Child Dedication

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rick, honestly we weren't trying to divert the thread...it happens because, from my understanding, the concept of dedications branched off of infant baptism. And I stated that I was a baptist to show that my "accusation" of "motives" was actually how I had believed. I'm sorry if I was taken wrong somewhere along the line.
 
I agree with you Gabriel, and thank you for those verses. Where we disagree or the puzzle piece that is still missing is where water baptism or in your case, sprinkling becomes the visible sign of the invisible covenant.

I can see the correlations and similarities and shadows and types and arch-types.

I believe baptism to be a public profession of repentance and turning to Jesus. That you will now be associated with the Lord Jesus and his teachings. That you have a vital connection with Christ. However, I must admit this is based mainly in my own history and sentiment and I will continual to study the paedo arguments. I appreciate your patience and guidance.
 
Originally posted by maxdetail
I agree with you Gabriel, and thank you for those verses. Where we disagree or the puzzle piece that is still missing is where water baptism or in your case, sprinkling becomes the visible sign of the invisible covenant.

I can see the correlations and similarities and shadows and types and arch-types.

I believe baptism to be a public profession of repentance and turning to Jesus. That you will now be associated with the Lord Jesus and his teachings. That you have a vital connection with Christ. However, I must admit this is based mainly in my own history and sentiment and I will continual to study the paedo arguments. I appreciate your patience and guidance.
Click to expand...

Bear in mind that it is not an issue of either/or, rather one of both/and. No Presbyterian denies that the Bible teaches baptism for new converts. It's just that we believe the Bible also teaches baptism for the children of believers.
 
The biggest difference for me was understanding that in one camp, Baptism is a sign of my faith and my act of obedience and my new birth, whereas in the Reformed view, it is God's baptism and God's work. The difference is significant, in my opinion - one view is essentially man-centered.
 
Originally posted by Puritanhead
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Professions of faith baptisms, not *believers* baptisms.
Click to expand...

All needless semantic games... no where is the cliche "infant baptism," "profession of faith baptism," or "believer's baptism" found in the Bible... so it's all very trivial...
Click to expand...

Nowhere is the term "Trinity" found in the Bible either . . . so it must be "very trivial" too . . .

:banghead:
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
The biggest difference for me was understanding that in one camp, Baptism is a sign of my faith and my act of obedience and my new birth, whereas in the Reformed view, it is God's baptism and God's work. The difference is significant, in my opinion - one view is essentially man-centered.
Click to expand...

Originally posted by Theological Books
Then it is safe to assume the baptism of an adult (by a presbyterian) is man-centered, too.
Click to expand...

No . . . baptism is a sign of God's work, not man's work, period. It doesn't matter whether the recipient of baptism is an adult or infant. In both cases, it signifies what God has done, and not what the man/infant has done. Baptism has the same significance in both cases.

For a deeper look into this, I highly recommend Pierre-Charles Marcel's book, "The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism" :

click here to see the book on Amazon.com


In Christ,
Joseph

[Edited on 4-28-2005 by biblelighthouse]

[Edited on 4-28-2005 by biblelighthouse]
 
My point, Mr. Gleason, is that if credobaptism (as understood by a Reformed Baptist, for instance, whose doctrine of baptism is identical to a paedobaptist's doctrine of baptizing an unchurch newly professing Christian) is man-centered, so is the paedobaptist's baptism of an adult. We seem to forget Reformed Baptists and Paedobaptists practice the same, identical baptism and theology thereof for adults. However, maybe Mr. Martini is speaking of those non-reformed baptists who do not believe baptism is a means of grace for those who are baptized? Or those Baptists--non-reformed Baptists--who argue differently than Reformed Baptists?
 
This is what I believe about baptism:

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church;[2] but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.[8]

1. Matt. 28:19
2. I Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27-28
3. Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12
4. Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:5
5. John 3:5; Titus 3:5
6. Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; 22:16
7. Rom. 6:3-4
8. Matt. 28:19-20

II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto.[9]

9. Acts 8:36, 38; 10:47; Matt. 28:19

III. Dipping [or immersion] of the person into the water is not necessary [but the most proper, as per men like John Calvin; but baptism [can be] rightly [though irregularly] administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.[10]

10. Heb. 9:10, 13, 19, 21; Mark 7:2-4; Luke 11:38

V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it;[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]

13. Gen. 17:14; Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38; see Luke 7:30
14. Rom. 4:11; Acts 10:2, 4, 22, 31, 45, 47
15. Acts 8:13, 23

VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.[17]

16. John 3:5, 8
17. Rom. 6:3-6; Gal. 3:27; I Peter 3:21; Acts 2:38, 41

VII. The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.[18]

18. Rom. 6:3-11

And:

I. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with Him, in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Him;[1] of remission of sins;[2] and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.[3]

1. Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27
2. Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16
3. Rom. 6:4

II. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.[4]

4. Mark 16:16; Acts 2:41; 8:12, 36-37; 18:8

III. The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, wherein the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.[5]

5. Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 8:38

IV. Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.[6]

6. Matt. 3:16, John 3:23

Now, universally (whether from the paedo or credo camp), I do believe baptism is a ceremonial law to which one must submit upon a profession of faith (wether true or false), in order that one might enter into covenant with God, specifically the New Covenant, as commanded by God.
 
You contradicted yourself at least a dozen times by quoting both confessions, brother. That simply isn't possible to believe both. Which do you believe?
 
Originally posted by turmeric
Why can't you believe parts of both - the 1689 Baptist confession was taken in large part from the WCF.
Click to expand...

Because one says it is a sign and seal of the CoG, the other doesn't.

One says it is for adult believers alone, the other doesn't.

One says immersion is not necessary, the other says it is required and exclusively to be done.

etc ...
 
I think there is some confusion. Let's define a "contradiction." A contradiction is where A is both A and Not A. Simply because the LBC of 1689 does not call it a sign and seal, it does not mean one cannot believe it is a sign and seal and that which is covered in the LBC of 1689. It isn't mutually exclusive. The LBC of 1689 would have to say (in substance, if not in accident): "Baptism is not a sign and seal, but rather is..." The LBC of 1689 is not written in such a way where "sign and seal" is exclusive of the language of the LBC of 1689.

As for "believers" alone, that is a blatant mispresentation of the LBC of 1689, and one that should be noted. It says the ordinance is for those who profess faith and repentance. It does not say it is for the elect (or true believers), alone. So from now one we can leave that straw man out of the equation. The Divines were a bit more thoughtful than that.

Yes, as for immersion exclusively, that is the exception I take, but I do not believe that is the language of the LBC of 1689. I didn't catch that in my "editing" (as you can see it was sloppy). I did edit those instances in the WCF that speak of infants, so that the two would not contradict one another. Good catch. I missed that. However, the LBC of 1689 does not state the affusion or sprinkling is invalid. One can say immersion is correct for the due (that is regular and valid) administration, but sprinkling and affusion can be irregular, yet valid administrations. Do you understand that nuance? I believe that is well within the bounds of the LBC of 1689. One can accept an irregular mode, such as sprinkling, of a professing believer. Regular/Valid and Irregular/Invalid were common categories in the 17th century, so I believe it is well within the bounds of accepting the sprinkling/affusion. I believe you are wrongly inserting words/ideas into the LBC of 1689, such as "exclusively." This, of course, is contingent upon one's view of subscriptionism and interpretation. I believe I am well within the bounds to allow for sprinkling/affusion of a professing believer.
 
The confessions, I would assume, were written to show what those confessing their faith positively believe, and in a sufficient and inclusive manner. For that reason, I find it somewhat erroneous to believe the LBCF allows for baptism to be a "sign and seal of the CoG" when it does not state this to be the case (no doubt intentionally?), especially being such a major distinction in regards to the sacrament/ordinance of baptism.

I still think you are somewhat undermining the authorial intent of the LBCF's view on baptism. However, if you don't consider yourself a 'subcriber' to the LBCF, that's just fine with me. I'm just saying, you are not in agreement with the traditional, confessional (as outlined by the 1689) Reformed Baptist view of baptism - which is again fine - that's all.
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
The confessions, I would assume, were written to show what those confessing their faith positively believe, and in a sufficient and inclusive manner. For that reason, I find it somewhat erroneous to believe the LBCF allows for baptism to be a "sign and seal of the CoG" when it does not state this to be the case (no doubt intentionally?), especially being such a major distinction in regards to the sacrament/ordinance of baptism.

I still think you are somewhat undermining the authorial intent of the LBCF's view on baptism. However, if you don't consider yourself a 'subcriber' to the LBCF, that's just fine with me. I'm just saying, you are not in agreement with the traditional, confessional (as outlined by the 1689) Reformed Baptist view of baptism - which is again fine - that's all.
Click to expand...

No, you are correct. Those who penned the LBC of 1689 purposefully intended to change/substract/alter the language in certain circumstances. I do subscribe tot he LBC of 1689 (personally), but I said it depends on one's view of subscriptionism. For instance, the WCF is CLEARLY written from an infralapsarian position, but suprlapsarians can adhere to the WCF without contradiction. So, even though the Divines purposefully used such language to favor infralapsarianism, one can still adhere to supralapsarianism and subscribe to the WCF. The same is true with tri-covenantal theology as compared to bi-covenantal theology. While the WCF may be inclined toward bi-covenant theology (or even tri-covenantal theology), one can still adhere to tri-covenant theology (or bi-covenant theology if the opposite is true).

Again, you have YET to prove--only assert--that the portions of the WCF contradict (do you agree upon the definition of contradiction set forth in the previous post?) the portions of the LBC. I liken your hermeneutics to those who claim Scripture contradicts itself if it mentions different events in the same narrative (or rearranges the order) from different authors. Simply because one narrative includes (or leaves out) a portion of an event not recorded in the other, it doesn't mean they contradict one another. I'm sorry, but I fail to see your case or any substantiation of your assertions.

You are also assuming one can ONLY believe what is positively asserted in the confession, meaning one cannot elaborate or add to without contradicting what is positively stated. The confessions were not penned in such a manner. That, too, is a false perception of subscriptionism. For instance, I can say the sacraments are a "means of grace," but the LBC of 1689 does not use that language. Benjamin Keach, though, does call them "means of grace." However, I (or Benjamin Keach) am NOT contradicting the LBC of 1689 if I employ that language and meaning. I hope you're starting to see what I'm saying. Saying baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace does not contradict what the LBC of 1689 teaches about baptism. It merely elaborates upon the sacrament. Again, I think you misunderstand the intention and subscription to confessions.

One can logically adhere to the portions about which I spoke in the both confessions.
 
No, brother, and I hope I didn't seem as if I was "bent out of shape." I tried to be as "emotionless" (for lack of a better term) as possible in my dialogues. Forgive me if I wasn't, or if I seemed "upset." I simply wanted you to prove your assertions. But, have a good night as well, brother. :handshake:
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Rick, honestly we weren't trying to divert the thread...it happens because, from my understanding, the concept of dedications branched off of infant baptism. And I stated that I was a baptist to show that my "accusation" of "motives" was actually how I had believed. I'm sorry if I was taken wrong somewhere along the line.
Click to expand...

No problem, Colleen. That wasn't your quote I was referring to, though.
 
I apologise for sounding at all condescending... i'm tongue-in-cheek a lot of times and easy-going being a southern boy-- i don't want to come across the wrong way... hindsight is 20/20

i just think this a dead horse and worn out topic... granted, i could just stay off of it...
:)

some of my best jokes about baptists anyway--
 
The biggest difference for me was understanding that in one camp, Baptism is a sign of my faith and my act of obedience and my new birth, whereas in the Reformed view, it is God's baptism and God's work. The difference is significant, in my opinion - one view is essentially man-centered.
Click to expand...

Gabriel,

I agree with you - it is significant. Regardless of what the Confessions of faith say. For the logical extension of the practice behind the baptistic view of baptism inevitably leads this way and in fact has led this way as we all too well see today. The evidence is crystal clear regardless of what the confession says. The clear undeniable evidence of this is "œrebaptisms. We can bandy words and confessions and get into theological hair pulling fights all day long. However, the reality is that the reason persons in REAL LIFE practice "œrebaptizism"œ in baptistic churches is the necessary logical outcome of their doctrine on baptism. Even if we remove the mode argument AND the infant issue "œrebaptism" occurs in baptistic churches for reasons due to its logical extension. We must ask why or otherwise play the ostrich and stick our heads in the sand. The reason one "œgets rebaptized" is that one views the sign primarily as "œmy faith, my act of obedience, my new birth, my sign". Which makes it a Law sign rather than a Gospel sign (a to do and to do right rather than trust and faith in Christ alone), which in and of itself is a serious problem. Rather than be pointed to Christ to Whom the sign points and belongs, the conscience is pointed to self and the timing/mode of the sign as the significance. We can pretend this is not what is meant but reality reveals otherwise.

The logic is quite simple in the Christian´s mind, "œI´m not sure I was saved/regenerate when I was baptized, ergo I must be rebaptized (or baptized for the first time when we play word games with the principle, though the principle remains the same). No one would be "œrebaptized" if they understood the sign to be God´s promissory sign for such would be casting dispersion upon the Word and Promise of God.

It is not that both baptist and reformed both baptize professing adults as such, it is the restriction of timing/mode that makes the doctrine inconsistent internally and biblically. Again, look to where the conscience is being pointed to Christ alone or to when and how I was baptized?

ldh
 
You guys are too funny. :lol::lol:

If I painted all paedo's with a brush as broad as you are using, you would both be Romanists.
 
Then, humbly I ask, explain rebaptisms rather than throw out an ad homenem mockery to cover the issue. I truly am not trying to broad brush here, rather get at the doctrine and its apparent inconsistency within the credo camp. It is the doctrine that is being examined not those adhering to it. But generally the answer always is some form of "avoiding the question". (Crickets and frogs) If the doctrine is true then it should stand the test of scrutiny.

On the surface both credo and paedeo baptist seem to baptize adults similarly and that upon a profession of faith. Upon this we appear to agree. But upon careful examination adult baptism is not viewed similarly between the two camps. We could ask a question this way to arrive at the difference; "œIf an already baptized member (we will assume mode is acceptable for sake of avoiding any inconsequential red herring diversions) comes back to the church and states that they don´t believe they were regenerate prior to baptism, or even emphatically says they were originally false in their profession prior to baptism, then what would be the response of each type of church (I.e., credo Vs. paedeo) concerning baptism?"

The response reveals the difference of the view not only concerning of infants but of adults and by extension baptism altogether. The category of baptism in the credo camp is drastically different than the category of baptism in the paedeo camp.

Yours In Christ,

ldh

[Edited on 5-9-2005 by Larry Hughes]

[Edited on 5-9-2005 by Larry Hughes]
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
You baptists are too funny. :lol::lol:

If I painted all credo's with a brush as broad as you are using, you would be a Wesleyan.
Click to expand...

These bananas have been re-baptised and have experienced a second work of grace as well! :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:

[Edited on 5-9-2005 by turmeric]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top