The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Infant Baptism Question

pilgrim,

I have been reading the referenced documents. The Westiminster Confession article is a correct exposition of scripture and it agrees with Augsburg Confession and what I have read of Calvin and Luther. So, I don't see much point in continuing this discussion.

The Westminster Confession and the Augsburg may be in agreement in your mind, but that's not the problem, is it? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" /> The problem is with YOUR interpretation of what they are teaching in regard to baptism, which is NOT in accord with what the Westminster Confession says.

So, unless you are willing and able to EXEGETE relevant biblical passages which you believe support your view on baptism, regeneration, etc., then I would agree, that there is no point in you continuing this discussion. Confessions and Creeds are secondary sources and therefore they are subject to the scrutiny of the divinely inspired written Word of God.

In His Grace,

pilgrim,

I can only judge the Westminster and Augsburg Confessions according to what they actually say and according to scripture. Your innovative view of baptism does not agree with either confession.


Westminster Confession, Of the Sacraments

For proof that the Westminster Confession is correct, I suggest you examine the referenced scripture texts.

Methinks you have an unfortunate reading/comprehension problem. For, I am in complete agreement with the baptism and sacraments section of the WCF. In a previous reply to you I highlighted the portion of the WCF which shows that it is necessary that the sacrament is valid, <span style="background-color:yellow">by the right use of this ordinance</span>. Further, in the section you quoted, it likewise states: The grace which is exhibited in or <span style="background-color:yellow">by the sacraments rightly used</span>.

And once again, you have offered NOTHING by way of exegetical proof of your position. All you have done is to quote a few passages. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> I thought you weren't going to continue the discussion?

In His Grace,

pilgrim,

You should stick to your confession. The right use of the sacrament of baptism is exactly as the WCF describes it.

The sacraments of the papist church are valid. The cult of the AntiChrist remains a heterodox Christian church in fulfilment of scripture. The Pope sits in the temple of God and make himself to be a god by saying that men must be saved following his laws rather than by faith alone and Christ alone.

Let us take a look at these references.

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." Matt 28:19-20

16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. Mark 16:16

38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him." 40 And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. 42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43 And fear came upon every soul; and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common; 45 and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. 46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved. Acts:38-47

6 "As I made my journey and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone about me. 7 And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?' 8 And I answered, 'Who are you, Lord?' And he said to me, 'I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you are persecuting.' 9 Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me. 10 And I said, 'What shall I do, Lord?' And the Lord said to me, 'Rise, and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all that is appointed for you to do.' 11 And when I could not see because of the brightness of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me, and came into Damascus. 12 "And one Anani'as, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, 13 came to me, and standing by me said to me, 'Brother Saul, receive your sight.' And in that very hour I received my sight and saw him. 14 And he said, 'The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Just One and to hear a voice from his mouth; 15 for you will be a witness for him to all men of what you have seen and heard. 16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name. Acts:6-16

22 But the scripture consigned all things to sin, that what was promised to faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 Now before faith came, we were confined under the law, kept under restraint until faith should be revealed. 24 So that the law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian; 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. Gal 3:22-29

18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him. 1Pet 3:18-22


I'm sorry Catholicsoldier but it's not clear to me how these indicate that water baptism is intrinsically tied into our salvation.

I believe these are a clear sign of spiritual baptism and the importance of intering into a covenantal relationship. To teach that water baptism is neccassary for salvation is to teach salvation by works and not of Grace. Oh... but of course you are Roman Catholic... so I guess the whole works thing.... well.... "works" for you huh?

I've only been baptised once as an infant and I havn't been baptised as an adult. I've confirmed my faith publicly during my daughters baptism, " her one and only baptism " and my wife has only had one baptism, as an infant....

And we'll all meet again in Glory. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cloud9.gif" alt="" />

2 places in scripture seem to indicate that baptism is NOT a requirement for salvation. Jesus said to the theif on the cross "today you shall be with me in paradise" , then in 1 Cor 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.

It doesn't fit that if baptism IS required for salvation, that Paul would then say: 'Christ didn't put me on a mission to baptize... my mission is to preach the Gospel-- that is the power of God unto Salvation...' ( my transliteration of that verse).

