# Why I became credo



## jpechin

I'm a new guy, so you will hopefully excuse what is likely the umpteenth million thread started on this issue and allow me to cut my young milk teeth on this issue...

I recently came out of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Great denomination, and I can say nothing wrong of them.

I had to become a credobaptist primarily for the following reasons:

1. When applying a similar hermeneutic as you would toward regulative worship, one must find that the new covenant trumps the old. The types and shadows of the old are fulfilled in the new, and I think that it is nearly unimportant who is in the visible church, in light of the invisible that has been made fully known in the new covenant. Our desire is definitively now to save our children, not make them a token member of some visible fraternity (as sweet as our fellowship is, there are tares). We do absolutely nothing eternal with the water baptism - it is the spirit of God and the visible fruits thereof that we hope and pray for in our children; obviously that is of God alone, but our children reap the wonderful benefit of being surrounded by the true children of the covenant by faith and His Holy word (two of the means by which God saves). 

2. When I asked the OPC elders how I should consider a baby that has died after baptism but before they have displayed any fruits of repentance or faith, the answer was, "we should assume that this child is saved." This is the most consistent and systematic version of paedobaptism, as I presently understand. One is imparting the covenant, rather than God laying His guarantee upon it with the sealing in the Spirit. I simply cannot accept this model, in light of God's sovereignty.

3. Somewhat secondary/tertiary, these: The tradition of washings and baptisms is to ceremoniously wash one's sins in the manner of washing one's conscience and/or dedicating oneself to the teaching of a rabbi or sect of Judaism. The mikvah was often done on a regular basis, but just as there is only one bapitsm within the Spirit, we as Xristianos need only wash once. In light of this intent, along with the connection between the Lord's Supper and baptism, along with the admonishment that we need to examine ourselves before partaking of the elements, and with the practice of one fasting and praying and examining oneself in the early church prior to baptism (a great book on this matter is "Baptism in the Early Church", published by ARBCA).

In all things, let there be grace and I apologize if any of this sounds too beligerant. That's not my goal. That would be to crush paedobaptists and prove them wrong (KIDDING!!!). 

Sincerely, let God and His word be glorified, and all creeds, confessions, perspectives, assumptions, etc be made secondary. Sola Scriptura, brothers.

Sola Deo Gloria!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> 2. When I asked the OPC elders how I should consider a baby that has died after baptism but before they have displayed any fruits of repentance or faith, the answer was, "we should assume that this child is saved." This is the most consistent and systematic version of paedobaptism, as I presently understand. To me, this contains the vestiges of popery. We are imparting the covenant, rather than God laying His guarantee upon it with the sealing in the Spirit. I simply cannot accept this model, in light of God's sovereignty.



That is presumptive regeneration; other Presbyterians do not hold such a position. The balanced Presbyterian view is that we expect covenant children - through diligent use of the means of grace - to keep the way of the Lord, however, we do not presume anything. The child is to be warned of the dangers of covenant breaking, and urged to embrace Christ as He is freely offered in the gospel.


----------



## JonathanHunt

Well... we.... er... we don't get many threads like this.

Come on then, who's going to start congratulating our brother for going paedo to credo? Lots of dittos and icons and stuff?

C'mon baptists, lay it on thick!

 Onlllly kidding.

Welcome, Jeremiah, and enjoy the ride.


----------



## JM

Thank you for sharing.


----------



## JOwen




----------



## KMK

Daniel Ritchie said:


> 2. When I asked the OPC elders how I should consider a baby that has died after baptism but before they have displayed any fruits of repentance or faith, the answer was, "we should assume that this child is saved." This is the most consistent and systematic version of paedobaptism, as I presently understand. To me, this contains the vestiges of popery. We are imparting the covenant, rather than God laying His guarantee upon it with the sealing in the Spirit. I simply cannot accept this model, in light of God's sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is presumptive regeneration; other Presbyterians do not hold such a position. The balanced Presbyterian view is that *we expect covenant children - through diligent use of the means of grace - to keep the way of the Lord, however, we do not presume anything*. The child is to be warned of the dangers of covenant breaking, and urged to embrace Christ as He is freely offered in the gospel.
Click to expand...


This 'balanced Presbyterian view' seems to be pretty clear in the WCF:



> WCF 10:III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.



Why would an OPC church believe in presumptive regeneration?


----------



## Zenas

Yeah, the no.2 don't jibe. Niether I nor my Teaching Elder holds to the presumptive view, and I find no merit for it in Scripture. It smacks of popery to me too.


----------



## AV1611

jpechin said:


> The types and shadows of the old are fulfilled in the new, and I think that it is nearly unimportant who is in the visible church, in light of the invisible that has been made fully known in the new covenant.



This does not show how baptism is to be applied to professors only. 



jpechin said:


> Our desire is definitively now to save our children



Our desire is that God would save our children just as it would have been if we were born under the Old Testament.



jpechin said:


> When I asked the OPC elders how I should consider a baby that has died after baptism but before they have displayed any fruits of repentance or faith, the answer was, "we should assume that this child is saved."



The Canons of Dordt teach:

*Article 17 - Children of Believers Who Die in Infancy*
We must judge concerning the will of God from His Word, which declares that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they are included with their parents. Therefore, God-fearing parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in their infancy (Genesis 17:7; Acts 2:39; 1 Corinthians 7:14).​


jpechin said:


> To me, this contains the vestiges of popery.



But you would be wrong to think that.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Jerry,
I'm curious, did you ever have any of your children baptized? If so, was it because of theological convictions, or just because that was the tradition you grew up in?

I suppose I'm just curious to know if you have switched _*churches*_ to one more in line with your convictions, rather than a change of _*mind*_ on the proper subjects of baptism.


----------



## jpechin

Daniel Ritchie said:


> That is presumptive regeneration; other Presbyterians do not hold such a position. The balanced Presbyterian view is that we expect covenant children - through diligent use of the means of grace - to keep the way of the Lord, however, we do not presume anything. The child is to be warned of the dangers of covenant breaking, and urged to embrace Christ as He is freely offered in the gospel.



That would be much more biblical, in that model. The problem, then, though, is that there is really no difference between the Presbyterians and bapties other than a lack of obedience based on the method of baptism based on the model of scripture.

From that standpoint, I would think one would want to use a hermeneutic similar to the regulative principle, right? Can you tell me what the differences are between those methods of hermeneutics and help me to understand why each side uses a different approach when examining covenantal elements? (honestly, trying to learn)


----------



## jpechin

JonathanHunt said:


> C'mon baptists, lay it on thick!
> 
> 
> 
> Ah. I thought that there were a good number of Presbyterians out here. One gentleman is actually from my old church.
Click to expand...


----------



## sastark

Daniel Ritchie said:


> 2. When I asked the OPC elders how I should consider a baby that has died after baptism but before they have displayed any fruits of repentance or faith, the answer was, "we should assume that this child is saved." This is the most consistent and systematic version of paedobaptism, as I presently understand. To me, this contains the vestiges of popery. We are imparting the covenant, rather than God laying His guarantee upon it with the sealing in the Spirit. I simply cannot accept this model, in light of God's sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is presumptive regeneration; other Presbyterians do not hold such a position. The balanced Presbyterian view is that we expect covenant children - through diligent use of the means of grace - to keep the way of the Lord, however, we do not presume anything. The child is to be warned of the dangers of covenant breaking, and urged to embrace Christ as He is freely offered in the gospel.
Click to expand...


I'm sure I'm opening a  but...

So, you would tell a grieving parent that we really can't speak to the eternal state of their dead child? This may seem like I'm playing the "emotional manipulation card", but I think it is a very applicable question to ask: pastors have to deal with this exact sort of situation.

I tend to agree with the Canons of Dordt on this, as quoted by Richard.


----------



## KMK

AV1611 said:


> jpechin said:
> 
> 
> 
> The types and shadows of the old are fulfilled in the new, and I think that it is nearly unimportant who is in the visible church, in light of the invisible that has been made fully known in the new covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This does not show how baptism is to be applied to professors only.
> 
> 
> 
> jpechin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our desire is definitively now to save our children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our desire is that God would save our children just as it would have been if we were born under the Old Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> jpechin said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I asked the OPC elders how I should consider a baby that has died after baptism but before they have displayed any fruits of repentance or faith, the answer was, "we should assume that this child is saved."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Canons of Dordt teach:
> 
> *Article 17 - Children of Believers Who Die in Infancy*
> We must judge concerning the will of God from His Word, which declares that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they are included with their parents. Therefore, God-fearing parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in their infancy (Genesis 17:7; Acts 2:39; 1 Corinthians 7:14).​
> 
> 
> jpechin said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me, this contains the vestiges of popery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you would be wrong to think that.
Click to expand...


But doesn't the OPC subscribe to the WCF as opposed to the 3 Forms of Unity?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

The WCF and Cat.s don't speak to the pastoral question, and only 10.3 on "elect infants dying in infancy" directly address the issue. But the 3FU does substantially state a common Presbyterian position.

At the end of the day, all ANY of us have for ANYTHING in which to hope is God's Word of promise. So, Christian parents are *obligated* to hope in God's promise to save their child.



**P.S. I'm still waiting for an answer to my above query, Jerry, if you don't mind.**


----------



## Zenas

I think it's a step too far for us to say that believer's child who dies in infancy is elect, unquestionably. If this is true, we should all kill our children as soon as they shoot out of the womb. 

I know Dr. Sproul has taken this position, but I don't think he's correct in doing so. I rather think that we can take confort in the fact that God is sovereign and good and that those children dying in infancy have no other option than to depend on the Holy Lord of the universe. That fact conforts me. Even if my child died, I would know God would act judiciously and just with regard to their position before Him, as He would with me.

At the end of it all, have we any reason to answer back to God for Him damning our children or electing them? They deserve either as much as we do. It's a hard pill to swallow but it's the truth.


----------



## Mayflower

jpechin said:


> I had to become a credobaptist primarily for the following reasons:
> .......




!!!!!!!


----------



## KMK

Contra_Mundum said:


> The WCF and Cat.s don't speak to the pastoral question, and only 10.3 on "elect infants dying in infancy" directly address the issue. But the 3FU does substantially state a common Presbyterian position.
> 
> At the end of the day, all ANY of us have for ANYTHING in which to hope is God's Word of promise. So, Christian parents are *obligated* to hope in God's promise to save their child.
> 
> 
> 
> **P.S. I'm still waiting for an answer to my above query, Jerry, if you don't mind.**



It seems to me, the Reformed position is that parents are not to doubt the election of their children, nor assume the election of their children, but simply, as Rev Buchanan states, hope in the promises of God.

I also think Rev Buchanan asks a good question. Waiting for an answer.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Zenas said:


> I think it's a step too far for us to say that believer's child who dies in infancy is elect, unquestionably. If this is true, we should all kill our children as soon as they shoot out of the womb.


I'm not for granting false certainties, however this is nothing but a non sequiter. Should we do this, assuming it were true, we would send them all to heaven at the expense of our own souls--a horrific trade.


----------



## greenbaggins

Hmm. There are several positions held over the course of Reformed history. The Southern Presbyterians (Thornwell, Dabney, Girardeau) held that children of believers are pagan until converted. Hodge and Warfield held that they are assumed to be (notice the force of the word "assumed") regenerated until proven otherwise (also the position of Calvin). No Presbyterian has ever said that all infants of believers are regenerated. The question is much more like this: how should we _treat_ them? Personally I do not think we need to expect a violent conversion experience, even though that will happen sometimes, even with the children of believers. And I would counsel Baptists on this, too: if your child tells you he is a Christian, you should not only believe them, but nurture them in the Christian faith. We should not teach them to doubt their salvation just because they may not be able to point to a time when WHAM! they became a Christian. Think of John the Baptist, think of the Psalmist, who trusted from his mother's breast. There are many ways of coming to Christ. Some are violent, and some are gentle. Some are "growing into it" and some are pitch darkness to the light of day. We should not force all people into one mold only.


----------



## Herald

Jeremiah, I am thankful for the change in your baptismal conviction. Grace to you and your family. I pray you left the OPC church displaying grace to those who were your shepherds in Christ.


----------



## AV1611

KMK said:


> But doesn't the OPC subscribe to the WCF as opposed to the 3 Forms of Unity?



I am sure that they do but my point was to show that the _Reformed_ view is that we have no reason to doubt that our children, if they die, are saved. This is founded upon God's promise. 

A Presbyterian view can be found in Hodge:

The phrase "elect infants" is precise and fit for its purpose. It is not intended to suggest that there are any infants not elect, but simply to point out the facts -- (1.) That all infants are born under righteous condemnation; and (2.) That no infant has any claim in itself to salvation; and hence (3.) The salvation of each infant, precisely as the salvation of every adult, must have its absolute ground in the sovereign election of God. This would be just as true if all adults were elected, as it is now that only some adults are elected. It is, therefore, just as true, although we have good reason to believe that all infants are elected. The Confession adheres in this place accurately to the facts revealed. It is certainly revealed that none, either adult or infant, is saved except on the ground of a sovereign election; that is, all salvation for the human race is pure grace. It is not positively revealed that all infants are elect, but we are left, for many reasons, to indulge a highly probable hope that such is the fact. The Confession affirms what is certainly revealed, and leaves that which revelation has not decided to remain, without the suggestion of a positive opinion upon one side or the other.​Reformed Theology Resource Center: Dedicated to the Reformed Faith


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I'm still waiting to know if any of Jerry's children were baptized. Until I hear otherwise, I'm not assuming there was a "change" in convictions.


----------



## py3ak

Bruce, would the same logic apply in reverse? Not too long ago a person whom I believe has no children announced on the board that he had become a paedo-baptist. Are we to disbelieve this until he has a child and baptizes him?


----------



## shackleton

I remember coming across and argument by Loraine Boettner in his book Studies in Theology where he basically said, "Who is to say that_ all_, babies who die in infancy are not a part of the elect?"

An interesting quote from Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology book 3 page 546 in the section on infant baptism, _"The difficulty on this subject is that baptism from its very nature involves a profession of faith; it is the way in which by the ordinance of Christ, He is to be confessed before men; but infants are incapable of making such confession; therefore they are not the proper subjects of baptism. Or, to state the matter in another form: the sacraments belong to the members of the Church; but the Church is the company of believers; infants cannot exercise faith, therefore they are not members of the Church, and consequently ought not to be baptized _."

WCF 28:1 states, ":1 Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ (Mat 28:19), not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church (1 Cor 12:13); but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace (Rom 4:11 with Col 2:11, 12), of his ingrafting into Christ (Rom 6:5; Gal 3:27), of regeneration (Titus 3:5), of remission of sins (Mark 1:4), and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life (Rom 6:3, 4). Which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world (Matt 28:19, 20)."

It does almost leave one (me anyway) with the lingering question that there would have to be two methods of salvation. One for adults, which is the way laid out in the New Testament, and another for babies. Does God suspend what he says is true for everyone else for the sake of babies who are not capable of believing? The answers I have read are along the lines of, babies would have to then be regenerated in the womb. This seems absurd but it is the logical conclusion one must come to in order to have babies who die before being regenerated, saved. On the other hand I do not believe God overlooks sin until a magical age of accountability. If we are all born _sinful_ then we would all be responsible for having our sin atoned for and since the atoning of sin comes through justification through faith the person justified would have to be capable of having faith. 

It _seems_ like paedobaptism leads to an inevitable contradiction. 

What about the mentally retarded, where do they fall in all this.


