# Presumptive Regeneration



## JM (Nov 20, 2006)

Is it common among infant baptists to believe in presumptive regeneration? Any links on the subject? I've been reading into it and keep finding Free Reformed articles, that's about it.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 20, 2006)

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=7300#pid108503

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=7269#pid107023

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=6566#pid76041

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=6173#pid73216

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=5831#pid69971

In lines with the WCF and the historic reformed, here is a clearer view of what the WCF actually states:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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 bap­tized, as well as adults. Secondly, those are not to be excluded from baptism to whom the benefit of remission of sins, and of re­generation, belongs. But this benefit belongs to the infants of the church; for redemption from sin, by the blood of Christ, and 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 Abra­ham, 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 con­tracted after Christ's appearing than before. Fourth, baptism sup­plants 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. There­fore, 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 sacra­ments 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 dis­cretion, 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 ab­sence 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.)


Infant faith:

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

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.)

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

Caspar vander Heyden 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The root and seed of faith, from which the Holy Spirit ignites and inflames their spiritual zeal when they increase in years.... They have the Spirit of Christ.... Wherever the Spirit of Christ is, there too is faith -- whether an active faith, as in adults; or whether the root and origin of faith, as in small children." 
Wendelin of Heidelberg (1656, German Reformed theologian)
Christian System of Theology.
Collation of Christian Doctrine from the Calvinists and the Lutherans

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

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

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

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


http://public.csusm.edu/guests/rsclark/administration.html

Here's a thread on the topic:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=16513#pid249759


----------



## JM (Nov 20, 2006)

Ahhhh Scott, thanks again. Jackpot!

* *Question 80*: Can true believers be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and that they shall persevere therein unto salvation?
* *Answer*: Such as truly believe in Christ, and endeavor to walk in all good conscience before him, may, without extraordinary revelation, by faith grounded upon the truth of God's promises, and by the Spirit enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made, and bearing witness with their spirits that they are the children of God, be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and shall persevere therein unto salvation.
* *Question 81*: Are all true believers at all times assured of their present being in the estate of grace, and that they shall be saved?
* *Answer*: Assurance of grace and salvation not being of the essence of faith, true believers may wait long before they obtain it; and, after the enjoyment thereof, may have it weakened and intermitted, through manifold distempers, sins, temptations, and desertions; yet are they never left without such a presence and support of the Spirit of God as keeps them from sinking into utter despair.

What's the difference between the RC view and the Reformed view of infant baptism?

Peace,

jm


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 20, 2006)

WCF ch 28
*VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;16 yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.17*

The RC view is that the baptism actually saves. 

Taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Chrurch:

1266 The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:
- enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues;
- giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit;
- allowing them to grow in goodness through the moral virtues.
Thus the whole organism of the Christian's supernatural life has its roots in Baptism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 20, 2006)

JM said:


> Ahhhh Scott, thanks again. Jackpot!
> 
> * *Question 80*: Can true believers be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and that they shall persevere therein unto salvation?
> * *Answer*: Such as truly believe in Christ, and endeavor to walk in all good conscience before him, may, without extraordinary revelation, by faith grounded upon the truth of God's promises, and by the Spirit enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made, and bearing witness with their spirits that they are the children of God, be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and shall persevere therein unto salvation.
> ...



Much in every way. The Roman Catholic view sees baptism first as an act of Grace that occurs "by the working of the works". That is, the Sacrament itself, _infuses_ Grace and effectively places the child in a state of grace before God. The grace infused, however, is conditional. The grace can be overthrown and killed in the individual by sin.

The Reformed view is that baptism is _ministerial_. That is, the minister announces what God has promised in His Word concerning the Covenant inclusion of children and it initiates the child into the covenant community. While the sign and seal of Baptism are not _separate_ from what they signify (real union with Christ) they are not _identical_. That is to say that we do not believe that the minister is actually _conferring_ union with Christ on the child by the "working of the works" but is announcing the promise of God. That promise is that what Baptism signifies (union with Christ) is promised to the child when he places trust in the Gospel. It is the same thing for an adult in fact. As surely as you see the water signifiying the washing of the filth of the flesh, so are your sins washed away if you believe in the Gospel. It is a visible sign and seal of God's promise to us that we can look to when the enemy is so oft telling us we are not worthy of such Grace.

In RC baptism, you get in by the Church's ability to infuse God's saving grace and you stay in by cooperating with that grace lest you kill it and your "grace meter" goes to a point where justifying grace is killed.

In Reformed baptism, the minister declares the promise of God and seals God's promises to the recipient. Grace, through faith, saves from beginning to end.

I have a problem with the term presumptive regeneration because _presumption_ carries a connotation that I do not believe parents should have. When I presume something, it means I can take it for granted and little is expected on my part. I know that's a semantic issue but words have consequences. I also don't like the idea of presuming regeneration simply because I don't know the hidden counsel of God. I look at it this way: my chilren are Christians and I treat them like that. I don't treat them like they're tiny pagans in my household with no different status than my pagan neighbors before God. They are holy because they are in my Covenant household. This gracious God says to me: "I'm not just promising to save you but your children as well." A glorious thing indeed that those most dear to me in this world, beside my wife, are not my spiritual enemies.

I pray with them like little Christians with a seminal faith - faith as small as a mustard seed (thank you Rev. Winzer). I know that God has promised to save them if they call upon His name just as He has promised to save me under the same Covenant promise. I do not question their election any more than I question mine for my business is God's precepts and not His hidden decree.

And so, contrary to my Roman Catholic upbringing, when my children sin, I do not raise them to worry that they're in danger of hellfire as they have just killed the infused grace within them and need to have the Church dispense more saving grace in Penance. Rather, I discipline them as one who believes their sin has been punished in Christ. I train them to ask _their_ Heavenly Father for forgiveness that they have offended Him in their sin, and I teach them to thank Christ for the salvation of sins found only in Him for those that believe in Him.

The difference between Roman Catholic Baptism and Reformed Baptism (aka Christian) is the difference between the doctrine of demons and a visible sign and seal of God's Grace to His elect.


----------



## AV1611 (Nov 21, 2006)

JM said:


> Is it common among infant baptists to believe in presumptive regeneration? Any links on the subject? I've been reading into it and keep finding Free Reformed articles, that's about it.



Try to find the Conclusions of Urtrecht of 1905. However I would say that the reason we baptise infants is not because we presuppose they are regenerate but because God has made a covenant with believers and their seed (Gen 17:7).


----------



## reformedman (Nov 21, 2006)

AV1611 said:


> Try to find the Conclusions of Urtrecht of 1905. However I would say that the reason we baptise infants is not because we presuppose they are regenerate but because God has made a covenant with believers and their seed (Gen 17:7).



verse 10 in context.


----------



## AV1611 (Nov 21, 2006)

reformedman said:


> verse 10 in context.



Care to explain?


----------



## JM (Nov 21, 2006)

What's the difference between the way dispensationalists view the physical aspects of the "seed" and the way in which infant baptists view the physical aspects of the "seed?" As far as I can tell, there is little difference, both theological systems allow for a physical seed to recieve the promises of the covenant...but I thought we were "spiritual" children of Abraham?


----------



## AV1611 (Nov 21, 2006)

JM said:


> What's the difference between the way dispensationalists view the physical aspects of the "seed" and the way in which infant baptists view the physical aspects of the "seed?" As far as I can tell, there is little difference, both theological systems allow for a physical seed to recieve the promises of the covenant...but I thought we were "spiritual" children of Abraham?




The dispensationalist sees 3 seeds...the physical, the spirtual and Christ. The covenantal theologian sees 1...Christ and those who are in him - the spiritual seed. So the seed of abraham were his elect children those who like Isaac were, are spiritual children. This we read in Rom 9:6.

 (Still not sure how applicable this is to be used by an Englishman but hey)


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 21, 2006)

AV1611 said:


> I would say that the reason we baptise infants is not because we presuppose they are regenerate but because God has made a covenant with believers and their seed (Gen 17:7).



 
Yes, I would rather say (than presumption anything) "We baptize whom we we believe God has commanded us to baptize--no more, no less."


----------



## JohnV (Nov 21, 2006)

Yes, I would too, Bruce. But that's exactly what is being presumed. If the word 'believer's' wasn't already taken, might it be a better word?  I have been using the word 'presumptive' because the use of that the Free Reformed make out of it is not a consistent use; it is more of an abuse of the word. In our area the Free Reformed will paste anyone that has any connection at all with the CRC with the heresy of presumptive regeneration, and they usually don't care what anyone has to say in their defense against the charge: if you're CRC, then you're presumptive regenerationist, and baptize your children as your last responsibility to them to bring them up in the fear of the Lord. In other words, everyone in the CRC was guilty of the theology of the few.

Yes, there were some who practiced presumptive regeneration, even though they outwardly denied it, but to no greater percentage than the Free Reformed. I speak from personally looking into the matter in my two years in the Free Reformed, and having to answer the question many times over. 

If this is what 'presumptive regeneration' is, then we should all reject it outright. But that is not what it really is. We might have a difficulty with the terms, such as whether it is presumptive regeneration or presumptive election, but the second term is not the problem with it. The question is; if God promises that He will be our God, and we believe Him at His Word, then is it right or wrong to presume upon that promise in our practice of baptizing believers and the children of believers? We do not know, and we can have no assurance, that our children will be infallibly saved, and that the Spirit will at some time call them to grace, if we baptize upon the basis of our promises to be faithful and our best efforts to do our part in the covenant. Baptism is a promise to us, a sign and a seal to us and our children, and it is one that we must depend upon to baptize at all, even if we baptize only those who make a credible profession of faith. We have no more assurance in man's own preseverance whether the baptisee is child or adult. If we baptize upon man's promise to be faithful, then we will be baptizing over and over again, because men do not keep their word. But if we baptize upon God's promise, then we baptize only once, for it is good for life. Whether a man stands or falls on his own, God's promise is never broken. He promises His grace to us that we might have assurance; and Christ is our surety of it.

I've written quite a bit on this before, and have been quiet on it for a long time now. I did't like where Scott and Matt were going with it. I believe in Covenant Theology too, but I don't agree with them on some of their conclusions. God has called each of us out of our covenant breaking theological predispositions unto Himself, even someone like me who was born in a Covenant Theology church setting. I don't set aside my need to presume because I've reached the right theological setting to understand and respond; I still need to believe in God's promises, and even more now than before. 

So I'm going to refine my position a bit:

I think we can deny presumptive regeneration by making too much of it by making it Presumptive Regeneration. Take away those capital letters, take away any status it may have in Covenant Theology as a doctrine on its own, and use it merely as a descriptive of the doctrines that we already hold to, and then we have a right handle on it, I believe. So if we are talking about *P*resumptive *R*egeneration, then I'm against it; but if we're talking about presumptive regeneration, then I can't see how it can be denied.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 21, 2006)

AV1611 said:


> Try to find the Conclusions of Urtrecht of 1905. However I would say that the reason we baptise infants is not because we presuppose they are regenerate but because God has made a covenant with believers and their seed (Gen 17:7).


 
See this thread.


----------



## reformedman (Nov 21, 2006)

AV1611 said:


> Care to explain?



Well I write with a can of worms because I know this might not be taken the way I meant it. I don't want to be misinterpreted mainly because this forum is made up of mostly presbyterian people, so some or few may not understand the perspective of the baptist.

I see some discrepencies with your choice of Genesis 17:7 for the verse you selected to assert or represent a main force behind paedobaptism. I believe that presbyterians have better verses to back up their belief for paedobaptism; and I don't think this verse is strong at all. Exegetically speaking, you either have to take 17:7 in an all physically-literal or all physically-spiritual regard.

If taken in a physical interpretation, from the context you'd have to agree that this covenant by God was for identifying a nation with relation to God. Sort of a familial identity stamp if you will. It is not in context referring to salvation, it only identified a promise God made to a group of a lineage of people. The end use of this covenant appears solely to be the ownership of a land that the children of Abraham was to own. Not all Israel is Israel.

This promise was very specific; 
*1.*it was for males only (probably because they were recognized as normally to be the authority of the land). Why then, do presbyterians baptize female babies also. If the promise was very specific that it should be for males, for the end purpose which was to be the inheriters of land, and be authorities of it, (it makes sense that the practice was for males), then how did it change to apply for females. 
*2.*it was to be circumciscion; a practice that is still in use, and still available to all families today. Why take this verse to refer to the practice of baptism of which although existed very minutely before the time of Christ, was used under a different pretense. It is a very different practice with a different value. Since baptism was available to Abraham, why wasn't it implemented in this covenant. The thought that comes to my mind is that God wanted to show that it was for men to inherit the land, not women.
*3.*it was to be for the lineage of Abraham. If I understand it correctly, presbyterians will baptize all babies of presbyterian believing families contrary to how the command was to be. It is done outside of the lineage of Abraham, which many presbyterians are not. 
*4.*it was for the end result of owning a land located in the middle east. 
Now mind you, *if* you take this as a literally-physical covenant, then the above conditions fail if applied to presbyterian families. But works well with the truth of what happened in judeochristian history.

But now, if the promise was literally-spiritual then I am assuming that the land that is promised is the spiritual beula land, or heaven. I also assume that presbyterians translate males to be people. Additionally, I take it that presbyterians will interpret the lineage of Abraham to be the spiritual seed of Abraham which means the people of faith (believers).
If this covenant of circumcision for the male children of Abraham was to be literally-spiritual, then:
*1.*baptism cannot mean being put to death in Christ and being risen in Him. Or, being regenerated from death in sins, or whatever other similtudes there are for the act of being submerged in water or sprinkling etc.. The spiritual significance of circumscion and the spiritual significance of baptism are required to be equal if in fact you use this verse to show paedobaptism. I particularly think that it would have to be pretty close in action in order to signify the same covenant, unless you are creating a new perception of the covenant.
*2.*it was to be for all of Abraham's descendants. I may be wrong, but all of Abraham's descendants were promised a piece of land proven by their circumscion. Baptism would then spiritually indicate their proof of ownership to heaven. Therefore, as Abe's children would be garaunteed a result of ownership, if follows that Baptized chilren are garaunteed heaven. Here's the difference I see: Abraham's children *were most definitely* the lineage of Abraham, but presbyterian children *are most definitely* not all believers. If being the seed of Abraham spiritually means being a believer, then it is obvious that children are not referred to in this verse.
*3.*I know that paedobaptism doesn't garauntee salvation. And non-paedobaptism doesn't garauntee salvation, therefore, if in the end the baptized child is not a believer, what benefit was there to the baptism? There was a definite tangible result of circumcision, there is no definite tangible (nor definite) result in baptism.
*4.*this verse becomes soteriological in nature. The circumcised babies were promised ownership, not possibility of ownership, but a real promise of ownership of a land.

Finally, I honestly wish that you don't misunderstand me, I'm not at all saying that I am opposed to presbyterians baptizing their children, all I'm saying is that I don't see it in 17:7's context. Notice that I am not refuting paedobaptism, I am only showing what I see from this verse is all. 
Personally, as everyone says they do, I also claim the following: I am only taking the very simple meaning of what scripture says. The verse says that it was for Abraham's children, and for the purpose of attaining a land. To apply it spiritually (as with all verses) is also feesable, but with care. How you get baptism for babies of presbyterians with no garaunteed result of being saved from this verse, I just don't see it.

If any of this sounds disrespectful, I apologize. I'm not a writer nor a theological student, I'm just a believer raised in Queens New York.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 21, 2006)

JohnV said:


> Yes, I would too, Bruce. But that's exactly what is being presumed. If the word 'believer's' wasn't already taken, might it be a better word?  I have been using the word 'presumptive' because the use of that the Free Reformed make out of it is not a consistent use; it is more of an abuse of the word. In our area the Free Reformed will paste anyone that has any connection at all with the CRC with the heresy of presumptive regeneration, and they usually don't care what anyone has to say in their defense against the charge: if you're CRC, then you're presumptive regenerationist, and baptize your children as your last responsibility to them to bring them up in the fear of the Lord. In other words, everyone in the CRC was guilty of the theology of the few.
> 
> Yes, there were some who practiced presumptive regeneration, even though they outwardly denied it, but to no greater percentage than the Free Reformed. I speak from personally looking into the matter in my two years in the Free Reformed, and having to answer the question many times over.
> 
> ...



John,
Not that I disagree with what you've written, I appreciate your redefined position!!! To me, overall, the doctrine is not that complicated. it all boils down to a matter of faith. God commands faith! 

Luke 18:7-8 7 now shall not God bring about justice for His elect, who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them? 8 "I tell you that He will bring about justice for them speedily. However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the ear

Hebrews 6:13-18 13 For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, 14 saying, "I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply you." 15 And thus, having patiently waited, he obtained the promise. 16 For men swear by one greater than themselves, and with them an oath given as confirmation is an end of every dispute. 17 In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath, 18 in order that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have strong encouragement, we who have fled for refuge in laying hold of the hope set before us.

Hebrews 11:8-19 8 By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise; 10 for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God. 11 By faith even Sarah herself received ability to conceive, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered Him faithful who had promised; 12 therefore, also, there was born of one man, and him as good as dead at that, as many descendants as the stars of heaven in number, and innumerable as the sand which is by the seashore. 13 All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14 For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own. 15 And indeed if they had been thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them. 17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac; and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; 18 it was he to whom it was said, "In Isaac your descendants shall be called." 19 He considered that God is able to raise men even from the dead; from which he also received him back as a type.

Genesis 15:3-6 3 And Abram said, "Since Thou hast given no offspring to me, one born in my house is my heir." 4 Then behold, the word of the LORD came to him, saying, "This man will not be your heir; but one who shall come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir." 5 And He took him outside and said, "Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be." 6 Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness. 

Romans 3:1-4 Romans 3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? 4 May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, "That Thou mightest be justified in Thy words, And mightest prevail when Thou art judged."

May it be said that I had faith in God and His promises! If Matt and my conclusions lead us here, so be it. I would rather be found guilty of having too much faith than too little.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 21, 2006)

Scott and John,

It is not my intent to be petty about the use of words. I think, in the main, we believe much the same about God's promises and standing on the promises of God. I believe one needs to read the way words are used in the context in which they are used and so I don't reject the idea based merely on the words.

I just suppose I feel that we can say we have faith in the promise of God without giving it a doctrinal title called Presumptive Regeneration or presumptive regeneration. I stand on the things revealed and trust in God who knows that which is hidden to Him. 

Election and regeneration are proper subjects for us to understand but they are not doctrines that guide us in the actual administration of baptism. They also should not guide us in our duty with our children. The Church baptizes based on the commands of Scripture as to who are the proper recipients of the sacrament and not because they know people are regenerate. I train my children because, like you both, I believe with fear and trembling the promises of God regarding my children. I don't base my decision to train on the regeneration or reprobation of the child. 

In the extreme, I just don't see a substantive difference between the sloppy Calvinists who say "Well I trained but God must not have elected him" and "I train because God elected him". Both cases are focusing on the _hidden_ far too much and not on the revealed.

I'm having a hard time articulating this and wish I wrote as eloquently as Bruce but my point is this: our focus is on our duty before the Word and the things revealed for us to know and obey. God does not reveal to us the state of election or reprobation and so it is not a proper subject of our focus. While the promise of God is not divorced from election, our focus out to be on the promise and not on God's hidden decree.

