Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Another example is the injunction sometimes given by paedos to those struggling with assurance look to their baptism. That is little different than the "soul winner" telling someone to look to their decision card or that they walked the aisle and thus to never doubt their salvation. Rather, we should look to Christ.

Originally Posted by Houston E.

(excuse the intrusion, I have been following...)

Fair enough. Given the above, would you refuse baptism of my unsaved spouse (hypothetical), who though not expressing faith, is willing to be baptized along with her children and submit to the headship of her husband in attending worship?

Originally Posted by Houston E.

(excuse the intrusion, I have been following...)

Fair enough. Given the above, would you refuse baptism of my unsaved spouse (hypothetical), who though not expressing faith, is willing to be baptized along with her children and submit to the headship of her husband in attending worship?

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Hard cases also require Pastoral counsel. With millions of elderly people who experience this tragedy it is hardly some hair brained case. If one is going to insist that the significance of baptism is tied to the mental acuity of the person remembering the sign then this question needs to be asked.

This, of course, goes to the point of all sorts of other people who are never fit in the RB schema for baptism. A member of my congregation in Springfield, VA had a normal child struck by a car when he was 8 years old. He was mentally incapacitated thereafter. He could express affection in a way that a parent might be able to ascertain but would never get over the "bar" of profession to add his mental capacity to the meaning of the sign of baptism in the RB schema. He is forever unfit.

These kind of cases demonstrate the poverty of binding up the significance of God's sign in the mental acuity of the recipient. You say "...of course it has significance..." in the case of the person with later dementia but give no reason why it is so since their mental acuity was required to be mixed with the sign in the first place to grant it significance.

I also think you take little stock in the diminishing memories of men who might forget the intensity of their devotion or what they actually thought when they were baptized. I was baptized only 14 years ago and, already, I cannot really put my finger on what it is I really believed about the Gospel at that time. Man's memory fades.

Perhaps I didn't have real faith at the time. A "do over" is in order perhaps because my profession was illegitimate. In fact I had one RB Brother suggest that very thing in your thread. Hence, the practice of re-baptizing every time a person might come to the conclusion that they don't remember the reality of their conversion at the time and the need to ensure that this time I'm really sure I'm converted so I want to make sure I have the full significance of my baptism that points to the apex of my fervor for Christ.

This is completely inverted in signficance. Baptism is supposed to direct a person toward God and His Promise and not direct inward so that the person's comfort rests in the shifting or eroding sands of the memory of a faith he had when he was baptized.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

May I ask, first, which of the baptized in your current congregation are saved from the foundation of the world and how do you know? I'm not avoiding the question, and will be happy to answer your question, but your answer will help guide how I answer the question you asked.

Originally Posted by Houston E.

If you are asking me if I know for certain who is elect in my congregation - I do not.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

One last point of clarification then. When you were asking me, whether or not I would refuse baptism of your "unsaved" spouse, was that in contrast to those that I might hypothetically baptize that are "saved" in your estimation?

Originally Posted by Houston E.

No, this would be in contrast to those that you might hypothetically baptize that are "saved" in your estimation...not mine.
No, it would not be in contrast...

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

I'm sorry, I don't understand. I'm asking you what you meant when you asked if I would baptize an "unsaved" person. If I was in the position to baptize, then my basis for baptizing an individual would not be on the basis of discriminating between the "saved" and the "unsaved". You asked me if I would baptize an "unsaved" person so I'm trying to determine if you are contrasting that activity with the baptism of the "saved". I hope you don't think this is about playing word games here. I'm trying to get honest answers and, I can assure you, I will be forthright in my reply but I want to make sure we're using equivalent terms and ideas before I do.

Originally Posted by Houston E.

I do not think you are playing word games. No, I'm not contrasting the two. I used the word "unsaved" and perhaps should just have left it as "has not expressed faith", to point out the hypothetical situation, of me and my family coming to a church that practices paedobaptism. The question being, would you baptize my spouse (who has not expressed faith) along with my children (who also have not expressed faith) if she is a willing participant?

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The more words, the more confusion. Let's clarify the issue. Baptism is a sign of salvation. Paedos administer it to children, non-paedos do not. Paedos practically acknowledge infant salvation, non paedos do not. It is that simple.

Originally Posted by Houston E.

I'll just speak for myself. I affirm John the Baptist's regeneration in the womb, and I do not adhere to the use of the "specific place and time" language.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

You affirm that on the basis of special revelation. You do not have special revelation in the case of each and every child. All you have is outward participation in the visible church. By not baptising infants there is no such participation, and so there is no practical affirmation of their salvation. They are consigned to outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Originally Posted by Houston E.

So could my spouse (who has yet to express faith) receive baptism along with my children, and in so doing, have participation in the church as well as a "practical affirmation of her salvation"?