Why I became credo

[Soli Deo Gloria]

btw, Jeremiah...I congratulate you on coming to the credobaptist position! Don't take my discussion with you as anything less.

I have wrestled with the baptism issue now for almost two years. I can say that I am almost settled on this issue, although I continue to study. Blessings to you in your future studies.

 

[jpechin]

With all respect, where do you get the age of 20 in this passage?

Read Joshua 5:6 for the cross-reference to that age, and Numbers 1:3 for the definition of 'man of war'.

Also, I think the main differential between what we are talking about is that all of mankind is damned and going to hell, outside of God's intervention. He is plucking those He desires to save out of creation.

I would also say that age or even experience would be conditions, causing God's election to be conditional.

As this is now moving into a slightly different area, maybe we should start a different thread on the matter.

 

[tcalbrecht]

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.

I hear what you are saying and now you seem to be equivocating.

If by quoting 2 Cor. 5:10 you mean to contend that God only judges actual sin committed in the body, then clearly God is obligated to allow everyone into heaven who has not reached an age where they can commit actual sin. Otherwise, there is no basis for a negative judgment, since you appear to deny that original sin is sufficient for such judgment. This seems like a Protestant twist on the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

You seem to want to get around this by claiming that all "innocent" infants as a class are automatically counted among the elect. Wouldn’t that make God a respecter of person?

I realize that there are many good Reformed men who believe in the election of all infants dying in infancy, but the argument, in my opinion, is based on reasons other than the explicit Word of God.

That is why the WCF correctly uses the language "elect infants dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ ". It does not presume upon God as to who is elect and who is not.

 

[Thomas2007]

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.

There is a certain crassness in your thinking and expression that indicates an attitude that is troubling to me.

 

[Soli Deo Gloria]

I realize that there are many good Reformed men who believe in the election of all infants dying in infancy, but the argument, in my opinion, is based on reasons other than the explicit Word of God.

And that would be your opinion. I have given you just a few passages from Scripture that seem to indicate God's dealings with infants. Just because you wish to apply a different interpretation doesn't change what those passages say.

I stand by what I have said and the verses given. If you cannot find in those verses the proof needed, then I don't see how I or anyone else could convince you.

I just believe a position such as being advocated by some on this is a very dangerous position to take and one, as Spurgeon says, that is not representative of many Reformed Christians...especially Reformed Baptists. There are many great Reformed men who would cringe at the idea that the Reformed doctrines are being used to teach against the election of infants.

Blessings brother.

 

[Soli Deo Gloria]

There is a certain crassness in your thinking and expression that indicates an attitude that is troubling to me.

Was this directed at me Thomas?

If so, I am sorry if I am coming across that way. I do not mean to.

 

[Thomas2007]

There is a certain crassness in your thinking and expression that indicates an attitude that is troubling to me.

Was this directed at me Thomas?

If so, I am sorry if I am coming across that way. I do not mean to.

Hello,

Sorry, I cleaned up my quote, apparently I cut and paste in the wrong place - it was to Jeremy.

 

[tcalbrecht]

I just believe a position such as being advocated by some on this is a very dangerous position to take and one, as Spurgeon says, that is not representative of many Reformed Christians...especially Reformed Baptists. There are many great Reformed men who would cringe at the idea that the Reformed doctrines are being used to teach against the election of infants.

Dangerous? How so?

Are you (or Spurgeon) suggesting that God is unjust if He did not elect all infants dying in infancy, infants who are, by nature, the children of wrath (Eph. 2:3)?

 

[KMK]

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.

I just believe a position such as being advocated by some on this is a very dangerous position to take and one, as Spurgeon says, that is not representative of many Reformed Christians...especially Reformed Baptists. There are many great Reformed men who would cringe at the idea that the Reformed doctrines are being used to teach against the election of infants.

Dangerous? How so?

Are you (or Spurgeon) suggesting that God is unjust if He did not elect all infants dying in infancy, infants who are, by nature, the children of wrath (Eph. 2:3)?

If you admit that you do not know this '100%' and we know that the church throughout history has not known this '100%' then why would it be dangerous to argue against it? It seems to me that it would be more dangerous to argue so emphatically in favor of something of which you admit you are not 100% sure.

 

[Soli Deo Gloria]

Dangerous? How so?

Are you (or Spurgeon) suggesting that God is unjust if He did not elect all infants dying in infancy, infants who are, by nature, the children of wrath (Eph. 2:3)?

Dangerous in the sense that it could give someone the wrong impression regarding Reformed convictions. I wouldn't want someone assuming that all Reformed believers thought there was no way to say whether or not infants are part of the elect. That would not be the case.

As I said, many great Reformed preachers and theologians held and hold to the election of infants. That needs to be stated clearly, especially if you don't hold to the election and are counseling someone who just lost an infant in death.

 

[KMK]

Dangerous? How so?

Are you (or Spurgeon) suggesting that God is unjust if He did not elect all infants dying in infancy, infants who are, by nature, the children of wrath (Eph. 2:3)?

Dangerous in the sense that it could give someone the wrong impression regarding Reformed convictions. I wouldn't want someone assuming that all Reformed believers thought there was no way to say whether or not infants are part of the elect. That would not be the case.

As I said, many great Reformed preachers and theologians held and hold to the election of infants. That needs to be stated clearly, especially if you don't hold to the election and are counseling someone who just lost an infant in death.

So we are to never argue about things that contradict the opinions of many preachers who call themselves 'Reformed' because it is dangerous?

 

[Soli Deo Gloria]

So we are to never argue about things that contradict the opinions of many preachers who call themselves 'Reformed' because it is dangerous?

Argue and debate is one thing.

Implying that all Reformed believers hold to one view on said topic is another.

If I was to counsel someone who had just lost their infant child, I would be upfront and say there is disagreements on this issue and that many great Godly men have disagreed. Then I would express my view of Scripture to them and most likely recommend reading to them, i.e. Spurgeon's sermon.

However, I would never claim or even imply that ALL Reformed believers agreed with me. And I would hope those who disagree with the election of infants would hold forth the same courtesy.

Being in a Southern Baptist church KMK...I am very aware of how Calvinist can be attacked based on issues such as these. When someone says that "all Calvinists" believe there is no way to know if an infant is going to heaven...that statement bothers me. Because it isn't true. Some Calvinist may believe that, however, many more don't.

 

[AV1611]

If I was to counsel someone who had just lost their infant child, I would be upfront and say there is disagreements on this issue and that many great Godly men have disagreed.

I would not because the Scripture is clear, God has promised to be a God to our children. Does that mean that all are therefore saved? Not at all, but because of God's promise we have no reason to doubt that they are now in heaven.

 

[Soli Deo Gloria]

If I was to counsel someone who had just lost their infant child, I would be upfront and say there is disagreements on this issue and that many great Godly men have disagreed.

I would not because the Scripture is clear, God has promised to be a God to our children. Does that mean that all are therefore saved? Not at all, but because of God's promise we have no reason to doubt that they are now in heaven.

Good point and one to ponder.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Dangerous in the sense that it could give someone the wrong impression regarding Reformed convictions. I wouldn't want someone assuming that all Reformed believers thought there was no way to say whether or not infants are part of the elect. That would not be the case.

I realize Reformed Baptists are somewhat of a different breed, but is there any Reformed denomination or group that has confessionally adopted the position that "all infants without distinction dying in infancy, are no doubt regenerated and saved by Christ"?

Or are you suggesting that the opinion of individual Reformed Christians equates to "Reformed convictions"?

As I said, many great Reformed preachers and theologians held and hold to the election of infants. That needs to be stated clearly, especially if you don't hold to the election and are counseling someone who just lost an infant in death.

If honesty is the issue, are you equally quick to point out to these same folks that not all Reformed folk hold to the notion of universal election of all infants dying in infancy?

 

[KMK]

If I was to counsel someone who had just lost their infant child, I would be upfront and say there is disagreements on this issue and that many great Godly men have disagreed.

I would not because the Scripture is clear, God has promised to be a God to our children. Does that mean that all are therefore saved? Not at all, but because of God's promise we have no reason to doubt that they are now in heaven.

Who in this thread has been 'doubting'? To say, "I don't know," is not to doubt. I believe the Reformed walk a thin line between 'doubting' and 'expecting'.

If I was counseling someone I would leave out the disagreements among Godly men and just admit that I don't know. It is entirely in God's hands.

 

[Hippo]

2. When I asked the OPC elders how I should consider a baby that has died after baptism but before they have displayed any fruits of repentance or faith, the answer was, "we should assume that this child is saved." This is the most consistent and systematic version of paedobaptism, as I presently understand. One is imparting the covenant, rather than God laying His guarantee upon it with the sealing in the Spirit. I simply cannot accept this model, in light of God's sovereignty.

It should also be pointed out that a belief in presumptive regeneration underpins and arguably leads to an FV position.

 

[jpechin]

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.

There is a certain crassness in your thinking and expression that indicates an attitude that is troubling to me.

Not sure why you would say that. There is much harsher language in the scriptures, in general. What I'm indicating is that we should really have no ability to directly affect the eternal status of an individual, and with this model I think you are able to do exactly that. By the way, this example is typical within Christendom - I've heard it a number of times.

 

[jpechin]

If I was to counsel someone who had just lost their infant child, I would be upfront and say there is disagreements on this issue and that many great Godly men have disagreed.

I would not because the Scripture is clear, God has promised to be a God to our children. Does that mean that all are therefore saved? Not at all, but because of God's promise we have no reason to doubt that they are now in heaven.

But that's just the problem. I don't see a direct promise that the children born to believers are heaven bound until they either become covenant breakers or regenerate.

 

[jpechin]

It should also be pointed out that a belief in presumptive regeneration underpins and arguably leads to an FV position.

FV?

 

[Pilgrim]

It should also be pointed out that a belief in presumptive regeneration underpins and arguably leads to an FV position.

FV?

Federal Vision.

 

[Zadok]

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.

 

[Zadok]

If I was to counsel someone who had just lost their infant child, I would be upfront and say there is disagreements on this issue and that many great Godly men have disagreed.

I would not because the Scripture is clear, God has promised to be a God to our children. Does that mean that all are therefore saved? Not at all, but because of God's promise we have no reason to doubt that they are now in heaven.

So, not saved, but in heaven?

 

[jpechin]

So, not saved, but in heaven?

:ROFL:

You're too much.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

If I was to counsel someone who had just lost their infant child, I would be upfront and say there is disagreements on this issue and that many great Godly men have disagreed.

I would not because the Scripture is clear, God has promised to be a God to our children. Does that mean that all are therefore saved? Not at all, but because of God's promise we have no reason to doubt that they are now in heaven.

So, not saved, but in heaven?

I'm not sure if you are really as obtuse as you seem in your last post but this is not terribly difficult to grasp.

The choices are these:

1. We should doubt that the children of believers are in heaven if they die at a young age.
or
2. We should not doubt that the children of believers are in heaven if they die at a young age.

Is it your position that believing parents should doubt that their children are in heaven if they die at a young age? If so, what Scriptures would you marshall to demonstrate that a Pastor ought to counsel grieving parents that their children are in Hell?

 

[KMK]

I would not because the Scripture is clear, God has promised to be a God to our children. Does that mean that all are therefore saved? Not at all, but because of God's promise we have no reason to doubt that they are now in heaven.

So, not saved, but in heaven?

I'm not sure if you are really as obtuse as you seem in your last post but this is not terribly difficult to grasp.

The choices are these:

1. We should doubt that the children of believers are in heaven if they die at a young age.
or
2. We should not doubt that the children of believers are in heaven if they die at a young age.

Is it your position that believing parents should doubt that their children are in heaven if they die at a young age? If so, what Scriptures would you marshall to demonstrate that a Pastor ought to counsel grieving parents that their children are in Hell?

I am not being obtuse, Rick, but would like to get an honest answer for this question: Does the Presbyterian read the Canons of Dort Article 17 which says, "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," and say to themselves, "There! God-fearing parents ought to expect the salvation of their children?"

It seems obvious to me that the 'God-fearing' parent occupies a 'middle-ground' between doubt and expectation. Am I missing something?

