Flawed Answers and Problematic CALVINISTIC Information

I find it all very confusing.

Every time I post an article--be it pre-scheduled, published or draft, (as I've said before), my copy disappears. My Typepad service techs tell me it is not really happening... that my empty screen is a figment of my imagination so-to-speak... that the copy which I do not see is actually not invisible... it's visible on their end.  Thus they've concluded it is not a worm or virus, but a glitch in my browser (which is Firefox Mozilla). Now, whether or not Typepad techs are correct or not, does not solve my problem.  I no more have my copy before me to edit and restore than a person has the ability to write or rewrite their name in the Lamb's Book of Life.

This aggravating situation has created such havoc with writing, I've all but stopped completely.  Right now, I have several things I'd like to post about which I've encountered on blogs and other places, but gee...it's such a hassle.  That said, I am going to post a piece of info a friend of mine pulled off the internet regarding Presbyterians.

Why Presbyterian thoughts on a Baptist Blog?

Well, that denomination is most decidedly reformed and followers of Calvinism.  And since there has been so much discussion regarding the Traditionalist Baptist view on an infant's relationship with God (inability and ability to enter heaven should they die), I thought this was an interesting piece of information on how a reformed Presbyterian church viewed the depravity (or lack of depravity) in infants.

From the website of Faith Presbyterian Church in Tacoma, WA; a member of the Presbyterian Church in America.

Subject: The Presbyterian Doctrines of Covenant Children

"According to Calvin the infants of believing parents belong to the church before they are engrafted into its visible membership by baptism. The child of a Christian parent is presumptively a Christian and an heir of eternal life.

The offspring of believers are born holy, because their children, while yet in the womb, before they breathe the vital air, have been adopted into the covenant of eternal life. Nor are they brought into the church by baptism on any other ground than because they belonged to the body of the Church before they were born. He who admits aliens to baptism profanes it.... For how can it be lawful to confer the badge of Christ on aliens from Christ. Baptism must, therefore, be preceded by the gift of adoption, which is not the cause of half salvation merely, but gives salvation entire; and this salvation is afterwards ratified by Baptism."

[Interim Adultero­­germanum: cui adiecta est vera Christianae Pacificationis et Ecclesiae Reformandae Ratio. Per Joann. Calvinum. Corpus Reformatorum, vol. 35, 619, cited by Schenck, p. 13. Similarly Calvin says, '...the children of believers are baptized not in order that they who were previously strangers to the church may then for the first time become children of God, but rather that, because by the blessing of the promise they already belonged to the body of Christ, they are received into the church with this solemn sign.' Institutes, IV, xv, 22. ]" (emphasis added)

My friend asks a very pointed and purposeful question:

"Where is the doctrine of orginal sin and Adamic guilt in this statement above ... "The offspring of believers are born holy,"?"

Folks have been bantering back and forth about the state of infants in relation to Adam's imputed guilt upon each and every person born (or unborn for that matter).  This statement above does seem to say that an adult parent's faith is vicariously transferred to the unborn infant.  Perhaps I am reading this wrong.  I do not know.  However...

if this is, indeed, what Calvinists believe (which is hard to grasp), then how can anyone who is born into a Christian family ever be "totally depraved"?  How can holy be made unholy?  How can an adopted be un-adopted?  Why is it required that someone born holy needs faith to "believe" in order to become what he already is?  How does holy become filthy?  Is "holy" just another of the growing list of words that need to be redefined for folks like me?  Does anyone else find this information problematic of what Presbyterian Calvinists believe?

Is this what Baptist Calvinists believe?

The Traditional Baptist Statement addresses human depravity in a way that does not negate the consequences we endure due to a corrupted world. The nature of man gives him the appetite and desire for sin.  Yet, sin is born only as a person gives into the desires of sin's temptation...which we are certain to do because according to scripture, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."  We cannot fix that.  Only God can give us a new heart and impress upon us the desire for Jesus, and empower us with the faith follow Him.  When we act upon that desire, we exhibit the faith we've been given and are changed, reborn, and made into a new creature, holy and acceptable unto God through the shedding of blood at Calvary.

Any thoughts?  selahV

Comments

[Steve Martin]

Sorry for all your computer glitches. I have had my share of them as well, and it can drive one batty.

Infants are born in sin. "In sin my mother conceived me" "No one is righteous, no, not one", "no one understands, no one seeks for God."

God judges each of us according to our own hearts and His will. We are not saved because our parents are saved.

What God does with an infant to dies is His business. But we have a gracious God. We pray that He would suffer the little children and let them come to Him. He told us as much.

[Enoch]

Surely you are not suggesting that Baptist calvinists are somehow secretly supporting infant baptism. Right?

[selahV]

Hi Steve, thanks for popping in.

So you do not agree with the Calvinists belief in this statement from the PCA church Tacoma, Washington website?

I have two babies in heaven. I'm not the least bit concerned about their well-being. I am assured Jesus is caring for them. However, this is the first time I've ever heard of anyone saying salvation is passed on to a child by Christian parents. I was truly surprised. And to use a passage from Genesis to support their thoughts was equally strange to me. One covenant though similar via the blood sacrifice, is not the same as the other which is of law and of grace. Yet, this makes me wonder if the PCA Calvinists are saying grace is the salvation factor in the OT covenant, also.

again, thanks for stopping by. selahV

[selahV]

Enoch,

thanks for logging on.

You ask: "Surely you are not suggesting that Baptist calvinists are somehow secretly supporting infant baptism. Right?"

Of course not. I'm not "suggesting" anything. I'm asking if this is what the Baptist Calvinists believe regarding the infants in the womb and out of the womb.

And if this is the Calvinist belief in Washington state, is it a universal belief with all Calvinists--Baptist included. Is this another point to Calvinism? Like a 6th point or something?

BTW, I love your name, Enoch. Is it really your name or is it a moniker? I've often wished I'd been as the biblical Enoch. selahV

[Steve Martin]

No, I don't agree with those Calvinists on the matter.

Babies are sinners and they need a Savior. And we have a very gracious Savior who loves infants and thinks that they are holy.

He told us that "we must become as these little ones...".

Infants are not capable of much in the way of reason, but they are capable of a great deal of trust (faith).

John the Baptist did some flips at the presence of Jesus, while they were both still in the womb!
How's that for faith!

[Les Prouty]

Hi selahV,

The PCA, huh? Your friend asked, ""Where is the doctrine of orginal sin and Adamic guilt in this statement above ... "The offspring of believers are born holy,"?""

The answer may be found below from the WCF, the confessional statement ministers in the PCA subscribe to.

"1. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptation of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.

2. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.

3. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.

4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.

5. This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.

6. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal."

WCF Chapter 6

Grace,

Les

[Jeremy Crowder]

I really don't understand why Calvinists can't say "Babies go to heaven" or "Babies don't go to hell'. It would be much easier but many will not do that. I've defended the idea of an Age of Accountability. My hope is Christians will abandon this avoiding the issue and say the truth which is babies aren't accountable.

[Les Prouty]

SelahV,

I'm not sure my comment got thru last night. I won't re type it though. But the answer to your friend's question above on original sin and Adamic guilt is found in the PCA adopted WCF chapter 6 on the fall of man. All ministers in the PCA are required to subscribed to the WCF, including Rob Rayburn.

Grace for the day,

Les

[selahV]

Jeremy, thanks for stopping in. I don't understand why they can't either, but mine is not to reason why...I'm stuck on whether that they actually believe a baby is holy and sanctified via the parental decision to follow Christ. My brain doesn't wrap around all this stuff.

I see it as: If Jesus said for us not to reject these little ones, then He is protecting the little ones. And since no one comes to the father but by Jesus and Jesus is the judge and has the authority to say who is His, then by golly, that's good enough for me to trust Jesus and not man's ideas about transferring salvation and holiness by way of osmosis. selahV

[selahV]

Hey Les Prouty! good morning to you. I received your other comment but everything goes into a cache till I read them. You wouldn't believe the spam I get if I let it go directly through. Viagra, Xanax, etc.
So I went to bed early and didn't post any of the comments. Just wanted to let ya know that I wasn't holding them hostage. :)

I read that comment, once. I need to re-read it a few times, because it really doesn't seem to answer what the friend was asking or the question I had about believing babies get saved and made holy through the parents faith in Christ. Jesus makes us holy, not people's decisions, actions or beliefs. At least that is how I see it. Talk later. thanks for loggin on. selahV