# Can infants be regenerated?



## elnwood

I'm not sure if this is the most appropriate forum, but I couldn't find a better one. Moreover, this isn't a credobaptist vs. paedobaptist discussion, because you'll find credobaptists and paedobaptists on each side. For example, Wayne Grudem, a credobaptist, holds that infants can be regenerated.

Romans 5:8-10 says, "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life."

Paul is drawing a contrast between being a sinner, an enemy of God, and being justified and reconciled. Obviously this is comparing before Christ's atonement, and after Christ, but because of the use of justification and reconciliation, I think it's also talking about before Christ and after Christ in a Christian's life. This seems to teach that every Christian used to be an enemy of God, thus precluding infant regeneration.

Covenant Theology teaches that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, and yet infants do not have the faculty to understand Christ to place their faith in Him. (This is not to say that they can't at a very young age. When I say infants, I mean young infants, i.e. they can't understand human languages, much less the gospel). This seems to contradict Sola Fide.

Many use the example of John the Baptist, who leaped with the spirit in his mother's womb, as an example of someone who was regenerated before he was even born. The text does not say that John was regenerate. Just because the Holy Spirit moved him does not necessarily mean that he was regenerate. We know that the Holy Spirit moved in Saul in the Old Testament, and that the Holy Spirit could speak through false prophets like Balaam. The Holy Spirit moved in people who had a special purpose in God's plan, but this does not necessarily mean that they are regenerate.

I'm not saying that God cannot regenerate an infant, but at the very least I think scripture teaches that this is not something we ought to expect.


----------



## Kevin

Not only infants but also those who are of limited intellect. Gods grace extends to both groups.


----------



## Civbert

I believe infants can be regenerated, and this regeneration entails the infant receives knowledge. But I do not believe having knowledge requires awareness of it's content. 

All men know God exists, but suppress that knowledge. We are be born with this knowledge. At no time from conception are we excused. We are sinners from conception. 

From conception, we are creatures with sinful natures. The most self-centered stage of life is infancy. We must be taught how to be good, how to share, how to give, how to sacrifice. We start off only concerned with getting our needs meet. We do not expect a baby to understand self sacrifice and patients. We expect them to be impatient, cry, yell, grab, bite, pull hair. Our job is to teach them what good behavior requires. And so even in infancy we need Christ's blood to save us from sin. And this is why we baptize infants, because even infants must be regenerated in order to come to the knowledge of saving faith.

I might make a for an interesting thread to discuss what it means to "know". I think saving faith requires knowledge, and that infants and the mentally handicapped can be saved. But this is only because knowledge is not a function of the brain, but the mind. We are only aware of what we process though the filters in our brains. But the mind is a part of the soul. We can have knowledge that we are unaware of having. 

Much of the knowledge we have readily available to our awareness, requires some effort to recall. And we can spend weeks trying to recall a name. Does that mean we do not know the name? It just means we need to dig mentally to recall it to our awareness. 

I think the knowledge of God is like that for the unbeliever. He has buried that knowledge and pretends he does not have it. And I think it is similar for infants who have received the saving knowledge of the gospel. It may take years until he finally draws that knowledge forward.

And just as we may not recall how we learned something, we may have trouble accounting for saving knowledge. I do not know when I first believed the gospel. I don't know when I was regenerated. I don't know when I first learned the truth of the gospel. I think I believed it when I first became aware of it. But I was very young and I can't remember. I suppose after we are raised from the dead, we will be able to recall it all.


----------



## bradofshaw

elnwood said:


> This seems to teach that every Christian used to be an enemy of God, thus precluding infant regeneration.



How so? We know that infants are conceived in sin. At some point, God gives them the gift of faith and regenerates them. How does the idea of once being enemies preclude regeneration at an infant age?




elnwood said:


> Covenant Theology teaches that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, and yet infants do not have the faculty to understand Christ to place their faith in Him. (This is not to say that they can't at a very young age. When I say infants, I mean young infants, i.e. they can't understand human languages, much less the gospel). This seems to contradict Sola Fide.



This definition of faith makes it a work of intellectual ascent, and not a gift of God. Let me ask you this, can infants have the faculty to understand and reject God in order to deserve condmenation? Salvation is based on Christ's righteousness on our account, not our level of intellectual understanding. For as in Adam all died, so in Christ all shall be made alive. Covenant Theology teaches that believers and their children are in Christ. 



elnwood said:


> I'm not saying that God cannot regenerate an infant, but at the very least I think scripture teaches that this is not something we ought to expect.



That is the cruxt of the matter, whether you believe the Bible teaches covenant theology, because if it does, your whole paradigm has to change to include the fact that God works through families to build his church, and the norm is for the Spirit to raise up godly seed from infancy, not the exception.

Either infants can have saving faith, or all infants who die in their infancy are reprobate.


----------



## elnwood

This is a difficult topic. I'd love to believe that the mentally disabled and infants could have sufficient knowledge for faith and be saved by that means, or that God has a special means of saving those who do not have the conprehension. I hope that this is the case, but I cannot find a scriptural argument for it.

My interpretation of Romans 1 is that general revelation is never enough to save, and that special revelation is necessary for salvation. I'm unwilling to compromise on this for infants or the mentally disabled because if you accede that general revelation can save an infant or a mentally disabled person, I think you would have to say for consistency's sake that general revelation can also save unreached people groups who have not heard the gospel.


----------



## bradofshaw

elnwood said:


> My interpretation of Romans 1 is that general revelation is never enough to save, and that special revelation is necessary for salvation. I'm unwilling to compromise on this for infants or the mentally disabled because if you accede that general revelation can save an infant or a mentally disabled person, I think you would have to say for consistency's sake that general revelation can also save unreached people groups who have not heard the gospel.



The major difference is that the children of believers are under the covenant, while those who are outside the church are outside the ordinary means of salvation unless the Gospel goes to them and they are brought in.


----------



## elnwood

bradofshaw said:


> How so? We know that infants are conceived in sin. At some point, God gives them the gift of faith and regenerates them. How does the idea of once being enemies preclude regeneration at an infant age?



Because saving faith requires belief in something. If infants can have faith, what do they have faith in? God's promises? Christ? How did they acquire this knowledge?



bradofshaw said:


> This definition of faith makes it a work of intellectual ascent, and not a gift of God. Let me ask you this, can infants have the faculty to understand and reject God in order to deserve condmenation? Salvation is based on Christ's righteousness on our account, not our level of intellectual understanding.



Faith as an intellectual ascent (and obviously true faith is much more than that) does not preclude it from being a gift from God. We would never be able to exercise that intellectual ascent apart from God. I believe that is a false dichotomy.



> For as in Adam all died, so in Christ all shall be made alive. Covenant Theology teaches that believers and their children are in Christ.
> 
> That is the cruxt of the matter, whether you believe the Bible teaches covenant theology, because if it does, your whole paradigm has to change to include the fact that God works through families to build his church, and the norm is for the Spirit to raise up godly seed from infancy, not the exception.



I'm not going to debate credo v. paedo here. I suffice to say, I don't think that our different views of covenant theology is the crux of the matter.



> Either infants can have saving faith, or all infants who die in their infancy are reprobate.



This is a potentially a false dichotomy, since some have hypothesized that God may have a special means of saving infants. But say I accept your premise. If God did condemn all infants who die in infancy, He would perfectly just to do so, so I am not afraid of this position. I believe the standard paedobaptist position is that non-covenant children who die in infancy are condemned, and that covenant children are saved based on covenant membership (not on saving faith), so paedobaptists still have to face the music about God condemning infants.

Canons of Dort, First Head, Article 17:
"Since we are to judge of the will of God from His Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, *not by nature*, but in virtue of the covenant of grace in which they, together with the parents, are comprehended, godly parents have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of their children whom it pleaseth God to call out of this life in their infancy."

This seems to teach a salvation not based upon faith. I'm not sure how the Dutch Reformed reconcile this and Sola Fide.

But ultimately, I think this question is not really relevant. The question is whether infants can be regenerated, not whether infants can be saved and how.


----------



## Theoretical

So here's the nasty double question.

What about stillborn infants/miscarried children in paedo Christian families?

What about unbaptized children within Credobaptist households? (From the paedo's view - not trying to start a nasty argument) - If non-baptism of children is a serious sin (WCF XXVIII.V) for the parents, what is the implication of what happens to the children born into a devout Credo family that is wrong on this very serious point of doctrine. Basically, does the parents' sin condemn the children should they die before profession?

Again, I'm not out to create a nasty, harsh discussion, but I'm just trying to understand the implications of this issue, which is a very serious and significant one for the Church.


----------



## Philip A

elnwood said:


> My interpretation of Romans 1 is that general revelation is never enough to save, and that special revelation is necessary for salvation.



_Ordo Salutis_

You're talking about salvation, faith, justification, etc. here. These are all not synonymous with regeneration. Asking "can infants have saving faith?" is not the same as asking "can infants be renerated?".


----------



## dannyhyde

Everyone should purchase a copy of the latest issue of the Mid-America Journal of Theology (http://midamerica.edu/) or go down to their nearest seminary and read the translation done by J. Mark Beach of Mid-America Reformed Seminary of Herman Witsius', "On the Efficacy and Utility of Baptism in the Case of Elect Infants Whose Parents Are Under the Covenant."

This is an amazing discussion of these very issues as Witsius is at his best. He was a mediating and peacable figure in the debates between the Cocceians and Voetians in the 17th century Dutch Reformed Church.


----------



## elnwood

Philip A said:


> _Ordo Salutis_
> 
> You're talking about salvation, faith, justification, etc. here. These are all not synonymous with regeneration. Asking "can infants have saving faith?" is not the same as asking "can infants be renerated?".



Oh boy! It's another engineer!  :updates signature:

You are right that they are not synonymous, but it is generally recognized that all of these happen in (more or less) the same moment of time. If someone is regenerated, he will have faith, and if he has faith, it is credited to them as righteousness and he is justified before God.

I don't think that a person can be categorized as regenerate but had never received saving faith (and thus never had faith credited to him as righteousness), but if you have biblical evidence to the contrary, I'm willing to hear you out.


----------



## bradofshaw

elnwood said:


> Because saving faith requires belief in something. If infants can have faith, what do they have faith in? God's promises? Christ? How did they acquire this knowledge?
> 
> I'm not going to debate credo v. paedo here. I suffice to say, I don't think that our different views of covenant theology is the crux of the matter.



I don't have a means of measuring what or how much knowledge an infant may have. I think we are in agreement that if the Spirit should choose to impart faith He can. In your original post, you said you thought that the scriptural norm was that God did not work in this way. All I am saying, is that given the premises of covenant theology, the norm is that God can and does impart saving faith in precisely this way. Not that all infants of believers come to faith in this manner, but that God's promises extend to the children of believers. From that viewpoint, it would seem that if God is willing to bring infants into his visible covenant while living, He would also be willing to bring them into His fellowship should they die in infancy. So, I don't think our views of CT are irrelevant to the discussion.



elnwood said:


> Faith as an intellectual ascent (and obviously true faith is much more than that) does not preclude it from being a gift from God. We would never be able to exercise that intellectual ascent apart from God. I believe that is a false dichotomy.



I agree, and I don't think I was so much trying to create a dichotomy as point out a flaw in your wording which may or may not be indicative of your understanding of saving faith. While I don't believe that faith is purely passive, rather it has as part of its nature the implications of active response, I don't know that we can say an infant's inability to act in faith or ascent to faith in the manner that a 20 year old can precludes the possibility of an infant possessing a saving faith. If God can grant the gift, he can equip the recipient as He sees fit. Otherwise, at what point do I excercise faith well enough to be saved? I know much more than I knew when I was 3 years old. Is my faith more valid before God than it was then? At what age do infants start to love and trust their parents? After days, weeks, months, years or while still in the womb? Is this something you can really know or measure?



elnwood said:


> This is a potentially a false dichotomy, since some have hypothesized that God may have a special means of saving infants. But say I accept your premise. If God did condemn all infants who die in infancy, He would perfectly just to do so, so I am not afraid of this position. I believe the standard paedobaptist position is that non-covenant children who die in infancy are condemned, and that covenant children are saved based on covenant membership (not on saving faith), so paedobaptists still have to face the music about God condemning infants.
> 
> Canons of Dort, First Head, Article 17:
> "Since we are to judge of the will of God from His Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, *not by nature*, but in virtue of the covenant of grace in which they, together with the parents, are comprehended, godly parents have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of their children whom it pleaseth God to call out of this life in their infancy."
> 
> This seems to teach a salvation not based upon faith. I'm not sure how the Dutch Reformed reconcile this and Sola Fide.
> 
> But ultimately, I think this question is not really relevant. The question is whether infants can be regenerated, not whether infants can be saved and how.



I guess my counter question is, what virtue does the covenant contain if it is not the guarantee of our salvation in Christ which comes to us by faith? I'm not sure how relevant of a question "can infants be regenerated" is if it does not involve their salvation. I will agree that God would not be unjust in choosing to send all infants to hell, nor is he unjust to send all those outside the covenant community to hell. However, as I said above, I do not see why God would include infants in the body of believers on earth and not in the body of believers in heaven. 

While I was writing this, someone else pointed out that our terminology may not be straight, so I'm going to stop here.


----------



## elnwood

bradofshaw said:


> I don't have a means of measuring what or how much knowledge an infant may have. I think we are in agreement that if the Spirit should choose to impart faith He can. In your original post, you said you thought that the scriptural norm was that God did not work in this way. All I am saying, is that given the premises of covenant theology, the norm is that God can and does impart saving faith in precisely this way. Not that all infants of believers come to faith in this manner, but that God's promises extend to the children of believers. From that viewpoint, it would seem that if God is willing to bring infants into his visible covenant while living, He would also be willing to bring them into His fellowship should they die in infancy. So, I don't think our views of CT are irrelevant to the discussion.



Paedobaptist Covenant Theology draws a distinction between the visible members of the covenant and the invisible members of the covenant. From that perspective, the infants are in the visible covenant, but it does not necessarily follow (as I think you are saying) that they are in the invisible. From a paedobaptist view, the basis for membership in the visible is different than the one for the invisible, so I think you run into a problem if you start mingling the two. (I am not paedo, but I know paedobaptists who would agree with me on this).



bradofshaw said:


> I agree, and I don't think I was so much trying to create a dichotomy as point out a flaw in your wording which may or may not be indicative of your understanding of saving faith. While I don't believe that faith is purely passive, rather it has as part of its nature the implications of active response, I don't know that we can say an infant's inability to act in faith or ascent to faith in the manner that a 20 year old can precludes the possibility of an infant possessing a saving faith. If God can grant the gift, he can equip the recipient as He sees fit. Otherwise, at what point do I excercise faith well enough to be saved? I know much more than I knew when I was 3 years old. Is my faith more valid before God than it was then? At what age do infants start to love and trust their parents? After days, weeks, months, years or while still in the womb? Is this something you can really know or measure?



It was an understandable objection. A profession of faith, an intellectual assent, saying a prayer, walking an aisle, etc. does not save. I agree with you whole-heartedly with you on this.

Regarding faith, of course believers will have faith in varying degrees (Romans 12:6, 1 Corinthians 12:9). But Covenant Theology has traditionally affirmed that saving faith has, as its content, Christ, in that, in the Old Testament, faith was in the promised seed, the coming sin-bearing messiah, and that in the New Testament the content of faith is in Jesus.

If an infant has not heard or understood the promises of God regarding Jesus, I don't think he can place his faith in Christ.



bradofshaw said:


> I guess my counter question is, what virtue does the covenant contain if it is not the guarantee of our salvation in Christ which comes to us by faith? I'm not sure how relevant of a question "can infants be regenerated" is if it does not involve their salvation. I will agree that God would not be unjust in choosing to send all infants to hell, nor is he unjust to send all those outside the covenant community to hell. However, as I said above, I do not see why God would include infants in the body of believers on earth and not in the body of believers in heaven.



I am not a paedobaptist, but I will reply as if I am. The New Covenant does not guarantee salvation, for there are many who are baptized by an ordained minister of a true church and are raised by Christian parents, and yet, at the end of their lives, deny Christ. The benefit of being in the covenant is being raised in the New Covenant community, hearing God's word, being taught, and enjoying fellowship.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Philip A said:


> _Ordo Salutis_
> 
> You're talking about salvation, faith, justification, etc. here. These are all not synonymous with regeneration. Asking "can infants have saving faith?" is not the same as asking "can infants be renerated?".



Ditto; The distinction needs to be made.


----------



## Scott Bushey

elnwood said:


> Oh boy! It's another engineer!  :updates signature:
> 
> You are right that they are not synonymous, but it is generally recognized that all of these happen in (more or less) the same moment of time. If someone is regenerated, he will have faith, and if he has faith, it is credited to them as righteousness and he is justified before God.
> 
> I don't think that a person can be categorized as regenerate but had never received saving faith (and thus never had faith credited to him as righteousness), but if you have biblical evidence to the contrary, I'm willing to hear you out.


 
Not true; John is a fine example of regeneration apart from saving faith. Seeds of faith planted, the gospel preached later on and conversion.


----------



## bradofshaw

elnwood said:


> From a paedobaptist view, the basis for membership in the visible is different than the one for the invisible, so I think you run into a problem if you start mingling the two. (I am not paedo, but I know paedobaptists who would agree with me on this).
> 
> I am not a paedobaptist, but I will reply as if I am. The New Covenant does not guarantee salvation, for there are many who are baptized by an ordained minister of a true church and are raised by Christian parents, and yet, at the end of their lives, deny Christ. The benefit of being in the covenant is being raised in the New Covenant community, hearing God's word, being taught, and enjoying fellowship.



While we do have to be very careful not to confuse the sign of baptism with the thing signified in baptism, we must not also act as if nothing is signified in baptism. I think your summary of the benefits of baptism is an underestimation. Any non-baptized child in a credo family could have the same benefits. 

Too late in the day, and I know you weren't wanting to debate infant baptism, so I'm signing off for today. Its been a good discussion though. Perhaps we can continue at a later time.


----------



## satz

I think the understanding of regeneration as a sovereign act of the Holy Spirit and the depravity of man already implies that regeneration must occur without faith, not only in infants but in all believers at whatever age. Before regeneration or being born again, it is completely impossible for a man to have faith in the gospel in any meaningful way. The Holy Spirit must regenerate a sinner first, before the new man then can have faith in the gospel.

As an example, John 1:12-13 states that to be born of God is not of the will of the flesh, or the will of man, which excludes the believer’s act of believing. John 3 also states that being born again is an act of the Spirit, and verse 8 says that no one can tell where the Spirit goes, but only see the effects of his work, just like the wind. The Spirit’s work in regeneration is not tied to gospel preaching or believing, but is the prerequisite for a man to believe the gospel.

I think perhaps differentiating between regeneration and conversion is key here. I don’t actually believe that infants are a special category as far as regeneration goes. A totally depraved adult is just as helpless as an infant when it comes to truly believing the gospel. I like I said above, all believers must be regenerated by the Holy Spirit apart from their belief or knowledge, before they can believe.


----------



## Peter

Ditto to what Mr. Mark Li said. This would really be a problem for Arminians who believe faith precedes regeneration.


But to extend the argument and come to truth via dialectic: Is an infant a human being made in the image of God ? I.e. equipped with a rational soul and with knowledge. Yet an infant does not exercise reason so it seems he lacks the nature of humanity. So is infanticide and abortion justified? This is the argument of abortionists isn't it? Pre-borns can't think so they're not a life, therefore its OK to kill them.


----------



## elnwood

Scott Bushey said:


> Not true; John is a fine example of regeneration apart from saving faith. Seeds of faith planted, the gospel preached later on and conversion.



Scott, I anticipated and responded to that line of reasoning in the very first post.



elnwood said:


> Many use the example of John the Baptist, who leaped with the spirit in his mother's womb, as an example of someone who was regenerated before he was even born. The text does not say that John was regenerate. Just because the Holy Spirit moved him does not necessarily mean that he was regenerate. We know that the Holy Spirit moved in Saul in the Old Testament, and that the Holy Spirit could speak through false prophets like Balaam. The Holy Spirit moved in people who had a special purpose in God's plan, but this does not necessarily mean that they are regenerate.


----------



## elnwood

Peter said:


> Ditto to what Mr. Mark Li said. This would really be a problem for Arminians who believe faith precedes regeneration.



 

I absolutely agree that regeneration precedes faith. The question is whether God ever regenerates apart from the recipient receiving the effectual call to believe the gospel.

Monergism.com has this to say on Ordis Salutis:


> The work of applying God's grace is a unitary process given to the elect simultaneously. This is instantaneous, but there is definitely a causal order (regeneration giving rise to all the rest). Though these benefits cannot be separated, it is helpful to distinguish them. Therefore, instead of imposing a chronological order we should view these as a unitary work of God to bring us into union with Christ.



I would echo this article and say that regeneration is part of a unitary, inseparable process. I don't see the bible teaching that God regenerates apart from receiving the gospel.



> But to extend the argument and come to truth via dialectic: Is an infant a human being made in the image of God ? I.e. equipped with a rational soul and with knowledge. Yet an infant does not exercise reason so it seems he lacks the nature of humanity. So is infanticide and abortion justified? This is the argument of abortionists isn't it? Pre-borns can't think so they're not a life, therefore its OK to kill them.



An infant can exercise reason. An infant knows that if it cries, it will get fed sooner. It knows that if food tastes bad, it doesn't want to eat any more. The difference is that the infant cannot understand the gospel being preached to the gospel.

Think of it this way: say you only speak English, and you are sent to an unreached people group that did not know English. Could you communicate the gospel to them in English such that they could be saved? Not without learning their language or teaching them your language. My point is that the special revelation of the gospel cannot be communicated to infants, not that they are unable to reason.


----------



## larryjf

It would seem to me that the inability of the infant to make a conscious decision for Christ should not be the determining factor. After all, not only infants, but all of fallen mankind are unable to choose God. So it is never a decision based on our intrinsic ability. God can regenerate whosoever He wills. If He can work on the heart of someone who is dead in sin, why wouldn't He be able to work on the heart of an infant.

If God didn't regenerate the elect infants who die in infancy, then they wouldn't go to Heaven. Does that mean that all infants are non-elect? Would that be the logical conclusion of the inability of infants regeneration?

I would grant that they are not regenerated by the normal means that God uses through the hearing of the Word preached. But there are times when God works in a miraculous way to regenerate a person.

Do these Bible passages give us any clues?...

for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and *he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb*. (Luk 1:15)

Yet you are he who took me from the womb; *you made me trust you at my mother's breasts*. (Psa 22:9)


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Allow me to jump in late here.

Brothers,
I really wish we (on all sides) were pulling in more Scripture to the debate before 2/3 of the way into the discussion. I'd like to move us more deliberately in that direction (I'm NOT implying there hasn't been some movement that way, chill...).

One more preliminary--there may be more paedos than credos on this thread, I don't know, but please, no one feel picked on.

Regarding John the Baptist: in Lk. 1:15 we read the angel tell Zechariah that John would be "filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb." This is plain, New Testament language indicating the presence of regeneration. Furthermore, the later text is abundantly clear: Elizabeth tells Mary (Lk. 1:44) "The babe leaped in my womb *for joy*." The unsaved _cannot_ have joy in the Lord. They are at enmity with him.

The life of David serves us with at least two incidents. One is that of his infant son, 2 Sam. 12:23. There we read that David had faith he would see his dead infant son, "I shall go to him, but he will not return to me." This passage tells us more about the faith of David in the covenant promise of God (Gen. 17:7 'I will establish my covenant... to be God ... to thy seed") than directly of the faith of that child. But surely David's faith rested firmly, and he had reason to hope in the promise. And do not forget that this claim is stated as certain, and recorded in inspired writ. Next, recall that no person is saved without saving faith as the instrument. Ergo, the child must have had faith.

David knew from personal experience and inspiration that his faith was from infancy, "But thou art he that took me out of the womb; Thou didst make me trust when I was upon my mother's breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb; thuo art my God since my mother bare me." (Ps. 22:9, 10) And see Psalm 71:6.

Jeremiah is another example: Jer. 1:5 "Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee;"

Heb. 11:23--the language is so covenantal here, it presents a translational challenge. But that is a positive, not a negative. For even if the faith was actually that of the parents, it is for Moses, who benefits from and makes it his own: "By faith MOSES [repeated one verse later the same verb & tense, same noun and case, only of him directly] when he was born..." Look at the chapter in the Greek, practically every other verse beginning the same way _Pistei, plus the name_. Clearly the faith is being given to Moses by God in this verse, the same as all the rest of the examples.

