Does that view of water Baptism than presume that God only elects to salvation those from saved parents, so what about those who get saved raised up in other religions or by atheists then?
Did you switch sides? paedobaptist/credobaptist
- Thread starter FivePointSpurgeonist
- Start date
- Status
Slave-to-the-Light-777
Puritan Board Freshman
We could apply exactly the same logic to believer’s baptism. Would the elect adult be saved without receiving believer’s baptism? I’m assuming that you would say yes, because you don’t believe baptism is necessary for salvation. So if the elect person would be saved without believer’s baptism, then by your own logic, believer’s baptism is also unnecessary. The problem with this argument is that you’ve applied a standard to infant baptism that you wouldn’t apply to your own practice. That’s just special pleading.
And it doesn’t stop there. Would the elect person be saved without ever hearing the gospel? God is sovereign. He could, in principle, regenerate someone without the instrumentality of preaching. Does that make preaching optional or unnecessary? The answer is obviously no, because God has ordained means, and His people are obligated to use them, and He works through them, and to despise or neglect them is to treat God’s own appointments with contempt.
We have established that elect infants are members of the covenant. My question now would be, Are they not visible? What makes them disappear from sight?
If God seals them what man has authority to forbid them the visible seal? Why such a great disparity?
We do not base that comfort in something unknown like election. The fact of personal election can only be known through calling. For this we have the promise, "I will be thy God and the God of thy seed;" and with that we have God's own sign and seal. That is a great comfort.
[automerge]1775075142[/automerge]
Again, observe the exclusory nature of your position. Your question assumes they aren't believes. All of your questions suppose that infants have an uphill battle to gain some right that adults already possess. This is a leftover from the Anabaptist idea that man has to do something to save himself. Whereas in Reformed soteriology God saves. He works faith. It is faith of the operation of God. Human ideas of faith that are built on an observation of its exercise are just that -- human. Baptism is a divine sign and seal. Man does nothing but receive the sign, and this is competent to infants.
Last edited:
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
Not to be morbid, but death.
10.3 says "elect infants who die in their infancy" and deals with their status as well as the status of other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
Renihan says historically, 10.3 is a pastoral attempt to deal with a real-life problem. This isn't even particularly controversial. The proof texts are select verses from John 3 highlighting Christ's teaching to Nicodemus about the sovereignty of the Spirit who moves in peoples' lives as He pleases.
If I was some of the other paedobaptists on this board, I would narrow-mindedly say that you are confusing sign with the thing signified. I would emphatically exclaim that the seal is the thing signified and baptism is not the inward seal but the outward sign of that inward thing signified, and act in exasperation as if you are obviously unbiblical and obviously wrong.
Except in terms of Westminster theology you actually are not unbiblical nor wrong in that system. Therefore, I would not say this. And I am not saying this.
But yes *sigh*,
baptism is a sign. The gift of the Holy Spirit is the seal for the Covenant of Grace in Old and New. Baptism is the sign of that thing signified as was circumcision in the Old. While there is continuity from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, there is also a newness and betterness to the New. And the Covenant of Grace was always from day one: Spirit-birthed, Spirit-sealed and Spirit-sanctified.
Last edited:
For Credobaptist friends, what do you do with the assertion that circumcision was the sign and seal of membership into the old covenant administration of the visible government/kingdom of God, and that baptism is the sign and seal of membership into the NC administration? That word and concept of administration was very helpful to me. That child is now under the governance of the church with all the blessings of that attending, including church discipline. Something else very helpful to me was understanding that in baptism it's God testifying to something, not us (making a vow or promise or testifying).
At this point we are not talking of them "dying in infancy." We are only discussing the fact they are "elect infants." If they are elect they belong to the covenant of grace and to the invisible church. What excludes them from the administration of the covenant and the visible church. What makes them disappear?
Right. We are sharing a Reformed heritage here. But if this can be truly spoken in relation to infants born within the covenant there is no reason why they should not be received as covenant members into the church, and if they are received into the church it is proper to administer the sign of baptism to them. Nothing forbids it.
Which you have acknowledged is also true of elect infants. So this "betterness" has obviously done nothing to alter their place in the covenant.
Christodulus
Puritan Board Freshman
The basis of of the hope Dort represents is the promise of God, “not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant”.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
Yes but not using the same definition of "seal" as Westminster does.
Their place in the covenant is not altered nor in jeopardy whether they meet an unfortunate end of physical life in infancy (
) nor if they survive infancy and go on to profess genuine faith and get baptized as an outward sign of the inward seal. Given we are talking hypothetically of one genuinely elect, then yes they would be invisible members of the Church and no one advocated from our end for the sign to be withheld under those conditions (obviously different than yours).
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
That's great. We do too. But there was more to that quote:
"Since we must make judgments about God’s will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy"
Again, I am no strong student of Dort, so I am not necessarily arguing one way or the other, but this branch of our disagreement seems really weird to me.
If it is not *ultimately* by parental status in the covenant which necessarily includes the status of faith on the parents' part, then it must simply be up to God and His mercyas *He* is the ground of the saving faith of the parents as evidence for their status in the New Covenant, yes?
How are we any different on a salient and/or an ultimate level?
(NOTE: earlier, @MW said our ground was in something unknowable like election. This was not true. Our ground is in God's decree and mercy and while a bit semantic, it is important for the status of election may not be knowable but the grace and love and mercy of God are things that are quite knowable and known by believers.)
If it helps anyone for me to be a bit open and vulnerable for a moment, I myself am still a bit torn on what I would say to any grieving parent of an infant dying.
I lean heavily towards Spurgeon's case that all infants who die are elect, but I have open questions that I myself would like to explore and investigate along those lines. I am not pre-committed to that position.
Last edited:
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
My dear brother ... please. Do you have a copy of creeds and confessions you can work through from beginning to end?
We who are saved also have children who have not yet professed faith in Jesus as their Lord and Savior, but we also raise them up in the assembly, and teach them from the word, why is that any different from How non credal reformed view and teat their children then?
[automerge]1775142494[/automerge]
Which god would base upon His sovereign choice, not based upon their parents being saved, correct?
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
That circumcision was never the sign and seal into the Covenant of Grace but that the Covenant of Grace was always Spirit-birthed, Spirit-sealed and Spirit-sanctified from day one in the case of Adam, Abel, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Job, Abraham et al. It only gets to be "New" when Christ comes and does His work and the revelation of grace and saving faith and the revelation that the OT saints were always justified by grace through faith from day one means there is no more circumcision of the flesh at all, but now only the better circumcision of the heart by the only One capable of saving us from sins. The only One capable of raising us from death in our trespasses.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
This is already present in the Old (Deuteronomy 10.16, Jeremiah 4.4, ect.) is it not?
DNM300
Puritan Board Freshman
Brother, would you mind saying what you do believe about circumcision? What did it symbolize, typify, etc how it functioned in the life of Israel, etc. what was its pedagogical use and value, etc?
Please respond on this point, as do desire to see what is wrong in my understanding at this point?
[automerge]1775143851[/automerge]
Not yet a present reality at their time , as that awaiting the promised coming Messiah as per Jeremiah 31:31-34
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
YEs it is, and who does the circumcising of the heart in the Old?
[automerge]1775144171[/automerge]
I have defined Old Covenant/New Covenant / Covenant of Works / Covenant of Grace at length in other threads. You already know my sources as you have helped other paedos understand where 1689 comes from. Never mind the long DMs between us in the past. How are *you* asking this of me?
[automerge]1775144243[/automerge]
We should DM so as not to derail current thread's direction.
Last edited:
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
The same Spirit as the New - so this cannot be what now makes it "better." Both circumcision and baptism are "of the flesh," and thus both are also only effective in those who at some point in their life come to faith in their heart through the work of the Spirit:
"For he is not a Jew, which is one outward: neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew which is one within, and the circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God." (Romans 2.28-29)
"Truth it is, I have baptized you with water: but he will baptize you with the holy Ghost." (Mark 1.8)
Venator Veritatis
Puritan Board Freshman
Im not arguing with you, I'm just trying to understand both sides.
But it seems to me that the Paedobaptist case for hope in the event of a infants death stems from the promise that God will be a God to their children. So their hope is in the covenantal faithfulness of God. I've been reading Gurnall on prayer and he says that all prayer should be founded on the promises of God else we have no grounding or hope in our petitions. And if no hope, no faith and therefore our prayers are in vain. In like manner they are grounding their hope and faith in what they see as a promise to their physical children. (I hope I'm articulating this position at least semi correct)
Whereas the hope that a Particular Baptist has isn't grounded in covenant or specific promise per se, but the general goodness and mercy of God. So I can have as much hope that my 2 year old is elect as I can that a 2 year old Iranian child is elect. Is that correct? Or am I misunderstanding?
Supposing it is only a "sign," what is it a sign of? If it is intended to mark out members of the covenant, like circumcision, why is a significant part of the membership excluded? Something is not transferring across from the OT to the NT so as to relate to covenant membership. How can it be "better" in the NT if it is now forced to exclude covenant members?
Their place in the covenant is not altered nor in jeopardy whether they meet an unfortunate end of physical life in infancy (
"Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called." In the Reformed system it is not left to election. There is calling. God separates His elect from the world. He is the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort. It is not left up in the air. The comfort He ministers is grounded on the rock solid promises of His covenant.
[automerge]1775164223[/automerge]
As in the case of all God's elect. But this offers no hope in the case of individuals. Application takes in "calling" by which one can be discerned as elect. There must be some outward administration to realise it in time. Titus 1:1-2, "according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began."
Christodulus
Puritan Board Freshman
You believe there is a promise of God to include our children in the covenant?
Because in our view it is grounded in an objective promise of God that if He is a God to us He also will be a God to our seed after us, by which covenant children are objectively distinct from pagan children. There appears to be no distinct objective covenant promise which includes our children from the Baptist view (for if so, what hinders them from being baptized?), only an appeal to the general goodness of God. But God is also good and just in cutting off the unclean.
I appreciate the complexity of that situation, but infant mortality is not the crux of the issue. I have strong theological objections to the notion the only infants which are regenerate are those called out of this life, rather than there being regenerate infants which survive into adulthood (not the least of which is the fact scripture expressly describes the latter i.e. in the example of John the Baptist). Our hope for our children is not undone because they live.
The two are not practically distinct, since their birth in a Christian household is not the product of chance (which does not exist). So yes it is based on God’s sovereign choice, as is their parents being saved. A parallel is the fact that many have lived full lives and died without ever hearing a word of Christ, these people truly had no chance, but this is not cruel “bad luck”, their fate is not the result of chance, chance does not exist; such was the righteous execution of the decree of reprobation.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Doctor
Being a Jew, it seems I instinctively baptized my daughter in 1972. Please allow me to link to a well-known Christian author, Dennis E. Johnson (he wrote Triumph of the Lamb, an excellent amil commentary on Revelation), and how he switched from credo to paedo: INFANT BAPTISM: How My Mind Has Changed, by Dr. Dennis E. Johnson
The Lord though can and has redeemed out from even godless parents , who never had a positive influence on their children nor raised up in any church setting, persons for His glory, who went on to do exploits for His namesake
Gforce9
Puritan Board Junior
David,
This answer reveals a serious misunderstanding of the visible/invisible church distinction. True enough, God can regenerate one out of any circumstance he pleases.....that isn't even on the table of dispute here. What Scott is getting at is the special place one has partaking in the CoG (in this discussion, as a child of believers, presumably not yet regenerate or that their regeneration is not obvious due to physical/emotional maturity). I think you will have to deal seriously with the language of the bible that includes "to you and to your children/seed". It is in the bible we all say we believe. We cannot ignore it because it doesn't fit our presuppositions. God put it in there for our good and for our understanding. It cannot be dismissed out of hand by anyone who is serious about the Christian faith. It calls us to careful study. This whole discussion has more to do with the human struggle to believe God is sovereign than it does anything else in my estimation. May we all be able to say "Let God be God and every man a liar" and "may I worship you all of my days".........
The Covenant of Grace extends upon those who are actually in the spiritual body of Christ, and that would those who have affirmed their faith in Jesus as their lord and savior , as one being in the assembly does not mean they re actually part now of the CoG also automaticallyDavid,
This answer reveals a serious misunderstanding of the visible/invisible church distinction. True enough, God can regenerate one out of any circumstance he pleases.....that isn't even on the table of dispute here. What Scott is getting at is the special place one has partaking in the CoG (in this discussion, as a child of believers, presumably not yet regenerate or that their regeneration is not obvious due to physical/emotional maturity). I think you will have to deal seriously with the language of the bible that includes "to you and to your children/seed". It is in the bible we all say we believe. We cannot ignore it because it doesn't fit our presuppositions. God put it in there for our good and for our understanding. It cannot be dismissed out of hand by anyone who is serious about the Christian faith. It calls us to careful study. This whole discussion has more to do with the human struggle to believe God is sovereign than it does anything else in my estimation. May we all be able to say "Let God be God and every man a liar" and "may I worship you all of my days".........
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
I was offline for a while, and I lost track of where we were, so I will just say I affirm Hercules Collins' Orthodox Catechism of 1680:
https://www.reformedontheweb.com/catechisms/the-orthodox-catechism-1680.pdf
https://www.reformedontheweb.com/catechisms/the-orthodox-catechism-1680.pdf
CasualWestminsterEnjoyer
Puritan Board Senior
That makes two of you!
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
The problem with Collins' teaching on baptism (which is one of the reasons it is relatively obscure even amongst Particular Baptists today?) is that it contains glaring error. For example, when he states "circumcision was limited to such a family, the family of Abraham, all others, though believers, were excluded; also
limited to such a day, the eighth..." he is opposed by those places in Scripture which make it clear that those brought physically into Israel (an enslaved captive, for example) or by spiritual conversion had to receive circumcision (Genesis 17, cf Exodus 12.48). Circumcision from the beginning was not limited to 8-day old male descendants of Abraham - that was the ordinary and primary way to enter into the covenant, but it was not the only one.
DNM300
Puritan Board Freshman
Have you listened to the reformed forum critique of 1689 federalism? I forget if I have recommended it to you or not. I think it would interest you. The very first segment includes taxonomy of several particular Baptist’s thoughts on the Abrahamic & the ritual of circumcision. There are common themes that get identified.
I will say it again: including elect infants. Once more, it is clear that your line of reasoning is prejudicial to God's elect. Why is that? Because the whole way of thinking comes from another tradition that is not Reformed. It requires you to think instinctively of a person doing something to get into the grace of God. And as I have noted on numerous occasions this tradition is Anabaptist. Call it Reformed Baptist if you please; but It is not Reformed.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
