# Presumptive Regeneration



## Travis Fentiman (Jan 18, 2018)

What is to be made of Presumptive Regeneration (PR), which has become so popular in the modern, Reformed Church?

Jesus told Nicodemus, who was a teacher in Israel and externally in the Covenant in good standing, “You must be born again.” (Jn. 3:7)

It is largely not known that the classical era of Presbyterianism in the 1600’s largely argued against Presumptive Regeneration in their controversy with the Separatists, Independents and Congregationalists, who all advocated it.

While the English presbyterians Stephen Marshall, William Perkins and Cornelius Burges held to a very soft form of PR, a mild form and a moderate form of PR respectively, yet in the debates where the doctrine came fully into the spotlight, in the most extensive writings on the subject in Church history in the English language, these mid-1600's presbyterians (articles and books are linked on the page) argued strongly against the doctrine:

Scots: Samuel Rutherford, David Dickson, James Fergusson and James Wood;
English: William Rathband, Thomas Blake and Francis Fullwood;
Dutch: Willem Apollonius.​
The Introduction to the topic on the webpage (written by myself) argues extensively from Scripture against PR (and is one of the most detailed and thorough contemporary articles on the subject that I am aware of).

Presumptive Regeneration​
There is a special section in the Introduction, at the end, on ‘Raising Children in the Covenant’.

As this topic is likely to stir a bit of chiming in and debate, please get a good feel of the webpage's Introduction and resources before assuming things or making claims that are refuted by what you haven't read (Prov. 18:13).

I will probably not be commenting below; my article says plenty.

If you hold to PR, I hope these resources bring fuller light on the subject that would encourage you to reconsider the topic more fully. If you do not know much about PR, do not have a strong opinion, or if you do not believe in PR, I hope this page is of help to you and confirms to you what the Scriptures do teach about this subject.

Blessings to all.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 3


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 18, 2018)

I believe one source fueling a PR inclination, is _*any*_ tendency to presume to know--beyond an_ increasing_ "judgment of charity" over the long term--the salvation condition of another person.

Putting insufficient weight upon the "5th Head of Doctrine," Perseverance, encourages presumption of all sorts.

We should not lay "revivalistic" emphasis on ANY moment of our faith-experience of the past. It may be all kinds of "nice-to-know" when someone passed from death to life--when (in mathematic terms) the tangent function (first derivative) of the curve of his life passed from a negative slope to a positive one. But it is not a necessary thing; while the "being saved" of the present hour (rather than the "I'm saved already" of this hour), and the "will be saved" of the finish is of maximum interest to the person in the midst of running his race.

"Credible" profession of faith is just that: something that is believable on some ground, including the absence of countervailing evidence.

"Assurance" is an inward work of the H.S. in the heart of a believer (and not in my heart, about your heart).

Ministers of the *gospel* should be preaching the listener's interest in "the old, old story" as much to the hoary head, baptized decades before as an infant, long since a communicant, and faithful all his life by life and by testimony; as to the youth in the pew: compliant or restless, docile or spirited,

The gospel is the ignition of the flame of our Christian life. The whole Word of God is the fuel, the nourishment of our lives. But the gospel is a constant source of spark for that fire. Sanctification is not a fire that just "feed itself," nor the Word just fuel that burns upon the heat residue of the earlier devotion (though none would deny the worth of it).

The fire the Lord God threw upon his altar, Lev.9:24, had a "staying power" illustrated by the perpetual burning upon it; which human priests by their ministerial limitations kept going in some sense by constant fueling of dedicated offerings. The gospel that has come to each believer cannot be simply referred back to "the hour I first believed;" but it must be viewed as the very flame itself in this hour. The fire of today's devotion is not a byproduct of my improvements on what was originally incited by a gospel-now-surpassed.

Not just potential converts, but Christians need the *gospel*. Once this truth is apprehended, presumption is largely cut off at the root.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 18, 2018)

What is to be said in relation to C. Burgess' book on the subject? Considering that Burgess wrote the book in the day of Westminster, it is interesting to note that no writings were written in response (if it such a putrid doctrine).


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 18, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> it is interesting to note that no writings were written in response (if it such a putrid doctrine).


This seems a bit prejudicial, in it's own right. In the webpage essay, one may find a discussion of the topic as it appears in the Westminster Assembly Minutes.
Stephen Marshall (Presbyterian) answers Thomas Goodwin (Congregationalist), the former offering a quite "soft" form of PR, as Travis has classified him.

C.Burges he classes as a "moderate PR." It would appear from the historical record that the chief opponents of the Divines (influential in the day) were the Baptists; and not so much advocates of doctrines that would be seen as possibly on the return road to Rome (PR becoming BR)

As for who should answer whom, it might not serve in the same sense to "take down" a fellow IB, the way it fit the times to "take down" a CB. But one might find contrasting _and_ contemporary views of this question by comparing S.Rutherford (note the context included in his quotes from the webpage) and C.Burges.

I found it interesting that Thomas Boston (whom I respect) is enlisted as a principal advocate for views undergirding PR theology; and is seen by some researchers as leading a Presbyterian shift away from Rutherford's earlier stance.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jan 19, 2018)

_


Scott Bushey said:



What is to be said in relation to C. Burgess' book on the subject?...

Click to expand...


I would also note that Burges' book is actually not about presumptive regeneration (as the modern reprinter entitled it), but is about a form of baptismal regeneration. The original title of the book was:
_
_Baptismall regeneration of elect infants professed by the Church of England, according to the Scriptures, the primitiue Church, the present reformed churches, and many particular divines apart_​
_http://name.umdl.umich.edu/A17267.0001.001
_​The difference is that presumptive regeneration (for instance as promulgated by Abraham Kuyper), held that regeneration, or the presumption of it, is the grounds for baptism.

What Burgess actually argues, is that baptism is the event at which most infants are regenerated. That is, they are regenerated through the Word and Spirit acting therein (it is said). If they are not actually regenerated, then they should be presumed to be regenerated at baptism until found out otherwise (which usually means when they're teenagers, adults, etc.).

Note that Burges' book is only arguing that *elect* infants are regenerated at baptism, which is technically within the bounds of the WCF which only speaks to elect infants. 

But this means that not all babies baptized are regenerated. If most or all babies may not be regenerated by baptism, this is a rather strained use of the phrase 'baptismal regeneration'. And it seems clear that Burgess was in fact straining language to appeal to many in the Anglican Church who would otherwise hold to forms of baptismal regeneration, in order to reconcile them.

And the WCF is explicitly against any normal sense of baptismal regeneration, in denying that baptism is necessary to salvation, amongst its other qualifications. Patrick Ramsey has an excellent article on the WCF not being baptismal regeneration in the Confessional Presbyterian journal.

And as Rev. Buchanan mentioned, because their was not a single treatise responding to Burges's work does not mean that it was not interacted with amongst numerous publications of the time. To find such possible interactions, though, would take a lot of searching. And there is less reason why anyone would wholesale openly oppose Burges, as the issue was not over who was regenerated, but simply *when* they were regenerated, and a human presumption to this based on certain evidential factors that Burges supplies.

All that said, too much is made of Burges, and should we really wholesale accept everything he says when it is rather clear his great broad strokes really need a fair amount of qualification? And he was not the only one, or the most important one who wrote on the topic...

Numerous of the books from where the articles on my page are extracted were dedicated to the Westminster Assembly, being written 1644-45, and no doubt had some influence upon it.

Regarding Marshall:

Marshall at the Assembly argued against Goodwin that the grounds of baptism is not an inherent holiness in the infant, however, in Marshall's book on infant baptism, he still attributes a 'judgment of charity' to infants being externally in the covenant, and hence presumes them to be saved (I think 'judgment of charity' has no meaning in that context, and is contra how the phrase was used by Calvin and others).​

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jan 19, 2018)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I found it interesting that Thomas Boston (whom I respect) is enlisted as a principal advocate for views undergirding PR theology ; and is seen by some researchers as leading a Presbyterian shift away from Rutherford's earlier stance.




I do believe it is correct, along with James Walker, John MacPherson and John Macleod, that Boston fundamentally changed the trajectory of covenant theology in Scotland, and held to a significant form of Presumptive Regeneration.

Previously I only had a quote and reference to Boston on the webpage which partially demonstrates this under the subsection 'History of the Scottish Presbyterians', under John Macpherson's work, but I just added the link on the reference so that one can click it and read Boston at large oneself where he treats it. Hope it is of help and interest to folks.

And I do think it is rather easily verified that Boston was this change. I have also collected All the Writings of the Scottish Covenanters, and there simply was no one before Boston who was advocating what he was advocating before him, especially in such great detail and argument.

Boston gives his account of his development of views in pp. 155-156 of _A General Account of my Life_. What I find interesting about his account, is that he was (1) responding to nominalism in his day (which Rutherford and others fundamentally accepted for church membership, baptism, etc.), (2) he was unsatisfied with and responding to Fullwood's work, and (3) it was simply a private change and opinion of Boston.

Such a private change of opinion by one man is hardly safe ground for a massive change in theology, especially when his library was so small he really must have been unaware of much of the literature that we are now aware of on the subject.

But of course, I highly respect Boston as well.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 19, 2018)

Travis Fentiman said:


> What is to be made of Presumptive Regeneration (PR), which has become so popular in the modern, Reformed Church?
> 
> Jesus told Nicodemus, who was a teacher in Israel and externally in the Covenant in good standing, “You must be born again.” (Jn. 3:7)
> 
> ...


Is this tied into the belief that some hold that only the children of saved parents will receive the election unto salvation?


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 19, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Is this tied into the belief that some hold that only the children of saved parents will receive the election unto salvation?


I've never heard that view. Does someone actually believe that?


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 19, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> I've never heard that view. Does someone actually believe that?


"The second possible explanation of the place of children in the covenant can be more persuasively argued. All the children of believers without exception are in the covenant in this sense, that God promises them all salvation and extends to them all His covenant grace in Christ. However, the actual fulfillment of the promise, the actual reception of covenant grace, and the actual realization of the covenant with them personally depend upon their believing in Christ and thus taking hold of the covenant when they grow up. The covenant consists of promise and demand, which demand is a condition that the children must fulfill. The promise from God is for all without exception. But if the child should not fulfill the demand that he believe, he forfeits the promise. This is the view of the Reformed Churches in The Netherlands ("Liberated"), of the Canadian Reformed Churches, and of the American Reformed Churches.

