Why I am now a Baptist

[InevitablyReformed]

Rich,
I am enjoying this thread,and agree with Bill that you are doing a solid job with your responses and I think you are also seeking to present an accurate depiction of the RB view. I want to try and interact jut a bit more with your post #136 where in part you said this

The point I'm making is that when a Baptist talks about the CoG it has to be done apart from actual baptism. The subject is on a different order: the things invisible only. Because the CoG only consists of the elect, Reformed Baptist theology acknowledges that baptism only confers admission into the visible Church but even the visible Church is distinct from the actual New Covenant that consists only of the Elect.

In another post you added a similar thought

Because, as I noted above, it is not on the basis of the person's actual participation in the New Covenant that you actually baptize the professor but you baptize on the basis of the profession itself. That means that the chief arbiter for determining who is going to participate in your Church (not to be confused with the New Covenant) is the decision of the individual to express faith. Hence, baptism in the Church is intrinsically based upon the individual profession and not upon Promise. This is why I've even heard it repeated here that baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality.

Baptism then becomes less a matter of a Promise of God for the visible Church at large and a sign of the New Covenant and more of a sign that relates to the individual profession (decision). I think this naturally leads to the notion that it was the decision itself that procures the salvation because the sign itself was applied upon basis of profession.

Rich, the way I understand public water baptism, is not that it is a "sign" of a future promise [ although obviously glorification is still future} Public water baptism is the public "confession" that God has done a work already in the person. New Birth has taken place and the "promise" is received in full.
It is not a decision that the person has made.It is the person saying that God has brought them from death to life.
If this has taken place inside the person we cannot see it, true.
But we can see them publicly acknowledge Jesus as Lord and they give testimony with the fruit of their lips giving praise to Him.
It is not that the water baptism per se, has given the person admission into the church. It is that the person is declaring that God has placed Him into the body of Christ already, by the work of the Spirit- not the splash of the water.
Padeobaptists would agree with this with an adult baptism would'nt they?
Last week Bruce posted that the verses in Romans 6/ are not even an issue if we would understand baptism to be a sign, rather than the thing signified.
The thing is in the Nt. I do not think this is the order that God has set forth.
Believe #1 and be baptized #2 is the pattern, because the promise has already come. Ot.saints embraced the promise of a future reality, so a sign was given to them. Once the reality of the promise has come we do not go back as if we are OT saints.

Iconoclast,

I don't mean to be the child at the adult table in this long, intelligent thread, (I don't even know how to just quote a portion of someone's post yet) but I must ask you this in how I understand the above post. You said that water baptism is a sign of what has happened inwardly and then said that we paedos would affirm this for the adult...OK, here's my question: If you object IN PRINCIPLE to putting the sign of faith on an infant of believers, why did God command Abraham to do it? If we acknowledge that circumcision was a sign of faith (Rom 4), why is it WRONG to put the sign of faith on a child?

Thanks and I'm enjoying the discussion. You guys are awesome.

Daniel

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I remember thinking at the time: "What does the New Covenant being only with the Elect have to do with who is baptized?"

I'm still wondering.

In reading the thread, it seems you don't recognize a principle that I assumed most baptists held, though now I wonder as nobody has brought it up in response to this critique.

The Elect-only New Covenant is relevant to baptism in this way:

1) We do view baptism as the sign of the NC, which is entered into by faith.
2) The NC is invisible, with no one having perfect knowledge of who is in it.

So your question remains...if genuine faith (invisible) enters us into the covenant, how can the composition of the NC be relevant to the real-world application of baptism (visible), when we don't know who is genuinely regenerate?

The last principle connects them:
3) All professions are taken as legitimate, without some serious I Cor. 5 justification against it, and we treat that individual as if we had perfect knowledge of their salvation.

Jeremy,

There's no real connection, however, and this is my point. That you treat a professor with the judgment of charity confirms precisely what I have noted repeatedly. It's actually a form of presumptive regeneration because you are treating a member of your Church as if they are regenerate but, in point of fact, you don't have that information and so you rightly treat the individual as if they are.

On the one hand, a sober Baptist ought to criticize anyone then who would present the facile argument that a Paedobaptist Church knowingly baptizes unregenerate people when they would understand full well that no Church either knowingly does this nor can knowingly do something known only to God.

On the other hand, what you haven't established in this formula is the necessity that connects professors only to this category. I would argue that you are baptizing a person into the Church with a judgment of charity that they are capable of responding to the teachings of Christ and then you make the Word and ordinances available to all indiscriminately.

In point of fact, it would be foolhardy to treat a professor as if you had "perfect knowledge" that they were regenerate (as you put it). Why? What if they were not truly believers when they first professed and were baptized? Don't the Scriptures repeatedly enjoin the believer to make their calling and election sure? Is it not the role of the Church to continue to preach the Word with the belief that even those baptized believers sitting in the pew might be converted to the Gospel if, in fact, they never were to begin with?

Put another way, Reformed Baptists certainly don't require that a professing believer be re-baptized in their Church if they were immersed earlier in life at an age of sufficient mental capacity. Well, what is to give the Church "perfect knowledge" of the circumstances of that individual's baptism or what was taught them? I certainly would never presume to have perfect knowledge of the circumstances of the men and women I teach but I must, nevertheless, teach them as if they can respond to the Gospel and I always ever pray that, if they never believed before, that today might be the day that they hear and believe.

