Presumptive Regeneration / Paedocommunion and R.C.Sproul Jnr and the RPCGA

[Steve Owen]

I don't want to intrude upon private grief, but I'd be interested to receive reaction to this.

http://www.theparchment.org/documents/rpcga.pdf

I was particularly intrigued to see the close connection made between Presumptive Regeneration and Paedo-Communion:-

Pastor Greg Poorman who
attended the 2005 Pastor´s Camp also testifies of R. C. Sproul Jr. was teaching
"˜presumptive regeneration´ and "˜padeo-communion (sic)´

To me this seems only logical. If one 'presumes' that one's child is regenerate (contra John 3:6 ) then why would one not 'presume' that he may take the Lord's Supper? If John the Baptist, as Scott constantly tells us, was regenerate in the womb so that he could discern the Lord's body in embryo in Luke 1:41, why could he not discern it in figure (cf. 1Cor 11:29 ) as soon as he was weaned?

Just wondering......

Martin

[Edited on 2-3-2006 by Martin Marprelate]

[Edited on 2-3-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Martin,
Regeneration is not conversion and conversion is not regeneration! The bible explicitly commands that one examine themself prior to taking the supper; it is crystal clear. Sproul Jr. et. al. are blowing this one in that regard.

Martin,
I never said that John the Baptist could 'discern' the Lords body in utero. Where did you get that from???

[Edited on 2-3-2006 by Scott Bushey]

 

[cupotea]

Regeneration is not conversion and conversion is not regeneration! The bible explicitly commands that one examine themself prior to taking the supper; it is crystal clear. Sproul Jr. et. al. are blowing this one in that regard.

Correct. There is no biblical, nor historical, *necessary* connection between regeneration and fitness for reception of Holy Communion. Even the papists know this and delay communion until after the child's ability to make a confession of sin.

Examination is, indeed, a biblical/divine requirement *prior* to reception. Otherwise the sacrament bestows condemnation rather than blessing.

 

[LadyCalvinist]

I'm confused. I thought conversion meant you have been/are regenerate. Please explain.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by LadyCalvinist
I'm confused. I thought conversion meant you have been/are regenerate. Please explain.

The order of salvation includes the following steps:

election - regeneration - conversion (faith & repentance) - justification - adoption - sanctification - glorification

(cf. Rom 8:29-30)


Notice that regeneration is not synonymous with conversion; neither is it synonymous with justification.

You must be regenerated *before* you can see the kingdom of heaven or enter it (John 3:3-5).

*After* you have been regenerated, *then* you have faith, repent, and receive justification. Of course, all of these can happen within a split second. But the guys on this board are arguing that "it ain't necessarily so". They are suggesting that a child can be regenerated in the womb, but not come to conversion (faith & repentance) until later in life. The ordo salutis gets put "on hold" for a while, if you will.




[Edited on 2-3-2006 by biblelighthouse]

 

[biblelighthouse]

For the record, I do believe in Presumptive Regeneration. I agree with John Calvin, Herman Witsius, the Synod of Dordt, Matthew McMahon, and Scott Bushey on this.

Also for the record, I do believe in paedocommunion.

However, I AGREE with McMahon and Bushey that Presumptive Regeneration alone is NOT a sufficient warrant for paedocommunion. If I were to agree with their exegesis of 1 Corinthians 10:17, and if I were to agree with their exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11, then I would STILL believe in Presumptive Regeneration, but I would STOP believing in paedocommunion.

Believing in one does not necessitate believing in the other.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

I was particularly intrigued to see the close connection made between Presumptive Regeneration and Paedo-Communion



To me this seems only logical. If one 'presumes' that one's child is regenerate (contra John 3:6 ) then why would one not 'presume' that he may take the Lord's Supper?

Many of the Reformation giants believed in Presumptive Regeneration, but did not hold to paedocommunion.

Please check out the Reformed and Puritan quotes I gave in this thread.



BTW, PR people believe John 3:6 just as much as you do. We agree that "that which is born of flesh is flesh". We just believe the rest of John 3:6 as well, which says "that which is born of Spirit is spirit". And God can regenerate whenever He pleases. And we happen to believe that God usually chooses to regenerate people really really early in their lives. Nothing about this belief is out of accord with John 3:6.



[Edited on 2-3-2006 by biblelighthouse]

 

[Steve Owen]

Many of the Reformation giants believed in Presumptive Regeneration, but did not hold to paedocommunion.

This of course is true, though it does not make them right.

Personally, I am glad to see the RPCGA associating Presumptive Regeneration with Paedo-Communion and coming out against both.

'That which is born of the flesh is flesh' To say that one can be born again before one is born the first time is putting the cart before the horse

Martin

 

[Scott Bushey]

Martin,
The elect infant dying in utero is not disadvantaged if he dies before actually coming down the birth canal.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

'That which is born of the flesh is flesh' To say that one can be born again before one is born the first time is putting the cart before the horse

Then you need to tell the Holy Spirit that He really "got the cart before the horse" with John the Baptist. Regardless of what you think happens most of the time, you cannot refute the fact that John the Baptist was regenerate in the womb, prior to physical birth (cf. Luke 1:15,41). God had no trouble regenerating him prior to physical birth. And I do not believe that God was contradicting John 3:6, which He Himself wrote.

:bigsmile:

Scott put it very well:

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

The elect infant dying in utero is not disadvantaged if he dies before actually coming down the birth canal.

Martin, to believe otherwise, you would have to argue that all children dying before physical birth go straight to hell. You would have to believe that no aborted babies are elect. But you don't believe that, do you? Of course not. Therefore, God must regenerate them BEFORE they have a physical birth.

And if He can do it for them, then he can do it for anyone. Just because an infant has just barely experienced the physical birth does not mean that he/she has not already experienced the Spiritual birth.

 

[pastorway]

Here is my question - in this declaration about Sproul Jr and the others, they are accussed of teaching presumptive regeneration. They are also accused of teaching paedo-communion.

Is the RPCGA saying by this indictment that is it a violation of the churches belief to teach presumptive regeneration?

The document does not say they were teaching "presumptive regeneration that leads to paedocommunion." It says, as Martin quoted (emphasis added by pastorway), ""˜presumptive regeneration´ and "˜padeo-communion (sic)."

Is the RPCGA saying that its pastors cannot teach "presumptive regeneration"?

Phillip

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by pastorway

Is the RPCGA saying that its pastors cannot teach "presumptive regeneration"?

That is a good question.

I hope the answer is "no" . . . otherwise, Pastor Matthew McMahon will not be permitted to teach PR, even though he believes in it!

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by pastorway
Here is my question - in this declaration about Sproul Jr and the others, they are accussed of teaching presumptive regeneration. They are also accused of teaching paedo-communion.

Is the RPCGA saying by this indictment that is it a violation of the churches belief to teach presumptive regeneration?

The document does not say they were teaching "presumptive regeneration that leads to paedocommunion." It says, as Martin quoted (emphasis added by pastorway), ""˜presumptive regeneration´ and "˜padeo-communion (sic)."

Is the RPCGA saying that its pastors cannot teach "presumptive regeneration"?

Phillip

Not at all. As a matter of fact, we (I and the Presbytary) had some long discussions about it during my own ordination. The point of the discussion was to not allow PR to become PC, or follow a line of thought that deviates from historic PR to become the new fanlged Federal Visionist "PC" idea. (As Jospeh said in another post - one does not lead the other, and it doesn't).

 

[Steve Owen]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Martin,
The elect infant dying in utero is not disadvantaged if he dies before actually coming down the birth canal.

I think you and Joseph need to take this up with the Lord Jesus Christ and explain to Him where He has got things wrong. He is the author of John 3:6, not I.

With regard to those who die in infancy, or indeed, before, we lay them with confidence in the hands of 'Him who is able to do.....above all that we ask or think.' Exactly how He does it I think we may leave safely to Him. That does not affect the very clear statement of John 3:6, nor indeed of Psalm 51:5.

Matthew wrote:_

The point of the discussion was to not allow PR to become PC, or follow a line of thought that deviates from historic PR to become the new fanlged Federal Visionist "PC" idea. (As Joseph said in another post - one does not lead the other, and it doesn't).

The sad case of Sproul Jnr and his colleagues suggests otherwise.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon

Originally posted by pastorway
Here is my question - in this declaration about Sproul Jr and the others, they are accussed of teaching presumptive regeneration. They are also accused of teaching paedo-communion.

Is the RPCGA saying by this indictment that is it a violation of the churches belief to teach presumptive regeneration?

