# Presumptive [insert word here] and why you hold to it?



## WrittenFromUtopia

Which position do you find most biblical and why? Obviously, this is only for those who hold to paedobaptism, but if you are credo and wish to vote, I gave you an option so you don't feel left out.  All in love, of course.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Here we go again 

It's the historic biblical position.

[Edited on 6-5-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Here we go again
> 
> It's the historic biblical position.
> 
> [Edited on 6-5-2005 by Scott Bushey]



You forgot to tell me which one you voted for, even though I can figure it out at this point...


----------



## Arch2k

Don Kistler in his "Meet the Puritans" series explained that he would not even let his children pray until they produced evidence that they were professing. He would pray with and for them, but never let THEM pray.

He goes on later to say how Jonathan Edwards would call his children "little vipers" to remind them of their depravity, and to never presume upon special grace because they were his children.

I voted "covenant only" but am very curious to hear this discussion!


----------



## Peter

I can't say I understand the disagreement but from a cursory study, it seems to me PE is the most confessional answer.

WCF XXVIII:VI: The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered...


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Don Kistler in his "Meet the Puritans" series explained that he would not even let his children pray until they produced evidence that they were professing. He would pray with and for them, but never let THEM pray.
> 
> He goes on later to say how Jonathan Edwards would call his children "little vipers" to remind them of their depravity, and to never presume upon special grace because they were his children.
> 
> I voted "covenant only" but am very curious to hear this discussion!



Jeff,
So they are in covenant w/ God and Gods word says that they are _holy_ yet Don wouldn't pray w/ them? This is at best baptistic.

[Edited on 6-5-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Don Kistler in his "Meet the Puritans" series explained that he would not even let his children pray until they produced evidence that they were professing. He would pray with and for them, but never let THEM pray.
> 
> He goes on later to say how Jonathan Edwards would call his children "little vipers" to remind them of their depravity, and to never presume upon special grace because they were his children.
> 
> I voted "covenant only" but am very curious to hear this discussion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff,
> So they are in covenant w/ God and are _holy_ yet Don wouldn't pray w/ them?
Click to expand...


He said that he would pray WITH them (i.e. in their presence), but never let them pray, for if they prayed without a mediator, they were reaping even more condemnation on themselves and trampling the grace of God underfoot. He said that he would let their children hear their cries for their salvation, and groanings to God to save their children.

I need to make one qualification. There was ONE prayer he said that he would let them pray..."God give me a new heart to love you." That's it.

I see his logic, but haven't studied the other side to know for sure where I stand. Just regurgitating what I have heard.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Don Kistler in his "Meet the Puritans" series explained that he would not even let his children pray until they produced evidence that they were professing. He would pray with and for them, but never let THEM pray.
> 
> He goes on later to say how Jonathan Edwards would call his children "little vipers" to remind them of their depravity, and to never presume upon special grace because they were his children.
> 
> I voted "covenant only" but am very curious to hear this discussion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff,
> So they are in covenant w/ God and are _holy_ yet Don wouldn't pray w/ them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He said that he would pray WITH them (i.e. in their presence), but never let them pray, for if they prayed without a mediator, they were reaping even more condemnation on themselves and trampling the grace of God underfoot. He said that he would let their children hear their cries for their salvation, and groanings to God to save their children.
> 
> I need to make one qualification. There was ONE prayer he said that he would let them pray..."God give me a new heart to love you." That's it.
> 
> I see his logic, but haven't studied the other side to know for sure where I stand. Just regurgitating what I have heard.
Click to expand...


Jeff,
But the children ARE in covenant w/ God, aren't they? Gods word says that they are _holy_. 

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

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

[Edited on 6-5-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Arch2k

I agree that my children are holy, i.e. set apart. They have the gospel readily preached to them, the benefits of God's people to commune with etc. etc. It is also clear in scripture that being a child of a believer does not make you a believer. For every Jacob, there is an Esau (maybe two!). 

There are definately privelages that covenant children have. Salvation is not NECESSARILY one of them. 

Kistler made the point (and again, just regurgitating) that the puritans made the distinction between being IN the covenant (elect) and being OF the covenant (visible church, or children). 

I'm not SURE on where I stand, so don't take what I'm saying as necessarily my opinion.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I agree that my children are holy, i.e. set apart. They have the gospel readily preached to them, the benefits of God's people to commune with etc. etc. It is also clear in scripture that being a child of a believer does not make you a believer. For every Jacob, there is an Esau (maybe two!).
> 
> There are definately privelages that covenant children have. Salvation is not NECESSARILY one of them.
> 
> Kistler made the point (and again, just regurgitating) that the puritans made the distinction between being IN the covenant (elect) and being OF the covenant (visible church, or children).
> 
> I'm not SURE on where I stand, so don't take what I'm saying as necessarily my opinion.



Jeff,
What Puritan said that? See above the WCF. It says that they are 'IN' the covenant, not 'OF' the covenant.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I agree that my children are holy, i.e. set apart. They have the gospel readily preached to them, the benefits of God's people to commune with etc. etc. It is also clear in scripture that being a child of a believer does not make you a believer. For every Jacob, there is an Esau (maybe two!).
> 
> There are definately privelages that covenant children have. Salvation is not NECESSARILY one of them.
> 
> Kistler made the point (and again, just regurgitating) that the puritans made the distinction between being IN the covenant (elect) and being OF the covenant (visible church, or children).
> 
> I'm not SURE on where I stand, so don't take what I'm saying as necessarily my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff,
> What Puritan said that? See above the WCF. It says that they are 'IN' the covenant, not 'OF' the covenant.
Click to expand...


He said something to the effect "the puritans always made a distinction between children being IN the covenant, and being OF the covenant." I can only point you to the resource. It is a series called "Meet the puritans" and would be the lecture on the family. Listen to it and you will have everything I have.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I agree that my children are holy, i.e. set apart. They have the gospel readily preached to them, the benefits of God's people to commune with etc. etc. It is also clear in scripture that being a child of a believer does not make you a believer. For every Jacob, there is an Esau (maybe two!).
> 
> There are definately privelages that covenant children have. Salvation is not NECESSARILY one of them.
> 
> Kistler made the point (and again, just regurgitating) that the puritans made the distinction between being IN the covenant (elect) and being OF the covenant (visible church, or children).
> 
> I'm not SURE on where I stand, so don't take what I'm saying as necessarily my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff,
> What Puritan said that? See above the WCF. It says that they are 'IN' the covenant, not 'OF' the covenant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He said something to the effect "the puritans always made a distinction between children being IN the covenant, and being OF the covenant." I can only point you to the resource. It is a series called "Meet the puritans" and would be the lecture on the family. Listen to it and you will have everything I have.
Click to expand...


Jeff,
Just for the record, you do see where Kissler is wrong? He is in direct conflict w/ the WCF in this regard.


----------



## Preach

Scott,
I have not really wrestled with the issue, though it would be hard to see Abraham not presuming something. I guess my hesitance on covenant children praying is the issue of a Mediator. Help me understand how the children have access to the throne of grace. 
"In Christ",
Bobby

When I was a baptist, I could see only two classes of people (COG'S=children of God or COD'S=children of the devil). Soteriologically speaking, it seems those distinctions are still true, but now we have to make a place for the covenant children who are holy. So, I'm struggling on weather the little ones should pray or not.


----------



## Arch2k

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

Scott, 

I don't mind discussing, but rememeber...I am trying to learn others' position here (listening).

I see in the above question "in that respect" qualifying HOW children are regarded to be "in the covenant." 

I would be curious to see where Kistler got his info.


----------



## AdamM

Baptism is NOT done because the infant is presumed regenerate. Baptism is done because because the child as a member of the covenant in its historical administration (visible church) is entitled to the sign and seal of the covenant. The dual aspect of the covenant, that is the distinction between a person being "in the covenant" as compared to "of the covenant" is standard of Reformed thought found in by Presbyterian and dutch traditions. 

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

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

Over the last year or so, I keep going back to this excellent portion of a larger article done by the Rev. Rick Phillips that deals with the question of presumed regeneration (I have found reading the works of Rev. Phillips that he brings a refreshing balance to these types of questions and avoids the pit falls that exist on either extreme). I also noted that he got an excellent recommendation by Dr. Ligon Ducan in the new Confessional Presbyterian. 

http://link.toolbot.com/alliancenet.org/9480



> A THEOLOGY OF COVENANT CHILDREN
> 
> When you ask those who are trying to rewrite covenant theology what concerns are driving them, as I have had the opportunity to do first-hand with some of them, you will inevitably hear them address the subject of covenant children. This is where many of us will most resonate with them, because of our shared concern for non-covenantal views of children that seemingly dominate today. For many evangelicals, until a child has had a dramatic conversion experience they are considered pagans within their own Christian homes. Some Christian children are taught not to say the Lord's prayer and not to call God "our Father." In many churches, children are not allowed in the worship service until they "come of age."
> 
> It is in response to this that many turn to covenant theology to take a vastly more positive view of children growing up in Christian homes and in the church. Douglas Wilson writes, "In a very real way, this debate is a debate over the theology of children. This is important because in the American church our theology of children is overwhelmingly baptistic, even in paedo-baptist communions." He cites the attitude of 19th century Southern Presbyterian theologian, Henry Thornwell, who said the Church must treat her children "precisely as she treats all other impenitent and unbelieving men - she is to exercise the power of the keys, and shut them out from the communion of the saints." 38
> 
> * To this attitude, the response is made that children are members of God's covenant and are holy, that is, are saints, by virtue of their parents (1 Cor. 7:14). To this we should agree, although we need to be careful of the sense in which we mean this. Rightly, it means that children are part of the community of God's people and have been given God's Word. In their baptism they have God's mark of ownership placed upon them and are called to faith. The prayers of the church belong to them and they have the privilege of oversight from the church's shepherds. These things we must insist upon as the right of our children by birth. What we must not do, however, is presume regeneration or salvation. While the children of believers are blessed with great privileges, salvation itself is not by heredity; saving grace does not pass on, as some have suggested, through the sperm and ovum of parents.*
> 
> * When it comes to covenant succession, we should not presume regeneration in our children, but instead hold a trusting confidence in God combined with a prayerful attention to duty as Christian parents. * Here, the emphasis varies. Douglas Wilson writes, "When we have faith that works its way out in love, which is the only thing that genuine faith can do, then the condition that God set for the fulfillment of His promises has been met. Can we fulfill our covenant responsibilities (by believing) and yet have God fail to fulfill His promises? It is not possible." 39 The problem with this is an automaticity that does not square with lived experience or with the whole biblical picture. Children can be raised in the church by faithful parents, yet they turn away from faith in Christ. Wilson considers this a disbelieving of God's promises on account of the testimony of men. In fact, his position is an example of standing on a few select and favored promises in such a way that fails to account for the whole counsel of God. Wilson's teaching wrongfully accuses already grieving parents of damning their children by being not faithful enough. This is just one place in which the new covenant theology turns biblical decretal theology on its head. Instead of God's election controlling the covenant, Wilson and others have the covenant controlling God's election. But, as Paul points out in Romans 9:10-12, "Though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad - in order that God's purpose of election might continue," God said, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." It was not God's sovereign purpose either for Ishmael, the first son of Abraham, or Esau, the son of Isaac, to enter into eternal life. The reason is not the faithlessness of these fathers but the plan of God, whose promises all are "Yes" only in Christ (2 Cor. 1:20).
> 
> Wilson's is a moderate view among those trying to recast covenant theology. For many, the concern to account for the salvation of infants who die becomes the controlling issue in their entire doctrine of salvation. Unwilling to rest upon the silence with which Scripture treats the exceptional issue of how elect infants are saved (in contrast with that they are saved, of which Scripture is clear), they concoct a theology of salvation that recasts the normal situation of children of who do not die in infancy. Some insist that infants of Christian parents must be presumed regenerate on the basis of their possessing faith - the example of John the Baptist leaping in the womb is given to prove that infants can believe. Asserting that infants can believe, while granting that infants cannot understand biblical teaching, some go so far as to redefine faith in such a way that biblical understanding plays no necessary part. For others, John the Baptist's proof that an unborn infant can believe is combined with a presumption of regeneration in the case of all covenant infants. Others yet over-exegete passages like Matthew 18:14, where Jesus said of the covenant children that were brought to him, "for to such belongs the kingdom of God." This is taken as a blanket declaration that all covenant children are saved until such time as they should apostasy.
> 
> On these grounds, objection is made to the idea that we must lead our children to Christ and evangelize them with the aim of a credible profession of faith. This is not treating them as pagans, as though they have no standing or privilege in the church until such time as they show faith. It does not mean trying to engineer some revivalistic crisis so that our children can be converted, as has been charged. Yet another over-reaction is so to emphasize the significance of infant baptism that it practically supplants the place of personal faith. Baptism is indeed more than a wet dedication of our children, yet it grants no grace apart from our children's personal embrace of the gospel in saving faith; for all our gratitude for what baptism means for our children, it is only on credible evidence of faith in Christ that we should rest our own and our children's assurance of salvation. As Charles Hodge wrote, we receive God's promised salvation "not by birth, nor by any outward rite, nor by union with any external body, but by the gospel, received and appropriated by faith." 40
> 
> Overall, the confidence with which advocates of this recast covenant theology approach the status of our children before God is the most attractive feature of their writings. It has involved for many a potent corrective to the effects of revivalism within their homes, which has had so many look upon their children as utter pagans until they have had a crisis conversion to Christ, the engineering of which can dominate whole childhoods. The problem, however, is that many writers simply go to far in their zeal for the status of covenant children, failing to be rightly balanced by the whole counsel of God. We have no reason to presume regeneration - a dangerous conception if there ever was one - nor should we fail to note the difference between covenant children who have not made profession of faith and those who have. I am speaking in the latter case of the growing practice of paedo-communion, which on the basis of presumed regeneration admits little children to the Lord's Table, totally neglecting the apostle Paul's warnings in 1 Corinthians 11:28-31 against those who partake of Communion without personal faith in that which it signifies.
> 
> In other words, from the excesses of the revivalistic mentality, we may return to a more biblically balanced position regarding our children without the excesses of hyper-covenantalism. We may prayerfully aspire for our children to what David wrote in Psalm 22:9-10, without presuming that this happens in an automatic fashion: "You made me trust you at my mother's breasts"¦ From my mother's womb you have been my God." That should not be read as a technical statement by the great Psalmist, but as a poetic expression of God's life-long faithfulness to him. We can and should have a very high view of the spiritual situation of Christian children without an unbalanced view of their covenant position that warps our whole doctrine of salvation.41 One example of this comes from G. Campbell Morgan, hardly an advocate of overblown covenant theology, who taught his congregation:
> 
> Our first business is to bring the child into a recognition of its actual relationship to Christ, and a personal yielding thereto. Let it be done easily and naturally. Do not be anxious, if indeed your home is a Christian home, that your child should pass through any volcanic experience; but as soon as possible the little one should be able to say, Yes, I love Him and I will be His. It is as simple as the kiss of morning upon the brow of the hill, as the distilling of the moisture in the dew, or it ought to be. Thank God for men who, having wandered far away, have come back by volcanic methods, but thank God for the little ones who have been led to the point of yielding and finding their Lord before any other lord has had dominion over them. 42


----------



## JohnV

I did a study on this, brief as it was, and I came up strongly on the PR side. However, I will not take issue with the PE side, because I think that when it comes to the differences its like comparing apples to oranges. We're mostly talking about the same things, but using different connotations. In the end, I feel, its not worth getting into unless we have a defininte goal in mind, something more than just ironing out our different emphases. The point has always been what was meant by 'presumptive', and the connotations that a lot of people put into that word. 

In the church circles around here, that one word is a bad word. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about election or regeneration: its presumptive, and that settles it. I know that on the PB we've grown past that to understand what is really meant by that word, that it is not necessarily bad, but rather that it is bad when it is not necessary. I think we've established that a basic belief in God's promises is shown in an obedient presumption upon His promises and seals, and not a self-based presumption. 

I have chosen the 'regeneration' option because it is most directly related to the institution of baptism, formally, and keeps it within the scope of the purpose of baptism only, and not accidentally delve into matters beyond baptism. I think that this is where some confusion creeps in with some who tie baptism too much in a bundle with salvation, as if it were the cause of salvation. When these two terms are seen in their order, then I don't think that PR is a problem anymore, but instead becomes a clarification of why we baptize. (It is a sign and seal of the Covenant upon us. ) And it is in direct relationship to that that I do not espouse paedo-communion (but this is harder to explain. ) 

But I would not easily quibble with those who hold to PE, because I believe their ideas in this are the same, with slightly different emphases that I do not disagree with. It becomes merely a difference of stricter definitions, and not of doctrine. It may come to that someday, if we need to tackle another new _ism_ which involves these differences, but that's not what the discussion is in our time. The point is that we presume in obedience, and definitely not that we presume upon God's regenerating mercy and election without His approval. Its a question of whether we accept and believe in the sign and the seal, that we learn to rely upon His sustaining hand in hard times.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Preach_
> Scott,
> I have not really wrestled with the issue, though it would be hard to see Abraham not presuming something. I guess my hesitance on covenant children praying is the issue of a Mediator. Help me understand how the children have access to the throne of grace.
> "In Christ",
> Bobby
> 
> When I was a baptist, I could see only two classes of people (COG'S=children of God or COD'S=children of the devil). Soteriologically speaking, it seems those distinctions are still true, but now we have to make a place for the covenant children who are holy. So, I'm struggling on weather the little ones should pray or not.



Bobby,
For the baptist, the passage in 1 Cor is a stumbling block of sorts. It is a conundrum. For the Covenant theologian it is relief. Gods word says that the children of one believing parent is _holy_.

1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 

The WCF says that covenant children are IN the COG, are members of the visible church. This solves the problem that Don Kistler is struggling with. Kislers problem is that he is reconciling baptisitic thinking in line with scripture. If he was baptist, in my opinion, he would be correct in what he is doing. Since he is not (baptist), he is in error in understanding the covenant. Think of it this way; every pastor in the land that is presbyterian would be in error in the same regard as Kissler as they are not diseminating the prayers from adult to child each and every Lords day.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Adam,
Did Abraham presume?
Did Abraham err in presuming?

Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 

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


----------



## D Battjes

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Don Kistler in his "Meet the Puritans" series explained that he would not even let his children pray until they produced evidence that they were professing. He would pray with and for them, but never let THEM pray.
> 
> He goes on later to say how Jonathan Edwards would call his children "little vipers" to remind them of their depravity, and to never presume upon special grace because they were his children.
> 
> I voted "covenant only" but am very curious to hear this discussion!



Wow, that is sick. Keeping Children away from Christ. They must have not read the verse that Christ Himself said, it would be better for them to have a millstone around their neck than to block children from the Lord.

Produced evidence. This is the biggest mistake some of them made, how much evidence? How many Good works? they never realized this becomes a works salvation.


----------



## D Battjes

I am a PR.. Meaning Presumptive Redemption

That I can presume that Christ redeemed all of His elect. That is all I am ready to presume.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Don Kistler in his "Meet the Puritans" series explained that he would not even let his children pray until they produced evidence that they were professing. He would pray with and for them, but never let THEM pray.
> 
> He goes on later to say how Jonathan Edwards would call his children "little vipers" to remind them of their depravity, and to never presume upon special grace because they were his children.
> 
> I voted "covenant only" but am very curious to hear this discussion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that is sick. Keeping Children away from Christ. They must have not read the verse that Christ Himself said, it would be better for them to have a millstone around their neck than to block children from the Lord.
> 
> Produced evidence. This is the biggest mistake some of them made, how much evidence? How many Good works? they never realized this becomes a works salvation.
Click to expand...


I think that "sick" might be a little strong. 

I don't see what Kistler said as "keeping children away from Christ" at all. We must assume total depravity for our children, because ALL are born into Adam's curse. This happens by natural generation. Is teaching children that they are depraved and God-haters by nature "sick"? We must constantly preach the gospel to our children, and continually ask God to give them the gift of faith.

I see his point in that salvation does not come through natural generation, but supernatural REgeneration. Sure, this is much more prevelant to the children of believers, because they are surrounded by the gospel, God's word, and being raised under the teaching of the gospel. This is why adopted children (at least in my opinion) are just as much in the covenant as natural children.

A question for those who hold to presumptive _. In the Old Testament, slaves and everyone who was in the household was to be given the covenant sign of circumcision. Would you presume a slave to be __? What if your slave was unprofessing? 

I have heard many say we presume __ until they prove otherwise....is that what some of you believe?


----------



## AdamM

> Adam,
> Did Abraham presume?
> Did Abraham err in presuming?
> 
> Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.



I think that is an apples to oranges comparison. There is no unconditional promise that all within the historical administration of the covenant will be saved. 

I do think the portion of article dealing the presumptive regeneration that I copied earlier by Pastor Phillips is very good and basically expresses my thoughts on the matter. Interacting with his article, where do you see him as being in error on this matter?

I have copied a couple excerpts from posts from the Warfield List (public archives, available to all) that I think will be helpful for all when considering presumptive regeneration. The author, Pastor Andy Webb of Providence PCA http://www.providencepca.com/) is a rock solid defender of orthodoxy in our denomination and a good friend of Fred to boot. 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bbwarfield/message/18316



> I only wish that modern Presbyterians would realize that the duty of encouraging the children of the Covenant to close with Christ is not the same as treating them as unbelievers or infidels and is wildly divergent from the non-covenantal theology of modern day revivalists. We are rapidly approaching a point in our theology where the actual teaching of the Bible is being ignored in favor of views of the Covenant that would make nonsense of the simple declaration of God: "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." (Romans 9:13) It is indeed a sad day when rather than simply admitting that some baptized children of believers are reprobates like Esau, Hophni, and Phineas and that they never closed with Christ or made good their Baptism, we actually introduce the possibility of real apostasy as the Auburnites have. I marvel that men actually find it more assuring to be told that their infant children are really engrafted into Christ, have the adoption as sons, and one with him and yet may subsequently fall away in adulthood and be really cut-off, than it would be to be told that their children while federally holy and members of the visible church must yet be encouraged to close with Christ via a real personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ after which there is no possibility of their ever falling away. Where is the truth of Romans 9:9-18? Where the sovereignty of God and invincibility of his effectual Calling and regeneration? We are in danger, as Todd pointed out, of becoming re-remonstrated or simply incoherent.




http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bbwarfield/message/16103



> Hi David,
> Of late Schenck's book has become very popular with those afflicted by the spreading disease of "covenitis." Basically, Schenck's thesis is that Dabney and the Southern Presbyterians were sub-reformed on the subject of the children of believers and he instead errs on the side of presumptive or even baptismal regeneration. Any hint of the evangelical necessity of our children personally closing with the Lord Jesus Christ is, he believes, a sad consequence of revivalism. When it was written in the 1940s the book was helpful to those who wished to defend the growing nominalism of the Presbyterian church, now of course it is just as useful to those who sneer at the concept of "saved" as a vestige of Baptistic revivalism and instead prefer the concept of their children being included in the covenant community that will be vindicated at the final assize (assuming of course they don't really apostatize by failing to remain in the vine that they were engrafted into at their baptism, etc.) Schenck's book is a hodge-podge of out-of-context quotes and the ever-more-common practice of taking men on the fringe of a particular doctrine and then treating them as if they were the mainstream (since when is Cornelius Burgess more representative of Puritan doctrine than say Watson or Owen, for instance???)
> A reply to this particular work is desperately needed and long overdue, especially since it is now being used by Presbyterians searching for a defense of infant baptism. Something is needed that harkens back to the true Presbyterian doctrine as did men like Alleine in his Alarm to the Uncoverted and Guthrie in his Christian's Great Interest, back in the 17th century when Presbyterian Pastors realized that Baptized and Converted were not necessarily synonyms. Speaking of Guthrie on this subject, I never tire of quoting the following:
> "Believing on Christ must be personal; a man himself and in his own proper person must close with Christ Jesus"”"˜The just shall live by his faith.´ (Hab. 2:4.) This saith, that it will not suffice for a man´s safety and relief, that he is in covenant with God as a born member of the visible church, by virtue of the parent´s subjection to God´s ordinances: neither will it suffice that the person had the initiating seal of baptism added, and that he then virtually engaged to seek salvation by Christ´s blood, as all infants do: neither doth it suffice that men are come of believing parents; their faith will not instate their children into a right to the spiritual blessings of the covenant; neither will it suffice that parents did, in some respects, engage for their children, and give them away unto God: all these things do not avail. The children of the kingdom and of godly predecessors are cast out. Unless a man in his own person have faith in Christ Jesus, and with his own heart approve and acquiesce in that device of saving sinners, he cannot be saved. I grant, this faith is given unto him by Christ; but certain it is, that it must be personal."
> - William Guthrie, The Christians Great Interest
> All of which according to Schenck is actually the result of a time warp whereby the Puritans and Scots where shot forward into the midst of the Second Great Awakening and drank deep at the wells of Finney et al, and then returned to their own time infected with Baptistic revivalism.
> Ah well. The only comforting truly comforting thing about this is what history teaches us about movements towards baptismal regeneration. We learn from the ecclesiastical history of Holland and England that the generation following (which was raised to assume their salvation) is nominal and the one immediately following is liberal. So while we may have to contend with this nonsense in orthodox reformed denominations for a while, at least our children's children won't...
> Sorry David, you touched a raw nerve with that one. [I seem to be having difficulty keeping my frustration with the current Reformed theological train-wreck hidden under a thin veneer of contentment.]
> Your Servant in Christ,
> Andy Webb


----------



## D Battjes

> I think that "sick" might be a little strong.
> 
> I don't see what Kistler said as "keeping children away from Christ" at all. We must assume total depravity for our children, because ALL are born into Adam's curse. This happens by natural generation. Is teaching children that they are depraved and God-haters by nature "sick"? We must constantly preach the gospel to our children, and continually ask God to give them the gift of faith.



Where is this "method" prescribed by our Lord Jeff? Point me to ONE instance in the whole Writ, where we are to constantly remind our children how drpraved they are, and little vipers or treat them in some probationary period until they show evidences. THis WHOLE idea is contrary to scripture. 

I am glad "evidences" is a man made doctrine and not Gods. Because if one were to look at my track record, I would constantly be in then out.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> 
> Adam,
> Did Abraham presume?
> Did Abraham err in presuming?
> 
> Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is an apples to oranges comparison. There is no unconditional promise that all within the historical administration of the covenant will be saved.
> 
> I do think the portion of article dealing the presumptive regeneration that I copied earlier by Pastor Phillips is very good and basically expresses my thoughts on the matter. Interacting with his article, where do you see him as being in error on this matter?
> 
> I have copied a couple excerpts from posts from the Warfield List (public archives, available to all) that I think will be helpful for all when considering presumptive regeneration. The author, Pastor Andy Webb of Providence PCA http://www.providencepca.com/) is a rock solid defender of orthodoxy in our denomination and a good friend of Fred to boot.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bbwarfield/message/18316
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only wish that modern Presbyterians would realize that the duty of encouraging the children of the Covenant to close with Christ is not the same as treating them as unbelievers or infidels and is wildly divergent from the non-covenantal theology of modern day revivalists. We are rapidly approaching a point in our theology where the actual teaching of the Bible is being ignored in favor of views of the Covenant that would make nonsense of the simple declaration of God: "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." (Romans 9:13) It is indeed a sad day when rather than simply admitting that some baptized children of believers are reprobates like Esau, Hophni, and Phineas and that they never closed with Christ or made good their Baptism, we actually introduce the possibility of real apostasy as the Auburnites have. I marvel that men actually find it more assuring to be told that their infant children are really engrafted into Christ, have the adoption as sons, and one with him and yet may subsequently fall away in adulthood and be really cut-off, than it would be to be told that their children while federally holy and members of the visible church must yet be encouraged to close with Christ via a real personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ after which there is no possibility of their ever falling away. Where is the truth of Romans 9:9-18? Where the sovereignty of God and invincibility of his effectual Calling and regeneration? We are in danger, as Todd pointed out, of becoming re-remonstrated or simply incoherent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bbwarfield/message/16103
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi David,
> Of late Schenck's book has become very popular with those afflicted by the spreading disease of "covenitis." Basically, Schenck's thesis is that Dabney and the Southern Presbyterians were sub-reformed on the subject of the children of believers and he instead errs on the side of presumptive or even baptismal regeneration. Any hint of the evangelical necessity of our children personally closing with the Lord Jesus Christ is, he believes, a sad consequence of revivalism. When it was written in the 1940s the book was helpful to those who wished to defend the growing nominalism of the Presbyterian church, now of course it is just as useful to those who sneer at the concept of "saved" as a vestige of Baptistic revivalism and instead prefer the concept of their children being included in the covenant community that will be vindicated at the final assize (assuming of course they don't really apostatize by failing to remain in the vine that they were engrafted into at their baptism, etc.) Schenck's book is a hodge-podge of out-of-context quotes and the ever-more-common practice of taking men on the fringe of a particular doctrine and then treating them as if they were the mainstream (since when is Cornelius Burgess more representative of Puritan doctrine than say Watson or Owen, for instance???)
> A reply to this particular work is desperately needed and long overdue, especially since it is now being used by Presbyterians searching for a defense of infant baptism. Something is needed that harkens back to the true Presbyterian doctrine as did men like Alleine in his Alarm to the Uncoverted and Guthrie in his Christian's Great Interest, back in the 17th century when Presbyterian Pastors realized that Baptized and Converted were not necessarily synonyms. Speaking of Guthrie on this subject, I never tire of quoting the following:
> "Believing on Christ must be personal; a man himself and in his own proper person must close with Christ Jesus"”"˜The just shall live by his faith.´ (Hab. 2:4.) This saith, that it will not suffice for a man´s safety and relief, that he is in covenant with God as a born member of the visible church, by virtue of the parent´s subjection to God´s ordinances: neither will it suffice that the person had the initiating seal of baptism added, and that he then virtually engaged to seek salvation by Christ´s blood, as all infants do: neither doth it suffice that men are come of believing parents; their faith will not instate their children into a right to the spiritual blessings of the covenant; neither will it suffice that parents did, in some respects, engage for their children, and give them away unto God: all these things do not avail. The children of the kingdom and of godly predecessors are cast out. Unless a man in his own person have faith in Christ Jesus, and with his own heart approve and acquiesce in that device of saving sinners, he cannot be saved. I grant, this faith is given unto him by Christ; but certain it is, that it must be personal."
> - William Guthrie, The Christians Great Interest
> All of which according to Schenck is actually the result of a time warp whereby the Puritans and Scots where shot forward into the midst of the Second Great Awakening and drank deep at the wells of Finney et al, and then returned to their own time infected with Baptistic revivalism.
> Ah well. The only comforting truly comforting thing about this is what history teaches us about movements towards baptismal regeneration. We learn from the ecclesiastical history of Holland and England that the generation following (which was raised to assume their salvation) is nominal and the one immediately following is liberal. So while we may have to contend with this nonsense in orthodox reformed denominations for a while, at least our children's children won't...
> Sorry David, you touched a raw nerve with that one. [I seem to be having difficulty keeping my frustration with the current Reformed theological train-wreck hidden under a thin veneer of contentment.]
> Your Servant in Christ,
> Andy Webb
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


He doesn't get it. This is an important paper to read before writing things of that nature:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/DealWithThoseWhoDiffer.htm

It sounds as if Webb is writing out of frustration. Oh wait, he is!


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> 
> 
> 
> I think that "sick" might be a little strong.
> 
> I don't see what Kistler said as "keeping children away from Christ" at all. We must assume total depravity for our children, because ALL are born into Adam's curse. This happens by natural generation. Is teaching children that they are depraved and God-haters by nature "sick"? We must constantly preach the gospel to our children, and continually ask God to give them the gift of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this "method" prescribed by our Lord Jeff? Point me to ONE instance in the whole Writ, where we are to constantly remind our children how drpraved they are, and little vipers or treat them in some probationary period until they show evidences. THis WHOLE idea is contrary to scripture.
> 
> I am glad "evidences" is a man made doctrine and not Gods. Because if one were to look at my track record, I would constantly be in then out.
Click to expand...


It reminds me of Thomas: "Unless I can literally sink my fingers into the wounds on your hands and side, I will not believe........" <my emphasis added>


----------



## D Battjes

> It reminds me of Thomas: "Unless I can literally sink my fingers into the wounds on your hands and side, I will not believe........" <my emphasis added>



Good analogy Scott Bushy.

THis is an error some reformers and puritans made. This "evidence Theology" Leads to complete self intorospection, and looking at others with a judgemental spirit.

IT takes the focus off of Christs complete work and onto man.


