# Is presupmtive regeneration a legitimately Presbyterian point of view?



## jwright82

I have been reading a lot of Berkhof latley and he mentions presumptive regeneration as a possible Presbyterian point of view regarding infant baptism, but rightly points out it should not be the basis for infant baptism because the covenant is the legal basis for infant baptism. What is the modern day sentiment regarding this viewpoint?


----------



## Christusregnat

What, pray tell, are we supposed to presume about our children? That they are holy, or that they are unholy? If holy, how do they become so?


----------



## Poimen

I believe that presumptive regeneration remains a distinctly (Dutch) Reformed development as I know few historical or modern Presbyterians that hold to this doctrine. And, if so, it would have to be defended on a non-confessional basis.


----------



## Ne Oublie

Joe Morecraft holds to this view in which he claims that Calvin did also.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=7230817052


----------



## jwright82

> I believe that presumptive regeneration remains a distinctly (Dutch) Reformed development as I know few historical or modern Presbyterians that hold to this doctrine. And, if so, it would have to be defended on a non-confessional basis.



What in the conffession rules it out as a legitemate point of view?


----------



## Poimen

jwright82 said:


> I believe that presumptive regeneration remains a distinctly (Dutch) Reformed development as I know few historical or modern Presbyterians that hold to this doctrine. And, if so, it would have to be defended on a non-confessional basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What in the conffession rules it out as a legitemate point of view?
Click to expand...


The fact that it is not found in the confession, i.e. non-confessional.


----------



## JOwen

jwright82 said:


> I believe that presumptive regeneration remains a distinctly (Dutch) Reformed development as I know few historical or modern Presbyterians that hold to this doctrine. And, if so, it would have to be defended on a non-confessional basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What in the conffession rules it out as a legitemate point of view?
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Here is Berkhof to put what he wrote in context:


> 2. SINCE THE REFORMATION. The Lutheran Reformation did not entirely rid itself of the Roman Catholic conception of the sacraments. Luther did not regard the water in baptism as common water, but as a water which had become, through the Word with its inherent divine power, a gracious water of life, a washing of regeneration. Through this divine efficacy of the Word the sacrament effects regeneration. In the case of adults Luther made the effect of baptism dependent on faith in the recipient. Realizing that he could not consider it so in the case of children, who cannot exercise faith, he at one time held that God by His prevenient grace works faith in the unconscious child, but later on professed ignorance on this point. Later Lutheran theologians retained the idea of an infant-faith as a precondition for baptism, while others conceived of baptism as producing such a faith immediately. This in some cases led on to the idea that the sacrament works ex opere operato. Anabaptists cut the Gordian knot of Luther by denying the legitimacy of infant baptism. They insisted on baptizing all applicants for admission to their circle, who had received the sacrament in infancy, and did not regard this as a re-baptism, but as the first true baptism. With them children had no standing in the Church. Calvin and Reformed theology proceeded on the assumption that baptism is instituted for believers, and does not work but strengthens the new life. They were naturally confronted with the question as to how infants could be regarded as believers, and how they could be strengthened spiritually, seeing that they could not yet exercise faith. Some simply pointed out that infants born of believing parents are children of the covenant, and as such heirs of the promises of God, including also the promise of regeneration; and that the spiritual efficacy of baptism is not limited to the time of its administration, but continues through life. The Belgic Confession also expresses that idea in these words: “Neither does this baptism avail us only at the time when water is poured upon us, and received by us, but also through the whole course of our life.” *Others went beyond this position and maintained that the children of the covenant were to be regarded as presumptively regenerated. This is not equivalent to saying that they are all regenerated, when they are presented for baptism, but that they are assumed to be regenerated until the contrary appears from their lives.* There were also a few who regarded baptism as nothing more than the sign of an external covenant. Under the influence of Socinians, Arminians, Anabaptists, and Rationalists, it has become quite customary in many circles to deny that baptism is a seal of divine grace, and to regard it as a mere act of profession on the part of man. In our day many professing Christians have completely lost the consciousness of the spiritual significance of baptism. It has become a mere formality.
> 
> Berkhof, L. (1938). Systematic theology (627). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co.



Another way of stating this is a judgment of charity. I would argue that we presume that all baptized members of a congregation are presumed regenerate until the contrary appears in their lives. We don't act _presumptuously_ and assume hidden knowledge that God does not have but we also don't tell disciples to pray "...only if you're regenerate." We exhort men and women and children to press in, assume the best in them, and let God be Sovereign in how He uses the means of grace He has ordained. Every night, I pray with my kids that the Lord would convert their hearts by the Word and to humble them through prayer. I pray the same for myself and Sonya.

There is a difference, then, between a Lutheran notion that insists that regeneration accompanies baptism and Berkhof's use of the term presumptive regeneration.


----------



## Idelette

As far as modern day presbyterians, I thought Federal Vision groups and people like Sproul Jr. held to presumptive regeneration? It would be more in line with their theology. Does anyone have any more information?


----------



## Ne Oublie

What about presuming that children, that are born to believing parents, are not regenerate?


----------



## jwright82

Semper Fidelis said:


> Here is Berkhof to put what he wrote in context:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. SINCE THE REFORMATION. The Lutheran Reformation did not entirely rid itself of the Roman Catholic conception of the sacraments. Luther did not regard the water in baptism as common water, but as a water which had become, through the Word with its inherent divine power, a gracious water of life, a washing of regeneration. Through this divine efficacy of the Word the sacrament effects regeneration. In the case of adults Luther made the effect of baptism dependent on faith in the recipient. Realizing that he could not consider it so in the case of children, who cannot exercise faith, he at one time held that God by His prevenient grace works faith in the unconscious child, but later on professed ignorance on this point. Later Lutheran theologians retained the idea of an infant-faith as a precondition for baptism, while others conceived of baptism as producing such a faith immediately. This in some cases led on to the idea that the sacrament works ex opere operato. Anabaptists cut the Gordian knot of Luther by denying the legitimacy of infant baptism. They insisted on baptizing all applicants for admission to their circle, who had received the sacrament in infancy, and did not regard this as a re-baptism, but as the first true baptism. With them children had no standing in the Church. Calvin and Reformed theology proceeded on the assumption that baptism is instituted for believers, and does not work but strengthens the new life. They were naturally confronted with the question as to how infants could be regarded as believers, and how they could be strengthened spiritually, seeing that they could not yet exercise faith. Some simply pointed out that infants born of believing parents are children of the covenant, and as such heirs of the promises of God, including also the promise of regeneration; and that the spiritual efficacy of baptism is not limited to the time of its administration, but continues through life. The Belgic Confession also expresses that idea in these words: “Neither does this baptism avail us only at the time when water is poured upon us, and received by us, but also through the whole course of our life.” *Others went beyond this position and maintained that the children of the covenant were to be regarded as presumptively regenerated. This is not equivalent to saying that they are all regenerated, when they are presented for baptism, but that they are assumed to be regenerated until the contrary appears from their lives.* There were also a few who regarded baptism as nothing more than the sign of an external covenant. Under the influence of Socinians, Arminians, Anabaptists, and Rationalists, it has become quite customary in many circles to deny that baptism is a seal of divine grace, and to regard it as a mere act of profession on the part of man. In our day many professing Christians have completely lost the consciousness of the spiritual significance of baptism. It has become a mere formality.
> 
> Berkhof, L. (1938). Systematic theology (627). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another way of stating this is a judgment of charity. I would argue that we presume that all baptized members of a congregation are presumed regenerate until the contrary appears in their lives. We don't act _presumptuously_ and assume hidden knowledge that God does not have but we also don't tell disciples to pray "...only if you're regenerate." We exhort men and women and children to press in, assume the best in them, and let God be Sovereign in how He uses the means of grace He has ordained. Every night, I pray with my kids that the Lord would convert their hearts by the Word and to humble them through prayer. I pray the same for myself and Sonya.
> 
> There is a difference, then, between a Lutheran notion that insists that regeneration accompanies baptism and Berkhof's use of the term presumptive regeneration.
Click to expand...

 
Actually the part that I was refering to was the part on page 641-642 section _d. Infant Baptism as a means of Grace_, he lists it as one of three different opinions on how it functions as a means of grace.

---------- Post added at 08:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:41 PM ----------

Also Rich I don't understand presumptive regeneration to mean what you seem to be suggesting it meant. Since I know you have Berkhof's work read the section I refrenced and you we'll see what I am talking about.

---------- Post added at 08:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:43 PM ----------




Poimen said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that presumptive regeneration remains a distinctly (Dutch) Reformed development as I know few historical or modern Presbyterians that hold to this doctrine. And, if so, it would have to be defended on a non-confessional basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What in the conffession rules it out as a legitemate point of view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that it is not found in the confession, i.e. non-confessional.
Click to expand...

 
Well I am sure that you mean well but that is a circuler argument and so I am still left in the dark as to what you exactlly are refering to.

---------- Post added at 08:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ----------




JOwen said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that presumptive regeneration remains a distinctly (Dutch) Reformed development as I know few historical or modern Presbyterians that hold to this doctrine. And, if so, it would have to be defended on a non-confessional basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What in the conffession rules it out as a legitemate point of view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> VI. The efficacy of Baptism i*s not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered*;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) *as that grace belongs unto,* according to the counsel of God's own will, in *His appointed time*.[17]
Click to expand...

 
It does not also say that it is tied to the future exclusivly it leaves open the possibility for the Holy Spirit to work in any way He sees fit, which could be at the moment of Baptism or not.

---------- Post added at 08:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:47 PM ----------




Idelette said:


> As far as modern day presbyterians, I thought Federal Vision groups and people like Sproul Jr. held to presumptive regeneration? It would be more in line with their theology. Does anyone have any more information?


 
I think you mean baptismal regeneration, presumptive regeneration is a possible subjective response by the parents or pastor or congregation member that the child being baptized is either regenerated or an heir to the promises exhibited, sighnified, sealed, and confered in the sacrament until he or she proves themselves not to be. Baptismal regeneration is an objective view about the sacrament that it confers grace to everyone baptized regardless of their spiritual status. Like the Lutherans FVers make Faith the difference between the sacrament being a blessing or a curse.


----------



## Idelette

Actually, I wasn't referring to baptismal regeneration. I was referring specifically to presumptive regeneration which does go hand in hand with baptismal regeneration as well as paedocommunion. I know many say that not all that hold PR hold to PC, but almost all that hold to PC do hold to PR. So, I was simply pointing out, that today it is not only a Dutch Reformed influence but a Federal Vision issue as well.


----------



## jwright82

Ne Oublie said:


> What about presuming that children, that are born to believing parents, are not regenerate?


 
The Heidleberg Catechism question 74 answers that nicley in the first 3 sentences, though not every person that is baptized recieves the grace offered in them.



> 74. Q. Should infants, too, be baptized?
> A. Yes. Infants as well as adults belong to God's covenant and congregation. Through Christ's blood the redemption from sin and the Holy Spirit, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to adults.




---------- Post added at 09:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:02 PM ----------




Idelette said:


> Actually, I wasn't referring to baptismal regeneration. I was referring specifically to presumptive regeneration which does go hand in hand with baptismal regeneration as well as paedocommunion. I know many say that not all that hold PR hold to PC, but almost all that hold to PC do hold to PR. So, I was simply pointing out, that today it is not only a Dutch Reformed influence but a Federal Vision issue as well.


 
I'm reading about FV and it is specifically baptismal regeration that they are being criticized for. I could be wrong but I always read baptismal regeration that was a problem for everyone. Either way I'm not a FV guy and I never will be. I am very generous when it comes to disagreements where one side is screaming you are misinterpreting us, but in this situation the critics are dead on.

---------- Post added at 09:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:08 PM ----------




> Actually, I wasn't referring to baptismal regeneration. I was referring specifically to presumptive regeneration which does go hand in hand with baptismal regeneration as well as paedocommunion.



Your going to have to explain the connection between between presumptive regeneration going "hand and hand" with those two unconffessional and heretical viewpoints.

---------- Post added at 09:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 PM ----------

Here is a wonderful article on this:

A Catechism on Infant Inclusion in the Covenant of Grace.


----------



## jogri17

I was actually just reading a bit on this. I would say there are three ways to view Covenant Children without going to the heresies of Rome and incredulity of anabaptism. Of course there are all sorts of varities between each one and some persons try to hold feet in more than 1, but I think this presentation is helpful.

1. Standard Dutch presumptive regeneration view (Abraham Kuyper)
2. Normally presuming Children will be naturally regenerated (John Murray, Joel beeke)
3. Children are to be considered evil little sinners but considered holy in a sense because of their closeness to the visible church and they receive the sign of the covenant because of the wide open invitation of gospel (Gospel is given to all sinners, so baptism reflects that by giving it to children of believers- unregenerate enemies of God that God calls to himself in a special and unique way). (This is advocated by R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Jonathan Edwards)
*note the puritan movement leaned torwards 3 while the nadre reformatie-i.e. dutch leaned torward the second. 

While, I consider presumptive regeneration horribly wrong and dangerous to the Gospel, I do not think it is anti-confessional. I think, it would be wise to to ammend the confessions to exlude this belief but as of yet I do not think it is a disciplinable offense (in a couple smaller dutch churches it is though). I personally tend to lean torward option 3, but I have to pull myself back because I am in a sense over emphesiing the subjective aspect to salvation (as opposed to option 2 which tends to grant a more objective sense). But leaning to hard into 2, gets you far to easily into cultural/nominal christianity which looses the Gospel, and gets people trusting in sacraments and church attendance in effect for their salvation. The third, also can fall into the standard dangers of revivalism and lead to an unhealthy emphesis in experience. 

Just some random thoughts


----------



## jwright82

Idelette this second article by the same author answers your point about FV:
The New Catechism on Infant Inclusion in the Covenant - a defense.

jogri17, read the first article I presented it may surprise how traditional this view is, being argued by the author of the paper of course.


----------



## fredtgreco

Idelette said:


> Actually, I wasn't referring to baptismal regeneration. I was referring specifically to presumptive regeneration which does go hand in hand with baptismal regeneration as well as paedocommunion. I know many say that not all that hold PR hold to PC, but almost all that hold to PC do hold to PR. So, I was simply pointing out, that today it is not only a Dutch Reformed influence but a Federal Vision issue as well.


 
A search of the archives would show many, many discussions about presumptive regeneration. I find it to be unpersuasive. I prefer to think in terms of presumptive election.


----------



## Steve Curtis

Idelette said:


> Actually, I wasn't referring to baptismal regeneration. I was referring specifically to presumptive regeneration which does go hand in hand with baptismal regeneration as well as paedocommunion. I know many say that not all that hold PR hold to PC, but almost all that hold to PC do hold to PR. So, I was simply pointing out, that today it is not only a Dutch Reformed influence but a Federal Vision issue as well.



I know that Sproul, Jr. has been criticized for his weak rebuttal of FV, but he claims to have no part in it here, saying "I do not now believe in it, nor have I ever. " He does believe in PC, but I do not know where he is on PR. If there are any links, I would appreciate them!


----------



## CharlieJ

To the OP, another resource that may get you thinking more about this is The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant by Lewis Schenck. He thinks that most Presbyterians took a bit stronger view until the 19th century Southern Presbyterians watered it down a bit.


----------



## Idelette

jwright82 said:


> Idelette this second article by the same author answers your point about FV:
> The New Catechism on Infant Inclusion in the Covenant - a defense.


 
As Fred pointed out, there a dozen threads on the PB regarding this topic that you can look up if you'd like to look them up. This is an excellent resource if you'd like to study more on these topics: http://www.wscal.edu/clark/fvnpp.php Ultimately, FV and paedocommunion groups would disagree with the New Covenant article that you posted above. They deny presumptive regeneration and they deny baptismal regeneration, yet practically speaking, they very much so are in line with that theology and it is simply semantics that we may differ over.

---------- Post added at 09:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:05 PM ----------




kainos01 said:


> Idelette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I wasn't referring to baptismal regeneration. I was referring specifically to presumptive regeneration which does go hand in hand with baptismal regeneration as well as paedocommunion. I know many say that not all that hold PR hold to PC, but almost all that hold to PC do hold to PR. So, I was simply pointing out, that today it is not only a Dutch Reformed influence but a Federal Vision issue as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that Sproul, Jr. has been criticized for his weak rebuttal of FV, but he claims to have no part in it here, saying "I do not now believe in it, nor have I ever. " He does believe in PC, but I do not know where he is on PR. If there are any links, I would appreciate them!
Click to expand...

 

http://hushmoney.org/RPCGA-judgment.doc


----------



## Steve Curtis

Idelette said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idelette this second article by the same author answers your point about FV:
> The New Catechism on Infant Inclusion in the Covenant - a defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Fred pointed out, there a dozen threads on the PB regarding this topic that you can look up if you'd like to look them up. This is an excellent resource if you'd like to study more on these topics: Westminster Seminary California clark Ultimately, FV and paedocommunion groups would disagree with the New Covenant article that you posted above. They deny presumptive regeneration and they deny baptismal regeneration, yet practically speaking, they very much so are in line with that theology and it is simply semantics that we may differ over.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 09:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:05 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kainos01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idelette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I wasn't referring to baptismal regeneration. I was referring specifically to presumptive regeneration which does go hand in hand with baptismal regeneration as well as paedocommunion. I know many say that not all that hold PR hold to PC, but almost all that hold to PC do hold to PR. So, I was simply pointing out, that today it is not only a Dutch Reformed influence but a Federal Vision issue as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know that Sproul, Jr. has been criticized for his weak rebuttal of FV, but he claims to have no part in it here, saying "I do not now believe in it, nor have I ever. " He does believe in PC, but I do not know where he is on PR. If there are any links, I would appreciate them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> http://hushmoney.org/RPCGA-judgment.doc
Click to expand...

 
For some reason, all the posts have "thanks" options but yours, so... thanks!


----------



## larryjf

Baptism is based on the promise of God and not on the regeneration of the child.
So it's not that we presume the child is regenerate and so baptize, but we hold fast to the promise being for us and our children and so baptize.


----------



## Poimen

Poimen said:


> I believe that presumptive regeneration remains a distinctly (Dutch) Reformed development as I know few historical or modern Presbyterians that hold to this doctrine. And, if so, it would have to be defended on a non-confessional basis.





jwright82 said:


> What in the conffession rules it out as a legitemate point of view?





Poimen said:


> The fact that it is not found in the confession, i.e. non-confessional.


 


jwright82 said:


> What in the conffession rules it out as a legitemate point of view?Well I am sure that you mean well but that is a circuler argument and so I am still left in the dark as to what you exactlly are refering to


.

*In response: *I thought it would be obvious that if there is no mention of it found in the Westminster Confession that it couldn't be considered to be Presbyterian i.e. outside of its purview.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

jwright82 said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is Berkhof to put what he wrote in context:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. SINCE THE REFORMATION. The Lutheran Reformation did not entirely rid itself of the Roman Catholic conception of the sacraments. Luther did not regard the water in baptism as common water, but as a water which had become, through the Word with its inherent divine power, a gracious water of life, a washing of regeneration. Through this divine efficacy of the Word the sacrament effects regeneration. In the case of adults Luther made the effect of baptism dependent on faith in the recipient. Realizing that he could not consider it so in the case of children, who cannot exercise faith, he at one time held that God by His prevenient grace works faith in the unconscious child, but later on professed ignorance on this point. Later Lutheran theologians retained the idea of an infant-faith as a precondition for baptism, while others conceived of baptism as producing such a faith immediately. This in some cases led on to the idea that the sacrament works ex opere operato. Anabaptists cut the Gordian knot of Luther by denying the legitimacy of infant baptism. They insisted on baptizing all applicants for admission to their circle, who had received the sacrament in infancy, and did not regard this as a re-baptism, but as the first true baptism. With them children had no standing in the Church. Calvin and Reformed theology proceeded on the assumption that baptism is instituted for believers, and does not work but strengthens the new life. They were naturally confronted with the question as to how infants could be regarded as believers, and how they could be strengthened spiritually, seeing that they could not yet exercise faith. Some simply pointed out that infants born of believing parents are children of the covenant, and as such heirs of the promises of God, including also the promise of regeneration; and that the spiritual efficacy of baptism is not limited to the time of its administration, but continues through life. The Belgic Confession also expresses that idea in these words: “Neither does this baptism avail us only at the time when water is poured upon us, and received by us, but also through the whole course of our life.” *Others went beyond this position and maintained that the children of the covenant were to be regarded as presumptively regenerated. This is not equivalent to saying that they are all regenerated, when they are presented for baptism, but that they are assumed to be regenerated until the contrary appears from their lives.* There were also a few who regarded baptism as nothing more than the sign of an external covenant. Under the influence of Socinians, Arminians, Anabaptists, and Rationalists, it has become quite customary in many circles to deny that baptism is a seal of divine grace, and to regard it as a mere act of profession on the part of man. In our day many professing Christians have completely lost the consciousness of the spiritual significance of baptism. It has become a mere formality.
> 
> Berkhof, L. (1938). Systematic theology (627). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another way of stating this is a judgment of charity. I would argue that we presume that all baptized members of a congregation are presumed regenerate until the contrary appears in their lives. We don't act _presumptuously_ and assume hidden knowledge that God does not have but we also don't tell disciples to pray "...only if you're regenerate." We exhort men and women and children to press in, assume the best in them, and let God be Sovereign in how He uses the means of grace He has ordained. Every night, I pray with my kids that the Lord would convert their hearts by the Word and to humble them through prayer. I pray the same for myself and Sonya.
> 
> There is a difference, then, between a Lutheran notion that insists that regeneration accompanies baptism and Berkhof's use of the term presumptive regeneration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the part that I was refering to was the part on page 641-642 section _d. Infant Baptism as a means of Grace_, he lists it as one of three different opinions on how it functions as a means of grace.
> 
> 
> Also Rich I don't understand presumptive regeneration to mean what you seem to be suggesting it meant. Since I know you have Berkhof's work read the section I refrenced and you we'll see what I am talking about.
Click to expand...


I'll try to take a look at that later.

It's interesting that I was listening to D.A. Carson this AM from a panel discussion at the 2009 Ligonier Conference. He was noting that many people don't account for the semantic range that some terms used to have that take on a more narrow meaning today.

Calvin, for instance, uses regeneration in a broader sense than later theological use. Thus, some will quote Calvin wrecklessly assuming he's using regeneration in the same way we use the term today.

My point, above, is that people assume that if they have one understanding of regeneration and put the word "presumptive" in front of it that they know how every theologian who ever uses that word might use it. If you ask me if I believe in presumptive regeneration in the sense that I believe my children were regenerated at the time of their baptism then my answer is that it's not really something I think about.

For that matter, I don't really think about whether I _know_ that anybody is regenerated in a Church. I think we miss the call of ministry when we focus on the things that God has not revealed with respect to individual persons and miss the larger call of ministry. We are, collectively, to exhort one another to bear fruit in keeping with repentance and may warn one another toward that end but one of the reasons I have deep convictions about the propriety of a paedobaptistic view of the Covenant and baptism is that it respects the hidden things of God and never attempts to establish a nexus at the point of regeneration for the decision of baptism.

I just don't see any evidence in the manner of address that Paul uses in his epistles, and especially how the author addresses the saints in Hebrews, that we are to spend much time contemplating the regeneration of our brothers and sisters in the Church. Their visible communion with us is enough, according to the Scriptures, to encourage them daily to press in and to not let any fall behind. We exhort as if they can respond and, by God's grace, I even think that our exhortation and encouragement is the means he uses to grab hold of a man and convert him.

