Infant Faith

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rich wrote:-
I'm a little shocked that Martin would post it. Either he has missed the point of what countless posts in the CT forum have presented regarding paedobaptist views or he is presenting a caricature of that view purposefully. To what end I do not know but I expected better.
You're not coming over all Moslem here and getting offended, are you, Rich? I expected better from you! Aren't you the one who was defending 'rigorous debate' and the use of Reductio ad Absurdum on another thread recently?

I think you did not read the post very carefully. Look again at what Renihan says:-
'Individual anecdotes are not normative, but illustrative of the fruit of men´s labours. The fruit of a belief will be seen in how it manifests itself in practice. Ideas have consequences.

Having had some Pastoral responsibility in the past, I am aware that a penny's [dime's] worth of error from the pulpit becomes a pound's [dollar's] worth of bad practice in the pew. If you teach people the doctrine of Presumptive Regeneration, then you can be sure it will come back to haunt you when people take it to its logical extreme as in this example.

Beliefs manifest themselves in practice. If it were just a question of baptism, then I wouldn't spend my time banging on about it. But the Doctrine of PR is pernicious. It inevitably results in self-deception, either by the parent, the child or both.

Look with me at John 3:8. The Lord Jesus makes the issue of the New Birth so very clear. He likens the operation of the Spirit in regeneration to the wind:-

'The wind blows.......' There is reality. The New Birth is not a myth, nor is it something that can be disregarded or relegated into a secondary doctrine.

'.......Where it wishes. There is sovereignty. You cannot pigeon-hole the Holy Spirit and say that He must always work in this way or that, or on these people and not those. If you have ever taught children's Sunday School, you will know that sometimes the star scholar, who seems so interested and so receptive, is often the one who falls away when he grows up. Yet the difficult child, the one who can't sit still, who is cheeky and disupts the reat of the class, sometimes will be the one whom you meet fifteen years later and he's a missionary! The wind blows where it wishes.

'......And you hear the sound of it.' There is observability. If someone, even a small child is regenerate, there will be evidence of it in changed behaviour (Gal 6:19-24 ). Unless and until there is such evidence, then whether or not the child has been baptized; whether or not you have extracted an 'I love Jesus!' from his little lips, you dare not presume that the Holy Spirit has worked upon him.

'.......But [you] cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes.' There is mystery. At the end of all our studies of the Scriptures and of the Reformers and Puritans, there is that which will elude us. We cannot pin down the Spirit. All we can say is, 'Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgements and His ways past finding out!' (Rom 11:33).

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 2-8-2006 by Martin Marprelate]
 
If you teach people the doctrine of Presumptive Regeneration, then you can be sure it will come back to haunt you when people take it to its logical extreme as in this example.

I suppose we should stop teaching justification by faith alone then because so many people mess it up? Or how about regeneration? Salvation in general? One cannot stop teaching the truth on any issue simply because misguided people foul it up. We should never take that route, otherwise, we are simply living a red herring.
 
Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
For the ordinary circumstances surrounding the godly (non-hypercovenatal home) see James Janeway and Cotton Mather's EXCELLENT book "A Token for Children". It accounts for the "extraordinary" faith of children in a congregation in England and one in America. Soli Deo Gloria published it. It is an outstanding example of children in the Lord from 3-12 years old.

I absolutely do not deny that the Holy Spirit can work upon quite small children. There are many elderly Baptists who cannot remember a time when they didn't love the Lord because they came to Him so early in life. There is a little girl (6 years old) in our congregation who has very clearly professed repentance for her sins and faith in Jesus. I do not for a moment say that she has not been born again; but if she has, it is by the word of Truth (Jam 1:18 etc). I would add that little children will often say what they think their parents want to hear. Until there is clear evidence of regeneration in her life and until she reaches an age where she is more independent, I would make no assumptions about her.

There is a wonderful account of the work of the Spirit at a school in Coleraine, Ulster, during the 1859 revival there. It is found in The Year Of Grace By William Gibson (Ambassador Books. ISBN 0 907927 33 5 ). It's a heart-warming read! I may post it in the History forum when I have time.
 
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
For the ordinary circumstances surrounding the godly (non-hypercovenatal home) see James Janeway and Cotton Mather's EXCELLENT book "A Token for Children". It accounts for the "extraordinary" faith of children in a congregation in England and one in America. Soli Deo Gloria published it. It is an outstanding example of children in the Lord from 3-12 years old.

I absolutely do not deny that the Holy Spirit can work upon quite small children. There are many elderly Baptists who cannot remember a time when they didn't love the Lord because they came to Him so early in life. There is a little girl (6 years old) in our congregation who has very clearly professed repentance for her sins and faith in Jesus. I do not for a moment say that she has not been born again; but if she has, it is by the word of Truth (Jam 1:18 etc). I would add that little children will often say what they think their parents want to hear. Until there is clear evidence of regeneration in her life and until she reaches an age where she is more independent, I would make no assumptions about her.

There is a wonderful account of the work of the Spirit at a school in Coleraine, Ulster, during the 1859 revival there. It is found in The Year Of Grace By William Gibson (Ambassador Books. ISBN 0 907927 33 5 ). It's a heart-warming read! I may post it in the History forum when I have time.

Martin,

That's awesome. I love to see children converted. I love it even more when they are a testimony to the adults who are not as pious.

Blessings.
 
Martin,

There are a couple of points I would like to make about the scenario that you presented:

1. The fact that the father thought that his daughter was "regenerated" when she was baptized does not relieve him of his responsibility to raise up his daughter in the admonition of the Lord. Children need to be taught regardless of what one thinks happens before or at baptism.

2. The scenario does not mention that at some point before she was 16 she became a communing member of the church. If she was a communing member, she would have made her own profession of faith and would have been admitted to the Lord's table. The Presbyterian pastor should have known this.

3. The fact that she rebelled and fell into sin should not be a surprise. Consider King David's situation.

4. The fact that she repented and turned back to Christ shows that the church's prayers were answered and that she is regenerate.

5. The Presbyterian pastor should go back and read the Scriptures and the Standards and he would understand what happened and would be rejoicing that God brought the "prodigal" back into the church. He would also know what to say to the father in that he is wrong to treat his daughter this way.

6. And finally, PR has nothing to do with what happened.

[Edited on 2/8/2006 by wsw201]
 
I agree with everything that Wayne said, and would further add that if there is a doctrine to blame for this problem, it would be paedocommunion, not paedobaptism or covenantal theology.

If the daughter was admitted to the table without a credible profession, then shame on the father and the church.

If the daughter was admitted with a profession that turned out to be not credible, this scenario could occur (and DOES occur) in any church, including baptist churches.

If the daughter was not admitted yet to the table, the father has a false understanding of the covenant, sacraments, and church membership, and should be rebuked for his rejection of historical, confessional and biblical Presbyterianism.
 
Originally posted by wsw201
Martin,

There are a couple of points I would like to make about the scenario that you presented:
I presented it here, but I did not write it. It was written by Michael Renihan in a back copy of Reformed Baptist Theological Review. It purports to be a true account. Just to make that clear.
1. The fact that the father thought that his daughter was "regenerated" when she was baptized does not relieve him of his responsibility to raise up his daughter in the admonition of the Lord. Children need to be taught regardless of what one thinks happens before or at baptism.
Who says he did not do so? There is no suggestion in the account that he was neglectful in that respect.
2. The scenario does not mention that at some point before she was 16 she became a communing member of the church. If she was a communing member, she would have made her own profession of faith and would have been admitted to the Lord's table. The Presbyterian pastor should have known this.
There is no suggestion that she ever took the Lord's Supper. I do not think that is relevant.
3. The fact that she rebelled and fell into sin should not be a surprise. Consider King David's situation.
No indeed! These things happen, alas, all the time.
4. The fact that she repented and turned back to Christ shows that the church's prayers were answered and that she is regenerate.
Again, I agree with you. The prayers of the church for the children of members is of the utmost importance. The girl appears to be regenerate now. Whether she was aready regenerate and had back-slidden, or was not previously born again is impossible to say.
5. The Presbyterian pastor should go back and read the Scriptures and the Standards and he would understand what happened and would be rejoicing that God brought the "prodigal" back into the church. He would also know what to say to the father in that he is wrong to treat his daughter this way.
I think the Pastor was rejoicing! It was the father that had the problem. Renihan says, 'He would not be shown to be wrong.'
6. And finally, PR has nothing to do with what happened.

This is where we part company. The Pastor had told this father that he could presume that his daughter was regenerate (contraJohn 3:6 etc). Therefore, no matter how much the father my have taught her and admonished her, why would he ever tell her that she needed to be born again? According to the Pastor, she already was! So she, until she visited the 'other' church, thought that she was a Christian. She had been told so by her Pastor, her father and doubtless the youth leader as well.

I tell you, I was this girl! :um: The only difference was that I went for nearly 40 years thinking I was a Christian because........well, I lived in a 'Christian' country, I'd been baptized and I believed in God. And most particularly, nobody ever told me that 'Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.' I knew it was in the Bible, but I didn't think it applied to me. And no one ever told me it did.

