Presumptive Regeneration in the Church & History

Status
Not open for further replies.

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Wayne,
How can you say that when Calvin's quotes have provided more than enough proof that he DID in fact subscribe to presumption?

But as Christ enjoins them to teach before baptizing, and desires that none but believers shall be admitted to baptism -- it would appear that baptism is not properly administered, unless when it is preceded by faith."
John Calvin, Commentary on Matthew 28:19.

The above quote proves that he presumed; there is no other rationale.

Scott,

You're trying to have it both ways. If the above quote relates to presumption, what kind of presumption is it? Does Calvin say: "But as Christ enjoins them to teach before baptizing, and desires that none but the regenerate shall be admitted to baptism" and "it would appear that baptism is not properly administered, unless when it is preceded by "regeneration" ?

No. He uses the words "believers" and "faith." Belief and faith results in conversion, not regeneration. You yourself have told me that more than a dozen times, along with "regeneration is not conversion."

If Calvin is dealing with presumption, the quote proves much more than you want it to.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Fred,
That may be true, but that is not what we are trying to ascertain. I am not trying to tie down all of Calvins theology here, but that he did in fact presume.The point is, the historic church did presume and in that presumption, they presumed regeneration.

[Edited on 6-11-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Fred,
That may be true, but that is not what we are trying to ascertain. I am not trying to tie down all of Calvins theology here, but that he did in fact presume.The point is, the historic church did presume and in that presumption, they presumed regeneration.

[Edited on 6-11-2005 by Scott Bushey]

Scott,

This is a word game. You just said:

1. Calvin presumed
2. We don't know what Calvin presumed
3. Because Calvin presumed, that is evidence of the historic church's presumption.
4. Therefore they presumed regeneration.

There is a leap the size of the grand canyon from #3 to #4.

I have not denied that the Church presumed, never have. All I have said is that presumed regeneration is not the position. Presumed election is.

So I respond:

Scott,
That may be true, but that is not what we are trying to ascertain. I am not trying to tie down all of Calvins theology here, but that he did in fact presume. The point is, the historic church did presume and in that presumption, they presumed election.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Fred,
You just said that the quotes pointed towards much more than regeneration; did you not?

If Calvin is dealing with presumption, the quote proves much more than you want it to.

Calvins quote states:
"baptism is not properly administered, unless when it is preceded by faith."

Can someone have faith (seeds of faith) unless they are regenerated?

You cannot gleen from this quote from Calvin that he was describing just election. If you can, would you please show me?

[Edited on 6-11-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Fred,
You just said that the quotes pointed towards much more than regeneration; did you not?

I said that if you take your premise that it leads NOT to presumed regeneration, but presumptive salvation, belief and justification.

You can't eat your cake and have it too. To use the Calvin quote to prove your point, you have to either: (1) be a presumptive salvation/baptismal regeneration FV adocate, or (2) the quote does not prove your point.

For the record, the quote is perfectly consistent with the concept that those who were baptized without seed faith (i.e. those who are not elect) are improperly baptized, that is, they are covenant breakers waiting to be revealed.

You're trying to take the quote out of context and rip out the clear words "believers" and "faith." Regeneration is nowhere in the quote. If anything, Patrick should be using the quote to back himself up in his discussion with you regarding John the Baptist's faith in the womb.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Calvins quote states:
"baptism is not properly administered, unless when it is preceded by faith."

Can someone have faith (seeds of faith) unless they are regenerated?

Yes. One can the seed of faith in one's election.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Calvins quote states:
"baptism is not properly administered, unless when it is preceded by faith."

Can someone have faith (seeds of faith) unless they are regenerated?

Yes. One can the seed of faith in one's election.

Really? Prior to regeneration?
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Fred,
Lets make this simple; please take apart the quote from Calvin and show me that he meant only election.

Also, would you mind giving me your opinion on the Bavinck quote?

[Edited on 6-11-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
You cannot gleen from this quote from Calvin that he was describing just election. If you can, would you please show me?

[Edited on 6-11-2005 by Scott Bushey]

That is NOT what I said.

I don't take the quote to show presumption of election or regeneration. I take it to be garden-variety, classic Covenantal theology with covenant keepers and breakers. The difference is shown in the life of the one baptized.

