Can infants be regenerated? - Page 2

Scott Bushey · #41 (**permalink**) 11-07-2006, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

On the contrary, salvation can occur outside the preached Word. The Word itself is able to make men wise unto salvation. (2 Tim 3:15) I am short on time and couldn't find the WCF Chapter that affirms this.

On another note, it is quite ironic that a Credo-Baptist would accuse the orthodox Paedo-Baptist position of hyper-Calvinism when it is the Credo that argues for a Regenerate New Covenant membership and, in many corners, denies the invisible/visible distinction that has been core to Reformed Theology since its inception.

Rich,
Give me an example.......

Semper Fidelis · #42 (**permalink**) 11-07-2006, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Bushey

Rich,
Give me an example.......

There is evidence that Timothy was saved by being taught the Scriptures by his family. I'm only repeating what is Confessional and is stated in 2 Tim 3:15 - that the Scriptures are able to make a man wise unto Salvation. That is not to disparage the power of the preached Word, it is simply to note that Scripture does say that a man can become wise unto salvation through the Word itself in a context that indicates that it was not preached in that case.

Scott Bushey · #43 (**permalink**) 11-07-2006, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

There is evidence that Timothy was saved by being taught the Scriptures by his family. I'm only repeating what is Confessional and is stated in 2 Tim 3:15 - that the Scriptures are able to make a man wise unto Salvation. That is not to disparage the power of the preached Word, it is simply to note that Scripture does say that a man can become wise unto salvation through the Word itself in a context that indicates that it was not preached in that case.

Here:

I. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls,[1] is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts,[2] and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word,[3] by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.[4]

1. Titus 1:1; Heb. 10:39
2. I Cor. 12:3; John 3:5; 6:44-45, 65; Titus 3:5; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 1:29; II Peter 1:1; see I Peter 1:2
3. Matt. 28:19-20; Rom. 10:14, 17; I Cor. 1:21
4. I Peter 2:2; Acts 20:32; Rom. 1:16-17; Matt. 28:19; see Acts 2:38; I Cor. 10:16; 11:23-29; Luke 17:5; Phil. 4:6-7

Rich,
Are you taking the term 'preached' literally for every case? When I say 'preached' I do not necessarily mean that a man stood in front of each elect person; it could have been accomplished by reading the scriptures or Christ actually going to regenerate infants destined to die in infancy with HIS WORD; directly, if you will. So, the spirit sometimes preaches.

Semper Fidelis · #44 (**permalink**) 11-07-2006, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elnwood

There you have it, Scott.

I fail to see the irony. I think that the Credo denial of invisible/visible distinction in the New Covenant is consistent (I would never say that, just because someone is a church member, that they are in the New Covenant), and that saving faith apart from the preached gospel, besides not being the orthodox Paedo-Baptist position, as Scott seems to think based on his protest, is consistent with hyper-Calvinism.

But this isn't a credo v. paedo thread. There is another thread to discuss that.

You keep saying this is not a paedo vs credo thread every time someone challenges you on your credo understanding of regeneration. How can it not be a credo or paedo thing when your understanding of regeneration is completely colored by your credo soteriology? It is inescapable.

The irony is that it is not in the nature of the paedo-baptist teaching to conflate regeneration with the Sacrament of Baptism which is the Genesis of this thread. Baptists have the hang-up about signs of regeneration preceding the application of the sign. They also have the hang-up about Covenant participation being a regenerate one as a condition for membership. Tomes are written to the end of establishing the perfection of the New Covenant to attempt to prove that nobody can ever be a member of the New Covenant that falls away as a buttress to the idea that Credo-Baptists rightly only baptize professors.

The point is, then, is that it is natural for you to ask the question about whether infants can be regenerated as if it bears on the question of Baptism. It might for you but it does not for us.

As is also customary to a credo postion, you tend to confuse assensus with regeneration or somehow that the ear organ has to be joined to an intellectual understanding of the Gospel going forward for the Spirit to act upon it. I'm not one given to speculation of definitive proclamations where the Scriptures are silent concerning the exact agency of the Holy Spirit. I do know for a fact, however, that all my children have been present in Church, in the womb, during their gestation period so they were present during the preaching of the Word. They have also been present during their very earliest time outside of the womb and have heard me read Scripture throughout.

Semper Fidelis · #45 (**permalink**) 11-07-2006, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Bushey

Here:

I. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls,[1] is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts,[2] and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word,[3] by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.[4]

1. Titus 1:1; Heb. 10:39
2. I Cor. 12:3; John 3:5; 6:44-45, 65; Titus 3:5; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 1:29; II Peter 1:1; see I Peter 1:2
3. Matt. 28:19-20; Rom. 10:14, 17; I Cor. 1:21
4. I Peter 2:2; Acts 20:32; Rom. 1:16-17; Matt. 28:19; see Acts 2:38; I Cor. 10:16; 11:23-29; Luke 17:5; Phil. 4:6-7

Rich,
Are you taking the term 'preached' literally for every case? When I say 'preached' I do not necessarily mean that a man stood in front of each elect person; it could have been accomplished by reading the scriptures or Christ actually going to regenerate infants destined to die in infancy with HIS WORD; directly, if you will. So, the spirit sometimes preaches.

That's not the Chapter. I need to find it darnit.

Scott Bushey · #46 (**permalink**) 11-07-2006, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

That's not the Chapter. I need to find it darnit.

Key word: "ordinarily"..........

Semper Fidelis · #47 (**permalink**) 11-07-2006, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Bushey

Key word: "ordinarily"..........

For sure. I'm certainly not arguing that the Preaching of the Word is not the ordinary means of salvation. I would NEVER recommend that a person read the Word at the exclusion of sitting under the preaching of it. I think it would just recognize that it's possible, for instance, for a copy of the Scriptures to end up in the hands of a Muslim in the darkest portions of the Arab world and make a man wise unto salvation.

One could argue, for instance, that Luther was converted by the Word itself because there certainly wasn't much preaching going on in his day!

Semper Fidelis · #48 (**permalink**) 11-07-2006, 07:09 PM

I found it. It was in the Shorter Catechism:

Quote:

Q. 89. How is the Word made effectual to salvation?
A. The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching, of the Word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith, unto salvation.185

Q. 90. How is the Word to be read and heard, that it may become effectual to salvation?
A. That the Word may become effectual to salvation, we must attend thereunto with diligence, preparation, and prayer;186 receive it with faith and love, lay it up in our hearts, and practice it in our lives.187

Scott Bushey · #49 (**permalink**) 11-07-2006, 07:19 PM

I found it. It was in the Shorter Catechism:

Quote:

Q. 89. How is the Word made effectual to salvation?
A. The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching, of the Word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith, unto salvation.185

Q. 90. How is the Word to be read and heard, that it may become effectual to salvation?
A. That the Word may become effectual to salvation, we must attend thereunto with diligence, preparation, and prayer;186 receive it with faith and love, lay it up in our hearts, and practice it in our lives.187

How is the above support for your position? Is the above in regards to regeneration and not conversion? I am speaking of conversion. I know that regenaration

Here's something from the confession:

As expressed well in WCF 10-3, where regeneration is folded into the section on effectual call by the divines:

" 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 are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. "

I am saying that God/The Spirit/Christ go directly to individuals and by the Spirit of His word, and convert.

Saving faith is akin to conversion, not regeneration. Regeneration happens by the spirit, conversion by the word; either preached or directly.

NaphtaliPress · #50 (**permalink**) 11-07-2006, 07:20 PM

Rich,
My annual rant.

Words mean things. I don't think God sees the difference between damn and our supposedly more polite minced version, darn.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

That's not the Chapter. I need to find it darnit.

elnwood · #51 (**permalink**) 11-07-2006, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Donald,
Thank you for addressing my post, especially as I was trying to keep the focus on the topic.

That said, don't take this the wrong way, but I don't really think that you have focused on the particular Scriptures I brought forward as they speak to the issue: what the Bible might have to tell us on the subject Can infants be regenerated?

Its almost as if you have decided ahead of time that no Scripture can speak in reference to it, and therefore, anything that I might present should immediately be explained away. If you get rid of all my passages, how will you hold on to the salvation of any infants at all? Pure deduction from the doctrine of election? Salvation apart from faith? Suggesting alternate interpretations implies that you think they are based on superior exegesis and reasoning. But, if such exists, it is not in evidence in your post.

