FrozenChosen
Puritan Board Freshman
Ok, so I've decided that I'm identifying myself with the paedobaptist position. Now, I couldn't defend it against an able Baptist, but when I decided that I was a Calvinist I couldn't defend it against a very nasty Arminian. So I don't see anything wrong with stepping out.
That said, I am having problems with this idea of Presumptive Regeneration. Let me back up. I basically decided I was a paedo because I am studying those J. Ligon Duncan lectures on CT. And they are very helpful and pastoral. I should write him a letter. Anyways, he doesn't address this idea, or at least he hasn't yet (I'm on lecture 8 of 12). So it's a big puzzle piece and I'm asking all you wonderful pastoral-minded paedos out there for a hand.
So far, I've talked with an elder at church about it. He said that he believes we baptize infants because we realize that an special portion of grace will be given to that child as it grows. I asked him about presumptive regeneration/election, and he said he thinks it's wrong to presume on God's grace and say the infant has it. Now don't jump my elder because he's a good guy, and was very encouraging about my studies as well. But I think "Well, presuming on God's grace when we baptize is a Biblical, not ethical issue. If God wants us to baptize and presume, then we need to baptize and presume God will take care of our children!"
I also don't understand why you might baptize someone if something "might happen." But maybe someone can help me out if that's the right view.
Well, we'll call that the "non-presumptive view."
But I know many intelligent paedobaptists have adopted a presumptive regeneration or election stance. I suppose that means for the PR guy that the child is regenerate but is not yet in possession of a salvific knowledge or belief in Christ?
And the PE believer would believe that the child has, well, I'm not going to try and figure it out.
If someone could explain to me these views, why you disagree with the other ones, that would help me out a ton!
I guess when it comes to paedobaptism, I'm still a baby in the doctrine. :bs2:
That said, I am having problems with this idea of Presumptive Regeneration. Let me back up. I basically decided I was a paedo because I am studying those J. Ligon Duncan lectures on CT. And they are very helpful and pastoral. I should write him a letter. Anyways, he doesn't address this idea, or at least he hasn't yet (I'm on lecture 8 of 12). So it's a big puzzle piece and I'm asking all you wonderful pastoral-minded paedos out there for a hand.
So far, I've talked with an elder at church about it. He said that he believes we baptize infants because we realize that an special portion of grace will be given to that child as it grows. I asked him about presumptive regeneration/election, and he said he thinks it's wrong to presume on God's grace and say the infant has it. Now don't jump my elder because he's a good guy, and was very encouraging about my studies as well. But I think "Well, presuming on God's grace when we baptize is a Biblical, not ethical issue. If God wants us to baptize and presume, then we need to baptize and presume God will take care of our children!"
I also don't understand why you might baptize someone if something "might happen." But maybe someone can help me out if that's the right view.
Well, we'll call that the "non-presumptive view."
But I know many intelligent paedobaptists have adopted a presumptive regeneration or election stance. I suppose that means for the PR guy that the child is regenerate but is not yet in possession of a salvific knowledge or belief in Christ?
And the PE believer would believe that the child has, well, I'm not going to try and figure it out.
If someone could explain to me these views, why you disagree with the other ones, that would help me out a ton!
I guess when it comes to paedobaptism, I'm still a baby in the doctrine. :bs2: