# Presumptive Regeneration - Help me out fellas



## FrozenChosen (Aug 1, 2004)

Ok, so I've decided that I'm identifying myself with the paedobaptist position. Now, I couldn't defend it against an able Baptist, but when I decided that I was a Calvinist I couldn't defend it against a very nasty Arminian. So I don't see anything wrong with stepping out.

That said, I am having problems with this idea of Presumptive Regeneration. Let me back up. I basically decided I was a paedo because I am studying those J. Ligon Duncan lectures on CT. And they are very helpful and pastoral. I should write him a letter. Anyways, he doesn't address this idea, or at least he hasn't yet (I'm on lecture 8 of 12). So it's a big puzzle piece and I'm asking all you wonderful pastoral-minded paedos out there for a hand.

So far, I've talked with an elder at church about it. He said that he believes we baptize infants because we realize that an special portion of grace will be given to that child as it grows. I asked him about presumptive regeneration/election, and he said he thinks it's wrong to presume on God's grace and say the infant has it. Now don't jump my elder because he's a good guy, and was very encouraging about my studies as well. But I think "Well, presuming on God's grace when we baptize is a Biblical, not ethical issue. If God wants us to baptize and presume, then we need to baptize and presume God will take care of our children!"

I also don't understand why you might baptize someone if something "might happen." But maybe someone can help me out if that's the right view.

Well, we'll call that the "non-presumptive view."

But I know many intelligent paedobaptists have adopted a presumptive regeneration or election stance. I suppose that means for the PR guy that the child is regenerate but is not yet in possession of a salvific knowledge or belief in Christ?

And the PE believer would believe that the child has, well, I'm not going to try and figure it out.

If someone could explain to me these views, why you disagree with the other ones, that would help me out a ton!

I guess when it comes to paedobaptism, I'm still a baby in the doctrine. :bs2:


----------



## JohnV (Aug 2, 2004)

Daniel:

I know that this has become a modern euphemism, but it all depends on what you mean by Presumptive Regeneration. I say this because we've been through this subject to quite an extent. I don't just want to steer you to those threads, because we need to answer your questions. I'll see if I can find the threads, or maybe someone else can. But I won't be able to for a couple of days. I'll be back sometime Tuesday.

But to begin with, Presumptive regeneration is not about "something that might happen" in the future. It's about right now, mostly, and involves all the hopes and promises of the future as well. But in this latter respect it is no different than the future promises for those who have been baptized because of a profession of faith.

I would say that the most fundamental thing to remember is that justification is by grace, and not by works. Presumptive Regeneration is not some authorized leap into justification by works, i.e., the baptising of a child. There is no hidden "grandfather" clause in the Bible. All it is is the recognition of the way God works through the generations of those who love Him, and those who are faithful to Him. If God is your God, then He is God also of those whose dependency are in you. His blessings overflow, but what falls to those who belong to you is not deemed as overflow. They are direct beneficiaries of the graces that you are under, and this by the same grace that has been bestowed upon you. 

The children of the believers belong in the covenant. And in the covenant they have the same rights and privileges that professing members have to the promises of God's goodness and faithfulness. We do not know that they are saved, in the same sense that we do not know that even the members who have professed their faith are saved. We have God's promises that He will uphold His own, and so we believe in the election of those who have professed faith, and stick by them even when they falter. And so we have the same stick-to-it-ness for our children, because God has included them in the covenant as well. We treat them with the same favour we do all the members of the covenant. 

And just as we would not deny our brothers admonitions when they need them, so we would not deny admonitions to our children; especially to our children, since we know that leaving them to their own will only grant them irresolute lives. They need training, and godly training is the right training for a child of the covenant, assuring them of God's earnestness for them.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Aug 2, 2004)

Whats up, dP? I consider myself a PR guy, but I know its a difficult issue. I'll just give you some of my thoughts right now.

Regeneration is something that we cannot see, so we must make presumptions about everyone. The secret things belong to God. But the revealed things belong to us and our children (Deut 29:29). So what are these revealed things? We have the signs of the covenant, baptism and the Lord's supper. We have the law of God that we teach one another. And we have the fellowship of the brethren.

Now, the reason I think its wrong to automatically assume our children are unregenerate is because I believe the Bible teaches that children can have faith even in infancy (Psalm 8:2; 22:9-10; 71:5-6). And since faith is the produce of regeneration, we can likewise assume regeneration is possible in infants as well. I think we have to either grant this much, or grant that all infants go to hell when they die.

But anyway, since we only have the revealed things to go on, let us consider then the significance of each. Baptism is a sign of the washing of regeneration and the righteousness that comes by faith. This is applied to our infants. We also instruct them in the teachings of Scripture and the fear of the Lord based on Deut 6. We should be about the business of doing this from their earliest years. Given these things, what do you think God expects us to believe about our children? Remember that the Holy Spirit works ordinarily through means. Ordinarily, people are not just born again out of the clear blue. The Holy Spirit works through the teaching and preaching of the gospel and through such things as the sacraments and prayer as well. All of that, combined with God's promise, what do you think God expects us to think about our children?

Now, people become concerned because PR sounds like perhaps our children are not born in sin simply because their parents are Christians. But in fact, the doctrine of PR also assumes the truth of original sin. If our children were not born dead in their sins, why would their be a need for raising them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? And why do you think the doctrine is called Presumptive REGENERATION? REgeneration assumes a FIRST generation, a generation that leaves us dead in trespasses and sins. We acknowledge our children's need for the gospel. We just believe God meets this need early in our children's lives. 

Also, people ask why we preach the gospel to our children if we believe them to be regenerate already. But this is for the same reason that we preach the gospel to ourselves daily, and that the preacher preaches the gospel to us every week in worship. We are never beyond the need of the gospel, no matter who we are. We always need to be reminded to rest in Jesus.

I don't know if that helps you at all, but those were just some of my thoughts.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 2, 2004)

Daniel:

I couldn't sleep, so I looked up a few for you. Here they are:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4566
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3910
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2340

I pray this helps.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 2, 2004)

[quote:8fc3c8ce56="Paul manata"]FC,

You can get your first taste of some of the divergent views within the paedo camp right here/now.

I do not hold to PR but I do hole to PE. Infants can be regenerated but I don't think that is the norm. I think it usualy happens within the context of the preaching of the word, hearing the law and your subsiquent need for a savior. I do hold to PE since I believe that the Bible tells us that God works in, and saves in, the context of families. God has promised to be a God to me and my child. So, I presume that my child is one of the elect based on the promise of God.

Paul[/quote:8fc3c8ce56]

96.8953457%
:thumbup:


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 2, 2004)

[quote:2e3e783b81="JohnV"]Daniel:

I couldn't sleep, so I looked up a few for you. Here they are:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4566
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3910
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2340

I pray this helps.[/quote:2e3e783b81]

Does this mean the search function is working better ? Or did you do it the old fashion way, John?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 2, 2004)

The line drawn between saying one is either presumptively elect or presumptively regenerate is quite thin............The rationale the PR'er holds fast to is that the promise specifically states that the promise is to 'our children'. Jesus emphasizes this with the children that were clamoring around him and the apostles were rebuking them; 'such is the kingdom'. in my opinion, the PE position borders upon baptisitic thinking and the need to visually witness something. The PR position is solely based upon faith and Gods promise.

Jhn 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 

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

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

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

Hbr 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

2Cr 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen [are] temporal; but the things which are not seen [are] eternal.


----------



## FrozenChosen (Aug 2, 2004)

Fred,

I tried the search function once with "presumptive regeneration" and didn't get anything back. I don't know if I was goofing it up or what.

Everyone,

Thanks for the replies and threads. Obviously this is going to be a big next issue of study.


----------



## Ianterrell (Aug 2, 2004)

[quote:0c4ee76b20="Scott Bushey"]The line drawn between saying one is either presumptively elect or presumptively regenerate is quite thin............The rationale the PR'er holds fast to is that the promise specifically states that the promise is to 'our children'. Jesus emphasizes this with the children that were clamoring around him and the apostles were rebuking them; 'such is the kingdom'. in my opinion, the PE position borders upon baptisitic thinking and the need to visually witness something. The PR position is solely based upon faith and Gods promise.

Jhn 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 

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

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

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

Hbr 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

2Cr 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen [are] temporal; but the things which are not seen [are] eternal.[/quote:0c4ee76b20] 

:thumbup:

Good Post's Ed, and Scott!


----------



## Craig (Aug 2, 2004)

Scott B wrote:[quote:165dfbbcba]The line drawn between saying one is either presumptively elect or presumptively regenerate is quite thin............The rationale the PR'er holds fast to is that the promise specifically states that the promise is to 'our children'[/quote:165dfbbcba]
I find PR troubling, at best...bordering on sacerdotalism.

PE is far more biblical and covenantal. The promise is to the children, but in Old Covenant God's people knew some wouldn't adopt the faith or would apostasize. The children truly are part of the visible church at baptism, and they receive the gospel at baptism. Whether they're regenerated at that point or not is up to God. Perhaps many covenant children are regenerated at conception...i don't know. God does. And that's the point. He didn't reveal PR in scripture. But He did tell us the promise is for us and our children. I will hold to God's promise, be obedient and baptize my child confident knowing God will bring His promise to fruition. 

I don't see much difference between PR and baptismal regeneration.


----------



## FrozenChosen (Aug 2, 2004)

[quote:cb9abfbb4a="Craig"]Scott B wrote:[quote:cb9abfbb4a]The line drawn between saying one is either presumptively elect or presumptively regenerate is quite thin............The rationale the PR'er holds fast to is that the promise specifically states that the promise is to 'our children'[/quote:cb9abfbb4a]
I find PR troubling, at best...bordering on sacerdotalism.

PE is far more biblical and covenantal. The promise is to the children, but in Old Covenant God's people knew some wouldn't adopt the faith or would apostasize. The children truly are part of the visible church at baptism, and they receive the gospel at baptism. Whether they're regenerated at that point or not is up to God. Perhaps many covenant children are regenerated at conception...i don't know. God does. And that's the point. He didn't reveal PR in scripture. But He did tell us the promise is for us and our children. I will hold to God's promise, be obedient and baptize my child confident knowing God will bring His promise to fruition. 

I don't see much difference between PR and baptismal regeneration.[/quote:cb9abfbb4a]

That was exactly the problem I was having. And I think I would put myself in the PE camp right now.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 2, 2004)

[quote:a02e386c1d="Craig"]Scott B wrote:[quote:a02e386c1d]The line drawn between saying one is either presumptively elect or presumptively regenerate is quite thin............The rationale the PR'er holds fast to is that the promise specifically states that the promise is to 'our children'[/quote:a02e386c1d]
I find PR troubling, at best...bordering on sacerdotalism.

PE is far more biblical and covenantal. The promise is to the children, but in Old Covenant God's people knew some wouldn't adopt the faith or would apostasize. The children truly are part of the visible church at baptism, and they receive the gospel at baptism. Whether they're regenerated at that point or not is up to God. Perhaps many covenant children are regenerated at conception...i don't know. God does. And that's the point. He didn't reveal PR in scripture. But He did tell us the promise is for us and our children. I will hold to God's promise, be obedient and baptize my child confident knowing God will bring His promise to fruition. 
[/quote:a02e386c1d]
The question you have to ask is how Abraham understood the promise. Did he presume Isaac and his other children elect? Or did he presume them regenerate? What is required for one to be able to dwell in the presence of God and fully enjoy his covenant benefits? You must be regenerate. You must have faith (or as Matt and Scott say for infants, seed faith). Abraham presumed that Isaac and his children could participate in the covenant, which presumes they have somehow been enabled to participate (i.e. regeneration). This is how he could raise his chidlren in the ways of the Lord. To call your children visible church members and then say they are unregenerate is really contradictory. PR is not saying that they are in the absolute sense regenerate. PR presumes they are regenerate because of the status God has given them apart from the world. The children of the church are His children covenantaly. When they sin, we teach them why they sinned, what they deserve for their sin, what God has done for sinners, and to go to their Mediator for forgiveness. Granted this is more gradual because the child must grow in understanding. It is silmilar with adults. We presume them to be regenerate when we admit them to the church and maintain that presumption until they prove otherwise. Does that mean they are in fact regenerate? No. But we do presume it and treat them as Christians. 

[quote:a02e386c1d]
I don't see much difference between PR and baptismal regeneration.[/quote:a02e386c1d]
BR teaches an ACTUAL regeneration is taking place with the sacrament and therefore that baptism is bringing people into covenant with God. PR teaches that we PRESUME the children are regenerate and this is not tied at all to the timing of the sacrament. God may fulfill his promise before, during, or after the sacrament. And they receive the sacrament because they are in covenant already, not to bring them in covenant.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 2, 2004)

Well said Pat. 

Craig,
Please expound upon the charge of sarcedotalism?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 2, 2004)

Paul,
Explicitly in the examples of John the baptist, Jeremiah and Samson. Implicitly within the confines of the Abrahamic promise. God promising to be a God to my child has infinite implications.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 2, 2004)

The conclusion is drawn from my faith towards what God has promised. I believe God. For all we know, all of covenant children are born regenerate. The fact that not all remain is another issue. Apostasy cannot be blamed upon God, but the unfaithfulness of men.

The examples are not [i:a649e11a0f]hasty[/i:a649e11a0f] but conclusive. They prove that God does in fact regenerate in the womb, some of His people.

Paul,
Here is a link that may more fully explain the idea:
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2340&start=0


----------



## Craig (Aug 2, 2004)

Scott said:[quote:e6ac013d6e]Craig, 
Please expound upon the charge of sarcedotalism?
[/quote:e6ac013d6e]
When I ended the post by saying there isn't much diff between PR and baptismal regeneration I was likening it to sacerdolism. At what point does one put [i:e6ac013d6e]too much[/i:e6ac013d6e] emphasis on the symbol? I think PR approaches that line very quickly and soon we're back to an RC understanding of baptism.

If I were to take the PR view, would I consider the baptism of a child of unregenerates as valid? The promise wasn't [i:e6ac013d6e]really[/i:e6ac013d6e] for their child, after all. I don't see biblical warrant, or value to assuming regeneration at baptism. I assume God's promise is to my children and raise them in the ways of God. I am confident they will keep to those ways. I think it's unfair to compare PE to baptistic views. When I have a child, I figure my kid will eventually say "Daddy, I love Jesus". I am not going to ask him/her to recount their conversion experience. It will be little surprise to me when their faith bears fruit.

Patrick
[quote:e6ac013d6e]The question you have to ask is how Abraham understood the promise. Did he presume Isaac and his other children elect? Or did he presume them regenerate?[/quote:e6ac013d6e]
That's what I mean...the Bible doesn't say. But again, regeneration wasn't clearly taught then as we have received that knowledge through Christ. Abraham presumed [i:e6ac013d6e]the promise God gave him[/i:e6ac013d6e] to pertain to Isaac. I am sure Abraham assumed Ishmael was of God...but, we can see through history that he presumed incorrectly.

Or, I look at it this way: did God say "when you circumsize your children you assume/know I have regenerated them? No. They were ushered into the visible covenant people through that rite. Same with baptism.


----------



## a mere housewife (Aug 2, 2004)

A question-- don't we know that God doesn't always convert covenant children in the womb because there are examples of God regenerating at other times? Jacob was not converted until later on, though he was a covenant child. All of those at Pentecost were "covenant" children, but were not converted until the Day of Pentecost. 

I believe God can and does convert when He pleases, but-- more confusion-- isn't the thing that sets a "covenant" child apart from a child born to the ungodly primarily the means of grace? Isn't the advantage the Jews had, that they had the word of God? Why then would God always bypass the word? Isn't the usual method of God's regenerating grace described as "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God?"

I'm not asking to argue, just to understand how PR answers these questions.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 2, 2004)

[quote:64a28742f0]
When I ended the post by saying there isn't much diff between PR and baptismal regeneration I was likening it to sacerdolism. At what point does one put [i:64a28742f0]too much[/i:64a28742f0] emphasis on the symbol? I think PR approaches that line very quickly and soon we're back to an RC understanding of baptism.
[/quote:64a28742f0]

Craig,
You have misunderstood how we view the symbol and confused it with Romish ideas. The symbol is secondary to the faith that merits the obedience in placing the symbol on the child. 

Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.


[quote:64a28742f0]If I were to take the PR view, would I consider the baptism of a child of unregenerates as valid? [/quote:64a28742f0]

That all depends upon your level of faith God has given you I guess. I do not question God. I, unlike Thomas, but more like Father Abraham, will believe God. 

[quote:64a28742f0]The promise wasn't [i:64a28742f0]really[/i:64a28742f0] for their child, after all.[/quote:64a28742f0]

Who was to blame God or Esau? Who sold their birthright for one morsel of food?

[quote:64a28742f0]I don't see biblical warrant, or value to assuming regeneration at baptism. [/quote:64a28742f0]

Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

[quote:64a28742f0]I assume God's promise is to my children.....[/quote:64a28742f0]

Craig,
Is it or isn't it....you're confusing me pal???

[quote:64a28742f0]......and raise them in the ways of God. I am confident they will keep to those ways. [/quote:64a28742f0]

So, they actually save themselves? You are confident that [i:64a28742f0]they[/i:64a28742f0] will keep those ways! Their keeping of those ways is dependant upon whom or what? Gods faithfulness; Gods promise! Not their faithfulness.


[quote:64a28742f0]I think it's unfair to compare PE to baptistic views. When I have a child, I figure my kid will eventually say "Daddy, I love Jesus". I am not going to ask him/her to recount their conversion experience. It will be little surprise to me when their faith bears fruit.[/quote:64a28742f0]


Jhn 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 

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

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

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

Hbr 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. 

2Cr 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen [are] temporal; but the things which are not seen [are] eternal.


[/i]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 2, 2004)

[quote:cafdb7d550="a mere housewife"]A question-- don't we know that God doesn't always convert covenant children in the womb because there are examples of God regenerating at other times? Jacob was not converted until later on, though he was a covenant child. All of those at Pentecost were "covenant" children, but were not converted until the Day of Pentecost. 

I believe God can and does convert when He pleases, but-- more confusion-- isn't the thing that sets a "covenant" child apart from a child born to the ungodly primarily the means of grace? Isn't the advantage the Jews had, that they had the word of God? Why then would God always bypass the word? Isn't the usual method of God's regenerating grace described as "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God?"

I'm not asking to argue, just to understand how PR answers these questions.[/quote:cafdb7d550]

Heidi,
No one is saying that all covenant children are regenerate in the womb; we are saying that God can and does regenerate in the womb. In my case, I will trust God, not my sinful flesh. The promises of God in Him are yea and in Him amen!

Your statement in reference to Romand 10:17 is valid. In the order of things, I.e. Ordo Salutis, regeneration can come days, years, even decades before conversion. For a better explanation:

http://www.semperreformanda.com/ordo.htm

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/ordosalutis.html


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 2, 2004)

Paul,
Maybe this will help. I do not say that my children ARE regenerate; based upon my faith and Gods faitfulness, I presume they are........


----------



## Craig (Aug 2, 2004)

Scott said[quote:de1f3d00b7]You have misunderstood how we view the symbol and confused it with Romish ideas. The symbol is secondary to the faith that merits the obedience in placing the symbol on the child. 
[/quote:de1f3d00b7]
I have said there is a blurred line...and PR is teasing that line. I am not sure I understand your second sentence...the symbol is secondary to "whose" faith? What does it mean when you say "merits obedience"?
[quote:de1f3d00b7]Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 
Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness[/quote:de1f3d00b7]
I don't see what this has to do with your position. Are you saying a Christian's faith is reckoned as righteousness to his child's?
[quote:de1f3d00b7]That all depends upon your level of faith God has given you I guess. I do not question God. I, unlike Thomas, but more like Father Abraham, will believe God.[/quote:de1f3d00b7]
I don't even know what you're saying here, Scott. Are you speaking tongue in cheek? Even so, it still doesn't make sense. I can only assume you mean your position is so clear that you'll take it on faith while I'm trying to push my fingers in the wounds of Christ making sure He's really alive.  
[quote:de1f3d00b7]Who was to blame God or Esau? Who sold their birthright for one morsel of food?[/quote:de1f3d00b7]
I think you may have missed my point. If a child of unregenerates is baptized, there is no inherent covenant promise through his parents: it is promised through the gospel preached and the sacrament received. But, to answer your question: Esau is to blame, though God rejected him as clearly expressed by Paul: God hated Esau.
[quote:de1f3d00b7]Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 
Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. [/quote:de1f3d00b7]
Scott, I am scratching my head: spell out for me what your saying. I understand that Scripture as God saying His Salvation isn't bound by race: it is faith that engrafts and makes us one body. What does that have to do with PR?
[quote:de1f3d00b7]Craig, 
Is it or isn't it....you're confusing me pal??? [/quote:de1f3d00b7]
 By now you know you're confusing me too!!! The promise is to our children...but it's a conditional thing. I presume them to be of the promise, but I don't presume regeneration from birth.
[quote:de1f3d00b7]So, they actually save themselves? You are confident that they will keep those ways! Their keeping of those ways is dependant upon whom or what? Gods faithfulness; Gods promise! Not their faithfulness. 
[/quote:de1f3d00b7]
But God says that a child will not forget or leave the way he was raised. This is part of God's promise...though it's conditional: my child may not be elect; but they will be part of the visible covenant unless they apostasize. Remember: The promise includes repent and believe: the promise is [b:de1f3d00b7]good if they do[/b:de1f3d00b7]...but again; that is a work of God. Because I believe the promise is also to my children, I will raise them to fear God. My only surprise would be if they never did profess faith in Christ. They may be regenerate from the womb...they may be regenerated at 8, 12,24 I don't know. That is up to God.
[quote:de1f3d00b7]Jhn 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. [/quote:de1f3d00b7]
Again...am i Thomas? Am I putting my finger into the side of Jesus? I don't see the correllation, Scott. Help me out.


----------



## Craig (Aug 2, 2004)

[quote:c3f83317c3]Also, it seems a little shady. You don't say they ARE but you still presume they ARE. By presuming it you think they ARE. 
[/quote:c3f83317c3]


----------



## JohnV (Aug 2, 2004)

[quote:b8ac1588c2]Does this mean the search function is working better ? Or did you do it the old fashion way, John?[/quote:b8ac1588c2]
My search function works just fine. It's what you call "the old fashion way." That's my own personal search function, the one that got rusty on the old board. 

Now guys, Daniel asked about PR, and now you're turning it into a debate between PR and PE. That's not fair. I think that those of us who hold to PR should tell Daniel about PR, and those of us who hold to PE should tell him about PE. But to launch into a debate is to leave him behind.

On the other hand, maybe not. If you listen to just the PR's, Daniel, then you won't get a fair hearing for the PE's, and if you listen just the PE's, then you won't get a fair hearing for the PR's. If you're following the debate, then you're all set. But, as PR-ers and PE-ers, we'd better be ready to tell each other what we mean by it, or Daniel won't know what we're talking about. 

Now take me, for instance. I'm a PR-er; but I hold, then, that there is an inclusion clause for PE built right in. It has to be. And if I were a PE--er, then I would hold the same for an inclusion clause for PR. It has to follow. For what is regeneration without election, and what is election without regeneration? The only way you can separate the two is in politics; politicians can separate anything they like.

In either case, it is not declarative of salvation status, but of covenantal inclusion. And those are separate. Not all those in the Covenant can be declared saved; but all those who are saved are definitely in the Covenant. The Jewish people that the Apostle Paul referred to in Romans were called "My people" by God Himself. That is covenantal inclusion; but we cannot declare them saved. We just don't know. Likely, from the way Paul writes about them, they weren't. But he does not declare that. He only declares that they did not respond in faith. We assume that means that they are lost. But he does declare that they are in covenant with God. 

Craig (LOTW) said it right when he referred to covenant exclusion. The danger seems not in baptizing infants because they have not professed their faith, but rather in not baptizing them, declaring them to be outside the Covenant because we do not know. That ought to be as hard a thing to say as admitting them into the Covenant; and even harder, given the numerous Biblical passages which gives covenantal status to children by virtue of parental faith.

A child will know things in his childhood based completely on what he is told. He is in complete trust of his guardians, whether parents, teachers, pastors, or elders, and even at times older siblings. From earliest youth he trusts. As he grows he learns to know on his own, relying more and more trustingly, or less and less so, on his only mentor in understanding, his Lord and Saviour. By default alone, he has the faith of his parents, how much more by divine decree. It is the creational order, even after the Fall. For a Paedo, it is unthinkable to not include children in the covenant. whether or not they are regenerate or elect is up to God. Or better said, like Craig said, whether or not they are passed by is up to God. We should not assume so, as they are children of the gift of faith.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 2, 2004)

[quote:685fd03437="Craig"]Scott said:[quote:685fd03437]Craig, 
Please expound upon the charge of sarcedotalism?
[/quote:685fd03437]
When I ended the post by saying there isn't much diff between PR and baptismal regeneration I was likening it to sacerdolism. At what point does one put [i:685fd03437]too much[/i:685fd03437] emphasis on the symbol? I think PR approaches that line very quickly and soon we're back to an RC understanding of baptism. [/quote:685fd03437]
I'm still not following you here. PR does not tie the efficacy of the sacrament to it's administration. Really, the sacrament is de-emphasised and the power of what it seals and signifies is placed in the time and power of God alone. BR does tie it all up to the administration of the sacrament and therefore can descends into two errors: 1) they end up teaching that regeneration can be lost (i.e RC and Lutherans) to explain apostates, or 2) that apostates are saved mo matter what. 
The PR view avoids that because we are not making absolute declarations. Only God can do that. We are presuming based upon God's promise and command. We are commanded to raise our children as Christians. They are God's children. They are to be raised in the communion of the saints, under the oracles of God, with all the privileges of the covenant (including Lord's Supper once they display a mature enough faith). Like I said before, Abraham, and all the faithful Jews, raised there children [i:685fd03437]as if[/i:685fd03437] their children had the ability to participate in the covenant (which requires regeneration and faith even though they didn't use those terms then). If they proved themselves an Esau, then they were dealt with as covenant breakers until they repent or leave for good. When they celebrated Passover, the children were included in the meal and taught about [i:685fd03437]their[/i:685fd03437] redemption by the hand of God. 
[quote:685fd03437]
If I were to take the PR view, would I consider the baptism of a child of unregenerates as valid? The promise wasn't [i:685fd03437]really[/i:685fd03437] for their child, after all. I don't see biblical warrant, or value to assuming regeneration at baptism. I assume God's promise is to my children and raise them in the ways of God. I am confident they will keep to those ways. I think it's unfair to compare PE to baptistic views. When I have a child, I figure my kid will eventually say "Daddy, I love Jesus". I am not going to ask him/her to recount their conversion experience. It will be little surprise to me when their faith bears fruit. [/quote:685fd03437]
What you say about raising your children in the ways of God is good and right. But what does it mean for them to be members of the visible church and part of the people of God? In the absolute sense, there are two peoples, the believers, and the unbelievers. In the visible church we are making the same distinction but on different grounds. We can't see the heart to make absolute declarations. So we must make conditional presumptions based on the promises and commands of God, and with adults, professions of faith. This is what the Baptists do with adults. The make presumptions about professors and treat them as Christians until they prove otherwise. PR's do it with both adults and children. We treat them both as Christians until conditions may arise which prevent such a presumption anymore. 
[quote:685fd03437]
Patrick
[quote:685fd03437]The question you have to ask is how Abraham understood the promise. Did he presume Isaac and his other children elect? Or did he presume them regenerate?[/quote:685fd03437]
That's what I mean...the Bible doesn't say. But again, regeneration wasn't clearly taught then as we have received that knowledge through Christ. Abraham presumed [i:685fd03437]the promise God gave him[/i:685fd03437] to pertain to Isaac. I am sure Abraham assumed Ishmael was of God...but, we can see through history that he presumed incorrectly.

