Presumptive Regeneration - Help me out fellas

Status
Not open for further replies.

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:
 
Daniel:

I know that this has become a modern euphemism, but it all depends on what you mean by Presumptive Regeneration. I say this because we've been through this subject to quite an extent. I don't just want to steer you to those threads, because we need to answer your questions. I'll see if I can find the threads, or maybe someone else can. But I won't be able to for a couple of days. I'll be back sometime Tuesday.

But to begin with, Presumptive regeneration is not about "something that might happen" in the future. It's about right now, mostly, and involves all the hopes and promises of the future as well. But in this latter respect it is no different than the future promises for those who have been baptized because of a profession of faith.

I would say that the most fundamental thing to remember is that justification is by grace, and not by works. Presumptive Regeneration is not some authorized leap into justification by works, i.e., the baptising of a child. There is no hidden "grandfather" clause in the Bible. All it is is the recognition of the way God works through the generations of those who love Him, and those who are faithful to Him. If God is your God, then He is God also of those whose dependency are in you. His blessings overflow, but what falls to those who belong to you is not deemed as overflow. They are direct beneficiaries of the graces that you are under, and this by the same grace that has been bestowed upon you.

The children of the believers belong in the covenant. And in the covenant they have the same rights and privileges that professing members have to the promises of God's goodness and faithfulness. We do not know that they are saved, in the same sense that we do not know that even the members who have professed their faith are saved. We have God's promises that He will uphold His own, and so we believe in the election of those who have professed faith, and stick by them even when they falter. And so we have the same stick-to-it-ness for our children, because God has included them in the covenant as well. We treat them with the same favour we do all the members of the covenant.

And just as we would not deny our brothers admonitions when they need them, so we would not deny admonitions to our children; especially to our children, since we know that leaving them to their own will only grant them irresolute lives. They need training, and godly training is the right training for a child of the covenant, assuring them of God's earnestness for them.
 
Whats up, dP? I consider myself a PR guy, but I know its a difficult issue. I'll just give you some of my thoughts right now.

Regeneration is something that we cannot see, so we must make presumptions about everyone. The secret things belong to God. But the revealed things belong to us and our children (Deut 29:29). So what are these revealed things? We have the signs of the covenant, baptism and the Lord's supper. We have the law of God that we teach one another. And we have the fellowship of the brethren.

Now, the reason I think its wrong to automatically assume our children are unregenerate is because I believe the Bible teaches that children can have faith even in infancy (Psalm 8:2; 22:9-10; 71:5-6). And since faith is the produce of regeneration, we can likewise assume regeneration is possible in infants as well. I think we have to either grant this much, or grant that all infants go to hell when they die.

But anyway, since we only have the revealed things to go on, let us consider then the significance of each. Baptism is a sign of the washing of regeneration and the righteousness that comes by faith. This is applied to our infants. We also instruct them in the teachings of Scripture and the fear of the Lord based on Deut 6. We should be about the business of doing this from their earliest years. Given these things, what do you think God expects us to believe about our children? Remember that the Holy Spirit works ordinarily through means. Ordinarily, people are not just born again out of the clear blue. The Holy Spirit works through the teaching and preaching of the gospel and through such things as the sacraments and prayer as well. All of that, combined with God's promise, what do you think God expects us to think about our children?

Now, people become concerned because PR sounds like perhaps our children are not born in sin simply because their parents are Christians. But in fact, the doctrine of PR also assumes the truth of original sin. If our children were not born dead in their sins, why would their be a need for raising them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? And why do you think the doctrine is called Presumptive REGENERATION? REgeneration assumes a FIRST generation, a generation that leaves us dead in trespasses and sins. We acknowledge our children's need for the gospel. We just believe God meets this need early in our children's lives.

Also, people ask why we preach the gospel to our children if we believe them to be regenerate already. But this is for the same reason that we preach the gospel to ourselves daily, and that the preacher preaches the gospel to us every week in worship. We are never beyond the need of the gospel, no matter who we are. We always need to be reminded to rest in Jesus.

I don't know if that helps you at all, but those were just some of my thoughts.
 
[quote:8fc3c8ce56="Paul manata"]FC,

You can get your first taste of some of the divergent views within the paedo camp right here/now.

I do not hold to PR but I do hole to PE. Infants can be regenerated but I don't think that is the norm. I think it usualy happens within the context of the preaching of the word, hearing the law and your subsiquent need for a savior. I do hold to PE since I believe that the Bible tells us that God works in, and saves in, the context of families. God has promised to be a God to me and my child. So, I presume that my child is one of the elect based on the promise of God.

Paul[/quote:8fc3c8ce56]

96.8953457%
:thumbup:
 
The line drawn between saying one is either presumptively elect or presumptively regenerate is quite thin............The rationale the PR'er holds fast to is that the promise specifically states that the promise is to 'our children'. Jesus emphasizes this with the children that were clamoring around him and the apostles were rebuking them; 'such is the kingdom'. in my opinion, the PE position borders upon baptisitic thinking and the need to visually witness something. The PR position is solely based upon faith and Gods promise.

Jhn 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

Jhn 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.

Luk 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

Hbr 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Hbr 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

2Cr 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen [are] temporal; but the things which are not seen [are] eternal.
 
Fred,

I tried the search function once with "presumptive regeneration" and didn't get anything back. I don't know if I was goofing it up or what.

Everyone,

Thanks for the replies and threads. Obviously this is going to be a big next issue of study.
 
[quote:0c4ee76b20="Scott Bushey"]The line drawn between saying one is either presumptively elect or presumptively regenerate is quite thin............The rationale the PR'er holds fast to is that the promise specifically states that the promise is to 'our children'. Jesus emphasizes this with the children that were clamoring around him and the apostles were rebuking them; 'such is the kingdom'. in my opinion, the PE position borders upon baptisitic thinking and the need to visually witness something. The PR position is solely based upon faith and Gods promise.

Jhn 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

Jhn 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.

Luk 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

Hbr 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Hbr 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

2Cr 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen [are] temporal; but the things which are not seen [are] eternal.[/quote:0c4ee76b20]

:thumbup:

Good Post's Ed, and Scott!
 
Scott B wrote:[quote:165dfbbcba]The line drawn between saying one is either presumptively elect or presumptively regenerate is quite thin............The rationale the PR'er holds fast to is that the promise specifically states that the promise is to 'our children'[/quote:165dfbbcba]
I find PR troubling, at best...bordering on sacerdotalism.

PE is far more biblical and covenantal. The promise is to the children, but in Old Covenant God's people knew some wouldn't adopt the faith or would apostasize. The children truly are part of the visible church at baptism, and they receive the gospel at baptism. Whether they're regenerated at that point or not is up to God. Perhaps many covenant children are regenerated at conception...i don't know. God does. And that's the point. He didn't reveal PR in scripture. But He did tell us the promise is for us and our children. I will hold to God's promise, be obedient and baptize my child confident knowing God will bring His promise to fruition.

I don't see much difference between PR and baptismal regeneration.
 
[quote:cb9abfbb4a="Craig"]Scott B wrote:[quote:cb9abfbb4a]The line drawn between saying one is either presumptively elect or presumptively regenerate is quite thin............The rationale the PR'er holds fast to is that the promise specifically states that the promise is to 'our children'[/quote:cb9abfbb4a]
I find PR troubling, at best...bordering on sacerdotalism.

PE is far more biblical and covenantal. The promise is to the children, but in Old Covenant God's people knew some wouldn't adopt the faith or would apostasize. The children truly are part of the visible church at baptism, and they receive the gospel at baptism. Whether they're regenerated at that point or not is up to God. Perhaps many covenant children are regenerated at conception...i don't know. God does. And that's the point. He didn't reveal PR in scripture. But He did tell us the promise is for us and our children. I will hold to God's promise, be obedient and baptize my child confident knowing God will bring His promise to fruition.

I don't see much difference between PR and baptismal regeneration.[/quote:cb9abfbb4a]

That was exactly the problem I was having. And I think I would put myself in the PE camp right now.
 
[quote:a02e386c1d="Craig"]Scott B wrote:[quote:a02e386c1d]The line drawn between saying one is either presumptively elect or presumptively regenerate is quite thin............The rationale the PR'er holds fast to is that the promise specifically states that the promise is to 'our children'[/quote:a02e386c1d]
I find PR troubling, at best...bordering on sacerdotalism.

PE is far more biblical and covenantal. The promise is to the children, but in Old Covenant God's people knew some wouldn't adopt the faith or would apostasize. The children truly are part of the visible church at baptism, and they receive the gospel at baptism. Whether they're regenerated at that point or not is up to God. Perhaps many covenant children are regenerated at conception...i don't know. God does. And that's the point. He didn't reveal PR in scripture. But He did tell us the promise is for us and our children. I will hold to God's promise, be obedient and baptize my child confident knowing God will bring His promise to fruition.
[/quote:a02e386c1d]
The question you have to ask is how Abraham understood the promise. Did he presume Isaac and his other children elect? Or did he presume them regenerate? What is required for one to be able to dwell in the presence of God and fully enjoy his covenant benefits? You must be regenerate. You must have faith (or as Matt and Scott say for infants, seed faith). Abraham presumed that Isaac and his children could participate in the covenant, which presumes they have somehow been enabled to participate (i.e. regeneration). This is how he could raise his chidlren in the ways of the Lord. To call your children visible church members and then say they are unregenerate is really contradictory. PR is not saying that they are in the absolute sense regenerate. PR presumes they are regenerate because of the status God has given them apart from the world. The children of the church are His children covenantaly. When they sin, we teach them why they sinned, what they deserve for their sin, what God has done for sinners, and to go to their Mediator for forgiveness. Granted this is more gradual because the child must grow in understanding. It is silmilar with adults. We presume them to be regenerate when we admit them to the church and maintain that presumption until they prove otherwise. Does that mean they are in fact regenerate? No. But we do presume it and treat them as Christians.

[quote:a02e386c1d]
I don't see much difference between PR and baptismal regeneration.[/quote:a02e386c1d]
BR teaches an ACTUAL regeneration is taking place with the sacrament and therefore that baptism is bringing people into covenant with God. PR teaches that we PRESUME the children are regenerate and this is not tied at all to the timing of the sacrament. God may fulfill his promise before, during, or after the sacrament. And they receive the sacrament because they are in covenant already, not to bring them in covenant.
 
Paul,
Explicitly in the examples of John the baptist, Jeremiah and Samson. Implicitly within the confines of the Abrahamic promise. God promising to be a God to my child has infinite implications.
 
The conclusion is drawn from my faith towards what God has promised. I believe God. For all we know, all of covenant children are born regenerate. The fact that not all remain is another issue. Apostasy cannot be blamed upon God, but the unfaithfulness of men.

The examples are not [i:a649e11a0f]hasty[/i:a649e11a0f] but conclusive. They prove that God does in fact regenerate in the womb, some of His people.

Paul,
Here is a link that may more fully explain the idea:
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2340&start=0
 
Scott said:[quote:e6ac013d6e]Craig,
Please expound upon the charge of sarcedotalism?
[/quote:e6ac013d6e]
When I ended the post by saying there isn't much diff between PR and baptismal regeneration I was likening it to sacerdolism. At what point does one put [i:e6ac013d6e]too much[/i:e6ac013d6e] emphasis on the symbol? I think PR approaches that line very quickly and soon we're back to an RC understanding of baptism.

If I were to take the PR view, would I consider the baptism of a child of unregenerates as valid? The promise wasn't [i:e6ac013d6e]really[/i:e6ac013d6e] for their child, after all. I don't see biblical warrant, or value to assuming regeneration at baptism. I assume God's promise is to my children and raise them in the ways of God. I am confident they will keep to those ways. I think it's unfair to compare PE to baptistic views. When I have a child, I figure my kid will eventually say "Daddy, I love Jesus". I am not going to ask him/her to recount their conversion experience. It will be little surprise to me when their faith bears fruit.

Patrick
[quote:e6ac013d6e]The question you have to ask is how Abraham understood the promise. Did he presume Isaac and his other children elect? Or did he presume them regenerate?[/quote:e6ac013d6e]
That's what I mean...the Bible doesn't say. But again, regeneration wasn't clearly taught then as we have received that knowledge through Christ. Abraham presumed [i:e6ac013d6e]the promise God gave him[/i:e6ac013d6e] to pertain to Isaac. I am sure Abraham assumed Ishmael was of God...but, we can see through history that he presumed incorrectly.