I therefore have a problem putting the idea of belief in the promise under the name _presumptive regeneration_ because I am not focused on the regeneration of my children but on the _promise_ of God.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 21, 2006)

SemperFideles said:


> Scott and John,
> I therefore have a problem putting the idea of belief in the promise under the name _presumptive regeneration_ because I am not focused on the regeneration of my children but on the _promise_ of God.



What are the outworkings of that faith? Christ says:

Matthew 17:20 0 And He said to them, "Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it shall move; and nothing shall be impossible to you.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 21, 2006)

Scott Bushey said:


> What are the outworkings of that faith? Christ says:
> 
> Matthew 17:20 0 And He said to them, "Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it shall move; and nothing shall be impossible to you.



Scott, I don't understand how this is germane to what I'm saying. I'm not saying that we don't assume that our children's faith is real, I do. I believe they are praying as tiny Christians with faith as small as a mustard seed. They have been baptized into the Covenant and I treat them as fellow heirs just like I treat all the other members of my Church. I raise them according to the things _revealed_ in God's Word regarding my duty to them and I trust in the promises of God, which are also revealed to me in His Word. What I detect in them is fruit of the hidden work of God but my focus is not on that which is hidden.

As Christians, we wait in anxious hope for Christ to return. We wait in hope because of what has been revealed with respect to the promise. What we are commanded not to worry about is the day of His return.

The secret things belong to God.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 21, 2006)

JohnV,
I think I understand what you mean to convey in your post. I don't think you are proposing anything radical, or even strictly improper.

Having said that, I still respectfully refuse the terminology. I won't use it, and I doubt its wisdom. Would we talk in terms of "presumptive regeneration" when talking about adults? About our _spouse,_ assuming we married "in the Lord"? "Well, I presumed she was regenerated, that's why it was OK to marry her." Rather, we listened to her profession, we looked and saw fruit of the Spirit in her life. And then we acted accordingly.

With the newborn, we start doing the same things. We look for fruit of the Spirit, and we listen for words (teaching, asking questions, prompting for answers) that indicate our children are beginning to believe the truths we are teaching to (and living before) them. *I fail to see a rationale for making assumptions about where in the midst of an invisible salvation-work the children are (or may be).* Is "presumption" the BASIS for the performance ANY parental duty?

My answer to that question is EMPHATICALLY negative. Equating belief in God and his Word with a belief (presumed) in a subjective reality in the life of an individual is _overstepping_ the design of faith. Fact: in all those (wonderful) promise verses, there is no promise that 1) God will or has already regenerated the person covenantally marked (proved when some apostatize); or 2) a promise to Bruce that his son, Junior, is elect (proved when our names/personal identities are not found in the Bible).

Those are general promises to _believers,_ but they are not fulfilled based on the degree of my *passion* to own them. I do believe them. And I believe in God-ordained means, so by faith and grace I will implement those means. And by faith I expect to see those means result in promised fruit in the children's lives.

What if we started "presuming" on everything that faith told us to hope in? What if Abraham "presumed" on God's promise of the Land? When he arrived there, I think presumption would have had him digging a furrow, and planting a crop, and building a city on the first, best piece of ground he found--regardless of who was settled there. Can you see him? "hey God told me this was mine, Gen. 13:15; I'm just believing his word; these squatters are interlopers on my turf--Hey turkeys, AMSCRAY!"

Abraham didn't in fact presume the land was his; no, he _believed_ in God that it was his, and his descendant's. He lived there, sojourning; he "redeemed" a plot of _his_ land from an Amorite for a burial ground. I see a tremendous difference in those acts of faith in the promises from what presumption on the same promises would have wrought.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 21, 2006)

SemperFideles said:


> Scott, I don't understand how this is germane to what I'm saying. I'm not saying that we don't assume that our children's faith is real, I do. I believe they are praying as tiny Christians with faith as small as a mustard seed. They have been baptized into the Covenant and I treat them as fellow heirs just like I treat all the other members of my Church. I raise them according to the things _revealed_ in God's Word regarding my duty to them and I trust in the promises of God, which are also revealed to me in His Word. What I detect in them is fruit of the hidden work of God but my focus is not on that which is hidden.
> 
> As Christians, we wait in anxious hope for Christ to return. We wait in hope because of what has been revealed with respect to the promise. What we are commanded not to worry about is the day of His return.
> 
> The secret things belong to God.



OK. Then for whatever it's worth, we seem to be on the same page.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 21, 2006)

Contra_Mundum said:


> JohnV,
> I think I understand what you mean to convey in your post. I don't think you are proposing anything radical, or even strictly improper.
> 
> Having said that, I still respectfully refuse the terminology. I won't use it, and I doubt its wisdom. Would we talk in terms of "presumptive regeneration" when talking about adults? About our _spouse,_ assuming we married "in the Lord"? "Well, I presumed she was regenerated, that's why it was OK to marry her." Rather, we listened to her profession, we looked and saw fruit of the Spirit in her life. And then we acted accordingly.



Bruce,
You're still _presuming_!



> With the newborn, we start doing the same things. We look for fruit of the Spirit, and we listen for words (teaching, asking questions, prompting for answers) that indicate our children are beginning to believe the truths we are teaching to (and living before) them.



This would still be _presuming_!



> *I fail to see a rationale for making assumptions about where in the midst of an invisible salvation-work the children are (or may be).* Is "presumption" the BASIS for the performance ANY parental duty?



Bruce,
If I am understanding you, I believe you are missing the point. The basis is our faith in what God has said.



> My answer to that question is EMPHATICALLY negative. Equating belief in God and his Word with a belief (presumed) in a subjective reality in the life of an individual is _overstepping_ the design of faith.



Really? 

Hebrews 11:17-19 17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac; and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; 18 it was he to whom it was said, "In Isaac your descendants shall be called." 19 He considered that God is able to raise men even from the dead; from which he also received him back as a type.



> Fact: in all those (wonderful) promise verses, there is no promise that 1) God will or has already regenerated the person covenantally marked (proved when some apostatize); or 2) a promise to Bruce that his son, Junior, is elect (proved when our names/personal identities are not found in the Bible).



I understand that. God has not said the opposite. In fact, what He has said is in the affirmative.



> Those are general promises to _believers,_ but they are not fulfilled based on the degree of my *passion* to own them.



I hear you. Our job is to believe God however. The hall of faith in hebrews 11 validate some credence in regards to those whom held faithfully......



> I do believe them. And I believe in God-ordained means, so by faith and grace I will implement those means. And by faith I expect to see those means result in promised fruit in the children's lives.



As I will and do.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 21, 2006)

Scott, I'm glad we have a lot of agreement. PTL.

But where you claim I'm presuming, I say I'm not. Maybe we mean the same things (maybe not), just use different terms. I don't know.

Unlike you or me, Abraham _WAS_ told that Isaac was God's elect seed. He had a special reason to "presume" (if you want to call it that). Everyone who "acts in faith" is operating on the basis of the power and promise of God, something they believe is true. God tells me to do certain things, regarding my children--teach, disciple, etc. In conjunction with those actions, he tells me to believe in _him_ that he will be God to them, as well as me. *WHEN* in those actions and promises is the act of regeneration? I would like to think that my children ARE all regenerated tonight, even my 18 month old. But not only do I not know that, I can't know that, nor their election.

But nothing I think about their present condition has the slightest bearing on my behavior toward them. Because they are MINE, and all things I am and have are a _holocaust_ to God, totally devoted (holy), and so he has dictated that his ownership is to be declared over them, and I have certain duties toward them--I act toward them by faith in God, and I trust his ordained ends, established for their eternal good.

At the same time, I remember the Bible's warnings against apostasy. If faith=presumption in regard to one promise, then we have to do the same with all the others as well--no "picking and choosing" allowed. Tell me, how do we "presume" *both* 1) that our children are regenerated and therefore elect (based on one promise) *and* 2) that they can apostatize and fall under his eternal wrath (another promise, a threat). I don't see how you can "presume" both. But I can believe in God in both his promises.

God is to be trusted and believed. If they die, without evidently renouncing their covenant with him, I have God's promise that he will not renounce his declaration over them. That's where my presumption begins and ends--in the salvation of dying infants (of believers).


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 22, 2006)

I'll take a gander at this post...


reformedman said:


> If any of this sounds disrespectful, I apologize. I'm not a writer nor a theological student, I'm just a believer raised in Queens New York.


I put this bit at the top, so to assure you I do not detect any disrespect in your post, nor do I offer any in return. Please accept my take as just a response, with specific disagreements. Thanks, brother.


> I see some discrepencies with your choice of Genesis 17:7 for the verse you selected to assert or represent a main force behind paedobaptism. I believe that presbyterians have *better* verses to back up their belief for paedobaptism; and I don't think this verse is strong at all. Exegetically speaking, you either have to take 17:7 in an all physically-literal or all physically-spiritual regard.


If you ask me "Where does the Bible tell you to baptize your children," I *hear* you asking me "Where does the Bible tell you to put the sign of covenant inclusion on your children." The answer to that question is: Gen. 17. I'd agree with you if you said there might be _more_ verses to the argument than that, but I don't know that I'd venture to say I thought there were any _better,_ and certainly the argument would be far more difficult to demonstrate if this passage were not there at the foundation. So, I don't agree with your first belief.

Second, (your categories are a bit mixed up there--you don't even refer to them in the same language below, so they are a bit hard to decipher) _why_ are you insisting that this passage is _all_ physical or spiritual? That, to me, seems odd, given that the Bible is a thoroughly spiritual book, and physical things and events are all the time accorded spiritual meaning.

