Mike wrote:
And infant salvation is by God's grace, same source as grown-up salvation

17th century Europe was more greatly aware of the terrible tragedy of infant mortality than we are today.
The article is written in a "Pastoral" way which does NOT make it wrong.
How would you handle telling a young couple in your church what may happen to their dead child? A couple who have entered into the Covenant with God. Can you be more Biblically accurate by telling them that the child is in hell? They like any parents hope and pray for their children to be God's children. Clearly it is NOT sentimental to teach that the child is covenant elect.
___

HYH and Guinness choose another path. They therefore imply by their posts that the children of the Elect are going to hell. They have even further implied that the spouse also goes to hell? Some covenant they have!!
THIS is UNScriptural.

Guinness wrote:
Well, now you've reverted back to your previous postings

Mike wrote:
1] but I recognize your accent. Long way from Eastbourne, lad

2] And infant salvation is by God's grace, same source as grown-up salvation, not man-invented ideas about Godly parents.

2] Do me a wee favour here Mike, and read this Canon article again slowly.
"Since we are to judge of the will of God from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the *COVENANT* of grace, in which they, together with the parents, are comprehended, godly parents have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of their children, whom it pleaseth God to call out of this life in their infancy." (Canons of Dort 1:17)

Guinness wrote:
I'd be more interested if you could provide support for your previous illogical arguments about your unusual perspective on the scope of election rather than changing the subject to infant baptism.

John UK wrote:
Is there any truth in the rumour that the Canons of Dordt are the protestant equivalent of the papal bulls?

As for "Eastbourne"
And your buddies speculations?

No nowhere near Eastbourne or England - wherever that is. Dont you recognise my accent?
_____________

Here is some good teaching to hopefully absorb your interest folks.

"The doctrine of infant salvation finds a logical place in the Calvinistic system; for the redemption of the soul is thus infallibly determined irrespective of any faith, repentance, or good works, whether actual or foreseen.
It does not, however, find a logical place in Arminianism or any other system.
Furthermore, it would seem that a system such as Arminianism, which suspends salvation on a personal act of rational choice, would logically demand that those dying in infancy must either be given another period of probation after death, in order that their destiny may be fixed, or that they must be annihilated." (Boettner)

HYH wrote:
Do you suppose that if you keep reiterating Dort's interpretation of the covenant and the promise that more people on SA will come to accept it?

Guinness wrote:
By the same reasoning from the same text they also "have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of their" unbelieving spouses either

Mike wrote:
do not continue the position into the following generation, where the error of salvation by having Godly parents may easily be discerned.

"For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."

Mike wrote:
Actually Hailsham, My question was serious. If "you and your children" means that the children of Godly parents are elect, you can't stop there. Why? The elect children grow up and are elect adults. When they have children, theirs must then be elect for the same reason: "you and your children." Thus must salvation be by inheritance. Surely you can see the fallacy of this?

HYH wrote:
That is why the Presbys baptise all their babies. They are presumed to be elect until they betray that they are not. And guess what? Most of the time they get it wrong, but still they don't get the message that to ensure they get to heaven they should drown them! Oh but wait, how can you drown them by sprinkling?

Mike wrote:
So the children of Godly parents are elect if they die young. What if they don't die young? Is there an death-age at which they might not be elect anymore? Or are the children of Godly parents automatically elect?

*MY* Bible states that the promise is to you and YOUR children. That means the ELECT and THEIR children. And we don't need to wait until the kids are old enough to make a *free will* statement at the dunking. Because WE believe GOD's Promise. AND we are really Reformed.
In the Presbyterian Church GOD makes the necessary arrangements for HIS ELECT.

HYH wrote:
So you are wiser than those who framed the confessions of faith, and Mr Spurgeon and every other Reformed thinker who has believed in Infant Salvation?

"Since we are to judge of the will of God from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the *COVENANT* of grace, in which they, together with the parents, are comprehended, godly parents have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of their children, whom it pleaseth God to call out of this life in their infancy." (Canons of Dort 1:17)

"ELECT* infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word." (WCF 10:3)