Hear what Isaiah says: Is. 46:3 "Hearken unto me, O house of Jacob, and all *the remnant* of the house of Israel, that have been borne by me from their birth, that have been carried from the womb;" Even if one says that this sounds like extravagant or figurative language, that ALL the remnant were regenerated from the womb (certainly they must have all been elect!), what does this mean in the context of the covenant, the sign, and the promise? What reality beneath the figure makes it comprehensible?

Jesus, Israel personified, is also called from the womb, Is. 49:1 (Hos. 11:1; Ex. 4:23). Since he is the anti-type, _who is the type but all those who were regenerated from the womb?_

Here is ample evidence that not only did God's people (the faithful) have the well-found hope that their sons and daughters were God's, but that Scripture tells us there were not a few of those children regenerated from infancy. Now, we know that there were a great many outward covenant members, who were hypocrites. Their hope for their children (if they had anything like it) must have been ill-founded, not being based in faith. God no doubt was often merciful in spite of unfaithfulness (as he so often is), but we know that most of that nation were rebels, generation after generation.

AND we also know that many parents-of-faith, yet were unfaithful _in the use of means_ with regard to their own children, and perhaps presumed upon the grace of God instead of acting dillgently, using the grace of God to catechize and rear their children as they ought. How else do we explain the repeated examples of Eli, Samuel, David, and the like? I think God is giving more grace to parents today in this department, to make them willing and dilligent to apply ordinary means to their children, that they might be saved to the glory of God, youthful covenant keepers.

Maybe that's enough for one contribution. I'm not exactly addressing many previously raised points in this one.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Bruce. Great post.

By the way Don - there are a few more Engineers here. Check my profile...


----------



## bookslover

elnwood said:


> I'm not sure if this is the most appropriate forum, but I couldn't find a better one. Moreover, this isn't a credobaptist vs. paedobaptist discussion, because you'll find credobaptists and paedobaptists on each side. For example, Wayne Grudem, a credobaptist, holds that infants can be regenerated.
> 
> Romans 5:8-10 says, "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life."
> 
> Paul is drawing a contrast between being a sinner, an enemy of God, and being justified and reconciled. Obviously this is comparing before Christ's atonement, and after Christ, but because of the use of justification and reconciliation, I think it's also talking about before Christ and after Christ in a Christian's life. This seems to teach that every Christian used to be an enemy of God, thus precluding infant regeneration.
> 
> Covenant Theology teaches that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, and yet infants do not have the faculty to understand Christ to place their faith in Him. (This is not to say that they can't at a very young age. When I say infants, I mean young infants, i.e. they can't understand human languages, much less the gospel). This seems to contradict Sola Fide.
> 
> Many use the example of John the Baptist, who leaped with the spirit in his mother's womb, as an example of someone who was regenerated before he was even born. The text does not say that John was regenerate. Just because the Holy Spirit moved him does not necessarily mean that he was regenerate. We know that the Holy Spirit moved in Saul in the Old Testament, and that the Holy Spirit could speak through false prophets like Balaam. The Holy Spirit moved in people who had a special purpose in God's plan, but this does not necessarily mean that they are regenerate.
> 
> I'm not saying that God cannot regenerate an infant, but at the very least I think scripture teaches that this is not something we ought to expect.



This last sentence is important. It is possible for infants to be regenerated (is anything too hard for God?) but this is not to be expected as normal, given the intellectual content of the gospel.

I've had this discussion in another forum, where there seems to be a tendency, on the part of some Christians, to think that the children of Christian parents are almost "automatically" saved just because they were born into a Christian family. Not so. There's no "get out of hell free" card for such children. They must, in God's providence, hear and obey the gospel, just like all sinners.

A case in point: the Scottish historian, biographer, and essayist Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881). He was raised in a strict Calvinistic Presbyterian home by devout parents (talk about your high-octane early-19th century Scottish Reformed setting!), yet he rejected Christianity as a young adult and never looked back.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I do have another point to make:
The faith of infants (where present) is not exercised the same as those with developed rational faculties. Turretin has a nice discussion of this point, and I think some of that is available in the PBArchives--Matt may have posted some of that.

Anyway, the faith of such infants is faith in seed form, not grown. That doesn't make it less genuine, any more than a seed is less the real plant than the grown form.

Scripture likens faith to sight. It is spiritual sight. God grants spiritual sight, and where the mind is grown and active, it is engaged in a way of seeing/believing that is approprate to its level of ability, just like physical sight.

Jesus can open a baby's spiritual eyes to see him, to gaze at him, to look at him in love. Its as simple as that. What was Jesus teaching his disciples about a child's faith? He took up the tiny babes (brephe) in his arms that day (Lk. 18:15) and said "to such belongs the kingdom of God." He is clearly stating that the kingdom of heaven contained even _such ones_. Did he mean outwardly? Inwardly? Both? And what are the implications of affirming one or both?

I left that passage off the previous post. I shouldn't have, but I forgot it.

My point in this post is to affirm that profound, or even shallow intellectual assent of a certain depth is not the essence of faith. Knowledge, Assent, Trust, in age/ability appropriate measures--that is faith. There are mentally challenged people who nonetheless see with their physical eyes, making some sense of the world around them. And they and infants can be helped to see the spiritual world too--all they need are the "eyes" to see with, the Christ to "gaze at" (Jn. 12:45), and God can grant them all the comprehension they need to be saved by that faith he gives them.

I hope this is helpful.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Contra_Mundum said:


> I do have another point to make:
> The faith of infants (where present) is not exercised the same as those with developed rational faculties. Turretin has a nice discussion of this point, and I think some of that is available in the PBArchives--Matt may have posted some of that.
> 
> Anyway, the faith of such infants is faith in seed form, not grown. That doesn't make it less genuine, any more than a seed is less the real plant than the grown form.
> 
> Scripture likens faith to sight. It is spiritual sight. God grants spiritual sight, and where the mind is grown and active, it is engaged in a way of seeing/believing that is approprate to its level of ability, just like physical sight.
> 
> Jesus can open a baby's spiritual eyes to see him, to gaze at him, to look at him in love. Its as simple as that. What was Jesus teaching his disciples about a child's faith? He took up the tiny babes (brephe) in his arms that day (Lk. 18:15) and said "to such belongs the kingdom of God." He is clearly stating that the kingdom of heaven contained even _such ones_. Did he mean outwardly? Inwardly? Both? And what are the implications of affirming one or both?
> 
> I left that passage off the previous post. I shouldn't have, but I forgot it.
> 
> My point in this post is to affirm that profound, or even shallow intellectual assent of a certain depth is not the essence of faith. Knowledge, Assent, Trust, in age/ability appropriate measures--that is faith. There are mentally challenged people who nonetheless see with their physical eyes, making some sense of the world around them. And they and infants can be helped to see the spiritual world too--all they need are the "eyes" to see with, the Christ to "gaze at" (Jn. 12:45), and God can grant them all the comprehension they need to be saved by that faith he gives them.
> 
> I hope this is helpful.



This is an excellent addition to make. I think the idea that an adult faith being the only kind of faith flies in the face of the intent of Proverbs as developed by the author in the beginning of the Book.

In theological discussions we can often draw conclusions that are completely dissonant with how we view the rest of life. What if we were to apply the same Credo standard to love? We would have to be people who professed that people couldn't love until they were of majority status. What about language? What about mental acuity? All are underdeveloped in youth.

When my 4 year old says "I love you Daddy", I don't think it's just a parroted phrase he's learned. He is warm and affectionate and hugs me when he has missed me for a weeklong trip to VA. He tells me he missed me and I believe that he did. I need not conclude that, because he lacks a real sacrificial sense of love, that he _really_ doesn't love at all. That's foolish.

I frankly find the search for when regeneration occurs to be an unBiblical one. The secret things belong to the Lord and the Spirit blows where it wills. We are not those who are called to live according to a hidden decree. I don't need to ask the question whehter my children are regenerate - I am charged to raise them in the fear and admonition of the Lord and leave God's decrees to Him.

In the development of my children, every part of them is growing - in stature and _wisdom_. Might they parrot their parents in their perceived love of Christ as children? Sure but we kid ourselves if we think that an adult parroting back a Reformed Confession is an infallible evidence of their election any more than an immature childhood confession.

Interestingly, when Christ is using an _example_ of faith, He uses a little child as His example. God doesn't use pagans for object lessons for believers.


----------



## Theoretical

armourbearer said:


> I would go one step further. Not only is an infant's faith possible, it is the most desirable kind of faith as far as the initial receiving act is concerned. It simply receives the blessings of Christ without the kind of psychological works/faith mix which encumbers an adult's faith. A little child receives the kingdom of God without the status hang-ups which hinder those who have come to age. Hence I would say that infants' faith is pure faith. Not strong faith, because not taught, and the measure of faith is in proportion with the object known. But pure, unadulterated faith, as small as a mustard seed, which is true faith, accepted by God, notwithstanding its lack of content.



Simply amazing, sir - that response made so many things make sense that were previously troubling me. Your congregation is very blessed to have you as its pastor.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> I would go one step further. Not only is an infant's faith possible, it is the most desirable kind of faith as far as the initial receiving act is concerned. It simply receives the blessings of Christ without the kind of psychological works/faith mix which encumbers an adult's faith. A little child receives the kingdom of God without the status hang-ups which hinder those who have come to age. Hence I would say that infants' faith is pure faith. Not strong faith, because not taught, and the measure of faith is in proportion with the object known. But pure, unadulterated faith, as small as a mustard seed, which is true faith, accepted by God, notwithstanding its lack of content.



Indeed Sir, let me say as well that the above is articulate, compact, profound and beautiful.

Thank you so much for that.


----------



## elnwood

I think a lot of you are losing sight of the issue. It's turning into a credo v. paedo issue, when it is not. You say "infants," but the last few posts have been about _children_, not infants. We're not talking about 4-year-olds. Children are not the issue. Baptists love and baptize children. We're talking about infants who cannot hear and comprehend the gospel.

Contra_Mundum, I am going to address your post, and though I disagree with much of it, I wanted to start to say I appreciate the manner in which you have approached it, and that it is a fine post.



Contra_Mundum said:


> Allow me to jump in late here.
> 
> Brothers,
> I really wish we (on all sides) were pulling in more Scripture to the debate before 2/3 of the way into the discussion. I'd like to move us more deliberately in that direction (I'm NOT implying there hasn't been some movement that way, chill...).
> 
> One more preliminary--there may be more paedos than credos on this thread, I don't know, but please, no one feel picked on.



Appreciated.



> Regarding John the Baptist: in Lk. 1:15 we read the angel tell Zechariah that John would be "filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb." This is plain, New Testament language indicating the presence of regeneration. Furthermore, the later text is abundantly clear: Elizabeth tells Mary (Lk. 1:44) "The babe leaped in my womb *for joy*." The unsaved _cannot_ have joy in the Lord. They are at enmity with him.



I don't think that necessarily follows. There are people who leap for joy in Word of Faith churches, and I think many if not most of them are not saved. People can prophecy and cast out demons in Jesus' name, and be found on the last day to not be in Him. I don't think we can conclusively say that any person who leaps for joy because of Jesus is saved.



> _The life of David serves us with at least two incidents. One is that of his infant son, 2 Sam. 12:23. There we read that David had faith he would see his dead infant son, "I shall go to him, but he will not return to me." This passage tells us more about the faith of David in the covenant promise of God (Gen. 17:7 'I will establish my covenant... to be God ... to thy seed") than directly of the faith of that child. But surely David's faith rested firmly, and he had reason to hope in the promise. And do not forget that this claim is stated as certain, and recorded in inspired writ. Next, recall that no person is saved without saving faith as the instrument. Ergo, the child must have had faith._



I think your interpretation is incorrect because it lacks context. The Old Testament afterlife formula is very primitive. When the Old Testament talks about Sheol, the place of the dead, they refer to it as if it is a physical place.

Verses 22 and 23: He said, "While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who knows, the Lord may be gracious to me, that the child may live.' But now that he has died, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

In context, David stops mourning not because he is comforted by the fact that he will see his child, but because his mourning will not bring his son back from the dead. When David says "I will go to him," he means that he will go to Sheol, the (figurative) place of the dead, i.e. David himself will also die. When he says, "he will not return to me," he means that his child will not come back from the dead. There is no indication that this passage is joyous, and there is nothing that suggests future fellowship -- it is a passage of resignation.



> David knew from personal experience and inspiration that his faith was from infancy, "But thou art he that took me out of the womb; Thou didst make me trust when I was upon my mother's breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb; thuo art my God since my mother bare me." (Ps. 22:9, 10) And see Psalm 71:6.
> 
> Jeremiah is another example: Jer. 1:5 "Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee;"



Sanctified just means set apart. It doesn't always mean that they have been saved. In the same way, 1 Corinthians 7:14 says that unbelieving spouses are sanctified.

I believe the elect are set apart for his purpose from birth, but that doesn't mean they are regenerated from birth. I think that applies to the other passages you cited, so I won't repeat this comment again.



> Heb. 11:23--the language is so covenantal here, it presents a translational challenge. But that is a positive, not a negative. For even if the faith was actually that of the parents, it is for Moses, who benefits from and makes it his own: "By faith MOSES [repeated one verse later the same verb & tense, same noun and case, only of him directly] when he was born..." Look at the chapter in the Greek, practically every other verse beginning the same way _Pistei, plus the name_. Clearly the faith is being given to Moses by God in this verse, the same as all the rest of the examples.



My bible says, "By faith Moses, when had GROWN UP." BIG difference.



> Hear what Isaiah says: Is. 46:3 "Hearken unto me, O house of Jacob, and all *the remnant* of the house of Israel, that have been borne by me from their birth, that have been carried from the womb;" Even if one says that this sounds like extravagant or figurative language, that ALL the remnant were regenerated from the womb (certainly they must have all been elect!), what does this mean in the context of the covenant, the sign, and the promise? What reality beneath the figure makes it comprehensible?



I can't add much to your own criticism. Drawing infant regeneration from this proves too much. I think it's talking about election and being set apart.



> Jesus, Israel personified, is also called from the womb, Is. 49:1 (Hos. 11:1; Ex. 4:23). Since he is the anti-type, _who is the type but all those who were regenerated from the womb?_
> 
> Here is ample evidence that not only did God's people (the faithful) have the well-found hope that their sons and daughters were God's, but that Scripture tells us there were not a few of those children regenerated from infancy. Now, we know that there were a great many outward covenant members, who were hypocrites. Their hope for their children (if they had anything like it) must have been ill-founded, not being based in faith. God no doubt was often merciful in spite of unfaithfulness (as he so often is), but we know that most of that nation were rebels, generation after generation.
> 
> AND we also know that many parents-of-faith, yet were unfaithful _in the use of means_ with regard to their own children, and perhaps presumed upon the grace of God instead of acting dillgently, using the grace of God to catechize and rear their children as they ought. How else do we explain the repeated examples of Eli, Samuel, David, and the like? I think God is giving more grace to parents today in this department, to make them willing and dilligent to apply ordinary means to their children, that they might be saved to the glory of God, youthful covenant keepers.



To continue the thought and put to death any presumption that God will save Covenant Children, take, for example, the Reformed churches in Europe. People on this board think that those Reformed churches were about as pure and true as a church has been. Even if they had done little evangelism, you would think, just by reproducing, that the church would have grown and prospered if, even in general, the children became believers as well. And yet the Reformed churches in Europe have just about died away. Make of that as you will.

Continuing the regeneration issue, I think that, when you say that regeneration and saving faith does happen without the preaching and receiving of the gospel, you are dangerously close to the hyper-Calvinist error.

The argument would run as follows: "Since regeneration leading to saving faith is initiated by God, and this happens apart from the preaching of the gospel, then it is not necessary for the gospel to be preached in order for people to be saved. We need not go out to the world and preach the gospel, for God will regenerate his elect apart from the gospel, and then they will seek the things of God and come to us."

I think this is the logical conclusion of regeneration and saving faith apart from the preaching of the gospel, and I can see a logical progression from the teachings in Canons of Dort, First Head, Article 17 to the hyper-Calvinism of the Protestant Reformed Churches.


----------



## BertMulder

elnwood said:


> I think this is the logical conclusion of regeneration and saving faith apart from the preaching of the gospel, and I can see a logical progression from the teachings in Canons of Dort, First Head, Article 17 to the hyper-Calvinism of the Protestant Reformed Churches.



Whoa! Where do you get that the Protestant Reformed do not believe in the preaching of the Gospel? That is the centerpoint, the Essential of any of our worship services. And also the Protestant Reformed believer strongly in mission work. And it has also pleased the Lord to bring many to faith through our missions.


Further to the topic, have you ever read Prof. Homer Hoeksema on CD 1/17 in his book 'Voice of our Fathers'? Quoting here from his conclusion:



> If the question be asked, then, why the fathers were moved to make such a statement at all, I believe the reason is to be found, at least partially, in the fact that the arminian opponents employed what is called an argumentum ad hominem over against the Reformed fathers. It was a
> double-pronged argument.
> On the one hand, they appealed to the people emotionally with their own doctrine that all such infants are saved, that there is no reprobation of infants. On the other hand, they attempted to besmear the fathers in the public eye by picturing them as monsters who even delighted in teaching that God would damn not only some infants but even some infants of believers. it was indeed a foul argument which they used, and one not based at all on calm reasoning from the Scriptures. After all, objectively considered, in the first place, it was not a question of who was a monster in whose opinion, nor a question of who taught what, but a question of what the Scriptures teach.
> 
> And if the Scriptures teach that God also damns infants, then it behooves no one to call that teaching monstrous and cruel, nor to call those monstrous who maintain such Scriptural doctrine.
> 
> In the second place, calmly and objectively considered, is it any more cruel and monstrous that infants who die in infancy are sovereignly reprobated and sovereignly damned than that infants who grow up are sovereignly reprobated and damned? Is it ever easy for the flesh of believing parents to know or to think that there is a possibility that their own children, their own flesh and blood, go lost? Or, to cite a Scriptural example, was it easy for Rebekah to carry reprobate Esau in her womb even though she also knew that Jacob was elect in the same womb? (Genesis 25:21- 23; Romans 9:10-13).
> 
> But the fathers knew that the argument was false and wicked, and that they were not guilty of such an infernal delight in the damnation of little babies. Hence, in view of the fact that while we do know on the basis of Scripture that the Lord establishes His covenant in the line of continued generations, taking His seed from our seed, and in view of the fact that we know nothing about the election or reprobation of an infant child of believers while it is an infant, a judgment of love concerning such children of believers who die in infancy is possible, and may be taken for what it is worth. But there is nothing else to say with objective certainty than that the Lord takes His seed out of our seed.
> 
> In this light we can also understand somewhat the subjective and neg-
> ative language of Article 17: ". ..godly parents ought not to doubt.. .."
> In the first place, it is not simply believing parents, but godly parents,
> that is, parents who are godly in the capacity of parents. who are men-
> tioned here. In the second place, they are negatively admonished not to
> doubt concerning the election and salvation of their children who die in
> infancy.
> 
> In the third place, they are pointed to the fact not simply that
> their children "die," but that "God calls them out of this life in infancy." Now godly parents are certainly parents who live godly in relation to and with their children. They bring children into the world in the consciousness that the Lord graces them with the privilege of bringing forth children for His covenant. Thus they live even before their children are born, committing them to the blessing of the Lord in prayer. They want to serve the Lord also in the bringing forth of children. For their children they pray. They pledge those children to the service of the Lord. They beseech the Lord for grace so that their children may live to the glory of His name in the midst of the world. As they grow up, their children are instructed in the fear of the Lord according to their capacity at the earliest possible moment by such parents. Such are godly parents. And if God removes a little one from their family circle, that is, an infant who is not yet able to assume a conscious position toward the covenant of God, then such parents ought not to doubt. Surely, they may hope that their little one is elect of God; and they may do so, too, for the sake of God's covenant. as spiritually minded parents. But they are conscious of the fact that the covenant Jehovah Himself has called that child out of this life. And therefore, as godly parents they do not say, "Our child is a child of be- lieving parents. and therefore saved." But they acknowledge at the grave of their little one: "Lord, we have in Thy name brought forth this little one, and we received it with thanksgiving from Thee. To Thee we conse- crated that child, that it might be a child for Thy covenant. It has now pleased Thee to remove that child from this life. Therefore, in the same faith whereby we received the child from Thee and dedicated it unto Thee, we rest satisfied in Thy way, without being filled with fearful doubt about the salvation and election of the child, knowing that Thou, accord- ing to Thy good pleasure, which by faith we acknowledge to be always
> good, dost save Thy children out of our seed."


----------



## elnwood

BertMulder said:


> Whoa! Where do you get that the Protestant Reformed do not believe in the preaching of the Gospel? That is the centerpoint, the Essential of any of our worship services. And also the Protestant Reformed believer strongly in mission work. And it has also pleased the Lord to bring many to faith through our missions.
> 
> 
> Further to the topic, have you ever read Prof. Homer Hoeksema on CD 1/17 in his book 'Voice of our Fathers'? Quoting here from his conclusion:



Yikes! I profusely apologize. I had heard that the PRC was hyper-Calvinist, so I just assumed that was their view. I apologize for any offense. My objection to regeneration and salvation apart from the preaching of the gospel still stands, but I stand corrected in regard to the PRC.


----------



## BertMulder

elnwood said:


> Yikes! I profusely apologize. I had heard that the PRC was hyper-Calvinist, so I just assumed that was their view. I apologize for any offense. My objection to regeneration and salvation apart from the preaching of the gospel still stands, but I stand corrected in regard to the PRC.



Your apology is gracefully accepted. It is a very common tactic by the WMO people to accuse anyone who does not believe in a well meant offer as a hyper-calvinist.

To better understand the PRC position, please visit our website, http://www.prca.org/prc.html

Our western home missionary site also is very helpfull:

http://www.reformedspokane.org/


----------



## elnwood

bradofshaw said:


> While we do have to be very careful not to confuse the sign of baptism with the thing signified in baptism, we must not also act as if nothing is signified in baptism. I think your summary of the benefits of baptism is an underestimation. Any non-baptized child in a credo family could have the same benefits.
> 
> Too late in the day, and I know you weren't wanting to debate infant baptism, so I'm signing off for today. Its been a good discussion though. Perhaps we can continue at a later time.



I think Paul addresses the issue of "what benefits does the covenant have" in Romans 2:28-3:2. Previously, he teaches that salvation is not given based upon being a Jew, i.e. not by physical lineage. "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit." In other words, there is no salvific benefit just based on the Old Covenant membership of circumcision.

He continues: "Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God."

The benefit of circumcision in the Old Covenant, and thus membership in the Old Covenant Community, is that they have the laws of God taught to them. This is the same benefit that paedobaptists see for their baptized covenant children. There are no salvific benefits of paedobaptist covenant membership.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

trevorjohnson said:


> Here's a thought:
> 
> What day did David's son die...wasn't it before receiving circumcision - the outward sign of the Covenant?
> 
> If so, what does this say about infants and the covenant community?
> 
> It appears that the infant died before the 8th day (when the sign was administered) and yet David hoped to see him.
> 
> Does this have any significence and are my days even correct?



We would say "No". Bruce was not arguing that the administration of the Sacrament itself saved the boy. That is popish. The child receives the sign to initiate him into the Covenant - a right privileged to Him by God by the Providence of his birth into a believing household. But the child is identified with his parents before the sing. The sign is a ministerial declaration and does not confer actual union with Christ. David was not a Campbellite.


----------



## Scott Bushey

elnwood said:


> Continuing the regeneration issue, I think that, when you say that regeneration and saving faith does happen without the preaching and receiving of the gospel, you are dangerously close to the hyper-Calvinist error.




Who said this? Saving faith never happens outside of the preached word. Regeneration occurs like John 3 describes. John the Baptist was converted under the same premise described in Romans ch 10.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Scott Bushey said:


> Who said this? Saving faith never happens outside of the preached word. Regeneration occurs like John 3 describes. John the Baptist was converted under the same premise described in Romans ch 10.


On the contrary, salvation _can_ occur outside the preached Word. The Word itself is able to make men wise unto salvation. (2 Tim 3:15) I am short on time and couldn't find the WCF Chapter that affirms this.

On another note, it is quite ironic that a Credo-Baptist would accuse the orthodox Paedo-Baptist position of hyper-Calvinism when it is the Credo that argues for a Regenerate New Covenant membership and, in many corners, denies the invisible/visible distinction that has been core to Reformed Theology since its inception.


----------



## elnwood

Scott Bushey said:


> Who said this? Saving faith never happens outside of the preached word. Regeneration occurs like John 3 describes. John the Baptist was converted under the same premise described in Romans ch 10.



Perhaps I read too much in this, but Bruce wrote this. This is only the end of his post, so you may have to go back and read to get context.



Contra_Mundum said:


> My point in this post is to affirm that profound, or even shallow intellectual assent of a certain depth is not the essence of faith. Knowledge, Assent, Trust, in age/ability appropriate measures--that is faith. There are mentally challenged people who nonetheless see with their physical eyes, making some sense of the world around them. And they and infants can be helped to see the spiritual world too--all they need are the "eyes" to see with, the Christ to "gaze at" (Jn. 12:45), and God can grant them all the comprehension they need to be saved by that faith he gives them.



He seems to be saying that faith can be obtained by sight (As opposed by hearing, the standard method of receiving the gospel -- Romans 10:14). But is the content of that faith the gospel? (We're talking limited comprehension, so he's probably not referring to using sight to read the gospel and believe).

I seems to me that he is saying that saving faith can be in general revelation of God obtained by sight, apart from the preached gospel (which is what I took it to mean). Either that, or he thinks that the gospel of Christ can be preached by sight without words, in which case I ask for further explanation (picture book, maybe?).

Bruce, please correct me if I have misunderstood you, or if you want to clarify.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

elnwood said:


> I think a lot of you are losing sight of the issue.


Donald,
Thank you for addressing my post, especially as I was trying to keep the focus on the topic.

That said, don't take this the wrong way, but I don't really think that you have focused on the particular Scriptures I brought forward as they speak to the issue: what the Bible might have to tell us on the subject _Can infants be regenerated?_

Its almost as if you have decided ahead of time that no Scripture can speak in reference to it, and therefore, anything that I might present should immediately be explained away. If you get rid of all my passages, how will you hold on to the salvation of any infants at all? Pure deduction from the doctrine of election? Salvation apart from faith? Suggesting alternate interpretations implies that you think they are based on superior exegesis and reasoning. But, if such exists, it is not in evidence in your post.

Allow me, please, to analyze your responses.

With reference to John the Baptist:


> I don't think that necessarily follows. There are people who leap for joy in Word of Faith churches, and I think many if not most of them are not saved. People can prophecy and cast out demons in Jesus' name, and be found on the last day to not be in Him. I don't think we can conclusively say that any person who leaps for joy because of Jesus is saved.


Do you see that your comments don't deal with the text at all? Who cares what the WoF churches do? The Bible ties *joy in the Lord* to salvation. Only the regenerate rejoice in the Lord in any true way. John had the joy of the Lord. Period. Not a WoF imitation. Show me a biblical example of someone with joy in the Lord who wasn't saved. Look at the immediate context, Elizabeth's joy; and verse 47 Mary's joy. What does the natural reading of the text indicate about John's state?

John was "filled with Spirit" from the womb, by prophecy, v. 15; that's NT _salvation_ language; the Spirit didn't just "come upon him" (as in the OT examples of reprobates Saul or Balaam); what does this mean? You never address it. I see your response as dismissive on purely subjective grounds.

With reference to David's infant son:


> I think your interpretation is incorrect because it lacks context. The Old Testament afterlife formula is very primitive. When the Old Testament talks about Sheol, the place of the dead, they refer to it as if it is a physical place.
> 
> Verses 22 and 23: He said, "While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who knows, the Lord may be gracious to me, that the child may live.' But now that he has died, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."
> 
> In context, David stops mourning not because he is comforted by the fact that he will see his child, but because his mourning will not bring his son back from the dead. When David says "I will go to him," he means that he will go to Sheol, the (figurative) place of the dead, i.e. David himself will also die. When he says, "he will not return to me," he means that his child will not come back from the dead. There is no indication that this passage is joyous, and there is nothing that suggests future fellowship -- it is a passage of resignation.


Who says the OT concept of death/afterlife was "primitive"? Define "primitive," then prove that assertion. Sheol isn't even mentioned in the passage, so even granting the term (when used) does mean generally "the place of the dead," it doesn't follow from such an expression that the theology of death among Israelites was something like a doctor's waiting room for Judgment Day.

Liberals sometimes accuse the orthodox of "reading a later (NT) theology of death" back into the OT. That judgment cannot be accepted wholesale. Them not having ALL the information does not equate to a History-of-Religions approach to OT theology. Prove to me that David believed all the dead went to basically the same place. When we use similar talk today, no one assumes therefore that we don't have a robust theology of death, do they?

As for the idea that the context teaches David's mere resignation: these matters were "written for our instruction," brother, I can hardly believe that you would treat this passage as hardly more than reportage. Do you think this passage teaches us nothing about David's faith? Verses 19 & 20 have him worshipping Jehovah (the covenant name) after getting the news of his son's death. David's statement is in the context of his worship!

Given the larger context of the OT, and the doctrine of the Covenant, *I completely reject the idea that this passage teaches David looking into the blank void, or that the Bible is teaching even a mild form of fatalism here, dressed up in divine sovereignty.* And do you really think that hope held out to grieving parents means that we teach from this passage that that David was _joyful_ after his son died? That is harsh, and certainly not tied to my interpretation. I leave it to the reader to decide whose interpretation fits the context better.

With reference to David himself, Ps. 22:9-10; Ps. 71:5-6; and to Jeremiah, Jer. 1:5:


> Sanctified just means set apart. It doesn't always mean that they have been saved. In the same way, 1 Corinthians 7:14 says that unbelieving spouses are sanctified.
> 
> I believe the elect are set apart for his purpose from birth, but that doesn't mean they are regenerated from birth. I think that applies to the other passages you cited, so I won't repeat this comment again.


And in Jer. 1:5 "sanctified" _doesn't_ mean saved and regenerated... because... ? Citing a different passage proving sanctified musn't always mean saved doesn't challenge my interpretation in the least. It certainly might mean saved. We need a reason why it shouldn't be taken that way. Do you have any reason, any deduction, drawn from Scripture, to suspect that Jeremiah _ever_ had defective faith, from his earliest childhood, or from infancy? Furthermore, you used Jeremiah's case to dismiss two other passages. The passages all speak to the issue in their unique ways.

You don't even touch David, who is "held", "made to trust in" and "cast upon" God. "You are my God since my mother bare me." Ps. 71 adds "taken" to this litany (assuming it is David's Psalm--if it isn't, then that's yet another explicit instance to deal with). Just answer me this: *was David at least regenerated as an infant?* "Made to trust" is not the language of election, but regeneration. When you were regenerated, it was because God "made you trust" in him too.

With reference to Moses:


> My bible says, "By faith Moses, when had GROWN UP." BIG difference.


I agree. Mine says that too... in verse 24, not in verse 23, which is the verse I cited. Easy to dismiss my point... when its not my point. It's Moses' faith, but it is the actions of his parents.

23 "By faith Moses when he was born..." 24 "By faith Moses when he grew up..." 
Compare with verses 
3: "By faith we" 
4 "By faith Abel" 
5 "By faith Enoch" 
7 By faith Noah" 
8 "By faith Abraham" 
9 "By faith he" 
11 "By faith even Sarah" 
17 "By faith Abraham" 
20 "By faith Isaac" 
21 "By faith Jacob" 
22 "By faith Joseph" 
[Moses 2x] 
27 "By faith he" 
28 "By faith he" 
29 "By faith they" 
30 "By faith" 
31 "By faith Rahab" 
32-33 "of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephtha, David and Samuel and the prophets who by faith"

With reference to Is. 46:3:


> I can't add much to your own criticism. Drawing infant regeneration from this proves too much. I think it's talking about election and being set apart.


All you do is latch on to a concession I made, as though what I granted mooted my point. Well, did it? What is your argument? Interpret the language of the verse in a way that does your point justice. Answer my claims. Explain how :"borne by me from their birth" and "carried from the womb" teach something about election, and nothing more. How is that the case?

As I've said several times now, offering that my interpretation _might not be the case_ because some other interpretation _might be the case_ is not the same as showing that my interpretation is not the BEST interpretation, or that the other is BETTER than mine. Why is your's better? Why should it be taken? Is God telling them he elected them in the womb? Didn't he elect them before time began? Isn't this a salvation passage? Doesn't the very next verse teach that what God began in a sense at their conception he will finish when they are grey of head? "I have made, I will bear, I will carry, I will save."

With reference to the language of effectual calling, as pertains to Jesus, Is. 49:1:
Not addressed. The types of Christ, the anti-type, are whom?



> To continue the thought and put to death any presumption that God will save Covenant Children, take, for example, the Reformed churches in Europe. People on this board think that those Reformed churches were about as pure and true as a church has been. Even if they had done little evangelism, you would think, just by reproducing, that the church would have grown and prospered if, even in general, the children became believers as well. And yet the Reformed churches in Europe have just about died away. Make of that as you will.


Donald, I'll make of it the fact that you do not understand the position you are critiquing. Period.

I've already pretty loudly rejected any presumption, as you well know. God's promises to his people are appropriated only BY FAITH. So, if covenant children are not being saved, then by inference, we ought to be criticizing parents and their faithlessness, not diminishing the promises of God to be God to us and to our seed. Why should anyone expect God, who works most often by ordinary means, to act by rote and ignore his people's foolish "presumptions"? And we who understand God's use of means reject that idea. Which thought was the substance of my closing paragraph, and was either misread, misunderstood, or ignored.

So its silly to suggest that many PuritanBoard members claim unreservedly that THE REFORMED CHURCH, considered as some historic tree, is pure and true. Reformed churches have gone apostate all over since the Reformation. But not everywhere. The faithful church keeps going under various names and denominations. And this pattern may well continue for ages.

Donald, if you think that the presbyterian-covenant-ideal should have worked out in Europe or the US to produce a thriving, faithful church _simply by reproduction,_ *then you don't understand what we believe this doctrine teaches.* You don't understand how FAITH is the mainspring of our whole concept of the Covenant. I'm not being pejorative here. I'm just telling you what your paragraph above reveals. No presbyterian covenant theologian, who held the Bible and the Westminster Confession, could possibly have written it. Anyone who thought that scenario should have happened if our version of covenant theology was true doesn't understand our version of covenant theology.

Why do non-presbyterians persist in thinking our doctrine or practice _as codified in our confessions_ is crypto-Roman?!



> Continuing the regeneration issue, I think that, when you say that regeneration and saving faith does happen without the preaching and receiving of the gospel, you are dangerously close to the hyper-Calvinist error.
> 
> The argument would run as follows: "Since regeneration leading to saving faith is initiated by God, and this happens apart from the preaching of the gospel, then it is not necessary for the gospel to be preached in order for people to be saved. We need not go out to the world and preach the gospel, for God will regenerate his elect apart from the gospel, and then they will seek the things of God and come to us."
> 
> I think this is the logical conclusion of regeneration and saving faith apart from the preaching of the gospel, and I can see a logical progression from the teachings in Canons of Dort, First Head, Article 17 to the hyper-Calvinism of the Protestant Reformed Churches.


Don't you desperately need an "ordinarily" in that first paragraph? What are you left with? As far as the salvation of infants and others who are not capable of being outwardly called? To me, if this is all you had to say on the subject, I'd have to conclude that you thought either 1) they all go to hell, or 2) some may be saved, but not by faith in Jesus.

As for the "argument," it is faulty. Saying something isn't necessary is to claim one knows all the necessary conditions. And it is evident from the Bible that ordinarily communication of the gospel via the human rational faculty is a God-ordained necessity to salvation. But God is free to operate without, above, and contrary to the ordinary means as he pleases. We don't operate off of what he can do, but on the basis of what he commands and promises.

People who operate off other premises are themselves in error. I agree that hyper-calvinism is a _serious_ error. God uses ordinary means to accomplish his ends. Preaching the gospel as the primary means of salvation is first and foremost a response to God's command to employ his ordained means to his ordained ends. We operate on faith.

Lastly, if you persist in constantly drawing that line from a confessional document to the most extreme, erroneous conclusions found among anybody who claims to hold those documents as reliable--not only do you continue to not understand the spirit in which the documents were drawn up, but you insist that the worst errorists of the day are the "consistent" ones, rather than the judicious being the true heirs and consistent.

You refuse that both they who teach the extreme, and you who reject said teaching, are NOT them that understand those confessions best. Odd, since I've no evidence that you've studied them at length, or really worked to understand them according to original intent.

You don't accept that hyper-calvinists are the "most consistent" to Calvin, or that "calvinism" is rightly a pejorative term, or that you are just "happily inconsistent" with the true implications of your calvinism. So why do you think that those who own the Dort Canons are just "happily inconsistent" with the true implications of their formulae?


I hope that I have managed to keep the "paedo-credo" out of this debate directly.


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> On the contrary, salvation _can_ occur outside the preached Word. The Word itself is able to make men wise unto salvation. (2 Tim 3:15) I am short on time and couldn't find the WCF Chapter that affirms this.



There you have it, Scott.



SemperFideles said:


> On another note, it is quite ironic that a Credo-Baptist would accuse the orthodox Paedo-Baptist position of hyper-Calvinism when it is the Credo that argues for a Regenerate New Covenant membership and, in many corners, denies the invisible/visible distinction that has been core to Reformed Theology since its inception.



I fail to see the irony. I think that the Credo denial of invisible/visible distinction in the New Covenant is consistent (I would never say that, just because someone is a church member, that they are in the New Covenant), and that saving faith apart from the preached gospel, besides not being the orthodox Paedo-Baptist position, as Scott seems to think based on his protest, is consistent with hyper-Calvinism.

But this isn't a credo v. paedo thread. There is another thread to discuss that.


----------



## Scott Bushey

SemperFideles said:


> On the contrary, salvation _can_ occur outside the preached Word. The Word itself is able to make men wise unto salvation. (2 Tim 3:15) I am short on time and couldn't find the WCF Chapter that affirms this.
> 
> On another note, it is quite ironic that a Credo-Baptist would accuse the orthodox Paedo-Baptist position of hyper-Calvinism when it is the Credo that argues for a Regenerate New Covenant membership and, in many corners, denies the invisible/visible distinction that has been core to Reformed Theology since its inception.



Rich,
Give me an example.......


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Scott Bushey said:


> Rich,
> Give me an example.......



There is evidence that Timothy was saved by being taught the Scriptures by his family. I'm only repeating what is Confessional and is stated in 2 Tim 3:15 - that the Scriptures are able to make a man wise unto Salvation. That is not to disparage the power of the preached Word, it is simply to note that Scripture does say that a man can become wise unto salvation through the Word itself in a context that indicates that it was not preached in that case.


----------



## Scott Bushey

SemperFideles said:


> There is evidence that Timothy was saved by being taught the Scriptures by his family. I'm only repeating what is Confessional and is stated in 2 Tim 3:15 - that the Scriptures are able to make a man wise unto Salvation. That is not to disparage the power of the preached Word, it is simply to note that Scripture does say that a man can become wise unto salvation through the Word itself in a context that indicates that it was not preached in that case.



Here:

I. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls,[1] is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts,[2] and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word,[3] by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.[4]

1. Titus 1:1; Heb. 10:39
2. I Cor. 12:3; John 3:5; 6:44-45, 65; Titus 3:5; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 1:29; II Peter 1:1; see I Peter 1:2
3. Matt. 28:19-20; Rom. 10:14, 17; I Cor. 1:21
4. I Peter 2:2; Acts 20:32; Rom. 1:16-17; Matt. 28:19; see Acts 2:38; I Cor. 10:16; 11:23-29; Luke 17:5; Phil. 4:6-7



Rich,
Are you taking the term 'preached' literally for every case? When I say 'preached' I do not necessarily mean that a man stood in front of each elect person; it could have been accomplished by reading the scriptures or Christ actually going to regenerate infants destined to die in infancy with HIS WORD; directly, if you will. So, the spirit sometimes _preaches_.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> There you have it, Scott.
> 
> 
> 
> I fail to see the irony. I think that the Credo denial of invisible/visible distinction in the New Covenant is consistent (I would never say that, just because someone is a church member, that they are in the New Covenant), and that saving faith apart from the preached gospel, besides not being the orthodox Paedo-Baptist position, as Scott seems to think based on his protest, is consistent with hyper-Calvinism.
> 
> But this isn't a credo v. paedo thread. There is another thread to discuss that.



You keep saying this is not a paedo vs credo thread every time someone challenges you on your credo understanding of regeneration. How can it not be a credo or paedo thing when your understanding of regeneration is completely colored by your credo soteriology? It is inescapable.

The irony is that it is not in the nature of the paedo-baptist teaching to conflate regeneration with the Sacrament of Baptism which is the Genesis of this thread. Baptists have the hang-up about signs of regeneration preceding the application of the sign. They also have the hang-up about Covenant participation being a regenerate one as a condition for membership. Tomes are written to the end of establishing the perfection of the New Covenant to attempt to prove that nobody can ever be a member of the New Covenant that falls away as a buttress to the idea that Credo-Baptists rightly only baptize professors.

The point is, then, is that it is natural for you to ask the question about whether infants can be regenerated as if it bears on the question of Baptism. It might for you but it does not for us.

As is also customary to a credo postion, you tend to confuse assensus with regeneration or somehow that the ear organ has to be joined to an intellectual understanding of the Gospel going forward for the Spirit to act upon it. I'm not one given to speculation of definitive proclamations where the Scriptures are silent concerning the exact agency of the Holy Spirit. I do know for a fact, however, that all my children have been present in Church, in the womb, during their gestation period so they were present during the preaching of the Word. They have also been present during their very earliest time outside of the womb and have heard me read Scripture throughout.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Scott Bushey said:


> Here:
> 
> I. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls,[1] is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts,[2] and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word,[3] by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.[4]
> 
> 1. Titus 1:1; Heb. 10:39
> 2. I Cor. 12:3; John 3:5; 6:44-45, 65; Titus 3:5; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 1:29; II Peter 1:1; see I Peter 1:2
> 3. Matt. 28:19-20; Rom. 10:14, 17; I Cor. 1:21
> 4. I Peter 2:2; Acts 20:32; Rom. 1:16-17; Matt. 28:19; see Acts 2:38; I Cor. 10:16; 11:23-29; Luke 17:5; Phil. 4:6-7
> 
> 
> Rich,
> Are you taking the term 'preached' literally for every case? When I say 'preached' I do not necessarily mean that a man stood in front of each elect person; it could have been accomplished by reading the scriptures or Christ actually going to regenerate infants destined to die in infancy with HIS WORD; directly, if you will. So, the spirit sometimes _preaches_.


That's not the Chapter. I need to find it darnit.


----------



## Scott Bushey

SemperFideles said:


> That's not the Chapter. I need to find it darnit.



Key word: "ordinarily"..........


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Scott Bushey said:


> Key word: "ordinarily"..........


For sure. I'm certainly not arguing that the Preaching of the Word is not the ordinary means of salvation. I would NEVER recommend that a person read the Word at the exclusion of sitting under the preaching of it. I think it would just recognize that it's possible, for instance, for a copy of the Scriptures to end up in the hands of a Muslim in the darkest portions of the Arab world and make a man wise unto salvation.

One could argue, for instance, that Luther was converted by the Word itself because there certainly wasn't much preaching going on in his day!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I found it. It was in the Shorter Catechism:


> Q. 89. How is the Word made effectual to salvation?
> A. The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching, of the Word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith, unto salvation.185
> 
> Q. 90. How is the Word to be read and heard, that it may become effectual to salvation?
> A. That the Word may become effectual to salvation, we must attend thereunto with diligence, preparation, and prayer;186 receive it with faith and love, lay it up in our hearts, and practice it in our lives.187


----------



## Scott Bushey

I found it. It was in the Shorter Catechism:


> Q. 89. How is the Word made effectual to salvation?
> A. The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching, of the Word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith, unto salvation.185
> 
> Q. 90. How is the Word to be read and heard, that it may become effectual to salvation?
> A. That the Word may become effectual to salvation, we must attend thereunto with diligence, preparation, and prayer;186 receive it with faith and love, lay it up in our hearts, and practice it in our lives.187



How is the above support for your position? Is the above in regards to regeneration and not conversion? I am speaking of conversion. I know that regenaration

Here's something from the confession:

As expressed well in WCF 10-3, where regeneration is folded into the section on effectual call by the divines:

" 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 are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. "

I am saying that God/The Spirit/Christ go directly to individuals and by the Spirit of His word, and convert. 

Saving faith is akin to conversion, not regeneration. Regeneration happens by the spirit, conversion by the word; either preached or directly.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Rich,
My annual rant. Words mean things. I don't think God sees the difference between _damn _and our supposedly more polite minced version, _darn_. 


SemperFideles said:


> That's not the Chapter. I need to find it darnit.


----------



## elnwood

Contra_Mundum said:


> Donald,
> Thank you for addressing my post, especially as I was trying to keep the focus on the topic.
> 
> That said, don't take this the wrong way, but I don't really think that you have focused on the particular Scriptures I brought forward as they speak to the issue: what the Bible might have to tell us on the subject _Can infants be regenerated?_
> 
> Its almost as if you have decided ahead of time that no Scripture can speak in reference to it, and therefore, anything that I might present should immediately be explained away. If you get rid of all my passages, how will you hold on to the salvation of any infants at all? Pure deduction from the doctrine of election? Salvation apart from faith? Suggesting alternate interpretations implies that you think they are based on superior exegesis and reasoning. But, if such exists, it is not in evidence in your post.



These accusations are subjective criticism, not objective, so I'll move on to the substance.



Contra_Mundum said:


> With reference to John the Baptisto you see that your comments don't deal with the text at all? Who cares what the WoF churches do? The Bible ties *joy in the Lord* to salvation. Only the regenerate rejoice in the Lord in any true way. John had the joy of the Lord. Period. Not a WoF imitation. Show me a biblical example of someone with joy in the Lord who wasn't saved. Look at the immediate context, Elizabeth's joy; and verse 47 Mary's joy. What does the natural reading of the text indicate about John's state?
> 
> John was "filled with Spirit" from the womb, by prophecy, v. 15; that's NT _salvation_ language; the Spirit didn't just "come upon him" (as in the OT examples of reprobates Saul or Balaam); what does this mean? You never address it. I see your response as dismissive on purely subjective grounds.



1 Samuel 11:15 "So all the people went to Gilgal, and there they made Saul king before the LORD in Gilgal There they also offered sacrifices of peace offerings before the LORD; and there Saul and all the men of Israel rejoiced greatly."

Was Saul saved? He rejoiced greatly.



Contra_Mundum said:


> With reference to David's infant son:Who says the OT concept of death/afterlife was "primitive"? Define "primitive," then prove that assertion. Sheol isn't even mentioned in the passage, so even granting the term (when used) does mean generally "the place of the dead," it doesn't follow from such an expression that the theology of death among Israelites was something like a doctor's waiting room for Judgment Day.
> 
> Liberals sometimes accuse the orthodox of "reading a later (NT) theology of death" back into the OT. That judgment cannot be accepted wholesale. Them not having ALL the information does not equate to a History-of-Religions approach to OT theology. Prove to me that David believed all the dead went to basically the same place. When we use similar talk today, no one assumes therefore that we don't have a robust theology of death, do they?



When I mean primitive, I do not mean incorrect. I mean that when they spoke, they didn't speak in terms of heaven and hell. It would be the equivalent of us saying "kicking the bucket," or "pushing up daisies." David spoke of death as a place where you go. (Genesis 37:35 and others). I do not mean that David thought everybody goes to the same place. I am not a liberal. I just think that we need to understand what David means by "go to him" within his historical context.



Contra_Mundum said:


> As for the idea that the context teaches David's mere resignation: these matters were "written for our instruction," brother, I can hardly believe that you would treat this passage as hardly more than reportage. Do you think this passage teaches us nothing about David's faith? Verses 19 & 20 have him worshipping Jehovah (the covenant name) after getting the news of his son's death. David's statement is in the context of his worship!



You claim the high ground on context in this passage, but I do not think you adequately treat the immediate context, which is David's transition from mourning to not mourning, and that his reason is that his son would not come back from the dead.

