I'm a new guy, so you will hopefully excuse what is likely the umpteenth million thread started on this issue and allow me to cut my young milk teeth on this issue...

I recently came out of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Great denomination, and I can say nothing wrong of them.

I had to become a credobaptist primarily for the following reasons:

1. When applying a similar hermeneutic as you would toward regulative worship, one must find that the new covenant trumps the old. The types and shadows of the old are fulfilled in the new, and I think that it is nearly unimportant who is in the visible church, in light of the invisible that has been made fully known in the new covenant. Our desire is definitively now to save our children, not make them a token member of some visible fraternity (as sweet as our fellowship is, there are tares). We do absolutely nothing eternal with the water baptism - it is the spirit of God and the visible fruits thereof that we hope and pray for in our children; obviously that is of God alone, but our children reap the wonderful benefit of being surrounded by the true children of the covenant by faith and His Holy word (two of the means by which God saves).

2. When I asked the OPC elders how I should consider a baby that has died after baptism but before they have displayed any fruits of repentance or faith, the answer was, "we should assume that this child is saved." This is the most consistent and systematic version of paedobaptism, as I presently understand. One is imparting the covenant, rather than God laying His guarantee upon it with the sealing in the Spirit. I simply cannot accept this model, in light of God's sovereignty.

3. Somewhat secondary/tertiary, these: The tradition of washings and baptisms is to ceremoniously wash one's sins in the manner of washing one's conscience and/or dedicating oneself to the teaching of a rabbi or sect of Judaism. The mikvah was often done on a regular basis, but just as there is only one bapitsm within the Spirit, we as Xristianos need only wash once. In light of this intent, along with the connection between the Lord's Supper and baptism, along with the admonishment that we need to examine ourselves before partaking of the elements, and with the practice of one fasting and praying and examining oneself in the early church prior to baptism (a great book on this matter is "Baptism in the Early Church", published by ARBCA).

In all things, let there be grace and I apologize if any of this sounds too beligerant. That's not my goal. That would be to crush paedobaptists and prove them wrong (KIDDING!!!).

Sincerely, let God and His word be glorified, and all creeds, confessions, perspectives, assumptions, etc be made secondary. Sola Scriptura, brothers.

Sola Deo Gloria!

__________________
Jeremiah
Member of Hope Baptist Church
Reformed Baptist
Wake Forest, NC

http://www.jpechin.blogspot.com
http://www.hopebaptistchurch.info
http://www.visionforum.com

That is presumptive regeneration; other Presbyterians do not hold such a position. The balanced Presbyterian view is that we expect covenant children - through diligent use of the means of grace - to keep the way of the Lord, however, we do not presume anything. The child is to be warned of the dangers of covenant breaking, and urged to embrace Christ as He is freely offered in the gospel.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

Well... we.... er... we don't get many threads like this.

Come on then, who's going to start congratulating our brother for going paedo to credo? Lots of dittos and icons and stuff?

C'mon baptists, lay it on thick!

Onlllly kidding.

Welcome, Jeremiah, and enjoy the ride.

__________________
Jonathan Hunt

Elder holding forth the word of life at:
Cheltenham Evangelical Free Church (Confessionally Based)
Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, United Kingdom

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
-- Thomas Elsworth

Thank you for sharing.

__________________
Conscience may lash us, but it cannot replenish a languishing life. Conscience may be God's word and minister to you, telling you of your faults and your follies and your destitution. It may point out, but it will never supply you. Christ must give you new life. Hart has well expressed it: "He to the feeble and the faint, His mighty aid makes known; and when their languid life is spent, supplies it with His own." - J. K. Popham

__________________
Pastor Jerrold H. Lewis. (Dipl. IT; Assc. A; B.Th; M.Th Candidate, PRTS)
Lacombe Free Reformed Church
"A hot iron, though blunt, will pierce sooner than a cold one, though sharper."

JOHN FLAVEL

My Blog - Click HERE
Our Church site - Click HERE

This 'balanced Presbyterian view' seems to be pretty clear in the WCF:

Why would an OPC church believe in presumptive regeneration?

__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/


"Preparing a sermon is like cooking a meal. You need pots and pans and utensils, but you don't bring them out to the table where people are eating." Derek Thomas


Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Yeah, the no.2 don't jibe. Niether I nor my Teaching Elder holds to the presumptive view, and I find no merit for it in Scripture. It smacks of popery to me too.

__________________
Andrew DeShazo
Husband of Kathryn
Father of Phillip-Giles B. DeShazo
Deacon
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Memphis, TN
"From out of the depth of unbroken Infinfity arose the Question, "Who am I?" And to that Question there is the answer, "I am God!" -Meher Baba, died 1969.

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Christ, died 33 AD, ressurected three days later.

This does not show how baptism is to be applied to professors only.

Our desire is that God would save our children just as it would have been if we were born under the Old Testament.

The Canons of Dordt teach:

Article 17 - Children of Believers Who Die in Infancy
We must judge concerning the will of God from His Word, which declares that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they are included with their parents. Therefore, God-fearing parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in their infancy (Genesis 17:7; Acts 2:39; 1 Corinthians 7:14).

But you would be wrong to think that.

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

Jerry,
I'm curious, did you ever have any of your children baptized? If so, was it because of theological convictions, or just because that was the tradition you grew up in?

I suppose I'm just curious to know if you have switched churches to one more in line with your convictions, rather than a change of mind on the proper subjects of baptism.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

That would be much more biblical, in that model. The problem, then, though, is that there is really no difference between the presbys and bapties other than a lack of obedience based on the method of baptism based on the model of scripture.

From that standpoint, I would think one would want to use a hermeneutic similar to the regulative principle, right? Can you tell me what the differences are between those methods of hermeneutics and help me to understand why each side uses a different approach when examining covenantal elements? (honestly, trying to learn)

[QUOTE=JonathanHunt;400890]C'mon baptists, lay it on thick! [QUOTE]

Ah. I thought that there were a good number of presbys out here. One gentleman is actually from my old church.

I'm sure I'm opening a but...

So, you would tell a grieving parent that we really can't speak to the eternal state of their dead child? This may seem like I'm playing the "emotional manipulation card", but I think it is a very applicable question to ask: pastors have to deal with this exact sort of situation.

I tend to agree with the Canons of Dordt on this, as quoted by Richard.

__________________
Seth Stark
Member, Communion Presbyterian Church (ARP), Irvine, CA
Biola University, Graduate Student, M.A. - Science and Religion
Seth's Blog

But doesn't the OPC subscribe to the WCF as opposed to the 3 Forms of Unity?

The WCF and Cat.s don't speak to the pastoral question, and only 10.3 on "elect infants dying in infancy" directly address the issue. But the 3FU does substantially state a common Presbyterian position.

At the end of the day, all ANY of us have for ANYTHING in which to hope is God's Word of promise. So, Christian parents are obligated to hope in God's promise to save their child.



**P.S. I'm still waiting for an answer to my above query, Jerry, if you don't mind.**

I think it's a step too far for us to say that believer's child who dies in infancy is elect, unquestionably. If this is true, we should all kill our children as soon as they shoot out of the womb.

I know Dr. Sproul has taken this position, but I don't think he's correct in doing so. I rather think that we can take confort in the fact that God is sovereign and good and that those children dying in infancy have no other option than to depend on the Holy Lord of the universe. That fact conforts me. Even if my child died, I would know God would act judiciously and just with regard to their position before Him, as He would with me.

At the end of it all, have we any reason to answer back to God for Him damning our children or electing them? They deserve either as much as we do. It's a hard pill to swallow but it's the truth.

!!!!!!!

__________________
* Ralph Wilms (7-10-1974)
* Church : Christengemeente Roermond (The Netherlands)
* 1729 Goat Yard Declaration of Faith & 1646 Baptist Confession of faith

"To our mind, either everything or nothing must be held in subjection to the will and providence of God. Even the wickedness of ungodly men is restricted by predestination, so that the wrath of man shall praise God, and the remainder of wrath He will restrain." - GILBERT BEEBE (1800-1881)

It seems to me, the Reformed position is that parents are not to doubt the election of their children, nor assume the election of their children, but simply, as Rev Buchanan states, hope in the promises of God.

I also think Rev Buchanan asks a good question. Waiting for an answer.

I'm not for granting false certainties, however this is nothing but a non sequiter. Should we do this, assuming it were true, we would send them all to heaven at the expense of our own souls--a horrific trade.

Hmm. There are several positions held over the course of Reformed history. The Southern Presbyterians (Thornwell, Dabney, Girardeau) held that children of believers are pagan until converted. Hodge and Warfield held that they are assumed to be (notice the force of the word "assumed") regenerated until proven otherwise (also the position of Calvin). No Presbyterian has ever said that all infants of believers are regenerated. The question is much more like this: how should we treat them? Personally I do not think we need to expect a violent conversion experience, even though that will happen sometimes, even with the children of believers. And I would counsel Baptists on this, too: if your child tells you he is a Christian, you should not only believe them, but nurture them in the Christian faith. We should not teach them to doubt their salvation just because they may not be able to point to a time when WHAM! they became a Christian. Think of John the Baptist, think of the Psalmist, who trusted from his mother's breast. There are many ways of coming to Christ. Some are violent, and some are gentle. Some are "growing into it" and some are pitch darkness to the light of day. We should not force all people into one mold only.

__________________
Rev. Lane Keister
Teaching Elder, PCA, North Dakota (working out of bounds in a CRC and an RCA church)
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com
http://brahmsgreenglove.blogspot.com
http://accenttranslation.blogspot.com
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Jeremiah, I am thankful for the change in your baptismal conviction. Grace to you and your family. I pray you left the OPC church displaying grace to those who were your shepherds in Christ.

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Reformed Baptist
Maryland

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Visit my BLOG Theology for the Rest of Us

I am sure that they do but my point was to show that the Reformed view is that we have no reason to doubt that our children, if they die, are saved. This is founded upon God's promise.

A Presbyterian view can be found in Hodge:

The phrase "elect infants" is precise and fit for its purpose. It is not intended to suggest that there are any infants not elect, but simply to point out the facts -- (1.) That all infants are born under righteous condemnation; and (2.) That no infant has any claim in itself to salvation; and hence (3.) The salvation of each infant, precisely as the salvation of every adult, must have its absolute ground in the sovereign election of God. This would be just as true if all adults were elected, as it is now that only some adults are elected. It is, therefore, just as true, although we have good reason to believe that all infants are elected. The Confession adheres in this place accurately to the facts revealed. It is certainly revealed that none, either adult or infant, is saved except on the ground of a sovereign election; that is, all salvation for the human race is pure grace. It is not positively revealed that all infants are elect, but we are left, for many reasons, to indulge a highly probable hope that such is the fact. The Confession affirms what is certainly revealed, and leaves that which revelation has not decided to remain, without the suggestion of a positive opinion upon one side or the other.

Reformed Theology Resource Center: Dedicated to the Reformed Faith

I'm still waiting to know if any of Jerry's children were baptized. Until I hear otherwise, I'm not assuming there was a "change" in convictions.

Bruce, would the same logic apply in reverse? Not too long ago a person whom I believe has no children announced on the board that he had become a paedo-baptist. Are we to disbelieve this until he has a child and baptizes him?

__________________
Ruben
Moderator
F.P.C.I.
Indiana

Vanities and disguises have covered us, and thereby we are naked; licenciousness hath inflam'd us, and thereby we are frozen; voluptuousness hath fed us, and thereby we are sterved, the fancies and traditions of men have taught and instructed us, and thereby we are ignorant.
John Donne

Board Rules - Signature Requirements - Suggestions?

Calvinistas Conversando
Teología en Mexico
The Howling Wilderness

I remember coming across and argument by Loraine Boettner in his book Studies in Theology where he basically said, "Who is to say that all, babies who die in infancy are not a part of the elect?"

An interesting quote from Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology book 3 page 546 in the section on infant baptism, "The difficulty on this subject is that baptism from its very nature involves a profession of faith; it is the way in which by the ordinance of Christ, He is to be confessed before men; but infants are incapable of making such confession; therefore they are not the proper subjects of baptism. Or, to state the matter in another form: the sacraments belong to the members of the Church; but the Church is the company of believers; infants cannot exercise faith, therefore they are not members of the Church, and consequently ought not to be baptized ."

WCF 28:1 states, ":1 Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ (Mat 28:19), not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church (1 Cor 12:13); but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace (Rom 4:11 with Col 2:11, 12), of his ingrafting into Christ (Rom 6:5; Gal 3:27), of regeneration (Titus 3:5), of remission of sins (Mark 1:4), and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life (Rom 6:3, 4). Which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world (Matt 28:19, 20)."

It does almost leave one (me anyway) with the lingering question that there would have to be two methods of salvation. One for adults, which is the way laid out in the New Testament, and another for babies. Does God suspend what he says is true for everyone else for the sake of babies who are not capable of believing? The answers I have read are along the lines of, babies would have to then be regenerated in the womb. This seems absurd but it is the logical conclusion one must come to in order to have babies who die before being regenerated, saved. On the other hand I do not believe God overlooks sin until a magical age of accountability. If we are all born sinful then we would all be responsible for having our sin atoned for and since the atoning of sin comes through justification through faith the person justified would have to be capable of having faith.

It seems like paedobaptism leads to an inevitable contradiction.

What about the mentally retarded, where do they fall in all this.

__________________
Erick Bohndorf, Redeemer Presbyterian PCA
http://qayaqtraveler.blogspot.com/
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/pr...90&ref=profile
Here is what I have seen to be good and fitting: to eat, to drink and enjoy oneself in all one’s labor in which he toils under the sun during the few years of his life which God has given him; for this is his reward. Ecclesiastes

No to pick a fight, but the Reformed position is not only to hope in the promises of God, but to act on that hope by applying the sign and seal of the covenant of grace to our children.

__________________
Tom Albrecht
Elder, Covenant URCNA, New Holland, PA.

"When I find the time, I'm going to write the social history of bourbon."

So the sign and seal saves now if a child dies in infancy? Is there more grace given to an infant child because of his baptism? I am not sure that is a good Paedo position.

__________________

Norseman Moderator

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Mega

__________________
Satch, Particular Baptist, England
"If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God." Colossians 3.1
http://www.book-academy.co.uk For FREE downloadable pdf commentaries recommended by C.H. Spurgeon, Spurgeon's works, and Great Puritan works.
ECCLESIA REFORMATA ET SEMPER REFORMANDA

There would seem to be Biblical warrant (i.e. David's child) for saying that if a covenant child dies in infancy then we can expect them to be saved as God has promised to be a God unto us and to our seed after us.

It seems to be a stretch to go from 'not doubting' the election of infants of believers as per Dort to 'expecting them to be saved' as per Ritchie based on the obscure passage about David's child. What about the example of Esau? Wouldn't it be safer to not doubt and yet not expect but to just admit it is a part of God's secret will?

(Or am I being a fence-straddler?)

I fail to see how the passage is obscure since David said that he would see the child again. Moreover, I am not sure how Esau comes into it as he did not die in infancy.

It should be noted that the Canons of Dordt are more explicit on the question than the Westminster Standards are.

My comment was directed at the nature of the hope we have for all our covenant children based on God's promise. It was not particular to the matter of infants and death.

The sign and seal is not related to the state of an elect infant dying in infancy. We baptize our children after the command given to Abraham and suitability modified for the new covenant. Not because we think our infant children might die.

Jerry definitely has children of the age to baptize them.

If we said "I believe in covenant-child baptism" as defined and described in the WCF (the OPC std), and as confessed certainly nothing as was described above as a Romish leftover, but never followed through?... I don't think that was any sort of conviction. The same words of the Confession say it is a sin to neglect this ordinance, as described.

From the OP, I read the queries offered to the pastor and elders as a plea to "convince me" that paedo-baptism was legitimate, not a statement that "Hey, I'm wavering here. Answer these new arguments that have moved me away from that which I was taught to embrace originally."

So which is it? Have we changed to a church more in keeping with convictions, or have we changed convictions and so sought out a suitable church?

Answer to the second question:

10:3 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 who are uncapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

To the first point, to be regenerated is to be endowed with a new capacity to believe savingly in the Lord Jesus Christ--previously an impossible condition to meet. In other words, it is necessary to lovingly apprehend Christ, to "see" him with the eyes of faith for who he is.

In our longer-lived selves, that capacity is acted upon in time and our faculties engaged, and we "see" the truth as it is in Jesus. IOW, we exercise saving faith. We individually believe. and are saved. "Without faith it is impossible to please God."

Elect infants also must act on the capacity to believe they have been given through regeneration. Will they? Why not?!? In fact, they will "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" almost without having to "unlearn" anything, since all that growth takes place in his deivine presence. Do you think they believe in him? Will WE still be believing in him in glory? The answer to the latter is Yes, and so must be the former.

Fair enough, Bruce. That answers my question, that it was because of particular circumstances that you had that inquiry.

Mega Ditto's!! (and I have the avatar to prove it!!)

__________________
Timothy Johnson
First United Presbyterian of Moline
PCUSA (Yea, I know)
Theology/Philosophy Sunday School Teacher
Davenport, IA

Water baptism does nothing but guarantee entrance into the visible church, not to the invisible (the primary focus of the new covenant, through faith). Since the goal of the new covenant is to baptize all nations in the triune God, *teaching* them, and getting them to *remember* Christ, it would seem likely that we're seeing a pattern emerge where 'professors' need to be the ones that are baptized into the church invisible, not being concerned as much with the church visible.

Certainly. Then we agree that it matters more for our children to evidence the true sign and seal of the new covenant, which are the fruits of the Spirit in faith and repentance.

Tradition is brought to bear. I see nothing in the scripture references cited that would indicate that a child can 'inherit' salvation by being born into a covenantal family, nor that the visible covenantal sign can impart salvation. Otherwise Ishmael and Esau would be children of the covenant. It is clear that God's sovereignty matters completely more than who is born into a family of believers. Even the entirety of Acts 2 completely qualifies 2:39, with direct context certainly trumping the old covenant.

(regarding my statment on 'popery')

This was meant to be a light-hearted jab and challenge, but I can tell it's been completely blown out of proportion. I've been informed/warned by the moderators that this statement of popery is 'ignorant' and 'inflammatory', so I will speak no longer of it. Suffice it to say that my original statement said "to me" it was thus, and that it was a perception rather than dogma.

Yes, I had all 5 of my children baptized, so they'll be covered either way (sorry, bad joke!). I feel that I was convicted primarily by books/works that I was given to read, along with some key scripture verses. Some of those same scripture verses have me yet convicted of a sort of covenantal paradigm for the family, but one now where my primary field of evangelism is right in front of me.

I have switched churches for many different reasons, along with some that are sinful, to be honest. I'm glad for my current elders, who have helped me to understand that the church that I left have brothers that are going to spend eternity with me, and that my method of leaving lacked a key virtue of God's kingdom - love.

From a Reformed Baptist position, you would tell a grieving parent that we are in the hands of a sovereign God and that we have to trust that He will choose who his elect will be, despite who a child is born to.

Unfortunately, many different 'dogmatic' (for lack of a better word/vocabulary) positions have been laced about this issue, including the age of accountability. There simply is no guarantee from the scriptures, beyond a sovereign God who does with His creation what He wills (Romans 9).

If only I had. But I have, thank God, been convicted by my new elders and by our Lord of my hard heart. I've been changing quite a bit recently, but obviously have a far way to go. God is so good, to take on a despicable creature as myself ("even the dogs...").

It's a great church where I'm at, where all of the elders are involved with Vision Forum. I love it here. They study the reformers a lot (currently on Calvin's Institutes) and memorize scripture together (currently on Romans chapter 8). I also continue to fellowship with my departed church every other Thursday, where we just finished studying Pilgrim's Progress.

A warm welcome from me, Jeremiah!

__________________
Ivan R. Schoen, B.A., M.A., M.L.I.S.
Pastor of Maranatha Baptist Church (SBC)
Poplar Grove, IL, USA
http://maranatha-sbc.org