Presumptive Regeneration - Help me out fellas

[pastorway]

Let's see what the Bible says.

[b:cf91da8be8]Acts 2[/b:cf91da8be8]
those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.42And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. 46So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

These 3,000 heard the Word preached, believed it, obeyed the command to be baptized, continued in the Apostles doctrine and in fellowship, are referred to as "all who believed" and are part of those that the Lord was adding daily to the church, namely those who were being SAVED.

Phillip

 

[luvroftheWord]

[quote:b70f7f6b56="Paul manata"][quote:b70f7f6b56]
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.
[/quote:b70f7f6b56]

I understand the argument. I want to know where God promised this?

John said that the PE and the PR position are intertwined. I agree, BUT I disagree on the timming. Of course if I presume that my Child is elect then I presume that he *will be* regenerate. I just don't see the warrent for presumming regeneration at birth?[/quote:b70f7f6b56]

I guess I don't understand why PE's are comfortable presuming election but not regeneration. In the decree of God, not every child born to believing parents is necessarily elect. Both history and the Biblical example shows this. So why is it any more safe to presume election than regeneration? Why does "to you and to your children" give us a reason to presume our children as elect but not as regenerate?

But basically, I think it is clear in Scripture that we are to raise our children as Christians. Deut 6 makes it clear that we raise our children to fear the Lord. I just cannot fathom doing so without also presuming that the grace to live the Christian life has been granted to the child. That's not really an argument. It's just something existential on my part. Probably not helpful at all.

[quote:b70f7f6b56]Also, would your guys' argument look like this:

All covenant members are presumed to be regenerate.
My child is a covenant member.
Therefore, he is presumed to be regenerate.

?

This is valid. I can't deny P2. All I can do is argue P1. I think this would be a Lord supper type issue. Paedocommunionists argue exactly the same above (except switch presume to be regenrate with, are alowed to the Lord's supper). But this fails to see that covenant membership does not give one all the priviledges of the covenant. Just like an American citizen does not allow for my infant to vote. An infant voter advocate could argue the same argument above, switching key terms.

Lastely, I cann't see how a PR could deny the Lord's supper to their child? John Calvin said that this was like serving your child poison (since if taken unworthely it can kill them). But if you worry about this then you deny your PR. What possible basis could you PRers deny paedo communion?[/quote:b70f7f6b56]

Well, I think any judgment as to whether or not a person is regenerate is a presumption, since regeneration is invisible to our eyes. So I would say that this applies even to our fellow church members.

But I think your point is good, Paul. It's one reason why I personally lean in the direction of paedocommunion, or at least the allowing of small children to partake of the table without first having to convince the elders that they are really saved. Of course, as a PCA guy I follow my church on this issue and will not allow my children to partake until they have appeared before the session. But the issue is, indeed, presuppositional. If you presume that the children are unregenerate, then perhaps allowing them to the table would be to feed them poison. But if you presume their regeneration, why would you think it dangerous to give your child the supper? Like I said before, I'm not going to try to nail down when I think God regenerated my child. How could I possibly do that? By waiting for a profession of faith when they get older? Or maybe when they bear some fruit? But even these things can be misleading (Matt 7). There is no more certainty in waiting until the child is older for presuming regeneration than presuming it when they are infants. With that in mind, I'm not sure why I should wait until my children are older before I presume their regeneration.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

[quote:9d2e61e071="Craig"]Patrick[quote:9d2e61e071]Would you fault a pastor for baptizing and ministering to a professing adult who later on shows himself unregenerate or an apostate? [/quote:9d2e61e071]
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:9d2e61e071]at baptism[/i:9d2e61e071]. If that [b:9d2e61e071]is[/b:9d2e61e071] the case I take serious issue with it. If that is [b:9d2e61e071]not[/b:9d2e61e071] 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![/quote:9d2e61e071]
To clarify for you, PR is not something presumed at baptism, but presumed before, during, and after (at least this is how I have understood it). And I had trouble with it too as some of the earlier threads on this topic will indicate, particularly from a couple months ago. But what convinced me was the fact that we are not making an absolute declaration of their salvation. They are members of the covenant, and therefore must be treated as God's people and God's children, which means they must be treated as Christians. Again, it's a conditional presumption (not a conditional salvation!).

And I think that this also answers Paul's inquiry too. Yes, we presume all members of the covenant as regenerate because they are the people of God. How can they enjoy communion with God without a new heart? There is no other way to join the the people of God without regeneration. So, all members of the covenant are presumed regenerate until they show otherwise; all children of believers are members of the covenant, therefore, all children are presumed regenerate until they prove otherwise. We can't see the absolute, only God can. So we must presume. That is how the visible church functions.

Regarding the Lord's Supper, we have direction that a man must be able to examine himself. I have no problem admitting a child to communion if they can perform this (most likely they would be an older child). But admitance to the table requires a more mature faith, an ability to examine oneself in light of the Word, and prepare oneself for the Supper. This doesn't mean you have to be a giant of the faith. It just means you must be able to demonstrate that ability to the satisfaction of the elders, who also must make a presumption regarding your faith when deciding to admit you to the Lord's Table or not.

 

[Craig]

Patrick[quote:777fad0ac1]To clarify for you, PR is not something presumed at baptism, but presumed before, during, and after (at least this is how I have understood it). [/quote:777fad0ac1]
Okay. I was under the impression it was presumed at the sacrament of baptism...I wondered why people on the board held to something like that...sounded more like something Doug Wilson would say. I will continue thinking through this. And by the way:
[quote:777fad0ac1]Regarding the Lord's Supper, we have direction that a man must be able to examine himself. I have no problem admitting a child to communion if they can perform this (most likely they would be an older child). But admitance to the table requires a more mature faith, an ability to examine oneself in light of the Word, and prepare oneself for the Supper. [/quote:777fad0ac1]
:thumbup:

 

[Scott Bushey]

God has promised to regenerate covenant children. I presume my child is regenerate; not converted. I would trust that Abraham viewed his children in the same way...........It is an issue of faith. No one can deny this. It is the historic view. The [i:046bf6bac9] reformed [/i:046bf6bac9] view. Matt, JohnV and I are being consistant with that view.


John Calvin, "We ought, therefore, to consider, that just as in the case of Abraham, the father of the faithful, the righteousness of faith preceded circumcision, so today in the children of the faithful, the gift of adoption is prior to baptism." (Opera Quae Supersunt Omina, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 35, Page 8.)


John Calvin, "It follows, that the children of believers are not baptized, that they may thereby then become the children of God, as if they had been before aliens to the church; but, on the contrary, they are received into the Church by this solemn sign, since they already belonged to the body of Christ by virtue of the promise." (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4:15:22. cf. 4:16:24)



The French Confession, "We confess only two sacraments common to the whole Church, of which the first, baptism, is given as a pledge of our adoption; for by it we are grafted into the body of Christ, so as to be washed and cleansed by his blood, and then renewed in purity of life by his Holy Spirit.[1] We hold, also, that although we are baptized only once, yet the gain that it symbolizes to us reaches over our whole lives and to our death, so that we have a lasting witness that Jesus Christ will always be our justification and sanctification.[2] Nevertheless, although it is a sacrament of faith and penitence, yet as God receives little children into the Church with their fathers, we say, upon the authority of Jesus Christ, that the children of believing parents should be baptized."



Ulrich Zwingli, "The children of Christians are not less the children of God than their parents are, or than the children of Old Testament times were: but if they belong to God, who will refuse them baptism?" (Huldreich Zwingli's Werke, Zweyten bandes erste Abtheilung (Zurich, 1830), Page 245.)



