Presumptive Regeneration
- Thread starter JM
- Start date
- Status
Scott, I think he realizes that. I think he wants to begin a new thread in that vein.
JM
Puritan Board Doctor
can ya help a brotha out? I thought the presumption was due to the Covenant?Peace,
jm
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
When properly nuanced, and correctly explained and taught---I should now say I believe in "presumptive regeneration."
The key for me is the separate theological doctrines of regeneration and conversion, and the ordo salutis. Regeneration has to do with the granting of a certain capacity to a person, a change in nature. Conversion has to do with the exercise of that faculty as designed. Where the former is effected, the latter will certainly be also, as G.I. Williamson puts it: "regeneration is inseperable from its effects." While that may be often practically simultaneously, which leads to the common assumption that these two--capacity and exercise, cause/effect--must be found together at all times, or neither is there. But that is not necessarily the case. A baby in utero has the capacity to see, but unborn in the absence of light, sees nothing. Likewise a person with his eyes closed asleep, sees nothing--but when awakened does see, having had the capacity to see even while unseeing.
Regeneration is tied, in the ordinary means of grace, to the preaching of the Word. So, it is effectual calling in the ministry of the Word that ordinarily effects regeneration, and regeneration that makes it possible to "hear" the Spirit doing the calling. In this sense, the two are so closely identified that putting the one ahead of the other is impossible. The action of the God the Spirit (a powerful calling) precedes the activity of the person (hearing), because he is the initator, the creator, the living One; and the man is first of all dead and passive. But the hearing must be "active" so as to receive the call! So the call does it all--calls and grants hearing (regenerates) in one act.
But it is the spirit of a man (not his organism) that "hears" the Voice of the Spirit. So, there must ordinarily be a divine coordination between the spoken Word, and the Spirit-given Word. Hence the necessary concepts of the means of grace and a mediated Word by the throat of a minister.
When I preach to the congregation, I am in fact presuming certain things: first, that those in my hearing have the capacity to receive spiritual truth, i.e. are regenerated. This is both the teaching aspect of my ministry, as well as a portion of the converting aspect. Some of these may have recently been given the capacity to see spiritually (new life, on another occasion of the Word), and the conversion being "in process," unto the full exercise of faith and repentance.
I also presume that some of my audience may, to begin with, not be regenerated, but I believe that by the power of the gospel and the Spirit, he may use that Word and coordinate his inward call so that faith might come by the hearing. Regeneration has the seed of all the rest of the divine work already present in it (conversion, justification, adoption, sanctification, glorification). And by the Word and Spirit, the remainer comes about.
So where does "presumptive regeneration" fit into this? Just here: I "presume" that the children in this church are being called, converted, and taught, all three in the ministry of the Word. The only way the hearing of the Word will do them any spiritual good is if the Holy Spirit is savingly active (toto ordo) in its presentation. But I don't know where they are, spiritually--no more than I know the state of any of the adults present. Some of them may have been regenerated in the womb. Many, or even most in some churches, have been under Spirit-empowered preaching and spiritual instruction from parents and teachers thousands of times before they were 2 years old!
Every one of these teachers should have "presumed" that these children were capable of receiving rudimentary spiritual instruction, or else that by the very act of spiritual instruction, God would impart spiritual life, and so would be regenerated by the time they finished talking.
Here's yet another application: what good is a "truncated" gospel? I know of churches where all the spiritual instruction the youngest children receive, or Sunday School up through... whenever, is nothing but "have you received Jesus? have you received Jesus?" Or, the "Bible story" is taught, some "facts" and perhaps a moralistic life-lesson, but with no thought that the youth are really capable of receiving spiritual good until they've "received Jesus."
Until then, the goal is nothing but rearing compliant, respectful pagans. Hence, every class concludes with a "bow your head, close your eyes, raise your hand if you want to receive Jesus in your heart today." And come to think of it, isn't this what happens a lot in the regular service as well? Spiritual instruction is something that happens on your own, or in small groups, or post-conversion Suday School classes. There is no unifed message! The Spirit's gospel includes the "what wilt thou have me to do?" part as well.
As I see it, the difference in preaching the gospel properly is that it is never separated from the imperatives. And this holds in teaching down to the youngest level. There's no waiting for a profession, before assuming that one can speak cogently to the spirit of a child. We've no idea when and where and how far the Spirit has moved on that little heart thus far.
"Oh, but what if that child is not one of the elect?" And? We don't ask that question about adults, or adjust our preaching accordingly. The non-elect are like ground that drinks in the rain, only to produce thorns and thistles. This is apostasy--the receiving of spiritual things, without finally sensibly appreciating them spiritually, because one is incapable of receiving them, being a natural man unto the end. But none of that is in our purview.
I think I have spiritual duty to presume the best, that those in my hearing who belong to the church are capable of receiving the Spirit of Truth. While at the same time acknowledging that this may not in fact be the case, and that there be those elect on whom the Spirit will yet be a long time pursuing, before beginning a saving work in them, as well as non-elect persons present. And my preaching unto them will be for the storing up of wrath against the day of wrath.
However, in the final analysis, I still do not like the terminology "presumptive". I feel as though it says just a bit too much; it goes over the line. Erroneous presumption is really "presumptive conversion" or "presumptive Christianity apart from the means of grace." True "presumptive regeneration" insists on seeking and drawing out the evidence of that regeneration, and is never satisfied to "presume it all" or "presume upon God's converting grace."
Tell me, would any decent preacher be content to ignore the sins of his people, because "they're saved, that's all forgiven"? Perish the thought! May God have mercy on that minister, because I've already judged him worthless.
If you presume regeneration, you better practice church discipline too, and "turn that person over to Satan," hoping even in excommunication for his recovery and reinstatement when he finally turns and repents. "Love hopes all things." If you presume regeneration, you better use all the means of grace, and all the other divine appointments unto blessed ends. Only then may you with a clean conscience leave the outcome in the hands of a merciful and all-good God. And you shoudl still pray for God to forgive your less-than-perfect use of those means. And finally pray that God would give you peace even if the person you once presumed upon was not one of God's after all.
Since I now confess I presume regeneration, I'd better do it properly.
The key for me is the separate theological doctrines of regeneration and conversion, and the ordo salutis. Regeneration has to do with the granting of a certain capacity to a person, a change in nature. Conversion has to do with the exercise of that faculty as designed. Where the former is effected, the latter will certainly be also, as G.I. Williamson puts it: "regeneration is inseperable from its effects." While that may be often practically simultaneously, which leads to the common assumption that these two--capacity and exercise, cause/effect--must be found together at all times, or neither is there. But that is not necessarily the case. A baby in utero has the capacity to see, but unborn in the absence of light, sees nothing. Likewise a person with his eyes closed asleep, sees nothing--but when awakened does see, having had the capacity to see even while unseeing.
Regeneration is tied, in the ordinary means of grace, to the preaching of the Word. So, it is effectual calling in the ministry of the Word that ordinarily effects regeneration, and regeneration that makes it possible to "hear" the Spirit doing the calling. In this sense, the two are so closely identified that putting the one ahead of the other is impossible. The action of the God the Spirit (a powerful calling) precedes the activity of the person (hearing), because he is the initator, the creator, the living One; and the man is first of all dead and passive. But the hearing must be "active" so as to receive the call! So the call does it all--calls and grants hearing (regenerates) in one act.
But it is the spirit of a man (not his organism) that "hears" the Voice of the Spirit. So, there must ordinarily be a divine coordination between the spoken Word, and the Spirit-given Word. Hence the necessary concepts of the means of grace and a mediated Word by the throat of a minister.
When I preach to the congregation, I am in fact presuming certain things: first, that those in my hearing have the capacity to receive spiritual truth, i.e. are regenerated. This is both the teaching aspect of my ministry, as well as a portion of the converting aspect. Some of these may have recently been given the capacity to see spiritually (new life, on another occasion of the Word), and the conversion being "in process," unto the full exercise of faith and repentance.
I also presume that some of my audience may, to begin with, not be regenerated, but I believe that by the power of the gospel and the Spirit, he may use that Word and coordinate his inward call so that faith might come by the hearing. Regeneration has the seed of all the rest of the divine work already present in it (conversion, justification, adoption, sanctification, glorification). And by the Word and Spirit, the remainer comes about.
So where does "presumptive regeneration" fit into this? Just here: I "presume" that the children in this church are being called, converted, and taught, all three in the ministry of the Word. The only way the hearing of the Word will do them any spiritual good is if the Holy Spirit is savingly active (toto ordo) in its presentation. But I don't know where they are, spiritually--no more than I know the state of any of the adults present. Some of them may have been regenerated in the womb. Many, or even most in some churches, have been under Spirit-empowered preaching and spiritual instruction from parents and teachers thousands of times before they were 2 years old!
Every one of these teachers should have "presumed" that these children were capable of receiving rudimentary spiritual instruction, or else that by the very act of spiritual instruction, God would impart spiritual life, and so would be regenerated by the time they finished talking.
Here's yet another application: what good is a "truncated" gospel? I know of churches where all the spiritual instruction the youngest children receive, or Sunday School up through... whenever, is nothing but "have you received Jesus? have you received Jesus?" Or, the "Bible story" is taught, some "facts" and perhaps a moralistic life-lesson, but with no thought that the youth are really capable of receiving spiritual good until they've "received Jesus."
Until then, the goal is nothing but rearing compliant, respectful pagans. Hence, every class concludes with a "bow your head, close your eyes, raise your hand if you want to receive Jesus in your heart today." And come to think of it, isn't this what happens a lot in the regular service as well? Spiritual instruction is something that happens on your own, or in small groups, or post-conversion Suday School classes. There is no unifed message! The Spirit's gospel includes the "what wilt thou have me to do?" part as well.
As I see it, the difference in preaching the gospel properly is that it is never separated from the imperatives. And this holds in teaching down to the youngest level. There's no waiting for a profession, before assuming that one can speak cogently to the spirit of a child. We've no idea when and where and how far the Spirit has moved on that little heart thus far.
