Thread: The Nature of Conversion

So, this is something that I really need help with. I would appreciate input from anyone, but specifically paedobaptists.

What is the nature of conversion? Must an individual have a memory of the first time they came to faith? Or can they "grow into it" as I have heard many claim?

Do these questions makes sense? Does anyone know what I am talking about?

Perhaps it makes more sense to challenge so much of current evangelical teaching; namely that someone has to be able to name the time and place of conversion in order to be "really" converted. I'm not aware of this requirement in scripture.

We are told to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ," and that may come with a distinct time in life (as was true for both my husband and me) or may come about because someone recognizes that he or she has always trusted in Christ (as was true of our oldest daughter). Or even among some who realize perhaps that they haven't always trusted, but indeed do so now.

As Christian parents (or anyone responsible for discipleship) we should always be encouraging people to consider their hope: are you truly abandoning your own efforts and trusting in Christ alone, or are you trusting on your church membership, good works .... fill in the blank. This is much like you see in Isaiah who was addressing the covenant community, but constantly challenging them on their sinfulness and willingness to trust outside of God.

Actually, emphasizing "time and place" is rather dangerous because so many have ended up believing that he's done and all is well, although examination is likely to indicate otherwise.

Originally Posted by jwithnell

Perhaps it makes more sense to challenge so much of current evangelical teaching; namely that someone has to be able to name the time and place of conversion in order to be "really" converted. I'm not aware of this requirement in scripture.

We are told to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ," and that may come with a distinct time in life (as was true for both my husband and me) or may come about because someone recognizes that he or she has always trusted in Christ (as was true of our oldest daughter). Or even among some who realize perhaps that they haven't always trusted, but indeed do so now.

As Christian parents (or anyone responsible for discipleship) we should always be encouraging people to consider their hope: are you truly abandoning your own efforts and trusting in Christ alone, or are you trusting on your church membership, good works .... fill in the blank. This is much like you see in Isaiah who was addressing the covenant community, but constantly challenging them on their sinfulness and willingness to trust outside of God.

Actually, emphasizing "time and place" is rather dangerous because so many have ended up believing that he's done and all is well, although examination is likely to indicate otherwise.

Yes, the answer you gave tends to be where I stand. However, in the Bible study that I have been leading these questions keep coming up.

1. How can someone have always loved God?
2. Do people not have to realize their sinfulness and believe?
3. How can you grow into it? You cannot always be saved from birth.

So the answer I usually give is; the proof that we are saved is not that we once felt sorrow for our sins and repented, but rather that we continue to do so.
Then the conversation tends to go around in circles.

I am looking for the Biblical perspective on this issue. I feel that I am being faithful to that perspective. If I am wrong I would like to proven so. I do not mean that in an arrogant way at all. I sincerely would like to get to the bottom of this matter.

What matters is whether or not people are trusting in Christ alone for their salvation, not whether or not they remember the exact date and time of when they first believed in Christ.

Originally Posted by Grillsy

Originally Posted by jwithnell

Perhaps it makes more sense to challenge so much of current evangelical teaching; namely that someone has to be able to name the time and place of conversion in order to be "really" converted. I'm not aware of this requirement in scripture.

We are told to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ," and that may come with a distinct time in life (as was true for both my husband and me) or may come about because someone recognizes that he or she has always trusted in Christ (as was true of our oldest daughter). Or even among some who realize perhaps that they haven't always trusted, but indeed do so now.

As Christian parents (or anyone responsible for discipleship) we should always be encouraging people to consider their hope: are you truly abandoning your own efforts and trusting in Christ alone, or are you trusting on your church membership, good works .... fill in the blank. This is much like you see in Isaiah who was addressing the covenant community, but constantly challenging them on their sinfulness and willingness to trust outside of God.

Actually, emphasizing "time and place" is rather dangerous because so many have ended up believing that he's done and all is well, although examination is likely to indicate otherwise.

Yes, the answer you gave tends to be where I stand. However, in the Bible study that I have been leading these questions keep coming up.

1. How can someone have always loved God?
2. Do people not have to realize their sinfulness and believe?
3. How can you grow into it? You cannot always be saved from birth.

So the answer I usually give is; the proof that we are saved is not that we once felt sorrow for our sins and repented, but rather that we continue to do so.
Then the conversation tends to go around in circles.

