Ron,

Thanks for the reminder, and I hope my post did not imply anything other than what your subsequent post conveyed.

My intention was not to argue that the covenant was made even to the reprobate, but rather than the sign is conferred based upon an external objective status, and not the internal reality of the baptist.

However, I would argue (and I believe you would also) that the Christian should presume his children to be saved because the passing on of the faith generationally is the normative standard God indicates in His Word. The main caveat being that the normative standard includes the normative means, which is the faithful obedience of parents to train their children to fear the Lord.

Best to you brother,
~Joshua

__________________
Joshua Butcher
PCA
College Station, TX

Joshua,

I don't know that you implied anything different than what I wrote but I do like to make the point clear that the promise is to the elect alone; so to say that the promises are "given" to everyone born of professing believers is a bit unclear to me.

As for presuming children to be saved, I'm not altogether happy with the term "presume" and I certainly don't base anything upon what I believe to be "normative".

We do not know whether it is normative that God saves the children of professing believers. We can only discern whether it is normative that God brings to pass a credible profession of faith in them. Yet even if a credible profession of faith among children of professing believers has been normative in most places and at most times, God could change what is historically normative should he so desire. Accordingly, I think it would be a mistake to base things on what is normative because what is normative has to do with what God is choosing to do, or not do, with the Joneses in the church at any point in history. Accordingly, I would suggest that we ignore what seems to be normative but rather behave according to biblical precept with respect to how we are to regard our covenant children. God teaches in his word that our offspring are to be regarded as in Christ, which is why we baptize them. This precept of how we are to regard our children is to be followed even if we are living in a time where it becomes normative for God to do more grafting out than not. When we think about it further, we can see that basing practice on what is normative can cause one to do the wrong thing (in times when God is withholding grace, we would end up not regarding our children as in Christ). Even if what is normative causes us to do the right thing (in times when God is pouring out his blessings upon covenant families), it would be for the wrong reason. Precept is the issue, not providence.

Presumption often connotes taking something for granted. Someone who is “presumptuous” is someone who is not merely assuming something to be true. Rather, presumption can imply taking something for granted, as if what was being assumed was thought of as deserved apart from any means – in this case grace. Now I appreciate that those who favorably own the term “presumptive regeneration” understand grace and the need for it. So, it might be semantic more than anything, but let's see if those who own the term will agree with this:

Let’s keep in mind the distinction between regarding and believing. Let’s also keep in mind that not to believe x is true does not mean to believe x is false. {It might be true that you don’t believe that someone is saved (or that Dover is the capital of Delaware), but that is not to say that you believe he is lost (or that Wilmington is the capital of Delaware). You might have nothing to base an opinion on.} With that in view, I regarded my infants as united to the risen Christ. In other words, I regarded (treated) my infants as regenerate, having the seed of faith and repentance, which in time was to be exercised in belief and turning - as disciples not devils – which is to be a matter of life, not a one time occurrence. Did I assume (believe) they were as I regarded them to be? In other words, did I believe them to be regenerate and united to Christ? (Let’s get an exception out of the way first. If one of them died in infancy, then given that I believed they were elect, it stands to follow that I would have also believed such a one to be regenerate prior to their passing.) With regard to covenant children who are not taken in infancy, I don’t know what I would base such a belief upon because I don’t know that Scripture has a precept on the matter. I do believe I have reason to believe that God will convert the children of faithful parents, even at a very young age when instruction can be discerned, but whether God typically converts in the womb or at the font - I don’t believe it to be true, but nor do I disbelieve he operates that way. God might prefer to convert with the Word being sung by a mother with her child at her breast, or when her water breaks, or when water is poured in the name of the Trinity, or at inception, or he might not. I do believe that those who staunchly confess "presumptive regeneration" transition from hope to belief where the children's conversion is concerned. I also believe that many of these pray for their infants that God would regenerate them if he hasn't done so already, which is something I have no burden to pray for with my pastor or wife and now all my girls.

Yours in Christ,

Ron

__________________
Ronald W. DiGiacomo / Ruling Elder
Christ Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Elkton, Maryland

http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com