# Presumptive Regeneration in the Church & History



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 10, 2005)

After reading F. Nigel Lee's paper (which is outstanding (he beat me to the dissertation punch on this one) http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs7/bbbb/index.html) I thought I would post a series of quotes from the various theologians whom you are all aware of through Church history, and their explicit comments about PR (Just FN Lee's bibliography is incredible). There are WAY more quotes in Lee's paper. But the following are a sampling of quotes from most of the men you would recognize. At the end of this post, I also reposted the other quotes you have seen before. That makes this a pretty good list altogether.

Be aware, just because the FV/AA guys steal part of an idea, twist it and pervert it, that does not mean we out to throw the baby out with the baptismal water. 

Pay particular attention to the Westminster writings, and the Reformers...all of the following men represent the Reformed church somewhere in history or the world.

Take some thoughtful time to really think about what these writer's are saying. It is impossible to misunderstand them unless we just decide to deny the doctrine. 

These are quite explicit:

________________________________________

John Knox
"The conviction of the writers of that Book of Common Order, was thus the Biblical perception that the children of believers are Christians already, before being baptized in their infancy."

Genevan Book of Church Order, still describing covenant children, the Preface then continues: "They be contained under the name of God's people.... Remission of sins in the blood of Christ Jesus doth appertain unto them by God's promise.... Paul...pronounceth the children begotten and born (either of the parents being faithful) to be clean and holy. First Corinthians 7.... "The Holy Ghost assure us that infants be of the number of God's people and that remission of sins doth also appertain to them in Christ.... Almighty God their Father." They are "His children bought with the blood of His dear Son."

Belgic Confession
"This signifies to us that as water washes away the filth of the body when poured upon it, and is seen on the body of the baptized when sprinkled upon him, so does the blood of Christ by the power of the Holy Ghost internally sprinkle the soul...by the sprinkling of the precious blood of the Son.... First Corinthians 6:11; Titus 3:5; Hebrews 9:14; First John 1:7; Revelation 1:6."

Dr. G. de Bries (1608)
"œThese two things we must observe in baptism. Namely, (1) the sign of water used as a seal, and (2) the body of those who have the truth of baptism.... The truth of baptism is also to be recognized in baptism.... That is the internal washing of souls in the blood of Christ...through the fellowship which we have with Him.... One should note...to whom the sign of baptism applies. Holy Scripture clearly teaches us that it applies to the entire household of God; to the whole body of His congregation; that is, to all of those who are His people, both small and large.... Little children...have the sproutings of faith.... One cannot include them among the unbelievers, until they come to their years or understanding....The little children are renewed by God's Spirit according to the measure and comprehension of their age. And this divine power, which is hidden within them, grows and gradually increases....they are redeemed, sanctified and regenerated from perdition -- even though natural corruption still remains in them. For they possess such regeneration not through their own goodness, but through the sole goodness and mercy of God in Jesus Christ."
G. de BrÃ©s: The Radical Origin and Foundation of the Anabaptists, ed. 1608, Bk. III. Ib. f. 290a.

Dr. Zacharias Ursinus 
"œThose are not to be excluded from baptism, to whom the benefit of remission of sins and of regeneration belongs. But this benefit belongs to the infants of the Church. For redemption from sin by the blood of Christ, and by the Holy Ghost the Author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adults....We deny the proposition which denieth that infants do believe. For infants of believers regenerated by the Holy Spirit have an inclination to believe, or do believe by inclination. For faith is in infants -- potentially, and by disposition.... Godly infants who are in the church, have...an inclination...to godliness -- not by nature indeed, but by the grace of the covenant. "Infants have the Holy Ghost, and are regenerated by Him.... John was filled with the Holy Ghost, when as yet He was in the womb; and it was said to Jeremiah, 'Before thou camest out of the womb, I sanctified thee.' If infants have the Holy Ghost -- then, doubtless, He worketh in them regeneration...unto salvation. As Peter saith, 'Who can forbid water -- from them who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?'
Z. Ursinus's Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 74 (cited in C. Coleburn's Scriptural, Confessional and Historical References re the Regeneration of Children, and their Status before the Lord and in the Church, Brisbane, 1991, p. 10); and his Christian Religion Q. 74 (cited in Shedd's Dogmatic Theology (1894), Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1969 ed., III pp. 443f).

Dr. Zacharias Ursinus
Covenant infants "are regenerated and belong to the people of God and to the body of Christ.... The gift of the Holy Spirit applies to the children of believers even before faith and conversion.... In general, it is from the covenant and the divine promise that one judges children to have been gifted with the Holy Spirit.... They are to be regarded as partakers of the Spirit of regeneration, by virtue of their birth in the Church and by power of the promises of God.... The actual reason why anyone should be baptized, is not faith and profession but regeneration...the gift of the Holy Spirit.... All believers are to be baptized; and only believers are to be baptized."

Dr. Casper Oliveanus
"Thus, our children are holy -- by way of the covenant of grace.... See First Corinthians
7:14 and Ezra 9:2.... The promise of the Gospel has been made expressly to our children,
Deuteronomy 30:6.... God consummated internally that which He promises externally. Titus 3:3-8"¦Everlasting life is sealed by the testimony of the Holy Spirit and imparted by the Holy Spirit."
Casper Olevianus: The Essence of the Covenant of Grace. Copinga's translation, Groningen, 1739, pp. 497f.

The Second Helvetic Confession
"We condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that new-born infants of the faithful are to be
baptized. For, according to evangelical teaching, of such is the Kingdom of God (Luke 18:16) -- and they are written in the covenant of God (Acts 3:25).... Why, then, should the sign of God's covenant not be given to them? Why should those who belong to God...and are in God's Church -- not be initiated by holy baptism? We condemn the Anabaptists."
2nd Helv. Conf. chs. 11,19-22,30. "Damnamus Anabaptistas" (twice, in arts. 22 & 30). 83) Op. cit. p. 206. 84) Creeds I p. 644.

Dr. Theodore Beza
"The Anabaptists greatly err by opposing the baptism of infants.... Although they may not have faith with its effects such as those who are of age -- they may, however, have the seed and germ of it; seeing that the Lord has sanctified them from the mother's womb (First Corinthians 7:14).... We presuppose in general that they are children of God -- who are born of a believing father and mother, or when one of the two is a believer (Genesis 17:7)." Further, "as regards children born in the Church, one should presume the election of all of them, without limitation." 
Dr. Theodore Beza, The Christian Faith (1558)

Italian Reformer Dr. Jerome Zanchius (Professor of Old Testament at Strassburg)
"The precondition of receiving baptism, is that the baptizees have been gifted with the Spirit of faith...."
Jerome Zanchius: Theological Works on External Worship IV c. 440. Cited in Kramer's op. cit. pp. 277f.

Caspar vander Heyden
"Seed rests for a time in the earth, and takes root before one sees from its fruit that it has germinated.... The root of understanding and of reason has been poured into all children, as soon as they receive life.... God has planted a seed and a root of regeneration in the children of the covenant.... In time, the fruits of the Spirit germinate from it. For he who has been baptized with Christ in His death, also grows from Him, like a tender shoot on a vine....
Caspar vander Heyden, Short and Clear Proofs of Holy Baptism, (Moderator of the great Dutch Reformed Synods of Emden in 1571 and Dordrecht in 1574)

Polyander
"We do, with the Scripture, pre-require faith and repentance in all that are to be baptized, at least according to the judgment of charity.... And that -- also in infants that are
within the covenant, in whom...we affirm that there is the seed and Spirit of faith and
repentance."
Polyander and Others: Synopsis of Purer Theology, 1581, Disp. 44c & 47 v. 9. Cited in H. Heppe's Reformed Dogmatics, Baker, 1950 rep., p. 609.

Francis Junius
Junius also stated that "faith in its first action...is required.... For it is inseparable from the person covenanted or to be baptized.... It is an error to maintain absolutely that children cannot believe. For they have the beginning of possessing
faith, because they possess the Spirit of faith (Spiritum fidei)...."
Francis Junius' Theological Theses on Paedobaptism, page 139.

Dr. F. Nigel Lee
"œAt least half of the paedobaptistic rationale for infant baptism well rests on the presumption of regeneration in the babies concerned."
F. Nigel Lee, section 5, Baby Belief From Knox Till The Westminster Standards.

Lucas Trelcatius Senior (1587) (Professor of Reformed Theology at Leyden)
"œinfants have the seed of faith" -- 'fidem habent infantes in sementi.'"¦"the child of believing parents is sanctified, although not producing the fruits of conversion."
Junius: op. cit. II c. 287, and his Nature and Grace, pp. 83ff (as cited in Warfield's Two Stud. p. 203). Cf. too his On Paedobaptism 7 & 26.

Jeremiah Basting (trained by Beza, Ursinus and Olevianus, 1575.) 
"The sign and external ceremony can no way be denied those who are promised and given the things signified, such as forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit.... The immature little children are promised and given the forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit. How then can the element of water fairly be withheld from the young children?"
J. Basting: Explanations of the [Heidelberg] Catechism of the Christian Religion (1594), 2nd ed., comp. Rutgers's Biblical References, pp. 366f.

William Bucanus (1609)
"œIt is not to be denied that the seed even of faith is poured into elect infants."

R. Puppius's Proof of Infant Baptism (1611).
As Calvinists, "our first position against the Lutherans who teach that baptism produces an active faith, is that tiny little children do not have an active faith...."Our second position, against the Anabaptists, is that the tiny little children are implanted with a seed of faith from which the later act of faith is born." In actual fact, however, "infants of believers have some seed of faith. At a more mature age, it goes forth to act. It accedes outwardly by human initiation, but inwardly by the Holy Spirit -- with a greater effect."

Decrees of Dordt I:17. 
Second. Such elect ones also include many babies. For Dordt insisted218 that "the children of believers are holy not by nature but by virtue of the covenant of grace in which they, together with the parents, are comprehended. Godly parents have no reason to doubt the election and salvation of those their children whom it pleases God to call out of this life in their infancy. First Corinthians 7:14; Genesis 17:7; Isaiah 59:21; Acts 2:39."
In Vander Waal's, p. 53. Comp. too Gravemeijer: III:20:22 p. 139.

Dr. Festus Hommius, Stated Clerk of the Synod of Dordt (Regent of the Leyden State College, 1619.)
The children of believers "may not be reckoned among the positive unbelievers....because they do possess faith in its first actions, at the root and in the seed, and indeed through the internal operations of the Holy Spirit."
F. Hommius: Theological Disputations Against the Papists, disp. 44, thes. 3, p. 269.

Andre Rivetus (French Reformed theologian, 1581) Professor at Leyden in 1620. 
Covenant children have "the beginnings of possessing...the seed of faith.... For as the Kingdom of heaven belongs to them, so too does the Spirit of faith (Matthew 19:14)....
A. Rivetus: Disputes 13, para. 13, p. 306; Synopsis of Purer Theology, III p. 305a, in Summa cont. tract.


Dr. William Ames
"Regeneration is a part of the promises, and applies to the children of the believers in a special way.... People are baptized because they are regarded as children of God, and not so that they should begin to become sons. Otherwise, there would be no reason not to baptize the children of unbelievers as well as children of believers."
William Ames: Bellarmine Unnerved, II:1 p. 337.

Dr. Voetius (Professor of Theology, Utrecht)
Covenant Infants, "are entitled to baptism: not because they are 'regarded' as members of the covenant, but because as a rule they actually already 'possess' the first grace. And for this reason, and this reason alone, it (the Formula) reads 'that our children...have been sanctified in Christ, and therefore ought to be baptized.'"

"In elect children belonging to the covenant, there is a first implantation of regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Thereby, the beginning and the seed of faith is implanted. From this, conversion and vital renewal must later take place at their own time. However, I reject (improbo) that regeneration takes place after baptism. For the opinion of our Reformed theologians are well-known. Baptism does not effect regeneration, but it is the sign
of a regeneration which has already occurred. (Efficacia baptismi non in producenda
regeneratione, sed in iam producta obsignata)....

