Reformed & Puritan quotes regarding the Presumptive Regeneration of Christian infants

Status
Not open for further replies.

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Here is a catina of quotes from Bullinger, Olevianus & Ursinus (co-authors of the Heidelberg Catechism), Guido de Bres (author of the Belgic Confession), John Calvin, The Synod of Dort, Francis Turretin, Matthew Henry, Charles Hodge, and The Synod of Utrecht of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands:



Henry Bullinger:

Therefore it is certain, that infants are partakers of purification and remission of sins through Christ.



. . . for by their nature and birth they are unclean, and sinners; but for Christ's sake they are purified.



Children are God's; therefore they have the Spirit of God. Therefore, if they have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we; if they be accounted among the people of God, as well as we that be grown in age; who, I pray you, can forbid these to be baptized with water in the name of the Lord?



But we, which condemn both Pelagius and Pelagians, do affirm both those things which they deny; to wit, that infants are born in original sin, and therefore that the sanctification of Christ is necessary unto them, without which they are not saved. Again we defend and maintain, that the same infants ought to be baptized, if it be possible, though by the right of the covenant they belong to the body of Christ and are sanctified by the blood of Christ.



As easily is that objection confuted, that baptism profiteth not infants, if we still say that sacraments without faith profit not; for infants have no faith. Thus they babble. We answer first, That the baptism of infants is grounded upon the free mercy and grace of God, who saith: "I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed;" and again: "Suffer children to come unto me; for of such is the kingdom of God," &c. Infants therefore are numbered and counted of the Lord himself among the faithful; so that baptism is due unto them, as far forth as it is due unto the faithful. For by the imputation of God infants are faithful.


. . . For he accounteth these as his own of his mere grace and free promise, without their confession.


Caspar Olevianus (co-author of the Heidelberg Catechism:

When a baby is baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, the parents should be assured that just as certainly as the water cleanses his or her body, so certainly does the Father through the Holy Spirit seal in his or her heart gemeynschafft [community, fellowship, or common identity] with the blood of Christ and, through that communion, the double benefit of the covenant - the forgiveness of sins and the beginnings of righteousness and holiness.



To be sure, these children are conceived in sin, but even before their baptism they are justified by the power of the covenant promise.



Salvation, therefore, is not by baptism but solely by grace (the promise of the covenant) and by faith (the parents' belief in the promise).


Zacharias Ursinus (co-author of the Heidelberg Catechism):

Those are not to be excluded from baptism, to whom the benefit of the remission of sins, and of regeneration belongs. But this benefit belongs to the infants of the church; for redemption from sin, by the blood of Christ and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult . . . .

Those unto whom the things signified belong, unto them the sign also belongs. . . .

Baptism ought to be administered to infants also; for they are holy; the promise is unto them; the kingdom of heaven is theirs.


Guido de Bres (author of the Belgic Confession):

And indeed Christ shed His blood no less for the washing of the children of believers than for adult persons.


John Calvin:

from Calvin's Strasbourg Catechism:

Q. Are you, my son, a Christian in fact as well as in name?
A. Yes, my father.
Q. How do you know yourself to be?
A. Because I am baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.


from Calvin's "Form of Administering Baptism at Geneva":

All these graces are bestowed upon us when he is pleased to incorporate us into his Church by baptism; for in this sacrament he attests the remission of our sins. And he has ordained the sumbol of water to figure to us, that as by this element bodily defilements are cleansed, so he is pleased to wash and purify our souls.
Now then since the Lord Jesus Christ came down to earth, not to diminish the grace of God his Father, but to extend the covenant of salvation over all the world, instead of confining it as formerly to the Jews, there is no doubt that our children are heirs of the life which he has promised to us.


From Calvin's Institutes:

How I wish that we might have kept the custom which, as I have said, existed among the ancient Christians . . . a catechizing, in which children or those near adolescence would give an account of their faith before the church . . . A child of ten would present himself to the church to declare his confession of faith, would be examined in each article, and answer to each; if he were ignorant of anything or insufficiently understood it, he would be taught.
If this discipline were in effect today, it would certainly arouse some slothful parents, who carelessly neglect the instruction of their children as a matter of no concern to them; for then they could not overlook it without public disgrace.



