I am new to this Paedo/Credo Baptism debate. I see you all have be hashing this out for some time, but I have some basic and fundamental questions.

I'll start with this one:

1) I know that Paedos presume their children to be "covenant children", but do they presume them to be regenerate as well? How does this coincide with the belief that all persons are born in sin? Do Paedos presume a time when regeneration takes place?


Rick

__________________
The Piper will lead us to reason...

Rick Larson
Hope Christian and Missionary Alliance Church
Apple Valley, MN.

I Think I'm getting a pretty good answer from this thread:
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/vi...077&page=1

[quote:8dfa7dbbe5][i:8dfa7dbbe5]Originally posted by Rick Larson[/i:8dfa7dbbe5]
1) I know that Paedos presume their children to be "covenant children", but do they presume them to be regenerate as well? How does this coincide with the belief that all persons are born in sin? Do Paedos presume a time when regeneration takes place?
[/quote:8dfa7dbbe5]

There are two basic views in the reformed peado camp.
BOth have in common that their children are in covenant with God and are part of the visible church, to be raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, or as disciples (instead of pagans).

The difference is rather slight. Some peados hold to a form of presumptive regeneration (PR), where you presume that your children are regenerate and to be raised as Christians because they are part of the church and the promise is made to them.
The other view is called presumptive election (PE) where you presume that your children are elect, and will eventually be regenerate if they aren't already, and so you raise your children in the ways of the Lord so that one day they will take hold of the promise on their own, or as Thornwell called them, "heirs apparent."

Notice that either view is a presumption based upon the evidence we have, the command and promise of God, that our children are set apart from the world by way of covenant and that God's promises are made to us and to our descendents. So he is a God to us and our children. But again, it is a presumption. Whether our children are actually regenerate and/or elect is God's business. We fully acknowledge that "Not all Israel are Israel."

Either view does not change the fact that our children were born in sin with a sin nature. John the Baptist was regenerate in the womb, yet he as well had a sin nature and needed redemption through Christ. Our presumption does not make them regenerate or elect. That is God's business. Our job as parents is to raise our children under the whole counsel of the Word of God who has brought these children into is covenant. This includes teaching about their total depravity, guilt of sin, and their need for a Savior. Their need for discipline is one practical way to make this a reality to them. When they sin, we correct them and teach them why they sinned, what they deserve for their sin, and how the must go to Christ for forgiveness. This is all part of teaching them what our covenant God expects of them, and what He provides for them. This full-orbed teaching then will expose the Pharisee, and sanctify the truly regenerate.

This presumption is the same made by the baptists too. They presume someone regenerate/elect by their testimony. It does not mean that the convert is actually elect. You just treat him as such and include him in the house of faith based upon the evidence you have until he proves otherwise.

__________________
Patrick
OPC
MDiv, RTS Jackson.

"He does well, that discourses of Christ; but he does infinitely better, that by experimental knowledge, feeds and lives on Christ." Thomas Brooks.

Rick,

Regeneration is something that is invisible to our eyes, and as such, we cannot see who is and is not regenerate. However, God has given us the sign of baptism that points to regeneration (among other things), and is administered to God's people [i:a3698e7e94]covenantally[/i:a3698e7e94], i.e., to us and our children. So those of us who believe in presumptive regeneration (not all paedo's do) see the covenant promises of God sealed to us in baptism, and as such, we believe those promises and likewise believe that those who receive the sign also have the thing signified.

Now of course, it is always brought up that not everyone that is baptized is necessarily regenerate, and that is true. But given the promises God has given us, do we have a [i:a3698e7e94]prima facie[/i:a3698e7e94] reason to deny that the baptized individual (in this case, a covenant infant) has been given the grace of regeneration?

Also, it is important to remember that we do not deny that the child NEEDS regeneration. Nobody is born without a sin nature, not even covenant children. The fact that we assert that the child needs REgeneration assumes that we also believe his first generation at conception was insufficient. The idea that God gives this grace to persons in their infancy in no way suggests that the child is born without a sin nature. God can regenerate whenever and however he wills.

Does that make sense?

[Edited on 6-30-2004 by luvroftheWord]

You're a quick one, Patrick. :P

[quote:3f0d850fbb][i:3f0d850fbb]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:3f0d850fbb]
You're a quick one, Patrick. :P [/quote:3f0d850fbb]
Only beat you by a couple seconds :bs2:

Thanks guys.

I really don't mean to beat a dead horse, as I'm sure this subject might be becoming for you, but it's new for me. I'll come back to this after I've digested a few things here.

Let's assume I have accepted the paedo position (which I have not...yet) and I now have my unbaptized 3 and 5 year old to deal with. I can see where I could just have them baptized. Let's assume they are actually 11 and 14. Shouldn't they now, at this point, be baptized according to "repent and believe", instead of simply at my "fatherly command"? And what if they did NOT repent and believe? Then they should not be baptized, right? But if the 3 year old appears unrepentant, she should?

I feel like I'm confusing myself. Am I making any sense here?

~Rick

Rick, that is a question about which I have often wondered. I am sure our paedobaptist brothers will come to our intellectual rescue.

Lon

[quote:97b666ef0c][i:97b666ef0c]Originally posted by Rick Larson[/i:97b666ef0c]
Let's assume I have accepted the paedo position (which I have not...yet) and I now have my unbaptized 3 and 5 year old to deal with. I can see where I could just have them baptized. Let's assume they are actually 11 and 14. Shouldn't they now, at this point, be baptized according to "repent and believe", instead of simply at my "fatherly command"? And what if they did NOT repent and believe? Then they should not be baptized, right? But if the 3 year old appears unrepentant, she should?
[/quote:97b666ef0c]
I would say, yes they are to be baptized, you and your household. Your children have the same promise as you. God promises to be a Father to them as much as to you. And they are now set apart from the pagan world to be disciples of Christ, and raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. As to what age you would make the cut off? I'm not sure. That has been discussed on other threads, you may want to do a search. It really depends at what point you consider the child to be his own household. In the household baptisms mentioned in Scripture, a cut off age is never noted either way so I am reluctant to set one. I personally would put that point somewhere in the teen years on a case by case basis. If they were willing to learn more then I would include them in the baptism, if hostile to the faith, then I would not include them. Either way, they must still be taught about the promises and obligations of the covenant God has brought them into (again, the whole counsel of God). Again, our duty is to raise them in the ways of the Lord as He has revealed, God decides whether or not they are part of the spiritual Israel.

[Edited on 7-1-2004 by puritansailor]

Patrick,
Do you treat adults the same?

__________________
Scott Bushey
Husband to Tina, father to Nicole, Danielle and Zoe
Member First Presbyterian Church of Margate PCA

No. They are able to show fruit and make a profession of faith on their own.

Sorry pat,
I misread your post.