This is simple belief in part of the classic invisible/visible distinction. We address all professors as if they are elect - until shown otherwise. That is why pastors can, and should, address their entire congregations - and each member - as holy, as saints, heirs of good promises, etc.

Well, yes, I agree with this and again it only goes to show the limitations of trying to connect election to actual practice. You don't base the baptism upon election but upon desire to be a disciple and then you have a certain expection of fruit and you hope the best for all things. Never, while the person is willing to be taught, do you give up.

In fact, a professor's actual status in the NC is only for God to know, and is not relevant to church procedure/policy at all, except when their lack of faith manifests itself in ways deserving excommunication. We know there are wolves, but we don't know who they are. And all members are treated as "innocent" until they prove themselves guilty.

What is interesting about your presentation thus far is that there is absolutely nothing that precludes that the children of believers could be given the exact same status. As you note, repeatedly, you're not really saying of your people that you know they are elect or regenerate. You are simply stating that their union with Christ is only for God to know. Welcome to the paedo position.

So, that all NC members are elect is entirely relevant.

I don't think you've made it as relevant as you believe. You actually haven't stated anything with respect to how you treat them that necessitates that either the baptism was administered, Word preached, ordinances administered, or discipline initiated on the basis of the persons election. Everything was on the basis of visible profession and willingness/desire to grow.

If that is the case, and we assume a professor's faith is real, and treat him as if we had perfect knowledge that he is a covenant member, then we can apply baptism as a visible sign of the invisible NC and be entirely consistent.

I think you really need to retreat from the "perfect knowledge" language as you have demonstrated that you don't treat as if you had perfect knowledge. Even in Church discipline the fact that you would pray for a person's restoration would hold out the hope that you have no perfect knowledge but trust that God does.

It may turn out in eternity that he was no NC member - but that is on his head, and taking the NC sign without faith will only heap more judgment on him, and and so will his greater exposure to the gospel. The church will not, however, be judged in any way for applying baptism to a professor who showed no outward Biblical signs of being unregenerate. That is what we are to do. This is in the same way that a pastor who addresses a disguised wolf as a saint, holy, saved, etc. will not be judged for it.

Once again, something that can be easily said of a child in the paedo schema.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It is not that the water baptism per se, has given the person admission into the church. It is that the person is declaring that God has placed Him into the body of Christ already, by the work of the Spirit- not the splash of the water.
Padeobaptists would agree with this with an adult baptism would'nt they?

We would not agree with this. In fact, you make my point beautifully about how a Baptist views the ordinance of baptism of saying something about themselves while the Presbyterian says that Baptism is God's declaration of what He promises to do for all who have faith.

You almost present the idea as if the person may simply walk up to the Church and announce: "I am in the New Covenant and elect. I require that you baptize me so that I can declare to the rest of you by my baptism that I have Evangelical faith."

Baptism is something that is done to a person not something that the person performs as the Church looks on. One of my biggest pet peaves is when I see Baptists treat Baptism as if it's their own very personal expression and choose a special place, outside the Church, to celebrate their personal declaration.

I believe Baptism is much more objective and timeless than this and reflects the Scriptures that see Baptism as something administered by the Church and announced to the individual. Yes, it is personal in one respect. The devotion I draw from my Baptism, in fact, is that I believe that God made a promise to me in my Baptism. The Church was the ministerial agency that announced that Promise but it was backed up by the authority of God who said to me: "As surely as you feel the waters washing the filth of your flesh, so will your sins be washed away if you trust in Christ."

When I was immersed as an adult, I have to say that I am not entirely convinced I even had the first clue about the Gospel at the Church I attended. If Baptism was my declaration of my faith and union with Christ then I suppose I would have to agree with those who believe Baptism has to be performed repeatedly until one is absolutely certain that the faith possessed at the time of Baptism was true.

But, in point of fact, because God was at my baptism and declared the promise through the minister, I can trust the Promise. I am able to know that I have faith and God and so I look at my baptism where the Promise announced salvation to me if I simply cling to Christ. In other words, you want baptism to look at me but, instead, I look away from me to my baptism where the benefits of Christ are promised on condition of faith.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Rich, the way I understand public water baptism, is not that it is a "sign" of a future promise [ although obviously glorification is still future} Public water baptism is the public "confession" that God has done a work already in the person. New Birth has taken place and the "promise" is received in full.
It is not a decision that the person has made.It is the person saying that God has brought them from death to life.
If this has taken place inside the person we cannot see it, true.
But we can see them publicly acknowledge Jesus as Lord and they give testimony with the fruit of their lips giving praise to Him.
It is not that the water baptism per se, has given the person admission into the church. It is that the person is declaring that God has placed Him into the body of Christ already, by the work of the Spirit- not the splash of the water.

Note the bolded and underlined highlights. Once again, it is crystal clear that the difference between the two positions is WHO is doing the "talking", WHO is making statements. Is it fundamentally a heavenly, gospel declaration respecting a promise God makes to save believers? Or, as in this answer, is it fundamentally a human-statement?

