# Circumcison and presumme regeration



## Mayflower (Mar 6, 2005)

I have a question concerning baptism en pressume-regeration. We believe that baptism (NT) came insted or is the fullfillment of circumcision (OT). Those who hold to presumme regeration, do they also believe those who where circumcised in the OT ,where also presumme regerated ?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 6, 2005)

Ralph,
How did Isaac see Esau?

Gen 27:1 When Isaac was old and his eyes were dim so that he could not see, he called Esau his older son and said to him, "My son"; and he answered, "Here I am." 
Gen 27:2 He said, "Behold, I am old; I do not know the day of my death. 
Gen 27:3 Now then, take your weapons, your quiver and your bow, and go out to the field and hunt game for me, 
Gen 27:4 and prepare for me delicious food, such as I love, and bring it to me so that I may eat, that my soul may bless you before I die."

Gen 27:37 Isaac answered and said to Esau, "Behold, I have made him lord over you, and all his brothers I have given to him for servants, and with grain and wine I have sustained him. What then can I do for you, my son?" 


It was Isaacs goal to make Esau _Lord_ overJacob. Obviously the plan backfired.



[Edited on 3-8-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Mayflower (Mar 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Ralph,
> How did Abraham see Esau?
> 
> ...



Dear scot, can you please explain what you mean, because i can not understand what you mean ?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 6, 2005)

Here's what I am saying, knowing how Abraham interpreted the promise, if you asked him the status of Esau's place with God, what do you think he would say?


----------



## Preach (Mar 7, 2005)

Scott,
I don't understand. Maybe I read it wrong. Did you confuse generations? How could Esau be Lord over Isaac? I don't get it brother.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 7, 2005)

Actually, _Abraham_ is nowhere mentioned in this story...
But here we have Isaac attempting to bless Esau rather than Jacob. There is nothing culturally unusual about his attempt to do so since in his day it was the older who would receive the greatest share of the inheritance and it was the younger who would, in effect, serve the elder. (We see the same cultural norm later in Genesis when Joseph brings his two sons to his father, Jacob for blessing...)
However, God - in his purposes in election- had decided to thwart convention for his glory and therefore give the blessing to the younger rather than the elder. This blessing is not just participation in the covenant blessings. No, the blessing is nothing less than the covenant line itself!
It is important to remember that this incident is not exactly a high point in the life of Isaac (who is already recognized as just a linking figure to carry the biblical narrative from Abraham, of whom much is said, and Jacob, of whom much is said). Thus, we should read this text as the narrative paints it: In the case of Isaac and his older brother, God had blessed the younger rather than the older... in the case of Isaac's children, God had already revealed that the younger would be blessed and be served by the elder, thereby continuing a pattern of which Isaac had already been a part. However, Isaac favors his elder son and disregards the word of the Lord and the precedent of which he has participated. He was attempting to usurp God's plan. However, he seems to have not been too hard in his sin as demonstrated by the fact that when told he had been deceived, he didn't "take back" the blessing because it was given under false premises. Rather, he recalled the words given by God at the birth of his children. His repentance and acceptance of God's will is implicit within the fact that he let his blessing stand.



[Edited on 3-8-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## Robin (Mar 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Mayflower_
> I have a question concerning baptism en pressume-regeration. We believe that baptism (NT) came insted or is the fullfillment of circumcision (OT). Those who hold to presumme regeration, do they also believe those who where circumcised in the OT ,where also presumme regerated ?



A covenant is not a mutual agreement between God and humanity. Covenant can be defined as a legal arrangement established by oath, specified in divinely sanctioned obligations. 

If God swears the oath in the ratification ceremony, that particular covenantal transaction is a promise [grace/gospel]. If man is summoned to swear the oath, the particular covenant is law based. 

The original covenant made with Adam - is clearly based upon works - God commanded Adam to be perfectly obedient (Genesis 2:17). The Sinai Covenant (Exodus 24) made with Moses is also a law covenant (Exodus 24:3, 7). 

The covenant of grace, however, partially seen in Genesis 3:15, fully develops in Genesis 15, where God himself swears the oath of ratification. 

The covenant in Genesis 17, is a further administration of the covenant of promise made in Genesis 15, where Abraham is consecrated to God by circumcision (the ratification oath is the "cutting of flesh") and comes under the two sanctions of blessing and curse. Thus circumcision as the sign of the covenant is based upon promise [God's oath], not law [man's obedience]. 

Because God swears the oath - trust Him, for He has given us His Word, and a sign and seal of His promise. (The concept of presumption is not taught in Scripture with regard to the Covenants and the sacraments. Notions of promise, trust and obedience are, however.)

Those in the OT Covenant community bore circumcision as a sign & seal of God's Promise - though not all were elect. Judas Iscariot benefitted from the covenant blessings eventhough he was not elect.


R.

[Edited on 3-8-2005 by Robin]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> The concept of presumption is not taught in Scripture with regard to the Covenants and the sacraments. Notions of promise, trust and obedience are, however.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Preach_
> Scott,
> I don't understand. Maybe I read it wrong. Did you confuse generations? How could Esau be Lord over Isaac? I don't get it brother.



Ralph,
Sorry, I was apparently still asleep asleep at the wheel. I average about 30 posts per day. I have more than 5000 posts. You'll have to forgive me for this; it happens. I did put the passage I was referring to in the post; this should have clearified. 

Here's what I was saying: If you read the passage, you will see that it was Issac attempting to lay a blessing on his son Esau. The blessing is to make Esau (even) Lord over Jacob: Ben is correct. This is how tradition worked. The eldest always got the blessing in this regard. This does not change anything with regards to what we are addressing and that being what did Isaac believe in regards to his son Esau or for that matter Jacob.


Gen 27:1 When Isaac was old and his eyes were dim so that he could not see, he called Esau his older son and said to him, "My son"; and he answered, "Here I am."
Gen 27:2 He said, "Behold, I am old; I do not know the day of my death.
Gen 27:3 Now then, take your weapons, your quiver and your bow, and go out to the field and hunt game for me,
Gen 27:4 and prepare for me delicious food, such as I love, and bring it to me so that I may eat, that my soul may bless you before I die."

He wants to bless Esau (not Jacob); he is the first born and his favorite.

Gen 27:37 Isaac answered and said to Esau, "Behold, I have made him lord over you, and all his brothers I have given to him for servants, and with grain and wine I have sustained him. What then can I do for you, my son?"

The blessing from Isaac is final. In fact, He, the father, Isaac has made Jacob ;_Lord_ over Esau (and his brothers).

Here's the question: If you were sitting across from Isaac and you asked Isaac , Isaac, what is Esaus position w/ God, what do you think he would say? He would say, Scott, my son Esau is a son of the covenant. My father was Abraham. The Abrahamic promise is to me and my children. By faith, I believe that. 



[Edited on 3-8-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Mayflower_
> ...




Robin,
Technically, you are correct. However, this thread is an off-shoot of another one and specifically, where you went is not what Ralph (Mayflower) was actually looking for. We all know what _covenant _ technically means (Hopefully). This is not to say what you posted was not beneficial, it was and I thank you. 

Thre term presumption is not in the bible , but faith is. You want to call it : "Notions of promise, trust and obedience", fine, I have no problem with that. Just as long as we understand the terms here.

Presumption is a by product of faith. We presume because we believe God. When I mention Issac and how he saw Esau, I make mention of this because we all know that Isaac believed God, and in the level of belief, he had to presume on Esau's place with God. He would have _ presumed_ his son Esau was in Gods graces and heaven bound, To think otherwise shows lack of faith and in my opinion sin. 

Did Abraham doubt God?

Gen 22:7 And Isaac said to his father Abraham, "My father!" And he said, "Here am I, my son." He said, "Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?" 
Gen 22:8 Abraham said, "God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son." So they went both of them together. 

What if he had doubted?

What does Genesis and Hebrews say?

Gen 15:5 And he brought him outside and said, "Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be." 
Gen 15:6 And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness. 


Esau is to blame, not God or Isaac!

Rom 3:3 "What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 
Rom 3:4 By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar..."

