Why I am now a Baptist

[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.

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.

Before you confuse yourself further you might want to read what I write.

"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."

The object of trust is Christ. Evangelical faith is that which looks to Christ. Reformed faith does not lack personal pronouns but it is where those pronouns are placed that makes an idea non-Reformed.

When an adult is immersed it is in response to the inward work of God, granting repentance and faith.

What? Really? Every adult that is immersed is being immersed by the "inward work of God?" You really do confuse categories quite easily.

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.

So, Anthony, are you saying that when a believer says "Once I was blind and now I see. God has saved me" that this is not about the believer?!

If you did not know this when you were baptized you were not the proper subject of baptism at that time.

Which proves my point that I was making. You actually drive home my points beautifully!

 

[Herald]

Rich, why did you baptize your children? Did you not choose to do so? You believe the Promise. You believe that the covenant is for, "your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."? You believe your children are holy and baptism enters them into the covenant. But in the end, you choose to submit your children to baptism. The elders don't storm into your home at midnight and take your child from you. You do this, not in the presence of saving faith on part of the child but in the absence of it. You then proceed to raise this "covenant child" in the Lord, assuming regeneration unless repudiated by reprobation later in life. But in final analysis you are less certain than the Baptist as to whether the recipient of baptism is saved. By the way, I am not a subscriber to perfect knowledge, or at least not in the way I understand it. You choose to baptize your children. Choice is involved. We choose to submit to baptism. Choice again. Do either of these choices negate the election of God? No. As a believer in the doctrines of grace I confess that God's election is the causation of my choices. That is the essence of Romans 10:9-10. Confessing and believing are things that men do; choices they make. But those choices are actually the continuing work of God in His perfect election.

You keep wanting to lay the charge on Baptists that we view baptism as a work of the will of man. We believe, or least we should believe (Baptists aren't always as confessional as they state), that mans choice in submitting to baptism is not an element of the will independent from the grace of God, but the will submitting to God's perfect election; His election made complete. I've twiced used the term "perfect election". By "perfect election" I mean God's election of the believer made complete, from predestination to glorification. While God is completely and utterly responsible for His perfect election of the individual, He causes man to confess and believe and submit to the ordinances/sacraments of the church. God never cedes control or authority of election to the elect. He changes the nature of the elect to submit to their election.

 

[Pilgrim]

Which schema points to the individual and which schema points to the election of God?

I don't accept the premise here (it seems to point to presumptive election if not regeneration--although I don't know that there's really a difference practically) but don't have much time to interact. As Bill noted, I think we're basically at an impasse here. There are a lot of other issues and aspects I would like to bring up, but it would be far too time consuming right now. Hopefully I will be able to do it later.

The question is, which "schema" reflects Biblical teaching?

 

[Herald]

You believe your children are holy and baptism enters them into the covenant.

To clarify, no Reformed paedobaptist (that I know of) believes baptism brings a child into the covenant. Rather, it's a sign signifying what is already the child's by birth.

Josh, if I'm wrong on that I stand corrected. I would change my wording then to, "You believe your children are holy and baptism places on them the sign of the covenant."

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich, why did you baptize your children? Did you not choose to do so? You believe the Promise. You believe that the covenant is for, "your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."? You believe your children are holy and baptism enters them into the covenant. But in the end, you choose to submit your children to baptism. The elders don't storm into your home at midnight and take your child from you. You do this, not in the presence of saving faith on part of the child but in the absence of it. You then proceed to raise this "covenant child" in the Lord, assuming regeneration unless repudiated by reprobation later in life. But in final analysis you are less certain than the Baptist as to whether the recipient of baptism is saved. By the way, I am not a subscriber to perfect knowledge, or at least not in the way I understand it. You choose to baptize your children. Choice is involved. We choose to submit to baptism. Choice again. Do either of these choices negate the election of God? No. As a believer in the doctrines of grace I confess that God's election is the causation of my choices. That is the essence of Romans 10:9-10. Confessing and believing are things that men do; choices they make. But those choices are actually the continuing work of God in His perfect election.

