Presumptive Regeneration/Presumptive Election

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Adam, For the record, that was P. Manata's question.

Paul, yes. It is necessarily the case.

Men cannot be converted without the hearing of Gods word to facilitate conversion. John is a prime example. This fact is irreconcilable.

Whats up with the verse from Tim?

well, which is it? The hearing of the word, OR the hearing of the word with "processing" it included?

And, what does 'processing mean?' (surely "process" isn't a word that we easily agree on )?

I was asking if 1Tim was a physical or spiritual infant?

[Edited on 11-24-2004 by Paul manata]

Joh 10:27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

Isa 55:11 so shall My Word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in what I sent it to do!

What do you think Jesus meant when He used the term "see"?

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, If one is not generated from above, he is not able to see the kingdom of God.

Regeneration gives site. Site gives way to understanding. Understanding brings about conversion.

John the baptist was regenerated in the womb; site was available. He heard the word and was converted.

[Edited on 11-24-2004 by Scott Bushey]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
You would have to ask yourself if the promises of God change or not.
If they do not change, then, yes, it is absolutely the case.
Do you believe that?


[Edited on 11-24-2004 by Scott Bushey]

Isn't there another option? An option that occurs over and over again throughout the Bible? That is that the promises are not always to those whom they seem to be to. A prime example being Esau.

But we do not have the "luxury" of the compound sense unless we see the outcome. So do we rest on pessimism or optimism based on what has been revelaed fro covenant children unless otherwise directed? If it is not optimism, then I think that overthorws all the covenant promises and we are saying we really do not believe what God said when He said, "I will be a God to you and your children after you."

[Edited on 11-24-2004 by webmaster]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by Paul manata
Scott, I think you're misunderstanding my questions.

Let me make it easy: what reasons do you have to say an infant NEVER can be "converted?"

p.s. your definition of conversion is not mine. Conversion, to me, is when someone comes out of living a life and worldview that leads to destruction, and then has a paradigm shift. That is, he is a new man! He is... converted. I would argue that not ALL Christians were "converted." Some covenant Children grow up never knowing a day where they didn't know the Lord. So, you see on this definition conversion is not a necessary requirement for partaking in the supper.

I think we would all agree that regeneration is not conversion. That Faith is not regeneration. That Sanctification is not justification. That justification is not faith. The sum total of everything that happens from the time of "drawing" through until the time of "initital sanctification" would be deemed as "conversion;" i.e. Bob was truly converted to Christianity at age 12. That presupposes (Paul I know you like that word so I'll try to use it often ) he was drawn by the Holy Spirit, regenerated, repetned, had faith, was justified and began sanctification through the Holy Spirit. Conversion is the sum total of that "paradigm shift."

For example:
Colossians 1:13-14 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.

or

SoD, Head 3/4 A.11
But when God accomplishes His good pleasure in the elect, or works in them true conversion, He not only causes the gospel to be externally preached to them, and powerfully illuminates their minds by His Holy Spirit, that they may rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of God; but by the efficacy of the same regenerating Spirit He pervades the inmost recesses of man; He opens the closed and softens the hardened heart, and circumcises that which was uncircumcised; infuses new qualities into the will, which, though heretofore dead, He quickens; from being evil, disobedient, and refractory, He renders it good, obedient, and pliable; actuates and strengthens it, that like a good tree, it may bring forth the fruits of good actions.

Etc.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Can a man be saved yet he repent? Can an infant repent? Can a man be saved unless he be converted under the hearing of the Gospel? Can an infant process the gospel message?

Paul,
There is surely a paradigm shift. Conversion cannot be necessarily measured with a stick in it's beginning stages. Conversion does not necessarily show itself in fruit for quite sometime. Gods word gives life. The believer gleans nuggets after sitting under sound preaching and applies them to his life. He is now obedient by the power now in him.

You are correct in stating that not all professing disciples are in fact converted.