I am looking for the Biblical perspective on this issue. I feel that I am being faithful to that perspective. If I am wrong I would like to proven so. I do not mean that in an arrogant way at all. I sincerely would like to get to the bottom of this matter.

Please pardon this Baptist for jumping in. I can relate an incident from my own experience.

In a conversation with a pastor many years ago he related that while talking with his professor at seminary, Van Til, he asked about the good doctor’s own conversion. After some pause Dr. Van Til responded saying “Frankly R____ I can never remember a time that I did not love Jesus.”

I doubt that Van Til intended to convey the thought that he was regenerate from the womb, but merely that his rebirth was at such a tender age that he has no recollection of pre-conversion living.

Originally Posted by Grillsy

So, this is something that I really need help with. I would appreciate input from anyone, but specifically paedobaptists.

What is the nature of conversion? Must an individual have a memory of the first time they came to faith? Or can they "grow into it" as I have heard many claim?

Do these questions makes sense? Does anyone know what I am talking about?

When those individuals say that they have "grown into it", do they mean that they cannot remember the exact date and time that they came to Christ?

Originally Posted by cih1355

Originally Posted by Grillsy

So, this is something that I really need help with. I would appreciate input from anyone, but specifically paedobaptists.

What is the nature of conversion? Must an individual have a memory of the first time they came to faith? Or can they "grow into it" as I have heard many claim?

Do these questions makes sense? Does anyone know what I am talking about?

When those individuals say that they have "grown into it", do they mean that they cannot remember the exact date and time that they came to Christ?

Yes, I think that is what they mean. But partially they mean they have grown into the covenant promises as well.


______________________________________________-

Oh and Bob. No need to apologize for being Baptist and bumping in.

There is always a transition from death to life (or wrath to grace as Van Til would say) at a specific point, but the person may not remember it, because they were too young e.g. John the Baptist was in the womb, or because subjectively they experienced the gradual preparation of the Spirit from a young age. This often happens with covenant children.

This is discussed in William Guthrie's "The Christian's Great Interest."

The question is not, "Can you remember your conversion?" , but, "Do you have the marks of grace?"

I cannot remember a time when I didn't believe the facts of the Gospel; there was a change at the age of thirteen when by God's grace I specifically asked Christ to be my Saviour, but it was very gentle and I had a number of years of lack of assurance after that partly because
I had not had an "experience."

Is your life different now than it was at some point in the past? Is there evidence of fruit of the spirit and that a change is apparent in who you now are! Do you hunger and thirst for righteousness? Do you hate sin and humbly seek His face for forgiveness of sin and offer praise and worship to Him and seek to be obedient to His commands and trust in Him, not yourself?

Life is different after conversion though we may not recollect the time and place the change actually took place it is apparent that it did happen because you are different now! Soli deo gloria!!

Originally Posted by christiana

Is your life different now than it was at some point in the past? Is there evidence of fruit of the spirit and that a change is apparent in who you now are! Do you hunger and thirst for righteousness? Do you hate sin and humbly seek His face for forgiveness of sin and offer praise and worship to Him and seek to be obedient to His commands and trust in Him, not yourself?

Life is different after conversion though we may not recollect the time and place the change actually took place it is apparent that it did happen because you are different now! Soli deo gloria!!

Yes this is typical of the answer that I try to give. It seems that credos and paedobaptists can actually agree on this issue .

So then, for the sake of my lessons, do we say to those who like to point out the conversion experiences in Scripture or who like to quote the verses commanding people to believe and repent? I think I know that answer, but I would like to see others.

I'm sure there are many marvelous verses to substantiate this but I often quote Rom 6:16 as a discussion point.
ew American Standard Bible (©1995)
'Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?'

I also love the 2 Cor 13:5 verse that says: 'Examine yourself to see if you're in the faith! Dont you know Jesus Christ lives in you, unless of course you fail the test!'

Originally Posted by christiana

I'm sure there are many marvelous verses to substantiate this but I often quote Rom 6:16 as a discussion point.
ew American Standard Bible (©1995)
'Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?'

I also love the 1 Cor verse that says: 'Examine yourself to see if you're in the faith! Dont you know Jesus Christ lives in you, unless of course you fail the test!'

Ah yes. Fine verses but the Romans verse is a key proof text for those who say that you must remember when you were converted. You could not have "always loved God" according the afortmentioned verse they would say.

Originally Posted by Grillsy

So, this is something that I really need help with. I would appreciate input from anyone, but specifically paedobaptists.

What is the nature of conversion? Must an individual have a memory of the first time they came to faith? Or can they "grow into it" as I have heard many claim?

Do these questions makes sense? Does anyone know what I am talking about?

My oldest child has been brought up with the command "you must believe in Jesus" all her life, and that particular command she has always obeyed as long as I can remember. We tell our children they must not touch the hot stove, and some never do. There is no reason that such a child when told "you must believe" would not in obedience to parents and God would not trust Jesus for salvation. At every point in time a person could put as much trust as they can understand in Jesus for forgiveness and for righteousness. Would such a person, when they are 20 years old, understanding the gospel as much as anyone of such an age, be any less trusting in Christ because they know of no time where they did not trust Jesus? Saying that it cannot be that way is saying that God could not have put a heart of flesh in the person at a very young age that always repents of the evil they do, even as those who later in life come to faith and from that point forward always repent of the evil they do.

Conversion is almost foreign to reformed thought ... while there are many terms that relate to conversion in the larger catechism, it is used without definition. There is no "What is conversion?" but there is "What is adoption?", "What is sanctification?" "What is repentance unto life?" "What is justification?" "What is justifying faith?" ... and I would have to contend it is for reason, as the word "convert" is used but not defined. Conversion implies change from one state to another ... and that is not the same for different people. Those that are in the church from birth should not know "conversion" as such. They will know justifying faith, they will know repentance unto life, justification, sanctification and adoption. But conversion presumes they would know a time when they did not place their faith in Christ as much as maturity and knowledge would dictate. While for those outside the church, that would be the norm, but for those raised in the church, it should be the exception. The normal method by which a person ought to become a member of the church is by birth.

Originally Posted by Grillsy

However, in the Bible study that I have been leading these questions keep coming up.

1. How can someone have always loved God?

A person can be raised in such a way that they do not ever know a time when their assent to the fundamentals to the gospel were not part of their life. They can be taught from birth that they are sinners, and that they must believe in Jesus substitutionary atonement and the grace offered in the gospel.

Originally Posted by Grillsy

2. Do people not have to realize their sinfulness and believe?

Of course, and that is why it is so important to teach infants that they are sinners and in need of the savior from the day they are born. It is commanded them by loving parents to repent of their sin and believe. It is a foul and evil thing that parents teach children that they should not touch a fire, but that they must choose to believe. They should be just as sternly commanded to believe in Christ as they are commanded to not play in the street.

Originally Posted by Grillsy

3. How can you grow into it? You cannot always be saved from birth.

This is not what I would say the Bible says. What is salvation? Is it not that God knows us? Does not Psalm 22:9-10 state: "Yet You are He who brought me forth from the womb; You made me trust when upon my mother’s breasts. Upon You I was cast from birth; You have been my God from my mother’s womb."

The idea here is that God was the Psalmist's God from the womb, before he was born. Thinking we cannot be in Christ from birth is what I believe is a works based salvation ... where the work is believing. While it is obvious the Psalm points forward to Christ, it also pointed to David in that time and place.

What is required is to be saved by grace through faith, but that faith need not be as we would as adults understand. It is faith as the maturity of the one exercising that faith might be capable of possessing.

Originally Posted by Grillsy

So the answer I usually give is; the proof that we are saved is not that we once felt sorrow for our sins and repented, but rather that we continue to do so.
Then the conversation tends to go around in circles.

I am looking for the Biblical perspective on this issue. I feel that I am being faithful to that perspective. If I am wrong I would like to proven so. I do not mean that in an arrogant way at all. I sincerely would like to get to the bottom of this matter.

The proof of our salvation is not what saves us. The proof of our salvation is to us, not to God. The proof of our salvation shows to those that do not see eternity evidence that chastens those who are saved to continue in repentance, continue in putting to death the sinful nature and putting on Christ and encourages those that are in Christ and pursuing His salvation to look to God and His faithfulness in bring to completion the work He started in us.

