I was reading what Lutherans believe about salvation, particularly how it contrasts between the Calvinist belief in “irrestible grace” and the Arminian belief in “prevenient grace”.

Obviously as a Calvinist I don’t agree with Lutherans conclusions on this view. However, I am trying to wrap my mind around what they actually believe. If this is an accurate understanding of Lutherans views, it makes it sound like a synergetic view of salvation, rather than a monergistic view.
If one can resist the efficacious grace of God, then wouldn’t the logical conclusion be that salvation is synergistic?
Understand that I am not interested at this point at who is correct, just the logical conclusions of such a view.
Perhaps someone can explain this to me.

Tom

Tom,

IF <---- what the person who wrote that section in the Wikipedia article was true, i.e., this is what the "Formula of Concord" actually states, then yes, your conclusion would be correct... it is synergism and actually no different than the Arminian position of "prevenient grace".

However, I not only read the entire Wiki article, but I also followed the links provided in the footnotes thinking that this doesn't sound like historic Lutheranism. Footnote '17' brought me to a copy of the "Book of Concord" which states:

Now, what this says is far different than what the Wikipedia article author states, or rather has interpreted the official statement says. Notice the salient part which states: "when it is preached, heard, and pondered, He will be efficacious and active in us,...". There is nothing said about resisting the Holy Spirit. There is particularly nothing mentioned about the "calling", i.e., this preaching of the Word being inherently efficacious.

My conclusion is that the author of the Wikipedia article has misconstrued what the "Formula of Concord" teaches.

In His grace,

I agree completely Pilgrim that the author of the Wikipedia article put in his own interpretations however, I must also point out truly confessional Lutherans hold that Calvinist theology is a different gospel and as such they can't and will not join together with those of Calvinist beliefs.

Example 1: Differences between Calvinism and Lutheranism

Example 2: Taking the mask off of Calvinism

Example 3: Hour 3 Dr. Leonard Payton from Calvinism to Lutheranism

Example 4: Kim Riddlebarger: Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009

Now I haven't listen to the MP3s just haven't had time but if they are indicative of what I have heard from confessional Lutherans (ELCA don't count ) then they are definitely viewing Calvinism as screwing up the gospel.

Well,

Example #1: The author has typically fabricated a straw man called, "Calvinism" and then burned it with his fiery rhetoric. It seems rather odd, doesn't it, that neither Luther nor Calvin wrote about such differences. And rarely can one find such condemnation in the writings on either side of authors who lived close to the time of Luther or Calvin.

Example #2: Again, the author erects a straw man from some of the tenets of hyper-Calvinism and labels it "Calvinism" and then proceeds to burn it to the ground. The author knows little of the writings of John Calvin which can be evidenced by his erroneous statement that John Calvin himself didn't hold to "Limited Atonement" (aka: particular redemption), but the doctrine is derived by his later followers from human reason. Paul Helms has obliterated this silly idea in his book, Calvin and the Calvinists, which shows how Kendrick and all those like him distort the writings of John Calvin in an attempt to make Calvin an Arminian.

Example #3: Likewise, I didn't take time to listen to the MP3.

Example #4: Kim Riddlebarger did a fine job of presenting the distinctives of the "Five Points" to which historic, traditional Calvinists all hold to. That's the good part. However, as one who adheres to the Dutch Reformed tradition, he fell into the typical contradiction when it comes to infant baptism. On the one hand he disparaged (and rightly so) Abraham Kuyper's view of "presumptive regeneration" but then on the other hand he stated that in his view, all infants of believers are to be "presumed/considered" to be Christians unless they openly deny the faith. Now, pray tell, how can someone be considered a Christian if they have not been previously regenerated? And knowing that such a thing is utterly impossible, then Riddlebarger is no less guilty of holding to "presumptive regeneration" than those with whom he says he disagrees and who are in error. This was worth the time listening to on the whole, IMHO.

What one needs to keep squarely in front of them is that the Lutherans have an official Confession just as Reformed Baptists, Presbyterians, historic Congregationalists and Continental Reformed denominations do. And today especially, there are myriad individuals who speak contrary to those confessions all the while claiming to be of their respective confessional denomination. The modern ELCA adherents, at least some of them as is obvious, deviate from the views of their forefathers in a similar manner. But does this mean that Lutheranism is as diametrically opposed to Calvinism as these individual authors?

Thanks for the links.

It’s not as typical as you may think, our denomination of 9000 or so and our sister denomination of over 100,000 reject Kuyper’s view of "presumptive regeneration" and certainly do not believe in a presumed salvation of covenant children but stress the need for regeneration between the cradle and the grave. THE END.

