to see a direct continuity from the OC to the NC era.



This doesn't make sense _and_ is inflammatory. If there is direct continuity then it _will_ be seen.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 26, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> I would ask you to stay in this conversation.


If I think I can be helpful, add light and not heat, then I will consider a new offering. Thank you. My aim is accuracy, fairness, clarity. It is not to move someone from a deep conviction.




Pergamum said:


> I sometimes think it would be easier...


I say, with utter sincerity, do not under any circumstances adopt or believe IB for simplicity's sake. No church's theology of baptism (doctrine and practice) is as "easy" as it appears; even of those who pay so little attention to it, one might be excused for thinking so. Baptism sends forth "roots," such that even if it is spread more widely than deeply, to "pull oneself up by his baptism" is to become uprooted or unmoored.​
Baptismal practice should be a conclusion, not a commitment in search of support (a saying I use often).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jan 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I am not really trying to argue anyone over to the Baptist position, as I see this board as a safe place to engage each other in a Christian way, and learn from each others differing viewpoints on certain issues.


David,

You are right that this is - or certainly is intended to be - a "safe place" to discuss and debate matters of faith and conviction. That being said, it seems to me that many of your positions/arguments (on this and other threads) are rooted in that oft-unmovable rock: "That's what I've always been taught."

I mean this in the kindest of ways; I, myself, grew up in a broadly evangelical Baptist home, and I was taught many of the "truths" I have seen you espouse on this forum. However, I was forced to reevaluate my whole belief system as I began to realize that I couldn't make convincing arguments (even to myself!) of those positions _from the Bible_. Similarly, I often see you state something - as if it should simply be accepted as true - without providing any meaningful, substantial, biblical justification.

To be sure, there are substantive arguments from the Reformed Baptist side of this and other debates, but those aren't the arguments that I see you advocating. Rather, you latch on to anything that buttresses your "that's what I've always been taught" conviction.

Please, for the sake of informed discussion (and, more importantly, for your own assurance), *own* your convictions because you believe that they are scripturally sound. Justify your arguments with scripture (chapter and verse!) and a cogent interaction with historical and systematic theology, rather than just saying that "this is what it means to me." Such subjective theology is diametrically opposed to the objective perspective that is promoted by both the Presbyterians and the Reformed Baptists on this forum.

If and when you are unable to contribute meaningfully to the discussion in this way, consider staying silent and simply reading and learning. As well, spend time searching God's Word for the clear basis for your positions. Having done so, your future participation will be so much more helpful and valued.

I implore you: don't "toe the party line" when it comes to your theology. Do the hard work of verifying your belief system. If it is indeed verified, you will be all the richer. If you are forced to recant or modify a position, so be it. Let God be true and every man (even those well-meaning men who "taught us what we've always believed") be liars, insofar as their teaching drifted from the sure foundation of Holy Writ. As one who has traveled down the road of "theological realignment," I can tell you that change was hard but worth it; perhaps, your journey will, in fact, confirm you in your convictions. Either way, the value of confidence borne of serious investigation cannot be overstated.

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 2


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jan 26, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> paedosalvation (if I just made up a word, I want full credit if someone uses it



I sincerely believe that there is scriptural warrant for paedosalvation* of elect infants dying in infancy.

*Zartman, Ben. "Do you consider your children to be Christians?" _PuritanBoard_. Jan 26, 2018: post 222.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Herald (Jan 27, 2018)

I am late to the party but I do want to share my opinion.

I do not think a child has to be converted in order to be a disciple, chiefly because one can follow a manner of teaching externally without having appropriated it internally. However, is it appropriate to call a child a Christian in the absence of a confession of faith and/or the evidence of faith in their life? I do not believe it is appropriate. What should they be called? Nothing besides their name or "my child". While I am decidedly Baptist, I am not looking for a sinners prayer or raised hand. I am more concerned with what a child confesses and the evidence (however juvenile it may be) of faith in their life.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 27, 2018)

kainos01 said:


> I sincerely believe that there is scriptural warrant for paedosalvation* of elect infants dying in infancy.
> 
> *Zartman, Ben. "Do you consider your children to be Christians?" _PuritanBoard_. Jan 26, 2018: post 222.


