Edited!What is "Os"?
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.
Edited!What is "Os"?
What were your impressions after reviewing the item here:Are there any scripture that states just some infants are saved though?
Yet, why must that biblical treatment go beyond what we already confess? The Confession declares that "elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit..."
simply acknowledging that - even if via atypical means - God will save the elect infant. You would agree that "saved" is equal to or at least encompasses "conversion," right? Else, they are saved but not converted, which is nonsense.
So, these elect infants are regenerated and saved atypically. Why must we posit what it might look like if they were to live beyond infancy? Is there any biblical warrant to suggest that they might?
Why can we not say that elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved atypically in infancy, while elect persons surviving beyond infancy are regenerated and saved typically in a single, "spokes of the wheel," event?
Why must the latter be supposed to have been regenerated prior (by whatever measure of time) to their conversion?
Someone earlier (or on another thread) mentioned Lazarus as a helpful example. Can we really fathom that he was lying there in the tomb alive (regenerated) just waiting for the external call, "Come forth?" Or is it better to think that the Master's cry was attended by the Spirit's vivification, and the dead came to life and responded in the same event (though logically in accord with the ordo salutis)?
Would those who are born mentally challenged and not able to understand the facts of the Gospel fall under a same category as babies and infants than in regards to God choosing to save some or all of them?I don't believe this is going beyond the scriptures or confession; see ch 28; there is enough information to warrant research on the idea. Children are regenerated in infancy at times; whether that be in the womb or at baptism or afterwards, it happens. The question that would follow, is can the baby be converted, i.e. receive faith and repentance if faith and repentance requires a mental assent to biblical propositions? Could an adult male be converted outside of a mental assent? Does God work that way? Like, God regenerates, gives faith and repentance and the man is left holding the bag, having absolutely no idea what his faith is in nor why he needs to repent of anything-or what repentance even is! That makes no sense!
As I have clealry shown, the elect infant dying in infancy, receives the internal and external call of God from Christ Himself, encompassing the whole of the ordo-this to include faith and repentance (conversion). This is, as u would say, 'atypical'. Atypical in that, the typical way men are saved by the external call portion of the order, coming from an external voice, i.e. the preacher.
This statement shows me that u are still not following me fully. When u ask, 'to suggest that they might?' , proves that, because no one has ever argued in that respect. What I am arguying for are infants that are not destined to die in the womb or shortly after but the infants that have been regenerated in the womb, at baptism, etc. that God has decreed will live a fruitfull, full life in the Lord, when do they receive faith and repentance (conversion)? It is not a vicarious adopting of a faith by Christ to an elect person, is it? In both the cases, infant vs adult, both must have a basis for their faith and must know that they are in need of repentance for a reason. Can a man be saved yet not know who Christ is? This would be the case of the infant. Can the infant see the kingdom of God? U might say, 'well the infant has faith'. I would respond, if regenerated, yes, in seed form-it needs the word to germinate it and then it grows. Conversion happens sometimes afterwards when the person comes to an assent of facts.
See my above statement
See my post above
First of all, one cannot hang their hat on this miracle of Jesus and attempt to corral it into a teaching example on the order of salvation. Secondly, since it was not a teaching in regards to the order, it makes no sense in trying to use it for such.
I would tend to see this as John Gill and Spurgeon did, as in the Lord choosing to elect and save in Christ all infants, but would also see this as not being able to be known until we see Him face to face.What were your impressions after reviewing the item here:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/how-does-the-lord-save-infants-babies-then.93488/#post-1140777
We all seem to be agreeing here on how the Lord saves them, and the big question is too how many of them He will save then?The mentally challenged i.e the imbecile, would fall under the same as the infant dying in infancy.
What I am arguying for are infants that are not destined to die in the womb or shortly after but the infants that have been regenerated in the womb, at baptism, etc. that God has decreed will live a fruitfull, full life in the Lord,
how many of them He will save then?
How do you know that such a situation would ever occur (apart from the biblical examples, which we agree were atypical)? How do you know that there are regenerated, but not converted, infants?
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 the 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]
VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.[17]
The Bible makes eternal life to consist in knowledge; sinfulness is blindness, or darkness; the transition from a state of sin to a state of holiness is a translation from darkness into light; men are said to be renewed unto knowledge, i.e., knowledge is the effect of regeneration; conversion is said to be effected by the revelation of Christ; the rejection of Him as the Son of God and Saviour of men is referred to the fact that the eyes of those who believe not are blinded by the god of this world. These Scriptural representations prove much. They prove that knowledge is essential to all holy exercises; that truth, as the object of knowledge, is of vital importance, and that error is always evil and often fatal; and that the effects of regeneration, so far as they reveal themselves in our consciousness, consist largely in the spiritual apprehension or discernment of divine things. These representations also prove that in the order of nature, knowledge, or spiritual discernment, is antecedent and causative relatively to all holy exercises of the feelings or affections. It is the spiritual apprehension of the truth that awakens love, faith, and delight; and not love that produces spiritual discernment. It was the vision Paul had of the divine glory of Christ that made him instantly and forever his worshipper and servant. The Scriptures, however, do not teach that regeneration consists exclusively in illumination, or that the cognitive faculties are exclusively the subject of the renewing power of the Spirit. It is the soul as such that is spiritually dead; and it is to the soul that a new principle of life controlling all its exercises, whether of the intellect, the sensibility, the conscience, or the will is imparted.