There is no assurance for those that do not show repentance and continuing in the faith, even if they can point to a time where they "professed faith" and said they believe. Assurance of salvation is only for those that do persevere in the faith ... and it is for them that "proof of salvation" is both useful and beneficial.

Knowing that God does save from the womb is comfort for those that have children who never saw the light of day. God is our God and the God of our children. That promise would be empty if it left those who die in infancy, before a mature profession of faith can be made, are damned to hell forever. To those that have lost children, the hope is that their children are found in Christ.

Originally Posted by Grillsy

Must an individual have a memory of the first time they came to faith?

No. Indeed, a 'Damascus Road' experience should be the unusual, rather than the usual, for one raised in a covenant family.

Scripture still says that no man can come to me unless the Father draws him. Man is born sinful and regardless of what he is taught and how 'nice' he is or obeys his parents he is still unregenerate until and unless the Holy Spirit draws him and changes his heart in regeneration.

Brian and Edward,

I do want to make it clear that I agree with you. Your answers are usually the ones that I give to the questions I mentioned.
The questions are from those in our congregation who would disagree with what we are saying.
I thank you for your answers, as I feel I have been given clearer wording when dealing with these certain questions.

John 3:3 (New King James Version)

3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

This is conversion, regeneration, the new birth, being born again. It is done by the Holy Spirit in a sinful heart, bringing change to it that may or may not be remembered as to the exact time and date, and yet it is clear that it did in fact occur!

Originally Posted by rbcbob

Please pardon this Baptist for jumping in. I can relate an incident from my own experience.

In a conversation with a pastor many years ago he related that while talking with his professor at seminary, Van Til, he asked about the good doctor’s own conversion. After some pause Dr. Van Til responded saying “Frankly R____ I can never remember a time that I did not love Jesus.”

I doubt that Van Til intended to convey the thought that he was regenerate from the womb, but merely that his rebirth was at such a tender age that he has no recollection of pre-conversion living.

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

There is always a transition from death to life (or wrath to grace as Van Til would say) at a specific point, but the person may not remember it, because they were too young e.g. John the Baptist was in the womb, or because subjectively they experienced the gradual preparation of the Spirit from a young age. This often happens with covenant children.

This is discussed in William Guthrie's "The Christian's Great Interest."

The question is not, "Can you remember your conversion?" , but, "Do you have the marks of grace?"

I cannot remember a time when I didn't believe the facts of the Gospel; there was a change at the age of thirteen when by God's grace I specifically asked Christ to be my Saviour, but it was very gentle and I had a number of years of lack of assurance after that partly because
I had not had an "experience."

This reminds me of something similar that I have read.

The position of the Westminster Standards or what we have called mainstream Reformed thought not only best comports with the testimony of Scripture but also is perfectly in line with Christian experience. Anyone who has a Reformed church with a good number of Reformed families knows that many covenant children cannot point to a time when they did not believe in Jesus or to a moment when they had a conversion experience. In other words their whole conscious life is a life of trust in God’s Word and the Savior. Whenever they came into contact with the truth they immediately loved it and embraced it. There are other children, however, who did not have any interest in spiritual things until later in life. These people (although raised in the covenant) can point to a time when they began to have a saving interest in Christ. Sadly, there are others who never really believed in Jesus, who as soon as they were able left the visible church to indulge themselves in a love of the world, in sinful pleasures and materialistic vanities. Such people were in the covenant externally and the visible church; but, their baptism was never efficacious. They were never regenerated, saved, forgiven or made members of the invisible church. As Paul says, (Rom. 9:18), the elect are saved and the rest were hardened. Unfortunately, there are usually some Esaus in the visible church. [emphasis added]

How Should Baptized Infants and Children Be Regarded By the Church? by Brian Schwertley

Originally Posted by christiana

John 3:3 (New King James Version)

3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

This is conversion, regeneration, the new birth, being born again. It is done by the Holy Spirit in a sinful heart, bringing change to it that may or may not be remembered as to the exact time and date, and yet it is clear that it did in fact occur!

Of course, but that regenerative work by God could be before one is born into this world. If it were not, then those that are stillborn are the most tragic deaths of all, for even those descended from the elect would be without any hope. It isn't that I would disagree that everyone must experience regeneration in order to be saved, but regeneration is an act of God that is not an effect of some action on the part of the elect. Regeneration logically, if not chronologically, precedes faith; those that are not regenerate cannot exercise saving faith. Those that are regenerate can and do exercise saving faith by virtue of that regeneration.

I still think folks should be challenged to consider, what's changed? The church for most of its history has made no emphasis on an individual conversion. The emphasis on self is likely the outgrowth of 20th century Gnosticism that says that what's important is what Jesus has done in your heart. Never mind that we have evidence of Christ raising whole people from the dead ... never mind that promises were made that "you and your household will be saved." Never mind that the keys of the kingdom were given to the church.

This is not to refute that individuals must show the fruit of repentance or that each of us will stand in judgment. But there's real hope in that we will stand in Christ, the first fruit of those who sleep ... and that God has put us in the context of the family and the church that we might stand strong in the battle. That we stand with Abraham in the hope that our offspring will be like the sand on the sea shore ....

Originally Posted by Grillsy

So, this is something that I really need help with. I would appreciate input from anyone, but specifically paedobaptists.

What is the nature of conversion? Must an individual have a memory of the first time they came to faith? Or can they "grow into it" as I have heard many claim?

Do these questions makes sense? Does anyone know what I am talking about?

Based on a quick search of ESV and KJV, the few places translated as "convert" seem to mean "turn". The bible speaks more generally of repentance than conversion. Biblicaly, it is the fruit of repentance one should look for in one's own life rather than a memory of a conversion experience. Those who cannot remember a time when they didn't believe, should still be repenting daily and seeing its fruit.

I do know life-long Christians who have a troubled assurance due to a lack of dramatic conversion experience because in looking for evidence of the work of God in them they expect the dramatic, but the fruit of repentance is likely to be mostly in small things. Once any large and troubling sins are taken care of, the more subtle things like how much time you have for your children, how selfish you are with your wife, how you treat your colleagues, etc will all change and most of them will change gradually over your life. I had one of the most dramatic conversion experiences I've heard, but I am anxious for it to go only a little way towards assurance. How reckless it is for one to speak "Peace, peace" when there is no peace. One should not speak peace to oneself; never grasp hold of a scriptural promise and apply it to oneself unless God Himself first speaks "peace" into your heart and mind. I can gain some feeling of assurance by looking back on my repentance and its fruits, and weighing them against my continuing sin but to convince myself of peace would only cause complacency. In any case, my continuing sin somehow has more weight because it is sinning against more knowledge, more grace. All I can do is trust God.

I do know life-long Christians who have a troubled assurance due to a lack of dramatic conversion experience because in looking for evidence of the work of God in them they expect the dramatic

This is why I find the individual conversion emphasis so destructive; our assurance is based in the character of God and the promises he has secured with the death of His Son. We should view much of what has come out of late 19th century and 20th century evangelicalism as the abnormal teaching that it truly is. Because it blares at us out of our car radio and from the shelves of bookstores, we begin to feel like the oddballs. It's Moody Institute and TV preachers who are the oddballs; not those who have held to the orthodox teaching of scripture.

Edit: OK, I'd better clarify: TV is a fine medium. It just that a large percentage would reject a covenantal view of the scriptures, salvation, and so forth ...

"I was blind and now I see." The ability to identify a crisis moment at which this happened is not necessary or necessarily possible.




P.S. FWIW, I haven't read all the preceding posts.

Originally Posted by jwithnell

I still think folks should be challenged to consider, what's changed? The church for most of its history has made no emphasis on an individual conversion.

This is not true, actually. There was much emphasis on conversion both in the continental and British strains of the Reformed church. It cannot be said that it's a 20th century phenomenon. We should be careful to distinguish between a 20th/21st century emphasis on "self" and the need for individual conversion that the Puritans and Reformers most certainly had.

Todd

As one who has lived this out in my own life, I can tell you that while I am assured of my salvation by the indwelling witness of the Spirit, but I do not remember a conversion experiance. I was raised in a devout Souther Presbiterian home.
It was not until , later in life that I became a baptist. The baptist environment brought my lack of such an experience to bother me in my mind as I grew in my walk. I do remember asking the Lord , on a particular day to "nail it down" for me.. but I still maintain that I was already saved. If you do much personal evangelism you will inevitably come across many who can recount the day, time, and color of the carpet in the church when they were saved... and yet today live for the devil. Past experience is no sure foundation. There is worldly sorrow, false conversion, and false assurance.

Originally Posted by Brian Withnell

Originally Posted by christiana

John 3:3 (New King James Version)

3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

This is conversion, regeneration, the new birth, being born again. It is done by the Holy Spirit in a sinful heart, bringing change to it that may or may not be remembered as to the exact time and date, and yet it is clear that it did in fact occur!

Of course, but that regenerative work by God could be before one is born into this world. If it were not, then those that are stillborn are the most tragic deaths of all, for even those descended from the elect would be without any hope. It isn't that I would disagree that everyone must experience regeneration in order to be saved, but regeneration is an act of God that is not an effect of some action on the part of the elect. Regeneration logically, if not chronologically, precedes faith; those that are not regenerate cannot exercise saving faith. Those that are regenerate can and do exercise saving faith by virtue of that regeneration.

Actually I must apologize for the 'thanks' as I intended to hit the 'quote' and to express my extreme disagreement with such a statement!
We were chosen in eternity past and are consciously brought to faith in Christ during our lifetime at the time of the Holy Spirit's intervention. It is repeated over and over in scripture that we place our faith in Christ and be granted repentance of sin; this indicating regeneration has taken place.
Never in this lifetime have I ever heard of one being regenerated in utero! There must be a consciousness of sin and guilt in order to see ones need of a Savior! Until and unless one sees themself as a sinner and feels the guilt they will not be seeking a Savior from the same!

Originally Posted by christiana

Originally Posted by Brian Withnell

Originally Posted by christiana

John 3:3 (New King James Version)

3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

This is conversion, regeneration, the new birth, being born again. It is done by the Holy Spirit in a sinful heart, bringing change to it that may or may not be remembered as to the exact time and date, and yet it is clear that it did in fact occur!

Of course, but that regenerative work by God could be before one is born into this world. If it were not, then those that are stillborn are the most tragic deaths of all, for even those descended from the elect would be without any hope. It isn't that I would disagree that everyone must experience regeneration in order to be saved, but regeneration is an act of God that is not an effect of some action on the part of the elect. Regeneration logically, if not chronologically, precedes faith; those that are not regenerate cannot exercise saving faith. Those that are regenerate can and do exercise saving faith by virtue of that regeneration.

Actually I must apologize for the 'thanks' as I intended to hit the 'quote' and to express my extreme disagreement with such a statement!
We were chosen in eternity past and are consciously brought to faith in Christ during our lifetime at the time of the Holy Spirit's intervention. It is repeated over and over in scripture that we place our faith in Christ and be granted repentance of sin; this indicating regeneration has taken place.
Never in this lifetime have I ever heard of one being regenerated in utero! There must be a consciousness of sin and guilt in order to see ones need of a Savior! Until and unless one sees themself as a sinner and feels the guilt they will not be seeking a Savior from the same!

So you're saying that someone could not be quickened from birth or at least a very early age and not remember this?
Keep in mind that those you mention that are being preached to are adults. Do you believe there is an age whereby we must must consciously be able to process this information? Can God not work outside of our own inability? If He can do so with the hardened sinner who has grown to be an adult, why can He not do so for an infant? That way the child grows up conscious of their sins and lives a longer life of repentance.

Originally Posted by christiana

Originally Posted by Brian Withnell

Originally Posted by christiana

John 3:3 (New King James Version)

3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

This is conversion, regeneration, the new birth, being born again. It is done by the Holy Spirit in a sinful heart, bringing change to it that may or may not be remembered as to the exact time and date, and yet it is clear that it did in fact occur!

Of course, but that regenerative work by God could be before one is born into this world. If it were not, then those that are stillborn are the most tragic deaths of all, for even those descended from the elect would be without any hope. It isn't that I would disagree that everyone must experience regeneration in order to be saved, but regeneration is an act of God that is not an effect of some action on the part of the elect. Regeneration logically, if not chronologically, precedes faith; those that are not regenerate cannot exercise saving faith. Those that are regenerate can and do exercise saving faith by virtue of that regeneration.

