The gospel, infants, imbeciles, and election

[Semper Fidelis]

I want to avoid coming onto too strong, because if the Scripture does not answer the question explicitly, Id on't want to go beyond the Scripture. That being said, I don't think you are addressing the actual points being made in the above. If the issue was simply settled by creeds we would have no need to simply ask the question. Being that the question was asked, and ideally even if a creed is correct it is substantiated by the Scripture, I think the question should be answered by the Scripture.

You're not coming across as strong, per se, but with a bad hermeneutic. As I noted, Christ did not quote an *explicit* Scripture to silence the Sadducees but reasoned from the Scriptures. It's not going "beyond" the Scriptures to reason from their implications. Proof-texting has its place but your theology is incredibly stilted and naive if you limit yourself to it.

Covenant theology arises from the Scriptures both exegetically as well as by GNC. The necessary consequence from many Scriptures is that children of believers are constituted as holy by the Lord. Promises are made concerning the salvation of believers and their children. The good consequence is that believing parents ought not to doubt the salvation of their children but simply believe that God promised to be God to them in His Promise. You may dismiss David's confidence but you have not exegetically established that the child is not with the Lord but only offered an opinion from what I consider bad GNC based on the nature of God's Promises.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

To shed some light on how the Puritans viewed regeneration with and without means (relevant to why the WCF speaks to infants being regenerated):

4. Regeneration Works with and without Means on the Person

Anthony Burgess observed, “The work and Grace of Regeneration, is rather felt and perceived by him that hath it, than that which can be expressed, or made known to a man’s self or others, it being a wonderful hidden, and secret life.”75 It is a mysterious work, but one that a person can perceive. Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635–1711) recognized that even though the person cannot comprehend the manner in which it was accomplished, the Spirit nonetheless immediately touched his soul. Alexander Comrie (1706–1774) also maintained that regeneration was immediate.76

It is probable that when the Puritans utilized the term “physical” in their description of the Spirit’s activity of regeneration, they were highlighting the Spirit’s immediate work on the sinner.77 That is, there is a direct contact between God and the soul of a sinner. If the seat of regeneration is the soul, then the contact between the soul and Spirit is immediate, that is, without means. So we read in Thomas Cole that the regeneration of elect infants dying in infancy “is the sole immediate act of the Spirit of God, without the Word; it is indeed according to the Word, and pursuant to the Covenant and Promise made to Abraham.”78 In this special case, he insisted upon the efficient and immediate work of the Spirit. In the case of “elect infants,” one can easily see why it has to be immediate. Owen, however, does not limit the immediate work of the Spirit to elect infants but describes the entire work of regeneration as “the internal immediate efficiency of grace.”79

There was also emphasis, however, on the instrumental means God used to regenerate the sinner. Ezekiel Hopkins declares that the Word of God is “the seminal virtue or means” of regeneration.80 Charnock produced a whole discourse on this, “A Discourse of the Word, the Instrument of Regeneration.”81 Cole would affirm the same and say that the Word of God is the “instrumental cause” of regeneration.82

Whately made a further distinction. He says that the Spirit is the efficient cause; the Word is the instrumental, and holiness is the material cause of regeneration.83 He explains all of this more fully. “The holy Ghost himself … doth convey and insinuate himself into the man, whom he will beget again to a new life.… And yet the Spirit of God, that could work of himself, and without means, pleaseth not so to do in this great work: but of his own free-will makes choice for himself, of a fit and blessed instrument for that purpose; even the law of God, the whole doctrine of the Scriptures.”84 Like most Reformers and Puritans, he believed that the Lord more often uses (“more often, more usually, more ordinarily”) the Word preached than the Word read.85 Because that is the case, we should greatly value the preaching of God’s Word and labor to sit under it. “Oh therefore how careful should people be both to get and to live under the preaching of God’s Word! This is the wind that must make dry bones live: This is the voice of a trump, that must make the dead come out of the grave. How mean [insignificant], impotent, contemptible, men may esteem it, yet God hath appointed no other means to convey supernatural life, but after this manner.”86 That means the Spirit must be present with the Word. Without Him, the preaching of the Word would be ineffectual. John Owen recognized that the bare preaching of the Word without the Spirit could do nothing. “The word itself, under a bare proposal to the minds of men, will not so effect them.” The “ministration of the Spirit” is required because the Spirit is the “fountain of all illumination.”87

Though the Puritans would be quite clear in maintaining the truth that God alone is the “prime efficient cause of regeneration,”88 yet they also maintained that God ordinarily used the Word of God as His instrument. As noted above, Cole says that God immediately regenerates elect infants, but in adults, He uses the Word as His instrument—God regenerates adults “not without the Word, but by the Word as the instrumental Cause.”89 They were emphatic: the Word is required; that is the ordinary and appointed way. Yet, we must also observe Turretin’s distinction. He says, “The Spirit works immediately upon us, not so much before or after the word as together with it.”90 Though the Word is instrumental, the Spirit is still ultimately the efficient and immediate cause of regeneration.

Arthur Dent’s popular work The Plain Man’s Pathway to Heaven presents this point tersely and clearly. Philagathus asks, “Cannot a man attain unto regeneration and the new birth without the word and the Spirit?” Theologus responds, “No verily: for they are the instruments and means whereby God doth work it.”91 That short dialogue perfectly conveys the Puritans’ understanding of the work of the Spirit with the Word in regeneration.


Beeke, J. R., & Jones, M. (2012). A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (pp. 472–474). Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books.

 

[CraigTruglia]

What the text states most plainly is that David expects the two of them (he and his son) to be together. There is no comment about "seeing." And no mention of "Sheol." So, clearly from the beginning of your interpretation, there is a strong leaning upon inferences, and especially dependence upon one supposedly clearer passage (a parable of sorts from Jesus).

Yes, it is not always good to go by memory about a verse. Here is what it says:

But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me (2 Sam 12:23).

Now, is it merely "the grave" (Sheol) that David refers, a kind of catch-all place of the dead, that he expects to go in order to be with his son? In Jesus parable (Lk.16), are we taught that the two persons (rich man and Lazarus) are together in one place? Seems to me, a major point of theology functioning as is in the story, is that they are absolutely separated; which makes the awareness by the RM of the other side and the "conversation" between the RM and Abraham very much a "device" for telling that tale.

"Going to him" does not mean they will be in close proximity or will get to know each other. I mean, maybe it can mean that, but if it does not with a fair degree of certainty, then it appears to me what David is talking about is the common grave.

Were they essentially more clueless than the polytheistic Egyptians? The fact that the Egyptians, even before the days when Israel inherited the land, had what amounts to a heaven-and-hell afterlife; together with the knowledge we have of Israel's centuries-long sojourn in Egypt; makes distinctly "flat" personal-eschatology interpretation of the OT implausible.

If we read the Book of Job, in Job 27 there is an expectation that the wicked will have it worse in Sheol. The same book speaks of the "King of Terrors" in it as well. However, Job also speaks of Sheol as having peace and quiet, as if it were a place of eternal sleep.

So, my best understanding of the Hebrews' understanding of the afterlife is that it was "foggy" and they did not understand the truth in it's fullness, but rather the "shadows" of it.

There is no reason why an understanding of a "common" grave (in earthly or even poetic terms) cannot coexist theologically with hope in a resurrection, which David certainly had, Ps.16:9-11.

I agree, but we are really grabbing at straws here. Job also had hope in the resurrection, but he also believed in the common grave. They were not as firm about the idea in that time, because Christ had not yet come. I suppose, in Job's or David's mind, there is no contradiction in going to Sheol and then, by the time of Christ's resurrection, going to wherever we go now.

I am not expert on this afterlife stuff, so I can give you the last word on this matter.

David had a faithful expectation to be "go to be with [his] fathers," 1Chr.17:11. Ahab was also said to "sleep with his fathers," but that doesn't imply that his fathers and David's were the same! Ps.37:37-38; Is.57:1-2,13,21. We ought to give David's comment and his stated expectation its due, in a covenant-context; a context where God promises to be "God to you, and your descendants after you," Gen.17:7.

I think you just did a lot to undercut your own argument. The term "go to be with fathers" is used of righteous kings, but also wicked kings. For example, Abijam "walked in all the sins of his father which he had committed before him; and his heart was not wholly devoted to the Lord his God, like the heart of his father David" (1 King 15:3). However, what happened to him? "Abijam slept with his fathers and they buried him in the city of David; and Asa his son became king in his place" (1 King 15:8).

So, you accuse me of reading the text "pitifully" but adjectives aside, let's just look at your own exegesis. You are arguing terms like "go to him," "go to the fathers," and etcetera means that these kings are literally going all to the same place, which you presume to be heaven. However, the terminology does not change with wicked kings.

