# Infant Faith



## raderag

Does anybody have any knowledge on this issue? What are the arguments for and against? Is it within the confessional bounds?


----------



## Casey

You mean simply whether or not an infant can have faith?

Luke 1:15 on John the Baptist: *"For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb."*

I suppose that means he was regenerate in the womb, and thus explains why he jumped when hearing Mary's voice (_cf._ 1:39ff.) In infant can conceivably have faith, but it will, of course, be the faith of an infant.


----------



## Puritanhead

Infants can have faith. John the Baptist lept at the voice of the Lord while he was yet in his mother's womb. Faith is supernatural! We cannot understand all of God's ways. I think it is to the glory of God to redeem those

Faith is of the Spirit and does not require outward confession of faith and repentance, or an intellectual assent to the Gospel idea. I don't think there is a Gospel _of by grace through youth_ however or an age of accountability.

John MacArthur wrote a book called _Safe in the Arms of God_ for the bereaved who have lost infants or young children before or after birth.


----------



## Puritanhead

I figured someone would think of that John the Baptist reference. You read my mind Casey.


----------



## raderag

I'm not asking if an infant can be elect, but if they can posess a real saving faith.

I was told I should read:

Paedofaith
by Rich Lusk.

Has anybody read this book? I know some of the thoughts here about the author, but what about this specific book?


----------



## raderag

> _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> You mean simply whether or not an infant can have faith?
> 
> Luke 1:15 on John the Baptist: *"For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb."*
> 
> I suppose that means he was regenerate in the womb, and thus explains why he jumped when hearing Mary's voice (_cf._ 1:39ff.) In infant can conceivably have faith, but it will, of course, be the faith of an infant.



So, how would you define this faith?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

These may be of help.

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

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.)

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 stated, "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. 

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. 

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." 

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.'"

"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. 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. 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. 

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. 

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. 

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
"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." 

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. 

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. 

There's more, but that should get you going.


----------



## wsw201

The only real reference to any type of infant faith that I have heard of is from Turretin and that is "seed" faith. Matt has talked about this in other threads. You may want to do a search.

In my humble opinion, to subscribe "faith" or saving faith to an infant, is more than a bit speculative.


----------



## Casey

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> I figured someone would think of that John the Baptist reference. You read my mind Casey.


----------



## fredtgreco

I do not have it front of me right now, but essentially Lusk says that children born in the church have no need of conversion.

I believe that this is unbiblical and unconfessional. Apparently the PCA presbytery that Lusk attempt to transfer into thought so too.


----------



## raderag

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> I do not have it front of me right now, but essentially Lusk says that children born in the church have no need of conversion.
> 
> I believe that this is unbiblical and unconfessional. Apparently the PCA presbytery that Lusk attempt to transfer into thought so too.



Yeah, I wouldn't agree with that at all. THanks Fred.


----------



## raderag

Very helpful Matthew. You are a great resource.


----------



## Casey

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> You mean simply whether or not an infant can have faith?
> 
> Luke 1:15 on John the Baptist: *"For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb."*
> 
> I suppose that means he was regenerate in the womb, and thus explains why he jumped when hearing Mary's voice (_cf._ 1:39ff.) In infant can conceivably have faith, but it will, of course, be the faith of an infant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, how would you define this faith?
Click to expand...

Well, we don't have to change the definition.

Q. 86. What is faith in Jesus Christ? A. Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel.

The faith of a child is as the Shorter describes it . . . but again, it is the faith of a child. This may sound a bit off mark, but consider this illustration: an infant knows his mother and trusts her and rests in her arms even before he can pronounce her name. Of course, this child must continue to manifest dependence as he grows for it to be a genuine trust.


----------



## Puritanhead

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> I'm not asking if an infant can be elect, but if they can posess a real saving faith.



What's the difference? All those given are called to regeneration... none will fall away.


----------



## raderag

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> These may be of help.
> ...
> Francis Junius
> Junius stated, "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.



What are the implications for this? Does this mean that someone who undergoes a true conversion later in life will need to be rebaptized? I don't understand...


----------



## raderag

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by raderag_
> I'm not asking if an infant can be elect, but if they can posess a real saving faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the difference? All those given are called to regeneration... none will fall away.
Click to expand...


I was an atheist and still of the elect. So there is a distinction between regeneration, election, and belief.


----------



## Puritanhead

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by raderag_
> I'm not asking if an infant can be elect, but if they can posess a real saving faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the difference? All those given are called to regeneration... none will fall away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was an atheist and still of the elect. So there is a distinction between regeneration, election, and belief.
Click to expand...


An elect infant that dies in infancy may be rightly presumed to be regenerate... I do not however believe that the Holy Spirit's application of regeneration necessarily comes at birth by any means. God works in his perfect timing. I think it varies.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> Does anybody have any knowledge on this issue? What are the arguments for and against? Is it within the confessional bounds?



There is relevant material here.

rsc


----------



## Puritanhead

Read John Murray's _Redemption Accomplished and Applied_-- That's my view of the _ordo salutis_. I'm not rolling election and regeneration together.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> I do not have it front of me right now, but essentially Lusk says that children born in the church have no need of conversion.
> 
> I believe that this is unbiblical and unconfessional. Apparently the PCA presbytery that Lusk attempt to transfer into thought so too.



Is he kidding? That is abdolutely rediculous, and a far cry from anything the historic church has taught.


----------



## satz

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> The only real reference to any type of infant faith that I have heard of is from Turretin and that is "seed" faith. Matt has talked about this in other threads. You may want to do a search.
> 
> In my humble opinion, to subscribe "faith" or saving faith to an infant, is more than a bit speculative.



I would tentatively agree. 

I am not sure i am comfortable with the idea that infants need have a 'lower standard' of faith than adults.

Is there anything problematic with simply saying that infants cannot have faith (since their minds cannot comprehend enough) but not withstanding they are saved by the application of the legal merits of Christ's death as well as the holy spirit's power in regeneration?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I think whenever this issue comes up there is always a desire on the part of some to trace a line from election to the faith of that infant and describe that line as if it can be seen in reality.

The thing I appreciate about the quotes that Dr. McMahon and Dr. Clark present are that they describe what we know from the Covenant promises of God and not what we may guess about with our best speculative glasses on.

Remember, when Paul, or other Apostles, enter into discussions regarding election it is to give assurance that salvation rests with God. They never prescribe how that election will always work out in time and space. They don't prescribe regeneration as only occuring after some age of intellectual maturity nor do they ever prescribe that faith cannot grow to maturity.

I don't know the point at which I can measure a child and say that the person has sufficient notitia, assensus, and fiducia before, by my infallible judgment, I proclaim that the little person now has saving faith. I'm not so naive to presume that a child who parrots their parents with a Jesus Loves Me song is elect and ought to receive the Lord's Supper but then neither will I presume that the child is a child of the Devil until they memorize the Westminster Shorter Catechism and can PROVE, by intellectual defense, that they possess faith. In both cases what I lack is infallible knowledge from the point of that child's birth until his death as an old man. I can no more detect his regeneration with a scientific instrument than with my hearing when he calls on the Name of the Lord as an adult.

So in the end, I'm left with the wisdom of what was quoted. I don't want to fall off the cliff of some who presume too much of their children being in Covenant and I don't want to presume no status at all as those do who wait on their "scientific instruments" to prove to them that faith is resident.

I believe the nature of the Covenant is that we trust God's promises and rely on His Grace to raise our children. A child may or may not be regenerate in the womb or as a toddler or as a young boy or as a teenager or as a young adult. I'm not commanded to raise my children on the basis of guessing their status, but as _my children_ brought by Grace into a Covenant household. I'm commanded to train them from the moment of their birth to call on the name of the Lord. 

I do not wait until they express adult faith to teach them to pray words of adoration, confession, thanksgiving, and supplication. I teach them the grammar of faith so that when they are older they can synthesize it and embrace it with an adult mind. If a child is regenerate in the womb, as was John the Baptist, then he will display childlike adoration, confession, thanksgiving, and supplication. If he is unregenerate he will display the same qualities and I will not be able to guage a difference.

In the end, I am left with obeying God's commands as a parent, relying on His grace to obey, and resting in His Providence. To peer any further as to "...when is Johnny regenerate?" is pure speculation.

[Edited on 2-7-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Steve Owen

The Following appeared in _Reformed Baptist Theological Review._
The author is Michael Renihan


> *'Individual anecdotes are not normative, but illustrative of the fruit of men´s labours. The fruit of a belief will be seen in how it manifests itself in practice. Ideas have consequences. Let me illustrate. A friend with whom I attended seminary called me recently to discuss a matter affecting the life of the church he presently pastors. The church is Presbyterian. My friend has always been a traditionally conservative Presbyterian pastor holding to all of the Westminster Standards- even the Directory for Publick worship. His recent experience struck at the heart of how the infant´s interest in the Covenant of Grace via the Abrahamic Covenant is working itself out in some covenantal Presbyterian or paedobaptist circles.
> 
> A young woman in her late teens had become a nightmare to her Christian parents. She was disruptive at home and rebellious to the authority figures in her life. Her church prayed for her regularly over the course of almost two years. In fact, they prayed so regularly that it seemed to the Pastor that the congregation had given her over as a hopeless cause. They had become desensitized through familiarity with her condition. A christian friend of this young woman, however, also showed concern for her. She "˜reached out to her with a lifeline´ (as the evangelical clichÃ© says). This friend invited her to a church other than her family´s where there were special summer evangelistic meetings. She agreed to attend. The rebellious one was struck by the force of the preaching and made a public profession of faith. (Let´s not get lost in a visceral reaction to methodology at this point.) Late that night, she announced to her parents with tears of repentance interspersed with her words that everything was going to be okay from now on because she was now a Christian. Sounds good, doesn´t it?
> 
> Her father went into a tirade. He had presumed that his daughter was already regenerate by virtue of her election and her place as a "œCovenant child." He would not be shown to be wrong. His hyper-covenantal theology blinded him to the possibility that his daughter might have been unregenerate. In his view, she had "œbroken the covenant again" by making such a public confession of faith. After all, he had professed faith for her at her baptism sixteen years or so earlier. What might have been perceived as a merciful answer to the church´s prayers was perceived as a greater evil than her two years of rebellion. For this act she was cast from the home. It was the proverbial last straw. The father´s real grief was that she had become "œa [expletive deleted] Baptist!" In these words, the father conveyed his horror to his pastor, my friend. For the first time in his ministry, my friend saw the consequences of "œpressing to much out of covenant theology." He asked in desperation, "œWhat´s a pastor to do?" Since he knows my dry sense of humour, I replied, "œBecome a Reformed Baptist." I also sent him John Tombes´ work on the Abrahamic Covenant.´ *



Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 2-7-2006 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## AdamM

There is no doubt that the Bible has some examples of infant faith, but I think they fall under the category of extraordinary occurrences, being somewhat mysterious. However, the ordinary means God uses according to the Westminster Standards (and the Bible of course,) to bring about faith is the preaching of the Word (faith comes by hearing.) It would seem to me that a belief that all or most covenant infants have faith in the womb would require us to then view the preaching of the Word as the extraordinary means and then substitute several mysterious, really unexplained instances of infant faith as the norm.

For what it's worth, I am not denying that infants *today* can have faith, but I think it is helpful to distinguish between the ordinary and extraordinary. 