Martin Bucer and Wolfgang Capito, "...baptism signified regeneration; that the children of believers are baptized because it is wrong to keep them from the fellowship and company of God's people those who should be truly considered His people." (Lewis Schenck, The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant, Page 28)



Theodore Beza, "It cannot be the case that those who have been sanctified by birth and have been separated from the children of unbelievers, do not have the seed or germ of faith." (Confessio Chrsitanae Fidei, Book 4, Page 48)



Henrie Bullinger, "Since the young babes and infants of the faithful are in the number of reckoning of God's people, and partakers of the promise touching the purification through Christ; it followeth of necessity, that they are as well to be baptized, as they that be of perfect age which professes the Christian faith," (Fifty Godly and Learned Sermons (London, 1587) Page 382.



The Second Helvetic Confession, "We condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that newborn infants of the faithful are to be baptized. For according to evangelical teaching, of such is the Kingdom of God, and they are in the covenant of God. Why, then, should the sign of God's covenant not be given to them? Why should those who belong to God and are in his Church not be initiated by holy baptism?" (Chapter 20, Of Holy Baptism.)



Francis Turretin, "The orthodox occupy the middle ground between Anabaptism and the Lutherans. They deny actual faith to infants against the Lutherans and maintain a seminal or radical and habitual faith is to be ascribed to them against the Anabaptists. Here it is to be remarked before all things: that we do not speak of the infants of any parents whomsoever (even of infidels and heathen), but only of believers, or Christians and the covenanted. (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Volume 2, Page 583.)



Peter Martyr Vermigli, "We assume that the children of believers are holy, as long as in growing up they do not demonstrate themselves to be estranged from Christ. We do not exclude them from the church, but accept them as members, with the hope that they are partakers of the divine election and have the grace and Spirit of Christ, even as they are the seed of saints. On that basis we baptize them." (Loci Communes, 4:8:7, cf. Robert Reymond's, A New systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, Page 946.)



The Belgic Confession, "Therefore we detest the error of the Anabaptists, who are not content with the one only baptism they have once received, and moreover condemn the baptism of the infants of believers, who we believe ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as the children in Israel formerly were circumcised upon the same promises which are made unto our children. And indeed Christ shed His blood no less for the washing of the children of believers than for adult persons; and therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that which Christ has done for them; as the Lord commanded in the law that they should be made partakers of the sacrament of Christ's suffering and death shortly after they were born, by offering for them a lamb, which was a sacrament of Jesus Christ. Moreover, what circumcision was to the Jews, baptism is to our children. And for this reason St. Paul calls baptism the circumcision of Christ." (Article 34)



The Heidelberg Catechism, "Q74: Are infants also to be baptized? A74: Yes, for since they, as well as their parents, belong to the covenant and people of God, and through the blood of Christ both redemption from sin and the Holy Ghost, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents, they are also by Baptism, as a sign of the covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, as was done in the Old Testament by circumcision, in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is appointed. (Lord's Day 27)



The Westminster Assembly, "That it [baptism] is instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ: That it is a seal of the covenant of grace, of our ingrafting into Christ, and of our union with him, of remission of sins, regeneration, adoption, and life eternal: That the water, in baptism, representeth and signifieth both the blood of Christ, which taketh away all guilt of sin, original and actual; and the sanctifying virtue of the Spirit of Christ against the dominion of sin, and the corruption of our sinful nature: That baptizing, or sprinkling and washing with water, signifieth the cleansing from sin by the blood and for the merit of Christ, together with the mortification of sin, and rising from sin to newness of life, by virtue of the death and resurrection of Christ: That the promise is made to believers and their seed; and that the seed and posterity of the faithful, born within the church, have, by their birth, interest in the covenant, and right to the seal of it, and to the outward privileges of the church, under the gospel, no less than the children of Abraham in the time of the Old Testament; the covenant of grace, for substance, being the same; and the grace of God, and the consolation of believers, more plentiful than before: That the Son of God admitted little children into his presence, embracing and blessing them, saying, For of such is the kingdom of God: That children, by baptism, are solemnly received into the bosom of the visible church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers; and that all who are baptized in the name of Christ, do renounce, and by their baptism are bound to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh: That they are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized." (The Directory of Public Worship)



The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, "Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ." (Article XXVI, Of Baptism)



Zacharias Ursinus, "First, all that belong to the covenant and church of God are to be baptized. But the children of Christians, as well as adults, belong to the covenant and church of God. Therefore, they are to be bap­tized, as well as adults. Secondly, those are not to be excluded from baptism to whom the benefit of remission of sins, and of re­generation, belongs. But this benefit belongs to the infants of the church; for redemption from sin, by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult. Therefore, they ought to be baptized." (Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, (1st American Edition, 1851, Pages 366-367.)



William Ames, "The infants of believers are not to be forbidden this sacrament. First, because, if they are partakers of any grace, it is by virtue of the covenant of grace and so both the covenant and the first seal of the covenant belong to them. Second, the covenant in which the faithful are now included is clearly the same as the covenant made with Abra­ham, Rom. 4:11; Gal. 3:7-9-and this expressly applied to infants. Third, the covenant as now administered to believers brings greater and fuller consolation than it once could, before the coming of Christ. But if it pertained only to them and not to their infants, the grace of God and their consolation would be narrower and more con­tracted after Christ's appearing than before. Fourth, baptism sup­plants circumcision, Col. 2:11, 12; it belongs as much to the children of believers as circumcision once did. Fifth, in the very beginning of regeneration, whereof baptism is a seal, man is merely passive. There­fore, no outward action is required of a man when he is baptized or circumcised (unlike other sacraments); but only a passive receiving. Infants are, therefore, as capable of participation in this sacrament, so far as its chief benefit is concerned, as adults." (The Marrow of Theology, Page 211.)



John Bradford, "In baptism is required God's election, if the child be an infant, or faith, if he be of age." (The Writings of John Bradford, Banner of Truth Trust, Carlisle, 1979, Volume 2, Page 290)



Herman Witsius, "Here certainly appears the extraordinary love of our God, in that as soon as we are born, and just as we come from our mother, he hath commanded us to be solemnly brought from her bosom, as it were, into his own arms, that he should bestow upon us, in the very cradle, the tokens of our dignity and future kingdom;...that, in a word, he should join us to himself in the most solemn covenant from our most tender years: the remembrance of which, as it is glorious and full of consolation to us, so in like manner it tends to promote Christian virtues, and the strictest holiness, through the whole course of our lives." (The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, (London, 1868) Volume 3, Book 4, Chapter 18, Page 1219.)