The only sensible explanation is that the words being used are an euphemism for the common grave.

In any case, it is nonsense to say that the words are devoid of any eschatological freight. That's just "shutting the door to keep out the light."

You might have an understanding of the original languages, which I do not, but being that the terms we are speaking of are used interchangeably for the righteous and wicked alike, I think we need to re-examine the term nonsense. We do not need to pull out a dictionary or anything. I think the fact that your contention cannot be consistently applied in the Scripture makes it a lot less sensible, and at points highly contradictory and absurd.

"Without faith it is impossible to please God," Heb.11:6.
--God can give saving faith to anyone;

Agreed.

in fact, if he doesn't give it to any designated soul, that soul will perish.
--God does give faith to some.

Agreed again.

--God gives faith to some babies, Ps.22:9; Ps.71:6; Lk.1:44, Ps.8:2.

Let's consider the texts.

-Psalm 8:2 is a prophecy fulfillment, spoken of Matt 21:16. It is speaking of children in the vicinity of the temple in Jerusalem, not in heaven.
-You are quoting Psalm 71:6 out of context. The NASB reads, "I have been sustained from my birth." Yes, all saved people have been set aside before the foundations of the world are set, like Paul having been set aside from the womb. Surely, Paul was no faithful, for he grew up to become a persecutor of the Church. The Psalm speaks nothing of the one preserved from the womb having faith anymore than "You preserve man and beast" (Ps 36:6) speaks of animals having faith.
-Ps 22:9, according to Matthew Henry, pertains to the trust the baby has with his mother. Hence, the verse is about God assuring his care. Now, there are other reformed observers perhaps with different interpretations, but taking a "David was like John the Baptist and had a profound understanding of Christ from young age," I would still say that the burden of proof on taking verses like this and Luke 1:44 would be on those that say they are normative--especially in light of the other verses you brought up which do not really address the issue at all.

The key to faith's effectiveness is not in the believer, but in the object of faith. My infant child has been trusting it's mother for quite a while now...

And perhaps fetuses have trust as well, though much more minute. However, being that we never have found any infants having survived into adulthood that have been faithful all the way, what you are really arguing is as follows.

Yes, the hearts of men is continually inclined towards evil all the time, even since their youth (Gen 8:27). Because of this sinful nature, every single man needs Christ...However, there are fetuses and infants out there, though they start out like this, God in His grace takes away their hearts of stone and gives them hearts of flesh. Sadly, we have no living examples of any of these babies, for all the living examples of faithful men have come to faith some time after their infancy.

Now, the theoretical argument above does not need to be false. It can make sense with the Scripture. However, it takes special pleading to do so.

I suppose the reason I am being insistent about this is two fold. First, it makes the Scripture harder to understand. Second, it makes the Gospel harder to understand, because it compromises the perspicuity of Scripture. In order to adhere to your explanation, I am forced to take more complicated and tenuous interpretations of Scriptures wholly out of context. That is not to say such a reading may not be correct, but usually the Scripture highlights these more tenuous interpretations (i.e. Sarah and Hagar representing two covenants) so that we are not stuck trying to dig for hidden meanings.

 

[CraigTruglia]

You're not coming across as strong, per se, but with a bad hermeneutic. As I noted, Christ did not quote an *explicit* Scripture to silence the Sadducees but reasoned from the Scriptures. It's not going "beyond" the Scriptures to reason from their implications.

Yes, but He is also God so His reasoning from the Scriptures are flawless while yours and mine are not. Further, just because I can reason from the Scriptures, it does not mean you cannot call my reasoning into question or vice versa. Further, if you find my reasoning questionable, it makes sense to ask for proof from the Scripture. Otherwise, you would be in your right to remain unconvinced.

The necessary consequence from many Scriptures is that children of believers are constituted as holy by the Lord. Promises are made concerning the salvation of believers and their children.

However, this assertion of yours is a misapplication of 1 Cor 7:14. Children are not made absolutely holy so any more than unbelieving husbands are sanctified in an absolute sense. If you extrapolate reasoning upon a faulty interpretation of a Biblical verse, the whole edifice you build on top of it is going to go crashing down when placed upon closer scrutiny.

 

[CraigTruglia]

We've already shown you that John the Baptist has faith in Christ, and expressed it non-verbally. I don't understand what other proof you want.

Simply, that it is normative. I never said it was impossible either, as in God all things are possible. Instead, I remain unconvinced that the notion which you speak is a correct interpretation of the entire issue.

I also think you misconstrue what most would say 1 Corinthians 7 is stating. Not that all children of believers are elect, but that they are set-apart (holy), and are not to be considered pagans or heathens (part of the visible church, though not necessarily part of the invisible).

I am aware of that interpretation, but in light of the former part of 1 Cor 7:14, I am not willing to construe that these children are by necessity saved.

Later in your post, you appeal to the board being Confessional. Let's not stifle conversation, as a question was asked and we must do more than merely consider the matter settled by a Confession or Creed. Again, I am playing Devil's Advocate here (though to be perfectly honest, I take the same stance as Tim Conway. Other Reformed thinkers, such as Sproul thinks it is "more likely" but do not make it a matter of certainty. His son, not surprsingly, agrees with him). What I want to see is solid Biblical proof for the contentions being made here, otherwise you add credibility to the position I am advocating instead of undercutting it.

I think you need to interact with Bruce on what faith is defined as. To you, it seems primarily an intellectual assent of fact.

Again, I never said this. My brother has two babies. They trust everyone and everything. I presume they do not trust God, but even babies are not totally incapable of faith. The issue, however, is what is likely the fate of those where there is no discernible faith? My consistent argument here is that the most rational answer to the question is those without discernible faith would more likely not have it than have it. Again, man looks at outward appearances and God knows the heart. But, I think the position that some people advocate is the assurance of the salvation of infants that are the children of believers. To make this contention, it has to be supported by the Scripture. And, being that every sure example of a saved person in Scripture shows discernible faith, I think the burden of proof is on those that say there are people who can be saved with indiscernible faith.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello again, Craig,

You said to another person,

“You bring up the example of John the Baptist. The jumping of babies in the womb in reaction to something profound they are joyful over is an extraordinary event. God infused John the Baptist in the womb with an intellect that is not typical.”​

I want to ask where you got the idea of God infusing John with intellect? Do you presuppose He must have as John was aware of the presence of His God? Is a child aware of the presence of his mother? Of course, and this a deep thing of the heart and spirit apart from “intellect”, that is, “cognitive reasoning”. You just sort of dropped that “intellect” word in the conversation from an extra-biblical presupposition. By doing so you merely assume what you have yet to prove.

John had been created for the express purpose of bearing witness to his Lord, and somehow in the womb he knew Him, knew His presence in spirit. A child even knows his mother, her voice, her touch, her presence, her body – they have bonded. And why should not a baby creature be aware of his Creator if the Creator should manifest His presence to that unborn child? Sentience is a quality of the human being, and it does not require a developed intellect.

And then we get to Luke 1:15:

For he [John] shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.​

I think that shows he was regenerated then, in utero, without intellectual development or capacity.

When you spoke above about Psalm 22:9, and the interpretation that this referred to his trust of his mother, why did you not deal with the following verse, 10? It says,

I was cast upon thee from the womb:
thou art my God from my mother's belly​

The “art” is supplied by the translators as understood in the context. The Hebrew would read, “thou my God from my mother’s belly”. David was not estranged from his God in the womb, He is his God even in the womb. This exemplifies the covenant promise given through Moses,

And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. (Deut 30:6)​

The LORD did not limit when this circumcision of the heart would be done, whether in the adult, youth, infant, or the in utero babe. I think I have shown from Scripture that it has been done, as with John and David. I could give more instances, but these should suffice.

 

[Rom]

Craig, I think you might be arguing against a couple of different things here. Neither I, nor the Confession have stated that it is normative that the children of believers are to be saved. All it says is that elect infants are saved. I hope you realize that it doesn't say 1%, or 100% of infants. Just that an elect infant is saved. We don't know who they are. The Confession doesn't go any further than that, and neither do I.

My interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7 says nothing as to the election of infants of believers. I tried to make that as clear as possible in my statement. I do not go any further than the Confession states, which I think states this very wisely.

So, what is it exactly do you have a quarrel with, when it comes to the Confession's teaching on this point? This is what I tried to show in my very first post on this, but you seem to disagree. From your statements in response to my latest post, you seem to agree with the Confession. So, I am a bit lost as to what your quarrel is with the Confession.

