Paedocommunion by Rayburn - Page 2

Robert Truelove · #41 (**permalink**) 02-08-2008, 05:11 PM

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.

markkoller · #42 (**permalink**) 02-08-2008, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

Those who advocate Paedocommunion are not consistent. I do not know of any who would administer the Lord's Supper to an infant after baptism. They will use the argument that the children under the O.T participated in the Passover, and I would not argue against that, but the children were instructed and were aware of why they were observing it. We find the warning in I Corinthians 11 that one should examine themselves before coming to the table. I do not know many infants that would be able to do that.

I am enjoying the discussion so far. Stephen forgive me if I misunderstand here, but I believe you are saying that paedocommunionists do not give the elements to actual infants, only to young children? Just clarifying...

Pilgrim · #43 (**permalink**) 02-08-2008, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markkoller

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

Those who advocate Paedocommunion are not consistent. I do not know of any who would administer the Lord's Supper to an infant after baptism. They will use the argument that the children under the O.T participated in the Passover, and I would not argue against that, but the children were instructed and were aware of why they were observing it. We find the warning in I Corinthians 11 that one should examine themselves before coming to the table. I do not know many infants that would be able to do that.

I am enjoying the discussion so far. Stephen forgive me if I misunderstand here, but I believe you are saying that paedocommunionists do not give the elements to actual infants, only to young children? Just clarifying...

The position of many in the FV as I understand it is essentially the same as what you find in the various Eastern Orthodox churches. That is, that infants should take communion as soon as they are physically able to ingest the elements.

markkoller · #44 (**permalink**) 02-08-2008, 07:52 PM

This has been my experience. I attended a FV church with a friend (out of curiosity) and was amazed to see people putting the bread and wine into the mouths of newborn babies. It was disturbing to watch.

Daniel Ritchie · #45 (**permalink**) 02-08-2008, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markkoller

This has been my experience. I attended a FV church with a friend (out of curiosity) and was amazed to see people putting the bread and wine into the mouths of newborn babies. It was disturbing to watch.

Though some would say the same about infant baptism.

Pilgrim · #46 (**permalink**) 02-08-2008, 08:07 PM

What I think Stephen was describing is the the young child position some in NAPARC churches advocate (i.e. Rayburn as noted in this thread) since they are not free to practice paedocommunion. But not everyone who advocates that position is paedocommunionist.

markkoller · #47 (**permalink**) 02-08-2008, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by markkoller

This has been my experience. I attended a FV church with a friend (out of curiosity) and was amazed to see people putting the bread and wine into the mouths of newborn babies. It was disturbing to watch.

Though some would say the same about infant baptism.

true

AV1611 · #48 (**permalink**) 02-09-2008, 10:04 AM

We will have to agree to disagree I am afraid.

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.

Daniel Ritchie · #49 (**permalink**) 02-09-2008, 10:13 AM

Its best to avoid relevance fallacies. I hold to neither presumptive regeneration or paedo-communion or the Federal Vision, but I do recognise that the issues are logically distinct.

Stephen · #50 (**permalink**) 02-09-2008, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markkoller

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

Those who advocate Paedocommunion are not consistent. I do not know of any who would administer the Lord's Supper to an infant after baptism. They will use the argument that the children under the O.T participated in the Passover, and I would not argue against that, but the children were instructed and were aware of why they were observing it. We find the warning in I Corinthians 11 that one should examine themselves before coming to the table. I do not know many infants that would be able to do that.

I am enjoying the discussion so far. Stephen forgive me if I misunderstand here, but I believe you are saying that paedocommunionists do not give the elements to actual infants, only to young children? Just clarifying...

Yes, that is right. If they believe that children can come to the table if they are baptized why do they not admit a four month old infant?

Stephen · #51 (**permalink**) 02-09-2008, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markkoller

This has been my experience. I attended a FV church with a friend (out of curiosity) and was amazed to see people putting the bread and wine into the mouths of newborn babies. It was disturbing to watch.

Thanks for the information. I have never heard this before. That is so bizzare.

Stephen · #52 (**permalink**) 02-09-2008, 10:38 AM

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.

AV1611 · #53 (**permalink**) 02-09-2008, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

The presumptive regeneration position was not what Calvin or many of the Puritans held.

WLC

Question 166: Unto whom is Baptism to be administered?
Answer: Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized.

This teaches that infants are within the covenant.

Canons

Article 17 - Children of Believers Who Die in Infancy
We must judge concerning the will of God from His Word, which declares that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they are included with their parents. Therefore, God-fearing parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in their infancy (Genesis 17:7; Acts 2:39; 1 Corinthians7:14).

Teaches that because our infants are included in God's covenant we have no reason to believe that they are anything other than regenerate.

This is also the theology of Charles Hodge amongst others.

Daniel Ritchie · #54 (**permalink**) 02-09-2008, 04:21 PM

Infants being in the covenant does not prove presumptive regeneration; instead covenant children are to be exhorted to keep the covenant (Ps. 25). We expect them to keep the covenant, but we should not presume that they are regenerate.

AV1611 · #55 (**permalink**) 02-09-2008, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Infants being in the covenant does not prove presumptive regeneration; instead covenant children are to be exhorted to keep the covenant (Ps. 25). We expect them to keep the covenant, but we should not presume that they are regenerate.

God has promised to be the God of our children therefore we are to treat them as regenerate until they show signs that they are not.

Also: http://www.churchsociety.org/publica...yleBaptism.pdf

Amazing Grace · #56 (**permalink**) 02-09-2008, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Infants being in the covenant does not prove presumptive regeneration; instead covenant children are to be exhorted to keep the covenant (Ps. 25). We expect them to keep the covenant, but we should not presume that they are regenerate.

God has promised to be the God of our children therefore we are to treat them as regenerate until they show signs that they are not.

I do not know about this Richard. Fruit inspecting my kids? I see no biblical warrant for this cliche' I hear used so frequently.

Daniel Ritchie · #57 (**permalink**) 02-09-2008, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Infants being in the covenant does not prove presumptive regeneration; instead covenant children are to be exhorted to keep the covenant (Ps. 25). We expect them to keep the covenant, but we should not presume that they are regenerate.

God has promised to be the God of our children therefore we are to treat them as regenerate until they show signs that they are not.

Also: http://www.churchsociety.org/publica...yleBaptism.pdf

We tell them that they are dead in trespasses and sins and that they need to be born again - which is what their baptism symbolizes - the need for a new heart. We expect that, through use of the means of grace, covenant children will keep the way of the Lord, but this is not a presumption.

Presumptive regeneration undermines human responsibility - the responsibility of children to keep the covenant, and not be profane people like Esau.

Stephen · #58 (**permalink**) 02-09-2008, 05:06 PM

Thanks, Daniel you are right. The minister has a responsibility to preach both the blessings as well as the warnings. The WCF clearly states that coversion is something that is tied to faith, not baptism. Baptism is a sign of initiation and entrance into the visible community and it does give the promise that He will be our God and we will be His children, but they have a responsibility to follow Him. There were many circumcised children under the O.T who were cut off because of their unbelief. We want to be careful that we do not fall into the heresy of baptismal regeneration. It seems to me that there was a thread a few years ago on this very issue, but has since been closed.

Semper Fidelis · #59 (**permalink**) 02-09-2008, 05:08 PM

Gentlemen,

Let's keep the thread from spinning into a PR debate.

We've had these discussions before. At a very basic level, Parents must assume that their Covenant children have a capacity for spiritual things. Even Baptists catechize their children (note some of the questions in Spurgeon's) and pray with their children in Jesus' name. We certainly do not presume they are reprobate. It is helpful to remember that Calvin, like Paul in Romans 5-11, deals with election in a Pastoral context. We simply do not go around making solemn decrees within the Church as to who is/isn't regenerate. To do so is presumptive on the Church's part and, even when a man has a credible profession and life the Church may not decree he is elect any more that it may decree his reprobation if he is under discipline for a season.

Baptism and the Lord's Supper are both administered ministerially by the Church. That is, the Church declares the Grace of God but does not impart it in the Sacraments. The reason an infant is not admitted to the table (or a young boy) has nothing to do with greater confidence that this disciple is truly elect and this one is not but it has everything to do with maturity. Certainly Christ did not wait until He was 12 years old to be regenerated that He might participate.

We also ought to keep our categories straight about what we do in this life. Adult disciples, no more than children, do not keep the covenant. Christ does.

Stephen · #60 (**permalink**) 02-09-2008, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Gentlemen,

Let's keep the thread from spinning into a PR debate.

We've had these discussions before. At a very basic level, Parents must assume that their Covenant children have a capacity for spiritual things. Even Baptists catechize their children (note some of the questions in Spurgeon's) and pray with their children in Jesus' name. We certainly do not presume they are reprobate. It is helpful to remember that Calvin, like Paul in Romans 5-11, deals with election in a Pastoral context. We simply do not go around making solemn decrees within the Church as to who is/isn't regenerate. To do so is presumptive on the Church's part and, even when a man has a credible profession and life the Church may not decree he is elect any more that it may decree his reprobation if he is under discipline for a season.

Baptism and the Lord's Supper are both administered ministerially by the Church. That is, the Church declares the Grace of God but does not impart it in the Sacraments. The reason an infant is not admitted to the table (or a young boy) has nothing to do with greater confidence that this disciple is truly elect and this one is not but it has everything to do with maturity. Certainly Christ did not wait until He was 12 years old to be regenerated that He might participate.

We also ought to keep our categories straight about what we do in this life. Adult disciples, no more than children, do not keep the covenant. Christ does.

Can you clarify for me what you mean by the term PR?

Stephen · #61 (**permalink**) 02-09-2008, 05:13 PM

Never mind, PR means Presumptive Regeneration.