# Robert L. Reymond on Baptism



## Learner (Oct 8, 2004)

The folllowing are from his Systematic Theology.


Though not denying that covenant children have the right to covenant baptism , James Henley Thornwell and Robert Lewis Dabney , for example , held that children of believers " are to be regarded as ' of the world and in the church ' and ' as unregenerate until their personal faith and repentance are evident ' " ( page 947 )


Neither my own nor the Westminster Assembly's statements should be construed as advocating baptismal regeneration or baptismal salvation , for neither regards the covenant child as necessarily regenerate or saved by virtue of his covenant status or his baptism . ( page 948 )


[ In a footnote on the same page , Reymond notes ]... : It is true that some Reformed theologians ( e. g. , Ursinus , Polanus , Cloppenburg , Voetius , Witsius ) have taught that covenant children , are regenerated from earliest childhood , are united to Christ , and are therefore entitled to baptism . Other Reformed writers ( e.g. , Zanchius , Ames , Spanheim , Ussher ) hesitate to make any stipulation as to the time of regeneration for covenant children . I count myself among this latter group .


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 8, 2004)

[quote:8e746b34d8="Learner"]The folllowing are from his Systematic Theology.


Though not denying that covenant children have the right to covenant baptism , James Henley Thornwell and Robert Lewis Dabney , for example , held that children of believers " are to be regarded as ' of the world and in the church ' and ' as unregenerate until their personal faith and repentance are evident ' " ( page 947 )[/quote:8e746b34d8]

Dabney and Thornwell are wrong and are not in step with the general reformed understanding of covent theology, i.e. the Westminster devines. 

[quote:8e746b34d8] Neither my own nor the Westminster Assembly's statements should be construed as advocating baptismal regeneration or baptismal salvation , for neither regards the covenant child as necessarily regenerate or saved by virtue of his covenant status or his baptism . ( page 948 )[/quote:8e746b34d8]

This is true. However, this does not create a conflict in regards to how the reformed presume that their children are faithfully regenerated according to the power of Gos promise alone.


[/quote] [ In a footnote on the same page , Reymond notes ]... : It is true that some Reformed theologians ( e. g. , Ursinus , Polanus , Cloppenburg , Voetius , Witsius ) have taught that covenant children , are regenerated from earliest childhood , are united to Christ , and are therefore entitled to baptism . Other Reformed writers ( e.g. , Zanchius , Ames , Spanheim , Ussher ) hesitate to make any stipulation as to the time of regeneration for covenant children . I count myself among this latter group .[/quote]

I presume my children are regenerate from the womb unless otherwise noted; God is faithful, men are faithless.


----------



## AdamM (Oct 8, 2004)

[quote:bd462e5818] Dabney and Thornwell are wrong and are not in step with the general reformed understanding of covent theology, i.e. the Westminster devines. [/quote:bd462e5818]

Hi Scott,

I am wondering why you think the Puritans spent so much time speaking about and writing on the doctrine of conversion if they presumed the regeneration of all baptised members of the visible church? 

For what it's worth, I tend to agree with Ferguson's position as he layed it out during his lecture at the recent WCF 21st Century Conference (that he claims is the WCF position) that we navigate a course that rejects both presumptive regeneration and presumptive non-regeneration in favor of raising our children in an atmosphere "covenant consciousness." I can detail what that means later, but I do think the middle course best fits the teaching of the WCF.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 8, 2004)

[quote:8cccd17eee="AdamM"][quote:8cccd17eee] Dabney and Thornwell are wrong and are not in step with the general reformed understanding of covent theology, i.e. the Westminster devines. [/quote:8cccd17eee]

Hi Scott,

I am wondering why you think the Puritans spent so much time speaking about and writing on the doctrine of conversion if they presumed the regeneration of all baptised members of the visible church? 
[/quote:8cccd17eee]

Because that was their job as faithful pastors. The Bible teaches the need for conversion, hence you teach it to all the congregation. Plus, you do not know who may have a false profession among the believers. The faithful preaching of the Word will find these guys out.


