Why I became credo

[tcalbrecht]

So the sign and seal saves now if a child dies in infancy? Is there more grace given to an infant child because of his baptism? I am not sure that is a good Paedo position.

My comment was directed at the nature of the hope we have for all our covenant children based on God's promise. It was not particular to the matter of infants and death.

The sign and seal is not related to the state of an elect infant dying in infancy. We baptize our children after the command given to Abraham and suitability modified for the new covenant. Not because we think our infant children might die.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Bruce, would the same logic apply in reverse? Not too long ago a person whom I believe has no children announced on the board that he had become a paedo-baptist. Are we to disbelieve this until he has a child and baptizes him?

Jerry definitely has children of the age to baptize them.

If we said "I believe in covenant-child baptism" as defined and described in the WCF (the OPC std), and as confessed certainly nothing as was described above as a Romish leftover, but never followed through?... I don't think that was any sort of conviction. The same words of the Confession say it is a sin to neglect this ordinance, as described.

From the OP, I read the queries offered to the pastor and elders as a plea to "convince me" that paedo-baptism was legitimate, not a statement that "Hey, I'm wavering here. Answer these new arguments that have moved me away from that which I was taught to embrace originally."

So which is it? Have we changed to a church more in keeping with convictions, or have we changed convictions and so sought out a suitable church?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

It does almost leave one (me anyway) with the lingering question that there would have to be two methods of salvation. One for adults, which is the way laid out in the New Testament, and another for babies. Does God suspend what he says is true for everyone else for the sake of babies who are not capable of believing? The answers I have read are along the lines of, babies would have to then be regenerated in the womb. This seems absurd but it is the logical conclusion one must come to in order to have babies who die before being regenerated, saved. On the other hand I do not believe God overlooks sin until a magical age of accountability. If we are all born sinful then we would all be responsible for having our sin atoned for and since the atoning of sin comes through justification through faith the person justified would have to be capable of having faith.

It seems like paedobaptism leads to an inevitable contradiction.

What about the mentally retarded, where do they fall in all this.

Answer to the second question:

10:3 Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth: so also, are all other elect persons who are uncapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.​

To the first point, to be regenerated is to be endowed with a new capacity to believe savingly in the Lord Jesus Christ--previously an impossible condition to meet. In other words, it is necessary to lovingly apprehend Christ, to "see" him with the eyes of faith for who he is.

In our longer-lived selves, that capacity is acted upon in time and our faculties engaged, and we "see" the truth as it is in Jesus. In other words,, we exercise saving faith. We individually believe. and are saved. "Without faith it is impossible to please God."

Elect infants also must act on the capacity to believe they have been given through regeneration. Will they? Why not?!? In fact, they will "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" almost without having to "unlearn" anything, since all that growth takes place in his deivine presence. Do you think they believe in him? Will WE still be believing in him in glory? The answer to the latter is Yes, and so must be the former.

 

[py3ak]

Fair enough, Bruce. That answers my question, that it was because of particular circumstances that you had that inquiry.

 

[Grymir]

I had to become a credobaptist primarily for the following reasons:
.......

!!!!!!!

Mega

Mega Ditto's!! (and I have the avatar to prove it!!)

 

[jpechin]

This does not show how baptism is to be applied to professors only.

Water baptism does nothing but guarantee entrance into the visible church, not to the invisible (the primary focus of the new covenant, through faith). Since the goal of the new covenant is to baptize all nations in the triune God, *teaching* them, and getting them to *remember* Christ, it would seem likely that we're seeing a pattern emerge where 'professors' need to be the ones that are baptized into the church invisible, not being concerned as much with the church visible.

Our desire is that God would save our children just as it would have been if we were born under the Old Testament.

Certainly. Then we agree that it matters more for our children to evidence the true sign and seal of the new covenant, which are the fruits of the Spirit in faith and repentance.

The Canons of Dordt teach:
Article 17 - Children of Believers Who Die in Infancy
We must judge concerning the will of God from His Word, which declares that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they are included with their parents. Therefore, God-fearing parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in their infancy (Genesis 17:7; Acts 2:39; 1 Corinthians 7:14).

Tradition is brought to bear. I see nothing in the scripture references cited that would indicate that a child can 'inherit' salvation by being born into a covenantal family, nor that the visible covenantal sign can impart salvation. Otherwise Ishmael and Esau would be children of the covenant. It is clear that God's sovereignty matters completely more than who is born into a family of believers. Even the entirety of Acts 2 completely qualifies 2:39, with direct context certainly trumping the old covenant.

