# The ordo salutis



## Scott Bushey (Aug 10, 2017)

If the order of salvation is logical and not chronological and that most Christians believe most of the ordo happens simultaneously, i.e.' the spokes on a wheel that turn', when does the infant that is regenerated in the womb become converted (possess faith and repentance)?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Aug 10, 2017)

The ordo does not happen simultaneously altogether since most lists include glorification--obviously something temporally separated from the others. The point is that it is a logical order so that the order does not _necessarily_ imply a chronological relationship among all of its parts, not that there cannot ever be such a relationship between some of them. 

That said, I don't think I've ever seen "conversion" included in an ordo salutis scheme. Most of the older divines I have read didn't distinguish it from the "effectual" aspect of effectual calling which would occur contemporaneously in the infant that is regenerated in the womb.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 10, 2017)

Hi Chris,
Ok. For the sake of this conversation and clarity, I will use the terms, *faith and repentance*.
I edited the opening post.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 10, 2017)

For the record, I am studying Hodge and VanMastricht on the idea and they both use the term 'conversion'.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 10, 2017)

This may be of help: The Ordo Salutis


----------



## Edward (Aug 10, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> If the order of salvation is logical and not chronological and that most Christians believe the ordo happens simultaneously,



I would agree that most Christians aren't confessional in their views. There is a reason it is called an 'order' and not an 'event'.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Aug 10, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> For the record, I am studying Hodge and VanMastricht on the idea and they both use the term 'conversion'.



Ok, I usually see conversion in older writers to refer to a change in internal orientation (connected to regeneration and effectual calling) rather than a change in external orientation (connected to profession and works of repentance) as it is used more commonly these days. See, for instance, Turretin or Brown of Haddington. Is that the way Van Mastricht is using it? In it's internal dimension it would certainly happen in the womb with regeneration.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 10, 2017)

Yeas, PVM is using the term in it's narrowest sense to distinguish conversion from regeneration. It is in his most excellent book, 'A Treatise on Regeneration".


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 10, 2017)

Essentially, this post was provoked on a conversation I was having the other day w/ Bruce. In the thread, the idea of a 'gap' came into play, i.e. a regenerate infant in the womb, who is later, under the preached word, converted. Is there such a thing as a gap; Is the ordo chronological or alway just logical. Most people who I have talked with do not like to think of the ordo as chronological in any way, shape or form as it predisposes one to a possible 'gap' in time between regeneration and conversion.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 10, 2017)

TheOldCourse said:


> it would certainly happen in the womb with regeneration.



Are you referring to 'seed faith'?


----------



## Edward (Aug 10, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> a regenerate infant in the womb, who is later, under the preached word, converted.



Are the folks you are talking to confusing election and regeneration? Or are they just speculating about the unknown?


----------



## TheOldCourse (Aug 10, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Are you referring to 'seed faith'?



I'm referring to an internal conversion. Turretin makes the distinction, as always, clear:



> "As conversion can be considered under a twofold relation, either as habitual or as actual, so both God and man certainly concur, but in such a way that in both the glory of the whole action ought be ascribed entirely to God alone. Habitual or passive conversion takes place by the infusion of supernatural habits by the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, actual or active conversion takes place by the exercise of these good habits by which the acts of faith and repentance are both given by God and elicited from man. Through the former, man is renovated and converted by God. Through the latter, man, renovated and converted by God, turns himself to God and performs acts. The former is more properly called regeneration because it is like a new birth by which the man is reformed after the image of his Creator. The latter, however, is called conversion because it includes the operation of man himself. Now although in the order of time, they can scarcely be distinguished in adults (in whom the action of God converting man is never without the action of man turning himself to God), still in the order of nature and causality the habitual ought to precede the actual and the action of God the action of man." _Institutes 15.4.13 _



Many of the older writers use "conversion" in what Turretin calls the habitual sense rather than active sense, so that must be born in mind. His comment about adults in particular is interesting, but he doesn't elaborate as far as I can see. That we're willing to ascribe a "seed-like" faith to infants makes me willing to ascribe a "seed-like" active conversion as well since faith is the principle act of that conversion.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Aug 10, 2017)

Edward said:


> Are the folks you are talking to confusing election and regeneration? Or are they just speculating about the unknown?



We're discussing special cases of infants who are not just elect but actually regenerated while unborn, such as appears of John the Baptist and, perhaps, of elect infants who die before birth (though some believe them to be regenerated at death rather than in life within the womb).


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 11, 2017)

TheOldCourse said:


> I'm referring to an internal conversion. Turretin makes the distinction, as always, clear:
> 
> Many of the older writers use "conversion" in what Turretin calls the habitual sense rather than active sense so that must be born in mind.



I understand. Many, as well use the term 'regeneration' to refer to the whole of the ordo, i.e. the complete process, which makes it difficult at times, especially in discussions dealing with this subject matter.



> His comment about adults in particular is interesting, but he doesn't elaborate as far as I can see.



This is why most people believe the order happens simultaneously. Most adults already have much of the typical information onboard by the time they are sitting under the external call. Some process faster, others don't.



> That we're willing to ascribe a "seed-like" faith to infants makes me willing to ascribe a "seed-like" active conversion as well since faith is the principle act of that conversion.



Can a baby have more than habitual faith? Seed (f)aith is called SF for a reason? I don't struggle with seed conversion either as one would most likely agree that w/ (F)aith, conversion follows. Although, as Hodge says:



> 1. From the very nature of faith. It includes the conviction of the truth of its object. It is an affirmation of the mind that a thing is true or trustworthy, but the mind can affirm nothing of that of which it knows nothing.
> 
> 2. The Bible everywhere teaches that without knowledge there can be no faith.
> 
> 3. Such is the intimate connection between faith and knowledge, that in the Scriptures the one term is often used for the other. To know Christ, is to believe upon Him. To know the truth, is intelligently and believingly to apprehend and appropriate it. Conversion is effected by knowledge.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 11, 2017)

Peter VanMastricht defines regeneration:



> Regeneration conveys that power into the soul by which the person who is to be saved is enabled to receive the offer. Conversion puts forth the power received into actual exercise so that the soul actually receives the offered benefits".



PVM continues when he says,



> Regeneration confers the spiritual life in the first act only. The Spiritual life is bestowed by regeneration only in the first act (or principle), not in the second acts (or operation) understood either as habits or exercises. For as natural generation a man receives neither the habits nor acts of reasoning, speaking, writing but only the power, which under proper circumstances, in due time, comes forth in act, so also, in regeneration, there is not bestowed upon the elect any faith, hope, love, repentance, etc., either as to habit or act, but the power only as yet of performing these exercises is bestowed, by which the regenerate person does not actually believe or repent, but is only capacitated thereto".
> 
> Wherefore the unregenerate are emphatically said to be unable either to see, as referring to the understanding, or to enter, referring to the will, into the kingdom of God (john 3:5). This power in conversion which succeeds regeneration, proper circumstances being supposed, is in due time brought into actual exercise. So that one truly regenerate may, as to both habit and act, be for a time an unbeliever, destitute of repentance and walking in sin. This appears more clear than the light of the sun in the instances of those who are regenerated in their mothers' womb or at their baptism, as Jeremiah (Jer 1:5), John the Baptist (Luke 1:15), and Timothy (2 Tim 3:15), who nevertheless did not, till they reached the age of discretion, perform the actual exercises of faith or repentance. So that regeneration, in which the spiritual life is bestowed in the first act or principle only, differs from conversion, by which this principle of life is brought into actual exercise, not only in order of nature, but sometimes also in order of time. However, we mean not to deny here that it may be (and often is) the case that a sanctification of the Spirit, in a general sense comprehending vocation, regeneration, conversion, and sanctification properly so called, is effected at one and the same time. This seems to have been the case with the thief on the cross, converted by Christ in his last moments (Luke 23:40-44). We only mean that they may be separated as in time, and that oftentimes this is actually the case.