These accusations are subjective criticism, not objective, so I'll move on to the substance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

With reference to John the Baptist

o you see that your comments don't deal with the text at all? Who cares what the WoF churches do? The Bible ties joy in the Lord to salvation. Only the regenerate rejoice in the Lord in any true way. John had the joy of the Lord. Period. Not a WoF imitation. Show me a biblical example of someone with joy in the Lord who wasn't saved. Look at the immediate context, Elizabeth's joy; and verse 47 Mary's joy. What does the natural reading of the text indicate about John's state?

John was "filled with Spirit" from the womb, by prophecy, v. 15; that's NT salvation language; the Spirit didn't just "come upon him" (as in the OT examples of reprobates Saul or Balaam); what does this mean? You never address it. I see your response as dismissive on purely subjective grounds.

1 Samuel 11:15 "So all the people went to Gilgal, and there they made Saul king before the LORD in Gilgal There they also offered sacrifices of peace offerings before the LORD; and there Saul and all the men of Israel rejoiced greatly."

Was Saul saved? He rejoiced greatly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

With reference to David's infant son:Who says the OT concept of death/afterlife was "primitive"? Define "primitive," then prove that assertion. Sheol isn't even mentioned in the passage, so even granting the term (when used) does mean generally "the place of the dead," it doesn't follow from such an expression that the theology of death among Israelites was something like a doctor's waiting room for Judgment Day.

Liberals sometimes accuse the orthodox of "reading a later (NT) theology of death" back into the OT. That judgment cannot be accepted wholesale. Them not having ALL the information does not equate to a History-of-Religions approach to OT theology. Prove to me that David believed all the dead went to basically the same place. When we use similar talk today, no one assumes therefore that we don't have a robust theology of death, do they?

When I mean primitive, I do not mean incorrect. I mean that when they spoke, they didn't speak in terms of heaven and hell. It would be the equivalent of us saying "kicking the bucket," or "pushing up daisies." David spoke of death as a place where you go. (Genesis 37:35 and others). I do not mean that David thought everybody goes to the same place. I am not a liberal. I just think that we need to understand what David means by "go to him" within his historical context.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

As for the idea that the context teaches David's mere resignation: these matters were "written for our instruction," brother, I can hardly believe that you would treat this passage as hardly more than reportage. Do you think this passage teaches us nothing about David's faith? Verses 19 & 20 have him worshipping Jehovah (the covenant name) after getting the news of his son's death. David's statement is in the context of his worship!

You claim the high ground on context in this passage, but I do not think you adequately treat the immediate context, which is David's transition from mourning to not mourning, and that his reason is that his son would not come back from the dead.

That David got ready and went to the temple to worship does not imply that he had joy with the situation. It shows that he went back to his regular routine of worship. Surely you are to worship whether you are joyous or sad?

Read David's ENTIRE statement to his servants. In fact, take the time to read it out loud.

"While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who knows, the Lord may be gracious to me, that the child may live.' But now that he has died, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

Does it sound like a joyous statement? Or one of resignation and acceptance of God's sovereignty?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

With reference to David himself, Ps. 22:9-10; Ps. 71:5-6; and to Jeremiah, Jer. 1:5:And in Jer. 1:5 "sanctified" doesn't mean saved and regenerated... because... ? Citing a different passage proving sanctified musn't always mean saved doesn't challenge my interpretation in the least. It certainly might mean saved. We need a reason why it shouldn't be taken that way. Do you have any reason, any deduction, drawn from Scripture, to suspect that Jeremiah ever had defective faith, from his earliest childhood, or from infancy? Furthermore, you used Jeremiah's case to dismiss two other passages. The passages all speak to the issue in their unique ways.

You don't even touch David, who is "held", "made to trust in" and "cast upon" God. "You are my God since my mother bare me." Ps. 71 adds "taken" to this litany (assuming it is David's Psalm--if it isn't, then that's yet another explicit instance to deal with). Just answer me this: was David at least regenerated as an infant? "Made to trust" is not the language of election, but regeneration. When you were regenerated, it was because God "made you trust" in him too.

The burden of proof is on you to show that sanctified means saved and regenerated in this context. The reason is that "set apart" is the literal meaning of the word. It can mean saved and regenerated too, because God sets us apart for that, and so the NT uses that term, but it does not always mean it.

This is common in the New Testament. Apostle can just mean "sent one," saved can just mean "rescued," deacon can just mean "servant," because those are the primary definitions of the words. Always accept the primary definition of the words, and only import other meanings if it fits with context. We cannot always import the full Christian meanings into these terms.

As for whether Jeremiah ever had a defective faith, I think my very first comment on Romans 5:8-10 applies.