I even think that my richer understanding of God's ongoing work to perfect us has an effect on how I view the preached Word every Sunday. I'm constantly mindful of the warning in Hebrews to hear His voice while it is called Today. Too many, I believe, see this as a "been there, done that" event instead of a continual admonition that draws one afresh to the Word lest we forget His promises and shrink back. Too many want to pin the tail on the date of their regeneration and lose focus on what God is calling us to move forward towards with those around us. I find myself understanding more and more why Calvin used a single word (regeneration) to refer to the whole Christian life because we begin and end in the life-giving Vine and are called to abide in it. The very call, and encouragement therein, keeps us there and it's where we receive the sustenance to answer the command. 

It's not that I don't think it's unimportant that there was a beginning to my spiritual life but it has the same importance to me as the fact that I began physical life. We don't doubt the life of people in third world countries just because they're not sure of the day and year of their birth. What's more important is the fact that they're alive.

Consequently, then, for my children, I rely on the grace of God for their conversion. Just as with any other believer, it is not really my business to know when or if God regenerates but I instruct daily in the things of God, I bring them under the preaching of the Word, and I pray with and for their humility. Whether they _were_ regenerated prior to this point is really immaterial to the call to them as disciples TODAY to hear His voice. It's the same call for Sonya and me. What makes any of us think that our cognitive ability gives us any more confidence that we know the hidden things of God for an adult than we do for a child? Does the profession of that matured person somehow convince us that they are no longer part of the crowd that is to press in daily?'

I guess I drifted away from the original question but my point to the semantics is that Berkhof, at this point, is using "presumptive regeneration" in a different way than others in this thread are. I wouldn't ever use that term just because it wouldn't translate accross the gap of how our current "culture" uses the terms.


----------



## alhembd

> Another way of stating this is a judgment of charity. I would argue that we presume that all baptized members of a congregation are presumed regenerate until the contrary appears in their lives. We don't act _presumptuously_ and assume hidden knowledge that God does not have but we also don't tell disciples to pray "...only if you're regenerate." We exhort men and women and children to press in, assume the best in them, and let God be Sovereign in how He uses the means of grace He has ordained. Every night, I pray with my kids that the Lord would convert their hearts by the Word and to humble them through prayer. I pray the same for myself and Sonya.
> 
> There is a difference, then, between a Lutheran notion that insists that regeneration accompanies baptism and Berkhof's use of the term presumptive regeneration.


 
No Scottish Presbyterian Church that held to the Westminster Confession of Faith ever accepted Berkhof's view. It is condemned in the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Rightly so, too. In our experience, most of the young people who are converted are converted in their teens or early twenties. There are exceptions.

That said, however: it is the preaching to the lost in the congregation that is used and blessed for the awakening of those who are under the covenant, but not in it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

alhembd said:


> No Scottish Presbyterian Church that held to the Westminster Confession of Faith ever accepted Berkhof's view. It is condemned in the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Rightly so, too. In our experience, most of the young people who are converted are converted in their teens or early twenties. There are exceptions.


I'm curious how you know they are converted?


----------



## jwright82

Poimen said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that presumptive regeneration remains a distinctly (Dutch) Reformed development as I know few historical or modern Presbyterians that hold to this doctrine. And, if so, it would have to be defended on a non-confessional basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What in the conffession rules it out as a legitemate point of view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that it is not found in the confession, i.e. non-confessional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What in the conffession rules it out as a legitemate point of view?Well I am sure that you mean well but that is a circuler argument and so I am still left in the dark as to what you exactlly are refering to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> *In response: *I thought it would be obvious that if there is no mention of it found in the Westminster Confession that it couldn't be considered to be Presbyterian i.e. outside of its purview.
Click to expand...

 
I guess you don't see my point. You asserted that it was unconffessional. Since the conffession absolutly reserves the Holy Spirit's divine right to confer the benefits of salvation at His appointed time it implies that it is possible that that confering could have been at the moment of baptism, or as Berkhof points out it could be reserved until a later date. You will have to show me in the conffession where it rules out that the Holy Spirit cannot or will not apply those blessings possibly at the moment of baptism. Merely asserting that you think it is unconffessional only tells me what you think not why you think it. I am open to being wrong but I can't make judgements off of assertions of opinions, does that make more sense?

---------- Post added at 01:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:55 PM ----------




Semper Fidelis said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is Berkhof to put what he wrote in context:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. SINCE THE REFORMATION. The Lutheran Reformation did not entirely rid itself of the Roman Catholic conception of the sacraments. Luther did not regard the water in baptism as common water, but as a water which had become, through the Word with its inherent divine power, a gracious water of life, a washing of regeneration. Through this divine efficacy of the Word the sacrament effects regeneration. In the case of adults Luther made the effect of baptism dependent on faith in the recipient. Realizing that he could not consider it so in the case of children, who cannot exercise faith, he at one time held that God by His prevenient grace works faith in the unconscious child, but later on professed ignorance on this point. Later Lutheran theologians retained the idea of an infant-faith as a precondition for baptism, while others conceived of baptism as producing such a faith immediately. This in some cases led on to the idea that the sacrament works ex opere operato. Anabaptists cut the Gordian knot of Luther by denying the legitimacy of infant baptism. They insisted on baptizing all applicants for admission to their circle, who had received the sacrament in infancy, and did not regard this as a re-baptism, but as the first true baptism. With them children had no standing in the Church. Calvin and Reformed theology proceeded on the assumption that baptism is instituted for believers, and does not work but strengthens the new life. They were naturally confronted with the question as to how infants could be regarded as believers, and how they could be strengthened spiritually, seeing that they could not yet exercise faith. Some simply pointed out that infants born of believing parents are children of the covenant, and as such heirs of the promises of God, including also the promise of regeneration; and that the spiritual efficacy of baptism is not limited to the time of its administration, but continues through life. The Belgic Confession also expresses that idea in these words: “Neither does this baptism avail us only at the time when water is poured upon us, and received by us, but also through the whole course of our life.” *Others went beyond this position and maintained that the children of the covenant were to be regarded as presumptively regenerated. This is not equivalent to saying that they are all regenerated, when they are presented for baptism, but that they are assumed to be regenerated until the contrary appears from their lives.* There were also a few who regarded baptism as nothing more than the sign of an external covenant. Under the influence of Socinians, Arminians, Anabaptists, and Rationalists, it has become quite customary in many circles to deny that baptism is a seal of divine grace, and to regard it as a mere act of profession on the part of man. In our day many professing Christians have completely lost the consciousness of the spiritual significance of baptism. It has become a mere formality.
> 
> Berkhof, L. (1938). Systematic theology (627). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another way of stating this is a judgment of charity. I would argue that we presume that all baptized members of a congregation are presumed regenerate until the contrary appears in their lives. We don't act _presumptuously_ and assume hidden knowledge that God does not have but we also don't tell disciples to pray "...only if you're regenerate." We exhort men and women and children to press in, assume the best in them, and let God be Sovereign in how He uses the means of grace He has ordained. Every night, I pray with my kids that the Lord would convert their hearts by the Word and to humble them through prayer. I pray the same for myself and Sonya.
> 
> There is a difference, then, between a Lutheran notion that insists that regeneration accompanies baptism and Berkhof's use of the term presumptive regeneration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the part that I was refering to was the part on page 641-642 section _d. Infant Baptism as a means of Grace_, he lists it as one of three different opinions on how it functions as a means of grace.
> 
> 
> Also Rich I don't understand presumptive regeneration to mean what you seem to be suggesting it meant. Since I know you have Berkhof's work read the section I refrenced and you we'll see what I am talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll try to take a look at that later.
> 
> It's interesting that I was listening to D.A. Carson this AM from a panel discussion at the 2009 Ligonier Conference. He was noting that many people don't account for the semantic range that some terms used to have that take on a more narrow meaning today.
> 
> Calvin, for instance, uses regeneration in a broader sense than later theological use. Thus, some will quote Calvin wrecklessly assuming he's using regeneration in the same way we use the term today.
> 
> My point, above, is that people assume that if they have one understanding of regeneration and put the word "presumptive" in front of it that they know how every theologian who ever uses that word might use it. If you ask me if I believe in presumptive regeneration in the sense that I believe my children were regenerated at the time of their baptism then my answer is that it's not really something I think about.
> 
> For that matter, I don't really think about whether I _know_ that anybody is regenerated in a Church. I think we miss the call of ministry when we focus on the things that God has not revealed with respect to individual persons and miss the larger call of ministry. We are, collectively, to exhort one another to bear fruit in keeping with repentance and may warn one another toward that end but one of the reasons I have deep convictions about the propriety of a paedobaptistic view of the Covenant and baptism is that it respects the hidden things of God and never attempts to establish a nexus at the point of regeneration for the decision of baptism.
> 
> I just don't see any evidence in the manner of address that Paul uses in his epistles, and especially how the author addresses the saints in Hebrews, that we are to spend much time contemplating the regeneration of our brothers and sisters in the Church. Their visible communion with us is enough, according to the Scriptures, to encourage them daily to press in and to not let any fall behind. We exhort as if they can respond and, by God's grace, I even think that our exhortation and encouragement is the means he uses to grab hold of a man and convert him.
> 
> I even think that my richer understanding of God's ongoing work to perfect us has an effect on how I view the preached Word every Sunday. I'm constantly mindful of the warning in Hebrews to hear His voice while it is called Today. Too many, I believe, see this as a "been there, done that" event instead of a continual admonition that draws one afresh to the Word lest we forget His promises and shrink back. Too many want to pin the tail on the date of their regeneration and lose focus on what God is calling us to move forward towards with those around us. I find myself understanding more and more why Calvin used a single word (regeneration) to refer to the whole Christian life because we begin and end in the life-giving Vine and are called to abide in it. The very call, and encouragement therein, keeps us there and it's where we receive the sustenance to answer the command.
> 
> It's not that I don't think it's unimportant that there was a beginning to my spiritual life but it has the same importance to me as the fact that I began physical life. We don't doubt the life of people in third world countries just because they're not sure of the day and year of their birth. What's more important is the fact that they're alive.
> 
> Consequently, then, for my children, I rely on the grace of God for their conversion. Just as with any other believer, it is not really my business to know when or if God regenerates but I instruct daily in the things of God, I bring them under the preaching of the Word, and I pray with and for their humility. Whether they _were_ regenerated prior to this point is really immaterial to the call to them as disciples TODAY to hear His voice. It's the same call for Sonya and me. What makes any of us think that our cognitive ability gives us any more confidence that we know the hidden things of God for an adult than we do for a child? Does the profession of that matured person somehow convince us that they are no longer part of the crowd that is to press in daily?'
> 
> I guess I drifted away from the original question but my point to the semantics is that Berkhof, at this point, is using "presumptive regeneration" in a different way than others in this thread are. I wouldn't ever use that term just because it wouldn't translate accross the gap of how our current "culture" uses the terms.
Click to expand...

 
I see your point very well about semantics, I would never believe that saving grace was ever applied at the moment of baptism, contra Doug Wilson, but sanctifying grace that could strengthen a seed of faith in the infant, this sort of how Berkhof puts it.

---------- Post added at 02:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 PM ----------




Idelette said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idelette this second article by the same author answers your point about FV:
> The New Catechism on Infant Inclusion in the Covenant - a defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Fred pointed out, there a dozen threads on the PB regarding this topic that you can look up if you'd like to look them up. This is an excellent resource if you'd like to study more on these topics: Westminster Seminary California clark Ultimately, FV and paedocommunion groups would disagree with the New Covenant article that you posted above. They deny presumptive regeneration and they deny baptismal regeneration, yet practically speaking, they very much so are in line with that theology and it is simply semantics that we may differ over.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 09:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:05 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kainos01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idelette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I wasn't referring to baptismal regeneration. I was referring specifically to presumptive regeneration which does go hand in hand with baptismal regeneration as well as paedocommunion. I know many say that not all that hold PR hold to PC, but almost all that hold to PC do hold to PR. So, I was simply pointing out, that today it is not only a Dutch Reformed influence but a Federal Vision issue as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know that Sproul, Jr. has been criticized for his weak rebuttal of FV, but he claims to have no part in it here, saying "I do not now believe in it, nor have I ever. " He does believe in PC, but I do not know where he is on PR. If there are any links, I would appreciate them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> http://hushmoney.org/RPCGA-judgment.doc
Click to expand...

 
Your point would be well taken if in fact it was merely a semantical difference between the two but in fact there is a qualitative difference of the kind of of grace being applied, which would then rule out them being the same. Doug Wilson and his fellow FVers believe that saving grace is or could be applied at the moment of baptism, or is strongly connected to it. Historically presumptive regeneration as I have studyed it beleives that a sanctifying grace is or could be applied at the moment of baptism. Since the Canons of Dordt part 1 article 17 makes it clear that parents should not doubt the election and salvation of their infant children who die. This principle implies the same thing for beleiving parents who get their infants baptized that God could have already saved them, but not neccessaraly so, and therefore the grace they recieve is sanctifying not salvivic. That is a difference in kind which makes them 2 different points of view.

---------- Post added at 02:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:04 PM ----------




larryjf said:


> Baptism is based on the promise of God and not on the regeneration of the child.
> So it's not that we presume the child is regenerate and so baptize, but we hold fast to the promise being for us and our children and so baptize.


 
Your right but as I pointed out in the OP the covenant is the legal basis for baptizing infants not presumptive regeneration.


----------



## Idelette

jwright82 said:


> Your point would be well taken if in fact it was merely a semantical difference between the two but in fact there is a qualitative difference of the kind of of grace being applied, which would then rule out them being the same. Doug Wilson and his fellow FVers believe that saving grace is or could be applied at the moment of baptism, or is strongly connected to it. Historically presumptive regeneration as I have studyed it beleives that a sanctifying grace is or could be applied at the moment of baptism. Since the Canons of Dordt part 1 article 17 makes it clear that parents should not doubt the election and salvation of their infant children who die. This principle implies the same thing for beleiving parents who get their infants baptized that God could have already saved them, but not neccessaraly so, and therefore the grace they recieve is sanctifying not salvivic. That is a difference in kind which makes them 2 different points of view.


 
The difference between us is precisely semantics. From what I've studied about historical presumptive regeneration (Kuyper) there is a lot more than simply applying a sanctifying grace at baptism, but instead an actually view that covenant children are regenerate from birth (or even within the womb as some believe it), therefore baptism is in response to that view rather than the historical presbyterian view of baptism as a sign and seal of the covenantal promises that God has made with His people. They presume that covenant children are part of the invisible church until proven otherwise. Anyhow, I've said a lot more than I intended to, so if you'd like to read more, here's a brief thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/presumptive-regeneration-29549/


----------



## Robert Truelove

Presumptive regeneration has in its favor the reconciliation of the problem that the New Covenant is spoken of time and again in the Scriptures as only being with the regenerate as well as the issue of the efficacy of baptism as relates to faith.

Against it is the problem that it makes the presumption based upon the promises of God in the case of an infant and not upon a profession of faith. This is a problem because of the baptized person who is later found to be unregenerate. I say it is a problem because the presumption was based upon God's promise and the subsequent apostasy of the one presumed to be regenerate poses the conundrum that God has not been faithful to His promise. In the event of one who is presumed to be regenerate because of their profession and later falls away, the problem is not in God's promise, but in the false profession of the unbeliever.

Finally, those who hold to presumptive regeneration deny there is a legal/external aspect to the covenant (listen to Morecraft's message linked in an earlier post). For the one grows up and never comes to faith, this poses the problem of ascertaining the grounds whereby the unbeliever was ever in the covenant to begin with. I know there is an answer proposed for this ("it's the covenant breakers fault") but I have never been able to discern how the answer to this problem is consistently reconciled with the foundational arguments for presumptive regeneration. I find the case for the one and the answer for the other to be completely inconsistent.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

James,

Here is the section you're referring to:


> (2) Differences of opinion among Reformed theologians. Reformed theologians did not all agree in the past, and are not even now all unanimous, in their representation of the ground of infant baptism. Many theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries took the position described in the preceding, namely, that infants of believers are baptized, because they are in the covenant and are as such heirs of the rich promises of God including a title, not only to regeneration, but also to all the blessings of justification and of the renewing and sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit. Others, however, while recognizing the truth of this representation, were not wholly satisfied with it. They stressed the fact that baptism is something more than the seal of a promise, or even of all the covenant promises; and that it is not merely the seal of a future good, but also of present spiritual possessions. The view became rather prevalent that baptism is administered to infants on the ground of presumptive regeneration. But even those who accepted this view did not all agree. Some combined this view with the other while others substituted it for the other. Some would proceed on the assumption that all the children presented for baptism are regenerated, while others would assume this only in connection with the elect children. The difference of opinion between those who believe that children of believers are baptized on the ground of their covenant relationship and of the covenant promise, and those who find this ground in presumptive regeneration persisted up to the present time and was the source of a lively controversy, especially in the Netherlands during the last period of the nineteenth, and the beginning of the twentieth, century. Dr. Kuyper at first spoke of presumptive regeneration as the ground of infant baptism, and many readily accepted this view. G. Kramer wrote his splendid thesis on Het Verband van Doop en Wedergeboorte especially in defense of this position. Later on Dr. Kuyper did not use this expression any more, and some of his followers felt the need of more careful discrimination and spoke of the covenant relationship as the legal, and presumptive regeneration as the spiritual, ground of infant baptism. But even this is not a satisfactory position. Dr. Honig, who is also a disciple and admirer of Kuyper, is on the right track when he says in his recent Handboek van de Gereformeerde Dogmatiek: “We do not baptize the children of believers on the ground of an assumption, but on the ground of a command and an act of God. Children must be baptized in virtue of the covenant of God” (translation mine). Presumptive regeneration naturally cannot be regarded as the legal ground of infant baptism; this can be found only in the covenant promise of God. Moreover, it cannot be the ground in any sense of the word, since the ground of baptism must be something objective, as the advocates of the view in question themselves are constrained to admit. If they are asked, why they assume the regeneration of children presented for baptism, they can only answer, Because they are born of believing parents, that is, because they are born in the covenant. Naturally, to deny that presumptive regeneration is the ground of infant baptism, is not equivalent to saying that it is entirely unwarranted to assume that infant children of believers are regenerated. This is a question that must be considered on its own merits.
> 
> 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.”
> 
> Berkhof, L. (1938). Systematic theology (639–641). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co.


It's important to note, here, that Berkhof does not change his definition of presumptive regeneration as presented earlier. The disagreement he points to is that some have argued that presumptive regeneration is the ground for infant baptism (that is _why_ the Church baptizes). He goes on to point out the weakness of this position and then shows that the synod of his Church at Utrecht rejected that view. Utrecht admitted they presumed their children were regenerate (until they prove otherwise) but they rejected the notion that the Sacrament of Baptism was administered _because_ the child is presumed regenerate. 

In other words saying "...we assume our children are regenerate until proven otherwise..." is not the same thing as saying "...we baptize our children _because_ we presume they are regenerate...."

You cannot appeal to anything Berkhof has written, however, to pour more "significance" into baptism because nothing he says implies that the nature of baptism itself confers this status. This discussion has nothing to do with what is believed to be conferred by the Sacrament.

Getting back to the OP, insofar as the question is: "Is the view that children are baptized on the basis that they are presumed regenerate a legitimate Presbyterian view?" The answer is clearly No. I would also add that focusing too much on the hidden things of God and thinking we know whether or not a child or adult is regenerated is an un-Scriptural pre-occupation.

It seems to me that you're really resurrecting this question in a new way http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/strong-view-baptism-60052/.


----------



## jwright82

> In other words saying "...we assume our children are regenerate until proven otherwise..." is not the same thing as saying "...we baptize our children because we presume they are regenerate...."
> 
> You cannot appeal to anything Berkhof has written, however, to pour more "significance" into baptism because nothing he says implies that the nature of baptism itself confers this status. This discussion has nothing to do with what is believed to be conferred by the Sacrament.
> 
> Getting back to the OP, insofar as the question is: "Is the view that children are baptized on the basis that they are presumed regenerate a legitimate Presbyterian view?" The answer is clearly No. I would also add that focusing too much on the hidden things of God and thinking we know whether or not a child or adult is regenerated is an un-Scriptural pre-occupation.
> 
> It seems to me that you're really resurrecting this question in a new way A strong view of Baptism..



I also rejected making presumptive regeneration the ground of baptism, I said it in the OP and in a reply. The covenant is the legal basis for infant baptism not presumptive regeneration. That said nothing in the conffession says that the Holy Spirit cannot confer the benefits of baptism upon infants. That is my point. Also that is not the section of Berkhof that I refrenced you to. Read the section that I refrenced and he lists presumptive regeneration as the first of 3 possible ways in which the Sacrament is a means of grace to infants who are baptized.

---------- Post added at 08:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:52 PM ----------




Robert Truelove said:


> Presumptive regeneration has in its favor the reconciliation of the problem that the New Covenant is spoken of time and again in the Scriptures as only being with the regenerate as well as the issue of the efficacy of baptism as relates to faith.
> 
> Against it is the problem that it makes the presumption based upon the promises of God in the case of an infant and not upon a profession of faith. This is a problem because of the baptized person who is later found to be unregenerate. I say it is a problem because the presumption was based upon God's promise and the subsequent apostasy of the one presumed to be regenerate poses the conundrum that God has not been faithful to His promise. In the event of one who is presumed to be regenerate because of their profession and later falls away, the problem is not in God's promise, but in the false profession of the unbeliever.
> 
> Finally, those who hold to presumptive regeneration deny there is a legal/external aspect to the covenant (listen to Morecraft's message linked in an earlier post). For the one grows up and never comes to faith, this poses the problem of ascertaining the grounds whereby the unbeliever was ever in the covenant to begin with. I know there is an answer proposed for this ("it's the covenant breakers fault") but I have never been able to discern how the answer to this problem is consistently reconciled with the foundational arguments for presumptive regeneration. I find the case for the one and the answer for the other to be completely inconsistent.


 
No not exactly we baptize our infants because we believe that we are commanded to, period. If presumptive regeneration were proven to be false to me today I would never regret baptizing my daughter because the legal ground for infant baptism is the covenant and the command of God. It is the conffession that leaves open the possibility for the Holy Spirit to work at anytime, if you deny that as a presbyterian than you must deny the Canon of Dordt quote I refrenced earlier. The parents of infants who die must assume that their children went to hell unless they see them in heaven. You cannot in my mind deny presumptive regeneration on the grounds you have mentioned and not contradict the Canon of Dordt on the death of christian parent's infant children.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

jwright82 said:


> In other words saying "...we assume our children are regenerate until proven otherwise..." is not the same thing as saying "...we baptize our children because we presume they are regenerate...."
> 
> You cannot appeal to anything Berkhof has written, however, to pour more "significance" into baptism because nothing he says implies that the nature of baptism itself confers this status. This discussion has nothing to do with what is believed to be conferred by the Sacrament.
> 
> Getting back to the OP, insofar as the question is: "Is the view that children are baptized on the basis that they are presumed regenerate a legitimate Presbyterian view?" The answer is clearly No. I would also add that focusing too much on the hidden things of God and thinking we know whether or not a child or adult is regenerated is an un-Scriptural pre-occupation.
> 
> It seems to me that you're really resurrecting this question in a new way A strong view of Baptism..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also rejected making presumptive regeneration the ground of baptism, I said it in the OP and in a reply.
Click to expand...

You also stated 


jwright82 said:


> Also Rich I don't understand presumptive regeneration to mean what you seem to be suggesting it meant.


Thus, by quoting Berkhof in every use of the term, I demonstrated that his use of the term is consistent throughout.



jwright82 said:


> Read the section that I refrenced and he lists presumptive regeneration as the first of 3 possible ways in which the Sacrament is a means of grace to infants who are baptized.



No, Berkhof doesn't say that presumptive regeneration is a means of grace. He says this (which we discussed in the thread I referenced):


> (1) It is possible to proceed on the assumption (not the certain knowledge) that the children offered for baptism are regenerated and are therefore in possession of the semen fidei (the seed of faith); and to hold that God through baptism in some mystical way, which we do not understand, strengthens this seed of faith in the child.
> 
> Berkhof, L. (1938). Systematic theology (641–642). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co.


In other words, some speculate that if the child is regenerated then the Sacrament might serve to strengthen the seed of faith in the child. Our assumption that the child is regenerated confers nothing to the child. It ought to be noted that _nothing_ is, in fact, strengthened if the child is not regenerated and any wishful thinking on our parts by calling it a _mystery_ adds a thing to the saving Sovereign power of God.


----------



## jwright82

Well Semper Fidelis I was asking a more sociological question of what was the opinion of current Presbyterians on this matter. It seems I got my answer to that. I am still convinced that it, as Berkhof lays out in the section I mentioned, is a legitmate conffesional point of view, albeit unpopuler. I have no intention of ressurecting ealier threads, my question was sociological in nature. Since the conffession rules out tieing down when the Holy Spirit works if the recipent is worthy, that is elect and regenerated, we have no right to either:
1. Say that the Holy Spirit must or only works at the time of baptism, which I am not saying only that it is possible.
2. That the Holy Spirit never works in the lifes of infants, which if you are presbyterian contradicts Canon of Dordt part 1 article 17 and the WCF which rules out ever tieing down the moment when the Spirit may work and the age at which the Spirit may work in the life of a beleiver. 

If peopel respond to my thread by saying that my view is unconffessional and I don't think that it is, I don't see any reason why we can't delve into the matter to see what is what. I provided, it seems to me, adequite conffessional evidence (from the WCF, Heidelberg catechism, and the Canons of Dordt) to suggest that my view can be a possible view conffessionally, also the section by Berkhof that I mentioned, which I will type up and post I have just been to busy to sit and type one handed such a long section, is after the historical section that you mentioned and he lists 3 possible ways in which the the baptism of infants might be a means of grace, my view is the first one he mentions. That is further evidence that my view has some systematic credebility, if I got him right. I could be wrong but it doesn't seem that way to me. I showed that the views of Wilson and the FVers are of a different kind altogether from my view so that takes care of that. I have been trying very hard to make my statements as clear and concise to avoid misunderstanding. My OP post is answered and based off the responses I got I see no need to bring it up, because I am clearly a minorty view. But based off the evidence I have seen I have no need to take any exceptions to the conffession because it allows, in my opinion, for my view as a possible view. If anyone feels that I am wrong I am more than happy to discuss it because if I am wrong than I need to repent of it and come back into the conffessional fold. Other than that thanks for all the responses.

---------- Post added at 08:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:24 PM ----------




> In other words, some speculate that if the child is regenerated then the Sacrament might serve to strengthen the seed of faith in the child. Our assumption that the child is regenerated confers nothing to the child. It ought to be noted that nothing is, in fact, strengthened if the child is not regenerated and any wishful thinking on our parts by calling it a mystery adds a thing to the saving Sovereign power of God.



That is 200% my understanding of presumptive regeneration! I am glad we are on the same page, I don't know what I said to ever sugest that my assumptions about the infant being baptized affected its status or confered anything to it. It would be like assuming that the infant isn't regenerated when in fact he or she has been, my assumptions do not affect reality only God does.

---------- Post added at 08:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:27 PM ----------




> Actually the part that I was refering to was the part on page 641-642 section d. Infant Baptism as a means of Grace, he lists it as one of three different opinions on how it functions as a means of grace.



This seems to be the only statment I made that might be taken to mean that presumptive regeneration is means of grace, but since I mentione the phrase "it functions as a means of grace" in a comma section after listing the title "infant baptism as a means of grace" I thought it was clear that I meant infant baptism, sorry if it wasn't I hope this clears it up. Presumptive regeneration is not and cannot ever be a means of grace.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

James,

I mean this gently but, rather then getting excited at the responses you received, you might want to consider that the way you framed the original question lead it wide open to being misconstrued.

You said:


> I have been reading a lot of Berkhof latley and he mentions presumptive regeneration as a possible Presbyterian point of view regarding infant baptism...



Which is really said nowhere by Berkhof in these terms. He mentions it as a possible way to view our children and that, if they are regenerated, some speculate that a semen fidei is strengthened but nowhere does he mention any departure from the fuller confessional view of Baptism. Nobody would deny that worthy recipients includes elect infants and that God can regenerate an infant prior to birth. That really doesn't present a new view of baptism from a Confessional point of view but only holds out the possibility that God might strengthen the seed of faith in Baptism. I find the speculative point about time of regeneration and conferrence of grace to be something we should leave to the hidden things of God and bears nothing on our responsibilities regarding the things revealed.


----------



## Steve Curtis

James,
I say this only because I have unresolved grammatical issues, but there is only one “f” in confessional.


----------



## jwright82

Semper Fidelis said:


> James,
> 
> I mean this gently but, rather then getting excited at the responses you received, you might want to consider that the way you framed the original question lead it wide open to being misconstrued.
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been reading a lot of Berkhof latley and he mentions presumptive regeneration as a possible Presbyterian point of view regarding infant baptism...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is really said nowhere by Berkhof in these terms. He mentions it as a possible way to view our children and that, if they are regenerated, some speculate that a semen fidei is strengthened but nowhere does he mention any departure from the fuller confessional view of Baptism. Nobody would deny that worthy recipients includes elect infants and that God can regenerate an infant prior to birth. That really doesn't present a new view of baptism from a Confessional point of view but only holds out the possibility that God might strengthen the seed of faith in Baptism. I find the speculative point about time of regeneration and conferrence of grace to be something we should leave to the hidden things of God and bears nothing on our responsibilities regarding the things revealed.
Click to expand...

 
Oh no I wasn't getting excited I was just trying to make sure that I was being as clear as I could be to avoid confusing any one. I don't mind being disagreed with at all. I caused a lot of confusion, as I'm sure you remember, in the last thread I started on baptism so I was trying to avoid my previous mistakes. My mind works so fast sometimes that I get ahead of myself. So no gentleness required people who know me in person know that I am not that sensetive at all. In fact my insensetivity is a something I have struggled with for some time now, the Lord is thawing me out emotionally so to speak so I am more emotional now than I ever have been but I am a work in sanctifying progress. 

About the OP and the way it was worded, I guess I can see your point but the terms I used are all historical in nature so I assumed that the meaning should be plain to anyone familer with them. I didn't know that it has come to mean something else latley. So my wording wasn't is presumptive regeneration as a means of grace ok but as the term relates to infant baptism. I assumed it did have some historical relation being that Berkhof spoke of it in mixed language. I still think it does. I noticed that it has not been held very highly thus prompting my question. In your opinion what else could I have included to make it clear what I was getting at?

---------- Post added at 01:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:41 PM ----------




kainos01 said:


> James,
> I say this only because I have unresolved grammatical issues, but there is only one “f” in confessional.


 
Thank you I will try to remember that. My grammer skills and spelling are horrible, they have gotten better since going to college but I have a long way to go. Please correct me anytime, and that goes for everyone.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

To make it clearer, you could have quoted the actual portion of Berkhof you were referring to and then titled the thread differently. Presumptive regeneration carries a lot of baggage and not all who might respond will know anything of what Berkhof wrote and might think it's a Lutheran or FV notion.


----------



## jwright82

Semper Fidelis said:


> To make it clearer, you could have quoted the actual portion of Berkhof you were referring to and then titled the thread differently. Presumptive regeneration carries a lot of baggage and not all who might respond will know anything of what Berkhof wrote and might think it's a Lutheran or FV notion.


 
Thanks! That is a good point. The baggage didn't occur to me at all, but you are right. This is twice that a thread on baptism hasn't gone the way I expected so I think I'll just not bring it up. I have my questions answered my view seems to me be conffessional but unpopuler so to avoid needless confusion or debate I'm smart enough to know when to not bring something up. Thanks for the advice Semper.


----------



## alhembd

Semper Fidelis said:


> alhembd said:
> 
> 
> 
> No Scottish Presbyterian Church that held to the Westminster Confession of Faith ever accepted Berkhof's view. It is condemned in the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Rightly so, too. In our experience, most of the young people who are converted are converted in their teens or early twenties. There are exceptions.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious how you know they are converted?
Click to expand...


We know from the Saviour's words, that One Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He says: "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?...A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither _can_ a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."

These whom the ministers and elders have counted as converted (as far as man can see) bring forth good fruit. A corrupt tree, an unconverted tree, cannot do that. Those who bring forth fruit of true repentance, humility, love for the Lord's people, love for the truth, service for the cause of Christ - yes, they are known to God and men. Not infallibly, but yes, with a reliable judgment generally. If this is not so, then Christ is a liar. Moreover, how could one believe that he is joining himself with believers in a Church, unless it is possible that he can have a judgment that is reliable in good measure.

Christ says: "Ye shall know them by their fruits."

By the way: this is also how presumptive regeneration is known to be a corrupt doctrine. One only has to look at what has happened to the Christian Reformed Church, with its embrace of Darwinian evolution, women's elders, homosexual ministers (in Holland), etc., while the ministers of that Church count them as "covenant children," children who supposedly are believers like Samson who are backslidden, gives plain evidence of what sort of doctrinal tree presumptive regeneration is.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

alhembd said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alhembd said:
> 
> 
> 
> No Scottish Presbyterian Church that held to the Westminster Confession of Faith ever accepted Berkhof's view. It is condemned in the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Rightly so, too. In our experience, most of the young people who are converted are converted in their teens or early twenties. There are exceptions.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious how you know they are converted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These whom the ministers and elders have counted as converted (*as far as man can see*) bring forth good fruit.
Click to expand...

 
In other words, they are _presumed_ regenerate based on their fruit. Adding words about knowing a man by his fruits does not give a person the mind of God on these matters and you need to acknowledge that all men live by the things revealed and are prohibited from peering into the things hidden (Deut 29:29). Certainly, men and women are given the judgment of charity that they are converted on the basis of profession and walk but to extend that to certain knowledge is no less presumptuous than those who fail to call their children to repentance and faith on the basis of presumptive regeneration.

I also find your historical analysis of the decline of denominations to be simplistic as if this sole doctrine is the root. As I said, I don't spend much time thinking about the regeneration of the Saints but I also don't try to support arguments for the truth on the basis of canards.


----------



## alhembd

> I also find your historical analysis of the decline of denominations to be simplistic as if this sole doctrine is the root. As I said, I don't spend much time thinking about the regeneration of the Saints but I also don't try to support arguments for the truth on the basis of canards.



Jesus doesn't say to presume fruitfulness. As far as adding words, I added nothing. I quoted the Saviour. You appear not to be content to hear from Him at this point. It is He, not Al Hembd, Who says to know men by their fruits. This is His commandment.

Now: we cannot know fruit until we see it. This is why we do not allow people to the Lord's Table indiscriminately. The elders must first examine them. The minister must fence the Table. If we are not faithful in these things, we potentially mislead men for eternity.

How much more important are these duties with the treasure of the Church, the children! What urgency is there need of for faithful dealing with their souls, and with not giving them a lie in their right hands, a confidence in a mere historical faith! How can it be love to deceive someone?