William,

It may be true to various degrees in your denomination and in the sister denomination to which you referred. However, the OFFICIAL position of the Continental Reformed Churches can be found in the Form for the Baptism of Infants. Additionally, there are Dutch Reformed denominations, e.g., the PRC (Protestant Reformed Church) who reject the Kuyperian doctrine, although Kuyper surely didn't invent it but simply re-introduced it and made it popular once again, but who in practice are consistent with it. Lastly, there are Presbyerians who likewise hold to this view. THE END

Yes you colorized the parts that someone who holds that baptism is saving would also colorize. So I think we most look at thru it a different light. This first statement along with the three forms of unity clearly teach that the of the form of administration of baptism is not teaching baptismal regeneration and it is not the OFFICAL doctrine of “Churches of the Dutch tradition.”

The beginning of the form of administration says:

I might add that the PRCA is only a small denomination of about 6000 members and baptismal regeneration is not their OFFICIAL position either. Neither is it the OFFICAL position of the Heritage Reformed Church founded by Joel Beeke.

So the teaching that baptism is saving and typical among “Churches of the Dutch tradition” is not a accurate statement.


Have a good Lord’s day,
William

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,

Well I don’t know what modernized version of the form you have but the two Psalters that I have are printed it black and white.


Sorry

No need for sarcasm. One of the primary ways God builds his church is thru covenant families. Not the hear today gone tomorrow type churches that are antagonistic against paedobaptists. No regenerated creature (some congregations have over 1500 members) would ever believe that every one is presumably regenerated. The form says “Whereas in all covenants, there are contained two parts: therefore are we by God through baptism, admonished of, and obliged unto new obedience, namely, that we cleave to this one God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; that we trust in him, and love him with all our hearts, with all our souls, with all our mind, and with all our strength; that we forsake the world, crucify our old nature, and walk in a new and holy life” therefore those who are not born again and do not show forth fruits of being changed by God are still dead in their sins.

Obviously this is speaking of the covenant of grace as opposed to being within the realm of the covenant.

Dr. WHO. So YOU deny that there are some whom the seed of regeneration has been implanted by God between conception or dying in infancy and IF----> you believe that then all children who die in infancy go to Eternal Hell. Again the form says “First. That we with our children are conceived and born in sin, and therefore are children of wrath, in so much that we cannot enter into the kingdom of God, except we are born again. This, the dipping in, or sprinkling with water teaches us, whereby the impurity of our souls is signified, and we admonished to loathe, and humble ourselves before God, and seek for our purification and salvation without ourselves also”.


Again the form is speaking about the covenant of Grace, any regenerated person knows that there a two seeds. As it is written, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated". Also this is clearly and beautifully taught in the Three Forms of Unity and summarize the Bible's doctrine of the covenant. It's thru these confessions the "The Dutch Reformed Churches" must look at the Form. Any other way is apostasy. Again it's not typical of the "Dutch Refomed Tradition".


William,

William,

It surely sounds like you are defending your denomination rather than the error they embrace? As to your question as to where I got the version of the "Form for the Baptism of Infants", it was scanned in from the back of the Psalter Hymnal which was dated some 40 years old. As I mentioned before, in most all of the Dutch Reformed churches I have attended who used this hymnal which contained the Three Forms of Unity and various forms for baptism, the Lord's Supper, etc., this Form was included and used. I say again, as a student for the ministry in one of the conservative Dutch Reformed churches, this "Form for the Baptism of Infants" was the OFFICIAL form that was and had to be used. Additionally, this same form was used and taught in the PRC seminary as their OFFICIAL form for the administration of the baptism of infants in their congregations. And to make it clear once again which evidently I have not done, the colored portions were colored by me to point out those portions in the Form which teach "presumptive regeneration".

Let's try to focus upon what the FORM itself says and discuss the proper understanding of it. I think it will be far more profitable than wasting time debating whether the form is "officially" accepted as the form used in infant baptism.

What does it mean that the children of believers brought for baptism are "sanctified in Christ"? Can you give Scriptural evidence to support your understanding?

1. What does it mean that "Thou [God] has forgiven us and our children all our sins through the blood of Christ"?

2. What does it mean that these children are received through the Holy Spirit as members of Thine only begotten Son [Christ]"?

3. What does it mean to be "adopted as children"?

4. What does it mean that these children are "sealed and confirmed unto us by holy baptism"?

5. What do the words "always govern these children by Thy Holy Spirit"? Who are governed by the Spirit and nurtured in the Christian faith?

