“Not only do we speak biblically when we call the baptismal font the laver of regeneration (which it certainly is), we also speak biblically when we say of multitudes who have been presented at that very same font, that they are vipers, sons of the devil, unwashed pigs, whitewashed tombs, blind guides, tares planted by the enemy, unfruitful branches and clouds without rain — in short, unregenerate” (Against the Church, p. 183).
Have 'Em Delivered
Write to the Editor
I’d know where to look for most of the negative references, but what are the texts for “laver of regeneration”? Not objecting to the concept–J. C. Ryle in “Knots Untied” on rebuttable presumption of regeneration I found convincing–but if you baldly say “Biblical,” point to a text or texts, please?
Doug,
Are elect babies regenerated at baptism or when they’re conceived/born or at whatever point their hearts convert to Christ?
Um, I think there’s a problem with your laver. Logically speaking, this is akin to wondering why there are so many women members in your men’s club. “How did you lot get in here?!” Just saying. I find the lack of basic logic distressing. And simply labelling it a “mystery” as some do is just a cop out. The New Covenant, the one where we received the Spirit, is about discerning hearts before you baptise them. None of that going on here. Just a whole lot of outdated Abrahamic artefacts clouding everyone’s judgment.
Mike — no Spirit received in the Old Covenant, then?
However did they get, have, live in faith?
“He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit ” — Titus 3:5
To say that something is a source of divine regeneration then in the next breath to say that many to whom the ritual is done escape regeneration does not sound reformed at all. It smacks of a human-centered Arminianism with God weakly standing by saying “I hope this one works!” At best, infant baptism robs the child of the ability (if indeed he is one of Christ’s elect) of publicly proclaiming his faith in the waters of baptism. At worst, it presents a worse heresy than Arminianism; namely, that salvation is based not on the decree of God or even… Read more »
The new covenant is better than the old covenant. One of the ways is that the new covenant only includes regenerate believers.
My presbyterian brothers have to teach some of their fellow new covenant neighbors and brothers, saying “Know the Lord!” because from the least to the greatest, they don’t all know Him.
jigawatt wrote: “The new covenant is better than the old covenant. One of the ways is that the new covenant only includes regenerate believers.” Many try to make the New Covenant different from the Old Covenant in precisely the way that Paul says they are not different (see 1Cor 10:1-12). The Old Covenant people were called God’s chosen people, His elect, yet we know that many of them were found in unbelief, idolatry, craving evil things, and their bodies were scattered across the wilderness: “Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one… Read more »
Thanks for replying, katecho. I enjoy your contributions to the discussions here at Mablog. They help to make it a great place to hang out. I do agree with a lot of what you said above. And that includes the part about abiding. Really the only exception I have is why should we assume that Paul is talking to true, objective new covenant members? Some of my charismatic brothers have used this very passage to show that the truly regenerate, the justified elect in Christ can lose their salvation. Their mistake is the same as yours, but I’m sure you’d… Read more »