John brine, a Particular Baptist says:



> Regeneration precedes and may be considered as foundation and spring of conversion and sanctification. For that is the principle from which both arise grace, as a principle of spiritual acts, is first communicated, and from that proceed all acts of a holy spiritual nature, both internal and external. Neither of the latter can be, until the first is wrought. And when that is effected, both the latter certainly follow. In the first, we are merely passive, in conversion and sanctification, we are active.


----------



## Edward (Aug 11, 2017)

TheOldCourse said:


> We're discussing special cases of infants who are not just elect but actually regenerated while unborn, such as appears of John the Baptist and, perhaps, of elect infants who die before birth (though some believe them to be regenerated at death rather than in life within the womb).



So it is academic speculation on a matter upon which the scriptures are silent; and it is not clear that such a situation has ever existed?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 11, 2017)

Edward said:


> So it is academic speculation on a matter upon which the scriptures are silent; and it is not clear that such a situation has ever existed?



Well, the scriptures are not silent on the issue. Consider Jeremiah, John the Baptist and Timothy. The question being posed is when did these regenerate children ever receive (F)aith and (R)epentance in relation to the order.

Can a man be saved outside of the external call? Can a man be saved outside of an assent to biblical facts? Can a man repent unless he know of his sin, etc.?

The WCF tells us that children can and are, regenerated in the womb (those elect individuals dying) at times and others even at the baptismal font. The sacraments are not empty rites. It is God's prerogative. So when you weigh out scripture and the confession of our fathers, it is clear that this idea or the study of it, not preposterous.


----------



## timfost (Aug 11, 2017)

Might justification as in "justifying faith" be a helpful concept in the conversation? If a) babies who die in infancy can be saved according to our confessions, and b) regeneration itself does not justify, wouldn't justifying faith then be necessary for their salvation? If seed faith is a (small) _measure_ of faith, I assume this is justifying faith. If not, how are Christ's merits applied to an infant who dies in infancy apart from justifying faith?

(For the record, John Brine was an advocate of eternal justification, if I remember correctly.)


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 11, 2017)

timfost said:


> Might justification as in "justifying faith" be a helpful concept in the conversation? If a) babies who die in infancy can be saved according to our confessions, and b) regeneration itself does not justify, wouldn't justifying faith then be necessary for their salvation?



Yes-for the infant dying in infancy, alone.



> If seed faith is a (small) _measure_ of faith



I wouldn't call it (F)aith per se, but (f)aith. in my opinion, this seed faith is dormant until the time when the person has the external call delivered and received, and the person ascends to biblical facts, i.e. one needs to have a basis for their faith and repentance. See Rom 10:14-17



> I assume this is justifying faith.



See my previous statement



> If not, how are Christ's merits applied to an infant who dies in infancy apart from justifying faith?



The infant dying in infancy and the mentally incapable, are handled differently as the internal and external call of God is given via the HS alone, whereas a infant decreed to live a fruitful life must have the external call issued via the preacher. Rom's 10:14-17



> (For the record, John Brine was an advocate of eternal justification, if I remember correctly.)



I wasn't aware and I don't know that his position of EJ rails against or advocates for his statement. VanMastricht cites Brine. Hence, I am not too worried about him.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 11, 2017)

2Pet.1:5-9
"And beside this, giving all diligence, *add* to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind,"​We begin teaching our children right away, like a gardener watches his seed bed, then his seedlings, and tends them. We look for growth and we expect growth; we nurture development, we discipline, and we retard ill effects. As parents, we don't know how much of their response is natural trust (e.g. what they feel when eating what is set before them), and what part is spiritual; but surely we have a duty to trust the God of promise and his appointed means.

But, from the above text we see that the _mature _convert is expected to add to his own faith the godly exercises that follow. And in the case of the Christian child, the parent (like a gardener with his seedlings) prompts and promotes as falls within his power the *addition *of those godly exercises in the life of his child.

We do not spend ALL our energy on correcting faults (you're a bad sinner) and cross-talk (believe in Jesus' death); and once we have what we think is conversion, then we start working on godliness. At least, I hope we don't. We begin our work expecting to see faith (with repentance) and godliness flourish, coming along in an organic package that develops and unfolds; while we, monitoring and tending, respond to the need of the hour.

"Presumptive regeneration" ends up (apparently) too often in presuming on the Spirit and the means. Equating the idea of "seed faith" planting with regeneration leads (as I argued in the previous thread) to minimizing or eliminating the indispensability of active faith to the maintenance of regeneration, that is spiritual life.

I don't mind disagreeing with PVM (quoted above) who _extrapolates _from the infant examples, thereby validating the general theory "that one truly regenerate may, as to both habit and act, be for a time an unbeliever, destitute of repentance and walking in sin." He says, in effect, _there _is a "gap" for infants; thus _here _may also be a "gap" in the case of the mature. Did this "true regeneration" happen entirely separate from any means? How much time can a man exist as an "unbelieving regenerate" before the idea becomes absurd?

Now we know that some men seem to fight and struggle against the convicting work of the Spirit, before they give in. I think of a man upon the operating table, the doctors working frantically applying every means of life-support and resuscitation to animate him. There may be a time when a man is "hovering" (as it were) between spiritual life and death. The power of God has been given, and there is a struggle of sorts within the man, whether to believe and repent, and be born again.

But the notion that God gives actual (non-potential) spiritual life to his elect _long ages before they live, _*destroys *the metaphor. We've salvaged a theory for explaining the mystery of new-birth, at the expense of the very biblical imagery we were given for the purpose.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 11, 2017)

Bruce,
Hodge seems to put a lot of emphasis on knowledge which as well, would fit into this idea:



> The Bible makes eternal life to consist in knowledge; sinfulness is blindness, or darkness; the transition from a state of sin to a state of holiness is a translation from darkness into light; men are said to be renewed unto knowledge, _i.e._, knowledge is the effect of regeneration; conversion is said to be effected by the revelation of Christ; the rejection of Him as the Son of God and Saviour of men is referred to the fact that the eyes of those who believe not are blinded by the god of this world. These Scriptural representations prove much. They prove that knowledge is essential to all holy exercises; that truth, as the object of knowledge, is of vital importance, and that error is always evil and often fatal; and that the effects of regeneration, so far as they reveal themselves in our consciousness, consist largely in the spiritual apprehension or discernment of divine things. These representations also prove that in the order of nature, knowledge, or spiritual discernment, is antecedent and causative relatively to all holy exercises of the feelings or affections. It is the spiritual apprehension of the truth that awakens love, faith, and delight; and not love that produces spiritual discernment. It was the vision Paul had of the divine glory of Christ that made him instantly and forever his worshipper and servant. The Scriptures, however, do not teach that regeneration consists exclusively in illumination, or that the cognitive faculties are exclusively the subject of the renewing power of the Spirit. It is the soul as such that is spiritually dead; and it is to the soul that a new principle of life controlling all its exercises, whether of the intellect, the sensibility, the conscience, or the will is imparted.