Or, I look at it this way: did God say "when you circumsize your children you assume/know I have regenerated them? No. They were ushered into the visible covenant people through that rite. Same with baptism.
 
A question-- don't we know that God doesn't always convert covenant children in the womb because there are examples of God regenerating at other times? Jacob was not converted until later on, though he was a covenant child. All of those at Pentecost were "covenant" children, but were not converted until the Day of Pentecost.

I believe God can and does convert when He pleases, but-- more confusion-- isn't the thing that sets a "covenant" child apart from a child born to the ungodly primarily the means of grace? Isn't the advantage the Jews had, that they had the word of God? Why then would God always bypass the word? Isn't the usual method of God's regenerating grace described as "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God?"

I'm not asking to argue, just to understand how PR answers these questions.
 
[quote:64a28742f0]
When I ended the post by saying there isn't much diff between PR and baptismal regeneration I was likening it to sacerdolism. At what point does one put [i:64a28742f0]too much[/i:64a28742f0] emphasis on the symbol? I think PR approaches that line very quickly and soon we're back to an RC understanding of baptism.
[/quote:64a28742f0]

Craig,
You have misunderstood how we view the symbol and confused it with Romish ideas. The symbol is secondary to the faith that merits the obedience in placing the symbol on the child.

Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.


[quote:64a28742f0]If I were to take the PR view, would I consider the baptism of a child of unregenerates as valid? [/quote:64a28742f0]

That all depends upon your level of faith God has given you I guess. I do not question God. I, unlike Thomas, but more like Father Abraham, will believe God.

[quote:64a28742f0]The promise wasn't [i:64a28742f0]really[/i:64a28742f0] for their child, after all.[/quote:64a28742f0]

Who was to blame God or Esau? Who sold their birthright for one morsel of food?

[quote:64a28742f0]I don't see biblical warrant, or value to assuming regeneration at baptism. [/quote:64a28742f0]

Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

[quote:64a28742f0]I assume God's promise is to my children.....[/quote:64a28742f0]

Craig,
Is it or isn't it....you're confusing me pal???

[quote:64a28742f0]......and raise them in the ways of God. I am confident they will keep to those ways. [/quote:64a28742f0]

So, they actually save themselves? You are confident that [i:64a28742f0]they[/i:64a28742f0] will keep those ways! Their keeping of those ways is dependant upon whom or what? Gods faithfulness; Gods promise! Not their faithfulness.


[quote:64a28742f0]I think it's unfair to compare PE to baptistic views. When I have a child, I figure my kid will eventually say "Daddy, I love Jesus". I am not going to ask him/her to recount their conversion experience. It will be little surprise to me when their faith bears fruit.[/quote:64a28742f0]


Jhn 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

Jhn 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.

Luk 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

Hbr 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Hbr 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

2Cr 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen [are] temporal; but the things which are not seen [are] eternal.


[/i]
 
[quote:cafdb7d550="a mere housewife"]A question-- don't we know that God doesn't always convert covenant children in the womb because there are examples of God regenerating at other times? Jacob was not converted until later on, though he was a covenant child. All of those at Pentecost were "covenant" children, but were not converted until the Day of Pentecost.

I believe God can and does convert when He pleases, but-- more confusion-- isn't the thing that sets a "covenant" child apart from a child born to the ungodly primarily the means of grace? Isn't the advantage the Jews had, that they had the word of God? Why then would God always bypass the word? Isn't the usual method of God's regenerating grace described as "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God?"

I'm not asking to argue, just to understand how PR answers these questions.[/quote:cafdb7d550]

Heidi,
No one is saying that all covenant children are regenerate in the womb; we are saying that God can and does regenerate in the womb. In my case, I will trust God, not my sinful flesh. The promises of God in Him are yea and in Him amen!

Your statement in reference to Romand 10:17 is valid. In the order of things, I.e. Ordo Salutis, regeneration can come days, years, even decades before conversion. For a better explanation:

http://www.semperreformanda.com/ordo.htm

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/ordosalutis.html
 
Paul,
Maybe this will help. I do not say that my children ARE regenerate; based upon my faith and Gods faitfulness, I presume they are........
 