Frankly, I don't have time to apply the principle to every verse you throw at me because the same hermeneutical principle applies. The language is consistent with God being faithful to his elect, having chosen them from the foundations of the world, nurtured them from their conception, and brought them to faith when the Word was preached to them.

Also, since David's Psalms are messianic, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that these passages are referring to Christ and not David, who was the one man who we KNOW was perfect from birth. Many events on the Psalms we know did not actually happen to David.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

With reference to Moses:I agree. Mine says that too... in verse 24, not in verse 23, which is the verse I cited. Easy to dismiss my point... when its not my point. It's Moses' faith, but it is the actions of his parents.

Let's quote the whole verse, shall we?

Hebrews 8:23: By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw he was a beautiful child; and they were not afraid of the king's edict.

"By faith Moses was hidden" -- It's a passive verb. The faith is the parents. I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that Moses' faith spurred the action of his parents. It seems abundantly clear that it was his parents who had the faith.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

As I've said several times now, offering that my interpretation might not be the case because some other interpretation might be the case is not the same as showing that my interpretation is not the BEST interpretation, or that the other is BETTER than mine. Why is your's better? Why should it be taken? Is God telling them he elected them in the womb? Didn't he elect them before time began? Isn't this a salvation passage? Doesn't the very next verse teach that what God began in a sense at their conception he will finish when they are grey of head? "I have made, I will bear, I will carry, I will save."

Because I don't make leaps of logic. I am not saying you are absolutely wrong, but I am saying that you cannot conclusively say, based on words like "sanctified," "carry," "trust," "joy," etc. that this is necessarily referring to regenerate infants. It may be true, I don't know for sure, but it is not a necessary logical conclusion.

Quote:

With reference to the language of effectual calling, as pertains to Jesus, Is. 49:1:
Not addressed. The types of Christ, the anti-type, are whom?

Jesus is the anti-type of all who would be regenerated. It does not necessarily follow, though, that all (and thus even any) of the types would also be regenerated from birth.

Quote:

Donald, I'll make of it the fact that you do not understand the position you are critiquing. Period.

Is this really necessary? Come on. Be nice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

I've already pretty loudly rejected any presumption, as you well know. God's promises to his people are appropriated only BY FAITH. So, if covenant children are not being saved, then by inference, we ought to be criticizing parents and their faithlessness, not diminishing the promises of God to be God to us and to our seed. Why should anyone expect God, who works most often by ordinary means, to act by rote and ignore his people's foolish "presumptions"? And we who understand God's use of means reject that idea. Which thought was the substance of my closing paragraph, and was either misread, misunderstood, or ignored.

Uh, I think you were so upset by my post that you thought I was disagreeing with you here. On the contrary, I was vigorously agreeing with you on this point, and this comment was in support of your post and against those who presume regeneration.

Contra_Mundum · #52 (**permalink**) 11-07-2006, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elnwood

Perhaps I read too much in this, but Bruce wrote this. This is only the end of his post, so you may have to go back and read to get context....He seems to be saying that faith can be obtained by sight (As opposed by hearing, the standard method of receiving the gospel -- Romans 10:14). But is the content of that faith the gospel? (We're talking limited comprehension, so he's probably not referring to using sight to read the gospel and believe).

I seems to me that he is saying that saving faith can be in general revelation of God obtained by sight, apart from the preached gospel (which is what I took it to mean). Either that, or he thinks that the gospel of Christ can be preached by sight without words, in which case I ask for further explanation (picture book, maybe?).

Bruce, please correct me if I have misunderstood you, or if you want to clarify.

No, I'm not talking about natural revelation. I'm not talking about physical eyes--that's why I put the words in "quotes".

When Paul says, "we walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7), he is contrasting faith--and a "natural" vision, a walk or manner of life by "sight" that is exemplified by a purely fleshly vision, the eyes of the body because "the body is all there is."

So, in turn, we can speak of faith as "spiritual vision" or of believers seeing with "the eye of faith" (see e.g. Eph. 1:18 "the eyes of your understanding;" or Gal. 3:1, Gentiles "before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth as crucified" by Paul preaching, who never saw Jesus bodily; or Acts 26:18; or John 3:3).