> This new life, therefore, manifests itself in new views of God, of Christ, of sin, of holiness, of the world, of the gospel, and of the life to come; in short, of all those truths which God has revealed as necessary to salvation. This spiritual illumination is so important and so necessary and such an immediate effect of regeneration, that spiritual knowledge is not only represented in the Bible as the end of regeneration (Col. 3:10; 1 Tim. 2:4), but the whole of conversion (which is the effect of regeneration) is summed up in knowledge. Paul describes his conversion as consisting in Christ’s being revealed to Him (Gal. 1:16); and the Scriptures make all religion, and even eternal life, to be a form of knowledge. Paul renounced everything for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ (Phil. 3:8), and our Lord says that the knowledge of Himself and of the Father is eternal life.





> While, therefore, the objects of faith as revealed in the Bible, are not truths of the reason, _i.e._, which the human reason can discover, or comprehend, or demonstrate, they are, nevertheless, perfectly consistent with reason.





> Faith is not a blind, irrational conviction. In order to believe, we must know what we believe, and the grounds on which our faith rests





> While admitting that the truths of revelation are to be received upon the authority of God; that human reason can neither comprehend nor prove them; that a man must be converted and become as a little child before he can truly receive the doctrines of the Bible; and admitting, moreover, that these doctrines are irreconcilable with every system of philosophy, ever framed by those who refuse to be taught of God, or who were ignorant of his Word, yet it is ever to be maintained that those doctrines are unassailable; that no created intellect can prove them to be impossible or irrational.



*In the above quote, I believe Hodge is using the term conversion here to refer to 'regeneration'.



> A sixth question, included under the head of the relation of faith to knowledge is, whether knowledge is essential to faith? That is, whether a truth must be known in order to be believed? This Protestants affirm and Romanists deny.





> therefore, knowledge, or the intelligent apprehension of the meaning of what is proposed, is essential to faith.





> It follows from what has been said, or rather is included in it, that knowledge being essential to faith, it must be the measure of it.





> 1. From the very nature of faith. It includes the conviction of the truth of its object. It is an affirmation of the mind that a thing is true or trustworthy, but the mind can affirm nothing of that of which it knows nothing.
> 
> 2. The Bible everywhere teaches that without knowledge there can be no faith.
> 
> 3. Such is the intimate connection between faith and knowledge, that in the Scriptures the one term is often used for the other. To know Christ, is to believe upon Him. To know the truth, is intelligently and believingly to apprehend and appropriate it. Conversion is effected by knowledge.



It would seem that Hodge would agree that there can be a 'gap'.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 11, 2017)

This may help. Form C. Matthew McMahon's book, 'How Faith Works' :



> Peter Van Mastricht wrote a very helpful section to his _Theoretico-Practica Theologia_ (1699) that covered regeneration. It was so popular on the subject, that even brilliant theologians such as Jonathan Edwards marked Van Mastricht’s work as _better than any other book in the world besides the Bible_. In this work, Van Mastricht basically taught, “that men are born again by grace alone, and that regeneration is that which makes conversion possible.” For Van Mastricht, and subsequently the Post Reformation community for which he wrote, saw regeneration as a key doctrine for understanding the complete dependence of man upon Christ and His work of redemption. Regeneration is not used in its broader sense here, but in its more refined and particular sense – this is, “that power conveyed into the soul by which the person who is to be saved is enabled to receive the offer.”3 Thus, Van Mastricht defined _regeneration_ as, “that operation of the Holy Ghost whereby He begets in men who are elected, redeemed, and externally called, the first act or principle of spiritual life, by which they are enabled to receive the offered Redeemer, and comply with the conditions of salvation.” In this way Van Mastricht rightly stated that a person’s will is changed so he _can_ embrace the _truth_ presented to the mind. In explaining regeneration in this light, those converted by the power of the Holy Spirit are enabled to exercise saving acts that later may be granted. Such is the case, for example, of an infant regenerated early in its life and coming to exercised faith later on. This will hold great implications in the manner that one is _saved_, but not yet _exercising_ faith.






> “Regeneration is the term used for this spiritual change wrought upon the heart by the power of the Holy Spirit sent forth from Christ’s throne. It is absolutely necessary that regeneration takes place in order for a man to be released from his fallen and depraved state to the Kingdom of God. Christ, in John 3, rests upon the reality that man is so depraved and fallen that his spiritual birth must take place first before he ever perceives or understands of the spiritual realities of the kingdom of heaven (John 3:3, 5). In this way, the Spirit’s work is crucially important in delivering and changing the heart of these men so that they may believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved. This event, that spiritual change, is impossible with men, but possible with God. Without a manifestly true change on the mind of the person by God, they cannot believe, nor experience any deep significant trust on Christ. No unregenerate man, then, can see the kingdom of God unless God wills he should see it and converts him to be able to see it. From all this, it is manifest that redemption itself proceeds on the principle that God must allow admission to His kingdom first, and to apply a spiritual principle that quickens the soul to life.”





> As it stands here, men are at this stage (effectual calling) simply given the ability, or _regenerated_, to think about the Gospel rightly. They may positively be deemed “born again,” yet, they have still not _exercised_ faith. Those regenerated are those born of God. 1 John 3:9 states, “Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.” This interesting term, “born of God,” may be an allusion to what the Jews called their proselytes in Old Testament Israel – _recens natos_, or “men new born.” Such men are God’s workmanship created for good works (Eph. 2:10).
> 
> This concept of regeneration is essential in understanding _salvation_. How does regeneration work? Man is sinful, and cannot believe or perceive anything about the kingdom of God. The Spirit arrests his heart and “blows” on him and changes his heart giving birth to “spirit.” The person is then able to believe and perceive the kingdom, and does so because _of the work of the Spirit_. “The Spirit enables regenerated Christians to discern good from evil, or sin from holiness. He disposes the mind to accept truth and to know what the Scriptures contain. Here the Spirit aids the Christian in expounding Scripture in order to apply that Scripture to the Christian’s life and further grow in the mystical union he now has with Christ (1 Cor. 6:17). The Spirit illuminates through His indwelling presence within the individual (John 16:16; 2 Tim. 1:14; Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4:6; 1 Cor. 3:16; 1 John 4:13; Eph. 1:13).” This regeneration (or _effectual call_) is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether _passive_ in it. It is a physical act that powerfully infuses spiritual life into the soul. When the Holy Spirit quickens him he is enabled to answer the Gospel call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it. But this is not always as instantaneous as one would think, although it can be. In other words, the response time may be longer or shorter according to God’s good pleasure in bestowing help in justifying faith (more on that later).





> An important notion that Van Mastricht takes some time to develop based on the Reformed dichotomy of regeneration and faith, is that regeneration confers spiritual life in the first act only. This first act, then, is a _principle_, not an _operation_. This idea of an operation of grace, the Reformed have always defined as “habits or exercises” of grace. Manton says, “The habits of all grace are brought into the heart by regeneration.” Turretin says, “Habitual or passive conversion takes place by the infusion of supernatural habits by the Holy Spirit.”26 These habits are exercised at a later time. Thus, fallen men who are regenerated are capacitated to believe and repent, but regeneration is not believing nor repenting. Such an action _will_ come later.


----------



## timfost (Aug 11, 2017)

Scott,

Out of curiosity, in the ordo, would you place faith or repentance first?

Thanks!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 12, 2017)

Faith.


----------



## timfost (Aug 13, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Faith.



I agree. 

In your view, can one have faith without repentance? How about faith without conversion? If so, how?

Thanks, brother.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 13, 2017)

Tim,
I would say one can have seed (f)aith and not germinated (F)aith. Conversion would come in the germination of the seed faith and the mental assent to what one is repenting of.

Have you read some of the citations I provide as they go into the dynamics of what I am saying?


----------



## timfost (Aug 13, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Tim,
> I would say one can have seed (f)aith and not germinated (F)aith. Conversion would come in the germination of the seed faith and the mental assent to what one is repenting of.
> 
> Have you read some of the citations I provide as they go into the dynamics of what I am saying?



Scott,

Yes, I read some of them and believe I understand where you are coming from. I also understand that others take this position. Additionally, I agree that it is within a "confessional viewpoint."

Honestly, I'm trying to interact with the argument itself, not by trying to say no other theologians agree with you.

My concern is that your understanding of seed faith seems fundamentally different from justifying faith.

Hebrews 6:1: "Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of *repentance from dead works and of faith toward God*..."

Faith is "toward God." To be oriented toward God necessitates orientation away from self. Though I believe repentance flows from faith, they occur simultaneously-- two sides of the same coin. To be oriented toward God but not repenting is an oxymoron. If seed faith in not accompanied by repentance in some capacity, how can it be justifying faith?

I apologize if I'm misunderstanding you, and thank you for your patience.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 13, 2017)

timfost said:


> If seed faith in not accompanied by repentance in some capacity, how can it be justifying faith? your understanding of seed faith seems fundamentally different from justifying faith



I'm gonna quote VanMastricht again as it may help in the answer:



> Wherefore the unregenerate are emphatically said to be unable either to see, as referring to the understanding, or to enter, referring to the will, into the kingdom of God (john 3:5). This power in conversion which succeeds regeneration, proper circumstances being supposed, is in due time brought into actual exercise. So that one truly regenerate may, as to both habit and act, be for a time an unbeliever, destitute of repentance and walking in sin.



In essence, one could be a regenerated person, have seed faith (not germinated (F)aith) and still be an unbeliever.
If Christ doesn't vicariously repent for us, would it not follow that repentance must be based on something or better yet, can a person repent of a thing it has no idea of?


----------



## Edward (Aug 13, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> The WCF tells us that children can and are, regenerated in the womb



In which version do you find that in the WCF? Or are you arguing from 'infants'?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 13, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> The WCF tells us that children can and are, regenerated in the womb (those elect individuals dying) at times and others even at the baptismal font.



I actually said, ^^^

1646

Ch 10:

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

and 28:
I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world.

VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.


----------



## timfost (Aug 13, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> In essence, one could be a regenerated person, have seed faith (not germinated (F)aith) and still be an unbeliever.



Again, let me try to understand what you're saying.

This "seed faith" you speak of is not justifying faith, since one can have seed faith and still be an unbeliever, though a regenerated one? Is this correct?



> If Christ doesn't vicariously repent for us, would it not follow that repentance must be based on something or better yet, can a person repent of a thing it has no idea of?



How do you know that an infant _cannot_ repent? Because you cannot quantify it?

Also, are you saying that elect infants who die in infancy do exercise "(F)aith" in a different way than infants who grow up and exercise faith and repentance stemming from the "seed faith" they may have had as infants upon their regeneration?

Again, I'm trying to understand your point of view. I may be dense, but I'm having trouble following your reasoning and the implications...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 14, 2017)

timfost said:


> Again, let me try to understand what you're saying.
> 
> This "seed faith" you speak of is not justifying faith, since one can have seed faith and still be an unbeliever, though a regenerated one? Is this correct?



Correct



> How do you know that an infant _cannot_ repent? Because you cannot quantify it?



You agreed a few posts back that faith would come before repentance in the order, correct? That should answer your question. 



> Also, are you saying that elect infants who die in infancy do exercise "(F)aith" in a different way than infants who grow up and exercise faith and repentance stemming from the "seed faith" they may have had as infants upon their regeneration?



Yes. The infant dying in infancy has both habit and action via a miraculous, needed work of the HS in these cases.


----------



## Edward (Aug 14, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> The WCF tells us that children can and are, regenerated in the womb (those elect individuals dying) at times and others even at the baptismal font.
> 
> I actually said, ^^^




Again, where does the WCF say that children can be regenerated in the womb? Although, upon further reflection, I do wonder whether you are also approaching baptismal regeneration. Otherwise, why bring in the font?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 14, 2017)

Edward,
Are you reading what I am posting?



> Again, where does the WCF say that children can be regenerated in the womb?



As I showed in my citation:
"Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit"

*if you are compelled to argue that the WCF does not specify, 'womb', read between the lines, please. Simple logic that some infants die in the womb, even in the first week after becoming an embryo.

and at baptism:

"Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration,"




> I do wonder whether you are also approaching baptismal regeneration.



Well, yea, in some instances, as I have shown. It is God prerogative to regenerate people when He wills.

This type of BR is not the same of the RCC or other aberrant groups.

http://www.semperreformanda.com/2013/12/what-did-westminster-believe-about-baptismal-regeneration/

and so you do not think I believe like the Romanists do:

VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.

Robert Shaw writes in his commentary on the WCF:



> II. This section declares the ends of baptism: - 1. It is a solemn admission of the party baptised into the visible Church, and to all its privileges. "It supposes the party to have a right to these privileges before, and does not _make _them members of the visible Church, but _admit_them solemnly thereto. And therefore it is neither to be called nor accounted _christening_—that is, making them Christians: for the infants of believing parents are born within the covenant, and so are Christians and visible Church members; and by baptism this right of theirs is acknowledged, and they are solemnly admitted to the privileges of Church membership." 2. It is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, and of the benefits of that covenant. These benefits are, engrafting into Christ, or union with him; the remission of sins by virtue of the blood of Christ; and regeneration by the Spirit of Christ. It is not intended that remission of sins and regeneration are inseparably connected with baptism; for our Confession, in a subsequent section, expressly guards against the opinion "that all that are baptised are undoubtedly regenerated." 3. It is a sign and seal of the party baptised being devoted to God, and engaged to walk in newness of life. Baptism is a dedicating ordinance, in which the party baptised is solemnly given up to God to be his and for him, now, wholly, and for ever. He is, as it were, enlisted under Christ's banner, to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh. He is bound to renounce every other lord and master, and to "serve God in holiness and righteousness all the days of his life."


----------



## Steve Curtis (Aug 14, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> The efficacy of baptism is *not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered*; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, *in his appointed time*.



I really don't want to reenter this fray, but this section does *not* say that God's grace is conferred at the baptismal font. In fact, as the highlighted lines make clear, the efficacy/conferral of grace toward the elect occurs in God's timing irrespective of the time of baptism. There is no justification for insisting that some/any of the elect are regenerated at the font and yet not saved until a later time.


----------



## Edward (Aug 14, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> if you are compelled to argue that the WCF does not specify, 'womb', read between the lines, please. Simple logic that some infants die in the womb, even in the first week after becoming an embryo.



You are projecting modern anti-abortion theology on a document written in the 17th Century. And in the 17th Century, one week after conception would not have been considered an infant. (Generally, the law for criminal responsibility for the death of an unborn child would have been at quickening. See, generally, Cook, _Institutes of the Laws of England_ (1644) https://archive.org/stream/institutesoflaws00cokeuoft#page/50/mode/2up ) Blackstone, a century later, found that the law actually drew the line at birth for homicide. _Commentaries on the Laws of England _Book IV, Chapter 14 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch14.asp 

To be clear, we are not discussing whether life begins at conception, or one week, or quickening, or birth, we are discussing what the men who drafted the Confession would have understood based upon the knowledge at that time as to when life began. The plain language of the Confession doesn't support your assertion, and neither does the historical record of England.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 15, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> I really don't want to reenter this fray, but this section does *not* say that God's grace is conferred at the baptismal font. In fact, as the highlighted lines make clear, the efficacy/conferral of grace toward the elect occurs in God's timing irrespective of the time of baptism. There is no justification for insisting that some/any of the elect are regenerated at the font and yet not saved until a later time.