Or, I look at it this way: did God say "when you circumsize your children you assume/know I have regenerated them? No. They were ushered into the visible covenant people through that rite. Same with baptism.[/quote:685fd03437]
This is the distinction we must maintain in this idea of PR. Abraham did presume Ishmeal regenerate until God told him otherwise. That is why Ishmael was circumcised. Abraham understood that all in his house were brought into covenant with God and set apart from the world to worship and serve Him. But it is not sin for us to presume "incorrectly" when all the grounds of our presumption are biblically met. We are not required to know the absolute because only God can know that. We are required to work with what God has revealed. The secret things belong to Him. 
Would you fault a pastor for baptizing and ministering to a professing adult who later on shows himself unregenerate or an apostate? I would think not. Because the church is not required to know absolutely. It is similar with children. There is no fault in presuming them regenerate based upon the grounds revealed for us. That is the whole foundation to raising them in the faith. They have been set apart from the world by God for that the purpose of serving Him. They are considered His children. And again, the presumption is conditional, just as with the adult. If a child later on abandons the faith for a life of sin, then they have abandon the covenant and must be treated accordingly, just like an adult. But until they manifest otherwise, we consider them Christians, and raise them under the whole counsel of God.


----------



## pastorway (Aug 2, 2004)

Is it not a completely BAPTISTIC position to say that you baptize someone because you believe they are regenerate?

Just asking........

Phillip


----------



## luvroftheWord (Aug 2, 2004)

[quote:c65f00b633="JohnV"]A child will know things in his childhood based completely on what he is told. He is in complete trust of his guardians, whether parents, teachers, pastors, or elders, and even at times older siblings. From earliest youth he trusts. As he grows he learns to know on his own, relying more and more trustingly, or less and less so, on his only mentor in understanding, his Lord and Saviour. By default alone, he has the faith of his parents, how much more by divine decree. It is the creational order, even after the Fall. For a Paedo, it is unthinkable to not include children in the covenant. whether or not they are regenerate or elect is up to God. Or better said, like Craig said, whether or not they are passed by is up to God. We should not assume so, as they are children of the gift of faith.[/quote:c65f00b633]

That's great, John.

I'd also like to just re-emphasize something I said earlier. Though it is possible for God to regenerate any time and in any way he wants, he most ordinarily works the act of regeneration through specific means. The Spirit works through the preaching and teaching of the Word (whether by pastors or parents), through prayer, and through the sacraments. Just so I can be more thorough, when I say that I consider myself PR, I'm not simply saying I believe God regenerated my children when they popped out of the womb. But what I believe is that God, through the application of the sacrament of baptism, through my prayers and through my instruction and nurture of my child, will begin to work salvifically in my child's life from the earliest years. If my child professes Jesus as Lord when he is 10, I'm not going to try to nail down the time when my child was regenerate, whether it was 10 minutes before he made the profession or whether it was 10 years ago at his birth. A profession is no more concrete as evidence of regeneration than birth to believing parents is. We cannot know the time of regeneration because it is unseen to us. But what I do is trust the Lord and his promises to me and my children, and I trust that God is at work in my child's life even at their baptism in their infancy, and all throughout my teaching and parenting of them. This is all I can do. My children are Christians. God gave them to me. He has brought them into his covenant. I cannot fathom thinking of them any other way.

Now, what I have said above may or may not fall in line with PR as typically understood, but it is what I believe.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Aug 2, 2004)

[quote:aa2a410cfc="pastorway"]Is it not a completely BAPTISTIC position to say that you baptize someone because you believe they are regenerate?

Just asking........

Phillip[/quote:aa2a410cfc]

Well, based upon stuff I've read in the PB over the last couple of years, I'm not sure I know WHAT Baptists believe anymore. I've heard that we should only baptize those that give evidence of regeneration. Then Dan said in this thread earlier that Baptists don't look for regeneration since it is invisible, but only go by profession of faith following the NT. I've heard Baptists say that only regenerate persons are members of the church, and I've heard that unregenerate persons can be members. I've heard so many different things that I'm just not sure anymore. I can only tell you what I used to believe as a Baptist, and that was that we should only baptize those we believe to be regenerate, which given PR would have meant that I still should have believed in infant baptism anyway.  

But ultimately, we don't look to the person when we baptize them. We look to God and his promises.


----------



## Craig (Aug 2, 2004)

Patrick[quote:3fb3787ed8]Would you fault a pastor for baptizing and ministering to a professing adult who later on shows himself unregenerate or an apostate? [/quote:3fb3787ed8]
No. That was the point I was trying to make later in that post. I think I used a poor example.

In any event: from what you wrote I think I need some clarification. It was my understanding that PR was something presumed [i:3fb3787ed8]at baptism[/i:3fb3787ed8]. If that [b:3fb3787ed8]is[/b:3fb3787ed8] the case I take serious issue with it. If that is [b:3fb3787ed8]not[/b:3fb3787ed8] the case, then I still find the regeneration part hard to justify, but not troubling, although it still pretty close to my position. I'm going to keep reading the posts and maybe try to crystallize my thinking and post at that point if it's pertinent. Thanks!


----------



## JohnV (Aug 2, 2004)

Phillip:

They say that "turn about is fair play", so can I ask you a question?

Oh yes, first I must answer yours. Yes it is, as far as I know. I've tried to read the Credo position carefully, and I share somewhat Craig's confusion. But I can say quite confidently that I think that baptizing someone because they are believed to be regenerate is a Baptistic position.

The Paedo's, of course are also Credo as well as Paedo. We don't deny Credo baptism; we include Paedo baptism along with the Credo baptism.

The difference seems to be where the focus is in the baptism, I am guessing; whether it is the recognition of man's promise to God, or God's promise to man. The place of focus makes all the difference in what regeneration you are recognizing: man's admission of it, or God's administration of it. 

As to my confusion, I would like to remind you first that I have stayed out of the fray as much as possible, respecting those of Baptist persuasion. I respect them because I see the desparate need for them in our time, even though I disagree with it. I am firmly fixed in the Paedo position, as you are in the Credo position. And I continue to hold you in high regard as a man of God. I have no doubt of that. But Christianity is so divided, and pride runs so high within the various isms we face in our churches, that we need to be squared off for our own good. I think we've lost a lot in my generation, the Baby Boomer generation; (or what I like to call "the Pepsi generation" because there are so many hordes of people who think they are on a "diet" because they drink diet colas. How absurd a people we have become, even in our churches. ) So I am only looking for clarification on an honest question, but one that appears accusative.

Here is my return question: does the baptism of someone what has fallen away from faith and then come back mean anything? Is he rebaptized, or is his old baptism still recognized? If the former, then what objection could you have to baptizing infants, since you do not object to baptisms that were ineffective even in older people? (That is, you just write them off and do not recognize them as baptisms, but not those of them who remained faithful. ) If the latter, then what objection could you have to the baptism of a person who has come to faith who was baptized as a baby?


----------



## pastorway (Aug 2, 2004)

to state it simply John (with the same respect and love for you in the Lord!), the Baptist position does not recognize it as baptism if the person is not saved. In other words, if you are not saved when you are immersed, then you were just immersed - it is an empty ritual. If the outward sign does not match the inward reality, then there is no baptism!

So we do not require re-baptism, ever. (at least the Baptists I know). We are only baptized once in life no matter how many times we get wet! You cannot get re-baptized, as if it did not take the first time. But for it to be understood to be a baptism, the person must already be regenerate at the time of the administration.

A few notes - our church only practices believers baptism by immersion. However, we do not require those who were baptized [i:9d7cb31434]as believers[/i:9d7cb31434] by another mode to be immersed. And we agree with Bunyan that baptism is not required for church membership or for participation in the Supper! So if a paedo had no sound Presbyterian church to attend nearby and wanted to join our church, they would not have to be baptized in our church to do so. If later they came to the conviction and understanding that they had not been baptized when sprinkled as an infant, then we would baptize them at that time! 

Phillip


----------



## pastorway (Aug 3, 2004)

Let's see what the Bible says. 

[b:cf91da8be8]Acts 2[/b:cf91da8be8]
those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.42And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. 46So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

These 3,000 heard the Word preached, believed it, obeyed the command to be baptized, continued in the Apostles doctrine and in fellowship, are referred to as "all who believed" and are part of those that the Lord was adding daily to the church, namely those who were being SAVED.

Phillip


----------



## luvroftheWord (Aug 3, 2004)

[quote:b70f7f6b56="Paul manata"][quote:b70f7f6b56]
But what I do is trust the Lord and his promises to me and my children, and I trust that God is at work in my child's life even at their baptism in their infancy, and all throughout my teaching and parenting of them.
[/quote:b70f7f6b56]

I understand the argument. I want to know where God promised this?

John said that the PE and the PR position are intertwined. I agree, BUT I disagree on the timming. Of course if I presume that my Child is elect then I presume that he *will be* regenerate. I just don't see the warrent for presumming regeneration at birth?[/quote:b70f7f6b56]

I guess I don't understand why PE's are comfortable presuming election but not regeneration. In the decree of God, not every child born to believing parents is necessarily elect. Both history and the Biblical example shows this. So why is it any more safe to presume election than regeneration? Why does "to you and to your children" give us a reason to presume our children as elect but not as regenerate?

But basically, I think it is clear in Scripture that we are to raise our children as Christians. Deut 6 makes it clear that we raise our children to fear the Lord. I just cannot fathom doing so without also presuming that the grace to live the Christian life has been granted to the child. That's not really an argument. It's just something existential on my part. Probably not helpful at all.

[quote:b70f7f6b56]Also, would your guys' argument look like this:

All covenant members are presumed to be regenerate.
My child is a covenant member.
Therefore, he is presumed to be regenerate.

?

This is valid. I can't deny P2. All I can do is argue P1. I think this would be a Lord supper type issue. Paedocommunionists argue exactly the same above (except switch presume to be regenrate with, are alowed to the Lord's supper). But this fails to see that covenant membership does not give one all the priviledges of the covenant. Just like an American citizen does not allow for my infant to vote. An infant voter advocate could argue the same argument above, switching key terms.

Lastely, I cann't see how a PR could deny the Lord's supper to their child? John Calvin said that this was like serving your child poison (since if taken unworthely it can kill them). But if you worry about this then you deny your PR. What possible basis could you PRers deny paedo communion?[/quote:b70f7f6b56]

Well, I think any judgment as to whether or not a person is regenerate is a presumption, since regeneration is invisible to our eyes. So I would say that this applies even to our fellow church members.

But I think your point is good, Paul. It's one reason why I personally lean in the direction of paedocommunion, or at least the allowing of small children to partake of the table without first having to convince the elders that they are really saved. Of course, as a PCA guy I follow my church on this issue and will not allow my children to partake until they have appeared before the session. But the issue is, indeed, presuppositional. If you presume that the children are unregenerate, then perhaps allowing them to the table would be to feed them poison. But if you presume their regeneration, why would you think it dangerous to give your child the supper? Like I said before, I'm not going to try to nail down when I think God regenerated my child. How could I possibly do that? By waiting for a profession of faith when they get older? Or maybe when they bear some fruit? But even these things can be misleading (Matt 7). There is no more certainty in waiting until the child is older for presuming regeneration than presuming it when they are infants. With that in mind, I'm not sure why I should wait until my children are older before I presume their regeneration.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 3, 2004)

[quote:9d2e61e071="Craig"]Patrick[quote:9d2e61e071]Would you fault a pastor for baptizing and ministering to a professing adult who later on shows himself unregenerate or an apostate? [/quote:9d2e61e071]
No. That was the point I was trying to make later in that post. I think I used a poor example.

In any event: from what you wrote I think I need some clarification. It was my understanding that PR was something presumed [i:9d2e61e071]at baptism[/i:9d2e61e071]. If that [b:9d2e61e071]is[/b:9d2e61e071] the case I take serious issue with it. If that is [b:9d2e61e071]not[/b:9d2e61e071] the case, then I still find the regeneration part hard to justify, but not troubling, although it still pretty close to my position. I'm going to keep reading the posts and maybe try to crystallize my thinking and post at that point if it's pertinent. Thanks![/quote:9d2e61e071]
To clarify for you, PR is not something presumed at baptism, but presumed before, during, and after (at least this is how I have understood it). And I had trouble with it too as some of the earlier threads on this topic will indicate, particularly from a couple months ago. But what convinced me was the fact that we are not making an absolute declaration of their salvation. They are members of the covenant, and therefore must be treated as God's people and God's children, which means they must be treated as Christians. Again, it's a conditional presumption (not a conditional salvation!). 

And I think that this also answers Paul's inquiry too. Yes, we presume all members of the covenant as regenerate because they are the people of God. How can they enjoy communion with God without a new heart? There is no other way to join the the people of God without regeneration. So, all members of the covenant are presumed regenerate until they show otherwise; all children of believers are members of the covenant, therefore, all children are presumed regenerate until they prove otherwise. We can't see the absolute, only God can. So we must presume. That is how the visible church functions. 

Regarding the Lord's Supper, we have direction that a man must be able to examine himself. I have no problem admitting a child to communion if they can perform this (most likely they would be an older child). But admitance to the table requires a more mature faith, an ability to examine oneself in light of the Word, and prepare oneself for the Supper. This doesn't mean you have to be a giant of the faith. It just means you must be able to demonstrate that ability to the satisfaction of the elders, who also must make a presumption regarding your faith when deciding to admit you to the Lord's Table or not.


----------



## Craig (Aug 3, 2004)

Patrick[quote:777fad0ac1]To clarify for you, PR is not something presumed at baptism, but presumed before, during, and after (at least this is how I have understood it). [/quote:777fad0ac1]
Okay. I was under the impression it was presumed at the sacrament of baptism...I wondered why people on the board held to something like that...sounded more like something Doug Wilson would say. I will continue thinking through this. And by the way: 
[quote:777fad0ac1]Regarding the Lord's Supper, we have direction that a man must be able to examine himself. I have no problem admitting a child to communion if they can perform this (most likely they would be an older child). But admitance to the table requires a more mature faith, an ability to examine oneself in light of the Word, and prepare oneself for the Supper. [/quote:777fad0ac1]
 :thumbup:


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 3, 2004)

God has promised to regenerate covenant children. I presume my child is regenerate; not converted. I would trust that Abraham viewed his children in the same way...........It is an issue of faith. No one can deny this. It is the historic view. The [i:046bf6bac9] reformed [/i:046bf6bac9] view. Matt, JohnV and I are being consistant with that view.


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 our death, so that we have a lasting witness that Jesus Christ will always be our justification and sanctification.[2] Nevertheless, although it is a sacrament of faith and penitence, yet as God receives little children into the Church with their fathers, we say, upon the authority of Jesus Christ, that the children of believing parents should be baptized."