[Edited on 2-7-2006 by AdamM]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> The Following appeared in _Reformed Baptist Theological Review._
> The author is Michael Renihan
> 
> 
> 
> *'Individual anecdotes are not normative, but illustrative of the fruit of men´s labours. The fruit of a belief will be seen in how it manifests itself in practice. Ideas have consequences. Let me illustrate. A friend with whom I attended seminary called me recently to discuss a matter affecting the life of the church he presently pastors. The church is Presbyterian. My friend has always been a traditionally conservative Presbyterian pastor holding to all of the Westminster Standards- even the Directory for Publick worship. His recent experience struck at the heart of how the infant´s interest in the Covenant of Grace via the Abrahamic Covenant is working itself out in some covenantal Presbyterian or paedobaptist circles.
> 
> A young woman in her late teens had become a nightmare to her Christian parents. She was disruptive at home and rebellious to the authority figures in her life. Her church prayed for her regularly over the course of almost two years. In fact, they prayed so regularly that it seemed to the Pastor that the congregation had given her over as a hopeless cause. They had become desensitized through familiarity with her condition. A christian friend of this young woman, however, also showed concern for her. She "˜reached out to her with a lifeline´ (as the evangelical clichÃ© says). This friend invited her to a church other than her family´s where there were special summer evangelistic meetings. She agreed to attend. The rebellious one was struck by the force of the preaching and made a public profession of faith. (Let´s not get lost in a visceral reaction to methodology at this point.) Late that night, she announced to her parents with tears of repentance interspersed with her words that everything was going to be okay from now on because she was now a Christian. Sounds good, doesn´t it?
> 
> Her father went into a tirade. He had presumed that his daughter was already regenerate by virtue of her election and her place as a "œCovenant child." He would not be shown to be wrong. His hyper-covenantal theology blinded him to the possibility that his daughter might have been unregenerate. In his view, she had "œbroken the covenant again" by making such a public confession of faith. After all, he had professed faith for her at her baptism sixteen years or so earlier. What might have been perceived as a merciful answer to the church´s prayers was perceived as a greater evil than her two years of rebellion. For this act she was cast from the home. It was the proverbial last straw. The father´s real grief was that she had become "œa [expletive deleted] Baptist!" In these words, the father conveyed his horror to his pastor, my friend. For the first time in his ministry, my friend saw the consequences of "œpressing to much out of covenant theology." He asked in desperation, "œWhat´s a pastor to do?" Since he knows my dry sense of humour, I replied, "œBecome a Reformed Baptist." I also sent him John Tombes´ work on the Abrahamic Covenant.´ *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grace & Peace,
> 
> Martin
Click to expand...

Nice anecdote Martin. The only problem is that the hypothetical Presbyterian minister is missing the point as to the nature of covenant expectation. The father in the above story is very foolish and should have praised God for answering prayer (leaving aside the issue of the genuineness of the conversion).

As I stated above, the choice is not between some crass view that our children are regenerate no matter what and the polar opposite view that our children are the children of the devil until they _prove_ to us that they are regenerate. Neither pole is Biblical.


----------



## Steve Owen

> As I stated above, the choice is not between some crass view that our children are regenerate no matter what and the polar opposite view that our children are the children of the devil until they prove to us that they are regenerate. Neither pole is Biblical.


Biblical is Psalm 14:2-3; Psalm 51:5; Matt 8:11-12; John 3:6-8 and 6:44-45.

Martin


----------



## Semper Fidelis

...and Genesis to Revelation...


----------



## pastorway

> The only problem is that the *hypothetical* Presbyterian minister is missing the point as to the nature of covenant expectation.



It was not a hypothetical - it really happened.



> A friend with whom I attended seminary called me recently to discuss a matter affecting the life of the church he presently pastors.



Phillip


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> 
> 
> The only problem is that the *hypothetical* Presbyterian minister is missing the point as to the nature of covenant expectation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was not a hypothetical - it really happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A friend with whom I attended seminary called me recently to discuss a matter affecting the life of the church he presently pastors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Phillip
Click to expand...

You are right that I should have used a different word. Hypothetical implies that the man doesn't exist and the writer might be lying. My apologies.

My point is that the anecdote is flawed. I don't want to enter into a full orbed discussion of the Reformed Baptist view of the Covenant here because we're talking about infant faith.

My critique is that it is a straw man argument presented like this:

1. Presbyterians scream at their kids when they come to faith later in life because they presume they are regenerate.
2. This is what Presbyterian Covenant Theology teaches.
3. That is bad.
Therefore, become a Reformed Baptist!

I'm a little shocked that Martin would post it. Either he has missed the point of what countless posts in the CT forum have presented regarding paedobaptist views or he is presenting a caricature of that view purposefully. To what end I do not know but I expected better.

[Edited on 2-8-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

For the ordinary circumstances surrounding the godly (non-hypercovenatal home) see James Janeway and Cotton Mather's EXCELLENT book "A Token for Children". It accounts for the "extraordinary" faith of children in a congregation in England and one in America. Soli Deo Gloria published it. It is an outstanding example of children in the Lord from 3-12 years old.


----------



## Steve Owen

Rich wrote:-


> I'm a little shocked that Martin would post it. Either he has missed the point of what countless posts in the CT forum have presented regarding paedobaptist views or he is presenting a caricature of that view purposefully. To what end I do not know but I expected better.


You're not coming over all Moslem here and getting offended, are you, Rich? I expected better from you! Aren't you the one who was defending 'rigorous debate' and the use of _Reductio ad Absurdum_ on another thread recently?

I think you did not read the post very carefully. Look again at what Renihan says:-


> 'Individual anecdotes are not normative, but illustrative of the fruit of men´s labours. The fruit of a belief will be seen in how it manifests itself in practice. Ideas have consequences.



Having had some Pastoral responsibility in the past, I am aware that a penny's [dime's] worth of error from the pulpit becomes a pound's [dollar's] worth of bad practice in the pew. If you teach people the doctrine of Presumptive Regeneration, then you can be sure it will come back to haunt you when people take it to its logical extreme as in this example.

Beliefs manifest themselves in practice. If it were just a question of baptism, then I wouldn't spend my time banging on about it. But the Doctrine of PR is pernicious. It inevitably results in self-deception, either by the parent, the child or both.

Look with me at John 3:8. The Lord Jesus makes the issue of the New Birth so very clear. He likens the operation of the Spirit in regeneration to the wind:- 

*'The wind blows.......'* There is reality. The New Birth is not a myth, nor is it something that can be disregarded or relegated into a secondary doctrine.

*'.......Where it wishes.* There is sovereignty. You cannot pigeon-hole the Holy Spirit and say that He must always work in this way or that, or on these people and not those. If you have ever taught children's Sunday School, you will know that sometimes the star scholar, who seems so interested and so receptive, is often the one who falls away when he grows up. Yet the difficult child, the one who can't sit still, who is cheeky and disupts the reat of the class, sometimes will be the one whom you meet fifteen years later and he's a missionary! The wind blows where it wishes.

*'......And you hear the sound of it.'* There is observability. If someone, even a small child is regenerate, there will be evidence of it in changed behaviour (Gal 6:19-24 ). Unless and until there is such evidence, then whether or not the child has been baptized; whether or not you have extracted an 'I love Jesus!' from his little lips, you dare not presume that the Holy Spirit has worked upon him.

*'.......But [you] cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes.'* There is mystery. At the end of all our studies of the Scriptures and of the Reformers and Puritans, there is that which will elude us. We cannot pin down the Spirit. All we can say is, *'Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgements and His ways past finding out!'* (Rom 11:33).

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 2-8-2006 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> If you teach people the doctrine of Presumptive Regeneration, then you can be sure it will come back to haunt you when people take it to its logical extreme as in this example.



I suppose we should stop teaching justification by faith alone then because so many people mess it up? Or how about regeneration? Salvation in general? One cannot stop teaching the truth on any issue simply because misguided people foul it up. We should never take that route, otherwise, we are simply living a red herring.


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> For the ordinary circumstances surrounding the godly (non-hypercovenatal home) see James Janeway and Cotton Mather's EXCELLENT book "A Token for Children". It accounts for the "extraordinary" faith of children in a congregation in England and one in America. Soli Deo Gloria published it. It is an outstanding example of children in the Lord from 3-12 years old.



I absolutely do not deny that the Holy Spirit can work upon quite small children. There are many elderly Baptists who cannot remember a time when they didn't love the Lord because they came to Him so early in life. There is a little girl (6 years old) in our congregation who has very clearly professed repentance for her sins and faith in Jesus. I do not for a moment say that she has not been born again; *but if she has, it is by the word of Truth* (Jam 1:18 etc). I would add that little children will often say what they think their parents want to hear. Until there is clear evidence of regeneration in her life and until she reaches an age where she is more independent, I would make no assumptions about her.

There is a wonderful account of the work of the Spirit at a school in Coleraine, Ulster, during the 1859 revival there. It is found in *The Year Of Grace* By William Gibson (Ambassador Books. ISBN 0 907927 33 5 ). It's a heart-warming read! I may post it in the _History_ forum when I have time.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> For the ordinary circumstances surrounding the godly (non-hypercovenatal home) see James Janeway and Cotton Mather's EXCELLENT book "A Token for Children". It accounts for the "extraordinary" faith of children in a congregation in England and one in America. Soli Deo Gloria published it. It is an outstanding example of children in the Lord from 3-12 years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely do not deny that the Holy Spirit can work upon quite small children. There are many elderly Baptists who cannot remember a time when they didn't love the Lord because they came to Him so early in life. There is a little girl (6 years old) in our congregation who has very clearly professed repentance for her sins and faith in Jesus. I do not for a moment say that she has not been born again; *but if she has, it is by the word of Truth* (Jam 1:18 etc). I would add that little children will often say what they think their parents want to hear. Until there is clear evidence of regeneration in her life and until she reaches an age where she is more independent, I would make no assumptions about her.
> 
> There is a wonderful account of the work of the Spirit at a school in Coleraine, Ulster, during the 1859 revival there. It is found in *The Year Of Grace* By William Gibson (Ambassador Books. ISBN 0 907927 33 5 ). It's a heart-warming read! I may post it in the _History_ forum when I have time.
Click to expand...


Martin,

That's awesome. I love to see children converted. I love it even more when they are a testimony to the adults who are not as pious.

Blessings.


----------



## wsw201

Martin,

There are a couple of points I would like to make about the scenario that you presented:

1. The fact that the father thought that his daughter was "regenerated" when she was baptized does not relieve him of his responsibility to raise up his daughter in the admonition of the Lord. Children need to be taught regardless of what one thinks happens before or at baptism.

2. The scenario does not mention that at some point before she was 16 she became a communing member of the church. If she was a communing member, she would have made her own profession of faith and would have been admitted to the Lord's table. The Presbyterian pastor should have known this.

3. The fact that she rebelled and fell into sin should not be a surprise. Consider King David's situation.

4. The fact that she repented and turned back to Christ shows that the church's prayers were answered and that she is regenerate.

5. The Presbyterian pastor should go back and read the Scriptures and the Standards and he would understand what happened and would be rejoicing that God brought the "prodigal" back into the church. He would also know what to say to the father in that he is wrong to treat his daughter this way.

6. And finally, PR has nothing to do with what happened.

[Edited on 2/8/2006 by wsw201]


----------



## fredtgreco

I agree with everything that Wayne said, and would further add that if there is a doctrine to blame for this problem, it would be paedocommunion, not paedobaptism or covenantal theology.

If the daughter was admitted to the table without a credible profession, then shame on the father and the church.

If the daughter was admitted with a profession that turned out to be not credible, this scenario could occur (and DOES occur) in any church, including baptist churches.

If the daughter was not admitted yet to the table, the father has a false understanding of the covenant, sacraments, and church membership, and should be rebuked for his rejection of historical, confessional and biblical Presbyterianism.