Sometimes I see baptism as less a 'ritual' and more of an internal action. The phrase 'buried with him in baptism' ( while some would use this as evidence of 'dunking, not sprinkling') speaks to me of my identification with his death , burial and ressurection.

I was raised Reformed, and then while in the service, ( Ft Bragg no less..), I started challenging my views. I went on a long whirlwind tour of different denominations ( I even looked at the RCC, I loved their liturgy-- but realized I had sharp differences with them, and couldn't join with a clear conscience). My views on the RCC hierarchy and the average RCC laity is also different. SO I am a little more accepting of someone who says they're RC and don't automatically assume they are hell-bound. I have met RC's whose views on Justification were markedly different from the Churches position... which always boggled my mind.

Baptism is intrinsically linked to salvation, but it is not a pre-requisite, or necessity. Either God saves alone, or God doesn't save at all. Outward baptism is an obediant response to his command. ( I leave that statement so that both Creado's and Paedo's can accept that statement). I further believe Baptism is a sacrament..

I have been 'Craedo-baptized'. My wife and I were burdened to join a church ( One of the many times while stationed at Fayette-Nam, NC). The church was non-denom with a background of Presby and baptists in it. The church was strong, and big on teaching, discipling, fellowship, and over-all missions. They covenanted to dedicate close to a 1/3 of all they recieved in monies to missionaries. I believe the Lord honored that, and they now sponsor over 20-30 missionaries.

But back to the story. I approcahed the pastor and told him that I would like to join, but that I still believed in the merits of Paedo-baptism. IN order to join, I had to undergo a 'believers baptism' for them.. and after praying about it, I felt the Lords peace in my decision.

Yet both of my children have been baptized by their Grandfather. I have stood before the congregation, and professed my faith in Christ, and claimed the promises of Christ for my children, until such time as they are old enough to claim them for themselves.

Sorry, I feel like I am rambling here. I probably am.

Catholic Soldier. If you are interested, I can put you in touch with several scholarly bible teachers in your area who would love to discuss Protestanism vs Catholicism. Many came from that background--

In fact, there is a Servicemans christian Center near you where the Teacher ( Rev Morrison) would love to 'apologize' the Christian faith. Its located right next to Carolina Bible College. Now he is not reformed.. he is dispensational, but I still love him anyway. Also there is a former SF/Ranger Chap (Ret) who worked for the Cadence Intl Hosp House-- but now is a pastor at a local church.. his last name is Boyle.. He is a hoot to hang out with and talk scripture. He also will challenge you immensely.

While I reject a lot of what your denomination believes theologically, I offer my right hand of friendship to you as a fellow airborne idiot ( unless you're a leg...(rofl))

Paux Christi

A qeustion for you -- did the Jewish child who was circumcized as an infant have to be recircumcized when he made a formal decision to follow Jehovah?

Cordially in Christ,


Brother Ed

ONe of the things that caught my attention before I joined the Catholic Faith and in my overall study of the covenant -- Old and New -- was that when a child was circumcized in the Old Covenant, something REALLY DID HAPPEN!!

It was not just a "sign" which did nothing to the one being circumcized. He was really and truly made a member of the covenantal kingdom with all the attendant priviledges thereof. There was no need for him to understand what was happening. You see, the ordinances of God under the Old Covenant worked by the faith of the people of God, not the faith of the one being circumcized.

The same must therefore be true of the New Covenant. The New Covenant is called "a better covenant speaking of better things". If baptism in the New Covenant does LESS than circumcision did in the Old Covenant, if it does not make a child really and truly a member of the covenantal kingdom, adopted by God, and available to all the priviledges of the New Covenant, which are the Sacraments of Grace, then HOW is that a "better covenant". Seems a much WORSE covenant to me.

Your parents did not have to have faith. The faith of the priest or those in the beleiving community was sufficient for you. The proof of this once again lies in looking at how the ordinance of circumcision worked in the Old Covenant. The male in the household was circumcized on behalf of the females in his family. He had faith for them and on their behalf. Likewise, the infant male baby could not "believe and be saved" but was recieved by the faith of his father or of the community of believers.