YOU said that the quote was for presumed regeneration. But all I was pointing out was that you read "regeneration" into the quote, where it is nowhere to be found, by implication or explication. Calvin is talking not about election, or regeneration but about BELIEF and FAITH (Calvin's actual words, not mine, not yours). So if Calvin is presuming anything in the quote, let's at least let him talk for himself, rather than putting words in his mouth. The problem is, you don't want to presume belief and faith and justification in infants (and rightly so). So unless we want Calvin to be a baptismal regenerationist (which he is NOT, from a plethora of other places), we cannot ascribe PRESUMPTION in this quote.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
For the third time, I am not saying that Calvin was presuming election here in THIS quote.

Please show me how the word "believer" means "one who is regenerate but not converted" anyplace in Scripture or any Reformed divine. Please show me where "faith" means "the capacity for trust, but not actual trust itself."
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Here's the quote again:

"But as Christ enjoins them to teach before baptizing, and desires that none but believers shall be admitted to baptism -- it would appear that baptism is not properly administered, unless when it is preceded by faith."

A) Calvin says that no one but those whom believe should be admitted to baptism; these baptized individuals have faith!
B) Babies are baptised

As per Calvin, covenantal children whom are baptised must have faith and believe or else the baptism is illicit.

Now, I am not saying that I agree fully with the extent Calvin is going, however, if he does mean this, he does in fact presume, and that presumption is much more than election.

Please show me where "faith" means "the capacity for trust, but not actual trust itself."

Calvin & Turretin's 'seed faith' statments!

[Edited on 6-11-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Now show me where faith applies to regeneration and not to conversion.

Regeneration is not conversion and conversion is not regeneration, a friend keeps telling me.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Now show me where faith applies to regeneration and not to conversion.

Regeneration is not conversion and conversion is not regeneration, a friend keeps telling me.

'seeds of faith' as per calvin and Turretin.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by wsw201
Scott,

Regarding the paper, what do you think about the following comment:


It is sad indeed that Cain -- but not Abel and Seth --repudiated this covenant of redemption when he grew up. Yet until then, his mother rightly (though rebuttably) presumed him to be regenerate -- even from his conception and birth onward.

Why do you think he says "though rebuttably"? Is he intimating that his position is conjecture?

Wayne,
I received clearification from Dr. Lee. He writes:

By "rebuttably" I here mean that Eve rightly presumed the tiny Cain was right before God from his conception onward -- until Cain's later actions (of murdering Abel etc.) clearly rebutted that prior presumption. This is seen from her words: "I have gotten a male child -- (from)the
Lord!"[in which she either rightly presumed Cain was an elect sinner or wrongly presumed he was the promised Seed of the woman Himself (the Heb. here permitting either presumption)].

Ditto on all my other uses of the word "rebuttably" (in presuming anycovenant child from his conception onward *already* seems to be regenerated despite his original sin, cf. I Cor. 7:14 etc.).

I am arguing that the just-conceived sinful covenant child is *right* *then* also to be presumed regenerated by the sanctifying work of the Spirit at conception, just as that Spirit at Christ's conception even prevented Himfrom thereby being tainted with original sin and being totally righteous from His conception onward. In our children's cases, of course, the additional benefit of freedom from original taint is absent; yet they are (presumably) regenerated as conception, so that if they die one second later they go straight to heaven despite their taint which Christ at their regeneration substitutionarily washes away by the action of His Spirit
(cf.WCF 10:3).

So, holy children are entitled to receivedholy baptism (in order to seal their presumed *present* holiness, rather than to try to transubstantiate unholy covenant kids into regeneratees á la Rome). Baptism thus seals existing benefits; it does *not* engineer
regeneration!

[Edited on 6-11-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Ok Matt,

Please answer the question I raised before about the relationship of adoption to justification. If Calvin meant adoption in the sense you mean it, and yet the FV advocates are wrong (both of which you have asserted) then it would follow:


  1. Calvin presumed regeneration
  2. Calvin presumes adoption
  3. Calvin does not presume justification (contra FV)
  4. Either adoption can be lost, or adoption does not happen at the same time as justification
    [/list=1]


  1. Fred, I think the problem is setting your question in the proper context of whether we are talking decreetive or preceptive.

    Is Calvin talking decreetively or preceptively?

    Am I?

    Are you?

    In other words, though I am not glorified yet (as Paul says in Romans 8 int he golden chain) those who are elected can certainly be "considered" as sealed to that end.

