If you are in need of a solid, basic web site for your business, church, or organization, check out my web design services at 
Subscribe
My Concluding Thoughts on Paedo Baptism
Posted by Brian Thornton on May 28, 2008
In my previous post, Les and I finally got to a point where I asked the following question in reply to his accusation that I had built a straw man when I said Paedos presume their baptized children are believers until such time as they prove to be or not be:
So, once and for all, can you please explain EXACTLY, EXACTLY, EXACTLY what it is that Paedos consider their unprofessing-yet-baptized children to be – saved or unsaved, regenerate or unregenerate, born again or not born again?
The part of Les’ reply that answered this question was this:
I am trusting in God’s promise to be their God. I do not assume/presume that they are regenerate. I cannot say with certainty that my baptized infant is elect. Of course, neither can you say with certainty that your teenage professing, baptized child is elect either, right?
You ask if I treat them as believers. I think you are mixing biblical terminology. I treat them as special in God’s sight and partakers of the blessings of God’s covenant family and part of His promise. Can they walk away from God’s promise? Surely.
To which I replied the following as my concluding thoughts on Paedo Baptism:
You guys are good, I’ll give you that. I still can’t figure out what it is EXACTLY that you consider your unprofessing baptized children to be. Some of you presume them to be regenerate, some do not…some of you grant them access to the Table, some do not…some of you consider the new covenant to be breakable, some do not, etc., etc., etc.
In the words of Vinny Barberino…”I’M SO CONFUSED!!!”
-you say you do not assume/presume they are regenerate, yet you give them membership into the church as if they are
-you say they are recipients of the promise, yet you cannot say with certainty that they are elect
-you say that God has promised a myriad of things concerning them, yet if they do not get saved, God has still somehow kept His promises and is not a liar
-you say they are not heirs according to the flesh, but you consider them heirs of the promise because of who they were born to
AAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!
I fear that I must agree with a dear Credo Christian brother of mine when he says, “I am just not smart enough to see what Paedos see!”
I’m just going to have to continue following the explicit examples and commands I see in the NT concerning baptism…that is the easiest and most straightforward thing for me to do. This Paedo thing just has too many variations and unattainable reasonings for me to get a handle on it.
Steve Edwards said
Brian:
Thanks for doing some heavy lifting for us credo’s. I lurked and followed these threads but just couldn’t find the time required to get involved. As a credo who’s currently visiting a PCA church, I’ve already had a few interactions with Paedo’s with widely differing views of infant baptism. It’s been interesting.
Thanks for putting the time into this discussion. Thanks to Les and Danny for their input as well.
danny said
“You guys are good, I’ll give you that. I still can’t figure out what it is EXACTLY that you consider your unprofessing baptized children to be. Some of you presume them to be regenerate, some do not…some of you grant them access to the Table, some do not…some of you consider the new covenant to be breakable, some do not, etc., etc., etc.”
For the sake of THIS current argument and discussion, we need to interact with one another’s arguments and not bring in all possible combinations.
Otherwise, I could just as easily say, “I DON’T GET YOU BAPTIST PEOPLE! Some of you say that baptism is necessary for salvation, some of you say that baptism is regenerative, and some of you say it’s just an outward sign of an inward reality. Some of you will re-baptize a person every single time they make a re-commitment if they decide their previous committment was false, but some of you only baptize once, and others will make you be re-baptized when you become a member of their church. Other religions who practice credo-baptism, baptize the dead but others say we shouldn’t. AHHH, you baptist people are so confusing! Which is it?!?!”
You see, we can pull a guilt by association as well, but it’s all irrevelant because we are interacting with our specific viewpoints.
“you say you do not assume/presume they are regenerate, yet you give them membership into the church as if they are”
I think you are confusing the invisible/visible church distinction again.
“you say they are recipients of the promise, yet you cannot say with certainty that they are elect”
Every covenant has its stipulations and its blessings if you ratify the covenant and its cursings if you don’t. God promises forgiveness of sins and salvation, the promise must be ratified through faith. That doesn’t seem too confusing to me. Look at the example in Romans 4. Abraham was given the sign AFTER his faith (credo-circumcision) and this sign was specifically a sign and seal of God’s righteousness obtained through faith. He then placed that same sign on Isaac (paedo-circumcision) which showed that God promised the same thing to him granted that he ratify the promise just as Abraham did.
“you say that God has promised a myriad of things concerning them, yet if they do not get saved, God has still somehow kept His promises and is not a liar”
I wish the Bible addressed this, oh wait, it does!
Romans 3:1-3
What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God. What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God’s faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar.
“you say they are not heirs according to the flesh, but you consider them heirs of the promise because of who they were born to”
The Abrahamic promise was echoed in Acts 2, “to you and your children and all who are far off, as many as the Lord will call”
Again, we live out the promises of God, not His secret plan of election. That’s where I thinking you are confusing promise with election.
This is taken from my comments to Arthur and feel free to respond:
Why is there not a single peep about children being included on tuesday and excluded on wednesday? Obviously, God’s covenant relationship with his people is one of the main thrusts in scripture. God made it very clear that children of believers were included in the OT. If God is an everlasting covenant God, what causes His dealings to change in His covenant relationship with His people?
Just a reminder, Jer. 31/Heb. 8 contrasts the Mosaic and the New, not the Abrahamic and the New. The New is the re-affirmation of the Abrahamic (Gal. 3).
We agree that there runs an overaching covenant of grace that began in the garden after the fall and given a sign w/ Abraham. So, if there is this everlasting covenant of grace that runs through scripture, why are children included with Abraham but not in the New? Why was the sign given to Abraham’s offspring when the sign was specifically a sign and seal of God’s righteousness credited through faith, not merely a physical, ethnic land promise sign.
Where is the discontinuity in Scripture between the Abrahamic and the New that you affirm? Every single covenant in the Bible starting with Adam included the believer and his household. Where is the household principle abrogated in Scripture in regards to the new?
Lastly, I would encourage you to read Hebrews 8 in the proper context of Hebrews 4:14-10:39, where the focus is on the priesthood of the mosaic vs. the priesthood of Christ and not on an external vs. internal because the law being written on the heart and the forgiveness of sins happened in the OT just as it does in the NT.
Brian, I sense that when you see Hebrews 8, you are comparing the Abrahamic with the New instead of the MOSAIC with the New. Remember, circumcision was given to Abraham first, not to Moses. The New covenant is new in relation to the Mosaic. The Abrahamic is an everlasting covenant, so where is this principle abrogated?
As far as the interpretation of the Jeremiah 31 prophecy, can you please explain to me how everyone in the New Covenant today is consistent by not teaching or telling one’s brother or neighbor to “know the Lord?”
I hope to continue our dialog (I will respond on the other thread about Eph. 6:1).
Blessings,
Danny
Brian Thornton said
This is something that I just posted over at Les’ blog, and I think it might be beneficial here as well. It concerns the characterization by Paedos (specifically by Les) that Credos are demanding an explicit command in Scripture for every belief and practice of the church. The first part (blockquoted) is a statement by him, and then my reply:
Amen! I believe that completely, and I have NEVER said that every belief and practice demands an explicit proof via chapter and verse. That, my friend, is what I believe you would call a straw man argument.
I do not demand or require an explicit chapter and verse for every single belief and practice in the Christian faith. I am, however, strongly influenced by direct commands and examples of what I see taking place in Scripture concerning baptism (because we do have some direct commands in Scripture concerning baptism). And the direct commands and examples in Scripture concerning baptism do not in any way address or support infant baptism. The explicit instructions/commands we see in Scripture are to baptize those who have first repented and believed. The explicit examples we have of those being baptized are only those who have first repented and expressed faith. Now, you can certainly assume or infer that infants were being baptized (that’s certainly your right to do), but both sides should be able to agree that there are no examples of such a practice in the NT.
This is not conjecture or speculation…this is fact. Therefore, while I certainly see the reason for your practice of infant baptism, I do not see it being practiced or even commanded in Scripture. What I do see in Scripture, as I said above, are baptisms of those who have first expressed repentance and faith.
That is why I believe Credo-Baptism is the only correct and biblical practice.
I hope that helps you see where I am coming from, and also helps you to see that while some may, I do not require an explicit command for every church practice, and I don’t think most other Credos do either. On the subject of baptism, though, I and they see an overwhelming example of the practice that was carried out in the early church, and infant baptism (according to what we have in inspired Scripture) was not a part of it.
Thanks.
Les Prouty said
Brian, I thought of a document which says well what most all of us paedos (PCA) believe concerning our children:
“We affirm that all those baptized into the covenant community receive certain covenant blessings, whether elect or not, and that these blessings include the regular preaching of God’s Word; the watchful care, pastoral oversight, instruction and government of the Church; the nurture of believing parents; and the regular call to place their faith in Christ (WLC 63; WLC 166; BCO 56-1). Believing that one is inseparably united to Christ by his/her faith alone, we deny that the ritual act of baptism apart from faith unites us to Christ. Further, since God alone sees what is invisible to us, we deny that the whole visible church is united to Christ by virtue of the ritual act of baptism (WLC 61).”
This is from page 5 of the Report of the Missouri Presbytery Study Committee on Federal Vision Theology. It may be found in this link for any interested.
http://www.federal-vision.com/pdf/mopres.pdf
FYI
Les
Brian Thornton said
Hey Les!
Thanks for that link and for the quote. What I find interesting is that, apart from the actual activity of being baptized, my children are benefiting from EXACTLY the same things as those who are baptized.
My children, while not baptized, also receive the following:
1. Regular preaching of God’s Word
2. Watchful care
3. Pastoral oversight (depending on what is meant here)
4. Instruction and government of the Church
5. The nurture of believing parents
6. Regular call to place their faith in Christ
Thanks again for the info.
Brian
Les Prouty said
See, wemre not so different after all. Praise God that both our sets of children are being reared in such settings.
Les
Les Prouty said
Spelling? Posted from my phone. Sorry bout that.
danny said
Brian, when you have some time, I would appreciate your interaction on this thread from my comment above and as well as the initial post.
Blessings,
Danny
Puritan Lad said
“So, once and for all, can you please explain EXACTLY, EXACTLY, EXACTLY what it is that Paedos consider their unprofessing-yet-baptized children to be – saved or unsaved, regenerate or unregenerate, born again or not born again?
We consider them to be holy, because God does, where otherwise they would be unclean (1 Cor. 7:14).
Let me add that this line of thinking is irrelevant. Do you know for sure that every person your church baptizes is saved? If not, then why do you baptize them?
Steve Edwards said
What happens to your child if he/she dies as “holy”, but not regenerate, saved, or born again?
Brian Thornton said
Hey Puritan Lad!
Question: what does ‘holy’ mean in that verse? Does it mean righteous, does it mean forgiven, does it mean regenerate, does it mean saved?
And I would disagree and say that this line of thinking is totally relevant. The issue is not whether the church knows for sure that every person baptized is actually saved or not. Paedos run to this reasoning quite often, that Credos are doing the same thing Paedos are doing when it comes to baptizing unregenerate people into the church. There’s a huge difference, my friend…Credos do it unwittingly, while Peados do it knowing and willingly.
To answer your last question that, if we don’t know for sure if a person is really saved, then why do we baptize them, the answer is because they have come to us requesting baptism…THEY have come to us…we have not gone to them. THEY have initiated the action from a desire to be obedient to the Scriptures which tell them to be baptized after repenting and believing. The ONLY examples we have in Scripture follow this same order: baptism AFTER profession of faith.
Once they do this, we require of them a public testimony prior to being baptized, in order for us to, as best as possible, determine whether or not their profession is credible.
We are baptizing them because the examples we have in Scripture are only of those who have first repented and believed prior to being baptized. Again, it is not about us having the ability to the judge their heart. They come to us in obedience to the command of Scripture, which is a huge difference compared with baptizing a baby who has no idea what is going on.
Thanks for the question!
Brian
Les Prouty said
Hey Brian, you wrote, “…baptizing unregenerate people into the church. There’s a huge difference, my friend…Credos do it unwittingly, while Paedos do it knowing and willingly.”
Are you assuming that all infants (or very young children) are INCAPABLE of being unregenerate at the time of their paedo-baptism?
I am sure you have been busy, but this goes back to a question I asked of you earlier. Can infants be regenerate? Is that possible at all?
danny said
“What happens to your child if he/she dies as “holy”, but not regenerate, saved, or born again?”
“What does ‘holy’ mean in that verse? Does it mean righteous, does it mean forgiven, does it mean regenerate, does it mean saved?”
I think it’s clear from this passage and other passages in the NT, that “holy”, “sanctified”, etc. can mean “set apart by way of the covenant” and not necessarily “forgiven, saved”, etc.
“We are baptizing them because the examples we have in Scripture are only of those who have first repented and believed prior to being baptized.”
That still doesn’t answer the question to the examples of the household baptisms where only the head of the household is said to have believed.
“Again, it is not about us having the ability to the judge their heart. They come to us in obedience to the command of Scripture, which is a huge difference compared with baptizing a baby who has no idea what is going on.”
The focus is not on the recipient of the promise but of God’s promise itself. Look at the example in the OT of Abraham receiving circumcision. Why did God command him to apply the sign to his offspring if the sign was simply meaningless to the infant?
Puritan Lad said
“There’s a huge difference my friend…Credos do it unwittingly, while Peados do it knowingly and wittingly.”
First of all, no Paedobaptist would knowingly and willingly baptize an unregenerate person.
Second, How does this statement square with your implied belief that one must be born again before being baptized? It seems like we are in agreement that a profession of faith, as well as evidence in a person’s life, is all that is required. You agree that we can never know for sure if a person’s profession of faith is genuine, and as a result, Credos “unwittlingly” baptize unregenerate people into the church.
Paedos do the same. We expect (not presume) that the children of believers will grow up as believers. We know full well that it doesn’t always work that way, but the expectation is still that the children are holy, set apart in Covenant with God, until we see evidence otherwise. So occasionally, we will baptize an infant who, when he grows up, will apostacize from the faith. But like Credos, we do this unwittingly.
Finally, let me open this can of worms, while we are at it. After all, all is fair in love, war, and baptism debate
If babies can’t be born again, how do they get to heaven when they die?
Les Prouty said
Puritan Lad, I agree with you.
And, I await our Credo brothers’ response to that last question with baited [baby's] breath (a little pun and floral lingo there).
danny said
From all of the interaction we have had on several posts on this blog, I have compiled a list of 10 questions for my credo brothers. Can any of my credo-brothers answer any of the following questions while remaining consistent on your baptistic model:
1) Jeremiah 31: Can you please explain to me how you are consistent within the New Covenant by not teaching or telling one’s brother or neighbor to “know the Lord?” On a side note the phrase “least to the greatest” should be interpreted in light of the book of Jeremiah ( http://www.biblelighthouse.com/covenants/nct-jeremiah31.htm )
2) If God is an everlasting covenant God, what causes His dealings to change in His covenant relationship with His people by refusing the covenant sign to children in the NT?
3) If there is a radical change the the outward administration of God’s grace (viz., His covenant), where is the abrogation and clear change of this principle in Scripture?
4) Why is there not a single peep about children being included in the covenant on Tuesday and excluded on Wednesday? The Jews furiously argued about dietary laws, etc. in the NT. Why wasn’t one word uttered and one drop of ink spilled about the nature of THE COVENANT, the sum and substance of redemptive history of how God relates to His people?
5) Just a reminder, Jer. 31/Heb. 8 contrasts the Mosaic and the New, not the Abrahamic and the New. The New and the Abrahamic are one (Gal. 3).
6) Therefore, since the Abrahamic is the everlasting covenant finding it’s fulfillment in the promised seed of Christ, why are children included with Abraham but not in the New? Where is the discontinuity in Scripture between the Abrahamic and the New that you affirm?
7) Why was the sign given to Abraham’s offspring when the sign was specifically a sign and seal of God’s righteousness credited through faith, not merely a physical, ethnic land promise sign.
9) I would encourage you to read Hebrews 8 in the proper context of Hebrews 4:14-10:39, where the focus is on the priesthood of the Mosaic vs. the priesthood of Christ and not on an external vs. internal comparison of the two covenants because the law being written on the heart and the forgiveness of sins happened in the OT just as it does in the NT.
10) Can you provide me with a text in the NT where the child of at least one baptized adult believing parent isn’t baptized until later making a profession of faith when they grow older?
Blessings in Christ,
Danny
danny said
The smiley face is meant to be point # 8
Brian Thornton said
Lad, you said:
“First of all, no Paedobaptist would knowingly and willingly baptize an unregenerate person.”
Les would. When asked earlier in a previous comment, Les replied that he does NOT presume/assume his child is regenerate. I think his children are now older, but the point can still be made, since I assume he held the same position concerning them when they were infants and were baptized. Are you saying that when you baptized (or will baptize) your children, you presume them to be regenerate at that point? Either you do or do not…it can’t be an either or, and Les was pretty clear that he did NOT presume/assume that his children were.
Brian Thornton said
Les, your question was, “Can infants be regenerate?”
For now, I only have time to answer your question with a question…
How can they believe in Him of whom they have never heard?
Les Prouty said
Can you answer with a Yes of No? Is it possible? Yes or No?
danny said
Brian, just because we do not presume/assume the child is born again doesn’t mean that they couldn’t be! What I think doesn’t mean it equals God’s thoughts.
Isaiah 55:8
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD.
With all due respect, brother, the moment you make these statements assume that you can discern whether someone is born again or not and at what point they are “allowed” or “eligible” for the new birth!
Doesn’t the wind blow as is it pleases and when it pleases and HOW it pleases?
What do you do with a passage such as this:
Psalm 22:9-10
9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you
even at my mother’s breast.
10 From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
and
Luke 1:15
for he [John the Presbyterian] will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit EVEN FROM BIRTH
Your brother,
Danny
Les Prouty said
Brothers, just for the record here is what I said on another post concerning prsumption/asumption regeneration:
Puritan Lad said, “We expect (not presume) that the children of believers will grow up as believers.”
Perhaps a few points are notable for our Credo brothers:
1. We believe (along with theologians since the first century) that infants can be regenerated. If there ever is a better picture of monergism I can’t think of one.
2. We do not tie the placing of the sign of God’s ownership of the child to the time of their profession of faith. You folk do.
3. We do not baptize for regeneration. We do not when God does that. That is His business and timing.
4. We do believe that children of believers are special in God’s sight and are to be afforded covenantal blessings and privileges.
5. JG Vos said something like this well (paraphrase), “Believing parents whose child dies in infance have no reason to doubt that their child is in the presence of Jesus.”
I agree with Vos.
danny said
Can God regenerate an infant? What about a 2 year old? Or a 4 year old? Do they need to be at least 8? 12? Surely, you know!
Do you see what I’m getting at?
Brian Thornton said
Can you answer with a Yes of No? Is it possible? Yes or No?
Well, an infant is a human being, so I would consider the answer to the question of regeneration concerning an infant to be the same as that for any other human being. And Paul was pretty clear about salvation:
Could it happen? Well, all things are possible with God.
HOW would it happen? Well, Scripture is clear that God has chosen a means by which He will save His elect, and Paul outlines it in the verses above.
Scripture is unambiguous in HOW someone is saved, something I hope we could all agree about.
Brian Thornton said
Brothers,
It is now becoming clearer to me that a large part of your doctrine concerning this issue is based upon pure speculation, seeing as we have NO Scripture addressing the regeneration of infants. I am sure, though, that you all will come back with something about it being a good and necessary inference.
I hope that maybe you can begin to see the frustration among many of us Credos, because a lot of what you use to support your position is based solely on inference and not on direct teaching and example.
Is there anything about baptism for the Paedo that is based upon direct example and instruction?
Les Prouty said
Brian, thanks for answering. Correct me if I am wrong but here is what I hear you answering with.
Can an infant be regenerate?
Answer: It is possible (since with God all things are possible). If it happens (that is, an infant finds his/herself in a regenerate state) it can ONLY happen if the infant has heard (understood) the word proclaimed to him/her and actually called on the name of the Lord. All that presupposes that the infant can understand words and actually talk. So, bottom line, apart from something we have never heard of happening, namely e.g. a 1 day old understanding words and calling out the name of Jesus and exercising faith, that 1 day old cannot be regenerate.
Is that a correct assesment of what you believe? I do not want to put words in your mouth, but that seems to me to be the outflow of what you said above.
Les
danny said
Brian, I am greatly confused by your comments:
“It is now becoming clearer to me that a large part of your doctrine concerning this issue is based upon pure speculation, seeing as we have NO Scripture addressing the regeneration of infants.”
You have yet to address these verses:
Psalm 22:9-10
9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you
even at my mother’s breast.
10 From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
and
Luke 1:15
for he [John the Presbyterian] will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit EVEN FROM BIRTH
“We infer that infants were present in the household baptisms”
You infer that they weren’t, what’s the difference? By the way, if no infants were present, BUT an older child is baptized based on the head of the household’s faith, that even makes the case for household baptism even greater!
“We infer that God will save our child because of his/her Christian heritage”
Time again and again, you confuse God’s promises with election. You say that God would be a liar if He doesn’t keep His promises. Please show me that passage, I have yet to find it in the Bible, and I will show you mine:
Romans 3:1-3
What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God. What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God’s faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar.
“Is there anything about baptism for the Paedo that is based upon direct example and instruction?”
First, please show me where the New covenant is radically different than the Abrahamic, since you seem to be asserting a difference between the two.
Brian Thornton said
Les,
I’m just following the Bible in what it has revealed to us concerning how someone is saved. If you know of someone saved apart from hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ (and yes, I will need an explicit example…no inferences on this one), then please enlighten me…and the information we have on John the Baptist gives no insight concerning HOW he was saved.
danny said
How are elect infants dying in the womb saved?
Les Prouty said
Brian,
I know that I am a guest here and do not mean any disrespect at all to you my brother in Christ when I say that your position is now bordering on the ridiculous.
If we agree that John the Baptizer was born again in the womb (do we?) then you are forced to believe that somehow he was able to hear he gospel and respond in repentance and faith.
The issue here is the historic understand of the nature of regeneration, not really paedo baptism.
If your position is true, then every seriuosly mentally deficient person ever born (deficient from birth) has/had no possibility of heaven. Now that may be your position and that is ok if that’s what you want to believe.
But it is not consistent with the historic reformed understanding on the matter and is surely out of accord with your London Baptist Confession.
Blessings,
Les
Puritan Lad said
Elect infants are saved by the sovereign grace of God, just like anyone else. So to my original question, which I have yet to get a good answer to.
If infants cannot be born again, how do they get to heaven when they die?
danny said
From a previous post by Brian:
“…The confessions DO say the exact same thing with respect to those people who die without ever possessing the natural ability to respond outwardly to the gospel. Neither Confession details how this occurs, so how can I be out of accord with the LBC? Again, this is an area that is not addressed at all by Scripture. What happens to any infant who dies in infancy is a guess, at best.”
and now in this discussion thread:
“HOW would it happen? Well, Scripture is clear that God has chosen a means by which He will save His elect, and Paul outlines it in the verses above. Scripture is unambiguous in HOW someone is saved, something I hope we could all agree about.”
So, are you saying that all infants dying in infancy are lost?
We do not believe that infants dying in infancy are saved apart from Christ or by some other means. Regeneration precedes faith, faith is a gift from God and it is not what we muster up and bring to the table. I just want to make it clear that those who are elect and die with out hearing the outward expression of the Gospel are saved by grace, through faith, in Christ all by the mysterious work of the Holy Spirit.
Les Prouty said
By the way, I posted a sermon a couple of years ago by Credo Charles Spurgeon titled “Infant Salvation.” It surely may be found elsahere, but here is a link.
http://reformationfaithtoday.com/2005/12/28/more-on-infant-salvation/
Puritan Lad said
I, too, have heard the sermon. I love Spurgeon, but he seemed to have bought into this mysterious doctrine called “the age of accountibility”. His prooftext was a reference to God hating the child sacrifice of to Molech. To this day, I have yet to make the logical connection between the two.
Brian Thornton said
Guys,
Who is appealing to what is revealed in Scripture, and who is appealing to speculation, non-inspired Christians (as great as they may be), and historic traditions?
The issue, my brother Les, is not the historic reformed understanding on the matter…the issue is what the Bible has revealed to us, because it is the only thing we have to go on.
If my position is bordering on ridiculous, then Scripture is bordering on ridiculous, because all I am basing my position on is simply that which Scripture has revealed concerning salvation.
Scripture does not address the scenarios which you, Les, and others keep running to. And if Scripture has not given details on infants who die and on the mentally incompetent, then I am not going to presume to speculate where Scripture gives no insight. The Bible says NOTHING concerning infants who die, nor does it say anything about the mentally deficient, nor does it say anything about anyone being saved apart from hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ.
And contrary to what you and others keep saying about me being out of step with the Baptist Confession, that is just not true. The Confession addresses elect infants WHO DIE IN INFANCY, and elect persons who are mentally incompetent. The context of the statement is concerning those who are elect who die being regenerated AFTER death. I have no problem with God regenerating elect persons AFTER death who never responded to the gospel but, quite honestly, Scripture gives no indication that any such people exist. Assuming there are such people, God could certainly regenerate them AFTER death. Could He do it apart from the gospel? I guess He COULD…but now we are back to pure speculation on How He would do it, and now we have more than one means of salvation.
Gotta go…more later.
Les Prouty said
Okey, dokey. FYI, I have been speaking about elect infants (and mentally deficient elect) all along. Of course non-elect of any category will not be regenerated.
Here’s the deal. If elect anyone dies without an ability to hear and respond to the gospel, they go to be with Jesus. The usual way elect are born again is thru the preaching of the gospel.
As to the confession: it says, “3. 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.”
I don’t see anything about after death. That may be true. It may not. I don’t know. All we know is that the word of God says, “7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You [4] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” We don’t know when God may regenerate. In the womb? Most surely if He chooses. At 2 years old? Most surely if he chooses.
I too gotta go. Off to see the Cardinals defeat the Pirates. And that is not most assured. Just a hope.
Brian Thornton said
Elect infants DYING IN INFANCY are regenerated.
You don’t see anything about after death? Obeekaybee…
Also, the Confessions (both LBC & WCF) may say that the Spirit works when, and where, and HOW He pleases, but the Scripture quoted by the Confession (John 3:8 ) to support this statement mentions nothing of HOW the Spirit regenerates. Elsewhere in the Bible we see the means: by the Word of Christ (Romans 10).
Have fun at the ballgame!
Brian Thornton said
We do not believe that infants dying in infancy are saved apart from Christ or by some other means.
Great! You and I are in perfect agreement, then, that every single person who is ever saved, regardless of when, is saved by grace, through faith, which comes from hearing, and that hearing comes by the word of Christ.
That is what I have been saying this whole time!
Puritan Lad said
Brian,
Do you have any evidence to show that all infants dying in infancy are regenerated? Hypothetically, would this have been true of Esau if he had died in infancy?
Methinks you’ll find as many specific Scriptures to support this belief as you can for infant baptism.
Puritan Lad said
Oops, my mistake, You did spscify “elect infants”.
So how do we determine which infants are elect, and on what basis will we deny baptism to an elect infant?
Brian Thornton said
Hey Puritan! Your questions/comments are in italics…
Do you have any evidence to show that all (elect) infants dying in infancy are regenerated?
ANSWER: I have no evidence from Scripture that there are ANY people who are elect who die in infancy, therefore there is no evidence that any of the elect die in infancy. I don’t think it can be said for certain one way or another, at least, not from Scripture, anyway. This subject is pure speculation, since the Bible doesn’t address it.
Hypothetically, would this have been true of Esau if he had died in infancy?
ANSWER: Well, God hated Esau even before he was born, so I would have to say that Esau was damned from the start, regardless of when he would have died.
Methinks you’ll find as many specific Scriptures to support this belief as you can for infant baptism.
REPLY: I’m not sure if you thought I held to a view that all infants who die in infancy are automatically regenerated, but I do not hold to that position (IMHO, Scripture actually gives no indication that there is any such thing as an elect person who dies in infancy – I hope and pray there are many of them, though!). MacArthur does believe it (that all infants who die go to heaven), and I believe Spurgeon did as well, but again, we are in an area of pure speculation, since the Bible doesn’t address the issue. That is why I find a statement such as the one by Vos that Les agreed with to be troubling. Vos says there is no reason for a Christian to doubt that his infant who has died is with Jesus. If there is no reason to doubt that, the only reason can be because he is an heir according to the flesh. Again, we are in an area of pure speculation (and emotion, I might add).
So how do we determine which infants are elect, and on what basis will we deny baptism to an elect infant?
ANSWER: We have no instruction to attempt to determine any such thing. The only basis on which we should ever deny baptism to someone is if they have not displayed a credible profession of faith.
Good questions.
Les Prouty said
I know what I am about to cite was written by fallen men (just like each of us here discussing this issue). Nevertheless, this topic is of extreme importance when forced to face pastoral situations where those we shepherd lose little ones. That said, the first quote is fron Dort. The second is written by Rev. Rick Philllips over at Reformation 21. Rick and his wife lost a child in January during pregnancy. For what it is worth, we must surely acknowledge that none of us knows explicitly from scripture what happens when babies die. We can, however, make our best judgments from the biblical data we do have.
Puritan Lad said
Brian,
I would hold David’s son as an example of an elect infant who died and went to heaven, per David’s hope of going to be with him. It seems that a believer, being in Covenant with God, may have confidence that their infants dying in infancy will be citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem.
However, there have been some passages quoted from the Psalms in this discussion that strongly suggest that some infants are born as elect, and others to damnation. I would hold that the unbeliever can have no such confidence as Dvid did, for their children are unclean. (1 Cor. 7:14)
Therefore, we baptize the children of believers on that basis. They are considered holy, in covenant with God, and are God’s children.
Of course, there is no guarantee that they will remain such when the grow older, anymore than a professed adult believer. It is a promise that we expect, but do not presume. We are still called to train up our children in the ways of the Lord, with the covenant promises that when they are older, they will not depart from them. In the end, God will separate the wheat from the tares in the kingdom. Even Christ’s church had one devil, of whom Christ implicitly baptized, and of whome he had no problem sharing the Lord’s Supper (the blood of the New Covenant) with.
Arthur Sido said
So Puritan Lad (I know this has been covered) we all agree on the need to raise up our children, teach them the Word, etc. The difference is paedo’s baptize them all and see what happens (kind of like the old paramilitary t-shirt you could buy in Army Surplus Stores: Kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out). Credo’s raise our children to be godly people and then baptize them if and when they show signs of repentence, whether they are 10 or 18 or well into adulthood.
WHat is still so troubling is that paedo’s intentionally baptize people knowing full well that some, even many of them, will never come to Christ.
If a married couple, not believers, comes to faith and is baptized into a paedo church, do their children also get baptized regardless of confessions of faith? Shouldn’t they be?
Les Prouty said
Arthur, I suppose you were asking Puritan Lad the question. But since this is a blog, I would like to respond.
1. You wrote, “What is troubling …is that we paedos intentionally baptize people knowing full well that some, even many of them, will never come to christ.” Well, I’m truly sorry that our practice bothers you and apparently so many credos so much. It is obvious (see this blog for example) that paedo-baptism troubles some credos so much that there appears to be a need to very regularly seek to refute it. But that aside, I could say the same or similar, “What troubles me me so much is that credos intentionally baptize people knowing full well that some, even many, have never truly come to faith in Christ.”
Witness: Southern Baptists for example, where millions on the rolls of SBC churches, baptized and members, cannot be found!
2. Your question about a married couple. If a married couple (married as unbelievers) later come to faith in Christ, in our PCA church absolutely will we place the covenant sign of baptism on those covenant children of the promise!
Brian Thornton said
I think this one’s gone long enough.