The Baptist View of Baptism Destroys the Meaning of Baptism

[twin1954]

I don't have a problem with that. So where is it we differ?

We differ on there being two administrations of the one Covenant of Grace. Presbyterian Covenant theology uses the idea of the New Covenant as a new administration is how they arrive at baptism as ancarry over of circumcision.

 

[Tree of Life]

We differ on there being two administrations of the one Covenant of Grace. Presbyterian Covenant theology uses the idea of the New Covenant as a new administration is how they arrive at baptism as ancarry over of circumcision.

Do you believe the covenant of grace was being administered during the time of Abraham?

 

[twin1954]

Do you believe the covenant of grace was being administered during the time of Abraham?

I believe that the covenant of grace was revealed as a, as Paul says, mystery.

 

[Tree of Life]

I believe that the covenant of grace was revealed as a, as Paul says, mystery.

So it was not administered during the time of Abraham?

 

[twin1954]

So it was not administered during the time of Abraham?

Those who were saved in the Old Testament were saved in Christ through the free and sovereign grace of God the same as us.

The eternal covenant wasn't administered it was revealed.

 

[Tree of Life]

Those who were saved in the Old Testament were saved in Christ through the free and sovereign grace of God the same as us.

The eternal covenant wasn't administered it was revealed.

"Administered" simply means that it was put forth in order for people to believe in it. Do you believe the covenant of grace was put forth during the time of Abraham?

 

[twin1954]

"Administered" simply means that it was put forth in order for people to believe in it. Do you believe the covenant of grace was put forth during the time of Abraham?

I know what administered means and I also know the connotation that is used in Reformed covenant theology. So in that sense I do not believe it. The Abrahamic covenant was a partial revelation and the Covenant of Grace was applied to those who were saved.

As I said, I believe the covenant of grace was revealed progressively and still is until it is fully consummated.

Did it apply to Abraham? Sure it did but the Old Testament was not an administration of the Eternal Covenant of Grace.

 

[Tree of Life]

I know what administered means and I also know the connotation that is used in Reformed covenant theology. So in that sense I do not believe it. The Abrahamic covenant was a partial revelation and the Covenant of Grace was applied to those who were saved.

As I said, I believe the covenant of grace was revealed progressively and still is until it is fully consummated.

Did it apply to Abraham? Sure it did but the Old Testament was not an administration of the Eternal Covenant of Grace.

So are you saying that Christ was not put forth and offered to Abraham? After all, Christ is the covenant.

 

[JM]

Baptism is a sign and seal of regeneration.

Regeneration is a saving act of God wherein man is totally passive. God removes the heart of stone and gives him a heart of flesh. Man cannot regenerate himself nor participate in his own regeneration. Baptism is an outward sign of regeneration. That is its meaning.

But baptists say that only adults may be baptized because only adults have the ability to understand the gospel, repent, and believe. This emphasizes not God's monergistic action in regenerating a person, but man's response to God and his participation in his salvation.

The Reformed view of baptism captures the meaning of baptism much better. Seeing an infant who has no ability to repent and believe be baptized testifies to us that regeneration is an act of God alone which does not require man's participation.

Close, but not exactly true. Personally...I don't care. It's sad, I know, but I don't care who is baptized. The issue I have is misrepresenting the (Reformed) Baptist view which is credo or confessors baptism. If a child is 4 and makes a confession of faith in Christ we dunk'em. This is consistent with the early church practice as layout in Baptism in the Early Church by H. F. Stander & J. P. Louw. The authors look at the early church writings, images and art and come to the conclusion that children were baptized but infants were not. Stander & Louw remain paedobaptists on the authority of the church to make the change even when they found no evidence for it in the Bible or in the writings of the early church.

If you're Catholic or Orthodox or Anglican I can understand why you baptize infants, it's upon the authority of the church to make that call, but for sola scriptura Protestants it makes little sense.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[twin1954]

So are you saying that Christ was not put forth and offered to Abraham? After all, Christ is the covenant.

No not at all. The first time the Gospel was preached it was done by God in Gen. 3:16. Moreover God showed Adam and Eve that blood must be shed by a perfect substitute when He killed and clothed them with the skin of the Sacrifice picturing being clothed by the perfect righteousness of Christ. Adam and Eve taught their children that a sacrifice not of their own making but of God's. The same with the Abrahamic covenant, Christ was typified and pictured in it.

I am sorry but I do not believe that Christ is offered to sinners. I believe that He is proclaimed in the Gospel of the free and sovereign grace of God in Christ Jesus the Lord and sinners are commanded to believe. We preach the Gospel in love but do not preach Him as an offer. He is a gift. If I offer you something you make it yours when you accept the offer. If I give you a gift I make it your when I give it to you.

But we are getting off track from the OP.

