# Baptists don't presume, but...



## blhowes (Jun 27, 2004)

Sometimes, when I look across the street into my paedo brother's theological yard, I see things that look very nice in their yard and think, &quot;I wouldn't mind having that&quot;. The idea of presumptive regeneration is one of those things. They have a confidence (though not a guarantee) that their children may be or may get saved, based on promises that God has made. They presume the best until proven otherwise, again, [b:328bfab5ab]based on God's promises[/b:328bfab5ab]. 

As a baptist, I look in our yard and wonder what we have in this regard. We do have election in common with our brothers- the belief that some of our children may get saved and some may not, and God is justified in that choice. But, beyond that, do we have any other hope or confidence that our children will get saved? Often, I must admit, there's the feeling that if I bring my children to church and if I have daily Bible readings with them and if I pray for them and if I do this or if I do that, chances are they will get saved (though contingent upon God's election). Its I, I, I. All of us, I &quot;presume&quot;, would admit that we often fall far short of what we should be as parents. Placing hope on my efforts isn't as reassuring as resting in God's promises.

As baptists, beyond election, what confidence do we have that our children will get saved? How is that confidence grounded in God's promises?

Bob


----------



## Dan.... (Jun 27, 2004)

Bob,

I am a baptist. :yes: 

I believe that God does not change. His promises are same today as they have always been. Hence, all of these promises apply to us today (as much as they did to Israel of old) :

&amp;#65279;Genesis 17:7; Deuteronomy 4:37,40; 5:29; 10:15; 11:21; 12:28; 30:6,19; Joshua 14:9 Psalm 25:12,13; 37:25,26; 90:16; 102:28; 103:17; 112:1,2; 115:14; Proverbs 11:21; Isaiah 44:3; 59:21; 61:9; 65:23; Jeremiah 32:39; Ezekiel 37:25; Acts 2:39.

You don't have to hold to presumptive regeneration to believe the promises of God.

I believe that God will save my child. God was the God of my great grand parents, my grandparents, my mother, to my sister and I, to my sister's two sons; and I believe that He will convert more of my siblings and will also be a God to my children. He has been a God to many generations. He has been faithful to His promises.

(Presumptive election - not to be confused with presumptive regeneration).


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 27, 2004)

Dan,
How is this idea any different than PR? I mean, ultimately, you are saying that your child WILL be saved.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 27, 2004)

[quote:35f6e50ae1][i:35f6e50ae1]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:35f6e50ae1]
Dan,
How is this idea any different than PR? I mean, ultimately, you are saying that your child WILL be saved. [/quote:35f6e50ae1]
I am just guessing but I think the differnce between us would be the baptist understanding of the nature of baptism. Baptism is more a profession of faith rather than a sign and seal like circumcision. Please correct me if I'm wrong here Dan.


----------



## blhowes (Jun 27, 2004)

Dan,
Thanks for listing the scripture promises. I may have a question or two for you about them later.

With regard to the presumptive election that you spoke of, how does that come into play when an infant of Christian parents dies? Would you have any reason to presume that the child went to heaven, or is it &quot;just&quot; left up to the doctine of election?

Bob


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 27, 2004)

I have to say that I am with Dan on this one. I am a presumptive electionist, not presumptive regenerationist.


----------



## Ianterrell (Jun 27, 2004)

What's the difference between presumptive election and presumptive regeneration?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 27, 2004)

Ian,
To me, the line is so thin that it doesn't really matter. The PE person believes that there child is elect and one day will be regenerated and converted, where as the PR person believes that their child is already regenerate (based upon a level of faith in Gods promise) and will also, one day be converted under the preaching of Gods word.


----------



## Dan.... (Jun 27, 2004)

Scott,

[quote:611b2b24a0]
How is this idea any different than PR? I mean, ultimately, you are saying that your child WILL be saved.
[/quote:611b2b24a0]

The promise of God is that He will be a God to my descendants. I do not presume that my child is regenerated and saved already, but that God will, at some point (which may be past or future) regenerate my child, and that my child will believe the gospel. Ultimately, yes, we both believe that our children will be saved. However, I don't want to read into the promise of God something that is not there - i.e., He has not revealed by the promise when the child will be regenerated, the promise is only that the child will be regenerated. As to when (whether past or future), I leave that to the God who has promised.

Patrick,

True, I do not believe that the child should be baptized until the child has made a profession of faith. However, presumptive regeneration vs. presumptive election has little to do with baptism. Even if I presumed that the child is regenerate, I (and the church) would wait to baptize until the child has professed faith in Christ. Hence professor's baptism. (To all, please don't turn this in to a baptism debate. The baptism debates in the past have worn me out).