But you would be wrong to think that.

(regarding my statment on 'popery')

This was meant to be a light-hearted jab and challenge, but I can tell it's been completely blown out of proportion. I've been informed/warned by the moderators that this statement of popery is 'ignorant' and 'inflammatory', so I will speak no longer of it. Suffice it to say that my original statement said "to me" it was thus, and that it was a perception rather than dogma.

 

[jpechin]

Jerry,
I'm curious, did you ever have any of your children baptized? If so, was it because of theological convictions, or just because that was the tradition you grew up in?

Yes, I had all 5 of my children baptized, so they'll be covered either way (sorry, bad joke!). I feel that I was convicted primarily by books/works that I was given to read, along with some key scripture verses. Some of those same scripture verses have me yet convicted of a sort of covenantal paradigm for the family, but one now where my primary field of evangelism is right in front of me.

I suppose I'm just curious to know if you have switched churches to one more in line with your convictions, rather than a change of mind on the proper subjects of baptism.

I have switched churches for many different reasons, along with some that are sinful, to be honest. I'm glad for my current elders, who have helped me to understand that the church that I left have brothers that are going to spend eternity with me, and that my method of leaving lacked a key virtue of God's kingdom - love.

 

[jpechin]

So, you would tell a grieving parent that we really can't speak to the eternal state of their dead child? This may seem like I'm playing the "emotional manipulation card", but I think it is a very applicable question to ask: pastors have to deal with this exact sort of situation.

From a Reformed Baptist position, you would tell a grieving parent that we are in the hands of a sovereign God and that we have to trust that He will choose who his elect will be, despite who a child is born to.

Unfortunately, many different 'dogmatic' (for lack of a better word/vocabulary) positions have been laced about this issue, including the age of accountability. There simply is no guarantee from the scriptures, beyond a sovereign God who does with His creation what He wills (Romans 9).

 

[jpechin]

Jeremiah, I am thankful for the change in your baptismal conviction. Grace to you and your family. I pray you left the OPC church displaying grace to those who were your shepherds in Christ.

If only I had. But I have, thank God, been convicted by my new elders and by our Lord of my hard heart. I've been changing quite a bit recently, but obviously have a far way to go. God is so good, to take on a despicable creature as myself ("even the dogs...").

It's a great church where I'm at, where all of the elders are involved with Vision Forum. I love it here. They study the reformers a lot (currently on Calvin's Institutes) and memorize scripture together (currently on Romans chapter 8). I also continue to fellowship with my departed church every other Thursday, where we just finished studying Pilgrim's Progress.

 

[Ivan]

Well... we.... er... we don't get many threads like this.

Come on then, who's going to start congratulating our brother for going paedo to credo? Lots of dittos and icons and stuff?

C'mon baptists, lay it on thick!

Onlllly kidding.

Welcome, Jeremiah, and enjoy the ride.

A warm welcome from me, Jeremiah!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Thanks for the response, J.

Jerry,
I'm curious, did you ever have any of your children baptized? If so, was it because of theological convictions, or just because that was the tradition you grew up in?

Yes, I had all 5 of my children baptized, so they'll be covered either way (sorry, bad joke!). I feel that I was convicted primarily by books/works that I was given to read, along with some key scripture verses. Some of those same scripture verses have me yet convicted of a sort of covenantal paradigm for the family, but one now where my primary field of evangelism is right in front of me.

I suppose I'm just curious to know if you have switched churches to one more in line with your convictions, rather than a change of mind on the proper subjects of baptism.

I have switched churches for many different reasons, along with some that are sinful, to be honest. I'm glad for my current elders, who have helped me to understand that the church that I left have brothers that are going to spend eternity with me, and that my method of leaving lacked a key virtue of God's kingdom - love.

 

[jpechin]

Jerry definitely has children of the age to baptize them.

Asked and answered.

If we said "I believe in covenant-child baptism" as defined and described in the WCF (the OPC std)... ...I don't think that was any sort of conviction. The same words of the Confession say it is a sin to neglect this ordinance, as described.

No, unfortunately I must be viewed by the OPC as an oath-breaker, which saddens me to think of it. Nevertheless, I am convicted by the scritpures that I was wrong, and that the WFC is incorrect in saying that this is an ordinance commanded by God for our children (or else it would be obviously commanded).

From the OP, I read the queries offered to the pastor and elders as a plea to "convince me" that paedo-baptism was legitimate... So which is it? Have we changed to a church more in keeping with convictions, or have we changed convictions and so sought out a suitable church?

I allowed only a short time of dialog with OPC eldership, which is one of the handful of regrets that I have. I also regret that I rather quickly forced those beloved to arm's length and worked so as to quickly separate myself. I need to offer these regrets to them at some point, but I'm not sure about the how/where/when of that. I do know that I'm in the church that I needed to be in for some chastisement, discipleship, and love - God has definitely used this situation for His glory, so far, in my eyes.

 

[jpechin]

A warm welcome from me, Jeremiah!

Thanks, bubba - er - Ivan.

 

[Soli Deo Gloria]

Perhaps I am a little confused, and if so...please excuse me. But, jpechin...are you saying that we cannot know where an infant will spend eternity if it dies?

I have read a lot of discussion on this thread about elect infants...however, is it not safe to assume that ALL infants are elect? II Corinthians 5:10 makes it clear that we will be judged based on what we have done "in the body", whether good or evil. While we all have original sin, we are not judged based upon Adam's sin but are judged according to what we each have done.

I do not believe an infant has committed a sin "in the body", for an infant does not know right from wrong. Also, I believe in Deuteronomy 1 we see a prime example of infants being spared judgment. Deuteronomy 1:39 tells us that it were the children and infants...who "have no knowledge of good and evil"...that were spared from the generation of Israelites punished for their disobedience.

Charles Spurgeon preached a wonderful sermon on the topic of infant salvation, in which he put forth this same view.

Perhaps I am missing the boat here, but just a little puzzled by a claim that Scripture is silent on this issue. I don't believe that to be the case.

 

[KMK]

It's a great church where I'm at, where all of the elders are involved with Vision Forum. I love it here. They study the reformers a lot (currently on Calvin's Institutes) and memorize scripture together (currently on Romans chapter 8). I also continue to fellowship with my departed church every other Thursday, where we just finished studying Pilgrim's Progress.

What exactly does this mean? I get the VF newsletter and catalogues etc. What does it mean to be 'involved'?

 

[AV1611]

Water baptism does nothing but guarantee entrance into the visible church, not to the invisible (the primary focus of the new covenant, through faith).

So how does this disprove paedobaptism? Why not spend a little time to read David Dickson's Of the Covenant of Grace

Then we agree that it matters more for our children to evidence the true sign and seal of the new covenant, which are the fruits of the Spirit in faith and repentance.

By baptising our children we are recognising that they are members of the 'visible' church and that God has established a covenant with them demanding faith and repentance. This is what baptism signifies; as parents, we then raise our children up in the fear of the Lord knowing that God has made a covenant with our child(ren).

I see nothing in the scripture references cited that would indicate that a child can 'inherit' salvation by being born into a covenantal family, nor that the visible covenantal sign can impart salvation.

The canons teach neither hence I suggest that you have misunderstood them. God has taught us that he makes a covenant with us and with our children. Because he promises to be their God we have no reason to doubt their salvation if they die in infancy.

 

[Pilgrim]

Perhaps I am a little confused, and if so...please excuse me. But, jpechin...are you saying that we cannot know where an infant will spend eternity if it dies?

I have read a lot of discussion on this thread about elect infants...however, is it not safe to assume that ALL infants are elect? II Corinthians 5:10 makes it clear that we will be judged based on what we have done "in the body", whether good or evil. While we all have original sin, we are not judged based upon Adam's sin but are judged according to what we each have done.

I do not believe an infant has committed a sin "in the body", for an infant does not know right from wrong. Also, I believe in Deuteronomy 1 we see a prime example of infants being spared judgment. Deuteronomy 1:39 tells us that it were the children and infants...who "have no knowledge of good and evil"...that were spared from the generation of Israelites punished for their disobedience.

Charles Spurgeon preached a wonderful sermon on the topic of infant salvation, in which he put forth this same view.

Perhaps I am missing the boat here, but just a little puzzled by a claim that Scripture is silent on this issue. I don't believe that to be the case.

Spurgeon's sermon: Infant Salvation

 

[Herald]

Perhaps I am a little confused, and if so...please excuse me. But, jpechin...are you saying that we cannot know where an infant will spend eternity if it dies?

I have read a lot of discussion on this thread about elect infants...however, is it not safe to assume that ALL infants are elect? II Corinthians 5:10 makes it clear that we will be judged based on what we have done "in the body", whether good or evil. While we all have original sin, we are not judged based upon Adam's sin but are judged according to what we each have done.

I do not believe an infant has committed a sin "in the body", for an infant does not know right from wrong. Also, I believe in Deuteronomy 1 we see a prime example of infants being spared judgment. Deuteronomy 1:39 tells us that it were the children and infants...who "have no knowledge of good and evil"...that were spared from the generation of Israelites punished for their disobedience.

Charles Spurgeon preached a wonderful sermon on the topic of infant salvation, in which he put forth this same view.

Perhaps I am missing the boat here, but just a little puzzled by a claim that Scripture is silent on this issue. I don't believe that to be the case.

Spurgeon's sermon: Infant Salvation

Good sermon by Spurgeon. I am glad that he does not try to make the case for saving faith on the part of the infant.

 

[tcalbrecht]

I have read a lot of discussion on this thread about elect infants...however, is it not safe to assume that ALL infants are elect? II Corinthians 5:10 makes it clear that we will be judged based on what we have done "in the body", whether good or evil. While we all have original sin, we are not judged based upon Adam's sin but are judged according to what we each have done.

I do not believe an infant has committed a sin "in the body", for an infant does not know right from wrong. Also, I believe in Deuteronomy 1 we see a prime example of infants being spared judgment. Deuteronomy 1:39 tells us that it were the children and infants...who "have no knowledge of good and evil"...that were spared from the generation of Israelites punished for their disobedience.

Charles Spurgeon preached a wonderful sermon on the topic of infant salvation, in which he put forth this same view.

Perhaps I am missing the boat here, but just a little puzzled by a claim that Scripture is silent on this issue. I don't believe that to be the case.

This sounds like age of accountability teaching and that God is obligated to save all "innocent" young people prior to committing actual sin.

 

[jpechin]

Perhaps I am a little confused, and if so...please excuse me. But, jpechin...are you saying that we cannot know where an infant will spend eternity if it dies?

The most consistent view of a sovereign God is to lay our faith in the fact that He moves where He wills and wishes. Romans 9 tells us that He predestines some to glory and some to destruction, after telling us earlier that there is not one who is righteous. The elect are completely determined by God. Because I cannot find anything in the scriptures that says all infants who die early are automatically bound for heaven, I must lay my faith in God's design for His elect.

I have read a lot of discussion on this thread about elect infants...however, is it not safe to assume that ALL infants are elect?

I don't think that would be consistent with the fullness of scripture. The wind blows where it wishes. Also, under this model the kindest thing I could do for my children would be to murder them at birth, thereby making the abortionists vindicated. Regardless of my own sin in that scenario, my child is automatically saved.

I do not believe an infant has committed a sin "in the body", for an infant does not know right from wrong. Also, I believe in Deuteronomy 1 we see a prime example of infants being spared judgment. Deuteronomy 1:39 tells us that it were the children and infants...who "have no knowledge of good and evil"...that were spared from the generation of Israelites punished for their disobedience.

We're not saved by our works. Works are the evidence of the elect. If we are judged by our works, it is because we are judged by our spiritual nature first (as we are clothed in Christ, we are allowed to enter into the marriage feast - without Him, we are thrown into the outer darkness). Regarding Deut 1:39, those 'children' were all those younger than 20 (the age of men of war, see Joshua 5:6 and Numbers 1:3), and it was because God had condemned a generation from entering the promised land. This is evidence that covenantal heads of state and family can cause curses to fall on their nation and families as a result of their sin. Completely different from eternal election, from what I see, just as the curses of God upon Israel (Babylon, etc) did not discount an individual covenant member (such as Daniel) from being one of God's elect. There was always a remnant.

Charles Spurgeon preached a wonderful sermon on the topic of infant salvation, in which he put forth this same view.

Thanks. I'll look it up. Maybe you can provide a reference. I doubt that it will change my view from the scriptures, though. I don't mean to be egotistical, as I am very thankful for my fathers in the faith, but they all seemed to have their quirks, didn't they?

Perhaps I am missing the boat here, but just a little puzzled by a claim that Scripture is silent on this issue. I don't believe that to be the case.

I didn't necessarily say it was silent. I doubt scripture is ever silent on any issue. However, the scriptures are pretty clear that our eternal state is determined before the foundation of the earth, not based on legal ramifications or a temporal event. Our election is engineered through means, etc, in a temporal sense, yes, but it is determined before we are born and is based on God's plan, not our works or lack thereof. So, just as our election is secure in God based on his sovereignty and not our works, it cannot be made secure (or otherwise) based on an absence of works, based on who we are born to, nor based on anything in the temporal sense. "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

 

[jpechin]

What exactly does this mean? I get the VF newsletter and catalogues etc. What does it mean to be 'involved'?

I go to Hope Baptist in Wake Forest, where the elders are Scott Brown, Dan Horn, Steve Breaggy, and Jason Dohm. They are all regular speakers for Vision Forum and The National Center for Family-Integrated Churches (NCFIC) conferences. If you can imagine the richness of the VF audio sermons fed to you regularly on Sundays (morning and evening), Tuesday mornings, and then with all of the local conferences, you get just a small taste of what it's like to be here. There are men that move from all over the states just to come to this church. No, we're not perfect, obviously, but I absolutely love the vision and goals and I'm so glad that this is where God would have me to be. I love it there, and never want to leave.

Funny thing is, I knew it was here before and decided not to attend, as I was at odds with some of the VF visions. Boy, was that stupid of me!

 

[jpechin]

What exactly does this mean? I get the VF newsletter and catalogues etc. What does it mean to be 'involved'?

Oh, by the way, I get to meet Doug Phillips on Memorial Day. I'm completely excited!!!! I'm going to tell him that I want to meet and talk to his brother, Brad, about missions, too.

 

[jpechin]

So how does this disprove paedobaptism? Why not spend a little time to read David Dickson's Of the Covenant of Grace

I'd rather read what the scriptures have to say about it, but I may take a look for curiosity's sake.

The canons teach neither hence I suggest that you have misunderstood them. God has taught us that he makes a covenant with us and with our children. Because he promises to be their God we have no reason to doubt their salvation if they die in infancy.

I fully understand the "sign and seal" of the covenant, and I understand what I was taught while under presbyterian rule. I have studied the issue enough to believe that 'presumptive regeneration', the concept which had been presented to me, does not fit with the scriptures. One cannot be of the elect simply by being born into a faithful covenantal family, nor can we assume so for an infant based on scripture. The assumption should be that God will seal His elect beyond anything necessarily visible, based on His sovereignty alone.

I am bound by no canon or creed, except directly by the word of God in His scriptures.

By the way, I'm not attempting to 'disprove paedobaptism', as you put it. I am discussing why one position is more viable than another from the scriptures, fully recognizing that both paedo and credo are tenable positions from scriptural prooftexts. There may be elements of paedo, such as presumptive regeneration, that leave a bad taste in my mouth, but I certainly won't disown a brother for his position on the matter. I even have issues with credo covenantalism, such as how I am supposed to view the prayers of my non-believing children (I conclude, for now, that the H.S./Jesus will recognize the prayers of His elect and thereby mediate them accordingly).

 

[AV1611]

I'd rather read what the scriptures have to say about it, but I may take a look for curiosity's sake.

David Dickson is explaining the Scriptures.

I fully understand the "sign and seal" of the covenant, and I understand what I was taught while under presbyterian rule. I have studied the issue enough to believe that 'presumptive regeneration', the concept which had been presented to me, does not fit with the scriptures. One cannot be of the elect simply by being born into a faithful covenantal family, nor can we assume so for an infant based on scripture. The assumption should be that God will seal His elect beyond anything necessarily visible, based on His sovereignty alone.

I am glad you reject presumptive regeneration, so do I. Try these:

Contra Schenck « Building Old School Churches
SermonAudio.com - Children of the Covenant

There may be elements of paedo, such as presumptive regeneration, that leave a bad taste in my mouth, but I certainly won't disown a brother for his position on the matter.

I am not advocating, nor do our Standards teach, presumptive regeneration.

 

[JM]

Here's an interesting article:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/why-i-have-switched-paedo-credo-19507/

 

[AV1611]

Here's an interesting article:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/why-i-have-switched-paedo-credo-19507/

I found a covenantal credo-baptist argument convincing for a month or two until I realised that the arguments I brought to bear against paedobaptism were in fact founded upon major exegetical errors hence I switched back to the biblical position.

