The Southern Presbyterians on Baptism?
March 10, 2008 at 10:47 am (Federal Vision)
Continuing on in RINE to chapter 22. I agree somewhat with Wilson’s assessment of the debate, that it is “a debate over the theology of children.” I think there is more to it than that, in that the debate also swirls around election, justification, apostasy, and especially the nature of benefits that non-elect church members receive. I would probably prefer, then, to say that the debate swirls around a nexus of issues, children certainly being one of them. That being said, I personally have no problem in asserting that children can have faith from the womb. I see nothing in Scripture to overturn that assessment, and actually see several pointers in this direction, from the reaction of John the Baptist to Jesus to David’s assertions in the Psalms about trusting in God from his mother’s breast. Where I would probably differ from the FV is that I would say that such a seed of faith, if it exists, will infallibly produce complete salvation over the course of one’s life, with apostasy not being a possibility. And I do not believe that every child of the covenant possesses it. If a child says at age 4 “I believe in Jesus,” I will not doubt the word of said child, but will encourage that child to continue to grow in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. I do not believe that violent conversion experiences are necessary in their case, but that they can grow up into the faith. However, it is also true that many covenant children do need a violent conversion experience, because some of them were not regenerate from the womb. Every child’s story is different, and it does no good to force one single paradigm on how this happens. Some are regenerate from the womb, while others are converted later in life. But if the true faith appears, it will never pass away, because the Lord will finish that which He started.
That being said, Wilson makes some claims (based on Schenck’s book) with which I am having a hard time. Specifically, these claims that are being made about the Southern Presbyterians are difficult for me. First of all, there were no direct quotations from any Southern Presbyterians in support of a rather sweeping claim made about them. Secondly, there is evidence from Dabney that contradicts Wilson’s claims. Dabney says point blank “Infants are capable of redemption” (ST, pg. 779). He further asks this rhetorical question, “Can there be no meaning in a pledge of God’s covenant-favour applied to an infant, because the infant does not yet apprehend it? No sense at all; because it has no sense to him? Strange reasoning!” On the next page, Dabney goes on to talk about the infant’s moral education, noting that it begins ”so soon as petulance, anger, selfishness, can be exhibited by an infant; so soon as it can apprehend the light of a mother’s smile beaming upon it as it hangs upon her breast; as soon as it can know to tremble at her frown.” This kind of language does not exactly sound like an overwhelming rejection of presumptive regeneration, unless by that one means that every covenant child is undoubtedly regenerate. To me, Dabney sounds like he is talking about catechizing, talking about treating each child as part of the covenant. Thirdly, I cannot find the Thornwell quotation in any of the four volumes which constitute his works.
greenbaggins
glwjohnson
jeffhutchinson
davejes1979
reformedmusings
its.reed
Andrew Webb
Andrew Duggan said,
March 10, 2008 at 11:34 am
Excellent! Simple, easy and right-on.
rey said,
March 10, 2008 at 11:35 am
“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God [i.e. be regenerated], [even] to them that believe on his name:” (John 1:12) Sorry, but the whole notion of regeneration prior to belief is still purely a joke to me. I mean the punchline is good and all, but you really could come up with a better joke if you tried a little harder.
Jeff Cagle said,
March 10, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Rey,
Can you acknowledge that you’ve conflated two terms, “becoming the sons of God” — usually called adoption — and “regeneration” that are not necessarily the same?
Consider this:
There is a long strand of interpretive thought that reads this chronologically: one is born of the Spirit, then one believes, then one receives eternal life. This reading is supported by John 6, Eph 2, and other passages.
This is what is meant by “regeneration precedes belief.” The Holy Spirit must change us before we can believe.
It is not “justification precedes belief” or “adoption as a son of God precedes belief”, but “regeneration.” Or “effectual calling.”
Hope it helps,
Jeff Cagle
GLW Johnson said,
March 10, 2008 at 12:22 pm
rey
It is because you are not remotely Reformed that the standard Calvinistic doctrine of efficacious grace fails to resonate with your Arminian sympathies.
kjsulli said,
March 10, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Rey,
The next verse says that those who received Him, those who believe in His name, “were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” To these He gave the right to become children of God. Regeneration precedes belief, belief precedes adoption.