 

[Tree of Life]

No not at all. The first time the Gospel was preached it was done by God in Gen. 3:16. Moreover God showed Adam and Eve that blood must be shed by a perfect substitute when He killed and clothed them with the skin of the Sacrifice picturing being clothed by the perfect righteousness of Christ. Adam and Eve taught their children that a sacrifice not of their own making but of God's. The same with the Abrahamic covenant, Christ was typified and pictured in it.

Ok so Christ is presented in the OT. Would you say that he was presented in a slightly different way than he is today in the NT period?

I am sorry but I do not believe that Christ is offered to sinners. I believe that He is proclaimed in the Gospel of the free and sovereign grace of God in Christ Jesus the Lord and sinners are commanded to believe. We preach the Gospel in love but do not preach Him as an offer. He is a gift. If I offer you something you make it yours when you accept the offer. If I give you a gift I make it your when I give it to you.

But we are getting off track from the OP.

Sounds like semantics to me. All I mean is that Christ is presented and his benefits are offered to all who would repent and believe.

 

[Albion]

If you're Catholic or Orthodox or Anglican I can understand why you baptize infants, it's upon the authority of the church to make that call, but for sola scriptura Protestants it makes little sense.
jm

Not really. Those of us who baptize infants refer to Scripture as sufficient to establish the appropriateness of the practice.

I am sure have read the posts of Christians, either Catholic or Protestant, proving their way by use of a verse from Scripture. It is much less common to turn to precedent for justification.

By the way, what you wrote seems to say that your church is guided by precedent or tradition rather than Scripture. See here:

If a child is 4 and makes a confession of faith in Christ we dunk'em. This is consistent with the early church practice as layout in Baptism in the Early Church by H. F. Stander & J. P. Louw. The authors look at the early church writings, images and art and come to the conclusion that children were baptized but infants were not.

But I am not sure if that is what you meant to say.

 

[JM]

Not really. Those of us who baptize infants refer to Scripture as sufficient to establish the appropriateness of the practice.

I am sure have read the posts of Christians, either Catholic or Protestant, proving their way by use of a reference to Scripture, only occasionally turning to precedent for additional justification.

By the way, what you wrote seems to say that your church is guided by precedent or tradition rather than Scripture. See here:

But I am not sure if that is what you meant to say.

You reason from scripture a command that isn't there on the authority of the church.

I was pointing out that scripture and the earliest church practice are in agreement, not that early church tradition is binding, it is simply something I pointed out.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[twin1954]

Ok so Christ is presented in the OT. Would you say that he was presented in a slightly different way than he is today in the NT period?

Paul call it a mystery which has been hid from ages and generations but now is made manifest to His saints to whom God would make know what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you the hope of glory.

Was Christ presented in a slightly different way? Not really. He is so evident in the Old Testament that man's willful blindness keeps them from seeing Him. It really is no different today, though the mystery of the Gospel is now proclaimed. Man will not come to Christ that he might have life.

Sounds like semantics to me. All I mean is that Christ is presented and his benefits are offered to all who would repent and believe.

it isn't semantics and neither He or His benefits are offered. Him and the wonder of His person and work are proclaimed in the foolishness of preaching but we never offer Christ we simply proclaim Him and leave the rest to God.

An offer is man centered the Gospel is Christ centered.

 

[Tree of Life]

Paul call it a mystery which has been hid from ages and generations but now is made manifest to His saints to whom God would make know what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you the hope of glory.

Was Christ presented in a slightly different way? Not really. He is so evident in the Old Testament that man's willful blindness keeps them from seeing Him. It really is no different today, though the mystery of the Gospel is now proclaimed. Man will not come to Christ that he might have life.

Hmm. Interesting. Presbyterians believe that Christ was presented in the OT era but that he was presented in a different way. We believe that he was presented through types, promises, shadows, symbols, and ceremonies. But in the NT he is presented through the plain preaching of the gospel and the sacraments. This is why we say there is one covenant of grace that spans both OT and NT but the administrations are not identical.

it isn't semantics and neither He or His benefits are offered. Him and the wonder of His person and work are proclaimed in the foolishness of preaching but we never offer Christ we simply proclaim Him and leave the rest to God.

An offer is man centered the Gospel is Christ centered.

Jesus said: "Come to me all you who are weary and heavy laden and I will give you rest..." That sounds like an offer to me.

 

[JM]

Jesus said: "Come to me all you who are weary and heavy laden and I will give you rest..." That sounds like an offer to me.

