# Baptism - How does one know they are saved?



## Staphlobob

I was speaking with a Presbyterian friend the other day who told me the story of his conversion. As he spoke he related an incident that caught my attention. He said something like this: “Earlier in my life I only _thought_ I was saved. But later on when I was converted I knew for a fact that I was.”

I ought to have asked him how he knew because when I was a Lutheran we emphasized baptismal regeneration in direct response to such things. For instance, one may think he is born again, but some time later has a powerful spiritual experience wherein he says, “Previously I only thought I was saved. I was only fooling myself because now I know I am saved.” Obviously this experience can be replayed any number of times. In opposition to such a Lutheran would hold that he knows he is saved because of his baptism; that the sacrament is objective, God-worked, and has nothing to do with how he feels or what he experiences.

So how would a Presbyterian or a Baptist respond to this? How does reformed theology avoid the trap of “experience” or “feeling” when speaking of regeneration without falling into a theology of baptismal regeneration and ex opere operato?


----------



## Pergamum

Repentance is an experience last time I checked, as is conversion.

My wife was told by the Lutherans that she was a child of God. I have also had Presbyterian friends that had themselves convinced that they were covenant children in good standing with God even though they lived like the devil.


If you have not repented and believed, both of which can evoke some feelings and are both experiences, then there is no salvation Some who have been saved as little children cannot remember when they first believed, but they certainly know that they believe now and are repentant.


----------



## Poimen

Baptism is an objective sign of proclamation; an open declaration of God's promised signed, sealed and delivered. For baptism assures us that we belong to God's people to whom, corporately, the promises are declared. However there are also curses for those who reject those promises. So truly not every baptized individual experiences what baptism signifies. For the promise must be received by faith.

Thus if we distinguish between the sign and the thing signified we avoid the pitfalls of subjective experience guiding our assurance and objective statements individually appropriated without faith and true repentance.

_Heidelberg Catechism_, Q&A 66



> Q66: What are the sacraments?
> A66: The sacraments are visible, holy signs and seals appointed by God for this end, that by their use He may the more fully declare and seal to us the promise of the Gospel, namely, that of free grace He grants us the forgiveness of sins and everlasting life for the sake of the one sacrifice of Christ accomplished on the cross.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Poimen is on it.

Anyone who says he believes his water baptism saved him, and so lives like the devil, doesn't believe in his baptism at all. He doesn't hold onto his baptism by faith, because a faithful reflection would drive him away from sin. That he embraces sin proves he doesn't believe the promise--or the WARNING--of baptism.

For the true reformed believer who needs assurance of God's saving grace to him, he has the sign of God's promise, baptism. It's as real a reminder as the rainbow is a reminder of another of God's promises. We see, we remember, we believe.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Poimen said:


> Baptism is an objective sign of proclamation; an open declaration of God's promised signed, sealed and delivered. For baptism assures us that we belong to God's people to whom, corporately, the promises are declared.




I would like a citation from Scripture that signifies that we belong to God's people because we are baptised. Just asking.....





Poimen said:


> However there are also curses for those who reject those promises. So truly not every baptized individual experiences what baptism signifies. For the promise must be received by faith.



That is true whether one is baptised or not. Reject Christ and you are cursed already. 




Poimen said:


> Thus if we distinguish between the sign and the thing signified we avoid the pitfalls of subjective experience guiding our assurance and objective statements individually appropriated without faith and true repentance.



I never placed my faith in baptism after I developed a living faith in Christ. I did identify myself as one who believed I was in union with Christ by my Baptism though.



Poimen said:


> _Heidelberg Catechism_, Q&A 66
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q66: What are the sacraments?
> A66: The sacraments are visible, holy signs and seals appointed by God for this end, that by their use He may the more fully declare and seal to us the promise of the Gospel, namely, that of free grace He grants us the forgiveness of sins and everlasting life for the sake of the one sacrifice of Christ accomplished on the cross.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So does baptism seal us in Christ? Where does the scripture say that baptism seals us in the promise of the Gospel? Or am I reading the Catechism incorrectly?
> 
> I have never read the Heidelberg Catechism. Sounds foreign to me. Sorry. I guess I should read it.
Click to expand...


----------



## Contra_Mundum

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baptism is an objective sign of proclamation; an open declaration of God's promised signed, sealed and delivered. For baptism assures us that we belong to God's people to whom, corporately, the promises are declared.
> 
> 
> 
> I would like a citation from Scripture that signifies that we belong to God's people because we are baptised. Just asking.....
Click to expand...

Here's a prooftext from the original WCF: 1Co 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

But Poimen wrote that baptism was a "sign" for "assurance _that _we belong," that is, it needs faith to be effective.


PuritanCovenanter said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> However there are also curses for those who reject those promises. So truly not every baptized individual experiences what baptism signifies. For the promise must be received by faith.
> 
> 
> 
> That is true whether one is baptised or not. Reject Christ and you are cursed already.
Click to expand...

So, is there any difference between the person who is beaten with many stripes, and one beaten with few?


PuritanCovenanter said:


> I never placed my faith in baptism after I developed a living faith in Christ. I did identify myself as one who believed I was in union with Christ by my Baptism though.


No one should place faith in a bare sign, or a churchly act. He should place faith in the God who promises using the sign. What do you believe the rainbow means? Do you "believe" in the rainbow, or in the God who attached a promise to it? Poimen doesn't seem to be saying anything different.


PuritanCovenanter said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Heidelberg Catechism_, Q&A 66
> 
> 
> 
> Q66: What are the sacraments?
> A66: The sacraments are visible, holy signs and seals appointed by God for this end, that by their use He may the more fully declare and seal to us the promise of the Gospel, namely, that of free grace He grants us the forgiveness of sins and everlasting life for the sake of the one sacrifice of Christ accomplished on the cross.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So does baptism seal us in Christ? Where does the scripture say that baptism seals us in the promise of the Gospel?
Click to expand...

Yes.
Col. 2:11-12.
Rom 6:5.


----------



## Poimen

Randy:

I telepathically moved Bruce to write these answers down to your questions so please accept them as my personal thoughts (though somehow they came out way better than they were originally conceived!). 

Seriously we are going to have our afternoon service in about an hour and I need to get a short nap.... in short: read Bruce's points.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Pastors Bruce and Daniel,

I probably should have waited till tomorrow for this so I will pick this up tomorrow. I will say this as a heads up and take off on this tomorrow. When ever the Spirit is spoken of in 1 Corinthians 12 -14 I believe it is speaking of those who are in Christ and born from above. They are equipped for ministry and when you mention the word sealed I am thinking of the way Ephesians uses it. We are sealed unto the day of Redemption. 

I will pop in later but don't really want to get to serious discussing this today. 

As you probably notice I usually take the weekends off. 

Thanks for your patience with my understanding. 

Randy


----------



## Zenas

I was baptized at the local Baptist mega-church under Adrian Rogers. That lasted about a month and a half. It was back to heathenry with me for another 2 and a half years or so.

Sure I "thought" I was saved. When God called me to true repentance and faith, I came to understand just how damned I was, or am if I be a goat.

Baptism does nothing and, if properly understood, shouldn't present an issue as to one's salvation. You will know them by their fruit.


----------



## Herald

by Contra_Mundum:



> Here's a prooftext from the original WCF: 1Co 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit.


Bruce, would please clarify what baptism you were talking about? The baptism of the thread seems to be water baptism, whatever the mode or significance. 1 Corinthians 12:13 is the baptism of the Spirit, through regeneration. Water baptism is not specified or implied. 



> 1 Corinthians 12:1-14 Now concerning *spiritual* gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware. 2 You know that when you were pagans, you were led astray to the mute idols, however you were led. 3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the *Spirit of God* says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the *Holy Spirit.* 4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same *Spirit.* 5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. 7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the *Spirit* for the common good. 8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the* Spirit,* and to another the word of knowledge according to the same *Spirit;* 9 to another faith by the same *Spirit,* and to another gifts of healing by the one *Spirit,* 10 and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same *Spirit* works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills. 12 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one *Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. 14 For the body is not one member, but many. **


*

*Bold emphasis mine.*


----------



## Iconoclast

I along with Randy and Bill would like to see a discussion of 1Cor 12:13-18
and Romans 6:1-6. The reality spoken of is Spirit Baptism,as actual and true of those the text is speaking of. This is an area that is often not discussed in-depth.
It is not speaking of a "promise" but of actual regenerate persons. Some commentaries try to explain it away,but you can tell when you read them they are missing the key part of the verses that speak about the power of sin actually being broken, that they have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine. Not if they someday obey it.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Guys,
This is where the discussion grinds to a halt, all the time, every time. Hate to say it. But it's true.

It isn't "simple" for our side to talk about baptism. Because, in passages like 1 Cor. 12, our first question is NOT "what kind of baptism is this--is it Spirit baptism, or is it water baptism?" As if getting that right, will then help us then to interpret the passage properly. That's what I would call the "simple" approach, and its simply inadequate.

Our first question comes along well before we come to that passage, and it makes answering that question *irrelevant*, or at least a matter of little interpretive significance to Paul's thrust. Here it is: what is the relationship between what Holy Spirit does to baptize an individual, and the behavior of the church? How do these two things--one done in the invisible, eternal, eschatological reality; the other done in history, in a world that is visible, temporary, and passing away--speak together with respect to one reality?

One's manner of coming at the question in part determines the kind of answer he will get, or expect to get. Or as I have written, and as I recently read RSC writing the same thing: Is baptism fundamentally Man's speech, or God's? My testimony, or God's testimony? We Reformed and Presbyterian say, decisively, the latter.

As a human institution, the church can say something that later it retracts. We don't err when we baptize the "wrong" person, as long as we spoke for God in a human and fallible, yet _divinely authorized_ way. Nevertheless, Holy Spirit may speak where the church does not, and the church may speak where Holy Spirit does not. But we know that when God does speak _pro nobis,_ he never takes it back.

1 Cor. 12 is a useful passage to show how a "simple" view of baptism (see my 2nd paragraph) is inadequate to address the passage. For what sounds profoundly spiritual at the beginning of the chapter, sounds just as profoundly mundane at the end of the chapter, in discussing the BODY, the SOMA of the church, and its membership. So, to answer Bill, I disagree that v13 is only relevant to the mystical body. It also describes that body in its visible, earthly expression.


----------



## Herald

Bruce, 

My first question is not the mode of baptism in 1 Corinthians 12:13. I know very well what it says. But for the _purpose of this thread _I asked you what type of baptism Paul was writing about. Why? Bob's OP was about water baptism. I assume this because he referred to it as a sacrament. Randy asked the following question:



> I would like a citation from Scripture that signifies that we belong to God's people because we are baptised. Just asking.....


You responded with:



> Here's a prooftext from the original WCF: 1Co 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit.


Because of that exchange I wanted to clarify what type of baptism you were referencing. That was my only intent.



> It isn't "simple" for our side to talk about baptism. Because, in passages like 1 Cor. 12, our first question is NOT "what kind of baptism is this--is it Spirit baptism, or is it water baptism?" As if getting that right, will then help us then to interpret the passage properly. That's what I would call the "simple" approach, and its simply inadequate.


Bruce, what are you going on about? The passage is about spiritual gifts; where they come from, their purpose and how they are to function in the body. Baptism is not an issue, except (v. 13) to remind the saints that it is by the Spirit that we are part of the body. In my humble opinion the rest of your post is slanted to respond to an argument of what type of baptism is being taught in 1 Cor. 12:13. As I stated previously, I am quite at peace with what the passage teaches. 



> So, to answer Bill, I disagree that v13 is only relevant to the mystical body. It also describes that body in its visible, earthly expression.


Bruce, if you're describing the physical outworking of spiritual gifts (which is what the chapter, and following, is about), I concur. But Spirit baptism is "mystical", or better, invisible as displayed in regeneration.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Bill,
I don't think I was clear enough in my response. Sorry about that. And it was not just to respond to you that I wrote, but also to Randy and to Anthony. Your direct question is did respond to at the end.

I too am not addressing mode of baptism-sprinkling, dunking, etc.

"What TYPE of baptism is Paul writing about?" i.e Spirit or water, is what I was trying to address.

And what I said was: I don't think, the Presbyterian doesn't think, it much _matters_ how one answers that question. Personally, I don't think Paul was self-consciously separating or distinguishing those ideas in his head when he wrote those words. From the God-ward vantage point, all is perfect and effectual what the Spirit does when he baptizes; and Paul is representing that perfect work of God under the imperfect actions of the church, when he says "We are all baptized into one body."

Some of you are questioning (or just wondering about) my, and the Westminster divines, usage of 1Cor12:13 as a prooftext for the notion that (water) baptism joins one to the (visible) church, _because_ this passage allegedly says nothing about water, but is *only* addressing spiritual matters. But from the standpoint of WCF ecclesiology, the question is: has the church, in following the Lord's commands for this imperfect era, done its duty in representing the perfect?

If so, then Paul can be (and I say is) speaking about the Spirit's work, but as it is represented by the tangible church that we see right here in front of us. Holy Spirit's act joins us to the invisible church; the church's act joins us to the visible church. Which tangible outworkings of gift-giving seem to me to be the point of that chapter.

I don't think baptists, generally, operate on the basis of the same ecclesiology. They do not think of water baptism as joining them to anything, but as a personal witness. They view "the church" almost entirely under the aspect of the "spiritual" and invisible, even going so far as sometimes to say that the church on earth is really just a society of professors.

So, I said, I am quite certainly and self-consciously, bringing presuppositions to the text--as does everyone--in this case, presuppositions about ecclesiology. It is not a question of bringing "nothing" to the text, and somehow letting it speak in a "bare" fashion, that we then reverentially submit to. It is part of a complex, and we all have, therefore, a harmonized or unharmonized theology. The texts shape our theology, even as we come at them from an established position. If the tensions get too strong, hopefully we will have the sense to "give in" in favor of the truth.

Peace.



North Jersey Baptist said:


> Bruce,
> 
> My first question is not the mode of baptism in 1 Corinthians 12:13. I know very well what it says. But for the _purpose of this thread _I asked you what type of baptism Paul was writing about. Why? Bob's OP was about water baptism. I assume this because he referred to it as a sacrament. Randy asked the following question:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like a citation from Scripture that signifies that we belong to God's people because we are baptised. Just asking.....
> 
> 
> 
> You responded with:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a prooftext from the original WCF: 1Co 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because of that exchange I wanted to clarify what type of baptism you were referencing. That was my only intent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't "simple" for our side to talk about baptism. Because, in passages like 1 Cor. 12, our first question is NOT "what kind of baptism is this--is it Spirit baptism, or is it water baptism?" As if getting that right, will then help us then to interpret the passage properly. That's what I would call the "simple" approach, and its simply inadequate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bruce, what are you going on about? The passage is about spiritual gifts; where they come from, their purpose and how they are to function in the body. Baptism is not an issue, except (v. 13) to remind the saints that it is by the Spirit that we are part of the body. In my humble opinion the rest of your post is slanted to respond to an argument of what type of baptism is being taught in 1 Cor. 12:13. As I stated previously, I am quite at peace with what the passage teaches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, to answer Bill, I disagree that v13 is only relevant to the mystical body. It also describes that body in its visible, earthly expression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bruce, if you're describing the physical outworking of spiritual gifts (which is what the chapter, and following, is about), I concur. But Spirit baptism is "mystical", or better, invisible as displayed in regeneration.
Click to expand...


----------



## Herald

> "What TYPE of baptism is Paul writing about?" i.e Spirit or water, is what I was trying to address.
> 
> And what I said was: I don't think, the Presbyterian doesn't think, it much _matters_ how one answers that question. Personally, I don't think Paul was self-consciously separating or distinguishing those ideas in his head when he wrote those words. From the God-ward vantage point, all is perfect and effectual what the Spirit does when he baptizes; and Paul is representing that perfect work of God under the imperfect actions of the church, when he says "We are all baptized into one body."


Bruce, thanks for your clarification. I am curious as to how Presbyterian ecclesiology effects the _exegesis _of the text. From an exegetical standpoint I don't see how water baptism can even be alluded to in 1 Cor. 12. If I understand correctly you see an inherent bond between the mystical of 1 Cor. 12:13 and water baptism, in that water baptism is a sign of the first. If that is true then that understanding is as much hermeneutical as it is ecclesiological, and therein resides the systemic separation between Baptists and Presbyterians. I'm fine with that. This dialog (for me) has nothing to do with agreement as much as it does definition in terms. In my humble opinion that is half the battle in our baptism dicsussions on the PB.


----------



## Herald

> I don't think baptists, generally, operate on the basis of the same ecclesiology. They do not think of water baptism as joining them to anything, but as a personal witness. They view "the church" almost entirely under the aspect of the "spiritual" and invisible, even going so far as sometimes to say that the church on earth is really just a society of professors.


Generally, you're right. To use your term, most Baptists view baptism as a "personal witness", although here is what the 1689 LBC says regarding baptism:



> Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.




It seems to me the language of the LBC transcends the "personal witness" view that most modern, non-Reformed Baptists, hold to. Water baptism is a sign of our bond with Christ (and therefore, the body of Christ; the church). A Presbyterian would view water baptism as entrance into the visible church. A Baptist can appreciate this view for we require water baptism as a requirement of church membership. But we would view baptism, not as a sign of visible church membership, but of invisible church membership based on a credible profession of faith. It is the perponderence of non-Reformed Baptist churches that view water baptism simply as a "personal witness." I hope I've proven that the LBC teaches differently.


----------



## Ivan

Contra_Mundum said:


> I don't think baptists, generally, operate on the basis of the same ecclesiology. They do not think of water baptism as joining them to anything, but as a personal witness. They view "the church" almost entirely under the aspect of the "spiritual" and invisible, even going so far as sometimes to say that the church on earth is really just a society of professors.



I'll admit that I've heard this from some Baptists and I may be the one out of step, but I see baptism as my identifying with Christ and His Body, both universal and local. 

PB Baptists, what say ye?


----------



## Herald

Bob, we've effectively hijacked your thread. My apologizes.


----------



## Herald

Ivan said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think baptists, generally, operate on the basis of the same ecclesiology. They do not think of water baptism as joining them to anything, but as a personal witness. They view "the church" almost entirely under the aspect of the "spiritual" and invisible, even going so far as sometimes to say that the church on earth is really just a society of professors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll admit that I've heard this from some Baptists and I may be the one out of step, but I see baptism as my identifying with Christ and His Body, both universal and local.
> 
> PB Baptists, what say ye?
Click to expand...


Ivan, see post # 16.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

North Jersey Baptist said:


> I don't think baptists, generally, operate on the basis of the same ecclesiology. They do not think of water baptism as joining them to anything, but as a personal witness. They view "the church" almost entirely under the aspect of the "spiritual" and invisible, even going so far as sometimes to say that the church on earth is really just a society of professors.
> 
> 
> 
> Generally, you're right. To use your term, most Baptists view baptism as a "personal witness", although here is what the 1689 LBC says regarding baptism:
> 
> 
> 
> Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Here's the WCF 28.1, first few lines, by way of comparison28:1 Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ (Mat_28:19), not only *for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church* (1Co_12:13); but also, to be unto him a sign...​See that? That's the FIRST thing they say. And it appears _wholly excluded_ by the LBC. THAT is a theological difference of the first order.



North Jersey Baptist said:


> It seems to me the language of the LBC transcends the "personal witness" view that most modern, non-Reformed Baptists, hold to. Water baptism is a sign of our bond with Christ (and therefore, the body of Christ; the church). A Presbyterian would view water baptism as entrance into the visible church. A Baptist can appreciate this view for we require water baptism as a requirement of church membership. But we would view baptism, not as a sign of visible church membership, but of invisible church membership based on a credible profession of faith. It is the perponderence of non-Reformed Baptist churches that view water baptism simply as a "personal witness." I hope I've proven that the LBC teaches differently.


I think you are allowed to read or interpret your LBC in a way that helps you come to grips with your convictions, however, you do need to grapple with the _reasons_ why those divines changed the language of the WCF on just this point. It is a question of "who" is speaking: is it the church, for God? or the baptized, for himself?

Blessings.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Bruce, thanks for your clarification. I am curious as to how Presbyterian ecclesiology effects the _exegesis _of the text. From an exegetical standpoint I don't see how water baptism can even be alluded to in 1 Cor. 12. If I understand correctly you see an inherent bond between the mystical of 1 Cor. 12:13 and water baptism, in that water baptism is a sign of the first. If that is true then that understanding is as much hermeneutical as it is ecclesiological, and therein resides the systemic separation between Baptists and Presbyterians. I'm fine with that. This dialog (for me) has nothing to do with agreement as much as it does definition in terms. In my humble opinion that is half the battle in our baptism dicsussions on the PB.


Bill,
It is, most agreeably, hermeneutical, and the systematic is not just a philosophical imposition on the text (regardless of the caricatures) but an acknowledgment of the preformed thinking we bring to every text when we go to do exegesis.

As to 1 Cor. 12, above where you highlighted "spirit" and "spiritual" so many times, take that section of text, even more the whole chapter, and instead of highlighting "spirit", highlight all the language that refers to things tangible, and their mundane expressions. I'll get us started:1 Corinthians 12:1-14 Now concerning spiritual gifts, *brethren*, I do not want you to be unaware. 2 You know that *when you were pagans*, you were led astray to *the mute idols*, however you were led. 3 Therefore *I make known to you* that *no one speaking* by the Spirit of God *says, "Jesus is accursed";* and *no one can say, "Jesus is Lord,"* except by the Holy Spirit. 4 Now there are varieties of *gifts*, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are varieties of *ministries*, and the same Lord. 6 There are varieties of *effects*, but the same God who works all things in all persons. 7 But to each one is given the *manifestation* of the Spirit for *the common good*. 8 For to one is given *the word of wisdom* through the Spirit, and to another *the word of knowledge* according to the same Spirit; 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another *gifts of healing* by the one Spirit, 10 and to another *the effecting of miracles*, and to another *prophecy*, and to another *the distinguishing of spirits*, to another *various kinds of tongues*, and to another *the interpretation of tongues*. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills. 12 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. 14 For the body is not one member, but many.​I leave off at v11, because the following are the verses most directly in dispute. Is this "body" the soma we can _see_, in any sense? Is the baptism a baptism we can see? But, _hermeneutically_, given all the tangible realities spoken of, all the "real world" evidence of Spiritual _realities _mentioned in the first 10 verses, I have no problem claiming the same things are present in the next 4vv.

And the rest of the chapter reads the same way to me. So, I don't think I'm bringing any less or more presupps to the text than the baptist.


----------



## KMK

Poimen said:


> Baptism is an objective sign of proclamation; an open declaration of God's promised signed, sealed and delivered. For *baptism assures us that we belong to God's people* to whom, corporately, the promises are declared. However there are also curses for those who reject those promises. So *truly not every baptized individual experiences what baptism signifies*. For the promise must be received by faith.



So baptism assures us that we belong to 'Ammi'? Is there a larger set of people to whom the promises are declared? Are God's promises declared to all people without distinction?

How can it be that baptism assures me that I belong to God's people but at the same time I might not experience what baptism signifies?

WLC Chapter 18:



> Of Assurance of Grace and Salvation
> 
> I. Although hypocrites and other unregenerate men may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favor of God, and estate of salvation[1] (which hope of theirs shall perish):[2] yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love Him in sincerity, endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before Him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace,[3] and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed.[4]
> 
> II. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope;[5] but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation,[6] the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made,[7] the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God,[8] which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.[9]
> 
> III. This infallible assurance does not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be partaker of it:[10] yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto.[11] And therefore it is the duty of every one to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure,[12] that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience,[13] the proper fruits of this assurance; so far is it from inclining men to looseness.[14]
> 
> IV. True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as, by negligence in preserving of it, by falling into some special sin which wounds the conscience and grieves the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation, by God's withdrawing the light of His countenance, and suffering even such as fear Him to walk in darkness and to have no light:[15] yet are they never so utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ and the brethren, that sincerity of heart, and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may, in due time, be revived;[16] and by the which, in the mean time, they are supported from utter despair.[17]



Baptism is not mentioned in this chapter at all. There are places it might be infered I guess. But it seems reckless (maybe because I am a Baptist) to teach that water baptism in some way gives assurance of salvation.