----------



## tcalbrecht

KMK said:


> It seems to me, the Reformed position is that parents are not to doubt the election of their children, nor assume the election of their children, but simply, as Rev Buchanan states, *hope in the promises of God*.
> 
> I also think Rev Buchanan asks a good question. Waiting for an answer.



No to pick a fight, but the Reformed position is not only to hope in the promises of God, but to act on that hope by applying the sign and seal of the covenant of grace to our children.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

tcalbrecht said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me, the Reformed position is that parents are not to doubt the election of their children, nor assume the election of their children, but simply, as Rev Buchanan states, *hope in the promises of God*.
> 
> I also think Rev Buchanan asks a good question. Waiting for an answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No to pick a fight, but the Reformed position is not only to hope in the promises of God, but to act on that hope by applying the sign and seal of the covenant of grace to our children.
Click to expand...


So the sign and seal saves now if a child dies in infancy? Is there more grace given to an infant child because of his baptism? I am not sure that is a good Paedo position.


----------



## Zadok

Mayflower said:


> jpechin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had to become a credobaptist primarily for the following reasons:
> .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> !!!!!!!
Click to expand...


Mega


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

sastark said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. When I asked the OPC elders how I should consider a baby that has died after baptism but before they have displayed any fruits of repentance or faith, the answer was, "we should assume that this child is saved." This is the most consistent and systematic version of paedobaptism, as I presently understand. To me, this contains the vestiges of popery. We are imparting the covenant, rather than God laying His guarantee upon it with the sealing in the Spirit. I simply cannot accept this model, in light of God's sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is presumptive regeneration; other Presbyterians do not hold such a position. The balanced Presbyterian view is that we expect covenant children - through diligent use of the means of grace - to keep the way of the Lord, however, we do not presume anything. The child is to be warned of the dangers of covenant breaking, and urged to embrace Christ as He is freely offered in the gospel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure I'm opening a  but...
> 
> So, you would tell a grieving parent that we really can't speak to the eternal state of their dead child? This may seem like I'm playing the "emotional manipulation card", but I think it is a very applicable question to ask: pastors have to deal with this exact sort of situation.
> 
> I tend to agree with the Canons of Dordt on this, as quoted by Richard.
Click to expand...


There would seem to be Biblical warrant (i.e. David's child) for saying that if a covenant child dies in infancy then we can expect them to be saved as God has promised to be a God unto us and to our seed after us.


----------



## KMK

Daniel Ritchie said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is presumptive regeneration; other Presbyterians do not hold such a position. The balanced Presbyterian view is that we expect covenant children - through diligent use of the means of grace - to keep the way of the Lord, however, we do not presume anything. The child is to be warned of the dangers of covenant breaking, and urged to embrace Christ as He is freely offered in the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure I'm opening a  but...
> 
> So, you would tell a grieving parent that we really can't speak to the eternal state of their dead child? This may seem like I'm playing the "emotional manipulation card", but I think it is a very applicable question to ask: pastors have to deal with this exact sort of situation.
> 
> I tend to agree with the Canons of Dordt on this, as quoted by Richard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There would seem to be Biblical warrant (i.e. David's child) for saying that if a covenant child dies in infancy then we can expect them to be saved as God has promised to be a God unto us and to our seed after us.
Click to expand...


It seems to be a stretch to go from 'not doubting' the election of infants of believers as per Dort to 'expecting them to be saved' as per Ritchie based on the obscure passage about David's child. What about the example of Esau? Wouldn't it be safer to not _doubt_ and yet not _expect_ but to just admit it is a part of God's secret will?

(Or am I being a fence-straddler?)


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

KMK said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure I'm opening a  but...
> 
> So, you would tell a grieving parent that we really can't speak to the eternal state of their dead child? This may seem like I'm playing the "emotional manipulation card", but I think it is a very applicable question to ask: pastors have to deal with this exact sort of situation.
> 
> I tend to agree with the Canons of Dordt on this, as quoted by Richard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There would seem to be Biblical warrant (i.e. David's child) for saying that if a covenant child dies in infancy then we can expect them to be saved as God has promised to be a God unto us and to our seed after us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems to be a stretch to go from 'not doubting' the election of infants of believers as per Dort to 'expecting them to be saved' as per Ritchie based on the obscure passage about David's child. What about the example of Esau? Wouldn't it be safer to not _doubt_ and yet not _expect_ but to just admit it is a part of God's secret will?
> 
> (Or am I being a fence-straddler?)
Click to expand...


I fail to see how the passage is obscure since David said that he would see the child again. Moreover, I am not sure how Esau comes into it as he did not die in infancy.

It should be noted that the Canons of Dordt are more explicit on the question than the Westminster Standards are.


----------



## tcalbrecht

PuritanCovenanter said:


> So the sign and seal saves now if a child dies in infancy? Is there more grace given to an infant child because of his baptism? I am not sure that is a good Paedo position.



My comment was directed at the nature of the hope we have for all our covenant children based on God's promise. It was not particular to the matter of infants and death.

The sign and seal is not related to the state of an elect infant dying in infancy. We baptize our children after the command given to Abraham and suitability modified for the new covenant. Not because we think our infant children might die.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

py3ak said:


> Bruce, would the same logic apply in reverse? Not too long ago a person whom I believe has no children announced on the board that he had become a paedo-baptist. Are we to disbelieve this until he has a child and baptizes him?



Jerry definitely has children of the age to baptize them.

If we said "I believe in covenant-child baptism" as defined and described in the WCF (the OPC std), and _as confessed_ certainly nothing as was described above as a Romish leftover, *but never followed through?*... I don't think that was any sort of conviction. The same words of the Confession say it is a sin to neglect this ordinance, as described.

From the OP, I read the queries offered to the pastor and elders as a plea to "convince me" that paedo-baptism was legitimate, not a statement that "Hey, I'm wavering here. Answer these new arguments that have moved me away from that which I was taught to embrace originally."

So which is it? Have we changed to a church more in keeping with convictions, or have we changed convictions and so sought out a suitable church?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

shackleton said:


> It does almost leave one (me anyway) with the lingering question that there would have to be two methods of salvation. One for adults, which is the way laid out in the New Testament, and another for babies. Does God suspend what he says is true for everyone else for the sake of babies who are not capable of believing? The answers I have read are along the lines of, babies would have to then be regenerated in the womb. This seems absurd but it is the logical conclusion one must come to in order to have babies who die before being regenerated, saved. On the other hand I do not believe God overlooks sin until a magical age of accountability. If we are all born _sinful_ then we would all be responsible for having our sin atoned for and since the atoning of sin comes through justification through faith the person justified would have to be capable of having faith.
> 
> It _seems_ like paedobaptism leads to an inevitable contradiction.
> 
> What about the mentally retarded, where do they fall in all this.



Answer to the second question:10:3 Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth: *so also, are all other elect persons who are uncapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word*.​To the first point, to be regenerated is to be endowed with a new capacity to believe savingly in the Lord Jesus Christ--previously an impossible condition to meet. In other words, it is necessary to lovingly apprehend Christ, to "see" him with the eyes of faith for who he is.

In our longer-lived selves, that capacity is acted upon in time and our faculties engaged, and we "see" the truth as it is in Jesus. In other words,, we exercise saving faith. We individually believe. and are saved. "Without faith it is impossible to please God."

Elect infants also must act on the capacity to believe they have been given through regeneration. Will they? Why not?!? In fact, they will "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" almost without having to "unlearn" anything, since all that growth takes place in his deivine presence. Do you think they believe in him? Will WE still be believing in him in glory? The answer to the latter is Yes, and so must be the former.


----------



## py3ak

Fair enough, Bruce. That answers my question, that it was because of particular circumstances that you had that inquiry.


----------



## Grymir

Zadok said:


> Mayflower said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jpechin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had to become a credobaptist primarily for the following reasons:
> .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> !!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mega
Click to expand...



Mega Ditto's!! (and I have the avatar to prove it!!)


----------



## jpechin

AV1611 said:


> This does not show how baptism is to be applied to professors only.



Water baptism does nothing but guarantee entrance into the visible church, not to the invisible (the primary focus of the new covenant, through faith). Since the goal of the new covenant is to baptize all nations in the triune God, *teaching* them, and getting them to *remember* Christ, it would seem likely that we're seeing a pattern emerge where 'professors' need to be the ones that are baptized into the church invisible, not being concerned as much with the church visible.



AV1611 said:


> Our desire is that God would save our children just as it would have been if we were born under the Old Testament.



Certainly. Then we agree that it matters more for our children to evidence the true sign and seal of the new covenant, which are the fruits of the Spirit in faith and repentance.



AV1611 said:


> The Canons of Dordt teach:
> Article 17 - Children of Believers Who Die in Infancy
> We must judge concerning the will of God from His Word, which declares that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they are included with their parents. Therefore, God-fearing parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in their infancy (Genesis 17:7; Acts 2:39; 1 Corinthians 7:14).



Tradition is brought to bear. I see nothing in the scripture references cited that would indicate that a child can 'inherit' salvation by being born into a covenantal family, nor that the visible covenantal sign can impart salvation. Otherwise Ishmael and Esau would be children of the covenant. It is clear that God's sovereignty matters completely more than who is born into a family of believers. Even the entirety of Acts 2 completely qualifies 2:39, with direct context certainly trumping the old covenant. 



AV1611 said:


> But you would be wrong to think that.


(regarding my statment on 'popery')

This was meant to be a light-hearted jab and challenge, but I can tell it's been completely blown out of proportion. I've been informed/warned by the moderators that this statement of popery is 'ignorant' and 'inflammatory', so I will speak no longer of it. Suffice it to say that my original statement said "to me" it was thus, and that it was a perception rather than dogma.


----------



## jpechin

Contra_Mundum said:


> Jerry,
> I'm curious, did you ever have any of your children baptized? If so, was it because of theological convictions, or just because that was the tradition you grew up in?



Yes, I had all 5 of my children baptized, so they'll be covered either way (sorry, bad joke!). I feel that I was convicted primarily by books/works that I was given to read, along with some key scripture verses. Some of those same scripture verses have me yet convicted of a sort of covenantal paradigm for the family, but one now where my primary field of evangelism is right in front of me.



Contra_Mundum said:


> I suppose I'm just curious to know if you have switched _*churches*_ to one more in line with your convictions, rather than a change of _*mind*_ on the proper subjects of baptism.



I have switched churches for many different reasons, along with some that are sinful, to be honest. I'm glad for my current elders, who have helped me to understand that the church that I left have brothers that are going to spend eternity with me, and that my method of leaving lacked a key virtue of God's kingdom - love.


----------



## jpechin

sastark said:


> So, you would tell a grieving parent that we really can't speak to the eternal state of their dead child? This may seem like I'm playing the "emotional manipulation card", but I think it is a very applicable question to ask: pastors have to deal with this exact sort of situation.



From a Reformed Baptist position, you would tell a grieving parent that we are in the hands of a sovereign God and that we have to trust that He will choose who his elect will be, despite who a child is born to.

Unfortunately, many different 'dogmatic' (for lack of a better word/vocabulary) positions have been laced about this issue, including the age of accountability. There simply is no guarantee from the scriptures, beyond a sovereign God who does with His creation what He wills (Romans 9).


----------



## jpechin

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Jeremiah, I am thankful for the change in your baptismal conviction. Grace to you and your family. I pray you left the OPC church displaying grace to those who were your shepherds in Christ.



If only I had. But I have, thank God, been convicted by my new elders and by our Lord of my hard heart. I've been changing quite a bit recently, but obviously have a far way to go. God is so good, to take on a despicable creature as myself ("even the dogs..."). 

It's a great church where I'm at, where all of the elders are involved with Vision Forum. I love it here. They study the reformers a lot (currently on Calvin's Institutes) and memorize scripture together (currently on Romans chapter 8). I also continue to fellowship with my departed church every other Thursday, where we just finished studying Pilgrim's Progress.


----------



## Ivan

JonathanHunt said:


> Well... we.... er... we don't get many threads like this.
> 
> Come on then, who's going to start congratulating our brother for going paedo to credo? Lots of dittos and icons and stuff?
> 
> C'mon baptists, lay it on thick!
> 
> Onlllly kidding.
> 
> Welcome, Jeremiah, and enjoy the ride.



A warm welcome from me, Jeremiah!


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Thanks for the response, J.



jpechin said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jerry,
> I'm curious, did you ever have any of your children baptized? If so, was it because of theological convictions, or just because that was the tradition you grew up in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I had all 5 of my children baptized, so they'll be covered either way (sorry, bad joke!). I feel that I was convicted primarily by books/works that I was given to read, along with some key scripture verses. Some of those same scripture verses have me yet convicted of a sort of covenantal paradigm for the family, but one now where my primary field of evangelism is right in front of me.
> 
> 
> 
> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose I'm just curious to know if you have switched _*churches*_ to one more in line with your convictions, rather than a change of _*mind*_ on the proper subjects of baptism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have switched churches for many different reasons, along with some that are sinful, to be honest. I'm glad for my current elders, who have helped me to understand that the church that I left have brothers that are going to spend eternity with me, and that my method of leaving lacked a key virtue of God's kingdom - love.
Click to expand...


----------



## jpechin

Contra_Mundum said:


> Jerry definitely has children of the age to baptize them.



Asked and answered. 



Contra_Mundum said:


> If we said "I believe in covenant-child baptism" as defined and described in the WCF (the OPC std)... ...I don't think that was any sort of conviction. The same words of the Confession say it is a sin to neglect this ordinance, as described.



No, unfortunately I must be viewed by the OPC as an oath-breaker, which saddens me to think of it. Nevertheless, I am convicted by the scritpures that I was wrong, and that the WFC is incorrect in saying that this is an ordinance commanded by God for our children (or else it would be obviously commanded).



Contra_Mundum said:


> From the OP, I read the queries offered to the pastor and elders as a plea to "convince me" that paedo-baptism was legitimate... So which is it? Have we changed to a church more in keeping with convictions, or have we changed convictions and so sought out a suitable church?



I allowed only a short time of dialog with OPC eldership, which is one of the handful of regrets that I have. I also regret that I rather quickly forced those beloved to arm's length and worked so as to quickly separate myself. I need to offer these regrets to them at some point, but I'm not sure about the how/where/when of that. I do know that I'm in the church that I needed to be in for some chastisement, discipleship, and love - God has definitely used this situation for His glory, so far, in my eyes.


----------



## jpechin

Ivan said:


> A warm welcome from me, Jeremiah!



Thanks, bubba - er - Ivan.


----------



## Soli Deo Gloria

Perhaps I am a little confused, and if so...please excuse me. But, jpechin...are you saying that we cannot know where an infant will spend eternity if it dies?

I have read a lot of discussion on this thread about elect infants...however, is it not safe to assume that ALL infants are elect? II Corinthians 5:10 makes it clear that we will be judged based on what we have done "in the body", whether good or evil. While we all have original sin, we are not judged based upon Adam's sin but are judged according to what we each have done.

I do not believe an infant has committed a sin "in the body", for an infant does not know right from wrong. Also, I believe in Deuteronomy 1 we see a prime example of infants being spared judgment. Deuteronomy 1:39 tells us that it were the children and infants...who "have no knowledge of good and evil"...that were spared from the generation of Israelites punished for their disobedience.

Charles Spurgeon preached a wonderful sermon on the topic of infant salvation, in which he put forth this same view.

