sevenzedek
Puritan Board Junior
As Voddie Baucham once said, the reason God makes children small is so they won't kill their parents in their sleep.
Funny.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
As Voddie Baucham once said, the reason God makes children small is so they won't kill their parents in their sleep.
Bob, you said this, "I would reject infant baptism as anything other than a dedication of the parents to bringing their child up in a Christian manner."
I think it can be proven to be much more than this. It is the same obedience to the same command given by God to Abraham, and which token of the covenant – circumcision in his day, baptism in ours – signified the inclusion of that child into the covenant, and thus into the covenant community (see Genesis 17:9-14). This did not necessarily mean salvation, but rather the child being raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, which means of grace would be ineffectual in an unelect child, as was demonstrably the case with some then, as well as now.
Baptism of an infant is but an obedient response to a command of God. Do you deny we may consider the command to Abraham as applicable to us? Why then does Paul say, "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Gal 3:29)? We are Abraham's seed and it is applicable to us.
I am interested in information which better establishes this link both from a biblical perspective and historically.
There is apparently some sort of exemption however from the imputation of this sin if 1.their parents are believers 2. they receive Baptism 3. they are elect.
It would be akin to me accepting the act of Confession as a Sacrament based on the connection between I John 1:9, James 5:16 and Levitical laws. Confession was certainly supported by the Councils and refined through the ages and is still to this day viewed as one of the 7 sacraments Christ gave to the Church (according to Roman Catholicism).
Of course, any person's mark with (or lack of) the covenant sign, under any administration--OT or NT--doesn't impinge on the sovereign working of the Holy Spirit to regenerate.
On the pretty-far-removed subject of David's and Bathsheba's first son, the exact age of the child is indeterminate. Indeed, I think it unlikely that the child was born ill, or that the judgment of God fell immediately on the day of his birth. It would be a much more undeniable/unquestioned judgment that befell David if the child gave evidence of strength for a week or more. He is born in 2Sam.11:27, and presumably he was circumcised the eighth day in accordance with the Law of Moses, unless (and here it is speculative) Nathan's confrontation (ch.12:1ff) took place on the child's birthday--David would then have received both messages (birth and rebuke) the same day. It is not impossible, but neither is it necessary to the narrative flow. The child's illness lasted seven days whereupon he died; the sickness could have begun on the day David was confronted; but again, it may have begun on the following day or days. The text is simply not concerned to convey that detail. We may infer that it happened soon enough to confirm the connection between the threat and the execution.
It is interesting to note that David's son with Bathsheba died on the seventh day, one day short of his circumcision, and yet David declares that he "shall go to him" implying that he will see him again in heaven. Regardless of one's view on baptism, I think it is clear that it has no effect on whether a child or anyone else will go to heaven. I am quite certain that hell is filled with people who at one time or another and by one method or another, were baptized.
Bill,
Thank you for that. I don't often find myself in disagreement with MH; I think he's pretty sound. And I can't fault him (or you) for the conclusion--it is textually based.
I simply think there's a better reason for noting that the child died on the seventh day, v18. I think it has to do with the fact that David's instant behavior was to attend worship, v20. In my opinion, the child died on the Sabbath; but rather than excusing himself from worship by the need to mourn, David leads the people in worship as befitted his mediatorial office.
Also, in my opinion, the 9th Psalm (v1, "To the chief musician, upon the death of the son, a Psalm of David...") is occasioned by the incident. And for any who reject such an interpretation on this account: that the Psalm isn't a lament, but rather more of a praise; may I gently suggest that you attempt to read it as coming from a man who is determined to give God glory, and to serve the saints, despite his personal grief, and the knowledge that his sin brought about this Justice. After all, I don't think the title (which I take literally) fits any better circumstance in David's life than the loss of his unnamed son. I think it aligns in this way with other pious attitudes in Scripture, such as Job's: "Though he slay me, yet will I trust him."
Blessings,
…Many of the things you listed are referring to self-preservation which is lawful. If an infant did not cry out to let its parents know when it needs fed or a diaper changed or is in pain, etc. then maybe you could make the case that they were violating the 6th commandment by omission (since the 6th commandment requires self-preservation) but even that would be a stretch…
Is it possible to have a sin nature and not act out that sin nature apart from being regenerated?
Can an infant have a sin nature and behave perfectly at the same time? If so, then it must be possible for you and I to do the same.
Can an evil root produce good fruit? If so, then Christian virtue is possible apart from regeneration.
Can evil produce good? If so, then evil must not be evil.
However, I think there is another aspect that needs to be considered. Infants are obviously in a state where they cannot discern good from evil. They have no use of their rational but are driven by instinct. I think this is comparable to animals. Animals have no rational and therefore are not capable of sinning. While each individual infant may develop use of their rational at a unique time, still there is a stage where they act solely on instinct.
…This is not to say that infants have absolutely no apriori knowledge. They aren't born with a blank slate because then they wouldn't have the ability to learn. The question really is could an infant sin in its thoughts? Sin can be threefold (word, thought, deed). Certainly they can't sin in word and deed. I just wonder, without the use of rational, how could they sin in thought?
…This is not to say that infants have absolutely no apriori knowledge. They aren't born with a blank slate because then they wouldn't have the ability to learn. The question really is could an infant sin in its thoughts? Sin can be threefold (word, thought, deed). Certainly they can't sin in word and deed. I just wonder, without the use of rational, how could they sin in thought?
Then it must be possible to have a sin nature and not act according to it. The Armenians must be onto something.
Is it possible to have a sin nature and not act out that sin nature apart from being regenerated?
Can an infant have a sin nature and behave perfectly at the same time? If so, then it must be possible for you and I to do the same.
Can an evil root produce good fruit? If so, then Christian virtue is possible apart from regeneration.
Can evil produce good? If so, then evil must not be evil.