Bob,

[quote:611b2b24a0]
With regard to the presumptive election that you spoke of, how does that come into play when an infant of Christian parents dies? Would you have any reason to presume that the child went to heaven, or is it &quot;just&quot; left up to the doctine of election? 
[/quote:611b2b24a0]

I believe that when a Christian parent(s) loses an infant child (whether born or unborn), that the parent(s) ought to trust in the promise of God, to be a God to him/her and to his/her children. I believe that the promise of God gives us reason to believe that such children (those of believers) who die in infancy were indeed regenerated and saved by the work of the Holy Spirit.


[quote:611b2b24a0]
I have to say that I am with Dan on this one. I am a presumptive electionist, not presumptive regenerationist.
[/quote:611b2b24a0]


  :thumbup:



Ian,

I agree with Scott's definition above, only clarifying that both are &quot;[i:611b2b24a0]based upon a level of faith in God's promise[/i:611b2b24a0]&quot;.


----------



## blhowes (Jun 27, 2004)

[b:b95268897d]Dan wrote:[/b:b95268897d]
I believe that when a Christian parent(s) loses an infant child (whether born or unborn), that the parent(s) ought to trust in the promise of God, to be a God to him/her and to his/her children. I believe that the promise of God gives us reason to believe that such children (those of believers) who die in infancy were indeed regenerated and saved by the work of the Holy Spirit.

So, in this case, is it safe to say that presumptive election and presumption regeneration are the same thing? (seems like there's a fine line that separates the two presumptions)

Bob


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 27, 2004)

[quote:dc9ea00d2f][i:dc9ea00d2f]Originally posted by blhowes[/i:dc9ea00d2f]

So, in this case, is it safe to say that presumptive election and presumption regeneration are the same thing? (seems like there's a fine line that separates the two presumptions)
[/quote:dc9ea00d2f]
No. PR presumes that the realities of regeneration is already there. PE presumes that the realities will be there eventually, though they could be there already.


----------



## blhowes (Jun 27, 2004)

[b:aa7a942cbe]Patrick wrote:[/b:aa7a942cbe]
No. PR presumes that the realities of regeneration is already there. PE presumes that the realities will be there eventually, though they could be there already.

Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 8, 2004)

I think the biggest problem here, is that there's nothing in the Bible that mentions any reason for doing paedobaptism. None.


----------



## blhowes (Jul 8, 2004)

Gabriel,
Welcome to the forum.

[b:504d295eb5]Gabriel wrote:[/b:504d295eb5]
I think the biggest problem here, is that there's nothing in the Bible that mentions any reason for doing paedobaptism. None.

I'm not a prophet or anything, but I'm gonna predict that there may be at least one person on this forum that may disagree with your statement...let's wait and see...

Bob


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 8, 2004)

I'd love to see one verse that mentions the need for it, or the rationale behind it, in the New Testament. (that isn't out of context)


----------



## blhowes (Jul 8, 2004)

[b:9e7a4b03d1]Gabriel wrote:[/b:9e7a4b03d1]
I'd love to see one verse that mentions the need for it, or the rationale behind it, in the New Testament. (that isn't out of context) 

Coming from a baptist background, I had that question around two years ago for a Presbyterian minister. He basically said that there isn't a verse that comes right out and says we are to baptize infants. He told me that to understand why they baptize babies I first needed to understand covenant theology. Since then, I've been learning about covenant theology. 

Have you read studied covenant theology much?

Bob


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jul 8, 2004)

Gabriel - Greetings! I too am a SBTS student. How long have you been at Southern? I am certainly not advocating that you necessarily change your position on the proper subjects of baptism... but I would recommend that you read some of the better works on paedobaptism. They do have some &quot;good&quot; reasons for their position... and as I wrestled I had some good conversations with several professors (Schreiner included) and even they (especially Schreiner and Wright) acknowledged that the reformed paedobaptist position makes some good points. 
I hope you have a good and productive rest of your summer! Are you married? If so lets get together and grill sometime... or we can go to get some coffee. 
Ben


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 8, 2004)

For the record, I adhere to Covenant Theology, I was just curious to see some of the responses I'd get. Yes, I'm SBC born and raised, but I'm more Presbyterian than anything.

I heard a sermon at church last night about Baptism and it made some really strong points AGAINST paedo, and I think you can still be CT and not believe in infant baptism... not sure, though. Regardless, I think Believers should still be baptized, whether they were baptised as infants into the church family or not! 

[quote:dd953ec3b5]Gabriel - Greetings! I too am a SBTS student. How long have you been at Southern? I am certainly not advocating that you necessarily change your position on the proper subjects of baptism... but I would recommend that you read some of the better works on paedobaptism. They do have some &quot;good&quot; reasons for their position... and as I wrestled I had some good conversations with several professors (Schreiner included) and even they (especially Schreiner and Wright) acknowledged that the reformed paedobaptist position makes some good points. 
I hope you have a good and productive rest of your summer! Are you married? If so lets get together and grill sometime... or we can go to get some coffee. 
Ben[/quote:dd953ec3b5]

Ben, I'm currently taking undergrad. courses to finish out my Bachelor's degree (been in college 3 years) so I am not yet taking Seminary Level classes. I just moved here this summer!

I'm not married, so I guess you don't want to hang out with me? uzzled:


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 8, 2004)

[quote:9324b10a35][i:9324b10a35]Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia[/i:9324b10a35]
I think the biggest problem here, is that there's nothing in the Bible that mentions any reason for doing paedobaptism. None. [/quote:9324b10a35]

There's many things that are [i:9324b10a35]implied[/i:9324b10a35] via the scriptures........Are you trying to say you don't embrace the trinity or the tithe or woman taking the supper?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 8, 2004)

[quote:fff375790d][i:fff375790d]Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia[/i:fff375790d]
For the record, I adhere to Covenant Theology, I was just curious to see some of the responses I'd get. Yes, I'm SBC born and raised, but I'm more Presbyterian than anything.

I heard a sermon at church last night about Baptism and it made some really strong points AGAINST paedo, and I think you can still be CT and not believe in infant baptism... not sure, though. Regardless, I think Believers should still be baptized, whether they were baptised as infants into the church family or not! 

[quote:fff375790d]Gabriel - Greetings! I too am a SBTS student. How long have you been at Southern? I am certainly not advocating that you necessarily change your position on the proper subjects of baptism... but I would recommend that you read some of the better works on paedobaptism. They do have some &quot;good&quot; reasons for their position... and as I wrestled I had some good conversations with several professors (Schreiner included) and even they (especially Schreiner and Wright) acknowledged that the reformed paedobaptist position makes some good points. 
I hope you have a good and productive rest of your summer! Are you married? If so lets get together and grill sometime... or we can go to get some coffee. 
Ben[/quote:fff375790d]

Ben, I'm currently taking undergrad. courses to finish out my Bachelor's degree (been in college 3 years) so I am not yet taking Seminary Level classes. I just moved here this summer!

I'm not married, so I guess you don't want to hang out with me? uzzled: [/quote:fff375790d]

Gabriel,
I am going to say just this, you are mistaken. I was a reformed baptist. There is insurmountable evidence in the bible as well as fine historical written documents to explain that which seems invisible to your eye and conscience. I would suggest my friend, to endeavor to read those documents (as well as search through the archives of this board) before you go out on that dry limb. Many a man hath done this (climbed out where he shouldn't have) and found himself flat on his face (namely myself).

Oh and by the way, one cannot be a credo baptist and be also a covenant theologian; sorry. Please take the time to persuse thorougly the Covenant Theology section of our board; it will define that branch which you have erroneously climbed out on............

[Edited on 7-9-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 8, 2004)

So you don't think Believers should be Baptised? uzzled:


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 8, 2004)

Believers ARE baptised. Whether they are presbyterian or credo is irrelevent.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 8, 2004)

Why were people in the NT only Baptised as a result of their faith in Christ? (not before or when they were born)


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 8, 2004)

Thats your flawed hermenuetics speaking. [i:97f6f56d28]Disciple[/i:97f6f56d28] does not equal regeneration.


----------



## dado6 (Jul 8, 2004)

[quote:fcdf47fc00]
Why were people in the NT only Baptised as a result of their faith in Christ? (not before or when they were born) 
[/quote:fcdf47fc00]

That is not a true statement, as far as the text goes. Acts 16:31-33 gives no testimony of a profession of faith on the part of the jailer's family. Same with 1 Cor 1:16.

There is a presumption on the part of credobaptists that individual faith was declared in these instances, just as there is a presumption that the very young may have been included in these group baptisms by paedobaptists. Neither view is explicit in the text.

The question remains what is baptism ultimately a sign of? God's coventant with His Church, or the faith of the individual believer.

Thanks,
Rob


----------



## Ianterrell (Jul 9, 2004)

[quote:5905114b2a][i:5905114b2a]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:5905114b2a]
[quote:5905114b2a][i:5905114b2a]Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia[/i:5905114b2a]
Why were people in the NT only Baptised as a result of their faith in Christ? (not before or when they were born) [/quote:5905114b2a]

you turn &quot;the believed and were baptized&quot; as a basis for the logically different proposition, &quot;only those who believe may be baptized.&quot; In other words, you go beyond the text.
[/quote:5905114b2a]


----------



## Augusta (Jul 18, 2004)

I am tilting heavily toward the Paedobaptist position. My line of reasoning is this: We have nothing to do with our own salvation. It is the gift of grace from God from the foundations of the world. Thus thinking that people must believe before they are baptized is dangerously close to a belief in works playing a part in salvation. John was baptizing before Jesus had even gone to the cross. Grace was active from creation to today. He knew us before we were born thus after we are born even in infancy. Also the covenant sign was given to all of Abrahams children but not all of Abrahams children were saved. God chose only part of Abrahams line, that of Issac, to be his. Then he split even that line and said Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated. So not all with the covenant sign were elect. Just as now not all with the covenant sign are elect be they baptized in infancy or later in life with a profession of faith. We know the tares are in among the wheat. I think that when whole households were baptized there had to be children. There was no birth control in those days. Where you had a couple you had children. I don't know yet wether it really matters either way except that God commanded Abraham to circumcise everyone no matter what age and everyone thereafter on their 8th day of life. This was a command. I wish Jesus would have said be ye bapitized and all your household. It would have helped. When you think about it though. In their day it was a no brainer that children were under the parents with absolutely no autonomy. You did as your parents did. They would not leave their children to make up their own minds. Especially considering the many promises to believers and their households. I think this whole idea of leaving children to make their own way and make up their own minds is a modern works oriented view. God has already made up His mind about your children you can be sure. It can be argued In my humble opinion that this is a left over arminian view by the paedos as easily as the credos argue that infant baptism is a left over Roman practice. When you look at the full counsel of the bible as covenant theology does you can see the reasoning in infant baptism. The just shall live by faith. I think that baptizing my children would be exercising faith. I don't know why I haven't made the leap yet to say to myself ";;I am a paedobaptist.";; I think it is because I am still working out election itself on some level. I don't know. Your prayers would be appreciated. Thanks for listening to me nearly convince myself of it.


----------



## Ianterrell (Jul 18, 2004)

Agusta,

Sounds good. One thing about the Wheat and Tares parable. Notice the tares are actually within the field amongst the wheat.


----------



## sosipater (Jul 21, 2004)

[quote:802b760cf5]Oh and by the way, one cannot be a credo baptist and be also a covenant theologian; sorry. [/quote:802b760cf5]

Scott,

This is just untrue at worst, and misleading at best. I'm sure every cofessing A.R.B.C.A. member would disagree with you, among many other Reformed Baptists. As it has been pointed out in a thread elsewhere in this forum, there are degrees to everyone's position on the Dispensational-Covenant Theological spectrum. Some may be more "covenantal" than others, but a blanket statement like yours is just not true. 

I am sure you meant you can't be Baptist and a Paedobaptistic Presbyterian Covenant Theologian, at least I hope that is what you meant.

Grace & Peace,
Russ


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 21, 2004)

Russ,

[quote:dbba958779]I am sure you meant you can't be Baptist and a Paedobaptistic Prespyterian Covenant Theologian, at least I hope that is what you meant. [/quote:dbba958779]

If I know Scott, that is EXACTLY what he meant.

To be a Covenant Theologian means something[i:dbba958779] historically[/i:dbba958779].

Baptists may be "covenantal" but they cannot embrace Covenant Theology as outlined historically in the Christian Chruch under Iranaeus, Augustine, Calvin, Turretin, THE WCF, Witsius and others.

There is a monumental differecne being a "covenantal" Particular Baptist, and a Covenant Theologian. Even Baptist history tells one this - Baptists DID NOT refer to themselves as Covenant Theologians, but as Particular Baptists. Nor did Baptists refer to themselves as "Reformed". To be "Reformed" is NOT to hold the doctrines of grace, (that just makes you a Christian :yes: ) To be Reformed is to follow the teaching of the Reformed Church after the early fathers, Calvin and the Swiss churches through church History, helpfully epitomoized in the Westminster Standards, and the three forms of Unity. 

For further study on these ideas:

What does it mean to be Reformed - REALLY?
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahon-WhatDoesItMeanToBeReformed.htm

John Owen and the Covenant of Redemption
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahonJohnOwenRedemption.htm

Covenant concepts in Turretin's Institutes
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahonCovenantConceptsTurretin.htm

A Summary of Witsius' Economy of the Covenants
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahonSummaryWitsiusEconomy.htm

A Simplistic Overview of Covenant Theology
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahonSimpleCovenantTheology.htm


----------



## blhowes (Jul 21, 2004)

[quote:cd92f15acb="Augusta"]I am tilting heavily toward the Paedobaptist position. My line of reasoning is this...Thanks for listening to me nearly convince myself of it.[/quote:cd92f15acb]
Your line of reasoning makes sense. 

The only thing I personally would take issue with is this:
[quote:cd92f15acb="Augusta"]Thus thinking that people must believe before they are baptized is dangerously close to a belief in works playing a part in salvation.[/quote:cd92f15acb]
As one who is still on the baptist side of the fence and looking over at the paedo's nice front lawn, I've never thought of baptism as being a work that plays a part in salvation. Its just a testimony of what God has done in your heart. I think of obeying the command to be baptized as no more of a work than any other thing the Bible tells us to do as a Christian - study your Bible, pray, go to church, die to self, etc. 

[quote:cd92f15acb="Augusta"]Your prayers would be appreciated. [/quote:cd92f15acb]


----------



## sosipater (Jul 21, 2004)

Mr. McMahon,

Thanks for the links. I do understand that you and Scott mean something [i:ab0932c420]historically[/i:ab0932c420] speaking when you say Covenant Theology. Let me ask you a question, as you are much more studied on this point than me. Are you saying that Iranaeus, Augustine, Calvin, Turretin, THE WCF, Witsius and others were all in total agreement as to every detail of their theology, even as it deals with the continunity and discontinuity aspects of the covenants, and how and why the covenants were administered? This is a sincere question because that seems to be what you are implying.

And if they were not, how do we decide who was a true Covenant Theologian and who just leaned Covenantally?

Grace & Peace,

Russ


----------



## pastorway (Jul 21, 2004)

[quote:4b69bed05f]Thus thinking that people must believe before they are baptized is dangerously close to a belief in works playing a part in salvation.[/quote:4b69bed05f]

This is nonsense. None of us are preaching baptismal regeneration or works salvation. 

Also - why do Presbyterians REQUIRE a profession of faith BEFORE baptizing an adult convert? Have they changed their theology of salvation to a works based system for adults but adhered to a grace based theology for kids? Of course not. Paedo and Credo [b:4b69bed05f]all[/b:4b69bed05f] practise believers baptism, it is just that Credo's practise believers [i:4b69bed05f]only[/i:4b69bed05f] baptism. Works have nothing to do with it.

Phillip


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 21, 2004)

Russ,

The basic structure of CT in the early father is found in Calvin. The basic structure of Calvin's CT is found in Turretin, and improved in Turretin to be more specific. The Westminster divines then summarized the findings of Turretin (a la Calvin) in the Westminster standards. Those standards on CT include the Sum of Saving Knowledge, and the Confession and Catechisms on the subject. Coeccius at this time also did work on CT and in his writings you can see Calvin, and the early fathers as well. Witsius finally put all this, a summation of everything, including a further structuring of Westminster, into a very solidly systematic theological form. It is like those little wooden, Russian dolls that fit one inside of the other. As we progress through history, CT takes a more defined shape until the WCF. Witsius simply structured their information more succinctly. There was NO DETRACTION from what the previous had said. We never "remove" aspects of theology in order to further reform it. That winds up deforming that theological system not improving it.

William Wall's work on Infant Baptism through the early fathers and early church demonstrate their consistency in the manner in which they viewed baptism, and the terms they used for regeneration, sanctification, etc. in a more broad scope. Some of their writings would almost even sound foreign to us and different in our thinking because they meant one thing by "baptism" and "regeneration" and we mean something more defined. 

Calvin improved all of that, Turretin defined it more precisely, Westminster structured it, and Witsius wrote it all down systematically.

They agree as you move through history in that way.

Reformed Theology, through that time period, specifically follows the theology of Calvin, Turretin, the WCF and CT is epitomized in Witsius.

If someone wants to RE-define CT and say it means "covenantal" combined with "I believe in the doctrines of grace", well, that simply, is not the case at all. That is simply remedied by reading a good church history book (like Latourette, Schaff or D'Aubigne).

The paper on what it means to be reformed covers thjis history and the progression of that theology through the reformers.

I would very much press you to read the paper on Turretin I quoted because that demosntrates how the WCF followed Turretin and why.


----------