Perhaps I am missing the boat here, but just a little puzzled by a claim that Scripture is silent on this issue. I don't believe that to be the case.


----------



## KMK

jpechin said:


> It's a great church where I'm at, where *all of the elders are involved with Vision Forum.* I love it here. They study the reformers a lot (currently on Calvin's Institutes) and memorize scripture together (currently on Romans chapter 8). I also continue to fellowship with my departed church every other Thursday, where we just finished studying Pilgrim's Progress.



What exactly does this mean? I get the VF newsletter and catalogues etc. What does it mean to be 'involved'?


----------



## AV1611

jpechin said:


> Water baptism does nothing but guarantee entrance into the visible church, not to the invisible (the primary focus of the new covenant, through faith).



So how does this disprove paedobaptism? Why not spend a little time to read David Dickson's _Of the Covenant of Grace_



jpechin said:


> Then we agree that it matters more for our children to evidence the true sign and seal of the new covenant, which are the fruits of the Spirit in faith and repentance.



By baptising our children we are recognising that they are members of the 'visible' church and that God has established a covenant with them demanding faith and repentance. This is what baptism signifies; as parents, we then raise our children up in the fear of the Lord knowing that God has made a covenant with our child(ren). 



jpechin said:


> I see nothing in the scripture references cited that would indicate that a child can 'inherit' salvation by being born into a covenantal family, nor that the visible covenantal sign can impart salvation.



The canons teach neither hence I suggest that you have misunderstood them. God has taught us that he makes a covenant with us and with our children. Because he promises to be their God we have no reason to doubt their salvation _if_ they die in infancy.


----------



## Pilgrim

Soli Deo Gloria said:


> Perhaps I am a little confused, and if so...please excuse me. But, jpechin...are you saying that we cannot know where an infant will spend eternity if it dies?
> 
> I have read a lot of discussion on this thread about elect infants...however, is it not safe to assume that ALL infants are elect? II Corinthians 5:10 makes it clear that we will be judged based on what we have done "in the body", whether good or evil. While we all have original sin, we are not judged based upon Adam's sin but are judged according to what we each have done.
> 
> I do not believe an infant has committed a sin "in the body", for an infant does not know right from wrong. Also, I believe in Deuteronomy 1 we see a prime example of infants being spared judgment. Deuteronomy 1:39 tells us that it were the children and infants...who "have no knowledge of good and evil"...that were spared from the generation of Israelites punished for their disobedience.
> 
> Charles Spurgeon preached a wonderful sermon on the topic of infant salvation, in which he put forth this same view.
> 
> Perhaps I am missing the boat here, but just a little puzzled by a claim that Scripture is silent on this issue. I don't believe that to be the case.



Spurgeon's sermon: Infant Salvation


----------



## Herald

Pilgrim said:


> Soli Deo Gloria said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps I am a little confused, and if so...please excuse me. But, jpechin...are you saying that we cannot know where an infant will spend eternity if it dies?
> 
> I have read a lot of discussion on this thread about elect infants...however, is it not safe to assume that ALL infants are elect? II Corinthians 5:10 makes it clear that we will be judged based on what we have done "in the body", whether good or evil. While we all have original sin, we are not judged based upon Adam's sin but are judged according to what we each have done.
> 
> I do not believe an infant has committed a sin "in the body", for an infant does not know right from wrong. Also, I believe in Deuteronomy 1 we see a prime example of infants being spared judgment. Deuteronomy 1:39 tells us that it were the children and infants...who "have no knowledge of good and evil"...that were spared from the generation of Israelites punished for their disobedience.
> 
> Charles Spurgeon preached a wonderful sermon on the topic of infant salvation, in which he put forth this same view.
> 
> Perhaps I am missing the boat here, but just a little puzzled by a claim that Scripture is silent on this issue. I don't believe that to be the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spurgeon's sermon: Infant Salvation
Click to expand...


Good sermon by Spurgeon. I am glad that he does not try to make the case for saving faith on the part of the infant.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Soli Deo Gloria said:


> I have read a lot of discussion on this thread about elect infants...*however, is it not safe to assume that ALL infants are elect? II Corinthians 5:10 makes it clear that we will be judged based on what we have done "in the body", whether good or evil. While we all have original sin, we are not judged based upon Adam's sin but are judged according to what we each have done.*
> 
> I do not believe an infant has committed a sin "in the body", for an infant does not know right from wrong. Also, I believe in Deuteronomy 1 we see a prime example of infants being spared judgment. Deuteronomy 1:39 tells us that it were the children and infants...who "have no knowledge of good and evil"...that were spared from the generation of Israelites punished for their disobedience.
> 
> Charles Spurgeon preached a wonderful sermon on the topic of infant salvation, in which he put forth this same view.
> 
> Perhaps I am missing the boat here, but just a little puzzled by a claim that Scripture is silent on this issue. I don't believe that to be the case.



This sounds like age of accountability teaching and that God is obligated to save all "innocent" young people prior to committing actual sin.


----------



## jpechin

Soli Deo Gloria said:


> Perhaps I am a little confused, and if so...please excuse me. But, jpechin...are you saying that we cannot know where an infant will spend eternity if it dies?



The most consistent view of a sovereign God is to lay our faith in the fact that He moves where He wills and wishes. Romans 9 tells us that He predestines some to glory and some to destruction, after telling us earlier that there is not one who is righteous. The elect are completely determined by God. Because I cannot find anything in the scriptures that says all infants who die early are automatically bound for heaven, I must lay my faith in God's design for His elect.



Soli Deo Gloria said:


> I have read a lot of discussion on this thread about elect infants...however, is it not safe to assume that ALL infants are elect?



I don't think that would be consistent with the fullness of scripture. The wind blows where it wishes. Also, under this model the kindest thing I could do for my children would be to murder them at birth, thereby making the abortionists vindicated. Regardless of my own sin in that scenario, my child is automatically saved.



Soli Deo Gloria said:


> I do not believe an infant has committed a sin "in the body", for an infant does not know right from wrong. Also, I believe in Deuteronomy 1 we see a prime example of infants being spared judgment. Deuteronomy 1:39 tells us that it were the children and infants...who "have no knowledge of good and evil"...that were spared from the generation of Israelites punished for their disobedience.



We're not saved by our works. Works are the evidence of the elect. If we are judged by our works, it is because we are judged by our spiritual nature first (as we are clothed in Christ, we are allowed to enter into the marriage feast - without Him, we are thrown into the outer darkness). Regarding Deut 1:39, those 'children' were all those younger than 20 (the age of men of war, see Joshua 5:6 and Numbers 1:3), and it was because God had condemned a generation from entering the promised land. This is evidence that covenantal heads of state and family can cause curses to fall on their nation and families as a result of their sin. Completely different from eternal election, from what I see, just as the curses of God upon Israel (Babylon, etc) did not discount an individual covenant member (such as Daniel) from being one of God's elect. There was always a remnant.



Soli Deo Gloria said:


> Charles Spurgeon preached a wonderful sermon on the topic of infant salvation, in which he put forth this same view.



Thanks. I'll look it up. Maybe you can provide a reference. I doubt that it will change my view from the scriptures, though. I don't mean to be egotistical, as I am very thankful for my fathers in the faith, but they all seemed to have their quirks, didn't they?



Soli Deo Gloria said:


> Perhaps I am missing the boat here, but just a little puzzled by a claim that Scripture is silent on this issue. I don't believe that to be the case.



I didn't necessarily say it was silent. I doubt scripture is ever silent on any issue. However, the scriptures are pretty clear that our eternal state is determined before the foundation of the earth, not based on legal ramifications or a temporal event. Our election is engineered through means, etc, in a temporal sense, yes, but it is determined before we are born and is based on God's plan, not our works or lack thereof. So, just as our election is secure in God based on his sovereignty and not our works, it cannot be made secure (or otherwise) based on an absence of works, based on who we are born to, nor based on anything in the temporal sense. "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."


----------



## jpechin

KMK said:


> What exactly does this mean? I get the VF newsletter and catalogues etc. What does it mean to be 'involved'?



I go to Hope Baptist in Wake Forest, where the elders are Scott Brown, Dan Horn, Steve Breaggy, and Jason Dohm. They are all regular speakers for Vision Forum and The National Center for Family-Integrated Churches (NCFIC) conferences. If you can imagine the richness of the VF audio sermons fed to you regularly on Sundays (morning and evening), Tuesday mornings, and then with all of the local conferences, you get just a small taste of what it's like to be here. There are men that move from all over the states just to come to this church. No, we're not perfect, obviously, but I absolutely love the vision and goals and I'm so glad that this is where God would have me to be. I love it there, and never want to leave. 

Funny thing is, I knew it was here before and decided not to attend, as I was at odds with some of the VF visions. Boy, was that stupid of me!


----------



## jpechin

KMK said:


> What exactly does this mean? I get the VF newsletter and catalogues etc. What does it mean to be 'involved'?



Oh, by the way, I get to meet Doug Phillips on Memorial Day. I'm completely excited!!!! I'm going to tell him that I want to meet and talk to his brother, Brad, about missions, too.


----------



## jpechin

AV1611 said:


> So how does this disprove paedobaptism? Why not spend a little time to read David Dickson's Of the Covenant of Grace



I'd rather read what the scriptures have to say about it, but I may take a look for curiosity's sake.



AV1611 said:


> The canons teach neither hence I suggest that you have misunderstood them. God has taught us that he makes a covenant with us and with our children. Because he promises to be their God we have no reason to doubt their salvation _if_ they die in infancy.



I fully understand the "sign and seal" of the covenant, and I understand what I was taught while under presbyterian rule. I have studied the issue enough to believe that 'presumptive regeneration', the concept which had been presented to me, does not fit with the scriptures. One cannot be of the elect simply by being born into a faithful covenantal family, nor can we assume so for an infant based on scripture. The assumption should be that God will seal His elect beyond anything necessarily visible, based on His sovereignty alone.

I am bound by no canon or creed, except directly by the word of God in His scriptures.

By the way, I'm not attempting to 'disprove paedobaptism', as you put it. I am discussing why one position is more viable than another from the scriptures, fully recognizing that both paedo and credo are tenable positions from scriptural prooftexts. There may be elements of paedo, such as presumptive regeneration, that leave a bad taste in my mouth, but I certainly won't disown a brother for his position on the matter. I even have issues with credo covenantalism, such as how I am supposed to view the prayers of my non-believing children (I conclude, for now, that the H.S./Jesus will recognize the prayers of His elect and thereby mediate them accordingly).


----------



## AV1611

jpechin said:


> I'd rather read what the scriptures have to say about it, but I may take a look for curiosity's sake.



David Dickson is explaining the Scriptures.



jpechin said:


> I fully understand the "sign and seal" of the covenant, and I understand what I was taught while under presbyterian rule. I have studied the issue enough to believe that 'presumptive regeneration', the concept which had been presented to me, does not fit with the scriptures. One cannot be of the elect simply by being born into a faithful covenantal family, nor can we assume so for an infant based on scripture. The assumption should be that God will seal His elect beyond anything necessarily visible, based on His sovereignty alone.



I am glad you reject presumptive regeneration, so do I. Try these:

Contra Schenck « Building Old School Churches
SermonAudio.com - Children of the Covenant



jpechin said:


> There may be elements of paedo, such as presumptive regeneration, that leave a bad taste in my mouth, but I certainly won't disown a brother for his position on the matter.



I am not advocating, nor do our Standards teach, presumptive regeneration.


----------



## JM

Here's an interesting article:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/why-i-have-switched-paedo-credo-19507/


----------



## AV1611

JM said:


> Here's an interesting article:
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/why-i-have-switched-paedo-credo-19507/



I found a covenantal credo-baptist argument convincing for a month or two until I realised that the arguments I brought to bear against paedobaptism were in fact founded upon major exegetical errors hence I switched back to the biblical position.


----------



## JM

k


----------



## refbaptdude

Jeremiah,

Congratulations in coming to the credobaptist position.


----------



## Soli Deo Gloria

tcalbrecht said:


> This sounds like age of accountability teaching and that God is obligated to save all "innocent" young people prior to committing actual sin.



I never said God is obligated to save all innocent young people. God isn't obligated to save anyone.

However, it is clear from Scripture that God saves the elect. The question therefore is NOT whether God is "obligated" to save the innocent young people...but whether has God *already included *them in the elect? Men like Spurgeon and Gill thought so...as well as current Reformed Baptists, like Dr. Al Mohler. So there are many within the Reformed camp who see all infants as belonging to the elect.

I mentioned II Corinthians 5:10 just to express that each of us judged for what we have done in the body, and not for Adam's sin. in my opinion, this is a key verse when discussing this topic.


----------



## Soli Deo Gloria

jpechin said:


> The most consistent view of a sovereign God is to lay our faith in the fact that He moves where He wills and wishes. Romans 9 tells us that He predestines some to glory and some to destruction, after telling us earlier that there is not one who is righteous. The elect are completely determined by God. Because I cannot find anything in the scriptures that says all infants who die early are automatically bound for heaven, I must lay my faith in God's design for His elect.



I agree with this. However, once again, there are passages in Scripture that show infants not being punished because they did not know good from evil. Deuteronomy 1 is one such case. I would agree completely that the elect are completely determined by God. I would also say that we can safely assume that all those dieing as infants were included by God in the elect. Do I know this 100%...no. But I believe a strong case can be made for it from Scripture. 



jpechin said:


> Also, under this model the kindest thing I could do for my children would be to murder them at birth, thereby making the abortionists vindicated.



in my opinion, this is creating a straw man. Of course we shouldn't kill our children...for that would be murder, and hence, a sin. However, if a infant, knowing no right or wrong, dies...I think it is safe to assume that God has included that infant in the elect.



jpechin said:


> Regarding Deut 1:39, those 'children' were all those younger than 20 (the age of men of war, see Joshua 5:6 and Numbers 1:3), and it was because God had condemned a generation from entering the promised land.



With all respect, where do you get the age of 20 in this passage? That verse makes it clear that those who were not punished were "your little ones"...who today, "have no knowledge of good or evil". Last time I checked, a 20 year old is not a "little one" nor does he/she have no knowledge of good and evil.

I understand the generation issue, however, I believe what is being discussed in this instance are infants and small children.



jpechin said:


> Thanks. I'll look it up. Maybe you can provide a reference. I doubt that it will change my view from the scriptures, though. I don't mean to be egotistical, as I am very thankful for my fathers in the faith, but they all seemed to have their quirks, didn't they?



I believe there is a link above. I love these words by Spurgeon:

"Before I enter upon that I would make one observation. It has been wickedly, lyingly, and slanderously said of Calvinists, that we believe that some little children perish. Those who make the accusation know that their charge is false. I cannot even dare to hope, though I would wish to do so, that they ignorantly misrepresent us. They wickedly repeat what has been denied a thousand times, what they know is not true. 

In Calvin's advice to Omit, he interprets the second commandment "shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me," as referring to generations, and hence he seems to teach that infants who have had pious ancestors, no matter how remotely, dying as infants are saved. This would certainly take in the whole race. As for modern Calvinists, I know of no exception, but we all hope and believe that all persons dying in infancy are elect. 

Dr. Gill, who has been looked upon in late times as being a very standard of Calvinism, not to say of ultra-Calvinism, himself never hints for a moment the supposition that any infant has perished, but affirms of it that it is a dark and mysterious subject, but that it is his belief, and he thinks he has Scripture to warrant it, that they who have fallen asleep in infancy have not perished, but have been numbered with the chosen of God, and so have entered into eternal rest. 