Grace & Peace,

Martin
 
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Originally posted by wsw201
Martin,



I tell you, I was this girl! :um: The only difference was that I went for nearly 40 years thinking I was a Christian because........well, I lived in a 'Christian' country, I'd been baptized and I believed in God. And most particularly, nobody ever told me that 'Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.' I knew it was in the Bible, but I didn't think it applied to me. And no one ever told me it did.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

I wonder if there are any examples of those that came to Christianity through revivalistic methods and then backslip. (raising hand)
 
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Until there is clear evidence of regeneration in her life and until she reaches an age where she is more independent, I would make no assumptions about her.

Your statement is flatly untrue. On the contrary you presume that all little children are unregenerate, despite any evidence.

I believe in Presumptive Regeneration, while you seem to believe in Presumptive Reprobation.

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

I went for nearly 40 years thinking I was a Christian because........well, I lived in a 'Christian' country, I'd been baptized and I believed in God. And most particularly, nobody ever told me that 'Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.' I knew it was in the Bible, but I didn't think it applied to me. And no one ever told me it did.

If a person knows it is in the Bible, but doesn't believe it, then shame on him! --- If He knows it's in the Bible, then the pastor has done his job.

Are you suggesting that a person must have a definitive, memorable, "conversion experience" (i.e. 18th/19th century revivalism) in order to truly be "born again"? I certainly think not.

Why do you suppose you finally understood that YOU needed to be born again? Could it possibly be that the Spirit regenerated you according to His timing? You already admitted that the issue was not your knowledge of Scripture. You already knew what was in there. Rather, you got born again when the Spirit decided to give you the new birth.

I know this is probably not your intention, Martin, but your statements sound very synergistic, rather than monergistic. If you *really* believe that the Spirit blows where He wills, then you should realize that your time of Regeneration had nothing to do with your beliefs for/against presumptive regeneration.
 
Martin,

I understand that what you posted is an account of what actually happened. No problem there.


Who says he did not do so? There is no suggestion in the account that he was neglectful in that respect.


Granted that there is nothing specifically in the account that would suggest that the father did not "raise her right". But then again there is also nothing in the account that he did either. Considering his response to his daughter making a profession of faith and the mention of his "hyper-covenantal theology" (whatever that means), I think it can be assumed that her spiritual education may be lacking.


There is no suggestion that she ever took the Lord's Supper. I do not think that is relevant.

That is right. There is no evidence that she took the Lord's Supper. But it is relevant. In the Presbyterian Church an infant is baptized on the profession of at least one parent (as the father said he did when she was baptized). Once a child is of an age where they can discern the Lord's body and make a profession of faith of their own volition, they become a communing member of the church. At 16, she should have already made a profession (and the father would know that) and become a communing member of the church. Now what I have described is the way it "should" be. I am discounting any "hyper-covenantalism" and peado communion.

Regarding the other points it appears we agree. Unfortunately we would need to know a lot more about this Presbyterian church in order to determine what went wrong.

I say that PR has nothing to do with this situation because it shouldn't have any thing to do with this situation. Based on Scripture and the Standards of the Presbyterian Church the situation that has been reported would be unacceptable. Any type of hyper-covenantalism that presumes that an infant is "actually" regenrate (no doubt about it regenrate!) in the womb, just born or at their baptism is counter to Scripture and our Standards! Chidren are to be catechized so they can improve upon their baptism and when the time comes make their own credible profession of faith.

Concerning what that Presbyterian pastor should do, if he truly is teaching "hyper-covenantalism", is resign! and the father would be having a serious sit down with the Session about his sinful attitude and hopefully be lead to repentance and reconciliation with his daughter.
 
Ps 8:2 (cf. Matt 21:16)
"Out of the mouth of infants and suckling babes You have prepared praise for Yourself."

Ps 22:9-10
"Yet You are He who brought me forth from the womb; <<<You made me trust>>> when upon my mother's breasts. Upon You I was cast from birth; <<<You have been my God from my mother's womb.>>>"

Matt 18:6
"... these little ones who believe in Me ..."

Luke 1:44
"For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy."

Hebr 11:23,24:
"By faith Moses when he was born..."
"By faith Moses when he had grown up..."


We should teach our children in such a way as to engender faith and feed it, I can't read my child's heart, look into the book of life and find their names, nor nakedly see if they are regenerate. Later "fruit" can be imitated by hypocrits as adults more than children are so very well adept at doing. All I can do while they are my children is present God's Law so that they see they are sinners and present God's Gospel so that they might believe and I simply trust His promise to me and my children and dare not disdain His promise and Word. Anything esle is trying to get it done by my efforts and peering into to God's eternal will.

They may rebel or they may not, false dilemma is that "rebellion" = unregenerate, for it is very clear that Christians can rebell in tremendous sin and for great lengths of time BECAUSE we are simulataneoulsy sinners and saints, that means 100% and 100% in this life.

