The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Household Baptisms

Richard,

I realize that to even "think" that the framers of the Westminster Confession went too far, had a wrong emphasis, or God forbid were actually in error on what they wrote is construed as next to blaspheme to some; especially if one is referring to the Scottish Covenanters! However, it just may be true on this matter.

As to Ursinus' comments on his Catechism:

IF by this he means in a general way, i.e., that salvation is not to be excluded from a child simply because they are children, then I can fully agree. IF, however, as Kuyper understood Ursinus, that the benefits of salvation are actually and infallibly promised to infants of believers, then he is in error. This is because the promise of God is infallible in the matter of salvation. And this promise includes both the benefits of Christ's atonement and the means by which those benefits are apprehended. Therefore, the promise of God unto salvation extends to ALL who are called efficaciously, repent and believe upon Christ; yes, even to children.

I obviously oppose ANY and ALL forms of salvific presumption, whether it be in regard to election, regeneration, faith, etc. Children of believers are surely blessed in that they are given the outward means of grace whereby God calls His elect to Christ. (cf. Rom 3:2; 9:4, 5). What I warranted to presume is that ALL children are born into this world guilty before God and possess a corrupt nature; being under the wrath and just condemnation of God and in dire need of regeneration and conversion.

You have made such statements several times in various places. It seems to me that to you think that the Calvinists of Scotland, during a limited time period in history are to be the standard by which biblical truth is to be measured? Is this true? It surely seems this way. So that any Calvinist born in America or who disagrees with any of the Scottish Covenanters is suspect?

In another reply you quoted from the The Directory for the Publick Worship of God, which I would also like to quote from the section, "Of the Administration of the Sacraments: and first, of baptism", wherein it is written of the children of believers who are to be baptized:

That children, by baptism, are solumnly received into the bosom of the visible church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers; and all who are baptized in the name of Christ . . .; That they are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized:

Granted, that as the form continues, in the prayer to be offered, it is said that there is hope that God would graciously "join the inward baptism of his Spirit with the outward baptism of water; etc." Yet, the language used in this quote, specifically, saying infants/children are "united to believers" and calling them "Christian" is specious at best. We have had the same disagreement, along with myriad other issues concerning children in the covenant, with Drs. McMahon when he was here in this regard, i.e. the definition of biblical terms. And this term "Christian", I contend is to be restricted to only those who have repented of their sins and profess faith in Christ. One has no biblical warrant to consider (presume) an infant of a believer to be a Christian without outward evidences observed. To be "united to believers" is to be one with them in that the one united is indwelt by the Spirit and first united with Christ. There are only two groups recognized in Scripture; those who are enemies of God and those who are adopted sons of God. Children may have an "interest" in the Church in an outward way but until they are united to Christ, that interest and relationship is strictly external in nature and this relationship should not be blurred by the misuse of terms, IMHO.

On this matter, I do not foresee us coming to any agreement.

In His Grace,