Paedo-Baptism Answers Is It right to refer to children of the covenant as regenerate?

[Lars Griggs]

I have been in discussions recently with another reformed brother and a baptist coworker. Our baptist brother was asking questions about infant baptism and we were answering his questions as he had them. In that discussion my reformed brother told him that his children were regenerate even his 15 month old Son.

That struck me as rather bizarre for him to use that language with our baptist brother. Since then, I have spent much time pondering this idea in my head. Is it right for us to refer to our children as regenerate until, God forbid, they prove themselves not to be? I would love to read any resources you all recommend.

- A little background about myself - I used to be a calvinistic southern baptist who became a Presbyterian through study of the scriptures. Baptism was a major point of study and struggle during this transition. However, I was convinced by scripture that covenant baptism (including infants) practice is right, good, and biblical. However, I still have much to learn after having studied this topic on and off for nearly four years.

 

[Clemson_Gentleman]

It’s not necessarily either right or wrong, however in the case of a 15 month old, would certainly be rather presumptive.

We don’t necessarily have to choose between viewing our covenant children as regenerate or unregenerate. We raise them to be disciples of Christ in His visible church and look for fruit in their lives, with the strong expectation that it will follow.

Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) 25.2 “the visible church . . . consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, and of their children.”

God has given them promises and set them apart, and as such I refer to my children (7 and 3) as Christians and my family as a Christian family, as we seek to be conformed to the likeness of Christ through the means of grace.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I think you will find most of the respondents here would be hesitant to assert "my infant child is regenerate, right now, I know that is so."

It might be so, but there is no way that I would have the appropriate signs from within the baptized that point to such a reality. That God "will be God to... your children" is a sure promise from Scripture that every Christian parent should rejoice to take hold on. But that confidence is united to means which God has appointed, yes including baptism, but that sacrament is only the initiation. We do not put confidence in the means, but in the God of the means, and we follow his appointments.

"Presumptive regeneration" (PR) has been around for a long time, its development as a doctrine proceeding from a starting point that believes: God definitely regenerates whatever child is elect at the earliest moment, presumably marked by the baptism of the infant soon after birth. PR historically has had a tendency to foster a kind of casualness in terms of expectation of a child's trajectory of faith, and a rote participation in the stages and functions of church life (such as confirmation classes at a certain age, 1st communion at a certain time, assuming certain duties within a congregation or church after this milestone or that).

The attitude frequently shows itself in reluctance to identify rank rebellion for what it is, excusing it as simple childhood foolishness; after all, the child is a Christian and a sure child of God by virtue of his birth. How is this attitude any different from the presumption of "Abraham's seed," that they were safe in covenant with God regardless of their heart because of their birth? It isn't, and the same judgment of Paul against the latter in Rom.2 is applicable against the covenant seed today. Those are "Jews indeed," and Abraham's seed, who possess the faith of Abraham and are baptized in heart, not merely outwardly.

When an infant dies, we who have had those children baptized should turn back to baptism (and even to those who were unable to have the child baptized, the promise of God stands behind and before baptism the sign of the promise). That baptism and the promise to which it is annexed is testimony to us that God loves us and our children. At that moment, we should not doubt (as the Canons of Dort declare) of our child's eternal possession. "He cannot come to me; I will go to him," said David, and so also we should say. We have no other "evidence" to appeal to, so the divine promise being all we have is sufficient for us. If this is called "presumption," it is of a different variety.

When we preach the gospel to the congregation, we should presume the Spirit is at work in the gathering. If there are any who are unregenerated present, perhaps this is the day of salvation. For all who are then regenerated, the Spirit is doing the same work as regeneration only upon those with a beginning already--we typically call this work sanctification or vivification. It is good to presume or expect God to act in conjunction with his means. We may presume he is regenerating or doing his secret preliminary work to that end among them present, whether old or young. But on whom or how he may be working is not for us to determine.

 

[Jack K]

I don't tend to point to any individual, whether a child or an adult, and say "I know that person is regenerate." How can I know such a thing with certainty? It belongs to the hidden knowledge of God.

However, when we speak about those we identify as part of God's family, we ordinarily speak as if the person is saved. I would never try to encourage a friend at church by telling him, "Well, God might love you and he might have a heavenly future for you, so take heart and persevere in your godliness." That would be no encouragement at all! Rather, I say, "God surely loves you and has a heavenly future for you, so persevere!" Yes, I know there's some chance the person is not actually regenerate, but he appears to be part of God's family, and I can't encourage or disciple him from any lesser starting place. So barring evidence of gospel rejection, that's the approach I take within the church whether the person is an adult or a child. I usually speak to them as if they are believers loved by their heavenly Father. Our children are disciples too, and there's no effective discipleship without "Your Father loves you" as a starting place.

 

[Brian Withnell]

I don't tend to point to any individual, whether a child or an adult, and say "I know that person is regenerate." How can I know such a thing with certainty? It belongs to the hidden knowledge of God.

Matthew 7:21–23 (NIV84)
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

I heartily agree. It seems that this shows examples of persons that have even deceived themselves. We are to have assurance of our faith, but if we can be self-deceived, how much more careful should we be in affirming someone else is regenerate?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It is unconventional to assert that the Holy Spirit necessarily seals the graces signified at the time that a child is baptized. Neither is there a certainty that any child or adult in a congregation necessarily regenerate. Christ's parable of the sower would be quite superfluous if this was the case.

The Scriptures call each of us to faith Today. They exhort us not to shrink back and to lay hold of the promise of salvation. We pray with our kids and other believers to God as Our Father and pray in Jesus' Name because we have been set apart into God's assembly. There is a sense in which we both assume that people have the ability to hear the Word of God as well as the sense in which we never so presume upon it that we would think that a person can shrink back and not press in and believe, Today.