I understand you do not think that the infant child of every believer is saved, but that is a different argument. The Confession never states that.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I think you just did a lot to undercut your own argument. The term "go to be with fathers" is used of righteous kings, but also wicked kings. For example, Abijam "walked in all the sins of his father which he had committed before him; and his heart was not wholly devoted to the Lord his God, like the heart of his father David" (1 King 15:3). However, what happened to him? "Abijam slept with his fathers and they buried him in the city of David; and Asa his son became king in his place" (1 King 15:8).

A number of things:
1) I used the language "go to your fathers," as in 1Chr.17:11, with reference to David; because "GO" is the EXACT word used in 2Sam.12:23 when David speaks in reference to himself and his son.

2) I did NOT refer to the more common expression, "slept with his fathers," which is used frequently and with both good and bad men (e.g. David, in 1Ki.2:10), except to point out that Ahab (a wicked man) was said also to be associated in death with his fathers. And I put a distinction between a GODLY man being associated with his fathers; and an UNGODLY man being associated with his. I'm more interested in the spiritual and promissory overtones, which have positive connotations throughout the patriarchal period (see "gathered" Gen.25:8; 35:29; 49:33) and Exodus (Num.20:24; Dt.32:50) and entrance into the land (Jdg.2:20), when the subjects are considered heirs of faith. There's clearly a broader and a narrower construction to the whole complex of postmortem association; but when these expressions are used in dialog (and not simply narration) they are invariably clear references to hope beyond the grave.

3) I don't consider the two expressions ("go to fathers" and "sleep with fathers") to be perfectly synonymous. The latter (sleep) is a far more "earthy" phrase, similar to Jesus' expression, Jn.11:11, "Lazarus sleeps," Paul's , "...many sleep," "sleep in Jesus," and Peter's, "...for since the fathers fell asleep," and to Stephen's martyrdom, "...he fell asleep." No one (orthodox) thinks that this "sleep" is a denial of the alertness of the soul in the intermediate state. It is a phrase that has in view the "appearance" of one recently dead. The former phrasing (go) is active (while "gathered" is more passive), and fully bears the weight of expectant reunion.

4) With reference to the narrative expression, "slept with his fathers," There is significant contextual explication of v3 in vv4-5 that plainly refers to David as a man of faith; turning the emphasis of the passage upward in light of covenant-succession, and away from a the bleakness of earthly outlook (inasmuch as the decline since the middle of Solomon's reign was precipitous).

5) 15:15 adds an additional positive marker, speaking of Asa the next king, "And he brought in the things which his father had dedicated, and the things which himself had dedicated, into the house of the LORD, silver, and gold, and vessels." This in no way rehabilitates the character of Abijam. But we cannot rip the faith of the prophetic narrator out of our reading of the passage. These writers are men acutely aware of the ongoing spiritual and covenantal purpose for the very existence of the Israelite nation. "Slept with his fathers" is more than simply a palliative euphemism for "died," or common parlance for "went to the place of the dead." The language has theological freight. It implies continuity of the body throughout the generations. These are the SAME people who came out of Egypt, even if they were in the loins of their fathers at the time; or if they were later aliens or their descendants subjoined to the people by conversion and assimilation.


So, no, I'll risk the judgment that I read the passages with sufficient care; and made not so much gratuitous assumptions as you may think (still?) I did.


******************************************

You also wish to dismiss the texts I presented, which speak of the faith (albeit undeveloped) of infants.

If you wish to read Ps.8:2 as if it does not actually say anything in the context of Ps.8, with reference to actual persons from the Psalmist's experience--personally or theologically/theoretically--that is your choice. I say it is language that actually has experimental meaning to people for about 1000yrs prior to Jesus' triumphal entry.

Jesus' reference to this text is an argumentum ad majorum. He uses it to silence his critics, not merely to say that there was a prophet who anticipated the event. If the Lord ordains praise from infants (and has done so for ages), who are these hypocritical BOZOs to tell the Lord's Christ to silence young and old alike? If X, then much more Y.

Ps.71:6. No, not quoting out of context. The Psalm is an old-man's witness of the life-long faithfulness of God, vv9,18. Do you really think this old fellow, with a lifetime of covenant-awareness, is saying that God was merely his physical provider/sustainer from the womb, and not his spiritual stay the whole time? It is the language of the laying-on of hands, Ex.29, Lev.1:4, &etc.; Num.8:10; 27:18; &etc.; cf. Ps.88:7; so a strong connotation is that of "consecration." The Lord upholds the Psalmist, Ps.3:5; 37:17,24; 51:12; 54:4; 119:116; &etc. When God is in view as actor, "samak" is invariably help he gives to the faithful.

And, it would not be errant to associate this phrasing with that of Ps.22:10. This Psalmist (David?) clearly knows other Pss, cf. Ps31 & Ps35. But it certainly wouldn't have to be David, for the writer to exhibit such covenant-consciousness. The "preservation" (yasha) of 36:6 is clearly of another kind (I'm not now, nor have I been doing word-study exegesis). Ironically, 36:6 uses the verb most often used in "saving" contexts. But obviously the kind of "salvation" varies. The issue is, what is meant in Ps.71:6 by this "upholding" terminology? How does the Psalmist himself view the grace of God toward him? Unless, upon extraneous considerations, you have predetermined that he (and other singers of this Ps) cannot mean that nascent faith ever grew up into lifelong faith, it seems pretty plain what he meant to say.

Ps.22:9-10. Matthew Henry:

David and other good men have often, for direction to us, encouraged themselves with this, that God was not only the God of their fathers, as before, v4, but the God of their infancy, who began by times to take care of them, as soon as they had a being, and therefore, they hope, will never cast them off. He that did so well for us in that helpless useless state will not leave us when he has reared us and nursed us up into some capacity of serving him....

2. At the breast: Then didst thou make me hope; that is, “thou didst that for me, in providing sustenance for me and protecting me from the dangers to which I was exposed, which encourages me to hope in thee all my days.” The blessings of the breasts, as they crown the blessings of the womb, so they are earnests of the blessings of our whole lives; surely he that fed us then will never starve us, Job.3:12.

3. In our early dedication to him: I was cast upon thee from the womb, which perhaps refers to his circumcision on the eighth day; he was then by his parents committed and given up to God as his God in covenant; for circumcision was a seal of the covenant; and this encouraged him to trust in God. Those have reason to think themselves safe who were so soon, so solemnly, gathered under the wings of the divine majesty.

4. In the experience we have had of God's goodness to us all along ever since, drawn out in a constant uninterrupted series of preservations and supplies: Thou art my God, providing me and watching over me for good, from my mother's belly, that is, from my coming into the world unto this day. And if, as soon as we became capable of exercising reason, we put our confidence in God and committed ourselves and our way to him, we need not doubt but he will always remember the kindness of our youth and the love of our espousals, Jer.2:2.

I would say that MH in context is not quite so narrow in his interpretation as you have scripted him.

Regardless, the question this whole time has not been particularly on the issue of "normativeness" of an infant-call to faith. But whether or not Scripture teaches that there ARE extraordinary means that God might use to call persons to justifying faith and union with Christ, who lack the ordinary capacities served by ordinary means: in particular the Word employed by Holy Spirit. The infant merely stands as a case-in-point. Even if you do not admit of these texts as germane, and our interpretations or applications of them, it is false to claim there are no prima facie Scriptures that offer plausible support to the claims.

There have been some to whom inspired (Scriptural) witness testifies to their "hope" or "joy" in the Lord from before full, rational cognition. That's enough.

By way of analogy, I'm not sure whether there are words for the happiness covering the face of my own infant, when the child looks at my countenance. What is the child feeling and expressing? Propositional expressions aren't necessary, I daresay. But as a fully rational adult today I can say this: the child seems to bask in the environment of love that enfolds it. It knows something that has been revealed to it at sub-rational access. If anyone disputes calling that experience "knowledge," recall the Bible identifies even certain adult-experience as intimate "knowledge." It may be sub-rational, but it is still knowledge.​

This does not seem to complicate my understanding of faith, or the necessity of faith for salvation; nor does it employ a Scripture-contortionist hermeneutic. I don't agree that with it, Scripture is actual more difficult to understand. I disagree that I have asserted any tenuous interpretation or hidden meanings. The meaning is right there, looks to me like. You will need to show a specific example of tendentious, self-serving interpretation on my part, before I admit to special pleading.

We have different hermeneutics. I'm glad we end up agreeing on so much; but we should not confuse final consent on A, B, & C, with common methodology.

 

[MW]

Rather, the burden of proof is on those that say that a confession of faith is made by those who by all accounts have not made such a confession. And without faith, you are still dead in your sins.