Does baptism announce monergistic salvation? Who is doing the talking?

 

[staythecourse]

Both adult and child "say" and "give testimony"

There is also a public declaration from the paedo-baptist's when they confirm what has taken place between them and the Lord according to their theology. They (both the adult Baptist and the parents of the credo child) are acknowledging that they are passive recipients of God's grace. One professes that they were passively received into God's family as an adult by personal election as evidenced by faith and the other as a child by birth from believing parents.

 

[staythecourse]

You almost present the idea as if the person may simply walk up to the Church and announce: "I am in the New Covenant and elect. I require that you baptize me so that I can declare to the rest of you by my baptism that I have Evangelical faith."

Hi Rich,

I am comfortable with that statement as a Baptist. If I am not boasting but simply confessing something out of my control happened (namely faith in Christ, adoption, hope of the glory of God in Christ Jesus) then I am doing my duty to be baptized publicly to display myself as a "vessel of mercy" before the world (regenerate, unregenerate, angels, demons, God). No boasting would be involved except in Gods work done in me.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

There is also a public declaration from the paedo-baptist's when they confirm what has taken place between them and the Lord according to their theology. They (both the adult Baptist and the parents of the credo child) are acknowledging that they are passive recipients of God's grace. One professes that they were passively received into God's family as an adult by personal election as evidenced by faith and the other as a child by birth from believing parents.

No, Bryan, that's not hitting at what we confess. The public witness is a necessary condition, but is not an essential condition.

Any time the (true) church (properly) baptizes someone (so we confess), God via his church is saying "God saves believers." That's it. This is MORE basic than than any person's individual appropriation of that truth. And for this reason, WE say (while the baptist emphatically REJECTS) that a valid baptism takes place before or after a true conversion. Because grace to the elect is not tied to the moment of administration.

Now tell me if a baptist thinks a baptism of any kind, pre-conversion, was any baptism at all, regardless of what the church intended to do? No, b/c a valid baptism on that scheme must follow a conversion. Otherwise, you would accept a paedo-baptized child's baptism. But you don't.

 

[staythecourse]

Because grace to the elect is not tied to the moment of administration.

Bruce, I don't want to tie up the thread much but Could you explain that?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

WCF 28:6 The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; 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 (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time.​

This paragraph
1) puts the sign and thing-signified together, showing it is a "means of grace" (that is, a communication of God to his people);

2) states that the Spirit's baptism (which is the efficacious work; the external sign is not, beyond an earthly utterance) is not tied to the time of the earthly action of the church; yet

3) in a proper usage, the Spirit of God really does show forth something of the gospel in the ordinance itself, and confers it salvifically upon the elect by his own will (not a pastor's or a father's or any man's) in his own good timing.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

You almost present the idea as if the person may simply walk up to the Church and announce: "I am in the New Covenant and elect. I require that you baptize me so that I can declare to the rest of you by my baptism that I have Evangelical faith."

Hi Rich,

I am comfortable with that statement as a Baptist. If I am not boasting but simply confessing something out of my control happened (namely faith in Christ, adoption, hope of the glory of God in Christ Jesus) then I am doing my duty to be baptized publicly to display myself as a "vessel of mercy" before the world (regenerate, unregenerate, angels, demons, God). No boasting would be involved except in Gods work done in me.

There is also a public declaration from the paedo-baptist's when they confirm what has taken place between them and the Lord according to their theology. They (both the adult Baptist and the parents of the credo child) are acknowledging that they are passive recipients of God's grace. One professes that they were passively received into God's family as an adult by personal election as evidenced by faith and the other as a child by birth from believing parents.

No, Bryan, that's not hitting at what we confess. The public witness is a necessary condition, but is not an essential condition.

Any time the (true) church (properly) baptizes someone (so we confess), God via his church is saying "God saves believers." That's it. This is MORE basic than than any person's individual appropriation of that truth. And for this reason, WE say (while the baptist emphatically REJECTS) that a valid baptism takes place before or after a true conversion. Because grace to the elect is not tied to the moment of administration.

Now tell me if a baptist thinks a baptism of any kind, pre-conversion, was any baptism at all, regardless of what the church intended to do? No, b/c a valid baptism on that scheme must follow a conversion. Otherwise, you would accept a paedo-baptized child's baptism. But you don't.

To any onlookers,

This interaction and my interaction with iconoclast ought to demonstrate precisely the point I made from the beginning.

Which schema points to the individual and which schema points to the election of God? I think this demonstrates which group tends to center the significance of the ordinances of the Church around human decision and which remains grounded in the grace of God to save.

Viewed correctly, the baptism of children is pure grace. It focuses not upon the individual but upon God who elects before a man has opportunity to will or to run. The credo-baptist formula places the will of man as the precedent for baptism and hence the visible ordinance undermines the basic premise of the doctrines of grace.

 

[Herald]

Rich, forgive me for disagreeing with your claim. I understand what you're saying but couldn't disagree with it more. We baptize because God commands it as a sign of the New Covenant. No, we don't share your covenant view. The only human decision involved is a person claiming to have believed. Once they believe baptism is to be administered immediately. While submitting to baptism is an act of obedience on the part of the one being baptized, baptism is all about God. The individual receives the sign of the New Covenant which identifies them with the body of Christ, the invisible church.

