# What to presume of our children



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 11, 2004)

I thought I would start this up again, as my studies of the issue have sprouted some more questions. I guess this is primarily for paedo's since the answer for the credo's is already obvious. 

In past threads Matt, Scott, Kevin, and John have argued well for a form of presumptive regeneration. We presume that our children are regenerate until they prove otherwise based on the promises of God, originally given to Abraham, that God would be a God to our descendents as well as to us. 

So I guess I would like to make an even finer distinction about this. We may presume that our children are regenerate but at the same time, we wouldn't excommunicate them as a child for their unrepentent sins would we? We would not do that unless they had made profession of faith and were full communicant members (and even that move for a professing child would be debatable I think). These children are treated differently before they make profession of faith. They are treated for judicial purposes the same as visiting unbelievers because they cannot be tried by a church court. 

So are we really presuming that our children are regenerate and have eternal life when we practice our judicial proceedings in this way? Or do we presume that they are being prepared for it? Thornwell argued that our children are like hiers of an inheritance, which they do not recieve (at least publicly) until they make profession of faith. In other words, until we know that they possess the required condition of accessing the promises (faith) then we withold the full benefits of membership. To follow the analogy, they do not receive the inheritance (communicant membership) until they've grown up (profession of faith) and before profession they must be trained up or prepared to receive the inheritance.

So, what do you all think? Is this version of presumption different than what has been argued here by Matt or John?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 12, 2004)

Pat,
2 questions back at cha..........
1) What kind of unrepentant sins would a child commit that would be warranting excommunication? 
2) Would an adult be excommunicated for the same sins?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 12, 2004)

[quote:952af98aa6][i:952af98aa6]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:952af98aa6]
Pat,
2 questions back at cha..........
1) What kind of unrepentant sins would a child commit that would be warranting excommunication? 
2) Would an adult be excommunicated for the same sins? [/quote:952af98aa6]
Well, for arguments sake lets say stealing. The child refuses to obey his parents and the elders and heed their correction. And lets assume he knows it is wrong and that he is age 8.

[Edited on 4-12-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## yeutter (Apr 12, 2004)

*sacraments and regeneration*

I like your formulation of the issue of presumptive regeneration.

If God is an active participant in baptism; declaring and sealing the promice of the Gospel to the infant: then your type of presumptive regeneration would seem to follow.

If the sacrament of baptism is merely a sign or symbol of God' grace to believers and their seed, and their is no action of God in the sacrament other then the Word spoken in connection with it: then it would be hard to make a case for presumptive regeneration.

The urgency with which baptism is urged in connection with the preaching of the Gospel in Acts 22:16 and Acts 2:38 would seem to indicate that God is actively using Baptism as a means of grace to bring His people to Him.

In Romans 4:11 we find circumcision being called &quot;a seal of the righteousness of the faith.&quot; What is said of circumcision would seam to also apply to baptism.


----------



## kceaster (Apr 12, 2004)

*Patrick....*

The reason that I believe an unrepentant child would not be put out of the assembly is because they are not yet federally responsible. I would have no qualms putting someone out of the Church who was no longer under their federal head. And just because they are excommunicated, does that mean, at some point, God may not move in them so that they would be restored?

In fact, the basic reason for Church censures is for the restoring of the brother.

I guarantee that a child living in my house would be severely punished for unrepentant sin. I would bring him to the elders of the Church if he persisted as well.

But, I would find this unlikely in a child that has been taught from birth. I would tend to think that most children would repent even if it took much coercion. This does not mean that further consequences may not come. If they are unrepentant at this stage, while in the house of their parents, then it will probably only get worse when they are out on their own.

But I would say that federally, they should not be censured with excommunication until they were ready to live on their own. That does not mean they should continue to take the Supper, though.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 12, 2004)

So then Kevin, you would excommunicate a non-comminicant member? On what grounds? His unrepentant sin or his not making profession of faith? And if you excommunicate him, are you then declaring that his life until that point was ok?

[Edited on 4-12-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## JohnV (Apr 12, 2004)

Patrick:
[quote:66f0212a41]So are we really presuming that our children are regenerate and have eternal life when we practice our judicial proceedings in this way? Or do we presume that they are being prepared for it?[/quote:66f0212a41]

The two basic things to remember are, first, that the children of believers are also in the covenant, and second, that the promises are not empty promises. There is no promise to regenerate every covenant child regardless of his personal life and faith. As you see in all the encouragements in the OT and in the NT, we all need to be strong and courageous in faith to do all that is commanded. This is not a legalistic faith; it is not that we need to obey to receive the blessings, but we need faith in God, that He will deliver to us His Word to instruct us in righteousness as we trust in Him and look to Him, through (the now revealed) Christ Jesus our Lord. 

Even for the full grown believer, who has made a public profession of his faith, he is encouraged to be strong and courageous in abiding in the Word. As a child grows he must also grow in these graces. A parent is not excused from any duties because of the covenant. Rather he is even more responsible to his child, to teach and nurture both knowledge and trust in the Word. Many a nation is without the gospel because parents had rejected it. 

So a presumption that leads to complacency is not at all the presumption that is a direct observance of the promises. God promises His continuing grace, and He does this so that we may rest in His promises, which is a call to presume upon them. It is a command to do so. Instead of telling the children to go to their parents, as the disciples tried to do, Jesus says, &quot;Do not forbid them, for of such is the kingdom of God&quot; (to paraphrase somewhat. ) Resting on His promises is not a call to do nothing, but a call to work in the salvation given to us. We have a duty to our children in obedience to God. 

It is easy enough even for us to think that we are saved in spite of our sins. It is true, we are, and so are the children who are saved. But we are called, both we and our children, to live a life of faith, not faithlessness. Living like a Christian should, in faith unto love and obedience, is far different than just living in the church, reciting all the words and lines that are required. All those catechism lessons mean nothing if an awareness of God's presence is left out of the life of the parent. 

The end of the law is this, that we love God and our neighbour. Love fulfills the law. That is what we are called to. And the only answer we have to that is faith, not legal obedience. Through faith we learn and grow in the graces needed to fill up the law. But what kind of love have we engendered in ourselves if we are complacent to our children in regard to the wonderful message of salvation that is bequeathed to them through the covenant? Do we think it will come to them automatically, without the faith that we have received? That faith is the very focus of the promises; why would anyone think that it is not necessary, and so neglect it? That is hardly the love which a courageous faith builds up. 

So a presumption that leads to a lax love of the child, or a mere human or self-oriented love of a child, thinking that he will inherit eternal life through his parents is a strange and foreign presumption. All that is presumed is the promises of God, His faithfulness to accomplish all that He (as the old phraseology has it ) &quot;vouchsafed to us in His Word.&quot;


----------



## Saiph (Apr 12, 2004)

[quote:810e00b68f]
So then Kevin, you would excommunicate a non-comminicant member?
[/quote:810e00b68f]

Isn't that the very definition of excommunication?

How can you excommunicate someone who is not taking communion ? ?


[quote:810e00b68f]
WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH 

Chapter XXX. Of Church Censures

I. The Lord Jesus, as king and head of His Church, has therein appointed a government, in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate . 

II. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed; by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain, and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word, and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the Gospel; and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require. 


III. Church censures are necessary, for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethres, for deterring of others from the like offenses, for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump, for vindicating the honor of Christ, and the holy profession of the Gospel, and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the Church, if they should suffer His covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders. 


IV. For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the Church are to proceed by admonition; [b:810e00b68f]suspension from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper for a season; and by excommunication from the Church; according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person [/b:810e00b68f]. 


[/quote:810e00b68f]




[Edited on 4-12-2004 by Wintermute]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 12, 2004)

> [i:367212e188]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:367212e188]
> Patrick:
> [quote:367212e188]So a presumption that leads to a lax love of the child, or a mere human or self-oriented love of a child, thinking that he will inherit eternal life through his parents is a strange and foreign presumption. All that is presumed is the promises of God, His faithfulness to accomplish all that He (as the old phraseology has it ) &quot;vouchsafed to us in His Word.&quot; [/quote:367212e188]
> Well, John I am not arguing that our presumption leads to a lax of love or laziness in teaching our children the way of salvation or their covenant obligations to God. We are all agreed on that. I just see a possible inconsistency in presuming them regenerate and the way they may be treated by the church judiciously. Are we actually presuming they have the reality of the promise? Or are we presuming that they [i:367212e188]will[/i:367212e188] have the promise and are being trained up for it? We all agree that they must not partake of the Lord's Supper until they make profession of faith. So, practically speaking we are making a two-tiered church membership, baptized members and communicant members. I'm not saying this is wrong, because the reformed churches have done this since the Reformation in one form or another. I just think we need to clarify what exactly we are presuming about the non-professing members. We may consider them heirs of the promise, but does that mean we presume they have apprehended the promise? Or is that presumption only to be made once they make profession of faith?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 12, 2004)

[quote:1cfef7cfd8][i:1cfef7cfd8]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:1cfef7cfd8]
Isn't that the very definition of excommunication?

How can you excommunicate someone who is not taking communion ? ?
[/quote:1cfef7cfd8]
That's the dilemma I'm talking about. We call our children members of the church. Yet they are not communicate members. they do not partake of the full blessings of the church, or what Thornwell called the &quot;inner sanctuary.&quot; So if you excommunicate them, what are they really losing? And what were we presuming of these non-professing members in the first place?


----------



## yeutter (Apr 12, 2004)

*excommunication*

Scripture says more about excommunication then suspending them from the Lord's Table.

It says we are to regard them as sinners and tax collectors.
We are not to break bread with them.

Does that apply to covenant children who have not made profession of faith? I think the answer is yes. Such an act of the kirk might force the covenant child to think about his walk and life.


----------



## kceaster (Apr 12, 2004)

*Patrick...*

[quote:fd577536e9][i:fd577536e9]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:fd577536e9]
So then Kevin, you would excommunicate a non-comminicant member? On what grounds? His unrepentant sin or his not making profession of faith? And if you excommunicate him, are you then declaring that his life until that point was ok?

[Edited on 4-12-2004 by puritansailor] [/quote:fd577536e9]

No, excommunication would be based upon the fact that he had, at once, made a confession. He would not be taking communion unless he had. He would not have it taken away, unless he were a communicant member.

But, I find it hard to believe that a child or adolescent would not be admitted to the table while they can communicate the articles of faith. Essentially, because our church just went through this with the OPC, all of our children around 10 or older, could make a credible profession of faith. This does not mean that they are regenerate. It means that they have been taught the articles of faith and based upon their ability to expound on those, they have all been admitted to the table.

If they committed a sin for which they were unrepentant, they would be disallowed to take communion. If this attitude of unrepentance continued until after they were out of the house, they would be excommunicated.

In our small assembly, this is fairly easy to ascertain.

But you are correct, we would not excommunicate a non-communicant member. We would suggest to them that they fellowship elsewhere.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Saiph (Apr 12, 2004)

[quote:cb5666b1bf]
If they committed a sin for which they were unrepentant, they would be disallowed to take communion. If this attitude of unrepentance continued until after they were out of the house, they would be excommunicated. 
[/quote:cb5666b1bf]

Agreed.

Covenant keeping is promise believing.

[Edited on 4-12-2004 by Wintermute]


----------



## luvroftheWord (Apr 12, 2004)

[quote:6bd317c7e4][i:6bd317c7e4]Originally posted by Puritansailor[/i:6bd317c7e4]
That's the dilemma I'm talking about. We call our children members of the church. Yet they are not communicate members. they do not partake of the full blessings of the church, or what Thornwell called the &quot;inner sanctuary.&quot; So if you excommunicate them, what are they really losing? And what were we presuming of these non-professing members in the first place?[/quote:6bd317c7e4]

Ding! Ding! Ding! That's the million dollar question!


----------



## Saiph (Apr 12, 2004)

For the record that is one of the things that makes me embrace paedocommunion. Even though it goes against the stalwart giants of church history.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 12, 2004)

[quote:206672b040]
So then Kevin, you would excommunicate a non-comminicant member? 
[/quote:206672b040]

I do not think this necessarily follows.

Who does the child first pay respect to - the church or his parents?

It woudl be his parents. His parents are covenatally responsible for his actions. He should be punished at home.
If the child persists in his disobediecne, at age 8, and has made no profession of faith, why would it be wrong, as a judgment of the father, to have the church take disciplinary measures against the child even though the child is young?

PRACTICALLY - you would really have to be a disgruntled kids to stand up against the pastor. Let's think of this in a real life situation.

What would you feel like as an 8 year old kid being brought to the session to be disciplined byt he pastor and elders of the church after your parents have tanned your behind continually? Are we really saying that the child is THAT disobedient is brought up in a Christian home under covneant repsoibilities. I understand children come out of the womb speaking lies, but are we really banming on them continuing to steal even after they have been disciplined, and even after they have been told that the pastor is angry with them and they will have to speak with the elders of the church? I think that alone woudl be enough to frightend them into submission, even if it was phoney repentance.

You do have the parents right over the child, even at an older age, for discipline - 

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: 19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; 20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. 21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

How then does this carry over to any extent to the 8 year old?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 12, 2004)

[quote:d12d28cb03][i:d12d28cb03]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:d12d28cb03]
[quote:d12d28cb03]
So then Kevin, you would excommunicate a non-comminicant member? 
[/quote:d12d28cb03]
How then does this carry over to any extent to the 8 year old? [/quote:d12d28cb03]
I guess that is the point. We don't carry this over to the 8 year old normally. They are considered under their parents. But if we are presuming these children to be regenerate, then it would seem to me that we shouldn't be withholding them from the full fellowship of the church as communicate members. But if Thornwell, is correct, and we are presuming that our children are heirs of the promise, not necessarily posessing it yet, then it seems justified to keep them from full membership until they make profession of faith and then we can presume upon that evidence that they have in fact taken hold of the promises and are entitled to communicate membership. Am I making sense?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 12, 2004)

You are making &quot;Thornwallian&quot; sense. 


[quote:59ddf212a2]
But if we are presuming these children to be regenerate, then it would seem to me that we shouldn't be withholding them from the full fellowship of the church as communicate members.
[/quote:59ddf212a2]

No, that does not follow - why? 1 Cor. 11 (and Exodus 12) give us directives about who can partake. So we have directions on how a child may or may not partake of the Lord's Supper. That does not make them not members. One does not have to partkae of the Lord's Supper in order to be a member of the church. The Lord's Supper is a priveledge of membership so long as the directives for partaking are met (which would toss out Paedocommunion on both the Lord's Supper front and the Passover front as Exodus 12 demonstrates - a discussion for another time.)


[quote:59ddf212a2]
But if Thornwell, is correct, and we are presuming that our children are heirs of the promise, not necessarily posessing it yet, then it seems justified to keep them from full membership until they make profession of faith and then we can presume upon that evidence that they have in fact taken hold of the promises and are entitled to communicate membership. Am I making sense? 
[/quote:59ddf212a2]

If Thornwall is right, then he should not, at any point, offer his children ANY of the priveledges of the regenerate (which woudl include baptism and make him an inconsistent baptist - which is EXACTLY what he was on this issue.)

[Edited on 4-12-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 12, 2004)

[quote:9a81e45c27][i:9a81e45c27]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:9a81e45c27]
If Thornwall is right, then he should not, at any point, offer his children ANY of the priveledges of the regenerate (which woudl include baptism and make him an inconsistent baptist - which is EXACTLY what he was on this issue.)
[/quote:9a81e45c27]
I wouldn't go so far as to call him a baptist. In the particular writing that he sets forth his ideas, he quotes men from the Scottish and Dutch circles to support his claim. And I think his emphasis is not that these children can't be regenerate, but the church treats them unregenerate until they make profession of faith when it comes to their access to membership benefits (Lord's Supper, voting, the privilege of baptizing their own children, etc.). 

So perhaps you are presuming they are regenerate in one way, but when it comes to practical ecclesiology we presume them unregenerate until they make profession of faith. This is the common practice of teh reformed churches. Isn't this inconsistent?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 12, 2004)

Pat,
I agree that this is an inconsistancy. That is why I cringe when I hear of these communicant/confirmation classes. I have said that by doing this, it would seem as if one contradicts the faith they said they believed in during infant baptism. Also, one might think this borders upon semi-Pelagianism.

[Edited on 4-12-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Saiph (Apr 12, 2004)

[quote:fffffe98d0]
I agree that this is an inconsistancy. That is why I cringe when I hear of these communicant/confirmation classes. I have said that by doing this, it would seem as if one contradicts the faith they said they believed in during infant baptism. Also, one might think this borders upon semi-Pelagianism. 
[/quote:fffffe98d0]

There is no border at all as I see it. 
It IS semi-pelagianism.


----------



## JohnV (Apr 12, 2004)

Scott and Mark:
You lost me here. Can you expand on this a bit so that I know what you're referring to?

Patrick:
I know that your intention was to the effect of the responsibility of a child when it comes to accountability for sins. That was why I went on the way I did. 

I think Matt is right in pointing out that you are talking about something very unusual. But Paul brings in a 15 year old who is guilty of treason. I think that is a good illustration.

Just as the judicial system would take into account the age of the perpetrator of the crime in relegating a just punishment, so also the Church should be even more sensitive to that. If a child is that incorrigible, then there must be some bigger problem somewhere else. Simply punishing the child for reacting to a poor upbringing, or to a very bad personal or social environment, is not justice. Nor is it very pastoral. Even the extreme of excommunication is a pastoral activity, not a judicial one per se. To ignore the soul's real need is not acting on his behalf. A judicial act in the church is meant to act on his behalf, not against it. How much more a pastoral act of admonishment?

That is why it is necessary first to establish just what it means for a child to be a member in the covenant. And that requires a good understanding of a confessing member's membership. It is first of all positive. And even in it's negative aspects, it is meant to be positive. 

Let us not force issues based on extremely questionable cases. In each such situation we would need to address the person in his true need. But even so, it could not be done without an express understanding of the soul's place in the covenant. 


I also agree with Matt that this question rather demonstrates for a need to be careful not to allow members into full communion at too young an age and at too soon an understanding of the responsibilities in the covenant, and especially not to have non-professing children partake of the Lord's Supper. In such a case it would be good to ask the kind of question that you ask: what if a child becomes incorrigible after he has received communion? What if he refuses the faith later when he becomes a man? The question is not centred on the child, but on the responsibilities of the elders in properly guarding the souls of the congregation as well as guarding the table. 

And this is the case in your scenario as well.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 12, 2004)

John, 
Here is Patrick post I was responding to:

&quot;So perhaps you are presuming they are regenerate in one way, but when it comes to practical ecclesiology we presume them unregenerate until they make profession of faith. This is the common practice of teh reformed churches. Isn't this inconsistent?&quot;

Unless I misunderstood Patrick he was making mention of an inconsistancy in the thinking of those whom embrace a PR. I remarked that indeed I agree that it is inconsistant to stand upon Gods promise at the baptism and when the child reaches 12 or so, challenge our faith by initiating a process (communicants class) that in essence contradicts that which we have previously claimed.


----------



## JohnV (Apr 12, 2004)

Scott:
Thanks for clarifying. I agree with that. It seems to me that the promises don't cease to be valid when classes start for the education in the faith. Nor do they cease to be valid when one does profession of faith. Nor do they cease to be valid upon death. Nor do they necessarily cease if one is excommunicated. The promises are for eternity, because the kingdom is ours already if we are truly in Christ. It is that hope, that expectation, which fills the promise with content and purpose for us. It is for these that the action of discipline is taken.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 12, 2004)

[quote:eb87f329a7][i:eb87f329a7]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:eb87f329a7]
Scott:
Thanks for clarifying. I agree with that. It seems to me that the promises don't cease to be valid when classes start for the education in the faith. Nor do they cease to be valid when one does profession of faith. Nor do they cease to be valid upon death. Nor do they necessarily cease if one is excommunicated. The promises are for eternity, because the kingdom is ours already if we are truly in Christ. It is that hope, that expectation, which fills the promise with content and purpose for us. It is for these that the action of discipline is taken. [/quote:eb87f329a7]

John,
In that case, why have the class then?


----------



## JohnV (Apr 12, 2004)

Scott:
[quote:52918b958b]John, 
In that case, why have the class then? [/quote:52918b958b]
It is precisely because we believe our children to be in the covenant that we have the classes. We have an incumbency to teach them the way of faith, to be strong and courageous in abiding in the Word of our Lord, to be instructed by it, to face every obstacle with faith and a determined steadfastness in the Word. That doesn't come with thecomplacent efforts of the parents, but with constant guidance, the same as the parent subjects himself to.

Rather than making the classes needless, PR necessitates them.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 12, 2004)

[quote:9d659b456e][i:9d659b456e]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:9d659b456e]
Scott:
[quote:9d659b456e]John, 
In that case, why have the class then? [/quote:9d659b456e]
It is precisely because we believe our children to be in the covenant that we have the classes. We have an incumbency to teach them the way of faith, to be strong and courageous in abiding in the Word of our Lord, to be instructed by it, to face every obstacle with faith and a determined steadfastness in the Word. That doesn't come with thecomplacent efforts of the parents, but with constant guidance, the same as the parent subjects himself to.

Rather than making the classes needless, PR necessitates them. [/quote:9d659b456e]

John,
But as parents, aren't we to do that at home. Why do I need a class at my church to do that which God has commanded that I do at home. 

Some have said that it is important to establish whether or not the child is able to discern the Lords body for the supper. I disagree here also. It is also my job to do this. God forbid I stumble my child and have her partake prior to her discening and am fitted for a millstone tie!

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## JohnV (Apr 12, 2004)

Scott:
Why does it have to be either/or? The parents have a responsibility to not only teach basic precepts, but even more so the practice of it in daily life by example and teaching. So it is the duty of the parent in the first place.

The teaching that a child receives in the home is to be encouraged at church. But it is also taught in a more systematic way, and more thouroughly, and more authoritatively at church. So it is the duty of the church as well. 

I can't see it being the responsibility of the one without the other. 

If followed through carefully, I believe, this results in a more careful approach to the table of the Lord, in that we don't want to be open to abuse of the table by our own children should they become delinquent in faith when they reach physcal maturity and therefore independence of life and responsibility. 

But I think I have to be careful here for two reasons: first, some churches are more inclined to being open about the Lord's Supper than others in who they allow to partake (e.g. visitors and/or non-members, etc. ) The more closed the communion is the more they will also guard against the abuse in their own midst, one would think. But that is not always the case; sometimes its quite opposite. It is a question that depends on the region, the fellowship between nearby churches, and a host of other things.

Second, I don't want to assume that those who include children are not being careful in that way, in that I would suggest a carelessness in allowing it. I really don't know the people of whom I am talking about, so how can I say anything against their character. This question depends on the maturity of each congregation. 

I would add that we need to also be careful not to impose too much on the administration of the Supper, so as to make it more like the Roman Catholic Mass, i.e. a magical administration of grace all by itself. Not discerning the body in the Supper is also not discerning the body in the preaching of the Word. The grace that is given in each is the same grace, not a different grace. Those who sit under the Word are just as much under the injuction as those who partake. 

As I said, I think this calls for a careful responsibilty, not one that believes everything is OK and good for the people. For you it may be good and beneficial to have the children at Communion, while for others it would not be a good idea. I think there is a time for certain things because of the situation. If I think about Edward's witness of the movement of the Spirit during his ministry, then I would say that there may indeed have been a time to include certain children. If it had been a year before, I would have strongly discouraged it.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 12, 2004)

Ok, lets get back on topic here. I want to explore the inconsistency some more. I would agree that children need to be examined in their knowledge of the faith before professing faith. But then, I'm leaning more towards Thornwell's view at the moment. If the elders feel a class is necessary then I see no problem with it. 

If we are presuming our children regenerate, what changes in our presumption when they make profession of faith? The church, whether intentional or not, is making a clear statement that something has changed in one's status when they make profession for they now have access to the benefits of full communicant membership. For those holding PR, what is that change in presumption? Why even have a profession of faith at all if you already presume they have been regenerate the whole time? What was the church presuming before she allowed full communicant membership to them?

I only pointed out the disciplinary case for the 8 year old as an illustration of the inconsistency. If you are presuming him regenerate, then the church must hold him accountable to that presumption. When he bears fruit contrary to the presumption, what does the church do? We already know what the parents are to do so for the moment leave them out of the equation. Actually, forget about the 8 year old now. Let's go back to Paul's 15 year old or even an adult non-professer. They are living in open rebellion, for now we'll say sexual immorality. What can the church really do to them? They can't strip him of communicant privileges because he never had them. And the church can't strip away his baptism because that is permanent. All they can do is keep him where he already is, outside the &quot;inner sanctuary&quot; with the hope that someday he will repent and be joined to the full communion of the saints. What changes then in the presumption of this baptized person who never had communicant membership? 

I know I'm throwing out alot here so if I'm going too fast, please slow me down.


----------



## JohnV (Apr 12, 2004)

[quote:4663bd95f4][i:4663bd95f4]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:4663bd95f4]
Ok, lets get back on topic here. I want to explore the inconsistency some more. I would agree that children need to be examined in their knowledge of the faith before professing faith. But then, I'm leaning more towards Thornwell's view at the moment. If the elders feel a class is necessary then I see no problem with it. 

If we are presuming our children regenerate, what changes in our presumption when they make profession of faith? The church, whether intentional or not, is making a clear statement that something has changed in one's status when they make profession for they now have access to the benefits of full communicant membership. For those holding PR, what is that change in presumption? Why even have a profession of faith at all if you already presume they have been regenerate the whole time? What was the church presuming before she allowed full communicant membership to them?[/quote:4663bd95f4]

What changes? Nothing changes in the presumption itself. The change is in the personal responsibility the person takes upon himself, not what is presumed.

[quote:4663bd95f4]I only pointed out the disciplinary case for the 8 year old as an illustration of the inconsistency. If you are presuming him regenerate, then the church must hold him accountable to that presumption. When he bears fruit contrary to the presumption, what does the church do? We already know what the parents are to do so for the moment leave them out of the equation. Actually, forget about the 8 year old now. Let's go back to Paul's 15 year old or even an adult non-professer. They are living in open rebellion, for now we'll say sexual immorality. What can the church really do to them? They can't strip him of communicant privileges because he never had them. And the church can't strip away his baptism because that is permanent. All they can do is keep him where he already is, outside the &quot;inner sanctuary&quot; with the hope that someday he will repent and be joined to the full communion of the saints. What changes then in the presumption of this baptized person who never had communicant membership? [/quote:4663bd95f4]
A case of discipline which ends in excommunication can be applied to any member. It would be very, very rare that this would actually apply to a child. It may occur, and perhaps doesn't often enough, for those who have reached the age of maturity and reject the responsibilities of covenant membership, i.e., do not respond in faith. A person perhaps is not stripped of communucant priveleges he never had, but he may well be stripped of the right to the priveleges, which he did have. He will be outside that &quot;inner sanctuary&quot; but also be seen as being outside the covenant for the duration of his obstinacy. 

The church still prays that God will yet move his heart to recognize the promises that are still there, and the assurance that God does not forget His promises, even after a long duration of living in sin. God will remember up to the thousandth generation of those who are faithful. That cannot mean that God promises to bless every generation only for a thousand years, if they all remain faithful. It means that God remains faithful to His promises to His people for ever and it depends not on man. And He may yet remember to visit that one who has strayed, because He promised many generations ago to be faithful. 

In all this the presumption does not change. The hopes and aspirations we feel may vary, but the certainty of God's promises do not. 

When a man or child, who is in the covenant, fails in his faith, it is not God who has failed, nor His promises. God never promised that He would save all those that we feel deserve baptism or church membership. He promised to save those who are His; and that includes children even at infancy and before, in the womb. We can't explain every aspect of that, but we can find a great comfort in that when our preborn children, or young children, die before they can do what we call a credible profession of faith. And again, just because we believe someone's credible profession, that may not always mean that they are saved. We can only assure according to God's promises, not man's. And that we can do only because we have God's Word on it. 

That means we are not only allowed to presume, or privileged to presume, but we must presume; even if it turns out to be wrong in the end. Because if a man falls it is not because God's grace is insufficient, but because his response to faith was insufficient, according to his heart. And his heart only God can know truly. No man goes to heaven against his will, and no man goes to hell against his will either.

[quote:4663bd95f4]I know I'm throwing out alot here so if I'm going too fast, please slow me down. [/quote:4663bd95f4]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 13, 2004)

[quote:a552e1db6a][i:a552e1db6a]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:a552e1db6a]
What changes? Nothing changes in the presumption itself. The change is in the personal responsibility the person takes upon himself, not what is presumed.
[/quote:a552e1db6a]
This is a good formulation and makes sense for this version of PR. Now, to another test, is this the historical reformed position? Is this presumption the historical one or is it the &quot;heirs apparent&quot; model of Thornwell? Berkof as well takes a stand very similar to Thornwell in his ST on the grounds for infant baptism. Look at this:

&quot;On the basis of our confessional standards it may be said that infants of believing parents are baptized on the ground that they are [i:a552e1db6a]children of the covenant[/i:a552e1db6a], and are as such [i:a552e1db6a]heirs of the all-comprehensive covenant-promises of God[/i:a552e1db6a], which includes also the promise of the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit unto regeneration and sanctification. In the covenant God makes over to them a certain grant or donation in a formal and objective way, requires of them [i:a552e1db6a]that they will in due time accept this by faith[/i:a552e1db6a], and promises to make it a living reality in their lives by the operation of the Holy Spirit. And in view of this fact [i:a552e1db6a] the Church must regard them as prospective heirs of salvation[/i:a552e1db6a], must regard them as under obligation to walk in the way of the covenant, has the right to expect that, under a faithful covenant adminstration, they, generally speaking, will live in the covenant, and is in duty bound to regard them as covenant breakers, if they do not meet it's requirements. It is only in this way that it does full justice to the promises of God, [i:a552e1db6a]which must in their fulness be appropriated in faith by those who come to maturity[/i:a552e1db6a].&quot; (Berkhof ST pg 638, emphasis mine)

This is almost identical to Thornwell's formulation. He calls them &quot;heirs apparent&quot; and &quot;children of the Church.&quot; But until they make profession of faith, the church cannot accept them into full membership. They are being trained to accept their inheritance in the covenant, but until they take hold of the promises themselves by faith the church cannot bring them into full communion. And Thornwell, is not alone. He argued on the basis of the books of discipline from the various branches of the Reformed Churches; Genevan, French, Dutch, Westminster, and even Puritan (Owen). And he is certainly not a baptist in this respect because a baptist would not call their children &quot;children of the covenant&quot; or &quot;children of the Church.&quot; (If I'm wrong on this then please any Baptist correct me). 

We could call the children &quot;disciples&quot; as Kevin is fond of doing. And I think I could agree with that because they are being trained up in the ways of the Lord. We can call them heirs or children of the covenant, because they are in fact in the covenant, with promises, curses, and obligations. But that doesn't mean they have the fullfilment of the covenant [i:a552e1db6a]yet[/i:a552e1db6a] or that they have recieved the &quot;inheritance.&quot; And I think you would all agree to that point. We do not tie the efficacy of baptism to the time of the administration of it but understand that God may choose to fulfill the promises of it whenever He pleases, just as with the Lord's Supper. And though baptism is a sign of the promises of God upon their foreheads their entire life, it is not a seal of them until they appropriate those promises by faith. So it seems to me that in fact the church does practically speaking makes the [i:a552e1db6a]presumptions[/i:a552e1db6a] of &quot;heir apparent&quot; for those children who have not professed yet, and &quot;inheritance received&quot; or &quot;covenant conditions met&quot; for those who have made profession, thereby granting them full communicant privileges.

[quote:a552e1db6a]
That means we are not only allowed to presume, or privileged to presume, but we must presume; even if it turns out to be wrong in the end. Because if a man falls it is not because God's grace is insufficient, but because his response to faith was insufficient, according to his heart. 
[/quote:a552e1db6a]
I agree we must presume something based on the command and promise of God. But is it regeneration we are to presume?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 13, 2004)

[quote:33abbac390]
I agree we must presume something based on the command and promise of God. But is it regeneration we are to presume? [/quote:33abbac390]

Pat,
This goes back to Matt's question:
' What did God imply when He told Abraham 'I will be a God to your children' ?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 13, 2004)

[quote:a9fcbba7da][i:a9fcbba7da]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:a9fcbba7da]
[quote:a9fcbba7da]
I agree we must presume something based on the command and promise of God. But is it regeneration we are to presume? [/quote:a9fcbba7da]

Pat,
This goes back to Matt's question:
' What did God imply when He told Abraham 'I will be a God to your children' ? [/quote:a9fcbba7da]
Well, what is the link? Why would you presume a child has the reality of the promise based on this promise? Why not stop at the Thornwell/Berkhof position of &quot;heir apparent?&quot; I guess I don't see the link between presuming regeneration and trusting the promise of God. Thornwell and Berkhof trusted the promise of God too. But, the practice of the Church is to not presume regeneration until they have shown that they possess the reality of the inheritance, which requires they possess the condition of apprehending the promises, faith. You may presume them regenerate all you want (and it would seem Berkhof did to some degree, especially regarding infants dying in infancy), but when it comes to the administration of the church, they are practically considered &quot;heirs apparent&quot; or &quot;Christians in training&quot; until they are elligible to receive the inheritance. So, to presume them &quot;heirs apparent&quot; in no way belittles faith in the promise of God. God is faithful to his promises regardless of our presumptions. And God fulfills his promise when He so pleases. You all recognize this too I think. You admit that even though you presume regeneration, it may not be true in reality. But we do know that regardless of their spirtual condition, what Berkhof and Thornwell argue is true, that our children are covenant children and must be trained up in the Lord to apprehend the promises for themselves by faith, regardless of whether they actually have the reality or not. So would you want to presume more than that in presuming them already regenerate?

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 13, 2004)

[quote:83736f8512]
So would you want to presume more than that in presuming them already regenerate? 
[/quote:83736f8512]

You would have to ask what Abaham beleived in terms of the promise. Did He think Isaac was saved? or not?

That woudl be the direct result of the manner in which you took the promise itself - is it true? Are we to be pessimistic or believe what God said? When Scripture says that John is filled witht he Holy Spirit from his mother's womb, how is that different from Issac BEING the child of promise?

I see no differecne. It woudl inconsistent to assign, then, the sign of the covenant on someone who you did not think was regenerate because the sign does not signify what &quot;might&quot; happen. it is a postive declaration of what has happened. (Calvin's position). 

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 Reformed doctrine here is clear. Thornwell was the deviant. Even Hodge says of this:

In the neglect of understanding the doctrine of "presumptive regeneration, 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.)

This should not make us &quot;afraid&quot; of a catechumen class - why?
Think of John the Baptist. We agree that John was regenerate. he was regenerate from the womb. You have to ask, &quot;Did he exercise active faith?&quot; No. That is impossible for a child, cognitively, to exercise their faith because they cannot properly and formally think through propositions yet. 

Later on, though, john learns about the Messiah, goes to synagogue and is taught the faith of his father. he then, out of his regenerated heart, beleives.

Catechumens are simply being taught to exercise their faith. But, it is not until they CAN exercise faith, and DISCERN rightly the body of the church before they partake of the meal. Such as with the Passover, so the Lord's Supper.


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 13, 2004)

[quote:8c28070c4f]
If we are presuming our children regenerate, what changes in our presumption when they make profession of faith? The church, whether intentional or not, is making a clear statement that something has changed in one's status when they make profession for they now have access to the benefits of full communicant membership. For those holding PR, what is that change in presumption? Why even have a profession of faith at all if you already presume they have been regenerate the whole time? What was the church presuming before she allowed full communicant membership to them? 
[/quote:8c28070c4f]

This is comming from a non-PR person, so take it for what its worth.

The process of a baptized child becoming a communing member of a particular congegation is actually a two step process. Once a child reaches the age of discernment, ie; understands what is going on regarding the Lord's Supper, they come before the Session. At that time the Session examines them as to their understanding and their ability to examine themselves as prescribed by Scripture. Once they have fulfilled this biblical requirement, they are given the right by the Church to the Lord's Table. During this process the child will also make a profession of their faith and will be required to make their membership vows to that particular congregation. This process does not make the child a full member of the visible church, but a full member of a particular congregation. The child already was a full member of the church when they were baptized. As the Westminster Standards note, when one is baptized they are baptized into the VISIBLE CHURCH period ([b:8c28070c4f]note the difference between the visible church and a particular congregation[/b:8c28070c4f]). They are not partial, halfway, three-quarters or four-fifths members. They are full members of the VISIBLE CHURCH with all the benefits of the VISIBLE CHURCH just like anyone else who is baptized. Just because they have yet to meet the Biblical requirements of the Lord's Supper does not make them any less members. And as members they have the right and privledge of over-sight by those whom Christ has appointed to oversee the visible church, including discipline as far as it is considered prudent considering their age.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 13, 2004)

[quote:dda2dd734c]
The child already was a full member of the church when they were baptized. As the Westminster Standards note, when one is baptized they are baptized into the VISIBLE CHURCH period (note the difference between the visible church and a particular congregation). They are not partial, halfway, three-quarters or four-fifths members. They are full members of the VISIBLE CHURCH with all the benefits of the VISIBLE CHURCH just like anyone else who is baptized. Just because they have yet to meet the Biblical requirements of the Lord's Supper does not make them any less members. And as members they have the right and privledge of over-sight by those whom Christ has appointed to oversee the visible church, including discipline as far as it is considered prudent considering their age. 
[/quote:dda2dd734c]

 Can I get another?


----------



## JohnV (Apr 13, 2004)




----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 13, 2004)

[quote:9e18f95f1c][i:9e18f95f1c]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:9e18f95f1c]
This process does not make the child a full member of the visible church, but a full member of a particular congregation. The child already was a full member of the church when they were baptized. As the Westminster Standards note, when one is baptized they are baptized into the VISIBLE CHURCH period ([b:9e18f95f1c]note the difference between the visible church and a particular congregation[/b:9e18f95f1c]). They are not partial, halfway, three-quarters or four-fifths members. They are full members of the VISIBLE CHURCH with all the benefits of the VISIBLE CHURCH just like anyone else who is baptized. Just because they have yet to meet the Biblical requirements of the Lord's Supper does not make them any less members. And as members they have the right and privledge of over-sight by those whom Christ has appointed to oversee the visible church, including discipline as far as it is considered prudent considering their age. [/quote:9e18f95f1c]
But there is more to communicant membership than just admission to the Lord's Supper. And this is also more than just admission to a particular congregation. For these standards are recognized by all the congregations in the visible church (if they are practicing faithfully). If a child has not made profession of faith in one congregation, he will not be admitted to the Lord's Table in another congregation until he makes profession of faith. It's a universal standard in the visible church. 

But there are other communicant benefits as well. For instance, a non-professing baptized member is not allowed to baptize his children until he makes his own profession of faith. What is the church presuming of him by refusing him this privilege? 

There are other privileges as well like voting for office bearers and being eligible for an office. And he cannot fully benefit from his baptism unless he has faith. 

Charles Hodge argues the same way in his ST:
&quot;As a believer who recalls some promise of the Scriptures which he has read or heard, receives the full benefit of that promise; so the infant [i:9e18f95f1c]when arrived at maturity[/i:9e18f95f1c] receives the full benefit of baptism, if he believes in the promises signified and sealed to him in that ordinance.&quot;
&quot;God, on his part, promises to grant the benefits of that sacrament in the exercise of faith, and to all infants who, [i:9e18f95f1c]when they arrive at maturity[/i:9e18f95f1c], remain faithful to the vows made in their name when they were baptized.&quot; 
(ST III, pg. 590, 582, emphasis mine)

Here again is the idea that children are being raised to posess that which their baptism signifies, not that they actually have it yet. As the Church, we can't presume this of them until they make profession of faith. 

[quote:9e18f95f1c] webmaster wrote:
You would have to ask what Abaham beleived in terms of the promise. Did He think Isaac was saved? or not? 

That would be the direct result of the manner in which you took the promise itself - is it true? Are we to be pessimistic or believe what God said? When Scripture says that John is filled witht he Holy Spirit from his mother's womb, how is that different from Issac BEING the child of promise? 

I see no differecne. It woudl inconsistent to assign, then, the sign of the covenant on someone who you did not think was regenerate because the sign does not signify what &quot;might&quot; happen. it is a postive declaration of what has happened. (Calvin's position). 

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 Reformed doctrine here is clear. [/quote:9e18f95f1c]
It's not so clear I think because Hodge does in fact state that some are baptized who may not be regenerate. 
&quot;Infants are the object of Christ's redemption. They are [i:9e18f95f1c]capable[/i:9e18f95f1c] of receiving all its benefits. Those benefits are promised to them [i:9e18f95f1c]on the same conditions on which they are promised to their parents.[/i:9e18f95f1c] It is not everyone who says Lord, Lord, who shall enter the kingdom of God. It is not every baptized adult who is saved; nor are all those who are baptized in infancy made partakers of salvation. But baptism signs, seals, and actually conveys its benefits to all its subjects, whether infants or adults, [i:9e18f95f1c]who keep the covenant of which it is a sign[/i:9e18f95f1c].&quot; (ST pg. 590). 

And the church also must make this presumption in practice because communicant membership is based on the presumption of faith, not regeneration. 

And as Berkhof argues, we do not baptize our children because we presume them to be regenerate but because it is the command of God (Berkhof, pg. 639). Hodge as well maintains this (ST III, pg. 590). In addition to this, they do not hold (at least form my reading so far) that they are baptized based on the presumption that our children do in fact possess the reality, but that they [i:9e18f95f1c]could[/i:9e18f95f1c] or are [i:9e18f95f1c]capable[/i:9e18f95f1c] of possessing the reality (see above quote from Hodge).


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 13, 2004)

*Thoughts from Dabney*

[quote:42e1c07277]
[b:42e1c07277]Baptized Persons in What Sense? Illustrated by Minors in Commonwealth.[/b:42e1c07277]
When our standards say, "All baptized persons are members of the Church," this by no means implies their title to all sealing ordinances, suffrage, and office. They are minor citizens in the ecclesiastical commonwealth, under tutelage, training, and instruction, and government; heirs, if they will exercise the graces obligatory on them, of all the ultimate franchises of the Church, but not allowed to enjoy them until qualified. Yet they are, justly, under ecclesiastical government. The reasonableness of this position is well illustrated by that of minors under the civil commonwealth. These owe allegiance and obedience, and are under the government; they are made to pay taxes, to testify in court, and, after a time, even to do military service and labor on the highway. They can be tried for crimes, and even capitally punished. But they may neither sit as judges in a jury, bear office, nor vote for officers, until a full age is supposed to confer the necessary qualification. Such must be the regulations of any organized society which embraces (on any theory) families within it. And if the family is conceived as the integer of which the society is constituted, this status of minor members of families is yet more proper, yea, unavoidable. But such is precisely the conception of the Scriptures, concerning the integers of which both the State and Church are constituted. Now, the visible Church is an organized human society, constituted of Christian families as integers, for spiritual ends-religious instruction, sanctification, holy living and glorification of its members. Hence, it seems most reasonable that unregenerate members of its families shall be, on the one hand, included under its government; and, on the other, not endowed with its higher franchises. The State, whose purposes are secular, fixed the young citizen's majority when, by full age, he is presumed to have that bodily and mental growth of the adult, which fits him for his duties. The Church recognizes the majority of its minor citizens when they show that spiritual qualification-a new heart-necessary for handling its spiritual concernments. The Church visible is also a school of Christ. Schools, notoriously, must include untaught children. That is what they exist for. But they do not allow these children to teach and govern; they are there to be taught and restrained The analogy is most instructive.
[i:42e1c07277] Dabney, R. L. ST (electronic ed. based on the Banner of Truth 1985 ed.) (Page 675)[/i:42e1c07277][/quote:42e1c07277]

[Edited on 4-14-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 13, 2004)

*Thoughts from A'Brakel*

[b:fe35cdc3b5]The Baptism of Children[/b:fe35cdc3b5]
First, children to be baptized must 1) not be children of Jews, Muslims, heathens, or heretics, even if a member of the covenant has adopted them as children, for such adoption does not change the fact that they were not born within the covenant; 2) not be abandoned children in a country where the true church is not found, or if the true church is present, is filled with Jews, Muslims, heathens, Socinians, and other heretics, for such children can belong to the latter as well as to members of the covenant; 3) not be children of parents who have both been excommunicated-having been born subsequent to this excommunication-since such parents must be considered as heathens (Matt. 18:17) and 4) not be children who as yet are unborn, or who are miscarried-as the Papists do.
Instead, they must be 1) children of members of the covenant; that is, one or both must be members of the covenant (1 Cor. 7:14); 2) they may also be children of members of the covenant who are born as a result of adultery; or 3) children of those who are under censure, for the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.

Secondly, the place where children ought to be baptized has not been determined by Scripture and does not belong to the essence of baptism. However, where the church conducts public worship services, it is edifying that it take place during a worship service.

Thirdly, subsequent to the breaking of the covenant of works, God established a covenant of grace with man. Never, that is, neither in the Old nor in the New Testament has He established an external covenant wherein both converted and unconverted alike would be members on equal footing, such that God, upon external obedience, would have promised some external benefits-regardless of what name may be given to this covenant, such as a national, typical, worldly, or external covenant. One may therefore not baptize children in reference to an external covenant, but only in reference to the covenant of grace.

Fourthly, one can view elect children either as they are from God's perspective, or as they are in themselves. God knows them as being elect, as heirs of eternal life, and as being redeemed through the death of their Surety, Jesus Christ. As they are in themselves, they are identical to all other children, missing the image of God, having the image of the devil, without the seed of faith, without regeneration and the least gracious inclination, without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and thus, hateful and worthy of condemnation. [i:fe35cdc3b5]Therefore, the basis for their baptism is neither a measure of grace which they have within themselves, nor eternal election, which is hidden for us.[/i:fe35cdc3b5]

Fifthly, God could either partially or fully sanctify children from infancy on. All children would have entered the world as being perfectly holy if Adam had not sinned. This was the condition in which Christ was born (being perfectly holy), and in which elect infants are, who at their death are sanctified as perfectly as an adult believer is sanctified. God generally does not do this, however. Even if He does so with certain persons by way of exception, it is neither a precedent nor clear proof of this. Therefore, we state again that the basis for the baptism of children is not some inherent quality.

Sixthly, baptism is a sign and a seal, and thus has no other function but a signifying and sealing function. It neither works grace by way of inherent efficacy, nor is it an external sign whereby, whereupon, or wherewith God works regeneration. It is not comparable to what Christ did to make the miracle very obvious, availing Himself of something tangible in the performance of His miracles; nor is it comparable to the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit being communicated by the laying on of hands. Thus, the gracious operations of the Spirit are not bound to the time or the administration of baptism. [i:fe35cdc3b5]Baptism also does not bring the child into an internal state other than was previously the case, and God does not love the child with the love of His delight any more than before.[/i:fe35cdc3b5] Rather, the entire efficacy of baptism consists in this-that it seals the covenant of grace and all its promises to the child. [i:fe35cdc3b5][b:fe35cdc3b5]This is not to suggest that the child has them already, but rather that the child is entitled to them and that God will accomplish this in this child. It is thus similar to the manner in which future benefits are sealed to adult believers.[/i:fe35cdc3b5][/b:fe35cdc3b5]

Seventhly, all children of members of the covenant (irrespective of whether these members are converted or unconverted) who die in infancy-be it prior to or after the administration of baptism-must be considered as saved by virtue of God's covenant in which they were born and in consequence of which they are children of the covenant. If the parents are unconverted and unfaithful to the covenant, this will be imputed to their account, for the son will not bear the iniquity of the father. One must also consider them to be true partakers and children of the covenant as they grow older, until they show by their deeds that they are unfaithful to the covenant and thus are no partakers of its promises. They then do not fall out of grace, nor is the seal nullified; rather, it is a proof that baptism was not a seal for them and that they have never truly been in the covenant. When, however, some are converted after leading a sinful life, baptism was a seal unto them, and they were thus truly included in the covenant and in very deed are partakers of its benefits, being entitled to them already since their childhood. This is true, even though between their baptism and conversion there was but an external resemblance to members of the covenant-in reference to both their personal spiritual state and sound judgment of others. Baptism only seals the elect.

Eighthly, the form for baptism asks of parents and witnesses, "Whether you acknowledge...that they (their children) are sanctified in Christ, and therefore, as members of His church ought to be baptized?" In order to understand this question correctly, it must be noted:
(1) This form addresses members of the covenant and speaks of their children.
(2) To be sanctified does not imply that the children at that moment are in truth possessors of the principle of faith, regeneration, and sanctification. [i:fe35cdc3b5]It also does not imply that all baptized children are, and particularly, that my child is elect, will be converted, and be a partaker of salvation. Rather, it means in a general sense that children of members of the covenant, by virtue of the covenant made with them and their children, are entitled to its benefits and will become partakers of them.[/i:fe35cdc3b5] This is in distinction to the children of those who are not members of the covenant and for whom there are no promises in the Word. The salvation of the latter, if they die in infancy, is a matter which pertains to the sovereign and secret dealings of God, there being no foundation in regard to which something can be stated about them. And as long as children of members of the covenant manifest nothing which is either in their favor or disfavor, [i:fe35cdc3b5]we may not discriminate among them, but by reason of the promise must deem them to be children of God until the contrary manifests itself.[/i:fe35cdc3b5] Therefore, to be sanctified in Christ means to be a partaker of Christ.
(3) To be sanctified does not mean to be included in an external covenant, for there is no external covenant. The parents have the salvation of their child in view, and not something of an external nature. The sacraments are not seals of an external covenant, but only of the covenant of grace, and signs and seals of the righteousness of faith. Also the child is acknowledged as being sanctified in Christ, which cannot be said in reference to an external covenant. It is furthermore acknowledged that the child is sanctified prior to baptism, and therefore ought to be baptized. The child therefore does not become a member of the covenant by virtue of baptism; he was already a member prior to baptism, and prior to the child's baptism there was also no other covenant but the covenant of grace.
(4) Some wish to change the form and say, "to be sanctified in Christ, or those who are sanctified, must be sanctified in Christ." This is the result of ignorance and misunderstanding concerning this matter. If they wish these words to mean something different than to be in the covenant of grace (which appears to be the intent), I cannot understand on what basis they let their children or other children be baptized, since there is no other foundation for baptism but the covenant of grace, of which baptism is a seal.
(Christian's Reasonable Service,Vol. 2, Page 504-508, emphasis mine). [/quote]

[Edited on 4-14-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 13, 2004)

*Thoughts by A.A. Hodge*

Some have supposed, since the church-membership of the child follows from that of the parent, that every person who was himself introduced into the Church by Baptism in infancy has an indefeasible right to have his children baptized, whether he professes personal faith in Christ or not. But this is manifestly absurd-
(a) Because all members of the Church have not a right to all privileges of church-membership. Thus baptized members have no right to come to the communion until they make a profession of personal faith. [i:f8f2394347][b:f8f2394347]Until they do this they are like citizens under age, with their rights held in suspension, as a just punishment for their refusal to believe.[/i:f8f2394347][/b:f8f2394347] These suspended rights are those of communing and having their children baptized.
(b) A person destitute of personal faith can only commit perjury and sacrilege by making the solemn professions and taking the obligations involved in the baptismal covenant. It is a sin for him to do it, and a sin for the minister to help him to do it.

(Hodge, A., The Confession of Faith, Page 349, emphasis mine)


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 13, 2004)

[quote:969d53a568][i:969d53a568]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:969d53a568]
You would have to ask what Abaham beleived in terms of the promise. Did He think Isaac was saved? or not?

That would be the direct result of the manner in which you took the promise itself - is it true? Are we to be pessimistic or believe what God said? When Scripture says that John is filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb, how is that different from Issac BEING the child of promise?
[/quote:969d53a568]

What was Abraham told to do as a result of his believing the promise? 
Genesis 17:1-2
&quot;I am the Almighty God: walk before me and be blameless. And I will make my covenant with you, and will multiply you exceedingly.&quot; 
Abraham's part of the covenant was to walk before God and be blameless. This is also what he was to teach his children to do. Vs. 10: &quot;This is My covenant which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendents after you...&quot; and then he goes on to institute circumcision, the sign of this being set apart from the world. And this is also affirmed by God's testimony of Abraham in Gen. 18:19, &quot;For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice, that the Lord may bring to Abraham what was spoken to him.&quot; 

Notice Abraham was to command his children to follow the ways of the Lord. It was God who brought about what He promised. So I think Abraham probably had a simlar view to the guys I quoted above. He was to raise his children as heirs of the covenant and trust that God would do the rest in His own time. 
What did Isaac and Rebekah presume of their own wicked sons? What did Jacob presume of his own wicked sons? What did David presume of his sons? Or Hezekiah or Josiah? I don't think you can argue that they presumed their sons to be regenerate. But we can argue that they most likely tried to do their part in raising their children in the ways of the Lord. The rest was up to God, and in most of these cases, God chose to reject some of their children. 
But, hey! I'm venturing on new ground now. So if you have any input in light of what I've tried to show so far then I'm willing to learn. 
But I think you have to admit at least, that Thornwell's view is not so divergent as you alleged historically. My quotes from Berkhof, A'Brakel, A.A. Hodge, and Dabney should be proof enough. Still, researching....


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 13, 2004)

*What does Calvin mean here?*

In this sense, they who were unbelievers among the Jews, are yet called the children of the celestial kingdom by Christ. (Matthew 8:12.) Nor does what St Paul says contradict this; namely, that not all who are from Abraham are to be esteemed legitimate children; because they are not the children of the promise, but only of the flesh. (Romans 9:8.) For there, the promise is not taken generally for that outward word, by which God conferred his favor as well upon the reprobate as upon the elect; but must be restricted to that efficacious calling, which he inwardly seals by his Spirit. And that this is the case, is proved without
difficulty; for the promise by which the Lord had adopted them all as children, was common to all: and in that promise, it cannot be denied, that eternal salvation was offered to all. What, therefore, can be the meaning of Paul, when he denies that certain persons have any right to be reckoned among children, except that he is no longer reasoning about the externally offered grace, but about that of which only the elect effectually partake? [i:5ac93bfefc][b:5ac93bfefc]Here, then, a twofold class of sons presents itself to us, in the Church; for since the whole body of the people is gathered together into the fold of God, by one and the same voice, all without exception, are in this respects accounted children; the name of the Church is applicable in common to them all: but in the innermost sanctuary of God, none others are reckoned the sons of God, than they in whom the promise is ratified by faith. [/i:5ac93bfefc][/b:5ac93bfefc] (Commentary on Genesis, pg. 449)

Now who is suppose to do the &quot;reckoning&quot; here? It seems to me that he is refering to the Church. Any thoughts? 

[Edited on 4-14-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 13, 2004)

A'Brakel did not follow the Reformers on a few things, this being included.

The others are &quot;post&quot; Charles Hodge, and typical of Presbyterianism at that time.

But keep researching....

Have you read this:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahonCatechismInfantInclusion.htm

...especially the quotes at the end.


----------



## JohnV (Apr 14, 2004)

Patrick:
Another thought you may wish to import into this: Why are not all male members elders? Are they not equally members, assuming they all made a profession of faith? 

As you can see, there is an equality and an inequality at the same time. And yet neither the equality nor the inequality pertains to their election, but only to calling and office. The same could be put forth as an example in the matter of the distinctions between men and women in the church, adults and infants, preachers and auditors, mature in faith and new to the faith, professor of theology and mechanic, from Dutch background and from Scottish background, etc. None of these distinctions pertains to election or even covenant membership. So how can age make a difference? Or ability? Or any work or quality that man can add or may add? 

Yet the church must deal with any or all of these as the need arises, working as with people who are heirs of the covenant, should they become a source of sin or a stumbling block to faith. None of this, however, can thwart God's promises, nor His electing purposes. 

I still have the notion, Patrick, that you are not always working with the postive aspects of the covenant of grace, as it was meant to be. Abraham, as well as his descendents, were not perfect, as the covenant stipulated. But those who remained in the covenant did so because they set God's ways in their hearts, to be made perfect through faith, with the hope of the sabbath rest yet to come for their troubled souls. That same covenant is the hope behind the promises which rest upon the children of believers as well. Each child and each case may not be perfect, but we strive to set God's ways in our hearts constantly, and we teach our children the same hope, because the promise is to them as well.


----------



## JohnV (Apr 14, 2004)

Patrick:

Here are some verses to consider carefully:
[quote:75d8d147d0]Acts 18:9 And the Lord said unto Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak and hold not thy peace: 
10 for I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to harm thee: for I have much people in this city. [/quote:75d8d147d0]
The people referred to have, for the most part, not yet even heard the gospel, much less received it or been baptized. This verse occurs after Paul's beginning to work with the Gentiles in Corinth and before his staying there a year and a half. God calls them His own possession. How much greater a thing would this be if God had written in Scripture that He would visit Corinth with His grace? 

That didn't mean an easy ride for that church. Paul has some very admonitious things to say to them in his two letters. And still they had to deal with one exceptional case, and with their own pride in that instance as well.

We can't think of children as having an easy ticket to faith and promise. That is not the case. They are called to the struggle as well as any Christian, but in respect of their maturity. If they don't struggle, then are they following the way of faith? They too will fail and fall, like any adult believer may, and perhaps more so. God knows whom He will preserve, but the church has to deal with each case on the basis of both God's promises and His injunctions.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 14, 2004)

[quote:f61cdbe6c7][i:f61cdbe6c7]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:f61cdbe6c7]
I still have the notion, Patrick, that you are not always working with the postive aspects of the covenant of grace, as it was meant to be. Abraham, as well as his descendents, were not perfect, as the covenant stipulated. But those who remained in the covenant did so because they set God's ways in their hearts, to be made perfect through faith, with the hope of the sabbath rest yet to come for their troubled souls. That same covenant is the hope behind the promises which rest upon the children of believers as well. Each child and each case may not be perfect, but we strive to set God's ways in our hearts constantly, and we teach our children the same hope, because the promise is to them as well. [/quote:f61cdbe6c7]

I agree with everything you wrote here. But what does this have to do with presumptive regeneration? If my child is obstinate can I presume him still regenerate (like, Jacob and Esau)? His fruit shows otherwise. But yet their obstinancy doesn't stop me from being faithful to the covenant, and teaching them the same, hoping that God will be faithful to them [i:f61cdbe6c7]eventually[/i:f61cdbe6c7] and grant them the fulfillment of the promise. I guess I don't see how a trust in God's promise means you have to presume the children regenerate from birth. Did Isaac consider his children covenant children? Sure. Did he consider them regenerate? Doubtful after all they did to him. But did he stop praying for them and raising them in the ways of the Lord because of their sin? No. He remained faithful to his part of the covenant, to raise his children in the ways of the Lord. It was God who would bring about the fulfillment of the promise, in His own time. More thoughts....


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 14, 2004)

Let's expand upon this thought of Isaac and his boys. We would all agree that Isaac was trusting in the promise. And I think we would agree that despite his faults, he was remaining faithful to the covenant to raise his children right. Yet, both Jacob and Esau did not produce fruit until much later in their life. Now, if you were the elder of their church, and young Esau or Jacob came to you to make profession of faith I don't think you could in good conscience admit them to communicant membership, because their is know credible profession of faith for the Church to presume upon. But would you as Isaac still trust the promises of God in regard to your children? Certainly. Yet their profession does not mark one of a regenerate and that is what we have to go by in the Church. So then, it is possible, to trust in the promises of God to save your children, and yet not presume them regenerate. Can you at least concede that point? If I'm right, what does it really mean to trust in the promises of God regarding your children if you can do so without presuming their regeneration?


----------



## JohnV (Apr 14, 2004)

[quote:155722af39][i:155722af39]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:155722af39]
[quote:155722af39][i:155722af39]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:155722af39]
I still have the notion, Patrick, that you are not always working with the postive aspects of the covenant of grace, as it was meant to be. Abraham, as well as his descendents, were not perfect, as the covenant stipulated. But those who remained in the covenant did so because they set God's ways in their hearts, to be made perfect through faith, with the hope of the sabbath rest yet to come for their troubled souls. That same covenant is the hope behind the promises which rest upon the children of believers as well. Each child and each case may not be perfect, but we strive to set God's ways in our hearts constantly, and we teach our children the same hope, because the promise is to them as well. [/quote:155722af39]

I agree with everything you wrote here. But what does this have to do with presumptive regeneration? If my child is obstinate can I presume him still regenerate (like, Jacob and Esau)? His fruit shows otherwise. But yet their obstinancy doesn't stop me from being faithful to the covenant, and teaching them the same, hoping that God will be faithful to them [i:155722af39]eventually[/i:155722af39] and grant them the fulfillment of the promise. I guess I don't see how a trust in God's promise means you have to presume the children regenerate from birth. Did Isaac consider his children covenant children? Sure. Did he consider them regenerate? Doubtful after all they did to him. But did he stop praying for them and raising them in the ways of the Lord because of their sin? No. He remained faithful to his part of the covenant, to raise his children in the ways of the Lord. It was God who would bring about the fulfillment of the promise, in His own time. More thoughts.... [/quote:155722af39]
What does this have to do with regeneration? What child is not obstinate? What grown and mature christian is not obstinate? We fight against that all our lives. This the nature of the case in being &quot;a called out one&quot;. How can you ignore this in the case of a professed member? So how can you ignore this in the case of a baptized member, an infant in the covenant? This has everything to do with it.

Isaac's faithfulness to the covenant was not faithfulness in his own keeping of it, but faithfulness in God's keeping of it. He may nurture and guide, discipline and educate his children, but they are still individuals in the covenant, and so liable for their own sins. Concerning that Isaac could do nothing, not even intercede, for he was not their saviour. But he could pray for his children, and he could see to his own faithfulness as obedience, not as prerequisite, to the covenant. Because God promised he could do so with hope, and a confidence in God's faithfulness.

What good is a covenant if it is not a positive promise in times of adversity? And what is more adverse than being born in sin, and subject to all manner of misery, yes even to condemnation itself, and to be buffeted by the great opposer, by sin, and by the world? No one is exempt from that; and it is especially the Christian who is aware of it and is given grace to stand. 


This is precisely what the covenant is about, since we cannot stand on our own strength.


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 14, 2004)

[quote:d256e49359]
But there is more to communicant membership than just admission to the Lord's Supper. And this is also more than just admission to a particular congregation. For these standards are recognized by all the congregations in the visible church (if they are practicing faithfully). If a child has not made profession of faith in one congregation, he will not be admitted to the Lord's Table in another congregation until he makes profession of faith. It's a universal standard in the visible church. 
[/quote:d256e49359]

I am not quite sure what you are getting at but the above statement is not necessarily so. It is actually a two step process that is combined into one. As far as becoming a member of a particular church, requirements will vary from denomination to denomination. Baptists are a part of the visible church but in general would not accept a profession from someone who was baptized as an infant. In their eyes they were never baptized and would need to make a profession, be baptize then they would become a member of that particular church.


[quote:d256e49359]
But there are other communicant benefits as well. For instance, a non-professing baptized member is not allowed to baptize his children until he makes his own profession of faith. What is the church presuming of him by refusing him this privilege? 
[/quote:d256e49359]

In the above scenario, I think you are describing an extra-ordinary situation. Besides, in the above scenario one would have to ask why someone would not want to profess Christ? Regarding what the church would presume about the baptized parent who would not be willing to make a profession, I believe the church would presume that they were either obstinate or not a believer. Regarding the men you have quoted, they were not PR guys. They did not "presume" regeneration as any part of the grounds for baptism. The grounds for baptism are the command of God and His promise. An infant is baptized based on these grounds and that one of the parents is a professing believer. The key is who is the promise effectual for. Since the church is not capable of searching the heart of any particular member of the visible church, whether adult or infant, presuming upon the activity of the Holy Spirit regarding regeneration would be outside of the purview of the visible church. Scripture tells us that we tell a tree by its fruits, and part and parcel to there being fruit in the life of a Christian is a profession of faith in Christ. Being a Christian is not based simply upon how we act or what we do but what we believe. This is why professions are required. The church presumes that what we profess is what we believe from the heart.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 14, 2004)

I agree with you Wayne so far. By quoting those previous men, I was trying to show that Thornwell was not the only one to reject PR historically, or that he was not the only &quot;Deviant.&quot; I'm just trying to see what the Church is presuming about their children before they make profession of fatih. Thornwell argued the chilren were &quot;prospective heirs,&quot; and that regeneration though possible, could not be proven until later. The PR argues that children are to be regarded as regenerate until proving otherwise. I just think that our practical ecclesiology, which is pretty universal in this regard in the reformed churches, lends itself to Thornwell's view of children, whether we hold to his view or not. 

I'm also trying to push the PR guys on their assumptions to learn more about it. 

Would you hold to Thornwells' view then since you don't hold to PR?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 14, 2004)

[quote:c31de872e4][i:c31de872e4]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:c31de872e4]
What does this have to do with regeneration? What child is not obstinate? What grown and mature christian is not obstinate? We fight against that all our lives. This the nature of the case in being &quot;a called out one&quot;. How can you ignore this in the case of a professed member? So how can you ignore this in the case of a baptized member, an infant in the covenant? This has everything to do with it.
[/quote:c31de872e4]
You are right here, that everyone struggles with sin. But one who is born again doesn't live a life of deliberate sin. They fall yes, but it's not a way of life. Faith is a way of life for them. This is what the church uses as her standard in evaluating the faith of individuals. Do they bear fruit? 
[quote:c31de872e4]
Isaac's faithfulness to the covenant was not faithfulness in his own keeping of it, but faithfulness in God's keeping of it. He may nurture and guide, discipline and educate his children, but they are still individuals in the covenant, and so liable for their own sins. Concerning that Isaac could do nothing, not even intercede, for he was not their saviour. But he could pray for his children, and he could see to his own faithfulness as obedience, not as prerequisite, to the covenant. Because God promised he could do so with hope, and a confidence in God's faithfulness.

What good is a covenant if it is not a positive promise in times of adversity? And what is more adverse than being born in sin, and subject to all manner of misery, yes even to condemnation itself, and to be buffeted by the great opposer, by sin, and by the world? No one is exempt from that; and it is especially the Christian who is aware of it and is given grace to stand. 


This is precisely what the covenant is about, since we cannot stand on our own strength. [/quote:c31de872e4]
Again, I completely agree with you here. I don't see why this must mean we have to hold to a presumed regeneration? How is presuming that God [b:c31de872e4]will[/b:c31de872e4] save my child instead of [b:c31de872e4]already[/b:c31de872e4] saving my child any less positive a hope? Both are trusting God to save completely and finally their children as they raise them in the ways of the Lord. But the first must judge in part on the fruit they bear, the life they choose to lead, either a life of faith or a life of obstinancy. And as parents we also must respond accordingly in raising them based on the fruit we see. It doesn't mean that we trust any less the promise of God to save them. But it does mean we try to correct their obstinancy so they are fit for the inheritance they are being raised to apprehend by faith. 

And so the Church also practices. In order to admit them to communicant membership the Church must judge them by their fruit or maturity, a credible profession of faith. Is this doubting the promises of God? Or is it simply the responsible exercise of Church government in maintaining a consistent and faithful professing body of believers? And are we as parents to exercise a different presumption or hope than the Church in regard to our children? If a child has grown to a life of obstinancy, what does the Church do? She obviously doesn't admit them to communicant membership because there is no credible profession of faith. By doing so, the Church has essentially declared him unregenerate. But does the Church write him off? No she hopes in the promise of God, that the child will be turned and eventually live a life consistent with his baptism. Here she is hoping on the promise and yet presuming him unregenerate. This is why I brought up Isaac. What does it mean to trust in the promise of God even when you must presume the child unregenerate based on his profession?

More to think about....

[Edited on 4-14-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## Saiph (Apr 14, 2004)

[quote:dc5cd6ec5b]
How is presuming that God will save my child instead of already saving my child any less positive a hope?
[/quote:dc5cd6ec5b]

Because the latter implies God has a good &quot;Kingdom Building&quot; purpose for giving children as &quot;blessings&quot; to believing parents. The former implies believing parents are just mere baby factories like the heathen.



[Edited on 4-14-2004 by Wintermute]


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 14, 2004)

[quote:3ead394a64]
Would you hold to Thornwells' view then since you don't hold to PR? 
[/quote:3ead394a64]

I would lean more towards the position of Hodge vs Thornwell. The child born in a family of at least one Christian parent is born into the visible church and should be treated as a Christian just as an Israelite born of Jewish parents is considered an Israelite by birth and is treated as such. Israelites did not treat their children like heathens and neither should the church. There have been many arguments on this board stating that "we don't know who the elect are. No one is walking around with a big E on their forehead." Is it any easier to look into the heart of anyone to see if the Holy Spirit is there? Whether they are actually regenerated or not is up to the Holy Spirit and it should not be the position of the visible church to presume something that may or may not be true. But the church should expect that with the assistance of the parents that the child will "improve" upon their baptism and grow in the knowledge of God and exhibit the fruits of the Spirit, at whatever time the Spirit decides to act. And when the Spirit acts may be before, during or after baptism.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 14, 2004)

[quote:8ad23dfe1f][i:8ad23dfe1f]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:8ad23dfe1f]
[quote:8ad23dfe1f]
Would you hold to Thornwells' view then since you don't hold to PR? 
[/quote:8ad23dfe1f]

I would lean more towards the position of Hodge vs Thornwell. The child born in a family of at least one Christian parent is born into the visible church and should be treated as a Christian just as an Israelite born of Jewish parents is considered an Israelite by birth and is treated as such. Israelites did not treat their children like heathens and neither should the church. There have been many arguments on this board stating that "we don't know who the elect are. No one is walking around with a big E on their forehead." Is it any easier to look into the heart of anyone to see if the Holy Spirit is there? Whether they are actually regenerated or not is up to the Holy Spirit and it should not be the position of the visible church to presume something that may or may not be true. But the church should expect that with the assistance of the parents that the child will "improve" upon their baptism and grow in the knowledge of God and exhibit the fruits of the Spirit, at whatever time the Spirit decides to act. And when the Spirit acts may be before, during or after baptism. [/quote:8ad23dfe1f]
I think this is where I am then so far. And I don't think Thornwell is far from this either.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 14, 2004)

Patrick said:
Let's expand upon this thought of Isaac and his boys. We would all agree that Isaac was trusting in the promise. And I think we would agree that despite his faults, he was remaining faithful to the covenant to raise his children right. Yet, both Jacob and Esau did not produce fruit until much later in their life. Now, if you were the elder of their church, and young Esau or Jacob came to you to make profession of faith I don't think you could in good conscience admit them to communicant membership, because their is know credible profession of faith for the Church to presume upon. &quot;

I am lost here. Let me try to reexplain this: 

Scenario 1 - Isaac has two sons - Jacob and Esau, and they come to your church. Isaac is 40 years old, a professing Christian, and Jacob and Esau are both 2 years old. Isaac trusts in the present promises of God. That God is a God to his seed. Isaac would presume his children as covenant children unless they demonstrated later on, that they were not. So he has them baptized as a result, for it would be foolish to baptize someone with the seal of regeneration if they were not in fact regenerated.

Scenario 2 - Isaac has two sons - Jacob and Esau, and they come to your church. Isaac is 50 years old, a professing Christian, and Jacob and Esau are both 12 years old. They still live with their father, and Esau has demonstrated that he is a rebellious brat. Isaac, from experience with his children, sees Esau as a brat and then begins to question whether the child is actually saved. Instead he is fearful that the covenant curses may befall him because he is not listening and not heeding God nor His commandments. 

Scenario 3 - They are older, Esau demonstrates his reprobation in his acts toward his family, and what does his father conclude? he is demonstrating apostasy as a covenant breaker, and unless he repents he will be damned.

Thornwell would have Isaac baptize (circumcise) his children with a sign of regeneration without actually being regenerate, or rather, presuming they are not. (Remember everyone presumes to some extent one way or the other.) I see this as rebellion against God's stated word - &quot;I will be a God to you and your children after you.&quot; That is the promise we rest on, and what Abraham thought. There is no way that you are going to be able to use the Hebrew text in Genesis 17 and say that Abraham did not think Isaac was the child of promise, with God's blessing.

Patrick said:
&quot;But would you as Isaac still trust the promises of God in regard to your children? Certainly. Yet their profession does not mark one of a regenerate and that is what we have to go by in the Church. So then, it is possible, to trust in the promises of God to save your children, and yet not presume them regenerate. Can you at least concede that point? If I'm right, what does it really mean to trust in the promises of God regarding your children if you can do so without presuming their regeneration? &quot;

Yes, I can concede that point after we see what their fruit is later on. But until then why would we not assume the best and believe that God WILL be a God to them? Otherwise, the sacrament makes little sense to me. What Thornwell would be saying is this:

&quot;I baptize my infant presuming they are unregenerate. That means when I baptize them it is not a good thing, but a very bad thing because i am actively sealing upon them the curse of God, and the maledictions of the covenant curses. Now I hope God saves them. I know He &quot;says&quot; He will be a God to them, but i just cannot believe that until I see for myself that they actually bear fruit. it is not enough for me to simply trust in the Word, rather, I need to see something before I will believe.&quot;

Sounds like doubting Thomas to me.... 


________

PS - get the Spellcheck Scott said. I just used it and it works fantastically!!!!


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 14, 2004)

[quote:912b92ae7d][i:912b92ae7d]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:912b92ae7d]
A'Brakel did not follow the Reformers on a few things, this being included.

The others are &quot;post&quot; Charles Hodge, and typical of Presbyterianism at that time.

But keep researching....

Have you read this:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahonCatechismInfantInclusion.htm

...especially the quotes at the end.  [/quote:912b92ae7d]

You do realize that this is [b:912b92ae7d]exactly[/b:912b92ae7d] what is claimed by Wilson et al. with respect to baptism, don't you?

It is why the Federal Vision theology answers the question, &quot;How do I know I am a Christian?&quot; by answered, &quot;You have been baptized.&quot;

Why does there need to be a presumption either way? We believe the promises, but we wait upon God to act. Was Ishmael a believer? Did Abraham presume that Ishmael was regenerate? Did Jacob presume Esau was? Eli, his sons? Did that make any difference?


I will look more at Schenck next month, but I stand clearly with Dabney, Thornwell, Hodge and A Brakel on this.

[Edited on 4-14-2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 14, 2004)

Fred,

There is a difference between salvation by birth and presumptive regeneration. Wilson is basing salvation upon being born and being baptized, not on the promises. Reformed Theology does not teach that baptism saves, it simply seals what is already present, whether for good or ill.

This is where we need to be particularly careful - Wilson, et al. uses Christian terms with [b:ee7b51d4e8]different[/b:ee7b51d4e8] definitions. He means something quite different than Calvin, or Zwingli, etc., believed. He takes covenantalism to equal salvation which winds up in the corporate justification nonsense. This is different than taking the promises of God as true, and as a possibility, but presuming optimistically, rather than negatively. Everyone presumes. You presume too. If I asked you if your 1 year old was saved, how would you respond? You would easily say &quot;they are depraved, and I hope one day they will be saved.&quot; Wilson would say yes because he believes in Catholic baptism, not protestant covenantalism. 

Schenck is particularly helpful, but it is easy, very easy to see how Wilson and their gang takes that information and twists it to make it sound good, but wind up in another backyard - that of the Romanists.


[quote:ee7b51d4e8]
You do realize that this is exactly what is claimed by Wilson et al. with respect to baptism, don't you? 
[/quote:ee7b51d4e8]

Again, no, that is not what is being said. the Reformed camp does not believe that baptism saves. 

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

The words here &quot;not only&quot; are deafening. &quot;Not only&quot; do they admit one into the visible church, but baptism also &quot;ingrafts into Christ.&quot; 

What Thornwell says is that baptism for children covers the first part, but after the &quot;not only&quot; subsequent information, well, things get a bit hairy. thornwell would never say that when he baptizes his one year old that baptism is &quot;also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his in-grafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins.&quot; He would deny this.

The Puritans in writing this confession were not stupid or careless. When baptism is lawfully given to adults and children, there is no distinction as to how the sign works or what it means. They are following Reformed thought and Calvin here. We don't baptize anyone we do not think is regenerate. Otherwise, we would have to say we actively are sealing our child's doom to the curses and maledictions of the covenant by baptizing them as unbelievers. That makes little sense. 

But, it may very well be that later on the children are reprobate, and they do deny the faith,m and they do go off to live like Esau among the pagan women. They are covenant breakers and the curses of their baptism follow them for the worse. As parents, though, we ought not to think about God's promises for the worse, but as Abraham, believe Him for the better. Time will change or confirm our beliefs about our children.


----------



## JohnV (Apr 14, 2004)

Good answer, Matt.

I think maybe we're getting into trouble with what &quot;presume&quot; means, as it relates to the promises of God. 

If we take God's promise to Abraham, that He would give him a son in a year's time, then what should Abraham do with that promise? He should believe it, of course. But what is involved in believing it? For one thing, he must 'presume' that God will deliver on His promise. But he knows that it won't come via a stork; there are actions to it. He has to work based on the promise, presuming it will come to pass just as God said. He can either presume it will come to pass, or he can presume it won't; but he can't not presume as he believes. 

Nor does that mean that God has already accomplished it. Giving His word means it is done, but Abraham still had to see it accomplished; and he still had to go in to Sarah. To act upon the promise is to presume that it will come true; so to act upon the promise that God will also be God to our chidren is to presume not that they are pagans, but that they are within that circle of God's people that receive his providential grace. To baptize them is to presume upon that promise; to obey the command is to presume upon the command, because we do it in hope and obedience.

