# Presumptive Regeneration/Presumptive Election



## Me Died Blue (Nov 21, 2004)

I know there are some here who hold to Presumptive Regeneration (e.g. Matt) and others who only hold to Presumptive Election (e.g. Fred, Dan), and that PR seems to be the predominant Reformed view historically and currently. I'm not really sure which one I see as the biblical doctrine yet, althought it doesn't seem to make that much a difference in the rest of one's theology. Thoughts from either side on why you hold to one versus the other?

(BTW, I do understand that in order to hold to PR, one must logically also hold to PE.)


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> I know there are some here who hold to Presumptive Regeneration (e.g. Matt) and others who only hold to Presumptive Election (e.g. Fred, Dan), and that PR seems to be the predominant Reformed view historically and currently. I'm not really sure which one I see as the biblical doctrine yet, althought it doesn't seem to make that much a difference in the rest of one's theology. Thoughts from either side on why you hold to one versus the other?
> 
> (BTW, I do understand that in order to hold to PR, one must logically also hold to PE.)



Chris,

The thread on infant baptism and crisis conversions has much of my thoughts on this. You simply MUST read Old's book and Calvin's Communicants questions.

Also, your statement above is incorrect on a couple of levels. I believe that Matt/Scott would disagree that "PR seems to be the predominant Reformed view currently." I certainly disagree with the statement that "PR seems to be the predominant Reformed view historically." Given Calvin's manual, and Owen's treatise on renegeration, as well as the historic Dutch views of A'Brakel, I think the best that can be argued is for a mixed bag - I actually think that the view is not the historic position, but that PE is.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



Yeah, that thread was what got me thinking about this topic in particular. I'll put that book on my to-get list.



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Also, your statement above is incorrect on a couple of levels. I believe that Matt/Scott would disagree that "PR seems to be the predominant Reformed view currently." I certainly disagree with the statement that "PR seems to be the predominant Reformed view historically." Given Calvin's manual, and Owen's treatise on renegeration, as well as the historic Dutch views of A'Brakel, I think the best that can be argued is for a mixed bag - I actually think that the view is not the historic position, but that PE is.



Thanks for the correction - I guess the reason I said that was because I haven't ever studied this doctrinal difference as an issue by itself, and have heard PR mentioned in the books, articles and sermons I've read/heard much more frequently than I've heard PE mentioned, for some reason.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 21, 2004)

Fred:
simply MUST read Old's book and Calvin's Communicants questions.


Where could one get this?


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Finn McCool_
> Fred:
> simply MUST read Old's book and Calvin's Communicants questions.
> 
> ...



Here is one:

http://tinyurl.com/46fa3


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> How would PRers argue against paedocommunion?



I suppose the same way you finally convinced me against it back in March (in this thread): by showing that 1 Cor. 11 is not merely a warning on excessive abuses surrounding the Supper (which, as I see it, is the only interpretation of that passage that can save paedocommunion), but is in fact a total command for full examination before partaking any time, as clearly shown by 2 Chron. 30:18-20 and Numbers 9:6. The Chronicles passage is especially relevant, since it clearly likens the "cleasing of themselves" (and thus the "examining" in the Supper) to the one who "prepares his heart to seek God."

So as a presumptive electionist or regenerationist, in any case, just being a paedobaptist would definitely make me a paedocommunionist for consistency if it were not for 1 Cor. 11 and verses like 2 Chron. 30:18-20 to interpret it. But because of those passages, I can't see how anyone, presumptive regenerationist or not, can hold to paedocommunion.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ...



But (at least to the extreme PR advocate) that examination is contained in the examination to see if one is baptized. If baptized, then regenerate, if regenerate, then able to partake. This is exactly where the Auburn folks go.

*{NOTE: Advocates of PR on this board have not gone there - at least not Matt and Scott. Please don't hear me saying that. But it is possible, even likely that PR leads to paedocommunion}*


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 22, 2004)

I really do not know what Schlissel, Wilson et. al. are thinking. *Presuming someone is regenerate is in no way saying someone is converted. The supper warrants conversion.* PR does not lead to paedocommunion, not if the advocate is reading their bibles. 

This is my position on PR. When my child shows forth her faith in her life and word, she will then partake along with us. This may be earlier than later; it all depends.

[Edited on 11-22-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## pastorway (Nov 22, 2004)

Sam Waldron argues simply and effectively against PR in the fourth chapter of his new book _A Reformed Baptist Manifesto_. A great little book I highly recommend!

http://www.solid-ground-books.com/books_ReformedBaptistAcademicPress.asp

Phillip


----------



## JohnV (Nov 22, 2004)

My view on this: Regeneration or Election

From what I can make out it's a terminological problem, and not so much a difference in theology. One of the reasons that I use the 'regeneration' in the presupmption is to face the false idea head on. PR, which has been a bad catch-all word around here between the different Dutch churches, carries the wrong notion of a declaration of salvation without profession of faith. But it was meant to convey an attributing of membership status, with all the benefits of that status, while still maintaining the full necessity of professing one's faith. Whether one speaks of election or regeneration, if we get into the exact extent of it we go further than what is revealed to us. What is extended to the children of the believer is the status of the believer as a full member of the Covenant. Therefore all the promises are included, and thus Covenant benefits. 

These benefits are to be kept distinct from Covenant privileges. The latter includes the responsibilities of the conveying of the sacraments to the Covenant members. Not only may the unprofessed member not receive communion, but also their children may not receive the sign and seal of baptism. Children receive the Covenant sign by virtue of the parents' (or parent's) faith, because they are within the household of faith. But they do have to also profess their faith in order to receive and be responsible for Communion and the baptism of their children. Otherwise the presumption is no longer on the faith of the Covenant head of the family. 

If we are going to divide between the two terms I will gladly acquiesce and give up the term I favour, "regeneration." I think that it would take away from the meaning to quibble over the term. It's not about that; it's about the rights of children in the Church, and even more about the "unspeakable comfort" granted to the parents in the case of the loss of a child too soon to live a life of faith in response of thankfulness for the salvation of the Cross of Christ. It is not that such a life must be lived for salvation to be granted, but that such a life would attest to the parents and the church of the salvation of the person if faith were evidenced by works or righteousness. For such a life lived would be the result of faith, not the cause of it; and so the great comfort to the parents if a child should die before such an expression of faith were possible. Jesus speaks of angels watching over them.

It doesn't mean that everything is all set for them, that they will infallibly have faith; but it does mean that if they don't respond in faith, if they rebel, that they have fallen from the Covenant. But those who struggle with faith all their lives, but believe in God's end of the keeping of the Covenant have no reason to despair of being left out of God's grace. So there is also an assurance that applies to it as well. It just is no excuse for carelessness in the faith. In fact, it is supposed to, and indeed does, provide the very means by which carelessness in faith is fought against in the life of the faithful. The assurance is one of hope in God's faithfulness, not our own. And thus we are always encouraged by Scripture and the Church to repent, and to turn from sin, and to return in thankfulness to Christ.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



Their interpretation of "examine" as able to be fulfilled by being regenerate seems to completely ignore the 2 Chronicles passage, which specifically likens "cleansing" before Passover with the act of one who "prepares _his_ [own] heart to seek God" (emphasis mine), so to simply equate "preparing your own heart to seek God" with "being regenerate" seems to be horribly careless exegesis.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 22, 2004)

Chris,
See my previous posts.........


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Chris,
> See my previous posts.........



In your previous post, you said,



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I really do not know what Schlissel, Wilson et. al. are thinking. *Presuming someone is regenerate is in no way saying someone is converted. The supper warrants conversion.* PR does not lead to paedocommunion, not if the advocate is reading their bibles.
> 
> This is my position on PR. When my child shows forth her faith in her life and word, she will then partake along with us. This may be earlier than later; it all depends.



with which I agree. My above post was making the point that paedocommunion can't hold up even with PR, and that the A4's faulty exegesis of "examine" can't save paedocommunion, either, PR or not.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 22, 2004)




----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 22, 2004)

Any other thoughts from people who hold to either view as to why you do?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 23, 2004)

I used to tentatively hold to PR (and perhaps I still do) but Ex Nihilo (Evie) and I have been talking and I can see some weak parts in it. Fred also made a few good points in another thread (the one on communicants' classes). 

I do have a question for Matt, however:

A long time ago in a thread far away, I clicked on a link concerning Baptism and in that link you mentioned, quoting John Gerstner, that the Scottish tended to view their children as regenerate (or elect, I can't remember) until proven otherwise, whereas the English Puritans viewed their children as non-elect/regenerate until proven otherwise. Did I get that right? I just found that statement to be very interesting and being the amateur historian that I aspire to be, I like to find teh causes for people's beliefs. I hope I was clear just then.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 23, 2004)

The main question I have for PRs is how they directly build their case exegetically.

The reason I'm a paedobaptist (and at least a PE, not sure on PR yet) is because I see God's numerous promises of spiritual blessing and favor to the children of believers (including OT circumcision), and God's promise is at least as biblical and sure a ground on which to presume as is man's profession. Thus, we can at least presume that God is going to spiritually bless our children, and thus that they are elect (since the reprobate receive no blessing but common grace).