Steve,
It sure does:
The efficacy of baptism is *not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered*; *yet, notwithstanding*, *by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost*


"Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, *not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church*, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration,"

This is the reformed view, sir. Please read the link I attached a few posts back to my website where I cite a few divines on the subject. As well, Robert Shaw in his commentary says the same. This is beginning to get silly.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 15, 2017)

> The plain language of the Confession doesn't support your assertion, and neither does the historical record of England.



Edward,
I just quoted Shaw, where he says:



> These benefits are, engrafting into Christ, or union with him; the remission of sins by virtue of the blood of Christ; and regeneration by the Spirit of Christ.



I will not waste my time attempting to prove to you what Westminster believed.
Obviously, the term 'infancy' refers to the point in life where the egg and seed unite and become a person, else if Westminster believed that the term referred to after the baby exits the birthing canal, then by default they would be saying that only infants exiting the canal can be saved-and they are not saying that. Whether they had the scientific accumen we have in this age is irrelevant. They knew life began at conception and hence, that it what they refer.

Research it yourself; ask some of the admins here on PB. All of them will tell u what I have.

Good day.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 15, 2017)

SCOTCH CONFESSION, SYNOD OF DORDT



> Article 16: Regeneration’s Effect
> 
> However, just as by the fall man did not cease to be man, endowed with intellect and will, and just as sin, which has spread through the whole human race, did not abolish the nature of the human race but distorted and spiritually killed it, so also this divine grace of regeneration does not act in people as if they were blocks and stones; nor does it abolish the will and its properties or coerce a reluctant will by force, but spiritually revives, heals, reforms, and–in a manner at once pleasing and powerful–bends it back. As a result, a ready and sincere obedience of the Spirit now begins to prevail where before the rebellion and resistance of the flesh were completely dominant. It is in this that the true and spiritual restoration and freedom of our will consists. Thus, if the marvelous Maker of every good thing were not dealing with us, man would have no hope of getting up from his fall by his free choice, by which he plunged himself into ruin when still standing upright.
> 
> ...





> Article 17: The Salvation of the Infants of Believers
> 
> Since we must make judgments about God’s will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 15, 2017)

Fisher's Catechism:



> Q. 28. What are the ends and uses of baptism?
> 
> A. They are to_ signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace._
> 
> ...



*not tied to the moment, however; but as God wills....hence, it does happen.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 15, 2017)

Belgic confession



> We believe that by the disobedience of Adam original sin has been spread through the whole human race.It is a corruption of all nature– an inherited depravity which even infects small infants in their mother’s womb, and the root which produces in man every sort of sin. It is therefore so vile and enormous in God’s sight that it is enough to condemn the human race, and it is not abolished or wholly uprooted even by baptism, seeing that sin constantly boils forth as though from a contaminated spring.



Showing that the womb in integral to the effects of sin-it would follow as well, that they understood that regeneration happens here at times as well.

Calvin on the 'gap'

Calvin, in his catechism writes:



> Q333 M. If these things are requisite to the legitimate use of Baptism, how comes it that we baptize Infants?
> 
> 
> It is not necessary that faith and repentance should always precede baptism. They are only required from those whose age makes them capable of both. It will be sufficient, then, if, after infants have grown up, they exhibit the power of their baptism.
> ...


----------



## Steve Curtis (Aug 15, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> It sure does:
> The efficacy of baptism is *not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered*; *yet, notwithstanding*, *by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost*


Perhaps if that is all that it said, we would be in agreement. Yet it is not. You left out the critical final phrase. If we parse the sentence and reduce some of the phrasing, this is what the Confession says about the efficacy of baptism:



Scott Bushey said:


> the grace *promised...* is ... conferred ... *in* [God's] *appointed time*.



Then, you quote from Ch. 28.1:


Scott Bushey said:


> "Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, *not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church*, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration,"


Yet, once again, you only quote the part that relates to the point that you are trying to prove. In its entirety, that section reads as follows:

_ Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world._

Now, you were already on thin ice, so to speak, to suggest that, in baptism, God confers the grace of regeneration (but not of salvation) - because you included the part about the "ingrafting into Christ," (which alone challenges your position, as it signifies not a _potential_ union with Christ but an _actual, _salvific union) - but when the parts you omitted are included, namely, "remission of sins," and "giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life," it is clear that the "sign and seal" associated with the baptism of an infant is not looking to a _prior_ regeneration as typical (any more than it is looking back to a prior remission of sin or a prior "giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life"). Rather, typically, it is looking _forward_ to these things.

_Atypically_, I agree that the Confession allows for the regeneration to occur in the womb, at the font, or on the way home from the maternity ward. However, this chapter clearly ties that regeneration (indeed, all regenerations) with repentance ("remission of sins") and faith ("giving up to God...") - all bundled up in the union with Christ ("ingrafting") that only belongs to those actually - not potentially - saved (or converted, if you prefer).


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 15, 2017)

Steve,
I am not on any 'thin ice'. The child that is regenerated in the womb, can have seed (f)aith-that is (again) a faith that is not germinated. This (f)aith needs watering by the external call, which generally occurs by the preacher. This scenario is not addressed by Westminster-they do not delve into the ordo in their document. I only cited the portions I have in order to show that God does in fact, regenerate in the womb, because Edward was emphatic that it is not addressed. 



> this chapter clearly ties that regeneration (indeed, all regenerations) with repentance ("remission of sins") and faith ("giving up to God...") - all bundled up in the union with Christ ("ingrafting") that only belongs to those actually - not potentially - saved (or converted, if you prefer).



Seed faith is real faith. It is just a (f)aith that is not germinated. This person is ingrafted. They are elect. They are regenerated. They just have not gone through the full process, receiving of faith and repentance as F & R require assent and action, i.e. receive, accept, believe, etc. You may say, 'Scott, who are u to say that these infants have no belief etc.?'
I would agree, they have in habit, but not in action. 

When VanMastricht says that this person could walk around as an unbeliever is based on the idea that they have habit, but no action. These infants have the capacity, based on regeneration to now 'perceive the kingdom of God'. Perception John 3, says much. 

Please Sir, tell me what these infants believe? What exactly are they repenting of? Is it a vicarious belief and repentance?
Is Christ believing for them? What dear Sir, have they ascended to? Were u regenerated and converted without any thing onboard? You were surely regenerated, but not converted. Can anyone be saved without anything onboard? in my opinion, you are failing to make the distinction between habit and action, both of which are essential to salvation.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Aug 15, 2017)

Scott, quite simply, I believe that if and when God chooses to regenerate one of the elect in infancy (in utero or after birth), He also - mysteriously, to be sure - enables that person to exercise faith and repentance. Why do you insist that God cannot cause such a thing to happen? By your own words, you take Paul's account of Timothy as referring to when the younger was an infant. Yet, Paul said that even then, Timothy *knew* holy scriptures. If an infant can "know" scripture, why can he or she not exercise faith and repentance?

For the record, I confess to having not read all of your quotes and links. However, I have no problem disagreeing with Van Mastricht or anyone else if they are actually saying what you think that they seem to be saying.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 15, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> Scott, quite simply, I believe that if and when God chooses to regenerate one of the elect in infancy (in utero or after birth), He also - mysteriously, to be sure - enables that person to exercise faith and repentance.



Yes, He gives the capacity to 'exercise', i.e. habit. Exercising is an action with a point in mind, i.e. action.



> Why do you insist that God cannot cause such a thing to happen?



I don't deny God gives the habit....the action is based on assent, fiducia and notia. If God does what u say, why do we need the external call? Does God give both calls Himself or does he use the preacher? I understand that in the case of the infant dying in infancy, Christ does both, but in the cases where a person is to live to a full age, I don't quite see how that happens.



> By your own words, you take Paul's account of Timothy as referring to when the younger was an infant.



I said that? Where?

In Timothy's case, the scriptures use the term 'child', so as I mentioned; it happened as I describe. His mother and grandmother were faithful to catechize him from birth.

Lk. 8:51, 54 of a 12 yr. old. a. The ref. of παῖς may be to age, “child,” inscr., pap., ironically Hom. Or., 4, 665, nonironically Prv. 1:4. It can be used for a boy of 7–14 as distinct from one not yet 7(παιδίον) or the adolescent (μειράκιον) of 14–21,

Albrecht Oepke, “Παῖς, Παιδίον, Παιδάριον, Τέκνον, Τεκνίον, Βρέφος,” ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, _Theological Dictionary of the New Testament_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 637.




> Yet, Paul said that even then, Timothy *knew* holy scriptures.



As I said....

*it may be beneficial to read what I am posting; only fair. I read everything you write.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Aug 15, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Exercising is an action with a point in mind, i.e. action.


I don't pretend to have any idea what you are saying here. To exercise faith and repentance is to _have_ faith and _repent_. [To be clear, I reject the idea of "seed-faith" if it is meant to imply anything other than living - new and immature, yet _saving_ - faith. "Regeneration" is being "born again." To be "born again" is to be saved/converted/a Christian/etc.]



Scott Bushey said:


> If God does what u say, why do we need the external call? Does God give both calls Himself or does he use the preacher? I understand that in the case of the infant dying in infancy, Christ does both, but in the cases where a person is to live to a full age, I don't quite see how that happens.



Again (and again and again...), you are assuming that there are infants who are regenerated who are not converted. You have _not_ proven that from either scripture or the Confession. For those who "live to a full age," they are _not_ regenerated at baptism and _later_ converted. They are regenerated _when they are converted_.



Scott Bushey said:


> I said that? Where?



Here:



Scott Bushey said:


> we see examples in scripture where infants are surely set apart from the womb-granted, they are not typical, except for Timothy (2 Tim 3:15)


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 15, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> I don't pretend to have any idea what you are saying here.



If you would read the citations I posted, i.e. Hodge, you will understand what I posit.




> To exercise faith and repentance is to _have_ faith and _repent_.



I agree. How can an infant 'exercise'? He has the capacity to exercise, but until the infant has an action, an action based on assensus, what is he or she exercising?




> [To be clear, I reject the idea of "seed-faith" if it is meant to imply anything other than living - new and immature, yet _saving_ - faith. "Regeneration" is being "born again." To be "born again" is to be saved/converted/a Christian/etc.]



in my opinion, you are collapsing the ordo....




> Again (and again and again...), you are assuming that there are infants who are regenerated who are not converted.



Yes, I am. What exactly do regenerated infants 'see'? John 3



> You have _not_ proven that from either scripture or the Confession.



You say so, becaseu you fail to see the distinction-which Westminster does. Scripture shows that the external call is needed for the conversion of men. I have asked u a number of times, what is the use of the external call?



> For those who "live to a full age," they are _not_ regenerated at baptism and _later_ converted. They are regenerated _when they are converted_.



Regeneration precedes conversion (faith and repentance).



> we see examples in scripture where infants are surely set apart from the womb-granted, they are not typical, except for Timothy (2 Tim 3:15)



You misunderstood me. Timothy was not set apart from the womb.....


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 15, 2017)

Fishers catechism:


> Q. 14. Why called the_ outward_ means?
> 
> A. To distinguish them from faith, repentance, and other inward means; and particularly to distinguish them from the inward and powerful influences of the Holy Spirit, which are necessary to accompany the outward means in order to salvation, Zech. 4:6.
> Q. 15. Why called_ ordinary_ means?
> ...





> Dr. William Twisse states, “We explain efficacious grace to be an operation of God affecting the will of man, which is not moral but physical, that is immediately and really working in us to do whatsoever good we perform, determining the will to action, but yet so that it acts freely.” Dr. Thomas Ridgley, in his exposition of the _Larger Catechism_ states, “From hence I am obliged to infer that the regenerating act, or implanting this principle of grace, which is, at least, in order of nature, antecedent to any act of grace put forth by us, is the immediate effect of the power of God, which none who speak of regeneration as a divine work pretend to deny.” Dr. Stephen Charnock mentions the difference between regeneration and conversion, “Regeneration is a spiritual change; conversion is a spiritual motion.”37 Dr. Herman Witsius defines regeneration as “that supernatural act of God whereby a new and divine life is infused into the elect person, spiritually dead, and that form an incorruptible seed of the Word of God, made fruitful by the infinite power of the Spirit.”
> 
> Rev. Samuel Hopkins states, “Let us consider the divine agency, the work of the Spirit of God, by which persons are regenerated or born of God, and which lays the only foundation for conversion or holy exercises in the subject...the divine agency and operation, which is first, and lays the foundation for all right views and exercises in the person who is the subject, is called by divines _regeneration._


*MY emphasis added.
_
HOW FAITH WORKS CMM_


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 15, 2017)

Cornelius Burgess-a Westminster Divine writes:



> In the course of my ministry, in my own cure, I was lately cast upon this point: _viz._ “That all elect infants, do, ordinarily, in baptism, receive the Spirit of Christ, to seize upon them for Christ, and to be in them as the root and first principle of regeneration, and future newness of life.” This is the way I spoke (as then I expressed myself) with reference _only_ to such infants as do not die in infancy, but live to years of discretion, and then come to be effectually called, and actually converted by the ordinary means of the word applied by the same Spirit to them, when and how he pleases. As for the rest of the elect, who die infants, I will not deny a further work, sometimes in, sometimes before baptism, to fit them for heaven.


*My emphasis added

Cornelius Burgess, _Baptismal Regeneration_, n.d.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 15, 2017)

Burgess continues:



> _The sacrament profits no man of years, without faith to apprehend the promise: nor can the elect themselves sensibly perceive the fruit and comfort of their baptism, in the ordinary course, until after they have obtained actual faith at their actual conversion. Nor does it follow that they did not have the Spirit in baptism, because they were not capable of so much as knowing the same at the time; much less, of believing; for so says the author,_ “Although infants in the instance of circumcision were not able to comprehend what that sign meant, they were yet truly circumcised unto the mortification of their corrupt and defiled nature, which after they were yet truly circumcised unto the mortification of their corrupt and defiled nature, which after they came to years they meditated on.
> And a little after; infants are baptized unto future repentance and faith, which graces although they be not (actually) formed in them, yet by the secret operation of the Spirit in the seeds of both do lie hid in them.”



Cornelius Burgess, _Baptismal Regeneration_, n.d.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 15, 2017)

It's always helpful to read the Westminster Divines themselves to understand what the divines "meant" in what they put down in the Confession.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward (Aug 15, 2017)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> It's always helpful to read the Westminster Divines themselves to understand what the divines "meant" in what they put down in the Confession.



I'll be happy to receive a reference to a Divine that wrote that Cook was wrong, or who rejected the historical 'quickening' view, but I am not disposed to search for a needle in the haystack without a metal detector. So if you know of a divine that accepted the 'one week' view above, I'd be glad to expand my knowledge of the social history of that era.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 15, 2017)

Edward said:


> I'll be happy to receive a reference to a Divine that wrote that Cook was wrong, or who rejected the historical 'quickening' view, but I am not disposed to search for a needle in the haystack without a metal detector. So if you know of a divine that accepted the 'one week' view above, I'd be glad to expand my knowledge of the social history of that era.