You keep wanting to lay the charge on Baptists that we view baptism as a work of the will of man. We believe, or least we should believe (Baptists aren't always as confessional as they state), that mans choice in submitting to baptism is not an element of the will independent from the grace of God, but the will submitting to God's perfect election; His election made complete. I've twiced used the term "perfect election". By "perfect election" I mean God's election of the believer made complete, from predestination to glorification. While God is completely and utterly responsible for His perfect election of the individual, He causes man to confess and believe and submit to the ordinances/sacraments of the church. God never cedes control or authority of election to the elect. He changes the nature of the elect to submit to their election.

Again, you're confusing what I'm saying. I've never argued that it is wrong that men decide that they desire to be baptized. Nor have I ever argued that parents are not presenting their own children to the Church to be baptized. The Church does not compel baptism. The issue has to do with how each views the significance of the visible ordinance.

Over and over in this thread, the Baptists have insisted that Baptism is a sign that points to the individual's faith. Hence the visible ordinance, at its administration, is said to be the person's speech about their faith and the fact that they are therefore worthy recipients of the ordinance. In contrast, the paedobaptist insists it is not man's speech but God's speech in the Sacrament and the person receiving the Sacrament hears God's announcement of the Promise.

I don't know how many times I need to type this to make this explicit but I don't know how you confuse what I've typed heretofore as indicating that no wills are involved. Certainly, in the case of professors, men hear the Gospel and present themselves to the Church with the desire to be baptized even in our Churches but you can see Anthony as the quintessential Baptist insisting that the Church now administers the ordinance as indicative of pointing to some reality within. We say, in contrast, that the person does indeed present himself and he is baptized but the Sacrament points to the reality of a Promise without.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Which schema points to the individual and which schema points to the election of God?

I don't accept the premise here (it seems to point to presumptive election if not regeneration--although I don't know that there's really a difference practically) but don't have much time to interact. As Bill noted, I think we're basically at an impasse here. There are a lot of other issues and aspects I would like to bring up, but it would be far too time consuming right now. Hopefully I will be able to do it later.

The question is, which "schema" reflects Biblical teaching?

The answer to your question is the paedobaptist scema.

The only people that have insisted on presumptive election and regeneration with respect to Baptism are a couple of Baptists in this thread.

There is nothing presumptive about the election of God viewed correctly. As you likely skimmed over what I wrote and chose merely to pull that quote you ought to know better that what I'm indicating is that we cannot know who is elect and the visible Sacrament in the paedobaptist schema points away from the individual and could not presume election but merely calls the baptized to trust in the Promise of God, which is held forth in baptism. Only the Baptist attempts to say something definitive of the recipient during baptism.

 

[Herald]

Rich, within the Baptist schema, what do you think is our opinion of the ordinance? We do not believe it is the initiation into the New Covenant, for the New Covenant is administered on the basis of sola fide. But baptism points to the New Covenant; the Abrahamic Covenant made better. Is there an individual component in the the Baptist schema? To the extent that the individual submits to baptism, yes. There has to be. But instead of baptism being a sign that points to the individual's faith, it is sign of God's more perfect election. It really is a matter of emphasis. You are choosing to emphasize the Baptist profession preceeding baptism. A truly confessional Baptist will emphasize God as the director of His most perfect election, which includes profession (Romans 10:9,10).

 

[Herald]

Rich,

And with all due respect to Anthony, don't hold me to his point of view.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich, within the Baptist schema, what do you think is our opinion of the ordinance? We do not believe it is the initiation into the New Covenant, for the New Covenant is administered on the basis of sola fide.

Bill,

How many times have I pointed this out in this thread? I've labored that very point so much that some might get carpal tunnel typing it out over and over as much as I have. I suppose I ought to thank you for repeating the point I've made. Yes, yes, yes, Baptists do not believe that baptism initiates into the New Covenant so the next time the New Covenant is toted out to establish the reason for Credo Baptism I expect you to be the first to note that such a discussion has nothing to do with who ought to be baptized.

But baptism points to the New Covenant; the Abrahamic Covenant made better. Is there an individual component in the the Baptist schema? To the extent that the individual submits to baptism, yes. There has to be. But instead of baptism being a sign that points to the individual's faith, it is sign of God's more perfect election. It really is a matter of emphasis. You are choosing to emphasize the Baptist profession preceeding Baptism. A truly confessional Baptist will emphasize God as the director of His mos perfect election, which includes profession (Romans 10:9,10).

