The point is the post addressed held there was no evidence of infant baptism in the bible.The beauty of being a Particular Baptist and a Non-Cessationist is that whatever you believe, WE probably agree on some important things (unless you deny the deity of Christ, then we are going to disagree on just about EVERYTHING) and WE are probably going to disagree on some things that are not "salvific". So we can discuss and debate, but the chance that either of us will change GOD's MIND is ZERO ... so TRUTH will remain TRUTH and our speculation will go on and on and on ....
If Jon was still alive, we would agree on more than we disagree ... but I would NEVER be convinced that we should reopen Scripture to add his writing as a new book to the Bible (and Servetus doesn't even enter into the picture).
All Infants according to Calvin are saved
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
atpollard
Well-known member
OK ... so I am slow on the uptake when presented with SUBTLE.
atpollard
Well-known member
Just to point out ... (for the other side) ... there is no evidence of Driving a Car or Wagon in the Bible, does that make the Amish right?
Just to point out ... (for the other side) ... there is no evidence of Driving a Car or Wagon in the Bible, does that make the Amish right?
Were there cars in the time the bible was being writtenOkOK ... so I am slow on the uptake when presented with SUBTLE.
There is no example of a woman taking communion but I bet in Toms church they do. No altar calls either, bet they do that to.Just to point out ... (for the other side) ... there is no evidence of Driving a Car or Wagon in the Bible, does that make the Amish right?
Do they deny woman communion in your church?
Do you know of any biblical prohibition?
LOL, that's the best you got? You claimed there is no example of infant baptism in the NT. So it's invalid right? Do you have a example of a women taking communion? How about altar calls?
Do you know of any prohibition regarding infants being baptized?
Last edited:
Believers alone? Chapter and verse. John the Baptist believed in the womb.
Where are my examples? LOL.
Faulty reasoning. God determined they would die in infancy and therefore be saved. Those determined to be reprobate God has determined to live to adulthood.
TibiasDad
Well-known member
No, you have simply confirmed one of my options, namely, that only the predetermined elect die in infancy. Nothing of the sort is suggested by Calvin or Calvinism.
Doug
Or maybe reprobate infants are lost. Only elect infants are saved. We don't know do we Doug.
MTMattie
Well-known member
That is because of the people like the Jailer, and Lydia who are said that their whole households were baptized had no infants there.
Isn't that correct?
The bible states
Lydia: And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.
The jailer :
- In the same hour of the night, the jailer washes the stripes of Paul and Silas, and is baptized along with all his family
- He then brings Paul and Silas into his home, feeds them, and rejoices that he and his family have believed in God
1 Corinthians 1:16 “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas.”
Crispus is an enigma to me because they say Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord together with his entire household; and many of the Corinthians, as they listened to Paul, were believing and being baptized.
He believed and so did his family but I only recall Paul baptized him... not even his wife..... Another oddity about Paul when it is said he said...
I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, and he furthurede that further in 1 Cor "Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other."
So one family and 2 men.
Certainly seems the wives were not included, always... and no children ... the households must have been siblings and inlaws....
Last edited:
Possibly or just possibly only males of a certain age were counted. Woman and infants omitted
MTMattie
Well-known member
Probably. Its all Eve's fault. When I get to heaven and should she by any chance be there I think Ill plant my foot firmly on her backside.
You well could have a good point about the males of a certain age, because it was only the males, originally, that were circumsized on the 8th day
as a covenant between God and the Jewish people.
Since Gentiles were never told to be circumfixed I know some churches have used the child baptism for their dedication of the child to God.
Other... the Calvin cult.... I believe that with Calvin believing a baby can go to hell, and was instrumental in encouraging baby baptisms... I believe they do so to stop that from happening.
civic
Well-known member
Yes Calvin got himself into a giant pickle with his doctrine of total depravity from birth which necessitated the baptism of infants for the " elect " parents in the congregation to assure the salvation of their babies.
Yet we know one must believe the gospel to be saved which is impossible for an infant. So the work around was infant baptism which is heretical.
If that doctrine did not happen in that theological camp all babies are damned because of the doctrine of total depravity and being wicked from the womb/birth. This was their work around.
What we see is how error begets error and the trickle down effect with the doctrines of man. They create other doctrines. This is also true with the PSA doctrine invented by the Reformers. Penal Substitution Atonement goes hand in hand with the doctrine of TULIP. I started a thread on the connection between them. As a former calvinist for 40 years plus I knew the connections between their doctrines.
hope this helps !!!
MTMattie
Well-known member
LOL, I was too, though in truth my church did not emphasize Calvin like others did.
I am not sure I ever bought the predestined part because I remember so often thinking that would be so nice if it was true.
But one thing about my church is they placed a higher belief in the importance of the sacrament of Holy Communion, which was not permissible to partake of unless there had been a baptism but also was not permissible to partake of UNTIL we came to believe the Gospel, and Jesus' sacrifice.
These days they will allow communion for any who profess faith in Jesus, and I have not heard the mention of baptism once regarding that as I guess they assume one is????
Jay
Member
What about babies and young children who never attain the ability to make the personal choice to believe in Jesus? Some believe that those who die before reaching the age of intellectual or moral accountability are “automatically” saved by God’s grace in Christ. The reasoning is that, if someone is truly incapable of making a decision for or against Christ, then that one is extended God’s mercy. Charles Spurgeon held this view: “I rejoice to know that the souls of all infants, as soon as they die, speed their way to Paradise. Think what a multitude there is of them!” (C. H. Spurgeon’s Autobiography, Vol. 1, ch. XVI, “A Defence of Calvinism,” Passmore and Alabaster, 1897, p. 175).
I like this view:
The age of 13 is the most commonly suggested for the age of accountability, based on the Jewish custom that a child becomes an adult at the age of 13. However, the Bible gives no support to the age of 13 being a set age of accountability. The age at which a child can distinguish right from wrong and becomes capable of choosing Christ likely varies from child to child.
With the above in mind, also consider this: Christ’s death is presented as sufficient for all of mankind. First John 2:2 says Jesus is “the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” This verse is clear that Jesus’ death was sufficient payment for all sins, not only the sins of those who come to Him in faith. The fact that Christ’s death was sufficient for all sin would allow at least the possibility of God’s applying that payment to those who were never capable of believing.
Similar threads
