• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Infant Baptism

Judson

Junior Member
Dec 6, 2009
106
3
✟15,246.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
A question for my paedo brothers. The WCF Ch. 28 says the following about baptism:

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. of remission of sins, Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.

VI. 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 belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.


Now, if baptism is a sign and seal of regeneration, ingrafting into Christ, forgiveness of sins, in short, salvation, then does this mean that ALL children of believers are elect, by virtue of their baptism?

Put another way, what is the relationship between an infant of a believer and their final salvation with respect to their baptism?

thanks.
 

DD2008

Well-Known Member
Oct 3, 2008
5,033
574
Texas
✟8,121.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
A question for my paedo brothers. The WCF Ch. 28 says the following about baptism:

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. of remission of sins, Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.

VI. 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 belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.


Now, if baptism is a sign and seal of regeneration, ingrafting into Christ, forgiveness of sins, in short, salvation, then does this mean that ALL children of believers are elect, by virtue of their baptism?

Put another way, what is the relationship between an infant of a believer and their final salvation with respect to their baptism?

thanks.

Baptism is a sign of the covenant. It doesn't place the child in a state of salvation. It is a sign that the child is in the covenant in which the parents stand. The covenant binds the parents and the congergation to train the child in the faith but does not leave the child without the responsibility to come to Christ in faith for his salvation.

It is a sign of the gospel as well. Grace preceeds faith. So the child is identified with the covenant of grace in which the believing parents stand. He is responsible to repent and believe as are all men. As a baptized member of the covenant if he falls away he is under wrath as a covenant breaker, because his baptism is a sign of the covenant and includes promises that God will be his God and he will be God's people.

As for the parents, it is a sin to not baptize one's child. It is also a sin to neglect to teach him faithfully about Christ and steer him away from lies.

A child given the grace of a good Christian home is blessed indeed.

Romans 10:17 KJV
[17] So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Here is an interesting article on this by a PCA pastor:

Johannes Weslianus: The Question of Infant Baptism
 
Upvote 0

Judson

Junior Member
Dec 6, 2009
106
3
✟15,246.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
VI. 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 belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.

It seems from article VI of the WCF that in the "right use" of baptism the promise is not only offered, but really exhibited unto salvation. Doesn't this suggest that salvation is expected of everyone who is baptized?
 
Upvote 0

DD2008

Well-Known Member
Oct 3, 2008
5,033
574
Texas
✟8,121.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
It seems from article VI of the WCF that in the "right use" of baptism the promise is not only offered, but really exhibited unto salvation. Doesn't this suggest that salvation is expected of everyone who is baptized?

Only if God gives them faith later. There is no salvation without faith in Christ. Because God has given them the grace of a good christian home they are certainly more advantaged than someone brought up in a pagan religion and will have every opportunity to hear the word of God and come to faith in Christ. Read the rest of the WCF.

Are you a Presbyterian? You have given no information in your profile. This is a Presbyterian forum and baptism is one of the two sacraments. I would imagine if you were a Presbyterian you would have covered this at Church. It's fine to ask questions here, I'm sure all of us are happy to answer. But if you are not a Presbyterian you are not allowed to debate our doctrines here.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Judson

Junior Member
Dec 6, 2009
106
3
✟15,246.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
I am a Presbyterian - at least I am a member of a Presbyterian church.

Not that I'm debating but seeking to understand it better. How can baptism signify and seal a person's ingrafting into Christ, when it doesn't really have anything to do with that's person's salvation itself?
 
Upvote 0

DD2008

Well-Known Member
Oct 3, 2008
5,033
574
Texas
✟8,121.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I am a Presbyterian - at least I am a member of a Presbyterian church.

Not that I'm debating but seeking to understand it better. How can baptism signify and seal a person's ingrafting into Christ, when it doesn't really have anything to do with that's person's salvation itself?

It is a mark of the covenant. Just like circumcision was. It has replaced circumcision as the mark of the covenant on God's people. It is witnessed by the Church and done in the name of the Trinity.

There are internal and external elements to a covenant. The outward mark and the inward heart. One with the outward mark is a covenant breaker if he falls away. If he ends up not being saved it is because of the unregenerate inward heart. Each person has a responsibility to repent of sin and come to faith in Christ.

The sign and seal is that the child is identified with the covenant in which his parents stand. Children are the inheritance of the parents and are in the covenant of the parents. The parents, and church's job is to disciple the children, the child's job is to grow up to be a faithful christian.

The question of why does God elect who he elects is never answered in scripture. It is left up to the good will of God. Those who have faith in Christ are his, those who don't are not. That is the revealed indicator. So, those christians who have children baptize them as commanded, and then raise them in the faith. Those children are given a great amount of grace that many in the world don't have. If they are elect they will come to faith eventually. If not they will despise their baptism and hate God like natural people do.
 
Upvote 0

Judson

Junior Member
Dec 6, 2009
106
3
✟15,246.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Under the Old Covenant, I can understand there being a distinction between the internal and external elements of covenant membership. One cannot deny that the external had much to do with the racial and national aspects of belonging to Israel.

The New Covenant is not about race, nationality or family relations. Jesus came to divide and put enmity between family members. It's not about there being an elect within an elect. It is a covenant instituted in the blood of Christ when Jesus said "“This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you" (Luke 22:20). This suggests that the new covenant provides a definite atonement which is marked by regeneration, faith and perseverance - thus the sign and seal should be applied to such as these.

It's troubling for me to conceive of a person being brought into covenant membership given the sign and seal that promises salvation, and not be finally elect. It seems, then, that being in the covenant and being saved has no necessary correlation; baptism is not a sign of anyone's status. To me, it is analogous to Christ dying for all, but not saving all. it seems to cast a very dark shadow on God's faithfulness to his promise.

Again, quoting the standards:

VI. 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 belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.

What does "right use" mean? Is it speaking of the church's right use, or God's right use? If it means God's right use, then that makes sense: the church baptizes every child, and God makes it efficacious for his elect. But if it means the church's right use, then this implies that every baptized child should be expected to be elect.

am I interpreting the confession incorrectly?
 
Upvote 0

DD2008

Well-Known Member
Oct 3, 2008
5,033
574
Texas
✟8,121.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
.

It's troubling for me to conceive of a person being brought into covenant membership given the sign and seal that promises salvation, and not be finally elect. It seems, then, that being in the covenant and being saved has no necessary correlation; baptism is not a sign of anyone's status. To me, it is analogous to Christ dying for all, but not saving all. it seems to cast a very dark shadow on God's faithfulness to his promise.

I understand brother. This is one of the arguments that the credos use for their position. But the reality is that there are many credos who have professed faith after an altar call been baptized but never really were a believer either.

Hereis a great article on that: http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/MyRetraction.htm

God has elected some out of the world. Those elect will trust in Christ during their life. Anyone who does not trust in Christ is not elect.

That is the only real indicator we have. A ver popular verse to quote is John 3:16. It is a favorite of pretty much every christian. But we can't forget that John 3:18 is ver clear on it's teaching:

John 3:18 KJV
[18] He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.





What does "right use" mean? Is it speaking of the church's right use, or God's right use? If it means God's right use, then that makes sense: the church baptizes every child, and God makes it efficacious for his elect. But if it means the church's right use, then this implies that every baptized child should be expected to be elect.

am I interpreting the confession incorrectly?

This is speaking of the Church's right use. God always does everything correctly. The Church has many traditions in it who don't baptize correctly.

Note this passage, Peter rebaptized some believers who hadn't even heard of the Holy Ghost and were only baptized in John's baptism. Similar problems are in the world today:

Acts 19:1-5 KJV
[1] And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
[2] He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
[3] And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
[4] Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
[5] When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

Judson

Junior Member
Dec 6, 2009
106
3
✟15,246.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Thanks for the Puritan's Mind article. It's always challenging to hear of a change over from baptist to reformed theology from those who have been in it for so long.

however, I found his main argument to be weak: that is, that baptistic theology is new and runs against the grain of 1600 years of church history. I find it ironic that Reformed people should make this argument when the Romanists say the same thing about their doctrines of justification, the eucharist, apostolic succession, and the like. In light of that, I find it to be simply a matter of intimidation through consensus. On some matters, yes, the church should come around a common confession to demarcate us from heretics and the world, but this cannot be consistenly applied to all matters, and the reformation knew that full well.

