- Mar 22, 2012
- 1,190
- 101
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I have read all of the Reformed confessional statements on baptism, listened to various lectures by Reformed pastors and theologians, and I've read numerous tracts on baptism (although I admit I haven't read any in-depth treatises on it from the Reformed perspective).
I understand that baptism is taught to be a sign and a seal of faith for the elect and that the act of baptizing doesn't "save" anyone. Rather, the Holy Spirit is what regenerates people and brings them to faith, which could occur at baptism or at some other time.
I hear Reformed theologians say baptism is not a "bare symbol or sign" like Baptists teach, but a lot of the in-depth confessional descriptions seem to teach that it basically is. It seems the Reformed position is that baptism is a sign that points to the work the Holy Spirit does or will do (in the case of children who have not been regenerated yet). So isn't it just a bare symbol then?
Do Reformed churches generally teach that baptism for elect infants is the ordinary moment the Holy Spirit regenerates, or is this sort of thing totally rejected? If it is, how do Reformed people deal with the wealth of evidence from the earliest church fathers who seemed to speak as though baptism ordinarily was the moment of regeneration?
As always, I'm not hear to argue ... just to ask what the position is. I feel like different Reformed authors have different ways of communicating the position. Some seem more sacramental (in the traditional sense), while others seem more symbolic (in the Baptist sense).
Any help, resources, thoughts, etc. would be very much appreciated!
-J
I understand that baptism is taught to be a sign and a seal of faith for the elect and that the act of baptizing doesn't "save" anyone. Rather, the Holy Spirit is what regenerates people and brings them to faith, which could occur at baptism or at some other time.
I hear Reformed theologians say baptism is not a "bare symbol or sign" like Baptists teach, but a lot of the in-depth confessional descriptions seem to teach that it basically is. It seems the Reformed position is that baptism is a sign that points to the work the Holy Spirit does or will do (in the case of children who have not been regenerated yet). So isn't it just a bare symbol then?
Do Reformed churches generally teach that baptism for elect infants is the ordinary moment the Holy Spirit regenerates, or is this sort of thing totally rejected? If it is, how do Reformed people deal with the wealth of evidence from the earliest church fathers who seemed to speak as though baptism ordinarily was the moment of regeneration?
As always, I'm not hear to argue ... just to ask what the position is. I feel like different Reformed authors have different ways of communicating the position. Some seem more sacramental (in the traditional sense), while others seem more symbolic (in the Baptist sense).
Any help, resources, thoughts, etc. would be very much appreciated!
-J