Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Monergist, Aug 2, 2005.
Here's a simple statement of the doctine as defined by Abraham Kuyper:
Bad theology. To presume someone is saved until they demonstrate otherwise is to deny the universal nature of sin. We should in fact do the opposite ... assume they are unsaved until they demonstrate faith.
Thats a new one to me. I would agree with Pastor Larry though, it deffinatly is a smack and the universal nature of sin.
It certainly would be difficult to proof Scripturally.
This is infant baptism theology, specifically, Presbyterianism. Seeing that this is a Baptist Board, and this is the Calvinism/Arminianism section, I'm not sure why the question was posted here.
It sounds like Abraham has the USA courts mixed up with his theology. There are many things wrong with this view. One is what Larry pointed to. Others off the top of my head, listed below.
1)A new life in Christ is born again. Not just Born one time
2) Adoption will not work with this view
3) Drawing from the Holy Spirit..would not work
This sounds close to pure Pelagius. He held that man being unaffected by adams sin is morally "well" not dead. Each new person is a new adam and must fall on his own based on his own sins.
At any rate...bad theology
I think many are missing the point. "Presumed to be regenerated" does not deny the universal nature of sin. The claim is that God is still building His covenant people through physical birth, like He did in OT Israel, and the presumption is that God has overcome sin in the life of the newborn through spiritual birth as well. They teach the child that he is a believer (which, incidentally, means that they can in fact sing "Jesus Loves Me" to the child.) Only if the child grows to a state in which he gives a credible denial of the gospel should the parents presume that God has not regenerated the child.
Now, I do not believe this view is Biblical, but we would be more fair to respond to what the writer actually said.
hmmm. this raises an interesting question...
ABRAHAM KUYPER, THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, 1900, Page 361
Our Status (Volume 2, Chapter 31)
"And he believed in the Lord: and be counted it to him for righteousness. --Gen. xv. 6.
The right touches a man's status. So long as the law has not Proven him guilty, has not convicted and sentenced him, his legal status is that of a free and law-abiding citizen. But as soon as his guilt is proven in court and the jury has convicted him, he passes from that into the status of the bound and law-breaking citizen.
The same applies to our relation to God. Our status before God is that either of the just or of the unjust. In the former, we are not condemned or we are released from condemnation. He that is still under condemnation occupies the status of the unjust.
Hence, and this is noteworthy, a man's status depends not upon what he is, but upon the decision of the proper authorities regarding him; not upon what he is actually, but upon what he is counted to be.
A clerk in an office is innocently suspected of embezzlement, and accused before a court of law. He pleads not guilty; but the suspicions against him carry conviction, and the judge condemns him. Now, though he did not embezzle, is actually innocent, he is counted guilty. And since a man does not determine his own status, but his sovereign or judge determines it for him, the status of this clerk, although innocent, is, from the moment of his conviction, that of a law- breaker. And the contrary may occur just as well. In the absence of convicting evidence the judge may acquit a dishonest clerk, who, although guilty and a law-breaker, still retains his status of a law-abiding and honest citizen. In this case he is dishonorable, but he is counted honorable. Hence a man's status depends not upon what he actually is, but what he is counted to be.
The reason is, that man's status has no reference to his inward being, but only to the manner in which he is to be treated. It would be useless to determine this himself, for his fellow citizens would
You have added some light ot what Kuyper meant perhaps, but I still can't buy the argument. First, to say that God is still building his people through physical birth as in Israel is not true. In fact, the NT explicitly shows the difference between "the nation" and those who are not a nation. That was prophesied in teh OT as well.
Secondly, to teach a child that he is a believer until his disbelieves or gives a "credible denial" (whatever that means) is certainly not biblical either. I just can't be the premise or the conclusion.
I guess it all hinges on one thing: Is a young child without the knowledge of right, wrong, and God a sinner who will go to hell if he/she dies? Am I right?
Bottom line is, the Presbyterian has to believe in presumptive regeneration, in order to bolster his belief in non-regenerational(word?) infant baptism. Both beliefs are unbiblical. The Lutheran doesn't have the same dilemma as the Presby, since the Lutheran doctrine of baptism is much closer to baptismal regeneration, so they don't need to presume regeneration, they already think it's accomplished at baptism.
But again, why is this being discussed on this board? Maybe it belongs on the "Other Denominations" board?
For a diversion for the same-old same-old...
And to see the responses. I think it fits here; it deals with election, depravity, and the accountability of children, all of which are discussed here.
I joined this board as a life-long Baptist, but since have beome PCA. Presumptive Regeneration is not something I have accepted, rather I find myself tending to oppose it. But like I said, I wanted to see the responses.
For anyone interested, here is a defense of the postition in the form of a catechism.
A Catechism on Infant Inclusion in the Covenant of Grace
My difficulties start with question #5.
By the way, I don't this is or has been the dominant view among conservative Reformed Presbyterians.
Any thoughts? </font>[/QUOTE]An example of pushing Covenant Theology into a hole.
Any thoughts? </font>[/QUOTE]Election by genetics - by family lineage is "conditional election" for it means you are chosen BASED on your family relationship.
JohnP had been promoting this non-stop in recent months.
It does not "appear" to have worked in the lives of David's children.
IF you conclude than that some were elect and some not - then what was the point of presumptive regeneration in the first place?
If Baptism of infants does not "accomplish" regeneration (as in one of the non-Lutheran views) why do it?
Well, I heard Steve Brown say once "I don't believe that you have to be a Presbyterian to go to heaven...but why risk it?"
Maybe that's their motive. Can't be too careful, y'know.
I like that.
"Our doctrine does not support the idea of magic sacraments but JUST IN Case we are all going to the RC priest today for confession and communion".
What a hoot!!
Election is of God as it is of God to place the elect into any womb He chooses is it not? Was the world the chosen nation or was it genetic Israel?
He says:They and their children and their children's children will live there forever... Eze 37:25.
He says: ...the LORD's love is with those who fear him, and his righteousness with their children's children... Ps 103:17.
And what is more I have believed it because I know God and I know my children but if I err ..."He is the LORD; let him do what is good in his eyes." 1 Sam 3:17.
And the scripture for this is what?
Children of believers should be treated with the same respect as any other part of the Body. There should be no doubt that they are members of the Body of Christ regardless of how they behave. Behaviour is not a determining factor, God elects and has promised us our kids and theirs. Comfort for His Bride and a love that surpasses understanding. That's nice ain't it from a cold hearted miserable Calvinist? But as I said: ..."He is the LORD; let him do what is good in his eyes." Or rather Eli told us how we will behave at any news from our Father. Love never harms.
The baptising of infants is of no effect except in the cases where the children are regenerated prior to the baptism but I left it up to my kids to decide. Regeneration of believers children might be done at their death as well as the beginning of life.
Anyway I was just looking around to see what was going on and I just happened to read my best publicist, good old Bob, spouting my name hither-and-thither and thought I would respond. I'll catch up on the rest of the thread later.
Most all adults who claim to be "Christian" also claim to be "regenerate" but there is no objective test for regeneration. Thus particularly the Reformed Catechisms and formularies contain many personal pronouns which infer that those who recite the formulae are regenerate and imply that those who do not are not.
....That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
I belong to the PCA and I do believe the posts that say we believe in presumptive regeneration are false. We baptizt infants on the basis of covenant theology, we do not believe the child is a believer and therefore saved. We believe that if the parents raise the child according to God's ways he will do his work in the child and bring them to salvation according to the promise he has given.