David Silversides: "We don't presume anything!"

[Mocha]

David Silversides, of Loughbrickland Reformed Presbyterian, said the following in his sermon "Children of the Covenant- What does it mean?"

First of all, all presumption can be swept aside. We neither presume unregeneration nor do we presume regeneration. We don't presume anything. We need to get all this presumption idea out of the way completely. It's a clutter and it's no use whatsoever to understanding the covenant. We make no presumption of unregeneration as the Baptists must do, and as some Paedobaptists do. Nor do we make presumption of regeneration as Abraham Kyper did.Listen here-1:17:21-1:18:02]

Based on what David Silversides has said, I would like to ask both the credo's and the paedo's some questions.

To the credo's, would you agree with David Silversides that credo's cannot presume that their unbaptized children are not regenerated?

To the paedo's, would you agree with David Silversides that paedo's cannot presume that their baptized children are regenerated?

David Silversides says that "all" presumption can be swept aside. Do you agree?

David Silversides also says that "We don't presume anything". Do you agree?

Is there any place for "presumption" in our discussion of Baptism?

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by Mocha
David Silversides, of Loughbrickland Reformed Presbyterian, said the following in his sermon "Children of the Covenant- What does it mean?"

First of all, all presumption can be swept aside. We neither presume unregeneration nor do we presume regeneration. We don't presume anything. We need to get all this presumption idea out of the way completely. It's a clutter and it's no use whatsoever to understanding the covenant. We make no presumption of unregeneration as the Baptists must do, and as some Paedobaptists do. Nor do we make presumption of regeneration as Abraham Kyper did.Listen here-1:17:21-1:18:02]

Based on what David Silversides has said, I would like to ask both the credo's and the paedo's some questions.

To the credo's, would you agree with David Silversides that credo's cannot presume that their unbaptized children are not regenerated?

To the paedo's, would you agree with David Silversides that paedo's cannot presume that their baptized children are regenerated?

David Silversides says that "all" presumption can be swept aside. Do you agree?

David Silversides also says that "We don't presume anything". Do you agree?

Is there any place for "presumption" in our discussion of Baptism?

Do all "credo's" presume unregeneration?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

There is some disagreement among Paedo's here, at the least concering the terminology of "presumption," if not the substance of it. I (in some way or form similar to the above quote) ignore the term as unhelpful. I see our motive in baptism to be essentially one of obedience. The "fitness" of the subjects (when infants) is principally according to divine direction, and only secondarily (or in a derived sense) from the understanding that these persons might be regenerate. The same is exactly the case with adult converts. Baptizing them is principally according to divine direction, and only secondarily that they are "fit" candidates because these persons may have "regenerate" status.

Only in Credo-baptismal theology is the "REAL fitness" of the person an issue, beyond the objectively measurable external (visible) criteria. For the Credo-, if the person (or church?) determines that a baptized individual was not regenerate prior to his baptism, then the baptism was invalid, it was no baptism, and baptism must be adminstered again (or for the first "real" time). Forthe Paedo-, if the person (adult or infant) meets biblically determined externally verifiable criteria, then he is to be properly baptized by the church, whereupon he IS baptized. And such valid baptism shall not be readministered.

Here's me quoting myself from another thread:

On the question of "presumption":

I certainly don't take "presume" in the fullest sense of the word. At best, I may "appear" to presume certain things regarding my chiild. I treat that child as if they are a Christian. And yet, I also preach an unfeigned gospel to them, and call them to exercise faith in Christ. Of course, I do the same thing with all the adult church members as well...

If treating someone in a prescribed way is "presumption" in someone's book, so be it. But I would add a healthy dose of realism into that pot of presumption too. My children are baptized on the basis of the Scriptural command, and not on the basis of anything I may or may not think about the child's state of soul.

The fact that infants can have a living seed of true faith (along with good soil and effective husbandry), as well as the gift of the Holy Spirit (both demonstrable from Scripture itself) proves this much: that they are potential candidates for baptism anyway, on the sacramental analogy between the sign and the thing signified. But still "faith" or its profession cannot claim to be the "basis" upon which baptism is administered. And this is so because the true, Spirit-baptism is not predicated on faith already present. Baptism is most closely connected with the "washing of regeneration," and not to conversion (where find "faith") in the ordo.

Our paedo-baptist theology explicitly denies that the fruition of the reality must precede the sign, or must ever be present (in the case of reprobates old or young who have been baptized) for the church to have actually baptized a person. This is because the sign is not so "annexed" to the work of the Spirit that either the parts are infallibly joined together (WCF 29.5), or tied necessarily to the physical act according to the time of it (WCF 29.6).

The church-activity represents God's activity, but it does so in an imperfect, human, and adminstrative way. I think a non-nuanced definition or understanding of "presumption" will lead exactly where it has led so often in the past--to the place of ritualistic pattern-behavior, where baptism "makes a Christian" out of an individual just because they've been attached to the visible church. The notion of "treatment" strikes me as superior for this reason: it has a plain connection to discipline.

The position I maintain (as previously) is that "presumption" (if we may call it that) is of a certain kind--that of acting "as if" the reality were being observed in our conduct. "Presumption" can take a variety of forms. At the extreme end is an unqualified "presumption" which is never affected by contrary evidences. Honestly, in my book, this is full presumption, and it is the main reason why I refuse the terminology.

Of course, at the other end of the spectrum is "pretended presumption" where one says in effect, "I just do this ritual, professing a belief in what it symbolizes, but reserve the right to declare it null and void."

In the end, we should act in obedience, faith, and hope. These are all emminently biblical terms/ideas, and are far and away superior to "presumption."

 

[VictorBravo]

Speaking for myself as a Baptist, I don't presume anything either. Rather, as Pastor Buchanan stated, we act in obedience, faith, and hope.

I've heard of some very odd Baptist types who would not teach their children to pray or to be catechized. Such is not found in the Reformed Baptist circles I'm familiar with.

 

[Scott Bushey]

For the record, the reformed view is to presume. acting in obedience, faith and hope, presumes. We are commanded to believe God for His promises.

Romans 4:3 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness

It was good enough for Abraham, it is good enough for me! Ultimately, everyone presumes about everyone. No one can be sure of my position in Christ; you presume I am saved. Those you place the sign upon, again, you presume. An outward confession does not a Christian make.

To not believe God, to not presume and act upon that presumption, is faithless and inconsistant. I have made mention many times before, we have no problem holding fast to the Noahic coveneantal promise; not a one of us would doubt God here, but when it comes to the Abrahamic, we wither. God has called us to faith; do we have faith? What is not possible with man is possible w/ God.

John 20:27-29 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Luke 18:8 8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

[Edited on 7-5-2006 by Scott Bushey]

 

[brymaes]

We make no presumption of unregeneration as the Baptists must do

This is silly. If you presume someone to be unregenerate, than why would you evangelize them?

Ultimately, everyone presumes about everyone.

Exactly correct! This is why the issue over presumption is not the question with regards to credo vs. paedo.

[Edited on 7-6-2006 by theologae]