The appeal of this view is that it puts all our children without exception in the covenant. This is naturally pleasing to the parents (although the implication of this view is that not only some but also all of the children can fall out of the covenant, which is not so pleasing). Also, it seems to do justice to the language of Scripture and of the creeds. God said to Abraham, "...and to your seed," not, "...and to _some _of your seed." The _Heidelberg Catechism_ says that the infants are included in the covenant, not _some _of the infants. In the form for baptism, we confess that our children are sanctified in Christ, not _some _of them.

Are not all the children of believers baptized? Are not all the children required to be baptized?"
http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_51.html
This is listed as one way that has been seen in the reformed church, but the author rejects this view.


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 19, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> "The second possible explanation of the place of children in the covenant can be more persuasively argued. All the children of believers without exception are in the covenant in this sense, that God promises them all salvation and extends to them all His covenant grace in Christ. However, the actual fulfillment of the promise, the actual reception of covenant grace, and the actual realization of the covenant with them personally depend upon their believing in Christ and thus taking hold of the covenant when they grow up. The covenant consists of promise and demand, which demand is a condition that the children must fulfill. The promise from God is for all without exception. But if the child should not fulfill the demand that he believe, he forfeits the promise. This is the view of the Reformed Churches in The Netherlands ("Liberated"), of the Canadian Reformed Churches, and of the American Reformed Churches.
> 
> The appeal of this view is that it puts all our children without exception in the covenant. This is naturally pleasing to the parents (although the implication of this view is that not only some but also all of the children can fall out of the covenant, which is not so pleasing). Also, it seems to do justice to the language of Scripture and of the creeds. God said to Abraham, "...and to your seed," not, "...and to _some _of your seed." The _Heidelberg Catechism_ says that the infants are included in the covenant, not _some _of the infants. In the form for baptism, we confess that our children are sanctified in Christ, not _some _of them.
> 
> ...


There is nothing here that says that only children of believers are among the elect. @*Guido's Brother *here on PB holds the Liberated view, but I daresay he would never claim that only the children of believers can be saved.

For what it's worth, the Protestant Reformed Churches, to whom you linked, hold to presumptive regeneration.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 19, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> There is nothing here that says that only children of believers are among the elect. @*Guido's Brother *here on PB holds the Liberated view, but I daresay he would never claim that only the children of believers can be saved.
> 
> For what it's worth, the Protestant Reformed Churches, to whom you linked, hold to presumptive regeneration.


This issue regarding children and election has been discussed here on the board, and one viewpoint does seem to be the one that was alluded to here in this article.


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 19, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> This issue regarding children and election has been discussed here on the board, and one viewpoint does seem to be the one that was alluded to here in this article.


That's certainly true. However, there is nothing in the article about "only the children of saved parents receiving election unto salvation." Everyone in the Reformed world believes that there are elect people who are not born to believers.


----------



## Nate (Jan 19, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> For what it's worth, the Protestant Reformed Churches, to whom you linked, hold to presumptive regeneration.



Tyler, could you help me with the sources that support this conclusion? Or, could you help me understand which of the 7 forms of PR you have in mind for the Protestant Reformed Churches? Is it form 7? I have several books on my shelf from Protestant Reformed authors that directly address and oppose PR as taught by Kuyper. I know that William Young suggested that churches like the Protestant Reformed Churches may have a sort of practical PR even they officially oppose PR, but that is different than saying that they hold to PR.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 19, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> That's certainly true. However, there is nothing in the article about "only the children of saved parents receiving election unto salvation." Everyone in the Reformed world believes that there are elect people who are not born to believers.


I was referring to those who would be infants and small children especially.


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 19, 2018)

Nate said:


> Tyler, could you help me with the sources that support this conclusion? Or, could you help me understand which of the 7 forms of PR you have in mind for the Protestant Reformed Churches? Is it form 7? I have several books on my shelf from Protestant Reformed authors that directly address and oppose PR as taught by Kuyper. I know that William Young suggested that churches like the Protestant Reformed Churches may have a sort of practical PR even they officially oppose PR, but that is different than saying that they hold to PR.


Nate,
I'm sorry, I must have been mistaken. I've always heard that Protestant Reformed folks held to presumptive regeneration. Several years ago I read a few things touching on the covenant from Engelsma, etc., and I always read it through that lense. I thought they owned it. Where do Protestant Reformed folks interact with PR, and distinguish their view from it? Does Hoeksema cover it in his Dogmatics?


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 19, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I was referring to those who would be infants and small children especially.


I don't think I understand what you're getting at. In your post above (#7), you said that these people only believe that children of believers are elect, that is, that no one but the children of believers will be saved. I don't know if that is what you _meant_, but that is what you _said_. Perhaps you can rephrase what you were saying. Try to be clear, precise, and elaborative.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Nate (Jan 19, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Nate,
> I'm sorry, I must have been mistaken. I've always heard that Protestant Reformed folks held to presumptive regeneration. Several years ago I read a few things touching on the covenant from Engelsma, etc., and I always read it through that lense. I thought they owned it. Where do Protestant Reformed folks interact with PR, and distinguish their view from it? Does Hoeksema cover it in his Dogmatics?



That's too bad if you've always read Engelsma etc through the lens of them supporting PR. 

