The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum "We sometimes allow children to die unbaptized. ."

As you understand the covenants continuity. Not that I want to hash that out again. We remain agreeing to disagree.

Of course, those that don’t believe in the continuity of the covenants (concerning infants) believe that their children are just out there and that God made no “specific” covenant provision for them.

Their children need not ask why God calls them holy at times (1 Cor 7:14) and why Jesus put his hands upon them, and blessed them (Mark 9:36; cf. Num 6:24-26). Oh, no matter they say, I am holy someway outside of the covenant of God, while yet a total full participating member of the covenant of darkness. I’ll figure this out later.

Oh, yes, a little one thinks, my parents and a group of so-called kingdom people is there to watch out after me, but none-the-less, no covenant provision has been made specifically for me: God left me out in the cold cruel world—in the kingdom of darkness—all alone. Unlike the lesser kings of all the earth, the King of Heaven makes no specific covenant provision for me—a mere child. The King of all the earth has a Kingdom, that has no infants in it—unless we die first. I’ll figure this out later too.

Yes, as a child I hear it every day from my credo parents that God’s kingdom ONLY has the redeemed in it, (though the Bible reveals there are both lost and saved in His visible Church, i.e. Cain and Abel, etc.). But, that is just the Bible. However, I am a little confused to look at another O.T. Kingdom and discover that this Kingdom of God (Israelites) had elect and non-elect children in it and the N.T. had household baptisms, and yes, even today I remember that my parents brought me into their kingdom assembly—called a Church. Well, you know, I’ll deal with this later also.

Now, I wonder about it all. Am I not a hypocrite? I am not in the covenant in any form, but my parents desire me to be doing covenant things; I am not a member, (but of the Kingdom of darkness and its covenant), however, my parents desire me to lie unto their God and desire me to worship their God, though He is not my ruler and King, (for I am not a member in any form of His covenant). I understand now that to become a believer in Christ, I first must learn to be a hypocrite in God’s Church. It makes sense to me now, I think ...

Now, I understand Christianity? However, I still wonder why God did not just simply make a provision for children to be a member of His kingdom in some form. After all, if God had been thinking clearly though all of this, He could have just had two parts to His kingdom, with both elect and non-elect members, similar to His Israelite Kingdom. Thus, then I could understand why Jesus blessed covenant children, (for they were in some form part of His kingdom and covenant) and why covenant children were sometimes deemed holy, in some form. Yes, then to ask me a child to worship Him would not have been hypocritical, for that would have been a covenantal condition. Yes, the Bible then would make a little more sense. But, as I have learned there is no continuity here. Too bad, it would have been a beautiful complete Gospel that way, but I am satisfied understanding that God’s covenant is only for so-called covenant adults, for living covenant children never existed. Rock, Rattle, and Roll, the infinite kingdom is the infantless kingdom as well.

I better return to my crib now.

Signed,

Crib Calvinist (click here if you like crib music)

I agree with most of what are saying. But I would add that baptism is a work of God that is necessary to salvation. Mark 16:16. Infants are saved through baptism. Acts 2:38, 39.

However, bringing an infant to baptism and administering baptism are human works that do not save any child. Eph. 2:8,9. Therefore, the sole reason for an emergency infant baptism is obediance to God's command. Matt. 28:18-20.

No, no, a 1000 times NO, Infants are NOT saved by baptism! They receive the covenant sign and seal through baptism! They become covenant members, not saved members! Grace ALONE, not grace + baptism.

You quote Mark 16:16, a verse for adults who can "believe" NOW, but infants believe LATER. Moreover, if you read the verse again and you will see it actually disproves what you assert;

Does the verse say he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be condemned, or merely he that believeth not? The emphasis in verse 16 of the ending is not on baptism but on the exercise of faith [by an adult], exactly as in Matthew; cf. also John 3:16, 18, 36. On the other hand, the [adult] who by God’s sovereign grace has surrendered himself to Christ will also gratefully accept the sacrament of baptism as a sign and seal ... baptism follows faith, as also in Acts 2:41; 16:31–34, and everywhere. (Hendriksen, William, and Simon J. Kistemaker)

Now look above. You have TWO contradictory statements. Choose you this day? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

Why did not the thief on the cross get an emergency baptism? After all he was in the presence of the One who could walk on water. Certainly if it was all so essential that baptism had to be added to grace for salvation to be "true," Jesus would have baptized him. What example of emergency baptism do you find in the Bible? How do you perform a baptism on a stillborn child, who never sees the light of day? Would you murder a mother to baptize a dying fetus?

