The ordo salutis

[Steve Curtis]

is it your position that a person can be completely converted without assenting to any biblical facts?

No. However, in atypical instances, God mysteriously accomplishes salvation apart from the ordinary means of grace. By this, I mean 1) elect infants dying in infancy; 2) elect persons lacking mental capacity to hear, understand, etc.; and 3) those other elect persons, whom God chooses to deal with in the same - atypical - way (such as JtB).

 

[Scott Bushey]

No. However, in atypical instances, God mysteriously accomplishes salvation apart from the ordinary means of grace. By this, I mean 1) elect infants dying in infancy; 2) elect persons lacking mental capacity to hear, understand, etc.; and 3) those other elect persons, whom God chooses to deal with in the same - atypical - way (such as JtB).

Ok. If I am following you then, what does the infant that is regenerated, (one that is not, as u say, atypical) that will live to a ripe age assenting to exactly?

 

[Edward]

'Cook'? George Cook?

Thanks for pointing out the error. As you probably figured out from my link, Sir Edward Coke.

Is this the idea that the historic position is contrary to my premise?

The common view at the time that the Confession was confected clearly is at odds with your modernist view.

 

[Scott Bushey]

The common view at the time that the Confession was confected clearly is at odds with your modernist view.

I will do some add'l research, but as u saw by my citations of Mcmahon, VanMastricht, Hodge and Burgess, it is not 'modernistic'.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Do you have any citations on Coke's work handy?

 

[Steve Curtis]

what does the infant that is regenerated, (one that is not, as u say, atypical) that will live to a ripe age assenting to exactly?

Not sure if I am understanding your wording, but there are only two scenarios, at any rate, for those elect persons surviving infancy who are not mentally impaired.

First, my category 3 above [those other elect persons, whom God chooses to deal with in the same - atypical - way (such as JtB)]. For these, I believe they are mysteriously enabled to repent and believe - apart from the ordinary means of grace. Just because I cannot understand how an infant can "know" or assent to such things doesn't mean that they can't! JtB clearly "knew" something while in utero.

Second, and this would be what I call the typical conversion: the elect person is not regenerated at a chronologically distinct time from when the ordinary means of grace (i.e., the preaching of the Word) is offered. In other words, at the pleasure and timing of God's will, the Holy Spirit gives new life to the elect person, as well as faith and repentance, with which the elect person then responds to the gospel and is saved.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Steve,
Thanks for the clarification. That helped. Do u disagree with the WCF where it says:

ch 27 III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

ch 28 I. 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.

 

[Scott Bushey]

For clarity:
After thinking about your last post, am I correct in assuming that you do not believe God typically works in the way that JTB was regenerated and converted and if He does, i.e. a infant regenerated at birth or at baptism, he deals with this child like he did w/ JTB? Is this accurate on your position?

 

[Edward]

I looked back at what you had posted to others from them, and don't see where they address the issue (whether a one week embryo was contemplated by the Divines) at all.

*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.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Edward,
For clarity: So is it your position that when Westminster used the term 'infancy', they intended to convey that the child was an infant after birth?

By the way, I find nothing on Edward Coke in the internet other than he was a Jurist.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Edward,
It would seem obvious, based on these scriptural references, that Westminster took the view I hold in regard to the words, 'infant' or 'infancy', which refer to both before birth and after:

Job 3:16 Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; As infants which never saw light.

Job 31:15

15 Did not he that made me in the womb make him?

And did not one fashion us in the womb?

Ecclesiastes 11:5

5 As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.

Hosea 12:3

3 He took his brother by the heel in the womb,

And by his strength he had power with God:

Hosea 9:11

11 As for Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird,

From the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception.

One can clearly see that God denotes personage to both those in the womb and after birth.

 

[Edward]

So is it your position that when Westminster used the term 'infancy', they intended to convey that the child was an infant after birth?

No, as I said before, the dividing line in that day was 'quickening'.

By the way, I find nothing on Edward Coke in the internet other than he was a Jurist.

He summarized and provided commentary on the English Common Law as it existed in the Elizabethan and post Elizabethan era. While not as readable and accessible as the later and better known Blackstone (also referenced above), he certainly gives an insight into the common understanding of the people of England at the time. Indeed, his teachings provided, in part, the basis for Roe v. Wade, which unlike later pro-abortion rulings, recognized a cut-off based on stage of fetal development but which tried to tie it to modern science rather than the historic common law understanding.

 

[Scott Bushey]

No, as I said before, the dividing line in that day was 'quickening'.

Which means, what exactly?

 

[Steve Curtis]

Steve,
Thanks for the clarification. That helped. Do u disagree with the WCF where it says:

ch 27 III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

No, I do not take exception to this statement. However, if you are implying that it says that all who receive the sacrament also receive grace, I reject that interpretation. As Shaw notes, "many are partakers of the sacraments, who are not partakers of the grace of God."

ch 28 I. 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.

Nor do I take exception to this statement. However, I reject the implication that baptism is indicative of actual and present regeneration and remission of sins. In atypical instances, such as JtB, that may be the case, and certainly it is with elect infants dying in infancy. Typically, I see this a seal (for the elect) for a future 1) regeneration; 2) repentance ("remission of sin"); and 3) faith ("giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life"). Or as 27.III puts it: "a promise of benefit to worthy receivers."

For clarity:
After thinking about your last post, am I correct in assuming that you do not believe God typically works in the way that JTB was regenerated and converted and if He does, i.e. a infant regenerated at birth or at baptism, he deals with this child like he did w/ JTB? Is this accurate on your position?