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Martin,
> 
> There are a couple of points I would like to make about the scenario that you presented:


I presented it here, but I did not write it. It was written by Michael Renihan in a back copy of _Reformed Baptist Theological Review_. It purports to be a true account. Just to make that clear.


> 1. The fact that the father thought that his daughter was "regenerated" when she was baptized does not relieve him of his responsibility to raise up his daughter in the admonition of the Lord. Children need to be taught regardless of what one thinks happens before or at baptism.


Who says he did not do so? There is no suggestion in the account that he was neglectful in that respect.


> 2. The scenario does not mention that at some point before she was 16 she became a communing member of the church. If she was a communing member, she would have made her own profession of faith and would have been admitted to the Lord's table. The Presbyterian pastor should have known this.


There is no suggestion that she ever took the Lord's Supper. I do not think that is relevant.


> 3. The fact that she rebelled and fell into sin should not be a surprise. Consider King David's situation.


No indeed! These things happen, alas, all the time.


> 4. The fact that she repented and turned back to Christ shows that the church's prayers were answered and that she is regenerate.


Again, I agree with you. The prayers of the church for the children of members is of the utmost importance. The girl appears to be regenerate now. Whether she was aready regenerate and had back-slidden, or was not previously born again is impossible to say.


> 5. The Presbyterian pastor should go back and read the Scriptures and the Standards and he would understand what happened and would be rejoicing that God brought the "prodigal" back into the church. He would also know what to say to the father in that he is wrong to treat his daughter this way.


I think the Pastor was rejoicing! It was the father that had the problem. Renihan says, _'He would not be shown to be wrong.'_


> 6. And finally, PR has nothing to do with what happened.



This is where we part company. The Pastor had told this father that he could _presume_ that his daughter was regenerate (_contra_John 3:6 etc). Therefore, no matter how much the father my have taught her and admonished her, why would he ever tell her that she needed to be born again? According to the Pastor, she already was! So she, until she visited the 'other' church, thought that she was a Christian. She had been told so by her Pastor, her father and doubtless the youth leader as well.

I tell you, I was this girl!  The only difference was that I went for nearly 40 years thinking I was a Christian because........well, I lived in a 'Christian' country, I'd been baptized and I believed in God. And most particularly, nobody ever told me that *'Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.'* I knew it was in the Bible, but I didn't think it applied to me. And no one ever told me it did.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## raderag

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Martin,
> 
> 
> 
> I tell you, I was this girl!  The only difference was that I went for nearly 40 years thinking I was a Christian because........well, I lived in a 'Christian' country, I'd been baptized and I believed in God. And most particularly, nobody ever told me that *'Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.'* I knew it was in the Bible, but I didn't think it applied to me. And no one ever told me it did.
> 
> Grace & Peace,
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if there are any examples of those that came to Christianity through revivalistic methods and then backslip. (raising hand)
Click to expand...


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Until there is clear evidence of regeneration in her life and until she reaches an age where she is more independent, *I would make no assumptions about her.*



Your statement is flatly untrue. On the contrary you *presume* that all little children are *unregenerate*, despite any evidence.

I believe in Presumptive Regeneration, while you seem to believe in Presumptive Reprobation.



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> I went for nearly 40 years thinking I was a Christian because........well, I lived in a 'Christian' country, I'd been baptized and I believed in God. And most particularly, nobody ever told me that 'Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.' *I knew it was in the Bible*, but I didn't think it applied to me. And no one ever told me it did.



If a person *knows it is in the Bible*, but doesn't believe it, then shame on him! --- If He knows it's in the Bible, then the pastor has done his job.

Are you suggesting that a person must have a definitive, memorable, "conversion experience" (_i.e._ 18th/19th century revivalism) in order to truly be "born again"? I certainly think not.

Why do you suppose you finally understood that YOU needed to be born again? Could it possibly be that the Spirit *regenerated* you according to *His timing*? You already admitted that the issue was not your knowledge of Scripture. You already knew what was in there. Rather, you got born again when the Spirit decided to give you the new birth.

I know this is probably not your intention, Martin, but your statements sound very synergistic, rather than monergistic. If you *really* believe that the Spirit blows where He wills, then you should realize that your time of Regeneration had nothing to do with your beliefs for/against presumptive regeneration.


----------



## wsw201

Martin,

I understand that what you posted is an account of what actually happened. No problem there. 




> Who says he did not do so? There is no suggestion in the account that he was neglectful in that respect.




Granted that there is nothing specifically in the account that would suggest that the father did not "raise her right". But then again there is also nothing in the account that he did either. Considering his response to his daughter making a profession of faith and the mention of his "hyper-covenantal theology" (whatever that means), I think it can be assumed that her spiritual education may be lacking.




> There is no suggestion that she ever took the Lord's Supper. I do not think that is relevant.



That is right. There is no evidence that she took the Lord's Supper. But it is relevant. In the Presbyterian Church an infant is baptized on the profession of at least one parent (as the father said he did when she was baptized). Once a child is of an age where they can discern the Lord's body and make a profession of faith of their own volition, they become a communing member of the church. At 16, she should have already made a profession (and the father would know that) and become a communing member of the church. Now what I have described is the way it *"should"* be. I am discounting any "hyper-covenantalism" and peado communion.

Regarding the other points it appears we agree. Unfortunately we would need to know a lot more about this Presbyterian church in order to determine what went wrong. 

I say that PR has nothing to do with this situation because it shouldn't have any thing to do with this situation. Based on Scripture and the Standards of the Presbyterian Church the situation that has been reported would be unacceptable. Any type of hyper-covenantalism that presumes that an infant is "actually" regenrate (no doubt about it regenrate!) in the womb, just born or at their baptism is counter to Scripture and our Standards! Chidren are to be catechized so they can improve upon their baptism and when the time comes make their own credible profession of faith.

Concerning what that Presbyterian pastor should do, if he truly is teaching "hyper-covenantalism", is resign! and the father would be having a serious sit down with the Session about his sinful attitude and hopefully be lead to repentance and reconciliation with his daughter.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Ps 8:2 (cf. Matt 21:16)
"Out of the mouth of infants and suckling babes You have prepared praise for Yourself."

Ps 22:9-10
"Yet You are He who brought me forth from the womb; <<<You made me trust>>> when upon my mother's breasts. Upon You I was cast from birth; <<<You have been my God from my mother's womb.>>>"

Matt 18:6
"... these little ones who believe in Me ..."

Luke 1:44
"For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy."

Hebr 11:23,24:
"By faith Moses when he was born..."
"By faith Moses when he had grown up..."


We should teach our children in such a way as to engender faith and feed it, I can't read my child's heart, look into the book of life and find their names, nor nakedly see if they are regenerate. Later "fruit" can be imitated by hypocrits as adults more than children are so very well adept at doing. All I can do while they are my children is present God's Law so that they see they are sinners and present God's Gospel so that they might believe and I simply trust His promise to me and my children and dare not disdain His promise and Word. Anything esle is trying to get it done by my efforts and peering into to God's eternal will.

They may rebel or they may not, false dilemma is that "rebellion" = unregenerate, for it is very clear that Christians can rebell in tremendous sin and for great lengths of time BECAUSE we are simulataneoulsy sinners and saints, that means 100% and 100% in this life.

The growth of a Christian is a growth in the appreciation and understanding of the depths of my sinfulness with a simultaneous increasing clinging to the Cross of Christ alone for me the sinner. In this way and this way only is true humility (which is at the heart of the Law) engendered and from humility faith is grown for God resists the proud, especially the religious proud.

Ldh


----------



## biblelighthouse

This is a book worth checking out:

Baby Belief Before Baptism - by Dr. F. N. Lee


----------



## Larry Hughes

If the examples of infants and children in Scripture having faith are "œthe exception to the rule", then what is to prevent the same absurd application to adults? For the bulk of the adults in Scripture appear more manifestly to be unbelievers than do the infants. If we are going to look at sheer numbers, then adults loose hands down.

Adults, who are exceedingly expert and proficient at duplicity, insincerity and religious fraud rarely examine themselves. It is odd how Jesus doesn´t say that unless you be as these adults you can in no way enter the kingdom of heaven, yet we thrust faith that way. 

As adults how do you know you have real saving faith? If you say, "œI have fruits", and list them, how do you know they are real fruits or enough or the right kind or of the right quality - as opposed to fruits of religious hypocrisy? If you say, "œthey are from my heart", what do you say when God´s word says the heart is deceptive above all who can know it? If you say, "œGod writes His Law on my heart"¦so that I love it and obey it", how do you know you are not just saying that, much less how can another know it? What if I were to steal your "œfruit" from you and tell you it is nothing, not even by grace, would you still cling to it then, or would you rage revealing what you really had faith in? If your heart really desires the Law of God, then why have you not sold all that you have and given it to the poor without another thought, surrendering everything? If you say, "œI have that desire"¦", then what stops you if the reward is eternal and greater than all the earth? And if one did "œgive all", which one will not, would it not be for one´s eternal gain rather than the poor´s benefit? Try taking away, not doing, your favorite "œreligious" act that gives you comfort and see how your heart reacts, then you will know what you are really trusting in. It will vary from man to man. 

My wife´s a Trauma level 1 ER nurse, she sees this daily; What will you do if when you are aging or tomorrow you are one of the victims of one of the numerous mind debilitating diseases, a serious injury to your brain, secondary oxygen deprivation due to some other primary injury, a mentally debilitating stroke, an extended heart attack that affect your mind "“ how will your faith be set forth then?

The two closest people in this life that exhibit what real faith is "“ are infants and the dying. For at both of those times in our life the strength of mind, body and will is at its weakest point, dying and fading away and showing its reality as nothing"¦and then you MUST rely nakedly upon the mercy of God in Christ Jesus, just like an infant you are laid naked, exposed and at the mercy of God alone, for what else in all the creation do you have?

Ldh


----------



## Steve Owen

Brett wrote:-


> I wonder if there are any examples of those that came to Christianity through revivalistic methods and then backslip. (raising hand)



Brett, don't get me started (oops! Too late) on what goes on in a lot of Baptist churches!

Firstly, many parents and Pastors can't wait to dunk their children. The parents, because they foolishly imagine that by having them make a profession of faith, they have saved their children from hell; the Pastors because they like to be successful. So between them, they try to give as little information as possible to the child that will get them to make a profession of faith  Then they wonder why their children give up their faith as soon as they leave home.

I hope and believe that no Reformed Baptist church would adopt such dangerous and wicked practices. But the fact that many unreformed Baptist churches do have them does not excuse Presbyterian Churches in giving false assurance to both parents and children in this pernicious doctrine of Presumptive Regeneration.

Childen must be taught and encouraged to seek the Lord (Isaiah 55:6-7; 2Chron 34:1-3 ). In my experience, they will not do so if they have been encouraged to believe that they are regenerate already.

N.B. None of the above should be read in such away as to make it seem to deny the ultimate sovereignty of God in these matters. God's sovereignty is no excuse for bad practice. God usually exercises His will through means (1Cor 1:21 ).

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 2-8-2006 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Martin,

You crack me up. I wasn´t offended. I just thought you´d do a better job of arguing your case. One can only utilize a _Reductio ad Absurdum_ argument if the opponent´s position is presented accurately to begin with. They may not be your words but you introduce them as your position so you must have some affinity for the argument presented.

Wayne: Thank you for pointing out the fact that the girl in the story was probably a communicant member. I can´t imagine her not being as this "œcrisis" would have occurred much sooner in life.

Martin "“ you believe the fact that she partook of the Lord's Supper has no bearing upon the issue. *IT MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD* in this case.

The girl, prior to rebelling in her late teens gave a credible profession of faith and demonstrated an ability to self-examine _or she would not have been admitted to the Lord´s Table_.

Let me quote you:


> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> I absolutely do not deny that the Holy Spirit can work upon quite small children. There are many elderly Baptists who cannot remember a time when they didn't love the Lord because they came to Him so early in life. There is a little girl (6 years old) in our congregation who has very clearly professed repentance for her sins and faith in Jesus. I do not for a moment say that she has not been born again; *but if she has, it is by the word of Truth* (Jam 1:18 etc). I would add that little children will often say what they think their parents want to hear. Until there is clear evidence of regeneration in her life and until she reaches an age where she is more independent, I would make no assumptions about her.



Is that 6 year old girl in your congregation baptized? Let´s assume not because you want to make extra sure that she is truly regenerate because we know that the reprobate are not baptized.  Let´s pretend that there´s another girl JUST LIKE HER in your congregation. Same age. Same evidence of regeneration. We´ll call her Mary. Mary is baptized at age 12. Let´s assume further that Mary, at age 16, begins to rebel against the faith. Your Church prays for her for TWO years "“ so regularly, in fact, that it seems like you and the Church have given her over as a HOPELESS CAUSE (what the heck does that mean anyway). Anyway, Mary visits an OPC Church one day where she hears some Presbyterian minister accidentally get the Gospel right in between telling all the parents that their children are saved no matter what and she is convicted of Sin and believes in Christ. She then goes home to her Reformed Baptist father and says "œDad, everything is going to be OK now. I´ve accepted Christ." Her father explodes saying: "œWhat?! We thought you were regenerate at age 6 but we waited until you were 12 to make extra sure!"

The dismayed Minister then realizes that we don´t baptize because we know somebody is regenerate and sees the problem with his Theology so he posts on his favorite Reformed Board asking people what to do.

One of his good Reformed friends replies: *BECOME A PRESBYTERIAN!*

[Edited on 2-9-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Steve Owen

Larry wrote:-


> Ps 8:2 (cf. Matt 21:16)
> "Out of the mouth of infants and suckling babes You have prepared praise for Yourself."
> 
> Ps 22:9-10
> "Yet You are He who brought me forth from the womb; <<>> when upon my mother's breasts. Upon You I was cast from birth; <<>>"
> 
> Matt 18:6
> "... these little ones who believe in Me ..."
> 
> Luke 1:44
> "For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy."
> 
> Hebr 11:23,24:
> "By faith Moses when he was born..."
> "By faith Moses when he had grown up..."



Are you really offering these verses as exegetical proof of infant faith? Surely not. You have entirely missed the point of Psalm 8:2. The children who ran alongside our Lord as He entered Jerusalem were certainly not 'babes and nursing infants.' Look at 1Cor 1:27 for the proper understanding of this verse.

"By faith Moses when he was born...." His own faith? I think not! '......was hidden three months *by his parents* because........they were not afraid of the king's commands."

The only verse that remotely suggests infant faith is Luke 1:44, and this was a miraculous sign indicating the birth of the Lord. I no more expect to see this repeated than to see angels in the sky every night singing, "Glory to God in the highest"!

Your hermeneutic is at fault. Chasing up every reference to infants that you can find cannot obscure the plain teaching of our Lord in John 3. * 'Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.........That which is born of the flesh is flesh.'*


> We should teach our children in such a way as to engender faith and feed it,



 But we do not do that by giving them a false sense of security.

Martin

[Edited on 2-10-2006 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Steve Owen

Rich wrote:-


> Martin "“ you believe the fact that she partook of the Lord's Supper has no bearing upon the issue. IT MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD in this case.
> 
> The girl, prior to rebelling in her late teens gave a credible profession of faith and demonstrated an ability to self-examine or she would not have been admitted to the Lord´s Table.


But Rich, there is not the slightest suggestion in Renihan's article that the girl had made a profession or that she was taking the Lord's Supper. You are reading this into the text because you think it suits your case. Bad hermeneutics, sir!


> Is that 6 year old girl in your congregation baptized? Let´s assume not because you want to make extra sure that she is truly regenerate because we know that the reprobate are not baptized.



Now Rich, you know better than this. I can't give you more than B- for your spoof because the Baptist father wouldn't throw his daughter out, he'd just baptize her again 

That's all from me, on this thread anyway. I've got to stop spending so much time here. Cheerio!

Martin


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Rich wrote:-
> 
> 
> 
> Martin "“ you believe the fact that she partook of the Lord's Supper has no bearing upon the issue. IT MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD in this case.
> 
> The girl, prior to rebelling in her late teens gave a credible profession of faith and demonstrated an ability to self-examine or she would not have been admitted to the Lord´s Table.
> 
> 
> 
> But Rich, there is not the slightest suggestion in Renihan's article that the girl had made a profession or that she was taking the Lord's Supper. You are reading this into the text because you think it suits your case. Bad hermeneutics, sir!
Click to expand...

Not bad hermaneutics at all. This isn't Scripture Martin. Renihan presents a case for his purposes and leaves out information that I have every right to fill in as a Confessional Presbyterian who understands and practices it. I have never met a 14 year old girl who is not a communicant member that did not cause concern among a faithful family. The father is presented as someone who believes his daughter to be regnerate at age 16 when he is angered that she might not have been.

Had she, well before age 14, shown signs of reprobation that she could not understand or embrace the faith enough to admit her to the Lord's Table it would have sent this father into the roof much earlier. If he presumed her regenerate, her lack of participation would have caused him great alarm. In other words, _he couldn't possibly have believed she was regenerate if she wasn't a communicant member._

This is _good and necessary inference_. The fact of the matter is the type of faith in rebellion is a cognitive, confession of faith and not merely some presumptive infant faith that never expressed itself beyond coos and gurglings. The same story could be replicated in a Baptist Church. The Baptised age of the girl in this case is immaterial. 

If you don't believe my inference then ask Renihan to check with the Pastor to see if she was a communicant member. It's easy enough to find out as we're not talking about the story of people who have been dead for centuries here. It's just plain silly to accuse someone of bad hermaneutics when you don't have to even debate hermaneutical method to find the ground truth to something. I'm filling in the details for you because you don't understand Presbyterians very well.

Why are you upset about the story? I am representing a hypothetical. At least I didn't use a real situation, using the sad story of real Reformed Baptists, and then represent it as typical of your beliefs. If my hypothetical causes exasperation then perhaps a real story, with details recast, might cause the same for others.

I hope time permits you to return. I very much enjoy your posts and the ability to interact.

The Lord bless you and your ministry.

[Edited on 2-10-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Steve Owen

Joseph wrote, a little while back:-


> Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
> Until there is clear evidence of regeneration in her life and until she reaches an age where she is more independent, I would make no assumptions about her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your statement is flatly untrue. On the contrary you presume that all little children are unregenerate, despite any evidence.
Click to expand...


I do not _presume_ that all children come into the world unregenerate, I know it because the word of God tells me so. I have posted the various texts to that effect above and note that you have made no mention of them. With regard to the child in question, you are quite wrong. She may well be born again and I pray that she is. However, we will wait to see if she continues in her profession as she grows up. I have posted my reasons for that above. 


> I believe in Presumptive Regeneration, while you seem to believe in Presumptive Reprobation.


On the contrary, I believe in _Hopeful Regeneration_  But I presume nothing (Rom 9:15 ).

Rich asked:-


> Why are you upset about the story?


I am not. Nothing you say will upset me, brother. The little fire-breathing man was concerning multiple baptisms of backsliders. It was an attempt at humour which obviously sank without trace!

But your hermeneutic is still rubbish! Your inference may or may not be good, but it is certainly not necessary. 

Definitely last appearance (for a while).

Blessings to all,

Martin


----------



## Larry Hughes

Martin,



> But we do not do that by giving them a false sense of security.
> 
> Martin



I always love your zeal and you know that, in a trench I'd want you with me, but this is where we decisively differ, its just the facts of life as they say. 

Anyone of adult age can deny the Gospel word or sacrament. 

If by "trusting" in my baptism you mean Rome, ex opera operato, then we agree. Just as a man can ex opera operato trust in the work of deciding for the Gospel as in decissionism (The SB plague).

However, if by trusting in my baptism we mean in so much as it was given me as only the Gospel can be (given) and I receive it (irrespective of time), and within it (baptism) is the Gospel (which is the whole point of communicating to the believer "baptized into Christ's death...raised to the newness of life) in which I passively receive (the only way to have the Gospel, that is faith, naked trust) then we disagree.

Like wise when the Word of the Cross comes to me. I trust it passively, nakedly and alone, not my decission for it nor "a faith" that actively exerts itself. Rather true faith passively suffers to receive the mercy of God in Christ alone (for it cannot rest in anything else, not even itself). Faith is like a dark room into which light has shown and rebounds, it merely receives passively and is likewise passively reflexive. Thus, God rewards His own work from start to finish.

Coming from your perspective, which I respect, one should not trust their baptism because fundamentally it is not perceived primarily as God's baptism issuing forth the Gospel for faith sovereignly administered in providence (time and space).

To put a short summary to it I believe this is accurate and I think you would agree with me on the two perspectives: Baptism from your grasp is given "primarily" (that is weighted) BECAUSE of faith. Baptism from my grasp is given "primarily" (that is weighted) FOR faith. 

That's why you would rarely find a baptist in a struggle with assurance and the devil throwing spiritual warfare at him casting doubts onto him due to his sin struggles what-ever they are saying, "No Satan you are a liar, I have been baptized." Meaning I trust in God's mercy inspite of myself. 

This is a great loss to many. For in baptism God has come specifically to act on the person, not just generalities. The same applies to the Lord's Table, that's why the sacraments are so important - their "to the individual" faith building (that is the Gospel comes TO me FOR me). And this is a tremendous weapon under suffering. 

Grace and peace,

Larry

[Edited on 2-17-2006 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## Semper Fidelis




----------



## polemic_turtle

Just asking, but is your distinction about baptism "because (of) faith"( because I believe ) and "for faith"( so that I might believe[?] ) implying that your faith is based upon different things, one being the basis of baptism and the other having baptism for its basis?

If so, what would you please inform one who is unversed in such things how that in making such a distinction, one is not putting trust in earthly ordinances*?

*( I don't know if that's a proper term, but I'm trying to signify things which we practice here on Earth )

*Interested, merely interested.*


----------



## AdamM

Tyler, in the Westminster Standards, the warrant for baptism is not the presumed faith of the infant, but rather the infant's right as a member of the covenant (by birth) to the sign and seal of the covenant.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> Tyler, in the Westminster Standards, the warrant for baptism is not the presumed faith of the infant, but rather the infant's right as a member of the covenant (by birth) to the sign and seal of the covenant.



Adam,
Thats not what the confession says..........

I. 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

How can one be _ingrafted_ if one does not have faith?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> Tyler, in the Westminster Standards, the warrant for baptism is not the presumed faith of the infant, but rather the infant's right as a member of the covenant (by birth) to the sign and seal of the covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adam,
> Thats not what the confession says..........
> 
> I. 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
> 
> How can one be _ingrafted_ if one does not have faith?
Click to expand...


The same way one can be removed from the vine for not abiding by faith in Christ.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> Tyler, in the Westminster Standards, the warrant for baptism is not the presumed faith of the infant, but rather the infant's right as a member of the covenant (by birth) to the sign and seal of the covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adam,
> Thats not what the confession says..........
> 
> I. 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
> 
> How can one be _ingrafted_ if one does not have faith?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same way one can be removed from the vine for not abiding by faith in Christ.
Click to expand...


Gabriel,
True; possible I should have worded that differently; Those that are truly regenerate will remain. Forgiveness of sins is only delegated to the faithful.

Our job as the faithful are to hold fast the same faith that Abraham held to. In regards to our children, I will presume until that time they apostasize the faith. Hence, the WCF implies the same.