6. Who is it that can "grow and increase in the Lord Jesus Christ... shown to them"?

7. Lastly, in regard to the view that is founded upon what this Form teaches, i.e., "We are to look upon our children as Christians unless they deny the faith." Is it possible for a child to be considered and even deemed a Christian, i.e., to be in Christ and then for that child to fall away or to be considered never regenerate?

I have never mentioned anything about the regeneration of infants dying in infancy. That there may be the rare exception that regeneration is given to an unborn child who lives is true. The Westminster Confession of Faith rightly states that "III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word." (Chapter X, article III) The doctrine of infant regeneration is nowhere taught in Scripture as a universal doctrine which applies to all or even to the majority of infants. Instances of regeneration in the womb are extremely rare, two of which come to mind are Jeremiah and John the Baptist.

So, please take time to answer the above questions so we can come to a right understanding of the Form through the teaching of Scripture. THANKS

In His grace,

Pilgrim,

First I do not deny that many people of the Dutch reformed tradition do or have believed in a “Presumed Regeneration” but would say they are now in the minority.

Sorry but I don’t think you worded this remark very well. If you are saying that my denomination holds to presumptive regeneration, I have to ask you to please not misrepresent them across the world wide web.


O.K. the FORM you have checks out except for some modern spelling. Below is some rather pertinent information.



I can colorize almost any document to make hold forth my position.

As I’m sure you know it has reference to 1 Corinthians 7:14. Below is an explanation of sanctified from a’Brakel “The Christians Reasonable Service” and to be honest I have emboldened where a presumptive regeneration (according to your definition)is implied. Nevertheless any truly regenerated creature would never consider their children regenerated because they are born to presumed Christian parents. But rather they would seek to bring them up in the nurture of the Lord at the same time praying that God would savingly change them between the cradle and the grave. Surely no spiritually enlightened parent is going to look at their children who show no fruits as being born again.
The focus on the FORM, again I would have to say must be looked at in the light of the “Three Forms of Unity” The Synod of Dordrecht in 1618-19 accepted the form for the baptism of adults and if the Form for children was fifty years earlier why didn’t they reject it.



I sincerely ask you a question. Are you implying that the WCF teaches that God kills the little baby, which He does, and THEN the Spirit of God saves his/her soul? Or is regeneration necessary for the saving of an elect infants never dying soul before the death of the body in what ever stage of development it's in?



Thanks for the stimulus package,
William "the layman”

William,

I'm at odds on how to make it any clearer than I have. My contention has always been and always will be until you or someone else can convince me otherwise that the FORM teaches "presumptive regeneration". The colored sections are salient, relevant and need to be addressed due to the phraseology used. Let's not forget that I am more than superficially familiar with the Three Forms of Unity, perhaps significantly more than you are. I did a thesis in seminary on the Canons of Dordt and I am currently teaching a class on the same.

Until you are willing and able to address the several questions I enumerated for you in regard to the wording of the FORM, e.g, the children being "in Christ", "members of Thine Only Begotten Son", having "forgiven our children all their sins", etc., etc., any further dialog is fruitless. I know how the inspired writers of the New Testament use those phrases and to whom they belong. If you are able to show that they belong to unregenerate individuals, which is exactly what is necessary to disprove the allegation that the FORM presumes the regeneration of every baptized covenant child, then please do so.

Lastly, you asked:

I don't have a clue what you are asking, to be honest. I'm not implying anything. I simply provided a direct quote from the WCF concerning the death of elect infants who die in infancy. They, having been predestinated to eternal life in Jesus Christ by the immutable counsel and unsurpassable grace of God are saved in Christ no less than any conceived human being. How God unites that elect unborn infant to Christ is not certainly known, although it could be surmised that the soul is alive spiritually and drawn infallibly to the Lord Christ, for only in Him is anyone saved. Non-elect infants are not saved and will face eternal judgment no less than any other reprobate.

Again, I await your answers to the previous questions framed from the exact wording of the "Form for the Baptism of Infants".

In His grace,

Pilgrim,

I initially replied because of your disparaging and somewhat slanderous remarks about the thousands who hold to the Dutch Reformed Tradition and not about the FORM. Believe me when I say everyone who has been privileged to visit this discussion board has heard the favorite string on your guitar about the Dutch Reformed many many times.

Do we not count baptized covenant children as members of the VISIBLE church? Or do we assume that they are reprobate in spite of their membership in the visible church?

Robin,

Personally, I do not count the children of believers as "members" of the Visible Church simply on the basis of their having been born to believing parents, but rather under the Church's oversight. If they are to be considered "members", then they are also entitled to all that pertains to such, e.g., deemed regenerate, the discriminatory love of the brethren vs. the general benevolence (love) we are to have to all men, encouragement to pursue their sanctification vs. their justification, etc.

Secondly, I would not and cannot assume that ANYONE is "reprobate" as that term designates what God has eternally decreed in regard to the end of someone. I do assume they are unbelievers until they make a valid profession of faith. And thus being unbelievers, as Paul has written, they are "by nature children of wrath, even as the rest..."

In His grace,

We are agreed that their "membership" (meaning the fact that they are considered part of the visible church) does not assume either reprobation or regeneration.

But the covenant children of believers are, according to the WCF, members of the visible church.

Robin,

Could you give me Chapter/article in the WCF where it says that baptized infants are "considered part of the visible church"? I'm not disputing at this point that it does, I'm simply asking where it does so I can read it.

It is common in paedobaptist churches to refer to covenant children as "members" of the visible church to be sure. However, I have difficulty with the wording due to its inherent misunderstanding. I have preferred to refer to covenant children as being "externally in the covenant of grace", covenant of grace used in a more general way rather than in its salvific meaning. Of course, admittedly that too raises problems with misunderstanding as well. I am always wrestling with the errors I run into on both sides; 1) covenant children are to be considered "Christians" or even "elect", and 2) covenant children have no relationship to the Church whatsoever, which is typical of non-paedobaptists. As you might have guessed, without much trouble is that I stand in the middle of the two.

Never mind.... found the reference in Chapter XXV, article II:

However, I find most of the Scriptural references used to support the view that children of believers are members of the invisible church to be unsupportive.
In His grace,

November 1990
http://sb.rfpa.org/index.cfm?mode=w...p;page=1&chapter=0&text_search=0

William,

Thanks for the link. It would appear that the position stated in the response by Joel Beeke and his brother is my own position. And that is all well and good.

HOWEVER... the original contention which I have brought up remains unanswered. Even more so an answer is necessary to it which is: The "Form for the Baptism of Infants" indisputably teaches "presumptive regeneration". If you or anyone else can show that it doesn't by giving an explanation to the several places where the wording clearly establishes that baptized covenant children are "in Christ", their "sins are forgiven in Christ", etc., etc., then this would resolve things. Until that time at best ALL who use that Form either embrace presumptive regeneration of baptized covenant children or they are guilty of contradiction should they deny they embrace presumptive generation. If the latter and if they cannot show that the Form does not teach presumptive regeneration, they they should cease from using that Form.

In His grace,

Rev. G. H. Kersten answers"
this question in his TREATISE OF THE COMPENDIUM as follows:

Yes, only the elect. For them Christ suffered, and for them He is glorified. They are
set with Him in heaven; in Him they are partakers of salvation, and they shall be
washed in Christ's blood. It is therefore by means of "this holy sacrament that the
Holy Spirit assures the elect that He will dwell in them and sanctify them to be
members of Christ, applying unto them that which they have in Christ, namely, the
washing away of their sins and the daily renewing of their lives, till they shall finally
be presented without spot among the assembly of the elect in life eternal."
How clearly and incontrovertibly does the Form for the Administration of Baptism
teach in these words that the sealing in baptism concerns the elect, and not all who are
baptized. The elect, and not all of mankind, are included in the Covenant of Grace in
Christ, their Head, and in Him are partakers of the benefits of the covenant, which are
applied unto them in the time of God's good pleasure. This is assured unto them in
baptism. And, since God has His elect among children, as well as among adults, Holy
Baptism must be administered also unto them.

Kersten does NOT answer the questionS I've asked. All he states is that the ELECT are joined with Christ, etc. This is not what the Form for the Baptism of Infants states.

The contention stands.

In His grace,

But the FORM THAT SCRIPTURES DICTATES concerning baptism is that anyone baptized is supposed to be joined with Christ!

Romans 6:3-4
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Galatians 3:27
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Colossians 2:12
having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

1 Peter 3:21
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

Every Scripture that relates to Baptism refers to sotereological terms. Only those who PROFESSES FAITH IN CHRIST ALONE and displays evidence of that confession should be the only ones allowed to be baptized. An infant can't do that!

It might be best to stick to Scriptures...

Greetings Heidi, and welcome to the Highway discussion board. Have you been to the Highway main page here http://the-highway.com/ ? This thread is not a discussion about paedobaptism vs. (presumed) believers baptism however there are many here who believe what you believe about baptism. Perhaps you would like to start a new thread. I’m sure Pilgrim could supply you with both views decently and in order.