The joke’s on you.
kjsulli said,
March 10, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Lane,
Andrew Webb has a good post on this subject here.
Roger Mann said,
March 10, 2008 at 1:13 pm
2: Rey wrote,
“Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” — John 3:3
“But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” — 1 Cor. 2:14
“Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.” — 1 Cor. 12:3
The fact is, no one can see the kingdom of God, receive the spiritual truths of the gospel, or confess Jesus as Lord (which results in salvation — Rom. 10:10) unless he has been regenerated or “born again” by the Spirit of God. That’s why Scripture plainly declares: “The Lord opened [Lydia’s] heart to heed the things spoken by Paul” (Acts 16:14). The only reason Lydia believed Paul’s proclamation of the gospel is because the Lord had granted her spiritual life and “opened her heart.” Apart from that, she would have remained “dead in [her] trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1). As Jeff C. pointed out, you are confusing “adoption” (Jn. 1:12) with “regeneration” (Jn. 1:13). Regeneration always precedes “belief” and “adoption” and God’s children.
J.R. Polk said,
March 10, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Rey,
Rom 3:11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.
That being the case, where do those mentioned in your proof text get the faith to “receive Him?”
Phi 1:29 because to you it hath been granted in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer in his behalf. . .
I’m afraid that the joke is on those who think faith precedes regeneration.
Roger Mann said,
March 10, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Sorry, the last line of my previous post should have read:
Regeneration always precedes “belief” and “adoption” as God’s children.
pduggie said,
March 10, 2008 at 3:40 pm
I think the discussion is evidence of the distinction between the rarified discourse of theology and the bible.
If you’re “born again” in the Bible’s sense, you have new life AND you are a child of God. Because new birth always implies a new family. Its inescapable.
But theologians must have their distinctions.
pduggie said,
March 10, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Roger: Lydia was already a saved god-fearing gentile. If she had died 5 minutes before Paul arrived on the scene she’d be in heaven still. Its proof-texting to refer to her as evidence of new birth.
greenbaggins said,
March 10, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Regarding comment 10, I would say that biblical theologians must have their lack of distinctions and their rarified atmosphere of mud.
David Weiner said,
March 10, 2008 at 7:30 pm
The idea of ‘regeneration’ preceding ‘faith’ has troubled me for some time now as I have continued to see it show up in comments here. I can not satisfy myself as to whether the issue is simply semantics or, in fact, it is substantive.
Surely, God (the Holy Spirit) must do something first. The first thing the person must do is exercise (definitely not a work
) her faith. So, the point at which the person enters the transaction is after the HS has given him faith. What you all (or at least most of you) seem to be saying is that God can not give faith to a person who is spiritually dead or spiritually separated from Him. So, God must first make the person spiritually alive (regenerate?) before that person can accept the gift of faith. However, once the person is spiritually alive do they not have a restored relationship with God? Is there a chance that if they don’t then exercise faith that God will take their spiritual life away again? And, doesn’t that mean that sanctification, justification etc. must all have been provided at the point at which they are spiritually alive?
Jordan Harris said,
March 10, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Thanks for the post. I’m happy to see that you’ve put forth a very balanced and Reformed understanding of baptism, avoding the pseudo-Romanism of Federal Vision, while still defending the sovereign grace of God in saving children as He wills. This seems to me the very crux of historic Presbyterianism. While God is not bound by the sacrament of baptism, he can and does save the elect before, during, or after their baptism. I also think there is room for such views on baptism like those of Cornelius Burgess or Samuel Ward, who both defended a kind of baptismal regeneration which harmonized with the three forms and Westminster. Burgess, himself a Westminster Divine, viewed baptism as spiritually regenerative in the sense that the Holy Spirit creates the seed of faith, in baptism, to elect infants only. This protects from any kind of Arminian understanding of perseverance which the FV guys seem to be propogating. All in all, Presbyterianism has always possessed a robust and theologically rich understanding of baptism which avoids both the perils of Romanism and Anabaptistic extremism.
