Right, I said I wouldn’t be back till after the weekend, but this is what I’m going to be thinking about in the meantime.
Which of these positions would you be more inclined to agree with?
* most believers are regenerated in infancy (or before they’re born),
or
* most believers are not regenerated until they’re much older (childhood, teens, or after)
I obviously won’t be able to read your thoughtful responses till I get back but I would love to take a quick survey of your instant reactions to this question.
Believers are those who are regenerated after they are born. It is only in extremely unusual cases – such as John the Baptist, whom God called for a specific purpose – that people are regenerated in the womb. Since unsaved people must hear the gospel to be saved (as it is applied to them by the Holy Spirit), and it is necessary to be born in order to hear it, most Christians become so after their physical births.
By the way, as I type this, it is still December 9th – John Milton’s 400th birthday!
Sorry, I don’t get it: Is regeneration supposed to mean the same as “being born again”? In which case, it wouldn’t make sense at all to be regenerated before the first birth. And aren’t all people supposed to be born “unsaved”? Please enlighten me into this realm of theology unfamiliar to me. Thanks!
This is a tricky one to call, we should certainly presume the children of believers to be regenerate from birth. At the same time many people will convert in adulthood. So I couldn’t say which of the two statements is more correct.
@Richard et al: Why would children of believers be regenerate from birth?!? Just look at the genealogy of kings: good ones fathering good ones, good ones fathering bad ones, bad ones fathering bad ones, bad ones fathering good ones. What is your theology of regeneration based on? My concordance doesn’t even have that word in the Scriptures. So, do you mean “being born again” by it, or “sanctification”, or “baptism in the Spirit”, or what?
Oliver,
The reason that I presume the children of believers to be regenerate from birth is founded upon the promise of God to be the God of us and our children, hence the promise “I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you” (Gen. 17:7) which is parallelled in Acts 2, “The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call”.
You are correct that not all the children of believers are converted from birth, some never convert, but we should presume them to be converted until they demonstrate that they are not.
Deut. 30:6 “The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.”
Isaiah 59:21 “”As for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the LORD. “My Spirit, who is on you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will not depart from your mouth, or from the mouths of your children, or from the mouths of their descendants from this time on and forever,” says the LORD.”
Jer. 32:39 “I will give them singleness of heart and action, so that they will always fear me and that all will then go well for them and for their children after them.”
Presumptive regeneration is not a biblical idea (neither is baptismal regeneration, for that matter). The Bible certainly does not teach that ALL children of believers are regenerate. I know plenty of cases (including in my own family) where some children are believers (either as children or as adults) and some are not. Since all human beings are sinners, all infants are sinners – no one starts out in life not being a sinner. All sinners must have the gospel preached to them. Some will believe, others won’t.
Thanks, Richard & Richard, for putting things into perspective for me.
Under the impression that you take “children” literally, I have some questions for you: Doesn’t the Bible teach that not all of “Abraham’s children” are his genetic offspring? In a similar vein, how else can Timothy be Paul’s son? Also, a situation comes to my mind where Jesus is saying “children of the devil” to some of his conversation partners who are claiming to be “children of Abraham” (and, at least from a biological perspective, rightfully so). And with regard to the Lord visiting “the sins of the fathers” down to the third and fourth generation (which, in my understanding, means that He’s testing the following generations whether they are still following in the steps of their forefathers, thus for a time actually withholding judgment!) yet blessing the faithful for a thousand generations (which, on the face of it, seems to translate into ten thousands of years!), I take that as implying that those who have been reared in a God-fearing environment have a better foundation for becoming believers themselves than those having been reared in a sinful environment (which in one aspect or another is true for *all* of us). I wouldn’t call that ‘regeneration’ though.
PS: Having done some background reading (plus remembering some teaching from Bible college days approx 15 years ago), I wonder whether the original question of this post might be a non-issue for those who do not subscribe to the Calvinist interpretation of the doctrines of predestination and unconditional election.
Richard: Bar the first sentence of your comment I would agree with what you say.
Oliver: I think you are correct that the post might be a non-issue for those who do not subscribe to the Calvinist interpretation of the doctrines of predestination and unconditional election.
Richard (II not Z) – I’m utterly fascinated by the mix of things you believe :) I was fairly confident nobody here would have much time for presumptive regeneration, but it just goes to show :)
I’m grateful to Richard Zuelch for saying that cases like John the Baptist are unusual. It’s one thing to show that people can be regenerated=converted before they were born (or in infancy), but it’s far from clear that they normally are, and (to answer the question in the original post) I’d come down on the side of saying this is not at all the norm.
The promises in Deut 30:6 etc are there for parents to take hold of – the God who saved them is able and willing to save their children, and he often does save the children of believing parents – but these scriptures don’t imply that this promise will be fulfilled by way of saving the child before he/she is born. They do provide support for treating the children of believing parents as already members of the visible church (a status recognised by baptising them as infants), but it’s axiomatic that not all members of the visible church are or will be saved.
Presumptive regeneration seems (from the little i know about it) to undermine a host of fundamental doctrines – original sin, saving faith, effectual calling – although i’m aware that the people who normally adhere to it wouldn’t necessarily see it that way …
Cath,
The doctrine that I affirm was upheld in the 1905 Conclusions of Utrecht which state:
I affirm original sin, saving faith, effectual calling and presumptive regeneration so perhaps more reading is in order?
A clarification question, if anyone’s still reading. Does the Utrecht statement (or anyone else) say anything about the precise connection between regeneration and conversion? Where did the idea come from that you can be regenerated and then potentially not converted till some time afterwards?
Cath,
It does speak about immediate regeneration. I am not sure where you are getting that “you can be regenerated and then potentially not converted till some time afterwards”. Of course the traditional Reformed ordo salutis regeneration preceeds faith.
The Canons of Dordtrecht:
Thanks Richard. I think some Dutch churches (or Dutch-heritage) believe that you can be regenerated and only some time later converted. John Murray specifically says this is impossible (although without going into details about who believes it).