# Where are the infants baptized?



## Andrew P.C.

Since i have seen alot of criticism from the Presbyterians, i was curious about where exactly they get the doctrine of infant baptism.  With explanation of the text.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

The title to the thread is strange: Where are the infants baptized?

Are you asking for the historical narrative that demonstrates a case of an infant baptism or are you asking for didactic teaching on the nature of the Covenant?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

SemperFideles said:


> The title to the thread is strange: Where are the infants baptized?
> 
> Are you asking for the historical narrative that demonstrates a case of an infant baptism or are you asking for didactic teaching on the nature of the Covenant?



Isn't the narrative supposed to be interpreted by the didactic?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

I understand that people use Mark 10:13-16. Here is something that Spurgeon writes about that passage:

"I. In handling this text in what I believe to be its true light, I shall commence, first of all, by observing that THIS TEXT HAS NOT THE SHADOW OF THE SHADE OF THE GHOST OF A CONNECTION WITH BAPTISM. There is no line of connection so substantial as a spider's web between this incident and baptism, or at least my imagination is not vivid enough to conceive one. This I will prove to you, if you will follow me for a moment.

It is very clear, Dear Friends, that these young children were not brought to Jesus Christ by their friends to be baptized. "They brought young children to him, that he should touch them," says Mark. Matthew describes the children as being brought "that he would put his hands on them and pray," but there is not a hint about their being baptized; no godfathers or godmothers had been provided, and no sign of the cross was requested. Surely the parents themselves knew tolerably well what it was they desired, and they would not have expressed themselves so dubiously as to ask him to touch them, when they meant that he should baptize them. The parents evidently had no thought of regeneration by baptism, and brought the children for quite another end.

In the next place, if they brought the children to Jesus Christ to be baptized, they brought them to the wrong person; for the Evangelist, John, in the fourth chapter, and the second verse, expressly assures us that Jesus Christ baptized not, but his disciples: this settles the question once for all, and proves beyond all dispute that there is no connection between this incident and baptism." 

Here's the rest of his sermon:
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0581.htm


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Andrew P.C. said:


> Isn't the narrative supposed to be interpreted by the didactic?


Yes. That is why I'm asking. Your question seemed to indicate you wanted _example_ of infant baptism.


Andrew P.C. said:


> Maybe i can make myself a little more clear.
> 
> baptizo {bap-tid'-zo}
> 1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
> 
> 2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
> 
> I'm trying to understand where exactly they get the thought or biblical interpretation of baptism or why some "sprinkle" and others "submerge".


Here's a pamphlet that deals with the idea of pulling out a Greek lexicon to determine the mode of the Sacrament:
http://www.biblelighthouse.com/sacraments/baptism-whysprinkle.htm


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Andrew P.C. said:


> I understand that people use Mark 10:13-16. Here is something that Spurgeon writes about that passage:
> 
> "I. In handling this text in what I believe to be its true light, I shall commence, first of all, by observing that THIS TEXT HAS NOT THE SHADOW OF THE SHADE OF THE GHOST OF A CONNECTION WITH BAPTISM. There is no line of connection so substantial as a spider's web between this incident and baptism, or at least my imagination is not vivid enough to conceive one. This I will prove to you, if you will follow me for a moment.
> 
> It is very clear, Dear Friends, that these young children were not brought to Jesus Christ by their friends to be baptized. "They brought young children to him, that he should touch them," says Mark. Matthew describes the children as being brought "that he would put his hands on them and pray," but there is not a hint about their being baptized; no godfathers or godmothers had been provided, and no sign of the cross was requested. Surely the parents themselves knew tolerably well what it was they desired, and they would not have expressed themselves so dubiously as to ask him to touch them, when they meant that he should baptize them. The parents evidently had no thought of regeneration by baptism, and brought the children for quite another end.
> 
> In the next place, if they brought the children to Jesus Christ to be baptized, they brought them to the wrong person; for the Evangelist, John, in the fourth chapter, and the second verse, expressly assures us that Jesus Christ baptized not, but his disciples: this settles the question once for all, and proves beyond all dispute that there is no connection between this incident and baptism."
> 
> Here's the rest of his sermon:
> http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0581.htm



Andrew,

Are you having a conversation with yourself on this point? I just acknowledged that I would not use a historical narrative to determine the teaching on the nature of the Covenant. I would use this passage to neither support nor deny the issue of who the proper recipients of the Sacrament are.

What Baptists need to contend with, in this passage, is not that Christ baptizes them but that He uses a child as an example of faith.


----------



## Ezekiel3626

Andrew P.C. said:


> Since i have seen alot of criticism from the Presbyterians, _i was curious about where exactly they get the doctrine of infant baptism. _ _With explanation of the text._


emphasis mine



trevorjohnson said:


> ..The infants are baptized in States, Countries and Cities that have Presbyterians in them.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh..this wasn't a geography question?
> 
> 
> IN front of the church?
> On top of the head (where the water is usually poured or sprinkled).
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, our language is so imprecise at times....



Very classy, Trevor. Perhaps he phrased the question wrong in the title, but he did get around to asking two valid questions. Are you able to formulate an intelligent, adult response?


----------



## Philip A

trevorjohnson said:


> IN front of the church?



Silly man, Trevor. Everyone knows infants are baptized at the _font_ of the church, which is not necessarily in the front.


----------



## VaughanRSmith

Also, as an addendum to this thread, I'd like to know where women take communion?


----------



## tellville

This is one of the strangest threads I've ever read on Puritanboard....


----------



## Theoretical

tellville said:


> This is one of the strangest threads I've ever read on Puritanboard....


----------



## LadyFlynt

To believe that Presbyterians and Catholics are the only ones that baptise infants is incorrect.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Paul manata said:


> I could be terminated for letting you in on our secret.
> 
> I post this at great risk for my life.



[static]Bauer, this is the G-6, over.[/static]

[static]This is Bauer, over.[/static]

[static]Roger. Need you to send a tactical team over to the Manata residence. Stay out of view until I get there. Do you have the interrogation kit at your pos? Over.[/static]

[static]Roger. Wet Willy kit is in the van. Over.[/static]

[static]Roger, stay put. I'll be right there, over.[/static]

[static]Wilco, out.[/static]


----------



## Theoretical

LadyFlynt said:


> To believe that Presbyterians and Catholics are the only ones that baptise infants is incorrect.


 Continental Reformed, Lutherans and Anglicans also do (not for your reference, Colleen, but for the thread's reference). 

I do not count Methodists because as far as I know from having been there their sacramentology is so nonexistent, it's just a natural inheritance from Anglicanism - it is that thoroughly non-doctrinal. I think they'd be credo-baptists if Methodists devolved from Baptists rather than Anglicans. Sorry for the dicta.


----------



## Theoretical

Paul manata said:


> If you must know
> 
> We get the doctrine from our secret book. Upon becoming presbyterian, we are inducted into a secret oganization where we must take a blood oath promising to put our evil mark on children. We then howl at the moon and drink goat's blood. If you really want to know, that's where presbyterians get the doctrine from. It's been that way for hundreds and hundreds of years.
> 
> As far as explaining the text. We just train at explaining AWAY the clear baptist evidence. We dimiss the clear and obvious teaching of Scripture. Once we've confused you at how we could be so blind, we then assert that we have won the debate. We then have at least 30 peadobaptists come in behind us (in threads like this one) and talk about how well we argued.
> 
> We are all rich and control most of the theological book stores, banks, movie studios, and the US government. We make it so that baptists can hardly find a job, have children, and live the American Dream. Then the baptist, who wants to support his family, is duped into thinking we may have a point. He then U2Us a paedobaptist and asks him some questions. At this point he's so helpless that we could tell him that paedobaptism is true because sheep Mark 98:73 explicitly tells us that it is true. After the prospective cult member tels us that he's seeing our side, we then send him job offers, send our kids over to play football with his kids, and send our wives over to play cards with the baptist's wives. At this point the baptist converts, partakes in the above ceremony, and then is silent about the truth so that he can keep his job and newly found stature in the community.
> 
> All of this is found in the secret book.
> 
> I could be terminated for letting you in on our secret.
> 
> I post this at great risk for my life.
> 
> We really don't believe the Bible teaches infant baptism.





SemperFideles said:


> [static]Bauer, this is the G-6, over.[/static]
> 
> [static]This is Bauer, over.[/static]
> 
> [static]Roger. Need you to send a tactical team over to the Manata residence. Stay out of view until I get there. Do you have the interrogation kit at your pos? Over.[/static]
> 
> [static]Roger. Wet Willy kit is in the van. Over.[/static]
> 
> [static]Roger, stay put. I'll be right there, over.[/static]
> 
> [static]Wilco, out.[/static]


----------



## CalvinandHodges

*That was good*

Hay:

Paul Manata and SemperFideles are funny! 

But to get more serious, though, concerning the Matthew 19:13 and Mark 10:13-16 passages, Matthew reads:

*Then were brought unto him little children that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven (Mark reads: "Kingdom of God") And when he had put his hands on them, he departed thence,* 1599 Geneva Bible.

Baptists make a big deal out of the fact that Jesus did not Baptize these children. But the fact is that Jesus did not Baptize anybody. Baptizing people was not a priority of his. So, what is the significance of this passage then?

Jesus refers to babes and little children of believers (for it was believing parents who brought the children to him to be blessed) as members of the Kingdom of Heaven, or, the Kingdom of God. Now, if a child of a believer is considered a member of the Kingdom of Heaven, *then how much more so* should the child be considered a member of the Kingdom here on Earth?

How can you refuse Baptism to a person who is considered a member of the Kingdom of Heaven?

As far as an example of NT Baptism of infants: We are told that "our fathers" received NT Baptism during the Exodus. When Israel passed through the water we are told that they were Baptized: That they all did eat the same spritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink - for they drank of Christ found in the similitude of a Rock, 1 Cor. 10:1-5.

Hope this helps,

-CH


----------



## blhowes

SemperFideles said:


> [static]Bauer, this is the G-6, over.[/static]
> 
> [static]This is Bauer, over.[/static]
> 
> [static]Roger. Need you to send a tactical team over to the Manata residence. Stay out of view until I get there. Do you have the interrogation kit at your pos? Over.[/static]
> 
> [static]Roger. Wet Willy kit is in the van. Over.[/static]
> 
> [static]Roger, stay put. I'll be right there, over.[/static]
> 
> [static]Wilco, out.[/static]


 
All (?) kidding aside, I have to commend Paul for divulging the secrets. It took a lot of guts and, quite frankly, life will never be the same for Paul and his family from here on out.


----------



## BobVigneault

I think you guys should take this thread more seriously. {I'm sure you've heard this one.}

"This afternoon, there will be a meeting in the south and north end of the church. Infants will be baptized at both ends."


----------



## blhowes

BobVigneault said:


> I think you guys should take this thread more seriously. {I'm sure you've heard this one.}
> 
> "This afternoon, there will be a meeting in the south and north end of the church. Infants will be baptized at both ends."



Sorry, Bob, you're right.
















...baptized at both ends


----------



## CDM

Andrew P.C. said:


> Since i have seen alot of criticism from the Presbyterians, i was curious about where exactly they get the doctrine of infant baptism.  With explanation of the text.



The Reformed don't understand baptism and the recipient's of it from an isolated verse or two found in the synoptic gospels. You ought to start in Genesis and end in Revelation. Not beginning with Christ's public ministry and ending at His ascension.

To aid with this, one should ask, "Where exactly is the doctrine that God has cut off the children of believers from this new and better covenant?" Where is it taught that children of believers are accounted as heathen in God's sight? Not one Jew, not even one, made a peep about God casting aside their children that have _always_ been in covenant with Him?

This is to say, if you approach God's Word with a scale to weigh Paedo vs. Credo proof texts you are going to miss the forest for the trees.


----------



## LadyFlynt

I was thinking of Methodists, but you are correct in your understanding of them. Also Nazarenes, but then they came from the Methodists. Episcopalians do also, I believe. And the Orthodox, though we can place that under Catholicism.

I just thought it was interesting that he quoted Spurgeon on the whole Godparent and crossing oneself thing...we don't do either...I believe Spurgeon was referencing the Catholics, which is a diffferent ball game in the mosh pit.



Theoretical said:


> Continental Reformed, Lutherans and Anglicans also do (not for your reference, Colleen, but for the thread's reference).
> 
> I do not count Methodists because as far as I know from having been there their sacramentology is so nonexistent, it's just a natural inheritance from Anglicanism - it is that thoroughly non-doctrinal. I think they'd be credo-baptists if Methodists devolved from Baptists rather than Anglicans. Sorry for the dicta.


----------



## BobVigneault

Here's a tough one to get around. 

_Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 *For the promise is for you and for your children* and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” 40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls._


Tha Anabaptists tried to get around this one by saying that 'your children' referred to spiritual children. There is no reason in the text to follow that reasoning. Peter is clearly speaking of the promise of adoption being extended to our children and sealed by the outward sign of baptism.

Some might ask, "Then is Peter saying our children must repent?". No, repentance is granted as an outward demonstration of our vital connection with Christ. Parents in covenant ought to show forth repentance, but the promise of adoption does not stop at the parents. It is extended to the children to enjoy the benefits of the covenant community and as they are quickened by the Spirit they may show signs of repentance as well.


----------



## Davidius

I think the thread became so strange and off-topic so quickly because this issue has been debated countless times already. The thread author can easily search for "infant baptism" or just look through the "Baptism" forum if he would like answers to his questions. 

*shrug* I dunno, I haven't been a member of the board long enough to know protocol for things like this. Should we just start rehashing all the old arguments?


----------



## CDM

BobVigneault said:


> Here's a tough one to get around.
> 
> _Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 *For the promise is for you and for your children* and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” 40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls._



Not to mention its the exact same covenant language (which included the children) from Genesis onward . . .


----------



## BobVigneault

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I think the thread became so strange and off-topic so quickly because this issue has been debated countless times already. The thread author can easily search for "infant baptism" or just look through the "Baptism" forum if he would like answers to his questions.
> 
> *shrug* I dunno, I haven't been a member of the board long enough to know protocol for things like this. Should we just start rehashing all the old arguments?





You're absolutely right David. Whereas the PB is evangelical enough to have Presbyterians and Baptists fellowshipping, the topic of Baptism obvious focuses on the matter where we are most deeply divided. There have been many discussions on this topic. Sometimes the debates were gracious and at other times they led to very unfortunate words and attitudes. The veterans will prefer to shy away and suggest that you search those threads. The newbies of course would like to test their swords out in the contest and I don't blame them.

So, if it seems like the veterans are avoiding the topic they are. If someone has a new slant to offer after reading through the older threads then I'm sure you will get a response from new and old members.

Baptism represents one of the greatest subjects of disagreement because of the important place it holds in our theology. We won't avoid it, but let's make sure we seek answers with a gracious heart and care for one another.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

joshua said:


> He was just _josh_in' around. He meant no offense, I assure you.



Not to mention Trevor is a baptist too. So the criticism is doubly off.


----------



## tewilder

Philip A said:


> Silly man, Trevor. Everyone knows infants are baptized at the _font_ of the church, which is not necessarily in the front.



This was debated at the Westminster Assembly. The English mainly wanted the infants to be baptized at a font at the door of the church, emphasizing that baptism is the entry into the church. The Scots (Presbyterians) insisted that infants be baptized in front of the church by the pulpit, emphasizing the supremacy of the word received by faith for salvation, and its priority over ritual.


----------



## LadyFlynt

On a very basic level, there is more evidence of infants and young children being baptised than there is against it...simply in understanding what entailed a "household".


----------



## JKLeoPCA

LadyFlynt said:


> On a very basic level, there is more evidence of infants and young children being baptised than there is against it...simply in understanding what entailed a "household".



Agreed. And the usual argument that makes sense to me is one from silence. Being you take a people (the Jews) deep in tradition and prideful in their linage, introduce a new and better covenant that would exclude their kids, and there is no uproar or discussion about it? Not likely.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

THis thread became so off topic, and i feel the tension between some. I have a feeling Semper(the first to respond) is a little irritated... sry man. Plus, i know i can search it, but i just wanted to see the response, and see if you guys really know where it is in the scriptures.

Oh, and for the "smart" one talking about the scret book, sadly people believe and follow a church without even seeing if it's biblical. So, you could be right  .

I read yesterday about "men of the word" who get together to talk about issues but do not even open their own bibles to see what the scriptures have to say. Rather, they try to reason. They sit around to debate without seeing what the ruler of the universe spoke on the issue.


----------



## Barnpreacher

> *Originally posted by Andrew P.C.*
> _THis thread became so off topic, and i feel the tension between some. I have a feeling Semper(the first to respond) is a little irritated... sry man. Plus, i know i can search it, but i just wanted to see the response, and see if you guys really know where it is in the scriptures.
> 
> Oh, and for the "smart" one talking about the scret book, sadly people believe and follow a church without even seeing if it's biblical. So, you could be right .
> 
> I was reading yesterday about "men of the word" who get together to talk about issues but do not even open their own bibles to see what the scriptures have to say. Rather, the try to reason. They sit around to debate without seing what the ruler of the universe spoke on the issue.
> _



Hi Andrew,

Here's a little godly advice for you if you please. It's not really your place to get on here and "see" if these guys know what they are talking about by "testing" them. All you have to do is read the threads and it's obvious most of these men and women in here spend countless hours studying their Bibles.

You asked a question to open up this thread, and at first I thought you were being sincere. I was a little disappointed at some of the sarcasm that was put out because it seemed a little ungracious, but now I realize that you just wanted to test these godly folks in here. That was a no-no. Read their past posts and allow that to be your answer as to whether or not they "know what they are talking about or not."

You don't have to agree with everything that is posted or believed by the folks on the PuritanBoard, but you also need to show them a little more respect than you did with your intentions of this thread. 

If you have a sincere question from your heart then ask it. There are plenty of godly Christians in here that will attempt to help.  

God bless!


----------



## Davidius

Andrew P.C. said:


> Plus, i know i can search it, but i just wanted to see the response, and see if you guys really know where it is in the scriptures.



