# Is regeneration the same as conversion



## Mayflower (Mar 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Horace Bushnell's "Christian Nurture". It can be had online. Do a google!



Don't try H. Bushnell, he was heretic!

Horace Bushnell was the principle religious leader in the years of Guilded Age. He was the Billy Graham of his day. His ideas serve to illuminate the larger movement of Christological Liberalism.


1) Bushnell is best know for his book Christian Nurture. His thesis was simple: if you grow up in a Christian environment, one can come to adulthood having never been conscious of being a non-Christian. We are born into this world in a neutral state, and gradually through proper nurture we come to a point where we are a Christian. 

2) Bushnell had an innovative view of the Trinity (one I consider heretical). He argued that the infinite exists behind three masks: Creator, Redeemer, and Holy Spirit. This modalistic Trinity draws on Kant. Just as I can be a spouse, parent, or child depending on the perspective of the person observing me, and yet remain the same person, so Bushnell argued that human beings see God in a similar fashion depending on the perspective of the individual making the observation.


3) Bushnell rejected traditional views of the atonement. Why did a loving God demand or require a sacrifice, he asked? Could the Devil have overpowered God unless he gave up his Son? Bushnell subscribed instead to the moral influence theory of the atonement. One cannot look at the suffering of Jesus on the Cross and not be affected by it. When one looks upon love, kindness and compassion, one not no longer be concerned for oneself. That is how example of Christ works. In the atonement, we see the power and extent of God's love for us.


4) Bushnell also dealt with the problem of nature and supernature. Belief in a supernature became an obstacle to faith in the 19th century. Efforts to explain the miracles of the Bible in rational terms were common. One German Scholar argued, for instance, that the feeding of the 5,000 was accomplished in this way. The area where the crowd was gathered was honeycombed with caves. In these caves, Jesus and his followers had been stockpiling food, and it was with these supples brought up from below that the miracle was accomplished. For his part, Bushnell contended that the laws of nature applie to the Universe. What we perceive as a miracle is an aspect of the law which we do not yet understand. As our knowledge expands, so does our ignorance. Things appear to be supernatural only because they are beyond our present state of knowledge. For Bushnell, there is no discontinuity between nature and supernature.


5) Bushnell believed that no human language is strong enough to bear the weight of spiritual truth. No single word is adequate enough for God. He began a process of deconstruction where theology is concerned. Words about God, he insisted, are but faded metaphors. Their precise meaning cannot be transferred from person to person. Each perception of God is unique to the individual, and cannot be accurately communicated to another person.


6) Bushnell developed the theory of comprehensiveness. According to this theory, beneath the contradictions of life there is an underlying unity. Faith and doubt spring from the same concern to understand the ultimate. The person who has no concern is the one who is damned. Faith and doubt--for Bushnell--were complimentary


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Mayflower_





> Don't try H. Bushnell, he was heretic!



Ralph,
I will not go out on that dry limb you've climbed. There are many a great man of faith whom quoted as well as prescribed Bushnells work. You wanna call him a heretic, fine. I will grant you, he had a bent view of the trinity and atonement. John MacArthur had a diversion also on the _blood_ of Christ; would you be as quick to call him also _heretic_? Many believe this to be because Bushnell mixed too much philosophy with his religion.




> Horace Bushnell was the principle religious leader in the years of Guilded Age. He was the Billy Graham of his day. His ideas serve to illuminate the larger movement of Christological Liberalism.



I researched a little on this. I would not drop him in the bucket with the ikes of BG. He was congregational and he did impart new thoughts on theology and scholasticism.




> 1) Bushnell is best know for his book Christian Nurture. His thesis was simple: if you grow up in a Christian environment, one can come to adulthood having never been conscious of being a non-Christian. We are born into this world in a neutral state, and gradually through proper nurture we come to a point where we are a Christian.



I have no disagreement with this idea......in fact, this is orthodox and full of faith!



> 2) Bushnell had an innovative view of the Trinity (one I consider heretical).



You "consider". Opinions are to be considered. Do you see Westley as a heretic? How about Robert Reymond of Knox Theological Seminary?He has a slanted view of trinitarianism as well; is he heretical also?



> He argued that the infinite exists behind three masks: Creator, Redeemer, and Holy Spirit. This modalistic Trinity draws on Kant. Just as I can be a spouse, parent, or child depending on the perspective of the person observing me, and yet remain the same person, so Bushnell argued that human beings see God in a similar fashion depending on the perspective of the individual making the observation.



Can men truly understand the trinity? I have never met a man whom truly understood the spiritual implications of the trinity. In fact, we may border more closely to sinning and breaking the second commandment everytime we try defining it. It is quite possible we all are guilty of this.

For all it's worth, Bushnells work is by far the best of it's kind. It has been a plum line that many great men of faith have gleened principles for child rearing from. 

http://www.aabibliography.com/horacebushnell.htm

The late James Boyce mentions Bushnell here and he doesn't call him heretic!

http://reformedreader.org/rbb/boyce/aos/chapter28.htm

[Edited on 3-5-2005 by Scott Bushey]

[Edited on 3-5-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 5, 2005)

> 1) Bushnell is best know for his book Christian Nurture. His thesis was simple: if you grow up in a Christian environment, one can come to adulthood having never been conscious of being a non-Christian. We are born into this world in a neutral state, and gradually through proper nurture we come to a point where we are a Christian.
> 
> 
> I have no disagreement with this idea......in fact, this is orthodox and full of faith!



Scott - (Sorry... I'm not as good as doing fancy "quoting tricks" as some others...)
So, you've got no disagreement with _any_ of the above point?
The last sentence... about being born in a neutral state and through proper nurture, etc... that sounds an aweful lot like Pelagianism!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 5, 2005)

Ben,
That all depends upon what Bushnell meant as _neutral_ or how I have interpreted it. I have read Bushnell. I have never seen him use the term; Thats not necessarily proof that he hasn't,.Ihave read his book Christian Nurture and his foundation is based upon covenantal principles. In that I agree with the statement. You may not know this, but I embrace _presumptive regeneration_; much like the majority of the devines of the WCF did. 

If Bushnell did say 'neutral', what do you think he meant?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 5, 2005)

> Ben,
> That all depends upon what Bushnell meant as _neutral_ or how I have interpreted it. I have read Bushnell. I have never seen him use the term; Thats not necessarily proof that he hasn't,.Ihave read his book Christian Nurture and his foundation is based upon covenantal principles. In that I agree with the statement. You may not know this, but I embrace _presumptive regeneration_; much like the majority of the devines of the WCF did.



I am aware that you - and Matt - hold to presumptive regeneration... but I think that your confidence in saying that "the majority" of the Westminster Assembly divines held to it is a bit overstated. Presumptive election, maybe (what I would affirm). Presumptive regeneration? That's debatable.



> If Bushnell did say 'neutral', what do you think he meant?



Good job pointing out "if." I don't know if he actually made that statement.
Whenever I hear someone say "born neutral" I automatically interpret that as follows: "born neutral = born without any internal/natural tendency towards either good or evil."
How do you take it?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 5, 2005)

Ralph,
Just for the record, you may want to post the citings you use as I just cut and pasted your post from :

http://www.wfu.edu/~matthetl/perspectives/sixteen.html

It is word for word ???

It looks like you plagiarized this quote. Also, not to intentionally discredit your sources; the gentleman whom wrote this paper is a United methodist. The church has a female pastor.........


Horace Bushnell was the principle religious leader in the years of Guilded Age. He was the Billy Graham of his day. His ideas serve to illuminate the larger movement of Christological Liberalism.


1) Bushnell is best know for his book Christian Nurture. His thesis was simple: if you grow up in a Christian environment, one can come to adulthood having never been conscious of being a non-Christian. We are born into this world in a neutral state, and gradually through proper nurture we come to a point where we are a Christian. 

2) Bushnell had an innovative view of the Trinity (one I consider heretical). He argued that the infinite exists behind three masks: Creator, Redeemer, and Holy Spirit. This modalistic Trinity draws on Kant. Just as I can be a spouse, parent, or child depending on the perspective of the person observing me, and yet remain the same person, so Bushnell argued that human beings see God in a similar fashion depending on the perspective of the individual making the observation.


3) Bushnell rejected traditional views of the atonement. Why did a loving God demand or require a sacrifice, he asked? Could the Devil have overpowered God unless he gave up his Son? Bushnell subscribed instead to the moral influence theory of the atonement. One cannot look at the suffering of Jesus on the Cross and not be affected by it. When one looks upon love, kindness and compassion, one not no longer be concerned for oneself. That is how example of Christ works. In the atonement, we see the power and extent of God's love for us.


4) Bushnell also dealt with the problem of nature and supernature. Belief in a supernature became an obstacle to faith in the 19th century. Efforts to explain the miracles of the Bible in rational terms were common. One German Scholar argued, for instance, that the feeding of the 5,000 was accomplished in this way. The area where the crowd was gathered was honeycombed with caves. In these caves, Jesus and his followers had been stockpiling food, and it was with these supples brought up from below that the miracle was accomplished. For his part, Bushnell contended that the laws of nature applie to the Universe. What we perceive as a miracle is an aspect of the law which we do not yet understand. As our knowledge expands, so does our ignorance. Things appear to be supernatural only because they are beyond our present state of knowledge. For Bushnell, there is no discontinuity between nature and supernature.


5) Bushnell believed that no human language is strong enough to bear the weight of spiritual truth. No single word is adequate enough for God. He began a process of deconstruction where theology is concerned. Words about God, he insisted, are but faded metaphors. Their precise meaning cannot be transferred from person to person. Each perception of God is unique to the individual, and cannot be accurately communicated to another person.


6) Bushnell developed the theory of comprehensiveness. According to this theory, beneath the contradictions of life there is an underlying unity. Faith and doubt spring from the same concern to understand the ultimate. The person who has no concern is the one who is damned. Faith and doubt--for Bushnell--were complimentary.

I will quote the author Mr. Matthews in regards to where he believesds the church is heading today:

*"Today, new ways of doing church are emerging. A revived evangelicalism has taken root that is making use of contemporary worship forms. The Community Church movement is drawing a new wave of unchurched persons into the faith and influencing thousands of churches as a result. If these changes do herald a Fourth Awakening, remember, you heard it here first."*

Sad!


[Edited on 3-5-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > Ben,
> ...



Ben,
I believe children of the covenant are neutral in that they need to be taught. Prior to this teaching, their faith is like a seed lying on the top of some dry soil, waiting for rain and to be imbedded into the earth to grow. Knowing Bushnell and that he was a paedobaptist, and how his thoughts about children of the covenant, I believe he meant what I have stated. 

[Edited on 3-5-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 5, 2005)

> Prior to this teaching, their faith is like a seed lying on the top of some dry soil, waiting for rain and to be imbedded into the earth to grow.



How very Lutheran sounding of you! 

By the way... neither paedobaptist convictions nor belief in covenant children necessarily implies belief in presumptive regeneration.

[Edited on 3-5-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## Mayflower (Mar 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Ralph,
> Just for the record, you may want to post the citings you use as I just cut and pasted your post from :



Iam sorry Scot, that i did not wrote that this was a quote from someone else !


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Mayflower_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Ahh... a quote of a quote! This is what we call "hear say!"


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > Prior to this teaching, their faith is like a seed lying on the top of some dry soil, waiting for rain and to be imbedded into the earth to grow.
> ...



Really? And your assertion is based upon? My assertion is based upon history. Not only did father Calvin agree with my interpretation, so did the devines as well as Zwingli and Bullinger.

Calvin writes:

According to Calvin the infants of believing parents belong to the church before they are engrafted into its visible membership by baptism. The child of a Christian parent is presumptively a Christian and an heir of eternal life. 

The offspring of believers are born holy, because their children, while yet in the womb, before they breathe the vital air, have been adopted into the covenant of eternal life. Nor are they brought into the church by baptism on any other ground than because they belonged to the body of the Church
before they were born. He who admits aliens to baptism profanes it.... For how can it be lawful to confer the badge of Christ on aliens from Christ. Baptism must, therefore, be preceded by the gift of adoption, which is not the cause of half salvation merely, but gives salvation entire; and this salvation is afterwards ratified by Baptism 

Interim AdulteroÂ­Â­germanum: cui adiecta est vera Christianae Pacificationis et Ecclesiae Reformandae Ratio. Per Joann. Calvinum. Corpus Reformatorum, vol. 35, 619

Calvin adds:

Calvin says, '...the children of believers are baptized not in order that they who were previously strangers to the church may then for the first time become children of God, but rather that, because by the blessing of the promise they already belonged to the body of Christ, they are received into the church with this solemn sign.' Institutes, IV, xv, 22. ]

In regards to my Lutheran tendencies and using the term 'seed faith'; apparently calvin was Lutheran also because he states :

"For it is very clear from
many testimonies of Scripture that circumcision was also a sign of repentance. Then Paul calls it the seal of the righteousness of faith....For although infants, at the very moment they were circumcised, did not comprehend with their understanding what that sign meant, they were truly circumcised to the mortification of their corrupt and defiled nature, a mortification that they would afterward practice in mature years. To sum up, this objection can be solved without difficulty: infants are baptized into future repentance and faith, and even though these have not yet been formed in them, *the seed* of both lies hidden within them by the secret working of the Spirit.'
Calvins Institutes, IV, xvi, 20; 
~my emphasis added/sb

Look a tad bit deeper into the WCF and what it states in regards to placing the sign and what it means:

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

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

[Edited on 3-5-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> ...



All good reasons why I affirm presumptive election - I have confidence that my children will come to profess faith in Christ. None of these statements (because they aren't arguments, really) above necessitates that I believe that my child *comes into* the world regenerated (saved!). 

How do you believe that Eph 2 applies to our children? Or is it being "too baptist" to affirm that this applies to our children?

P.S.
About "the seed"... _as I read_ your comment: yours is completely different from Calvin's. Your post says, in effect, that they have faith ('their faith') and that it needs to be nurtured. Calvin argues that their faith and repentance (say... isn't repentance a sign of regeneration?) are future, not present... the seed of those things (not the things themselves!) are present in them by the mysterious working of the Spirit... which provide the basis for me presuming that they will come to faith... but not that they come into the world having any actual faith ("habit" or other). 


[Edited on 3-5-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



What is Calvin saying here?

"The offspring of believers are born holy, because their children, while yet in the womb, before they breathe the vital air, have been adopted into the covenant of eternal life."

And here:

"He who admits aliens to baptism profanes it.... For how can it be lawful to confer the badge of Christ on aliens from Christ. Baptism must, therefore, be preceded by the gift of adoption, which is not the cause of half salvation merely, but gives salvation entire; and this salvation is afterwards ratified by Baptism"

Eph 2 is not a difficulty. The above is supported under the same premise.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 5, 2005)

He's simply saying that they are a part of the visible covenant community and privy to the blessings and responsibilities it brings. He does not use adoption in a regenerative sense. He uses it in the same sense in which we say that someone can be "in Christ" and not be saved. God does not regenerate those whom are not saved.
I think it is safe to say that you're reading Calvin's words apart from everything else he has to say (such as on soteriology) and applying meaning to his words that were alien to him. Though I not accusing you of holding to Federal Theology, you're doing the same thing in your reading of history.

And you can say that Eph 2 isn't a problem... but it is. It says that you were dead in your sins. Dead. That is why most Reformed folks don't hold the position you advocate... and neither did our most biblical fathers! 

[Edited on 3-5-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> He's simply saying that they are a part of the visible covenant community and privy to the blessings and responsibilities it brings. He does not use adoption in a regenerative sense. He uses it in the same sense in which we say that someone can be "in Christ" and not be saved. God does not regenerate those whom are not saved.



Sorry Ben,
You're basing this on a presup. Read again:

"Baptism must, therefore, be preceded by the gift of adoption, which is not the cause of half salvation merely, but gives salvation entire; and this salvation is afterwards ratified by Baptism"

'...salvation that is ratified by baptism".


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 5, 2005)

See my edited post which you quote...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 5, 2005)

Thats a presup also. The reformed did believe this. Have you honestly studied it? Do you believe Matt and I have not (I drag Matt into this because I am sure you respect him academically more than I)? The present day theory and theology is skewed. Your assertion that I am taking Calvin out of context is no more than that, an assertion. In fact, I am quoting him in context. What most people do and where they err is approaching Calvin w/ a presup in place., like you are doing. Do you believe I have always felt this way, theologically? How do you suppose I have come to this conclussion?

As far as Eph 2,, everyone prior to regeneration is dead in their sins. What does that have to do with what I am saying or what we are talking about? Regeneration can happen in the womb (as Calvin alludes to).


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 5, 2005)

Here's some quotes. Keep in mind, approach these with the idea that these men believed as I propose (for the sake of the conversation). Undo your presups that our historic forefathers thought as you presume; think of it as an experiment.


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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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

[Edited on 3-5-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 5, 2005)

Scott, I see your quotes. You fail to accept the possiblity that a person can affirm many of these quotes (as I do) without thinking that they come into the world regenerated. To be a member of the church does not necessitate that they be regenerated.
At the end of the day all that will happen is what occurs when Protestants and Catholics throw around quotes from the Church Fathers about the authority of the church and Scripture... (Each side says the same guy really believes their side.)
As I read Calvin I, along with the majority of the Reformed communtiy, see him meaning something entirely different from you.
Here are some interesting quotes from Calvin. I think you'll especially like the last one. I almost started laughing as it is an almost perfect rebuttal of the quote of his that you give. Calvin was a man... and he was subject to all the foibles that comes along with that...