J. C. Philpot will help you out.

Isaiah 45:22

"Look unto me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other." Isaiah 45:22

Until in soul feeling, we are at "the ends of the earth," we have no eyes to see, no ears to hear, no hearts to feel what a glorious Mediator there is at the right hand of the Father. And the more we feel to be at "the ends of the earth," the deeper is our need of him; and as the Spirit unfolds the mystery of the glorious Person of Christ, and reveals his beauty, the more does he become the object of the soul"s admiration and adoration. And O what a Mediator is held out in the word of truth to living faith! What a subject for spiritual faith to look to, for a lively hope to anchor in, and for divine love to embrace! That the Son of God, who lay in the bosom of the Father from all eternity, equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, the second Person in the glorious Trinity, should condescend to take upon him our nature, that he might groan, suffer, bleed, and die for guilty wretches, who, if permitted, would have ruined their souls a thousand times a day—what a wonder of wonders!

But we cannot enter into, nor feel the power of this mystery until we are reduced to such circumstances, that none but such a Savior can save our souls. Can we do anything to save ourselves? Then we need no help from that mighty One on whom God has laid help; and we secretly reject him. Can we heal ourselves? Then we do not need the good Physician. But when our eyes are opened to see our own thorough ruin and helplessness, and to view the glorious Person of the Son of God, faith is drawn out to flee to and rest upon that glorious Object.

"Look unto me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth—for I am God, and there is no other." Isaiah 45:22

How often we seem not to have any real religion, or enjoy any solid comfort! How often are our evidences obscured and beclouded, and our minds covered with deep darkness! How often does the Lord hide himself, so that we cannot behold him, nor get near to him; and how often the ground on which we thought we stood is cut from under our feet, and we have no firm standing! What a painful path is this to walk in, but how profitable!

When we are reduced to poverty and beggary, we learn to value Christ"s glorious riches; the worse opinion we have of our own heart, and the more deceitful and desperately wicked that we find it, the more we put our trust in his faithfulness. The more black we are in our own esteem, the more beautiful and lovely does he appear in our eyes. As we sink, Jesus rises. As we become feeble, he puts forth his strength. As we come into danger, he brings deliverance; as we get into temptation, he breaks the snare. As we are shut up in darkness and obscurity, he causes the light of his countenance to shine. Now it is by being led in this way, and walking in these paths, that we come rightly to know who Jesus Isaiah , and to see and feel how suitable and precious such a Savior is to our undone souls. We are needy, he has in himself all riches; we are hungry, he is the bread of life; we are thirsty, he says, "If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink;" we are naked, and he has clothing to bestow; we are fools, and he has wisdom to grant; we are lost, and he speaks, "Look unto me, and be saved." Thus, so far from our misery shutting us out from God"s mercy, it is the only requisite for it; so far from our guilt excluding his pardon, it is the only thing needful for it; so far from our helplessness ruining our souls, it is the needful preparation for the manifestation of his power in our weakness; we cannot heal our own wounds and sores; that is the very reason why he should stretch forth his arm. It is because there is no salvation in ourselves, or in any other creature, that he says, "Look unto me, for I am God, and there is none else."

 

[Albion]

You reason from scripture a command that isn't there on the authority of the church.

OK. Personally, I cannot imagine how a "command from the church," if that is what it is...can be faulted when it is done on the basis of God's word.

I was pointing out that scripture and the earliest church practice are in agreement, not that early church tradition is binding, it is simply something I pointed out.

You said your church chose to baptize 4 yr olds but not those younger, and that that is based on what H. F. Stander & J. P. Louw have written. It certainly is not the consensus of church historians and it has no Biblical basis, so you can see why this surprises me, to say the least.

But, in the end, my starting point was to counter the statement that infant baptism is not in accord with Sola Scriptura, when it surely is.

 

[JM]

OK. Personally, I cannot imagine how a "command from the church," if that is what it is...can be faulted when it is done on the basis of God's word.



You said your church chose to baptize 4 yr olds but not those younger, and that that is based on what H. F. Stander & J. P. Louw have written. It certainly is not the consensus of church historians and it has no Biblical basis, so you can see why this surprises me, to say the least.

But, in the end, my starting point was to counter the statement that infant baptism is not in accord with Sola Scriptura, when it surely is.

Sorry brother brother for the misunderstanding but I wrote, "If a child is 4 and makes a confession of faith in Christ..." The "if" is not a line drawn but an example. A child of any age who makes a profession of faith will be baptized, baptism upon confession of faith.

 

[Albion]

Thanks.

 

[twin1954]

Hmm. Interesting. Presbyterians believe that Christ was presented in the OT era but that he was presented in a different way. We believe that he was presented through types, promises, shadows, symbols, and ceremonies. But in the NT he is presented through the plain preaching of the gospel and the sacraments. This is why we say there is one covenant of grace that spans both OT and NT but the administrations are not identical.

That is one of the reasons that I am not a Presbyterian.

Jesus said: "Come to me all you who are weary and heavy laden and I will give you rest..." That sounds like an offer to me.

Read the verses before 28.