Infant baptism and crisis conversions

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scott

Puritan Board Graduate
I found this article good:

THE PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINES OF COVENANT CHILDREN, COVENANT NURTURE AND COVENANT SUCCESSION
http://www.churchofthekingsacramento.com/presbyteriandoctrine.htm

I had long been bothered by the fact that many in the PCA believe that covenant children need to experience a crisis conversion experience in spite of their baptism and birthright as covenant children. The view that sees this as essential views covenant children as being unsaved and in the world until they have this experience, in spite of their baptism. It seems to me to make a nonsense of infant baptism. Further, it really blows the debate between credo and paedo baptists out of proportion. They are both basically revivalistic in their outlook and baptism is of little real significance. Both has as an initial to to evangelize their little pagan children, as opposed to disciple believing children.

I hope to get a few of the books mentioned in the article. Has anyone else read Lewis Bevens Schenck's The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant: An Historical Study of the Significance of Infant Baptism in the Presbyterian Church in America? I am looking forward to reading it.

Scott
 
Originally posted by Scott
I found this article good:

THE PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINES OF COVENANT CHILDREN, COVENANT NURTURE AND COVENANT SUCCESSION
http://www.churchofthekingsacramento.com/presbyteriandoctrine.htm

I had long been bothered by the fact that many in the PCA believe that covenant children need to experience a crisis conversion experience in spite of their baptism and birthright as covenant children. The view that sees this as essential views covenant children as being unsaved and in the world until they have this experience, in spite of their baptism. It seems to me to make a nonsense of infant baptism. Further, it really blows the debate between credo and paedo baptists out of proportion. They are both basically revivalistic in their outlook and baptism is of little real significance. Both has as an initial to to evangelize their little pagan children, as opposed to disciple believing children.

I hope to get a few of the books mentioned in the article. Has anyone else read Lewis Bevens Schenck's The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant: An Historical Study of the Significance of Infant Baptism in the Presbyterian Church in America? I am looking forward to reading it.

Scott

Scott,
Schenks book is an excellent example of the historical account of paedo baptism & Presbyterianism. Not many contemporary's will agree with him however; the PR idea doesn't go over all that well (I agree with the principle).

I agree with your statement above. The Presbyterian church has undermined their own theology. Like a virus, over time the contemporary idea of the illicit evangelicals has crept in and now is fully rearing it's ugly head. One fine example of this is the communicants class. Where is the faith I ask?

[Edited on 11-19-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
In the WCF the practice of baptism is based upon the infants status as a member of the covenant (and therefore entitled to the sign of the covenant) rather then an assumption that the infant is regenerate. Regeneration may occur before, during or after baptism (or never,) but an Opus Operatum view of baptism is not found in our confessional standards or the scriptures.

There is always the call for our covenant children to improve their baptism by closing with Christ by faith. There is nothing about being a member of the covenant (visible church) in the legal sense that necessarily removes the curse of original sin. Simply because the revivalists have mangled the practice doesn´t mean we abandon the doctrine of conversion and become Covenantal Nomists as some are doing today. We can reject the idea that a person´s conversion necessarily needs to fit into some template in any form such as crying buckets of tears or walking the aisle or never knowing a day when you didn´t know Christ. When and how the Lord brings people to faith is unique to every person who believes and no doubt that some won´t be able to remember a day when they didn´t believe and others will have dramatic stories, but if they are in Christ, they have with Him by personal faith. For what it's worth, Packer does an excellent job of explaining practice of Reformed Puritan evangelism in several books and the Puritans themselves wrote often on the need for conversion.

The great Scottish Presbyterian divine William Guthrie (not exactly one of those nasty Southern Presbyterians or New England Puritans Schenck seems to think ruined everything) sums up the necessity of personal conversion clearly and concisely in this snippet from his work The Christians Great Interest:

1. Believing on Christ must be personal; a man himself and in his own proper person must close with Christ Jesus--'The just shall live by his faith.' (Hab. 2: 4.) This saith, that it will not suffice for a man's safety and relief, that he is in covenant with God as a born member of the visible church, by virtue of the parent's subjection to God's ordinances: neither will it suffice that the person had the initiating seal of baptism added, and that he then virtually engaged to seek salvation by Christ's blood, as all infants do: neither does it suffice that men are come of believing parents; their faith will not instate their children into a right to the spiritual blessings of the covenant; neither will it suffice that parents did, in some respects, engage for their children, and give them away unto God: all these things do not avail. The children of the kingdom and of godly predecessors are cast out. Unless a man in his own person have faith in Christ Jesus, and with his own heart approve and acquiesce in that device of saving sinners, he cannot be saved. I grant, this faith is given unto him by Christ; but certain it is, that it must be personal.
 
Adam,
Sorry but the divines whom penned the WCF saw things differently than you are stating. You're assuming that they thought along those lines. This is where Schencks book is quite helpful.

[Edited on 11-19-2004 by webmaster]
 
Just dealing with the WCF, WSC, WLC - the divines purposely did not make a difference between children being baptism (what that meant) and adult baptism (what that meant). For ANYONE baptized, the following was thier mind on the subject:

Q165: What is Baptism?
A165: Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,[1] to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself,[2] of remission of sins by his blood,[3] and regeneration by his Spirit;[4] of adoption,[5] and resurrection unto everlasting life;[6] and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church,[7] and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord's.[8]

1. Matt. 28:19
2. Gal. 3:27
3. Mark 1:4; Rev. 1:5
4. Titus 3:5; Eph. 5:26
5. Gal. 3:26-27
6. I Cor. 15:29; Rom. 6:5
7. I Cor. 12:13
8. Rom. 6:4

It is not associated with "What is Baptism for adults vs. children?" Rather, "What is Baptism." Every "party" baptized.... This is what baptism is whenever it is done. That is what they discussed that the Assmebly and passed.
 
Adam: Many American Puritans had wrong views of the necessity of Christians to have crisis conversion experiences. This led to strange things such as the now-ridiculed half-way covenant in Puritan America.
 
Scott,

Read Schenck's book. Interesting but I didn't find it compelling. That's probably why it was out of print for so long. I also read Rayburn's paper. After reading Schenck then re-reading Rayburn, I don't see the connection to "Covenant Succession" and PR. I also found it interesting that Rayburn makes it a rule that parents are responsible for the sins of their children, but then gives A-Z exception. Kinda like the IRS.
 
Adam: Many American Puritans had wrong views of the necessity of Christians to have crisis conversion experiences. This led to strange things such as the now-ridiculed half-way covenant in Puritan America.

Scott, I agree with you on this. Taking any type of conversion experience and making that a rigid template that everybody needs to fit into is wrong. No doubt some folks are converted with a big crisis experience (as I am sure some here were,) but I have interviewed just as many people who have no idea when they were converted - they just know that they were at some time brought from death to life and believe.

I think we need to be very careful not to as they say, throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to conversion. The abuse of the doctrine of conversion by some revivalists for us in no way should invalidate the proper understanding. All men and women are born dead in sin and unless they are converted will pay the penalty for their sins in hell. Being in the covenant (and having received the sing of the covenant) in terms of its administration (visible church) provides no assurance that we won't go to hell. Yes, God's ordinarily brings people to faith in the context of the covenant (visible church,) but since we understand that in its historical administration the covenant includes both the elect and the non-elect, we preach the general call to faith to our children and adults.

Of course that need not be 25 verses of "Just as I Am" at the end of every sermon and a cup full of tears, but we really ought to be examining ourselves at whatever age and see if we believe.

[Edited on 20-11-2004 by AdamM]
 
Matt: The Rayburn paper is the one I linked to in the first post.

Adam: Remember some infants are saved from the womb, such as John the Baptist.

Wayne: WHat do you mean by "PR?"
 
Originally posted by AdamM
Adam: Many American Puritans had wrong views of the necessity of Christians to have crisis conversion experiences. This led to strange things such as the now-ridiculed half-way covenant in Puritan America.

Scott, I agree with you on this. Taking any type of conversion experience and making that a rigid template that everybody needs to fit into is wrong. No doubt some folks are converted with a big crisis experience (as I am sure some here were,) but I have interviewed just as many people who have no idea when they were converted - they just know that they were at some time brought from death to life and believe.

I think we need to be very careful not to as they say, throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to conversion. The abuse of the doctrine of conversion by some revivalists for us in no way should invalidate the proper understanding. All men and women are born dead in sin and unless they are converted will pay the penalty for their sins in hell. Being in the covenant (and having received the sing of the covenant) in terms of its administration (visible church) provides no assurance that we won't go to hell. Yes, God's ordinarily brings people to faith in the context of the covenant (visible church,) but since we understand that in its historical administration the covenant includes both the elect and the non-elect, we preach the general call to faith to our children and adults.

Of course that need not be 25 verses of "Just as I Am" at the end of every sermon and a cup full of tears, but we really ought to be examining ourselves at whatever age and see if we believe.

[Edited on 20-11-2004 by AdamM]

There is also the additional evidence of Manuals used by Presbyterians in pre-Great Awakening Days (i.e. before the big bad revivalistic corruptions). The Presbyterians made long and arduous work of seeking out conversion experience and experimental knowledge of Christ. As a matter of fact, they drew most heavily on the Early Church catechesis models (that were administered to new converts). Has anyone read Clavin's questions regarding examination for communing? These materials belie Schenck's assumptions. The more I read Schenck and discuss these matters with sound theological men, the less I like his book and the less helpful it is.

There is a reason that Schenck is the darling of Wilkins, Schlissel et al.
 
I reject the "crisis conversion" alegations too. It's just rhetoric. I've been a member in a Dutch and OPC church, and along with all the Puritan literature I've read, I don't find any arguing for a "crisis" conversion, not even the Calvinistic revivalists. They all acknowledge the possibility, but it's one of many varieties of experiences regarding conversion. IN fact, great revivalists like Nettleton rejected such "crisis" conversion without first seeing some enduring fruit.
 
Originally posted by Scott
Matt: The Rayburn paper is the one I linked to in the first post.

Adam: Remember some infants are saved from the womb, such as John the Baptist.

Wayne: WHat do you mean by "PR?"

Sorry - I missed reading the article. I will check it out.
 
Originally posted by webmaster
There is a reason that Schenck is the darling of Wilkins, Schlissel et al.

Don't go there. These men warp the doctrine into a perversion.

Help me to understand. How do you avoid the implications of Kevin Johnson with respect to Baptism in the Roman Catholic Church? (find it in the "Reformed Campbellites" thread) The answer can't be "Roman Catholic Baptism is invalid" since both Witsius and Turretin state it is valid.
 
Originally posted by turmeric
I think I believe in Presumptive Election. You still have to close with Christ.

Meg,
So you have to see to believe? Why is it so important to witness a work?
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by turmeric
I think I believe in Presumptive Election. You still have to close with Christ.

Meg,
So you have to see to believe? Why is it so important to witness a work?

Faith without works is dead. There must be fruit Scott. As children grow older, and as adults convert, they must bear fruit. Otherwise their profession is worth nothing.
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by turmeric
I think I believe in Presumptive Election. You still have to close with Christ.

Meg,
So you have to see to believe? Why is it so important to witness a work?

Because that is how Christ designed it:

Ephesians 5:5-6 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

1 John 3:18-24 8 My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth. 19 And by this we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him. 20 For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. 21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God. 22 And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight. 23 And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment. 24 Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.

1 John 5:1-2 1 John 5:1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments.

1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death.

1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.


WCF 11:2 WCF 11.2 Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification;(1) yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.(2)

(1)John 1:12; Rom. 3:28; Rom. 5:1.
(2)James 2:17,22,26; Gal. 5:6.

WCF 11:4 WCF 11.4 God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect;(1) and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:(2) nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.(3)

(1)Gal. 3:8; 1 Pet. 1:2,19,20; Rom. 8:30.
(2)Gal. 4:4; Rom. 4:25.
(3)Col. 1:21,22; Gal. 2:16; Tit. 3:4-7

WCF 10:2 WCF 10.2 This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man;(1) who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit,(2) he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.(3)

(1)2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 3:4,5; Eph. 2:4,5,8,9; Rom. 9:11.
(2)1 Cor. 2:14; Rom. 8:7; Eph. 2:5.
(3)John 6:37; Ezek. 36:27; John 5:25.


Notice the difference between the effectual call of the elect and the outward call of the non-elect:

WLC 1:67-68 WLC 67 What is effectual calling? A. Effectual calling is the work of God's almighty power and grace,(1) whereby (out of his free and special love to his elect, and from nothing in them moving him thereunto(2)) he doth, in his accepted time, invite and draw them to Jesus Christ, by his word and Spirit;(3) savingly enlightening their minds,(4) renewing and powerfully determining their wills,(5) so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made willing and able freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein.(6)

(1)John 5:25; Eph. 1:18-20; 2 Tim. 1:8,9
(2)Tit. 3:4,5; Eph. 2:4,5,7,8,9; Rom. 9:11
(3)2 Cor. 5:20 compared with 2 Cor. 6:1,2; John 6:44; 2 Thess. 2:13,14
(4)Acts 26:18; 1 Cor. 2:10,12
(5)Ezek. 11:19; Ezek. 36:26,27; John 6:45
(6)Eph. 2:5; Phil. 2:13; Deut. 30:6

WLC 68 Are the elect only effectually called? A. All the elect, and they only, are effectually called;(1) although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the word,(2) and have some common operations of the Spirit;(3) who, for their wilful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ.(4)

(1)Acts 13:48
(2)Matt. 22:14
(3)Matt. 7:22; Matt. 13:20,21; Heb. 6:4-6
(4)John 12:38-40; Acts 28:25-27; John 6:64,65; Ps. 81:11,12

This is nothing new.
 
