# A strong view of Baptism.



## jwright82 (Apr 15, 2010)

I personally believe that something definant happens to the elect in baptism. I'm not advocating baptismal regeneration, just a strong view of baptism. I believe in paedobaptism and that something deffinant happens to elect children at baptism. Is this view the norm historically speaking in presbyterian circles or what.


----------



## Herald (Apr 15, 2010)

What do you think happens? You need to define "something" better.


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 15, 2010)

I figured that would come up, I wanted to wait and see. Following the reformed conffessions, WCF, I believe that part of the Sacrament to be a mystery. So in short my answer to your question is I don't know. The conffession also stipulates that the effects of baptism are not tied to the place and time of the baptism. I take this to basically protect against baptismal regeneration. But it doesn't follow that it is impossible to that something mysterious happens at baptism, if nothing happened than there would be no reason to presupose that my baptised child is saved. I know that my baptised child may grow up to be an unbeleiver, that is why I said that something mysterious happens only to elect children. 
My question I guess is two-fold:
1. Is my view basically the historic view, or stronger than the historic view?
2. How strong of a view can one hold to and still be within the bounds, so to speak?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 15, 2010)

A _Confessional_ view of Baptism is this:


> CHAPTER XXVIII.
> Of Baptism.
> 
> I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, or 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.
> ...


What "happens" at Baptism is that:
1. The party baptized is visibly admitted to the New Covenant.
2. Looking at VI. above "...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."

The "such that grace belongeth unto" refers to the elect. Consequently, at the appointed time, the grace exhibited in the Sacrament is actually conferred by the Holy Spirit to the elect.


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 15, 2010)

So than I believe in a basically confessional view on this matter?


----------



## jwithnell (Apr 15, 2010)

The critical element is the child being born into the covenant community. Baptism of an infant shows the parents' and church's obedience to Christ and stands as a sign and seal for that child throughout life. I will always remember seeing the waters of baptism on my babies' heads, and it is a wonderful moment! But knowing that God has committed to being my God and the God of my children stands in prominence, along with the recognition that these babies are a part of the church with members who care for them deeply.


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 15, 2010)

It sounds confessional to me, James. But it also sounds somewhat incomplete. Notice how Rich put the careful qualifiers on the conferral language. The conferral of the thing signified happens to those to whom it belongs, and in God's good time, which may be before, during, or after baptism. 

I like to think of baptism as an engagement ring. The child is spoken for. The wedding still has to happen, but the engagement ring points to that wedding. Of course, for some, the wedding has already happened (faith), and the engagement ring needs to be soldered on to the wedding ring as a sign that God has already saved them.


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 15, 2010)

jwithnell said:


> The critical element is the child being born into the covenant community. Baptism of an infant shows the parents' and church's obedience to Christ and stands as a sign and seal for that child throughout life. I will always remember seeing the waters of baptism on my babies' heads, and it is a wonderful moment! But knowing that God has committed to being my God and the God of my children stands in prominence, along with the recognition that these babies are a part of the church with members who care for them deeply.


 I agree and I will never forget the waters of baptism on my daughter's head!

---------- Post added at 01:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:35 PM ----------




greenbaggins said:


> It sounds confessional to me, James. But it also sounds somewhat incomplete. Notice how Rich put the careful qualifiers on the conferral language. The conferral of the thing signified happens to those to whom it belongs, and in God's good time, which may be before, during, or after baptism.
> 
> I like to think of baptism as an engagement ring. The child is spoken for. The wedding still has to happen, but the engagement ring points to that wedding. Of course, for some, the wedding has already happened (faith), and the engagement ring needs to be soldered on to the wedding ring as a sign that God has already saved them.


 Right it is imcomplete because I believe these things to be mysterious. I just wouldn't seperate very much the sacrament and the thing signified for the elect. Even in cases were the person grows up a heathen but comes to the Lord later in life I would still say that something mysterious happened to them when they were baptised as an infant even if the effects of that baptism didn't happen until later on.


----------



## Herald (Apr 15, 2010)

James,

I won't abide in this thread long since it's from a strict paedo point of view. The one concern I have about your phraseology is the word "mystical." I'm not sure what this myticism is. It certainly isn't salvific. As you rightly noted, baptism doesn't save. It's a sign of that which does save. The application and meaning of the sign differs between credo and paedo, but both sides still see it as a sign. I guess I'm concerned about the inference of a mystical component when scripture doesn't indicate that there is one.


----------



## Houston E. (Apr 15, 2010)

Just a thought...
The "something" may be that now you presume your child to be elect. (Presbyterians differ on this though...)


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 15, 2010)

jwright82 said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > It sounds confessional to me, James. But it also sounds somewhat incomplete. Notice how Rich put the careful qualifiers on the conferral language. The conferral of the thing signified happens to those to whom it belongs, and in God's good time, which may be before, during, or after baptism.
> ...


 
Lane hasn't _separated_ the sign from the thing signified but has _distinguished_ them.



> 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. is key here that one may draw comfort and strength from the sign of baptism understanding that there is an earnest Promise to all "worthy receivers" (those that have faith). In other words, as the Heidelberg comforts us: "...that I am as certainly washed by his blood and Spirit from all the pollution of my soul, that is, from all my sins, as I am washed externally with water, by which the filthiness of the body is commonly washed away."

Thus, the sacramental union between the thing signified (union with Christ and its benefits) and the sign (the washing of baptism), gives us a historical, tactile assurance that we will most certainly be saved if we put our trust in Christ.

I don't know why you are specifically focusing on the elect here. It's obviously important to distinguish the fact that baptism, in itself, does not automatically confer the grace exhibited by the sign. Nevertheless, it is not for us to know the secret things of God and it's not necessarily a "strong" view of Baptism that merely focuses on the abstract about what the elect get out of it. God ministers to us in our weakness as fleshy creatures who do not know His hidden will. If we merely had the theoretical knowledge that the elect were saved and had no historical evidence or exhibit of God's Promise coming to us in space and time where we "live" then we would be impoverished. God condescends to us by coming to us in history in His Son and left with us not only the Word to convert us but Baptism to historically and really hold forth something that was done to us so we can see and feel God Promising us personally that we will be saved if we place our trust in Him.

In a real sense, then, baptism is a "bridge" between the eternal decree of God about an elect people and the revealed things that we experience in human history. We feel and see the water. We hear the Promise. God says "believe" and, in His appointed time, that we do and we can look at something done to us and say: "That was God's Promise to me. I believe upon Christ. I have been baptized and that baptism assures me of salvation because the same God that decreed in the hidden counsel of His will also revealed to me a real Promise."


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 15, 2010)

Herald said:


> James,
> 
> I won't abide in this thread long since it's from a strict paedo point of view. The one concern I have about your phraseology is the word "mystical." I'm not sure what this myticism is. It certainly isn't salvific. As you rightly noted, baptism doesn't save. It's a sign of that which does save. The application and meaning of the sign differs between credo and paedo, but both sides still see it as a sign. I guess I'm concerned about the inference of a mystical component when scripture doesn't indicate that there is one.


A valid concern. I believe that the real disagreement between paedo and craedo views of baptism goes all the back to a difference in methodologies. Also I think a difference in ecclesiology and pnuematalogy is at work too. I say this for both sides because we just simply approech texts from different pressupossitions. As far as my beleifs go I think the Apostle Peter said well that "There is also a antitype which now saves us- baptism..." (1 Peter 3:21), I believe Peter to be making a hyporbolic statment here about something mysterious. I imply 2 things from this:
1. Baptism doesn't actually save, the reference to the ressurection right after this implys that to me.
2. That baptism is important and something is going on within the sacrament, when taken with the rest of scripture this "going on" is happening only to the elect.

I mean we can argue over what household means all day long but if we don't realize these differences in method than we are only wasting our time.

---------- Post added at 02:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 PM ----------




> Just a thought...
> The "something" may be that now you presume your child to be elect. (Presbyterians differ on this though...)


Sure I do. That is part and parcel of the infant baptism point of view.



> Lane hasn't separated the sign from the thing signified but has distinguished them.


I wasn't implying that he did, I'm sorry I guess I didn't elaborate that. I was making a statment about me and my opinions. 



> II. is key here that one may draw comfort and strength from the sign of baptism understanding that there is an earnest Promise to all "worthy receivers" (those that have faith). In other words, as the Heidelberg comforts us: "...that I am as certainly washed by his blood and Spirit from all the pollution of my soul, that is, from all my sins, as I am washed externally with water, by which the filthiness of the body is commonly washed away."


I like this, see I would focus on the Heidelberg where it says "certainly". 



> I don't know why you are specifically focusing on the elect here.


Lutherans have a strong, too strong, view at this point and I wanted to distinguish what I was saying from what they say. I see the problem of baptismal regeneration as that it beleives that something happens to everyone who participates in the sacrament, FVers. The way I see it we can talk about grace actually being conffered to the participate at the time and place of the baptism if they are elect. I know that the conffession sayst that the effects are not tied to the time or place its just that we mean two differnt things when we say it. The conffession is protecting against baptismal regeneration, I protect my view from this by stressing that only the elect recieve something, not regeneration though but grace.



> It's obviously important to distinguish the fact that baptism, in itself, does not automatically confer the grace exhibited by the sign. Nevertheless, it is not for us to know the secret things of God and it's not necessarily a "strong" view of Baptism that merely focuses on the abstract about what the elect get out of it. God ministers to us in our weakness as fleshy creatures who do not know His hidden will. If we merely had the theoretical knowledge that the elect were saved and had no historical evidence or exhibit of God's Promise coming to us in space and time where we "live" then we would be impoverished. God condescends to us by coming to us in history in His Son and left with us not only the Word to convert us but Baptism to historically and really hold forth something that was done to us so we can see and feel God Promising us personally that we will be saved if we place our trust in Him.
> 
> In a real sense, then, baptism is a "bridge" between the eternal decree of God about an elect people and the revealed things that we experience in human history. We feel and see the water. We hear the Promise. God says "believe" and, in His appointed time, that we do and we can look at something done to us and say: "That was God's Promise to me. I believe upon Christ. I have been baptized and that baptism assures me of salvation because the same God that decreed in the hidden counsel of His will also revealed to me a real Promise."


