# Are Baptism and the Lord's Supper sacraments and "means of grace"?



## elnwood

I mentioned before that the London Baptist Confession removes all of the Westminster Confession Chapter 27 regarding the sacraments.

WCF 27
1. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him: as also to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word.
2. There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.
3. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorising the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

It is replaced by LBC Chapter 28:
1. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world.
2. These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.

Every use of the word "sacrament" in the LBC is removed or replaced by "ordinance." The references to the sacraments being the signs and seals of the covenant of grace are removed, and also from 29.1. The "sacramental union" between the sign and the thing signified is removed. Every use of the term "grace" with reference to baptism.

So from a Baptist perspective, do you think baptism and the Lord's supper are sacraments? Means of grace? How would you define "sacrament" and "means of grace"? And, *most important of all*, *what Scriptures* would you use to defend it? 

I want responses from *BAPTISTS ONLY* because:
1) The hermeneutical frameworks of Baptists and paedobaptists are very, very different. I want to discuss this among those of us in agreement on the proper recipients of baptism.
2) The Presbyterians are bound to defend "sacraments" and "means of grace" as scriptural because of their subordinate standard. We Reformed Baptists are not so bound. I'm more interested in a discussion revolving around Scripture rather than one in which the confessions are taken _a priori_ as scriptural.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

elnwood said:


> I want responses from *BAPTISTS ONLY* because:
> 1) The hermeneutical frameworks of Baptists and paedobaptists are very, very different. I want to discuss this among those of us in agreement on the proper recipients of baptism.
> 2) The Presbyterians are bound to defend "sacraments" and "means of grace" as scriptural because of their subordinate standard. We Reformed Baptists are not so bound. I'm more interested in a discussion revolving around Scripture rather than one in which the confessions are taken _a priori_ as scriptural.




That's kind of a low blow to start a thread.

Well, I guess I never really thought out what "means of grace" means. I don't know if "means of grace" sounds best. I would say they are signs and demonstrations of the new covenant and the grace therein but do we receive grace from the Lords Supper and Baptism...I don't know I would say definitely not in the Roman sense. Can we define what you mean by "means of grace".


----------



## Herald

In that both encourage faith (both of the individual and the local body) they are a means of grace. The fact that both signs are commanded (thus the "ordinance") does not lessen their spiritual importance. 

sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix.


----------



## Herald

Joseph Scibbe said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want responses from *BAPTISTS ONLY* because:
> 1) The hermeneutical frameworks of Baptists and paedobaptists are very, very different. I want to discuss this among those of us in agreement on the proper recipients of baptism.
> 2) The Presbyterians are bound to defend "sacraments" and "means of grace" as scriptural because of their subordinate standard. We Reformed Baptists are not so bound. I'm more interested in a discussion revolving around Scripture rather than one in which the confessions are taken _a priori_ as scriptural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's kind of a low blow to start a thread.
> 
> Well, I guess I never really thought out what "means of grace" means. I don't know if "means of grace" sounds best. I would say they are signs and demonstrations of the new covenant and the grace therein but do we receive grace from the Lords Supper and Baptism...I don't know I would say definitely not in the Roman sense. Can we define what you mean by "means of grace".
Click to expand...

 
Joe, what's low blow about it? 

sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix.


----------



## Reformed Roman

I wouldn't say it's a low blow. I think it's good. If I talked to a Presbyterian about infant baptism so I could understand their viewpoint better, I wouldn't want baptists interrupting the conversation and saying "infant baptism is bad". I would want to talk with a Presbyterian, or multiple Presbyterians to understand their view. It goes the same with baptists. I can see their views and see how, or if they would line up with scripture.

Sometimes it's just good to only hear from one party. I hope members of the board respect that.

I do think the Spirit works through communion. Because it was an institution given but ultimately it points back to the Cross, Jesus, and the Word. It's a great means of grace in my opinion because it's a time to reflect on our life and come to the trhone of grace. It's also a place where we can reflect on the cross and the grace given to us, and keep it centered in our mind. These things indeed grace us very much, so yes I would say it's a means of grace, but not because there is some special power in the bread or wine ( or grape juice  ) I think it's a means of grace though and edifies because it points us back to Christ and the gospel.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

Herald said:


> Joseph Scibbe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want responses from *BAPTISTS ONLY* because:
> 1) The hermeneutical frameworks of Baptists and paedobaptists are very, very different. I want to discuss this among those of us in agreement on the proper recipients of baptism.
> 2) The Presbyterians are bound to defend "sacraments" and "means of grace" as scriptural because of their subordinate standard. We Reformed Baptists are not so bound. I'm more interested in a discussion revolving around Scripture rather than one in which the confessions are taken _a priori_ as scriptural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's kind of a low blow to start a thread.
> 
> Well, I guess I never really thought out what "means of grace" means. I don't know if "means of grace" sounds best. I would say they are signs and demonstrations of the new covenant and the grace therein but do we receive grace from the Lords Supper and Baptism...I don't know I would say definitely not in the Roman sense. Can we define what you mean by "means of grace".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joe, what's low blow about it?
> 
> sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix.
Click to expand...


Perhaps I misread but it looked like he was saying that the paedos were taking the Confessions higher than Gods Word.


In answer to the question, the point of the Lords Supper is to examine yourself and repent of sin and then remember the Body and Blood as you eat. I think that Jesus was being honest when he said "This is my body...". No not in a physical transformative sense but still in a very real spiritual way. The point of Baptism is that it is an outward identification of your being in the covenant community of believers and have been buried into Christ. Whether you call those means of grace or not is up to you.


----------



## elnwood

Joseph Scibbe said:


> Perhaps I misread but it looked like he was saying that the paedos were taking the Confessions higher than Gods Word.



It's not that at all. It's simply that, by virtue of their subscription to a Reformed confession (in this case, the WCF), which is a prerequisite to membership on this board, they are constrained to defend it as scriptural.

Certain topics on PB are "settled" and not open to discussion because of the positions the confessions take. For example, no one here can advocate Arminianism or Federal Vision -- it would be closed down. In the same way, I don't think debating the nature of the sacraments is open for discussion among paedobaptists.

I desire a discussion in which no one feels confessionally bound or constrained to one view or the other regarding sacraments/ordinances, and we can legitimately have that discussion on PB among Reformed Baptists.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

elnwood said:


> Joseph Scibbe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps I misread but it looked like he was saying that the paedos were taking the Confessions higher than Gods Word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that at all. It's simply that, by virtue of their subscription to a Reformed confession (in this case, the WCF), which is a prerequisite to membership on this board, they are constrained to defend it as scriptural.
> 
> Certain topics on PB are "settled" and not open to discussion because of the positions the confessions take. For example, no one here can advocate Arminianism or Federal Vision -- it would be closed down. In the same way, I don't think debating the nature of the sacraments is open for discussion among paedobaptists.
> 
> I desire a discussion in which no one feels confessionally bound or constrained to one view or the other regarding sacraments/ordinances, and we can legitimately have that discussion on PB among Reformed Baptists.
Click to expand...


I apologize and redact my former statement about it being a low blow.


----------



## JP Wallace

Of course they are means of grace, if they weren't Christ would not have told us to do them. Anything God tells us to do is in some way a means of grace, that is a way in which God communicates grace and the benefits of union with Christ to his people.

Praying is a means of grace, fellowshipping with God's people on the Sabbath is a means of grace, sitting under preaching is a means of grace, reading the Scriptures prayerfully at home is a means of grace. 

God is not in the business of arbitrarily telling us to do things, 'just because', rather everything he tells us to do has a spiritual, beneficial function for us and for his glory.

Frankiy I just don't understand why anyone has a problem with the LS and Baptism being a means of grace, so long as it is understood that it is a completely different doctrine from the Roman Catholic concept. Means of grace are only means of grace by the Spirit, and received only by faith, not in the things themselves but in what/who they speak of, signify, portray etc.


----------



## elnwood

Thank you all for your thoughts.

I think we can all agree that we experience grace, blessing, etc. through Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Zach indicated that in our reflection and remembrance on the cross, we experience grace. Pastor Wallace indicated that these are means of grace, but so is praying, fellowship, reading Scripture, and all other things that we do in obedience to Christ.

However, I think the doctrine of "means of grace" is that there is something about Baptism and the Lord's Supper as means of grace that is distinctive from other spiritual disciplines or acts of obedience. Perhaps they ought to be called "special means of grace."

I want to bring our attention back to WCF Chapter 27. It discusses "sign and seals of the covenant of grace," "spiritual relation" and "sacramental union," and "a promise of benefit to worthy receivers." Do you fully affirm WCF Chapter 20? Why or why not? Do you think the LBC should have kept it?

To start the ball rolling, I think baptism is a "sign" of the new covenant, but not the "seal" of the new covenant. Circumcision is called the sign and seal of the covenant, but I believe the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the seal of the new covenant. The Holy Spirit is called the seal (2 Cor 1:22; Eph 1:13, 4:30), while baptism is never called a seal. I would object at least to that part of the WCF, but there have been other Reformed Baptists who have affirmed baptism as the seal of the new covenant.


----------



## JP Wallace

Don't have much time (heading off on vacation soon  ) so not really answering your questions, rather just providing some more info. - but it should be understood that Calvin himself believed that Spirit was 'the' seal but that since the Spirit was working in the sacraments/ordinances that they to were seals. Here' are some articles from the Consensus Tigurinus

Article 15. How the Sacraments Confirm.
*Thus the sacraments are sometimes called seals, and are said to nourish, confirm, and advance faith, and yet the Spirit alone is properly the seal, and also the beginner and finisher of faith.* For all these attributes of the sacraments sink down to a lower place, so that not even the smallest portion of our salvation is transferred to creatures or elements.

Article 16. All Who Partake of the Sacraments Do Not Partake of the Reality.
Besides, we carefully teach that God does not exert his power indiscriminately in all who receive the sacraments, but only in the elect. For as he enlightens unto faith none but those whom he hath foreordained to life, *so by the secret agency of his Spirit he makes the elect receive what the sacraments offer.*

Article 17. The Sacraments Do Not Confer Grace.
By this doctrine is overthrown that fiction of the sophists which teaches that the sacraments confer grace on all who do not interpose the obstacle of mortal sin. *For besides that in the sacraments nothing is received except by faith, we must also hold that the grace of God is by no means so annexed to them that whoso receives the sign also gains possession of the thing. For the signs are administered alike to reprobate and elect, but the reality reaches the latter only.*

Now I point this out merely (though importantly) to correct what I feel is a frequent misunderstanding about the 'Presbyterian' view of the sacraments; that they see the seal as being the sacraments and *not* the Spirit, while the 'Baptist' view is that this cannot be because the Spirit is THE seal of the covenant and not the sacraments. My point is this of course; Calvin did not view these as mutually exclusive. 

Also in relation to whether they are means of grace or not see Spurgeon from a sermon (the reference I am afraid I have lost)

Other means, however, are made use of to bless men’s souls. For instance, the two ordinances of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. They are both made a rich means of grace. But let me ask you, is there any thing in baptism that can possibly bless any body? Can immersion in water have the slightest tendency to be blessed to the soul? And then with regard to the eating of bread and the drinking of wine at the Lord’s Supper, can it by any means be conceived by any rational man that there is any thing in the mere piece of bread that we eat, or in the wine that we drink? And yet, doubtless, the grace of God does go with both ordinances for the confirming of the faith of those who receive them, and even for the conversion of those who look upon the ceremony. There must be something, then, beyond the outward ceremony; there must, in fact, be the Spirit of God, witnessing through the water, witnessing through the wine, witnessing through the bread, or otherwise none of these things could be means of grace to our souls. They could not edify; they could not help us to commune with Christ; they could not tend to the conviction of sinners, or to the establishment of saints. There must, then, from these facts, be a higher, unseen, mysterious influence — the influence of the divine Spirit of God.

REFERENCE FOUND (Google!)
Sermon No. 251
Delivered on Sabbath Morning, May 8th, 1859, by the
REV. C. H. Spurgeon
at the Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Don you can look at this years conference from the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America to listen to this years sermons on the means of Grace. 



FormatTitleSpeakerSERMONS FROM THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY - 2011MP3April 5th - Morning Devotions - The Motive of Faithful PerseveranceDavid JohnsonMP3Defining the Means of GraceDr. James RenihanMP3Preaching the Ordinary Means of GraceTom LyonMP3April 6th - Morning Devotions - Real Faith Active and ConcreteJim DundasMP3Baptism as a Means of GraceDr. Fred MaloneMP3The Lord's Supper as a means of GraceDr. Richard BarcellosMP3April 7th - Morning Devotions - EncouragementSteve WoodmanMP3Prayer as a means of GraceDr. Mike RenihanMP3The Minister's Expectation of SuccessSteve GarrickMP3Annual Circular LetterRon Baines




To save a sermon on your computer just click MP3. When the window opens and starts playing right click on it and hit save as (video maybe) Then it will download to your computer. Save link will not save the sermon.


----------



## elnwood

JP Wallace said:


> Now I point this out merely (though importantly) to correct what I feel is a frequent misunderstanding about the 'Presbyterian' view of the sacraments; that they see the seal as being the sacraments and *not* the Spirit, while the 'Baptist' view is that this cannot be because the Spirit is THE seal of the covenant and not the sacraments. My point is this of course; Calvin did not view these as mutually exclusive.



Pastor Wallace, that's fascinating. Thank you for that.

My position still stands firm, though. We are sealed by the Holy Spirit upon regeneration. As Baptists, we believe the New Covenant members are all those who are regenerated. I don't see why we ought to extend the "seal" to Baptism and/or the Lord's Supper. For the paedobaptist, baptism is a sign and seal of a covenant membership to an infant child regardless of whether the child is regenerated, but for a Baptist, we recognize that true new covenant membership is regeneration.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I agree with Don on this one. The Holy Spirit is our Seal in the New Covenant. It isn't the sacrament / ordinance of Baptism.


----------



## Pergamum

Is there a link to a PDF version for those who don't want to listen, but want to read these messages?


----------



## Notthemama1984

See post 12.


----------



## elnwood

*sigh* *BAPTISTS ONLY* please. If you feel the need to correct me, send a PM.


----------



## JP Wallace

"Elnwood:For the paedobaptist, baptism is a sign and seal of a covenant membership to an infant child regardless of whether the child is regenerated, but for a Baptist, we recognize that true new covenant membership is regeneration."

But I think that is precisely where there is another misunderstanding. The efficacy of the sacrament is not tied to the time of administration, thus it may be a sign and a seal of the new covenant but does not in fact effectually seal, until received by faith - again here is Calvin (safe source).

Article 20. The Benefit Not Always Received in the Act of Communicating.
The advantage which we receive from the sacraments ought by no means to be restricted to the time at which they are administered to us, just as if the visible sign, at the moment when it is brought forward, brought the grace of God along with it. For those who were baptized when mere infants, God regenerates in childhood or adolescence, occasionally even in old age. Thus the utility of baptism is open to the whole period of life, because the promise contained in it is perpetually in force. And it may sometimes happen that the use of the holy Supper, which, from thoughtlessness or slowness of heart does little good at the time, afterward bears its fruit.

Likewise it is not completely accurate to juxtapose our understanding that new covenant members are believers only, with the implication that Presbyterians believe that infants are members of the covenant in the same way. While there is variance here, in general Presbyterians only understand infants as being 'externally' within the covenant community, which is different.


----------



## Pergamum

I would prefer to say that the infants of believers "sit under the administration of the Covenant of Grace" (i.e. hearing the Word, witnessing the activities of the Covenant Community) rather than the language of being "in" the Covenant, for only those in Christ are in the Covenant, all the rest may sit under the external administration of this covenant but not really be "in" it.


----------



## JP Wallace

Actually Rev. Winzer's comments though strictly speaking banned um they are very helpful and positive (so are Boliver's) and I think his clarification about seal being connected with faith is very important (and at least similar) to my point above. And I at least very much appreciate Rev. Winzer's appreciation that many of us RB's like Dr. Renihan are very consciously trying to be as close as possible to the 'full' Reformed orthodoxy, not just because we like the traditions and associations there-with, but because we believe it is biblical.

I think it is somewhat important for us to accurately understand the Presbyterian position before we critique it. And that is something I think we have frequently failed to do at the risk of burning a straw man.

I think Pergamum's last comment (21) is an excellent example of someone who has sought to understand and compare/contrast his own understanding with the Presbyterian understanding, and I think he is doing a good job. Our children raised in the fear and admonition of the Lord in connection with the Church of Christ are not the New Covenant equivalents of Old Covenant era Ammonites or Moabites, they are Israelites as it were according to the flesh, yet they may or may not be true Israelites of faith. How that works out into covenant administration etc. is where we need to be focussing our attention. Perhaps as Pergamum suggests 'under' is the preposition we should prefer rather than 'in'.


----------



## KMK

I am not sure the English Particular Baptists were monolithic in their rejection of the word 'sacrament'. 

Hercules Collins, in 1680, published the _Orthodox Catechism_. 



> This leading Particular Baptist minister understood that the theology articulated by the Heidelberg divines was consonant with his own and with the broader movement of which he was a part. Dr. James Renihan; True Cofessions; pg 235



In the Orthodox Catechism, Collins follows the Heidelberg Catechism in using the word 'sacrament':



> Q. What are the sacraments? A.: They are the sacred signs, *and seals*, set before our eyes, and ordained of God for this cause, that he may declare and *seal* by them the promise of his Gospel unto us...



Also, the authors of the True Confession of 1596 did not balk at the word 'sacrament'.



> 34 That such asq God hath giuen guiftes to enterpret the Scriptures, tryed in the exercise of Prophecie, giving attendance to studie and learning, may and ought by the appointment of the Congregation, to teach publickly the vvord, vntill the people bee meet or, and God manifest men vvith able guifts and fitnes to such Office or Offices as Christ hath appointed to the publick ministerie of his church; but rno *Sacraments* to bee administred vntill the Pastora or Teachers bee chosen and ordeyned into their Office.



I don't think modern RBs need to go overboard in interpreting the change from 'sacrament' to 'ordinance' in the 1689. I don't think the English Particular Baptists saw the wording as an important battleground.


----------



## steadfast7

Very helpful thread Don!

- "Baptism seals only the elect" - A Brakel, Christian's Reasonable Service. I remember reading and underlining this quote. So in this sense, it is a seal, but for the elect.
- I think we do need to be a little different from the paedos in the understanding of means of grace, don't we, cause then why wouldn't we call baptism and the LS "sacraments" and understand them in the same way? In the paedobaptist scheme, the means of grace begins in infancy through one's baptism and follows the course of one's life; while we tend to view baptism as linked to regeneration in a definitive moment.
- I also think we can't borrow the paedobaptist's term "administration of the covenant of grace" without causing a lot of confusion (and resentment?), because by "administration" they are thinking of the wellspring of the covenant _and its subsequent sign_ that was enacted, namely Abraham and circumcision.

As much as we want to be as close as possible to the Reformed understanding and borrow _all_ the same terminology, I'm not sure it can be done while remaining faithful to credobaptism. We see the 1689'ers doing this with their distinction of ordinance vs. sacrament.

wanting and waiting to be more informed/corrected on the above...

---------- Post added at 08:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:38 PM ----------

in terms of our designation of the status of infants of believers, can't we simply echo scripture and call them "holy" ?


----------



## KMK

One other thing, Keach was not shy about using the word 'sacrament' to describe the Lord's Supper.



> Which absurd and monstrous conceit of theirs (Roman Catholic) hath been learnedly confuted by many ancient and modern writers, so that it may be thought needless to add any thing here upon that account; yet that we may make our way the more plain to these metaphorical and figurative expressions used by our Saviour, *when he instituted the holy sacrament of the Supper*, saying, "This is my body," something briefly we shall offer, in confutation of the pernicious doctrine... Rev. Benjamin Keach; Tropologia; pg. 632


----------



## steadfast7

I personally don't have a problem with the term 'sacrament' along with its full meaning, but _confessionally speaking_, isn't it significant that there's a distinct change in terminology? Also, if we are confessors of a particular confession and its distinctives, all personal opinions and pre-1689 documents ought to be subservient to it (if not irrelevant), no?


----------



## steadfast7

Chaplainintraining said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally don't have a problem with the term 'sacrament' along with its full meaning, but _confessionally speaking_, isn't it significant that there's a distinct change in terminology? Also, if we are confessors of a particular confession and its distinctives, all personal opinions and pre-1689 documents ought to be subservient to it (if not irrelevant), no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I heard a lecture once where the speaker believed the 1689 was using "ordinance" as a way of distancing themselves from Rome. The change in word was not necessarily a change in meaning.
> 
> I know that I am paedo, but thought this information might be useful.
Click to expand...

 But by making the change, they are not only distinguishing from Rome, but also the Westminsters and the pre-1689ers (as shown above). I would think they needed a good reason to do this.


----------



## KMK

steadfast7 said:


> I personally don't have a problem with the term 'sacrament' along with its full meaning, but _confessionally speaking_, isn't it significant that there's a distinct change in terminology? Also, if we are confessors of a particular confession and its distinctives, all personal opinions and pre-1689 documents ought to be subservient to it (if not irrelevant), no?



In order to understand the meaning behind the words of a confession you must examine their use in context.


----------



## KMK

The 'they' who signed the 1689 confession included Keach and Collins, both of whom used the word 'sacrament' in the quotes I provided. Therefore, it is at least possible, if not likely, that the words 'sacrament' and 'ordinance' were fairly synonymous in their thinking.



> The Baptists were concerned to demonstrate to all that their doctrinal convictions had been, from the very start, orthodox and too a large degree identical with the convictions of the Puritans around them. In order to do this, they looked for the best available means by which to prove that their views were indeed closely in line with the convictions of the other churches around them. They did this by issuing a Confession of faith. Dr. James Renihan, Confessing the Faith in 1644 and 1689


 available here: Confessing the Faith in 1644 and 1689, James M. Renihan | The Reformed Reader

The overall paradigm of the English Particular Baptists was one of puritan conciliation, not controversy. Those who walk in the spirit of the English Particular Baptist do the same. I think our attitude should be that if our Baptist forefathers did not clearly delineate a controversy, then no controversy should be assumed.


----------



## steadfast7

I'd be thrilled if we can say with confidence that their concept of ordinance was synonymous with sacrament, but I'm left with the problems that
1. given as it may that they were distinguishing from Rome, the change in wording results also in distinguishing from their Reformed forebears. If there was no reason to cause even a hint of division, then why change the already-perfect terminology? I'm sure they would have known that the change in terminology would at least have the _potential_ of stirring division/controversy.
2. just because Keach and Collins previously used 'sacrament' in earlier writings, doesn't mean the 1689 endorses it. Many of the Westminsters had variations on certain theological issues, which is not reflection in the confession.

All I'm saying is if the Baptists wanted to put themselves in line with Reformed orthodoxy, they would have echoed them at every possible opportunity - it's the natural thing to do. 

"fairly synonymous" is really not sufficient when speaking of wording in a confession of faith, not when the stakes are so high.


----------



## KMK

steadfast7 said:


> I'd be thrilled if we can say with confidence that their concept of ordinance was synonymous with sacrament, but I'm left with the problems that
> 1. given as it may that they were distinguishing from Rome, the change in wording results also in distinguishing from their Reformed forebears. If there was no reason to cause even a hint of division, then why change the already-perfect terminology? I'm sure they would have known that the change in terminology would at least have the _potential_ of stirring division/controversy.
> 2.* just because Keach and Collins previously used 'sacrament' in earlier writings, doesn't mean the 1689 endorses it. * Many of the Westminsters had variations on certain theological issues, which is not reflection in the confession.
> 
> All I'm saying is if the Baptists wanted to put themselves in line with Reformed orthodoxy, they would have echoed them at every possible opportunity - it's the natural thing to do.
> 
> "fairly synonymous" is really not sufficient when speaking of wording in a confession of faith, not when the stakes are so high.



