If you are in need of a solid, basic web site for your business, church, or organization, check out my web design services at 
Subscribe
Presumptive Conceptional Regeneration
Posted by Brian Thornton on May 27, 2008
PRESUME: To take for granted; suppose
CONCEPTION: The beginning of life in the womb
REGENERATION: To cause to be spiritually reborn; to be born from above
This is, by far, the most bizarre theology I see coming from those who advocate and practice the baptism of people who have not expressed repentance and faith on their own.
Others have called it presumptive regeneration. I am adding the word ‘conceptional’ because the presumption that Paedos make is their children are quite possibly regenerated (they actually ASSUME this throughout the child’s life until such time as the child confirms or denies that assumption) while still in the womb, and my thinking on this is, what better point than at the moment of conception?
Make no mistake about it, this presumption/assumption is more than a hope by the parents that their child is regenerate, because that child will be treated AS IF they are regenerate until such time as they prove to be or not to be born again.
The most amazing part of this doctrine rears its head when Paedos make statements like, “If my unborn child is already regenerate, then there will be no eternal need for them to ever hear the gospel.”
This way of thinking is totally foreign to the truth of Scripture, regardless of what many wonderful Paedo brothers and sisters say about it. Scripture is clear. We are all saved by grace, through faith, and faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
Scripture makes NO provision for salvation through any other means than the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I know many will get upset with me for making this comparison, but presumption conceptional regeneration seems awfully similar to baptismal regeneration. The only real difference appears to be in the timing of the Holy Spirit’s work. Granted, Catholics teach that regeneration at baptism is a sure thing, while Paedos assume it’s a sure thing until the child confirms or denies their parents’ assumption. End the end, though, they sure seem similar to me.
danny said
Brian, lots of straw (which I won’t comment on for now), but for clarification: are you saying that infants that die in infancy or those who are mentally impaired will go to hell unless through an explicit OUTWARD CALL of the gospel by hearing, repenting, and believing? If so, are you concluding that you disagree with the 1689 LBC X:3? I think if we can define each others’ terms and understand each others’ positions better, it will decrease the production of straw from the straw factory from either side, thus saving our time and keeping the conversation from straying. (:
Also, do you consistently refuse to pray with your children and refuse to let them bless the meal prior to eating, if they have not made a credible profession of faith in Christ?
I would encourage you to read an article by Piper (a Baptist) who addresses this and I would like to know your thoughts:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/AskPastorJohn/ByTopic/116/2563_Should_children_be_taught_to_pray_even_if_they_havent_professed_faith/
While I don’t presume/assume my child is regenerate and I don’t treat them as such until they prove otherwise, I don’t KNOW at what point they are or could be regenerated. For example, consider Psalm 22:9-10
9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you
even at my mother’s breast.
10 From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
Les Prouty said
Brian, Danny is right. So much straw here that you can build several straw men to knock down.
You quote a paedo-baptist as follows, “If my unborn child is already regenerate, then there will be no eternal need for them to ever hear the gospel.”
Wow that sounds a lot like what I said on your other post. Problem, it is not what I said. But, maybe you did hear another paedo-brother say the above quote. Don’t know since you did not reveal the source.
But in case you had me in mind, here is exactly what I did say:
If my unborn child is already regenerate then he will not need to hear the gospel salvifically so as to be saved[since he is already regenerate]. He, like us all, will need to very often need to hear the gospel, even every day preaching it to himself.”
Now I don’t know if you were referring to my comment, but if so, you misquoted me.
In fact, though, I stand by the comment. I did not say that I would never proclaim the gospel to them. I absolutely would! I would teach them the great truths os scripture and how God saves sinners and delivers them from bondage. I would begin at Genesis and go all the way through. I would urge them to trust in Jesus every day! I would teach them the little song, “Jesus loves me this I know…”
I suggest you might look for another confession of faith, for Danny is correct, you are out of accord with the one linked on your blog.
Brian Thornton said
I wasn’t intending to build any straw men…just recapping some of the things I have heard Paedos say as they defend their position.