Covenant children whom grow in the Lord, never recalling an event that would link them to conversion, does not necessarily mean anything other than God upholding His covenantal promise. There is no way they were converted though outside the hearing of Gods gospel. Conversion is necessary to partake of the supper. The non converted cannot proclaim the Lords death until He comes. If you are saying that non regenerates partake; they do. Erroneously.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Can an infant cognitively understand the Gospel? At any time before they are introduced to language? How do they have cognitive faith that justifies int his way? (Not seed faith but cognitive faith).

To define what happens with infants is to talk about a whole other realm of "salvation" in terms of the ordo salutis than with an adult.

 

[turmeric]

Someone told me that she thought I was effectually called as a child, but just couldn't believe the mish-mash I was taught, which was not the Gospel. But I don't agree, because I hated God. I think if I'd been regenerated, I would have been thinking "God can't be like this, this isn't God." but what I did think was "If this is God, I don't want any." I didn't want God at all for many years. Could I have been regenerate but not converted and still felt that I hated God? Hmmm...

 

[Scott Bushey]

Meg,
See the words of Christ I posted above. Regeneration brings sight. I would suggest no for your scenario.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by webmaster

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
You would have to ask yourself if the promises of God change or not.
If they do not change, then, yes, it is absolutely the case.
Do you believe that?


[Edited on 11-24-2004 by Scott Bushey]

Isn't there another option? An option that occurs over and over again throughout the Bible? That is that the promises are not always to those whom they seem to be to. A prime example being Esau.

But we do not have the "luxury" of the compound sense unless we see the outcome. So do we rest on pessimism or optimism based on what has been revelaed fro covenant children unless otherwise directed? If it is not optimism, then I think that overthorws all the covenant promises and we are saying we really do not believe what God said when He said, "I will be a God to you and your children after you."

[Edited on 11-24-2004 by webmaster]

Matt,

There is a huge difference between a vigorous optimism that rests in the promises, and a presumption.

The Covenant of Grace cannot be broken. It is conditional with the conditions already fulfilled by the Triune God. Here is the Consensus Formula Helvetica on point:

Canon XVI: Since all these things are entirely so, we can hardly approve the opposite doctrine of those who affirm that of his own intention and counsel and that of the Father who sent him, Christ died for each and every one upon the condition, that they believe. We also cannot affirm the teaching that he obtained for all a salvation, which, nevertheless, is not applied to all, and by his death merited a salvation and faith for no one individually but only removed the obstacle of divine justice, and acquired for the Father the liberty of entering into a new covenant of grace with all men. Finally, they so separate the active and passive righteousness of Christ, as to assert that he claims his active righteousness as his own, but gives and imputes only his passive righteousness to the elect. All these opinions, and all that are like these, are contrary to the plain Scriptures and the glory of Christ, who is Author and Finisher of our faith and salvation; they make his cross of none effect, and under the appearance of exalting his merit, they, in reality diminish it.

Canon XXIII: There are two ways in which God, the just Judge, has promised justification: either by one's own works or deeds in the law, or by the obedience or righteousness of another, even of Christ our Guarantor. This justification is imputed by grace to those who believe in the Gospel. The former is the method of justifying man because of perfection; but the latter, of justifying man who is a corrupt sinner. In accordance with these two ways of justification the Scripture establishes these two covenants: the Covenant of Works, entered into with Adam and with each one of his descendants in him, but made void by sin; and the Covenant of Grace, made with only the elect in Christ, the second Adam, eternal. This covenant cannot be broken while the Covenant of Works can be abrogated.