When God told Adam that eating of the TKGE, he would surely die _that day,_ he meant Adam would die 1) judicially, 2) spiritually, 3) physically, and 4) eternally. Only the first two of those happened _that day,_ but all of them were bound up together. Adam even seems to have been the _empericist_ in that situation (compared to Eve the _rationalist_) who ate after waiting to see what would happen to Eve. He let a physical expectation (her keeling over dead) blind him to spiritual realities--the very thing Paul rebukes those of "the circumcision" for doing (Rom. 2:25-29).



> If taken in a physical interpretation, from the context you'd have to agree that this covenant by God was for identifying a nation with relation to God. Sort of a familial identity stamp if you will. It is not in context referring to salvation, it only identified a promise God made to a group of a lineage of people. The end use of this covenant appears solely to be the ownership of a land that the children of Abraham was to own. Not all Israel is Israel.


The biggest problem with this interpretation is that this is not what Abraham thought of the sign given to him. As Paul says in Rom. 4:11 "he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith he had while he was in uncircumcision." So, the sign wasn't about simply being in an extended household, or how to be grafted into that physical family. It was about a family that was the nucleus of the Old Testament church. Land ownership was not the end-use of the covenant.

When you say this is not in the context of salvation, first of all there isn't a page of the Bible that isn't about salvation. Second, the creation of the family of Abraham was for the eventual production of the Seed of Promise, who would come to save his people from their sins. How is that not oriented toward salvation? Third, beginning with chapter 12, then to 15, then through 17 we have promises, covenant ceremony, and covenant sign.

A covenant theologian reads the story of Abraham as a single unit. We would say chapter 17 is inseperable from the previous material, and that which follows. These aren't simply vignettes on the meanderings of a nomadic man-of-faith, whom God used. This is the beginning of the penultimate stage of the revelation of the Covenant of Grace (the Old Testament era). All covenant-activity is unified. That which is found in the first 11 chapters is prelude and preliminary to Abraham. The final stage is, naturally, Jesus Christ and the New Covenant era.

Now, I've had some baptists tell me that all Paul means in Rom 4 is that the sign meant something extra for Abraham, but for no one else was this a spiritual sign. That would be a hard pill for people like Moses to swallow, who in Deut. 10:16 used "heart-circumcision" as a metaphor for true faith. We agree that "not all are (true) Israel, who are of Israel." We say that all the unfaithful, natural sons of Abraham, Israelites according to the flesh only, were hypocrites and "not true sons." Their "confidence in the flesh" was misplaced; they were no better than the faithless wanderers of one generation that fell in the wilderness, and received not the promise, which was only to be had--and kept--by faith. They had the sign, but not the thing signified.


> This promise was very specific;
> *1.*it was for males only (probably because they were recognized as normally to be the authority of the land). Why then, do presbyterians baptize female babies also. If the promise was very specific that it should be for males, for the end purpose which was to be the inheriters of land, and be authorities of it, (it makes sense that the practice was for males), then how did it change to apply for females.


1) Are you saying that if God gives a spiritual covenant sign, he has to give it to both sexes? On what grounds? 

2) It appears to me that you are reading into the text the matter of inheritance in the land. Since women did inherit (albeit unusually), how is this supposed to be a definitive conclusion? God promised the land in 12:7, and 13:15-17; 15:7, 18. Why does the mention of the land again in 17:8 indicate to you that circumcision was particularly for determining who got a piece of it?

The fact is God didn't give a sign in the OT that could be given to females. God used a vigorous patriarchy, quite common in ancient times, for his own wise ends in the maintenance of the people of God in those days. Circumcision was a fit sign for those times.

Paul is explicit about one of today's differences: in the NT church "there is no more male and female" (of course, he doesn't thereby obliterate all distinctions, for he elsewhere upholds them). So, the we find both male and female being baptized (e.g. Acts 8:12). You CAN baptize both male and female with water, so this is a fit sign in our days.


> *2.*it was to be circumciscion; a practice that is still in use, and still available to all families today. Why take this verse to refer to the practice of baptism of which although existed very minutely before the time of Christ, was used under a different pretense. It is a very different practice with a different value. Since baptism was available to Abraham, why wasn't it implemented in this covenant. The thought that comes to my mind is that God wanted to show that it was for men to inherit the land, not women.


1) Since it is not possible to know how often or where ritual circumcision was practiced outside Israel anciently, that point is moot. It only matters that for Israel, it was a sign that God appointed to have covenantal significance. It was a sign of all those promises God made Abraham (land, seed, blessing) that were tokens of the real issue--that he would be his God and theirs (v.7).

2) God didn't give baptism, because the sign before Christ ought to be bloody, to signify death. It ought to be on the male generative organ, to signify the deadly taint of sin spread to all men by passing on the sin-nature, and its need to be cleansed. It should be on a male, because the Messiah would be male. Etc. You can come up with a variety of reasons, all related to the fact that the sign pointed to the Seed, not to land. Baptism is more fitting in this era, for a variety of reasons related to New Testament theology and Christ's finished work.

Verses 10-21 are important verses as far as understanding the significance of the covenant: v. 10 (literally), "This is my covenant... to circumcise." vv. 11-14, How to. vv. 15-21, Isaac, not Ishmael, is the heir through whom the covenant will continue. But vv.26-27 are also significant, for Ishmael is also circumcised. But Ishmael would not inherit the promise, and Abraham is told so in so many words. So what is the significance of his circumcision _if it's all about the land?_


> *3.*it was to be for the lineage of Abraham. If I understand it correctly, presbyterians will baptize all babies of presbyterian believing families contrary to how the command was to be. It is done outside of the lineage of Abraham, which many presbyterians are not.


Everyone (male) who was added to the nation was to be circumcised. That is being "grafted into Abraham's seed" externally. But this was not about a secular people, but the church. And the true sons of Abraham were the ones who had the faith of Abraham (Gal. 3:7). Joining Israel back in those days meant a serious chop-job. I think one would have ordinarily needed serious spiritual faith to make that commitment. And the same is true today, we are grafted onto the vine, Rom. 11:17ff, while some were broken off for unbelief, thus "making room" for us, as it were.

The real question at this point might be, does baptism take circumcision's place in the New Covenant? Of course, we say it does. We point to the fact that both are the sign and seal of inclusion in the Covenant of Grace in their respective administrations (which baptists often deny of circumcision). We point to the fact that they both signified heart-cleansing (which many baptists deny of circumcision). We say Paul calls baptism "circumcision made without hands" in Colossians 2:11-12.

And by the way, the fact that the signs have overlapping meaning in some areas does not prevent each from having particular significations not shared by the other.



> *4.*it was for the end result of owning a land located in the middle east.
> Now mind you, *if* you take this as a literally-physical covenant, then the above conditions fail if applied to presbyterian families. But works well with the truth of what happened in judeochristian history.


"4" is an assertion without foundation, and one that I have done at least some work here to demonstrate its falsity.

I dispute all the premises, therefore I think the conclusion is also inconsistent with the claim to historic fulfillment. I'd call that a _post-hoc_ fallacy



> But now, if the promise was literally-spiritual then I am assuming that the land that is promised is the spiritual beula land, or heaven. I also assume that presbyterians translate males to be people. Additionally, I take it that presbyterians will interpret the lineage of Abraham to be the spiritual seed of Abraham which means the people of faith (believers).


Heb. 11:10 tells us that Abraham was not looking for an earthly city. Abraham took the promises spiritually, but realized there was a temporal "cast" to them. 


> If this covenant of circumcision for the male children of Abraham was to be literally-spiritual, then:
> *1.*baptism cannot mean being put to death in Christ and being risen in Him. Or, being regenerated from death in sins, or whatever other similtudes there are for the act of being submerged in water or sprinkling etc.. The spiritual significance of circumscion and the spiritual significance of baptism are required to be equal if in fact you use this verse to show paedobaptism. I particularly think that it would have to be pretty close in action in order to signify the same covenant, unless you are creating a new perception of the covenant.


It is pure assertion to claim that the signs must be 100% of the other for them to be correlative. Why? Why can't there be fundamental similarity, without imposition? I've already shown that they both signified faith/regeneration when they are received by faith. They both serve as initiatory signs. It belongs to the Baptist to show why this is an insufficient similarity.

Baptism signifies union with Christ, which includes his death. His death becoming our death is really the beginning of our union with him, because when we died with him, then we came to life with him, and his righteousness becomes ours, and everything of his.

Why should the sign be substantially the same, from the Old Testament era to the New? (what do you mean exactly--applied to the same body part? involving cutting and blood?, what?) Do you doubt the correlation of Passover to the Lord's Supper? But there are so many differences! You need to explain your non-arbitrary criteria for determining how much similarity, and how much difference there is allowable when the Old gives way to the New.


> *2.*it was to be for all of Abraham's descendants. I may be wrong, but all of Abraham's descendants were promised a piece of land proven by their circumscion. Baptism would then spiritually indicate their proof of ownership to heaven. Therefore, as Abe's children would be garaunteed a result of ownership, if follows that Baptized chilren are garaunteed heaven. Here's the difference I see: Abraham's children *were most definitely* the lineage of Abraham, but presbyterian children *are most definitely* not all believers. If being the seed of Abraham spiritually means being a believer, then it is obvious that children are not referred to in this verse.


I'm afraid I have to tell you, you are wrong. Tell me, are you Abraham's descendent or not? And another question, what about circumcised converts? Where did they fall in this?

I'll tell you this: that the faithless, circumcised ethnic Jew had no right to one postage-stamp sized lot in that land. The promises were accessible only by faith, and not by some inherent birth-right. Why did the nation as a whole get expelled from the land? Because by *unbelief* they forfieted their right to it, and God threw them out. So, I don't see how baptism _ought to consistently guarantee_ heaven to children even who don't have faith, on presbyterian principles.

This should be easy. Abraham's physical descendents were not all the heirs of his promises. Maybe even most of them weren't. But as long as you think--contrary to the very verse you quoted from Romans 9:6--that God made some purely secular promises to Abraham's lineal offspring, I don't know what I can do to convince you how completely wrong-headed that is.

Baptism, like circumcision before it, is designed to be a sign that the spiritual and eternal--and _consequently_ whatever relevant temporal--blessings of Abraham belong to the recipient. But we don't know that about adults who are baptized. Maybe they are hypocrites! But the sign is supposed to represent that they belong to God, they are Abraham's seed! Well, we aren't infallible.

We just do what God tells us to do. Everything of mine is God's. He *owns* me. I have been "totally devoted" to the Lord. And that includes my children (that's why 1 Cor. 7:14 calls them holy). God owns me, so he "owns" them too, because they are mine. But maybe they will rebel? (I pray God keep them from apostasy). But maybe they won't. I expect they won't. Instead, they will embrace their covenant God who marked them. But that only happens by faith, wrought by the Holy Spirit.


> *3.*I know that paedobaptism doesn't garauntee salvation. And non-paedobaptism doesn't garauntee salvation, therefore, if in the end the baptized child is not a believer, what benefit was there to the baptism? There was a definite tangible result of circumcision, there is no definite tangible (nor definite) result in baptism.


There is no benefit, apart from faith. Instead, there is JUDGMENT. Just like circumcision. I reject the notion that the circumcised "benefitted" in any real way from his circumcision. That piece of land? Might as well be a millstone around his neck, and cast into the sea. Same for the godless child (or adult) baptized and apostatized.


> *4.*this verse becomes soteriological in nature. The circumcised babies were promised ownership, not possibility of ownership, but a real promise of ownership of a land.


Again, you believe in purely secular promises to these people. I reject. End of question.



> Finally, I honestly wish that you don't misunderstand me, I'm not at all saying that I am opposed to presbyterians baptizing their children, all I'm saying is that I don't see it in 17:7's context. Notice that I am not refuting paedobaptism, I am only showing what I see from this verse is all.
> Personally, as everyone says they do, I also claim the following: I am only taking the very simple meaning of what scripture says. The verse says that it was for Abraham's children, and for the purpose of attaining a land. To apply it spiritually (as with all verses) is also feesable, but with care. How you get baptism for babies of presbyterians with no garaunteed result of being saved from this verse, I just don't see it.


I'll just say that taking verse 8, and calling that the determinative context is far too restrictive. Not to mention, the more important earlier verses in the chapter, the previous 5 chapters, the multiple references to giving Abraham the land several times previously, and the substance of the passage, which is focused not on the land, or inheritance, but on the seed of promise, and the extended offspring.

I do not see this as a secular promise, except as attatched to the Covenant of Grace, with those salvific-historical purposes in mind. The connection of faith to even getting back into the land, as well as the necesity of faith to staying in the land, tell me that inheriting the land was primarily a spiritual type. Circumcision was not an earth-bound sign.

Pax.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 22, 2006)

Contra_Mundum said:


> JohnV,
> I think I understand what you mean to convey in your post. I don't think you are proposing anything radical, or even strictly improper.
> 
> Having said that, I still respectfully refuse the terminology. I won't use it, and I doubt its wisdom. Would we talk in terms of "presumptive regeneration" when talking about adults? About our _spouse,_ assuming we married "in the Lord"? "Well, I presumed she was regenerated, that's why it was OK to marry her." Rather, we listened to her profession, we looked and saw fruit of the Spirit in her life. And then we acted accordingly.
> ...



Rich and Bruce:

I hope you don't mind, Rich, that I'm subsuming your post in Bruce's. I think you both said the same thing. 

I quite understand, and agree. And if you ever find me pushing presumptive regeneration in the context that you are opposing here, then go ahead and step on me for it. What you are saying is what I am saying, only you reject the terminology and I confront it head on, daring to use the same terminology to refute those who abuse it. 

Think of it this way. Let's say that I'm sitting with a few of the commissioners of the Westminster Assembly, and we're talking about infant baptism. I explain to them what I believe on the subject, using the term _presumptive regeneration_ very sparingly but using it all the same. They respond to me that this is exactly what they had tried to convey in the WCF and Catechisms. So I dare to suggest to them that perhaps they ought to have used the term _presumptive regeneration_ to make it plainer. Well, to this they all get very uncomfortable, and ask me to run through it all again for them. Only this time they are very critical of what I'm saying, asking all kinds of questions about this and that and everything else. 

Do you see the difference? If you suggest the same principles as the Bible's doctrines but in your own words, you're OK. But a soon as these terms are raised to doctrinal terminology, then you're in trouble with it. You could even say that the meanings of the terms take a 180. Just think of things like Theonomy and Presuppositionalism, and how they take a life of their own instead of being just useful terms of subjection to the Christian faith; the very thing that they claim to militate against is what they end up doing themselves. So it is with presumptive regeneration too: if we make it into a *P*resumptive *R*egeneration then it begins to oppose the very thing for which it was used at the first. 

What you're saying is patented presumptive regeneration of old. But making too much of it is exactly contrary to it, and your trepidation is justified. You are saying that too. I don't mind adding my two cents' worth now and then, but I'm not going to get into any debates or disputes with anyone for a while. I am content to leave it at this, with this seeming agreement between us.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 22, 2006)

John: Thanks, I understood you. I just prefer simpler language but we're on the same page.

Bruce: That post above to Frank was incredible. I just love reading your stuff.


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 22, 2006)

> 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]
> 
> ...


 
Why do parents presume their children to be regenerate? And does this regeneration occur at birth/baptism?



> 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]
> 
> ...


 
This apparently covers when that child would be saved (in God's sovereign time), but I still don't get why a parent is to presume the child to be regenerate when in fact they are not at least at birth (i think).




> Question 7: Are infants of believing parents to be considered Christians?
> 
> Answer: Yes.
> 
> ...



Why does this make them to be considered as Christians?


----------



## reformedman (Nov 22, 2006)

Bruce, thank you for the respectful response and in not taking offense by it, I hope I don't offend any paedobaptists here with it. Apologies to any if I did.

But it seems that I might be breaking this thread up into two ideas so should we start another thread to continue? I disagree with 90% of what you wrote, I agree with 2%, and you only reiterated what I wrote in the first place in about 8%. I'd like a chance to rebut if I may with the same cooperative interactive discussion we had on this one. Any chance we could continue this in another thread? It would probably be more organized that way.

Peace to you.


----------



## JM (Nov 22, 2006)

puritancovenanter made some good points in this thread.

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=20426&page=1

The thread was closed without comment on the last three posts, I'm still interested in reading the responses.

jm


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 22, 2006)

reformedman said:


> Bruce, thank you for the respectful response and in not taking offense by it, I hope I don't offend any paedobaptists here with it. Apologies to any if I did.
> 
> But it seems that I might be breaking this thread up into two ideas so should we start another thread to continue? I disagree with 90% of what you wrote, I agree with 2%, and you only reiterated what I wrote in the first place in about 8%. I'd like a chance to rebut if I may with the same cooperative interactive discussion we had on this one. Any chance we could continue this in another thread? It would probably be more organized that way.
> 
> Peace to you.



Hi Frank.

If you want to start a new thread, that's fine. Go ahead. I'll be looking for it, or you can PM me. Your pleasure.

I appreciate your concern to be kind, and not offend, etc. We should all be the same way. Communicating on the internet is an art. Letter-writing became less common when the telephone came along, and so many of us grew up not communicating much in writing. Then the internet came along and transformed instantaneous communication into a written medium. So now we have mixed together (generally) poor writing skills and conversational writing, plus a culture of "rights" where so many constantly make unreasonable and selfish demands. Those are an explosive mix. And sadly, it is true that some guys can't seem to put up a post without intentionally or unintentionally offending people. They either don't care how they come across, or can't adjust to how others consistently take their verbal blasts.

Frank, I don't think that's you. I think you (and others reading this take note for yourselves) you may "presume" that folks here will ordinarily take your stuff at face value, and not impute bad intentions to it. I don't think you need to bracket every post with a plea to be understood. Just be ready to apologize for needless offense if someone misreads you. Others also have a duty not to assume the worst.

I'm just glad this board is big enough (and adult enough) to allow both baptists and non-baptists to enjoy one another's company, and sharpen iron _if they want_ or stay out of this or that conversation if they'd rather not. The goal is sanctification, and if that isn't in our words and actions, then we're wrong.

2 Pet. 3:18 --- Grace and Knowledge


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 22, 2006)

JM said:


> puritancovenanter made some good points in this thread.
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=20426&page=1
> 
> ...



JM,
Since that thread is part of the archive and can't be resurrected, it would be better for you to reiterate *your* specific questions in a newer context. You could just copy over Randy's, or restate them--whatever.

PAX


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 22, 2006)

JM said:


> puritancovenanter made some good points in this thread.
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=20426&page=1
> 
> ...



Jason,
The thread you refer to is about the Covenant, this one is about presumption.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 22, 2006)

Scott Bushey said:


> Jason,
> The thread you refer to is about the Covenant, this one is about presumption.



Scott, I think he realizes that. I think he wants to begin a new thread in that vein.


----------



## JM (Nov 22, 2006)

Scott Bushey said:


> Jason,
> The thread you refer to is about the Covenant, this one is about presumption.



 can ya help a brotha out? I thought the presumption was due to the Covenant?

Peace,

jm


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 23, 2006)

JM said:


> can ya help a brotha out? I thought the presumption was due to the Covenant?
> 
> Peace,
> 
> jm



True.....


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 25, 2006)

When properly nuanced, and correctly explained and taught---I should now say I believe in "presumptive regeneration."

The key for me is the separate theological doctrines of regeneration and conversion, and the ordo salutis. Regeneration has to do with the granting of a certain capacity to a person, a change in nature. Conversion has to do with the exercise of that faculty as designed. Where the former is effected, the latter will certainly be also, as G.I. Williamson puts it: "regeneration is inseperable from its effects." While that may be _often practically simultaneously,_ which leads to the common assumption that these two--capacity and exercise, cause/effect--must be found together at all times, or neither is there. But that is not necessarily the case. A baby _in utero_ has the capacity to see, but unborn in the absence of light, sees nothing. Likewise a person with his eyes closed asleep, sees nothing--but when awakened does see, having had the capacity to see even while unseeing.

Regeneration is tied, in the ordinary means of grace, to the preaching of the Word. So, it is effectual calling _in the ministry of the Word_ that ordinarily effects regeneration, and regeneration that makes it possible to "hear" the Spirit doing the calling. In this sense, the two are so closely identified that putting the one ahead of the other is impossible. The action of the God the Spirit (a powerful calling) precedes the activity of the person (hearing), because he is the initator, the creator, the living One; and the man is first of all dead and passive. But the hearing must be "active" so as to receive the call! So the call does it all--calls and grants hearing (regenerates) in one act.

But it is the spirit of a man (not his organism) that "hears" the Voice of the Spirit. So, there must ordinarily be a divine coordination between the spoken Word, and the Spirit-given Word. Hence the necessary concepts of the means of grace and a mediated Word by the throat of a minister.

When I preach to the congregation, I am in fact presuming certain things: first, that those in my hearing have the capacity to receive spiritual truth, i.e. are regenerated. This is *both* the teaching aspect of my ministry, as well as a portion of the converting aspect. Some of these may have recently been given the capacity to see spiritually (new life, on another occasion of the Word), and the conversion being "in process," unto the full exercise of faith and repentance.

I also presume that some of my audience may, to begin with, not be regenerated, but I believe that by the power of the gospel and the Spirit, he may use that Word and coordinate his inward call so that faith might come by the hearing. Regeneration has the seed of all the rest of the divine work already present in it (conversion, justification, adoption, sanctification, glorification). And by the Word and Spirit, the remainer comes about.


So where does "presumptive regeneration" fit into this? Just here: I "presume" that the children in this church are being *called, converted, and taught,* all three in the ministry of the Word. The only way the hearing of the Word will do them any spiritual good is if the Holy Spirit is savingly active (_toto ordo_) in its presentation. But I don't know where they are, spiritually--no more than I know the state of any of the adults present. Some of them _may have been_ regenerated in the womb. Many, or even most in some churches, have been under Spirit-empowered preaching and spiritual instruction from parents and teachers thousands of times before they were 2 years old!

Every one of these teachers should have "presumed" that these children were capable of receiving rudimentary spiritual instruction, or else that by the very act of spiritual instruction, God would impart spiritual life, and so would be regenerated by the time they finished talking.

Here's yet another application: what good is a "truncated" gospel? I know of churches where all the spiritual instruction the youngest children receive, or Sunday School up through... whenever, is nothing but "have you received Jesus? have you received Jesus?" Or, the "Bible story" is taught, some "facts" and perhaps a moralistic life-lesson, but with no thought that the youth are really capable of receiving spiritual good until they've "received Jesus."

Until then, the goal is nothing but rearing compliant, respectful pagans. Hence, every class concludes with a "bow your head, close your eyes, raise your hand if you want to receive Jesus in your heart today." And come to think of it, isn't this what happens a lot in the regular service as well? Spiritual instruction is something that happens on your own, or in small groups, or post-conversion Suday School classes. There is no unifed message! The Spirit's gospel includes the "what wilt thou have me to do?" part as well.

As I see it, the difference in preaching the gospel properly is that it is never separated from the imperatives. And this holds in teaching down to the youngest level. There's no waiting for a profession, before assuming that one can speak cogently to the spirit of a child. We've _no idea_ when and where and how far the Spirit has moved on that little heart thus far.

"Oh, but what if that child is not one of the elect?" And? We don't ask that question about adults, or adjust our preaching accordingly. The non-elect are like ground that drinks in the rain, only to produce thorns and thistles. This is apostasy--the receiving of spiritual things, without finally sensibly appreciating them spiritually, because one is incapable of receiving them, being a natural man unto the end. But none of that is in our purview.

I think I have spiritual duty to presume the best, that those in my hearing *who belong to the church* are capable of receiving the Spirit of Truth. While at the same time acknowledging that this may not in fact be the case, and that there be those elect on whom the Spirit will yet be a long time pursuing, before beginning a saving work in them, as well as non-elect persons present. And my preaching unto them will be for the storing up of wrath against the day of wrath.


However, in the final analysis, I still do not like the terminology "presumptive". I feel as though it says just a bit too much; it goes over the line. Erroneous presumption is really "presumptive conversion" or "presumptive Christianity apart from the means of grace." True "presumptive regeneration" insists on seeking and drawing out the evidence of that regeneration, and is never satisfied to "presume it all" or "presume upon God's converting grace."

Tell me, would any decent preacher be content to ignore the sins of his people, because "they're saved, that's all forgiven"? Perish the thought! May God have mercy on that minister, because I've already judged him worthless.

If you presume regeneration, you better practice church discipline too, and "turn that person over to Satan," hoping even in excommunication for his recovery and reinstatement when he finally turns and repents. "Love hopes all things." If you presume regeneration, you better use all the means of grace, and all the other divine appointments unto blessed ends. Only then may you with a clean conscience leave the outcome in the hands of a merciful and all-good God. And you shoudl still pray for God to forgive your less-than-perfect use of those means. And finally pray that God would give you peace even if the person you once presumed upon was not one of God's after all.


Since I now confess I presume regeneration, I'd better do it properly.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 25, 2006)

Thanks for that Bruce. 

The presumptive part has to do with encouragement, consolation. It is so not only for myself during those trying times when the vicissitudes of life overtake me, but also for my children who may have to struggle with challenges which I could not even imagine. Who is to say at what point a person 'becomes saved', when in eternity it has been determined before the creation? For me it has a lot to do with treating the children for what they are without prejudice either way: not assuming condemnation nor salvation, but treating them as covenant children. They are not lost simply because they are too young to express a mature faith, (which for some of us means denying other things rather than affirming the right things, but which even we who are adult may not lay claim to our own credit,) nor are they automatically saved and sure to persevere. For from the circle of faith come those whom we are not to invite into our homes, not from the world; the world is to be evangelized, but those who are part of the household of faith who preach doctrines which Christ did not command, who incite men away from the one true faith, are the ones we are to be wary and watchful of. The world makes no pretense of love for the Lord or His Word, but those among us who plant insidious teachings do so in the name of the Lord, with the kind of presumption that we are to detest the most. So not every outward member of the covenant is a true believer. Yet even some of those people, such as Saul and Augustine, may become truly saved and be used mightily by the Spirit to lead others to salvation. 

Covenant membership has such awesome responsibility with it both ways. But we ought not ever to treat our children as any less than real people who have the sign of the covenant upon them. Whether they are saved or not we may not be able to tell with certainty, and we may be mistaken about it even when they are adult and have made a credible profession of their faith. Yet nevertheless, how can we treat the children of believers as foreign to the covenant of grace? How can we treat adult confessors or their children as outside of it?


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 25, 2006)

I found this blog post by OPC minister Patrick Ramsey to be helpful. He also had several other posts on presumptive regeneration/unregeneration, etc. around that same time.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 25, 2006)

Chris,
If you've read the former stuff I've presented in this thread, and in others, then you know that I am making a formal switch here. A switch from basically the Ramsey/Silversides statement, to saying that I cannot justify saying such things, while at the same time denying the implicit premise that I think is present there anyway.

Scott Bushey kept telling me that I was "presuming", no matter what I said to the contrary. I didn't want to believe him. Until my mind was percolating on its own, and suddenly I realized I had switched over, without even trying. I was suddenly convinced. My (slightly incoherent) post above is my train of thought as I sat down quickly to try to make sense of what I was now convinced of.

Bottom line--there is BAD presumption (and I still get a little queasy with the word), and there is PROPER presumption. Frankly, as I've written before, _treating certain people as if they are Christians_ is (I am now convinced) merely legerdemain for avoiding the word "presumption." Ramsey raises the same issue I have in the past about there being a difference between adults (presumption OK), and children (presumption BAD). I know Patrick, we were in Seminary together for a year before he graduated, I have a lot of respect for him. I just no longer see that distinction as being qualitative.

And I'm not defending my position now, over you or him, or others--I just felt that having publicly defended the other side, as recently as a few days ago, I had to be honest here, and say "I've moved. But I still don't like that word.... And I think that there is a whole lot of "presumtive" errors around that contribute to the demise of this doctrine, and our hesitancy to affirm it in so many words. The errors are what I truly think Silversides is objecting to (in the lecture I listened to).

Even this afternoon I found J.G. Vos unembarrassed to be using P-R terminology, from back last century. We're simply skitish, and rightly so given the environment.

I just say, that when I preach to even the youngest children in the congregation, _I am presuming that they can understand and implement spiritual truth, as enabled by the Holy Spirit._ And my attitude toward them is different from my attitude even toward an adult non-church member based on God's covenant promises toward them, that the unchurched do not have. I am acting in accordance with that presumption. No other term does it justice.


----------



## JM (Nov 25, 2006)

During the White/Shishko debate on Baptism I thought Shishko said he didn't presume regeneration. What is the OPC's view on this subject?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 25, 2006)

I don't think there is a "confessional" view on this, so asking the OPC website would probably get an answer like "there is no official stance." And then might follow some instruction on the status of covenant children, and how they are treated in the presbyterian church.

This is the basic issue, and the answer is pretty uniform, except for the terminology. (I'm just no longer going to dance around it myself). My guess is that when Pastor Shishko says he does not presume, he means what I used to mean--namely the BAD kind. But operationally we talk to those kids like they are capable of following our instructions with a spiritual heart. How do we interpret their obedience? Do we really say "I refuse to interpret this; not until he's at least two"? You cannot separate proper presumption from the means of grace.

Sorry, this thread is now officially distracting me, and I am repeating myself, and I am repeating myself, and I am rep--


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 25, 2006)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Chris,
> If you've read the former stuff I've presented in this thread, and in others, then you know that I am making a formal switch here. A switch from basically the Ramsey/Silversides statement, to saying that I cannot justify saying such things, while at the same time denying the implicit premise that I think is present there anyway.
> 
> Scott Bushey kept telling me that I was "presuming", no matter what I said to the contrary. I didn't want to believe him. Until my mind was percolating on its own, and suddenly I realized I had switched over, without even trying. I was suddenly convinced. My (slightly incoherent) post above is my train of thought as I sat down quickly to try to make sense of what I was now convinced of.
> ...



Bruce, I haven't read all of this thread but I can see how some of the terminology used in this debate can be seen as a distinction without a difference, or at least not much of a difference. I also haven't done a whole lot of study on this issue in particular but thought Patrick's posts on this issue were interesting, and his blog is one of the better ones that I read regularly. 

Here is an example of what I think you are getting at. I know a pastor who I'm fairly sure would deny holding to presumptive regeneration but who considers covenant children Christians in "a judgment of charity" similar to how we consider professing adults to be believers unless they prove otherwise. This pastor grew up in the old PCUS in a basically liberal church where it was just assumed that baptized children of church members were Christians and the means of grace, especially the preaching of the word, were neglected. (An indication of how times have changed is the fact that he says he learned more of the Bible and the gospel in the public schools in the 1950's than he did at his church!) After a period of serious rebellion and professed athiesm in high school this brother was dramatically and soundly converted only to have his pastor attempt to convince him that he had always been a Christian. I think that's an example of someone attempting to make distinctions that may not be qualitative based at least in part on having experienced the pitfalls of a BAD presumption as you refer to it. 

I think I've seen F.N. Lee write that in both the cases of covenant children and professing adults, it is a presumption, but a rebuttable presumption.


----------



## wsw201 (Nov 26, 2006)

To those who hold to PR in some form, how do you avoid "not" making regeneration the grounds for baptism?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 26, 2006)

wsw201 said:


> To those who hold to PR in some form, how do you avoid "not" making regeneration the grounds for baptism?



By understanding the doctrine, one could not fall into the error of baptismal regeneration:

VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.[17]

16. John 3:5, 8
17. Rom. 6:3-6; Gal. 3:27; I Peter 3:21; Acts 2:38, 41

As well, the great commission destroys such a idea:

Matthew 28:18 - Mark 1:1 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 26, 2006)

Scott, 

I think Wayne's question was not asking about baptismal regeneration, but why does the person who believes PR baptize their children? Do we baptize our children because of God's promises to us (which doesn't necessarily presuppose regeneration), or because we believe they are regenerate already, and therefore need the sign?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 26, 2006)

Jeff_Bartel said:


> Scott,
> 
> I think Wayne's question was not asking about baptismal regeneration, but why does the person who believes PR baptize their children? Do we baptize our children because of God's promises to us (which doesn't necessarily presuppose regeneration), or because we believe they are regenerate already, and therefore need the sign?



I don't believe that one has anything to do with the other; I place the sign because it is commanded.


----------



## wsw201 (Nov 26, 2006)

Scott Bushey said:


> I don't believe that one has anything to do with the other; I place the sign because it is commanded.



Scott,

You also place the sign because of the promise. Based on the long post you provided the promise of the covenant is a key ingredient to the formula. This is where PR come into play. You have a variety of quotes from various theologians. For instance you quoted Mastricht who said:

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

I can only "presume" that by adding this quote, (as well as others along the same lines) PR is so tied to the promise that they can not be separated. Therefore PR is the grounds on which infants should be baptised.

You also note Matt's catechism where he states:

*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*

Here again PR is tied to the promise, ie; part of the grounds for baptism. 

I may have missed it but it seems that the emphasis in PR is on the parents. What about the Church? Should not the Church also presume the same thing as the parents?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 26, 2006)

wsw201 said:


> Scott,
> 
> You also place the sign because of the promise. Based on the long post you provided the promise of the covenant is a key ingredient to the formula. This is where PR come into play. You have a variety of quotes from various theologians. For instance you quoted Mastricht who said:
> 
> ...





> You also place the sign because of the promise





> *Also.......*



To use Owen's language, it may be tied in the divided senses, but in the compound it is tied to the command. 

You ask:


> Should not the Church also presume the same thing as the parents?



Sure!


----------



## JohnV (Nov 26, 2006)

wsw201 said:


> To those who hold to PR in some form, how do you avoid "not" making regeneration the grounds for baptism?



Wayne:

I understand your concern. I've seen it many times myself. If I may I'd like to try to answer this question too.

Baptism has to be something that is taught to the congregation. We see it practiced in different ways, and people understand it in a lot of different ways. Churches (ministers and elders) have to teach about baptism to their congregations. But they also have teach the full array of doctrines to them as well. They can't go off into their favourite kinds of teachings. To cut to the chase, when people in the congregation begin to assume that baptism is done because the children are regenerate, then a lot more has gone wrong than a mistaken view on baptism. It would not be surprising to see such churches also get caught up in some latest craze, whether it is a supposedly orthodox one such as Theonomy or some liberal one such as opening the offices to women. All such things are clues to the fact that the congregation is slipping from the true faith. They are not merely presupposing the regeneration of their infants, but also of themselves, that they may do things freely which the order of the church forbids. They believe that they have a god-given right to go their own way for some reason. 

How you prevent this from happening? I think it has to done the same way that any schismatic and aberrant thing is prevented, by responsible teaching and oversight.


----------



## wsw201 (Nov 26, 2006)

Scott,

Since a number of folks are reading this thread who might not know what you are talking about, you may want to briefly explain what you mean by the divided and compound sense and how it applies in this situation.


----------



## wsw201 (Nov 26, 2006)

John,

You are quite correct. That is why the officers of the Church should stick to their respective Confessions versus favorite theologians.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 26, 2006)

wsw201 said:


> Scott,
> 
> Since a number of folks are reading this thread who might not know what you are talking about, you may want to briefly explain what you mean by the divided and compound sense and how it applies in this situation.



Owen uses the teminology in his works. McMahon uses it in his book, "The Two Wills of God". I believe the concept is founded in Greek modal systems. 
Well, in the compound, God commands, hence it is done. _It is Gods will_. In the divided, because God has promised, one could understand the promise as as binding, so the sign may be also placed under this rationale. But this would be in the divided sense; this is also Gods will and this is expressed in each of the elect by the amount of faith God graces His people with. The ultimate reason we all should apply the sign should be based upon Gods compound command.

In the compound, God commands, in the divided God promises.

I could be wrong; I've been called 'ignorant' most recently by another brother in the faith. 

Gump said it best, stupid is as stupid does.


----------



## wsw201 (Nov 26, 2006)

I don't think anyone would disagree with the compound sense since we are specifically commanded to baptize. Regarding the promise, since the promise is part of the formula, that is where you are going to have to make a decision; is the promise "binding" in the divided sense or any sense? If the promise is binding then you have grounds for PR, and PR is part of the grounds for baptism, otherwise its just being presumptious regarding the activity of the Holy Spirit and unbiblical wishful thinking for parents and or the Church.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 26, 2006)

wsw201 said:


> I don't think anyone would disagree with the compound sense since we are specifically commanded to baptize. Regarding the promise, since the promise is part of the formula, that is where you are going to have to make a decision; is the promise "binding" in the divided sense or any sense? If the promise is binding then you have grounds for PR, and PR is part of the grounds for baptism, otherwise its just being presumptious regarding the activity of the Holy Spirit and unbiblical wishful thinking for parents and or the Church.



and this is how Bruce thought about it previously................


----------



## wsw201 (Nov 26, 2006)

And Bruce was right then!!  And now has lost his way  

Then again I haven't heard from anyone willing to answer my original question, so I'll repeat it and make it a bit more susinct: If presumptive regeneration is an integral part of the promise in the formula of baptism, then how do you avoid making PR the grounds for baptism or at least a major part of it?

The answer is you can't. If you can't then you just have a twist to "believer's baptism". How you ask? Instead of requiring some sort of proof of regeneration, ie; profession of faith, you have the "covenant", which includes the "promise" as your evidence of regeneration. And since one will presume regeneration, it would follow that unless they show signs of apostacy, they are regenerate. So why not baptize them babies since what God promises will come true! 

So under this scenario are Presbyterians pseudo-Baptists? (or Baptists pseudo-Presbyterians?)


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 26, 2006)

> If presumptive regeneration is an integral part of the promise in the formula of baptism, then how do you avoid making PR the grounds for baptism or at least a major part of it?
> 
> The answer is you can't.


C'mon Wayne. Do you believe God? Do you act on that belief? There's a degree of presumption there, no matter what you call it. I'd call that _warranted presumption,_ as long as it is kept in bounds. The fact that we may have our facts wrong only means God knows more than we do. And we submit to him in that as well.

1) You can presume something, and act in accordance with that presumption, without being so committed to that article that you can't make any adjustments.

2) The issue of whether or not H.S. present, or actual regeneration, or faith--all these are "fitness" questions, which _could be true_ but manifestly aren't necessary for a real, water baptism to take place.

3) And that's a big difference there between C-Bs and P-Bs. We believe the (faithful) church does baptisms, and even apostates were really _baptized,_ not a false-baptism because not "really saved".

I think those observations go a long way to mooting the issue of whether P-R lies at or near the fundamental basis for baptism.

As for looking for signs of apostasy, one should better be looking for signs of conversion first. Real regeneration will issue next in repentance and faith. The lecture I heard from Silversides probably did at least in part push me over into P-R, not because he advocated it (he rejected the term as I did), but because what he did say made me think, and clarified some things. *Yes,* as a matter of fact (as Silversides put it), we do treat our children like covenant keepers until they show themselves to be otherwise.

Warranted presumption would never think of abandoning the means of grace, the role of the Spirit and Word in E-C, Reg, Conv, and Sanct. It would have to uphold the role of godly parenting, discipline, and other instruction in righteousness.

As I said above someplace--regeneration is not conversion. But you don't make any spiritual headway at all with a dead body--until new life. Love hopes all things. As a pastor or parent, you've got to be expecting your labors are being effective from day 1. If you don't operate presumptively on the promise, then you have no basis for operating at all, far as I can see.


Something just occurred to me--How old was Polycarp when he started serving the Lord? Or, what did Polycarp believe about himself as a babe?


----------



## JohnV (Nov 26, 2006)

Wayne:

Favourite theologians and even favourite theologies have to do with men themselves, but not with the offices. Officers in the Church represent Christ and His teachings, not themselves and their own teachings. So you are right. 

I have not used PR in any other sense than to demonstrate the orthodox view of baptism, what it means and why the Church does it. Scott and Bruce are right in suggesting that a presumption of some kind is necessary, and I would add it is even commnanded, in the promises of God for which He commands baptism. I have not used it as a false security to foster some kind of new theology, or a theology founded upon principles of man's doing in me. I will continue to stand and defend the theology which our fathers in the faith defended, the same faith which our church covenants defend. 

I understand that PR has been and may again be used to promote aberrant theologies. You can tell when people begin to leave the faith because they cling to secondary things more than the main points of true theology. It is nothing more than a way to explain the main points of baptism, to offset the competing explanations or Biblical interpretations which are set in opposition to the orthodox view of baptism. If it is or becomes any more than that, if PR becomes a doctrine on its own, then you are right to fear and shun it. 

Let me repeat: PR is an explanation of the covenant being conveyed also upon the children of believers, to show the logical continuity of it to the OT promises to Abraham. If it becomes a doctrine on its own, then it is nothing more than what Presuppositionalism is to some, what Postmillennial is to some, what a new perspective on Paul is to some, what a new idea on the creation days is to some: a pet theology that saves orthodoxy for them. They fool themselves into thinking that some human theory is the salvation of Biblical doctrine; and they accuse those who do not follow them in their thinking of being in sin for no other reason than that they do not follow them. If PR has become that, then it is not the pr that we are talking about, any more than it is the presuppositionalism that others are talking about who do not make it a doctrinal point of orthodoxy, any more than it is the postmillennialism that others are talking about who do not make it a doctrinal point of orthodoxy. There is nothing wrong with being a presuppositionalist or a postmillennialist, as long as those who hold know the limitations of these views, and do not raise it to unseemly proportions. In the same way, PR raised to unseemly proportions is a blight upon the theology we defend. 

So you are right, we have to be careful. 

If we have defended it in any way that slights our brothers in the faith who do not like to use this terminology, then I apologize. I still hold to it, and I still believe that it explains baptism well, and does so Scripturally. But it is not a doctrine. If it has come across as a doctrine, then I apologize. Baptism is not grounded on PR, but on the promises and the command. But the promises and the command is what presumptive regeneration is all about, as an explanation of them, not as a replacement of them.


----------



## wsw201 (Nov 27, 2006)

Bruce,

Based on your posts it sounds like you are walking a very fine line, but you can't have your cake and eat it to.  *To presume is to assume something without any evidence that it actually happened. * In regards to the baptism of adults, the church does not need to "presume" since evidence is required before baptism, ie; a credible profession of faith and some evidence that the person is living out that faith to some degree. Since what Scott has presented in his posts, which makes PR an integral part of the grounds for baptism, the church would have to have two grounds for baptism, one for adults and one for infants (with and without PR being apart of the grounds). So the question is far from moot despite someones "presumptions". If we were to baptize adults under the PR scenario, why would we ever ask for evidence of regeneration via a credible profession?

You have brought in a new term "warranted presumption". I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.

But then again, we know that what we require from adults we do not require from infants, ie; a credible profession and holy living in order to be baptized. We do require it from at least one of the parents of the infant, otherwise we could not baptize the infant regardless of what we may presume. We ask for a profession from the parent because the church considers the children of believers Federally holy by way of the covenant ("the promise is to you and your children). Just because an infant is Federally holy under the Covenant does not mean we should presume upon the Holy Spirit that He has regenerated them. We accept the parents profession and expect the parents to bring up their child to understand the meaning of their baptism until they reach the age of discretion and can make their own profession of faith.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 27, 2006)

Wayne,
What do *you* mean by "grounds"? I think the answer to that question will go far to clearing away our talking across each other.

Think about what we're saying here, when we say a person has been baptized. Suppose the adult was lying/mistaken when he gave his profession. Its the baptist, not us, who state that he wasn't baptized following. So, since he was really baptized, despite his lie/error, P-R can't be the basis or "ground" in my understanding, for baptizing him.

If you could respond to that observation, it will help our conversation, I think.


I don't accept your definition of "presumption," without further qualification. The first definition in my dictionary states *to take for granted as being true in the absence of of proof to the contrary*. If I add the term "warranted" to that, I am bringing in the _qualified_ promises of God; we are not allowed to take his Word beyond their defined limits, i.e. to assume too much.

The second goes *to give reasonable evidence for assuming; appear to prove*. That's pretty close to what physical baptism is doing.

Only the 3rd definition reads *to venture without authority or permission; to dare*. It seems as though you want to say if we accept P-R as an adequate description of what we do, we must be DARING. Wrong. I reject.

Peace.


----------



## wsw201 (Nov 27, 2006)

What I mean by grounds is simply "why" we baptize anyone. Its that simple. The grounds or reasons are the command and promise of God.

I don't disagree with your second point since that is a problem that Baptists face in attempting to baptize only the regenerate. But this may be where you part company with Scott, who seems to be making the point that PR *IS* an integral part of the grounds for baptism. This was Kuyper's position that was rejected by the Dutch Church per Berkhof.

The definition that I noted is basically the first one you have mentioned. Where would you stick the word "warranted" in that definition? So we are on the same page regarding the definition of warranted, here it is per Dictionary.com:

1. Authorization or certification; sanction, as given by a superior. 
2. Justification for an action or a belief; grounds: “He almost gives his failings as a warrant for his greatness” (Garry Wills). 
3. Something that provides assurance or confirmation; a guarantee or proof: a warrant of authenticity; a warrant for success. 

I'm not using the second or third definitions of presumption.

As an aside, In my humble opinion, the whole issue of PR is a pastoral issue born out of how to deal with the question parents may have regarding the salvation of their children. Its understandable but really has no solid biblical foundation.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 27, 2006)

Wayne writes:



> But this may be where you part company with Scott, who seems to be making the point that PR IS an integral part of the grounds for baptism.



Where did I say this???

I previously said:



> I place the sign because it is commanded.



Then you replied:



> I can only "presume" that by adding this quote, (as well as others along the same lines) PR is so tied to the promise that they can not be separated. Therefore PR is the grounds on which infants should be baptised.



Wayne,
The above quote is your conclusion. I have no idea where you got this idea from when I clearly stated that the sign is placed based upon Gods command. I cannot be held responsible for your conclusion; it's yours.


----------



## wsw201 (Nov 28, 2006)

Scott,

You may very well be right that I "presumed" too much. But my presumption was based on your posts. Especially your long post that included Matt's catechism, which stated that the grounds for baptism was not only the command but the promise. I assumed that since you posted that, that it was your position. In addition, the various quotes you posted led me to believe that you agreed with all of them.

If this is not the case, then I apologize for the confussion.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 28, 2006)

Scott:

With all due respect, Wayne is right about this. I too think that presumptive regeneration is a useful and powerful tool against certain views of baptism. But it is not Biblical language per se. The Q&A of Matt's catechism clearly says the words "presumptive regeneration". That is going too far, I believe. 

After all I've said concerning those who have over-convinced themselves of things like presuppositionalism and postmillennialism, convincing themselves to the point that they cannot see these views as anything else but binding doctrines that must be imposed upon others, if I now made the same mistake about something I was convinced of and included "presumptive regeneration" in a catechism, then I would be doing the same thing that I have been opposing all this time. 

A catechism is supposed to be a teaching tool of Christian doctrine. By putting these words into it, it makes it a teachable doctrine. The texts that are given do not support the inclusion of the term as a Biblical teaching. If it was left out, and remained merely as a methodology used in certain circumstances, such as answering specific objections from Baptists and liberals, then I would be all for it. You know that, because I defended it strongly. I haven't changed my position on it at all. But neither am I going to change my position on it the other way, by asserting it as a Biblical doctrine. I won't do with presumptive regeneration what some have done with presuppositionalism and postmillennialism, making them precommitments to theology. 

That, if I understand Wayne, is his objection. If it is a Biblical doctrine, because it is specifically stated in Matt's catechism as a component, then it necessarily becomes an integral part of baptism.


----------

