Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian
You mean simply whether or not an infant can have faith?
Luke 1:15 on John the Baptist: "For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb."
I suppose that means he was regenerate in the womb, and thus explains why he jumped when hearing Mary's voice (cf. 1:39ff.) In infant can conceivably have faith, but it will, of course, be the faith of an infant.
Originally posted by Puritanhead
I figured someone would think of that John the Baptist reference. You read my mind Casey.
Originally posted by fredtgreco
I do not have it front of me right now, but essentially Lusk says that children born in the church have no need of conversion.
I believe that this is unbiblical and unconfessional. Apparently the PCA presbytery that Lusk attempt to transfer into thought so too.
Well, we don't have to change the definition.Originally posted by raderag
Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian
You mean simply whether or not an infant can have faith?
Luke 1:15 on John the Baptist: "For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb."
I suppose that means he was regenerate in the womb, and thus explains why he jumped when hearing Mary's voice (cf. 1:39ff.) In infant can conceivably have faith, but it will, of course, be the faith of an infant.
So, how would you define this faith?
Originally posted by raderag
I'm not asking if an infant can be elect, but if they can posess a real saving faith.
Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
These may be of help.
...
Francis Junius
Junius stated, "faith in its first action...is required.... For it is inseparable from the person covenanted or to be baptized.... It is an error to maintain absolutely that children cannot believe. For they have the beginning of possessing faith, because they possess the Spirit of faith (Spiritum fidei)...." Francis Junius' Theological Theses on Paedobaptism, page 139.
Originally posted by Puritanhead
Originally posted by raderag
I'm not asking if an infant can be elect, but if they can posess a real saving faith.
What's the difference? All those given are called to regeneration... none will fall away.
Originally posted by raderag
Originally posted by Puritanhead
Originally posted by raderag
I'm not asking if an infant can be elect, but if they can posess a real saving faith.
What's the difference? All those given are called to regeneration... none will fall away.
I was an atheist and still of the elect. So there is a distinction between regeneration, election, and belief.
Originally posted by raderag
Does anybody have any knowledge on this issue? What are the arguments for and against? Is it within the confessional bounds?
Originally posted by fredtgreco
I do not have it front of me right now, but essentially Lusk says that children born in the church have no need of conversion.
I believe that this is unbiblical and unconfessional. Apparently the PCA presbytery that Lusk attempt to transfer into thought so too.
Originally posted by wsw201
The only real reference to any type of infant faith that I have heard of is from Turretin and that is "seed" faith. Matt has talked about this in other threads. You may want to do a search.
In my humble opinion, to subscribe "faith" or saving faith to an infant, is more than a bit speculative.
'Individual anecdotes are not normative, but illustrative of the fruit of men´s labours. The fruit of a belief will be seen in how it manifests itself in practice. Ideas have consequences. Let me illustrate. A friend with whom I attended seminary called me recently to discuss a matter affecting the life of the church he presently pastors. The church is Presbyterian. My friend has always been a traditionally conservative Presbyterian pastor holding to all of the Westminster Standards- even the Directory for Publick worship. His recent experience struck at the heart of how the infant´s interest in the Covenant of Grace via the Abrahamic Covenant is working itself out in some covenantal Presbyterian or paedobaptist circles.
A young woman in her late teens had become a nightmare to her Christian parents. She was disruptive at home and rebellious to the authority figures in her life. Her church prayed for her regularly over the course of almost two years. In fact, they prayed so regularly that it seemed to the Pastor that the congregation had given her over as a hopeless cause. They had become desensitized through familiarity with her condition. A christian friend of this young woman, however, also showed concern for her. She "˜reached out to her with a lifeline´ (as the evangelical cliché says). This friend invited her to a church other than her family´s where there were special summer evangelistic meetings. She agreed to attend. The rebellious one was struck by the force of the preaching and made a public profession of faith. (Let´s not get lost in a visceral reaction to methodology at this point.) Late that night, she announced to her parents with tears of repentance interspersed with her words that everything was going to be okay from now on because she was now a Christian. Sounds good, doesn´t it?
