Originally Posted by prespastor

I think presumptive regeneration is the first step on this ladder.

Presumptive Regeneration leads to Paedocommunion which leads to Federal Vision which leads to...(we shall see).

I understand that there are people on different rungs of this ladder who will disagree with me but I think presumptive regeneration is the logical first step. You cannot take the next steps without it. The FVers turning the issue into a form of baptismal regeneration doesn't help avoid the issue. Though they of course have fallen back into a serious lie regarding the sacraments, the practicality of their position as it relates to where they begin (how we are to consider children) is essentially the same as the view of presumptive regeneration (the aforementioned issue regarding the sacraments notwithstanding).

As far as I can tell, the FV advocates began with the view of presumptive regeneration, then went paedocommunion, then went back and developed a new theological framework to defend their position; exchanging presumptive regeneration with some form of baptismal regeneration.

With all due respect to my brethren who hold to presumptive regeneration, I think the position is an old error in the Reformed camp due to a combination of trying to avoid the baptismal regeneration of Rome on the one hand and an overreaction to the baptistic understanding on the other.

As long as presumptive regeneration remains in Reformed churches, we will see a repetition of problems like the half-way covenant and federal vision. I am not saying this means that all those who hold to presumptive regeneration will go down these roads, but their position provides the initial foundation for these sorts of doctrinal aberrations.