Paedofaith and Presumptive Regeneration.
It seems that now may be a good time to discuss the Doctrine of Presumptive Regeneration. In this article, I shall not be criticizing infant baptism per se. Readers of this Blog will know that I am an unashamed advocate of Believers’ Baptism and I have written various articles on this subject (1). However, it has to be admitted that God has blessed the ministry of many paedobaptists and paedobaptistic churches just as he has that of many Credo-baptists and their churches. One must be right and the other wrong and Christians should know what they believe and why, but it may be that God is less concerned about the matter than we are.
My concern in this article is to deal with a belief of many paedobaptists, a doctrine which is, I believe, a virtual denial of the Gospel, that of Presumptive Regeneration, the teaching that because a child is born to a Christian parent, it may be presumed that the child is already born again. There is a slightly less objectionable view called Presumptive Election, which does not presume that the infant is already regenerate, but that it is sure to become so in due course. The practical effects of both doctrines are, I believe, much the same.
At quite an early stage in the Church’s history, baptism became associated with regeneration (2) due to Church Fathers’ misunderstanding of the term ‘water and Spirit’ in John 3:5 (3). For example, Cyril of Jerusalem (310-386) called baptism the ‘bath of regeneration’ and taught that baptism washed away the guilt of all sins previously committed, conferred spiritual union with Christ and set apart the one baptized as the temple of the Holy Spirit (4)
These beliefs, which were very common among the Church Fathers, led eventually to the Roman Catholic doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. The Church of Rome teaches to this day that babies are born again through the sprinkling of water by the Priest. The Protestant Reformers rejected this doctrine and insisted that salvation comes through faith alone. However, in their writings, these same Reformers produced some statements which are, at the very least, highly misleading. For example, as we have seen (5) Cranmer’s 1552 Prayer Book makes the priest proclaim after baptizing an infant, ‘Seeing now…..this child is regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ’s Church…..’ These very words remain in the 1662 Prayer Book and are still recited at christenings to this very day. It seems remarkable that a Protestant could write or recite such a thing, but in the 19th Century, Bishop J.C.Ryle argued that the words did not mean that the child was definitely regenerate, but that it was presumed to be so.
Even Martin Luther, who was so firm in standing up for Sola Fide, made some very worrying Statements; for instance, in his great commentary on Galatians, commenting on Gal 3:27 he wrote (attacking the Anabaptists):-
‘[They are] fond and fantastical spirits, which go about to deface the majesty of baptism, and speak wickedly of it. Paul contrariwise commends and sets it forthwith honourable titles, calling it “the washing of the New Birth, the renewal of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5). And here also he says, that all they which are baptized have put on Christ. As if he said: You have not received through baptism a mere token whereby you are enrolled in the number of the Christians, as in our time many fantastical heads have supposed, which have made baptism a token only, that is to say, a bare and empty sign But as many (says he)as have been baptized, have put on Christ: that is, you have been carried out of the law into a new birth, which is wrought in baptism….Paul therefore teaches that baptism is not a sign, but the garment of Christ.’
Luther’s problem is that he has confused water baptism with baptism in the Spirit. The first is what man does and the other is what Christ does. This teaching is found first in Matt 3:11, where John the Baptist proclaims, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after Me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” That this is an important teaching is shown by the number of times it is repeated (Mark 1:8; Luke 3:3, 16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; 13:24-26). Baptism by man is one thing- it is an ordinance of Christ and by no means to be despised. But what Gal 3:27 is talking about is baptism in the Holy Spirit. The verse is saying that everyone who is baptized by the Spirit into Christ- that is, everyone who is born again- is a true Christian. Water baptism is not ‘the washing of the New Birth,’ Spirit baptism is. Water baptism pictures it.
Calvin seems to have the same problem as Luther. His Strasburg Catechism asks, ‘How do you know yourself to be a son of God in fact as well as in name?’ He answers, ‘Because I am baptized in the Name of God the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’
Even the Westminster Confession seems at one point to conflate water baptism and regeneration. In Chapter XXVIII, it states,
‘Baptism…….is for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church……Not only those that do actually profess faith in and
unto Christ, but the infants of one, of both, believing parents, are to be baptized….The grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs to….’
It is the word ‘conferred’ that worries me. The Confession seems to be stating that the infant children of believers (and how is that to be known infallibly?) genuinely receive the New Birth as babies. I understand that many Presbyterians would deny that their confession states this, but I find it hard to put any other construction on the words. In fairness, however, it must be said that the WCF elsewhere stands firmly for salvation by Grace Alone through Faith Alone.
In recent years, a new movement has sprung up among Presbyterian churches, named Federal Vision. Although it has been rejected by most Presbyterian denominations, F.V. still seems to be alive and well in the United States. It is not my purpose to attempt a detailed critique of F.V. teaching (6), but to consider a book by one of its leading advocates. The book is Paedofaith by Rich Lusk (Athanasius Press), and some of his teachings seem to be held by many who would not describe themselves as supporters of Federal Vision.
Lusk claims that every child born to Christian parents possesses ‘Christ and His benefits’ and that therefore they are included in the atonement. He writes, ‘The promise (of Gen 17:7) declares that from the very beginning of their lives our children stand in the same covenantal relationship with God that we are in by virtue of faith. God is our God if we are conceived and born into a covenant family.’ ‘Jesus regards covenant infants and children as believers.’
The only problem with all this is that it is utterly incorrect. John 1:12-13 tells us very clearly that the New Birth is ‘Not of blood’ and that it is those who genuinely receive Christ as Lord and Saviour who are accounted children of God. Paul tells us that ‘they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all Israel because they are the seed of Abraham’ (Rom 9:6-7). In John 8, our Lord told those Jews who were priding themselves on being the circumcised descendants of Abraham, “You are of your father, the devil!” Lusk’s teaching fails also at the historical level. Godly men like Samuel, David, Hezekiah and Josiah all had reprobate children, and Isaiah and Jeremiah feared that there was hardly a believer left in the whole of Judah (Isaiah 1:2-4, 9; Jer 5:1). All down through Church history, godly parents have had to mourn over unregenerate children. The New Birth is ‘Not of blood.’
To take these glaring inconsistencies in his teaching into account, Lusk has to shift his ground. He writes, ‘While the covenant relationship is a blessed relationship, it is also a conditional relationship;’ and again, ‘True regenerate believers not only can fall completely and definitely from justifying faith and also from grace and salvation, but indeed they often do fall from them and are lost forever.’ He continues, ‘The faith of those who believe for a time does not differ from justifying and saving faith except with respect to its duration.’
This is dreadful stuff! What has happened to Christ, the Good Shepherd? His sheep are utterly secure. “….I give them eternal life and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand’ (John 10:28. Cf. also Rom 8:37-39). But of course, Christ’s sheep are a special breed. They are distinguished by their ears and their feet. They hear the Shepherd’s voice and they obey Him (John 10:27). They are those who have been born again of water and the Spirit, and they are no longer what they were.
[continued]
It seems that now may be a good time to discuss the Doctrine of Presumptive Regeneration. In this article, I shall not be criticizing infant baptism per se. Readers of this Blog will know that I am an unashamed advocate of Believers’ Baptism and I have written various articles on this subject (1). However, it has to be admitted that God has blessed the ministry of many paedobaptists and paedobaptistic churches just as he has that of many Credo-baptists and their churches. One must be right and the other wrong and Christians should know what they believe and why, but it may be that God is less concerned about the matter than we are.
My concern in this article is to deal with a belief of many paedobaptists, a doctrine which is, I believe, a virtual denial of the Gospel, that of Presumptive Regeneration, the teaching that because a child is born to a Christian parent, it may be presumed that the child is already born again. There is a slightly less objectionable view called Presumptive Election, which does not presume that the infant is already regenerate, but that it is sure to become so in due course. The practical effects of both doctrines are, I believe, much the same.
At quite an early stage in the Church’s history, baptism became associated with regeneration (2) due to Church Fathers’ misunderstanding of the term ‘water and Spirit’ in John 3:5 (3). For example, Cyril of Jerusalem (310-386) called baptism the ‘bath of regeneration’ and taught that baptism washed away the guilt of all sins previously committed, conferred spiritual union with Christ and set apart the one baptized as the temple of the Holy Spirit (4)
These beliefs, which were very common among the Church Fathers, led eventually to the Roman Catholic doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. The Church of Rome teaches to this day that babies are born again through the sprinkling of water by the Priest. The Protestant Reformers rejected this doctrine and insisted that salvation comes through faith alone. However, in their writings, these same Reformers produced some statements which are, at the very least, highly misleading. For example, as we have seen (5) Cranmer’s 1552 Prayer Book makes the priest proclaim after baptizing an infant, ‘Seeing now…..this child is regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ’s Church…..’ These very words remain in the 1662 Prayer Book and are still recited at christenings to this very day. It seems remarkable that a Protestant could write or recite such a thing, but in the 19th Century, Bishop J.C.Ryle argued that the words did not mean that the child was definitely regenerate, but that it was presumed to be so.
Even Martin Luther, who was so firm in standing up for Sola Fide, made some very worrying Statements; for instance, in his great commentary on Galatians, commenting on Gal 3:27 he wrote (attacking the Anabaptists):-
‘[They are] fond and fantastical spirits, which go about to deface the majesty of baptism, and speak wickedly of it. Paul contrariwise commends and sets it forthwith honourable titles, calling it “the washing of the New Birth, the renewal of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5). And here also he says, that all they which are baptized have put on Christ. As if he said: You have not received through baptism a mere token whereby you are enrolled in the number of the Christians, as in our time many fantastical heads have supposed, which have made baptism a token only, that is to say, a bare and empty sign But as many (says he)as have been baptized, have put on Christ: that is, you have been carried out of the law into a new birth, which is wrought in baptism….Paul therefore teaches that baptism is not a sign, but the garment of Christ.’
Luther’s problem is that he has confused water baptism with baptism in the Spirit. The first is what man does and the other is what Christ does. This teaching is found first in Matt 3:11, where John the Baptist proclaims, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after Me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” That this is an important teaching is shown by the number of times it is repeated (Mark 1:8; Luke 3:3, 16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; 13:24-26). Baptism by man is one thing- it is an ordinance of Christ and by no means to be despised. But what Gal 3:27 is talking about is baptism in the Holy Spirit. The verse is saying that everyone who is baptized by the Spirit into Christ- that is, everyone who is born again- is a true Christian. Water baptism is not ‘the washing of the New Birth,’ Spirit baptism is. Water baptism pictures it.
Calvin seems to have the same problem as Luther. His Strasburg Catechism asks, ‘How do you know yourself to be a son of God in fact as well as in name?’ He answers, ‘Because I am baptized in the Name of God the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’
Even the Westminster Confession seems at one point to conflate water baptism and regeneration. In Chapter XXVIII, it states,
‘Baptism…….is for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church……Not only those that do actually profess faith in and
unto Christ, but the infants of one, of both, believing parents, are to be baptized….The grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs to….’
It is the word ‘conferred’ that worries me. The Confession seems to be stating that the infant children of believers (and how is that to be known infallibly?) genuinely receive the New Birth as babies. I understand that many Presbyterians would deny that their confession states this, but I find it hard to put any other construction on the words. In fairness, however, it must be said that the WCF elsewhere stands firmly for salvation by Grace Alone through Faith Alone.
In recent years, a new movement has sprung up among Presbyterian churches, named Federal Vision. Although it has been rejected by most Presbyterian denominations, F.V. still seems to be alive and well in the United States. It is not my purpose to attempt a detailed critique of F.V. teaching (6), but to consider a book by one of its leading advocates. The book is Paedofaith by Rich Lusk (Athanasius Press), and some of his teachings seem to be held by many who would not describe themselves as supporters of Federal Vision.
Lusk claims that every child born to Christian parents possesses ‘Christ and His benefits’ and that therefore they are included in the atonement. He writes, ‘The promise (of Gen 17:7) declares that from the very beginning of their lives our children stand in the same covenantal relationship with God that we are in by virtue of faith. God is our God if we are conceived and born into a covenant family.’ ‘Jesus regards covenant infants and children as believers.’
The only problem with all this is that it is utterly incorrect. John 1:12-13 tells us very clearly that the New Birth is ‘Not of blood’ and that it is those who genuinely receive Christ as Lord and Saviour who are accounted children of God. Paul tells us that ‘they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all Israel because they are the seed of Abraham’ (Rom 9:6-7). In John 8, our Lord told those Jews who were priding themselves on being the circumcised descendants of Abraham, “You are of your father, the devil!” Lusk’s teaching fails also at the historical level. Godly men like Samuel, David, Hezekiah and Josiah all had reprobate children, and Isaiah and Jeremiah feared that there was hardly a believer left in the whole of Judah (Isaiah 1:2-4, 9; Jer 5:1). All down through Church history, godly parents have had to mourn over unregenerate children. The New Birth is ‘Not of blood.’
To take these glaring inconsistencies in his teaching into account, Lusk has to shift his ground. He writes, ‘While the covenant relationship is a blessed relationship, it is also a conditional relationship;’ and again, ‘True regenerate believers not only can fall completely and definitely from justifying faith and also from grace and salvation, but indeed they often do fall from them and are lost forever.’ He continues, ‘The faith of those who believe for a time does not differ from justifying and saving faith except with respect to its duration.’
This is dreadful stuff! What has happened to Christ, the Good Shepherd? His sheep are utterly secure. “….I give them eternal life and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand’ (John 10:28. Cf. also Rom 8:37-39). But of course, Christ’s sheep are a special breed. They are distinguished by their ears and their feet. They hear the Shepherd’s voice and they obey Him (John 10:27). They are those who have been born again of water and the Spirit, and they are no longer what they were.
[continued]