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.
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.
So, you go to a presbyterian church but your actually a baptist at heart?
Basically, yes, hence the numerous questions and struggles about paedobaptism. I was not required to confess the WCF for membership (again, not a confessional church).
First , as closely as
Paul relates the sign to the thing signifi ed in this passage,
he nowhere says that baptism unites the baptized
to Christ . The function of Paul’s appeal to baptism is not
to teach that baptism does anything per se. Rather, he
appeals to baptism as an illustration, or a sign of what
was already true of them.
I listened to the mp3 version on monergism just yesterday. it was helpful.
What I got out of it is that baptism is an illustration or picture of the gospel. It signifies and seals what is promised IF and the person believes, and has no immediate connection with the person being baptized, nor does it indicate anything about his final salvation.
But I wonder whether this is what we find in scripture. Does the NT really distinguish the outward sign from the inward reality, or, those who are saved from those who have been baptized? it seems to me that they are all viewed as inseparable.
Another question i have is: is baptism done so that Christians can reckon one another in the covenant, or is it done so that God reckons people in the covenant? In other words, is baptism performed for our sake or God's sake?
If it is God who reckons people in the covenant through baptism, but they end up not being elect, then what does this say about covenant membership? It becomes nothing more than a word with no efficacy.
I find this quote from Clark perplexing:
What does this mean? If baptism is a sign of what is already true of them, then every baptized person is already fully in the covenant and will be elect? I think what Clark means is not that it is ALREADY true of them, but MAY BECOME true IF they believe.
I understand the desire to safeguard against sacramental theology and baptismal regeneration, but where do we find in scripture people being baptized as merely a rite of initiation disconnected from their own salvation, and not an outward sign of an inward reality? Was it not assumed that those who were baptized are saved?
Baptism is done because God commands it. Regarding infants, it is not done with the understanding that those who are baptized are already saved. It is done with the hope that those who are baptized will be saved. It is an expression of our desire for God to save our loved ones and is an act of obedience to the Lord. Regarding the recently converted who have never been baptized it is an outward sign of an apparent inward reality. HOwever, that person should now get his children baptized in an act of obedience and display of desire to have God save his children as well. Basically.
True baptism is commanded. The baptism of infants, however, not so clear, at least to me. There are certainly no explicit commands to baptize infants anywhere in scripture.
I'm also not convinced that it is done in the hope of future regeneration. The confession seems on the surface to suggest that it is a signifier of something already occurring, and a guarantee (seal) of something to come. Baptism is not a symbol for God to do something, but a sign of what has been done to us through faith. It has everything to do with salvation. If it is true that it is a promise that God is a God of families, then it is unthinkable that someone should be able to resist the covenant and apostasize. In what way, then, is the New Covenant a better covenant?
Thanks for the resources and the interaction, DD. Lots to think about...
Reformed theologians have produced 3 streams of thought on this subject: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.
1. Impossible due to the age and 1b. john the baptist's baptism was for national israel not CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.You need to ask yourself this simple question. Why is it John the Baptist didn't baptise Jesus as a child.. Why did Christ ask him to do it when he was much older. With this answer you can see where the true view of infant baptism should be placed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?