Thread: Why I became credo

Both editions of the 1689 LBCF I have do not have “Elect infants”, but only “Infants”. Sam Waldron, in his Exposition, says,

“The questions over the meaning of the phrase, ‘infants dying in infancy,’ are a bit more complicated [as compared with those “incapable” –SMR]. In the Westminster Confession the word ‘elect’ is present, while it is deleted in the 1689 Confession. Its deletion does not, however, materially change the meaning of the phrase. The phrase, ‘infants dying in infancy,’ does not assert that only some infants dying in infancy are saved. It does not exclude that possibility, but it does not assert it. It does assert that at least some infants dying in infancy are saved. That is all it necessarily asserts.....

The fact is that the Bible is silent on this issue. It would have been much better, therefore, for the Confession simply to say nothing at this point. For that, I am convinced, is precisely what the Bible says.” (pp. 149, 150)

Ken,

You said,

“I am asking a simple question. Does the Presbyterian believe that, because we should not doubt the salvation of infants of believing parents who die in infancy, that we should in turn expect the salvation of said infants?....I don't understand why I can't just get a simple 'yes' or 'no'.”

In Post #96 I said,

“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.”

Myself, I don’t expect election, as in I assume it will be; rather, I hope, and I pray. So my answer is a simple “no”. I am still hoping, and praying – for the infant in question is now 35 years old, and the profession of faith, and the life, are not such that I would say warrant an assurance of election in my mind (prayer solicited for this precious woman, friends!). And I will continue to hope, and to pray, while I have breath, and she does.

Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

Both editions of the 1689 LBCF I have do not have “Elect infants”, but only “Infants”. Sam Waldron, in his Exposition, says,

“The questions over the meaning of the phrase, ‘infants dying in infancy,’ are a bit more complicated [as compared with those “incapable” –SMR]. In the Westminster Confession the word ‘elect’ is present, while it is deleted in the 1689 Confession. Its deletion does not, however, materially change the meaning of the phrase. The phrase, ‘infants dying in infancy,’ does not assert that only some infants dying in infancy are saved. It does not exclude that possibility, but it does not assert it. It does assert that at least some infants dying in infancy are saved. That is all it necessarily asserts.....

The fact is that the Bible is silent on this issue. It would have been much better, therefore, for the Confession simply to say nothing at this point. For that, I am convinced, is precisely what the Bible says.” (pp. 149, 150)

I am assuming that the only reason that this is an issue is because some come to the conclusion that since the infant never had the chance to 'believe' that it misses out on salvation. I cannot see any other reason why someone would be led to 'doubt' an infant's salvation.

Originally Posted by Zadok

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Originally Posted by Zadok

So, not saved, but in heaven?

I'm not sure if you are really as obtuse as you seem in your last post ........

And if you were to obtain any degree of certainty as to my obtuseness would it necessarily make your arguments any more convincing? Does your role as moderator on this board include the right to label someone "stupid" just because they do not happen to share the light that you think you enjoy?

Zadok,

If you are obtuse and really need elaboration then please read my subsequent posts that demonstrate how foolish you made yourself look in your quip making fun of the Canons of Dordt. Or would you like to demonstrate to me, from the Scriptures, that believing parents of children dying in infancy ought to be counseled to doubt the election of their children? Incidentally, it's not my moderator status that gives me the right to label but your statement that cast questions upon either your slowness or sloppiness. I hold you to the same standard I hold myself and my track record here includes multiple retractions when I say stupid things.

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Originally Posted by KMK

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.

Incidentally, Ruben was concerned that I was directing the fact that the Canons of Dordt demonstrate Pastoral wisdom and that some here lack that wisdom as being directly attributed to you Ken. That was not my intent. I sometimes write broadly and should be more direct. My statement were meant to be interepreted rhetorically and not directed at you per se.

My apologies if you thought I was insulting you. I am trying to be very direct in "re-directing" ideas where people are actually trying to apply a speculative attitude toward a sentence that is Pastoral. As I demonstrated with jpechins comment, it is silly to criticize a statement that we ought not doubt the election of a child and then turn around and say we can't doubt the election of a child.

I am not criticizing anything. I am asking a simple question. Does the Presbyterian believe that, because we should not doubt the salvation of infants of believing parents who die in infancy, that we should in turn expect the salvation of said infants? Your posts seem to indicate that you do not. I don't understand why I can't just get a simple 'yes' or 'no'.

