Thread: Why I became credo

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Jerry definitely has children of the age to baptize them.

Asked and answered. :-)

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

If we said "I believe in covenant-child baptism" as defined and described in the WCF (the OPC std)... ...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.

No, unfortunately I must be viewed by the OPC as an oath-breaker, which saddens me to think of it. Nevertheless, I am convicted by the scritpures that I was wrong, and that the WFC is incorrect in saying that this is an ordinance commanded by God for our children (or else it would be obviously commanded).

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

From the OP, I read the queries offered to the pastor and elders as a plea to "convince me" that paedo-baptism was legitimate... 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?

I allowed only a short time of dialog with OPC eldership, which is one of the handful of regrets that I have. I also regret that I rather quickly forced those beloved to arm's length and worked so as to quickly separate myself. I need to offer these regrets to them at some point, but I'm not sure about the how/where/when of that. I do know that I'm in the church that I needed to be in for some chastisement, discipleship, and love - God has definitely used this situation for His glory, so far, in my eyes.

Originally Posted by Ivan

A warm welcome from me, Jeremiah!

Thanks, bubba - er - Ivan.

Perhaps I am a little confused, and if so...please excuse me. But, jpechin...are you saying that we cannot know where an infant will spend eternity if it dies?

I have read a lot of discussion on this thread about elect infants...however, is it not safe to assume that ALL infants are elect? II Corinthians 5:10 makes it clear that we will be judged based on what we have done "in the body", whether good or evil. While we all have original sin, we are not judged based upon Adam's sin but are judged according to what we each have done.

I do not believe an infant has committed a sin "in the body", for an infant does not know right from wrong. Also, I believe in Deuteronomy 1 we see a prime example of infants being spared judgment. Deuteronomy 1:39 tells us that it were the children and infants...who "have no knowledge of good and evil"...that were spared from the generation of Israelites punished for their disobedience.

Charles Spurgeon preached a wonderful sermon on the topic of infant salvation, in which he put forth this same view.

Perhaps I am missing the boat here, but just a little puzzled by a claim that Scripture is silent on this issue. I don't believe that to be the case.

Originally Posted by jpechin

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.

What exactly does this mean? I get the VF newsletter and catalogues etc. What does it mean to be 'involved'?

Originally Posted by jpechin

Water baptism does nothing but guarantee entrance into the visible church, not to the invisible (the primary focus of the new covenant, through faith).

So how does this disprove paedobaptism? Why not spend a little time to read David Dickson's Of the Covenant of Grace

Originally Posted by jpechin

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.

By baptising our children we are recognising that they are members of the 'visible' church and that God has established a covenant with them demanding faith and repentance. This is what baptism signifies; as parents, we then raise our children up in the fear of the Lord knowing that God has made a covenant with our child(ren).

Originally Posted by jpechin

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Soli Deo Gloria

Perhaps I am a little confused, and if so...please excuse me. But, jpechin...are you saying that we cannot know where an infant will spend eternity if it dies?

I have read a lot of discussion on this thread about elect infants...however, is it not safe to assume that ALL infants are elect? II Corinthians 5:10 makes it clear that we will be judged based on what we have done "in the body", whether good or evil. While we all have original sin, we are not judged based upon Adam's sin but are judged according to what we each have done.

I do not believe an infant has committed a sin "in the body", for an infant does not know right from wrong. Also, I believe in Deuteronomy 1 we see a prime example of infants being spared judgment. Deuteronomy 1:39 tells us that it were the children and infants...who "have no knowledge of good and evil"...that were spared from the generation of Israelites punished for their disobedience.

Charles Spurgeon preached a wonderful sermon on the topic of infant salvation, in which he put forth this same view.

Perhaps I am missing the boat here, but just a little puzzled by a claim that Scripture is silent on this issue. I don't believe that to be the case.

Spurgeon's sermon: Infant Salvation

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Originally Posted by Soli Deo Gloria

Perhaps I am a little confused, and if so...please excuse me. But, jpechin...are you saying that we cannot know where an infant will spend eternity if it dies?

I have read a lot of discussion on this thread about elect infants...however, is it not safe to assume that ALL infants are elect? II Corinthians 5:10 makes it clear that we will be judged based on what we have done "in the body", whether good or evil. While we all have original sin, we are not judged based upon Adam's sin but are judged according to what we each have done.

I do not believe an infant has committed a sin "in the body", for an infant does not know right from wrong. Also, I believe in Deuteronomy 1 we see a prime example of infants being spared judgment. Deuteronomy 1:39 tells us that it were the children and infants...who "have no knowledge of good and evil"...that were spared from the generation of Israelites punished for their disobedience.

Charles Spurgeon preached a wonderful sermon on the topic of infant salvation, in which he put forth this same view.

Perhaps I am missing the boat here, but just a little puzzled by a claim that Scripture is silent on this issue. I don't believe that to be the case.

Spurgeon's sermon: Infant Salvation

Good sermon by Spurgeon. I am glad that he does not try to make the case for saving faith on the part of the infant.

Originally Posted by Soli Deo Gloria

I have read a lot of discussion on this thread about elect infants...however, is it not safe to assume that ALL infants are elect? II Corinthians 5:10 makes it clear that we will be judged based on what we have done "in the body", whether good or evil. While we all have original sin, we are not judged based upon Adam's sin but are judged according to what we each have done.

I do not believe an infant has committed a sin "in the body", for an infant does not know right from wrong. Also, I believe in Deuteronomy 1 we see a prime example of infants being spared judgment. Deuteronomy 1:39 tells us that it were the children and infants...who "have no knowledge of good and evil"...that were spared from the generation of Israelites punished for their disobedience.

Charles Spurgeon preached a wonderful sermon on the topic of infant salvation, in which he put forth this same view.

Perhaps I am missing the boat here, but just a little puzzled by a claim that Scripture is silent on this issue. I don't believe that to be the case.

This sounds like age of accountability teaching and that God is obligated to save all "innocent" young people prior to committing actual sin.

Originally Posted by Soli Deo Gloria

Perhaps I am a little confused, and if so...please excuse me. But, jpechin...are you saying that we cannot know where an infant will spend eternity if it dies?

The most consistent view of a sovereign God is to lay our faith in the fact that He moves where He wills and wishes. Romans 9 tells us that He predestines some to glory and some to destruction, after telling us earlier that there is not one who is righteous. The elect are completely determined by God. Because I cannot find anything in the scriptures that says all infants who die early are automatically bound for heaven, I must lay my faith in God's design for His elect.

Originally Posted by Soli Deo Gloria

I have read a lot of discussion on this thread about elect infants...however, is it not safe to assume that ALL infants are elect?

I don't think that would be consistent with the fullness of scripture. The wind blows where it wishes. Also, under this model the kindest thing I could do for my children would be to murder them at birth, thereby making the abortionists vindicated. Regardless of my own sin in that scenario, my child is automatically saved.

Originally Posted by Soli Deo Gloria

I do not believe an infant has committed a sin "in the body", for an infant does not know right from wrong. Also, I believe in Deuteronomy 1 we see a prime example of infants being spared judgment. Deuteronomy 1:39 tells us that it were the children and infants...who "have no knowledge of good and evil"...that were spared from the generation of Israelites punished for their disobedience.

We're not saved by our works. Works are the evidence of the elect. If we are judged by our works, it is because we are judged by our spiritual nature first (as we are clothed in Christ, we are allowed to enter into the marriage feast - without Him, we are thrown into the outer darkness). Regarding Deut 1:39, those 'children' were all those younger than 20 (the age of men of war, see Joshua 5:6 and Numbers 1:3), and it was because God had condemned a generation from entering the promised land. This is evidence that covenantal heads of state and family can cause curses to fall on their nation and families as a result of their sin. Completely different from eternal election, from what I see, just as the curses of God upon Israel (Babylon, etc) did not discount an individual covenant member (such as Daniel) from being one of God's elect. There was always a remnant.

Originally Posted by Soli Deo Gloria

Charles Spurgeon preached a wonderful sermon on the topic of infant salvation, in which he put forth this same view.

Thanks. I'll look it up. Maybe you can provide a reference. I doubt that it will change my view from the scriptures, though. I don't mean to be egotistical, as I am very thankful for my fathers in the faith, but they all seemed to have their quirks, didn't they?

Originally Posted by Soli Deo Gloria

Perhaps I am missing the boat here, but just a little puzzled by a claim that Scripture is silent on this issue. I don't believe that to be the case.

I didn't necessarily say it was silent. I doubt scripture is ever silent on any issue. However, the scriptures are pretty clear that our eternal state is determined before the foundation of the earth, not based on legal ramifications or a temporal event. Our election is engineered through means, etc, in a temporal sense, yes, but it is determined before we are born and is based on God's plan, not our works or lack thereof. So, just as our election is secure in God based on his sovereignty and not our works, it cannot be made secure (or otherwise) based on an absence of works, based on who we are born to, nor based on anything in the temporal sense. "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

Originally Posted by KMK

What exactly does this mean? I get the VF newsletter and catalogues etc. What does it mean to be 'involved'?

I go to Hope Baptist in Wake Forest, where the elders are Scott Brown, Dan Horn, Steve Breaggy, and Jason Dohm. They are all regular speakers for Vision Forum and The National Center for Family-Integrated Churches (NCFIC) conferences. If you can imagine the richness of the VF audio sermons fed to you regularly on Sundays (morning and evening), Tuesday mornings, and then with all of the local conferences, you get just a small taste of what it's like to be here. There are men that move from all over the states just to come to this church. No, we're not perfect, obviously, but I absolutely love the vision and goals and I'm so glad that this is where God would have me to be. I love it there, and never want to leave.

Funny thing is, I knew it was here before and decided not to attend, as I was at odds with some of the VF visions. Boy, was that stupid of me!

Originally Posted by KMK

What exactly does this mean? I get the VF newsletter and catalogues etc. What does it mean to be 'involved'?

Oh, by the way, I get to meet Doug Phillips on Memorial Day. I'm completely excited!!!! I'm going to tell him that I want to meet and talk to his brother, Brad, about missions, too.

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.

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).

Originally Posted by jpechin

I'd rather read what the scriptures have to say about it, but I may take a look for curiosity's sake.

David Dickson is explaining the Scriptures.

Originally Posted by jpechin

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 glad you reject presumptive regeneration, so do I. Try these:

Contra Schenck « Building Old School Churches
SermonAudio.com - Children of the Covenant

Originally Posted by jpechin

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 am not advocating, nor do our Standards teach, presumptive regeneration.

Here's an interesting article:

Why I have switched from Paedo to Credo

Originally Posted by JM

Here's an interesting article:

Why I have switched from Paedo to Credo

I found a covenantal credo-baptist argument convincing for a month or two until I realised that the arguments I brought to bear against paedobaptism were in fact founded upon major exegetical errors hence I switched back to the biblical position.

k

Jeremiah,

Congratulations in coming to the credobaptist position.

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

This sounds like age of accountability teaching and that God is obligated to save all "innocent" young people prior to committing actual sin.

I never said God is obligated to save all innocent young people. God isn't obligated to save anyone.

However, it is clear from Scripture that God saves the elect. The question therefore is NOT whether God is "obligated" to save the innocent young people...but whether has God already included them in the elect? Men like Spurgeon and Gill thought so...as well as current Reformed Baptists, like Dr. Al Mohler. So there are many within the Reformed camp who see all infants as belonging to the elect.

I mentioned II Corinthians 5:10 just to express that each of us judged for what we have done in the body, and not for Adam's sin. IMO, this is a key verse when discussing this topic.

Originally Posted by jpechin

The most consistent view of a sovereign God is to lay our faith in the fact that He moves where He wills and wishes. Romans 9 tells us that He predestines some to glory and some to destruction, after telling us earlier that there is not one who is righteous. The elect are completely determined by God. Because I cannot find anything in the scriptures that says all infants who die early are automatically bound for heaven, I must lay my faith in God's design for His elect.

I agree with this. However, once again, there are passages in Scripture that show infants not being punished because they did not know good from evil. Deuteronomy 1 is one such case. I would agree completely that the elect are completely determined by God. I would also say that we can safely assume that all those dieing as infants were included by God in the elect. Do I know this 100%...no. But I believe a strong case can be made for it from Scripture.

Originally Posted by jpechin

Also, under this model the kindest thing I could do for my children would be to murder them at birth, thereby making the abortionists vindicated.

IMO, this is creating a straw man. Of course we shouldn't kill our children...for that would be murder, and hence, a sin. However, if a infant, knowing no right or wrong, dies...I think it is safe to assume that God has included that infant in the elect.

Originally Posted by jpechin

Regarding Deut 1:39, those 'children' were all those younger than 20 (the age of men of war, see Joshua 5:6 and Numbers 1:3), and it was because God had condemned a generation from entering the promised land.

With all respect, where do you get the age of 20 in this passage? That verse makes it clear that those who were not punished were "your little ones"...who today, "have no knowledge of good or evil". Last time I checked, a 20 year old is not a "little one" nor does he/she have no knowledge of good and evil.

I understand the generation issue, however, I believe what is being discussed in this instance are infants and small children.

Originally Posted by jpechin

Thanks. I'll look it up. Maybe you can provide a reference. I doubt that it will change my view from the scriptures, though. I don't mean to be egotistical, as I am very thankful for my fathers in the faith, but they all seemed to have their quirks, didn't they?

I believe there is a link above. I love these words by Spurgeon:

"Before I enter upon that I would make one observation. It has been wickedly, lyingly, and slanderously said of Calvinists, that we believe that some little children perish. Those who make the accusation know that their charge is false. I cannot even dare to hope, though I would wish to do so, that they ignorantly misrepresent us. They wickedly repeat what has been denied a thousand times, what they know is not true.

In Calvin's advice to Omit, he interprets the second commandment "shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me," as referring to generations, and hence he seems to teach that infants who have had pious ancestors, no matter how remotely, dying as infants are saved. This would certainly take in the whole race. As for modern Calvinists, I know of no exception, but we all hope and believe that all persons dying in infancy are elect.

Dr. Gill, who has been looked upon in late times as being a very standard of Calvinism, not to say of ultra-Calvinism, himself never hints for a moment the supposition that any infant has perished, but affirms of it that it is a dark and mysterious subject, but that it is his belief, and he thinks he has Scripture to warrant it, that they who have fallen asleep in infancy have not perished, but have been numbered with the chosen of God, and so have entered into eternal rest.

We have never taught the contrary, and when the charge is brought, I repudiate it and say, "You may have said so, we never did, and you know we never did. If you dare to repeat the slander again, let the lie stand in scarlet on your very cheek if you be capable of a blush." We have never dreamed of such a thing. With very few and rare exceptions, so rare that I never heard of them except from the lips of slanderers, we have never imagined that infants dying as infants have perished, but we have believed that they enter into the paradise of God."

Amen Spurgeon!

btw, Jeremiah...I congratulate you on coming to the credobaptist position! Don't take my discussion with you as anything less.

I have wrestled with the baptism issue now for almost two years. I can say that I am almost settled on this issue, although I continue to study. Blessings to you in your future studies.

[QUOTE=Soli Deo Gloria;401403] With all respect, where do you get the age of 20 in this passage?

Read Joshua 5:6 for the cross-reference to that age, and Numbers 1:3 for the definition of 'man of war'.

Also, I think the main differential between what we are talking about is that all of mankind is damned and going to hell, outside of God's intervention. He is plucking those He desires to save out of creation.

I would also say that age or even experience would be conditions, causing God's election to be conditional.

As this is now moving into a slightly different area, maybe we should start a different thread on the matter.

Originally Posted by Soli Deo Gloria

I never said God is obligated to save all innocent young people. God isn't obligated to save anyone.

However, it is clear from Scripture that God saves the elect. The question therefore is NOT whether God is "obligated" to save the innocent young people...but whether has God already included them in the elect? Men like Spurgeon and Gill thought so...as well as current Reformed Baptists, like Dr. Al Mohler. So there are many within the Reformed camp who see all infants as belonging to the elect.

I mentioned II Corinthians 5:10 just to express that each of us judged for what we have done in the body, and not for Adam's sin. IMO, this is a key verse when discussing this topic.

I hear what you are saying and now you seem to be equivocating.

If by quoting 2 Cor. 5:10 you mean to contend that God only judges actual sin committed in the body, then clearly God is obligated to allow everyone into heaven who has not reached an age where they can commit actual sin. Otherwise, there is no basis for a negative judgment, since you appear to deny that original sin is sufficient for such judgment. This seems like a Protestant twist on the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

You seem to want to get around this by claiming that all "innocent" infants as a class are automatically counted among the elect. Wouldn’t that make God a respecter of person?

I realize that there are many good Reformed men who believe in the election of all infants dying in infancy, but the argument, IMO, is based on reasons other than the explicit Word of God.

That is why the WCF correctly uses the language "elect infants dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ ". It does not presume upon God as to who is elect and who is not.

Originally Posted by jpechin

I don't think that would be consistent with the fullness of scripture. The wind blows where it wishes. Also, under this model the kindest thing I could do for my children would be to murder them at birth, thereby making the abortionists vindicated. Regardless of my own sin in that scenario, my child is automatically saved.

There is a certain crassness in your thinking and expression that indicates an attitude that is troubling to me.

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

I realize that there are many good Reformed men who believe in the election of all infants dying in infancy, but the argument, IMO, is based on reasons other than the explicit Word of God.

And that would be your opinion. I have given you just a few passages from Scripture that seem to indicate God's dealings with infants. Just because you wish to apply a different interpretation doesn't change what those passages say.

I stand by what I have said and the verses given. If you cannot find in those verses the proof needed, then I don't see how I or anyone else could convince you.

I just believe a position such as being advocated by some on this is a very dangerous position to take and one, as Spurgeon says, that is not representative of many Reformed Christians...especially Reformed Baptists. There are many great Reformed men who would cringe at the idea that the Reformed doctrines are being used to teach against the election of infants.

Blessings brother.

Originally Posted by Thomas2007

There is a certain crassness in your thinking and expression that indicates an attitude that is troubling to me.

Was this directed at me Thomas?

If so, I am sorry if I am coming across that way. I do not mean to.

Originally Posted by Soli Deo Gloria

Originally Posted by Thomas2007

There is a certain crassness in your thinking and expression that indicates an attitude that is troubling to me.

Was this directed at me Thomas?

If so, I am sorry if I am coming across that way. I do not mean to.

Hello,

Sorry, I cleaned up my quote, apparently I cut and paste in the wrong place - it was to Jeremy.

Originally Posted by Soli Deo Gloria

I just believe a position such as being advocated by some on this is a very dangerous position to take and one, as Spurgeon says, that is not representative of many Reformed Christians...especially Reformed Baptists. There are many great Reformed men who would cringe at the idea that the Reformed doctrines are being used to teach against the election of infants.

Dangerous? How so?

Are you (or Spurgeon) suggesting that God is unjust if He did not elect all infants dying in infancy, infants who are, by nature, the children of wrath (Eph. 2:3)?

Originally Posted by Soli Deo Gloria

I would also say that we can safely assume that all those dieing as infants were included by God in the elect. Do I know this 100%...no. But I believe a strong case can be made for it from Scripture.

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

Originally Posted by Soli Deo Gloria

I just believe a position such as being advocated by some on this is a very dangerous position to take and one, as Spurgeon says, that is not representative of many Reformed Christians...especially Reformed Baptists. There are many great Reformed men who would cringe at the idea that the Reformed doctrines are being used to teach against the election of infants.

Dangerous? How so?

Are you (or Spurgeon) suggesting that God is unjust if He did not elect all infants dying in infancy, infants who are, by nature, the children of wrath (Eph. 2:3)?

If you admit that you do not know this '100%' and we know that the church throughout history has not known this '100%' then why would it be dangerous to argue against it? It seems to me that it would be more dangerous to argue so emphatically in favor of something of which you admit you are not 100% sure.

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

Dangerous? How so?

Are you (or Spurgeon) suggesting that God is unjust if He did not elect all infants dying in infancy, infants who are, by nature, the children of wrath (Eph. 2:3)?

Dangerous in the sense that it could give someone the wrong impression regarding Reformed convictions. I wouldn't want someone assuming that all Reformed believers thought there was no way to say whether or not infants are part of the elect. That would not be the case.

As I said, many great Reformed preachers and theologians held and hold to the election of infants. That needs to be stated clearly, especially if you don't hold to the election and are counseling someone who just lost an infant in death.

Originally Posted by Soli Deo Gloria

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

Dangerous? How so?

Are you (or Spurgeon) suggesting that God is unjust if He did not elect all infants dying in infancy, infants who are, by nature, the children of wrath (Eph. 2:3)?

Dangerous in the sense that it could give someone the wrong impression regarding Reformed convictions. I wouldn't want someone assuming that all Reformed believers thought there was no way to say whether or not infants are part of the elect. That would not be the case.

As I said, many great Reformed preachers and theologians held and hold to the election of infants. That needs to be stated clearly, especially if you don't hold to the election and are counseling someone who just lost an infant in death.

So we are to never argue about things that contradict the opinions of many preachers who call themselves 'Reformed' because it is dangerous?

Originally Posted by KMK

So we are to never argue about things that contradict the opinions of many preachers who call themselves 'Reformed' because it is dangerous?

Argue and debate is one thing.

Implying that all Reformed believers hold to one view on said topic is another.

If I was to counsel someone who had just lost their infant child, I would be upfront and say there is disagreements on this issue and that many great Godly men have disagreed. Then I would express my view of Scripture to them and most likely recommend reading to them, i.e. Spurgeon's sermon.

However, I would never claim or even imply that ALL Reformed believers agreed with me. And I would hope those who disagree with the election of infants would hold forth the same courtesy.

Being in a Southern Baptist church KMK...I am very aware of how Calvinist can be attacked based on issues such as these. When someone says that "all Calvinists" believe there is no way to know if an infant is going to heaven...that statement bothers me. Because it isn't true. Some Calvinist may believe that, however, many more don't.

Originally Posted by Soli Deo Gloria

If I was to counsel someone who had just lost their infant child, I would be upfront and say there is disagreements on this issue and that many great Godly men have disagreed.

I would not because the Scripture is clear, God has promised to be a God to our children. Does that mean that all are therefore saved? Not at all, but because of God's promise we have no reason to doubt that they are now in heaven.

Originally Posted by AV1611

Originally Posted by Soli Deo Gloria

If I was to counsel someone who had just lost their infant child, I would be upfront and say there is disagreements on this issue and that many great Godly men have disagreed.

I would not because the Scripture is clear, God has promised to be a God to our children. Does that mean that all are therefore saved? Not at all, but because of God's promise we have no reason to doubt that they are now in heaven.

Good point and one to ponder.

Originally Posted by Soli Deo Gloria

Dangerous in the sense that it could give someone the wrong impression regarding Reformed convictions. I wouldn't want someone assuming that all Reformed believers thought there was no way to say whether or not infants are part of the elect. That would not be the case.

I realize Reformed Baptists are somewhat of a different breed, but is there any Reformed denomination or group that has confessionally adopted the position that "all infants without distinction dying in infancy, are no doubt regenerated and saved by Christ"?

Or are you suggesting that the opinion of individual Reformed Christians equates to "Reformed convictions"?

Originally Posted by Soli Deo Gloria

As I said, many great Reformed preachers and theologians held and hold to the election of infants. That needs to be stated clearly, especially if you don't hold to the election and are counseling someone who just lost an infant in death.

If honesty is the issue, are you equally quick to point out to these same folks that not all Reformed folk hold to the notion of universal election of all infants dying in infancy?

Originally Posted by AV1611

Originally Posted by Soli Deo Gloria

If I was to counsel someone who had just lost their infant child, I would be upfront and say there is disagreements on this issue and that many great Godly men have disagreed.

I would not because the Scripture is clear, God has promised to be a God to our children. Does that mean that all are therefore saved? Not at all, but because of God's promise we have no reason to doubt that they are now in heaven.

Who in this thread has been 'doubting'? To say, "I don't know," is not to doubt. I believe the Reformed walk a thin line between 'doubting' and 'expecting'.

If I was counseling someone I would leave out the disagreements among Godly men and just admit that I don't know. It is entirely in God's hands.

Originally Posted by jpechin

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.

It should also be pointed out that a belief in presumptive regeneration underpins and arguably leads to an FV position.

Originally Posted by Thomas2007

Originally Posted by jpechin

I don't think that would be consistent with the fullness of scripture. The wind blows where it wishes. Also, under this model the kindest thing I could do for my children would be to murder them at birth, thereby making the abortionists vindicated. Regardless of my own sin in that scenario, my child is automatically saved.

There is a certain crassness in your thinking and expression that indicates an attitude that is troubling to me.

Not sure why you would say that. There is much harsher language in the scriptures, in general. What I'm indicating is that we should really have no ability to directly affect the eternal status of an individual, and with this model I think you are able to do exactly that. By the way, this example is typical within Christendom - I've heard it a number of times.

Originally Posted by AV1611

Originally Posted by Soli Deo Gloria

If I was to counsel someone who had just lost their infant child, I would be upfront and say there is disagreements on this issue and that many great Godly men have disagreed.

I would not because the Scripture is clear, God has promised to be a God to our children. Does that mean that all are therefore saved? Not at all, but because of God's promise we have no reason to doubt that they are now in heaven.

But that's just the problem. I don't see a direct promise that the children born to believers are heaven bound until they either become covenant breakers or regenerate.