If indeed the covenant children are to presumed normally to be regenerate, then how comes the history of Israel was as it was. "...and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the LORD, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel," Judges 2.10. Why is it that generation after generation arose in the Book of Judges who knew not the LORD? Why is that so many who had been circumcised rejected Christ at His coming? Why did the generations immediately following the Reformation apostatize into Arianism and Socianism (as in Geneva)? Why were so few saved in those generations? Would it have been right for ministers to presume the regeneration of the children of those ages? On what truly Scriptural ground would they be warranted in doing this? Is it not true that some today presume the regeneration of the infants of the Church on merely inferential grounds?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Al,

You're not paying attention. I didn't disagree that we look for fruit in believers. I was simply noting that we cannot know anything except that which is visibly manifest. Regeneration and conversion are not visible. Fruits are but they can be deceiving as well. We don't ignore fruit because of false profession but neither do we extend Christ's remarks about bearing fruit and conclude that we know a man is converted.

I initially asked you to tell me how your Church knew that children were converted and you pointed to visible fruit that (as near as an Elder can tell) a man, woman, or child is converted. That's the extent of our ability as human beings and the extent of our call thereof. Elders are not charged with knowing the hidden things of God but discerning fruit. Consequently, they do not admit to the table on the basis that a man or woman is converted but on the basis that they have a credible profession and there is no open, discernible visible rebellion. In other words, they _presume_ conversion on the basis of examination.

The rest of your response simply extends your confusion on the subject as nobody has argued for a presumed regeneration where children are not called to repentance and faith and fruits are not observed. If anyone has been dogmatic about regeneration on this thread, your initial post was most dogmatic in asserting that your Church knows who or is not converted based on fruits. I am neither arguing for nor against presumptive regeneration but simply pointing out to you that your use of terms and understanding of the distinction between the hidden and revealed things of God is poor.


----------



## SRoper

jwright82 said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that presumptive regeneration remains a distinctly (Dutch) Reformed development as I know few historical or modern Presbyterians that hold to this doctrine. And, if so, it would have to be defended on a non-confessional basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What in the conffession rules it out as a legitemate point of view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that it is not found in the confession, i.e. non-confessional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What in the conffession rules it out as a legitemate point of view?Well I am sure that you mean well but that is a circuler argument and so I am still left in the dark as to what you exactlly are refering to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> *In response: *I thought it would be obvious that if there is no mention of it found in the Westminster Confession that it couldn't be considered to be Presbyterian i.e. outside of its purview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you don't see my point. You asserted that it was unconffessional.
Click to expand...

 
You're interpreting "non-confessional" as "anti-confessional." He just means that it is not something that the confession speaks on, not that it's opposed to the confession.


----------



## jwright82

> By the way: this is also how presumptive regeneration is known to be a corrupt doctrine. One only has to look at what has happened to the Christian Reformed Church, with its embrace of Darwinian evolution, women's elders, homosexual ministers (in Holland), etc., while the ministers of that Church count them as "covenant children," children who supposedly are believers like Samson who are backslidden, gives plain evidence of what sort of doctrinal tree presumptive regeneration is.



Your weakness in this argument is that you have not demonstrated a logical casual link between those heresies and presumptive regeneration, that is the "after this, therefore because" fallacy (whatever the actual name of it is).

---------- Post added at 02:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:46 PM ----------




SRoper said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that presumptive regeneration remains a distinctly (Dutch) Reformed development as I know few historical or modern Presbyterians that hold to this doctrine. And, if so, it would have to be defended on a non-confessional basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What in the conffession rules it out as a legitemate point of view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that it is not found in the confession, i.e. non-confessional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What in the conffession rules it out as a legitemate point of view?Well I am sure that you mean well but that is a circuler argument and so I am still left in the dark as to what you exactlly are refering to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> *In response: *I thought it would be obvious that if there is no mention of it found in the Westminster Confession that it couldn't be considered to be Presbyterian i.e. outside of its purview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you don't see my point. You asserted that it was unconffessional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're interpreting "non-confessional" as "anti-confessional." He just means that it is not something that the confession speaks on, not that it's opposed to the confession.
Click to expand...

 
You make an excellant point. But ifyou notice my questions were actuall worded very carefully to determine just what he was talking about. Since I said, and hopefully demonstrated, that it is implied as a confessional point of view than that makes it confessional (see my quotes from WCF, Heidelberg Chatechism, and the Canons of Dordt). The fact that I was able to draw an argument from such confessional sources indicates that it is implied in the confession not as the only confessional view but at least one (please read all my posts and people's responses to them, so you know what I mean by the terms I am using, that way we don't go in circles). Now he didn't respond anymore after I responded to other people and clarified what I was talking about, so maybe what he meant by the term and what I mean by the term are two different things, that is very possible too. I can't say though. But I do disagree that my view is non-confessional, I think it is well withen the confessional bounds.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

James,

You can hardly disagree with the idea that presumptive regeneration is non-confessional when no Confession states that we ought to assume our children are regenerate until we have evidence to the contrary. Non-confessional simply implies that the Confessions do not specifically address the idea. Given the definition that Berkhof offers, there is nothing _un_-Confessional about it (that is that it is not against anything taught in the Confession) but it is still non-Confessional.

Confessions have never been intended to address every theological idea captured in the Scriptures. There is room for both amillenialism and postmillenialism in the PCA without taking an exception to the Confession. They are non-Confessional in the sense that there is no specific heading within the WCF that requires one to take an exception at that point.

Leaving aside whether PR is something we can glean from Scripture by GNC, it is non-Confessional in the sense that a person need not take an exception to the Confession (assuming it is of the type that Berkhof describes in his ST).


----------



## Peairtach

When a Christian couple have a baby, they don't know whether or not it is regenerated. Unless it leaps in the womb when our Lord's Name is mentioned, it doesn't betray marks of grace or otherwise. We can only be _completely infallible_ about our own calling and election anyway, although we can have strong biblically-based "suspicions"  that others are also converted. The Bible and Church History make it clear that many Covenant children are not regenerated at birth or baptism and some/many are sadly never regenerated at all.

Children need to be taught from the earliest stage that they need to seek the forgiveness and cleansing away of their sins through Jesus' blood. If it turns out that they were/are regenerated from the earliest years that is a happy outcome.

Presumptive regeneration isn't taught in the Bible or Confession. Biblical realism and idealism, pleading the promises and teaching children their privileges and responsibilities and promises, as sinners born _into_ the Covenant of Grace, but possibly not _of _the Covenant of Grace, i.e. not converted, is more Biblical.

It would be a strange thing for God's Word to expect parents and others to presume something which they know could be a fantasy, for what purpose? So the child will be raised in a certain Covenant ethos? The child can be raised in a proper Covenant ethos, and no Covenant ethos is perfect, without parents presuming that they are already converted, _or_ presuming that they are still unconverted. 

Whether they are converted or not, there _are_ marks of grace, and from the earliest years, whether converted or not, they _must_ be presumed to be sinners, because even regenerate children are sinners.

If parents believe in presumptive regeneration will they pray that their children be converted while still in the womb, or at their earliest years? Will parents address the real possibility (likelihood?) that their child isn't converted?

I think what Rich is talking about, e.g. encouraging children to "say their prayers" before we _know_ that they are converted, not that we will technically ever _infallibly_ know that they are converted in this life, is something slightly different to proper presumptive regeneration, is it not?

What should the Covenant ethos be? I think the Covenant children should be made aware of the need of seeking faith in Christ if they don't have it, and of their need of continuing by God's grace in that faith if they have it.


----------



## jwright82

Semper Fidelis said:


> James,
> 
> You can hardly disagree with the idea that presumptive regeneration is non-confessional when no Confession states that we ought to assume our children are regenerate until we have evidence to the contrary. Non-confessional simply implies that the Confessions do not specifically address the idea. Given the definition that Berkhof offers, there is nothing _un_-Confessional about it (that is that it is not against anything taught in the Confession) but it is still non-Confessional.
> 
> Confessions have never been intended to address every theological idea captured in the Scriptures. There is room for both amillenialism and postmillenialism in the PCA without taking an exception to the Confession. They are non-Confessional in the sense that there is no specific heading within the WCF that requires one to take an exception at that point.
> 
> Leaving aside whether PR is something we can glean from Scripture by GNC, it is non-Confessional in the sense that a person need not take an exception to the Confession (assuming it is of the type that Berkhof describes in his ST).


 
Well I think the situation is semantically a little more nuanced than that. If all non-confessional means is that the issue is not not directly spoken about, like the eschatology you mentioned, than yes I agree with you there. I am afraid that if I were to agree to that than that woud mean that it is not implicitly refered to either, that I cannot agree with. Post-mill as a position is not implicitly refered to at all in the confession so it is irellevant to the confessional language. In this case the various confessions I mentioned all used language that implicitly allowed for this position, and so we are on the same ground yes as Berkhof taught it. So the language implys that it is an ok position. So if someone said that we should not assume the salvation of an infant of beleiving parants who dies would be in direct contradiction to the Canons of Dordt. The principle is that God can save anyone anytime regardless of what we assume. He also made promises to us who are in the covenant. It is more implied in the confessions than postmill but it is not the only option implied either. So it does indirectly touch on this issue hence the confessional argument I laid out. If I can say it is directly non-confessional without saying it is not implicitly ok confessionally than yes we can agree. But if I have to deny the implicit connection that I laid out than I would want the more nuanced aproech to what non-confessional semantically means.

---------- Post added at 08:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:33 PM ----------




> When a Christian couple have a baby, they don't know whether or not it is regenerated. Unless it leaps in the womb when our Lord's Name is mentioned, it doesn't betray marks of grace or otherwise. We can only be completely infallible about our own calling and election anyway, although we can have strong biblically-based "suspicions" that others are also converted.



Presumptive regeneration never said that I know my child to be regenerated only that it is possible for the Holy Spirit to give the gift of faith to anyone, even an infant in seed form of course.



> The Bible and Church History make it clear that many Covenant children are not regenerated at birth or baptism and some/many are sadly never regenerated at all.



That would be hard to rule either way on account of how vast church history is, much of which isn't even documented.



> It would be a strange thing for God's Word to expect parents and others to presume something which they know could be a fantasy, for what purpose?



See the Canons of Dordt part 1 Article 17.



> Presumptive regeneration isn't taught in the Bible or Confession. Biblical realism and idealism, pleading the promises and teaching children their privileges and responsibilities and promises, as sinners born into the Covenant of Grace, but possibly not of the Covenant of Grace, i.e. not converted, is more Biblical.
> 
> It would be a strange thing for God's Word to expect parents and others to presume something which they know could be a fantasy, for what purpose? So the child will be raised in a certain Covenant ethos? The child can be raised in a proper Covenant ethos, and no Covenant ethos is perfect, without parents presuming that they are already converted, or presuming that they are still unconverted.
> 
> Whether they are converted or not, there are marks of grace, and from the earliest years, whether converted or not, they must be presumed to be sinners, because even regenerate children are sinners.
> 
> If parents believe in presumptive regeneration will they pray that their children be converted while still in the womb, or at their earliest years? Will parents address the real possibility (likelihood?) that their child isn't converted?
> 
> I think what Rich is talking about, e.g. encouraging children to "say their prayers" before we know that they are converted, not that we will technically ever infallibly know that they are converted in this life, is something slightly different to proper presumptive regeneration, is it not?
> 
> What should the Covenant ethos be? I think the Covenant children should be made aware of the need of seeking faith in Christ if they don't have it, and of their need of continuing by God's grace in that faith if they have it.



You bring up excellant practical considerations that I had not thought of before. I never stop encouraging my daughter to seek the Lord, but from the age of like 3 or 4 she knows that everyone needs Jesus in their heart to be God's children. She also seeks, and is encouraged and taught to by her mother and I, to live her life the way God wants her to. Is she regenerated? I can never say for sure but she seems to be exibiting the fruits of it. For my certiantly I can only rest on the promises of God that she might be saved, that the sanctifying grace of infant baptism may have already been aplied to her. And when I look to the confessions they tell me the same thing, that God can save anyone, at anytime, through anyway He pleases, no restrictions. The confessions impress upon me that their is a special place for covenant children in God's redemptive plan, which increases the odds so to speak that she is or will be saved in her life. There is no guarentees. I wouldn't throw out presumptive regeneration on the possible practical grounds that parents might assume that they have no need to preform their covenant duty to raise their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. As far as it being biblical or not we can discuss that after we settle the confession issue. But you make fine points Richard.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Richard Tallach said:


> I think what Rich is talking about, e.g. encouraging children to "say their prayers" before we _know_ that they are converted, not that we will technically ever _infallibly_ know that they are converted in this life, is something slightly different to proper presumptive regeneration, is it not?


 
I think it is Richard and I really appreciate your whole post that made me reflect upon the difference between what I assume unconsciously and that which I presume as an axiom.

In other words, I do not consciously presume that any of my children are regenerate. It's not something I take as a given unless, later in life, they surprise me to the contrary. I think that, unconsciously, every parent that prays with their children operates on the unstated assumption that God is hearing their prayers and is using them as means of grace in their lives. I believe this is true of any disciple in a Church that we pray with.

The presumed regenerate state should not be the operating basis by which we deal with anyone in our Church but on the basis that they are disciples and are subjects for our prayer and constant encouragement to press in to the Kingdom of God. Their regeneration must be left to the things hidden and I believe that, by keeping the hidden from the revealed things distinguished we have a much more healthy and biblical approach to our calling.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

jwright82 said:


> Well I think the situation is semantically a little more nuanced than that. If all non-confessional means is that the issue is not not directly spoken about, like the eschatology you mentioned, than yes I agree with you there. I am afraid that if I were to agree to that than that woud mean that it is not implicitly refered to either, that I cannot agree with. Post-mill as a position is not implicitly refered to at all in the confession so it is irellevant to the confessional language. In this case the various confessions I mentioned all used language that implicitly allowed for this position, and so we are on the same ground yes as Berkhof taught it. So the language implys that it is an ok position. So if someone said that we should not assume the salvation of an infant of beleiving parants who dies would be in direct contradiction to the Canons of Dordt. The principle is that God can save anyone anytime regardless of what we assume. He also made promises to us who are in the covenant. It is more implied in the confessions than postmill but it is not the only option implied either. So it does indirectly touch on this issue hence the confessional argument I laid out. If I can say it is directly non-confessional without saying it is not implicitly ok confessionally than yes we can agree. But if I have to deny the implicit connection that I laid out than I would want the more nuanced aproech to what non-confessional semantically means.


First, at some point, one has to define their terms and I did so, given the way I used the term, semantically, in the sentences I constructed, presumptive regeneration is non-Confessional.

I don't think there is anything in any confession that implicitly teaches that parents _should_ view their children as regenerate until shown otherwise. Implicitly, I think the Confessions teach that we ought to improve upon our baptism and that we ought to be consistently encouraging one another to press in. Explicit in the Confessions is the idea that the grace belonging to the Sacraments is not necessarily conferred at the time of administration which implicitly teaches us that we leave such things to the hidden counsel of God.

Again, if someone wants to presume their children are regenerate because they have no counter-factuals to the opposite then this is "OK" as far as they respect the fact that all such knowledge is a judgment of charity and can never penetrate the mind of God then this is fine.

I think you're a bit too wrapped around the idea that you want people to give you a Confessional "A+" on the topic rather than meditating on the manner in which God deals with all His saints in Covenant and how He uses them to exhibit Christ to the disciple.


----------



## jwright82

> I think you're a bit too wrapped around the idea that you want people to give you a Confessional "A+" on the topic rather than meditating on the manner in which God deals with all His saints in Covenant and how He uses them to exhibit Christ to the disciple.



No not exactly. I laid my confessional argument, no one has disagreed with it. I view it as more of a confessional issue that eschatology, but you know what I don't view it as big enough a thing to debate over, I feel the way I feel. 



> I don't think there is anything in any confession that implicitly teaches that parents should view their children as regenerate until shown otherwise. Implicitly, I think the Confessions teach that we ought to improve upon our baptism and that we ought to be consistently encouraging one another to press in. Explicit in the Confessions is the idea that the grace belonging to the Sacraments is not necessarily conferred at the time of administration which implicitly teaches us that we leave such things to the hidden counsel of God.



Well I would not say that parents should do anything, I always said that parents *may* view things in this way. I've never said that they should, 2 different things in my book.



> Again, if someone wants to presume their children are regenerate because they have no counter-factuals to the opposite then this is "OK" as far as they respect the fact that all such knowledge is a judgment of charity and can never penetrate the mind of God then this is fine.



I agree, you know you may disagree with me but I think we agree more than we disagree.


----------



## Caleb

Rich,

I've been reading your posts on this thread and want to make sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying that some have misinterpreted Berkhof and others to mean: "We must presume our children are regenerated until they prove otherwise"? Are you instead saying that the correct interpretation is: "We must presume that all those who have brought forth the fruits meet for repentance are regenerate"?

Or am I setting up a false dilemma? 

Kind regards,
Caleb


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Caleb said:


> Rich,
> 
> I've been reading your posts on this thread and want to make sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying that some have misinterpreted Berkhof and others to mean: "We must presume our children are regenerated until they prove otherwise"? Are you instead saying that the correct interpretation is: "We must presume that all those who have brought forth the fruits meet for repentance are regenerate"?
> 
> Or am I setting up a false dilemma?
> 
> Kind regards,
> Caleb


1. I'm not sure that anyone misinterpreted Berkhof per se but that they might not have read what Berkhof wrote. The thread didn't introduce what Berkhof actually wrote and, consequently, many people were pouring their own meaning into the term "presumptive regeneration". I was simply clarifying what Berkhof's definition of the term was.

2. The correct interpretation of how Berkhof defined presumptive regeneration is bolded in my first reply:



Semper Fidelis said:


> Here is Berkhof to put what he wrote in context:
> 
> 
> 
> *Others went beyond this position and maintained that the children of the covenant were to be regarded as presumptively regenerated. This is not equivalent to saying that they are all regenerated, when they are presented for baptism, but that they are assumed to be regenerated until the contrary appears from their lives.*
Click to expand...


3. Notice that Berkhof states that "Others" believed this. He doesn't indicate anywhere that this is his view.

4. As for the dilemma, the two sentences you wrote are very different. I am uncomfortable with both ideas. That is to say that I don't believe we must believe that either an infant or a person bearing fruit is regenerate. Both deal with things hidden. It's better simply to say that we must treat them as disciples.


----------



## Caleb

Thank you for the succint reply. However, I'm not sure I follow your distinction between regenerate ones and disciples. Are you saying we must not view anyone as regenerate/unregenerate, because that would be passing judgment on their election?

Not attempting the Socratic method here...these are honest questions.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

That's pretty much what I'm saying.

I think we unconsciously assume our fellow disciples' are regenerate but that is different than presuming they are. We just don't know the hidden things of God. A disciple need not be regenerate for us to hope the best for him and pray for the same. Our encouragements, exhortations, and prayers are the means by which God strengthens and converts.


----------



## Caleb

Sorry, had a busy week and am just now reading your post.

I see your point but I think it can be carried too far, e.g.., "We can't know anyone's election; therefore, we won't pass judgment on anyone; and therefore, we won't be too discriminatory in our preaching, exhortation, warning, etc." That line of reasoning contradicts Christ's frequent method of very searching, probing exhortations (cf. John 5:40, John 8:23-24). If you read 1 Thess. 1 and 2 you will notice Paul is very certain about the Thessalonians' spiritual state as well as the Jews' spiritual state. What is his ground for judging them? Not a direct revelation from God but a simple observation of the effect of the Word of God upon them. 

In your first post on this thread, you state, “I would argue that we presume that all baptized members of a congregation are presumed regenerate until the contrary appears in their lives.” I think you’ve modified this viewpoint (correct me if I’m wrong) to state that we should view all baptized members as “disciples” – though I’m unclear of what exactly is implied in that term. My fear is that parents who see their children as disciples will end up downplaying such necessary exhortations as, “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” and “Ye must be born again” (words preached to a covenant seed, btw). 

Regardless, however we view our covenant children, we can agree that children must be repeatedly warned of trusting in their privileges, such as their baptism, Bible knowledge, church attendance, outwardly moral life, etc. They must be shown the many Scriptural examples of covenant children showing “much love” with their mouths, while their heart goes after covetousness (Ezek. 33:31). But if they are not frequently reminded of these sad truths, they are in grave danger of acquiring the same false confidence as those who said, “We be Abraham’s seed.”


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Caleb said:


> Sorry, had a busy week and am just now reading your post.
> 
> I see your point but I think it can be carried too far, e.g.., "We can't know anyone's election; therefore, we won't pass judgment on anyone; and therefore, we won't be too discriminatory in our preaching, exhortation, warning, etc."


Of course it can be taken too far as you just did. If you're putting anyone in air quotes it's based on nothing that I've typed nor could any reasonable person construe anything I've written to that effect.



> That line of reasoning contradicts Christ's frequent method of very searching, probing exhortations (cf. John 5:40, John 8:23-24). If you read 1 Thess. 1 and 2 you will notice Paul is very certain about the Thessalonians' spiritual state as well as the Jews' spiritual state. What is his ground for judging them? Not a direct revelation from God but a simple observation of the effect of the Word of God upon them.


OK. Consequently, whoever has the line of reasoning that we are not to make probing exhortations needs to be reminded of this but you're shadow boxing here because nobody here has used the line of reasoning you created.



> In your first post on this thread, you state, “I would argue that we presume that all baptized members of a congregation are presumed regenerate until the contrary appears in their lives."; I think you've modified this viewpoint (correct me if I'm wrong) to state that we should view all baptized members as disciples; though I'm unclear of what exactly is implied in that term.


What you'll notice is that Richard caused me to reflect on the terms I was using. You will notice a consistent pattern throughout my presentation of respect for the things hidden belonging to the Lord only while the things revealed belonging to us. I go to great pains to describe the exhortation and encouragement that *all disciples* require in the visible communion. I found that I was really saying that many of us unconsciously assume an ability for the disciples in our congregation to have the ability to respond to the things of God. As I've said repeatedly, however, this judgment of charity is not a presumption that none need warning, admonitions, or encouragements (from the youngest to the oldest). That is axiomatic for a disciple. 

If you are confused by what an elder's responsibility is to a disciple and what exhortation looks like to press in to the Kingdom of God then the Book of Hebrews provides a good pattern. The author addresses all with real warnings and has confident, pastoral spirit that hopes that the things he is exhorting them toward will spur them on toward the same. Whatever we might think about the "best" or "worst" in a congregation on the basis of fruit says nothing about whether we can still have some hope that the preaching of the Word will convert. 



> My fear is that parents who see their children as disciples will end up downplaying such necessary exhortations as, “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” and “Ye must be born again” (words preached to a covenant seed, btw).


Well, according to the WCF, our children _are_ disciples visibly. Your problem is with your definition of disciple. As I've said before, and you seem to have glossed over or misunderstood, *nobody* in the Covenant community is exempt from such warnings. Nobody. I challenged one contributor here on the confidence he had that some were converted. As I have said, I do not ignore fruit but such fruit does not give me the mind of God. I only see what looks like fruit and it gives me some assurance but the revealed things command me to encourage daily lest _any_ be found to be unbelieving. There is no distinction to _any_ in terms of responsibility to exhort.



> Regardless, however we view our covenant children, we can agree that children must be repeatedly warned of trusting in their privileges, such as their baptism, Bible knowledge, church attendance, outwardly moral life, etc. They must be shown the many Scriptural examples of covenant children showing “much love” with their mouths, while their heart goes after covetousness (Ezek. 33:31). But if they are not frequently reminded of these sad truths, they are in grave danger of acquiring the same false confidence as those who said, “We be Abraham’s seed.”