[Edited on 3-27-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Larry Hughes

Turtle,

I Love that name, cracks me up just writing it!



> Just asking, but is your distinction about baptism "because (of) faith"( because I believe ) and "for faith"( so that I might believe[?] ) implying that your faith is based upon different things, one being the basis of baptism and the other having baptism for its basis?
> 
> If so, what would you please inform one who is unversed in such things how that in making such a distinction, one is not putting trust in earthly ordinances*?
> 
> *( I don't know if that's a proper term, but I'm trying to signify things which we practice here on Earth )
> 
> *Interested, merely interested.*



I'm not 100% sure what you are asking, but I'll try. Faith has but one basis purely and singularly and that is Christ's person, work, death, resurrection FOR ME. In short there is not other faith that is saving or real. This we agree on in naked principle.

"œFor faith" Vs. "œBecause of Faith": This is not to argue in favor of one or the other but merely to point out the distinction that neither side, I think, would deny. Although, one likely can always find disagreeables in any group as we all too well know.

Baptism is primarily based upon the Gospel nakedly in and of itself, and not upon the faith that receives it. Fundamentally that is the difference and we could just stop there. In other words if faith doesn´t exist it doesn´t invalidate God´s sign any more than if the Gospel is PROCAIMED via the voice of the pastor is not invalidated if the "œhearer" hears but does not hear. Baptism is not predicated upon the receptacle of faith, it in fact can help create, due to its linkage to the Word of Gospel, and does indeed sustain that receptacle. That indeed is what is meant by dead with Christ and alive with Him.

As such it is "œFOR faith" just as much as is the naked Word of the Gospel spoken is FOR faith to initiate, strengthen and sustain faith. This is why both Lutheran and Continental Reformers could say in times of spiritual warfare and internal accusations from Satan, "No I'm AM baptized." Now there are some "nots" that go with that so as to be perfectly clear what is and is not being said. In a minute.

"Because of" is more of the Credo position, that is faith must pre-exist in all cases. Ergo the infant difference. This is why the credo would not likely say in similar situations, "œNo I´m AM baptized."

From the paedeo side of the equation this is tantamount to saying that faith must pre-exist the Gospel itself. In other words what is signified in baptism, the Gospel, IS actually given, thus, to say that faith must precede it is in this sense absurd. The denial of it, the Gospel, in naked word or sacrament with word annexed to it, simply is greater condemnation because the gift is actually given, those who reject it reject it at great peril to their souls - either way by Word or Word IN the Sacrament. The rejecters of Word or Baptism reject and in essence turn their nose up at the gift of God, Gospel, for their own righteousness. The gift is still valid, Word or Word/Sacrament, the lack of faith never invalidates the real gift. The Holy Spirit operates through the means of the Word and Sacrament and that is HIS work not ours, ours is to proclaim and baptize. It is just like Paul said in Romans concerning circumcision, just because some of Israel rejected it "“ it is not as if the Word of God, in Word or Sacrament, failed for its validity rests not in the receptacle of faith but is the gift itself.

The nots. Resting in one´s baptism is not resting in the work itself because in view here is not that my work did it but baptism is God´s gift to me, not my effort. I´m instrumental as is the pastor but such are merely tools in the hands of the Sovereign/providential God Who operates via means by His choice. The error of both Rome and some Credos is actually strikingly similar: Rome divorces baptism from Christ by making it in and of itself a work, ex opera operato. Some Credo´s do the same thing by linking it to the receptacle of faith and not Christ Himself, PRIMARILY. Some would defend and say, "œYes but the faith which links baptism is saving faith in the Saviour Himself. And to this it is a smidge better than Rome but misses the point of Baptism altogether for it rest immediately in Christ not faith. Visually, it is like this:

Looking is analogous to faith here:

Rome looks through baptism that in essence reflects back to the doer of the work, hence ex opera operato. Ergo, all the extra works, indulgences to appease the troubled Roman conscience. Christ is lost sight of.

Credo policy looks through baptism that in essence reflects back to the believer´s faith, it´s not stictly ex opera operato but it does look back to faith and is in essence faith in faith because baptism here rests and is established on faith itself rather than Christ. Ergo, baptism here cannot appease the troubled conscience either and at length re-dedication, re-baptism, re-this or that, internal searchings of fruit and other scrapings of the conscience. Again, Christ is lost sight of in terms of baptism directly.

Reformed can look and rest upon baptism not because of a work done or that it rests in faith itself but it rests in Christ. Thus, when Satan accuses and sin are struggled with the Reformed can say, "œNo I AM baptized", and find peace because "œI AM baptized" is a tantamount statement of "œChrist crucified and risen FOR ME alone is my faith, hope and assurance."

I hope that helps. Grace and peace,

Larry


----------



## AdamM

> How can one be ingrafted if one does not have faith?



Scott, I think we have to be careful to not confuse the sign with the thing signified by the sign. So baptism being the sign and seal of the COG, does not imply the recipient possesses the substance of the covenant, that the sign and seal represent. It is only through the reception by faith (of course not tied to the moment of administration) that the sacrament becomes an effectual means of grace for the elect.

Here is what the WSC & WLC say about the warrant for baptizing infants:



> WSC Q. 95. To whom is baptism to be administered?
> A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him; * but the infants of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptized. *





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



Note the rationale given in the W Stds for baptizing infants is that as members of the visible church (historical administration of the covenant), the infant has right to the sign and seal of the covenant. 

The looking at what the W LC section that explains the visible church/invisible church distinction, the Stds specifically state that membership in the visible church does not necessarily equal membership in the invisible church: 



> Q. 61. Are all they saved who hear the gospel, and live in the church?
> A. * All that hear the gospel, and live in the visible church, are not saved*; but they only who are true members of the church invisible.


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> 
> How can one be ingrafted if one does not have faith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott, I think we have to be careful to not confuse the sign with the thing signified by the sign. So baptism being the sign and seal of the COG, does not imply the recipient possesses the substance of the covenant, that the sign and seal represent. It is only through the reception by faith (of course not tied to the moment of administration) that the sacrament becomes an effectual means of grace for the elect.
> 
> Here is what the WSC & WLC say about the warrant for baptizing infants:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WSC Q. 95. To whom is baptism to be administered?
> A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him; * but the infants of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptized. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WLC Q. 166. Unto whom is baptism to be administered?
> A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, * but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Note the rationale given in the W Stds for baptizing infants is that as members of the visible church (historical administration of the covenant), the infant has right to the sign and seal of the covenant.
> 
> The looking at what the W LC section that explains the visible church/invisible church distinction, the Stds specifically state that membership in the visible church does not necessarily equal membership in the invisible church:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q. 61. Are all they saved who hear the gospel, and live in the church?
> A. * All that hear the gospel, and live in the visible church, are not saved*; but they only who are true members of the church invisible.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia




----------



## Scott Bushey

I understand what you are saying, however, how would you apply this in viewing your own child? How did Abraham? Would you look for an experience or event to mark the regeneration & conversion? When would you conclude your child is in fact 'saved'? On their deathbed; because, until that time, in light of the perseverance sustained, how could you ever conclude anything outside of the faith you have been called to have & that is what Westminster refers to.

Dr N. lee writes:


> Baptists rightly *presume* their proposed baptizees to be *believers*. *Consistent* Paedobaptists do the same. But God alone knows whether those thus presumed, really did believe before baptism or not.




[Edited on 3-28-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## wsw201

Scott,

Are you saying along with Dr. Lee that Presbyterians are like Baptists in that the grounds for Baptism is that the recipient is regenerated?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Scott,
> 
> Are you saying along with Dr. Lee that Presbyterians are like Baptists in that the grounds for Baptism is that the recipient is regenerated?



I am saying, along w/ Dr. Lee, that to be in line w/ Westminster and remain consistant w/ historic Presbyterianism, one would have to _presume_ that; so, yes.

[Edited on 3-29-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Larry Hughes

Again, it is not correct to base baptism or circumcision INTO faith´s actuality, authenticity, certainty or veracity. That at a minimum obscures and at worse strips the sign´s primary basis which is Christ. Furthermore, it sets off pointless pedantry over whether or not an infant, can, does or God would give them faith - trying to be like God by unproductively peering into His secret council, looking with finite eyes over the infinitely high wall of eternity trying to discover to whom the Holy Spirit distributes faith and regeneration. It ends up down a worthless rabbit trail and is at length a red herring, a which came first the chicken or the egg argument. None of which build up the faith of the flock but in fact tear it down. I cannot tell you the minute or second that I was born in 1965, nor whether I drew in my air correctly, all I know is that I breath and live today "“ thus it so with faith and rebirth.

On the one hand we, reformed, would agree with say Luther that Baptism strengthen´s faith, but on the other Baptism as a sacrament does not cause faith. We can also say what is given is really given, namely the promise contained therein, the Gospel. Now we can say it, Baptism, initiates faith when the Word is annexed to it but this is not similar to say Luther on this issue. How so? Faith is the secret working of the Holy Spirit through the Word. The Word can be naked, proclaiming the Gospel or connected the Gospel in the sign/seal. But what is this difference from say Luther? It is this: A child who is baptized in infancy will grow up and say in essence, "œDaddy, why was I baptized?" Then the parent will proclaim the Gospel in the sign given to him/her, particularly, that is impressed on him in baptism. That is the Gospel came particularly to them via baptism. Proclaiming the Gospel assumes that one will also proclaim the Law that that child/we broke, break and continually hence the continual need of grace for therein. This is where and how it can be the initiator of faith.

But what is the problem with linking Baptism TO faith as its basis (primary basis, that is without which it is not), other than it´s thoroughly unbiblical?

One has to get right down to the individual and psychological level of the person to really see the effects of one´s understanding of baptism. Because that is where the "œrubber meets the road" not in the theory alone. One cannot stay high in the theoretical atmosphere on this issue. Because how one understands this affects greatly one´s over all faith and walk in the faith. Hypothetical wrangles are necessary to a point, but it is heartless and loveless to leave it in the stratosphere because there are real Christians, real people of Christ affected by this every single day. If the devil can keep it out of reach in the stratosphere then he has won a victory. Right or wrong is not so important to him as is not having it to be of any good to a man. A man can be 100% right, just as long as it doesn´t effect that man.

The reason one cannot base Baptism IN faith itself is due to the nature of all sacraments as gracious, very gracious condescensions to our weakness. If Baptism is primarily based in faith itself then it cannot survive the assaults of the devil and the internal flesh. If it is anchored primarily in faith itself it will be of no use under suffering and persecution. If it is anchored in faith, as some say, it can and does survive external suffering and persecution to a point, suffering and persecution that is say, from the sword. That is when someone external to me persecutes me FOR my faith I can survive this somewhat even if my view of baptism is that it is based upon faith. BUT when Satan and flesh internalize and assault and hold before my eyes continually my failures and condemnation under the Law, or make me feel and experience as though God has abandoned me, these kind of sufferings and persecutions, which are ample in the Psalms and which is the central testimony of Christ AT the Cross (My God, My God why hast Thou forsaken Me), are a direct assault upon faith itself. 

This is Satan´s primary target at all times. Not an indirect assault from outside. The outside assaults (by the sword, jail, etc"¦), when they do come, are merely ways at getting inside the believer to his/her faith"¦the main and sole object of Satan. However, when Satan only directly internally assaults with his alley the flesh, when this happens and one begins to be terrorized, as the devil assaults, "œHas God really said"¦just look at you, look at your constant sin in thought, word and deed"¦are you sure you are a Christian"¦are you sure you possess saving faith"¦etc"¦", then one begins to think, "œDo I really believe? Perhaps my faith is false faith"¦what shall I do?" the false view of baptism based upon faith is shown for what it is. Suffering burns up all false trustings. When faith is so internally assaulted (again which the Psalms abundantly testify to) which is the worse kind of suffering of all, for such persons are not even scared of physical death hence suicidal thoughts of many of the suffering Christians, then we see the necessity and the wonderful condescension of the sacraments, such as baptism. 

But this can only be true if Baptism is based in Christ and the Gospel of Christ immediately and not indirectly even by faith itself. Otherwise you no longer have real baptism, that is if it is primarily anchored in faith. Because if baptism is based in faith under such grievous sufferings and assaults, primarily (hence as some say the need for faith before baptism), and faith is the very thing being assaulted, especially inwardly, then this view of baptism is a dry cistern with holes, impotent and worthless. Because FAITH is the very thing being assaulted and one is being bent inward to "œfind faith", or faith in faith rather being drawn outwardly to Christ where faith alone IS. When the Sacrament is anchored in the promise of God via the Word (Gospel Word), then baptism is a mighty weapon. For like the Word it pulls a man OUT of Himself and fixes his eyes back on the cross external to him FOR HIM, where alone faith is initiated and sustained and strengthened. And this is deadly important under the assaults of Satan and flesh which are primarily internal because they are assaulting not the body but faith itself, they are warring with what God graciously gave you, your body is a trifle secondary to such battles. When baptism is anchored securely in Christ alone, the Gospel, it is a mighty weapon for not only does it re-give the Gospel to which it is based, again not faith the receptacle, but baptism is particular and specific to me/you"¦to the man, that is "œI am the one actually baptized." 

The only way Satan has been able to steal this from us is to offer up a false theology on baptism which anchors it in faith itself. Hence, the tormented souls who either have wrestled with re-baptism, re-dedications, wrestling endlessly in prayer for salvation or have in fact been re-baptized under this scheme. Those who have suffered these assaults from Satan IMMEDIATELY know what is being said here, regardless of denominational affiliation. This why Luther, Calvin, Beza, et. Ali said the Anabaptist view (believers only) was a worthless empty sign. It literally is barren under this scheme. Hence we see Satan´s dual assault on the Gospel during the reformation; on the one side making it, Baptism/sacarments, a work (Rome) and a fool´s deception, i.e. a fool´s hope in their works; and on the other side making it worthless to true Christians who suffer. The terror and panic over "œam I saved and how can I know" is strikingly similar among: 1. Historically Roman Catholics on the one side and the Anabaptist on the other side, and 2. Today Roman Catholics on the one side and non-reformed/non-Lutheran on the other side. This is why persons like John Smyth wanted one more dunk even upon his own death bed, you can actually see Satan assaulting him at this very point by this historical account.

This is why Luther correctly points out that Baptism cannot retain its testimony if it is not given to infants of believers also. Why? Because at length, as Credo policy shows openly (believers only = regenerate/ possession of faith), baptism becomes, if given to adults only who can profess faith and ergo possible really be regenerate and in possession of that faith, linked and based in faith itself which is not its primary testimony. At length this becomes a generic testimony. Why? Testimony means one is giving evidence, witness and demonstration of a thing. And if baptism is PRIMARILY, based or must necessarily be founded in faith, such that without it "“ it is not baptism, then the testimony over time IS in fact generic. Mormons baptism bears testimony to their faith to, such as it is. But Christian baptism does not bear witness primarily to faith first or even the believer first but to Christ Who is the Lord of the believer receiving the clothing of Christ in baptism to which faith is secondary and derivative. The enemies of the United States do not shoot at our military men because their uniforms are primarily THEIR uniforms, their uniforms do not primarily testify to the men. No, they shoot at our troops because the testimony of their uniforms is to the country/king to which they war against, namely the United States and secondary to that is the allegiance of the man and the uniform he bears. If uniform wearers are the primary testimony, then what´s the difference in a man with a McDonald´s uniform and Marine Recon uniform? Yes, I partial to marines that´s what my dad was. Likewise, if "œfaith" is the primary thing rather than Christ immediately in baptism, then at length baptism becomes a generic testimony and highly individualistic rather than united under one banner. This is also evident in the plague of "œtestimony stories" in which men are pointed not to the Crucified one directly but at "œmy testimony/experience".

Calvin brilliantly shows the purpose of sacraments (and similar to Luther here) in the sign of the rainbow post-flood. Because that sign, which we still see today, is anchored not in my/your faith but God´s promise, unbelievers do not change the significance of that sign. They can deny it but it still remains eternally true as God´s promise which cannot change. It matter not one wit whether observers believe it or not. Now it is true that it requires faith to see it as true and God´s promise, to see it for what it is and not just a phenomena of refracting light, but the sign is not based upon that faith"¦rather it is FOR that faith/trust.

Grace and peace,

Ldh


----------



## Scott Bushey

Larry,
Having said all you did, do you _presume_ along w/ Calvin, Luther and Westminster?


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Larry,
> Having said all you did, do you _presume_ along w/ Calvin, Luther and Westminster?



I can't speak for Larry, but I don't. Especially since Calvin, Luther or Westminster never held to PR.

As you well know Scott, PR came out of the Dutch Reformed church and was discarded by them as well. The Presbyterian churches, regardless of what Schenck says, did not and do not hold to this error.

The grounds of baptism are and always will be the command and promise of God. And the promise is not that we should presume upon the Holy Spirit that He has regenerated an infant.

You really need to rethink this position Scott. It can lead to all kinds of weird stuff.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Wayne,
It has been shown on numerous occasions that it is you who has diverted from the historic position that Calvin, Luther and Westminster held. Your saying that it is dangerous to presume is akin to saying that it is dangerous to understand Chritianity.


----------



## wsw201

Actually, it has not been shown to me that I have diverted from the historic Reformed position, which, for Presbyterians, is reflected in the Westminster Standards, not Calvin and Luther. We all have our favorite theologians. I think Calvin was one of the most brilliant teachers God has ever graced His church with, but he is not the Church.

If you personally want to believe that your child was regenerate prior to baptism, you can, but there is no evidence that the church has ever taken this position, ie; PR as the grounds for baptism. In fact what you are advocating as the grounds for baptism is the position that I believe Abraham Kuyper took, which inturn was rejected by the Dutch church. Berkhoff has a section in his Systematic on this. I'll recheck it when I get home.


----------



## AdamM

Scott, I think the warrant for baptism and the question of presumptive regeneration are separate issues. One could hold to a PR position and yet still confess with the Westminster Standards that the ground for baptism is the recipients´ relationship to the visible church. Justifying baptism based upon covenant membership, without regard for regeneration one way or the other is what sets our Presbyterian position off against our credo Baptist brethren. 

Wayne, I think you correct in regard to PR. The Westminster Standards certainly don´t explicitly teach a PR view and I agree fully with Sinclair Ferguson, that when studied, the W Stds best fit a mediating position somewhere between PR and PNR.

[Edited on 3-30-2006 by AdamM]


----------



## Larry Hughes

Scott,

To answer the question. I don´t presume regeneration has or has not taken place either way because I don´t anchor baptism IN faith itself nor that faith must precede it. I anchor it in Christ and the Gospel of Christ immediately (directly, without intermediaries, plainly and nakedly). If I went down that path I would have to go down that same empty and Christless path for adults of uselessly peering into eternity or within myself, spiritually starving to death and trying to find food by looking behind, around and beyond the very food straight away in front of my very face.

It´s why I say baptism is FOR faith and not BECAUSE of faith. Baptism simply does not depend upon faith. Since I don´t anchor baptism in faith then I don´t anchor it in regeneration either. And since I don´t anchor (base, establish, found, define its existence, etc"¦) it in faith or regeneration but the promise of God, then I don´t presume or presume not either way. Baptism "œcomes into being", if you will, because God breathed it forth in His Word, not because of secondary or reflexive causes like faith or regeneration. If no man on earth ever believed, hypothetically, then baptism would still be valid because it is based upon God´s promise, not the faith and not regeneration. Thus, I don´t put my trust "œin regeneration" nor do I see it as the thing to which I point my children or any man to in as a word or the basis of a sacrament. To command "œBE regenerate" is as empty as it sounds. It would be like me standing in front of a fruit tree and say, "œApple come forth". We don´t say it so crassly but we do communicate that foolishness, "œBrother are you born again? Or Are you regenerate?" is the exact same communication. Those churches that become stuck on regeneration and "œregenerate churches only" at length loose the Gospel witness altogether.

True we are to be born again (John 6) but how is that so? The call is not to or by regeneration, the call is to the Gospel, the Gospel gives the life. Calling to regeneration, rebirth and so forth is in fact just empty words. Becoming fixed upon regeneration is to loose sight of that which we are called to - the Christ crucified and risen for us. Paul does not say, "œI rejoice because you where not called by fancy arguments but by regeneration". No, he says, "œI rejoice because you where called by the Gospel." Paul does not say, (Romans 10: 14/15) "œHow then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO announce"¦are you regenerate!" The crescendo kind of falls flat doesn´t it. No Paul says, "œ"¦HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!" And keep in mind that the Gospel call is not just some initial thing done at the beginning of true rebirth, it is the continual call to the Christian already and world. Hebrews says we are to FIX our eyes upon the AUTHOR and FINISHER of our faith.
Luther, I assure you, did not presume regeneration for Luther saw baptism as causal itself. This is where he and say Calvin would have departed, but the point is "“ is that Luther obviously did not presume regeneration prior to baptism for he saw baptism as causal of that very thing. One could not very well say an effect precedes its cause (In Luther´s case).

When Calvin and Beza and the early reformers said the Anabaptist view created an empty sign it was for that very reason that they did so. It was empty because it was not anchored in the promise/Word of God that does in fact cause regeneration and faith. Whether an infant or adult actually possesses faith and is regenerate before or after baptism is irrelevant to the primary witness of Baptism. Because another man´s faith even if signified by baptism, will not bring me to faith. And if it did it would be false faith. Oh, I can admire another man´s conviction to faith, his bravado and so forth, but what is that to me? What about me the sinner in the hands of a holy God? That´s why baptism points to and gives the promise of God, not to faith itself or even to regeneration. "œDo you have saving faith, do you believe, are you born again, are you regenerate?" Does absolutely nothing, there´s no message in that, no Good News. But, "œJesus Christ who was testified to in the Law and Prophets, circumcision and baptism, the Passover and the Lord´s Supper, Who was brutally crucified, Whose blood was shed and body broken, Whose crucifixion was a baptism, Who was sinless, Who was righteous, Who is risen, Who is now at the right hand of God FOR ME." Now that´s a message that gives life, repentance, and faith. And THAT is what baptism immediately points to and is immediately anchored in.

When the Scriptures say believe and be baptized it is not saying "œdo this thing whereby you earn salvation". The "œbelieving and the baptism is not a command "œto do" in order "œTO receive". Rather "œbelieve and be baptized" is a call of cessation from "œdoing" in order to gain and the baptism is handed to you as it where as pure gift. To reject the message and baptism is to reject the Gospel, not faith or regeneration. To my children who have been baptized I show them this tremendous inheritance, which presumes their sin and need of Christ. They do by God´s grace have tremendous advantage over someone who in a far away land may never hear of it "“ the grace is that great. And spurning that grace would be just that much more severe. For a child or adult for that matter to later "˜throw off´ their baptism would be to throw off the Gospel, throw off Christ, throw off the wedding clothes, throw off the blood of Christ and seek a righteousness of your own "“ which leads to death.

Grace and peace,

Larry


----------



## Larry Hughes

Maybe one thing would help further clear this up that I thought of. We have to distinguish between our "œpoint of view" or "œseeing", as revealed, finitely, by God and God´s. I´m not saying God doesn´t regenerate apart from an infant´s or mentally incapable adult´s conscious or cognizant ability to grasp the Gospel. That would be to go, again into the realm of eternity and try to be like God. What I´m saying is purely from man´s view and what are we to do? I.e., 1. We cannot see the secret regeneration of infants or others in any case, 2. God alone does in any case, 3. All we are given is the Gospel to proclaim in Word and Sacrament whereby the Holy Spirit is promised to effect as the Father wills and the Son has accomplished.

Maybe that will help better.

Blessings,

Ldh


----------



## Scott Bushey

So, do you all disagree with Lee's conclussion:



> Baptists rightly *presume* their proposed baptizees to be *believers*. *Consistent* Paedobaptists do the same. But God alone knows whether those thus presumed, really did believe before baptism or not.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I certainly don't take "presume" in the fullest sense of the word. At best, I may "appear" to presume certain things regarding my chiild. I treat that child as if they are a Christian. And yet, I also preach an unfeigned gospel to them, and call them to exercise faith in Christ. Of course, I do the same thing with all the adult church members as well...

If treating someone in a prescribed way is "presumption" in someone's book, so be it. But I would add a healthy dose of realism into that pot of presumption too. My children are baptized _on the basis of_ the Scriptural command, and not _on the basis_ of anything I may or may not think about the child's state of soul.

The fact that infants can have a living seed of true faith (along with good soil and effective husbandry), as well as the gift of the Holy Spirit (both demonstrable from Scripture itself) proves this much: that they are potential candidates for baptism anyway, on the sacramental analogy between the sign and the thing signified. But still "faith" or its profession cannot claim to be the "basis" upon which baptism is administered. And this is so because the true, Spirit-baptism is not predicated on faith already present. Baptism is most closely connected with the "washing of regeneration," and not to _conversion_ (where find "faith") in the _ordo._

Our paedo-baptist theology explicitly denies that the fruition of the reality must precede the sign, or must ever be present (in the case of reprobates old or young who have been baptized) for the church to have actually baptized a person. This is because the sign is not so "annexed" to the work of the Spirit that either the parts are infallibly joined together (WCF 29.5), or tied necessarily to the physical act according to the time of it (WCF 29.6).

The church-activity represents God's activity, but it does so in an imperfect, human, and adminstrative way. I think a non-nuanced definition or understanding of "presumption" will lead exactly where it has led so often in the past--to the place of ritualistic pattern-behavior, where baptism "makes a Christian" out of an individual just because they've been attached to the visible church. The notion of "treatment" strikes me as superior for this reason: it has a plain connection to discipline.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> I certainly don't take "presume" in the fullest sense of the word. At best, I may "appear" to presume certain things regarding my chiild. I treat that child as if they are a Christian. And yet, I also preach an unfeigned gospel to them, and call them to exercise faith in Christ.



Bruce,
Could you expound on the word 'exercise'?




> Of course, I do the same thing with all the adult church members as well...
> 
> If treating someone in a prescribed way is "presumption" in someone's book, so be it. But I would add a healthy dose of realism into that pot of presumption too.



Nothing wrong with that.





> My children are baptized _on the basis of_ the Scriptural command, and not _on the basis_ of anything I may or may not think about the child's state of soul.



So then, what exactly do you presume? When you baptize an adult, what will you presume?



> The fact that infants can have a living seed of true faith (along with good soil and effective husbandry), as well as the gift of the Holy Spirit (both demonstrable from Scripture itself) proves this much: that they are potential candidates for baptism anyway, on the sacramental analogy between the sign and the thing signified. But still "faith" or its profession cannot claim to be the "basis" upon which baptism is administered.



No one ever said that..........




> And this is so because the true, Spirit-baptism is not predicated on faith already present. Baptism is most closely connected with the "washing of regeneration," and not to _conversion_ (where find "faith") in the _ordo._



I agree



> Our paedo-baptist theology explicitly denies that the fruition of the reality must precede the sign, or must ever be present (in the case of reprobates old or young who have been baptized) for the church to have actually baptized a person.



With adult conversts, we look for a confession, and based upon that baptise them. We would never baptise someone whom did not have a positive confession.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Scott,
By "exercise" I mean the intelligent, willful act of saving faith. A little baby "sees" when he is first born (as long as he isn't blind); but he also "learns" to see, to make sense of what he's seeing, and to look deliberately at something--that is study it. No one, even a grown communicant member in a church, is "saved" on the basis of his faith/spiritual-sight way back when, but because he clings _today_ (just as he did back when) to Christ. He is saved by the faith he is in present possession of and exercises daily, moment by moment.

What do I "presume"? For anyone? I "presume" I'm going to treat this person as a Christian, according to Scripture's dictate. With the adult (or professor of any age) I also have his statement to operate on, so my "presumption" contains some additional objective criteria. Again, as I said, "presumption" (if you're going to use that word) has got to be nuanced, in every case. *I owe no one unreserved "presumption".*

In the case of the infant, I have even more reservation about my presumption. I am cast even further upon obedience to the command of Scripture. My actions are based almost entirely on faith and obedience. Unless you are prepared to equate "faith" and "presumption" (and I don't necessarily think that you are...) I don't see room here for unqualified presumption, and even less than the presumption I take with a visible professor.

I think that if you were making a full presumption, you would go to that place where gospel preaching _with the aim of seeing conversion among church youth_ would be nonsensical. Why do it? To do it would demonstrate a lack of faith (faith=presumption). If you do not give unqualifed presumption to older folks with blameless outward professions, why should you do more with those who have yet to evidence anything at all?

All I'm saying is that the major problem most uninformed, uninitiated persons will have with the use of words like "presume" is that they are not going to _presume_ that you intend any qualification to that language. Unless you say so. Unless you immediately start "taking back" from what a full presumption would most naturally entail.

Faith not the basis... OK, I accept that you don't think faith forms that basis, well and good, but some of the quotes above us can be taken (however erroneously) in that way. So I have to guard against that. I point out that since faith is a natural component of salvation, and that without a visible profession of it, adults musn't be baptized, and therefore, faith _in some form_ functions as a general prerequisite to baptism; for that reason we should expect to find some revelatory (biblical) evidence of faith-in-some-form in even the least candidates for baptism. And this we plainly find.

But the fact that it is thus found in the youngest as well as the older does not _for the reason of its presence_ (compounded by the fact of false professions) allow that faith constitute the *basis,* or even a portion of the basis, for baptism (in covenant theology). Otherwise we are back to "null" baptisms and "rebaptisms". When someone makes overmuch of presuming/ believing/ having faith that this child presented for baptism is regenerate, *whether he wants to or not, he is laying the faith principle right down there next to the cornerstone of the foundation of baptism.*


----------



## Scott Bushey

Bruce,
Do you agree with Nigel Lee's statement?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Bruce,
> Do you agree with Nigel Lee's statement?



I don't, personally. I would presume that God will be faithful to His promises.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Bruce,
> Do you agree with Nigel Lee's statement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't, personally. I would presume that God will be faithful to His promises.
Click to expand...


Is that not at the basis of Lee's statement?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Bruce,
> Do you agree with Nigel Lee's statement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't, personally. I would presume that God will be faithful to His promises.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that not at the basis of Lee's statement?
Click to expand...


It seems like he is presuming that God has already been faithful, and no "work" is left to be done. *shrug*


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Bruce,
> Do you agree with Nigel Lee's statement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't, personally. I would presume that God will be faithful to His promises.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that not at the basis of Lee's statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems like he is presuming that God has already been faithful, and no "work" is left to be done. *shrug*
Click to expand...


Gabriel,
With all due respect, you are _presuming_ that Lee intentions are that. Knowing him, in the same way you know Dr. McMahon and I, would you presume that of us as well?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

I guess in the end, it doesn't matter, unless it is taken to the extremes that FV proponents would. Either way, a child in a covenant home will be taught to repent and place their trust in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. Whether they have professed faith or not.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Bruce,
> Do you agree with Nigel Lee's statement?


Taken as a naked statement, extracted from the context of his article, I don't like the way it sounds. And I realize that may not be "fair" to the statement. And my way of reading it hs certain built-in biases. The language works for Dr. Lee. Great. He has a polemical right to use the term, and a whole paper to explain his usage.

I flat-out do not like the use of the word "presume". It has baggage, like it or not. As soon as you presume, you have to start qualifying it immediately unless it brooks no qualifying. I'd rather not use a term I have to keep defending and explaining. I need a better term: a plainer, simpler way of saying my piece. My needs are pastoral, not polemical.

Since our actions in baptism are based not on presumptions (although we will have some level of presumption present), but are based on faith in God and obedience to his Word, I don't _appeal_ to infant faith when defending paedo-baptism. If the question of "faith" comes up, or a credo-baptist insists that his position is superior because it is based solely on visible testimony, I can then point to the reality that at best his position contains _less_ presumption, but presumption none-the-less. Since we all use presumption, then we are forced back to the Word for an objective defense of our practice. The question of "genuine faith" recedes into the background.


As for the question you raise with Gabriel, I think I understand what you (or Matt) believe regarding the issue, and I don't think our positions are ultimately very dissimilar (practically identical). Our choices of 1) emphasis and 2) expression are what divide us. Not a big deal.

[Edited on 3-31-2006 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> So, do you all disagree with Lee's conclussion:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baptists rightly *presume* their proposed baptizees to be *believers*. *Consistent* Paedobaptists do the same. But God alone knows whether those thus presumed, really did believe before baptism or not.
Click to expand...


I disagree with the first part of the statement, as it concerns infants, and agree with the second part in that God only knows whom He has effectually called.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> So, do you all disagree with Lee's conclussion:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baptists rightly *presume* their proposed baptizees to be *believers*. *Consistent* Paedobaptists do the same. But God alone knows whether those thus presumed, really did believe before baptism or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree with the first part of the statement, as it concerns infants, and agree with the second part in that God only knows whom He has effectually called.
Click to expand...


Wayne,
You do not presume with the adult?


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> So, do you all disagree with Lee's conclussion:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baptists rightly *presume* their proposed baptizees to be *believers*. *Consistent* Paedobaptists do the same. But God alone knows whether those thus presumed, really did believe before baptism or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree with the first part of the statement, as it concerns infants, and agree with the second part in that God only knows whom He has effectually called.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wayne,
> You do not presume with the adult?
Click to expand...


An adult makes a profession of faith so there is no need to presume. This is why there is no disagreement between Baptists and Presbyterians when it comes to adult baptism. In addition a Session will look to see if the way they live their life is consistent with that profession.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> So, do you all disagree with Lee's conclussion:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baptists rightly *presume* their proposed baptizees to be *believers*. *Consistent* Paedobaptists do the same. But God alone knows whether those thus presumed, really did believe before baptism or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree with the first part of the statement, as it concerns infants, and agree with the second part in that God only knows whom He has effectually called.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wayne,
> You do not presume with the adult?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An adult makes a profession of faith so there is no need to presume. This is why there is no disagreement between Baptists and Presbyterians when it comes to adult baptism. In addition a Session will look to see if the way they live their life is consistent with that profession.
Click to expand...


Wayne,
C'mon! Outward works, i.e. professions, do not a Christian make. In fact, to hold the view that the profession is a guarantee is not presbyterian at all. You know that even the people baptised are _presumed_; you have to. We give everyone that makes a profession the presumptive benefit of the doubt. I don't need to tell you that there are unregenerates in Christs church.....


----------



## wsw201

You're kidding right? 

A profession of faith is not a work but is required. A profession is required of adults to be baptized and of parents when their children are baptized because children are under the headship of their parents and an infant is obviously incappable of making a profession. When they come of age then the child will be required to make a profession and become a communing member of the church. 

Without a profession of faith, how do you know anyone is a Christian? Doesn't Paul say "confess with your mouth and believe in your heart and you will be saved"? When someone becomes a member of a Presbyterian Church, don't they make a profession as to what they believe? Or should the church just ask them if they have been baptised and not require a profession? And no, a profession is not a guarantee. It never has been and never will be. But based on that profession, the Church will treat them as a Christian. 

BTW, I checked Berkhof and the idea that PR was the basis for Baptism was Kuypur's position and was rejected by the Dutch Church. So if you can find something that shows that the Church does base baptism on PR I would love to see it.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> And no, a profession is not a guarantee. It never has been and never will be.



So then, you presume?


----------



## polemic_turtle

Based upon the affirmation of a responsible soul without obvious contradiction by their lives? "Ye shall know them by their fruits." What other proof have we need or warrent to expect? Flashes of light for every convert? Methinks no other proof is possible or necessary, beyond a profession and a change of life that confirms it. Pentecost may have had enough hours in the day to baptize 3000, but, it would appear, not enough for background checks or even personal examination. Surely we need not do much more than _that_.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Tyler,
Still, you have no way of seeing into eternity; admit it, you and I presume!

[Edited on 4-25-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## polemic_turtle

Speak for yourself! ;-)

Admittedly so, however, since baptism shouldn't delay sanctification, that should be taking place to whatever degree possible, if the conversion is genuine.

We cannot know any more than what we can see and read, so we must accept by the same critera the Apostles did, which was a profession of faith, lineage notwithstanding.


----------



## DTK

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> The only real reference to any type of infant faith that I have heard of is from Turretin and that is "seed" faith. Matt has talked about this in other threads. You may want to do a search.
> 
> In my humble opinion, to subscribe "faith" or saving faith to an infant, is more than a bit speculative.


I'm inclined to agree Wayne, nonetheless Calvin did make allusion to this when he wrote...


> *John Calvin (1509-1564):* But, to insist still more stoutly upon this point, they add that baptism is a sacrament of repentance and of faith. Accordingly, since neither of these can come about in tender infancy, we must guard against admitting infants into the fellowship of baptism, lest its meaning be made empty and fleeting. But these darts are aimed more at God than at us. For it is very clear from many testimonies of Scripture that circumcision was also a sign of repentance [Jeremiah 4:4; 9:25; cf. Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6]. Then Paul calls it the seal of the righteousness of faith [Rom. 4:11]. Therefore, let a reason be required of God himself why he commanded it to be impressed on the bodies of infants. For since baptism and circumcision are in the same case, our opponents cannot give anything to one without conceding it to the other. If they have recourse to their usual way out, that the age of infancy then symbolized spiritual infants, their path is already blocked. We therefore say that, since God communicated circumcision to infants as a sacrament of repentance and of faith, it does not seem absurd if they are now made participants in baptism "” unless men choose to rage openly at God´s institution. But as in all God´s acts, so in this very act also there shines enough wisdom and righteousness to repel the detractions of the impious. For although infants, at the very moment they were circumcised, did not comprehend with their understanding what that sign meant, they were truly circumcised to the mortification of their corrupt and defiled nature, a mortification that they would afterward practice in mature years. *To sum up, this objection can be solved without difficulty: infants are baptized into future repentance and faith, and even though these have not yet been formed in them, the seed of both lies hidden within them by the secret working of the Spirit.* Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), IV.16.20, pp. 1342-1343.


Calvin doesn't call it "seed faith" _per se_, but as best I can understand him here, he speaks of the "seed of both" [i.e., of repentance and faith] is "hidden within them by the secret working of the Spirit." I think the key to understanding Calvin here is when he asserts that "infants are baptized into future repentance and faith."

Regardless of one's sentiments about him otherwise, John W. Riggs gives a helpful treatment of this subject in his book, _Baptism in the Reformed Tradition_, and one need not agree with everything he says to find his discussion helpful and thought-provoking. Moreover, anyone interested in the present day controversy over the Federal Vision theology will likewise benefit from Holifield Brooks historical discussion in his book, _The Covenant Sealed: the Development of Puritan Sacramental Theology in Old and New England, 1570-1720_. The latter book is somewhat difficult to come by and is expensive in its reprint edition from "UMI Books on Demand." I'll offer some sample quotes from these books...


> *John W. Riggs:* By contrast, the Reformed tradition has always held that the Christ who is offered through Word and sacrament does not happen _in_ the Word and sacrament. To make that claim would be to identify sign and reality too closely, mistaking the means of grace for the grace itself. See John W. Riggs, _Baptism in the Reformed Tradition: An Historical and Practical Theology_ (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), p. 123.





> *E. Brooks Holifield:* Nevertheless, Calvin had difficulty integrating baptism into his theology. He did not join Luther in seeking the Word "œin" the water and instructed his readers to look beyond "œthe visible element." He repeatedly cautioned that baptism was of benefit only to the elect; he repudiated emergency baptism; and he denied that the sacrament was necessary for salvation. In fact, Calvin emphasized so strongly the freedom of God in election that secondary means of salvation were superfluous. The ground of election was hidden in the Divine Will: we must "œalways at last return to the sole decision of God´s will, the cause of which is hidden in Him." Calvin frequently wrote as though that detracted in no way from the sacrament, but elsewhere he acknowledged that he was not prepared to "œbind the grace of God, or the power of the Spirit, to external symbols." Many received the sign, but the Spirit was bestowed on none but the elect. Since the sacrament had no efficacy without the Spirit, the reality of baptism, Calvin acknowledged, would be "œfound only in a few." E. Brooks Holifield, _The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Sacramental Theology in Old and New England, 1570-1720_ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), p. 16.


If I understood him correctly, the above quote reflects essentially what Dr. Clark said in his baptismal address, i.e., apart from Holifield's comments about Calvin's view of election. Holifield is, to be sure, speaking as a historical commentator as one outside of the Reformed Tradition looking in. I'll let Dr. Clark correct me as he may well do.


> *E. Brooks Holifield:* The tension emerged clearly in Calvin´s doctrine of infant baptism. Since faith was necessary for the perfection of baptism, and since infants could not demonstrate faith"”only the elect among them would ever persevere in it"”why baptize infants at all? *In the 1536 edition of the Institutes Calvin joined Luther in attributing some kind of faith to infants, but he dropped that idea after 1539.* He supported infant baptism by various appeals to Scripture, noting the apostolic practice of baptizing families and Jesus´ command that infants be brought to him. But Calvin´s main argument for infant baptism was based on the covenant motif, which first became prominent in his sacramental theology in the 1538 edition of the Geneva Catechism....But though baptism "œengrafted" children into the visible church, it did not actually place them within the covenant. It simply testified that they had been "œborn directly into the inheritance of the covenant." Since the inheritance was ultimately destined only for the elect, how could one say the testimony was reliable? Calvin confessed that many children of faithful Christians would "œthrust themselves out of the holy progeny through their unbelief." So even if infants were, as Calvin often argued, baptized for future repentance and faith, the sacrament itself offered no assurance that a child would in fact believe. E. Brooks Holifield, _The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Sacramental Theology in Old and New England, 1570-1720_ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), pp. 16-17.


The word "ambivalence" employed by Holifield in the next quote regarding Calvin and the Puritans is perhaps ill-used, but is otherwise (I think) close to accurate.


> *E. Brooks Holifield:* In adopting Calvin´s baptismal doctrine, however, the Puritans also inherited the characteristic Reformed ambivalence about external sacraments. Salvation, after all, rested ultimately on the unconditioned election of a Deity who was "œFather and the God of all the elect, and only the elect." The ministers criticized any suggestion that the sacrament conferred saving grace, or removed the stain of original sin, or justified the baptized infant, just as they denied that baptism was necessary for salvation. E. Brooks Holifield, _The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Sacramental Theology in Old and New England, 1570-1720_ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), p. 46.





> *E. Brooks Holifield:* The vocabulary of the sacramentalists revealed their intention: to elevate baptism by combining two theological traditions, Reformed orthodoxy and medieval scholasticism. To speak of the Christian life in terms of potency, or form, and actualization, or matter, was to appropriate scholastic imagery. "œInitial grace" was a Reformed adaptation of the medieval gratia prima, also given to children in baptism. Baxter recognized later the similarity between "œseminal grace" and the scholastic notion of infused habits. Burges and Ward carefully inserted the older language into their orthodox Calvinism, but they could not entirely eliminate the incommensurabilities. The medieval language depicted the Christian pilgrimage as a gradual development, approximate to salvation in ascending stages and levels of growth, nourished by sacramental grace from beginning to end. Earlier Reformed theologians spoke of progressive sanctification after the effectual call, and they argued about preparatory development in adults prior to the experience of saving grace, but the sacramentalist language seemed to depict the whole of a man´s spiritual life, from infancy to glorification, as an unbroken continuum beginning with baptism. The problem was to combine that vocabulary with a traditional Puritan notion of genuine conversion as a specifiable experience, restricted to the elect, moving them into a new sphere of life, discontinuous with their past. Puritan theology often consisted of the artful manipulation of images, and Burges and Ward accordingly proposed a sacramental theology based on medieval images of salvation as a new creation.
> Few of their Puritan contemporaries shared their vision, however, and the initial response was therefore hostile. When Ward first published his ideas around 1627, a close friend, John Davenant, advised that he not "œsett that controversy on foot," and when Burges published his treatise he complained that he received for his effort nothing but "œclamors, slanders, and revilings without end or measure." E. Brooks Holifield, _The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Sacramental Theology in Old and New England, 1570-1720_ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), pp. 85-86.


In another work of his, Holifield speaks concerning Nevin (one of the Mercerburg theologians, of which Dr. Clark also made allusion to in his baptismal address), and wrote...


> *E. Brooks Holifield:* Like the theologians of the Catholic Church, Nevin rejected the Calvinist distinction between the visible and the invisible church. An invisible church was to him an empty abstraction. The idea of the church included visibility as much as the idea of the human being supposed a body. As actual, the church was holy, one, and catholic only in a fragmented and incomplete way; it required a process of historical evolution to actualize itself fully. But its ideal was not a distant goal; the ideal was immanent within the actual, a life struggling to come to its full manifestation. Just as the ideal could have no reality save under the form of the historical and actual, so the actual could have no truth and inner power except through the presence of the ideal within it. E. Brooks Holifield, _Theology in America: Christian Thought from the Age of the Puritans to the Civil War_ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), p. 477-478.


A number of the adherents of today's FV theology are fond of referencing Nevin, and with him share (to a greater or lesser extent depending on which one you read) his sentiments regarding the visible/invisible church distinction. I think that Dr. Clark more than adequately addressed this distinction in his exegesis of Romans 2:28-29.

Blessings,
DTK


[Edited on 4-26-2006 by DTK]


----------



## fredtgreco

But David, why actually read and quote all that material when you can simply quote one question from Calvin's catechism completely out of context to make him read as a FVer?


----------



## DTK

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> But David, why actually read and quote all that material when you can simply quote one question from Calvin's catechism completely out of context to make him read as a FVer?


Alright Fred, if it makes you feel any better, I confess it's a bad habit I picked up in another context 6 1/2 years prior to the year 2001, if that gives you any clue. 

DTK


----------



## wsw201

Thanks for the comments David. I forgot about the comment by Calvin in the Institutes. 

In my humble opinion I don't think 16th century Calvin is saying what we as 21st century folks think he is saying about infants and faith, especially at first glance. Based on my past readings of Calvin's work I think the comments by Holifield are more in line with Calvin's sotieriology.


----------