John Owen, "The end of his message and of his coming was, that those to whom he was sent might be "blessed with faithful Abraham," or that "the blessing of Abraham," promised in the covenant, "might come upon them," Galatians 3:9, 14. To deny this, overthrows the whole relation between the old testament and the new, the veracity of God in his promises, and all the properties of the covenant of grace, mentioned 2 Samuel 23:5...Infants are made for and are capable of eternal glory or misery, and must fall, dying infants, into one of these estates for ever. All infants are born in a state of sin, wherein they are spiritually dead and under the curse. Unless they are regenerated or born again, they must all perish inevitably, John 3:3. Their regeneration is the grace where of baptism is a sign or token. Wherever this is, there baptism ought to be administered. It follows hence unavoidably that infants who die in their infancy have the grace of regeneration, and consequently as good a right unto baptism as believers themselves...In brief, a participation of the seal of the covenant is a spiritual blessing. This the seed of believers was once solemnly invested in by God himself This privilege he hath nowhere revoked, though he hath changed the outward sign; nor hath he granted unto our children any privilege or mercy in lieu of it now under the gospel, when all grace and privileges are enlarged to the utmost. His covenant promises concerning them, which are multiplied, were confirmed by Christ as a true messenger and minister; he gives the grace of baptism unto many of them, especially those that die in their infancy, owns children to belong unto his kingdom, esteems them disciples, appoints households to be baptized without exception. And who shall now rise up, and withhold water from them?" (Works, Volume 16, Banner of Truth Trust (Carlisle, 1988) Pages 335-337)



Samuel Rutherford, "It is clear that infants have their share of salvation, and by covenant it must be...And this promise made to Abraham belongs to them all..." (The Covenant of Life Opened, 1642(?), Pages 83, 104-105)



Richard Sibbes, "Therefore God, intending a comfortable enlargement of the covenant of grace to Abraham, extends it to his seed: "I will be the God of thy seed." It is a great blessing for God to he the God of our seed. It is alluded to by St Peter in the New Testament, "The promise is made to you and to your children," Acts ii. 39. But what if they have not baptism, the seal of the covenant? That doth not prejudice their salvation. God hath appointed the sacra­ments to be seals for us, not for himself. He himself keepeth his covenant, whether we have the seal or no, so long as we neglect it not. Therefore we must not think if a child die before the sacrament of baptism, that God will not keep his covenant. They have the sanctity, the holiness of the covenant. You know what David said of his child, "I shall go to it, but it shall not return to me;" and yet it died before it was circumcised. Yon know they were forty years in the wilderness, and were not circumcised. Therefore the sacrament is not of absolute necessity to salvation. So he is the God of our children from the conception and birth." (Works of Richard Sibbes, Volume 6, Banner of Truth Trust, (Carlisle 1983), Page 22)



Ezekiel Hopkins, "Certainly, since they [infants of believing parents] are in covenant with God; since they are the members of Christ, being members of His body, the Church; since they are sanctified and regenerated, so far forth as their natures are ordinarily capable of, without a miracle; we have all the reason in the world conformably to conclude, that all such die in the Lord, and are forever happy and blessed with Him." (Works, Volume 2 page 326.)



Thomas Goodwin, "The children of godly parents are called the inheritance of the Lord, because he is the owner of them as his elect and chosen, among whom his possession and his peculiar people lie...The children of believing parents, at least their next and immediate seed, even of us Gentiles now under the Gospel, are included by God within the covenant of Grace, as well as Abraham's or David's seed within that covenant of theirs." (Works, Volume 9, Page 426-427)



Thomas Manton, "If they die before they come to the use of reason, you have no cause to doubt of their salvation. God is their God. Gen. 17:7, "I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee;" compared with Gal. 3:14, "That the blessing of Abraham might come on the gentiles through Jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." And they never lived to disinherit themselves. As we judge of the slip according to the stock, till it live to bring forth fruit of its own, so here. (Manton's Complete Works, Volume 18, Page 91)



John Brown of Haddington, "None but regenerated persons have a right to baptism before God...None but such as appear truly regenerated have a right to baptism before men...The infants of parents, one or both visible saints, have a right to baptism before the church...The children of believers are in covenant with God...Infants, such as Christ could carry in his arms, are members of the Kingdom of God. And if members, why deny them the primary seal of membership?" (Systematic Theology, Page 538.)



Alexander Whyte, "Baptism does not effect our engrafting into Christ, it only signifies and seals it." (Commentary on the Shorter Catechism, Page 181.) [Note, there is no distinction between adults and children, or infants, in the Westminster Confession at all on this issue, except by age, and the Directory of Public Worship makes it abundantly clear what they mean by the institution and how it should be administered..]



Robert Shaw, "...for infants of believing parents are born within the covenant, and so are Christians and visible church members; and by baptism this right of theirs is acknowledged, and they are solemnly admitted to the privileges of church membership." (An Exposition of the Confession of Faith, 1845, Page 285.)



J. W. Alexander, "But O how we neglect that ordinance! Treating children in the Church, just as if they were out of it. Ought we not daily to say (in its spirit) to our children, "You are Christian children, you are Christ's, you ought to think and feel and act as such! And on this plan carried out, might we not expect more early fruit of the grace than by keeping them always looking forward to a point of time at which they shall have new hearts and join the church? I am distressed with long harbored misgivings on this point." (Forty Years' Familiar Letters, Volume 2, Page 25.)



Lyman Atwater, "If our children are in precisely the same position as others, why baptize them?" (Children of the covenant and their part in the Lord, Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, Volume 35, No. 4 (October, 1863), Page 622)



Lewis Schenck, "The Reformed Church has always believed, on the basis of God's immutable promise, that all children of believers dying in infancy were saved...in other words, all admission to the visible church was on the basis, not of an infallible evidence of regeneration, since no one could read the heart, but on the basis of presumption that those admitted were the true children of God." (The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant, (Phillipsburg, 2003) Page 118.



Benjamin Warfield, "All baptism is inevitably administered on the basis not of knowledge but of presumption and if we must baptize on presumption the whole principle is yielded; and it would seem that we must baptize all whom we may fairly presume to be members of Christ's body." (The Polemics of Infant Baptism, The Presbyterian Quarterly (April, 1899), Page 313.



Henry Van Dyke, "If the baptism of infants does not signify and seal "regeneration and engrafting into Christ," in the same sense and to the same extent as in the case of adults, we have no right to administer it to infants." (The Church: Her Ministry and Sacraments, Page 74)



Abraham Kuyper, "That children of believers are to be considered as recipients of efficacious grace, in whom the work of efficacious grace has already begun. That when dying before having attained to years of dis­cretion, they can only be regarded as saved. Of course [he adds] Calvinists never declared that these things were necessarily so. As they never permitted themselves to pronounce official judgment on the inward state of an adult, but left the judgment to God, so they have never usurped the right to pronounce on the presence or ab­sence of spiritual life in infants. They only stated how God would have us consider such infants, and this consideration based on the divine word made it imperative to look upon their infant children as elect and saved, and to treat them accordingly." (Abraham Kuyper, "Calvinism and Confessional Review," The Presbyterian Quarterly, Vol. IV, No. 18 (October, 1891), Art. I, pp. 602-503; cf. 604.)



Charles Hodge, "The historic Reformed Doctrine which may be identified with that of John Calvin was as follows: Membership in the invisible church meant vital union with Christ, or regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Since the word presume meant to admit a thing to be, or to receive a thing as true, before it could be known as such from its phenomena or manifestations, the presumption that an infant was a member of the invisible church meant that it was believed to be engrafted into Christ and regenerated before it gave any ordinary evidences of the fact." (The Church Membership of Infants, Page 375.)



Lewis Berkhof and the Conclusions of Utrecht, "It may be well to quote in this connection the first half of the fourth point of the Conclusions of Utrecht, which were adopted by our Church in 1908. We translate this as follows: "And, finally, as far as the fourth point, that of presumptive regeneration, is concerned. Synod declares that, according to the confession of our Churches, the seed of the covenant must, in virtue of the promise of God, be presumed to be regenerated and sanctified in Christ, until, as they grow up, the contrary appears from their life or doctrine; that it is, however, less correct to say that baptism is administered to the children of believers on the ground of their presumptive regeneration, since the ground of baptism is the command and the promise of God; and that further the judgment of charity, with which the Church presumes the seed of the covenant to be regenerated, by no means intends to say that therefore each child is really regenerated, since the Word of God teaches that they are not all Israel that are of Israel, and it is said of Isaac: in him shall thy seed be called (Rom. 9:6,7), so that in preaching it is' always necessary to insist on serious self-examination, since only those who shall have believed and have been baptized will be saved." (Systematic Theology, Page 640)



A. A. Hodge, "But baptism does not ordinarily confer grace in the first instance, but presupposes it." (Outlines of Theology, Page 629.)