In 2.3.10 he says this of regeneration:
_"œThus, then, are the children of God freed through regeneration from bondage to sin." _ 

Regeneration = freedom from bondage to sin. You can't be regenerated and have Eph 2 apply to you.

He says in 3.24.10

_"œFor those who imagine that some sort of seed of election was sown in them from birth itself, and that by its power they have always been inclined to piety and the fear of God, are not supported by Scriptural authority and are refuted by experience itself. They put forward a few examples by which to prove that the elect even before illumination were not strangers to religion"¦ we say they are deceived"¦. This state before regeneration described by Paul in his letter to the Ephesians shows no grain of this seed."_

[Edited on 3-5-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 5, 2005)

You read the quotes with your presup in place. Again, you are pressuming that the forefathers thought like you do.

You did'nt mention anything in regards to the WCF chapter on baptism I presented.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 5, 2005)

> In 2.3.10 he says this of regeneration:
> _"œThus, then, are the children of God freed through regeneration from bondage to sin." _
> 
> Regeneration = freedom from bondage to sin. You can't be regenerated and have Eph 2 apply to you.
> ...



There is no argument here from me. Calvin is not speaking of covenant members or covenant families or for that matter covenant promises. He is speaking of the unregenerate. The covenant member/family has in place a promise; do you believe God Ben?

Oh, by the way, the difference between PR and PE is that the PR holds to Gods promise and faith, where the PE must hold to things that they can taste, see and feel.

Joh 20:25 So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, "Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe." 
Joh 20:26 Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you." 
Joh 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe." 
Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" 
Joh 20:29 Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." 




[Edited on 3-5-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> You read the quotes with your presup in place. Again, you are pressuming that the forefathers thought like you do.
> 
> You did'nt mention anything in regards to the WCF chapter on baptism I presented.



And I say you're reading them with yours in place!

I am confident they thought like the majority of the Reformed presently do because the you ascribe to those men is (really) incompatible with everything else they teach concerning salvation.

I didn't respond to your posting from the WCF? I did in my general response... 

[Edited on 3-5-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > In 2.3.10 he says this of regeneration:
> ...



What? You offer only a rhetorical argument. 
If you believe children are born regenerate then you believe they are not in bondage to sin. If you believe that children come into the world apart from bondage to sin then Eph 2 doesn't apply to them. Do you believe God? Tell me how, exactly, Eph 2 applies to your kids. I'm curious.
By the way... you're so eager to try to escape the noose about Calvin's passage... I didn't include it in the quote, but he cites Paul as one of those people that his opponents refer to! Paul! Someone born into a covenant family! 


Brother, the Reformed community believes God. Your view is a dangerous road to tread... just a few inches shy of Federal Vision theology.... so be careful. 

At the end of the day, though, we both believe that they have a legitimate place as members of the covenant community. And that they should have the sign of covenant membership applied to them.

[Edited on 3-5-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



So, what am I Ben? A heretic? A semi-Pelagian? A baptismal regenerator; Romish. Oh, I remeber, you called me Lutheran. You are wrong. 

Thanks for the dialog.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 5, 2005)

Yes, thanks for the dialog. No, I don't think you're a heretic. I just believe that you're wrong. I do believe that yours is an error that could eventually lead to heresy, but I know that you are no heretic. I believe that you sincerely desire to honor God and obey His word. 
Please pray that the Holy Spirit would lead me into all truth where I am in error, just as I will pray for you.

Your sometimes over-zealous younger brother in the Faith,
Ben

[Edited on 3-5-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 5, 2005)

> What? You offer only a rhetorical argument.
> If you believe children are born regenerate then you believe they are not in bondage to sin.



You have made a crucial theological presuppositional error. Regeneration does not necessarily mean converted.




> If you believe that children come into the world apart from sin then Eph 2 doesn't apply to them.



Regenration does not necessarily mean conversion.




> By the way... you're so eager to try to escape the noose about Calvin's passage... I didn't include it in the quote, but he cites Paul as one of those people that his opponents refer to! Paul! Someone born into a covenant family!



The passage is not directed at Paul but to the unregenerate. 




> Brother, the Reformed community believes God. Your view is a dangerous road to tread... just a few inches shy of Federal Vision theology.... so be careful.



Hahahaha You are wrong.



> At the end of the day, though, we both believe that they have a legitimate place as members of the covenant community. And that they should have the sign of covenant membership applied to them.



And here is what the WCF says again:

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

1) admission
2) a sign and seal
3) ingrafting into Christ
4) regeneration
5) remission of sin
6) newness of life

How can the devines make these claims ?

[Edited on 3-5-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 5, 2005)

Edit above


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 5, 2005)

Scott, the divines can make those claims because that is what baptism represents. That is what is offered/pointed to in baptism. You are focusing on the word "regeneration" as if it means that we baptize because we believe regeration to have occured... but the WCF also says remission of sins! This is only for the elect! Baptism points to the remission of sins offered by Christ. in the same way, baptism points to the regeneration offered by Christ.

Scott, please, for the 2nd or 3rd time: how, exactly does Eph 2 apply to your kids?

Also... regarding the Calvin quotes. Look them up. He IS referring to Paul. That is his point.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> Scott, the divines can make those claims because that is what baptism represents.



Sorry. They clearly, by faith, believe the baptiizee is regenerated; and as Calvin states, prior to even having the sign placed upon them., according to Gods promise.




> That is what is offered/pointed to in baptism.



You misunderstand how the covenant works.

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




> You are focusing on the word "regeneration" as if it means that we baptize because we believe regeration to have occured...



And here is what the WCF says again:

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

1) admission
2) a sign and seal
3) ingrafting into Christ
4) regeneration
5) remission of sin
6) newness of life

How can the devines make these claims ? "A seal of regeneration!

Here I will quote Calvin again:

"The offspring of believers are born holy, because their children, while yet in the womb, before they breathe the vital air, have been adopted into the covenant of eternal life. "

"For how can it be lawful to confer the badge of Christ on aliens from Christ. Baptism must, therefore, be preceded by the gift of adoption, which is not the cause of half salvation merely, but gives salvation entire; and this salvation is afterwards ratified by Baptism "




> but the WCF also says remission of sins! This is only for the elect! Baptism points to the remission of sins offered by Christ. in the same way, baptism points to the regeneration offered by Christ.



No argument here



> Scott, please, for the 2nd or 3rd time: how, exactly does Eph 2 apply to your kids?



My children are saved by faith, which is a supernatural gift of God. through His grace. Regeneration, apart from conversion is not only possible, it is a reality, i.e. John the Baptist, Samson, Jeremiah. Regenerates still must come under the sound preaching of Gods word to be converted. Does this answer your question. 



> Also... regarding the Calvin quotes. Look them up. He IS referring to Paul. That is his point.



Inst 3/24/10

"For the elect are brought by calling into the fold of Christ, not from the very womb, nor all at the same time, but according as God sees it meet to dispense his grace. "

Here's your answer to that. Calvin came against the idea that _all_ the elect are regenerated in the womb. That was Pauls point.

[Edited on 3-6-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 5, 2005)

Scott, I'm not going to spend my time arguing with you about your error until the cows come home!

Your view totally invalidates Eph 2. It says you were DEAD, Scott. Dead. By Calvin's own words as I quoted above, regeneration means freedom from bondage to sin. Think through this a moment, Scott: If your children come into the world regenerated, this - according to Calvin's definition - means they come into the world free from bondage to sin. This means that they are NOT dead in their sins. Period.
You can hem and haw and try to throw up subterfuge all you want. But that is the bottom line.

To be regenerated is to be effectually called. There are none regenerated (new birth) who are not saved. Look at the various passages that are traditionally referred to for regeneration: Deut 30:6, Ezek 11:19-20, 2 Cor 5:17, Gal 6:15, Tit 3:15, etc... these are purpose clauses (esp Deut and Ezek). God is doing this for a purpose. The purpose is not that new creatures can go around in an unjustified state. It is an impossibility. This is why the Reformed faith basically makes effectual calling and regeneration synonymous terms. Look at WCF 13.1. Effectually called is listed first (only because it logically precedes) and regeneration is listed next. Then read the next clause... they are saved. Thus, you - and all those who oppose the traditional Reformed view- need to consider this: 13.1 comes before 28.6... thus 28.6 needs to be read in the light of 13.1. 28.6 is not saying that in baptism someone is presumed regenerate (side note: 28.5 actually denies any necessary presumption of regeneration on the part of the recipients of baptism!)- that is, to have been effectually called and given new life as per 13.1... Do you see that? 13.1 says that all who are regenerate have new hearts and spirits! They're saved! All 28.6 is saying is that some people are baptized prior to their coming to faith, others are baptized after they come to faith. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to when baptism occurs, but it points to the benefits received at the time of faith. So don't tell me that I don't understand how the covenant works. I'm just saying what the vast majority of the Reformed camp believes... that kind of condescension on your sounds intelligent, but it is really not valid... and, not to return an _ad hominum_ for an _ad hominum_... but given your reluctance to synthesize Reformed soteriology with Reformed sacramentology makes me wonder if _YOU_ understand how the covenant works. 