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



In the neglect of understanding the doctrine of "presumptive regeneration," Charles Hodge said, "we have long felt and often expressed the conviction that this is one of the most serious evils in the present state of our churches." (Bushnell's discourses on Christian Nurture, Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review (1847), 19, Pages 52-521.)[i:046bf6bac9][/i:046bf6bac9]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 3, 2004)

Craig previously writes:
[quote:fd0d7237f6]
I have said there is a blurred line...and PR is teasing that line.
[/quote:fd0d7237f6]

It is possibly being blurred by your presuppositions?

[quote:fd0d7237f6]I am not sure I understand your second sentence...the symbol is secondary to "whose" faith? What does it mean when you say "merits obedience"?[/quote:fd0d7237f6]

The faith I have in what God has promised [i:fd0d7237f6] compels [/i:fd0d7237f6] me to place the sign faithfully upon my child. As was previously stated, the sign only points to that which we believe God has already accomplished, not something that is accomplished by/in the sign itself.

[quote:fd0d7237f6]Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 
Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness

I don't see what this has to do with your position. Are you saying a Christian's faith is reckoned as righteousness to his child's?[/quote:fd0d7237f6]

I'm saying that the level of faith that Abraham had, I endeavor to have also. In the way that he was faithful by taking his son up the hill, knowing God would be faithful in supplying the sacrifice, I also want to be seen as faithful. I believe what God has promised. No I don't believe by osmosis my daughter will be saved. I do however believe God has promised [i:fd0d7237f6] something[/i:fd0d7237f6], has He not???

[quote:fd0d7237f6]That all depends upon your level of faith God has given you I guess. I do not question God. I, unlike Thomas, but more like Father Abraham, will believe God.

I don't even know what you're saying here, Scott. Are you speaking tongue in cheek? Even so, it still doesn't make sense. I can only assume you mean your position is so clear that you'll take it on faith while I'm trying to push my fingers in the wounds of Christ making sure He's really alive.  [/quote:fd0d7237f6] 

Yep  You can roll yer eyes all you want, but it's true. What do you think Christ meant? Thomas doubted God. Men are sinfull; we doubt. In this case, I believe.

[quote:fd0d7237f6]Who was to blame God or Esau? Who sold their birthright for one morsel of food?

I think you may have missed my point. If a child of unregenerates is baptized, there is no inherent covenant promise through his parents: [/quote:fd0d7237f6]

This is true. Generally speaking, protestants do not place the sign for the sake of the sign. I was raised RC; they place the sign for the sake of the sign and Rome's theologies.


[quote:fd0d7237f6]
But God says that a child will not forget or leave the way he was raised. This is part of God's promise...though it's conditional:
[/quote:fd0d7237f6]

What is the condition? This stament is synergistic. God plus man. Granted, we know what men are required to do in the light of sanctification. Salvifically, it is all of God. I believe you know this; it is possibly the way I understand what you have worded here.


----------



## FrozenChosen (Aug 3, 2004)

Since I'm not married, much less a parent, I believe I may have been confused about the terms. Do PR and PE serve as bases (pl. of basis?) for acting towards the child, or do we actually believe that they are regenerate on virtue of their own birth into a believing family?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 3, 2004)

[quote:05656dcadc="FrozenChosen"]Since I'm not married, much less a parent, I believe I may have been confused about the terms. Do PR and PE serve as bases (pl. of basis?) for acting towards the child, [/quote:05656dcadc]
This is where the line blurs a little between the two because both would agree we are raising our children as Christians. That is their callng. They are God's people, which means they must be taught how to live accordingly. They must be taught the whole counsel of God. They must be taught their sinful condition, what their sins merit, the work of Christ, how they appropriate it, etc. Everything Scripture teaches they must be taught. When they sin, we discipline them to train them in righteousness, and explain to them how they obtain forgiveness for that sin. PR, when done appropriately, does not lead to the error of assuming our children are saved no matter what and therefore don't need the gospel. It's only when parents become lazy that such an error can occur, and let their children grow up to be Pharisees. Our children have been placed in the covenant by God to hear the gospel and believe it. Parents must also teach there children to humbling truth that not all Israel are Israel, and to be diligent in exming themselves to make sur ethey are not just hearers of the Word but doers as well. It is the same with adults. We teach adults the whole counsel of God regardless of their status. The gospel does not cease to be relevent after we profess faith. It continues our growth in sanctification, awakens the false professor, and also converts the visitor. 

[quote:05656dcadc] or do we actually believe that they are regenerate on virtue of their own birth into a believing family?[/quote:05656dcadc]
We presume their regeneration as a result of being born into a believing family because that is the status God gives them. They are part of His people. AS such they are treated differently than the pagan children.


----------



## Craig (Aug 3, 2004)

Scott said:[quote:f7a962ac1e]It is possibly being blurred by your presuppositions? 
[/quote:f7a962ac1e]
That's quite possible...Patrick was able to bring that out and correct it in 1 post.
[quote:f7a962ac1e]Yep You can roll yer eyes all you want, but it's true. What do you think Christ meant? Thomas doubted God. Men are sinfull; we doubt. In this case, I believe. [/quote:f7a962ac1e]
You still get  If there was a better emoticon, I'd use it, as what you've said takes Scripture out of context and is just offensive. Thomas doubted Christ was resurrected...do I doubt Christ was resurrected just because I don't accept your ideas willy nilly? 
[quote:f7a962ac1e]What is the condition? This stament is synergistic. God plus man. Granted, we know what men are required to do in the light of sanctification.[/quote:f7a962ac1e]
The condition is that they have faith in Christ...and that isn't their own work, that is God's work. Perhaps I could have phrased my comments better; I'm no synergist.
[quote:f7a962ac1e]God has promised to regenerate covenant children. I presume my child is regenerate; not converted. I would trust that Abraham viewed his children in the same way...........It is an issue of faith. No one can deny this. It is the historic view. The reformed view. Matt, JohnV and I are being consistant with that view.[/quote:f7a962ac1e]
Paul has already pointed out that God has promised to be a God to them. 

They are ushered into the visible covenant family and enjoy the benefits thereof, but by no means can you prove God has promised to regenerate them. The safest, most biblical presumption is election: I will not be surprised when they profess faith in Christ, but I will not presume their regeneration (but I won't say they're unregenerate either). They will be called Christians unless they prove otherwise.

You still have a 2 tier system of Christian, Scott: Regenerates that are converted, and unconverted regenerates. While you are awaiting a conversion experience for them, i will merely acknowledge God may regenerate at any given point in time. My child's first words may very well be "unconditional election"...to which I'll agree and know that my child is, in fact, born of the Spirit  
[quote:f7a962ac1e]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."[/quote:f7a962ac1e]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 3, 2004)

Craig,
You act as if My theology is anomolous. I notiice you didn't mention anything in regards to the citations I provided. Apparently, the devines agree with me and my 'presumptions'. Would you care to comment on the citations of the reformed devines?


----------



## Craig (Aug 3, 2004)

[quote:8e73e712b7]Robert Reymond, " [b:8e73e712b7]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[/b:8e73e712b7]...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) [/quote:8e73e712b7] 
I can say the same...no prob here.
[quote:8e73e712b7]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) 
[/quote:8e73e712b7]I agree
[quote:8e73e712b7]John Murray, "Baptized infants are to be received as the children of God and treated accordingly." (Christian Baptism, Page 59.) 
[/quote:8e73e712b7]
Still no problem
[quote:8e73e712b7]A. A. Hodge, "But baptism does not ordinarily confer grace in the first instance, but presupposes it." (Outlines of Theology, Page 629.)[/quote:8e73e712b7]
I could agree with it...but he means it differently I am sure as evidenced by the last quote of your post from Hodge. I presume God's promise, that my child is elect and part of the visible covenant...presuming regeneration is not biblically warranted, though I may treat my child as a Christian and in faith presume he will profess faith. That is what I will do at the baptism of my children. I am not seeing the baptism of a pagan, I am seeing that my child is sancfified before God and I am agreeing with God's promise.
[quote:8e73e712b7]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 [b:8e73e712b7]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[/b:8e73e712b7], 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) 
[/quote:8e73e712b7] 
As Paul said before:[quote:8e73e712b7]Also, it seems a little shady. You don't say they ARE but you still presume they ARE. By presuming it you think they ARE[/quote:8e73e712b7]
[quote:8e73e712b7]Abraham Kuyper, "That children of believers are to be considered as recipients of efficacious grace, in whom the work of efficacious grace has already begun. That when dying before having attained to years of dis­cretion, they can only be regarded as saved. Of course [he adds] Calvinists never declared that these things were necessarily so. As they never permitted themselves to pronounce official judgment on the inward state of an adult, but left the judgment to God, so they have never usurped the right to pronounce on the presence or ab­sence of spiritual life in infants. [i:8e73e712b7]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.[/i:8e73e712b7]"[/quote:8e73e712b7]
Methinks Kuyper should have been more comfortable assuming the election of covenant children. Even if my child dies in infancy, God forbid, then I can presume God's faithfulness even before death. Remember just because I am presuming election, i am not presupposing the child is not regenerate.
[quote:8e73e712b7]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) 
[/quote:8e73e712b7]
Again, we are not assuming our children are the same as pagan children. 
[quote:8e73e712b7]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.) [/quote:8e73e712b7]
Isn't there a problem then of parents who have been converted, say, seven years after the birth of a child? Would J.W. Alexander then presume the regeneration of such a child? What if the child shows signs of NOT being regenerate? From previous quotes it seems such PR should consider it an evil to baptize such a child...I wouldn't, but they would...and you should, too. For remember:
[quote:8e73e712b7]Lyman Atwater, "If our children are in precisely the same position as others, why baptize them?" 
&
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." [/quote:8e73e712b7]
[quote:8e73e712b7]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?" [/quote:8e73e712b7]
Apparently Scott Bushey would deny an 11 yr old child baptism if his parents had converted and the child didn't profess faith  

C'mon Scott...you and I both admit now that there isn't much difference between PR and PE...but you have to admit that PE is much more consistent!


----------



## FrozenChosen (Aug 3, 2004)

[quote:91b9d2b285="puritansailor"][quote:91b9d2b285="FrozenChosen"]Since I'm not married, much less a parent, I believe I may have been confused about the terms. Do PR and PE serve as bases (pl. of basis?) for acting towards the child, [/quote:91b9d2b285]
This is where the line blurs a little between the two because both would agree we are raising our children as Christians. That is their callng. They are God's people, which means they must be taught how to live accordingly. They must be taught the whole counsel of God. They must be taught their sinful condition, what their sins merit, the work of Christ, how they appropriate it, etc. Everything Scripture teaches they must be taught. When they sin, we discipline them to train them in righteousness, and explain to them how they obtain forgiveness for that sin. PR, when done appropriately, does not lead to the error of assuming our children are saved no matter what and therefore don't need the gospel. It's only when parents become lazy that such an error can occur, and let their children grow up to be Pharisees. Our children have been placed in the covenant by God to hear the gospel and believe it. Parents must also teach there children to humbling truth that not all Israel are Israel, and to be diligent in exming themselves to make sur ethey are not just hearers of the Word but doers as well. It is the same with adults. We teach adults the whole counsel of God regardless of their status. The gospel does not cease to be relevent after we profess faith. It continues our growth in sanctification, awakens the false professor, and also converts the visitor. 

[quote:91b9d2b285] or do we actually believe that they are regenerate on virtue of their own birth into a believing family?[/quote:91b9d2b285]
We presume their regeneration as a result of being born into a believing family because that is the status God gives them. They are part of His people. AS such they are treated differently than the pagan children.[/quote:91b9d2b285]

Thanks for a clear answer Patrick. I appreciate it very much. Can you help me out a bit more?

How does the PR position deal with the black sheep of Israel, like Ishmael or Esau? How would you say that PR differs from actual regeneration, or does it at all?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 3, 2004)

[quote:a60ab2d4dd]Apparently Scott Bushey would deny an 11 yr old child baptism if his parents had converted and the child didn't profess faith 

C'mon Scott...you and I both admit now that there isn't much difference between PR and PE...but you have to admit that PE is much more consistent!
[/quote:a60ab2d4dd]

I would baptise this child. If the parents were baptised, I would place the sign upon the child as well. 

Craig, you say that there isn't much difference between the two doctrines; I agree. They are very close. However, the PE position is more inconsistant historically. I lean into that which the church has been built upon. Historically, by and large, the men of faith from the past have held to PR, not PE.

Can I suggest a book: 'The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant' by Lewis Bevins Schenck

This book validates my claim that the historic church held to PR.

oh and by the way, wipe that smile off your face! 
Where'd ya get that picture?????????????????????????????????????????? 

I'm just kidding Craig. I do love them glasses. You look like Buddy Holly!


----------



## Craig (Aug 3, 2004)

Scott said[quote:bab04f46bd]oh and by the way, wipe that smile off your face! 
Where'd ya get that picture?????????????????????????????????????????? 
[/quote:bab04f46bd]
My wife took it while I was reading your PR posts :bs2: 
[quote:bab04f46bd]Craig, you say that there isn't much difference between the two doctrines; I agree. They are very close. However, [b:bab04f46bd]the PE position is more inconsistant [/b:bab04f46bd] [i:bab04f46bd]historically[/i:bab04f46bd][/quote:bab04f46bd] 
Scott, I consider myself pretty orthodox. I understand that our faith is linked to history, but in this case it's a scattered history and is unfoundable upon Scripture. Now please explain how can you say PE is inconsistent historically or simply what that even means? 
[quote:bab04f46bd]Can I suggest a book: 'The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant' by Lewis Bevins Schenck [/quote:bab04f46bd]
I'm reading through Calvin's Institutes right now. At this point, he hasn't really brought this idea to the forefront, and I've read the sections covering the Sacraments. If it's so central, if it's so obvious and part and parcel to Covenant Theology...why don't I see it there? I don't find it explicitly taught in WCF. More importantly, I don't find it in Scripture. You asked me to deal with those quotes from theologians...Scott, I cornered you and you won't reason with what I pointed out. This forum is to DEBATE and DISCUSS. 
[quote:bab04f46bd]I would baptise this child. If the parents were baptised, I would place the sign upon the child as well.[/quote:bab04f46bd]
But what would you presume???? Why pour water on a pagan in baptism...your PR quotes indicate baptism of pagans is sin. Remember what I said and those quotes...here they are again:[quote:bab04f46bd]Isn't there a problem then of parents who have been converted, say, seven years after the birth of a child? Would J.W. Alexander then presume the regeneration of such a child? What if the child shows signs of NOT being regenerate? From previous quotes it seems such PR should consider it an evil to baptize such a child...I wouldn't, but they would...and you should, too. For remember: 
Quote: 
Lyman Atwater, [b:bab04f46bd] "If our children are in precisely the same position as others, why baptize them?"[/b:bab04f46bd]
& 
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, [b:bab04f46bd]we have no right to administer it to infants." [/b:bab04f46bd] 

Quote: 
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?" 