However, on what grounds can we necessarily presume from those promises that they are going to take effect as soon as the child is born (which is what PR seems to logically imply)? Is it the "assume the promise's logical result until evidence points otherwise" mindset, analogous to the CT hermeneutic of assuming continuity unless shown otherwise?

In return, I suppose the PR could ask the PE what they make of the fact that among other things, baptism signifies regeneration.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 23, 2004)

Thats right Chris! Thats what the WCF says.

Paul, 
I will quote Fred:

"Because regeneration is a change of state in a person. Election is not. While regeneration is not conversion, it is an act in the ordo salutis that has objective effect on the person so regenerated."

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=5831&page=4

[Edited on 11-23-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 23, 2004)

Paul,
It is not regeneration, thats for sure. Conversion is the final component in the ordo salutis; it is Gods miracle.

[Edited on 11-23-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 23, 2004)

I would say conversion is when a person exercises saving faith, and is where justification is fully and finally entified (I say "entified" because it was of course purchased at the Cross).


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> I would say conversion is when a person exercises saving faith, and is where justification is fully and finally entified (I say "entified" because it was of course purchased at the Cross).



Chris,
"Exercises" sounds as if the justification and conversion is dependant upon the action of the person previously regenerated. Saving faith is _exhibited_in the person when he is converted. One would never have saving faith unless conversion allowed for it.

Rom 8:28 But we know that to the ones loving God all things work together for good, to those being called according to purpose; 
Rom 8:29 because whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, for Him to be the First-born among many brothers. 
Rom 8:30 But whom He predestinated, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



Agreed - I think of the two as simultaneous (faith and conversion) actions that God can only bring about after (or simultaneous with) regeneration. And from our perspective, we are _exercising_ faith at that time, even though we now know that God was behind it. In other words, while both the regeneration and the sometimes-later conversion are brought about monergistically, the latter does result in a simultaneous action of our own, whereas the former does not.


----------



## wsw201 (Nov 23, 2004)

So what you are saying is that faith and repentance (the fruit of regeneration) is conversion. So someone can be regenerated by the Holy Spirit but not exhibit faith and repentance until sometime later?


----------



## Scott (Nov 23, 2004)

Is there any indication in the Bible that someone can be regenerate but not justified?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 23, 2004)

When speaking of PR, we are speaking of that which is based upon Gods promise, our faith towards the promise and our childs baptism and what baptism represents. Conversion requires the hearing of Gods word and processing of that word; infants or young children are not able to do that. When the time comes when they do show 'processing' of the information, I would then begin to presume conversion.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 23, 2004)

You would have to ask yourself if the promises of God change or not.
If they do not change, then, yes, it is absolutely the case. 
Do you believe that?


[Edited on 11-24-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 23, 2004)

John the baptist was regenerate, and then later believed.


----------



## AdamM (Nov 23, 2004)

> Is there any indication in the Bible that someone can be regenerate but not justified?



Good point (question) Scott.

Regeneration, the renewing of the human will, conversion the turning to God through that renewed will and justification, the result of the renewed will trusting and turning to God are set forth in our theology in a logical order, but they are received by the sinner chronologically punctiliar. The ordo salutis gives a logical priority of separate and distinct actions, but isn´t meant to imply that there is a time gap of the sort that we measure with a stopwatch.

Just as the sinful will not ever turn to Christ, the renewed will cannot help but turn to Christ (conversion) and is justified. You can´t have regeneration without union with Christ and a person who has union Christ is also a person who is converted, justified, being sanctified & etc. To suppose otherwise would mean that a person could be united with Christ and still not be justified or justified while not also being sanctified "“ something that is impossible. 

The ordo salutis page at monergism.com has a bunch of links to good articles explaining this further. 

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/ordosalutis.html



> Ordo Salutis (The Order of Salvation)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Latin, "the order of salvation." The ordo salutis is the theological doctrine that deals with the logical sequencing of the benefits of Salvation worked by Christ which are applied to us by the Spirit. This first thing to remember is that we must never seperate the benefits (regeneration, justification, sanctification) from the Benefactor (Jesus Christ). The entire process (election, redemption, regeneration, etc.) is the work of God in Christ and is by grace alone. Election is the superstructure of our ordo salutis, but not itself the application of redemption. Regeneration, the work of the Holy Spirit which brings us into a living union with Christ, has a causal priority over the other aspects of the process of salvation. God opens our eyes, we see. God circumcises/ unplugs our ears, we hear. Jesus calls a dead and buried Lazarus out of the grave, he comes; In the same way, the Holy Spirit applies regeneration, (opening our spiritual eyes and renewing our affections), infallibly resulting in faith. All the benefits of redemption such as conversion (faith & repentance), justification, sanctification and perseverance presuppose the existence of spiritual life. The work of applying God's grace is a unitary process given to the elect simultaneously. This is instantaneous, but there is definitely a causal order (regeneration giving rise to all the rest). Though these benefits cannot be separated, it is helpful to distinguish them. Therefore, instead of imposing a chronological order we should view these as a unitary work of God to bring us into union with Christ. We must always keep in mind that the orders expressed in the following articles occur together or happen simultaneously like the turning on of a light switch or a faucet. But God turns on the light/faucet, so to speak. All aspects of the work of God continue together throughout the life of a Christian.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 23, 2004)

Adam, For the record, that was P. Manata's question.

Paul, yes. It is necessarily the case.

Men cannot be converted without the hearing of Gods word to facilitate conversion. John is a prime example. This fact is irrefutable.

Whats up with the verse from Tim?

[Edited on 11-24-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> You would have to ask yourself if the promises of God change or not.
> If they do not change, then, yes, it is absolutely the case.
> Do you believe that?
> ...



Isn't there another option? An option that occurs over and over again throughout the Bible? That is that the promises are not always to those whom they _seem _to be to. A prime example being Esau.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...




Joh 10:27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

Isa 55:11 so shall My Word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in what I sent it to do! 

What do you think Jesus meant when He used the term "see"? 

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, If one is not generated from above, he is not able to see the kingdom of God.

Regeneration gives site. Site gives way to understanding. Understanding brings about conversion.

John the baptist was regenerated in the womb; site was available. He heard the word and was converted.

[Edited on 11-24-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 23, 2004)

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



But we do not have the "luxury" of the compound sense unless we see the outcome. So do we rest on pessimism or optimism based on what has been revelaed fro covenant children unless otherwise directed? If it is not optimism, then I think that overthorws all the covenant promises and we are saying we really do not believe what God said when He said, "I will be a God to you and your children after you."

[Edited on 11-24-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Scott, I think you're misunderstanding my questions.
> 
> Let me make it easy: what reasons do you have to say an infant NEVER can be "converted?"
> ...



I think we would all agree that regeneration is not conversion. That Faith is not regeneration. That Sanctification is not justification. That justification is not faith. The sum total of everything that happens from the time of "drawing" through until the time of "initital sanctification" would be deemed as "conversion;" i.e. Bob was truly converted to Christianity at age 12. That presupposes (Paul I know you like that word so I'll try to use it often  ) he was drawn by the Holy Spirit, regenerated, repetned, had faith, was justified and began sanctification through the Holy Spirit. Conversion is the sum total of that "paradigm shift." 

For example: 
Colossians 1:13-14 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.

or

SoD, Head 3/4 A.11
But when God accomplishes His good pleasure in the elect, or works in them true conversion, He not only causes the gospel to be externally preached to them, and powerfully illuminates their minds by His Holy Spirit, that they may rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of God; but by the efficacy of the same regenerating Spirit He pervades the inmost recesses of man; He opens the closed and softens the hardened heart, and circumcises that which was uncircumcised; infuses new qualities into the will, which, though heretofore dead, He quickens; from being evil, disobedient, and refractory, He renders it good, obedient, and pliable; actuates and strengthens it, that like a good tree, it may bring forth the fruits of good actions.

Etc.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 23, 2004)

Can a man be saved yet he repent? Can an infant repent? Can a man be saved unless he be converted under the hearing of the Gospel? Can an infant process the gospel message?

Paul, 
There is surely a paradigm shift. Conversion cannot be necessarily measured with a stick in it's beginning stages. Conversion does not necessarily show itself in fruit for quite sometime. Gods word gives life. The believer gleans nuggets after sitting under sound preaching and applies them to his life. He is now obedient by the power now in him. 

You are correct in stating that not all professing disciples are in fact converted.

Covenant children whom grow in the Lord, never recalling an event that would link them to conversion, does not necessarily mean anything other than God upholding His covenantal promise. There is no way they were converted though outside the hearing of Gods gospel. Conversion is necessary to partake of the supper. The non converted cannot proclaim the Lords death until He comes. If you are saying that non regenerates partake; they do. Erroneously.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 23, 2004)

Can an infant cognitively understand the Gospel? At any time before they are introduced to language? How do they have cognitive faith that justifies int his way? (Not seed faith but cognitive faith).

To define what happens with infants is to talk about a whole other realm of "salvation" in terms of the ordo salutis than with an adult.


----------



## turmeric (Nov 23, 2004)

Someone told me that she thought I was effectually called as a child, but just couldn't believe the mish-mash I was taught, which was not the Gospel. But I don't agree, because I hated God. I think if I'd been regenerated, I would have been thinking "God can't be like this, this isn't God." but what I did think was "If this is God, I don't want any." I didn't want God at all for many years. Could I have been regenerate but not converted and still felt that I hated God? Hmmm...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 23, 2004)

Meg,
See the words of Christ I posted above. Regeneration brings sight. I would suggest no for your scenario.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Matt,

There is a huge difference between a vigorous optimism that rests in the promises, and a presumption.

The Covenant of Grace cannot be broken. It is conditional with the conditions already fulfilled by the Triune God. Here is the Consensus Formula Helvetica on point:



> Canon XVI: Since all these things are entirely so, we can hardly approve the opposite doctrine of those who affirm that of his own intention and counsel and that of the Father who sent him, Christ died for each and every one upon the condition, that they believe. We also cannot affirm the teaching that he obtained for all a salvation, which, nevertheless, is not applied to all, and by his death merited a salvation and faith for no one individually but only removed the obstacle of divine justice, and acquired for the Father the liberty of entering into a new covenant of grace with all men. Finally, they so separate the active and passive righteousness of Christ, as to assert that he claims his active righteousness as his own, but gives and imputes only his passive righteousness to the elect. All these opinions, and all that are like these, are contrary to the plain Scriptures and the glory of Christ, who is Author and Finisher of our faith and salvation; they make his cross of none effect, and under the appearance of exalting his merit, they, in reality diminish it.
> 
> Canon XXIII: There are two ways in which God, the just Judge, has promised justification: either by one's own works or deeds in the law, or by the obedience or righteousness of another, even of Christ our Guarantor. This justification is imputed by grace to those who believe in the Gospel. The former is the method of justifying man because of perfection; but the latter, of justifying man who is a corrupt sinner. In accordance with these two ways of justification the Scripture establishes these two covenants: the Covenant of Works, entered into with Adam and with each one of his descendants in him, but made void by sin; and *the Covenant of Grace, made with only the elect in Christ, the second Adam, eternal. This covenant cannot be broken while the Covenant of Works can be abrogated. *
> 
> Canon XXIV: But this later Covenant of Grace according to the diversity of times has also different dispensations. For when the Apostle speaks of the dispensation of the fullness of times, that is, the administration of the last time (Eph 1:10), he very clearly indicates that there had been another dispensation and administration until the times which the Father appointed. Yet in the dispensation of the Covenant of Grace the elect have not been saved in any other way than by the Angel of his presence (Isa 63:9), the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8), Christ Jesus, through the knowledge of that just Servant and faith in him and in the Father and his Spirit. For Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13:8). And by His grace we believe that we are saved in the same manner as the Fathers also were saved, and in both Testaments these statutes remain unchanged: "Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him," (the Son) (Ps 2:12); "He that believes in Him is not condemned, but he that does not believe is condemned already" (John 3:18). "You believe in God," even the Father, "believe also in me" (John 14:1). But if, moreover, the holy Fathers believed in Christ as their God, it follows that they also believed in the Holy Spirit, without whom no one can call Jesus Lord. Truly there are so many clearer exhibitions of this faith of the Fathers and of the necessity of such faith in either Covenant, that they can not escape any one unless one wills it. But though this saving knowledge of Christ and the Holy Trinity was necessarily derived, according to the dispensation of that time, both from the promise and from shadows and figures and mysteries, with greater difficulty than in the NT. Yet it was a true knowledge, and, in proportion to the measure of divine Revelation, it was sufficient to procure salvation and peace of conscience for the elect, by the help of God's grace.



And Peter van Mastricht:



> we must distinguish most carefully between those promises of the covenant of grace which are of the nature of means to an end, such as are the obtaining of redemption through Christ, regeneration, conversion, the conjunction of faith with purpose of amendment; and those which are of the nature of an end, e.g., justification, adoption, glorification etc. If this is done, we seem bound to say that the promises of the covenant of grace of the first kind are plainly absolute. It involves a manifest contradiction to require of man dead in sins a preliminary condition for the redemption of Christ, like redemption etc. But promises of the second class, like justification, adoption, etc. are altogether conditioned, *yet in such a way that the satisfaction of the conditions depends not upon the strength of the free will (liberum arbitrium), but on the absolute promises of this covenant* (Theoretica et practica theologia, 5.1.37).



The last sentence for me is critical.

Here the Belgic Confession shows that the sacraments have a purpose to help our weakness, but only in the context of the Word:



> Article 33: The Sacraments. We believe that our good God, mindful of our crudeness and weakness, has ordained sacraments for us to seal his promises in us, to pledge his good will and grace toward us, and also to nourish and sustain our faith. He has *added these to the Word* of the gospel to represent better to our external senses both what he enables us to understand by his Word and *what he does inwardly in our hearts*, confirming in us the salvation he imparts to us.



The Canons of Dort also seem to clearly imply that the gospel is to be pressed on all, which would include children of the covenant:



> Second Head: Article 5. Moreover, the promise of the gospel is that whosoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and *to all persons promiscuously and without distinction*, to whom God out of His good pleasure sends the gospel.



James Ussher makes essentially the same point that I believe I am making, that while baptism is important, it will of necessity show itself efficacious in the believer's life, and it is difficult to try and formulate a doctrine from it alone:



> What must we think of the effect of baptism in those elect infants whom God allows to mature to years of discretion? There is no reason ordinarily to promise them an extraordinary work of God, if God purposes to give them ordinary means. Though God can at times sanctify from the womb, as in the case of Jeremiah and John the Baptist, and at other times in baptism, it is difficult to determine, as some are accustomed to do, that each elect infant ordinarily before or in baptism receives the principle of regeneration and the seed of the faith and grace. If, however, such a principle is infused, it cannot be lost or hidden in such a way that it would not demonstrate itself (Body of Divinity, 417).



So also Geerhardus Vos: 



> One hardly needs to be reminded how all this in no sense means that covenant administration proceeds from election, nor that all nonelect stands outside any relation to the administration of the covenant. Rather it means: 1) that any certainty about one's election must develop out of a strong covenant awareness; 2) that throughout the entire administration of the the all-embracing promises of God, as they result from election, must be kept in mind, both in word and sacrament; 3) that finally the essence of the covenant, its full realization, is found only in the true children of God, and therefore is no more extensive than election. Especially the second point is important. Besides the fact that everywhere God's covenant is administered, there is a sealing of its content: *the presence of faith is the presupposition of the assurance that one is entitled to the blessings of the covenant* -- besides this fact, we say, there is always a solemn witness and sealing of the fact that God wishes to realize in all the elect the total scope of the covenant ("The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology," Shorter Writings, 260).



And I didn't want to get into this now...






So my point is NOT that baptism is not a tool of assurance, nor that it is an empty sign or seal. It is that it alone is insufficient to provide us with a presumption of regeneration.

And again, for now the FOURTH time (I believe), will someone deal with the fact that they want to take but one of the four (or more) things signified and sealed by baptism (namely, only regeneration) and say that we can presume it by the sign, but that we will NOT take all the other things that the Confession clearly, explicitly and plainly asserts are also signified and sealed by baptism? Why do you get to pick and choose? The folks at RefCat are at least more consistent - they are willing to presume (subject to rebuttal) that Romanists are justified and saved by Trinitarian baptism.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Can an infant cognitively understand the Gospel? At any time before they are introduced to language? How do they have cognitive faith that justifies int his way? (Not seed faith but cognitive faith).
> 
> To define what happens with infants is to talk about a whole other realm of "salvation" in terms of the ordo salutis than with an adult.



Conversion is a passing from death to life. Is there anyone born who is not spiritually dead? We are left with only



All are born in original sin, and for anyone to be saved he must exercise cognative understanding of the gospel, hence all infants go to hell
All must exercise cognative understanding of the gospel to be saved from death, infants in the covenant do not go to hell because they do not have original sin (or at least its effects are somehow wiped out by the covenant)
Not all infants go to hell, but that is because cognative understanding is only the ordinary, normal means of conversion (passing from death to life) and the Spirit can use whatever means He wishes (not just the object but the means are at His will)
[/list=1]

Personally, I'll go with #3.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 23, 2004)

Agreed. And so does Owen:



> Neither was there anything that had either life in it, or principle of life, or any disposition thereunto. In this condition he moved on the prepared
> matter, preserving and cherishing of it, and communicating unto all things a
> principle of life, whereby they were animated, as we have declared. It was
> no otherwise in the new creation. There was a spiritual darkness and death
> ...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 23, 2004)

Fred, I loved the quotes.



> It is that it alone is insufficient to provide us with a presumption of regeneration.



Its not alone. We do not rest on BAPTISM but the PROMISE. Don't confuse the two.

The question on Roman Baptism is a GOOD question. I'll write up an answer later.

Paul,




> if we presumed ALL our covenant children to be regenerate I would see no reason not to admit them



Are you trying to prove paedocommunion? Is that the question?