To come back to a simple point, you have jumped from confession of faith to faith itself. That seems to be a big problem in your presentation.

Are infants subject to the noetic effects of the fall? If so, they are subject to the noetic effects of regeneration. Neither are expressed in the mature terms we associate with adults, but they are still present in their undeveloped forms which we discern in the human constitution and in being made in the image of God.

 

[CraigTruglia]

Rather, the burden of proof is on those that say that a confession of faith is made by those who by all accounts have not made such a confession. And without faith, you are still dead in your sins.

To come back to a simple point, you have jumped from confession of faith to faith itself. That seems to be a big problem in your presentation.

Are infants subject to the noetic effects of the fall? If so, they are subject to the noetic effects of regeneration. Neither are expressed in the mature terms we associate with adults, but they are still present in their undeveloped forms which we discern in the human constitution and in being made in the image of God.

I am taking the same stance as RC Sproul Jr. Infants, even in their own mind, must confess faith. So, the whole answer to this question is whether there is anyone who is saved without any discernible faith and why, if God is select occasions saves those with indiscernible faith, every single example of such does not live past infancy where the existence of such faith one way or the other would have the opportunity to become apparent.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Craig, to substantiate a point you said, “I am taking the same stance as RC Sproul Jr.”

Oh – I thought you were going to stick with Scripture.

I’d be interested to see your response to what I said in post #36.

 

[CraigTruglia]

A number of things:
1) I used the language "go to your fathers," as in 1Chr.17:11, with reference to David; because "GO" is the EXACT word used in 2Sam.12:23 when David speaks in reference to himself and his son.

There is a reason for this, which I hope you are well aware. Both instances of the term was someone in the present speaking of a death occurring in the future (hence going to it). For this reason, those are the only two examples of the term being used this way from 1 Sam to 2 Chron. Whenever the narrator of 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles makes essentially the same statement, but controlling for the fact that he is speaking for a past event, he uses the pass tense word "slept."

And, we know from the many times "slept" is used, it is a catch all for all the kings, wicked and righteous.

Do we have any example in the Scripture where "go" is used as a catch all? Yes! We have Gen 15:15 where God promised to Abram: "As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age."

Problem is, Abraham's father worshiped other gods (Josh 24:2) and being that God did not call him he likely never repented. So, he is likely not saved. Obviously, he would not be going to heaven with Abraham then.

The more you pursue this argument and try to mince meat over the significance of one Hebrew term used in a certain situation and another used in a different one, the more you undercut your overall argument.

If you wish to read Ps.8:2 as if it does not actually say anything in the context of Ps.8, with reference to actual persons from the Psalmist's experience--personally or theologically/theoretically--that is your choice. I say it is language that actually has experimental meaning to people for about 1000yrs prior to Jesus' triumphal entry.

Even still, you are adding a presumption to Psalm 8:2. Without understanding the prophecy, there is no indication that the "babes" in the second verse are in heaven. The first verse says God's splendor is displayed above the heavens, but it does not say the children and nursing babes (especially that they are nursing) are also above the heavens giving praise. You are presuming that.

In fact, in verse 1 it says "how majestic is Your name in all the Earth." If's God's name is majestic, doesn't it make sense that even children and nursing babes are ascribing to God's name majesty among those on Earth?

If the Lord ordains praise from infants (and has done so for ages), who are these hypocritical BOZOs to tell the Lord's Christ to silence young and old alike? If X, then much more Y.

I get your point, so if infants and babes praise their maker back in David's day, and the children do so in Jesus' day, does it not show that the people offering praise being addressed both during David's and Jesus' day are alive?

It reminds me of the Psalm: "The eyes of all look to You,
And You give them their food in due time" (Ps 145:15). We know from verse 16 that these even includes animals. The Scripture, every time it speaks of God saving or people trusting and praising, does not always have soteriological undertones. The original statement in Ps 8:2 might have had a much more generalized meaning. The children were shouting, but it is not a statement that the children meant what they were shouting about, or some did not change their minds later when He was crucified.

Ps.71:6. No, not quoting out of context. The Psalm is an old-man's witness of the life-long faithfulness of God, vv9,18. Do you really think this old fellow, with a lifetime of covenant-awareness, is saying that God was merely his physical provider/sustainer from the womb, and not his spiritual stay the whole time?

Yes, there is no contradiction in this reading and it makes sense with Paul's own testimony about himself and other biblical usages of the term. In Psalm 36:6, for example, it says that God literally "saves" both man and beast alike. To take the word uphold, which by providing for the Psalmist and working all things for good in his life, is indeed very profound. We need not jam into the idea that the imputation of Christ's righteousness occurred when he was in the womb.

Unless, upon extraneous considerations, you have predetermined that he (and other singers of this Ps) cannot mean that nascent faith ever grew up into lifelong faith, it seems pretty plain what he meant to say.

Someone brought up in a Christian household might say, "Ever since I was in my mother's womb I was taught to be faithful to Jesus Christ, I cannot even remember the day I even first believed, I believed as far back as I can remember."

There is a difference in saying this and leaving the mysterious time and date that actual faith was reckoned as righteousness to God, and another with taking what is said to mean that this must have occurred when he was still in the mother's womb.

I would say that MH in context is not quite so narrow in his interpretation as you have scripted him.

Go read what you quoted and find where he agrees with you. It appears pretty clear to me that he is speaking of the preservation of the believe rsince infancy, not the imputation of righteousness (at the time of belief) at this point in time.

Regardless, the question this whole time has not been particularly on the issue of "normativeness" of an infant-call to faith. But whether or not Scripture teaches that there ARE extraordinary means that God might use to call persons to justifying faith and union with Christ...

I would think the John the Baptist is the only clear example, but he was also the greatest born of a woman excluding Christ. So, if you are willing to say, "Honestly, we know of only one sure occurance, maybe a couple others, and otherwise it appears that the normal situation is the an infant is faithless" then you would be making a more well-substantiated argument.

There is a reason why Saint Augustine believed that unless infants were baptized, they were not saved. The whole doctrine of baptismal regeneration (which I am sure everyone here rejects) hinged around the idea that the default of infants was what was readily apparent, that they did not have saving faith. However, both he and Prosper of Aquataine took pains to argue that God's monergistic grace can be given to infants, and this grace is apparent by having them born in Christian households where they would be baptized.

So, we shouldn't be surprised if someone who is maybe not quite intellectually on the level of Augustine views the default, outside of extraordinary circumstances, that those who do not discernibly have faith likely don't have it inwardly, and are not saved.

 

[CraigTruglia]

Craig, to substantiate a point you said, “I am taking the same stance as RC Sproul Jr.”

Oh – I thought you were going to stick with Scripture.

I’d be interested to see your response to what I said in post #36.

Actually, I am closer to Tim COnway than RC Sproul JR for Scriptural reasons, which I hope have been detailed at enough length here! But, let me respond specifically to your previous reply.

I want to ask where you got the idea of God infusing John with intellect? Do you presuppose He must have as John was aware of the presence of His God?

I will say this much, because it is hard for me to understand what is going on in the mind of the fetus. John had an increased awareness compared to a regular fetus. Fetuses might bump around in the womb, they have been reported to even respond to things, but usually not to things spoken in conversation and their specific meaning. Hence, there was some sort of infusion of intellect.

You just sort of dropped that “intellect” word in the conversation from an extra-biblical presupposition. By doing so you merely assume what you have yet to prove.

Honestly, I think it is a clear statement of fact that fetuses do not understand conversations or sense who is in the room until they get familiar with voices. John the Baptist obviously displayed extraordinary abilities. If what he did was not supernatural, it would have probably not merited mention in Scripture.

And why should not a baby creature be aware of his Creator if the Creator should manifest His presence to that unborn child? Sentience is a quality of the human being, and it does not require a developed intellect.

Now, you are the one making the extra-biblical assumption. We both agree babies can think and feel. But can they recognize who is present in another woman's womb? No, not without something supernatural taking place. I think you need to admit this.

Once we admit it is supernatural, the question is whether the Scripture intends for it to be normative. This is the burden of proof is on those that there is any sort of frequency or common expectation for this. No one here is denying miracles or that God cannot achieve anything He wants.

But, I can tell you what is normative.

How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? (Rom 10:14)

The normative way one comes to faith and believes is by preached to. There are exceptions. No one preached to Abraham, He was directly called by God Himself. There is no impossibility that this happens to elect infants or imbeciles. However, this is not normative and not meant to be expected in the Scripture. Otherwise, we turn God into a liar in Rom 10:14.

I think that shows he was regenerated then, in utero, without intellectual development or capacity.

You're adding to the Scripture here. No one is denying that God did something miraculous in JoB's heart since in the womb. However, to leap in the womb when sensing Christ else in another womb requires the ability to know that Christ in another womb is present, which is impossible without something supernatural occurring.

When you spoke above about Psalm 22:9, and the interpretation that this referred to his trust of his mother, why did you not deal with the following verse, 10? It says,

I was cast upon thee from the womb:
thou art my God from my mother's belly

Look at Psalm 145. God shows Himself to be God, but that does not mean all that have been given His blessing are regenerated. This is how He is the savior of all men, especially believers.

The “art” is supplied by the translators as understood in the context. The Hebrew would read, “thou my God from my mother’s belly”. David was not estranged from his God in the womb, He is his God even in the womb. This exemplifies the covenant promise given through Moses,

I already addressed this Psalm specifically in another post. I don't think it has been proven that what is spoken here has soteriological implications. And, as I said before, the issue is whether once can believe without being preached to and understanding. From Rom 10:14, we can understand that any such occurrences if and when they occur are not normative.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

You're not coming across as strong, per se, but with a bad hermeneutic. As I noted, Christ did not quote an *explicit* Scripture to silence the Sadducees but reasoned from the Scriptures. It's not going "beyond" the Scriptures to reason from their implications.

Yes, but He is also God so His reasoning from the Scriptures are flawless while yours and mine are not. Further, just because I can reason from the Scriptures, it does not mean you cannot call my reasoning into question or vice versa. Further, if you find my reasoning questionable, it makes sense to ask for proof from the Scripture. Otherwise, you would be in your right to remain unconvinced.

No, Jesus was a man in His humanity reasoning from the Scriptures by the power of the Holy Spirit. Just to correct a point of orthodoxy.

I think you're missing the point. Your hermeneutic is flawed. You have not demonstrated an ability to actually exegete the Word. You jump back and forth between claiming to stick to "just what the Scriptures say" in the sense of trying to stick to the syntax and meaning of a passage but then you'll insert your own conclusions and don't seem to understand then you're sloppily using GNC and when you're accusing others of "going beyond the Scriptures." The point I was trying to make with you in Christ's silencing of the Sadducees what methodological. He did not "proof text" the Resurrection from the dead. In fact, I'm convinced that if you were there you would have told him: "That not what the words say. That's too complicated to figure out from the passage."

As I was reading Scripture to the kids last night, I read them Joshua 2 and the story of Rahab hiding the kids. I explained to them about the scarlet cord being a picture of redemption. Now, how did I get there? Was this exegesis? I suspect there are some who would use your facile form of "exegesis" and say that it doesn't actually say that in the text and conclude that I'm "reading into" the text. For those of us who are actually trained in hermeneutics, however, the interpretation of a text involves Biblical theology as well as systematic and historical theology. Your protestations and challenges to others demonstrate that you don't really understand the interplay between a text and theology and how they inform one another in a back-and-forth exchange. You do it clumsily when it suits you but then "stick to the text" when it doesn't.

The necessary consequence from many Scriptures is that children of believers are constituted as holy by the Lord. Promises are made concerning the salvation of believers and their children.

However, this assertion of yours is a misapplication of 1 Cor 7:14. Children are not made absolutely holy so any more than unbelieving husbands are sanctified in an absolute sense. If you extrapolate reasoning upon a faulty interpretation of a Biblical verse, the whole edifice you build on top of it is going to go crashing down when placed upon closer scrutiny.

Again, a facile application of exegesis and a lack of the application of Biblical theology and Systematics. I didn't make reference to 1 Cor 7:14 (although I could). It's not the only text that notes that children are set apart in the Covenant of Grace. I also did not claim that either the Promise nor a child's inclusion in the Covenant secures the salvation of a child. If you bothered to read any of the above ways in which the Puritans and the Reformed in general built their case for the conviction that adults ought not to doubt the salvation of their children then you wouldn't respond with facile objections. Prooftexting to defeat a Biblical theology without putting together a Biblical theology is sloppy work. If you don't figure this out then I predict your time here will be short. On the one hand, you like to say you subscribe to a Confession where careful exegesis has built up to a systematic understanding of the Scripture and, on the other, you reject the very hermeneutic without realizing that you have no foundation from which to build up to the things you claim to confess. I will not long tolerate your foolish accusations against ministers who are handling the text much more carefully while you lob accusations that demonstrate you have little training and appreciation for the tools of proper exegesis. After reading your exchange with Bruce, I would be horrified to see a Biblical Theology that you put together based on the standards you present. No redemptive themese could emerge anywhere based on your brutish approach. I can imagine a Sadducee nodding in approval as you defeat any idea that a person could have had confidence in the Resurrection based on your ridicule of reasoning from the terminology of the text. I don't know how you actually think that there were some Jews that believed in the Resurrection of the dead at the time of Christ.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Hi Craig! I used to live in Mahopac and know people that go to your church who used ot go to RIdgeway Alliance in White Plains !

I'm wondering if there is an ordo saludas issue here. If Regeneration precedes faith in some causal sense, it's understandable that God might have ways of reaching these categories of people as he chooses. I also recall a discussion by Cori Ten Bloom where she taught retarded children SUnday school lessons and said they sometimes had an unusual abilty
to learn their spiritual lessons at times but she could not teach them other subjects the same manner

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Later in your post, you appeal to the board being Confessional. Let's not stifle conversation, as a question was asked and we must do more than merely consider the matter settled by a Confession or Creed.

Before you unthinkingly repeat this silliness, let me make something plain to you that you don't seem to understand.

There is no way to abandon a Confession and do proper exegesis. If you think you can then you don't understand how exegesis works. One cannot go to the Scriptures with a tabula rasa and assume that every time is a fresh reading where the meaning of a text emerges. You don't go to Genesis 1 and deny the Trinity because it speaks of one God.

Your approach has to wrestle with how Systematics interacts with exegesis. Even the selection of a gentive type affects translation and interpretation from the original language and that is sometimes informed by one's overall theology. Either you have a good theology or a bad one but you can't get away from it.

So don't expect to last long among a Reformed community where its Pastors are trained to understand the interplay between exegesis and systematics and how to actually handle the languages only to have someone come in who crudely attacks the very process by which one could make sense of the text itself. You think you know what you're doing in these exchanges but you clearly do not and this kind of objection is demonstrable proof that you have no business correcting men until you get a handle on how to properly handle texts.

 

[CraigTruglia]

No, Jesus was a man in His humanity reasoning from the Scriptures by the power of the Holy Spirit. Just to correct a point of orthodoxy.

I do not think calling Christ "God" and thus attributing to Him superior reasoning requires a correction concerning orthodoxy. Christ is fully God and fully man according to the Council of Chalcedon.

I think you're missing the point. Your hermeneutic is flawed. You have not demonstrated an ability to actually exegete the Word.

Actually, I think it has been consistent and my claims have been guarded and limited, so I don't think you have substantiated your point here. Perhaps it is not I who is displaying inconsistencies in his hermeneutic and betraying a less than ideal exegesis. Unless it is a matter of heresy, I am not going to level that chrage against someone unless they are demonstrably misportraying the Scripture or inconsistently doing so.

He did not "proof text" the Resurrection from the dead. In fact, I'm convinced that if you were there you would have told him: "That not what the words say. That's too complicated to figure out from the passage."

The difference is that what Christ taught is consistent with the entirety of Revelation. He was not cherry-picking one verse or portraying it out of context (which is impossible, God understands what He intends to convey in His own Scripture.)

I explained to them about the scarlet cord being a picture of redemption.

I agree with such an interpretation, Clement is the first interpreter to point it out in his Epistle to the Corinthians. However, Clement's interpretation, nor yours or mine, holds the weight of Scripture. SO we can have a fair degree of certainty, but not absolute confidence (unlike Paul when He by the Spirit let's us know that Sarah and Hagar are pictures of two different covenants.)

There are other Biblical interpretations from respected sources, such as Augustine, that we don't go with. Obviously, he in his own mind thought it was consistent to view the Jews plundering the Egyptians in Ex 14 as a picture of God's people borrowing philosophy and learning from the Greek tradition. I don't think much ascribe to this interpretation now. So, it does not make one arrogant to doubt another man's ability to perfectly exegete the Scripture. The onyl thing we can call one another tot ask of is our consistency in doing so.

For example, you level the charge that my exegesis of 1 Cor 7:14 is "facile," but what makes it that I am being facile and not you being convoluted? Go back to Chrysostom in his Homily on 1 Cor 7. He does not agree with your interpretation, he goes with the facile one. It is also worth noting that Augustine takes my interpretation in On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants (Book III, Chapter 21).

[O]n account of some other voluntary sanctification which is not there expressly prescribed—a sprinkling of holiness arising out of the close ties of married life and children. Nevertheless, whatever be the sanctification meant, this must be steadily held: that there is no other valid means of making Christians and remitting sins, except by men becoming believers through the sacrament according to the institution of Christ and the Church.

I excised the part where Augustine was talking about menstruation. His "facile" interpretation is the "holiness" is the benefit of having close ties to a believer, not the sort of more engrossing explanation you adhere to.

Now obviously, you and I might have all sorts of issues with Chrysostom and Augustine on this issue or other issues. The point is, I don't want to stand here and say it I have it more right than Augustine, or you do, and that you or I, or he, are superior exegetes.

Your protestations and challenges to others demonstrate that you don't really understand the interplay between a text and theology...

I believe you assert this simply because I don't adhere to an over-arching covenant theology that many other saved believers both past and present do not as well. However, I do not think you have actually demonstrated that my hermeneutic is inconsistent in any way. My claim is limited. That the salvation of infants is not demonstrably normative in the Scripture.

I will not long tolerate your foolish accusations against ministers who are handling the text much more carefully while you lob accusations that demonstrate you have little training and appreciation for the tools of proper exegesis.

I think the Scripture that states, "If you think you are standing strong, be careful not to fall" (1 Cor 10:12) may be fitting in this situation. It is common for people to mistake their learning, or tradition, as wisdom. However, if it not be for the grace of God, we would read His Scriptures but understand nothing of it. For, the natural man cannot discern spiritual things.

So, our proper understanding and application of the Scripture has nothing to do with our vocation, learning, or IQ; but the goodness of God's grace and the measure of faith and giftedness he gives to each.

So, I will not presume that I can ascertain that you have blessed so more than me or vice versa, but I will say that we should be careful with our tone and carry ourselves with humility. The use of adjectives such as "foolish," "clumsy," and "pitiful" in a respectful conversation do not have a place. Let us compel one another to speak to each other in an edifying way, with words useful for building one another up.

So don't expect to last long among a Reformed community where its Pastors are trained to understand the interplay between exegesis and systematics and how to actually handle the languages only to have someone come in who crudely attacks the very process by which one could make sense of the text itself. You think you know what you're doing in these exchanges but you clearly do not and this kind of objection is demonstrable proof that you have no business correcting men until you get a handle on how to properly handle texts.

I thought I detected an insinuation that you would like to see me banned. While I think this would be unfair and any community can do what it likes, I think I have showed that respectable interpreters have shared my interpretation of texts and unlike certain people in this thread, have avoided the use of disrespectful adjectives such as "silly" and "foolish."

[W]hoever says to his brother, ‘[You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell (Matt 5:22).

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I do not think calling Christ "God" and thus attributing to Him superior reasoning requires a correction concerning orthodoxy. Christ is fully God and fully man according to the Council of Chalcedon.

This is a good example of why I am rebuking you in this thread. You quote things and use them but don't know how to use them properly but then you say of Bruce (and other elders against whom you are commanded not to bring a charge against without witnesses) that they are mishandling texts.

Yes, Christ is fully God and fully man and there is no mixture or confusion of the natures. The issue is not whether Jesus is the God-man but that His humanity was a real humanity with a reasonable soul. It is Apploinarian heresy to attribute the human thinking of Jesus to His divinity. When the man, Jesus, is talking we are hearing the mind of a man at work. His was not a "mixed nature" where He could simply "tap into" the Divine nature of His Person.

The difference is that what Christ taught is consistent with the entirety of Revelation. He was not cherry-picking one verse or portraying it out of context (which is impossible, God understands what He intends to convey in His own Scripture.)

So now we do agree that there is an appropriateness to reasoning how a text is relevant to a Biblical theology. You have precisely criticized texts on the "well that's not how the Jews would have understood it" or "they just believe in a common grave" as if the Holy Spirit and Biblical theology were irrelevant to certain texts.

For example, you level the charge that my exegesis of 1 Cor 7:14 is "facile," but what makes it that I am being facile and not you being convoluted? Go back to Chrysostom in his Homily on 1 Cor 7. He does not agree with your interpretation, he goes with the facile one. It is also worth noting that Augustine takes my interpretation in On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants (Book III, Chapter 21).

You see, once again you don't seem to understand the point. I didn't offer an exegesis of 1 Cor 7:14. My point was a Biblical theological point concerning the fact that children of believers are set apart. 1 Cor 7:14 is an exegetical case in point but there is a larger Biblical theological and Covenant theology to the holiness of children and the fact that they are born in sin but, yet, are still constituted holy. It is from this point, combined with how the Reformed viewed regeneration (as noted above) that are combined to come to some general conclusions about the salvation of covenant children. One has to come at it indirectly but there are supporting verses and GNC that build the case. To dwell on a single verse is to again miss the point. I don't care what everybody has ever said about a particular verse. As I noted already, exegesis is informed by theology and theology is informed by exegesis. As long as I understand where the writer of a certain exegetical opinion is coming from then I can make some sense of it.

believe you assert this simply because I don't adhere to an over-arching covenant theology that many other saved believers both past and present do not as well. However, I do not think you have actually demonstrated that my hermeneutic is inconsistent in any way. My claim is limited. That the salvation of infants is not demonstrably normative in the Scripture.

Well, I'm thankful for that admission. It helps explain an awful lot. The fact is, Craig, that you didn't read our requirements for participation. I assume you at least subscribe to the idea of letting your Yes be Yes and your No be No. When you clicked "I agree" did you simply ignore this that you agreed to in participation:

d. Confessional Requirements: One must hold to either the Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity, the Second Helvetic Confession, or the LBCF to be approved for membership without a waiver. This does not mean that the these confessions are viewed as the "Word of God." Rather, these confessions and creeds are taken to accurately summarize the key doctrines of the Bible and allow mutual, like-minded fellowship (Amos 3:3, "Can two walk together unless they be agreed?"). The adherence to any orthodox historical documents assure that the board will be kept "like-minded" in most of the basic points of salvation history and that the fellowship "exhortive and encouraging." Those who seek to modify, depart from, change or disprove the doctrines found in the Confessions will bear the burden of proof to support their claim.

We don't hide our Board rules. This is a Reformed Board. One cannot reject an overarching Covenant theology and simultaneously claim to subscribe to the WCF or the LBCF. It's like ripping the spine out of a man and still claiming he's a runner. The very substrate of Christ's ministry with the Elect is governed by His mediation of the Covenant of Grace.

Had I known that you rejected this from your application you would have never been approved for application excepting a waiver that you are on a trajectory toward a Reformed understanding or that, in matters where Covenant Theology has bearing, you would not promote un-Confessional views. As it is, you bring the baggage of your views into this thread and it now makes perfect sense what is informing your exegesis.

I think the Scripture that states, "If you think you are standing strong, be careful not to fall" (1 Cor 10:12) may be fitting in this situation. It is common for people to mistake their learning, or tradition, as wisdom. However, if it not be for the grace of God, we would read His Scriptures but understand nothing of it. For, the natural man cannot discern spiritual things.

I certainly agree that it is fitting. When the Scriptures command you not to rebuke an Elder without 2-3 witnesses and you take on Bruce and others throughout I believe this verse is very apt. While it is very true that it is only by grace that we can have fruition in the Scriptures it is also true that the "ordinary means" (again something you claim to subscribe to) are what we use to understand the Scriptures.

I have not appealed to my own learning but I have appealed to the tools of exegesis and the modes of hermeneutics. It is quite plain that you do not know how to use the "ordinary means". It's rather like having been trained how to swing a club. I'm no golf pro but I can tell when someone's swing is fundamentally flawed. Complaining that someone is focused on "tradition as wisdom" is a perfect example of hooking the ball into the rough but then saying: "But if I have the Spirit of God then my swing is as good as yours." Pick up Exegetical Fallacies and Fee's book on Exegesis and then a good book on hermeneutics such as the Hermeneutical Spiral. I think you will come away remorseful that you spoke so loudly and confidently in this thread.

So, I will not presume that I can ascertain that you have blessed so more than me or vice versa, but I will say that we should be careful with our tone and carry ourselves with humility. The use of adjectives such as "foolish," "clumsy," and "pitiful" in a respectful conversation do not have a place. Let us compel one another to speak to each other in an edifying way, with words useful for building one another up.

Foolish, clumsy, and facile are all apt adjectives to describe an approach when a person confidently corrects ministers and elders when his own words betray a lack of understanding. I'm not arguing these qualities in your person but your approach to the issues at hand.

I thought I detected an insinuation that you would like to see me banned. While I think this would be unfair and any community can do what it likes, I think I have showed that respectable interpreters have shared my interpretation of texts and unlike certain people in this thread, have avoided the use of disrespectful adjectives such as "silly" and "foolish."

I think that I will leave it to those who have read your interactions with Bruce and other ministers trained in exegesis and theology to see what "respect" you showed them.

As for "banning"...No, we don't ban. We suspend those who do not meet Confessional requirements. If you grow in your understanding of Reformed thology and come to understand the centrality of the Covenant then we will permit your participation once again.

Let me close by noting that the issue here has nothing to do with accepting the Reformed Confession on this issue. An elect infant is, by definition, saved. From a bare reading of the WCF that's all that can be derived. I didn't take issue with debates over whether all Covenant children are saved nor those that may go beyond this and argue that all infants or imbeciles are saved. I'm not comfortable with speculation but that's beside the point.

The issue with you, Craig, was method. You betrayed a fundamental departure from the Confessions by which we bound conversation here. Now I've heard it all before about how I'm going to burn in the fiery pits of Hell for using my own money to host a board in which I restrict conversation to those who subscribe to Reformed Confessions but I don't hide this requirement. I don't "bait and switch" people with the idea that they can bring a patchwork of theological ideas to the forum and say: "I'm quoting the Bible but you have your tradition as wisdom" as within the bounds of conversation. Rather, I make it quite plain. I not only have forum rules by which I tell people to click "I agree" but I also require, in their Biographies, to explain what exceptions they take to said Confessions and even tell people that they may not be able to participate if they deviate from those Confessions too widely. I havevn't lied here. I am not the person who Agreed to a set of rules and did not abide by the rules I agreed to. I would therefore admonish you to be careful of the judgment with which you judge. I believe you are a Christian brother but there are plenty of Christian brothers who have other fora in which to espouse views that don't fit within our particular fenceline and so I wish you well.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Apparently, this post (begun this AM) has been superseded by events (SFAIK). It wasn't/isn't intended to be "piling on" someone who may not be able to respond immediately.

1) I used the language "go to your fathers," as in 1Chr.17:11, with reference to David; because "GO" is the EXACT word used in 2Sam.12:23 when David speaks in reference to himself and his son.

There is a reason for this, which I hope you are well aware. Both instances of the term was someone in the present speaking of a death occurring in the future (hence going to it). For this reason, those are the only two examples of the term being used this way from 1 Sam to 2 Chron. Whenever the narrator of 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles makes essentially the same statement, but controlling for the fact that he is speaking for a past event, he uses the pass tense word "slept."

What you wrote originally appeared oblivious to the specificity of my choice. So it seems to me you are retrofitting your position to take account of the point that wasn't much touched by the original misdirected assertion of "self-undermining." {"Will go" is future tense, and "slept" is past tense} isn't much of an improvement.

Your position still rests on the two concepts, represented by the two terms "go" and "slept," having substantially identical import. It hasn't been made clear why anyone should accept that position, other than death-association. The verbal ideas are quite distinct; the contexts in which they are presented summon to mind different connotations. David's "going" to his son is utterly unique phrasing; it's a deliberate recasting of the more standard terminology. Flattening this variety of expression into one simplistic reductionism (euphemisms for death) loses all sensitivity to the theology of the speakers or narrators as expressed by their words.

I'm not psychoanalyzing David; I'm imputing a theology to him. He said he was "going" to his son, which from the standpoint of a believer are hopeful words, not hope-so or fatalistic. I don't believe David or Abraham thought of death as a murky antechamber and common holding-pen for everyone countless years in duration, each person awaiting an uncertain resolution. There's no actual truth in that notion, nor is it taught in the OT. Neither does the OT describe conditions where that view should have predominated. Even the prophet's use of the "sleep" metaphor needs to be understood mainly against the background of sacred Scripture, not a comparative-religion mythos.

Do we have any example in the Scripture where "go" is used as a catch all? Yes! We have Gen 15:15 where God promised to Abram: "As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age."
Problem is, Abraham's father worshiped other gods (Josh 24:2) and being that God did not call him he likely never repented. So, he is likely not saved. Obviously, he would not be going to heaven with Abraham then.
The more you pursue this argument and try to mince meat over the significance of one Hebrew term used in a certain situation and another used in a different one, the more you undercut your overall argument.

What do you think God meant when he said those words to Abram? Do you think he said this exact equivalent: "You shall die in peace"? Is God just being poetic? Do you think God is speaking vaguely? Do you think God is simply employing the false eschatological currents of the day that Abram has imbibed? Do you think God is teaching a common-destiny (even temporary) for Abram?

I've already indicated that in regard to the faithful godly, the promise expressed by the words is to share association with godly fathers. Isn't this idea perfectly expressed in what God promises Abram? Seems to me, Abram understands that he will eventually join believing fathers like Noah and Seth, and perhaps Terah if he too was a believer. I don't know why you don't think Terah was a believer, since the witness of Scripture is he left his idols "beyond the river," and joined his son's faith-venture. Seems but a modest charitable assumption to me.

So, yes, different words can mean different things in different contexts; similarities in associated terms or concepts notwithstanding. Would you say the sentences:

1) He's up the creek
2) He jumped the creek
3) He jumped the gun
4) He jumped the shark​

all express the same basic idea? Sensitivity to biblical variation is part and parcel of sound exegesis.

you are adding a presumption to Psalm 8:2. Without understanding the prophecy, there is no indication that the "babes" in the second verse are in heaven. The first verse says God's splendor is displayed above the heavens, but it does not say the children and nursing babes (especially that they are nursing) are also above the heavens giving praise. You are presuming that.
In fact, in verse 1 it says "how majestic is Your name in all the Earth." If's God's name is majestic, doesn't it make sense that even children and nursing babes are ascribing to God's name majesty among those on Earth?

My "presumption" is that when anyone in Scripture praises the Lord, he does so from the heart. Sorry, but that just seems like the obvious, operative opening stance on biblical expressions to me. I should think the text will supply the context suggesting whether or not that praise is suspect.

If your starting presupposition is "all sucklings are necessarily dead in trespasses and sins, and don't leave that state until at a minimum they have the ability to form truth-propositions" (or until some other criteria is met), then perhaps you will "presume" that the praises mentioned are pro forma; they don't express "reality." Or you can just evade the whole question, and make the expression a mysterious prophecy that was only understood at the Triumphal Entry. Whatever.

Ps.8:2 says that (some) babes praise the Lord, for real. Could some babes also "praise" the Lord and later on be lost? Sure, it's called reprobation and apostasy. But we operate on the basis of what we observe, not presume on what we can't. So when a toddler sings in church, I'm obliged to recognize that as genuine, not just "cute."

if infants and babes praise their maker back in David's day, and the children do so in Jesus' day, does it not show that the people offering praise being addressed both during David's and Jesus' day are alive?
It reminds me of the Psalm: "The eyes of all look to You,
And You give them their food in due time" (Ps 145:15). We know from verse 16 that these even includes animals. The Scripture, every time it speaks of God saving or people trusting and praising, does not always have soteriological undertones. The original statement in Ps 8:2 might have had a much more generalized meaning. The children were shouting, but it is not a statement that the children meant what they were shouting about, or some did not change their minds later when He was crucified.

This just confuses me. Are you following the train of argument? The point of adducing infant-praise is to show biblical witness that pre-rational or sub-rational humans can still have true faith, saving faith in God. Is there no difference, in your view, between the "praise" of brute creation (Ps.104:27; 148:7-10) and the "praise" of a human infant, scare-quotes intended?

You read Ps.8:2 or Mt.21:16 as if it were not descriptive of what is actually going on, but only indicates that these people are breathing and emoting. Is Scripture's habit merely to report people sometimes "acting" like they are praising God? Sure, some people are insincere, perhaps a lot of them. Is the text skeptical? Does it encourage us to skepticism?

Is Ps.145:15 a paradigmatic verse? Does it condition our understanding of all other related texts? What is the Psalmist doing in that Psalm, and at that place in the Psalm? That is the question to be answered, before it even has remote impact on our understanding of Ps.8:2. Ps.145, the Psalmist is summoning and universalizing praise to the one true God, the God of all providence. Spell out why you think his use of hyperbole there becomes the normative for interpretation elsewhere, more specifically in Ps.8.

Just because hyperbole is used someplace doesn't mean anyplace we read what may appear an extravagant expression, we should assume the sense is picturesque. Ps.8 doesn't universalize the statement regarding babes and sucklings; it's only referenced of some. That alone is a significant interpretive element, to say nothing of the rationale added for the praise. It is in direct contradiction to hostility and unbelief. How does "might have had a more generalized meaning" boldly confute the opposers of truth?