 

[JM]

k

 

[refbaptdude]

Jeremiah,

Congratulations in coming to the credobaptist position.

 

[Soli Deo Gloria]

This sounds like age of accountability teaching and that God is obligated to save all "innocent" young people prior to committing actual sin.

I never said God is obligated to save all innocent young people. God isn't obligated to save anyone.

However, it is clear from Scripture that God saves the elect. The question therefore is NOT whether God is "obligated" to save the innocent young people...but whether has God already included them in the elect? Men like Spurgeon and Gill thought so...as well as current Reformed Baptists, like Dr. Al Mohler. So there are many within the Reformed camp who see all infants as belonging to the elect.

I mentioned II Corinthians 5:10 just to express that each of us judged for what we have done in the body, and not for Adam's sin. in my opinion, this is a key verse when discussing this topic.

 

[Soli Deo Gloria]

The most consistent view of a sovereign God is to lay our faith in the fact that He moves where He wills and wishes. Romans 9 tells us that He predestines some to glory and some to destruction, after telling us earlier that there is not one who is righteous. The elect are completely determined by God. Because I cannot find anything in the scriptures that says all infants who die early are automatically bound for heaven, I must lay my faith in God's design for His elect.

I agree with this. However, once again, there are passages in Scripture that show infants not being punished because they did not know good from evil. Deuteronomy 1 is one such case. I would agree completely that the elect are completely determined by God. I would also say that we can safely assume that all those dieing as infants were included by God in the elect. Do I know this 100%...no. But I believe a strong case can be made for it from Scripture.

Also, under this model the kindest thing I could do for my children would be to murder them at birth, thereby making the abortionists vindicated.

in my opinion, this is creating a straw man. Of course we shouldn't kill our children...for that would be murder, and hence, a sin. However, if a infant, knowing no right or wrong, dies...I think it is safe to assume that God has included that infant in the elect.

Regarding Deut 1:39, those 'children' were all those younger than 20 (the age of men of war, see Joshua 5:6 and Numbers 1:3), and it was because God had condemned a generation from entering the promised land.

With all respect, where do you get the age of 20 in this passage? That verse makes it clear that those who were not punished were "your little ones"...who today, "have no knowledge of good or evil". Last time I checked, a 20 year old is not a "little one" nor does he/she have no knowledge of good and evil.

I understand the generation issue, however, I believe what is being discussed in this instance are infants and small children.

Thanks. I'll look it up. Maybe you can provide a reference. I doubt that it will change my view from the scriptures, though. I don't mean to be egotistical, as I am very thankful for my fathers in the faith, but they all seemed to have their quirks, didn't they?

I believe there is a link above. I love these words by Spurgeon:

"Before I enter upon that I would make one observation. It has been wickedly, lyingly, and slanderously said of Calvinists, that we believe that some little children perish. Those who make the accusation know that their charge is false. I cannot even dare to hope, though I would wish to do so, that they ignorantly misrepresent us. They wickedly repeat what has been denied a thousand times, what they know is not true.

In Calvin's advice to Omit, he interprets the second commandment "shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me," as referring to generations, and hence he seems to teach that infants who have had pious ancestors, no matter how remotely, dying as infants are saved. This would certainly take in the whole race. As for modern Calvinists, I know of no exception, but we all hope and believe that all persons dying in infancy are elect.

Dr. Gill, who has been looked upon in late times as being a very standard of Calvinism, not to say of ultra-Calvinism, himself never hints for a moment the supposition that any infant has perished, but affirms of it that it is a dark and mysterious subject, but that it is his belief, and he thinks he has Scripture to warrant it, that they who have fallen asleep in infancy have not perished, but have been numbered with the chosen of God, and so have entered into eternal rest.

We have never taught the contrary, and when the charge is brought, I repudiate it and say, "You may have said so, we never did, and you know we never did. If you dare to repeat the slander again, let the lie stand in scarlet on your very cheek if you be capable of a blush." We have never dreamed of such a thing. With very few and rare exceptions, so rare that I never heard of them except from the lips of slanderers, we have never imagined that infants dying as infants have perished, but we have believed that they enter into the paradise of God."

Amen Spurgeon!