When did regeneration occur?

...that the Spirit where He willeth doth blow?

7 `Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above;
8 the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.` Jn 3 YLT

 

Remember most of those baptized by Reformed are infants oblivious to to the Gospel. That Baptists would adopt their contrivance on this is troubling.

monergism.com/holy-spirits-work-calling-and-regeneration-herman-bavinck

"having gradually stopped being a missionary church, the church gained its members more from its own children....Reformed theologians arrived at the unanimous confession that the children of believers were as much included in the covenant of grace as their believing parents....they agreed that the Holy Spirit could also work in the hearts of children aside from the calling through the Word.... the children of believers are regenerated in infancy, before they are able to hear the word of the gospel"

 

These are my thoughts, one was regenerated at the cross and one was not, why didn't God regenerate both men?... Don't know, he is God and I am not!... I'm sure we will find it out someday, if God see fit to tell us... Maybe he will then again maybe he won't... What about Jesus encounter with Nicodemus?

God changes the heart of man by the work of the Holy Spirit, man doesn't change his own... There are scriptures than can be sited among others, and what I posted I let stand... Brother Glen


Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


Romans 8:27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

I know some brethren on here will say, hey wait a minute!... I NEVER CAME OUT OF EGYPT!... Oh yes we did!

 

So this Reformed writer is claiming faith is inherited from your parents.

Boggles the mind....

 

As much of a Lordship proponent that I am, there is no ironclad method of determining whether a professor is actually a possessor when it comes to being a believer. I can offer you no words that will allow you to employ perfect knowledge. The only thing you can do is observe. Does a person walk in a manner worthy of the Lord (Col. 1:10)? Besides the words they speak, this is the only thing you have to go on. Can we be fooled? Yes. Absolutely.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

Define Regeneration first then let's see what we get!

 

Regeneration = As to the nature of the change, it consists in the implanting of a new principle or disposition in the soul; the impartation of spiritual life to those who are by nature "dead in trespasses and sins." So if the two you ask about were by disposition of soul imparted Spiritual life then what need did they have to, 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. for the Eunuch if he was spiritually alive what need did he have for one to explain how to be regenerated? Philip would not have had to, 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. Preach Jesus to Him he would have known it. 1 Corinthians 2:But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. he had no Spiritual discernment until He believed and called. If the band with Corneilus was regenerated that is already had Spiritual Life thus The Holy Spirit living in them why do we see Peter saying this:
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. The moment they believed the Holy Spirit fell upon them they were Baptized in and by the Holy Spirit to Spiritual life that is they were regenerated. Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Only when the Holy Spirit baptizes them.

 

Reformed Presbyterians believe in the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant. We as Baptists believe in the discontinuity of the Abrahamic Covenant. We believe the New Covenant is actually new, not a refreshed or renewed Abrahamic Covenant. Reformed Presbyterians believe that infant children are members of the New Covenant community; that they are sanctified and made holy by being born, and then baptized, into a covenant family. While they do not believe in baptismal regeneration, they also do not typically seek a profession of faith by their children. They believe their children still have to come to faith in Christ like anyone else, but instead of a profession, they consider children to be believers unless they repudiate their faith when they reach adulthood. As a Baptist, I disagree vehemently with that view.

 

Reformed have created this elaborate "ordo", separating and pushing back regeneration, as they want to say those they are baptizing are regenerated.

 

This is the statement that needs focus:

"Regeneration is never apart from the means of salvation, which is the gospel message."

That means if someone refuses to hear the gospel he will not regenerate an inch.

He must synergisticly accept to listen to the gospel.

 

Who was the new covenant given to? Who was it made with?

 

Which also causes difficulty for the credo view. No man can tell, so adult unbelievers often.

 

I do not see how the lack of perfect knowledge is a problem for the credobaptist. We baptize on a credible profession of faith, not a perfect profession. If an impostor gets baptized, it is a sin on the head of the one being baptized.

 

I do not know if "given" is the correct word. The New Covenant (which is the Covenant of Grace) was revealed in the Old Covenant through types and shadows but not revealed until the time of Christ. It was made with all believers throughout all human history. Whereas a person could be "in covenant" under the Abrahamic Covenant (and the larger encompassing Old Covenant), it did not mean that person was of the faith of Abraham. A person cannot be a member of the New Covenant without being of the faith of Abraham, i.e. a genuine believer in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Question for you. You claim to be a credobaptist. Do you believe in the discontinuity of the Abrahamic Covenant? If not, how can you believe in the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant and still be a credobaptist*?

