Quote
Ehud said:
. . . I have said that baptized individuals are baptized into Christ and can be called Christian.

. . . Are infants baptized into Christ or are they not?

Are infants one in Jesus Christ with us adults or are they half-way covenant chumps? Have infants put on Christ? If baptism puts on Christ, but infants can't put on Christ then why are we baptizing them?

If we teach our children to pray in Jesus' name then why can we not call our baptized children Christians?
1) You say that infants can be called Christian because they are baptized into Christ. It is not as if you were proposing that calling them "Christians" is simply one of convenience or politeness, but rather you are declaring something about their spiritual condition. The fundamental issue is, Who in Scripture is designated a "Christian"? Is it those who are baptized? or perhaps those who are members of a local congregation? or is it one who has been regenerated by the Spirit of God and thus is consequently converted, i.e., they have shown forth repentance and professed faith in the Lord Christ? In EVERY instance where Paul uses the phrase, "in Christ", he is speaking about an actual union with Christ by grace through faith. There are those who falsely believe and call themselves Christian. And there are situations where a false profession albeit a very convincing one is wrongly discerned by others to be genuine. But nowhere in Scripture can we find that one is called "Christian" without evidence that would support that title.

2) IF infants are actually and truly "baptized into Christ", then they are indeed Christians. This MUST mean therefore that they have been eternally predestinated, elected, called and will persevere to the end. (Rom 8:29, 30) IF infants have been truly "baptized into Christ", then they are justified; i.e., God has declared them innocent, righteous for Christ's sake based upon the merits of His atonement in their behalf. There is therefore no need nor warrant to preach the Gospel to them as there is no need nor warrant to do so to any truly saved individual. Conversion is a one-time occurrence and is not to be repeated as is done in so many modern evan-jelly-cal churches in their insidious Alter Calls. IF they are truly "in Christ", then the focus should and must be upon their sanctification. And lastly, IF they are truly "in Christ", then they can never lose the salvation they allegedly have. This is exactly what the Pharisees taught; covenant children are eternally secure because they have been been circumcised and are God's chosen.

3) I agree totally with Jonathan Edwards in that children are not "half-way covenant chumps". There is no "half-way covenant" as his grandfather Stoddard taught and which those who hold to presumptive regeneration sometimes teach, i.e., although children are "in Christ" they can deny their faith and thus perish. But Edwards correctly taught that children are by nature "children of wrath" and are in no less need of regeneration and conversion than any adult. Neither being children of believing parents nor baptism can or does change their natural spiritual state. And Edwards was no Baptist and neither am I. (not that being a Baptist is such an evil thing as some paedobaptists would have everyone believe) One is either "in Christ" and thus eternally saved. Or, one is outside of Christ and in dire need of being saved. Either one's sins have been remitted for the sake of Christ and having been united to Him. Or, one is dead in sins and in need of a Saviour. There is no half-way salvation either.

Then why do we baptize infants? Because they are externally related to the covenant and are therefore to be given the sign of the covenant. They are "holy", i.e., they are set apart from non-covenant children in that God has mercifully given that they are born to believing parents and raised in the admonitions of the Lord through which; i.e., the means, the Gospel comes. They are also given the privilege of being reared in the Church where the Word of God is faithfully preached, again one of the "means of grace" and from which faith comes by the Spirit's work in the heart of the elect. (Rom 3:1; 9: 4, 5) Would you have us believe that Esau was considered a "Christian" by O.T. standards? Would you have us believe that Esau, being a covenant child and having received the sign of the covenant was therefore "in Christ" and was justified before God no less than Abraham? Having the means of grace is not the same as having been given saving grace.


Acts 2:37-39 (ASV) "Now when they heard [this,] they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do? 38 And Peter [said] unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him.


The promise of remission of sins (salvation in Christ) is given to only those whom the Lord "calls" [to faith], i.e., the inner calling (regeneration and irresistible grace) which infallibly leads to true conversion; repentance and faith. There is no unqualified promise of salvation to the children of believers who are baptized. This is simply biblical Soteriology 101 in the classic Reformed style.

In His grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]