"Oh, but what if that child is not one of the elect?" And? We don't ask that question about adults, or adjust our preaching accordingly. The non-elect are like ground that drinks in the rain, only to produce thorns and thistles. This is apostasy--the receiving of spiritual things, without finally sensibly appreciating them spiritually, because one is incapable of receiving them, being a natural man unto the end. But none of that is in our purview.
I think I have spiritual duty to presume the best, that those in my hearing who belong to the church are capable of receiving the Spirit of Truth. While at the same time acknowledging that this may not in fact be the case, and that there be those elect on whom the Spirit will yet be a long time pursuing, before beginning a saving work in them, as well as non-elect persons present. And my preaching unto them will be for the storing up of wrath against the day of wrath.
However, in the final analysis, I still do not like the terminology "presumptive". I feel as though it says just a bit too much; it goes over the line. Erroneous presumption is really "presumptive conversion" or "presumptive Christianity apart from the means of grace." True "presumptive regeneration" insists on seeking and drawing out the evidence of that regeneration, and is never satisfied to "presume it all" or "presume upon God's converting grace."
Tell me, would any decent preacher be content to ignore the sins of his people, because "they're saved, that's all forgiven"? Perish the thought! May God have mercy on that minister, because I've already judged him worthless.
If you presume regeneration, you better practice church discipline too, and "turn that person over to Satan," hoping even in excommunication for his recovery and reinstatement when he finally turns and repents. "Love hopes all things." If you presume regeneration, you better use all the means of grace, and all the other divine appointments unto blessed ends. Only then may you with a clean conscience leave the outcome in the hands of a merciful and all-good God. And you shoudl still pray for God to forgive your less-than-perfect use of those means. And finally pray that God would give you peace even if the person you once presumed upon was not one of God's after all.
Since I now confess I presume regeneration, I'd better do it properly.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Thanks for that Bruce.
The presumptive part has to do with encouragement, consolation. It is so not only for myself during those trying times when the vicissitudes of life overtake me, but also for my children who may have to struggle with challenges which I could not even imagine. Who is to say at what point a person 'becomes saved', when in eternity it has been determined before the creation? For me it has a lot to do with treating the children for what they are without prejudice either way: not assuming condemnation nor salvation, but treating them as covenant children. They are not lost simply because they are too young to express a mature faith, (which for some of us means denying other things rather than affirming the right things, but which even we who are adult may not lay claim to our own credit,) nor are they automatically saved and sure to persevere. For from the circle of faith come those whom we are not to invite into our homes, not from the world; the world is to be evangelized, but those who are part of the household of faith who preach doctrines which Christ did not command, who incite men away from the one true faith, are the ones we are to be wary and watchful of. The world makes no pretense of love for the Lord or His Word, but those among us who plant insidious teachings do so in the name of the Lord, with the kind of presumption that we are to detest the most. So not every outward member of the covenant is a true believer. Yet even some of those people, such as Saul and Augustine, may become truly saved and be used mightily by the Spirit to lead others to salvation.
Covenant membership has such awesome responsibility with it both ways. But we ought not ever to treat our children as any less than real people who have the sign of the covenant upon them. Whether they are saved or not we may not be able to tell with certainty, and we may be mistaken about it even when they are adult and have made a credible profession of their faith. Yet nevertheless, how can we treat the children of believers as foreign to the covenant of grace? How can we treat adult confessors or their children as outside of it?
The presumptive part has to do with encouragement, consolation. It is so not only for myself during those trying times when the vicissitudes of life overtake me, but also for my children who may have to struggle with challenges which I could not even imagine. Who is to say at what point a person 'becomes saved', when in eternity it has been determined before the creation? For me it has a lot to do with treating the children for what they are without prejudice either way: not assuming condemnation nor salvation, but treating them as covenant children. They are not lost simply because they are too young to express a mature faith, (which for some of us means denying other things rather than affirming the right things, but which even we who are adult may not lay claim to our own credit,) nor are they automatically saved and sure to persevere. For from the circle of faith come those whom we are not to invite into our homes, not from the world; the world is to be evangelized, but those who are part of the household of faith who preach doctrines which Christ did not command, who incite men away from the one true faith, are the ones we are to be wary and watchful of. The world makes no pretense of love for the Lord or His Word, but those among us who plant insidious teachings do so in the name of the Lord, with the kind of presumption that we are to detest the most. So not every outward member of the covenant is a true believer. Yet even some of those people, such as Saul and Augustine, may become truly saved and be used mightily by the Spirit to lead others to salvation.
Covenant membership has such awesome responsibility with it both ways. But we ought not ever to treat our children as any less than real people who have the sign of the covenant upon them. Whether they are saved or not we may not be able to tell with certainty, and we may be mistaken about it even when they are adult and have made a credible profession of their faith. Yet nevertheless, how can we treat the children of believers as foreign to the covenant of grace? How can we treat adult confessors or their children as outside of it?
Chris,
If you've read the former stuff I've presented in this thread, and in others, then you know that I am making a formal switch here. A switch from basically the Ramsey/Silversides statement, to saying that I cannot justify saying such things, while at the same time denying the implicit premise that I think is present there anyway.