Even if Esau was an elderly man entering the doors of the church, and has even been excommunicated from his home church, we regard him as someone on whom the covenant promise has been laid. Even if we shun him, we do so within the covenant presumption, because he is fallen from it and therefore carries the covenantal curse instead of the blessing. He is not like those who never were in the covenant and carry the judgemental curse; he is a covenant member and therefore receives the curses that not keeping that covenant entails. Our eye to him should be to restore him, for that was his rightful place. 

Either way, we presume: whether it is to baptize or to discipline. We do so because we have God's promises in His Word to us, His church.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 15, 2004)

[quote:c7b2bf69f1][i:c7b2bf69f1]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:c7b2bf69f1]
&quot;Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church;[2] but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his in-grafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.[8]&quot;

The words here &quot;not only&quot; are deafening. &quot;Not only&quot; do they admit one into the visible church, but baptism also &quot;ingrafts into Christ.&quot; 

What Thornwell says is that baptism for children covers the first part, but after the &quot;not only&quot; subsequent information, well, things get a bit hairy. thornwell would never say that when he baptizes his one year old that baptism is &quot;also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his in-grafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins.&quot; He would deny this.

The Puritans in writing this confession were not stupid or careless. When baptism is lawfully given to adults and children, there is no distinction as to how the sign works or what it means. They are following Reformed thought and Calvin here. We don't baptize anyone we do not think is regenerate. Otherwise, we would have to say we actively are sealing our child's doom to the curses and maledictions of the covenant by baptizing them as unbelievers. That makes little sense. [/quote:c7b2bf69f1]
But the promise of baptism is only ratified by faith. The individual must embrace these promises by faith. The sign certainly testifies to them of what is expected of them. But until they embrace the promise by faith it does not seal those promises to them individually. 

And there is another option in presumption. We can presume them regenerate, unregenerate, OR we can simply say &quot;I don't know yet.&quot; I think this is what Fred was getting at. We can all agree these children are in the covenant and federally holy. We all agree they must be trained in the ways of the Lord. We all agree when they behave contrary to their baptism, they must be corrected, and also encouraged when they act properly. This is certainly how the Church treats our children before they make profession of faith. This is why I think the prospective heir approach seems to fit the accepted practice of the Church better. The Church is looking for a credible profession of faith in her members, including the children, and until she sees it, she cannot permit them to full communicant membership. 

I don't think it is doubting the promises of God to look for evidence of regeneration as our children grow. If I were to say &quot;God wont save my children&quot; then certainly that would be doubting the promise of God (and that is where Thomas would fit in too by the way, so lets leave out the strawmen). 

There are examples in Scripture where trusting the promises of God does not mean presuming they have already been fulfilled, but trusting in their future accomplishment. David's annoiting as king is one prime example. It was promised he would be king, and David trusted it would be so. But he had to wait for the fulfillment of the promise in God's own time. He could not just usurp the throne whenever he felt ready. Isaac had to wait until he was in old age before he saw the fullfillment of the promise in Jacob. Abraham trusted in the promise of a son long before it ever happened, but he had to wait for God's time for it's fullfillment (and we saw what happened when he doubted in producing Ishmael). Moses was promised that God would deliver Israel from Pharoah, but it took time for fulfillment. But that in no way meant he didn't ultimately trust in the promises of God. Christ has promised to come again, yet we do not presume it to have happend yet, but wait for the fulfillment and trust He will in fact come. The concept of trusting a promise and waiting for the fulfillment is not without scriptural precedent. 

This pattern, as well, can apply to how we approach our children. We raise them in the covenant and rejoice when we see the fulfillment of the promise in them when they profess faith and freely claim for themselves the the God of the covenant they were raised in. And it seems to me to be more consistent with the practice of the Church and our experience. 

So perhaps the real difference here between the prospective heir (PH) view and the PR view is what we are defining as the fulfillment of the promise, or perhaps the criteria for presuming the promise has been fulfilled?

[Edited on 4-15-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 15, 2004)

Patrick writes:
[quote:e9db8366ab]&quot;And there is another option in presumption. We can presume them regenerate, unregenerate, OR we can simply say &quot;I don't know yet.&quot; I think this is what Fred was getting at. [/quote:e9db8366ab]

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 

Joh 20:24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 
Joh 20:25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. 
Joh 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 
Joh 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 
Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 

Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 


[quote:e9db8366ab]We can all agree these children are in the covenant and federally holy. We all agree they must be trained in the ways of the Lord. We all agree when they behave contrary to their baptism, they must be corrected, and also encouraged when they act properly. This is certainly how the Church treats our children before they make profession of faith. This is why I think the prospective heir approach seems to fit the accepted practice of the Church better. The Church is looking for a credible profession of faith in her members, including the children, and until she sees it, she cannot permit them to full communicant membership.[/quote:e9db8366ab]

Pat,
Is this not -baptistic- thinking? 


[quote:e9db8366ab]I don't think it is doubting the promises of God to look for evidence of regeneration as our children grow. [/quote:e9db8366ab]


Heb 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised 

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

[Edited on 4-15-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 15, 2004)

Patrick,

How does &quot;I don't know&quot; fit with God saying &quot;I will?&quot;

There is no straw man. I think it rests on whether or not we really do believe that God will do what He says He will do. If God said &quot;I might be a God to your children...&quot; then we could say &quot;I don't know...&quot; 

What Thornwell is purposing is that we act like Arminians hoping to see some &quot;regenerate fruit&quot; before we will believe the promise given to us.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 15, 2004)

[quote:c7f370703e][i:c7f370703e]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:c7f370703e]
How does &quot;I don't know&quot; fit with God saying &quot;I will?&quot;
[/quote:c7f370703e]

:repost:

[quote:c7f370703e]
There are examples in Scripture where trusting the promises of God does not mean presuming they have already been fulfilled, but trusting in their future accomplishment. David's annoiting as king is one prime example. It was promised he would be king, and David trusted it would be so. But he had to wait for the fulfillment of the promise in God's own time. He could not just usurp the throne whenever he felt ready. Isaac had to wait until he was in old age before he saw the fullfillment of the promise in Jacob. Abraham trusted in the promise of a son long before it ever happened, but he had to wait for God's time for it's fullfillment (and we saw what happened when he doubted in producing Ishmael). Moses was promised that God would deliver Israel from Pharoah, but it took time for fulfillment. But that in no way meant he didn't ultimately trust in the promises of God. Christ has promised to come again, yet we do not presume it to have happend yet, but wait for the fulfillment and trust He will in fact come. The concept of trusting a promise and waiting for the fulfillment is not without scriptural precedent. [/quote:c7f370703e]

I did not say, &quot;I don't know&quot; but &quot;I don't know [i:c7f370703e]yet[/i:c7f370703e].&quot;

[Edited on 4-15-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 15, 2004)

So God says &quot;I will&quot; and you say &quot;I don't know yet?&quot; 

(Reposting didn't help.)


----------



## JohnV (Apr 15, 2004)

Patrick:
Look at those examples you gave. The response was not, &quot;I don't know [i:1c495f16f7]yet[/i:1c495f16f7]!&quot; They acted on thoe promises as if they were true. Think of David in the cave, when King Saul's life was threatened by David's own men. David acted in faith onthe promise. He presumed it to come to pass just as God promised it, and he responded in faith to it. Abraham resoonded in two ways: on the instigation of Sarai he took Hagar as a wife and begot Ishmael; and on the direct promise of God he knew Sarah and begot Isaac. Either way he did it presuming God would fulfill His promise. It could even be conjectured that Jacob beguiled his father for the blessing on the same principle. He knew the prophecy as well as his mother, but they stooped to their own method on their presumption instead of waiting for God to fulfill His promise while they followed in steadfast faith to it. 

Whatever one does following the promise is based on one of two presumptions: I see it because God said it; or I'll believe it when I see it. All your examples are the former, though not all acted wisely according to it.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 15, 2004)

[quote:5d7350c542][i:5d7350c542]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:5d7350c542]
Patrick:
Look at those examples you gave. The response was not, &quot;I don't know [i:5d7350c542]yet[/i:5d7350c542]!&quot; They acted on thoe promises as if they were true. Think of David in the cave, when King Saul's life was threatened by David's own men. David acted in faith onthe promise. He presumed it to come to pass just as God promised it, and he responded in faith to it. Abraham resoonded in two ways: on the instigation of Sarai he took Hagar as a wife and begot Ishmael; and on the direct promise of God he knew Sarah and begot Isaac. [b:5d7350c542]Either way he did it presuming God would fulfill His promise.[/b:5d7350c542] [/quote:5d7350c542]
You have just illustrated my point for me John. God &quot;would&quot; fulfill it. Abraham and David trusted that God &quot;would&quot; fulfill it not that it was fulfilled already. He did not presume it had happened yet. If he had presumed it had happend then he would have started ruling Israel when he was annoited as a boy. The promise was made, but he waited for the fulfillment. Waiting is not passive either. Obviously David served Israel with all his heart, but he was not King until later. If you were to ask young David, &quot;are you King of Israel&quot; obviously he would say &quot;not yet, but I will be.&quot; If you were to ask David when the promise would be fulfilled he would say &quot;I don't know, but it will happen!&quot;


----------



## JohnV (Apr 15, 2004)

Patrick:
But that's not all I said. When God promises, it is to be reckoned as done, even though it has yet to be fulfilled. It is that confidence that David acted upon when he saved Saul's life. He remembered the law, and knew that this was not God's way, so he presumed uoon the comptetion of God's promise and saved Saul.

And David, Saul, and everyone else knew that David's annionting was immediately effective. The annointing was upon him a long time before he actually became king. 

[Edited on 4-15-2004 by JohnV]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 15, 2004)

[quote:014fc365a3][i:014fc365a3]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:014fc365a3]
Patrick:
But that's not all I said. When God promises, it is to be reckoned as done, even though it has yet to be fulfilled. It is that confidence that David acted upon when he saved Saul's life. He remembered the law, and knew that this was not God's way, so he presumed uoon the comptetion of God's promise and saved Saul. [/quote:014fc365a3]
But he was not King yet. The promise was not yet fulfilled. He trusted the promise and acted upon it yes. But he didn't know [i:014fc365a3]when[/i:014fc365a3] he would be King. He just knew that he would be eventaully when God brought it to pass.


----------



## JohnV (Apr 15, 2004)

Patrick:
See my previous post. I was editting it while you were responding.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 15, 2004)

[quote:427d99addb][i:427d99addb]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:427d99addb]
Patrick:
See my previous post. I was editting it while you were responding. [/quote:427d99addb]
I saw it. It doesn't change the argument. David was annoited yes. He was made a promise yes. He acted upon the fact that the promise would be fulfilled. But he didn't know when it would happen. He trusted that God would make him king when He so pleased. David didn't presume the promise was fulfilled but that it would be fulfilled. He did presume the promise was real. But he still had to wait for the fulfillment.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 15, 2004)

So, let's use the case with Genesis 17.

God would bring about the child of promise and Abraham believe that it would happen.

Agreed.

Then Isaac is born.

Did Abraham believe that Isaac WAS the child of promise?

Did he circumcised THE child of promise in reality, or was he waiting for Isaac to BECOME the child of promise?

We are not talking about David &quot;becoming king&quot; we are talking about applying the covenant seal to children and what we think about them when we do that based on Scripture.

What is being missed is that the very fact we have the child in our hands should be telling us something that we do not have to think about waiting for. They are either children of promise, or not. We wither treat them as if they are (thus we baptize them) or we don't (thus we treat them like the pagan on the street).

Should Abraham think Isaac is the child of promise or not?

Did he have to say &quot;I don't know yet...&quot; and then circumcise him at a later time? Or did he &quot;know&quot; at that point? Did he trust the promises (hopefully so or else Romans will be overthrown) or not? 

Is he the example for us as the father of the faithful? Faithful to what? Promises that may come come true, or the realities themselves taken [b:b2fb7865df]as[/b:b2fb7865df] true?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 16, 2004)

Not ignoring you MAtt. Just have to work swing shift the next couple days. I will respond. It will give me more time to think anyway. You've made some good points that I need to rattle around my brain for a bit.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 16, 2004)

And now you are a MOD too!


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 17, 2004)

*Need some clarification here*

[quote:3097d5dc68][i:3097d5dc68]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:3097d5dc68]
So, let's use the case with Genesis 17.

God would bring about the child of promise and Abraham believe that it would happen.

Agreed.

Then Isaac is born.

Did Abraham believe that Isaac WAS the child of promise? [/quote:3097d5dc68]
Now, I don't think it's this simple. Yes, Isaac was the promised son from Sarah's barren womb. He was the fulfillment of the promise made long before. There is no doubt there. And it was also clear that he should be circumcised and raised in the covenant just as God had commanded him to do with his household long before (Gen. 17). 
[quote:3097d5dc68]
Did he circumcised THE child of promise in reality, or was he waiting for Isaac to BECOME the child of promise?

We are not talking about David &quot;becoming king&quot; we are talking about applying the covenant seal to children and what we think about them when we do that based on Scripture. 

What is being missed is that the very fact we have the child in our hands should be telling us something that we do not have to think about waiting for. They are either children of promise, or not. We wither treat them as if they are (thus we baptize them) or we don't (thus we treat them like the pagan on the street).