According to your confession, baptism is not a sign of the New Covenant. That language is purposefully left out of your Confession. Your Confession, rather, emphasizes that it is a sign of the fellowship of the individual with Christ and of his faith.

And with all due respect to Anthony, don't hold me to his point of view.

I'm highlighting Anthony because there is some doubt that I'm somehow just making this all up about how Baptists tend toward a personal emphasis in the ordinance. I maintain that is not accidental nor is Anthony unique in this regard.

 

[Herald]

How many times have I pointed this out in this thread? I've labored that very point so much that some might get carpal tunnel typing it out over and over as much as I have. I suppose I ought to thank you for repeating the point I've made. Yes, yes, yes, Baptists do not believe that baptism initiates into the New Covenant so the next time the New Covenant is toted out to establish the reason for Credo Baptism I expect you to be the first to note that such a discussion has nothing to do with who ought to be baptized.

Finally, agreement on something. It's not I haven't understood your words. It's the context that kept me repeating myself. We were using similar language but I don't think we were approaching it from the same direction. You view it as a negative of Baptists, while I view it as a distinct positive for reasons given in more than a few posts in this thread.

I will happily, and most diligently, disagree with any Baptist who states that baptism enters the recipient into the New Covenant. I will tell them that God's perfect election; made possible by the birth, death and resurrection of our Lord, provides their entrance into the New Covenant.

That language is purposefully left out of your Confession. Your Confession, rather, emphasizes that it is a sign of the fellowship of the individual with Christ and of his faith.

The 1689 LBC says, of baptism:

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; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.

You state correctly that the LBC does not address the New Covenant. Was it purposefully left out? I don't know. I do know that the confession was partly written to separate from Presbyterians. Baptism being the main areas of contention between the two sides, it is not surprising that the New Covenant wasn't addressed head on. But I would call the attention of those interested to some other areas of the LBC.

Regarding God's covenant:

7.3 This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.

There is a strong connect-the-dots trail here that starts first with the covenant of works. It leads to the covenant of grace (redemption), of which the New Covenant cannot be separated.

Regarding Christ the Mediator

8.6 Although the price of redemption was not actually paid by Christ till after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefit thereof were communicated to the elect in all ages, successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices wherein he was revealed, and signified to be the seed which should bruise the serpent's head; and the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, being the same yesterday, and to-day and for ever.

8.8 To all those for whom Christ hath obtained eternal redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same, making intercession for them; uniting them to himself by his Spirit, revealing unto them, in and by his Word, the mystery of salvation, persuading them to believe and obey, governing their hearts by his Word and Spirit, and overcoming all their enemies by his almighty power and wisdom, in such manner and ways as are most consonant to his wonderful and unsearchable dispensation; and all of free and absolute grace, without any condition foreseen in them to procure it.

Rich, I believe the exclusion of baptism as the initiation of the New Covenant fits well within the Baptist schema. Circumcision, and now baptism, are signs of God's promise (c.f. LBC 8.6, 29.1). Circumcision was applied to all males in Israel, not on the basis of faith but because of decree. Baptist (credo style) is administered on the basis of professed faith but it's root is planted in the promise of God. This is one of the reasons why the New Covenant is unlike the old Abrahamic covenant. This should be consistent with confessional Baptist orthodoxy and effect our orthopraxy. I am not saying the LBC is outdated but I wonder (for reasons given above) if this issue was intentionally omitted in order to eliminate any blur from the line of demarcation with Presbyterians.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

You believe your children are holy and baptism enters them into the covenant.

To clarify, no Reformed paedobaptist (that I know of) believes baptism brings a child into the covenant. Rather, it's a sign signifying what is already the child's by birth.

All children of one Christian parent are covenant children, regardless of whether or not they have the sign of the covenant.

 

[Herald]

I have not been on these boards long but this is a very sad sad sight for me. See my blogs. I don’t understand how you could make a turn like this. You are either right or dead wrong. If you are right everyone on these boards should follow your lead now. If you are wrong you should be able to listen to the arguments against you descision and reverse your direction using scripture alone. I don’t believe there is anyone speaking who is ignorant of Scripture but someone is because both parties cant be right. Being nice is not the answer to this problem. Jesus was not always nice. We need to be frank and direct. Its this kind of breakdown that’s hurting the Reformed Church. Fight it out!! Love your brother! We should fight to keep him or follow him. Is the Scripture that unclear? Has Theology become second place to kind words. This is no small matter and should not be treated as such by either side. Please accept my words with love we are all brothers in Christ but we cannot agree to disagree on clear Biblical Doctrine. And no, I do not have the answers for one side or the other. Its just certain someone is wrong. Nadab and Abihu probably thought they were doing a good thing that would be pleasing to the Lord. They were wrong.

