Pilgrim said: That's because they had no faith of their own they could testify to. Faith is not part and parcel of being a member of the external covenant. They were not the covenant children to whom the promise was made. They were not the children of Abraham but of the Devil. (cf. Jh 8:44; Rom 4:16; 9:7, 8, 29; Gal 3:29) They, like EVERYONE, were born spiritually dead. They inherited the corruption of nature which is infallibly passed down through families. And as such, they like our own children, were born under the wrath and just condemnation of God. They, like our own children, needed to be called to repentance and FAITH. Neither Jesus, nor John the Baptist, nor any of the Apostles ever presumed that there was faith in any of the covenant children they met. The gospel was given to ALL without discrimination because ALL needed to be saved; not presumed to be Christians.
Pilgrim, I agree with your "two seed" theology. There is a seed of Christ and a seed of the devil. I would also say that it sometimes the case that one finds tares even amongst the wheat and that a dragnet pulls in fish both good and bad. Having said that, I disagree with your characterization of my position as "presumptive." Jesus had some very important things to say about the children who were coming to him in Matth. 19:14. He did not say that they were head-for-head elect, nor do I believe that they were. I'm not sure if this is simply such a drastic difference from modern American Calvinism that it is difficult for a North American audience to distinguish, or if I am simply a very poor spokesman.
What I have been presenting is the position of the Westminster Assembly -- esp. its Directory for the Publick Worship of God -- and the Church Order of Dordt. Thus, too, the Heidelberg Catechism at Q74, "Are infants also to be baptized? Yes: for since they as well as the adult are included in the covenant and church of God; and since redemption from sin by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult; they must, therefore, by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, be also admitted into the Christian church, and be distinguished from the children of infidels, as was done in the old covenant or testament by circumcision, instead of which baptism was instituted in the new covenant.
Ursinus, author of the Heidelberg Catechism, explained in part,
Quote
Secondly, those are not to be excluded from baptism to whom the benefit of the remission of sins, and of regeneration belongs. But this benefit belongs to the infants of the church; for redemption from sin, by the blood of Christ and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith is promised to them no less than to the adult. Therefore they ought to be baptized.
Article 34 of the Netherlands [Belgic] Confession states, "And indeed Christ shed his blood no less for the washing of the children of the faithful, than for the adult persons; and therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that, which Christ hath done for them."
So, the reformed creeds, confessions, and directories were not at all hesitant to make such statements. Can one disagree with them and still be a Calvinist? Of course. The 1689 London Confession is an essentially baptistic document that is quite Calvinistic. Further, I agree (one has to close the pages of the Bible not to agree) that the line of election and reprobation cuts through the visible manifestation of the covenant and makes a distinction between Israel according to the flesh and Israel according to the promise.
I am familiar with Dr. Nicole's famous dictum "grace, not race." But IMO that sets up a false dichotomy. God is not realizing his covenant in history apart from the organic unity of the covenant. There is an outworking of the covenant in history (always has been; always will be) that contains an organic element. Denial of that organic element is fundamental to the antipaedobaptistic position.
These two positions (doctrines) must be held together. One cannot choose election over the covenant and neither may one rightly choose the covenant over election. But that is the dichotomy that Nicole expresses -- and I think most antipaedobaptists do as well, though not so eloquently as he. Samuel Rutherford, one of the Scottish commissioners to the Westminster Assembly, referred to the covenant as "God's workship." It is primarily, though not exclusively, within the context of the visible covenant that God calls out his elect.
The reformed creeds and confessions can certainly "sound" like they teach presumptive regeneration -- what they actually teach is that we should expect our children to be Christian children. That expectation may be realized sooner or later; but it is a real expectation. We raise our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; we train them in the ways of God; we watch them grow in grace and in knowledge of Jesus Christ; we see that they speak and behave as those who assent to God's own truth. If an adult were trained in the ways of God, well grown in grace and knowledge, spoke and behaved as one who assents to God's own truth, what would we say about him? We would not "presume" he is a Christian. We would say that his profession of faith is a credible one. That is exactly what the reformed creeds spoke of with respect to children as well.
Quote
So, the WCF at 28:1, "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:...." Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, pp. 661-2.
It is important to note that the reformed creeds do not say that regeneration is tied to baptism such that it takes place at the same time or prior to baptism. In fact, the WCF goes so far as to deny that idea. But, like Matthew 28:19-20, the reformed creeds join baptism and discipleship in a covenantal way. Who is saved? Those who believe and are baptized. How do we make disciples? By baptizing them and teaching them to observe all things that Christ has commanded (which commands include the command to repent and believe the gospel). So, does this sometimes sound like presumptive regeneration? It can to some -- and apparently did to Kuyper. But that is not what the creeds teach. And on a slightly less important note -- that is why we call creeds and confessions secondary or derivative standards, and do not make the same claim for individual theologians.
I have written this post, Pilgrim, in order to point out first of all that the language I use is simply and only the language of the reformed creeds and confessions. It was not incorrect or unbiblical of them to use the language, nor is it incorrect for us to use that language today. Second, I want to point out that we do not have to accept the dichotomy that is often times presented to us by such phrases as "grace, not race." Such a phrase siezes the ground away from biblical theology by setting at odds two things that God has not set at odds. Finally, I want to assure those who have read these posts (and unquestionably in the multitude of words there wanteth not sin - Prov 10:19) that I do not believe nor do the reformed creeds teach that baptism is a substitute for faith. The two have been joined together by God. We separate them at great peril.