Her father went into a tirade. He had presumed that his daughter was already regenerate by virtue of her election and her place as a "œCovenant child." He would not be shown to be wrong. His hyper-covenantal theology blinded him to the possibility that his daughter might have been unregenerate. In his view, she had "œbroken the covenant again" by making such a public confession of faith. After all, he had professed faith for her at her baptism sixteen years or so earlier. What might have been perceived as a merciful answer to the church´s prayers was perceived as a greater evil than her two years of rebellion. For this act she was cast from the home. It was the proverbial last straw. The father´s real grief was that she had become "œa [expletive deleted] Baptist!" In these words, the father conveyed his horror to his pastor, my friend. For the first time in his ministry, my friend saw the consequences of "œpressing to much out of covenant theology." He asked in desperation, "œWhat´s a pastor to do?" Since he knows my dry sense of humour, I replied, "œBecome a Reformed Baptist." I also sent him John Tombes´ work on the Abrahamic Covenant.´
Nice anecdote Martin. The only problem is that the hypothetical Presbyterian minister is missing the point as to the nature of covenant expectation. The father in the above story is very foolish and should have praised God for answering prayer (leaving aside the issue of the genuineness of the conversion).Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
The Following appeared in Reformed Baptist Theological Review.
The author is Michael Renihan
'Individual anecdotes are not normative, but illustrative of the fruit of men´s labours. The fruit of a belief will be seen in how it manifests itself in practice. Ideas have consequences. Let me illustrate. A friend with whom I attended seminary called me recently to discuss a matter affecting the life of the church he presently pastors. The church is Presbyterian. My friend has always been a traditionally conservative Presbyterian pastor holding to all of the Westminster Standards- even the Directory for Publick worship. His recent experience struck at the heart of how the infant´s interest in the Covenant of Grace via the Abrahamic Covenant is working itself out in some covenantal Presbyterian or paedobaptist circles.
A young woman in her late teens had become a nightmare to her Christian parents. She was disruptive at home and rebellious to the authority figures in her life. Her church prayed for her regularly over the course of almost two years. In fact, they prayed so regularly that it seemed to the Pastor that the congregation had given her over as a hopeless cause. They had become desensitized through familiarity with her condition. A christian friend of this young woman, however, also showed concern for her. She "˜reached out to her with a lifeline´ (as the evangelical cliché says). This friend invited her to a church other than her family´s where there were special summer evangelistic meetings. She agreed to attend. The rebellious one was struck by the force of the preaching and made a public profession of faith. (Let´s not get lost in a visceral reaction to methodology at this point.) Late that night, she announced to her parents with tears of repentance interspersed with her words that everything was going to be okay from now on because she was now a Christian. Sounds good, doesn´t it?
Her father went into a tirade. He had presumed that his daughter was already regenerate by virtue of her election and her place as a "œCovenant child." He would not be shown to be wrong. His hyper-covenantal theology blinded him to the possibility that his daughter might have been unregenerate. In his view, she had "œbroken the covenant again" by making such a public confession of faith. After all, he had professed faith for her at her baptism sixteen years or so earlier. What might have been perceived as a merciful answer to the church´s prayers was perceived as a greater evil than her two years of rebellion. For this act she was cast from the home. It was the proverbial last straw. The father´s real grief was that she had become "œa [expletive deleted] Baptist!" In these words, the father conveyed his horror to his pastor, my friend. For the first time in his ministry, my friend saw the consequences of "œpressing to much out of covenant theology." He asked in desperation, "œWhat´s a pastor to do?" Since he knows my dry sense of humour, I replied, "œBecome a Reformed Baptist." I also sent him John Tombes´ work on the Abrahamic Covenant.´
Grace & Peace,
Martin
Biblical is Psalm 14:2-3; Psalm 51:5; Matt 8:11-12; John 3:6-8 and 6:44-45.As I stated above, the choice is not between some crass view that our children are regenerate no matter what and the polar opposite view that our children are the children of the devil until they prove to us that they are regenerate. Neither pole is Biblical.
The only problem is that the hypothetical Presbyterian minister is missing the point as to the nature of covenant expectation.
A friend with whom I attended seminary called me recently to discuss a matter affecting the life of the church he presently pastors.
You are right that I should have used a different word. Hypothetical implies that the man doesn't exist and the writer might be lying. My apologies.Originally posted by pastorway
The only problem is that the hypothetical Presbyterian minister is missing the point as to the nature of covenant expectation.
It was not a hypothetical - it really happened.
A friend with whom I attended seminary called me recently to discuss a matter affecting the life of the church he presently pastors.
Phillip