Anyway, it's late and I am preaching God's word to His people tomorrow morning. So I need to sleep.
Again, please pray for me as I pray for you. Please forgive me where I make unfair or harsh statements. I admit that I am kind of irritated because I was under the assumption that you were done with this discussion (with that whole "thanks for the dialog" line). I'm more irritated at myself though for being irritated at your position all afternoon when I should have been praying and preparing for tomorrow. So please forgive me if I sound unduly harsh.
Ben

[Edited on 3-6-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> Scott, I'm not going to spend my time arguing with you about your error until the cows come home!
> 
> Your view totally invalidates Eph 2. It says you were DEAD, Scott. Dead. By Calvin's own words as I quoted above, regeneration means freedom from bondage to sin.



Let me start by asking you straght up Ben:

1) Is Regeneration the same thing as conversion? 
2) Was John the Baptist regenerated in the womb?
3) Was he converted in the womb?

Calvin et. al. are using the term regeneration as a synonym, ex: regeneration and conversion are the same (even though technically, they aren't). When I say to you I am regenerate (without saying I am also converted) it means that I AM converted also. However, in the EPH passage, Calvin is using it this way. "Prior to regeneration (and conversion) Scott was dead in his sins. In our discussion, I am not using it in the same way as I am segregating the segments rightfully to make a forensic point.






> Think through this a moment, Scott: If your children come into the world regenerated, this - according to Calvin's definition - means they come into the world free from bondage to sin. This means that they are NOT dead in their sins. Period.
> You can hem and haw and try to throw up subterfuge all you want. But that is the bottom line.



Can any of my children be converted without hearing the word of God? Faith comes by hearing the word of God-no rom 10:17? So, if my children are decreed a full life in Christ, they can be regenerated in the womb, yet they will need at a different time to sit under sound preaching in order to be converted.




> To be regenerated is to be effectually called. There are none regenerated (new birth) who are not saved.




Biblical description of the Ordo is clear. There are facets, it is segmental. Segments require time, whether it be a nanosecond or longer, it is fractures that occure and are required. God uses time to define things. He created the world in 6 days. The passage below are Gods words. The golden chain proves that there are segments. 

Romans 8:29-30 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

In the Reformed camp, the ordo salutis is 1) election, 2) predestination, 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification,
8) sanctification, and 9) glorification. (Rom 8:29-30)




> Look at the various passages that are traditionally referred to for regeneration: Deut 30:6, Ezek 11:19-20, 2 Cor 5:17, Gal 6:15, Tit 3:15, etc... these are purpose clauses (esp Deut and Ezek). God is doing this for a purpose. The purpose is not that new creatures can go around in an unjustified state. It is an impossibility. This is why the Reformed faith basically makes effectual calling and regeneration synonymous terms. Look at WCF 13.1. Effectually called is listed first (only because it logically precedes) and regeneration is listed next. Then read the next clause... they are saved. Thus, you - and all those who oppose the traditional Reformed view- need to consider this: 13.1 comes before 28.6... thus 28.6 needs to be read in the light of 13.1. 28.6 is not saying that in baptism someone is presumed regenerate (side note: 28.5 actually denies any necessary presumption of regeneration on the part of the recipients of baptism!)- that is, to have been effectually called and given new life as per 13.1... Do you see that? 13.1 says that all who are regenerate have new hearts and spirits! They're saved!



I'm looking at them. However, as you have said , as well as I, the term is used in many instances synonomously, where they can be used in that context. However, in the case of our discussion, it must be used otherwise as that is at the base of my position. I have suggested two books in the past on the subject; "A Treatise on Regeneration", by Peter Van Mastricht (J. Edwards says this was the best book ever written on the subject- it supports the clinical view I present) and "The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant" by Lewis Bevins Schenk. In this book Schenck shows clearly that the devines and the church fathers all believed what I state. read both book then talk to me some more.




> All 28.6 is saying is that some people are baptized prior to their coming to faith, others are baptized after they come to faith.



People come to faith because of Gods spirit. The grace conferred (as described here and in John 3) in the sacrament happens arbitrarily. Some at baptism, some otherwise. In regards to my children, I will hold fast to Gods promise to me. I will not be like Thomas, a doubter!



> The efficacy of baptism is not tied to when baptism occurs, but it points to the benefits received at the time of faith.



Compare your statement above with what is written here in the WCF:

I. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;

~Thats ok; you concur.

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

~You say at the time of faith. The above says nothing about faith. The ordo does not talk of faith. The bible says faith comes by hearing the word of God, and that it is a gift. John 3 says that the HS is like an arbitrary wind (arbitrary in that it works in it's own time economy with the elect).

oh 3:7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' 
Joh 3:8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." 

The WCF clearly states that "the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost".

Conferred means 'apply'. The WCF clearly says what they believe occured under this sacrament. Apostasy later in life does not make God a liar.

Rom 3:3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 
Rom 3:4 By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, "That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged." 

I was wondering, care to comment on this?:


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

1) admission
2) a sign and seal
3) ingrafting into Christ
4) regeneration
5) remission of sin
6) newness of life

How can the devines make these claims ? "A seal of regeneration!




> So don't tell me that I don't understand how the covenant works.



OK 




> I'm just saying what the vast majority of the Reformed camp believes...




The reformed of the day? I agree they do; they are also wrong.




> that kind of condescension on your sounds intelligent, but it is really not valid... and, not to return an _ad hominum_ for an _ad hominum_... but given your reluctance to synthesize Reformed soteriology with Reformed sacramentology makes me wonder if _YOU_ understand how the covenant works.



It's _ad hominem_, not hominum. And It wasn't meant as a A.H. You don't see me chiding you for connecting my view with the Fed vision guys or your first poke at me by calling me _ Lutheran_ do you; I could have called you on that one as you know that the major issue w/ FV is their view on justification. Whatever........ 

I believe the impression you have about my not being able to _synthesize_ reformed soteriology w/ sacrementology is primarily due to your misunderstanding of the covenant and what the sacraments meant and mean. 




> Anyway, it's late and I am preaching God's word to His people tomorrow morning. So I need to sleep.
> Again, please pray for me as I pray for you. Please forgive me where I make unfair or harsh statements. I admit that I am kind of irritated because I was under the assumption that you were done with this discussion (with that whole "thanks for the dialog" line).



My intent was to end the discussion. That was before you posted your previous post to my bon voyage. Whatever the case, it may still prove to be profitable.





> I'm more irritated at myself though for being irritated at your position all afternoon when I should have been praying and preparing for tomorrow. So please forgive me if I sound unduly harsh.
> Ben



I'm good! I've been dialoging a a long time online Ben; I have become used to the general irritation that can occur. My wife can relate to your situation. It's all good.




[Edited on 3-6-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 6, 2005)

Here is an excellent paper from Michale bremmer on the differences. However, he does not address the examples set forth in scripture of John, Samson or Jeremiah. Since they are there, the premise cannot be discounted.

Regeneration
by Michael Bremmer 
"Long my imprisoned spirit lay, Fast bound in sin and nature's night; Thine eye diffused a quickening ray; I woke: The dungeon flamed with light! My chains fell off, my heart was free, I rose, went forth, and followed Thee" --C. Wesley (1) 

It is important to begin by mentioning that the word "regeneration" does not describe an identical phenomenon with all writers. Some writers use regeneration to describe the spiritual renewal of the image of God in man. John Calvin, for example, uses regeneration in this very broad sense: "In one word, then, by repentance I understand regeneration, the only aim of which is to form in us anew the image of God, which was sullied, and all but effaced by the transgression of Adam" (2). 

Later some 17th century theologians used regeneration and conversion synonymously. The very talented Puritan theologian John Owen writes: "Now concerning this whole work, I affirm, that the Holy Spirit does make use of it in the regeneration or conversion of all adult persons, either by the word preached, or by some other application of light and truth to the mind derived from the word." (3) Still others understand effectual calling and regeneration as identical. The Westminster Confession of Faith (4), for example, reflects this view. More recently, Reformed theologian Anthony Hoekema in his excellent chapter on regeneration writes: "I prefer to think of regeneration (in the narrow sense) and effectual calling as identical (6). 

Definitions of regeneration that include effectual calling, conversion, or sanctification are termed "unrestrictive." Definitions that exclude effectual calling, conversion, and sanctification are termed "restrictive." These categories can lead to confusion when defining regeneration, and when examining the relationship between regeneration, effectual calling, conversion, and sanctification, or when reading the ideas expressed in the writings of others. We always need to be certain that the words we use have the same meaning to all. 

In this article, regeneration is limited to its restricted sense. Regeneration, then, is "An inner re-creating of fallen human nature by the gracious sovereign action of the Holy Spirit (Jn.3:5-8) (7). 