*I define a credobaptist as someone who believes the only lawful form of baptism is a trinitarian baptism administered upon a credible profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

We agree that the New Covenant did not magically appear at the time of Christ.

Yes, I am credo, and I also absolutely believe in the continuity of the Abrahamic covenant.

What causes me to hold to a credo over paedo view is the Regulative Principle of Worship. I don't find compelling scriptural evidence prescribing infant baptism; however, I see more evidence for it than I do for "Dedications", so I would not do either to my children, but I would not think the worse of anyone who does either. I certainly would not judge either "unlawful". Do you judge "dedications" "unlawful"?

As for me and my house, we are credo, but I am not convinced enough in either direction to pick up a stone and hurl it toward a parent.

 

I certainly do consider baby dedications to be unlawful. They have no scriptural warrant. If they are anything they are parent dedications and there is no scriptural warrant for those either.

Why is infant baptism unlawful? Again, because it has no scriptural warrant. It is an unlawful application of the ordinance.

I am not hurling stones at paedo parents. I do they believe they are wrong. I have wonderful Presbyterian friends and both of us disagree strongly on the baptism issue. We have never been reconciled on baptism and likely never will be, but we are still friends.

As for the continuity of the Abrahamic covenant, you are in a very odd place. Credobaptists, almost to a person, believe in the discontinuity of the Abrahamic covenant. They believe the New Covenant is a new covenant and is unlike the previous covenant. As I stated previously, Presbyterians believe the New Covenant is a refreshed or renewed Abrahamic Covenant, part of the Covenant of Redemption (Grace). If you believe the Abrahamic Covenant has continuity, then you by necessity have to believe with the Presbyterians that the New Covenant is just a better version of the Abrahamic Covenant. It is, indeed, refreshed or renewed. If you believe that then I do not know how you can be a credobaptist. Using the RPW as your reason to remain a credo while still believing in the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant is (and I am putting it mildly) inconsistent. Keep in mind that the RPW is a construct built upon the preponderance of scripture in relation to worship. I believe in a very conservative view of the RPW. But I recognize that good and godly people are divided on the RPW, so it is not the fulcrum on which my view of baptism rests.

 

Baptism is the Circumcision of Christ. Jesus himself was circumcised 8 days old.


Its Ironic that those who insist that its God's choice of election least express it. In other words a infant baptism is the best example of election being a matter of God's choice, rather then your own choice.

I had no choice being baptized. It wasn't up to me, IT was ALL ON GOD.


Colossians 2

; 11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.


When you baptize someone you do it to someone, you don't say bob you baptize yourself in the name of the father, son and holy spirit. As an outsider i could not baptize myself.


Luke 18

15And they were bringing even their babies to Him so that He would touch them, but when the disciples saw it, they began rebuking them. 16But Jesus called for them, saying, “Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17“Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”


Not only the children but even the babies and infants are brought to Christ.
The Kingdom of God belongs to Children and foremost have greater right to baptism then then any thick headed dumb adult.


Typical pharisees,

13“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.

Try to shut off everyone they can from heaven, think themselves the only chosen. Looks for every excuse to throw folks in hell.

You know that mentally handicapped folks who can't make choices or think well. Do you just figure they get thrown in hell right? We baptize them they are family. It takes some real cold blooded evil to single them out.

I can picture you doing baptism with Jesus, A crowd of folks being baptized, but that one guy in wheel chair he can't. You take one good look at him then you look at Jesus and say.....naaaahhhhh....we're gonna skip him.

That is pathetic. Nothing christian about it.

Give us your broken we'll take them into God's family.

 

Yes. I understand both positions very well. Better than most, I would say. If you recall, I attend a PCA church because of the lack of Reformed, confessional churches near me.

Regarding the charge of inconsistency, you might as well say that if I hold to continuity I should also hold to circumcision. . .

 

You said it!


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

Theologically it just does not make sense to claim to be a credobaptist and hold the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant. I cannot find a recognized credobaptist from history who holds to this position.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk