# I'm not changing! *hollow echo*



## CharlieJ (Oct 7, 2008)

So, being the diligent student I am, I'm working on two papers this semester with somewhat overlapping goals. 

The first paper is for ancient church history, and I am doing "Patristic Theologies of Baptism." There's, um, some scary stuff in there. Reading about the "oikos phrase" in Jeremias' _Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries_ and _Origins of Infant Baptism_ was rather startling. Lots of thoughts there.

The second paper is for NT Theology, and it is entitled "A New Covenant Theology of Children." Hard to get direct resources. Mostly I end up reading about baptism, though if I were to check 18th century and earlier sources maybe I would get more specifically concerning children.


Anyway, I've read some thought-provoking books lately. David Kingdon' _Children of Abraham_ is great for showing where the salient interpretive points lie between Reformed Baptists and Presbyterian/Reformed Paedobaptists. 

Also, I read _The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism_, edited by Strawbridge. I made it through the book mostly intact, noting some variations in the covenantal paedobaptist position, as well as some intriguing approaches to the data. I almost made it out unscathed. There are really many worthy articles in that book, but two in particular stood out. Gregg Strawbridge's "The Polemics of Anabaptism from the Reformation Onward" directly addressed the central concern of Baptistic Covenant Theology. From an even more unlikely source (or so I thought), Douglas Wilson's "Baptism and Children: Their Place in the Old and New Testaments" was like an arrow to my heart (or dart, if you prefer the rhyme).

The idea that covenant children may gradually and organically rather than decisionally come to faith seems to me both terrifying and liberating. Almost none of my friends from Christian families actually know when they were saved; we sort of pick dates and feel vaguely embarrassed about the whole thing. I can certainly think of times in my life when I internalized my faith to a greater degree, but I can't actually remember _not_ believing in Jesus. 

This is further complicated by my reading through the Old Testament this year. I keep looking for when people got saved. From a Calvinistic/Covenantal perspective, I know that they were saved by grace through faith apart from the works of the law. So why aren't there conversion stories except for Gentiles? When did Gideon or Moses or David get saved? And in the New Testament, why does Paul go around giving his testimony all the time, but the other Apostles never mention the time of their conversion? So frustrating....

Anyway, like I said, I'm not changing. Not me. No sirree. But, these things are ... interesting.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 7, 2008)

Charlie,

Have you thought about the fact that a coming to faith could be _both_ gradually and organically _and _decisionally? The fact that you don't know _exactly when _you came to faith does not negate the fact that you _did_. Infant baptism (in my opinion) deals with both. I love this section of the Catechism:



> *Q. 167. How is our baptism to be improved by us?*
> A. The needful but much neglected duty of improving our baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others;1068 by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein;1069 by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements;1070 by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament;1071 by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace;1072 and by endeavoring to live by faith,1073 to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness,1074 as those that have therein given up their names to Christ;1075 and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body.1076


----------



## panta dokimazete (Oct 7, 2008)

almost afraid to ask - "oikos phrase"?


----------



## Seb (Oct 7, 2008)

_The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism_ was one of the books that pushed me over the edge from credo to paedo. 

The first essay, by Bryan Chapell, put it well when he said that for some Covenant children, trying to remember when they came to saving faith in Christ is like trying to remember when they learned what the color blue looks like. 

Just because you can't remember exactly when, doesn't mean you didn't / don't.

"oikos phrase" = Household


----------



## turmeric (Oct 7, 2008)

"oikos" probably refers to "household".



> Anyway, like I said, I'm not changing. Not me. No sirree. But, these things are ... interesting.


 
chirp....chirp....chirp....it's autumn, gotta chirp slowly....chirp


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 7, 2008)

CharlieJ said:


> The idea that covenant children may gradually and organically rather than decisionally come to faith seems to me both terrifying and liberating. Almost none of my friends from Christian families actually know when they were saved; we sort of pick dates and feel vaguely embarrassed about the whole thing. I can certainly think of times in my life when I internalized my faith to a greater degree, but I can't actually remember _not_ believing in Jesus.



Consider this idea as well - some _adults_, baptized by profession, gradually and organically, rather than decisionally, come to faith in Jesus Christ. That's my story.