THE NECESSITY OF REGENERATION 
Our Lord said in no uncertain words, "Truly, Truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (Jn. 3.3). The verse is better translated, "Unless one is born from above he cannot see the kingdom of God," or "reborn from above." The word "Again" is the Greek word anothen and is used in verse 31, "He who comes from above ( anothen ) is above all." Our Lord is stressing to Nicodemus the necessity of being reborn from above, from Heaven, even to see (understand) or enter the kingdom of God. This statement is similar to the one our Lord made to the Jews, "No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day," and, "For this reason I have said on you," that reason being their unbelief (vs. 64), "that no one can come to Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father" (Jn. 6.44, 65). Our Lord reminds Nicodemus, the Jews, and us today, that apart from a supernatural work of God, no one can come to God. The reason for this is because of humanity's spiritual condition. 

THE AUTHOR OR REGENERATION 
There are only three views that one can take regarding the author of regeneration: Either God alone is the author of regeneration, man and God are coauthors of regeneration, or man alone regenerates himself. The last view most Christians will recognize as false. The second view, that God and man are co-workers in regeneration, is known as synergism . The first view, that God alone is the author of regeneration, meaning, God regenerates whom He pleases without the cooperation or consent of the one whom He chooses to regenerate, is known as monergism . I am emphasizing this for a good reason. This difference, between whether regeneration is monergistic or synergistic, is one of the foremost reason for the two opposing theologies of Arminianism and Calvinism. In other words, what you believe the Bible teaches about who regenerates and how, will determine whether you will be a Calvinist or Arminian--if you remain consistent in your thinking. For if regeneration is monergistic, then unconditional election is also true. Similarly, if regeneration is synergistic--that God regenerates those who believe--, then election is conditional, based on foreseen faith. So you see, what you believe about the nature of regeneration will affect much of your theology.

Monergistic means that we are entirely passive in regeneration--We contribute nothing. This does not mean that God does His work, then it remains within our ability whether to be reborn or converted: "Rather, it is an entirely supernatural work, one that is at the same time most powerful and most pleasing, marvelous, hidden, and inexpressible work, which is not lesser than or inferior in power to that of creation or of the raising of the dead" (8). In other words, God alone regenerates, and He does so without the help, cooperation, or consent of those He chooses to regenerate. This is proven by: 

(i) Consider the three most used images of regeneration in Scripture: "a new creation," "the new birth," and "a resurrection to life." All convey the idea that man is completely passive. We are no more active participates in regeneration than we were active participates in our creation, physical birth, or will be in our resurrection. In other words, if we must repent and believe to be born again, then we are the instruments of our new birth. However, according to Scripture, this makes as much sense as saying we have been the cause of our creation, physical birth, or future resurrection. 

(ii) Our Lord indicates that regeneration is monergistic. In that remarkable discussion with Nicodemus explaining how the Holy Spirit works in the hearts of people, Jesus said: "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit" (Jn. 3.7-8). In explaining regeneration to the bewildered Nicodemus, Jesus illustrates the work of the Holy Spirit with wind. As the wind comes and goes as it pleases, so to the Holy Spirit works as He please. Clearly, the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration is monergistic. If regeneration is synergistic, conditional on what we do, then we can predict when and where the Holy Spirit will work, falsifying Jesus illustration to Nicodemus. 

(iii) "And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lust of our flesh, indulging the desires of our flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. BUT God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even WHEN we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been Saved)" (Eph. 2.1-5). The apostle Paul tells the believers at Ephesus that regeneration occurred when "we were dead in our transgressions" (Eph. 2.5). Dead men do not cooperate with God's grace. According to Paul, regeneration is monergistic. 

(iv) "And a certain woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord open her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul" (Acts 16.14). Notice carefully the order. God first opened Lydia's heart, then she responded to the things spoken by Paul. 

(v) "Who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (Jn. 1.13). The interpretation of "bloods" and "flesh" is difficult. Perhaps John is saying to the Jews that being born a Jew will not make them born again. However, what is of interest here for this discussion is the last phrase. Note carefully what John says. We are born again not by any act of our will. Regeneration can not be an act of human will because it is the human will that is changed by regeneration 

(vi) Monergistic regeneration is the inevitable out come of the doctrine of Original sin and inability. Because of our fall in Adam (9) all born since Adam, except the blessed Lord Jesus Christ, are spiritually dead (Eph. 2.1-5), slave to, children of, and followers of Satan (Acts 26. 17-18; 1 Jn. 3.10; Eph. 2.1-2), dwell in darkness, (Jn. 1.4-5), cannot understand spiritual truth, (1 Cor. 2.14), at enmity with God (Rom. 8.7), do not seek after God (Rom. 3.10), think the gospel is foolishness (1 Cor. 1.18), are slaves to sin (Rom. 6.20), and have evil and corrupt hearts (Ecc. 9.3; Jer. 17.9). Summarizing this plight of humanity, the Westminster Confession of Faith says: "Man, by his fall and state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto" (10) This is what the Reformed call inability. It does not mean that because of the fall we cannot choose, but since we choose according to our nature we will never choose to believe and follow Christ. How then is it possible that regeneration is synergistic? How can I, a fallen sinner, dead in sin, at enmity with God, enslave to sin and Satan, choose to trust and serve Christ? 

Arminian View 
The Wesleyan Arminians who hold to the Biblical doctrine of original sin recognize the problem. Their solution is prevenient grace: "Christian theology refers to this gracious activity of God as "prevenient grace" The word "prevenient" (or "preventing") means "coming before, preceding, or antecedent." God's prevenient grace creates and prompts our spiritual desires, drawing us to faith in Jesus Christ. Through prevenient grace, God comes to us in our unregenerate state to turn our thoughts to Himself and to enable us to experience him personally." (11)

The Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace fits very well in their over all scheme of theology and enables them to maintain the doctrine of original sin and yet reject monergistic regeneration and its obvious implication of unconditional election. The problem with it, however, is that no clear Biblical support exists for it, and seems merely to be a doctrine contrived out of necessity. In the words of R. C. Sproul, "Why then, all the fuss? My guess is that it is because if we conclude that regeneration is monergistic, that salvation is by grace alone, we cannot escape the glaring implication that leads us quickly and irresistibly to sovereign election" (12). In other words, Arminians must have their doctrine of prevenient grace, despite the total lack of Biblical evidence, or they are force to accept unconditional election. 

The Biblical implication of Original Sin is that unless given a new nature, unless the heart of stone is first removed and a heart of flesh is given (Ez. 36.28), faith in Christ for salvation is impossible (Jn. 6.44). Yet once given, by the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit, it is impossible not to have faith in Christ for salvation (Jn. 6.37) for the very same reason that the unregenerate will never choose to believe: we choose according to our nature. 

REGENERATION AND FAITH 
One implication of what has been said so far is that regeneration, causally, occurs before faith. This is only logical. How is it possible for one who is dead in sin, enslaved to lust, Satan, and the world, at enmity with God, exercise faith (1 Cor. 2.14)? Man by nature cannot exercise saving faith. We are not regenerated because we believe, we believe because we are regenerated. Paul writes to the believers at Thessalonica: "But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and faith in the truth" (2 Thess. 2.13). Note the order the apostle Paul gives: first sanctification by the Spirit, then faith in the truth. The same order can be noted in Acts 16.14 previously mentioned.

But how often have we heard preachers and evangelist exhort people to believe in Jesus and be born again? If true, then we have played a part in our new birth--a view that the Scriptures do not support. We DO play a part in our conversion, but remember that we are discussing regeneration not conversion. 

WHAT REGENERATION IS 
"Regeneration," says Dabney, "is a supernatural renovation of the dispositions which determine the moral purpose, and of the understanding in the apprehension of moral and spiritual truth; the whole resulting in a permanent and fundamental conversion in the actings of the whole man as to sin and holiness--the flesh and God" (13). Charnock defines regeneration as, "A mighty and powerful change, wrought in the soul by the efficacious working of the Holy Spirit, wherein a vital principle, a new habit, the law of God, and a divine nature are put into, and framed in the heart, enabling it to act holy and pleasing to God, and to grow up therein to eternal glory" (14).

It follows therefore that regeneration occurs on a subconscious level. Although the effects of regeneration are perceived (i. e. conversion), regeneration is not: "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit" (Jn. 3.8). "Who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (Jn. l.13). 

Regeneration is an instantaneous change affecting the whole person. It is a rebirth from death to life (Eph. 2.5), from darkness to light (Col. 1.13). Regeneration is not a process like sanctification. We are never between death and life, or darkness and light. At this very moment we are either spiritual alive or dead in our sins and trespasses. 

The change produced by regeneration is in the very root of our being; it is a radical change, a change which affects the whole person--the intellect, the will, and the emotions (2 Cor. 5.17). It is a change from enmity to love. It is the giving of a new heart and the removing of a heart of stone. It is such a deep-rooted change that when the gift of faith (Eph. 2.8; Phil. 1,29) is given, we willingly receive and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ. Consequently, the change wrought in regeneration is not a superficial or temporary change, but is a work which ensures that the one whom God regenerates repents, believes, and whose faith endures to the end. 

WHAT REGENERATION IS NOT 
(i) Conversion. Regeneration differs from conversion in that conversion is what we do because of God's work of regeneration. "Regeneration is a spiritual change, conversion is a spiritual motion. In regeneration there is power conferred; conversion is the exercise of this power. In regeneration there is given us a principle to turn; conversion is our actual turning . . .Conversion is related to regeneration, as the effect to cause" (15).

Regeneration differs from conversion in that conversion (faith and repentance) always follows. Regeneration makes conversion possible. Conversion is the outward evidence that regeneration has taken place. Another difference is that in regeneration we are passive; it is God who acts. In conversion we are active; We act by exercising faith and repentance. This does not mean that while God regenerates we have the option to be converted or not. Conversion always follows regeneration. The person whose heart has been renewed, and has been recreated in the image of God, given new life and a holy disposition, willingly embraces Christ in faith and repentance. (Acts 5.31; 11.18; 13.48; 16.14; 18.27; Phil. 1.29; 2 Tm. 2.25-26; 2 Thess. 3.2) John Murray, in one of his best works, writes: "Regeneration is inseparable from its effects and one of the effects is faith. Without regeneration it is morally and spiritually impossible for a person to believe in Christ, but when a person is regenerated it is morally and spiritually impossible for that person not to believe. Jesus said, 'All that the Father giveth me shall come to me (Jn. 6.37), and he was referring in this case surely to the giving of the Father in the efficacious drawing of the Father mentioned in the same context (Jn. 6.44, 65). Regeneration is the renewing of the heart and mind, and the renewed heart and mind must act according to their nature" (16). 

While regeneration and conversion seemingly occur simultaneously, causally regeneration is before conversion. This point can be illustrated by turning on a light switch. Although the shining of the light and the turning of the switch seemingly occur simultaneously, causally the turning of the switch must be first. The same is true with the relationship between regeneration and conversion. We often confuse the two because we are experientially aware of our conversion, but not our new birth that precedes conversion. Although tied together, we must not confuse the conversion experience with God's supernatural work of regeneration. 

(ii) Justification. Regeneration is and inward work; justification is an outward declaration that one is righteous in God's sight. Regeneration is God giving a new holy disposition; Justification is based on what Christ has done for us; Regeneration is the Holy Spirits work in us. By justification we are reconciled to God; By regeneration we are renewed in the image of God. (17) 

(iii) Sanctification. Regeneration is a once completed act; sanctification is a continual process, begun in regeneration, making the believer subjectively holy and righteous. 

(iv) Effectual Call. Regeneration differs from effectual calling in that the effectual calling draws out the new life and points it in a God-ward direction. It secures the exercise of the new disposition and brings the new life into action. Obviously, the effectual calling is on a conscious level while regeneration is on a subconscious level. 

OBJECTIONS 
If it is true that God regenerates whom He pleases, and that without this supernatural work of God repentance and faith are impossible, then how can God justly condemn those who do not believe? This objection is based on the false assumption that ability limits obligation, that God cannot command that which we cannot not do, unless of course He gives us the power to do. Since, then, God commands all to repent and believe, so Arminians argue, all have the power to repent and believe. Yet no where in Scripture will anyone find the man made axiom, "ability limits obligation." What we do find, however, are statements such as: "You are to be perfect, as you heavenly Father is perfect" (Mt. 5.48). According to our Lord Jesus Christ, God's righteous standard is His own perfect character. If God only commands what man has the power to do, or that God only commands those things that He gives the power to do, then everyone has the power to be as perfect as God! Those confronted with this statement have only one of two choices: Either accept that God commands things we cannot do, or make the word "perfect" to mean something other then its obvious intent. God commands repeatedly not to sin, yet Scripture clearly teaches that all sin (1 Jn. 1.8-10). Again, there are one of two ways of understanding these facts considering the present discussion: Either accept that God does command things we cannot do, or make sin to mean something other than any transgression of God's law. The fact that all sin, Christian and Pagans, even when God has commanded us not to sin, and that God will and does justly judge sin, is proof of the error "ability limits obligation" as any honest inquirer needs. 

A second objection to the reformed view of regeneration is that it violates human freewill. If God regenerates whom He pleases, without the cooperation of the individual, then we do not have freewill. Yet the Bible clearly states we do have freewill. Therefore, so the argument goes, the Reformed view of Regeneration cannot be true. 

The fallacy with this argument is the assumption that if God regenerates first, before repentance and faith, then the subsequent conversion of the sinner is not a free choice. However, we argue that it is a free choice because for a choice to be truly free, the choice must be our own; the choice must be according to our nature. In the words of D. M. Lloyd-Jones "The will is never forced. What happens is that the Holy Spirit, by putting a new disposition within us, this new ability, enables us to appreciate the truth. What used to be foolishness' suddenly becomes meaningful to us, becomes wonderful; and because we now see what it is, we desire it. The important factor is not the will itself, but that which governs and controls the will. The will is merely a kind of executive faculty; it is always determined by something else. Formerly it was determined by the devil; but know the Holy Spirit reveals these things to us and we desire them. No man is ever saved against his will, or browbeaten into salvation. You are given such a view of it that you want it with your whole being. You formerly rejected it, and regarded it as folly, now you see its glory and you embrace it with all the energy of your will" (18). BECAUSE of regeneration, we freely choose to believe the glorious gospel of grace. 

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE 
(i) The doctrine of regeneration has an obvious relevance to the Lordship salvation controversy. Although the issues involved in the Lordship debate are admittedly complex, one is nonetheless forced to ask whether a person who has been regenerated might produce no outward change in behavior and character? Is it possible for a "new creature," to live like the old? Is it possible that "the imparting of new life," "the recreating of the image of God," "the governing dispositions made holy," as various theologians have defined regeneration, might produce no outward change? Produce no desire to serve God? Produce no commitment to Christ's Lordship? The Scripture states that the idea is impossible: "No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God" (1 Jn. 3.9). John does not mean that Christians do not sin, for the Apostle has already stated Christians do sin (1.10). John IS saying Christians do not practice sin because they are born again.

(ii) Since regeneration is a change wrought by God alone, many Christians need to evaluate their belief and methodology of evangelism. Can you persuade a dead man to come to life? This does not mean that we should not use methods, or that we should not evangelize. We mean only two things. First, we are never to put our trust in our well plan methods of evangelism. We must put our faith in God alone. God saves, not our cleverly conceived and wordy presentations. Second, we must be sure that whatever method we use in evangelism we share the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Fleshly appeals to come to Jesus for wealth, healing, hell-fire insurance, etc. will only increase the tares (Mt. 13:24-30) in Christendom. God alone saves; God alone regenerates; God does use means to accomplish salvation--but they must be His means. The means that God has chosen to bring his people to Christ is the gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul states that the gospel is "the power of God" for salvation (Rom. 1.16). 

We must have Paul's heart AND message for effective evangelism: "And when I came to you brethren, I did not come to with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the wisdom of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified....And my message and preaching were not persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and power, that your faith should not rest on the wisdom of men, but in the Power of God" (1 Cor. 2.1-5). Pink writes: "Neither the logical arguments advanced by the mind, hypnotic powers brought to bear upon the will, touching appeals made to the emotions, beautiful music and hearty singing to catch the ear, nor sensuous trappings to draw the eye--none of these are of the slightest avail in stirring dead sinners. It is not the choir, nor the preacher, but the Spirit that quickeneth'" (19). 

Of the some 36% (20) of the population claiming to be born again, how many's faith rest on the wisdom of men instead on the power of God? 

(iii) If what has been said about regeneration is true, then believers cannot lose their salvation. Since the sin question is answered in the atonement, then the only way one could lose their salvation is to stop believing. Yet in order for the believer to stop believing one must change their nature. Since they could not change their nature in the first place, then they certainly cannot change it afterward. True believers cannot stop believing for that is against their nature. 

(iv) "The doctrine of regeneration places the Christian faith in an unusual position. On the one hand, Christians reject the current secular belief in the goodness of the human and optimistic expectations arising there from. The very insistence upon regeneration is a declaration that without external help and complete transformation there is no possibility that genuine good on a large scale will emerge from mankind. On the other hand, despite the pessimistic assessment of the natural powers of the human, Christianity is very optimistic: with supernatural aid humans can be transformed and restored to their original goodness. It was in regard to God's ability to change human hearts, enabling us to enter his kingdom, that Jesus said, With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible' (Matt. 19:26)" (21) 

(v) Salvation, form start to finish, is all the work of God. Soli Deo Gloria! To HIM ALONE be all the praise and glory! 

http://www.mbrem.com/salvation/regene.htm


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 6, 2005)

Ben,

Have you read Witsius yet?

He basically lays to rest every question and statement you made in inquiring in this thread. That would be a good place to start, and since you are in seminary, you should be able to handle him. I'd go there for good exegesis of the three covenants and how they work. Your question is really not about PR, but about how Covenant Theology is shaped and molded, and its practical outcome.

The Federal Visionists have fallen over the edge and gone super-hyper-covenantal, or Judaistic. Ont he opposite end of the covenantal spectrum are our modern day Presbyterian preachers who really have been overly infected with traits of Revivalistic Individualism (even the Knox Seminary Colloquy against the Federal Visionists concede this). Thus, the more balanced arena is from the Reformation up to Edwards. After that, theology goes downhill, and then Hodge and the Princeton theologians try to go back to it again. But its like 5 steps forward, 8 steps back.

As for reading "presuppositions" into Calvin, Scott is definitely not doing that. Turretin is about as scholastically Reformed as one can get. He picks up on continuing Calvin's theology and explains at length "seed faith" AGAINST the Lutherans. So I think this thread, overall, continues to be painted as a caricature rather than really dealing with the actual Reformation sources (as Scott quoted) instead of saying "My Baptist teachers say you are misunderstanding the Reformers and really don't know what the Reformation taught on these things..." yada yada. Let's dispense with that.

I'd be more happy with solid dialog if people would please cite the Reformers in context, as well as the Puritans or Scottish Covenanters. But, again, that takes time to wade through to understand what they said as a whole. This is where I know the Federal Visionists blow it - they stink at Historical Theology, but are masters at proof texting. It is also the same place where this thread went. In other words, after the list of quotations Scott posted, you were quieted about "saying" to him that it was opinionated, or that they had not said it (and believe me, that list is not by any means exhausted).

Also, to say that we believe that children are born "regenerated" is to MISS THE WHOLE POINT. That's not what PR says or has ever said. PR doe snot deny at all Ephesians, nor Total Depravity, etc. instead, those who are biting off little pieces of PR that seem strange or foreign to them, and then build straw men to knock over. That's why I stopped dealing with the topic overall on this board. These threads keep happening because there is not enough assimilated information to deal responsibly with what the church has said and taught. Now some will disagree. But OK. Quote me Calvin or Turretin differently in thier overall context and I'll keep quiet. the church has always quoted the easy stuff, but never this stuff. Does that mean they did not hold to it or believe it? No. It means that most of the time the church has been dealign with teaching babes milk. 

It would be easy to go to Augustine or the early fathers and get into some really controversial ideas around PR, or how they utilized the word "regeneration". But even that would not be helpful because the basics of what the Reformation taught on the inclusion of children is so twisted, due to a bad understanding of CT, that its not worth the time.

So I would press everyone who has a question on the ordo salutis, and CT, and pr, around this topic to read through Witsius. That would be the best place to start.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 6, 2005)

First of all, thank you for splitting the thread. I think that the choice of the topic title reflects the heart of this discussion. Good job. 

Second, guys, I read that article that Scott posted... Even he acknowledges that according to the WCF regeneration = effectual calling. Furthermore, I've read Watson who also agrees that the view of the WCF is that regeneration = effectual calling. Additionally, I've read Warfield who says that the view of the WCF is that regeneration = effectual calling. Likewise, Berkhof, admits that in the WCF regeneration pretty much equals effectual calling (though in all fairness he says it within a larger context of disagreeing with their near synonymous usage of those terms). 
Anyway, the point is that everyone who I find who writes on the subject agrees that the WCF teaches that regeneration is effectual calling. 

The WCF is my statement of faith. It is possible, I will concede, that there may have been PR folks in the Assembly. But in a presbyterian form of government that doesn't matter, does it? What matters is that the majority were not (otherwise, the WCF would not equate those terms). So the statement of faith that is - rather than a statement of faith that was only a hypothetical possibility - is the Confession of the Presbyterian chuches. And this confession is nearly universally understood to equate regeneration with effectual calling... even if some of those same people disagree with the position of the WCF. But then again, that is a separate issue, isn't it? How much does authorial intent play into the matter? Does deviating from their intent amount to taking an exception with the Confession? 
Anyway, according to the Bible I read... according to the Confession to which I adhere... there are no regenerated people who are not effectually called.

Third, the article was helpful, Scott, in that it hit home to me that much of this debate is about semantics. The old adage "the devil is in the details" pretty much rings true here, eh? 

Ben


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 7, 2005)

Ben,

There still seems to be some confussion. Matt and I both have asserted that the devines of the WCF subscribed to PR. Your statement below addresses the idea that the devines believed that effectual calling is synonomous w/ regeneration. Whether this is true or not (that they believed that) is irrelevent to our discussion as I explain below. * For the record, the ordo show _the call_ as seperate and a different event from regeneration. My guess is that the devines are using the term in the same way that I would be using if I said to you, Ben, I am a regenerated individual. You know, when I say this, I am saying essentially, Ben, I am called, regenerated, converted, etc. etc.

Bremmer clearly writes:

"WHAT REGENERATION IS NOT
(i) Conversion. Regeneration differs from conversion in that conversion is what we do because of God's work of regeneration. "Regeneration is a spiritual change, conversion is a spiritual motion. In regeneration there is power conferred; conversion is the exercise of this power. In regeneration there is given us a principle to turn; conversion is our actual turning . . .Conversion is related to regeneration, as the effect to cause" (15)."

So, if you say the WCF alludes to the fact that effectually called people are regenerate, this does not mean in any way that these people are converted. Conversion requires the water of the word for the change. Rom 10:17

The fine details of the paper from Bremmer is not about _semantics_. it is about theology. The ordo is a biblical understanding about salvation and it's properties. After all this, I still don't believe you are understanding what is being posed. Effectually called people are not necessarily converted yet. I asked you previously: John the baptist was effectually called. He was regenerated in the womb. Was he converted (while in the womb)?



[Edited on 3-7-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 7, 2005)

About John the Baptist... do a study of all the occurances of "filled with the holy spirit." It seems to refer to a functional situation rather than a stative quality. (eg., in Eph 5:18 Paul is commanding Christians to be filled... thus if a Christian can be a Christian without being filled... then it seems that a person can be filled without being a Christian.) The phrase seems to be analogous to the OT phrase "the Spirit came upon..." there is no connotation of regernation implied in that phrase. 
Second, _if _ John the Baptist was regenerated in the womb then he would necessarily have to have been effectually called and thus converted. Necessarily. Thus the reason why I doubt that John the baptist was actually regenerated in the womb. 
(Even your Bremmer article -after he says that the WCF view regeneration and effectual calling as near synonyms- goes on to admit that _regeneration and conversion seemingly occur simultaneously_!!! There is no idea of this vast gap in time that you try to insert as a possibility.)
You arguing this is like arguing against Heb 9:27 by pointing to Elijah or Enoch. Have you received formal theological training? Or just "self taught?"



[Edited on 3-7-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> About John the Baptist... do a study of all the occurances of "filled with the holy spirit."



Luk 1:15 for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb. 

Calvin writes:
"But those who are more plentifully endued with grace beyond the ordinary capacity, are said to be full of the Holy Ghost. Now, as the more plentiful influence of the Spirit was in John an extraordinary gift of God, it ought to be observed that the Spirit is not bestowed on all from their very infancy, but only when it pleases God. John bore from the womb a token of future rank."

John´s abstemiousness was a singular virtue, but that God was pleased to distinguish his servant by this visible token, by which the world would acknowledge him to be a continual Nazarite. The priests too abstained from wine and strong drink, while they were performing their duties in the temple, (Leviticus 10:9.) The same abstinence was enjoined on the Nazarites, (Numbers 6:3,) until their vow should be fulfilled. By a striking mark God showed that John was dedicated to him to be a Nazarite for his whole life, as we learn was also the case with Samson,..."

Matthew Henry writes:

"He shall be abundantly fitted and qualified for those great and eminent services to which in due time he shall be called: He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb, and as soon as it is possible he shall appear to have been so. Observe, [1.] Those that would be filled with the Holy Ghost must be sober and temperate, and very moderate in the use of wine and strong drink; for that is it that fits him for this. Be not drunk with wine, but be filled with the Spirit, with which that is not consistent, Eph. 5:18. [2.] It is possible that infants may be wrought upon by the Holy Ghost, even from their mother's womb; for John Baptist even then was filled with the Holy Ghost, who took possession of his heart betimes; and an early specimen was given of it, when he leaped in his mother's womb for joy, at the approach of the Saviour; and afterwards it appeared very early that he was sanctified. God had promised to pour out his Spirit upon the seed of believers (Isa. 44:3), and their first springing up in a dedication of themselves betimes to God is the fruit of it, v. 4, 5. Who then can forbid water, that they should not be baptized who for aught we know (and we can say no more of the adult, witness Simon Magus) have received the Holy Ghost as well as we, and have the seeds of grace sown in their hearts? Acts 10:47."

Adam Clarke writes:
"Shall be filled with the Holy Ghost "” Shall be Divinely designated to this particular office, and qualified for it, from his mother´s womb-from the instant of his birth. One MS., two versions, and four of the primitive
fathers read en th koilia , I N the womb of has mother-intimating that even before he should be born into the world the Holy Spirit should be communicated to him. Did not this take place on the salutation of the Virgin Mary?-and is not this what is intended, Luke 1:44? To be filled with the Holy Ghost, implies having the soul influenced in all its powers,
with the illuminating, strengthening, and sanctifying energy of the Spirit."

Poole writes:

Among them that are born of women, there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist. He had no palace, no stately habitation; he lived mostly in desert places little inhabited. Nature was his cook, that provided him locusts and wild honey. Where was his greatness, but in this"”He was a great and faithful preacher of the gospel, and God blessed his labours to convert souls? They are little men that do little of the work for which God hath sent them into the world, and do little good in their generation.

He shall drink neither wine nor strong drink: by strong drink is meant any drink which ordinarily intoxicates. This was the law of the Nazarites, Nu 6:3 . It was forbidden the priests during the time of their ministration upon pain of death, Le 10:9 . No lovers of wine and strong drink can be great men in the sight of God. The minister of the gospel must not be one given to wine, 1Ti 3:3 Tit 1:7 .

And he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother´s womb. This is true, both as to prophecy, (which is all extraordinary gift of the Holy Ghost), and also of the Holy Ghost considered as a sanctifying Spirit renewing the heart.


Albert Barnes writes:

[ Shall be filled with the Holy Ghost ... ] Shall be divinely designated or appointed to this office, and qualified for it by all needful communications of the Holy Spirit. To be "filled" with the Holy Spirit is to be illuminated, sanctified, and guided by his influence. In this place it refers:


1. To the divine intention that he should be set apart to this work, as God designed that Paul should be an apostle from his mother's womb, Gal 1:15.


2. It refers to an actual fitting for the work from the birth by the influence of the Holy Spirit, as was the case with Jeremiah (Jer 1:5), and with the Messiah himself, Ps 22:9-10. 

J.C. Ryle writes:

We learn, in the fourth place, that children are never too young to receive the grace of God. Zachariah is informed that his son "shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb."

There is no greater mistake than to suppose that infants, by reason of their tender age, are incapable of being operated upon by the Holy Spirit. The manner of His work upon a little child's heart, is undoubtedly mysterious and incomprehensible. But so also are all His works upon the sons of men. Let us beware of limiting God's power and compassion. He is a merciful God. With Him nothing is impossible.

Let us remember these things in connection with the subject of infant baptism. It is a feeble objection to say that infants ought not to be baptized, because they cannot repent and believe. If an infant can be filled with the Holy Spirit, he is surely not unworthy to be admitted into the visible church. Let us remember these things specially in the training of young children. We should always deal with them as responsible to God. We should never allow ourselves to suppose that they are too young to have any religion. Of course we must be reasonable in our expectations. We must not look for evidences of grace, unsuitable to their age and capacities. But we must never forget that the heart which is not too young to sin, is also not too young to be filled with the grace of God.

Gill:
and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb; or "whilst in his mother's womb", as the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions render it: like Jeremiah, he was sanctified, set apart, and ordained to be the prophet of the Highest, before he came out of his mother's womb; and was then under such an influence of the Spirit of God, as to leap in it for joy, at the salutation of the mother of Christ to his, (Luke 1:41,44) and very early appeared to have the extraordinary gifts and graces of the Holy Ghost, qualifying him for his work. 

John MACaRTHUR:

"You also will be reminded that John the Baptist, who really was an Old Testament prophet, was filled with the Spirit from his mother´s womb. "



> It seems to refer to a functional situation rather than a stative quality. (eg., in Eph 5:18 Paul is commanding Christians to be filled... thus if a Christian can be a Christian without being filled... then it seems that a person can be filled without being a Christian.)



Being filled w/ the spirit indicates one´s position in the Lord. One cannot have the spirit and not be of the Lord. Paul is exhorting believers to "˜be filled´ to overflowing, to the top. 
G4137
Ï€Î»Î·ÏÎ¿ÌÏ‰
pleÌ„rooÌ„
play-ro'-o
From G4134; to make replete, that is, (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc.: - accomplish, X after, (be) complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply.

***********************************************
Here's a couple of Southern Baptist pastors on the Greek:

J. David Hoke
From: http://www.horizonsnet.org/sermons/eph21.html



What we are called to do is to be filled with the Spirit. The command in our English language seems very simple and straight foward. However, the verb, which is translated be filled is much more rich in the original Greek language. 
The verb, plerousthe, is a second person, plural, present, imperative, passive verb. This is one lesson in Greek grammar that's worth understanding. 
The verb's mood is imperative. That means that it is a command. Be filled with the Spirit is not simply a suggestion. A true Christian must be filled with the Spirit. This is not some kind of optional spiritual delicacy to be tasted at our convenience. This is God's command to us. 
The verb's tense is present. In our English language we speak of things in three tenses: past, present, and future. The Greek verbal system is much more complex. The present tense used here refers to a continuous action. We could translate this to read "œbe being filled continuously." It is an action which begins and is carried on. We're not called to simply be filled once. We are called to maintain the state of being filled continuously with the Spirit of God. 
The verb's voice is passive. That means that the subject is acted upon by another. Being filled with the Spirit is something that the Spirit does to us. He comes upon us. Our role is one of surrender. We simply give up and let the Lord take control. 
The verb is in the second person. It is addressed to you. The verb's number is plural. It is not simply addressed to you, but to all of you. It includes everyone. Whatever your situation in life, whatever your education, whatever your occupation, it doesn't matter. All are to be filled with Spirit. 
*****************************************
Pastor David Eugene Buffaloe
From: http://www.bibleteacher.org/Dm121_5.htm

Ephesians 5:18 
And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;
And be not drunk [methusko, Pres Pas Imperative + ME = do not be intoxicated with] with wine, wherein is [eimi, Pres Linear = beep on being] excess; but be filled [ALLA PLEROUSTHE EN PNEUMATI = keep on being filled (Pres Imperative] with the Holy Spirit] with the Spirit; 
****************************************

Infant Baptism
By Rev. Arthur Allen
From The Australian Free Presbyterian: July, 1953.

The Holy Scripture reveals emphatically and conclusively that an infant is capable of recognising Christ as Saviour and Lord. If we turn to 1st Chapter of Luke's Gospel, we find the unborn John recognised his yet unborn Lord and Saviour. "When Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb," and Elizabeth, being "filled with the Holy Ghost," said, "the babe leaped for joy."

The antipaedobaptists inform us that such a thing is impossible; as the unborn John was incapable of conscious experience. But the Holy Spirit declares that the recognition actually occurred, and we are prepared to accept the Word of God rather than the reasoning of men. We believe and are persuaded that all things are possible with God. It should be remembered that the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit is hidden from human observation (John 3: 8.) The Angel of the Lord, speaking to Zacharias concerning John the Baptist, said, "and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost; even from his mother's womb." (Luke 1: 15.) In the light of this text alone, the proselyting activities of the antipaedobaptists stand condemned so far as the above objection is concerned, that "infants of believing parents should be refused the rights of membership in the Church of Jesus Christ because they are incapable of conscious experience."

http://www.pcea.asn.au/all_bap1.html



John is said to be "˜filled´. Jesus says that among men, there is none greater than John. John is filled to overflowing!




> The phrase seems to be analogous to the OT phrase "the Spirit came upon..." there is no connotation of regernation implied in that phrase.



After further study, I conclude it is entirely a different thing; not at all connected or comparable. 
*See Matts paper on his site.



> Second, _if _ John the Baptist was regenerated in the womb then he would necessarily have to have been effectually called and thus converted. Necessarily. Thus the reason why I doubt that John the baptist was actually regenerated in the womb.



Calling and conversion are not one in the same. You are mistaken here. 




> (Even your Bremmer article -after he says that the WCF view regeneration and effectual calling as near synonyms- goes on to admit that _regeneration and conversion seemingly occur simultaneously_!!! There is no idea of this vast gap in time that you try to insert as a possibility.)



_Seemingly_. This is an assertion you cannot prove. I can prove my position; it´s clearly stated in the Golden Chain in Romans. 




> You arguing this is like arguing against Heb 9:27 by pointing to Elijah or Enoch.



Wrong. This IS theology. Many men have written about the ordo and it´s components.



> Have you received formal theological training? Or just "self taught?"



Not one iota of formal training. I have sat under Matt for about 5 years. My library consists of about 700 books. I have been a member of many reformed discussion groups. I own this board. I am a nurse by profession. Filled (sic) w/ the Holy Spirit!

Your point?



[Edited on 3-8-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------