. . . baptism, instead of regenerating or saving them, only seals the salvation of which they were previously partakers.


. . . they are already the flock of Christ, of the family of God, since the covenant of salvation which God enters into with believers is common also to their children. . . . In one word, unless we choose to overturn all the principles of religion, we shall be obliged to confess that the salvation of an infant does not depend on, but is only sealed by its baptism.


The Synod of Dort (Canons of Dort):

Since we are to judge of the will of God from His Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they together with their parents are comprehended, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom it pleases God to call out of this life in their infancy (Gen. 17:7; Acts 2:39; 1 Cor. 7:14).


Francis Turretin:

Because to infants belongs the kingdom of heaven according to the declaration of Christ. . . . Why should the church not receive into her bosom those whom Christ received into him? . . . Because the children of believers are holy; therefore they ought to be baptized. For since they have the thing signified, they cannot and ought not to be deprived of the sign.


Matthew Henry:

From his Catechism for Children:

Q. 29. What relation do you stand to the Lord Jesus?
A. I am one of his disciples; for I am a baptized Christian . . .

Q. 31. What was the meaning of your being so baptized?
A. I was thereby given up in a covenant way, to Father, Son and Holy Ghost.


Charles Hodge:

So much has this covenanting spirit died out, so little is the relation of our baptized children to God and their interest in his promises regarded or recognized, that we have heard of men who strenuously objected to children being taught the Lord's prayer, for fear they should think God was really their Father!



It is, therefore, a scriptural truth that the children of believers are the children of God, as being within his covenant with their parents, he promises to them his Spirit, he has established a connexion between faithful parental training and the salvation of children.



Where is the parent whose children have turned aside from God, whose heart will not rather reproach him, than charge God with forgetting his promise? Our very want of faith in the promise is one great reason of our failure. We have forgotten the covenant. We have forgotten that our children belong to God; that he has promised to be their God, if we are faithful to our trust.



There is an intimate and divinely established connexion between the faith of parents and the salvation of their children; such a connexion as authorizes them to plead God's promises, and to expect with confidence that through his blessing on their faithful efforts, their children will grow up the children of God.


Synod of Utrecht of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands:

That according to the Confession of our Church the seed of the Covenant by virtue of the promise of God is to be regarded as regenerated and sanctified in Christ, until the contrary is shown in their confession and conduct when they are reaching the years of discretion


:amen:


For more, read this book, from which I gleaned the above quotes.
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
Joseph,

How "Federal Vision Firiendly" is this book?


Matt,

The book is highly recommended on the OPC denomination website, so I can't imagine it being a very bad book. You can check out the OPC book review here: http://www.opc.org/review.html?review_id=31

I'm halfway through the book, and I haven't seen any Federal-Vision stuff that I know of.

So far, I'm really enjoying it. I liked all the Reformed/Puritan quotes regarding presumptive regeneration. And I like the way they deal with Proverbs 22:6, Titus 1:6, etc.




[Edited on 1-16-2006 by biblelighthouse]
 

Pilgrim

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
Joseph,

How "Federal Vision Firiendly" is this book?


Matt,

The book is highly recommended on the OPC denomination website, so I can't imagine it being a very bad book. You can check out the OPC book review here: http://www.opc.org/review.html?review_id=31

I'm halfway through the book, and I haven't seen any Federal-Vision stuff that I know of.

So far, I'm really enjoying it. I liked all the Reformed/Puritan quotes regarding presumptive regeneration. And I like the way they deal with Proverbs 22:6, Titus 1:6, etc.




[Edited on 1-16-2006 by biblelighthouse]


More accurately, it is highly recommended by one pastor in the OPC. It's going way too far to say that it is highly recommended by the OPC or even by the site. Neither book reviews nor the Q and A's should be seen as representing the official OPC position on any issue, unless it's an issue on which the GA has spoken.

Articles and book reviews in New Horizons (the denominational magazine) have been the subject of some controversy in the past year, the most recent being a sharply critical review of Peter Enns book on inspiration.

There was a pretty vigorous debate between Ben Wickner (editor of the book in question) and another pastor, Stephen Doe, in "Ordained Servant" (the publication for OPC officers) recently over covenant succession and specifically, elder's children.

[Edited on 1-16-2006 by Pilgrim]

[Edited on 1-16-2006 by Pilgrim]
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Pilgrim

More accurately, it is highly recommended by one pastor in the OPC. It's going way too far to say that it is highly recommended by the OPC or even by the site.

Chris, I did not say that it is highly recommended by the OPC. I said, "The book is highly recommended on the OPC denomination website." And my statement is 100% true.

And I never said that the book represents "the official OPC position" on anything. All I said was that I highly doubt that the OPC would permit a completely horrible theological book to be highly recommended on their denominational website.

I think inclusion of Pastor Bradley's book review on the website carries more weight than simply "one pastor in the OPC", because whoever controls the OPC website is OK with letting Bradley highly recommend the book there.

I realize not all OPC pastors would agree with Pastor Bradley. But the OPC denomination is responsible for what goes on their website.
 

Mayflower

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
Joseph,

How "Federal Vision Firiendly" is this book?


Matt,

The book is highly recommended on the OPC denomination website, so I can't imagine it being a very bad book. You can check out the OPC book review here: http://www.opc.org/review.html?review_id=31

I'm halfway through the book, and I haven't seen any Federal-Vision stuff that I know of.

So far, I'm really enjoying it. I liked all the Reformed/Puritan quotes regarding presumptive regeneration. And I like the way they deal with Proverbs 22:6, Titus 1:6, etc.




[Edited on 1-16-2006 by biblelighthouse]

Dear Joseph,

Where can i order this book ?
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
Joseph,

How "Federal Vision Firiendly" is this book?


Matt,

The book is highly recommended on the OPC denomination website, so I can't imagine it being a very bad book. You can check out the OPC book review here: http://www.opc.org/review.html?review_id=31

I'm halfway through the book, and I haven't seen any Federal-Vision stuff that I know of.

So far, I'm really enjoying it. I liked all the Reformed/Puritan quotes regarding presumptive regeneration. And I like the way they deal with Proverbs 22:6, Titus 1:6, etc.


I also thought you would like to know that R. C. Sproul Jr. wrote the forward to the book.
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Mayflower

Dear Joseph,

Where can i order this book ?

You can order it from Covenant Media Foundation, Canon Press, Exodus Provisions, or Amazon.com for $16.00.

But the CHEAPEST price I found is at Apologia Book Shoppe, where the book is only $13.00 brand new!


book_to-you-and-you-children.jpg
 

Steve Owen

Puritan Board Sophomore
Joseph Wrote:-
Here is a catina of quotes from Bullinger, Olevianus & Ursinus (co-authors of the Heidelberg Catechism), Guido de Bres (author of the Belgic Confession), John Calvin, The Synod of Dort, Francis Turretin, Matthew Henry, Charles Hodge, and The Synod of Utrecht of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands:

{moderated}

This thread was not placed for debate. Keep to the topic.


[Edited on 1-16-2006 by Martin Marprelate]

[Edited on 1-16-2006 by Scott Bushey]
 

Mayflower

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
Joseph,

How "Federal Vision Firiendly" is this book?

Canon Press is basically the FV's publishing arm out of Doug Wilson's Church.

Iam also wondering whom besides Doug Wilson is also connected with FV ? If there FV is such a bad theology why is Doug Wilon still be a part of this book ?
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
The common opinion of the Reformed is that the baptism of infants (at least of the elect) presupposes regeneration as already effected because that which is not cannot be sealed by baptism. And this opinion appears to me most agreeable to the truth. Be sure, baptism itself does not effect regeneration as the papists suppose. Nor are the regenerating influences of the Holy Spirit confined to external baptism as the Lutherans [and heretical FV] would have it.

-Peter Van Mastricht, Treatise on regeneration p 53-54
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Peter
Nor are the regenerating influences of the Holy Spirit confined to external baptism as the Lutherans [and heretical FV] would have it.

I have two questions for you:

1) Can you document any proof that FV people consider the "regenerating influences of the Holy Spirit" to be "confined to external baptism"? This accusation is new to me.

2) If the above belief makes FV heretical (assuming they believe that), then are you suggesting that Lutherans are heretical too? After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Just be consistent one way or the other. Anathematize both, or neither at all.


Hmmm . . . there is a Lutheran pastor who is a member on this board. I would like to hear straight from him whether Lutherans believe that regeneration is "confined" to external baptism.



[Edited on 1-17-2006 by biblelighthouse]
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
I understand Van Mastricht to mean the Holy Spirit necessarily regenerates because of baptism in Lutheranism. Not that the Spirit can only regenerate at baptism, but it always does. So the Spirit is confined rather than blowing where it listeth.

There's a big difference between FV and Lutheranism. Lutherans are in grave error for sure but FVers were illumined by the truth and departed to error. Lutheranism has held Baptismal Regeneration since the 16th century but FV is a movement from within Reformed Christianity, which progressed further in the reformation from popery. FV is retrogression back to the whoredoms of the Romish harlot. Lutheranism never completely left Rome's idolatries. FV is a dog that returns to its vomit. And I only speak of their commonalities, FV goes further than Lutheranism.
 

cupotea

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Peter
I understand Van Mastricht to mean the Holy Spirit necessarily regenerates because of baptism in Lutheranism. Not that the Spirit can only regenerate at baptism, but it always does. So the Spirit is confined rather than blowing where it listeth.

There's a big difference between FV and Lutheranism. Lutherans are in grave error for sure but FVers were illumined by the truth and departed to error. Lutheranism has held Baptismal Regeneration since the 16th century

Though I would take issue with the issue that Lutherans follow Romish "idolatries", you (or Van Mastricht) are otherwise correct. Lutherans DO teach baptismal regeneration. When the Augsburg Confession was presented to the papists the article on baptism received their full approval.

Now, they have good reasons for holding such a position. E.g., justification is not based upon choice, feelings, experiences, etc., but only upon God's infallible promise given in His *external* work - the sacrament of baptism.

But my being a 5-pointer presents some interesting theological problems in regards to baptism. Do I hold that it is regenerative? Yes, but only for the elect. Otherwise I'd have to abandon the 5 points or, holding to them, I'd have to teach that ever single person who was ever baptized is elect. Neither is a viable option.

So ... does such regeneration take place at the moment of baptism? Not necessarily. The Spirit is not "confined" to a particular moment or action and so can work regeneration when He wills. The thing is when an elect person IS regenrated, it must be related back to his (infant) baptism. Hence NO new baptism is called for since such a thing would in effect be calling God a liar.

My "5-point baptism theology" is anathema to Lutherans. But is it harmonious with the WC? I recently went through the OPC's study of the Westminster Standards and G. I. Williamson said it's not. Yet others say it is.
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Globachio
Justification is not based upon choice, feelings, experiences, etc., but only upon God's infallible promise given in His external work - the sacrament of baptism.

Do I hold that it is regenerative? Yes, but only for the elect.

WCF
CHAPTER XXVIII.
Of Baptism.
I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, or his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Churchy until the end of the world.


Originally posted by Globachio

Otherwise I'd have to abandon the 5 points or, holding to them, I'd have to teach that ever single person who was ever baptized is elect. Neither is a viable option.

WCF
CHAPTER XXVIII.
Of Baptism.
V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.


Originally posted by Globachio

So ... does such regeneration take place at the moment of baptism? Not necessarily. The Spirit is not "confined" to a particular moment or action and so can work regeneration when He wills. The thing is when an elect person IS regenrated, it must be related back to his (infant) baptism.

WCF
CHAPTER XXVIII.
Of Baptism.
VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinancy 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.


Originally posted by Globachio

Hence NO new baptism is called for since such a thing would in effect be calling God a liar.

WCF
CHAPTER XXVIII.
Of Baptism.
VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered to any person.


Originally posted by Globachio


My "5-point baptism theology" is anathema to Lutherans. But is it harmonious with the WC? I recently went through the OPC's study of the Westminster Standards and G. I. Williamson said it's not. Yet others say it is.