Scott said[quote:de1f3d00b7]You have misunderstood how we view the symbol and confused it with Romish ideas. The symbol is secondary to the faith that merits the obedience in placing the symbol on the child.
[/quote:de1f3d00b7]
I have said there is a blurred line...and PR is teasing that line. I am not sure I understand your second sentence...the symbol is secondary to "whose" faith? What does it mean when you say "merits obedience"?
[quote:de1f3d00b7]Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness[/quote:de1f3d00b7]
I don't see what this has to do with your position. Are you saying a Christian's faith is reckoned as righteousness to his child's?
[quote:de1f3d00b7]That all depends upon your level of faith God has given you I guess. I do not question God. I, unlike Thomas, but more like Father Abraham, will believe God.[/quote:de1f3d00b7]
I don't even know what you're saying here, Scott. Are you speaking tongue in cheek? Even so, it still doesn't make sense. I can only assume you mean your position is so clear that you'll take it on faith while I'm trying to push my fingers in the wounds of Christ making sure He's really alive. :rolleyes:
[quote:de1f3d00b7]Who was to blame God or Esau? Who sold their birthright for one morsel of food?[/quote:de1f3d00b7]
I think you may have missed my point. If a child of unregenerates is baptized, there is no inherent covenant promise through his parents: it is promised through the gospel preached and the sacrament received. But, to answer your question: Esau is to blame, though God rejected him as clearly expressed by Paul: God hated Esau.
[quote:de1f3d00b7]Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. [/quote:de1f3d00b7]
Scott, I am scratching my head: spell out for me what your saying. I understand that Scripture as God saying His Salvation isn't bound by race: it is faith that engrafts and makes us one body. What does that have to do with PR?
[quote:de1f3d00b7]Craig,
Is it or isn't it....you're confusing me pal??? [/quote:de1f3d00b7]
:lol: By now you know you're confusing me too!!! The promise is to our children...but it's a conditional thing. I presume them to be of the promise, but I don't presume regeneration from birth.
[quote:de1f3d00b7]So, they actually save themselves? You are confident that they will keep those ways! Their keeping of those ways is dependant upon whom or what? Gods faithfulness; Gods promise! Not their faithfulness.
[/quote:de1f3d00b7]
But God says that a child will not forget or leave the way he was raised. This is part of God's promise...though it's conditional: my child may not be elect; but they will be part of the visible covenant unless they apostasize. Remember: The promise includes repent and believe: the promise is [b:de1f3d00b7]good if they do[/b:de1f3d00b7]...but again; that is a work of God. Because I believe the promise is also to my children, I will raise them to fear God. My only surprise would be if they never did profess faith in Christ. They may be regenerate from the womb...they may be regenerated at 8, 12,24 I don't know. That is up to God.
[quote:de1f3d00b7]Jhn 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. [/quote:de1f3d00b7]
Again...am i Thomas? Am I putting my finger into the side of Jesus? I don't see the correllation, Scott. Help me out.
 
[quote:c3f83317c3]Also, it seems a little shady. You don't say they ARE but you still presume they ARE. By presuming it you think they ARE.
[/quote:c3f83317c3]
:ditto:
 
[quote:b8ac1588c2]Does this mean the search function is working better ? Or did you do it the old fashion way, John?[/quote:b8ac1588c2]
My search function works just fine. It's what you call "the old fashion way." That's my own personal search function, the one that got rusty on the old board.

Now guys, Daniel asked about PR, and now you're turning it into a debate between PR and PE. That's not fair. I think that those of us who hold to PR should tell Daniel about PR, and those of us who hold to PE should tell him about PE. But to launch into a debate is to leave him behind.

On the other hand, maybe not. If you listen to just the PR's, Daniel, then you won't get a fair hearing for the PE's, and if you listen just the PE's, then you won't get a fair hearing for the PR's. If you're following the debate, then you're all set. But, as PR-ers and PE-ers, we'd better be ready to tell each other what we mean by it, or Daniel won't know what we're talking about.

Now take me, for instance. I'm a PR-er; but I hold, then, that there is an inclusion clause for PE built right in. It has to be. And if I were a PE--er, then I would hold the same for an inclusion clause for PR. It has to follow. For what is regeneration without election, and what is election without regeneration? The only way you can separate the two is in politics; politicians can separate anything they like.

In either case, it is not declarative of salvation status, but of covenantal inclusion. And those are separate. Not all those in the Covenant can be declared saved; but all those who are saved are definitely in the Covenant. The Jewish people that the Apostle Paul referred to in Romans were called "My people" by God Himself. That is covenantal inclusion; but we cannot declare them saved. We just don't know. Likely, from the way Paul writes about them, they weren't. But he does not declare that. He only declares that they did not respond in faith. We assume that means that they are lost. But he does declare that they are in covenant with God.

Craig (LOTW) said it right when he referred to covenant exclusion. The danger seems not in baptizing infants because they have not professed their faith, but rather in not baptizing them, declaring them to be outside the Covenant because we do not know. That ought to be as hard a thing to say as admitting them into the Covenant; and even harder, given the numerous Biblical passages which gives covenantal status to children by virtue of parental faith.

A child will know things in his childhood based completely on what he is told. He is in complete trust of his guardians, whether parents, teachers, pastors, or elders, and even at times older siblings. From earliest youth he trusts. As he grows he learns to know on his own, relying more and more trustingly, or less and less so, on his only mentor in understanding, his Lord and Saviour. By default alone, he has the faith of his parents, how much more by divine decree. It is the creational order, even after the Fall. For a Paedo, it is unthinkable to not include children in the covenant. whether or not they are regenerate or elect is up to God. Or better said, like Craig said, whether or not they are passed by is up to God. We should not assume so, as they are children of the gift of faith.
 
[quote:685fd03437="Craig"]Scott said:[quote:685fd03437]Craig,
Please expound upon the charge of sarcedotalism?
[/quote:685fd03437]
When I ended the post by saying there isn't much diff between PR and baptismal regeneration I was likening it to sacerdolism. At what point does one put [i:685fd03437]too much[/i:685fd03437] emphasis on the symbol? I think PR approaches that line very quickly and soon we're back to an RC understanding of baptism. [/quote:685fd03437]
I'm still not following you here. PR does not tie the efficacy of the sacrament to it's administration. Really, the sacrament is de-emphasised and the power of what it seals and signifies is placed in the time and power of God alone. BR does tie it all up to the administration of the sacrament and therefore can descends into two errors: 1) they end up teaching that regeneration can be lost (i.e RC and Lutherans) to explain apostates, or 2) that apostates are saved mo matter what.
The PR view avoids that because we are not making absolute declarations. Only God can do that. We are presuming based upon God's promise and command. We are commanded to raise our children as Christians. They are God's children. They are to be raised in the communion of the saints, under the oracles of God, with all the privileges of the covenant (including Lord's Supper once they display a mature enough faith). Like I said before, Abraham, and all the faithful Jews, raised there children [i:685fd03437]as if[/i:685fd03437] their children had the ability to participate in the covenant (which requires regeneration and faith even though they didn't use those terms then). If they proved themselves an Esau, then they were dealt with as covenant breakers until they repent or leave for good. When they celebrated Passover, the children were included in the meal and taught about [i:685fd03437]their[/i:685fd03437] redemption by the hand of God.
[quote:685fd03437]
If I were to take the PR view, would I consider the baptism of a child of unregenerates as valid? The promise wasn't [i:685fd03437]really[/i:685fd03437] for their child, after all. I don't see biblical warrant, or value to assuming regeneration at baptism. I assume God's promise is to my children and raise them in the ways of God. I am confident they will keep to those ways. I think it's unfair to compare PE to baptistic views. When I have a child, I figure my kid will eventually say "Daddy, I love Jesus". I am not going to ask him/her to recount their conversion experience. It will be little surprise to me when their faith bears fruit. [/quote:685fd03437]
What you say about raising your children in the ways of God is good and right. But what does it mean for them to be members of the visible church and part of the people of God? In the absolute sense, there are two peoples, the believers, and the unbelievers. In the visible church we are making the same distinction but on different grounds. We can't see the heart to make absolute declarations. So we must make conditional presumptions based on the promises and commands of God, and with adults, professions of faith. This is what the Baptists do with adults. The make presumptions about professors and treat them as Christians until they prove otherwise. PR's do it with both adults and children. We treat them both as Christians until conditions may arise which prevent such a presumption anymore.
[quote:685fd03437]
Patrick
[quote:685fd03437]The question you have to ask is how Abraham understood the promise. Did he presume Isaac and his other children elect? Or did he presume them regenerate?[/quote:685fd03437]
That's what I mean...the Bible doesn't say. But again, regeneration wasn't clearly taught then as we have received that knowledge through Christ. Abraham presumed [i:685fd03437]the promise God gave him[/i:685fd03437] to pertain to Isaac. I am sure Abraham assumed Ishmael was of God...but, we can see through history that he presumed incorrectly.

