# The design of baptism



## MW

In the thread on points of difference between paedo and antipaedobaptists it seems the design of baptism was becoming confused. In an attempt to rescue brotherly relations with paedobaptists while disowning their baptism, the antipaedobaptist brethren began altering the design of baptism. Whereas Christian theology recognises that "profession of faith" is more than mere words but includes a visual renouncing of the world and following Christ through baptism, the antipaedobaptists began arguing that profession of faith and baptism are two distinct things.

I have started this thread to discuss this particular point, and do not desire to discuss any other point.

I am going to begin by quoting the antipaedobaptist theologian, John L. Dagg, to prove that antipaedobaptists also maintain that baptism is part of a profession of faith. The quotation is taken from Manual of Theology, vol. 2, chapter 1.

I ask my antipaedobaptist friends to explain why Dagg's theology is correct or incorrect. If correct, how can they still accept antipaedobaptists as professing believers? If incorrect, what biblical considerations repudiate his claims? What antipaedobaptist theologians contradict his claims?



> The *profession* of renouncing the world, and devoting ourselves to Christ, might have been required to be made in mere words addressed to the ears of those who hear; but infinite wisdom has judged it better that it should be made *in a formal and significant act*, appointed for the specific purpose. *That act is baptism*. The immersion of the body, as Paul has explained, signifies our burial with Christ; and in emerging from the water, we enter, according to the import of the figure, on a new life. We put off the old man, and put on the new man: "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ."
> 
> The place which baptism holds in the commission, indicates its use. The apostles were sent to make disciples, and to teach them to observe all the Saviour's commands; but an intermediate act is enjoined, the act of baptizing them. In order to make disciples, they were commanded, "Go, preach the gospel to every creature." When the proclamation of the good news attracted the attention of men, and by the divine blessing so affected their hearts, that they became desirous to follow Christ, they were taught to observe his commandments, and first to be baptized. *This ceremony was manifestly designed to be the initiation into the prescribed service*; and every disciple of Christ who wishes to walk in the ways of the Lord, meets this duty at the entrance of his course.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

armourbearer said:


> In the thread on points of difference between paedo and antipaedobaptists it seems the design of baptism was becoming confused. In an attempt to rescue brotherly relations with paedobaptists while disowning their baptism, the antipaedobaptist brethren began altering the design of baptism. Whereas Christian theology recognises that "profession of faith" is more than mere words but includes a visual renouncing of the world and following Christ through baptism, the antipaedobaptists began arguing that profession of faith and baptism are two distinct things.



Reverend Winzer, 

Can you give me a link to where this happened? I quit following the thread. In fact I didn't know anyone could do this? It wouldn't matter if it was paedo or anti-paedo in my understanding. There is some profession of faith and renouncing the world tied to both positions as far as I understood it. In the paedo camp this would be done by the believing parents as in the anti-paedo position it would be done by the confessing disciple. 

I think I draw this kind of conclusion in answering Brian in this post to his question in the credo only forum. Especiallly when I quote the anti-paedobaptist John Tombes. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f123/please-supply-understanding-55157/#post713004


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

BTW, I am about to log off for a few days. So I might not be able to respond much. It is late here and I usually don't participate till late Sunday night. 

Have a great Lord's day.


----------



## MW

Randy, see especially pages 3, 4, 6 of this thread:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/paedo-vs-credo-main-point-contention-54965/index6.html


----------



## Pergamum

> If correct, how can they still accept antipaedobaptists as professing believers?



One professes with the mouth before they profess their faith more fully in baptism. 

I know of no baptist who would doubt a Presbyterian's salvation due to lack of "proper" baptism.

An incomplete profession (i.e. a verbal profession without the profession of faith in baptism) is still a profession. A paedobaptist is still a professing believer; they just lack one form of this profession, i.e. believer's baptism.


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> One professes with the mouth before they profess their faith more fully in baptism.



So are you rejecting Dagg's statement that profession is not "mere words," but also "a formal and significant act?" It would appear that you are separating words and act in two stages whereas Dagg makes them two parts of the one profession.


----------



## Heidelberg1

*Clarification Please*

Hi Reverend Winzer, 



armourbearer said:


> If correct, how can they still accept antipaedobaptists as professing believers?



I am not sure I understand your question here. Shouldn't your question read, "If correct, how can they still accept paedobaptists (who were themselves baptized as babies) as professing believers?"

I would answer that we do accept paedobaptists as professing believers. Even Dagg would, if I am right in reading the two paragraphs leading up to your quote. Dagg Volume 2 Chapter 1

The LBCF stays clear of "a profession of faith" language, calling baptism an ordinance that signifies among other things -- fellowship with Christ in Christ's death and resurrection, a sign of our being ingrafted into Christ, a sign of the remission of sins, and a sign of our walking in newness of life. It further clarifies by saying that only professing believers should receive the sign, but it does not call it a profession of faith. 



> London Baptist Confession of Faith
> 
> Chapter 29 Of 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;3 of remission of sins;4 and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.5
> 
> 3 Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27
> 4 Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16
> 5 Rom. 6:4
> 
> Paragraph 2. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.6
> 
> 6 Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36,37, 2:41, 8:12, 18:8



I do not know of a verse in the Bible that calls baptism a profession of faith. The closest is in 1 Peter 3:21 where it is called "as an appeal to God for a good conscience." 

Baptist theologians like Dagg, as all theologians do, offer their works as private opinions for the edification of the church. It is the Confessions of Faith that define what churches publicly profess for faith and practice. 

Sincerely,


----------



## MW

Heidelberg1 said:


> I am not sure I understand your question here. Shouldn't your question read, "If correct, how can they still accept paedobaptists (who were themselves baptized as babies) as professing believers?"



Yes, thankyou for making explicit what was implicit in the question.



Heidelberg1 said:


> I would answer that we do accept paedobaptists as professing believers. Even Dagg would, if I am right in reading the two paragraphs leading up to your quote. Dagg Volume 2 Chapter 1



Would you be willing to show (a) where Dagg does this, and (b) How it accords with Dagg's definition of profession as not mere word but also formal and significant act? If we do not have the formal and significant act how can we be said to have a profession? If we haven't been "initiated into the prescribed service," how can we be said to be carrying on the divine service?



Heidelberg1 said:


> The LBCF stays clear of "a profession of faith" language, calling baptism an ordinance that signifies among other things -- fellowship with Christ in Christ's death and resurrection, a sign of our being ingrafted into Christ, a sign of the remission of sins, and a sign of our walking in newness of life. It further clarifies by saying that only professing believers should receive the sign, but it does not call it a profession of faith.



Two points. (1.) If a sign represents something by divine ordinance, doesn't the lack of the sign mean something as a result of the same divine ordinance? Otherwise it is not really a sign but a mere teaching illustration. (2.) The LBC states that those who profess faith are visible saints, "and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted" (26:2). On this basis there should be no reason why a paedobaptist (only baptised as an infant) shouldn't be received into membership. Yet the brethren who reject our baptism also reject us for membership. Please explain why.



Heidelberg1 said:


> I do not know of a verse in the Bible that calls baptism a profession of faith. The closest is in 1 Peter 3:21 where it is called "as an appeal to God for a good conscience."



That is sufficient of itself; but the three proof texts in the LBC proving baptism is a sign (Col. 2, Gal. 3, Rom. 6) make this plain.



Heidelberg1 said:


> Baptist theologians like Dagg, as all theologians do, offer their works as private opinions for the edification of the church. It is the Confessions of Faith that define what churches publicly profess for faith and practice.



So are you rejecting Dagg's teaching as "not Baptist?"


----------



## Pergamum

armourbearer said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> One professes with the mouth before they profess their faith more fully in baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you rejecting Dagg's statement that profession is not "mere words," but also "a formal and significant act?" It would appear that you are separating words and act in two stages whereas Dagg makes them two parts of the one profession.
Click to expand...


I need not divide one's profession into stages, but I could say that one can have an incomplete profession versus a fuller and more complete profession if one merely professes with words and does not follow in believer's baptism as a more formal profession. 

To add to Dagg, I would think that a well-lived life even after a verbal profession and subsequent baptism would even be a more complete profession still yet.

Did the above make sense? One's profession of faith begins by verbal confession, shown forth more fully by baptism and then evidenced by the changed life.


----------



## Grillsy

Pergamum said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> One professes with the mouth before they profess their faith more fully in baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you rejecting Dagg's statement that profession is not "mere words," but also "a formal and significant act?" It would appear that you are separating words and act in two stages whereas Dagg makes them two parts of the one profession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need not divide one's profession into stages, but I could say that one can have an incomplete profession versus a fuller and more complete profession if one merely professes with words and does not follow in believer's baptism as a more formal profession.
> 
> To add to Dagg, I would think that a well-lived life even after a verbal profession and subsequent baptism would even be a more complete profession still yet.
> 
> Did the above make sense? One's profession of faith begins by verbal confession, shown forth more fully by baptism and then evidenced by the changed life.
Click to expand...


So, if I comprehend the credo-baptist understanding, baptism is just an early part of sanctification?


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> Did the above make sense? One's profession of faith begins by verbal confession, shown forth more fully by baptism and then evidenced by the changed life.



Yes, but this doesn't appear to add to Dagg; it detracts from him if I am reading him correctly. You are saying the words can exist on their own as a profession, whereas he says the words might have existed on their own but infinite wisdom has judged better of it by joining a significant act.


----------



## Pergamum

Grillsy said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are you rejecting Dagg's statement that profession is not "mere words," but also "a formal and significant act?" It would appear that you are separating words and act in two stages whereas Dagg makes them two parts of the one profession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need not divide one's profession into stages, but I could say that one can have an incomplete profession versus a fuller and more complete profession if one merely professes with words and does not follow in believer's baptism as a more formal profession.
> 
> To add to Dagg, I would think that a well-lived life even after a verbal profession and subsequent baptism would even be a more complete profession still yet.
> 
> Did the above make sense? One's profession of faith begins by verbal confession, shown forth more fully by baptism and then evidenced by the changed life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if I comprehend the credo-baptist understanding, baptism is just an early part of sanctification?
Click to expand...


I never said that.


----------



## Grillsy

Pergamum said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I need not divide one's profession into stages, but I could say that one can have an incomplete profession versus a fuller and more complete profession if one merely professes with words and does not follow in believer's baptism as a more formal profession.
> 
> To add to Dagg, I would think that a well-lived life even after a verbal profession and subsequent baptism would even be a more complete profession still yet.
> 
> Did the above make sense? One's profession of faith begins by verbal confession, shown forth more fully by baptism and then evidenced by the changed life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, if I comprehend the credo-baptist understanding, baptism is just an early part of sanctification?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that.
Click to expand...


Okay then, I misinterpreted. Since "faith is shown more fully by baptism and then more fully by changed life", I wanted to read that as part of sanctification.


----------



## Pergamum

armourbearer said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the above make sense? One's profession of faith begins by verbal confession, shown forth more fully by baptism and then evidenced by the changed life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but this doesn't appear to add to Dagg; it detracts from him if I am reading him correctly. You are saying the words can exist on their own as a profession, whereas he says the words might have existed on their own but infinte wisdom has judged better of it by joining a signifant act.
Click to expand...