Actually I must apologize for the 'thanks' as I intended to hit the 'quote' and to express my extreme disagreement with such a statement!
We were chosen in eternity past and are consciously brought to faith in Christ during our lifetime at the time of the Holy Spirit's intervention. It is repeated over and over in scripture that we place our faith in Christ and be granted repentance of sin; this indicating regeneration has taken place.
Never in this lifetime have I ever heard of one being regenerated in utero! There must be a consciousness of sin and guilt in order to see ones need of a Savior! Until and unless one sees themself as a sinner and feels the guilt they will not be seeking a Savior from the same!

John the Baptist was.

Why do you limit the moment of regeneration to some time ex utero? Why can't it be that some are regenerated in the womb? Nobody who argues that regeneration can in principle happen in utero would dispute your correct assertion that one must be conscious of sin and guilt.... but why does that fact limit in ANY way WHEN the Spirit might regenerate an individual?

Thanks for provoking my thoughts. I will continue to read and search the scriptures.

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by christiana

Originally Posted by Brian Withnell

Of course, but that regenerative work by God could be before one is born into this world. If it were not, then those that are stillborn are the most tragic deaths of all, for even those descended from the elect would be without any hope. It isn't that I would disagree that everyone must experience regeneration in order to be saved, but regeneration is an act of God that is not an effect of some action on the part of the elect. Regeneration logically, if not chronologically, precedes faith; those that are not regenerate cannot exercise saving faith. Those that are regenerate can and do exercise saving faith by virtue of that regeneration.

Actually I must apologize for the 'thanks' as I intended to hit the 'quote' and to express my extreme disagreement with such a statement!
We were chosen in eternity past and are consciously brought to faith in Christ during our lifetime at the time of the Holy Spirit's intervention. It is repeated over and over in scripture that we place our faith in Christ and be granted repentance of sin; this indicating regeneration has taken place.
Never in this lifetime have I ever heard of one being regenerated in utero! There must be a consciousness of sin and guilt in order to see ones need of a Savior! Until and unless one sees themself as a sinner and feels the guilt they will not be seeking a Savior from the same!

John the Baptist was.

Why do you limit the moment of regeneration to some time ex utero? Why can't it be that some are regenerated in the womb? Nobody who argues that regeneration can in principle happen in utero would dispute your correct assertion that one must be conscious of sin and guilt.... but why does that fact limit in ANY way WHEN the Spirit might regenerate an individual?

Todd,
I am not disagreeing with your point, I think it is helpful. But I have a further question which might stimulate further refinement of this discussion (or maybe not). Can someone be regenerated in the womb and live twenty or thirty years before repenting and believing? I know that further questions would then follow. What are your thoughts?

Originally Posted by Grillsy

So, this is something that I really need help with. I would appreciate input from anyone, but specifically paedobaptists.

What is the nature of conversion? Must an individual have a memory of the first time they came to faith? Or can they "grow into it" as I have heard many claim?

Do these questions makes sense? Does anyone know what I am talking about?

God works in different ways to accomplish redemption in lives of those He has chosen.

That doesn't mean the substance (election, effectual calling, justification, adoption, sanctification) is different for different people, but that the circumstances are, in line with God's plan for that person's life.

My understanding is that since salvation is 100% dependent on God, and not in any way dependent on man, God can do it at a very young age, even an infant. The infant may not be able to articulate it cognitively (or we may not understand its expression), but God is free to save anyone he pleases, at any age, at any time, in any place according to the good pleasure of His will.



According to His glorious grace and justice, God effectually calls some to faith at different points in time- some very early in life, some at the last minute.

Some of us recall believing in Christ and understanding something of it, somehow in our earliest days... can't remember a time in life not calling upon God through Christ.

Yet, there are people who have vivid, dramatic conversions as well.

All to the praise of His glorious grace and justice!

Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter III
Of God's Eternal Decree

...
VI. As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto.[12] Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ,[13] are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified,[14] and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation.[15] Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.[16]

Suppose God regenerates someone who is in his mother's womb. When will God cause that person to repent from his sins and believe in Jesus? At the time he hears the gospel?

Originally Posted by cih1355

Suppose God regenerates someone who is in his mother's womb. When will God cause that person to repent from his sins and believe in Jesus? At the time he hears the gospel?