Well, from what I can see above, you sound pretty on-target to me.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Well, from what I can see above, you sound pretty on-target to me.

Every think then what might be the case is that while you have mastered bolding in bbcode, you don't understand the WCF? Just a guess considering that (one of the reasons) the Confession was written to distinguish Reformed from Lutheran views of the sacraments. Another clue might be that G.I. Williamson's commentary (perhaps the most used modern commentary on the WCF) disagrees with you. Finally, you might see it from Kevin's quote:

Lutherans DO teach baptismal regeneration. When the Augsburg Confession was presented to the papists the article on baptism received their full approval.

But what would I know? I'm just an elder holding to the Confession.
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Well, from what I can see above, you sound pretty on-target to me.

Every think then what might be the case is that while you have mastered bolding in bbcode, you don't understand the WCF? Just a guess considering that (one of the reasons) the Confession was written to distinguish Reformed from Lutheran views of the sacraments.

But Pastor Guillory clearly said that he doesn't agree with the Lutheran view of baptism, and that Lutherans would be aghast at his view of baptism.

I was talking about his view of baptism, NOT the Lutheran view of baptism.

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Finally, you might see it from Kevin's quote:

Lutherans DO teach baptismal regeneration. When the Augsburg Confession was presented to the papists the article on baptism received their full approval.

But what would I know? I'm just an elder holding to the Confession.

And your comment is moot, since Pastor Guillory obviously does not hold to the Augsburg Confession. As he clearly said:

My "5-point baptism theology" is anathema to Lutherans

But what would I know? I'm just quoting the WCF and Pastor Guillory word-for-word



Instead of bringing up moot points about the Augsburg Confession, why don't you tell me where Pastor Guillory deviates from the WCF?

If I "don't understand the WCF" as you say, then please educate me. Help me understand my error so I can recant whatever needs recanting.
 

cupotea

Puritan Board Junior
The question is whether the WC sees baptism as simply a "sign" of regeneration, or an effectual cause. My point to Williamson is that the language disagrees with his point of view. It's claimed that baptism is a "sign *and* seal." What does "seal" mean if not some kind of an activity, i.e., the pressing-into of a mark of identification? This becomes especially clear when tied with ...

"WCF
CHAPTER XXVIII.
Of Baptism.
VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinancy 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."


Note that baptism is said to be efficacious, not merely a "sign." In other words,, it not only provides that sign of God's promise, but confers such. If it were *only* sign the language would of necessity be different or completely eliminated. Consequently, according to the WC's own language and theology, baptism *does* something while a "sign" merely is passive by its very nature.

But what does baptism do? Regenerate the elect when the Spirit chooses.

At this moment (Wednesday, Jan. 18) the MTIOPC group is meeting in Orlando, Fla. with Williamson. I was supposed to be there, but because of a parishioner dying in hospice - along with other pressing pastoral duties - I could not make it. I deeply regret this because I would have loved to be in a live, give-and-take situation to discussed this issue.
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
Pastor Guillory, your view sounds Reformed to me. The key difference between Lutherans and the Reformed (and you probably understand this better than I) is that Lutherans believe the work of the Spirit is inseperably tied to baptism. There is a range of opinion in the Reformed camp over the exact connection between regeneration and water baptism but only reformed who have apostatised believe in B.R. For the reason you pointed out, viz that it throws the rest of reformed theology into haywire.
 

cupotea

Puritan Board Junior
The key difference between Lutherans and the Reformed (and you probably understand this better than I) is that Lutherans believe the work of the Spirit is inseperably tied to baptism.

Precisely. For Lutherans a valid baptism = regeneration whether it's infants or adults.

But what happens when one adopts the 5 points and upholds the doctrine of the preservation of the saints? After all, many - if not most - people who are baptized as infants fall away from the faith at some point in their lives. Thus either the preservation of the saints must be abandoned, or one's understanding of baptism and regeneration must be reformed.

The latter is what I chose.


There is a range of opinion in the Reformed camp over the exact connection between regeneration and water baptism but only reformed who have apostatised believe in B.R. For the reason you pointed out, viz that it throws the rest of reformed theology into haywire.

I've read and spoke with a number of Reformed who echo your comments.
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
Here's a quote from Van Mastricht that occurs right before the one I posted previously:

"The Reformed unaminously hold that there is no physical regenerating efficacy in baptism but only a moral efficacy which consists in its being a sign and seal of regeneration; they also hold that the grace of regeneration is not confirmed to any sacrament, and yet believe that baptism is not a mere naked useless sign but a most efficacious sealing of the covenant of grace and of regeneration to those whon receive it agreeably to its institution, and also to the elect infants of believers. Yet as to the manner and time of its becoming effectual they differ somewhat."

And he explains that with the baptism of adults regeneration is presupposed but with infants there is diversity of opinion. Amyraut (marginally Reformed) and others believe regeneration cannot happen before baptism therefore it must seal regeneration after baptism when the child reaches the age of discretion. Others such as Beza believe that regeneration ordinarly but not necessarily (as Lutherans and Papists suppose) occurs at baptism. Ames believed regeneration may be before, during or after baptism, and as said previously many reformed believe in presumptive regeneration. The only view I reject out right is Amyraut's view as it would appear to consign all infants to hell and Van Mastricht demonstrates that the view confuses the infusion of spiritual life, ie, regeneration, with the exercise of spiritual life, ie, conversion and sanctification.
 

cupotea

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Peter
Here's a quote from Van Mastricht that occurs right before the one I posted previously:

"The Reformed unaminously hold that there is no physical regenerating efficacy in baptism but only a moral efficacy which consists in its being a sign and seal of regeneration; they also hold that the grace of regeneration is not confirmed to any sacrament, and yet believe that baptism is not a mere naked useless sign but a most efficacious sealing of the covenant of grace and of regeneration to those whon receive it agreeably to its institution, and also to the elect infants of believers. Yet as to the manner and time of its becoming effectual they differ somewhat."

And he explains that with the baptism of adults regeneration is presupposed but with infants there is diversity of opinion. Amyraut (marginally Reformed) and others believe regeneration cannot happen before baptism therefore it must seal regeneration after baptism when the child reaches the age of discretion. Others such as Beza believe that regeneration ordinarly but not necessarily (as Lutherans and Papists suppose) occurs at baptism. Ames believed regeneration may be before, during or after baptism, and as said previously many reformed believe in presumptive regeneration. The only view I reject out right is Amyraut's view as it would appear to consign all infants to hell and Van Mastricht demonstrates that the view confuses the infusion of spiritual life, ie, regeneration, with the exercise of spiritual life, ie, conversion and sanctification.

Fascinating. What book did you get the quote from? I may want to get it myself.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by Globachio
Originally posted by Peter
Here's a quote from Van Mastricht that occurs right before the one I posted previously:

"The Reformed unaminously hold that there is no physical regenerating efficacy in baptism but only a moral efficacy which consists in its being a sign and seal of regeneration; they also hold that the grace of regeneration is not confirmed to any sacrament, and yet believe that baptism is not a mere naked useless sign but a most efficacious sealing of the covenant of grace and of regeneration to those whon receive it agreeably to its institution, and also to the elect infants of believers. Yet as to the manner and time of its becoming effectual they differ somewhat."

And he explains that with the baptism of adults regeneration is presupposed but with infants there is diversity of opinion. Amyraut (marginally Reformed) and others believe regeneration cannot happen before baptism therefore it must seal regeneration after baptism when the child reaches the age of discretion. Others such as Beza believe that regeneration ordinarly but not necessarily (as Lutherans and Papists suppose) occurs at baptism. Ames believed regeneration may be before, during or after baptism, and as said previously many reformed believe in presumptive regeneration. The only view I reject out right is Amyraut's view as it would appear to consign all infants to hell and Van Mastricht demonstrates that the view confuses the infusion of spiritual life, ie, regeneration, with the exercise of spiritual life, ie, conversion and sanctification.

Fascinating. What book did you get the quote from? I may want to get it myself.

"A Treatise on Regeneration" by Peter van Mastricht
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top