I'm not talking about faith coming by the physical eye, as opposed to by hearing or the mind and understanding. I'm saying that as a newborn babe truly sees, because his eyes are functioning properly, so also one who is "born again" in regeneration "sees" spiritually also. It is the fact of his faith-seeing, and the Jesus that he "beholds" that saves him, not the exact interpretation he places on the "images" in his brain.

I mentioned the three parts of faith--Knowledge, Assent, Trust--because all are necessary, but the measure will vary by person and proportion. The weakest in brain (infants, mentally challenged) are not going to have a developed Knowledge component. Doesn't mean God hasn't granted them perfectly sound faculty of faith-seeing, a perfectly good "eye of faith."

That one faith-sees doesn't mean that he comprehends much at all, in a higher sense. Such apprehension takes time, it is a product of learning. But he still sees naturally and truly, just as a baby does physically. The infant or mentally challenged person who goes to be with God, having been granted faith-sight as the "condition" of salvation--the only and always instrumental cause--he will grow more in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 3:18) in heaven than they were ever able to do on earth.

Come to think of it, isn't that true of every one of us?

Clearer?

Scott Bushey · #53 (**permalink**) 11-07-2006, 07:24 PM

From the catechism:
Chapter 10 - Effectual Calling

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who worketh when, and where, andhow he pleaseth:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]

12. Gen. 17:7; Luke 1:15; 18:15-16; Acts 2:39; John 3:3, 5; I John 5:12
13. John 3:8
14. John 16:7-8; I John 5:12; Acts 4:12

Are regenerated and saved; two different things! How is this accomplished? By HIS word. The same word that said, Let there be light!

Semper Fidelis · #54 (**permalink**) 11-07-2006, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Bushey

I found it. It was in the Shorter Catechism:

How is the above support for your position? Is the above in regards to regeneration and not conversion? I am speaking of conversion. I know that regenaration

Here's something from the confession:

As expressed well in WCF 10-3, where regeneration is folded into the section on effectual call by the divines:

" 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 are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. "

I am saying that God/The Spirit/Christ go directly to individuals and by the Spirit of His word, and convert.

Saving faith is akin to conversion, not regeneration. Regeneration happens by the spirit, conversion by the word; either preached or directly.

Wow. We really were talking about two different things. I was originally only responding narrowly to the idea that people were only saved by the preached Word. I was only bringing up the fact that the read Word can save. Nothing more.

elnwood · #55 (**permalink**) 11-07-2006, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

You keep saying this is not a paedo vs credo thread every time someone challenges you on your credo understanding of regeneration. How can it not be a credo or paedo thing when your understanding of regeneration is completely colored by your credo soteriology? It is inescapable.

The irony is that it is not in the nature of the paedo-baptist teaching to conflate regeneration with the Sacrament of Baptism which is the Genesis of this thread. Baptists have the hang-up about signs of regeneration preceding the application of the sign. They also have the hang-up about Covenant participation being a regenerate one as a condition for membership. Tomes are written to the end of establishing the perfection of the New Covenant to attempt to prove that nobody can ever be a member of the New Covenant that falls away as a buttress to the idea that Credo-Baptists rightly only baptize professors.

The point is, then, is that it is natural for you to ask the question about whether infants can be regenerated as if it bears on the question of Baptism. It might for you but it does not for us.

As is also customary to a credo postion, you tend to confuse assensus with regeneration or somehow that the ear organ has to be joined to an intellectual understanding of the Gospel going forward for the Spirit to act upon it. I'm not one given to speculation of definitive proclamations where the Scriptures are silent concerning the exact agency of the Holy Spirit. I do know for a fact, however, that all my children have been present in Church, in the womb, during their gestation period so they were present during the preaching of the Word. They have also been present during their very earliest time outside of the womb and have heard me read Scripture throughout.

I say it is not a credo v. paedo issue because it is not. Credo v. paedo concerns who are considered covenant members and who the sign is given to. There are credos who think that God regenerates infants and paedos that think that God doesn't.

I say this because people are deliberately going off topic. Your first "I find it ironic" comment was clearly an aside and off-topic, so I called you out on it. You seem to be doing it again. Put this in another thread.

Semper Fidelis · #56 (**permalink**) 11-07-2006, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Rich,
My annual rant.

Words mean things. I don't think God sees the difference between damn and our supposedly more polite minced version, darn.

I'm sorry if it offended you Chris. I'll not use it though I'm not sure my intent of the use of the Word was in the same way as I would think when I would use the word damn. If it offends, though, that's enough for me.