I agree.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 15, 2010)

jwright82 said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > The "something" may be that now you presume your child to be elect. (Presbyterians differ on this though...)
> ...


This requires qualification. We do not presume, in the sense of knowing, that any person (including our own children) are elect. That requires the mind of God. If by "presume" you only mean that we treat all baptized men, women, and children with the judgment of charity that they can and must respond to the things of God then that might be OK. I believe we ought to be praying daily for and with our children pleading that God would convert them in His Sovereign timing. I have no reason to assume my children are not elect but, then again, I don't live "in the decree" and I pray earnestly for them trusting that, perhaps, my prayer might be among many means that He uses for their conversion.



> > II. is key here that one may draw comfort and strength from the sign of baptism understanding that there is an earnest Promise to all "worthy receivers" (those that have faith). In other words, as the Heidelberg comforts us: "...that I am as certainly washed by his blood and Spirit from all the pollution of my soul, that is, from all my sins, as I am washed externally with water, by which the filthiness of the body is commonly washed away."
> 
> 
> I like this, see I would focus on the Heidelberg where it says "certainly".


You need to focus on the whole paragraph in the Heidelberg that qualifies the "certainly" with respect to those who have faith.



> > I don't know why you are specifically focusing on the elect here.
> 
> 
> Lutherans have a strong, too strong, view at this point and I wanted to distinguish what I was saying from what they say. I see the problem of baptismal regeneration as that it beleives that something happens to everyone who participates in the sacrament, FVers. The way I see it *we can talk about grace actually being conffered to the participate at the time and place of the baptism if they are elect*. I know that the conffession sayst that the effects are not tied to the time or place its just that we mean two differnt things when we say it. The conffession is protecting against baptismal regeneration, I protect my view from this by stressing that only the elect recieve something, not regeneration though but grace.


That is not what the Confession states. The grace conferred is not necessarily at the time of administration but at the "appointed time" that the Holy Spirit sovereignly determines.


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 15, 2010)

> This requires qualification. We do not presume, in the sense of knowing, that any person (including our own children) are elect. That requires the mind of God. If by "presume" you only mean that we treat all baptized men, women, and children with the judgment of charity that they can and must respond to the things of God then that might be OK. I believe we ought to be praying daily for and with our children pleading that God would convert them in His Sovereign timing. I have no reason to assume my children are not elect but, then again, I don't live "in the decree" and I pray earnestly for them trusting that, perhaps, my prayer might be among many means that He uses for their conversion.


I don't need to qualify it now, you did a wonderful job of it. All I meant was was that I assume before actual evidence is there, *pressume*, that my baptized daughter is elect. 



> You need to focus on the whole paragraph in the Heidelberg that qualifies the "certainly" with respect to those who have faith.


I agree, that said those who have faith are elect. They therefore cannot lose that faith, this doesn't imply that something didn't happen to them at baptism though. 



> That is not what the Confession states. The grace conferred is not necessarily at the time of administration but at the "appointed time" that the Holy Spirit sovereignly determines.


This is true but the conffession leaves open the possibility by saying "in his apointed time", how do we know that there is not a proccess involved or that just because a person cannot verbalize their beleif they never the less believe. If faith is a gift than it is up to God when he gives it. Also how do we know that the apointed time isn't at the time of baptism. We don't because all these things are wrapped up in the mystery of it. If we didn't confess that it is myterious than why assume that our baptized children are elect? If we had definant answers for these questions than we wouldn't really have to assume, we would know.
If nothing at all happens not even a seal of somekind than there is no reason to baptize our children. We baptize because we don't believe that the sacrament is ony a sighn it is a seal too.

---------- Post added at 03:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:39 PM ----------

Also you said not neccessarally at the time of baptism this implies that it could be at the time of baptism or not.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 15, 2010)

jwright82 said:


> > That is not what the Confession states. The grace conferred is not necessarily at the time of administration but at the "appointed time" that the Holy Spirit sovereignly determines.
> 
> 
> This is true but the conffession leaves open the possibility by saying "in his apointed time", how do we know that there is not a proccess involved or that just because a person cannot verbalize their beleif they never the less believe. If faith is a gift than it is up to God when he gives it. Also how do we know that the apointed time isn't at the time of baptism.


It certainly can be at the time of baptism but (and I may be merely reading into this), you seem to want to press the issue that because it can be at the time of baptism then, because you don't know, you have warrant to assume that it happened.

Grace is not a substance. When you look at the rest of the Confessions and how they speak of the Word and the Sacraments and prayer as means of grace, they are things that upbuild and convert because they present Christ and His works to us. Baptism is one of those things that God gives us to build us up, to hold forth Christ, to help us to cast ourselves upon Him more fully. You seem to want to press the "why not just assume the grace was conferred back then" but we need to remember that our sanctification is ongoing and, even assuming that our children might have received that grace, the call is that "Today" if you hear His voice, do not harden your heart. We're commanded to daily press in and to encourage one another and Baptism is one of many powerful things that holds forth Christ toward that end.



> If nothing at all happens not even a seal of somekind than there is no reason to baptize our children. We baptize because we don't believe that the sacrament is ony a sighn it is a seal too.


This is part of the reason I'm concerned about the way you are pressing this. I don't know what I could have said in my initial reply that would lead you to believe that Baptism is a mere "sign" and that nothing is really Sacramentally connected to it. My response to you about presuming seems to have produced a response of the form "but if I don't assume that my children are elect then it becomes a mere sign and I might as well not baptize them." My reading might be off here but, again, Baptism exhibits a real Promise and all members who are Baptized *really* are joined to the visible Covenant and all *really* receive the announcement of the Promise. Now, the elect have the grace that is exhibited conferred to them according to the time appointed by the Holy Spirit but don't discount the fact that all baptized members receive grace upon grace as they participate in the Body life of the Church where they hear the Word of God preached, where they see Christ exhibited in the Sacraments, and where they are prayed for and encouraged by the Body. All of these things are consequential and we need not merely look at the time of administration and say: "Well, if I don't presume my child is elect, then this is a bare sign."


----------



## Mushroom (Apr 15, 2010)

Sort of on topic: Last Lord's Day I heard a sermon from a missionary entitled "Missional Covenant Families". It was amazingly covenantal and thoroughly reformed. In it, he said his Presbyterian Pastor father used to open dialogue when he was going to present the Gospel to someone with the words, "How would you like to start something that will last a thousand generations?" So cool I wept. The promise was that all the nations would be blessed by Abe's Seed and seeds. We are called to produce godly seeds through which all the nations, tribes, and tongues will be blessed by their showing forth the Seed. Amen and amen. The promises of our God are astounding!


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 15, 2010)

> It certainly can be at the time of baptism but (and I may be merely reading into this), you seem to want to press the issue that because it can be at the time of baptism then, because you don't know, you have warrant to assume that it happened.


You raise a valid concern. If I were to say that something definantly happens all the time everytime at the moment of baptism of the elect than I would in fact be outside the conffession. I guess my point is this I see nothing wrong with assuming that something mysterious happened to my daughter at her baptism. She has to this day exibited the sighns of someone who is saved. But if she fell away one day and never came back than I would know that something did not happen. 
I get concerned when we on the one hand talk about it as though something happens but than turn around and talk about it like nothing happened, does I make sense? I mean if we talk about baptism as more than sighn with a sacramental connection to the thing signified but than turn around and say that nothing happens at the baptism, and I use the term happens in a very broad sense I don't know how the whole proccess works it is mysterious that is why we assume our children are elect until we have good reason to think otherise. 

When we do this it seems to me like we are talking out of both sides of our mouths. We reject the memorial view, but why on what grounds? Because we feel there is more going on than just a memorial sighn. It is because of this percieved double talk that I am more comfortable to assume that something special does occur to the elect in baptism, as far as the time and place goes that is up to God to bring about His will. But it is not like nothing happened, something happened whatever that may be. 




> This is part of the reason I'm concerned about the way you are pressing this. I don't know what I could have said in my initial reply that would lead you to believe that Baptism is a mere "sign" and that nothing is really Sacramentally connected to it. My response to you about presuming seems to have produced a response of the form "but if I don't assume that my children are elect then it becomes a mere sign and I might as well not baptize them." My reading might be off here but, again, Baptism exhibits a real Promise and all members who are Baptized *really* are joined to the visible Covenant and all *really* receive the announcement of the Promise. Now, the elect have the grace that is exhibited conferred to them according to the time appointed by the Holy Spirit but don't discount the fact that all baptized members receive grace upon grace as they participate in the Body life of the Church where they hear the Word of God preached, where they see Christ exhibited in the Sacraments, and where they are prayed for and encouraged by the Body. All of these things are consequential and we need not merely look at the time of administration and say: "Well, if I don't presume my child is elect, then this is a bare sign."


I will try to elaborate a bit more. It has been my experiance that covenant parents who get their children baptized assume at the very least that one day they will be saved. This assumption implies that something occured in baptism. I define something in very broad terms because the inner workings of the sacraments are a mystery. By something I do not mean regeneration but like maybe a spiritual seal of somekind on all children who are elect and baptized that God makes good on one day in accordance with His will. But again I can't say for sure because it is only speculation, the mystery thing. I'm not saying that unless I assume my child is elect than baptism is a mere symbol, what I am saying is this if nothing happpens whatsoever to the elect children at baptism than it is an empty sighn. Either something occurs or nothing occurs.

As far non elect members who baptized I have not studied the issue in-depth, it is kind of part two for me. I am studying issue while studying the errors of the Federal Vision guys on this though.


----------



## MW (Apr 15, 2010)

What happens in baptism? Everything (salvation is the thing signified), or nothing (it is the sign of the thing, not the thing itself), depending on how you look at it. Which is as much as to say that believing "something" happens at baptism is not confessional.


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 15, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> What happens in baptism? Everything (salvation is the thing signified), or nothing (it is the sign of the thing, not the thing itself), depending on how you look at it. Which is as much as to say that believing "something" happens at baptism is not confessional.



I don't follow you here, how is it unconffessional. The conffessions themselves leave open the possibillity, not neccessaty, of something happening at baptism, the whole "apointed time", thing. I mean everything I read on the presbyterian view of the baptism uses two distinctive sets of discourse, one is talking about how God uses the sacrament to conffer something and than one that makes all these qualifications on a seperation between the sighn and the thing signified to point of basically being in the memorialist view. I think this is for two reasons:
1. We are trying so hard to avoid any view we hold as being error that we end up shooting ourselves in the foot, linguistically speaking.
2. The sacraments themselves are mysterious in nature and that means a definant limit on how much we can say about it.

I like the WCF on this beacause although it uses the double talk I have been refering to it seems to mainly set all the right boundries so that I can definantly say that I believe it to be true. I mean if nothing whatsoever happens to the elect participate in baptism than what is the point? We can only say that we are required to do it by our Lord, this is to reduce something that is supposed to be Gospel, or God's free gift to us, into law, something we required to do for some reason. I don't see how we avoid it. I mean if there is any connection at all between the sighn and the thing signified than we can talk as though this is a reality. It is only if you seperate the two so much that you end up in a memorial view. By the way I apologize for anyone who holds to a memorial view and is reading this discussion.

Since the discussion is between presbyterians it seems unfair to talk about your point of view but since our position trys to distinguish itself from yours than it becomes neccessary to point out language we use that sounds like yours.


----------



## MW (Apr 15, 2010)

jwright82 said:


> I don't follow you here, how is it unconffessional. The conffessions themselves leave open the possibillity, not neccessaty, of something happening at baptism, the whole "apointed time", thing.


 
What is conferred in baptism is everything; baptism represents salvation by Christ in all its fulness. Yet, baptism itself is merely the sign and seal of the thing conferred; hence it itself confers nothing. That is the sum of the confessional view. To turn around and then say that "something" -- which is neither everything nor nothing -- happens in baptism, is to leave the matter open to mystery as to what is effected by baptism. Your language requires "something" additional outside the language of "the sign" and "thing signified," and supposes the possibility of baptism itself conferring something. This is unconfessional. If you are going to speak about the effect of baptism along confessional lines, the effect must be restricted to the two basic ideas of "the sign" and "thing signified."


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 16, 2010)

jwright82 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > What happens in baptism? Everything (salvation is the thing signified), or nothing (it is the sign of the thing, not the thing itself), depending on how you look at it. Which is as much as to say that believing "something" happens at baptism is not confessional.
> ...


 
James,

You don't understand what the Confessions are stating if you believe it engages in "double talk". This is what your logic amounts to:

Premise 1: God alone knows who the Elect are.
Premise 2: We cannot know who the Elect are.
Premise 3: We know that the Holy Spirit, in His appointed time, confers the graces signified to the Elect.
Premise 4: The Holy Spirit might confer the graces at the moment of administration.

Therefore,
1. Because I can't know who the Elect are, I must presume that my child is Elect.
2. Because my child is elect, I must further assume that he received the graces exhibited in his baptism

Else,
Baptism means nothing.

I don't have time at the moment to cover all the very fundamental errors you are making about about the nature of discipleship and grace. Your assertion that the language grants you the latitude to state what you are stating reveals that you don't understand the language being utilized. I would suggest that, rather than clinging tightly to what you believe is "strong" view of baptism, that you study the issue of the means of grace and the Sacraments more closely because what you believe adds "meaning" to your child's baptism is really a form of superstition.


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 16, 2010)

jwright82 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > What happens in baptism? Everything (salvation is the thing signified), or nothing (it is the sign of the thing, not the thing itself), depending on how you look at it. Which is as much as to say that believing "something" happens at baptism is not confessional.
> ...


 
James, what I see you doing here is moving from something difficult to understand (which baptism is) to something mystical (which baptism is not). Do not confuse something difficult to understand with something that is mystical. There is nothing mystical about either a sign or a seal. 

If I see a sign that says "Bismarck 22 miles," I can non-mystically assume that if I continue on that same road for another 22 miles, I will wind up in Bismarck, and not Tokyo. The sign is connected to Bismarck by a road. It is not an empty sign, because Bismarck is really there: the sign is telling the truth. So, what does the sign confer? The grace of being a sign. The assurance that you're on the right road. 

A seal is not mysterious either. It was a guarantee of authenticity. Wax was dropped on the paper, and a signet ring with one's seal on it was impressed on the wax, thus guaranteeing that the letter did in fact come from that person. The promise of the Gospel is thus sealed in baptism. We know that the promise really does come from God. Notice that, for the one receiving the letter, the seal conveys assurance. This is how sign and seal work, not in some other way. The problem with the "seal" language in the minds of some people is that they tend to think of it as conferring the letter. But it does not do that: it authenticates the letter.The letter is the thing signified. Again, as with the sign, the seal is not an empty seal, for it is attached to the letter. But, and this is important, one can receive the assurance of the seal without opening the letter until later. Or, one could have the letter already, and receive another letter with the seal on it later. Given the sheer mathematical probability, most people do not receive the thing signified at the time of baptism. To think otherwise is to shift the meaning of baptism from sign to thing signified. 

Just as the sign is not Bismarck, and the seal is not the letter, so also in baptism, the act of baptism is not salvation, or "something," as Matthew well put it. It is not a bare sign. In the analogy, a bare sign would say "Bismarck 22 miles," but would not be connected to Bismarck by a road. The sign would then be a lie. The point is this: people doubt that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Baptism assures us that He is the way, the truth, and the life.


----------



## Houston E. (Apr 16, 2010)

Not sure it really matters at this juncture, but I would like to correct my earlier statement....

The "something" may be that now you presume your child to be regenerate instead of saying elect...


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 16, 2010)

> What is conferred in baptism is everything; baptism represents salvation by Christ in all its fulness. Yet, baptism itself is merely the sign and seal of the thing conferred; hence it itself confers nothing. That is the sum of the confessional view.



Than what is the difference between your view and the memorial view?



> Your language requires "something" additional outside the language of "the sign" and "thing signified," and supposes the possibility of baptism itself conferring something. This is unconfessional. If you are going to speak about the effect of baptism along confessional lines, the effect must be restricted to the two basic ideas of "the sign" and "thing signified."



True but all I am saying is that there is some connection between the sighn and the thing signified. Again my argument is that there is either some connection or no connection.




> James,
> 
> You don't understand what the Confessions are stating if you believe it engages in "double talk". This is what your logic amounts to:
> 
> ...



Well I must honestly say that I don't really see myself here so I will ask some questions to clarify where we are coming from and my beleif in double talk is perceptual only, it looks that way to me but I could be wrong.
1. Only the elect recieve the benifits of salvation throug faith? 
2. In an action of anykind you cannot have something and nothing happening at the same time and in the same relationship? 
3. Do we or do we not assume a special status to our children who have been baptized? 
4. What do we tell our children was the reason for their being baptized? 
I think if we answer these questions than I will better understand were you are coming from and I can adjust my answers to fit your language better. 



> I would suggest that, rather than clinging tightly to what you believe is "strong" view of baptism, that you study the issue of the means of grace and the Sacraments more closely because what you believe adds "meaning" to your child's baptism is really a form of superstition.



Your logic here seems to suggest that baptism has no meaning, even the memorial view would not go that far. I know that you don't believe that the sacrament is meaningless, its just that this is what I am refering to as a kind of double talk. My guess is that in your reply you step up the strength of your languge to avoid the error of saying that it is meaningless and I am left sitting here going well which one is it, my accusation of double talk means only that it appears this way to me. If we disagree of what the meaning is well than explain to me in straight language what you believe to be the meaningfullness of baptism.

Simply responding that it is a sighn and a seal doesn't get us anywhere because those words can be interpreted in different ways. They can both be either nouns or verbs either way that assumes something is going on. My question is a simple one really either something is going on in the sacraments or nothing is going on in the sacraments. They are either bare sighns with only a symbolic connection to what is being signified or they have someother kind of connection to the thing signified. What I am trying to wrestle down is if we don't hold to a memorial view and we don't hold to a lutheran/catholic view than what are we really saying? In the book 4 Views on Baptism both the memorial and lutheran contributors made the exact same criticism as I am about the use of confusing language on the part of the reformed contributor. 



> James, what I see you doing here is moving from something difficult to understand (which baptism is) to something mystical (which baptism is not). Do not confuse something difficult to understand with something that is mystical. There is nothing mystical about either a sign or a seal.



True but unless we are going to resolve to say that it is only a sighn and a seal, which seems to me to be nothing short of the memorial view. 



> If I see a sign that says "Bismarck 22 miles," I can non-mystically assume that if I continue on that same road for another 22 miles, I will wind up in Bismarck, and not Tokyo. The sign is connected to Bismarck by a road. It is not an empty sign, because Bismarck is really there: the sign is telling the truth. So, what does the sign confer? The grace of being a sign. The assurance that you're on the right road.



Well your analogy here does assume a connection between the sighn and the thing signified but again I see no more connection than the memorial point of view.



> A seal is not mysterious either. It was a guarantee of authenticity. Wax was dropped on the paper, and a signet ring with one's seal on it was impressed on the wax, thus guaranteeing that the letter did in fact come from that person. The promise of the Gospel is thus sealed in baptism. We know that the promise really does come from God. Notice that, for the one receiving the letter, the seal conveys assurance. This is how sign and seal work, not in some other way. The problem with the "seal" language in the minds of some people is that they tend to think of it as conferring the letter. But it does not do that: it authenticates the letter.The letter is the thing signified. Again, as with the sign, the seal is not an empty seal, for it is attached to the letter. But, and this is important, one can receive the assurance of the seal without opening the letter until later. Or, one could have the letter already, and receive another letter with the seal on it later. Given the sheer mathematical probability, most people do not receive the thing signified at the time of baptism. To think otherwise is to shift the meaning of baptism from sign to thing signified.



This seems no different than the memorial point of view. Were exactly is the difference. It seems that the difference is only linguistic, both sides use different languages to to say basically the same thing. I could be wrong though.

---------- Post added at 11:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:29 AM ----------




Houston E. said:


> Not sure it really matters at this juncture, but I would like to correct my earlier statement....
> 
> The "something" may be that now you presume your child to be regenerate instead of saying elect...


 
No what I am saying is what do I tell my daughter is the meaning of baptism and why she was baptized? If I say that her baptism meant that she is a member of the visible church than that doesn't square with th sighn and seal language. If I tell her that it is more than just that than that at least rests on the assumption that she will one day recieve faith in God's "apointed time" and if I understand the conffession it is at that moment that the "efficacy" of baptism will be realized. If she ever recieves saving faith than she is elect, if she doesn't than she is not. It seems that simple to me that baptism has only "efficacy" of any kind for the elect. I believe that the FV guys were condemed on this point because they beleived it had "efficacy" to anyone who was baptized.


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 16, 2010)

James, I EXPLICITLY pointed out the difference between my view and the memorialist view by stating that a sign that said "Bismarck 22 miles" that was not connected to Bismarck makes the sign an empty sign. Imagine that sign in the middle of Rome Italy, for instance. It might make you think of Bismarck, ND, but has no connection with the city. THAT'S the memorialist view, not the position I have articulated. You are in danger of falling into the fallacy of saying that any position that does not advocate actual conveyance of the thing signified is a memorialist view. Again, think of the three elements: sign, thing signified, and connection of the two. Memorialist views deny a connection between the sign and the thing signified. Reformed views do not. That is the difference.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Apr 16, 2010)

Heidelberg Catechism


> Question 74. Are infants also to be baptized?
> Answer. Yes: for since they, as well as the adult, are included in the covenant and church of God; and since redemption from sin by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult; they must therefore by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, be also admitted into the christian church; and be distinguished from the children of unbelievers as was done in the old covenant or testament by circumcision, instead of which baptism is instituted in the new covenant.



Belgic Confession


> Article 34: The Sacrament of Baptism
> 
> * We believe and confess that Jesus Christ, in whom the law is fulfilled, has by his shed blood put an end to every other shedding of blood, which anyone might do or wish to do in order to atone or satisfy for sins.
> 
> ...



I believe that this is very important to remember in this discussion "*And truly, Christ has shed his blood no less for washing the little children of believers than he did for adults.*

Therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of what Christ has done for them, just as the Lord commanded in the law that by offering a lamb for them the sacrament of the suffering and death of Christ would be granted them shortly after their birth. This was the sacrament of Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, baptism does for our children what circumcision did for the Jewish people. That is why Paul calls baptism the 'circumcision of Christ.'"

Even though baptism does not regenerate us, or save us in and of itself, it does proclaim a promise to us. "Just as the water surely washes your body, Christ has surely died for your sins!" 

There is something within baptism that stirs the heart. Namely, looking back upon your baptism and seeing the promise come to fulfillment as you are truly saved from your sins and the wrath to come. This should nourish your faith and cause you to praise God for He is faithful to His people.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 16, 2010)

James,

First, let me suggest you start using a spell checker for some words like "sign".



jwright82 said:


> I personally believe that something definant happens to the elect in baptism. I'm not advocating baptismal regeneration, just a strong view of baptism. I believe in paedobaptism and that something deffinant happens to elect children at baptism. Is this view the norm historically speaking in presbyterian circles or what.



After further qualifications to your belief, it is neither the "norm" historically speaking nor is it Confessional.

You're not really asking for the Confessional view to be explained in this thread so much as you've come to a conclusion of what your view of Baptism is and are seeking validation of your view. Words, sentences, and paragraphs need to be understood in the context they were crafted. What you have repeatedly rejected as a bare "memorial" in favor of your own view is the historically Reformed view. Of course, I'm not convinced you "agree" to the things you stated above that you agree with as I'm not certain you understood what was explained to you.

I would suggest that reading "4 Views on Baptism" and trying to avoid what a Lutheran or Roman Catholic states is a mere memorial is not how we arrive at a knowledge of the Truth. Both would have completely different reasons for asserting the same thing and there is language in the Confessions that consciously denies both views. Both the RCC and Lutherans deny Limited Atonement as well but I'm nonplussed about the validity of this doctrine on the basis of their objections. Truth is not somewhere in the middle between what the RCC and Lutheran and Reformed Catechisms teach about baptism.

Lane, Matthew, and I have laid out and explained the Confessional view. If you count the Promise of God announced and entry into the New Covenant as but a small thing and but a memorial then your view of baptism is symptomatic of a more serious problem.

When God gave circumcision to Abraham it was on the basis of something God had already done for Abraham as well as an earnest of the consummation of the Promise. The sign served to confirm the Promise perpetually and visibly to Abraham and his offspring. It was not a small matter to Abraham who might have turned to God and said: "Eh, this is just a bare memorial because nothing really "happened" to me after you sealed this Promise in my flesh." The author of the Hebrews makes a pretty big deal about the fact that God not only cannot lie but goes so far, in our weakness, to confirm His Promises by Oath so that by two immutable things we are assured that God intends to save all who place their trust in Him to the uttermost.

Read the Confession again that I presented about what Baptism signifies:
- ingrafting into Christ
- regeneration
- remission of sins
- his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life

How does a person baptized get a little of that "something" described? Just a little bit of remission of sins? A little bit of ingrafting into Christ? A "mysterious" amount of regeneration?


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 16, 2010)

For lack of dealing with both sets of criticisms lets start simple. Ya'll, I'm southern so this is a word to me, say that I am outside the fold both conffessionally and historically, well if I am than I will go back to the conffessions and history and most importantly scripture on the matter. I do not wish to be outside either the conffessions or our rich history. I tried as hard as I could not to offend anyone if I have than I am sorry. I posed this for clarification not confusion, and most certianly not for validation of an unconffessional view. Ya'll say that that I have serious problems in my view, ok lets see lets be fair here to everyone.

It is curious though that I have been reading Louis Berkhof all day on the subject and I was blown away by what I read, he was saying similer and practically the same things as me. Things that ya'll said were false in my view he sometimes verbatum said the exact same thing as me. So to avoid any further confussion on my part by the words I use I will just refer you to him and/or quote him as my point of view on the matter. He also layed out the history of the reformed church on these matters and he and I seem to be within that history. Now I don't know it but I doubt that some anathema in the reformed churches has been thrown against him. So if I agree with him, how am I outside the bounds of the conffession and history?


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 16, 2010)

jwright82 said:


> For lack of dealing with both sets of criticisms lets start simple. Ya'll, I'm southern so this is a word to me, say that I am outside the fold both conffessionally and historically, well if I am than I will go back to the conffessions and history and most importantly scripture on the matter. I do not wish to be outside either the conffessions or our rich history. I tried as hard as I could not to offend anyone if I have than I am sorry. I posed this for clarification not confusion, and most certianly not for validation of an unconffessional view. Ya'll say that that I have serious problems in my view, ok lets see lets be fair here to everyone.
> 
> It is curious though that I have been reading Louis Berkhof all day on the subject and I was blown away by what I read, he was saying similer and practically the same things as me. Things that ya'll said were false in my view he sometimes verbatum said the exact same thing as me. So to avoid any further confussion on my part by the words I use I will just refer you to him and/or quote him as my point of view on the matter. He also layed out the history of the reformed church on these matters and he and I seem to be within that history. Now I don't know it but I doubt that some anathema in the reformed churches has been thrown against him. So if I agree with him, how am I outside the bounds of the conffession and history?


 
I do not know how you can read Berkhof and come to the conclusion that he believes that baptism mystically conveys something to the elect. Consider the following: "Calvin and Reformed theology proceeded on the assumption that baptism is instituted for believers, _and does not work but strengthens the new life_" (627). "This does not necessarily mean that they are already in principle in possession of the promised good, though this is possible and may even be probable, but certainly means that they are appointed heirs and will receive the heritage, unless they show themselves unworthy of it and refuse it" (p. 641). "But baptism is more than a sign and seal; it is as such also a means of grace. According to Reformed theology it is not, as the Roman Catholics claim, the means of initiating the work of grace in the heart, but it is a means for the strengthening of it or, as it is often expressed, for the increase of grace" (p. 641). Given also his discussion on page 616 concerning the incompleteness of the sacrament without the word, we can come to the conclusion that we must never ascribe any kind of efficacy to the sacrament that we do not ascribe to the Word. Word and sacrament go together, and their efficacy is similar, the main difference being that one is oral, and the other is visual. 

Baptism is thus the rite by which people are inducted into the visible church. It is a means of grace, yes. But it is not mystical grace (don't confuse his discussion of musterion for "mystical"). I don't see his point of view as agreeing with what you've written here.


----------



## dudley (Apr 16, 2010)

greenbaggins said:


> It sounds confessional to me, James. But it also sounds somewhat incomplete. Notice how Rich put the careful qualifiers on the conferral language. The conferral of the thing signified happens to those to whom it belongs, and in God's good time, which may be before, during, or after baptism.
> 
> I like to think of baptism as an engagement ring. The child is spoken for. The wedding still has to happen, but the engagement ring points to that wedding. Of course, for some, the wedding has already happened (faith), and the engagement ring needs to be soldered on to the wedding ring as a sign that God has already saved them.


 
I agree with my PB brother Rev Lane and I believe that God never breaks His promises to us as His children and He always keeps covenant with us, despite our failures and sins.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 16, 2010)

jwright82 said:


> For lack of dealing with both sets of criticisms lets start simple. Ya'll, I'm southern so this is a word to me, say that I am outside the fold both conffessionally and historically, well if I am than I will go back to the conffessions and history and most importantly scripture on the matter. I do not wish to be outside either the conffessions or our rich history. I tried as hard as I could not to offend anyone if I have than I am sorry. I posed this for clarification not confusion, and most certianly not for validation of an unconffessional view. Ya'll say that that I have serious problems in my view, ok lets see lets be fair here to everyone.
> 
> It is curious though that I have been reading Louis Berkhof all day on the subject and I was blown away by what I read, he was saying similer and practically the same things as me. Things that ya'll said were false in my view he sometimes verbatum said the exact same thing as me. So to avoid any further confussion on my part by the words I use I will just refer you to him and/or quote him as my point of view on the matter. He also layed out the history of the reformed church on these matters and he and I seem to be within that history. Now I don't know it but I doubt that some anathema in the reformed churches has been thrown against him. So if I agree with him, how am I outside the bounds of the conffession and history?


 
I suggest reading Romans chapter 4. There Paul describes the role of circumcision and faith in the life of Abraham and his descendants. Paul makes clear that it was not circumcision but faith through which Abraham received righteousness. And the same was the case for the later Jews. They received the same righteousness only when they believed. Circumcision was a sign and seal of that righeousness, but it did not confer righteousness at all. Righteousness can only come through faith. Circumcision was a sealed promise (like a signed letter) from God to Israel that when they believed like Abraham, then they would be saved. That is how baptism works in the Reformed tradition. The sign and seal do not confer the reality. Baptism admits the child into God's visible community, points the child to their need for Christ and promises Christ to him if he believes, and then confirms and assures the child's faith in Christ when that faith is present (in God's appointed time). The sacraments are visible sermons, reinforcing the preaching of the Word, not working seperately from it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 17, 2010)

Here is Berkhof on the Sacraments. Perhaps you can point out the section you believe he is saying something different than what has been presented so we can clarify:


> III. The Sacraments in General
> A. Relation Between the Word and the Sacraments
> In distinction from the Roman Catholic Church, the Churches of the Reformation emphasize the priority of the Word of God. While the former proceeds on the assumption that the sacraments contain all that is necessary for the salvation of sinners, need no interpretation, and therefore render the Word quite superfluous as a means of grace, the latter regard the Word as absolutely essential, and merely raise the question, why the sacraments should be added to it. Some of the Lutherans claim that a specific grace, differing from that which is wrought by the Word, is conveyed by the sacraments. This is all but universally denied by the Reformed, a few Scottish theologians and Dr. Kuyper forming exceptions to the rule. They point to the fact that God has so created man that he obtains knowledge particularly through the avenues of the senses of sight and hearing. The Word is adapted to the ear, and the sacraments to the eye. And since the eye is more sensuous than the ear, it may be said that God, by adding the sacraments to the Word, comes to the aid of sinful man. The truth addressed to the ear in the Word, is symbolically represented to the eye in the sacraments. It should be borne in mind, however, that, while the Word can exist and is also complete without the sacraments, the sacraments are never complete without the Word. There are points of similarity and points of difference between the Word and the sacraments.
> 1. POINTS OF SIMILARITY. They agree: (a) in author, since God instituted both as means of grace; (b) in contents, for Christ is the central content of the one as well as of the other; and (c) in the manner in which the contents are appropriated, namely, by faith. This is the only way in which the sinner can become a participant of the grace that is offered in the Word and in the sacraments.
> ...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 17, 2010)

Here is Berkhof on Baptism. Again, James, please note where you believe Berkhof is echoing your thoughts in this thread:



> IV. Christian Baptism
> A. Analogies of Christian Baptism
> 1. IN THE GENTILE WORLD. Baptism was not something absolutely new in the days of Jesus. The Egyptians, the Persians, and the Hindus, all had their religious purifications. These were even more prominent in the Greek and Roman religions. Sometimes they took the form of a bath in the sea, and sometimes they were effected by sprinkling. Tertullian says that in some cases the idea of a new birth was connected with these lustrations. Many present day scholars hold that Christian baptism, especially as it was taught by Paul, owes its origin to similar rites in the mystery religions, but such a derivation does not even have appearance in its favor. While the initiatory rite in the mystery religions does involve a recognition of the deity in question, there is no trace of a baptism into the name of some god. Nor is there any evidence that the influence of the divine pneuma, rather prominent in the mystery religions, was ever connected with the rite of lustration. Moreover, the ideas of death and resurrection, which Paul associated with baptism, do not fit in with the mystery ritual at all. And, finally, the form of the taurobolium, which is supposed to be the most striking analogy that can be cited, is so foreign to the New Testament rite as to make the idea of the derivation of the latter from the former seem utterly ridiculous. These heathen purifications have very little in common, even in their external form, with our Christian baptism. Moreover, it is a well established fact that the mystery religions did not make their appearance in the Roman Empire before the days of Paul.
> 2. AMONG THE JEWS. The Jews had many ceremonial purifications and washings, but these had no sacramental character, and therefore were no signs and seals of the covenant. The so-called baptism of proselytes bore a greater resemblance to Christian baptism. When Gentiles were incorporated in Israel, they were circumcized and, at least in later times, also baptized. It has long been a debatable question, whether this custom was in vogue before the destruction of Jerusalem, but Schuerer has shown conclusively by quotations from the Mishna that it was. According to the Jewish authorities quoted by Wall in his History of Infant Baptism, this baptism had to be administered in the presence of two or three witnesses. Children of parents who received this baptism, if born before the rite was administered, were also baptized, at the request of the father as long as they were not of age (the boys thirteen and the girls twelve), but if they were of age, only at their own request. Children who were born after the baptism of the parent or parents, were accounted as clean and therefore did not need baptism. It seems, however, that this baptism was also merely a sort of ceremonial washing, somewhat in line with the other purifications. It is sometimes said that the baptism of John was derived from this baptism of proselytes, but it is quite clear that this was not the case. Whatever historical relation there may have existed between the two, it is quite evident that the baptism of John was pregnant with new and more spiritual meanings. Lambert is quite correct when he, in speaking of the Jewish lustrations, says: “Their purpose was, by removing a ceremonial defilement, to restore a man to his normal position within the ranks of the Jewish community; John’s baptism, on the other hand, aimed at transferring those who submitted to it into an altogether new sphere—the sphere of definite preparation for the approaching Kingdom of God. But above all, the difference lay in this, that John’s baptism could never be regarded as a mere ceremony; it was always vibrant through and through with ethical meaning. A cleansing of the heart from sin was not only its preliminary condition, but its constant aim and purpose. And by the searching and incisive preaching with which he accompanied it, John kept it from sinking, as it would otherwise have tended to do, to the level of a mere opus operatum.”
> ...


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 17, 2010)

> I do not know how you can read Berkhof and come to the conclusion that he believes that baptism mystically conveys something to the elect.


Without being too direct brother Lane but he uses the exact word "mystical" in connection with infant baptism. Thank you for the support brother dudley. 



> we must never ascribe any kind of efficacy to the sacrament that we do not ascribe to the Word. Word and sacrament go together, and their efficacy is similar, the main difference being that one is oral, and the other is visual.


I never said that the sacrament had any efficacy apart from the Word, I thought the connection was assumed my bad.



> Perhaps you can point out the section you believe he is saying something different than what has been presented so we can clarify:


I would be happy to. Now keep in mind that I always said that when I defined "something" I did so in broad terms so as not to tie myself down to anything. I rested on the mysteriousness of it all. I will be quoting from the same version that you did Semper Fidelis, that is the Marine saying right? This version is the Eerdmans version published in 1996.

Here is from the chapter on means of grace:



> Louis Berkhof: Systematic Theology, Means of Grace
> 
> Page 604: While the Spirit can and does in some respects operate immediatly on the soul of the sinner, He has seen fit to bind himself largely to the use of certian means in the *communication of divine grace*.
> (a little further down on the page)
> ...



Now I bold faced every word that was in my opinion a "something" word, those are what I meant by "something" words. Now to answer brother Lane's point that nothing "mystical" happens here is Berkhof in his discussion of infant baptism as a means of grace. 



> Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Christian Baptism
> 
> Page 641: But baptism is more than a sign and seal; it is as such also a means of grace.
> 
> Page 641-642: *Reformed Theologians* solve the problem (he is discussing the sacrament as a means of grace in connection to infant baptism, how does it strengthen faith in an infant?) by calling attention to three things, which may be regarded as alternatives, but may also be *combined*. (1) It is *possible* to proceed on the assumption (*not certian knowledge*) that the children offered for baptism are *regenerated* and are therefore in *possession* of the _semen fidei_ (the seed of faith); and to hold that God through baptism in some *mystical* way, which we do not understand (my definition of mystery), strengthens this seed of faith in the child. (2) Attention may also be called to the fact that the *operation* of baptism as a means of grace is not necessarily limited to the moment of its administration any more than that of the Lord's Supper is limited to the time of its celebration. It may in that very moment serve in some *mysterious* way to *increase* the grace of God in the heart, if present, but may also be instrumental in augmenting faith later on, when signicance of baptism is clearly understood. *This is clearly taught in both the Belgic and the Westminster Confession*



The third option is that it strengthens the faith of the beleiving parents. I bold faced the pertinant words to our discussion. Now it seems impossible to me to take these statments out of context. When I said that I agreed with him I meant that I agreed with what he wrote, now he clearly saw that option 1 and the first part of option 2 as being legitamte Reformed points of views. But I am accussed of being outside the Reformed faith for holding the possibility of these, I find that very confusing. Now I could be wrong, I may be taking him out of context but to prove that you will have to give a good context to the whole discussion and not just quote parts that conflict with the parts I quoted, all that proves is that he is inconsistant, which is something that none of us believe.


----------



## Prufrock (Apr 17, 2010)

James, several things:

1.) Note that in the first section in which you included bolded material, Berkhof says absolutely nothing which is not in strict keeping with what Rich, Matthew and Lane have said: he is not speaking of some objective "thing" happening to all recipients of water on their forehead.

2.) Please note also that in the provided section, everything which Berkhof states concerning the sacraments, he also states concerning the Word. Therefore, whatever something you are attributing to baptism most also be attributed to the reading of the word. Do you maintain that the same "something" which happens in baptism happens when the Word is preached, as well?

3.) Regarding the second section you provided, it is important to note, as you yourself indicated, that Berkhof is not addressing the topic of baptism generally, but specifically of infants; nor is he directly "answering" the question, but is simply providing an indication of the various approaches which have been attempted to the problem. When he states that some have approached the problem by saying something "mystical" happens, they are not stating that the _thing itself_ is mystical, but that these theologians have stated that _the manner in which God works the thing_ is mysterious (but note that he presents this only as one of three solutions that various Reformed theologians have attempted; the other two do not require this explanation at all). He is not speaking in generalities, but is giving an explanation of some as to how God uses baptism to seal Christ by faith to those who do not have the _actual_ ability yet to exercise faith: this context is of utmost importance to note, as it testifies to the fact that the Reformed teaching in which Berkhof stands is one in which what happens in Baptism is explicit, and works in the same manner in which the Word does, and that therefore theologians have to work to explain how this is applicable to infants; all this, contra your reading of him: he is operating within a different thought paradigm or context than you. Further, Berkhof's explanation of your point #1 is that some theologians have affirmed that the purpose of baptism is to affirm and confirm our faith, sealing Christ and his benefits to us; and though infants cannot yet exercise an act of faith, nevertheless God (in a way mysterious to us) strengthens the _seed of faith_ which is in them. Possible explanation #2 which he raises is that of the WCF: the efficacy of baptism is not tied to the time of its delivery; this further distances us from the "something mysterious happening" explanation; and, of course, possible explanation #3 takes us even farther from this.

In other words, Berkhof's teaching of baptism is precisely that which Lane Keister, Matthew Winzer and Rich have been trying to state.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 17, 2010)

jwright82 said:


> The third option is that it strengthens the faith of the beleiving parents. I bold faced the pertinant words to our discussion. Now it seems impossible to me to take these statments out of context. When I said that I agreed with him I meant that I agreed with what he wrote, now he clearly saw that option 1 and the first part of option 2 as being legitamte Reformed points of views. But I am accussed of being outside the Reformed faith for holding the possibility of these, I find that very confusing. Now I could be wrong, I may be taking him out of context but to prove that you will have to give a good context to the whole discussion and not just quote parts that conflict with the parts I quoted, all that proves is that he is inconsistant, which is something that none of us believe.


 
James,

Perhaps you didn't notice but I quoted Berkhof in total on the Sacraments and Baptism. Bolding things, as you did above, does not contextualize or prove a point. I tried repeatedly to read you in the best possible light but you kept pressing "something". I tried to chalk it up to an inability to express yourself but you continue to demonstrate confusion on the subject.

First, you asked about the Elect in the original post.

Then, you extended the discussion to your children.

Then, you said that because you cannot know that they are not Elect, you proceed on the basis that they are Elect.

Consequently, you extended what is certain about the graces conferred to the Elect down to the infant and made what was certain mysterious.

In other words. Let's say I have two sets of people baptized (let's leave out infants because the discussion is the same in both cases):
E=elect person
N=nonelect person

We know that, with baptism:
E-the graces exhibited will really be conferred at a time we do not know
N-the graces exhibited will not be conferred, ever

Now, you are saying: "I can't know who N is so I'll treat everyone as if he's an E."

Thus the option is not:
E(because I cannot know N) - at a time I know (right now), I am certain that some of the grace exhibited is really conferred in some mysterious way or this means nothing.

You don't get to change what the nature of grace exhibited or conferred for the Elect simply because you want to treat all the baptized with the judgment of charity that they are elect. Furthermore, because you cannot know _when_ the grace of the Sacrament will be conferred, you may not split the difference between certainty that everything happened at a time you do not know or nothing happened and choose a third "some grace conferred" option at the moment of administraiton. Much of your confusion is stemming from a desire to figure out a formula where you can get around the hidden counsel of God and say something more definitive about your children than God has revealed to you.

Why not simply proceed on the assumption that they are Elect and, like every other believer, continue to reprove and exhort them to press in to the Kingdom of God and let the Holy Spirit, through Word, Sacrament, and Prayer upbuild and convert. You need not assume they possess something "mysterious". If they possess anything, they possess everything. That's even better than "something".

Now, turning to Berkhof, he is not saying what you are asserting in the way that you have been asserting it:

Berkhof does not state: "...unless you accept that a child receives a mystical _semen fidei_ that the Sacrament is a bare memorial" or "...unless we agree that something 'mystical' happened then it's a bare memorial."

It is important to clarify what Berkhof is stating here:


> m. He made the efficacy of baptism dependent on the faith of the recipient: but when he reflected on the fact that infants cannot exercise faith, he was inclined to believe that God by His prevenient grace wrought an incipient faith in them through baptism; and, finally, he referred the problem to the doctors of the Church. Reformed theologians solve the problem by calling attention to three things, which may be regarded as alternatives, but may also be combined. (1) It is possible to proceed on the assumption (not the certain knowledge) that the children offered for baptism are regenerated and are therefore in possession of the semen fidei (the seed of faith); and to hold that God through baptism in some mystical way, which we do not understand, strengthens this seed of faith in the child. (2) Attention may also be called to the fact that the operation of baptism as a means of grace is not necessarily limited to the moment of its administration any more than that of the Lord’s Supper is limited to the time of its celebration. It may in that very moment serve in some mysterious way to increase the grace of God in the heart, if present, but may also be instrumental in augmenting faith later on, when the significance of baptism is clearly understood.



Berkhof is not retreating from earlier statements about the graces exhibited in Baptism or arguing that "Because we can't know, we know that 'something mystical' is communicated."

His argument is this:
-It is not improper to make an assumption that a baptized infant is elect
-If, AND ONLY IF, an infant is elect, we may further assume that the child possesses the seed of faith
-If, AND ONLY IF, this infant possesses the seed of faith then the infant's faith will be strengthened by baptism
-BUT (note this carefully) baptism didn't produce that seed of faith, Berkhof is saying that some infants may "pre-possess" faith by a Sovereign work of the Holy Spirit.

What is "mystical" to Berkhof here is not some sort of special circumstance that arises out of the assumption that the child is elect. What is mystical to Berkhof is not some sense that baptism does "something" mystical.

What is mystical is this: What is the nature of the faith of an infant and how does baptism strengthen an infant's faith?

We know very little about the thought processes of infants and tend to think of faith in logical and propositional terms. We can't really wrap our heads around the language that gives form to David knowing God in the womb or John leaping for joy in Elizabeth's womb.

But, what is very clear here, is that Berkhof has not switched gears for what Baptism "does" for an infant.

Baptism strengthens the faith of believers. Full stop. There it is David. Nothing mysterious about it.

When we, who are regenerate, participate in a baptism, it exhibits Christ and His saving work and we hear the Promises of God. It strengthens and upbuilds us because we're brought near to Christ and hear, again, the words promised us by an immutable God.

The infant hears the same thing and we may assume (in a way we do not understand) that the Promise of God announced strengthens the faith in an infant that is already in possession of a seed of faith.

Consequently, I do not see evidence that you are handling Berkhof correctly nor that you have quoted him "verbatim" in some of your assertions that the explanations and responses offered were but a "memorial view".


----------



## Cato (Apr 17, 2010)

This is exactly the reason I moved away from a Presbyterian mind to a Reformed Baptist way of thinking.


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 17, 2010)

Cato The Elder said:


> This is exactly the reason I moved away from a Presbyterian mind to a Reformed
> Baptist way of thinking.



"This" = what, exactly?


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 17, 2010)

> First, you asked about the Elect in the original post.
> 
> Then, you extended the discussion to your children.
> 
> ...


That is not what I believe at all.



> You don't get to change what the nature of grace exhibited or conferred for the Elect simply because you want to treat all the baptized with the judgment of charity that they are elect. Furthermore, because you cannot know when the grace of the Sacrament will be conferred, you may not split the difference between certainty that everything happened at a time you do not know or nothing happened and choose a third "some grace conferred" option at the moment of administraiton. Much of your confusion is stemming from a desire to figure out a formula where you can get around the hidden counsel of God and say something more definitive about your children than God has revealed to you.


That is not what I believe either. 



> In other words. Let's say I have two sets of people baptized (let's leave out infants because the discussion is the same in both cases):
> E=elect person
> N=nonelect person
> 
> ...


Bingo, you finally got me right that is what I believe.



> That's even better than "something".


If you think this whole time that by the word "something" I meant a numerical amount of grace than I can say it no stronger than bold *NO*! I can see where you might get this impresion but I always used it in more of a verb way, like this:
I go out side and my car is beat up and destroyed but I don't know what happened I could say "man something happened to my car." This use of the word implies a known or unknown action or verb of somekind. That is how I used it. 
I don't believe that elect infants get a little now and get a little later. I agree that they get everything.



> "...unless you accept that a child receives a mystical semen fidei that the Sacrament is a bare memorial"


That is not what I believe.



> His argument is this:
> -It is not improper to make an assumption that a baptized infant is elect
> -If, AND ONLY IF, an infant is elect, we may further assume that the child possesses the seed of faith
> -If, AND ONLY IF, this infant possesses the seed of faith then the infant's faith will be strengthened by baptism
> -BUT (note this carefully) baptism didn't produce that seed of faith, Berkhof is saying that some infants may "pre-possess" faith by a Sovereign work of the Holy Spirit.


This is what I believe, I never said that baptism produced faith. That is baptismal regeneration which I regected at the beggining of this discussion. 



> Now, you are saying: "I can't know who N is so I'll treat everyone as if he's an E."
> 
> Thus the option is not:
> E(because I cannot know N) - at a time I know (right now), I am certain that some of the grace exhibited is really conferred in some mysterious way or this means nothing


I try to always leave open the option that I am to blame for a misunderstanding but I don't even know where you got this one from. That is not what I believe at all. I made a distinction between actual from God's point of view elect and the reprobate. I always based any efficacy at all on the person's status of elect or not. Never did I make baptism the foundation for election or that it conferred grace to everyone, which I regected on like the 2nd or 3rd post I made. 



> What is mystical is this: What is the nature of the faith of an infant and how does baptism strengthen an infant's faith?


That is exactly what I mean too.



> What is mystical to Berkhof is not some sense that baptism does "something" mystical.



Well I never said that baptism does something special, but surley the Holy Spirit does something special right?



> When we, who are regenerate, participate in a baptism, it exhibits Christ and His saving work and we hear the Promises of God. It strengthens and upbuilds us because we're brought near to Christ and hear, again, the words promised us by an immutable God.
> 
> The infant hears the same thing and we may assume (in a way we do not understand) that the Promise of God announced strengthens the faith in an infant that is already in possession of a seed of faith.



I don't quite follow you here, you seem to be, and I could be wrong so don't assume I am accusing you of anything, stressing a cognitive only type of faith here. Also I am unclear as to who is doing the strengthening here are we strengthened, implying that we strengthen ourselves, or does the Holy Spirit strengthen our faith? I believe the second choice and I suspect you do to, I just wanted some clarification on your use of words. I mean I always thought that the reformed view was that in the Word and sacraments the Holy Spirit strengthened our faith. thus the two following sentences can mean the same thing:
1. "The Holy Spirit strengthens our faith in the Word and sacraments."
2. "The Holy Spirit does something to us, us meaning regenerate of course, in the Word and Sacraments."

How the Holy Spirit strengthens our faith is a proccess that yes I will admit is in some way mysterious. But strengthening is a verb and it implys that He is doing something. 



> 1.) Note that in the first section in which you included bolded material, Berkhof says absolutely nothing which is not in strict keeping with what Rich, Matthew and Lane have said: he is not speaking of some objective "thing" happening to all recipients of water on their forehead.
> 
> 2.) Please note also that in the provided section, everything which Berkhof states concerning the sacraments, he also states concerning the Word. Therefore, whatever something you are attributing to baptism most also be attributed to the reading of the word. Do you maintain that the same "something" which happens in baptism happens when the Word is preached, as well?
> 
> ...


Thank you very much for the post, since what you are rightly warning against is not what I believe all I can only respond that we are on the same page. 



> in some of your assertions that the explanations and responses offered were but a "memorial view".


Well since I asked you, Semper Fidelis, a question to clarify your point of view than that is not the same as an accussation. I never asserted that you or anyone else beleived this only that I wanted clarification on your point of view. My opinion is this if you do not believe that the Holy Spirit strengthans our faith in the sacraments than that is basically a memorial viewpoint. See I even after quoting greenbaggins and raising the question of how he would differentiate his view from the memorial view said "I could be wrong", that means exactically what it says. 

I made no real accussations or assertions against anyones point of view, like saying that ya'll were "unconffessional" or outside "the historic reformed faith", or even that you had "so many fundemental errors that I don't even have time to deal with them all". See those are assertions and accussations, all three are very hard to prove by the way. That is why I refrain from using them.


----------



## Cato (Apr 17, 2010)

Todd,

I lost an unbaptized infant/child several years ago & was given different answers to where the child is....one that I accept because it is biblically based & the other that I could not accept because it was not. Since I dont wish to slander I wont go further; only, it led me to seriously rethink my position on baptism, covenant theology etc. I do find that the further you move from Catholism, the better off your going to be in your understanding of God & His ultimate plan for you. so you draw your own conclusions.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 17, 2010)

jwright82 said:


> > We know that, with baptism:
> > E-the graces exhibited will really be conferred at a time we do not know
> > N-the graces exhibited will not be conferred, ever
> 
> ...


OK, so this was very helpful James. It's not really worth reconstructing how the misunderstanding occurred but, suffice to say, several of us were pretty convinced you were "pushing back" on the Reformed view of the Sacrament as a bare memorial if we didn't admit that something "mysterious" _had_ to occur at the moment of administration.

I repent of ascribing beliefs to you that I believed your words gave me strong reason to assert.



> > His argument is this:
> > -It is not improper to make an assumption that a baptized infant is elect
> > -If, AND ONLY IF, an infant is elect, we may further assume that the child possesses the seed of faith
> > -If, AND ONLY IF, this infant possesses the seed of faith then the infant's faith will be strengthened by baptism
> ...


Yes, I understand that you said you re*j*ected baptismal regeneration but your repeated response that something more must be going on was disconcerting.


> > What is mystical to Berkhof is not some sense that baptism does "something" mystical.
> 
> 
> 
> Well I never said that baptism does something special, but surley the Holy Spirit does something special right?


Sure, He regenerates, converts, and perfects us but, in Berkhof's discussion of infants the specific reference to what is mystical is how the faith of an infant is strengthened as discussed.



> > When we, who are regenerate, participate in a baptism, it exhibits Christ and His saving work and we hear the Promises of God. It strengthens and upbuilds us because we're brought near to Christ and hear, again, the words promised us by an immutable God.
> >
> > The infant hears the same thing and we may assume (in a way we do not understand) that the Promise of God announced strengthens the faith in an infant that is already in possession of a seed of faith.
> 
> ...


I would say that as far as strengthening or regeneration or conversion, the Holy Spirit does all three through the Word at times. It's not something we want to pin down to a Sacrament or a time of hearing or administration of a Sacrament. Remember that the Sacraments are given to us in our weakness to build us up. There's more to our spiritual life than birth. There's also sanctification and the Sacraments are used toward that end.

My point about infants was specifically to note that what Berkhof calls "mystical" is the seed of faith in a regenerated infant. Ignoring the age of the Saint in question, the operation of God in Word and Sacrament builds up. We have a good operating definition of what faith would look like in an adult from the perspective of understanding, agreeing to, and resting in Christ. What we don't quite understand is how an infant would do so but Berkhof doesn't simply want to leave faith simply in the realm of those who can give full cognitive expression to it. He calls it, appropriately, a seed faith in the sense that an acorn may not be an oak tree but it will surely become an oak tree because it is of the nature of an oak tree. A regenerated infant will grow into one who has the full flowering of this seed within him.

The point then, is that, if you want to assume that your child has this seed faith it is not necessarily improper but, as noted, there was nothing initially stated nor elaborated upon about what the Sacraments confer upon us at the time the Holy Spirit determines, that should have led to your repeated protestations that Baptism becomes a bare memorial unless we insist that "right now" at administration the child is being strengthened. We can have hope and we can assume and we can call a child and enjoin a child to stand in the faith he has repeatedly been called unto without needing to go back and insist that he surely had "seed faith" at the time of his baptism or it was just a memorial. Notice that Berkhof says that the benefit may also occur at a later time whereas you seemed to keep pressing it has to happen when we baptize the child.

Again, the power of the Promise is in an Immutable God. We can have confidence in what God Promised not knowing when, precisely, the benefits promised come about if we believe. 



> > in some of your assertions that the explanations and responses offered were but a "memorial view".
> 
> 
> Well since I asked you, Semper Fidelis, a question to clarify your point of view than that is not the same as an accussation. I never asserted that you or anyone else beleived this only that I wanted clarification on your point of view. My opinion is this if you do not believe that the Holy Spirit strengthans our faith in the sacraments than that is basically a memorial viewpoint.


Just to be clear, _at the time of administration_ it is not a given that there is any faith present to be strengthened. I repeatedly noted that the Sacraments do strengthen and assure believers but that is different than asserting that I _must_ say that, for the party baptized, the person's faith is strengthened. The party baptized may not have faith to be strengthened but, later, if the Holy Spirit regenerates, the individual can look retrospectively and be strengthened by his baptism. The distinction being drawn is not if the Holy Spirit strengthens but when.



> I made no real accussations or assertions against anyones point of view, like saying that ya'll were "unconffessional" or outside "the historic reformed faith", or even that you had "so many fundemental errors that I don't even have time to deal with them all". See those are assertions and accussations, all three are very hard to prove by the way. That is why I refrain from using them.


As I stated, I apologize, but you have made it fairly difficult as, over several posts, the Confessional view was explained and elaborated upon, but you kept pushing back at the explanations as a bare memorial view.

I didn't give up on you and made sure we unpacked Berkhof to see if we can clear up the confusion. I do want to make sure you're not holding too tightly to some form of "I _must_ believe my child has seed faith to be strengthened _right now_ in order for this to not be a memorial" because I'm still detecting a little bit of that.

This medium doesn't always lend itself into probing. If we were face to face it would be easier on the give and take.

Blessings!


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 17, 2010)

Cato The Elder said:


> Todd,
> 
> I lost an unbaptized infant/child several years ago & was given different answers to where the child is....one that I accept because it is biblically based & the other that I could not accept because it was not. Since I dont wish to slander I wont go further; only, it led me to seriously rethink my position on baptism, covenant theology etc. I do find that the further you move from Catholism, the better off your going to be in your understanding of God & His ultimate plan for you. so you draw your own conclusions.


 
I am sorry to hear of your loss, and I pray for your continued comfort in God's grace as you move on from that difficult event in your life. I'm also sorry that you got bad answers. 

I don't know how to take this except to hear you to say that you think Reformed paedobaptists don't have as correct an understanding of God and His plan for our lives. Pretty bold statement to make and one to which reasonable people could take great offense. 

In addition - I trust you are aware that both paedobaptists and credobaptists I know give essentially the same answer to the question of your lost child... and confessionally (the WCF and LBCF, the standards that we uphold here on the board) the same exact answers are given in their respective chapters 10. 

By the way you need to fix your signature according to the rules you agreed to uphold upon joining the PB. Please do so. (see my signature for a link to those rules).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 17, 2010)

Cato The Elder said:


> I do find that the further you move from Catholism, the better off your going to be in your understanding of God & His ultimate plan for you. so you draw your own conclusions.


 
That is good to hear since the Reformed view of the Sacrament of Baptism does not conflate the sign with the thing signified. That is to say that the Roman Catholic view does, in fact, insist that grace actually belongs to the one baptized at the moment of administration where the Reformed reject this.

In the Reformed Baptist formula, the party baptized is believed to possess the graces signified and is therefore baptized. Consequently, the Baptist view conflates sign with thing signified and, in that sense, is closer to and not further from a view that insists the two must go together.


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 17, 2010)

Well good Semper Fidelis, I am glad to hear that I am not in fact outside the bounds of the conffession, I was worried. I apologize for not being clearer in my use of words and or definitions. In the future I will be more dilligent about being clearer, to avoid any misunderstandings. I agree with everything you said in your last post to me, that is my view of the sacrament. I also would like to thank you and everyone who was debating me for not leaving me in a percieved state of error. It turns out I was not really in error, thank God because I was really confused there which was my fault of course, but it shows a christian love that ya'll have for a fellow brother in Christ and that is a wonderful thing! The church of our Lord is lucky to have people like ya'll in it. On a lighter, is that the right word?, note I was really confused when we started this discussion but now it seems clear to me, I do not believe that the conffessions or ya'll use double talk. This discussion has also rewakened my admiration for Berkhof so thank ya'll for that as well, I think my next task will be to read his master piece all the way through, well maybe.

---------- Post added at 04:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:56 PM ----------

I will add that I didn't mean to go against the conffession, I have a problem with being overly questioning and it appears to most people as I am being argumentitave. I have tried to work on it but my philosopher spirit is hard to stifle, but I should been more receptive to the explinations given to me, and stated clearer that I was not trying to argue or go against but to clarify. Both things are my fault and I repent of them.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 17, 2010)

James,

I appreciate your receptive spirit. God ultimately is the one Who perfects us in our understanding. Our language to describe the wonderful things that God does for us in salvation is true as far as God has revealed them to us in human language but our own frailties make it hard for us all to communicate them in a way that we can understand.

Thanks for continuing to ask questions as it helps us all to sharpen our thinking and presentation of such truths.


----------



## Cato (Apr 17, 2010)

Todd, thinking doesnt in effect make it so. There were two separate answers depending which group you speak with & I spoke to 4 ministers on the Presbyterian side. Without being contensious, which was not my position, these gentlemen convinced me that being a Reformed Baptist was the correct way to move & I am thankful to them. 

Now what are you eluding to regarding signature....please e-mail me privately. Thanks


----------



## Prufrock (Apr 17, 2010)

Stephen, though it is, of course, true that "thinking it does not make it so," nevertheless, Todd isn't simply "thinking it." It has never been the position of the Presbyterian churches that infants dying without being baptized shall perish: in fact, they have continually affirmed the exact opposite. The Reformed church at the Synod of Dort even went so far as to include it as an item of confessional doctrine that parents whose children are taken in infancy ought not to doubt concerning the blessed estate of their infants. I say this not to try to convince you to return to a Presbyterian church, but simply so that you will know what the Presbyterian churches have taught.


----------



## Cato (Apr 17, 2010)

Paul, the journey I took was indeed very strange & I can only conclude as God driven. The original comment made assured me that if the parents, at the time were not members of the Covenant (which my wife & I were not at the time, then my child was relegated to hell) a little later it was softened to nobody can be sure of where the child is. Believe me it became a point of aggravation to both myself & my wife to the point of making my wife an alcoholic, stressing out me & my young son to some serious points. Had not my brother, a Baptist Minister & other Baptist ministers failed to dispute the claims, we would have become serious reprobates. Now I don't wish to demean anyone, but I am now convinced of the Biblical approach these good Baptist men provided me & my family and could never move back.

Perhaps this position is offensive to my brothers & sisters on the other side but I cannot dismiss such a deliberate & egregious offense nor do I hold them in contempt. Rather I believe in the divine power of Grace to show us the way, a way that is healing to my family as well as myself.
Praise God for whom all blessings flow!


----------



## Mushroom (Apr 17, 2010)

> Had not my brother, a Baptist Minister & other Baptist ministers failed to dispute the claims, we would have become serious reprobates.


Um... don't you identify yourself as Reformed Baptist adhering to the LBCF?



> LBCF 1689 Chapter 3:
> 
> 3._____ By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice.
> 4.______These angels and men thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.


If you subscribe to this, how is it that if some men hadn't done such and such, you would be reprobate?


----------



## Cato (Apr 17, 2010)

simple answer....I subscribe to it today


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 17, 2010)

Cato The Elder said:


> simple answer....I subscribe to it today


 
The point Brad was trying to make, I think, was that if this is the confession to which you subscribe today, then today why why would you say something like "Had not my brother, a Baptist Minister & other Baptist ministers failed to dispute the claims, we would have become serious reprobates." 

Nobody "becomes" a reprobate...reprobation isn't something that's in our hands. But then I don't think that's what you meant. I think you meant to say (which is speculation, of course) that if they hadn't disputed what others had said, you expect that you'd have been driven even farther from the church than you were at the time.


----------



## Cato (Apr 17, 2010)

Yes!


----------



## Mushroom (Apr 17, 2010)

Cato The Elder said:


> Yes!


Cool!

I've never heard of a confessional Presbyterian Teaching or Ruling Elder saying this:


> The original comment made assured me that if the parents, at the time were not members of the Covenant (which my wife & I were not at the time, then my child was relegated to hell)


Is there any scriptural justification for that statement? Has anyone heard this before? My understanding is that this lies within the secret things which belong to God. There would be no reason not to hope. In fact, why wouldn't the benefits of the covenant accrue to a child of believers born prior to the parents' conversion?

Cato, how did these men dispute those previous claims? What was the Baptists' answer?


----------



## Cato (Apr 17, 2010)

Brad, as you can see I am not trained because I 1st came from a PCUSA church but it was said as you see it there. Since I wasn't an active member of the covenant. The Baptists claimed that no infant would be relegated to hell because the parents were not covenant members at the time of the child's death.


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 17, 2010)

Brad - 

I'm not sure I could argue that the benefits of the covenant SHOULD accrue to a child of believers born before their conversion. That's just way too speculative for me. I would tend, actually, to lean the other way if I was pressed to answer one way or the other.


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 17, 2010)

Cato The Elder said:


> Brad, as you can see I am not trained because I 1st came from a PCUSA church but it was said as you see it there. Since I wasn't an active member of the covenant. The Baptists claimed that no infant would be relegated to hell because the parents were not covenant members at the time of the child's death.


 
I don't think that's universally held by Reformed Baptists (Arminian baptists certainly would argue that no infant would be consigned to hell under any circumstances) but I could be wrong. 

The fact that anyone at all is consigned to hell is not through the covenant membership or non-membership of the parents... the fact that anyone at all is consigned to hell is due to sin, and the fact that God has not elected them to salvation, and brought forth salvation in them.


----------



## Herald (Apr 17, 2010)

> 1689 LBC 10.3
> Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.



RB's generally believe that God, more often than not, works through believing (covenant) families. But the truth is that scripture is silent on the matter of a definite eternal disposition of infants who die in infancy. The 1689 LBC states that elect infants who die in infancy are regenerated. Since we believe God works, more often than not, in and through believing families, we have hope that those infants dying in infancy to believing families will be regenerated.


----------



## Cato (Apr 17, 2010)

These Baptist Ministers are Not Arminian. My own brother left a church when it was becoming so.


----------



## Mushroom (Apr 17, 2010)

Cato The Elder said:


> Brad, as you can see I am not trained because I 1st came from a PCUSA church but it was said as you see it there. Since I wasn't an active member of the covenant. The Baptists claimed that no infant would be relegated to hell because the parents were not covenant members at the time of the child's death.


Understood, Cato, my first questions were addressed to everyone here, because I can't bring to mind any justification for the first Elders to give such an answer, except maybe that they were PCUSA apostates, a distinct possibility, and had no idea what they were talking about. The answer the Baptist's gave should have been what any confessional Presbyterian would give.

I'm not trained, either, brother, just a layman. But we are all called to study God's Word to rightly divide it for ourselves and those to whom we are charged with teaching. For you and me that may only be our families, but in my mind those folks are as important as anyone. What I would say is that the subjective experience you had with some evidently erroneous PCUSA Elders might not be the best foundation for determining your theological positions on the covenant and sacraments. Serious study of what God has to say on the matters is always going to be the safest avenue. Let every man be a liar, but God be true.


----------



## Cato (Apr 17, 2010)

Brad.... I am afraid that I am confusing you. Please let me try to make it clear. I left the PCUSA because they no longer represented God biblically & were making women pastors & elders. I next went to a traditional PC (that will remain nameless) & thats where I was told the churches position when I mentioned the scenario. Now I did not represent myself & my own situation in my question to these folks but put it in the form of a what if situation so they did not know I was referring to myself. Again I do not wish to slander these folks .... I really think I surprised them with my question, but there again you can see how people can get it wrong & how it can hurt vs help faith grow. 

So bottom line, my family & I will participate in a reformed service tomorrow & worship & grow in solid biblical teaching....it just wont be Presbyterian.


----------