This new life, therefore, manifests itself in new views of God, of Christ, of sin, of holiness, of the world, of the gospel, and of the life to come; in short, of all those truths which God has revealed as necessary to salvation. This spiritual illumination is so important and so necessary and such an immediate effect of regeneration, that spiritual knowledge is not only represented in the Bible as the end of regeneration (Col. 3:10; 1 Tim. 2:4), but the whole of conversion (which is the effect of regeneration) is summed up in knowledge. Paul describes his conversion as consisting in Christ’s being revealed to Him (Gal. 1:16); and the Scriptures make all religion, and even eternal life, to be a form of knowledge. Paul renounced everything for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ (Phil. 3:8), and our Lord says that the knowledge of Himself and of the Father is eternal life. Faith is not a blind, irrational conviction. In order to believe, we must know what we believe, and the grounds on which our faith rests
A sixth question, included under the head of the relation of faith to knowledge is, whether knowledge is essential to faith? That is, whether a truth must be known in order to be believed? This Protestants affirm and Romanists deny. therefore, knowledge, or the intelligent apprehension of the meaning of what is proposed, is essential to faith. It follows from what has been said, or rather is included in it, that knowledge being essential to faith, it must be the measure of it.
1. From the very nature of faith. It includes the conviction of the truth of its object. It is an affirmation of the mind that a thing is true or trustworthy, but the mind can affirm nothing of that of which it knows nothing.
2. The Bible everywhere teaches that without knowledge there can be no faith.
3. Such is the intimate connection between faith and knowledge, that in the Scriptures the one term is often used for the other. To know Christ, is to believe upon Him. To know the truth, is intelligently and believingly to apprehend and appropriate it. Conversion is effected by knowledge.
An important notion that Van Mastricht takes some time to develop based on the Reformed dichotomy of regeneration and faith, is that regeneration confers spiritual life in the first act only. This first act, then, is a principle, not an operation. This idea of an operation of grace, the Reformed have always defined as “habits or exercises” of grace. Manton says, “The habits of all grace are brought into the heart by regeneration.” Turretin says, “Habitual or passive conversion takes place by the infusion of supernatural habits by the Holy Spirit.”26 These habits are exercised at a later time. Thus, fallen men who are regenerated are capacitated to believe and repent, but regeneration is not believing nor repenting. Such an action will come later.
David,Agreed, and the hope is rooted in the truth that God Himself, in the Person of Jesus at the Cross and in His resurrection, has provided in full the grounds by which He might choose to save all infants who have died.
Dr. William Twisse states, “We explain efficacious grace to be an operation of God affecting the will of man, which is not moral but physical, that is immediately and really working in us to do whatsoever good we perform, determining the will to action, but yet so that it acts freely.” Dr. Thomas Ridgley, in his exposition of the Larger Catechism states, “From hence I am obliged to infer that the regenerating act, or implanting this principle of grace, which is, at least, in order of nature, antecedent to any act of grace put forth by us, is the immediate effect of the power of God, which none who speak of regeneration as a divine work pretend to deny.” Dr. Stephen Charnock mentions the difference between regeneration and conversion, “Regeneration is a spiritual change; conversion is a spiritual motion.”37 Dr. Herman Witsius defines regeneration as “that supernatural act of God whereby a new and divine life is infused into the elect person, spiritually dead, and that form an incorruptible seed of the Word of God, made fruitful by the infinite power of the Spirit.”
Rev. Samuel Hopkins states, “Let us consider the divine agency, the work of the Spirit of God, by which persons are regenerated or born of God, and which lays the only foundation for conversion or holy exercises in the subject...the divine agency and operation, which is first, and lays the foundation for all right views and exercises in the person who is the subject, is called by divines regeneration.
David,
Just grabbing one of your posts at random: are you advocating the position that all infants who die in the womb are automatically saved? That is an exceedingly un-confessional position. If all babies who die are saved, where is the doctrine of Original Sin? We might as well become Pelagians (horrors!). Is it not better to believe that our Heavenly Father, who is good, and ordains all things that come to pass, will have done rightly, even in the damnation of unborn infants? His thoughts are not our thoughts; His ways not our ways: we must only believe that He is good and righteous, even if we can't understand His councils.
