Baptismal Regeneration

[Gold Dragon]

Do Reformed/Presbyterians believe in it?

If you do, how would you describe it?

Can you differentiate your understanding of baptism from the common Church of Christ understanding or other traditions like the RCC, Anglicans or Baptists?

 

[CoffeeSwirls]

I can start us off, though you would be better served if someone whose denomination practices infant baptism, in case that is your intent.

Baptismal regeneration is not something taught in any reformed churches that I am aware of. Neither is decisional regeneration (the person making themselves alive to respond to the call of the gospel). A Baptist would say that baptism is an outward sign of an inward change, and that it is only to be administered to one who has come to saving faith in Christ. A Presbyterian (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) would say that baptism is the sign that a child is within the covenant, but does not guarantee that the child will come to saving faith, nor will it regenerate the child.

 

[HiredGoon]

The Presbyterian teaching on baptism, from the Westminster Confession of Faith.

CHAPTER XXVII
Of the Sacraments​

I. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ, and his benefits; and to confirm our interest in him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word.

II. There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.

III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

IV. There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.

V. The sacraments of the old testament, in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new.

CHAPTER XXVIII
Of Baptism​

I. 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. Which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.

II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto.

III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.

V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, 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 belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.

VII. The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.

 

[HiredGoon]

From "The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards,"
Volume 3, by Dr. John Gerstner:

"There is an interesting difference between the Scottish Presbyterian Princetonian tradition and the English Puritan tradition concerning the subject of baptism, particularly infant baptism. While both traditions were Reformed and, paedo-baptistic, there was a subtle difference in the way in which the two traditions viewed the baptized infant of the covenant. Neither tradition affirmed baptismal regeneration, nor even the inevitable regeneration of the infant, nor were they even unanimous on the matter of all children dying in infancy being elect. Though each tradition agreed that the infant of a believing parent or parents should be baptized, and was not thereby regenerated, or even presumptively elect, one tradition tended to assume the ultimate regeneration of children, unless there was overwhelming evidence to the contrary, while the other tradition seemed to presume the non-regenerate condition of the infant, unless there was overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That is to say, the Reformed pastor of the Scottish-Princetonian Reformed tradition tended to regard baptized children of his congregation as elect (and regenerate) unless there was evidence to the contrary while the English and American Puritan Reformed pastor tended to regard his baptized children as unregenerate until there was evidence to the contrary."

 

[Elderone]

A Presbyterian (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) would say that baptism is the sign that a child is within the covenant, but does not guarantee that the child will come to saving faith, nor will it regenerate the child.

I would word it as:

'A sign the child is a member of the visible family of God, but does not guarantee that the child will come to saving faith, nor will it regenerate the child.'

 

[cygnusx1]

Baptism

There is an interesting difference between the Scottish Presbyterian Princetonian tradition and the English Puritan tradition concerning the subject of baptism, particularly infant baptism. While both traditions were Reformed and, paedo-baptistic, there was a subtle difference in the way in which the two traditions viewed the baptized infant of the covenant. Neither tradition affirmed baptismal regeneration, nor even the inevitable regeneration of the infant, nor were they even unanimous on the matter of all children dying in infancy being elect. Though each tradition agreed that the infant of a believing parent or parents should be baptized, and was not thereby regenerated, or even presumptively elect, one tradition tended to assume the ultimate regeneration of children, unless there was overwhelming evidence to the contrary, while the other tradition seemed to presume the non-regenerate condition of the infant, unless there was overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That is to say, the Reformed pastor of the Scottish-Princetonian Reformed tradition tended to regard baptized children of his congregation as elect (and regenerate) unless there was evidence to the contrary while the English and American Puritan Reformed pastor tended to regard his baptized children as unregenerate until there was evidence to the contrary.

http://apuritansmind.com/Baptism/Ed...ismGerstner.htm