Baptism of Mentally Handicapped

[zsmcd]

Paedobaptist Pastors/Elders,

If a new family came to the faith in your congregation and had an adult child who still lived at home and suffered from severe autism, to the point where no profession of faith was even possible, would you have them baptized and counted as members of the church because of their parent's covenantal standing?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Without hesitation.

WCF 10 Of Effectual Calling

3. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,12 who works when, and where, and how He pleases:13 so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.14​

"Of such is the kingdom of heaven." -- Jesus.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Without hesitation.

WCF 10 Of Effectual Calling

3. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,12 who works when, and where, and how He pleases:13 so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.14​

"Of such is the kingdom of heaven." -- Jesus.

Amen, Bruce.

 

[Dachaser]

So all of those with mental challenges such as that would be under the Election of God in Christ, correct?

 

[Stope]

Without hesitation.

WCF 10 Of Effectual Calling

3. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,12 who works when, and where, and how He pleases:13 so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.14​

"Of such is the kingdom of heaven." -- Jesus.

Am I hearing this correct that the belief is that children of believers are saved if die in infancy (or if they are handicap)?

I want to believe this view, but doesn't Original Sin mean that they are sinners and they are saved by confessing with their mouths (hearts) that Jesus is Lord?

Further, if the reasoning is "he cant help it he was born this way" (meaning a person was born handicap), then doesn't it follow that a person born with a disposition towards alcoholism, thus keeping him from saving faith, could use the same reasoning?

Lastly, if we KNOW infants are saved who are aborted, in a sense wouldn't it "better" for that infant who is aborted and they will 100% be saved rather than be born and then have the possibility that they will not be saved?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

So all of those with mental challenges such as that would be under the Election of God in Christ, correct?

That's too generous an assumption, though no doubt some have made it--probably those who also believe ALL infants who have ever died in infancy were beforehand elected.

Personally, I think the supposition begs. It satisfies only the theologue who wishes to vindicate God from calumny, and rests hope chiefly in sentiment. It divorces the hope of heaven from providential situation (believing parents), and from the covenant where the promises are declared (divine election), and the means of grace (church).

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Am I hearing this correct that the belief is that children of believers are saved if die in infancy (or if they are handicap)?

I want to believe this view, but doesn't Original Sin mean that they are sinners and they are saved by confessing with their mouths (hearts) that Jesus is Lord?

Further, if the reasoning is "he cant help it he was born this way" (meaning a person was born handicap), then doesn't it follow that a person born with a disposition towards alcoholism, thus keeping him from saving faith, could use the same reasoning?

Lastly, if we KNOW infants are saved who are aborted, in a sense wouldn't it "better" for that infant who is aborted and they will 100% be saved rather than be born and then have the possibility that they will not be saved?

Are you obliged to believe God's promise? Such as, "I will be God to you, and to your children?" Actually, his promises are all you ever have to rest in; so much the more when you have no outward profession to bolster your confidence. And if, possibly, the child were NOT elect, but reprobate--an Esau, in other words--then when you arrive in heaven, you will know that the Judge of all the earth does only right. Till then, you cling to the promises you know.

You are saved not BY the mouthing of words, but by Christ's laying hold, through the instrumentality of faith. The confession of the mouth tells what is in the heart. Saving faith is a gift that apprehends the Savior, who does the saving. God gives that apprehension to whom he will, by what means he will. He can bypass the intellect if he wants, as he did in the case of John the Baptist, who leaped for joy in the womb at the nearness of his Lord. But God ordinarily uses the preached Word to move the heart toward him all the life long.

A handicap is a limiting condition, and not sinful; infancy is a limit which is naturally exceeded if time permits. Lack of resistance to inebriation--assuming it is an inherent and irretrievable condition--is sin, and damnable. Why would it be reasonable to equate or connect these conditions? You could say that a man is predisposed to sexual immorality, and cannot help it too. All sin is to be resisted. Do we "resist" blindness or deafness? The categories are quite distinct.

As for the abortion, firstly I don't think all infants dying in infancy are elect, but some surely are; the Confessional statement makes no attempt to define the scope. Secondly, no Christian parent should advocate for one sin (murder) in order to achieve some presumed end. Wouldn't that make the parent more of an unbeliever, and thus not entitled to resting in the promises of God?

Think about it. Peace.

 

[Stope]

He can bypass the intellect if he wants, as he did in the case of John the Baptist, who leaped for joy in the womb at the nearness of his Lord.

---I like this notion if it is true. As of now I will hope it is

A handicap is a limiting condition, and not sinful; infancy is a limit which is naturally exceeded if time permits. Lack of resistance to inebriation--assuming it is an inherent and irretrievable condition--is sin, and damnable

---The drunkard, the infant, the infant all were conceived in sin right? That is to say, they all have a sinful nature? That is they are born (or not born) guilty rather than innocent right?

 

[Toasty]

He can bypass the intellect if he wants, as he did in the case of John the Baptist, who leaped for joy in the womb at the nearness of his Lord.

---I like this notion if it is true. As of now I will hope it is

A handicap is a limiting condition, and not sinful; infancy is a limit which is naturally exceeded if time permits. Lack of resistance to inebriation--assuming it is an inherent and irretrievable condition--is sin, and damnable

---The drunkard, the infant, the infant all were conceived in sin right? That is to say, they all have a sinful nature? That is they are born (or not born) guilty rather than innocent right?

Everyone is born a sinner and deserving of eternal damnation.

Getting drunk is sinful. Being a drunkard is sinful. Infants are sinful, but that does not mean it is a sin to be an infant.

Infants are sinful, but that does not mean that being an infant is sinful.

 

[Stope]

Everyone is born a sinner and deserving of eternal damnation.

+

Infants are sinful

If infants are sinners (who dont yet sin), the fact is they are still sinners and therefore are under the judgment of God?

 

[Daniel M.]

I truly believe that "we don't know, but we are called to hope" is the only satisfactory answer in response to this.

We risk entering the ever-muddy waters of speculation otherwise.

On one hand, we understand total depravity, and spiritual death even at birth. On the other, how difficult indeed it is to mentally reconcile the condemnation of any infant with the character of the God we profess.

Let us consider for a moment the magnificent wisdom of God in withholding this knowledge from us and sparing us the fanatical abuses we would invariably witness here and there.

Say you have a parent with a 10-year-old that is proving to be a "wild donkey" of a child, showing every sign of wanton wickedness. Fanatic in their fear of hell, they turn and murder their 1-year old, to "guarantee" their salvation.


Consider why we baptize infants, all exegetics aside. Now, while I do not in any way claim that the water of baptism is salvific, how do we know God is not in some way communicating with this infant child in baptism? A soothing message of grace, a song of hope even! Did He not lead John the Baptist to leap in his mother's womb at Mary's approach? Does He not tell us that He knew us in our mother's womb?

Let us not impose our desperation onto God's sovereignty and look at Him saying, "You MUST save infants," or in the more unfortunate case, "You MUST NOT."

He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, and He will have compassion on whom He has compassion.

EDIT: Should have read the Reverend's posts before posting mine, lol

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ReformedInSweden]

He can bypass the intellect if he wants, as he did in the case of John the Baptist, who leaped for joy in the womb at the nearness of his Lord.

---I like this notion if it is true. As of now I will hope it is

A handicap is a limiting condition, and not sinful; infancy is a limit which is naturally exceeded if time permits. Lack of resistance to inebriation--assuming it is an inherent and irretrievable condition--is sin, and damnable

---The drunkard, the infant, the infant all were conceived in sin right? That is to say, they all have a sinful nature? That is they are born (or not born) guilty rather than innocent right?

Doesn't he bypass the intellect of us all [emoji6]

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

 

[zsmcd]

You are saved not BY the mouthing of words, but by Christ's laying hold, through the instrumentality of faith. The confession of the mouth tells what is in the heart. Saving faith is a gift that apprehends the Savior, who does the saving. God gives that apprehension to whom he will, by what means he will. He can bypass the intellect if he wants, as he did in the case of John the Baptist, who leaped for joy in the womb at the nearness of his Lord.

Beautifully said.

 

[TylerRay]

If infants are sinners (who dont yet sin), the fact is they are still sinners and therefore are under the judgment of God?

Jason, no one is denying that infants are sinners or that they are under the wrath and curse of God. What the Confession is teaching is that God saves elect infants who die in infancy by grace through faith without their being able to confess it with their mouths. The same is true for the mentally handicapped, etc.

Consider David's statement about his son who died in infancy:

And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me. -2 Sam 22-23

 

[zsmcd]

The discussion regarding elect infants is helpful but a bit off topic. The WCF does not specify the scope, as Rev. Buchanan mentioned, but only acknowledges that God's elect will be saved regardless of age and level of cognitive development. The confession does not say that all infants, dying in infancy, are elect. Rather, it says that elect infants dying in infancy have been regenerated, by the same Spirit as you and I - because they are elect. He also mentioned that we, as believers, have the promises of God to cling to, that he will be a God to us and our children.

Back to the OP, I ask because we would obviously have a younger child with mental disabilities baptized if he had a parent within the church, but I was unsure about an adult offspring of believing parents who had not yet been baptized and was still being cared for by his/her parents even into their old age.

 

[Dachaser]

One could hold that God has provided in the Cross the means to hvae Him freely choose to elect out and save all infants and those with mental challenges, that view is allowed within the Confessions, as this is a grey area of discussion inthe scriptures?

 

[Dachaser]

The basic discussion/disagreement then would be, does God choose to save only the children of elect parents, or does He choose to save all infants, applying the Grace of the Cross towards them all. Am I correct?

 

[Wayne]

Zach: If I'm understanding you correctly, why would the person's age make a difference? The matter boils down to a question of at what point do the parents become obedient in bringing their child forward for baptism.

 

[zsmcd]

Zach: If I'm understanding you correctly, why would the person's age make a difference? The matter boils down to a question of at what point do the parents become obedient in bringing their child forward for baptism.

I mention the age because, in the example, the parents are new disciples and are themselves being baptized and being received into the church. If the mentally handicapped son was an infant or young child than there would be no question as to whether or not they should be baptized. I am wondering if the older age would make a difference.

In my understanding, if the son was just a lazy 32 year old still living at home because he refuses to get a job, he would not be baptized unless he makes a profession of faith and repents of his laziness. However, in the case of the older mentally handicapped son who is still under the covenant headship of his parents, and not just a lazy, he would be baptized and brought into the care of the church since he can make no profession of faith and is still under the care of his parents.

 

[Toasty]

Everyone is born a sinner and deserving of eternal damnation.

+

Infants are sinful

If infants are sinners (who dont yet sin), the fact is they are still sinners and therefore are under the judgment of God?

Yes

 

[Toasty]

The basic discussion/disagreement than would be does God choose to save only elected parents children tosave, or does He choose to save all infants, applying Grace of the Cross towards them all. correct?

That is correct.

 

[Wayne]

However, in the case of the older mentally handicapped son who is still under the covenant headship of his parents, and not just a lazy, he would be baptized and brought into the care of the church since he can make no profession of faith and is still under the care of his parents.

Agreed.

 

[Edward]

The basic discussion/disagreement then would be, does God choose to save only the children of elect parents, or does He choose to save all infants, applying the Grace of the Cross towards them all. Am I correct?

No. More specifically:

does God choose to save only the children of elect parents

No.

does He choose to save all infants

No.


++++++++

"Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word."

 

[Dachaser]

Are you saying then that the Lord has chosen to just save out for Himself elect children, who would be from saved parents?
The God as he reveals Himself in the Bible, and most of all in His Son Jesus would love and provide salvation to be extended towards all infants, would he not?

As though they were sinners as being under Original Sin, he would provide them the means to have Grace for their salvation, something they could not do themselves?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Are you saying then that the Lord has chosen to just save out for Himself elect children, who would be from saved parents?
The God as he reveals Himself in the Bible, and most of all in His Son Jesus would love and provide salvation to be extended towards all infants, would he not?

As though they were sinners as being under Original Sin, he would provide them the means to have Grace for their salvation, something they could not do themselves?

The accepted Reformed position is that we can assert that there are, among all infants that die in infancy, elect infants who die in infancy. We can also assert that believing parents have special warrant to hope that their infants who die in infancy are such (e.g., Luke 18:15,16). Beyond this we may not go. We may legitimately hope, but we may not demand.

For more discussion on this see:
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/34759-Al-Mohler-All-Babies-dying-in-infancy-go-to-heaven

 

[Dachaser]

Didn't Charles Spurgeon himself hold with God saving all infants?


I think that the best answer would be "God only fully knows", and we should just trust the judge of the wholeearth to make the right decision , as Abraham did!

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Didn't Charles Spurgeon himself hold with God saving all infants?


I think that the best answer would be "God only fully knows", and we should just trust the judge of the wholeearth to make the right decision , as Abraham did!

David, please review the link in my previous post, which includes discussion of Spurgeon as well as discussion of the topic of infants dying in infancy. This is a paedo-baptism sub-forum, hence Spurgeon's views on the topic are not really relevant. Let's keep focused on the topic of this thread: Baptism of the mentally handicapped.

 

[Edward]

Are you saying then that the Lord has chosen to just save out for Himself elect children, who would be from saved parents?

No, and I think folks have been rather clear on this thread. Quit trying to ask the same question over and over, and read what has been written to you. In other words, engage with what has been written, rather than remain at your starting point.

 

[ReformedInSweden]

Didn't Charles Spurgeon himself hold with God saving all infants?

The God as he reveals Himself in the Bible, and most of all in His Son Jesus would love and provide salvation to be extended towards all infants, would he not?
As though they were sinners as being under Original Sin, he would provide them the means to have Grace for their salvation, something they could not do themselves?

You mean all infants? All infants of Christian parents? Anyway, I don't think Scripture says that all children (neither all of Christian parents) dying in infancy are automatically among the elect.
To me this way of reasoning is sort of "justifying God for letting infants die and not giving them a chance to repent and believe". I think one should look at it from an entirely different point of view, namely that we're all condemned sinners worthy of eternal suffering in hell. By the grace and mercy of God some of us are saved. That's what Scripture says. No one can ever claim that any of us, infant or not, deserves a chance to repent or deserves to be among the elect. All of us deserve hell. It's pure grace that some of us are elect and saved. We can't demand it, neither for our children who die in infancy. All we know is that God is merciful, gracious and also just.
​

 

[Dachaser]

I agree with you on that truth, was just saying that God could have chosen to have applied towards those unable to receive Jesus through faith the blessing of salvation, as he could have lected to save all infants/those mentally challenged in His mercy. Could He do that? For sure, but did He? Not sure can prove for/against fully fromscripture, so we do end up trusting in God to do the right and just thing. None deserve to be saved, but God could have provided them the means to get saved.