Leviticus 10
The Death of Nadab and Abihu
1 Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, contrary to his command. 2 So fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD. 3 Moses then said to Aaron, "This is what the LORD spoke of when he said:
" 'Among those who approach me
I will show myself holy;
in the sight of all the people
I will be honored.' "
Aaron remained silent.

First of all, please fix your signature. You can find the guidelines for an acceptable signature HERE. Please have this fixed before your next post.

Second, you're new here. May I encourage you to read threads before jumping in. If you had read this thread you would have noticed that both sides have delivered cogent arguments. Yes, one side is wrong. But if a credo and a paedo are still convinced that they are right, that is fine on this board. One of the requirements of the PB is that you subscribe to one of the recognized confessions. It is understood that Baptists are credo for a reason and Presbyterians are paedo for a reason. We talk about it, debate it and hash it out between the lines. At the end of the day we do not compromise our convictions but we display love one to another. I urge to to consider that fact before you make such a passionate appeal.

 

[Iconoclast]

Rich,

And with all due respect to Anthony, don't hold me to his point of view.

Bill,
When I respond and interact on these threads I do not intend to speak for all Reformed Baptists, but I speak as a reformed baptist. I welcome any correction if you see defects in what I post.
Furthermore I also realize that some of my thoughts are not fully worked out,and sometimes I cannot seem to get across on the keyboard what i think I could express in person.
I find in these threads I often get responses from Rich, Matthew, and sometmes Bruce. Rich as in his last two posts is almost always convinced that he has proven me mistaken. He usually summons everyone to look and see how he has offered correction. However, if the truth be told more often than not I find he is re-phrasing what I said in a way I did not say it ,then claiming that he has displayed some great error. I back off because it is not my goal to be contentious but to raise issue and get a response.
Rich has also several times been helpful to me,and has helped me correct some wrong ideas and I am thankful for that. Sometimes I feel that I raise a valid point that Rich will sidestep,or seem to side step.
Matthew also tries to stimulate more thought on an issue, and I am thankful that many times he is tying to raise scriptural guidelines and to caution me .
Bruce has several times taken time to offer good verses and sometimes personal anecdotes to try to clarify his point of view.
All of these brothers are well read and I respect that. Also they demonstrate a commitment and passion for the word and the confessions that in a way I do not want to oppose.As you posted earlier Bill we need people who are more confessionally minded,so I do not count them as opposition.
For the most part we are agreed in most of the main teachings of scripture. The status of the covenant child, sign and thing signified, and what is the church are always where we differ.Most everytime is is over infant baptism.
I do not remember any other topic where we disagree. That is a good thing!
Bill , feel free to question or challenge my posts as is necessary. I do not have any hidden agenda. Sometimes I do my thinking out loud in here and I try to be open to scritpural correction. Now let me get back to my friend ,Rich.

 

[Herald]

Rich,

And with all due respect to Anthony, don't hold me to his point of view.

Bill,
When I respond and interact on these threads I do not intend to speak for all Reformed Baptists, but I speak as a reformed baptist. I welcome any correction if you see defects in what I post.
Furthermore I also realize that some of my thoughts are not fully worked out,and sometimes I cannot seem to get across on the keyboard what i think I could express in person.
I find in these threads I often get responses from Rich, Matthew, and sometmes Bruce. Rich as in his last two posts is almost always convinced that he has proven me mistaken. He usually summons everyone to look and see how he has offered correction. However, if the truth be told more often than not I find he is re-phrasing what I said in a way I did not say it ,then claiming that he has displayed some great error. I back off because it is not my goal to be contentious but to raise issue and get a response.
Rich has also several times been helpful to me,and has helped me correct some wrong ideas and I am thankful for that. Sometimes I feel that I raise a valid point that Rich will sidestep,or seem to side step.
Matthew also tries to stimulate more thought on an issue, and I am thankful that many times he is tying to raise scriptural guidelines and to caution me .
Bruce has several times taken time to offer good verses and sometimes personal anecdotes to try to clarify his point of view.
All of these brothers are well read and I respect that. Also they demonstrate a commitment and passion for the word and the confessions that in a way I do not want to oppose.As you posted earlier Bill we need people who are more confessionally minded,so I do not count them as opposition.
For the most part we are agreed in most of the main teachings of scripture. The status of the covenant child, sign and thing signified, and what is the church are always where we differ.Most everytime is is over infant baptism.
I do not remember any other topic where we disagree. That is a good thing!
Bill , feel free to question or challenge my posts as is necessary. I do not have any hidden agenda. Sometimes I do my thinking out loud in here and I try to be open to scritpural correction. Now let me get back to my friend ,Rich.

Anthony, please don't misunderstand what I said to Rich. He was using you as an example of what Baptists believe. I took exception to that. Why? I believe that credo Baptism is rooted in the promise of God. The promise made to Abraham is made complete in the New Covenant. Rich was questioning you in regards to the role of the professor in the Baptist schema. I didn't want to be held to that standard since I was approaching the conversation from a different direction.

 

[Herald]

I hope this fixed my signature.

Thank you.

 

[Herald]

"First of all, please fix your signature. You can find the guidelines for an acceptable signature HERE. Please have this fixed before your next post" Thank you for this information I will look into it now.

As for the rest of your post. May I encourage your to read posts before jumping in. My post did not take sides. Sorry I am so passionate about the Church. Hashing it out between the lines is not what the Reformed Church needs. I do agree we should display love to one another and I am truly sorry if you missed that in my post. I urge you to consider that fact before you come down on me with an Iron fist.

Your post came on strong. Too strong in my opinion considering you just entered the fray after nearly 200 posts had accumulated in the thread. I urged you to think and consider. I suggest you do just that.

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

Matthew,
Excuse me but I did not say the child is left outside of the covenant of grace. All children are

5Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me

dead in sin.
I did indicate that the child is dead in sin until the Spirit regenerates him.
We are individually saved, but as living stones are built up a spiritual house.

21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

22In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

All children died in adam,. all adults died in adam.. all died in adam

My Baptist position is that only new birth,being born from above, being quickened by the Spirit, being indwelt by the Spirit, makes someone a new creation in Christ. Only when a person has the Spirit in Him is he a member of the church. The spirit places the person in the Church. The Spirit places someone in union with Christ.
Matthew, I believe it is the Baptist model that is taught in scripture or I would not be a Baptist. I love the eph 2 :1-12 passage- we were dead in sin-- BUT GOD who is rich in mercy-- this is the work of God's grace in time actually saves and converts and many times it is a visible and dramatic conversion.
All children died and sinned in Adam, or no child would see physical death.Salvation is all of grace and all of God. If I gave you any other impression that is not what i intended to do.

 

[Herald]

Shane,

I have not been on these boards long but this is a very sad sad sight for me. See my blogs.

No. I don't have to view your blogs. This topic is being discussed in this thread and on the PB, not your blogs.

I don’t believe there is anyone speaking who is ignorant of Scripture but someone is because both parties cant be right.

This comment doesn't make sense. You don't believe there is anyone speaking who is ignorant but then someone is?

Being nice is not the answer to this problem. Jesus was not always nice. We need to be frank and direct. Its this kind of breakdown that’s hurting the Reformed Church. Fight it out!!

This is not a cage fight. We do not seek to abandon civility under the guise that it will somehow lead to more fruitful debate. Now I know you haven't read this thread. If you had you wouldn't have made such an inane comment.

Please accept my words with love

You want your brothers in Christ to "fight it out" and we are to accept that admonition in love? This isn't the street corner, my friend.

Nadab and Abihu probably thought they were doing a good thing that would be pleasing to the Lord.

I suggest you read that account in context and see if you can't come to a different conclusion.

You really are getting off to a bad start here. You're digging a hole for yourself. My advice? Stop. Disengage. Learn first before spouting off. Not everyone who applies for PB membership is accepted. You were. Consider it a privilege. Defer to some of the stalwart veterans in here and cut your teeth first. It's not only wise, it's polite.

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

Before you confuse yourself further you might want to read what I write.

The object of trust is Christ. Evangelical faith is that which looks to Christ. Reformed faith does not lack personal pronouns but it is where those pronouns are placed that makes an idea non-Reformed.