Scott Bushey kept telling me that I was "presuming", no matter what I said to the contrary. I didn't want to believe him. Until my mind was percolating on its own, and suddenly I realized I had switched over, without even trying. I was suddenly convinced. My (slightly incoherent) post above is my train of thought as I sat down quickly to try to make sense of what I was now convinced of.
Bottom line--there is BAD presumption (and I still get a little queasy with the word), and there is PROPER presumption. Frankly, as I've written before, treating certain people as if they are Christians is (I am now convinced) merely legerdemain for avoiding the word "presumption." Ramsey raises the same issue I have in the past about there being a difference between adults (presumption OK), and children (presumption BAD). I know Patrick, we were in Seminary together for a year before he graduated, I have a lot of respect for him. I just no longer see that distinction as being qualitative.
And I'm not defending my position now, over you or him, or others--I just felt that having publicly defended the other side, as recently as a few days ago, I had to be honest here, and say "I've moved. But I still don't like that word.... And I think that there is a whole lot of "presumtive" errors around that contribute to the demise of this doctrine, and our hesitancy to affirm it in so many words. The errors are what I truly think Silversides is objecting to (in the lecture I listened to).
Even this afternoon I found J.G. Vos unembarrassed to be using P-R terminology, from back last century. We're simply skitish, and rightly so given the environment.
I just say, that when I preach to even the youngest children in the congregation, I am presuming that they can understand and implement spiritual truth, as enabled by the Holy Spirit. And my attitude toward them is different from my attitude even toward an adult non-church member based on God's covenant promises toward them, that the unchurched do not have. I am acting in accordance with that presumption. No other term does it justice.
If you've read the former stuff I've presented in this thread, and in others, then you know that I am making a formal switch here. A switch from basically the Ramsey/Silversides statement, to saying that I cannot justify saying such things, while at the same time denying the implicit premise that I think is present there anyway.
Scott Bushey kept telling me that I was "presuming", no matter what I said to the contrary. I didn't want to believe him. Until my mind was percolating on its own, and suddenly I realized I had switched over, without even trying. I was suddenly convinced. My (slightly incoherent) post above is my train of thought as I sat down quickly to try to make sense of what I was now convinced of.
Bottom line--there is BAD presumption (and I still get a little queasy with the word), and there is PROPER presumption. Frankly, as I've written before, treating certain people as if they are Christians is (I am now convinced) merely legerdemain for avoiding the word "presumption." Ramsey raises the same issue I have in the past about there being a difference between adults (presumption OK), and children (presumption BAD). I know Patrick, we were in Seminary together for a year before he graduated, I have a lot of respect for him. I just no longer see that distinction as being qualitative.
And I'm not defending my position now, over you or him, or others--I just felt that having publicly defended the other side, as recently as a few days ago, I had to be honest here, and say "I've moved. But I still don't like that word.... And I think that there is a whole lot of "presumtive" errors around that contribute to the demise of this doctrine, and our hesitancy to affirm it in so many words. The errors are what I truly think Silversides is objecting to (in the lecture I listened to).
Even this afternoon I found J.G. Vos unembarrassed to be using P-R terminology, from back last century. We're simply skitish, and rightly so given the environment.
I just say, that when I preach to even the youngest children in the congregation, I am presuming that they can understand and implement spiritual truth, as enabled by the Holy Spirit. And my attitude toward them is different from my attitude even toward an adult non-church member based on God's covenant promises toward them, that the unchurched do not have. I am acting in accordance with that presumption. No other term does it justice.
I don't think there is a "confessional" view on this, so asking the OPC website would probably get an answer like "there is no official stance." And then might follow some instruction on the status of covenant children, and how they are treated in the presbyterian church.
This is the basic issue, and the answer is pretty uniform, except for the terminology. (I'm just no longer going to dance around it myself). My guess is that when Pastor Shishko says he does not presume, he means what I used to mean--namely the BAD kind. But operationally we talk to those kids like they are capable of following our instructions with a spiritual heart. How do we interpret their obedience? Do we really say "I refuse to interpret this; not until he's at least two"? You cannot separate proper presumption from the means of grace.
Sorry, this thread is now officially distracting me, and I am repeating myself, and I am repeating myself, and I am rep--
This is the basic issue, and the answer is pretty uniform, except for the terminology. (I'm just no longer going to dance around it myself). My guess is that when Pastor Shishko says he does not presume, he means what I used to mean--namely the BAD kind. But operationally we talk to those kids like they are capable of following our instructions with a spiritual heart. How do we interpret their obedience? Do we really say "I refuse to interpret this; not until he's at least two"? You cannot separate proper presumption from the means of grace.
Sorry, this thread is now officially distracting me, and I am repeating myself, and I am repeating myself, and I am rep--
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
Bruce, I haven't read all of this thread but I can see how some of the terminology used in this debate can be seen as a distinction without a difference, or at least not much of a difference. I also haven't done a whole lot of study on this issue in particular but thought Patrick's posts on this issue were interesting, and his blog is one of the better ones that I read regularly.