> WLC 28:V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]



I must not understand what you mean by 'assurance'.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

KMK said:


> So baptism assures us that we belong to 'Ammi'? Is there a larger set of people to whom the promises are declared? Are God's promises declared to all people without distinction?
> 
> How can it be that baptism assures me that I belong to God's people but at the same time I might not experience what baptism signifies?


Ken, you must have missed this point:WLC Chapter 18: Of Assurance of Grace and Salvation...

II. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope;[5] but an infallible *assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises* of salvation,[6] the inward evidence of those graces unto which these *promises* are made,[7] the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God,[8] which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.[9]​You are "assured" when you _believe _what God promises. Baptism (in our understanding) is a special, visible statement of God's promise. It is received by FAITH. Once again, WHO is speaking when baptism is performed? I think I have pointed out three times now in this thread that this is a major point of radical dissimilarity between the positions.

Here's a more pertinent, specific address of the question:WLC Question 167: How is our Baptism to be improved by us?
Answer: The needful but much neglected duty of improving our Baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others; by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein; by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements; *by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament;* by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace; and by endeavoring to live by faith, to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness, as those that have therein given up their names to Christ; and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body.​


----------



## KMK

10-4 Rev Buchanan. I suspected that there might be some places in the confession where you would infer or insert water baptism. From what you have stated it seems that water baptism is a demonstration of the promises of God. But from LC Q 127 it seems that it is the 'improving' of water baptism that 'grows into' assurance but not the act of being sprinkled with water.

In other words,, if I understand you correctly, if an infant was baptized with water and no 'improvement' was ever made on that water baptism, (as in the case of Madonna, for example) then no assurance can be had. Unless you want to say that Madonna's infant water baptism assures her of God's promise to punish those who receive the sign and yet despise what is offered in the sign.

I apologize for all the questions but the Presbyterian view of paedo baptism for years has been somthing I cannot seem to wrap my mind around.


----------



## Amazing Grace

KMK said:


> .
> 
> In other words,, if I understand you correctly, if an infant was baptized with water and no 'improvement' was ever made on that water baptism, (as in the case of Madonna, for example) then no assurance can be had. Unless you want to say that Madonna's infant water baptism assures her of God's promise to punish those who receive the sign and yet despise what is offered in the sign.



I need to ask what is meant by 'improving' on one's baptism? This is new terminology to me. If baptism replaced circumcisn, were the hewbrews required or told it can be improved upon? I must be missing some simple explination of this phrase..


----------



## Staphlobob

Sorry I haven't been very involved in the discussion. I'm very busy with other things. I was basically asking in order to get some information. Thanks to all for responding. Esp. to Contra Mundum for some excellent thoughts and references.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter




----------



## Contra_Mundum

Ken,
To answer or comment the final statement first, no, I don't believe any baptized person has a right to assurance not flowing from faith. And anyone who abominates by his words, thoughts, and acts the baptism he received, may possibly be convinced he is going to hell, or falsely convinced he's going to heaven on the basis of his water baptism. But IN hell, he will know the reality of spurned promises, and ignored warnings.

Second,
1) "Improving" requires the object of the participle, improving what? Baptism; and we are putting the spiritual reality and the earthly representation together, because what was given to be seen was to put us in mind of the unseen.

2) It isn't improving "water baptism" (generally) either, but improving MY (our) baptism. Taking something of my past and refreshing it, maybe even seeing it as never before. Appreciating it afresh. What and when was this?

Again, I can't see my regeneration--the moment, the hour, the day, or even the act of Holy Spirit himself. But that water baptism was a tangible reality, it has a date and time, a handle to reflect upon. The promise was made on that day and hour. So, I would have to say my improvement of my baptism is inseparable from my water-event. But assurance doesn't "spring from it" unbidden, or apart from its improvement.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Improving your baptism. That is a fresh doctrine. I understand it though. I just don't know if it is biblical.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Amazing Grace said:


> I need to ask what is meant by 'improving' on one's baptism? This is new terminology to me. If baptism replaced circumcisn, were the hewbrews required or told it can be improved upon? I must be missing some simple explination of this phrase..


"improvement" could be understood as "making use of," but there is also within the idea of refreshment. When you "improve" your web page, you are "bringing it back", perhaps with fresh data; but still the same page.

And sure, the Israelites were to "improve" their circumcision, most obviously Dt 10:16 & 30:6; Jer 4:4 & 9:25; Eze 44:7-9; pretty much every place circumcision of the heart is mentioned. I could add many, many references to "uncircumcised" (people, lips, etc.) all which would (or should) have prompted reflection on the meaning of the cut.


----------



## Herald

I don't like having to leave an interesting thread for something as mundane as my chosen profession. Bruce, you certainly articulate the Presbyterian view of baptism well. I need some time to respond back on a few points. I will do so as soon as I have more than just a few moments to sit down at the computer. But I will throw this out for thought. You have used the tactic of setting the WCF as the authority on baptism while trying to put the LBC on the defensive. That's great for the Presbyterian. I think I know you better than to throw out the term, "ad hominem." You do a good job of explaining your ecclesiology and your hermeneutic. I suppose I still am having a difficult time of getting my mind around your macro interpretation of 1 Cor. 12. I don't see what you see. I'll try to respond to this later. Time is against me right now.

Peace.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Can one improve upon their sanctification. Yes, I would agree with that. Can one cause or improve themselves unto regeneration. I am not convinced that that can happen. In fact I am sure it can not happen. It is from God alone. 

Bruce, I know we disagree about the Colosians 2:11,12 passage but one can not improve himself the way you are speaking about in my opinion. Baptism is representative of some reality in a persons life. That being a persons life hid in Christ and in union with him. 

We are just going to disagree who is the Body of Christ. If we don't have his Spirit we are none of His as it says in Romans.


----------



## smhbbag

Rev. Buchanan, I have questions regarding the "sealing" function of baptism, in your view.

You responded to Martin's question references Romans 6:5 and Colossians 2:11-12 which, as you certainly know, do not use the word "seal."

And, because you rightly state that one's baptism cannot be an unquestionable assurance of one's salvation, an interesting fact arises.

In your view, the "seal" that baptism represents can, in fact, be broken. It is not a very good seal. I recognize the idea that, in general, to be in disobedience to a covenant one is in does not necessarily always negate the membership. There are covenant-breakers.

But, in the end, those who are paedobaptized and merely grow up to be covenant-breakers, and do not have that as the end of the story. They go to hell without faith. And, certainly in hell, we can say that they are not just "breaking" covenant - they are then NOT in covenant with God at all, even if we assume they were at an earlier point.

So, my objection here is what seems to be an unbiblical use of the word "seal." 

In Ephesians 1:13 of course, we are told that believers are given the "seal" of the Holy Spirit.

This seal cannot and shall not ever be broken. Yet, the 'seal' of baptism can and will be broken whenever a baptised infant grows up without faith and ends up in hell.

I recognize my greek skills do not even exist, and so cannot be described. But, an online search of the greek word translated "seal" in Ephesians 1 revealed many other occurrences. Yet, none of these involve a seal that can be broken.

So, to my knowledge, "seal" is only used in the Word to refer to a _good_ seal, not one that can be broken.

So how do you justify using that word as a description of the function of baptism - if, eternally, the paedobaptized unbeliever will no longer be in covenant with God at all?

I suppose the question also applies to those excommunicated. If a paedobaptized unbeliever remains in the church body till adulthood, is excommunicated for heresy or continual licentious living - is he still viewed as a "covenant-breaker" or as no longer being in the covenant at all? If the former, then the question would apply equally - the "seal" was broken.


----------



## aleksanderpolo

Just a quick note, you might have forgotten 

Romans 4:11. He received the *sign* of circumcision as a *seal* of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well.

So the language of sign and seal was used for circumcision. Any objection raised against calling baptism as a sign and seal will have to raise objection against Paul's calling circumcision as sign and seal as well. If Paul has no problem with this usage, I don't see why baptist have problem with it.