The credo formula does not place the will of man as the precedent for baptism. The will of God is the precedent for baptism. Believe and be baptized. Not, "I believed so I think I'll be baptized." THAT would be the will of man. The doctrines of grace are not undermined. God calls his elect by grace through faith. His elect believe and submit to the command to be baptized, not under compulsion but joyfully. And this is a will of man how?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich, forgive me for disagreeing with your claim. I understand what you're saying but couldn't disagree with it more. We baptize because God commands it as a sign of the New Covenant. No, we don't share your covenant view. The only human decision involved is a person claiming to have believed. Once they believe baptism is to be administered immediately. While submitting to baptism is an act of obedience on the part of the one being baptized, baptism is all about God. The individual receives the sign of the New Covenant which identifies them with the body of Christ, the invisible church.

The credo formula does not place the will of man as the precedent for baptism. The will of God is the precedent for baptism. Believe and be baptized. Not, "I believed so I think I'll be baptized." THAT would be the will of man. The doctrines of grace are not undermined. God calls his elect by grace through faith. His elect believe and submit to the command to be baptized, not under compulsion but joyfully. And this is a will of man how?

Bill,

The "How?" has been demonstrated by the posts referenced.

As I noted, it's not that the Baptist position, in a Confessional way, starts out trying to put precedence on the decision of man but it ends up with it being at the fore in visible practice.

From a decretal standpoint, it's not that the Baptist position fails in its goal to attempt to remain grounded in the election of God but when it tries to move from its decretal understanding (invisible) to the visible ordinances of the Church, the insistence that profession is the arbiter of detecting the decree, the net result is a focus upon the will of man because the baptism is administered on the basis of profession.

Hence, I maintain, the invisible ideal of the Baptist position is in tension with the visible practice of the Baptist and the visible practice is at the fore of the Body life of the Church. Since the man in the pew lives in the visible ordinance, the natural result is to have the ordinance, that focuses on profession, to focus inward and away from the Promise of God, which is external.

 

[BobVigneault]

Rich, my daughter was baptized recently based on her profession of faith. I know you don't view that as somehow a diminished version of baptism. But if after the adoption takes place I decide to have my two younger children baptized, isn't THAT baptism on the basis of MY profession of faith. I believe that God chose me and my wife, but in his providence, WE chose the OPC we are attending, WE gave our profession in order to become members and now, if I choose, I will have my kids baptized as a sign of their inclusion in the covenant benefits. Now how do you avoid human decision in all this?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The public witness is a necessary condition, but is not an essential condition.

Since I am dissatisfied with my statement here, I am offering a clarification.

In argumentative contexts, the words "necessary" and "essential" are equivalent terms. So, basically it could be argued that I am contradicting myself in that place.

In the context I need to show that I am not. I am using the terms in different senses, and those senses need to be explained.

When I say "The public witness is a necessary condition," I mean it is a "prescriptive" necessity, a "legal" necessity, and that as a condition irrespective of its honesty, its truth value.

When I say "The public witness is not an essential condition," I mean that in the church's activity given a valid set of circumstances, irrespective of the truth of the witness a valid baptism has occurred, and a person has been baptized. Thus, it may be said that the public witness of the individual is NOT a "moral" essential with regard to the church's activity.

In other words, it is IMMORAL for the individual to bear false witness, however that false witness is not an essential that will invalidate the action of the CHURCH.

Moreover, as it touches the occasional infant, it is possible to more clearly see that according to our doctrine, the true and personal witness of the subject is not essential, since it would be empirically impossible.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Rich, my daughter was baptized recently based on her profession of faith. I know you don't view that as somehow a diminished version of baptism. But if after the adoption takes place I decide to have my two younger children baptized, isn't THAT baptism on the basis of MY profession of faith. I believe that God chose me and my wife, but in his providence, WE chose the OPC we are attending, WE gave our profession in order to become members and now, if I choose, I will have my kids baptized as a sign of their inclusion in the covenant benefits. Now how do you avoid human decision in all this?

Bob,
It comes down to what entity performs a baptism. Are you (a subject) performing the baptism, or are you submitting to baptism (or submitting your children), and participating in the church's business? If this is a churchly thing, then you are basically passive, apart from your willingness to be included. You are more "acted upon" than "acting". By this, I do not mean you are inert, unresponsive, non-vocal. No more than in any other part of worship.

But if it is fundamentally the church that acts, then you are not the basic speaker. God is. He speaks, we reply. In fact, (we argue) he has commanded you to present his children to him. So, to "choose" to do so is simply to obey him. Baptism isn't a statement about me deciding for Him, but Him deciding to save believers, a sign, a witness of his sovereign Spirit-work.

 

[timmopussycat]

Apropos the conjectures regarding the immersion of the 3,000 in Jerusalem, I submit the following as evidence to the contrary. The author, F.G. Hibbard, was a Methodist pastor in the early part of the 1800s, and apparently quite exercised in the matters of minute detail pertaining to infant baptism, and to the mode of baptism.

