In his A Treatise on Baptism, Matthew Henry writes:

"As far as the parents are concerned, we are sure, that the children are not so regenerated, as not to need good instructions, when they become capable of them, and yet are so regenerated, that if they die in infancy, parents may take comfort from their baptism in reference to their salvation: and as to the children, when they grow up, we are sure, that their baptismal regeneration, without something more, is not sufficient to bring them to heaven: and yet it may be urged, (as I said before,) in praying to god to give them grace, and in persuading them to submit to it."

Can someone clarify what Henry is intimating with his allusion to baptismal regeneration?

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Daddy
Member of TRBC. My Blog
The Puritan Pub (Team Blog)
Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

He is demonstrating his ability to fit lots of information into a single sentence.

Just kidding, I don't have any idea.

__________________
Dan Pemberton
Vacaville, CA

Member, First Baptist Church San Luis Obispo
Formerly ABUSA (We left, so I guess that makes us American Baptists Unleashed!)

Although he isn't using the terms exactly the way we would today, Henry appears to be teaching that all baptized infants who die in infancy are saved but that those surviving infancy should not presume they are saved based on their being baptized. I don't think he is necessarily using regenerated in the FV sense wherein there is some kind of temporary union with Christ by way of baptism even for the reprobate. I think the old divines sometimes used the term regeneration to signify the entrance into the visible church. Others who are more well read in this area perhaps could clarify.

Now you answer mine

__________________
Chris Poe--Attending Grace Community Baptist Church, Mandeville, LA

"There never was a man in the world without a creed. What is a creed? A creed is what you believe. What is a confession? It is a declaration of what you believe. That declaration may be oral or it may be committed to writing, but the creed is there either expressed or implied."—B.H. Carroll

"Baptising your kids doesn't do anything so miraculous that you parents are off the hook concerning your responsibility to teach your kids about Christianity, but at the very least having it done can give you comfort in the case of premature death, in that they have been introduced into the covenant, and it's more than reasonable to expect that you will see them again in heaven".

__________________
Tim Vaughan, 48 years old, member PCA church but currently attending EV Free church. San Luis Obispo County, California.

Forgive my own lack of clarity. I categorically reject that Henry believed in Baptismal Regeneration as we would understand it; so what I'm trying to find out is what particularly does his usage of the term regeneration here mean? Fred, you've alluded to Henry's A Treatise on Baptism, what did you think about he aforequoted statement?

Doesn't an answer from me settle it? As I stated above, I agree that he is not using the term baptismal regeneration in the Roman Catholic or FV sense. Many if not most reformed paedobaptists would agree with what he wrote about baptized infants dying in infancy.

Maybe this?

__________________
Brad
PCA Member
Virginia

They are "not so regenerated" "yet so regenerated"? Okaaayyy...

"...yet are so regenerated that, if they die in infancy, parents may take comfort from their baptism in reference to their salvation..." Sounds like baptismal regeneration to me.

Generally, this paragraph is, to me, quite confusing.

__________________
Richard T. Zuelch, M.Div
Ruling Elder, OPC (not currently serving)
Westminster Presbyterian Church, CA (OPC)
www.reiterations.wordpress.com
www.foft.wordpress.com

It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire and ice - there are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia. - Frank Zappa (1940-1993)

I agree, Richard. Confusing at best, disconcerting at worst.

Anyone else?

My opinion: I don't like it and I think it confuses categories.

I wouldn't want to speak in terms of regeneration the way that he did for the confusion it presents. It's sufficient to speak about the things that are revealed (Covenant participation and belief in Christ) rather than the things that only God knows.

I think the reason why we have confidence when our children die is that they were in the Covenant of Grace, set apart from the world by God's Word itself, and we have no revealed or circumstantial information that would undermine our every confidence that they are with the Lord. The Word considers little ones born into believing households to be disciples. Just like we don't doubt the salvation of a grown man who is a disciple we don't doubt little ones who are disciples. In neither case do we judge based on regeneration, which only God knows.

__________________
Rich
Okinawa, Japan

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I just had to stop and and wonder "What was he thinkin' when he wrote this?"

Don't get me wrong, it might be possible to understand this without going off the deep end. The term regeneration has taken on a more limited meaning than it used to have in theological parlance.

There is, after all, a sense of life, or the appearance of life, in the parable of the sower. Hebrews speaks of tasting of the heavenly gift.

I just believe that later distinctions were useful for the reasons that we've seen where people start using language like the above and construct views that some of the Baptized have a half-way union with Christ.