----------



## KMK

aleksanderpolo said:


> Just a quick note, you might have forgotten
> 
> Romans 4:11. He received the *sign* of circumcision as a *seal* of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well.
> 
> So the language of sign and seal was used for circumcision. Any objection raised against calling baptism as a sign and seal will have to raise objection against Paul's calling circumcision as sign and seal as well. If Paul has no problem with this usage, I don't see why baptist have problem with it.



But the passage says that circumcision was a seal of the righteousness that *he* had by faith. Is there something that can be infered that makes the passage also say that it was a seal of righteousness to *everyone* who was ever circumcised?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

And also it must be assumed that Circumcision becomes baptism in the New Covenant. 



> Does Baptism Replace Circumcision?
> 
> Nehemiah Coxe, Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ (Palmdale: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2005, 140) A reprint of A Discourse of the Covenants that God Made with Men before the Law, 1681
> 
> Circumcision was an ordinance of the old covenant and pertained to the law and therefore directly bound its subjects to a legal obedience. But baptism is an ordinance of the gospel and (besides other excellent and most comfortable uses) directly obliges its subjects to gospel obedience. Therefore it is in this respect opposed to, rather than substituted in the place of, circumcision.
> 
> Certainly it is safer to interpret one text according to the general current of Scripture and in full harmony with it, than to force such a sense on many texts (which they will in no way admit) to bring them into a compliance to a notion with which our minds are prepossessed. It is plain that the notion I have insisted on fully agrees with other places where circumcision is discussed according to its immediate and direct use in the old covenant. For there can be no contradiction in ascribing a different and seemingly opposite use and end to the same thing, if it be done in a different respect. What circumcision was directly and in its immediate use is one thing; what it was as subordinate to a better covenant and promise that had precedence to it, is another. It is easy to conceive that it might be that to the father of the faithful in its extraordinary institution, what it could not be to the children of the flesh or carnal seed in its ordinary use.
> 
> To conclude: if circumcision and baptism have the same use and are seals of the same covenant, I can hardly imagine how the application of both to the same subjects should at any time be proper. Yet we find those that were circumcised in their infancy were also baptized on the profession of faith and repentance even before circumcision was abrogated. Yes, according to the opinion that has been argued against, the Jews that believed before Christ suffered were at the same time under a command both of circumcising and baptizing their infant seed. But if the principles that this discourse is built upon are well proved by Scripture, as I take them to be, there must be allowed a vast disparity between circumcision and baptism. The old covenant is not the new; nor that which is abolished, the same with that which remains. Until these become one, baptism and circumcision will never be found so far one that the law for applying the latter should be a sufficient warrant for the administration of the former to infants.


----------



## KMK

Contra_Mundum said:


> And sure, the Israelites were to "improve" their circumcision, most obviously Dt 10:16 & 30:6; Jer 4:4 & 9:25; Eze 44:7-9; pretty much every place circumcision of the heart is mentioned. I could add many, many references to "uncircumcised" (people, lips, etc.) all which would (or should) have prompted reflection on the meaning of the cut.



How would a female 'improve' her circumcision?


----------



## Herald

aleksanderpolo said:


> Just a quick note, you might have forgotten
> 
> Romans 4:11. He received the *sign* of circumcision as a *seal* of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well.
> 
> So the language of sign and seal was used for circumcision. Any objection raised against calling baptism as a sign and seal will have to raise objection against Paul's calling circumcision as sign and seal as well. If Paul has no problem with this usage, I don't see why baptist have problem with it.


But how did Abraham receive it? 

"He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had *by faith*"

So, if we use your argument the sign is received by faith. Not transferred federal headship faith; faith on the part of the one receiving the sign.


----------



## aleksanderpolo

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Not transferred federal headship faith; faith on the part of the one receiving the sign.



Bill, I really don't know who are you reacting against. Can you state what you think Paedobaptist believe before you raise your objection? For example, do you think that when we use the language of "sign and seal", we imply that we do not need to embrace it by faith, that the "sign and seal" function equally in those who believe and those who don't? This might help clearing up some confusion, I think.


----------



## Kentucky Kid

*Hi Pastor Bruce*

Bruce to answer your question: how does one know they are saved- apart from feelings or baptism- by believing the gospel! All kinds of people can be baptized and will end up under the wrath of God; but all who believe the gospel will be in glory............believing the gospel (salvation conditioned on Christ alone) is the greatest assurance of our regeneration....................KK


----------



## Amazing Grace

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Improving your baptism. That is a fresh doctrine. I understand it though. I just don't know if it is biblical.



Randy:


what do you mean by 'fresh?' AS in new or novel?


----------



## Herald

aleksanderpolo said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not transferred federal headship faith; faith on the part of the one receiving the sign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, I really don't know who are you reacting against. Can you state what you think Paedobaptist believe before you raise your objection? For example, do you think that when we use the language of "sign and seal", we imply that we do not need to embrace it by faith, that the "sign and seal" function equally in those who believe and those who don't? This might help clearing up some confusion, I think.
Click to expand...


You're missing my point. Baptism, like circumcision, is/was to be received by faith. I think I understand the paedo position rather well. An infant is baptized into the covenant community (visible church) and under the headship of his earthly father. The long-standing Baptist problem with that view is that baptism is not on the basis of the faith of the one receiving the sign whereas circumcision was. The Presbyterian would answer that N.T. baptism is covenantal and, therefore, does not require individual faith. I give Bruce my compliments in carefully explaining that paedo covenantal baptism does not impart regeneration or justification. Those are both on the basis of faith. 

If I was a Presbyterian, I would say that Baptists come to the same place as Presbyterians in the area of soteriology but via a more painful road, by dismissing paedo covenantal baptism. My rejection of paedo baptism is not on the basis of misunderstanding. It is based on a material disagreement of a number of component issues. But in the end we do have a meeting of the minds regarding soteriology, and that is a comfort.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Bill,
All I did with reference to our respective Confessions was point out a salient difference. I think its a difference that gives evidence that the two sides see baptism speaking two different ways; yes, in a fundamental sense, but not necessarily in a way that excludes the other when its turned obliquely.

I've honestly not tried to put an "everybody knows the WCF has priority" spin on our conversation. I'm simply arguing from my Confessional stance: I understand it, I know it, and it gives me confidence. I think its clearer to everyone now why I'm approaching the text as I do. I think, if I had not begun where I did, I would have had to go back there anyway, to justify why _it just doesn't matter to me_ *which* baptism Paul might have had foremost in mind when he wrote 1 Cor. 12:13, if we assume he must have had one and not (or ahead of) the other. Most of the time if a baptist hears someone "mingling" the physical act and divine act, they just assume we are heading back to Rome.

I'll be happy to continue the discussion with you focused solely on the text. I have no need to make repeated references to standards. Blessings.


North Jersey Baptist said:


> I don't like having to leave an interesting thread for something as mundane as my chosen profession. Bruce, you certainly articulate the Presbyterian view of baptism well. I need some time to respond back on a few points. I will do so as soon as I have more than just a few moments to sit down at the computer. But I will throw this out for thought. You have used the tactic of setting the WCF as the authority on baptism while trying to put the LBC on the defensive. That's great for the Presbyterian. I think I know you better than to throw out the term, "ad hominem." You do a good job of explaining your ecclesiology and your hermeneutic. I suppose I still am having a difficult time of getting my mind around your macro interpretation of 1 Cor. 12. I don't see what you see. I'll try to respond to this later. Time is against me right now.
> 
> Peace.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Randy,
I just think you need to let those old white dudes speak for themselves. Update the language. "_Make the most_ of your baptism." "_Refresh your soul-appreciation_ of your baptism." "_Ponder_ your baptism."

You can indeed "improve" baptism, just as you can "improve" the Lord Supper when you partake of it. In fact, you better be "improving" the latter, because if you aren't, then you are "eating and drinking condemnation to yourselves." If you aren't "improving" you are falling into disuse and forgetfulness.

Randy, please don't assert that we are making a "work" out of this! Go ahead and make whatever hash you can out of our Presbyterian Catechism. Seems to me you could be cutting off your nose to spite your face... On the other hand, I can understand you not caring to "reflect" or "improve" on _your statement to God_--if that's what baptism is. But if the reality is a promise from God, if it is the gospel in pictures, then such reflection is more than warranted.

As for the matter of the body, well, same visible-invisible distinction that always hangs us up. If you can't call the people you gather with on Sunday morning "the church" and "the body", then there we are. At an impasse.

Blessings, my friend.


PuritanCovenanter said:


> Can one improve upon their sanctification. Yes, I would agree with that. Can one cause or improve themselves unto regeneration. I am not convinced that that can happen. In fact I am sure it can not happen. It is from God alone.
> 
> Bruce, I know we disagree about the Colosians 2:11,12 passage but one can not improve himself the way you are speaking about in my opinion. Baptism is representative of some reality in a persons life. That being a persons life hid in Christ and in union with him.
> 
> We are just going to disagree who is the Body of Christ. If we don't have his Spirit we are none of His as it says in Romans.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Amazing Grace said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Improving your baptism. That is a fresh doctrine. I understand it though. I just don't know if it is biblical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Randy:
> 
> 
> what do you mean by 'fresh?' AS in new or novel?
Click to expand...



Yes, I meant fresh as in newer. I have heard similar teaching before but don't remember seeing it put that way before. It may have been stated that way but I just might not have paid attention before. It isn't something in the early church that I had read about concerning baptism . Of course what I have read concerning the early church is just terrible doctrinally. Baptismal regeneration, baptisms based upon necessity for salvation (imminent death), and the teaching that your sins are forgiven by baptism are out there in my opinion. I understand where the teachings came from but they aren't biblical.


----------



## Herald

Contra_Mundum said:


> Bill,
> All I did with reference to our respective Confessions was point out a salient difference. I think its a difference that gives evidence that the two sides see baptism speaking two different ways; yes, in a fundamental sense, but not necessarily in a way that excludes the other when its turned obliquely.
> 
> I've honestly not tried to put an "everybody knows the WCF has priority" spin on our conversation. I'm simply arguing from my Confessional stance: I understand it, I know it, and it gives me confidence. I think its clearer to everyone now why I'm approaching the text as I do. I think, if I had not begun where I did, I would have had to go back there anyway, to justify why _it just doesn't matter to me_ *which* baptism Paul might have had foremost in mind when he wrote 1 Cor. 12:13, if we assume he must have had one and not (or ahead of) the other. Most of the time if a baptist hears someone "mingling" the physical act and divine act, they just assume we are heading back to Rome.
> 
> I'll be happy to continue the discussion with you focused solely on the text. I have no need to make repeated references to standards. Blessings.
> 
> 
> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like having to leave an interesting thread for something as mundane as my chosen profession. Bruce, you certainly articulate the Presbyterian view of baptism well. I need some time to respond back on a few points. I will do so as soon as I have more than just a few moments to sit down at the computer. But I will throw this out for thought. You have used the tactic of setting the WCF as the authority on baptism while trying to put the LBC on the defensive. That's great for the Presbyterian. I think I know you better than to throw out the term, "ad hominem." You do a good job of explaining your ecclesiology and your hermeneutic. I suppose I still am having a difficult time of getting my mind around your macro interpretation of 1 Cor. 12. I don't see what you see. I'll try to respond to this later. Time is against me right now.
> 
> Peace.
Click to expand...


Bruce, how about this for starters: what is Paul writing about in 1 Cor. 12? I'm not talking about the interpretive grid of our macro-presupposition but of the face value of the text? He starts and ends the chapter on spiritual gifts. "Now, concerning spiritual _gifts_..." (1 Cor. 12:1). "But earnestly desire the greater gifts." (1 Cor. 12:31). Within this discussion Paul writes about the unit of the body in the midst of varying gifts. "For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, yet are one body as also is Christ." (1 Cor. 12:12). To emphasize this point he describes the spiritual foundation of the SOMA. "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit." I don't believe Paul's intent (v. 13) was to write about baptism (whether spiritual or water). Paul was writing about the administration of spiritual gifts within the body and how the body is unified even though there are varying gifts. That's it. Help me see what I'm missing.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Contra_Mundum said:


> Randy,
> Seems to me you could be cutting off your nose to spite your face... On the other hand, I can understand you not caring to "reflect" or "improve" on _your statement to God_--if that's what baptism is. But if the reality is a promise from God, if it is the gospel in pictures, then such reflection is more than warranted.



Brother, It wouldn't be the last time I had done that. I do think it is important to understand Baptism and to remember what it means. I am not denying the picture as you seem to imply. I do believe that Baptism is a statement concerning what Christ has done for me. Not what I have done for him. Death, burial, and resurrection is a beautiful thing. I am a Covenant child of Abraham because of what Christ did. And I reflect on it in the Lord's supper and daily meditation also. I am seated in the heavenlies by him. It just keeps getting sweeter the older I get.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I think post #12 is an outstanding presentation of the basic difference in approach. http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/baptism-how-does-one-know-they-saved-32452/#post400310

It is in the attempt to peer into the things hidden and bring them into the visible is where failures in understanding of Baptism occur and, consequently, the effectiveness of the Sacrament to encourage a believer.

Our salvation fundamentally begins in the decree of God. I drew a line on the board last Wed to show how we are saved and it begins with us being promised to Christ in eternity and ends with us reigning with Him.

But we are not privvy to the entire timeline of our redemption. We are privvy only to the timeline of our existence. We are privvy only to that which is revealed to us. We have to have some point of historical contact with this eternal purpose of God or we are left in the things hidden and can only speculate about who He has elected.

Frankly, discussions about the subjects of Baptism that focus on who God has elected from all eternity fail to identify an actual subject of Baptism. It remains hidden in God's holy counsel.

This is why God has revealed the Covenant of Grace to us and has instituted His Church in both its nascent form pre- and post-Sinai and then maturely to us in the New Covenant with Christ.

Our experience of God's covenant to save us reaches us by our hearing when we hear the Gospel preached to us. We have no experience of any regeneration that may have occurred with it. We can experience our response to it and understanding of it. We can also experience the water as it is poured on us and hear the announcement of the minister. The minister announces with the authority of God that God saves all those who trust in Christ. We then hear and taste and see Word and Sacrament regularly administered to us that declare and re-affirm the same promises. We experience our affections for the things of God and how they correspond to the delights of the heart that the Scriptures say accompany those that believe upon him.

Our experiences, then, are like points on that eternal line of God's perfect redemption. We have assurance of our salvation because God has given a promise and an oath to us. He has sworn by Himself that He saves those who believe upon His Son. Because we know we trust and we heard the Promise we are most certainly "attached" to the plan from eternity and to eternity to be saved. The visible intersects the invisible in the Covenant of Grace.

Frankly, it is my estimation that discussions that say that "...well this is speaking of spirit baptism..." wrench the Covenant of Grace from its point of contact with the eternal. It places redemption back into a point completely hidden because it divorces sign from thing signified. There is now no longer any point of contact to God's eternal plan. It's not that the Presbyterian disagrees that only those that are united to Christ by evangelical faith are truly saved and such only receive the benefits of the Holy Spirit, but it's that now the sign that signifies it is said to no longer have any real reference to it because "...only the elect participate in this...."

Thus, in the end, assurance is maintained without the problems of turning signs into the thing signified or divorcing them but placing them within their proper categories. As Bruce noted, the visible, fallible Church has, by the foolishness of Words preached, the visible role in proclaiming the Gospel in time and space. This same visible, fallible Church has the authority to ministerially declare the Promise of a God who has backed up the same Promise with an Oath so that by two unchangeable things we can be utterly convinced that the Promise will be true of those it speaks of. We hear the Word and respond and believe. We feel the Water and taste the Bread and Wine and they connect us in time and space to the eternal plan of God. Abraham never saw a great nation but he had the sure hope that everything promised to him would come to pass by a sign placed in His flesh. We have the same assurance.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I would add to Rich's statement that I did experience a change as 2 Corinthians 5:17 mentions. And I can say something made me alive to be concerned about the things of God before I was converted. Something drew me to read the Word of God and experience it in a personal way. 

Old things did pass away and all things did become new for me. Everyone around me saw it. My view of the Word of God changed. It became food and meat for me. Before it meant nothing to me. I know God and I know he knows me by his activity in my life. I have a relationship with God. The Devil has one also. The difference is mine is based upon the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for me. It isn't imagined. It is experienced. His Spirit bares witness with ours it says. We can cry Father in a familial way.

St. John said he wrote what he wrote so that we may know that we have eternal life.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

smhbbag said:


> Rev. Buchanan, I have questions regarding the "sealing" function of baptism, in your view.
> 
> You responded to Martin's question references Romans 6:5 and Colossians 2:11-12 which, as you certainly know, do not use the word "seal."...


Jeremy,
Let's not commit the word-concept fallacy now, brother. If we think about what a seal is or does, we see that it is an attestation by _someone_ and a guarantee. It is the oath of the God of the promise.

Randy asked: "Where does the scripture say that baptism seals us in the promise of the Gospel?" Actually, the exact language of the HC is "seal to us the promise of the Gospel," but I take it that is his reference.

How am I going to answer his question? Like a Presbyterian. Baptism is a wordless gospel (which is why it needs explanation). It is the promise of God to save all those who come to Christ in faith, to justify them, to give them Christ's righteousness.

Rom 6:5 says believers are united to Christ in his death, which as the previous verse states is symbolized by baptism--our point of departure from the old life, into the new. So Holy Spirit ingrafts a believer to Christ the vine, uniting him. That's what he does in his realm; the church just acts in accordance with him, by dint of her limited vision, according to his ordinance.

Col 2:11-12, just makes the connection of baptism to circumcision (denied by many baptists, I know), and circumcision was God's seal/oath/guarantee of the righteousness Abraham had by faith, Rom. 4:11--*so that* he would be the father of *all* the believers.

To you first comment, what the church does in "sealing" CAN be "broken," because what the church does has to do with a worldly, fallible administration. You're right, its not a very good seal. Fortunately, it's not the seal that counts, namely God's. And he never makes a mistake, and seals someone he isn't taking to heaven.

How do I justify this usage? Well, I say that God gives his covenant sign that name. He gave it to circumcision, that outward sign in the OT, which was supposed to be emblematic of a Spirit-wrought regeneration. The same Spirit regenerates in the NT too, with this advantage: HE actually comes to dwell in all believers he regenerates, a presence vastly superior than that which OT saints enjoyed.

He is said to "baptize" believers with his presence, _falling on_ them, _poured out_ on them. So, Eph 1:13 simply focuses on the Spirit-reality that the mundane is supposed to symbolize. He is the real deal; the water of baptism is an emblem. Nevertheless, the Bible speaks of the emblem using the same language as the reality, to reinforce the teaching embedded in the symbol, to reinforce the connection.

I'll just leave it at that, and you can ask me for more clarification if you want it.

Peace.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

KMK said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> And sure, the Israelites were to "improve" their circumcision, most obviously Dt 10:16 & 30:6; Jer 4:4 & 9:25; Eze 44:7-9; pretty much every place circumcision of the heart is mentioned. I could add many, many references to "uncircumcised" (people, lips, etc.) all which would (or should) have prompted reflection on the meaning of the cut.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would a female 'improve' her circumcision?
Click to expand...

I guess we'll just have to conclude that's another way the NC is "better"! Cheers!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I would add to Rich's statement that I did experience a change as 2 Corinthians 5:17 mentions. And I can say something made me alive to be concerned about the things of God before I was converted. Something drew me to read the Word of God and experience it in a personal way.
> 
> Old things did pass away and all things did become new for me. Everyone around me saw it. My view of the Word of God changed. It became food and meat for me. Before it meant nothing to me. I know God and I know he knows me by his activity in my life. I have a relationship with God. The Devil has one also. The difference is mine is based upon the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for me. It isn't imagined. It is experienced. His Spirit bares witness with ours it says. We can cry Father in a familial way.
> 
> St. John said he wrote what he wrote so that we may know that we have eternal life.


The point is, nevertheless, that you're still speaking of something that you can be put into contact with. You can speak generically of it but you cannot say, definitively of your regeneration or your conversion. You don't even know if a prior encounter with the Gospel may have been the means toward the end you were experiencing.

I think we err in being too definitive about when and where the wind blew.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Kentucky Kid said:


> Bruce to answer your question: how does one know they are saved- apart from feelings or baptism- by believing the gospel! All kinds of people can be baptized and will end up under the wrath of God; but all who believe the gospel will be in glory............believing the gospel (salvation conditioned on Christ alone) is the greatest assurance of our regeneration....................KK


Hi KK,
I've posted in this thread quite a bit, so I really can't recall which one of my questions, rhetorical or actual, you are referring to... no matter, though.

I agree of course. And baptism is the gospel in a picture. If only we all could believe the Word just fine without extras! But God know how weak we are, and he accommodates us in our frailty. He knows what we need better than we do, and he decided we needed two visible, but very plain, signs of the New Covenant and its gospel. Hence, baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Praise the Lord!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> (1Jn 5:10) He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
> 
> (1Jn 5:11) And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
> 
> (1Jn 5:12) He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
> 
> (1Jn 5:13) These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.



I believe what John Says. He wrote it so that I might know that I have eternal life.


----------



## smhbbag

Thanks, Bruce, that answers my questions.

I obviously disagree on a few aspects of it, but the question was mainly for me to understand how you were internally consistent with two fundamentally different types of seals. Maybe it's a peripheral aspect of most paedo/credo discussions, but I had never seen that portion reasoned through and acknowledged. Thank you.


----------



## Ivan

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think baptists, generally, operate on the basis of the same ecclesiology. They do not think of water baptism as joining them to anything, but as a personal witness. They view "the church" almost entirely under the aspect of the "spiritual" and invisible, even going so far as sometimes to say that the church on earth is really just a society of professors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll admit that I've heard this from some Baptists and I may be the one out of step, but I see baptism as my identifying with Christ and His Body, both universal and local.
> 
> PB Baptists, what say ye?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ivan, see post # 16.
Click to expand...


Thank you!


----------



## Contra_Mundum

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Bruce, how about this for starters: what is Paul writing about in 1 Cor. 12? I'm not talking about the interpretive grid of our macro-presupposition but of the face value of the text? He starts and ends the chapter on spiritual gifts. "Now, concerning spiritual _gifts_..." (1 Cor. 12:1). "But earnestly desire the greater gifts." (1 Cor. 12:31). Within this discussion Paul writes about the unit of the body in the midst of varying gifts. "For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, yet are one body as also is Christ." (1 Cor. 12:12). To emphasize this point he describes the spiritual foundation of the SOMA. "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit." I don't believe Paul's intent (v. 13) was to write about baptism (whether spiritual or water). Paul was writing about the administration of spiritual gifts within the body and how the body is unified even though there are varying gifts. That's it. Help me see what I'm missing.


Bill,
I say Paul is writing about _the church!_ What you *bolded* when you went through that section was every reference to the Spirit. I just went right back and *bolded* every reference to things that were things you could see, touch, hear, and experience in other ways in your physical person. In fact, _only_ in your embodied state for some of them. All those gifts are for right now. The text is explicit: they are MANIFESTED for the COMMON good.

So, the whole chapter appears to me (on one level) one extended metaphor of the two-phase existence we endure for the present. All these powers of the age to come, present in our mundane existence, for our use in this world right now.

Now, like I said to Randy, if you can't refer to that gathering yuo attend on Sunday morning as THE church, or THE body, then we are not able to speak to the same subject using this language. We are at an impasse.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Contra_Mundum said:


> Now, like I said to Randy, if you can't refer to that gathering yuo attend on Sunday morning as THE church, or THE body, then we are not able to speak to the same subject using this language. We are at an impasse.



Did I imply that I couldn't refer the the gathering I attended on the Christian Sabbath as the Church or the body? I didn't mean to give that impression if I did. 

Where did I do that?

I do believe in the visible and invisible. I just think it is more prudent and commanded that we stay more in line with who is a Covenant Child. One who is a child of Abraham in like precious faith. They are the ones who are truly in union with Christ.


----------



## Herald

Contra_Mundum said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce, how about this for starters: what is Paul writing about in 1 Cor. 12? I'm not talking about the interpretive grid of our macro-presupposition but of the face value of the text? He starts and ends the chapter on spiritual gifts. "Now, concerning spiritual _gifts_..." (1 Cor. 12:1). "But earnestly desire the greater gifts." (1 Cor. 12:31). Within this discussion Paul writes about the unit of the body in the midst of varying gifts. "For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, yet are one body as also is Christ." (1 Cor. 12:12). To emphasize this point he describes the spiritual foundation of the SOMA. "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit." I don't believe Paul's intent (v. 13) was to write about baptism (whether spiritual or water). Paul was writing about the administration of spiritual gifts within the body and how the body is unified even though there are varying gifts. That's it. Help me see what I'm missing.
> 
> 
> 
> Bill,
> I say Paul is writing about _the church!_ What you *bolded* when you went through that section was every reference to the Spirit. I just went right back and *bolded* every reference to things that were things you could see, touch, hear, and experience in other ways in your physical person. In fact, _only_ in your embodied state for some of them. All those gifts are for right now. The text is explicit: they are MANIFESTED for the COMMON good.
> 
> So, the whole chapter appears to me (on one level) one extended metaphor of the two-phase existence we endure for the present. All these powers of the age to come, present in our mundane existence, for our use in this world right now.
> 
> Now, like I said to Randy, if you can't refer to that gathering yuo attend on Sunday morning as THE church, or THE body, then we are not able to speak to the same subject using this language. We are at an impasse.
Click to expand...


Bruce,

The post where I bolded all the references to "Spirit" in 1 Cor. 12 was all about verse 13 and why I believe that verse is about Spirit baptism (regeneration). I wasn't posting about the purpose of the entire chapter. The chapter is about spiritual gifts. Verse 13 mentions baptism and it's a fair hermeneutical question to ask, "what type of baptism"? Stepping back from the verse and looking at the entire chapter, it's about spiritual gifts, is it not? On that I take you back to my previous post. 

You said more than once that a Baptist comes to verse 13 asking, "what kind of baptism is Paul writing about?" Actually, aside from asking the questions of proper hermeutics (look at Berhkoff's, "Principles of Biblical Interpretation." He considers "what" to be a valid question to ask), it is plain that Paul is not writing about baptism in chapter 12. He doesn't polemicize the topic of baptism. He's writing about spiritual gifts and references how the Spirit of God makes us all part of the same body; the body of Christ. He then goes on to talk about how the Spirit administers gifts within the body (vs. 14 - 31). Interesting observation, from verses 1-12 the administration of the gifts is on a individual basis (v. 11), albeit with a societal beneift (v. 7). From verse 12 to the end of the chapter the administration and use of spiritual gifts is seen only as it pertains to the body. So I am with you in the use of the word SOMA but in the administration and use of spiritual gifts. You asked the question (that you challenged the Baptist to ask), "Who is talking?" God is talking, through the Apostle. What is God saying? That God has gifted the body with spiritual gifts for the purpose of strengthening the same body. The fulcrum of the chapter is verse 13, but not for the sake of baptism. Verse 13 stands as the pivot because it removes Lone Ranger view of spiritual gifts and accenuates their use within and for the body. 

All this comes back to the WCF using 1 Cor. 2:13 as a prooftext for water baptism. I am fine with all the discussion about the SOMA in this chapter. I heartily concur. But the SOMA is discussed within the larger topic of spiritual gifts, not baptism. If that places us at and impasse, so be it. 

I suppose I'm a Baptist and you're a Presbyterian for a reason.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, like I said to Randy, if you can't refer to that gathering yuo attend on Sunday morning as THE church, or THE body, then we are not able to speak to the same subject using this language. We are at an impasse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I imply that I couldn't refer the the gathering I attended on the Christian Sabbath as the Church or the body? I didn't mean to give that impression if I did.
> 
> Where did I do that?
> 
> I do believe in the visible and invisible. I just think it is more prudent and commanded that we stay more in line with who is a Covenant Child. One who is a child of Abraham in like precious faith. They are the ones who are truly in union with Christ.
Click to expand...


Randy,

I don't know if you can detect this in what you just wrote but you took away with one hand what you granted with the other. You said this in effect:

1. I do believe in the visible and invisible. 

2. I just think it is more prudent and commanded that we stay more in line with who is a Covenant Child. 

3. One who is a child of Abraham in like precious faith (invisible). They are the ones who are truly in union with Christ (invisible).

Are you stating that *every* visible member in your Church has the "like precious faith" of Abraham and that all are truly in union with Christ?

Or are you stating that Covenant and Union with Christ are invisible things detached from the Church and baptism? 

Is there a third option?

Again, you've offered no point of real contact between the hidden decree and the visible means of grace. You simply offer the interesting fact that, in the hidden decree of God, _some_ are truly in the Covenant and some aren't. The Church in such a schema seems to be a place that teaches the fact that an invisible people of God exist but that Covenant people has an identity distinct from the Church itself since there is absolutely nobody that you can identify as certainly being in union with Christ.

Notice that as soon as Reformed Baptist theology starts out with Baptism (visible) it immediately loses itself in the invisible New Covenant. The first post that asked how a man can have assurance with respect to his baptism. The real tension for a Reformed Baptist is to show any point of real contact between the visible ordinance and the hidden decree.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Semper Fidelis said:


> The first post that asked how a man can have assurance with respect to his baptism. The real tension for a Reformed Baptist is to show any point of real contact between the visible ordinance and the hidden decree.




Here is the point of real contact.



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






> (Rom 10:1) Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
> 
> (Rom 10:2) For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
> 
> (Rom 10:3) For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
> 
> (Rom 10:4) For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
> 
> (Rom 10:5) For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
> 
> (Rom 10:6) But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above
> 
> (Rom 10:7) Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
> 
> (Rom 10:8) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
> 
> (Rom 10:9) *That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.*
> 
> (Rom 10:10) *For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.*
> 
> (Rom 10:11) For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
> 
> (Rom 10:12) For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
> 
> (Rom 10:13) For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.





> (Act 2:41) Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
> 
> (Act 2:42) And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.





> (Rom 6:3) Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
> 
> (Rom 6:4) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
> 
> (Rom 6:5) For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
> 
> (Rom 6:6) Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
> 
> (Rom 6:7) For he that is dead is freed from sin.
> 
> (Rom 6:8) Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
> 
> (Rom 6:9) Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
> 
> (Rom 6:10) For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
> 
> (Rom 6:11) Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.




A confession makes the contact between the heart and salvation. Baptism is a visible picture of what has happened.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Chapter 29
BAPTISM
29.1 Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be to the person baptised a sign of fellowship with Christ in his death and resurrection, of being grafted into him,1 of remission of sins,2 and of giving up oneself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.3
(1) Rom_6:3-5; Col_2:12; Gal_3:27
(2) Mar_1:4; Act_22:16
(3) Rom_6:4


----------



## Herald

MODERATOR MODE ENGAGED

I think this thread is starting to deviate greatly from Bob's OP. It often happens when we discuss any facet of baptism. It's usually becomes paedo vs. credo. Let's keep that from happening folks. You have the freedom to start another thread if there is a part of the baptism discussion you want to pursue.

Thanks.

MODERATOR MODE DISENGAGED


----------



## aleksanderpolo

Back to the OP, covenant sign was given by God to His people to assure them of God's promise to those who believe. It's objective and unchangeable. When Abraham was struggling with his faith in God, God gave him the sign of circumcision, to assure him that God will fulfill His promise, even though it means His only Son will be cut-off from the living. When my faith is feeble and struggling, a sign that point me back towards my faith and commitment to God does not give me any assurance. What I really need is a sign that point to the unchangeable promise of God, that calls me to embrace it by faith. As it is written:

Romans 3:1-4
Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4 By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, “That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged.”

And this is how I think covenant sign give us assurance of God's promise. Not pointing inward, but pointing outward.


----------



## Kentucky Kid

*note to Rev. Buchanan*

Hi Bruce- it's KK: I'm sorry, when I addressed you in me answering your question, I meant to answer Pastor Kevin who started the thread! I apologize! I have to remember the PB is big and I need to get the names right! Goodday sir..................................KK


----------