----------



## Preach

Let's assume that a head of household gets saved this week. Once he sits down with the session and they are convinced of his faith, who will be admitted for baptism? Many paedos will say the entire household. Fine. Father, mother, and the children are baptized. Now, who is allowed to pray to God? Is it everyone in the home? 

Let's assume that the proper position is for father to allow the covenant children to pray to their Father in heaven. Are they praying by way of the Mediator Christ Jesus? In what way?

Moreover, what about mother. She was only baptized because her husband was. She is now sanctified. But should she pray to? And if she should, how long should she pary (years) if she doesn't accept Christ? Do the promises run to the entire household, or just down to the children?

Thanks,
Bobby


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> 
> Adam,
> Did Abraham presume?
> Did Abraham err in presuming?
> 
> Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is an apples to oranges comparison. There is no unconditional promise that all within the historical administration of the covenant will be saved.
> 
> I do think the portion of article dealing the presumptive regeneration that I copied earlier by Pastor Phillips is very good and basically expresses my thoughts on the matter. Interacting with his article, where do you see him as being in error on this matter?
> 
> I have copied a couple excerpts from posts from the Warfield List (public archives, available to all) that I think will be helpful for all when considering presumptive regeneration. The author, Pastor Andy Webb of Providence PCA http://www.providencepca.com/) is a rock solid defender of orthodoxy in our denomination and a good friend of Fred to boot.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bbwarfield/message/18316
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only wish that modern Presbyterians would realize that the duty of encouraging the children of the Covenant to close with Christ is not the same as treating them as unbelievers or infidels and is wildly divergent from the non-covenantal theology of modern day revivalists. We are rapidly approaching a point in our theology where the actual teaching of the Bible is being ignored in favor of views of the Covenant that would make nonsense of the simple declaration of God: "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." (Romans 9:13) It is indeed a sad day when rather than simply admitting that some baptized children of believers are reprobates like Esau, Hophni, and Phineas and that they never closed with Christ or made good their Baptism, we actually introduce the possibility of real apostasy as the Auburnites have. I marvel that men actually find it more assuring to be told that their infant children are really engrafted into Christ, have the adoption as sons, and one with him and yet may subsequently fall away in adulthood and be really cut-off, than it would be to be told that their children while federally holy and members of the visible church must yet be encouraged to close with Christ via a real personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ after which there is no possibility of their ever falling away. Where is the truth of Romans 9:9-18? Where the sovereignty of God and invincibility of his effectual Calling and regeneration? We are in danger, as Todd pointed out, of becoming re-remonstrated or simply incoherent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bbwarfield/message/16103
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi David,
> Of late Schenck's book has become very popular with those afflicted by the spreading disease of "covenitis." Basically, Schenck's thesis is that Dabney and the Southern Presbyterians were sub-reformed on the subject of the children of believers and he instead errs on the side of presumptive or even baptismal regeneration. Any hint of the evangelical necessity of our children personally closing with the Lord Jesus Christ is, he believes, a sad consequence of revivalism. When it was written in the 1940s the book was helpful to those who wished to defend the growing nominalism of the Presbyterian church, now of course it is just as useful to those who sneer at the concept of "saved" as a vestige of Baptistic revivalism and instead prefer the concept of their children being included in the covenant community that will be vindicated at the final assize (assuming of course they don't really apostatize by failing to remain in the vine that they were engrafted into at their baptism, etc.) Schenck's book is a hodge-podge of out-of-context quotes and the ever-more-common practice of taking men on the fringe of a particular doctrine and then treating them as if they were the mainstream (since when is Cornelius Burgess more representative of Puritan doctrine than say Watson or Owen, for instance???)
> A reply to this particular work is desperately needed and long overdue, especially since it is now being used by Presbyterians searching for a defense of infant baptism. Something is needed that harkens back to the true Presbyterian doctrine as did men like Alleine in his Alarm to the Uncoverted and Guthrie in his Christian's Great Interest, back in the 17th century when Presbyterian Pastors realized that Baptized and Converted were not necessarily synonyms. Speaking of Guthrie on this subject, I never tire of quoting the following:
> "Believing on Christ must be personal; a man himself and in his own proper person must close with Christ Jesus"”"˜The just shall live by his faith.´ (Hab. 2:4.) This saith, that it will not suffice for a man´s safety and relief, that he is in covenant with God as a born member of the visible church, by virtue of the parent´s subjection to God´s ordinances: neither will it suffice that the person had the initiating seal of baptism added, and that he then virtually engaged to seek salvation by Christ´s blood, as all infants do: neither doth it suffice that men are come of believing parents; their faith will not instate their children into a right to the spiritual blessings of the covenant; neither will it suffice that parents did, in some respects, engage for their children, and give them away unto God: all these things do not avail. The children of the kingdom and of godly predecessors are cast out. Unless a man in his own person have faith in Christ Jesus, and with his own heart approve and acquiesce in that device of saving sinners, he cannot be saved. I grant, this faith is given unto him by Christ; but certain it is, that it must be personal."
> - William Guthrie, The Christians Great Interest
> All of which according to Schenck is actually the result of a time warp whereby the Puritans and Scots where shot forward into the midst of the Second Great Awakening and drank deep at the wells of Finney et al, and then returned to their own time infected with Baptistic revivalism.
> Ah well. The only comforting truly comforting thing about this is what history teaches us about movements towards baptismal regeneration. We learn from the ecclesiastical history of Holland and England that the generation following (which was raised to assume their salvation) is nominal and the one immediately following is liberal. So while we may have to contend with this nonsense in orthodox reformed denominations for a while, at least our children's children won't...
> Sorry David, you touched a raw nerve with that one. [I seem to be having difficulty keeping my frustration with the current Reformed theological train-wreck hidden under a thin veneer of contentment.]
> Your Servant in Christ,
> Andy Webb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't get it. This is an important paper to read before writing things of that nature:
> 
> http://www.apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/DealWithThoseWhoDiffer.htm
> 
> It sounds as if Webb is writing out of frustration. Oh wait, he is!
Click to expand...


Sorry Matt,

Have to completely disagree with you. The more I study Schenck and his links to the heretical movements of our day, the more dangerous, misinformed and disingenuous with Calvin et al I find him. I do not think it is is without reason that almost all of the FV/AA crowd love Schenck, and almost everyone I know who is opposed to them (the ONLY exception that I have seen in two years - literally - is you and Scott) thinks him dangerous and misleading. I mean Rick Phillips, Ligon Duncan, Duncan Rankin, Derek Thomas, Guy Waters, the Banner of Truth (see the latest edition for a book review critical of Schenck), the WTS-CA faculty, Doug Kelly, and I could go on and on.

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing that EVERYONE, on both sides of the issue, have misread Schenck but you and Scott.

I love you, but I think Schenck is completely out to pasture on this one.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

My pastor is in the company of Matt and Scot and liked Schenck's book; our associate pastor did not, though I'm not sure he read the whole thing or not or just how much he read. Both are critical of the FV and NPP guys. I've lined someone up to do a critical review of Schenck for the 2006 _The Confessional Presbyterian,_ Lord willing, and depending upon which side he comes down on will probably have an exchange of views on the book from someone of the opposite point of view.


----------



## Arch2k

Fred, Matt & Chris...I would be interested to know your thoughts on the topic. How did you vote?


----------



## Mayflower

> the Banner of Truth (see the latest edition for a book review critical of Schenck)
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Scott,
> 
> Can you please send this link or artical, because iam very curiuos what the review is?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ralph
Click to expand...


----------



## Arch2k

*Just some commentaries for reflection (on WSC #95):*

Matthew Henry


> 4. Are the children of believers federally holy? Yes: Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy, 1 Cor. 7:14. Are they so in their parents' right? Yes: if the root be holy, so are the branches, Rom. 11:16. Are they disciples? Yes: for the yoke of circumcision was put upon the neck of the disciples, Acts 15:1,10. Are they to be received in Christ's name? Yes: Whosoever receiveth one such little child in my name, receiveth me, Matt. 18:5. Are they born unto God? Yes: Thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast born unto me, Ezek. 16:20. Are they bound by relation to be his servants? Yes: I am thy servant the son of thine handmaid, Ps. 116:16. Ought they then to be presented to him? Yes: The first-born of thy sons shalt thou give unto me, Exod. 22:29.
> 
> 5. Do children need to be cleansed from the pollutions of sin? Yes: for they are shapen in iniquity, Ps.51:5. Is there provision made for their cleansing? Yes: for there is a fountain opened to the house of David, Zech. 13:1.



Thomas Watson


> What is meant by the parent when he presents his child to be baptized?
> 
> The parent, in presenting the child to be baptized, (1) Makes a public acknowledgement of original sin; that the soul of his child is polluted, therefore needs washing from sin by Christ's blood and Spirit; both which washings are signified by the sprinkling of water in baptism. (2) The parent by bringing his child to be baptized, solemnly devotes it to the Lord, and enrols it in God's family; and truly it is a great satisfaction to a religious parent to have given up his child to the Lord in baptism. How can a parent look with comfort on that child who was never dedicated to God?
> 
> What is the benefit of baptism?
> 
> The party baptized has, (1) An entrance into the visible body of the church. (2) He has a right sealed to the ordinances, which is a privilege full of glory. Rom 9:4. (3) The child baptized is under a more special providential care of Christ, who appoints the tutelage of angels to be the infant's life-guard.
> 
> Is this all the benefit?
> 
> No! To such as belong to the election, baptism is a 'seal of the righteousness of faith,' a laver of regeneration, and a badge of adoption. Rom 4:11.
> 
> How does it appear that children have a right to baptism?
> 
> Children are parties in the covenant of grace. The covenant was made with them. 'I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.' Gen 17:7. 'The promise is to you and to your children.' Acts 2:39. The covenant of grace may be considered either, (1) More strictly, as an absolute promise to give saving grace; and so none but the elect are in covenant with God. Or, (2) More largely, as a covenant containing in it many outward glorious privileges, in which respects the children of believers do belong to the covenant of grace. The promise is to you and to your seed. The infant seed of believers may as well lay a claim to the covenant of grace as their parents; and having a right to the covenant, they cannot justly be denied baptism, which is its seal. It is certain the children of believers were once visibly in covenant with God, and received the seal of their admission into the church; where now do we find this covenant interest, or church membership of infants, repealed or made void? Certainly Jesus Christ did not come to put believers and their children into a worse condition than they were in before. If the children of believers should not be baptized, they are in worse condition now than they were in before Christ's coming.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Fred, Matt & Chris...I would be interested to know your thoughts on the topic. How did you vote?



Presumptive Election.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> 
> Adam,
> Did Abraham presume?
> Did Abraham err in presuming?
> 
> Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is an apples to oranges comparison. There is no unconditional promise that all within the historical administration of the covenant will be saved.
> 
> I do think the portion of article dealing the presumptive regeneration that I copied earlier by Pastor Phillips is very good and basically expresses my thoughts on the matter. Interacting with his article, where do you see him as being in error on this matter?
> 
> I have copied a couple excerpts from posts from the Warfield List (public archives, available to all) that I think will be helpful for all when considering presumptive regeneration. The author, Pastor Andy Webb of Providence PCA http://www.providencepca.com/) is a rock solid defender of orthodoxy in our denomination and a good friend of Fred to boot.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bbwarfield/message/18316
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only wish that modern Presbyterians would realize that the duty of encouraging the children of the Covenant to close with Christ is not the same as treating them as unbelievers or infidels and is wildly divergent from the non-covenantal theology of modern day revivalists. We are rapidly approaching a point in our theology where the actual teaching of the Bible is being ignored in favor of views of the Covenant that would make nonsense of the simple declaration of God: "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." (Romans 9:13) It is indeed a sad day when rather than simply admitting that some baptized children of believers are reprobates like Esau, Hophni, and Phineas and that they never closed with Christ or made good their Baptism, we actually introduce the possibility of real apostasy as the Auburnites have. I marvel that men actually find it more assuring to be told that their infant children are really engrafted into Christ, have the adoption as sons, and one with him and yet may subsequently fall away in adulthood and be really cut-off, than it would be to be told that their children while federally holy and members of the visible church must yet be encouraged to close with Christ via a real personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ after which there is no possibility of their ever falling away. Where is the truth of Romans 9:9-18? Where the sovereignty of God and invincibility of his effectual Calling and regeneration? We are in danger, as Todd pointed out, of becoming re-remonstrated or simply incoherent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bbwarfield/message/16103
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi David,
> Of late Schenck's book has become very popular with those afflicted by the spreading disease of "covenitis." Basically, Schenck's thesis is that Dabney and the Southern Presbyterians were sub-reformed on the subject of the children of believers and he instead errs on the side of presumptive or even baptismal regeneration. Any hint of the evangelical necessity of our children personally closing with the Lord Jesus Christ is, he believes, a sad consequence of revivalism. When it was written in the 1940s the book was helpful to those who wished to defend the growing nominalism of the Presbyterian church, now of course it is just as useful to those who sneer at the concept of "saved" as a vestige of Baptistic revivalism and instead prefer the concept of their children being included in the covenant community that will be vindicated at the final assize (assuming of course they don't really apostatize by failing to remain in the vine that they were engrafted into at their baptism, etc.) Schenck's book is a hodge-podge of out-of-context quotes and the ever-more-common practice of taking men on the fringe of a particular doctrine and then treating them as if they were the mainstream (since when is Cornelius Burgess more representative of Puritan doctrine than say Watson or Owen, for instance???)
> A reply to this particular work is desperately needed and long overdue, especially since it is now being used by Presbyterians searching for a defense of infant baptism. Something is needed that harkens back to the true Presbyterian doctrine as did men like Alleine in his Alarm to the Uncoverted and Guthrie in his Christian's Great Interest, back in the 17th century when Presbyterian Pastors realized that Baptized and Converted were not necessarily synonyms. Speaking of Guthrie on this subject, I never tire of quoting the following:
> "Believing on Christ must be personal; a man himself and in his own proper person must close with Christ Jesus"”"˜The just shall live by his faith.´ (Hab. 2:4.) This saith, that it will not suffice for a man´s safety and relief, that he is in covenant with God as a born member of the visible church, by virtue of the parent´s subjection to God´s ordinances: neither will it suffice that the person had the initiating seal of baptism added, and that he then virtually engaged to seek salvation by Christ´s blood, as all infants do: neither doth it suffice that men are come of believing parents; their faith will not instate their children into a right to the spiritual blessings of the covenant; neither will it suffice that parents did, in some respects, engage for their children, and give them away unto God: all these things do not avail. The children of the kingdom and of godly predecessors are cast out. Unless a man in his own person have faith in Christ Jesus, and with his own heart approve and acquiesce in that device of saving sinners, he cannot be saved. I grant, this faith is given unto him by Christ; but certain it is, that it must be personal."
> - William Guthrie, The Christians Great Interest
> All of which according to Schenck is actually the result of a time warp whereby the Puritans and Scots where shot forward into the midst of the Second Great Awakening and drank deep at the wells of Finney et al, and then returned to their own time infected with Baptistic revivalism.
> Ah well. The only comforting truly comforting thing about this is what history teaches us about movements towards baptismal regeneration. We learn from the ecclesiastical history of Holland and England that the generation following (which was raised to assume their salvation) is nominal and the one immediately following is liberal. So while we may have to contend with this nonsense in orthodox reformed denominations for a while, at least our children's children won't...
> Sorry David, you touched a raw nerve with that one. [I seem to be having difficulty keeping my frustration with the current Reformed theological train-wreck hidden under a thin veneer of contentment.]
> Your Servant in Christ,
> Andy Webb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't get it. This is an important paper to read before writing things of that nature:
> 
> http://www.apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/DealWithThoseWhoDiffer.htm
> 
> It sounds as if Webb is writing out of frustration. Oh wait, he is!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Matt,
> 
> Have to completely disagree with you. The more I study Schenck and his links to the heretical movements of our day, the more dangerous, misinformed and disingenuous with Calvin et al I find him. I do not think it is is without reason that almost all of the FV/AA crowd love Schenck, and almost everyone I know who is opposed to them (the ONLY exception that I have seen in two years - literally - is you and Scott) thinks him dangerous and misleading. I mean Rick Phillips, Ligon Duncan, Duncan Rankin, Derek Thomas, Guy Waters, the Banner of Truth (see the latest edition for a book review critical of Schenck), the WTS-CA faculty, Doug Kelly, and I could go on and on.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing that EVERYONE, on both sides of the issue, have misread Schenck but you and Scott.
> 
> I love you, but I think Schenck is completely out to pasture on this one.
Click to expand...


Fred,
Honest question: What percentage of the PCA actually understands CT and the WCF?


----------



## fredtgreco

Honest answer: I don't know, but I am not speaking of the PCA in general. I am speaking of some of the finest Reformed and covenantal theologians in the PCA and OPC.

Another honest question: what would make Schenck, a non-evangelical member of a liberal church in the 1950s, a better understander of such?


----------



## AdamM

Fred, if you recall last August on Warfield, Rev. Sean Lucas now at Covenant made what I thought was very astute observation about the circumstances behind the work of Schenck (and Bushnell). 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bbwarfield/message/18313



> I've been following this entire discussion of Schenck with great
> interest because I think this type of critical thinking is very
> important when it comes to evaluate this book and the other types of
> arguments being propogated in our church today.
> 
> One thing that I would say is that the great ghost behind the Schenck
> book is not Kuyper, but Horace Bushnell's Christian Nurture. For
> those of you familiar with Bushnell, his motivation in writing that
> book, and his overall argument, it should be fairly easy to see the
> connections.
> 
> Bushnell wrote in reaction against the revivalism of the Second Great
> Awakening and the religion which it represented. His goal of having
> children being raised as Christians without ever knowing otherwise
> motivated a good deal of his argument, which attacked the
> conversionistic approach of the revivalists.
> 
> While perhaps we would applaud Bushnell (and parts of Schenck's)
> concern--as Charles Hodge did himself in a review of BRPR--I think
> the points of criticism that one could lodge against Bushnell could
> also be lodged against Schenck: a low view of original sin, an overly
> sentimental view of children, a romantic or existentialist approach
> to truth, a "formalist" definition of religion, and a redefinition of
> key doctrines.
> 
> * What is particularly interesting is how the Bushnellian doctrine
> affected the way mainstream Protestants approached Christian
> education. Margaret Bendroth, in her book Growing Up Protestant (2002), describes how early Christian education became very
> moralistic. After all, if these children are "regenerate"
> or "Christian" then they don't need "conversion," but "santification" (as R. C. Sproul Jr put it in his essay in Gregg Strawbridge's
> baptism book). Because santification became identified with external actions--conformity to the moral law--early Christian education moved
> mainstream Protestants toward moralism. The net result was that by
> the 1950s and 1960s, Protestant children found that moralism was
> spiritually unsatisfying and began leaving the churches in droves.*
> 
> Schenck was writing in a context (1930s and 1940s PCUS) where the
> progressives had gained controlled of both Union Seminary and
> Davidson College. Part of their overall hope was to move the PCUS
> away from "old-time" evangelism and its understanding of conversion
> toward a more humane and progressive understanding of evangelism (and with that, of course, Christian nurture). Only as the book is read in the light of these larger ecclesiastical and intellectual movements
> will be it read correctly.
> 
> Sean Lucas
> St. Louis MO


----------



## fredtgreco

Adam,

Yes I do. And despite my pleadings, he too is too busy to write a book length critical review of Schenck (as pled Guy Waters!).

Someone really needs to do this soon, or else, my thought is that Schenck will continue to damage the Church from the grave.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Because possibly he (Schenck) specialized in this area...........

Lets face it Fred, the majority of people, whether PCA or whatever, do not even understand the basics of CT. 

Here's my take: CT is only consistant if one follows this thinking, i.e Bushnell, Schenck, as well as the majority of the reformers that have been previously quoted. Following the line of thought from our contemporaries smacks of credoism. It creates an inconsistancy that cannot be explained away and does nothing for CT in general. 

Here's a perfect example: Sproul writes, "After all, if these children are "regenerate" or "Christian" then they don't need "conversion," but "santification""

Conversion is not regeneration and regeneration is not conversion.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Fred, Matt & Chris...I would be interested to know your thoughts on the topic. How did you vote?



I voted for PR. I know heretics abound, but that does not stop mne from beleiving in Christ. I mean, if Arius, Appolinarius, or Eutychus was "abounding today" I'd still believe in what was right. I woudln't say that because they twist things that means that the right doctrine is not actually right.

Fred, I'm not saying that the men you mentioned are overall incorrect in their theology, but I think they would be hard pressed to deal with PR in the writings of those quoted by Schenck, and others. (Hodge, Calvin, Zwingli, Rutherford, Westminster, etc - you know the list).

I know that the FV are heretics. Just because they twist PR to become something different. Don't throw out the baby and the bath water.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Let's get one thing straight:
> 
> Bushnell and Schenck were not orthodox. They were likely not even Christians.



Agreed.

But as we know, there are lots of people out there that have complied, unbiasedly, good material that are not even remotely Christian. I can think of a host of them especially around material on the Reformation and Puritanism. 

That does not mean Calvin did not say what he said, or that the WCF never makes a thoughful non-distinction between adults and infants on baptism in general. 

What we have to watch out for is heretics who take truth and twist it.

I would ditto Scott on unfamiliarity in the PCA and OPC on the Confession itself (and I know you know that too Fred). After moving through most of the known material (and unknown) on the WCF during studies, I lamented the amount of information I did not learn that I wish I had been taught in Seminary. It was not even "enough."

Everythingn is so generically taught that when one has to dig, and they uncover more through reading, it gets lamentable at the overarching state of the church.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Fred where the post go? Did you delete it? I answered above and it does not make any sense now.


----------



## Mayflower

Dear Fredtgreco,

You wrote :

"..... the Banner of Truth (see the latest edition for a book review critical of Schenck)...."

Can you please send this link or artical, because iam very curiuos what the review is?

Thanks,

Ralph


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Mayflower_
> Dear Fredtgreco,
> 
> You wrote :
> 
> "..... the Banner of Truth (see the latest edition for a book review critical of Schenck)...."
> 
> Can you please send this link or artical, because iam very curiuos what the review is?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ralph



Ralph,

It is not on the web. I have yet to read it myself - I have to get to the library to get a copy. I was just informed about this the other day.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Fred where the post go? Did you delete it? I answered above and it does not make any sense now.



Yes I did. I was going to follow it up with something longer, but I don't have the time.


----------



## pastorway

As a Baptist I am with Fred. If we are to presume anything at all it must be election, not regeneration. Regeneration can only be presumed in the light of FRUIT - meaning if we are to presume one is regenerate we must have evidence. 

Here is an intersting quote on the topic taken from the latest edition of the *Reformed Baptist Theological Review*:



> _The Abrahamic Covenant in the Thought of John Tombes_
> by Michael T. Renihan
> 
> page 24 - RBTR, Volume II, No. 1, January 2005
> 
> "˜Individual anecdotes are not normative, but illustrative of the fruit of men´s labours. The fruit of a belief will be seen in how it manifests itself in practice. Ideas have consequences. Let me illustrate. A friend with whom I attended seminary called me recently to discuss a matter affecting the life of the church he presently pastors. The church is Presbyterian. My friend has always been a traditionally conservative Presbyterian pastor holding to all of the Westminster Standards- even the Directory for Publick worship. His recent experience struck at the heart of how the infant´s interest in the Covenant of Grace via the Abrahamic Covenant is working itself out in some covenantal Presbyterian or paedobaptist circles.
> 
> A young woman in her late teens had become a nightmare to her Christian parents. She was disruptive at home and rebellious to the authority figures in her life. Her church prayed for her regularly over the course of almost two years. In fact, they prayed so regularly that it seemed to the Pastor that the congregation had given her over as a hopeless cause. They had become desensitized through familiarity with her condition. A christian friend of this young woman, however, also showed concern for her. She "˜reached out to her with a lifeline´ (as the evangelical clichÃ© says). This friend invited her to a church other than her family´s where there were special summer evangelistic meetings. She agreed to attend. The rebellious one was struck by the force of the preaching and made a public profession of faith. (Let´s not get lost in a visceral reaction to methodology at this point.) Late that night, she announced to her parents with tears of repentance interspersed with her words that everything was going to be okay from now on because she was now a Christian. Sounds good, doesn´t it?
> 
> Her father went into a tirade. He had presumed that his daughter was already regenerate by virtue of her election and her place as a "œCovenant child." He would not be shown to be wrong. His hyper-covenantal theology blinded him to the possibility that his daughter might have been unregenerate. In his view, she had "œbroken the covenant again" by making such a public confession of faith. After all, he had professed faith for her at her baptism sixteen years or so earlier. What might have been perceived as a merciful answer to the church´s prayers was perceived as a greater evil than her two years of rebellion. For this act she was cast from the home. It was the proverbial last straw. The father´s real grief was that she had become "œa [expletive deleted] Baptist!" In these words, the father conveyed his horror to his pastor, my friend. For the first time in his ministry, my friend saw the consequences of "œpressing to much out of covenant theology." He asked in desperation, "œWhat´s a pastor to do?" Since he knows my dry sense of humour, I replied, "œBecome a Reformed Baptist." I also sent him John Tombes´ work on the Abrahamic Covenant.´



As a Reformed Baptist friend of mine stated about this quote:



> An occurrence like this will be comparatively rare. Far more common, and even more disasterous, will be the situation where the child does not rebel; where her acqiescence will be taken for the presumed regeneration. She will never be confronted by the need to repent and trust in Christ because it will be presumed that she has already done so. Such a person may go all through his/her life presuming that he/she is a Christian, only to be told on the Last Day, "I never knew you! Depart from Me, you who practise lawlessness.



Phillip


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> As a Baptist I am with Fred. If we are to presume anything at all it must be election, not regeneration. Regeneration can only be presumed in the light of FRUIT - meaning if we are to presume one is regenerate we must have evidence.
> 
> Here is an intersting quote on the topic taken from the latest edition of the *Reformed Baptist Theological Review*:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Abrahamic Covenant in the Thought of John Tombes_
> by Michael T. Renihan
> 
> page 24 - RBTR, Volume II, No. 1, January 2005
> 
> "˜Individual anecdotes are not normative, but illustrative of the fruit of men´s labours. The fruit of a belief will be seen in how it manifests itself in practice. Ideas have consequences. Let me illustrate. A friend with whom I attended seminary called me recently to discuss a matter affecting the life of the church he presently pastors. The church is Presbyterian. My friend has always been a traditionally conservative Presbyterian pastor holding to all of the Westminster Standards- even the Directory for Publick worship. His recent experience struck at the heart of how the infant´s interest in the Covenant of Grace via the Abrahamic Covenant is working itself out in some covenantal Presbyterian or paedobaptist circles.
> 
> A young woman in her late teens had become a nightmare to her Christian parents. She was disruptive at home and rebellious to the authority figures in her life. Her church prayed for her regularly over the course of almost two years. In fact, they prayed so regularly that it seemed to the Pastor that the congregation had given her over as a hopeless cause. They had become desensitized through familiarity with her condition. A christian friend of this young woman, however, also showed concern for her. She "˜reached out to her with a lifeline´ (as the evangelical clichÃ© says). This friend invited her to a church other than her family´s where there were special summer evangelistic meetings. She agreed to attend. The rebellious one was struck by the force of the preaching and made a public profession of faith. (Let´s not get lost in a visceral reaction to methodology at this point.) Late that night, she announced to her parents with tears of repentance interspersed with her words that everything was going to be okay from now on because she was now a Christian. Sounds good, doesn´t it?
> 
> Her father went into a tirade. He had presumed that his daughter was already regenerate by virtue of her election and her place as a "œCovenant child." He would not be shown to be wrong. His hyper-covenantal theology blinded him to the possibility that his daughter might have been unregenerate. In his view, she had "œbroken the covenant again" by making such a public confession of faith. After all, he had professed faith for her at her baptism sixteen years or so earlier. What might have been perceived as a merciful answer to the church´s prayers was perceived as a greater evil than her two years of rebellion. For this act she was cast from the home. It was the proverbial last straw. The father´s real grief was that she had become "œa [expletive deleted] Baptist!" In these words, the father conveyed his horror to his pastor, my friend. For the first time in his ministry, my friend saw the consequences of "œpressing to much out of covenant theology." He asked in desperation, "œWhat´s a pastor to do?" Since he knows my dry sense of humour, I replied, "œBecome a Reformed Baptist." I also sent him John Tombes´ work on the Abrahamic Covenant.´
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a Reformed Baptist friend of mine stated about this quote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An occurrence like this will be comparatively rare. Far more common, and even more disasterous, will be the situation where the child does not rebel; where her acqiescence will be taken for the presumed regeneration. She will never be confronted by the need to repent and trust in Christ because it will be presumed that she has already done so. Such a person may go all through his/her life presuming that he/she is a Christian, only to be told on the Last Day, "I never knew you! Depart from Me, you who practise lawlessness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Phillip
Click to expand...


Regeneration is not conversion, conversion is not regeneration. They are two entirely different things.


----------



## fredtgreco

Two legs bad! Four legs good!


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Fred,

Can you tranalte this for me?

"Baptisma quidem ex institutione Domini lavacrum regenerationes quam Dominus electis suis, visibli signo per ecclesiae ministerium (qualiter supra expositum est) exhibeat.

*Quo quidem sancto lavacro infantes nostros idcirco tingimus, quoniam e nobis (qui populus Domini sumus) genitos populi Dei consortio rejicere nefas est, tantum non divina voce huc designatos, praesertim quum de eorum electione pie est praesumendum."*

(First Helvetic Confession signed by Bullinger, Grynaeus, Myconius, and others - 1536).


----------



## pastorway

Scott - I do not see anyonoe confusing regeneration and conversion. The point is that regeneration will bear fruit - namely repentance and faith (conversion). And I am not willing to presume that one is regenerate until they show evidence of this work of the Spirit.

To presume one is alive when there are no vital signs is erroneous.

Presuming election gives us hope that they will be called to life. Presuming regeneration is to say that they are already alive when they are still lying dead on the table.

And your response totally ignored what I posted......

Phillip


----------



## Scott Bushey

Six of one, 1/2 dozen of another-wrong! It does make a difference; they are not the same.


----------



## pastorway

what??

you still are not answering what has been posted against the PR position.

In looking at the issue, it appears to me that to be consistent with Presbyterian theology and thought, one presumes election for "covenant children". Bluntly, to baptize based on presumed regeneration sounds like you are imposing your old Baptistic views over Presbyterian theology! You are requiring the belief that they are already saved before you will baptize them, an that is simply not a component of Presbyterian theology.

Phillip


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Scott - I do not see anyonoe confusing regeneration and conversion.



Here's what you said: 


> Regeneration can only be presumed in the light of FRUIT



Fruit cannot be brought about without conversion. John the baptist was regenerated within his mothers womb, yet not converted. What fruit will you require of him?



> The point is that regeneration will bear fruit - namely repentance and faith (conversion).



It will! In time. Conversion will bear fruit.



> And I am not willing to presume that one is regenerate until they show evidence of this work of the Spirit.



Even in this, you will presume. Fruit is not necessarily the proof. Judas beared fruit. He performed miracles!



> To presume one is alive when there are no vital signs is erroneous.



You have misunderstood the ordo! One can be regenerate without yet being converted.



> And your response totally ignored what I posted......



No, you just missed what my intent.

Joh 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

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


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> what??
> 
> you still are not answering what has been posted against the PR position.
> 
> In looking at the issue, it appears to me that to be consistent with Presbyterian theology and thought, one presumes election for "covenant children". Bluntly, to baptize based on presumed regeneration sounds like you are imposing your old Baptistic views over Presbyterian theology! You are requiring the belief that they are already saved before you will baptize them, an that is simply not a component of Presbyterian theology.
> 
> Phillip



Who said I baptize based upon presumption; I do not. We baptize because God commands. I believe presumptively because of faith.

Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.


----------



## pastorway

conversion is the fruit of regeneration. so regeneration bears fruit, even if it takes some time. But to baptize based on presumed regeneration - even without proof - is to say that you believe your child is already saved (born again) before you can baptize them.

Those old Baptist presups are showing up in your faulty view of baptism!

Phillip


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> conversion is the fruit of regeneration. so regeneration bears fruit, even if it takes some time. But to baptize based on presumed regeneration - even without proof - is to say that you believe your child is already saved (born again) before you can baptize them.
> 
> Those old Baptist presups are showing up in your faulty view of baptism!
> 
> Phillip



Regeneration does not bear fruit. It allows the regenerate to _see_ the kingdom of God..........Conversion will bear fruit.

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


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> 
> Those old Baptist presups are showing up in your faulty view of baptism!
> 
> Phillip



Hahahahahahahaha

Wrong!


----------



## pastorway

regeneration bears no fruit? Who in the world holds that idea??




[Edited on 6-6-05 by pastorway]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> regeneration bears no fruit? Who in the world holds that idea??
> 
> Phillip



Quote me correctly if you're gonna quote me.......

I said, conversion bears fruit. The completed process of salvation. Regeneration is one of the processes. Without conversion, one could not bear fruit that everyone could visibly see in the church.


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


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Bluntly, to baptize based on presumed regeneration sounds like you are imposing your old Baptistic views over Presbyterian theology! You are requiring the belief that they are already saved before you will baptize them, an that is simply not a component of Presbyterian theology.



In presuming one is regenerate, you have to deal with why you presume such. One would presume based on the promise (That;s biblical - Abraham circumcized based on the promise, not on whether little Isaac is regenerate - instead he gives him the sign of regeneration). Baptists base it on works, or visible evidence (i.e. evidence - like the Rick Phillip's quote). The two, as Scott has tried to say over and over again, are not the same. To say one presume's election is to say they do not have ANY reason to baptize thier children. As Calvin said bluntly:

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

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


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> Joh 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
> 
> Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.


Some questions for clarification (at least for me):

Scott, what do these Scriptures have to do with presumptive regeneration? Last I remember, these refered to personal faith in Christ for individual salvation, not the salvation of our children. 

Furthermore, quoting the incident of John the Baptist doesn't add anything to your case since you are presupposing your argument on the text. The text is silent regarding whether John was only regenerate or also had faith. 

Also, the example of Abraham circumcizing Isaac doesn't exactly match our situation in the NT. Isaac didn't have to make a profession of faith to partake of the Lord's Supper in his day. He only had one sacrament. Later under Moses, children would partake of the Passover with adults. But, there is an element of discontinuity in what we presuppose about our children now by the very fact that we demand evidence of faith to partake of the Supper. Otherwise you would in fact have to conclude paedocommunion with your PR, correct?


----------



## Roldan

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> what??
> 
> you still are not answering what has been posted against the PR position.
> 
> In looking at the issue, it appears to me that to be consistent with Presbyterian theology and thought, one presumes election for "covenant children". Bluntly, to baptize based on presumed regeneration sounds like you are imposing your old Baptistic views over Presbyterian theology! You are requiring the belief that they are already saved before you will baptize them, an that is simply not a component of Presbyterian theology.
> 
> Phillip



WHOA!!! That was a good point. Thats why I just baptize my children as presumptive elected covenant children. Because to give the infant the sign is to admit them as part of the Covenant and we don't know if God has elected them or not but can only catechize them and wait to see if they will obey the covenant and confirm their election or break the covenant and show to be non elect. But I agree with Philip, to Baptize on the basis of presumptive REGENERATION is to make them born again and therefore need to be baptized as believers which the credo would probably conceed to if one held to the presumptive Reg. view.

I hope I made sense


----------



## Scott Bushey

> Scott, what do these Scriptures have to do with presumptive regeneration? Last I remember, these refered to personal faith in Christ for individual salvation, not the salvation of our children.



Patrick,
I use them to exemplify the type of faith God requires of us all. Jesus told Thomas that "blessed are they which believe and have not (necessarily) seen anything, i.e the miracles. Abraham had such faith and it was accounted to him as _righteousness_.



> Furthermore, quoting the incident of John the Baptist doesn't add anything to your case since you are presupposing your argument on the text. The text is silent regarding whether John was only regenerate or also had faith.



Gods plan for salvation for John was that he would be converted under the preaching of the word. In the example of the elect infant dying in infancy, special considerations obvioulsy are in place. However, for the man whom is decreed to live a full life, the norm is conversion under Gods preached word.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Roldan_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> what??
> 
> you still are not answering what has been posted against the PR position.
> 
> In looking at the issue, it appears to me that to be consistent with Presbyterian theology and thought, one presumes election for "covenant children". Bluntly, to baptize based on presumed regeneration sounds like you are imposing your old Baptistic views over Presbyterian theology! You are requiring the belief that they are already saved before you will baptize them, an that is simply not a component of Presbyterian theology.
> 
> Phillip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHOA!!! That was a good point. Thats why I just baptize my children as presumptive elected covenant children. Because to give the infant the sign is to admit them as part of the Covenant and we don't know if God has elected them or not but can only catechize them and wait to see if they will obey the covenant and confirm their election or break the covenant and show to be non elect. But I agree with Philip, to Baptize on the basis of presumptive REGENERATION is to make them born again and therefore need to be baptized as believers which the credo would probably conceed to if one held to the presumptive Reg. view.
> 
> I hope I made sense
Click to expand...


Ricky,
We baptize because of Gods command. We presume based upon the promise, the same promise that is eternal. I believe God!


----------



## pastorway

> _posted by Scott_
> Regeneration does not bear fruit



Even Matt wrote in an article about the work of the Spirit in regeneration:



> 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*.
> 
> http://apuritansmind.com/Tracts and Writings/John3Regeneration.htm



RC Sproul idenitifes faith (conversion) as a fruit of regeneration:



> With the graciousness of the gift of faith as *a fruit of regeneration*, all boasting is excluded forever, save in the boasting of the exceeding riches of God´s mercy.
> 
> http://www.the-highway.com/genesis_Sproul.html



AA Hodge and BB Warfield say of this:



> The Reformed doctrine teaches as follows: (l) As to the nature of regeneration: (a) There are in the soul, besides its several faculties, habits or dispositions, innate or acquired, which lay the foundation for the soul's exercising its faculties in a particular way. (b) These dispositions (moral) are anterior to moral action, and determine its character as good or evil. (c) In creation God made the dispositions of Adam's heart holy. (d) In regeneration God recreates the governing dispositions of the regenerated man's heart holy. Regeneration is therefore essentially the communication of a new spiritual life, and is properly called a "new birth." (2) As to its efficient cause: It is effected by divine power acting supernaturally and immediately upon the soul, quickening it to spiritual life, and implanting gracious principles of action. (3) As to man's action: *Conversion* (conversio actualis) instantly follows, as the change of action consequent upon the change of character, and *consists in repentance, faith, holy obedience*, etc.
> 
> http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/aabbregen.htm




Regeneration bears the fruit of repentance and faith - ie: conversion. 


Phillip


----------



## Scott Bushey

> Conversion (conversio actualis) instantly follows, as the change of action consequent upon the change of character, and consists in repentance, faith, holy obedience, etc.



Conversion completes the process.........Regeneration is the cause, *conversion is the effect. 

*It is not necessarily instantaneous.

I will add, many people use the term _regeneration_ interchangeably w/ conversion. This is not accurate........thay are not the same.



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


----------



## Roldan

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Ricky,
> We baptize because of Gods command. We presume based upon the promise, the same promise that is eternal. I believe God!



Well, yes of course. Gods covenantal command to give them the sign of the Covenant that belongs to the elect, so I presume my child elect because he is in the covenant and given the sign, but hopefully later in life whenever God so pleases will be regenerate.

[Edited on 6-6-2005 by Roldan]


----------



## pastorway

Scott, you are not understanding the relationship between regeneration and conversion. 

Regeneration is when we are brought from death to life and given a new heart. Conversion IS the change that follows, the direst result, the fruit of being regenerated. The fruit of conversion then is justification - we repent and believe and are therefore decalred right with God.

Phillip


----------



## Scott Bushey

> Well, yes of course. Gods covenantal command to give them the sign of the Covenant that belongs to the elect, so I presume my child elect because he is in the covenant and given the sign, but hopefully later in life whenever God so pleases will be regenerate.



Just wanted to clearify my position.

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


----------



## Roldan

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes of course. Gods covenantal command to give them the sign of the Covenant that belongs to the elect, so I presume my child elect because he is in the covenant and given the sign, but hopefully later in life whenever God so pleases will be regenerate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just wanted to clearify my position.
> 
> [Edited on 6-6-2005 by Scott Bushey]
Click to expand...


coo 

But don't you think that Philip raises a valid point? That to Baptize your child on the basis that he/she is regenerated is to conceed the credo argument for believers baptism? Of course its first because God commanded to do so, but on what basis does He do so? 

Because they are part of the Covenant household and therefore presumed part of the elect? OR they are part of the Covenant because they are regenerated and WILL eventually produce faith? 

Seems to me that the latter is half Presbyterian and half baptistic and former consistent reformed presbyterian covenant theology.


----------



## Dan....

Pastor Way. 

I voted Presumptive Election. To go any further is to add to the promise.


...by the way, my daughter will be baptized this weekend *because she is in covenant with God*, not because she is presumed elect. 

I believe that she is elect, but presumptive election is not a valid reason to baptize her.

[Edited on 6-7-2005 by Dan....]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Roldan_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes of course. Gods covenantal command to give them the sign of the Covenant that belongs to the elect, so I presume my child elect because he is in the covenant and given the sign, but hopefully later in life whenever God so pleases will be regenerate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just wanted to clearify my position.
> 
> [Edited on 6-6-2005 by Scott Bushey]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> coo
> 
> But don't you think that Philip raises a valid point? That to Baptize your child on the basis that he/she is regenerated is to conceed the credo argument for believers baptism? Of course its first because God commanded to do so, but on what basis does He do so?
> 
> Because they are part of the Covenant household and therefore presumed part of the elect? OR they are part of the Covenant because they are regenerated and WILL eventually produce faith?
> 
> Seems to me that the latter is half Presbyterian and half baptistic and former consistent reformed presbyterian covenant theology.
Click to expand...


Ricky,
I don't know of anyone whom is baptising based upon this premise.....


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> Pastor Way.
> 
> I voted Presumptive Election. To go any further is to add to the promise.
> 
> 
> ...by the way, my daughter will be baptized this weekend *because she is in covenant with God*, not because she is presumed elect.
> 
> I believe that she is elect, but presumptive election is not a valid reason to baptize her.
> 
> [Edited on 6-7-2005 by Dan....]



Dan,
I don't know of anyone whom is doing this.........


----------



## Roldan

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> Pastor Way.
> 
> I voted Presumptive Election. To go any further is to add to the promise.
> 
> 
> ...by the way, my daughter will be baptized this weekend *because she is in covenant with God*, not because she is presumed elect.
> 
> I believe that she is elect, but presumptive election is not a valid reason to baptize her.
> 
> [Edited on 6-7-2005 by Dan....]




Ok. so why did you vote Presump. Elect?

And Presumptive election is NO basis to baptize any child. We baptize because God commanded it and they are part of the Covenant household but my point is that then we must presume them elect if they are in a covenant of elected saints. I could be explaining this wacky 

But baptize because they are presumed elect? No, but they are. :bigsmile:


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

The differecne between presumptive election and regeneration really seems to be your view on "timing" and your view on the promises.

One presumes they will be elect (how they know is a mystery to me) and the other presumes they are elect based on covenant promises to apply the sign based on promises.

Timing in this instacne is a play on how one understands the promise.

Those who believe in presumptive election - are you basing this on the compound or divided sense? (Decree? Revelaed will?)

I think this is more of a hermeneutical issue than is being realized.

If you are basing election based on a presumption, how do you know they will in fact be elect? Is this a guess which is confirmed based on presumed evidence later in the child's life? How do you ratify your action of baptizing the child if you really have no idea if they are or are not elect? Would you not willfully be baptizing someone who is not elect? If you are, is that coestensive with the promise, or is the promise more sure than optimism?


----------



## fredtgreco

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



Matt,

Considering that adoption is simultaneous with justification - and is so in every ordo salutis I have ever seen - this cannot mean what you want it to mean. Calvin does NOT mean adoption in the WCF sense here. He means it in the sense of being incorporated into the visible Church.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Fred,

I don't think we can say that. Here is why - Calvin is making a similie. Like Abraham then, so the children today. Would you say that "righteosuenss by faith" only means Abraham is incorporated into the visible church?

Calvin uses the word "adoption" in the Institutes 43 times. Of those times, 42 of them are used as the WCF would use it. Once he says:

"There is no doubt that he has taken this from Moses, who declares that God would be merciful to whom he willed, even though the statement concerned the chosen people, whose condition was outwardly equal, as if he had said that in the common adoption is included in his presence a special grace toward some, like a more holy treasure; and that the common covenant does not prevent that small number from being set apart from the rank and file."

Do you have more of the quote to demonstrate he meant otherwise? I cannot seem to find the work to find out, but I can't see how he compares Abraham and them means something compeltely different.

Can you check the Latin uote for me Fred, in my previous post on page 2?


----------



## Dan....

> Scott Bushey:
> Dan,
> I don't know of anyone whom is doing this.........



Your friend Matthew just did:



> Matthew McMahon:
> 
> and the other presumes they are elect based on covenant promises to apply the sign based on promises.




Roldan, That made sense to me... 



> Ok. so why did you vote Presump. Elect?



Because:
ï»¿Genesis 17:7; Deuteronomy 4:37,40; 5:29; 10:15; 11:21; 12:28; 30:6,19; Joshua 14:9 Psalm 25:12,13; 37:25,26; 90:16; 102:28; 103:17; 112:1,2; 115:14; Proverbs 11:21; Isaiah 44:3; 59:21; 61:9; 65:23; Jeremiah 32:39; Ezekiel 37:25; Mal 2:15; Acts 2:39.

...none of these verses tell me when in time my children will be regenerated, but they do lead to consider them as "holy seed".

[Edited on 6-7-2005 by Dan....]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> 
> 
> 
> Scott Bushey:
> Dan,
> I don't know of anyone whom is doing this.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your friend Matthew just did:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew McMahon:
> 
> and the other presumes they are elect based on covenant promises to apply the sign based on promises.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 6-7-2005 by Dan....]
Click to expand...


Dan,
Do you really think this is what _our friend_ Matt meant? What he meant was that we apply the sign based upon command and promises. We do not apply the sign based upon the idea that our children are already regenerated or that the baptism regenerates them.

[Edited on 6-7-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dan writes:



> ...none of these verses tell me when in time my children will be regenerated, but they do lead to consider them as "holy seed".



Dan,
Care to comment on what Calvin and Turretin meant when they make mention of a thing called "seed faith"?

".....................infants are baptized into future repentance and faith, and even though these have not yet been formed in them, the seed of both lies hidden with them by the secret working of the Spirit."

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.16.20, p. 1342.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> Scott, what do these Scriptures have to do with presumptive regeneration? Last I remember, these refered to personal faith in Christ for individual salvation, not the salvation of our children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick,
> I use them to exemplify the type of faith God requires of us all. Jesus told Thomas that "blessed are they which believe and have not (necessarily) seen anything, i.e the miracles. Abraham had such faith and it was accounted to him as _righteousness_.
Click to expand...

Here's my point I guess. None of these texts teach presumptive regeneration. Paul uses the passages about Abraham to illustrate how Abraham was saved, not how Abraham viewed his children. Abraham circumcising Isaac was not an act of faith that Isaac was saved, but an act of obedience to God in response to God's grace to himself. At least, that is how Paul is using the example of Abraham. Same with Thomas. Thomas was weak in faith, but in relation to his own relationship to Christ, not regarding his children. Trusting God to save my child is not the same as trusting him to save me. Tehse texts do not argue for the same faith regarding our children. The faith wrought in me by the Spirit unites me to Christ and results in my justification. But my faith does not do that for my children. That must come from the Spirit's work in them. 


> Furthermore, quoting the incident of John the Baptist doesn't add anything to your case since you are presupposing your argument on the text. The text is silent regarding whether John was only regenerate or also had faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gods plan for salvation for John was that he would be converted under the preaching of the word. In the example of the elect infant dying in infancy, special considerations obvioulsy are in place. However, for the man whom is decreed to live a full life, the norm is conversion under Gods preached word.
Click to expand...

You are still using an extraordinary case as normative. John;s life was not normal. His birth was miraculous. His calling was unique. His special place in redemptive history cannot be made normative for us. How many babies do we have today leaping in their mothers womb out of joy in Christ? How could only regeneration (without saving faith) produce any such joy? At best, the case of John proves that God can work with infants in the womb, not that it is His normal way.

You still have to deal with my other point about the discontinuity regarding Abrham's treatment of Isacc and our treatment of our children now that they must be prepared for the Supper. 


[Edited on 6-7-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> You are still using an extraordinary case as normative. John;s life was not normal. His birth was miraculous. His calling was unique. His special place in redemptive history cannot be made normative for us. How many babies do we have today leaping in their mothers womb out of joy in Christ? How could only regeneration (without saving faith) produce any such joy? At best, the case of John proves that God can work with infants in the womb, not that it is His normal way.



Patrick,
Please prove your assertion! How do you know that God does not work this way? How do you know that my daughter Zoe was not 'leaping for joy' in her mother for her savior? It is clearly expressed in scripture. John is an excellent example of Gods power. I for one, will not limit that by my lack of faith.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Fred,
> 
> I don't think we can say that. Here is why - Calvin is making a similie. Like Abraham then, so the children today. Would you say that "righteosuenss by faith" only means Abraham is incorporated into the visible church?
> 
> Calvin uses the word "adoption" in the Institutes 43 times. Of those times, 42 of them are used as the WCF would use it. Once he says:
> 
> "There is no doubt that he has taken this from Moses, who declares that God would be merciful to whom he willed, even though the statement concerned the chosen people, whose condition was outwardly equal, as if he had said that in the common adoption is included in his presence a special grace toward some, like a more holy treasure; and that the common covenant does not prevent that small number from being set apart from the rank and file."
> 
> Do you have more of the quote to demonstrate he meant otherwise? I cannot seem to find the work to find out, but I can't see how he compares Abraham and them means something compeltely different.
> 
> Can you check the Latin uote for me Fred, in my previous post on page 2?



So then you are really presuming a whole lot more than regeneration. You are also presuming adoption. Which means if you are holding to the Ordu, you must also presume faith and justification since they occur between regeneration and adoption.


----------



## pastorway

exactly Patrick - PR, as Scott is presenting it anyway, sounds like he is presuming that his children were completely saved and already being sanctified by the time they exited the womb!

John the *Baptist* was not the norm. He is an example of what God can do - but not the norm for what He does. Our children, whether members of the covenant or not, whether they are elect or not, are born depraved sinners, children of wrath (as are all of us before regeneration), and must be preached the gospel, repent and believe. We must press our children to obey the gospel.

To presume regeneration is to tell them that they are already saved, they are already born again!

This is dangerous doctrine when taken to its logical conclusions, as my quote earlier (the one everybody ignored) from the RBTR points out.

Phillip

[Edited on 6-7-05 by pastorway]


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> You are still using an extraordinary case as normative. John;s life was not normal. His birth was miraculous. His calling was unique. His special place in redemptive history cannot be made normative for us. How many babies do we have today leaping in their mothers womb out of joy in Christ? How could only regeneration (without saving faith) produce any such joy? At best, the case of John proves that God can work with infants in the womb, not that it is His normal way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick,
> Please prove your assertion! How do you know that God does not work this way? How do you know that my daughter Zoe was not 'leaping for joy' in her mother for her savior? It is clearly expressed in scripture. John is an excellent example of Gods power. I for one, will not limit that by my lack of faith.
Click to expand...


And you must prove your assertion. That's my point! The text does not figure into the equation for either side. It is narrative. And an argument from silence. We do not know what the case is for every covenant child. You said yourself that regeneration only gives sight. But John lept for joy. Joy in the Lord is the response of faith, personal faith that Christ is MY Savior. But again this also presupposes an interpretation based upon other texts. You keep using the text as if it supports your claims, but it does not. It is a text that is interpreted by a hermenuetic based upon other texts for either side. It like using "household" baptisms to prove infant baptism. It's an incomplete argument. You must build a hermenuetic first elsewhere, and those passages you have been using thus far, don't support that hermenuetic in my opinion.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> exactly Patrick - PR, as Scott is presenting it anyway, is presuming that his children were completely saved and already being sanctified by the time they exited the womb!



Phillip,
I'm getting tired of you misquoting me. I never said that. My claim (for the umpteenth time) of presuming that my daughter is regenetrate does in no way mean she is converted. John the Baptist was not _converted_ in the womb. he was converted under Gods word after he was born.



> John the *Baptist* was not the norm. He is an example of what God can do - but not the norm for what He does.



Prove this assertion!



> Our children, whether members of the covenant or not, whether they are elect or not, are born depraved sinners, children of wrath (as are all of us before regeneration), and must be preached the gospel, repent and believe. We must pres sour children to obey the gospel.



I don't disagree with this. regeneration is not conversion and conversion is not regeneration. My daughter being regenerate does not negate the idea that she needs to be converted under Gods preached word.



> To presume regeneration is to tell them that they are already saved.



Wrong!


----------



## Scott Bushey

> And you must prove your assertion. That's my point! The text does not figure into the equation for either side. It is narrative. And an argument from silence. We do not know what the case is for every covenant child. You said yourself that regeneration only gives sight. But John lept for joy. Joy in the Lord is the response of faith, personal faith that Christ is MY Savior.



Sorry Pat, this is an assertion. You do not know that! Gods norm is that men are converted under Gods preachers. To assume (which is what you are doing) that John was converted any other way is contrabiblical.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> exactly Patrick - PR, as Scott is presenting it anyway, sounds like he is presuming that his children were completely saved and already being sanctified by the time they exited the womb!



Just to clarify Phillip, I wasn't referencing Scott in this post you affirmed but Matt.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> And you must prove your assertion. That's my point! The text does not figure into the equation for either side. It is narrative. And an argument from silence. We do not know what the case is for every covenant child. You said yourself that regeneration only gives sight. But John lept for joy. Joy in the Lord is the response of faith, personal faith that Christ is MY Savior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Pat, this is an assertion. You do not know that! Gods norm is that men are converted under Gods preachers. To assume (which is what you are doing) that John was converted any other way is contrabiblical.
Click to expand...


Then explain how one can leap for joy in the presence of Christ without faith in Christ.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> exactly Patrick - PR, as Scott is presenting it anyway, sounds like he is presuming that his children were completely saved and already being sanctified by the time they exited the womb!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to clarify Phillip, I wasn't referencing Scott in this post you affirmed but Matt.
Click to expand...


Thank you. Get it right Phillip.............

Pat, by the way, that is not what Matt meant. We've been over this before. Unless you are now thinking that Matts position has changed.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> And you must prove your assertion. That's my point! The text does not figure into the equation for either side. It is narrative. And an argument from silence. We do not know what the case is for every covenant child. You said yourself that regeneration only gives sight. But John lept for joy. Joy in the Lord is the response of faith, personal faith that Christ is MY Savior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Pat, this is an assertion. You do not know that! Gods norm is that men are converted under Gods preachers. To assume (which is what you are doing) that John was converted any other way is contrabiblical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then explain how one can leap for joy in the presence of Christ without faith in Christ.
Click to expand...


Why do you connect 'leaping for joy' with conversion? The HS regenerates. Why would that not make a person leap?


----------



## pastorway

Whoever the post references, PR is wrong! 

The Bible says John lept for joy in his mother's womb because *he was filled with the Holy Spirit*. Luke 1:15.

An unconverted individual cannot be filled with the Holy Spirit.

Johnny B is not the norm because he was regenerate, converted, justified, adopted, and sealed/baptized with the Spirit before he was born.

Phillip

[Edited on 6-7-05 by pastorway]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Patrick said:



> Abraham circumcising Isaac was not an act of faith that Isaac was saved, but an act of obedience to God in response to God's grace to himself.



Thus is exactly what I would say in holding to PR. Let's pretend I have an infant 3 months old. If I am honest, I cannot say that the child is in fact regenerate. I would never say that I know this. I never had. Whent he child was born, he was born in sin and is depraved. But how do I know that 30 seconds later God did not regenerate the child spiritually? I don't. so what do I rest on? Outward evidences like an Arminian? Instead, I rely on the promise of God given to me in the divided sense that God promises to be a God to me, and my children (I do not believe this in the decreed sense (compound sense) since I don't know that God decreed it or not). I have to go on what I know. I know that Genesis 17 is not soteriological. It is covenantal. I know that Genesis 17 is true. I know the Jeremiah 31-34 is true. I know that Joel 2 is true. I know that 1 Cor. 7 is true. Etc. That is why I place the sign on my child because God says He will be a God to them. Not that He might be, but that He is. Otherwise, in the divided sense, His promise would be moot, and I can't believe it. If He is a God to me, then He is a God to them, again, based on the promise - NOT on the Decree. I have no idea whether the child will become Esau or he is an Isaac. God has not given me that privy information. So instead, I presume upon the promise of God (not upon my child's supposed regeneration) and thus, I must act as though the child is regenerate because of the Word of the promise. It has nothing to do with the child. [Catch that - NOTHING to do with the child.] But then, since I am not an idiot (or at least hope I'm not) and think the child will spontaneously believe without teaching him what to believe, I have to teach the child to exercise faith in Christ and believe the same promises I believe. I presume the child to be saved unless he demonstrates otherwise, or I have some kind of Word from God that he is in fact, Esau. Otherwise, I would be kicking against the goads of God's Word. I would be an idiot not to believe God and have the same faith as Abraham. Since I know God has ceased inspired revelation to men, and it is all contained in the Bible, I continue my assumption until the child proves otherwise. I have to go by God's revealed will in the Bible and not on the decree. 

Its like the offer of the Gospel to the reprobate. Is it sincere or not? That question is answered as to what SENSE I am speaking about. If I speak in the compound sense (a different hermeneutical sense altogether) then I have to say God does not intend to save the reprobate and t he Gospel offer is only for their hardening. If I think about it in the divided sense, then I have to tell them that that have as much chance to be saved as anyone.

PR or PE is a result of the sense you are working in. Again, you guys are talking past one another. It is a hermeneutical issue.

Does that make sense to anyone?

This does not seem to me like its too hard to understand. Am I not explaining myself well enough?

The FV/AA guys say that the child is somehow special because it is born to Christian parents and should be considered saved becuase of birth. This is not presumtive regenration, it is "presumptive decreetion" or something of like sort. They are taking the compound sense and pushing it into places it should not be. (How I wish they would all read "Two Wills!!)

They take PR and twist it into a form devoid of a real sense. They are heretically confused.

On the other hand, those who want to go with PE, thzat confuses me completely because it throws out the covenatnal structure and promise of Genesis 17.

[Edited on 6-7-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> And you must prove your assertion. That's my point! The text does not figure into the equation for either side. It is narrative. And an argument from silence. We do not know what the case is for every covenant child. You said yourself that regeneration only gives sight. But John lept for joy. Joy in the Lord is the response of faith, personal faith that Christ is MY Savior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Pat, this is an assertion. You do not know that! Gods norm is that men are converted under Gods preachers. To assume (which is what you are doing) that John was converted any other way is contrabiblical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then explain how one can leap for joy in the presence of Christ without faith in Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you connect 'leaping for joy' with conversion? The HS regenerates. Why would that not make a person leap?
Click to expand...


How can an unbeliever experience joy in the presence of Christ? He is still in condemnation. Joy is an expression of the heart in response to something God has done. If he was only regenerate, then what does he have to rejoice in Christ about? He does not yet know Christ by faith. He is still unbelieving. "Joy in the Holy Ghost" is a benefit that accompanies or flows from justification, adoption, and sanctification. 



> WSC
> Q36: What are the benefits which in this life do accompany or flow from justification, adoption, and sanctification?
> A36: The benefits which in this life do accompany or flow from justification, adoption, and sanctification, are, assurance of God's love, peace of conscience, *joy in the Holy Ghost*,[1] increase of grace,[2] and perseverance therein to the end.[3]
> 
> 1. Rom. 5:1-2, 5
> 2. Prov. 4:18
> 3. I John 5:13


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

You are guys are going way off track. Forget John. Forget infants in the womb. Its off the suject. See my last post.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

If this has already been clarified, forgive me.

Phillip: Presbyterians baptize their children because they are Church members by birth (as children of believers), not because of presumed election OR regeneration.

I believe the issue of PR/PE is completely separate from the justification of just why exactly we baptize our children ... it is almost a post-baptismal consideration/thought in our theological framework. Am I wrong? Someone please let me know.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

I'm just going to jump out on a limb here and side with Luther - BR all the way!!!!

j/k :bigsmile:


----------



## Dan....

> Do you really think this is what our friend Matt meant? What he meant was that we apply the sign based upon command and promises. We do not apply the sign based upon the idea that our children are already regenerated or that the baptism regenerates them.



Sorry Scott, thanks for clarifying. Aparently I've read in an assumption that you have not made. Just to make it crystal:
Presumptive Regeneration/Election is not a reason to baptize ones children... correct?

As for "seed faith":

I am assuming you mean Turretin's article which can be found here: http://apuritansmind.com/FrancisTurretin/francisturretinfaithofinfants.htm 

I have read it a few times - thoroughly enjoyed it. The only thing that stands out that I might take issue with is with the highlighted section of the following: 



> "XIX. As before the use of reason, men are properly called rational because they have the principle of reason in the rational soul; thus *nothing hinders them from being termed believers before actual faith* because the seed which is given to them is the principle of faith (from which they are rightly denominated; even as they are properly called sinners, although not as yet able to put forth an act of sin)."



...but the remainder of the excerpt quoted on A puritan's Mind seems in keeping with the Presumptive Election position. That "seed faith" may exist in an infant doesn't mean that it necessarily already exist in the elect covenant infant.


----------



## Dan....

Matthew,



> PR or PE is a result of the sense you are working in. Again, you guys are talking past one another. It is a hermeneutical issue.



Are you saying that one of the positions is working in the "compound" (decretive??) sense while the other is working in the "divided" (revealed???) sense? If so which one is working in which? Is the PR in the divided sense and the PE in the decretive sense, or is it the other way around?

Or am I totally missing the distinction of the senses that we are in?

[Edited on 6-7-2005 by Dan....]


----------



## JohnV

I'm trying to catch up on this thread. I'd like to make a few comments, if I may. Then I'll go back and read some more. 

Patrick, I think you are confusing something: PR is not a doctrine, and does not fall under 'proof texts' like doctrine does. It is a necessary inference, but one that may or may not yet be the final word. There may be more to it, that is why it cannot (and should not) be doctrinal. We can't insist on it. But we may argue within the bounds of Christian liberty concerning this matter, as I believe it is intrinsic in both the Baptist and the Presbyterian Refomed views on baptism. 


We should keep this clear in our minds: not all the members of the Covenant are saved. They are treated as saved unless or until they show unmistakable signs of having abandoned the faith. And even then, if excommunicated, they are still deemed members of the Covenant because the way back into the fold is still open to them, especially open to them. There is great rejoicing over those who were lost and are found again, more than over those who did not stray. You cannot equate covenant membership with election; but you can equate election with covenant membershp. 

Children are to be treated as members of the covenant. Assuming their status is not a matter of declaration of salvation; it is a matter of declaring their status in the covenant, equal in every way to that of a certified member, though not especially granted all the priveleges or responsibilities. This means that worship, hearing the preaching, praying, fellowship, and receiving the benediction (too little is thought of this last item of worship), all these they are a part of by virtue of their covenant status. That means, they are granted the same graces that the elect receive. 

As a PR-ist, I am not saying that I am _assuming_ regeneration; I am saying that there is a _presumption_ of regeneration in the granting of status in the covenant family, the Church of Christ. No matter who it is, no one is saved because they confessed, or regenerated their faith, or believed, or whatever: they were saved because of Christ, and for that reason alone. All else is a fruit of Christ's work done for them. Children as much as adults may be the subjects of that grace. If God says they're in the covenant, then we must _presume_ a status which equates them with the regenerate. 

It is not our place to make the final judgment on anyone's soul. But we can find great comfort when we're standing at the graveside of a little child, a child of believing parents. While the child lived, he lived under the graces of regeneration and election. As parents we can do no more than that. The rest is up to God, not us. And God has granted them a place in the Church.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> Sorry Scott, thanks for clarifying. Aparently I've read in an assumption that you have not made. Just to make it crystal:
> Presumptive Regeneration/Election is not a reason to baptize ones children... correct?



Correct. Even though we _presume_, the sign is placed based upon promise and command.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> I'm trying to catch up on this thread. I'd like to make a few comments, if I may. Then I'll go back and read some more.
> 
> Patrick, I think you are confusing something: PR is not a doctrine, and does not fall under 'proof texts' like doctrine does. It is a necessary inference, but one that may or may not yet be the final word. There may be more to it, that is why it cannot (and should not) be doctrinal. We can't insist on it. But we may argue within the bounds of Christian liberty concerning this matter, as I believe it is intrinsic in both the Baptist and the Presbyterian Refomed views on baptism.


The problem John is thatPR is being asserted as a doctrine. Those who do not hold to it are alleged to have a deficient faith in Christ. That is a serious allegation. 