Should Abraham think Isaac is the child of promise or not?
[/quote:3097d5dc68]
The child of which promise though? The promises to Abraham have several layers. God promises to be a God to Him and his descendents. He promises to bless all nations in him, or through his Seed, he promises him that he would have a son through Sarah, and he promises him that he would be the father of many nations. Abraham had the promise of the gospel which he believed, and that was credited to him as righteousness. But it was the antitype of Isaac, Christ which he trusted for salvation right?
Gal. 3:8
[i:3097d5dc68]And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, &quot;In you all the nations shall be blessed.&quot;[/i:3097d5dc68]

How does presuming Isaac regenerate fit into his trusting in Christ for righteousness? How did circumcising his other sons fit into that promise? And if he was presuming all his sons regenerate and part of the covenant promises, then why did he send them away from Isaac? Wouldn't they all be part of the same covenant community? 

[quote:3097d5dc68]
Did he have to say &quot;I don't know yet...&quot; and then circumcise him at a later time? Or did he &quot;know&quot; at that point? Did he trust the promises (hopefully so or else Romans will be overthrown) or not? [/quote:3097d5dc68]
He circumcised him because it was commanded by God and because being born into the covenant he had the promises made to him. 

But when could Abraham presume that Isaac had taken claim to God for himself? This is the question the Church asks when examing someone for profession of faith isn't it? We agree that Abraham would have obeyed God to raise Isaac in the ways of the Lord, and not just to teach him about God, but to raise Isaac with the fact that the true God is his covenant God. No dispute there. But we also know that covenant membership and election are not necessarily the same thing. 

[quote:3097d5dc68]
Is he the example for us as the father of the faithful? Faithful to what? Promises that may come come true, or the realities themselves taken [b:3097d5dc68]as[/b:3097d5dc68] true?  [/quote:3097d5dc68]
He is the father of the faithful in his example of trusting upon Christ for righteousness. No disagreement there. But what does this have to do with presuming Isaac regenerate?

Can you see my confusion over your post? There were several parts to the promise to Abraham. Isaac fulfilled part of it certainly. But which child of promise was Abraham trusting in for his righteousness? And how does it fit with presuming Isaac regenerate? And another final thought for clarification, I was never given a promise of a child. God never promised me a son (or a daughter for that matter). How is my son a child of promise to me when no such promise was given to me? There are some aspects of the promises to Abraham which don't apply to us. And your post seemed to confuse that. So please help me understand you better  

[Edited on 4-18-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 18, 2004)

[quote:7bc994dd3e]
Should Abraham think Isaac is the child of promise or not?

The child of which promise though? The promises to Abraham have several layers. God promises to be a God to Him and his descendents. He promises to bless all nations in him, or through his Seed, he promises him that he would have a son through Sarah, and he promises him that he would be the father of many nations. Abraham had the promise of the gospel which he believed, and that was credited to him as righteousness. But it was the antitype of Isaac, Christ which he trusted for salvation right?
Gal. 3:8
[i:7bc994dd3e]And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, &quot;In you all the nations shall be blessed.&quot;[/i:7bc994dd3e]
[/quote:7bc994dd3e]

Patrick,
Respectfully, you are squeezing this lemon. Everyone knows what the promise is. There are no &quot;layers&quot; or stages..........


[quote:7bc994dd3e]
How does presuming Isaac regenerate fit into his trusting in Christ for righteousness? 
[/quote:7bc994dd3e]

I believe it says everything about his faith; that faith was accounted righteous!


[quote:7bc994dd3e]How did circumcising his other sons fit into that promise? And if he was presuming all his sons regenerate and part of the covenant promises, then why did he send them away from Isaac? Wouldn't they all be part of the same covenant community? 
[/quote:7bc994dd3e]
I don't believe the response of God changes anything. Just because God does something that we see as inconsistant, does not mean it is. God is never inconsistant. It is our job to remain consistant. To have the faith of righteousness. God is God, He does as He pleases. We just obey.


[quote:7bc994dd3e]
Did he have to say &quot;I don't know yet...&quot; and then circumcise him at a later time? Or did he &quot;know&quot; at that point? 
[/quote:7bc994dd3e]

It is not a matter of Issac &quot;knowing&quot;. He was being obedient and faithful.


[quote:7bc994dd3e]
But when could Abraham presume that Isaac had taken claim to God for himself? This is the question the Church asks when examing someone for profession of faith isn't it? We agree that Abraham would have obeyed God to raise Isaac in the ways of the Lord, and not just to teach him about God, but to raise Isaac with the fact that the true God is his covenant God. No dispute there. But we also know that covenant membership and election are not necessarily the same thing.[/quote:7bc994dd3e]

The point is, God elects; we believe and have faith. The promises of God in Him are yea, and in Him amen. 

[quote:7bc994dd3e]
Is he the example for us as the father of the faithful? Faithful to what? Promises that may come come true, or the realities themselves taken [b:7bc994dd3e]as[/b:7bc994dd3e] true?  [/quote:7bc994dd3e]
He is the father of the faithful in his example of trusting upon Christ for righteousness. No disagreement there. But what does this have to do with presuming Isaac regenerate?[/quote]

Patrick, As I said previously. This is not so difficult. Placing oneself there along side Issac, you know that he believed God for the promises. When God said to Issac, &quot;I will be a God to you and to your seeds&quot;, what do you think Issac thought of this statement? I WILL BE a God to you!!!

[quote:7bc994dd3e]
Can you see my confusion over your post? There were several parts to the promise to Abraham. Isaac fulfilled part of it certainly. But which child of promise was Abraham trusting in for his righteousness?[/quote:7bc994dd3e]

Both.


[quote:7bc994dd3e] And another final thought for clarification, I was never given a promise of a child. God never promised me a son (or a daughter for that matter). How is my son a child of promise to me when no such promise was given to me? There are some aspects of the promises to Abraham which don't apply to us. And your post seemed to confuse that. So please help me understand you better  [/quote:7bc994dd3e]

Pat,
It was given to your father of faith........
What is it mean when the scriptures call Abraham &quot;Father&quot;?

Jam 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 

Rom 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, 

Rom 4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. 

Rom 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 

Act 7:2 And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran,


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 18, 2004)

[quote:07da1921cb][i:07da1921cb]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:07da1921cb]
Patrick, As I said previously. This is not so difficult. Placing oneself there along side Issac, you know that he believed God for the promises. When God said to Issac, &quot;I will be a God to you and to your seeds&quot;, what do you think Issac thought of this statement? I WILL BE a God to you!!! [/quote:07da1921cb]
Well, when he was born, he didn't think much of it at all. He had to be raised to understand what that meant. Then he had to take hold of the promise for himself by faith. But when could Abraham presume that Isaac had done that? This is what I'm getting at (I hope). When could Abraham smile with satisfaction and say &quot;Ah yes, now the boy gets it!&quot; This would be when Abraham could presume the promise was fulfilled that God would be a God to Isaac because it is at this point that Isaac has claimed God for his own.

The Church requires that the individual take hold of Christ by faith and he is not permitted to communicant membership until that profession is made. The Church is reserving these priveleges to those who have laid claim to God for themselves. We can presume God will bring our children to this point, but we can't presume it has happened until our children claim God for themselves. 

[quote:07da1921cb]
What is being missed is that the very fact we have the child in our hands should be telling us something that we do not have to think about waiting for. They are either children of promise, or not. We either treat them as if they are (thus we baptize them) or we don't (thus we treat them like the pagan on the street). 

Should Abraham think Isaac is the child of promise or not? 
[/quote:07da1921cb]
This is the quote from Matt I was concerned about Scott. God has promised to be a God to my descendents certainly and that is made plain in every covenant established with God, but that is dependent on if I have any descendents. I was not given the promise of a son like Abraham was. So my child is not a child of promise in the same sense that Isaac was to Abraham. My child is not a type of Christ as Isaac was to Abraham. 

Secondly,
We do not baptize our children because they are presumed regenerate, but because it is the command of God and because the promise is made to them. Hodge and Berkhof both make this clear as well as others. They talk about how &quot;for adults&quot; presumption of regeneration is required. But for infants, this presumption is not necessary because they are not able to give evidence for it. And until they can give it, they are kept from full communion. Both Hodge and Berkof, stop short of presuming regeneration as the grounds for baptism. And so do many of the other men that Matt quoted in support of his Catechism. Ames, Brown, Shaw, and Warfield do not go that far to presume regeneration but that they should be raised as heirs because the promise is made to them. I'll try to include some more quotes from them later. They do not even ask the question of whether they are to be presumed regenerate. They use the exact terms that Thornwell, A. Hodge, and Berkhof use in decribing children as heirs. I'm trying to study more of the men quoted there to read them in context. But this needs to be reevaluated I think. For instance, I quoted A. Hodge and Berkhof earlier in this thread and Matt agreed they didn't hold to presumptive regeneration as the grounds for infant baptism. Yet they are quoted in the Catechism as supporting it. So what am I missing here? Still researching... 

[Edited on 4-18-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 18, 2004)

[quote:02fcc1b3d5]
Well, when he was born, he didn't think much of it at all. He had to be raised to understand what that meant. Then he had to take hold of the promise for himself by faith. 
[/quote:02fcc1b3d5]

Can anyone [i:02fcc1b3d5]really[/i:02fcc1b3d5] take hold of these promises by (our) faith? The reason Abraham or Issac was able to take hold of anything is because God took hold of them. I have faith because of God. I believe the promises [i:02fcc1b3d5]because of God[/i:02fcc1b3d5], I have hope because of God placing hope in me.

Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. 



[quote:02fcc1b3d5]But when could Abraham presume that Isaac had done that?
[/quote:02fcc1b3d5]

Pat,
It really has nothing to do with when Issac [i:02fcc1b3d5]takes hold of it[/i:02fcc1b3d5]. it has taken hold of him! Now, if Issac walks away from the faith, that is his problem. Let it never be said that God was a liar or not faithful; men are at fault for their faithlessness.



[quote:02fcc1b3d5]This is what I'm getting at (I hope). When could Abraham smile with satisfaction and say &quot;Ah yes, now the boy gets it!&quot; 
[/quote:02fcc1b3d5]

See above


[quote:02fcc1b3d5]This would be when Abraham could presume the promise was fulfilled that God would be a God to Isaac because it is at this point that Isaac has claimed God for his own.[/quote:02fcc1b3d5]

Patrick,
If God told me directly that he would be a God to Zoe (which He has, through father Abe), who am I to question that?

[quote:02fcc1b3d5]The Church requires that the individual take hold of Christ by faith and he is not permitted to communicant membership until that profession is made. 
[/quote:02fcc1b3d5]

To me, this is an inconsistancy which I flatly reject!

[quote:02fcc1b3d5]The Church is reserving these priveleges to those who have laid claim to God for themselves.[/quote:02fcc1b3d5] 

Sounds like semi Pelagianism!

[quote:02fcc1b3d5]We can presume God will bring our children to this point, but we can't presume it has happened until our children claim God for themselves. [/quote:02fcc1b3d5]

Mat 14:30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me. 
Mat 14:31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? 



[quote:02fcc1b3d5]Secondly,
We do not baptize our children because they are presumed regenerate, but because it is the command of God and because the promise is made to them. 
[/quote:02fcc1b3d5]

You write and state correctly. See the magnitude of this statement?
[i:02fcc1b3d5]it is the command of God and because the promise is made to them[/i:02fcc1b3d5]



[quote:02fcc1b3d5]Hodge and Berkhof both make this clear as well as others. They talk about how &quot;for adults&quot; presumption of regeneration is required. But for infants, this presumption is not necessary because they are not able to give evidence for it.[/quote:02fcc1b3d5] 

Luk 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? 


[quote:02fcc1b3d5]And until they can give it, they are kept from full communion. [/quote:02fcc1b3d5]

They are kept from the table until they are able to [i:02fcc1b3d5]examine themselves[/i:02fcc1b3d5]. Is it not our job to make sure of some things. Defining whether they are able to examine is not to be a contradiction of whether or not they are regenerate. The command for the table is to &quot;examine&quot;. If they are not able to examine, it is our responsibility to protect them and the table (lest a millstone be tied to my neck).

Have a great Lords day brother.
More to come...............


[Edited on 4-18-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## JohnV (Apr 19, 2004)

May I interject here?

I said something a long time ago in another thread that might just be the cause of confusion here. I stand corrected in this. I placed too much emphasis on presumption being [i:514d7c19ec]the reason[/i:514d7c19ec] for batism. It is not [i:514d7c19ec]the reason[/i:514d7c19ec] itself, for the command to baptize is. But with that command comes promises, and those promises are assurances, and those assurances are to be believed; hence the presumption. 

Please for give me for confusing this previously.

[Edited on 4-19-2004 by JohnV]


----------



## Poimen (Sep 9, 2005)

Patrick:

What book by Thornwell are you referencing here?

[Edited on 9-9-2005 by poimen]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 9, 2005)

Wow. This is an old thread. Thornwell argues his view in two treatise in Vol. 4 of his Collected Writings. The two are called _The Revised Book of Discipline_ and _The Revised Book Vindicated_. He deals more than just with the status of baptized children here but his view is clearly explained in these two works. Somewhere there is a published interaction with his debate with Hodge over this issue but I don't have it. Wayne might know though.


----------

