Presumptive Regeneration

[SavedSinner]

What is to be made of Presumptive Regeneration (PR), which has become so popular in the modern, Reformed Church?

Jesus told Nicodemus, who was a teacher in Israel and externally in the Covenant in good standing, “You must be born again.” (Jn. 3:7)

It is largely not known that the classical era of Presbyterianism in the 1600’s largely argued against Presumptive Regeneration in their controversy with the Separatists, Independents and Congregationalists, who all advocated it.

While the English presbyterians Stephen Marshall, William Perkins and Cornelius Burges held to a very soft form of PR, a mild form and a moderate form of PR respectively, yet in the debates where the doctrine came fully into the spotlight, in the most extensive writings on the subject in Church history in the English language, these mid-1600's presbyterians (articles and books are linked on the page) argued strongly against the doctrine:

Scots: Samuel Rutherford, David Dickson, James Fergusson and James Wood;
English: William Rathband, Thomas Blake and Francis Fullwood;
Dutch: Willem Apollonius.​

The Introduction to the topic on the webpage (written by myself) argues extensively from Scripture against PR (and is one of the most detailed and thorough contemporary articles on the subject that I am aware of).

Presumptive Regeneration​

There is a special section in the Introduction, at the end, on ‘Raising Children in the Covenant’.

As this topic is likely to stir a bit of chiming in and debate, please get a good feel of the webpage's Introduction and resources before assuming things or making claims that are refuted by what you haven't read (Prov. 18:13).

I will probably not be commenting below; my article says plenty.

If you hold to PR, I hope these resources bring fuller light on the subject that would encourage you to reconsider the topic more fully. If you do not know much about PR, do not have a strong opinion, or if you do not believe in PR, I hope this page is of help to you and confirms to you what the Scriptures do teach about this subject.

Blessings to all.

Travis,
Is this available in PDF? The website has this brown background, so for reading a hundred pages it would be easier in a lighter background.

 

[Afterthought]

You could, of course, print it as a PDF in Chrome. Or get CutePDFWriter or something. You wouldn't be able to use the hyperlinks though.

Edit: The hyperlinks do work, but they are not as nice.

 

[Dachaser]

David,
I think you missed Patrick's point entirely. He was calling you to account for your use of Reformed, covenantal language ("Would that not fall under though raising them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord, but still not really saying they are actually saved as of yet?") while arguing from a baptistic position.

I was discussing this from a Reformed Baptist perspective. As I would see my children as being under the umbrella of the local church , and has beeing in a christian home, due to my wife and I being both saved, but both of them still needed to profess faith in Jesus to be seen as included under and in the NC itself, and the Lord used the scriptures and prayers as means to bring both of them to salvation, by the Holy spirit working in and over them in his due time.

 

[Gforce9]

I was discussing this from a Reformed Baptist perspective. As I would see my children as being under the umbrella of the local church , and has beeing in a christian home, due to my wife and I being both saved, but both of them still needed to profess faith in Jesus to be seen as included under and in the NC itself, and the Lord used the scriptures and prayers as means to bring both of them to salvation, by the Holy spirit working in and over them in his due time.

Again, you are answering your own question and not interacting with what has been posed to you. You did not answer from a confessional Baptist position, but the language you used was more Reformed and covenantal. I'm not trying to be harsh, David, but when it appears you have not tried to read or comprehend what someone else has said, then go on to assert your own premise, it can be exasperating.....

 

[Puritan Sailor]

The lord can still take his scriptures though being presented to even the unsaved child and use them to bring him to a saving knowledge of Jesus still, correct?

No one disputes that God works through the Scriptures to produce saving faith.

The point I was making to you is that you claimed to want to raise your child in the fear of the Lord. To live in the fear of the Lord is a covenantal relationship. The fear of the Lord is a component of faith. So you can't raise your children to fear the Lord without at the same time teaching him how to exercise faith in the Lord. And you can't call him to daily live in the fear of the Lord without at least presupposing they have some sort of relationship to the Lord already.

If you presuppose they have no relationship to the Lord at all, then all you can do is make evangelistic appeals to your children until they actually profess faith, then you may train them in the fear of the Lord.

 

[Dachaser]

No one disputes that God works through the Scriptures to produce saving faith.

The point I was making to you is that you claimed to want to raise your child in the fear of the Lord. To live in the fear of the Lord is a covenantal relationship. The fear of the Lord is a component of faith. So you can't raise your children to fear the Lord without at the same time teaching him how to exercise faith in the Lord. And you can't call him to daily live in the fear of the Lord without at least presupposing they have some sort of relationship to the Lord already.

If you presuppose they have no relationship to the Lord at all, then all you can do is make evangelistic appeals to your children until they actually profess faith, then you may train them in the fear of the Lord.

They both have professed Jesus is their Lord/Savior, thank God for His saving grace, and am still trying to wade through how to say certain things to you and others here in the form of how Reformed would say and speak to these issues.

 

[Dachaser]

Again, you are answering your own question and not interacting with what has been posed to you. You did not answer from a confessional Baptist position, but the language you used was more Reformed and covenantal. I'm not trying to be harsh, David, but when it appears you have not tried to read or comprehend what someone else has said, then go on to assert your own premise, it can be exasperating.....

Please pardon my ignorance here, but I thought that Confessing Baptists and reformed Presbyterians are saying the same thing in regards to children still have to receive Jesus through faith in order to be/get saved?
Neither one of us can know with total certainty that our children have been saved, but still can present time with the gospel, telling them about Jesus, and having them exposed and grow in in the local church under influence of God, scriptures, and His people?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

They both have professed Jesus is their Lord/Savior, thank God for His saving grace, and am still trying to wade through how to say certain things to you and others here in the form of how Reformed would say and speak to these issues.

Then answer the argument posed in response to your earlier statement.

The posed argument begs:

"And you can't call him to daily live in the fear of the Lord without at least presupposing they have some sort of relationship to the Lord already.

If you presuppose they {nb: your children, David} have no relationship to the Lord at all, then all you can do is make evangelistic appeals to your children until they actually profess faith, then you may train them in the fear of the Lord."​

Read the links in my post here. Gather the proper context in view. Provide a direct answer, not just some notional opinion that obfuscates what is actually being implied in the responses you have been given.

The best way to "say certain things" is to practice some discernment in the actual topic, and trepidation when you are not confident about what you are asserting. Do not rush in where others have feared to tread.

Discussions here at PB are more than just, "Me, too!", "I agree!", "Let me restated what has been restated yet again!", etc. These sort of responses are but eructations from the sidelines, a distraction if they are frequently offered up. Just use the Amen! or Like buttons if you want to let it be known where you stand.

If you are going to weigh in, then make every effort to ensure that what you are contributing is not merely stating the obvious to the casual observer, but something that fosters further discussion and edification.

Your posts tend to the dogmatic, yet when they are probed or cross-examined a wee bit, you begin walking them back with "What I meant to say, was..." or words to that effect. If you continue along these lines, is there any wonder that the reader will just begin to ignore your affirmations and assertions, or...become irritated and frustrated?

My number one rule that I try to practice in all walks of life related to discussion:

If I have nothing to say of substance about a topic, I should refrain from giving ample evidence of the fact.
​

Reticence.

 

[Gforce9]

Please pardon my ignorance here,

We all have a lot to learn in all kinds of areas and I do not think you are willfully ignorant, David. I only ask that you really read and digest what some of the guys and gals are trying to say....this is why we are here; to sharpen each other, but that can't happen properly when we're not listening to each other and all answering different questions.......

but I thought that Confessing Baptists and reformed Presbyterians are saying the same thing in regards to children still have to receive Jesus through faith in order to be/get saved?

This is true...there is no disagreement between confessional Baptists and the Reformed here; salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to the glory of God alone. I would only restate the language of "getting saved" to something like "salvation is trusting in the person and work of Christ alone attained by faith alone". It may be my distaste for pop-evangelicalism........

Neither one of us can know with total certainty that our children have been saved, but still can present time with the gospel, telling them about Jesus, and having them exposed and grow in in the local church under influence of God, scriptures, and His people?

All of this is true. There are several differences in how we (Baptist and Reformed) see 1) the terms of the covenant (Baptists see the internal and external administrations as one and the same, Reformed distinguish the two as @BayouHuguenot stated in a recent post somewhere), 2) those who are eligible to be in the covenant (often stated/asked as 'who is a disciple?'), and 3) how much continuity or discontinuity exists between the old covenant and the new.

 

[Dachaser]

I really appreaciate your responses here to me, and trying to make fully the switch from being a Baptist who held strongly to Dispensational theology, to now being one who who see it in terms as a Confessing Baptist would and does, but have been learning that there are also some large differences between reformed baptists and Presbyterians on certain issues.

I am a really unfinished work in progress, having gone from a strong Pentecostal understanding, to traditional Baptist, to now a Confessing one, and also finding out some more areas to learn as in differences between us in some issues still.

