Quote:
Originally Posted by AV1611  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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV1611 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).