That is correct.
As I have stated countless times now, I believe that whenever regeneration occurs (whether in infancy or much later in adult life), faith, repentance, indeed justification (or, conversion) is immediately to follow, with no discernible chronological gap. A. A. Hodge says it better than I (Commentary on the WCF):

"From what the Scriptures say as to the nature of the change. They call it “a new birth,” ” a begetting,” “a quickening,” “a new creation.” “God begetteth, the Spirit quickeneth;” ” We are born again,” ” We are God’s workmanship.” John iii. 3, 5 — 7; 1John v. 18; Eph. ii. 1, 5, 10. See also Ezek. xi. 19; Ps. li. 10; Eph iv. 23; Heb. viii. 10. That, after regeneration, the new-born soul at once begins and ever continues more or less perfectly to co-operate with sanctifying grace, is self-evident…"

"REGENERATION is an act of God, originating, by a new creation, a new spiritual life in the heart of the subject. The first and instant act of that new creature, consequent upon his regeneration, is FAITH, or a believing, trusting embrace of the person and work of Christ. Upon the exercise of faith by the regenerated soul, JUSTIFICATION is the instant act of God…"

"The essence of repentance consists-(2) In our actual turning from all sin unto God. This is that practical turning, or “conversion” from sin unto God, which is the instant and necessary consequence of regeneration…"

"Repentance is the natural and instant sequence of the grace of regeneration. It also embraces an element of faith in Christ; and that faith is, as we have seen, the instrument of justification. He that repents believes. He that does not repent does not believe. He that does not believe is not justified. Regeneration and justification are never separated… "

 

[Scott Bushey]

No, I do not take exception to this statement. However, if you are implying that it says that all who receive the sacrament also receive grace, I reject that interpretation. As Shaw notes, "many are partakers of the sacraments, who are not partakers of the grace of God."

I do not believe that all receive-I agree with the WCF, 'not tied to the moment'.
However, this does not mean that it doesn't happen.

However, I reject the implication that baptism is indicative of actual and present regeneration and remission of sins.

Are you saying that you do not believe God sometimes regenerates at baptism and if so, what do you think Westminster meant here?

In atypical instances, such as JtB

I disagree and I believe Westminster would disagree-quotes to follow....

 

[Steve Curtis]

Are you saying that you do not believe God sometimes regenerates at baptism and if so, what do you think Westminster meant here?

Why would you ask this question if you read what I wrote?? I clearly stated my position - and thereby answered this question - in the words immediately following the snippet you quoted.

With regard to what the WCF framers meant, I already noted that I agree with the interpretation provided by A. A. Hodge. I have previously noted that there were differing opinions among the divines about a number of issues, as I am sure you are aware. So, it does little good to say that this one said this, or that one said that. You have your convictions in this regard; I have mine. You may have luminaries who bolster your position; I do, as well. I see no further benefit in carrying on a debate that not even the Westminster divines were (apparently) able to reconcile amongst themselves!

 

[Scott Bushey]

Why would you ask this question if you read what I wrote?? I clearly stated my position - and thereby answered this question - in the words immediately following the snippet you quoted.

Just reiterating... my bad.

No need to continue. Fair enough. I won't waste your time with any add'l quotes. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Edward]

Which means, what exactly?

When the child can be perceived as moving in the mother's womb. It may depend on whether it is the mother's first or a subsequent pregnancy (may be felt earlier if she has had other children.) From an online dictionary: "In medical jurisprudence. The first motion of the fetus in the womb felt by the mother, occurring usually about the middle of the term of pregnancy." https://dictionary.thelaw.com/quickening/

It is from the historic word for living - "quick"

Related question: Have you ever said the Apostle's Creed?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Related question: Have you ever said the Apostle's Creed?

No, never...LOL

 

[Edward]

No, never...LOL

Thanks. I have been thinking that New was a good alternative to Coral Ridge. I'll revise my thinking.

You might want to stay away from the KJV and the Geneva.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Edward,
I am not following you. The question about the AC was a bit strange to me; of course I have recited the AC. What does that have to do with my church?

And, why are u saying what you are about the KJ and Geneva bibles?

 

[Edward]

The question about the AC was a bit strange to me; ...

And, why are u saying what you are about the KJ and Geneva bibles?

You were puzzled by what 'quickening' meant. If you recited the Apostle's Creed, you should have been using the term,
"From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead..." http://www.fpcjackson.org/resource-...he-right-hand-to-judge-the-quick-and-the-dead. Quick is also used to identify the living in both the Geneva and the King James.

Quickening, in that era, denoted when life began and was identified by the feelings of the baby moving in the womb.

I was taken aback by the idea that a church would eschew the Apostle's Creed, and would seek to avoid recommending such a body.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Good point. For the record, I was not completely unaware of the term 'quick' per se. As u mention the AC, which I was aware of. I just didn't know how u came to the conclusion u did in regards to infancy-so yea, what u shared was helpful. I just never thought of it apart from 'living'. Your description about movement was helpful.

My church recites the AC faithfully. I do not as I see it as a break in the RPW, but thats another story.

 

[Edward]

how u came to the conclusion u did

To make it clear - these aren't my views on the underlying issues - I am merely pointing out what the common understandings were in the 1600s, and that present anti-abortion theology can't be projected back on the WCF. And none of the board's several experts on the Puritans has yet come up with anything showing that any dissented from this view.