Yes, Hoeksema addresses PR and distinguishes his view from it in his Reformed Dogmatics (Chapter 8, section: Grounds for Infant Baptism). He also extensively interacts with it in the book: Believers and Their Seed. Other Protestant Reformed writers argue against it in books such as We and Our Children and God's Everlasting Covenant of Grace (both by Herman Hanko). In each case, the authors reject PR and instead promote the views of the Three forms of Unity and the Westminster Confessions as the basis for baptizing children.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 19, 2018)

Nate said:


> That's too bad if you've always read Engelsma etc through the lens of them supporting PR.
> 
> Yes, Hoeksema addresses PR and distinguishes his view from it in his Reformed Dogmatics (Chapter 8, section: Grounds for Infant Baptism). He also extensively interacts with it in the book: Believers and Their Seed. Other Protestant Reformed writers argue against it in books such as We and Our Children and God's Everlasting Covenant of Grace (both by Herman Hanko). In each case, the authors reject PR and instead promote the views of the Three forms of Unity and the Westminster Confessions as the basis for baptizing children.


Thanks, brother. I'll be sure to read up on this. I'm sorry for the misrepresentation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Nate (Jan 19, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Thanks, brother. I'll be sure to read up on this. I'm sorry for the misrepresentation.



Thanks for the interaction and LMK if you find sources to the contrary.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 20, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> I don't think I understand what you're getting at. In your post above (#7), you said that these people only believe that children of believers are elect, that is, that no one but the children of believers will be saved. I don't know if that is what you _meant_, but that is what you _said_. Perhaps you can rephrase what you were saying. Try to be clear, precise, and elaborative.


My point was that there are some Reformed who think that the children of saved parents seem to be for certain included among the elect of God. they might be seeing this in the Bible in 1 Corinthians 7:14.


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 20, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> My point was that there are some Reformed who think that the children of saved parents seem to be for certain included among the elect of God. they might be seeing this in the Bible in 1 Corinthians 7:14.


There certainly are some groups who presume their childrens' election. That's one of the things that undergirds presumptive regeneration. However, most (maybe all) of these groups would say deny that their children are certainly elect; only, they claim that Christian parents should behave as though their children are certainly elect, thus presuming that they are.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 20, 2018)

The difficulty in this issue is not in the abstract. I think everyone realizes that some covenant children may not be elect. The issue is how you treat children practically in the church and home. You have to make some sort of practical presumption when you actually teach your children. You still treat them as Christians when you teach your children to say "Our Father..." and to take hold of the promises made to them. You teach them that God is "our God", and that Christ is "our Savior", and that "our house" will serve the Lord. So, in practice you are still presuming they are elect and do not treat them as part of the world. This is where people start talking passed each other in debating over this. You are not going to say to your child, "I think you are externally in the covenant but not internally." We have no access to God's perspective about their internal or external state (i.e. election). I think Thornwell's "heir-apparent" view is a helpful formulation of this, training and preparing your children to inherit the promises, (thus presuming "election"), but leaving the time of regeneration/faith in God's hands, not presuming "regeneration" until they make public profession of faith.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 20, 2018)

Patrick,
This comeback isn't as much dissent from your thoughts, as an admission I think we all must make.

I agree the questions and issues are practical; but the language we have for our use is constrained by other practical realities. I think the language of "presumption," even if in time past one looked for qualifiers that set some value on the presumption in view (for instance: "presumed innocent,* until* proven guilty), we have to admit the term is out of favor.

It is given the same negative gloss as "assumption," which is another term that has perfectly honorable connotations (for instance: granting the primary, unargued assumptions/axioms that form the basis for arriving at the current question).

When "presumptive regeneration" has become tied to some* brand* of theology, whether those types are pleased with it or angry at being tarred with the brush, if the term is a problem, one has to come up with some other way of dealing with the subject. We have do decide how much energy we are willing to expend for clarity, whether early or late.

"Presuming election" has the same problem with the first term that PR has; and a new problem with the second term. Election is something that we take for granted belongs to the believer, the true Christian. But it is a factor of salvation that is not "historical," not even in the cosmological sense; let alone, in the context of a man's life.

We use the language, "unconditional," when talking about election. I tend to think that puts discussion of election outside of directly considering what we do in believing families and churches, or the treatment we give anyone, including our children.

On the other hand, it is precisely because of its unique utility in the matter of children of believers dying in infancy that it has precious application. Why? Because the promise of God combined with his election-to-salvation-of-anyone-saved is literally everything the believing, grieving parents have to hold on.

Indeed, there are some branches of Christianity that put physical baptism in place of those things, or in front of them; but our doctrine of sacramental signs-and-seals allows baptism is a support to, not a replacement for, the assurance and hope of believers (the Reformed have always denied that water-baptism "saves," as some others read 1Pet.3:21 to teach).

We name and treat our little ones, in secular terms, as fellow citizens of our native lands. So, little Judy is an "American." In terms of our religion, she's also a "Christian." That's the proper term, a citizenship term. I don't care what errors others may make of it, reading too much into it, not distinguishing between the attribution to a child and the representation of an adult on the same question, etc.

A synonym for them is "disciple." We're all disciples, and identified as such by baptism; we're all being _made disciples,_ too. Our children are just not as advanced (generally speaking) as those who are older and more developed in the faith. And sometimes, a disciple is revealed as Judas.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 20, 2018)

I don't disagree with anything you've said Bruce. I guess, I'd rather try to reclaim the term "presumption" though since it is a useful term.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 23, 2018)

Puritan Sailor said:


> The difficulty in this issue is not in the abstract. I think everyone realizes that some covenant children may not be elect. The issue is how you treat children practically in the church and home. You have to make some sort of practical presumption when you actually teach your children. You still treat them as Christians when you teach your children to say "Our Father..." and to take hold of the promises made to them. You teach them that God is "our God", and that Christ is "our Savior", and that "our house" will serve the Lord. So, in practice you are still presuming they are elect and do not treat them as part of the world. This is where people start talking passed each other in debating over this. You are not going to say to your child, "I think you are externally in the covenant but not internally." We have no access to God's perspective about their internal or external state (i.e. election). I think Thornwell's "heir-apparent" view is a helpful formulation of this, training and preparing your children to inherit the promises, (thus presuming "election"), but leaving the time of regeneration/faith in God's hands, not presuming "regeneration" until they make public profession of faith.


Would that not fall under though raising them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord, but still not really saying they are actually saved as of yet?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 23, 2018)

Again, we all 'presume'. No one knows who are actually elect or reprobate-ever!


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 23, 2018)

As anyone ever "seen" or "heard" a spirit or a soul? While I have some problems with models of presumptive regeneration, everyone is going to presume something.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 23, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Would that not fall under though raising them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord, but still not really saying they are actually saved as of yet?



You can't raise your children in the fear of the Lord without presuming some sort of relationship to the Lord for them. The fear of the Lord is a mark of faith. It presupposes your submission and trust in the Lord.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 23, 2018)

Puritan Sailor said:


> You can't raise your children in the fear of the Lord without presuming some sort of relationship to the Lord for them. The fear of the Lord is a mark of faith. It presupposes your submission and trust in the Lord.


The lord can still take his scriptures though being presented to even the unsaved child and use them to bring him to a saving knowledge of Jesus still, correct?


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 23, 2018)

Puritan Sailor said:


> You can't raise your children in the fear of the Lord without presuming some sort of relationship to the Lord for them. The fear of the Lord is a mark of faith. It presupposes your submission and trust in the Lord.





Dachaser said:


> The lord can still take his scriptures though being presented to even the unsaved child and use them to bring him to a saving knowledge of Jesus still, correct?



David,
I think you missed Patrick's point entirely. He was calling you to account for your use of Reformed, covenantal language ("Would that not fall under though raising them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord, but still not really saying they are actually saved as of yet?") while arguing from a baptistic position.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SavedSinner (Jan 23, 2018)

Travis Fentiman said:


> What is to be made of Presumptive Regeneration (PR), which has become so popular in the modern, Reformed Church?
> 
> Jesus told Nicodemus, who was a teacher in Israel and externally in the Covenant in good standing, “You must be born again.” (Jn. 3:7)
> 
> ...


Travis,
Is this available in PDF? The website has this brown background, so for reading a hundred pages it would be easier in a lighter background.


----------



## Afterthought (Jan 23, 2018)

You could, of course, print it as a PDF in Chrome. Or get CutePDFWriter or something. You wouldn't be able to use the hyperlinks though.

Edit: The hyperlinks do work, but they are not as nice.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 24, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> David,
> I think you missed Patrick's point entirely. He was calling you to account for your use of Reformed, covenantal language ("Would that not fall under though raising them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord, but still not really saying they are actually saved as of yet?") while arguing from a baptistic position.


I was discussing this from a Reformed Baptist perspective. As I would see my children as being under the umbrella of the local church , and has beeing in a christian home, due to my wife and I being both saved, but both of them still needed to profess faith in Jesus to be seen as included under and in the NC itself, and the Lord used the scriptures and prayers as means to bring both of them to salvation, by the Holy spirit working in and over them in his due time.


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 24, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I was discussing this from a Reformed Baptist perspective. As I would see my children as being under the umbrella of the local church , and has beeing in a christian home, due to my wife and I being both saved, but both of them still needed to profess faith in Jesus to be seen as included under and in the NC itself, and the Lord used the scriptures and prayers as means to bring both of them to salvation, by the Holy spirit working in and over them in his due time.



Again, you are answering your own question and not interacting with what has been posed to you. You did not answer from a confessional Baptist position, but the language you used was more Reformed and covenantal. I'm not trying to be harsh, David, but when it appears you have not tried to read or comprehend what someone else has said, then go on to assert your own premise, it can be exasperating.....


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 24, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The lord can still take his scriptures though being presented to even the unsaved child and use them to bring him to a saving knowledge of Jesus still, correct?



No one disputes that God works through the Scriptures to produce saving faith. 

The point I was making to you is that you claimed to want to raise your child in the fear of the Lord. To live in the fear of the Lord is a covenantal relationship. The fear of the Lord is a component of faith. So you can't raise your children to fear the Lord without at the same time teaching him how to exercise faith in the Lord. And you can't call him to daily live in the fear of the Lord without at least presupposing they have some sort of relationship to the Lord already. 

If you presuppose they have no relationship to the Lord at all, then all you can do is make evangelistic appeals to your children until they actually profess faith, then you may train them in the fear of the Lord.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 24, 2018)

Puritan Sailor said:


> No one disputes that God works through the Scriptures to produce saving faith.
> 
> The point I was making to you is that you claimed to want to raise your child in the fear of the Lord. To live in the fear of the Lord is a covenantal relationship. The fear of the Lord is a component of faith. So you can't raise your children to fear the Lord without at the same time teaching him how to exercise faith in the Lord. And you can't call him to daily live in the fear of the Lord without at least presupposing they have some sort of relationship to the Lord already.
> 
> If you presuppose they have no relationship to the Lord at all, then all you can do is make evangelistic appeals to your children until they actually profess faith, then you may train them in the fear of the Lord.


They both have professed Jesus is their Lord/Savior, thank God for His saving grace, and am still trying to wade through how to say certain things to you and others here in the form of how Reformed would say and speak to these issues.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 24, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> Again, you are answering your own question and not interacting with what has been posed to you. You did not answer from a confessional Baptist position, but the language you used was more Reformed and covenantal. I'm not trying to be harsh, David, but when it appears you have not tried to read or comprehend what someone else has said, then go on to assert your own premise, it can be exasperating.....


Please pardon my ignorance here, but I thought that Confessing Baptists and reformed Presbyterians are saying the same thing in regards to children still have to receive Jesus through faith in order to be/get saved?
Neither one of us can know with total certainty that our children have been saved, but still can present time with the gospel, telling them about Jesus, and having them exposed and grow in in the local church under influence of God, scriptures, and His people?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 24, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> They both have professed Jesus is their Lord/Savior, thank God for His saving grace, and am still trying to wade through how to say certain things to you and others here in the form of how Reformed would say and speak to these issues.


Then answer the argument posed in response to your earlier statement.

The posed argument begs:
"And you can't call him to daily live in the fear of the Lord without at least presupposing they have some sort of relationship to the Lord already.

If you presuppose they {*nb*_: your children, David_} have no relationship to the Lord at all, then all you can do is make evangelistic appeals to your children until they actually profess faith, then you may train them in the fear of the Lord."​
*Read* the links in my post here. Gather the proper context in view. Provide a direct answer, not just some notional opinion that obfuscates what is actually being implied in the responses you have been given.

The best way to "_say certain things_" is to practice some discernment in the actual topic, and trepidation when you are not confident about what you are asserting. Do not rush in where others have feared to tread.

Discussions here at PB are more than just, "_Me, too!_", "_I agree!_", "_Let me restated what has been restated yet again!_", etc. These sort of responses are but eructations from the sidelines, a distraction if they are *frequently* offered up. Just use the _Amen!_ or _Like_ buttons if you want to let it be known where you stand.

If you are going to weigh in, then make every effort to ensure that what you are contributing is not merely stating the obvious to the casual observer, but something that fosters further discussion and edification.

Your posts tend to the dogmatic, yet when they are probed or cross-examined a wee bit, you begin walking them back with "_What I meant to say, was..._" or words to that effect. If you continue along these lines, is there any wonder that the reader will just begin to ignore your affirmations and assertions, or...become irritated and frustrated?

My number one rule that I try to practice in all walks of life related to discussion:
_If I have nothing to say of substance about a topic, I should refrain from giving ample evidence of the fact._ ​Reticence.


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 24, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Please pardon my ignorance here,


We all have a lot to learn in all kinds of areas and I do not think you are willfully ignorant, David. I only ask that you really read and digest what some of the guys and gals are trying to say....this is why we are here; to sharpen each other, but that can't happen properly when we're not listening to each other and all answering different questions.......



Dachaser said:


> but I thought that Confessing Baptists and reformed Presbyterians are saying the same thing in regards to children still have to receive Jesus through faith in order to be/get saved?


This is true...there is no disagreement between confessional Baptists and the Reformed here; salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to the glory of God alone. I would only restate the language of "getting saved" to something like "salvation is trusting in the person and work of Christ alone attained by faith alone". It may be my distaste for pop-evangelicalism........



Dachaser said:


> Neither one of us can know with total certainty that our children have been saved, but still can present time with the gospel, telling them about Jesus, and having them exposed and grow in in the local church under influence of God, scriptures, and His people?


All of this is true. There are several differences in how we (Baptist and Reformed) see 1) the terms of the covenant (Baptists see the internal and external administrations as one and the same, Reformed distinguish the two as @BayouHuguenot stated in a recent post somewhere), 2) those who are eligible to be in the covenant (often stated/asked as 'who is a disciple?'), and 3) how much continuity or discontinuity exists between the old covenant and the new.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 24, 2018)

I really appreaciate your responses here to me, and trying to make fully the switch from being a Baptist who held strongly to Dispensational theology, to now being one who who see it in terms as a Confessing Baptist would and does, but have been learning that there are also some large differences between reformed baptists and Presbyterians on certain issues.

I am a really unfinished work in progress, having gone from a strong Pentecostal understanding, to traditional Baptist, to now a Confessing one, and also finding out some more areas to learn as in differences between us in some issues still.


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 24, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I really appreaciate your response here to me, and trying to make fully the switch from being a Baptist who held strongly to Dispensational theology , to now being one who who see it in terms as a Confessing Baptist would and does, but have been learning that there are also some large differences between reformed baptists and Presbyterians on certain issues.
> I am a really unfinished work in progress, having gone from a strong Pentecostal understanding, to traditional Baptist, to now a Confessing one, and also finding out some more areas to learn as in differences between us in some issues still.