The document does not say they were teaching "presumptive regeneration that leads to paedocommunion." It says, as Martin quoted (emphasis added by pastorway), ""˜presumptive regeneration´ and "˜padeo-communion (sic)."

Is the RPCGA saying that its pastors cannot teach "presumptive regeneration"?

Phillip

Not at all. As a matter of fact, we (I and the Presbytary) had some long discussions about it during my own ordination. The point of the discussion was to not allow PR to become PC, or follow a line of thought that deviates from historic PR to become the new fanlged Federal Visionist "PC" idea. (As Jospeh said in another post - one does not lead the other, and it doesn't).

But this is similar to the case of Hyper-calvinism and Supralapsarianism, isn't it?

Not all Presumptive Regenerationists are Paedocommunionists, but all Paedocommunionists are Presumptive Regenerationists.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Not all Presumptive Regenerationists are Paedocommunionists, but all Paedocommunionists are Presumptive Regenerationists.

Are you sure about that?

A number of Anglican and Lutheran churches practice paedocommunion, but I rather doubt that they hold to PR.

How about Augustine? I'm pretty sure he did NOT hold to PR. However, he certainly did hold to paedocommunion.

 

[yeutter]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Not all Presumptive Regenerationists are Paedocommunionists, but all Paedocommunionists are Presumptive Regenerationists.

Are you sure about that?

A number of Anglican and Lutheran churches practice paedocommunion, but I rather doubt that they hold to PR.

How about Augustine? I'm pretty sure he did NOT hold to PR. However, he certainly did hold to paedocommunion.

All Anglicans and Lutherans and Lutherans that I know either teach Baptismal Regeneration, or presumptive regeneration. The Lutheran Confessions expressly teach Baptismal Regeneration.

Most of the conservative Anglicans object to paedocommunion. They believe those young people with sufficient discernment to partake of the Lord's Supper should make profession of faith and be confirmed.

 

[cupotea]

All Anglicans and Lutherans and Lutherans that I know either teach Baptismal Regeneration, or presumptive regeneration. The Lutheran Confessions expressly teach Baptismal Regeneration.

Most of the conservative Anglicans object to paedocommunion. They believe those young people with sufficient discernment to partake of the Lord's Supper should make profession of faith and be confirmed.

Correct about Lutherans/Anglicans and baptismal regeneration. In fact, because I was so used to thinking in BR terms, I didn't even know what presumptive regneration was when I first ran across it. I had to do a bit of research to get the idea.

Also correct about their objections to paedocommunion. For most "Lutherans" (ELCA - that's why I use the term loosely) some "age of discrimination" is necessary. 7 years old? 5th grade? Who knows?

But most LCMS congregations wait to commune only *after* confirmation.

This is why I said earlier there is no *necessary* connection between baptism and communion. And this includes not just those who hold to baptismal regeneration, but also those who hold instead to baptismal covenantlism.

Bottom line: PR - maybe good, maybe not. PC - very bad juju.

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
As a matter of fact, we (I and the Presbytary) had some long discussions about it during my own ordination. The point of the discussion was to not allow PR to become PC, or follow a line of thought that deviates from historic PR to become the new fanlged Federal Visionist "PC" idea. (As Jospeh said in another post - one does not lead the other, and it doesn't).

But this is similar to the case of Hyper-calvinism and Supralapsarianism, isn't it?

Not all Presumptive Regenerationists are Paedocommunionists, but all Paedocommunionists are Presumptive Regenerationists.

Fred:

That may be true, but Paedocommunion puts a different slant on what exactly is meant by Presumptive Regeneration. As you say, not all PR-ists are PC-ists. So it follows that, if they do not see a logical necessity between the two, that they have a different understanding of it. My understanding of PR, for example, obviates PC, rather than leads to it. So it cannot be the same PR as that of RC jr.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Thanks for the info on Anglicans and PR. I did not realize that.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by JohnV
My understanding of PR, for example, obviates PC, rather than leads to it.

Interesting. I cannot imagine how that can be.

I personally believe in both PR and PC.

Please help me understand your view of PR. And especially help me understand how in the world your view of it could obviate PC.

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by JohnV
My understanding of PR, for example, obviates PC, rather than leads to it.

Interesting. I cannot imagine how that can be.

I personally believe in both PR and PC.

Please help me understand your view of PR. And especially help me understand how in the world your view of it could obviate PC.

Joseph:

I would really like to revisit this topic as well. There are new members on board that were not here when we were going through this before. And also I've been making some notes on the topic again.

Since that time we've also dealt with whether it should be Presumptive Regeneration or Presumptive Election. This has given me cause to re-evaluate my thinking.

If you don't mind, we can take this up in another thread. As it is, I'm a bit preoccupied right now on another topic. So if we start something on it, I won't be giving it my all. But I do need to go through it again with the help of those who think differently.

This thread, though, is about RC. jr. and his PR, not about mine. I was only stating that if one view of it leads to PC and another doesn't, then there has to be a difference in the respective PR views, logical errors notwithstanding.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon

Originally posted by pastorway
Here is my question - in this declaration about Sproul Jr and the others, they are accussed of teaching presumptive regeneration. They are also accused of teaching paedo-communion.

Is the RPCGA saying by this indictment that is it a violation of the churches belief to teach presumptive regeneration?

The document does not say they were teaching "presumptive regeneration that leads to paedocommunion." It says, as Martin quoted (emphasis added by pastorway), ""˜presumptive regeneration´ and "˜padeo-communion (sic)."

Is the RPCGA saying that its pastors cannot teach "presumptive regeneration"?

Phillip

Not at all. As a matter of fact, we (I and the Presbytary) had some long discussions about it during my own ordination. The point of the discussion was to not allow PR to become PC, or follow a line of thought that deviates from historic PR to become the new fanlged Federal Visionist "PC" idea. (As Jospeh said in another post - one does not lead the other, and it doesn't).

But this is similar to the case of Hyper-calvinism and Supralapsarianism, isn't it?

Not all Presumptive Regenerationists are Paedocommunionists, but all Paedocommunionists are Presumptive Regenerationists.

Fred, I'm not sure. I could see how some could be PC and not PR, but think covenantally different (like many FV guys who dismantle the "covenants" for "covenant" and thus make thier ecclesiology means something different overall). Does NT Wright or James Dunn believe in PR - no. But thier ecclesiology gives way to opening up a PC "allowance".

Many who are PC are PR, no doubt. But I don't think if you are PC you have to be PR.

 

[LawrenceU]

Martin,
The elect infant dying in utero is not disadvantaged if he dies before actually coming down the birth canal.

Well, that is playing right into the modern concept of life. Birth, in one eastern/Hebrew sense is the moment of conception. Thus, this line of argumentative support is not supportive.

 

[sastark]

Am I reading this correctly? Did the moderator, Kenneth Talbot, depose the Session of St. Peter's without the vote of the Presbytery? I'm unclear on that.

 

[VictorBravo]

Originally posted by sastark
Am I reading this correctly? Did the moderator, Kenneth Talbot, depose the Session of St. Peter's without the vote of the Presbytery? I'm unclear on that.

No, the Presbytery voted. The moderator communicated the result.

Vic

 

[sastark]

Originally posted by victorbravo

Originally posted by sastark
Am I reading this correctly? Did the moderator, Kenneth Talbot, depose the Session of St. Peter's without the vote of the Presbytery? I'm unclear on that.

No, the Presbytery voted. The moderator communicated the result.

Vic

Ok, that's what I figured happened, but wasn't clear from reading the text. (That is, I was not clear.) Thanks for clarifying.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

UPDATE on finality of issues:

A letter has been sent and is in route from Westminster Presbytery on this issue accepting the 4 elder's repentance, and apology, and also apologizing for the Presbytery allowing one who held to Paedo-communion into the Presbytery and not revealing to RC Jr. the amendment that should have stopped them from allowing him into the fellowship. In other words, based on the vow, this all should have been a non-issue. But since the vow was broken, it became an issue that should have never occurred because the amendment will not allow ANYONE who holds to PC into the church. This does not excuse the 4 elders, thus their repentance. It does further disallow them from being ministers in the RPCGA.

It is a public letter for all to read. As it is posted on the net, to follow up, those interested should read it. I am not sure what site it will be on.

However, I'm glad it is resolved, as is the Presbytery.

 

[Bryan]

Sproul Jr.'s Letter

Westminster Presbytery's Letter

Bryan
SDG

 

[ServantOfKing]

Does anyone know if RC Sproul's church St. Andrews Chapel practices Paedocommunion?