I am saying that profession can be verbal. If one is not baptized "properly" and yet professes Christ, then I count them a Christian on the basis of their profession. Of course, I would wish that they would follow with proper baptism afterwards.

A fuller profession would be a verbal profession followed by baptism.

The fullest profession would be confession of faith, baptism, and then a life lived out in faith.

It seems that Dagg is saying that baptism ought to happen and that mere profession is incomplete if one stays unbaptized. He seems to be stressing the importance of baptism, not suggesting that we charge those baptized "improperly" as being unsaved.



Your thoughts?

-----Added 11/7/2009 at 01:23:42 EST-----



Grillsy said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if I comprehend the credo-baptist understanding, baptism is just an early part of sanctification?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay then, I misinterpreted. Since "faith is shown more fully by baptism and then more fully by changed life", I wanted to read that as part of sanctification.
Click to expand...


Hmmm, I guess I can see why you would conclude that. A fuller profession would accompany fuller sanctification I guess. 


But, I am not ready to jump into a major baptism thread. Rev. Winzer brings up a good point about Dagg and I want to merely answer that and then get some shut-eye.


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> I am saying that profession can be verbal. If one is not baptized "properly" and yet professes Christ, then I count them a Christian on the basis of their profession. Of course, I would wish that they would follow with proper baptism afterwards.



Remember, I'm concerned with those who say paedobaptists (baptised as infants) are not baptised. You seem to be saying we are baptised, only the baptism was not administered properly? Would you be able to clarify this point for me. Dagg's connection of verbal profession with significant act is only relevant if we are not actually baptised in the antipaedobaptist view. If we are actually baptised then it doesn't pose a problem.



Pergamum said:


> It seems that Dagg is saying that baptism ought to happen and that mere profession is incomplete if one stays unbaptized. He seems to be stressing the importance of baptism, not suggesting that we charge those baptized "improperly" as being unsaved.



Yes, I'm sure he is not suggesting that baptism is necessary for salvation; but he does seem to be saying that baptism is necessary for discipleship.


----------



## Heidelberg1

armourbearer said:


> So are you rejecting Dagg's teaching as "not Baptist?"



No, not at all. I am just saying that all his opinions are not necessarily confessional. BB Warfield embraced theistic evolution. That does not make that position Presbyterian. The Westminster Standards defines Presbyterian faith.

I will need to finish my reply to you after the Sabbath. I have a busy couple of days of ministry coming up.

Blessings,


----------



## Pergamum

armourbearer said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying that profession can be verbal. If one is not baptized "properly" and yet professes Christ, then I count them a Christian on the basis of their profession. Of course, I would wish that they would follow with proper baptism afterwards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, I'm concerned with those who say paedobaptists (baptised as infants) are not baptised. You seem to be saying we are baptised, only the baptism was not administered properly? Would you be able to clarify this point for me. Dagg's connection of verbal profession with significant act is only relevant if we are not actually baptised in the antipaedobaptist view. If we are actually baptised then it doesn't pose a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that Dagg is saying that baptism ought to happen and that mere profession is incomplete if one stays unbaptized. He seems to be stressing the importance of baptism, not suggesting that we charge those baptized "improperly" as being unsaved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm sure he is not suggesting that baptism is necessary for salvation; but he does seem to be saying that baptism is necessary for discipleship.
Click to expand...


Many baptists would assert that a thing can be improperly done but still "count." For instance, if one is immersed but their head doesn't go under, then this baptism is irregular but valid. 


I would favor, however, this following view below: 

That those whose mode is irregular (sprinkling or pouring) might still have valid baptism, if the intent of the baptism was to show their death to their old life and rebirth to new life in Christ, as per Romans 6, i.e. a baptism after a profession of faith.

However, baptism as an infant (i.e. not improper mode but improper subject) seems to be another matter. 

So, I would say that the mode is less important than the issue of the subject.


So, yes, if I had to state the fact barely without trying to offend, I would say that Presbyterians who were baptised as babies were not really baptized at all, since their baptism is not closely enough linked to their dying to their old life and rising to a new life. However, they verbally profess Christ and I count them as brothers. All aspects of their visible profession, however, are incomplete (or at least done out of order).


Does this agree with Dagg? Also, what are the weaknesses of this view, since this is one aspect of "Baptist" doctrine for which I am sometimes less than fullly satisfied (since the marks of the church are said to be where true preaching is present and the ordinances are rightly administered, this would mean that baptists must say that presbyterian churches are not really true churches and vice versa, but it is clearly evident that there are many solid baptist and pesby churches despite their disagreement on these ordinances).


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> So, yes, if I had to state the fact barely without trying to offend, I would say that Presbyterians who were baptised as babies were not really baptized at all, since their baptism is not closely enough linked to their dying to their old life and rising to a new life. However, they verbally profess Christ and I count them as brothers. All aspects of their visible profession, however, are incomplete (or at least done out of order).



This seems to me to be more consistent with the antipaedobaptist position than the attempt to separate profession and baptism. So, basically, from an antipaedobaptist perspective, those who have made a profession of faith but were only baptised as infants are still unbaptised and have an *incomplete profession* of faith which disqualifies them for membership in a "Baptist" Church. Thankyou for taking the time to clarify this.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> In the thread on points of difference between paedo and antipaedobaptists it seems the design of baptism was becoming confused. In an attempt to rescue brotherly relations with paedobaptists while disowning their baptism, the antipaedobaptist brethren began altering the design of baptism. Whereas Christian theology recognises that "profession of faith" is more than mere words but includes a visual renouncing of the world and following Christ through baptism, the antipaedobaptists began arguing that profession of faith and baptism are two distinct things.
> 
> I have started this thread to discuss this particular point, and do not desire to discuss any other point.



Missed a necessary point in my first answer to this. As the cb referred to in the above, I had no intention of alterning the design of baptism as per the LBC: I misread Matthew as referring to wb alone rather than wb as a sign of an inward reality. 

I am going to begin by quoting the antipaedobaptist theologian, John L. Dagg, to prove that antipaedobaptists also maintain that baptism is part of a profession of faith. The quotation is taken from Manual of Theology, vol. 2, chapter 1.

I ask my antipaedobaptist friends to explain why Dagg's theology is correct or incorrect. If correct, how can they still accept antipaedobaptists as professing believers? If incorrect, what biblical considerations repudiate his claims? What antipaedobaptist theologians contradict his claims?



> The *profession* of renouncing the world, and devoting ourselves to Christ, might have been required to be made in mere words addressed to the ears of those who hear; but infinite wisdom has judged it better that it should be made *in a formal and significant act*, appointed for the specific purpose. *That act is baptism*. The immersion of the body, as Paul has explained, signifies our burial with Christ; and in emerging from the water, we enter, according to the import of the figure, on a new life. We put off the old man, and put on the new man: "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ."
> 
> The place which baptism holds in the commission, indicates its use. The apostles were sent to make disciples, and to teach them to observe all the Saviour's commands; but an intermediate act is enjoined, the act of baptizing them. In order to make disciples, they were commanded, "Go, preach the gospel to every creature." When the proclamation of the good news attracted the attention of men, and by the divine blessing so affected their hearts, that they became desirous to follow Christ, they were taught to observe his commandments, and first to be baptized. *This ceremony was manifestly designed to be the initiation into the prescribed service*; and every disciple of Christ who wishes to walk in the ways of the Lord, meets this duty at the entrance of his course.


[/QUOTE]

Dagg is not the LBC and his statements have no confessional weight. Moreover his claim lacks Scriptural support.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Dagg is not the LBC and his statements have no confessional weight. Moreover his claim lacks Scriptural support.



He references two passages of Scripture, and the first one (Gal. 3:27) is the same passage the LBC appeals to for its definition of baptism as a sign of fellowship with Christ. In this respect his view is closer to the confessional position than the one which insists on interpreting such passages as referring to spiritual baptism.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> Heidelberg1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure I understand your question here. Shouldn't your question read, "If correct, how can they still accept paedobaptists (who were themselves baptized as babies) as professing believers?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, thankyou for making explicit what was implicit in the question.
Click to expand...




Heidelberg1 said:


> I would answer that we do accept paedobaptists as professing believers. Even Dagg would, if I am right in reading the two paragraphs leading up to your quote. Dagg Volume 2 Chapter 1





armourbearer said:


> Would you be willing to show (a) where Dagg does this, and (b) How it accords with Dagg's definition of profession as not mere word but also formal and significant act? If we do not have the formal and significant act how can we be said to have a profession? If we haven't been "initiated into the prescribed service," how can we be said to be carrying on the divine service?






armourbearer said:


> Two points. (1.) If a sign represents something by divine ordinance, doesn't the lack of the sign mean something as a result of the same divine ordinance? Otherwise it is not really a sign but a mere teaching illustration. (2.)



Now as previously noted I don't accept Dagg as authoritaive for cb's. That said, a sign may represent something as a result of the same divine ordinance yet circumstances may arise where the sign may be biblical (cb ex hypothesi) but the divine reality to which it points (regeneration and union with Christ) may not be there. Yet in particular cases, cb's may rightly observe that although the sign may not be biblical, the reality to which the sign is meant to point is also shown to be present by other valid signs. 



armourbearer said:


> The LBC states that those who profess faith are visible saints, "and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted" (26:2). On this basis there should be no reason why a paedobaptist (only baptised as an infant) shouldn't be received into membership. Yet the brethren who reject our baptism also reject us for membership. Please explain why.



Let us be cautious here. Your original charge was a denial that cb's could accept pb's as members of the _visible_ church, not as members of particular _local _churches. The two are not the same thing. One may deny membership of local churches to pb's without denying that they are truly members of the visible church. 

Now the LBC makes the point that some local churches are vulnerable to error. If pb is an error, cb's must attempt to correct it and if it is plain teaching of Scripture, cb's must deny membership in a cb only local church (Bunyan's church and those who follow his line are exceptions here but they are few and far between.) 



armourbearer said:


> Heidelberg1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not know of a verse in the Bible that calls baptism a profession of faith. The closest is in 1 Peter 3:21 where it is called "as an appeal to God for a good conscience."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is sufficient of itself; but the three proof texts in the LBC proving baptism is a sign (Col. 2, Gal. 3, Rom. 6) make this plain.
Click to expand...




Heidelberg1 said:


> Baptist theologians like Dagg, as all theologians do, offer their works as private opinions for the edification of the church. It is the Confessions of Faith that define what churches publicly profess for faith and practice.





armourbearer said:


> So are you rejecting Dagg's teaching as "not Baptist?"



It is one Baptist's opinion. One man's opinion is not necessarily authoritive and, when unsupported by Scripture should never be taken as such.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Yet in particular cases, cb's may rightly observe that although the sign may not be biblical, the reality to which the sign is meant to point is also shown to be present by other valid signs.



The LBC only speaks of baptism and the Lord's supper as "signs." Not sure where you are discovering other signs from.



timmopussycat said:


> One may deny membership of local churches to pb's without denying that they are truly members of the visible church.



According to the LBC visible sainthood makes one eligible for membership in particular congregations. If one is a visible saint in the antipaedobaptist's eyes there is nothing to forbid congregational membership.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dagg is not the LBC and his statements have no confessional weight. Moreover his claim lacks Scriptural support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He references two passages of Scripture, and the first one (Gal. 3:27) is the same passage the LBC appeals to for its definition of baptism as a sign of fellowship with Christ. In this respect his view is closer to the confessional position than the one which insists on interpreting such passages as referring to spiritual baptism.
Click to expand...


If you are trying to split a wedge between me and the LBC over signs of fellowship with Christ, I believe I have already mentioned that I accept the Confession's position. My denial that water baptism was meant in such passages was a (badly expressed, I know) denial that water baptism (on its own, apart from the realities to which the sign points) was what initiates one into membership in the visible church. It is the realities to which the sign points, regeneration and union with Christ, that intiate one into membership in the visible church, and the sign of baptism (in the case of professing converts) actually takes place after the realities to which the sign refers to have occurred.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> If you are trying to split a wedge between me and the LBC over signs of fellowship with Christ, I believe I have already mentioned that I accept the Confession's position. My denial that water baptism was meant in such passages was a (badly expressed, I know) denial that water baptism (on its own, apart from the realities to which the sign points) was what initiates one into membership in the visible church. It is the realities to which the sign points, regeneration and union with Christ, that intiate one into membership in the visible church, and the sign of baptism (in the case of professing converts) actually takes place after the realites to which the sign refers to have occurred.



So do you agree with Dagg's Scriptural reference afterall?


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet in particular cases, cb's may rightly observe that although the sign may not be biblical, the reality to which the sign is meant to point is also shown to be present by other valid signs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The LBC only speaks of baptism and the Lord's supper as "signs." Not sure where you are discovering other signs from.
Click to expand...


To avoid equivocation, let me use the word "indicators" instead of "sign". The sign of baptism is meant to point to realities of which it is a sign. Those realities are the believer's "fellowship with [Christ], 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". The presence of these realities is not proven solely by the sign of water baptism. (If wb was the sole proof of the presence of these realities in someone's life, the churches could never accept as brother in Christ or member of the visible church any adult convert who had not been baptized. In such cases both pb's and cb's use indicators given by othr Scriptures to discern the presence of these realities before we baptize adult converts. In addition, cb's so use them not only to justify baptizing adult converts, but to recognize, among those individuals "baptized" pb, genuine Christian brothers and sisters. 



timmopussycat said:


> One may deny membership of local churches to pb's without denying that they are truly members of the visible church.





armourbearer said:


> According to the LBC visible sainthood makes one eligible for membership in particular congregations. If one is a visible saint in the antipaedobaptist's eyes there is nothing to forbid congregational membership.



Although there is nothing in the confession to forbid particular local church membership to the pb directly, "particular congregations" (26:2= local churches, not visible church) are left free to judge pb an error that effectively denies that a pb believer is truly "walking together according to the appointment of Christ" (2:6) with the rest of the particular congregation.
This is the position of the majority of cb churches but there have been and are exceptions.


----------



## MW

I continue to be amazed at the inventive faculty people can bring to Christian theology. We now have indicators to go along side of signs.

Are there any "Baptists" who would like to respond in terms of historically accepted terms and definitions?


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are trying to split a wedge between me and the LBC over signs of fellowship with Christ, I believe I have already mentioned that I accept the Confession's position. My denial that water baptism was meant in such passages was a (badly expressed, I know) denial that water baptism (on its own, apart from the realities to which the sign points) was what initiates one into membership in the visible church. It is the realities to which the sign points, regeneration and union with Christ, that intiate one into membership in the visible church, and the sign of baptism (in the case of professing converts) actually takes place after the realites to which the sign refers to have occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do you agree with Dagg's Scriptural reference afterall?
Click to expand...


I never denied it. What I deny is two things: I disagree with the bolded sentence by Dagg in your original post 



armourbearer said:


> *This ceremony was manifestly designed to be the initiation into the prescribed service*; and every disciple of Christ who wishes to walk in the ways of the Lord, meets this duty at the entrance of his course.
Click to expand...


and your conclusion that anything by Dagg must be necessarily authoritative for Baptists.

-----Added 11/8/2009 at 11:44:47 EST-----



armourbearer said:


> I continue to be amazed at the inventive faculty people can bring to Christian theology. We now have indicators to go along side of signs.
> 
> Are there any "Baptists" who would like to respond in terms of historically accepted terms and definitions?



If you deny the reality of other indicators of regeneracy besides the sign of wb, on what grounds can pb's possibly receive into membership any "unbaptized as infant" adult converts from unChristian homes?


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> If you deny the reality of other indicators of regeneracy besides the sign of wb, on what grounds can pb's possibly receive into membership any "unbaptized as infant" adult converts from unChristian homes?



Their request to be baptised as a sign that they have renounded the world and are resolved to follow Christ.


----------



## Brian Withnell

timmopussycat said:


> If you are trying to split a wedge between me and the LBC over signs of fellowship with Christ, I believe I have already mentioned that I accept the Confession's position. My denial that water baptism was meant in such passages was a (badly expressed, I know) denial that water baptism (on its own, apart from the realities to which the sign points) was what initiates one into membership in the visible church. *It is the realities to which the sign points, regeneration and union with Christ, that intiate one into membership in the visible church*, and the sign of baptism (in the case of professing converts) actually takes place after the realites to which the sign refers to have occurred.



Excuse me for jumping in the middle here, I have a question that for understanding what you are saying is pivotal. When you say "visible church" do you mean by that what I and other WCF followers would call the "invisible church"? My way of thinking is that the visible church is the church in this age that one sees presently ... not the church in all eternity which is pure and devoid of false professors of faith. If the realities are what initiates membership in the visible church, then the reality is that no person in the visible church is a false member, and their is no difference between your use of visible church and my use of invisible church.

My use of visible church include all those that profess faith in Christ (and of course from a PB perspective) and their children. I see the visible church as marred in the sense that there tares among the wheat, but that it will be purified (the tares removed from the wheat) on the day of the Lord. Do I catch your meaning correctly?


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> I continue to be amazed at the inventive faculty people can bring to Christian theology. We now have indicators to go along side of signs.
> 
> Are there any "Baptists" who would like to respond in terms of historically accepted terms and definitions?



Matthew, the LBC does not say that wb is a sign that God mandates his church to require before it can recognize someone as a brother or member of the visible church. Instead, the LBC says that "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."

The only person specifically identified by the LBC to whom wb is a sign is "the party baptized" and it signifies that party's preexisting fellowship with Christ" etc. 

Now the NT either gives other grounds by which God intends the church to recognize the probable presence of "preexisting fellowship with Christ" etc. before wb takes place in the adult convert from paganism, or it does not. Both pb's and cb's believe it does, and it is on the basis of these grounds that both of us baptize adult converts who were never baptized as infants. 

So if you baptize an adult convert do you recognize before doing so that this candidate has met the Scriptural grounds for being recognzed as one who has, probably if not absoutely, "come into a preexisting fellowship with Christ" etc.? If you do, why are those grounds (which are present in many adult pb's) insufficient for us to recognize you as brethren and fellow members of visible churches. If you don't what additonal ground do you look for before you know you may in good conscience baptize a previously unbaptized adult convert?

-----Added 11/9/2009 at 09:28:28 EST-----



Brian Withnell said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are trying to split a wedge between me and the LBC over signs of fellowship with Christ, I believe I have already mentioned that I accept the Confession's position. My denial that water baptism was meant in such passages was a (badly expressed, I know) denial that water baptism (on its own, apart from the realities to which the sign points) was what initiates one into membership in the visible church. *It is the realities to which the sign points, regeneration and union with Christ, that intiate one into membership in the visible church*, and the sign of baptism (in the case of professing converts) actually takes place after the realites to which the sign refers to have occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me for jumping in the middle here, I have a question that for understanding what you are saying is pivotal. When you say "visible church" do you mean by that what I and other WCF followers would call the "invisible church"? My way of thinking is that the visible church is the church in this age that one sees presently ... not the church in all eternity which is pure and devoid of false professors of faith. If the realities are what initiates membership in the visible church, then the reality is that no person in the visible church is a false member, and their is no difference between your use of visible church and my use of invisible church.
> 
> My use of visible church include all those that profess faith in Christ (and of course from a PB perspective) and their children. I see the visible church as marred in the sense that there tares among the wheat, but that it will be purified (the tares removed from the wheat) on the day of the Lord. Do I catch your meaning correctly?
Click to expand...


I do not mean invisible church. See the LBC for how it defines the visible saints in LBC 26:2,3. Those paragraphs leave open the possiblility that a pb can be recognized as a visisble saint even though he is in error on the particular question of baptism.


----------



## Heidelberg1

armorbearer said:


> Two points. (1.) If a sign represents something by divine ordinance, doesn't the lack of the sign mean something as a result of the same divine ordinance? Otherwise it is not really a sign but a mere teaching illustration.



The signs are meant to communicate to believers the reality of the grace that they have been given through faith. If there is no faith, how can God signify to the individual the reality of the grace they have received through the gospel?



> Westminster Shorter Catechism
> 
> Q92. What is a sacrament?
> A92. A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ [a]; wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, and applied to believers *.
> [a]. Matt. 28:19; 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:19-20; ICor. 1:22-26
> . Gal. 3:27; I Cor. 10:16-17
> *


*



armorbearer said:



(2.) The LBC states that those who profess faith are visible saints, "and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted" (26:2). On this basis there should be no reason why a paedobaptist (only baptised as an infant) shouldn't be received into membership. Yet the brethren who reject our baptism also reject us for membership. Please explain why.

Click to expand...


Is it strange to you that a disagreement over the proper use of the sacraments is a cause for breaking of fellowship? If a Presbyterian Church in your denomination started practicing paedocommunion, would the denomination try to stop it? If they failed, would they not remove the church from the denomination? They would break fellowship to the extent that they would no longer be in the same denomination. However, my guess is that they would not consider the members of the offending church non-Christians. For the sake of peace and unity within the church, they would not allow people of a different persuasion to become members of the church.*


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> In the thread on points of difference between paedo and antipaedobaptists it seems the design of baptism was becoming confused. In an attempt to rescue brotherly relations with paedobaptists while disowning their baptism, the antipaedobaptist brethren began altering the design of baptism. Whereas Christian theology recognises that "profession of faith" is more than mere words but includes a visual renouncing of the world and following Christ through baptism, the antipaedobaptists began arguing that profession of faith and baptism are two distinct things.
> 
> I have started this thread to discuss this particular point, and do not desire to discuss any other point.



As the cb referred to in the above let me say that I had no intentions of altering the LBC's design of baptism when I made the point Matthew is referring to. Instead of reading his reference to wb as a sign of spiritual realities per LBC 26:2 I took him as referring to the act in itself, which explains why I asked whether or not his view would lead to baptismal regeneration. 

And while I believe that profession of faith and wb are two different things and affirm that there is a relationship between true profession of faith and wb (i.e. that true profession of faith, will always be preceded by the presence of the following in the professor's life: "fellowship with [Christ, in his death and resurrection; [the state of] being engrafted into him; remission of sins; and giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life" which, to the believer baptized, are the realities which water baptism is meant to point as a sign. 

Now cb's recognize that we cannot absolutely know the truth or otherwise of someones profession. But even though we hold that we cannot absolutely know the truth of someone's profession, we believe we have Scriptural mandate to recognize the profession of faith in Christ as indicative of the likely presence of regeneration and conversion in both the new believer seeking Baptism in a cb church and the established member in a pb church.



armourbearer said:


> I am going to begin by quoting the antipaedobaptist theologian, John L. Dagg, to prove that antipaedobaptists also maintain that baptism is part of a profession of faith. The quotation is taken from Manual of Theology, vol. 2, chapter 1.
> 
> I ask my antipaedobaptist friends to explain why Dagg's theology is correct or incorrect. If correct, how can they still accept antipaedobaptists as professing believers? If incorrect, what biblical considerations repudiate his claims? What antipaedobaptist theologians contradict his claims?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *profession* of renouncing the world, and devoting ourselves to Christ, might have been required to be made in mere words addressed to the ears of those who hear; but infinite wisdom has judged it better that it should be made *in a formal and significant act*, appointed for the specific purpose. *That act is baptism*. The immersion of the body, as Paul has explained, signifies our burial with Christ; and in emerging from the water, we enter, according to the import of the figure, on a new life. We put off the old man, and put on the new man: "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ."
> 
> The place which baptism holds in the commission, indicates its use. The apostles were sent to make disciples, and to teach them to observe all the Saviour's commands; but an intermediate act is enjoined, the act of baptizing them. In order to make disciples, they were commanded, "Go, preach the gospel to every creature." When the proclamation of the good news attracted the attention of men, and by the divine blessing so affected their hearts, that they became desirous to follow Christ, they were taught to observe his commandments, and first to be baptized. *This ceremony was manifestly designed to be the initiation into the prescribed service*; and every disciple of Christ who wishes to walk in the ways of the Lord, meets this duty at the entrance of his course.
Click to expand...


Even if one accepts the idea that cb is a Dominically instituted initially required act of obedience, one is not thereby forced to accept the conclusion that the disobedience to this requirement prohibits a pb from being recognized as a brother in Christ and member in the visible church if other Scripturally mandated grounds for recognizing that person as a child of God are present in the pb's life. 

Proof: The LBC 26:2 defines a visible saint as "All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation"

The pb may fear that his pb necesarily forces his rejection as an "error everting the foundation" but a necessary consequence of LBC 26:3a " The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan;" is that wb although an error may not be of such nature as to render a church (and by implication the members holding it) a synogugue of Satan.

So before one may say that cb's are inconsistent in recognizing pb's as brethren and visible church members one must prove that the pb error is sufficient to render a church and tion the members holding it a synogugue of Satan.

Let us contrast the JW error Arianism, which does render an iassembly holding it to be a synogogue of Satan and individuals holding it to be regarded as unregenerate. For this error clearly everts the foundation and is a denial of the faith of the gospel i.e., they deny that Christ is God when Christ has said "Except you believe that I am he (in context a clear claim to divinity recognized as such by those who heard him), you will die in your sins". Since we know from Scripture that no child of God will die in their sins, we cannot conclude that a professing JW has experienced regeneration and conversion. If, on the other hand we encounter an otherwise orthodox pb, we may conclude from his profession of "the faith of the gospel", that his foundation is sound and his one act of disobedience is not an error that everts the foundation for we still may conclude that regeneration and conversion may have truly taken place in the pb's life, despite disobedience in this one area.


----------



## MW

Tim, I'm not sure why you would go back and answer the OP when we have already had a dialogue which has discussed the OP and brought out specific concerns. I'm not in the habit of running half a race and going back to the starting line to cover the same ground.

Brethren, the issue here is not who should be baptised or the qualifications of baptism, but the design of baptism -- what baptism signifies and how it functions in relation to the party baptised. No doubt there are many people who are baptised who have never been truly converted. That is beside the point. The point is, What is the relationship of baptism to an indivdual's profession of faith? If baptism is a sign of fellowship with Christ then one's profession of fellowship cannot ordinarily be examined apart from the sign. That has been the teaching of the church since the beginning. Our debates about who ought to be baptised and our attempt to show charity to one another should not alter the fact of what baptism is designed to be.

I have a heavy work load coming up, so I will allow this post to serve as a summation and conclusion to my participation in these threads.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> Tim, I'm not sure why you would go back and answer the OP when we have already had a dialogue which has discussed the OP and brought out specific concerns. I'm not in the habit of running half a race and going back to the starting line to cover the same ground.



The clarification was offered in the hope it might be helpful to avoid any subsequent rabbit trails. 



armourbearer said:


> Brethren, the issue here is not who should be baptised or the qualifications of baptism, but the design of baptism -- what baptism signifies and how it functions in relation to the party baptised. No doubt there are many people who are baptised who have never been truly converted. That is beside the point. The point is, What is the relationship of baptism to an indivdual's profession of faith? If baptism is a sign of fellowship with Christ then one's profession of fellowship cannot ordinarily be examined apart from the sign. That has been the teaching of the church since the beginning. Our debates about who ought to be baptised and our attempt to show charity to one another should not alter the fact of what baptism is designed to be.



According to the LBC29:1, baptism is designed to be a sign "unto the party baptized" of that person's own participation in previously occurring spiritual realities defined by the confession as "his fellowship with [Christ, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into [Christ]; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life." 

