Quote:
Originally Posted by shackleton  I guess if one wanted to go to an extreme they could say that since Christ choose his elect prior to the foundation of the world, died for them and wrote their name down in the Lamb's book of life, then elect babies who die in infancy are saved and do not have to come to believe. |
Again, Erick, I think you need to read a few threads that explain the difference between the things hidden and the things revealed.
Just because we're Reformed and we embrace God's Sovereignty in the choice of His elect doesn't mean we get a "by" on the command that the hidden things belong to the Lord and the revealed things belong to us and our children.
Election is revealed to us to ensure that we ground the surety of salvation in the eternal purpose of God to be the author and finisher of salvation for those who believe.
The Church is then given a ministry on the basis of the things
REVEALED. If people, including some theologians, would get that through their thick skulls then some of these "apparent contradictions" would not be apparent contradictions at all.
We do not baptize on the basis of a person's election. If that was the case then NOBODY would be baptized because, though the person may be utterly convinced of his election, the Church could not simply take a man's word for it. If their standard is to baptize only the elect then they would have to base the baptism on something other than profession or birth or any other thing that we could see.
The Church, in any orthodox scheme, can only ever ministerially declare the Promise of God and externally join a person to the Church - no matter the age or the profession. It is God alone, through the Spirit that blows invisibly, that know who among that visible number are.
The apparent contradiction you are experiencing is all because you keep trying to have the invisible break into the visible. It cannot be done. In fact, Erick, you are commanded by God *not* to try to peer into things hidden.
Now, you may conclude (wrongly in my estimation) that children are not proper recipients of Baptism but it will never (and can never be) on the basis of the hidden counsel of God - as if you know that children are or are not elect. You could not baptize professors on the the same standard. It will have to be only on the basis of that which is revealed.
I've stated over and over and over again that the problem that these sorts of discussions have is that some like to assume that, because they are absolutely sure that the New Covenant is with the elect alone, that they have some sort of basis to baptize on profession. It is a fallacy. I am about to try to put together a debate that proves just that point: that if someone grants the Baptist that the New Covenant is with the Elect alone it would not provide the visible Church with a
single name of a person that they need to baptize.
To profess does not equal elect. I say again, to profess does not equal elect. To baptize does not equal elect. I say again, to baptize does not equal elect.
When I was a novice in Reformed theology, I used to try to square who one baptizes with the election of God. I matured in my thinking and came to the realization of the above. While people are muddy in their thinking, they'll gravitate to the idea of an elect people (hidden in the counsel of God) and try to draw a line to who the Church baptizes (things revealed). It cannot be done. It is forbidden that men try to peer into the hidden counsel of God. Full stop.