We are all a work in progress, David! Peace to you.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 24, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Do not all Christian parents, who teach their children about Jesus and salvation though, raising them up in a local church, are doing the same appealing to the Lord to use those means to reach and save them, regardless whether Baptists/Presbyterian?


Yes. The difference is whether or not you count them as part of the _visible Church_ or not. Do you treat them as visible Christians or not?

Baptists do not count their children as part of the _visible Church_ or as "_in the Lord_" in any sense, at least not in any sense that relates to everyday child raising. You can only be "_in the Lord_" if you are regenerate. That is where the inconsistency lies, and which I was trying to point out to you. 

On the one hand, baptists say their children are not believers and not part of the church (_officially_). Yet at the same time, they claim to raise their children in the fear of the Lord, which is teaching them to exercise faith. On the one hand, you teach them and expect them to pray to God as their "Father" and on the other hand you say "God is not your Father". This tension is not resolved until some sort of conversion experience, giving evidence to their regeneration, which then admits them into the Church.

Presbyterians don't have that category problem because they count children as part of the visible Church, and as "in the Lord" in the same covenantal way as children were counted in the OT. They are treated as children underage and immature, but are still taught to repent, believe, fear the Lord, etc. leaving the actual time of regeneration in God's hands. When they come of age, they make public profession and are admitted into "adult" membership and communion. The time of regeneration is not important for their profession, only that it has happened, and is evidenced by the fruit of their lives.

Hope that answers your question.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 24, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I really appreaciate your responses here to me, and trying to make fully the switch from being a Baptist who held strongly to Dispensational theology, to now being one who who see it in terms as a Confessing Baptist would and does, but have been learning that there are also some large differences between reformed baptists and Presbyterians on certain issues.
> 
> I am a really unfinished work in progress, having gone from a strong Pentecostal understanding, to traditional Baptist, to now a Confessing one, and also finding out some more areas to learn as in differences between us in some issues still.


David,

Understanding the distinctions between confessional _Baptist_ and _Presbyterian_ views necessitates that one makes very effort to steep themselves in whatever view one claims. I do not think you have come to a good understanding of the LBCF that you have affirmed, much less how the LBCF is distinguished from the Westminster Standards.

I want you to go back and re-read, taking it to heart, my earlier:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/presumptive-regeneration.94777/page-2#post-1157277


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 26, 2018)

Puritan Sailor said:


> Yes. The difference is whether or not you count them as part of the _visible Church_ or not. Do you treat them as visible Christians or not?
> 
> Baptists do not count their children as part of the _visible Church_ or as "_in the Lord_" in any sense, at least not in any sense that relates to everyday child raising. You can only be "_in the Lord_" if you are regenerate. That is where the inconsistency lies, and which I was trying to point out to you.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your response, and would say that Baptist tend to see all children, and persons in general who are attending a local assembly, as being under the visible church, but may be in the actual true Church, depending on if they have received Jesus through faith.
Are you saying that you would see infants once Baptized as under the NC proper, or just part of the local church, and that they still need to receive Jesus through faith in order to be now counted in the NC itself?


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> ... and would say that Baptist tend to see all children, and persons in general who are attending a local assembly, _*as being under the visible church*_,...



I'm not sure what you intended to say here, but generally, Baptists would reject this statement. Non-approved confessors would not be admitted into the visible church until there is good evidence for the elders to approve one for baptism...

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 26, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> I'm not sure what you intended to say here, but generally, Baptists would reject this statement. Non-approved confessors would not be admitted into the visible church until there is good evidence for the elders to approve one for baptism...


You are correct, as in regards to official church membership, but there are also many who attend who have not yet moved towards getting baptized or commiting to church membership who are saved, but we do strongly encourage them to do both.


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> You are correct, as in regards to official church membership, but there are also many who attend who have not yet moved towards getting baptized or commiting to church membership who are saved, but we do strongly encourage them to do both.




But are they "under the N.C." as you asserted earlier?


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 26, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> A
> But are they "under the N.C." as you asserted earlier?


the visible church is not the same as the real church, as only the members in that group are under the NC.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Thanks for your response, and would say that Baptist tend to see all children, and persons in general who are attending a local assembly, as being under the visible church, but may be in the actual true Church, depending on if they have received Jesus through faith.
> Are you saying that you would see infants once Baptized as under the NC proper, or just part of the local church, and that they still need to receive Jesus through faith in order to be now counted in the NC itself?



Baptists hesitate to even use the term "visible church" because ideally there should be no visible/invisible distinction when the church is composed of only those who are regenerate. And I have yet to hear a baptist consider his children to be part of the church. Being taught by the Church perhaps, but not part of the Church. So I think you will need to do some more homework within your own tradition there. In my baptistic background, it was very easy for children raised in the church to be considered part of the church, simply because there were raised as part of that community. But you were still not allowed to become a member until you made profession and were baptized. So there was that inconsistency, you felt like and often were treated like part of the community on the one hand, but very clearly were not part of the community on the other. 

Presbyterians would argue that there is a visible and invisible dimension to the new covenant, just as there was in the old covenant (i.e "not all Israel are Israel"). Often we use the term external vs. internal members of the covenant, as others mentioned earlier in this thread. But that distinction is one that only God can see. 

We on the other hand must live and work within the visible church, within the realm of what we see, what men (and children) profess with their mouths and deeds. We must operate within the visible administration of the covenant. We cannot know who the elect are the way God does. And so for us, we must treat anyone as part of the new covenant who visibly looks like he belongs. He claims Christ as Lord and lives accordingly. It may very well be that he is a liar or hypocrite, and time may reveal that fact through his actions one day. But until that evidence is seen, we must extend a judgment of charity and welcome him as a member, baptize him, and treat him as a Christian and part of the new covenant. 

Presbyterians would extend that same judgment of charity to children of believers as well (as Israel did in the OT). They are to be treated as immature Christians, as those who belong to God and thus baptized, and who must be trained up to be mature Christians. They must be taught what it means to fear the Lord, and obey his commands, to seek forgiveness of sins through Christ, and to live as his disciples. It may very well be that some children are not elect, and that fact may be revealed later. But until that evidence is revealed, we treat them as Christians and part of the church, though still underage and immature. Our hope as parents (and pastors) is that these children will be born again and come to know Christ truly at some point along the way through their Christian nurture. 

But many will not be able to pin point at what time that regeneration occurred. Since they have been raised within the church and always taught that Jesus is Lord and to believe in him for salvation, they will not be able to say at what point they moved from child-like acceptance of their parents instruction, to personal faith in Christ. To some it seems like they have always believed. Some may eventually rebel, and some may have a dramatic conversion experience. But whether the experience is dramatic or undramatic, we eventually treat them as "adult" Christians based upon their mature claim to believe in Christ with a consistent life. 

But from infancy onward, we treat them as members of the new covenant, until they prove otherwise. We do not treat them as if they belong to the world. We do not raise them to be Atheists or Muslims. And since it is impossible to be neutral in the way you raise your children, you raise them to be Christians, and do so under the new covenant administration, since there is no other place to do that. 

Hope that helps.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> the visible church is not the same as the real church, as only the members in that group are under the NC.



Without putting words in your mouth, I believe you are trying to say that not everyone who is in the visible church is also in the invisible church. Is that correct?

I wouldn't say the visible church isn't "real", however; it is what God gave the whole world to see, so it is both "real" in the sense that 1) it exists visibly (albeit not perfect) and 2) inside of it, there are real children of the King.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 27, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> Without putting words in your mouth, I believe you are trying to say that not everyone who is in the visible church is also in the invisible church. Is that correct?
> 
> I wouldn't say the visible church isn't "real", however; it is what God gave the whole world to see, so it is both "real" in the sense that 1) it exists visibly (albeit not perfect) and 2) inside of it, there are real children of the King.


There would be within the local assembly of persons some who are not born again, so would be members of just the visible church, while those who have been born again by God would also be in the Body of Christ, His bride, the Universal Church.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 27, 2018)

Puritan Sailor said:


> Baptists hesitate to even use the term "visible church" because ideally there should be no visible/invisible distinction when the church is composed of only those who are regenerate. And I have yet to hear a baptist consider his children to be part of the church. Being taught by the Church perhaps, but not part of the Church. So I think you will need to do some more homework within your own tradition there. In my baptistic background, it was very easy for children raised in the church to be considered part of the church, simply because there were raised as part of that community. But you were still not allowed to become a member until you made profession and were baptized. So there was that inconsistency, you felt like and often were treated like part of the community on the one hand, but very clearly were not part of the community on the other.
> 
> Presbyterians would argue that there is a visible and invisible dimension to the new covenant, just as there was in the old covenant (i.e "not all Israel are Israel"). Often we use the term external vs. internal members of the covenant, as others mentioned earlier in this thread. But that distinction is one that only God can see.
> 
> ...


I did raise both my sons under the church and the teachings of the pastors, and at home with the scriptures and praying with and over them, not assuming that they were saved, but hoping that the Lord would use those means to reach them and convert them to being believers in Jesus Christ.
All of us were born as sinners and away from God, and the Lord uses the means of being under the influence of the local church and private devotions/prayers as a way to bring the person to a time when they receive Jesus as their Lord and Savior and now be really under the NC.


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> There would be within the local assembly of persons some who are not born again, so would be members of just the visible church, while those who have been born again by God would also be in the Body of Christ, His bride, the Universal Church.



The visible church is what we see on earth, consisting of both the elect and the non-elect. The invisible church is only the elect, but we can't discern that as God infallibly does....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 27, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> The visible church is what we see on earth, consisting of both the elect and the non-elect. The invisible church is only the elect, but we can't discern that as God infallibly does....


The elect are also the only ones that would be considered included under the new Covenant


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The elect are also the only ones that would be considered included under the new Covenant



From a Baptist perspective. I'm a former Baptist who is now covenantal and Reformed and I dont agree with that assesment. You still have to deal with the non-elect who are part of Christ's visible church. They exist in Baptist churches and in Reformed churches.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 27, 2018)



Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 27, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> From a Baptist perspective. I'm a former Baptist who is now covenantal and Reformed and I dont agree with that assesment. You still have to deal with the non-elect who are part of Christ's visible church. They exist in Baptist churches and in Reformed churches.


When I say under the NC. they would be in Christ and co heirs and spiritual blessings in Him, and no non saved would have that.


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 27, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


>



Hahahahahahahaha.......hilarious!


----------