The last clause in your sentence does not follow from your admission that you can search for past threads. Are you saying that, in order for someone to "really know where it is in the scriptures," they need to jump into another debate that has already been dealt with in countless numbers of hours and posts? How does it show any less that they "know where it is in the Scriptures" if _you_ have to do a little extra work and look through the archives?


----------



## BobVigneault

Ok, let's not be too hard on Andrew. He's new here and I'm sure he meant no harm. Andrew, take your time and do some reading of some of the older threads and see how the give and take is done.

The PB is a special place and a great community. Be patient and think your contributions through. I'm going to cut you some slack because I'm thinking you're just being a bit impatient because you are 'pre-mil'. After we convince you otherwise you'll realize that your time is not as short as you think.  


Blessings friend


----------



## Andrew P.C.

BobVigneault said:


> Ok, let's not be too hard on Andrew. He's new here and I'm sure he meant no harm. Andrew, take your time and do some reading of some of the older threads and see how the give and take is done.
> 
> The PB is a special place and a great community. Be patient and think your contributions through. I'm going to cut you some slack because I'm thinking you're just being a bit impatient because you are 'pre-mil'. After we convince you otherwise you'll realize that your time is not as short as you think.
> 
> 
> Blessings friend



Hey Bob,

I seriously meant no harm. I didn't come here to test people, i never meant it like that. I'm sry for the wording. What i was trying to ask was sincere. Not out of ignorance, but wanting to know if you guys could really help explain why you believe what you believe using scripture. I wanted to honestly see the text that "you" guys use and here an explanation of that text.

Bob, I thank you for not being quick to the gun. And again, i didn't mean harm.


----------



## Civbert

Andrew P.C. said:


> THis thread became so off topic, and i feel the tension between some. I have a feeling Semper(the first to respond) is a little irritated... sry man. Plus, i know i can search it, but i just wanted to see the response, and see if you guys really know where it is in the scriptures.


 People seem a bit touchy about this. 

[sarcasm]Ohhh Andrew is just soooo rude to ask people about baptism and even suggest that it would be nice if they could give some scripture references. "How wude!" [/sarcasm]

I guess you have opened a  



Andrew P.C. said:


> Oh, and for the "smart" one talking about the scret book, sadly people believe and follow a church without even seeing if it's biblical. So, you could be right  .


 I think that's true for 90% of "Christians". But _pleeez_ don't imply that it's true for anyone around here! Again - "How wude!"  

Well, you did get _some_ serious answers. 

And the funny ones were funny. 

And I learned something new from tewilder that was historically interesting. 

Overall this thread has been ..... I don't know ... mixed.


----------



## LadyFlynt

(1Co 1:16) And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

(Act 16:15) And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.


----------



## BobVigneault

Andrew P.C. said:


> Hey Bob,
> 
> I seriously meant no harm. I didn't come here to test people, i never meant it like that. I'm sry for the wording. What i was trying to ask was sincere. Not out of ignorance, but wanting to know if you guys could really help explain why you believe what you believe using scripture. I wanted to honestly see the text that "you" guys use and here an explanation of that text.
> 
> Bob, I thank you for not being quick to the gun. And again, i didn't mean harm.




 I'm very glad you are here sir. Blessings to you Andrew.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

LadyFlynt said:


> (1Co 1:16) And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
> 
> (Act 16:15) And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.



LadyFlynt,

Very interesting texts. Yet, I would ask that you follow for a moment:

First, baptism is an ordinance that is done after one repents from their sin. These texts do say "household" yet, in order to be in context you must conclude that the infants also understood the gospel.

Second, Lydia was told of the gospel, then baptised. Then her household was baptised. The effect of their baptism was caused by their conversion.

From my understanding, Presbyterians baptise infants as a covenant between the parents and God to raise the childeren up in church? If this be so, these texts do not talk of any "raising" childeren up but rather of the conversion of a soul.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Andrew, where does it state that her entire household believed? It DOES say they were all baptised. The term household ALWAYS included EVERYONE...from the simpleminded to the intelligient, from the newborn to the ones nearing death's door, from the master to the lowliest servant...these were generally not households as we know of today. If a person was to kill everyone in the household of a guilty man (or royalty during a coup), infants were not excluded. Context of history and culture, sir.

Scripture states that the household is counted even if there is merely ONE believer within, does it not? If I were an unbeliever, would I not be sanctified because my husband is a believer? (this in no way means that the unbelieving party is heavenbound...but rather under a covenant...same goes with children and baptism).

We are commanded throughout scripture to raise up children...the conversion of the soul is the work of grace and faith...something given only by God.

You also have to conclude that John was not filled with the Holy Spirit in utero by your own reasoning. If you believe he was, then you have to accept the perchance of other children being thus also.


The burden of proof is on you, sir, to prove that infants were not included. Oh, and I'm a former baptist, I'm aware of the argumentation


----------



## CDM

LadyFlynt said:


> Andrew, where does it state that her entire household believed? It DOES say they were all baptised. The term household ALWAYS included EVERYONE...from the simpleminded to the intelligient, from the newborn to the ones nearing death's door, from the master to the lowliest servant...these were generally not households as we know of today. If a person was to kill everyone in the household of a guilty man (or royalty during a coup), infants were not excluded. Context of history and culture, sir.
> 
> Scripture states that the household is counted even if there is merely ONE believer within, does it not? If I were an unbeliever, would I not be sanctified because my husband is a believer? (this in no way means that the unbelieving party is heavenbound...but rather under a covenant...same goes with children and baptism).
> 
> We are commanded throughout scripture to raise up children...the conversion of the soul is the work of grace and faith...something given only by God.
> 
> You also have to conclude that John was not filled with the Holy Spirit in utero by your own reasoning. If you believe he was, then you have to accept the perchance of other children being thus also.
> 
> 
> The burden of proof is on you, sir, to prove that infants were not included. Oh, and I'm a former baptist, I'm aware of the argumentation







mangum said:


> The Reformed don't understand baptism and the recipient's of it from an isolated verse or two found in the synoptic gospels. You ought to start in Genesis and end in Revelation. Not beginning with Christ's public ministry and ending at His ascension.
> 
> To aid with this, one should ask, "Where exactly is the doctrine that God has cut off the children of believers from this new and better covenant?" Where is it taught that children of believers are accounted as heathen in God's sight? Not one Jew, not even one, made a peep about God casting aside their children that have _always_ been in covenant with Him?
> 
> This is to say, if you approach God's Word with a scale to weigh Paedo vs. Credo proof texts you are going to miss the forest for the trees.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Andrew P.C. said:


> LadyFlynt,
> 
> Very interesting texts. Yet, I would ask that you follow for a moment:
> 
> First, baptism is an ordinance that is done after one repents from their sin. These texts do say "household" yet, in order to be in context you must conclude that the infants also understood the gospel.


Well, your opening claim is true, so far as it goes. But I suspect that you are unwittingly suppressing an "only" or "always" in there, as in, "baptism is an ordinance that is *[ONLY/ALWAYS]* done after one repents." But that is the point of contention, isn't it? If infants _should_ be baptized, which is a different question, then the stipulation that they must be converted (active faith/repentance) cannot be universal. Therefore, we are both bringing inferences to the text: YOU are claiming that the whole household MUST have been grown to an age of cognizance, and so were baptized; WE claim that the language of "household" is just so broad as it contains the entirety of the house, and restricting it to "believing house members" is artificial. And I would point out that the Scripture OT/NT is replete with evidence that the designation "household" is an inclusive term.



Andrew P.C. said:


> Second, Lydia was told of the gospel, then baptised. Then her household was baptised. The effect of their baptism was caused by their conversion.


Again, that's not what the text _says,_ but what you are bringing to the text. So you can't say that _we_ are the only ones bringing theological baggage to the text.



Andrew P.C. said:


> From my understanding, Presbyterians baptise infants as a covenant between the parents and God to raise the childeren up in church? If this be so, these texts do not talk of any "raising" childeren up but rather of the conversion of a soul.


Presbyterians baptize their children because we believe God has already placed them in the visible church by giving them to us parents, and has commanded that the visible sign of his covenant with his people is to be given to them as well. The church makes a declaration of God's total claim on his people and everything that belongs to them--including children; his covenant promises to his elect; and proclaims the necessity of faith in him for salvation. The vows the parents make is a testimony of their faith, which includes their professed, prayerful, and Spirit-borne aim to rear this child in the fear of God (because God works by the ordinary means he explains in the Word); beside their faith in the promise: that God will be God to them, and to their children after them.

The texts speak of conversion of _one_, and baptism of a _house._ Again, the issue comes back to the question of what the basis for such a baptism would be? You bring one set of theological assumptions, and we another, to the text. We say no house (including small children) would be brought into the church, the people of God visible, without such attendant vows. No more than the same would not have been true of Abraham.


----------



## VaughanRSmith

LadyFlynt said:


> Andrew, where does it state that her entire household believed? It DOES say they were all baptised. The term household ALWAYS included EVERYONE...from the simpleminded to the intelligient, from the newborn to the ones nearing death's door, from the master to the lowliest servant...these were generally not households as we know of today. If a person was to kill everyone in the household of a guilty man (or royalty during a coup), infants were not excluded. Context of history and culture, sir.
> 
> Scripture states that the household is counted even if there is merely ONE believer within, does it not? If I were an unbeliever, would I not be sanctified because my husband is a believer? (this in no way means that the unbelieving party is heavenbound...but rather under a covenant...same goes with children and baptism).
> 
> We are commanded throughout scripture to raise up children...the conversion of the soul is the work of grace and faith...something given only by God.
> 
> You also have to conclude that John was not filled with the Holy Spirit in utero by your own reasoning. If you believe he was, then you have to accept the perchance of other children being thus also.
> 
> 
> The burden of proof is on you, sir, to prove that infants were not included. Oh, and I'm a former baptist, I'm aware of the argumentation


 Also, in the example of Lydia the main emphasis was on her _repenting_. If the household were all repentant before baptism, then there would obviously be a reference to that as it is the more important of the two (repentance trumps baptism).


----------



## staythecourse

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

Being raised Methodist and then pursuing the Baptist line, my reading of this would be broken down into the following parts:

1. Repent 
2. Be Baptised
3. The two, with faith in Jesus and his work toward that individual, results in forgiveness of sins
4. The gift of Holy Spirit is received
5. The calling would be a general call and not an effectual call.

Would this be typical Baptist thinking?


----------



## lv1nothr

LadyFlynt said:


> Andrew, where does it state that her entire household believed? It DOES say they were all baptised. The term household ALWAYS included EVERYONE...from the simpleminded to the intelligient, from the newborn to the ones nearing death's door, from the master to the lowliest servant...these were generally not households as we know of today. If a person was to kill everyone in the household of a guilty man (or royalty during a coup), infants were not excluded. Context of history and culture, sir.
> 
> Scripture states that the household is counted even if there is merely ONE believer within, does it not? If I were an unbeliever, would I not be sanctified because my husband is a believer? (this in no way means that the unbelieving party is heavenbound...but rather under a covenant...same goes with children and baptism).
> 
> We are commanded throughout scripture to raise up children...the conversion of the soul is the work of grace and faith...something given only by God.
> 
> You also have to conclude that John was not filled with the Holy Spirit in utero by your own reasoning. If you believe he was, then you have to accept the perchance of other children being thus also.
> 
> 
> The burden of proof is on you, sir, to prove that infants were not included. Oh, and I'm a former baptist, I'm aware of the argumentation


----------



## lv1nothr

Contra_Mundum said:


> Well, your opening claim is true, so far as it goes. But I suspect that you are unwittingly suppressing an "only" or "always" in there, as in, "baptism is an ordinance that is *[ONLY/ALWAYS]* done after one repents." But that is the point of contention, isn't it? If infants _should_ be baptized, which is a different question, then the stipulation that they must be converted (active faith/repentance) cannot be universal. Therefore, we are both bringing inferences to the text: YOU are claiming that the whole household MUST have been grown to an age of cognizance, and so were baptized; WE claim that the language of "household" is just so broad as it contains the entirety of the house, and restricting it to "believing house members" is artificial. And I would point out that the Scripture OT/NT is replete with evidence that the designation "household" is an inclusive term.
> 
> Again, that's not what the text _says,_ but what you are bringing to the text. So you can't say that _we_ are the only ones bringing theological baggage to the text.
> 
> Presbyterians baptize their children because we believe God has already placed them in the visible church by giving them to us parents, and has commanded that the visible sign of his covenant with his people is to be given to them as well. The church makes a declaration of God's total claim on his people and everything that belongs to them--including children; his covenant promises to his elect; and proclaims the necessity of faith in him for salvation. The vows the parents make is a testimony of their faith, which includes their professed, prayerful, and Spirit-borne aim to rear this child in the fear of God (because God works by the ordinary means he explains in the Word); beside their faith in the promise: that God will be God to them, and to their children after them.
> 
> The texts speak of conversion of _one_, and baptism of a _house._ Again, the issue comes back to the question of what the basis for such a baptism would be? You bring one set of theological assumptions, and we another, to the text. We say no house (including small children) would be brought into the church, the people of God visible, without such attendant vows. No more than the same would not have been true of Abraham.



And


----------



## blhowes

Contra_Mundum said:


> And I would point out that the Scripture OT/NT is replete with evidence that the designation "household" is an inclusive term.


Just so we're 'all on the same page', can you sight a few examples of this from the OT that best makes the case?


----------



## BobVigneault

blhowes said:


> Just so we're 'all on the same page', can you sight a few examples of this from the OT that best makes the case?



Genesis 17:12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your *house* or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.

Gen. 17:23 Then Abraham took Ishmael his son and all those born in his *house *or bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very day, as God had said to him. 24 Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. 25 And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. 26 That very day Abraham and his son Ishmael were circumcised. 27 And all the men of his *house*, those born in the house and those bought with money from a foreigner, were circumcised with him.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Bob,
I'll just give you a handful, but you can easily do a search on "house" (include partial match) in e-Sword.

Question to chew on: What/who is "the house of Israel" or "the house of David"?

Genesis has just so many, here are a handful:
Gen 12:1--Abraham's _family_ (must have reference to other than Terah, because Terah began the journey, and died in Haran)
Gen 12:15--Pharaoh's house plagued
Gen. 14:14--born in Abraham's house
and 15:13; 17:12, 13, 23, 27; 18:19, etc.
Gen. 20:13, 18--Abimelech, God shutting up the wombs
Gen. 30:25, 30--Jacob, infant son Joseph
Gen. 34:29--looting of the Shechemites
Gen. 36:6--Esau
Gen. 46:27--had to include very young children, because some are Jacob's great-grandchildren

Here are a couple more which I thought of:
Numbers 16:27, 32--Korah, Dathan, & Abiram
Ruth 4:11, 12--Ruth/Boaz
1 Sam. 1:21--Elkanah
1 Sam. 22:16-19--Ahimelech

Gospels are full once again. Some references to "house" are indeed to buildings, but many are to people of a house.
a handful of clear examples (and there are many more):
Mt. 10:24, 36
Mt. 13:27, 57
Lk. 12:42, 52
Lk. 19:19--Zaccheus

Does this answer the question?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Andrew P.C. said:


> THis thread became so off topic, and i feel the tension between some. I have a feeling Semper(the first to respond) is a little irritated... sry man. Plus, i know i can search it, but i just wanted to see the response, and see if you guys really know where it is in the scriptures.
> 
> Oh, and for the "smart" one talking about the scret book, sadly people believe and follow a church without even seeing if it's biblical. So, you could be right  .
> 
> I read yesterday about "men of the word" who get together to talk about issues but do not even open their own bibles to see what the scriptures have to say. Rather, they try to reason. They sit around to debate without seeing what the ruler of the universe spoke on the issue.



Andrew,

Wasn't irritated but probing. Your initial question was vague and didn't seem to match up to your title. I actually asked a real question trying to determine if you were looking for a historical narrative example of an actual baptism of an infant. Since Baptists typically form their teaching on the proper recipients based on examples of whose baptism they read about, I was determining if that's where you came from. The rest was just fun.


----------



## blhowes

Contra_Mundum said:


> Bob,
> I'll just give you a handful, but you can easily do a search on "house" (include partial match) in e-Sword.


Thanks, Bruce (and Bob) for the examples. 



Contra_Mundum said:


> Does this answer the question?


Yes, and then some. Now to figure out the answer to the question, "Why would I assume in the NT examples of household baptisms that there were no infants in the households?" (I realize that it doesn't matter one way or the other for CT, but as a baptist ya kind of assume that all were old enough to believe and be baptized). 



Contra_Mundum said:


> Question to chew on: What/who is "the house of Israel" or "the house of David"?


chewing away...


----------



## MrMerlin777

This thread is opening a and


----------



## Contra_Mundum

MrMerlin777 said:


> This thread is opening a and



Perhaps what we really need is a _:merrygoround:_ .gif ?

Get on, boys and girls! here we go again, wheeeee!


----------



## Contra_Mundum

blhowes said:


> Thanks, Bruce (and Bob) for the examples.
> 
> Now to figure out the answer to the question, "Why would I assume in the NT examples of household baptisms that there were no infants in the households?" (I realize that it doesn't matter one way or the other for CT, but as a baptist ya kind of assume that all were old enough to believe and be baptized).



I think the answer to that question for the baptist could be: 1) that because of the _theology of baptism,_ such households could not have included infants or toddlers; or 2) even if the houses included such people, there is a _theological reason_ to exclude them from the number who were baptized, which is described indefintely as "the household."

It is this kind of analysis that shows that, far from the presbyterian's position being "abstruse and theological" vs. the baptist's position being "biblical-textual," it should be clear that the baptist, no less than the presbyterian "reads" the text through a set of presuppositions.


----------



## blhowes

Contra_Mundum said:


> I think the answer to that question for the baptist could be: 1) that because of the _theology of baptism,_ such households could not have included infants or toddlers; or 2) even if the houses included such people, there is a _thological reason_ to exclude them from the number who were baptized.



Nothing personal, but I hope I can find better answers than those in defense of the baptist view. I'd have a hard time convincing myself.

Its kind of like, let's go to the Bible and look at all the baptism examples to determine who should be baptized. When I get to the household examples, I don't have to ask the question who was baptized because I already know that infants weren't baptized. What's wrong in that scenario?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

blhowes said:


> Nothing personal, but I hope I can find better answers than those in defense of the baptist view. I'd have a hard time convincing myself.
> 
> Its kind of like, let's go to the Bible and look at all the baptism examples to determine who should be baptized. When I get to the household examples, I don't have to ask the question who was baptized because I already know that infants weren't baptized. What's wrong in that scenario?



Bob,
I don't want it to seem as though *I'm* disparaging a _theological_ interpretation of a text. That's part of the analogy of faith. So, I'll use such arguments too. But it should definitely be a sound argument. As a P-B, I don't find the other position compellingly cogent, at least partly for the reason you allude to above.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

blhowes said:


> Nothing personal, but I hope I can find better answers than those in defense of the baptist view. I'd have a hard time convincing myself.
> 
> Its kind of like, let's go to the Bible and look at all the baptism examples to determine who should be baptized. When I get to the household examples, I don't have to ask the question who was baptized because I already know that infants weren't baptized. What's wrong in that scenario?



Bob,

Honestly, when the smoke clears, that's what the Baptist position is. I've said this over and over. I'm not nearly as well studied and intelligent as some of my Reformed betters here but, in the course of a long time interacting on this, it comes right down to the fact that Baptists form their theology primarily on the basis of *historical narrative*.

What happens in the discussions and the essays however is that it _appears_ that the Baptists have another Biblical grounding for who they determine are the proper recipients. They'll write entire tomes proving to themselves that the New Covenant is inviolate and that it can only and will only ever contain the Elect of God. As I've demonstrated, I can grant that fact to the Baptist and it would not mean I would agree that _Election_ forms the basis for the decision to baptize. Why? Because who _is_ and _is not_ Elect is *hidden* from us.

So a conversation will ensue like this:
Me: You do not baptize on the basis of election so why do you argue in that way?
Baptist: Well, profession is a better guarantee that the person is elect.
Me: But scripture doesn't say to baptize because you have a better guarantee of election when a person professes. What scriptural reasons do you have to restrict baptism to professors?
Baptist: All the _examples_ we have in the Scriptures are of people who believe and are baptized.

Now, the examples might be the best that we have if we didn't have the entire corpus of Scriptures that see God acting with households. In the end, it really comes down to the paedobaptist taking the stream of redemptive history and not placing a dam in the middle of it based solely on the basis of phenomenalogical language. If God is going to cut off the children of believers, and call it an improvement, we're looking for way more than a few recorded events to buy into that idea.


----------



## MrMerlin777

Contra_Mundum said:


> Perhaps what we really need is a _:merrygoround:_ .gif ?
> 
> Get on, boys and girls! here we go again, wheeeee!



 Perhaps.

For as long as there are credo and paedo baptists, and as long as there are things like the Puritan board, these kinds of threads will come up. Let's keep it a charitable discourse though, shall we.


----------



## BertMulder

For those of us not familiar with Calvin's Institutes:


> (Infant baptism, considered in relation to what it typifies, corresponds to circumcision and is authorized in the covenant with Abraham, 1-6)
> 1. The attack on infant baptism
> 
> But since in this age, certain frenzied spirits have raised, and even now continue to raise, great disturbance in the Church on account of paedobaptism, I cannot avoid here, by way of appendix, adding something to restrain their fury. Should any one think me more prolix than the subject is worthy let him reflect that in a matter of the greatest moment, so much is due to the peace and purity of the Church, that we should not fastidiously object to whatever may be conducive to both. I may add, that I will study so to arrange this discussion, that it will tend, in no small degree, still farther to illustrate the subject of baptism. The argument by which paedobaptism is assailed is, no doubt, specious, viz., that it is not founded on the institution of God, but was introduced merely by human presumption and depraved curiosity, and afterwards, by a foolish facility, rashly received in practice; whereas a sacrament has not a thread to hang upon, if it rest not on the sure foundation of the word of God. But what if, when the matter is properly attended to, it should be found that a calumny is falsely and unjustly brought against the holy ordinance of the Lord? First, then, let us inquire into its origin. Should it appear to have been devised merely by human rashness, let us abandon it, and regulate the true observance of baptism entirely by the will of the Lord; but should it be proved to be by no means destitute of his sure authority, let us beware of discarding the sacred institutions of God, and thereby insulting their Author.
> 
> 2. The meaning of baptism determined
> 
> In the first place, then, it is a well-known doctrine, and one as to which all the pious are agreed, - that the right consideration of signs does not lie merely in the outward ceremonies but depends chiefly on the promise and the spiritual mysteries, to typify which, the ceremonies themselves are appointed. He, therefore, who would thoroughly understand the effect of baptism - its object and true character - must not stop short at the element and corporeal object, but look forward to the divine promises which are therein offered to us, and rise to the internal secrets which are therein represented. He who understands these has reached the solid truth, and, so to speak, the whole substance of baptism, and will thence perceive the nature and use of outward sprinkling. On the other hand, he who passes them by in contempt, and keeps his thoughts entirely fixed on the visible ceremony, will neither understand the force, nor the proper nature of baptism, nor comprehend what is meant, or what end is gained by the use of water. This is confirmed by passages of Scripture too numerous and too clear to make it necessary here to discuss them more at length. It remains, therefore, to inquire into the nature and efficacy of baptism, as evinced by the promises therein given. Scripture shows, first, that it points to that cleansing from sin which we obtain by the blood of Christ; and, secondly, to the mortification of the flesh, which consists in participation in his death, by which believers are regenerated to newness of life, and thereby to the fellowship of Christ. To these general heads may be referred all that the Scriptures teach concerning baptism, with this addition, that it is also a symbol to testify our religion to men.
> 
> 3. Baptism and circumcision
> 
> Now, since prior to the institution of baptism, the people of God had circumcision in its stead, let us see how far these two signs differ, and how far they resemble each other. In this way it will appear what analogy there is between them. When the Lord enjoins Abraham to observe circumcision, (Gen. 17: 10,) he premises that he would be a God unto him and to his seed, adding, that in himself was a perfect sufficiency of all things, and that Abraham might reckon on his hand as a fountain of every blessing. These words include the promise of eternal life, as our Saviour interprets when he employs it to prove the immortality and resurrection of believers: "God," says he, "is not the God of the dead, but of the living," (Matth. 22: 32.) Hence, too, Paul, when showing to the Ephesians how great the destruction was from which the Lord had delivered them, seeing that they had not been admitted to the covenant of circumcision, infers that at that time they were aliens from the covenant of promise, without God, and without hope, (Eph. 2: 12,) all these being comprehended in the covenant. Now, the first access to God, the first entrance to immortal life, is the remission of sins. Hence it follows, that this corresponds to the promise of our cleansing in baptism. The Lord afterwards covenants with Abraham, that he is to walk before him in sincerity and innocence of heart: this applies to mortification or regeneration. And lest any should doubt whether circumcision were the sign of mortification, Moses explains more clearly elsewhere when he exhorts the people of Israel to circumcise the foreskin of their heart, because the Lord had chosen them for his own people, out of all the nations of the earth. As the Lord, in choosing the posterity of Abraham for his people, commands them to be circumcised, so Moses declares that they are to be circumcised in heart, thus explaining what is typified by that carnal circumcision. Then, lest any one should attempt this in his own strength, he shows that it is the work of divine grace. All this is so often inculcated by the prophets, that there is no occasion here to collect the passages which everywhere occur. We have, therefore, a spiritual promise given to the fathers in circumcision, similar to that which is given to us in baptism, since it figured to them both the forgiveness of sins and the mortification of the flesh. Besides, as we have shown that Christ, in whom both of these reside, is the foundation of baptism, so must he also be the foundation of circumcision. For he is promised to Abraham, and in him all nations are blessed. To seal this grace, the sign of circumcision is added.
> 
> 4. The difference is in externals only
> 
> There is now no difficulty in seeing wherein the two signs agree, and wherein they differ. The promise, in which we have shown that the power of the signs consists, is one in both, viz., the promise of the paternal favour of God, of forgiveness of sins, and eternal life. And the thing figured is one and the same, viz., regeneration. The foundation on which the completion of these things depends is one in both. Wherefore, there is no difference in the internal meaning, from which the whole power and peculiar nature of the sacrament is to be estimated. The only difference which remains is in the external ceremony, which is the least part of it, the chief part consisting in the promise and the thing signified. Hence we may conclude, that every thing applicable to circumcision applies also to baptism, excepting always the difference in the visible ceremony. To this analogy and comparison we are led by that rule of the apostle, in which he enjoins us to bring every interpretation of Scripture to the analogy of faith, (Rom. 12: 3, 6.) And certainly in this matter the truth may almost be felt. For just as circumcision, which was a kind of badge to the Jews, assuring them that they were adopted as the people and family of God, was their first entrance into the Church, while they, in their turn, professed their allegiance to God, so now we are initiated by baptism, so as to be enrolled among his people, and at the same time swear unto his name. Hence it is incontrovertible, that baptism has been substituted for circumcision, and performs the same office.
> 
> 5. Infants are participants in the covenant
> 
> Now, if we are to investigate whether or not baptism is justly given to infants, will we not say that the man trifles, or rather is delirious, who would stop short at the element of water, and the external observance, and not allow his mind to rise to the spiritual mystery? If reason is listened to, it will undoubtedly appear that baptism is properly administered to infants as a thing due to them. The Lord did not anciently bestow circumcision upon them without making them partakers of all the things signified by circumcision. He would have deluded his people with mere imposture, had he quieted them with fallacious symbols: the very idea is shocking. I is distinctly declares, that the circumcision of the infant will be instead of a seal of the promise of the covenant. But if the covenant remains firm and fixed, it is no less applicable to the children of Christians in the present day, than to the children of the Jews under the Old Testament. Now, if they are partakers of the thing signified, how can they be denied the sign? If they obtain the reality, how can they be refused the figure? The external sign is so united in the sacrament with the word, that it cannot be separated from it; but if they can be separated, to which of the two shall we attach the greater value? Surely, when we see that the sign is subservient to the word, we shall say that it is subordinate, and assign it the inferior place. Since, then, the word of baptism is destined for infants why should we deny them the signs which is an appendage of the word? This one reason, could no other be furnished, would be amply sufficient to refute all gainsayers. The objection, that there was a fixed day for circumcision, is a mere quibble. We admit that we are not now, like the Jews, tied down to certain days; but when the Lord declares that though he prescribes no day, yet he is pleased that infants shall be formally admitted to his covenant, what more do we ask?
> 
> 6. Difference in the mode of confirmation only
> 
> Scripture gives us a still clearer knowledge of the truth. For it is most evident that the covenant, which the Lord once made with Abraham (cf. Gen. 17:14), is not less applicable to Christians now than it was anciently to the Jewish people, and, therefore, that word has no less reference to Christians than to Jews. Unless, indeed, we imagine that Christ, by his advent, diminished or curtailed the grace of the Father - an idea not free from execrable blasphemy. Wherefore, both the children of the Jews, because, when made heirs of that covenant, they were separated from the heathen, were called a holy seed (Ezra 9:2; Isaiah 6:13), and for the same reason the children of Christians, or those who have only one believing parent, are called holy, and, by the testimony of the apostle, differ from the impure seed of idolaters (I Cor. 7:14). Then, since the Lord, immediately after the covenant was made with Abraham ordered it to be sealed, infants by an outward sacrament (Gen. 17:12), how can it be said that Christians are not to attest it in the present day, and seal it in their children?
> 
> Let it not be objected that the only symbol by which the Lord ordered his covenant to be confirmed was that of circumcision, which was long ago abrogated. It is easy to answer, that in accordance with the form of the old dispensation, he appointed circumcision to confirm his covenant, but that it being abrogated, the same reason for confirmation still continues, a reason which we have in common with the Jews. Hence it is always necessary carefully to consider what is common to both, and wherein they differed from us. The covenant is common, and the reason for confirming it is common. The mode of confirming it is so far different that they had circumcision, instead of which we now have baptism. Otherwise, if the testimony by which the Jews were assured of the salvation of their seed is taken from us, the consequence will be, that, by the advent of Christ, the grace of God, which was formerly given to the Jews, is more obscure and less perfectly attested to us. If this cannot be said without extreme insult to Christ, by whom the infinite goodness of the Father has been more brightly and benignly than ever shed upon the earth, and declared to men, it must be confessed that it cannot be more confined, and less clearly manifested, than under the obscure shadows of the law.
> 
> (Christ invited and blessed little children: we should not exclude them from the sign, and the benefit, of baptism, 7-9)
> 7. Jesus and the children
> 
> Hence our Lord Jesus Christ, to give an example from which the world might learn that he had come to enlarge rather than to limit the grace of the Father, kindly takes the little children in his arms, and rebukes his disciples for attempting to prevent them from coming, (Matth. 19: 13,) because they were keeping those to whom the kingdom of heaven belonged away from him, through whom alone there is access to heaven. But it will be asked, What resemblance is there between baptism and our Saviour embracing little children? He is not said to have baptised, but to have received, embraced, and blessed them; and, therefore, if we would imitate his example, we must give infants the benefit of our prayers, not baptise them. But let us attend to the act of our Saviour a little more carefully than these men do. For we must not lightly overlook the fact, that our Saviour, in ordering little children to be brought to him, adds the reason, "of such is the kingdom of heaven." And he afterwards testifies his good will by act, when he embraces them, and with prayer and benediction commends them to his Father. If it is right that children should be brought to Christ, why should they not be admitted to baptism, the symbol of our communion and fellowship with Christ? If the kingdom of heaven is theirs, why should they be denied the sign by which access, as it were, is opened to the Church, that being admitted into it they may be enrolled among the heirs of the heavenly kingdom? How unjust were we to drive away those whom Christ invites to himself, to spoil those whom he adorns with his gifts, to exclude those whom he spontaneously admits. But if we insist on discussing the difference between our Saviour's act and baptism, in how much higher esteem shall we hold baptism, (by which we testify that infants are included in the divine covenant,) than the taking up, embracing, laying hands on children, and praying over them, acts by which Christ, when present, declares both that they are his, and are sanctified by him? By the other cavils by which the objectors endeavour to evade this passage, they only betray their ignorance: they quibble that, because our Saviour says, "Suffer little children to come," they must have been several years old, and fit to come. But they are called by the Evangelists "brethe kai paidia", terms which denote infants still at their mothers' breasts. The term "come" is used simply for "approach." See the quibbles to which men are obliged to have recourse when they have hardened themselves against the truth! There is nothing more solid in their allegation, that the kingdom of heaven is not assigned to children, but to those like children, since the expression is, "of such," not "of themselves." If this is admitted, what will be the reason which our Saviour employs to show that they are not strangers to him from nonage? When he orders that little children shall be allowed to come to him, nothing is plainer than that mere infancy is meant. Lest this should seem absurd, he adds, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven." But if infants must necessarily be comprehended the expression, "of such," clearly shows that infants themselves, and those like them, are intended.
> 
> 8. The silence of Scripture on the practice of infant baptism
> 
> Every one must now see that paedobaptism, which receives such strong support from Scripture, is by no means of human invention. Nor is there anything plausible in the objection, that we no where read of even one infant having been baptised by the hands of the apostles. For although this is not expressly narrated by the Evangelists, yet as they are not expressly excluded when mention is made of any baptised family, (Acts 16: 15, 32,) what man of sense will argue from this that they were not baptised? If such kinds of argument were good, it would be necessary, in like manner, to interdict women from the Lord's Supper, since we do not read that they were ever admitted to it in the days of the apostles. But here we are contented with the rule of faith. For when we reflect on the nature of the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, we easily judge who the persons are to whom the use of it is to be communicated. The same we observe in the case of baptism. For, attending to the end for which it was instituted, we clearly perceive that it is not less applicable to children than to those of more advanced years and that therefore, they cannot be deprived of it without manifest fraud to the will of its divine Author. The assertion which they disseminate among the common people, that a long series of years elapsed after the resurrection at Christ, during which paedobaptism was unknown, is a shameful falsehood, since there is no writer, however ancient, who does not trace its origin to the days of the apostles.
> 
> 9. The blessing of infant baptism
> 
> It remains briefly to indicate what benefit redounds from the observance, both to believers who bring their children to the church to be baptised, and to the infants themselves, to whom the sacred water is applied, that no one may despise the ordinance as useless or superfluous: though any one who would think of ridiculing baptism under this pretence, would also ridicule the divine ordinance of circumcision: for what can they adduce to impugn the one, that may not be retorted against the other? Thus the Lord punishes the arrogance of those who forthwith condemn whatever their carnal sense cannot comprehend. But God furnishes us with other weapons to repress their stupidity. His holy institution, from which we feel that our faith derives admirable consolation, deserves not to be called superfluous. For the divine symbol communicated to the child, as with the impress of a seal, confirms the promise given to the godly parent, and declares that the Lord will be a God not to him only but to his seed: not merely visiting him with his grace and goodness, but his posterity also to the thousandth generation. When the infinite goodness of God is thus displayed, it, in the first place, furnishes most ample materials for proclaiming his glory, and fills pious breasts with no ordinary joy, urging them more strongly to love their affectionate Parent, when they see that, on their account, he extends his care to their posterity.
> 
> I am not moved by the objection, that the promise ought to be sufficient to confirm the salvation of our children. It has seemed otherwise to God, who, seeing our weakness, has herein been pleased to condescend to it. Let those, then, who embrace the promise of mercy to their children, consider it as their duty to offer them to the Church, to be sealed with the symbol of mercy, and animate themselves to surer confidence, on seeing with the bodily eye the covenant of the Lord engraven on the bodies of their children. On the other hand, children derive some benefit from their baptism, when, being ingrafted into the body of the church, they are made an object of greater interest to the other members. Then when they have grown up, they are thereby strongly urged to an earnest desire of serving God, who has received them as sons by the formal symbol of adoption, before, from nonage, they were able to recognise him as their Father. In fine, we ought to stand greatly in awe of the denunciations that God will take vengeance on every one who despises to impress the symbol of the covenant on his child, (Gen. 17: 15,) such contempt being a rejection, and, as it were, abjuration of the offered grace.
> 
> (Answer to the Anabaptists argument that baptism is not to be associated with circumcision, 10-16)
> 10. Differences falsely alleged
> 
> Let us now discuss the arguments by which some furious madmen cease not to assail this holy ordinance of God. And, first, feeling themselves pressed beyond measure by the resemblance between baptism and circumcision, they contend that there is a wide difference between the two signs, that the one has nothing in common with the other. They maintain that the things meant are different, that the covenant is altogether different, and that the persons included under the name of children are different. When they first proceed to the proof, they pretend that circumcision was a figure of mortification, not of baptism. This we willingly concede to them, for it admirably supports our view, in support of which the only proof we use is, that baptism and circumcision are signs of mortification. Hence we conclude that the one was substituted for the other, baptism representing to us the very thing which circumcision signified to the Jews. In asserting a difference of covenant, with what barbarian audacity do they corrupt and destroy scripture? and that not in one passage only, but so as not to leave any passage safe and entire. The Jews they depict as so carnal as to resemble brutes more than men, representing the covenant which was made with them as reaching no farther than a temporary life, and the promises which were given to them as dwindling down into present and corporeal blessings. If this dogma is received, what remains but that the Jewish nation was overloaded for a time with divine kindness, (just as swine are gorged in their stye,) that they might at last perish eternally? Whenever we quote circumcision and the promises annexed to it, they answer, that circumcision was a literal sign, and that its promises were carnal.
> 
> 11. The promises were spiritual
> 
> Certainly, if circumcision was a literal sign, the same view must be taken of baptism, since, in the second chapter to the Colossians, the apostle makes the one to be not a whit more spiritual than the other. For he says that in Christ we "are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ."(Col. 2:11). In explanation of his sentiment he immediately adds, that we are "buried with him in baptism."(Col. 2:12). What do these words mean, but just that the truth and completion of baptism is the truth and completion of circumcision, since they represent one thing? For his object is to show that baptism is the same thing to Christians that circumcision formerly was to the Jews. Now, since we have already clearly shown that the promises of both signs, and the mysteries which are represented by them, agree, we shall not dwell on the point longer at present. I would only remind believers to reflect, without anything being said by me, whether that is to be regarded as an earthly and literal sign, which has nothing heavenly or spiritual under it. But lest they should blind the simple with their smoke, we shall, in passing, dispose of one objection by which they cloak this most impudent falsehood. It is absolutely certain that the original promises comprehending the covenant which God made with the Israelites under the old dispensation were spiritual, and had reference to eternal life, and were, of course, in like manner spiritually received by the fathers, that they might thence entertain a sure hope of immortality, and aspire to it with their whole soul. Meanwhile, we are far from denying that he testified his kindness to them by carnal and earthly blessings; though we hold that by these the hope of spiritual promises was confirmed. In this manner, when he promised eternal blessedness to his servant Abraham, he, in order to place a manifest indication of favour before his eye, added the promise of possession of the land of Canaan (Gen. 15:1,18). In the same way we should understand all the terrestrial promises which were given to the Jewish nation, the spiritual promise, as the head to which the others bore reference, always holding the first place. Having handled this subject fully when treating of the difference between the old and the hew dispensations, I now only glance at it.
> 
> 12. Physical and spiritual infancy
> 
> Under the appellation of "children" the difference they observe is this that the children of Abraham, under the old dispensation, were those who derived their origin from his seed, but that the appellation is now given to those who imitate his faith, and therefore that carnal infancy, which was ingrafted into the fellowship of the covenant by circumcision, typified the spiritual children of the new covenant, who are regenerated by the word of God to immortal life. In these words we indeed discover a small spark of truth, but these giddy spirits err grievously in this, that laying hold of whatever comes first to their hand, when they ought to proceed farther and compare many things together; they obstinately fasten upon one single word. Hence it cannot but happen that they are every now and then deluded, because they do not exert themselves to obtain a full knowledge of any subject. We certainly admit that the carnal seed of Abraham for a time held the place of the spiritual seed, which is ingrafted into him by faith, (Gal. 4: 28; Rom. 4: 12.) For we are called his sons, though we have no natural relationship with him. But if they mean, as they not obscurely show, that the spiritual promise was never made to the carnal seed of Abraham, they are greatly mistaken. We must, therefore, take a better aim, one to which we are directed by the infallible guidance of Scripture. The Lord therefore promises to Abraham that he shall have a seed in whom all the nations of the earth will be blessed, and at the same time assures him that he will be a God both to him and his seed (Gen. 17:7). All who in faith receive Christ as the author of the blessing are the heirs of this promise, and accordingly are called the children of Abraham.
> 
> 13. Abraham was father of all who believe
> 
> Although, after the resurrection of Christ, the boundaries of the kingdom of God began to be extended far and wide into all nations indiscriminately, so that, according to the declaration of Christ, believers were collected from all quarters to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven, (Matth. 8: 11,) still, for many ages before, the Jews had enjoyed this great mercy. And as he had selected them (while passing by all other nations) to be for a time the depositaries of his favour, he designated them as his peculiar purchased people, (Exod. 19:5; 15:16)
> 
> In attestation of this kindness, he appointed circumcision, by which symbol the Jews were taught that God watched over their safety, and they were thereby raised to the hope of eternal life. For what can ever be wanting to him whom God has once taken under his protection? Wherefore the apostle, to prove that the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, were the children of Abraham, speaks in this way: "Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcisions or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed to them also: and the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had yet being uncircumcised," (Rom. 4: 9-12.) Do we not see that both are made equal in dignity? For, to the time appointed by the divine decree, he was the father of circumcision. But when, as the apostle elsewhere writes, (Eph. 2: 14,) the wall of partition, which separated the Gentiles from the Jews was broken down, to them, also, access was given to the kingdom of God, and he became their fathers and that without the sign of circumcisions, its place being supplied by baptism. In saying expressly that Abraham was not the feather of those who were of the circumcision only, his object was to repress the superciliousness of some who, laying aside all regard to godliness, plumed themselves on mere ceremonies. In like manner, we may, in the present day, refute the vanity of those who, in baptism, seek nothing but water.
> 
> 14. Covenant with the Jews not made void
> 
> But in opposition to this is produced a passage from the Epistle to the Romans, in which the apostle says, that those who are of the flesh are not the children of Abraham, but that those only who are the children of promise are considered as the seed, (Rom. 9: 7.) For he seems to insinuate, that carnal relationship to Abraham, which we think of some consequence, is nothing.
> 
> But we must attend carefully to the subject which the apostle is there treating. His object being to show to the Jews that the goodness of God was not restricted to the seed of Abraham, nay, that of itself it contributes nothing, produces, in proof of the fact, the cases of Ishmael and Esau (Rom. 9:6-13). These being rejected, just as if they had been strangers, although, according to the flesh, they were the genuine offspring of Abraham, the blessing resides in Isaac and Jacob. This proves what he afterwards affirms, viz., that salvation depends on the mercy which God bestows on whomsoever he pleases (Rom. 9:15-16), but that the Jews have no ground to glory or plume themselves on the name of the covenant, unless they keep the law of the covenant, that is, obey the word.
> 
> On the other hand, after casting down their vain confidence in their origin, because he was aware that the covenant which had been made with the posterity of Abraham could not properly prove fruitless, he declares, that due honour should still be paid to carnal relationship to Abraham, in consequence of which, the Jews were the primary and native heirs of the gospel, unless in so far as they were, for their ingratitude, rejected as unworthy, and yet rejected so as not to leave their nations utterly destitute of the heavenly blessing. For this reason, though they were contumacious breakers of the covenant, he styles them holy, (such respect does he pay to the holy generation which God had honoured with his sacred covenant,) while we, in comparison of them, are termed posthumous, or abortive children of Abraham and that not by nature, but by adoption, just as if a twig were broken from its own tree, and ingrafted on another stock. Therefore, that they might not be defrauded of their privilege, it was necessary that the gospel should first be preached to them. For they are, as it were, the first-born in the family of God. The honour due, on this account, must therefore be paid them, until they have rejected the offer, And, by their ingratitude, caused it to be transferred to the Gentiles. Nor, however great the contumacy with which they persist in warring against the gospel, are we therefore to despise them. We must consider, that in respect of the promise, the blessing of God still resides among them; And, as the apostle testifies, will never entirely depart from them, seeing that "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance," (Rom. 11:29.)
> 
> 15. The promise to be fulfilled not allegorically but literally
> 
> Such is the value of the promise given to the posterity of Abraham, - such the balance in which it is to be weighed. Hence though we have no doubt that in distinguishing the children of God from bastards and foreigners, that the election of God reigns freely, we, at the same time, perceive that he was pleased specially to embrace the seed of Abraham with his mercy, and, for the better attestation of it, to seal it by circumcision. The case of the Christian Church is entirely of the same description; for as Paul there declares that the Jews are sanctified by their parents, so he elsewhere say s that the children of Christians derive sanctification from their parents (I Cor. 7:14). Hence it is inferred that those who are chargeable with impurity (I Cor. 7:15) are justly separated from others.
> 
> Now who can have any doubt as to the falsehood of their subsequent averments viz., that the infants who were formerly circumcised only typified the spiritual infancy which is produced by the regeneration of the word of God? When the apostle says, that "Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers," (Rom. 15: 8,) he does not philosophise subtilely, as if he had said, Since the covenant made with Abraham has respect unto his seed, Christ, in order to perform and discharge the promise made by the Father, came for the salvation of the Jewish nation. Do you see how he considers that, after the resurrection of Christ, the promise is to be fulfilled to the seed of Abraham, not allegorically, but literally, as the words express? To the same effect is the declaration of Peter to the Jews: "The promise is unto you and to your children," (Acts 2: 39 and in the next chapters he calls them the children of the covenant, that is, heirs. Not widely different from this is the other passage of the apostle, above quoted, in which he regards and describes circumcision performed on infants as an attestation to the communion which they have with Christ (Eph. 2:11-13).
> 
> And, indeed, if we listen to the absurdities of those men, what will become of the promise by which the Lord, in the second commandment of his law, engages to be gracious to the seed of his servants for a thousand generations (Ex. 20:6)? Shall we here have recourse to allegory? This were the merest nibble. Shall we say that it has been abrogated? In this way, we should do away with the law which Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfil (Matt. 5:17), inasmuch as it turns to our everlasting good. Therefore, let it be without controversy, that God is so good and liberal to his people, that he is pleased, as a mark of his favour, to extend their privileges to the children born to them.
> 
> 16. Further apparent differences between baptism and circumcision
> 
> The distinctions which these men attempt to draw between baptism and circumcision are not only ridiculous, and void of all semblance of reason, but at variance with each other. For, when they affirm that baptism refers to the first day of spiritual contest, and circumcision to the eighth day, mortification being already accomplished they immediately forget the distinction, and change their song, representing circumcision as typifying the mortification of the flesh, and baptism as the burial, which is given to none but those who are already dead. What are these giddy contradictions but frenzied dreams? According to the former view, baptism ought to precede circumcision; according to the latter, it should come after it. It is not the first time we have seen the minds of men wander to and fro when they substitute their dreams for the infallible word of God.
> 
> We hold, therefore, that their former distinction is a mere imagination. Were we disposed to make the allegory of the eighth day, theirs would not be the proper mode of it. It were much better with the early Christians to refer the number eight to the resurrection, which took place on the eighth day, and on which we know that newness of life depends, or to the whole course of the present life, during which, mortification ought to be in progress, only terminating when life itself terminates; although it would seem that God intended to provide for the tenderness of infancy by deferring circumcision to the eighth day, as the wound would have been more dangerous if inflicted immediately after birth.
> 
> How much more rational is the declaration of Scripture, that we, when already dead, are buried by baptism, (Rom. 6: 4 since it distinctly states, that we are buried into death that we may thoroughly die, and thenceforth aim at that mortification?
> 
> Equally ingenious is their cavil, that women should not be baptised if baptism is to be made conformable to circumcision. For if it is most certain that the sanctification of the seed of Israel was attested by the sign of circumcision, it cannot be doubted that it was appointed alike for the sanctification of males and females. But though the rite could only be performed on males, yet the females were, through them, partners and associates in circumcision. Wherefore, disregarding all such quibbling distinctions, let us fix on the very complete resemblance between baptism and circumcision, as seen in the internal office, the promise, the use, and the effect.
> 
> (Answer to the argument that infants are incapable of faith, 17-20)
> 17. Children should also have life in Christ
> 
> They seem to think they produce their strongest reason for denying baptism to children, when they allege, that they are as yet unfit, from nonage, to understand the mystery which is there sealed, viz., spiritual regeneration, which is not applicable to earliest infancy. Hence they infer, that children are only to be regarded as sons of Adam until they have attained an age fit for the reception of the second birth. But all this is directly opposed to the truth of God. For if they are to be accounted sons of Adam, they are left in death, since, in Adam, we can do nothing but die (Rom. 5:12f). On the contrary, Christ bids them be brought to him (Matt. 19:14). Why so? Because he is life. Therefore, that he may quicken them, he makes them partners with himself; whereas these men would drive them away from Christ, and adjudge them to death.
> 
> For if they pretend that infants do not perish when they are accounted the sons of Adam, the error is more than sufficiently confuted by the testimony of Scripture, (1 Cor. 15: 22.) For, seeing it declares that in Adam all die, it follows, that no hope of life remains unless in Christ. Therefore that we may become heirs of life, we must communicate with him. Again, seeing it is elsewhere written that we are all by nature the children of wrath, (Eph. 2: 3,) and conceived in sin, (Ps. 51: 5,) of which condemnation is the inseparable attendant, we must part with our own nature before we have any access to the kingdom of God. And what can be clearer than the expression, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God?" (1 Cor. 15: 50.) Therefore, let every thing that is our own be abolished, (this cannot be without regeneration,) and then we shall perceive this possession of the kingdom. In fine, if Christ speaks truly when he declares that he is life (John 11:25; 14:6), we must necessarily be ingrafted into him by whom we are delivered from the bondage of death.
> 
> But how, they ask, are infants regenerated, when not possessing a knowledge of either good or evil? We answer, that the work of God, though beyond the reach of our capacity, is not therefore null. Moreover, infants who are to be saved (and that some are saved at this age is certain) must, without question, be previously regenerated by the Lord. For if they bring innate corruption with them from their mother's womb, they must be purified before they can be admitted into the kingdom of God, into which shall not enter any thing that defileth, (Rev. 21: 27.) If they are born sinners, as David and Paul affirm, they must either remain unaccepted and hated by God, or be justified. And why do we ask more, when the Judge himself publicly declares, that "except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God?" (John 3: 3.)
> 
> But to silence this class of objectors, God gave, in the case of John the Baptist, whom he sanctified from his mother's womb, (Luke 1: 15,) a proof of what he might do in others. They gain nothing by the quibble to which they here resort, viz., that this was only once done, and, therefore, it does not forthwith follow that the Lord always acts thus with infants. That is not the mode in which we reason. Our only object is to show, that they unjustly and malignantly confine the power of God within limits, within which it cannot be confined. As little weight is due to another subterfuge. They allege that, by the usual phraseology of Scriptures "from the womb," has the same meaning as "from childhood." But it is easy to see that the angel had a different meaning when he announced to Zacharias that the child not yet born would be filled with the Holy Spirit. Instead of attempting to give a law to God, let us hold that he sanctifies whom he pleases in the way in which he sanctified John, seeing that his power is not impaired.


----------



## BertMulder

> 18. Argument from the infancy of Christ
> 
> And, indeed, Christ was sanctified from earliest infancy, that he might sanctify his elect in himself at any age, without distinction. For as he, in order to wipe away the guilt of disobedience which had been committed in our flesh, assumed that very flesh, that in it he might, on our account, and in our stead, perform a perfect obedience, so he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, that, completely pervaded with his holiness in the flesh which he had assumed he might transfuse it into us. If in Christ we have a perfect pattern of all the grace, which God bestows on all his children, in this instance we have a proof that the age of infancy is not incapable of receiving sanctification.
> 
> This, at least, we set down as incontrovertible, that none of the elect is called away from the present life without being previously sanctified and regenerated by the Spirit of God. As to their objection that, in Scriptures the Spirit acknowledges no sanctification save that from incorruptible seed, that is, the word of God, they erroneously interpret Peter's words, in which he comprehends only believers who had been taught by the preaching of the gospel, (1 Pet. 1: 23.) We confess, indeed, that the word of the Lord is the only seed of spiritual regeneration; but we deny the inference that, therefore, the power of God cannot regenerate infants. This is as possible and easy for him as it is wondrous and incomprehensible to us. It were dangerous to deny that the Lord is able to furnish them with the knowledge of himself in any way he pleases.
> 
> 19. Objection: infants cannot understand preaching
> 
> But faith, they says comes by hearing (Rom. 10:17), the use of which infants have not yet obtained, nor can they be fit to know God, being, as Moses declares, without the knowledge of good and evil, (Deut. 1: 39.) But they observe not that where the apostle makes hearing the beginning of faith, he is only describing the usual economy and dispensation which the Lord is wont to employ in calling his people, and not laying down an invariable rule, for which no other method can be substituted. Many he certainly has called and endued with the true knowledge of himself by internal means, by the illumination of the Spirit, without the intervention of preaching. But since they deem it very absurd to attribute any knowledge of God to infants, whom Moses makes void of the knowledge of good and evil, let them tell me where the danger lies if they are said now to receive some part of that grace, of which they are to have the full measure shortly after. For if fulness of life consists in the perfect knowledge of God, since some of those whom death hurries away in the first moments of infancy pass into life eternal, they are certainly admitted to behold the immediate presence of God. Those therefore whom the Lord is to illumine with the full brightness of his light, why may he not, if he so pleases, irradiate at present with some small beam, especially if he does not remove their ignorance before he delivers them from the prison of the flesh? I would not rashly affirm that they are endued with the same faith which we experience in ourselves or have any knowledge at all resembling faith, (this I would rather leave undecided but I would somewhat curb the stolid arrogance of those men who, as with inflated cheeks affirm or deny whatever suits them.
> 
> 20. Objection: infants are capable neither of repentance nor of faith
> 
> In order to gain a stronger footing here, they add, that baptism is a sacrament of penitence and faith, and as neither of these is applicable to tender infancy we must beware of rendering its meaning empty and vain, by admitting infants to the communion of baptism. But these darts are directed more against God than against us; since the fact that circumcision was a sign of repentance is completely established by many passages of Scripture, (Jer. 4: 4; 9:25; cf. Deut. 10:16; 30:6.) Thus Paul terms it a seal of the righteousness of faiths (Rom. 4: 11.) Let God, then, be demanded why he ordered circumcision to be performed on the bodies of infants? For baptism and circumcision being here in the same case, they cannot give any thing to the latter without conceding it to the former. If they recur to their usual evasion, that, by the age of infancy, spiritual infants were then figured, we have already closed this means of escape against them. We say then that since God imparted circumcision, the sign of repentance and faith, to infants, it should not seem absurd that they are now made partakers of baptisms unless men choose to glamour against an institution of God. But as in all his acts, so here also enough of wisdom and righteousness shines forth to repress the slanders of the ungodly. For although infants, at the moment when they were circumcised, did not comprehend what the sign meant, still they were truly circumcised for the mortification of their corrupt and polluted nature, - a mortification at which they afterwards aspired when adults. In fine, the objection is easily disposed of by the fact, that children are baptised for future repentance and faith. Though these are not yet formed in them, yet the seed of both lies hid in them by the secret operation of the Spirit.
> 
> This answer at once overthrows all the objections which are twisted against us out of the meaning of baptism; for instance, the title by which Paul distinguishes it when he terms it the "washing of regeneration and renewing," (Tit. 3: 5.) Hence they argue, that it is not to be given to any but to those who are capable of such feelings. But we, on the other hand, may object, that neither ought circumcision, which is designated regeneration, to be conferred on any but the regenerate. In this way, we shall condemn a divine institution. Thus, as we have already hinted, all the arguments which tend to shake circumcision are of no force in assailing baptism. Nor can they escape by saying, that everything which rests on the authority of God is absolutely fixed, though there should be no reason for it, but that this reverence is not due to paedobaptism, nor other similar things which are not recommended to us by the express word of God. They always remain caught in this dilemma. The command of God to circumcise infants was either legitimate and exempt from cavil, or deserved reprehension. If there was nothing incompetent or absurd in it, no absurdity can be shown in the observance of paedobaptism.
> 
> (Operation of the Spirit in baptized children, 21-22)
> 21. The child grows into an understanding of his baptism
> 
> The charge of absurdity with which they attempt to stigmatise it, we thus dispose of. If those on whom the Lord has bestowed his election, after receiving the sign of regeneration, depart this life before they become adults, he, by the incomprehensible energy of his Spirit, renews them in the way which he alone sees to be expedient. Should they reach an age when they can be instructed in the meaning of baptism, they will thereby be animated to greater zeal for renovation, the badge of which they will learn that they received in earliest infancy, in order that they might aspire to it during their whole lives.
> 
> To the same effect are the two passages in which Paul teaches, that we are buried with Christ by baptism, (Rom. 6: 4; Col. 2: 12.) For by this he means not that he who is to be initiated by baptism must have previously been buried with Christ, he simply declares the doctrine which is taught by baptism, and that to those already baptised: so that the most senseless cannot maintain from this passage that it ought to precede baptism. In this way, Moses (Deut. 10:16) and the prophets reminded the people of the thing meant by circumcision, which however infants received.
> 
> To the same effect, Paul says to the Galatians, "As many of you as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ," (Gal. 3: 27.) Why so? That they might thereafter live to Christ, to whom previously they had not lived. And though, in adults, the receiving of the sign ought to follow the understanding of its meaning, yet, as will shortly be explained, a different rule must be followed with children.
> 
> No other conclusion can be drawn from a passage in Peter, on which they strongly found. He says, that baptism is "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ," (1 Pet. 3: 21.) From this they contend that nothing is left for paedobaptism, which becomes mere empty smoke, as being altogether at variance with the meaning of baptism. But the delusion which misleads them is, that they would always have the thing to precede the sign in the order of time. For the truth of circumcision consisted in the same answer of a good conscience; but if the truth must necessarily have preceded, infants would never have been circumcised by the command of God. But he himself, showing that the answer of a good conscience forms the truth of circumcision, and, at the same time, commanding infants to be circumcised, plainly intimates that, in their case, circumcision had reference to the future. Wherefore, nothing more of present effect is to be required in paedobaptism, than to confirm and sanction the covenant which the Lord has made with them. The other part of the meaning of the sacrament will follow at the time which God himself has provided.
> 
> 22. This thing is a comfort for children; hence, they must not be deprived of the sign
> 
> Every one must, I think, clearly perceive, that all arguments of this stamp are mere perversions of Scripture. The other remaining arguments akin to these we shall cursorily examine. They object, that baptism is given for the remission of sins. When this is conceded, it strongly supports our view; for, seeing we are born sinners, we stand in need of forgiveness and pardon from the very womb. Moreover, since God does not preclude this age from the hope of mercy, but rather gives assurance of it, why should we deprive it of the sign, which is much inferior to the reality? The arrow, therefore, which they aim at us, we throw back upon themselves. Infants receive forgiveness of sins; therefore, they are not to be deprived of the sign.
> 
> They adduce the passage from the Ephesians, that Christ gave himself for the Church, "that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word," (Eph. 5: 26.) Nothing could be quoted more appropriate than this to overthrow their error: it furnishes us with an easy proof. If, by baptism, Christ intends to attest the ablution by which he cleanses his Church, it would seem not equitable to deny this attestation to infants, who are justly deemed part of the Church, seeing they are called heirs of the heavenly kingdom. For Paul comprehends the whole Church when he says that it was cleansed by the washing of water.
> 
> In like manner, from his expression in another place, that by baptism we are ingrafted into the body of Christ, (1 Cor. 12: 13,) we infer, that infants, whom he enumerates among his members, are to be baptised, in order that they may not be dissevered from his body.
> 
> See the violent onset which they make with all their engines on the bulwarks of our faith!
> 
> (Infant baptism in the beginning of the church, 23-24)
> 23. Scriptural statements which refer to adults should not without further evidence be applied to children
> 
> They now come down to the custom and practice of the apostolic age, alleging that there is no instance of any one having been admitted to baptism without a previous profession of faith and repentance. For when Peter is asked by his hearers, who were pricked in their heart, "What shall we do?" his advice is, "Repent, and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins," (Acts 2: 37, 38.) In like manner, when Philip was asked by the eunuch to baptise him, he answered, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." Hence they think they can make out that baptism cannot be lawfully given to any one without previous faith and repentance. If we yield to this argument, the former passage, in which there is no mention of faith, will prove that repentance alone is sufficient, and the latter, which makes no requirement of repentance, that there is need only of faith. They will object, I presume, that the one passage helps the other, and that both, therefore, are to be connected. I, in my turn, maintain that these two must be compared with other passages which contribute somewhat to the solution of this difficulty. There are many passages of Scripture whose meaning depends on their peculiar position. Of this we have an example in the present instance. Those to whom these things are said by Peter and Philip are of an age fit to aim at repentance, and receive faith. We strenuously insist that such men are not to be baptised unless their conversion and faith are discerned, at least in as far as human judgment can ascertain it. But it is perfectly clear that infants must be placed in a different class. For when any one formerly joined the religious communion of Israel, he behaved to be taught the covenant, and instructed in the law of the Lord, before he received circumcision, because he was of a different nation; in other words, an alien from the people of Israel, with whom the covenant, which circumcision sanctioned, had been made.
> 
> 24. Abraham and Isaac exemplify the difference of adults and infants
> 
> Thus the Lord, when he chose Abraham for himself, did not commence with circumcision, in the meanwhile concealing what he meant by that sign, but first announced that he intended to make a covenant with him, and, after his faith in the promise, made him partaker of the sacrament. Why does the sacrament come after faith in Abraham, and precede all intelligence in his son Isaac? It is right that he who, in adult age, is admitted to the fellowship of a covenant by one from whom he had hitherto been alienated, should previously learn its conditions; but it is not so with the infant born to him. He, according to the terms of the promise, is included in the promise by hereditary right from his mother's womb. Or, to state the matter more briefly and more clearly, If the children of believers, without the help of understanding, are partakers of the covenant, there is no reason why they should be denied the sign, because they are unable to swear to its stipulations. This undoubtedly is the reason why the Lord sometimes declares that the children born to the Israelites are begotten and born to him, (Ezek. 16: 20; 23: 37.) For he undoubtedly gives the place of sons to the children of those to whose seed he has promised that he will be a Father. But the child descended from unbelieving parents is deemed an alien to the covenant until he is united to God by faith. Hence, it is not strange that the sign is withheld when the thing signified would be vain and fallacious. In that view, Paul says that the Gentiles, so long as they were plunged in idolatry, were strangers to the covenants (Eph. 2: 11.) The whole matter may, if I mistake not, be thus briefly and clearly expounded: Those who, in adult age, embrace the faith of Christ, having hitherto been aliens from the covenant, are not to receive the sign of baptism without previous faith and repentance. These alone can give them access to the fellowship of the covenant, whereas children, deriving their origin from Christians, as they are immediately on their birth received by God as heirs of the covenant, are also to be admitted to baptism. To this we must refer the narrative of the Evangelist, that those who were baptised by John confessed their sins, (Matth. 3: 6.) This example, we hold, ought to be observed in the present day. Were a Turk to offer himself for baptism, we would not at once perform the rite without receiving a confession which was satisfactory to the Church.
> 
> (Certain passages adduced against infant baptism interpreted: those who die unbaptized not all condemned, 25-30)
> 25. Reborn "of water and the Spirit"
> 
> Another passage which they adduce is from the third chapter of John, where our Saviour's words seem to them to imply that a present regeneration is required in baptism, "Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," (John 3: 5.) See, they say, how baptism is termed regeneration by the lips of our Lord himself, and on what pretext, therefore, with what consistency is baptism given to those who, it is perfectly obvious, are not at all capable of regeneration?
> 
> First, they are in error in imagining that there is any mention of baptism in this passage, merely because the word water is used. Nicodemus, after our Saviour had explained to him the corruption of nature, and the necessity of being born again, kept dreaming of a corporeal birth, and hence our Saviour intimates the mode in which God regenerates use viz., by water and the Spirit; in other words, by the Spirit, who, in irrigating and cleansing the soul of believers, operates in the manner of water. By "water and the Spirit," therefore, I simply understand the Spirit, which is water. Nor is the expression new. It perfectly accords with that which is used in the third chapter of Matthew, "He that comes after me is mightier than I;" "he shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire," (Matth. 3: 11.) Therefore, as to baptise with the Holy Spirit, and with fire, is to confer the Holy Spirit, who, in regeneration, has the office and nature of fire, so to be born again of water, and of the Spirit, is nothing else than to receive that power of the Spirit, which has the same effect on the soul that water has on the body. I know that a different interpretation is given, but I have no doubt that this is the genuine meaning, because our Saviour's only purpose was to teach, that all who aspire to the kingdom of heaven must lay aside their own disposition.
> 
> And yet were we disposed to imitate these men in their mode of cavilling, we might easily, after conceding what they wish, reply to them, that baptism is prior to faith and repentance, since, in this passage, our Saviour mentions it before the Spirit. This certainly must be understood of spiritual gifts, and if they follow baptism, I have gained all I contend for. But, cavilling aside, the simple interpretation to be adopted is, that which I have given viz., that no man, until renewed by living water, that is, by the Spirit, can enter the kingdom of God.
> 
> 26. Not all the unbaptized are lost
> 
> This, moreover, plainly explodes the fiction of those who consign all the unbaptised to eternal death. Let us suppose, then, that as they insist, baptism is administered to adults only. What will they make of a youth who, after being imbued duly and properly with the rudiments of piety, while waiting for the day of baptism, is unexpectedly carried off by sudden death? The promise of our Lord is clear, "He that hearth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life," (John 5: 24.) We nowhere read of his having condemned him who was not yet baptised. I would not be understood as insinuating that baptism may be condemned with impunity. So far from excusing this contempt, I hold that it violates the covenant of the Lord. The passage only serves to show, that we must not deem baptism so necessary as to suppose that every one who has lost the opportunity of obtaining it has forthwith perished. By assenting to their fiction, we should condemn all, without exception, whom any accident may have prevented from procuring baptism, how much soever they may have been endued with the faith by which Christ himself is possessed. Moreover, baptism being, as they hold, necessary to salvation, they, in denying it to infants, consign them all to eternal death. Let them now consider what kind of agreement they have with the words of Christ, who says that "of such is the kingdom of heaven," (Matth. 19: 14.) And though we were to concede every thing to them, in regard to the meaning of this passage, they will extract nothing from it, until they have previously overthrown the doctrine which we have already established concerning the regeneration of infants.
> 
> 27. Jesus' baptismal words
> 
> But they boast of having their strongest bulwark in the very institution of baptism, which they find in the last chapter of Matthew, where Christ, sending his disciples into all the world, commands them to teach and then baptise (Matt. 28:19). Then in the last chapter of Mark, it is added "He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved," (Mark 16: 16.) What more (say they) do we ask, since the words of Christ distinctly declare, that teaching must precede baptism, and assign to baptism the place next to faith? Of this arrangement our Lord himself gave an example, in choosing not to be baptised till his thirtieth year (Matt. 3:13; Luke 3:21-22).
> 
> In how many ways do they here entangle themselves, and betray their ignorance! They err more than childishly in this, that they derive the first institution of baptism from this passage, whereas Christ had from the commencement of his ministry, ordered it to be administered by the apostles. There is no ground, therefore, for contending that the law and rule of baptism is to be sought from these two passages, as containing the first institution.
> 
> But to indulge them in their error, how nerveless is this mode of arguing? Were I disposed to evasion, I have not only a place of escape, but a wide field to expatiate in. For when they cling so desperately to the order of the words, insisting that because it is said, "Go, preach and baptise," and again, "Whosoever believes and is baptised," they must preach before baptising, and believe before being baptised, why may not we in our turn object, that they must baptise before teaching the observance of those things which Christ commanded, because it is said, "Baptise, teaching whatsoever I have commanded you?" The same thing we observed in the other passage in which Christ speaks of the regeneration of water and of the Spirit. For if we interpret as they insist, then baptism must take precedence of spiritual regeneration, because it is first mentioned. Christ teaches that we are to be born again, not of the Spirit and of water, but of water and of the Spirit.
> 
> 28. Infants not referred to in Mark 16:16
> 
> This unassailable argument, in which they confide so much, seems already to be considerably shaken; but as we have sufficient protection in the simplicity of truth, I am unwilling to evade the point by paltry subtleties. Let them, therefore, have a solid answer. The command here given by Christ relates principally to the preaching of the gospel: to it baptism is added as a kind of appendage. Then he merely speaks of baptism in so far as the dispensation of it is subordinate to the fiction of teaching. For Christ sends his disciples to publish the gospel to all nations of the World, that by the doctrine of salvation they may gather men, who were previously lost into his kingdom. But who or what are those men? It is certain that mention is made only of those who are fit to receive his doctrine. He subjoins, that such, after being taught, were to be baptised, adding the promise, Whosoever believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved. Is there one syllable about infants in the whole discourse? What, then, is the form of argument with which they assail us? Those who are of adult age are to be instructed and brought to the faith, before being baptised, and, therefore, it is unlawful to make baptism common to infants. They cannot, at the very utmost, prove any other thing out of this passage, than that the gospel must be preached to those who are capable of hearing it before they are baptised: for of such only the passage speaks. From this let them, if they can, throw an obstacle in the way of baptising infants.
> 
> 29. Jesus as prototype of adult baptism
> 
> But I will make their fallacies palpable even to the blind, by a very plain similitude. Should any one insist that infants are to be deprived of food, on the pretence that the apostle permits none to eat but those who labour, (2 Thess. 3: 10,) would he not deserve to be scouted by all? Why so? Because that which was said of a certain class of men, and a certain age, he wrests and applies to all indifferently. The dexterity of these men in the present instance is no greater. That which every one sees to be intended for adult age merely, they apply to infants, subjecting them to a rule which was laid down only for those of riper years.
> 
> With regard to the example of our Saviour, it gives no countenance to their case. He was not baptised before his thirtieth year. This is, indeed, true, but the reason is obvious; because he then determined to lay the solid foundation of baptism by his preaching, or rather to confirm the foundation which John had previously laid. Therefore when he was pleased with his doctrine to institute baptism, that he might give the greater authority to his institution, he sanctified it in his own person, and that at the most befitting time, namely, the commencement of his ministry. In fine, they can prove nothing more than that baptism received its origin and commencement with the preaching of the gospel. But if they are pleased to fix upon the thirtieth year, why do they not observe it, but admit any one to baptism according to the view which they may have formed of his proficiency? Nay, even Servetus, one of their masters, although he pertinaciously insisted on this period, had begun to act the prophet in his twenty-first year; as if any man could be tolerated in arrogating to himself the office of a teacher in the Church before he was a member of the Church.
> 
> 30. Baptism and Lord's Supper
> 
> At length they object, that there is not greater reason for admitting infants to baptism than to the Lord's Supper, to which, however, they are never admitted: as if Scripture did not in every way draw a wide distinction between them. In the early Church, indeed, the Lord's Supper was frequently given to infants, as appears from Cyprian and Augustine, (August. ad Bonif. Lib. 1 but the practice justly became obsolete. For if we attend to the peculiar nature of baptism, it is a kind of entrance, and as it were initiation into the Church, by which we are ranked among the people of God, a sign of our spiritual regeneration, by which we are again born to be children of God, whereas on the contrary the Supper is intended for those of riper years, who, having passed the tender period of infancy, are fit to bear solid food.
> 
> This distinction is very clearly pointed out in Scripture. For there, as far as regards baptism, the Lord makes no selection of age, whereas he does not admit all to partake of the Supper, but confines it to those who are fit to discern the body and blood of the Lord, to examine their own conscience, to show forth the Lord's death, and understand its power. Can we wish anything clearer than what the apostle says, when he thus exhorts, "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup?" (1 Cor. 11: 28.) Examination, therefore, must precede, and this it were vain to expect from infants. Again, "He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." If they cannot partake worthily without being able duly to discern the sanctity of the Lord's body, why should we stretch out poison to our young children instead of vivifying food? Then what is our Lord's injunction? "Do this in remembrance of me." And what the inference which the apostle draws from this? "As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." How, pray, can we require infants to commemorate any event of which they have no understanding; how require them to "show forth the Lord's death," of the nature and benefit of which they have no idea? Nothing of the kind is prescribed by baptism. Wherefore, there is the greatest difference between the two signs. This also we observe in similar signs under the old dispensation. Circumcision, which, as is well known, corresponds to our baptism, was intended for infants, but the Passover, for which the Supper is substituted, did not admit all kinds of guests promiscuously, but was duly eaten only by those who were of an age sufficient to ask the meaning of it, (Exod. 12: 26.) Had these men the least particle of soundness in their brain, would they be thus blind as to a matter so very clear and obvious?
> 
> (Answers to arguments of Servetus, and conclusion, 31-32)
> 31. Servetus' objections
> 
> Though I am unwilling to annoy the reader with the series of conceits which Servetus, not the least among the Anabaptists, nay, the great honour of this crew, when girding himself for battle, deemed, when he adduced them, to be specious arguments, it will be worth while briefly to dispose of them.
> 
> He pretends that as the symbols of Christ are perfect, they require persons who are perfect, or, at least, capable of perfection. But the answer is plain. The perfection of baptism, which extends even to death, is improperly restricted to one moment of time; moreover, perfection, in which baptism invites us to make continual progress during life, is foolishly exacted by him all at once.
> He objects, that the symbols of Christ were appointed for remembrance, that every one may remember that he was buried together with Christ. I answer, that what he coined out of his own brain does not need refutation, nay, that which he transfers to baptism properly belongs to the Supper, as appears from Paul's words, "Let a man examine himself, (I Cor. 11:28)" words similar to which are nowhere used with reference to baptism. Whence we infer, that those who from nonage are incapable of examination are duly baptised.
> His third point is, That all who believe not in the Son remain in death, the wrath of God abideth on them, (John 3: 36 and, therefore, infants who are unable to believe lie under condemnation. I answer, that Christ does not there speak of the general guilt in which all the posterity of Adam are involved, but only threatens the despisers of the gospel, who proudly and contumaciously spurn the grace which is offered to them. But this has nothing to do with infants. At the same time, I meet him with the opposite argument. Every one whom Christ blesses is exempted from the curse of Adam, and the wrath of God. Therefore, seeing it is certain that infants are blessed by him, it follows that they are freed from death. He next falsely quotes a passage which is nowhere found, Whosoever is born of the Spirit, hears the voice of the Spirit. Though we should grant that such a passage occurs in Scripture, all he can extract from it is, that believers, according as the Spirit works in them, are framed to obedience. But that which is said of a certain number, it is illogical to apply to all alike.
> His fourth objection is, As that which precedes is animal, (1 Cor. 15: 46,) we must wait the full time for baptism, which is spiritual. But while I admit that all the posterity of Adam, born of the flesh, bear their condemnation with them from the womb, I hold that this is no obstacle to the immediate application of the divine remedy. Servetus cannot show that by divine appointment, several years must elapse before the new spiritual life begins. Paul's testimony is, that though lost by nature, the children of believers are holy by supernatural grace.
> He afterwards brings forward the allegory that David when going up into mount Zion, took with him neither the blind nor the lame, but vigorous soldiers, (2 Sam. 5: 8.) But what if I meet this with the parable in which God invites to the heavenly feast the lame and the blind? In what way will Servetus disentangle this knot? I ask, moreover whether the lame and the maimed had not previously served with David? But it is superfluous to dwell longer on this argument, which as the reader will learn from the sacred history, is founded on mere misquotation.
> He adds another allegory, viz., that the apostles were fishers of men, not of children. I ask, then, What does our Saviour mean when he says that in the net are caught all kinds of fishes? (Matth. 4: 19; 13: 47.) But as I have no pleasure in sporting with allegory, I answer, that when the office of teaching was committed to the apostles they were not prohibited from baptising infants. Moreover, I should like to know why, when the Evangelist uses the term "anthropous", (which comprehends the whole human race without exception,) he denies that infants are included.
> His seventh argument is, Since spiritual things accord with spiritual, (l Cor. 2: 13,) infants, not being spiritual, are unfit for baptism. It is plain how perversely he wrests this passage of Paul. It relates to doctrine. The Corinthians, pluming themselves excessively on a vain acuteness, Paul rebukes their folly, because they still required to be imbued with the first rudiments of heavenly doctrine. Who can infer from this that baptism is to be denied to infants, whom, when begotten of the flesh, the Lord consecrates to himself by gratuitous adoption?
> His objection, that if they are new men, they must be fed with spiritual food, is easily obviated. By baptism they are admitted into the fold of Christ, and the symbol of adoption is sufficient for them, until they grow up and become fit to bear solid food. We must, therefore, wait for the time of examination, which God distinctly demands in the sacred Supper.
> His next objection is, that Christ invites all his people to the sacred supper. But as it is plain that he admits those only who are prepared to celebrate the commemoration of his death, it follows that infants whom he honoured with his embrace, remain in a distinct and peculiar position until they grow up, and yet are not aliens. When he objects, that it is strange why the infant does not partake of the Supper, I answer, that souls are fed by other food than the external eating of the Supper, and that accordingly Christ is the food of infants though they partake not of the symbol. The case is different with baptism, by which the door of the Church is thrown open to them.
> He again objects that a good householder distributes meat to his household in due season, (Matth. 24: 45.) This I willingly admit; but how will he define the time of baptism, so as to prove that it is not seasonably given to infants? He, moreover, adduces Christ's command to the apostles to make haste, because the fields are already white to the harvest, (John 4: 35.) Our Saviour only means that the apostles, seeing the present fruit of their labour, should bestir themselves with more alacrity to teach. Who will infer from this, that harvest only is the fit time for baptism?
> His eleventh argument is, That in the primitive Church, Christians and disciples were the same; but we have already seen that he argues unskilfully from the part to the whole. The name of disciples is given to men of full age, who had already been taught, and had assumed the name of Christ, just as the Jews behaved to be disciples under the law of Moses. Still none could rightly infer from this that infants, whom the Lord declared to be of his household, were strangers.
> Moreover he alleges that all Christians are brethren and that infants cannot belong to this class, so long as we exclude them from the Supper. But I return to my position, first, that none are heirs of the kingdom of heaven but those who are the members of Christ; and, secondly, that the embracing of Christ was the true badge of adoption, in which infants are joined in common with adults, and that temporary abstinence from the Supper does not prevent them from belonging to the body of the Church. The thief on the cross, when converted, became the brother of believers, though he never partook of the Lord's Supper.
> Servetus afterwards adds, that no man becomes our brother unless by the Spirit of adoption (Rom. 8:15), who is only conferred by the hearing of faith (Gal. 3:2). I answer, that he always falls back into the same paralogism, because he preposterously applies to infants what is said only of adults. Paul there teaches that the ordinary way in which God calls his elect, and brings them to the faith, is by raising up faithful teachers, and thus stretching out his hand to them by their ministry and labours. Who will presume from this to give the law to God, and say that he may not ingraft infants into Christ by some other secret method?
> He objects, that Cornelius was baptised after receiving the Holy Spirit; but how absurdly he would convert a single example into a general rule, is apparent from the case of the Eunuch and the Samaritans, in regard to whom, the Lord observed a different order, baptism preceding the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
> The fifteenth argument is more than absurd. He says that we become gods by regeneration, but that they are gods to whom the word of God is sent, (John 10: 35; 2 Pet. 1: 4,) a thing not possible to infant children. The attributing of deity to believers is one of his ravings which this is not the proper place to discuss; but it betrays the utmost effrontery to wrest the passage in the psalm (Ps. 82:6) to a meaning so alien to it. Christ says, that kings and magistrates are called gods by the prophet, because they perform an office divinely appointed them. This dexterous interpreter transfers what is addressed by special command to certain individuals to the doctrine of the Gospel, so as to exterminate infants from the Church.
> Again, he objects, that infants cannot be regarded as new men, because they are not begotten by the word. But what I have said again and again I now repeat, that, for regenerating us, doctrine is an incorruptible seed, if indeed we are fit to perceive it; but when, from nonage, we are incapable of being taught, God takes his own methods of regenerating.
> He afterwards returns to his allegories, and says, that under the law, the sheep and the goat were not offered in sacrifice the moment they were dropt, (Exod. 12: 5.) Were I disposed to deal in figures, I might obviously reply, first, that all the first-born, on opening the matrix, were sacred to the Lord, (Exod. 13: 12 and, secondly, that a lamb of a year old was to be sacrificed: whence it follows, that it was not necessary to wait for mature age, the young and tender offspring having been selected by God for sacrifice.
> He contends, moreover, that none could come to Christ but those who were previously prepared by John; as if John's ministry had not been temporary. But, to omit this, assuredly there was no such preparation in the children whom Christ took up in his arms and blessed. Wherefore let us have done with his false principle.
> He at length calls in the assistance of Trismegistus and the Sibyls, to prove that sacred ablutions are fit only for adults. See how honourably he thinks of Christian baptism, when he tests it by the profane rites of the Gentiles, and will not have it administered except in the way pleasing to Trismegistus. We defer more to the authority of God, who has seen it meet to consecrate infants to himself, and initiate them by a sacred symbol, the significance of which they are unable from nonage to understand. We do not think it lawful to borrow from the expiations of the Gentiles, in order to change, in our baptism, that eternal and inviolable law which God enacted in circumcision.
> His last argument is, If infants, without understanding, may be baptised, baptism may be mimicked and jestingly administered by boys in sport. Here let him plead the matter with God, by whose command circumcision was common to infants before they received understanding. Was it, then, a fit matter for ridicule or boyish sport, to overthrow the sacred institution of God? But no wonder that these reprobate spirits, as if they were under the influence of frenzy, introduce the grossest absurdities in defence of their errors, because God, by this spirit of giddiness, justly avenges their pride and obstinacy. I trust I have made it apparent how feebly Servetus has supported his friends the Anabaptists.
> 32. Gratitude due for God's care of our children
> 
> No sound man, I presume, can now doubt how rashly the Church is disturbed by those who excite quarrels and disturbances because of paedobaptism. For it is of importance to observe what Satan means by all this craft, viz., to rob us of the singular blessing of confidence and spiritual joy, which is hence to be derived, and in so far to detract from the glory of the divine goodness. For how sweet is it to pious minds to be assured not only by word, but even by ocular demonstration, that they are so much in favour with their heavenly Father, that he interests himself in their posterity! Here we may see how he acts towards us as a most provident parent, not ceasing to care for us even after our death, but consulting and providing for our children. Ought not our whole heart to be stirred up within us, as David's was, (Ps. 48: 11,) to bless his name for such a manifestation of goodness? Doubtless, the design of Satan in assaulting paedobaptism with all his forces is to keep out of view, and gradually efface, that attestation of divine grace which the promise itself presents to our eyes. In this way, not only would men be impiously ungrateful for the mercy of God, but be less careful in training their children to piety. For it is no slight stimulus to us to bring them up in the fear of God, and the observance of his law, when we reflect, that from their birth they have been considered and acknowledged by him as his children. Wherefore, if we would not maliciously obscure the kindness of God, let us present to him our infants, to whom he has assigned a place among his friends and family that is, the members of the Church


----------



## Andrew P.C.

The thing that i'm trying to understand is that even though you guys do point out good scripture for the "household", they were only baptised because they believed. They put their faith in Christ. No where does it say though that they baptised the infants or childeren "to make a covenant" between God and the parents. So in order to believe these texts imply infant baptism, you must, yes... must... believe that the infants converted too, since it tells us that they were converted then baptised.

What i'm getting from the other side is that there are two different types of baptism: 1) Believers Baptism(baptism after conversion as a testimony to your faith) and 2) something that i'll title "Covenantal Baptism" (that is, a baptism that makes a covenant between God and the parents for that child).

Now, if that is not the case and you believe their is only one baptism(externally, since we are also baptised into the body of Christ spiritually) then you must believe that infants can understand the gospel.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

> ...*they [the households?]* were only baptised because they believed.
> 
> ...it tells us that *they [the households?]* were converted then baptised.


Where...? a quote? reference?

You're making a theological inference, brother. That's what I'm saying.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hay:
> 
> Paul Manata and SemperFideles are funny!
> 
> But to get more serious, though, concerning the Matthew 19:13 and Mark 10:13-16 passages, Matthew reads:
> 
> *Then were brought unto him little children that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven (Mark reads: "Kingdom of God") And when he had put his hands on them, he departed thence,* 1599 Geneva Bible.
> 
> Baptists make a big deal out of the fact that Jesus did not Baptize these children. But the fact is that Jesus did not Baptize anybody. Baptizing people was not a priority of his. So, what is the significance of this passage then?
> 
> Jesus refers to babes and little children of believers (for it was believing parents who brought the children to him to be blessed) as members of the Kingdom of Heaven, or, the Kingdom of God. Now, if a child of a believer is considered a member of the Kingdom of Heaven, *then how much more so* should the child be considered a member of the Kingdom here on Earth?
> 
> How can you refuse Baptism to a person who is considered a member of the Kingdom of Heaven?
> 
> As far as an example of NT Baptism of infants: We are told that "our fathers" received NT Baptism during the Exodus. When Israel passed through the water we are told that they were Baptized: That they all did eat the same spritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink - for they drank of Christ found in the similitude of a Rock, 1 Cor. 10:1-5.
> 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> -CH



I was asked to reply to this, so i'll try my best.


Very interesting text. Here in 1 cor 10 we see three different baptisms. One into moses, one into the cloud and one into the sea. Well, what does this mean? are there to be three different kinds of baptisms? No. Here's something that i found that sums it up well:

"Israel was immersed, not in the sea, but 'into moses,' indicating their oneness, or solidarity, with him as their leader."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Andrew P.C. said:


> The thing that i'm trying to understand is that even though you guys do point out good scripture for the "household", they were only baptised because they believed.


Who believed? 


> They put their faith in Christ.


Who? 


> No where does it say though that they baptised the infants or childeren "to make a covenant" between God and the parents.


The Gospels don't explain why Christ was circumcised either.


> So in order to believe these texts imply infant baptism, you must, yes... must... believe that the infants converted too, since it tells us that they were converted then baptised.


Where does it say this? Which infants are you speaking of in the New Testament?



> What i'm getting from the other side is that there are two different types of baptism: 1) Believers Baptism(baptism after conversion as a testimony to your faith) and 2) something that i'll title "Covenantal Baptism" (that is, a baptism that makes a covenant between God and the parents for that child).


I presume you mean paedobaptists when you refer to the "other side". We do _not_ believe that baptism is a testimony of the faith of any person. It is a sign and seal of a promise God makes to the believer. It is promise made outside of the person, on the basis of God's faithfulness, not on the basis of the person's faith. If Baptism is no stronger than the testimony of a person's faith then its efficacy is measured by the strength of that faith. Hence the desire by some Baptists to re-baptize because they didn't get it right the first time.



> Now, if that is not the case and you believe their is only one baptism(externally, since we are also baptised into the body of Christ spiritually) then you must believe that infants can understand the gospel.


This does not follow as it rests on false premises.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Contra_Mundum said:


> Where...? a quote? reference?
> 
> You're making a theological inference, brother. That's what I'm saying.



My brother, one of the basics rules of interpretation is that you must know the whole context of the paragraph.

verse 14 reads "and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul." Then what follows? She was baptised.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Second point: No, we don't believe in two different kinds of baptism. The baptisms--whether of adults or children, under our scheme--means the same, exact thing every time. The difference, then, is in what's going on or being represented by baptism.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Andrew P.C. said:


> My brother, one of the basics rules of interpretation is that you must know the whole context of the paragraph.
> 
> verse 14 reads "and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul." Then what follows? She was baptised.



Her household was baptized; where does the text say her household were all converted then baptized?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

My question is then, do you believe that the baptism precedes your faith?


----------



## VaughanRSmith

Andrew P.C. said:


> The thing that i'm trying to understand is that even though you guys do point out good scripture for the "household", they were only baptised because they believed. They put their faith in Christ. No where does it say though that they baptised the infants or childeren "to make a covenant" between God and the parents. So in order to believe these texts imply infant baptism, you must, yes... must... believe that the infants converted too, since it tells us that they were converted then baptised.


As Bruce says, you will need a reference for that. I pointed out before, Lydia believed, her household was baptised. If her household believed as well, it would say that because that is the better news, is it not?



Andrew P.C. said:


> What i'm getting from the other side is that there are two different types of baptism: 1) Believers Baptism(baptism after conversion as a testimony to your faith) and 2) something that i'll title "Covenantal Baptism" (that is, a baptism that makes a covenant between God and the parents for that child).


A reformed Baptist would not say 1), specifically. They would say that God's covenant promises are applicable only to the elect, and you get a better idea of someone's election by their profession of faith. Baptism is a sign of the covenant promises that now apply to them.

2) is not a summary of any Paedobaptist view that I know of. Paedobaptists would say God's covenant promises apply to the households of elect believers, and baptism is a sign of that. A byproduct of baptism is the commitment to the child's upbringing. 



Andrew P.C. said:


> Now, if that is not the case and you believe their is only one baptism(externally, since we are also baptised into the body of Christ spiritually) then you must believe that infants can understand the gospel.


I do believe that.


----------



## VaughanRSmith

Andrew P.C. said:


> My question is then, do you believe that the baptism precedes your faith?


My baptism preceded my faith, it did not with Lydia because she was converted first.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

I seriously thank you guys for these comments. I'm really starting to see the infant baptism side(as in getting it, not agreeing). Even though i've problably hit a wrong spot for some(i didn't mean to) I'm thankful that you guys are discussing this with me.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Exagorazo said:


> My baptism preceded my faith, it did not with Lydia because she was converted first.



Brother, just out of curiousity, where do you get scripture saying that baptism precedes faith? Just honestly curious.


----------



## satz

I hope this is not a dumb question to ask.

Surely you are not saying when Lydia believed her household, including unbelieving adults were all baptised? 

I know the topic of this thread is infant baptism but I just wanted to clarify this. Some of the responses do sound as if they are implying this. Or it might be just me.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Andrew P.C. said:


> Very interesting text. Here in 1 cor 10 we see three different baptisms. One into moses, one into the cloud and one into the sea. Well, what does this mean? are there to be three different kinds of baptisms? No. Here's something that i found that sums it up well:
> 
> "Israel was immersed, not in the sea, but 'into moses,' indicating their oneness, or solidarity, with him as their leader."



Three baptisms? "Eis (into) ton Mousayn ebaptisthaysan, en (in/by) tay nephelay kai en (in/by) tay thalassay" Sorry, but that's not what's being stated.

"immersed"? No, the text says "baptized". And no, the word is not a synonym for "immerse", not at least our modern usage of the term.

And lets' not forget it was actually the Egyptians who were immersed in the incident.

But it certainly is correct to note that baptism is symbolic of union--union of Israel with Moses, mediator of the Old Covenant; union of the NT believer with Christ, Mediator of the New Covenant.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Andrew P.C. said:


> I seriously thank you guys for these comments. I'm really starting to see the infant baptism side(as in getting it, not agreeing). Even though i've problably hit a wrong spot for some(i didn't mean to) I'm thankful that you guys are discussing this with me.



Andrew,

You need not apologize. Don't mistake argumentation for anger or irritation. If you look at the form description, it is for those who desire to *DEBATE and DISCUSS*. I don't believe in being a milquetoast over my convictions and I don't expect others to either. As long as we're not personally attacking one another then folly in argumentation and un-Scriptural appeals should be exposed. 

People worry far too much about feelings these days. If I didn't think you were wrong on this subject in a profound way that affects how you view any children you have or the children you minister to then I wouldn't take the time to argue the point. It's only when we accept the post-modern idea that our views are equally true that arguments are "unloving".


----------



## VaughanRSmith

Andrew P.C. said:


> Brother, just out of curiousity, where do you get scripture saying that baptism precedes faith? Just honestly curious.


My idea of baptism comes from my study of the signs and seals of the covenant throughout the entirety of scripture. From God's covenant with Abraham until now, there have been signs and seals that apply to households, _including children_, which still apply today. Where do we see a discontinuation of these signs and seals? Colossians 2 connects circumcision (a household and children applied sign) with baptism. Were the children of the Old Testament treated as unbelievers from birth? Or, were they treated as members of God's chosen people?


----------



## LadyFlynt

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

Please note that where baptism and households are mentioned, the HEAD of the household believes and is baptised...then has their household baptised. The command in this verse is...believe and be baptised (they are converting out of their paganess), they then are given a promise (covenant) for them and their children, their children (and rest of household) are given the sign of the covenant...the same sign they were given...baptism.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

SemperFideles said:


> Andrew,
> 
> You need not apologize. Don't mistake argumentation for anger or irritation. If you look at the form description, it is for those who desire to *DEBATE and DISCUSS*. I don't believe in being a milquetoast over my convictions and I don't expect others to either. As long as we're not personally attacking one another then folly in argumentation and un-Scriptural appeals should be exposed.
> 
> People worry far too much about feelings these days. If I didn't think you were wrong on this subject in a profound way that affects how you view any children you have or the children you minister to then I wouldn't take the time to argue the point. It's only when we accept the post-modern idea that our views are equally true that arguments are "unloving".



You are right.


----------



## LadyFlynt

The Israelites were "immersed" (walked through the waters) to their salvation. The Egyptians were "immersed" to their damnation/condemnation.
Both participated in the act.
For each it was a different meaning.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Rich, you're saying that we can't have (gasp!) warm fuzzies on the board?!


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Andrew P.C. said:


> Brother, just out of curiousity, where do you get scripture saying that baptism precedes faith? Just honestly curious.



Whose faith? Important question.

Only infants of professing believers have a right to the sign of the covenant of grace. Just like only infants of OT Israel had the right to the sign of the covenant of grace.

Now it may well precede the infant's own faith, and it certainly precedes most _exercises_ of infant-faith. Although John the Baptist was evidently able to exercise a rudimentary act proceding from a real, saving faith when he leaped for joy in the womb. For most people, we P-Bs would say infant baptism clearly precedes *conversion*, which involves the conscious exercise of saving faith and repentance.

But God told Abraham to apply the sign of the covenant of grace to his male offspring, only 8 days old. And the NT sign of that same covenant is baptism, replacing circumcision. And God never told his people to stop applying that sign to their children, by faith. So we see baptism preceding faith in their case.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Contra_Mundum said:


> Three baptisms? "Eis (into) ton Mousayn ebaptisthaysan, en (in/by) tay nephelay kai en (in/by) tay thalassay" Sorry, but that's not what's being stated.
> 
> "immersed"? No, the text says "baptized". And no, the word is not a synonym for "immerse", not at least our modern usage of the term.
> 
> And lets' not forget it was actually the Egyptians who were immersed in the incident.
> 
> But it certainly is correct to note that baptism is symbolic of union--union of Israel with Moses, mediator of the Old Covenant; union of the NT believer with Christ, Mediator of the New Covenant.



Hmm, well sir, i definently disagree with you on what baptism means. The greek word "Baptizo" means "to immerse." But, i will agree with you on the symbolism of baptism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

satz said:


> I hope this is not a dumb question to ask.
> 
> Surely you are not saying when Lydia believed her household, including unbelieving adults were all baptised?
> 
> I know the topic of this thread is infant baptism but I just wanted to clarify this. Some of the responses do sound as if they are implying this. Or it might be just me.



Nobody is arguing that an unbelieving adult was forced to be baptized.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Contra_Mundum said:


> Whose faith? Important question.
> 
> Only infants of professing believers have a right to the sign of the covenant of grace. Just like only infants of OT Israel had the right to the sign of the covenant of grace.
> 
> Now it may well precede the infant's own faith, and it certainly precedes most _exercises_ of infant-faith. Although John the Baptist was evidently able to exercise a rudimentary act proceding from a real, saving faith when he leaped for joy in the womb. For most people, we P-Bs would say infant baptism clearly precedes *conversion*, which involves the conscious exercise of saving faith and repentance.
> 
> But God told Abraham to apply the sign of the covenant of grace to his male offspring, only 8 days old. And the NT sign of that same covenant is baptism, replacing circumcision. And God never told his people to stop applying that sign to their children, by faith. So we see baptism preceding faith in their case.



What if those infants never come to faith? Then the baptism was in vain.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Also, a note on the egyptians.... 1 Cor 10 doesnt even hint at the egyptians. They are not used in that text.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

SemperFideles said:


> Nobody is arguing that an unbelieving adult was forced to be baptized.



My question would be, since many on this board imply that no one in the house was converted besides Lydia, are you saying that the unbelieving adults were baptised too? Does this make them "partakers" of the promise? Even though they are baptised, what if they never come to faith?


----------



## VaughanRSmith

Andrew P.C. said:


> What if those infants never come to faith? Then the baptism was in vain.


That's a problem that hits both our camps, friend. What if your church baptises someone who has made a false profession?


----------



## satz

SemperFideles said:


> Nobody is arguing that an unbelieving adult was forced to be baptized.



I know, and I wasn't trying to strawman anyone. Just that some of the replies were phrased in a way that I wanted clarification about. 

However, that still raises the point, in Lydia's case, if her household was baptised, it implies that all the adult members believed right? So there would seem to be that implied idea of belief.

I can't remember off hand, but which are the household baptisms in the bible?
Cornelius, the Phillipian Jailor and Lydia are the ones I can think of. I believe for both Cornelius and the Jailor, the text says both they, and their households were preached to. So if we take the baptist assumption that the instructions for baptism are 'repent, and be baptised' could we not reasonably assume they believed as well?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Exagorazo said:


> That's a problem that hits both our camps, friend. What if your church baptises someone who has made a false profession?



Ah, indeed. But they understood the gospel. An 8 month old baby does not.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

satz said:


> I hope this is not a dumb question to ask.
> 
> Surely you are not saying when Lydia believed her household, including unbelieving adults were all baptised?
> 
> I know the topic of this thread is infant baptism but I just wanted to clarify this. Some of the responses do sound as if they are implying this. Or it might be just me.



Few questions truly are dumb; sometimes just argumentative (!) but not usually offensive.


It's possible that everyone in that house was baptized. Slaves tend to do what they are commanded to do. However, most of us P-Bs see voluntariness, and willingness, as essential components of participation in the life of the covenant community, _when such willingness can be elicited_. Infants must go where they are brought, must have all decisions made for them. Older folks naturally have some say-so. Would an OT slave have been _forcibly_ circumcised, whether he volunteered or not. Absolutely not. How much willingness isn't really an issue.

When it comes to baptism, how much knowledge of the faith was required for a baptism? Apparently not a whole lot. See, we are all pre-programmed to define a conversion by some stated formula or other sign. But since we can't read a heart anyway, we are only interested in a person's willingness to identify with the church. If they are capable of making that decision, _if they are willing to submit to a new religion and be taught it_, knowing hardly anything. Who can forbid water? That was Peter's question, when he was looking at a whole house of Cornelius who were converted en mass. But children must have decisions made for them constantly. They identify with whomever their parents are identified with. Until the time comes for them to make their own statement of faith, not a mediated one.

And that's why we don't think a grown person was necessarily baptized. Both because they might resist it, in which case they would certainly be excepted. And because they would have to make their own profession anyway, almost immediately, in order to partake of the Lord's Supper. So, the insistence on an adult's informed consent is part and parcel of the very nature of receiving the sign. But a child's informed consent is likewise NOT required, again, in the very nature of receiving the sign.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Andrew P.C. said:


> My question would be, since many on this board imply that no one in the house was converted besides Lydia, are you saying that the unbelieving adults were baptised too? Does this make them "partakers" of the promise? Even though they are baptised, what if they never come to faith?



Andrew,

I'm going to disengage for the time being. You're reading too fast and not understanding very much. This rapid fire discussion is not fruitful.

Nobody stated that nobody in the house was converted beside Lydia. We don't know much about the household except that they were baptized. I never affirmed that there were infants who were converted. I never affirmed that there were adults who were not converted. I never affirmed that there were miraculous talking llamas that were converted.

Once again, I will state what I have stated consistently throughout: I do not appeal to historical narratives to form my doctrine of Covenant.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Andrew P.C. said:


> Ah, indeed. But they understood the gospel. An 8 month old baby does not.



What is your take on John the Baptist? What about 6yr old children that profess and are baptised? Do they understand all? Or do they simply have faith that God gave them?


----------



## VaughanRSmith

Andrew P.C. said:


> Ah, indeed. But they understood the gospel. An 8 month old baby does not.


Well, I would go as far as saying that an unregenerate man cannot understand the gospel. 

Do you believe an infant can be regenerate?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Andrew P.C. said:


> What if those infants never come to faith? Then the baptism was in vain.



No, then it is a sign of judgment against one who was exposed to the gospel and the grace of God in Christ and rejected the same. God's signs, as visible Word, just like his spoken Word, "which goeth forth from my mouth shall not return to me void," saith the Lord. It accomplishes everything for which it was intended--either blessing, *or a curse*.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

LadyFlynt said:


> What is your take on John the Baptist? What about 6yr old children that profess and are baptised? Do they understand all? Or do they simply have faith that God gave them?



LadyFlynt, I will agree with you that a 6YO can understand the basics, but not an 8 month old. Those are extreme opposite minds. We have to remember too that your mind is also in the process of conversion. You have to have somesort of knowledge.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Andrew P.C. said:


> Also, a note on the egyptians.... 1 Cor 10 doesnt even hint at the egyptians. They are not used in that text.



I know that. But we don't read Paul's reference to the Red Sea crossing in abstraction from the event itself and what it entailed. I brought them up because you used a quote that changed the term "baptize" to "immerse," and thus its fair to point out the context where we look for the nearest "immersion." I know you believe that "baptize" is just a synonym for "immerse", but its prejudicial to the case to simply assert that.


----------



## VaughanRSmith

Andrew P.C. said:


> LadyFlynt, I will agree with you that a 6YO can understand the basics, but not an 8 month old. Those are extreme opposite minds. We have to remember too that your mind is also in the process of conversion. You have to have somesort of knowledge.


This worries me. It sounds almost Arminian. God is sovereign over the conversion process, not our state of mind...


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Contra_Mundum said:


> No, then it is a sign of judgment against one who was exposed to the gospel and the grace of God in Christ and rejected the same. God's signs, as visible Word, just like his spoken Word, "which goeth forth from my mouth shall not return to me void," saith the Lord. It accomplishes everything for which it was intended--either blessing, *or a curse*.




I do agree that anyone who rejects the outward call will be judged for rejecting it, but i believe that you are to be baptised only after you come to faith in Christ.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Exagorazo said:


> This worries me. It sounds almost Arminian. God is sovereign over the conversion process, not our state of mind...



?

I believe God is sovreign, that "He does accoring to His will... among the inhabitants of earth"(Dan 4:35) but to say that he controls your mind is different. You think sinful thoughts. Therefore to say that he controls your mind is saying he is making you sin. That's heretical.

I believe you are mixing up what i think about the doctrines of grace with baptism.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

satz said:


> I know, and I wasn't trying to strawman anyone. Just that some of the replies were phrased in a way that I wanted clarification about.
> 
> However, that still raises the point, in Lydia's case, if her household was baptised, it implies that all the adult members believed right? So there would seem to be that implied idea of belief.
> 
> I can't remember off hand, but which are the household baptisms in the bible?
> Cornelius, the Phillipian Jailor and Lydia are the ones I can think of. I believe for both Cornelius and the Jailor, the text says both they, and their households were preached to. So if we take the baptist assumption that the instructions for baptism are 'repent, and be baptised' could we not reasonably assume they believed as well?



Stephanus (1 Cor. 1:16).

Certainly, there is a positive assumption we may make that the house, as a whole, continued in the apostolic fellowship. But we don't know if any individuals left the faith they were baptized into. However, we P-Bs are not *committed* to an _in toto_ participation in the event, as if every single person in the house had to have been involved in order for our position to be maintained. The position doesn't stand or fall on that premise.

Certainly everyone inclusive in the house could have been baptized, all the adults by a willing submission. But so far as any children are concerned, to eliminate them by virtue of their age is an arbitrary restriction linguistically, and is being made on the basis of a prior theological commitment--one that says they _could not be_ included because "baptism-follows-conversion-and-verbal-profession" always.

And we also would say that regardless of their continuance, _they were all really and truly baptized into the visible church._ This is another great difference. For the baptist would say that if one of them were baptized "falsely" and only later came to faith for real, then he must be re-baptized, for the first did not follow conversion.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Andrew P.C. said:


> LadyFlynt, I will agree with you that a 6YO can understand the basics, but not an 8 month old. Those are extreme opposite minds. We have to remember too that your mind is also in the process of conversion. You have to have somesort of knowledge.



This position makes regeneration contingent on understanding, in a rational, cognitive, growing-human sort of way. But this position founders on the cases of infants dying and others (imbeciles or blind-deaf-mutes or etc.) who are "incapable of being outwardly called by the gospel." How are they saved? They must be saved by faith, so the Spirit must work saving faith in them by some other means.

And that "other means" is actually the *same means* he uses to regenerate a spirit normally, only apart from the "outward and ordinary call of the gospel," that is, in conjunction with the _human voice._ The human spirit must "hear" the Spirit's voice; he must be made to "see" with spiritual "eyes" the Christ who saves. And this is certainly the case, for example, with John the Baptist. He was saved--regenerated and converted--in the womb.

Conversion, or the _exercise_ of faith/repentance, is a separate event, conceptually at least, from regeneration. And for an infant dying in infancy, that conversion must take place no later than the instant it dies, if it is going to heaven. And regeneration precedes it. But the conversion is the actual "seeing," trusting, receiving, and resting in Christ whom he has been given "eyes" to see.

We need a theology of regeneration and conversion that allows us to acknowledge the faith of infants, so that we can hope to see them in heaven.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Andrew P.C. said:


> LadyFlynt, I will agree with you that a 6YO can understand the basics, but not an 8 month old. Those are extreme opposite minds. We have to remember too that your mind is also in the process of conversion. You have to have somesort of knowledge.



So a person who does not have the mental capacity of a 2yrold can never be saved?


----------



## Theoretical

Andrew P.C. said:


> LadyFlynt, I will agree with you that a 6YO can understand the basics, but not an 8 month old. Those are extreme opposite minds. We have to remember too that your mind is also in the process of conversion. You have to have somesort of knowledge.





Exagorazo said:


> This worries me. It sounds almost Arminian. God is sovereign over the conversion process, not our state of mind...



 

If in some way, shape or form, the ability to have intellectual assent is absolutely required for elect faith to exist, then by implication any infant or from-birth severely mentally retarded person is inherently damned. How would you deal with Psalm 51 and David's statement that sin was present with his conception? 

The only logical schema I can see that does not involve infants having original sin would be an age of accountability system drawing off Romans 7:7-12 and seeing the formerly alive person as an infant who passes the threshold of the age of accountability and spiritually dies because of failing before the Law, having now known it. Gene Cook of the _Narrow Mind_ radio show (himself a credobaptist) correctly hammered Dan Corner of Evangelical Outreach on this interpretation, correctly identifying it as fundamentally Pelagian in nature.

Unless Adam's sin enters humans sometime after conception, then every infant who dies is damned under this system, since regeneration is always tied to intellectual assent (even simple intellectual assent). It is nice and well that Mohler and several other prominent leaders believe all infants who die are elect, but by all appearances it seems a massive inconsistency - not a deadly inconsistency, but a serious one nonetheless. 

Now, please forgive me if I am attacking a straw man - that was not my intent. I'm just trying to press implications of what you are saying and see how you address them, because they are serious issues.


----------



## VaughanRSmith

Theoretical said:


> If in some way, shape or form, the ability to have intellectual assent is absolutely required for elect faith to exist, then by implication any infant or from-birth severely mentally retarded person is inherently damned. How would you deal with Psalm 51 and David's statement that sin was present with his conception?
> 
> The only logical schema I can see that does not involve infants having original sin would be an age of accountability system drawing off Romans 7:7-12 and seeing the formerly alive person as an infant who passes the threshold of the age of accountability and spiritually dies because of failing before the Law, having now known it. Gene Cook of the _Narrow Mind_ radio show correctly hammered Dan Corner of Evangelical Outreach on this interpretation, correctly identifying it as fundamentally Pelagian in nature.
> 
> Unless Adam's sin enters humans sometime after conception, then every infant who dies is damned under this system, since regeneration is always tied to intellectual assent (even simple intellectual assent). It is nice and well that Mohler and several other prominent leaders believe all infants who die are elect, but by all appearances it seems a massive inconsistency - not a deadly inconsistency, but a serious one nonetheless.
> 
> Now, please forgive me if I am attacking a straw man - that was not my intent. I'm just trying to press implications of what you are saying and see how you addressing them, because they are serious issues.


----------



## satz

I don't want to draw this thread off topic, but I do not believe it is true that belief is needed for regeneration. Is is really inconsistent to say an elect person dying in infancy could go to heaven even if he or she had never believed the gospel?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

satz said:


> I don't want to draw this thread off topic, but I do not believe it is true that belief is needed for regeneration. Is is really inconsistent to say an elect person dying in infancy could go to heaven even if he or she had never believed the gospel?



Mark,
First of all, no one says faith is necessary prior to *regeneration*, it is regeneration's necessary PRODUCT. You need to account for both regeneration and for CONVERSION, which involves repentance and faith exercised. Without FAITH it is _impossible_ to please God. We do want to affirm that infants (some at least) go to heaven, as well as others _who cannot respond intellectually to the outward gospel call._ But faith in Jesus is the only way, the ONLY WAY to heaven. So, how MUST this happen? It is no answer to just say, "well God just saves them without faith, because they aren't smart," or just saves them and "faith go bosh!"

They must *apprehend* Christ in a saving way, be enabled to appreciate him _in their spirit_, which survives physical death. They have time and eternity to develop that nacent faith; they will never even develop their sin nature (which they had from Adam) in need of subduing. Instead they will only EVER grow in grace from that seed of faith. But they need saving faith, that sight of Christ. It isn't an intellectual quanity they need.


----------



## Theoretical

Contra_Mundum said:


> Mark,
> First of all, no one says faith is necessary prior to *regeneration*, it is regeneration's necessary PRODUCT. You need to account for both regeneration and for CONVERSION, which involves repentance and faith exercised. Without FAITH it is _impossible_ to please God. We do want to affirm that infants (some at least) go to heaven, as well as others _who cannot respond intellectually to the outward gospel call._ But faith in Jesus is the only way, the ONLY WAY to heaven. So, how MUST this happen? It is no answer to just say, "well God just saves them without faith, because they aren't smart," or just saves them and "faith go bosh!"
> 
> They must *apprehend* Christ in a saving way, be enabled to appreciate him _in their spirit_, which survives physical death. They have time and eternity to develop that nacent faith; they will never even develop their sin nature (which they had from Adam) in need of subduing. Instead they will only EVER grow in grace from that seed of faith. But they need saving faith, that sight of Christ. It isn't an intellectual quanity they need.


----------



## JKLeoPCA

Here is the easiest way I know to explain it.

The washing with water signifies the ingrafting into Christ, more specifically His body, or even His bride, the church. Being such one partakes of the benefits of the covenant of grace. With a proper understanding of the covenant of grace, how is that applied to believers if not by the grace of God alone, and not preconditioned by our belief first. Baptism then is the visible gospel in that God does all the washing, we are passive, and allow to all the benefits that follow having been washed. I think "believer baptism" skews this to an Arminian extent as to say that if man's first believing activates God to be allow Him to wash us. But in baptism the adult as well as the infant are just as passive therein. It is not a show of the participants obedience, or a celebration of anything I did, but of what God does by His Holy Spirit.

As was mentioned by a prior brother, the problem arises in all camps when we then distinguish between the visible and the invisible church. We are not privy to the hearts and minds of men, so we do not know who is elect and who is not. What we DO KNOW is who the visible church is, and that to the visible church belongs the benefits of the covenant. Thus they are bestowed upon all their members. 

I know this was already mentioned but, the question comes of what effect did baptism have if one leaves the church. It was still a very real visible representation of the gospel, and yet if God so did not regenerate them, then it just gives them more reason to fear judgment, for having partaken of the heavenly. 

Kinda wrote that off the cuff, so I'm open to rebuttal and criticism, if I need to explain that further.  

Again it can be argued that an infant does not yet believe, and yet no adult believes before grace either. So why refrain someone from the grace of God and to say that they are no member of His church, when they are certainly being raised within the church. And also no one can tell what adults in the church are really "believing" when they are baptized anyway.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Now, i believe in the doctrines of grace, and what blessed doctrines they are. But here is something that puzzles me then, how do infants, who do not understand that gospel go to heaven, if they die?

I'm just really puzzled on this because i read what Paul wrote in Romans 10:

"How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard?"

Hearing requires understanding. Christ said "he who has ears, let him hear."

I am seriously open to anything that might change my mind(if it is biblical). Don't think I've closed the door, I just need a better understanding of this.


----------



## LadyFlynt

so then all infants that die shortly after birth are hellbound given that they cannot understand or comprehend. We cannot say they are "innocent" for no person is born innocent; all are born in sin and the punishment of that is death. Therefore we must look at election/predestination, and how regeneration occurs. Do WE seek after God? Are we regenerated after we say the magic words of the "sinner's prayer"? Is it merely because we believe? Satan believes. 

Now read back up at Pastor Bruce's post.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Contra_Mundum said:


> Mark,
> First of all, no one says faith is necessary prior to *regeneration*, it is regeneration's necessary PRODUCT. You need to account for both regeneration and for CONVERSION, which involves repentance and faith exercised. Without FAITH it is _impossible_ to please God. We do want to affirm that infants (some at least) go to heaven, as well as others _who cannot respond intellectually to the outward gospel call._ But faith in Jesus is the only way, the ONLY WAY to heaven. So, how MUST this happen? It is no answer to just say, "well God just saves them without faith, because they aren't smart," or just saves them and "faith go bosh!"
> 
> They must *apprehend* Christ in a saving way, be enabled to appreciate him _in their spirit_, which survives physical death. They have time and eternity to develop that nacent faith; they will never even develop their sin nature (which they had from Adam) in need of subduing. Instead they will only EVER grow in grace from that seed of faith. But they need saving faith, that sight of Christ. It isn't an intellectual quanity they need.



But there is an intellectual process. To totally deny any use of the brain is insane.


----------



## AV1611

*In case no one else has made this joke:*

*You asked: Where are the infants baptized? *

_I reply:_ At the font!


----------



## satz

Pastor Bruce,

Thank you for your reply. I ask the following as a truely sincere question. Could anyone point me to some verses that would state that an elect infant must be converted ie believe the gospel in some sense in order to go to heaven?

If an infant is elected in eternity by God, his sins legally paid for by Jesus Christ on the cross, and he is born again by the Holy Spirit, must he still believe in any sense in order to go to heaven?


----------



## LadyFlynt

Andrew P.C. said:


> But there is an intellectual process. To totally deny any use of the brain is insane.



Where does it say, you must understand and be baptised?

How much does one have to understand?

Must one understand all the doctrines of grace to be saved? Or just the five solas? Is an 8yr old expected to explain the trinity before he can be saved?


----------



## LadyFlynt

Mark, who gives us our faith? Is it a work of ourselves or a work of God?


----------



## Theoretical

LadyFlynt said:


> Mark, who gives us our faith? Is it a work of ourselves or a work of God?


 Even our faith is a gift from God.


----------



## satz

Colleen, 

If you mean initial faith, I would say it is God's work (2 Pet 1:1).


----------



## lv1nothr

Andrew P.C. said:


> But there is an intellectual process. To totally deny any use of the brain is insane.



ok, my  If there must be an intellectual process, then Eph. 2:8-9 is pretty much out of the question.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 

Even that very faith is a gift of God, it's all His work, He makes us willing. I believe that when I realized my need for repentance, the Lord had already begun a work in me, a work of salvation!!! Hence repentance came, not the other way around. So I don't have a problem with Him making any willing at any age or any mental capacity. He gave the blind eyes with which to see, He makes the deaf to hear. 

Every time I've miscarried I pray that because God placed that baby in a believing home that He would have mercy on them, it's no guarantee and I realize that, but because of our standing in Christ, I rest in Him and His sovereignty! We humans have a hard time with that...I know from experience 
What of the mentally handicapped? Are they doomed? or are they as some think, automatically saved? I know our Lord is perfectly just and perfectly righteous!! What great salvation! 

As for ears to hear, again...John 10:27 - 28 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 
I believe our Lord is talking about more than just physical hearing. 
His Word is spirit. It is after all about the salvation of our souls, not our bodies. 

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 

An by the way, I'm still learning as well, we're new to this view (as hubby became convicted of covenant baptism just a few months ago) here at the Knox household and yet it is becoming more and more clear. Thank you for this thread, I believe it is encouraging me.  The Lord knows what we need!  

 
 May He give you wisdom as you search His Word.


----------



## Theoretical

lv1nothr said:


> ok, my  If there must be an intellectual process, then Eph. 2:8-9 is pretty much out of the question.
> 
> Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
> 
> Even that very faith is a gift of God, it's all His work, He makes us willing. I believe that when I realized my need for repentance, the Lord had already begun a work in me, a work of salvation!!! Hence repentance came, not the other way around. So I don't have a problem with Him making any willing at any age or any mental capacity. He gave the blind eyes with which to see, He makes the deaf to hear.
> 
> Every time I've miscarried I pray that because God placed that baby in a believing home that He would have mercy on them, it's no guarantee and I realize that, but because of our standing in Christ, I rest in Him and His sovereignty! We humans have a hard time with that...I know from experience
> What of the mentally handicapped? Are they doomed? or are they as some think, automatically saved? I know our Lord is perfectly just and perfectly righteous!! What great salvation!
> 
> As for ears to hear, again...John 10:27 - 28 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
> I believe our Lord is talking about more than just physical hearing.
> His Word is spirit. It is after all about the salvation of our souls, not our bodies.
> 
> John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
> 
> An by the way, I'm still learning as well, we're new to this view (as hubby became convicted of covenant baptism just a few months ago) here at the Knox household and yet it is becoming more and more clear. Thank you for this thread, I believe it is encouraging me.  The Lord knows what we need!
> 
> 
> May He give you wisdom as you search His Word.


 Very well said, Grace.


----------



## JKLeoPCA

Andrew P.C. said:


> Now, i believe in the doctrines of grace, and what blessed doctrines they are. But here is something that puzzles me then, how do infants, who do not understand that gospel go to heaven, if they die?
> 
> I'm just really puzzled on this because i read what Paul wrote in Romans 10:
> 
> "How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard?"
> 
> Hearing requires understanding. Christ said "he who has ears, let him hear."
> 
> I am seriously open to anything that might change my mind(if it is biblical). Don't think I've closed the door, I just need a better understanding of this.



Simply put this would be called, "by ordinary means," but we hold that God is free to work above, and even contrary to the ordinary prescribed means we are to follow. Thus no limit is placed upon God, so He is free to work when and where He wills. How do any of us know we will get to heaven? It is by promise. We believe the promise, and that promise is for us and our children (Acts 2:39, 1 Cor 7:14) So we do not focus upon our measure of faith, but upon the faithfulness of God to keep His promise.


----------



## Civbert

Andrew P.C. said:


> Now, i believe in the doctrines of grace, and what blessed doctrines they are. But here is something that puzzles me then, how do infants, who do not understand that gospel go to heaven, if they die?



This is my opinion, because I don't think the bible answers this question. We can not say for certain that infants who die will go to heaven (regardless of receiving a water baptism). If they are regenerate, they will be saved. But who knows which are regenerate if they die so young. 

I believe that God creates all men with knowledge - from conception God has given men (at minimum) the knowledge of himself and his divine attributes. This is why even infants are in danger of hell. But just as God creates us all with knowledge, he can also give us saving knowledge - that is the knowledge of the Gospel. Even infants can know Jesus is their savior.

I've said all along in my epistemology (Scripturalism), we are not always aware of the things we know. We can not always give an account for our knowledge. While I assert that the only means of accounting for our knowledge is from Scripture, it is only a means of knowing which things we believe that we can call knowledge. (Scripturalism does not give you knowledge, it certifies what beliefs _are _knowledge.) There will be other things God has given us to know, that we can not account for, but is still knowledge because it is truth given to us by God. From our perspective, we can only count these beliefs as opinions. Many things that we know, are _epidemically _opinions. But as you can see, these opinions can be very important to our lives. 

For the person who has been regenerated in his infancy, he has saving knowledge - faith/belief in Jesus Christ as his savior. He may not become aware of this knowledge for many years yet. And when he does, he can only account for it because he believes the Scriptures and they tell us that Jesus is Lord and Savior and the only one who can be a propitiation to God for our sins. This is spiritual knowledge, and is validated by God's Word. 

Often (as many will testify) when a young person realizes they truly believe, it's as if they believed all along. I personally do not remember when I first believed. I can only recall a time when I said to myself, "I do believe". I did not know how long I believed, I just noticed that I believed in Jesus. 

And it is my belief that this saving knowledge was given to me when I was very young and it was years before I became aware of this knowledge. I could not give an epistemological accounting when I first received saving faith (that is the knowledge of the gospel truth). That came latter when I began to understand the gospel and realized that I believed what the Scriptures said. 

I was regenerated by the Spirit, given saving faith, then later became aware that I believed the gospel. At first I merely became aware that I believed in Jesus as my savior. As I began to understand that the Scriptures were God's revelation, my belief became epistemically justified knowledge. All along I had known, but only later could I justify what I knew epistemically. 

This is also why I believe the the mentally retarded and brain damaged can be saved, can have saving faith, can know the gospel truth. They may never be able to articulate it, or understand it because of the physically inflictions they suffer. They go through life as if they had very dark and dirty glasses on - never truly aware or fully cognizant of the knowledge God has given them. Yet it is the Spirit that saves, by given them the knowledge that saves, saving faith. And the power of the Spirit is not limited by our flesh. Our flesh merely limits our ability to comprehend what we (the regenerate) already know - that Jesus is Lord. 

As for those who have "ears to hear", these are the regenerate. These are those who God have given saving faith. It could be that they were regenerate before they heard the gospel, or exactly when they heard it. But they could not "hear" it until they were given the "ears" to hear it. The regenerate believe the gospel when they hear it because they already have saving faith, and the hearing of the gospel make them aware and cognizant of the gospel and their belief in it's truth. This is why many believe simply by hearing it. The professions of faith, the realization that Jesus is Lord, is merely a confirmation of being saved by the Spirit by regeneration and reception of saving faith. 

But it's worse for the unregenerate. When they hear the gospel, they do not believe it. They may understand it, and they do know that God is God, but they do not have the "ears to hear". They do not believe the gospel because God has not given them saving faith/knowledge. There is nothing to confirm. The gospel falls flat to their ears. 

....

Well that went on longer than I wanted, and I don't have time to pare it down like I should. But I hope it was helpful.


----------



## Civbert

Andrew P.C. said:


> But there is an intellectual process. To totally deny any use of the brain is insane.




The brain is not the issue, the mind is. The brain is just the physical interface between our minds (spirits) and the flesh (physical world). You can scramble the brain, but the mind remains as spirit. 

The knowledge is given to our spirit when we receive saving faith. When our brain hears the gospel, a connection is made between those words and the spiritual knowledge that is a gift from the Spirit. Saving faith does not depend on the ability of the brain. A properly functioning brain helps us confirm that we have been given saving faith. 

No matter the condition of the brain, it is the mind that believes. It is our spirit that has saving faith. Infants and mentally retarded people still have perfectly functioning spirits that can be saved by God's grace.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Civbert said:


> The brain is not the issue, the mind is. The brain is just the physical interface between our minds (spirits) and the flesh (physical world). You can scramble the brain, but the mind remains as spirit.
> 
> The knowledge is given to our spirit when we receive saving faith. When our brain hears the gospel, a connection is made between those words and the spiritual knowledge that is a gift from the Spirit. Saving faith does not depend on the ability of the brain. A properly functioning brain helps us confirm that we have been given saving faith.



This is what i was trying to say. You are correct. I agree with you 100%. Sorry for the unclear "words" i was using. I see that one wrong word makes the word "heretic" loud and clear. It also makes people draw the gun very quickly.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Civbert said:


> No matter the condition of the brain, it is the mind that believes. It is our spirit that has saving faith. Infants and mentally retarded people still have perfectly functioning spirits that can be saved by God's grace.



I am open to this. But it is very hard for me to understand. Today i was reminded that our salvation is supernatural. Again, it's just hard for me to grasp this concept and i will study more into the doctrines of grace as i get older.


----------



## lv1nothr

Andrew P.C. said:


> I am open to this. But it is very hard for me to understand. Today i was reminded that our salvation is supernatural. Again, it's just hard for me to grasp this concept and i will study more into the doctrines of grace as i get older.



Andrew, may the Lord give you much grace as you study and as He delights to reveal more of Himself to you!  May you never tire to sit at His feet! 

Ephesians 1:3 - 6 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: 4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.


----------