We have never taught the contrary, and when the charge is brought, I repudiate it and say, "You may have said so, we never did, and you know we never did. If you dare to repeat the slander again, let the lie stand in scarlet on your very cheek if you be capable of a blush." We have never dreamed of such a thing. With very few and rare exceptions, so rare that I never heard of them except from the lips of slanderers, we have never imagined that infants dying as infants have perished, but we have believed that they enter into the paradise of God."

Amen Spurgeon!


----------



## Soli Deo Gloria

btw, Jeremiah...I congratulate you on coming to the credobaptist position! Don't take my discussion with you as anything less.

I have wrestled with the baptism issue now for almost two years. I can say that I am almost settled on this issue, although I continue to study. Blessings to you in your future studies.


----------



## jpechin

Soli Deo Gloria said:


> With all respect, where do you get the age of 20 in this passage?
> 
> Read Joshua 5:6 for the cross-reference to that age, and Numbers 1:3 for the definition of 'man of war'.
> 
> Also, I think the main differential between what we are talking about is that all of mankind is damned and going to hell, outside of God's intervention. He is plucking those He desires to save out of creation.
> 
> I would also say that age or even experience would be conditions, causing God's election to be conditional.
> 
> As this is now moving into a slightly different area, maybe we should start a different thread on the matter.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Soli Deo Gloria said:


> I never said God is obligated to save all innocent young people. God isn't obligated to save anyone.
> 
> However, it is clear from Scripture that God saves the elect. The question therefore is NOT whether God is "obligated" to save the innocent young people...but whether has God *already included *them in the elect? Men like Spurgeon and Gill thought so...as well as current Reformed Baptists, like Dr. Al Mohler. So there are many within the Reformed camp who see all infants as belonging to the elect.
> 
> I mentioned II Corinthians 5:10 just to express that each of us judged for what we have done in the body, and not for Adam's sin. in my opinion, this is a key verse when discussing this topic.



I hear what you are saying and now you seem to be equivocating.

If by quoting 2 Cor. 5:10 you mean to contend that God only judges actual sin committed in the body, then clearly God is obligated to allow everyone into heaven who has not reached an age where they can commit actual sin. Otherwise, there is no basis for a negative judgment, since you appear to deny that original sin is sufficient for such judgment. This seems like a Protestant twist on the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

You seem to want to get around this by claiming that all "innocent" infants as a class are automatically counted among the elect. Wouldn’t that make God a respecter of person?

I realize that there are many good Reformed men who believe in the election of all infants dying in infancy, but the argument, in my opinion, is based on reasons other than the explicit Word of God. 

That is why the WCF correctly uses the language "elect infants dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ ". It does not presume upon God as to who is elect and who is not.


----------



## Thomas2007

jpechin said:


> I don't think that would be consistent with the fullness of scripture. The wind blows where it wishes. Also, under this model the kindest thing I could do for my children would be to murder them at birth, thereby making the abortionists vindicated. Regardless of my own sin in that scenario, my child is automatically saved.



There is a certain crassness in your thinking and expression that indicates an attitude that is troubling to me.


----------



## Soli Deo Gloria

tcalbrecht said:


> I realize that there are many good Reformed men who believe in the election of all infants dying in infancy, but the argument, in my opinion, is based on reasons other than the explicit Word of God.



And that would be *your* opinion. I have given you just a few passages from Scripture that seem to indicate God's dealings with infants. Just because you wish to apply a different interpretation doesn't change what those passages say.

I stand by what I have said and the verses given. If you cannot find in those verses the proof needed, then I don't see how I or anyone else could convince you.

I just believe a position such as being advocated by some on this is a very dangerous position to take and one, as Spurgeon says, that is not representative of many Reformed Christians...especially Reformed Baptists. There are many great Reformed men who would cringe at the idea that the Reformed doctrines are being used to teach against the election of infants.

Blessings brother.


----------



## Soli Deo Gloria

Thomas2007 said:


> There is a certain crassness in your thinking and expression that indicates an attitude that is troubling to me.



Was this directed at me Thomas?

If so, I am sorry if I am coming across that way. I do not mean to.


----------



## Thomas2007

Soli Deo Gloria said:


> Thomas2007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a certain crassness in your thinking and expression that indicates an attitude that is troubling to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was this directed at me Thomas?
> 
> If so, I am sorry if I am coming across that way. I do not mean to.
Click to expand...


Hello,

Sorry, I cleaned up my quote, apparently I cut and paste in the wrong place - it was to Jeremy.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Soli Deo Gloria said:


> *I just believe a position such as being advocated by some on this is a very dangerous position to take and one*, as Spurgeon says, that is not representative of many Reformed Christians...especially Reformed Baptists. There are many great Reformed men who would cringe at the idea that the Reformed doctrines are being used to teach against the election of infants.



Dangerous? How so?

Are you (or Spurgeon) suggesting that God is unjust if He did not elect all infants dying in infancy, infants who are, by nature, the children of wrath (Eph. 2:3)?


----------



## KMK

Soli Deo Gloria said:


> I would also say that we can safely assume that all those dieing as infants were included by God in the elect. *Do I know this 100%...no*. But I believe a strong case can be made for it from Scripture.





tcalbrecht said:


> Soli Deo Gloria said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I just believe a position such as being advocated by some on this is a very dangerous position to take and one*, as Spurgeon says, that is not representative of many Reformed Christians...especially Reformed Baptists. There are many great Reformed men who would cringe at the idea that the Reformed doctrines are being used to teach against the election of infants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dangerous? How so?
> 
> Are you (or Spurgeon) suggesting that God is unjust if He did not elect all infants dying in infancy, infants who are, by nature, the children of wrath (Eph. 2:3)?
Click to expand...


If you admit that you do not know this '100%' and we know that the church throughout history has not known this '100%' then why would it be dangerous to argue against it? It seems to me that it would be more dangerous to argue so emphatically in favor of something of which you admit you are not 100% sure.


----------



## Soli Deo Gloria

tcalbrecht said:


> Dangerous? How so?
> 
> Are you (or Spurgeon) suggesting that God is unjust if He did not elect all infants dying in infancy, infants who are, by nature, the children of wrath (Eph. 2:3)?



Dangerous in the sense that it could give someone the wrong impression regarding Reformed convictions. I wouldn't want someone assuming that *all* Reformed believers thought there was no way to say whether or not infants are part of the elect. That would not be the case.

As I said, many great Reformed preachers and theologians held and hold to the election of infants. That needs to be stated clearly, especially if you don't hold to the election and are counseling someone who just lost an infant in death.


----------



## KMK

Soli Deo Gloria said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dangerous? How so?
> 
> Are you (or Spurgeon) suggesting that God is unjust if He did not elect all infants dying in infancy, infants who are, by nature, the children of wrath (Eph. 2:3)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dangerous in the sense that it could give someone the wrong impression regarding Reformed convictions. I wouldn't want someone assuming that *all* Reformed believers thought there was no way to say whether or not infants are part of the elect. That would not be the case.
> 
> As I said, many great Reformed preachers and theologians held and hold to the election of infants. That needs to be stated clearly, especially if you don't hold to the election and are counseling someone who just lost an infant in death.
Click to expand...


So we are to never argue about things that contradict the opinions of many preachers who call themselves 'Reformed' because it is dangerous?


----------



## Soli Deo Gloria

KMK said:


> So we are to never argue about things that contradict the opinions of many preachers who call themselves 'Reformed' because it is dangerous?



Argue and debate is one thing.

Implying that all Reformed believers hold to one view on said topic is another.

If I was to counsel someone who had just lost their infant child, I would be upfront and say there is disagreements on this issue and that many great Godly men have disagreed. Then I would express my view of Scripture to them and most likely recommend reading to them, i.e. Spurgeon's sermon.

However, I would never claim or even imply that ALL Reformed believers agreed with me. And I would hope those who disagree with the election of infants would hold forth the same courtesy.

Being in a Southern Baptist church KMK...I am very aware of how Calvinist can be attacked based on issues such as these. When someone says that "all Calvinists" believe there is no way to know if an infant is going to heaven...that statement bothers me. Because it isn't true. Some Calvinist may believe that, however, many more don't.


----------



## AV1611

Soli Deo Gloria said:


> If I was to counsel someone who had just lost their infant child, I would be upfront and say there is disagreements on this issue and that many great Godly men have disagreed.



I would not because the Scripture is clear, God has promised to be a God to our children. Does that mean that all are therefore saved? Not at all, but because of God's promise we have no reason to doubt that they are now in heaven.


----------



## Soli Deo Gloria

AV1611 said:


> Soli Deo Gloria said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I was to counsel someone who had just lost their infant child, I would be upfront and say there is disagreements on this issue and that many great Godly men have disagreed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would not because the Scripture is clear, God has promised to be a God to our children. Does that mean that all are therefore saved? Not at all, but because of God's promise we have no reason to doubt that they are now in heaven.
Click to expand...


Good point and one to ponder.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Soli Deo Gloria said:


> Dangerous in the sense that it could give someone the wrong impression regarding Reformed convictions. I wouldn't want someone assuming that *all* Reformed believers thought there was no way to say whether or not infants are part of the elect. That would not be the case.



I realize Reformed Baptists are somewhat of a different breed, but is there any Reformed denomination or group that has confessionally adopted the position that "all infants without distinction dying in infancy, are no doubt regenerated and saved by Christ"? 

Or are you suggesting that the opinion of individual Reformed Christians equates to "Reformed convictions"?



Soli Deo Gloria said:


> As I said, many great Reformed preachers and theologians held and hold to the election of infants. That needs to be stated clearly, especially if you don't hold to the election and are counseling someone who just lost an infant in death.



If honesty is the issue, are you equally quick to point out to these same folks that not all Reformed folk hold to the notion of universal election of all infants dying in infancy?


----------



## KMK

AV1611 said:


> Soli Deo Gloria said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I was to counsel someone who had just lost their infant child, I would be upfront and say there is disagreements on this issue and that many great Godly men have disagreed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would not because the Scripture is clear, God has promised to be a God to our children. Does that mean that all are therefore saved? Not at all, but because of God's promise we have no reason to doubt that they are now in heaven.
Click to expand...


Who in this thread has been 'doubting'? To say, "I don't know," is not to doubt. I believe the Reformed walk a thin line between 'doubting' and 'expecting'. 

If I was counseling someone I would leave out the disagreements among Godly men and just admit that I don't know. It is entirely in God's hands.


----------



## Hippo

jpechin said:


> 2. When I asked the OPC elders how I should consider a baby that has died after baptism but before they have displayed any fruits of repentance or faith, the answer was, "we should assume that this child is saved." This is the most consistent and systematic version of paedobaptism, as I presently understand. One is imparting the covenant, rather than God laying His guarantee upon it with the sealing in the Spirit. I simply cannot accept this model, in light of God's sovereignty.



It should also be pointed out that a belief in presumptive regeneration underpins and arguably leads to an FV position.


----------



## jpechin

Thomas2007 said:


> jpechin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that would be consistent with the fullness of scripture. The wind blows where it wishes. Also, under this model the kindest thing I could do for my children would be to murder them at birth, thereby making the abortionists vindicated. Regardless of my own sin in that scenario, my child is automatically saved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a certain crassness in your thinking and expression that indicates an attitude that is troubling to me.
Click to expand...


Not sure why you would say that. There is much harsher language in the scriptures, in general. What I'm indicating is that we should really have no ability to directly affect the eternal status of an individual, and with this model I think you are able to do exactly that. By the way, this example is typical within Christendom - I've heard it a number of times.


----------



## jpechin

AV1611 said:


> Soli Deo Gloria said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I was to counsel someone who had just lost their infant child, I would be upfront and say there is disagreements on this issue and that many great Godly men have disagreed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would not because the Scripture is clear, God has promised to be a God to our children. Does that mean that all are therefore saved? Not at all, but because of God's promise we have no reason to doubt that they are now in heaven.
Click to expand...


But that's just the problem. I don't see a direct promise that the children born to believers are heaven bound until they either become covenant breakers or regenerate.


----------



## jpechin

Hippo said:


> It should also be pointed out that a belief in presumptive regeneration underpins and arguably leads to an FV position.



FV?


----------



## Pilgrim

jpechin said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should also be pointed out that a belief in presumptive regeneration underpins and arguably leads to an FV position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FV?
Click to expand...


Federal Vision.


----------



## Zadok

AV1611 said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an interesting article:
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/why-i-have-switched-paedo-credo-19507/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I found a covenantal credo-baptist argument convincing for a month or two until I realised that the arguments I brought to bear against paedobaptism were in fact founded upon major exegetical errors hence I switched back to the biblical position.
Click to expand...


----------



## Zadok

AV1611 said:


> Soli Deo Gloria said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I was to counsel someone who had just lost their infant child, I would be upfront and say there is disagreements on this issue and that many great Godly men have disagreed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would not because the Scripture is clear, God has promised to be a God to our children. Does that mean that all are therefore saved? Not at all, but because of God's promise we have no reason to doubt that they are now in heaven.
Click to expand...


So, not saved, but in heaven?


----------



## jpechin

Zadok said:


> So, not saved, but in heaven?



:ROFL:

You're too much.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Zadok said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soli Deo Gloria said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I was to counsel someone who had just lost their infant child, I would be upfront and say there is disagreements on this issue and that many great Godly men have disagreed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would not because the Scripture is clear, God has promised to be a God to our children. Does that mean that all are therefore saved? Not at all, but because of God's promise we have no reason to doubt that they are now in heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, not saved, but in heaven?
Click to expand...


I'm not sure if you are really as obtuse as you seem in your last post but this is not terribly difficult to grasp.

The choices are these:

1. We _should_ doubt that the children of believers are in heaven if they die at a young age.
or
2. We _should not_ doubt that the children of believers are in heaven if they die at a young age.

Is it your position that believing parents _should_ doubt that their children are in heaven if they die at a young age? If so, what Scriptures would you marshall to demonstrate that a Pastor ought to counsel grieving parents that their children are in Hell?


----------



## KMK

Semper Fidelis said:


> Zadok said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would not because the Scripture is clear, God has promised to be a God to our children. Does that mean that all are therefore saved? Not at all, but because of God's promise we have no reason to doubt that they are now in heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, not saved, but in heaven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if you are really as obtuse as you seem in your last post but this is not terribly difficult to grasp.
> 
> The choices are these:
> 
> 1. We _should_ doubt that the children of believers are in heaven if they die at a young age.
> or
> 2. We _should not_ doubt that the children of believers are in heaven if they die at a young age.
> 
> Is it your position that believing parents _should_ doubt that their children are in heaven if they die at a young age? If so, what Scriptures would you marshall to demonstrate that a Pastor ought to counsel grieving parents that their children are in Hell?
Click to expand...


I am not being obtuse, Rick, but would like to get an honest answer for this question: Does the Presbyterian read the Canons of Dort Article 17 which says, "Therefore, God-fearing parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in their infancy," and say to themselves, "There! God-fearing parents ought to _expect_ the salvation of their children?"

It seems obvious to me that the 'God-fearing' parent occupies a 'middle-ground' between doubt and expectation. Am I missing something?


----------



## jpechin

Semper Fidelis said:


> Zadok said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would not because the Scripture is clear, God has promised to be a God to our children. Does that mean that all are therefore saved? Not at all, but because of God's promise we have no reason to doubt that they are now in heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, not saved, but in heaven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if you are really as obtuse as you seem in your last post but this is not terribly difficult to grasp.
> 
> The choices are these:
> 
> 1. We _should_ doubt that the children of believers are in heaven if they die at a young age.
> or
> 2. We _should not_ doubt that the children of believers are in heaven if they die at a young age.
> 
> Is it your position that believing parents _should_ doubt that their children are in heaven if they die at a young age? If so, what Scriptures would you marshall to demonstrate that a Pastor ought to counsel grieving parents that their children are in Hell?
Click to expand...


I would think that it's much more obtuse to refuse to believe that there is any other option than those which you list, for any given scripture - that's like saying we're always 100% wrong or 100% right, all the time. 

There is a third choice in this situation, which is simply:

*3) I don't know. I can't assume or doubt anything because it's not clearly outlined in scripture. It's in the hands of God. He is sovereign and He will determine who are of His elect.* 

This is a more consistent theology of election. I still have seen nothing from the scriptures that would turn one aside from from the paradigm of God sovereignly selecting his elect, despite any practical and/or conditional application of age or lack of works or supposed lack of sins.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

Are the promises of God freely offered to the non-elect?

Thanks in advance,

-CH


----------



## Semper Fidelis

KMK said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zadok said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, not saved, but in heaven?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if you are really as obtuse as you seem in your last post but this is not terribly difficult to grasp.
> 
> The choices are these:
> 
> 1. We _should_ doubt that the children of believers are in heaven if they die at a young age.
> or
> 2. We _should not_ doubt that the children of believers are in heaven if they die at a young age.
> 
> Is it your position that believing parents _should_ doubt that their children are in heaven if they die at a young age? If so, what Scriptures would you marshall to demonstrate that a Pastor ought to counsel grieving parents that their children are in Hell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not being obtuse, Rick, but would like to get an honest answer for this question: Does the Presbyterian read the Canons of Dort Article 17 which says, "Therefore, God-fearing parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in their infancy," and say to themselves, "There! God-fearing parents ought to _expect_ the salvation of their children?"
> 
> It seems obvious to me that the 'God-fearing' parent occupies a 'middle-ground' between doubt and expectation. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...


Ken,

I assume you understand that doubt connotes a type of uncertainty that considers something *unlikely*. It's a type of uncertainty that objects to something that it is not likely to be.

You seem to miss the point that telling someone to _not doubt_ a thing is the same as telling them they must _be certain_ of the contrary. It does not follow.

Those who lack Pastoral wisdom cannot see the substantial difference between saying:

1) Godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.
or
2) Godly parents must be taught the certainty of the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.

The two seem equivalent to the simple minded but they are not. If the simple cannot grasp this substantial difference then I suggest they gain more knowledge before they try to play the wise man.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

jpechin said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zadok said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, not saved, but in heaven?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if you are really as obtuse as you seem in your last post but this is not terribly difficult to grasp.
> 
> The choices are these:
> 
> 1. We _should_ doubt that the children of believers are in heaven if they die at a young age.
> or
> 2. We _should not_ doubt that the children of believers are in heaven if they die at a young age.
> 
> Is it your position that believing parents _should_ doubt that their children are in heaven if they die at a young age? If so, what Scriptures would you marshall to demonstrate that a Pastor ought to counsel grieving parents that their children are in Hell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would think that it's much more obtuse to refuse to believe that there is any other option than those which you list, for any given scripture - that's like saying we're always 100% wrong or 100% right, all the time.
> 
> There is a third choice in this situation, which is simply:
> 
> *3) I don't know. I can't assume or doubt anything because it's not clearly outlined in scripture. It's in the hands of God. He is sovereign and He will determine who are of His elect.*
> 
> This is a more consistent theology of election. I still have seen nothing from the scriptures that would turn one aside from from the paradigm of God sovereignly selecting his elect, despite any practical and/or conditional application of age or lack of works or supposed lack of sins.
Click to expand...


Even as you attempt to rescue yourself from the charge of being obtuse in this matter you actually prove yourself the same.



> I don't know. *I can't* assume or *doubt* anything because it's not clearly outlined in scripture. It's in the hands of God. He is sovereign and He will determine who are of His elect.



As you have just demonstrated *you don't doubt* and prove my point that we have the option to either doubt or not to doubt the salvation of our children. You choose to not doubt.


----------



## jpechin

Semper Fidelis said:


> As you have just demonstrated *you don't doubt* and prove my point that we have the option to either doubt or not to doubt the salvation of our children. You choose to not doubt.



No, I said we have no ability to assume, doubt, or ANYTHING when it comes to election, which is completely and utterly determined by God outside of any human parameter or condition. No amount of wordplay will change that.


----------



## AV1611

jpechin said:


> No, I said we have no ability to assume, doubt, or ANYTHING when it comes to election, which is completely and utterly determined by God outside of any human parameter or condition. No amount of wordplay will change that.



Has God made a promise to be the God of our children?

*Gen 17:7* "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee."

*Deut 30:6* "And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live."

*Isa 59:20* "And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD. As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

*Jer 32:37-40* "Behold, I will gather them out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them again unto this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely: And they shall be my people, and I will be their God: And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them: And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me."


----------



## Herald

AV1611 said:


> jpechin said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I said we have no ability to assume, doubt, or ANYTHING when it comes to election, which is completely and utterly determined by God outside of any human parameter or condition. No amount of wordplay will change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has God made a promise to be the God of our children?
> 
> *Gen 17:7* "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee."
> 
> *Deut 30:6* "And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live."
> 
> *Isa 59:20* "And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD. As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."
> 
> *Jer 32:37-40* "Behold, I will gather them out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them again unto this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely: And they shall be my people, and I will be their God: And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them: And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me."
Click to expand...


Richard, I believe infants who die go to be with the Lord. But the verses you cited do not necessarily state the Lord has made a covenant with our _children_. Making a covenant with "thy seed" can be interpreted differently than children born to believers. "Seed" can also apply to the believing covenant community; true followers of Yahweh.


----------



## shackleton

So if a Reformed or Presbyterian pastor is asked to do a funeral for a baby who has died of SIDS. It is the child of a family member who was obviously not saved and they know that you are a pastor and ask you if their baby is "sleeping peacefully in the arms of Jesus right now"...what would you tell them. 

Since they are most likely not saved and their children have not been baptized, and cannot be since the parents are known unbelievers, how would you handle that situation?


----------



## Pilgrim

Semper Fidelis said:


> jpechin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if you are really as obtuse as you seem in your last post but this is not terribly difficult to grasp.
> 
> The choices are these:
> 
> 1. We _should_ doubt that the children of believers are in heaven if they die at a young age.
> or
> 2. We _should not_ doubt that the children of believers are in heaven if they die at a young age.
> 
> Is it your position that believing parents _should_ doubt that their children are in heaven if they die at a young age? If so, what Scriptures would you marshall to demonstrate that a Pastor ought to counsel grieving parents that their children are in Hell?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that it's much more obtuse to refuse to believe that there is any other option than those which you list, for any given scripture - that's like saying we're always 100% wrong or 100% right, all the time.
> 
> There is a third choice in this situation, which is simply:
> 
> *3) I don't know. I can't assume or doubt anything because it's not clearly outlined in scripture. It's in the hands of God. He is sovereign and He will determine who are of His elect.*
> 
> This is a more consistent theology of election. I still have seen nothing from the scriptures that would turn one aside from from the paradigm of God sovereignly selecting his elect, despite any practical and/or conditional application of age or lack of works or supposed lack of sins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even as you attempt to rescue yourself from the charge of being obtuse in this matter you actually prove yourself the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. *I can't* assume or *doubt* anything because it's not clearly outlined in scripture. It's in the hands of God. He is sovereign and He will determine who are of His elect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you have just demonstrated *you don't doubt* and prove my point that we have the option to either doubt or not to doubt the salvation of our children. You choose to not doubt.
Click to expand...


Rich, 

To make sure I am understanding you correctly, is it your position that "covenant children" should either be presumed regenerate or unregenerate and that there is no other legitimate alternative?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Some thoughts:

Election and regeneration are not the same; the former decreed from eternity, the latter effected in time. I was elect before I was regenerated. If an elect infant dies before regeneration, he is no less elect.

Paedos baptize their infants only because of the command given that the seed of Abraham – which we are (Gal 3:29) – put “the token of the covenant” (Gen 17:11) on _their_ seed. We would be foolish to assume the election of our children in light of the status of Esau (and the mass of unbelieving covenant-breakers in the progeny of Jacob). _And yet_, we have reason to hope they are indeed “children of promise”.

Did Esau’s unbelief / apostasy annul God’s promise? If a fruit tree bears some bad fruit is the whole tree bad? God says there are children of the mere flesh, and children of promise.

I have no hope for the dying infants of the wicked. I trust God to do what is good in His eyes. In this area I do not know what is good in His eyes.

The middle ground between doubt and expectation is hope. Not a “sure” hope, but a godly hope nonetheless. It is a hope built on trust in His goodness, and covenant faithfulness. 

Were I to counsel believing parents grieving the loss of an infant, I would say, You are godly parents, and have reason to hope in the election of your child. Your trust in your Savior will uphold you.

Our children are not “made…token members of some visible fraternity”, as though circumcision was and baptism is something _we_ made up; they are brought into the organic life of God’s community at His command.

Peter says that the promise – not only of the Holy Spirit, but of the blessing of Abraham in its fullness – is to all who believe, “and to your children” (Acts 2:39). In what respect would it be to their children? Entrance into the covenant is the only answer. On the same basis as aforetime. And the same situation as of old would obtain: not all of the seed of the covenant believers would be elect, although they would have been under the gracious influences of God’s ministry and care:

For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:

But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned. …(Heb 6:7, 8)​
If we are indeed “the seed of Abraham” why would we not be subject to the command pertaining to his seed? Because we are in the days of the fulfillment of that covenant are we to reckon it rescinded? On what authority?

Infants of old took on circumcision _through the faith – *and obedience* – of their parents_. This obedience seems to be something easily omitted today. As the seed of Abraham we have the _*exact*_ obligation to initiate our seed into the covenant. Why do some New Covenant believers divorce themselves from this obedience?


----------



## KMK

Semper Fidelis said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if you are really as obtuse as you seem in your last post but this is not terribly difficult to grasp.
> 
> The choices are these:
> 
> 1. We _should_ doubt that the children of believers are in heaven if they die at a young age.
> or
> 2. We _should not_ doubt that the children of believers are in heaven if they die at a young age.
> 
> Is it your position that believing parents _should_ doubt that their children are in heaven if they die at a young age? If so, what Scriptures would you marshall to demonstrate that a Pastor ought to counsel grieving parents that their children are in Hell?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not being obtuse, Rick, but would like to get an honest answer for this question: Does the Presbyterian read the Canons of Dort Article 17 which says, "Therefore, God-fearing parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in their infancy," and say to themselves, "There! God-fearing parents ought to _expect_ the salvation of their children?"
> 
> It seems obvious to me that the 'God-fearing' parent occupies a 'middle-ground' between doubt and expectation. Am I missing something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ken,
> 
> I assume you understand that doubt connotes a type of uncertainty that considers something *unlikely*. It's a type of uncertainty that objects to something that it is not likely to be.
> 
> You seem to miss the point that telling someone to _not doubt_ a thing is the same as telling them they must _be certain_ of the contrary. It does not follow.
> 
> Those who lack Pastoral wisdom cannot see the substantial difference between saying:
> 
> 1) Godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.
> or
> 2) Godly parents must be taught the certainty of the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.
> 
> The two seem equivalent to the simple minded but they are not. If the simple cannot grasp this substantial difference then I suggest they gain more knowledge before they try to play the wise man.
Click to expand...


Wow... It appears that you think I am arguing with you. I would not presume to do so. I was simply asking you if you Presbyterians believe there is a middle ground between a state of doubt and a state of expectation? I do. But I cannot seem to get anyone to give me a straight answer which leads me to believe that because of his views on covenant children, that the Presbyterian does _expect_ baptized infants who have died in infancy to be glorified. If this is not the view of the Presbyterian then just say so.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

shackleton said:


> So if a Reformed or Presbyterian pastor is asked to do a funeral for a baby who has died of SIDS. It is the child of a family member who was obviously not saved and they know that you are a pastor and ask you if their baby is "sleeping peacefully in the arms of Jesus right now"...what would you tell them.
> 
> Since they are most likely not saved and their children have not been baptized, and cannot be since the parents are known unbelievers, how would you handle that situation?


Of course, "I" cannot answer for every R/P pastor out there, how one might respond.

This pastor might say something like this to someone he thought was unsaved, "In order to give you hope, you first need to have hope that belongs to you. I can't just open my Bible and find some "words of comfort" and give them to you. Because, for all I know I would be promising you something that God does not. There is no trove of hope that is just sitting in the king's treasury, that he just leaves sitting open in an unoccupied chamber. And then expects people to go in uninvited and help themselves. As his minister, I have authorized access to that treasury, but if I am to take from it and give it away, I have to do so to those who I believe also have a right to it.

"Some people would like to have that hope at a time like you are facing. They might even think they just needed to hurt badly enough, which pain would give them a right to it. Yet, all the while beforehand, they have been bad-mouthing the king, or ignoring the king, and worst of all rebuffing his invitation to the wedding-supper of his Son. This Prince will be the king of everyone who comes to that supper, and dresses in the robe he provides. No one else will be invited to citizenship in his kingdom after that supper.

"All the promises of God are given to his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. So, in order to give you hope for your child, I have to know if you have accepted his invitation--really, it is a command for your presence--at his Son's supper. Until now, you have rejected his assertion of authority over you, saying "We will not have this man to rule over us." So, having spurned his offer of citizenship, and thus access to all his promises, there is little I can offer you regarding your child's "safety." The promises of hope are bound together with your submission to his Son.

"On the other hand, I can offer you the terms of citizenship once again. I can offer you a place at the table of the Lamb of God. And if you will accept that offer, then I can give you other hopes that the Bible offers to God's people--promises that God will be not only your God, but also the God of your children. Yes, even the one that died. If you will not take this offer, then I can give you no certainty. Some pastors might tell you they think our merciful God will accept your child for the sake of his great tenderness, or else for the faith and hope of an ancestor in these promises. Even so, if that be true I cannot give YOU hope, that you will see this child again. If he is accepted and you are not, your separation will not be resolved in eternity.

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved--you and your house."​Hope this is helpful.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

jpechin said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you have just demonstrated *you don't doubt* and prove my point that we have the option to either doubt or not to doubt the salvation of our children. You choose to not doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I said we have no ability to assume, doubt, or ANYTHING when it comes to election, which is completely and utterly determined by God outside of any human parameter or condition. No amount of wordplay will change that.
Click to expand...


I didn't play with your words. In fact, you were stronger than the Canons of Dordt in stating that one _cannot_ doubt the election of a child for it is unknown to them. You seem to have trouble not only reading the meaning of other sentences but understanding the implication of your own. One ought to either doubt the election or their children or they ought not doubt it. You seem to miss the obvious point that not doubting is an idea distinct from having infallible knowledge of something. Before you play the fool in laughing at the Canons of Dordt, ensure you understand basic sentence structure.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

KMK said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not being obtuse, Rick, but would like to get an honest answer for this question: Does the Presbyterian read the Canons of Dort Article 17 which says, "Therefore, God-fearing parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in their infancy," and say to themselves, "There! God-fearing parents ought to _expect_ the salvation of their children?"
> 
> It seems obvious to me that the 'God-fearing' parent occupies a 'middle-ground' between doubt and expectation. Am I missing something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ken,
> 
> I assume you understand that doubt connotes a type of uncertainty that considers something *unlikely*. It's a type of uncertainty that objects to something that it is not likely to be.
> 
> You seem to miss the point that telling someone to _not doubt_ a thing is the same as telling them they must _be certain_ of the contrary. It does not follow.
> 
> Those who lack Pastoral wisdom cannot see the substantial difference between saying:
> 
> 1) Godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.
> or
> 2) Godly parents must be taught the certainty of the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.
> 
> The two seem equivalent to the simple minded but they are not. If the simple cannot grasp this substantial difference then I suggest they gain more knowledge before they try to play the wise man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow... It appears that you think I am arguing with you. I would not presume to do so. I was simply asking you if you Presbyterians believe there is a middle ground between a state of doubt and a state of expectation? I do. But I cannot seem to get anyone to give me a straight answer which leads me to believe that because of his views on covenant children, that the Presbyterian does _expect_ baptized infants who have died in infancy to be glorified. If this is not the view of the Presbyterian then just say so.
Click to expand...


Why is it hard for you to simply accept what we affirm with the Canons that one ought not doubt the election of a child? The Canons are written in a very wise, Pastoral fashion to head off the types of speculative inquisitiveness that is being manifest in this thread.

My approach to this issue is very consistent. One can get into the dangerous area of speculation with respect to election. It is the Baptist postion, not the Presbyterian, that tries to peer into things hidden and make the ordinance of baptism a matter of election/non-election. Just witness the OP to see that kind of speculation on full display.

I've said it before, if I was giving to such speculation, I might not merely doubt the election of my children but I'd be prone to doubt the election of the man in the pew beside me. In fact, it's easier for me to be given to such speculation about professors because they can live lives or state things that might cause me to doubt they are regenerate.

But, again a thousand times, the hidden things belong to the Lord. jpechin thinks he stumbled on to the third option but simply re-stated what the classic Reformed formulation is on the election of Covenant members - it is in the hands of God. News Flash! No duh!

Parents are given to such speculation about their children. We are not commanded to ever speculate. We are commanded to raise our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Even Baptists understand that but then they divorce their activity from the visible Covenant of Grace that has existed for thousands of years toward that end. Only when one divorces the Covenant of Grace from the election of God and treats election as if it has no visible intersection with the Sacraments of the Church does one run into these type of quandries.


----------



## shackleton

I work with a number of heathens, and unfortunately a number of dead babies, and everyone thinks or hopes, expects that their babies when dieing are going to heaven. 

There are one of two routes one could take a question like this, the hard route, that is, possibly not, since you were not a believer the child did not have a chance at being one at their young age and hope to scare them into believing themselves. Or it could back fire and cause them to become angry with God. (maybe put this in a nicer way though)

The other route would be the way most pastors would go when sitting face to face with parents in a time of extreme distress and that is to say that all babies are innocent and are going to be with God for eternity. 

(Contra this is not a response to your response it is just my own )

Fortunately, no one has ever asked me this difficult question. The parents of infants who have died are usually very distraught and it is left for their pastors, or in the sake of the unbeliever the FD chaplain to answer their questions. Unfortunately they are pastors of liberal churches, I believe ours is a pastor of a Church of Christ. 

Someone did once ask me if his dog that had just died was going to be in heaven. He was unable to have children and so had a dog and was very much attached to it. He looked at me with sad eyes, practically tear filled, so I caved and said, probably.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pilgrim said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jpechin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that it's much more obtuse to refuse to believe that there is any other option than those which you list, for any given scripture - that's like saying we're always 100% wrong or 100% right, all the time.
> 
> There is a third choice in this situation, which is simply:
> 
> *3) I don't know. I can't assume or doubt anything because it's not clearly outlined in scripture. It's in the hands of God. He is sovereign and He will determine who are of His elect.*
> 
> This is a more consistent theology of election. I still have seen nothing from the scriptures that would turn one aside from from the paradigm of God sovereignly selecting his elect, despite any practical and/or conditional application of age or lack of works or supposed lack of sins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even as you attempt to rescue yourself from the charge of being obtuse in this matter you actually prove yourself the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. *I can't* assume or *doubt* anything because it's not clearly outlined in scripture. It's in the hands of God. He is sovereign and He will determine who are of His elect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you have just demonstrated *you don't doubt* and prove my point that we have the option to either doubt or not to doubt the salvation of our children. You choose to not doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rich,
> 
> To make sure I am understanding you correctly, is it your position that "covenant children" should either be presumed regenerate or unregenerate and that there is no other legitimate alternative?
Click to expand...


I missed this.

 No! Oy!

That one ought _not doubt_ the election of a child is NOT the same thing as saying that one must presume regeneration.

I operate on the basis of things revealed. I'm commanded to raise my children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. I'm not commanded to operate on the basis of things hidden. I'm commanded to train them in the things of God along with the Church in which they are visible disciples.

In fact, the only group I'm aware that makes their children "token members of a visible fraternity" are the Baptists who baptize those they don't know are regenerate and so they are left simply with a visible fraternity called the "visible Church", not to be confused with the New Covenant whose members are known only to God. Their children have the same rights of access into inner body life and are only excluded from getting wet and eating bread and wine that only symbolize something but are otherwise tokens.


----------



## Hippo

shackleton said:


> Someone did once ask me if his dog that had just died was going to be in heaven. He was unable to have children and so had a dog and was very much attached to it. He looked at me with sad eyes, practically tear filled, so I caved and said, probably.



Well Augustas Toplady would have agreed with you.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

KMK said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not being obtuse, Rick, but would like to get an honest answer for this question: Does the Presbyterian read the Canons of Dort Article 17 which says, "Therefore, God-fearing parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in their infancy," and say to themselves, "There! God-fearing parents ought to _expect_ the salvation of their children?"
> 
> It seems obvious to me that the 'God-fearing' parent occupies a 'middle-ground' between doubt and expectation. Am I missing something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ken,
> 
> I assume you understand that doubt connotes a type of uncertainty that considers something *unlikely*. It's a type of uncertainty that objects to something that it is not likely to be.
> 
> You seem to miss the point that telling someone to _not doubt_ a thing is the same as telling them they must _be certain_ of the contrary. It does not follow.
> 
> Those who lack Pastoral wisdom cannot see the substantial difference between saying:
> 
> 1) Godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.
> or
> 2) Godly parents must be taught the certainty of the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.
> 
> The two seem equivalent to the simple minded but they are not. If the simple cannot grasp this substantial difference then I suggest they gain more knowledge before they try to play the wise man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow... It appears that you think I am arguing with you. I would not presume to do so. I was simply asking you if you Presbyterians believe there is a middle ground between a state of doubt and a state of expectation? I do. But I cannot seem to get anyone to give me a straight answer which leads me to believe that because of his views on covenant children, that the Presbyterian does _expect_ baptized infants who have died in infancy to be glorified. If this is not the view of the Presbyterian then just say so.
Click to expand...


Incidentally, Ruben was concerned that I was directing the fact that the Canons of Dordt demonstrate Pastoral wisdom and that some here lack that wisdom as being directly attributed to you Ken. That was not my intent. I sometimes write broadly and should be more direct. My statement were meant to be interepreted rhetorically and not directed at you per se.

My apologies if you thought I was insulting you. I am trying to be very direct in "re-directing" ideas where people are actually trying to apply a speculative attitude toward a sentence that is Pastoral. As I demonstrated with jpechins comment, it is silly to criticize a statement that we ought not doubt the election of a child and then turn around and say we can't doubt the election of a child.


----------



## Zadok

Semper Fidelis said:


> Zadok said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would not because the Scripture is clear, God has promised to be a God to our children. Does that mean that all are therefore saved? Not at all, but because of God's promise we have no reason to doubt that they are now in heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, not saved, but in heaven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if you are really as obtuse as you seem in your last post ........
Click to expand...


And if you were to obtain any degree of certainty as to my obtuseness would it necessarily make your arguments any more convincing? Does your role as moderator on this board include the right to label someone "stupid" just because they do not happen to share the light that you think you enjoy?


----------



## jpechin

These scriptures are all obviously qualified in the NT by being described in the ideals of repentance and faith. In the NC, entry is by faith - the new covenant is for the elect, for true Israel in which we as believers are grafted in. The promises are for those who are children to Abraham by faith alone, not by physical descendency, as per Galatians 4. Since faith comes by grace alone, and we can only see the fruit thereof, we can only discern said fruit and cannot see it in a new infant. I prefer not to say that we can assume one way or the other, in such a situation, but to say that only God's election is sure and all else is conjecture.


----------



## Herald

Jeremiah,

The 1689 LBC, the confession you purport to hold to, states:



> *Chapter 10 - Effectual Calling *
> 
> Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
> ( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )




Are you in agreement with the confession? If you answered in the affirmative earlier in the this thread I haven't read it. The thread is long and I won't be reading each post.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

jpechin said:


> These scriptures are all obviously qualified in the NT by being described in the ideals of repentance and faith. In the NC, entry is by faith - the new covenant is for the elect, for true Israel in which we as believers are grafted in. The promises are for those who are children to Abraham by faith alone, not by physical descendency, as per Galatians 4. Since faith comes by grace alone, and we can only see the fruit thereof, we can only discern said fruit and cannot see it in a new infant. I prefer not to say that we can assume one way or the other, in such a situation, but to say that only God's election is sure and all else is conjecture.



The problem with this is that it means no-one can receive the sacrament of baptism, as we do not who for certain who is elect. A man may profess faith, and yet still be among the non-elect, while an infant may be among the elect even though it does not profess faith.

Moreover, your conception of the New Covenant means that it is actually worse than the older administrations, as the children of believers have now been cast out. However, the NT gives us no indication that the covenant status of believer's children has changed. Therefore, we must assume that the children of professing Christians are externally in the covenant, and thus are entitled to receive the sign and seal of the covenant - baptism.

Another question: did the elect who lived prior to the new covenant under the new covenant? I ask this because you say that the new covenant is made with the elect; but how could believers living in earlier administrations be included in the new covenant?


----------



## Iconoclast

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Jeremiah,
> 
> The 1689 LBC, the confession you purport to hold to, states:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Chapter 10 - Effectual Calling *
> 
> Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
> ( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you in agreement with the confession? If you answered in the affirmative earlier in the this thread I haven't read it. The thread is long and I won't be reading each post.
Click to expand...


This answer in the confession settles the question, period.
Doubting or not doubting has no bearing on the issue whatsoever!
The God of all the earth will do right, period.
I enjoy Spurgeon as most all of us do. He gave his opinion and the scriptural reasons he thought led him to his opinion. I think his opinion was tainted with reasoning which was subjective,but Spurgeon is not the issue.
Elect infants dying in infancy says it all. If that election is all, some, one, or none, it is still God's business and is to be left in God's hand. 
It is not for us to speculate, give a false hope, or give no hope, or doubt, or not doubt. Leave it where it is in truth, in God's hand, according to His goodness and mercy and righteous judgment.


----------



## queenknitter

I'm new around here. This is my first post even. I don't think I've even got my signature appropriately filled out yet.  I'm new to a lot of things as of late, having spent the last 39 years of my life as a fundamentalist but being shown the door after turning more and more Reformed. That's the short version of my story.

This topic is of great interest to me. My husband and I have "four children in Heaven." I've described my past that way because, tbh, it's softer than saying that I've buried four children. And I say it that way because it's my way of focusing on God's goodness in the midst of some very hard times. in my opinion, it's a way of privileging the Gospel.

That being said. . . .



tcalbrecht said:


> Soli Deo Gloria said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dangerous in the sense that it could give someone the wrong impression regarding Reformed convictions. I wouldn't want someone assuming that *all* Reformed believers thought there was no way to say whether or not infants are part of the elect. That would not be the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize Reformed Baptists are somewhat of a different breed, but is there any Reformed denomination or group that has confessionally adopted the position that "all infants without distinction dying in infancy, are no doubt regenerated and saved by Christ"?
> 
> Or are you suggesting that the opinion of individual Reformed Christians equates to "Reformed convictions"?
> 
> 
> 
> Soli Deo Gloria said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, many great Reformed preachers and theologians held and hold to the election of infants. That needs to be stated clearly, especially if you don't hold to the election and are counseling someone who just lost an infant in death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If honesty is the issue, are you equally quick to point out to these same folks that not all Reformed folk hold to the notion of universal election of all infants dying in infancy?
Click to expand...


I have tried to keep tabs on this issue over the years. I don't know of any *confession* as such. I also know that while there is a compulsion among some to assume the very best about our dead babies, there's also an equally odd compulsion to assume the very WORST. 

John MacArthur has described this odd compulsion in his (reformed-leaning) neck of the woods. He quotes Phil Johnson in his book _Safe in the Arms of God_:



> I met one fellow whose child died in infancy, and he seemed to think that there was something meritorious about believing his own child had gone to hell. Every change he got, he brought up this issue and boasted about how he and his wife had come to grips with the fact that their child was simply not among the elect. I told him I thought that he and his wife were in for a pleasant surprise when they got to glory. I recall that he said he was absolutely certain that if God elected that infant to salvation, He would have kept him alive long enough to bring him to faith (87).



Strange. There's something dysfunctional about it. And while logically, of course, we can argue that the opposite (that all infants are elect) is as unproven as this position, either position reveals something about us and our individual idiosyncrasies, I think. If I must choose, I'm going to give God the benefit of the doubt,

Either way . . . I'm in the opposite position of the OP. I'm growing more and more convinced of pedobaptism. 

Camille


----------



## jpechin

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Jeremiah,
> 
> The 1689 LBC, the confession you purport to hold to, states:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Chapter 10 - Effectual Calling *
> 
> Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
> ( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you in agreement with the confession? If you answered in the affirmative earlier in the this thread I haven't read it. The thread is long and I won't be reading each post.
Click to expand...


This is exactly what I feel that I've been trying to argue, is that elect infants are the only ones to go to heaven. It has nothing to do, therefore, with how we work, but how the Holy Spirit works, as it states.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi

Hmmmmmm. Are the promises of God offered to the non-elect?

Thanks,

-CH


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Rob, I would say that to the non-elect -- the reprobate -- there are no promises given. When you say "offered" you open a new topic with respect to the meaning of that word, the old "well-meant offer" controversy.

Shakleton, one who belongs to the Lord Jesus may ask Him to bring to life / recreate a beloved pet in the Kingdom of Heaven ("shall He not freely give us all things?" [Ro 8:32 -- for starts]). I kill many creatures (ants, flies, etc), and ask the Lord to please give them a place in His Kingdom. I do not enjoy killing, but sometimes it is necessary. I like being harmless to the earth and its creatures, and this prayer undoes my harmfulness. In discussions with New Agers -- and especially "aggressive vegetarians" -- I bring up this "godly harmlessness" as an ideal they cannot fulfill, as they do not know the God of Heaven and Earth.

jpechin, after all of this discussion, would you please state again -- in its essential principles -- what you believe are the valid reasons for leaving paedo for credo? Because your position is a little unclear to me now. Thanks.


----------



## Herald

jpechin said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah,
> 
> The 1689 LBC, the confession you purport to hold to, states:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Chapter 10 - Effectual Calling *
> 
> Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
> ( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you in agreement with the confession? If you answered in the affirmative earlier in the this thread I haven't read it. The thread is long and I won't be reading each post.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is exactly what I feel that I've been trying to argue, is that elect infants are the only ones to go to heaven. It has nothing to do, therefore, with how we work, but how the Holy Spirit works, as it states.
Click to expand...


Well then, if that's your position, fine. Where our Presbyterian brethren _may _differ (and I stress "may") is whether children born into a covenant family are to be presumed elect if they die before having the opportunity to give evidence of their faith. I would like clarification on that from a Presbyterian. Since covenant children can prove reprobate, I would say that only God knows His elect prior to evidence of faith being demonstrated. That would be in keeping with, "...Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit." _Elect_ infants. The WCF states (on effectual calling), "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word." The language is the same. Elect infants are saved.


----------



## Pilgrim

I think the "elect infants" language WCF is merely an attempt to recognize that none are saved except the elect. It seems that they were careful not to speculate and go out on a limb. I wonder if there were any differences of opinion among the Westminster Assembly on this issue and the wording here. 

There is apparently a variant here in the LBCF. Some copies have "elect infants" and others just have "infants". Does anyone know which one was in the original 2nd LBCF? I don't have Dr. Waldron's book on the confession and wonder if he gave this any attention.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi

Thank you both for your responses.

Were the promises of God in the OT, given to Abraham, offered to the elect and non-elect alike, Jacob and Esau, in the rite of circumcision?

I don't believe I am veering off topic, but am asking questions to reach a conclusion.

G&P

-CH


----------



## AV1611

North Jersey Baptist said:


> But the verses you cited do not necessarily state the Lord has made a covenant with our _children_.



Were the children of Israelites in a covenantal relation with God?


----------



## KMK

Semper Fidelis said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ken,
> 
> I assume you understand that doubt connotes a type of uncertainty that considers something *unlikely*. It's a type of uncertainty that objects to something that it is not likely to be.
> 
> *You seem to miss the point that telling someone to not doubt a thing is the same as telling them they must be certain of the contrary. It does not follow.*
> 
> Those who lack Pastoral wisdom cannot see the substantial difference between saying:
> 
> 1) Godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.
> or
> 2) Godly parents must be taught the certainty of the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.
> 
> The two seem equivalent to the simple minded but they are not. If the simple cannot grasp this substantial difference then I suggest they gain more knowledge before they try to play the wise man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... It appears that you think I am arguing with you. I would not presume to do so. I was simply asking you if you Presbyterians believe there is a middle ground between a state of doubt and a state of expectation? I do. But I cannot seem to get anyone to give me a straight answer which leads me to believe that because of his views on covenant children, that the Presbyterian does _expect_ baptized infants who have died in infancy to be glorified. If this is not the view of the Presbyterian then just say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incidentally, Ruben was concerned that I was directing the fact that the Canons of Dordt demonstrate Pastoral wisdom and that some here lack that wisdom as being directly attributed to you Ken. That was not my intent. I sometimes write broadly and should be more direct. My statement were meant to be interepreted rhetorically and not directed at you per se.
> 
> My apologies if you thought I was insulting you. I am trying to be very direct in "re-directing" ideas where people are actually trying to apply a speculative attitude toward a sentence that is Pastoral. As I demonstrated with jpechins comment, *it is silly to criticize a statement that we ought not doubt the election of a child and then turn around and say we can't doubt the election of a child.*
Click to expand...


I am not criticizing anything. I am asking a simple question. Does the Presbyterian believe that, because we should not _doubt_ the salvation of infants of believing parents who die in infancy, that we should in turn _expect_ the salvation of said infants? Your posts seem to indicate that you do not. I don't understand why I can't just get a simple 'yes' or 'no'.

Anyone????


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Both editions of the 1689 LBCF I have do not have “Elect infants”, but only “Infants”. Sam Waldron, in his _Exposition_, says, 



> “The questions over the meaning of the phrase, ‘infants dying in infancy,’ are a bit more complicated [as compared with those “incapable” –SMR]. In the Westminster Confession the word ‘elect’ is present, while it is deleted in the 1689 Confession. Its deletion does not, however, materially change the meaning of the phrase. The phrase, ‘infants dying in infancy,’ does not assert that only some infants dying in infancy are saved. It does not exclude that possibility, but it does not assert it. It does assert that at least some infants dying in infancy are saved. That is all it necessarily asserts.....
> 
> The fact is that the Bible is silent on this issue. It would have been much better, therefore, for the Confession simply to say nothing at this point. For that, I am convinced, is precisely what the Bible says.” (pp. 149, 150)


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Ken,

You said,

“I am asking a simple question. Does the Presbyterian believe that, because we should not _doubt_ the salvation of infants of believing parents who die in infancy, that we should in turn _expect_ the salvation of said infants?....I don't understand why I can't just get a simple 'yes' or 'no'.”​
In Post #96 I said,

“The middle ground between doubt and expectation is hope. Not a ‘sure’ hope, but a godly hope nonetheless. It is a hope built on trust in His goodness, and covenant faithfulness.”​
Myself, I don’t _expect_ election, as in I _assume_ it will be; rather, I hope, and I pray. So my answer is a simple “no”. I am _still_ hoping, and praying – for the infant in question is now 35 years old, and the profession of faith, and the life, are not such that I would say warrant an assurance of election in my mind (prayer solicited for this precious woman, friends!). And I will continue to hope, and to pray, while I have breath, and she does.


----------



## KMK

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Both editions of the 1689 LBCF I have do not have “Elect infants”, but only “Infants”. Sam Waldron, in his _Exposition_, says,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The questions over the meaning of the phrase, ‘infants dying in infancy,’ are a bit more complicated [as compared with those “incapable” –SMR]. In the Westminster Confession the word ‘elect’ is present, while it is deleted in the 1689 Confession. Its deletion does not, however, materially change the meaning of the phrase. The phrase, ‘infants dying in infancy,’ does not assert that only some infants dying in infancy are saved. It does not exclude that possibility, but it does not assert it. It does assert that at least some infants dying in infancy are saved. That is all it necessarily asserts.....
> 
> The fact is that the Bible is silent on this issue. It would have been much better, therefore, for the Confession simply to say nothing at this point. For that, I am convinced, is precisely what the Bible says.” (pp. 149, 150)
Click to expand...


I am assuming that the only reason that this is an issue is because some come to the conclusion that since the infant never had the chance to 'believe' that it misses out on salvation. I cannot see any other reason why someone would be led to 'doubt' an infant's salvation.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Zadok said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zadok said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, not saved, but in heaven?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if you are really as obtuse as you seem in your last post ........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if you were to obtain any degree of certainty as to my obtuseness would it necessarily make your arguments any more convincing? Does your role as moderator on this board include the right to label someone "stupid" just because they do not happen to share the light that you think you enjoy?
Click to expand...

Zadok,

If you are obtuse and really need elaboration then please read my subsequent posts that demonstrate how foolish you made yourself look in your quip making fun of the Canons of Dordt. Or would you like to demonstrate to me, from the Scriptures, that believing parents of children dying in infancy ought to be counseled to doubt the election of their children? Incidentally, it's not my moderator status that gives me the right to label but your statement that cast questions upon either your slowness or sloppiness. I hold you to the same standard I hold myself and my track record here includes multiple retractions when I say stupid things.



KMK said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... It appears that you think I am arguing with you. I would not presume to do so. I was simply asking you if you Presbyterians believe there is a middle ground between a state of doubt and a state of expectation? I do. But I cannot seem to get anyone to give me a straight answer which leads me to believe that because of his views on covenant children, that the Presbyterian does _expect_ baptized infants who have died in infancy to be glorified. If this is not the view of the Presbyterian then just say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incidentally, Ruben was concerned that I was directing the fact that the Canons of Dordt demonstrate Pastoral wisdom and that some here lack that wisdom as being directly attributed to you Ken. That was not my intent. I sometimes write broadly and should be more direct. My statement were meant to be interepreted rhetorically and not directed at you per se.
> 
> My apologies if you thought I was insulting you. I am trying to be very direct in "re-directing" ideas where people are actually trying to apply a speculative attitude toward a sentence that is Pastoral. As I demonstrated with jpechins comment, *it is silly to criticize a statement that we ought not doubt the election of a child and then turn around and say we can't doubt the election of a child.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not criticizing anything. I am asking a simple question. Does the Presbyterian believe that, because we should not _doubt_ the salvation of infants of believing parents who die in infancy, that we should in turn _expect_ the salvation of said infants? Your posts seem to indicate that you do not. I don't understand why I can't just get a simple 'yes' or 'no'.
> 
> Anyone????
Click to expand...


Ken,

Why do you think this requires a simple answer? Why can't you accept the answer that we ought not to doubt the election of our children and operate on that basis? Why is that answer not sufficient for you.

Let me ask you this: Do you _expect_ the election of every man and woman of a majority status to be elect who professes faith in Christ? If you know a person who was baptized as an adult who is baptized do you _expect_ that they are elect?

A simple 'yes' or 'no' is all I'm looking for. I don't want any qualifications or explanations. I don't want any information on the denomination of the person. It doesn't matter. Yes or no: Do you expect that every baptized adult you meet is elect?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Again, this whole question seems to bow down to being able to distinguish between an expectation and presumption. Leaving aside infants for a moment, both sides of the debate must surely _expect_ all adult church members with a credible profession of faith to be among the elect and part of the invisible church who will ultimately be saved. However, we do not presume that every professing adult is truly regenerate, otherwise we would not be able to make warnings against apostasy to members of the visible church such as are found in the epistle to the Hebrews.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

“Originally Posted by *North Jersey Baptist* 
But the verses you cited do not necessarily state the Lord has made a covenant with our children.”​

Is it _anywhere_ stated the LORD has made a covenant with our children? And, if yes, what (per Rob’s question – post 118) is involved in that covenant?

Is not the language of Gen 17:10 decisive on this: “*This is my covenant*, which ye shall keep, *between me and you and thy seed after thee*; every man child among you shall be circumcised.”

And this is the nature of the covenant made with Abraham and his seed, “...to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee” (Gen 17:7). This covenant is also known as “the promise”. The blessing of the covenant is partaking in the blessing given Abraham: the friendship of God (Isaiah 41:8; 2 Chron 20:7; James 2:23).

“the children of the promise” Romans 9:8

“the children of promise” Galatians 4:28

“heirs according to the promise” Galatians 3:29

“the heirs of promise” Hebrews 6:17

“the promise is unto you, and to your children” Acts 2:39

The Spirit of God says by Paul in Romans 9 that “...they are not all Israel, which are of Israel. Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children [of promise –SMR]....That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” (6,7, 8)

Paul elaborates this theme is Galatians 4, saying of the unbelieving Jews en mass, “Jerusalem which now is...is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.....Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.” (25, 26, 28)

In sum: God _has_ made a covenant with our children, those which are the children of promise. When they are infants, do we know which these are? Even when they are adults we may not know; we may not know till their dying breaths, and even then maybe not. In Glory we will know.

Those whom He has made a covenant with are those who are of the promise. We all seek to raise _all our children_ in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, that all the benefits of covenant life be given them. And we watch to see the decree of the LORD in its manifestation, which, as I said, may not be clear in our lifetimes.

Rob (CH), I don’t like your language here: 

“Were the promises of God in the OT, given to Abraham, *offered* to the elect and non-elect alike, Jacob and Esau, in the rite of circumcision?” [emphasis mine –SMR]​
I prefer “given”. There is too much baggage associated with the word “offered”. And if you _insist_ on using that word, I would insist on defining it to mean “*presented* to them” as the will of God to be kept, i.e., the circumcision was the sign that they were in covenant with their father’s God, and that they should cleave to Him in trusting love and obedience.*** Esau was a covenant-breaker. Yes, it was presented to them both, the covenant with its glorious promises. But it was _given_ only to Jacob, in the decree of God, the only one of the promise.

*** In the language of Moses: “See, I have *set before thee* this day life and good, and death and evil; In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments...” [emphasis mine –SMR] (Deut 30:15, 16). I take “offered” and “set before thee” as equivalent.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Daniel,

When you said, "...both sides of the debate must surely _expect_ all adult church members with a credible profession of faith to be among the elect and part of the invisible church who will ultimately be saved", I find myself differing.

Here in this country, where a "profession of faith" is a ticket to possible asylum status as a persecuted refugee, I neither expect nor presume regeneration in some cases. I have seen too many charlatans and scoundrels pass through my doors. Some learn the "Christian language" and talk the talk, but are far from it.

On the other hand, I see godly souls who are clearly His people, and here I give my heart as to a brother or sister.

Sometimes it is hard to tell. I do my best to be gracious "as if" they were genuine, still being careful and praying for discernment. I have seen wolves in sheep's cloth do terrible damage.

Perhaps this is an unusual situation, however.


----------



## Herald

> In sum: God _has_ made a covenant with our children, those which are the children of promise. When they are infants, do we know which these are? Even when they are adults we may not know; we may not know till their dying breaths, and even then maybe not. In Glory we will know.


Steve, thank you. That is what I was hoping to hear. "Our children" really means, "the children of promise." God has not made a covenant with all children. His covenant is with _elect _children. 

Daniel,

If your definition is the same as Steve's, then we are heartily in agreement.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Daniel,
> 
> When you said, "...both sides of the debate must surely _expect_ all adult church members with a credible profession of faith to be among the elect and part of the invisible church who will ultimately be saved", I find myself differing.
> 
> Here in this country, where a "profession of faith" is a ticket to possible asylum status as a persecuted refugee, I neither expect nor presume regeneration in some cases. I have seen too many charlatans and scoundrels pass through my doors. Some learn the "Christian language" and talk the talk, but are far from it.
> 
> On the other hand, I see godly souls who are clearly His people, and here I give my heart as to a brother or sister.
> 
> Sometimes it is hard to tell. I do my best to be gracious "as if" they were genuine, still being careful and praying for discernment. I have seen wolves in sheep's cloth do terrible damage.
> 
> Perhaps this is an unusual situation, however.



Steve

I can see your point, but I do think you are in something of an unusual situation. When I say "expect" I mean in the judgment of charity we should expect those with a credible profession of faith to be among the elect. Because just after the writer to the Hebrews gives one of the most fearful warnings against apostasy in the whole of Scripture (Heb. 6:1-8), he nevertheless expects his listeners to perservere, and so he says to them "But, beloved, we are confident of better things concerning you, yes, things that accompany salvation, though we speak in this manner." (Heb. 6:9).


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Daniel,

I can agree with that (your post #129). The emphasis would be on the word “credible”.

---------

In the OT so much of covenant life depends on the headship of the patriarch, and, later, of the heads of the individual families, houses, tribes, and the nation. God dealt with houses, and families, and _the nation_ as corporate bodies. We in this 21st century are staunch individualists! The covenant promises, we opine, are for _individuals_, irrespective of families!

In the days of the Theocracy, God dealt primarily with Israel, and individual houses, through those who were heads of them; the people of the nation often suffered for the acts of their kings and priests; on the family level, all under the authority of fathers, or husbands, or elder brothers, partook of their blessings _or curses_. The males were the ones accountable to God. 

Circumcision of the males was appropriate to the circumstances of ancient Israel, and the position of authority given them.

In the gospel of the New Covenant God opened to the Gentile nations His gracious salvation. When Jesus came he warned that now things would be different than under the Theocracy of old Israel; there in the families the Law of Moses was acknowledged to be the law of God, and appeal could be made up the chain of command: fathers, priests, judges, rulers, the king. But when Christ came the old authority structure of the Theocracy was set aside; for Jesus said that fathers would be set against sons, and mothers against daughters, and one’s own family members would be one’s enemies and would even put one another to death, houses divided against themselves. The priests and the rulers opposed the Christ, so there was no recourse to their authority.

The _old manner_ of the headship of the father over the family was broken, and the covenant sign placed solely upon him as the covenant head was removed; now women could receive the sign themselves irrespective of their fathers or even their husbands. Sometimes loyalty to Christ separated a woman from her father. Or her husband. 

Believing parents (or even one parent – 1 Cor 7:14) brought their children into the covenant of their God, where each soul is invited (by the parents) into union and communion with God, and where the blessing of God is given equally, as in Christ “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female...” (Gal 3:28), but all have equal access and privilege. From infancy this expansion of the covenant blessings to include all on an equal standing before God was taught and demonstrated to them.

As the covenant was removed from its limited range in old Israel and transferred to the new Israel reconstituted by its King (Matt 21:43) – the international community of God’s people, a true holy nation – the sign of membership in that covenant community was changed to accommodate the new status of all members in all nations – male, female, Jew, Greek, slave, free – in their greatly enhanced intimacy with their Lord and Savior. Jesus had finally and completely emancipated all women in His kingdom; He had _essentially_ broken the spirit of slavery as well, as now a servant humanly speaking might well be an elder in God’s Kingdom over a master in the flesh. This “servant” / elder could now demonstrate godly _servant-leadership_ to one secularly over him. The Lord turned the ways of the world upside down in His glorious kingdom.

It is often said that “house baptisms” supposedly with infants in them constitute an argument from silence. There is, however, much more to it than “silence”! We in the 21st century West – as mentioned above – think in terms of individuals, but in the Biblical world – and especially among the people of God – they thought in terms of nations, tribes, and families. God dealt with the heads of nations, tribes and families, and those under them were greatly impacted by their male heads. To wit: the entire human race affected by its head, Adam. The house of Noah saved. The house of Abraham, the house of Jacob, of Achan, of Saul, of David, and so on. The redemptive purposes of God were effected through the families – the houses – of the male leaders of these families. The blessings and privileges of the family in covenant relation to God were constantly expanding and becoming more inclusive over the centuries, till in the time of the New Covenant it opened the way of salvation to the entire world. If the blessings of the covenant now narrowed – to exclude the members of the godly houses under their heads – it would have required an open declaration from God, reversing His primary means of operation. The Baptist view of mere individuals is imposing our paradigms upon an entirely different paradigm which was operative in the ancient world, where the family, tribe, and nation were the objects of God’s dealings. The purpose of this covenant headship over the family was to raise up a godly seed, under the covenant care of the Lord. This then amounts not to silence, but the very voice of antiquity, and Biblical precedent.

Even though we do not have signs in the streets, or broadcast and written in all the media, “You shall not kill”, it is understood that this is the law, the penalty for breaking it extremely severe. Even in the silence regarding it it is known. Likewise in the early Jewish community it was understood that this was the law of God: children are to be included in the covenant – by sign and seal – upon pain of their exclusion from the House of Life, and whoever sins so against his children himself sins greatly against the God of the covenant; such a one is himself breaking the covenant. This law was so deeply ingrained in the hearts and minds of the Jewish people, that a changing of it would have required a momentous announcement, with much explanation. But there is silence. And the law of God loved and practiced for millennia speaks loudly and clearly, even in that silence. Especially in that silence!

Ancient Abraham could not see which of his children or grandchildren were to be born “merely according to the flesh” and which were not, but were, according to the electing grace of God, those of the promise (i.e., carrying forward that promise, as Isaac and Jacob, but not Ishmael and Esau). He could not see the electing decree of God; what he could see was the command given him, and he obeyed it.

Is it possible that the primary thing responsible for many folks' views on baptism is that they unlawfully exempt themselves from that command which has never been cancelled, which is that the children of Abraham are to place the sign of the covenant on their infant seed?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

Jerusalem Blade wrote:



> Rob (CH), I don’t like your language here:
> 
> “Were the promises of God in the OT, given to Abraham, offered to the elect and non-elect alike, Jacob and Esau, in the rite of circumcision?” [emphasis mine –SMR]
> I prefer “given”. There is too much baggage associated with the word “offered”. And if you insist on using that word, I would insist on defining it to mean “presented to them” as the will of God to be kept, i.e., the circumcision was the sign that they were in covenant with their father’s God, and that they should cleave to Him in trusting love and obedience.* Esau was a covenant-breaker. Yes, it was presented to them both, the covenant with its glorious promises. But it was given only to Jacob, in the decree of God, the only one of the promise.
> 
> * In the language of Moses: “See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments...” [emphasis mine –SMR] (Deut 30:15, 16). I take “offered” and “set before thee” as equivalent.


Perfectly acceptable, , it is my contention that those who deny the Free Offer of the the Gospel ("given," "set forth," or "presented") are actually undermining infant baptism, but that may be a subject for another thread.

The "offer" (if you will allow me to use a synonym for "set forth") is presented to all who hear the gospel or have received the sacrament of circumcision. It is offered to all, elect and non-elect alike, but it is *effective* only for the elect.

The offer was effective to Abraham who "believed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousness," but it was also set forth and presented to his infant children through the sacrament of circumcision. The offer of the Gospel was given to both Ishmael and Issac, but it was *effective* for Issac only. This we know because the Scriptures tell us so.

Now, we have a *Command* in the Old Testament that says believers are to be given the sacrament of circumcision. Believers are also *Commanded* to offer the Gospel to their children (including infants) through the Sacrament of Circumcision as well:



> And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, Gen 17:11,12


Does anyone doubt that this is a Command from God Himself? That Believers and their children are offered the Gospel Promises though the Sacrament of the Church.

As I understand it: Credo-baptists argue that, according to Jer 31, the Old Testament laws have been abrogated by the New Covenant. There are many problems with this line of reasoning if one is holding to Covenant Theology.

First, Jeremiah 31 is speaking about the Mosaic Levitical laws, "Not according to the covenant I made with their fathers *in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt"*, also, "Which things are an allegory, for these are the two covenants the one from Mount Sinai, which engenders to bondage, which is Agar."

The contrast in Jeremiah 31 is that of the Covenant of Works, "the one from Mount Sinai which engenders to bondage," and the New Covenant. It is clear that the Two Covenants contrasted in Jeremiah 31 are the Covenant of Works represented by the Mosaic Levitical Laws, and the Covenant of Grace found in the New Covenant. (Note: not everything in the Mosaic Law was considered a matter of the Covenant of Works. The 10 Commands have not been abrogated, Marriage is a matter of the Mosaic Law, and Circumcision is also found in it. All of these things existed prior to Moses).

The law that Believers and their children are to be given the sacrament of the Church is no where found in th Covenant of Works. Everywhere in the Old Testament (where circumcision is rightly understood) Circumcision is equated with the Covenant of Grace (or the New Covenant):



> And my covenant shall be in your flesh *for an everlasting covenant*, Gen 17:13.
> 
> Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked, Deut 10:6
> 
> And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live, Deut 30:6
> 
> The circumcision that Joshua performed, "rolled away the reproach from Egypt," Joh 5:9.
> 
> And he gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him, Acts 7:8.
> 
> 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 unto them also, Rom 4:11.


Paul emphatically argues that the outward rite of circumcision does not make one a member of the Covenant of Grace. The heart must be circumcised, and that is done by faith - as it was done to Abraham prior to him, and his children, being circumcised. This is the same with water baptism and the washing of the Spirit.

Circumcision was not a matter of the Covenant of Works found in the Mosaic Levitical Law, but was a sign and seal in the Old Testament of the Covenant of Grace - the New Covenant. That the sacrament was given to Believers (Abraham) and their children (Ishmael and Issac) by a direct command from God cannot then be abrogated by an appeal to Jeremiah 31.

Second, the outward act of circumcision was not abrogated under the New Covenant it was *replaced* by water baptism. This is proved by both direct and indirect evidence:

In Col 2:11,12 the "circumcision made without hands" is equivalent to being, "buried with him in baptism." Both circumcision and baptism are here indicatives of the believer being united to Christ.

Indirecty, Circumcision and baptism refer to the same things:



> And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, being uncircumcised, Rom 4:11A



1) Abraham was given a "seal" as a sign to establish and confirm the Covenant. Which is the same with baptism.

2) "a seal of righteousness" means a confirmation of the fact that he was righteous. Which is the same with baptism

3) Abraham received this seal by faith - his faith secured the seal. Which is the same with baptism.

Covenant Theology teaches that the Church from Adam to the End of the World (though formally organized under Abraham) is _one_ and _the same; identical_ in all of its *essential* particulars. Credo-Baptists depart from Covenant Theology here, and they hold to mild or extreme forms of Dispensationalism. The friction between Covenant and Dispensational theologies is where most of the heat comes from in this debate.

Finally, The law requiring children of believers to receive the Promises of God by the Sacrament of Baptism has not been repealed or abrogated by the New Covenant. References to Jeremiah 31 on this matter do not prove the point - since the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, be it circumcision or baptism, were never a part of the Covenant of Works. It is, in fact, a Sign of the Covenant of Grace, or, the New Covenant.

1) In the Covenant of Grace it is Faith that secures the seal: "Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousness." *After* Abraham believed the sign of the New Covenant was given not only to him, but to his children as well.

2) What, then, would one expect concerning the law requiring the children of believers being baptized in the New Testament as to its continuing obligation?

Ans. One would expect to find some statments _affirming_, or so speaking as to _assume_ its continued obligation.

We find clear evidence in the New Testament that baptism has replaced circumcision.

We find no clear evidence in the New Testament that "Believers Only" has replaced "Believers and the children." In th Old Testament "Believers," like Abraham, were *required* to be Circumcised/Bapized, but their children/households were also *required* to be Circumcized/bapitzed as well.

Where is the evidence that Children are now not being offered the Promises of God in the Sacrament?

The requirement for faith? Abraham had to believe in God before he was given the Sign of the New Covenant. No such requirement was given for an infant 8 days old.

That the New Covenant is only with the Elect? Such is true only in the sense that it is *effective* for the Elect, but the New Covenant is offered to both the Elect and non-Elect alike.

Everywhere it is mentioned: the New Testament _assumes_ the continued obligation to baptize the Children of Believers:

Peter speaking, not as a Dispensationalist, but as a Jew, under the Covenant of Grace, to fellow Jews points out that, _"The Promise is to you, your children, and to those who are afar off, to as many as the Lord God shall call."_

The _only way_ the Elect recieve the Promises is by (the Call) the Preaching of the Gospel - "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." Thus, the Promises of God are offered to both the Elect and non-Elect alike. Baptism is given to Believers, like Abraham, and their children. This is the _assumption_ that Peter has made here.

Paul, in answering a question about a split household states that the child of a believing parent is considered a saint, 1 Cor 7:14 (_hagios_ can be translated, "saint.") If the idea of "set apart" is used, then what is the child being set apart for? Paul is _assuming_ that the status of the child of a believing parent is "set apart." Thus, infant baptism cannot be objected to on the grounds of the non-belief of one parent. in fact the unbelieving spouse is considered "sanctified" for the sake of the child!

Household baptisms: Abraham and his household were baptized - Believers in the New Covenant and their households were baptized. The continunity of the Covenant of Grace from Abraham to today is firmly established.

The Promises of God were/are given to both the Elect and non-Elect alike in both the Old and New Testaments. Thus, we are required by Divine Command to baptize our children.

Grace and Peace,

CalvinandHodge


----------



## jpechin

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Jeremiah,
> 
> The 1689 LBC, the confession you purport to hold to, states:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Chapter 10 - Effectual Calling *
> 
> Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
> ( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you in agreement with the confession? If you answered in the affirmative earlier in the this thread I haven't read it. The thread is long and I won't be reading each post.
Click to expand...


I am in complete agreement with the 1689 LBC on this matter. In fact, I don't think that the status of any infant should be elevated beyond this knowledge in any way. Elect children dying in infancy will go to heaven, and we can say no more. I am simply arguing that to add to this statement is unnecessary - we don't need some heartfelt assurance to families that a child born to their covenant family somehow provides added assurance that their child is in heaven, and this is really beyond what the scriptures firmly establish. God is just in all matters, He establishes His elect, and the wind blows where it wishes, not where we assume.

I hope that this sentence structure is clear enough. It seems like some forum deity is handing out labels of 'obtuseness' for those that don't have perfect knowledge or sentence structure. Careful, he might brand you, as well.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

jpechin said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah,
> 
> The 1689 LBC, the confession you purport to hold to, states:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Chapter 10 - Effectual Calling *
> 
> Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
> ( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you in agreement with the confession? If you answered in the affirmative earlier in the this thread I haven't read it. The thread is long and I won't be reading each post.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am in complete agreement with the 1689 LBC on this matter. In fact, I don't think that the status of any infant should be elevated beyond this knowledge in any way. Elect children dying in infancy will go to heaven, and we can say no more. I am simply arguing that to add to this statement is unnecessary - we don't need some heartfelt assurance to families that a child born to their covenant family somehow provides added assurance that their child is in heaven, and this is really beyond what the scriptures firmly establish. God is just in all matters, He establishes His elect, and the wind blows where it wishes, not where we assume.
> 
> I hope that this sentence structure is clear enough. It seems like some forum deity is handing out labels of 'obtuseness' for those that don't have perfect knowledge or sentence structure. Careful, he might brand you, as well.
Click to expand...


Hey:

If the child of a believing parent is considered a "saint" (read post #131 above), then we can in good conscience make the claim that children of Believers dying in infancy are, in fact, elect, 1 Cor. 7:14.

We comfort bereaved Christian parents by pointing them to the Promises of God found in the Scriptures. The Credo-Baptist position that you hold causes you to look at the situation from the decrees of God. Consequently, you say "I don't know" because no one can know the Decrees completely.

We live our lives by faith in the Promises of God. If we live our lives out of the Decrees, then we would be constantly asking ourselves whether we are saved or not.

*The Promise is to you, your children, and to those who are afar off...*

Try to leave your credo-baptist prejudices aside, and look at the Scriptures from a Reformed Covenantal perspective.

Blessings,

Rob Wieland


----------



## Contra_Mundum

It is possible that this thread is coming to the end of it's useful life...


----------



## jpechin

CalvinandHodges said:


> *The Promise is to you, your children, and to those who are afar off...*



"As many as are called". The promised has been rounded out quite a bit, hasn't it? Also, there are many other qualifiers in the passage and in the language that make this more than a promise for infants.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

jpechin said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Promise is to you, your children, and to those who are afar off...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "As many as are called". The promised has been rounded out quite a bit, hasn't it? Also, there are many other qualifiers in the passage and in the language that make this more than a promise for infants.
Click to expand...


But it is a strange thing to say if believer's children are now excluded.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

jpechin said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Promise is to you, your children, and to those who are afar off...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "As many as are called". The promised has been rounded out quite a bit, hasn't it? Also, there are many other qualifiers in the passage and in the language that make this more than a promise for infants.
Click to expand...


Hmmmm. Read post #131. If you have read it, then re-read it.

Thanks in advance,

Rob Wieland


----------



## Herald

Contra_Mundum said:


> It is possible that this thread is coming to the end of it's useful life...



I think so. 137+ posts on this circular topic is more than enough.


----------

