Presumptive Regeneration

What is to be said in relation to C. Burgess' book on the subject? Considering that Burgess wrote the book in the day of Westminster, it is interesting to note that no writings were written in response (if it such a putrid doctrine).

 

Is this tied into the belief that some hold that only the children of saved parents will receive the election unto salvation?

 

I've never heard that view. Does someone actually believe that?

 

"The second possible explanation of the place of children in the covenant can be more persuasively argued. All the children of believers without exception are in the covenant in this sense, that God promises them all salvation and extends to them all His covenant grace in Christ. However, the actual fulfillment of the promise, the actual reception of covenant grace, and the actual realization of the covenant with them personally depend upon their believing in Christ and thus taking hold of the covenant when they grow up. The covenant consists of promise and demand, which demand is a condition that the children must fulfill. The promise from God is for all without exception. But if the child should not fulfill the demand that he believe, he forfeits the promise. This is the view of the Reformed Churches in The Netherlands ("Liberated"), of the Canadian Reformed Churches, and of the American Reformed Churches.

The appeal of this view is that it puts all our children without exception in the covenant. This is naturally pleasing to the parents (although the implication of this view is that not only some but also all of the children can fall out of the covenant, which is not so pleasing). Also, it seems to do justice to the language of Scripture and of the creeds. God said to Abraham, "...and to your seed," not, "...and to some of your seed." The Heidelberg Catechism says that the infants are included in the covenant, not some of the infants. In the form for baptism, we confess that our children are sanctified in Christ, not some of them.

Are not all the children of believers baptized? Are not all the children required to be baptized?"
http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_51.html
This is listed as one way that has been seen in the reformed church, but the author rejects this view.

 

There is nothing here that says that only children of believers are among the elect. @Guido's Brother here on PB holds the Liberated view, but I daresay he would never claim that only the children of believers can be saved.

For what it's worth, the Protestant Reformed Churches, to whom you linked, hold to presumptive regeneration.

 

This issue regarding children and election has been discussed here on the board, and one viewpoint does seem to be the one that was alluded to here in this article.

 

That's certainly true. However, there is nothing in the article about "only the children of saved parents receiving election unto salvation." Everyone in the Reformed world believes that there are elect people who are not born to believers.

 

Tyler, could you help me with the sources that support this conclusion? Or, could you help me understand which of the 7 forms of PR you have in mind for the Protestant Reformed Churches? Is it form 7? I have several books on my shelf from Protestant Reformed authors that directly address and oppose PR as taught by Kuyper. I know that William Young suggested that churches like the Protestant Reformed Churches may have a sort of practical PR even they officially oppose PR, but that is different than saying that they hold to PR.

 

I was referring to those who would be infants and small children especially.

 

Nate,
I'm sorry, I must have been mistaken. I've always heard that Protestant Reformed folks held to presumptive regeneration. Several years ago I read a few things touching on the covenant from Engelsma, etc., and I always read it through that lense. I thought they owned it. Where do Protestant Reformed folks interact with PR, and distinguish their view from it? Does Hoeksema cover it in his Dogmatics?

 

I don't think I understand what you're getting at. In your post above (#7), you said that these people only believe that children of believers are elect, that is, that no one but the children of believers will be saved. I don't know if that is what you meant, but that is what you said. Perhaps you can rephrase what you were saying. Try to be clear, precise, and elaborative.

 

That's too bad if you've always read Engelsma etc through the lens of them supporting PR.

Yes, Hoeksema addresses PR and distinguishes his view from it in his Reformed Dogmatics (Chapter 8, section: Grounds for Infant Baptism). He also extensively interacts with it in the book: Believers and Their Seed. Other Protestant Reformed writers argue against it in books such as We and Our Children and God's Everlasting Covenant of Grace (both by Herman Hanko). In each case, the authors reject PR and instead promote the views of the Three forms of Unity and the Westminster Confessions as the basis for baptizing children.

 

Thanks, brother. I'll be sure to read up on this. I'm sorry for the misrepresentation.

 

Thanks for the interaction and LMK if you find sources to the contrary.

 

My point was that there are some Reformed who think that the children of saved parents seem to be for certain included among the elect of God. they might be seeing this in the Bible in 1 Corinthians 7:14.

 

There certainly are some groups who presume their childrens' election. That's one of the things that undergirds presumptive regeneration. However, most (maybe all) of these groups would say deny that their children are certainly elect; only, they claim that Christian parents should behave as though their children are certainly elect, thus presuming that they are.

 

The difficulty in this issue is not in the abstract. I think everyone realizes that some covenant children may not be elect. The issue is how you treat children practically in the church and home. You have to make some sort of practical presumption when you actually teach your children. You still treat them as Christians when you teach your children to say "Our Father..." and to take hold of the promises made to them. You teach them that God is "our God", and that Christ is "our Savior", and that "our house" will serve the Lord. So, in practice you are still presuming they are elect and do not treat them as part of the world. This is where people start talking passed each other in debating over this. You are not going to say to your child, "I think you are externally in the covenant but not internally." We have no access to God's perspective about their internal or external state (i.e. election). I think Thornwell's "heir-apparent" view is a helpful formulation of this, training and preparing your children to inherit the promises, (thus presuming "election"), but leaving the time of regeneration/faith in God's hands, not presuming "regeneration" until they make public profession of faith.

 

I don't disagree with anything you've said Bruce. I guess, I'd rather try to reclaim the term "presumption" though since it is a useful term.

 

Would that not fall under though raising them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord, but still not really saying they are actually saved as of yet?

 

Again, we all 'presume'. No one knows who are actually elect or reprobate-ever!

 

As anyone ever "seen" or "heard" a spirit or a soul? While I have some problems with models of presumptive regeneration, everyone is going to presume something.

 

You can't raise your children in the fear of the Lord without presuming some sort of relationship to the Lord for them. The fear of the Lord is a mark of faith. It presupposes your submission and trust in the Lord.

 

The lord can still take his scriptures though being presented to even the unsaved child and use them to bring him to a saving knowledge of Jesus still, correct?

 

David,
I think you missed Patrick's point entirely. He was calling you to account for your use of Reformed, covenantal language ("Would that not fall under though raising them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord, but still not really saying they are actually saved as of yet?") while arguing from a baptistic position.