Originally posted by Robin
Originally posted by Mayflower
I have a question concerning baptism en pressume-regeration. We believe that baptism (NT) came insted or is the fullfillment of circumcision (OT). Those who hold to presumme regeration, do they also believe those who where circumcised in the OT ,where also presumme regerated ?
A covenant is not a mutual agreement between God and humanity. Covenant can be defined as a legal arrangement established by oath, specified in divinely sanctioned obligations.
If God swears the oath in the ratification ceremony, that particular covenantal transaction is a promise [grace/gospel]. If man is summoned to swear the oath, the particular covenant is law based.
The original covenant made with Adam - is clearly based upon works - God commanded Adam to be perfectly obedient (Genesis 2:17). The Sinai Covenant (Exodus 24) made with Moses is also a law covenant (Exodus 24:3, 7).
The covenant of grace, however, partially seen in Genesis 3:15, fully develops in Genesis 15, where God himself swears the oath of ratification.
The covenant in Genesis 17, is a further administration of the covenant of promise made in Genesis 15, where Abraham is consecrated to God by circumcision (the ratification oath is the "cutting of flesh") and comes under the two sanctions of blessing and curse. Thus circumcision as the sign of the covenant is based upon promise [God's oath], not law [man's obedience].
Because God swears the oath -
trust Him, for He has given us His Word, and a sign and seal of His promise. (The concept of presumption is not taught in Scripture with regard to the Covenants and the sacraments. Notions of promise, trust and obedience are, however.)
Those in the OT Covenant community bore circumcision as a sign & seal of God's Promise - though not all were elect. Judas Iscariot benefitted from the covenant blessings eventhough he was not elect.
R.
[Edited on 3-8-2005 by Robin]
Robin,
Technically, you are correct. However, this thread is an off-shoot of another one and specifically, where you went is not what Ralph (Mayflower) was actually looking for. We all know what
covenant technically means (Hopefully). This is not to say what you posted was not beneficial, it was and I thank you.
Thre term presumption is not in the bible , but faith is. You want to call it : "Notions of promise, trust and obedience", fine, I have no problem with that. Just as long as we understand the terms here.
Presumption is a by product of faith. We presume because we believe God. When I mention Issac and how he saw Esau, I make mention of this because we all know that Isaac believed God, and in the level of belief, he had to presume on Esau's place with God. He would have
presumed his son Esau was in Gods graces and heaven bound, To think otherwise shows lack of faith and in my opinion sin.
Did Abraham doubt God?
Gen 22:7 And Isaac said to his father Abraham, "My father!" And he said, "Here am I, my son." He said, "Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?"
Gen 22:8 Abraham said, "God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son." So they went both of them together.
What if he had doubted?
What does Genesis and Hebrews say?
Gen 15:5 And he brought him outside and said, "Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."
Gen 15:6 And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.
Esau is to blame, not God or Isaac!
Rom 3:3 "What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?
Rom 3:4 By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar..."
I will quote a good friend. He is also a board member (JohnV)
"So a presumption that leads to complacency is not at all the presumption that is a direct observance of the promises. God promises His continuing grace, and He does this so that we may rest in His promises, which is a call to presume upon them. It is a command to do so. Instead of telling the children to go to their parents, as the disciples tried to do, Jesus says, "Do not forbid them, for of such is the kingdom of God" (to paraphrase somewhat. ) Resting on His promises is not a call to do nothing, but a call to work in the salvation given to us. We have a duty to our children in obedience to God. "
Ralph,
Maybe this will also help to explain the discipline:
The doctrine of election should never undermine our faith. In light of the covenant, the elective decree should not work against the fact that God has made a promise. He has not promised to "save only the elect" or to "save only those whom repent and believe" (even though we are privy to these facts). His promise is clear; it is the same promise, in the same capacity that he stated it to Father Abraham, and we should appreciate it in the same way Abraham did. Our nature should not turn us all into doubting Thomas'.
Presumption: For the sake of this conversation I will use the term
regenerate or
regeneration synonomously with conversion.
Ralph, am I regenerate? You really have no way of knowing. Granted, the scriptures give us measuring tapes, i.e. fruits. However, ultiamtely, you are just
presuming upon my status. The credo, when he baptises an adult professor, does he know for sure the state of the soul; no, he presumes. We all presume. What is the difference between the credo and the paedo's presumption? The credo witnesses something with their own illicit nature ands eyes as if this is more of a validation; it is not. It is still presumption.
How do you believe the apostles saw Judas? Did they
presume he was part of their portion? They believed he was:
Mat 18:1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
Mat 26:21 And as they were eating, he said, "Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me."
Mat 26:22 And they were very sorrowful and began to say to him one after another, "Is it I, Lord?"
Thier belief that Judas was with them, was it based on presumption or fact?
Back to deciphering terms (for the sake of the next section): Regeneration is not conversion and conversion is not regeneration; They are different and seperate segments in the ordo salutis.
In regards to the differences between
presumptive election and PR: One says, my child is elect, the other says mine is regenerate. This seems as if we are splitting hairs no? One says, mine will come to regeneracy one day, the other says, children and infants can be regenerate, my child is regenerate like John, Jeremiah and Samson, at birth. He will one day come to conversion. Is there truly much difference? Practically, how is the rearing of the child any different?
[Edited on 3-8-2005 by Scott Bushey]