William,



This is a discussion that went off topic when a comment was made that those of the Dutch Reformed tradition TYPICALLY adhere to a “presumptive regeneration” OF ALL infants who are baptized. This statement was and is my opinion inaccurate and it was then agreed that it may be inaccurate to various degrees. Nevertheless I have since shown that there at least three denominations of over 110,000 people maybe more that have membership in churches that OFFICALLY oppose the doctrine “presumptive regeneration” OF ALL infants who are baptized. Although I do not know WHO IN PRACTICE are consistent with it, it is not the OFFICIAL doctrine of their church and is still in accordance with the “FORM’.

The official form, the “Form for the Administration of Baptism” teaches that baptism is a sign, and seal ONLY for the elect whom God saves thru the finished work of Jesus Christ. It (the Form) teaches a PROMISED not a “presumed” regeneration. This is the Reformed position according to the Reformed confessions and the Bible.

Wow I get busy and I find that the Lutheran thread has turned into a Dutch-Reformed thread.

Now personally I'd like to get back to the difference between Lutheran and Reformed but if you want to stick to Dutch-Reformed fine. I'm cool.

Heidi,

I do appreciate your participation but as William has stated, this is too far .

My deviation and allowance to continue should not be taken as what is allowed. I exercised Administrative privileges in doing so.

So, if you would REALLY like to get into a debate on the issue of baptism; its recipients and mode, then do start a new thread. I'm not sure how much response you would get due to the past discussions/debates which have gone on here in the past.

PS I seriously doubt you would want to base your alleged Scriptural "form" on "anyone baptized is supposed to be joined with Christ!". I hope you realize the implications of that statement. Not many Reformed Baptists I know would go there.

In His grace,

William,

You have yet to even begin to show how the "Form for the Baptism of Infants" is in accordance with the renunciation of "presumptive regeneration". None of my questions about the actual wording used in the Form have been addressed. Simply saying it is consistent with the alleged "official" doctrine of the two denominations mentioned doesn't make it so.

The form which I have taken issue with is NOT the "Form for the Administration of Baptism", but rather the "Form for the Baptism of Infants"... apples vs oranges.

And from your statement above, I would like to know who the "Promise" belongs to, e.g., only the elect, or all who are baptized?

In His grace,

“The Form for the Administration of Baptism 1. To the Infants of Believers” refuses to own and acknowledge “presumptive regeneration” based on the teaching of the Covenant of Grace that is governed by election and clearly teaches that there are two seeds. Therefore none of your questions about the actual wording used in the “Form” have to disclaim or reject presumptive regeneration. It’s assumed that all children of believers are not The Lord’s children.

_____________________________________________________________
IT's A SIGN AND SEAL FOR ONLY THESE

WCF Of Effectual Calling X

All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by his almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.

Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
_______________________________________________________________


The "Reformed Faith” teaches baptism and circumcision are/were both sacraments and are identical, they = regeneration, sanctification, and repentance.


_______________________________________________________________


Again the quote below by Rev. Kersten answers you question.

William,

It is quite sad to see that you are not willing to deal with the wording of "The Form for the Baptism of Infants". You have tip-toed all around the questions offering irrelevant responses, quotes that have no bearing upon the Form itself but with other matters of which I have no dispute.

There is an OBVIOUS contradiction between the "Form for the Administration of Baptism", your denomination's rejection of "presumptive regeneration" and the "Form for the Baptism of Infants". Most who read that form conclude it teaches "presumptive regeneration" due to the specific words and phrases used, which have been and always will be questioned, although here they have gone unanswered.

Now, as to your question:

There are a great number of paedobaptists who take offense at the wording used in the "Form for the Baptism of Infants". And, FYI, there are two Dutch pastors locally who just happen to be close friends of mine who are even more adamantly opposed to that Form than I am but for the exact same reason; it teaches "presumptive regeneration".

You obviously have no desire to deal with the FORM so I'll bow out of this discussion and let the "Form for the Baptism of Infants" and my questions speak for themselves.

In His grace,

Would you happen to know what your TWO friends accually believe about the Covenant of Grace?



William

Matter of fact I would. They are in accord with such men as:

- The Covenant of Grace, by John Murray

- Jonathan Edwards on the Covenant of Grace, by Carl Bogue

- Outline of the Covenant of Grace and Testimony to Sublapsarianism, by James Henley Thornwell

Thus, they and I are also in complete agreement with the "Westminster Confession of Faith" on this subject.

If you so desire to discuss the subject of "The Covenant of Grace", please start a new thread.

In His grace,