Remember, the means of grace of the Church aren't meant to produce "instant soup" where you just add decision and an elect Christian is made. The means of grace continually hold out Christ to the man, woman, and child in the Church and you never, ever know who might have been saved that very day who had heard the Gospel 1000 times before. Do any of us really think we can stop listening to the Gospel every week, so certain within ourselves that we've heard it, that we have to stop listening to His Voice?

Discipleship is not a "point in time" thing but a lifelong process of growing through the means of grace.


----------



## CharlieJ (Oct 7, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> almost afraid to ask - "oikos phrase"?



Jeremias pulls on some research - both secular and OT - to show that the idea of "oikos" often has special reference to children, and never refers to adults alone if there are children. His basic work is _Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries_, but his research is much more clearly and thoroughly presented in _Origins of Infant Baptism_.


----------



## CharlieJ (Oct 7, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> Charlie,
> 
> Have you thought about the fact that a coming to faith could be _both_ gradually and organically _and _decisionally? The fact that you don't know _exactly when _you came to faith does not negate the fact that you _did_. Infant baptism (in my opinion) deals with both.



Thank you, Pastor Greco, a good correction. My recent research is prompting me to re-examine how the church has thought of its children and the process by which they come to faith.


----------



## MW (Oct 7, 2008)

CharlieJ said:


> When did Gideon or Moses or David get saved?



When they were circumcised?


----------



## kalawine (Oct 7, 2008)

Seb said:


> _The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism_ was one of the books that pushed me over the edge from credo to paedo.
> 
> The first essay, by Bryan Chapell, put it well when he said that for some Covenant children, trying to remember when they came to saving faith in Christ is like trying to remember when they learned what the color blue looks like.
> 
> ...



I've been meaning to check that book out.


----------



## CharlieJ (Oct 8, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> > When did Gideon or Moses or David get saved?
> ...



Umm... I don't know. I don't think so. What strikes me is simply that things like that are not mentioned in the OT, except for proselytes. This causes me great consternation. Why does the Bible not record things like that? Why does Paul give his testimony all the time, but the other apostles never do? Is it just because he had a cool story? I'm really at a loss here. 

I don't know how Presbyterians and other Reformed groups examine people for membership, but all the churches I've been to have required a statement of faith. Usually, that entailed not only an affirmation of my present belief, but the story of how I came to believe. That story, which I have always regarded as of paramount importance, is almost completely absent from the Bible. I cannot explain why.


----------



## Kim G (Oct 8, 2008)

CharlieJ said:


> All the churches I've been to have required a statement of faith. Usually, that entailed not only an affirmation of my present belief, but the story of how I came to believe. That story, which I have always regarded as of paramount importance, is almost completely absent from the Bible. I cannot explain why.


I was thinking about this just yesterday. When people ask for "my testimony," I know they are asking about when I prayed a prayer to trust Christ. I always feel cheated because after I talk about "the prayer" as an eight-year-old, they don't want to hear about the rest of my walk as the Lord continues saving me! (On that note, where is "the prayer" in the Bible? I remember people I grew up with debating whether a person could be saved if they "decided to trust Christ" but then died before they prayed.)


----------



## LadyFlynt (Oct 8, 2008)

CharlieJ said:


> I don't know how Presbyterians and other Reformed groups examine people for membership, but all the churches I've been to have required a statement of faith. Usually, that entailed not only an affirmation of my present belief, but the story of how I came to believe. That story, which I have always regarded as of paramount importance, is almost completely absent from the Bible. I cannot explain why.


Through discussion, interview, catechizing...they don't just look for a brief blurb about when you said the "sinner's prayer". Instead they take a look at your whole walk, areas of realisation and deepening of faith.


As far as "I'll never....", never say never  I can't tell you how many on this board have crossed the baptismal mosh pit just to find themselves on the other side from where they were at. My husband and I are just two of them.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 8, 2008)

Kim G said:


> I was thinking about this just yesterday. When people ask for "my testimony," I know they are asking about when I prayed a prayer to trust Christ. I always feel cheated because after I talk about "the prayer" as an eight-year-old, they don't want to hear about the rest of my walk as the Lord continues saving me!



You're exactly right and this is what really concerns me about how many people view Christianity this way. In fact, It sort of infects how "personal evangelism" is viewed as successful because people will revel in a "decision" that a friend made for Christ and few will bat an eye that the friend isn't at Church.

My wife went to Biola and I would get copies of her Chapel tapes. They had one fellow there who was talking about their wild success at telling people about Jesus and getting converts. He related a story about how the men in his Church were almost competitive over it. They were riding from an airport in two different cabs. In the process of 15 minutes they had the cab driver make a decision and, as they pulled up, the other guys jumped out exclaiming they had gotten a decision too.

I don't want to diminish how important it is to tell people about the work of Christ but this obsession to see Christianity as a decision to buy fire insurance before its too late is pernicious and it connects to this pernicious idea that we ought to link our Christian identity to when we made a decision for Christ. 

The parable of the sower ought to warn us all about thinking our confidence is in our enthusiasm or response to the Word.

This is why I constantly remind those that keep singling out children as unique in this matter are missing a very key point about _everybody_ who is in a Church. As far as we're concerned, we have no idea who is/isn't elect. As far as we're concerned we must hope the best that a man, woman, or child that we're teaching about the Gospel through Word and Sacrament will be transformed by it. We need to be reminded that Today is the day to hear the voice of God and that He ordained means for us to save us and not to rest in _our_ decision because we don't choose Him but He chooses us.


----------



## Mushroom (Oct 8, 2008)

> I can't tell you how many on this board have crossed the baptismal mosh pit .....


Baptismal mosh pit! That is just too funny!


----------



## Iconoclast (Oct 8, 2008)

Charlie,
On one hand I can agree with many things that have been discussed in this thread as far as a persons Knowing or not knowing a specific day or minute when they passed from death unto life.
Many false ideas can be put forth sure enough. For the most part however, reading through Acts or the gospels most people knew what was going on in their life and experience.
I think one has to work to find this hazy vague notion that something might have happened in and to an individual, but they are not sure.
What you can find evidence of is that once justified, the enjoyment and assurance of one's salvation can fluctuate. The fact of the commands to examine oneself can attest to that.
Every christian has a testimony of God's grace in their life. Not everyone was using heroin, or in a motorcycle gang before they were converted.
Those raised in christian homes have a great advantage and often are drawn over time. But, * drawn they are*!
It is not uncommon for some to mistake the privilege and mental accent to the historical facts of the gospel, for being drawn to faith in the Lord and knowing the gospel as ;


> 16For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.



There is of necessity this life transforming power at work.


----------



## MW (Oct 8, 2008)

CharlieJ said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > When they were circumcised?
> ...



The reason I asked the question is to suggest an objective criterion.


----------



## Archlute (Oct 8, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...



I think that an emphasis upon the sacrament as an objective mark of inclusion in the visible church shouldn't be allowed to stand in for (or unintentionally obscure) the necessary internal work of regeneration and faith. Scripture puts a good deal of emphasis upon that internal work of the Spirit, and although it often cannot be nailed down in the way that the act of baptism can (or circumcision could), I find it important not to conflate the two. Otherwise, you get nominal folk who rest assured in their status as "the baptized body", and count themselves as being in Christ by virtue of their baptisms alone.


----------



## JoshBrisby (Oct 8, 2008)

Greetings in Christ's Name--the One Who forgives sins!

David certainly didn't have a conversion experience. One of my faves is Psalm 22:9--> "Yet You brought me out of the womb; You made me trust in You even at my mother's breast."

It would seem to me that this verse would befuddle a lot of Baptist brethren.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 8, 2008)

Archlute said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > CharlieJ said:
> ...



This is a good point but I also think you would agree that the CoG is our contact point with God's work with us to save us. In other words, the saints in the OT were connected to the CoR by the CoG, which sign was circumcision. We could say, with the Catechism that the grace signified was conferred upon them as worthy recipients (elect) and God's intent to save them was sealed to them in their circumcision. They didn't trust in simply being nominally a child of Abraham but upon the God who had given them a sign in their flesh. Even God's Word (and these prophets) testified of their need to be circumcised in the heart and not merely the foreskin but the foreskin circumcision signified God's work on the heart.


----------



## MW (Oct 8, 2008)

Archlute said:


> I think that an emphasis upon the sacrament as an objective mark of inclusion in the visible church shouldn't be allowed to stand in for (or unintentionally obscure) the necessary internal work of regeneration and faith. Scripture puts a good deal of emphasis upon that internal work of the Spirit, and although it often cannot be nailed down in the way that the act of baptism can (or circumcision could), I find it important not to conflate the two. Otherwise, you get nominal folk who rest assured in their status as "the baptized body", and count themselves as being in Christ by virtue of their baptisms alone.



This is all true from an individualist perspective; and when we have exegeted scripture and arrived at systematic categories of thinking we can apply these kinds of categories to our own personal experience to see whether we be in the faith. But the thread has expressed a concern with why individual salvation is not detailed in the Bible. I would suggest the reason is due to the fact that the history of redemption is concerned with salvation as an incorporation into a new humanity; and circumcision/baptism are the visible tokens of that incorporation.


----------



## CharlieJ (Oct 8, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...



I am woefully ignorant of many aspects of sacramental and covenant theology, but my impression from Calvin at least is that the infant is baptized (and I assume the same would hold true for circumcision) because he/she is viewed as a worthy recipient of baptism, not because there is an assumption that God will do a work *during* the baptism. One of the previous posters mentioned infant faith, which would seem to be consistent with that position.

I don't see any Scriptural evidence (but perhaps you could supply some) indicating that the Israelites thought of circumcision as the time of their salvation, though I grant it did serve as the token. Your latest post makes me wonder if I mistook your point, though.


----------



## Archlute (Oct 9, 2008)

I affirm all that you two are saying, Rich and Matt, but I am always concerned that in our efforts to avoid the effects of "revivalism" or "individualism" that we do not miss the fact that the NT does have a more individualistic/conversion oriented display of the saving work of the Holy Spirit than does the OT. That does not make it the _exclusive_ pattern, nor does it discount patterns of gradual growth that are found within the OT (as well as in the case of Timothy in the NT). However, I cannot help but to think of Paul's rather dramatic conversion experience, one which he details in several of his epistles as being significantly as much about a "spiritual awakening" as about a supernatural encounter, and of the various others in Acts and else where in the Gospels and Epistles where there is a clear picture of individual conversion as points that should prevent our flattening out of the arena of the personal, internal conversion experience. That intensified aspect of the Spirit's post-Pentecost work should be maintained. It doesn't cancel out the grounds or goodness of covenantal baptism by any means, in my opinion.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 9, 2008)

Archlute said:


> I affirm all that you two are saying, Rich and Matt, but I am always concerned that in our efforts to avoid the effects of "revivalism" or "individualism" that we do not miss the fact that the NT does have a more individualistic/conversion oriented display of the saving work of the Holy Spirit than does the OT. That does not make it the _exclusive_ pattern, nor does it discount patterns of gradual growth that are found within the OT (as well as in the case of Timothy in the NT). However, I cannot help but to think of Paul's rather dramatic conversion experience, one which he details in several of his epistles as being significantly as much about a "spiritual awakening" as about a supernatural encounter, and of the various others in Acts and else where in the Gospels and Epistles where there is a clear picture of individual conversion as points that should prevent our flattening out of the arena of the personal, internal conversion experience. That intensified aspect of the Spirit's post-Pentecost work should be maintained. It doesn't cancel out the grounds or goodness of covenantal baptism by any means, in my opinion.


It's certainly a valid concern. It does go to our natural spiritual dullness as the people of God, apart from God kicking us in the backside now and again, that we can miss the idea that being in the Covenant is no excuse for sloth.

I think what ends up happening is that some take a very facile approach to discipleship as if it is only catechism and ignore, even within the catechism, what we're all really called to. I also think part of that has to do with some basic neglect to regularly teach and train adults. As many of them are ignorant, they lack basic equipment to understand how to impart truth to their children in a way that also reminds them of their constant need to come to Christ in faith.


----------



## Archlute (Oct 9, 2008)

True.


----------



## MW (Oct 9, 2008)

Archlute said:


> I affirm all that you two are saying, Rich and Matt, but I am always concerned that in our efforts to avoid the effects of "revivalism" or "individualism" that we do not miss the fact that the NT does have a more individualistic/conversion oriented display of the saving work of the Holy Spirit than does the OT.



[Matthew, not Matt] 

I don't want to avoid the effects of revivalism or individualism, but desire every individual to be blessed under the renewing activity of the Holy Spirit. But the NT only provides more than the OT in terms of showing more fulness, evidence and efficacy of the Spirit's work. It tends to be the case that we read the subjective into the passages of Scripture. That is why the Charismatics end up making the baptism of the Holy Spirit an individual experience without discerning its importance as a part of the history of salvation. Our evangelical tradition does much the same with Jesus' statement about being born again. Clearly the plural indicates that it was directed to the Jews in the first place and that regeneration first refers to a new epoch in history. We need to be careful not to immediately apply these texts to our own individual experience, but first ensure we understand what they are saying in context and then deduce the principles in relation to ourselves.


----------



## G.Wetmore (Oct 27, 2008)

CharlieJ said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > CharlieJ said:
> ...



Calvin held that the doctrine of regeneration undergirded baptism. He viewed the sacrament as both initiatory and confirmatory. Thus he argued against the lutheran Westphal's view of baptismal regeneration. The interesting thing is his method of argumentation. Westphal's believed that a child was unregenerate before baptism, but regenerate afterwards. For Calvin, if a child is assumed to be unregenerate before their baptism, then all credible grounds for baptism are lost. It is important to note that Calvin did not believe that every baptized child was regenerate before their baptism, but he made an assumption about the children of believers: that they were already recipients of salvation, and that this salvation was being ratified in baptism. I'll include a few quotes from him to illustrate this. Notice how he calls the anabaptist to debate against Westphal's view.


> “If the salvation of infants is included in the element of water, then the covenant, by which the Lord adopts them (infants of believers), is made void. Let Joachim say, in one word, what weight he attaches to the promise, - I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed. If God do not ingraft into the body of his people those on whom he bestows this high privilege, not only is injury done to his word, but infants ought to be denied the external sign. Let an Anabaptist come forward and maintain that the symbol of regeneration is improperly conferred on the cursed children of Adam whom the Lord has not yet called to the fellowship of his grace. Either Westphal must remain dumb, or the only defense that can avail him is, that the grace which was offered in the person of their parents is common to them. Hence it follows, that they are not absolutely regenerated by baptism, from which they ought to be debarred, did not God rank them among the members of his Son.”





> It is strange that Westphal denies this right to infants (being regenerate before baptism), though without it he could not properly admit them to baptism. But while I acknowledge that we become members of the Church by baptism, I deny that any are duly baptized if they do not belong to the body of the Church. It is not ours to confer the sacraments on all and sundry; but we must dispense them according to the rule prescribed by God. Who authorized you, Westphal, to bestow the pledge of eternal life, the symbol of righteousness and renovation, on a profane person lying under curse? Were an Anabaptist to debate with you, I presume your only valid defense would be, that baptism is rightly administered to those whom God adopted before they were born, and to whom he has promised that he will be a Father. Did not God transmit his grace from parents to children, to admit new-born infants to the church would be a mere profanation of baptism.”



Some more strong quotes from Calvin:


> “That this may be more clear, let my readers call to mind that there is a two-fold grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made, but that regeneration is only begun, and goes on making progress during the whole of life.”





> “The offspring of believers are born holy, because their children while yet in the womb, before they breathe the vital air, have been adopted into the covenant of eternal life. Nor are they brought into the church by baptism on any other ground than because they belonged to the body of the Church before they were born. He who admits aliens to baptism profanes it. . . . For how can it be lawful to confer the badge of Christ on aliens from Christ. Baptism must, therefore, be preceded by the gift of adoption, which is not the cause of half salvation merely, but gives salvation entire; and this salvation is afterwards ratified by Baptism.”


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 27, 2008)

Hello Gabriel,

Would you please document your quotes; I gather you got them from the _Institutes_, Book IV, chapter XVI -- please note sections, and which edition. (I am in this chapter now, preparing for another thread.) Thanks!