Ron Henzel said,
March 10, 2008 at 8:42 pm
David,
I recommend that you read Articles 12, 13, and 14 in the Canons of Dort. I think it addresses the questions you are asking.
Ron Henzel said,
March 10, 2008 at 8:44 pm
David,
I forgot to specify that you’ll need to scroll down to the section titled, “The Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine” to find the articles I have in mind.
David Weiner said,
March 10, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Ron,
I must be really dense; but, I can’t make the connection between those articles and my questions. The articles I read seem to address aspects of assurance. My questions have to do with what is going on long before assurance comes into the picture.
David Weiner said,
March 10, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Ron,
Got it now . . . I’ll try them.
David Weiner said,
March 10, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Ron,
Article 12 starts off with “And this is the regeneration, the new creation, the raising from the dead, and the making alive so clearly proclaimed in the Scriptures, which God works in us without our help.” This sounds like the transaction has been completed and faith was not required?
Ron Henzel said,
March 11, 2008 at 6:03 am
David,
Regarding your comment #18: regeneration is only the beginning of the Spirit’s working in the hearts of the elect. Faith is the inevitable consequence of this beginning, as the article you’re citing later states: “As a result, all those in whose hearts God works in this marvelous way are certainly, unfailingly, and effectively reborn and do actually believe.” Regeneration leads to the faith through which God justifies us by imputing to us the active obedience of Christ (cf. WCF 11.1, which the Federal Visionists hate).
David Gilleran said,
March 11, 2008 at 7:53 am
The quote from Thornwell may be in his Life and Letters.
markhorne said,
March 11, 2008 at 4:58 pm
The gift of faith is regeneration. No one is ever regenerate and unbelieving. The faith of regenerate infants may be a seed of more mature faith as they mature in discipleship, but it is still a faith sufficient (alone-sufficient, BTW) for justification.
Regeneration precedes faith like the sun precedes light. It is the language of cause and effect, not temperal duration.
markhorne said,
March 11, 2008 at 4:59 pm
And by the way, yes, distinctions are very important.
Roger Mann said,
March 13, 2008 at 1:49 pm
22: Mark wrote,
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Both Scripture and the Confession teach that regeneration normally occurs in conjunction with God’s effectual call (1 Pet. 1:23; James 1:1
— it is the effecting force in God’s effectual summons — and enables His elect people to respond in faith for justification:
“This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from any thing at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit [i.e., regenerated], he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.” (WCF 10.2)
Since the Confession teaches that regeneration “enables” the elect sinner to answer God’s effectual call and to embrace the grace offered in the gospel, regeneration and faith are two distinct gifts of grace:
“Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called [in conjunction with regeneration]; whom He called, these He also justified [by faith alone]; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.” (Rom. 8:30)
Again, regeneration, in conjunction with the effectual call, is clearly distinguished from justification by faith in this passage. Therefore regeneration is not faith, but rather regeneration and faith are two distinct gifts of grace. In other words, regeneration precedes faith; that is, one is not “born again” by faith, but he is enabled to believe precisely because God has first regenerated him.
I’m not sure this is correct either. What evidence suggests that regeneration never precedes faith in “temporal duration.” Where does Scripture teach this? If predestination precedes effectual calling in temporal duration, and effectual calling precedes justification in temporal duration, and justification precedes glorification in temporal duration (Rom. 8:30), then on what exegetical basis can we say that regeneration, in conjunction with effectual calling, never precedes the faith by which we are justified in temporal duration?
Roger Mann said,
March 13, 2008 at 2:22 pm
11: Paul wrote,
According to what Scriptural evidence? The passage simply says that Lydia was a “worshiper of God” (Acts 16:14), as were the lost Jews who had a “zeal for God, but not according to knowledge” (Rom. 10:2). And was not Cornelius “a devout man who feared God with all his household” (Acts 10:2), yet he was a lost man until the Holy Spirit came upon him and he believed the gospel?
“Then God has granted the gentiles repentance unto life” (Acts 11:1
“So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.” (Acts 15:8-9)
Therefore, the fact that Lydia was a “worshiper of God” in no way implies that she was a “saved” Gentile who’d still “be in heaven” even without believing the gospel preached by Paul! Sorry, but you’re not going to get away with teaching salvation apart from the gospel today!
“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes [which would include Lydia], for the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (Rom. 1:16)
markhorne said,
March 13, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Cornelius was a believer whose prayers and alms were acceptable to God–which means he was already justified before God just like uncircumcised Abraham had been.
Regarding Lydia: Paul doesn’t worship with unbelievers but that is exactly what he did with her. As a God-fearer Lydia was already one who had the hope of the resurrection.
Your scriptural citations only work if you import theological meaning into the words that others find doubtful. They don’t work as arguments in this case. Technically, they beg the question.
David Gray said,
March 13, 2008 at 2:45 pm
>you’re not going to get away with teaching salvation apart from the gospel today!
That is a cheap shot. It is a pity that cheap shots are not more expensive.
markhorne said,
March 13, 2008 at 2:48 pm
24:
Not seeing how this is relevant. Sure “conception” is distinct from “a new human life” but it is still the case that one is the immediate cause of the other. God gives us a new nature that believes from the start and does not exist for any moment in time in unbelief. God summons us to believe and we believe in response to the summons.
For the rest of your query, I think the evidence is all over Scripture. Regenerated unbeliever is a contradiction of terms. I don’t feel any need to argue the point.
Roger Mann said,
March 13, 2008 at 3:28 pm
27: David, how is that a “cheap shot?” Luke says that the Lord opened Lydia’s heart “to heed the things spoken by Paul” (Acts 16:14), which was clearly the gospel message in the context. Yet pduggie says that Lydia “was already a saved god-fearing gentile,” and would “be in heaven” if she died even without believing Paul’s gospel message. It’s not a cheap shot at all — it’s the plain truth!
26 & 28: Mark, I’ll respond to you as soon as I can find the time. I’ve got to go right now.
markhorne said,
March 13, 2008 at 4:58 pm
29> All too fair
But if you do, are you understanding Paul (d) to be saying that Lydia would have been fine if she had heard and rejected Paul’s (the Apostle’s) message?
Are Children Assumed to be Saved? « Green Baggins said,
March 14, 2008 at 9:54 am
[...] 14, 2008 at 9:54 am (Federal Vision) Wilson has responded to my post on the covenant succession chapter in RINE. The real question is this: should we treat children as [...]
Roger Mann said,
March 14, 2008 at 2:12 pm
26: Mark wrote,
It does not logically follow that Cornelius “was already justified before God” simply because his prayers and alms went up as a “memorial before God” (Acts 10:4). Not only is such an assumption totally unwarranted, but it is directly contrary to the plain teaching of the passage.
First, the angel specifically told Cornelius that Peter would preach words to him “by which you and your household will be saved” (Acts 11:14).
Second, Peter fulfilled this commission by proclaiming to Cornelius that “through [Jesus’] name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins,” at which time “the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word” (Acts 10:43-44).
Third, after Peter explained these events to the Jews in Jerusalem, they responded by saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life” (Acts 11:18).
Fourth, when Peter responded to the question of whether Gentile converts needed to be circumcised in order to be saved, he recounted the conversion of Cornelius by saying: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:7-9).
Therefore, Cornelius was not “already justified before God” as you boldly assert, for only when a man hears and believes the gospel is he saved: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes [which would include Cornelius], for the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16; cf. 10:11-17).
By the way, this was also Calvin’s assessment of the text, as can be seen by the following comments:
“The purpose of Peter, and all the whole sum of his speech, shall appear by the conclusion. Yet, before I come thither, we must briefly mark that he maketh the preaching of the gospel the cause of salvation. Thou shalt hear (saith he) words wherein thou mayest have salvation, not because salvation is included in man’s voice, but because God, offering his Son there unto eternal life, doth also cause us to enjoy him by faith.” (Commentary, Acts 11:14)
“Then hath God. Luke doth briefly declare in these words what the gospel containeth, and to what end it tendeth, to wit, that God may reconcile men to himself, being renewed by his Spirit. The word repentance alone is expressed in this place, but when he addeth unto life, it appeareth plainly that it is not separated from faith. Therefore, whosoever will rightly profit in the gospel, let him put off the old man, and think upon newness of life, (Ephesians 4:22
that done, let him know for a certainty that he is not called in vain unto repentance, but that there is salvation prepared for him in Christ. So shall it come to pass, that the hope and assurance of salvation shall rest upon the free mercy of God alone, and that the forgiveness of sins shall, notwithstanding, be no cause of sluggish security. This member, to give repentance, may be expounded two manner of ways; either that God granted to the Gentiles place for repentance, when as he would have his gospel preached to them; or that he circumcised their hearts by his Spirit, as Moses saith, (Deuteronomy 30:6,) and made them fleshy hearts of stony hearts, as saith Ezekiel, (Ezekiel 11:19.) For it is a work proper to God alone to fashion and to beget men again, that they may begin to be new creatures; and it agreeth better with this second sense; it is not so much racked, and it agreeth better with the phrase [phraseology] of Scripture.” (Commentary, Acts 11:1 
“And he put no difference. There was indeed some difference, because the Gentiles who were uncircumcised were suddenly admitted unto the covenant of eternal life; whereas the Jews were prepared by circumcision unto faith… Seeing that by faith he hath purified. This member is answerable to that former adjunct which he applieth to God; as if he should say, that God, who knoweth the hearts, did inwardly purge the Gentiles, when he vouchsafed to make them partakers of his adoption, that they might be endued with spiritual cleanness. But he addeth farther, that this purity did consist in faith. Therefore he teacheth, first, that the Gentiles have true holiness without ceremonies, which may suffice before God’s judgment-seat. Secondly, he teacheth that this is attained unto by faith, and from it doth it flow.” (Commentary, Acts 15:9)
The passage says absolutely nothing about Paul going to “worship” with the women of Macedonia. You are simply reading that into the text in order to support your position. To the contrary, the text specifically says that Paul went to Macedonia in order to “preach the gospel to them,” and it was for this very reason that he “sat down and spoke to the women” by the riverside.
“Now after he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go to Macedonia, concluding that the Lord had called us to preach the gospel to them… And on the Sabbath day we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made; and we sat down and spoke to the women who met there.” — Acts 16:10-13
Paul went to “preach the gospel” to them, and Lydia responded in belief solely because “the Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul” (Acts 1614) — plain and simple. As Scripture expresses it elsewhere, she was “brought forth by the word of truth” (James 1:18), “having been born again…through the word of God which lives and abides forever” (1 Peter 1:23). Furthermore, the context quite clearly indicates that Lydia’s heart was “closed” to the gospel message until “the Lord opened her heart” to heed the things spoken by Paul. Therefore, your position has zero support in the text.
David Gray said,
March 14, 2008 at 2:15 pm
>To the contrary, the text specifically says that Paul went to Macedonia in order to “preach the gospel to them,” and it was for this very reason that he “sat down and spoke to the women” by the riverside.
Roger, do you need the gospel preached to you or are you past all that sort of thing? I need it from this moment till death.
Roger Mann said,
March 14, 2008 at 2:38 pm
30: Mark wrote,
Well, this is precisely what he said:
“Lydia was already a saved god-fearing gentile. If she had died 5 minutes before Paul arrived on the scene she’d be in heaven still.”
So I’m understanding him to be saying that “Lydia was already a saved god-fearing gentile,” and that she would have went to heaven even if “she had died 5 minutes before Paul arrived on the scene” and she never believed the gospel that he came to preach. In other words, it was unnecessary for her to believe Paul’s gospel, because she was “already” a saved woman who was meet for heaven. How else can his words be understood?
Roger Mann said,
March 14, 2008 at 2:50 pm
33: David wrote,
David, what’s your point? How is this question in any way relevant to what I wrote? The entire point is that Paul went to Macedonia in order to “preach the gospel to them” for the very first time! In other words, Paul went to preach the gospel to them for their salvation, and it was for this very reason that he “sat down and spoke to the women” by the riverside:
“Now after he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go to Macedonia, concluding that the Lord had called us to preach the gospel to them… And on the Sabbath day we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made; and we sat down and spoke to the women who met there.” — Acts 16:10-13