I will quote a good friend. He is also a board member (JohnV)

"So a presumption that leads to complacency is not at all the presumption that is a direct observance of the promises. God promises His continuing grace, and He does this so that we may rest in His promises, which is a call to presume upon them. It is a command to do so. Instead of telling the children to go to their parents, as the disciples tried to do, Jesus says, "Do not forbid them, for of such is the kingdom of God" (to paraphrase somewhat. ) Resting on His promises is not a call to do nothing, but a call to work in the salvation given to us. We have a duty to our children in obedience to God. "

Ralph,
Maybe this will also help to explain the discipline:

The doctrine of election should never undermine our faith. In light of the covenant, the elective decree should not work against the fact that God has made a promise. He has not promised to "save only the elect" or to "save only those whom repent and believe" (even though we are privy to these facts). His promise is clear; it is the same promise, in the same capacity that he stated it to Father Abraham, and we should appreciate it in the same way Abraham did. Our nature should not turn us all into doubting Thomas'. 

Presumption: For the sake of this conversation I will use the term _regenerate_ or _regeneration_ synonomously with conversion. 

Ralph, am I regenerate? You really have no way of knowing. Granted, the scriptures give us measuring tapes, i.e. fruits. However, ultiamtely, you are just _presuming_ upon my status. The credo, when he baptises an adult professor, does he know for sure the state of the soul; no, he presumes. We all presume. What is the difference between the credo and the paedo's presumption? The credo witnesses something with their own illicit nature ands eyes as if this is more of a validation; it is not. It is still presumption. 

How do you believe the apostles saw Judas? Did they _presume_ he was part of their portion? They believed he was:

Mat 18:1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" 

Mat 26:21 And as they were eating, he said, "Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me." 
Mat 26:22 And they were very sorrowful and began to say to him one after another, "Is it I, Lord?" 

Thier belief that Judas was with them, was it based on presumption or fact? 

Back to deciphering terms (for the sake of the next section): Regeneration is not conversion and conversion is not regeneration; They are different and seperate segments in the ordo salutis.

In regards to the differences between _presumptive election_ and PR: One says, my child is elect, the other says mine is regenerate. This seems as if we are splitting hairs no? One says, mine will come to regeneracy one day, the other says, children and infants can be regenerate, my child is regenerate like John, Jeremiah and Samson, at birth. He will one day come to conversion. Is there truly much difference? Practically, how is the rearing of the child any different? 

[Edited on 3-8-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 8, 2005)

The act of circumcision/baptism of a believer's child is not something that points to the possibility of them becoming a Church member or regenerate (or covenant community member), but a sign and seal that points to that which already exists within the child, presumably, as covenant children.

*



Rom 4:10Â  How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11Â He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12Â and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

Click to expand...

*
[Edited on 3-8-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 8, 2005)

Amen


----------



## Robin (Mar 9, 2005)

Scott, dear-heart....I'm sure you'll re-think using "presumption" when referring to faith after reading this... 

In all courtesy....I'm bugged by the use of the word "presumption" and especially claiming it is a "by-product" of faith. Where is that in the Bible? (Gasp)

The word "presumption" is connected to sin. Here is a link to a word-search in Nave's Topical - 
http://bible.gospelcom.net/topical/topical_resource.php?source=1&tid=3946

The study is extensive...every reference to presumption in the Bible is about sin - and even says that "blasphemy is presumption."

Faith (trust & hope) are words always used to refer to God's promises. If, for whatever reason, a believer is presuming --- it is sinful because to "presume" means to anticipate without complete knowledge in a way that is doubtful - and that anticipation is self-sufficient. (See dictionary.) 

Certainly there was much presuming done by the Patriarchs and other saints in the OT. All of it was sinful...YET, incredibly, God calls them faithful (Heb. 11). Why? Because they looked forward to Christ, ultimately - trusting the promise - even in the midst of sin.

Please forgive my boldness...I just can't go with "presumption" as having anything to do with faith. The by-product of faith is hope (among other divine attributes - 2 Peter 1:5.) Faith "hopes in what is unseen" and the nature of that "hope" is not wishful nor doubting....it is based upon the deep understanding of God's Covenant - and the character of the Covenant Maker. To a covenant parent with questions of assurance of salvation for their child, this kind of understanding truly strengthens their hopes as they trust God for the outcome. It is best to look to Christ - by studying His Covenant- keeping, rather than those actions (many sinful) of the Patriarchs or NT saints. (At least, this is what I see from here.)

With respect, I continue to appreciate your input --- and especially the privilege of discussing the weighty matters of Faith! 

Robin


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 9, 2005)

Robin,
I appreciate all the work you've done. Keep in mind, I am not the originator of the term. The term is a historic term that the Westminster devines used. 

I noticed you used the _topical_ index for your proof. That doesn't work! 

The Greek is more properly defined as 'being bold'. St# 5111

662 apotolmao ap-ot-ol-mah'-o from 575 and 5111; to venture plainly:--be very bold. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2292 tharrheo thar-hreh'-o another form for 2293; to exercise courage:--be bold, X boldly, have confidence, be confident. Compare 5111. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*5111 tolmao tol-mah'-o from tolma (boldness; probably itself from the base of 5056 through the idea of extreme conduct); to venture (objectively or in act; while 2292 is rather subjective or in feeling); by implication, to be courageous:--be bold, boldly, dare, durst. *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5112 tolmeroteron tol-may-rot'-er-on neuter of the compound of a derivative of the base of 5111 (as adverb); more daringly, i.e. with greater confidence than otherwise:--the more boldly. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5113 tolmetes tol-may-tace' from 5111; a daring (audacious) man:--presumptuous. 

As in:

Mar 15:43 Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in *boldly* unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus. 

Paul uses it in the term 'dare'. More accurately as to facing opponents:


Josephus uses it to describe 'courage'.

Philo used it in relation to _venturing_ hypothesus.

The LXX uses it 7 times; twice in the Hebrew. 'To dare, or to presume'

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=presumption
preÂ·sumpÂ·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-zmpshn)
n. 

Behavior or attitude that is boldly arrogant or offensive; effrontery. 

_The act of presuming or accepting as true. _

_Acceptance or belief based on reasonable evidence; assumption or supposition._

_A condition or basis for accepting or presuming._ 

_Law. A conclusion derived from a particular set of facts based on law, rather than probable reasoning. _

The term _presumption_ is used on both sides of the paedo fence; We have the presumptive electionists and the presumptive regenerationists. The term is used to point to an action; election or regeneration. As far as my saying it is a by-product of faith, let me shine some light: Abraham believed God; it was accounted to him as righteousness! The PR believes God in the same way, without doubting (like Thomas), boldly! Prayerfully, it is also accounted as righteous. We _presume_ God means what He means. As far as my saying that it is a by-product of faith, faith has many fruits. I see the presumption described as one of those things that comes from the same faith Abraham had. 

[Edited on 3-9-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 9, 2005)

The problem with the word presumption is that people think we are saying the child might have faith someday as a result of their baptism. What we're really saying is that the child can be assumed to already have faith, based on God's covenant of promise, so it is only natural to baptize them. I think I already said this, but maybe not clearly enough.


----------



## JohnV (Mar 9, 2005)

Robin:

There are a lot of connotations attached to the word "presume" or "presumption" or "presumptive", depending on the part of speech it holds. Whether a verb, object, or adjective, it is usually not the word itself that is the problem, however. It is more what it is used with, and the connotations we put into it as a definition of what we mean. 

What you are trying to shrug off, or to avoid, or to argue against, Robin, we all agree with you on. That kind of presumption in faith is counter to the true faith we are called to hold to. But what Gabriel and Scott are defending, better than I could, is what you believe whether you like the terms or not. So the difference is in the use and connotations of terms, not in a matter of doctrine here. 

Unfortunately, that is the same problem we are having with the distinctions between Presumptive Regeneration and Presumptive Election. But lets hold off on that one for a bit, and concentrate on the former (PR) as if it means the same as PE. What we mean is simply this: Christ has called the children of the covenant His own. They belong to Him. That's it. If I am a believer, and I belong to Him, my children are not illegitimate children to Him. They too belong to Him. Just like Esau belonged to Him, whether or not he was elect. He was in the covenant line, though he was not chosen to be the one through whom the covenant would be fulfilled. Even though we have the witness of God Himself against Esau, yet he was in the covenant line, and that is never denied in Scripture. 

How do we describe that faith in such a promise from God? What terms do we use to bestow upon our children the sign and seal of that covenant which is indisputably theirs? They are members of the covenant. As children of true believers what else would they be? Are they "born again" by virtue of birth from believing parents (your idea of presumption)? In no way. That's not what is being presumed. Are they automatically saved by virtue of their being born of believing parents? Are they "grandfathered" into heaven? No way. That's not what's being presumed. 

What we are presuming is that a child born of believing parents is a member of the covenant community of the Church, and should be regarded as such. Just as there are members who have made profession of their faith and are accounted as full members, but in their hearts they may not in fact be believers at all, but just outward members of the church community, whether it is that they have decided to live in sin instead, or never really believed in their hearts. But until it becomes evident that they really are not believers, the credible profession they made must be honored. And so we "presume" upon that profession they made, upon their integrity when they made it, and certainly upon God's Word and promises to us that He will in no way turn such people out. "He will not break the bruised reed." 

For we know that saved people are constantly being attacked for that little faith they have, and that Satan is prowling around like a lurking lion, waiting upon his chances to snatch at the straying child of the covenant. We don't leave such a one to be snapped up by the enemy, but double back to seek him, to lend support, and to rescue. We follow the example of our Lord; we leave the ninety nine to seek the one that is lost. He is a member of the covenant all the same. 

So we regard the children, even though they have not made a credible profession of faith. Who else would they belong to, as children of believers? It is church and parents acting together. Do we assert that they are indeed saved? We can't. Do we assert they are elect? We can't; we can't even do that with the pastor on the pulpit, for its not our place to do that. But we can look at the gifts God has given, and at the fruits of God's Spirit in the person, and at things God asserts about such people, and say with confidence, "Surely, this person is in God's sight as His very own." And that's how God requires of us to regard our children within our households of faith. 

You can just as easily leave out the term, "presumption", and just say "belief that it is so, because God said it is so." Its the same thing. That is repeatedly how God treats the children of the covenant in the OT. And, surprisingly, Esau is the best example of this. Though God later testifies that, "Jacob I loved, but Esau hated", yet at no time does God deprive Esau the rights and privileges of covenant membership. 

The part we usually have difficulty with is not the past, but the future: what will the child be as an adult, saved or not saved? But that's looking at if from our side. Whether or not the child will be saved does not change the command as to how we are to respect that child's rightful place, according the God's Word. 

His salvation is between him and God, and we as parents don't fit into the picture, either now or later; except that God has chosen the children of believers to be born of believing parents to which there are obligations as well as assurances. Parents have the obligation, not to neglect their duties and presume upon the grace of God, but to fulfill their duties and presume upon the grace of God. But that assurance, that hope and confidence is always there. It is an unspeakable comfort to the hard-working (for the child) parent. But when a child falls away, it is an unspeakable sorrow. Such children are not just rebelling against the parents, but against God's promises to them. 

PR is not a "fait accomplis" for salvation or election. But the promises are to be regarded as unbreakable on God's part, though we and our children are liable to break them all the time. So it is not a declaration of salvation. But it is a comfort to the parents of future blessing for their children, in the hope that in the end God will fulfill His promises even though we could not, and that God will save in His time, in His way, and for His purposes. We may not see it, and even think our child(ren) may be lost; but that is not the end of things. I think we may be surprised that some we think to be elect will not be there on that Great Day, while one or some of those we deemed lost will be there. We are called to faithfulness, and to perseverance in the promises of grace. 

That's not our business to decide. And the way some view baptism, you would think that we do decide such things. The Church opens and closes the doors of the Kingdom, but God chooses who truly are members, not the Church, or the churches. These are two different things, and they need to be kept separate. It should not undermine our firm confidence in the promises, and it should not give us empty or false hopes based upon our own standards.


----------