 

[Gforce9]

I really appreaciate your response here to me, and trying to make fully the switch from being a Baptist who held strongly to Dispensational theology , to now being one who who see it in terms as a Confessing Baptist would and does, but have been learning that there are also some large differences between reformed baptists and Presbyterians on certain issues.
I am a really unfinished work in progress, having gone from a strong Pentecostal understanding, to traditional Baptist, to now a Confessing one, and also finding out some more areas to learn as in differences between us in some issues still.

We are all a work in progress, David! Peace to you.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Do not all Christian parents, who teach their children about Jesus and salvation though, raising them up in a local church, are doing the same appealing to the Lord to use those means to reach and save them, regardless whether Baptists/Presbyterian?

Yes. The difference is whether or not you count them as part of the visible Church or not. Do you treat them as visible Christians or not?

Baptists do not count their children as part of the visible Church or as "in the Lord" in any sense, at least not in any sense that relates to everyday child raising. You can only be "in the Lord" if you are regenerate. That is where the inconsistency lies, and which I was trying to point out to you.

On the one hand, baptists say their children are not believers and not part of the church (officially). Yet at the same time, they claim to raise their children in the fear of the Lord, which is teaching them to exercise faith. On the one hand, you teach them and expect them to pray to God as their "Father" and on the other hand you say "God is not your Father". This tension is not resolved until some sort of conversion experience, giving evidence to their regeneration, which then admits them into the Church.

Presbyterians don't have that category problem because they count children as part of the visible Church, and as "in the Lord" in the same covenantal way as children were counted in the OT. They are treated as children underage and immature, but are still taught to repent, believe, fear the Lord, etc. leaving the actual time of regeneration in God's hands. When they come of age, they make public profession and are admitted into "adult" membership and communion. The time of regeneration is not important for their profession, only that it has happened, and is evidenced by the fruit of their lives.

Hope that answers your question.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I really appreaciate your responses here to me, and trying to make fully the switch from being a Baptist who held strongly to Dispensational theology, to now being one who who see it in terms as a Confessing Baptist would and does, but have been learning that there are also some large differences between reformed baptists and Presbyterians on certain issues.

I am a really unfinished work in progress, having gone from a strong Pentecostal understanding, to traditional Baptist, to now a Confessing one, and also finding out some more areas to learn as in differences between us in some issues still.

David,

Understanding the distinctions between confessional Baptist and Presbyterian views necessitates that one makes very effort to steep themselves in whatever view one claims. I do not think you have come to a good understanding of the LBCF that you have affirmed, much less how the LBCF is distinguished from the Westminster Standards.

I want you to go back and re-read, taking it to heart, my earlier:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/presumptive-regeneration.94777/page-2#post-1157277

 

[Dachaser]

Yes. The difference is whether or not you count them as part of the visible Church or not. Do you treat them as visible Christians or not?

Baptists do not count their children as part of the visible Church or as "in the Lord" in any sense, at least not in any sense that relates to everyday child raising. You can only be "in the Lord" if you are regenerate. That is where the inconsistency lies, and which I was trying to point out to you.

On the one hand, baptists say their children are not believers and not part of the church (officially). Yet at the same time, they claim to raise their children in the fear of the Lord, which is teaching them to exercise faith. On the one hand, you teach them and expect them to pray to God as their "Father" and on the other hand you say "God is not your Father". This tension is not resolved until some sort of conversion experience, giving evidence to their regeneration, which then admits them into the Church.

Presbyterians don't have that category problem because they count children as part of the visible Church, and as "in the Lord" in the same covenantal way as children were counted in the OT. They are treated as children underage and immature, but are still taught to repent, believe, fear the Lord, etc. leaving the actual time of regeneration in God's hands. When they come of age, they make public profession and are admitted into "adult" membership and communion. The time of regeneration is not important for their profession, only that it has happened, and is evidenced by the fruit of their lives.

Hope that answers your question.

Thanks for your response, and would say that Baptist tend to see all children, and persons in general who are attending a local assembly, as being under the visible church, but may be in the actual true Church, depending on if they have received Jesus through faith.
Are you saying that you would see infants once Baptized as under the NC proper, or just part of the local church, and that they still need to receive Jesus through faith in order to be now counted in the NC itself?

 

[Gforce9]

... and would say that Baptist tend to see all children, and persons in general who are attending a local assembly, as being under the visible church,...

I'm not sure what you intended to say here, but generally, Baptists would reject this statement. Non-approved confessors would not be admitted into the visible church until there is good evidence for the elders to approve one for baptism...

