Paedocommunion by Rayburn

Status
Not open for further replies.
Prespastor said:

"It is another thing to ASSUME that the children of Christians ARE ACTUALLY regenerate and train them that this is the case. Paedocommunion is doing exactly this! By giving our very young children the Supper, we are telling them, in effect, that they are salvifically in Christ."

:amen:

And doesn't this practise in some way contribute to the great number of unconverted who sit in the pews believing themselves to be in Christ because they've "always been part of the church!" ?

Isn't this similar to what happened, or lead to in (Edwards' time), i.e. - "The Half-Way Covenant?"

The Puritans used to "fence" the table. It has been my observation that this is not done too much any more.
 
I just see his name in every debate, thats all I meant Chris. I do not even think Paul faught this many fronts...LOL

A brief google provided polemics on:

Padeocommunion
Sabbath
RPW
Christmas
Charismatic movement
Auburn Ave
State Schooling
Theonomy
Arminianism
Christian Liberty
Law

Amazing how God can give ONE person so much revelation on this many topics.

I just don't see what you're on about. Anyway, if you check Dr. Lee's site you'll see that his output dwarfs Schwertley's, probably several times over. We pontificate on the PB on these topics and more all the time. If you have a problem with Schwertley then email him.



Why are you reacting in such a way Chris? I am not 'getting on' about anything. I just never heard of him until I joined this board. People quote Schwertly, provide links to Schwertly, point towards Schwertly.

Daniel answered my inquiery:

He gives a lecture to his congregation every week on a topical issue; hence, he seems to have covered everything from a-z. The stuff on family issues is meant to be very good, though I have only listened to some of it.

That is all I was looking for. As an aside, after pontificating 3500 posts, I would expect a better reaction from you with my honest inquiery.

:handshake: Sorry, brother. I suppose it was the part about "God granting revelation" that set me off.
 
The article says,

"It has sometimes been claimed that “the Passover, the place of which has been taken by the [Lord’s ]Supper, did not admit all guests indiscriminately, but was…eaten only by those who were old enough to be able to inquire into its meaning [Ex. 12:26].” [John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV, xvi, 30, trans. F.L. Battles (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1965).] But even many who do not accept paedocommunion agree that this is an unnatural and tendentious reading of the text."

It must be nice to smart enough to accuse Calvin of being "unnatural and tendentious" in his reading of the text. :calvin::knox:

:scholar:
 
Further, it is very instructive that Christ Himself appears to have participated in the Passover for the first time when He was 12 years old.

It actually seems very clear to me that the Passover, was sort of a "graduating rite" where the long trek was first made by the boy (and perhaps his Mother as well). Concurrent with the festival, a child was officially examined by the Church to determine if he had been properly catechized.

The passage in Luke 2 would appear to be meaningless unless the above interpretation is correct. in my opinion the only reason for that text being there is to inform us that this was the first time that Christ came to the passover.

PS When the Bible speaks of someone being 12 years old, does that mean 13 as we now use it?
 
PS When the Bible speaks of someone being 12 years old, does that mean 13 as we now use it?

Actually it is sometimes the other way around. At the very least the years of kings are reckoned according to the first day of the Jewish calendar (the first of Nisan). Hence a ruler is said to be in his first year and when the first of Nisan rolls around he is in his second year. It is entirely possible, then, for a king to reign for less than a week and be in the second year of his reign if the reign begins right before the New Year.

I don't think ages were accounted according to the first of Nisan but the ages were, for sure, accounted by a person being in their first, second,... year. Hence, what we would call a 1 year old, would be a person in their second year as their first year extends from the time of birth to their first birthday. A thirteen year old boy, by our reckoning, would be in his fourteenth year.
 
The problem with paedo-communion is that it is based on conjecture; there simply is not enough evidence to substantiate the claim that covenant children took the passover. However, we do clearly know that they received circumcision.

Daniel,

I actually think there is substantial evidence to claim that young covenant children *did not* participate in the feast. The Third Mill site notes this fairly well. Leviticus commands the male adults to assemble for this feast and there is an obvious reason for this.

I think many people when they're reading the paedocommunionists make their arguments want to transport the OT people into their local communities as if they're showing up for Church every Sunday in their Suburbans. We all need to remember that people actually walked to the Temple.

Women and children were not prohibited from attending the Passover feast but they were very clearly optional. From this very point, the best the paedocommunion advocate could establish from the clear teaching on the Passover is that children might have been able to participate if the father happened to bring his wife and children along but what they cannot argue is that it was of the essence of the Passover to have small children present because most men did not bring their small children.

Further, it is very instructive that Christ Himself appears to have participated in the Passover for the first time when He was 12 years old. Alfred Edersheim sheds some light on this that is very instructive:
The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah
Alfred Edersheim
1883

Book II
FROM THE MANGER IN BETHLEHEM TO THE BAPTISM IN JORDAN

Chapter 10
IN THE HOUSE OF HIS HEAVENLY, AND IN THE HOME OF HIS EARTHLY FATHER
(St. Luke 2:41-52.)​

Once only is the great silence, which lies on the history of Christ's early life, broken. It is to record what took place on His first visit to the Temple. What this meant, even to an ordinary devout Jew, may easily be imagined. Where life and religion were so intertwined, and both in such organic connection with the Temple and the people of Israel, every thoughtful Israelite must have felt as if his real life were not in what was around, but ran up into the grand unity of the people of God, and were compassed by the halo of its sanctity. To him it would be true in the deepest sense, that, so to speak, each Israelite was born in Zion, as, assuredly, all the well-springs of his life were there.1 It was, therefore, not merely the natural eagerness to see the City of their God and of their fathers, glorious Jerusalem; nor yet the lawful enthusiasm, national or religious, which would kindle at the thought of 'our feet' standing within those gates, through which priests, prophets, and kings had passed; but far deeper feelings which would make glad, when it was said: 'Let us go into the house of Jehovah.' They were not ruins to which precious memories clung, nor did the great hope seem to lie afar off, behind the evening-mist. But 'glorious things were spoken of Zion, the City of God' - in the past, and in the near future 'the thrones of David' were to be set within her walls, and amidst her palaces.2

In strict law, personal observance of the ordinances, and hence attendance on the feasts at Jerusalem, devolved on a youth only when he was of age, that is, at thirteen years. Then he became what was called 'a son of the Commandment,' or 'of the Torah.'3 But, as a matter of fact, the legal age was in this respect anticipated by two years, or at least by one.4 It was in accordance with this custom, that,5 on the first Pascha after Jesus had passed His twelfth year, His Parents took Him with them in the 'company' of the Nazarenes to Jerusalem. The text seems to indicate, that it was their wont6 to go up to the Temple; and we mark that, although women were not bound to make such personal appearance,7 Mary gladly availed herself of what seems to have been the direction of Hillel (followed also by other religious women, mentioned in Rabbinic writings), to go up to the solemn services of the Sanctuary.

1. Ps. ixxxvii. 5-7.

2. Ps. cxxii. 1-5.

3. Ab. v. 21.

4. Yoma 82 a.

5. Comp. also Maimonides, Hilkh. Chag. ii. The common statement, that Jesus went to the Temple because He was 'a Son of the Commandment,' is obviously erroneous. All the more remarkable, on the other hand, is St. Luke's accurate knowledge of Jewish customs, and all the more antithetic to the mythical theory the circumstance, that he places this remarkable event in the twelfth year of Jesus' life, and not when He became 'a Son of the Law.'

6. We take as the more correct reading that which puts the participle in the present tense (anabainontwn), and not in the aorist.

7. Jer Kidd. 61 c.
It actually seems very clear to me that the Passover, was sort of a "graduating rite" where the long trek was first made by the boy (and perhaps his Mother as well). Concurrent with the festival, a child was officially examined by the Church to determine if he had been properly catechized.

These are the reasons why Reformed Churches in the past would not examine a child to become a communing member until they were at least 12.

Now, as a copitulation to peadocommunionists arguments, age is no longer a factor.
 
What do y'all make of the following?

Last paragraph of Dr. Rayburn's article -

"We do not practice paedocommunion here at Faith Presbyterian. We get as close to it as we can, the rules of our church being what they are, but a profession of faith is still required in the PCA for participation at the Lord’s Table. So, we take professions of faith much sooner than used to be the norm; and, happily, many, many other PCA churches are doing the same. And that is alright. If it takes some years, as it will, to convince the church that the practice of many centuries is in error, so be it. Our little children, having come to the table at five years of age or so, will not remember a time when they did not come, of a Lord’s Day, to eat the bread and drink the wine that Jesus Christ their Savior has provided for them by his body and blood. And in its own mysterious way, that Supper will, by the grace of God and the work of the Holy Spirit, do its work in nourishing their faith in Jesus Christ."

Their practice in this is for the elders to take the five membership questions from the BCO and translate them to a five-year-old (or whatever age) level. If the child answers correctly, they are admitted.

I think this is a workaround. Considering requirements such as self-examination and discerning the Lord's body in the supper, I do not see the wisdom in this.
 
The problem with paedo-communion is that it is based on conjecture; there simply is not enough evidence to substantiate the claim that covenant children took the passover. However, we do clearly know that they received circumcision.

Daniel,

I actually think there is substantial evidence to claim that young covenant children *did not* participate in the feast. The Third Mill site notes this fairly well. Leviticus commands the male adults to assemble for this feast and there is an obvious reason for this.

I think many people when they're reading the paedocommunionists make their arguments want to transport the OT people into their local communities as if they're showing up for Church every Sunday in their Suburbans. We all need to remember that people actually walked to the Temple.

Women and children were not prohibited from attending the Passover feast but they were very clearly optional. From this very point, the best the paedocommunion advocate could establish from the clear teaching on the Passover is that children might have been able to participate if the father happened to bring his wife and children along but what they cannot argue is that it was of the essence of the Passover to have small children present because most men did not bring their small children.

Further, it is very instructive that Christ Himself appears to have participated in the Passover for the first time when He was 12 years old. Alfred Edersheim sheds some light on this that is very instructive:
The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah
Alfred Edersheim
1883

Book II
FROM THE MANGER IN BETHLEHEM TO THE BAPTISM IN JORDAN

Chapter 10
IN THE HOUSE OF HIS HEAVENLY, AND IN THE HOME OF HIS EARTHLY FATHER
(St. Luke 2:41-52.)​

Once only is the great silence, which lies on the history of Christ's early life, broken. It is to record what took place on His first visit to the Temple. What this meant, even to an ordinary devout Jew, may easily be imagined. Where life and religion were so intertwined, and both in such organic connection with the Temple and the people of Israel, every thoughtful Israelite must have felt as if his real life were not in what was around, but ran up into the grand unity of the people of God, and were compassed by the halo of its sanctity. To him it would be true in the deepest sense, that, so to speak, each Israelite was born in Zion, as, assuredly, all the well-springs of his life were there.1 It was, therefore, not merely the natural eagerness to see the City of their God and of their fathers, glorious Jerusalem; nor yet the lawful enthusiasm, national or religious, which would kindle at the thought of 'our feet' standing within those gates, through which priests, prophets, and kings had passed; but far deeper feelings which would make glad, when it was said: 'Let us go into the house of Jehovah.' They were not ruins to which precious memories clung, nor did the great hope seem to lie afar off, behind the evening-mist. But 'glorious things were spoken of Zion, the City of God' - in the past, and in the near future 'the thrones of David' were to be set within her walls, and amidst her palaces.2

In strict law, personal observance of the ordinances, and hence attendance on the feasts at Jerusalem, devolved on a youth only when he was of age, that is, at thirteen years. Then he became what was called 'a son of the Commandment,' or 'of the Torah.'3 But, as a matter of fact, the legal age was in this respect anticipated by two years, or at least by one.4 It was in accordance with this custom, that,5 on the first Pascha after Jesus had passed His twelfth year, His Parents took Him with them in the 'company' of the Nazarenes to Jerusalem. The text seems to indicate, that it was their wont6 to go up to the Temple; and we mark that, although women were not bound to make such personal appearance,7 Mary gladly availed herself of what seems to have been the direction of Hillel (followed also by other religious women, mentioned in Rabbinic writings), to go up to the solemn services of the Sanctuary.

1. Ps. ixxxvii. 5-7.

2. Ps. cxxii. 1-5.

3. Ab. v. 21.

4. Yoma 82 a.

5. Comp. also Maimonides, Hilkh. Chag. ii. The common statement, that Jesus went to the Temple because He was 'a Son of the Commandment,' is obviously erroneous. All the more remarkable, on the other hand, is St. Luke's accurate knowledge of Jewish customs, and all the more antithetic to the mythical theory the circumstance, that he places this remarkable event in the twelfth year of Jesus' life, and not when He became 'a Son of the Law.'

6. We take as the more correct reading that which puts the participle in the present tense (anabainontwn), and not in the aorist.

7. Jer Kidd. 61 c.
It actually seems very clear to me that the Passover, was sort of a "graduating rite" where the long trek was first made by the boy (and perhaps his Mother as well). Concurrent with the festival, a child was officially examined by the Church to determine if he had been properly catechized.

:ditto:
 
I find the arguments for paedocommunion to be completely unsatisfactory (I deal with them here Christ Reformed Church - Audio Messages -). I was in the paedocommunion camp for about a year as I initially found their arguments to be persuasive. I ended up holding to this faulty view for a time because I was a former Baptist who had come to see infant baptism a couple years before. Without taking the time to go further in my understanding of Reformed doctrine and the sacraments in general, I took a lot for granted and bought the general argument that if we baptize covenant children, it is inconsistent to deny them the Lord's Supper.

From my present vantage point, I find paedocommunion to be a serious error. I believe presumptive regeneration (yes, I understand that good Reformed men have held to PR) put into practice through paedocommunion (which good Reformed men have not done historically speaking) will, in time, have a devastating effect on the churches that are adopting this practice. I believe it is teaching our children to take their salvation for granted; providing a false assurance. I fear this will lead to nominalism of the worst sort.

Allow me to clarify, it is one thing to TREAT our covenant children as 'Christians'; training and nuturing them in the Scriptures and the covenant into which they were born; looking for them to come to a 'full assurance of faith' without their assuming it to be true of them because Dad and the church said so. (Understand that when I say 'assurance', I mean exactly that. I do not believe a 'crisis faith experience' is necessary for every covenant child; some, not all, are indeed regenerate from the womb. What I am speaking of is when the regenerate child of the covenant comes to a place of spiritual maturity where they acquire a biblical assurance that they are in Christ. Others come to a place where they realize they are outside of Christ, repent and believe and thus gain assurance.)

Alternatively...

It is another thing to ASSUME that the children of Christians ARE ACTUALLY regenerate and train them that this is the case. Paedocommunion is doing exactly this! By giving our very young children the Supper, we are telling them, in effect, that they are salvifically in Christ.

Lest we ever forget...

"For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly [there is a covenantal standing which is merely external], nor is circumcision outward and physical [something more is needed than outward circumcision or baptism]. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter [external membership in the covenant is no ground of assurance]. His praise is not from man but from God [assurance ought to come from God alone through a heart that is embracing the Christ of the covenant, not from who your parents are, church membership, baptism, etc.]." Romans 2:28&29

I think this position is what leads to some of the FV error. Everyone is considered regenerate because they have been baptized. John Murray kind of opened the door for this kind of thing by teaching presumptive regeneration in his book entitled, Baptism.
 
I think this position is what leads to some of the FV error. Everyone is considered regenerate because they have been baptized. John Murray kind of opened the door for this kind of thing by teaching presumptive regeneration in his book entitled, Baptism.

I am not sure I agree mate. The FV teach that baptism acts ex opere operato and makes someone a covenant member and hence elect. I adhere to presumptive regeneration and what PR agues is that we are to presume the infants of believers are regenerate because of God's promise to be the God of our seed and so they are baotised. This baptism rests not upon our presumption but upon God's promise and is declarative of a position as opposed to effecting a position. I hope this helps a little. :handshake:
 
I think presumptive regeneration is the first step on this ladder.

Presumptive Regeneration leads to Paedocommunion which leads to Federal Vision which leads to...(we shall see).

I understand that there are people on different rungs of this ladder who will disagree with me but I think presumptive regeneration is the logical first step. You cannot take the next steps without it. The FVers turning the issue into a form of baptismal regeneration doesn't help avoid the issue. Though they of course have fallen back into a serious lie regarding the sacraments, the practicality of their position as it relates to where they begin (how we are to consider children) is essentially the same as the view of presumptive regeneration (the aforementioned issue regarding the sacraments notwithstanding).

As far as I can tell, the FV advocates began with the view of presumptive regeneration, then went paedocommunion, then went back and developed a new theological framework to defend their position; exchanging presumptive regeneration with some form of baptismal regeneration.

With all due respect to my brethren who hold to presumptive regeneration, I think the position is an old error in the Reformed camp due to a combination of trying to avoid the baptismal regeneration of Rome on the one hand and an overreaction to the baptistic understanding on the other.

As long as presumptive regeneration remains in Reformed churches, we will see a repetition of problems like the half-way covenant and federal vision. I am not saying this means that all those who hold to presumptive regeneration will go down these roads, but their position provides the initial foundation for these sorts of doctrinal aberrations.

I think this position is what leads to some of the FV error. Everyone is considered regenerate because they have been baptized. John Murray kind of opened the door for this kind of thing by teaching presumptive regeneration in his book entitled, Baptism.

I am not sure I agree mate. The FV teach that baptism acts ex opere operato and makes someone a covenant member and hence elect. I adhere to presumptive regeneration and what PR agues is that we are to presume the infants of believers are regenerate because of God's promise to be the God of our seed and so they are baotised. This baptism rests not upon our presumption but upon God's promise and is declarative of a position as opposed to effecting a position. I hope this helps a little. :handshake:
 
Last edited:
Those who advocate Paedocommunion are not consistent. I do not know of any who would administer the Lord's Supper to an infant after baptism. They will use the argument that the children under the O.T participated in the Passover, and I would not argue against that, but the children were instructed and were aware of why they were observing it. We find the warning in I Corinthians 11 that one should examine themselves before coming to the table. I do not know many infants that would be able to do that.

I am enjoying the discussion so far. Stephen forgive me if I misunderstand here, but I believe you are saying that paedocommunionists do not give the elements to actual infants, only to young children? Just clarifying...
 
Those who advocate Paedocommunion are not consistent. I do not know of any who would administer the Lord's Supper to an infant after baptism. They will use the argument that the children under the O.T participated in the Passover, and I would not argue against that, but the children were instructed and were aware of why they were observing it. We find the warning in I Corinthians 11 that one should examine themselves before coming to the table. I do not know many infants that would be able to do that.

I am enjoying the discussion so far. Stephen forgive me if I misunderstand here, but I believe you are saying that paedocommunionists do not give the elements to actual infants, only to young children? Just clarifying...

The position of many in the FV as I understand it is essentially the same as what you find in the various Eastern Orthodox churches. That is, that infants should take communion as soon as they are physically able to ingest the elements.
 
This has been my experience. I attended a FV church with a friend (out of curiosity) and was amazed to see people putting the bread and wine into the mouths of newborn babies. It was disturbing to watch.
 
What I think Stephen was describing is the the young child position some in NAPARC churches advocate (i.e. Rayburn as noted in this thread) since they are not free to practice paedocommunion. But not everyone who advocates that position is paedocommunionist.
 
We will have to agree to disagree I am afraid.

I think presumptive regeneration is the first step on this ladder.

Presumptive Regeneration leads to Paedocommunion which leads to Federal Vision which leads to...(we shall see).

I understand that there are people on different rungs of this ladder who will disagree with me but I think presumptive regeneration is the logical first step. You cannot take the next steps without it. The FVers turning the issue into a form of baptismal regeneration doesn't help avoid the issue. Though they of course have fallen back into a serious lie regarding the sacraments, the practicality of their position as it relates to where they begin (how we are to consider children) is essentially the same as the view of presumptive regeneration (the aforementioned issue regarding the sacraments notwithstanding).

As far as I can tell, the FV advocates began with the view of presumptive regeneration, then went paedocommunion, then went back and developed a new theological framework to defend their position; exchanging presumptive regeneration with some form of baptismal regeneration.

With all due respect to my brethren who hold to presumptive regeneration, I think the position is an old error in the Reformed camp due to a combination of trying to avoid the baptismal regeneration of Rome on the one hand and an overreaction to the baptistic understanding on the other.

As long as presumptive regeneration remains in Reformed churches, we will see a repetition of problems like the half-way covenant and federal vision. I am not saying this means that all those who hold to presumptive regeneration will go down these roads, but their position provides the initial foundation for these sorts of doctrinal aberrations.
 
Its best to avoid relevance fallacies. I hold to neither presumptive regeneration or paedo-communion or the Federal Vision, but I do recognise that the issues are logically distinct.
 
Those who advocate Paedocommunion are not consistent. I do not know of any who would administer the Lord's Supper to an infant after baptism. They will use the argument that the children under the O.T participated in the Passover, and I would not argue against that, but the children were instructed and were aware of why they were observing it. We find the warning in I Corinthians 11 that one should examine themselves before coming to the table. I do not know many infants that would be able to do that.

I am enjoying the discussion so far. Stephen forgive me if I misunderstand here, but I believe you are saying that paedocommunionists do not give the elements to actual infants, only to young children? Just clarifying...

Yes, that is right. If they believe that children can come to the table if they are baptized why do they not admit a four month old infant?
 
This has been my experience. I attended a FV church with a friend (out of curiosity) and was amazed to see people putting the bread and wine into the mouths of newborn babies. It was disturbing to watch.

:wow: Thanks for the information. I have never heard this before. That is so bizzare.
 
prespastor

I think presumptive regeneration is the first step on this ladder.

Presumptive Regeneration leads to Paedocommunion which leads to Federal Vision which leads to...(we shall see).

I understand that there are people on different rungs of this ladder who will disagree with me but I think presumptive regeneration is the logical first step. You cannot take the next steps without it. The FVers turning the issue into a form of baptismal regeneration doesn't help avoid the issue. Though they of course have fallen back into a serious lie regarding the sacraments, the practicality of their position as it relates to where they begin (how we are to consider children) is essentially the same as the view of presumptive regeneration (the aforementioned issue regarding the sacraments notwithstanding).

As far as I can tell, the FV advocates began with the view of presumptive regeneration, then went paedocommunion, then went back and developed a new theological framework to defend their position; exchanging presumptive regeneration with some form of baptismal regeneration.

With all due respect to my brethren who hold to presumptive regeneration, I think the position is an old error in the Reformed camp due to a combination of trying to avoid the baptismal regeneration of Rome on the one hand and an overreaction to the baptistic understanding on the other.

As long as presumptive regeneration remains in Reformed churches, we will see a repetition of problems like the half-way covenant and federal vision. I am not saying this means that all those who hold to presumptive regeneration will go down these roads, but their position provides the initial foundation for these sorts of doctrinal aberrations.

I think this position is what leads to some of the FV error. Everyone is considered regenerate because they have been baptized. John Murray kind of opened the door for this kind of thing by teaching presumptive regeneration in his book entitled, Baptism.

I am not sure I agree mate. The FV teach that baptism acts ex opere operato and makes someone a covenant member and hence elect. I adhere to presumptive regeneration and what PR agues is that we are to presume the infants of believers are regenerate because of God's promise to be the God of our seed and so they are baotised. This baptism rests not upon our presumption but upon God's promise and is declarative of a position as opposed to effecting a position. I hope this helps a little. :handshake:

The presumptive regeneration position was not what Calvin or many of the Puritans held. I think you have to go back and study the Reformed position on the covenants and how it relates to baptism. The Reformed position has always been that baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace... and our engagement to be His (Westminster Shorter Catchism Question 94). Children are regarded as members of the visible church and have all of the promises and blessings of God as opposed to those outside of the visible covenant, but they are called to faith in Christ. The book of Hebrews calls covenant people to walk in faith and if they refuse then they will receive the curses and not the blessings. We are not to assume they are converted but to trust in God's promises for them and realize that the sign and seal of baptism is designed to lead them to faith. Meredith Kline and others held to this position, which is not held by some who claim to be Presbyterian. Mark Karlberg wrote a great book entitled, Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective. This was his disertation at WTS-Philadelphia. He outlines the historical Reformed position, which men like John Murray abandoned. I would highly recommend it. I do not think that you can label Murray or others who hold to presumptive regeneration as proponents of FV, but I think if you really look at it you can see how one can make the leap from this to some of the FV positions.
 
The presumptive regeneration position was not what Calvin or many of the Puritans held.

WLC
Question 166: Unto whom is Baptism to be administered?
Answer:
Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized.​

This teaches that infants are within the covenant.

Canons
Article 17 - Children of Believers Who Die in Infancy
We must judge concerning the will of God from His Word, which declares that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they are included with their parents. Therefore, God-fearing parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in their infancy (Genesis 17:7; Acts 2:39; 1 Corinthians7:14).​

Teaches that because our infants are included in God's covenant we have no reason to believe that they are anything other than regenerate.

This is also the theology of Charles Hodge amongst others.
 
Infants being in the covenant does not prove presumptive regeneration; instead covenant children are to be exhorted to keep the covenant (Ps. 25). We expect them to keep the covenant, but we should not presume that they are regenerate.
 
Infants being in the covenant does not prove presumptive regeneration; instead covenant children are to be exhorted to keep the covenant (Ps. 25). We expect them to keep the covenant, but we should not presume that they are regenerate.

God has promised to be the God of our children therefore we are to treat them as regenerate until they show signs that they are not. :2cents:

I do not know about this Richard. Fruit inspecting my kids? I see no biblical warrant for this cliche' I hear used so frequently.
 
Infants being in the covenant does not prove presumptive regeneration; instead covenant children are to be exhorted to keep the covenant (Ps. 25). We expect them to keep the covenant, but we should not presume that they are regenerate.

God has promised to be the God of our children therefore we are to treat them as regenerate until they show signs that they are not. :2cents:

Also: http://www.churchsociety.org/publications/tracts/CAT193_RyleBaptism.pdf

We tell them that they are dead in trespasses and sins and that they need to be born again - which is what their baptism symbolizes - the need for a new heart. We expect that, through use of the means of grace, covenant children will keep the way of the Lord, but this is not a presumption.

Presumptive regeneration undermines human responsibility - the responsibility of children to keep the covenant, and not be profane people like Esau.
 
Thanks, Daniel you are right. The minister has a responsibility to preach both the blessings as well as the warnings. The WCF clearly states that coversion is something that is tied to faith, not baptism. Baptism is a sign of initiation and entrance into the visible community and it does give the promise that He will be our God and we will be His children, but they have a responsibility to follow Him. There were many circumcised children under the O.T who were cut off because of their unbelief. We want to be careful that we do not fall into the heresy of baptismal regeneration. It seems to me that there was a thread a few years ago on this very issue, but has since been closed.
 
Gentlemen,

Let's keep the thread from spinning into a PR debate.

We've had these discussions before. At a very basic level, Parents must assume that their Covenant children have a capacity for spiritual things. Even Baptists catechize their children (note some of the questions in Spurgeon's) and pray with their children in Jesus' name. We certainly do not presume they are reprobate. It is helpful to remember that Calvin, like Paul in Romans 5-11, deals with election in a Pastoral context. We simply do not go around making solemn decrees within the Church as to who is/isn't regenerate. To do so is presumptive on the Church's part and, even when a man has a credible profession and life the Church may not decree he is elect any more that it may decree his reprobation if he is under discipline for a season.

Baptism and the Lord's Supper are both administered ministerially by the Church. That is, the Church declares the Grace of God but does not impart it in the Sacraments. The reason an infant is not admitted to the table (or a young boy) has nothing to do with greater confidence that this disciple is truly elect and this one is not but it has everything to do with maturity. Certainly Christ did not wait until He was 12 years old to be regenerated that He might participate.

We also ought to keep our categories straight about what we do in this life. Adult disciples, no more than children, do not keep the covenant. Christ does.
 
Gentlemen,

Let's keep the thread from spinning into a PR debate.

We've had these discussions before. At a very basic level, Parents must assume that their Covenant children have a capacity for spiritual things. Even Baptists catechize their children (note some of the questions in Spurgeon's) and pray with their children in Jesus' name. We certainly do not presume they are reprobate. It is helpful to remember that Calvin, like Paul in Romans 5-11, deals with election in a Pastoral context. We simply do not go around making solemn decrees within the Church as to who is/isn't regenerate. To do so is presumptive on the Church's part and, even when a man has a credible profession and life the Church may not decree he is elect any more that it may decree his reprobation if he is under discipline for a season.

Baptism and the Lord's Supper are both administered ministerially by the Church. That is, the Church declares the Grace of God but does not impart it in the Sacraments. The reason an infant is not admitted to the table (or a young boy) has nothing to do with greater confidence that this disciple is truly elect and this one is not but it has everything to do with maturity. Certainly Christ did not wait until He was 12 years old to be regenerated that He might participate.

We also ought to keep our categories straight about what we do in this life. Adult disciples, no more than children, do not keep the covenant. Christ does.

Can you clarify for me what you mean by the term PR?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top