Back to the issue of "right use" of baptism. If this means the church's right use, then the confession implies that baptism done correctly not only offers but exhibits regeneration. Doesn't this suggest some form of sacerdotalism?

Although Reformed theology does not want to make a necessary correlation between baptism and individual salvation, doesn't the confession seem to do just that?

Of course, there are those baptized as adults who are not finally saved because they were never elect. But at least the church made the entrance more narrow and stringent. By doing this, they have "let in" much less non-elected individuals than the paedos, wouldn't you say?
 
Upvote 0

DD2008

Well-Known Member
Oct 3, 2008
5,033
574
Texas
✟8,121.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Thanks for the Puritan's Mind article. It's always challenging to hear of a change over from baptist to reformed theology from those who have been in it for so long.

however, I found his main argument to be weak: that is, that baptistic theology is new and runs against the grain of 1600 years of church history. I find it ironic that Reformed people should make this argument when the Romanists say the same thing about their doctrines of justification, the eucharist, apostolic succession, and the like. In light of that, I find it to be simply a matter of intimidation through consensus. On some matters, yes, the church should come around a common confession to demarcate us from heretics and the world, but this cannot be consistenly applied to all matters, and the reformation knew that full well.

I like that article. It illustrates that individuals educated reasons for changing his position from credo to paedo.

Back to the issue of "right use" of baptism. If this means the church's right use, then the confession implies that baptism done correctly not only offers but exhibits regeneration. Doesn't this suggest some form of sacerdotalism?

It's not sacerdotal at all. Baptism does in no way shape or form save people.

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

1. The grace is not only offered but really exhibited: (these people have had the grace of a christian baptism, that's good)
2. and conferred by the Holy Ghost to such as that grace belongs unto according to the counsel of God's own will: (just as the option to repent and believe is available to all, the offer to repent and believe in Christ is available to all who have been baptized, However those who have been baptized have the grace of a good christian home and congergation to raise them. But, the graceis only conferred to those according to the counsel of God's own will in his appointed time.

What this teaches is that God saves who he chooses, yet the baptized have a great chance of being saved because it is obvious that they were given the grace of baptism.



Although Reformed theology does not want to make a necessary correlation between baptism and individual salvation, doesn't the confession seem to do just that?

No. It is clear that God predestined the baptized to be baptized so it looks like they have a pretty good chance at being saved.

Of course, there are those baptized as adults who are not finally saved because they were never elect. But at least the church made the entrance more narrow and stringent. By doing this, they have "let in" much less non-elected individuals than the paedos, wouldn't you say?

No. An infant raised in the faith in a good Christian home has been given far more grace than those who were not and stumbled onto a tent revival somewhere and prayed a pre-written prayer and were told that they were now saved.

Here is another link that you might find useful: http://www.reformed.org/sacramentol....org/sacramentology/horne_welty_response.html
 
Upvote 0

Judson

Junior Member
Dec 6, 2009
106
3
✟15,246.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
OK, simple questions:

1. when an infant is baptized, is God conferring a covenant promise on him/her?
2. If that infant ends up not believing, then what does that say about God's faithfulness?

I have a problem with the idea that being baptized as an infant means having a "good chance" at being saved, or that "those who have been baptized have the grace of a good christian home and congregation to raise them. But, the grace is only conferred to those according to the counsel of God's own will in his appointed time." I'm thinking, 'what's the point of being included in the covenant, of being promised union with Christ, of receiving the benefits of covenant membership, when in the end, the child may not be saved?

Doesn't this mean that God makes promises that may be thwarted by human decision?
or, that God's covenant sets up the possibility for salvation, but is not an indicator of actual salvation?
 
Upvote 0

DD2008

Well-Known Member
Oct 3, 2008
5,033
574
Texas
✟8,121.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
OK, simple questions:

1. when an infant is baptized, is God conferring a covenant promise on him/her?

Salvation is not conferred by baptism.


2. If that infant ends up not believing, then what does that say about God's faithfulness?

God never promised that the infant would be saved by baptism. Just the same way he never promised that everyone who was circumcised would be saved. They are branches in the covenant tree because they are baptized but can be broken off because of unbelief and sin. God only preserves the elect. Salvation cannot be bought by any ritual.

