Related to some recent stuff, Garrett has a great post on “presumptive regeneration.” Check it out.
I do have reservations about the word “presume” however. Granted, everyone admits that not all (or in some cases, even most) covenant children are effectually called by the Holy Spirit. Thus, it is easy to think that a word like “presumption” is appropriate.
But it is not.
I say it is not because we are in exactly the same position with covenant infants that we are have in the case of covenant adults. In other words, we all know of professing Christians with wonderful testimonies who later rejected the faith, died in their sins, and went to spend an eternity in Hell (an eternity that will be much worse for them because they at one time were professing believers). But the same people who think “presumptive regeneration” for infants never use the same term for professing believers. But why not? Because the word “presume” itself seems somehow wrong. We all know we are supposed to regard, reckon, or treat, professing believers as regenerate. And that is what we should do for our infants as well. But I simply don’t think the word, “presume,” is a good choice.
I presume that presume is a loaded word. But I also assume the same for assume.
I think we should come up with some new cool and relevant terms. How about “In DEE set” or “Rekkoned HomieZ?”
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
How about speaking in terms of the “judgment of charity”?
Steve, I’m sorry but I thought something was being publicized that was private. I visited a blog afterwards and realized my mistake. I thought I coulod repost the comment for you (I oped to *not* delete it permanantly, but I was wrong.
Is that phrase ever explained anywhere? Since we now think of charity as optional, it seems weak. If someone in a PCA church called another professing believer “unregenerate” he would be guilty of gross slander unless he could actually bring charges that resulted in excommunication. In fact, I would say even then he would be a slanderer because he could not have known in advance how the person would respond to Matthew 18 confrontation. Note that at the end of 2nd Corinthians Paul finally *asks* his readers to answer the question about themselves, and to answer it by deciding how they will respond to Paul when he visits.
So, if we establish that the “judgment of charity” is something we *owe* to one another and to ourselves, then fine.
Yes, that’s what the phrase means. It’s not a begrudging admission of, “Well, we don’t really know, so let’s hope for the best,” all the while harboring suspicions.
Rather it is a loving and hopeful expectation that God accompanies his ordained means and fulfills his promises.
Aren’t you also in exactly the same position with yourselves? After all, how many professing Christians (including faithful ministers) genuinely were convinced that they believed, but later on rejected the faith? But we all know we are supposed to regard ourselves as regenerate, even though we may not be. So presumption really applies universally in both the first, second, and third person.