Anyone????

Ken,

Why do you think this requires a simple answer? Why can't you accept the answer that we ought not to doubt the election of our children and operate on that basis? Why is that answer not sufficient for you.

Let me ask you this: Do you expect the election of every man and woman of a majority status to be elect who professes faith in Christ? If you know a person who was baptized as an adult who is baptized do you expect that they are elect?

A simple 'yes' or 'no' is all I'm looking for. I don't want any qualifications or explanations. I don't want any information on the denomination of the person. It doesn't matter. Yes or no: Do you expect that every baptized adult you meet is elect?

Again, this whole question seems to bow down to being able to distinguish between an expectation and presumption. Leaving aside infants for a moment, both sides of the debate must surely expect all adult church members with a credible profession of faith to be among the elect and part of the invisible church who will ultimately be saved. However, we do not presume that every professing adult is truly regenerate, otherwise we would not be able to make warnings against apostasy to members of the visible church such as are found in the epistle to the Hebrews.

“Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist
But the verses you cited do not necessarily state the Lord has made a covenant with our children.”

Is it anywhere stated the LORD has made a covenant with our children? And, if yes, what (per Rob’s question – post 118) is involved in that covenant?

Is not the language of Gen 17:10 decisive on this: “This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; every man child among you shall be circumcised.”

And this is the nature of the covenant made with Abraham and his seed, “...to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee” (Gen 17:7). This covenant is also known as “the promise”. The blessing of the covenant is partaking in the blessing given Abraham: the friendship of God (Isaiah 41:8; 2 Chron 20:7; James 2:23).

“the children of the promise” Romans 9:8

“the children of promise” Galatians 4:28

“heirs according to the promise” Galatians 3:29

“the heirs of promise” Hebrews 6:17

“the promise is unto you, and to your children” Acts 2:39

The Spirit of God says by Paul in Romans 9 that “...they are not all Israel, which are of Israel. Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children [of promise –SMR]....That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” (6,7, 8)

Paul elaborates this theme is Galatians 4, saying of the unbelieving Jews en mass, “Jerusalem which now is...is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.....Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.” (25, 26, 28)

In sum: God has made a covenant with our children, those which are the children of promise. When they are infants, do we know which these are? Even when they are adults we may not know; we may not know till their dying breaths, and even then maybe not. In Glory we will know.

Those whom He has made a covenant with are those who are of the promise. We all seek to raise all our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, that all the benefits of covenant life be given them. And we watch to see the decree of the LORD in its manifestation, which, as I said, may not be clear in our lifetimes.

Rob (CH), I don’t like your language here:

“Were the promises of God in the OT, given to Abraham, offered to the elect and non-elect alike, Jacob and Esau, in the rite of circumcision?” [emphasis mine –SMR]

I prefer “given”. There is too much baggage associated with the word “offered”. And if you insist on using that word, I would insist on defining it to mean “presented to them” as the will of God to be kept, i.e., the circumcision was the sign that they were in covenant with their father’s God, and that they should cleave to Him in trusting love and obedience.* Esau was a covenant-breaker. Yes, it was presented to them both, the covenant with its glorious promises. But it was given only to Jacob, in the decree of God, the only one of the promise.

* In the language of Moses: “See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments...” [emphasis mine –SMR] (Deut 30:15, 16). I take “offered” and “set before thee” as equivalent.

Daniel,

When you said, "...both sides of the debate must surely expect all adult church members with a credible profession of faith to be among the elect and part of the invisible church who will ultimately be saved", I find myself differing.

Here in this country, where a "profession of faith" is a ticket to possible asylum status as a persecuted refugee, I neither expect nor presume regeneration in some cases. I have seen too many charlatans and scoundrels pass through my doors. Some learn the "Christian language" and talk the talk, but are far from it.

On the other hand, I see godly souls who are clearly His people, and here I give my heart as to a brother or sister.

Sometimes it is hard to tell. I do my best to be gracious "as if" they were genuine, still being careful and praying for discernment. I have seen wolves in sheep's cloth do terrible damage.

Perhaps this is an unusual situation, however.

In sum: God has made a covenant with our children, those which are the children of promise. When they are infants, do we know which these are? Even when they are adults we may not know; we may not know till their dying breaths, and even then maybe not. In Glory we will know.

Steve, thank you. That is what I was hoping to hear. "Our children" really means, "the children of promise." God has not made a covenant with all children. His covenant is with elect children.

