05-30-2007, 02:24 PM
|
 | Puritanboard Postgraduate | | Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Wrightwood, CA
Posts: 4,762
Thanks: 1,740
Thanked 404 Times in 240 Posts
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnV  I think I can answer both your questions with the same answer. It is God who elects, and it is God who preserves those whom He elects. It is not our place, not even the elders' place, to "put" people into the Covenant. Baptism does not signify that, Ken; it signifies that God has placed someone into the Covenant. In this case, Joshua, I'm not so concerned about adding our own things into the text, but more about putting ourselves in God's place where we have no business.
I think it is very perceptive of you, Ken, to recognize the significance of baptism to this issue. It seems to me that this is where many of us, paedos and credos alike, have difficulty with it. In that respect I'm credo, but I firmly believe that the children of believers are included in that. But it is God's doing, not the church's, or the parents', or even the believer's himself!
And thanks for the kind words, Ken. | I see your point and agree that in some respects all of us are credos, but I was wondering what the rule of thumb was (if there is one) for Presby churches. If an infant is baptized, signifying that God has grafted them into the tree, but later apostasizes for a long season, then repents, is repentance all that is required or should they repent and be rebaptized. IOW does the Presby see the repentance of this individual as God preserving the saint, or regenerating the unbeliever? Was the individual never actually grafted into the tree? Or was he grafted in, by God, and never left the tree?
|