Quote:
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. Quote:
Originally Posted by AV1611 Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen I think this position is what leads to some of the FV error. Everyone is considered regenerate because they have been baptized. John Murray kind of opened the door for this kind of thing by teaching presumptive regeneration in his book entitled, Baptism. | I am not sure I agree mate. The FV teach that baptism acts ex opere operato and makes someone a covenant member and hence elect. I adhere to presumptive regeneration and what PR agues is that we are to presume the infants of believers are regenerate because of God's promise to be the God of our seed and so they are baotised. This baptism rests not upon our presumption but upon God's promise and is declarative of a position as opposed to effecting a position. I hope this helps a little.  | |
The presumptive regeneration position was not what Calvin or many of the Puritans held. I think you have to go back and study the Reformed position on the covenants and how it relates to baptism. The Reformed position has always been that baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace... and our engagement to be His (Westminster Shorter Catchism Question 94). Children are regarded as members of the visible church and have all of the promises and blessings of God as opposed to those outside of the visible covenant, but they are called to faith in Christ. The book of Hebrews calls covenant people to walk in faith and if they refuse then they will receive the curses and not the blessings. We are not to assume they are converted but to trust in God's promises for them and realize that the sign and seal of baptism is designed to lead them to faith. Meredith Kline and others held to this position, which is not held by some who claim to be Presbyterian. Mark Karlberg wrote a great book entitled,
Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective. This was his disertation at WTS-Philadelphia. He outlines the historical Reformed position, which men like John Murray abandoned. I would highly recommend it. I do not think that you can label Murray or others who hold to presumptive regeneration as proponents of FV, but I think if you really look at it you can see how one can make the leap from this to some of the FV positions.