> We should keep this clear in our minds: not all the members of the Covenant are saved. They are treated as saved unless or until they show unmistakable signs of having abandoned the faith. And even then, if excommunicated, they are still deemed members of the Covenant because the way back into the fold is still open to them, especially open to them. There is great rejoicing over those who were lost and are found again, more than over those who did not stray. You cannot equate covenant membership with election; but you can equate election with covenant membershp.
> 
> Children are to be treated as members of the covenant. Assuming their status is not a matter of declaration of salvation; it is a matter of declaring their status in the covenant, equal in every way to that of a certified member, though not especially granted all the priveleges or responsibilities. This means that worship, hearing the preaching, praying, fellowship, and receiving the benediction (too little is thought of this last item of worship), all these they are a part of by virtue of their covenant status. That means, they are granted the same graces that the elect receive.


That they recieve the outward benefts of the covenant is not under dispute. But there is more promised in the covenant than that. 

And as Matt said earlier, he is presuming more than regeneration but also adoption. This means he is presuming a completed conversion if we are to hold to the Ordu because faith and justification occur before adoption. 



> As a PR-ist, I am not saying that I am _assuming_ regeneration; I am saying that there is a _presumption_ of regeneration in the granting of status in the covenant family, the Church of Christ. No matter who it is, no one is saved because they confessed, or regenerated their faith, or believed, or whatever: they were saved because of Christ, and for that reason alone. All else is a fruit of Christ's work done for them. Children as much as adults may be the subjects of that grace. If God says they're in the covenant, then we must _presume_ a status which equates them with the regenerate.


But children are not equated with the regenerate if they are witheld from the Supper. There is an obvious distinction there. 


> It is not our place to make the final judgment on anyone's soul. But we can find great comfort when we're standing at the graveside of a little child, a child of believing parents. While the child lived, he lived under the graces of regeneration and election. As parents we can do no more than that. The rest is up to God, not us. And God has granted them a place in the Church.


I agree we can have great comfort for any children who die in infancy. But that is not the issue under discussion. We talking about children who are growing up in the church. A whole lot more is being presumed than just regeneration. Adoption is being presumed as well. And baptism promises more than regeneration. It promises the whole thing. Why only presume regeneration when the promises of baptism are bigger than that? There are some inconsistencies there that need to be explained.


----------



## wsw201

Looks like the folks who think that children are heathens have over taken the folks who think that children are regenerated! It appears to be a real horse race!!


----------



## Scott Bushey

The obvious problem here is terminology. When one speaks of regeneration, if one is encompasing the whole of the ordo in the term, i.e. full conversion, here is the confusing factor.


----------



## wsw201

You are absolutely right Scott! I have been following this thread and it appears that people see a different connection between the various parts of the ordo salutis. You have repeatedly made the comment regarding regeneration and conversion. It appears you have made a complete disconnect between the two based on timing. This is different from the standard understanding of the ordo, ie; a logical progression versus a chronological (time and space) progression. It might be helpful if you would briefly go over your meaning of the various parts of the ordo, ie; effectual calling, regeneration (leading to the fruits of repentance and faith), justification, adoption and sanctification.

I don't see anyone on this thread using the term regeneration in the broad sense the the old Reformers used it.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> You are absolutely right Scott! I have been following this thread and it appears that people see a different connection between the various parts of the ordo salutis. You have repeatedly made the comment regarding regeneration and conversion. It appears you have made a complete disconnect between the two based on timing. This is different from the standard understanding of the ordo, ie; a logical progression versus a chronological (time and space) progression. It might be helpful if you would briefly go over your meaning of the various parts of the ordo, ie; effectual calling, regeneration (leading to the fruits of repentance and faith), justification, adoption and sanctification.
> 
> I don't see anyone on this thread using the term regeneration in the broad sense the the old Reformers used it.



Wayne,
Thats the problem, they ARE using the term in the broad sense. Look the thread over. This is where the confussion arises.


----------



## D Battjes

Did Abraham know that Ishmael was not going to receive any benefits? OF course he did. THis causes issue with me on the PR side.

The belief that a person is Christian by virtue of being born into a Christian family denies John 1:12-13.

"œBut as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" 

PR advoctes say that one is a Christian because his blood line is Christian. 
God´s Word declares that regeneration is not "œof blood," "œof the will of the flesh" or "œof the will of man."The fact is that having Christian parents does not guarantee that the offspring is necessarily born again. 

the concept of presumptive regeneration assumes that the children of believing parents are born again unless they prove otherwise by denying the faith. This contradicts the express teaching that being born again is "œnot of blood." A person is not born again by virtue of a biological or blood relationship. God´s covenant promise does involve families, to be sure (Ac. 2:39). But the guaranteed regeneration of the offspring is not to be assumed.

If presumptive regeneration is received as truth, would it not be correct to assume that all drunkards´ children are presumptive drunkards? 

:bigsmile::bigsmile:

This appears to be a contradiction where out of one side of your mouth you will proclaim Gods Sovereignty, Divine Election, and salvation by grace alone, then out of the other side presume regeneration because the parents acted vicariously for their children.


----------



## wsw201

How is this for a definition of regeneration:

I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call,[1] by His Word and Spirit,[2] out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ;[3] enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God,[4] taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh;[5] renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good,[6] and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ:[7] yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.[8]

II. 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,[10] he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.[11]

Note that the ordinary means of regeneration is by "Word and Spirit".

Here is an interesting comment from AA Hodge on regeneration and conversion:

The distinction between regeneration and conversion is obvious and necessary. Under chapter ix. we saw that the voluntary acts of the human soul are determined by, and derive their character from, the affections and desires which prompt them; and that these affections and desires derive their character from the permanent moral state of the soul in which they arise. In the unregenerate this permanent moral state and disposition of the soul is evil, and hence the action is evil. Action positively holy is impossible except as the consequence of a positively holy disposition. The infusion of such a disposition must therefore precede any act of true spiritual obedience. Effectual calling, according to the usage of our Standards, is the act of the Holy Spirit effecting regeneration. Regeneration is the effect produced by the Holy Spirit in effectual calling. The Holy Spirit, in the act of effectual calling, causes the soul to become regenerate by implanting a new governing principle or habit of spiritual affection and action. The soul itself, in conversion, immediately acts under the guidance of this new principle in turning from sin unto God through Christ. It is evident that the implantation of the gracious principle is different from the exercise of that principle, and that the making a man willing is different from his acting willingly. The first is the act of God solely; the second is the consequent act of man, dependent upon the continued assistance of the Holy Ghost.


----------



## D Battjes

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> How is this for a definition of regeneration:
> 
> I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call,[1] by His Word and Spirit,[2] out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ;[3] enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God,[4] taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh;[5] renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good,[6] and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ:[7] yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.[8]
> 
> II. 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,[10] he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.[11]
> 
> Note that the ordinary means of regeneration is by "Word and Spirit".
> 
> Here is an interesting comment from AA Hodge on regeneration and conversion:
> 
> The distinction between regeneration and conversion is obvious and necessary. Under chapter ix. we saw that the voluntary acts of the human soul are determined by, and derive their character from, the affections and desires which prompt them; and that these affections and desires derive their character from the permanent moral state of the soul in which they arise. In the unregenerate this permanent moral state and disposition of the soul is evil, and hence the action is evil. Action positively holy is impossible except as the consequence of a positively holy disposition. The infusion of such a disposition must therefore precede any act of true spiritual obedience. Effectual calling, according to the usage of our Standards, is the act of the Holy Spirit effecting regeneration. Regeneration is the effect produced by the Holy Spirit in effectual calling. The Holy Spirit, in the act of effectual calling, causes the soul to become regenerate by implanting a new governing principle or habit of spiritual affection and action. The soul itself, in conversion, immediately acts under the guidance of this new principle in turning from sin unto God through Christ. It is evident that the implantation of the gracious principle is different from the exercise of that principle, and that the making a man willing is different from his acting willingly. The first is the act of God solely; the second is the consequent act of man, dependent upon the continued assistance of the Holy Ghost.



THe only issue I would have is the use of the word infused. Imputed yes, Infused no. Smacks of rcc doctrine


----------



## Scott Bushey

> The distinction between regeneration and conversion is obvious and necessary



Exactly!


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> The distinction between regeneration and conversion is obvious and necessary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly!
Click to expand...


But did you notice this statement:




> The soul itself, in conversion, *immediately acts *under the guidance of this new principle in turning from sin unto God through Christ.



Therefore, under the ordinary means of salvation, Word and Spirit, one would expect "conversion" or the fruits of regeneration (Faith and Repentance) to follow immediately upon regeneration, though the fruits of regeneration may be weak and immature. So to presume regeneration to an infant, unless they have died in infancy, would be highly speculative (and without Biblical warrant) without the evidences of fruit of regeneration or conversion. For the promise of the covenant is conditioned upon faith and repentance and this is the promise that is part of the grounds of Baptism along with the command. Now will God fulfill this promise? I would agree with Calvin on this, " When we delve into the secret counsel of God we enter a labyrinth of which there is no exit."


----------



## Scott Bushey

Wayne,
Let me try and explain what I mean. As quoted above, the distinction is necessary.

1) Pot
2) Dirt
3) Seed
4) water

Seperately, these do nothing. Collectively, they will bring fruit. 

1,2,3,4 = Conversion


----------



## Myshkin

Mr. Bushey-

I have been following this thread as an interested observer, and these are new issues to me, so I respectfully ask the following.......

Given the facts that you're in agreement with that Schenk guy (as mentioned earlier), and that the FV crowd is so high on him while the non-FV crowd is not....how is your view different from the FV/AA view? 

and as wayne asked previously, could you please give a theological definition of regeneration and a theological definition of conversion? I agree that they are distinct, as we all do, but maybe your definitions of these terms would help us to see why you think they aren't just distinct but are also separated in time and why conversion is not immediately following upon regeneration.

I keep reading through the thread for clarity, and I just get more confused.

Thanks.


----------



## Roldan

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Wayne,
> Let me try and explain what I mean. As quoted above, the distinction is necessary.
> 
> 1) Pot
> 2) Dirt
> 3) Seed
> 4) water
> 
> Seperately, these do nothing. Collectively, they will bring fruit.
> 
> 1,2,3,4 = Conversion



yes, but do you agree that the fruit will EVENTUALLY spring forth? 

No matter if regeneration does not produce fruit at that particular moment what the logical conclusive implication is that they will be saved. So we can say they are not converted at regeneration but that does not negate that they won't be either so to me its all the same thing unless of course we reject our Calvinism and state that even though the child is regenerate he/she can reject the Holy Spirits work and become lost as an adult and therefore affirming resistable grace.

[Edited on 6-7-2005 by Roldan]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> Mr. Bushey-
> 
> I have been following this thread as an interested observer, and these are new issues to me, so I respectfully ask the following.......
> 
> Given the facts that you're in agreement with that Schenk guy (as mentioned earlier), and that the FV crowd is so high on him while the non-FV crowd is not....how is your view different from the FV/AA view?



FV/AA denies justification by faith alone (at least in our definition of it).



> [and as wayne asked previously, could you please give a theological definition of regeneration and a theological definition of conversion? I agree that they are distinct, as we all do, but maybe your definitions of these terms would help us to see why you think they aren't just distinct but are also separated in time and why conversion is not immediately following upon regeneration.



See example above. Read 'A Treatise on Regeneration' by Perter Van Mastricht. We already discussed this last week here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=11042



> I keep reading through the thread for clarity, and I just get more confused.



I'm sorry about this............


----------



## biblelighthouse

Matt and Scott, I'm with you guys . . . I voted PR.

It looks to me like most of the guys on this board are arguing against what they *think* you are saying, rather than actually understanding what you are saying.

I don't presume to think that I can explain PR any better than Scott or Doctor Matt. --- But I'm happy to toss my vote in with both of you to let you know that I lean in your direction.

I have sympathies with both PR and PE. But at the end of the day, PE just seems to me like it requires that everyone will have a "conversion experience", and I have a problem with that formulation. Furthermore, I think PE makes unneccesary assumptions about timing between the steps of the ordo salutis. 

I need to be quiet. Matt and Scott have already done a good job of making distinctions.

[Edited on 6-7-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Roldan_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Wayne,
> Let me try and explain what I mean. As quoted above, the distinction is necessary.
> 
> 1) Pot
> 2) Dirt
> 3) Seed
> 4) water
> 
> Seperately, these do nothing. Collectively, they will bring fruit.
> 
> 1,2,3,4 = Conversion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, but do you agree that the fruit will EVENTUALLY spring forth?
> 
> No matter if regeneration does not produce fruit at that particular moment what the logical conclusive implication is that they will be saved. So we can say they are not converted at regeneration but that does not negate that they won't be either so to me its all the same thing unless of course we reject our Calvinism and state that even though the child is regenerate he/she can reject the Holy Spirits work and become lost as an adult and therefore affirming resistable grace.
> 
> [Edited on 6-7-2005 by Roldan]
Click to expand...


Ricky,
Fruit will be the effect (conversion) of the cause (regeneration). All those regenerated will be converted and bring forth fruit.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Regeneration =/= Conversion

Agreed.

However, does Regeneration *always* = Conversion?

If so, then we are presuming conversion regardless, right?


----------



## Roldan

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Roldan_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Wayne,
> Let me try and explain what I mean. As quoted above, the distinction is necessary.
> 
> 1) Pot
> 2) Dirt
> 3) Seed
> 4) water
> 
> Seperately, these do nothing. Collectively, they will bring fruit.
> 
> 1,2,3,4 = Conversion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, but do you agree that the fruit will EVENTUALLY spring forth?
> 
> No matter if regeneration does not produce fruit at that particular moment what the logical conclusive implication is that they will be saved. So we can say they are not converted at regeneration but that does not negate that they won't be either so to me its all the same thing unless of course we reject our Calvinism and state that even though the child is regenerate he/she can reject the Holy Spirits work and become lost as an adult and therefore affirming resistable grace.
> 
> [Edited on 6-7-2005 by Roldan]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ricky,
> Fruit will be the effect (conversion) of the cause (regeneration). All those regenerated will be converted and bring forth fruit.
Click to expand...




I'm assuming thats a yes.  So then All children of believers are saved or will be saved eventually.

I cannot accept this.


----------



## D Battjes

> I'm assuming thats a yes.  So then All children of believers are saved or will be saved eventually.
> 
> I cannot accept this.



That is good, because it is not biblical nor is it true!!!!!!

All children of believers are not saved, nor will be saved. Who would ever imply that I would never know. Did someone actually say this in here? I know Calvin implied it along with certain others, but this is error. I believe he may have recanted this error, but i am not sure.

[Edited on 6-7-2005 by D Battjes]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

In defense, if you presume something, that does not necessarily make it so.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Roldan_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Roldan_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Wayne,
> Let me try and explain what I mean. As quoted above, the distinction is necessary.
> 
> 1) Pot
> 2) Dirt
> 3) Seed
> 4) water
> 
> Seperately, these do nothing. Collectively, they will bring fruit.
> 
> 1,2,3,4 = Conversion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, but do you agree that the fruit will EVENTUALLY spring forth?
> 
> No matter if regeneration does not produce fruit at that particular moment what the logical conclusive implication is that they will be saved. So we can say they are not converted at regeneration but that does not negate that they won't be either so to me its all the same thing unless of course we reject our Calvinism and state that even though the child is regenerate he/she can reject the Holy Spirits work and become lost as an adult and therefore affirming resistable grace.
> 
> [Edited on 6-7-2005 by Roldan]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ricky,
> Fruit will be the effect (conversion) of the cause (regeneration). All those regenerated will be converted and bring forth fruit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm assuming thats a yes.  So then All children of believers are saved or will be saved eventually.
> 
> I cannot accept this.
Click to expand...


I never said that. I just described the ordo.......


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> 
> 
> 
> I'm assuming thats a yes.  So then All children of believers are saved or will be saved eventually.
> 
> I cannot accept this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is good, because it is not biblical nor is it true!!!!!!
> 
> All children of believers are not saved, nor will be saved. Who would ever imply that I would never know. Did someone actually say this in here? I know Calvin implied it along with certain others, but this is error. I believe he may have recanted this error, but i am not sure.
> 
> [Edited on 6-7-2005 by D Battjes]
Click to expand...


Agreed!


----------



## Roldan

Now I'm confused!!


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> In defense, if you presume something, that does not necessarily make it so.



bingo!!!


If we knew for sure that our kids were all saved and going to Heaven, then it would be "Assured Regeneration", not "Presumed Regeneration".

No one on here ever said that believers' babies are certainly regenerate. They just suggest that we should presume them regenerate until & unless they prove otherwise.

Matt & Scott, am I right?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Ricky,
Conversion is a process. Regeneration are one of the components of that process.........

Fruit will be the effect (conversion) of the cause (regeneration). All those regenerated will be converted and bring forth fruit.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> In defense, if you presume something, that does not necessarily make it so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bingo!!!
> 
> 
> If we knew for sure that our kids were all saved and going to Heaven, then it would be "Assured Regeneration", not "Presumed Regeneration".
> 
> No one on here ever said that believers' babies are certainly regenerate. They just suggest that we should presume them regenerate until & unless they prove otherwise.
> 
> Matt & Scott, am I right?
Click to expand...


Absolutely. 

Gen 15:6 And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.


----------



## D Battjes

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> In defense, if you presume something, that does not necessarily make it so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bingo!!!
> 
> 
> If we knew for sure that our kids were all saved and going to Heaven, then it would be "Assured Regeneration", not "Presumed Regeneration".
> 
> No one on here ever said that believers' babies are certainly regenerate. They just suggest that we should presume them regenerate until & unless they prove otherwise.
> 
> Matt & Scott, am I right?
Click to expand...


Again, I do not know where this "prove otherwise" Idea started from. 

For instance, a regenerate believer can and does fall into serious grievous sin, are we then to conclude that that person is unregenerate?

Or what about the moralist, the false professor? 

This concept creates too many what ifs.

Baptise without presuming anything. Rear our children with the fear of the Lord. Pray for their salvation. 

Again, I do not even know why this is even considered a topic, unless one is trying to find comfort in infant baptism or infant salvation.

I am comforted knowing God saves. Period!!!!

I presume nothing.

I remember saying 'I thought everyone was heterosexual, until I find out otherwise"

Then I visited provincetown and san fran. and Saugawtuck


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Just so we are all on the same page - 

PR never teaches that all children of believers will be saved.
PR does not even teach that they MIGHT be saved.
PR never teaches that our presumption has ANYTHING to do with the child.
PR never says that a child is "converted" but "presumes they are regenerate".

I think the semanitc problem of combining certain aspects of the ordo is causing some confusion. Maybe this will help:

I do not equate conversion with regeneration. I would follow Van Mastricht, Turretin and Calvin.

Decree
Predestination
Election
Outward Call
Effectual Call
Gift of Faith
Repentance
Justification
Adoption
Sanctification
Glorification

For me, conversion = Faith >>>>> to the first millisecond of sanctification.

Hope that helps.



> bingo!!!
> 
> If we knew for sure that our kids were all saved and going to Heaven, then it would be "Assured Regeneration", not "Presumed Regeneration".
> 
> No one on here ever said that believers' babies are certainly regenerate. They just suggest that we should presume them regenerate until & unless they prove otherwise.
> 
> Matt & Scott, am I right?



Yes, and I would qualify it - "They just suggest that we should presume them regenerate until & unless they prove otherwise *because of God's promises*."


[Edited on 6-7-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## D Battjes

> Yes, and I would qualify it - "They just suggest that we should presume them regenerate until & unless they prove otherwise *because of God's promises*."
> 
> 
> [Edited on 6-7-2005 by webmaster]



Thank you for the clarification Matt.

I still do not know how one can conclude this scematic of presume regenerate until proven otherwise is shown in Scripture.

WHat proof? Is there a list of proofs that declare a child unregenerate when the grow up?

Do you make a list of outward sins, then once they reach a point, you can say, "Well I presumed them regenerate, but they are obviously reprobate" 

I do not see any biblical warrant for either of these beliefs. And therefore would not espouse either.

How you can be PR or PE, then also confess Gods Sovereignty in salvation, divine election, Salvation by pure grace is a paradox. 

I have 2 children. At our first childs birth I was not a Christian. So did that make them unregenerate? Then by His Sovereign Decree He called me and regenerated me when she was 5 and our second child was 3. Was I suppose to consider them regenerate now? This is by blood and hereditary which is in contrast to scripture.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> 
> How you can be PR or PE, then also confess Gods Sovereignty in salvation, divine election, Salvation by pure grace is a paradox.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> This is by blood and hereditary which is in contrast to scripture.




Here's a good quote in response:



> That the Lord should so direct his saving love down the lines of generations is only to be expected of a Father who knows what it is to love a son and to suffer a son to fall under the divine wrath and who teaches his own children that 'everyone who loves the father loves his child as well' (1 John 5:1). It is only to love his people genuinely and deeply that the Father should also love their children, whom John Flavel, with a parent's insight, somewhere describes as 'pieces of themselves wrapped in another skin.' *Imagine the contrary: that Christian parents brought children into the world with no confidence at all *that the saving grace which had been pitched upon themÂ­Â­ among the comparatively few in all the world so favoredÂ­Â­would likewise be pitched upon their children, whom they love as they love life itself. *Christian parents do not imagine themselves to be populating hell when they bring sons and daughters into the world!* Their hope and expectation are otherwise (Ps. 90:16). The fact that so many whose theology provides no ground for such an expectation nevertheless do not anguish over bearing children is sobering evidence of the appalling lack of seriousness which characterizes the generality of Christians today. As M'Cheyne put it in one of his characteristically solemn sermons, if anything would spoil the joy of heaven, it would be to know that one's children were not there. Contrarily, there is no joy that surpasses the joy of a spiritually minded parent who sees his or her children walking in the truth. * It is a true Father and a perfect fatherly love that made and then so often repeated the promise to be a God to his people and to their children.*


----------



## Roldan

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Just so we are all on the same page -
> 
> PR never teaches that all children of believers will be saved.
> PR does not even teach that they MIGHT be saved.
> PR never teaches that our presumption has ANYTHING to do with the child.
> PR never says that a child is "converted" but "presumes they are regenerate".
> 
> I think the semanitc problem of combining certain aspects of the ordo is causing some confusion. Maybe this will help:
> 
> I do not equate conversion with regeneration. I would follow Van Mastricht, Turretin and Calvin.
> 
> Decree
> Predestination
> Election
> Outward Call
> Effectual Call
> Gift of Faith
> Repentance
> Justification
> Adoption
> Sanctification
> Glorification
> 
> For me, conversion = Faith >>>>> to the first millisecond of sanctification.
> 
> Hope that helps.
> 
> 
> Yes, and I would qualify it - "They just suggest that we should presume them regenerate until & unless they prove otherwise *because of God's promises*."
> 
> 
> [Edited on 6-7-2005 by webmaster]



AHHH. ok, so you don't know for sure that the infant is regenerate or not but base it on God's promise.

I can handle that maybe even convert to this view. But on what do we base God's promise?

1. That we as parents do our part and catechize?

2. God's promise will come to pass because He promised and will regenerate?


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Roldan_
> 
> AHHH. ok, so you don't know for sure that the infant is regenerate or not but base it on God's promise.
> 
> I can handle that maybe even convert to this view. But on what do we base God's promise?
> 
> 1. That we as parents do our part and catechize?
> 
> 2. God's promise will come to pass because He promised and will regenerate?



I base it on #2: "God's promise will come to pass because He promised and will regenerate."

Thus, there is no tension between PR and God's Sovereignty in election. On the contrary, it is *because* God Sovereignly has chosen to be a God to me *and* my children that I presume what I do. 

In other words, PR is actually *based* on God's Sovereign choice.


----------



## Roldan

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Roldan_
> 
> AHHH. ok, so you don't know for sure that the infant is regenerate or not but base it on God's promise.
> 
> I can handle that maybe even convert to this view. But on what do we base God's promise?
> 
> 1. That we as parents do our part and catechize?
> 
> 2. God's promise will come to pass because He promised and will regenerate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I base it on #2: "God's promise will come to pass because He promised and will regenerate."
> 
> Thus, there is no tension between PR and God's Sovereignty in election. On the contrary, it is *because* God Sovereignly has chosen to be a God to me *and* my children that I presume what I do.
> 
> In other words, PR is actually *based* on God's Sovereign choice.
Click to expand...



ok, but in actuallity then aren't you then not presuming but actually are for sure that God will save your child?


----------



## AdamM

> I base it on #2: "God's promise will come to pass because He promised and will regenerate."



Where in the scriptures can I find the promise that all covenant children will be regenerated?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> AHHH. ok, so you don't know for sure that the infant is regenerate or not but base it on God's promise.



Exactly.



> I can handle that maybe even convert to this view. But on what do we base God's promise?



This is the important question!



> 1. That we as parents do our part and catechize?
> 
> 2. God's promise will come to pass because He promised and will regenerate?



Never, ever, do we base "evidence" on something men do. It is always based on God's promise.

Remember, this is a fundamental hermeneutical point that is being overlooked - we have to determine what sense we believe what we believe. I'm not trying to be cryptic here. Let me explain - 

I believe that all men are conceived as wicked depraved sinners. 
I believe God must regenerate wicked depraved sinners by grace for them to "see" the kingdom.
I believe that God sovereignly elects based on grace, not on the will, the blood, etc.
I believe that Christ died for the elect only and He is the mediator of the elect only with an intent to save them only.
Etc.

But in what SENSE am I asking this? I am certainly not saying these things in the divided sense, but in the compounbd sense (according to God's secret decree). What am I to believe about things as they are in the divided sense?

I know all men are depraved wicked sinners. 
I know God makes special promises in His word to me and my family.
I know He is a God to me personally (covenatally and soteiologically), and says He will be a God to them as well (covenatnally, and possibly soteriologically). 
So what should I think about them RIGHT NOW?
Unless God specifically and explicitely told me my child is an "Esau" then i would have to believe He will be a covenantal God to them as well. So, i would baptize them based, not on them, but on God's promise. Why? I am bound to believe God at His word.

I say it that way for this reason - God commands us not to lie or kill. We must believe Him at His word. But He decrees in His secret counsel that men will kill and lie. I don't need to reconcile that because they are set in two completely different senses and contexts.

In the same way i don't need to go through Arminian "evidences" as to whether one is converted or not to believe God's word that he WILL be a God to me and my children (one sense) even if later His decree was that they are not actually regenerated (another sense).


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Roldan_
> 
> ok, but in actuallity then aren't you then not presuming but actually are for sure that God will save your child?




No, I am not sure. God promised to be a God to Abraham and his children. But there still ended up being an Ishmael. God promised to be a God to Isaac and his children. But there still ended up being an Esau. 

I presume based on God's promise. But God has nevertheless revealed that there are "exceptions to the rule", if you will.

See Matt's excellent post above.


----------



## pastorway

But speaking of evidence - Jesus said you know a tree by its fruit.

To presume regeneration is to hope your child is saved without having any evidence of the working of God in their life.

If we follow that line of thought, then we should presume all church members to be regenerate, too, without a shred of evidence. Suddenly we are sitting at the Table with the paedo-communionists! 

Bottom line for me, one cannot presume regeneration where there exists no evidence, no fruit, of regeneration. Because Jesus told us we'd know _by their fruit_.

Phillip

[Edited on 6-7-05 by pastorway]


----------



## Roldan

> I know He is a God to me personally (covenatally and soteiologically), and says He will be a God to them as well (covenatnally, and possibly soteriologically).
> So what should I think about them RIGHT NOW?
> Unless God specifically and explicitely told me my child is an "Esau" then i would have to believe He will be a covenantal God to them as well. So, i would baptize them based, not on them, but on God's promise. Why? I am bound to believe God at His word.




I'm understanding more now, but I can't get past the promise thing. If God promises won't he do it?

And when the Genesis says that He will be a God to my children also, does that mean then that He is God to them only while they are children but when they become adult they are responsible to affirm God as God then continue to be God?

Maybe I am Not explaining myself right


----------



## AdamM

> Never, ever, do we base "evidence" on something men do. It is always based on God's promise.



If you do away with evidence, then how do not support paedocommunion? After all the exam by elders before admittance to the Lord's Table is based upon a similar principle.

[Edited on 6-7-2005 by AdamM]

[Edited on 6-7-2005 by AdamM]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Communion is based on sanctification. We are talking about "birth" not "growth." Apples and oranges there with paedo communion. Evidence is not the point, self-examination and the ability to approve or disaprove your own witness to the reality of the truth is 1 Cor. 11.




> I'm understanding more now, but I can't get past the promise thing. If God promises won't he do it?



That depends on what sense you are talking about, and what conditions are being fulfilled. 

Does God intend to save everyone in the free offer of the Gospel and does it apply to everyone in the same way and int he same sense? Not at all! But the promise of eternal life is held there. Does that mean that God intends to save everyone? (See how this is more hermenuetical?)



> And when the Genesis says that He will be a God to my children also, does that mean then that He is God to them only while they are children but when they become adult they are responsible to affirm God as God then continue to be God?



No, it means He always will, as the text stands. It is age discriminatory based only on the context of God actually speaking with Abraham. They would have to, as Abraham did, believe by faith. God's promise are conditional based on His requirements. They have to believe. If they do not, then they demonstrate that they are not His. That does not negate the promise at all because the promise has conditions.



> Maybe I am Not explaining myself right



You are explaining yourself fine. You are exactly in the right place to be thinking this through. Others are simply dismissing it without struggling on those points becuase they have other preconcieved hermeneutical biases that they have not discovered yet which are throwing them off. Tension in thier theological grid is the problem overall.

Phillip - 

The application of the law to false teachers in Matthew 7 has nothing to do with what the context of Genesis 17 is talking about.



[Edited on 6-7-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## pastorway

no matter - you will know a tree as good or bad by its fruit and if it has no fruit then you cannot presume as to what kind of tree it is!

Phillip


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> no matter - you will know a tree as good or bad by its fruit and if it has no fruit then you cannot presume as to what kind of tree it is!
> 
> Phillip




I do not think Jesus was talking about "fruit" as evidence for regeneration. In fact, I don't think Jesus was talking about regeneration at all. He was just talking about how to tell the difference between a false prophet and a true prophet. So the "kind of tree" = "kind of prophet". The categories of regenerate/unregenerate are not even in view here. So I agree with you that if there is no fruit, then you can't tell what kind of tree it is. If there is no fruit, then you don't know whether a person is a false prophet or not. But the "fruit" here is not in reference to evidence of regeneration, In my humble opinion.

So I think I agree with Matt on Matthew 7. (Matt, please correct me if I am barking up a totally different tree than you are.)


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon




----------



## Arch2k

*An honest question for you PR guys...*



> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> They would have to, as Abraham did, believe by faith. God's promise are conditional based on His requirements. They have to believe. If they do not, then they demonstrate that they are not His. That does not negate the promise at all because the promise has conditions.



My question is that if the basis for PR is God's promise is that he will be their God if they believe, doesn't God promise that to everyone in the divided sense? Or at least those who hear the gospel? 

Would we then presume them to be regenerate?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> My question is that if the basis for PR is God's promise is that he will be their God if they believe, doesn't God promise that to everyone in the divided sense?



No, because the text is explicitely given to believers (Abraham) to perform on behalf of his children (Isaac) in the context of a histroical covenant.

If you want to talk about the Gospel offer and intention, that is a whole "other" ball of wax to deal with in a similar manner, but different terms altogether.


----------



## JohnV

Sorry, friends. This is something I've spent some time on, but this thread is going too fast for me. Every time I log back in a couple pages have been added, and the discussion is way down the road from where want to jump in. 

I would echo Scott and Wayne's comments about about terminology. I think Matt also spoke on it. I would dearly like to answer Patrick's comment, because I think it has been a helpful insight, as usual for him. But with this comment, I'd lilke to bow out, and just read along. By the time I am able to come back on line the discussion is way past me again, so my contribution will not be very meaningful. I would only add that we're talking about a very practical part of the covenant, not just a theological issue.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

No one really answered one of my questions earlier.

Does regeneration always lead to conversion?

If so, would PR not then, necessarily, be PC and PE as well?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Regeneration will always lead to conversion.


----------



## D Battjes

Again, PR and PE appear to be espousing exactly what the Jews said in the Gospel that Christ rebuked them for. They believed they could get to heaven on Abrahams coat-tails. Christ said no, that is impossible. 

I still say humbly that both PR and PE have no business being equated with Gods sovereignty and divine election.

To say that we must believe either or we are hopeless is false. 

Again, there is no biblical idea about "evidences" to determine regeneration vs unregenerate at a certain age.

When do I stop presuming and know? Kuyper was wrong about this, and many have followed in his footsteps for this false security.

Joseph, the exceptuion to the rule is obviously bigger than 2 people. The remnant of Israel, those who did not bow down to baal was few. 

How many are deceived by thinking PR and PE. How many parents end up disappointed in their lives. 

To say you presume based on Gods promise is mere hope and fabrication of what that scripture never intended. How many ishmaels and esaus have been born.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> Again, PR and PE appear to be espousing exactly what the Jews said in the Gospel that Christ rebuked them for. They believed they could get to heaven on Abrahams coat-tails. Christ said no, that is impossible.
> 
> I still say humbly that both PR and PE have no business being equated with Gods sovereignty and divine election.
> 
> To say that we must believe either or we are hopeless is false.
> 
> Again, there is no biblical idea about "evidences" to determine regeneration vs unregenerate at a certain age.
> 
> When do I stop presuming and know? Kuyper was wrong about this, and many have followed in his footsteps for this false security.
> 
> Joseph, the exceptuion to the rule is obviously bigger than 2 people. The remnant of Israel, those who did not bow down to baal was few.
> 
> How many are deceived by thinking PR and PE. How many parents end up disappointed in their lives.
> 
> To say you presume based on Gods promise is mere hope and fabrication of what that scripture never intended. How many ishmaels and esaus have been born.



I believe you are misunderstanding. Outside of the doctrine of election, men are called to be faithful. Abraham was faithful, believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness. Does the elective decree undermine your evangelism? No! Why? Because you have faith. In the same way, we only PRESUME, based upon the faith God commands, that he will fulfill that which he has promised. 

Question: Would you agree that if you were to look at time, outside of time, that the majority of Christs church is made up of people from covenant families? Assuredly, God has used the family unit more than outside of it. The covenantal promise is evident in this manner.....


----------



## D Battjes

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> Again, PR and PE appear to be espousing exactly what the Jews said in the Gospel that Christ rebuked them for. They believed they could get to heaven on Abrahams coat-tails. Christ said no, that is impossible.
> 
> I still say humbly that both PR and PE have no business being equated with Gods sovereignty and divine election.
> 
> To say that we must believe either or we are hopeless is false.
> 
> Again, there is no biblical idea about "evidences" to determine regeneration vs unregenerate at a certain age.
> 
> When do I stop presuming and know? Kuyper was wrong about this, and many have followed in his footsteps for this false security.
> 
> Joseph, the exceptuion to the rule is obviously bigger than 2 people. The remnant of Israel, those who did not bow down to baal was few.
> 
> How many are deceived by thinking PR and PE. How many parents end up disappointed in their lives.
> 
> To say you presume based on Gods promise is mere hope and fabrication of what that scripture never intended. How many ishmaels and esaus have been born.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are misunderstanding. Outside of the doctrine of election, men are called to be faithful. Abraham was faithful, believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness. Does the elective decree undermine your evangelism? No! Why? Because you have faith. In the same way, we only PRESUME, based upon the faith God commands, that he will fulfill that which he has promised.
> 
> Question: Would you agree that if you were to look at time, outside of time, that the majority of Christs church is made up of people from covenant families? Assuredly, God has used the family unit more than outside of it. The covenantal promise is evident in this manner.....
Click to expand...


Very good questions Scott. I have faith that God will and does save the worst of sinners. That is why I evangelize. Because He is God. But how disappointed i would be if I presumed regeneration, this is not His promise at all. This is not much different than the baptismal regenerate position. And again how many are dissappointed...

For instance, we cannot say that Christ died for you specifically like evanjellyfishes do. We do not know that. We say Christ died for His sheep. This is no deterent from divine election, in fact it reinforces it because if He could save me, He could save anyone. That is what I know, not presume. 

I again ask when we stop presuming regenerancy and conclude reprobation? At what age, at how many vile acts? This posistion creates a works righteousness. You may not believe it does, but it does. You and matt and other PR's cannot escape this fact. 


TO confess PR/ PE or hyper covenentalism is to deny the historic Calvinistic position and historic reformed position. This creates a tremendous Gap between regeneration and effectual call, of which there is none. 

THe diffeence between elect infants and infants in general is huge. The secret council of God should not be our rule of life and therefore lead one to espouse an erroneous teaching as this only to mask it under the guise of Covenant Theology.


The scriptural way is to presume our children are born in sin, and need to be saved and must be born again. That is the promise..

[Edited on 6-8-2005 by D Battjes]


----------



## Roldan

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Communion is based on sanctification. We are talking about "birth" not "growth." Apples and oranges there with paedo communion. Evidence is not the point, self-examination and the ability to approve or disaprove your own witness to the reality of the truth is 1 Cor. 11.
> [Edited on 6-7-2005 by webmaster]



I agree. 





> That depends on what sense you are talking about, and what conditions are being fulfilled.
> 
> Does God intend to save everyone in the free offer of the Gospel and does it apply to everyone in the same way and int he same sense? Not at all! But the promise of eternal life is held there. Does that mean that God intends to save everyone? (See how this is more hermenuetical?)



Man, how did I miss that?!! 

oooooooof courrrrrrse, God's promise is conditional upon the child to have faith but we all know that faith is a gift, so therefore the condition is met by God's sovereign grace, right?

yipeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!

That did it for me. I'm got chills right now when the light bulb went on!

I remember discussing this in a Paul Manata thread where he asked does the Covenant have conditons. Ok, Im good.




> No, it means He always will, as the text stands. It is age discriminatory based only on the context of God actually speaking with Abraham. They would have to, as Abraham did, believe by faith. God's promise are conditional based on His requirements. They have to believe. If they do not, then they demonstrate that they are not His. That does not negate the promise at all because the promise has conditions.



Got it!! Thats very clear now. 




> You are explaining yourself fine. You are exactly in the right place to be thinking this through. Others are simply dismissing it without struggling on those points becuase they have other preconcieved hermeneutical biases that they have not discovered yet which are throwing them off. Tension in thier theological grid is the problem overall.



I see that now. Thanx for you great insight, you too scott and biblelight

God bless you fellas


I can't go and change my vote, can I? hehehehe

[Edited on 6-8-2005 by Roldan]

[Edited on 6-8-2005 by Roldan]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> Very good questions Scott. I have faith that God will and does save the worst of sinners. That is why I evangelize. Because He is God. But how disappointed i would be if I presumed regeneration, this is not His promise at all. This is not much different than the baptismal regenerate position. And again how many are dissappointed...



Clearification: Baptismal regeneration is based upon synergism. PR is based upon a presumption God will do what He promises. Dissapointment is sinful. Everything God does is correct, including reprobating.



> For instance, we cannot say that Christ died for you specifically like evanjellyfishes do. We do not know that. We say Christ died for His sheep. This is no deterent from divine election, in fact it reinforces it because if He could save me, He could save anyone. That is what I know, not presume.



You are not understanding the covenant.



> I again ask when we stop presuming regenerancy and conclude reprobation?




At death, i.e. the prodigal (once a son always a son!)




> At what age, at how many vile acts?



I hear you; ask King David.




> This posistion creates a works righteousness.




As I have said, you don't really understand the covenant. God said to Abraham, I WILL be GOD to you and your children. What does it mean, "I will be God" to them?



> You may not believe it does, but it does. You and matt and other PR's cannot escape this fact.
> 
> 
> TO confess PR/ PE or hyper covenentalism is to deny the historic Calvinistic position and historic reformed position.



This is the historic position.




> This creates a tremendous Gap between regeneration and effectual call, of which there is none.



There can be a gap. Why do you believe there can be no gap?


----------



## JohnV

Ok, I can at least answer this last comment by DM Battjes without interfering with the thrust of this discussion. 



> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> Again, PR and PE appear to be espousing exactly what the Jews said in the Gospel that Christ rebuked them for. They believed they could get to heaven on Abrahams coat-tails. Christ said no, that is impossible.


That is not at all what PR (or PE) is espousing. I think we spent a great deal of time on that a little more than a year ago, in which we de-legitimized that kind of PR (which we all agreed is a misnomer), and showing that PR (or PE) is quite the proper name for describing the place that children rightfully (by command of God) hold in the Church community, that is, in the Covenant. They are to be included, even though we cannot establish on the same principles as an adult the state of their heart toward God and salvation. We have shown that the Bible, both OT and NT show that children belong within the covenant, with God's people. 

In the NT that takes on a spiritual demarcation, while in the OT, with circumcision, it was an outward or physical thing. Yet the same principle applies. That is why there is sense of continuation between the two signs as well as a definite break. 

We agree that the idea, that many attribute to Kuyper, that it is an assumption of salvation based upon descent and baptism, though it was called Presumptive Regeneraion, was not in line with the historic notion that was at the root of the idea, namely a solid Biblical grounding for including children into the Covenant, while at the same time not saying that God includes pagans in the Covenant. This is a notion, then, of what status the children have been granted by God. It is, so to speak, the big drawing card for infant inclusion, and therefore baptized by right. 



> I still say humbly that both PR and PE have no business being equated with Gods sovereignty and divine election.
> 
> To say that we must believe either or we are hopeless is false.
> 
> Again, there is no biblical idea about "evidences" to determine regeneration vs unregenerate at a certain age.
> 
> When do I stop presuming and know? Kuyper was wrong about this, and many have followed in his footsteps for this false security.



You are right. We would all agree, I would think. If your meaning of PR includes the things that you allude to here, then we would all be on your side in this. 

None of us mean that by that term, however. We are not assuming, we are presuming. And we are not making declarations about the salvation of children; we are making claims of covenant inclusion. Granted, the latter does have ramificatons, which seem to force certain assumptions, but I think we have been carefull not to assume baptismal regeneration, or a grandfather clause to election. 



> How many are deceived by thinking PR and PE. How many parents end up disappointed in their lives.
> 
> To say you presume based on Gods promise is mere hope and fabrication of what that scripture never intended. How many ishmaels and esaus have been born.



I believe my own salvation based upon God's promise. It is His Word that promises life to all who have faith; it is His Word that declares the gift of faith upon all who have been granted life. It is not presumptuous to believe God at His word. And God has commanded to "Suffer the little children to come unto me." 


Its too bad that many good members who have come along afterward have to go back and read those previous threads in order to understand what we are saying. On the other hand, to rehash it all the time would mean that we would have to cut back on the progress that we've made, and take on progressions like this thread with a slower pace. That unfairly inhibits the discussion and interaction. I guess that this is the nature of this kind of venue. But at the same time, its also a good thing for people like me, so that we can step back a moment and see if we're still standing on the original ground.


----------



## D Battjes

John V:

Thank you for the sincere comments. I personally am not of the Hyper Covenat flavor. I believe it is an erroneous thought of Kuyper and a mischaracterization of historic reformed teachings and Calvin himself.

TO believe my child is a covenant child, is different that believing he is regenerate or elect because of some vicarious action on my behalf, ie: baptising my child or because of my blood. It is the Will of God to elect and regenerate children and that is where my mere specualtion ends.

So like I said before, I am PR= Presumptive Redemption. My child is a sinner, Christ came to save sinners, I teach him that and pray the Holy Spirit brings that home to him.


The historical and orthodox position ...commencing with Calvin and continuing through modern Reformed Theology... is that people can be regenerated at any age, but there's absolutely no presumption of regeneration based on being born into a covenant family. 

[Edited on 6-8-2005 by D Battjes]


----------



## wsw201

One of the major problems I am having with these arguments for PR is that it appears proponents are saying that the "œpossibility" of regeneration in children of believers is the norm versus the exception. Scott has made this argument (several pages back) in his exchange with Patrick regarding John the Baptist. These arguments fail to interact with the clear teaching of Scripture as reflected in the Westminster Standards Chapter 10 on Effectual Calling. To say that we can "œpresume" regeneration for every infant baptized is hard to reconcile with the fact that our Standards make it clear that the Word and the Spirit work together in regeneration. The only exception to Word and Spirit working together is infants dying in infancy and for those incapable of hearing the Word (Chapt 10 Sec 3). If we say that the Word is no longer a necessary part of the effectual call for baptized infants, it appears we are creating two classes of Christians, one that can be regenerated without the Word because they were born to Christian parents and one class that will need the Word because they were not born into a covenant family. Neither class is recognized in Scripture.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> One of the major problems I am having with these arguments for PR is that it appears proponents are saying that the "œpossibility" of regeneration in children of believers is the norm versus the exception. Scott has made this argument (several pages back) in his exchange with Patrick regarding John the Baptist. These arguments fail to interact with the clear teaching of Scripture as reflected in the Westminster Standards Chapter 10 on Effectual Calling. To say that we can "œpresume" regeneration for every infant baptized is hard to reconcile with the fact that our Standards make it clear that the Word and the Spirit work together in regeneration. The only exception to Word and Spirit working together is infants dying in infancy and for those incapable of hearing the Word (Chapt 10 Sec 3). If we say that the Word is no longer a necessary part of the effectual call for baptized infants, it appears we are creating two classes of Christians, one that can be regenerated without the Word because they were born to Christian parents and one class that will need the Word because they were not born into a covenant family. Neither class is recognized in Scripture.



Wayne,
Just to clearify. John the Baptist was regenerated in the womb (by the spirit); he was then converted under the preaching of the word. As Calvin puts it, regeneration planted the seeds of faith. This does in no way negate the idea that John did not need to hear the word to be converted. That is why the word is referred to in scripture as _water_.

Rom 10:14 But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?


----------



## D Battjes

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> One of the major problems I am having with these arguments for PR is that it appears proponents are saying that the "œpossibility" of regeneration in children of believers is the norm versus the exception. Scott has made this argument (several pages back) in his exchange with Patrick regarding John the Baptist. These arguments fail to interact with the clear teaching of Scripture as reflected in the Westminster Standards Chapter 10 on Effectual Calling. To say that we can "œpresume" regeneration for every infant baptized is hard to reconcile with the fact that our Standards make it clear that the Word and the Spirit work together in regeneration. The only exception to Word and Spirit working together is infants dying in infancy and for those incapable of hearing the Word (Chapt 10 Sec 3). If we say that the Word is no longer a necessary part of the effectual call for baptized infants, it appears we are creating two classes of Christians, one that can be regenerated without the Word because they were born to Christian parents and one class that will need the Word because they were not born into a covenant family. Neither class is recognized in Scripture.




Wayne, where does that leave me then? I deny PR/PE and also deny Gospel regeneration.

Now Gospel conversion Is scriptural, Gospel regeneration is not.

There has to be a distiction there. 

How many baptised sit under the word for years and yet are not regenerated nor converted. 

There may be a time lag between regeneration and conversion, but not regeneration and the effectual call of the Spirit.

The parable of the soils recognizes this.

The prepared siol,(regenerated by the effectual work of the Spirit beforehand) Was the only one to produce once the word was received.


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> John V:
> 
> Thank you for the sincere comments. I personally am not of the Hyper Covenat flavor. I believe it is an erroneous thought of Kuyper and a mischaracterization of historic reformed teachings and Calvin himself.
> 
> TO believe my child is a covenant child, is different that believing he is regenerate or elect because of some vicarious action on my behalf, ie: baptising my child or because of my blood. It is the Will of God to elect and regenerate children and that is where my mere specualtion ends.
> 
> So like I said before, I am PR= Presumptive Redemption. My child is a sinner, Christ came to save sinners, I teach him that and pray the Holy Spirit brings that home to him.



DM;

We have discussed this a little over a year ago, and we found that we have to say something about children in the covenant because we do not believe they are pagans, belonging outside the church. They are included by God in His covenant relationship with His people, so there has to be something about children, as a class of people, that makes them holy in God's eyes. It is clearly a covenant issue. 

Families are not peoples' idea, it is God's. People don't make families, God does. It is the most basic structure of society, and it is made so by God, not by man's decree. God has chosen to propagate not only mankind, but also His relationship to man through regeneration; and that of two kinds of regeneration. (Oops, I gave away my basis for choosing PR instead of PE; sorry brothers. )

Ok, back on track. First, the regeneration we speak of is a physical one, one of propagation, by children being born. The promises of grace were through the generated offspring of Abraham: Isaac and not Ishmael; and further back, from Shem, and not his brothers, and from Seth and not Cain. Genealogy is important not just for the Jewish people, but for the Covenant. It is not in the Bible because the Jews liked it there; the Jews were strong on it because it was in the Bible. So this kind of regeneration is Biblically important to God. When He says in Acts 2 that "to you is the promise and to your children" it is hard to take it any other way than the way it is througout the Bible, namely that children of covenant people are included by God into the covenant. 

But it is also through this means that God propagates Christ's church. It is not the only way, but it is a Biblical precedential way. From those brought up at the feet of Christian preachers, so to speak, come those who have the firm grounding from childhood of the doctrines of the Word. Just like Timothy. They hear it all their lives, so it is not to be wondered at that they come to faith through it.

We have asked what place it is that children hold, if they are not considered pagans. If they are not pagans, that is, outside of the covenant, then how do we see them? We are trying to uphold both that people have to believe to be inducted into the covenant, and that God has opened a place for some who have not, and cannot, express such faith. And at the same time we are trying to uphold that no one in inducted into the covenant by man's doing, but by Christ's alone. What does it mean to be in the covenant?

To be accorded a status of membership means that there is an equating of status to those who are members by confession. One is either in or out, and children are in; so they are _presumed_ a status. Some of us call that a status of regenerate, and some call it elect. We are not making a declaration of regeneration or election without confession or faith, but we are recognizing an equal status of membership. 

Membership has its own different levels within it. Some, for example, would be included in casting votes for congregational issues, some would not (some do not include women in that); some would be included in Communion, and some not; some are under discipline, and some not; some are called to office and some are not; some are leaders in various fields of work within the church, and some are not. Equality means nothing if it means that everyone is exactly the same. Yet all the same, all these different people are members, and therefore have something in common. And children share in that commonality. 

The least that we presume about all members, whether they will fall away or not, is that they are regenerate. Some would say elect. But this is what we are discussing, whether we should be using the word 'regenerate' or 'elect'. We do have to presume something about these children, because God has included them into the covenant by decree. And He has called them holy on the basis of at least one believing parent. Traditionally we have divided those who are elect from those who are not elect by the words 'regenerate' and 'reprobate', coming from what we now call 'double predestination'. So we are not saying that children are 'regenerate', we are saying that we are to presume they are regenerate. as opposed to reprobate. Some of us would like to make the distinction with the words 'elect' and 'non-elect'. But we are presuming (not declaring as we do when someone professes faith) based on God's promises, not upon ourselves. No one gets into heaven through the back door. We declare children are members of the covenant, that they are holy to God, and therefore we declare that they ought to be baptized. 

We also believe that this ought to be considered as the norm for a godly family, as opposed to the exception. Those who come in later, through conversion from a life apart from the Church and the preaching of the Word, miss out on the life-long devotion that children have had from their earliest years. That is the the emphasis of Deut. 6: 4-9. So it is to be expected of godly families that their children grow up in the way that they should go, and that God blesses that with His promises.

-------------------------------------------------
Or, to say it another way, if we waited until we knew that someone was surely saved before we baptized anyone, then baptism would not be something the Church would be allowed to practice. Because that knowledge belongs only to God. So, if we baptize based upon a credible profession of faith, then surely we would baptize based upon a decree of God. God has decreed that the children of the covenant are holy; so who is to refuse them baptism?


----------



## Myshkin

For my own clarification and understanding, is the following accurate?:

2 groups-

1. The _ground_ for infant baptism is covenant status and the command of God (classical calvinism)

2. The _ground_ for infant baptism is presumed regeneration (neo-calvinism; Kuyperianism)

Of the first group, there are two subgroups-

Presumptive regeneration-
1. since the child has covenant status, and those with covenant status are given promises by God (one promise being regeneration), then we are to presume the child is in fact regenerate, unless and until proven otherwise
(Calvin, Beza, Ursinus, etc.)

Presumptive election-
2. since the child has covenant status, and those with covenant status are given promises by God (one promise being regeneration), then we are to presume that the child will be regenerated at some point, if not already(Dabney, Thornwell, etc.)

Is this correct?

Johnv-
From your PR position, is it possible to be physically in the covenant and not be spiritually in it?

Also, how are we defining 'holy' as used in 1 Cor. 7:14?
Does holy mean here- set apart from the world into the visible church? Or does it mean spiritually speaking, that the child is holy (in the invisible church)? or both?

[Edited on 6-8-2005 by RAS]


----------



## wsw201

> Wayne, where does that leave me then? I deny PR/PE and also deny Gospel regeneration.
> 
> Now Gospel conversion Is scriptural, Gospel regeneration is not.



I don't know what you mean by Gospel regeneration.


----------



## D Battjes

> Clearification: Baptismal regeneration is based upon synergism. PR is based upon a presumption God will do what He promises. Dissapointment is sinful. Everything God does is correct, including reprobating.




But He has never promised to regenerate and save every cild born Scott. To conclude this frim His promise is false. You cannot say out of one side of your mouth that He does what He promises, then end up with a reprobate child. That is an impossibility. Since God cannot lie, this promise you mention cannot and doeas not mean that. Nor can you have it both ways



> You are not understanding the covenant.



I love this response!!!!! IT cracks me up. Of course I am not, because I am not espousing a position that was condemned by many and not historic at all







> As I have said, you don't really understand the covenant. God said to Abraham, I WILL be GOD to you and your children. What does it mean, "I will be God" to them?



It definately does not mean they will be regenerate because of blood. Was He a saving God to Ishmael? 






> There can be a gap. Why do you believe there can be no gap?



Because the effectual call equals regeneration


----------



## D Battjes

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> Wayne, where does that leave me then? I deny PR/PE and also deny Gospel regeneration.
> 
> Now Gospel conversion Is scriptural, Gospel regeneration is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you mean by Gospel regeneration.
Click to expand...


Gospel Regeneration= that regeneration takews place under the Gospel. THis leads to decisional regeneration. WHich is different from Holy Spirit effectual call regeneration.


----------



## D Battjes

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> John V:
> 
> Thank you for the sincere comments. I personally am not of the Hyper Covenat flavor. I believe it is an erroneous thought of Kuyper and a mischaracterization of historic reformed teachings and Calvin himself.
> 
> TO believe my child is a covenant child, is different that believing he is regenerate or elect because of some vicarious action on my behalf, ie: baptising my child or because of my blood. It is the Will of God to elect and regenerate children and that is where my mere specualtion ends.
> 
> So like I said before, I am PR= Presumptive Redemption. My child is a sinner, Christ came to save sinners, I teach him that and pray the Holy Spirit brings that home to him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DM;
> 
> We have discussed this a little over a year ago, and we found that we have to say something about children in the covenant because we do not believe they are pagans, belonging outside the church. They are included by God in His covenant relationship with His people, so there has to be something about children, as a class of people, that makes them holy in God's eyes. It is clearly a covenant issue.
> 
> Families are not peoples' idea, it is God's. People don't make families, God does. It is the most basic structure of society, and it is made so by God, not by man's decree. God has chosen to propagate not only mankind, but also His relationship to man through regeneration; and that of two kinds of regeneration. (Oops, I gave away my basis for choosing PR instead of PE; sorry brothers. )
> 
> Ok, back on track. First, the regeneration we speak of is a physical one, one of propagation, by children being born. The promises of grace were through the generated offspring of Abraham: Isaac and not Ishmael; and further back, from Shem, and not his brothers, and from Seth and not Cain. Genealogy is important not just for the Jewish people, but for the Covenant. It is not in the Bible because the Jews liked it there; the Jews were strong on it because it was in the Bible. So this kind of regeneration is Biblically important to God. When He says in Acts 2 that "to you is the promise and to your children" it is hard to take it any other way than the way it is througout the Bible, namely that children of covenant people are included by God into the covenant.
> 
> But it is also through this means that God propagates Christ's church. It is not the only way, but it is a Biblical precedential way. From those brought up at the feet of Christian preachers, so to speak, come those who have the firm grounding from childhood of the doctrines of the Word. Just like Timothy. They hear it all their lives, so it is not to be wondered at that they come to faith through it.
> 
> We have asked what place it is that children hold, if they are not considered pagans. If they are not pagans, that is, outside of the covenant, then how do we see them? We are trying to uphold both that people have to believe to be inducted into the covenant, and that God has opened a place for some who have not, and cannot, express such faith. And at the same time we are trying to uphold that no one in inducted into the covenant by man's doing, but by Christ's alone. What does it mean to be in the covenant?
> 
> To be accorded a status of membership means that there is an equating of status to those who are members by confession. One is either in or out, and children are in; so they are _presumed_ a status. Some of us call that a status of regenerate, and some call it elect. We are not making a declaration of regeneration or election without confession or faith, but we are recognizing an equal status of membership.
> 
> Membership has its own different levels within it. Some, for example, would be included in casting votes for congregational issues, some would not (some do not include women in that); some would be included in Communion, and some not; some are under discipline, and some not; some are called to office and some are not; some are leaders in various fields of work within the church, and some are not. Equality means nothing if it means that everyone is exactly the same. Yet all the same, all these different people are members, and therefore have something in common. And children share in that commonality.
> 
> The least that we presume about all members, whether they will fall away or not, is that they are regenerate. Some would say elect. But this is what we are discussing, whether we should be using the word 'regenerate' or 'elect'. We do have to presume something about these children, because God has included them into the covenant by decree. And He has called them holy on the basis of at least one believing parent. Traditionally we have divided those who are elect from those who are not elect by the words 'regenerate' and 'reprobate', coming from what we now call 'double predestination'. So we are not saying that children are 'regenerate', we are saying that we are to presume they are regenerate. as opposed to reprobate. Some of us would like to make the distinction with the words 'elect' and 'non-elect'. But we are presuming (not declaring as we do when someone professes faith) based on God's promises, not upon ourselves. No one gets into heaven through the back door. We declare children are members of the covenant, that they are holy to God, and therefore we declare that they ought to be baptized.
> 
> We also believe that this ought to be considered as the norm for a godly family, as opposed to the exception. Those who come in later, through conversion from a life apart from the Church and the preaching of the Word, miss out on the life-long devotion that children have had from their earliest years. That is the the emphasis of Deut. 6: 4-9. So it is to be expected of godly families that their children grow up in the way that they should go, and that God blesses that with His promises.
> 
> -------------------------------------------------
> Or, to say it another way, if we waited until we knew that someone was surely saved before we baptized anyone, then baptism would not be something the Church would be allowed to practice. Because that knowledge belongs only to God. So, if we baptize based upon a credible profession of faith, then surely we would baptize based upon a decree of God. God has decreed that the children of the covenant are holy; so who is to refuse them baptism?
Click to expand...


John, We baptise because we are commanded to, not because we presume anything. You combine covenant with regeneration which is false. We know "All of Israel are not Israel. This line of thinking is so contrary to the Pauline revelation. 


we also have the decree of election, a decree that extends both to strangers and in the line of our descendants, but a decree that does not promise us that every child born to believing parents is elect. God commanded Abraham to circumcise both Ishmael and Isaac in Genesis 17, yet Ishmael remained a lost man; it was with Isaac alone that God established his covenant. (Genesis 17:19.) Isaac in turn had two sons, Jacob and Esau;both received the sign of God's favor, and yet God's favor was on Jacob alone.

This brings us back to Acts 2:39, where we see something of both the continuity and discontinuity between the two Testaments. There is a difference, because God's grace now richly extends far beyond the borders of Israel: "The promise is for . . . all who are far off." There is also continuity, because "The promise is for you and your children." But neither of these precepts is absolute; both are conditioned by God's eternal, immutable decree: unconditional election that is followed by the call to come to Christ. But that call, while effectual for God's elect, is not effectual for all who are far off or for all our children. Peter makes this clear, when he qualifies at the end of Acts 2:39, "For all whom the Lord our God will call."


I cannot reconcile PR/PE with what I read in the Bible.
While in charity I accept all who are part of the visible Church as Christians, I would never encourage individual professing Christians so charitably to view themselves. There is a very different approach in how we are to assess our own Spiritual condition from how we form our assessment of others. While we do not wait for positive evidence of faith in others before accepting their professions of faith as genuine, such presumption with regard to ourselves could prove eternally deadly. We must never encourage others presumptively to rest in the hope of salvation apart from self-examination, the kind that regularly takes place under strong, soul-searching preaching.



The bottom line: The biblical doctrine of the Covenant, both by explicit teaching and by biblical example, does not promise that every child born to Christian parents is elect, and without a sovereign work of grace worked in the heart of a child, the best that Christian parents can produce is a profligate or a neurotic hypocrite. I don't care how old you are or how old your children are and how well established, they never outgrow the need for your earnest pleading with God on their behalf. This is it in a nutshell for me.

[Edited on 6-8-2005 by D Battjes]


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> Question: Would you agree that if you were to look at time, outside of time, that the majority of Christs church is made up of people from covenant families? Assuredly, God has used the family unit more than outside of it. The covenantal promise is evident in this manner.....


----------



## wsw201

> Wayne,
> Just to clearify. John the Baptist was regenerated in the womb (by the spirit); he was then converted under the preaching of the word. As Calvin puts it, regeneration planted the seeds of faith. This does in no way negate the idea that John did not need to hear the word to be converted. That is why the word is referred to in scripture as water.
> 
> Rom 10:14 But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?



Scott,

The standards do not make the Word unnecessary for regeneration and necessary for conversion. Note the language that is used in chapter 10.1:

I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, *effectually to call,[1] by His Word and Spirit,[2]* out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ;[3] enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God,[4] taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh;[5] renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good,[6] and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ:[7] yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.[8]

Also consider the WLC:

Q. 67. What is effectual calling?

A. Effectual calling is the work of God´s almighty power and grace,[273] whereby (out of his free and special love to his elect, and from nothing in them moving him thereunto)[274] he doth, in his accepted time, invite and draw them to Jesus Christ, by his Word and Spirit;[275] savingly enlightening their minds,[276] renewing and powerfully determining their wills,[277] so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made willing and able freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein.[278]

Q. 68. Are the elect only effectually called?

A. All the elect, and they only, are effectually called:[279] although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the Word,[280] and have some common operations of the Spirit;[281] who, for their wilful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ.[28]

In addition, the Standards do not speak of a timing difference between regeneration and conversion. That is why I noted Hodge's comments regarding regeneration and conversion, that conversion is on the heels of regeneration.

So considering the Standard's position on regeneration, how do we reconcile the idea that anyone can be regenerated without the Word?


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> So considering the Standard's position on regeneration, how do we reconcile the idea that anyone can be regenerated without the Word?



Are you suggesting that John the Baptist heard the Word preached in his womb?


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> So considering the Standard's position on regeneration, how do we reconcile the idea that anyone can be regenerated without the Word?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that John the Baptist heard the Word preached in his womb?
Click to expand...


No I'm not. But I am also not making the exception the rule.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> So considering the Standard's position on regeneration, how do we reconcile the idea that anyone can be regenerated without the Word?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that John the Baptist heard the Word preached in his womb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I'm not. But I am also not making the exception the rule.
Click to expand...


So is David just another "exception to the rule"? (cf. Ps. 22:9)

Furthermore, how many examples in Scripture can you give of the reverse? How many times in Scripture are there examples of Christians' children waiting until age 10 or 15 or adulthood to be regenerated? There may be some examples of this, but I can't think of any right now.


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> Wayne, where does that leave me then? I deny PR/PE and also deny Gospel regeneration.
> 
> Now Gospel conversion Is scriptural, Gospel regeneration is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you mean by Gospel regeneration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gospel Regeneration= that regeneration takews place under the Gospel. THis leads to decisional regeneration. WHich is different from Holy Spirit effectual call regeneration.
Click to expand...


We may be talking symantics here. This being a Reformed board, no one will be arguing for decisional regeneration. As the Standards note, the Word (Gospel) works with the Spirit in regeneration as per Rom 10:14. You can't believe what you don't know.


----------



## wsw201

> So is David just another "exception to the rule"? (cf. Ps. 22:9)



Within the context of this Psalm, this verse does not mean that David was regenerated from the womb. What is being expounded on is God's providence. Both Calvin and Henry make this point:

Per Calvin:




> 9. Surely thou. David again here raises a new fortress, in order to withstand and repel the machinations of Satan. He briefly enumerates the benefits which God had bestowed upon him, by which he had long since learned that he was his father. Yea, he declares that even before he was born God had shown towards him such evidence of his fatherly love, that although now overwhelmed with the darkness of death, he might upon good ground venture to hope for life from him. And it is the Holy Spirit who teaches the faithful the wisdom to collect together, when they are brought into circumstances of fear and trouble, the evidences of the goodness of God, in order thereby to sustain and strengthen their faith. We ought to regard it as an established principle, that as God never wearies in the exercise of his liberality, and as the most exuberant bestowment cannot exhaust his riches, it follows that, as we have experienced him to be a father from our earliest infancy, he will show himself the same towards us even to extreme old age. In acknowledging that he was taken from the womb by the hand of God, and that God had caused him to confide upon the breasts of his mother, the meaning is, that although it is by the operation of natural causes that infants come into the world, and are nourished with their mother's milk, yet therein the wonderful providence of God brightly shines forth. This miracle, it is true, because of its ordinary occurrence, is made less account of by us. But if ingratitude did not put upon our eyes the veil of stupidity, we would be ravished with admiration at every childbirth in the world. What prevents the child from perishing, as it might, a hundred times in its own corruption, before the time for bringing it forth arrives, but that God, by his secret and incomprehensible power, keeps it alive in its grave? And after it is brought into the world, seeing it is subject to so many miseries, and cannot stir a finger to help itself, how could it live even for a single day, did not God take it up into his fatherly bosom to nourish and protect it? It is, therefore, with good reason said, that the infant is cast upon him; for, unless he fed the tender little babes, and watched over all the offices of the nurse, even at the very time of their being brought forth, they are exposed to a hundred deaths, by which they would be suffocated in an instant. Finally, David concludes that God was his God. God, it is true, to all appearance, shows the like goodness which is here celebrated even to the brute creation; but it is only to mankind that he shows himself to be a father in a special manner. And although he does not immediately endue babes with the knowledge of himself, yet he is said to give them confidence, because, by showing in fact that he takes care of their life, he in a manner allures them to himself; as it is said in another place,
> 
> "He giveth to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry," (Psalm 147:9.)
> 
> Since God anticipates in this manner, by his grace, little infants before they have as yet the use of reason, it is certain that he will never disappoint the hope of his servants when they petition and call upon him. This is the argument by which David struggled with, and endeavored to overcome temptation.


----------



## biblelighthouse

Regardless of your position on David, the example of John the Baptist still stands. And how many examples in Scripture can you give of the reverse? How many times in Scripture are there examples of Christians' children waiting until age 10 or 15 or adulthood to be regenerated? There may be some examples of this, but I can't think of any right now.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> Wayne,
> Just to clearify. John the Baptist was regenerated in the womb (by the spirit); he was then converted under the preaching of the word. As Calvin puts it, regeneration planted the seeds of faith. This does in no way negate the idea that John did not need to hear the word to be converted. That is why the word is referred to in scripture as water.
> 
> Rom 10:14 But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott,
> 
> The standards do not make the Word unnecessary for regeneration and necessary for conversion. Note the language that is used in chapter 10.1:
> 
> I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, *effectually to call,[1] by His Word and Spirit,[2]* out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ;[3] enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God,[4] taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh;[5] renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good,[6] and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ:[7] yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.[8]
> 
> Also consider the WLC:
> 
> Q. 67. What is effectual calling?
> 
> A. Effectual calling is the work of God´s almighty power and grace,[273] whereby (out of his free and special love to his elect, and from nothing in them moving him thereunto)[274] he doth, in his accepted time, invite and draw them to Jesus Christ, by his Word and Spirit;[275] savingly enlightening their minds,[276] renewing and powerfully determining their wills,[277] so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made willing and able freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein.[278]
> 
> Q. 68. Are the elect only effectually called?
> 
> A. All the elect, and they only, are effectually called:[279] although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the Word,[280] and have some common operations of the Spirit;[281] who, for their wilful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ.[28]
> 
> In addition, the Standards do not speak of a timing difference between regeneration and conversion. That is why I noted Hodge's comments regarding regeneration and conversion, that conversion is on the heels of regeneration.
> 
> So considering the Standard's position on regeneration, how do we reconcile the idea that anyone can be regenerated without the Word?
Click to expand...




I believe in gospel regeneration. The Word of God is what raises the dead. It is what raised Lazarus. It is what raises us from spiritual death to spiritual life. Regeneration doesn't happen apart from the means of the Word, except maybe in extreme circumstances.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> So considering the Standard's position on regeneration, how do we reconcile the idea that anyone can be regenerated without the Word?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that John the Baptist heard the Word preached in his womb?
Click to expand...


Do you have any biblical evidence to say that it DIDN'T happen that way?


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Regardless of your position on David, the example of John the Baptist still stands. And how many examples in Scripture can you give of the reverse? How many times in Scripture are there examples of Christians' children waiting until age 10 or 15 or adulthood to be regenerated? There may be some examples of this, but I can't think of any right now.



This is not just "my" position. The quote was from John Calvin. Matthew Henry says the same thing. 

Anyway, you are missing the point. The issue has nothing to do with when someone is regenerated. God the Holy Spirit can regenerate anyone as He sees fit as per 10.3. The question I am asking concerns the "ordinary" means of regeneration per the Standards. The idea that anyone can be regenerated as a rule without the Word does not jive with the Standards and needs to be reconciled to it. Otherwise the PR position appears to be an exception to the Standards. And in MHO, a big one.


----------



## Arch2k




----------



## Myshkin

What I'd like to honestly know is where do we get the hermeneutic principle that an example determines a dogma? I thought narratives were to be interpreted in light of the explicitly didactic, not vice versa. As we argue for infant baptism against credos, for example, it is unwise to make a case from the household passages. Rather we appeal to them as examples of more clear didactic principles, in this case continuity of the covenants, after we have established those principles. Same with church polity. We are wise to appeal to Acts 15 as an example of clear principles, so we wisely don't appeal to Acts 15 first and then build a case for presbyterianism. So if we are going to be convinced that David and John the baptist are examples supporting the PR position, it would be more helpful to first agree to the principles that cause one to see David and John B as supportive to your case.

I think this is what Patrick, Wayne, and Fred are saying in previous posts. It is dangerous to build our theology on an example or lack of example. Is this not a hermeneutic pentecostals use for the tongues issue?: "The apostles spoke in tongues, therefore tongues are still for today". Or the credo issue?: "there are only examples of adult believers baptism, and no examples of infant baptism, therefore credo trumps paedo". I think this last point illustrates what Pastorway was trying to say earlier; that appealing to John B is an inconsistent hermenuetic for presbyterians, and is actually using a more baptist-like hermeneutic.


----------



## D Battjes

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Regardless of your position on David, the example of John the Baptist still stands. And how many examples in Scripture can you give of the reverse? How many times in Scripture are there examples of Christians' children waiting until age 10 or 15 or adulthood to be regenerated? There may be some examples of this, but I can't think of any right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not just "my" position. The quote was from John Calvin. Matthew Henry says the same thing.
> 
> Anyway, you are missing the point. The issue has nothing to do with when someone is regenerated. God the Holy Spirit can regenerate anyone as He sees fit as per 10.3. The question I am asking concerns the "ordinary" means of regeneration per the Standards. The idea that anyone can be regenerated as a rule without the Word does not jive with the Standards and needs to be reconciled to it. Otherwise the PR position appears to be an exception to the Standards. And in MHO, a big one.
Click to expand...



Since I deny PR, I can humbly attesat that I also deny Gospel Regeneration. Regardless what the Standards say, Scripture says otherwise. 

Jeff, I am sorry to hear you confess gospel regeneration. THis is error in my opinion. Believing is not part of regeneration, it is a distinct function of the Spirit.

Without being born again, one cannot see nor hear. So they are 2 seperate operations of the spirit. Not only can people be regenerated without the Word, they are regenerated without the word. At times the Holy Spirit will provide both conversion and regeneration at the same time. But not necessarily the rule.

The biblical and historic position is that man is passive in regeneration, and active in conversion. John 3 with Nicodemus proves this.

Just like we dont know where the winds blows from, we neither know where the Spirit quickens us. Prepares our hearts, our whole being to be able to receive the Word by faith.

Noone can be converted with the Word, but all can be regenerated without it.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> Wayne,
> Just to clearify. John the Baptist was regenerated in the womb (by the spirit); he was then converted under the preaching of the word. As Calvin puts it, regeneration planted the seeds of faith. This does in no way negate the idea that John did not need to hear the word to be converted. That is why the word is referred to in scripture as water.
> 
> Rom 10:14 But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott,
> 
> The standards do not make the Word unnecessary for regeneration and necessary for conversion. Note the language that is used in chapter 10.1:
> 
> I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, *effectually to call,[1] by His Word and Spirit,[2]* out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ;[3] enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God,[4] taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh;[5] renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good,[6] and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ:[7] yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.[8]
> 
> Also consider the WLC:
> 
> Q. 67. What is effectual calling?
> 
> A. Effectual calling is the work of God´s almighty power and grace,[273] whereby (out of his free and special love to his elect, and from nothing in them moving him thereunto)[274] he doth, in his accepted time, invite and draw them to Jesus Christ, by his Word and Spirit;[275] savingly enlightening their minds,[276] renewing and powerfully determining their wills,[277] so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made willing and able freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein.[278]
> 
> Q. 68. Are the elect only effectually called?
> 
> A. All the elect, and they only, are effectually called:[279] although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the Word,[280] and have some common operations of the Spirit;[281] who, for their wilful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ.[28]
> 
> In addition, the Standards do not speak of a timing difference between regeneration and conversion. That is why I noted Hodge's comments regarding regeneration and conversion, that conversion is on the heels of regeneration.
> 
> So considering the Standard's position on regeneration, how do we reconcile the idea that anyone can be regenerated without the Word?
Click to expand...


john 3:3 shows this. One cannot even _see_ the kingdom before they are regenerated. 

John the baptist was regenerated in the womb. He needed the word for conversion..........


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> So considering the Standard's position on regeneration, how do we reconcile the idea that anyone can be regenerated without the Word?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that John the Baptist heard the Word preached in his womb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I'm not. But I am also not making the exception the rule.
Click to expand...


This is your assertion; that it is the exception. You cannot prove this.


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> So considering the Standard's position on regeneration, how do we reconcile the idea that anyone can be regenerated without the Word?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that John the Baptist heard the Word preached in his womb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I'm not. But I am also not making the exception the rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is your assertion; that it is the exception. You cannot prove this.
Click to expand...


Scott,

It's not just my assertion. Its the assertion of the Westminster Divines. But be that as it may, how do you reconcile Chapt 10 with PR?


----------



## AdamM

> Are you suggesting that John the Baptist heard the Word preached in his womb?



The example of John the Baptist is not normative. What I see happening here is that an extraordinary act of God, that is rare (infant salvation in the womb), is becoming the controlling paradigm that distorts how the ordinary means are viewed. The ordinary means God uses to save sinners is the preaching of the Word, but that does not limit Him from using other means. That would be like taking the experience of the Apostle Paul and then saying that if you want to be saved, get on a horse and wait for God to rock your world. 

I would also add that nobody here that I have read is claiming that regeneration is the same as conversion. Both are completely unique benefits that flow from union with Christ, but they must never be disconnected from one another. Turning the ordo into a chronological order that if I am understanding the point trying to be made correctly, where one could be regenerated and then not be converted for many years is extremely problematic. If regeneration cannot happen apart from union with Christ, then that would be saying one could be united with Christ and still under the wrath of God (unjustified) or united with Christ apart from faith or united with Christ and not sanctified or united with Christ and not adapted. Another problem I see is that regeneration in ordinary circumstances then becomes unhitched from effectual calling and it is interesting to note that in the Westminster Standards regeneration dealt with as a sunset of effectual calling. 

John Murray in Redemption Accomplished and Applied (in my opinion, the best treatment of the subject of the ordo) notes:

http://www.mvpca.com/murray-6.htm



> Murray, p. 96, God's call, since it is effectual, carries with it the operative grace whereby the person called is enÂ¬abled to answer the call and to embrace Jesus Christ as he is freely offered in the gospel.





> Murray, p.101, In most of these passages all that is expressly stated is this truth of the* invariable concomitance of regeneration and these other blessings of grace.*
> 
> Murray, p. 103, It should be specially noted that even faith that Jesus is the Christ is the effect of regeneration. This is, of course, a clear implication of John 3 :3-8. But John the apostle here takes pains to make that plain. Regeneration is the beginning of all saving grace in us, and all saving grace in exercise on our part proceeds from the fountain of regeneration. We are not born again by faith or repentance or conversion; we reÂ¬pent and believe because we have been regenerated. No one can say in truth that Jesus is the Christ except by regeneration of the Spirit and that is one of the ways by which the Holy Spirit glorifies Christ. The embrace of Christ in faith is the first evidence of regeneration and only thus may we know that we have been regenerated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murray, p. 106, Regeneration is inseparable from its effects and one of the effects is faith. Without regeneration it is morally and spiritually impossible for a person to believe in Christ, but * when a person is regenerated it is morally and spiritually impossible for that person not to believe. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The renewed nature, that now loves Christ has no choice but to turn to Christ that it nows finds lovely. It is an impossibility that the renewed nature could go on hating Christ and refusing to turn to Him in faith and repentance.
> 
> 
> J.I. Packer states it well also:
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/cdvcw
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Though infant regeneration can be a reality when God so purposes (Luke 1:15, 41-44), the ordinary context of new birth is one of effectual calling"”that is, confrontation with the gospel and illumination as to its truth and significance as a message from God to oneself. Regeneration is always the decisive element in effectual calling.
> 
> Regeneration is monergistic: that is, entirely the work of God the Holy Spirit. It raises the elect among the spiritually dead to new life in Christ (Eph. 2:1-10). Regeneration is a transition from spiritual death to spiritual life, and conscious, intentional, active faith in Christ is its immediate fruit, not its immediate cause. Regeneration is the work of what Augustine called "œprevenient" grace, the grace that precedes our outgoings of heart toward God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Reymond has an excellent summary:
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/bnxhh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Reymond gives this explanation and chart of the order of the application of salvation: "From all this, the following order of application has emerged. Concomitant aspects of the order are highlighted by arranging them in vertical columns under five headings indicating which aspects are entirely divine acts and which aspects entail human activity working both in response to and in conjunction with accompanying divinely initiated activity. * It should be noted that the first three columns to do not reflect chronological occurrences, since the moment the sinner is regenerated, in that moment he repents and places his confidence in Christ´s saving work, and in that same moment God justifies, definitively sanctifies, and adopts and seals him. These columns reflect the logical (or causal) connection between the several aspects." *
> 
> 
> (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, p. 711).
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> So considering the Standard's position on regeneration, how do we reconcile the idea that anyone can be regenerated without the Word?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that John the Baptist heard the Word preached in his womb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any biblical evidence to say that it DIDN'T happen that way?
Click to expand...



Of course not. Thank you for helping demonstrate my point. If the preached Word is necessary for salvation, then John the Baptist received it. And if he received it, then there is no reason to say that other infants don't receive it as well.


----------



## D Battjes

Another quote from Canons of Dordt on a person first being regenerated in order to believe in Jesus: "And this is the regeneration so highly celebrated in Scripture, and denominated a new creation: a resurrection from the dead, a making alive, which God works in us without our aid. But this is in no wise effected merely by the external preaching of the gospel, by moral suasion, or such a mode of operation, that after God has performed his part, it still remains in the power of man to be regenerated or not, to be converted, or to continue unconverted; but it is evidently a supernatural work, most powerful, and at the same time most delightful, astonishing, mysterious, and ineffable; not inferior in efficacy to creation, or the resurrection from the dead, as the Scripture inspired by the author of this work declares; so that all in whose heart God works in this marvelous manner, are certainly, infallibly, and effectually regenerated, and do actually believe. - Whereupon the will thus renewed, is not only actuated and influenced by God, but in consequence of this influence, becomes itself active. Wherefore also, man is himself rightly said to believe and repent, by virtue of that grace received." (Canons of Dordt, Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine, Article 12)


The gospel makes disciples, but it does not make children of God.


----------



## D Battjes

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> So considering the Standard's position on regeneration, how do we reconcile the idea that anyone can be regenerated without the Word?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that John the Baptist heard the Word preached in his womb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any biblical evidence to say that it DIDN'T happen that way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. Thank you for helping demonstrate my point. If the preached Word is necessary for salvation, then John the Baptist received it. And if he received it, then there is no reason to say that other infants don't receive it as well.
Click to expand...


Joseph, with all due respect. This is another arguement from silence. Hearing the Gospel is hearing the Gospel. not some mysterious voice in the womb. 

I cannot nor does scripture even hint at this.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> So considering the Standard's position on regeneration, how do we reconcile the idea that anyone can be regenerated without the Word?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that John the Baptist heard the Word preached in his womb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I'm not. But I am also not making the exception the rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is your assertion; that it is the exception. You cannot prove this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scott,
> 
> It's not just my assertion. Its the assertion of the Westminster Divines. But be that as it may, how do you reconcile Chapt 10 with PR?
Click to expand...


Wayne,
I hear you. I am working and not putting enough into these posts to substantiate my claim in thios regard. I will try and put soemthing together later if you don't mind.


----------



## wsw201

> Wayne,
> I hear you. I am working and not putting enough into these posts to substantiate my claim in thios regard. I will try and put soemthing together later if you don't mind.



I understand. There is no rush. And I don't mind at all.


----------



## Roldan

I am assuming that those supporting the view that God can only regenerate using His Word, which I agree He does regenerate using His Word but for ADULTS, would then believe that ALL infants and children who die before having this ability to produce intelligent faith go straight to hell. right? Cause its the same principle that you must apply to this situation as well, if one must be effectually called in order to be regenerated.



> If the preached Word is necessary for salvation, then John the Baptist received it. And if he received it, then there is no reason to say that other infants don't receive it as well.



Excellent 

[Edited on 6-8-2005 by Roldan]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> So considering the Standard's position on regeneration, how do we reconcile the idea that anyone can be regenerated without the Word?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that John the Baptist heard the Word preached in his womb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any biblical evidence to say that it DIDN'T happen that way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. Thank you for helping demonstrate my point. If the preached Word is necessary for salvation, then John the Baptist received it. And if he received it, then there is no reason to say that other infants don't receive it as well.
Click to expand...


So let me see if I hear you right - you are saying that since there is a vague and debatable reference to the last OT prophet, the one whom Jesus says is greater than any other born of the womb save himself, that this is to be normative? In the face of Romans 10? Eph 1? Ezekiel 37? 1 Peter 1:23? James 1:18? Just about every passage in Scripture that assigns regeneration (rebirth, being born again) to the Word?

Peter makes it crystal clear that regeneration comes by the Word:


> 1 Peter 1:23 having been *born again* (avnagegennhme,noi ), not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the *word of God* which lives and abides forever



That is a mighty big load for an argument from silence to bear.


----------



## Roldan

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> So considering the Standard's position on regeneration, how do we reconcile the idea that anyone can be regenerated without the Word?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that John the Baptist heard the Word preached in his womb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any biblical evidence to say that it DIDN'T happen that way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. Thank you for helping demonstrate my point. If the preached Word is necessary for salvation, then John the Baptist received it. And if he received it, then there is no reason to say that other infants don't receive it as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me see if I hear you right - you are saying that since there is a vague and debatable reference to the last OT prophet, the one whom Jesus says is greater than any other born of the womb save himself, that this is to be normative? In the face of Romans 10? Eph 1? Ezekiel 37? 1 Peter 1:23? James 1:18? Just about every passage in Scripture that assigns regeneration (rebirth, being born again) to the Word?
> 
> Peter makes it crystal clear that regeneration comes by the Word:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Peter 1:23 having been *born again* (avnagegennhme,noi ), not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the *word of God* which lives and abides forever
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a mighty big load for an argument from silence to bear.
Click to expand...


But isn't that for Adults?


----------



## wsw201

Ricky,

Check out WCF Chapt 10 Sec 3. No one is precluding that God can't work outside of ordinary means.


----------



## Roldan

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Ricky,
> 
> Check out WCF Chapt 10 Sec 3. No one is precluding that God can't work outside of ordinary means.



Then why do you have a problem with the PR?


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Roldan_
> I am assuming that those supporting the view that God can only regenerate using His Word, which I agree He does regenerate using His Word but for ADULTS, would then believe that ALL infants and children who die before having this ability to produce intelligent faith go straight to hell. right? Cause its the same principle that you must apply to this situation as well, if one must be effectually called in order to be regenerated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the preached Word is necessary for salvation, then John the Baptist received it. And if he received it, then there is no reason to say that other infants don't receive it as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent
> 
> [Edited on 6-8-2005 by Roldan]
Click to expand...



Ricky,

The answer to that is:



> "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit." (John 3:8)



It is one thing to say that God _cannot_ regenerate without the Word and that regeneration _cannot_ have a time gap from conversion, 

and quite another thing to say that it is *normative* for God to regenerate without the Word and that it is *normative* to have a time gap from conversion.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> Jeff, I am sorry to hear you confess gospel regeneration. THis is error in my opinion. Believing is not part of regeneration, it is a distinct function of the Spirit.



Nobody is asserting that believing is part of regeneration. We are asserting that the Word of God preached preceeds regeneration. Faith comes after regeneration.



> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> Without being born again, one cannot see nor hear. So they are 2 seperate operations of the spirit. Not only can people be regenerated without the Word, they are regenerated without the word. At times the Holy Spirit will provide both conversion and regeneration at the same time. But not necessarily the rule.
> 
> The biblical and historic position is that man is passive in regeneration, and active in conversion. John 3 with Nicodemus proves this.



Agreed that man is completely passive in regeneration. This does not mean that God's word is not doing work. It is "enlightening the mind" as the confession puts it. It morally ENABLES us to believe the gospel. We then DESIRE to believe it. This transition happens by means of the Word as well. 

See 1 Peter 1:23 (in Fred's post above): 

For you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, throught the living and enduring word of God.

I agree with Fred in that this is a big burden for you to bear without holding to gospel regeneration.

Again, this does not mean that one must believe the gospel in order to be regenerated, just that the gospel is preached, then regeneration, then faith.


----------



## D Battjes

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> Jeff, I am sorry to hear you confess gospel regeneration. THis is error in my opinion. Believing is not part of regeneration, it is a distinct function of the Spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is asserting that believing is part of regeneration. We are asserting that the Word of God preached preceeds regeneration. Faith comes after regeneration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> Without being born again, one cannot see nor hear. So they are 2 seperate operations of the spirit. Not only can people be regenerated without the Word, they are regenerated without the word. At times the Holy Spirit will provide both conversion and regeneration at the same time. But not necessarily the rule.
> 
> The biblical and historic position is that man is passive in regeneration, and active in conversion. John 3 with Nicodemus proves this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed that man is completely passive in regeneration. This does not mean that God's word is not doing work. It is "enlightening the mind" as the confession puts it. It morally ENABLES us to believe the gospel. We then DESIRE to believe it. This transition happens by means of the Word as well.
> 
> See 1 Peter 1:23 (in Fred's post above):
> 
> For you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, throught the living and enduring word of God.
> 
> I agree with Fred in that this is a big burden for you to bear without holding to gospel regeneration.
> 
> Again, this does not mean that one must believe the gospel in order to be regenerated, just that the gospel is preached, then regeneration, then faith.
Click to expand...


Regeneration HAS to preceede everything. This makes the person be able to see and hear Jeff.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> So considering the Standard's position on regeneration, how do we reconcile the idea that anyone regenerate without the Word?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that John the Baptist heard the Word preached in his womb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any biblical evidence to say that it DIDN'T happen that way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. Thank you for helping demonstrate my point. If the preached Word is necessary for salvation, then John the Baptist received it. And if he received it, then there is no reason to say that other infants don't receive it as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me see if I hear you right - you are saying that since there is a vague and debatable reference to the last OT prophet, the one whom Jesus says is greater than any other born of the womb save himself, that this is to be normative?
Click to expand...



No, I'm not saying it's normative based on John the Baptist.

Look at the original quote above, where it was asked, "how do we reconcile the idea that *anyone* can be regenerated without the Word?" 

It sounded to me like he was saying that God *never* can be regenerated without the word. I simply responded with the couterexample of John the Baptist, showing that either He was regenerated without the Word, or that somehow he received the Word in the womb.

[Edited on 6-8-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> Jeff, I am sorry to hear you confess gospel regeneration. THis is error in my opinion. Believing is not part of regeneration, it is a distinct function of the Spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is asserting that believing is part of regeneration. We are asserting that the Word of God preached preceeds regeneration. Faith comes after regeneration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> Without being born again, one cannot see nor hear. So they are 2 seperate operations of the spirit. Not only can people be regenerated without the Word, they are regenerated without the word. At times the Holy Spirit will provide both conversion and regeneration at the same time. But not necessarily the rule.
> 
> The biblical and historic position is that man is passive in regeneration, and active in conversion. John 3 with Nicodemus proves this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed that man is completely passive in regeneration. This does not mean that God's word is not doing work. It is "enlightening the mind" as the confession puts it. It morally ENABLES us to believe the gospel. We then DESIRE to believe it. This transition happens by means of the Word as well.
> 
> See 1 Peter 1:23 (in Fred's post above):
> 
> For you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, throught the living and enduring word of God.
> 
> I agree with Fred in that this is a big burden for you to bear without holding to gospel regeneration.
> 
> Again, this does not mean that one must believe the gospel in order to be regenerated, just that the gospel is preached, then regeneration, then faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regeneration HAS to preceede everything. This makes the person be able to see and hear Jeff.
Click to expand...


Why does it have to proceed the gospel? The Holy Spirit does not usually work apart from the word. He enables THROUGH the word.


----------



## D Battjes

> Why does it have to proceed the gospel? The Holy Spirit does not usually work apart from the word. He enables THROUGH the word.



Because John 3 says it does!!!!!:bigsmile:

So does the Parable of the soils explain this.

WHy was one soil able to bear fruit? Because it was prepared by the Holy Spirit.

I am not denying it may happen simultaneously, but the soil HAS to be prepared in order to see and hear. 

Anyway, we have digressed this thread and I apologise.

PR is exactly that. Presuming somethign that needs not be presumed. It does not matter what man presumes, it matter s what God has decreed.





[Edited on 6-8-2005 by D Battjes]


----------



## AdamM

> It is one thing to say that God cannot regenerate without the Word and that regeneration cannot have a time gap from conversion,
> 
> and quite another thing to say that it is normative for God to regenerate without the Word and that it is normative to have a time gap from conversion.



Thank you Fred! Well said!

Again, I see great danger is taking what are clearly extraordinary examples from the scriptures and then making them normative. I think infants being regenerated in the womb is undoubtedly an extraordinary occurrence as the Standards note that the preaching the general call, made effectual by the Spirit is the ordinary means by which people are regenerated. That doesn't rule out in the mysteries of God that He saves some infants in the womb who cannot hear the preached Word and that is indeed a mystery, but that clearly isn't normative. I have to wonder why we wouldn't take the Apostle Paul's conversion as normative, under the same logic that is being applied to John's?

[Edited on 6-8-2005 by AdamM]


----------



## D Battjes

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> 
> It is one thing to say that God cannot regenerate without the Word and that regeneration cannot have a time gap from conversion,
> 
> and quite another thing to say that it is normative for God to regenerate without the Word and that it is normative to have a time gap from conversion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you Fred! Well said!
> 
> Again, I see great danger is taking what are clearly extraordinary examples from the scriptures and then making them normative. I think infants being regenerated in the womb is undoubtedly an extraordianry occurance as the Standards note that thge preaching the general call, made effectual by the Spirit is the ordinary means by which people are regenerated. That doesn't rule out in the mysteries of God that He saves some infants in the womb who cannot hear the preached Word and that is indeed a mystery, but that clearly isn't normative. I have to wonder why we wouldn't take the Apostle Paul's conversion as normative, under the same logic that is being applied to John's?
> 
> 
> F that address elect infants dying in infancy
Click to expand...



ADam, I make a distinction in when one is regenerated. I am not at all saying that all the elect are regenerated in the womb. I state that regeneration preceedes the Hearing of the Gospel.

That is a big difference. JTB is not my barometer. John 3 is and the soils.

The scripture in 1 Peter that Fred pasted could also mean Christ in place of word. 

One must be born again to see the Kingdom of God preached in the words of the Gospel.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> 
> It is one thing to say that God cannot regenerate without the Word and that regeneration cannot have a time gap from conversion,
> 
> and quite another thing to say that it is normative for God to regenerate without the Word and that it is normative to have a time gap from conversion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you Fred! Well said!
> 
> Again, I see great danger is taking what are clearly extraordinary examples from the scriptures and then making them normative. I think infants being regenerated in the womb is undoubtedly an extraordianry occurance as the Standards note that thge preaching the general call, made effectual by the Spirit is the ordinary means by which people are regenerated. That doesn't rule out in the mysteries of God that He saves some infants in the womb who cannot hear the preached Word and that is indeed a mystery, but that clearly isn't normative. I have to wonder why we wouldn't take the Apostle Paul's conversion as normative, under the same logic that is being applied to John's?
> 
> 
> F that address elect infants dying in infancy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ADam, I make a distinction in when one is regenerated. I am not at all saying that all the elect are regenerated in the womb. I state that regeneration preceedes the Hearing of the Gospel.
> 
> That is a big difference. JTB is not my barometer. John 3 is and the soils.
> 
> The scripture in 1 Peter that Fred pasted could also mean Christ in place of word.
> 
> One must be born again to see the Kingdom of God preached in the words of the Gospel.
Click to expand...


D Battjes,
Not that I agree with everything you are saying, I do agree with this statement.


----------



## Myshkin

DBattjes-

I am not sure I am understanding you correctly. Are you saying that only the regenerate should be preached the gospel? Or are you saying that only the regenerate will believe the gospel?


----------



## D Battjes

> D Battjes,
> Not that I agree with everything you are saying, I do agree with this statement.



Scott, it is not me saying it, it is scripture. Just because one confession regeneration preceedes hearing the Gospel, one immediately jumps to JTB. That does not have to be the case.

There is a reformed understanding called "Expectation of the Nations" A form of prevenient grace. The irony here is I agree with Kuyper here, but disagree and find his teachings on PR in error. 

Also if one reads the creation account, when the Spirit is said to brrod, I asked a Jewish Rabbi what that could mean, he said, "to prepare"

So again, the Spirit prepares then comes the Word...


----------



## D Battjes

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> DBattjes-
> 
> I am not sure I am understanding you correctly. Are you saying that only the regenerate should be preached the gospel? Or are you saying that only the regenerate will believe the gospel?



#2 RAS. 

May I ask why you asked the question? How did you come to ask that based on my posts? Just curious...hahahahaha


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> The scripture in 1 Peter that Fred pasted could also mean Christ in place of word.



No. You are incorrect.

Notice the entire passage in context:



> ESV 1 Peter 1:23 since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding *word of God*; 24 for "All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, 25 but the word of the Lord remains forever." And *this word is the good news that was preached to you*.



Context does not get any clearer than that. It is extremely strained exegesis to take it as you suggest.

Calvin comments:


> 25. But the word of God. The Prophet does not shew what the word of God is in itself, but what we ought to think of it; for since man is vanity in himself, it remains that he ought to seek life elsewhere. Hence Peter ascribes power and efficacy to God's word, according to the authority of the Prophet, so that it can confer on us what is real, solid, and eternal. For this was what the Prophet had in view, that there is no permanent life but in God, and that this is communicated to us by the word. However fading, then, is the nature of man, yet he is made eternal by the word; for he is re-moulded and becomes a new creature.
> 
> This is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you, or, which has been declared to you. He first reminds us, that when the word of God is mentioned, we are very foolish if we imagine it to be remote from us in the air or in heaven; for we ought to know that it has been revealed to us by the Lord. What, then, is this word of the Lord, which gives us life? Even the Law, the Prophets, the Gospel. Those who wander beyond these limits of revelation, find nothing but the impostures of Satan and his dotages, and not the word of the Lord. We ought the more carefully to notice this, because impious and Luciferian men, craftily allowing to God's word its own honor, at the same time attempt to draw us away from the Scriptures, as that unprincipled man, Agrippa, who highly extols the eternity of God's word, and yet treats with scurrility the Prophets, and thus indirectly laughs to scorn the Word of God.
> 
> In short, as I have already reminded you, no mention is here made of the word which lies hid in the bosom of God, but of that which has proceeded from his mouth, and has come to us. So again it ought to be borne in mind, that God designed by the Apostles and Prophets to speak to us, and their mouths is the mouth of the only true God.
> 
> Then, when Peter says, Which has been announced, or declared, to you, he intinates that the word is not to be sought elsewhere than in the Gospel preached to us; and truly we know not the way of eternal life otherwise than by faith. But there can be no faith, except we know that the word is destined for us.
> 
> To the same purpose is what Moses said to the people,
> 
> "Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven, etc.; nigh is the word, in thy mouth and in thy heart."
> (Deuteronomy 30:12.)
> 
> That these words agree with what Peter says, Paul shews Romans 10:6, where he teaches us that it was the word of faith which he preached.
> 
> There is here, besides, no common eulogy on preaching; for Peter declares that what is preached is the life-giving word. God alone is indeed he who regenerates us; but for that purpose he employs the ministry of men; and on this account Paul glories that the Corinthians had been spiritually begotten by him. (1 Corinthians 4:15.) It is indeed certain that those who plant and those who water, are nothing; but whenever God is pleased to bless their labor, he makes their doctrine efficacious by the power of his Spirit; and the voice which is in itself mortal, is made an instrument to communicate eternal life.





And Matthew Henry:



> He further presses upon Christians the duty of loving one another with a pure heart fervently from the consideration of their spiritual relation; they are all born again, not of corruptible seed, but incorruptible, &c. Hence we may learn, (1.) That all Christians are born again. The apostle speaks of it as what is common to all serious Christians, and by this they are brought into a new and a near relation to one another, they become brethren by their new birth. (2.) The word of God is the great means of regeneration, Jam. i. 18. The grace of regeneration is conveyed by the gospel. (3.) This new and second birth is much more desirable and excellent than the first. This the apostle teaches by preferring the incorruptible to the corruptible seed. By the one we become the children of men, by the other the sons and daughters of the Most High. The word of God being compared to seed teaches us that though it is little in appearance, yet it is wonderful in operation, though it lies hid awhile, yet it grows up and produces excellent fruit at last. (4.) Those that are regenerate should love one another with a pure heart fervently. Brethren by nature are bound to love one another; but the obligation is double where there is a spiritual relation: they are under the same government, partake of the same privileges, and have embarked in the same interest. (5.) The word of God lives and abides for ever. This word is a living word, or a lively word, Heb. iv. 12. It is a means of spiritual life, to begin it and preserve in it, animating and exciting us in our duty, till it brings us to eternal life: and it is abiding; it remains eternally true, and abides in the hearts of the regenerate for ever.


----------



## Arch2k

All I can say is


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> 
> PR is exactly that. Presuming somethign that needs not be presumed. It does not matter what man presumes, it matter s what God has decreed.




And God has decreed that we should believe His promises. It is a sin to *not* presume God's promises to be trustworthy.

Since God has promised to be God to my children, it seems that it would be a sin *not* to have some form of PE/PR.


----------



## D Battjes

> No. You are incorrect.




No. I am not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Take that!!!!

James 1:8 is better than your rendering pf Peter actually. It can mean Christ. Sorry Calvin and Henry.

Again Fred, listen, read, hear me LOUD AND CLEAR. There are examples of regeneration coming while under the Gospel. But this cannot be concluded that the Word alone regenerates.

The heart has to be prepared. There is no denying this. This is all done by the Power of the Spirit alone.

Conversion, belief comes with the Gospel, regeneration can and does happen before. I am also not saying we have regenerated people walking around for years before they believe.


I will throw out 1 Peter and james in a heartbeat when measured up against John 3.


----------



## D Battjes

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> 
> PR is exactly that. Presuming somethign that needs not be presumed. It does not matter what man presumes, it matter s what God has decreed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And God has decreed that we should believe His promises. It is a sin to *not* presume God's promises to be trustworthy.
> 
> Since God has promised to be God to my children, it seems that it would be a sin *not* to have some form of PE/PR.
Click to expand...



Joseph, we are not commanded to presume anything in Scripture.

According to your understanding of Gods promises, how many are disappointed then in life. 

The promise was made to Abraham and His seed.ie Christ. All His Children in Christ will be His Children.

Again you are overlooking John 3 again.

"What is born of the flesh is flesh, what is born of the Spirit is Spirit. This cannot be any more clear to refute presumptive anything.

Raise children as part of the visible Covenant family., because that is all anyone is until born again.

This is very close to sounding like a Pusyite!!!!! 

"Well my child is regenerate" God promised to be his God.,,, He is, he is a drunk though,. Well I presume according to Gods promise. Oh you do. Hmmm.. He is a drug addict too, Listen to him curse, look at him break the sabbath, look at him blaspheme. 

No Joseph, the promise is not to be taken as you see it.

The promise is this.. Unless a man be born again of the Spirit, he cannot see the Kingdom of God> That is the promise we know!!!!!!!!!!!!

God has failed His promise than billions of times. I cannot Worship a God like that.

[Edited on 6-8-2005 by D Battjes]


----------



## Scott Bushey

DM,
Again, you have misunderstood the covenant.

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

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



A Catechism on Infant Inclusion in the Covenant
by C. Matthew McMahon, et. al. 


Question 1. Are Infants of believers included in the Covenant of Grace?

Answer: Yes, children are included in the Covenant of Grace, and the visible church.[1]



1. Genesis 17:1-14; Matthew 19:14; 1 Corinthians 7:14



Question 2. Upon what Grounds are children part of the Covenant of Grace?

Answer: By two reasons: the promises of God [2] and the command of God.[3]



2. Genesis 15:1; 17:7; Acts 2:39; Galatians 3:18; 2 Peter 1:4

3. Gen. 17:10-12; Acts 21:21; Matthew 28:19



Question 3: What is the promise of God?

Answer: That God would be a God to Abraham and his descendants after him for an everlasting covenant,[4] and that the children of believers are entitled to such a promise since it was made with Abraham and his children.[5]



4. Genesis 17:7; 17:13; 17:19; Psalm 105:9-10; Hebrews 13:20.

5. Genesis 17:7; 26:24; Isaiah 55:3; Jeremiah 32:40; Joel 2:28; Matthew 22:32; Acts 3:25; Romans 4:13



Question 4: What is the command of God?

Answer: The command of God compels all believing parents to have the sign of the covenant of God placed on their children.[6]



6. Gen. 17:23; Joshua 5:3; Luke 2:21; Acts 21:20; Matthew 3:6; Acts 16:15; 16:33; 1 Corinthians 10:2



Question 5: How are the promises of God applicable to children since they are born sinful and depraved?

Answer: The promises of God are applicable to the children of believers since Christian parents presumptively believe their children are regenerate based on the Word of God and the command of God.[7]



7. Genesis 17:7; Acts 2:39; Ezekiel 36:24



Question 6: Does this presumption (that the children of believers are regenerate) negate the reality that these children are conceived in sin, or demonstrate an inconsistency with Total Depravity?

Answer: No. Children of believing parents are conceived in sin, corrupt, depraved and in need of salvation, [8] but their parents presume them to be regenerate, yet are actually regenerate by sovereign election at a time only God knows, if at all; [9] they are to be considered Christians by their parents based on the promise God has made to them, that God will in fact save them and be a God to them; [10] and this view is not inconsistent with Total Depravity since sovereign grace is the means by which God will regenerate and save a child. [11]



8. Genesis 6:5; Psalm 51:5; Romans 3:10-18

9. Luke 1:15; Ephesians 1:9

10. Genesis 17:7; Acts 2:39; 16:33.

11. Romans 4:16; Ephesians 1:3-10; 2:8-10.



Question 7: Are infants of believing parents to be considered Christians?

Answer: Yes. 



Question 8: Why are infants of believing parents to be considered Christians?

Answer: Based on the command and promise of God, they are to be distinguished from the visible world,[12] and are united with believers inthechurch,[13] being federally holy before God [14] and marked by the covenant sign of circumcision [15] (as in the case of the patriarchs and Israelites) or of baptism [16] (as in the case of the covenant realized in Christ).



12. Genesis 3:15; Ezekiel 16:20-21; 1 Corinthians 2:12;

13. Ephesians 2:19; 3:15.

14. Malachi 2:15; 1 Corinthians 7:14

15. Genesis 17:10; Leviticus 12:3

16. Ezekiel 36:25; Matthew 28:19; Acts 2:39; 16:33



Question 9: Are infants of believing parents to be considered as members of the invisible church or the visible church or both?

Answer: Infants of believing parents are presumed to be in the invisible church [17] and are actually part of the visible church. [18]



17. Genesis 17:7; Acts 2:39

18. Rom. 15:8; Exod. 12:48; Gen. 34:14; Acts 21:21



Question 10: Are all children of believing parents infallibly saved?

Answer: No. They are presumed saved by the parents based on the promises, but may in fact demonstrate their apostasy after the age of discretion, [19]showing themselves in need of saving faith. [20]



19. Genesis 25:34; Hebrews 10:29

20. John 1:12; 5:47; 6:29; Romans 1:17



Question 11: Is this contradictory?

Answer: No. Christian parents presume the regeneration of their children based on the precepts of the Word of God and do not have prior information concerning the decreed eternal destiny of any fellow human being, much less their own children.



Question 12: Is the account of when Abraham circumcised Ishmael inconsistent with the view that infants of believing parents should be presumed regenerate (though he knew that God told him Ishmael would be cast out)?

Answer: No. The sign is administered by way of promise and command. Though the promise would be realized in Isaac, [21] the command still rendered Abraham duty-bound to administer the sign of the covenant on Ishmael, [22] sealing the curses of the covenant upon him as a reprobate. [23]



21. Genesis 21:12

22. Genesis 17:12

23. Deuteronomy 11:26-28



Question 13: In presuming that infants of believing parents are regenerate, does this mean they have an active and actual faith whereby they do good works, understand the Word of God, and meditate on it?

Answer: Infants do not have actual faith, but habitual faith, or faith of habit; for as an acorn possesses in it all the properties of a giant oak tree, so infants possess all the properties necessary for faith as "seed faith" (a faith implanted in them by God and dormant until they reach an age in which they are able to rationally think); infants are unable to discern between their left hand and right hand, [24] not capable of actsoffaith, [25] and not capable of hearing or meditating on the Word. [26]



24. Deuteronomy 1:39; Isaiah 7:16; Jonah 4:11

25. Romans 12:1-2

26. Romans 10:17; Hebrews 11:16



Question 14: Are infants of believing parents part of the Kingdom of God?

Answer: Yes. Christ says the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to them, [27] which demonstrates that a real "seed faith" is in them since no one is abletoenter the Kingdom of heaven without it [28].



27. Matthew 19:14

28. John 3:3, 5



Question 15: Why does God desire Christian parents to presume their infants are regenerate?

Answer: God desires that Christian parents rely on his revealed Word [29] which includes the children of believing parents in the Covenant of Grace



29. Psalm 119:105; John 17:17



Question 16: May a child of believing parents, after the age of discretion, ultimately be lost?

Answer: God may, by an eternal decree of reprobation, account them lost forever (which is different than His will of precept that Christians are to obey) such as in the case of Ishmael, Esau or others, who outwardly demonstrated their rebellion and reprobation. [30]



30. Exodus 19:5; Leviticus 26:14-16; Deuteronomy 11:13; Ezekiel 20:39; Zechariah 6:15; Romans 9:13; Hebrews 12:16; Galatians 4:24-25.



Question 17: Has God said that His will of precept concerning covenant children is equal to His will of decree concerning covenant children?

Answer: No. At no time has God said that His will of precept (the Word of God given to us in the Bible) is always the same or equal to His will of decree. [31]



31. Deuteronomy 29:29; Daniel 2:22



Question 18: If God's will of decree is different at times than His will of precept, which shall Christians follow?

Answer: Christians are to obey God at His Word, and by His promises, and continue diligently in a constant state of considering whether they truly believe the promises of God or not, [32] which prompts them to sanctifying holiness, [33] and to diligence in teaching their children the Word ofGodas faithful parents. [34]



32. 2 Corinthians 13:5; John 5:38; 6:29

33. 1 Thessalonians 4:3

34. Proverbs 22:6; Deuteronomy 4:10, 6:7; Ephesians 6:4.



Question 19: Is the doctrine of the inclusion of infants in the Covenant of Grace, and therefore presuming their regeneration, new or novel, unknown to history?

Answer: No. The Early Church, the Reformers, the Confessions, English Puritanism, and Protestant Presbyterianism teach this up and through our present day. [35]



35. The following are a few selected quotes from church history:



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



The Heidelberg Catechism, "Q74: Are infants also to be baptized? A74: Yes, for since they, as well as their parents, belong to the covenant and people of God, and through the blood of Christ both redemption from sin and the Holy Ghost, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents, they are also by Baptism, as a sign of the covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, as was done in the Old Testament by circumcision, in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is appointed. (Lord's Day 27)



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



"Not even the elect are Christians *before* they have been regenerated. There can be no doubt at all that Westminster considered the children of Christ-professors to be "*Christians*and federally holy *before* baptism and *therefore* are they baptized." They themselves say so in their *consensus* document the Directory for the Publick Worship of God."

Dr Francis Nigel Lee



[Edited on 6-8-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> 
> 
> 
> No. You are incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. I am not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Take that!!!!
Click to expand...


I can take that, especially since you are wrong, and all the Reformed divines, as well as almost every commentator disagrees with you. But then again, since you love the _ipse dixit_, I won't expect you to be persuaded. Your exegesis is strained and makes no sense. Did you even look at the context? Did you look at Isaiah 40?

Did you think that if Christ Himself is meant here (as you posit), that you have just made the Holy Spirit of no effect and contradicted John 3? Because the Spirit uses the Word to bring about regeneration, not Christ Himself. The believer is not born again by Christ, he is born again TO union with Christ BY MEANS OF the Word and Spirit (cf. WLC 67 _What is effectual calling? A. Effectual calling is the work of God's almighty power and grace, whereby (out of his free and special love to his elect, and from nothing in them moving him thereunto) he doth, in his accepted time, invite and draw them to Jesus Christ, by his word and Spirit; savingly enlightening their minds, renewing and powerfully determining their wills, so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made willing and able freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein._



> James 1:8 is better than your rendering pf Peter actually. It can mean Christ. Sorry Calvin and Henry.



Sorry. You are wrong. Go ahead and keep saying it, but you make no sense. James and Peter are saying the exact same thing.



> Again Fred, listen, read, hear me LOUD AND CLEAR. There are examples of regeneration coming while under the Gospel. But this cannot be concluded that the Word alone regenerates.
> 
> The heart has to be prepared. There is no denying this. This is all done by the Power of the Spirit alone.
> 
> Conversion, belief comes with the Gospel, regeneration can and does happen before. I am also not saying we have regenerated people walking around for years before they believe.



You obviously have no understanding of how the Spirit works. This was clear from the previously thread where this discussed. If you want to think of the Spirit working in some quasi-mystical never to be understood, meansless way, go ahead. You also might want to consider being an Eastern Orthodox monk.




> I will throw out 1 Peter and james in a heartbeat when measured up against John 3.



This is blasphemy that I won't even dignify with a response.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> I will throw out 1 Peter and james in a heartbeat when measured up against John 3.



This is blasphemy that I won't even dignify with a response. [/quote]

This is punishable in a number of ways, but on the PB by being booted off. It denies the authority of Scripture.

Recant or be booted.

[Edited on 6-9-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## D Battjes

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> 
> I will throw out 1 Peter and james in a heartbeat when measured up against John 3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is blasphemy that I won't even dignify with a response.
Click to expand...


This is punishable in a number of ways, but on the PB by being booted off. It denies the authority of Scripture.

Recant or be booted.

[Edited on 6-9-2005 by webmaster] [/quote]


In my haste, this comment was not at all meant to deter the inspiration of Scripture. I recant of not explaining what I meant by my statement. THis is an example of being led by emotions instead of the Spirit.

The intention of my comment was I believe John 3 is a stronger text that shows that Regeneration, being born again is by the power of the Holy Spirit alone. 

I also stated in previous posts where it can happen while the Word is preached, but that cannot be a dogmatic statement. There is evidence of both in the Writ. And this cannot be denied.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to recant this comment.


As an aside, do you hold Luther as a blasphemer who wanted James torn out of the writ?

DMB


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Thnaks for clarifying that. We must continue to remember to be slow in the way we speak, and be sure we are clear.


----------



## D Battjes

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> 
> 
> 
> No. You are incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. I am not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Take that!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can take that, especially since you are wrong, and all the Reformed divines, as well as almost every commentator disagrees with you. But then again, since you love the _ipse dixit_, I won't expect you to be persuaded. Your exegesis is strained and makes no sense. Did you even look at the context? Did you look at Isaiah 40?
> 
> Did you think that if Christ Himself is meant here (as you posit), that you have just made the Holy Spirit of no effect and contradicted John 3? Because the Spirit uses the Word to bring about regeneration, not Christ Himself. The believer is not born again by Christ, he is born again TO union with Christ BY MEANS OF the Word and Spirit (cf. WLC 67 _What is effectual calling? A. Effectual calling is the work of God's almighty power and grace, whereby (out of his free and special love to his elect, and from nothing in them moving him thereunto) he doth, in his accepted time, invite and draw them to Jesus Christ, by his word and Spirit; savingly enlightening their minds, renewing and powerfully determining their wills, so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made willing and able freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James 1:8 is better than your rendering pf Peter actually. It can mean Christ. Sorry Calvin and Henry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry. You are wrong. Go ahead and keep saying it, but you make no sense. James and Peter are saying the exact same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again Fred, listen, read, hear me LOUD AND CLEAR. There are examples of regeneration coming while under the Gospel. But this cannot be concluded that the Word alone regenerates.
> 
> The heart has to be prepared. There is no denying this. This is all done by the Power of the Spirit alone.
> 
> Conversion, belief comes with the Gospel, regeneration can and does happen before. I am also not saying we have regenerated people walking around for years before they believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously have no understanding of how the Spirit works. This was clear from the previously thread where this discussed. If you want to think of the Spirit working in some quasi-mystical never to be understood, meansless way, go ahead. You also might want to consider being an Eastern Orthodox monk.
Click to expand...



Fred: You should learn to teach with much less sarcasm and arrogance.

SO far this is what has been told to me.

1) I do not understand the Covenant.

2) I do not understand how the SPirit works.

3) Every reformer and "Divine" disagrees with me.


I will only reply as such.

I do understand the Covenant, maybe not as you do.

I do know how the SPirit works

And every reformer and divine does not disagree with me.


So now let me progress and show you from the Word how Gospel Regeneration is a false teaching. 

Gospel Regeneration denies the very doctrine you espouse, effectual calling by the SPirit, or at least join it together with a "lawfully ordained" (notice the quotes) , preacher with the Holy Spirit. In so doing, you appear unaware that while preaching the sovereignty of God the Father and of the Son, they deny the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit and thus destroy the concept of the eternal Godhead.

Many can preach great convincing sermons on the total depravity of man, and then inconsistently conclude that man is not quite so totally depraved but what he can at least spiritually hear the Gospel before the Spirit can, or will, regenerate. This destroys the strongest basis for the alarming of sinners to their soul´s eternal condition. 



the doctrine of Total Depravity, says: "œBut the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (I Cor. 2:14) And, "œBecause the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." (Romans 8:7, 8) Both texts indeed establish the point. But then by appealing to natural man and by advocating Gospel regeneration, you insist that the natural man can receive the Gospel spiritually; can discern spiritual things; and can please God in the flesh prior to being regenerated or given spiritual life.


the Holy Spirit is absolutely sovereign to "œquicken whom He will" this is the most wholesome and God-honoring doctrine of the eternal Godhead. He sovereignly quickens thousands, even in the rcc under its evil influence, not by using their perverted gospel, but in spite of it. Thus He calls them out.

Fred, matt, and the rest who believe in Gospel regeneration, how can you explain an Arminian, or freewill deceiver, coming to the beauty of the excellency of free grace; proclaiming in the very midst of adversity the freeness of grace; and converting some, or even whole congregations, to the truth except that the Holy Spirit did the work in spite of his former blindness? SO before you respond with confessions and dead gurus, please simply explain this to yourself and then to me, because according to your system, you obviously have an answer. But it is an answer that will not line up with the Word of God. 

Prior to preaching the doctrines of Christ and receiving it in the love and power of it, such a person did not hear the Gospel first, yet came to believe and love it. How? By the same way Cornelius, Lydia, Paul, and every other child of grace, by Holy Spirit regeneration. For if it takes "œhearing" the Gospel for the Holy Spirit to regenerate, then this person would have been doomed, for what the freewill religious world is preaching is anything else but the Gospel to poor sinners. A PRC preacher once told me, "œIf it takes preaching the Gospel for one to be regenerated, we may barely have a baseball team"


"œThe Spirit quickeneth whom He will." He needs not be lost eternally because of the faithlessness of preachers, nor for an inability of the Holy Spirit to reach his case. He can rest assured that those for whom Christ died will be effectually called, regenerated, converted and justified.



The Spirit, independent of the Gospel (whether in its presence or out of it), moves upon a community or upon individuals bringing sinners to a lost, hopeless, and helpless condition. They remain in that condition of misery, often seeking every conceivable means to deliver themselves, until they are made to acknowledge that God is just in their condemnation and ruin. They despair of all hope that they can possibly be saved, and yet they can not turn back. They struggle as a child to be delivered in birth. And, bless His Holy Name, in His appointed time, He will send the Gospel in His own providential way to this lost and undone sinner. The "œgospel" by definition is glad tidings. To such a one, enabled by a spiritual quickened life within, his poor heart will leap for joy, rejoicing in the hope of eternal salvation and will feel his sins pardoned and find rest for his soul. In this hour of his "œfirst love" he will experimentally and powerfully know true godly sorrow, repentance, and faith in his dear Redeemer. He is in this deliverance converted by the Gospel.


The biggest error of the Gospel Regeneration position is that it disrupts the unity of the Trinity. Look at it like this, I willa ttempt to make it simple so I can understand it myself.

You will most definately agree to the following:

1)the Father, sovereignly and independently, chose a people.


2)the Son sovereignly and independently redeemed a people


3) but then you espouse that the Spirit employs human agency to call that people into new life.


Since a chain is no stronger than its weakest link, the introduction of human agency,( pastor) into the work of the Godhead in salvation makes the covenant of grace uncertain and inconclusive.


These reasons are also support for me denying PR. It involves the Human element into the picture. Parents vicariously presuming regenerancy and baptising becaue they say God promised. When in fact, this is not what could be meant by the Covenant promise, for if it was, then all of Israel would be All of Israel, but the Apostle Paul says differently.


DMB


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> You will most definately agree to the following:
> 
> 1)the Father, sovereignly and independently, chose a people.
> 
> 
> 2)the Son sovereignly and independently redeemed a people
> 
> 
> 3) but then you espouse that the Spirit employs human agency to call that people into new life.
> DMB



DMB, 

I honestly believe that you are misunderstanding the position of gospel regeneration. You seem to think of the position as denying the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration. This is simply not the case.

To say that the Holy Spirit uses the gospel to regenerate people is simply to say that the Holy Spirit sovereignly decides who and when the gospel shall be preached, but uses that word to ENLIGHTEN the mind IN ORDER that people might then believe! It's not that the Holy Spirit is forced to use certain means in order to accomplish regeneration, it is simply that this is what he normally chooses to use.

Again, to use Arthur Pinks analogy(at least for the NORM):

When one is blind(unregenerate) and the Holy Spirit opens his eyes (regenerates him) he WILL see (have faith). Without the gospel present, what will he see? Nothing. Oh wait, but that means he is still in the darkness doesn't it?

See the logic?

Many people have the gospel presented to them many times, and many times the Holy Spirit does not regenerate and grant them faith. However, some, while denying the gopsel their whole life, when presented with that same gospel, it suddenly CLICKS for them when hearing it or thinking about it. That ability is given by the Holy Spirit, and the belief that follows is given by him as well.

God speed for now!


----------



## D Battjes

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> You will most definately agree to the following:
> 
> 1)the Father, sovereignly and independently, chose a people.
> 
> 
> 2)the Son sovereignly and independently redeemed a people
> 
> 
> 3) but then you espouse that the Spirit employs human agency to call that people into new life.
> DMB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DMB,
> 
> I honestly believe that you are misunderstanding the position of gospel regeneration. You seem to think of the position as denying the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration. This is simply not the case.
> 
> To say that the Holy Spirit uses the gospel to regenerate people is simply to say that the Holy Spirit sovereignly decides who and when the gospel shall be preached, but uses that word to ENLIGHTEN the mind IN ORDER that people might then believe! It's not that the Holy Spirit is forced to use certain means in order to accomplish regeneration, it is simply that this is what he normally chooses to use.
> 
> Again, to use Arthur Pinks analogy(at least for the NORM):
> 
> When one is blind(unregenerate) and the Holy Spirit opens his eyes (regenerates him) he WILL see (have faith). Without the gospel present, what will he see? Nothing. Oh wait, but that means he is still in the darkness doesn't it?
> 
> See the logic?
> 
> Many people have the gospel presented to them many times, and many times the Holy Spirit does not regenerate and grant them faith. However, some, while denying the gopsel their whole life, when presented with that same gospel, it suddenly CLICKS for them when hearing it or thinking about it. That ability is given by the Holy Spirit, and the belief that follows is given by him as well.
> 
> God speed for now!
Click to expand...


Jeff, I agree with the principle of what you wrote. I have also stated repeatedly, I think, that a regenerate person will believe the Gospel when presented with it.

I am not like some primitive or GS baptists who espouse that a regenerate person will not believe the Gospel.

My questions still stand. If you believe in GR, then you have to sayt that any person, who does not confess the same Gospel as you to be unregenerate, and we know this is not the case.

And secondly, why would God employ a human instrument is regeneration working in conjunction with the Holy Spirit?

Many are regenerated despite of the Gospel they hear.

[Edited on 6-9-2005 by D Battjes]


----------



## Myshkin

DMB-

You stated that not every reformer and divine disagrees with you. Please name some of those who do agree with you. 

Also, you seem to be denying a distinction between the external call of the gospel (by man/preachers), and the internal call of the Spirit. Are you? If so, what does Romans 10:14 mean?......."And how will they hear without a *preacher*?" Or does this verse not stand "as strong" against John 3 either?



[Edited on 6-9-2005 by RAS]


----------



## D Battjes

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> DMB-
> 
> You stated that not every reformer and divine disagrees with you. Please name some of those who do agree with you.
> 
> Also, you seem to be denying a distinction between the external call of the gospel (by man/preachers), and the internal call of the Spirit. Are you? If so, what does Romans 10:14 mean?......."And how will they hear without a *preacher*?" Or does this verse not stand "as strong" against John 3 either?
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 6-9-2005 by RAS]




RAS: On the contrary. I am MAKING The distinction between the effectual vs general call. The GR position blurs them. I believe I am clear in that aspect. 

Romans 10 is not about regeneration. else one is forced to conclude that the human will is the decisive factor in the work of regeneration and that the entire work of the Trinity in the salvation of sinners may be nullified by one obstinate sinner.

What if some do not hear because of some failure in the human dimension of this equation? What if in hearing, they do not believe and obey? Could that happen? Romans 10 says it can: "But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah saith, Lord, who bath believed our report" (v. 16). Paul proceeds in Romans 10 to prove that Israel willfully rejected the gospel: "But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people" (v. 21). Is this an effectual call? Absolutely not! Does God "stretch forth His hands" to the sinner, wooing him to eternal life? No again!


----------



## Myshkin

DMB-

"We should only preach the gospel to the regenerate." Is this the point you are trying to make?


----------



## D Battjes

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> DMB-
> 
> "We should only preach the gospel to the regenerate." Is this the point you are trying to make?



Allan. 2 quick points.

1) I will not answer this comment again. I have NEVER implied nor stated this. Wherever you are getting this conclusion from makes me shake in wonder.

2) Start answering my questions without questions. Stand up brother, speak out.


The regenerate will be the only ones who can respond to the Gospel. 

[Edited on 6-9-2005 by D Battjes]


----------



## Myshkin

DMB-

It wasn't a conclusion, it was a question. I was just asking for my own understanding so that I do not mischaracterize you. Your posts are not very clear.

I was not aware you asked me a question. However, I did ask you a question. Name those reformers and divines who hold the position you are stating. "So stand up brother, speak out", whatever that means.


----------



## D Battjes

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> DMB-
> 
> It wasn't a conclusion, it was a question. I was just asking for my own understanding so that I do not mischaracterize you. Your posts are not very clear.
> 
> I was not aware you asked me a question. However, I did ask you a question. Name those reformers and divines who hold the position you are stating. "So stand up brother, speak out", whatever that means.



OK I apologize.

No, the Gospel is to be preached to all indiscriminately.


the first effect of the power of God in the heart in regeneration is to give the heart a Divine taste or sense; to cause it to have a relish of the loveliness and sweetness of the supreme excellency of the Divine nature. - Jonathan Edwards

The inward offer is a kind of spiritual enlightenment, whereby the promises are presented to the hearts of men, as it were, by an inward word." - William Ames


Regeneration is monergistic: that is, entirely the work of God the Holy Spirit. It raises the elect among the spiritually dead to new life in Christ (Eph. 2:1-10). Regeneration is a transition from spiritual death to spiritual life, and conscious, intentional, active faith in Christ is its immediate fruit, not its immediate cause. Regeneration is the work of what Augustine called "œprevenient" grace, the grace that precedes our outgoings of heart toward God. 


"I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 

(Ezekiel 36:26, NKJV


...Only when God shines in us by the Holy Spirit is there any profit from the Word. Thus the inward calling, which alone is effectual and peculiar to the elect, is distinguished from the outward voice of men. 

- John Calvin, Commentary on Romans and Thessalonians on Romans 10:16, p 232


When a man is converted to God, it is done in a moment. Regeneration is an instantaneous work. Conversion to God, the fruit of regeneration, occupies all our life, but regeneration itself is effected in an instant. A man hates God-- the Holy Spirit makes him love God. A man is opposed to Christ, he hates his gospel, does not understand it and will not receive it-- the Holy Spirit comes, puts light into his darkened understanding, takes the chain from his bondaged will, gives liberty to his conscience, gives life to his dead soul, so that the voice of conscience is heard, and the man becomes a new creature in Christ Jesus.And all this is done, mark you, by the instantaneous supernatural influence of God the Holy Spirit working as he wills among the sons of men. 

From C.H. Spurgeon's, "THE OUTPOURING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT"


This change is wrought by the Spirit of God immediately; that is, it is not effected by any medium or means whatsoever.

The operation of the Spirit of God in this case is as immediate, or as much without any means, as that by which Adam´s mind was at first formed. In that there was no medium, no means made use of in creating the mind formed and disposed to right action. God said, "œLet it be," and it was. The Almighty first produced it immediately, or without any cooperating means. So it is in this case; there is no conceivable medium by which this change is wrought any more than there is in creation out of nothing. The sinner´s own thoughts, exercises, and endeavors cannot be a means of this change; for they are all in direct opposition to it, as has been just observed.

I would particularly observe here, that light and truth, or the word of God, is not in any degree a means by which this change is effected. It is not wrought by light.

This change is most certainly not effected by light, because it is by this change that the mind is illuminated; by this the way is prepared for the light to have access to the mind, so as to become the means of any effect. This operation of the Spirit of God by which a new heart is given is necessary in order to the illumination of the mind, and, indeed, is the very thing in which it consists, as it is the opening of the eyes of the blind. It is depravity or corruption of heart that holds the mind in darkness and shuts out the light. And this corruption of heart is that in which unregeneracy consists, as has been observed; and, in truth, spiritual darkness, or blindness of mind, consists in this, too. In order to the mind´s being enlightened, that must be removed in which blindness consists, or which shuts light out of the mind; but that in which unregeneracy consists does blind the mind, and shuts out the light, or, rather, is the blindness itself. Therefore, men must be regenerated, and the corruption of their hearts in some measure removed, in order to the removal of their darkness and the illumination of their mind; for this is nothing else than giving them eyes to see, and can be done in no other possible way. Consequently, men are not illuminated before regeneration; but they are first regenerated, in order to introduce light into the mind. Therefore, they are not regenerated by light, or the truths of God´s word. . . .


http://www.the-highway.com/regcon_Hopkins.html
There is a great article Allan.


Regeneration is the beginning of spiritual existence, but not the beginning of physical existence. Regeneration is God´s work; conversion is man´s turning to God in the power of the regenerating Holy Spirit. Conversion occurs with the newly implanted nature. Regeneration is a single act, complete in itself, and never repeated. Conversion is the beginning of a holy life which manifests itself by a series of constant and progressive holy acts.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> Fred, matt, and the rest who believe in Gospel regeneration, how can you explain an Arminian, or freewill deceiver, coming to the beauty of the excellency of free grace; proclaiming in the very midst of adversity the freeness of grace; and converting some, or even whole congregations, to the truth except that the Holy Spirit did the work in spite of his former blindness? SO before you respond with confessions and dead gurus, please simply explain this to yourself and then to me, because according to your system, you obviously have an answer. But it is an answer that will not line up with the Word of God. You will most definitely agree to the following:
> 
> 1)the Father, sovereignly and independently, chose a people.
> 
> 
> 2)the Son sovereignly and independently redeemed a people
> 
> 
> 3) but then you espouse that the Spirit employs human agency to call that people into new life.



I think the difference here is amidst the timing and opportunity, not necessarily the order which you put in the above 1-3. I don't believe #3. Neither does Fred or any other Reformed believer on the subject of regeneration. You are overlaying something there and confusing 2 things - 1) regeneration with 2) the outward call of the Gospel. The two are mutually exclusive (which is what you have been trying to prove) but in a convoluted way. Your mixing some things up.

I agree with John 3 - and Jesus is VERY clear here. The Spirit sovereignly regenerates the heart. Period.

Now the divines, in WCF chapter 10, give the context (or as Edwards stated - _the opportune time_) in which the Spirit will choose to sovereignly regenerate and blow as He will.

Common biblical passages point to regeneration occurring around the Word. Not that the Word itself regenerates, that would contradict what Christ said in John3 - that the Spirit sovereignly blows on whom He will. But the setting in which the Spirit regenerates is not while a man is lying with a Hooker, or someone is getting drunk in a bar, or when people are at the movies. Sovereign regeneration is set in the context of God's appointment, or opportunity of the Word.

There is a difference between regeneration and drawing. God can draw people by the Word, but God sovereignly regenerates them by the Spirit, but that will NEVER happen in any other context but the Word.

2 Timothy 3:15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Titus 3:4-6 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, [couple that with "washing" and how that works] Ephesians 5:26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word..."

Ezekiel 36:25-27 "Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. 

The context of God's appointed preacher is where the Spirit attends the Word, and sovereignly apart from the word to make the Word known, regenerates.

2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God.

2 Corinthians 6:1-2 We then, as workers together with Him also plead with you not to receive the grace of God in vain. 2 For He says: "In an acceptable time I have heard you, And in the day of salvation I have helped you." Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. 

John 6:44-45 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 "It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, 14 to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This should be biblically clear. God saves in the proper context. The context which He gives us is the preaching of the Word. Its not as though some African in the jungle who is worshipping trees will suddenly be regenerated off the cuff. God never, at any time, in any place in His Word demonstrates that He is that disorderly.

That is why Paul testifies in this way:

Acts 26:16-18 But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a *minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you.* 17 'I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now *send you*, 18 'to open their eyes, *in order to turn them from darkness to light*, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.'"

that is God's operation for regeneration. Though the Spirit Sovereignly regenerates, it is always in the context of the truth. As such, we are witnesses, but the Spirit sovereignly blows on whom he chooses to regenerate. Our witness then:

2 Corinthians 2:16 *To the one* we are the aroma of death leading to death, *and to the other* the aroma of life leading to life. And who is sufficient for these things?"


----------



## JohnV

DM:

We're talking past each other, I think. You are missing what we're talking about. Since I cannot keep up with this thread, I wonder if you'll agree to another thread so that I can bring you up to speed on this topic. The PR we're talking about is a whole other creature than the one you are assuming that we're defending. We are not denying the priority of the Spirit, or the soveriegnty of election and freedom of grace. So what about taking this to another thread with me? I'll begin it this afternoon with one of the posts I entered earlier. (I gotta go now: field day for the kids. )


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> The operation of the Spirit of God in this case is as immediate, or as much without any means, as that by which Adam´s mind was at first formed. In that there was no medium, no means made use of in creating the mind formed and disposed to right action. God said, "œLet it be," and it was. The Almighty first produced it immediately, or without any cooperating means. So it is in this case; there is no conceivable medium by which this change is wrought any more than there is in creation out of nothing. The sinner´s own thoughts, exercises, and endeavors cannot be a means of this change; for they are all in direct opposition to it, as has been just observed.



The problem with your thinking in this example is that in Creation God DID use means...he used his Word! He spoke...things lept into existence! Same with life, or regeneration...he speaks (gospel) and things leap into existence (new nature).

I'm pretty sure I agree with what Matt is saying. The Holy Spirit's regenerating work (when he sovereignly chooses to) accompanies the Word of God (or Gospel) in all normal circumstances. It seems to be a matter of timing....the Word and The Spirit work together. The same can be said of the creation example. God speaks...things lept into existence...Spirit hovers over the waters doing his work.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> The operation of the Spirit of God in this case is as immediate, or as much without any means, as that by which Adam´s mind was at first formed. In that there was no medium, no means made use of in creating the mind formed and disposed to right action. God said, "œLet it be," and it was. The Almighty first produced it immediately, or without any cooperating means. So it is in this case; there is no conceivable medium by which this change is wrought any more than there is in creation out of nothing. The sinner´s own thoughts, exercises, and endeavors cannot be a means of this change; for they are all in direct opposition to it, as has been just observed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your thinking in this example is that in Creation God DID use means...he used his Word! He spoke...things lept into existence! Same with life, or regeneration...he speaks (gospel) and things leap into existence (new nature).
> 
> I'm pretty sure I agree with what Matt is saying. The Holy Spirit's regenerating work (when he sovereignly chooses to) accompanies the Word of God (or Gospel) in all normal circumstances. It seems to be a matter of timing....the Word and The Spirit work together. The same can be said of the creation example. God speaks...things lept into existence...Spirit hovers over the waters doing his work.
Click to expand...


"things lept ".........this reminds me of something.


----------



## Arch2k

My sinful nature "leps" all this time! 

"leapt" for all you spelling bee flunkies (evidently me!)


----------



## D Battjes

Matt ad Jeff: Thank you for your kind responses. I will pray over them earnestly. 

Jeff I agree that when God Himself speaks, it is by Divine Fiat. I believe this is different than when a preacher speaks. 

The prophets and apostles were Divinely Inspired so I do not believe it is the same as saying man is used as an instrument for regeneration.


I bring up this point from an earlier post which needs to be addressed:

He sovereignly quickens thousands, even in the rcc under its evil influence, not by using their perverted gospel, but in spite of it. Thus He calls them out.


Now if you espouse GR, you have to remain consistant and say that noone is regenerate outside of the Gospel you adhere to. And that is something I am not willing to admit, and nor will judge.


I believe as many do, that there are regenerate poeple from all the ends of the earth who will be brought into the truth. So either the Holy Spirit regenerates outside of the preaching of the Word at times, or noone is regenerate in any other denomination that what you consider truth.


Another question. When were the Apostles regenerated?

I believe the effectual call equals regeneration. there is no lapse there. So the delima is that since the Apostles were effectually called, when and where were they preached the Gospel? 

I am also not throwing out the Gospel here. I want to qualify that before I am considered a blasphemer again.


The Gospel Delivers the Believer from the Practice of Sin.

2. The Gospel Informs the Mind and Instructs the Understanding: It's purpose is to illumine
2 Timothy 1:10 says that the gospel brings "life and immortality to light." Note it does not give "life and immortality" but it brings it to "light," that is, to manifestation. It is God's means of imparting knowledge, guidance, and counsel to His people

3. The Gospel is the Instrument of Conversion.

4. The Gospel Urges Men to Turn from Idolatry and to Worship the True God.

The Thessalonians responded to Paul's preaching by "turning to God from idols to serve the living and the true God" (I Ths. l: 9). The call to repentance is inherent in the gospel message. The gospel not only proclaims Christ's finished work, but calls upon the hearer to respond to that message by believing it, obeying it, and committing himself to a life of godliness, out of gratitude for God's grace. The gospel summons men to a life of good works, not in order to gain salvation, but in order to glorify the God of our salvation.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

We could theologically say that every time God applies Christ's work through the Spirit to a person to regenerate them, He is applying the Word of God (i.e. the Logos' earned benefits) to him. So in that sense, we could say it is the application of the work of the Word (the Logos) to the beleiver. thus, regeneration could be said to always involve the literal Word. 

DM - 




> Now if you espouse GR, you have to remain consistant and say that noone is regenerate outside of the Gospel you adhere to. And that is something I am not willing to admit, and nor will judge.



There is only one Gospel though. Without it, that context, there is no salvation.

[Edited on 6-9-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## D Battjes

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> We could theologically say that every time God applies Christ's work through the Spirit to a person to regenerate them, He is applying the Word of God (i.e. the Logos' earned benefits) to him. So in that sense, we could say it is the application of the work of the Word (the Logos) to the beleiver. thus, regeneration could be said to always involve the literal Word.



This is what I attempted to state to Fred in regards to 1peter. or wherever word is used. But I was wrong!!!!!!!




> Now if you espouse GR, you have to remain consistant and say that noone is regenerate outside of the Gospel you adhere to. And that is something I am not willing to admit, and nor will judge.





> There is only one Gospel though. Without it, that context, there is no salvation.
> 
> [Edited on 6-9-2005 by webmaster]



Well we are entering waters I refrain from. SO I will not comment on this.

Well maybe a little...

Since I am not led to monopolize heaven, I believe Christ saves, and Doctrinal Salvation is as bad as Deisional Salvation. This thread could easily digress into who is in and who is out according to our fallible understanding and list of what the Gospel cosists of. People have tried this for centuries and it does not work.

That said. To remain consitent one cannot adhere to GR and admit Christ saves outside of their Doctrinal DNA list. Which I believe is false and arrogant.

[Edited on 6-9-2005 by D Battjes]


----------



## D Battjes

> But then again, since you love the _ipse dixit_, I won't expect you to be persuaded.



Fred, I must say out of everything you wrote, this latin is the remnant that I gleaned. I do not know what it means, so I will look it up. 

Thank You

DMB


----------



## D Battjes

Fred: I looked it up

ipse dixit:

An unsupported assertion, usually by a person of standing; a dictum.


Unproven assertion resting on the speaker's authority (literally He himself said) 


Since I have no authority, nor a person of standing, I would have to disagree here. 

But thank you for making me learn something out of all you said.


DMB


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Can we have some people who voted "Presumptive Election" explain their rationale some? There hasn't been much discussion of that viewpoint in all of the discussion about PR - which, don't get me wrong, has been helpful and enjoyable to read.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Also, for the record, at this point, I vote "Covenant Members and nothing else," but I'm willing to change my position if convinced through Scripture and reason that I need to do so.

Keep the discussion friendly and interactive, folks.


----------



## D Battjes

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Also, for the record, at this point, I vote "Covenant Members and nothing else," but I'm willing to change my position if convinced through Scripture and reason that I need to do so.
> 
> Keep the discussion friendly and interactive, folks.



Gabe, thank you for steering this back on its intended track. I apologize for playing a part of digression of a great thread.

Kudos Gabe!!!!!!!!


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

DMB - 




> That said. To remain consitent one cannot adhere to GR and admit Christ saves outside of their Doctrinal DNA list. Which I believe is false and arrogant.



But then simple questions like "Who is Jesus" will remain unanswerable and you wind up with some New Agey kind of message.

The Word is very explicit about knowing the Gospel, and having a Doctrinal DNA list. without it, we cannot be sure we are belieivng what is right and wrong.

1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may *know* that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God. 

Shall we just look throught he Gospel of John about believing the Gospel?

John 1:7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might *believe. *

John 1:50 Jesus answered and said to him, "œBecause I said to you, 'I saw you under the fig tree,' do you *believe? *

John 3:12 "œIf I have told you earthly things and you do not *believe*, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

John 3:18 He who *believes* in Him is not condemned; but he who does not *believe* is condemned already, because he has not *believed* in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not *believe* the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

John 4:21 Jesus said to her, "œWoman, *believe* Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father.

John 5:38 But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not *believe*.

John 5:46-47 "œFor if you *believed* Moses, you would *believe* Me; for he wrote about Me. 47 "œBut if you do not *believe* his writings, how will you *believe* My words?" 

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, *"This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."*

John 6:36 "œBut I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not *believe*.

John 6:64 But there are some of you who do not *believe*." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not *believe*, and who would betray Him.

John 6:69 Also we have come to *believe* and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

John 7:5 For even His brothers did not *believe* in Him.

John 8:24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not *believe* that I am He, you will die in your sins." 

John 8:45 "œBut because I tell the truth, you do not *believe* Me.

John 8:46 Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not *believe* Me?

John 9:35 "œDo you *believe* in the Son of God?"

John 9:36 He answered and said, "œWho is He, Lord, that I may *believe* in Him?"

John 9:38 Then he said, "œLord, I *believe!"* And he worshiped Him.

John 10:25-26 Jesus answered them, "œI told you, and you do not *believe*. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me. 26 "œBut you do not *believe*, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 

John 10:37-38 "œIf I do not do the works of My Father, do not *believe* Me; 38 "œbut if I do, though you do not *believe* Me, *believe* the works, that you may know and *believe* that the Father is in Me, and I in Him."

John 11:26-27 "œAnd whoever lives and *believes* in Me shall never die. Do you *believe* this?" 27 She said to Him, "œYes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world." 

John 11:42 And I know that You always hear Me, but because of the people who are standing by I said this, that they may *believe* that You sent Me."

John 12:36 "œWhile you have the light, *believe* in the light, that you may become sons of light." 

John 13:19 "œNow I tell you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may *believe* that I am He.

John 14:1 "œLet not your heart be troubled; you *believe* in God, *believe* also in Me.

John 14:10-11 Do you not *believe* that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. 11 "œ*Believe* Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else *believe* Me for the sake of the works themselves.

John 14:29 And now I have told you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may *believe*.

OK, I'll stop there. There are tons more. Do you think believing is important to salvation? Is it important to believe something specific? or does it not matter?


It seems that you are at an impass in actually being about to contribute in this thread any longer if you say that. becuase what I am going to do is continue to ask you "Are you sure about...." and you will have to say " I hope so..." not "I know so" (as you have been doing all along which is readily inconsistent). There is no way around that except with being perfectly sure about what the Gospel is about.

There is only one Gospel. Without IT, there is no hope of being saved. Unless we believe IT, one cannot BE saved.


----------



## D Battjes

> OK, I'll stop there. There are tons more. Do you think believing is important to salvation? Is it important to believe something specific? or does it not matter?
> 
> 
> It seems that you are at an impass in actually being about to contribute in this thread any longer if you say that. becuase what I am going to do is continue to ask you "Are you sure about...." and you will have to say " I hope so..." not "I know so" (as you have been doing all along which is readily inconsistent). There is no way around that except with being perfectly sure about what the Gospel is about.
> 
> There is only one Gospel. Without IT, there is no hope of being saved. Unless we believe IT, one cannot BE saved.




Matthew: I am not a pluralist. But I confine the Doctrinal DNA to a much smaller list than perhaps you do.

I do not know what you mean about me not having anything else to contrinute. I have stated what I have stated, backed it up with scripture, and am entertaining others opinions. Because that is what most are.

Again, there is no such beast as Doctrinal Salvation. And if you look closely at what the Wrot states that should be believed, it may not be as wide as Owen tried to make it with Bacon.

That said, I do not believe that only Calvinists will occupy heaven, and if you do that is fine, but many disagree with that.

If we are referring to the common faith of the Trinity, Deity of Christ, the 5solas, and election--this is absolutely true. There is no argument! But if we are talking about the hermeneutical method of compartmentalization evident in all the Reformed confessions, this statement is absoultely false. The gospel does not equal disputed externals of Sabbath, tithe, church government, water administration, sacraments, worship, etc. As long as men insist on making these things equal to the gospel (forms of unity), there will be no new reformation.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Can we have some people who voted "Presumptive Election" explain their rationale some? There hasn't been much discussion of that viewpoint in all of the discussion about PR - which, don't get me wrong, has been helpful and enjoyable to read.



We've already had some threads specifically about this. Just look in the Covenant Theology and Baptism Forums.

Here is one of the more recent ones. 
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=7300

[Edited on 6-9-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

DMB - I hear you, and you seem to be changing a bit from your previous post, so....



> If we are referring to the common faith of the Trinity, Deity of Christ, the 5solas, and election--this is absolutely true.



So are you saying that Arminians are lost? or Fundamentalists? or....others? They certainly do not hold to the 5 solas as the Reformed taught them, especially of election. Is there something more particular that they must believe? What if your "short list" is longer than others would have it? Does that make you worng and them right? How short is short and how long is long? Is there something that disqualifies others and ascertains a specific Gospel that someone must believe (i.e. Gospel DNA?)? Certainly you would not say that men can be saved without the Gospel. So then, they must be saved with a particular Gospel. Correct?

(I do not think I alluded to or ever said that all of the doctrinal matters had to be believed in full to get to heaven.)

[Edited on 6-9-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Dr. McMahon, don't you believe we must believe in the gospel, as outlined by Reformed theology (as outlined in Scripture) in order to be saved? In other words, we must believe in monergistic salvation, emphasizing God's grace and mankind's sinfulness and helplessness (no room for faith+works salvation, etc.)?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

This is something I never really saw answered, and I've asked it a few times in this thread:

If Presumptive Regeneration is your position, would it not be right to call it Presumptive Conversion?

Regeneration = Conversion, 100% of the time, correct?

If so, we have to believe that we are presuming our children are converted, correct?

If so, again, then are we placing this presumption in cooperation with the act of water baptism, or is this a completely separate issue, not related to the fact that the children have been baptized at all? Because, if it is an issue related to the condition that a covenant child has been baptized, that seems very close to Baptismal Regeneration.

Someone please help me out here!


----------



## Scott Bushey

Gabriel,
I just posted a paper from Dr. Nigel Lee on belief before baptism; check it out!

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=11455

You ask: 


> If so, we have to believe that we are presuming our children are converted, correct?



Conversion requires the preached word........Regeneration is of the spirit. Regeneration opens the door to _understand_ gods word. Regeneration precludes conversion. Conversion does not necessarily happen immediately. My opinion, in the case of the regenerated infant that will live a full life, he will be converted under the preaching of Gods word. The elect infant whom dies in infancy, through Gods mysterious plan, converts through His word, outside of the preacher.

[Edited on 6-10-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Just so you know, I'm not opposed to presuming regeneration, but I think a lot of the stink in this whole concept is forgetting that one is _presuming_ regeneration and conversion under the ministry of the Word (the gospel, for clarification's sake), not _guaranteed_, right?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Just so you know, I'm not opposed to presuming regeneration, but I think a lot of the stink in this whole concept is forgetting that one is _presuming_ regeneration and conversion under the ministry of the Word (the gospel, for clarification's sake), not _guaranteed_, right?



Correct. We are by faith, like Abraham, holding fast to Gods word. It was accounted to Abraham as righteousness.

[Edited on 6-10-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Dr. McMahon, don't you believe we must believe in the gospel, as outlined by Reformed theology (as outlined in Scripture) in order to be saved? In other words, we must believe in monergistic salvation, emphasizing God's grace and mankind's sinfulness and helplessness (no room for faith+works salvation, etc.)?



Absolutely.

Mark 1:15 "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel."

Acts 15:7 the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

I guess I just missed out on the context of your post above in reply to DMB. I agree with you for sure.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Scott and Matt, you still have not answered Waynes point about the Westminster chapter on effectual calling. How can you presume regeneration when Effectual Calling hasn't taken place? Effectual Calling takes place through/during the preached word. Infants haven't experienced that, except the extraordinary cases of dying infants. How can you presume regeneration without effectual calling?


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Here is Wayne's post again just as a reminder since we got sidetracked for a while. 



> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> How is this for a definition of regeneration:
> 
> I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call,[1] by His Word and Spirit,[2] out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ;[3] enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God,[4] taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh;[5] renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good,[6] and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ:[7] yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.[8]
> 
> II. 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,[10] he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.[11]
> 
> Note that the ordinary means of regeneration is by "Word and Spirit".
> 
> Here is an interesting comment from AA Hodge on regeneration and conversion:
> 
> The distinction between regeneration and conversion is obvious and necessary. Under chapter ix. we saw that the voluntary acts of the human soul are determined by, and derive their character from, the affections and desires which prompt them; and that these affections and desires derive their character from the permanent moral state of the soul in which they arise. In the unregenerate this permanent moral state and disposition of the soul is evil, and hence the action is evil. Action positively holy is impossible except as the consequence of a positively holy disposition. The infusion of such a disposition must therefore precede any act of true spiritual obedience. Effectual calling, according to the usage of our Standards, is the act of the Holy Spirit effecting regeneration. Regeneration is the effect produced by the Holy Spirit in effectual calling. The Holy Spirit, in the act of effectual calling, causes the soul to become regenerate by implanting a new governing principle or habit of spiritual affection and action. The soul itself, in conversion, immediately acts under the guidance of this new principle in turning from sin unto God through Christ. It is evident that the implantation of the gracious principle is different from the exercise of that principle, and that the making a man willing is different from his acting willingly. The first is the act of God solely; the second is the consequent act of man, dependent upon the continued assistance of the Holy Ghost.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Patrick, Wayne,

The WCF states:

"by His Word and Spirit"

I believe you are limiting what Westminster means. Effectual calling takes place _through Gods word_. The preaching may come from God, His spirit or one of His servants. This can occur while in the womb or after. Why do you feel that this cannot occur while the infant is in the womb? God can reach the infant in the womb. Tina and I would pray over her womb before Zoe was born. Babies hear! The point is, God can reach the infant Himself. He doesn't necessarily need you or I. This is what I believe Westminster meant. Hodge even says: "The first is the act of God solely".

Read the papaer I posted from Nigel Lee. He addresses these issues and explain how Westminster thought in this regard.




[Edited on 6-10-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Patrick, Wayne,
> 
> The WCF states:
> 
> "by His Word and Spirit"
> 
> I believe you are limiting what Westminster means. Effectual calling takes place _through Gods word_. The preaching may come from God, His spirit or one of His servants. This can occur while in the womb or after. Why do you feel that this cannot occur while the infant is in the womb? God can reach the infant in the womb. Tina and I would pray over her womb before Zoe was born. Babies hear! The point is, God can reach the infant Himself. He doesn't necessarily need you or I. This is what I believe Westminster meant. Hodge even says: "The first is the act of God solely".
> 
> Read the papaer I posted from Nigel Lee. He addresses these issues and explain how Westminster thought in this regard.



Well, if that's the case, then why are you opposed to presuming faith as well in the womb? Babies can hear. Faith comes by hearing right?


----------



## D Battjes

> So are you saying that Arminians are lost? or Fundamentalists? or....others?




I am saying nothing of the sort. A Calvinist is a distinct flavor. 



> So then, they must be saved with a particular Gospel. Correct?



We are not saved by believing we believe because we are saved.

Just like the ARK was occupied with different rooms, I am not going to condemn anyone to hell who confess eph 2:8.

Christ saves in spite of what some have been led to believe Matthew.

Here is an article written by Herman Hoeksema taken from the January 2, 1919 issue of the Banner:

"You know, a Calvinist (excuse the term; I am not any too fond of it myself. Never do I use it if I can help it. I don´t think I have used it a half dozen times from the pulpit, which is not very frequent in three years and a half), I say a Calvinist is after all a distinctive Christian. Not all Christians are Calvinists. Mark, I say: "˜not all Christians are Calvinists.´ They may be Christians all right. Sure! Dear children of God, with whom I love to shake hands. I don´t believe that there is a Calvinist that denies this. I don´t think that there is a Calvinist who maintains that the Calvinists are the only Christians. And those who love to waste paper (and that in this time when paper is so valuable!) by fighting against Calvinists who maintain that they are the only Christians on earth, are fighting a shadow, a product of their own imagination. No, but I claim that a Calvinist is a Christian of a distinctive type, with distinctive principles and views, in distinction, namely, from other Christians. Never let any method of reasoning lead you to the belief that all Christians are Calvinists, for then things will be getting so dark, that you lose all power to distinguish. The Methodist is a good sincere Christian, all right. Of course he is! A dear brother. But he is not a Calvinist. The same is true of the Anabaptist, the Lutheran, etc. All together they constitute the church of Jesus Christ on earth, as long as they confess that Jesus is the Christ. But within that large circle there are different shades and forms of faith, and the Calvinist also maintains his own distinctive world and life view in their midst. Now, what I mean to say is that to maintain your distinctive character as a Calvinistic Christian, you must not merely be able to discern clearly what distinguishes you from the rest, but you must have the courage of your conviction such as can be the fruit only of the faith in the Word of God. Only the conviction that our form of faith is the purest expression of Scripture (again, mark, I do not say: the only form or expression) can give us the courage to refuse amalgamation. And therefore, it is necessary, that we are conscious of the relation between our Reformed Faith and the Word of God."

By God's grace some day perhaps God will crush the pride of those who monopolise the Gospel. Until that day all of them remain the real God-hater, condemning those whom God has saved.


So I agree 100% there is only one Gospel, and that Gospel is Christ. 

There is a remnant according to grace in many denominations Matthew. Or else heavan will be populated with a few hundred clones.

Now that we have completely digressed this thread, are we to return to the original presumption of regeneration?


----------



## D Battjes

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> This is something I never really saw answered, and I've asked it a few times in this thread:
> 
> If Presumptive Regeneration is your position, would it not be right to call it Presumptive Conversion?
> 
> Regeneration = Conversion, 100% of the time, correct?
> 
> If so, we have to believe that we are presuming our children are converted, correct?
> 
> If so, again, then are we placing this presumption in cooperation with the act of water baptism, or is this a completely separate issue, not related to the fact that the children have been baptized at all? Because, if it is an issue related to the condition that a covenant child has been baptized, that seems very close to Baptismal Regeneration.
> 
> Someone please help me out here!




Gabe, this is exactly what I have stated, and yet is being denied. THis is the achilles heel for PE/PR. We are nowhere commanded to presume anything other than covenant relationship. That is it.

Some are attempting to manipulate Gods promise to Abraham. But God does not lie. So when He said "I will be your God and your childrens God" This cannot be intended to be taken without clarification. Because if this means that all of Abrahams children, literal children, then all of Israel would be saved. Yet we know this is not the case.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Patrick, Wayne,
> 
> The WCF states:
> 
> "by His Word and Spirit"
> 
> I believe you are limiting what Westminster means. Effectual calling takes place _through Gods word_. The preaching may come from God, His spirit or one of His servants. This can occur while in the womb or after. Why do you feel that this cannot occur while the infant is in the womb? God can reach the infant in the womb. Tina and I would pray over her womb before Zoe was born. Babies hear! The point is, God can reach the infant Himself. He doesn't necessarily need you or I. This is what I believe Westminster meant. Hodge even says: "The first is the act of God solely".
> 
> Read the papaer I posted from Nigel Lee. He addresses these issues and explain how Westminster thought in this regard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if that's the case, then why are you opposed to presuming faith as well in the womb? Babies can hear. Faith comes by hearing right?
Click to expand...


Pat, You're misunderstanding. The infant in the womb cannot exercise faith. As the reformers held to, the _seeds_ of faith are present, however, actual faith is only experienced later under Gods preaching. In the case of the elect infant whom dies in infancy, obviously God accomplishes it wholly prior to the demise.

There is a great difference between _seed faith_ and actual faith.

Have you read this paper yet? It will explain the idea well.

http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs7/bbbb/index.html

[Edited on 6-10-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## D Battjes

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Patrick, Wayne,
> 
> The WCF states:
> 
> "by His Word and Spirit"
> 
> I believe you are limiting what Westminster means. Effectual calling takes place _through Gods word_. The preaching may come from God, His spirit or one of His servants. This can occur while in the womb or after. Why do you feel that this cannot occur while the infant is in the womb? God can reach the infant in the womb. Tina and I would pray over her womb before Zoe was born. Babies hear! The point is, God can reach the infant Himself. He doesn't necessarily need you or I. This is what I believe Westminster meant. Hodge even says: "The first is the act of God solely".
> 
> Read the papaer I posted from Nigel Lee. He addresses these issues and explain how Westminster thought in this regard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if that's the case, then why are you opposed to presuming faith as well in the womb? Babies can hear. Faith comes by hearing right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pat, You're misunderstanding. The infant in the womb cannot exercise faith. As the reformers held to, the _seeds_ of faith are present, however, actual faith is only experienced later under Gods preaching. In the case of the elect infant whom dies in infancy, obviously God accomplishes it wholly prior to the demise.
> 
> There is a great difference between _seed faith_ and actual faith.
> 
> Have you read this paper yet? It will explain the idea well.
> 
> http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs7/bbbb/index.html
> 
> [Edited on 6-10-2005 by Scott Bushey]
Click to expand...


What is seed faith? Just asking.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Like an acorn for an oak tree, the acorn holds all the properties of the oak tree. Its not developed, but the properties are still there. As an infnat or baby is regenerated it holds all the properties of faith though not exercised cognitively.


----------



## D Battjes

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Like an acorn for an oak tree, the acorn holds all the properties of the oak tree. Its not developed, but the properties are still there. As an infnat or baby is regenerated it holds all the properties of faith though not exercised cognitively.



I understand the concept, I just do not understand where it is concluded from. Is EVERY sperm/ Egg creation given this seed faith?


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Like an acorn for an oak tree, the acorn holds all the properties of the oak tree. Its not developed, but the properties are still there. As an infnat or baby is regenerated it holds all the properties of faith though not exercised cognitively.



I actually would like to know the answer to this question. The answer you gave is in analogy. What is a "seed of faith" literally?

If faith is "belief in propositions that are understood", then what is a seed of this? If faith is an act of the mind, how can you have a seed of an act, without actually performing the act?

Just asking.


----------



## D Battjes

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Like an acorn for an oak tree, the acorn holds all the properties of the oak tree. Its not developed, but the properties are still there. As an infnat or baby is regenerated it holds all the properties of faith though not exercised cognitively.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually would like to know the answer to this question. The answer you gave is in analogy. What is a "seed of faith" literally?
> 
> If faith is "belief in propositions that are understood", then what is a seed of this? If faith is an act of the mind, how can you have a seed of an act, without actually performing the act?
> 
> Just asking.
Click to expand...



My point also Jeff.

Is seed faith a gift of God, or do all genetically posses it and only grows if watered by the Father?

THis whole Idea is to mystical, mysterious, and a paradox. All of which I am not comfortable confessing in my faith.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Like an acorn for an oak tree, the acorn holds all the properties of the oak tree. Its not developed, but the properties are still there. As an infnat or baby is regenerated it holds all the properties of faith though not exercised cognitively.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually would like to know the answer to this question. The answer you gave is in analogy. What is a "seed of faith" literally?
> 
> If faith is "belief in propositions that are understood", then what is a seed of this? If faith is an act of the mind, how can you have a seed of an act, without actually performing the act?
> 
> Just asking.
Click to expand...


Good question. When someone is regenerate, will they then believe? Of course. Why? BEcuase they have the tools, now, to exercise a spiritually enlightened mind. Thus, faith is exercised. Faith in something, or belief in biblical propositions, is exercised and thus that gives way to repentence, etc.

One who is regenerate, in this case the infant, cannot yet exercise faith formally, so we call that "seed faith." (i.e. the ability to exercise without the actual exertion.) Like the acorn, all the properties of the tree are contained in the embryo. The properties of exercising faith (and enlightened "mind") is present in the infnat, or anyone regenerate. The tools are there to be exercised.

Here is Ursinus on it:

"We deny the proposition which denieth that infants do believe. For infants of believers regenerated by the Holy Spirit have an inclination to believe, or do believe by inclination. For faith is [with]in infants -- potentially, and by disposition.... Godly infants who are in the church,
have...an inclination...to godliness -- not by nature indeed, but by the grace of the covenant.

Jeff remember, a fruit tree's fruit does not make a tree a fruit tree or not a fruit tree. The fruit tree is still a fruit tree even though we can't see the fruit. Again, go to the "promise" not simply what "we" would deem the evidence.

Here is Casper Vander Heydon (Dutch Theologian)- 

""Seed rests for a time in the earth, and takes root before one sees from its fruit that it has germinated.... The root of understanding and of reason has been poured into all children, as soon as they receive life.... God has planted a seed and a root of regeneration in the children of the
covenant.... In time, the fruits of the Spirit germinate from it. For he who has been baptized with Christ in His death, also grows from Him, like a tender shoot on a vine...."

[Edited on 6-10-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## Scott Bushey

I have suggested an excellent paper that deals with the idea; is anyone endeavoring to read what the devines thought about the rationale? They explain it very well.

Calvin and Turretin both used the term extensively.


----------



## Roldan

I have a question for those who voted neither.

Does that then mean that your child is a pagan/heathen covenant memeber? Is that then no better than an unbelieving spouse?

Same question for PE's.


----------



## Mayflower

> [
> 
> Here is Casper Vander Heydon (Dutch Theologian)-
> 
> ""Seed rests for a time in the earth, and takes root before one sees from its fruit that it has germinated.... The root of understanding and of reason has been poured into all children, as soon as they receive life.... God has planted a seed and a root of regeneration in the children of the
> covenant.... In time, the fruits of the Spirit germinate from it. For he who has been baptized with Christ in His death, also grows from Him, like a tender shoot on a vine...."
> 
> [Edited on 6-10-2005 by webmaster]




Math, which centurary did Casper Vander Heydon life, and which books did he writes ? Iam asking this because iam always very interessed in Dutch reformed theologions.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Okay guys, listen, we are at 11 pages here and not really gaining a whole lot of momentum at this point. 

Do this - READ THIS PAPER. 

http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs7/bbbb/index.html

Its excellent on the issue overall. 

After reading it, then let's discuss this further. it houses biblical arguments, Reformed arguments, and cites EVERYTHING that could be cited (or thereabouts).


----------