It is possible that repentance can occur and belief can occur without us being able to cognitively recognize it. Repentance is a change of heart, which flows from a changed (by God) nature.

Remember, repentance and belief are not causes of salvation, but results of it.

I must admit that this concept just truly blows my mind but due to respect for Charnock, Owens, Edwards and Hodge I am definitely giving due consideration!

This article states that regeneration may occur from any point after conception until minutes before death! Amazing to consider this though I did know that Jeremiah was known by God for his task before birth.

I will be reading this further to ponder these new considerations!

The Biblical World View of the 2

"Regeneration may occur from any moment after conception to just prior to death. It may be a sudden, intense experience or a more subtle quiet event. It may occur before consciousness early in one’s life, even before birth. Children, born and raised to Christian parents, may never have a born again experience but their speech and behavior gives clear evidence that they “trust and obey” the Savior and His Word. That does not mean that such a person will not have a profound sense of sin and the necessity of repentance. Indeed, this is that evidence of regeneration."

Perhaps some definition of terms might be helpful?

In common usage a person's conversion is where the Spirit of Christ works in a person's heart enabling that individual to believe and come to faith -- at whatever point that occurs in a person's life. Perhaps the better term (since I don't think the word conversion appears in the WCF) is saving faith.

This needs to be distinguished from a conversion experience. A with-every-head-bowed, name a specific time and place, have something written that I-came-forward type remembrance.

Has God used the latter experience to bring some to faith? Absolutely -- sadly because parents have often not challenged their own children to consider their faith, to see if their children are trusting in Christ, and Christ alone.

It is this latter emphasis on experience that I find so disturbing about modern evangelicalism -- a situation that I believe is at odds with orthodox, reformed teaching. The Puritans clearly believed that a person had to be converted -- and many record a time in their lives of coming to a realization that they had been in an unconverted state from which they had to turn, but it is not consistent to say that an overwhelming experience was therefore declared necessary. When you look at the description of the lives of some of the Edward's children and grandchildren, you find examples of children who had a sweet faith from a very young age. I pray this would be true of my own children too.

In addition to John the Baptist, I would also point to Psalm 22:9 which plainly indicates that trust can happen in an infant: "Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts" (ESV). Not only the second part of the verse, but also the first part of the verse is instructive. The Lord took David from the womb, and then made David trust while still an infant. We also need to be careful in this discussion not to assume that we know what a baby in utero or just born can and cannot do with regard to their understanding. Remember that the sensus divinitatis is inborn in us. If that is true (as part of the image of God), then we cannot assume that other things are impossible for the baby. At any rate, it can be dangerous to require a conversion experience, since this might undermine a child's natural trust in God (if present). At any rate, it could easily confuse them. Of course, we cannot assume that they are regenerated. But should we always be doubting a 4 or 5 year old if they say they trust Jesus?

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

In addition to John the Baptist, I would also point to Psalm 22:9 which plainly indicates that trust can happen in an infant: "Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts" (ESV). Not only the second part of the verse, but also the first part of the verse is instructive. The Lord took David from the womb, and then made David trust while still an infant. We also need to be careful in this discussion not to assume that we know what a baby in utero or just born can and cannot do with regard to their understanding. Remember that the sensus divinitatis is inborn in us. If that is true (as part of the image of God), then we cannot assume that other things are impossible for the baby. At any rate, it can be dangerous to require a conversion experience, since this might undermine a child's natural trust in God (if present). At any rate, it could easily confuse them. Of course, we cannot assume that they are regenerated. But should we always be doubting a 4 or 5 year old if they say they trust Jesus?

In other psalms the "I" of the psalm may be David or another psalmist, but can Ps. 22 be read that way? Since the NT identifies Christ as the "I" in Ps. 22, and the focus of the Psalm is primarily a recounting of Christ's experience, I am left wondering whether it is legitmate exegesis to support an element of the experience of sinful men from this psalm?

To refuse David his own testimony from Ps.22 is unwise. Yes, he speaks prophetically, but the typology rests someplace.

But beside Ps.22, Ps.71:5-6. Here is an old man (Jesus didn't live to be gray-headed, v18) with the same testimony.