Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
I thought I would start this up again, as my studies of the issue have sprouted some more questions. I guess this is primarily for paedo's since the answer for the credo's is already obvious.
In past threads Matt, Scott, Kevin, and John have argued well for a form of presumptive regeneration. We presume that our children are regenerate until they prove otherwise based on the promises of God, originally given to Abraham, that God would be a God to our descendents as well as to us.
So I guess I would like to make an even finer distinction about this. We may presume that our children are regenerate but at the same time, we wouldn't excommunicate them as a child for their unrepentent sins would we? We would not do that unless they had made profession of faith and were full communicant members (and even that move for a professing child would be debatable I think). These children are treated differently before they make profession of faith. They are treated for judicial purposes the same as visiting unbelievers because they cannot be tried by a church court.
So are we really presuming that our children are regenerate and have eternal life when we practice our judicial proceedings in this way? Or do we presume that they are being prepared for it? Thornwell argued that our children are like hiers of an inheritance, which they do not recieve (at least publicly) until they make profession of faith. In other words, until we know that they possess the required condition of accessing the promises (faith) then we withold the full benefits of membership. To follow the analogy, they do not receive the inheritance (communicant membership) until they've grown up (profession of faith) and before profession they must be trained up or prepared to receive the inheritance.
So, what do you all think? Is this version of presumption different than what has been argued here by Matt or John?
In past threads Matt, Scott, Kevin, and John have argued well for a form of presumptive regeneration. We presume that our children are regenerate until they prove otherwise based on the promises of God, originally given to Abraham, that God would be a God to our descendents as well as to us.
So I guess I would like to make an even finer distinction about this. We may presume that our children are regenerate but at the same time, we wouldn't excommunicate them as a child for their unrepentent sins would we? We would not do that unless they had made profession of faith and were full communicant members (and even that move for a professing child would be debatable I think). These children are treated differently before they make profession of faith. They are treated for judicial purposes the same as visiting unbelievers because they cannot be tried by a church court.
So are we really presuming that our children are regenerate and have eternal life when we practice our judicial proceedings in this way? Or do we presume that they are being prepared for it? Thornwell argued that our children are like hiers of an inheritance, which they do not recieve (at least publicly) until they make profession of faith. In other words, until we know that they possess the required condition of accessing the promises (faith) then we withold the full benefits of membership. To follow the analogy, they do not receive the inheritance (communicant membership) until they've grown up (profession of faith) and before profession they must be trained up or prepared to receive the inheritance.
So, what do you all think? Is this version of presumption different than what has been argued here by Matt or John?