The ordo salutis

[timfost]

In essence, one could be a regenerated person, have seed faith (not germinated (F)aith) and still be an unbeliever.

Again, let me try to understand what you're saying.

This "seed faith" you speak of is not justifying faith, since one can have seed faith and still be an unbeliever, though a regenerated one? Is this correct?

If Christ doesn't vicariously repent for us, would it not follow that repentance must be based on something or better yet, can a person repent of a thing it has no idea of?

How do you know that an infant cannot repent? Because you cannot quantify it?

Also, are you saying that elect infants who die in infancy do exercise "(F)aith" in a different way than infants who grow up and exercise faith and repentance stemming from the "seed faith" they may have had as infants upon their regeneration?

Again, I'm trying to understand your point of view. I may be dense, but I'm having trouble following your reasoning and the implications...

 

[Scott Bushey]

Again, let me try to understand what you're saying.

This "seed faith" you speak of is not justifying faith, since one can have seed faith and still be an unbeliever, though a regenerated one? Is this correct?

Correct

How do you know that an infant cannot repent? Because you cannot quantify it?

You agreed a few posts back that faith would come before repentance in the order, correct? That should answer your question.

Also, are you saying that elect infants who die in infancy do exercise "(F)aith" in a different way than infants who grow up and exercise faith and repentance stemming from the "seed faith" they may have had as infants upon their regeneration?

Yes. The infant dying in infancy has both habit and action via a miraculous, needed work of the HS in these cases.

 

[Edward]

The WCF tells us that children can and are, regenerated in the womb (those elect individuals dying) at times and others even at the baptismal font.

I actually said, ^^^

Again, where does the WCF say that children can be regenerated in the womb? Although, upon further reflection, I do wonder whether you are also approaching baptismal regeneration. Otherwise, why bring in the font?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Edward,
Are you reading what I am posting?

Again, where does the WCF say that children can be regenerated in the womb?

As I showed in my citation:
"Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit"

*if you are compelled to argue that the WCF does not specify, 'womb', read between the lines, please. Simple logic that some infants die in the womb, even in the first week after becoming an embryo.

and at baptism:

"Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration,"

I do wonder whether you are also approaching baptismal regeneration.

Well, yea, in some instances, as I have shown. It is God prerogative to regenerate people when He wills.

This type of BR is not the same of the RCC or other aberrant groups.

http://www.semperreformanda.com/2013/12/what-did-westminster-believe-about-baptismal-regeneration/

and so you do not think I believe like the Romanists do:

VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.

Robert Shaw writes in his commentary on the WCF:

II. This section declares the ends of baptism: - 1. It is a solemn admission of the party baptised into the visible Church, and to all its privileges. "It supposes the party to have a right to these privileges before, and does not make them members of the visible Church, but admitthem solemnly thereto. And therefore it is neither to be called nor accounted christening—that is, making them Christians: for the infants of believing parents are born within the covenant, and so are Christians and visible Church members; and by baptism this right of theirs is acknowledged, and they are solemnly admitted to the privileges of Church membership." 2. It is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, and of the benefits of that covenant. These benefits are, engrafting into Christ, or union with him; the remission of sins by virtue of the blood of Christ; and regeneration by the Spirit of Christ. It is not intended that remission of sins and regeneration are inseparably connected with baptism; for our Confession, in a subsequent section, expressly guards against the opinion "that all that are baptised are undoubtedly regenerated." 3. It is a sign and seal of the party baptised being devoted to God, and engaged to walk in newness of life. Baptism is a dedicating ordinance, in which the party baptised is solemnly given up to God to be his and for him, now, wholly, and for ever. He is, as it were, enlisted under Christ's banner, to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh. He is bound to renounce every other lord and master, and to "serve God in holiness and righteousness all the days of his life."

 

[Steve Curtis]

The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.

I really don't want to reenter this fray, but this section does not say that God's grace is conferred at the baptismal font. In fact, as the highlighted lines make clear, the efficacy/conferral of grace toward the elect occurs in God's timing irrespective of the time of baptism. There is no justification for insisting that some/any of the elect are regenerated at the font and yet not saved until a later time.

 

[Edward]

if you are compelled to argue that the WCF does not specify, 'womb', read between the lines, please. Simple logic that some infants die in the womb, even in the first week after becoming an embryo.

You are projecting modern anti-abortion theology on a document written in the 17th Century. And in the 17th Century, one week after conception would not have been considered an infant. (Generally, the law for criminal responsibility for the death of an unborn child would have been at quickening. See, generally, Cook, Institutes of the Laws of England (1644) https://archive.org/stream/institutesoflaws00cokeuoft#page/50/mode/2up ) Blackstone, a century later, found that the law actually drew the line at birth for homicide. Commentaries on the Laws of England Book IV, Chapter 14 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk4ch14.asp

To be clear, we are not discussing whether life begins at conception, or one week, or quickening, or birth, we are discussing what the men who drafted the Confession would have understood based upon the knowledge at that time as to when life began. The plain language of the Confession doesn't support your assertion, and neither does the historical record of England.

 

[Scott Bushey]

I really don't want to reenter this fray, but this section does not say that God's grace is conferred at the baptismal font. In fact, as the highlighted lines make clear, the efficacy/conferral of grace toward the elect occurs in God's timing irrespective of the time of baptism. There is no justification for insisting that some/any of the elect are regenerated at the font and yet not saved until a later time.

Steve,
It sure does:
The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost


"Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration,"

This is the reformed view, sir. Please read the link I attached a few posts back to my website where I cite a few divines on the subject. As well, Robert Shaw in his commentary says the same. This is beginning to get silly.

 

[Scott Bushey]

The plain language of the Confession doesn't support your assertion, and neither does the historical record of England.

Edward,
I just quoted Shaw, where he says:

These benefits are, engrafting into Christ, or union with him; the remission of sins by virtue of the blood of Christ; and regeneration by the Spirit of Christ.

I will not waste my time attempting to prove to you what Westminster believed.
Obviously, the term 'infancy' refers to the point in life where the egg and seed unite and become a person, else if Westminster believed that the term referred to after the baby exits the birthing canal, then by default they would be saying that only infants exiting the canal can be saved-and they are not saying that. Whether they had the scientific accumen we have in this age is irrelevant. They knew life began at conception and hence, that it what they refer.

Research it yourself; ask some of the admins here on PB. All of them will tell u what I have.

Good day.

 

[Scott Bushey]

SCOTCH CONFESSION, SYNOD OF DORDT

Article 16: Regeneration’s Effect

However, just as by the fall man did not cease to be man, endowed with intellect and will, and just as sin, which has spread through the whole human race, did not abolish the nature of the human race but distorted and spiritually killed it, so also this divine grace of regeneration does not act in people as if they were blocks and stones; nor does it abolish the will and its properties or coerce a reluctant will by force, but spiritually revives, heals, reforms, and–in a manner at once pleasing and powerful–bends it back. As a result, a ready and sincere obedience of the Spirit now begins to prevail where before the rebellion and resistance of the flesh were completely dominant. It is in this that the true and spiritual restoration and freedom of our will consists. Thus, if the marvelous Maker of every good thing were not dealing with us, man would have no hope of getting up from his fall by his free choice, by which he plunged himself into ruin when still standing upright.


Article 17: God’s Use of Means in Regeneration

Just as the almighty work of God by which he brings forth and sustains our natural life does not rule out but requires the use of means, by which God, according to his infinite wisdom and goodness, has wished to exercise his power, so also the aforementioned supernatural work of God by which he regenerates us in no way rules out or cancels the use of the gospel, which God in his great wisdom has appointed to be the seed of regeneration and the food of the soul. For this reason, the apostles and the teachers who followed them taught the people in a godly manner about this grace of God, to give him the glory and to humble all pride, and yet did not neglect meanwhile to keep the people, by means of the holy admonitions of the gospel, under the administration of the Word, the sacraments, and discipline. So even today it is out of the question that the teachers or those taught in the church should presume to test God by separating what he in his good pleasure has wished to be closely joined together. For grace is bestowed through admonitions, and the more readily we perform our duty, the more lustrous the benefit of God working in us usually is and the better his work advances. To him alone, both for the means and for their saving fruit and effectiveness, all glory is owed forever. Amen.

Article 17: The Salvation of the Infants of Believers

Since we must make judgments about God’s will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Fisher's Catechism:

Q. 28. What are the ends and uses of baptism?

A. They are to signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace.

Q. 29. What is it to signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ?

A. It is to signify and seal our union with him, and consequently the imputation of his righteousness to us, Gal. 3:27 -- "As many of you as have been baptised into Christ, have put on Christ."

Q. 30. What are the benefits of the covenant of grace, the partaking of which is signified and sealed in baptism?

A. They are "remission of sins by the blood of Christ; regeneration by his Spirit, adoption, and resurrection unto everlasting life."[136]

Q. 31. What is the consequence of its being signified and sealed to us in baptism, that we partake of such great and glorious benefits?

A. The consequence is, that on this account, we enter into an open and professed engagement to be -- the Lord's."[137]

*not tied to the moment, however; but as God wills....hence, it does happen.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Belgic confession

We believe that by the disobedience of Adam original sin has been spread through the whole human race.It is a corruption of all nature– an inherited depravity which even infects small infants in their mother’s womb, and the root which produces in man every sort of sin. It is therefore so vile and enormous in God’s sight that it is enough to condemn the human race, and it is not abolished or wholly uprooted even by baptism, seeing that sin constantly boils forth as though from a contaminated spring.

Showing that the womb in integral to the effects of sin-it would follow as well, that they understood that regeneration happens here at times as well.

Calvin on the 'gap'

Calvin, in his catechism writes:

Q333 M. If these things are requisite to the legitimate use of Baptism, how comes it that we baptize Infants?

1. It is not necessary that faith and repentance should always precede baptism. They are only required from those whose age makes them capable of both. It will be sufficient, then, if, after infants have grown up, they exhibit the power of their baptism.
   
   Q338 M. Your view then is, that since God, under the Old Testament, in order to show himself the Father of infants, was pleased that the promise, of salvation should be engraved on their bodies by a visible sign, it were unbecoming to suppose that, since the advent of Christ, believers have less to confirm them, God having intended to give us in the present day the same promise which was anciently given to the Fathers, and exhibited in Christ a clearer specimen of his goodness.
   
   1. That is my view. Besides, while it is sufficiently clear that the force, and so to speak, the substance of Baptism are common to children, to deny them the sign, which is inferior to the substance, were manifest injustice.
      
   Q339 M. On what terms then are children to be baptized?
   
   1. To attest that they are heirs of the blessing promised to the seed of believers, and enable them to receive and produce the fruit of their Baptism, on acknowledging its reality after they have grown up.

 

[Steve Curtis]

It sure does:
The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost

Perhaps if that is all that it said, we would be in agreement. Yet it is not. You left out the critical final phrase. If we parse the sentence and reduce some of the phrasing, this is what the Confession says about the efficacy of baptism:

the grace promised... is ... conferred ... in [God's] appointed time.

Then, you quote from Ch. 28.1:

"Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration,"

Yet, once again, you only quote the part that relates to the point that you are trying to prove. In its entirety, that section reads as follows:

Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world.

Now, you were already on thin ice, so to speak, to suggest that, in baptism, God confers the grace of regeneration (but not of salvation) - because you included the part about the "ingrafting into Christ," (which alone challenges your position, as it signifies not a potential union with Christ but an actual, salvific union) - but when the parts you omitted are included, namely, "remission of sins," and "giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life," it is clear that the "sign and seal" associated with the baptism of an infant is not looking to a prior regeneration as typical (any more than it is looking back to a prior remission of sin or a prior "giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life"). Rather, typically, it is looking forward to these things.

Atypically, I agree that the Confession allows for the regeneration to occur in the womb, at the font, or on the way home from the maternity ward. However, this chapter clearly ties that regeneration (indeed, all regenerations) with repentance ("remission of sins") and faith ("giving up to God...") - all bundled up in the union with Christ ("ingrafting") that only belongs to those actually - not potentially - saved (or converted, if you prefer).

 

[Scott Bushey]

Steve,
I am not on any 'thin ice'. The child that is regenerated in the womb, can have seed (f)aith-that is (again) a faith that is not germinated. This (f)aith needs watering by the external call, which generally occurs by the preacher. This scenario is not addressed by Westminster-they do not delve into the ordo in their document. I only cited the portions I have in order to show that God does in fact, regenerate in the womb, because Edward was emphatic that it is not addressed.

this chapter clearly ties that regeneration (indeed, all regenerations) with repentance ("remission of sins") and faith ("giving up to God...") - all bundled up in the union with Christ ("ingrafting") that only belongs to those actually - not potentially - saved (or converted, if you prefer).

Seed faith is real faith. It is just a (f)aith that is not germinated. This person is ingrafted. They are elect. They are regenerated. They just have not gone through the full process, receiving of faith and repentance as F & R require assent and action, i.e. receive, accept, believe, etc. You may say, 'Scott, who are u to say that these infants have no belief etc.?'
I would agree, they have in habit, but not in action.

When VanMastricht says that this person could walk around as an unbeliever is based on the idea that they have habit, but no action. These infants have the capacity, based on regeneration to now 'perceive the kingdom of God'. Perception John 3, says much.

Please Sir, tell me what these infants believe? What exactly are they repenting of? Is it a vicarious belief and repentance?
Is Christ believing for them? What dear Sir, have they ascended to? Were u regenerated and converted without any thing onboard? You were surely regenerated, but not converted. Can anyone be saved without anything onboard? in my opinion, you are failing to make the distinction between habit and action, both of which are essential to salvation.

 

[Steve Curtis]

Scott, quite simply, I believe that if and when God chooses to regenerate one of the elect in infancy (in utero or after birth), He also - mysteriously, to be sure - enables that person to exercise faith and repentance. Why do you insist that God cannot cause such a thing to happen? By your own words, you take Paul's account of Timothy as referring to when the younger was an infant. Yet, Paul said that even then, Timothy knew holy scriptures. If an infant can "know" scripture, why can he or she not exercise faith and repentance?

For the record, I confess to having not read all of your quotes and links. However, I have no problem disagreeing with Van Mastricht or anyone else if they are actually saying what you think that they seem to be saying.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Scott, quite simply, I believe that if and when God chooses to regenerate one of the elect in infancy (in utero or after birth), He also - mysteriously, to be sure - enables that person to exercise faith and repentance.

Yes, He gives the capacity to 'exercise', i.e. habit. Exercising is an action with a point in mind, i.e. action.

Why do you insist that God cannot cause such a thing to happen?

I don't deny God gives the habit....the action is based on assent, fiducia and notia. If God does what u say, why do we need the external call? Does God give both calls Himself or does he use the preacher? I understand that in the case of the infant dying in infancy, Christ does both, but in the cases where a person is to live to a full age, I don't quite see how that happens.

By your own words, you take Paul's account of Timothy as referring to when the younger was an infant.

I said that? Where?

In Timothy's case, the scriptures use the term 'child', so as I mentioned; it happened as I describe. His mother and grandmother were faithful to catechize him from birth.

Lk. 8:51, 54 of a 12 yr. old. a. The ref. of παῖς may be to age, “child,” inscr., pap., ironically Hom. Or., 4, 665, nonironically Prv. 1:4. It can be used for a boy of 7–14 as distinct from one not yet 7(παιδίον) or the adolescent (μειράκιον) of 14–21,

Albrecht Oepke, “Παῖς, Παιδίον, Παιδάριον, Τέκνον, Τεκνίον, Βρέφος,” ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 637.

Yet, Paul said that even then, Timothy knew holy scriptures.

As I said....

*it may be beneficial to read what I am posting; only fair. I read everything you write.

 

[Steve Curtis]

Exercising is an action with a point in mind, i.e. action.

I don't pretend to have any idea what you are saying here. To exercise faith and repentance is to have faith and repent. [To be clear, I reject the idea of "seed-faith" if it is meant to imply anything other than living - new and immature, yet saving - faith. "Regeneration" is being "born again." To be "born again" is to be saved/converted/a Christian/etc.]

If God does what u say, why do we need the external call? Does God give both calls Himself or does he use the preacher? I understand that in the case of the infant dying in infancy, Christ does both, but in the cases where a person is to live to a full age, I don't quite see how that happens.

Again (and again and again...), you are assuming that there are infants who are regenerated who are not converted. You have not proven that from either scripture or the Confession. For those who "live to a full age," they are not regenerated at baptism and later converted. They are regenerated when they are converted.

I said that? Where?

Here:

we see examples in scripture where infants are surely set apart from the womb-granted, they are not typical, except for Timothy (2 Tim 3:15)

 

[Scott Bushey]

I don't pretend to have any idea what you are saying here.

If you would read the citations I posted, i.e. Hodge, you will understand what I posit.

To exercise faith and repentance is to have faith and repent.

I agree. How can an infant 'exercise'? He has the capacity to exercise, but until the infant has an action, an action based on assensus, what is he or she exercising?

[To be clear, I reject the idea of "seed-faith" if it is meant to imply anything other than living - new and immature, yet saving - faith. "Regeneration" is being "born again." To be "born again" is to be saved/converted/a Christian/etc.]

in my opinion, you are collapsing the ordo....

Again (and again and again...), you are assuming that there are infants who are regenerated who are not converted.

Yes, I am. What exactly do regenerated infants 'see'? John 3

You have not proven that from either scripture or the Confession.

You say so, becaseu you fail to see the distinction-which Westminster does. Scripture shows that the external call is needed for the conversion of men. I have asked u a number of times, what is the use of the external call?

For those who "live to a full age," they are not regenerated at baptism and later converted. They are regenerated when they are converted.

Regeneration precedes conversion (faith and repentance).

we see examples in scripture where infants are surely set apart from the womb-granted, they are not typical, except for Timothy (2 Tim 3:15)

You misunderstood me. Timothy was not set apart from the womb.....

 

[Scott Bushey]

Fishers catechism:

Q. 14. Why called the outward means?

A. To distinguish them from faith, repentance, and other inward means; and particularly to distinguish them from the inward and powerful influences of the Holy Spirit, which are necessary to accompany the outward means in order to salvation, Zech. 4:6.
Q. 15. Why called ordinary means?

A. Because they are the stated and ordinary way and method, by which Christ communicates the benefits of redemption to sinners of mankind, Rom. 10:14-18; Ezek, 37:28.

Q. 16. Are there any extraordinary means without the word, by which Christ communicates the benefits of redemption to adult persons?

A. No; for whatever providences God may make use of, when he is beginning or carrying on his work of grace in the soul, Acts 9:3-7; yet these dispensations are always to be considered in a subserviency to the word, chap. 16:25-33, or as occasions of the Spirit's working in concurrence with it, 2 Pet. 1:18, 19.
Q. 23. Who is it that makes the reading and preachin of the word effectual to salvation?

A. (THE SPIRIT OF GOD), 1 Cor. 2:11 -- " The things of God knoweth no man, but the SPIRIT of God."

Q. 24. How does he make them effectual?

A. By accompanying them with his divine power upon the soul, Rom. 1:16.

Q. 25. Of what is it that the Spirit of God makes the reading and preaching of the word an effectual means?

A. He makes them an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith, unto Salvation.

Dr. William Twisse states, “We explain efficacious grace to be an operation of God affecting the will of man, which is not moral but physical, that is immediately and really working in us to do whatsoever good we perform, determining the will to action, but yet so that it acts freely.” Dr. Thomas Ridgley, in his exposition of the Larger Catechism states, “From hence I am obliged to infer that the regenerating act, or implanting this principle of grace, which is, at least, in order of nature, antecedent to any act of grace put forth by us, is the immediate effect of the power of God, which none who speak of regeneration as a divine work pretend to deny.” Dr. Stephen Charnock mentions the difference between regeneration and conversion, “Regeneration is a spiritual change; conversion is a spiritual motion.”37 Dr. Herman Witsius defines regeneration as “that supernatural act of God whereby a new and divine life is infused into the elect person, spiritually dead, and that form an incorruptible seed of the Word of God, made fruitful by the infinite power of the Spirit.”

Rev. Samuel Hopkins states, “Let us consider the divine agency, the work of the Spirit of God, by which persons are regenerated or born of God, and which lays the only foundation for conversion or holy exercises in the subject...the divine agency and operation, which is first, and lays the foundation for all right views and exercises in the person who is the subject, is called by divines regeneration.

*MY emphasis added.

HOW FAITH WORKS CMM

 

[Scott Bushey]

Cornelius Burgess-a Westminster Divine writes:

In the course of my ministry, in my own cure, I was lately cast upon this point: viz. “That all elect infants, do, ordinarily, in baptism, receive the Spirit of Christ, to seize upon them for Christ, and to be in them as the root and first principle of regeneration, and future newness of life.” This is the way I spoke (as then I expressed myself) with reference only to such infants as do not die in infancy, but live to years of discretion, and then come to be effectually called, and actually converted by the ordinary means of the word applied by the same Spirit to them, when and how he pleases. As for the rest of the elect, who die infants, I will not deny a further work, sometimes in, sometimes before baptism, to fit them for heaven.

*My emphasis added

Cornelius Burgess, Baptismal Regeneration, n.d.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Burgess continues:

The sacrament profits no man of years, without faith to apprehend the promise: nor can the elect themselves sensibly perceive the fruit and comfort of their baptism, in the ordinary course, until after they have obtained actual faith at their actual conversion. Nor does it follow that they did not have the Spirit in baptism, because they were not capable of so much as knowing the same at the time; much less, of believing; for so says the author, “Although infants in the instance of circumcision were not able to comprehend what that sign meant, they were yet truly circumcised unto the mortification of their corrupt and defiled nature, which after they were yet truly circumcised unto the mortification of their corrupt and defiled nature, which after they came to years they meditated on.
And a little after; infants are baptized unto future repentance and faith, which graces although they be not (actually) formed in them, yet by the secret operation of the Spirit in the seeds of both do lie hid in them.”

Cornelius Burgess, Baptismal Regeneration, n.d.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

It's always helpful to read the Westminster Divines themselves to understand what the divines "meant" in what they put down in the Confession.

 

[Edward]

It's always helpful to read the Westminster Divines themselves to understand what the divines "meant" in what they put down in the Confession.

I'll be happy to receive a reference to a Divine that wrote that Cook was wrong, or who rejected the historical 'quickening' view, but I am not disposed to search for a needle in the haystack without a metal detector. So if you know of a divine that accepted the 'one week' view above, I'd be glad to expand my knowledge of the social history of that era.

 

[Scott Bushey]

I'll be happy to receive a reference to a Divine that wrote that Cook was wrong, or who rejected the historical 'quickening' view, but I am not disposed to search for a needle in the haystack without a metal detector. So if you know of a divine that accepted the 'one week' view above, I'd be glad to expand my knowledge of the social history of that era.

Edward,
I provided citations above from Cornelius Burgess, who was of Westminster.

 

[Steve Curtis]

Scripture shows that the external call is needed for the conversion of men. I have asked u a number of times, what is the use of the external call?

I have never denied the ordinary need for the external call/preached word - for those who survive infancy. [For those who die in infancy, this is mysteriously accomplished by Christ, such that they are regeneration and saved.]

I have never denied that there is a logical order. I have just maintained that the elements of that order are not distinct in real time (except for the full manifestation of the final element: glorification). I don't believe that faith and repentance can be separated into chronologically distinct acts. Likewise, I don't believe that regeneration can be separated into a chronologically distinct act. Hence, I reject the premise (irrespective of who has promoted it historically) that one can be a "regenerated unbeliever" for a discernible period of time.

While I acknowledge that different authors have used the term in different ways, I am writing from the perspective that “regeneration” means new life (as that is etymologically and, I believe, theologically, the most proper and precise meaning of the word). An unbeliever does not have life. The response of one who has life – the immediate response – is to exercise the gifts of faith and repentance that accompany that regenerative work of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Steve Curtis]

It's always helpful to read the Westminster Divines themselves to understand what the divines "meant" in what they put down in the Confession.

Indeed, if we want to know what they meant individually, then by all means, we must read their works. If our desire is to understand what they meant corporately, however, we need only read what they wrote corporately: the Standards. As with any deliberative body, there were differing opinions among the divines. I do not subscribe to a person; I subscribe to what the collaborative body of divines came together to pen.

 

[Edward]

I provided citations above from Cornelius Burgess, who was of Westminster.

I see two posts from you quoting Burgess, neither of which addresses the issue of a one week fetus.

 

[Scott Bushey]

is to exercise the gifts of faith and repentance that accompany that regenerative work of the Holy Spirit.

Steve,
I made mention a few posts back:

I agree. How can an infant 'exercise'? He has the capacity to exercise, but until the infant has an action, an action based on assensus, what is he or she exercising?

???

 

[Scott Bushey]

I'll be happy to receive a reference to a Divine that wrote that Cook was wrong, or who rejected the historical 'quickening' view, but I am not disposed to search for a needle in the haystack without a metal detector. So if you know of a divine that accepted the 'one week' view above, I'd be glad to expand my knowledge of the social history of that era.

'Cook'? George Cook?

"historic quickening view'? Is this the idea that the historic position is contrary to my premise?

 

[Steve Curtis]

Scott, with regard to elect infants, I said:

[For those who die in infancy, this is mysteriously accomplished by Christ, such that they are regeneration and saved.]

The comment of mine you quoted about exercising faith and repentance was in the context of those who survive infancy. As I have said repeatedly, I reject the notion that such were regenerated at infancy (unless God chooses to also grant them saving faith and repentance at the same time, which He most assuredly can do, as He does so with those elect infants who die in infancy).

 

[Scott Bushey]

Steve,
I understand that I'm following you.

Let me ask this another way: is it your position that a person can be completely converted without assenting to any biblical facts?

Scott, with regard to elect infants, I said:

The comment of mine you quoted about exercising faith and repentance was in the context of those who survive infancy.

I follow u....I understood. So again, I ask:
How can an infant 'exercise'? He has the capacity to exercise, but until the infant has an action, an action based on assensus, what is he or she exercising?