Paedo-Baptism Answers Presumptive Regeneration Poll

[Boreal]

I have been reading a bit about the differing views regarding presumptive regeneration and baptismal regeneration. I am curious what is the majority position of the PB.

Please answer the poll.

What is the historic Reformed view? Has this changed over time? If so, why/how, etc.?

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I can't go so far as to presume regeneration, but rather I know that this child is in a special and significant place, and if they embrace the Gospel, which if they are in a Gospel-loving family, they most likely will, then I can definitely treat them as a disciple and child of God.

So basically I do believe they are Christians unless they prove otherwise, and treat them as those who will/have been saved. But reality tells me not all baptized children will be saved, but I am very optimistic for the child in a Gospel-centered home.

 

[dsanch1120]

Somewhat tricky to answer. I believe them to be unregenerate, yet I also think that it’s right to raise and treat them as a Christian.

 

[Charles Johnson]

I "presume" them to be regenerate according to a judgment of charity. The judgment of charity is the key qualifier. In point of fact they may not be regenerate, and they have every need of hearing the gospel, faith, repentance, self-examination, etc, and they may not come to the Lord's table without a profession of faith.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

One cannot tell beforetime which, or all, if any of our children are elect. I bow before the LORD's sovereignty in this matter. Still, we are to raise our children in the care and admonition of the LORD, as this is our duty and our love. Even so, we baptize all the children (as of old they circumcised all the males) for the sake of the elect among them, that they bear the covenant sign as commanded.

 

[Polanus1561]

I would just like to drop that presumptive election and regeneration differs (of course the latter assumes the former)

 

[MarrowMan]

We don't presume either. Rather, we have hope-filled expectation that God "will be a God to us and our children after us", holding forth that promise to them and calling them to lay hold of it in faith in the same way we have. Worrying about the when is fruitless.

 

[Boreal]

Thanks to all.

I thought I saw an old thread where Dr. McMahon argued that presumptive regeneration was the standard historic Reformed position. Ha the consensus changed over time?

 

[Scott Bushey]

There’s so much to be set on this subject. One might wonder, what Abraham, Isaac and Jacob thought. Granted, the Lord God did tell them particular things about their seed; but how would’ve they thought if God had not imported this truth to them.

I’ve struggled over the years pondering this thinking. Much can be said for having the faith of a mustard seed. But, having faith in the promises of God, to our seed and those that are afar off, should all boil down to hope, especially in light of Ishmael and Esau. As well, I believe we can take for granted, that the names mentioned had a sound theology, knowing that the Covenant has internal and external distinctions.

Parents are commanded to rear their children and the way they should go, acknowledging these distinctions.

I don’t believe that it shows a lack of faith, understanding these truths, and moving forward in such truth. It’s not like, God is going to unelect an individual for a lack of faith in this respect; or that, he is going to change his decree based on a positive faith toward the child.

Consider the prayer of Abraham when he asked God, ‘oh that Ishmael might live before thee’. This was a prayer that was as sincere as anybody could ever have prayed.

In regards to the comment above, asking, whether or not the thinking has changed over the ages, I would say it has in many ways. It would seem that some of the Divines and some of the church antiquarians held to more of a spiritual treatment of this subject- especially what baptism actually means.

Quotes on behalf of Presuming on your covenant child | Reformed Theology at Semper Reformanda

www.semperreformanda.com

 

[Deleted member 13126]

I presume the children of believers to be unregenerate, but in a position of some considerable privilege. Here I stand.

 

[jwithnell]

After baptism, I presume that my children are full non-communicant members of the church and should be treated that way until or unless an unregenerate heart is evident. I lean on the covenant promises that God will be a God to me and to my children. WCF teaches that no presumption of regeneration can be made.

 

[MyCrows]

After baptism, I presume that my children are full non-communicant members of the church and should be treated that way until or unless an unregenerate heart is evident. I lean on the covenant promises that God will be a God to me and to my children. WCF teaches that no presumption of regeneration can be made.

I second this answer.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Baptism signifies ingrafting into Christ but the sealing of the thing signified is given sovereignty by the Holy Spirit.

It is not Reformed to insist that baptism necessarily confers the thing signified.

This is true, by the way, of both children and adults baptized whether or not they profess.

The Reformed position has never been to assume that profession equates to regeneration. In fact, the fruits that we witness give us confidence that a disciple is growing in Christ, but we never know who is and who is not regenerate in our congregations.

This is why it is important, regardless of age, that we are preaching the Gospel and exhorting them (as does the author of Hebrews) to press in and not shrink back from the Gospel. An Elder in the Church needs to hear that as much as a 4-year-old. I've seen Elders make shipwreck of their faith and ignore the warnings when they were shrinking back. If, Today, you hear His voice harden not your hearts.

This is what I see as the main differentiator between how the Reformed Churches view what it is to be a disciple versus antipaedobaptist expressions. We don't baptize a person because we think that a profession equates to regeneration and the sign is not conferred as a memorial of what we believe the baptized individual possesses (saving faith). We baptize because the person is a disciple and is brought into visible communion where the means of grace are exhibited and the worshipping community presses in on the Promise of God. That some shrink back does not change the meaning of baptism as it was never instituted to be a sign of saving faith but of the Promise of God and the saving benefits of those who lay hold of that Promise.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Other: I believe baptism is a sign and seal of regeneration with the understanding that (1) a person can be regenerated without it, (2) that all who are baptized are not undoubtedly regenerated, and (3) that the efficacy of baptism is not tied to the moment in created time wherein it is administered. I believe this is what Paul was teaching when he wrote that it is "according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of the new birth, and the renewing of the holy Ghost" (Titus 3.5, emphasis mine).

 

[Poimen]

Other as regeneration is a work of the spirit which is not so easily discerned by man as our Lord indicates (John 3:8).

Consider, moreover, the illegitimacy of assuming anything about the final state of a whole group of people (in this case "children of believers").

Instead, we raise them in faith in the certain and sure promises of God and call them to believe such. Thus rather than presume anything unknown I know and teach the privileges & duties that are theirs as God's people.

 

[Joshua]

“Who is sufficient for these things?”