The growth of a Christian is a growth in the appreciation and understanding of the depths of my sinfulness with a simultaneous increasing clinging to the Cross of Christ alone for me the sinner. In this way and this way only is true humility (which is at the heart of the Law) engendered and from humility faith is grown for God resists the proud, especially the religious proud.

Ldh
 
If the examples of infants and children in Scripture having faith are "œthe exception to the rule", then what is to prevent the same absurd application to adults? For the bulk of the adults in Scripture appear more manifestly to be unbelievers than do the infants. If we are going to look at sheer numbers, then adults loose hands down.

Adults, who are exceedingly expert and proficient at duplicity, insincerity and religious fraud rarely examine themselves. It is odd how Jesus doesn´t say that unless you be as these adults you can in no way enter the kingdom of heaven, yet we thrust faith that way.

As adults how do you know you have real saving faith? If you say, "œI have fruits", and list them, how do you know they are real fruits or enough or the right kind or of the right quality - as opposed to fruits of religious hypocrisy? If you say, "œthey are from my heart", what do you say when God´s word says the heart is deceptive above all who can know it? If you say, "œGod writes His Law on my heart"¦so that I love it and obey it", how do you know you are not just saying that, much less how can another know it? What if I were to steal your "œfruit" from you and tell you it is nothing, not even by grace, would you still cling to it then, or would you rage revealing what you really had faith in? If your heart really desires the Law of God, then why have you not sold all that you have and given it to the poor without another thought, surrendering everything? If you say, "œI have that desire"¦", then what stops you if the reward is eternal and greater than all the earth? And if one did "œgive all", which one will not, would it not be for one´s eternal gain rather than the poor´s benefit? Try taking away, not doing, your favorite "œreligious" act that gives you comfort and see how your heart reacts, then you will know what you are really trusting in. It will vary from man to man.

My wife´s a Trauma level 1 ER nurse, she sees this daily; What will you do if when you are aging or tomorrow you are one of the victims of one of the numerous mind debilitating diseases, a serious injury to your brain, secondary oxygen deprivation due to some other primary injury, a mentally debilitating stroke, an extended heart attack that affect your mind "“ how will your faith be set forth then?

The two closest people in this life that exhibit what real faith is "“ are infants and the dying. For at both of those times in our life the strength of mind, body and will is at its weakest point, dying and fading away and showing its reality as nothing"¦and then you MUST rely nakedly upon the mercy of God in Christ Jesus, just like an infant you are laid naked, exposed and at the mercy of God alone, for what else in all the creation do you have?

Ldh
 
Brett wrote:-
I wonder if there are any examples of those that came to Christianity through revivalistic methods and then backslip. (raising hand)

Brett, don't get me started (oops! Too late:lol:) on what goes on in a lot of Baptist churches!

Firstly, many parents and Pastors can't wait to dunk their children. The parents, because they foolishly imagine that by having them make a profession of faith, they have saved their children from hell; the Pastors because they like to be successful. So between them, they try to give as little information as possible to the child that will get them to make a profession of faith :mad: Then they wonder why their children give up their faith as soon as they leave home.

I hope and believe that no Reformed Baptist church would adopt such dangerous and wicked practices. But the fact that many unreformed Baptist churches do have them does not excuse Presbyterian Churches in giving false assurance to both parents and children in this pernicious doctrine of Presumptive Regeneration.

Childen must be taught and encouraged to seek the Lord (Isaiah 55:6-7; 2Chron 34:1-3 ). In my experience, they will not do so if they have been encouraged to believe that they are regenerate already.

N.B. None of the above should be read in such away as to make it seem to deny the ultimate sovereignty of God in these matters. God's sovereignty is no excuse for bad practice. God usually exercises His will through means (1Cor 1:21 ).

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 2-8-2006 by Martin Marprelate]
 
Martin,

You crack me up. I wasn´t offended. I just thought you´d do a better job of arguing your case. One can only utilize a Reductio ad Absurdum argument if the opponent´s position is presented accurately to begin with. They may not be your words but you introduce them as your position so you must have some affinity for the argument presented.

Wayne: Thank you for pointing out the fact that the girl in the story was probably a communicant member. I can´t imagine her not being as this "œcrisis" would have occurred much sooner in life.

Martin "“ you believe the fact that she partook of the Lord's Supper has no bearing upon the issue. IT MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD in this case.

The girl, prior to rebelling in her late teens gave a credible profession of faith and demonstrated an ability to self-examine or she would not have been admitted to the Lord´s Table.

Let me quote you:
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
I absolutely do not deny that the Holy Spirit can work upon quite small children. There are many elderly Baptists who cannot remember a time when they didn't love the Lord because they came to Him so early in life. There is a little girl (6 years old) in our congregation who has very clearly professed repentance for her sins and faith in Jesus. I do not for a moment say that she has not been born again; but if she has, it is by the word of Truth (Jam 1:18 etc). I would add that little children will often say what they think their parents want to hear. Until there is clear evidence of regeneration in her life and until she reaches an age where she is more independent, I would make no assumptions about her.

Is that 6 year old girl in your congregation baptized? Let´s assume not because you want to make extra sure that she is truly regenerate because we know that the reprobate are not baptized. ;) Let´s pretend that there´s another girl JUST LIKE HER in your congregation. Same age. Same evidence of regeneration. We´ll call her Mary. Mary is baptized at age 12. Let´s assume further that Mary, at age 16, begins to rebel against the faith. Your Church prays for her for TWO years "“ so regularly, in fact, that it seems like you and the Church have given her over as a HOPELESS CAUSE (what the heck does that mean anyway). Anyway, Mary visits an OPC Church one day where she hears some Presbyterian minister accidentally get the Gospel right in between telling all the parents that their children are saved no matter what and she is convicted of Sin and believes in Christ. She then goes home to her Reformed Baptist father and says "œDad, everything is going to be OK now. I´ve accepted Christ." Her father explodes saying: "œWhat?! We thought you were regenerate at age 6 but we waited until you were 12 to make extra sure!"

The dismayed Minister then realizes that we don´t baptize because we know somebody is regenerate and sees the problem with his Theology so he posts on his favorite Reformed Board asking people what to do.

One of his good Reformed friends replies: BECOME A PRESBYTERIAN!

[Edited on 2-9-2006 by SemperFideles]
 
Larry wrote:-
Ps 8:2 (cf. Matt 21:16)
"Out of the mouth of infants and suckling babes You have prepared praise for Yourself."

Ps 22:9-10
"Yet You are He who brought me forth from the womb; <<>> when upon my mother's breasts. Upon You I was cast from birth; <<>>"

Matt 18:6
"... these little ones who believe in Me ..."

Luke 1:44
"For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy."

Hebr 11:23,24:
"By faith Moses when he was born..."
"By faith Moses when he had grown up..."

Are you really offering these verses as exegetical proof of infant faith? Surely not. You have entirely missed the point of Psalm 8:2. The children who ran alongside our Lord as He entered Jerusalem were certainly not 'babes and nursing infants.' Look at 1Cor 1:27 for the proper understanding of this verse.

"By faith Moses when he was born...." His own faith? I think not! '......was hidden three months by his parents because........they were not afraid of the king's commands."

The only verse that remotely suggests infant faith is Luke 1:44, and this was a miraculous sign indicating the birth of the Lord. I no more expect to see this repeated than to see angels in the sky every night singing, "Glory to God in the highest"!

Your hermeneutic is at fault. Chasing up every reference to infants that you can find cannot obscure the plain teaching of our Lord in John 3. 'Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.........That which is born of the flesh is flesh.'
We should teach our children in such a way as to engender faith and feed it,

:amen: But we do not do that by giving them a false sense of security.

Martin

[Edited on 2-10-2006 by Martin Marprelate]
 
Rich wrote:-
Martin "“ you believe the fact that she partook of the Lord's Supper has no bearing upon the issue. IT MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD in this case.

The girl, prior to rebelling in her late teens gave a credible profession of faith and demonstrated an ability to self-examine or she would not have been admitted to the Lord´s Table.
But Rich, there is not the slightest suggestion in Renihan's article that the girl had made a profession or that she was taking the Lord's Supper. You are reading this into the text because you think it suits your case. Bad hermeneutics, sir!
Is that 6 year old girl in your congregation baptized? Let´s assume not because you want to make extra sure that she is truly regenerate because we know that the reprobate are not baptized.

Now Rich, you know better than this. I can't give you more than B- for your spoof because the Baptist father wouldn't throw his daughter out, he'd just baptize her again :mad:

That's all from me, on this thread anyway. I've got to stop spending so much time here. Cheerio!

Martin
 
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Rich wrote:-
Martin "“ you believe the fact that she partook of the Lord's Supper has no bearing upon the issue. IT MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD in this case.

The girl, prior to rebelling in her late teens gave a credible profession of faith and demonstrated an ability to self-examine or she would not have been admitted to the Lord´s Table.
But Rich, there is not the slightest suggestion in Renihan's article that the girl had made a profession or that she was taking the Lord's Supper. You are reading this into the text because you think it suits your case. Bad hermeneutics, sir!
Not bad hermaneutics at all. This isn't Scripture Martin. Renihan presents a case for his purposes and leaves out information that I have every right to fill in as a Confessional Presbyterian who understands and practices it. I have never met a 14 year old girl who is not a communicant member that did not cause concern among a faithful family. The father is presented as someone who believes his daughter to be regnerate at age 16 when he is angered that she might not have been.