What? Really? Every adult that is immersed is being immersed by the "inward work of God?" You really do confuse categories quite easily.

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.

So, Anthony, are you saying that when a believer says "Once I was blind and now I see. God has saved me" that this is not about the believer?!

If you did not know this when you were baptized you were not the proper subject of baptism at that time.

Which proves my point that I was making. You actually drive home my points beautifully!

Sorry Rich I cannot let this go. Let 's see who is confused here?

Let's examine this confusion- here is the last part of your post to me

Before you confuse yourself further you might want to read what I write.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFideles
"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."

The object of trust is Christ. Evangelical faith is that which looks to Christ. Reformed faith does not lack personal pronouns but it is where those pronouns are placed that makes an idea non-Reformed.


Quote:
When an adult is immersed it is in response to the inward work of God, granting repentance and faith.

What? Really? Every adult that is immersed is being immersed by the "inward work of God?" You really do confuse categories quite easily.


Quote:
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.

So, Anthony, are you saying that when a believer says "Once I was blind and now I see. God has saved me" that this is not about the believer?!


Quote:
If you did not know this when you were baptized you were not the proper subject of baptism at that time.

Which proves my point that I was making. You actually drive home my points beautifully!

You first paragraph is wrong absolutely. A baptist is saying Something to the world in His obedience to Jesus command to be baptized in obedience to Christ. He is not saying something about himself,other than he knows he is a guilty sinner before a Holy God. Jesus has saved Him and placed Him into His body. Baptism is an open confession and identification with Christ. Not of something that "God will do for all who have faith" {gospel preaching declares that fact} Believer's Baptism is an open declaration of a dead sinner being brought to life. If a dead sinner is not being bought to life, it is not believer's baptism

In paragraph 3 you say baptism is not something a person "performs"? What like do backflip into the baptismal tank? It is not meant to be a performance, but it is not just something done to the person as if he is a passive . He is actively participating.

You then say you believe Baptism is something announced to the individual Talk about confused- What verse did you see this annoncement in Rich? You said I did not read what you wrote when you said this

"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."

your baptism is conditional and does not speak to reality/ so will ,if? The sins are not already washed away to a person who has believed?

You completely ignore my response to you that the promise of Acts 2, is the promise of the Father given to Christ.of psalm 16, jn 14-16 I recommended 3 sermons on this topic to you and any of the other "onlookers"

Rich, I am not just picking on you , but you are a good example of someone who is chained to a logical system that can offer an explanation in a quintessential way of an outward promise and is in danger of missing or explaining away most of what happened in Acts

 

[Iconoclast]

Bill,
I also believe in the promise of God. There are many ways of appraoch to this.
The promise to Abraham,yes. I was speaking more about the promise of the Father Acts 1;4

4And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

and again in Acts 2

30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

33Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

The promise was the promise of Psalm 16,quoted in verse 31-33
This is the promise spoken of in Acts 2;39-41 To be united to Christ by Spirit baptism, as in Romans 6 United in His death,and resurrection,and new ness of life is - To you, your children,and all who are afar off- as many as the Lord our God shall call. If they are not called, they have no promise.

Paul speaks of it everywhere, but very clearly in Philipians 3

9And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

10That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;

11If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.

Bill, if you get a chance Listen to this sermon, He says it much clearer than I can

All sermons by:
Hal Brunson, Ph.D.

422 sermons




MP3 Downloads:
100+


What is a Covenant Child?
» 7/9/2006 (SUN) » Hebrews 2; Acts 2

Sermon ID 7906141921 » Sunday - AM | Upload Media




Available FREE Media © All media is copyrighted. Blog-This | Help

(no preview or announcement clips)


Play Audio! (Streaming) · 16kbps | 46 min. [3]



Download MP3 (5.5MB) • Batch downloads • How?

 

[Herald]

Anthony,

I don't think paedos would disagree that if an individual is not elect there is no promise; or should I say no effective promise. God's promise is with His elect, not the reprobate. I think we are agreed there.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Anthony,

I don't feel picked on.

I think you are missing my point. I realize that a Baptist believes that the reason a professor desires to be baptized is on the basis of something that God has done (re-birth) but you are still missing the obvious point that you are grounding the reason and the significance of the sign in the individual's disposition toward God. Even as you say "This sign isn't about the individual" you keep coming back to personal pronouns and pronouns that say, essentially, the reason that the baptism occurs is because something real has happened to the individual.

As Bruce noted profoundly in another thread, Anthony, you don't even know your own heart well enough to be making declarations to the Church about your "good conscience" (as someone else might have noted). What does Christ state proceeds out of the heart? In fact, if anything, the number of false professions in this world is accelerating and not slowing down.

Regarding promissary language, if you think I'm making that up then you might want to check out Hebrews 6:13-20. Though not specifically related to the rite of baptism, per se, the strength of the Promise is based on two immutable things. Abraham certainly had an existential inner confidence that something profound had happened to him but the hope that he had was fixed like an anchor not to something he found within himself but upon a Promise of a God Who cannot lie backed up by the Oath of that same Immutable God. If you consider that being chained to a quintessential explanation of an outward promise then I'm happy to be a slave to Him who makes Promises to those of us who are feeble and know how our hearts are prone to wander.

 

[MW]

I love the eph 2 :1-12 passage- we were dead in sin-- BUT GOD who is rich in mercy-- this is the work of God's grace in time actually saves and converts and many times it is a visible and dramatic conversion.

Please now read the passage according to the original intent, with the plurals. The apostle is speaking about corporate blessings, not individualistic ones.

 

[Iconoclast]

Anthony,

I don't feel picked on.

I think you are missing my point. I realize that a Baptist believes that the reason a professor desires to be baptized is on the basis of something that God has done (re-birth) but you are still missing the obvious point that you are grounding the reason and the significance of the sign in the individual's disposition toward God. Even as you say "This sign isn't about the individual" you keep coming back to personal pronouns and pronouns that say, essentially, the reason that the baptism occurs is because something real has happened to the individual.

As Bruce noted profoundly in another thread, Anthony, you don't even know your own heart well enough to be making declarations to the Church about your "good conscience" (as someone else might have noted). What does Christ state proceeds out of the heart? In fact, if anything, the number of false professions in this world is accelerating and not slowing down.

Regarding promissary language, if you think I'm making that up then you might want to check out Hebrews 6:13-20. Though not specifically related to the rite of baptism, per se, the strength of the Promise is based on two immutable things. Abraham certainly had an existential inner confidence that something profound had happened to him but the hope that he had was fixed like an anchor not to something he found within himself but upon a Promise of a God Who cannot lie backed up by the Oath of that same Immutable God. If you consider that being chained to a quintessential explanation of an outward promise then I'm happy to be a slave to Him who makes Promises to those of us who are feeble and know how our hearts are prone to wander.

Rich,
Good post here. I am with you on the Hebrews 6 passage. That is one of my favorite spots in Scripture, and actually there is no portion of Hebrews that I do not enjoy and draw comfort and instruction from .
Sorry to come across a bit edgy in my last couple of posts.
The reason I come back to the individual is a strong as the objective promise of God is- unless it translates to an individual in time- it becomes void. With the view I keep offering,God's promise like his word always accomplishes what he has purposed for it Isa 55

11So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

I have always viewed the joy and rejoicing of the new birth as an out pouring of praise to God for salvation. My baptism as an infant in the RC church meant nothing to me as I was living an ungodly life. When God convicted me of sin and gave me a new heart,the change was so radical I suppose that when I see people just speaking in Objective terms about it and not the actual work of new birth by the Spirit it is hard to relate it to the teaching offered. It is similar in my mind to the time Jesus healed ten men and only 1 returned to give thanks and praise.Jesus said where are the nine?

17And Jesus answering said, Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine?

18There are not found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger

in verse 15 it says he turned back and with a loud voice glorified God. Jesus asked where are the nine?
A person does not have to have a dramatic testimony of being a murderer, or crack head, or thief, but without a conviction of sin wrought by the Spirit I cannot see how they would be as the ONE in Luke 17.
I am coming to understand the position offered by Padeo's but truthfully I think it is hard to embrace it as fully if you do not hold it, or you would see it is the position taught in scripture and hold to it.
Rich if you can I really would like you to give a listen to the sermons by Pastor Hal Brunson and let me know what you think.

