Federal Vision.

__________________
Chris Poe--Attending Grace Community Baptist Church, Mandeville, LA

"There never was a man in the world without a creed. What is a creed? A creed is what you believe. What is a confession? It is a declaration of what you believe. That declaration may be oral or it may be committed to writing, but the creed is there either expressed or implied."—B.H. Carroll

__________________
Satch Chikhlia, Reformed Baptist, Surrey, 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.

So, not saved, but in heaven?

:ROFL:

You're too much.

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

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

I'm not sure if you are really as obtuse as you seem in your last post but this is not terribly difficult to grasp.

The choices are these:

1. We should doubt that the children of believers are in heaven if they die at a young age.
or
2. We should not doubt that the children of believers are in heaven if they die at a young age.

Is it your position that believing parents should doubt that their children are in heaven if they die at a young age? If so, what Scriptures would you marshall to demonstrate that a Pastor ought to counsel grieving parents that their children are in Hell?

__________________
Rich
Okinawa, Japan

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

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

I am not being obtuse, Rick, but would like to get an honest answer for this question: Does the Presbyterian read the Canons of Dort Article 17 which says, "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," and say to themselves, "There! God-fearing parents ought to expect the salvation of their children?"

It seems obvious to me that the 'God-fearing' parent occupies a 'middle-ground' between doubt and expectation. Am I missing something?

__________________

I would think that it's much more obtuse to refuse to believe that there is any other option than those which you list, for any given scripture - that's like saying we're always 100% wrong or 100% right, all the time.

There is a third choice in this situation, which is simply:

3) I don't know. I can't assume or doubt anything because it's not clearly outlined in scripture. It's in the hands of God. He is sovereign and He will determine who are of His elect.

This is a more consistent theology of election. I still have seen nothing from the scriptures that would turn one aside from from the paradigm of God sovereignly selecting his elect, despite any practical and/or conditional application of age or lack of works or supposed lack of sins.

Hi:

Are the promises of God freely offered to the non-elect?

Thanks in advance,

-CH

__________________
In Essentials Unity, in non-Essentials Liberty, in all things Charity.

Robert Paul Wieland
Springs Reformed Presbyterian Church
Colorado Springs, CO
RPCNA

Ken,

I assume you understand that doubt connotes a type of uncertainty that considers something unlikely. It's a type of uncertainty that objects to something that it is not likely to be.

You seem to miss the point that telling someone to not doubt a thing is the same as telling them they must be certain of the contrary. It does not follow.

Those who lack Pastoral wisdom cannot see the substantial difference between saying:

1) Godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.
or
2) Godly parents must be taught the certainty of the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.

The two seem equivalent to the simple minded but they are not. If the simple cannot grasp this substantial difference then I suggest they gain more knowledge before they try to play the wise man.

Even as you attempt to rescue yourself from the charge of being obtuse in this matter you actually prove yourself the same.

As you have just demonstrated you don't doubt and prove my point that we have the option to either doubt or not to doubt the salvation of our children. You choose to not doubt.

No, I said we have no ability to assume, doubt, or ANYTHING when it comes to election, which is completely and utterly determined by God outside of any human parameter or condition. No amount of wordplay will change that.

Has God made a promise to be the God of our children?

Gen 17:7 "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee."

Deut 30:6 "And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live."

Isa 59:20 "And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD. As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

Jer 32:37-40 "Behold, I will gather them out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them again unto this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely: And they shall be my people, and I will be their God: And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them: And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me."

Richard, I believe infants who die go to be with the Lord. But the verses you cited do not necessarily state the Lord has made a covenant with our children. Making a covenant with "thy seed" can be interpreted differently than children born to believers. "Seed" can also apply to the believing covenant community; true followers of Yahweh.

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Grace Baptist Church
Anne Arundel County, Maryland

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

So if a Reformed or Presbyterian pastor is asked to do a funeral for a baby who has died of SIDS. It is the child of a family member who was obviously not saved and they know that you are a pastor and ask you if their baby is "sleeping peacefully in the arms of Jesus right now"...what would you tell them.

Since they are most likely not saved and their children have not been baptized, and cannot be since the parents are known unbelievers, how would you handle that situation?

__________________
Erick Bohndorf PCA, KS
http://qayaqtraveler.blogspot.com/
Jeremiah 23:16,17, "Thus says the Lord of hosts: “Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes. They speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord. 17They say continually to those who despise the word of the Lord, ‘It shall be well with you’; and to everyone who stubbornly follows his own heart, they say, ‘No disaster shall come upon you."

Rich,

To make sure I am understanding you correctly, is it your position that "covenant children" should either be presumed regenerate or unregenerate and that there is no other legitimate alternative?

Some thoughts:

Election and regeneration are not the same; the former decreed from eternity, the latter effected in time. I was elect before I was regenerated. If an elect infant dies before regeneration, he is no less elect.

Paedos baptize their infants only because of the command given that the seed of Abraham – which we are (Gal 3:29) – put “the token of the covenant” (Gen 17:11) on their seed. We would be foolish to assume the election of our children in light of the status of Esau (and the mass of unbelieving covenant-breakers in the progeny of Jacob). And yet, we have reason to hope they are indeed “children of promise”.

Did Esau’s unbelief / apostasy annul God’s promise? If a fruit tree bears some bad fruit is the whole tree bad? God says there are children of the mere flesh, and children of promise.

I have no hope for the dying infants of the wicked. I trust God to do what is good in His eyes. In this area I do not know what is good in His eyes.

The middle ground between doubt and expectation is hope. Not a “sure” hope, but a godly hope nonetheless. It is a hope built on trust in His goodness, and covenant faithfulness.

Were I to counsel believing parents grieving the loss of an infant, I would say, You are godly parents, and have reason to hope in the election of your child. Your trust in your Savior will uphold you.

Our children are not “made…token members of some visible fraternity”, as though circumcision was and baptism is something we made up; they are brought into the organic life of God’s community at His command.

Peter says that the promise – not only of the Holy Spirit, but of the blessing of Abraham in its fullness – is to all who believe, “and to your children” (Acts 2:39). In what respect would it be to their children? Entrance into the covenant is the only answer. On the same basis as aforetime. And the same situation as of old would obtain: not all of the seed of the covenant believers would be elect, although they would have been under the gracious influences of God’s ministry and care:

For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:

But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned. …(Heb 6:7, 8)

If we are indeed “the seed of Abraham” why would we not be subject to the command pertaining to his seed? Because we are in the days of the fulfillment of that covenant are we to reckon it rescinded? On what authority?

Infants of old took on circumcision through the faith – and obedience – of their parents. This obedience seems to be something easily omitted today. As the seed of Abraham we have the exact obligation to initiate our seed into the covenant. Why do some New Covenant believers divorce themselves from this obedience?

__________________
Steve Rafalsky
Elder, International Evangelical Church (Reformed)
Limassol, Cyprus

"I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17)

"Strengthened with all might, according to His glorious
power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness..." (Colossians 1:11)

Wow... It appears that you think I am arguing with you. I would not presume to do so. I was simply asking you if you Presbys believe there is a middle ground between a state of doubt and a state of expectation? I do. But I cannot seem to get anyone to give me a straight answer which leads me to believe that because of his views on covenant children, that the Presby does expect baptized infants who have died in infancy to be glorified. If this is not the view of the Presby then just say so.