That David got ready and went to the temple to worship does not imply that he had joy with the situation. It shows that he went back to his regular routine of worship. Surely you are to worship whether you are joyous or sad?

Read David's ENTIRE statement to his servants. In fact, take the time to read it out loud.

*"While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who knows, the Lord may be gracious to me, that the child may live.' But now that he has died, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."
*
Does it sound like a joyous statement? Or one of resignation and acceptance of God's sovereignty?



Contra_Mundum said:


> With reference to David himself, Ps. 22:9-10; Ps. 71:5-6; and to Jeremiah, Jer. 1:5:And in Jer. 1:5 "sanctified" _doesn't_ mean saved and regenerated... because... ? Citing a different passage proving sanctified musn't always mean saved doesn't challenge my interpretation in the least. It certainly might mean saved. We need a reason why it shouldn't be taken that way. Do you have any reason, any deduction, drawn from Scripture, to suspect that Jeremiah _ever_ had defective faith, from his earliest childhood, or from infancy? Furthermore, you used Jeremiah's case to dismiss two other passages. The passages all speak to the issue in their unique ways.
> 
> You don't even touch David, who is "held", "made to trust in" and "cast upon" God. "You are my God since my mother bare me." Ps. 71 adds "taken" to this litany (assuming it is David's Psalm--if it isn't, then that's yet another explicit instance to deal with). Just answer me this: *was David at least regenerated as an infant?* "Made to trust" is not the language of election, but regeneration. When you were regenerated, it was because God "made you trust" in him too.



The burden of proof is on you to show that sanctified means saved and regenerated in this context. The reason is that "set apart" is the literal meaning of the word. It can mean saved and regenerated too, because God sets us apart for that, and so the NT uses that term, but it does not always mean it.

This is common in the New Testament. Apostle can just mean "sent one," saved can just mean "rescued," deacon can just mean "servant," because those are the primary definitions of the words. Always accept the primary definition of the words, and only import other meanings if it fits with context. We cannot always import the full Christian meanings into these terms.

As for whether Jeremiah ever had a defective faith, I think my very first comment on Romans 5:8-10 applies.

Frankly, I don't have time to apply the principle to every verse you throw at me because the same hermeneutical principle applies. The language is consistent with God being faithful to his elect, having chosen them from the foundations of the world, nurtured them from their conception, and brought them to faith when the Word was preached to them.

Also, since David's Psalms are messianic, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that these passages are referring to Christ and not David, who was the one man who we KNOW was perfect from birth. Many events on the Psalms we know did not actually happen to David.



Contra_Mundum said:


> With reference to Moses:I agree. Mine says that too... in verse 24, not in verse 23, which is the verse I cited. Easy to dismiss my point... when its not my point. It's Moses' faith, but it is the actions of his parents.



Let's quote the whole verse, shall we?

Hebrews 8:23: By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw he was a beautiful child; and they were not afraid of the king's edict.

"By faith Moses was hidden" -- It's a passive verb. The faith is the parents. I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that Moses' faith spurred the action of his parents. It seems abundantly clear that it was his parents who had the faith.



Contra_Mundum said:


> As I've said several times now, offering that my interpretation _might not be the case_ because some other interpretation _might be the case_ is not the same as showing that my interpretation is not the BEST interpretation, or that the other is BETTER than mine. Why is your's better? Why should it be taken? Is God telling them he elected them in the womb? Didn't he elect them before time began? Isn't this a salvation passage? Doesn't the very next verse teach that what God began in a sense at their conception he will finish when they are grey of head? "I have made, I will bear, I will carry, I will save."



Because I don't make leaps of logic. I am not saying you are absolutely wrong, but I am saying that you cannot conclusively say, based on words like "sanctified," "carry," "trust," "joy," etc. that this is necessarily referring to regenerate infants. It may be true, I don't know for sure, but it is not a necessary logical conclusion.



> With reference to the language of effectual calling, as pertains to Jesus, Is. 49:1:
> Not addressed. The types of Christ, the anti-type, are whom?



Jesus is the anti-type of all who would be regenerated. It does not necessarily follow, though, that all (and thus even any) of the types would also be regenerated from birth. 



> Donald, I'll make of it the fact that you do not understand the position you are critiquing. Period.



Is this really necessary? Come on. Be nice.



Contra_Mundum said:


> I've already pretty loudly rejected any presumption, as you well know. God's promises to his people are appropriated only BY FAITH. So, if covenant children are not being saved, then by inference, we ought to be criticizing parents and their faithlessness, not diminishing the promises of God to be God to us and to our seed. Why should anyone expect God, who works most often by ordinary means, to act by rote and ignore his people's foolish "presumptions"? And we who understand God's use of means reject that idea. Which thought was the substance of my closing paragraph, and was either misread, misunderstood, or ignored.



Uh, I think you were so upset by my post that you thought I was disagreeing with you here. On the contrary, I was vigorously agreeing with you on this point, and this comment was in support of your post and against those who presume regeneration.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

elnwood said:


> Perhaps I read too much in this, but Bruce wrote this. This is only the end of his post, so you may have to go back and read to get context....He seems to be saying that faith can be obtained by sight (As opposed by hearing, the standard method of receiving the gospel -- Romans 10:14). But is the content of that faith the gospel? (We're talking limited comprehension, so he's probably not referring to using sight to read the gospel and believe).
> 
> I seems to me that he is saying that saving faith can be in general revelation of God obtained by sight, apart from the preached gospel (which is what I took it to mean). Either that, or he thinks that the gospel of Christ can be preached by sight without words, in which case I ask for further explanation (picture book, maybe?).
> 
> Bruce, please correct me if I have misunderstood you, or if you want to clarify.


No, I'm not talking about natural revelation. I'm not talking about physical eyes--that's why I put the words in "quotes".

When Paul says, "we walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7), he is contrasting faith--and a "natural" vision, a walk or manner of life by "sight" that is exemplified by a purely fleshly vision, the eyes of the body because "the body is all there is." 

So, in turn, we can speak of faith as "spiritual vision" or of believers seeing with "the eye of faith" (see e.g. Eph. 1:18 "the eyes of your understanding;" or Gal. 3:1, Gentiles "before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth as crucified" by Paul preaching, who never saw Jesus bodily; or Acts 26:18; or John 3:3).

I'm not talking about faith coming by the physical eye, as opposed to by hearing or the mind and understanding. I'm saying that as a newborn babe truly sees, because his eyes are functioning properly, so also one who is "born again" in regeneration "sees" spiritually also. It is the fact of his faith-seeing, and the Jesus that he "beholds" that saves him, not the exact interpretation he places on the "images" in his brain.

I mentioned the three parts of faith--Knowledge, Assent, Trust--because all are necessary, but the measure will vary by person and proportion. The weakest in brain (infants, mentally challenged) are not going to have a developed Knowledge component. Doesn't mean God hasn't granted them perfectly sound faculty of faith-seeing, a perfectly good "eye of faith."

*That* one faith-sees doesn't mean that he comprehends much at all, in a higher sense. Such apprehension takes time, it is a product of learning. But he still sees naturally and truly, just as a baby does physically. The infant or mentally challenged person who goes to be with God, having been granted faith-sight as the "condition" of salvation--the only and always instrumental cause--he will grow more in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 3:18) in heaven than they were ever able to do on earth.

Come to think of it, isn't that true of every one of us?

Clearer?


----------



## Scott Bushey

From the catechism:
Chapter 10 - Effectual Calling

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who worketh when, and where, andhow he pleaseth:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]

12. Gen. 17:7; Luke 1:15; 18:15-16; Acts 2:39; John 3:3, 5; I John 5:12
13. John 3:8
14. John 16:7-8; I John 5:12; Acts 4:12

Are regenerated and saved; two different things! How is this accomplished? By HIS word. The same word that said, Let there be light!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Scott Bushey said:


> I found it. It was in the Shorter Catechism:
> 
> 
> How is the above support for your position? Is the above in regards to regeneration and not conversion? I am speaking of conversion. I know that regenaration
> 
> Here's something from the confession:
> 
> As expressed well in WCF 10-3, where regeneration is folded into the section on effectual call by the divines:
> 
> " 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 are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. "
> 
> I am saying that God/The Spirit/Christ go directly to individuals and by the Spirit of His word, and convert.
> 
> Saving faith is akin to conversion, not regeneration. Regeneration happens by the spirit, conversion by the word; either preached or directly.


Wow. We really were talking about two different things. I was originally only responding narrowly to the idea that people were only saved by the preached Word. I was only bringing up the fact that the _read_ Word can save. Nothing more.


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> You keep saying this is not a paedo vs credo thread every time someone challenges you on your credo understanding of regeneration. How can it not be a credo or paedo thing when your understanding of regeneration is completely colored by your credo soteriology? It is inescapable.
> 
> The irony is that it is not in the nature of the paedo-baptist teaching to conflate regeneration with the Sacrament of Baptism which is the Genesis of this thread. Baptists have the hang-up about signs of regeneration preceding the application of the sign. They also have the hang-up about Covenant participation being a regenerate one as a condition for membership. Tomes are written to the end of establishing the perfection of the New Covenant to attempt to prove that nobody can ever be a member of the New Covenant that falls away as a buttress to the idea that Credo-Baptists rightly only baptize professors.
> 
> The point is, then, is that it is natural for you to ask the question about whether infants can be regenerated as if it bears on the question of Baptism. It might for you but it does not for us.
> 
> As is also customary to a credo postion, you tend to confuse assensus with regeneration or somehow that the ear organ has to be joined to an intellectual understanding of the Gospel going forward for the Spirit to act upon it. I'm not one given to speculation of definitive proclamations where the Scriptures are silent concerning the exact agency of the Holy Spirit. I do know for a fact, however, that all my children have been present in Church, in the womb, during their gestation period so they were present during the preaching of the Word. They have also been present during their very earliest time outside of the womb and have heard me read Scripture throughout.



I say it is not a credo v. paedo issue because it is not. Credo v. paedo concerns who are considered covenant members and who the sign is given to. There are credos who think that God regenerates infants and paedos that think that God doesn't.

I say this because people are deliberately going off topic. Your first "I find it ironic" comment was clearly an aside and off-topic, so I called you out on it. You seem to be doing it again. Put this in another thread.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

NaphtaliPress said:


> Rich,
> My annual rant. Words mean things. I don't think God sees the difference between _damn _and our supposedly more polite minced version, _darn_.



I'm sorry if it offended you Chris. I'll not use it though I'm not sure my intent of the use of the Word was in the same way as I would think when I would use the word damn. If it offends, though, that's enough for me.


----------



## Scott Bushey

SemperFideles said:


> Wow. We really were talking about two different things. I was originally only responding narrowly to the idea that people were only saved by the preached Word. I was only bringing up the fact that the _read_ Word can save. Nothing more.



Yea, the terminology is really important; we can be talking past each other and not even know it; the ordo ruined me.

Joh 3:8 The Spirit breathes where He desires, and *you hear His voice*; but you do not know from where He comes, and where He goes; so is everyone having been generated from the Spirit.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> I say it is not a credo v. paedo issue because it is not. Credo v. paedo concerns who are considered covenant members and who the sign is given to. There are credos who think that God regenerates infants and paedos that think that God doesn't.
> 
> I say this because people are deliberately going off topic. Your first "I find it ironic" comment was clearly an aside and off-topic, so I called you out on it. You seem to be doing it again. Put this in another thread.



1. _You_ not I first made the charge concerning the paedo view leading to hyper-calvinism. If you don't want that in the thread or responded to then don't post it. Simple yes?

2. Just because you start a thread does not mean that only the things that you believe relate to the issue belong in the thread. You need to:

a. chill out
b. remember that you are not a moderator

3. If you read my post above, and understand it, you would understand that my post _does_ relate to the question at hand. The subject of regeneration is not some bare doctrine that can be considered apart from one's understanding of the Covenant. Your understanding of regeneration drips with credo-baptist theology and you don't get to cry "Foul!" every time somebody seems to step away from your colored view of the doctrine.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Thanks Rich; most are not even considerate of that rule. I appreciate it. I understand your qualification; and not to overly press the point, or pounce on a perceived fault, but I don't think Webster's gives much cover. I mean, I don't think you were knitting socks. To speak generally, I have been amazed over the years, how little concern there is on the Net with what are called "minced oaths." I think myself and Carl Bogue, and I think Vaughn Hathaway, are the only folks ever to really complain at length in certain established reformed discussion groups about this (and they even more sensitive than I, I am sure).


SemperFideles said:


> I'm sorry if it offended you Chris. I'll not use it though I'm not sure my intent of the use of the Word was in the same way as I would think when I would use the word damn. If it offends, though, that's enough for me.


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> 1. _You_ not I first made the charge concerning the paedo view leading to hyper-calvinism. If you don't want that in the thread or responded to then don't post it. Simple yes?



Incorrect. I said the view that regeneration and conversion occurs without the preaching and understanding of the gospel leads to hyper-Calvinism. I never mentioned baptism. I never said that this is a paedo view or the paedo view because it isn't. There are baptists and paedobaptists who believe and disbelieve that premise. I never made a critique of paedobaptism in this forum, and in fact a couple times I took the paedo view to explain a concept. If you want to talk baptism, go elsewhere.


----------



## Scott Bushey

elnwood said:


> Incorrect. I said the view that regeneration and conversion occurs without the preaching and understanding of the gospel leads to hyper-Calvinism. I never mentioned baptism. I never said that this is a paedo view or the paedo view because it isn't. There are baptists and paedobaptists who believe and disbelieve that premise. I never made a critique of paedobaptism in this forum, and in fact a couple times I took the paedo view to explain a concept. If you want to talk baptism, go elsewhere.



Don,
Ease up. What Rich is saying is that the two are inextricably linked covenantally. Your theology does not allow for that. Don't be offended; it wasn't meant as a dig.

Can we move passed this. Uhh John 3 above @@


----------



## elnwood

Lightening up ...  

Peace, Rich. No offense taken, and I apologize for any given.



SemperFideles said:


> You keep saying this is not a paedo vs credo thread every time someone challenges you on your credo understanding of regeneration. How can it not be a credo or paedo thing when your understanding of regeneration is completely colored by your credo soteriology? It is inescapable.
> 
> The irony is that it is not in the nature of the paedo-baptist teaching to conflate regeneration with the Sacrament of Baptism which is the Genesis of this thread. Baptists have the hang-up about signs of regeneration preceding the application of the sign. They also have the hang-up about Covenant participation being a regenerate one as a condition for membership. Tomes are written to the end of establishing the perfection of the New Covenant to attempt to prove that nobody can ever be a member of the New Covenant that falls away as a buttress to the idea that Credo-Baptists rightly only baptize professors.
> 
> The point is, then, is that it is natural for you to ask the question about whether infants can be regenerated as if it bears on the question of Baptism. It might for you but it does not for us.
> 
> As is also customary to a credo postion, you tend to confuse assensus with regeneration or somehow that the ear organ has to be joined to an intellectual understanding of the Gospel going forward for the Spirit to act upon it. I'm not one given to speculation of definitive proclamations where the Scriptures are silent concerning the exact agency of the Holy Spirit. I do know for a fact, however, that all my children have been present in Church, in the womb, during their gestation period so they were present during the preaching of the Word. They have also been present during their very earliest time outside of the womb and have heard me read Scripture throughout.



I would dispute that credo v. paedo is inextricably linked to regeneration. God chooses to regenerate people both inside and outside the church and refuse regeneration to both those inside and outside the church.

A Baptist like Grudem, who also believes in the Doctrines of Grace, can happily believe that God regenerates some infants because, as far as the ordinance is concerned, he is only concerned about applying baptism when they make a credible profession of faith (which is not the same thing as regeneration).

So what is the difference between a Baptist like Grudem and Baptist like me? We both have the same baptistic presuppositions and notions of covenant membership. If you are saying that my view against infant regeneration flows from my credobaptism, please explain why Grudem does not believe the same way. I don't think Grudem is inconsistent with credobaptism, but if you can show that, I would find that interesting.


----------



## Scott Bushey

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church;[2] but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.[8]

1. Matt. 28:19
2. I Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27-28
3. Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12
4. Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:5
5. John 3:5; Titus 3:5
6. Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; 22:16
7. Rom. 6:3-4
8. Matt. 28:19-20


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Don,

I'm not saying that credo-Baptists are a monolithic bunch that agree on all issues. I am saying, however, that your take on this is colored by your commitments to credo-Baptistic commitments to the way you read the Scriptures.

Bruce has done a fine job articulating clear passages of Scripture that _prima facia_ demonstrate the point of regeneration but you pass over them out of a pre-commitment to what you believe regeneration must signify. It may seem to you that you are just objectively dealing with the passages but those of us who differ see a telling pattern in your interaction with him.

I don't know how to recommend to you that you jump out of your credo skin to see it but it's written all over your treatment of the doctrine.

Pastor Winzer has asked you an excellent question. Interact with him for a bit. I have to get to a meeting.

Grace and Peace,


----------



## elnwood

armourbearer said:


> May I ask what the definition of "regeneration" is, which is being denied to infants in this thread? It seems to me that the issue boils down to a biblical understanding of depravity and renewal. Clear that matter up, and I think it will be a simple matter of showing that infants can be regnerated as equally as they can be fallen.



I think we all are using the same definition of regeneration. It is that rebirth that gives us a new heart and new mind and an inclination towards the things of God when before we were dead and slaves to sin.


----------



## Scott Bushey

elnwood said:


> I think we all are using the same definition of regeneration. It is that rebirth that gives us a new heart and new mind and an inclination towards the things of God when before we were dead and slaves to sin.



Just to clarify, you are not interchanging regeneration w/conversion are you?


----------



## Peter

elnwood said:


> I absolutely agree that regeneration precedes faith. The question is whether God ever regenerates apart from the recipient receiving the effectual call to believe the gospel.
> 
> Monergism.com has this to say on Ordis Salutis:
> 
> 
> I would echo this article and say that regeneration is part of a unitary, inseparable process. I don't see the bible teaching that God regenerates apart from receiving the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> An infant can exercise reason. An infant knows that if it cries, it will get fed sooner. It knows that if food tastes bad, it doesn't want to eat any more. The difference is that the infant cannot understand the gospel being preached to the gospel.
> 
> Think of it this way: say you only speak English, and you are sent to an unreached people group that did not know English. Could you communicate the gospel to them in English such that they could be saved? Not without learning their language or teaching them your language. My point is that the special revelation of the gospel cannot be communicated to infants, not that they are unable to reason.




Can my dog exercise reason too then? My dog barks at me when it's hungry , is it therefore rational? Sensing and responding to hunger is not the use of reason. Dogs and babies have a sensory faculty but neither can exercise understanding or knowledge. For example, babies and dogs cannot believe the gospel. The critical difference though is that human infants are endowed with the capacity to reason whereas dogs are not. Philosophically speaking: a baby has reason in the first act (the capacity) but not in the second act (the exercise). This is why it is acceptable to kill dogs but not babies. 

Now applied to theology, an infant may have spiritual life in the first act but it cannot put that life into practice, the second act. Those born again before the age of discretion have the power to have faith even though they cannot actually possess faith until they come to discretion. The SDG book by Peter Van Mastricht, "A Treatise on Refeneration" p xviii-xix, 26, 27 is helpful here and is my primary source.


----------



## elnwood

Scott Bushey said:


> Just to clarify, you are not interchanging regeneration w/conversion are you?



Good question. I follow the traditional order of regeneration, then faith, and that this faith is credited as righteousness.

I am unsure of the proper definition of conversion, but off-hand I think it refers to the entire process, whereas regeneration is just the incipient stage of it. Please correct me if I am wrong.

And I will say that people in this thread have made a good case for regeneration of infants with a subsequent saving faith later on when they hear the preaching of the gospel. I am not fully convinced, but it is a good case nonetheless.


----------



## elnwood

armourbearer said:


> Given the fact that you use the traditional word "inclination," it would seem that you would understand "new" to mean "renewed" in the traditional sense also. Is that correct? If so, may I ask what an adult has that an infant does not have in terms of heart and mind, which makes it possible for an adult to be renewed but not an infant? If an infant has what it takes to be in a fallen condition, surely it has what it takes to be in a renewed condition.



I see where you are going, and so far I am in agreement with you. There is nothing that an adult has in terms of heart and mind that infant does not have.

The difference is that when you preach to an adult, they can understand your language and thus understand the gospel. If we could figure out how to preach the gospel in baby talk, then I think we could see those infants regenerated, but thus far I am not convinced that the gospel can be preached effectively to infants, and I am not convinced that regeneration can happen apart from the preaching (or reading) of the gospel.


----------



## Pilgrim

SemperFideles said:


> We would say "No". Bruce was not arguing that the administration of the Sacrament itself saved the boy. That is popish. The child receives the sign to initiate him into the Covenant - a right privileged to Him by God by the Providence of his birth into a believing household. But the child is identified with his parents before the sing. The sign is a ministerial declaration and does not confer actual union with Christ. David was not a Campbellite.



 

The sign of covenant initiation (be it circumcision or baptism) does not itself bring the child into the covenant. Rather it is the sign and seal of the relationship that already exists. 

From _The Directory For The Publick Worship of God_:


> That the promise is made to believers and their seed; and that the seed and posterity of the faithful, born within the church,
> have, by their birth, interest in the covenant, and right to the seal of it, and to the outward privileges of the church, under the gospel, no less than the children of Abraham in the time of the Old Testament; the covenant of grace, for substance, being the same; and the grace of God, and the consolation of believers, more plentiful than before: That the Son of God admitted little children into his presence, embracing and blessing them, saying, For of such is the kingdom of God: That children, by baptism, are solemnly received into the bosom of the visible church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers; and that all who are baptized in the name of Christ, do renounce, and by their baptism are bound to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh: That they are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized: That the inward grace and virtue of baptism is not tied to that very moment of time wherein it is administered; and that the fruit and power thereof reacheth to the whole course of our life; and that outward baptism is not so necessary, that, through the want thereof, the infant is in danger of damnation, or the parents guilty, if they do not contemn or neglect the ordinance of Christ, when and where it may be had."


----------



## Contra_Mundum

As always, lets take these looooong posts with a grain of salt...


elnwood said:


> These accusations are subjective criticism, not objective, so I'll move on to the substance.


That section, like this one, was introduction. Saying your posts don't present a biblical case is an objective statement. Questions (like before)--How much of your post was hermeneutical, dealing with a biblical text? How much of it was dismissive? You didn't presented a case that infant regeneration is impossible, or offer a different case that it is possible, or show how my interpretation of the passages in question were not suitable. All you did was offer that someone could read them differently. Why anyone should read them differently was not addressed. So, in your criticism are you dealing with the subject of the thread or not?



> 1 Samuel 11:15 "So all the people went to Gilgal, and there they made Saul king before the LORD in Gilgal There they also offered sacrifices of peace offerings before the LORD; and there Saul and all the men of Israel rejoiced greatly."
> 
> Was Saul saved? He rejoiced greatly.


Unsuitable example. (but I'm glad for it)

It deals with a corporate celebration, including worship elements, and secular partying. It is agreed by all sides that corporate gatherings, even worship, are often mixed. Nevertheless, the collective may still be said to act together, while what is predicable of the whole is not true of each part (Logic 101). The people are said to have engaged in service before the Lord. Saul is said to rejoice there, and all the men of Israel. Well, he was just proclaimed king... it's only happiness and celebration, not joy in the Lord.

Therefore, I judge this passage doesn't address the question of a individual person expressing joy in HIS Lord, on the basis of 1) context is collective action, 2) not directly associated with or obviously in concert with the Lord (and actually, we know that God was displeased with the desire of the nation for a king).

But raising a biblical text is much more along the lines of what we need if we are going to deal with the question by the text of Scripture. Offering counter example or exegesis gives us a platform to wrangle exegetically and hermeneutically. Thank you.



> When I mean primitive, I do not mean incorrect. I mean that when they spoke, they didn't speak in terms of heaven and hell. It would be the equivalent of us saying "kicking the bucket," or "pushing up daisies." David spoke of death as a place where you go. (Genesis 37:35 and others). I do not mean that David thought everybody goes to the same place. I am not a liberal. I just think that we need to understand what David means by "go to him" within his historical context.


I don't think you are liberal--if you were you could never stomach Gene's preaching  .

