Presumptive Regeneration

[wsw201]

Scott,

You may very well be right that I "presumed" too much. But my presumption was based on your posts. Especially your long post that included Matt's catechism, which stated that the grounds for baptism was not only the command but the promise. I assumed that since you posted that, that it was your position. In addition, the various quotes you posted led me to believe that you agreed with all of them.

If this is not the case, then I apologize for the confussion.

 

[JohnV]

Scott:

With all due respect, Wayne is right about this. I too think that presumptive regeneration is a useful and powerful tool against certain views of baptism. But it is not Biblical language per se. The Q&A of Matt's catechism clearly says the words "presumptive regeneration". That is going too far, I believe.

After all I've said concerning those who have over-convinced themselves of things like presuppositionalism and postmillennialism, convincing themselves to the point that they cannot see these views as anything else but binding doctrines that must be imposed upon others, if I now made the same mistake about something I was convinced of and included "presumptive regeneration" in a catechism, then I would be doing the same thing that I have been opposing all this time.

A catechism is supposed to be a teaching tool of Christian doctrine. By putting these words into it, it makes it a teachable doctrine. The texts that are given do not support the inclusion of the term as a Biblical teaching. If it was left out, and remained merely as a methodology used in certain circumstances, such as answering specific objections from Baptists and liberals, then I would be all for it. You know that, because I defended it strongly. I haven't changed my position on it at all. But neither am I going to change my position on it the other way, by asserting it as a Biblical doctrine. I won't do with presumptive regeneration what some have done with presuppositionalism and postmillennialism, making them precommitments to theology.

That, if I understand Wayne, is his objection. If it is a Biblical doctrine, because it is specifically stated in Matt's catechism as a component, then it necessarily becomes an integral part of baptism.