Steve


----------



## G.Wetmore (Oct 27, 2008)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Gabriel,
> 
> Would you please document your quotes; I gather you got them from the _Institutes_, Book IV, chapter XVI -- please note sections, and which edition. (I am in this chapter now, preparing for another thread.) Thanks!
> 
> Steve



No, those aren't from the institutes. I have a lot from the institutes, but I didn't include them.

The first is


> Calvin, John. Treatises on the Sacraments, Second Defense of the Sacraments in Answer to the Calumnies of Westphal. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 2002. pg. 320



the second is


> Ibid, pg. 338



The third is


> Acta Synodi Tridentinae: Cum Antido per Joann. Calvinum (1547.) Corpus Reformatorum. Volumen
> XXXV, 425. quoted by Schenck, The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant, pg. 9



the fourth is


> Inerim Adultero – Germanum: cui adiecta est vera Christianae Pacificationis et Ecclesiae Reformandae Ratio. Per Joann. Calvinum. Corpus Reformatorum. Volumen XXXV, 619. as quoted by Lewis Bevens Schenk, The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant, pg. 13.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 27, 2008)

G.Wetmore said:


> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...



Is it your position that Calvin utilized the term regeneration in the same way we do today? I think you need to be careful here not to confuse people by equivocating over terms. It is obvious, even above, that Calvin is speaking of regeneration in one sense that we would term sanctification.

What, exactly, are you attempting to establish is Calvin's view in your quotes aabove?


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Oct 28, 2008)

JBlade,

The third quote from Gabirel (from the Acts of the Council of Trent and the Antidote) are available here:
Calvin - Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote


In addition, Tracts from the Reformation along with the Life of John Calvin by Theodore Beza is on Google Books now:
Tracts relating to the Reformation ... - Google Book Search


----------



## G.Wetmore (Oct 28, 2008)

Rich,

I was not saying that Calvin uses the term "regeneration" like we do. He uses it more like we would use the word "salvation." For him it can refer to the entire process of salvation. My point was that the doctrine of regeneration, as we know it, is what undergirds Calvin's view of baptism. Calvin not only believes that we shouldn't think that infant salvation is unusual, but it is the very thing upon which he builds his argument for infant baptism. Without it, he does not believe that one can legitimately baptize infants. Calvin's view of baptism is much stronger than most paedo-baptists today.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 28, 2008)

G.Wetmore said:


> Rich,
> 
> I was not saying that Calvin uses the term "regeneration" like we do. He uses it more like we would use the word "salvation." For him it can refer to the entire process of salvation. My point was that the doctrine of regeneration, as we know it, is what undergirds Calvin's view of baptism. Calvin not only believes that we shouldn't think that infant salvation is unusual, but it is the very thing upon which he builds his argument for infant baptism. Without it, he does not believe that one can legitimately baptize infants. Calvin's view of baptism is much stronger than most paedo-baptists today.



I just want to ensure we don't equivocate on terms. I agree that Calvin (and the Confessions') understanding of the Sacraments is much stronger than most paedo-baptists' today but I also think we need to use terms with care. As you note, for Calvin to speak of regeneration is to speak of an entire process that we typically sub-divide in theological parlance today. This can confuse somebody unfamiliar with the use of terms.

I have completed reading Calvin on Providence and find his approach fascinating while also providing ample opportunity for people to misconstrue God's authorship in evil. It's often important to read him in large swaths to see where he re-treads the same ground to qualify his statements.

As I read him in your quotes above, it's important to note what he's defending against and how he would condemn an anabaptist or Lutheran view of the Sacrament by strong language that makes a point. I'm not saying you're doing so, but I think it would be a mistake to assume that Calvin believes we baptize because the children of believers are saved in the sense of being elect. I also think he would have agreed that the graces signified by baptism are conferred only upon those to whom the grace belongs and this is all in the hidden counsel of God.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 28, 2008)

Charlie I would also recommend you get a few other books to look at. 

Covenant Children Today by Alan Conner
SGCB | Book Search

And Baptism in the Early Church

SGCB | Book Search

I did a review on this book for Amazon.com to counter a terrible review.
Amazon.com: Baptism in the Early Church: H. F. Stander, J. P. Louw: Books

And for a good book on Covenant Theology from a Framer of the 1689 LBCF read this book.... Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ.
SGCB | Book Search

You can also do a search of the board where we have discussed these books.


----------