Edward,
I provided citations above from Cornelius Burgess, who was of Westminster.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Aug 15, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Scripture shows that the external call is needed for the conversion of men. I have asked u a number of times, what is the use of the external call?



I have never denied the ordinary need for the external call/preached word - for those who survive infancy. [For those who die in infancy, this is mysteriously accomplished by Christ, such that they are regeneration and saved.]

I have never denied that there is a logical order. I have just maintained that the elements of that order are not distinct in real time (except for the full manifestation of the final element: glorification). I don't believe that faith and repentance can be separated into chronologically distinct acts. Likewise, I don't believe that regeneration can be separated into a _chronologically distinct_ act. Hence, I reject the premise (irrespective of who has promoted it historically) that one can be a "regenerated unbeliever" for a discernible period of time.

While I acknowledge that different authors have used the term in different ways, I am writing from the perspective that “regeneration” means new life (as that is etymologically and, I believe, theologically, the most proper and precise meaning of the word). An unbeliever does not have life. The response of one who has life – the _immediate_ response – is to exercise the gifts of faith and repentance that accompany that regenerative work of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Aug 15, 2017)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> It's always helpful to read the Westminster Divines themselves to understand what the divines "meant" in what they put down in the Confession.



Indeed, if we want to know what they meant _individually_, then by all means, we must read their works. If our desire is to understand what they meant _corporately_, however, we need only read what they wrote corporately: the Standards. As with any deliberative body, there were differing opinions among the divines. I do not subscribe to a person; I subscribe to what the collaborative body of divines came together to pen.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward (Aug 15, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> I provided citations above from Cornelius Burgess, who was of Westminster.



I see two posts from you quoting Burgess, neither of which addresses the issue of a one week fetus.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 16, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> is to exercise the gifts of faith and repentance that accompany that regenerative work of the Holy Spirit.



Steve,
I made mention a few posts back:


> I agree. How can an infant 'exercise'? He has the capacity to exercise, but until the infant has an action, an action based on assensus, what is he or she exercising?



???


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 16, 2017)

Edward said:


> I'll be happy to receive a reference to a Divine that wrote that Cook was wrong, or who rejected the historical 'quickening' view, but I am not disposed to search for a needle in the haystack without a metal detector. So if you know of a divine that accepted the 'one week' view above, I'd be glad to expand my knowledge of the social history of that era.



'Cook'? George Cook?

"historic quickening view'? Is this the idea that the historic position is contrary to my premise?


----------



## Steve Curtis (Aug 16, 2017)

Scott, with regard to elect infants, I said:


kainos01 said:


> [For those who die in infancy, this is mysteriously accomplished by Christ, such that they are regeneration and saved.]


The comment of mine you quoted about exercising faith and repentance was in the context of those who _survive infancy_. As I have said repeatedly, I reject the notion that such were regenerated at infancy (unless God chooses to also grant them saving faith and repentance at the same time, which He most assuredly can do, as He does so with those elect infants who die in infancy).


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 16, 2017)

Steve,
I understand that I'm following you.

Let me ask this another way: is it your position that a person can be completely converted without assenting to any biblical facts?


kainos01 said:


> Scott, with regard to elect infants, I said:
> 
> The comment of mine you quoted about exercising faith and repentance was in the context of those who _survive infancy_.



I follow u....I understood. So again, I ask:
How can an infant 'exercise'? He has the capacity to exercise, but until the infant has an action, an action based on assensus, what is he or she exercising?


----------



## Steve Curtis (Aug 16, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> is it your position that a person can be completely converted without assenting to any biblical facts?


No. However, in atypical instances, God mysteriously accomplishes salvation apart from the ordinary means of grace. By this, I mean 1) elect infants dying in infancy; 2) elect persons lacking mental capacity to hear, understand, etc.; and 3) those other elect persons, whom God chooses to deal with in the same - atypical - way (such as JtB).


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 16, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> No. However, in atypical instances, God mysteriously accomplishes salvation apart from the ordinary means of grace. By this, I mean 1) elect infants dying in infancy; 2) elect persons lacking mental capacity to hear, understand, etc.; and 3) those other elect persons, whom God chooses to deal with in the same - atypical - way (such as JtB).



Ok. If I am following you then, what does the infant that is regenerated, (one that is not, as u say, atypical) that will live to a ripe age assenting to exactly?


----------



## Edward (Aug 16, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> 'Cook'? George Cook?



Thanks for pointing out the error. As you probably figured out from my link, Sir Edward *Coke*.



Scott Bushey said:


> Is this the idea that the historic position is contrary to my premise?



The common view at the time that the Confession was confected clearly is at odds with your modernist view.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 16, 2017)

Edward said:


> The common view at the time that the Confession was confected clearly is at odds with your modernist view.



I will do some add'l research, but as u saw by my citations of Mcmahon, VanMastricht, Hodge and Burgess, it is not 'modernistic'.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 16, 2017)

Do you have any citations on Coke's work handy?


----------



## Steve Curtis (Aug 16, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> what does the infant that is regenerated, (one that is not, as u say, atypical) that will live to a ripe age assenting to exactly?


Not sure if I am understanding your wording, but there are only two scenarios, at any rate, for those elect persons surviving infancy who are not mentally impaired.

First, my category 3 above [those other elect persons, whom God chooses to deal with in the same - atypical - way (such as JtB)]. For these, I believe they are mysteriously enabled to repent and believe - apart from the ordinary means of grace. Just because I cannot understand how an infant can "know" or assent to such things doesn't mean that they can't! JtB clearly "knew" something while in utero.

Second, and this would be what I call the typical conversion: the elect person is not regenerated at a chronologically distinct time from when the ordinary means of grace (i.e., the preaching of the Word) is offered. In other words, at the pleasure and timing of God's will, the Holy Spirit gives new life to the elect person, as well as faith and repentance, with which the elect person then responds to the gospel and is saved.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 16, 2017)

Steve,
Thanks for the clarification. That helped. Do u disagree with the WCF where it says:

ch 27 III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

ch 28 I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 16, 2017)

For clarity:
After thinking about your last post, am I correct in assuming that you do not believe God typically works in the way that JTB was regenerated and converted and if He does, i.e. a infant regenerated at birth or at baptism, he deals with this child like he did w/ JTB? Is this accurate on your position?


----------



## Edward (Aug 16, 2017)

I looked back at what you had posted to others from them, and don't see where they address the issue (whether a one week embryo was contemplated by the Divines) at all.



Scott Bushey said:


> *if you are compelled to argue that the WCF does not specify, 'womb', read between the lines, please. Simple logic that some infants die in the womb, even in the first week after becoming an embryo.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 16, 2017)

Edward,
For clarity: So is it your position that when Westminster used the term 'infancy', they intended to convey that the child was an infant after birth?

By the way, I find nothing on Edward Coke in the internet other than he was a Jurist.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 17, 2017)

Edward,
It would seem obvious, based on these scriptural references, that Westminster took the view I hold in regard to the words, 'infant' or 'infancy', which refer to both before birth and after:

Job 3:16 Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; As infants _which_ never saw light.

*Job 31:15 *

15 Did not he that made me in the womb make him?

And did not one fashion us in the womb?

*Ecclesiastes 11:5 *

5 As thou knowest not what _is_ the way of the spirit, _nor_ how the bones _do grow_ in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.

*Hosea 12:3 *

3 He took his brother by the heel in the womb,

And by his strength he had power with God:
*
Hosea 9:11 *

11 _As for_ Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird,

From the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception.

One can clearly see that God denotes personage to both those in the womb and after birth.


----------



## Edward (Aug 17, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> So is it your position that when Westminster used the term 'infancy', they intended to convey that the child was an infant after birth?



No, as I said before, the dividing line in that day was 'quickening'. 



Scott Bushey said:


> By the way, I find nothing on Edward Coke in the internet other than he was a Jurist.



He summarized and provided commentary on the English Common Law as it existed in the Elizabethan and post Elizabethan era. While not as readable and accessible as the later and better known Blackstone (also referenced above), he certainly gives an insight into the common understanding of the people of England at the time. Indeed, his teachings provided, in part, the basis for Roe v. Wade, which unlike later pro-abortion rulings, recognized a cut-off based on stage of fetal development but which tried to tie it to modern science rather than the historic common law understanding.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 17, 2017)

Edward said:


> No, as I said before, the dividing line in that day was 'quickening'.



Which means, what exactly?


----------



## Steve Curtis (Aug 17, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Steve,
> Thanks for the clarification. That helped. Do u disagree with the WCF where it says:
> 
> ch 27 III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.


No, I do not take exception to this statement. However, if you are implying that it says that all who receive the sacrament also receive grace, I reject that interpretation. As Shaw notes, "many are partakers of the sacraments, who are not partakers of the grace of God."



Scott Bushey said:


> ch 28 I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world.


Nor do I take exception to this statement. However, I reject the implication that baptism is indicative of actual and present regeneration and remission of sins. In atypical instances, such as JtB, that may be the case, and certainly it is with elect infants dying in infancy. Typically, I see this a seal (for the elect) for a future 1) regeneration; 2) repentance ("remission of sin"); and 3) faith ("giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life"). Or as 27.III puts it: "a promise of benefit to worthy receivers."



Scott Bushey said:


> For clarity:
> After thinking about your last post, am I correct in assuming that you do not believe God typically works in the way that JTB was regenerated and converted and if He does, i.e. a infant regenerated at birth or at baptism, he deals with this child like he did w/ JTB? Is this accurate on your position?


That is correct.
As I have stated countless times now, I believe that _whenever_ regeneration occurs (whether in infancy or much later in adult life), faith, repentance, indeed justification (or, _conversion_) is immediately to follow, with no discernible chronological gap. A. A. Hodge says it better than I (Commentary on the WCF):

"From what the Scriptures say as to the nature of the change. They call it “a new birth,” ” a begetting,” “a quickening,” “a new creation.” “God begetteth, the Spirit quickeneth;” ” We are born again,” ” We are God’s workmanship.” John iii. 3, 5 — 7; 1John v. 18; Eph. ii. 1, 5, 10. See also Ezek. xi. 19; Ps. li. 10; Eph iv. 23; Heb. viii. 10. That, after regeneration, the new-born soul *at once* begins and ever continues more or less perfectly to co-operate with sanctifying grace, is self-evident…"

"REGENERATION is an act of God, originating, by a new creation, a new spiritual life in the heart of the subject. The first and *instant* act of that new creature, consequent upon his regeneration, is FAITH, or a believing, trusting embrace of the person and work of Christ. Upon the exercise of faith by the regenerated soul, JUSTIFICATION is the instant act of God…"

"The essence of repentance consists-(2) In our actual turning from all sin unto God. This is that practical turning, or “conversion” from sin unto God, which is the *instant and necessary* consequence of regeneration…"

"Repentance is the *natural and instant* sequence of the grace of regeneration. It also embraces an element of faith in Christ; and that faith is, as we have seen, the instrument of justification. He that repents believes. He that does not repent does not believe. He that does not believe is not justified. *Regeneration and justification are never separated…* "


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 17, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> No, I do not take exception to this statement. However, if you are implying that it says that all who receive the sacrament also receive grace, I reject that interpretation. As Shaw notes, "many are partakers of the sacraments, who are not partakers of the grace of God."



I do not believe that all receive-I agree with the WCF, 'not tied to the moment'.
However, this does not mean that it doesn't happen.



kainos01 said:


> However, I reject the implication that baptism is indicative of actual and present regeneration and remission of sins.



Are you saying that you do not believe God sometimes regenerates at baptism and if so, what do you think Westminster meant here?


kainos01 said:


> In atypical instances, such as JtB



I disagree and I believe Westminster would disagree-quotes to follow....


----------



## Steve Curtis (Aug 17, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Are you saying that you do not believe God sometimes regenerates at baptism and if so, what do you think Westminster meant here?


Why would you ask this question if you read what I wrote?? I clearly stated my position - and thereby answered this question - in the words immediately following the snippet you quoted.

With regard to what the WCF framers meant, I already noted that I agree with the interpretation provided by A. A. Hodge. I have previously noted that there were differing opinions among the divines about a number of issues, as I am sure you are aware. So, it does little good to say that this one said this, or that one said that. You have your convictions in this regard; I have mine. You may have luminaries who bolster your position; I do, as well. I see no further benefit in carrying on a debate that not even the Westminster divines were (apparently) able to reconcile amongst themselves!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 17, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> Why would you ask this question if you read what I wrote?? I clearly stated my position - and thereby answered this question - in the words immediately following the snippet you quoted.



Just reiterating... my bad.

No need to continue. Fair enough. I won't waste your time with any add'l quotes. Thanks for the discussion.


----------



## Edward (Aug 17, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Which means, what exactly?



When the child can be perceived as moving in the mother's womb. It may depend on whether it is the mother's first or a subsequent pregnancy (may be felt earlier if she has had other children.) From an online dictionary: "In medical jurisprudence. The first motion of the fetus in the womb felt by the mother, occurring usually about the middle of the term of pregnancy." https://dictionary.thelaw.com/quickening/ 

It is from the historic word for living - "quick"

Related question: Have you ever said the Apostle's Creed?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 17, 2017)

Edward said:


> Related question: Have you ever said the Apostle's Creed?



No, never...LOL


----------



## Edward (Aug 17, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> No, never...LOL



Thanks. I have been thinking that New was a good alternative to Coral Ridge. I'll revise my thinking. 

You might want to stay away from the KJV and the Geneva.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 17, 2017)

Edward,
I am not following you. The question about the AC was a bit strange to me; of course I have recited the AC. What does that have to do with my church?

And, why are u saying what you are about the KJ and Geneva bibles?


----------



## Edward (Aug 17, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> The question about the AC was a bit strange to me; ...
> 
> And, why are u saying what you are about the KJ and Geneva bibles?



You were puzzled by what 'quickening' meant. If you recited the Apostle's Creed, you should have been using the term, 
"From thence he shall come to judge the _quick_ and the dead..." http://www.fpcjackson.org/resource-...he-right-hand-to-judge-the-quick-and-the-dead. Quick is also used to identify the living in both the Geneva and the King James. 

Quickening, in that era, denoted when life began and was identified by the feelings of the baby moving in the womb. 

I was taken aback by the idea that a church would eschew the Apostle's Creed, and would seek to avoid recommending such a body.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 17, 2017)

Good point. For the record, I was not completely unaware of the term 'quick' per se. As u mention the AC, which I was aware of. I just didn't know how u came to the conclusion u did in regards to infancy-so yea, what u shared was helpful. I just never thought of it apart from 'living'. Your description about movement was helpful.

My church recites the AC faithfully. I do not as I see it as a break in the RPW, but thats another story.


----------



## Edward (Aug 17, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> how u came to the conclusion u did



To make it clear - these aren't my views on the underlying issues - I am merely pointing out what the common understandings were in the 1600s, and that present anti-abortion theology can't be projected back on the WCF. And none of the board's several experts on the Puritans has yet come up with anything showing that any dissented from this view.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

