- Apr 12, 2004
- 56,208
- 3,104
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
How did a large part of the church worldwide fall into believing Baptismal regeneration ?
If I am treading on toes , just tell me I will shut up , I have no intention on causing any trouble here ........
Greetings Cygnus
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/EdwardsJonathanInfantBaptismGerstner.htm
If I am treading on toes , just tell me I will shut up , I have no intention on causing any trouble here ........
Greetings Cygnus
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/EdwardsJonathanInfantBaptismGerstner.htm