I have a problem with the idea that being baptized as an infant means having a "good chance" at being saved, or that "those who have been baptized have the grace of a good christian home and congregation to raise them. But, the grace is only conferred to those according to the counsel of God's own will in his appointed time." I'm thinking, 'what's the point of being included in the covenant, of being promised union with Christ, of receiving the benefits of covenant membership, when in the end, the child may not be saved?

Obedience. What is the point of giving birth to a child that dies in infancy? Was God wrong for predestinating that to happen? Our faith tells us no. He works all things according to the good purpose of his will.

Doesn't this mean that God makes promises that may be thwarted by human decision? or, that God's covenant sets up the possibility for salvation, but is not an indicator of actual salvation?

The only indicator of actual salvation is faith in Christ. It is a great sin to neglect the sacrament of baptism but baptism isn't even required for salvation. The unbaptized is still saved by faith alone in Christ. If he is truly regenerate he will find a way to obey the Lord and be baptized. Just like if he was raised in the faith he will want to obey the Lord and baptize his children if he is aware that he is supposed to do so.
 
Upvote 0

Judson

Junior Member
Dec 6, 2009
106
3
✟15,246.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
1. when an infant is baptized, is God conferring a covenant promise on him/her?
Salvation is not conferred by baptism.

That wasn't precisely the question being asked. Is it not true that baptism is an administration of a promise? Isn't that what a covenant basically is, a promise? If not, then why is Acts 2:39 (this promise is for you and your children)? Also, Gen 17, which is often used to support paedobaptism makes reference to God's promise to be the God of Abraham and his descendants.

If baptism is a sign and seal of covenant, then I take this to mean that it signifies a promise. However, if the sign does not necessarily apply to the one being baptized, then it is simply a general statement or picture of the gospel, without reference to the status of the person receiving the sign. Is this right?


I agree with the rest of what you said about safeguarding against baptismal regeneration and all that stuff.
 
Upvote 0

DD2008

Well-Known Member
Oct 3, 2008
5,033
574
Texas
✟8,121.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
That wasn't precisely the question being asked. Is it not true that baptism is an administration of a promise? Isn't that what a covenant basically is, a promise? If not, then why is Acts 2:39 (this promise is for you and your children)? Also, Gen 17, which is often used to support paedobaptism makes reference to God's promise to be the God of Abraham and his descendants.

If baptism is a sign and seal of covenant, then I take this to mean that it signifies a promise. However, if the sign does not necessarily apply to the one being baptized, then it is simply a general statement or picture of the gospel, without reference to the status of the person receiving the sign. Is this right?


I agree with the rest of what you said about safeguarding against baptismal regeneration and all that stuff.

Here is how scripture deals with this very question in regards to Israel. As Christians we are God's people. Instead of circumcision we have baptism. Instead of being just ethnic, we come from all over the world. But it is the same fundamental. The Church is God's people.

Romans 9:4-23 KJV
[4] Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
[5] Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
[6] Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
[7] Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
[8] That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
[9] For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.
[10] And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
[11] (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)
[12] It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
[13] As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
[14] What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
[15] For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
[16] So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
[17] For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
[18] Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
[19] Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
[20] Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
[21] Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
[22] What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
[23] And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,


There are instances in scripture where those thought to be saved were not saved.

Matthew 7:11-27 KJV
[11] If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
[12] Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
[13] Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
[14] Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
[15] Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
[16] Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
[17] Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
[18] A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
[19] Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
[20] Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
[21] Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
[22] Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
[23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
[24] Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
[25] And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
[26] And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
[27] And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

If a covenant is ever broken it is not God who breaks it but the one who works iniquity. The one who never really knew the Lord because his heart was evil and at enmity with God.

I would be interested to see what all of the pastors and theologians at the Puritan Board would write to you in regards to your question. Perhaps you should ask them as well?
 
Upvote 0

DD2008

Well-Known Member
Oct 3, 2008
5,033
574
Texas
✟8,121.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Kind of a long story, but I was sort of bullied and booted out of the Puritan board for not being "reformed" enough. Eh, they're probably right.

You mean you can't post there anymore? Sorry to hear that.