This is from the book, Christian Baptism, by Rev. F.G. Hibbard, (NY: Carlton & Lanahan. 1841).

More recent archaeology has brought to light an additional water source or sources. I think the magazine I saw was Biblical Archaeology Review.

 

[BobVigneault]

Pastor Bruce, as always you have given a great explanation but it sounds more like an explanation of church polity than explicit Scriptural doctrine. When my oldest daughters were babes I followed God's commands to present them to him and had them dedicated in the church. It was an American Baptist turned EV Free Church. This seemed the right thing to do and it was consistent with the teaching of "the church" as they interpreted scripture.

For years I belonged to a Baptist church that taught that we present our children to God through a public dedication. They added the fact that this baby is part of the covenant family and a participant in the benefits of the faith community.

Now I am in an OPC and have submitted to the leadership. In our church we have several families that are reformed Baptists. I am mostly Presbyterian at this point and I will submit my younger children for baptism when they are officially adopted. The OPC applies the very same scriptures that my Baptist brethren read differently.

Both churches follow God's command to present your children to him. Through long, longer and even longer arguments using technical terms that many laymen will never grasp, the leaders claim to speak for God and codify their conventional thoughts. They say we are right and the other church is wrong.

I guess my question to Rich regards this framing of the argument:

Which schema points to the individual and which schema points to the election of God? I think this demonstrates which group tends to center the significance of the ordinances of the Church around human decision and which remains grounded in the grace of God to save.

Are you really contending that Baptists are weak on the doctrine that God saves by grace alone because they answer God's command to present our children to him in a different mode?

(Rich is sleeping so if anyone wants to jump in, please go ahead.)

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I think Rich's point is that theology and practice are more dis-aligned (when we look at it) on the baptist model. I'm sure the baptist disagrees.

But go back to post #160, where I highlighted line after line in Iconoclast's post -- "the person states, he declares, they testify, etc." Remember, it is TIED to profession, and post-profession at that. Remember, a infant baptized hasn't been baptized according to the baptist understanding. He won't be until he professes, and is then baptized (and of course the method counts as well).

Everything has to be aligned just right in the baptist playbook. The church must intend and perform accurately, AND the person must be properly disposed. If the second part is inaccurate, then no baptism has occurred (or else one must admit to legitimate re-baptisms). Upon analysis, is this not a picture of synergism? Church must be right (and are they intentionally speaking for God on their principles? is this not a step too far for those principles?), and man must be right--they have to be speaking together, or the sign is invalid. Baptist Man cannot come afterward and say, "I was speaking incorrectly, or not at all, at the time, but now I concur with heaven. God was true, when as yet I was not."

 

[BobVigneault]

Thank you Pastor Bruce for explaining that. I'll go back and read some of the previous posts. PS, I'm happy that you're speaking to me again. (Tehehehehehehehehe)

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Rich (and Pastor Buchanan) makes a great point.

Throughout the Old and New Testaments the entire church is addressed, children not excluded (Colossians - "To the saints and faithful brothers in Christ at Colossae" and "Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord"). When we teach all that Jesus commanded we do so also to our children. we teach them to pray, "Our Father...," we teach them to sing Psalms (Psalm 4 - "But know that the Lord has set apart the godly for himself;the Lord hears when I call to him") and we teach them that whether they eat or drink, or whatever they do, they are to do all to the glory of God.

We do none of this because we presume they are regenerate (or unregenerate) or because we presume anything about the state of their heart but only because God has commanded us according to His good promises. The only thing we have evidence of is that God has blessed us (that is "us" the saints, the church, consisting of both truly inward regenerate and those who are only outward, but not truly regenerate) with offspring. The Baptist will hold off until they have evidence that this "blessed" offspring is indeed legit and truly included in the God's covenant. An infant that may or may not be truly regenerate must wait on fallible man instead of infallible God before they are considered one of "the saints and faithful brothers in Christ."

Paedobaptists can't presume anything other than our children are a blessing from God. We do not attempt to know a third will of God (Deuteronomy 29:29). Everything must be based on the revealed will only. If God has blessed us, then we will administer the sign and the seal God has graciously provided to His people.

Credo-only Baptist presume their children are outside the camp unless they prove otherwise (they being both children and elders). If they prove such then they will administer the sign and the seal God has graciously provided to His people.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Tim,

BAR is a respectable mag -- can you cite the issue?



That story about the toughness of Baptists, I looked and found it pertained to a Methodist evangelist / backwoods preacher, Peter Cartwright, in the 1800s. The story was told by a Baptist, William Grady, in his book, What Hath God Wrought! A Biblical Interpretation of American History (p. 195). [He's an IFB, and anti-Calvinist, but a very interesting read nonetheless.]

Anyway, Cartwright, upon entering a town in Ohio, heard of a bartender who was a notorious bully, who would threaten and beat up preachers traveling though his area. So Cartwright, a rugged character, sought him out and whupped him till he promised not ever to do it again -- reportedly singing a hymn while doing so.

A lot of stories about the hardships and persecutions of the early American Baptists in the book.

 

[Herald]

Since the man in the pew lives in the visible ordinance, the natural result is to have the ordinance, that focuses on profession, to focus inward and away from the Promise of God, which is external.

I don't agree. I've tried repeatedly to state why I disagree but either I'm not communicating well or you don't agree with my explanation (I believe the latter is true). I maintain that credo baptism does focus on the promise of God.

Romans 11 allows me to attach the following passage to all those who believe:

Jeremiah 30:22 22 'You shall be My people, And I will be your God.'"

Another way of saying that would be, "If you are My people, I am your God." That is the promise. Credo baptism is a recognition of that promise made to all of the elect. Why not infants? Because, "believe and be baptized."

We have the arguments on auto pilot now. We both claim the high ground in the discussion. We do so, not out of pride but because we think we are being faithful to the scriptures. I don't know what else I can say. The arguments are out there. Paedos are going to side with the paedo view and credos with the credo view.

Josh, you said you can't wait for the baptism debate. What exactly is it that you can't wait for? When the debate is over, there are still going to be two sides believing what they consider to be right.

 

[KMK]

Since the man in the pew lives in the visible ordinance, the natural result is to have the ordinance, that focuses on profession, to focus inward and away from the Promise of God, which is external.

I don't agree. I've tried repeatedly to state why I disagree but either I'm not communicating well or you don't agree with my explanation (I believe the latter is true). I maintain that credo baptism does focus on the promise of God.

Romans 11 allows me to attach the following passage to all those who believe:

Jeremiah 30:22 22 'You shall be My people, And I will be your God.'"

Another way of saying that would be, "If you are My people, I am your God." That is the promise. Credo baptism is a recognition of that promise made to all of the elect. Why not infants? Because, "believe and be baptized."

We have the arguments on auto pilot now. We both claim the high ground in the discussion. We do so, not out of pride but because we think we are being faithful to the scriptures. I don't know what else I can say. The arguments are out there. Paedos are going to side with the paedo view and credos with the credo view.

Josh, you said you can't wait for the baptism debate. What exactly is it that you can't wait for? When the debate is over there are still going to be two sides believing what they consider to be right.

I agree.

BTW, didn't Gene Cook already win the debate? Shouldn't this discussion be over?

 

[Pilgrim's Progeny]

Tim,


Anyway, Cartwright, upon entering a town in Ohio, heard of a bartender who was a notorious bully, who would threaten and beat up preachers traveling though his area. So Cartwright, a rugged character, sought him out and whupped him till he promised not ever to do it again -- reportedly singing a hymn while doing so.

A lot of stories about the hardships and persecutions of the early American Baptists in the book.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Since the man in the pew lives in the visible ordinance, the natural result is to have the ordinance, that focuses on profession, to focus inward and away from the Promise of God, which is external.

I don't agree. I've tried repeatedly to state why I disagree but either I'm not communicating well or you don't agree with my explanation (I believe the latter is true). I maintain that credo baptism does focus on the promise of God.

Romans 11 allows me to attach the following passage to all those who believe:

Jeremiah 30:22 22 'You shall be My people, And I will be your God.'"

Another way of saying that would be, "If you are My people, I am your God." That is the promise. Credo baptism is a recognition of that promise made to all of the elect. Why not infants? Because, "believe and be baptized."

I'm content as well that what I have contended for has been clearly laid out and Baptist presentations of their visible ordinances have borne out what I've stated.

I actually do believe it is a bit more than a disagreement, I actually think you're sort of missing my point about the visible ordinance remaining in tension with the invisible ideal you believe in. There is sort of a neumenal/phenomenal divide in Baptist theology between the New Covenant and the ordinances themselves.

I recognize that you are attempting to base the New Covenant upon the Promise of God, which is inviolable, but the actual ordinance is detached from the the New Covenant itself in a sense because a Baptist cannot afford to state that baptism confers membership into the New Covenant. To do so would destroy your theology that the New Covenant consists only of the elect and you know full well that false professors are baptized inadvertently.

Hence, because the Baptist insists that Baptism is administered to those that profess, and that it is a declaration of the individual, it is the profession (true or false) that admits one into visible participation with the local Church.

On the one hand you have an ideal that exists invisibly with a Promise that applies only to the Elect (whom you do not know) and you have a Church on the other hand consisting of professors only whom you know based on profession and not on any other information related to Romans 11. Just to be abundantly clear, believe is not the same word as profess.

You keep defaulting back to your understanding of the New Covenant and say: "Look Rich, I remain grounded in the Promise of God because I believe in this New Covenant that consists of the Elect of God alone."

I answer that you are speaking abstractly at that point and not actually interacting with activity in the visible Church when you do this. Members are being baptized not necessarily into the New Covenant but into the local Church where the will of man to profess is central in every ordinance of the Church.

Thus, profession and the will of man is central in all your visible ordinances and even in how they are spoken of. Some Baptists here have even granted that this profession allows the Church to pretend to have "perfect knowledge" on its basis.

I continue to mantain, therefore, that you have a system of visible ordinances that place the will of man at the fore, which is in essential disagreement with a view of God's election in the Scriptures that emphasizes His action before a man has willed. Even your continued quoting of "Believe and be baptized" and insisting that infants cannot believe assumes that it is the will of a mature mind that takes precedence rather than a Sacrament that applies a sign in hope that the elective purposes of God don't wait for a child to mature.