[Edited on 11-24-2004 by webmaster]

[Edited on 11-24-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 24, 2004)

I spent today getting ready to fly back to Cincinnati for Thanksgiving break, and I'm home now. I didn't expect this thread to grow like this in just a few hours! I'll have to catch up tomorrow.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 24, 2004)

Again, I say, regeneration is not conversion. The table is for the converted. Conversion is proof of regeneration.

In regards to Matt;s quote:



> 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.



Perceiving the kingdom proves regeneration yes. It does not prove that men have in fact been converted. The quotes above has used the terms synonomously. For the sake of this discussion, the terms are not interchangeable.

Question: Can we all agree that the ordo of salvation has components? Is regeneration one of the components? Is conversion? Is conversion regeneration? Is regeneration, conversion? 


[Edited on 11-24-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 24, 2004)

Paul,

How do we go from applicaiton of the sign based on God's command, to the ability for an infant to examine one's self in the corporate community during the Lord's Supper? Talk abot apples and oranges! Talk about apples and ice cream! Honestly, when I read that in your last post, I figured you were just palying games and not thinking.


----------



## AdamM (Nov 24, 2004)

> To define what happens with infants is to talk about a whole other realm of "salvation" in terms of the ordo salutis than with an adult.



Great point Matt. I think it corresponds to Fred´s #3 option that he mentioned in regard to infant salvation. I think we are agreed that it is a great danger to take something extraordinary we find in scripture like infant salvation, which we have to acknowledge, is somewhat mysterious and attempting to make the extraordinary the template for our teachings on the subject. I don´t know how God saves infants, but I know he does. However, I know the ordinary way God tells us he saves people is by the preaching of the general call of the gospel (faith comes by hearing), which is made effectual by the Holy Spirit to the elect.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 24, 2004)

Paul,

Why do you think "examination" goes on?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 24, 2004)

> I mean, does level of development determine who is regernerte, initially sanctified, justified, elect, etc?



There is a differecne between "regenerate" and those that have the seeds of faith, and those that have cognative faith. Think sensibly - infants do not exercise the same level of faith you do while typing ont he Puritanboard. Infact, they do not exercise (key word) any faith. It is there in seed form. (See Turretin on that - he is exstensive).


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 24, 2004)

Paul,

Burdon of proof is on you to demonstrate this:

"perceive the kingdom"

I agree with you:

I just said that infants could be justified (yes) , sanctified (yes), regenerate (yes), perceive the kingdom (NO).

Show me how infants "perceive" (i.e. John 3:3 - "oraow" to spiritually understand.)


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 24, 2004)

Paul, - thanks for the quote, but that regards the basics of regeneration _and the application of it with an ADULT_ - to perceive, again, is to spiritually *understand*. How do infnats spiritually understand (cognitive exercise)? Your still glossing over that.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> > To define what happens with infants is to talk about a whole other realm of "salvation" in terms of the ordo salutis than with an adult.
> ...



Elect infants that die in infancy are surely a 'mystery'; however, we are not addressing this type of case in this discussion. What we are looking at is if God has in fact ordained a full life for an infant, and if such an infant could be converted in infancy. There is no way that a case as such would be converted outside of the preaching of Gods gospel. This has always been Gods way.

[Edited on 11-24-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## AdamM (Nov 24, 2004)

> good point. Now go all the way and apply it to regeneration.



Paul, I am not sure how you want me to apply it to regeneration? 

If it is regard to the Lord's Table, I think the discernment spoken of, has to be a spiritual discernment and therefore if an infant was regenerate he or she would possess the necessary discernment to partake as a result of regeneration. However, I am not a PR advocate and as I indicated earlier, I think infant salvation is extraordinary.


----------



## AdamM (Nov 24, 2004)

> Elect infants that die in infancy are surely a 'mystery'; however, we are not addressing this type of case in this discussion. What we are looking at is if God has in fact ordained a full life for an infant, and if such an infant could be converted in infancy. There is no way that a case as such would be converted outside of the preaching of Gods gospel. This has always been Gods way.



Scott, I would not just apply the mystery to elect infants who die in infancy. I think the mystery applies to every infant conversion or that of mentally retarded too. We know it has to be through the merit of Christ alone, His atoning death, His life of obedience, by which God saves infants, but I think it is outside of the ordo as we would ordinarily express it. It is one of those truths that God simply has not chosen to reveal much about to us. 

I am comfortable with that (as if that matters to God) and would not want to reorder or introduce other novelties into the ordinary ordo of salutis to accommodate those extraordinary acts of God.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> > Elect infants that die in infancy are surely a 'mystery'; however, we are not addressing this type of case in this discussion. What we are looking at is if God has in fact ordained a full life for an infant, and if such an infant could be converted in infancy. There is no way that a case as such would be converted outside of the preaching of Gods gospel. This has always been Gods way.
> ...



Conversions do not happen in the infant whom is predestined to live a full life. Under this scenario, this infant must be converted under the preaching of Gods word. Elect infants dying in infancy and the imbecile are not mentioned are essentially silent in scripture. That which is clear is that men must be converted under the gospel message. So lets clearify this. It is a mystery. How does God convert outside of his decreed way, His normal process, those whom will never make it to hear his message of hope? Only He knows, but that is not what we are discussing here.

[Edited on 11-24-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## JohnV (Nov 24, 2004)

Remember that an infant is baptized if and only if the parent(s) profess a true faith. That is, the child is baptized by virtue of one or more parent's faith, under a covenant headship. When you separate the two, then Paul is right, that PR inevitably would include PC, and neither would actually be legitimate anymore. If I'm not mistaken Paul is driving at the distinction between presumtion of election vs. presumption of regeneration. 

Personally, as I said in a previous post, I don't think one can hang that kind of distinction on the reasons for the baptism of infants. The question that is answered by PR is, 

Q. What of the children of believers?
A. They are to be deemed members of the Covenant of Grace.

Q. What are the benefits for children who are members of the Covenant of grace?
A. All the promises of grace that are extended to all who believe.

Q. Can we know who all are the true believers and who are not, and thus which children are truly in the Covenant as members of grace?
A. No, we cannot. But we accept all who profess faith from their heart, not doubting God's promises to any.

Do you see what I am getting at? We still don't know who really is true in faith, but we do act upon what a person says, not doubting their word unless they demonstrate a real impenitence; not just a backsliding but a heart of stone instead of faith. This also has ramifications for a child of such a one, for he cannot be brought in for baptism unless that person repents. But that child can still be brought in under the faith of the other parent; and the baptism of a child before such faithlessness is demonstrated by a parent is still not to be doubted. All the same, sin can spread. There is so much that we cannot know in the people involved, but we can be certain of God's promises. We have His word on it, and that cannot fail.

In this discussion, if we are going to parse the _ordo salutis_, then it ought to be on the basis of God's work, and not man's reliability in it. But I think that we cannot go that far because we get it mixed up, and before you know it we include the other sign and seal without distinction along with the first, and we lose our basis for the baptism of children. 

The reason I use the word "regeneration" is because, 1. the milieu of my Reformed setting; and 2. because it answers the question of the why and what of the inclusion of children in the Covenant. There is a connotative inclusion in the word "election" that just opens another set of problems. Chris is right, I think, that regeneration includes election, and that it can be thought of as a scale of attributes, but I think that on the other side there is also part of regeneration that is included in election, and that the latter brings with it more than we need for permission to baptize our children. 

I also think Fred is right in pointing us to more than just regeneration as to what the promises point to. But yet I think that that is a looking forward in the faith, not a justificsation for included membership in the Covenant. Regeneration is all we need to provide justification, and that must be in the parent. It is to be deemed bestowed on the child as much as the adult: the child belongs to the body of Christ, and so is heir of the promises as well. That's all we can hang on that. What God promises and gives are as certain as can be; but we just are not privy to what will be certain as far as man is concerned. God knows. Otherwise Perseverance of the Saints loses its meaning and comfort for us.


----------



## AdamM (Nov 24, 2004)

> Oh, o.k. I thought you were joining with Matt who is PR. So, I'm trying to argue that PR leads to PC.



Paul, there is no doubt that if I was PR, I would be strongly PC too. I have many Dutch friends who are big PR advocates, but also strongly oppose PC and young child communion, but I have never though their thinking on the issue was logically consistent. 

For what it's worth, I think the PE/ Covenant Consciousness view as taught by Sinclair Ferguson is the best approach.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Conversions do not happen in the infant whom is predestined to live a full life. Under this scenario, this infant must be converted under the preaching of Gods word.



Scott,

You do realize that this is going further than just about every Reformed theologian has been willing to go, don't you?

Even Owen, who explicitly links the work of the Spirit to the Word allows for exceptional cases.


----------



## turmeric (Nov 24, 2004)

So, is everyone saying we extend the judgment of charity to infants of believers, which is why we baptize them and admit them to the church? I can live with that, I just can't assume one is elect by virtue of one's human descent. Even all Israel was not Israel.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by webmaster_
> ...



Paul, I hold the same definition of regeneration:

WCF (in case it a little vague):

This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man,[9] who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit...

Then:

Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit...

Okay so far. Now let's talk NOT about regenration, but faith. We have regeneration covered. No one ever said that regeneration in infants is different that in Adults. Regeneration is NOT conversion. Regeneration is NOT sanctification. REgeneration is NOT justificaiton. Regeneration is NOT faith. (Clear thus far? - We covered this already))

Can infants exercise faith (how many time do I have to ask the same question?) and do you have Scriptural support to demonstrate that infants can cognitively understand and perceiev the Gospel preached to them? 

Or, are we talking about two different parts in the ordo salutis (and we are). You are combining them into one instantaneous act (which they are *not*).


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 24, 2004)

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



Fred,
I disagree. I believe this thinking was the norm. Let me just ask: Do men have to hear the gospel to be converted or not?

Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?


[Edited on 11-24-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 24, 2004)

Paul, your problem is hermeneutics.

YOU SAID: When one is regenerated *his mind* is regenerated."

Right.

YOU SAID: God gives each a "measure of faith." 

Vague at best. What does this mean? Do you mean he has the tools to exercises faith later? Is faith something that can be not exercised? 

YOU SAID: So, whatever faith the regeneate infant has, it is his measure. 

No, he has the seeds of faith - something that, after he is able to put propositions together, he will exercise.

YOU SAID: I'm not falling into the abortionist line of thinking that says level of development determines persons. 

Great. I 'm glad you aren't an abortionist, nor think like one.

YOU SAID: Babies are not as developed as older people, i.e., they can't care for themselves outside the womb. But level of development doesn't determine persons. 

We are not talking about personhood, but about whether infants can exercise the seeds of faith that they are in them.

YOU SAID: Likewise, a new Christian has "infant faith." 

No, he has the seeds of faith.

YOU SAID: His faith grows as he does. 

His faith will one day grow into an active and cognative faith.

YOU SAID: He's not as developed as a "mature" Christian, is he less a Christian? 

No. He is still a Christian based on regeneration abd being born from above. It has nothing to do with faith thus far.

YOU SAID: Is he "less-worthy" of the Lords supper? No, he's a new creature. 

Yes he is. He cannot cognitively deal witht he requirements for the Lord's Supper. The Lord's Supper is a act of grwoth, not an act of birth. 

YOU SAID: He has a changed mind. He is a new man. He is fit for the table. 

No, actually, he has not changed his mind - the Holy Spirit did. Later, he will exercise it around biblical propositions that he can understand after learning how to speak, and growing into a child who can interect with information.

YOU SAID: Why not presume your child is a new creation? 

He is a new creation based on regeneration. (i.e. sovereign grace)

YOU SAID: Lives a new life? 

Not really. Not in the "I turned away from lusting today" or "I witnessed to my baby buddy down the street."

YOU SAID: Has a changed heart? 

Yes.

YOU SAID: Hates sin? 

How? Does he understnad what it means to hate sin? This is different than asking if he has the TOOLS to hate sin.

YOU SAID: And, therefore should receive the supper which is a means of grace for the new man, to strengthen his spirit.

Ahhhhh, No. Non-sequitir at its finest.

YOU SAID: But you making a chasam so large between them I don;t think you have Scripture to support that. 

Explain how John the Baptist is regenrate (filled) from his mother's womb, and how he cognitively beleived the Gospel. If you can't, than that about wraps it up.

YOU SAID: I would say that they are, usualy, very close to eachother. 

Who cares what you think. I want to know what Scripture says. Where do you find that God usually has them all together? Think of the logistics of that. 10 guys in a room hear the Gospel. Each of them are intelligibly different. Guy 1 is the smartest, guy 10 is the dumbest. Each of them are elect. They hear the Gospel, think thorugh it and they are all saved. Now we know, first, the Spirit changed thier minds. All of them have the TOOLS to thinkl about the Gospel not only as true, but also as GOOD. Okay, so, how long does it take Guy1 opposed to guy 5 to think thorugh things. Let's say each guy's number is how long it takes them to think it through. It took guy 1 a hwole minute. Guy 2 took two minutes and so on. Then, they have exercised faith. Then they are justified based on faith. Now guy 1 was justified before guy 2. And guy 5 was justified before guy 10. The point is that TIME ELSAPSED in the process. Whether that "time" is 1 minute or 10 years (say with John the Baptist) is irrelevant. The problem is that there is ALWAYS a time differential.

YOU SAID: I mean, seriously, how long could a regenerate person live without the others? 

Ask God. Who knows. How long did John live?

YOU SAID: I mean, from the time they can read they should *love* God's word. 

Wait, wait, wait, we went from regenrate, to having the capacity to read the word. There is a time differential there.

YOU SAID: I think having children makes this clear. 

I think the Scriptures make this clear.

YOU SAID: I do raise my child to love God and all the duties a covenant father has. 

Excellent!

YOU SAID: But I'm hear to tell you, the vast majority of covenant children to not act regenerate. 

Ok. Thanks for telling me.

YOU SAID: If my child did then I would allow him to the table 9at 5 yrs). "Even from the womb infnats come forth uttering lies."

Tell me, what EXACTLy, was the lie that your child told when it came forth from the womb. Was it about not brushing his teeth? (Wait - he hasn't got any...) Was it about taking the car out for a spin without asking dad? (Wait - he can't drive yet). I'm baffled. Exactly - WHAT DID HE SAY?

Hermeneutics brother.

[Edited on 11-24-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 24, 2004)

Whatever the case, the table has requirements. One being conversion. Even a regenerate infant does not meet that. A regenerate infant cannot examine themselves for fitness, hence he is eliminated from partaking on those grounds alone.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Matt, gotta go out to work. I will respond later. There were quite a few areas where you misread/misinterpreted what I said: Before I respond maybe you want to repost? Here's an example
> 
> YOU SAID: He has a changed mind. He is a new man. He is fit for the table.
> ...



Sorry about reading too fast on that one.

Real simple: Infants (babies - gaga googoo) cannot exercise faith. They are cognitively unable to link together the Gospel propositions to believe.

That's it.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 24, 2004)

They are not fit for the simple rationale that they do not meet the scriptural mandate to partake, i.e. examination.
Also, regenerate people require conversion also.......

[Edited on 11-24-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 24, 2004)

A 3 yr old is not able to examine themselves. I don't need to presume that; clinically, I know the brain is not in gear yet. Why does your church have a communicants class?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Theologically, practically, exegetically you are simply throwing away 1 Cor. 11 from t he mix. Let's say this - say every passage that has anything to do with "examining" yourself" was throw away or did not exist. What you are saying, THEN, would make perfect sense. However, because we have Specific scriptural mandates for examination by THOSE that PARTAKE, the infant is excluded. Just like a novice, in certain respects, is excluded from bing a minister. That are not capable yet for many reasons. In this case, they simply do not have the capacity to OF THEMSELVES, not by proxy, meet the requirements of the supper. The Supper is NOT ONLY that on e is regenerate, but that they have the cognitive abilities to examine themselves based on the context of 1 Cor. 11.

There is absolutely not way that you could take or imply that PR would necessitate an infant at the table. Its not possible based on Scripture, and the warrants for the supper. 

You are hermeneutically overthrowing yourself with the rationale that all we need is to be "regenerate." *Where in the world is that stated as the ONLY prerequisite??* why are we HAVING THIS DISCUSSION? (I mean, you can't win, so.......)

[Edited on 11-24-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 24, 2004)

Exactly........


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...




Paul,
Sorry- thats ridiculous.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ...



Matt,

(By the way, I agree that PC is a VERY bad thing)

Isn't the question here not whether or not one needs to examine oneself, but rather what is one examining oneself _for_?

So it is very possible to say, as all PC advocates say - that someone is to examine themselves for signs of regeneration (by the way, I would like to see where the Bible talks about the sacrament using the distinction of regeneration vs. conversion - it doesn't) rather than for signs of having "closed with Christ" ? So a 3 year old by that definition could indeed examine himself. He makes the examination that a PC advocate espouses. You ask him, have you been baptized (which is a sign of presumptive regeneration) ? If the anser is yes, we are to presume that he is regenerate, and 1 Cor. 11 is "thrown out of the mix." The only thing you have to fall back on is whether the Supper is for the _converted _as opposed to the _regenerate_. I think that is a hard task to prove Biblically, but go ahead and try.

Does that make sense, Paul?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 24, 2004)

An infant or toddler cannot examine themselves; adults however, whom have been converted can. That is why we do not stand to embrace PC.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 24, 2004)

You have one so that you can examine. Whether one is PR is irrelevent. regeneration is not conversion and conversion is not regeneration. How many times do I have to repeat that Paul?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 24, 2004)

> You hold the absurd position of thinking that the apostle Paul can't think.



Whats absurd is your accusation.

Threadlock implemented


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 24, 2004)

> Isn't the question here not whether or not one needs to examine oneself, but rather what is one examining oneself for?



No, its both. Can't have one without the other.

It terms of the "brain" (material,. immaterial, etc.) we are not talking about an infant who dies. (When did this come intot he mix??) That's ANOTHER case. Stick to the case in point - i.e. babies in human bodies who cannot think cognitively to examine themselves at the Lord's Supper.

Round and round. 

Nice evasions.

I am glad you don't like PC.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > Isn't the question here not whether or not one needs to examine oneself, but rather what is one examining oneself for?
> ...



Matt,

I'm not evading or going round and round. Let's take a case where one can think cognitively but does not show fruit of conversion. Say a 3 or 4 year olf. I assure you, a 3 year old CAN think cognitively. I have had 3 of them. They can think. They can even understand that they have been baptized. I have asked that question of them when a sibling was to be baptized.

I don't want to talk about non-cognitive babies. That is a much harder and more esoteric case. Let's talk about a child who has (1) been baptized, (2) knows that he has been baptized, i.e. has cognitive ability, and (3) does not show fruit of conversion, i.e. cannot express a credible profession of faith.

Now, the question is, should that child be able to partake of the Supper? There are only three possible answers:

1. Yes, because he is presumed regenerate and the Supper is for those who are regenerate - new creations in Christ.

2. No, because the Supper is not for the regenerate (new creations in Christ) but only for the converted.

3. No, because he is neither presumed regenerate nor converted until he shows fruit of closing with Christ (mostly likely a credible profession of faith - _"But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith which we preach): that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation"_ )

Now I don't think you want to say #1, unless you are thinking about following Frankie Schaefer into Eastern Orthodoxy, or joining the Federal Vision club. 

If you want to say #2, you must show where the Bible speaks not ONLY of examination, because the 3 or 4 year old can examine himself for signs of being baptized, and hence regenerate, but you must show where the Bible says that the Supper is only for the converted, and how being converted is distinct from regeneration.

If you say #3, we can give up the discussion, 'cause we agree.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 24, 2004)

Why do we baptize a child of a faithful parent? If he has his own faith then he can receive baptism on his own account. Cannot a child of 3, then, who has no believing parent also receive baptism if he believes? Do we not bapatize a child on the account of a parent's faith? 

We have gone from presuming a status of membership for a child of believing parents to one having the same responsibilities in the faith as his parent. Why? That has completely undemined why we baptize. If you baptize an adult you presume; and if you baptize a child you presume. The question is what is it we presume: regeneration or election? It is not a question of whether a child can examine himself for participation in Communion, because when it becomes that then it is clear that we have not understood why we baptize our children. We blur the lines that distinguish the sacraments, and we blur the lines of why children are included in the Covenant until they are able to stand on their own. And I don't think that there can be that much difference between standing on their own in lesser matters, such as smoking, voting, driving, working, and so on, and that of taking on the full responsibilities of living a life of faithfulness. It is not just a matter of taking on the responsibilities that your age allows for; it is a matter of taking on the full responsibilities. If it was in part only, then the rest of it still falls under the parents' responsibilities. 

So it cannot be that PC follows logically from PR; in fact the opposite is true, that PR obviates PC. The child's parent(s) must be (a) believer to receive the sacrament of baptism; and he himself must be a believer on his own recognizance to receive the sacrament of Communion. That is, he must be on record as having taken on the full responsibilities of faith to be able to examine himself. If a child were able to do that, then we no longer baptize him on the grounds of his parents' faith, that God's promises are extended to their children, but on his own account. That is a trap many have fallen into in my Reformed setting: caught in the conundrums of assuming too much, and accounting too little.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> The real issue here is that people *don;t want* it to lead there. I'm still confused why everyone agrees with this definition of regeneration, and then also says that there are not two definitions of regeneration. Here's the quote:
> 
> Regeneration, ***or new birth***, is an inner re-creating of fallen human nature by the gracious sovereign action of the Holy Spirit (John 3:5-8). The Bible conceives salvation as the redemptive renewal of man on the basis of a restored relationship with God in Christ, and presents it as involving ***"a radical and complete transformation wrought in the soul*** (Rom. 12:2; Eph. 4:23) by God the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5; Eph. 4:24), by virtue of which we become 'new men' (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10), no longer conformed to this world (Rom. 12:2; Eph. 4:22; Col. 3:9), ****but in knowledge**** and holiness of the truth created after the image of God (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10; Rom. 12:2)" (B. B. Warfield, Biblical and Theological Studies, 351). Regeneration is the "birth" by which this work of new creation is begun, as sanctification is the "growth" whereby it continues (I Pet. 2:2; II Pet. 3:18). Regeneration in Christ changes the disposition from lawless, Godless self-seeking (Rom. 3:9-18; 8:7) which dominates man in Adam into one of trust and love, of repentance for past rebelliousness and unbelief, and loving compliance with God's law henceforth. ****It enlightens the blinded mind to discern spiritual realities**** (I Cor. 2:14-15; II Cor. 4:6; Col. 3:10), and liberates and energizes the enslaved will for free obedience to God (Rom. 6:14, 17-22; Phil. 2:13).
> ...



Paul,

I agree. When one reads Owen's Vol 3, you are left with no other conclusion.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> so Fred, does that put us to about 99.236%?



Nah, we got a small bump down from the Christmas thread.


----------



## AdamM (Nov 25, 2004)

Here is an excerpt from Gerstner´s Rational Biblical Theology (Volume 2, p.123-124) that I think will be relevant to our discussion. Note that the first quote is from the book "The Covenant Idea" by PY De Jong: 


_"œThus much less was expected of the children in the way of assuming their responsibility of walking according to the demands of the covenant holiness than of adults, although both were regarded as in possession of the principle of saving grace. The reason why children were not allowed to partake of the Lord´s Supper lay in the fact that they could not prove themselves"¦." De Jong, The Covenant Idea, p.60 _


This is the plainest statement of this colossal error to be found in the long paragraph. Both adults and children "œwere regarded as in full possession of the principle of saving grace." If so "œregarded" it was unjustifiably so regarded of baptized children before they gave the same credible evidence that their parents gave.

One notes in passing the paedocommunion thinking here. Baptized infants are regenerate children and as such as entitled to the Lord´s Table. Only they cannot "œdiscern" (1 Cor 11:29). But Paul´s discerning is a spiritual discerning (even unregenerates can rationally "œdiscern"), and if the infant has saving faith, he also has infantile discerning. Also the "œprove themselves" would be quite unnecessary if God promised that children of believing parents were elect and regenerate and these children do have the gracious principal within themselves. Does one challenge God to prove Himself?

Next comes the bomb that explodes that explodes and destroys this whole doctrinal pattern of assume infant regeneration. This utterly inconsistent statement follows:

_ Where it not the case, sooner or later excommunication would be applied, since the individual did not manifest the presence of saving grace. De Jong, The Covenant Idea p.60. _

At the very end of the paragraph our author returns to this fatal theme with these words: 

_ Thus the church was not regarded as the institution in which the child has a place in order that he might be considered a hopeful candidate for receiving God´s grace. Rather, he has a place because he possesses that grace either by virtue of promise or presence. De Jong, The Covenant Idea p.61._

This is one of the most amazing instances of inconsistent thinking I have ever read, and yet it is standard for many theologians of this covenantal stripe at this point. Consider a plain statement of the position:

1. All baptized infants of believers are "œin full possession of the principle of saving grace."

2.Reformed theology teaches that all who possess "œsaving grace" are elect, regenerate, persevering. And then, inconsistently:

3.Nevertheless, some of these children may never show the "œpresence" of this grace and be saved. Some who once possessed "œsaving grace" will "œsooner or later" be excommunicated from the church and salvation, thereby showing by their failure that they never had saving grace!

What in the world can "œhe possesses that grace either by virtue of promise or presence" mean? De Jong insists that the "œpromise" of God guarantees the grace of the baptized infant. What could be more certain of infallible? "œPresence" may or may not be accurately determined by men, but if there is promise of God no determination of men is necessary nor could "œpresence" fail to appear some time, early or late in life, whether its "œpresence" is recognized or not. 

The Edwardsian view is consistent. It finds no promise of God that all the children of believers are elect and regenerate and possessing the "œfaith-principle" and "œdivine grace." Hence covenant children the obligation to seek for the "œpresence" of faith which, if found would imply election, regeneration, and eternal life in the cases of those baptized infants who did possess the election of God. 

The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards (Volume 2), by John Gerstner p. 123-124.

[Edited on 25-11-2004 by AdamM]

[Edited on 25-11-2004 by AdamM]


----------



## AdamM (Nov 25, 2004)

> That's what I (and Fred) have been trying to say. Thanks for the post.



No problem Paul. I figured you would like the material.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 25, 2004)

Sorry brothers, but I think you're missing what Matt and Scott are saying, and my thoughts have been of no help. I have no false idea that some in the discussion are favouring Paedo Communion. I understand what is going on here. 

I do have the notion, though, that there are Paedo Communion-ites following this discussion. I have in mind particularly persons who are not members here, but who have been invited to read along, as this topic is of great concern to them right now.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 25, 2004)

Sorry, I missed this discussion. Been gone for a few days. Here's the hang up for me, and perhaps it's more ecclesiastical than theological, but it keeps me holding loosely to PR with some reservation, especially thanks to Fred's and Paul's posts. 

To be a member of Christ's church means you belong to Him, you are His people, you are those who have been brought from death to life. You cannot be a member of the invisible church without this work of grace at least beginning (i.e. regeneration). As members of the visible church, we make presumptions because we can't see the heart, only God can. We presume that those in the visible church are in the invisible church until we see fruit contrary to this, in which case discipline is exercised. When we baptise infants of believers because they are covenant children, we call them "members" of the visible Church. The very fact we call them "members" in the Church presupposes a work of grace has begun in them. One cannot be a member of the invisible church without the work of grace in the heart, and in order to admit them to the visible church we must presume this work has taken place. Otherwise we are claiming children of wrath (i.e. if we don't presume the work of grace beginning) are in fact saints which is expressely forbidden. To call someone a member of Christ's church presumes they are the special recipients of God's saving work of grace. Though election is certainly an act of grace, the work of grace doesn't begin in the individual until regeneration. That is why at this point I think PR is the more logical position, just to be consistent with the title we give to our children as members of the Church. Any thoughts?


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Sorry, I missed this discussion. Been gone for a few days. Here's the hang up for me, and perhaps it's more ecclesiastical than theological, but it keeps me holding loosely to PR with some reservation, especially thanks to Fred's and Paul's posts.
> 
> To be a member of Christ's church means you belong to Him, you are His people, you are those who have been brought from death to life. You cannot be a member of the invisible church without this work of grace at least beginning (i.e. regeneration). As members of the visible church, we make presumptions because we can't see the heart, only God can. We presume that those in the visible church are in the invisible church until we see fruit contrary to this, in which case discipline is exercised. When we baptise infants of believers because they are covenant children, we call them "members" of the visible Church. The very fact we call them "members" in the Church presupposes a work of grace has begun in them. One cannot be a member of the invisible church without the work of grace in the heart, and in order to admit them to the visible church we must presume this work has taken place. Otherwise we are claiming children of wrath (i.e. if we don't presume the work of grace beginning) are in fact saints which is expressely forbidden. To call someone a member of Christ's church presumes they are the special recipients of God's saving work of grace. Though election is certainly an act of grace, the work of grace doesn't begin in the individual until regeneration. That is why at this point I think PR is the more logical position, just to be consistent with the title we give to our children as members of the Church. Any thoughts?



Patrick,

It was good to be with you last week.

Here is the problem with your comments (as I see it): even if we set aside compeltely the issue of paedocommunion - say we are talking about a 14 year old - why do we require a credible profession of faith from them before they partake? If what we are to do is presume that they "belong to Him" until "we see fruit contrary to this, in which case discipline is exercised" then any child of the covenant who has cognitive ability (so as to get around Matt & Scott's problem) should be admitted UNLESS they have apostatized. And in fact, this is exactly the position of the new federal vision-type theologies. The problem is, that this is 180 degrees from Calvin's position (significant, because Calvin is Schenck's hero for PR). Calvin diligently and in excrutiating detail examined children of the covenant before they could partake. (By the way, so did all the other Magisterial Reformers) This makes no sense in a PR scheme.

What we are left with is a presumption that gives to children all the benefits of the covenant, calls them Christians, says that we are to view them as regenerate, says we should point them to their baptism for assurance, but then denies them the sacrament until they do something else. This makes no sense to me. (And in fact, this is EXACTLY the line of argument used by paedocommunionists - go to the yahoogroup for rtdisc where a whole bunch of PC's hang out, read Tommy Lee, read the Federal Vision guys. They argue this point)


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Patrick,
> 
> I hear everything you're saying. My argument has been, though, that PR leads to PC. So, my "tactic" in this discussion is to defeat PR by saying that if you hold to it you need to also hold to PC. Notice, this does not necessarily refute PR. It only aims to refute a specific type of PRist, namely, the PRist who believes that PCism is wrong.



Well, unlike Matt and Scott, I think infants can have some sort of faith. I don't think there is a time gap between regeneration and faith. Faith is the response of regeneration. You are brought to life, you eyes open, and can't help but see the truths of God, perhaps not clearly at first (just like when babies are physically born and only see about a foot in front of them). But I leave this in the realm of mystery. There's more to thought than just the physical brain as you mentioned earlier. But I'm still working through all this.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 25, 2004)

I invited some. It was me. 

Also, please remember that there are other members of this Board reading too, and not all of us are paedo baptist. Lets not undermine the valuable work done so far. 

I am not saying that any of you are paedo communion-ites. 



> That's my position John. I would love to see them explain it for me becuae even if they do I would still be PE. PR-->PC just seems to be a problem that I have perceived. That's all.



Yes, I understood that. And I respect that too. As I understand it, though, PR obviates PC, and does not logically lead to it. I believe Matt and Scott are saying that too. As I said before, I do not wish to argue over the term 'regeration'; I think it leads to faults in our thinking when we try to hang too much on the term. Not because we are not able to think, but because we are not given enough information. The ordo salutis is fine, but can we be absolutely certain that it is the norm for every conversion? I do not have that confidence, as I am not sure yet that God is still above the ordo when it is applied that way. And He must be, or our thinking is vain.

I am not trying to talk anyone out of their understanding. I am asking you all to be carefull that you don't end up ceding much more than you think you have to gain. I can imagine someone new to the concept of Paedo Baptism doing a double take on it now, and reverting back to Credo Baptism. And all because we are disputing over words. But even more so, I can imagine someone being persuaded toward Paedo Communion losing the one strong argument against it that they can all understand, and that is that they baptize their children.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...


It was great to see you too. I'll be back soon  

I guess I don't see a conflict with PR and strict examination for admission to communion. It presumes the work of grace has begun, but not that this child is yet mature enough in faith to partake of the Supper. I also think that just as our presumption regarding adults is conditional upon their fruit, so it must be with children. If they are turning towards the road to sin, we change our plan of action than if they were faithfully exercising their duties.

[Edited on 26-11-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ...



I certainly think that is possible -after all, I have cited Owen on this several times with the exceptional case of elect infants dying in infancy. but here is the problem then Patrick:

if a child is presumed regenerate, presumed to have faith, and presumed a member of the invisible church, what right do we have to deny them admission to the table?


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> As I said before, I do not wish to argue over the term 'regeration'; I think it leads to faults in our thinking when we try to hang too much on the term. Not because we are not able to think, but because we are not given enough information.



But here is the rub John:

how do we avoid the term when what is at issue is EXACTLY what is meant by the term "regeneration" ? If you say that infants are presumed regenerate, and I say, "what do you mean by that," you can't rightly say, "I can't tell you, just trust me."


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



They aren't mature enough in faith to partake yet. They must be able to examine themselves.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



And so we come back again (maybe the 6th time) to my question: examine themselves with respect to what? if it is their regeneration, their membership in the body of Christ, and if PR is true, then the examination should be something like:

Q: Are you baptized
A: Yes
Then partake, and if we see fruit that you have apostatized, we will stop you.

If they are to examine themselves with respect to regeneration/conversion/union with Christ, and PR is not true, then there is no issue. We presume that they are elect, and one day God will show evidence of that work by regenerating them and united them to Christ, at which point they will show fruit (first a profession with their mouth, then walking in holiness)


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



I still don't really know which side of the fence I fall on in terms of PR/PE (in light of the hypothetical questions I posed to both sides early in this thread), but I also don't see how either one has to necessitate paedocommunion. For even if regeneration is presumed, that cannot be enough to warrant assumption that the requirements for "examination" are fulfilled, otherwise no adult, baptized church members would ever need to examine themselves before partaking. Think about it - Paul's very instructions in 1 Corinthians 11 were directed at the members of the Corinthians _church_, and thus people who were already presumed to be regenerate, covenant members of the body.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_



They aren't mature enough in faith to partake yet. They must be able to examine themselves. [/quote]

And so we come back again (maybe the 6th time) to my question: examine themselves with respect to what? if it is their regeneration, their membership in the body of Christ, and if PR is true, then the examination should be something like:

Q: Are you baptized
A: Yes
Then partake, and if we see fruit that you have apostatized, we will stop you.

If they are to examine themselves with respect to regeneration/conversion/union with Christ, and PR is not true, then there is no issue. We presume that they are elect, and one day God will show evidence of that work by regenerating them and united them to Christ, at which point they will show fruit (first a profession with their mouth, then walking in holiness) [/quote]

I think we would examine more than just baptism. They must be capable of examing whether or not the have experienced that work of grace, whether their profession is truly from the heart, or just an intellectual or cultural assent. How do they look at Jesus? What significance does his death mean to them? And the meaning of the Supper? Have they repented of sins? etc. 

Just because they may be presumed regenerate, doesn't mean they actually are (as with adults). We need more evidence as they grow older and more capable of expressing themselves and living accordingly. The presumption is conditional because we can't see the heart only the outward behavior. At least that's how I am understanding it thus far... 

Paul, as for the 30 year old who has only been saved 5 minutes, he may indeed not display the maturity of faith necessary to partake of the Supper. He may learn a lot faster than a small child might, but still, there must be growth and maturity.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Also, the supper is a major means where the work wrought in regenration grows. Why would you keep your child from growing?


It is one of many means by which the people grow. If they can't partake of the Supper, they can still grow through the other means of grace. But the Supper is not for everyone. Only those capable of examing themselves.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ...