Awesome! This may be the first time I've ever been cited. Thanks brother!
BTW, I too believe in the paedosalvation of elect children dying in infancy. I just don't find warrant to assume that all infants who die are elect.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 27, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> It is one thing to _hope_ in this case, but not _demand_. Your unqualified statement is that all infants who die in infancy are elect infants.


That is what I believe is happening in regards to how the Lord treats all dead infants who have passed either as aborted/miscarriage /died, but I cannot point to a specific scripture to 100% support that position, but can have hope that it how it is, due to the nature of God that the scriptures have revealed to us.
I will say that this is my position as of right now, but can be changed if further support for another position can be shown to me.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 27, 2018)

Contra_Mundum said:


> My last post garnered a "funny" notice. So, I feel compelled to say: I do not wish to be judged a mocker. The sarcastic tone in my post could easily be misread as personally abusive, and I don't want David to feel like I'm putting him down, or his church.
> 
> Exasperation was a danger I considered when I earlier replied to David's quote of a post of mine and his question. So, I'm now drawing back from the engagement. "Be ye kind to another." Eph.4:32


I have never felt that you were mocking me or making fun of me, and do enjoy reading your postings here as have learned from you on how Presbyterians view some of the more interesting theological issues in the scriptures.


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 27, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Awesome! This may be the first time I've ever been cited. Thanks brother!
> BTW, I too believe in the paedosalvation of elect children dying in infancy. I just don't find warrant to assume that all infants who die are elect.



How does it feel to be famous (well, at least here), Ben?


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 27, 2018)

I will continue to rest in the nature and person of God to do the right thing as regarding the salvation of infants, so I think that we all here can agree that whatever happens, it will be the right and nest thing that has be done in this issue, as the lord is perfect, and His ways are always just and true.
I see this issue as being one of those secret areas that God says has been reserved only for Him to fully knew.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 27, 2018)

kainos01 said:


> David,
> 
> You are right that this is - or certainly is intended to be - a "safe place" to discuss and debate matters of faith and conviction. That being said, it seems to me that many of your positions/arguments (on this and other threads) are rooted in that oft-unmovable rock: "That's what I've always been taught."
> 
> ...


I appreciate your kind remarks to me regarding continuing to grow up in my theology doctrines , as I have come so far from Charismatic/Pentecostal theology to freewill Baptist, and now heading firmly into Reformed Baptist waters.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 27, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Awesome! This may be the first time I've ever been cited. Thanks brother!
> BTW, I too believe in the paedosalvation of elect children dying in infancy. I just don't find warrant to assume that all infants who die are elect.


I think this is where we can fully agree, as you and I would see God elected at least some to eternal life in Christ, and how many would have to be left to the Lord.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 27, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> How does it feel to be famous (well, at least here), Ben?


Feels fine, though I wish it came with some riches adduced...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Cymro (Jan 28, 2018)

