The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Presumptive Regeneration

John tells me that this has been discussed here before, so my apologies if this has been addressed recently.

I was in AMsterdam with my husband recently, and we walked through the old district which is of course perfectly lovely with regard to architecture, and a veritable cesspool morally. What was it that caused Holland to fall so far? Some have said it is the doctrine of presumptive regeneration. What is that, and what have been its steps that led to Holland's fall? Has it/Is it happening here? What other facotrs contributed to Holland's demise? Could it not have been the pride of its commercial success? Or are these two things related? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/sick.gif" alt="" />

E. F. Grant,


One does not have to go far in the US to find this same kind of depravity (try Holly Wood, San Francisco or Las Vegas).

I was a front-line witness to the fall of the Dutch mainline denomination CRC (Christian Reformed Church). I do not know how much the idea of presumptive regeneration played in her demise and should leave that to the experts. I do know that liberal and liberation theology played a huge role and I suspect (guessing) that the liberal heretics were a major attack force in the European Holland churches as well. IMO, presumptive regeneration is a very liberal idea in the first place. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" />


Materialism and disobedience to the Tenth Commandment seems always to make fertile ground for heresy and idolatry and as such, leftist politics and Socialism now tends to be the rule in all of Europe. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bow.gif" alt="" />

Denny

Romans 3:22-24

That's an intriguing statement, to be sure: "...presumptive regeneration is a very liberal idea in the first place."

The people I know who hold to presumptive regeneration would faint dead away at the bare suggestion they're in any way "liberal."

I'm not arguing against your statement, just wondering how PR qualifies as liberal, exactly?

TheClingingVine,


I see where you're coming from but I tend to look at it this way. IMO, there is only a very small step from presumptive regeneration to universalism (God loves everyone). Presumptive regeneration often assumes elected children on the part of parents without faithful care and instruction in their upbringing. Or, a tendency towards a physical inheritance rather than a spiritual one. To me, this is the same fault found in the Federal Vision.

Denny

Romans 3:22-24

1) What is it? Presumptive Regeneration takes many forms, i.e., it is expressed in various degrees. But the crux of the matter is a presumption that covenant children are automatically elect, regenerate, saved and/or are to be considered Christians. Again, how it is defined depends upon those who hold to the view.

One of the threads which you may wish to review can be found here: Covenant members and more. In one of my replies in that thread found here: My Reply #7600, I included an attachment "Form for the Baptism of Infants", with my personal emphasis marked out within the document to illustrate this doctrine and the errors it contains.

2) Contribution to the fall of the Dutch churches? It would be silly for me to speculate to what degree Presumptive Regeneration played in the demise (apostasy) of the Dutch Reformed churches. However, that it played a significant part cannot be disputed, IMHO. The fact that any church allows membership without requiring a valid profession of faith will always result in unbelievers and their influence to bring negative affects upon the congregation. Remember, that Presumptive Regeneration says that ALL covenant children are to be presumed saved unless they openly reject/deny Christ, etc. Such unbelievers can and have succeeded in holding ordained offices within the church; offices of authority which allow those occupying them to teach others and/or to formulate ecclesiastical policy and doctrine.

3) Is it happening here? Of course.... Those churches who hold to Presumptive Regeneration are inherently susceptible to the evils it brings. And, IMHO, those who hold to Presumptive Regeneration are even more susceptible to the present danger of NPP, Federalism, etc.

4) What other factors led to Holland's demise? Everything? The Church has always been and always will be a positive influence upon the world. But, it is never going to be the dominant influence whereby the world becomes "Christianized", unless of course, you hold to Postmillennialism and believe in the alleged future "Golden Age". In other words, the churches in Holland (mainly speaking of the Dutch Reformed denominations) by allowing unbelievers to have authority in their churches allowed the influences of the world to enter thereby effectively removing the positive influence it had for many years in restraining evil in the country.

In His grace,

OK, so I guess PR is another name for Covenantal Succession, a tempting doctrine when I first read of it, but I simply see too much evidence, bith Biblical and empirical, against it.

THANKS.

Denny,

Actually, those who hold to Presumptive Regeneration strongly stress "faithful care and instruction" on the part of parents for their children. The error is that they "presume" the salvation of those children and thus the instruction consists not of a call to repentance and belief upon Christ unto justification (since they already presume them to be Christian, saved, or whatever) but rather the emphasis is upon sanctification. As one proponent of Presumptive Regeneration told me, "You don't tell your children to believe upon Christ in order to be saved, but rather you encourage them to be obedient to the covenant; sanctification. In simple terms, parents are to assure their children that they belong to Christ already and they should therefore live holy lives..... aka: synergism.

You are correct, as I also mentioned in my reply to go E. F. Grant, that Presumptive Regeneration opens the door wide for the heresies of NPP, Federal Vision, etc., since they share some common elements re: "covenant".

In His grace,

Pilgrim,


There are numberless churches that regard this as unimportant! In your opinion, what might a "valid profession of faith" entail?

Thanks

Denny

Romans 3:22-24

Denny,

Your question sounds like a perfect candidate for a new thread!

Pilgrim,

I agree that I confused the issue.


This "presumptive regeneration" quote is an upside down Gospel or a slide toward "legalism" is it not?

Thanks

Denny

Romans 3:22-24

And if I may add to this question, is this the reason why Anglicans do a "Confirmation"? (Other than the fact that it stems from the RC First Communion?)

I'm not sure how one would accurately describe it, but it sure does remind me of a couple of passages in Scripture where "covenant children" were addressed:



In both of these quotes from John the Baptist and the Lord Christ respectively, presumption of one's standing with God due to a covenant heritage is soundly rejected and the need for individual repentance and faith in Christ is set forth. And let me emphasize that this is NOT "Baptist" theology... It is Biblical Theology.

In His grace,

BOOYAH!
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/thewave.gif" alt="" />

Eleanor,

Even though I knew that Amsterdam had become the armpit of the world I never really read much about the moral decline in Holland before. Your questions motivated me to do a little research and I found History of Religion in the Netherlands in the Wikipedea free encyclopedia.

You may find this helpful. Sadly I think we can see many parallels to the USA during the 60s and forward.


Wes

Wes,

Thanks for the interesting link. I'm surprise there is no mention of Abraham Kuyper in the entry.

Not that the Baptists are going to disagree with that statement. Well the Reformed Baptists at least.


ps Notice how I didn't say anything about Postmill despite you bringing it up? Restraint is my middle name.

The reason I stated my view (anti-presumptive regeneration) was not "Baptist" theology but rather "Biblical" theology is because quite often, those who hold to presumptive regeneration accuse such persons, as myself, as "siding with Baptist theology". Of course, for that to be a pejorative which surely is the intent, one would have to presume that everything and anything a Baptist believes is spurious. I see this type of attitude as paradigmatic of "Denominational Pride". And we all know what the Scriptures say about that:

Re: "Restraint is my middle name." Tell me, how much did it cost you to have your previous name changed to "Restraint"? If the Judge knew you personally, it probably cost you dearly. . . . . .

In His grace,

John C,

You’re right it doesn’t mention Abraham Kuyper in this report. Which proves this information is not complete without opening the attached links with further information on this topic. For example if you go to the bottom of the page you will notice a link entitled “Religion in the Netherlands.” Open this link and you will see that the information I provided a link to is only part of a larger study on this topic. Along with additional links to more specific information you will see a link entitled “Presumptive Regeneration.” Here Kuyper is mentioned with reference to presumptive regeneration.


You will note that this position didn’t go uncontested and the Westminster Larger Confession addresses this in Question and Answer 80 and 81. The significance of the witness of the Holy Spirit is sighted in opposition to the assumption that all who are baptised are regenerate.

Wes

For those who don't have ready access to the "Westminster Larger Catechism", below is Q&A 80 and 81:

Q80: Can true believers be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and that they shall persevere therein unto salvation?

A80: Such as truly believe in Christ, and endeavor to walk in all good conscience before him,[1] may, without extraordinary revelation, by faith grounded upon the truth of God's promises, and by the Spirit enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made,[2] and bearing witness with their spirits that they are the children of God,[3] be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and shall persevere therein unto salvation.[4]

1. John 2:3
2. I Cor. 2:12; I John 3:14, 18-19, 21, 24; 4:13, 16; Heb. 6:11-12
3. Rom. 8:16
4. I John 5:13

Q81: Are all true believers at all times assured of their present being in the estate of grace, and that they shall be saved?
A81: Assurance of grace and salvation not being of the essence of faith,[1] true believers may wait long before they obtain it;[2] and, after the enjoyment thereof, may have it weakened and intermitted, through manifold distempers, sins, temptations, and desertions;[3] yet are they never left without such a presence and support of the Spirit of God as keeps them from sinking into utter despair.[4]

1. Eph. 1:13
2. Isa. 1:10; Psa. ch. 88
3. Psa. 22:1; 31:22; 51:8, 12; 87:1-12; Song of Sol. 5:2-3, 6
4. I John 3:9; Job 13:15; Psa. 73:15, 23; Isa. 54:7-10

Perhaps I should also mention that the "Westminster Larger Catechism" along with myriad other Reformed Confessions and Catechisms can be easily accessed on your own PC by downloading and installing this program: Refcon3.

If anyone is confused as to how to install Refcon3 on their PC(s), post your question in the Computer Help Desk Forum and we'll provide easy instructions for installation and also tell you how to create a shortcut to add to your Start Menu.

In His grace,

Well in the 1900's perhaps it was the doctrine of common grace and the conditional covenant. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />

Perhaps you could expand on this a bit to show how an alleged embracing of God's "common grace", aka: benevolence to all mankind and "conditional covenant" contributed to the continental reformed churches downfall? BTW, if your sources are from the PRC, you do realize don't you that although they were and still are opposed to Presumptive Regeneration, they do practice the same. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

Thanks, I will look that up now. I am going to be back in Amsterdam within the week, but only on our way to someplace else. It's a shame that such a handsome people who were and are obviously so talented and industrious should have come to this pass! May God have mercy on them.

Well I did say perhaps meaning as an alternative to the Presumptive Regeneration theory. Some believe if I understand correctly that common grace goes much further than God raining on the just and the unjust. The idea of a common grace leads to the idea that there is some kind of a special grace in the preaching of the gospel and that God has a desire (though fleeting) to save all even the reprobate.

The conditional covenant gives a child born in the covenant a blank check from God and he can cash it at any time based on his faith and repentance.

So I suppose the idea is that arminianism has lifted it's slippery head through these doctrines and has won the battle destroying both church and state.

After all if the church or nation have a god who is not a potter over the clay isn't it a matter of time before they live like it.

Wasn't Bavincks teaching of common grace widespread in the Netherlands in the 1900's? Also does anyone know what has happened to the churches that the PRCA refomed out of in the 20's and 50's, are the still sound?

William <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Unfortunately, that caricature of the doctrine of "Common Grace" is inaccurate. No mainline Calvinist that I have ever come across, either in person or via writing, has ever hinted at never mind advocated any kind of "special grace in the preaching", etc. The "desire" element has always been hotly debated also due to much misunderstanding. That God "desires" [preceptive will] that all men repent and believe upon Christ cannot be disputed, with the exception of classic hyper-Calvinists. Again, I know of no mainline Calvinist who has ever advocated that God "desires", i.e., "wills" the salvation of all men without discrimination. If God "desired" the salvation of all men, then all men would be infallibly saved.

From my own understanding of "conditional covenant", it holds that covenant children are born in sin and unless they repent and believe upon Christ, the promises of the covenant are inaccessible. In short, there is no "unconditional promise" made to covenant children which to them is granted union with Christ and all the salvific benefits that flow from His vicarious substitutionary work to them de facto because they are born of a parent who professes faith. And, that this union with Christ is theirs unless they at some time deny the faith; aka: the Faith.

From my own reading, again, those who are most adamantly opposed to "conditional covenant", in the end, practice that which they oppose. This is basically an "in house" debate, i.e., among Reformed churches of the paedobaptist persuasion. An example of the hypocrisy of those most opposed is that they too use the official Form for the Baptism of Infants (emphasis mine) which clearly teaches that ALL covenant children are united to Christ, have their sins remitted in His blood, etc., etc.... because they are born into a covenant household.

It is all too common to hear/see this type of statement wherein if someone holds to biblical "Common Grace" and/or holds that covenant children, although privileged in that they are given the means of grace whereby they may be saved IF they repent and believe, are by nature children of wrath and subject to damnation unless the Holy Spirit regenerates their corrupt nature and brings them to Christ, then they can be said to embrace Arminianism to some degree.

I'm with you all the way on this one.

In His grace,

Nahh I did it in Canada the exchange rate made it cheap and the liberal Canadian judges made it a cinch.

That was a fascinating article. Very telling in places, and I consider myself warned by it. Need to re-read it.