When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.
(1Co 13:11 ESV)

My name is Covenant Calvinist, a good friend of Crib Calvinist. Yes, I am a Presby now and my good friend still a Reformed Baptist. I was sitting here thinking through my infant years and discovered some startling facts.

As a covenant child, though I was not a member of the invisible Church, I realized that God (as the ruler of His Kingdom and covenant) was still operating in my life. See, He had that right, because I was a member of His covenantal family. Though I was a dirty stranger in a clean country, He kept me when I did not deserve keeping. He had His covenant representatives (my parents and Church) train me up in His Kingdom precepts, which I had an obligation to learn and apply. I came to know I was suppose to worship God in spirit and truth. But, I was growing up in a Kingdom that I was not worthy to belong to in any form. I kept failing over and over. I was attempting to do everything in my own strength. I was a failure. What’s more everyone around me knew it. What I called fun, they called sin.

Then the Holy Spirit, through the preaching of the Word, began to put it all together for me. I could look back at my baptism and see where God had put me in covenant with Him early on. This meant that God had a responsibility to me and I to Him. Though this did not guarantee my salvation, it still put certain obligations upon both of us (me and God that is). God and His people were faithful to train me up and love me though I did not deserve it. See I learned that God was faithful to His covenant, though I was not. God took time out to be faithful just to me.

As time went on, I realized that God had kept His promise to me long ago in Christ. See, only Jesus is the perfect covenant keeper. I saw how my covenant association with God and His people had been operating in my life all along. They exhibited a love in this covenant that I was not accustomed to in the Kingdom of Darkness and not worthy of. I was deemed holy and blessed on several occasions. Now, for some reason, I desired this kind of everlasting love. Things changed. My covenantal relationship now became internalized. I was saved by grace alone—a grace that had been exhibited over and over again.

You are right I can’t look back to when I was 8 days old to my baptism, just like the Israelites (Gen 17; Lev 12:3) and Jesus himself (Luke 2:21) could not look back to their earliest days. However, as elect Israelites and Jesus himself knew they were in the Covenant, so do I know the same, for my faith bares witness and we both bare the sign and seal of the Covenant. As the Israelite’s covenant sign was not initiated by their own infant faith, neither was mine. See baptism emphasizes entrance into God’s covenant by grace alone, not by our faith alone (Jer 31, Heb 8:8-9). Thus, the emphasis in the covenant sign and seal is upon God grace first and His covenant faithfulness (His death, His crucifixion, His burial, His resurrection) and then to our faith which proceeds from His grace (Eph 2:8-9). This is true even of adult baptism.

Moreover, both covenants have a sign and seal. Both were fulfilled in Jesus, as He is the Covenant Head of each. As the Covenant Head and to fulfill the OC He accepted its sign and seal, and to initiate, head, and fulfill the NC, He accepted its sign and seal as well. Jesus was not baptized because of His repentance and faith, as He always had faith and never had a need to repent, but rather to demonstrate, head, and fulfill the covenant (to fulfill all righteousness; Matt 3:15). See, He is my continuity in the covenants demonstrating their distinctiveness and similarities—one, but two; two, but one. Jesus is my bridge between the Covenants.

It is really too bad about Crib. He speaks, thinks, and still reasons as a non-covenant child. He had a lot of the right information, but could never iron out all those discrepancies that kept popping up. If only his parents had kept him away from that Malone Doll. But, Crib is coming along. He is beginning to put away his childish ways. He is beginning to realize there are lost and saved in God’s covenants, as with the Israelites of old. He is noticing that there are lost people in his very church—many of which are baptized. He is beginning to grasp that one cannot be deemed holy in any respect while in the Kingdom of Darkness, unless that person is someway in the Kingdom of Light. Yep, he is beginning to see it. As he becomes a man he will understand that God did make provision for children in His covenant—for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.