My hypothetical quote, “If my unborn child is already regenerate, then there will be no eternal need for them to ever hear the gospel.”, sounds pretty much the same to me as what you said, “If my unborn child is already regenerate then he will not need to hear the gospel salvifically so as to be saved[since he is already regenerate].”
At the point where I used ‘eternally’, I guess you could just as easily insert the word ’salvifically’. It carries the same meaning, I think. The point is that, according to you and others, a living child can be regenerated (born again) apart form the gospel, and would not need to ever hear the gospel in order to be saved. Is that a straw man, or pretty close to what you have been saying and actually believe?
Regarding the Baptist Confession, this is what it says concerning those who live past infancy and as well as those who possess the natural ability to respond:
The Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith says almost the exact same thing, almost word for word. So, according to these two Confessions, those who continue to live are born again by God’s Word and Spirit.
The confessions DO say the exact same thing with respect to those people who die without ever possessing the natural ability to respond outwardly to the gospel. Neither Confession details how this occurs, so how can I be out of accord with the LBC? Again, this is an area that is not addressed at all by Scripture. What happens to any infant who dies in infancy is a guess, at best. And what we think might happen to them surely should not be the basis for any theology we practice with respect to those who live past infancy. Regarding those who live, we have clear revelation as to how they are saved…BY GRACE, THROUGH FAITH, WHICH IS BY HEARING, WHICH IS BY THE WORD OF CHRIST.
danny said
Brian, curious to get your thoughts:
Are you consistent in your position by refusing to pray with your children and refuse to let them bless the meal prior to eating, if they have not made a credible profession of faith in Christ?
in Christ,
danny
Brian Thornton said
Hi Danny,
Great question about consistency.
No, I do not pray WITH my unsaved children, but I do pray over them and for them. Every night they hear me ask God to save them.
None of my unsaved children pray at the dinner table. That is usually reserved for me (sometimes my wife),and I use that time of prayer to model for them how they can pray later in life when they are saved.
Thanks.
Brian
Les Prouty said
Brian glad to see that you were not quoting me.
You said, “Others have called it presumptive regeneration. I am adding the word ‘conceptional’ because the presumption that Paedos make is their children are quite possibly regenerated (they actually ASSUME this throughout the child’s life until such time as the child confirms or denies that assumption) while still in the womb, and my thinking on this is, what better point than at the moment of conception?
Here is the straw man, specifically, “they actually ASSUME this throughout the child’s life until such time as the child confirms or denies that assumption.” That is not what I and most paedos believe, at least I do not and I don’t think most believe that statement. I do not assume (or presume) regeneration in the womb or outside the womb. There is your straw man.
As to the LBC and the WCF, on the part you quoted we agree. LBC 14.1 says of saving faith, “The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word;”
Notice the word “ordinarily.” The LBC agrees with itself (as we would expect) and recognizes that there are some extraordinary (as I stated earlier) cases (such as elect infants, mentally unable, etc.) where elect individuals are regenerated without the “ordinary” means of hearing and responding to the Word.
My main point is this: infants can be regenerated and go to be with the Lord should they die in infancy. Repeat: infants can be regenerated. That is what the LBC and the WCF say.
If you agree that infants CAN be regenerated then of course you in accord with your confession. If you do not believe that an infant can ever, under any circumstances be regenerated, then you are out of accord with your confession.
danny said
Brian, on your baptistic model, can you please explain the following verse from Eph. 6:1 – “Children, obey your parents in the Lord”.
Interestingly, in Eph. 6:1-5 Paul addresses the typical members of a 1st century HOUSEHOLD: husband, wife, children, and slaves. This household is referred to as “saints” and children are recognized as such via the command in 6:1.
So, on your model, how do your children, who have not made a public profession of faith, carrying out the command to obey you IN THE LORD?
Regards,
Danny
danny said
By the way, this command parallels and is linked to Exodus 20:12, which would then show a continuity between how children are viewed in the Old and in the New.
Brian Thornton said
Danny,
More great questions.