This is one of the differences in Protestant and Catholic theology. Salvation is individual in Protestantism. In the Catholic faith, salvation is communal. Being saved is part of being in "the family."

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

Good morning Pilgrim:

[quote]1) Rebaptism: There is a difference of opinion within the Reformed camp as to whether the Roman State Church is a true church or not. I am on the side that does not recognize Rome; it fails as to the necessary "marks" of a true Church which are: a) The preaching of the pure gospel,

Wrong, of course. Read the writings of the Early Fathers. The same Gospel which they believed is believed by the Church today. I will say this again and again: the so called "gospel" which Luther and Calvin invented was no "gospel" at all, but in fact, may have sent many thousands to the Pit of Hell because of the effect of their preaching. You do know, I'm sure, that during Luther's lifetime, that this idea that one is justified "once and for all time" before God led the Germans to turn Germany into a moral cesspool. After all, if one is "once saved - always saved" then of what difference does it make HOW one lives? And the German people came to this conclusion and turned Germany into a haven of immorality.

b) the right administration of the sacraments,

Might I ask you just HOW the Sacraments are supposed to be "rightly administered". I never heard of such a thing as "right administration" of the Sacraments as a Presbyterian.

c) proper church discipline.

To play in your sandbox, might I have some scriptural proof for this idea?

2) Immersion: Contrary to some of my Baptist brethren, I find no warrant in Scripture to believe that immersion is the ONLY valid mode for baptism.

I agree with you, but I am STRONGLY (like an 800 pound gorilla strong!)in favor of IMMERSION as the proper way of picturing the death burial and resurrection of our Lord. Also, it is the proper form to the administration of the New Covenant.

On a personal note, I was baptized as an infant in a very liberal Methodist church. Neither of my parents were believers.

[i]How do you know? What makes you the judge of another's heart? This is one thing I find extremely distasteful about Calvinist and Evangelical thought -- i.e., the right to judge others according to your standards of what makes one a Christian

When I was converted many years later, I came under conviction as to the validity of my former baptism and chose to be rebaptized by a believing pastor and according to my own personal faith. There are those who would object for various reasons and I do respect their opinion on the matter. However, I find no solid biblical teaching that would prohibit rebaptism when one's initial baptism was pagan with respect to everything involved; church, pastor, parents, etc.

Again, sir, and respectfully said to you, you do not understand how a covenant works.

Cordially in Christ,


Brother Ed

That is because the New Covenant and the Sacrament of Baptism as the entrance rite into the covenant [color:"FF0000"]WAS NOT INITIATED YET ! ! ! [/color] The thief on his cross was a circumcized member of the Old Covenant community. Therefore, he was already "in covenant with God" and simply had to repent (which he did with his statement of faith) and believe, returning to his covenantal vows of circumcision.

then in 1 Cor 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.

Unbelievable. You rip a single verse out of context of the chapter and what St. Paul is saying and expect to make a whole doctrine of this. I am not trying to be nasty, but do you realize that this is what the JW's, Mormons, and a host of other cults do?

The great issue here which begins in verse 10 is the strife and divisions which were in the Corinthian parish. In verse 14 he goes on to state that he did indeed baptize some people, but the bigger picture is that he is trying to show that there should be no clannish arguments over who is of what sect of being baptized.

Furthermore, God has various jobs for various peoples. To say that St. Paul is not primarily concerned with baptism is not to say that baptism is not important -- it is to say that the primary calling of St. Paul was preaching. Baptism was given to others. And God had a purpose for doing that.

It doesn't fit that if baptism IS required for salvation, that Paul would then say: 'Christ didn't put me on a mission to baptize... my mission is to preach the Gospel-- that is the power of God unto Salvation...' ( my transliteration of that verse).

Sometimes I see baptism as less a 'ritual' and more of an internal action. The phrase 'buried with him in baptism' ( while some would use this as evidence of 'dunking, not sprinkling') speaks to me of my identification with his death , burial and ressurection.

No, baptism is much more than that. All human beings are members of Adam's family and are born separated from God by Adam's disobedience. God has initiated a rite by which we are adopted into the family of God. How then can one be saved if one insists upon remaining in the family of Adam rather than to enter the kingdom of God?

I even looked at the RCC, I loved their liturgy-- but realized I had sharp differences with them, and couldn't join with a clear conscience).


ever try a Byzantine Liturgy? Closest thing you will find to heaven on earth, especially the Christmas and Pascha Liturgy.

Baptism is intrinsically linked to salvation, but it is not a pre-requisite, or necessity. Either God saves alone, or God doesn't save at all. Outward baptism is an obediant response to his command.

Wrong. Look at the ordinance of circumcision in the Old Covenant. It truly made one a member of the kingdom of God. Are you saying that in the New Covenant, are you saying that baptism does less? Hardly.

Yet both of my children have been baptized by their Grandfather. I have stood before the congregation, and professed my faith in Christ, and claimed the promises of Christ for my children, until such time as they are old enough to claim them for themselves.

Well, see now, that is covenantal. Baptism makes one a member of the covenantal kingdom, but ulitmately, one must "confirm" that decision for themselves. The Jews had the ritual of Bar Mitzvah. The Church has the ritual of confirmation, a time when the baptized child takes for him/herself the oaths/sacntions of a covenant relationship with God.

Cordially in Christ,


Brother Ed

Of course, I would beg to differ with you on the very nature and content of the Gospel which the Reformers preached as was and will forever be that which the Apostles preached and which is the power of salvation to all who believe. It is the gospel which Paul fought with all his strength to guard, especially against those who would pervert it by adding to grace and element of works. (cf. Gal 1:6-9; 2:1-19)

This is truly a nonsensical argument which the Roman State Church has used countless times to bring disrepute upon the pure and biblical doctrine of the Perseverance/Preservation of the Saints. And, it has been shown to be fallacious countless times and that it is but a roughly assembled strawman that has no semblance to what the Reformed Faith teaches. The truth of the matter is, the biblical teaching is that IF a man is truly justified by grace through faith, then good works will of necessity follow and exhibit that faith. (cf. Rom 6; Matt 7:22, 23; Lk 6:46; Eph 2:8-10; Phil 1:11, 12; et al and The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XIII - "Of Sanctification")

To be more accurate, the Belgic Confession, Article XXIX, on the true marks of the Church uses the phrase, "pure administration". Be that as it may, what the phrase means is that both baptism and the Lord's Supper are to be administered according to the biblical warrant; i.e., by an ordained clergy and to those who are qualified to partake of them and according to a right understanding of them. This would exclude such things as baptismal regeneration and transubstantiation.

A refutation of the view that immersion is the primary acceptable mode of administering baptism can be found here: The Token of the Covenant.

I know without question what the spiritual state of my parents are due to the fact that they categorically deny any need of Christ and/or salvation. If that isn't a warrant to judge them, then pray tell, what is? Further, to the Church is given the right to discipline those within its membership according to what they can "see" outwardly, including excommunication, which is a pronouncement that the individual is deemed to be outside the camp and has no part in the family of God; i.e., he/she is for all intents and purposes no warrant to be accepted as a believer. Such judgment is never to be understood as one that knows God's eternal decree for any individual in regard to salvation. However, this does not preclude the injunctions that men are to judge other men in regard to the fruit of their alleged profession of faith. It's unfortunate that the Roman Church has failed miserably to discipline not only its laity but especially its clergy who have openly defied and denied the official teachings of the church to which they are members and serve.

You are certainly entitled to your whimsical opinions about what I understand and/or don't understand. But what I do know is that I understand sufficiently that it is a fatal step into apostasy to distort the covenant of grace whereby one intermixes faith and works in order to be justified. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scold.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

OC you say:

No, because I am staying in context with what Paul is speaking about. He is discussing Baptism... and in the end he makes the statement that Christ did not call him to baptize! When one infers something from the text , they do so in relation to all that has been previously said.. I feel it is in perfect syntax to say that Paul is saying the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation.. not baptism.

You then say:


God saves. Before we are even cognizant of this God saves us. IN fact God has saved those that are his in eternity past, before the creation and foundation of the world. God then gives us the gift of faith. Now that we are spiritually alive, and our will is free, and we posess faith ( which is needed top please God), we are able to respond to the Gospel message. However, we usually think that this is the moment we are saved. -- this is only the moment we become aware of our salvation. It has already occurred, and it has already been performed by God alone..

You further state:


No, thats RC theology. I have attended RC baptisms where after the announcement, they address the infant and proclaim to them that they are now part of the Body of Christ. That is language reserved for someone who has come to a saving knowledge of the truth, and has made a profession of faith.

Lastly


No, it is more than conformation. They must claim it for themselves. Until such time, they recieve the benefits that are extended to their parents who posess faith, and God bestows mercy and favor upon them because of this. ( IN fact this is a picture of how God bestows mercy and favor upon us becasue of what Christ did for us).. but no Reformed theologian believs that baptism introduces that child into the Kingdom of God... thus negating the need for that child to ever examine himself ( when he is older) and come before the Lord and ask for forgiveness, and ask the Lord to save them. At least, I don't see the same language used in our 'Order of worship' books in comaprison to the RC baptism ritual.

Lastly-- shall I list the examples of OT Jewish individuals who are clearly shown as being reprobate-- and your theory presupposes that just because a foreskin was sliced off, they are automatic members of God kingdom. Thats comparable to a Dispensational saying that Rom 11:25 refers to a national re-awakening and national salvation of Israel.

I agree. Baptism does not make one elect nor saved. It is also not limited to those of the invisible church alone but is applied to all within the visible covenant. Children are members of the visible church because their parents have professed faith. Children reap some benefits by simply belonging to the visible church. However, a guarantee to salvation is not included.

Some reformed folks are hyper-covenantal, taking Gods promises to the extremes. They would claim that either all children that die prior to being able to exhibit faith are elect OR that all children of elect parents are elect. However, I agree that all children need to confirm/announce/profess their own faith before receiving all the benefits of church membership.

OC is the first person in years I have seen put forth circumcisional-regeneration. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />


God bless,

william

Well, surely, if one deny the need of the Savior to be delivered from one's sins, then that is pretty clear. What I was referring to was more in line with judgment based in personal habits -- i.e, you are not "saved" because you

A) have a drink of wine with dinner

B) go to the movies

C) attend a denomination different from mine

D) believe in the Sacraments

E) attend a Catholic church

etc. etc. etc.


I find it whimsical at best to see the "presuppositional blindness" which strikes people when they are presented with evidence that the Early Church, as early as the second century AD, believed in both baptismal regeneration and the real presence of Christ's Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist. You claim that the Gospel which your denomination preaches is that very same Gospel which the apostles taught, yet there is not a shred of evidence that such doctrines as the Reformers invented ever existed in the Church.

Let me ask you this: if there was another understanding of baptism and the Eucharist, where is the evidence to this effect. I.E., where is a Church Council on either of these subjects. You see, these are indeed issues of how one obtains eternal life...therefore, if there were another opinion other than that which the Early Fathers published in their writings, and if that opinion had a number of followers, there most certainly would have been a council to decide this issue.

Seeing, therefore, that there is a [color:"FF0000"]conspicuous absence of any such council on either subject,[/color] we must therefore conclude that such teachings as you adhere to, my dear sir, did not exist prior to 1517 and are the invention of a certain type of hermeneutics which the Church rejects out of hand.

I understand your concern not to mix grace and works....however, you do not understand the difference. The Hindu who goes down to the filthy Ganges River to baptize himself for the remission of his sins, doing so without any reference to the finishe work of Christ on his behalf, is trying to make covenant with God [color:"FF0000"]by works of his own invention.[/color]

But the person who submits to baptism is not "working his way to heaven" as I hear so often accused, but is being obedient to that Sacrament which God has given to mankind. Through this work, the sinner is joined to Christ (Gal. 3:27) and is made a partaker of His death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:3). We are baptized into Christ. The aforementioned Hindu, on the other hand, is baptized into nothing more than his own ideas of salvation -- which will ultimately fail.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed