The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Monergism

William,

The "colorized" portions were not inserted by me but are part of the actual form. Let's get that point in our minds first. Secondly, I have not charged the Dutch Reformed Churches in general with holding to BAPTISMAL REGENERATION, but rather PRESUMPTIVE REGENERATION. The former is held by both Roman Catholics and Lutherans, i.e., baptism has some inherent salvific qualities. Thirdly, what the first part of the form says is true, i.e., taught in Scripture. However, the form then goes on to say that this necessity of being born again INHERENTLY belongs to all the children of believers. This is PRESUMPTIVE REGENERATION... get it? The form is indisputably clear in its teaching that covenant children are "in Christ". Now, perhaps you weren't a member here when the debate with Dr(s). McMahon took place over this heresy. But if you were then let me remind you that this is exactly what is believed among those who believe covenant children are "to be considered Christians unless they repudiate "the faith", i.e., deny the fundamental tents of Christianity.

Again, in the New Testament, the term "in Christ" refers to and only refers to that union with Christ which is established by faith. And only those who have been "born again" by the Spirit of God, i.e., those elected to salvation by God from all eternity are given faith at regeneration. Thus, to state that the baptized infant is "in Christ" is de facto to also state that the child is regenerate... NOT due to baptism but due to the infant's relationship to a believing parent, aka: covenant child.

Whether the "Form for the Baptism of Infants" is the "Official" form adopted by all the Dutch Reformed Churches you decide. It just so happens to have been in the back of the Psalter, other hymnal or book of church order in every Dutch congregation I have attended, e.g. Christian Reformed Church, Reformed Church in America, Netherlands Reformed Church, Canadian Reformed Church, Protestant Reformed Church and Free Reformed Church. Also, having been a student for the ministry in the Free Reformed Church and having studied at the Protestant Reformed Seminary, both openly deny they hold to "Presumptive Regeneration", yet it was the OFFICIAL form used. However, as I stated originally, they contradict themselves by using the FORM and pronouncing and praying that the baptized infant is "in Christ", has its "sins washed", etc. As to Joel Beeke personally, or the Heritage Reformed Church denomination in regard to what they believe or practice on this subject I am not knowledgeable.

Lastly, with such a teaching as Presumptive Regeneration being taught and/or practiced is it any wonder why Baptists are so antagonistic against paedobaptists? The error isn't that baptism saves but rather being born of a believing parent inherently and automatically places you "in Christ" to which baptism is a sign and seal of THAT relationship is the error. And that error, by its very nature, contradicts other major tenets of Reformed Theology. It is a pernicious error which ironically and unfortunately is a point of pride among the Dutch as a whole (exceptions being allowed of course).

In His grace,