"Do you consider your children to be Christians?"

[Pergamum]

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

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

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

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

 

[Contra_Mundum]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Pergamum]

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

 

[Pergamum]

Rev. Bruce,

I am considering this quote by you:

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

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

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

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

 

[Contra_Mundum]

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

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

"I think once more, the difference is in "WHO" each of us really thinks is the principal "speaker" in a baptism. We assert that it is God, making a conditional promise, one that's connected to another promise: "I will be God to you, and to your children." It was always a conditional promise, from the first, requiring faith of them receiving it for a benefit.
..........
Do you have further proof of this? That is a line of argument that most baptists do not consider. I want to consider it further.

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's no lukewarm reoriented promise to the world that there's no more restrictions or limitations on being God's children, like there was once.

<insert BUZZER emoji here>​

Wrong. Foreigners could join the children of Israel, and be incorporated into the holy nation of old. And in the NT Gentiles and Jews can be grafted on the Vine, and be regarded as renegades no more.

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

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

 

[Ben Zartman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's no lukewarm reoriented promise to the world that there's no more restrictions or limitations on being God's children, like there was once.

<insert BUZZER emoji here>​

Wrong. Foreigners could join the children of Israel, and be incorporated into the holy nation of old. And in the NT Gentiles and Jews can be grafted on the Vine, and be regarded as renegades no more.

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

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

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

 

[Pergamum]

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's no lukewarm reoriented promise to the world that there's no more restrictions or limitations on being God's children, like there was once.

<insert BUZZER emoji here>​

Wrong. Foreigners could join the children of Israel, and be incorporated into the holy nation of old. And in the NT Gentiles and Jews can be grafted on the Vine, and be regarded as renegades no more.

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

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

Thank you for this answer. And your other answers.

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

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

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

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

 

[Dachaser]

Then all infants who died in infancy are in hell.

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

 

[Dachaser]

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

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

 

[Dachaser]

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

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

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

 

[Dachaser]

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

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

 

[Dachaser]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

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

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

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

Think, Godhead....

 

[Contra_Mundum]

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

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

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

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

 

[Cymro]

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

 

[Dachaser]

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

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

 

[Dachaser]

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

 

[Dachaser]

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

 

[Contra_Mundum]

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

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

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

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

 

[Gforce9]

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

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

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

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

 

[Dachaser]

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

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

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

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

 

[Dachaser]

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

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

 

[Dachaser]

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

 

[Contra_Mundum]

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

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

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

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

 

[Ben Zartman]

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

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