"From the seed (e semine)..., the actual dispositions and habits are sustained by the ingrafted operation of the Holy Spirit in His Own time.... Just like a seed, the abilities and possession of faith make their appearances by fresh acts of the Holy Spirit in their own time." All born in the covenant, who die before coming to an age of discretion, are believed to partake of heavenly salvation
Voetius, Dutch Reformed Baptismal Formula of 1581, 238), as cited in A. Kuyper Sr.'s The Work of the Holy Spirit, ET, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1941, p. 300.
239) G. Voetius: Theological Disputations (Biblical Preface IV pp. 254f). Cited in Kuyper's E Voto III pp. 57f. 240) Ib. II p. 417.

Dr. Jan Cloppenburgh (Amsterdam, Professor of Theology in Hardewyk, and Franeker)
Covenant children "possess the seed of faith within them....It not merely follows but also precedes baptism -- and is accompanied by the fulfilments of the promises...."
Jan Cloppenburgh: The Gangrene of Anabaptist Theology, II ch. 20 p. 245, cf. III ch. 28 p. 584f.

Dr. Richard Sibbes
"Infants that die in their infancy...are within the covenant.... They have the seed of believing, the Spirit of God, in them.... If when they come to years, they answer not the covenant of grace and the answer of a good conscience..., all is frustrate....we leave infants to the mercy of God."
Richard Sibbes: Works, Banner of Truth, Edinburgh, 1983 ed., VI pp. 22f, & VII pp. 486f.

Dr. Cornelius Burgess
"œThe principal point handled in that work, is "that all elect infants...do ordinarily receive from Christ...the Spirit of regeneration as the...first principle of spiritual life." This they receive, "for their solemn initiation into Christ, and for their future actual renovation in God's good time "“ if they live to years of discretion."
Cornelius Burgess: The Regeneration of Elect Infants professed by the Church of England, Curteyn, Oxford, 1629. 

Dr. George Gillespie (Scottish Presbyterian Commissioner)
"œThe sacrament is not a converting but a confirming and sealing ordinance..., to seal unto a man that interest in Christ and in the covenant of grace which he already hath. The sacraments do not give any grace, but do declare and show what God hath given. "Baptism is intended only for the redeemed of the Lord."
Gillespie: Aaron's Rod, 1st ed., III ch. XII p. 489.

Dr. Stephen Marshall (Westminster Divine)
"œEver since God gathered a...select number out of the world to be His kingdom..., He would have the infants of all who are taken into covenant with Him to be accounted His -- to belong to Him...and not to the devils.... "Being only passive in them all..., of this first grace is the sacrament of baptism properly a seal.... Who ever will deny that infants are capable of these things, as well as grown men "“ must deny that any infants dying in their infancy are saved by Christ."
Stephen Marshall: A Sermon on the Baptizing of Infants, Coates, Bowtell, London, 1644, pp. 14, 25f, 32, 26f, 39, 41f, 45f & 51f.

Dr. Edward Reynolds (Westminster Divine)
Nigel Lee says, "œMore than anybody else, it was probably Reynolds who drafted chapters 27 and 28 (of the Confession) on the subject of baptism." Reynolds says, "œThe promises and Word of grace, with the sacraments, are all but as so many sealed deeds to make over into all successions of the Church -- so long as they contain legitimate children and observe the laws of their part required --an infallible claim and title....The nature of a sacrament is to be representative of a substance; the sign of a covenant; the seal of a purchase; the figure of a body; the witness of our faith; the earnest of our hope; the presence of things distant; the sight of things absent; the taste of things inconceivable; and the knowledge of thing that are past knowledge."
Edward Reynolds: Meditations on the Holy Sacrament, London, 1826 (1626?). Cited in Vincent's op. cit. pp. 18f & 30 n. 46.

Rev. Samuel Rutherford
"Who they are, who are to be baptized -- it is presumed they give some professed consent
to the call.... What ground is there to exclude sucking children? For...there is no Name under heaven by which men may be saved, but by the Name of Jesus...."Since Christ prayed for infants and blessed them -- which is a praying for them -- He must own them as 'blessed' in Christ in Whom all the nations of the earth are
blessed.... It is false that the promise is made only to the aged... It is made to their children.... For the way of their believing -- we leave it to the Lord."
Samuel Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, Anderson, Edinburgh, 1655, I, chs. 13-14, pp. 72-91f; cf. too his Triumphof Faith (in his Sermons VIII).315) Id., cited in Coleborn's op. cit. pp. 21f.

Rev. John Wallis (Secretary of the Westminster Assembly)
"œ"¦we have no reason to doubt but many children very early,and even before their birth, may have the habits of grace infused into them -- by which they are saved.... For as the habits of corruption, which we call Original Sin, by propagation -- so may the habits of grace, by infusion, be inherent in the soul long before (for want of the use of reason) we are in capacity to act."
John Wallis: A Defence of Infant Baptism, Oxford, 1657. Cited in Coleburn's op. cit., April 1991 ed., pp. 15f.

Dr. John Calvin
"By these words, Christ...by a sacred bond...connects baptism with doctrine.... But as
Christ enjoins them to teach before baptizing, and desires that none but believers shall be admitted to baptism -- it would appear that baptism is not properly administered, unless when it is preceded by faith." 
John Calvin, Commentary on Matthew 28:19.

Dr. John Calvin
"Are we not, independent of baptism, cleansed by the blood of Christ and regenerated by the Spirit?" Indeed: "Let him (Heshusius) then accuse Paul of blasphemy -- for saying that Christ is formed in us like the foetus in the womb. His well-known words to the Galatians are: 'My little children, for whom I again travail, as in birth -- until Christ Jesus be formed in you.' Galatians 4:9...."

"God therefore calls those who were thus slain -- 'His sons.' Just as if a husband should reproach his wife with depriving him of their common children.... Children are more precious than all goods.... A father is more grievously injured, if children are taken away.... God here pronounces...'you have born them -- unto Me.'"

"The Jews were naturally accursed, through being Adam's seed. But by supernatural and singular privilege, they were exempt and free from the curse -- since
circumcision was a testimony of the adoption by which God had consecrated them to Himself. Hence, they were holy.... As to their being impure, it could not...abolish God's covenant.... And so Paul says that the children of the faithful are holy -- since baptism does not lose its efficacy, and the adoption of God remains fixed. First Corinthians 7:14."
Calvin's True Partaking of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, in his Tracts & Treat. II pp. 497f. 306) Ib. pp. 534f.

Dr. Thomas Manton
"Of those children, dying in infancy, I assert that they have...the seed of faith...in the covenant.... It must be so.... Socinians...count the faith of infants a thing so impossible, that they say it is a greater dotage than the dream of a man in a fever....So those expressions of trusting God from the mother's womb. David speaks it of his own person, as a type of Christ. Psalm 22:9, 'Thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts'.... Job saith, chapter 31:18, 'from my youth, he was brought up with me as with a father; and I have guided her, from my mother's womb' -- meaning, he had a...disposition of pity put into him at his nativity. So also -- why may not a principle of faith be put into us in the womb, if God will work it?" "What is the faith which children have?... They have the seed of faith or some principle of grace conveyed into their souls by the hidden operation of the Spirit of God, which gives them an interest in Christ and so a right to His merit for their salvation...."
Thomas Manton: Complete Works, Maranatha, Worthington Pa, rep. ed., n.d. (ca. 1975), XIV pp. 81-89 & 205.

Dr. David Dickson
Truth's Victory Over Error, Dr. David Dickson asked: "Are elect infants, dying in infancy, regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit Who worketh when and where and how He pleaseth?" Echoing the Westminster Confession (10:3) itself, he answered, "Yes. Luke 18:15-16; Acts 2:38-39; John 3:3-5; First John 5:12."
Dr. David Dickson, Truth's Victory Over Error

Dr. David Dickson
"The precise time of begun regeneration is not always observed nor known either by the regenerate man himself or by beholders of his way." This "experience makes evident -- in many who from their infancy are brought up in the exercises of true religion, in whose conversion no notable change can be observed."
Dr. David Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra...Concerning Regeneration

Dutch Calvinist Cornelius Poudroyen
Believers' children "have the Holy Spirit and the redemption from sin -- just as the adults do." "First Corinthians 7:14 -- 'Otherwise your children would be unclean; but now, they are holy.'" "œ"¦one cannot be holy, without the Holy Spirit.... Children have faith."

"The root and seed of faith, from which the Holy Spirit ignites and inflames their spiritual zeal when they increase in years.... They have the Spirit of Christ.... Wherever the Spirit of Christ is, there too is faith -- whether an active faith, as in adults; or whether the root and origin of faith, as in small children."

Wendelin of Heidelberg (1656, German Reformed theologian)
Christian System of Theology. 
Collation of Christian Doctrine from the Calvinists and the Lutherans
"œThe 'possessed faith' which we attribute to infants, we truly call -- either 'the root' or 'the seed' of faith." 
M.F. Wendelin: Christian System of Theology, Cassel, 1656. Cited in Kuyper's On the Sacraments p. 142 (in his Dog. Dict. IV). Also Wendelin's Collation of Christian Doctrine from the Calvinists and the Lutherans, Cassel, 1660, p. 352. See in Heppe's op. cit. pp. 624 & 714.


Dr. Herman Witsius
"Here certainly appears the extraordinary love of our God -- in that as soon as we are born, and just as we come from our mother, He hath commanded us to be solemnly brought from her bosom as it were into His own arms, that He should bestow upon us in the very cradle the (baptismal) tokens of our dignity...."

"There can hardly be any doubt that the statement regarding the regeneration of the children before baptism, according to the judgment of love, is the accepted view of the Dutch Church. In her Baptismal Formula, this question is put to parents who offer their children in baptism: 'Do you acknowledge that they are sanctified in Christ, and should be baptized as members of His congregation?' "Now this strengthens the views of those who place the initial regeneration of elect covenant children before baptism. So, I acknowledge I submit to this."

"The children are regenerated, but the seed remains hidden for many years under the earth-clod. It is not choked by the thorns and thistles of youthful desires. Later, by addition of more grace, it finally surmounts the hindrances "“ and germinates and breaks forth more strongly and fortuitously.... God is not only free to impart the grace of regeneration to the elect children before they receive baptism. It should be believed that
He, as a rule, also does this."
Herman Witsius: The Efficacy of Baptism in Infants, in his Holy Miscellanies II exerc. 19 pp. 611-98 para. 32 (cited in Kramer's op. cit. pp. 337-38).33) Witsius: op. cit. para. 43, as cited in Kramer's op. cit. p. 339.

Rev. Thomas Watson
"œBaptism...is a matriculation or visible admission of children into the congregation of Christ's flock."¦"To such as belong to the election, baptism is a 'seal of the righteousness of faith'...and a badge of adoption. Romans 4:11.... The infant seed of believers may as well lay a claim to the covenant of grace as their parents.... They cannot justly be denied baptism, which is its seal.... Does not their faith need strengthening, as well as others?"
Thomas Watson, Body of Divinity (1670)


Dr. John Henry Heidegger (Swiss Reformed)
"Regenerated and sanctified even in their mother's womb..., baptism is presently the sign of a regeneration already made and persevering right up to death." "However, that operation of the Holy Spirit is hidden.... For those who die in infancy, baptism is as surely the sign of regeneration and of ingrafting into Christ -- as their body is surely sprinkled with water."
J.H. Heidegger's Body of Theology (Zurich 1700) and his Marrow of Christian Theology XXV:50 & 53 & 55 (Zurich 1696). Cited in Heppe (op. cit. pp. 620 & 622 & 715) and in A. Kuyper (Sac. in Dict. Dog. IV p. 143).

Dr. Francis Turretin
Covenant "children are just as much to be baptized as adults"¦the faith of covenant infants...consists of an initial action in them." That infant faith is "in root, not in fruit." It is characterized "by an internal action of the Spirit, not by an external demonstration in works."
Francis Turretin: Theological Elencthics p. 427.

Wilhelmus A´Brakel 
"Whether dying before or after receiving baptism, all children of covenanters are to be regarded as saved -- by virtue of God's covenant in which they were born.... Even the children are acknowledged to have been sanctified in Christ....
Wilhelmus A´Brakel, Othe Christian´s Reasonable Service, 31:14 & 39:26. 

Dr. Peter Ã¡ Mastricht (Professor of Theology at Utrecht)
Children of the covenant should be baptized "because they partake of the benefits of the covenant of grace, of regeneration, and of the forgiveness of sin.... We are ordered in Holy Scripture to baptize as many as have received the Holy Spirit.... According to that Holy Scripture "“ Luke 1:15 & Jeremiah 1:5 -- tiny children receive the Holy Spirit."
Peter Van Mastricht: Theoretical-Practical Theology, Amsterdam, 1725, III p. 617. Cited in Kuyper's E Voto III p. 58.

Dr. A.A. Hodge 
"œThe children of all such persons (believing parents) are...presumptively heirs of the blessings of the covenant of grace. The divinely appointed and guaranteed presumption is -- if the parents, then the children" too. "This presumption is rendered exceedingly probable, by the fundamental constitution of humanity as a self-propagative race....
A.A. Hodge: Evangelical Theology (1890), Banner of Truth, Edinburgh, 1976 ed., pp. ii, 324-37.

Dr. William Cunningham
"The Reformers and the great body of Protestant divines, in putting forth the definition of the sacraments..., intended to embody the substance of what they believe Scripture to teach.... They commonly assume that the persons partaking in them, are rightly qualified for receiving and improving them.... Justification and regeneration by faith are not conveyed through the instrumentality of the sacraments.... On the contrary, they must already exist -- before even baptism can be received lawfully or safely"
Dr. William Cunningham Historical Theology, II, pp. 144 & 149.

Dr. B.B. Warfield
"All Protestants should easily agree that only Christ's children have a right to the ordinance of infant baptism.... We say that it (the Church) should receive as the children of Christ -- all whom in the judgment of charity it may fairly recognize as such....All baptism is inevitably administered on the basis not of knowledge but of presumption....
If we must baptize on presumption, the whole principle is yielded.... We must baptize all whom we may fairly presume to be Members of Christ's body.... "So soon, therefore, as it is fairly apprehended that we baptize on presumption and not on knowledge -- it is inevitable that we shall baptize all those for whom we may, on any grounds, fairly cherish a good presumption that they belong to God's people.... This surely includes the infant children of believers."
B.B. Warfield, The Polemics of Infant Baptism

B.B. Warfield
"Among the Reformed alone...(regarding the Invisible Church of) the people of God, membership...is mediated not by the external act of baptism but the internal regeneration of the Holy Spirit.... In the case of infants dying in infancy, birth within the bounds of the covenant is a sure sign, since the promise is 'unto us and our children.'"
B.B. Warfield, Studies in Theology pp. 429f & 447.

Dr. Herman Bavinck 
"œMen had this feeling that the regeneration of children took place before baptism.... God was not bound to means.... He operated thus with the children of believers who were removed by death before the years of discretion.... "They are to be regarded as elect and regenerate, until the opposite is apparent from their profession and behaviour.... All children born of believing parents are, according to the judgment of charity, to be regarded as born again -- until the opposite in life and doctrine are clearly manifested. Thus Peter Martyr Vermigli, Alasco, Ursinus, Datheen, Alting, Voetius, Witsius,
Mastricht...."Calvin says...that the children of believers are already holy even before baptism through a supranatural grace (Institutes IV:16:31); that the seed of faith and conversion hides within them through a secret operation of the Spirit (IV:16:20); that they partake of the grace of regeneration by virtue of the promise; and that baptism follows by way of sign.... Men had this feeling that the regeneration of children took place before baptism...."
Herman Bavinck: Reformed Dogmatics I p. 29 & n. 1, and III pp. 266f (as cited in Wielenga's op. cit. pp. 241f).

Dr. Louis Berkhof
"From the start, there was general agreement in establishing the right of infant baptism -- by an appeal to Scripture, and particularly to the scriptural doctrine of the covenant. Children of believers are covenant children, and are therefore entitled to the sacrament. According to some, it warrants the assumption that children of believing parents are regenerated -- until the contrary appears in doctrine or life. At that latter point, the assumption would need to be revised."
Louis Berkhof: The History of Christian Doctrine, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1969, pp. 258f.

_______________________________

John Calvin, "œWe ought, therefore, to consider, that just as in the case of Abraham, the father of the faithful, the righteousness of faith preceded circumcision, so today in the children of the faithful, the gift of adoption is prior to baptism." (Opera Quae Supersunt Omina, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 35, Page 8.)



John Calvin, "œIt follows, that the children of believers are not baptized, that they may thereby then become the children of God, as if they had been before aliens to the church; but, on the contrary, they are received into the Church by this solemn sign, since they already belonged to the body of Christ by virtue of the promise." (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4:15:22. cf. 4:16:24)



The French Confession, "œWe confess only two sacraments common to the whole Church, of which the first, baptism, is given as a pledge of our adoption; for by it we are grafted into the body of Christ, so as to be washed and cleansed by his blood, and then renewed in purity of life by his Holy Spirit.[1] We hold, also, that although we are baptized only once, yet the gain that it symbolizes to us reaches over our whole lives and to our death, so that we have a lasting witness that Jesus Christ will always be our justification and sanctification.[2] Nevertheless, although it is a sacrament of faith and penitence, yet as God receives little children into the Church with their fathers, we say, upon the authority of Jesus Christ, that the children of believing parents should be baptized."



Ulrich Zwingli, "œThe children of Christians are not less the children of God than their parents are, or than the children of Old Testament times were: but if they belong to God, who will refuse them baptism?" (Huldreich Zwingli´s Werke, Zweyten bandes erste Abtheilung (Zurich, 1830), Page 245.)



Martin Bucer and Wolfgang Capito, "œ"¦baptism signified regeneration; that the children of believers are baptized because it is wrong to keep them from the fellowship and company of God´s people those who should be truly considered His people." (Lewis Schenck, The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant, Page 28)



Theodore Beza, "œIt cannot be the case that those who have been sanctified by birth and have been separated from the children of unbelievers, do not have the seed or germ of faith." (Confessio Chrsitanae Fidei, Book 4, Page 48)



Henrie Bullinger, "œSince the young babes and infants of the faithful are in the number of reckoning of God´s people, and partakers of the promise touching the purification through Christ; it followeth of necessity, that they are as well to be baptized, as they that be of perfect age which professes the Christian faith," (Fifty Godly and Learned Sermons (London, 1587) Page 382.



The Second Helvetic Confession, "œWe condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that newborn infants of the faithful are to be baptized. For according to evangelical teaching, of such is the Kingdom of God, and they are in the covenant of God. Why, then, should the sign of God's covenant not be given to them? Why should those who belong to God and are in his Church not be initiated by holy baptism?" (Chapter 20, Of Holy Baptism.)



Francis Turretin, "œThe orthodox occupy the middle ground between Anabaptism and the Lutherans. They deny actual faith to infants against the Lutherans and maintain a seminal or radical and habitual faith is to be ascribed to them against the Anabaptists. Here it is to be remarked before all things: that we do not speak of the infants of any parents whomsoever (even of infidels and heathen), but only of believers, or Christians and the covenanted. (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Volume 2, Page 583.)



Peter Martyr Vermigli, "œWe assume that the children of believers are holy, as long as in growing up they do not demonstrate themselves to be estranged from Christ. We do not exclude them from the church, but accept them as members, with the hope that they are partakers of the divine election and have the grace and Spirit of Christ, even as they are the seed of saints. On that basis we baptize them." (Loci Communes, 4:8:7, cf. Robert Reymond´s, A New systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, Page 946.)



The Belgic Confession, "œTherefore we detest the error of the Anabaptists, who are not content with the one only baptism they have once received, and moreover condemn the baptism of the infants of believers, who we believe ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as the children in Israel formerly were circumcised upon the same promises which are made unto our children. And indeed Christ shed His blood no less for the washing of the children of believers than for adult persons; and therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that which Christ has done for them; as the Lord commanded in the law that they should be made partakers of the sacrament of Christ's suffering and death shortly after they were born, by offering for them a lamb, which was a sacrament of Jesus Christ. Moreover, what circumcision was to the Jews, baptism is to our children. And for this reason St. Paul calls baptism the circumcision of Christ." (Article 34)



The Heidelberg Catechism, "œQ74: Are infants also to be baptized? A74: Yes, for since they, as well as their parents, belong to the covenant and people of God, and through the blood of Christ both redemption from sin and the Holy Ghost, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents, they are also by Baptism, as a sign of the covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, as was done in the Old Testament by circumcision, in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is appointed. (Lord´s Day 27)



The Westminster Assembly, "œThat it [baptism] is instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ: That it is a seal of the covenant of grace, of our ingrafting into Christ, and of our union with him, of remission of sins, regeneration, adoption, and life eternal: That the water, in baptism, representeth and signifieth both the blood of Christ, which taketh away all guilt of sin, original and actual; and the sanctifying virtue of the Spirit of Christ against the dominion of sin, and the corruption of our sinful nature: That baptizing, or sprinkling and washing with water, signifieth the cleansing from sin by the blood and for the merit of Christ, together with the mortification of sin, and rising from sin to newness of life, by virtue of the death and resurrection of Christ: That the promise is made to believers and their seed; and that the seed and posterity of the faithful, born within the church, have, by their birth, interest in the covenant, and right to the seal of it, and to the outward privileges of the church, under the gospel, no less than the children of Abraham in the time of the Old Testament; the covenant of grace, for substance, being the same; and the grace of God, and the consolation of believers, more plentiful than before: That the Son of God admitted little children into his presence, embracing and blessing them, saying, For of such is the kingdom of God: That children, by baptism, are solemnly received into the bosom of the visible church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers; and that all who are baptized in the name of Christ, do renounce, and by their baptism are bound to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh: That they are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized." (The Directory of Public Worship)



The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, "œBaptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ." (Article XXVI, Of Baptism)



Zacharias Ursinus, "œFirst, all that belong to the covenant and church of God are to be baptized. But the children of Christians, as well as adults, belong to the covenant and church of God. Therefore, they are to be bapÂ­tized, as well as adults. Secondly, those are not to be excluded from baptism to whom the benefit of remission of sins, and of reÂ­generation, belongs. But this benefit belongs to the infants of the church; for redemption from sin, by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult. Therefore, they ought to be baptized." (Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, (1st American Edition, 1851, Pages 366-367.)



William Ames, "œThe infants of believers are not to be forbidden this sacrament. First, because, if they are partakers of any grace, it is by virtue of the covenant of grace and so both the covenant and the first seal of the covenant belong to them. Second, the covenant in which the faithful are now included is clearly the same as the covenant made with AbraÂ­ham, Rom. 4:11; Gal. 3:7-9"”and this expressly applied to infants. Third, the covenant as now administered to believers brings greater and fuller consolation than it once could, before the coming of Christ. But if it pertained only to them and not to their infants, the grace of God and their consolation would be narrower and more conÂ­tracted after Christ's appearing than before. Fourth, baptism supÂ­plants circumcision, Col. 2:11, 12; it belongs as much to the children of believers as circumcision once did. Fifth, in the very beginning of regeneration, whereof baptism is a seal, man is merely passive. ThereÂ­fore, no outward action is required of a man when he is baptized or circumcised (unlike other sacraments); but only a passive receiving. Infants are, therefore, as capable of participation in this sacrament, so far as its chief benefit is concerned, as adults." (The Marrow of Theology, Page 211.)



