[Chris (from previous post)]> > I don't believe this is a paedobaptist
argument
> > at all, since Christ was not baptizing these little children in the
> passage,
> > nor was any of His disciples.

[Chad]> Have you read what the paedobaptists say about this passage?  I have
yet to
> see any of them suggest that Christ was baptizing little children in the
> passage.  What he is affirming, in their system, is covenantal children
who
> are given the promises and blessings of the kingdom by the mere fact that
> they are children of the covenant.

[Chris] I am merely saying that the fact that Christ and His disciples did
NOT baptize these children speaks loudly against paedobaptism to me, not
that the majority of paedobaptists claim that there were baptisms performed
in this passage.


[Chris (from previous post)]> > I am finding it quite interesting to see
> > how tenaciously and passionately brethren are to attack the view of
infant
> > salvation, even when some are merely agnostic over it. Why does it
bother
> > you so very much that I and other Calvinists have been convinced by the
> > Scriptures that infants and little children will not populate hell
> > (especially the agnostics--just because you are not convinced either
way,
> it
> > should not bother you quite so much that some of us are)?

[Chad]> I think this is a fair question... I cannot speak for the rest, but
it
> grieves me to know that some parents in our flocks are being given
> unwarranted comfort when the only comfort to give is Christ himself.  I
> wholeheartedly believe that Christ is slighted in your view... I guess
> that's why my "agnosticism" in this instance is a little more passionate
> than it would be for the color of church carpet. :-)

[Chris] Christ is slighted by reciting 1 Thes.4:13-18 to give comfort????
Would Christ be slighted if I did the same in regard to an adult loved one
of a friend who dies that I believe is with Christ???? If I believe dead
infants are with Christ I don't believe I am slighting Him at all. Although
His Sovereignty should be our chief comfort, it is not the only message of
comfort the Scriptures give. 1 Thes.4:13-18 specifically says "comfort one
another with THESE THINGS" (those who are asleep are with Christ and will
rise and return with Him).


[Chad]> Again... to paraphrase what I wrote yesterday...the only hope we can
give
> parents of infants is on the chance that if their infant died "in Christ"
> then that infant is "with Christ".  It is an emphasis on sentimentality,
> rather on Christ, that is giving these parents assurance and comfort.
Such
> a desire is a misplaced focus on the
> child's destiny and has become that parent's "sufficiency" or
"satisfaction"
> rather than in Christ himself.

[Chris] But you are speaking as one who does not have certainty in the
destiny of deceased infants. I believe the Scriptures do give me certainty,
and I take offense by your imputing a motive to my beliefs which I do not
accept as true. As I said earlier, it is not "sentimentality" driving me to
this conclusion. If I was driven by "sentimentality" I would also become an
annihilationist, or better yet, a universalist (I am not a parent, but I can
imagine that the grieving process could be infinitely greater for a
Christian parent who loses an older child who they had more time to know and
love deeply, especially if the child was in open rebellion to Christ before
death--I am not so sentimental that I would candy-coat the truth to such a
grieving parent). We as Baptists reject infant baptism because the
Scriptures describe who the proper candidates for baptism is, and they are
totally absent of any example of an infant baptism. I have the same evidence
for my views of hell. I reject the notion that infants are there because the
Scriptures only describe wicked individuals who are conscious rebels being
tormented there for there *deeds* (not solely due to inherited Adamic sin),
and are totally absent of any example of an infant being tormented there.


[Chad] Ultimately, I must place my satisfaction in
> Christ, the Supreme Judge, who is always good and always judges rightly.
If
> "good" and "rightly" means my child goes to hell I must place my
> satisfaction with that decision in Christ.  The comfort for the parent is
> that the child is in the hands of Christ who is good and righteous.

[Chris] Agreed, but if one believes the Scriptures offer additional comfort
to that truth, there is no reason to withhold it. You would not be so
ambiguous about the destiny of the deceased while offering comfort to
mourners who lost a loved one you were certain was a Christian. I have that
same confidence from Scripture about the destiny of deceased infants.


[Chad]> As for Spurgeon, as a systematician he was brilliant (not to mention
his
> unparalleled oratory).  But I tend to find his biblical theology lacking
at
> times (allowing the whole of the scripture to inform the exegesis).  But
> that's just my opinion.

[Chris] And that is why I look to no uninspired writer as an infallible
guide but to the Scriptures alone as an inerrant authority.