 

[Iconoclast]

Rich, the way I understand public water baptism, is not that it is a "sign" of a future promise [ although obviously glorification is still future} Public water baptism is the public "confession" that God has done a work already in the person. New Birth has taken place and the "promise" is received in full.
It is not a decision that the person has made.It is the person saying that God has brought them from death to life.
If this has taken place inside the person we cannot see it, true.
But we can see them publicly acknowledge Jesus as Lord and they give testimony with the fruit of their lips giving praise to Him.
It is not that the water baptism per se, has given the person admission into the church. It is that the person is declaring that God has placed Him into the body of Christ already, by the work of the Spirit- not the splash of the water.

Note the bolded and underlined highlights. Once again, it is crystal clear that the difference between the two positions is WHO is doing the "talking", WHO is making statements. Is it fundamentally a heavenly, gospel declaration respecting a promise God makes to save believers? Or, as in this answer, is it fundamentally a human-statement?

Does baptism announce monergistic salvation? Who is doing the talking?

Bruce,
It is the person who is baptized doing the talking, saying, confessing, professing, THAT GOD IN LOVE AND MERCY HAS SAVED THEM.
It is not his parents saying that God promises to save the elect so we will give a sign to a baby of a promise that this baby might not ever recieve.

God's promise to save His elect are completely based upon God's faithfulness to His own oath to save . Jn 6;37-44 hebrews 6:17-19
The human statement as you call it, is seen throughout the book of Acts.
No where is an open ended promise offered. The promise is only to as many as the Lord shall call. When he calls them, they gladly welcome the word, and openly confess such by baptism. I believe therefore I speak.

 

[Iconoclast]

Rich,
I am enjoying this thread,and agree with Bill that you are doing a solid job with your responses and I think you are also seeking to present an accurate depiction of the RB view. I want to try and interact jut a bit more with your post #136 where in part you said this

The point I'm making is that when a Baptist talks about the CoG it has to be done apart from actual baptism. The subject is on a different order: the things invisible only. Because the CoG only consists of the elect, Reformed Baptist theology acknowledges that baptism only confers admission into the visible Church but even the visible Church is distinct from the actual New Covenant that consists only of the Elect.

In another post you added a similar thought

Because, as I noted above, it is not on the basis of the person's actual participation in the New Covenant that you actually baptize the professor but you baptize on the basis of the profession itself. That means that the chief arbiter for determining who is going to participate in your Church (not to be confused with the New Covenant) is the decision of the individual to express faith. Hence, baptism in the Church is intrinsically based upon the individual profession and not upon Promise. This is why I've even heard it repeated here that baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality.

Baptism then becomes less a matter of a Promise of God for the visible Church at large and a sign of the New Covenant and more of a sign that relates to the individual profession (decision). I think this naturally leads to the notion that it was the decision itself that procures the salvation because the sign itself was applied upon basis of profession.

Rich, the way I understand public water baptism, is not that it is a "sign" of a future promise [ although obviously glorification is still future} Public water baptism is the public "confession" that God has done a work already in the person. New Birth has taken place and the "promise" is received in full.
It is not a decision that the person has made.It is the person saying that God has brought them from death to life.
If this has taken place inside the person we cannot see it, true.
But we can see them publicly acknowledge Jesus as Lord and they give testimony with the fruit of their lips giving praise to Him.
It is not that the water baptism per se, has given the person admission into the church. It is that the person is declaring that God has placed Him into the body of Christ already, by the work of the Spirit- not the splash of the water.
Padeobaptists would agree with this with an adult baptism would'nt they?
Last week Bruce posted that the verses in Romans 6/ are not even an issue if we would understand baptism to be a sign, rather than the thing signified.
The thing is in the Nt. I do not think this is the order that God has set forth.
Believe #1 and be baptized #2 is the pattern, because the promise has already come. Ot.saints embraced the promise of a future reality, so a sign was given to them. Once the reality of the promise has come we do not go back as if we are OT saints.

Iconoclast,

I don't mean to be the child at the adult table in this long, intelligent thread, (I don't even know how to just quote a portion of someone's post yet) but I must ask you this in how I understand the above post. You said that water baptism is a sign of what has happened inwardly and then said that we paedos would affirm this for the adult...OK, here's my question: If you object IN PRINCIPLE to putting the sign of faith on an infant of believers, why did God command Abraham to do it? If we acknowledge that circumcision was a sign of faith (Rom 4), why is it WRONG to put the sign of faith on a child?

Thanks and I'm enjoying the discussion. You guys are awesome.

Daniel

The sign given was outward and external looking forward to the promise seed which is Christ. Gal 3;16-29. Now that the seed has come, and accomplished redemption those who God brings to life in the Nt. by Spirit baptism Romans 6;1-17 live in newness of life by the Spirit who indwells them. Spirit baptism applied by the quickening work of the Spirit gives new life, a new creation. Without it , no one is in Union with Christ, or, In His body. Outward signs do not look forward to what might happen now as they did before the cross. The reality of the cross has taken place.
The person who identifies with the message of the cross by God given faith is the only valid person to be baptized.That is what was read and declared throughout the Nt. No more, no less
Babies do not yet identify with or against anything yet. All persons are dead in Adam. God often time works in and through believing families,yes, this is true. But those children are not immune from from Adam's fall.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Bill,

I hope you're reading Anthony. I couldn't have planned to have a Baptist make my point any clearer in Posts # 184 and 185.