Had she, well before age 14, shown signs of reprobation that she could not understand or embrace the faith enough to admit her to the Lord's Table it would have sent this father into the roof much earlier. If he presumed her regenerate, her lack of participation would have caused him great alarm. In other words, he couldn't possibly have believed she was regenerate if she wasn't a communicant member.

This is good and necessary inference. The fact of the matter is the type of faith in rebellion is a cognitive, confession of faith and not merely some presumptive infant faith that never expressed itself beyond coos and gurglings. The same story could be replicated in a Baptist Church. The Baptised age of the girl in this case is immaterial.

If you don't believe my inference then ask Renihan to check with the Pastor to see if she was a communicant member. It's easy enough to find out as we're not talking about the story of people who have been dead for centuries here. It's just plain silly to accuse someone of bad hermaneutics when you don't have to even debate hermaneutical method to find the ground truth to something. I'm filling in the details for you because you don't understand Presbyterians very well.

Why are you upset about the story? I am representing a hypothetical. At least I didn't use a real situation, using the sad story of real Reformed Baptists, and then represent it as typical of your beliefs. If my hypothetical causes exasperation then perhaps a real story, with details recast, might cause the same for others.

I hope time permits you to return. I very much enjoy your posts and the ability to interact.

The Lord bless you and your ministry.

[Edited on 2-10-2006 by SemperFideles]
 
Joseph wrote, a little while back:-
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Until there is clear evidence of regeneration in her life and until she reaches an age where she is more independent, I would make no assumptions about her.

Your statement is flatly untrue. On the contrary you presume that all little children are unregenerate, despite any evidence.

I do not presume that all children come into the world unregenerate, I know it because the word of God tells me so. I have posted the various texts to that effect above and note that you have made no mention of them. With regard to the child in question, you are quite wrong. She may well be born again and I pray that she is. However, we will wait to see if she continues in her profession as she grows up. I have posted my reasons for that above.
I believe in Presumptive Regeneration, while you seem to believe in Presumptive Reprobation.
On the contrary, I believe in Hopeful Regeneration :banana: But I presume nothing (Rom 9:15 ).

Rich asked:-
Why are you upset about the story?
I am not. Nothing you say will upset me, brother. The little fire-breathing man was concerning multiple baptisms of backsliders. It was an attempt at humour which obviously sank without trace!

But your hermeneutic is still rubbish! Your inference may or may not be good, but it is certainly not necessary. :scholar:

Definitely last appearance (for a while).

Blessings to all,

Martin
 
Martin,

But we do not do that by giving them a false sense of security.

Martin

I always love your zeal and you know that, in a trench I'd want you with me, but this is where we decisively differ, its just the facts of life as they say.

Anyone of adult age can deny the Gospel word or sacrament.

If by "trusting" in my baptism you mean Rome, ex opera operato, then we agree. Just as a man can ex opera operato trust in the work of deciding for the Gospel as in decissionism (The SB plague).

However, if by trusting in my baptism we mean in so much as it was given me as only the Gospel can be (given) and I receive it (irrespective of time), and within it (baptism) is the Gospel (which is the whole point of communicating to the believer "baptized into Christ's death...raised to the newness of life) in which I passively receive (the only way to have the Gospel, that is faith, naked trust) then we disagree.

Like wise when the Word of the Cross comes to me. I trust it passively, nakedly and alone, not my decission for it nor "a faith" that actively exerts itself. Rather true faith passively suffers to receive the mercy of God in Christ alone (for it cannot rest in anything else, not even itself). Faith is like a dark room into which light has shown and rebounds, it merely receives passively and is likewise passively reflexive. Thus, God rewards His own work from start to finish.

Coming from your perspective, which I respect, one should not trust their baptism because fundamentally it is not perceived primarily as God's baptism issuing forth the Gospel for faith sovereignly administered in providence (time and space).

To put a short summary to it I believe this is accurate and I think you would agree with me on the two perspectives: Baptism from your grasp is given "primarily" (that is weighted) BECAUSE of faith. Baptism from my grasp is given "primarily" (that is weighted) FOR faith.

That's why you would rarely find a baptist in a struggle with assurance and the devil throwing spiritual warfare at him casting doubts onto him due to his sin struggles what-ever they are saying, "No Satan you are a liar, I have been baptized." Meaning I trust in God's mercy inspite of myself.

This is a great loss to many. For in baptism God has come specifically to act on the person, not just generalities. The same applies to the Lord's Table, that's why the sacraments are so important - their "to the individual" faith building (that is the Gospel comes TO me FOR me). And this is a tremendous weapon under suffering.

Grace and peace,

Larry

[Edited on 2-17-2006 by Larry Hughes]
 
Just asking, but is your distinction about baptism "because (of) faith"( because I believe ) and "for faith"( so that I might believe[?] ) implying that your faith is based upon different things, one being the basis of baptism and the other having baptism for its basis?

If so, what would you please inform one who is unversed in such things how that in making such a distinction, one is not putting trust in earthly ordinances*?

*( I don't know if that's a proper term, but I'm trying to signify things which we practice here on Earth )

*Interested, merely interested.*
 
Tyler, in the Westminster Standards, the warrant for baptism is not the presumed faith of the infant, but rather the infant's right as a member of the covenant (by birth) to the sign and seal of the covenant.
 
Originally posted by AdamM
Tyler, in the Westminster Standards, the warrant for baptism is not the presumed faith of the infant, but rather the infant's right as a member of the covenant (by birth) to the sign and seal of the covenant.

Adam,
Thats not what the confession says..........

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 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]

1. Matt. 28:19
2. I Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27-28
3. Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12
4. Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:5
5. John 3:5; Titus 3:5
6. Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; 22:16
7. Rom. 6:3-4
8. Matt. 28:19-20

How can one be ingrafted if one does not have faith?
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by AdamM
Tyler, in the Westminster Standards, the warrant for baptism is not the presumed faith of the infant, but rather the infant's right as a member of the covenant (by birth) to the sign and seal of the covenant.

Adam,
Thats not what the confession says..........

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 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]

1. Matt. 28:19
2. I Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27-28
3. Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12
4. Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:5
5. John 3:5; Titus 3:5
6. Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; 22:16
7. Rom. 6:3-4
8. Matt. 28:19-20

How can one be ingrafted if one does not have faith?

The same way one can be removed from the vine for not abiding by faith in Christ.
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by AdamM
Tyler, in the Westminster Standards, the warrant for baptism is not the presumed faith of the infant, but rather the infant's right as a member of the covenant (by birth) to the sign and seal of the covenant.

Adam,
Thats not what the confession says..........

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 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]

1. Matt. 28:19
2. I Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27-28
3. Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12
4. Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:5
5. John 3:5; Titus 3:5
6. Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; 22:16
7. Rom. 6:3-4
8. Matt. 28:19-20

How can one be ingrafted if one does not have faith?

The same way one can be removed from the vine for not abiding by faith in Christ.

Gabriel,
True; possible I should have worded that differently; Those that are truly regenerate will remain. Forgiveness of sins is only delegated to the faithful.

Our job as the faithful are to hold fast the same faith that Abraham held to. In regards to our children, I will presume until that time they apostasize the faith. Hence, the WCF implies the same.

[Edited on 3-27-2006 by Scott Bushey]
 
Turtle,

I Love that name, cracks me up just writing it!

Just asking, but is your distinction about baptism "because (of) faith"( because I believe ) and "for faith"( so that I might believe[?] ) implying that your faith is based upon different things, one being the basis of baptism and the other having baptism for its basis?

If so, what would you please inform one who is unversed in such things how that in making such a distinction, one is not putting trust in earthly ordinances*?

*( I don't know if that's a proper term, but I'm trying to signify things which we practice here on Earth )

*Interested, merely interested.*

I'm not 100% sure what you are asking, but I'll try. Faith has but one basis purely and singularly and that is Christ's person, work, death, resurrection FOR ME. In short there is not other faith that is saving or real. This we agree on in naked principle.

"œFor faith" Vs. "œBecause of Faith": This is not to argue in favor of one or the other but merely to point out the distinction that neither side, I think, would deny. Although, one likely can always find disagreeables in any group as we all too well know.

Baptism is primarily based upon the Gospel nakedly in and of itself, and not upon the faith that receives it. Fundamentally that is the difference and we could just stop there. In other words if faith doesn´t exist it doesn´t invalidate God´s sign any more than if the Gospel is PROCAIMED via the voice of the pastor is not invalidated if the "œhearer" hears but does not hear. Baptism is not predicated upon the receptacle of faith, it in fact can help create, due to its linkage to the Word of Gospel, and does indeed sustain that receptacle. That indeed is what is meant by dead with Christ and alive with Him.

As such it is "œFOR faith" just as much as is the naked Word of the Gospel spoken is FOR faith to initiate, strengthen and sustain faith. This is why both Lutheran and Continental Reformers could say in times of spiritual warfare and internal accusations from Satan, "No I'm AM baptized." Now there are some "nots" that go with that so as to be perfectly clear what is and is not being said. In a minute.

"Because of" is more of the Credo position, that is faith must pre-exist in all cases. Ergo the infant difference. This is why the credo would not likely say in similar situations, "œNo I´m AM baptized."