    If we presume regeneration, why would we not presume the rest unless proven otherwise? Eve presumed Cain was the man. She presumed wrong, but no doubt raised Cain as the "one." It was not until later that she and Adam would have seen Cain as rejecting the covenant and thus bing a covenant breaker, thus not being regenerate, or having any of the benefits as the WCF states.

    But if we do baptize someone, anyone, we are assuming that the benefits are being sealed. Westminster says it this way:

    Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church;[2] but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.[8]

    1. Matt. 28:19
    2. I Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27-28
    3. Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12
    4. Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:5
    5. John 3:5; Titus 3:5
    6. Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; 22:16
    7. Rom. 6:3-4
    8. Matt. 28:19-20

    So, I don't think one can stop at saying these things are sealed unto them (at least in the divided sense) until it is demonstrated otherwise.

    Its a hermenuetical issue not a theological issue.
    You are confusing the decree (what will REALLY happen to them) with the precept (what God tells us we should doo based on the preceptive promise).

    Also, Calvin bounces back and forth between "senses" without distinguishing between them. "Two Wills" demosntrates this over and over in his writings. So one has to be careful about what context he means and what sense he means. The FV guys use the decreetive sense overlayed and misused on the divided sense. They inject the theology of the decree intot he precept where they have no warrant to do it. You are injecting the divided sense into the decree. Seperate the two.

    [Edited on 6-12-2005 by webmaster]
 

wsw201

Puritan Board Senior
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by wsw201
Scott,

Regarding the paper, what do you think about the following comment:


It is sad indeed that Cain -- but not Abel and Seth --repudiated this covenant of redemption when he grew up. Yet until then, his mother rightly (though rebuttably) presumed him to be regenerate -- even from his conception and birth onward.

Why do you think he says "though rebuttably"? Is he intimating that his position is conjecture?

Wayne,
I received clearification from Dr. Lee. He writes:

By "rebuttably" I here mean that Eve rightly presumed the tiny Cain was right before God from his conception onward -- until Cain's later actions (of murdering Abel etc.) clearly rebutted that prior presumption. This is seen from her words: "I have gotten a male child -- (from)the
Lord!"[in which she either rightly presumed Cain was an elect sinner or wrongly presumed he was the promised Seed of the woman Himself (the Heb. here permitting either presumption)].

Ditto on all my other uses of the word "rebuttably" (in presuming anycovenant child from his conception onward *already* seems to be regenerated despite his original sin, cf. I Cor. 7:14 etc.).

I am arguing that the just-conceived sinful covenant child is *right* *then* also to be presumed regenerated by the sanctifying work of the Spirit at conception, just as that Spirit at Christ's conception even prevented Himfrom thereby being tainted with original sin and being totally righteous from His conception onward. In our children's cases, of course, the additional benefit of freedom from original taint is absent; yet they are (presumably) regenerated as conception, so that if they die one second later they go straight to heaven despite their taint which Christ at their regeneration substitutionarily washes away by the action of His Spirit
(cf.WCF 10:3).

So, holy children are entitled to receivedholy baptism (in order to seal their presumed *present* holiness, rather than to try to transubstantiate unholy covenant kids into regeneratees á la Rome). Baptism thus seals existing benefits; it does *not* engineer
regeneration!

[Edited on 6-11-2005 by Scott Bushey]

It sure is nice that we can email Dr. Lee to get a clarification. Unfortunately we can not do that with Calvin.

It appears that Dr. Lee is taking Kuyper' position on PR and that it is the grounds for baptism in that we don't baptize the unregenerate.
 

AdamM

Puritan Board Freshman
Matt & Scott, I think the e-mail from Dr. Lee indicates that he is presuming a whole lot more then what you have previously indicated was your position. What Lee and most PR advocates believe is not that that Baby is regenerated and the converted at some later date via the preaching of the Word. They believe the cake is baked in terms of the ordo so to speak in the womb, the baby is presumed to receive regeneration, adaption, conversion and etc. all while in the womb. I didn't think that was your position, but maybe I am wrong?
 

Puritanhead

Puritan Board Professor
The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it but you do not know whence it comes, or whither it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit. (John 3:8)

I was baptized at age ten, and confessed at eight, but I felt innumerable times as a teenager and in hindsight looking back that my faith was barren. Maybe I was just backslidden, but I profess ignorance of my time of being "saved"... and though I am acclimated to being around circles where they want you to name the year, month, and day (perhaps hour and minute) you were "saved" so as to demonstrate assurance... I profess wholesale ignorance of it... all one can do is strive to make their calling and election sure...