Canon XXIV: But this later Covenant of Grace according to the diversity of times has also different dispensations. For when the Apostle speaks of the dispensation of the fullness of times, that is, the administration of the last time (Eph 1:10), he very clearly indicates that there had been another dispensation and administration until the times which the Father appointed. Yet in the dispensation of the Covenant of Grace the elect have not been saved in any other way than by the Angel of his presence (Isa 63:9), the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8), Christ Jesus, through the knowledge of that just Servant and faith in him and in the Father and his Spirit. For Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13:8). And by His grace we believe that we are saved in the same manner as the Fathers also were saved, and in both Testaments these statutes remain unchanged: "Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him," (the Son) (Ps 2:12); "He that believes in Him is not condemned, but he that does not believe is condemned already" (John 3:18). "You believe in God," even the Father, "believe also in me" (John 14:1). But if, moreover, the holy Fathers believed in Christ as their God, it follows that they also believed in the Holy Spirit, without whom no one can call Jesus Lord. Truly there are so many clearer exhibitions of this faith of the Fathers and of the necessity of such faith in either Covenant, that they can not escape any one unless one wills it. But though this saving knowledge of Christ and the Holy Trinity was necessarily derived, according to the dispensation of that time, both from the promise and from shadows and figures and mysteries, with greater difficulty than in the NT. Yet it was a true knowledge, and, in proportion to the measure of divine Revelation, it was sufficient to procure salvation and peace of conscience for the elect, by the help of God's grace.

And Peter van Mastricht:

we must distinguish most carefully between those promises of the covenant of grace which are of the nature of means to an end, such as are the obtaining of redemption through Christ, regeneration, conversion, the conjunction of faith with purpose of amendment; and those which are of the nature of an end, e.g., justification, adoption, glorification etc. If this is done, we seem bound to say that the promises of the covenant of grace of the first kind are plainly absolute. It involves a manifest contradiction to require of man dead in sins a preliminary condition for the redemption of Christ, like redemption etc. But promises of the second class, like justification, adoption, etc. are altogether conditioned, yet in such a way that the satisfaction of the conditions depends not upon the strength of the free will (liberum arbitrium), but on the absolute promises of this covenant (Theoretica et practica theologia, 5.1.37).

The last sentence for me is critical.

Here the Belgic Confession shows that the sacraments have a purpose to help our weakness, but only in the context of the Word:

Article 33: The Sacraments. We believe that our good God, mindful of our crudeness and weakness, has ordained sacraments for us to seal his promises in us, to pledge his good will and grace toward us, and also to nourish and sustain our faith. He has added these to the Word of the gospel to represent better to our external senses both what he enables us to understand by his Word and what he does inwardly in our hearts, confirming in us the salvation he imparts to us.

The Canons of Dort also seem to clearly imply that the gospel is to be pressed on all, which would include children of the covenant:

Second Head: Article 5. Moreover, the promise of the gospel is that whosoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of His good pleasure sends the gospel.

James Ussher makes essentially the same point that I believe I am making, that while baptism is important, it will of necessity show itself efficacious in the believer's life, and it is difficult to try and formulate a doctrine from it alone:

What must we think of the effect of baptism in those elect infants whom God allows to mature to years of discretion? There is no reason ordinarily to promise them an extraordinary work of God, if God purposes to give them ordinary means. Though God can at times sanctify from the womb, as in the case of Jeremiah and John the Baptist, and at other times in baptism, it is difficult to determine, as some are accustomed to do, that each elect infant ordinarily before or in baptism receives the principle of regeneration and the seed of the faith and grace. If, however, such a principle is infused, it cannot be lost or hidden in such a way that it would not demonstrate itself (Body of Divinity, 417).

So also Geerhardus Vos:

One hardly needs to be reminded how all this in no sense means that covenant administration proceeds from election, nor that all nonelect stands outside any relation to the administration of the covenant. Rather it means: 1) that any certainty about one's election must develop out of a strong covenant awareness; 2) that throughout the entire administration of the the all-embracing promises of God, as they result from election, must be kept in mind, both in word and sacrament; 3) that finally the essence of the covenant, its full realization, is found only in the true children of God, and therefore is no more extensive than election. Especially the second point is important. Besides the fact that everywhere God's covenant is administered, there is a sealing of its content: the presence of faith is the presupposition of the assurance that one is entitled to the blessings of the covenant -- besides this fact, we say, there is always a solemn witness and sealing of the fact that God wishes to realize in all the elect the total scope of the covenant ("The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology," Shorter Writings, 260).

And I didn't want to get into this now...

So my point is NOT that baptism is not a tool of assurance, nor that it is an empty sign or seal. It is that it alone is insufficient to provide us with a presumption of regeneration.

And again, for now the FOURTH time (I believe), will someone deal with the fact that they want to take but one of the four (or more) things signified and sealed by baptism (namely, only regeneration) and say that we can presume it by the sign, but that we will NOT take all the other things that the Confession clearly, explicitly and plainly asserts are also signified and sealed by baptism? Why do you get to pick and choose? The folks at RefCat are at least more consistent - they are willing to presume (subject to rebuttal) that Romanists are justified and saved by Trinitarian baptism.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by webmaster
Can an infant cognitively understand the Gospel? At any time before they are introduced to language? How do they have cognitive faith that justifies int his way? (Not seed faith but cognitive faith).

To define what happens with infants is to talk about a whole other realm of "salvation" in terms of the ordo salutis than with an adult.

Conversion is a passing from death to life. Is there anyone born who is not spiritually dead? We are left with only

1. All are born in original sin, and for anyone to be saved he must exercise cognative understanding of the gospel, hence all infants go to hell
2. All must exercise cognative understanding of the gospel to be saved from death, infants in the covenant do not go to hell because they do not have original sin (or at least its effects are somehow wiped out by the covenant)
3. Not all infants go to hell, but that is because cognative understanding is only the ordinary, normal means of conversion (passing from death to life) and the Spirit can use whatever means He wishes (not just the object but the means are at His will)
   [/list=1]
   
   Personally, I'll go with #3.

 

[fredtgreco]

Agreed. And so does Owen:

Neither was there anything that had either life in it, or principle of life, or any disposition thereunto. In this condition he moved on the prepared
matter, preserving and cherishing of it, and communicating unto all things a
principle of life, whereby they were animated, as we have declared. It was
no otherwise in the new creation. There was a spiritual darkness and death
came by sin on all mankind; neither was there in any man living the least
principle of spiritual life, or any disposition thereunto. In this state of
things, the Holy Spirit undertaketh to create a new world, new heavens
and a new earth, wherein righteousness should dwell. And this, in the first
place, was by his effectual communication of a new principle of spiritual
life unto the souls of God´s elect, who were the matter designed of God
for this work to be wrought upon. This he doth in their regeneration, as we
shall now manifest.


Secondly, Regeneration by the Holy Spirit is the same work, for the kind
of it, and wrought by the same power of the Spirit in all that are
regenerate, or ever were, or shall be so, from the beginning of the world
unto the end thereof. Great variety there is in the application of the
outward means which the Holy Spirit is pleased to use and make effectual
towards the accomplishment of this great work; nor can the ways and
manner hereof be reduced unto any certain order, for the Spirit worketh
how and when he pleaseth, following the sole rule of his own will and
wisdom. Mostly, God makes use of the preaching of the word; thence
called "œthe ingrafted word, which is able to save our souls," James 1:21; and the "œincorruptible seed," by which we are "œborn again," 1 Peter
1:23. Sometimes it is wrought without it; as in all those who are regenerate
before they come to the use of reason, or in their infancy. Sometimes men
are called, and so regenerate, in an extraordinary manner; as was Paul. But
mostly they are so in and by the use of ordinary means, instituted,
blessed, and sanctified of God to that end and purpose. And great variety
there is, also, in the perception and understanding of the work itself in
them in whom it is wrought, for in itself it is secret and hidden, and is no
other ways discoverable but in its causes and effects; for as
"œthe wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound
thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth,
so is every one that is born of the Spirit," John 3:8.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Fred, I loved the quotes.

It is that it alone is insufficient to provide us with a presumption of regeneration.

Its not alone. We do not rest on BAPTISM but the PROMISE. Don't confuse the two.

The question on Roman Baptism is a GOOD question. I'll write up an answer later.

Paul,

if we presumed ALL our covenant children to be regenerate I would see no reason not to admit them

Are you trying to prove paedocommunion? Is that the question?

[Edited on 11-24-2004 by webmaster]

[Edited on 11-24-2004 by webmaster]

 

[Me Died Blue]

I spent today getting ready to fly back to Cincinnati for Thanksgiving break, and I'm home now. I didn't expect this thread to grow like this in just a few hours! I'll have to catch up tomorrow.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Again, I say, regeneration is not conversion. The table is for the converted. Conversion is proof of regeneration.

In regards to Matt;s quote:

How does regeneration work? Man is sinful, and cannot believe or perceive anything about the kingdom of God. The Spirit arrests his heart and blows on him and changes his heart giving birth to "spirit." The person is then able to believe and perceive the kingdom, and does so because of the work of the Spirit.

Perceiving the kingdom proves regeneration yes. It does not prove that men have in fact been converted. The quotes above has used the terms synonomously. For the sake of this discussion, the terms are not interchangeable.

Question: Can we all agree that the ordo of salvation has components? Is regeneration one of the components? Is conversion? Is conversion regeneration? Is regeneration, conversion?


[Edited on 11-24-2004 by Scott Bushey]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Paul,

How do we go from applicaiton of the sign based on God's command, to the ability for an infant to examine one's self in the corporate community during the Lord's Supper? Talk abot apples and oranges! Talk about apples and ice cream! Honestly, when I read that in your last post, I figured you were just palying games and not thinking.

 

[AdamM]

To define what happens with infants is to talk about a whole other realm of "salvation" in terms of the ordo salutis than with an adult.

Great point Matt. I think it corresponds to Fred´s #3 option that he mentioned in regard to infant salvation. I think we are agreed that it is a great danger to take something extraordinary we find in scripture like infant salvation, which we have to acknowledge, is somewhat mysterious and attempting to make the extraordinary the template for our teachings on the subject. I don´t know how God saves infants, but I know he does. However, I know the ordinary way God tells us he saves people is by the preaching of the general call of the gospel (faith comes by hearing), which is made effectual by the Holy Spirit to the elect.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Paul,

Why do you think "examination" goes on?

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I mean, does level of development determine who is regernerte, initially sanctified, justified, elect, etc?

There is a differecne between "regenerate" and those that have the seeds of faith, and those that have cognative faith. Think sensibly - infants do not exercise the same level of faith you do while typing ont he Puritanboard. Infact, they do not exercise (key word) any faith. It is there in seed form. (See Turretin on that - he is exstensive).

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Paul,

Burdon of proof is on you to demonstrate this:

"perceive the kingdom"

I agree with you:

I just said that infants could be justified (yes) , sanctified (yes), regenerate (yes), perceive the kingdom (NO).

Show me how infants "perceive" (i.e. John 3:3 - "oraow" to spiritually understand.)

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Paul, - thanks for the quote, but that regards the basics of regeneration and the application of it with an ADULT - to perceive, again, is to spiritually understand. How do infnats spiritually understand (cognitive exercise)? Your still glossing over that.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by AdamM

To define what happens with infants is to talk about a whole other realm of "salvation" in terms of the ordo salutis than with an adult.

Great point Matt. I think it corresponds to Fred´s #3 option that he mentioned in regard to infant salvation. I think we are agreed that it is a great danger to take something extraordinary we find in scripture like infant salvation, which we have to acknowledge, is somewhat mysterious and attempting to make the extraordinary the template for our teachings on the subject. I don´t know how God saves infants, but I know he does. However, I know the ordinary way God tells us he saves people is by the preaching of the general call of the gospel (faith comes by hearing), which is made effectual by the Holy Spirit to the elect.

Elect infants that die in infancy are surely a 'mystery'; however, we are not addressing this type of case in this discussion. What we are looking at is if God has in fact ordained a full life for an infant, and if such an infant could be converted in infancy. There is no way that a case as such would be converted outside of the preaching of Gods gospel. This has always been Gods way.

[Edited on 11-24-2004 by Scott Bushey]

 

[AdamM]

good point. Now go all the way and apply it to regeneration.

Paul, I am not sure how you want me to apply it to regeneration?

If it is regard to the Lord's Table, I think the discernment spoken of, has to be a spiritual discernment and therefore if an infant was regenerate he or she would possess the necessary discernment to partake as a result of regeneration. However, I am not a PR advocate and as I indicated earlier, I think infant salvation is extraordinary.

 

[AdamM]

Elect infants that die in infancy are surely a 'mystery'; however, we are not addressing this type of case in this discussion. What we are looking at is if God has in fact ordained a full life for an infant, and if such an infant could be converted in infancy. There is no way that a case as such would be converted outside of the preaching of Gods gospel. This has always been Gods way.

Scott, I would not just apply the mystery to elect infants who die in infancy. I think the mystery applies to every infant conversion or that of mentally retarded too. We know it has to be through the merit of Christ alone, His atoning death, His life of obedience, by which God saves infants, but I think it is outside of the ordo as we would ordinarily express it. It is one of those truths that God simply has not chosen to reveal much about to us.

I am comfortable with that (as if that matters to God) and would not want to reorder or introduce other novelties into the ordinary ordo of salutis to accommodate those extraordinary acts of God.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by AdamM

Elect infants that die in infancy are surely a 'mystery'; however, we are not addressing this type of case in this discussion. What we are looking at is if God has in fact ordained a full life for an infant, and if such an infant could be converted in infancy. There is no way that a case as such would be converted outside of the preaching of Gods gospel. This has always been Gods way.

Scott, I would not just apply the mystery to elect infants who die in infancy. I think the mystery applies to every infant conversion or that of mentally retarded too. We know it has to be through the merit of Christ alone, His atoning death, His life of obedience, by which God saves infants, but I think it is outside of the ordo as we would ordinarily express it. It is one of those truths that God simply has not chosen to reveal much about to us.

I am comfortable with that (as if that matters to God) and would not want to reorder or introduce other novelties into the ordinary ordo of salutis to accommodate those extraordinary acts of God.

Conversions do not happen in the infant whom is predestined to live a full life. Under this scenario, this infant must be converted under the preaching of Gods word. Elect infants dying in infancy and the imbecile are not mentioned are essentially silent in scripture. That which is clear is that men must be converted under the gospel message. So lets clearify this. It is a mystery. How does God convert outside of his decreed way, His normal process, those whom will never make it to hear his message of hope? Only He knows, but that is not what we are discussing here.

[Edited on 11-24-2004 by Scott Bushey]

 

[JohnV]

Remember that an infant is baptized if and only if the parent(s) profess a true faith. That is, the child is baptized by virtue of one or more parent's faith, under a covenant headship. When you separate the two, then Paul is right, that PR inevitably would include PC, and neither would actually be legitimate anymore. If I'm not mistaken Paul is driving at the distinction between presumtion of election vs. presumption of regeneration.

Personally, as I said in a previous post, I don't think one can hang that kind of distinction on the reasons for the baptism of infants. The question that is answered by PR is,

Q. What of the children of believers?
A. They are to be deemed members of the Covenant of Grace.

Q. What are the benefits for children who are members of the Covenant of grace?
A. All the promises of grace that are extended to all who believe.

Q. Can we know who all are the true believers and who are not, and thus which children are truly in the Covenant as members of grace?
A. No, we cannot. But we accept all who profess faith from their heart, not doubting God's promises to any.

Do you see what I am getting at? We still don't know who really is true in faith, but we do act upon what a person says, not doubting their word unless they demonstrate a real impenitence; not just a backsliding but a heart of stone instead of faith. This also has ramifications for a child of such a one, for he cannot be brought in for baptism unless that person repents. But that child can still be brought in under the faith of the other parent; and the baptism of a child before such faithlessness is demonstrated by a parent is still not to be doubted. All the same, sin can spread. There is so much that we cannot know in the people involved, but we can be certain of God's promises. We have His word on it, and that cannot fail.

In this discussion, if we are going to parse the ordo salutis, then it ought to be on the basis of God's work, and not man's reliability in it. But I think that we cannot go that far because we get it mixed up, and before you know it we include the other sign and seal without distinction along with the first, and we lose our basis for the baptism of children.

The reason I use the word "regeneration" is because, 1. the milieu of my Reformed setting; and 2. because it answers the question of the why and what of the inclusion of children in the Covenant. There is a connotative inclusion in the word "election" that just opens another set of problems. Chris is right, I think, that regeneration includes election, and that it can be thought of as a scale of attributes, but I think that on the other side there is also part of regeneration that is included in election, and that the latter brings with it more than we need for permission to baptize our children.

I also think Fred is right in pointing us to more than just regeneration as to what the promises point to. But yet I think that that is a looking forward in the faith, not a justificsation for included membership in the Covenant. Regeneration is all we need to provide justification, and that must be in the parent. It is to be deemed bestowed on the child as much as the adult: the child belongs to the body of Christ, and so is heir of the promises as well. That's all we can hang on that. What God promises and gives are as certain as can be; but we just are not privy to what will be certain as far as man is concerned. God knows. Otherwise Perseverance of the Saints loses its meaning and comfort for us.

 

[AdamM]

Oh, o.k. I thought you were joining with Matt who is PR. So, I'm trying to argue that PR leads to PC.

Paul, there is no doubt that if I was PR, I would be strongly PC too. I have many Dutch friends who are big PR advocates, but also strongly oppose PC and young child communion, but I have never though their thinking on the issue was logically consistent.

For what it's worth, I think the PE/ Covenant Consciousness view as taught by Sinclair Ferguson is the best approach.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Conversions do not happen in the infant whom is predestined to live a full life. Under this scenario, this infant must be converted under the preaching of Gods word.

Scott,

You do realize that this is going further than just about every Reformed theologian has been willing to go, don't you?

Even Owen, who explicitly links the work of the Spirit to the Word allows for exceptional cases.

 

[turmeric]

So, is everyone saying we extend the judgment of charity to infants of believers, which is why we baptize them and admit them to the church? I can live with that, I just can't assume one is elect by virtue of one's human descent. Even all Israel was not Israel.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by webmaster


Paul, - thanks for the quote, but that regards the basics of regeneration and the application of it with an ADULT - to perceive, again, is to spiritually understand. How do infnats spiritually understand (cognitive exercise)? Your still glossing over that.

Matt,

Can only those with developed physical brains have cognitive exercise? If God said that's what he does then he's able to do it. Seems a little arbitrary to say that's what happens in adults. You said that's what happens in regeneration qua regeneration. Is there a difference in adult regeneration and infant regeneration? In all the quotes I provided on top page three would you agree with all those and apply it to Children? If not then maybe we even have more difficulties because you're working with two definitions of regeneration.

Paul, I hold the same definition of regeneration:

WCF (in case it a little vague):

This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man,[9] who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit...

Then:

Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit...

Okay so far. Now let's talk NOT about regenration, but faith. We have regeneration covered. No one ever said that regeneration in infants is different that in Adults. Regeneration is NOT conversion. Regeneration is NOT sanctification. REgeneration is NOT justificaiton. Regeneration is NOT faith. (Clear thus far? - We covered this already))

Can infants exercise faith (how many time do I have to ask the same question?) and do you have Scriptural support to demonstrate that infants can cognitively understand and perceiev the Gospel preached to them?

Or, are we talking about two different parts in the ordo salutis (and we are). You are combining them into one instantaneous act (which they are not).

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Conversions do not happen in the infant whom is predestined to live a full life. Under this scenario, this infant must be converted under the preaching of Gods word.

Scott,

You do realize that this is going further than just about every Reformed theologian has been willing to go, don't you?

Even Owen, who explicitly links the work of the Spirit to the Word allows for exceptional cases.

Fred,
I disagree. I believe this thinking was the norm. Let me just ask: Do men have to hear the gospel to be converted or not?

Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?


[Edited on 11-24-2004 by Scott Bushey]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Paul, your problem is hermeneutics.

YOU SAID: When one is regenerated *his mind* is regenerated."

Right.

YOU SAID: God gives each a "measure of faith."

Vague at best. What does this mean? Do you mean he has the tools to exercises faith later? Is faith something that can be not exercised?

YOU SAID: So, whatever faith the regeneate infant has, it is his measure.

No, he has the seeds of faith - something that, after he is able to put propositions together, he will exercise.

YOU SAID: I'm not falling into the abortionist line of thinking that says level of development determines persons.

Great. I 'm glad you aren't an abortionist, nor think like one.

YOU SAID: Babies are not as developed as older people, i.e., they can't care for themselves outside the womb. But level of development doesn't determine persons.

We are not talking about personhood, but about whether infants can exercise the seeds of faith that they are in them.

YOU SAID: Likewise, a new Christian has "infant faith."

No, he has the seeds of faith.

YOU SAID: His faith grows as he does.

His faith will one day grow into an active and cognative faith.

YOU SAID: He's not as developed as a "mature" Christian, is he less a Christian?

No. He is still a Christian based on regeneration abd being born from above. It has nothing to do with faith thus far.

YOU SAID: Is he "less-worthy" of the Lords supper? No, he's a new creature.

Yes he is. He cannot cognitively deal witht he requirements for the Lord's Supper. The Lord's Supper is a act of grwoth, not an act of birth.

YOU SAID: He has a changed mind. He is a new man. He is fit for the table.

No, actually, he has not changed his mind - the Holy Spirit did. Later, he will exercise it around biblical propositions that he can understand after learning how to speak, and growing into a child who can interect with information.

YOU SAID: Why not presume your child is a new creation?

He is a new creation based on regeneration. (i.e. sovereign grace)

YOU SAID: Lives a new life?

Not really. Not in the "I turned away from lusting today" or "I witnessed to my baby buddy down the street."

YOU SAID: Has a changed heart?

Yes.

YOU SAID: Hates sin?

How? Does he understnad what it means to hate sin? This is different than asking if he has the TOOLS to hate sin.

YOU SAID: And, therefore should receive the supper which is a means of grace for the new man, to strengthen his spirit.

Ahhhhh, No. Non-sequitir at its finest.

YOU SAID: But you making a chasam so large between them I don;t think you have Scripture to support that.

Explain how John the Baptist is regenrate (filled) from his mother's womb, and how he cognitively beleived the Gospel. If you can't, than that about wraps it up.

YOU SAID: I would say that they are, usualy, very close to eachother.

Who cares what you think. I want to know what Scripture says. Where do you find that God usually has them all together? Think of the logistics of that. 10 guys in a room hear the Gospel. Each of them are intelligibly different. Guy 1 is the smartest, guy 10 is the dumbest. Each of them are elect. They hear the Gospel, think thorugh it and they are all saved. Now we know, first, the Spirit changed thier minds. All of them have the TOOLS to thinkl about the Gospel not only as true, but also as GOOD. Okay, so, how long does it take Guy1 opposed to guy 5 to think thorugh things. Let's say each guy's number is how long it takes them to think it through. It took guy 1 a hwole minute. Guy 2 took two minutes and so on. Then, they have exercised faith. Then they are justified based on faith. Now guy 1 was justified before guy 2. And guy 5 was justified before guy 10. The point is that TIME ELSAPSED in the process. Whether that "time" is 1 minute or 10 years (say with John the Baptist) is irrelevant. The problem is that there is ALWAYS a time differential.

YOU SAID: I mean, seriously, how long could a regenerate person live without the others?

Ask God. Who knows. How long did John live?

YOU SAID: I mean, from the time they can read they should *love* God's word.

Wait, wait, wait, we went from regenrate, to having the capacity to read the word. There is a time differential there.

YOU SAID: I think having children makes this clear.

I think the Scriptures make this clear.

YOU SAID: I do raise my child to love God and all the duties a covenant father has.

Excellent!

YOU SAID: But I'm hear to tell you, the vast majority of covenant children to not act regenerate.

Ok. Thanks for telling me.

YOU SAID: If my child did then I would allow him to the table 9at 5 yrs). "Even from the womb infnats come forth uttering lies."

Tell me, what EXACTLy, was the lie that your child told when it came forth from the womb. Was it about not brushing his teeth? (Wait - he hasn't got any...) Was it about taking the car out for a spin without asking dad? (Wait - he can't drive yet). I'm baffled. Exactly - WHAT DID HE SAY?

Hermeneutics brother.

[Edited on 11-24-2004 by webmaster]