Quote
Ehud states.

The emphasis I meant to bring out with Eph 6:1 was this: Christ says, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15). If we do not call our children Christian, then by default they do not love Christ. So ,it seems to me, the best we can do with our children is to teach them to obey exclusively through fear of punishment apart from them loving Christ. This smells fishy to me. I can't help but think that it is wrong somehow to indirectly reinforce our holy baptized children that they are to obey without loving Christ. This means we can't even teach our children to pray in Jesus' name because they are not Christian. Yet Paul uses the peculiar language, "in the Lord." Does God really want children to obey their parents apart from loving Christ in Eph 6:1? Joshua says, "As for me and my house we will serve the Lord." Were 2-year olds apart of Joshua's household? I don't know. But whoever is in that house is going to be serving the Lord.
Calling a cat a dog does not make it a dog and calling children “Christian” does not make them love Christ! Your philosophy reeks!

Things may smell fishy to you, but children are to be disciplined. The Word of God is not smelly when it says,

Quote
Proverbs 13:24 He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.

Proverbs 22:15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him.

Proverbs 23:13 Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die.

Proverbs 23:14 Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death.
What you do not seem to understand is that the covenant begins with more of a one way relationship – God’s loving the children (especially the elect; 1 Tim 4:10) of his covenant. It is later, if the child is elect, that while learning to love God – God’s way, as taught by the Holy Spirit and his means – the children’s parents, the church, the Word, the sacraments, worship, etc. – that the relationship becomes more two way! Moreover, as has already been pointed out to you, all mankind has an obligation to fully worship God – whether lost or saved. Man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever (WSC - Q1; Psa. 73:25-26; 1 Cor. 10:31). This means that they have an obligation to love God fully and wholly for who he is … Thus, check your nose. Your scent is off – maybe its the two types of clothing you are wearing at present (FV wolf and sheep’s clothing)?

And yes anyone who is a member of the covenant may and should pray in Jesus name. Jesus when he spoke to the disciples, (which included the lost and saved), said, “When ye pray” and not “if your elect then pray” (Luke 11:1f). Did not Judas pray? Did not Judas participate in the ministry of Christ? Did not Judas, an adult, participate in the LS to an extent – though warned by Christ of his immanent betrayal. (And please note, the One that said suffer the little children to come to me did not say such in the Passover he conducted, did he? They weren’t present!). Even the fallen of Israel (Rom. 9:6) worshiped God in some form – and so did their children to the extent allowed by Judaic worship.

In addition, as has been explained several times there are several ways of being “in the Lord.” I have pointed you to the Jews in Hebrews 6:1-6 who were “in the Lord,” by “elementary teachings about Christ,” but not “of the Lord” by new birth – unless God permit!

Lastly, you quote Calvin, in defense of your “baptismal regeneration,” but the question arises, “Do you understand him?” “Do you understand the language he used and not merely moving him into our century and redefining what he actually meant?” Have you read the Institutes or just occasionally quote them? – my guess would be the later.

Calvin was not perfect to say the very least. After all he is a mere man, not God. His views on Romans 5 are even somewhat RCC (see, Murray). He did say some confusing things – if one is not keen to his language, intent, and the struggles of his day they can even misunderstand him – much like Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-17) at times. One such example is,

Quote
For as God, regenerating us in baptism, ingrafts us into the fellowship of his Church, and makes us his by adoption, so we have said that he performs the office of a provident parent, in continually supplying the food by which he may sustain and preserve us in the life to which he has begotten us by his word (4.17.1).
However, you must understand Calvin – that he has in view something objectively presented in baptism and subjectively received by faith. This is seen in his Antidote to the Counsel of Trent, where he wrote,

Quote
That this may be more clear, let my readers call to mind that there is a two-fold grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made, but that regeneration is only begun, and goes on making progress during the whole of life (1.5).
As Rich Lusk states, Calvin believed baptism was an objective, effectual means of salvation, but it did not guarantee salvation. In fact, baptism only blessed those who received it (subjectively) in faith. To Calvin, baptism is a good faith offer of new life, but the grace of baptism isn’t necessarily irresistible. Calvin also that the “ordinary method in which God accomplishes our salvation is by beginning it in baptism and carrying it gradually forward during the course of life.” He says, Baptism is a sign or figure or symbol of regeneration; but God’s signs are not empty: “I understand it to be a figure, but still so that the reality is annexed to it; for God does not disappoint us when he promises us his gifts. Accordingly, it is certain that both pardon of sins and newness of life are offered to us in baptism and received by us.” In other words, regeneration is not only symbolized in baptism; it is held out, to be received by faith.

As Lusk concludes,

Obviously, then, Calvin believed in an efficacious baptism. To deny this is to suggest that God makes “sport” of us, mocking us with empty symbols that do not fulfill their promises. But Calvin spells out what this efficacy means with a fair degree of precision. He properly distinguishes the outward sign itself from the thing signified, and insists on the necessity of faith for the reception of the thing signified. The objective and subjective are carefully delineated. The sacraments maintain their objective efficacy and force, even if by hardness of heart, men reject the blessing of the sacrament. To be sure, “The power of the mystery [the sacrament] remains in tact, no matter how much wicked men try to their utmost to nullify it . . . [M]en bear away from this Sacrament no more than they gather with the vessel of faith.” He says, “Yet, it is one thing to be offered, and another to be received . . .the Sacrament is one thing, the power of the Sacrament another.” Calvin clearly distinguished the objective means (the sacrament) from the subjective receptor (faith). While discussing the Lord’s Supper, he uses a most appropriate illustration for baptism: “[T]here is here no reason to lose faith in the promises of God, who does not stop the rain from falling from heaven, although rocks and stones do not receive the moisture of rain.” (4.17.33-34). Calvin also wrote, commenting on 1 Cor. 11:27: “the efficacy of the sacraments does not depend upon the worthiness of men . . . nothing is taken away from the promises of God, or falls to the ground, through the wickedness of men.” Baptism is objectively a means of salvation, but what God offers and gives in baptism must be received by faith in order for it to take effect. In other words, baptism functions analogously to the preaching of the gospel.

Ehud your use of “baptismal regeneration” is nothing near what Calvin’s was. In addition, you live in a different era and are responsible for the said use of terms/phrases describing your view today and should only co-join them to the same term in the past, if the terms/phrases are being used the same way. Your present use is heretical to its core – Calvin is more precise and orthodox, though in some places I do believe his writing needed improvement (not unlike the lot of us—especially myself).

PS: We fear for your soul. FV is a dangerous heresy that at times, like other heresies, may lead one to apostasy! But if that is God’s providence, then so be it.

PSS: We hate for you to be on the other side (the negative side) as well.

I wasn't expecting to have any time to post today, but I am glad that the providence of God allowed it. I have to take my leave now. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hello.gif" alt="" />

Reformed and Always Reforming,