# Against Presumptive Regeneration



## SEAGOON (Feb 18, 2008)

Hi All,

One expects the FV men to have nothing but disdain for the Old School Southern Presbyterian view of the status of the children of believers. To read them, one would think that the most obscene names that anyone can be called after "Baptist" are "Thornwell" or "Dabney". However, what I didn't expect, but perhaps should, is the degree to which Presbyterian pastors in the PCA and OPC have been willing to embracing a doctrine of presumptive regeneration in regards to Covenant children, and how popular Schenck's work defending that notion, _The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant, _has become.

Therefore, against Schenck's work in particular and the notion of presumptive regeneration generally, I have just published an article entitled _Contra __Schenck _on the Building Old School Churches blog.

The article necessarily also involves a defense of the Southern Presbyterian position on the status of the children of believers against 20th and 21st century caricatures of their position.


----------



## MW (Feb 18, 2008)

This article provides a faithful warning against a dangerous teaching. That regeneration and conversion must be pressed upon covenant children as a clear and present duty is warranted from the example of our Lord, who regularly urged the covenant children of Israel to repent, be converted, and be born again. The only point I would add is that we must guard against going too far in the opposite direction and be careful not to fall into presumptive non-regeneration.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 18, 2008)

What is an "old school church"?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 18, 2008)

Perg,
Didn't you ask that b4? In this thread:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f55/thoughts-ministerial-education-preparation-dr-c-n-willborn-29481/


----------



## Gesetveemet (Feb 18, 2008)

.


Freshman Bill's  


The idea that believing parents must presume the regeneration of *all* their children is unbiblical, unconfessional, and wrong.


The idea that infant baptism *only* sets children apart (externally) for a *possible* salvation in later years is wrong also.


Unfortunately in these later days some believing parents *do not rear their children in godliness* but rather, *they try only to convert them*.




In Peace,
William

.


----------



## SEAGOON (Feb 18, 2008)

Hi Matthew,



armourbearer said:


> This article provides a faithful warning against a dangerous teaching. That regeneration and conversion must be pressed upon covenant children as a clear and present duty is warranted from the example of our Lord, who regularly urged the covenant children of Israel to repent, be converted, and be born again. The only point I would add is that we must guard against going too far in the opposite direction and be careful not to fall into presumptive non-regeneration.



I agree entirely, I note in the article that the idea that the Southern Presbyterians or Old Schoolers generally presumed that the children of believers weren't regenerate isn't true. _Their response, and I believe the correct one is to bow out of the presumption game entirely:_



> Finally, please note that Schenck, caricatures the Southern Presbyterian position as a negative presumption. What this means is that Schenck, who presumes that the children of believers are regenerate, assumes that his opponents must presume that they aren’t. This is not the Southern Presbyterian position. In fact the Southern Presbyterian position was simply that of the Scots and Puritans before them, namely that the children of believers are:
> 
> 1) Members by birth (not baptism) of the Visible Church
> 
> ...



Also, *Pergamum*, you'll find my answer to your question in the thread Bruce mentions.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 18, 2008)

I have to confess to having not read much Berkhof beyond _Summary of Christian Doctrine_, but I was somewhat surprised to read this endorsement on Amazon



> "We heartily recommend this splendid work. Dr. Schenck has rendered us a great service. . . . We hope that through it the Presbyterian Churches may once more acquire a true insight into the real meaning of the covenant and into the significance of infant baptism."—Louis Berkhof (1940)



But again I am not that familiar with Continental writers and maybe Berkhof is simply following Kuyper here.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 18, 2008)

To me, the whole back-and-forth is evidence that there's always someone out there who doesn't think they other guy is walking the fine line fine enough. While the incessant carping can get wearisome, yet there is value in the exercise.

I'm not saying Schenck is right. On the whole, I'd probably be in large agreement with the Southrons. I am saying that each side sees someone to their left (or right) who is "too far" off the path, the right one which happens always to be where their feet are! Hmmmm... interesting...


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 18, 2008)

There is a review of Schenck by Dr. Rowland Ward in CPJ 2 (2006) 181-184.


----------



## MW (Feb 18, 2008)

SEAGOON said:


> _Their response, and I believe the correct one is to bow out of the presumption game entirely:_



 This is very good advice for all. Thankyou Andy.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 18, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> SEAGOON said:
> 
> 
> > _Their response, and I believe the correct one is to bow out of the presumption game entirely:_
> ...





Not every observation by Wilson has been off base regarding a criticism of some approaches to the visible/invisible Church distinction. Of course, his solution to the problem is to blur it but the initial criticism is valid.

He makes the point, for instance, that you would never preach: "I'm addressing this Scripture now to the invisible Church so all members of that Body please listen up...."

The solution is not then to say that all have union with Christ, in _some_ sense, and some more than others but to quit talking that way in the visible Church.

It is enough, for the Biblical writers, that men and women are in the visible congregation for them to receive equal admonitions, warnings, promises, instruction, encouragement, etc.... 

Don't get me wrong: It is fundamentally important that we recognize that God's monergistic work is indispensible in the Church. It is also true that we ought to be calling men, women, and children to repentance and to bear fruit that evidences their faith in Christ.

Yet, always, the regenerate state of a man, woman, or child is not visible to us. Surely we have some reason for confidence in certain cases and alarm in others but never have warrant to form hard and fast conclusions.

After all, what man is so _obviously_ converted that he no longer needs to neither hear the preaching of the Word convert the heart nor to feed upon Christ in the Lord's Supper or what man, who is racked by doubt, doesn't need the same?

Perhaps both are regenerate, perhaps the doubter is, perhaps neither are: what difference does that make in the Church's earnestness toward them?

I simply believe we need to spend more time heeding the things revealed:



> Hebrews 4:1
> 1Let *us* therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, *any of you* should seem to come short of it.



We're in this thing together as the Church and nobody that we're running with is too strong that we stop fearing for them or too weak that we leave them behind callously assuming they're unregenerate and so we're not going to help them keep up.


----------



## MW (Feb 18, 2008)

SemperFideles said:


> I simply believe we need to spend more time heeding the things revealed:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well noted, Rich, and it is something which needs to be well heeded.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 18, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Perg,
> Didn't you ask that b4? In this thread:
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f55/thoughts-ministerial-education-preparation-dr-c-n-willborn-29481/



Wow! Did I write that before? That UFO abduction a while back must have included a memory sweep too instead of just the usual probing.


I know understand you Ol' Skool Prebies!


----------



## G.Wetmore (Feb 19, 2008)

SemperFideles said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > SEAGOON said:
> ...





just because you assume that those who are in the church are regenerate does not mean that we don't preach the gospel. The Biblical writers do more than simply preach the gospel and warn people. There is a unity in the sign of the sacrament and that which is signified. When we see the sign we should assume that which is signified. This is the whole point of a sacrament. This is what we see in Scripture.

Rom. 6:3 Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 
Rom. 6:4 We were buried therefore with him through baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. 
Rom. 6:5 For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection; 

Gal. 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ. 

1Pet. 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 
1Pet. 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied. 

1Cor. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.

There is a sacramental unity in Scripture. The sign is not the reality itself, but it does signify something. We are to view sacraments in faith, meaning when we see the sign we make the connection to that which is signified. Of course everyone in the church is not regenerate, but that should not make us doubt the sacrament. We should go on the assumption that those who have the sign have the reality, until they prove otherwise. 

Calvin said:


> “The first thing that the Lord sets out for us is that baptism should be a token and proof of our cleansing; or (the better to explain what I mean) it is like a sealed document to confirm to us that all our sins are so abolished, remitted and effaced that they can never come to his sight, be recalled, or charged against us. For he wills that all who believe be baptized for the remission of sins (Matt 28:19; Acts 2:38).”
> 
> “They who regarded baptism as nothing but a token and mark by which we confess our religion before men… have not weighed what was the chief point of baptism. It is to receive baptism with this promise: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16).”
> 
> ...


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 19, 2008)

> There is a sacramental unity in Scripture. The sign is not the reality itself, but it does signify something. We are to view sacraments in faith, meaning when we see the sign we make the connection to that which is signified. Of course everyone in the church is not regenerate, but that should not make us doubt the sacrament. We should go on the assumption that those who have the sign have the reality, until they prove otherwise.



Rather than presuming upon the activity of the Holy Spirit why not take a more biblically sound approach and consider a "judgment of charity" toward children as well as all those in the visible church?


----------



## Robert Truelove (Feb 19, 2008)

As Contra_Mundum has repeatedly pointed out when this topic comes up, sometimes we create much ado about nothing due to semantics (I hope I have read you right Contra?).

wsw201's statement is rather interesting. It is a language I can live with. We treat them with a 'judgment of charity'. For me this would mean we don't presume regeneration BUT the statement is clearer to the point that we are not presuming unregeneration. 

I could use this term with parents and emphasize the need to raise them faithfully, always pointing them to Christ, while looking for the fruits of life (not presuming it to be the case until the child goes 'all out heathen' on them).



wsw201 said:


> > There is a sacramental unity in Scripture. The sign is not the reality itself, but it does signify something. We are to view sacraments in faith, meaning when we see the sign we make the connection to that which is signified. Of course everyone in the church is not regenerate, but that should not make us doubt the sacrament. We should go on the assumption that those who have the sign have the reality, until they prove otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than presuming upon the activity of the Holy Spirit why not take a more biblically sound approach and consider a "judgment of charity" toward children as well as all those in the visible church?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 19, 2008)

G.Wetmore said:


> just because you assume that those who are in the church are regenerate does not mean that we don't preach the gospel. The Biblical writers do more than simply preach the gospel and warn people. There is a unity in the sign of the sacrament and that which is signified. When we see the sign we should assume that which is signified. This is the whole point of a sacrament. This is what we see in Scripture.



I'm not precisely sure what you're banging your head for but if you stopped you might discern that what you just wrote and what I wrote are not mutually exclusive statements.

The point I was making is that the means of Grace are administered to all indiscriminately. In point of fact, who assumes in the Church that _any_ are unregenerate? Certainly not I.

The point is that whether we believe a man extremely likely to be regenerate or another less likely, we assume the best. I've also argued using the judgment of charity language against the Federal Vision that assumes that Paul is addressing the entire congregation as elect because they _must_ be so. It's a common form of address to address people on the basis of what they're called to be rather than using some sort of mixed address.

My point is that I focus on the things revealed and am diligent for myself and for everyone in the visible Church. I need not personally decree a brother regenerate or unregenerate in order to pray for all and work for all. I am also permitted to commonly address the congregation as "Beloved" or as "Saints" or even as "Elect" without any infallible guarantee that they are. I actually assume that what I'm teaching can be heard and understood with new minds and hearts that are not hostile to the Word of God and have repeatedly argued the same.


----------