John Murray, "Baptized infants are to be received as the children of God and treated accordingly." (Christian Baptism, Page 59.)



Robert Booth, "If the children of believers are embraced by the promises of the covenant, as certainly they are, then they must also be entitled to receive the initial sign of the covenant, which is baptism." (Children of the Promise, P&R Publishing, Page 29)



Robert Reymond, "I think I have shown that infants of believing parents are to be viewed as members of and under the governance and protection of Christ's church and should be treated as such...Accordingly, all present at any and every infant baptism are admonished to "look back to their baptism," to repent of their sins against the covenant, and to "improve and make right use of their baptism...the Directory [of Public Worship] envisions, as Jones rightly states, "a dynamic, life-long relationship between the infants saving faith and Christian walk, on the one hand, and his baptism on the other." (A New systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, Pages 948-49)



In the neglect of understanding the doctrine of "presumptive regeneration," Charles Hodge said, "we have long felt and often expressed the conviction that this is one of the most serious evils in the present state of our churches." (Bushnell's discourses on Christian Nurture, Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review (1847), 19, Pages 52-521.)[i:046bf6bac9][/i:046bf6bac9]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Craig previously writes:
[quote:fd0d7237f6]
I have said there is a blurred line...and PR is teasing that line.
[/quote:fd0d7237f6]

It is possibly being blurred by your presuppositions?

[quote:fd0d7237f6]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:fd0d7237f6]

The faith I have in what God has promised [i:fd0d7237f6] compels [/i:fd0d7237f6] me to place the sign faithfully upon my child. As was previously stated, the sign only points to that which we believe God has already accomplished, not something that is accomplished by/in the sign itself.

[quote:fd0d7237f6]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

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:fd0d7237f6]

I'm saying that the level of faith that Abraham had, I endeavor to have also. In the way that he was faithful by taking his son up the hill, knowing God would be faithful in supplying the sacrifice, I also want to be seen as faithful. I believe what God has promised. No I don't believe by osmosis my daughter will be saved. I do however believe God has promised [i:fd0d7237f6] something[/i:fd0d7237f6], has He not???

[quote:fd0d7237f6]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.

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. [/quote:fd0d7237f6]

Yep You can roll yer eyes all you want, but it's true. What do you think Christ meant? Thomas doubted God. Men are sinfull; we doubt. In this case, I believe.

[quote:fd0d7237f6]Who was to blame God or Esau? Who sold their birthright for one morsel of food?

I think you may have missed my point. If a child of unregenerates is baptized, there is no inherent covenant promise through his parents: [/quote:fd0d7237f6]

This is true. Generally speaking, protestants do not place the sign for the sake of the sign. I was raised RC; they place the sign for the sake of the sign and Rome's theologies.


[quote:fd0d7237f6]
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:
[/quote:fd0d7237f6]

What is the condition? This stament is synergistic. God plus man. Granted, we know what men are required to do in the light of sanctification. Salvifically, it is all of God. I believe you know this; it is possibly the way I understand what you have worded here.

 

[FrozenChosen]

Since I'm not married, much less a parent, I believe I may have been confused about the terms. Do PR and PE serve as bases (pl. of basis?) for acting towards the child, or do we actually believe that they are regenerate on virtue of their own birth into a believing family?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

[quote:05656dcadc="FrozenChosen"]Since I'm not married, much less a parent, I believe I may have been confused about the terms. Do PR and PE serve as bases (pl. of basis?) for acting towards the child, [/quote:05656dcadc]
This is where the line blurs a little between the two because both would agree we are raising our children as Christians. That is their callng. They are God's people, which means they must be taught how to live accordingly. They must be taught the whole counsel of God. They must be taught their sinful condition, what their sins merit, the work of Christ, how they appropriate it, etc. Everything Scripture teaches they must be taught. When they sin, we discipline them to train them in righteousness, and explain to them how they obtain forgiveness for that sin. PR, when done appropriately, does not lead to the error of assuming our children are saved no matter what and therefore don't need the gospel. It's only when parents become lazy that such an error can occur, and let their children grow up to be Pharisees. Our children have been placed in the covenant by God to hear the gospel and believe it. Parents must also teach there children to humbling truth that not all Israel are Israel, and to be diligent in exming themselves to make sur ethey are not just hearers of the Word but doers as well. It is the same with adults. We teach adults the whole counsel of God regardless of their status. The gospel does not cease to be relevent after we profess faith. It continues our growth in sanctification, awakens the false professor, and also converts the visitor.

[quote:05656dcadc] or do we actually believe that they are regenerate on virtue of their own birth into a believing family?[/quote:05656dcadc]
We presume their regeneration as a result of being born into a believing family because that is the status God gives them. They are part of His people. AS such they are treated differently than the pagan children.

 

[Craig]

Scott said:[quote:f7a962ac1e]It is possibly being blurred by your presuppositions?
[/quote:f7a962ac1e]
That's quite possible...Patrick was able to bring that out and correct it in 1 post.
[quote:f7a962ac1e]Yep You can roll yer eyes all you want, but it's true. What do you think Christ meant? Thomas doubted God. Men are sinfull; we doubt. In this case, I believe. [/quote:f7a962ac1e]
You still get If there was a better emoticon, I'd use it, as what you've said takes Scripture out of context and is just offensive. Thomas doubted Christ was resurrected...do I doubt Christ was resurrected just because I don't accept your ideas willy nilly?
[quote:f7a962ac1e]What is the condition? This stament is synergistic. God plus man. Granted, we know what men are required to do in the light of sanctification.[/quote:f7a962ac1e]
The condition is that they have faith in Christ...and that isn't their own work, that is God's work. Perhaps I could have phrased my comments better; I'm no synergist.
[quote:f7a962ac1e]God has promised to regenerate covenant children. I presume my child is regenerate; not converted. I would trust that Abraham viewed his children in the same way...........It is an issue of faith. No one can deny this. It is the historic view. The reformed view. Matt, JohnV and I are being consistant with that view.[/quote:f7a962ac1e]
Paul has already pointed out that God has promised to be a God to them.

They are ushered into the visible covenant family and enjoy the benefits thereof, but by no means can you prove God has promised to regenerate them. The safest, most biblical presumption is election: I will not be surprised when they profess faith in Christ, but I will not presume their regeneration (but I won't say they're unregenerate either). They will be called Christians unless they prove otherwise.

You still have a 2 tier system of Christian, Scott: Regenerates that are converted, and unconverted regenerates. While you are awaiting a conversion experience for them, i will merely acknowledge God may regenerate at any given point in time. My child's first words may very well be "unconditional election"...to which I'll agree and know that my child is, in fact, born of the Spirit
[quote:f7a962ac1e]The Westminster Assembly, "That it [baptism] is instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ: That it is a seal of the covenant of grace, of our ingrafting into Christ, and of our union with him, of remission of sins, regeneration, adoption, and life eternal: That the water, in baptism, representeth and signifieth both the blood of Christ, which taketh away all guilt of sin, original and actual; and the sanctifying virtue of the Spirit of Christ against the dominion of sin, and the corruption of our sinful nature: That baptizing, or sprinkling and washing with water, signifieth the cleansing from sin by the blood and for the merit of Christ, together with the mortification of sin, and rising from sin to newness of life, by virtue of the death and resurrection of Christ: That the promise is made to believers and their seed; and that the seed and posterity of the faithful, born within the church, have, by their birth, interest in the covenant, and right to the seal of it, and to the outward privileges of the church, under the gospel, no less than the children of Abraham in the time of the Old Testament; the covenant of grace, for substance, being the same; and the grace of God, and the consolation of believers, more plentiful than before: That the Son of God admitted little children into his presence, embracing and blessing them, saying, For of such is the kingdom of God: That children, by baptism, are solemnly received into the bosom of the visible church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers; and that all who are baptized in the name of Christ, do renounce, and by their baptism are bound to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh: That they are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized."[/quote:f7a962ac1e]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Craig,
You act as if My theology is anomolous. I notiice you didn't mention anything in regards to the citations I provided. Apparently, the devines agree with me and my 'presumptions'. Would you care to comment on the citations of the reformed devines?

 

[Craig]

[quote:8e73e712b7]Robert Reymond, " [b:8e73e712b7]I think I have shown that infants of believing parents are to be viewed as members of and under the governance and protection of Christ's church and should be treated as such...Accordingly, all present at any and every infant baptism are admonished to "look back to their baptism," to repent of their sins against the covenant, and to "improve and make right use of their baptism[/b:8e73e712b7]...the Directory [of Public Worship] envisions, as Jones rightly states, "a dynamic, life-long relationship between the infants saving faith and Christian walk, on the one hand, and his baptism on the other." (A New systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, Pages 948-49) [/quote:8e73e712b7]
I can say the same...no prob here.
[quote:8e73e712b7]Robert Booth, "If the children of believers are embraced by the promises of the covenant, as certainly they are, then they must also be entitled to receive the initial sign of the covenant, which is baptism." (Children of the Promise, P&R Publishing, Page 29)
[/quote:8e73e712b7]I agree
[quote:8e73e712b7]John Murray, "Baptized infants are to be received as the children of God and treated accordingly." (Christian Baptism, Page 59.)
[/quote:8e73e712b7]
Still no problem
[quote:8e73e712b7]A. A. Hodge, "But baptism does not ordinarily confer grace in the first instance, but presupposes it." (Outlines of Theology, Page 629.)[/quote:8e73e712b7]
I could agree with it...but he means it differently I am sure as evidenced by the last quote of your post from Hodge. I presume God's promise, that my child is elect and part of the visible covenant...presuming regeneration is not biblically warranted, though I may treat my child as a Christian and in faith presume he will profess faith. That is what I will do at the baptism of my children. I am not seeing the baptism of a pagan, I am seeing that my child is sancfified before God and I am agreeing with God's promise.
[quote:8e73e712b7]Lewis Berkhof and the Conclusions of Utrecht, "It may be well to quote in this connection the first half of the fourth point of the Conclusions of Utrecht, which were adopted by our Church in 1908. We translate this as follows: "And, finally, as far as the fourth point, that of presumptive regeneration, is concerned. Synod declares that, according to the confession of our Churches, the seed of the covenant must, in virtue of the promise of God, be presumed to be regenerated and sanctified in Christ, until, as they grow up, the contrary appears from their life or doctrine; that it is, however, less correct to say that baptism is administered to the children of believers on the ground of their presumptive regeneration, since the ground of baptism is the command and the promise of God; and that [b:8e73e712b7]further the judgment of charity, with which the Church presumes the seed of the covenant to be regenerated, by no means intends to say that therefore each child is really regenerated[/b:8e73e712b7], since the Word of God teaches that they are not all Israel that are of Israel, and it is said of Isaac: in him shall thy seed be called (Rom. 9:6,7), so that in preaching it is' always necessary to insist on serious self-examination, since only those who shall have believed and have been baptized will be saved." (Systematic Theology, Page 640)
[/quote:8e73e712b7]
As Paul said before:[quote:8e73e712b7]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:8e73e712b7]
[quote:8e73e712b7]Abraham Kuyper, "That children of believers are to be considered as recipients of efficacious grace, in whom the work of efficacious grace has already begun. That when dying before having attained to years of dis­cretion, they can only be regarded as saved. Of course [he adds] Calvinists never declared that these things were necessarily so. As they never permitted themselves to pronounce official judgment on the inward state of an adult, but left the judgment to God, so they have never usurped the right to pronounce on the presence or ab­sence of spiritual life in infants. [i:8e73e712b7]They only stated how God would have us consider such infants, and this consideration based on the divine word made it imperative to look upon their infant children as elect and saved, and to treat them accordingly.[/i:8e73e712b7]"[/quote:8e73e712b7]
Methinks Kuyper should have been more comfortable assuming the election of covenant children. Even if my child dies in infancy, God forbid, then I can presume God's faithfulness even before death. Remember just because I am presuming election, i am not presupposing the child is not regenerate.
[quote:8e73e712b7]Lyman Atwater, "If our children are in precisely the same position as others, why baptize them?" (Children of the covenant and their part in the Lord, Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, Volume 35, No. 4 (October, 1863), Page 622)
[/quote:8e73e712b7]
Again, we are not assuming our children are the same as pagan children.
[quote:8e73e712b7]J. W. Alexander, "But O how we neglect that ordinance! Treating children in the Church, just as if they were out of it. Ought we not daily to say (in its spirit) to our children, "You are Christian children, you are Christ's, you ought to think and feel and act as such! And on this plan carried out, might we not expect more early fruit of the grace than by keeping them always looking forward to a point of time at which they shall have new hearts and join the church? I am distressed with long harbored misgivings on this point." (Forty Years' Familiar Letters, Volume 2, Page 25.) [/quote:8e73e712b7]
Isn't there a problem then of parents who have been converted, say, seven years after the birth of a child? Would J.W. Alexander then presume the regeneration of such a child? What if the child shows signs of NOT being regenerate? From previous quotes it seems such PR should consider it an evil to baptize such a child...I wouldn't, but they would...and you should, too. For remember:
[quote:8e73e712b7]Lyman Atwater, "If our children are in precisely the same position as others, why baptize them?"
&
Henry Van Dyke, "If the baptism of infants does not signify and seal "regeneration and engrafting into Christ," in the same sense and to the same extent as in the case of adults, we have no right to administer it to infants." [/quote:8e73e712b7]
[quote:8e73e712b7]Ulrich Zwingli, "The children of Christians are not less the children of God than their parents are, or than the children of Old Testament times were: but if they belong to God, who will refuse them baptism?" [/quote:8e73e712b7]
Apparently Scott Bushey would deny an 11 yr old child baptism if his parents had converted and the child didn't profess faith

C'mon Scott...you and I both admit now that there isn't much difference between PR and PE...but you have to admit that PE is much more consistent!

 

[FrozenChosen]

[quote:91b9d2b285="puritansailor"][quote:91b9d2b285="FrozenChosen"]Since I'm not married, much less a parent, I believe I may have been confused about the terms. Do PR and PE serve as bases (pl. of basis?) for acting towards the child, [/quote:91b9d2b285]
This is where the line blurs a little between the two because both would agree we are raising our children as Christians. That is their callng. They are God's people, which means they must be taught how to live accordingly. They must be taught the whole counsel of God. They must be taught their sinful condition, what their sins merit, the work of Christ, how they appropriate it, etc. Everything Scripture teaches they must be taught. When they sin, we discipline them to train them in righteousness, and explain to them how they obtain forgiveness for that sin. PR, when done appropriately, does not lead to the error of assuming our children are saved no matter what and therefore don't need the gospel. It's only when parents become lazy that such an error can occur, and let their children grow up to be Pharisees. Our children have been placed in the covenant by God to hear the gospel and believe it. Parents must also teach there children to humbling truth that not all Israel are Israel, and to be diligent in exming themselves to make sur ethey are not just hearers of the Word but doers as well. It is the same with adults. We teach adults the whole counsel of God regardless of their status. The gospel does not cease to be relevent after we profess faith. It continues our growth in sanctification, awakens the false professor, and also converts the visitor.

[quote:91b9d2b285] or do we actually believe that they are regenerate on virtue of their own birth into a believing family?[/quote:91b9d2b285]
We presume their regeneration as a result of being born into a believing family because that is the status God gives them. They are part of His people. AS such they are treated differently than the pagan children.[/quote:91b9d2b285]

Thanks for a clear answer Patrick. I appreciate it very much. Can you help me out a bit more?

How does the PR position deal with the black sheep of Israel, like Ishmael or Esau? How would you say that PR differs from actual regeneration, or does it at all?

 

[Scott Bushey]

[quote:a60ab2d4dd]Apparently Scott Bushey would deny an 11 yr old child baptism if his parents had converted and the child didn't profess faith

C'mon Scott...you and I both admit now that there isn't much difference between PR and PE...but you have to admit that PE is much more consistent!
[/quote:a60ab2d4dd]

I would baptise this child. If the parents were baptised, I would place the sign upon the child as well.

Craig, you say that there isn't much difference between the two doctrines; I agree. They are very close. However, the PE position is more inconsistant historically. I lean into that which the church has been built upon. Historically, by and large, the men of faith from the past have held to PR, not PE.

Can I suggest a book: 'The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant' by Lewis Bevins Schenck

This book validates my claim that the historic church held to PR.

oh and by the way, wipe that smile off your face!
Where'd ya get that picture??????????????????????????????????????????

I'm just kidding Craig. I do love them glasses. You look like Buddy Holly!

 

[Craig]

Scott said[quote:bab04f46bd]oh and by the way, wipe that smile off your face!
Where'd ya get that picture??????????????????????????????????????????
[/quote:bab04f46bd]
My wife took it while I was reading your PR posts :bs2:
[quote:bab04f46bd]Craig, you say that there isn't much difference between the two doctrines; I agree. They are very close. However, [b:bab04f46bd]the PE position is more inconsistant [/b:bab04f46bd] [i:bab04f46bd]historically[/i:bab04f46bd][/quote:bab04f46bd]
Scott, I consider myself pretty orthodox. I understand that our faith is linked to history, but in this case it's a scattered history and is unfoundable upon Scripture. Now please explain how can you say PE is inconsistent historically or simply what that even means?
[quote:bab04f46bd]Can I suggest a book: 'The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant' by Lewis Bevins Schenck [/quote:bab04f46bd]
I'm reading through Calvin's Institutes right now. At this point, he hasn't really brought this idea to the forefront, and I've read the sections covering the Sacraments. If it's so central, if it's so obvious and part and parcel to Covenant Theology...why don't I see it there? I don't find it explicitly taught in WCF. More importantly, I don't find it in Scripture. You asked me to deal with those quotes from theologians...Scott, I cornered you and you won't reason with what I pointed out. This forum is to DEBATE and DISCUSS.
[quote:bab04f46bd]I would baptise this child. If the parents were baptised, I would place the sign upon the child as well.[/quote:bab04f46bd]
But what would you presume???? Why pour water on a pagan in baptism...your PR quotes indicate baptism of pagans is sin. Remember what I said and those quotes...here they are again:[quote:bab04f46bd]Isn't there a problem then of parents who have been converted, say, seven years after the birth of a child? Would J.W. Alexander then presume the regeneration of such a child? What if the child shows signs of NOT being regenerate? From previous quotes it seems such PR should consider it an evil to baptize such a child...I wouldn't, but they would...and you should, too. For remember:
Quote:
Lyman Atwater, [b:bab04f46bd] "If our children are in precisely the same position as others, why baptize them?"[/b:bab04f46bd]
&
Henry Van Dyke, "If the baptism of infants does not signify and seal "regeneration and engrafting into Christ," in the same sense and to the same extent as in the case of adults, [b:bab04f46bd]we have no right to administer it to infants." [/b:bab04f46bd]

Quote:
Ulrich Zwingli, "The children of Christians are not less the children of God than their parents are, or than the children of Old Testament times were: but if they belong to God, who will refuse them baptism?"

Apparently Scott Bushey would deny an 11 yr old child baptism if his parents had converted and the child didn't profess faith
[/quote:bab04f46bd]

 

[Scott Bushey]

[quote:06b85568cb]
Scott, I consider myself pretty orthodox. I understand that our faith is linked to history, but in this case it's a scattered history and is unfoundable upon Scripture. Now please explain how can you say PE is inconsistent historically or simply what that even means?
[/quote:06b85568cb]

I'm saying that historically, PR was the norm..........

"Calvin himself states: "The offspring of believers are born holy, because their children, while yet in the womb, before they breathe the vital air, have been adopted into the covenant of eternal life"

Sounds like Calvin is saying that believers children are saved........"

What Atwater meant was that OUR children are NOT in the same position of others, and that is why we baptise them. He considers the child regenerate. I don't understand what you are getting at Craig. The quotes I presented are thoroughly conclusive. The reformers by and large were PR. Even calvin.

You say that the idea ios not explicitly taught in scripture; You are correct. Many important items are not explicitly tauhght, i.e the trinity, woman taking the supper, the tithe in the nt church. This does not neccesarily mean they are not scriptural ideas.

You mention the WCF. You are again accurate. It is implied. The Directory of Worship does provide a more definitive statement of the thinking of the Westminster Assembly concerning the status of covenant children.

'the promise is made to believers and their seed; and that the seed and posterity of the faithful, born within the church, have, by their birth,
interest in the covenant, and right to the seal of it, and to the outward privileges of the church...That the Son of God admitted little children
into his presence, embracing and blessing them, saying, "For of such is the kingdom of God": That children, by baptism, are solemnly received
into the bosom of the visible church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers; and that all who are
baptized in the name of Christ, do renounce, and by their baptism are bound to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh: That they are
Christians, and federally holy before baptism...That the inward grace and virtue of baptism is not tied to that very moment of time wherein it is
administered; and that the fruit and power thereof reacheth to the whole course of our life...'


Oh and by the way, where have you cornered me? "What would I presume" you ask. In the example of the 11 year old? I would presume the child regenerate and HOLY, else I wouldn't baptise the child. In contrast with PE, why is it sauch a sin to presume. Everyone in the church is guilty of this. We all ultimately presume............Presuming regeneration, the first point in the ordo, could mean that a person would not be converted for years, even 90. You craig, presume I am converted, right? You really cannot validate it. Only God can.

In regards to your comment about debating and this boards premise; I believe I would know this. Theis board was implemented for just that rationale. I should know, I own it. How am I not debating?

I suggest after you read Calvin's works that you begin Witsius' works, "The Economy of the Divine Covenants". Horace Bushnells "Christian Nurture".

 

[Puritan Sailor]

[quote:fb7ed47be3="FrozenChosen"]
Thanks for a clear answer Patrick. I appreciate it very much. Can you help me out a bit more?

How does the PR position deal with the black sheep of Israel, like Ishmael or Esau? How would you say that PR differs from actual regeneration, or does it at all?[/quote:fb7ed47be3]
PR differs from actual regeneration in that PR is a presumption made by others regarding the status of our children apart from the world. Actual regeneration can't be seen. We can only see it's fruit. And even then, we still can make an error of judgment because the person could be a deceptive pharisee. The presumption is made so that we can function as a visible body. The visible church has members. We treat those members as Christians because of there seperation to Christ from the world. Whether that is actually the case in there hearts only God knows. Now, for the most part, I would say that most of the people whom we presume regenerate in our faithful churches, I would conclude are actually regenerate. But again, the only way to know is to look into their heart which only God can do.

When it comes to the "black sheep," it doesn't change the presumption until they begin bearing fruit contrary to that presumption. Remember, PR is a conditional presumption. As a visible church we must base our presumptions on the promises, commands, and as our children grow on to adulthood their fruit.

When a child grows and begins to display fruits indicating an unregenerate heart you simply focus on that. You train him up in the ways of the Lord. You emphasise those points of Scripture showing what God requires of His people, and how he is unable to do it, without the grace of God. You point to his sin, and need of Christ. Hopefully, over time he will heed your instruction. But when he reaches adulthood (some point at which he speaks for himself) and still rejects the faith, then you must change your presumption, just as you would a professing adult who rebels from the faith. You admonish them to repent and believe, you remind them that they have been baptized and set apart from the world by God to serve Him only. And you pray that God would grant them repentence. You never know that perhaps they may repent much later in life as God deals with them, like the theif on the cross or King Mannasseh. So when they rebel, you presume them to be covenant breakers, and admonish them accordingly. We have several rebukes from God towards His people in the OT demanding that they get a new heart and demanding they return to Him. We would do the same. In the NT they are excommunicated to be taught not to blaspheme with the hope that they would repent. And if after all that they die unbelievers, then we leave it in God's hands. Not all Israel are Israel. God shows mercy to whom he will show mercy. But even so, it doesn't change our obligation as parents to raise the children in the faith, even the rebellious ones, constantly reminding them of their special status in the world. They have been set apart from the world unto the people of God to love and serve Him. If you drill this into their heads, it will haunt them the rest of their life if they should choose to rebel, until they repent, or until the are so hard that the warnings of Hebrews would apply.

 

[blhowes]

I was just wondering. For those who hold to CT, in a way, aren't infant baptism and presumptive regeneration/election two separate issues. Wouldn't you still baptise your infants even if you didn't presume them to be regenerate or elect? You believe there's a connection between circumcision and baptism so, since the OT saints were commanded to circumcise family members, you obey the NT command to baptize family members. This you do because you love God and desire to obey God's command, regardless. The presumptive regeneration/election is a separate issue - kind of like icing on a cake.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Bob,
My opinion, they are one and the same. I place the sign because of Gods command and promise. That which I believe prompts me to place the sign upon my child, in obedience as well as in faith. The sign itself signifies certain things; if I had no conviction of that which the sign pointed to, why place the sign.

 

[JohnV]

Patrick:
I see you're still working on taking it all in. Your thinking on this is growing quite percerptive. But I hope that you don't go onto rabbit trails now.

The question of what the difference is between regeneration and presuming regeneration is really just a loaded question, a trick question. Be careful of this one. It is when one starts to make distinctions where one's understanding fails that we have problems down the road with it. It's a difference that God sees, but we cannot. We are looking to the covenant that Gode made, that He upholds, and that depends on His Spirit's working in us. It's quite the same as explaining perseverance of the saints from man's end. It's the man that is kept, but the man is not the main keeper; man strives to keep the faith, but it is the Spirit that upholds him in it. Do men fall away? Yes they do; and yet we assert that none of the ones for whom Christ died can be lost. All the same, our faith in God's preserving of His own does not falter. And neither does our presumption of regeneration, even if some children later deny the faith. For that which we presume is God's promise, God's faithfulness, not ours.

Perhaps, to answer the question, it would do to look at it this way. We ooh and ahh over the cute little babies when they are born and first presented to family and friends. But just think of an eighty-six year old, hospital-bound invalid still being oohed and ahhed at by God, just as much as if he were still a brand new baby. That is how a person is in the sight of a timeless, eternal God, Who saves from the creation of the world, not just from birth. That is what is being presumed for all those who have received Covenant membership, whether young or old. The distinction between Credo and Paedo is only about whether the children of believers have been promised membership, and therefore also have the assurance of the promises that adults carry. The onus for faithfulness is no different for each, even though it depends on God for completion. God made us real people, not stocks and blocks; we were created in His image. That is a high order in the creation. The children's place is the responsibility of the parents, because the children are dependent on their parents, even for that which they are taught and which they believe. Yet it is not dependent on the parent, as if he needs to fear if his child died in the early years, and he did not show any signs of regeneration.

Let's go back a moment to that eighty-six year old. Can even Alzhiemers take away the love of Christ? No, it can't. Nothing can separate us from the love of Christ. Yet these things beset us, and sometimes even worse things. And our children are also subject to these things. We have God's promise to carry us through, and our children are not without that great comfort. One would think that they especially would be under that promised mercy, more so than adults, since they are more dependent. But not so, for even the most astutely religious man of God is as dependent as a child.

To Craig, I think that this also answers your question concerning PR. I know it's more indirect, but it's there all the same, between the lines.

 

[blhowes]

[quote:0f52310888="Scott Bushey"]Bob,
My opinion, they are one and the same. I place the sign because of Gods command and promise. That which I believe prompts me to place the sign upon my child, in obedience as well as in faith. The sign itself signifies certain things; if I had no conviction of that which the sign pointed to, why place the sign.[/quote:0f52310888]

Scott,
Thanks for your response and for setting me straight. As you know, its not always easy for a Baptist to think as a CTer, but we try.

 

[Craig]

Scott[quote:ebe9687e80]What Atwater meant was that OUR children are NOT in the same position of others, and that is why we baptise them.[/quote:ebe9687e80]
I agree. What I've said before, and I'll say again is this:
[b:ebe9687e80]Just because I presume [i:ebe9687e80]election[/i:ebe9687e80] doesn't mean I presuppose [i:ebe9687e80]unregeneration[/i:ebe9687e80]. What PRs do is presume that the promise from God to be our children's God, means they are automatically regenerate from the womb...I see them as being part of the community of faith...possibly regenerate, but that's up to God (yes, I know you acknowledge the 'its up to God' part)
[quote:ebe9687e80]You say that the idea ios not explicitly taught in scripture;[/quote:ebe9687e80]
Wrong. I say it's not even implied.
[quote:ebe9687e80]Oh and by the way, where have you cornered me? "What would I presume" you ask. In the example of the 11 year old? I would presume the child regenerate and HOLY, else I wouldn't baptise the child.[/quote:ebe9687e80]
I am genuinely surprised you would presume the child's regeneration...even if he was blaspheming? You'd still presume? When all the evidence points to the contrary of spiritual birth...even denying the faith?
[quote:ebe9687e80]Everyone in the church is guilty of this. We all ultimately presume............[/quote:ebe9687e80]
To an extent...but remember, I am not presuming unregeneration...
[quote:ebe9687e80]In regards to your comment about debating and this boards premise; I believe I would know this. Theis board was implemented for just that rationale. I should know, I own it. How am I not debating?[/b:ebe9687e80]
[/quote:ebe9687e80]
By not interacting with my position. Perhaps you thought I was really debating the historical position? I'm not, I'm debating the issue itself. I'll try to get to the Witsius book, but I would probably have to buy it....I can't exactly do that. I will ask my pastor if he owns it, though. But I'm already borrowing about 4 books from him.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Craig,
You write:
[quote:a8d7179213]Just because I presume election doesn't mean I presuppose unregeneration. What PRs do is presume that the promise from God to be our children's God, means they are automatically regenerate from the womb...I see them as being part of the community of faith...possibly regenerate, but that's up to God (yes, I know you acknowledge the 'its up to God' part) [/quote:a8d7179213]

Craig, What's the difference between 'possibly regenerate' and presuming regeneration. The PR does not say the infant IS regenerate, but we presume they are....as we all acknowledge, no one truly knows who the elect are. You say we do this to 'an extent'. What extent? No one but the almighty can validate the mark of election; hence, we presume.

In regards to presuming about the 11year old; I would presume until one couldn't presume any longer.....

 

[fredtgreco]

Scott,

Isn't this related to Mark's comments about who a "Christian" is on the warning passage thread? Don't we mean that children are "Christians" in that sense?

For me the difference is that if I presume election I can take hold of the promise, but also know that I must apply myself to the means to bring about the promise. If I am truly and really presuming regeneration, than that means that I believe that the child is already regenerate (not to be regenerate at some point) and there is no reason to apply myself to the means.

So for me, the difference is not in holding to the promise of God, but in applying oneself to His means. The consistent P-R advocate would be lazy with respect to the call of the gospel and his children. (which is why I think you are NOT a consistent P-R advocate!)

 

[Scott Bushey]

Craig,
You write:
[quote:03a0799b1c]Just because I presume election doesn't mean I presuppose unregeneration. What PRs do is presume that the promise from God to be our children's God, means they are automatically regenerate from the womb...I see them as being part of the community of faith...possibly regenerate, but that's up to God (yes, I know you acknowledge the 'its up to God' part) [/quote:03a0799b1c]

Craig, What's the difference between 'possibly regenerate' and presuming regeneration. The PR does not say the infant IS regenerate, but we presume they are....as we all acknowledge, no one truly knows who the elect are. You say we do this to 'an extent'. What extent? No one but the almighty can validate the mark of election; hence, we presume.

In regards to presuming about the 11year old; I would presume until one couldn't presume any longer.....

 

[Craig]

Scott asked[quote:f8d17fc415]Craig, What's the difference between 'possibly regenerate' and presuming regeneration.[/quote:f8d17fc415]
My faith is in [i:f8d17fc415]the promise of election[/i:f8d17fc415]. God may, in fact regenerate in the womb...but I don't assume as much. As Fred commented;
[quote:f8d17fc415]For me the difference is that if I presume election I can take hold of the promise, but also know that I must apply myself to the means to bring about the promise. [/quote:f8d17fc415]
When I tried to express this, you said that sounded synergistic. But this is living out the covenant of God and applying the means God has given us. I won't speak for Fred because he knows far more than I (the same with you, Scott): but I think PE is more covenantal than PR. Why? PR does logically lead to laziness on part of the Christian parent. There is [i:f8d17fc415]conditionality[/i:f8d17fc415] within the [i:f8d17fc415]external[/i:f8d17fc415] covenant; and the PE position acknowledges that and is able to logically shepherd and exhort the sheep (visibly considered sheep) most effectively.
[quote:f8d17fc415]In regards to presuming about the 11year old; I would presume until one couldn't presume any longer.....[/quote:f8d17fc415]
But at [b:f8d17fc415]what[/b:f8d17fc415] point is that? What if the child profess unbelief? This is far more open ended when I said we presume people to be of the faith to an extent. We presume to the extent that they profess faith...I stop presuming when they've made it clear they are not Christians. Our children are in a unique situation compared to those born of pagan parents. They are not pagan because they belong to the community of faith...the promise of election is real, and we ought to baptize our infants accordingly.

I see an inconsistency in the thinking among the theologians you quoted. I love being orthodox and finding roots with our forefathers, but on this point it is not biblical. How can a theologian say we presume an infants regeneration, and [i:f8d17fc415]that's the only way we can conscienably baptize them[/i:f8d17fc415]...then acknowledge that they may not in reality be regenerate? If they're not, you've done something sinful (according to their logic) Let's take it further....let's say this infant rejects the faith at age 14 and lives a life of utter sin. They convert 25 years later: would you consider their baptism in infancy valid since they truly did reject the faith, lived a life of sin...then later converted? Can you say your reasoning behind infant baptism isn't wrong-headed? It's a modified version of credo-baptism, essentially. We shouldn't baptize because we assume these children are regenerate. We baptize them because they are born into the external covenant (possibly regenerate then...maybe later). We are sanctifying them before God in obedience to His Word and are preaching the gospel through the sprinkling of water.

 

[Ianterrell]

Craig,


If it would be wrong to apply the covenant sign to the child, for the PRer (according to the argument you set forth), based on presumption. Would it not also be wrong for the PRer to baptize confessing adults based on the administrator's faulty presumptions?

The child's falling away in no way takes away from the validity of the baptism itself. The sign is a sign even if the subject becomes unfit for it. It's value is inherent, so that when the apostate turns and repents, his baptism given in the past still stands.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Ian,
This is true. In fact, I was baptised in the RC church as an infant. based upon that, that I was baptised in the Father, in the Son and Holy Spirit, I should have never been rebaptised as an adult.

Craig,
I just got in. When I have a moment, I will address your last post.

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:f2ae8ebeee="Ianterrell"]Craig,


If it would be wrong to apply the covenant sign to the child, for the PRer (according to the argument you set forth), based on presumption. Would it not also be wrong for the PRer to baptize confessing adults based on the administrator's faulty presumptions?

The child's falling away in no way takes away from the validity of the baptism itself. The sign is a sign even if the subject becomes unfit for it. It's value is inherent, so that when the apostate turns and repents, his baptism given in the past still stands.[/quote:f2ae8ebeee]

Ian,

I think the point is that we baptize not on presumption but on promise. There is a difference.

 

[Craig]

Ian[quote:59d03698f7]If it would be wrong to apply the covenant sign to the child, for the PRer (according to the argument you set forth), based on presumption.[/quote:59d03698f7]
According to the argument set forth, not by me, but by theologians holding to PR: one is actually sinning by baptizing unregenerates. In fact, the ONLY way one of them could justify baptizing an infant was by presupposing the infant was, in fact, regenerate...hence my calling PR a modified form of credo-baptism
[quote:59d03698f7]Would it not also be wrong for the PRer to baptize confessing adults based on the administrator's faulty presumptions?[/quote:59d03698f7]
You'll want to ask Scott that one.This is why PR's set themselves up for more trouble than anything else. So I thing logically, Scott would have to say "yes".
[quote:59d03698f7]The child's falling away in no way takes away from the validity of the baptism itself. The sign is a sign even if the subject becomes unfit for it. It's value is inherent, so that when the apostate turns and repents, his baptism given in the past still stands.[/quote:59d03698f7]
I agree...it seems to me that PR's will have to reformulate their ideas in order to make them intelligable...which, alas, would be a break from history.

 

[Craig]

No problem Scott....oh, and I was rereading some of my arguments and noticed something I said...[quote:58271b9353]I won't speak for Fred because he knows far more than I (the same with you, Scott)[/quote:58271b9353]
I could see where this could be perceived as an insult. I should have phrased that differently: Both Fred AND Scott know a lot more than me! Sorry if anyone took offense, I just need to write clearer sentences!