 

[MW]

Babies do not yet identify with or against anything yet. All persons are dead in Adam.

This commits the same error as Randy did earlier, in assuming that to be dead in trespasses and sins automatically leaves one outside the covenant of grace. But the apostle taught differently. He acknowledged he was a child of wrath by nature, and yet a child of promise by covenant (Eph. 2:1-12). This clearly shows that the Baptist understanding of the doctrines of grace is overly individualistic and doesn't account for the corporate and visible nature of the work of grace in time.

Further, by using the word "identify," you effectively create a doctrine of mediate covenant inclusion. Attempt to apply this to the child's standing in Adam, and what are you left with? Pelagianism. To be consistent you would be forced to say that no child is counted guilty of sin until he himself identifies with Adam. But we know this is not the case, and that all men are immediately accounted guilty as a result of being unconsciously identified with Adam in the covenant of works. We also know from various passages of Scripture that there is an analogy between being in Adam and being in Christ. One is immediately in Adam because of his relation to the covenant of works, and one is immediately in Christ because of his relation to the covenant of grace. There is no difference -- for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified FREELY by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. We are therefore shut up to the conclusion that the covenant of grace is freely administered apart from the idea of self-identification.

 

[Iconoclast]

It is not that the water baptism per se, has given the person admission into the church. It is that the person is declaring that God has placed Him into the body of Christ already, by the work of the Spirit- not the splash of the water.
Padeobaptists would agree with this with an adult baptism would'nt they?

We would not agree with this. In fact, you make my point beautifully about how a Baptist views the ordinance of baptism of saying something about themselves while the Presbyterian says that Baptism is God's declaration of what He promises to do for all who have faith.

You almost present the idea as if the person may simply walk up to the Church and announce: "I am in the New Covenant and elect. I require that you baptize me so that I can declare to the rest of you by my baptism that I have Evangelical faith."

Baptism is something that is done to a person not something that the person performs as the Church looks on. One of my biggest pet peaves is when I see Baptists treat Baptism as if it's their own very personal expression and choose a special place, outside the Church, to celebrate their personal declaration.

I believe Baptism is much more objective and timeless than this and reflects the Scriptures that see Baptism as something administered by the Church and announced to the individual. Yes, it is personal in one respect. The devotion I draw from my Baptism, in fact, is that I believe that God made a promise to me in my Baptism. The Church was the ministerial agency that announced that Promise but it was backed up by the authority of God who said to me: "As surely as you feel the waters washing the filth of your flesh, so will your sins be washed away if you trust in Christ."

When I was immersed as an adult, I have to say that I am not entirely convinced I even had the first clue about the Gospel at the Church I attended. If Baptism was my declaration of my faith and union with Christ then I suppose I would have to agree with those who believe Baptism has to be performed repeatedly until one is absolutely certain that the faith possessed at the time of Baptism was true.

But, in point of fact, because God was at my baptism and declared the promise through the minister, I can trust the Promise. I am able to know that I have faith and God and so I look at my baptism where the Promise announced salvation to me if I simply cling to Christ. In other words, you want baptism to look at me but, instead, I look away from me to my baptism where the benefits of Christ are promised on condition of faith.

Rich,
God makes a promise to anyone anywhere who believes the gospel that they will be saved.The promise is to particpate in the fellowship of the Resurrection life of Christ.
All through Acts they believed the WORD Preached. This whole twisting of what was said as if it was an arminian type of thing is off base.
The way you describe it, is more an arminian scheme- look at your language
The benefits are "promised " to you on the "condition of faith". The promise is to you if you -simply cling to Christ-That sounds like the idea of inherent faith, a full ability of will which I know for a fact you do not believe. I am certain you do not hold to these wrong ideas yet you write what you write
I can trust the promise
I am able to know that I have faith
I look at my baptism
If I simply cling to Christ
I look away from me, to my baptism
Where is the work of God in your statements? It looks like you are doing it apart from God, following a formula, rather than God changing you.

Faith as we know is the gift of God. We are not to look to our baptism, we are to look to Christ by a God given faith. The person who looks and lives does so only by the electing grace and mercy of God.
When an adult is immersed it is in response to the inward work of God, granting repentance and faith. He might not even know all the theology behind it, but if it is of God it is eternal. They do so in obedience to the command of Christ to believe and be baptized. Not to do "something for themselves as a "performance"!
The adult who is baptized is not saying something about himself as you state, He is saying once I was was blind but now I see. God has saved me.
If you did not know this when you were baptized you were not the proper subject of baptism at that time.
To say that a person has to have full assurance of faith before being baptized is also a ridiculous idea. What would you do if you lived in the first century? Doubt every baptism?
It is your position that denies the obedience of faith in believer's baptism.