Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
[quote:a552e1db6a][i:a552e1db6a]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:a552e1db6a]
What changes? Nothing changes in the presumption itself. The change is in the personal responsibility the person takes upon himself, not what is presumed.
[/quote:a552e1db6a]
This is a good formulation and makes sense for this version of PR. Now, to another test, is this the historical reformed position? Is this presumption the historical one or is it the "heirs apparent" model of Thornwell? Berkof as well takes a stand very similar to Thornwell in his ST on the grounds for infant baptism. Look at this:
"On the basis of our confessional standards it may be said that infants of believing parents are baptized on the ground that they are [i:a552e1db6a]children of the covenant[/i:a552e1db6a], and are as such [i:a552e1db6a]heirs of the all-comprehensive covenant-promises of God[/i:a552e1db6a], which includes also the promise of the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit unto regeneration and sanctification. In the covenant God makes over to them a certain grant or donation in a formal and objective way, requires of them [i:a552e1db6a]that they will in due time accept this by faith[/i:a552e1db6a], and promises to make it a living reality in their lives by the operation of the Holy Spirit. And in view of this fact [i:a552e1db6a] the Church must regard them as prospective heirs of salvation[/i:a552e1db6a], must regard them as under obligation to walk in the way of the covenant, has the right to expect that, under a faithful covenant adminstration, they, generally speaking, will live in the covenant, and is in duty bound to regard them as covenant breakers, if they do not meet it's requirements. It is only in this way that it does full justice to the promises of God, [i:a552e1db6a]which must in their fulness be appropriated in faith by those who come to maturity[/i:a552e1db6a]." (Berkhof ST pg 638, emphasis mine)
This is almost identical to Thornwell's formulation. He calls them "heirs apparent" and "children of the Church." But until they make profession of faith, the church cannot accept them into full membership. They are being trained to accept their inheritance in the covenant, but until they take hold of the promises themselves by faith the church cannot bring them into full communion. And Thornwell, is not alone. He argued on the basis of the books of discipline from the various branches of the Reformed Churches; Genevan, French, Dutch, Westminster, and even Puritan (Owen). And he is certainly not a baptist in this respect because a baptist would not call their children "children of the covenant" or "children of the Church." (If I'm wrong on this then please any Baptist correct me).
We could call the children "disciples" as Kevin is fond of doing. And I think I could agree with that because they are being trained up in the ways of the Lord. We can call them heirs or children of the covenant, because they are in fact in the covenant, with promises, curses, and obligations. But that doesn't mean they have the fullfilment of the covenant [i:a552e1db6a]yet[/i:a552e1db6a] or that they have recieved the "inheritance." And I think you would all agree to that point. We do not tie the efficacy of baptism to the time of the administration of it but understand that God may choose to fulfill the promises of it whenever He pleases, just as with the Lord's Supper. And though baptism is a sign of the promises of God upon their foreheads their entire life, it is not a seal of them until they appropriate those promises by faith. So it seems to me that in fact the church does practically speaking makes the [i:a552e1db6a]presumptions[/i:a552e1db6a] of "heir apparent" for those children who have not professed yet, and "inheritance received" or "covenant conditions met" for those who have made profession, thereby granting them full communicant privileges.
[quote:a552e1db6a]
That means we are not only allowed to presume, or privileged to presume, but we must presume; even if it turns out to be wrong in the end. Because if a man falls it is not because God's grace is insufficient, but because his response to faith was insufficient, according to his heart.
[/quote:a552e1db6a]
I agree we must presume something based on the command and promise of God. But is it regeneration we are to presume?
What changes? Nothing changes in the presumption itself. The change is in the personal responsibility the person takes upon himself, not what is presumed.
[/quote:a552e1db6a]
This is a good formulation and makes sense for this version of PR. Now, to another test, is this the historical reformed position? Is this presumption the historical one or is it the "heirs apparent" model of Thornwell? Berkof as well takes a stand very similar to Thornwell in his ST on the grounds for infant baptism. Look at this:
"On the basis of our confessional standards it may be said that infants of believing parents are baptized on the ground that they are [i:a552e1db6a]children of the covenant[/i:a552e1db6a], and are as such [i:a552e1db6a]heirs of the all-comprehensive covenant-promises of God[/i:a552e1db6a], which includes also the promise of the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit unto regeneration and sanctification. In the covenant God makes over to them a certain grant or donation in a formal and objective way, requires of them [i:a552e1db6a]that they will in due time accept this by faith[/i:a552e1db6a], and promises to make it a living reality in their lives by the operation of the Holy Spirit. And in view of this fact [i:a552e1db6a] the Church must regard them as prospective heirs of salvation[/i:a552e1db6a], must regard them as under obligation to walk in the way of the covenant, has the right to expect that, under a faithful covenant adminstration, they, generally speaking, will live in the covenant, and is in duty bound to regard them as covenant breakers, if they do not meet it's requirements. It is only in this way that it does full justice to the promises of God, [i:a552e1db6a]which must in their fulness be appropriated in faith by those who come to maturity[/i:a552e1db6a]." (Berkhof ST pg 638, emphasis mine)
This is almost identical to Thornwell's formulation. He calls them "heirs apparent" and "children of the Church." But until they make profession of faith, the church cannot accept them into full membership. They are being trained to accept their inheritance in the covenant, but until they take hold of the promises themselves by faith the church cannot bring them into full communion. And Thornwell, is not alone. He argued on the basis of the books of discipline from the various branches of the Reformed Churches; Genevan, French, Dutch, Westminster, and even Puritan (Owen). And he is certainly not a baptist in this respect because a baptist would not call their children "children of the covenant" or "children of the Church." (If I'm wrong on this then please any Baptist correct me).
We could call the children "disciples" as Kevin is fond of doing. And I think I could agree with that because they are being trained up in the ways of the Lord. We can call them heirs or children of the covenant, because they are in fact in the covenant, with promises, curses, and obligations. But that doesn't mean they have the fullfilment of the covenant [i:a552e1db6a]yet[/i:a552e1db6a] or that they have recieved the "inheritance." And I think you would all agree to that point. We do not tie the efficacy of baptism to the time of the administration of it but understand that God may choose to fulfill the promises of it whenever He pleases, just as with the Lord's Supper. And though baptism is a sign of the promises of God upon their foreheads their entire life, it is not a seal of them until they appropriate those promises by faith. So it seems to me that in fact the church does practically speaking makes the [i:a552e1db6a]presumptions[/i:a552e1db6a] of "heir apparent" for those children who have not professed yet, and "inheritance received" or "covenant conditions met" for those who have made profession, thereby granting them full communicant privileges.
[quote:a552e1db6a]
That means we are not only allowed to presume, or privileged to presume, but we must presume; even if it turns out to be wrong in the end. Because if a man falls it is not because God's grace is insufficient, but because his response to faith was insufficient, according to his heart.
[/quote:a552e1db6a]
I agree we must presume something based on the command and promise of God. But is it regeneration we are to presume?