Actually, the 1689 was penned in 1677. It wasn't publicly ratified until after the Toleration Act in 1689. Collins' Orthodox Confession was published in 1680, and Keach's Tropologia was published in 1682. All of these writings were from the same period. 

No doubt there were 'variations on certain theological issues' just like in Westminster, but this fact does not at all prove that the change from 'sacrament' to 'ordinance' represented some monolithic departure by all Particular Baptists, which is the only point I was trying to make.


----------



## steadfast7

KMK said:


> Actually, the 1689 was penned in 1677. It wasn't publicly ratified until after the Toleration Act in 1689. Collins' Orthodox Confession was published in 1680, and Keach's Tropologia was published in 1682. All of these writings were from the same period.
> 
> No doubt there were 'variations on certain theological issues' just like in Westminster, but this fact does not at all prove that the change from 'sacrament' to 'ordinance' represented some monolithic departure by all Particular Baptists, which is the only point I was trying to make.


 That's very fair enough. By all means individuals had their particular word choices, but as a confessional document that seeks to articulate carefully what a system is teaching, the departure of wording in this instance could only infer a desire to distinguish. How could it be taken any other way if the traditional word is already perfectly sound?


----------



## elnwood

KMK,

I made it clear in a different thread that some of the Particular Baptists did hold to the sacramental understanding of the ordinances. Your citations of Keach and Collins show this, and thanks for that reminder. However, what Keach and Collins wrote is NOT the confession, and in the LBC, WCF Chapter 27 was removed in its entirety.

We must not think that the Particular Baptists were united on this issue. Likely, they were divided on this issue, as we are divided today. Hence this discussion!

So while Keach and Collins may have been able to affirm WCF Chapter 27, other Particular Baptists probably could not have. But all of us Baptists can agree on the nature of Baptism and the Lord's Supper as "ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world" -- and that's probably why that was put into the Confession, and not WCF Chapter 27, or even a slightly modified version of WCF Chapter 27.

--

Pastor Wallace,

Thank you for sharing your knowledge of Calvin and his sacramental views. I understand now how he viewed Baptism as not effectively sealing until it is received by faith.

However, I do not understand why it is necessary to view baptism as a "means to salvific grace." *When "means of grace" is used, it refers to salvific grace* -- that was the way Luther used it, and seems to be the way Calvin used it.

So, on one hand, I can view baptism as strictly something Jesus told us to do in obedience in order to signify regeneration.

Or, I can go a step further and say that the Holy Spirit works salvific grace through baptism, even though it is not tied to the moment of administration, nor will it be effective for the non-elect.

I have trouble making the next step for a number of reasons.

1) *I don't see it as altogether necessary.* I feel like I rest on solid Scriptural ground and in conformity with the LBC without it.

2) *It seems like a doctrine left over from and modified from Roman Catholicism*, as Dennis alluded to. It gets rid of the idea that salvation is tied to the moment of administration or by virtue of the one administrating it, but keeps the idea of that it actually conveys salvific grace.

As Baptists, we largely see infant baptism as a holdover from Roman Catholicism. Non-salvific "covenantal" infant baptism was never articulated as such until Zwingli formulated it against the Anabaptists. In the same way, the idea of Baptism and the Lord's Supper conveying salvific grace apart from the moment of administration was not articulated until the time of the Reformation.

3) *I don't see any solid Scriptural support for it.* Quotes from Renihan, Spurgeon, Keats, Collins, Calvin are nice, but I would like some Scriptural support. I did ask for it in the first post, but so far *not a single reference to Scripture* has been cited in support of it. That should tell us something. By all means, let us debate, but let us debate based on a proper exegesis of Scripture.


----------



## steadfast7

To Reformed paedobaptist, the means are only physical vehicles that carry grace, they do not in themselves confer grace (the Roman ex opere operato). This is why they repeat things like "proper use" and "proper time" to ensure that God is given sovereign reign over the grace he alone confers to those for whom they are meant. It has become clear to me that paedobaptists want to say almost nothing about the elective status of those who are given the means because for them, the means are objective statements about God's promises, not subjective indicators of election.


----------



## KMK

None of the Reformed (to my knowledge) have ever believed that the Lord's Supper was a means of grace in and of itself. It is only a means of grace in conjunction with the Word. 



> 1 Cor 11:28,29 *But let a man examine himself*, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. *29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not *discerning the Lord's body*.



Is this what you are arguing against, Don? If so, I don't think any here that would disagree with you.


----------



## steadfast7

KMK said:


> None of the Reformed (to my knowledge) have ever believed that the Lord's Supper was a means of grace in and of itself. It is only a means of grace in conjunction with the Word.


 But if this is the case, this brings up the problem (in my mind) how infant baptism could be a named a means of grace - unless it's the parents and congregation that are receiving the word on behalf of the child, but only lutherans believe that.


----------



## elnwood

KMK said:


> None of the Reformed (to my knowledge) have ever believed that the Lord's Supper was a means of grace in and of itself. It is only a means of grace in conjunction with the Word.
> 
> Is this what you are arguing against, Don? If so, I don't think any here that would disagree with you.



That's not it. I'm more questioning the "sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified."

My understanding is that in the sacramental view, salvific grace is _mediated_ through the sacraments by the Holy Spirit. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). That is, for the elect, salvific grace is by the Holy Spirit, but the sacraments are the physical vehicles that carry that grace from the Holy Spirit to us, and confer and seal the benefits of salvation for us. The sacraments are essentially mediators, the *means* by which we receive the grace by the Holy Spirit.

I don't see why these ordinances are mediating vehicles of salvific grace. I see salvific grace as something received directly by the Holy Spirit, and that the ordinances reminding us of the salvific grace we have already received through Christ's death and resurrection, and continue to receive, rather than being the means for us to receive it.


----------



## KMK

elnwood said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of the Reformed (to my knowledge) have ever believed that the Lord's Supper was a means of grace in and of itself. It is only a means of grace in conjunction with the Word.
> 
> Is this what you are arguing against, Don? If so, I don't think any here that would disagree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not it. I'm more questioning the "sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified."
> 
> My understanding is that in the sacramental view, salvific grace is _mediated_ through the sacraments by the Holy Spirit. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). That is, for the elect, salvific grace is by the Holy Spirit, but the sacraments are the physical vehicles that carry that grace from the Holy Spirit to us, and confer and seal the benefits of salvation for us. The sacraments are essentially mediators, the *means* by which we receive the grace by the Holy Spirit.
> 
> I don't see why these ordinances are mediating vehicles of salvific grace. *I see salvific grace as something received directly by the Holy Spirit*, and that the ordinances reminding us of the salvific grace we have already received through Christ's death and resurrection, and continue to receive, rather than being the means for us to receive it.
Click to expand...


What about the Word? 



> LBC 10:1 Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, He is pleased in His appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call,1 *by His Word and Spirit*, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ...


----------



## elnwood

Yes, we receive salvation by the proclaiming of the Word, i.e. the gospel, and the regeneration of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## KMK

elnwood said:


> Yes, we receive salvation by the proclaiming of the Word, i.e. the gospel, and the regeneration of the Holy Spirit.



The Reformed view, including that of Luther, Zwingli and Calvin, is that the Lord's Supper is annexed to the Word. It is not, in and of itself, a means of grace. But in conjunction with the Word of God it is. If you agree with Paul that self-examination in light of the Gospel is a means of grace, then you must also agree that the Lord's Supper is a means of grace because this self-examination and discernment of the Lord's body is the essence of the Supper itself.


----------



## elnwood

KMK said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we receive salvation by the proclaiming of the Word, i.e. the gospel, and the regeneration of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Reformed view, including that of Luther, Zwingli and Calvin, is that the Lord's Supper is annexed to the Word. It is not, in and of itself, a means of grace. But in conjunction with the Word of God it is. If you agree with Paul that self-examination in light of the Gospel is a means of grace, then you must also agree that the Lord's Supper is a means of grace because this self-examination and discernment of the Lord's body is the essence of the Supper itself.
Click to expand...


Where does Paul say that self-examination in light of the gospel is a means of grace? 1 Cor 11:28-29 says that eating unworthily, not discerning the body, is bringing κρίμα, "judgment." upon oneself. It doesn't say anything about self-examination being a means of salvific grace.


----------



## Rich Barcellos

I cover 1 Cor. 10:16 in my sermon alluded to by R. Martin.


----------



## KMK

Proper participation in the Lord's Supper requires self-examination *in light of the Gospel*. Do you deny that self-examination in light of the Gospel is a means of grace?



> LBC 14:2 By this faith a Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word for the authority of God himself,4 and also apprehends an excellency therein above all other writings and all things in the world,5 as it bears forth the glory of God in his attributes, the excellency of Christ in his nature and offices, and the power and fullness of the Holy Spirit in his workings and operations: *and so is enabled to cast his soul upon the truth consequently believed;6 and also acts differently upon that which each particular passage thereof contains; yielding obedience to the commands,7 trembling at the threatenings,8 and embracing the promises of God for this life and that which is to come;9 but the principle acts of saving faith have immediate relation to Christ, accepting, receiving, and resting upon him alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.*10
> 4 Acts 24:14
> 5 Ps. 19:7-10, 69:72
> 6 2 Tim. 1:12
> 7 John 15:14
> 8 Isa. 116:2
> 9 Heb. 11:13
> 10 John 1:12; Acts 16:31; Gal 2:20; Acts 15:11



Perhaps I am totally misunderstanding your assertions, but what you are saying _sounds_ like you are denying LBC 14:1:



> The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts,1 and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word;2 by which also,* and by the administration of baptism and the Lord's supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God*, it is increased and strengthened.3
> 1 2 Cor. 4:13; Eph. 2:8
> 2 Rom. 10:14,17
> 3 Luke 17:5; 1 Pet. 2:2; Acts 20:32


----------



## elnwood

Ken, I think you're broadening the definition of "means of grace." I don't deny that baptism, the Lord's supper and self-examination are means that God uses to strengthen our faith. They are. Note that the LBC adds "other means appointed by God," which the WCF does not have.



> The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts,1 and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word;2 by which also,* and by the administration of baptism and the Lord's supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God*, it is increased and strengthened.



In other words, the LBC says the ordinances, as well as other means, strengthens faith. This includes the ordinances, but also prayer, fasting, meditation, feeding the poor, loving your spouse, and other things we do out of obedience to Christ and his commands.

But this conception of the "means of grace" is not the same as the sacramental understanding that you see in WCF Chapter 27.


----------



## KMK

elnwood said:


> Ken, I think you're broadening the definition of "means of grace." I don't deny that baptism, the Lord's supper and self-examination are means that God uses to strengthen our faith. They are. Note that the LBC adds "other means appointed by God," which the WCF does not have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts,1 and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word;2 by which also,* and by the administration of baptism and the Lord's supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God*, it is increased and strengthened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, the LBC says the ordinances, as well as other means, strengthens faith. This includes the ordinances, but also prayer, fasting, meditation, feeding the poor, loving your spouse, and other things we do out of obedience to Christ and his commands.
> 
> *But this conception of the "means of grace" is not the same as the sacramental understanding that you see in WCF Chapter 27.*
Click to expand...


You keep making appeals to Westminster, Don, but you won't allow the Westminsterians a voice in this discussion. I think we will get to the heart of the matter if we allow them to speak for themselves.

It is the opinion of the Moderation Team that this thread should be moved from Credo-Baptism Only to the Baptism Forum. Feel free to respond.


----------



## elnwood

I strongly object. There are Baptists here who hold the Westminster view of the sacraments, and we've had a productive conversation here. If we can't discuss the nature of the ordinances exclusively within credobaptism, I fail to see the purpose of having a Baptists-only forum.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Objection noted, but this is the way it is going to be unless you want the thread deleted. As far as the "-only" forums, their continued usefulness is under review.


----------



## Marrow Man

elnwood said:


> I strongly object. There are Baptists here who hold the Westminster view of the sacraments, and we've had a productive conversation here. If we can't discuss the nature of the ordinances exclusively within credobaptism, I fail to see the purpose of having a Baptists-only forum.



And you must understand that with the way you worded the OP, you were going to find many (if not all) paedobaptists who objected to the way you represented their views. You seem to think that paedobaptists can only argue confessionally and not biblically, then placed the discussion in a forum where paedobaptists are not supposed to post. At best, it is a strawman, and a worst, it is a back-handed slap against paedobaptists. If that was not your intention, then you need to give serious consideration to amending the last point of your OP.


----------



## JP Wallace

Note to Presbyterian/Covenant Baptist friends. Some of us most certainly do not see paedo/covenant baptism as a hang over from Roman Catholicism - allusion was made to this earlier. Just wanted to qualify that argument as not necessarily being representative.


----------



## elnwood

Marrow Man said:


> And you must understand that with the way you worded the OP, you were going to find many (if not all) paedobaptists who objected to the way you represented their views. You seem to think that paedobaptists can only argue confessionally and not biblically, then placed the discussion in a forum where paedobaptists are not supposed to post. At best, it is a strawman, and a worst, it is a back-handed slap against paedobaptists. If that was not your intention, then you need to give serious consideration to amending the last point of your OP.



Pastor Phillips,

That objection was raised, and I already offered clarification in post #7, and the objection was withdrawn.

If you desire further clarification, I can state very clearly that I don't believe that "paedobaptists can only argue confessionally and not biblically." I simply wanted a discussion among brethren who did not have confessional commitments. I apologize for not making my OP clear enough, and for offending you.



NaphtaliPress said:


> Objection noted, but this is the way it is going to be unless you want the thread deleted. As far as the "-only" forums, their continued usefulness is under review.



My objection still stands, but in the interest of general equity, I request that the discussion "Sacramental Union and Sacramental Language," which is currently open and in the "Paedo-Baptism Answers" forum, be moved elsewhere so that Baptists can respond. The original poster even wrote that he should have posted it in the "Confession of Faith" forum, but it was never moved.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f122/sacramental-union-sacramental-language-68235/


----------



## NaphtaliPress

The moderators will review this in conjunction with a review of the "-only" forums.


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Objection noted, but this is the way it is going to be unless you want the thread deleted. As far as the "-only" forums, their continued usefulness is under review.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My objection still stands, but in the interest of general equity, I request that the discussion "Sacramental Union and Sacramental Language," which is currently open and in the "Paedo-Baptism Answers" forum, be moved elsewhere so that Baptists can respond. The original poster even wrote that he should have posted it in the "Confession of Faith" forum, but it was never moved.
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f122/sacramental-union-sacramental-language-68235/
Click to expand...


----------



## Marrow Man

Don, I moved the thread because the OP requested it. It has been inactive, though, for almost a month.

Thank you for the clarification. But I am not sure I agree with the the assumption that you are making with regard to Baptist arguments. This is a confessional board, and the members who join are bound to their confessional standards. That is, everyone on this board is supposed to have a "confessional commitment." It is possible to argue apart from those commitments while still being bound by them, I suppose, but I am not sure this is what you are suggesting. If you are simply saying, "explain this from the Bible without referencing a confessional document like the LBC," then I can understand that.


----------



## KMK

elnwood said:


> I mentioned before that the London Baptist Confession removes all of the Westminster Confession Chapter 27 regarding the sacraments.
> 
> WCF 27
> 1. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him: as also to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word.
> 2. There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.
> 3. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorising the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.
> 
> It is replaced by LBC Chapter 28:
> 1. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world.
> 2. These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.
> 
> Every use of the word "sacrament" in the LBC is removed or replaced by "ordinance." The references to the sacraments being the signs and seals of the covenant of grace are removed, and also from 29.1. The "sacramental union" between the sign and the thing signified is removed. Every use of the term "grace" with reference to baptism.
> 
> *So from a Baptist perspective, do you think baptism and the Lord's supper are sacraments? Means of grace? How would you define "sacrament" and "means of grace"?* And, *most important of all*, *what Scriptures* would you use to defend it?
> 
> I want responses from *BAPTISTS ONLY* because:
> 1) The hermeneutical frameworks of Baptists and paedobaptists are very, very different. I want to discuss this among those of us in agreement on the proper recipients of baptism.
> 2) The Presbyterians are bound to defend "sacraments" and "means of grace" as scriptural because of their subordinate standard. We Reformed Baptists are not so bound. I'm more interested in a discussion revolving around Scripture rather than one in which the confessions are taken _a priori_ as scriptural.


 


Herald said:


> In that both encourage faith (both of the individual and the local body) they are a means of grace. The fact that both signs are commanded (thus the "ordinance") does not lessen their spiritual importance.
> 
> sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix.



Going back to the OP, I agree with Bill. 

I have reread the thread but I am still trying to understand the point of the OP. Are you making the assertion that because some of the signers of the 1689 viewed the sacraments as 'memorials', modern day Reformed Baptists are still Reformed even if they are memorialists as well? That may be, but I think you need to establish the assertion on firmer ground than a simple word change in the 1689. If you leave Westminster out of it, and provide other historical sources, then I think there can be a healthy discussion among baptists.

Or are you simply asking 'sacramentalists' for the Scripture behind their view?

Or are you simply asking for the meaning of the phrase 'means of grace' as it is used by Baptists?


----------



## JM

I would tend to agree with Bullinger's symbolic parallelism...the bread and wine are memorial symbols, and that we, by faith receive Christ at the same time, but I'm not prepared to argue.


----------



## KMK

What is interesting is that Swinnock, in his Works, uses the word 'ordinances' to refer to all the means of grace, of which the 'sacraments' are part. This would point to an essential agreement between Westminsterians and Particular Baptists over the nature of the Baptism and the Lord's Supper.



> So if thou wouldst but in secret search thy soul, vomit up thy filth by a penitent confession, cleanse thine heart by sincere contrition, and wouldst then frequent the public _ordinances_, thou wouldst find prayer sweet, preaching sweet, the _sacrament_ sweet, every service sweet. Pg 239


----------



## MW

To sum up some of the points which have been clarified in this thread.

1. "Reformed Baptists," professing to be Reformed, are bound to approach the authority and exposition of Scripture with the same commitment to confessional integrity as Reformed Presbyterians or the Dutch Reformed. The authority of Scripture is not an abstract ideal which exists apart from the actual content of Scripture.

2. Both the Westminster and London Confessions which are received on this board teach a commitment to "means of grace" (14.1) as an integral part of the overall reformed understanding of grace as a gift and work of God. Some question still remains as to what is meant by "sacrament" or how it can be applied, but no doubt is left as to the "means of grace" as an integral part of the system.

3. Reformed paedobaptists should not be represented as requiring anything less than Spirit-wrought faith as a necessary part of the effectual communication of the benefits of redemption to God's elect. They are credo-baptists in this sense and should not be misrepresented as if they confessed something which is contrary to this reformed teaching.


----------



## Iconoclast

elnwood said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of the Reformed (to my knowledge) have ever believed that the Lord's Supper was a means of grace in and of itself. It is only a means of grace in conjunction with the Word.
> 
> Is this what you are arguing against, Don? If so, I don't think any here that would disagree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not it. I'm more questioning the "sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified."
> 
> My understanding is that in the sacramental view, salvific grace is _mediated_ through the sacraments by the Holy Spirit. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). That is, for the elect, salvific grace is by the Holy Spirit, but the sacraments are the physical vehicles that carry that grace from the Holy Spirit to us, and confer and seal the benefits of salvation for us. The sacraments are essentially mediators, the *means* by which we receive the grace by the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...

 


Here is a quote from A Baptist Catechism with Commentary...by W.R. Downing


> The Church of Rome has seven sacraments—Baptism, Confirmation,
> Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Order and Matrimony.
> Protestantism holds to two, baptism and the Lord’s Supper. These two
> Baptists and some Evangelicals call “ordinances,” as these have been
> commanded by our Lord (Lat. ordinare, “to put in order”). A sacrament (Gk.
> musterion, “mystery;” Lat. sacramentum, “secret,” and sacer, “holy”) is a
> physical rite which posits something mysterious and beyond the physical
> elements in the communication of grace. Historically and theologically,
> therefore, the term “ordinance” distinguishes baptism and the Lord’s Supper
> as being only symbolic and representative in nature, and considers them to be
> means of grace only insofar as they bring the mind and heart to fix themselves
> upon the spiritual realities thus symbolized. The term presupposes no mystical
> significance as means of grace.Quest.


 Some see it this way.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> To sum up some of the points which have been clarified in this thread.
> 
> 1. "Reformed Baptists," professing to be Reformed, are bound to approach the authority and exposition of Scripture with the same commitment to confessional integrity as Reformed Presbyterians or the Dutch Reformed. The authority of Scripture is not an abstract ideal which exists apart from the actual content of Scripture.
> 
> 2. Both the Westminster and London Confessions which are received on this board teach a commitment to "means of grace" (14.1) as an integral part of the overall reformed understanding of grace as a gift and work of God. Some question still remains as to what is meant by "sacrament" or how it can be applied, but no doubt is left as to the "means of grace" as an integral part of the system.
> 
> 3. Reformed paedobaptists should not be represented as requiring anything less than Spirit-wrought faith as a necessary part of the effectual communication of the benefits of redemption to God's elect. They are credo-baptists in this sense and should not be misrepresented as if they confessed something which is contrary to this reformed teaching.



In further summary it seems the main difference between the two camps is the view of baptism being a sign _and_ seal. Reformed Baptists _should _view baptism as a sign of the new covenant; whereas the sealing is accomplished by the Holy Spirit at the point of regeneration. That difference aside confessional Christians on both sides should view both ordinances as a means of grace, which is consistent with both confessions and as testified in Scripture.


----------



## Herald

> Reformed Baptists _should _view baptism as a sign of the new covenant; whereas the sealing is accomplished by the Holy Spirit at the point of regeneration.



Reformed Baptists who view baptism as more than just a sign are exceeding the intent of the 1689 LBC.  



> 1689 LBC 29.1 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.



It is not an accident that the 1689 LBC omits any mention of baptism being a seal. To view baptism as a seal is to take exception with the confession on this point.


----------



## MW

Herald said:


> It is not an accident that the 1689 LBC omits any mention of baptism being a seal. To view baptism as a seal is to take exception with the confession on this point.


 
Bill, the second sentence does not follow from the first. The confession would have to include an exclusive statement of some kind in order for an exception to be required. The mere omission of a word is no grounds for an exclusive assertion.

How does the "mere sign" terminology fit in with 30.1 of the confession when viewed in the light of the antipaedobaptist commitment to the affinity and analogy of baptism and the Lord's supper? 30.1 appears to suggest something more than a "mere sign" viewpoint.


----------



## Pergamum

Quoting Anthony's quote:



> Historically and theologically,therefore, the term “ordinance” distinguishes baptism and the Lord’s Supper
> as being only symbolic and representative in nature, and considers them to be
> means of grace only insofar as they bring the mind and heart to fix themselves
> upon the spiritual realities thus symbolized. The term presupposes no mystical
> significance as means of grace.



Isn't this agreed upon by all the reformed, both credo and paedo?

---------- Post added at 04:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:11 AM ----------




armourbearer said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not an accident that the 1689 LBC omits any mention of baptism being a seal. To view baptism as a seal is to take exception with the confession on this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, the second sentence does not follow from the first. The confession would have to include an exclusive statement of some kind in order for an exception to be required. The mere omission of a word is no grounds for an exclusive assertion.
> 
> How does the "mere sign" terminology fit in with 30.1 of the confession when viewed in the light of the antipaedobaptist commitment to the affinity and analogy of baptism and the Lord's supper? 30.1 appears to suggest something more than a "mere sign" viewpoint.
Click to expand...



The 1689 writers quoted the WCF verbatim in many places; therefore, in any place where a particular wording is changed or left out while neighboring sections are brought in _en toto_, we should expect there to be a significant reason for this, right?


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> The 1689 writers quoted the WCF verbatim in many places; therefore, in any place where a particular wording is changed or left out while neighboring sections are brought in _en toto_, we should expect there to be a significant reason for this, right?


 
Samuel Waldron's Exposition mentions places where changes are significant and insignificant. Even where changes are significant it is not necessarily in the direction of doctrinal alteration but might also be due to accommodation. If the latter then the change cannot be regarded as a matter of exclusivity.


----------



## steadfast7

While an omission does not necessarily imply a positive affirmation of the opposite, it does imply that the confessors did not want to confess what they left out. At the very least, they created ambiguity which is one step removed from fully confessing together with the WCF.


----------



## Herald

amourbearer said:


> Bill, the second sentence does not follow from the first. The confession would have to include an exclusive statement of some kind in order for an exception to be required. The mere omission of a word is no grounds for an exclusive assertion.



Matthew, it seems like a glaring omission. I mean, if the framers of the 1689 LBC had intended to convey the idea that baptism is a sign _and _seal, why would they not copy the WCF, seeing as many portions of the 1689 are verbatim quotes of the WCF? While the omission of a word does not necessarily make an exclusive statement, in the case of 29.1 it certainly does allow the exclusive assertion of baptism being a sign to stand on its own. 



armourbearer said:


> How does the "mere sign" terminology fit in with 30.1 of the confession when viewed in the light of the antipaedobaptist commitment to the affinity and analogy of baptism and the Lord's supper? 30.1 appears to suggest something more than a "mere sign" viewpoint.



While baptism and the Lord's Supper are both ordinances, there is not a one-to-one correlation between the two. Baptism is administered once. The Lord's Supper is administered often; the partaking thereof requiring a continual personal examination (1 Cor. 11:28). It is also a communal ordinance, whereas baptism is administered only to the one being baptized. When 30.1 says, "The supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by him the same night wherein he was betrayed for...confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof, their spiritual nourishment, and growth in him, their further engagement in, and to all duties which they owe to him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other" it speaks to the uniqueness of this ordinance without reference to baptism or connecting the two in any way. Indeed, if the confirming aspect of the Lord's Supper was intended to be communicated in 29.1 (re: baptism), 29.1 would have been a perfect place to say so.


----------



## KMK

Herald said:


> amourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, the second sentence does not follow from the first. The confession would have to include an exclusive statement of some kind in order for an exception to be required. The mere omission of a word is no grounds for an exclusive assertion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew, it seems like a glaring omission. I mean, if the framers of the 1689 LBC had intended to convey the idea that baptism is a sign _and _seal, why would they not copy the WCF, seeing as many portions of the 1689 are verbatim quotes of the WCF? While the omission of a word does not necessarily make an exclusive statement, in the case of 29.1 it certainly does allow the exclusive assertion of baptism being a sign to stand on its own.
Click to expand...


An omission, or addition or change of a single word does not necessarily indicate a departure in essential theology. It could be a clarification of some nuance.

For example:



> WCF 11:1 Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies;[1] not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but *by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them*,[2] they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.[3]





> LBC 11:1 Those whom God effectually calls, he also freely justifies,1 not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous;2 not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone;3 not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but *by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death* for their whole and sole righteousness by faith,4 which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.5



Puritans were all agreed on the doctrine of Justification, but the Baptists decided to emphasize the active and passive parts of Christ's obedience. This in no way implies that the Westminster Divines denied the active obedience of Christ.

There may have been a controversy among Particular Baptists over whether Baptism and the Lord's Supper were means of grace or not, but it cannot be proven by a mere word change in the 1689. Are there any historical sources?


----------



## KMK

Obadiah Sedgwick also used the word 'ordinances' when discussing the means of grace.



> Fourthly, if the Spirit be given unto us to make the Ordinances effectual unto us, then his presence should not take us off from Ordinances, but the Spirit is given to make the Ordinances effectual, they are so farre life unto us, as the Spirit gives life unto them: 2 Cor 3:16. The Bowels of Mercy Sealed


----------



## Herald

KMK said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, the second sentence does not follow from the first. The confession would have to include an exclusive statement of some kind in order for an exception to be required. The mere omission of a word is no grounds for an exclusive assertion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew, it seems like a glaring omission. I mean, if the framers of the 1689 LBC had intended to convey the idea that baptism is a sign _and _seal, why would they not copy the WCF, seeing as many portions of the 1689 are verbatim quotes of the WCF? While the omission of a word does not necessarily make an exclusive statement, in the case of 29.1 it certainly does allow the exclusive assertion of baptism being a sign to stand on its own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An omission, or addition or change of a single word does not necessarily indicate a departure in essential theology. It could be a clarification of some nuance.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WCF 11:1 Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies;[1] not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but *by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them*,[2] they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.[3]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LBC 11:1 Those whom God effectually calls, he also freely justifies,1 not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous;2 not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone;3 not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but *by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death* for their whole and sole righteousness by faith,4 which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.5
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Puritans were all agreed on the doctrine of Justification, but the Baptists decided to emphasize the active and passive parts of Christ's obedience. This in no way implies that the Westminster Divines denied the active obedience of Christ.
> 
> There may have been a controversy among Particular Baptists over whether Baptism and the Lord's Supper were means of grace or not, but it cannot be proven by a mere word change in the 1689. Are there any historical sources?
Click to expand...


Ken, I wasn't questioning whether Baptists view the ordinances as a means of grace, but rather whether Baptists view baptism as a sign _and _a seal. I believe, by omitting the word "seal" from 29.1, the framers of the 1689 LBC knew full well they were making a departure from the paedobaptist view.


----------



## KMK

Herald said:


> Ken, I wasn't questioning whether Baptists view the ordinances as a means of grace, but rather whether Baptists view baptism as a sign _and _a seal. I believe, by omitting the word "seal" from 29.1, the framers of the 1689 LBC knew full well they were making a departure from the paedobaptist view.



Gotcha. That seems to be the general consensus among RBers.


----------



## Reformation Monk

I just stumbled on this thread and it is extremely interesting concerning a discussion I've been having with a long time good friend of mine who is my prayer partner. We meet regularly and he has been a Presbyterian for a long time, but he is always very openminded as to what the Scriptures say. 

So now that I've told him that my views of baptism have changed and that I'm joining a RB Church, he of course has interred into quite a lengthy dialog with me as we have been exploring the Scriptures afresh to try to discern them in this area. 

So it is extremely interesting that we as of today are now on the point of contention of who are the members of the body of Christ and exactly what does the "means of grace mean." 

He of course is citing from the WCF and I have been taking a closer look at the Baptist Confession. 

Anyway I was actually thinking a lot on this topic earlier today before I saw this thread..... pretty awesome. 

Here were some of my personal thoughts...... stemming from one of his comments towards one of my positions. 

Should the infants of believers be included in the New Covenant Community? Is the New Covenant sign of baptism offered to believers and their descendants?

As a Reformed Baptist do I withhold my children from the body of Christ, from the church until they profess belief? 

My friend of course is a little discomforted with this idea. He is pretty perplexed that I've gone in that direction through Scripture. 

Anyway, again this made me think of where exactly does the theological concept of "means of grace come from?"

I concluded that a "means of grace" is exactly what it says; any means by where regenerate truth is conveyed to an individual by the Holy Spirit. 

So I would have to conclude that a means of grace would primarily have it's focus on saving grace. But of course there is also common grace communicated. 

Anyway.... This brought me to an interesting question as I have been a Presbyterian for many years. 

Do we look at the Sacraments/Ordinances as pretty much the same as Preaching? So in other words; do we look at the Church as a whole a vehicle through it's whole organic make up as a means of grace whereby it's members ( who can be either regenerate or unregenerate ) are consistently being offered saving truth?

Yeah I know that probably didn't make much sense. 

I guess what I was trying to get at is that I believe that the Paedo's do have a pretty good reason if they put a strong emphasis in the Sacraments/Ordinances as being a continual means of saving grace to the visible church who is made up of both regenerate and unregenerate members. Visible and invisible church. 

So, whereby, a child who starts to enter into an age of reason and starts to think about what it meant for them as an infant to be baptized; this becomes a means of grace for them, because it still communicates saving truth. 


But............ 

The only problem with this whole theory is that for me personally, the New Testament describes baptism for believers in where it represents dying with Christ and being raised up with him in newness of life. 

A child looking back on a baptism given to them while they were in a state of non-understanding, to me, can not apply this type of meaning to them. 

Which brings me back to the question of how effectual are baptism and the Lords supper as a means of saving grace compared to the proclamation of the word?

I know that I'm all over.... just sharing my thoughts..... please correct me where I've totally slaughtered sound doctrine.


----------



## KMK

Reformation Monk said:


> Which brings me back to the question of how effectual are baptism and the Lords supper as a means of saving grace compared to the proclamation of the word?



Dr. Jim Renihan makes an excellent point in the lecture linked before in regards to an important semicolon.



> LBC 14:1 The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts,1 and *is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word;*2 by which also, and by the administration of baptism and the Lord's supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God, it is increased and strengthened.



The presence of the semicolon, instead of a comma, after "ministry of the Word", demonstrates that the Particualr Baptists considered the ministry of the Word to be the primary means of grace and all others secondary. And, indeed, that is the teaching of Scripture.



> Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.



In fact, all other means of grace, including the sacraments, are useless without the Word. The Lord's Supper has no meaning without the words, "This is my body...", for example.


----------



## MW

Herald said:


> While the omission of a word does not necessarily make an exclusive statement, in the case of 29.1 it certainly does allow the exclusive assertion of baptism being a sign to stand on its own.



This only means that a subscriber can deny that it is a seal and still be confessional. The omission does not exclude the sealing idea to the point that the subscriber would need to issue an exception.



Herald said:


> Indeed, if the confirming aspect of the Lord's Supper was intended to be communicated in 29.1 (re: baptism), 29.1 would have been a perfect place to say so.



This is "filling in the gaps" rather than "expounding the doctrine." On the basis of comparison between the chapters numerous claims could be made which were never intended by the authors.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Reformation Monk said:


> Here were some of my personal thoughts...... stemming from one of his comments towards one of my positions...
> 
> Anyway, again this made me think of where exactly does the theological concept of "means of grace come from?"
> 
> I concluded that a "means of grace" is exactly what it says; any means by where regenerate truth is conveyed to an individual by the Holy Spirit.
> 
> So I would have to conclude that a means of grace would primarily have it's focus on saving grace. But of course there is also common grace communicated.
> 
> Anyway.... This brought me to an interesting question as I have been a Presbyterian for many years.
> 
> Do we look at the Sacraments/Ordinances as pretty much the same as Preaching? So in other words; do we look at the Church as a whole a vehicle through it's whole organic make up as a means of grace whereby it's members ( who can be either regenerate or unregenerate ) are consistently being offered saving truth?
> 
> Yeah I know that probably didn't make much sense.
> 
> I guess what I was trying to get at is that I believe that the Paedo's do have a pretty good reason if they put a strong emphasis in the Sacraments/Ordinances as being a continual means of saving grace to the visible church who is made up of both regenerate and unregenerate members. Visible and invisible church.
> 
> So, whereby, a child who starts to enter into an age of reason and starts to think about what it meant for them as an infant to be baptized; this becomes a means of grace for them, because it still communicates saving truth.



You have a poor understanding of what a "means of grace" is and, consequently, the relationship of a sacrament to the spiritual reality it is intended to signify and seal. What you believe you are rejecting in the WCF's view of grace bears no relationship to the way the Bible or the WCF understands it. You are speaking of grace as some sort of substance in your description above. What you've "walked away" from is not the WCF but your own misunderstanding of what the WCF confesses.

I exhorted on John 6 last Sunday: http://www.hopeofchrist.net/2011/07/the-living-bread-from-heaven-john-6/

Interestingly enough, the problem with the blindness of the Jews is that every time Christ tries to draw a "sacramental" relationship between bread or manna and His own person, the carnal mind keeps getting fixated on the bare sign. Bread is bread. manna is manna. Bodies are bodies. John 6 is a textbook case where Truth is being communicated via the sign, the sign is even being explained, but the audience (being carnal) misses the whole point. It does not, however, change the facts of the case as Christ has revealed them. To some, who are given spiritual perception, the reality of the event is communicated. Unless a man be drawn by the Father, the sign falls on blind eyes. What is intended to lift one's spiritual apprehension to the provision of Christ remains a mere carnal object. Bread is bread or it is just a "bare sign". God cannot seal anything spiritually to such a person because it has not been given.

I would also point out that, by your reasoning, nothing that was signified by God in John 6 was of any spiritual value to John in his recollection of the event (even though it appears that not even he understood these things at the time they occurred as with many of Christ's signs). Furthermore, because it happened in the past, nothing that Christ did can have any spiritual value for us. Christ would have to perform all of His historical work in the present (after we've been regenerated) for any sign to have spiritual benefit to us. If the standard is that all that God signifies and seals has to be present historically to our mature minds then even the Cross of Christ and His Resurrection bear no spiritual significance unless they be re-presented to our mature minds and not merely by believing upon what God accomplished historically and finally.


----------



## ac7k

Ok, I am just a layman... new to reformed circles... and not sure how elementary or advanced of a discussion this is, but here are my thoughts.

I was always taught as a Baptist, that the word Sacrament meant that it conveyed grace... whereas an ordinance is an outward expression of the grace that has already been attained.

I usually would use the analogy of the wedding band. The wedding band symbolizes my commitment to my wife, but in out itself, is not my commitment to my wife.

I always thought that Christ was our "means of grace" and anything in addition to his work on the cross, was works on our part towards salvation.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

ac7k said:


> Ok, I am just a layman... new to reformed circles... and not sure how elementary or advanced of a discussion this is, but here are my thoughts.
> 
> I was always taught as a Baptist, that the word Sacrament meant that it conveyed grace...



You were taught poorly by whoever taught this. A word is defined by its use.

A Roman Catholic use of sacrament is the idea of "conveying" or infusing grace through the working of a work. Grace is a substance in such a schema.

The WCF presents the sacraments as follows:



> CHAPTER XXVII.
> 
> Of the Sacraments.
> 
> I. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him: as also to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word.
> 
> II. There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.
> 
> III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.
> 
> IV. There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the gospels, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord: neither or which may be dispensed by any but a minister of the Word, lawfully ordained.
> 
> V. The sacraments of the Old Testament, in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the New.



I. notes that sacraments, in the spiritual sense, represent Christ and his benefits and our interest in him. This is how one needs to understand the idea of "grace". Not that some sort of substance is conveyed but that Christ and his benefits and our interest in Him are given us through physical means.

III. further notes that _nothing_ is conferred simply by the working of the works but that the sealing of Christ and his benefits and our interest in Him are the sovereign work of the spirit.

As above, John 6 is a perfect example where God does something "signficant" to raise our eyes from the sign to something spiritual He is confirming in and through it but it is of no profit to the mind of flesh.

Hence, on the one hand it is incorrect to say that the definition of a sacrament is that "grace is conveyed" because there's nothing magical about a sacrament that calls God down to the altar that He may do our bidding and give us grace. On the other hand, we are weak and God has been pleased to instituted visible signs of His grace such that there's much more going on in a Sacrament then our minds remembering something Christ did in the past. Through God's spirit, God raises our spiritual senses through our physical senses such that the eating of bread and drinking of wine or the washing of the body communicates something to our spiritual senses right now and is not merely an exercise in our mental recollection.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> This only means that a subscriber can deny that it is a seal and still be confessional. The omission does not exclude the sealing idea to the point that the subscriber would need to issue an exception.



What you're missing in all of this is viewing the confession in light of historic Particular Baptist belief and practice. In his _A Treatise on Church Order_, John L. Dagg wrote the following in his refutation on infant baptism, "But the *supposed seal *of God's covenant is neither in his flesh, nor in his memory, and his conscience has no Scriptural release from the personal obligation of a baptismal profession." Dagg was not arguing that baptism was a seal _only _if administered upon profession; he was disputing the paedobaptist view of the physical ordinance as seal. Dagg held to the orthodox Baptist belief that the seal of God is by the Spirit at regeneration. Now, there may be some Particular or Reformed Baptist over the years who has taught that baptism is sign and seal, but I am not aware of them, and I firmly convinced they are in a distinct enough minority to be considered fringe. However, even leaving historic Particular/Reformed Baptist belief and practice aside, the confession is not ambiguous on baptism being a sign only.


----------



## Reformation Monk

Semper Fidelis said:


> Hence, on the one hand it is incorrect to say that the definition of a sacrament is that "grace is conveyed" because there's nothing magical about a sacrament that calls God down to the altar that He may do our bidding and give us grace. On the other hand, we are weak and God has been pleased to instituted visible signs of His grace such that there's much more going on in a Sacrament then our minds remembering something Christ did in the past. Through God's spirit, God raises our spiritual senses through our physical senses such that the eating of bread and drinking of wine or the washing of the body communicates something to our spiritual senses right now and is not merely an exercise in our mental recollection.



Which is where I believe there is a difference of opinion between the WCF adherents and RB's. 

Which was the intent of the OP I thought; which is also why he expressed that he wanted to try to keep this within the RB community. 

I don't personally agree with your definition of the sacraments and I certainly don't believe that the "means of grace" is some kind of "substance." 

In Acts 2, the people who "heard" Peter had their hearts "pricked" or quickened. This was the Holy Spirit working super naturally through normal natural means. 

This is how I see the Ordinances of God as in their function.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Reformation Monk said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hence, on the one hand it is incorrect to say that the definition of a sacrament is that "grace is conveyed" because there's nothing magical about a sacrament that calls God down to the altar that He may do our bidding and give us grace. On the other hand, we are weak and God has been pleased to instituted visible signs of His grace such that there's much more going on in a Sacrament then our minds remembering something Christ did in the past. Through God's spirit, God raises our spiritual senses through our physical senses such that the eating of bread and drinking of wine or the washing of the body communicates something to our spiritual senses right now and is not merely an exercise in our mental recollection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is where I believe there is a difference of opinion between the WCF adherents and RB's.
> 
> Which was the intent of the OP I thought; which is also why he expressed that he wanted to try to keep this within the RB community.
> 
> I don't personally agree with your definition of the sacraments and I certainly don't believe that the "means of grace" is some kind of "substance."
> 
> In Acts 2, the people who "heard" Peter had their hearts "pricked" or quickened. This was the Holy Spirit working super naturally through normal natural means.
> 
> This is how I see the Ordinances of God as in their function.
Click to expand...


My point is that your description of the Reformed PB view of the Sacraments was very poor. Thus, it is hard for me to accept that you disagree with something you do not understand well enough to accurately describe.

For example, James White on Thursday's Dividing Line was playing a Calvary Chapel pastor who grossly misrepresented the Reformed view of soteriology. The man stated that he disagreed with the Reformed view but never demonstrated with his words that he had even apprehended what the Reformed confess concerning such matters.

BTW, this is in the Baptism forum and I am free to respond to misunderstandings posted by any party.


----------



## MW

Herald said:


> What you're missing in all of this is viewing the confession in light of historic Particular Baptist belief and practice. In his _A Treatise on Church Order_, John L. Dagg wrote the following in his refutation on infant baptism, "But the *supposed seal *of God's covenant is neither in his flesh, nor in his memory, and his conscience has no Scriptural release from the personal obligation of a baptismal profession." Dagg was not arguing that baptism was a seal _only _if administered upon profession; he was disputing the paedobaptist view of the physical ordinance as seal. Dagg held to the orthodox Baptist belief that the seal of God is by the Spirit at regeneration. Now, there may be some Particular or Reformed Baptist over the years who has taught that baptism is sign and seal, but I am not aware of them, and I firmly convinced they are in a distinct enough minority to be considered fringe. However, even leaving historic Particular/Reformed Baptist belief and practice aside, the confession is not ambiguous on baptism being a sign only.



We were in fact examining the confession itself, not its interpretation in Particular Baptist history. To return to the point of discussion -- "sign only" is your gloss on the confession. The addition of "only" adds exclusivity to the statement of the confession. To then require a subscriber to note an exception to the confession because he does not hold to the sign only concept is to bind a man's conscience to your extra-confessional gloss.


----------



## Herald

Matthew, the confession does not stand by itself. It was written for this very purpose:



> (to)...recommend to their perusal the confession of our faith, which confession we own, as containing the doctrine of our faith and practice...



Obviously there was a common doctrine held to by Particular Baptists _before _the confession was written. It certainly continued _after _the confession was written. The confession does not exist in a vacuum. I believe most Particular Baptists have rightly esteemed it since its ratification and publication in the matter of baptism and all that pertains to that specific ordinance. It would strain credulity indeed, if so many Particular Baptists, over five centuries, have bound their consciences in viewing baptism as a sign only of the thing signified. 

You would accuse us of "gloss" because the preponderance of Baptists are convinced the omission of baptism as a seal indicates exactly that. That the overwhelming majority of Particular Baptists have held to the sign-only view either renders the confession mute on the topic or confirms their understanding of it. Were you a Baptist, I suppose the additional proofs I am able to provide may hold sway with you. As it is you're not. I'll leave it at that.


----------



## MW

Herald said:


> Were you a Baptist, I suppose the additional proofs I am able to provide may hold sway with you. As it is you're not. I'll leave it at that.


 
So you are saying, It takes one to know one. If so, it is historical theology at its worst.


----------



## steadfast7

I'm trying to step back and look at this in macro. It seems to me the differences lie in how specifically the Baptist and paedobaptist are able to name the relationship between the sign and the thing signified. Paedobaptists are able to be more general and bold about the assertion that baptism is both sign and seal because they do not seek to correspond the sacrament with particular individuals receiving them as elect. Baptists are more concerned to make the right correspondence (while allowing for some error), so seal (authentication) is left out. Would that sound right?


----------



## Herald

steadfast7 said:


> I'm trying to step back and look at this in macro. It seems to me the differences lie in how specifically the Baptist and paedobaptist are able to name the relationship between the sign and the thing signified. Paedobaptists are able to be more general and bold about the assertion that baptism is both sign and seal because they do not seek to correspond the sacrament with particular individuals receiving them as elect. Baptists are more concerned to make the right correspondence (while allowing for some error), so seal (authentication) is left out. Would that sound right?



Dennis, actually the reason why Baptists view baptism as a sign is because the sealing work of God's covenant is accomplished by the Holy Spirit at the point of regeneration.



> Ephesians 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-- having also believed, you were _*sealed *_in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,



So, the seal comes first, through the agency of the Spirit, then comes baptism which is a sign of that seal.


----------



## Grimmson

Herald said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to step back and look at this in macro. It seems to me the differences lie in how specifically the Baptist and paedobaptist are able to name the relationship between the sign and the thing signified. Paedobaptists are able to be more general and bold about the assertion that baptism is both sign and seal because they do not seek to correspond the sacrament with particular individuals receiving them as elect. Baptists are more concerned to make the right correspondence (while allowing for some error), so seal (authentication) is left out. Would that sound right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dennis, actually the reason why Baptists view baptism as a sign is because the sealing work of God's covenant is accomplished by the Holy Spirit at the point of regeneration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ephesians 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-- having also believed, you were _*sealed *_in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, the seal comes first, through the agency of the Spirit, then comes baptism which is a sign of that seal.
Click to expand...


Yep, That exactly our position.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were you a Baptist, I suppose the additional proofs I am able to provide may hold sway with you. As it is you're not. I'll leave it at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying, It takes one to know one. If so, it is historical theology at its worst.
Click to expand...


No, Matthew. I'm making the point that you are so locked in your opinion of what Reformed and Particular Baptists believe about their own confession that it makes me question your motives. Is it historical theology to cite such men as Benjamin Keach and William Kiffin, both signatories to the 1689 LBC, as being on record that baptism is a sign only of the thing signified? Those are some of the additional proofs I am able to provide. The 1689 LBC is not a republication of the WCF. There are notable differences between the two confessions and those differences exist for a reason. The framers of the 1689 held to baptism being a sign only. Why then would they leave it intentionally ambiguous so as to allow subscribers to differ with a core and defining Baptist doctrine? Answer: it was not left ambiguous. The omission of baptism being a seal in 29.1 was purposeful.


----------



## KMK

John Gill on Rom 4:11 sums up the RB perspective on baptism as a 'seal'.



> It may be inquired whether circumcision being called a seal, will prove that baptism is a seal of the covenant? I answer, that circumcision was only a seal to Abraham of a peculiar covenant made with him, and of a particular promise made to him, and was it to be admitted a seal of the covenant of grace, it will not prove baptism to be such; since, as has been observed, baptism does not succeed it in place, in time, and use; and could this be allowed that it succeeds it, and is a seal of the righteousness of faith, as that was, it can only be a seal to them that have both faith and righteousness, and not to them that have neither; it would only at most be a seal to believers. But, alas! not ordinances, but other things more valuable than they, are the seals of the covenant, and of believers; the blood of Christ is the seal, and the only seal of the covenant of grace, by which its promises and blessings are ratified and confirmed; and the Holy Spirit is the only earnest, pledge, seal, and sealer of the saints, until the day of redemption. The apostle uses the word "seal" concerning circumcision, it being a word his countrymen made use of when they spoke of it, thus paraphrasing on So 3:8...



I have never read any of the Particular Baptists contradict Gill on this point.


----------



## KMK

Thomas Helwys:



> Furthermore, you frame your consequence with these words as infants were sealed with the seal of he covenant under the law, so they must be sealed with the seal of the covenant under the gospel. We demand of you, is washing with water a seal? If it is a seal, it is a seal in the flesh. Where then is the print or impression of it? It has none, therefore, it cannot be a seal...If you will examine the New Testament throughout, you will find no seal, nor none sealed, but those that believe, "who are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise," (Eph 1:13) by which in the Holy SPirit "we are all baptized into one body" (1 Cor 12:13). There is but "one spirit, one baptism, and one body," (Eph 4:4,5) whose holy seal of the spirit infants cannot have. The life and Writings of Thomas Helwys; Early, Early; pg. 282


----------



## KMK

Dagg:



> The theory is, that baptism takes the place of circumcision; but how can this theory annul the express command of God? We need authority for changing the form of the seal, as great, and as express, as that by which the original form was institute; but we look for it in cain in the Holy Scriptures. Instead of finding an express precept for changing the form, or an express declaration that it has been changed, we find decisive proof, that the inspired apostles did not understand baptism to be a new form of the old seal. They discussed the question, whether gentile converts ought to be circumcised, and they decided in the negative; but they did not so decide, on the ground that baptism had taken the place of circumcision, and rendered the continued use of the old form unnecessary. Manual of Theology; Vol 1; pg. 192



Reformed Baptists do not agree with Westminster that baptism is a 'seal' of the NC. However, generally, Reformed Baptists do agree with Westminster that baptism is a 'means of grace' and a 'sacrament'.


----------



## MW

Herald said:


> No, Matthew. I'm making the point that you are so locked in your opinion of what Reformed and Particular Baptists believe about their own confession that it makes me question your motives. Is it historical theology to cite such men as Benjamin Keach and William Kiffin, both signatories to the 1689 LBC, as being on record that baptism is a sign only of the thing signified? Those are some of the additional proofs I am able to provide. The 1689 LBC is not a republication of the WCF. There are notable differences between the two confessions and those differences exist for a reason. The framers of the 1689 held to baptism being a sign only. Why then would they leave it intentionally ambiguous so as to allow subscribers to differ with a core and defining Baptist doctrine? Answer: it was not left ambiguous. The omission of baptism being a seal in 29.1 was purposeful.



Bill, I haven't offered an opinion on "their own confession." The point I have made in this thread with respect to "your own confession" is that the requirement of an exception is not warranted by the confession itself. It is your gloss. Should you demonstrate from extra-confessional sources that this gloss is shared by particular baptists then you will have shown that this is an extra-confessional gloss -- that is all.

I dislike your method of "owning the confession" to the point that it excludes impartial interpretation from those who do not "own the confession." One main purpose of a confession is full disclosure of beliefs. The idea that some hidden hand shake is needed in order to understand it is simply cultish. This is an historical document and should be interpreted accordingly. As such it is an item of public domain.

As noted earlier, if the omission is purposeful, one must still explain the actual purpose before leaping to a specific conclusion.

I think you might need to go back and rethink your strategy with respect to the "seal" argument. You seem to think that the "Spirit-seal" is exclusive to particular baptists. Some research on the matter would reveal that this is the Reformed teaching. See WCF 12.1, "sealed to the day of redemption." The sacramental seal is of an entirely different nature. There is no justification for setting the two in exclusive contrast.


----------



## MW

KMK said:


> John Gill on Rom 4:11 sums up the RB perspective on baptism as a 'seal'.



I think the appendix to the confession would be more to the point, but it clarifies the subject by quoting a paedobaptist member of the Westminster Assembly on the subject, thereby demonstrating that the difference doesn't lie in the interpretation of Romans 4:11.

The appendix also states,



> If our brethren do suppose baptism to be the seal of the Covenant which God makes with every believer (of which the Scriptures are altogether silent) it is not our concern to contend with them herein; yet we conceive the seal of that Covenant is the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ in the particular and individual persons in whom he resides, and nothing else, *neither do they or we suppose that baptism is in any such manner substituted in the place of circumcision*, *as to have the same* (and no other) *latitude*, *extent*, *or terms*, then circumcision had.



The appendix also appears to be extra-confessional but it demonstrates that at least some of the first subscribers did not understand the disagreement in the way it is being presented in this thread.


----------



## KMK

armourbearer said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Gill on Rom 4:11 sums up the RB perspective on baptism as a 'seal'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the appendix to the confession would be more to the point, but it clarifies the subject by quoting a paedobaptist member of the Westminster Assembly on the subject, thereby demonstrating that the difference doesn't lie in the interpretation of Romans 4:11.
> 
> The appendix also states,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If our brethren do suppose baptism to be the seal of the Covenant which God makes with every believer (of which the Scriptures are altogether silent) it is not our concern to contend with them herein; yet we conceive the seal of that Covenant is the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ in the particular and individual persons in whom he resides, and nothing else, *neither do they or we suppose that baptism is in any such manner substituted in the place of circumcision*, *as to have the same* (and no other) *latitude*, *extent*, *or terms*, then circumcision had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The appendix also appears to be extra-confessional but it demonstrates that at least some of the first subscribers did not understand the disagreement in the way it is being presented in this thread.
Click to expand...


Thanks for this, Rev Winzer. It is not my concern to contend with my paedo brothers upon something that is not truly a controversy.

BTW, what is the origin of the appendix to the 1689?


----------



## KMK

And now from the "Just When You Thought You Had It Figured Out" Department, here is a quote by M'Crie that Rev Winzer posted on an older thread found here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f122/baptism-sign-seal-new-covenant-36625/



> Be pleased, then, to mark the sense in which we understand the word seal as applied to baptism. The term is used in three senses in Scripture. The first is in the sense of security, as when a person seals a letter. "The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his." (2 Tim. ii. 19.) The second is in the sense of distinction, as when a merchant puts his seal on his goods to appropriate and distinguish them. "In whom after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise." (Eph. i. 13.) *The third is in the sense of confirmation, as when a seal is affixed to a charter or bargain.* "And because of all this we make a sure covenant, and write it; and our princes, Levites, and priests, seal unto it." (Neh. ix. 38.)
> 
> Now, in applying the term seal to the ordinance of baptism, it is not either in the first or second senses here noticed that we are to understand it. It is not used in the sense of securing the person, or of distinguishing him from others. Baptism is not an assurance of salvation to any, or a pledge of sonship. In this sense it is the Spirit alone that is the seal of God's people.* It is in the third sense only, namely, in that of the confirmation of a deed, that we use the term in relation to baptism.* It is the seal which God has been pleased to append to the charter of his covenant. It is not like the signet which Pharaoh put on the hand of Joseph as a badge of distinction, or like the ring put on the hand of the penitent prodigal in token of acceptance; it is rather like the signet by which King Ahasuerus sealed the letters which saved the Jews from destruction.
> 
> Thus, while baptism viewed as a symbol has a relation to the grace of the covenant, viewed as a seal it stands related to the covenant itself. We must carefully distinguish between the grace of the covenant, and the covenant of grace. Baptism is the sign, but it is not, properly or directly, the seal of regeneration; it symbolizes the blessing, but it seals the covenant. *By keeping this distinction in view, you will save yourselves from a world of confusion. By not attending to it our views have been sadly misrepresented.* The distinction is very obvious. As a symbol, the ordinance addresses itself to the senses; as a seal, it appeals to faith. As a symbol, it is a badge of distinction from the world; as a seal, it stands related, not to the person, but to the covenant. A seal implies something spoken or written; and the design of baptism as a seal, is to confirm the faith of the Church in God's written Word, in his everlasting covenant with her. It is the visible pledge added to the verbal promise. *And where is the inconsistency of supposing that God may ratify his word by an outward symbol? *Has he not "confirmed his promise by an oath, that by two immutable things, wherein it was impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation?" And why not also confirm it by a seal? All bonds and covenants are thus confirmed, and God never made a covenant yet without a seal. The tree of life was the seal of Adam's covenant, the rainbow was the seal of Noah's, circumcision was the seal of Abraham's, and baptism is the seal of Christ's.
> 
> In accordance, therefore, with the very design of a sacrament, as well as with the uniform doctrine of the primitive church and of our reformers, we maintain that baptism is not merely a symbol of spiritual grace, but is the seal of God's holy covenant. And *remember it is God's seal. It is not the baptizer's, nor the baptized's, but God's only.* Its validity is independent of man's act. God delivers the promise signed and sealed, presenting it to all, and saying, "Here is my salvation: behold the seal of the King!" And there it stands, sealed and sure, whether we accept or reject it. "If we believe not, he abideth faithful; he cannot deny himself."



BTW, M'Crie's Lectures in their entirety are available here: http://books.google.com/books?id=u8...&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false


----------



## Herald

Ken, Thomas M'Crie was a Presbyterian, no?


----------



## KMK

Yes, a Scottish one. I think he is correct when he advises paedobaptists "By keeping this distinction in view, you will save yourselves from a world of confusion. By not attending to it our views have been sadly misrepresented." There is a great deal of nuance involved.


----------



## Herald

KMK said:


> Yes, a Scottish one. I think he is correct when he advises paedobaptists "By keeping this distinction in view, you will save yourselves from a world of confusion. By not attending to it our views have been sadly misrepresented." There is a great deal of nuance involved.



Certainly a sound and sobering admonition for Presbyterians; however he doesn't speak to Baptists as to the sign and seal. While I appreciate M'Crie's detailed explanation on the sealing aspect of baptism, I still find myself with a material disagreement as to his conclusions, as did the vast majority of Baptists during his time.


----------



## KMK

Herald said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, a Scottish one. I think he is correct when he advises paedobaptists "By keeping this distinction in view, you will save yourselves from a world of confusion. By not attending to it our views have been sadly misrepresented." There is a great deal of nuance involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly a sound and sobering admonition for Presbyterians; however he doesn't speak to Baptists as to the sign and seal. While I appreciate M'Crie's detailed explanation on the sealing aspect of baptism, I still find myself with a material disagreement as to his conclusions, as did the vast majority of Baptists during his time.
Click to expand...


That may be true, but he helps to clarify the disagreement.

Paedos and credos agree that it is the Holy Spirit alone that 'secures' an individual in the NC.
Paedos and credos agree that it is the Holy Spirit alone that 'distinguishes' an individual in the NC from those who are without.

The disagreement lies in whether water baptism confirms the faith of the church in the NC.


----------



## Herald

KMK said:


> Paedos and credos agree that it is the Holy Spirit alone that 'secures' an individual in the NC.
> Paedos and credos agree that it is the Holy Spirit alone that 'distinguishes' an individual in the NC from those who are without.



Ken,

I do not believe there is any disagreement between the camps on the role of the Holy Spirit in securing/distinguishing the members of the New Covenant. There is a systemic disagreement on whether the Holy Spirit plays a role in securing/distinguishing _unbelievers _within the New Covenant; that is why Baptists do not baptize infants. Those whom the Holy Spirit secures (or more properly "seals"; Eph. 1:13) are permanent members of the New Covenant.


----------



## KMK

Herald said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paedos and credos agree that it is the Holy Spirit alone that 'secures' an individual in the NC.
> Paedos and credos agree that it is the Holy Spirit alone that 'distinguishes' an individual in the NC from those who are without.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ken,
> 
> I do not believe there is any disagreement between the camps on the role of the Holy Spirit in securing/distinguishing the members of the New Covenant. *There is a systemic disagreement on whether the Holy Spirit plays a role in securing/distinguishing unbelievers within the New Covenant;* that is why Baptists do not baptize infants. Those whom the Holy Spirit secures (or more properly "seals"; Eph. 1:13) are permanent members of the New Covenant.
Click to expand...


Are you saying paedos believe the "Holy Spirit plays a role in securing/distinguishing unbelievers within the NC"?


----------



## MW

KMK said:


> Yes, a Scottish one. I think he is correct when he advises paedobaptists "By keeping this distinction in view, you will save yourselves from a world of confusion. By not attending to it our views have been sadly misrepresented." There is a great deal of nuance involved.



Thankyou, Pastor Klein. With you, I think the nuance must be understood from the antipaedobaptist side as well. Afterall, the discussion has been raised because the London Confession omits the word "seal" in its revision of a paedobaptist Confession. Before anything substantive could be based upon that omission it is imperative to understand what was meant by "seal" in the first place.


----------



## MW

armourbearer said:


> Should you demonstrate from extra-confessional sources that this gloss is shared by particular baptists then you will have shown that this is an extra-confessional gloss -- that is all.



It was suggested to me in a private message that a parallel with the Westminster Confession might prove helpful for demonstrating the above point. There are numerous examples in the Presbyterian tradition where intra-mural discussion has come to acknowledge the limitations of the Confession and has accepted that the inferences being drawn from it are extra-confessional. The prime example is the 1647 Adopting Act of the Church of Scotland with relation to the civil magistrate having the power to call synods. Is this power lawful in the case of a settled or unsettled church? The Confession does not specify. The General Assembly expressed its mind that the Confession was to be regarded as speaking of an unsettled church and that ordinarily the church has the power to convene at its own discretion. This example has been raised in relation to numerous discussions to show the prudence of distinguishing between the confession and its adoption/adaptation in the confessing tradition.


----------



## Herald

KMK said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paedos and credos agree that it is the Holy Spirit alone that 'secures' an individual in the NC.
> Paedos and credos agree that it is the Holy Spirit alone that 'distinguishes' an individual in the NC from those who are without.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ken,
> 
> I do not believe there is any disagreement between the camps on the role of the Holy Spirit in securing/distinguishing the members of the New Covenant. *There is a systemic disagreement on whether the Holy Spirit plays a role in securing/distinguishing unbelievers within the New Covenant;* that is why Baptists do not baptize infants. Those whom the Holy Spirit secures (or more properly "seals"; Eph. 1:13) are permanent members of the New Covenant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying paedos believe the "Holy Spirit plays a role in securing/distinguishing unbelievers within the NC"?
Click to expand...


I'm saying that paedos believe their children are members of the New Covenant community; hence members of the New Covenant. If I have that wrong I welcome a correction by my paedo brethren. I do not want to intentionally misrepresent them. If their baptized children are members of the New Covenant is that or is that not a work of the Holy Spirit?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Herald said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paedos and credos agree that it is the Holy Spirit alone that 'secures' an individual in the NC.
> Paedos and credos agree that it is the Holy Spirit alone that 'distinguishes' an individual in the NC from those who are without.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ken,
> 
> I do not believe there is any disagreement between the camps on the role of the Holy Spirit in securing/distinguishing the members of the New Covenant. *There is a systemic disagreement on whether the Holy Spirit plays a role in securing/distinguishing unbelievers within the New Covenant;* that is why Baptists do not baptize infants. Those whom the Holy Spirit secures (or more properly "seals"; Eph. 1:13) are permanent members of the New Covenant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying paedos believe the "Holy Spirit plays a role in securing/distinguishing unbelievers within the NC"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying that paedos believe their children are members of the New Covenant community; hence members of the New Covenant. If I have that wrong I welcome a correction by my paedo brethren. I do not want to intentionally misrepresent them. If their baptized children are members of the New Covenant is that or is that not a work of the Holy Spirit?
Click to expand...


Bill,

You're failing to distinguish the senses in which Baptism is spoken of in the WCF:


> 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, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Churchy until the end of the world.
> 
> ...
> 
> 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 belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.


Note the qualifier in paragraph 6 that the "...grace promised is...conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such...as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will."

In other words, while Baptism _signifies_ the graces that are promised in the Sacrament, it does not confer them. The relationship to the Spirit is that He sovereignly confers them upon the elect. If by "in the New Covenant" a person insists that baptism confers the benefits it signifies then not even the WCF confesses such a thing. The sense that Presbyterians believe all baptized members are in the New Covenant is their separation from the world and participation in the visible Kingdom. Whether or not a baptized member enjoys the spiritual graces signified by that Covenant depends upon the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Herald

Rich, thank you for the explanation. I did not want to misstate the paedo position.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Matthew. I'm making the point that you are so locked in your opinion of what Reformed and Particular Baptists believe about their own confession that it makes me question your motives. Is it historical theology to cite such men as Benjamin Keach and William Kiffin, both signatories to the 1689 LBC, as being on record that baptism is a sign only of the thing signified? Those are some of the additional proofs I am able to provide. The 1689 LBC is not a republication of the WCF. There are notable differences between the two confessions and those differences exist for a reason. The framers of the 1689 held to baptism being a sign only. Why then would they leave it intentionally ambiguous so as to allow subscribers to differ with a core and defining Baptist doctrine? Answer: it was not left ambiguous. The omission of baptism being a seal in 29.1 was purposeful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, I haven't offered an opinion on "their own confession." The point I have made in this thread with respect to "your own confession" is that the requirement of an exception is not warranted by the confession itself. It is your gloss. Should you demonstrate from extra-confessional sources that this gloss is shared by particular baptists then you will have shown that this is an extra-confessional gloss -- that is all.
> 
> I dislike your method of "owning the confession" to the point that it excludes impartial interpretation from those who do not "own the confession." One main purpose of a confession is full disclosure of beliefs. The idea that some hidden hand shake is needed in order to understand it is simply cultish. This is an historical document and should be interpreted accordingly. As such it is an item of public domain.
> 
> As noted earlier, if the omission is purposeful, one must still explain the actual purpose before leaping to a specific conclusion.
> 
> I think you might need to go back and rethink your strategy with respect to the "seal" argument. You seem to think that the "Spirit-seal" is exclusive to particular baptists. Some research on the matter would reveal that this is the Reformed teaching. See WCF 12.1, "sealed to the day of redemption." The sacramental seal is of an entirely different nature. There is no justification for setting the two in exclusive contrast.
Click to expand...


Matthew, regardless of the vigor our discussion has exhibited I always appreciate our interaction. My point is not to state the paedo position but to explain the Baptist position. I appreciate your suggestion to research the "Spirit-seal" issue. I have done so from the Baptist perspective and remain unconvinced that the omission of "seal" from 29.1 was accidental or, worse yet, a sign of ambivalence. The Baptists from history that have been quoted here (as well as many others that time and energy have prevented me from listing) would see a connection between the Spirit-seal (Eph. 1:13) and the sacramental seal only to the degree that the latter is not represented in baptism. At this point I am content to let the conversation rest on the points that have already been shared. As always, thank you for challenging me.


----------



## Grimmson

Even the Anglican Antipaedobaptist John Tombes had issue with associating sealing language with the sacrament of baptism, he writes in _A Short Catechism about Baptism _(1659):



> Quest. 24 Did Circumcision seal the Gospel Covenant? Rom. 4.11
> 
> Answ. That text speaks not of any Circumcision but Abrahams, which sealed the righteousness to all, though uncircumcised, who should believe as he did.
> 
> Quest. 25. Are not the Sacraments of the Christian Church in their nature, Seals of the Covenant of Grace?
> 
> Answ. The Scripture doth nowhere so call them, nor doth it mention this as their end or use.



Furthermore, according to Mike Renihan, Tombes never left the Church of England. Tombes’ work on baptism parallels Particular Baptist thought during that period and later on with the subscribers on the 2nd London Baptist Confession. Tombes died on May 26 1676, therefore placed before the writing of the second London.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Grimmson said:


> Even the Anglican Antipaedobaptist John Tombes had issue with associating sealing language with the sacrament of baptism, he writes in _A Short Catechism about Baptism _(1659):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quest. 24 Did Circumcision seal the Gospel Covenant? Rom. 4.11
> 
> Answ. That text speaks not of any Circumcision but Abrahams, which sealed the righteousness to all, though uncircumcised, who should believe as he did.
> 
> Quest. 25. Are not the Sacraments of the Christian Church in their nature, Seals of the Covenant of Grace?
> 
> Answ. The Scripture doth nowhere so call them, nor doth it mention this as their end or use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, according to Mike Renihan, Tombes never left the Church of England. Tombes’ work on baptism parallels Particular Baptist thought during that period and later on with the subscribers on the 2nd London Baptist Confession. Tombes died on May 26 1676, therefore placed before the writing of the second London.
Click to expand...


Tombes suffered from the same misunderstanding spoken of above. I find his answers quite facile.


----------



## KMK

I just ran across this for those who were interested in this thread.

Philip E. Johnson, of Chowan College:



> We turn now to discuss the ways in which the early Baptists believed God, particularaly the Second and Third Persons of the Holy Trinity, works in and through the life of the Church...Early Baptists called these means of God's grace "ordinance" in a sense larger than that usually intended by contemporary Baptists...
> 
> The sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper were also among God's ordinances. A word of clarification is in order here. Given the (presumed to be historical) non- or anti-sacramentalist view of many contemporary Baptists in America, the early Baptists' use of the word "sacrament" may cause some consternation. It may be tempting to argue that they called baptism and the Supper "sacraments" because that was the linguistic convention of their day. Early Baptists meant by "sacrament," however, what contemporary Baptists mean by "ordinance."
> 
> This argument, as tempting as it may be, would simply be wrong. The early Baptists were careful in their terminology. As we noted above, they numbered several ordinances of ecclesial life by which God works for salvation. Two of these were sacraments. In Keach's catechism, 'The Child's Delight', the question was asked, "what are those gospel Ordinancs called Sacraments which do confirm us in this Faith?" This shows a precision not commonly acknowledged. Not only did they employ carefully a sacramental terminology, early Baptists held a sacramental understanding of the two rites...
> 
> ...Most basically, our Baptists believed that God the Spirit acts redemptively in the rite of baptism. This stands in marked contrast to the dominant contemporary understandings that baptism is either an obligation placed upon the regenerate in order to formalize membership in a local congregation, or a ritual depiction of the conversion experience...
> 
> ...The spiritual presence of Christ in the Supper was affirmed with wide consent..."
> 
> "Practicing the Freedom of God: Formation in Early Baptist Life"; from Theology and Lived Christianity; David M. Hammond, editor; Vol 45; pgs 126-130.


----------



## steadfast7

> ...Most basically, *our Baptists believed that God the Spirit acts redemptively in the rite of baptism.* This stands in marked contrast to the dominant contemporary understandings that baptism is either an obligation placed upon the regenerate in order to formalize membership in a local congregation, or a ritual depiction of the conversion experience...


 I'm trying to understand this from a baptist point of view and am having trouble reconciling it. If this is true, it is a very high sacramentology indeed! It could be viewed as even higher than that of paedobaptists, bringing the act of baptism and election/salvation even closer together.


----------