The Bible is clear: man is a sinner from conception, liable to the curse. God has nowhere guaranteed that unborn dead babies will be all saved. Therefore it is irresponsible to conclude that they are.
Are there any scripture that states just some infants are saved though?
No, I asked "how do we know that there are regenerated, but not converted, infants? Of course, I believe that there are regenerated infants! Those dying in infancy are both regenerated and converted.How do we know that there are regenerate infants?
we see examples in scripture where infants are surely set apart from the womb-granted, they are not typical, except for Timothy (2 Tim 3:15)
one can simply deduce that God does at times, regenerate infants (as well as adults) at the baptismal font (if He so wills). Gievn what I have said, this is how we paedobaptists come to this conclusion.
Scott,Ben,
Somewhere imbedded in this thread, one of my posts show the reformed view on the subject. The camp is split on the issue. If you peruse this thread, you can find my post w/ citations.
Scott,
It appears from the replies that your position is in the minority among the reformed. Certainly no reformed person I've ever interacted with would agree that all infants are saved if they die in the womb.
I interpret the βρέφος in 2 Tim 3:15 to mean "young child," rather than "infant." There is lexical room for either. However, if you want to employ this verse to indicate a regenerate infant, then you are striking at the root of your own argument, because the text says that from the time Timothy was a (βρέφος), he has known [εἴδω - to know, perceive, discern] the holy scriptures. And you call this typical! So, do you or do you not think that infants can know the holy scriptures?
2 Tim 1:5 When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice;
Certainly God can - and perhaps - does regenerate (and convert) infants at the baptismal font. However, you go too far: "we paedobaptists" do not universally come to the same conclusion as you do. Some may; many do not.
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 the 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]
VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.[17]
I don't believe God 'converts' in the womb (generally) or at the rite of baptism, given what I have been saying over and over.
I generally believe God does convert when baptized, and we can only see the fruit of faith as a child grows and becomes a communicant member. Of course a close member of the family may see evidence of faith before a verbal profession of faith.
“Regeneration is a spiritual change; conversion is a spiritual motion". Hopkins: “Let us consider the divine agency, the work of the Spirit of God, by which persons are regenerated or born of God, and which lays the only foundation for conversion or holy exercises in the subject...the divine agency and operation, which is first, and lays the foundation for all right views and exercises in the person who is the subject, is called by divines regeneration.” VanMastricht: “This power in conversion which succeeds regeneration, proper circumstances being supposed, is in due time brought into actual exercise." "in regeneration, there is not bestowed upon the elect any faith, hope, love, repentance, etc., either as to habit or act, but the power only as yet of performing these exercises is bestowed, by which the regenerate person does not actually believe or repent, but is only capacitated thereunto".
C. M. McMahon, How Faith Works, n.d.
He was most likely regenerated in the womb or thereafter and then taught the faith, diligently unto conversion
If you are confessional, you do....
I'm surprised that you haven't once interacted w/ Hodge et. al.
I don't believe God 'converts' in the womb (generally) or at the rite of baptism, given what I have been saying over and over.
Patently false. There are many who are confessional who believe that regeneration and conversion occur as "spokes of a wheel" in the same chronological event. One needn't believe in your gap theory to be confessional. That is the only issue I am taking with your position: I reject the notion of a discernible, chronological gap between regeneration and conversion.
For your part, you didn't interact with the text that says Timothy knew the holy scriptures as an infant/child.
Moderator Note:Ruben,
I never actually told u my position, so I have no idea how u have come to your conclusion?
others have it all wrong or errantly understood.
Ruben,
I never actually told u my position, so I have no idea how u have come to your conclusion?
I am advocating for the position that the Lord, through the Death of Jesus, has provided for the atonement for the sins of all of His elect in Christ, and that God Himself has chosen to elect to salvation all infants and those who were born mentally challenged. I would agree with the Confession that all elect are saved, but I am saying that God has chosen to elect all in such a state. They still have Original Sin and are born as sinners, but God Himself has chosen to redeem them all through the merits of the Cross of Christ.David,
Just grabbing one of your posts at random: are you advocating the position that all infants who die in the womb are automatically saved? That is an exceedingly un-confessional position. If all babies who die are saved, where is the doctrine of Original Sin? We might as well become Pelagians (horrors!). Is it not better to believe that our Heavenly Father, who is good, and ordains all things that come to pass, will have done rightly, even in the damnation of unborn infants? His thoughts are not our thoughts; His ways not our ways: we must only believe that He is good and righteous, even if we can't understand His councils.
The Bible is clear: man is a sinner from conception, liable to the curse. God has nowhere guaranteed that unborn dead babies will be all saved. Therefore it is irresponsible to conclude that they are.
God Himself has chosen to elect to salvation all infants