From the paedeo side of the equation this is tantamount to saying that faith must pre-exist the Gospel itself. In other words what is signified in baptism, the Gospel, IS actually given, thus, to say that faith must precede it is in this sense absurd. The denial of it, the Gospel, in naked word or sacrament with word annexed to it, simply is greater condemnation because the gift is actually given, those who reject it reject it at great peril to their souls - either way by Word or Word IN the Sacrament. The rejecters of Word or Baptism reject and in essence turn their nose up at the gift of God, Gospel, for their own righteousness. The gift is still valid, Word or Word/Sacrament, the lack of faith never invalidates the real gift. The Holy Spirit operates through the means of the Word and Sacrament and that is HIS work not ours, ours is to proclaim and baptize. It is just like Paul said in Romans concerning circumcision, just because some of Israel rejected it "“ it is not as if the Word of God, in Word or Sacrament, failed for its validity rests not in the receptacle of faith but is the gift itself.

The nots. Resting in one´s baptism is not resting in the work itself because in view here is not that my work did it but baptism is God´s gift to me, not my effort. I´m instrumental as is the pastor but such are merely tools in the hands of the Sovereign/providential God Who operates via means by His choice. The error of both Rome and some Credos is actually strikingly similar: Rome divorces baptism from Christ by making it in and of itself a work, ex opera operato. Some Credo´s do the same thing by linking it to the receptacle of faith and not Christ Himself, PRIMARILY. Some would defend and say, "œYes but the faith which links baptism is saving faith in the Saviour Himself. And to this it is a smidge better than Rome but misses the point of Baptism altogether for it rest immediately in Christ not faith. Visually, it is like this:

Looking is analogous to faith here:

Rome looks through baptism that in essence reflects back to the doer of the work, hence ex opera operato. Ergo, all the extra works, indulgences to appease the troubled Roman conscience. Christ is lost sight of.

Credo policy looks through baptism that in essence reflects back to the believer´s faith, it´s not stictly ex opera operato but it does look back to faith and is in essence faith in faith because baptism here rests and is established on faith itself rather than Christ. Ergo, baptism here cannot appease the troubled conscience either and at length re-dedication, re-baptism, re-this or that, internal searchings of fruit and other scrapings of the conscience. Again, Christ is lost sight of in terms of baptism directly.

Reformed can look and rest upon baptism not because of a work done or that it rests in faith itself but it rests in Christ. Thus, when Satan accuses and sin are struggled with the Reformed can say, "œNo I AM baptized", and find peace because "œI AM baptized" is a tantamount statement of "œChrist crucified and risen FOR ME alone is my faith, hope and assurance."

I hope that helps. Grace and peace,

Larry
 
How can one be ingrafted if one does not have faith?

Scott, I think we have to be careful to not confuse the sign with the thing signified by the sign. So baptism being the sign and seal of the COG, does not imply the recipient possesses the substance of the covenant, that the sign and seal represent. It is only through the reception by faith (of course not tied to the moment of administration) that the sacrament becomes an effectual means of grace for the elect.

Here is what the WSC & WLC say about the warrant for baptizing infants:

WSC Q. 95. To whom is baptism to be administered?
A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him; but the infants of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptized.

WLC Q. 166. Unto whom is baptism to be administered?
A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized.

Note the rationale given in the W Stds for baptizing infants is that as members of the visible church (historical administration of the covenant), the infant has right to the sign and seal of the covenant.

The looking at what the W LC section that explains the visible church/invisible church distinction, the Stds specifically state that membership in the visible church does not necessarily equal membership in the invisible church:

Q. 61. Are all they saved who hear the gospel, and live in the church?
A. All that hear the gospel, and live in the visible church, are not saved; but they only who are true members of the church invisible.
 
Originally posted by AdamM
How can one be ingrafted if one does not have faith?

Scott, I think we have to be careful to not confuse the sign with the thing signified by the sign. So baptism being the sign and seal of the COG, does not imply the recipient possesses the substance of the covenant, that the sign and seal represent. It is only through the reception by faith (of course not tied to the moment of administration) that the sacrament becomes an effectual means of grace for the elect.

Here is what the WSC & WLC say about the warrant for baptizing infants:

WSC Q. 95. To whom is baptism to be administered?
A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him; but the infants of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptized.

WLC Q. 166. Unto whom is baptism to be administered?
A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized.

Note the rationale given in the W Stds for baptizing infants is that as members of the visible church (historical administration of the covenant), the infant has right to the sign and seal of the covenant.

The looking at what the W LC section that explains the visible church/invisible church distinction, the Stds specifically state that membership in the visible church does not necessarily equal membership in the invisible church:

Q. 61. Are all they saved who hear the gospel, and live in the church?
A. All that hear the gospel, and live in the visible church, are not saved; but they only who are true members of the church invisible.

:up: :ditto:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top