Apparently Scott Bushey would deny an 11 yr old child baptism if his parents had converted and the child didn't profess faith 
[/quote:bab04f46bd]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 4, 2004)

[quote:06b85568cb] 
Scott, I consider myself pretty orthodox. I understand that our faith is linked to history, but in this case it's a scattered history and is unfoundable upon Scripture. Now please explain how can you say PE is inconsistent historically or simply what that even means? 
[/quote:06b85568cb]

I'm saying that historically, PR was the norm..........

"Calvin himself states: "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" 

Sounds like Calvin is saying that believers children are saved........"

What Atwater meant was that OUR children are NOT in the same position of others, and that is why we baptise them. He considers the child regenerate. I don't understand what you are getting at Craig. The quotes I presented are thoroughly conclusive. The reformers by and large were PR. Even calvin.

You say that the idea ios not explicitly taught in scripture; You are correct. Many important items are not explicitly tauhght, i.e the trinity, woman taking the supper, the tithe in the nt church. This does not neccesarily mean they are not scriptural ideas.

You mention the WCF. You are again accurate. It is implied. The Directory of Worship does provide a more definitive statement of the thinking of the Westminster Assembly concerning the status of covenant children. 

'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...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...That the inward grace and virtue of baptism is not tied to that very moment of time wherein it is 
administered; and that the fruit and power thereof reacheth to the whole course of our life...'


Oh and by the way, where have you cornered me? "What would I presume" you ask. In the example of the 11 year old? I would presume the child regenerate and HOLY, else I wouldn't baptise the child. In contrast with PE, why is it sauch a sin to presume. Everyone in the church is guilty of this. We all ultimately presume............Presuming regeneration, the first point in the ordo, could mean that a person would not be converted for years, even 90. You craig, presume I am converted, right? You really cannot validate it. Only God can.

In regards to your comment about debating and this boards premise; I believe I would know this. Theis board was implemented for just that rationale. I should know, I own it. How am I not debating?

I suggest after you read Calvin's works that you begin Witsius' works, "The Economy of the Divine Covenants". Horace Bushnells "Christian Nurture".


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 4, 2004)

[quote:fb7ed47be3="FrozenChosen"]
Thanks for a clear answer Patrick. I appreciate it very much. Can you help me out a bit more?

How does the PR position deal with the black sheep of Israel, like Ishmael or Esau? How would you say that PR differs from actual regeneration, or does it at all?[/quote:fb7ed47be3]
PR differs from actual regeneration in that PR is a presumption made by others regarding the status of our children apart from the world. Actual regeneration can't be seen. We can only see it's fruit. And even then, we still can make an error of judgment because the person could be a deceptive pharisee. The presumption is made so that we can function as a visible body. The visible church has members. We treat those members as Christians because of there seperation to Christ from the world. Whether that is actually the case in there hearts only God knows. Now, for the most part, I would say that most of the people whom we presume regenerate in our faithful churches, I would conclude are actually regenerate. But again, the only way to know is to look into their heart which only God can do. 

When it comes to the "black sheep," it doesn't change the presumption until they begin bearing fruit contrary to that presumption. Remember, PR is a conditional presumption. As a visible church we must base our presumptions on the promises, commands, and as our children grow on to adulthood their fruit. 

When a child grows and begins to display fruits indicating an unregenerate heart you simply focus on that. You train him up in the ways of the Lord. You emphasise those points of Scripture showing what God requires of His people, and how he is unable to do it, without the grace of God. You point to his sin, and need of Christ. Hopefully, over time he will heed your instruction. But when he reaches adulthood (some point at which he speaks for himself) and still rejects the faith, then you must change your presumption, just as you would a professing adult who rebels from the faith. You admonish them to repent and believe, you remind them that they have been baptized and set apart from the world by God to serve Him only. And you pray that God would grant them repentence. You never know that perhaps they may repent much later in life as God deals with them, like the theif on the cross or King Mannasseh. So when they rebel, you presume them to be covenant breakers, and admonish them accordingly. We have several rebukes from God towards His people in the OT demanding that they get a new heart and demanding they return to Him. We would do the same. In the NT they are excommunicated to be taught not to blaspheme with the hope that they would repent. And if after all that they die unbelievers, then we leave it in God's hands. Not all Israel are Israel. God shows mercy to whom he will show mercy. But even so, it doesn't change our obligation as parents to raise the children in the faith, even the rebellious ones, constantly reminding them of their special status in the world. They have been set apart from the world unto the people of God to love and serve Him. If you drill this into their heads, it will haunt them the rest of their life if they should choose to rebel, until they repent, or until the are so hard that the warnings of Hebrews would apply.


----------



## blhowes (Aug 4, 2004)

I was just wondering. For those who hold to CT, in a way, aren't infant baptism and presumptive regeneration/election two separate issues. Wouldn't you still baptise your infants even if you didn't presume them to be regenerate or elect? You believe there's a connection between circumcision and baptism so, since the OT saints were commanded to circumcise family members, you obey the NT command to baptize family members. This you do because you love God and desire to obey God's command, regardless. The presumptive regeneration/election is a separate issue - kind of like icing on a cake.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 4, 2004)

Bob,
My opinion, they are one and the same. I place the sign because of Gods command and promise. That which I believe prompts me to place the sign upon my child, in obedience as well as in faith. The sign itself signifies certain things; if I had no conviction of that which the sign pointed to, why place the sign.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 4, 2004)

Patrick:
I see you're still working on taking it all in. Your thinking on this is growing quite percerptive. But I hope that you don't go onto rabbit trails now. 

The question of what the difference is between regeneration and presuming regeneration is really just a loaded question, a trick question. Be careful of this one. It is when one starts to make distinctions where one's understanding fails that we have problems down the road with it. It's a difference that God sees, but we cannot. We are looking to the covenant that Gode made, that He upholds, and that depends on His Spirit's working in us. It's quite the same as explaining perseverance of the saints from man's end. It's the man that is kept, but the man is not the main keeper; man strives to keep the faith, but it is the Spirit that upholds him in it. Do men fall away? Yes they do; and yet we assert that none of the ones for whom Christ died can be lost. All the same, our faith in God's preserving of His own does not falter. And neither does our presumption of regeneration, even if some children later deny the faith. For that which we presume is God's promise, God's faithfulness, not ours. 

Perhaps, to answer the question, it would do to look at it this way. We ooh and ahh over the cute little babies when they are born and first presented to family and friends. But just think of an eighty-six year old, hospital-bound invalid still being oohed and ahhed at by God, just as much as if he were still a brand new baby. That is how a person is in the sight of a timeless, eternal God, Who saves from the creation of the world, not just from birth. That is what is being presumed for all those who have received Covenant membership, whether young or old. The distinction between Credo and Paedo is only about whether the children of believers have been promised membership, and therefore also have the assurance of the promises that adults carry. The onus for faithfulness is no different for each, even though it depends on God for completion. God made us real people, not stocks and blocks; we were created in His image. That is a high order in the creation. The children's place is the responsibility of the parents, because the children are dependent on their parents, even for that which they are taught and which they believe. Yet it is not dependent on the parent, as if he needs to fear if his child died in the early years, and he did not show any signs of regeneration. 

Let's go back a moment to that eighty-six year old. Can even Alzhiemers take away the love of Christ? No, it can't. Nothing can separate us from the love of Christ. Yet these things beset us, and sometimes even worse things. And our children are also subject to these things. We have God's promise to carry us through, and our children are not without that great comfort. One would think that they especially would be under that promised mercy, more so than adults, since they are more dependent. But not so, for even the most astutely religious man of God is as dependent as a child.

To Craig, I think that this also answers your question concerning PR. I know it's more indirect, but it's there all the same, between the lines.


----------



## blhowes (Aug 4, 2004)

[quote:0f52310888="Scott Bushey"]Bob,
My opinion, they are one and the same. I place the sign because of Gods command and promise. That which I believe prompts me to place the sign upon my child, in obedience as well as in faith. The sign itself signifies certain things; if I had no conviction of that which the sign pointed to, why place the sign.[/quote:0f52310888]

Scott,
Thanks for your response and for setting me straight. As you know, its not always easy for a Baptist to think as a CTer, but we try.


----------



## Craig (Aug 4, 2004)

Scott[quote:ebe9687e80]What Atwater meant was that OUR children are NOT in the same position of others, and that is why we baptise them.[/quote:ebe9687e80] 
I agree. What I've said before, and I'll say again is this:
[b:ebe9687e80]Just because I presume [i:ebe9687e80]election[/i:ebe9687e80] doesn't mean I presuppose [i:ebe9687e80]unregeneration[/i:ebe9687e80]. What PRs do is presume that the promise from God to be our children's God, means they are automatically regenerate from the womb...I see them as being part of the community of faith...possibly regenerate, but that's up to God (yes, I know you acknowledge the 'its up to God' part) 
[quote:ebe9687e80]You say that the idea ios not explicitly taught in scripture;[/quote:ebe9687e80]
Wrong. I say it's not even implied.
[quote:ebe9687e80]Oh and by the way, where have you cornered me? "What would I presume" you ask. In the example of the 11 year old? I would presume the child regenerate and HOLY, else I wouldn't baptise the child.[/quote:ebe9687e80]
I am genuinely surprised you would presume the child's regeneration...even if he was blaspheming? You'd still presume? When all the evidence points to the contrary of spiritual birth...even denying the faith?
[quote:ebe9687e80]Everyone in the church is guilty of this. We all ultimately presume............[/quote:ebe9687e80]
To an extent...but remember, I am not presuming unregeneration...
[quote:ebe9687e80]In regards to your comment about debating and this boards premise; I believe I would know this. Theis board was implemented for just that rationale. I should know, I own it. *How am I not debating?[/b:ebe9687e80] 
[/quote:ebe9687e80]
By not interacting with my position. Perhaps you thought I was really debating the historical position? I'm not, I'm debating the issue itself. I'll try to get to the Witsius book, but I would probably have to buy it....I can't exactly do that. I will ask my pastor if he owns it, though. But I'm already borrowing about 4 books from him.*


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 4, 2004)

Craig, 
You write:
[quote:a8d7179213]Just because I presume election doesn't mean I presuppose unregeneration. What PRs do is presume that the promise from God to be our children's God, means they are automatically regenerate from the womb...I see them as being part of the community of faith...possibly regenerate, but that's up to God (yes, I know you acknowledge the 'its up to God' part) [/quote:a8d7179213]

Craig, What's the difference between 'possibly regenerate' and presuming regeneration. The PR does not say the infant IS regenerate, but we presume they are....as we all acknowledge, no one truly knows who the elect are. You say we do this to 'an extent'. What extent? No one but the almighty can validate the mark of election; hence, we presume.

In regards to presuming about the 11year old; I would presume until one couldn't presume any longer.....


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 4, 2004)

Scott,

Isn't this related to Mark's comments about who a "Christian" is on the warning passage thread? Don't we mean that children are "Christians" in that sense?

For me the difference is that if I presume election I can take hold of the promise, but also know that I must apply myself to the means to bring about the promise. If I am truly and really presuming regeneration, than that means that I believe that the child is already regenerate (not to be regenerate at some point) and there is no reason to apply myself to the means.

So for me, the difference is not in holding to the promise of God, but in applying oneself to His means. The consistent P-R advocate would be lazy with respect to the call of the gospel and his children. (which is why I think you are NOT a consistent P-R advocate!)


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 4, 2004)

Craig, 
You write:
[quote:03a0799b1c]Just because I presume election doesn't mean I presuppose unregeneration. What PRs do is presume that the promise from God to be our children's God, means they are automatically regenerate from the womb...I see them as being part of the community of faith...possibly regenerate, but that's up to God (yes, I know you acknowledge the 'its up to God' part) [/quote:03a0799b1c]

Craig, What's the difference between 'possibly regenerate' and presuming regeneration. The PR does not say the infant IS regenerate, but we presume they are....as we all acknowledge, no one truly knows who the elect are. You say we do this to 'an extent'. What extent? No one but the almighty can validate the mark of election; hence, we presume.

In regards to presuming about the 11year old; I would presume until one couldn't presume any longer.....


----------



## Craig (Aug 4, 2004)

Scott asked[quote:f8d17fc415]Craig, What's the difference between 'possibly regenerate' and presuming regeneration.[/quote:f8d17fc415]
My faith is in [i:f8d17fc415]the promise of election[/i:f8d17fc415]. God may, in fact regenerate in the womb...but I don't assume as much. As Fred commented; 
[quote:f8d17fc415]For me the difference is that if I presume election I can take hold of the promise, but also know that I must apply myself to the means to bring about the promise. [/quote:f8d17fc415]
When I tried to express this, you said that sounded synergistic. But this is living out the covenant of God and applying the means God has given us. I won't speak for Fred because he knows far more than I (the same with you, Scott): but I think PE is more covenantal than PR. Why? PR does logically lead to laziness on part of the Christian parent. There is [i:f8d17fc415]conditionality[/i:f8d17fc415] within the [i:f8d17fc415]external[/i:f8d17fc415] covenant; and the PE position acknowledges that and is able to logically shepherd and exhort the sheep (visibly considered sheep) most effectively.
[quote:f8d17fc415]In regards to presuming about the 11year old; I would presume until one couldn't presume any longer.....[/quote:f8d17fc415]
But at [b:f8d17fc415]what[/b:f8d17fc415] point is that? What if the child profess unbelief? This is far more open ended when I said we presume people to be of the faith to an extent. We presume to the extent that they profess faith...I stop presuming when they've made it clear they are not Christians. Our children are in a unique situation compared to those born of pagan parents. They are not pagan because they belong to the community of faith...the promise of election is real, and we ought to baptize our infants accordingly.

I see an inconsistency in the thinking among the theologians you quoted. I love being orthodox and finding roots with our forefathers, but on this point it is not biblical. How can a theologian say we presume an infants regeneration, and [i:f8d17fc415]that's the only way we can conscienably baptize them[/i:f8d17fc415]...then acknowledge that they may not in reality be regenerate? If they're not, you've done something sinful (according to their logic) Let's take it further....let's say this infant rejects the faith at age 14 and lives a life of utter sin. They convert 25 years later: would you consider their baptism in infancy valid since they truly did reject the faith, lived a life of sin...then later converted? Can you say your reasoning behind infant baptism isn't wrong-headed? It's a modified version of credo-baptism, essentially. We shouldn't baptize because we assume these children are regenerate. We baptize them because they are born into the external covenant (possibly regenerate then...maybe later). We are sanctifying them before God in obedience to His Word and are preaching the gospel through the sprinkling of water.


----------



## Ianterrell (Aug 4, 2004)

Craig,


If it would be wrong to apply the covenant sign to the child, for the PRer (according to the argument you set forth), based on presumption. Would it not also be wrong for the PRer to baptize confessing adults based on the administrator's faulty presumptions?

The child's falling away in no way takes away from the validity of the baptism itself. The sign is a sign even if the subject becomes unfit for it. It's value is inherent, so that when the apostate turns and repents, his baptism given in the past still stands.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 4, 2004)

Ian,
This is true. In fact, I was baptised in the RC church as an infant. based upon that, that I was baptised in the Father, in the Son and Holy Spirit, I should have never been rebaptised as an adult. 

Craig,
I just got in. When I have a moment, I will address your last post.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 4, 2004)

[quote:f2ae8ebeee="Ianterrell"]Craig,


If it would be wrong to apply the covenant sign to the child, for the PRer (according to the argument you set forth), based on presumption. Would it not also be wrong for the PRer to baptize confessing adults based on the administrator's faulty presumptions?

The child's falling away in no way takes away from the validity of the baptism itself. The sign is a sign even if the subject becomes unfit for it. It's value is inherent, so that when the apostate turns and repents, his baptism given in the past still stands.[/quote:f2ae8ebeee]

Ian,

I think the point is that we baptize not on presumption but on promise. There is a difference.


----------



## Craig (Aug 4, 2004)

Ian[quote:59d03698f7]If it would be wrong to apply the covenant sign to the child, for the PRer (according to the argument you set forth), based on presumption.[/quote:59d03698f7] 
According to the argument set forth, not by me, but by theologians holding to PR: one is actually sinning by baptizing unregenerates. In fact, the ONLY way one of them could justify baptizing an infant was by presupposing the infant was, in fact, regenerate...hence my calling PR a modified form of credo-baptism  
[quote:59d03698f7]Would it not also be wrong for the PRer to baptize confessing adults based on the administrator's faulty presumptions?[/quote:59d03698f7]
You'll want to ask Scott that one.This is why PR's set themselves up for more trouble than anything else. So I thing logically, Scott would have to say "yes".
[quote:59d03698f7]The child's falling away in no way takes away from the validity of the baptism itself. The sign is a sign even if the subject becomes unfit for it. It's value is inherent, so that when the apostate turns and repents, his baptism given in the past still stands.[/quote:59d03698f7]
I agree...it seems to me that PR's will have to reformulate their ideas in order to make them intelligable...which, alas, would be a break from history.


----------



## Craig (Aug 4, 2004)

No problem Scott....oh, and I was rereading some of my arguments and noticed something I said...[quote:58271b9353]I won't speak for Fred because he knows far more than I (the same with you, Scott)[/quote:58271b9353]
I could see where this could be perceived as an insult. I should have phrased that differently: Both Fred AND Scott know a lot more than me! Sorry if anyone took offense, I just need to write clearer sentences!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 4, 2004)

Fred writes:
[quote:dc8e1c57ee]
Ian,
I think the point is that we baptize not on presumption but on promise. There is a difference.[/quote:dc8e1c57ee]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 4, 2004)

Craig, 
You commented on something Fred previously said:
"If I am truly and really presuming regeneration, than that means that I believe that the child is already regenerate (not to be regenerate at some point) and there is no reason to apply myself to the means....For me the difference is that if I presume election I can take hold of the promise, but also know that I must apply myself to the means to bring about the promise. "

Where in the world have you gotten the idea that those who hold to PR deal differently with their children in regards to Gods command of rearing? Regeneration does not mean conversion. regenerates still need to hear the word. Still need to repent, believe, accept. Possibly, you have misinterpreted the term 'regeneration' and confused it with conversion?

You made mention of my comment about synergy. 

[quote:53d1d1d80d]But God says that a child will not forget or leave the way he was raised. This is part of God's promise...though it's conditional: [/quote:53d1d1d80d]

Question: Is election conditional? Salvation? Does this passage sound conditional or is it commanded? There is a difference.

Prov 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

Command: Train up your children in the way they should go
Result: They will not depart from it

Why is this? Because of our faithfulness or Gods? It is Gods! If we see it the other way, we are adding to the salvific process. It is not a responsibility in order to bring about success to the decree of God as much as it is obedience to the command. Conditional makes me think synergistic. Not monergistic.


----------



## Ianterrell (Aug 4, 2004)

[quote:b6cae1bf21="fredtgreco"][quote:b6cae1bf21="Ianterrell"]Craig,


If it would be wrong to apply the covenant sign to the child, for the PRer (according to the argument you set forth), based on presumption. Would it not also be wrong for the PRer to baptize confessing adults based on the administrator's faulty presumptions?

The child's falling away in no way takes away from the validity of the baptism itself. The sign is a sign even if the subject becomes unfit for it. It's value is inherent, so that when the apostate turns and repents, his baptism given in the past still stands.[/quote:b6cae1bf21]

Ian,

I think the point is that we baptize not on presumption but on promise. There is a difference.[/quote:b6cae1bf21]

I agree that we baptize because we are commanded too. But what is the promise? That's what we're arguing about here.


----------



## Ianterrell (Aug 4, 2004)

[quote:de299c362a="Craig"]Ian[quote:de299c362a]If it would be wrong to apply the covenant sign to the child, for the PRer (according to the argument you set forth), based on presumption.[/quote:de299c362a] 
According to the argument set forth, not by me, but by theologians holding to PR: one is actually sinning by baptizing unregenerates. In fact, the ONLY way one of them could justify baptizing an infant was by presupposing the infant was, in fact, regenerate...hence my calling PR a modified form of credo-baptism  
[quote:de299c362a]Would it not also be wrong for the PRer to baptize confessing adults based on the administrator's faulty presumptions?[/quote:de299c362a]
You'll want to ask Scott that one.This is why PR's set themselves up for more trouble than anything else. So I thing logically, Scott would have to say "yes".
[quote:de299c362a]The child's falling away in no way takes away from the validity of the baptism itself. The sign is a sign even if the subject becomes unfit for it. It's value is inherent, so that when the apostate turns and repents, his baptism given in the past still stands.[/quote:de299c362a]
I agree...it seems to me that PR's will have to reformulate their ideas in order to make them intelligable...which, alas, would be a break from history.[/quote:de299c362a]

Craig,

I'm PR. I was questioning the internal critique you were attempting. Just rhetoric. I don't see how it follows that PR people must reformulate our ideas. The sign is commanded, but the sign signifies a reality of regeneration, not election.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 4, 2004)

[quote:c1f02ea7db="fredtgreco"]Scott,

Isn't this related to Mark's comments about who a "Christian" is on the warning passage thread? Don't we mean that children are "Christians" in that sense?

For me the difference is that if I presume election I can take hold of the promise, but also know that I must apply myself to the means to bring about the promise. If I am truly and really presuming regeneration, than that means that I believe that the child is already regenerate (not to be regenerate at some point) and there is no reason to apply myself to the means.

So for me, the difference is not in holding to the promise of God, but in applying oneself to His means. The consistent P-R advocate would be lazy with respect to the call of the gospel and his children. (which is why I think you are NOT a consistent P-R advocate!)[/quote:c1f02ea7db]

Fred,
The above sounds like a hyper-Calvinist...............


----------



## JohnV (Aug 4, 2004)

Scott and Fred: (and Ian and Craig too)
[quote:3c1252e7e6]I think the point is that we baptize not on presumption but on promise. There is a difference.[/quote:3c1252e7e6]

Scott says "amen" to this, and I say, "I don't see how this is a critique of what Ian said." If I have this right, then the PE-ers and the PR-ers are saying this same thing, what Fred said, but meaning quite opposite things by it. I can't see how this in any way does anything but justify PR, as Scott also indicated with his "amen." I thought I definitively answered it above, but yet this quote comes afterward, after Ian's well-said statement. 

Maybe I'm just not getting what y'all are driving at. What am I missing here? How in the world can "not presuming unregeneration" be taken in any other way than presuming regeneration? I cannot, for the life of me, see an in-between. I just cannot see how presuming election is taking hold of the promises, but presuming regeneration is not. How is it that they are not interchangeable terms when used in conjunction with how we view the place of our children before the throne of God's grace? Is this not trying to split hairs instead of being profitable discussion? 

Remember, we are trying to explain PR to someone to whom it is a new concept. It is simple acquiesence to God's way, to God's redemption, how it applies to us and our children; and not some intricate doctrine on its own. It is not spelled out in the doctrines because it is assumed all along, throughout the OT, and into the NT. It is not apprehended by explanation as much as by just believing it is true, because it is a sign and seal of promise of grace, meaning present and future. It is a comfort in times of peril and disaster, not a carefully applied argument against the need to teach and admonish our children.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 4, 2004)

John,

Because regeneration is a change of state in a person. Election is not. While regeneration is not conversion, it is an act in the ordo salutis that has objective effect on the person so regenerated.

To presume that one is regenerate presumes that no need of a work is necessary. For the Word does not "convert" it [b:8cea1b4d4e]makes alive[/b:8cea1b4d4e] (1 Peter 1:23; James 1:18). If one is already alive, he has no need of the gospel. He simply needs to be told that he is a Christian and should act like one. This is Wilson's position, and it blurs the visible/invisible church.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 4, 2004)

[quote:f6dac7eedb="Scott Bushey"][quote:f6dac7eedb="fredtgreco"]Scott,

Isn't this related to Mark's comments about who a "Christian" is on the warning passage thread? Don't we mean that children are "Christians" in that sense?

For me the difference is that if I presume election I can take hold of the promise, but also know that I must apply myself to the means to bring about the promise. If I am truly and really presuming regeneration, than that means that I believe that the child is already regenerate (not to be regenerate at some point) and there is no reason to apply myself to the means.

So for me, the difference is not in holding to the promise of God, but in applying oneself to His means. The consistent P-R advocate would be lazy with respect to the call of the gospel and his children. (which is why I think you are NOT a consistent P-R advocate!)[/quote:f6dac7eedb]

Fred,
The above sounds like a hyper-Calvinist...............[/quote:f6dac7eedb]

Hmmm.  

I wonder why?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 4, 2004)

[quote:6fd91bdf53="fredtgreco"]John,

Because regeneration is a change of state in a person. Election is not. While regeneration is not conversion, it is an act in the ordo salutis that has objective effect on the person so regenerated.

To presume that one is regenerate presumes that no need of a work is necessary. For the Word does not "convert" it [b:6fd91bdf53]makes alive[/b:6fd91bdf53] (1 Peter 1:23; James 1:18). If one is already alive, he has no need of the gospel. He simply needs to be told that he is a Christian and should act like one. This is Wilson's position, and it blurs the visible/invisible church.[/quote:6fd91bdf53]

Fred,
Who said that 'no work is necessary"? Regenerates still require conversion..........They still need to receive, repent, to hear the word. Rom 10:17

This verifies that even you do not understand the position.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 4, 2004)

[quote:f9d2dac0e3="fredtgreco"][quote:f9d2dac0e3="Scott Bushey"][quote:f9d2dac0e3="fredtgreco"]Scott,

Isn't this related to Mark's comments about who a "Christian" is on the warning passage thread? Don't we mean that children are "Christians" in that sense?

For me the difference is that if I presume election I can take hold of the promise, but also know that I must apply myself to the means to bring about the promise. If I am truly and really presuming regeneration, than that means that I believe that the child is already regenerate (not to be regenerate at some point) and there is no reason to apply myself to the means.

So for me, the difference is not in holding to the promise of God, but in applying oneself to His means. The consistent P-R advocate would be lazy with respect to the call of the gospel and his children. (which is why I think you are NOT a consistent P-R advocate!)[/quote:f9d2dac0e3]

Fred,
The above sounds like a hyper-Calvinist...............[/quote:f9d2dac0e3]

Hmmm.  

I wonder why? [/quote:f9d2dac0e3]

Hyper Calvinists do not witness to the elect due to thier illicit understanding of the decree. The PR does not embrace this idea in any way.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 4, 2004)

[quote:610576947b="Scott Bushey"][quote:610576947b="fredtgreco"]John,

Because regeneration is a change of state in a person. Election is not. While regeneration is not conversion, it is an act in the ordo salutis that has objective effect on the person so regenerated.

To presume that one is regenerate presumes that no need of a work is necessary. For the Word does not "convert" it [b:610576947b]makes alive[/b:610576947b] (1 Peter 1:23; James 1:18). If one is already alive, he has no need of the gospel. He simply needs to be told that he is a Christian and should act like one. This is Wilson's position, and it blurs the visible/invisible church.[/quote:610576947b]

Fred,
Who said that 'no work is necessary"? Regenerates still require conversion..........They still need to receive, repent, to hear the word. Rom 10:17

This verifies that even you do not understand the position.[/quote:610576947b]

Scott, I am getting to understand the position more and more. That is why it concerns me. It also concerns me that I know of no one publicly who quotes Schenck with approval (outside the Board) other than Federal Vision-ites.

Most, if not every one of your quotes from earlier do not require (and many do not even speak to) regeneration. They are using the term Christian in the same way that Mark used it in the other thread - those who are in the visible Church. Not the invisible church.


----------



## Craig (Aug 4, 2004)

John[quote:db85d2f341]Maybe I'm just not getting what y'all are driving at. What am I missing here? How in the world can "not presuming unregeneration" be taken in any other way than presuming regeneration?[/quote:db85d2f341]
Just because I know my wife is going to Texas next week, doesn't mean she's there...We planned it...it's been paid for...she's not there yet, though. I can presume she's going...I'm not going to presume she's already there. Don't take the example too far, as I've already stated: God is the regenerator of hearts: He can do it at conception, but there is no biblical license to assume it. The promise is good, though. He [i:db85d2f341]will be my child's God[/i:db85d2f341].
[quote:db85d2f341]Is this not trying to split hairs instead of being profitable discussion? 
[/quote:db85d2f341]
You are probably right...but (and this is directed toward everyone) when I'm presented with a doctrine to accept, I don't accept it out of a demand by history. Of course the history of it will get my attention and I'll observe it and all that. If I'm shown wrong, I'm shown wrong and I'll accept it. I've done that a number of times in the past on the board. If PR is true, I want to embrace it and integrate it before my wife and I have children. If it's false, I want to be sure I'm incorporating things correctly. If my reasoning is shown wrong then I'll be wrong. I haven't seen anyone actually get to the heart of my argument...maybe it's just because I'm not making sense; but John came the CLOSEST to interacting with it: Folks, I don't presume unregeneration. Election comes BEFORE regeneration. God's promise is as real now, before my child is born, as it will be when Augustine Calvin French  professes faith in Christ. Somehow it's assumed I deny the validity, or reality, just because I happen to put things in their proper order...horse before the cart fellas.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 4, 2004)

How can one misinterpret Calvin here:

Calvin himself states: "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"


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 4, 2004)

Fred,
Again I state, you have confused regeneration with conversion. Have you not? Look at what you have said:

"Because regeneration is a change of state in a person. Election is not. While regeneration is not conversion, it is an act in the ordo salutis that has objective effect on the person so regenerated. 

Scott says: I disagree. Regeneration without conversion is like cement without water.

To presume that one is regenerate presumes that no need of a work is necessary. For the Word does not "convert" it makes alive (1 Peter 1:23; James 1:18). If one is already alive, he has no need of the gospel. He simply needs to be told that he is a Christian and should act like one. This is Wilson's position, and it blurs the visible/invisible church."

John was regenerated in the womb. Assuredly he needed to hear the word of God for the conversion to take place! Surely he needed to repent, to receive etc....

In regards to Schenck: The reason no one quotes him is because the idea is foreign to the modern day protestant. As you well know, the moden day presbyterian (generally) is no more than a wet Baptist. (No offense meant to my credo brothers...just a descriptive used to decribe this state of presbyterianism)


----------



## JohnV (Aug 4, 2004)

[quote:3d7be19a21="fredtgreco"]John,

Because regeneration is a change of state in a person. Election is not. While regeneration is not conversion, it is an act in the ordo salutis that has objective effect on the person so regenerated.

To presume that one is regenerate presumes that no need of a work is necessary. For the Word does not "convert" it [b:3d7be19a21]makes alive[/b:3d7be19a21] (1 Peter 1:23; James 1:18). If one is already alive, he has no need of the gospel. He simply needs to be told that he is a Christian and should act like one. This is Wilson's position, and it blurs the visible/invisible church.[/quote:3d7be19a21]

If we are talking about the "ordo salutis", then you are implying a lot more in presuming election, are you not? Are you not then, in fact, presuming regeneration AND election? Does it not include regeneration? I know that election comes first, then regeneration, but is it not more so that election is the entire process, that which we call the "golden chain" of Romans 8?

Put it this way: does not election have to presume regeneration?

Now, if we turn it around, and say, as you do, that presuming regeneration speaks of a change in state in the person, that it implies that the gospel is needed no longer to change the person's heart, and that presuming election, on the other hand, does not imply that; then it would follow that presuming regeneration even in adults is a dangerous practice, for it would assume that the gospel is not needed anymore in the salvation of that person whose heart has been regenerated. You tie it to Wilson's group, and I see what you're saying. But I am persuaded that this is precisely the argument against them, not for them. At the same time it is the argument against laxity in rearing children in the faith in PR, and not the cause of it. The danger is letting the faith slide, not in seeing to its maintenance; and PR is absolutely not a "letting slide" idea, but a positive action against it. It is absolutely not works related, but just the opposite. It is in no way tied to the type of justification that adds to the promise by our obedience, but one that obeys by adding nothing.

Now, maybe I am adding to the meaning of regeneration. I will acknowledege that. But I hope you see that I am helpless in doing that: I have no choice in the matter. I do not see it as a laying hold of the promises if there are not some real things being laid a hold of in doing so. In your terms, I suppose, yes I am presuming not only election but regeneration. The place of the child in the Covenant demands it, as I see it. Yet I cannot see how this undermines the need of the gospel for the child, for as Scott says, it is not a declarative assertion of certain election as much as it is a declarative assertion of God being the child's God as well, with all the benefits of grace that go along with it. This does not promote laxity, but rather exactly militates against it. It is the antidote, so to speak, to what many presume PR to be. It is just the opposite of what a lot of people have the impression of. 

You could compare it to the Arminians defining Free Will to be just what it is not, as Jonathan Edwards so ably taught. I don't think I am being careless with the word, "regeneration". If the child is to be considered to be a member, as much as the parent is, then you cannot stop at election in the way you mean it. That fear that many have of what PR promotes: I see this as the solution to it, not the cause of it. That is also why we have wrestled with this term so much, trying to overcome the misrepresentation that Kuyperian circles and others have put on it. I could wish that we do not use the term at all, for all the confusion that has accompanied it. But it is a term of currency in the Reformed camp, like it or not. I know this sounds just like what Calvin said about Free Will, but it seems to me to be, unfortunately, true for this term as well.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 4, 2004)

[quote:5108280348="Scott Bushey"]How can one misinterpret Calvin here:

Calvin himself states: "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"[/quote:5108280348]

One cannot. And unless Calvin believes that one can lose one's status in the covenant of eternal life, that is [i:5108280348]lose regeneration[/i:5108280348], he is not speaking of regeneration here. He is speaking of the outward administration of the covenant.

Actually, this quote has nothing to do with either regeneration or election. Unless it refers to the outward administration of the covenant (i.e. membership in the visible church, the covenant community), Calvin is an Arminian. There is no way around it. You cannot have it both ways if you want this to imply presumptive regeneration.

When you quote Zwingli, it is to the same effect:
[quote:5108280348]Ulrich Zwingli, “The children of Christians are not less the children of God than their parents are, or than [b:5108280348]the children of Old Testament times were[/b:5108280348]: but if they belong to God, who will refuse them baptism?” (Huldreich Zwingli’s Werke, Zweyten bandes erste Abtheilung (Zurich, 1830), Page 245.)[/quote:5108280348]

If Zwingli is saying this to mean that children are as regenerate as their parents, then the follow on analogy to the OT does not follow.

This is perfectly consistent with the visible church, and does not speak at all to regeneration:
[quote:5108280348]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.[/quote:5108280348]

And this, which speaks of the covenant:
[quote:5108280348]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.)[/quote:5108280348]

Westminster makes my point exactly and precisely, using "Christian" in exactly the way Mark did in the previous post (this is now the third time I have pointed this out and still no answers):
[quote:5108280348]“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 [b:5108280348]solemnly received into the bosom of the visible church[/b:5108280348], 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)[/quote:5108280348]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 4, 2004)

[quote:41d7575214="fredtgreco"]John,

Because regeneration is a change of state in a person. Election is not. While regeneration is not conversion, it is an act in the ordo salutis that has objective effect on the person so regenerated.

To presume that one is regenerate presumes that no need of a work is necessary. For the Word does not "convert" it [b:41d7575214]makes alive[/b:41d7575214] (1 Peter 1:23; James 1:18). If one is already alive, he has no need of the gospel. He simply needs to be told that he is a Christian and should act like one. This is Wilson's position, and it blurs the visible/invisible church.[/quote:41d7575214]
I thought I already dealt with this objection above. Here it is again. 
[quote:41d7575214]
This is where the line blurs a little between the two because both would agree we are raising our children as Christians. That is their callng. They are God's people, which means they must be taught how to live accordingly. They must be taught the whole counsel of God. They must be taught their sinful condition, what their sins merit, the work of Christ, how they appropriate it, etc. Everything Scripture teaches they must be taught. When they sin, we discipline them to train them in righteousness, and explain to them how they obtain forgiveness for that sin. PR, when done appropriately, does not lead to the error of assuming our children are saved no matter what and therefore don't need the gospel. It's only when parents become lazy that such an error can occur, and let their children grow up to be Pharisees. Our children have been placed in the covenant by God to hear the gospel and believe it. Parents must also teach there children to humbling truth that not all Israel are Israel, and to be diligent in exming themselves to make sur ethey are not just hearers of the Word but doers as well. It is the same with adults. We teach adults the whole counsel of God regardless of their status. The gospel does not cease to be relevent after we profess faith. It continues our growth in sanctification, awakens the false professor, and also converts the visitor. 
[/quote:41d7575214]

If we were to follow your argument Fred, then there is no reason to preach the Gospel to professing adults either. Is that your position?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 4, 2004)

Fred,
When Calvin uses the term "adoption into the covenant of [i:f9c8fff4c2] eternal life[/i:f9c8fff4c2] is he not refering to salvatuion? How else could one interpret this phrase? Those in the external covenant do not have adoption in this manner.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 4, 2004)

[quote:b3ac02b282="puritansailor"][quote:b3ac02b282="fredtgreco"]John,

Because regeneration is a change of state in a person. Election is not. While regeneration is not conversion, it is an act in the ordo salutis that has objective effect on the person so regenerated.

To presume that one is regenerate presumes that no need of a work is necessary. For the Word does not "convert" it [b:b3ac02b282]makes alive[/b:b3ac02b282] (1 Peter 1:23; James 1:18). If one is already alive, he has no need of the gospel. He simply needs to be told that he is a Christian and should act like one. This is Wilson's position, and it blurs the visible/invisible church.[/quote:b3ac02b282]
I thought I already dealt with this objection above. Here it is again. 
[quote:b3ac02b282]
This is where the line blurs a little between the two because both would agree we are raising our children as Christians. That is their callng. They are God's people, which means they must be taught how to live accordingly. They must be taught the whole counsel of God. They must be taught their sinful condition, what their sins merit, the work of Christ, how they appropriate it, etc. Everything Scripture teaches they must be taught. When they sin, we discipline them to train them in righteousness, and explain to them how they obtain forgiveness for that sin. PR, when done appropriately, does not lead to the error of assuming our children are saved no matter what and therefore don't need the gospel. It's only when parents become lazy that such an error can occur, and let their children grow up to be Pharisees. Our children have been placed in the covenant by God to hear the gospel and believe it. Parents must also teach there children to humbling truth that not all Israel are Israel, and to be diligent in exming themselves to make sur ethey are not just hearers of the Word but doers as well. It is the same with adults. We teach adults the whole counsel of God regardless of their status. The gospel does not cease to be relevent after we profess faith. It continues our growth in sanctification, awakens the false professor, and also converts the visitor. 
[/quote:b3ac02b282]

If we were to follow your argument Fred, then there is no reason to preach the Gospel to professing adults either. Is that your position?[/quote:b3ac02b282]

Patrick,

Not in the same way. The gospel is of course applicable to all men at all times, but we do not continue to treat professing Christians as if they had no interest in Christ - at least in the absence of other evidence.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 4, 2004)

[quote:67c1c6b200="Scott Bushey"]Fred,
When Calvin uses the term "adoption into the covenant of [i:67c1c6b200] eternal life[/i:67c1c6b200] is he not refering to salvatuion? How else could one interpret this phrase? Those in the external covenant do not have adoption in this manner.[/quote:67c1c6b200]

Ok, then. If that is what Calvin means, what do we do with the single child of the covenant who clearly and unrepentantly rejects Christ? Has he "lost his salvation" ? Has he been cut out of the internal administration of the covenant?

You see, your answer makes for a much issue. This is exactly where the federal vision says yes, he can be cut out of the internal, salvific covenant.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 5, 2004)

[quote:326dfdc3d8="fredtgreco"][quote:326dfdc3d8="Scott Bushey"]Fred,
When Calvin uses the term "adoption into the covenant of [i:326dfdc3d8] eternal life[/i:326dfdc3d8] is he not refering to salvatuion? How else could one interpret this phrase? Those in the external covenant do not have adoption in this manner.[/quote:326dfdc3d8]

Ok, then. If that is what Calvin means, what do we do with the single child of the covenant who clearly and unrepentantly rejects Christ? Has he "lost his salvation" ? Has he been cut out of the internal administration of the covenant?

You see, your answer makes for a much issue. This is exactly where the federal vision says yes, he can be cut out of the internal, salvific covenant.[/quote:326dfdc3d8]

Fred,
Calvin is "presuming" that this child is eternally saved. This just adds to my claim that historically the church held this view. We presume that the covenant child is regenerate, hence heaven bound. There is no sin in erroneously presuming; we do this with all the members of the body-no? We look at the people in our congragation as "members". The internal or external does not come into play. Our treatment of the child would be no different than the evangelizing of the non covenant member. Ultimately, this 'presumed' child that rejects Christ eventually, proves that the presumption was erred. The child was never part of the internal church, but a member of the external.

As I had previously stated, surely Abraham thought along these lines. The book of Hebrews speaks of the level of faith that Abraham had. Let it be said that we all have the same level.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 5, 2004)

[quote:19a360e99d="fredtgreco"][quote:19a360e99d="Scott Bushey"]Fred,
When Calvin uses the term "adoption into the covenant of [i:19a360e99d] eternal life[/i:19a360e99d] is he not refering to salvatuion? How else could one interpret this phrase? Those in the external covenant do not have adoption in this manner.[/quote:19a360e99d]

Ok, then. If that is what Calvin means, what do we do with the single child of the covenant who clearly and unrepentantly rejects Christ? Has he "lost his salvation" ? Has he been cut out of the internal administration of the covenant?

You see, your answer makes for a much issue. This is exactly where the federal vision says yes, he can be cut out of the internal, salvific covenant.[/quote:19a360e99d]

You have the same dilemma and the same answer with the adult Fred. When a professing adult rebels for the rest of his life, he doesn't lose his salvation. He just shows that he never had it. But while he was making profession, we still treated him as a Christian. 

I guess the problem really comes down to this: what does it mean to be members of the visible church and members of the covenant? What is different about us from the rest of the world? And how does that apply to our children?


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 5, 2004)

[quote:8625a33997="puritansailor"][quote:8625a33997="fredtgreco"][quote:8625a33997="Scott Bushey"]Fred,
When Calvin uses the term "adoption into the covenant of [i:8625a33997] eternal life[/i:8625a33997] is he not refering to salvatuion? How else could one interpret this phrase? Those in the external covenant do not have adoption in this manner.[/quote:8625a33997]

Ok, then. If that is what Calvin means, what do we do with the single child of the covenant who clearly and unrepentantly rejects Christ? Has he "lost his salvation" ? Has he been cut out of the internal administration of the covenant?

You see, your answer makes for a much issue. This is exactly where the federal vision says yes, he can be cut out of the internal, salvific covenant.[/quote:8625a33997]

You have the same dilemma and the same answer with the adult Fred. When a professing adult rebels for the rest of his life, he doesn't lose his salvation. He just shows that he never had it. But while he was making profession, we still treated him as a Christian. 

I guess the problem really comes down to this: what does it mean to be members of the visible church and members of the covenant? What is different about us from the rest of the world? And how does that apply to our children?[/quote:8625a33997]

Patrick,

Isn't it the case that even with the professing adult we do not have in view the internal administration of the covenant (regeneration) but rather the external (profession) ?

What is different is that we are set apart from the world (one of the purposes of the Sacraments, according to Westminster) and partake of the blessings (and cursings) of the covenant.

In my mind, the main difference between P/E and P/R is that the P/E advocate believes the promise of God and looks for the outworkings of the power of God in the child, confident that God will work; whereas the P/R advocate (at least as I read Schenck and everyone who quotes him, aside from Matt and Scott) believes the promise of God and looks only for clear evidence of [i:8625a33997]rejection[/i:8625a33997] of God. So, unless a child outright rejects the gospel in an obvious fashion, he is told that he is a Christian. Many P/R advocates (again, [i:8625a33997]pace[/i:8625a33997] Matt & Scott) will claim that it is sinful and wicked to tell children that they ought to believe and repent. They don't need to - they are already Christians!


----------



## kceaster (Aug 5, 2004)

*Fred...*

With regard to it being sinful and wicked to tell a child to repent and believe, why is it looked at that way?

Are not all men to be told to repent and believe? Are they speaking of the Revivalistic message, i.e., walk the aisle type repent and believe, or do they actually see no reason for daily repentance and belief.

I should think that any of the Reformed would place great significance on repentance daily, and walking by faith in the Lord.

Are these P/R guys different?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 5, 2004)

[quote:804a09f62a="fredtgreco"][quote:804a09f62a="puritansailor"][quote:804a09f62a="fredtgreco"][quote:804a09f62a="Scott Bushey"]Fred,
When Calvin uses the term "adoption into the covenant of [i:804a09f62a] eternal life[/i:804a09f62a] is he not refering to salvatuion? How else could one interpret this phrase? Those in the external covenant do not have adoption in this manner.[/quote:804a09f62a]

Ok, then. If that is what Calvin means, what do we do with the single child of the covenant who clearly and unrepentantly rejects Christ? Has he "lost his salvation" ? Has he been cut out of the internal administration of the covenant?

You see, your answer makes for a much issue. This is exactly where the federal vision says yes, he can be cut out of the internal, salvific covenant.[/quote:804a09f62a]

You have the same dilemma and the same answer with the adult Fred. When a professing adult rebels for the rest of his life, he doesn't lose his salvation. He just shows that he never had it. But while he was making profession, we still treated him as a Christian. 

I guess the problem really comes down to this: what does it mean to be members of the visible church and members of the covenant? What is different about us from the rest of the world? And how does that apply to our children?[/quote:804a09f62a]

Patrick,

Isn't it the case that even with the professing adult we do not have in view the internal administration of the covenant (regeneration) but rather the external (profession) ?
[/quote:804a09f62a]
Yes. That is the case. That is why we presume rather than know absolutely as God does. But when we presume children are members of the church, we are saying they are different from the world. They belong to God and must be raised accordingly. The only way we can belong to God's people in the absolute sense, is to be born again. As a visible church, we must still reflect this idea. We admit adults into the church, when on some conditional grounds, they appear regenerate. Children as well, must reflect this ideal too. If they are part of the visible people of God, then they must be presumed regenerate, because they can't be part of the invisible church of God without it. And we both know that membership in the visible church is conditional, but it still must reflect the invisible as best as it can. We treat all those in the visible church as Christians, as if they were part of the invisible, unless their profession demonstrates fruit to the contrary.

[quote:804a09f62a]
What is different is that we are set apart from the world (one of the purposes of the Sacraments, according to Westminster) and partake of the blessings (and cursings) of the covenant.

In my mind, the main difference between P/E and P/R is that the P/E advocate believes the promise of God and looks for the outworkings of the power of God in the child, confident that God will work; whereas the P/R advocate (at least as I read Schenck and everyone who quotes him, aside from Matt and Scott) believes the promise of God and looks only for clear evidence of [i:804a09f62a]rejection[/i:804a09f62a] of God. So, unless a child outright rejects the gospel in an obvious fashion, he is told that he is a Christian. Many P/R advocates (again, [i:804a09f62a]pace[/i:804a09f62a] Matt & Scott) will claim that it is sinful and wicked to tell children that they ought to believe and repent. They don't need to - they are already Christians![/quote:804a09f62a]

I haven't read Shenck's book so I can't comment on him. But I know I don't agree with the Auburn guys. I will teach my children to repent and believe because God tells them to repent and believe. I will teach them to examine themselves, because God tells them to examine themselves to make their calling an election sure, and that not all Israel are Israel. They must be raised under the whole counsel of God's Word. But they are still part of the visible church, God's covenant people, and must be taught to live accordingly. We must still look to the promises of God to "outwork" in our children because they are not born mature men and we do know the reality that their may be a Mannaseh in the lot. But they are babes, and must be treated according to their maturity level. When I see fruit contrary to what the Bible teaches then I warn them with the Bible. I don't see the how this leads to neglecting our children. 

Maybe what I'm saying isn't PR according to some. I guess this is the difficulty with using the term PR (and I don't think it is the best term to describe this idea) when there are so many who have used it as grounds for neglecting their duties to their children (i.e. CRC, Auburn, etc.). But the idea itself must be refuted on it's own terms, not because someone else claims this doctrine and uses it as an excuse to sin. If that were the case, the gospel itself would be refuted because many use it as an excuse to antinomianism. Are they right to do so? Absolutely not. But neither are PRer's right to use that concept as an excuse to neglect their children. It is in fact the very reason they are to nurture their holy children in the ways of the Lord.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 5, 2004)

Patrick:

Not the CRC!!!!!!. That where my concept of it comes from, and it's no different than what you are saying, at least so far. But neither is it as Fred defined it, as you quote above. Sure, the CRC has grown lax in many areas, including the administration of baptism to children and the way it is regarded anymore. But the proper PR, as I know it now, has its origin for me in the CRC, where I grew up and was taught it. The improper PR, which our Baptist friends fear, and which has been raised as a red herring by other Dutch Reformed groups is what was clearly warned against in my former CRC. If the CRC as a denomination has adopted the presumption that Kuyper taught, and which later produced such a sour impression of it, then that is completely strange to me as a former member of it. Then my church must have been an anonomly. It was something we overtly and specifically rejected; and I can't believe that we were all alone in that. The official CRC stance on many things did not reflect the faith of the CRCs in the denomination. That was part of the alienation between the orgnanizational church and the particular churches which eventually caused schism and will likely cause more. The CRC organiztion, i.e., Synods, the seminary, and the college, did a lot of things that were not in keeping with the denomination as an organism.

If it were so, that the CRC held to the other PR, then the URC would have inherited it. But the URC is not accused of it, and is even in the midst of merging with the CanRC. That must testify to something.

But having that all said, I'd like to ask if telling Covenant children to repent and believe being a sinful abrogation of the Covenant is necessarily, (that is, follows logically) from PR? If so, how? I think that if we follow the logic through carefully that we will see that it depends a great deal on what is meant by that, over and above what we would ask of any other adult member of the Covenant. Asking a child to live like a Christian is surely different in nature to asking a grown adult to live like a Christian. I would suggest that it would fall out no different for PE than it does for PR in admonishing children in the faith. In other words, I am suggesting that the Matt and Scott PR is in nature logically and administratively no different than Fred's PE. The difference is in the notions applied to convey it. 

This is a fancy way, I guess, of saying I still don't get the difference.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 5, 2004)

John, you're right. I should be more careful about generalizations like that. I'm sorry.


----------



## FrozenChosen (Aug 6, 2004)

*head explodes*


----------



## JohnV (Aug 7, 2004)

[quote:d703094a84]Not the CRC!!!!!!. That where my concept of it comes from, and it's no different than what you are saying, at least so far. But neither is [it as](that is, different from that which) Fred defined it, as you quote above. [/quote:d703094a84]
Just to clarify:
I see that I misspoke myself above. What I meant to say was that what I have always believed concerning the reasons why we baptize childen, which I was taught in the CRC, is no different than either what you or what Fred says. We never made the distinctions, as I recall, or even heard of Presumptive Election. We didn't even really call it Presumptive Regeneration, except for the fact that we were accused of holding it by other Reforned circles. It is really only lately that I myself have come to understand that the term, rightly used, is a good description of what I have been taught. But the grounding of including children in the Covenant has always been there.

So I am not that tied up with the use of the term. And I am open to the concepts of PE, but I have yet to be made to see yet how it adds to what believe concerning our children. 

Right now, I am wrestling further with something else I said above, doing a "rethink" on it; namely, that infant baptism obviates Paedo communion. It is clear to me, but I am still forming the arguments in my own mind yet. If I am going to make such sharp distinctions, then would it not also follow that I should make these same distinctions with PE as well? That gives Fred's thesis new emphasis for me. And that is what I meant to allude to, not that it was a totally different or strange idea to what I was taught.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 7, 2004)

[quote:bf8eebd87f="JohnV"]Right now, I am wrestling further with something else I said above, doing a "rethink" on it; namely, that infant baptism obviates Paedo communion. It is clear to me, but I am still forming the arguments in my own mind yet. If I am going to make such sharp distinctions, then would it not also follow that I should make these same distinctions with PE as well? That gives Fred's thesis new emphasis for me. And that is what I meant to allude to, not that it was a totally different or strange idea to what I was taught.[/quote:bf8eebd87f]

John,

Could you explain this to me a bit more. I confess I am a bit lost.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 7, 2004)

[quote:a77a1ca1b9]John, 

Could you explain this to me a bit more. I confess I am a bit lost. 
[/quote:a77a1ca1b9]
It goes like this (Still in rough form): 
The sacraments are signs and seals of the Covenant of grace. They are God's indication of inclusion to the Church. They do not do any actual sealing or signing in and of themselves, such as there being anything in the water or the bread and wine that conveys actual grace to the people. It is the witness of the Covenant in visible form. And the grace that is received by them is the same grace that we receive in the preaching of the Word.

There are two sacraments. That means that there must be two separate and distinct forms of that witness. The fact that baptism is that particular one which includes children, it would follow that the Lords Supper is the more specific sacrament rooted in the death and resurrection of Christ, being the sign to us of being included in the Covenant by faith in it. That is, it is a sing and seal to the people of God, but focuses more on the central gospel message than on the paramaters of the covenant community, while baptism focuses more on the community than on the message of the gospel. Not that one is to the exclusion of the other; not at all. But one leans one way, the other leans the other way.

It seems to me that if children are included in baptism, then that would mean that children do not have to be included in the Lord's Supper. And since the Lord's Supper bears the admonition to also see to a closer observance of it, giving solemn warnings concerning the actual personal responsibility of participation, it seems to me that we have baptism particularly as a second sacrament so that the Lord's Supper should be an adult sacrament. The fact that we have a sacrament that includes children seems to me to point toward the fact that the Lords' Supper does not include children. 

Put the other way, if children are to be included in the Lord's Supper, what need is there then of infant baptism? It is basically reduced to an entrance rite. But as it has always meant more than that, it is an assurance of the promises of graces of salvation from then on, and not only entrance into the Covenant. 

We have tended, in our circles, to view the sacraments as stages. We develope, so to speak, from novice, to baptism, to profession of faith, to Lord's Supper. But that is not how it actually is. Being members of the Covenant privileges all to all the signs and seals. The Paedo-Communionists have that part of it right. But, the sacrament of Lord's Supper, as a sign of membership in the Covenant, is a different sign than baptism, and is to be ragarded for that difference. And since children are included in sacrament of baptism, and it is specific in that, it would follow that the specific inclusion for Lord's Supper is different. Rather than it being an argument in favour of including children to the Lord's Table, it is an argument for exclusion.

I'm having a hard time explaining it yet. I'm still working on it. And I may be wrong. It appeared to me that the distinction between the two sacraments were clearer if children were not included than if they were. The meanings of the two appeared confused if children were to be included. And I'm still working on what it is that appears to me to be confusing, or even obfuscating, if that be the case.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 7, 2004)

Sorry Fred, I had to go back and look up the quote from your post a while back. Here it is.

[quote:bdd6949025]Because regeneration is a change of state in a person. Election is not. While regeneration is not conversion, it is an act in the ordo salutis that has objective effect on the person so regenerated. 

To presume that one is regenerate presumes that no need of a work is necessary. For the Word does not "convert" it makes alive (1 Peter 1:23; James 1:18). If one is already alive, he has no need of the gospel. He simply needs to be told that he is a Christian and should act like one. This is Wilson's position, and it blurs the visible/invisible church.[/quote:bdd6949025]

Now this is how it relates. If you are right about the difference between presuming regeneration and presuming election, and the latter is to be preferred to the former, then that distinction between the sacraments is even more upheld, it seems to me. And therefore the argument would not again sway to the paedo-communion side. I have thought that presuming election was harder to defend than presuming regeneration. But apparently it is not. And it seems now that presuming regeneration may be
swaying the argument back toward the paedo-communion side. I still don't think it does, but it does require more thought on my part. PR may tend to confuse the sacraments a bit more than PE. 

First, though, I've got to look into the distinctions between the sacraments more so see if what I had a notion of holds any water. And before I can bring it up as a subject for discussion I need to be able to have a clearer view of it to be able to articulate it better. 

Maybe I've gotten some of it across? This really belongs in another thread. But it is definitely related to this topic.


----------