Chris,

That is EXACTLY the point that a paedocommunionist such as NT Wright would make (yes, surprise! he is a paedocommunionist). The examination (even for an adult) consists in determining whether one is baptized (and hence presumed regenerate) and one has not apostatized. The only distinction in that camp is what constitutes apostasy. That is why for Wright it means only if one rejects his broad view of who is a Christian (keeping someone from fellowship that you should not), for Wilson it includes Rome, for some RefCats it does not include that and Wilson is "too harsh on Rome" (sic).

So you see, there are pastoral practical applications in our day to this. I am not merely trying to win a debate or show myself smarter than guys like Matt and Scott (_hint_, I'm not). I am arguing because of the implications for the Church, over which God has made me an overseer.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > show myself smarter than guys like Matt and Scott (hint, I'm not).
> ...


I would say if they are letting pass the sins, the are not doing their job as parents and elders. The presumption requires follow up. We don't just let them be. It's our job as parents and as pastors to care for them and ensure they are on the right track. Pastors don't just let pass the sins of adults who have been admitted to the church. Why would they do it in children? Such a practice of neglect is not a result of PR but of laziness and this neglect can be found in plenty of other schools of thought including PE and even in Baptist circles.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 26, 2004)

The basic questions I still have for each school of thought are:

For PRs, how do the Scriptures in which God promises blessing and favor to the offspring of the righteous necessarily imply that that blessing and favor will take effect as soon as they are born? In other words, how do those promises point to regeneration, and not just election?

For PEs, what do you make of the fact that regeneration is one thing we hold baptism to signify, in light of your belief that we cannot presume our baptized children to be regenerate, but only elect?

I'm enjoying this conversation, and am glad to be having my thoughts on such a vital issue being laid out and getting feedback on them, as well as listening to the similar thoughts of everyone else.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...


Sure they may have knowledge of spiritual things. But that doesn't mean they are mature enough to partake of the Supper. Faith grows in varying degrees and individuals. The warnings of 1 Cor 11 require the elders to take more caution. They cannot admit someone into the Supper whom they cannot presume is mature enough yet in the faith to examine themselves. So, when a child is able to display that knowledge adequately to the elders, then they can be admitted. I don't see the conflict here Paul. Saving knowledge is not perfect upon regneration and faith. It is sufficient to save them, but that doesn't mean there's no more room to grow.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JohnV_
> ...



Fred:

I'm not saying "Just trust me." I am asking if we really know why we baptize children, considering the gist of the discussion. I have lived all my life in this milieu; I am not new to it. We may carefully define "regeneration", as has been done, and yet miss the point. We are not declaring all these attributes upon a child by virtue of baptism; we are declaring them proper recipients of baptism by virtue of their inherent Covenant membership. This is no mean thing. Though they are regarded the same as regenerate believers, they are not declared to be regenerate believers. But the promises they are heir to are not empty of substance. They are significant. 

Whether 'election' is a better term, I will not quibble over, considering the conversation so far. Most certainly the same confusion will result if we start adding the same incongruencies and wrongful notions to that word as are so tied to the term 'regeneration'. What difference is it to any of us if Presumptive Election begins to include the idea that these children bear the same election attributes that adults bear? What difference is to any of us if the matter of time is involved in the use of the words? One word is no better than the other. 'Regeneration' can also be thought to carry inside it the very same time element, a waiting for it to take effect. Can you not see that it is not the use of the words 'regeneration' and 'election' that are at issue here as we wish them to be? We are disagreeing on accumulated notions and the attributions. 

If a child is recognizant enough to partake rightly of Communion at an early, then why is he not also recognizant enough to be baptized upon his own confession, based upon his own level of understanding? If one sacrament, then why not the other? Is that not the question PC-ers ask to move from baptism to communion? Well, if it works that way, then the same question is legitimate in reverse, from communion to baptism. And if we do that, then it is clear that we never really understood why we baptize children anymore. Certainly it no longer stems from their participation in the Covenant by virtue of headship, faith, and promise. This is no little or idle comparison. It is a major stumbling block. And it no longer matters whether we use the word 'election' or 'regeneration' to regard children as presumed of status within the Covenant. But that motion is not inherent in regeneration any more than it is in election.

Scott and Matt could just as easily pursue the fact that too little is attrubuted in the use of the word, 'election'. But that too would be unwise, I think, and perhaps unwarranted. The failure is not in the term 'election', but in the attribution again. 

I am not saying that there is no value in investigating the difference in terminology. I am saying that the percieved difference is not there but somewhere else, according to the discussion so far. And I think it is regarding attribution, not regeneration or election. That is how I understand what Scott and Matt are saying. And if this conversation helps to clear that up, then I am all for it. That is the reason for my contributing to the discussion. 

As time allows, of course. 

I would follow Chris' thoughts here. I think he is asking the right questions.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 26, 2004)

I will concede, "presumptive regeneration" is not an adequate term to describe what I at least understand about the principles embodied there, and that it's use does conflict with the accepted use of "regeneration." 

As I said before, by calling them members of the church, we call them seperate from the world and holy. There is a presumption being made about their status before God. They are included in God's redeemed people. That doesn't seem proper to me to do if in fact we are presuming they have not partaken of that saving grace yet. The admonitions to children found in the epistles is one example where something more is being presumed about them than just election, even more than regeneration. So, if we can devise a better term, then I'm all for it. I do think that in principle there isn't much debate here. It seems more semantics since in practice we all agree what should be done regarding raising our children under the whole counsel of God and their later admittance to the Supper.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> I will concede, "presumptive regeneration" is not an adequate term to describe what I at least understand about the principles embodied there, and that it's use does conflict with the accepted use of "regeneration."
> 
> As I said before, by calling them members of the church, we call them seperate from the world and holy. There is a presumption being made about their status before God. They are included in God's redeemed people. That doesn't seem proper to me to do if in fact we are presuming they have not partaken of that saving grace yet. The admonitions to children found in the epistles is one example where something more is being presumed about them than just election, even more than regeneration. So, if we can devise a better term, then I'm all for it. I do think that in principle there isn't much debate here. It seems more semantics since in practice we all agree what should be done regarding raising our children under the whole counsel of God and their later admittance to the Supper.



Patrick,

It's called presumptive election. We presume that God has made them a part of His people from all eternity and will complete the work He began (Phil. 1:6). Thus we have confidence, but we labor to see the fruit.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 26, 2004)

Well, I agree with laboring to see the fruit in confidence. That is how all the promises seem to work. Spurstowes work on the Promises emphasises that (The Wells of Salvation Opened). We trust, and God fulfills in His time. That was one of the reservations I had about PR. But still, we call them members of the church. That says more than just a presumption of election. We are calling them Christians. But a Christian isn't a Christian yet until that saving work of grace has begun. Just by giving them the title "Christian" in effect claims a presumption about them more than just election. We are claiming that they are more than just a child of wrath and that they are not of this world but part of the people of God endowed with the ability to participate in that communion of the saints. Election doesn't change the heart. Only regeneration does. Am I making sense?


----------



## turmeric (Nov 26, 2004)

Aren't we saying they're part of the visible church?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 6, 2005)

Just reread this thread. I guess I'm officially on the fence now between PR and PE. 

PR seems to imply too much in that what is promised is presumed to have taken place, when the promises usually don't work like that. Usually there's a delay for the fulfillment in God's time as we trust Him to do what he has promised. Plus there is the inconsistency that Paul and Fred have so well pointed out regarding the different standards held on the definition of regeneration for adults and children, and the inconsistent application of all that is promised in baptism that is presumed upon adults while only regeneration is presumed for infants. 

And PE just doesn't seem to imply enough mainly because of what we are saying about our children in calling them members of the church, the body of Christ. The NT doesn't address children in a lesser state of membership, as shown by Paul's epistles when he addresses children right along with everyone else in the church, the people of God. This seems to presume more than just election but instead presumes that children are capable of partaking in this communion of the saints, which presumes at least regeneration if not more. 

So, again, I'm on the fence. Any thoughts?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 6, 2005)

to Patrick on basically everything. If PR, why the inconsistent lack of application to infants of the things besides regeneration signified in baptism? And if PE, since baptism signifies all those things, how is just election enough to apply the sign?


----------



## JohnV (Jan 6, 2005)

I'll have to re-read this thread too. I have lately found back my notes on why PR and not PE. But it has more to do with the P part than the R or E part. I have to go through these notes carefully too. One or the other cannot be imposed, since it is theoretical in nature. In the end, its a way of describing why children ought to be included in the one sacrament of baptism. And we're just rediscovering it lately, after so many years of misunderstanding and misuse. Just the fact that we're debating whether it should be R or E is already a long way down the road, further than my father's generation took it.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 6, 2005)

Maybe a more general term? Like Presumptive Salvation? PS? Oh wait, that's my initials....


----------



## JohnV (Jan 6, 2005)

"Have you been Seversoned?"

I like it. But I don't think it will fly at Session.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 6, 2005)

After all, PS would imply even more than PR, anyway.


----------



## JohnV (Jan 6, 2005)

You mean, Chris, PS would imply EP, OPC, and even sailoring? Or do you mean presumed everything, since 'salvation' implies everything.


----------

