Regi Addictissimus
Completely sold out to the King
Maybe you meant, "And what of the deaf, dumb, and imbecile," unless you intended to call David an imbecile.
Scott Clark and Infant Baptism
- Thread starter StephenMartyr
- Start date
- Status
Maybe you meant, "And what of the deaf, dumb, and imbecile," unless you intended to call David an imbecile.
Baptism itself does not save us, so they would fall under the grace provision of God the Cross afforded them if elect in Christ Jesus.
De Jager
Puritan Board Junior
There's a nice elaborate system of doctrine that many hold to that guarantees heaven for anyone who is mentally handicapped and for all babies who die.
I for one, do not find that in the bible, at all.
De Jager
Puritan Board Junior
Yeah, but they never exercised personal faith - so therefore they cannot be saved, right? Are you saying God can look with favour on someone who has not exercised personal faith??? That sounds very un-baptist.
I am saying that God can choose to apply Grace towards them if elect even if they have those challenges.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
One way men are saved and that being by the gospel message; this does not mean that Christ Himself doesn't go to these individuals and disseminate his plan via that same message of grace.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
See my previous note above, David.
That is not scriptural. There is no Salvation outside of the Church. I truly believe this. Yes I believe this Universal and local.
One does not become born again by water Baptism though!
King David knew his son Would be with God, did that new born exercise saving faith?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
In fact, yes he did; No one is saved without 'exercising' faith.
God said that He had compassion on many children in Ninevah, correct?
how can a new born baby do that though?Bible seems to show that God has elected those in that state to eternal life in Christ.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Whats not possible with men is possible with God. Unless u are prepared to declare that elect infants dying in infancy are saved another way than everybody else, i.e. two ways to be saved, you have to reconcile that issue.
Yes, by the gospel. Let me ask u another way: if infants cannot comprehend, that they have no intellect, that the Spirit of God transcends, do they enter glory with any theology at all or is their ignorance, perfected upon entering glory? Heaven is perfect and it's people perfect. Are infants made perfect?
I agree with this summary on this topic by one of the greatest Christian preachers who ever lived!
https://www.metropolitantabernacle....on-Charles-Spurgeon/Sword-and-Trowel-Magazine
https://www.metropolitantabernacle....on-Charles-Spurgeon/Sword-and-Trowel-Magazine
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Spurgeon agrees with me:
"If infants are to be saved, it is not because of any natural innocence. They must enter Heaven by the very same way that we do; they must be received in the name of Christ, 'For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid.' There is no different foundation for the infant than that which is laid for the adult."
Ben Zartman
Puritan Board Junior
There are some very muddied waters here, but I will say to the OP (with apologies for joining so late--I don't have the luxury of perpetual internet access), that what is most objectionable in the Clark article is the notion, that I've seen elsewhere, that because Baptists won't baptize infants, they somehow deny them the blessings of being taught about God. Regarding them as not yet members of the covenant does not mean we do not instruct our children about Christ; lead them to Christ; place them under the preaching of the Word; cathechize, etc. Nobody stiff-arms a child who would sing Psalms and say: sorry, you're not a Christian so you may not sing that! Sorry, no sense in memorizing Scripture verses if you're not saved! It is an absurd caricature, but it keeps cropping up.
The only thing we deny them is receiving the sign of the New Covenant, which according to Baptist ecclesiology is to be applied only to born-again believers upon the answer of a good confession. I won't take this any further here--you can search past threads on this topic in which this gets discussed at length, or start another about it if you wish. they always generate a whirlwind of people coming around in a circle asking for the same thing to be explained yet again, then talking right on past.
Another objectionable thing about the article is his notion that "baby dedications" are somehow a feeble step in the right direction, as though some faint glimmer of light was beginning to shine on our benighted ecclesiology. Without being rude to Mr Clark, that is an imbecile notion. Baby dedications are not commanded, therefore are forbidden by the Regulative Principle. taking time out of God's worship to "dedicate babies" (what does that do, anyway?) is just as bad as bringing mime or interpretive dance or golden calves or any other uncommanded thing into it.
Finally, to those who say that baptizing infants seals to them the promise of salvation if they will believe: Does God not promise salvation in Christ to EVERYONE who believes? That's the promise of the gospel--whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. If I had baptized my children, what good would it do to say: "your baptism guarantees that you will be saved if you repent and believe." Mine at least would answer: "You know Dad, God saves unbaptized people too. His electing purposes cannot by frustrated by the failure of men to apply a sign."
The only thing we deny them is receiving the sign of the New Covenant, which according to Baptist ecclesiology is to be applied only to born-again believers upon the answer of a good confession. I won't take this any further here--you can search past threads on this topic in which this gets discussed at length, or start another about it if you wish. they always generate a whirlwind of people coming around in a circle asking for the same thing to be explained yet again, then talking right on past.
Another objectionable thing about the article is his notion that "baby dedications" are somehow a feeble step in the right direction, as though some faint glimmer of light was beginning to shine on our benighted ecclesiology. Without being rude to Mr Clark, that is an imbecile notion. Baby dedications are not commanded, therefore are forbidden by the Regulative Principle. taking time out of God's worship to "dedicate babies" (what does that do, anyway?) is just as bad as bringing mime or interpretive dance or golden calves or any other uncommanded thing into it.
Finally, to those who say that baptizing infants seals to them the promise of salvation if they will believe: Does God not promise salvation in Christ to EVERYONE who believes? That's the promise of the gospel--whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. If I had baptized my children, what good would it do to say: "your baptism guarantees that you will be saved if you repent and believe." Mine at least would answer: "You know Dad, God saves unbaptized people too. His electing purposes cannot by frustrated by the failure of men to apply a sign."
De Jager
Puritan Board Junior
Don't try to be smarter than God. He gave us sacraments for a reason - because we are weak people whose faith needs strengthening, and so he gave us visible signs. I could use the same logic to dismiss the Lord's supper as unnecessary. After all, God saves people whether they partake in the supper or not. You could also use your logic to argue against the circumcision of children in the OT time. Why do they need to be circumcised? God's grace works independent of the sign, doesn't it? Yet he commanded them upon penalty of excommunication to give the sign of the covenant to their children. The fact is God commands us to use these signs to seal promises unto us. The real question is not whether you think something is beneficial or expedient, but whether God has commanded it. If he has commanded it, explicitly or implicitly, then you can be sure he has a good reason for it.
Finally, we both rejoice in the fact that God guarantees salvation to all who believe. But who is it who receives the promise of the covenant? Who is it who is told "I will be your God, and you will be my people"? Is it not believers and their children? Surely you cannot go to a random pagan in the street and say "God promises to be God to you and your children" - that would be extreme presumption. But what we can be sure is that God promises to all believers and their children - to be God to them. What if some do not believe? Does that nullify God's faithfulness? No. No it does not.
Solparvus
Puritan Board Senior
@Ben Zartman
Then what is the point of the Israelites receiving circumcision, a sign and seal of the righteousness that is by faith if the Gospel is promised to everyone? What is the value of circumcision, and what did a little cut in the skin add to anyone? After all, salvation was open to all whether inside or outside of Israel even before Christ came as evidence by Ruth, Uriah, the Ninevites, and OT exhortations such as Ps 117 to the Gentiles to praise Him.
Before saying that it was a national and ethnic mark for temporary promises, I'll bring up now that this is the New Testament interpretation of circumcision in Romans 4:11, of which Christ was minister (Romans 15:8-9), and meant to preach the very same promises of salvation to them. So the spiritual significance was not confined to be applied to Abraham alone.
The Rom 4 interpretation does not convey circumcision as foreshadowing a time of salvation or future realities in relation to Abraham, but sealing a real, present extant salvation available to Abraham in that time and place and to all who believe whether OT or NT--the same salvation we have now.
One can try to argue that we no longer apply the sign, but no one can argue that it is per se pointless. Otherwise God did something useless in the OT, and yet at that time it was a non-negotiable for discipleship.
Then what is the point of the Israelites receiving circumcision, a sign and seal of the righteousness that is by faith if the Gospel is promised to everyone? What is the value of circumcision, and what did a little cut in the skin add to anyone? After all, salvation was open to all whether inside or outside of Israel even before Christ came as evidence by Ruth, Uriah, the Ninevites, and OT exhortations such as Ps 117 to the Gentiles to praise Him.
Before saying that it was a national and ethnic mark for temporary promises, I'll bring up now that this is the New Testament interpretation of circumcision in Romans 4:11, of which Christ was minister (Romans 15:8-9), and meant to preach the very same promises of salvation to them. So the spiritual significance was not confined to be applied to Abraham alone.
The Rom 4 interpretation does not convey circumcision as foreshadowing a time of salvation or future realities in relation to Abraham, but sealing a real, present extant salvation available to Abraham in that time and place and to all who believe whether OT or NT--the same salvation we have now.
One can try to argue that we no longer apply the sign, but no one can argue that it is per se pointless. Otherwise God did something useless in the OT, and yet at that time it was a non-negotiable for discipleship.
Last edited:
B.L.
Puritan Board Sophomore
Just curious...were any of these instances of repeated baptisms and doubts about whether your baptism was valid experienced while in a confessionally Reformed Baptist church?
Doubts about one's assurance and questions about whether one is truly "saved" is something Christians of all stripes have historically wrestled with. Were it not, the Westminster Confession wouldn't need to include Chapter 17 "Of the perseverance of the Saints" or Chapter 18 "Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation." I'm thankful our forefathers in the faith included them in your standards (WCF) and in mine (LBCF). These truths, which are grounded in scripture, do provide much comfort when faithfully taught and learned.
The Gospel is commanded to be given to all children though, not just to those born to saved parents.
The NC is New and better One, and those under it are united to Jesus through faith by the Holy Spirit before water Baptism.
Baptist churches should have confirmed what one thinks of Jesus and salvation before water was applied.
The sign to infants applied in OC, but changed under new and better Covenant.
His point was that they are saved same means as we are, but God did not require them to exercise faith as he does adults!
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
So then there are two ways men are saved?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
I asked earlier, to which u again, didn't interact with:
De Jager
Puritan Board Junior
No. My baptism was done in a church that embraced decision-ism. Perhaps the situation would have been different if I was in a solid RB Church. That however was not the Lord's will for my life.
De Jager
Puritan Board Junior
I will be frank. In so many of your posts you don't even interact with the others, you just throw in a one-liner of your own position. Please brother, interact with our posts. We all know you are a baptist. We all know that I am reformed.
- Status