I just say I was saved 2,000 years ago by Christ on the Cross at Calvary. I was "saved" yesterday, today and tomorrow...
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by AdamM
Matt & Scott, I think the e-mail from Dr. Lee indicates that he is presuming a whole lot more then what you have previously indicated was your position. What Lee and most PR advocates believe is not that that Baby is regenerated and the converted at some later date via the preaching of the Word. They believe the cake is baked in terms of the ordo so to speak in the womb, the baby is presumed to receive regeneration, adaption, conversion and etc. all while in the womb. I didn't think that was your position, but maybe I am wrong?

Adam,
Dr Lee does not hold to a Kuperian view. I mentioned that earlier in the thread to Wayne. Kuyper believed in baptising based upon regneration. Lee's rationale is we baptise based upon command and the promise; in faith.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by Puritanhead
The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it but you do not know whence it comes, or whither it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit. (John 3:8)

I was baptized at age ten, and confessed at eight, but I felt innumerable times as a teenager and in hindsight looking back that my faith was barren. Maybe I was just backslidden, but I profess ignorance of my time of being "saved"... and though I am acclimated to being around circles where they want you to name the year, month, and day (perhaps hour and minute) you were "saved" so as to demonstrate assurance... I profess wholesale ignorance of it... all one can do is strive to make their calling and election sure...

I just say I was saved 2,000 years ago by Christ on the Cross at Calvary. I was "saved" yesterday, today and tomorrow...

Ryan,
I know you know this; I'm just being exhortive for the people 'lurking'.

Men are elected outside of time. Salvation occurs within time; there is a difference. Paul was elected, yet was a murderer of Christs church prior to his conversion.

Rom 6:17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed,

Rom 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life.
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Rom 11:30 Just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience,

1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1Co 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

[Edited on 6-12-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by wsw201
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by wsw201
Scott,

Regarding the paper, what do you think about the following comment:


It is sad indeed that Cain -- but not Abel and Seth --repudiated this covenant of redemption when he grew up. Yet until then, his mother rightly (though rebuttably) presumed him to be regenerate -- even from his conception and birth onward.

Why do you think he says "though rebuttably"? Is he intimating that his position is conjecture?

Wayne,
I received clearification from Dr. Lee. He writes:

By "rebuttably" I here mean that Eve rightly presumed the tiny Cain was right before God from his conception onward -- until Cain's later actions (of murdering Abel etc.) clearly rebutted that prior presumption. This is seen from her words: "I have gotten a male child -- (from)the
Lord!"[in which she either rightly presumed Cain was an elect sinner or wrongly presumed he was the promised Seed of the woman Himself (the Heb. here permitting either presumption)].

Ditto on all my other uses of the word "rebuttably" (in presuming anycovenant child from his conception onward *already* seems to be regenerated despite his original sin, cf. I Cor. 7:14 etc.).

I am arguing that the just-conceived sinful covenant child is *right* *then* also to be presumed regenerated by the sanctifying work of the Spirit at conception, just as that Spirit at Christ's conception even prevented Himfrom thereby being tainted with original sin and being totally righteous from His conception onward. In our children's cases, of course, the additional benefit of freedom from original taint is absent; yet they are (presumably) regenerated as conception, so that if they die one second later they go straight to heaven despite their taint which Christ at their regeneration substitutionarily washes away by the action of His Spirit
(cf.WCF 10:3).

So, holy children are entitled to receivedholy baptism (in order to seal their presumed *present* holiness, rather than to try to transubstantiate unholy covenant kids into regeneratees á la Rome). Baptism thus seals existing benefits; it does *not* engineer
regeneration!

[Edited on 6-11-2005 by Scott Bushey]

It sure is nice that we can email Dr. Lee to get a clarification. Unfortunately we can not do that with Calvin.

It appears that Dr. Lee is taking Kuyper' position on PR and that it is the grounds for baptism in that we don't baptize the unregenerate.