Well, the command to children there in Eph. 6:1 is pretty clear, ‘obey your parents’. I think the ‘in the Lord’ phrase can have more than one possible meaning, including – ‘according to the will of the Lord’, ‘because the Lord commands it’, ‘as far as your obedience lines up with the will of God’, or ‘especially with respect to the things of the Lord’. There may be other possible meanings.
By the way, the Eph. 6 passage does not address wives and mothers, so the whole household is not addressed there, though it is in the parallel Colossians passage (Ch. 3).
My children, both the ones who have not made a public profession of faith as well as the ones who have, would carry out this command as far as they were able to understand what it means to honor their father and mother (my infant children and toddlers wouldn’t have a clue, though). We are bringing up our children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord, which includes teaching them what it means to honor their parents (as well as ALL who are in authority over them), and that when they sin against us, they are actually sinning against God Himself.
danny said
Brian, I don’t have time to respond right now (I will later), but a quick comment, you mentioned:
“By the way, the Eph. 6 passage does not address wives and mothers, so the whole household is not addressed there”
The command for wives can be seen prior in Eph. 5 (respect your husbands), therefore, showing the household principle.
I think the reason why there isn’t a command for mothers is because it is not necessary. Let me explain. Why didn’t Paul say in ch. 5, “wives, love your husbands”? Because, love is so natural to a woman, but respect isn’t. Just as its easy for husbands to show respect naturally, but not love naturally. In the same way, exasperating your children is something father’s struggle with more than women because it is natural for a woman to love on their child.
Any how, I’ll interact with your points later.
Blessings,
Danny
Brian Thornton said
Les,
Instead of just saying that what I said is a straw man, could you correct me then, and explain what it is that you actually believe with respect to unprofessing baptized children. What EXACTLY do you believe with respect to your children, then (your being a general ‘your’, not yours specifically)? You say they are children of the promise…you say God has promised to forgive their sins…you say baptized children have full rights to membership in the church…you say God has promised to be their God, so…what EXACTLY is it that you believe/assume/presume with respect to these as-yet-unprofessing-but-baptized children? Do you not treat them as if they are believers even prior to professing? Do you not treat them as believers until such time as they prove to be what you call covenant keepers or covenant breakers?
Peados say all these things with respect to their children, and when someone like myself tries to pinpoint and clarify those statements to determine exactly what they mean, precise and direct confirmation of those beliefs and statements appears to be all but impossible.
So, once and for all, can you please explain EXACTLY, EXACTLY, EXACTLY what it is that Paedos consider their unprofessing-yet-baptized children to be – saved or unsaved, regenerate or unregenerate, born again or not born again?
Thanks.
Brian Thornton said
Notice the word “ordinarily.” The LBC agrees with itself (as we would expect) and recognizes that there are some extraordinary (as I stated earlier) cases (such as elect infants, mentally unable, etc.) where elect individuals are regenerated without the “ordinary” means of hearing and responding to the Word.
Les,
Regarding your comments about the use of the word ‘ordinary’ in the Confessions…I don’t think their use of that word was intended to be a loophole for some other means of being saved apart from the gospel. In fact, when you look at the Scripture cited for that part of chapter 14, you read the following:
Les Prouty said
Been there and done that. See above, but I will paste it here,
“I would teach them the great truths os scripture and how God saves sinners and delivers them from bondage. I would begin at Genesis and go all the way through. I would urge them to trust in Jesus every day! I would teach them the little song, “Jesus loves me this I know…””
But, to put it another way, I will say this.
I tell/told them that God forgives sinners. I tell/told them that they are sinners in need of God’s grace. I tell/told them that their only hope for eternal life is in Jesus Christ and trusting His work on the cross. I tell/told them that trusting in any of their own efforts to be forgiven for their sins is fruitless. I repeatedly urged them to look to Jesus for their salvation and to believe the promise that God will forgive them and that He has promised to do so in the bible.
Does that help? Oh, what is it I assume/presume? I am trusting in God’s promise to be their God. I do not assume/presume that they are regenerate. I cannot say with certainty that my baptized infant is elect. Of course, neither can you say with certainty that your teenage professing, baptized child is elect either, right?