Here is an example of what I think you are getting at. I know a pastor who I'm fairly sure would deny holding to presumptive regeneration but who considers covenant children Christians in "a judgment of charity" similar to how we consider professing adults to be believers unless they prove otherwise. This pastor grew up in the old PCUS in a basically liberal church where it was just assumed that baptized children of church members were Christians and the means of grace, especially the preaching of the word, were neglected. (An indication of how times have changed is the fact that he says he learned more of the Bible and the gospel in the public schools in the 1950's than he did at his church!) After a period of serious rebellion and professed athiesm in high school this brother was dramatically and soundly converted only to have his pastor attempt to convince him that he had always been a Christian. I think that's an example of someone attempting to make distinctions that may not be qualitative based at least in part on having experienced the pitfalls of a BAD presumption as you refer to it.
I think I've seen F.N. Lee write that in both the cases of covenant children and professing adults, it is a presumption, but a rebuttable presumption.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
By understanding the doctrine, one could not fall into the error of baptismal regeneration:
VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.[17]
16. John 3:5, 8
17. Rom. 6:3-6; Gal. 3:27; I Peter 3:21; Acts 2:38, 41
As well, the great commission destroys such a idea:
Matthew 28:18 - Mark 1:1 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
Scott,
I think Wayne's question was not asking about baptismal regeneration, but why does the person who believes PR baptize their children? Do we baptize our children because of God's promises to us (which doesn't necessarily presuppose regeneration), or because we believe they are regenerate already, and therefore need the sign?
I think Wayne's question was not asking about baptismal regeneration, but why does the person who believes PR baptize their children? Do we baptize our children because of God's promises to us (which doesn't necessarily presuppose regeneration), or because we believe they are regenerate already, and therefore need the sign?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
I don't believe that one has anything to do with the other; I place the sign because it is commanded.
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
Scott,
You also place the sign because of the promise. Based on the long post you provided the promise of the covenant is a key ingredient to the formula. This is where PR come into play. You have a variety of quotes from various theologians. For instance you quoted Mastricht who said:
"Children of the covenant should be baptized "because they partake of the benefits of the covenant of grace, of regeneration, and of the forgiveness of sin.... We are ordered in Holy Scripture to baptize as many as have received the Holy Spirit.... According to that Holy Scripture – Luke 1:15 & Jeremiah 1:5 -- tiny children receive the Holy Spirit."
Peter Van Mastricht: Theoretical-Practical Theology, Amsterdam, 1725, III p. 617. Cited in Kuyper's E Voto III p. 58.
I can only "presume" that by adding this quote, (as well as others along the same lines) PR is so tied to the promise that they can not be separated. Therefore PR is the grounds on which infants should be baptised.
You also note Matt's catechism where he states:
Question 5: How are the promises of God applicable to children since they are born sinful and depraved?
Answer: The promises of God are applicable to the children of believers since Christian parents presumptively believe their children are regenerate based on the Word of God and the command of God.[7]
7. Genesis 17:7; Acts 2:39; Ezekiel 36:24
Here again PR is tied to the promise, ie; part of the grounds for baptism.
I may have missed it but it seems that the emphasis in PR is on the parents. What about the Church? Should not the Church also presume the same thing as the parents?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
To use Owen's language, it may be tied in the divided senses, but in the compound it is tied to the command.
You ask:
Sure!
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Wayne:
I understand your concern. I've seen it many times myself. If I may I'd like to try to answer this question too.
Baptism has to be something that is taught to the congregation. We see it practiced in different ways, and people understand it in a lot of different ways. Churches (ministers and elders) have to teach about baptism to their congregations. But they also have teach the full array of doctrines to them as well. They can't go off into their favourite kinds of teachings. To cut to the chase, when people in the congregation begin to assume that baptism is done because the children are regenerate, then a lot more has gone wrong than a mistaken view on baptism. It would not be surprising to see such churches also get caught up in some latest craze, whether it is a supposedly orthodox one such as Theonomy or some liberal one such as opening the offices to women. All such things are clues to the fact that the congregation is slipping from the true faith. They are not merely presupposing the regeneration of their infants, but also of themselves, that they may do things freely which the order of the church forbids. They believe that they have a god-given right to go their own way for some reason.
How you prevent this from happening? I think it has to done the same way that any schismatic and aberrant thing is prevented, by responsible teaching and oversight.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Owen uses the teminology in his works. McMahon uses it in his book, "The Two Wills of God". I believe the concept is founded in Greek modal systems.
Well, in the compound, God commands, hence it is done. It is Gods will. In the divided, because God has promised, one could understand the promise as as binding, so the sign may be also placed under this rationale. But this would be in the divided sense; this is also Gods will and this is expressed in each of the elect by the amount of faith God graces His people with. The ultimate reason we all should apply the sign should be based upon Gods compound command.
In the compound, God commands, in the divided God promises.
I could be wrong; I've been called 'ignorant' most recently by another brother in the faith.
Gump said it best, stupid is as stupid does.
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
I don't think anyone would disagree with the compound sense since we are specifically commanded to baptize. Regarding the promise, since the promise is part of the formula, that is where you are going to have to make a decision; is the promise "binding" in the divided sense or any sense? If the promise is binding then you have grounds for PR, and PR is part of the grounds for baptism, otherwise its just being presumptious regarding the activity of the Holy Spirit and unbiblical wishful thinking for parents and or the Church.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
and this is how Bruce thought about it previously................