Perg , sorry for the delay to your query ,I overlooked that it was directed to me. Go back at least 50yrs and I had been a Christian about six years. This coastal plain was blest with many Evangelical churches. But sadly the teaching ommited, or perhaps was weak, on the Reformed doctrines. So that the doctrines of grace, EP, Paedobaptism, Presbyterianism etc, were treated on a surface level only. There had been a movement of the Spirit, and that brought many of us young married couples into the church, and conversion. But many other churches had weekly news of souls being saved. A blessed time, but there was no follow up teaching. 
A party of us decided to go to the Isle of Lewis after reading of the Revivals there. In God’s providence I got friendly with A Free Church Minister there. He sounded us out and could see that we were deficient in our doctrinal knowledge. We debated and he passed us two books to read when we got home. The Singing of Psalms in the worship of God By Williamson, and a work on the Larger Catechism.(which we had never heard of). He would phone me, and I Him, and our arguments would continue, and as a family we returned there to visit, and have done ever since. Nightly we entered the lists over EP and argued till one or two o clock in the morning. Gradually my position was weakened, and I realised my arguments were tradional to the culture I was born in, and the practice of the church I had been born again in. Thus I had to lay down ny arms and concede my colours. 
He then moved to Baptism by phone, and when we visited, and so the battle ensued.(with more heat than light on my part). My pride would not give ground, though I was losing my armour. Slowly I was beginning to see, though not admit, that my defence was emotional rather than blblical. Also I was totally unaware of the unity of the covenant of grace in the OT and NT. It spiritually and logically began to shape and make sense. But the Ah ha moment came when he gave me another book, William the Baptist. The simplest of books to read, an engrossing story, and clear biblical answers to my confused approach to the doctrine. Light dawned and it was an experience similar to the salvation experience. Another factor that was influential, was, that I was driven to read and read. Having no teaching,the only resort was the Puritans. I thank God especially for the Banner of Truth whose productions have garrisoned my soul, and with the Spirit kept my soul fed and afloat in these desolate days. Happy to say, my arguments never ruptured the friendship begun, but that it has grown beautifully over the succeeding years. This is a bit longwinded, but I have nad to leave much out, to shorten. Amazingly from this initial visit to Lewis, these doctrines went first to London, then Singapore, China, Malawi and Thailand, and changed and planted churches. So that Singaporeans, Malawese, Chinese are singing Scottish Metrical Psalms in English and in their own languages, and without musical instruments, and being taught Paedobaptism. Better finish!

Reactions: Like 5 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 28, 2018)

Cymro said:


> Perg , sorry for the delay to your query ,I overlooked that it was directed to me. Go back at least 50yrs and I had been a Christian about six years. This coastal plain was blest with many Evangelical churches. But sadly the teaching ommited, or perhaps was weak, on the Reformed doctrines. So that the doctrines of grace, EP, Paedobaptism, Presbyterianism etc, were treated on a surface level only. There had been a movement of the Spirit, and that brought many of us young married couples into the church, and conversion. But many other churches had weekly news of souls being saved. A blessed time, but there was no follow up teaching.
> A party of us decided to go to the Isle of Lewis after reading of the Revivals there. In God’s providence I got friendly with A Free Church Minister there. He sounded us out and could see that we were deficient in our doctrinal knowledge. We debated and he passed us two books to read when we got home. The Singing of Psalms in the worship of God By Williamson, and a work on the Larger Catechism.(which we had never heard of). He would phone me, and I Him, and our arguments would continue, and as a family we returned there to visit, and have done ever since. Nightly we entered the lists over EP and argued till one or two o clock in the morning. Gradually my position was weakened, and I realised my arguments were tradional to the culture I was born in, and the practice of the church I had been born again in. Thus I had to lay down ny arms and concede my colours.
> He then moved to Baptism by phone, and when we visited, and so the battle ensued.(with more heat than light on my part). My pride would not give ground, though I was losing my armour. Slowly I was beginning to see, though not admit, that my defence was emotional rather than blblical. Also I was totally unaware of the unity of the covenant of grace in the OT and NT. It spiritually and logically began to shape and make sense. But the Ah ha moment came when he gave me another book, William the Baptist. The simplest of books to read, an engrossing story, and clear biblical answers to my confused approach to the doctrine. Light dawned and it was an experience similar to the salvation experience. Another factor that was influential, was, that I was driven to read and read. Having no teaching,the only resort was the Puritans. I thank God especially for the Banner of Truth whose productions have garrisoned my soul, and with the Spirit kept my soul fed and afloat in these desolate days. Happy to say, my arguments never ruptured the friendship begun, but that it has grown beautifully over the succeeding years. This is a bit longwinded, but I have nad to leave much out, to shorten. Amazingly from this initial visit to Lewis, these doctrines went first to London, then Singapore, China, Malawi and Thailand, and changed and planted churches. So that Singaporeans, Malawese, Chinese are singing Scottish Metrical Psalms in English and in their own languages, and without musical instruments, and being taught Paedobaptism. Better finish!


Yes, thank you for sharing. I have also read William the Baptist.


----------