Or, I look at it this way: did God say "when you circumsize your children you assume/know I have regenerated them? No. They were ushered into the visible covenant people through that rite. Same with baptism.[/quote:685fd03437]
This is the distinction we must maintain in this idea of PR. Abraham did presume Ishmeal regenerate until God told him otherwise. That is why Ishmael was circumcised. Abraham understood that all in his house were brought into covenant with God and set apart from the world to worship and serve Him. But it is not sin for us to presume "incorrectly" when all the grounds of our presumption are biblically met. We are not required to know the absolute because only God can know that. We are required to work with what God has revealed. The secret things belong to Him.
Would you fault a pastor for baptizing and ministering to a professing adult who later on shows himself unregenerate or an apostate? I would think not. Because the church is not required to know absolutely. It is similar with children. There is no fault in presuming them regenerate based upon the grounds revealed for us. That is the whole foundation to raising them in the faith. They have been set apart from the world by God for that the purpose of serving Him. They are considered His children. And again, the presumption is conditional, just as with the adult. If a child later on abandons the faith for a life of sin, then they have abandon the covenant and must be treated accordingly, just like an adult. But until they manifest otherwise, we consider them Christians, and raise them under the whole counsel of God.
 
Is it not a completely BAPTISTIC position to say that you baptize someone because you believe they are regenerate?

Just asking........

Phillip
 
[quote:c65f00b633="JohnV"]A child will know things in his childhood based completely on what he is told. He is in complete trust of his guardians, whether parents, teachers, pastors, or elders, and even at times older siblings. From earliest youth he trusts. As he grows he learns to know on his own, relying more and more trustingly, or less and less so, on his only mentor in understanding, his Lord and Saviour. By default alone, he has the faith of his parents, how much more by divine decree. It is the creational order, even after the Fall. For a Paedo, it is unthinkable to not include children in the covenant. whether or not they are regenerate or elect is up to God. Or better said, like Craig said, whether or not they are passed by is up to God. We should not assume so, as they are children of the gift of faith.[/quote:c65f00b633]

That's great, John.

I'd also like to just re-emphasize something I said earlier. Though it is possible for God to regenerate any time and in any way he wants, he most ordinarily works the act of regeneration through specific means. The Spirit works through the preaching and teaching of the Word (whether by pastors or parents), through prayer, and through the sacraments. Just so I can be more thorough, when I say that I consider myself PR, I'm not simply saying I believe God regenerated my children when they popped out of the womb. But what I believe is that God, through the application of the sacrament of baptism, through my prayers and through my instruction and nurture of my child, will begin to work salvifically in my child's life from the earliest years. If my child professes Jesus as Lord when he is 10, I'm not going to try to nail down the time when my child was regenerate, whether it was 10 minutes before he made the profession or whether it was 10 years ago at his birth. A profession is no more concrete as evidence of regeneration than birth to believing parents is. We cannot know the time of regeneration because it is unseen to us. But what I do is trust the Lord and his promises to me and my children, and I trust that God is at work in my child's life even at their baptism in their infancy, and all throughout my teaching and parenting of them. This is all I can do. My children are Christians. God gave them to me. He has brought them into his covenant. I cannot fathom thinking of them any other way.

Now, what I have said above may or may not fall in line with PR as typically understood, but it is what I believe.
 
[quote:aa2a410cfc="pastorway"]Is it not a completely BAPTISTIC position to say that you baptize someone because you believe they are regenerate?

Just asking........

Phillip[/quote:aa2a410cfc]

Well, based upon stuff I've read in the PB over the last couple of years, I'm not sure I know WHAT Baptists believe anymore. I've heard that we should only baptize those that give evidence of regeneration. Then Dan said in this thread earlier that Baptists don't look for regeneration since it is invisible, but only go by profession of faith following the NT. I've heard Baptists say that only regenerate persons are members of the church, and I've heard that unregenerate persons can be members. I've heard so many different things that I'm just not sure anymore. I can only tell you what I used to believe as a Baptist, and that was that we should only baptize those we believe to be regenerate, which given PR would have meant that I still should have believed in infant baptism anyway. :D

But ultimately, we don't look to the person when we baptize them. We look to God and his promises.
 
Patrick[quote:3fb3787ed8]Would you fault a pastor for baptizing and ministering to a professing adult who later on shows himself unregenerate or an apostate? [/quote:3fb3787ed8]
No. That was the point I was trying to make later in that post. I think I used a poor example.

In any event: from what you wrote I think I need some clarification. It was my understanding that PR was something presumed [i:3fb3787ed8]at baptism[/i:3fb3787ed8]. If that [b:3fb3787ed8]is[/b:3fb3787ed8] the case I take serious issue with it. If that is [b:3fb3787ed8]not[/b:3fb3787ed8] the case, then I still find the regeneration part hard to justify, but not troubling, although it still pretty close to my position. I'm going to keep reading the posts and maybe try to crystallize my thinking and post at that point if it's pertinent. Thanks!
 
Phillip:

They say that "turn about is fair play", so can I ask you a question?

Oh yes, first I must answer yours. Yes it is, as far as I know. I've tried to read the Credo position carefully, and I share somewhat Craig's confusion. But I can say quite confidently that I think that baptizing someone because they are believed to be regenerate is a Baptistic position.

The Paedo's, of course are also Credo as well as Paedo. We don't deny Credo baptism; we include Paedo baptism along with the Credo baptism.

The difference seems to be where the focus is in the baptism, I am guessing; whether it is the recognition of man's promise to God, or God's promise to man. The place of focus makes all the difference in what regeneration you are recognizing: man's admission of it, or God's administration of it.

As to my confusion, I would like to remind you first that I have stayed out of the fray as much as possible, respecting those of Baptist persuasion. I respect them because I see the desparate need for them in our time, even though I disagree with it. I am firmly fixed in the Paedo position, as you are in the Credo position. And I continue to hold you in high regard as a man of God. I have no doubt of that. But Christianity is so divided, and pride runs so high within the various isms we face in our churches, that we need to be squared off for our own good. I think we've lost a lot in my generation, the Baby Boomer generation; (or what I like to call "the Pepsi generation" because there are so many hordes of people who think they are on a "diet" because they drink diet colas. How absurd a people we have become, even in our churches. ) So I am only looking for clarification on an honest question, but one that appears accusative.

Here is my return question: does the baptism of someone what has fallen away from faith and then come back mean anything? Is he rebaptized, or is his old baptism still recognized? If the former, then what objection could you have to baptizing infants, since you do not object to baptisms that were ineffective even in older people? (That is, you just write them off and do not recognize them as baptisms, but not those of them who remained faithful. ) If the latter, then what objection could you have to the baptism of a person who has come to faith who was baptized as a baby?
 
to state it simply John (with the same respect and love for you in the Lord!), the Baptist position does not recognize it as baptism if the person is not saved. In other words, if you are not saved when you are immersed, then you were just immersed - it is an empty ritual. If the outward sign does not match the inward reality, then there is no baptism!

So we do not require re-baptism, ever. (at least the Baptists I know). We are only baptized once in life no matter how many times we get wet! You cannot get re-baptized, as if it did not take the first time. But for it to be understood to be a baptism, the person must already be regenerate at the time of the administration.

A few notes - our church only practices believers baptism by immersion. However, we do not require those who were baptized [i:9d7cb31434]as believers[/i:9d7cb31434] by another mode to be immersed. And we agree with Bunyan that baptism is not required for church membership or for participation in the Supper! So if a paedo had no sound Presbyterian church to attend nearby and wanted to join our church, they would not have to be baptized in our church to do so. If later they came to the conviction and understanding that they had not been baptized when sprinkled as an infant, then we would baptize them at that time!

Phillip
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top