----------



## AdamM (Oct 8, 2004)

[quote:ff07209639] Because that was their job as faithful pastors. The Bible teaches the need for conversion, hence you teach it to all the congregation. Plus, you do not know who may have a false profession among the believers. [/quote:ff07209639]

A faithful parent like the faithful pastor teaches the need for conversion to thier children. There is always the call for our covenant children to "close with Christ" by personal faith as the Purtians referred to it or as the LC states "improve our baptism."


----------



## Ianterrell (Oct 8, 2004)

"[ In a footnote on the same page , Reymond notes ]... : It is true that some Reformed theologians ( e. g. , Ursinus , Polanus , Cloppenburg , Voetius , Witsius ) have taught that covenant children , are regenerated from earliest childhood ,"

I don't think that's an accurate articulation of their stance. I'm skeptical that any of those guys taught that covenant kids necessarily are regenerate. Does he provide citation to prove this?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 8, 2004)

[quote:22d6acb902="AdamM"][quote:22d6acb902] Because that was their job as faithful pastors. The Bible teaches the need for conversion, hence you teach it to all the congregation. Plus, you do not know who may have a false profession among the believers. [/quote:22d6acb902]

A faithful parent like the faithful pastor teaches the need for conversion to thier children. There is always the call for our covenant children to "close with Christ" by personal faith as the Purtians referred to it or as the LC states "improve our baptism."[/quote:22d6acb902]

Exactly. Their view of presumptive regeneration did not cause them to neglect teaching their children their responsibilities, mainly, teaching them the whole counsel of God's Word, not just the stuff that "applies."


----------



## Scott (Oct 8, 2004)

American Presbytrianism has been deeply influenced and captured by revivalism, which requires a sort of crises realization of sin and a moment of decision. It is not surprising to see American theologians take this view. It is not in step with the magisterial Reformation. 

Sometimes a page of history is worth a volume of logic, as people say. I would refer you to a few of the essays on the history American presbyterianism in relation to revivalism by D.G. Hart in Recovering Mother Kirk. 

The victory of revivalism is one reason the institutional church, ministers, and the sacraments are held in such low regard in conservative low-church bodies (contrary to the Reformation).


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 8, 2004)

Amen Patrick; amen Scott!

For the others; I believe you are unintentionally intermingling two seperate components of soteriology, i.e regeneration and conversion. Regeneration does not necessarily require the preached word, conversion does. The reformers who holds fast to the doctrine of presumptive regeneration, hold even faster to the preaching of the word and the godly rearment of their offspring. Without these principles,how could their child be converted.


----------



## AdamM (Oct 8, 2004)

[quote:f35abb1abc] For the others; I believe you are unintentionally intermingling two seperate components of soteriology, i.e regeneration and conversion. Regeneration does not necessarily require the preached word, conversion does. [/quote:f35abb1abc]

Are you implying that there is a meaningful temporal gap between regeneration and conversion? That would be a very unusual position to take since the application of the benefts of Christ is a unitary process, with the various components distinguished for purposes of a logical order. 

For example, under the senario you are suggesting, I assume you are saying that a regenerated person who has union with Christ could be walking around without at the same time being justified or sanctified (both definitive and progessive?) Or perhaps you are saying that a person could be regenerated without having union with Christ? Or you can have union with Christ and not receive all the benefits of that union? 

I am very curious Brother how you work that out in terms of the ordo?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 9, 2004)

Are there not seperate components to the ordo? Who says that the ordo is simultaneous? [quote:043cdf24f4]Are you implying that there is a meaningful temporal gap between regeneration and conversion?[/quote:043cdf24f4]

Why is this so difficult to assimilate?

[quote:043cdf24f4]unusual position to take since the application of the benefts of Christ is a unitary process, with the various components distinguished for purposes of a logical order.[/quote:043cdf24f4]

There are a couple of things here which need distinguishing. For instance, are you now intermingling the components of justification and sanctification? What we should probably do is first try and distinguish the difference between regeneration and conversion. You do agree that they are not the same thing, correct?


----------