Ps.71:6. No, not quoting out of context. The Psalm is an old-man's witness of the life-long faithfulness of God, vv9,18. Do you really think this old fellow, with a lifetime of covenant-awareness, is saying that God was merely his physical provider/sustainer from the womb, and not his spiritual stay the whole time?

Yes, there is no contradiction in this reading and it makes sense with Paul's own testimony about himself and other biblical usages of the term. In Psalm 36:6, for example, it says that God literally "saves" both man and beast alike. To take the word uphold, which by providing for the Psalmist and working all things for good in his life, is indeed very profound. We need not jam into the idea that the imputation of Christ's righteousness occurred when he was in the womb.

So, it's all ex post facto reflection, in your view; not a statement particularly appropriate to a person wrapt up in covenant-care his whole life. Pardon me, if I read it as an expression of my personal experience. I don't have a pietistic/revivalistic testimony. I don't know when I first had saving faith; for all I know, I leaned upon him from birth. Not everyone can say the same; I recognize that.

Paul's recognition that he had been "set apart" from the womb (Gal.1:15) acknowledges divine election. It seems gratuitous to me to conflate his testimony with David's, Jeremiah's (1:5), and any other, and flatten it all out, eliminating every conceivable nuance conveyed in a variety of expressions. Paul, in that very text, distinguishes between his election and his calling to faith. But the Psalmist does the very opposite; his praise was continuous from the beginning. Paul had once "set himself" apart, becoming a Pharisee [Heb. parash, to separate], in ignorance of divine grace that came before and was in store for him. The Psalmist reveals a lifetime of reliance upon divine initiative.

What might/could be the case (so long as my pet conviction is supported) is not how we properly discern meaning.

Go read what you quoted [MH] and find where he agrees with you. It appears pretty clear to me that he is speaking of the preservation of the believe rsince infancy, not the imputation of righteousness (at the time of belief) at this point in time.

I already bolded one significant phrase. Since I know MH is in basic agreement with me Confessionally, I read him as he surely meant to be taken. Point #3 is almost entirely dependent upon a covenant-theology interpretation of the words, assuming we are going to allow MH to speak for himself. Point #4 assumes the previous.

Here, from #4, is the final quoted portion again, "we need not doubt but he will always remember the kindness of our youth and the love of our espousals." These words 1) speak of God's acknowledgment of our lesser expressions that preceded our exercise of reason ("espousals" being tied to the time of covenant-inclusion); which reckoning is further emphasized 2) by MH's subsequent reference of this point particularly to the infant Lord Jesus.

We need to remember what exactly is being contended for here: Whether Scripture gives us any hope for salvation of those who are incapable of being outwardly called by the Word. The moment in time the Lord may confer the imputation of Christ's righteousness is only coincident with the exercise of saving faith, not the ability to express that faith in mental-development appropriate expression.

Regardless, the question this whole time has not been particularly on the issue of "normativeness" of an infant-call to faith. But whether or not Scripture teaches that there ARE extraordinary means that God might use to call persons to justifying faith and union with Christ...

I would think the John the Baptist is the only clear example, but he was also the greatest born of a woman excluding Christ.

One is enough. I don't know why reference to his prodigious stature as prophet is meaningful; "The least in the kingdom of God is greater than he," Lk.7:28. You can hang your hope for the salvation (of some, anyway) of the least-great of all time on the mercies of God, who has shown he is fully capable of delivering salvation in a manner that quite confounds rational expectation.

In the end, I think you will admit that your confidence in your own salvation should not rest an ounce on your own cognitive commitment. After all, what if it was necessary and you lost it? To an accident? To dementia? It cannot be the quality (developed/undeveloped/slipped) of our faith that matters. But only the Object. He holds onto his own all the way to glory, while our grip inevitably falters.


***************************************

Your agreements and disputes at the end, re. baptism, Augustin, baptismal regeneration, etc.--to me they are irrelevant. The Reformed and their sacramental theology aren't holdovers from Romanism.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Craig, you said, “John had an increased awareness [i.e., of the presence of God] compared to a regular fetus.” Of course he did, as does every person the Lord manifests Himself to. In the case of an in utero baby it does not warrant claiming it had an “infusion of intellect”, rather and simply an awareness of God.

Then you say,

“fetuses do not understand conversations or sense who is in the room until they get familiar with voices. John the Baptist obviously displayed extraordinary abilities. If what he did was not supernatural, it would have probably not merited mention in Scripture”​

Of course it was supernatural. When the Lord is present, who is above nature, the supernatural is present. It is written,

“And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy” (Luke 1:41-44).​

When Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit upon the salutation of Mary, she became aware that her God was in the womb of Mary, and so did her child in his own pre-cognitive state. In the presence of the One he came to bear witness to his little being was filled with supernatural joy. He also was filled with the Holy Spirit according to Luke 1:15. With regard to John you say,

“the Scripture does not intend for this event to be normative, we cannot take this event and presume upon God to be making radical changes in the intellects of believer's children so that they have been bestowed saving grace in the womb.” [emphasis added]​

Of course this is not normative, for there was only one forerunner announcing the coming of Messiah, the Lamb of God. But again you inject what to your understanding can be the only explanation of what happened, since you insist “God infused John the Baptist in the womb with an intellect”, as to know God, says you, one must have an intellectually rational faith. You say, “John the Baptist obviously displayed extraordinary abilities.” I would not say that, not in this instance, but rather was acted upon by extraordinary means, such as the Holy Spirit in his mom, and also in himself. Of course John was extraordinary, but in this instance what was extraordinary was the presence of God acting upon his little being. There is here no warrant to say he was “infused with intellect” – this serves only to make the incident intelligible to you, but to those whose understanding is different we need no such proviso.

According to your point of view without rationality there can be no saving faith, so ipso facto saving faith requires reason. Let’s look at your understanding of Romans 10.

Every infant who is regenerated in the womb will, as he or she grows older, fulfill this Scripture, “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom 10:10). Let’s look at verses 14 & 15:

“How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent?”​

How did the Lord preach to the thief on the cross who believed? Or, again, in John 5:8, when the Lord said to the infirm man, “Rise, take up thy bed, and walk”, what were the spiritual dynamics at work here? In the latter account I believe there was a manifestation of divine power coming from Jesus (cf 2 Cor 4:6: “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ”) that gave this man physical healing (and likely spiritual healing at the later encounter in the temple, v 14); in the former account we have no record of Jesus verbally preaching to the man (save when He later assured him of a place in His kingdom, upon his asking, “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom” Luke 23:42); it appears the man observed Jesus, heard His prayer (Luke 23:34), and God gave him to see He was the divine Messiah through a revelation of the Spirit manifesting His glory, majesty, and saving love. Without the kind of “preaching” we usually think of, Jesus called him and gave him the gift of faith. I can think of many other instances in Jesus’ interactions with people where the power and glory of God manifested along with the few words Jesus spoke. One thinks also of when Jesus called Levi (Matthew): “And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him” (Mark 2:14). There was likely a “supernatural” manifestation of His divine glory that touched Matthew’s heart, along with those few words.

You have said if we assert it is normative for God to regenerate infants or in utero babes “we turn God into a liar in Rom 10:14”. Craig, honestly I do not know if God normally regenerates these little pre-cognitive ones, as I am not privy to His workings, but He has done it often enough in Scripture (despite the denials of one who insists regeneration mostly is given exclusively upon the exercise of intellectually comprehending faith) that we may say in the Scripture is it sufficiently normative that we may expect Him to do so in this age. That we do not make Him a liar is shown by His regenerating and sanctifying a number of infants, especially among the prophets.

You had said, “I would think [that] John the Baptist is the only clear example [of extraordinary means that God might use to call persons to justifying faith and union with Christ], but he was also the greatest born of a woman excluding Christ.” I think it also ought to be taken into account that of us in the New Testament age Jesus added, “notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he [John]” (Matt 11:11). We might well expect the power of God to be at work in the families of the elect, especially in our little ones. Of course supernatural power is involved; it takes supernatural power for us to pray, to understand the word of God, to live the Christian life – but we have the supernatural One (I prefer to use the word divine) abiding in us, bringing the presence of Christ to us. His divine presence is in every household of the elect, as Paul said, “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” (1 Cor 3:16).

Consider, a babe in the womb lives in a woman who is a temple of the living God, and this God is nigh the child, living in the same temple. A holy woman, a holy husband, a house of prayers and spiritual songs – what better place for an infant to be in the presence of the Lord?

For children raised in the holy Presence, even those yet unborn, small wonder they are touched by Him who dwells in the homes of the godly.