They are saved when they are given faith whether before, in, or after baptism. But, according to your logic that would also violate grace ALONE, i.e., grace + faith.


Why do you say Mark 16:16 is for adults only when the preceding verse says we are to preach to all creatures? God's command to preach and baptize applies to infants as the text clearly teaches.


It says faith and baptism are necessary to salvation. It says that lack of faith damns but not lack of baptism. No exceptions on account of age are given in the text.


Again, there is nothing in the context of those verses that would exclude infants. Are you saying that adults are saved by exercising faith and that infants can not be saved through faith alone?


What do surrendering one's self or accepting baptism have to do with salvation? How can you relate God's sovereign work of salvation as described in Mark 16:16 and similar verses with human works that save no one?


There is nothing contridictory about my statements. I carefully separate God's work in salvation from human works that contribute nothing to salvation.

Either be saved by grace only through faith only for the sake of Christ only or be saved by human works you equate with salvation (i.e., exercising faith, surrender, accepting baptism).


The thief was denied baptism by the Roman soldiers just as believing and regenerate infants are denied emergency baptism by theologically-impaired Calvinists and Baptists.

The thief was saved through the preached word which is also necessary to salvation. Rom. 10:13-17. Examples of emergency (non-ministerial) baptism were provided by you in an earlier post.


There is no clear command to baptize the dead. I would not break one command (Thou shalt not kill) to obey another.

Pilgrim was probably testing some new Anti-Heresy Software and thus your post would not work. Apparently, now he has removed it. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />

Baptism is not added to grace, but an identification of a covenantal relationship. As limiting as illustrations are: Like a Folger's label to a can of coffee. The label adds nothing to the can (one is paper, the other steel, plastic, etc.) or coffee, but it does identify the item as a coffee can. Baptism (the label) is a sign and seal of a specific kind of relationship (a covenantal can). The contents of the can (which are placed in the can when the Maker sees fit) may be later identified as caffeinated (effectual) or decaffeinated (non-effectual). Baptism (the label) DOES NOT SAVE in ANY form, it is simply a sign and seal of the covenant. Important, yes, essential, no (for the saved there would still be a can of coffee, w/o a label).

Get rid of your Juan Valdez religion (i.e. man-made works righteous religion). Repent and come to the knowledge of the truth, “if God permit.” You have percolated under water (been subjected to false teaching) too long. You make the LABEL more important than the coffee itself.

Get rid of your decaffeinated philosophy and drink some caffeinated Gospel. Good to the last drop and beyond. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/coffee2.gif" alt="" />

Speratus, does all always mean “each and every” creature or can it have different meanings? Do you need examples of its different meanings (Matt 2:3; 4:23-24; 10:22, etc.)?

Can babies believe the Word of God? What does “googoo gaagaa” mean? How do you prove a baby can believe (which must be possible, if as “you” say, they can understand the preached word, otherwise why preach to them …)? What examples (from the Bible) can you give us of babies that cast out demons and that healed the sick (Mark 16:17, the verse after 16:16. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/spin.gif" alt="" />), etc.—for these signs will follow them that believe?

Infants should be baptized in obedience to the covenantal stipulations apparent in the continuity of the Covenant(s), not because they have had the Gospel preached to them, understood it, and believed.

So according to “you,” Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, but the Roman soldiers had more authority then Jesus and kept Him from saving whom He willed (John 6:39)? According to you Jesus is a liar, because He told the thief, “Today you shall be with me….”, but Jesus was unable to baptize him and thus, the thief went to hell (because, according to you, baptism is necessary to salvation)!

Speratus, either Jesus is not LORD or baptism is NOT absolutely necessary to salvation! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/idea.gif" alt="" /> Please look again at your arguments, they are without defense.

Once again, you misunderstood the question. Please re-read it!

I said, “a dying (not dead) fetus”? The fetus, which is alive, which is human, and to which you have “claimed” it is absolutely necessary to be baptized to be saved? This is the fetus I speak of: Would you put the mother’s life at risk to baptize this human life so it can be saved or do you damn this baby to hell? Will Speratus practice what he preaches? Which do you hate most Speratus, mothers or infants? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

Your philosophy would not only make you a heretic, but "if" logically carried out a murderer. Your logic is consistent with John 8:44. Is this where you really want to be?

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />

Does a label wash away our sins (Acts 2:38, 22:16)? Deliver us from death (Romans 6:3, 4)? Regenerate us (John 3:5, 6; Titus 3:5)?Necessary to salvation (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21)?


Examples of baby belief: Luke 1:41-44; Matt. 18:2-6. See Dr. Lee's "Baby Belief before Baptism" for a fuller explanation.


Does each and every believer take up the serpent too? Which snake handling cult do you belong to?



You added the word "absolutely". I said, "The thief was saved through the preached word which is also necessary to salvation. Rom. 10:13-17." Being "necessary to salvation" does not mean that baptism is the sole means of grace.

The thief did not despise any of God's appointed means of grace but may have been prevented from baptism, a necessary means of salvation, by the Roman soldiers. God does not owe us the Word, Baptism, or grace but calls, through Word and Sacrament, those whom He has predestined to receive grace.


No, "absolutely necessary" is what you "claim" I said. I said the preached word and baptism are necessary means to salvation. Do you have any example from scripture of an infant or adult being saved without outward means (e.g., preaching, scripture, baptism, etc.)?

This isn't the best way to tackle speratus' false belief.

So, I'll let Joe lead the way in arguing against baptismal regeneration.

Yes.


There is no record in scripture. Is there a point to these questions?

No, baptism does none of those things in the way you are speculating.

In Acts 2:38f while the PROMISE is to “you and your children” the text does not say that they are “all,” without exception, SAVED (Rom 9:10-22). It speaks of the fulfillment of the covenant promise (Gen 3; 17:7, etc. where’s the command). You need to include the “full” counsel of God in your interpretation of the holy Scripture.

In Acts 22:16, Luke wrote of Paul’s salvation experience. Paul was SAVED prior to baptism (Acts 9:15, he is a chosen vessel unto me; 9:17, Brother Saul). He knew Christ as LORD (Acts 22: 8, 10) prior to his baptism. Paul is not being saved by water, as he was already saved on the Damascus Road. Paul’s baptism was a physical description of the covenant relationship that he as an “adult” (not an infant) had already entered into. Yes, it was a label to all that said, “I am a Christian, I know Christ as LORD, I have repented, I now name the name of Christ, I am in the NC.”

As to Romans 6:3-4, baptism does NOT deliver from death, but representative of our death in Christ, etc. It is a picture of what has already happened (or may happen): i.e. dead with Christ, alive with Christ, etc. Moreover, it is a sign and seal of the covenant relationship. Paul here is speaking to adults that had already been baptized. Look at the context again. Rom 6 teaches salvation by the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, not baptism!

Mark 16:16 has already been covered and your deficient exegesis exposed. Thus, we come to your mis-interpretation of 1 Peter 3:21. Peter here stresses the similarity between the flood waters of Noah’s time and baptism. That is, as the flood waters cleansed the earth of man’s wickedness, so the water of baptism shows a picture of man’s cleansing from sin (Baker). Baptism is not an actual cleansing from sin, but a physical picture of such. How can physical water wash away that which is spiritual and physical ? If that were the case all who were in Noah’s flood would be saved, for they were all baptized with more water than Noah.

BOTH the baptized adult and infant (when old enough) can look back to Noah’s time and see the covenant promise (covenant continuity). Please also note that Noah and his family were SAFE in the ark prior to the judgment of the flood, thus disproving your whole thesis. Some would say, Jesus, the Ark, took the beating of the judgment waters. Have you read vs 18 of that same chapter--hint: Jesus saves. Scripture does not teach that baptismal water saves a person. Rather, a believer is saved because of Christ’s atoning death on the cross and His resurrection (Rom. 6:4).

Covenant continuity is where infant baptism is found (household baptism, oikos, etc.--you should already be familiar with these Scriptures ...). The norm in Scripture is infants (and adults) are without faith until God gives grace.

Speratus, do these texts really teach infant belief? Let us look at one of them.

I see where Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, however why doesn’t the text say the infant was? I see here where the babe leaped for joy, however where in the text does it say the child is regenerated in the womb? Where in the text does it say the infant is born again, has repented, has faith, etc. Are you telling us now that your salvation formula for infants includes a leap? Even if we assert that John the Baptist was called from the womb, which he was, it does not necessarily mean he was regenerated from the womb. God calls all of us to some work—regenerate and unregenerate—but does not save all. Each is called for His purpose (Rom 9:21). Moreover, it is not unusual for a baby in the 6th month of pregnancy to move, and on this occasion it was interpreted “as an expression of the joy experienced by the unborn child” (Baker). The verse says nothing of the infant’s salvation or belief!

So you have NO examples from the Bible. I specifically stated for you to gather them from Scripture Speratus, for I agree with Jonathan Edwards, who said, “These extra gifts were given in order to the founding and establishing of the church in the world. But since the canon of Scripture has been completed, and the church fully founded and established, these extraordinary gifts have ceased.” Since, once again, you have NO evidence from Scripture, once again we see your error.

Speratus, we are NOT confused by what you said. We know you think salvation is:

GRACE
+
BAPTISM
________
Salvation

or, in some cases:

A LEAP
+
GRACE
+
BAPTISM
_________
Salvation

EVERY soul that was EVER saved was saved by grace ALONE and not your doctrine of baptism(s). Thus, I have the witness of ALL that were ever saved. That once again leaves you with your favorite number “0." <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hello.gif" alt="" />

Correct. Adults and infants who do not repent are not saved in baptism.


Paul was saved when it pleased God to call him by His grace. Gal. 1:13. He was born again of water and the Spirit in baptism. John 3:5-7.


What do you mean by "covenant relationship"? Is man fulfilling a covenant by agreeing to be baptized or having his children baptized? If so, how is salvation by the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus alone? Mark 16:16.


Did all repent?


Absolutely!


Joy is a fruit of regeneration/faith. It is impossible for natural man to be joyful at the coming of the Lord.


So your number is "0": the number of adults and infants saved, according to scripture, apart from the outward word (i.e., preaching, baptism)?

DEAL WITH THE TEXT....... and you will find that your view is exposed as error and thus you can joyfully repent of it. YOUR account of the salvation of Paul is in direct opposition and contradictory to Paul's own inspired account:

Acts 22:8-16 (ASV)"And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. And they that were with me beheld indeed the light, but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me I came into Damascus. And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well reported of by all the Jews that dwelt there, came unto me, and standing by me said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And in that very hour I looked up on him. And he said, The God of our fathers hath appointed thee to know his will, and to see the Righteous One, and to hear a voice from his mouth. For thou shalt be a witness for him unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name."

Now, please tell me what was the spiritual state of Paul before he was baptized? Did all that transpired on the Damascus Road and all that took place with Ananias, who btw called him "brother", occur while Paul was yet unregenerate; he being given a vision of the resurrected Christ, ears to hear His voice and with that a desire and will to obey Christ?

In His Grace,

Your question seems to be predicated on the false premise that I believe that the benefits of baptism are tied to the moment of its administration. That is a non-scriptural Papist concept.

Could Paul have been saved before, at, or after baptism? Yes. Do we have scriptural warrant to make the assumption he was saved before baptism? I don't think so. Not everyone who sees visions, obeys a command, calls Jesus "Lord", is called a "brother", etc. is saved. I'll leave you to research the revelant texts that prove my point.

What we do know is that he was saved when it pleased God (Gal. 1:15, 16) and that his sins; past, present, and future; were washed away in baptism (Acts 22:16).