To the above responses to me on my response to Meg;
Unless I misunderstood Meg, I believe she was referring to the communicants class or an outward confession. When something like 'the close' or 'closing with Christ' is mentioned, it sounds Arminian. It smacks of these ridiculous events that the Arminian requires and even the present day PCA seek. These 'events' are not necessarily prerequisite in salvation. I will not look for anything of that nature from my children as if schooled correctly in the ways of the Lord, they could easily parrot the ideas even to no avail. Talk is cheap. Time is the only close worthy of any respect or consideration.

*How elementary is the concept that faith without works is dead? Would this be a new concept to me? Think about your responses. Don't just type for the sake of typing. Obviously I was not referring to this........Some of the responses at times are ridiculously fundamental. It's almost embarassing reading them. (I have no idea that faith without works is dead. Please submit yourselves to prayer in my behalf that God would convert me as I do not know the gospel). In one of my last threads with openAir Boy, Craid S. and Paul M. piped in with the same type of elementary response in regards to knowledge and faith and then left the thread before hearing the rationale supporting my position. It's goofy. Do I have to qualify every statement I make with a systematic?

The communicants class; to me, is a joke and flies in the face of CT and faith. On one hand we say we trust God in His promise, on the other we have to 'see' and hear (as in an outward confession) things, just like the Arminian. We don't really trust God, we trust men. The comunicants class proves nothing. Just because a kid can parrot soemthing does not mean they are converted. The devils know the scriptures and even tremble; they are not saved!

Megs statement had to do with PE and the "closing". The closing is something that the Arminian does, i.e. the altar call, the confession, the prayer. These things the Arminian needs. He does not trust God. He is like Thomas; he must put his fingers in the hole before he will believe.

If my child has no 'experience', no outwards statements, yet lives like a believer, has good works, I will look for nothing but depend by faith on Gods promise to me and my seed! I will trust Christ. I will not goad a confession out of her or ask that she take the communicants class. In fact, I will fight tooth and nail against it when the time comes.

Fred,
The passages you cite, they are not reflective of any 'close'. They are reflective of fruit of the disciple. This has nothing to do with 'closing' or what I meant. The WCF statements are along the same lines.

The chatechism says alot!
Q165: What is Baptism?
A165: Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,[1] to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself,[2] of remission of sins by his blood,[3] and regeneration by his Spirit;[4] of adoption,[5] and resurrection unto everlasting life;[6] and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church,[7] and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord's.[8]

1. Matt. 28:19
2. Gal. 3:27
3. Mark 1:4; Rev. 1:5
4. Titus 3:5; Eph. 5:26
5. Gal. 3:26-27
6. I Cor. 15:29; Rom. 6:5
7. I Cor. 12:13
8. Rom. 6:4

and from Calvins institutes:

14. Sign and thing

Now that the end to which the Lord had regard in the institution of baptism has been explained, it is easy to judge in what way we ought to use and receive it. For inasmuch as it is appointed to elevate, nourish, and confirm our faith, we are to receive it as from the hand of its author, being firmly persuaded that it is himself who speaks to us by means of the sign; that it is himself who washes and purifies us, and effaces the remembrance of our faults; that it is himself who makes us the partakers of his death, destroys the kingdom of Satan, subdues the power of concupiscence, nay, makes us one with himself, that being clothed with him we may be accounted the children of God. These things I say, we ought to feel as truly and certainly in our mind as we see our body washed, immersed, and surrounded with water. For this analogy or similitude furnishes the surest rule in the sacraments, viz., that in corporeal things we are to see spiritual, just as if they were actually exhibited to our eye, since the Lord has been pleased to represent them by such figures; not that such graces are included and bound in the sacrament, so as to be conferred by its efficacy, but only that by this badge the Lord declares to us that he is pleased to bestow all these things upon us. Nor does he merely feed our eyes with bare show; he leads us to the actual object, and effectually performs what he figures.

15. Baptism as confirming faith

We have a proof of this in Cornelius, the centurion, who, after he had been previously endued with the graces of the Holy Spirit, was baptised for the remission of sins, not seeking a fuller forgiveness from baptism, but a surer exercise of faith; nay, an argument for assurance from a pledge. It will, perhaps, be objected, Why did Ananias say to Paul that he washed away his sins by baptism, (Acts 22:16; cf. ch 9:17-18) if sins are not washed away by the power of baptism? I answer, we are said to receive, procure, and obtain, whatever according to the perception of our faith is exhibited to us by the Lord, whether he then attests it for the first time, or gives additional confirmation to what he had previously attested. All then that Ananias meant to say was, Be baptised, Paul, that you may be assured that your sins are forgiven you. In baptism, the Lord promises forgiveness of sins: receive it, and be secure.

I have no intention however, to detract from the power of baptism. I would only add to the sign the substance and reality, inasmuch as God works by external means. But from this sacrament, as from all others, we gain nothing, unless in so far as we receive in faith. If faith is wanting, it will be an evidence of our ingratitude by which we are proved guilty before God, for not believing the promise there given.

In so far as it is a sign of our confession, we ought thereby to testify that we confide in the mercy of God, and are pure, through the forgiveness of sins which Christ Jesus has procured for us; that we have entered into the Church of God, that with one consent of faith and love we may live in concord with all believers. This last was Paul's meaning, when he said that "by one Spirit are we all baptised into one body," (1 Cor. 12: 13.)


God commands I place the sign upon Zoe; I respond in faith. I did this based upon the above. If I felt the way many of you feel in regards to your childs position in Christ and what baptism actually means to you, I would have not submitted her to it and I would have waited then until I saw fruit and actually heard a confession (ultimately Baptististic principles)
God commands I rear her in the way she should go; I will respond in obedience. Gods word says that if I rear her in the way she should go, she will not depart from it. This I trust. God is faithful, men are not. I will not be double minded. I will not doubt God. I will however hold my daughter responsible. If she is faithless, I will not hold God responsible for her faithlessness. God is never irresponsible.

From the WCF:

Westminster Confession of Faith


Chapter xxviii

Of Baptism

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.

It's early and I'm cranky. Forgive me, but I'm getting tired of the nonsensical posts.

For the record, this is the position Schenck's book endorses.


[Edited on 11-21-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
Scott,

I have no idea where you got the idea of "communicant's class" or even "outward confession" from Meg's post. To close with Christ is to show actual conversion.

Yes, this is elemntary. Yes you know this. But that is NOT Schenck's and his follower's position. For them, if a child has doubts, he is not pointed to Christ, he is pointed to his baptism. There is a difference.
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Scott,

I have no idea where you got the idea of "communicant's class" or even "outward confession" from Meg's post. To close with Christ is to show actual conversion.

Yes, this is elemntary. Yes you know this. But that is NOT Schenck's and his follower's position. For them, if a child has doubts, he is not pointed to Christ, he is pointed to his baptism. There is a difference.

Pointing one to their baptism is pointing one to Christ; Christ and Baptism are one in the same in many ways. Pointing my child to their baptism and what it holds (not the water) is imperative.


For the record, how do you know Meg didn't mean 'an outward principle'? Here's her quote:

I think I believe in Presumptive Election. You still have to close with Christ.

Meg implied that she holds presumptively, yet you still need to 'close' with Christ is needed. To me this sounded as if a work was needed to close the conversion. The only thing needed for conversion to occur is hearing Gods word. If I was wrong, Meg, will have to forgive me.

I disagree about your analysis of Schenck. I believe (embedded) within what he wrote, this is what he meant.

And for the record, if it is elementary, why pontificate?

You mention "actual conversion"; only Christ knows His converted. Even Judas showed fruit. Based upon this, I lean into Christ. I go solely upon faith. God will work it out.......

[Edited on 11-21-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
The phrase "close with Christ" has specific meaning in Reformed theology. Here are a few examples, more later after Church:

The Second Doctrine, resulting more directly from the words, was, That the Lord´s Spirit poured out in plenty upon his people will quickly bring them to an embracing of him, and to a public, acknowledgment and avouching of the same. Thus it was with the people of God in the text-no sooner does the Lord "pour water upon the thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground," even his Sprat upon the spiritual seed of Israel, but presently they are at covenanting work and subscribing work; "One shall say, I am the Lord´s," etc. In prosecuting this doctrine he shewed first negatively that he was not for that occasion largely to treat of the several ways that the Spirit useth to manage this work of engaging the hearts of his people to embrace Christ, and so to make a public avouchment of the same; whether he doth it by representing to their views the sweet and precious promises made in the covenant of grace, thereby sweetly alluring and drawing them with the cords of love to himself, or by holding forth to their consciences the terrors and threatenings of the law, and thereby powerfully constraining them to fly to him as to the city of refuge from the face of Divine Justice pursuing them: for seeing the Spirit is a free agent and blows both how and where he listeth, he may engage a soul to close with Christ by either of these ways, though most usually he doth it by a conjunction and concurrence of both. Only this ought to satisfy us, that what way soever the Spirit taketh in bringing a soul to embrace Christ upon the gospel terms, he so manageth the work as that the end is effectually and infallibly attained. (THE
AUCHENAUGH RENOVATION OF THE NATIONAL COVENANT AND SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT; WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SINS AND ENGAGEMENT TO DUTIES,
AS THEY WERE RENEWED AT AUCHENSAUGH, NEAR DOUGLAS,
JULY 24, 1712)

onathan Edwards:

The apostasy of man summarily consists in departing from the true God, to idols; forsaking his Creator and setting up other things in his room...The gods which a natural man worships, instead of the God that made him, are himself and the world...When we say that natural man are not willing to come to Christ, it is not meant that they are not willing to be delivered from hell; for without doubt, no natural man is willing to go to hell. Nor is it meant, that they are not willing that Christ should keep them from going to hell. Without doubt, natural men under awakenings often greatly desire this. But this does not argue that they are willing to come to Christ: for, not withstanding their desire to be delivered from hell, their hearts do not close with Christ, but are averse to him...They are not willing to take Christ as he is; they would fain divide him. There are some things in him that they like, and others that they greatly dislike; but consider him as he is, and he is offered to them in the gospel, and they are not willing to accept Christ; for in doing so, they must of necessity part with all their sins; they must sell the world, and part with their own righteousness. But they had rather, for the present, run the venture of going to hell, than do that...He is a Savior appointed of God; he anointed him, and sent him into the world. And in performing the work of redemption, he wrought the works of God; always did those things that pleased him; and all that he does as a Savior, is to his glory. And one great thing he aimed at in redemption, was to deliver them from their idols, and bring them to God. (The Works of Jonathan Edwards (Edinburgh: Banner, 1974), Volume 2, Discourse: Men Naturally are God´s Enemies, pp. 132, 138-139)

The third difference is that spurious believers never close with Christ and all the inconveniences that follow (and believe me there are some!). They want Christ but they have never done what Jesus commanded, that is, counted the cost (Luke 14:25-33). Every serious Christian knows that the Christian life is not a gospel hayride. All is not "happy, happy, happy" or "jolly, jolly, jolly" all the time. The language of the Christian life is also "I war", " I fight", "I wrestle", "I strive". (Ernest Reseinger)

It will greatly add to their torment and anguish to consider that they were sometime near the enjoyment of this blissful presence of Christ. Pardon, and peace, and love, and life, and the endless fruition of the blessed Jesus were tendered to them, were nigh them, were at the very door of their hearts. They were solemnly commanded, lovingly invited, severely threatened, sweetly allured, and pathetically persuaded to accept of Christ and grace; yea, and heaven, and happiness, and eternal life; yea, and their hearts began to relent, and to close with the entreaties of the gospel. They were almost persuaded to be Christians indeed; there was but a little, a very little, between them and Christ. (George Swinnock)

"Believing on Christ must be personal; a man himself and in his own proper person must close with Christ Jesus-"˜The just shall live by his faith.´ (Hab. 2:4.) This says, that it will not suffice for a man´s safety and relief, that he is in covenant with God as a born member of the visible church, by virtue of the parent´s subjection to God´s ordinances: neither will it suffice that the person had the initiating seal of baptism added, and that he then virtually engaged to seek salvation by Christ´s blood, as all infants do: neither does it suffice that men are come of believing parents; their faith will not instate their children into a right to the spiritual blessings of the covenant; neither will it suffice that parents did, in some respects, engage for their children, and give them away unto God: all these things do not avail. The children of the kingdom and of godly predecessors are cast out. Unless a man in his own person have faith in Christ Jesus, and with his own heart approve and acquiesce in that device of saving sinners, he cannot be saved. I grant, this faith is given unto him by Christ; but certain it is, that it must be personal." (William Guthrie, The Christians Great Interest

This is just what I could find in 10 minutes. Far too often Westminsterian phrases like "receive Christ" and "close with Christ" are accused as being Armnian. They aren't. And there is a reason they use those phrases.
 
OK. Point taken. Unfortunately Fred, in this day, even in our own churches, when someone uses these terms, they are not echoing Swinnock, et al. , they are meaning the epoch that occurs within most present day churches which present themselves in emotionally charged events like the outward confession, altar call and even the communicants class.

Possibly I have done to Tumeric exactly what I am chiding everyone else for doing to me. Meg, care to illuminate us? If I was wrong in the evaluation of your statement, please forgive me?

[Edited on 11-21-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
OK. Point taken. Unfortunately Fred, in this day, even in our own churches, when someone uses these terms, they are not echoing Swinnock, et al. , they are meaning the epoch that occurs within most present day churches which present themselves in emotionally charged events like the outward confession, altar call and even the communicants class.

Possibly I have done to Tumeric exactly what I am chiding everyone else for doing to me. Meg, care to illuminate us? If I was wrong in the evaluation of your statement, please forgive me?

[Edited on 11-21-2004 by Scott Bushey]

I agree Scott. And part of what we need to do is to get back to the language used in the Confession, because it is Biblical language. There is a reason we speak of closing with Christ. It is because we seek to see evidence of salvation.

I want to add here that I don't think you are off the mark (or at least far from it). I'm not trying to put you into a corner. I am only very aware of the fact that our "conversation" is going on "in front of" many people (many of whom do not even post and who may not even be members)) and I want to be precise in terminology.