 
Let me re-state this:

Regardless, however we view *any disciple in our congregation*, we can agree that *a disciple* must be repeatedly warned of trusting in their privileges, such as their baptism, Bible knowledge, church attendance, outwardly moral life, etc. They must be shown the many Scriptural examples of *disciples* showing “much love” with their mouths, while their heart goes after covetousness (Ezek. 33:31). But if they are not frequently reminded of these sad truths, they are in grave danger of acquiring the same false confidence as those who said, “We be Abraham’s seed.”


----------



## Caleb

We may be talking past each other. I was simply stating a fact that it is possible to abuse the truth that we cannot look into unrevealed things into a belief that we cannot _reliably_ know one's conversion. I don't think anyone on this thread has implied that we can _infallibly_ know another person's conversion. I may not be making much sense, but Calvin, in his commentary on I Thess. 1:4-5, states what I'm trying to get across (and I'm sure you'll agree with him): 

1 Thess. 1:4-5: Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God: For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost…

“_Election of God._ I am not altogether dissatisfied with the interpretation given by Chrysostom — that God had made the Thessalonians illustrious, and had established their excellence. Paul, however, had it in view to express something farther; *for he touches upon their calling, and as there had appeared in it no common marks of God’s power, he infers from this that they had been specially called with evidences of a sure election.* For the reason is immediately added — that it was not a bare preaching that had been brought to them, but such as was conjoined with the efficacy of the Holy Spirit, that it might obtain entire credit among them.

“When he says, _in power, and in the Holy Spirit,_ it is, in my opinion, as if he had said — in the power of the Holy Spirit, so that the latter term is added as explanatory of the former. Assurance, to which he assigned the third place, was either in the thing itself, or in the disposition of the Thessalonians. I am rather inclined to think that the meaning is, that Paul’s gospel had been confirmed by solid proofs, as though God had shewn from heaven that he had ratified their calling. When, however, Paul brings forward the proofs by which he had felt assured that the calling of the Thessalonians was altogether from God, he takes occasion at the same time to recommend his ministry, that they may themselves, also, recognize him and his colleagues as having been raised up by God.

“By the term _power_ some understand miracles. I extend it farther, as referring to spiritual energy of doctrine. For, as we had occasion to see in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul places it in contrast with speech — the voice of God, as it were, living and conjoined with effect, as opposed to an empty and dead eloquence of men. *It is to be observed, however, that the election of God, which is in itself hid, is manifested by its marks—when he gathers to himself the lost sheep and joins them to his flock, and holds out his hand to those that were wandering and estranged from him. Hence a knowledge of our election must be sought from this source.”* (bold emphasis added)

Yes, everyone needs to be exhorted, but I focused on children because this thread has focused on how we should view our covenant children. That said, we also have to be discriminatory in exhortation as well. The application of a sermon should _generally_ be addressed to three groups: the careless, the concerned, and the converted. Too often, though, the exhortation can be just a general call to return from backsliding or spiritual slothfulness -- and the preacher inadvertently gives the impression that everyone in attendance is probably saved, but some just need to "get back on track."
----------
P.S. Of course, many exhortations will apply to everyone regardless of their spiritual state. But for exhortation/application to be pointed and particularly relevant, the converted, unconverted, and "unsure" must each be specifically addressed.


----------



## tcalbrecht

alhembd said:


> No Scottish Presbyterian Church that held to the Westminster Confession of Faith ever accepted Berkhof's view. It is condemned in the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Rightly so, too. *In our experience, most of the young people who are converted are converted in their teens or early twenties. * There are exceptions.
> 
> That said, however: it is the preaching to the lost in the congregation that is used and blessed for the awakening of those who are under the covenant, but not in it.



This sounds like self-fulfilling prophecy. If you treat your children as unregenerate until after some external age of accountability conversion experience, then that is what you will perceive in them.


----------



## jwright82

Caleb said:


> We may be talking past each other. I was simply stating a fact that it is possible to abuse the truth that we cannot look into unrevealed things into a belief that we cannot _reliably_ know one's conversion. I don't think anyone on this thread has implied that we can _infallibly_ know another person's conversion. I may not be making much sense, but Calvin, in his commentary on I Thess. 1:4-5, states what I'm trying to get across (and I'm sure you'll agree with him):
> 
> 1 Thess. 1:4-5: Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God: For our gospel came not unto in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost…
> 
> “_Election of God._ I am not altogether dissatisfied with the interpretation given by Chrysostom — that God had made the Thessalonians illustrious, and had established their excellence. Paul, however, had it in view to express something farther; *for he touches upon their calling, and as there had appeared in it no common marks of God’s power, he infers from this that they had been specially called with evidences of a sure election.* For the reason is immediately added — that it was not a bare preaching that had been brought to them, but such as was conjoined with the efficacy of the Holy Spirit, that it might obtain entire credit among them.
> 
> “When he says, _in power, and in the Holy Spirit,_ it is, in my opinion, as if he had said — in the power of the Holy Spirit, so that the latter term is added as explanatory of the former. Assurance, to which he assigned the third place, was either in the thing itself, or in the disposition of the Thessalonians. I am rather inclined to think that the meaning is, that Paul’s gospel had been confirmed by solid proofs, as though God had shewn from heaven that he had ratified their calling. When, however, Paul brings forward the proofs by which he had felt assured that the calling of the Thessalonians was altogether from God, he takes occasion at the same time to recommend his ministry, that they may themselves, also, recognize him and his colleagues as having been raised up by God.
> 
> “By the term _power_ some understand miracles. I extend it farther, as referring to spiritual energy of doctrine. For, as we had occasion to see in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul places it in contrast with speech — the voice of God, as it were, living and conjoined with effect, as opposed to an empty and dead eloquence of men. *It is to be observed, however, that the election of God, which is in itself hid, is manifested by its marks—when he gathers to himself the lost sheep and joins them to his flock, and holds out his hand to those that were wandering and estranged from him. Hence a knowledge of our election must be sought from this source.”* (bold emphasis added)
> 
> Yes, everyone needs to be exhorted, but I focused on children because this thread has focused on how we should view our covenant children. That said, we also have to be discriminatory in exhortation as well. The application of a sermon should _generally_ be addressed to three groups: the careless, the concerned, and the converted. Too often, though, the exhortation can be just a general call to return from backsliding or spiritual slothfulness -- and the preacher inadvertently gives the impression that everyone in attendance is probably saved, but some just need to "get back on track."
> ----------
> P.S. Of course, many exhortations will apply to everyone regardless of their spiritual state. But for exhortation/application to be pointed and particularly relevant, the converted, unconverted, and "unsure" must each be specifically addressed.


 
Your concern is well noted but holding to the view that God can regenerate anyone at anytime, even infants, does not necessitate that one doesn't believe that they should be exorted and told to repent like everyone else. There is simply no logical connection there at all. What I assume about a baptized member of the visible church and what I assume should be the discipleship or exorting of everymember of the visible church are two different issues. Practically speaking you are correct that some people may take things to far but that is true of any doctrine. Just because I assume my daughter to be regenerated, until such time as her fruits give evidence otherwise, doesn't mean that I can neglet my duty as her father to raise her in the fear and admonishon of the Lord. I assume everymember of my local church are regenerated, but just because I assume that doesn't make it so.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Caleb said:


> P.S. Of course, many exhortations will apply to everyone regardless of their spiritual state. But for exhortation/application to be pointed and particularly relevant, the converted, unconverted, and "unsure" must each be specifically addressed.


 
It would be contrarian of my to argue with the meat of your post as I agree with it in the main.

The only distinction I would make to the last is that there really is no way to know, precisely, who you're speaking to if you "aim" exhortation at those groups you're talking about. The job of the preacher is not to "aim" in his preaching, per se, but to exposit the Word of God. Luke 15 may, at the same time, convert the unconverted, strengthen the hand that is weak, and build up the most sanctified of Saints. Hebrews 6 may condemn the obstinate, cause the converted to remember, or convert the unconverted. I can't think of a single part of Scripture that is "aimed" at a type of person. Even the verses that you mentioned with Paul taking to the "fruitful" may be the means to regenerate. God doesn't give us a list of verses to choose when we want to focus on regeneration. That's left up to him because the same Scripture that makes alive also condemns depending upon how God gives it increase.

That said, I certainly rejoice at seeing the fruit in Christian lives and believe it is a necessary consequence of being in Christ. I just believe that the remedy for fruitless trees is more exhortation, rebuke, discipline, and encouragement. I also believe that the confidence that trees with fruit will bear more fruit is more exhortation, rebuke, discipline and encouragement. Both from the Word. While I can conceive of a differing amount of rebuke (especially in a discipline situation) or comfort (in a time of grief) or exhortation (when confidence is failing), what I cannot conceive of is coming to a point where I make the determination that the disciple before me can easily be categorized according to regenerate or unregenerate and that it will affect how my decision is made. Circumstance, and not firm knowledge, guides the decision. Consequently, I maintain that all be treated as disciples.


----------



## jwright82

I noticed upon reflection of the posts that many people seemd to think that I meant that I know that someone is saved in some way shape or form. First off no I don't claim to anything like that, I did repeatedly deny beleiving but I think that maybe the way I framed the discussion around a subjective/objective distinction confused things so I thought of a couple of illustrations to explain what I mean. 

If someone is married they assume their spouse isn't going to be unfaithful. But as soon as they go out of town or something their spouse might commit adultery. Their subjective assumption never guarenteed any objective state of affairs at all, faithfullness by spouse. They may have had all the right reasons to believe as they did but that beleif never influenced reality at all it was simply subjective.

If you go work for someone they promise to pay you such and such for a job and you have all the right reasons to assume that they will pay you on Friday but you don't have any secret knowledge about future states of affairs that guarentees they will. So come Friday you might get payed and you might not, objective state of affairs versus subjective assumption. 

A couple's chld in the church is getting baptized, they every reason to believe that their child will be saved or already is saved. That does not guarentee or affect actual objective works by God though. Their child could not be saved that is possible but they have every reason to assume that their child is saved until contrary evidence arises. So they didn't know any actual state of affairs at all they just had good reasons for beleiving the possibility that their child was saved. That as I understand the terms is presumptive regeneration, it is not:
1. any secret knowledge of God's objective works of salvation in any particuler infant's heart.
2. it guarentees nothing about the actual state of affairs spiritualy for the child.
3. it is not the only assumption that a person can make concerning a baptized infant's spiritual state.

I hope that cleared up any miunderstandings.


----------



## Caleb

Rich makes a good point that exhortations and warnings should be taken to heart by everyone, even if they have "made their calling and election sure." The WCF does say that believers are to "embrace the promises, and tremble at the threatenings." "To this man will I look…to him that trembleth at my word” (Isaiah 66:2).

One caveat and I am done: 

The free, indiscriminate call of the gospel applies to everyone, but the comforts of the gospel do not apply to everyone, because many gospel hearers do not obey the call. In other words, the gospel offer must be received before comfort can be applied. This distinction illustrates the need for particular exhortation and application on both a public and a private level (e.g. Acts 3:14-15 and 8:18-23). Much wisdom from above is needed in this, of course. Nonetheless, we are not warranted to administer the comforts of the gospel to anyone, including covenant children, until they give a Scriptural account of their conversion and show evidence of an upright life. 

Herein lies the danger of presuming regeneration (a view that Rich does not propound). If we choose to view our children as regenerate until proven otherwise, we have no reason to withhold the comforts of the gospel from them. Indeed, if we have a good hope that someone is converted, we are commanded to comfort them: “Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.” 

But the truth is that we risk the eternal ruin of beloved souls if we (1) skip the necessary step of looking for abiding evidence of a saving change, and (2) carelessly apply the benefits of Christ’s redemption. We risk giving them a false hope that they may carry to their deathbed.

It’s a difficult subject. My minister frequently quotes the classic saying, “We would not make glad the hearts of those whom the Lord would have made sad, and we would not make sad the hearts of those whom the Lord would have made glad.”


----------