John Bradford, "œIn baptism is required God´s election, if the child be an infant, or faith, if he be of age." (The Writings of John Bradford, Banner of Truth Trust, Carlisle, 1979, Volume 2, Page 290) 



Herman Witsius, "œHere certainly appears the extraordinary love of our God, in that as soon as we are born, and just as we come from our mother, he hath commanded us to be solemnly brought from her bosom, as it were, into his own arms, that he should bestow upon us, in the very cradle, the tokens of our dignity and future kingdom;"¦that, in a word, he should join us to himself in the most solemn covenant from our most tender years: the remembrance of which, as it is glorious and full of consolation to us, so in like manner it tends to promote Christian virtues, and the strictest holiness, through the whole course of our lives." (The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, (London, 1868) Volume 3, Book 4, Chapter 18, Page 1219.)



John Owen, "œThe end of his message and of his coming was, that those to whom he was sent might be "œblessed with faithful Abraham," or that "œthe blessing of Abraham," promised in the covenant, "œmight come upon them," Galatians 3:9, 14. To deny this, overthrows the whole relation between the old testament and the new, the veracity of God in his promises, and all the properties of the covenant of grace, mentioned 2 Samuel 23:5"¦Infants are made for and are capable of eternal glory or misery, and must fall, dying infants, into one of these estates for ever. All infants are born in a state of sin, wherein they are spiritually dead and under the curse. Unless they are regenerated or born again, they must all perish inevitably, John 3:3. Their regeneration is the grace where of baptism is a sign or token. Wherever this is, there baptism ought to be administered. It follows hence unavoidably that infants who die in their infancy have the grace of regeneration, and consequently as good a right unto baptism as believers themselves"¦In brief, a participation of the seal of the covenant is a spiritual blessing. This the seed of believers was once solemnly invested in by God himself This privilege he hath nowhere revoked, though he hath changed the outward sign; nor hath he granted unto our children any privilege or mercy in lieu of it now under the gospel, when all grace and privileges are enlarged to the utmost. His covenant promises concerning them, which are multiplied, were confirmed by Christ as a true messenger and minister; he gives the grace of baptism unto many of them, especially those that die in their infancy, owns children to belong unto his kingdom, esteems them disciples, appoints households to be baptized without exception. And who shall now rise up, and withhold water from them?" (Works, Volume 16, Banner of Truth Trust (Carlisle, 1988) Pages 335-337)



Samuel Rutherford, "œIt is clear that infants have their share of salvation, and by covenant it must be...And this promise made to Abraham belongs to them all"¦" (The Covenant of Life Opened, 1642(?), Pages 83, 104-105)



Richard Sibbes, "œTherefore God, intending a comfortable enlargement of the covenant of grace to Abraham, extends it to his seed: "œI will be the God of thy seed." It is a great blessing for God to he the God of our seed. It is alluded to by St Peter in the New Testament, "œThe promise is made to you and to your children," Acts ii. 39. But what if they have not baptism, the seal of the covenant? That doth not prejudice their salvation. God hath appointed the sacraÂ­ments to be seals for us, not for himself. He himself keepeth his covenant, whether we have the seal or no, so long as we neglect it not. Therefore we must not think if a child die before the sacrament of baptism, that God will not keep his covenant. They have the sanctity, the holiness of the covenant. You know what David said of his child, "œI shall go to it, but it shall not return to me;" and yet it died before it was circumcised. Yon know they were forty years in the wilderness, and were not circumcised. Therefore the sacrament is not of absolute necessity to salvation. So he is the God of our children from the conception and birth." (Works of Richard Sibbes, Volume 6, Banner of Truth Trust, (Carlisle 1983), Page 22)



Ezekiel Hopkins, "œCertainly, since they [infants of believing parents] are in covenant with God; since they are the members of Christ, being members of His body, the Church; since they are sanctified and regenerated, so far forth as their natures are ordinarily capable of, without a miracle; we have all the reason in the world conformably to conclude, that all such die in the Lord, and are forever happy and blessed with Him." (Works, Volume 2 page 326.)



Thomas Goodwin, "œThe children of godly parents are called the inheritance of the Lord, because he is the owner of them as his elect and chosen, among whom his possession and his peculiar people lie"¦The children of believing parents, at least their next and immediate seed, even of us Gentiles now under the Gospel, are included by God within the covenant of Grace, as well as Abraham´s or David´s seed within that covenant of theirs." (Works, Volume 9, Page 426-427)



Thomas Manton, "œIf they die before they come to the use of reason, you have no cause to doubt of their salvation. God is their God. Gen. 17:7, "œI will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee;" compared with Gal. 3:14, "œThat the blessing of Abraham might come on the gentiles through Jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." And they never lived to disinherit themselves. As we judge of the slip according to the stock, till it live to bring forth fruit of its own, so here. (Manton´s Complete Works, Volume 18, Page 91)



John Brown of Haddington, "œNone but regenerated persons have a right to baptism before God"¦None but such as appear truly regenerated have a right to baptism before men"¦The infants of parents, one or both visible saints, have a right to baptism before the church"¦The children of believers are in covenant with God"¦Infants, such as Christ could carry in his arms, are members of the Kingdom of God. And if members, why deny them the primary seal of membership?" (Systematic Theology, Page 538.)



Alexander Whyte, "œBaptism does not effect our engrafting into Christ, it only signifies and seals it." (Commentary on the Shorter Catechism, Page 181.) [Note, there is no distinction between adults and children, or infants, in the Westminster Confession at all on this issue, except by age, and the Directory of Public Worship makes it abundantly clear what they mean by the institution and how it should be administered..]



Robert Shaw, "œ"¦for infants of believing parents are born within the covenant, and so are Christians and visible church members; and by baptism this right of theirs is acknowledged, and they are solemnly admitted to the privileges of church membership." (An Exposition of the Confession of Faith, 1845, Page 285.)



J. W. Alexander, "œBut O how we neglect that ordinance! Treating children in the Church, just as if they were out of it. Ought we not daily to say (in its spirit) to our children, "œYou are Christian children, you are Christ´s, you ought to think and feel and act as such! And on this plan carried out, might we not expect more early fruit of the grace than by keeping them always looking forward to a point of time at which they shall have new hearts and join the church? I am distressed with long harbored misgivings on this point." (Forty Years´ Familiar Letters, Volume 2, Page 25.) 



Lyman Atwater, "œIf our children are in precisely the same position as others, why baptize them?" (Children of the covenant and their part in the Lord, Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, Volume 35, No. 4 (October, 1863), Page 622)



Lewis Schenck, "œThe Reformed Church has always believed, on the basis of God´s immutable promise, that all children of believers dying in infancy were saved...in other words, all admission to the visible church was on the basis, not of an infallible evidence of regeneration, since no one could read the heart, but on the basis of presumption that those admitted were the true children of God." (The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant, (Phillipsburg, 2003) Page 118.



Benjamin Warfield, "œAll baptism is inevitably administered on the basis not of knowledge but of presumption and if we must baptize on presumption the whole principle is yielded; and it would seem that we must baptize all whom we may fairly presume to be members of Christ´s body." (The Polemics of Infant Baptism, The Presbyterian Quarterly (April, 1899), Page 313.



Henry Van Dyke, "œIf the baptism of infants does not signify and seal "œregeneration and engrafting into Christ," in the same sense and to the same extent as in the case of adults, we have no right to administer it to infants." (The Church: Her Ministry and Sacraments, Page 74)



Abraham Kuyper, "œThat children of believers are to be considered as recipients of efficacious grace, in whom the work of efficacious grace has already begun. That when dying before having attained to years of disÂ­cretion, they can only be regarded as saved. Of course [he adds] Calvinists never declared that these things were necessarily so. As they never permitted themselves to pronounce official judgment on the inward state of an adult, but left the judgment to God, so they have never usurped the right to pronounce on the presence or abÂ­sence of spiritual life in infants. They only stated how God would have us consider such infants, and this consideration based on the divine word made it imperative to look upon their infant children as elect and saved, and to treat them accordingly." (Abraham Kuyper, "Calvinism and Confessional Review," The Presbyterian Quarterly, Vol. IV, No. 18 (October, 1891), Art. I, pp. 602-503; cf. 604.) 



Charles Hodge, "œThe historic Reformed Doctrine which may be identified with that of John Calvin was as follows: Membership in the invisible church meant vital union with Christ, or regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Since the word presume meant to admit a thing to be, or to receive a thing as true, before it could be known as such from its phenomena or manifestations, the presumption that an infant was a member of the invisible church meant that it was believed to be engrafted into Christ and regenerated before it gave any ordinary evidences of the fact." (The Church Membership of Infants, Page 375.)



Lewis Berkhof and the Conclusions of Utrecht, "œIt may be well to quote in this connection the first half of the fourth point of the Conclusions of Utrecht, which were adopted by our Church in 1908. We translate this as follows: "And, finally, as far as the fourth point, that of presumptive regeneration, is concerned. Synod declares that, according to the confession of our Churches, the seed of the covenant must, in virtue of the promise of God, be presumed to be regenerated and sanctified in Christ, until, as they grow up, the contrary appears from their life or doctrine; that it is, however, less correct to say that baptism is administered to the children of believers on the ground of their presumptive regeneration, since the ground of baptism is the command and the promise of God; and that further the judgment of charity, with which the Church presumes the seed of the covenant to be regenerated, by no means intends to say that therefore each child is really regenerated, since the Word of God teaches that they are not all Israel that are of Israel, and it is said of Isaac: in him shall thy seed be called (Rom. 9:6,7), so that in preaching it is' always necessary to insist on serious self-examination, since only those who shall have believed and have been baptized will be saved." (Systematic Theology, Page 640)



A. A. Hodge, "œBut baptism does not ordinarily confer grace in the first instance, but presupposes it." (Outlines of Theology, Page 629.)



John Murray, "œBaptized infants are to be received as the children of God and treated accordingly." (Christian Baptism, Page 59.)



Robert Booth, "œIf the children of believers are embraced by the promises of the covenant, as certainly they are, then they must also be entitled to receive the initial sign of the covenant, which is baptism." (Children of the Promise, P&R Publishing, Page 29)



Robert Reymond, "œI think I have shown that infants of believing parents are to be viewed as members of and under the governance and protection of Christ´s church and should be treated as such"¦Accordingly, all present at any and every infant baptism are admonished to "œlook back to their baptism," to repent of their sins against the covenant, and to "œimprove and make right use of their baptism"¦the Directory [of Public Worship] envisions, as Jones rightly states, "œa dynamic, life-long relationship between the infants saving faith and Christian walk, on the one hand, and his baptism on the other." (A New systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, Pages 948-49)



In the neglect of understanding the doctrine of "œpresumptive regeneration," Charles Hodge said, "œwe have long felt and often expressed the conviction that this is one of the most serious evils in the present state of our churches." (Bushnell´s discourses on Christian Nurture, Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review (1847), 19, Pages 52-521.)



[Edited on 6-11-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## pastorway (Jun 10, 2005)

simply and respectfully put, if this sums it up:



> the children of believers are Christians already, before being baptized in their infancy.



then you are all Baptists. True, you do not require a profession of faith, but you believe your children are saved BEFORE you baptize them. So no unsaved person then should be Baptized.

You are Baptists. Welcome home!

Phillip


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 10, 2005)

Phillip,
Keep in mind however, in regards to our children, the presbyterian does not baptize based on confession or outward signs. We baptize based upon command and faith in Gods promise. There is a big difference.

[Edited on 6-11-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Peter (Jun 10, 2005)

Pastor Way, so when are you going to baptize the infants in your congregation then?

Matt, what was the view of the early church (I'm thinking particularly of Council of Orange)? It seemed like baptismal regeneration but was it really PR?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 10, 2005)

Peter - read Nigel Lee's paper (or just that chapter). He covers it. He goes in succession - Bible's view, early church view, early church till Westminster, Westminster till now, etc. Someo f the quotes you see here are part of his paper, but he has HUNDREDS of others. (He must have an exceptional library!)

Phillip, I have ALWAYS said, over and over, that no one should ever be baptized that is not a Christian (which is Calvin's view). But there is a difference as Scott said between administering it based on "credo" (or evidence) as opposed to covenantally.


----------



## pastorway (Jun 10, 2005)

Ah, I see te problem! Lee starts off with a faulty foundation



> He goes in succession - *Bible's view,* early church view, early church till Westminster, Westminster till now, etc.



and builds upon it with the views of mere men.

If you think this is what the Bible teaches then you will defend it as truth. But since it is not what the Bible teaches there has been laid here a faulty foundation.

And yes, you are arguing that only Christians should be baptized. You presume based on birth. But no one is a Christian by birth! Even of Abraham's descendens is is stated, "nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham....*those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of promise are counted as seed*." Romans 9:7-8 

They are Christians only by election - Romans 9:11.

So you are either arguing for a huge step of discontinuity (dispensationalism) between Abraham and the New Covenant, or you are allowing physical birth alone to designate who is and is not presumed to be a Christian.

You can presume if you wish, but Paul the Apostle defeats your presuppositions. You presume seeing no evidence of spiritual life, we obey the command of Scripture and baptize those who confess their faith, bearing the fruit of regeneration.

Phillip


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 10, 2005)

Phillip, after you read Lee's work, what did you think of it? (I would assume, rightfully I hope, that you would not be making an "end all judgment" on something you are unfamiliar with or have not read.)




> Ah, I see te problem!



No, brother, you don't.  

And I am unsure as to why you think that beginning with the Bible, and demonstrating everything from Scripture, then demosmtrating who beleived the Bible's teaching would be faulty? Can you explain that?

Roman 9, as you quoted, is exactly what we are saying - children of the promise are counted as the seed in the lineage of the woman. But don't confuse the compound and divided sense. We are talking about the divided sense here, not decrees.

What we are doing, is demonstrating the overwhelming majority of the church's view on children.

Are you dissenting from that teaching commonly acepted? 




> So you are either arguing for a huge step of discontinuity (dispensationalism) between Abraham and the New Covenant, or you are allowing physical birth alone to designate who is and is not presumed to be a Christian.



Neither. That's where you are fumbling the ball.

As the Baptist, Dr. Nicole said, you owe me at least to understand the position before commenting.

[Edited on 6-11-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## pastorway (Jun 10, 2005)

In all honesty I will gladly admit that I do not read Lee at all anymore. Two reasons, first, reading much of what he writes it is a waste of my time, and secondly, not all, but quite a bit of his writing continues to be unreliable, extremist, uncharitable, and patently dangerous to the thinking Christian.

How's that for blunt.

Phillip

[Edited on 6-11-05 by pastorway]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 10, 2005)

Pretty good for blunt's sake. But you know what they say about opinions.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 11, 2005)

Phillip - 

I completely understand.


----------



## D Battjes (Jun 11, 2005)

[Edited on 6-13-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## wsw201 (Jun 11, 2005)

Well I have read as much of it as I could. My eyes kept glazing over. One thing was curious though was that he kept say "rebuttably" when it came to presuming. Sounds like he is hedging. With all due respect to Dr. Lee, I found this paper primarily be a collection of disjointed quotes that, in general, jumped from one subject to another. He jumps to conclusions on quotes that don't make any sense. It is obvious that this paper was not a critical analysis of the subject and the whole paper appears to me to be a contrived work for the promotion of a position that no one buys. If anyone wants to read something that is more coherent, I would recommend Louis Berkhof's section on Baptism (actually, I would recommend the whole book!). He touches on the issue of PR vs Covenant status.

So Philip, I am not a Baptist and do not believe in PR and the vast majority of the Presbterian Church doesn't either.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 11, 2005)

Wayne,
Outside of the paper, would you be willing to deal with some of the quotes?



> John Calvin, "œWe ought, therefore, to consider, that just as in the case of Abraham, the father of the faithful, the righteousness of faith preceded circumcision, so today in the children of the faithful, the gift of adoption is prior to baptism." (Opera Quae Supersunt Omina, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 35, Page 8.)



What could Calvin have possibly meant in this statement?


----------



## wsw201 (Jun 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Wayne,
> Outside of the paper, would you be willing to deal with some of the quotes?
> 
> ...



What Calvin could mean by this is the childs status within the covenant as an heir to salvation as the child meets the requirements of the covenant.


----------



## wsw201 (Jun 11, 2005)

Scott,

Regarding the paper, what do you think about the following comment:




> It is sad indeed that Cain -- but not Abel and Seth --repudiated this covenant of redemption when he grew up. Yet until then, his mother rightly (though rebuttably) presumed him to be regenerate -- even from his conception and birth onward.



Why do you think he says "though rebuttably"? Is he intimating that his position is conjecture?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 11, 2005)

Wayne,
I will not speak for Dr. Lee in regards to what he means when he use's the term, "though rebuttably". However, I will ask him personally.

Lets look at Calvin's quote:

"We ought, therefore, to consider, that just as in the case of Abraham, the father of the faithful, the righteousness of faith preceded circumcision, so today in the children of the faithful, the gift of adoption is prior to baptism." 

1) In Abrahams situation, the righteousness of faith preceded circumcision
2) in the same way it preceded it for Abraham, it is the same in regards to covenant children
3) Adoption is prior to baptism


----------



## wsw201 (Jun 11, 2005)

I'm not quite following you here Scott. Are you saying that a child does not only have "seed faith" in the womb but is actually (no longer presumably) regenerated, converted, justified and ADOPTED? as per the ordo?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 11, 2005)

DMB - 

You are misunderstanding the differecne between decree and precept.

I will echo Hodge's critique, "In the neglect of understanding the doctrine of "œpresumptive regeneration," Charles Hodge said, "œwe have long felt and often expressed the conviction that *this is one of the most serious evils in the present state of our churches*." (Bushnell´s discourses on Christian Nurture, Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review (1847), 19, Pages 52-521.)

Wayne - 

How could you possibly say, even after reading half of thier quotes in dealing with seed faith, presumption, etc, that this is something the church does not believe? That is simply not dealing with the information. It would be more accurrate to say, "Even thoguh the historical church did write on and believe this, today, no one beleives this and I don't believe this." Now that I could live with. But I can't seem to get by what they wrote.


Warfield said, "All Protestants should easily agree that only Christ's children have a right to the ordinance of infant baptism.... We say that it (the Church) should receive as the children of Christ -- all whom in the judgment of charity it may fairly recognize as such....*All baptism is inevitably administered on the basis not of knowledge but of presumption*....If we *must* baptize on *presumption*, the whole principle is yielded.... We must baptize all whom we may fairly presume to be Members of Christ's body.... "So soon, therefore, as it is fairly apprehended that we baptize on presumption and not on knowledge -- it is inevitable that we shall baptize all those for whom we may, on any grounds, fairly cherish a good presumption that they belong to God's people.... *This surely includes the infant children of believers*." 
B.B. Warfield, The Polemics of Infant Baptism

And what about our friend Wistsius - a hallmark of Covenantal Theologians - 

Dr. Herman Witsius
"Here certainly appears the extraordinary love of our God -- in that as soon as we are born, and just as we come from our mother, He hath commanded us to be solemnly brought from her bosom as it were into His own arms, that He should bestow upon us in the very cradle the (baptismal) tokens of our dignity...." "There can hardly be *any doubt* that the statement regarding the regeneration of the children before baptism, according to the judgment of love, *is the accepted view of the Dutch Church.* In her Baptismal Formula, this question is put to parents who offer their children in baptism: 'Do you acknowledge that they are sanctified in Christ, and should be baptized as members of His congregation?' "Now this strengthens the views of those who place the initial regeneration of elect covenant children before baptism. *So, I acknowledge I submit to this.*"

"*The children are regenerated, but the seed remains hidden for many years under the earth-clod.* It is not choked by the thorns and thistles of youthful desires. Later, by addition of more grace, it finally surmounts the hindrances "“ and germinates and breaks forth more strongly and fortuitously.... God is not only free to impart the grace of regeneration to the elect children before they receive baptism. It should be believed that
He, as a rule, also does this."
Herman Witsius: The Efficacy of Baptism in Infants, in his Holy Miscellanies II exerc. 19 pp. 611-98 para. 32 (cited in Kramer's op. cit. pp. 337-38).33) Witsius: op. cit. para. 43, as cited in Kramer's op. cit. p. 339.

What did Witsius believe?

And what of our favorite, Dr. Calvin?

"By these words, Christ...by a sacred bond...connects baptism with doctrine.... But as Christ enjoins them to teach before baptizing, and desires that *none* but believers shall be admitted to baptism -- *it would appear that baptism is not properly administered, unless when it is preceded by faith*." 
John Calvin, Commentary on Matthew 28:19.

"Are we not, independent of baptism, cleansed by the blood of Christ and regenerated by the Spirit?" Indeed: "Let him (Heshusius) then accuse Paul of blasphemy -- for saying that Christ is formed in us like the foetus in the womb. His well-known words to the Galatians are: 'My little children, for whom I again travail, as in birth -- until Christ Jesus be formed in you.' Galatians 4:9...."

"God therefore calls those who were thus slain -- 'His sons.' Just as if a husband should reproach his wife with depriving him of their common children.... Children are more precious than all goods.... A father is more grievously injured, *if children are taken away.... God here pronounces...'you have born them -- unto Me.'"*

"The Jews were naturally accursed, through being Adam's seed. But by supernatural and singular privilege, they were exempt and free from the curse -- since
circumcision was a testimony of the *adoption* by which God had consecrated them to Himself. Hence, they were holy.... As to their being impure, it could not...abolish God's covenant.... And so Paul says that the *children of the faithful are holy* -- _since_ baptism does not lose its efficacy, and *the adoption of God remains fixed*. First Corinthians 7:14."
Calvin's True Partaking of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, in his Tracts & Treat. II pp. 497f. 306) Ib. pp. 534f.

Its one thing to say YOU don't buy it, but let's not say the church did not teach this. Calvin taught that it is wrong, completely, to baptize anyone not adopted by God, or saved, and this included infants. Otherswise, as He says, we adminster baptism incorrectly. This is our presumption as Warfield said, and it is all based on the preceptive Word. (Something that critics seem to be missing.)


[Edited on 6-11-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> I'm not quite following you here Scott. Are you saying that a child does not only have "seed faith" in the womb but is actually (no longer presumably) regenerated, converted, justified and ADOPTED? as per the ordo?



Wayne,
We are not dealing with Scott Bushey at all; we are dealing with what Calvin said. At this point, what I believe to be true is irrelevent.


----------



## wsw201 (Jun 11, 2005)

Matt,

Read Berkhoff's section on Baptism. I have never said that PR was never discussed of even believed by some. But as he notes, there was no concensus opinion. And as you also know the issue of PR was primarily an issue that pervaded the Dutch Reformed Churches, which is obvious from the vast majority of quotes from Dutch Theologians.

As far as trying to deal with all of these quotes, let's get serious. I would need to read the context of each quote as well as getting the complete quote (there were a lot of " then...... but ......."). I know its a way to cut down on lengthy quotes but.....

Besides, you are also aware that you can take a quote and and make it fit with the premise you are attempting to promote. For instance the FV guys use quotes from Calvin, Owen, Hodge, etc. etc. to prove their points. BTW, per FV Calvin believed in Baptismal Regeneration not PR, or is it vise versa?

But rather than trying to batter around these quotes, we both know that for any doctrine of the Church to be accepted, needs biblical warrant. So rather than the battle of the quotes, why not look at the exegesis of the passages used to support the position?


----------



## wsw201 (Jun 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



Understand.

But Scott, you put me at a disadvantage! I am expected to know or at best speculate what Calvin meant in this quote. But when I ask you a question about a quote of Dr. Lee, you say you can't speak for him. It is true that you can ask him, but I can't consult Calvin (and I don't expect to be able to anytime in the near future, Lord willing!)


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Matt,
> 
> Read Berkhoff's section on Baptism. I have never said that PR was never discussed of even believed by some. But as he notes, there was no concensus opinion. And as you also know the issue of PR was primarily an issue that pervaded the Dutch Reformed Churches, which is obvious from the vast majority of quotes from Dutch Theologians.
> ...



I've read it many times.

Wayne I know. The FV guys throw a wrench into all this because of thier abuse. Instead of actually dealing with historical theology, and exegesis, they read Schenck, think that's all there is to it, and run with it through misconceptions. 

My point is that we can deal with Scriptural passages, but at the same time, we don't need to reinvent the wheel. I think, personally, from my own studies, that not only the Dutch Reformed Chruch followed this, but also the Reformers, who then in turn taught other, who in turn had a huge influecne on the Westminster Assembly, etc.

Although the FV harp on "Post -Enlightenment" Presbyterianism as going down hill, they do that with a twisted idea of cdovenatalism among other things. I think Hodge's statement is still exactly what we should be thinking about:

"In the neglect of understanding the doctrine of "œpresumptive regeneration," Charles Hodge said, "œwe have long felt and often expressed the conviction that *this is one of the most serious evils in the present state of our churches*." (Bushnell´s discourses on Christian Nurture, Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review (1847), 19, Pages 52-521.)

That should be our repsonse to Post-Enlightenment thinking and Revivalism. Forget Schenck, think Kierkegarrd, Ritschel, Heidigger, Schliermacher, Finney and Wesley.

Wayne, do you agree with Calvin:
"...it would appear that baptism is not properly administered, unless when it is preceded by faith." John Calvin, Commentary on Matthew 28:19.

Why or why not?


[Edited on 6-11-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## wsw201 (Jun 11, 2005)

> Wayne, do you agree with Calvin:
> "...it would appear that baptism is not properly administered, unless when it is preceded by faith." John Calvin, Commentary on Matthew 28:19.
> 
> Why or why not?



In general yes. That is why we require a profession of faith proir to baptism for adult. We also require a profession from parents before baptizing infants and then baptize the infants based on that profession because the child is considered federally holy per their covenant status, or status in the visible church (1 Cor 7:14). In other words, we require evidence of regeneration (a profession) from adults, that we don't require from children.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 11, 2005)

Wayne, you are reinterpreting the idea to fit the scheme. Did Calvin say that or are you changing his thoughts?

John Calvin, "œWe ought, therefore, to consider, that just as in the case of Abraham, the father of the faithful, the righteousness of faith *preceded circumcision*, so today *in* the children of the faithful, *the gift of adoption* is prior to baptism."

John Calvin, "œIt follows, that the children of believers are not baptized, that they may thereby then become the children of God, as if they had been before aliens to the church; but, on the contrary, they are received into the Church by this solemn sign, since they already belonged to the body of Christ *by virtue of the promise*."

Hodge follows Calvin: Charles Hodge, "œThe *historic* Reformed Doctrine which may be identified with that of *John Calvin* was as follows: Membership in the invisible church meant vital union with Christ, or regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Since the word presume meant to admit a thing to be, or to receive a thing as true, before it could be known as such from its phenomena or manifestations, *the presumption that an infant was a member of the invisible church meant that it was believed to be engrafted into Christ and regenerated before it gave any ordinary evidences of the fact."* (The Church Membership of Infants, Page 375.)

Thus Calvin, "By these words, Christ by a sacred bond connects baptism with doctrine.... But as Christ enjoins them to teach before baptizing, and desires that *none but believers* shall be admitted to baptism -- it would appear that baptism is not properly administered, unless when it is preceded by faith." 

None but beleivers.

And as he concludes, Calvin says, "since circumcision was a testimony of the adoption by which God had consecrated them to Himself. Hence, they were holy; as to their being impure, it could not abolish God's covenant. And so Paul says that the children of the faithful are holy -- since baptism does not lose its efficacy, *and the adoption of God remains fixed*. First Corinthians 7:14."

Is Calvin saying what you are saying? Or is he saying something a little different?


----------



## wsw201 (Jun 11, 2005)

What I am saying is that this is what he meant. Note he uses the word "appears". He is not being definitive.

Note also in the Hodge quote he qualifies his statement about tracing the idea to Calvin with "may be identified" not "is identified". Interesting point about that Hodge quote, Schenck makes the point that Hodge was PE not PR as this quote intimates.

Calvin can not be used quote by quote. With the extensive writing that he did he has to be looked at from a "larger" perspective. Just using quotes, folks have been able to "prove" that Calvin believed in General Atonement. Now, I would not argue that PR is some new inovative idea that just popped up. The quotes from the Dutch theologians prove this and Berkhof makes note of it in his systematic to the point that the Dutch Church had to make a pronouncement regarding the issue.

Regarding the issue of Abraham and circumcision, the context of Romans 4 does not seem to fit. Paul is discussing justification apart from works. I am not seeing the connection to PR.

BTW, I have read more of Calvvin's works than any other theologian and I have great respect for his work. But though Calvin was right about a lot of things, he wasn't right about everything.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 11, 2005)

Ok Matt,

Please answer the question I raised before about the relationship of adoption to justification. If Calvin meant adoption in the sense you mean it, and yet the FV advocates are wrong (both of which you have asserted) then it would follow:



Calvin presumed regeneration
Calvin presumes adoption
Calvin does not presume justification (_contra_ FV)
Either adoption can be lost, or adoption does not happen at the same time as justification
[/list=1]

I have stated that Calvin does not mean adoption as you have said it. Here are several lengthy citations from Calvin in which he treats specifically the doctrine of justification in the context of adoption:


Here Calvin intimates that those who have the adoption are justified:



> 6. Had he only said, that Christ by justifying us becomes ours by an essential union, and that he is our head not only in so far as he is man, but that as the essence of the divine nature is diffused into us, he might indulge his dreams with less harm, and, perhaps, it were less necessary to contest the matter with him; but since this principle is like a cuttle-fish, which, by the ejection of dark and inky blood, conceals its many tails, if we would not knowingly and willingly allow ourselves to be robbed of that righteousness which alone gives us full assurance of our salvation, we must strenuously resist. For, in the whole of this discussion, the noun righteousness and the verb to justify, are extended by Osiander to two parts; to be justified being not only to be reconciled to God by a free pardon, but also to be made just; and righteousness being not a free imputation, but the holiness and integrity which the divine essence dwelling in us inspires. And he vehemently asserts (see sec. 8) that Christ is himself our righteousness, not in so far as he, by expiating sins, appeased the Father, but because he is the eternal God and life. To prove the first point"”viz. that God justifies not only by pardoning but by regenerating, he asks, whether he leaves those whom he justifies as they were by nature, making no change upon their vices? *The answer is very easy: as Christ cannot be divided into parts, so the two things, justification and sanctification, which we perceive to be united together in him, are inseparable. Whomsoever, therefore, God receives into his favor, he presents with the Spirit of adoption, whose agency forms them anew into his image.* But if the brightness of the sun cannot be separated from its heat, are we therefore to say, that the earth is warmed by light and illumined by heat? Nothing can be more apposite to the matter in hand than this simile. The sun by its heat quickens and fertilizes the earth; by its rays enlightens and illumines it. Here is a mutual and undivided connection, and yet reason itself prohibits us from transferring the peculiar properties of the one to the other. In the confusion of a twofold grace, which Osiander obtrudes upon us, there is a similar absurdity. Because those whom God freely regards as righteous, he in fact renews to the cultivation of righteousness, Osiander confounds that free acceptance with this gift of regeneration, and contends that they are one and the same. But Scriptures while combining both, classes them separately, that it may the better display the manifold grace of God. Nor is Paul´s statement superfluous, that Christ is made unto us "œrighteousness and sanctification," (1 Cor. 1:30). And whenever he argues from the salvation procured for us, from the paternal love of God and the grace of Christ, that we are called to purity and holiness, he plainly intimates, that to be justified is something else than to be made new creatures. Osiander on coming to Scripture corrupts every passage which he quotes. Thus when Paul says, "œto him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness," he expounds justifying as making just. With the same rashness he perverts the whole of the fourth chapter to the Romans. He hesitates not to give a similar gloss to the passage which I lately quoted, "œWho shall lay any thing to the charge of God´s elect? It is God that justifieth." Here it is plain that guilt and acquittal simply are considered, and that the Apostle´s meaning depends on the antithesis. Therefore his futility is detected both in his argument and his quotations for support from Scripture. He is not a whit sounder in discussing the term righteousness, when it is said, that faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness after he had embraced Christ (who is the righteousness of God and God himself) and was distinguished by excellent virtues. Hence it appears that two things which are perfect are viciously converted by him into one which is corrupt. For the righteousness which is there mentioned pertains not to the whole course of life; or rather, the Spirit testifies, that though Abraham greatly excelled in virtue, and by long perseverance in it had made so much progress, the only way in which he pleased God was by receiving the grace which was offered by the promise, in faith. From this it follows, that, as Paul justly maintains, there is no room for works in justification.
> 
> Calvin _Institutes_ III, xi, 6



Here Calvin states that the adopted *have received *the inhertiance:



> 2. There is nothing in the term reward to justify the inference that our works are the cause of salvation. First, let it be a fixed principle in our hearts, that the kingdom of heaven is not the hire of servants, but the inheritance of sons (Eph. 1:18); *an inheritance obtained by those only whom the Lord has adopted as sons, and obtained for no other cause than this adoption*, "œThe son of the bond-women shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman," (Gal. 4:30). And hence in those very passages in which the Holy Spirit promises eternal glory as the reward of works, by expressly calling it an inheritance, he demonstrates that it comes to us from some other quarter. Thus Christ enumerates the works for which he bestows heaven as a recompense, while he is calling his elect to the possession of it, but he at the same time adds, that it is to be possessed by right of inheritance (Mt. 25:34). Paul, too, encourages servants, while faithfully doing their duty, to hope for reward from the Lord, but adds, "œof the inheritance," (Col. 3:24). *You see how, as it were, in formal terms they carefully caution us to attribute eternal blessedness not to works, but to the adoption of God*. Why, then, do they at the same time make mention of works? This question will be elucidated by an example from Scripture (Gen. 15:5; 17:1). Before the birth of Isaac, Abraham had received promise of a seed in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed; the propagation of a seed that for number should equal the stars of heaven, and the sand of the sea, &c. Many years after he prepares, in obedience to a divine message, to sacrifice his son. Having done this act of obedience, he receives the promise, "œBy myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son; that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore, and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice," (Gen. 22:16"“18). What is it we hear? Did Abraham by his obedience merit the blessing which had been promised him before the precept was given? Here assuredly we see without ambiguity that God rewards the works of believers with blessings which he had given them before the works were thought of, there still being no cause for the blessings which he bestows but his own mercy.
> 
> Calvin _Institutes_ III.xviii.2



And most to the point, here Calvin equates (along with Paul) adoption with justification:
:



> 4. Without saying more about the term, we shall have no doubt as to the thing meant if we attend to the description which is given of it. For *Paul certainly designates justification by the term acceptance*, when he says to the Ephesians, _"œHaving predestinated us unto the *adoption of children* by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he has made us accepted in the Beloved,"_ (Eph. 1:5, 6). His meaning is the very same as where he elsewhere says, "œbeing justified freely by his grace," (Rom. 3:24). In the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, he first terms it the imputation of righteousness, and hesitates not to place it in forgiveness of sins: "œEven as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven," &c. (Rom. 4:6"“8). There, indeed, he is not speaking of a part of justification, but of the whole. He declares, moreover, that a definition of it was given by David, when he pronounced him blessed who has obtained the free pardon of his sins. Whence it appears that this righteousness of which he speaks is simply opposed to judicial guilt. But the most satisfactory passage on this subject is that in which he declares the sum of the Gospel message to be reconciliation to God, who is pleased, through Christ, to receive us into favor by not imputing our sins (2 Cor. 5:18"“21). Let my readers carefully weigh the whole context. For Paul shortly after adding, by way of explanation, in order to designate the mode of reconciliation, that Christ who knew no sin was made sin for us, undoubtedly understands by reconciliation nothing else than justification. Nor, indeed, could it be said, as he elsewhere does, that we are made righteous "œby the obedience" of Christ (Rom. 5:19), were it not that we are deemed righteous in the sight of God in him and not in ourselves.
> 
> Calvin _Institutes_ III, xi, 4



[Edited on 6/11/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## wsw201 (Jun 11, 2005)

It should also be noted that Berkhof identifies Calvin's position with that of "Covenant Status" as outlined in the confessions not PR. PR was the position of Kuyper and the later Dutch theologians.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> It should also be noted that Berkhof identifies Calvin's position with that of "Covenant Status" as outlined in the confessions not PR. PR was the position of Kuyper and the later Dutch theologians.



Wayne if I am not mistaken Kuypers view is not the same as Calvin;
Kuyer advocated baptizing upon presumption of regeneration. This was largely due to the fact that he believed only the elect were in covenant and entitled to baptism. Regeneration isn't the reason why the covenanter baptises. We baptise based upon command and faith in the promises of God.


----------



## wsw201 (Jun 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



You are correct in that Kuyper's position was different from Calvin's. Kuyper took PR to the next step in making it the grounds of baptism ( I am not saying that it was a correct position nor am I saying that you and Matt believe that PR is the grounds for baptism). But my point was that PR in general was not identified with Calvin.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Wayne,
How can you say that when Calvin's quotes have provided more than enough proof that he DID in fact subscribe to _presumption_?

But as Christ enjoins them to teach before baptizing, and desires that none but believers shall be admitted to baptism -- it would appear that baptism is not properly administered, unless when it is preceded by faith." 
John Calvin, Commentary on Matthew 28:19.

The above quote proves that he _presumed_; there is no other rationale.

Look what Bavinck writes about calvin:

Dr. Herman Bavinck 
"œMen had this feeling that the regeneration of children took place before baptism.... God was not bound to means.... He operated thus with the children of believers who were removed by death before the years of discretion.... "They are to be regarded as elect and regenerate, until the opposite is apparent from their profession and behaviour.... All children born of believing parents are, according to the judgment of charity, to be regarded as born again -- until the opposite in life and doctrine are clearly manifested. Thus Peter Martyr Vermigli, Alasco, Ursinus, Datheen, Alting, Voetius, Witsius,
Mastricht....*"Calvin says...that the children of believers are already holy even before baptism through a supranatural grace (Institutes IV:16:31); that the seed of faith and conversion hides within them through a secret operation of the Spirit (IV:16:20); that they partake of the grace of regeneration by virtue of the promise; and that baptism follows by way of sign.... Men had this feeling that the regeneration of children took place before baptism...."*
Herman Bavinck: Reformed Dogmatics I p. 29 & n. 1, and III pp. 266f (as cited in Wielenga's op. cit. pp. 241f).




[Edited on 6-11-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Wayne,
> How can you say that when Calvin's quotes have provided more than enough proof that he DID in fact subscribe to _presumption_?
> 
> ...



Scott,

You're trying to have it both ways. If the above quote relates to presumption, _what kind of presumption_ is it? Does Calvin say: "But as Christ enjoins them to teach before baptizing, and desires that none but the _regenerate _shall be admitted to baptism" and "it would appear that baptism is not properly administered, unless when it is preceded by "_regeneration_" ?

No. He uses the words "believers" and "faith." Belief and faith results in *conversion*, not regeneration. You yourself have told me that more than a dozen times, along with "regeneration is not conversion."

If Calvin is dealing with presumption, the quote proves much more than you want it to.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 11, 2005)

Fred, 
That may be true, but that is not what we are trying to ascertain. I am not trying to tie down all of Calvins theology here, but that he did in fact presume.The point is, the historic church did _presume_ and in that presumption, they presumed regeneration.

[Edited on 6-11-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Fred,
> That may be true, but that is not what we are trying to ascertain. I am not trying to tie down all of Calvins theology here, but that he did in fact presume.The point is, the historic church did _presume_ and in that presumption, they presumed regeneration.
> 
> [Edited on 6-11-2005 by Scott Bushey]



Scott,

This is a word game. You just said:

1. Calvin presumed
2. We don't know _what_ Calvin presumed
3. Because Calvin presumed, that is evidence of the historic church's presumption.
4. Therefore they presumed regeneration.

There is a leap the size of the grand canyon from #3 to #4.

I have not denied that the Church _presumed_, never have. All I have said is that presumed regeneration is not the position. Presumed election is.

So I respond:

Scott,
That may be true, but that is not what we are trying to ascertain. I am not trying to tie down all of Calvins theology here, but that he did in fact presume. The point is, the historic church did _presume_ and in that presumption, they presumed election.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 11, 2005)

Fred,
You just said that the quotes pointed towards much more than regeneration; did you not?



> If Calvin is dealing with presumption, the quote proves much more than you want it to.



Calvins quote states:
"baptism is not properly administered, unless when it is preceded by faith." 

Can someone have faith (seeds of faith) unless they are regenerated?

You cannot gleen from this quote from Calvin that he was describing just election. If you can, would you please show me?

[Edited on 6-11-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Fred,
> You just said that the quotes pointed towards much more than regeneration; did you not?



I said that _if you take your premise_ that it leads NOT to presumed regeneration, but presumptive salvation, belief and justification.

You can't eat your cake and have it too. To use the Calvin quote to prove your point, you have to either: (1) be a presumptive salvation/baptismal regeneration FV adocate, or (2) the quote does not prove your point.

For the record, the quote is perfectly consistent with the concept that those who were baptized without seed faith (i.e. those who are not elect) are improperly baptized, that is, they are covenant breakers waiting to be revealed.

You're trying to take the quote out of context and rip out the clear words "believers" and "faith." Regeneration is nowhere in the quote. If anything, Patrick should be using the quote to back himself up in his discussion with you regarding John the Baptist's faith in the womb.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> Calvins quote states:
> "baptism is not properly administered, unless when it is preceded by faith."
> ...



Yes. One can the seed of faith in one's election.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Really? Prior to regeneration?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 11, 2005)

Fred,
Lets make this simple; please take apart the quote from Calvin and show me that he meant only election. 

Also, would you mind giving me your opinion on the Bavinck quote? 

[Edited on 6-11-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> You cannot gleen from this quote from Calvin that he was describing just election. If you can, would you please show me?
> 
> [Edited on 6-11-2005 by Scott Bushey]



That is NOT what I said.

I don't take the quote to show presumption of election or regeneration. I take it to be garden-variety, classic Covenantal theology with covenant keepers and breakers. The difference is shown in the life of the one baptized.

YOU said that the quote was for presumed regeneration. But all I was pointing out was that you read "regeneration" into the quote, where it is nowhere to be found, by implication or explication. Calvin is talking not about election, or regeneration but about BELIEF and FAITH (Calvin's actual words, not mine, not yours). So if Calvin is presuming anything in the quote, let's at least let him talk for himself, rather than putting words in his mouth. The problem is, you don't want to presume belief and faith and justification in infants (and rightly so). So unless we want Calvin to be a baptismal regenerationist (which he is NOT, from a plethora of other places), we cannot ascribe PRESUMPTION in this quote.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 11, 2005)

For the third time, I am not saying that Calvin was presuming election here in THIS quote.

Please show me how the word "believer" means "one who is regenerate but not converted" anyplace in Scripture or any Reformed divine. Please show me where "faith" means "the capacity for trust, but not actual trust itself."


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 11, 2005)

Here's the quote again:

"But as Christ enjoins them to teach before baptizing, and desires that none but believers shall be admitted to baptism -- it would appear that baptism is not properly administered, unless when it is preceded by faith." 

A) Calvin says that no one but those whom believe should be admitted to baptism; these baptized individuals have faith!
B) Babies are baptised

As per Calvin, covenantal children whom are baptised must have faith and believe or else the baptism is illicit.

Now, I am not saying that I agree fully with the extent Calvin is going, however, if he does mean this, he does in fact _presume_, and that presumption is much more than election.



> Please show me where "faith" means "the capacity for trust, but not actual trust itself."



Calvin & Turretin's 'seed faith' statments!

[Edited on 6-11-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 11, 2005)

Now show me where faith applies to regeneration and not to conversion.

Regeneration is not conversion and conversion is not regeneration, a friend keeps telling me.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Now show me where faith applies to regeneration and not to conversion.
> 
> Regeneration is not conversion and conversion is not regeneration, a friend keeps telling me.



'seeds of faith' as per calvin and Turretin.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Scott,
> 
> Regarding the paper, what do you think about the following comment:
> ...



Wayne,
I received clearification from Dr. Lee. He writes:

By "rebuttably" I here mean that Eve rightly presumed the tiny Cain was right before God from his conception onward -- until Cain's later actions (of murdering Abel etc.) clearly rebutted that prior presumption. This is seen from her words: "I have gotten a male child -- (from)the 
Lord!"[in which she either rightly presumed Cain was an elect sinner or wrongly presumed he was the promised Seed of the woman Himself (the Heb. here permitting either presumption)].

Ditto on all my other uses of the word "rebuttably" (in presuming anycovenant child from his conception onward *already* seems to be regenerated despite his original sin, cf. I Cor. 7:14 etc.).

I am arguing that the just-conceived sinful covenant child is *right* *then* also to be presumed regenerated by the sanctifying work of the Spirit at conception, just as that Spirit at Christ's conception even prevented Himfrom thereby being tainted with original sin and being totally righteous from His conception onward. In our children's cases, of course, the additional benefit of freedom from original taint is absent; yet they are (presumably) regenerated as conception, so that if they die one second later they go straight to heaven despite their taint which Christ at their regeneration substitutionarily washes away by the action of His Spirit 
(cf.WCF 10:3).

So, holy children are entitled to receivedholy baptism (in order to seal their presumed *present* holiness, rather than to try to transubstantiate unholy covenant kids into regeneratees Ã¡ la Rome). Baptism thus seals existing benefits; it does *not* engineer
regeneration!

[Edited on 6-11-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## D Battjes (Jun 11, 2005)

[Edited on 6-13-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Ok Matt,
> 
> Please answer the question I raised before about the relationship of adoption to justification. If Calvin meant adoption in the sense you mean it, and yet the FV advocates are wrong (both of which you have asserted) then it would follow:
> ...





Fred, I think the problem is setting your question in the proper context of whether we are talking decreetive or preceptive.

Is Calvin talking decreetively or preceptively?

Am I?

Are you?

In other words, though I am not glorified yet (as Paul says in Romans 8 int he golden chain) those who are elected can certainly be "considered" as sealed to that end.

If we presume regeneration, why would we not presume the rest unless proven otherwise? Eve presumed Cain was the man. She presumed wrong, but no doubt raised Cain as the "one." It was not until later that she and Adam would have seen Cain as rejecting the covenant and thus bing a covenant breaker, thus not being regenerate, or having any of the benefits as the WCF states.

But if we do baptize someone, anyone, we are assuming that the benefits are being sealed. Westminster says it this way:

Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] *not only* for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church;[2] *but also*, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his *ingrafting into Christ*,[4] of *regeneration*,[5] of *remission of sins*,[6] and of *his giving up unto God*, through Jesus Christ, to walk in *newness of life*.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.[8]

1. Matt. 28:19
2. I Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27-28
3. Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12
4. Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:5
5. John 3:5; Titus 3:5
6. Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; 22:16
7. Rom. 6:3-4
8. Matt. 28:19-20

So, I don't think one can stop at saying these things are sealed unto them (at least in the divided sense) until it is demonstrated otherwise.

Its a hermenuetical issue not a theological issue.
You are confusing the decree (what will REALLY happen to them) with the precept (what God tells us we should doo based on the preceptive promise).

Also, Calvin bounces back and forth between "senses" without distinguishing between them. "Two Wills" demosntrates this over and over in his writings. So one has to be careful about what context he means and what sense he means. The FV guys use the decreetive sense overlayed and misused on the divided sense. They inject the theology of the decree intot he precept where they have no warrant to do it. You are injecting the divided sense into the decree. Seperate the two.

[Edited on 6-12-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## wsw201 (Jun 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



It sure is nice that we can email Dr. Lee to get a clarification. Unfortunately we can not do that with Calvin. 

It appears that Dr. Lee is taking Kuyper' position on PR and that it is the grounds for baptism in that we don't baptize the unregenerate.


----------



## AdamM (Jun 12, 2005)

Matt & Scott, I think the e-mail from Dr. Lee indicates that he is presuming a whole lot more then what you have previously indicated was your position. What Lee and most PR advocates believe is not that that Baby is regenerated and the converted at some later date via the preaching of the Word. They believe the cake is baked in terms of the ordo so to speak in the womb, the baby is presumed to receive regeneration, adaption, conversion and etc. all while in the womb. I didn't think that was your position, but maybe I am wrong?


----------



## Puritanhead (Jun 12, 2005)

The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it but you do not know whence it comes, or whither it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit. (John 3:8)

I was baptized at age ten, and confessed at eight, but I felt innumerable times as a teenager and in hindsight looking back that my faith was barren. Maybe I was just backslidden, but I profess ignorance of my time of being "saved"... and though I am acclimated to being around circles where they want you to name the year, month, and day (perhaps hour and minute) you were "saved" so as to demonstrate assurance... I profess wholesale ignorance of it... all one can do is strive to make their calling and election sure...

I just say I was saved 2,000 years ago by Christ on the Cross at Calvary. I was "saved" yesterday, today and tomorrow...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> Matt & Scott, I think the e-mail from Dr. Lee indicates that he is presuming a whole lot more then what you have previously indicated was your position. What Lee and most PR advocates believe is not that that Baby is regenerated and the converted at some later date via the preaching of the Word. They believe the cake is baked in terms of the ordo so to speak in the womb, the baby is presumed to receive regeneration, adaption, conversion and etc. all while in the womb. I didn't think that was your position, but maybe I am wrong?



Adam,
Dr Lee does not hold to a Kuperian view. I mentioned that earlier in the thread to Wayne. Kuyper believed in baptising based upon regneration. Lee's rationale is we baptise based upon command and the promise; in faith.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it but you do not know whence it comes, or whither it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit. (John 3:8)
> 
> I was baptized at age ten, and confessed at eight, but I felt innumerable times as a teenager and in hindsight looking back that my faith was barren. Maybe I was just backslidden, but I profess ignorance of my time of being "saved"... and though I am acclimated to being around circles where they want you to name the year, month, and day (perhaps hour and minute) you were "saved" so as to demonstrate assurance... I profess wholesale ignorance of it... all one can do is strive to make their calling and election sure...
> ...



Ryan,
I know you know this; I'm just being exhortive for the people 'lurking'.

Men are elected outside of time. Salvation occurs within time; there is a difference. Paul was elected, yet was a murderer of Christs church prior to his conversion.

Rom 6:17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 

Rom 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. 
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. 

Rom 11:30 Just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 

1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 
1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 
1Co 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

[Edited on 6-12-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Wayne, 
With all due respect, the difference & ambiguous nature to Dr. lee's statement and Calvins are horses of a different color. As I have said to Fred, look the quote over, there are infact very few options for what calvin could have meant. Fred implied that if we take it for it's face value, Calvin must have meant more than just presumption; Fred added that he knows that Calvin did not hold to baptismal regeneration, so it must mean something different. I agree. Presumption does not mean we believe without a doubt that God regenerates; we presume. My opinion, Calvin went a step further; this does not mean he was holding to a Kuyperian system, but that he was taking it to it's furthest conclusion. If he was, and this is my point, he went obviously much further than just believing in election, hence destroying any idea that his theology was limited to just election.

[Edited on 6-12-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> Would someone please address 1 Cor 7 in regards to baptising the sanctified unbelieving spouse.
> 
> I asked this for a reason, and yet noone is responding.
> ...



You've answered your question in your statement above. There is no presumption on the spouses part. She is an _unbeliever_; you made that perfectly clear. She is a God hater. She rejects the gospel. She admits she does not believe. The child however, has not admitted anything. Based upon that, we will hold fast to Gods promise, and when she rejects, when she breaks covenant, we will go from there; but not until and even then, as in the example of the prodigal son, we will also have faith that the child will return to her father. A son, is always a son!


----------



## Dan.... (Jun 12, 2005)

> Adam,
> Dr Lee does not hold to a Kuperian view. I mentioned that earlier in the thread to Wayne. Kuyper believed in baptising based upon regneration. Lee's rationale is we baptise based upon command and the promise; in faith.



Practically speaking, what's the difference?? (Why you baptize is only a minute part of it.) The major question is how do you approach your children any differently? You've presumed them regenerate. You've presumed that the child has faith. Hence, you must also presume that the child is justified and is being sanctified, correct? All that remains is the continuing of sanctification up until the child is finally glorified.


----------



## wsw201 (Jun 12, 2005)

> Wayne,
> With all due respect, the difference & ambiguous nature to Dr. lee's statement and Calvins are horses of a different color. As I have said to Fred, look the quote over, there are infact very few options for what calvin could have meant. Fred implied that if we take it for it's face value, Calvin must have meant more than just presumption; Fred added that he knows that Calvin did not hold to baptismal regeneration, so it must mean something different. I agree. Presumption does not mean we believe without a doubt that God regenerates; we presume. My opinion, Calvin went a step further; this does not mean he was holding to a Kuyperian system, but that he was taking it to it's furthest conclusion. If he was, and this is my point, he went obviously much further than just believing in election, hence destroying any idea that his theology was limited to just election.



As far as looking at Calvin's comment, you know as well as I that you can't take a single quote and cobble together a whole doctrine. Looking at Calvin as a whole, I believe that he did not believe in PR. You are really reading a lot into one quote.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> > Wayne,
> ...



Wayne,
You're kidding me, right? You know me better than that. I am not basing it on one quote from Calvin:

Dr. John Calvin
"By these words, Christ...by a sacred bond...connects baptism with doctrine.... But as
Christ enjoins them to teach before baptizing, and desires that none but believers shall be admitted to baptism -- it would appear that baptism is not properly administered, unless when it is preceded by faith." 
John Calvin, Commentary on Matthew 28:19.


Dr. John Calvin
"Are we not, independent of baptism [in infancy], cleansed by the blood of Christ and regenerated by the Spirit?" Indeed: "Let him (Heshusius) then accuse Paul of blasphemy -- for saying that Christ is formed in us like the foetus in the womb. His well-known words to the Galatians are: 'My little children, for whom I again travail, as in birth -- until Christ Jesus be formed in you.' Galatians 4:9...."


"God therefore calls those who were thus slain -- 'His sons.' Just as if a husband should reproach his wife with depriving him of their common children.... Children are more precious than all goods.... A father is more grievously injured, if children are taken away.... God here pronounces...'you have born them -- unto Me.'"

"The Jews were naturally accursed, through being Adam's seed. But by supernatural and singular privilege, they were exempt and free from the curse -- since
circumcision was a testimony of the adoption by which God had consecrated them to Himself. Hence, they were holy.... As to their being impure, it could not...abolish God's covenant.... And so Paul says that the children of the faithful are holy -- since baptism does not lose its efficacy, and the adoption of God remains fixed. First Corinthians 7:14."
Calvin's True Partaking of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, in his Tracts & Treat. II pp. 497f. 306) Ib. pp. 534f.


Here Van Mastricht quotes Calvin:
Dr. Herman Bavinck 
"œMen had this feeling that the regeneration of children took place before baptism.... God was not bound to means.... He operated thus with the children of believers who were removed by death before the years of discretion.... "They are to be regarded as elect and regenerate, until the opposite is apparent from their profession and behaviour.... All children born of believing parents are, according to the judgment of charity, to be regarded as born again -- until the opposite in life and doctrine are clearly manifested. Thus [Peter] Martyr [Vermigli], Alasco, Ursinus, Datheen, Alting, Voetius, Witsius,
Mastricht....*"Calvin says...that the children of believers are already holy even before baptism through a supranatural grace (Institutes IV:16:31); that the seed of faith and conversion hides within them through a secret operation of the Spirit (IV:16:20); that they partake of the grace of regeneration by virtue of the promise; and that baptism follows by way of sign*.... Men had this feeling that the regeneration of children took place before baptism...."
Herman Bavinck: Reformed Dogmatics I p. 29 & n. 1, and III pp. 266f (as cited in Wielenga's op. cit. pp. 241f).


John Calvin, "We ought, therefore, to consider, that just as in the case of Abraham, the father of the faithful, the righteousness of faith preceded circumcision, so today in the children of the faithful, the gift of adoption is prior to baptism." (Opera Quae Supersunt Omina, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 35, Page 8.)

John Calvin, "It follows, that the children of believers are not baptized, that they may thereby then become the children of God, as if they had been before aliens to the church; but, on the contrary, they are received into the Church by this solemn sign, since they already belonged to the body of Christ by virtue of the promise." (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4:15:22. cf. 4:16:24)

As far as 'cobbling' together a whole doctrine, the mass of quotes I provided as well as Matts should answer that.

[Edited on 6-12-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> 
> 
> > Adam,
> ...



Dan,
Practically speaking, No! There is a difference. Kuyper was a baptismal regenerationist. Calvin is not. Baptismal regeneration is semi-Pelagian and heresy; it denies justification by faith alone. Calvin et. al. baptized by faith alone, by command alone. I will repeat, presuming is not conclusive. Thats the idea behind presumption.Regeneration is not necessarily conversion. Regeneration generally requires Gods preached word from Gods servants. Justification and sanctification follow repentance and faith, repentance and faith typically follow regeneration in that after Gods word is preached, the seed of faith is germinated by _water of the word_ and grows.


----------



## D Battjes (Jun 12, 2005)

[Edited on 6-13-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 12, 2005)

The unberlieving spouse is UNBELIEVING. That's just a "tad" different than the child who is born and is to be presumed holy by baptism until they demonstrate THEY are unbeleiving, or not. 

In other words, what is the child (believing or unbelieving) and how do you know that for a fact?

Sanctified in one case is different than sanctififed in the other based on the context of the person. Its nonsensical for anyone to say that n unbeleiver is to be baptized! (Come now!)


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> Calvin did believe as well as others that all children of Elect parents are elect. I will research, because I have the quotes somewhere.
> 
> Either way, he errored grievously on this.
> ...



I never said Calvin did'nt believe that in regards to election. He based this as well on _presumption_. I am as well saying that Calvin went a step farther; in that step, he most definately subscribed to PR. 

As far as the 1 Cor passage goes, it should be simple enough. We are talking about infant presumption. There is no presumption for the unbelieving spouse, she does not believe. How could we presume anything otherwise? If she said she believed, we would assuredly place the sign on her.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 12, 2005)

Paul,

Yes. I like Turretin's and Van Mastricht's separation between regeneration and conversion (faith and repentance).

The child would have "seed faith."


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 12, 2005)

Paul, no, they cannot actively believe, though the tools for believing are presumed to be there based on the promise.

They do not have the exercising ability to string together biblical propositions, though they do have the capacity to do it (i.e. regeneration). My illustration, that I like - the acorn holds all the properties of the oak tree though its not growing yet.

[Edited on 6-13-2005 by webmaster]


----------

