05-06-2008, 11:52 AM
|
 | Puritanboard Professor | | Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Wrightwood, CA
Posts: 5,177
Thanks: 1,992
Thanked 460 Times in 272 Posts
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie  Quote: |
2. When I asked the OPC elders how I should consider a baby that has died after baptism but before they have displayed any fruits of repentance or faith, the answer was, "we should assume that this child is saved." This is the most consistent and systematic version of paedobaptism, as I presently understand. To me, this contains the vestiges of popery. We are imparting the covenant, rather than God laying His guarantee upon it with the sealing in the Spirit. I simply cannot accept this model, in light of God's sovereignty.
| That is presumptive regeneration; other Presbyterians do not hold such a position. The balanced Presbyterian view is that we expect covenant children - through diligent use of the means of grace - to keep the way of the Lord, however, we do not presume anything. The child is to be warned of the dangers of covenant breaking, and urged to embrace Christ as He is freely offered in the gospel. | This 'balanced Presbyterian view' seems to be pretty clear in the WCF: Quote: |
WCF 10:III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
| Why would an OPC church believe in presumptive regeneration?
|