However, it is true that the PB isn't for everyone. They expect you to actually believe the confession you confess and be a member of a local church to post there, in addion to having your real name and location at the foot of every post for accountability to your local church and such.

If you do not believe the basics of the WCF or the LCF you should not be a member of the PB because that defeats the purpose of the forum. It is for reformed people to discuss details and have general fellowship. Debate is only intermurral there. However if you think you might believe your churches confession but just have some questions you should really talk to your pastor in person. That is what a teaching elder is for brother.

Also if you're honest with them you can ask to post in the wading pool at the PB. I bet they would let you. It's a great place. Only elders can answer your posts, so you get some great answers to things. Perhaps you could ask them to let you post in the pool?
 
Upvote 0

Judson

Junior Member
Dec 6, 2009
106
3
✟15,246.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
I found it really subjective and non-sensical the way they handled it. I asked them to list me the specific things I said that transgressed the confessions, or the inappropriate words that I used, but they didn't provide any evidence, warning or reasonable explanation. In the end, I was told that I am not confessionally Reformed, but a modernistic thinker, all because I was reluctant to accept Reformed scholastic thought.

I go to a Presbyterian church, but we're not confessional in any way, shape, or form, so I consider myself very much a novice of these things. PB was a good way of learning from serious Reformed people, but it doesn't look like they're interested in patiently teaching those who struggle. I dunno man - I'm pretty confused about the whole thing.

thanks for the interaction though, Brother - it's been helpful.

Dennis.
 
Upvote 0

DD2008

Well-Known Member
Oct 3, 2008
5,033
574
Texas
✟8,121.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I found it really subjective and non-sensical the way they handled it. I asked them to list me the specific things I said that transgressed the confessions, or the inappropriate words that I used, but they didn't provide any evidence, warning or reasonable explanation. In the end, I was told that I am not confessionally Reformed, but a modernistic thinker, all because I was reluctant to accept Reformed scholastic thought.

Well, confessionalism is part of being reformed and part of the puritan board. For instance, the sovereignty of God is a core biblical and reformed teaching. If you questioned that then that would show you were not reformed at all. Because that is the bare basics and is a key part of all reformed confessions. That would disqualify you for PBmembership right there if you posted outside of the wading pool any severe misunderstanding of God's sovereignty.

I go to a Presbyterian church, but we're not confessional in any way, shape, or form, so I consider myself very much a novice of these things.

Really? The Westminster Confession of Faith is supposed to be the confessional document of Presbyterian Churches. Yours is the first one I've heard of that was unconfessional.

PB was a good way of learning from serious Reformed people, but it doesn't look like they're interested in patiently teaching those who struggle. I dunno man - I'm pretty confused about the whole thing.

Well, they will if you ask questions in the right forums, but if you make statements in the other forums that aren't reformed they get angry because outsiders can read that stuff and get the wrong idea of the reformed and in those forums they don't want to have to deal with the basics but would like to discuss things from the perspective of being in agreement on the core doctrines.

thanks for the interaction though, Brother - it's been helpful.

Sure. I'll help out anyway I can, but I'm not a pastor or an elder. I'm sure there are other Presbyterians who post here who would be able to help better than me. But, I strongly desire the truth, so I promise I won't lie to you or post unscrutinized material.

I highly recommend you speak n person to a Reformed Pastor for serious life changing questions though. Don't rely on what posters say.

:)
 
Upvote 0

Judson

Junior Member
Dec 6, 2009
106
3
✟15,246.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
The sovereignty of God is basic and I'm fully on board - 5 points all the way. I'd say the LBC 1689 is my personal confession - there's nothing that I disagree with, although there are some terms which I think need explanation.

But whether there is one or two wills in God, whether he has emotions, or whether infant baptism is clearly taught in scripture, I think these matters are not forever settled in the Reformed community and should be open to good hearty discussion and debate. That's all I really set out to do in the forum, as I saw it done by many others, who are much more vocal and harsh than I ever was (least I'd like to think so!).

I don't think any of these issues steps on the toes of any Reformed confessions, does it?

As for my church.. yeah, not a theologically-based church, unfortunately. i could pore over hundreds of pages of dry systematic theology texts on my own I suppose, but the personal interaction is much more stimulating.
 
Upvote 0