You ask if I treat them as believers. I think you are mixing biblical terminology. I treat them as special in God’s sight and partakers of the blessings of God’s covenant family and part of His promise. Can they walk away from God’s promise? Surely. Need I mention “jacob I loved but Esau I hated?” Go back and read that first part of Roman 9. Are they born again while in infancy? Since I am not God, I don’t know. Can they be? As surely as God is who He says He is! Read John 3 for how god works by His Spirit when and where He wills. I will not presume to box God in on whether He CAN regenerate an infant.
Now, will you answer this? At least this?
Can an infant in or out of the womb, living and breathing (if outside the womb) be born again (regenerate)? Is that possible?
Les Prouty said
Brian, what do you think the confession writers meant about those who could not respond to the outward call of the gospel? People like severely mentally impaired?
So what do you think they meant by “ordinary?”
Les Prouty said
Re #14. What do they mean by this:
“…are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. ”
Let’s leave out the infants on this question.
Brian Thornton said
You guys are good, I’ll give you that. I still can’t figure out what it is EXACTLY that you consider your unprofessing baptized children to be. Some of you presume them to be regenerate, some do not…some of you grant them access to the Table, some do not…some of you consider the new covenant to be breakable, some do not, etc., etc., etc.
In the words of Vinny Barberino…”I’M SO CONFUSED!!!”
-you say you do not assume/presume they are regenerate, yet you give them membership into the church as if they are
-you say they are recipients of the promise, yet you cannot say with certainty that they are elect
-you say that God has promised a myriad of things concerning them, yet if they do not get saved, God has still somehow kept His promises and is not a liar
-you say they are not heirs according to the flesh, but you consider them heirs of the promise because of who they were born to
AAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!
I fear that I must agree with a dear Credo Christian brother of mine when he says, “I am just not smart enough to see what Paedos see!”
I’m just going to have to continue following the explicit examples and commands I see in the NT concerning baptism…that is the easiest and most straightforward thing for me to do. This Paedo thing just has too many variations and unattainable reasonings for me to get a handle on it.
Les Prouty said
But can YOU answer MY questions above? Hmmmm?
Les Prouty said
I guess that is a no?
Brian @ VoiceoftheSheep said
Now, Les…
There’s no need to taunt me, my friend. Your post #17 came in at 11:44pm, and then your post #18 came in at 12:22am. I was already in bed by then.
Les Prouty said
Brian, I apologize if I appeared to be taunting. I did not mean it that way.I wrongly assumed you were probably still online.
I still look forward to your responses.
Les
danny said
“I think the ‘in the Lord’ phrase can have more than one possible meaning, including – ‘according to the will of the Lord’, ‘because the Lord commands it’, ‘as far as your obedience lines up with the will of God’, or ‘especially with respect to the things of the Lord’. There may be other possible meanings.”
I would suggest a much stronger meaning that involves an outward (or in the case of the invisible church – inward) identification with Christ. If you look at the surrounding context, the phrase “in the Lord” is repeated with the various commands to the HOUSEHOLD (which was the makeup of the 1st century church). Paul here is linking this command to the children with the 5th command of the 10 commandments. But look carefully at the verse he is citing from:
Deuteronomy 5:16
“Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD *YOUR* God has commanded you…”
The children of the OT covenant, whether regenerate or not, have an identification with YOUR [their] God. Even if they are not saved they are seen as belonging to God.
“By the way, the Eph. 6 passage does not address wives and mothers, so the whole household is not addressed there”
The command for wives can be seen prior in Eph. 5 (respect your husbands), therefore, showing the household principle.
I think the reason why there isn’t a command for mothers is that it is not necessary. Let me explain. Why didn’t Paul say in ch. 5, “wives, love your husbands?” I think the reason why is that love is so natural to a woman, but showing respect isn’t. Just as it’s easy for husbands to show respect naturally, they have a harder time showing love. In the same way, exasperating your children is something father’s struggle with more than women because it is natural for a woman to love on their child and not exasperate them.
Blessings,
Danny