Wayne,
With all due respect, the difference & ambiguous nature to Dr. lee's statement and Calvins are horses of a different color. As I have said to Fred, look the quote over, there are infact very few options for what calvin could have meant. Fred implied that if we take it for it's face value, Calvin must have meant more than just presumption; Fred added that he knows that Calvin did not hold to baptismal regeneration, so it must mean something different. I agree. Presumption does not mean we believe without a doubt that God regenerates; we presume. My opinion, Calvin went a step further; this does not mean he was holding to a Kuyperian system, but that he was taking it to it's furthest conclusion. If he was, and this is my point, he went obviously much further than just believing in election, hence destroying any idea that his theology was limited to just election.

[Edited on 6-12-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by D Battjes
Would someone please address 1 Cor 7 in regards to baptising the sanctified unbelieving spouse.

I asked this for a reason, and yet noone is responding.

IF 1Cor 7 is used to prove PR/PE for infants and children, then why not the unbelieving sanctified spouse.

This will end the discussion i am afraid

You've answered your question in your statement above. There is no presumption on the spouses part. She is an unbeliever; you made that perfectly clear. She is a God hater. She rejects the gospel. She admits she does not believe. The child however, has not admitted anything. Based upon that, we will hold fast to Gods promise, and when she rejects, when she breaks covenant, we will go from there; but not until and even then, as in the example of the prodigal son, we will also have faith that the child will return to her father. A son, is always a son!
 

Dan....

Puritan Board Sophomore
Adam,
Dr Lee does not hold to a Kuperian view. I mentioned that earlier in the thread to Wayne. Kuyper believed in baptising based upon regneration. Lee's rationale is we baptise based upon command and the promise; in faith.

Practically speaking, what's the difference?? (Why you baptize is only a minute part of it.) The major question is how do you approach your children any differently? You've presumed them regenerate. You've presumed that the child has faith. Hence, you must also presume that the child is justified and is being sanctified, correct? All that remains is the continuing of sanctification up until the child is finally glorified.
 

wsw201

Puritan Board Senior
Wayne,
With all due respect, the difference & ambiguous nature to Dr. lee's statement and Calvins are horses of a different color. As I have said to Fred, look the quote over, there are infact very few options for what calvin could have meant. Fred implied that if we take it for it's face value, Calvin must have meant more than just presumption; Fred added that he knows that Calvin did not hold to baptismal regeneration, so it must mean something different. I agree. Presumption does not mean we believe without a doubt that God regenerates; we presume. My opinion, Calvin went a step further; this does not mean he was holding to a Kuyperian system, but that he was taking it to it's furthest conclusion. If he was, and this is my point, he went obviously much further than just believing in election, hence destroying any idea that his theology was limited to just election.

As far as looking at Calvin's comment, you know as well as I that you can't take a single quote and cobble together a whole doctrine. Looking at Calvin as a whole, I believe that he did not believe in PR. You are really reading a lot into one quote.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by wsw201
Wayne,
With all due respect, the difference & ambiguous nature to Dr. lee's statement and Calvins are horses of a different color. As I have said to Fred, look the quote over, there are infact very few options for what calvin could have meant. Fred implied that if we take it for it's face value, Calvin must have meant more than just presumption; Fred added that he knows that Calvin did not hold to baptismal regeneration, so it must mean something different. I agree. Presumption does not mean we believe without a doubt that God regenerates; we presume. My opinion, Calvin went a step further; this does not mean he was holding to a Kuyperian system, but that he was taking it to it's furthest conclusion. If he was, and this is my point, he went obviously much further than just believing in election, hence destroying any idea that his theology was limited to just election.

As far as looking at Calvin's comment, you know as well as I that you can't take a single quote and cobble together a whole doctrine. Looking at Calvin as a whole, I believe that he did not believe in PR. You are really reading a lot into one quote.

Wayne,
You're kidding me, right? You know me better than that. I am not basing it on one quote from Calvin:

Dr. John Calvin
"By these words, Christ...by a sacred bond...connects baptism with doctrine.... But as
Christ enjoins them to teach before baptizing, and desires that none but believers shall be admitted to baptism -- it would appear that baptism is not properly administered, unless when it is preceded by faith."
John Calvin, Commentary on Matthew 28:19.


Dr. John Calvin
"Are we not, independent of baptism [in infancy], cleansed by the blood of Christ and regenerated by the Spirit?" Indeed: "Let him (Heshusius) then accuse Paul of blasphemy -- for saying that Christ is formed in us like the foetus in the womb. His well-known words to the Galatians are: 'My little children, for whom I again travail, as in birth -- until Christ Jesus be formed in you.' Galatians 4:9...."


"God therefore calls those who were thus slain -- 'His sons.' Just as if a husband should reproach his wife with depriving him of their common children.... Children are more precious than all goods.... A father is more grievously injured, if children are taken away.... God here pronounces...'you have born them -- unto Me.'"

"The Jews were naturally accursed, through being Adam's seed. But by supernatural and singular privilege, they were exempt and free from the curse -- since
circumcision was a testimony of the adoption by which God had consecrated them to Himself. Hence, they were holy.... As to their being impure, it could not...abolish God's covenant.... And so Paul says that the children of the faithful are holy -- since baptism does not lose its efficacy, and the adoption of God remains fixed. First Corinthians 7:14."
Calvin's True Partaking of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, in his Tracts & Treat. II pp. 497f. 306) Ib. pp. 534f.


Here Van Mastricht quotes Calvin:
Dr. Herman Bavinck
"œMen had this feeling that the regeneration of children took place before baptism.... God was not bound to means.... He operated thus with the children of believers who were removed by death before the years of discretion.... "They are to be regarded as elect and regenerate, until the opposite is apparent from their profession and behaviour.... All children born of believing parents are, according to the judgment of charity, to be regarded as born again -- until the opposite in life and doctrine are clearly manifested. Thus [Peter] Martyr [Vermigli], Alasco, Ursinus, Datheen, Alting, Voetius, Witsius,
Mastricht...."Calvin says...that the children of believers are already holy even before baptism through a supranatural grace (Institutes IV:16:31); that the seed of faith and conversion hides within them through a secret operation of the Spirit (IV:16:20); that they partake of the grace of regeneration by virtue of the promise; and that baptism follows by way of sign.... Men had this feeling that the regeneration of children took place before baptism...."
Herman Bavinck: Reformed Dogmatics I p. 29 & n. 1, and III pp. 266f (as cited in Wielenga's op. cit. pp. 241f).


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)

As far as 'cobbling' together a whole doctrine, the mass of quotes I provided as well as Matts should answer that.

[Edited on 6-12-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by Dan....
Adam,
Dr Lee does not hold to a Kuperian view. I mentioned that earlier in the thread to Wayne. Kuyper believed in baptising based upon regneration. Lee's rationale is we baptise based upon command and the promise; in faith.

Practically speaking, what's the difference?? (Why you baptize is only a minute part of it.) The major question is how do you approach your children any differently? You've presumed them regenerate. You've presumed that the child has faith. Hence, you must also presume that the child is justified and is being sanctified, correct? All that remains is the continuing of sanctification up until the child is finally glorified.

Dan,
Practically speaking, No! There is a difference. Kuyper was a baptismal regenerationist. Calvin is not. Baptismal regeneration is semi-Pelagian and heresy; it denies justification by faith alone. Calvin et. al. baptized by faith alone, by command alone. I will repeat, presuming is not conclusive. Thats the idea behind presumption.Regeneration is not necessarily conversion. Regeneration generally requires Gods preached word from Gods servants. Justification and sanctification follow repentance and faith, repentance and faith typically follow regeneration in that after Gods word is preached, the seed of faith is germinated by water of the word and grows.
 

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
The unberlieving spouse is UNBELIEVING. That's just a "tad" different than the child who is born and is to be presumed holy by baptism until they demonstrate THEY are unbeleiving, or not.

In other words, what is the child (believing or unbelieving) and how do you know that for a fact?

Sanctified in one case is different than sanctififed in the other based on the context of the person. Its nonsensical for anyone to say that n unbeleiver is to be baptized! (Come now!) :lol:
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by D Battjes
Calvin did believe as well as others that all children of Elect parents are elect. I will research, because I have the quotes somewhere.

Either way, he errored grievously on this.

Scott Bushy, I did nto answer my own question.

Paul says the unbelieving spouse is sanctified/holy just like the child. You cannot have it both way just because the child is unable to speak.

The more I look at Lee's article, I am dissappointed that some held to this error, while in one breathe preached TD

I never said Calvin did'nt believe that in regards to election. He based this as well on presumption. I am as well saying that Calvin went a step farther; in that step, he most definately subscribed to PR.

As far as the 1 Cor passage goes, it should be simple enough. We are talking about infant presumption. There is no presumption for the unbelieving spouse, she does not believe. How could we presume anything otherwise? If she said she believed, we would assuredly place the sign on her.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top