Daniel,

If your definition is the same as Steve's, then we are heartily in agreement.

Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

Daniel,

When you said, "...both sides of the debate must surely expect all adult church members with a credible profession of faith to be among the elect and part of the invisible church who will ultimately be saved", I find myself differing.

Here in this country, where a "profession of faith" is a ticket to possible asylum status as a persecuted refugee, I neither expect nor presume regeneration in some cases. I have seen too many charlatans and scoundrels pass through my doors. Some learn the "Christian language" and talk the talk, but are far from it.

On the other hand, I see godly souls who are clearly His people, and here I give my heart as to a brother or sister.

Sometimes it is hard to tell. I do my best to be gracious "as if" they were genuine, still being careful and praying for discernment. I have seen wolves in sheep's cloth do terrible damage.

Perhaps this is an unusual situation, however.

Steve

I can see your point, but I do think you are in something of an unusual situation. When I say "expect" I mean in the judgment of charity we should expect those with a credible profession of faith to be among the elect. Because just after the writer to the Hebrews gives one of the most fearful warnings against apostasy in the whole of Scripture (Heb. 6:1-8), he nevertheless expects his listeners to perservere, and so he says to them "But, beloved, we are confident of better things concerning you, yes, things that accompany salvation, though we speak in this manner." (Heb. 6:9).

Daniel,

I can agree with that (your post #129). The emphasis would be on the word “credible”.

---------

In the OT so much of covenant life depends on the headship of the patriarch, and, later, of the heads of the individual families, houses, tribes, and the nation. God dealt with houses, and families, and the nation as corporate bodies. We in this 21st century are staunch individualists! The covenant promises, we opine, are for individuals, irrespective of families!

In the days of the Theocracy, God dealt primarily with Israel, and individual houses, through those who were heads of them; the people of the nation often suffered for the acts of their kings and priests; on the family level, all under the authority of fathers, or husbands, or elder brothers, partook of their blessings or curses. The males were the ones accountable to God.

Circumcision of the males was appropriate to the circumstances of ancient Israel, and the position of authority given them.

In the gospel of the New Covenant God opened to the Gentile nations His gracious salvation. When Jesus came he warned that now things would be different than under the Theocracy of old Israel; there in the families the Law of Moses was acknowledged to be the law of God, and appeal could be made up the chain of command: fathers, priests, judges, rulers, the king. But when Christ came the old authority structure of the Theocracy was set aside; for Jesus said that fathers would be set against sons, and mothers against daughters, and one’s own family members would be one’s enemies and would even put one another to death, houses divided against themselves. The priests and the rulers opposed the Christ, so there was no recourse to their authority.

The old manner of the headship of the father over the family was broken, and the covenant sign placed solely upon him as the covenant head was removed; now women could receive the sign themselves irrespective of their fathers or even their husbands. Sometimes loyalty to Christ separated a woman from her father. Or her husband.

Believing parents (or even one parent – 1 Cor 7:14) brought their children into the covenant of their God, where each soul is invited (by the parents) into union and communion with God, and where the blessing of God is given equally, as in Christ “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female...” (Gal 3:28), but all have equal access and privilege. From infancy this expansion of the covenant blessings to include all on an equal standing before God was taught and demonstrated to them.

As the covenant was removed from its limited range in old Israel and transferred to the new Israel reconstituted by its King (Matt 21:43) – the international community of God’s people, a true holy nation – the sign of membership in that covenant community was changed to accommodate the new status of all members in all nations – male, female, Jew, Greek, slave, free – in their greatly enhanced intimacy with their Lord and Savior. Jesus had finally and completely emancipated all women in His kingdom; He had essentially broken the spirit of slavery as well, as now a servant humanly speaking might well be an elder in God’s Kingdom over a master in the flesh. This “servant” / elder could now demonstrate godly servant-leadership to one secularly over him. The Lord turned the ways of the world upside down in His glorious kingdom.

It is often said that “house baptisms” supposedly with infants in them constitute an argument from silence. There is, however, much more to it than “silence”! We in the 21st century West – as mentioned above – think in terms of individuals, but in the Biblical world – and especially among the people of God – they thought in terms of nations, tribes, and families. God dealt with the heads of nations, tribes and families, and those under them were greatly impacted by their male heads. To wit: the entire human race affected by its head, Adam. The house of Noah saved. The house of Abraham, the house of Jacob, of Achan, of Saul, of David, and so on. The redemptive purposes of God were effected through the families – the houses – of the male leaders of these families. The blessings and privileges of the family in covenant relation to God were constantly expanding and becoming more inclusive over the centuries, till in the time of the New Covenant it opened the way of salvation to the entire world. If the blessings of the covenant now narrowed – to exclude the members of the godly houses under their heads – it would have required an open declaration from God, reversing His primary means of operation. The Baptist view of mere individuals is imposing our paradigms upon an entirely different paradigm which was operative in the ancient world, where the family, tribe, and nation were the objects of God’s dealings. The purpose of this covenant headship over the family was to raise up a godly seed, under the covenant care of the Lord. This then amounts not to silence, but the very voice of antiquity, and Biblical precedent.

Even though we do not have signs in the streets, or broadcast and written in all the media, “You shall not kill”, it is understood that this is the law, the penalty for breaking it extremely severe. Even in the silence regarding it it is known. Likewise in the early Jewish community it was understood that this was the law of God: children are to be included in the covenant – by sign and seal – upon pain of their exclusion from the House of Life, and whoever sins so against his children himself sins greatly against the God of the covenant; such a one is himself breaking the covenant. This law was so deeply ingrained in the hearts and minds of the Jewish people, that a changing of it would have required a momentous announcement, with much explanation. But there is silence. And the law of God loved and practiced for millennia speaks loudly and clearly, even in that silence. Especially in that silence!

Ancient Abraham could not see which of his children or grandchildren were to be born “merely according to the flesh” and which were not, but were, according to the electing grace of God, those of the promise (i.e., carrying forward that promise, as Isaac and Jacob, but not Ishmael and Esau). He could not see the electing decree of God; what he could see was the command given him, and he obeyed it.

Is it possible that the primary thing responsible for many folks' views on baptism is that they unlawfully exempt themselves from that command which has never been cancelled, which is that the children of Abraham are to place the sign of the covenant on their infant seed?

Hi:

Jerusalem Blade wrote:

Rob (CH), I don’t like your language here:

“Were the promises of God in the OT, given to Abraham, offered to the elect and non-elect alike, Jacob and Esau, in the rite of circumcision?” [emphasis mine –SMR]
I prefer “given”. There is too much baggage associated with the word “offered”. And if you insist on using that word, I would insist on defining it to mean “presented to them” as the will of God to be kept, i.e., the circumcision was the sign that they were in covenant with their father’s God, and that they should cleave to Him in trusting love and obedience.* Esau was a covenant-breaker. Yes, it was presented to them both, the covenant with its glorious promises. But it was given only to Jacob, in the decree of God, the only one of the promise.

* In the language of Moses: “See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments...” [emphasis mine –SMR] (Deut 30:15, 16). I take “offered” and “set before thee” as equivalent.

Perfectly acceptable, , it is my contention that those who deny the Free Offer of the the Gospel ("given," "set forth," or "presented") are actually undermining infant baptism, but that may be a subject for another thread.

The "offer" (if you will allow me to use a synonym for "set forth") is presented to all who hear the gospel or have received the sacrament of circumcision. It is offered to all, elect and non-elect alike, but it is effective only for the elect.

The offer was effective to Abraham who "believed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousness," but it was also set forth and presented to his infant children through the sacrament of circumcision. The offer of the Gospel was given to both Ishmael and Issac, but it was effective for Issac only. This we know because the Scriptures tell us so.

Now, we have a Command in the Old Testament that says believers are to be given the sacrament of circumcision. Believers are also Commanded to offer the Gospel to their children (including infants) through the Sacrament of Circumcision as well:

And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, Gen 17:11,12

Does anyone doubt that this is a Command from God Himself? That Believers and their children are offered the Gospel Promises though the Sacrament of the Church.

As I understand it: Credo-baptists argue that, according to Jer 31, the Old Testament laws have been abrogated by the New Covenant. There are many problems with this line of reasoning if one is holding to Covenant Theology.

First, Jeremiah 31 is speaking about the Mosaic Levitical laws, "Not according to the covenant I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt", also, "Which things are an allegory, for these are the two covenants the one from Mount Sinai, which engenders to bondage, which is Agar."

The contrast in Jeremiah 31 is that of the Covenant of Works, "the one from Mount Sinai which engenders to bondage," and the New Covenant. It is clear that the Two Covenants contrasted in Jeremiah 31 are the Covenant of Works represented by the Mosaic Levitical Laws, and the Covenant of Grace found in the New Covenant. (Note: not everything in the Mosaic Law was considered a matter of the Covenant of Works. The 10 Commands have not been abrogated, Marriage is a matter of the Mosaic Law, and Circumcision is also found in it. All of these things existed prior to Moses).

The law that Believers and their children are to be given the sacrament of the Church is no where found in th Covenant of Works. Everywhere in the Old Testament (where circumcision is rightly understood) Circumcision is equated with the Covenant of Grace (or the New Covenant):

And my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant, Gen 17:13.

Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked, Deut 10:6

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, Deut 30:6

The circumcision that Joshua performed, "rolled away the reproach from Egypt," Joh 5:9.

And he gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him, Acts 7:8.

And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also, Rom 4:11.

Paul emphatically argues that the outward rite of circumcision does not make one a member of the Covenant of Grace. The heart must be circumcised, and that is done by faith - as it was done to Abraham prior to him, and his children, being circumcised. This is the same with water baptism and the washing of the Spirit.

Circumcision was not a matter of the Covenant of Works found in the Mosaic Levitical Law, but was a sign and seal in the Old Testament of the Covenant of Grace - the New Covenant. That the sacrament was given to Believers (Abraham) and their children (Ishmael and Issac) by a direct command from God cannot then be abrogated by an appeal to Jeremiah 31.

Second, the outward act of circumcision was not abrogated under the New Covenant it was replaced by water baptism. This is proved by both direct and indirect evidence:

In Col 2:11,12 the "circumcision made without hands" is equivalent to being, "buried with him in baptism." Both circumcision and baptism are here indicatives of the believer being united to Christ.

Indirecty, Circumcision and baptism refer to the same things:

And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, being uncircumcised, Rom 4:11A

1) Abraham was given a "seal" as a sign to establish and confirm the Covenant. Which is the same with baptism.

2) "a seal of righteousness" means a confirmation of the fact that he was righteous. Which is the same with baptism

3) Abraham received this seal by faith - his faith secured the seal. Which is the same with baptism.

Covenant Theology teaches that the Church from Adam to the End of the World (though formally organized under Abraham) is one and the same; identical in all of its essential particulars. Credo-Baptists depart from Covenant Theology here, and they hold to mild or extreme forms of Dispensationalism. The friction between Covenant and Dispensational theologies is where most of the heat comes from in this debate.

Finally, The law requiring children of believers to receive the Promises of God by the Sacrament of Baptism has not been repealed or abrogated by the New Covenant. References to Jeremiah 31 on this matter do not prove the point - since the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, be it circumcision or baptism, were never a part of the Covenant of Works. It is, in fact, a Sign of the Covenant of Grace, or, the New Covenant.

1) In the Covenant of Grace it is Faith that secures the seal: "Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousness." After Abraham believed the sign of the New Covenant was given not only to him, but to his children as well.

2) What, then, would one expect concerning the law requiring the children of believers being baptized in the New Testament as to its continuing obligation?

Ans. One would expect to find some statments affirming, or so speaking as to assume its continued obligation.

We find clear evidence in the New Testament that baptism has replaced circumcision.

We find no clear evidence in the New Testament that "Believers Only" has replaced "Believers and the children." In th Old Testament "Believers," like Abraham, were required to be Circumcised/Bapized, but their children/households were also required to be Circumcized/bapitzed as well.

Where is the evidence that Children are now not being offered the Promises of God in the Sacrament?

The requirement for faith? Abraham had to believe in God before he was given the Sign of the New Covenant. No such requirement was given for an infant 8 days old.

That the New Covenant is only with the Elect? Such is true only in the sense that it is effective for the Elect, but the New Covenant is offered to both the Elect and non-Elect alike.

Everywhere it is mentioned: the New Testament assumes the continued obligation to baptize the Children of Believers:

Peter speaking, not as a Dispensationalist, but as a Jew, under the Covenant of Grace, to fellow Jews points out that, "The Promise is to you, your children, and to those who are afar off, to as many as the Lord God shall call."

The only way the Elect recieve the Promises is by (the Call) the Preaching of the Gospel - "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." Thus, the Promises of God are offered to both the Elect and non-Elect alike. Baptism is given to Believers, like Abraham, and their children. This is the assumption that Peter has made here.

Paul, in answering a question about a split household states that the child of a believing parent is considered a saint, 1 Cor 7:14 (hagios can be translated, "saint.") If the idea of "set apart" is used, then what is the child being set apart for? Paul is assuming that the status of the child of a believing parent is "set apart." Thus, infant baptism cannot be objected to on the grounds of the non-belief of one parent. in fact the unbelieving spouse is considered "sanctified" for the sake of the child!

Household baptisms: Abraham and his household were baptized - Believers in the New Covenant and their households were baptized. The continunity of the Covenant of Grace from Abraham to today is firmly established.

The Promises of God were/are given to both the Elect and non-Elect alike in both the Old and New Testaments. Thus, we are required by Divine Command to baptize our children.

Grace and Peace,

CalvinandHodge

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Jeremiah,

The 1689 LBC, the confession you purport to hold to, states:

Chapter 10 - Effectual Calling

Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )

Are you in agreement with the confession? If you answered in the affirmative earlier in the this thread I haven't read it. The thread is long and I won't be reading each post.

I am in complete agreement with the 1689 LBC on this matter. In fact, I don't think that the status of any infant should be elevated beyond this knowledge in any way. Elect children dying in infancy will go to heaven, and we can say no more. I am simply arguing that to add to this statement is unnecessary - we don't need some heartfelt assurance to families that a child born to their covenant family somehow provides added assurance that their child is in heaven, and this is really beyond what the scriptures firmly establish. God is just in all matters, He establishes His elect, and the wind blows where it wishes, not where we assume.

I hope that this sentence structure is clear enough. It seems like some forum deity is handing out labels of 'obtuseness' for those that don't have perfect knowledge or sentence structure. Careful, he might brand you, as well.

Originally Posted by jpechin

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Jeremiah,

The 1689 LBC, the confession you purport to hold to, states:

Chapter 10 - Effectual Calling

Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )

Are you in agreement with the confession? If you answered in the affirmative earlier in the this thread I haven't read it. The thread is long and I won't be reading each post.

I am in complete agreement with the 1689 LBC on this matter. In fact, I don't think that the status of any infant should be elevated beyond this knowledge in any way. Elect children dying in infancy will go to heaven, and we can say no more. I am simply arguing that to add to this statement is unnecessary - we don't need some heartfelt assurance to families that a child born to their covenant family somehow provides added assurance that their child is in heaven, and this is really beyond what the scriptures firmly establish. God is just in all matters, He establishes His elect, and the wind blows where it wishes, not where we assume.

I hope that this sentence structure is clear enough. It seems like some forum deity is handing out labels of 'obtuseness' for those that don't have perfect knowledge or sentence structure. Careful, he might brand you, as well.

Hey:

If the child of a believing parent is considered a "saint" (read post #131 above), then we can in good conscience make the claim that children of Believers dying in infancy are, in fact, elect, 1 Cor. 7:14.

We comfort bereaved Christian parents by pointing them to the Promises of God found in the Scriptures. The Credo-Baptist position that you hold causes you to look at the situation from the decrees of God. Consequently, you say "I don't know" because no one can know the Decrees completely.

We live our lives by faith in the Promises of God. If we live our lives out of the Decrees, then we would be constantly asking ourselves whether we are saved or not.

The Promise is to you, your children, and to those who are afar off...

Try to leave your credo-baptist prejudices aside, and look at the Scriptures from a Reformed Covenantal perspective.

Blessings,

Rob Wieland

It is possible that this thread is coming to the end of it's useful life...

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

The Promise is to you, your children, and to those who are afar off...

"As many as are called". The promised has been rounded out quite a bit, hasn't it? Also, there are many other qualifiers in the passage and in the language that make this more than a promise for infants.

Originally Posted by jpechin

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

The Promise is to you, your children, and to those who are afar off...

"As many as are called". The promised has been rounded out quite a bit, hasn't it? Also, there are many other qualifiers in the passage and in the language that make this more than a promise for infants.

But it is a strange thing to say if believer's children are now excluded.

Originally Posted by jpechin

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

The Promise is to you, your children, and to those who are afar off...

"As many as are called". The promised has been rounded out quite a bit, hasn't it? Also, there are many other qualifiers in the passage and in the language that make this more than a promise for infants.

Hmmmm. Read post #131. If you have read it, then re-read it.

Thanks in advance,

Rob Wieland

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

It is possible that this thread is coming to the end of it's useful life...

I think so. 137+ posts on this circular topic is more than enough.