I don't think ancient Israel was as naive as to not have hope of life hereafter. Jesus told Sadducees (not Pharisses) in his day that the books of Moses clearly taught life after death and the resurrection. "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures... I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob... all live to him." Abraham was looking for a city outside this world, so he too believed in life after death. Since David had the books of Moses, then he must have known what Abraham and Moses knew--that the faithful went to blessed fellowship with God, but the grave for the wicked was a miserable nightmare.


> You claim the high ground on context in this passage, but I do not think you adequately treat the immediate context, which is David's transition from mourning to not mourning, and that his reason is that his son would not come back from the dead.
> 
> That David got ready and went to the temple to worship does not imply that he had joy with the situation. It shows that he went back to his regular routine of worship. Surely you are to worship whether you are joyous or sad?


I'm really not sure why you seem to think that I say David was joyful. I never said that. I'm talking about his son, and the indications from the passage that his son would be in paradise. I say David hoped in God and in God's promise. I don't say that he was beaming with happiness. David's comment comes in the aftermath _not just of mourning transition,_ but of worship in the God of his hope! I think that behavior, coming as it does from a heart of faith and contrition, is a conditioning exercise, and ought to be given great weight when examining the context.


> Read David's ENTIRE statement to his servants. In fact, take the time to read it out loud.
> 
> *"While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who knows, the Lord may be gracious to me, that the child may live.' But now that he has died, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."*
> 
> Does it sound like a joyous statement? Or one of resignation and acceptance of God's sovereignty?


Again with the joy? Where do *my posts* say this? Hope doesn't have to ignore real grief and sadness. "Resignation" is a word that implies the end of hope. Was David wrestling with God in a battle he must lose, and so now he resigns, gives up and gives in? Is it blind trust in God, "what will be will be" fatalism? What is the content of David's covenant-grounded acceptance of God's sovereignty?

Did David hope in life after death? Did David believe in the resurrection? What does the OT mean when it uses the phrase "gathered to his fathers"? Is that a statement of faith; or merely a secular, poetic, ultimately empty way of saying "buried."

Which is more correct to suppose re. David's comment?
1) That it expressed no faith-commitment, despite the fact that the inspired writer recorded the words for our instruction--i.e. "I'm going to die too, but he's not going to rise again." 

Or 2) that it was a statement of faith, spoken after worship of the ever-living God, and God of the living, the covenant making, covenant-keeping Jehovah, who promised to be God to David's son, and for whom David had cried out ceaselessly for virtually his entire short life--i.e. "I am going to be with him, he will not be coming to be with me."

Again, I don't see why you'd prefer to think that David's comment--proceeding from a heart of faith--would not include the idea of fellowship with that baby. Christians (and David certainly was one) don't grieve "like those who have no hope."



> The burden of proof is on you to show that sanctified means saved and regenerated in this context. The reason is that "set apart" is the literal meaning of the word. It can mean saved and regenerated too, because God sets us apart for that, and so the NT uses that term, but it does not always mean it.


Here's my argument--God is doing the sanctifying. This is the Word of Jehovah. Follow the statement: "Before I formed thee in the belly, [prior to conception/existence] I knew [loved/intimacy] thee [election]; and before [prior to] thou camest from the womb [birth, but after conception] I sanctified thee [set you apart]; I appointed thee a prophet."

Continuing, this is an individual "sanctification" (not a collective--such as "sanctifying" the nation Israel, which would include a mixture). The overwhelming majority, _if not ALL,_ of God's individual sanctifications are salvific. Find a contrary example. I'd say that God's actions on this score make the default conclusion that Jeremiah must have been regenerated, barring some reason to think otherwise. Jeremiah was constituted from the womb a fit instrument for prophetic revelation. This seems to me the fullest, no holds barred interpretation. Why settle for less?

Again, if the only argument from the other side is that maybe it doesn't mean salvation, I have to ask "Why shouldn't it?" If the answer is because infants can't be regenerated, then why are we even having a discussion? The conclusion has been rejected ahead of time. If the answer is that the word here can only mean _set apart_ (for prophethood, or something else, or nothing else), given preponderant biblical usage of such a term, that constitutes a limitation that has to be defended.



> This is common in the New Testament. Apostle can just mean "sent one," saved can just mean "rescued," deacon can just mean "servant," because those are the primary definitions of the words. Always accept the primary definition of the words, and only import other meanings if it fits with context. We cannot always import the full Christian meanings into these terms.


1) Again, just by mentioning that words must be interpreted in context, and that they don't have a "single meaning" is NOT an argument. It does NOTHING to show that I have not made a positive case, the only positive case set forth so far. In order for this to be an argument, it has to include reasons why some other sense is preferrable, or (weaker) why my sense is lacking, or downright impossible.

2) What you are calling the primary definition is only a lexical or root meaning. It is an exegetical fallacy to claim that biblical interpretation begins with the root meaning and adds to it per contextual demands. *False.* We enter the hermeneutic door at some contextual level, we don't get there second. From there we go both downstairs (to lower contexts (if present), to the root-meaning of words for background, and other contexts that shed additional light on word usage) and upstairs to greater contexts. The biblical meaning is primary.

Here is D.A. Carson, from his book _Exegetical Fallacies:_ "It is arguable that although apostolos is cognate with apostellw (I send), NT use of the noun does not center on the meaning _the one sent_ but on "messenger." Now a messenger is usually sent; but the word _messenger_ also calls to mind the message the person carries, and suggests he represents the one who sent him. *In other words, actual usage in the NT sugests that apostolos commonly bears the meaning a special representative or a special messenger rather than "someone sent out."* (p.30) What he is saying is that we don't begin with the root, and go from there, but the "default meaning" of a word, if there is such a thing, is determined by the greatest context that renders a preponderant sense.

So, you need to defend the thesis that "sanctify" here is the minimalist interpretation, not just claim simplicity as sufficient justification.

3) Importing Christian meanings. The danger of reading the OT as though the NT wasn't present, is that we thereby assume that the NT concepts are not whole-cloth with the OT. They aren't always as fully developed, but there is no conflict between what the NT teaches and the OT. The main difference between them is their perspectives on Christ--prospective, retrospective. It is an error to state that, other than in clarity or fullness, the doctrine of Paul is different from the doctrine of Jeremiah, or Moses. And because they are one in essence, it is BAD exegesis _normally_ to NOT read the OT through NT eyes. Not only is it artificial, but we do not know (contrary to the religious-evolutionaries) for the most part the limits of Hebrew knowledge and reflection on theological matters. 



> As for whether Jeremiah ever had a defective faith, I think my very first comment on Romans 5:8-10 applies.


How long do persons have to be sinners, enemies, and under God's wrath before he grants saving faith?



> Frankly, I don't have time to apply the principle to every verse you throw at me because the same hermeneutical principle applies. The language is consistent with God being faithful to his elect, having chosen them from the foundations of the world, nurtured them from their conception, and brought them to faith when the Word was preached to them.


Yes, you do need to deal with each verse I'm offering. Because you are saying I can't make my case. But in order to say that, you sweep aside specific references and words that I'm appealing to in place after place (actually just a handful so far). I am claiming these places all teach a specific doctrine, and do it not in one way, but in several different ways, unique to each passage. And even if the Bible taught this in one place, then it may not be as strong a case as something taught several times, but it is no less authoritative.

Actually, you don't need to answer my arguments. All I need to do is remind the readers that a number of texts I've brought forward in support have not been replied to, and let the jury decide whose case is stronger. But I think it's better to get a full spectrum response.

You are making a contradictory claim, but you are saying you don't have to provide any evidence for it. I made specific reference to explicit terms of David, like "made me to trust in you upon my mother's breasts." I said that's regenerational language with clear, not vague, implications. You say that's not the trust of saving faith, that it is nothing but a statement of God's election and providence. But you give no biblical or linguistic justification for taking a statement about David's behavior, and making it a statement about God's behavior.



> Also, since David's Psalms are messianic, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that these passages are referring to Christ and not David, who was the one man who we KNOW was perfect from birth. Many events on the Psalms we know did not actually happen to David.


What events in the Psalms do we know didn't happen to David? The whole OT is messianic, some just more explicitly than the rest. How intertwined are David's own experiences with his Messianic reflections and prophecies? Where is the line drawn between David's sentiments and Christ's? How do we know what David did not feel? Is David a _profound_ type of Christ, the anti-type, or only a _superficial_ type of Him-who-was-to-come? Did David write Psalm 71? (if he did, it was as an old man, grey-headed, see vv. 9, 18; note vv. 5+6 parallel Ps. 22:9-10).

The Psalm references are devastating to the "no infant regeneration" position.



> Let's quote the whole verse, shall we?
> 
> Hebrews 8:23: By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw he was a beautiful child; and they were not afraid of the king's edict.
> 
> "By faith Moses was hidden" -- It's a passive verb. The faith is the parents. I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that Moses' faith spurred the action of his parents. It seems abundantly clear that it was his parents who had the faith.


No, actually it is Moses' faith. The writer of Hebrews is not mistaken, nor unclear. The construction is the same exact construction 18 times in 30 verses, _"Pistei" plus the name of the individual._

The point of the biblical author, in this one verse, is that he's speaking of Moses' faith, *but his parent's action*. It's not an easy verse, but all I'm telling you is what the verse says. Whether you think it was the parent's faith the author then attributes to Moses, or their faith exercised on his behalf and then attributed to him for some reason, or his faith as evidenced by his parents act-of-faith; or something else entirely.

The author of Heb. isn't simply rehearsing the history of Israel, but pointing to persons of faith. If he meant to highlight the parent's faith in verse 23, he would have said (as he does 11 times before and 6 times afterward) "By faith the parents of Moses..." *But he doesn't!* It is Moses, the man of faith, on display.



> Because I don't make leaps of logic. I am not saying you are absolutely wrong, but I am saying that you cannot conclusively say, based on words like "sanctified," "carry," "trust," "joy," etc. that this is necessarily referring to regenerate infants. It may be true, I don't know for sure, but it is not a necessary logical conclusion.


OK. There is a great difference between a step, and a leap. Some folks won't walk down anything more uneven than a ramp. But a stairway is no less safe for being a series. And it's not the same thing as platform-jumping.

I won't pretend to be so good an exegete and teacher that I can make an iron-clad case that necessarily compels assent (I couldn't anyway, because if this happens to be spiritual truth, it must be spiritually discerned, and that's a divine work). That infants can be regenerated, based on these or other Scriptures, I do feel compelled to believe. My staircase is built, and the steps are well-worn by other's use. But in the end, I believe in infant salvation because I believe in a sovereign God, who gives saving faith in Jesus Christ to every elect person, whether they are wise or simple. Can't get to heaven without it.



> Jesus is the anti-type of all who would be regenerated. It does not necessarily follow, though, that all (and thus even any) of the types would also be regenerated from birth.


I don't think all are. But do think many were in the OT, and even more today in the NT age, because this age is better.



> Is this really necessary? Come on. Be nice.


I lov ya, man. I lov ya pastor. I don't always agree with you, but I do admire your witness. I do really think some of your critique of this presbyterian does come from a lack of comprehension about what we think and why. But that cuts both ways. Presbyterians don't always understand baptists well enough either. It can sometimes show how well you understand the other side if you can state their position and have them say "Amen" to it.



> Uh, I think you were so upset by my post that you thought I was disagreeing with you here. On the contrary, I was vigorously agreeing with you on this point, and this comment was in support of your post and against those who presume regeneration.


 OK, maybe. I stand corrected. (I was getting a little stirred up there...)

PAX


----------



## bookslover

SemperFideles said:


> On the contrary, salvation _can_ occur outside the preached Word. The Word itself is able to make men wise unto salvation. (2 Tim 3:15) I am short on time and couldn't find the WCF Chapter that affirms this.
> 
> On another note, it is quite ironic that a Credo-Baptist would accuse the orthodox Paedo-Baptist position of hyper-Calvinism when it is the Credo that argues for a Regenerate New Covenant membership and, in many corners, denies the invisible/visible distinction that has been core to Reformed Theology since its inception.



If I remember rightly, Francis Schaeffer says somewhere that he was saved exclusively through the reading of the Word.


----------



## Scott Bushey

elnwood said:


> I see where you are going, and so far I am in agreement with you. There is nothing that an adult has in terms of heart and mind that infant does not have.
> 
> The difference is that when you preach to an adult, they can understand your language and thus understand the gospel. If we could figure out how to preach the gospel in baby talk, then I think we could see those infants regenerated, but thus far I am not convinced that the gospel can be preached effectively to infants, and I am not convinced that regeneration can happen apart from the preaching (or reading) of the gospel.



This line of reasoning excludes ALL imbeciles from Gods elective decree; Surely you do not believe that all imbeciles are hell bound. I'll add, the above seems to be mixing conversion up w/ regeneration. Regeneration is accomplished by the Spirits monergistic moving upon the elect.

Joh 3:8 The Spirit breathes where He desires, and you hear His voice/5456; but you do not know from where He comes, and where He goes; so is everyone having been generated/1080 from the Spirit. 

5456 fwnh, phone {fo-nay'} 
Meaning: 1) a sound, a tone 1a) of inanimate things, as musical instruments 2) a voice 2a) of the sound of uttered words 3) speech 3a) of a language, tongue 
Origin: probably akin to 5316 through the idea of disclosure; TDNT - 9:278,1287; n f
Usage: AV - voice 131, sound 8, be noised abroad + 1096 1, noise 1; 141

1080 genna,w gennao {ghen-nah'-o} 
Meaning: 1) of men who fathered children 1a) to be born 1b) to be begotten 1b1) of women giving birth to children 2) metaph. 2a) to engender, cause to arise, excite 2b) in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life, to convert someone 2c) of God making Christ his son 2d) of God making men his sons through faith in Christ's work 
Origin: from a variation of 1085; TDNT - 1:665,114; v
Usage: AV - begat 49, be born 39, bear 2, gender 2, bring forth 1, be delivered 1, misc 3; 97

5772 Tense - Perfect (See 5778) Voice - Passive (See 5786) Mood - Participle (See 5796) Count - 463 



Can you please comment on John 3:8.


----------



## elnwood

armourbearer said:


> OK, now for the next step. Do you believe the gospel is always and only rational, and always and only received when its rational content is mentally understood? That is what seems to be implied in your answer. If this is in fact the case, what do you do with the OT saints? The NT tells us that they had the gospel of Christ preached to them by virtue of typical ordinances, even though they never heard the rational message or believed with the same mental understanding which we regard as necessary for salvation.



The OT saints understood the concept of substitutiary atonement and the promises of God, and that is sufficient for their salvation if they place their faith in it.

Infants have the mental capacity to believe the gospel. The gospel is a very simple concept. I am in no way saying that infants are deficient because of mental capacity. An infant can understand who God is, what sin is, that there is a need for a substitute. An infant can also understand that God provides this substitute, but they need to be told this.

For me, it's not a question of whether an infant can understand this. I think they can. The question is how the gospel can be given to them in a way that they understand and place their faith in.


----------



## elnwood

Scott Bushey said:


> This line of reasoning excludes ALL imbeciles from Gods elective decree; Surely you do not believe that all imbeciles are hell bound. I'll add, the above seems to be mixing conversion up w/ regeneration. Regeneration is accomplished by the Spirits monergistic moving upon the elect.
> 
> Joh 3:8 The Spirit breathes where He desires, and you hear His voice/5456; but you do not know from where He comes, and where He goes; so is everyone having been generated/1080 from the Spirit.
> 
> 5456 fwnh, phone {fo-nay'}
> Meaning: 1) a sound, a tone 1a) of inanimate things, as musical instruments 2) a voice 2a) of the sound of uttered words 3) speech 3a) of a language, tongue
> Origin: probably akin to 5316 through the idea of disclosure; TDNT - 9:278,1287; n f
> Usage: AV - voice 131, sound 8, be noised abroad + 1096 1, noise 1; 141
> 
> 1080 genna,w gennao {ghen-nah'-o}
> Meaning: 1) of men who fathered children 1a) to be born 1b) to be begotten 1b1) of women giving birth to children 2) metaph. 2a) to engender, cause to arise, excite 2b) in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life, to convert someone 2c) of God making Christ his son 2d) of God making men his sons through faith in Christ's work
> Origin: from a variation of 1085; TDNT - 1:665,114; v
> Usage: AV - begat 49, be born 39, bear 2, gender 2, bring forth 1, be delivered 1, misc 3; 97
> 
> 5772 Tense - Perfect (See 5778) Voice - Passive (See 5786) Mood - Participle (See 5796) Count - 463
> 
> 
> 
> Can you please comment on John 3:8.



I'm sorry, but I'm not sure where you're going with this. What are you asking about John 3:8? I believe in monergistic regeneration. I'm not an Arminian.


----------



## elnwood

*This post is responding to Contra_Mundum*

Hey Bruce.

I'm not going to rehash all the arguments again. I think we know fairly well where we stand.

In this discussion, I am not claiming to make an iron-clad argument that infants are not regenerated. You have pointed out that I have not shown that it is impossible, and I agree. All I am saying is that there are sufficient doubts in your argument that I cannot fully agree with you on this. I was on a jury a couple months ago. Think of my position as not believing "beyond a reasonable doubt" that infants can be regenerated.

Anyway, just come clarifications. If you thought I meant that David had no hope when I used the word "resigned," I did not intend this. I mean it in the same way that Job was resigned when he worshipped the Lord in the midst of tragedy. Job certainly had hope, but he was sad nonetheless, and worshipped. And I do believe that David had hope of life and a resurrection after. But I just don't think that is what David is talking about. I think David is talking about death itself, and not the afterlife. Just because all scripture is profitable doesn't mean that all verses are talking about hope. Ecclesiastes is profitable, and a lot of it is not about hope.

And the "Moses' faith, parents' action" interpretation blows my mind. Does anyone else agree with this? It seems like a huge exegetical stretch and seems to defy common sense.

Regarding the Psalms, I have no doubt that David felt those things that he wrote. However, I think a lot of what he felt and wrote about were metaphors that pointed to Christ's actual suffering. Psalm 22, for example, is considered one of the major messianic Psalms. Did people really cast lots for David's clothing? Maybe they did, but I don't think it's a necessary conclusion. I think that David felt as if people cast lots for his clothing, and this points ahead to the Christ, who did have his clothing taken away.

In the same way, I'm not sure we have to take David's trusting at his mother's breasts, which is in the same Psalm, strictly literally. I think you can reasonably interpret that David felt like he had been trusting God since he was an infant because he cannot recall a time when he did not trust God, and that God has always been trustworthy for him. It could be figurative that points ahead to the reality of Christ, who did always obey Christ.

One of the reasons that I have not responded to all of your objections is that they were given to me by shotgun approach. In other words, you threw too many arguments at me at once. Perhaps your intention was to do this in order that you might bring an accusation against me for not answering every text. I hope not. I am not willing to discuss this way.

I have discussed Psalm 22, and I will tackle whatever passages you bring up to me, one at a time (assuming that we are finished discussing Psalm 22). I'm not sure how productive future discussions will be since I think we both know where we stand, but if you want to discuss one in particular, and go from there, pick one out, give your exegesis, and we'll go from there.


----------



## Peter

Let me adapt the example from the intro to "A Treatise on Regeneration." In the first natural birth a baby is given the power to speak French, it can't yet until it has learned French but it has the power to. Those who are not yet a new creature do not have the power to have faith, they cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God, they are dead in sins. When they are given the second spiritual birth they are quickened from spiritual death and are fundamentally equipped with the power to have faith and repentence. So it must be emphasized that *regeneration is not understanding or having faith in the gospel.* Regeneration is the implanting in a sinner of the seed of spiritual life. This seed grows into the act of conversion in faith and repentence. Thus regeneration is logically and often temporally prior to conversion and babies can be regenerated without placing their faith in the gospel.


----------



## elnwood

Peter said:


> Let me adapt the example from the intro to "A Treatise on Regeneration." In the first natural birth a baby is given the power to speak French, it can't yet until it has learned French but it has the power to. Those who are not yet a new creature do not have the power to have faith, they cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God, they are dead in sins. When they are given the second spiritual birth they are quickened from spiritual death and are fundamentally equipped with the power to have faith and repentence. So it must be emphasized that *regeneration is not understanding or having faith in the gospel.* Regeneration is the implanting in a sinner of the seed of spiritual life. This seed grows into the act of conversion in faith and repentence. Thus regeneration is logically and often temporally prior to conversion and babies can be regenerated without placing their faith in the gospel.



I agree with you. I have said this numerous times. Regeneration precedes faith. The question is not whether regeneration precedes the faith in the gospel. The question is whether regeneration can occur before the preaching of the gospel.

I see the general order as follows:
1. Content of the gospel is preached to the sinner, thus calling the sinner to repent and believe.
2. God regenerates the sinner, enabling the sinner to respond in faith.
3. Sinner responds in faith.
4. Sinner's faith is credited as righteous (imputation).

So the question is: can #2 happen apart from #1?


----------



## BertMulder

elnwood said:


> Anyway, just come clarifications. If you thought I meant that David had no hope when I used the word "resigned," I did not intend this. I mean it in the same way that Job was resigned when he worshipped the Lord in the midst of tragedy. Job certainly had hope, but he was sad nonetheless, and worshipped. And I do believe that David had hope of life and a resurrection after. But I just don't think that is what David is talking about. I think David is talking about death itself, and not the afterlife. Just because all scripture is profitable doesn't mean that all verses are talking about hope. Ecclesiastes is profitable, and a lot of it is not about hope.
> 
> And the "Moses' faith, parents' action" interpretation blows my mind. Does anyone else agree with this? It seems like a huge exegetical stretch and seems to defy common sense.
> 
> Regarding the Psalms, I have no doubt that David felt those things that he wrote. However, I think a lot of what he felt and wrote about were metaphors that pointed to Christ's actual suffering. Psalm 22, for example, is considered one of the major messianic Psalms. Did people really cast lots for David's clothing? Maybe they did, but I don't think it's a necessary conclusion. I think that David felt as if people cast lots for his clothing, and this points ahead to the Christ, who did have his clothing taken away.
> 
> In the same way, I'm not sure we have to take David's trusting at his mother's breasts, which is in the same Psalm, strictly literally. I think you can reasonably interpret that David felt like he had been trusting God since he was an infant because he cannot recall a time when he did not trust God, and that God has always been trustworthy for him. It could be figurative that points ahead to the reality of Christ, who did always obey Christ.
> I have discussed Psalm 22, and I will tackle whatever passages you bring up to me, one at a time (assuming that we are finished discussing Psalm 22). I'm not sure how productive future discussions will be since I think we both know where we stand, but if you want to discuss one in particular, and go from there, pick one out, give your exegesis, and we'll go from there.



I believe the whole Old Testament is typical HISTORY. Thus when David says in the psalms that he trusted in God since his mother's breast, that is exactly what it means. And it is written for our edification, upon whom the ends of the world are come.


----------



## elnwood

BertMulder said:


> I believe the whole Old Testament is typical HISTORY. Thus when David says in the psalms that he trusted in God since his mother's breast, that is exactly what it means. And it is written for our edification, upon whom the ends of the world are come.



Perhaps. But was David also surrounded by bulls, as in verse 12? Or by dogs, as in verse 16? Did God forsake David, as in verse 1? When Revelation 20 says a thousand years, is that exactly what it means? If only biblical interpretation were so simple. I think genre matters, and the Psalms can be poetic, metaphorical, and prophetic just like Revelation, as apocalyptic literature, can be metaphorical.


----------



## Peter

elnwood said:


> I agree with you. I have said this numerous times. Regeneration precedes faith. The question is not whether regeneration precedes the faith in the gospel. The question is whether regeneration can occur before the preaching of the gospel.
> 
> I see the general order as follows:
> 1. Content of the gospel is preached to the sinner, thus calling the sinner to repent and believe.
> 2. God regenerates the sinner, enabling the sinner to respond in faith.
> 3. Sinner responds in faith.
> 4. Sinner's faith is credited as righteous (imputation).
> 
> So the question is: can #2 happen apart from #1?




The order of preaching then regeneration is the normal chronological order but there is no logical necessity for that order. The purpose of the external call of the gospel is to get people to accept it with faith, the condition of the new covenant, there is no need for it in the order of salvation. It is purely a means to an end, namely faith. And if it is true regeneration must occur before faith is possible and may precede it for some time then the external call can also occur any time between regeneration and conversion. Why do you think hearing the gospel is necessarily prior to or indispensable to regeneration?


----------



## Scott Bushey

elnwood said:


> I'm sorry, but I'm not sure where you're going with this. What are you asking about John 3:8? I believe in monergistic regeneration. I'm not an Arminian.



Don,
I am trying to show that before anyone is ever born again/regenerated (not speaking about conversion), the HS comes to that person, i.e 
Joh 3:8 The Spirit breathes where He desires, and you hear His voice. The HS here is said to have a _voice_; not an audible one, but one that is able to regenerate; the same one that raised Lazarus from the dead! John 3:3 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. This _voice_ can regenerate even an infant in the womb, conversion to follow later.


----------



## elnwood

Peter said:


> The order of preaching then regeneration is the normal chronological order but there is no logical necessity for that order. The purpose of the external call of the gospel is to get people to accept it with faith, the condition of the new covenant, there is no need for it in the order of salvation. It is purely a means to an end, namely faith. And if it is true regeneration must occur before faith is possible and may precede it for some time then the external call can also occur any time between regeneration and conversion. Why do you think hearing the gospel is necessarily prior to or indispensable to regeneration?



Good question that goes to the heart of the issue. Probably just for the reason that you stated, that this the normal chronological order. Monergism lists it as follows:

"In the Reformed camp, the ordo salutis is 1) election, 2) predestination, 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification. (Rom 8:29-30)"

I agree that logically that the external call is not necessary for regeneration, and that the Holy Spirit can regenerate apart from it, but it seems to me that this is the way that God chooses to operates.

The Reformed ordo salutis is not written in stone, but I would need more evidence to be convinced that God acts in a manner different than the ordo salutis in the case of infants.


----------



## Scott Bushey

elnwood said:


> Good question that goes to the heart of the issue. Probably just for the reason that you stated, that this the normal chronological order. Monergism lists it as follows:
> 
> "In the Reformed camp, the ordo salutis is 1) election, 2) predestination, 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification. (Rom 8:29-30)"
> 
> I agree that logically that the external call is not necessary for regeneration, and that the Holy Spirit can regenerate apart from it, but it seems to me that this is the way that God chooses to operates.
> 
> The Reformed ordo salutis is not written in stone, but I would need more evidence to be convinced that God acts in a manner different than the ordo salutis in the case of infants.



I disagree with what Peter wrote here: 


> The order of preaching then regeneration is the normal chronological order



Regeneration is solely an act of Gods spirit. It happens prior to the preaching so that Gods elect are able "to see the kingdom of God". All the preaching in the world will do nothing unless the vessel has been _primed_. See the passage above from John 3. 

Don, you never addressed my statement about the imbecile.


----------



## satz

> Regeneration is solely an act of Gods spirit. It happens prior to the preaching so that Gods elect are able "to see the kingdom of God". All the preaching in the world will do nothing unless the vessel has been primed. See the passage above from John 3.





I don't see where the bible says that regeneration is associated with preaching. John 3:8 says the Spirit goes wherever it pleases (as far as regeneration is concerned) and no one can even tell or see where it goes. Not even gospel preaching can 'influence' the Spirit in that sense. The verse goes on to say you can't tell where the wind is going, but you can hear the sound thereof, or you can experience the effects. Thus you cannot control the Holy Spirit's work in regeneration, but you can see the effects, ie when someone believes the gospel.

Consider also the case of Cornelius (Acts 10), who is described as 'devout', 'fearing God', and that his prayers had 'come up for a memorial before God', surely the marks of a regenerate man, yet this was long before he even met Peter and had the gospel preached to him.


----------



## BertMulder

Peter said:


> The order of preaching then regeneration is the normal chronological order but there is no logical necessity for that order. The purpose of the external call of the gospel is to get people to accept it with faith, the condition of the new covenant, there is no need for it in the order of salvation. It is purely a means to an end, namely faith. And if it is true regeneration must occur before faith is possible and may precede it for some time then the external call can also occur any time between regeneration and conversion. Why do you think hearing the gospel is necessarily prior to or indispensable to regeneration?



Exactly! And in order to accept the Word by faith, there first needs to be regeneration. As the Canons of Dordt also state:



> Article 11. But when God accomplishes his good pleasure in the elect, or works in them true conversion, he not only causes the gospel to be externally preached to them, *and powerfully illumines their minds by his Holy Spirit, that they may rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of God*; *but by the efficacy of the same regenerating Spirit, pervades the inmost recesses of the man; he opens the closed, and softens the hardened heart, and circumcises that which was uncircumcised, infuses new qualities into the will, which though heretofore dead, he quickens; from being evil, disobedient and refractory, he renders it good, obedient, and pliable*; actuates and strengthens it, that like a good tree, it may bring forth the fruits of good actions.
> 
> Article 12. And this is the regeneration so highly celebrated in Scripture, and denominated a new creation: a resurrection from the dead, a making alive, which God works in us without our aid. *But this is in no wise effected merely by the external preaching of the gospel, by moral suasion, or such a mode of operation, that after God has performed his part, it still remains in the power of man to be regenerated or not, to be converted, or to continue unconverted; but it is evidently a supernatural work,* most powerful, and at the same time most delightful, astonishing, mysterious, and ineffable; not inferior in efficacy to creation, or the resurrection from the dead, as the Scripture inspired by the author of this work declares; so that all in whose heart God works in this marvelous manner, are certainly, infallibly, and effectually regenerated, and do actually believe. - Whereupon the will thus renewed, is not only actuated and influenced by God, but in consequence of this influence, becomes itself active. Wherefore also, man is himself rightly said to believe and repent, by virtue of that grace received.
> 
> Article 13. *The manner of this operation cannot be fully comprehended by believers in this life. Notwithstanding which, they rest satisfied with knowing and experiencing, that by this grace of God they are enabled to believe with the heart, and love their Savior*.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

elnwood said:


> Hey Bruce.
> 
> I'm not going to rehash all the arguments again. I think we know fairly well where we stand.
> ..........
> I'm not sure how productive future discussions will be since I think we both know where we stand, but if you want to discuss one in particular, and go from there, pick one out, give your exegesis, and we'll go from there.


I think you're right.

I don't know how your pastor would address the question, but I'm sure that it would be better to ask him the question (how, if possible, babes are regenerated and given faith and go to heaven). In the end, although it has necessary theoretical/doctrinal underpinnings, it's largely a pastoral question (applied theology), especially applicable to parents.

Thank you for some interaction. Maybe next time, another subject, it will be more profitable.


----------



## elnwood

Scott Bushey said:


> Don, you never addressed my statement about the imbecile.



Hmmm. Could you rephrase your statement? I'm not familiar with the term imbecile other than as an insult. What exactly do you mean by the term?


----------



## Scott Bushey

elnwood said:


> Hmmm. Could you rephrase your statement? I'm not familiar with the term imbecile other than as an insult. What exactly do you mean by the term?



You previously said:


> The difference is that when you preach to an adult, they can understand your language and thus understand the gospel. If we could figure out how to preach the gospel in baby talk, then I think we could see those infants regenerated, but thus far I am not convinced that the gospel can be preached effectively to infants, and I am not convinced that regeneration can happen apart from the preaching (or reading) of the gospel.



im‧be‧cile  /ˈɪmbəsɪl, -səl or, especially Brit., -ˌsil/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[im-buh-sil, -suhl or, especially Brit., -seel] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.	Psychology. a person of the second order in a former classification of mental retardation, above the level of idiocy, having a mental age of seven or eight years and an intelligence quotient of 25 to 50.
2.	a dunce; blockhead; dolt.
–adjective
3.	mentally feeble.
4.	showing mental feebleness or incapacity.
5.	stupid; silly; absurd.
6.	Archaic. weak or feeble.

Earlier in the thread you stated:


> This is a difficult topic. I'd love to believe that the mentally disabled and infants could have sufficient knowledge for faith and be saved by that means, or that God has a special means of saving those who do not have the conprehension. I hope that this is the case, but I cannot find a scriptural argument for it.



An imbecile is _mentally retarded_; unable to understand, much like the child. Based upon your statements, all those whom die outside of understanding, perish.


----------



## elnwood

satz said:


> I don't see where the bible says that regeneration is associated with preaching. John 3:8 says the Spirit goes wherever it pleases (as far as regeneration is concerned) and no one can even tell or see where it goes. Not even gospel preaching can 'influence' the Spirit in that sense. The verse goes on to say you can't tell where the wind is going, but you can hear the sound thereof, or you can experience the effects. Thus you cannot control the Holy Spirit's work in regeneration, but you can see the effects, ie when someone believes the gospel.
> 
> Consider also the case of Cornelius (Acts 10), who is described as 'devout', 'fearing God', and that his prayers had 'come up for a memorial before God', surely the marks of a regenerate man, yet this was long before he even met Peter and had the gospel preached to him.



How about the parable of the sower? Granted, the soil could have been "regenerated" before the seeds had been cast, but I've often heard preaching and evangelizing called sowing the "seeds of regeneration." For example, John Owen uses that term.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/pneum.i.viii.iii.html (you'll have to search for it)

Is that theologically correct? Or is Owen incorrect in his understanding?

I would think that Cornelius had been saved the same way that the Old Testament saints were, that is, by faith in the coming messiah. Believing in Christ would have been the fulfillment of that faith, but I don't think that his faith was not credited to him as righteousness until after Christ was preached to him.


----------



## Scott Bushey

elnwood said:


> I would think that Cornelius had been saved the same way that the Old Testament saints were, that is, by faith in the coming messiah. Believing in Christ would have been the fulfillment of that faith, but I don't think that his faith was not credited to him as righteousness until after Christ was preached to him.



The above shows that you are confusing regeneration w/ conversion.


----------



## elnwood

armourbearer said:


> Here is where you now reach problems. You say a belief in substitutionary atonement is sufficient. But the gospel does not teach any substitutionary atonement, but only that which was made by Christ. You sense the insufficiency of saying substitutionary atonement on its own, so you add the promises of God. What you are saying is that the promise of God is the distinguishing factor.
> 
> Now I will go back to my original question. What is it that makes an adult capable of regeneration which doesn't also include infants? You mentioned the ability to receive the gospel. But you have made it clear by you affirmation of the salvation of OT saints that the deciding factor is the promise of God. All that is required now, is to show that the promises of God include children.
> 
> For this Bruce has already provided you with numerous examples. I would simply explain all of those examples under one principle which conclusively proves the inclusion of children in the promise -- solidarity.
> 
> Consider Deut. 5. Who did God make His covenant with? The generation at Mt. Horeb. But speaking to the next generation on the borders of the promised land, Moses says, "The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day," verse 3. Consider Ps. 66:6, "He turned the sea into dry land: they went throught the flood on foot: there did *we* rejoice in him." Consider Levi paying tithes through Abraham though still in the loins of his father. Consider Moses exercising faith in his parents hiding him. Consider all those places in the gospel where Christ heals individuals because of the faith of their relations and friends.
> 
> The promise of God makes the difference, not our ability to rationally understand the gospel. The promise of God applies as equally to unborn infants as to the hoary head.



I think you misunderstand me. The content of salvific faith is in the promises of God (Hebrews 11) which, through progressive revelation, is revealed in Christ. I mean salvation by the promise of God as the content of saving faith, NOT salvation through being the recipients of the promise of God. Thus, whether the promise of God includes just believers or believers and their children is irrelevant.


----------



## elnwood

Scott Bushey said:


> The above shows that you are confusing regeneration w/ conversion.



I don't think so. I just think that Cornelius was both regenerated and converted before he was told about Christ, same as the Old Testament saints. Wait, unless you are saying that the Old Testament saints were regenerated, but were never converted until Christ came?


----------



## Peter

Scott Bushey said:


> I disagree with what Peter wrote here:
> 
> 
> Regeneration is solely an act of Gods spirit. It happens prior to the preaching so that Gods elect are able "to see the kingdom of God". All the preaching in the world will do nothing unless the vessel has been _primed_. See the passage above from John 3.



No you don't. 1st, I was talking about a chronological order. A time sequence. I never said preaching effects regeneration. 2nd, its possible there is some preparation for regeneration through preaching so long as it is held the man was completely spiritually dead until the very moment of the infusion of new life, as Van Mastricht says in p 28, 29.

Nonetheless, the point is that preaching is only necessary as the means to bring faith. Yet the second act of faith is not necessary to regeneration. Therefore preaching is not necessary to regeneration.


----------



## elnwood

Scott Bushey said:


> An imbecile is _mentally retarded_; unable to understand, much like the child. Based upon your statements, all those whom die outside of understanding, perish.



Well, I've said before, the gospel is simple enough that a child, even an infant, can understand it if it is preached to them. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that the imbecile is completely brain-dead, as in has no comprehension at all. Then yes, either the imbecile perishes, or God has a plan of salvation through Christ for the imbecile that is not explicitly revealed to us in scripture.


----------



## Peter

I question the statement that infants can understand the gospel. I don't really know whether they can understand anything at all. But I guess that's besides the point unless some one knows anything about infant psychology.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Peter said:


> No you don't. 1st, I was talking about a chronological order. A time sequence. I never said preaching effects regeneration. 2nd, its possible there is some preparation for regeneration through preaching so long as it is held the man was completely spiritually dead until the very moment of the infusion of new life, as Van Mastricht says in p 28, 29.
> 
> Nonetheless, the point is that preaching is only necessary as the means to bring faith. Yet the second act of faith is not necessary to regeneration. Therefore preaching is not necessary to regeneration.


----------



## Scott Bushey

elnwood said:


> I don't think so. I just think that Cornelius was both regenerated and converted before he was told about Christ, same as the Old Testament saints. Wait, unless you are saying that the Old Testament saints were regenerated, but were never converted until Christ came?



Conversion requires the preached word; Cornelius could not have been converted until after the message was preached.

Romans 10:13-14 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 

care to address John 3:8?


----------



## elnwood

armourbearer said:


> Let's go back a step. How do the fathers believe on what has not yet been manifested? You cannot say the "content" is the same for them and for NT believers in terms of its rational understanding. If it was, the Epistle to the Hebrews has no basis for telling the Hebrews to proceed past the laying of the foundation. What makes the "content" of faith the same is the promise of God, which they saw afar off. And newborn Moses is specifically included amongst those who embraced the promises of God from a distance.
> 
> Now, if it is the promise of God that makes the difference, and if this thread is concerned with the question as to whether the "difference" can be applied to infants, then quite obviously the question of whether the promise applies to infants IS relevant. Your refusal to deal with that question is self serving to your cause of denying infant regneration.



I still don't see how the faith of newborn Moses, not his parents, was what moved the parents to rescue him. It defies grammar and logic.

From a paedobaptist view, a child can be a recipient of the promises of God. However, if that child rejects the promises of God, they were never regenerated. So why does being a recipient of the promises of God matter? Isn't what makes the difference believing and trusting the promises of God rather than simply being the recipient of the covenantal promises of God?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> Wait, unless you are saying that the Old Testament saints were regenerated, but were never converted until Christ came?



Galatians 3:6-8 6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 

Same Gospel


----------



## elnwood

Scott Bushey said:


> Conversion requires the preached word; Cornelius could not have been converted until after the message was preached.
> 
> Romans 10:13-14 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?



Cornelius is a devout, righteous and God-fearing man (Acts 10:2,22) before his alleged conversion. How can a person be righteous and God-fearing if Christ's righteousness is not already imputed to him? How can that be if Cornelius did not have saving faith? If Cornelius had saving faith, he must have had faith in the gospel. Which gospel? The same gospel that the Old Testament saints had believed.

Hebrews 11:8 says that Abraham, by faith, obeyed God and followed him. This faith was credited to him as righteousness (v.2), thus he was converted, even though he was not told about Christ.



Scott Bushey said:


> care to address John 3:8?



What about John 3:8? I don't want to play guessing games.


----------



## Scott Bushey

elnwood said:


> Cornelius is a devout, righteous and God-fearing man (Acts 10:2,22) before his alleged conversion. How can a person be righteous and God-fearing if Christ's righteousness is not already imputed to him? How can that be if Cornelius did not have saving faith? If Cornelius had saving faith, he must have had faith in the gospel. Which gospel? The same gospel that the Old Testament saints had believed.
> 
> Hebrews 11:8 says that Abraham, by faith, obeyed God and followed him. This faith was credited to him as righteousness (v.2), thus he was converted, even though he was not told about Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> What about John 3:8? I don't want to play guessing games.



Again, you are confusing the biblical ordo; Nicodemus was 'God fearing'; was he converted. Jews today are God fearing. The unregenerate has a natural fear of God. Are they regenerate? Roman Catholics have a fear of God.......Nicodemus was the teacher of Israel. I am sure he feared God; unfortunately, all the fear in the world will not save you. 

John 3:8
Joh 3:8 The Spirit breathes where He desires, and you hear His voice/5456; but you do not know from where He comes, and where He goes; so is everyone having been generated/1080 from the Spirit.

5456 fwnh, phone {fo-nay'}
Meaning: 1) a sound, a tone 1a) of inanimate things, as musical instruments 2) a voice 2a) of the sound of uttered words 3) speech 3a) of a language, tongue
Origin: probably akin to 5316 through the idea of disclosure; TDNT - 9:278,1287; n f
Usage: AV - voice 131, sound 8, be noised abroad + 1096 1, noise 1; 141

1080 genna,w gennao {ghen-nah'-o}
Meaning: 1) of men who fathered children 1a) to be born 1b) to be begotten 1b1) of women giving birth to children 2) metaph. 2a) to engender, cause to arise, excite 2b) in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life, to convert someone 2c) of God making Christ his son 2d) of God making men his sons through faith in Christ's work
Origin: from a variation of 1085; TDNT - 1:665,114; v
Usage: AV - begat 49, be born 39, bear 2, gender 2, bring forth 1, be delivered 1, misc 3; 97

5772 Tense - Perfect (See 5778) Voice - Passive (See 5786) Mood - Participle (See 5796) Count - 463 

I previously said:


> Don,
> I am trying to show that before anyone is ever born again/regenerated (not speaking about conversion), the HS comes to that person, i.e
> Joh 3:8 The Spirit breathes where He desires, and you hear His voice. The HS here is said to have a voice; not an audible one, but one that is able to regenerate; the same one that raised Lazarus from the dead! John 3:3 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. This voice can regenerate even an infant in the womb, conversion to follow later.



Regeneration is a work of the Spirit, much like the wind. Unless one is regenerated, one cannot SEE the kingdom of God nor understand it's gospel.


----------



## elnwood

The Cornelius conversation has become pointless, but it's not any of our faults ... I responded to satz because he says Cornelius was regenerated (because he showed that piety) but not converted at this time. Scott, on the other hand, says Cornelius is unregenerated like the Jews and Catholics.

Scott -- it doesn't matter whether I'm right (Cornelius was regenerated and converted at that time) or you are right (Cornelius was not regenerated and not converted at that time) because we both agree that regeneration and conversion were not separated by a long gap of time. The original discussion was whether you can be regenerated and not converted for a long period of time, as satz was asserting for Cornelius.

We could have a separate discussion about Cornelius' point of salvation, but I really think it's not all that important or worth discussing.



Scott Bushey said:


> Again, you are confusing the biblical ordo; Nicodemus was 'God fearing'; was he converted. Jews today are God fearing. The unregenerate has a natural fear of God. Are they regenerate? Roman Catholics have a fear of God.......Nicodemus was the teacher of Israel. I am sure he feared God; unfortunately, all the fear in the world will not save you.
> 
> John 3:8
> Joh 3:8 The Spirit breathes where He desires, and you hear His voice/5456; but you do not know from where He comes, and where He goes; so is everyone having been generated/1080 from the Spirit.
> 
> 5456 fwnh, phone {fo-nay'}
> Meaning: 1) a sound, a tone 1a) of inanimate things, as musical instruments 2) a voice 2a) of the sound of uttered words 3) speech 3a) of a language, tongue
> Origin: probably akin to 5316 through the idea of disclosure; TDNT - 9:278,1287; n f
> Usage: AV - voice 131, sound 8, be noised abroad + 1096 1, noise 1; 141
> 
> 1080 genna,w gennao {ghen-nah'-o}
> Meaning: 1) of men who fathered children 1a) to be born 1b) to be begotten 1b1) of women giving birth to children 2) metaph. 2a) to engender, cause to arise, excite 2b) in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life, to convert someone 2c) of God making Christ his son 2d) of God making men his sons through faith in Christ's work
> Origin: from a variation of 1085; TDNT - 1:665,114; v
> Usage: AV - begat 49, be born 39, bear 2, gender 2, bring forth 1, be delivered 1, misc 3; 97
> 
> 5772 Tense - Perfect (See 5778) Voice - Passive (See 5786) Mood - Participle (See 5796) Count - 463
> 
> I previously said:
> 
> 
> Regeneration is a work of the Spirit, much like the wind. Unless one is regenerated, one cannot SEE the kingdom of God nor understand it's gospel.


----------



## elnwood

armourbearer said:


> How does it defy grammar? The grammar suggests it is Moses' faith. How does it defy logic? There is no structural argument made. Perhaps what you mean is that it defies your natural understanding. That is OK. Our understandings are to be shaped by the Word of God, not vice versa.



Okay, let's take some examples:

1. By faith Moses was hidden by his parents. (Hebrews 11:23)

Whose faith? It was his parents. It uses a passive verb, not active.

2. By solid pitching, the Detroit Tigers were defeated by the St. Louis Cardinals.

Whose solid pitching? The Tigers? No! The Cardinals, of course.

3. By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days. (Hebrews 11:30)

Whose faith? The walls of Jericho? So now walls have faith? Or perhaps it's the people who encircled them?

The grammar is very simple. I think you really have to twist the grammar in the verses in order to make them fit your theological view. And accept that walls have faith as well.


----------



## elnwood

Scott Bushey said:


> John 3:8
> Joh 3:8 The Spirit breathes where He desires, and you hear His voice/5456; but you do not know from where He comes, and where He goes; so is everyone having been generated/1080 from the Spirit.
> 
> 5456 fwnh, phone {fo-nay'}
> Meaning: 1) a sound, a tone 1a) of inanimate things, as musical instruments 2) a voice 2a) of the sound of uttered words 3) speech 3a) of a language, tongue
> Origin: probably akin to 5316 through the idea of disclosure; TDNT - 9:278,1287; n f
> Usage: AV - voice 131, sound 8, be noised abroad + 1096 1, noise 1; 141
> 
> 1080 genna,w gennao {ghen-nah'-o}
> Meaning: 1) of men who fathered children 1a) to be born 1b) to be begotten 1b1) of women giving birth to children 2) metaph. 2a) to engender, cause to arise, excite 2b) in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life, to convert someone 2c) of God making Christ his son 2d) of God making men his sons through faith in Christ's work
> Origin: from a variation of 1085; TDNT - 1:665,114; v
> Usage: AV - begat 49, be born 39, bear 2, gender 2, bring forth 1, be delivered 1, misc 3; 97
> 
> 5772 Tense - Perfect (See 5778) Voice - Passive (See 5786) Mood - Participle (See 5796) Count - 463
> 
> I previously said:
> 
> Regeneration is a work of the Spirit, much like the wind. Unless one is regenerated, one cannot SEE the kingdom of God nor understand it's gospel.



I agree with your interpretation of John 3:8. Did you want me to comment on anything else on the verse?


----------



## Scott Bushey

elnwood said:


> I agree with your interpretation of John 3:8. Did you want me to comment on anything else on the verse?



If you agree w/ the interpretation, why would you exclude an infant from the example, after all, the HS obviously works freely apart from anything anyone personally does-right?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

elnwood said:


> Okay, let's take some examples:
> 
> 1. By faith Moses was hidden by his parents. (Hebrews 11:23)
> 
> Whose faith? It was his parents. It uses a passive verb, not active.
> 
> 2. By solid pitching, the Detroit Tigers were defeated by the St. Louis Cardinals.
> 
> Whose solid pitching? The Tigers? No! The Cardinals, of course.
> 
> 3. By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days. (Hebrews 11:30)
> 
> Whose faith? The walls of Jericho? So now walls have faith? Or perhaps it's the people who encircled them?
> 
> The grammar is very simple. I think you really have to twist the grammar in the verses in order to make them fit your theological view. And accept that walls have faith as well.



The grammar of verse 23 has been patiently explained several times. You don't even attempt to overturn the grammtical argument; all you do is appeal to the passive verb. Moses is the personal subject of the sentence, the dative noun is associated with his person, not the parents (though no one really questions whether they too had faith). It was Moses faith, and because of it, God moved his parents to act to save him.

*The entire chapter is not especially about what people do, but what God does for his people when they have faith in Him.* The passive verb doesn't make Moses' parents the referent for "by faith." Take for example v. 5: "By faith Enoch was translated (passive)," translated by God, correct? So is it God's faith? No.

v.30. Walls can't have faith? Are you sure? Stones can have faith (Mt. 3:9; Lk. 3:8; 19:40). But since I grant you that a personal referent is certainly desireable, where are you going to find it? Whose faith?--is a perfectly reasonable question, since we have a pattern given in the preceding 16 instances. The answer may be, most obviously, in the personal subject of the previous verse (29)--"they", meaning the believing nation--since this follows in historical order. Interesting, since of course it is a totally different generation of that nation.


----------



## elnwood

Scott Bushey said:


> If you agree w/ the interpretation, why would you exclude an infant from the example, after all, the HS obviously works freely apart from anything anyone personally does-right?



Good question. I think God is can regenerate whomever he wants, whenenever he wants, but chooses to do this in conjunction with the preaching of the Word.

For example, do you think that God chooses to regenerate adults who haven't heard the gospel? If not, why would you think that God would choose to regenerate infants who haven't heard the gospel?


----------



## elnwood

Contra_Mundum said:


> The grammar of verse 23 has been patiently explained several times. You don't even attempt to overturn the grammtical argument; all you do is appeal to the passive verb. Moses is the personal subject of the sentence, the dative noun is associated with his person, not the parents (though no one really questions whether they too had faith). It was Moses faith, and because of it, God moved his parents to act to save him.
> 
> *The entire chapter is not especially about what people do, but what God does for his people when they have faith in Him.* The passive verb doesn't make Moses' parents the referent for "by faith." Take for example v. 5: "By faith Enoch was translated (passive)," translated by God, correct? So is it God's faith? No.
> 
> v.30. Walls can't have faith? Are you sure? Stones can have faith (Mt. 3:9; Lk. 3:8; 19:40). But since I grant you that a personal referent is certainly desireable, where are you going to find it? Whose faith?--is a perfectly reasonable question, since we have a pattern given in the preceding 16 instances. The answer may be, most obviously, in the personal subject of the previous verse (29)--"they", meaning the believing nation--since this follows in historical order. Interesting, since of course it is a totally different generation of that nation.



Fair enough. I still disagree. If you think that the passage is teaching walls can have faith, at least you're consistent. But if you're not, you have to give a better argument why it is Moses' faith, and not the parents, if both views are acceptable. That Moses is the subject does not necessitate that Moses had the faith, as demonstrated by the World Series example.

The passage is about what God does for people, but I think a lot of the gist of the passage is also about the demonstration of faith: "Abel offered," "Enoch obtained the witness," "Noah prepared an ark," etc.

Also, the arguments with stones in the gospels are NOT saying that stones can have faith, just that they can be sons of Abraham like the Jews were claiming to be (i.e. physical descendants, not spiritual descendants).


----------



## Scott Bushey

elnwood said:


> Good question. I think God is can regenerate whomever he wants, whenenever he wants, but chooses to do this in conjunction with the preaching of the Word.
> 
> For example, do you think that God chooses to regenerate adults who haven't heard the gospel? If not, why would you think that God would choose to regenerate infants who haven't heard the gospel?



Again,
You are not keeping your ducks in a row. Regeneration is not conversion and conversion is not regeneration. God DOES regenerate adults prior to them hearing the gospel. Can a dead man hear? No! They must first be regenerated. Do you agree with this?



> John 3:3 3 Jesus answered and said to him, 'Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born from above, he is not able to see the reign of God;'



Regeneration gives life, it allows the regenerated to hear and see.......



> 1 Corinthians 1:18 18 for the word of the cross to those indeed perishing is foolishness, and to us -- those being saved -- it is the power of God,



To the unregenerate, the gospel is foolishness. Unless one is regenerated first, they will always be blind to Gods truth.


----------



## BertMulder

Scott Bushey said:


> Again,
> You are not keeping your ducks in a row. Regeneration is not conversion and conversion is not regeneration. God DOES regenerate adults prior to them hearing the gospel. Can a dead man hear? No! They must first be regenerated. Do you agree with this?
> 
> 
> 
> Regeneration gives life, it allows the regenerated to hear and see.......
> 
> 
> 
> To the unregenerate, the gospel is foolishness. Unless one is regenerated first, they will always be blind to Gods truth.



Amen!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> Fair enough. I still disagree. If you think that the passage is teaching walls can have faith, at least you're consistent. But if you're not, you have to give a better argument why it is Moses' faith, and not the parents, if both views are acceptable. That Moses is the subject does not necessitate that Moses had the faith, as demonstrated by the World Series example.
> 
> The passage is about what God does for people, but I think a lot of the gist of the passage is also about the demonstration of faith: "Abel offered," "Enoch obtained the witness," "Noah prepared an ark," etc.
> 
> Also, the arguments with stones in the gospels are NOT saying that stones can have faith, just that they can be sons of Abraham like the Jews were claiming to be (i.e. physical descendants, not spiritual descendants).


Don,

I don't know if you're able to see what you're doing but you are not at all interacting with the argument. You have repeatedly asserted that the interpretation given "...makes no grammatical sense..." and yet you offer no arguments. You are not making any arguments at all, in fact, with respect to the verse except to say that you disagree. Bruce has offered scholarship and grammatical pattern, you only offer what seems accurate to you. Would you like to interact with the _grammar_ as you have a accused his exegesis of "making no sense" several times without so much as a grammatical argument being presented?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

elnwood said:


> Fair enough. I still disagree. If you think that the passage is teaching walls can have faith, at least you're consistent. But if you're not, you have to give a better argument why it is Moses' faith, and not the parents, if both views are acceptable. That Moses is the subject does not necessitate that Moses had the faith, as demonstrated by the World Series example.
> 
> The passage is about what God does for people, but I think a lot of the gist of the passage is also about the demonstration of faith: "Abel offered," "Enoch obtained the witness," "Noah prepared an ark," etc.
> 
> Also, the arguments with stones in the gospels are NOT saying that stones can have faith, just that they can be sons of Abraham like the Jews were claiming to be (i.e. physical descendants, not spiritual descendants).


I know, I know--I tried to back out of the conversation before, but I came back. (Must be a black hole in here... the gravitation sucked me in! Too heavy! Thread needs more "levity"). Perhaps there will be no further reason for me to post  (sigh)

I made three points in the last post.

1) The grammar of the sentence makes the faith Moses', no question, no other option. Period. End of story. Can't be the parents' faith. I'm not making any concession here. Not until there's a grammatical argument leveled against it.

2) The one syntactical suggestion made was that _the passive verb constituted a reference to the parent's faith._ If that were the case, then verse 5 should not refer to Enoch's faith, but God's faith, because the 3rd sing. aorist-passive-indicative construction is identical. Since verse 5 certainly does not refer to God's faith, this syntactical suggestion _fails_ as a compelling argument, particularly with the grammar stacked against it.

Consequently, the _argument by [W.S.] analogy_ (Tigers vs.Cardinals)--being an argument from English grammar, and only as good as the insistence on the passive, which has now been swept away--that argument *is meaningless.* I simply mean that: given that there is no more foundation for it, it carries no force whatsoever. That is why I ignored it previously.

2.5) I made a theological argument in passing, that the chapter as a whole--dealing as it does with *Faith/Belief* (considered in itself it is a passive virtue)--is about God's activity. Therefore, it is no sound objection that a certain degree of action has to be predicated on the one believing, in order to demonstrate it. What are "we" obliged to DO to demonstrate our faith in creation per verse 3, beside just believing God?

These heroes all were _motivated_ *by faith* surely, but WHO is the one we are mainly supposed to be admiring in this passage? The individuals or the Object of their faith? Are we to be impressed more with them, or the God they believed in, and by whom they did their deeds (if they did deeds)? Thus, passivity (or the simplest of child-like faith) by the one with the faith is in keeping with the wide variety of faith-examples in the passage. (BTW, Enoch "had witness borne/obtained to him" is also passive).

3) Lastly, and perhaps most liable to misunderstanding, my argument re. "The Walls of Faith."


> [/i]Originally posted by elnwood[/i]
> So now walls have faith?


This is "argument by mockery." As in: _surely you don't believe that inanimate objects can have faith now, do you?_ Dumb animals glorify God. They can even speak in faith when enabled. Plants give glory to God. Why not inanimate creation? "The mountains and the hills break forth together into singing." And certainly Jesus' words on two separate occasions regarding the stones crying out was more than a "hyperbolic" statement. It sure reads like he was deadly earnest when he spoke them. And, saying that he *DIDN'T* mean _faithful_ descendants turns Jesus' rebuke on its head. I'm actually a little shocked that you would go to that length to deny the force of my argument.

So my point is that on the face, this mocking argument, if true, requires the rejection of a host of Scripture. By itself, this observation moots the mocking argument, if you take dozens of plain Scripture passages at face value.

Now then, I did not stop there, but made the point that since I do think the context points us toward human agency, we should look for it, and for those familiar with Israelite history, and reading the previous verse, "they" (the believing nation) are clearly defined; no other agents are offered. So, this seems to me the stronger argument. But if someone insisted that "the walls came tumbling down" at _their_ obedience to God's command, I wouldn't dogmatically oppose them.

PAX.


----------



## elnwood

Scott Bushey said:


> Again,
> You are not keeping your ducks in a row. Regeneration is not conversion and conversion is not regeneration. God DOES regenerate adults prior to them hearing the gospel. Can a dead man hear? No! They must first be regenerated. Do you agree with this?



An unbeliever does hear the gospel and reject it. The Ordis Salutis has the gospel call prior to regeneration. Do you reject the traditional Ordis Salutis?


----------



## Scott Bushey

elnwood said:


> An unbeliever does hear the gospel and reject it.



The unbeliever has no choice but reject it: it is 'foolishness' to his ears and eyes. He is a dead man. 



> The Ordis Salutis has the gospel call prior to regeneration. Do you reject the traditional Ordis Salutis?



I do not. You misunderstand exactly what is accomplished in the call. The effectual call or the inward call, which comes after the 'gospel call' (or the outward call) is that which matters as that is where the HS applies Christ, enlightening our minds, opening our eyes to yield to the gospel. It is not a result of the gospel preached. It works monergistically, apart from the gospel. Before this, the outward call does nothing; the reprobate hear it everyday and nothing will ever come of that except more condemnation.

Listen to John frame:



> Of the various descriptions of salvation in Reformed theology, ordo salutis, order of salvation, is the earliest. The purpose of the ordo is to list the events in the life of every saved person that join him to Christ. Typically, the list of events looks like this: effectual calling, regeneration, faith, repentance, justification, adoption, sanctification, perseverance, glorification. [1] In effectual calling, God summons the elect person out of sin and into union with Christ. This gives him a new spiritual birth, a new heart, or regeneration. That regenerate heart enables the redeemed person to believe or trust in Christ (faith) and to repent of sin. Repentance is the opposite side of the coin from faith. Faith is turning to Christ, repentance turning away from sin, and you can’t do the one without doing the other. Justification, God’s imputation to us of Christ’s righteousness, is by faith, so it follows faith and repentance in the ordo. Those whom God justifies, he adopts into his family. Then there is sanctification, which means both that we are separated from the sphere of the world into the sphere of God’s kingdom (“definitive sanctification”), and also that we become progressively more and more holy by the work of the Spirit within us (“progressive sanctification”). [2] This new life within enables us to persevere in faith and love, until the consummation of all things when our glorification is complete.
> 
> This list describes in general a temporal process. Certainly effectual calling comes in time before our complete glorification. But many regard regeneration and faith as simultaneous, since it is difficult to imagine someone who is regenerate, but unbelieving. Similarly, faith and repentance, and faith and justification, are evidently simultaneous, as are the triad justification, adoption, and definitive sanctification. So the principal ordering feature of the ordo is not temporal sequence.
> 
> At points along the line, the sequence describes efficient causality: effectual calling is the cause of regeneration, regeneration of faith.



Even though the gospel is preached, without regeneration from the _effectual call_ of the HS, it is fruitless.

Thomas Watson says:


> Effectual Calling
> 
> 'Them he also called' (Rom. 8:30).
> 
> Question: What is effectual calling?
> 
> Answer: It is a gracious work of the Spirit, whereby he causes us to embrace Christ freely, as he is offered to us in the gospel.
> 
> In this verse is the golden chain of salvation, made up of four links, of which one is vocation. 'Them he also called.' Calling is nova creation 'a new creation,' the first resurrection. There is a two-fold call: (1) An outward call: (2) An inward call.
> 
> (1) An outward call, which is God's offer of grace to sinners, inviting them to come and accept of Christ and salvation. 'Many are called, but few chosen' (Matt. 20:16). This call shows men what they ought to do in order to salvation, and renders them inexcusable in case of disobedience.
> 
> (2) There is an inward call, when God with the offer of grace works grace. By this call the heart is renewed, and the will is effectually drawn to embrace Christ. The outward call brings men to a profession of Christ, the inward to a possession of Christ.
> 
> What are the means of this effectual call?
> 
> Every creature has a voice to call us. The heavens call to us to behold God's glory (Ps. 19:1). Conscience calls to us. God's judgments call us to repent. 'Hear ye the rod' (Micah 6:9). But every voice does not convert. There are two means of our effectual call:
> 
> (1) The 'preaching of the word,' which is the sounding of God's silver trumpet in men's ears. God speaks not by an oracle, he calls by his ministers. Samuel thought it had been the voice of Eli only that called him; but it was God's voice (1 Sam. 3:6). So, perhaps, you think it is only the minister that speaks to you in the word, but it is God himself who speaks. Therefore Christ is said to speak to us from heaven (Heb. 12:25). How does he speak but by his ministers? As a king speaks by his ambassadors. Know, that in every sermon preached, God calls to you; and to refuse the message we bring, is to refuse God himself.
> 
> (2) The other means of our effectual call is the Holy Spirit. The ministry of the word is the pipe or organ; the Spirit of God blowing in it, effectually changes men's hearts. 'While Peter spake, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word of God' (Acts 10:44). Ministers knock at the door of men's hearts, the Spirit comes with a key and opens the door. 'A certain woman named Lydia, whose heart the Lord opened' (Acts 16:14).



Turretin writes:


> XIII. Second proposition: "Although infants do not have actual faith, the seed or root of faith cannot be denied to them, which is ingenerated in them from early age and in its own time goes forth in act (human instruc­tion being applied from without and a greater efficacy of the Holy Spirit within)." This second proposition is opposed to the Anabaptists, who deny to infants all faith, not only as to act, but also as to habit and form. Although habitual faith (as the word "habit" is properly and strictly used to signify a more perfect and consummated state) is not well ascribed to them, still it is rightly predicated of them broadly as denoting potential or seminal faith. Now by "seed of faith," we mean the Holy Spirit, the effecter of faith and regeneration (as he is called, 1 Jn. 3:9), as to the principles of regeneration and holy inclinations which he already works in infants according to their measure in a wonderful and to us unspeakable way. Afterwards in more mature age, these proceed into act (human instruction being employed and the grace of the same Spirit promoting his own work by which that seed is accustomed to be excited and drawn forth into act).


----------



## elnwood

Contra_Mundum said:


> I know, I know--I tried to back out of the conversation before, but I came back. (Must be a black hole in here... the gravitation sucked me in! Too heavy! Thread needs more "levity"). Perhaps there will be no further reason for me to post  (sigh)



I know the feeling. I'm somewhat surprised at how into this thread people are. I'm rather indifferent on the matter and would prefer that they reply to my posts on baptism in the other thread. Oh well ...



Contra_Mundum said:


> 3) Lastly, and perhaps most liable to misunderstanding, my argument re. "The Walls of Faith."This is "argument by mockery."



I am sorry if you thought this was mockery. I think it was a legitimate objection. The context of the passage is faith that is credited as righteousness (11:2). I think it's legitimate to ask whether the walls were credited as being righteous.



Contra_Mundum said:


> 1) The grammar of the sentence makes the faith Moses', no question, no other option. Period. End of story. Can't be the parents' faith. I'm not making any concession here. Not until there's a grammatical argument leveled against it.



Anyway, regarding the interpretation of Hebrews 11:23: I know how I read the English translation, and it seems apparent that the faith belongs to the parents. Now, I don't know Greek grammar, so I doubt I would be able to win any grammatical error on my own.

That said, there are commentators who do read Greek, so I took the liberty of looking up some.
Albert Barnes: "That is, by the faith of his parents. The faith of Moses himself is commended in the following verses."
John Darby: "The faith of the parents of Moses makes them disregard the king's cruel command,"
John Gill: "Which is to be understood, not of the faith of Moses, but of the faith of his parents, at the time of his birth"
Matthew Henry: "The faith of the parents of Moses, which is cited from Exo_2:3, etc. Here observe, 1. The acting of their faith: they hid this their son three months"
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown: "The 'faith' of his parents in saving the child"
John Calvin: "the faith here praised was very weak; for after having disregarded the fear of death, they ought to have brought up Moses"

I am not being selective. I have yet to find a commentary on Hebrews that espouses the view that the faith was that of the baby Moses. So far, the commentaries have been unanimous. If it was clear based on the grammar that it was the child's faith, why didn't any of these commentators pick up on it? You're welcome to research this yourself and check other commentaries. Let us know what you find.

The grammar of the sentence makes the faith Moses'? No question? No other option? End of story? Can't be the parents' faith? Those are strong words. Given that so many commentators disagree, can't you allow the possibility that you MIGHT be wrong?


----------



## Scott Bushey

elnwood said:


> I know the feeling. I'm somewhat surprised at how into this thread people are.



The reason that is, is because _Gospel regeneration_ is highly aberrant.

“and you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins”; Ephesians 2:1

“Turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou are the Lord my God.” Jeremiah 31:18

1 Corinthians 2:14-16 14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment: 16 "For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

Ezekiel 16:6-8 6 "'Then I passed by and saw you kicking about in your blood, and as you lay there in your blood I said to you, "Live!" 7 I made you grow like a plant of the field. You grew up and developed and became the most beautiful of jewels. Your breasts were formed and your hair grew, you who were naked and bare. 8 "'Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness. I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Sovereign LORD, and you became mine. 

John 6:63 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. 

WCF ch 7:3

III. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second,[5] commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved,[6] and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, *to make them willing, and able to believe.*[7]

5. Gal. 3:21; Rom. 3:20-21; 8:3; Gen. 3:15; see Isa. 42:6
6. John 3:16; Rom. 10:6, 9; Rev. 22:17
7. Acts 13:48; Ezek. 36:26-27; John 6:37, 44-45; I Cor. 12:3

J. Edwards writes:



> Only God's Spirit Goves Divine Light
> 3. When it is said that this light is given immediately by God, and not obtained by natural means, hereby is intended, that it is given by God without making use of any means that operate by their own power, or a natural force God makes use of means; but it is not as mediate causes to produce this effect. There are not truly any second causes of it; but it is produced by God immediately. The word of God is no proper cause of this effect: it does not operate by any natural force in it. The word of God is only made use of to convey to the mind the subject matter of this saving instruction: and this indeed it doth convey to us by natural force or influence. It conveys to our minds these and those doctrines; it is the cause of the notion of them in our heads, but not of the sense of the divine excellency of them in our hearts. Indeed a person cannot have spiritual light without the word. But that does not argue, that the word properly causes that light. The mind cannot see the excellency of any doctrine, unless that doctrine be first in the mind; but the seeing of the excellency of the doctrine may be immediately from the Spirit of God; though the conveying of the doctrine or proposition itself may be by the word. So that the notions that are the subject matter of this light, are conveyed to the mind by the word of God; but that due sense of the heart, wherein this light formally consists, is immediately by the Spirit of God. As for instance, that notion that there is a Christ, and that Christ is holy and gracious, is conveyed to the mind by the word of God: but the sense of the excellency of Christ by reason of that holiness and grace, is nevertheless immediately the work of the Holy Spirit. -- I come now,
> 
> ~A Divine and Supernatural Light,
> Immediately Imparted to the Soul by the Spirit of God,
> Shown to be Both Scriptural and Rational Doctrine
> A Sermon by Jonathan Edwards



Hoeksema writes:


> But the Canons of Dordrecht, in the Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine, gives us a beautiful description of that divine work that is called the new birth. In Article 11 we read: "But when God accomplishes his good pleasure in the elect, or works in them true conversion, he not only causes the gospel to be externally preached to them, and powerfully illuminates their minds by his Holy Spirit, that they may rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of God; but by the efficacy of the same regenerating Spirit, pervades the inmost recesses of the man; he opens the closed, and softens the hardened heart, and circumcises that which was uncircumcised, infuses new qualities into the will, which though heretofore dead, he quickens; from being evil, disobedient, and refractory, he renders it good, obedient, and pliable; actuates and strengthens it, that like a good tree, it may bring forth fruits of good actions." And in Article 12: "And this is the regeneration so highly celebrated in Scripture and denominated a new creation: a resurrection from the dead, a making alive, which God works in us without our aid. But this is in no wise effected merely by the external preaching of the gospel, by moral suasion, or such a mode of operation, that after God has performed his part, it still remains in the power of man to be regenerated or not, to be convened, or to continue unconverted; but it is evidently a supernatural work, most powerful, and at the same time most delightful, astonishing, mysterious, and ineffable; not inferior in efficacy to creation, or the resurrection from the dead, as the Scripture inspired by the author of this work declares; so that all in whose heart God works in this marvelous manner, are certainly, infallibly, and effectually regenerated, and do actually believe. --Whereupon the will thus renewed, is not only actuated and influenced by God, but in consequence of this influence, becomes itself active. Wherefore also, man is himself rightly said to believe and repent, by virtue of that grace received." *There always has been difference of opinion, and sometimes a rather heated controversy, among Reformed people and Reformed theologians about the question of the relation between regeneration and calling. In our opinion there is very little cause for such a heated controversy about this question, if only we distinguish correctly and accurately. In a certain sense it can indeed be maintained that calling precedes regeneration, if only it is clearly defined what is meant by the calling and what is meant by the rebirth. In another sense, however, it must very definitely be maintained that regeneration is the very first work in the heart of the sinner, and that there can be no question of a saving hearing of the Word of God without this regeneration of the heart.*





> *From all this it is evident that regeneration is exclusively a work of God, wherein man is strictly passive in the sense that he does not and cannot cooperate in his own rebirth. In that deepest sense regeneration is not even as such a matter of his own experience, seeing that it does not take place within, but below the threshold of his consciousness. It is therefore independent of age and can take place in the smallest infants. We may even take for granted that in the sphere of the covenant of God He usually regenerates His elect children from infancy.*





> *The question now is: what is the relation between the calling and regeneration? In a certain sense it may be said indeed that even this regeneration, in the narrowest sense of the word, conceived as the implanting of the new life, is the fruit of the calling of God. But then it is necessary that we carefully define this calling. There is, of course, an immediate calling of God, which precedes all the being of the creature, and through which the creature comes into existence. Thus it is in creation. When God says, "Let there be light," the light comes into existence through that efficacious and almighty calling. He calls the things that are not as if they were.34 And thus it is also in recreation, or in the work of salvation and of regeneration. And when reference is made to this almighty calling of God in the work of regeneration, we have no objection to say that the calling precedes regeneration. However, usually the reference is to another calling, to the calling through the preaching of the Word. And when one refers to this calling of the preaching, which is usually distinguished as inward and outward calling, it cannot he applied to regeneration in the narrowest sense of the word. And therefore, when we speak of regeneration in this sense, as the work of God through which the very first principle of life is wrought in the heart of the sinner through the Spirit of Christ, it precedes every work of salvation, also that of the calling.*



Turretin adds:


> XV. (2) The kingdom of heaven pertains to infants (Mt.19:14), therefore also regeneration (without which there is no admittance to it, Jn. 3:3, 5). Now although Christ proposes this to adults for an example of humility to show that they ought to be like children in disposition in order to enter the kingdom of heaven, still he does not exclude (but includes in that promise) infants themselves, from whom it commences.
> 
> XVI. (3) There are examples of various infants who were sanctified from the womb (as was the case with Jeremiah and John the Baptist, Jer. 1:5; Lk. 1:15, 80). For although here occur certain singular and extraordinary things (which pertained to them alone and not to others), still we may fairly conclude that infants can be made partakers of the Holy Spirit, who since he cannot be inactive, works in them motions and inclinations suited to their age (which are called "the seed of faith" or principles of sanctification).
> 
> XVII. (4) Infants draw from natural generation common 4. notions (koinas ennoias), and theoretical as well as practical principles of the natural law; and if Adam had continued
> 
> innocent, the divine image (which consists in holiness) would have passed by propagation to his children. Therefore what is to prevent them from receiving by supernatural regeneration certain seeds of faith and first principles of sanctification, since they are not less capable of these by grace than of those by nature?
> 
> XVIII. Although there seem to be in infants no marks from which we can gather that they are gifted with the Holy Spirit and the seed of faith (because their age prevents it), it does not follow that this must be denied to them since the reason of their salvation demands it and the contrary is evi­dent from the examples adduced.
> 
> XIX. As before the use of reason, men are properly called rational because they have the principle of reason in the rational soul; thus nothing hinders them from being termed believers before actual faith because the seed which is given to them is the principle of faith (from which they are rightly denominated; even as they are properly called sinners, although not as yet able to put forth an act of sin).
> 
> XX. If any of our theologians deny that there is faith in infants or that it is necessary for their salvation (as is gathered from certain passages of Peter Martyr, Beza and Piscator), it is certain that this is meant of actual faith against the Lutherans, not of the seed of faith or the Spirit of regeneration (which they fre­quently assert is ascribed to infants). Peter Martyr, after saying that the Holy Scriptures do not say that infants believe, adds: "I judge that it is sufficient that they who are to be saved be determined by this—that by election they belong to the property of God, they are sprinkled by the Holy Spirit, who is the root of faith, hope and love, and of all the virtues, which afterwards it exerts and declares in the sons of God, when their age permits" (Loci Communes, Cl. 4, chap. 8.14 [1583], p. 826). Thus Calvin: "Yet how, say they, are infants regenerated, having a knowledge neither of good nor of evil? We answer, the work of God, even if we do not understand it, still is real. Further infants who are to be saved, as certainly some of that age are wholly saved, it is not in the least obscure were before regenerated by the Lord. For if they bring with them from their mother's womb innate corruption, they must be purged from it before they can be ad­mitted into the kingdom of heaven, into which nothing impure and polluted enters"


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Gospel regneration is of the same "house" as Finney's decisional regeneration. They are both borthed in the same spot. They take different paths, but they are still dangerously close to one another.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

elnwood said:


> Anyway, regarding the interpretation of Hebrews 11:23: I know how I read the English translation, and it seems apparent that the faith belongs to the parents. Now, I don't know Greek grammar, so I doubt I would be able to win any grammatical error on my own.
> 
> That said, there are commentators who do read Greek, so I took the liberty of looking up some.
> Albert Barnes: "That is, by the faith of his parents. The faith of Moses himself is commended in the following verses."
> John Darby: "The faith of the parents of Moses makes them disregard the king's cruel command,"
> John Gill: "Which is to be understood, not of the faith of Moses, but of the faith of his parents, at the time of his birth"
> Matthew Henry: "The faith of the parents of Moses, which is cited from Exo_2:3, etc. Here observe, 1. The acting of their faith: they hid this their son three months"
> Jamieson, Fausset and Brown: "The 'faith' of his parents in saving the child"
> John Calvin: "the faith here praised was very weak; for after having disregarded the fear of death, they ought to have brought up Moses"
> 
> I am not being selective. I have yet to find a commentary on Hebrews that espouses the view that the faith was that of the baby Moses. So far, the commentaries have been unanimous. If it was clear based on the grammar that it was the child's faith, why didn't any of these commentators pick up on it? You're welcome to research this yourself and check other commentaries. Let us know what you find.
> 
> The grammar of the sentence makes the faith Moses'? No question? No other option? End of story? Can't be the parents' faith? Those are strong words. Given that so many commentators disagree, can't you allow the possibility that you MIGHT be wrong?


Yes, I will allow that. I will only continue to ask for (what I previously insisted upon): the precise gramatical argument _before_ I relent. If this isn't Moses' faith, why not? The use of the passive verb isn't decisive.

Being now prompted by Don, I have gone to the authorities. I discount Barnes, Darby, and Gill, but I have to accept the other three as recognizable authorities.
I can add to the list of authorities who see the "by faith" as belonging to the parents:
Matthew Poole
John Owen 
Thomas Manton
John Brown of Edinburgh

Definitely, if my case is meritorious at all, it will have to be vindicated against the brightest lights in the firmament. _However,_ I am a bit suprized to find that John Owen writes the following, instead of presenting a grammatical justification.


> It is the faith of the _parents of Moses_ that is here celebrated. But because it is mentioned here principally to introduce the discourse of himself and his faith, and also that what is being spoken belongs unto his honour, it is thus *peculiarly* expressed. He saith not, 'By faith the parents of Moses, when he was born, hid him;' but, "By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid;" that is by the faith of his parents who hid him.


My *bold* highlight. In a previous post, I already pointed out that the sentence is not phrased in the manner one would expect, if the parents were the focus. Owen reduplicates my observation, but does not answer the anomaly, merely interprets the expression "by faith" according to the persons most active in the sentence (the parents). He glosses over the Moses-faith connection. He obviously noted it, but passed it by without comment. It didn't even come up as an objection. (so I'm wondering if the point had raised much thought at this date in England?)

"Even good Homer nods occasionally." (boy, is that audacious to say re. Owen... or foolish)

In my favor, right this minute I can't appeal to any authority who agrees with me other than F.N. Lee (who will be discounted just as I did Gill). And of course Matthew Winzer  who is UNIVERSALLY admired. (what is it with these Aussies?)

While we are at it, I'll toss out another verse: (we desire to interpret Scripture with Scripture first of all)
Acts 7:20 "At which season Moses was born, and was *acceptable unto God*; and he was nourished three months in his father's house." (that *bold* gloss from the Geneva Bible, 1607)

Asteios, "acceptable," is the same "goodly" as in Heb. 11:23. However, Stephen adds the interpretive gloss to the Hebrew (Ex. 2:2, tov, "good") that Moses wasn't simply "good looking" or "good outwardly," but that the God "that looketh on the heart" so favored him.

I don't expect this observation to tip any scales, especially given the plethora of translational glosses of Acts 7:20 out there.

Peace, out.


----------



## elnwood

I don't know Greek, Bruce. It would not be in my place to give a grammatical argument. I think, though, that there is enough evidence that the grammar can support the faith being not Moses', but his parents.

Adaolph Saphir (Presbyterian): 'Faith in the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob enabled the parents of Moses to look away from the king's commandment, and to confide in the unseen God, and to realize the promised future.'

A.W.Pink (Baptist): 'And what was it that enabled the parents of Moses to act so boldly and set at nought the royal dict? Our text furnishes clear answer: it was "by faith" they acted. Had they been destitute of faith, most probably the "king's commandment" would have filled them with dismay......'

John Brown (Presbyterian, as you cited): 'In the paragraph that follows, we have a further illustration of the importance of faith, drawn first from the conduct of Moses' parents, and then from the conduct of Moses himself.........Th history of Moses' infancy, as an illustration of the faith of his parents, is thus admirably fitted to serve the Apostle's object.'

James Haldane (Baptist): 'The next example is the faith of the parents of Moses.'


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Kistemaker (Baker Com., w/Hendrickson) is against me.

At this point, I'm just waiting for one of these commentators to actually lay out their argument. The closest thing to a technical commentary on Hebrews I have is John Owen. And he notes the "odd" construction, but exposits as though it were written the way it isn't. Everyone else seems to assume, "Well, it must be them."

I have never disputed the fact that the parents were believers; it's a vital part of Moses' preservation that they were so; their actions are on display. But it is just as clear to me that v.23 refers from the first two words _(and therefore primarily)_ to Moses' faith: 1) (Pistei Mwusas). 2) The parallels to the rest of the chapter; 3) the striking verbal parallel with v.24 ("By faith Moses when he was born... By faith Moses when he was grown..."). 4) That because of his faith God would save him from death by means of his parents is wholly consistent and harmonized with the whole tenor of the chapter. This is the most pure, childlike faith exhibited in the whole chapter. If this example wasn't here, we might well wonder why any such faith-example of a youth (age 0 to maturity) wasn't included!


With regard to Heb. 11:23, I am officially on the defensive now. But for all the above reasons, notwithstanding the authorities arrayed against me, I am not abandoning my position. Let someone deconstruct my grammatical understanding, or at least weaken it first!

If little else is forthcoming by way of respectable authority support, I will have to grant that my chosen stance is the minority, and considered by others anyway the weaker position. But I'm not throwing in the towel.

That said, Hebrews 11 could utterly fall away as a support for infant-salvation, and the doctine still have plenty of remaining pillars.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Contra_Mundum said:


> That said, Hebrews 11 could utterly fall away as a support for infant-salvation, and the doctine still have plenty of remaining pillars.


Exactly. Might be easy for some to miss that point as that particular passage was in lengthy dispute.

Ironically I was reading Stephen's martyrdom this AM and came across Moses in his Gospel message to the Sanhedrin. It struck me how strange a notion to Jews it would be to think that there is some sort of "age of intellectual assent" that a person must reach before the Spirit is capable of regenerating through the Word.

It seems the objection to this and other passages presented is the notion that regeneration must always accompany the preached Word and the logical construction being presented is this:
1. regeneration follows the preached Word
2. the ear organ must be functioning to hear the Word or the eye organ must see the Word being presented (in the case of a deaf man)
3. there is a certain age at which a mind is able to process the data just received and "make sense" of it
4. given working ears and eyes and a mind mature enough to process the information, the Word then cooperates with these faculties to renew the heart and mind of the hearer (or seer if the person is deaf)

Therefore, infants cannot be regenerated because they might have working ear or eye organs but their intellects are too young to cooperate with the preached Word.

Sound like synergism to me.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Yes, Rich,
Did you catch the Acts 7:20 reference. The Geneva is verbally much closer to the original (you can see the literal in some margins of the versions). It is an interesting complex of verses (taking Ex., Acts, and Heb, together), and the commentators are a little split on what the insipred writers were declaring.

Actually, I remember glancing briefly at Lenski on Acts 7:20, and I thought he was somewhat supportive of my Hebrews position, but I have to go back and check it. It was a fast look. However, I usually admire his technical work. (but there are definitely occasions when his doctrinal positions color his exegesis)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Contra_Mundum said:


> Yes, Rich,
> Did you catch the Acts 7:20 reference. The Geneva is verbally much closer to the original (you can see the literal in some margins of the versions). It is an interesting complex of verses (taking Ex., Acts, and Heb, together), and the commentators are a little split on what the insipred writers were declaring.
> 
> Actually, I remember glancing briefly at Lenski on Acts 7:20, and I thought he was somewhat supportive of my Hebrews position, but I have to go back and check it. It was a fast look. However, I usually admire his technical work. (but there are definitely occasions when his doctrinal positions color his exegesis)



I definitely caught it. I love Stephen's compact and beautiful summary of God's gracious Covenant from Abraham to Christ. You know you've just given a powerful Gospel message when you have God's enemies grinding their teeth at you.

By the way, even if it was the parents' faith, what was it about Moses that was "beautiful"? Would Scripture be commending their faith just because they thought Moses was a cute baby or did they note something spiritually significant about him?


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> Exactly. Might be easy for some to miss that point as that particular passage was in lengthy dispute.
> 
> Ironically I was reading Stephen's martyrdom this AM and came across Moses in his Gospel message to the Sanhedrin. It struck me how strange a notion to Jews it would be to think that there is some sort of "age of intellectual assent" that a person must reach before the Spirit is capable of regenerating through the Word.
> 
> It seems the objection to this and other passages presented is the notion that regeneration must always accompany the preached Word and the logical construction being presented is this:
> 1. regeneration follows the preached Word
> 2. the ear organ must be functioning to hear the Word or the eye organ must see the Word being presented (in the case of a deaf man)
> 3. there is a certain age at which a mind is able to process the data just received and "make sense" of it
> 4. given working ears and eyes and a mind mature enough to process the information, the Word then cooperates with these faculties to renew the heart and mind of the hearer (or seer if the person is deaf)
> 
> Therefore, infants cannot be regenerated because they might have working ear or eye organs but their intellects are too young to cooperate with the preached Word.
> 
> Sound like synergism to me.



Just to clarify my present view, I agree with #1 and #2, disagree with #3 (I think even an infant mind can process the gospel) and reject the synergy of #4. I think that, based on God's sovereign choice, he chooses to honor or not honor the preached gospel call effectively and regenerate the sinner.

#1 is the most important, I think. If you deny that regeneration and faith must follow from the preached word, then you must argue that the preached gospel is not necessary to salvation. This, I think, leads to a view that says that the preaching of the gospel is unnecessary since God will regenerate and save who He wishes regardless of whether the gospel is preached to them or not.

Romans 10:17 says that "Faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." If you remove regeneration and faith from the hearing of the gospel, how do you understand this verse? Does this not apply to infants? If an infant has faith, they must have heard/seen the word of Christ, i.e. the gospel.


----------



## elnwood

Contra_Mundum said:


> With regard to Heb. 11:23, I am officially on the defensive now. But for all the above reasons, notwithstanding the authorities arrayed against me, I am not abandoning my position. Let someone deconstruct my grammatical understanding, or at least weaken it first!



Hey Bruce, your interpretation is so innovative, you ought to write a paper on it and publish it as an original thesis!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> Just to clarify my present view, I agree with #1 and #2, disagree with #3 (I think even an infant mind can process the gospel) and reject the synergy of #4. I think that, based on God's sovereign choice, he chooses to honor or not honor the preached gospel call effectively and regenerate the sinner.
> 
> #1 is the most important, I think. If you deny that regeneration and faith must follow from the preached word, then you must argue that the preached gospel is not necessary to salvation. This, I think, leads to a view that says that the preaching of the gospel is unnecessary since God will regenerate and save who He wishes regardless of whether the gospel is preached to them or not.
> 
> Romans 10:17 says that "Faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." If you remove regeneration and faith from the hearing of the gospel, how do you understand this verse? Does this not apply to infants? If an infant has faith, they must have heard/seen the word of Christ, i.e. the gospel.



But if you take a wooden view of Romans 10:17 then you have to exclude deaf people. The verse says nothing of "seeing the Gospel". If you extend the passage to those who are deaf then how about those that are blind and deaf? Now you have communication by touch (i.e. Helen Keller) You still have the Spirit's work somehow tied to the physical function of biological function. If not then I can easily argue that all my children, while in the womb, were present during dozens of Gospel calls and actually "heard" my wife praying words of faith for months. As you tie regeneration to the hearing or communication of the Gospel then an infant can easily be regenerated on those grounds.

I still have a larger problem of how you link regeneration in such a wooden way on the basis of a single passage however. I already pointed out earlier in this thread that salvation may also come from the _reading_ of the Word. In the context of Romans 10, Paul is hardly presenting didactic teaching on the process of regeneration but, rather, the necessity of God's message being heralded by those charged with the ministry of the Word. Certainly the Gospel cannot advance without the Word spreading as there is no object for faith but you cannot create a whole doctrine of tying regeneration to preaching through the implication of a single verse that is not even speaking specifically to the issue of regeneration. Christ, in John 3:8, does not limit the agency of the Spirit in such a deterministic fashion.


----------



## Scott Bushey

elnwood said:


> #1 is the most important, I think. If you deny that regeneration and faith must follow from the preached word, then you must argue that the preached gospel is not necessary to salvation. This, I think, leads to a view that says that the preaching of the gospel is unnecessary since God will regenerate and save who He wishes regardless of whether the gospel is preached to them or not.



Again,
You have confused regeneration (which has nothing to do with the gospel) and conversion (which has everything to do with the gospel). Gospel regeneration is heretical and held as doctrine by none other than the Arminian. Those that God regenerates, Gods preachers will preach to. John the Baptist was regenerated in the womb by Gods Spirit and later converted under sound preaching of the gospel.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

elnwood said:


> Hey Bruce, your interpretation is so innovative, you ought to write a paper on it and publish it as an original thesis!


Maybe...?! yea, right.

Definitely not before it gets peer-reviewed. Hey Don, would you read this... tell me what you think?


----------



## Peter

Heb 11 aside, I think its been demonstrated pretty clearly infant salvation is possible. We've shown that infants can have faith in the 2nd act and that the word of God is only the means of grace not grace itself. Numerous examples of infant regeneration have been given (Jeremiah, John the Baptist, Timothy). I think anyone above being cavil will recognize that infants can be regenerated.


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> But if you take a wooden view of Romans 10:17 then you have to exclude deaf people. The verse says nothing of "seeing the Gospel". If you extend the passage to those who are deaf then how about those that are blind and deaf? Now you have communication by touch (i.e. Helen Keller) You still have the Spirit's work somehow tied to the physical function of biological function. If not then I can easily argue that all my children, while in the womb, were present during dozens of Gospel calls and actually "heard" my wife praying words of faith for months. As you tie regeneration to the hearing or communication of the Gospel then an infant can easily be regenerated on those grounds.
> 
> I still have a larger problem of how you link regeneration in such a wooden way on the basis of a single passage however. I already pointed out earlier in this thread that salvation may also come from the _reading_ of the Word. In the context of Romans 10, Paul is hardly presenting didactic teaching on the process of regeneration but, rather, the necessity of God's message being heralded by those charged with the ministry of the Word. Certainly the Gospel cannot advance without the Word spreading as there is no object for faith but you cannot create a whole doctrine of tying regeneration to preaching through the implication of a single verse that is not even speaking specifically to the issue of regeneration. Christ, in John 3:8, does not limit the agency of the Spirit in such a deterministic fashion.



I don't take a wooden view. The point is not "hearing," but "word of Christ." I have stated many times that I think the gospel can be communicated in ways other than hearing. But it NEEDS to be communicated. Although theoretically possible that a baby in the womb could hear gospel prayer and preaching and be regenerated, I'm not sure if they could understand English well enough. My hang-up is not that they can't comprehend the gospel, but that they can't understand the spoken language. If we could speak baby talk, then maybe we could communicate the gospel to them.

You hit the nail on the head when you said "without the Word ... there is no object of faith." Some of you, like Scott Bushey, while holding infant regeneration, agrees that faith needs the preached gospel, holding to a potentially long period of time in between regeneration and saving faith. I am not addressing that view now. The problem is that I'm trying to discuss this with several of you at once, and not all of you hold identical views.

Not all of you agree with Scott. Bruce, for example, still holds that baby Moses had faith (apart from the preached gospel, I'm assuming). So that particular critique is leveled against those who hold infant faith without the gospel (i.e., not you, Scott or Rich). I want to address that view first, and I think Romans 10:17 is appropriate to that topic.


----------



## elnwood

Contra_Mundum said:


> Maybe...?! yea, right.
> 
> Definitely not before it gets peer-reviewed. Hey Don, would you read this... tell me what you think?



I am curious, though, where you came up with that interpretation. Did you hear it in a sermon? Did you learn it at seminary? From a bible study? Something you found on the web? Or did you come up with it pretty much by yourself?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> I'm not sure if they could understand English well enough. My hang-up is not that they can't comprehend the gospel, but that they can't understand the spoken language. If we could speak baby talk, then maybe we could communicate the gospel to them.


Previously, with respect to point # 3 which was:


> 3. there is a certain age at which a mind is able to process the data just received and "make sense" of it


You wrote that you _reject_ point 3, now you are affirming it as I suspected.

I think you missed my point wrt to Moses. All I acknowledged is that the passage in Hebrews in dispute might have spoken of the parents' faith in one portion but you never addressed my second observation. They hid him because he was "beautiful" or extraordinary - the infant Moses. It is impious indeed for someone to presume that God is commending the parents' faith because Moses was a particularly cute baby - almost as impious as saying that John the Baptist's leaping in the womb was like that of Charsmatics' leaping.

Also, although when I wrote about faith having content I was speaking of the spread of the Gospel. Faith and regeneration are two separate things as well. Infants, for instance, are born in Adam and are sinful by nature - that is they just lack opportunity to sin. In the same way, as Rev. Winzer pointed out, a regenerate infant may lack mental capacity to respond in a mature way in faith but it does not mean that God's Spirit cannot have given a heart disposition to the child that is receptive to the Gospel.

You keep conflating receiving and resting on the Gospel with regeneration.


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> Previously, with respect to point # 3 which was:
> 
> You wrote that you _reject_ point 3, now you are affirming it as I suspected.



Let me clarify. I neither reject nor affirm ALL of it. If I reject a part of it, it is accurate to say I reject point 3 as stated.

In particular, in #3 I object to "certain age" (I don't believe in an age of accountability) and that they need to be old enough to "make sense" of it. The only part of #3 I affirm is that they need to "receive it." I think infants can make sense of the gospel IF they receive it.



SemperFideles said:


> I think you missed my point wrt to Moses. All I acknowledged is that the passage in Hebrews in dispute might have spoken of the parents' faith in one portion but you never addressed my second observation. They hid him because he was "beautiful" or extraordinary - the infant Moses. It is impious indeed for someone to presume that God is commending the parents' faith because Moses was a particularly cute baby - almost as impious as saying that John the Baptist's leaping in the womb was like that of Charsmatics' leaping.



Ha! You must be an engineer. Only engineers would use "wrt" to mean "with respect to." And I must be an engineer for understanding that without losing a beat.

Many of the commentaries cited above address the "beautiful" aspect. I am mildly insulted that you are calling me impious for my view on Hebrews 11:23, even though I made no comments whatsoever about Moses' cuteness. But I will bear that insult gladly, since you are accusing John Calvin, John Owen, and every other commentator of Hebrews as being impious as well.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> Let me clarify. I neither reject nor affirm ALL of it. If I reject a part of it, it is accurate to say I reject point 3 as stated.
> 
> In particular, in #3 I object to "certain age" (I don't believe in an age of accountability) and that they need to be old enough to "make sense" of it. The only part of #3 I affirm is that they need to "receive it." I think infants can make sense of the gospel IF they receive it.


The substance of # 3 is not about age but capacity which you affirm. Regeneration is dependent upon the intellectual capacity of the receiver according your view.


> Many of the commentaries cited above address the "beautiful" aspect. I am mildly insulted that you are calling me impious for my view on Hebrews 11:23, even though I made no comments whatsoever about Moses' cuteness. But I will bear that insult gladly, since you are accusing John Calvin, John Owen, and every other commentator of Hebrews as being impious as well.


Certainly very theatrical aren't you? Read more carefully what I said. You have said nothing about what that portion of the passage represents but to ascribe cuteness to it _would_ be impious. What do you believe the parents saw in Moses that was beautiful since you exclude his regeneration but other commentators, and most especially Calvin, do NOT.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> The problem is that I'm trying to discuss this with several of you at once, and not all of you hold identical views.



Don,
Bruce, Rich and I all agree that infants can be regenerated prior to hearing the gospel. What faith we refer to are _seeds_ of faith. See Calvin.


----------



## AV1611

elnwood said:


> Canons of Dort, First Head, Article 17:
> "Since we are to judge of the will of God from His Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, *not by nature*, but in virtue of the covenant of grace in which they, together with the parents, are comprehended, godly parents have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of their children whom it pleaseth God to call out of this life in their infancy."
> 
> This seems to teach a salvation not based upon faith. I'm not sure how the Dutch Reformed reconcile this and Sola Fide.



This article really is pastoral and not doctrinal (in my opinion). I have difficulty with it.



> Don,
> Bruce, Rich and I all agree that infants can be regenerated prior to hearing the gospel.



As do I


----------



## BJClark

elnwood,

I haven't read all of the responses, but I'm sure this has already been addressed by one of the many scholars already..

in reading the Directory of Worship for Infant Baptisms 56:5

The Covenant Promises...



> For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord Our God shall call unto Him. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house. (Acts 2:39; Gen 17:7; Acts 16:31)



In that these promises are true and right, does it matter if the children are born living, or still born? God made a promise to those in Covenant with Him, and He is not one to break His promises.

So would it not be right to take God's promise and believe it to be true where infants are concerned if they die before a certain age? God promised they are in the covenant, sotherefore they are in the convenant.


----------



## AV1611

BJClark said:


> So would it not be right to take God's promise and believe it to be true where infants are concerned if they die before a certain age? God promised they are in the covenant, so therefore they are in the convenant.



The children of believers are not _de facto _in the covenant only the elect ones so I would have to say no.


----------