 

[Dachaser]

I'm not sure what you intended to say here, but generally, Baptists would reject this statement. Non-approved confessors would not be admitted into the visible church until there is good evidence for the elders to approve one for baptism...

You are correct, as in regards to official church membership, but there are also many who attend who have not yet moved towards getting baptized or commiting to church membership who are saved, but we do strongly encourage them to do both.

 

[Gforce9]

You are correct, as in regards to official church membership, but there are also many who attend who have not yet moved towards getting baptized or commiting to church membership who are saved, but we do strongly encourage them to do both.

But are they "under the N.C." as you asserted earlier?

 

[Dachaser]

A
But are they "under the N.C." as you asserted earlier?

the visible church is not the same as the real church, as only the members in that group are under the NC.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Thanks for your response, and would say that Baptist tend to see all children, and persons in general who are attending a local assembly, as being under the visible church, but may be in the actual true Church, depending on if they have received Jesus through faith.
Are you saying that you would see infants once Baptized as under the NC proper, or just part of the local church, and that they still need to receive Jesus through faith in order to be now counted in the NC itself?

Baptists hesitate to even use the term "visible church" because ideally there should be no visible/invisible distinction when the church is composed of only those who are regenerate. And I have yet to hear a baptist consider his children to be part of the church. Being taught by the Church perhaps, but not part of the Church. So I think you will need to do some more homework within your own tradition there. In my baptistic background, it was very easy for children raised in the church to be considered part of the church, simply because there were raised as part of that community. But you were still not allowed to become a member until you made profession and were baptized. So there was that inconsistency, you felt like and often were treated like part of the community on the one hand, but very clearly were not part of the community on the other.

Presbyterians would argue that there is a visible and invisible dimension to the new covenant, just as there was in the old covenant (i.e "not all Israel are Israel"). Often we use the term external vs. internal members of the covenant, as others mentioned earlier in this thread. But that distinction is one that only God can see.

We on the other hand must live and work within the visible church, within the realm of what we see, what men (and children) profess with their mouths and deeds. We must operate within the visible administration of the covenant. We cannot know who the elect are the way God does. And so for us, we must treat anyone as part of the new covenant who visibly looks like he belongs. He claims Christ as Lord and lives accordingly. It may very well be that he is a liar or hypocrite, and time may reveal that fact through his actions one day. But until that evidence is seen, we must extend a judgment of charity and welcome him as a member, baptize him, and treat him as a Christian and part of the new covenant.

Presbyterians would extend that same judgment of charity to children of believers as well (as Israel did in the OT). They are to be treated as immature Christians, as those who belong to God and thus baptized, and who must be trained up to be mature Christians. They must be taught what it means to fear the Lord, and obey his commands, to seek forgiveness of sins through Christ, and to live as his disciples. It may very well be that some children are not elect, and that fact may be revealed later. But until that evidence is revealed, we treat them as Christians and part of the church, though still underage and immature. Our hope as parents (and pastors) is that these children will be born again and come to know Christ truly at some point along the way through their Christian nurture.

But many will not be able to pin point at what time that regeneration occurred. Since they have been raised within the church and always taught that Jesus is Lord and to believe in him for salvation, they will not be able to say at what point they moved from child-like acceptance of their parents instruction, to personal faith in Christ. To some it seems like they have always believed. Some may eventually rebel, and some may have a dramatic conversion experience. But whether the experience is dramatic or undramatic, we eventually treat them as "adult" Christians based upon their mature claim to believe in Christ with a consistent life.

But from infancy onward, we treat them as members of the new covenant, until they prove otherwise. We do not treat them as if they belong to the world. We do not raise them to be Atheists or Muslims. And since it is impossible to be neutral in the way you raise your children, you raise them to be Christians, and do so under the new covenant administration, since there is no other place to do that.

Hope that helps.

 

[Gforce9]

the visible church is not the same as the real church, as only the members in that group are under the NC.

Without putting words in your mouth, I believe you are trying to say that not everyone who is in the visible church is also in the invisible church. Is that correct?

I wouldn't say the visible church isn't "real", however; it is what God gave the whole world to see, so it is both "real" in the sense that 1) it exists visibly (albeit not perfect) and 2) inside of it, there are real children of the King.

 

[Dachaser]

Without putting words in your mouth, I believe you are trying to say that not everyone who is in the visible church is also in the invisible church. Is that correct?

I wouldn't say the visible church isn't "real", however; it is what God gave the whole world to see, so it is both "real" in the sense that 1) it exists visibly (albeit not perfect) and 2) inside of it, there are real children of the King.

There would be within the local assembly of persons some who are not born again, so would be members of just the visible church, while those who have been born again by God would also be in the Body of Christ, His bride, the Universal Church.

 

[Dachaser]

Baptists hesitate to even use the term "visible church" because ideally there should be no visible/invisible distinction when the church is composed of only those who are regenerate. And I have yet to hear a baptist consider his children to be part of the church. Being taught by the Church perhaps, but not part of the Church. So I think you will need to do some more homework within your own tradition there. In my baptistic background, it was very easy for children raised in the church to be considered part of the church, simply because there were raised as part of that community. But you were still not allowed to become a member until you made profession and were baptized. So there was that inconsistency, you felt like and often were treated like part of the community on the one hand, but very clearly were not part of the community on the other.

Presbyterians would argue that there is a visible and invisible dimension to the new covenant, just as there was in the old covenant (i.e "not all Israel are Israel"). Often we use the term external vs. internal members of the covenant, as others mentioned earlier in this thread. But that distinction is one that only God can see.

We on the other hand must live and work within the visible church, within the realm of what we see, what men (and children) profess with their mouths and deeds. We must operate within the visible administration of the covenant. We cannot know who the elect are the way God does. And so for us, we must treat anyone as part of the new covenant who visibly looks like he belongs. He claims Christ as Lord and lives accordingly. It may very well be that he is a liar or hypocrite, and time may reveal that fact through his actions one day. But until that evidence is seen, we must extend a judgment of charity and welcome him as a member, baptize him, and treat him as a Christian and part of the new covenant.

Presbyterians would extend that same judgment of charity to children of believers as well (as Israel did in the OT). They are to be treated as immature Christians, as those who belong to God and thus baptized, and who must be trained up to be mature Christians. They must be taught what it means to fear the Lord, and obey his commands, to seek forgiveness of sins through Christ, and to live as his disciples. It may very well be that some children are not elect, and that fact may be revealed later. But until that evidence is revealed, we treat them as Christians and part of the church, though still underage and immature. Our hope as parents (and pastors) is that these children will be born again and come to know Christ truly at some point along the way through their Christian nurture.

But many will not be able to pin point at what time that regeneration occurred. Since they have been raised within the church and always taught that Jesus is Lord and to believe in him for salvation, they will not be able to say at what point they moved from child-like acceptance of their parents instruction, to personal faith in Christ. To some it seems like they have always believed. Some may eventually rebel, and some may have a dramatic conversion experience. But whether the experience is dramatic or undramatic, we eventually treat them as "adult" Christians based upon their mature claim to believe in Christ with a consistent life.

But from infancy onward, we treat them as members of the new covenant, until they prove otherwise. We do not treat them as if they belong to the world. We do not raise them to be Atheists or Muslims. And since it is impossible to be neutral in the way you raise your children, you raise them to be Christians, and do so under the new covenant administration, since there is no other place to do that.

Hope that helps.

I did raise both my sons under the church and the teachings of the pastors, and at home with the scriptures and praying with and over them, not assuming that they were saved, but hoping that the Lord would use those means to reach them and convert them to being believers in Jesus Christ.
All of us were born as sinners and away from God, and the Lord uses the means of being under the influence of the local church and private devotions/prayers as a way to bring the person to a time when they receive Jesus as their Lord and Savior and now be really under the NC.

 

[Gforce9]

There would be within the local assembly of persons some who are not born again, so would be members of just the visible church, while those who have been born again by God would also be in the Body of Christ, His bride, the Universal Church.

The visible church is what we see on earth, consisting of both the elect and the non-elect. The invisible church is only the elect, but we can't discern that as God infallibly does....

 

[Dachaser]

The visible church is what we see on earth, consisting of both the elect and the non-elect. The invisible church is only the elect, but we can't discern that as God infallibly does....

The elect are also the only ones that would be considered included under the new Covenant

 

[Gforce9]

The elect are also the only ones that would be considered included under the new Covenant

From a Baptist perspective. I'm a former Baptist who is now covenantal and Reformed and I dont agree with that assesment. You still have to deal with the non-elect who are part of Christ's visible church. They exist in Baptist churches and in Reformed churches.

 

[Scott Bushey]

 

[Dachaser]

From a Baptist perspective. I'm a former Baptist who is now covenantal and Reformed and I dont agree with that assesment. You still have to deal with the non-elect who are part of Christ's visible church. They exist in Baptist churches and in Reformed churches.

When I say under the NC. they would be in Christ and co heirs and spiritual blessings in Him, and no non saved would have that.

 

[Gforce9]

Hahahahahahahaha.......hilarious!