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
And Bruce was right then!! 
And now has lost his way
Then again I haven't heard from anyone willing to answer my original question, so I'll repeat it and make it a bit more susinct: If presumptive regeneration is an integral part of the promise in the formula of baptism, then how do you avoid making PR the grounds for baptism or at least a major part of it?
The answer is you can't. If you can't then you just have a twist to "believer's baptism". How you ask? Instead of requiring some sort of proof of regeneration, ie; profession of faith, you have the "covenant", which includes the "promise" as your evidence of regeneration. And since one will presume regeneration, it would follow that unless they show signs of apostacy, they are regenerate. So why not baptize them babies since what God promises will come true!
So under this scenario are Presbyterians pseudo-Baptists? (or Baptists pseudo-Presbyterians?)
And now has lost his way Then again I haven't heard from anyone willing to answer my original question, so I'll repeat it and make it a bit more susinct: If presumptive regeneration is an integral part of the promise in the formula of baptism, then how do you avoid making PR the grounds for baptism or at least a major part of it?
The answer is you can't. If you can't then you just have a twist to "believer's baptism". How you ask? Instead of requiring some sort of proof of regeneration, ie; profession of faith, you have the "covenant", which includes the "promise" as your evidence of regeneration. And since one will presume regeneration, it would follow that unless they show signs of apostacy, they are regenerate. So why not baptize them babies since what God promises will come true!
So under this scenario are Presbyterians pseudo-Baptists? (or Baptists pseudo-Presbyterians?)
C'mon Wayne. Do you believe God? Do you act on that belief? There's a degree of presumption there, no matter what you call it. I'd call that warranted presumption, as long as it is kept in bounds. The fact that we may have our facts wrong only means God knows more than we do. And we submit to him in that as well.
1) You can presume something, and act in accordance with that presumption, without being so committed to that article that you can't make any adjustments.
2) The issue of whether or not H.S. present, or actual regeneration, or faith--all these are "fitness" questions, which could be true but manifestly aren't necessary for a real, water baptism to take place.
3) And that's a big difference there between C-Bs and P-Bs. We believe the (faithful) church does baptisms, and even apostates were really baptized, not a false-baptism because not "really saved".
I think those observations go a long way to mooting the issue of whether P-R lies at or near the fundamental basis for baptism.
As for looking for signs of apostasy, one should better be looking for signs of conversion first. Real regeneration will issue next in repentance and faith. The lecture I heard from Silversides probably did at least in part push me over into P-R, not because he advocated it (he rejected the term as I did), but because what he did say made me think, and clarified some things. Yes, as a matter of fact (as Silversides put it), we do treat our children like covenant keepers until they show themselves to be otherwise.
Warranted presumption would never think of abandoning the means of grace, the role of the Spirit and Word in E-C, Reg, Conv, and Sanct. It would have to uphold the role of godly parenting, discipline, and other instruction in righteousness.
As I said above someplace--regeneration is not conversion. But you don't make any spiritual headway at all with a dead body--until new life. Love hopes all things. As a pastor or parent, you've got to be expecting your labors are being effective from day 1. If you don't operate presumptively on the promise, then you have no basis for operating at all, far as I can see.
Something just occurred to me--How old was Polycarp when he started serving the Lord? Or, what did Polycarp believe about himself as a babe?
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Wayne:
Favourite theologians and even favourite theologies have to do with men themselves, but not with the offices. Officers in the Church represent Christ and His teachings, not themselves and their own teachings. So you are right.
I have not used PR in any other sense than to demonstrate the orthodox view of baptism, what it means and why the Church does it. Scott and Bruce are right in suggesting that a presumption of some kind is necessary, and I would add it is even commnanded, in the promises of God for which He commands baptism. I have not used it as a false security to foster some kind of new theology, or a theology founded upon principles of man's doing in me. I will continue to stand and defend the theology which our fathers in the faith defended, the same faith which our church covenants defend.
I understand that PR has been and may again be used to promote aberrant theologies. You can tell when people begin to leave the faith because they cling to secondary things more than the main points of true theology. It is nothing more than a way to explain the main points of baptism, to offset the competing explanations or Biblical interpretations which are set in opposition to the orthodox view of baptism. If it is or becomes any more than that, if PR becomes a doctrine on its own, then you are right to fear and shun it.
Let me repeat: PR is an explanation of the covenant being conveyed also upon the children of believers, to show the logical continuity of it to the OT promises to Abraham. If it becomes a doctrine on its own, then it is nothing more than what Presuppositionalism is to some, what Postmillennial is to some, what a new perspective on Paul is to some, what a new idea on the creation days is to some: a pet theology that saves orthodoxy for them. They fool themselves into thinking that some human theory is the salvation of Biblical doctrine; and they accuse those who do not follow them in their thinking of being in sin for no other reason than that they do not follow them. If PR has become that, then it is not the pr that we are talking about, any more than it is the presuppositionalism that others are talking about who do not make it a doctrinal point of orthodoxy, any more than it is the postmillennialism that others are talking about who do not make it a doctrinal point of orthodoxy. There is nothing wrong with being a presuppositionalist or a postmillennialist, as long as those who hold know the limitations of these views, and do not raise it to unseemly proportions. In the same way, PR raised to unseemly proportions is a blight upon the theology we defend.
So you are right, we have to be careful.
If we have defended it in any way that slights our brothers in the faith who do not like to use this terminology, then I apologize. I still hold to it, and I still believe that it explains baptism well, and does so Scripturally. But it is not a doctrine. If it has come across as a doctrine, then I apologize. Baptism is not grounded on PR, but on the promises and the command. But the promises and the command is what presumptive regeneration is all about, as an explanation of them, not as a replacement of them.
Favourite theologians and even favourite theologies have to do with men themselves, but not with the offices. Officers in the Church represent Christ and His teachings, not themselves and their own teachings. So you are right.
I have not used PR in any other sense than to demonstrate the orthodox view of baptism, what it means and why the Church does it. Scott and Bruce are right in suggesting that a presumption of some kind is necessary, and I would add it is even commnanded, in the promises of God for which He commands baptism. I have not used it as a false security to foster some kind of new theology, or a theology founded upon principles of man's doing in me. I will continue to stand and defend the theology which our fathers in the faith defended, the same faith which our church covenants defend.
I understand that PR has been and may again be used to promote aberrant theologies. You can tell when people begin to leave the faith because they cling to secondary things more than the main points of true theology. It is nothing more than a way to explain the main points of baptism, to offset the competing explanations or Biblical interpretations which are set in opposition to the orthodox view of baptism. If it is or becomes any more than that, if PR becomes a doctrine on its own, then you are right to fear and shun it.
Let me repeat: PR is an explanation of the covenant being conveyed also upon the children of believers, to show the logical continuity of it to the OT promises to Abraham. If it becomes a doctrine on its own, then it is nothing more than what Presuppositionalism is to some, what Postmillennial is to some, what a new perspective on Paul is to some, what a new idea on the creation days is to some: a pet theology that saves orthodoxy for them. They fool themselves into thinking that some human theory is the salvation of Biblical doctrine; and they accuse those who do not follow them in their thinking of being in sin for no other reason than that they do not follow them. If PR has become that, then it is not the pr that we are talking about, any more than it is the presuppositionalism that others are talking about who do not make it a doctrinal point of orthodoxy, any more than it is the postmillennialism that others are talking about who do not make it a doctrinal point of orthodoxy. There is nothing wrong with being a presuppositionalist or a postmillennialist, as long as those who hold know the limitations of these views, and do not raise it to unseemly proportions. In the same way, PR raised to unseemly proportions is a blight upon the theology we defend.
So you are right, we have to be careful.
If we have defended it in any way that slights our brothers in the faith who do not like to use this terminology, then I apologize. I still hold to it, and I still believe that it explains baptism well, and does so Scripturally. But it is not a doctrine. If it has come across as a doctrine, then I apologize. Baptism is not grounded on PR, but on the promises and the command. But the promises and the command is what presumptive regeneration is all about, as an explanation of them, not as a replacement of them.
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
Bruce,
Based on your posts it sounds like you are walking a very fine line, but you can't have your cake and eat it to.
To presume is to assume something without any evidence that it actually happened. In regards to the baptism of adults, the church does not need to "presume" since evidence is required before baptism, ie; a credible profession of faith and some evidence that the person is living out that faith to some degree. Since what Scott has presented in his posts, which makes PR an integral part of the grounds for baptism, the church would have to have two grounds for baptism, one for adults and one for infants (with and without PR being apart of the grounds). So the question is far from moot despite someones "presumptions". If we were to baptize adults under the PR scenario, why would we ever ask for evidence of regeneration via a credible profession?
You have brought in a new term "warranted presumption". I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.
But then again, we know that what we require from adults we do not require from infants, ie; a credible profession and holy living in order to be baptized. We do require it from at least one of the parents of the infant, otherwise we could not baptize the infant regardless of what we may presume. We ask for a profession from the parent because the church considers the children of believers Federally holy by way of the covenant ("the promise is to you and your children). Just because an infant is Federally holy under the Covenant does not mean we should presume upon the Holy Spirit that He has regenerated them. We accept the parents profession and expect the parents to bring up their child to understand the meaning of their baptism until they reach the age of discretion and can make their own profession of faith.
Based on your posts it sounds like you are walking a very fine line, but you can't have your cake and eat it to.
To presume is to assume something without any evidence that it actually happened. In regards to the baptism of adults, the church does not need to "presume" since evidence is required before baptism, ie; a credible profession of faith and some evidence that the person is living out that faith to some degree. Since what Scott has presented in his posts, which makes PR an integral part of the grounds for baptism, the church would have to have two grounds for baptism, one for adults and one for infants (with and without PR being apart of the grounds). So the question is far from moot despite someones "presumptions". If we were to baptize adults under the PR scenario, why would we ever ask for evidence of regeneration via a credible profession?You have brought in a new term "warranted presumption". I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.
But then again, we know that what we require from adults we do not require from infants, ie; a credible profession and holy living in order to be baptized. We do require it from at least one of the parents of the infant, otherwise we could not baptize the infant regardless of what we may presume. We ask for a profession from the parent because the church considers the children of believers Federally holy by way of the covenant ("the promise is to you and your children). Just because an infant is Federally holy under the Covenant does not mean we should presume upon the Holy Spirit that He has regenerated them. We accept the parents profession and expect the parents to bring up their child to understand the meaning of their baptism until they reach the age of discretion and can make their own profession of faith.
Wayne,
What do you mean by "grounds"? I think the answer to that question will go far to clearing away our talking across each other.
Think about what we're saying here, when we say a person has been baptized. Suppose the adult was lying/mistaken when he gave his profession. Its the baptist, not us, who state that he wasn't baptized following. So, since he was really baptized, despite his lie/error, P-R can't be the basis or "ground" in my understanding, for baptizing him.
If you could respond to that observation, it will help our conversation, I think.
I don't accept your definition of "presumption," without further qualification. The first definition in my dictionary states to take for granted as being true in the absence of of proof to the contrary. If I add the term "warranted" to that, I am bringing in the qualified promises of God; we are not allowed to take his Word beyond their defined limits, i.e. to assume too much.
The second goes to give reasonable evidence for assuming; appear to prove. That's pretty close to what physical baptism is doing.
Only the 3rd definition reads to venture without authority or permission; to dare. It seems as though you want to say if we accept P-R as an adequate description of what we do, we must be DARING. Wrong. I reject.
Peace.
What do you mean by "grounds"? I think the answer to that question will go far to clearing away our talking across each other.
Think about what we're saying here, when we say a person has been baptized. Suppose the adult was lying/mistaken when he gave his profession. Its the baptist, not us, who state that he wasn't baptized following. So, since he was really baptized, despite his lie/error, P-R can't be the basis or "ground" in my understanding, for baptizing him.
If you could respond to that observation, it will help our conversation, I think.
I don't accept your definition of "presumption," without further qualification. The first definition in my dictionary states to take for granted as being true in the absence of of proof to the contrary. If I add the term "warranted" to that, I am bringing in the qualified promises of God; we are not allowed to take his Word beyond their defined limits, i.e. to assume too much.
The second goes to give reasonable evidence for assuming; appear to prove. That's pretty close to what physical baptism is doing.
Only the 3rd definition reads to venture without authority or permission; to dare. It seems as though you want to say if we accept P-R as an adequate description of what we do, we must be DARING. Wrong. I reject.
Peace.
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
What I mean by grounds is simply "why" we baptize anyone. Its that simple. The grounds or reasons are the command and promise of God.
I don't disagree with your second point since that is a problem that Baptists face in attempting to baptize only the regenerate. But this may be where you part company with Scott, who seems to be making the point that PR IS an integral part of the grounds for baptism. This was Kuyper's position that was rejected by the Dutch Church per Berkhof.
The definition that I noted is basically the first one you have mentioned. Where would you stick the word "warranted" in that definition? So we are on the same page regarding the definition of warranted, here it is per Dictionary.com:
1. Authorization or certification; sanction, as given by a superior.
2. Justification for an action or a belief; grounds: “He almost gives his failings as a warrant for his greatness” (Garry Wills).
3. Something that provides assurance or confirmation; a guarantee or proof: a warrant of authenticity; a warrant for success.
I'm not using the second or third definitions of presumption.
As an aside, In my humble opinion, the whole issue of PR is a pastoral issue born out of how to deal with the question parents may have regarding the salvation of their children. Its understandable but really has no solid biblical foundation.
I don't disagree with your second point since that is a problem that Baptists face in attempting to baptize only the regenerate. But this may be where you part company with Scott, who seems to be making the point that PR IS an integral part of the grounds for baptism. This was Kuyper's position that was rejected by the Dutch Church per Berkhof.
The definition that I noted is basically the first one you have mentioned. Where would you stick the word "warranted" in that definition? So we are on the same page regarding the definition of warranted, here it is per Dictionary.com:
1. Authorization or certification; sanction, as given by a superior.
2. Justification for an action or a belief; grounds: “He almost gives his failings as a warrant for his greatness” (Garry Wills).
3. Something that provides assurance or confirmation; a guarantee or proof: a warrant of authenticity; a warrant for success.
I'm not using the second or third definitions of presumption.
As an aside, In my humble opinion, the whole issue of PR is a pastoral issue born out of how to deal with the question parents may have regarding the salvation of their children. Its understandable but really has no solid biblical foundation.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Wayne writes:
Where did I say this???
I previously said:
Then you replied:
Wayne,
The above quote is your conclusion. I have no idea where you got this idea from when I clearly stated that the sign is placed based upon Gods command. I cannot be held responsible for your conclusion; it's yours.
Where did I say this???
I previously said:
Then you replied:
Wayne,
The above quote is your conclusion. I have no idea where you got this idea from when I clearly stated that the sign is placed based upon Gods command. I cannot be held responsible for your conclusion; it's yours.
- Status
Similar threads
