Presumptive Regeneration - Help me out fellas

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote:a77a1ca1b9]John,

Could you explain this to me a bit more. I confess I am a bit lost.
[/quote:a77a1ca1b9]
It goes like this (Still in rough form):
The sacraments are signs and seals of the Covenant of grace. They are God's indication of inclusion to the Church. They do not do any actual sealing or signing in and of themselves, such as there being anything in the water or the bread and wine that conveys actual grace to the people. It is the witness of the Covenant in visible form. And the grace that is received by them is the same grace that we receive in the preaching of the Word.

There are two sacraments. That means that there must be two separate and distinct forms of that witness. The fact that baptism is that particular one which includes children, it would follow that the Lords Supper is the more specific sacrament rooted in the death and resurrection of Christ, being the sign to us of being included in the Covenant by faith in it. That is, it is a sing and seal to the people of God, but focuses more on the central gospel message than on the paramaters of the covenant community, while baptism focuses more on the community than on the message of the gospel. Not that one is to the exclusion of the other; not at all. But one leans one way, the other leans the other way.

It seems to me that if children are included in baptism, then that would mean that children do not have to be included in the Lord's Supper. And since the Lord's Supper bears the admonition to also see to a closer observance of it, giving solemn warnings concerning the actual personal responsibility of participation, it seems to me that we have baptism particularly as a second sacrament so that the Lord's Supper should be an adult sacrament. The fact that we have a sacrament that includes children seems to me to point toward the fact that the Lords' Supper does not include children.

Put the other way, if children are to be included in the Lord's Supper, what need is there then of infant baptism? It is basically reduced to an entrance rite. But as it has always meant more than that, it is an assurance of the promises of graces of salvation from then on, and not only entrance into the Covenant.

We have tended, in our circles, to view the sacraments as stages. We develope, so to speak, from novice, to baptism, to profession of faith, to Lord's Supper. But that is not how it actually is. Being members of the Covenant privileges all to all the signs and seals. The Paedo-Communionists have that part of it right. But, the sacrament of Lord's Supper, as a sign of membership in the Covenant, is a different sign than baptism, and is to be ragarded for that difference. And since children are included in sacrament of baptism, and it is specific in that, it would follow that the specific inclusion for Lord's Supper is different. Rather than it being an argument in favour of including children to the Lord's Table, it is an argument for exclusion.

I'm having a hard time explaining it yet. I'm still working on it. And I may be wrong. It appeared to me that the distinction between the two sacraments were clearer if children were not included than if they were. The meanings of the two appeared confused if children were to be included. And I'm still working on what it is that appears to me to be confusing, or even obfuscating, if that be the case.
 
Sorry Fred, I had to go back and look up the quote from your post a while back. Here it is.

[quote:bdd6949025]Because regeneration is a change of state in a person. Election is not. While regeneration is not conversion, it is an act in the ordo salutis that has objective effect on the person so regenerated.

To presume that one is regenerate presumes that no need of a work is necessary. For the Word does not "convert" it makes alive (1 Peter 1:23; James 1:18). If one is already alive, he has no need of the gospel. He simply needs to be told that he is a Christian and should act like one. This is Wilson's position, and it blurs the visible/invisible church.[/quote:bdd6949025]

Now this is how it relates. If you are right about the difference between presuming regeneration and presuming election, and the latter is to be preferred to the former, then that distinction between the sacraments is even more upheld, it seems to me. And therefore the argument would not again sway to the paedo-communion side. I have thought that presuming election was harder to defend than presuming regeneration. But apparently it is not. And it seems now that presuming regeneration may be
swaying the argument back toward the paedo-communion side. I still don't think it does, but it does require more thought on my part. PR may tend to confuse the sacraments a bit more than PE.

First, though, I've got to look into the distinctions between the sacraments more so see if what I had a notion of holds any water. And before I can bring it up as a subject for discussion I need to be able to have a clearer view of it to be able to articulate it better.

Maybe I've gotten some of it across? This really belongs in another thread. But it is definitely related to this topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top