 

[Iconoclast]

I love the eph 2 :1-12 passage- we were dead in sin-- BUT GOD who is rich in mercy-- this is the work of God's grace in time actually saves and converts and many times it is a visible and dramatic conversion.

Please now read the passage according to the original intent, with the plurals. The apostle is speaking about corporate blessings, not individualistic ones.

Matthew,
Also a good post. Thank you for your online oversight. Honestly I have always looked at the first part of Ephesians as speaking to individuals who then are fitly framed together as in verse 21.
Let me take a fresh look at this book keeping the plural element in mind and see how it settles in. I know that by the time Eph3:9-11 comes around that the corporate church is in view as a whole complete body for sure, the mystery that is now fully made known by the church.
So you are saying with this that The promise comes to individuals/ through the means of the word preached and taught but not apart from the body of Christ corporatly. Then children born to believing parents are included in this purpose, and that God has chosen to - add to the church- in this manner, as well as in missionary and evangelistic methods as well?
Am I following what you are pointing to? That we as parents are to hold to the objective promise and allow the Spirit to move as he pleases,when He pleases and cling to this/ rather than look for any signs of regenerate activity as our judgment may be faulty and flawed?

 

[MW]

Am I following what you are pointing to? That we as parents are to hold to the objective promise and allow the Spirit to move as he pleases,when He pleases and cling to this/ rather than look for any signs of regenerate activity as our judgment may be faulty and flawed?

Well observed.

 

[Ron]

The gentlemen who began this thread made a severe doctrinal adjustment based upon a formal fallacy.

His writings reflect the following argument:

Those who gladly received the word were baptized
Therefore, all who were baptized gladly received the word

The argument reduces to the formal fallacy of asserting the consequent:

If someone gladly received the word, then someone was baptized
Someone was baptized
Therefore, someone gladly received the word

Ron

 

[Ron]

Anthony,

I don't think paedos would disagree that if an individual is not elect there is no promise; or should I say no effective promise. God's promise is with His elect, not the reprobate. I think we are agreed there.

Anthony, I agree with you. I wonder if you would consider this argument:

Reformed Apologist: A Primer on Covenant Theology & Baptism

Ron

 

[Herald]

The gentlemen who began this thread made a severe doctrinal adjustment based upon a formal fallacy.

His writings reflect the following argument:

Those who gladly received the word were baptized
Therefore, all who were baptized gladly received the word

The argument reduces to the formal fallacy of asserting the consequent:

If someone gladly received the word, then someone was baptized
Someone was baptized
Therefore, someone gladly received the word

Ron

Ron, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.

Acts 2:41 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.

Does anyone come to faith in Christ without receiving (gladly) the gospel? Can anyone receive the gospel without coming to faith? In light of 1 Cor. 2:14 the answer to both questions is, "no." Does everyone who is baptized receive the gospel? No. The context of this passage is about those who have received the gospel and were baptized. Receiving the gospel is the condition that qualifies both baptism and those who were baptized.

The gospel cannot be held captive to a logical equation. Look at the Law and Gospel thread, especially the comments of Matthew Winzer. It think it will add clarity to the discussion.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The gentlemen who began this thread made a severe doctrinal adjustment based upon a formal fallacy.

His writings reflect the following argument:

Those who gladly received the word were baptized
Therefore, all who were baptized gladly received the word

The argument reduces to the formal fallacy of asserting the consequent:

If someone gladly received the word, then someone was baptized
Someone was baptized
Therefore, someone gladly received the word

Ron

Ron, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.

Acts 2:41 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.

Does anyone come to faith in Christ without receiving (gladly) the gospel? Can anyone receive the gospel without coming to faith? In light of 1 Cor. 2:14 the answer to both questions is, "no." Does everyone who is baptized receive the gospel? No. The context of this passage is about those who have received the gospel and were baptized. Receiving the gospel is the condition that qualifies both baptism and those who were baptized.

The gospel cannot be held captive to a logical equation. Look at the Law and Gospel thread, especially the comments of Matthew Winzer. It think it will add clarity to the discussion.

What precisely is the Baptist trying to argue except inference when they state that, in effect, all of the examples you have of Baptisms are of Believers. This is a logical conclusion.

As Ron pointed out, it is proper inference to assert that those that gladly receive the Word are proper recipients of baptism but it does not follow that if a person is the proper recipient of baptism that they gladly receive the Word.