The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Paedocommunion

You just ain't getting it, eh? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> God referred to the nation of Israel as the "people of God" as a conglomerate which was the VISIBLE CHURCH within which were both believers and unbelievers. But by doing so it does not follow that God considered the unbelievers to be His "people". Nor does it follow that the appellation "people of God" was applied specifically to the unbelievers among them. And lastly, in case you don't get it yet.. it's one thing to address a congregation within which the pastor knows there are believers as "beloved in the Lord" but it doesn't mean that he considers everyone in attendance to be true Christians. Again, this heretical idea of one being "in the covenant" somehow qualifies one to be called a Christian or to be presumed regenerate is nowhere to be found in God's inspired word.

On this point Augustine was dead wrong and Calvin erred. Neither had a biblical warrant for their respective views re: infants/children being regarded as "Christians". The question you raised about the WSC not including a section on baptizing unbelieving infants is irrelevant. Whether an infant of believing parents has faith or not is a mute issue because the faith of the recipient does not determine the efficacy or meaning of the sacrament. This is the error which Baptists have always laboured under unfortunately. What baptism means is propositionally true. The application of those truths depends upon the spiritual condition of the recipient. Thus where faith exists ALL of what baptism means is applicable. Where no faith is present, NONE of what baptism means is applicable at that time. However, if a child is eventually called of God by the Spirit, regenerated, given faith is therefore converted, then ALL that baptism signifies THEN applies. Receiving baptism is not to be understood as a cart blanche receiving of God's salvific grace. IF that were true then ALL who are baptized are of necessity heirs of eternal life in Christ Jesus. But we've been down that road already and you took a turn off right from the start.

I don't see where this does anything for your argument. In fact, it serves my argument quite nicely. Again, notice the CONTEXT of whom he speaks..... "elect infants". He is speaking objectively and not subjectively of every infant who is baptized. ONLY "elect" infants are guaranteed future regeneration and are called to faith, aka: conversion "in God's good time". There is nothing here that warrants presuming the regeneration of ALL infants nor of any infant in particular. He is simply but clearly referring to a specific group of infants; i.e., those who are "elect". A similar truth is found in the WCF:X:III-IV which states:

In His grace,