We must see evidence of conversion, not merely trust to baptism and see a lack of reprobation. I don't think you are saying this, but many in our day are. Let me quote John Owen's masterpiece on Regeneration in his Pneumatologia (On the Holy Spirit), vol 3:

First, Regeneration doth not consist in a participation of the ordinance of baptism and a profession of the doctrine of repentance. This is all that some will allow unto it, to the utter rejection and overthrow of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ: for the dispute in this matter is not, whether the ordinances of the gospel, as baptism, do really communicate internal grace unto them that are, as to the outward manner of their administration, duly made partakers of them, whether ex opere operato, as the Papists speak, or as a federal means of the conveyance and communication of that grace which they betoken and are the pledges of; but, whether the outward susception of the ordinance, joined with a profession of repentance in them that are adult, be not the whole of what is called regeneration. The vanity of this presumptuous folly, destructive of all the grace of the gospel, invented to countenance men in their sins, and to hide from them the necessity of being born again, and therein of turning unto God, will be laid open in our declaration of the nature of the work itself. For the present, the ensuing reasons will serve to remove it out of our way: "”

1. Regeneration doth not consist in these things, which are only outward signs and tokens of it, or at most instituted means of effecting it; for the nature of things is different and distinct from the means and evidences or pledges of them: but such only is baptism, with the profession of the doctrine of it, as is acknowledged by all who have treated of the nature of that sacrament.

2. The apostle really states this case, 1 Peter 3:21, "œIn answer whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." 269 The outward administration of this ordinance, considered materially, reacheth no farther but to the washing away of "œthe filth of the flesh;" but more is signified thereby. There is denoted in it the restipulation of a "œgood conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" from the dead, or a "œconscience purged from dead works to serve the living God," Hebrews 9:14, and quickened by virtue of his resurrection unto holy obedience. See Romans 6:3-7.

3. The apostle Paul doth plainly distinguish between the outward ordinances, with what belongs unto a due participation of them, and the work of regeneration itself: Galatians 6:15, "œIn Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature;" "” for as by "œcircumcision" the whole system of Mosaical ordinances is intended, so the state of "œuncircumcision," as then it was in the professing Gentiles, supposed a participation of all the ordinances of the gospel; but from them all he distinguisheth the new creation, as that which they may be without, and which being so, they are not available in Christ Jesus.
4. If this were so, then all that are duly baptized, and do thereon make profession of the doctrine of it, "” that is, of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, "” must of necessity be regenerate. But this we know to be otherwise. For instance, Simon the magician was rightly and duly baptized, for he was so by Philip the evangelist; which he could not be without a profession of faith and repentance. Accordingly, it is said that he "œbelieved," Acts 8:13, "” that is, made a profession of his faith in the gospel. Yet he was not regenerate; for at the same time he had "œneither part nor lot in that matter," his "œheart not being right in the sight of God," but was "œin the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity," verses 21, 23; which is not the description of a person newly regenerate and born again. Hence the cabalistical Jews, who grope in darkness after the old notions of truth that were among their forefathers, do say, that at the same instant wherein a man is made "œa proselyte of righteousness," there comes a new soul into him from heaven, his old pagan soul vanishing or being taken away. The introduction of a new spiritual principle to be that unto the soul which the soul is unto the body naturally is that which they understand; or they choose thus to express the reiterated promise of taking away the "œheart of stone," and giving a "œheart of flesh" in the place of it.
 
Fred,
You write:

We must see evidence of conversion, not merely trust to baptism and see a lack of reprobation.

But what of thoses cases where there is no evidence of covnversion. These are covenant children who have been responsibly reared properly. They grow up good children, and early into their adulthood, they hold to those teachings. They attend church, they align themselves with the church, and acknowledge Christ as Lord; are never disrespectful to anyone and seem to be the perfect child/young adult. There is no outward epoch per se. Are we to look for something else? I say, no. I would look to their baptism and the promise alone. Will they close with Christ? Only he knows. Time will tell. Evidence of conversion does not make one a true believer. This is why I say, the promise is more dependable than my measuring stick.
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Fred,
You write:

We must see evidence of conversion, not merely trust to baptism and see a lack of reprobation.

But what of thoses cases where there is no evidence of covnversion. These are covenant children who have been responsibly reared properly. They grow up good children, and early into their adulthood, they hold to those teachings. They attend church, they align themselves with the church, and acknowledge Christ as Lord; are never disrespectful to anyone and seem to be the perfect child/young adult. There is no outward epoch per se. Are we to look for something else? I say, no. I would look to their baptism and the promise alone. Will they close with Christ? Only he knows. Time will tell. Evidence of conversion does not make one a true believer. This is why I say, the promise is more dependable than my measuring stick.

Scott,

Notice what I did not say. I said "evidence of conversion," not "evidence of a dramatic and epochal conversion." I am not arguing for a Arminian "I went from drugs and sex to Jesus" But every Christian will show evidence of conversion.

First, it is ALWAYS bad theology to start from the exception and try and make a judgment. When coming up with a theology of regeneration, the last place to start is with "elect infants." Owen makes this case wodnerfully using the example of infants in the same category as the apostle Paul:

Mostly, God makes use of the preaching of the word; thence called "œthe ingrafted word, which is able to save our souls," James 1:21; and the "œincorruptible seed," by which we are "œborn again," 1 Peter 1:23. Sometimes it is wrought without it; as in all those who are regenerate before they come to the use of reason, or in their infancy. Sometimes men are called, and so regenerate, in an extraordinary manner; as was Paul. But mostly they are so in and by the use of ordinary means, instituted, blessed, and sanctified of God to that end and purpose.

But Christ does say:

We are given a measuring stick. It is not ours, but Christ's. Christ never says (nor does the OT) that we are to judge someone's regeneration (whether ours, or our children's or another's) by looking to their baptism/circumcision. We are called to look for fruit. It need not be flashy fruit. It need not be radical fruit. But it WILL be fruit. The Bible is replete with instances of this - as we said, it is basic.

One on hand it is called the practical syllogism:

Query: How do I know I am elect and regenerate?
Premise: The elect and regenerate bear testimony, evidence of their regeneration, obedience to the lawand the fruit the Spirit.
Premise 2: I see evidenence of the fruit of the Spirit in my life.
Conclusion: I am elect and regenerate.

This was used to great effect by the Puritans because of their (Biblical) emphasis on the demands of the law and the ensuing difficulties that raised for assurance. (Aside: what was the pastoral topic that the Puritans as a group dealt most with and wrote most extensively on? Election? No. The sacraments? No. It was assurance)

So what we look for is fruit to tell what the tree is, not even the promise of the tree. What does this mean practically? It means that while I do not need to see my child get into drugs and fornication so that they can "get saved" afterwards, it does mean that if my child, even though he has been baptized and is in the church:

  • doesn't want to read his Bible
  • has no desire to pray
  • does not show evidence of patience, gentleness
  • does not desire to talk about Christ
  • does not DESIRE to obey his parents
  • does not want to be among God's people
  • etc

That I am bound to point him to his need for conversion, to close with Christ, to profess his faith in Christ in such a way that it bears fruit. Until he does that, I can have no assurance that he does. I have the promise - but the promise prompts me to ACTION, not rest. The fact that I have the promise gives me hope and assurance of success (by God's work, not mine) in my urging the child to close with Christ. It is like the proverbial shooting fish in a barrel. Great hope and assurance of success, but you still need to get the gun out and pull the trigger.
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by webmaster
There is a reason that Schenck is the darling of Wilkins, Schlissel et al.

Don't go there. These men warp the doctrine into a perversion.

Help me to understand. How do you avoid the implications of Kevin Johnson with respect to Baptism in the Roman Catholic Church? (find it in the "Reformed Campbellites" thread) The answer can't be "Roman Catholic Baptism is invalid" since both Witsius and Turretin state it is valid.

No, that is not what I mean. They warp PR to suit that birth = salvation, not the sacrament. Schlissel, for example, is not resting on the reality fo the promise in PR and baptism as being pessemistic unless otherwise demonstrably seen later int he child's life, but saying that he think because of BIRTH (that his kinds are born by him) that he presumes that they are elect. That is not based onthe promise, but on an assumption made that is simply erroneous, and Judiazing. That is the perversion.
 
Fred,
I think we are talking about 2 different things. I am not saying we are to not judge the tree by it's fruit; we should. I am saying however that not every conversion is measurable either by an epochal event or in many ways measurable at all. When I was at Emmanual baptist church, many family's had children whom were approaching adult hood who always acted as the believer. They never acted as an unbeliever. What of them? How do you measure that?

In Schencks book, he quotes Dr. Atwater:

From earliest infancy the spirit which surrounded the child was to be the spirit not of the world, but of true religion. The parent covenanted on his part, so far as he acted for the child, or exerted influence in molding his conduct, feelings, and principles, to guide him according to his bent in the formation of right and practical habits; in short,to train him to act, feel, and think as a child of God. And whether he remembers the time and manner of the beginning and progressive development of these states of mind and heart, or whether these have ingrained themselves so imperceptibly into the warp and woof of his inner being that he can mark no distinct epoch or hinge point in his career, as the crisis of the new birth, it is enough that he can say, "I am a child of God" .

This is where one would point their child to their baptism as evidence of their position in Christ, i.e. the promise.



[Edited on 11-21-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top