PatrickTMcWilliams
Puritan Board Freshman
Could someone please explain, in a nutshell, Abraham Kuyper's understanding of Presumptive Regeneration, and if it differs from other possible views of Presumptive Regeneration?
I always thought PR was the argument for paedobaptism that runs thusly: Baptism is to be administered to the regenerate; infants are to be presumed regenerate; therefore baptism is to be applied to infants.
However, I recently read a description of PR, citing Kuyper especially, which presented quite a different view. Basically: Baptism regenerates elect infants only; we cannot know which infants are elect; therefore, we baptize all infants; and, therefore, we presume that all baptized infants are regenerate until they prove otherwise.
Hopefully somebody can clear this up, because I see this as a huge difference in approach, and a possible misunderstanding that needs to be immediately cleared up. Thanks!
I always thought PR was the argument for paedobaptism that runs thusly: Baptism is to be administered to the regenerate; infants are to be presumed regenerate; therefore baptism is to be applied to infants.
However, I recently read a description of PR, citing Kuyper especially, which presented quite a different view. Basically: Baptism regenerates elect infants only; we cannot know which infants are elect; therefore, we baptize all infants; and, therefore, we presume that all baptized infants are regenerate until they prove otherwise.
Hopefully somebody can clear this up, because I see this as a huge difference in approach, and a possible misunderstanding that needs to be immediately cleared up. Thanks!