 

[jpechin]

I would not because the Scripture is clear, God has promised to be a God to our children. Does that mean that all are therefore saved? Not at all, but because of God's promise we have no reason to doubt that they are now in heaven.

So, not saved, but in heaven?

I'm not sure if you are really as obtuse as you seem in your last post but this is not terribly difficult to grasp.

The choices are these:

1. We should doubt that the children of believers are in heaven if they die at a young age.
or
2. We should not doubt that the children of believers are in heaven if they die at a young age.

Is it your position that believing parents should doubt that their children are in heaven if they die at a young age? If so, what Scriptures would you marshall to demonstrate that a Pastor ought to counsel grieving parents that their children are in Hell?

I would think that it's much more obtuse to refuse to believe that there is any other option than those which you list, for any given scripture - that's like saying we're always 100% wrong or 100% right, all the time.

There is a third choice in this situation, which is simply:

3) I don't know. I can't assume or doubt anything because it's not clearly outlined in scripture. It's in the hands of God. He is sovereign and He will determine who are of His elect.

This is a more consistent theology of election. I still have seen nothing from the scriptures that would turn one aside from from the paradigm of God sovereignly selecting his elect, despite any practical and/or conditional application of age or lack of works or supposed lack of sins.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

Are the promises of God freely offered to the non-elect?

Thanks in advance,

-CH

 

[Semper Fidelis]

So, not saved, but in heaven?

I'm not sure if you are really as obtuse as you seem in your last post but this is not terribly difficult to grasp.

The choices are these:

1. We should doubt that the children of believers are in heaven if they die at a young age.
or
2. We should not doubt that the children of believers are in heaven if they die at a young age.

Is it your position that believing parents should doubt that their children are in heaven if they die at a young age? If so, what Scriptures would you marshall to demonstrate that a Pastor ought to counsel grieving parents that their children are in Hell?

I am not being obtuse, Rick, but would like to get an honest answer for this question: Does the Presbyterian read the Canons of Dort Article 17 which says, "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," and say to themselves, "There! God-fearing parents ought to expect the salvation of their children?"

It seems obvious to me that the 'God-fearing' parent occupies a 'middle-ground' between doubt and expectation. Am I missing something?

Ken,

I assume you understand that doubt connotes a type of uncertainty that considers something unlikely. It's a type of uncertainty that objects to something that it is not likely to be.

You seem to miss the point that telling someone to not doubt a thing is the same as telling them they must be certain of the contrary. It does not follow.

Those who lack Pastoral wisdom cannot see the substantial difference between saying:

1) Godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.
or
2) Godly parents must be taught the certainty of the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.

The two seem equivalent to the simple minded but they are not. If the simple cannot grasp this substantial difference then I suggest they gain more knowledge before they try to play the wise man.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

So, not saved, but in heaven?

I'm not sure if you are really as obtuse as you seem in your last post but this is not terribly difficult to grasp.

The choices are these:

1. We should doubt that the children of believers are in heaven if they die at a young age.
or
2. We should not doubt that the children of believers are in heaven if they die at a young age.

Is it your position that believing parents should doubt that their children are in heaven if they die at a young age? If so, what Scriptures would you marshall to demonstrate that a Pastor ought to counsel grieving parents that their children are in Hell?

I would think that it's much more obtuse to refuse to believe that there is any other option than those which you list, for any given scripture - that's like saying we're always 100% wrong or 100% right, all the time.

There is a third choice in this situation, which is simply:

3) I don't know. I can't assume or doubt anything because it's not clearly outlined in scripture. It's in the hands of God. He is sovereign and He will determine who are of His elect.

This is a more consistent theology of election. I still have seen nothing from the scriptures that would turn one aside from from the paradigm of God sovereignly selecting his elect, despite any practical and/or conditional application of age or lack of works or supposed lack of sins.

Even as you attempt to rescue yourself from the charge of being obtuse in this matter you actually prove yourself the same.

I don't know. I can't assume or doubt anything because it's not clearly outlined in scripture. It's in the hands of God. He is sovereign and He will determine who are of His elect.

As you have just demonstrated you don't doubt and prove my point that we have the option to either doubt or not to doubt the salvation of our children. You choose to not doubt.