Matthew would be correct to assert that "one's profession of fellowship canot ordinarily be examined apart from the sign" only if Scripture gave no other grounds by which we may determine the reasonable possibility that someone may be a child of God. Unfortunately for his case, Scripture does give us other grounds than wb for making that determination, one of which is an individual's profession of faith. Since Scripture does give such grounds, and the LBC limits the extent of the sign of wb to the party baptized, Matthew has failed to make his case and should withdraw his charge that cb's are false to our own theology if we recognize pb's as brethren and fellow members of the visible chuch until and unless he can support it with better evidence. 

But to answer the question of the relation of wb to an individuals profession of faith. The former is a sign to the individual so baptized that he participates in Christian spiritual realities as recognized by the LBC, the latter is one of several signs by which the church may determine that an individual can be considered as being possibly, if not certainly, regenerate, a child of God and fellow member of the visible church.


----------



## Iconoclast

Matthew,
Nice Thread . I can only respond briefly now,as I have more work to do today.
Baptism is designed to be an outward identification,and public confession of what a sinner has professed has taken place in their life.
The believer is seeking to obey the command to repent and be baptized.Believe and be baptized.
For the sinner to be in this condition, the unseen work of the Spirit would have taken place already. The Spirit would have already applied the saving work of the cross to the person.
The work is not initiated by water baptism, but rather new birth,and the Spirit indwelling the believer.water baptism follows.
Water baptism is an outward indentification that the believer has been placed into a local assembly,[the body of Christ] and as the other members,alive from the dead. This i believe is what Dagg is speaking of.
The corporate aspect of our sanctification , beginning with Spirit baptism,new birth, water baptism, and works of service.
Your sacramental view of water applied to an infant distorts this,and I think does not allow you to see baptism as an ordinance to be obeyed.You and other padeos see it as something to be done to somebody[the infant],analogus to circumcision, and pray that the infant discovers the meaning later on.
We own you as a professed brother by virtue of your profession as to what Jesus has done on your behalf. 
Anyone who is saved is saved by the blood of Christ. In Acts 19 what was the question asked to those who had John's baptism only?
You have learned and believed what you were taught. If you have been taught a different design for baptism,and are functioning as an elder in a padeo church, trying to remain confessional, it will be very difficult to re-visit much less see it as a credo see's it.
Providentially God has allowed godly men to see it from differing perspectives. This keeps us searching the scriptures. 
Sorry if i drift a bit from the original post.Am trying to give a quick response until I can re-read Dagg and double check what you are asking.
Dagg and all other biblically thinking baptists would only consider water baptism to follow the Spirits work, [Spirit baptism]and that as the design of God of passing through death to new life.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Matthew has failed to make his case and should withdraw his charge that cb's are false to our own theology if we recognize pb's as brethren and fellow members of the visible chuch until and unless he can support it with better evidence.



I had hoped the former would be my last response; this certainly will be. I won't withdraw the charge for the simple reason that I have substantiated it by quotations from the representatives of "Baptist" history. That Tim does not accept them as true representatives is not my problem seeing as these authors are well accepted in "Reformed Baptist" circles. Finis.


----------



## Brian Withnell

timmopussycat said:


> -----Added 11/9/2009 at 09:28:28 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are trying to split a wedge between me and the LBC over signs of fellowship with Christ, I believe I have already mentioned that I accept the Confession's position. My denial that water baptism was meant in such passages was a (badly expressed, I know) denial that water baptism (on its own, apart from the realities to which the sign points) was what initiates one into membership in the visible church. *It is the realities to which the sign points, regeneration and union with Christ, that intiate one into membership in the visible church*, and the sign of baptism (in the case of professing converts) actually takes place after the realites to which the sign refers to have occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me for jumping in the middle here, I have a question that for understanding what you are saying is pivotal. When you say "visible church" do you mean by that what I and other WCF followers would call the "invisible church"? My way of thinking is that the visible church is the church in this age that one sees presently ... not the church in all eternity which is pure and devoid of false professors of faith. If the realities are what initiates membership in the visible church, then the reality is that no person in the visible church is a false member, and their is no difference between your use of visible church and my use of invisible church.
> 
> My use of visible church include all those that profess faith in Christ (and of course from a PB perspective) and their children. I see the visible church as marred in the sense that there tares among the wheat, but that it will be purified (the tares removed from the wheat) on the day of the Lord. Do I catch your meaning correctly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not mean invisible church. See the LBC for how it defines the visible saints in LBC 26:2,3. Those paragraphs leave open the possiblility that a pb can be recognized as a visisble saint even though he is in error on the particular question of baptism.
Click to expand...


My confusion came from using the term "visible church" rather than visible saints. The term "visible church" does not exist (as far as I can see) in the LBCF, and so as a term, I mistook what you were saying. The term "visible saints" in the LCBF almost seems superfluous, as it appears to be saying what we would call saints ...


> not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.


It would seem, unless I misunderstand, that errors in the profession of faith, unholiness of conversion would preclude a person's actual inclusion in those who have attained saving faith. If that definition is used, then "visible" is meaningless from the look of it.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew has failed to make his case and should withdraw his charge that cb's are false to our own theology if we recognize pb's as brethren and fellow members of the visible chuch until and unless he can support it with better evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had hoped the former would be my last response; this certainly will be. I won't withdraw the charge for the simple reason that I have substantiated it by quotations from the representatives of "Baptist" history. That Tim does not accept them as true representatives is not my problem seeing as these authors are well accepted in "Reformed Baptist" circles. Finis.
Click to expand...


I do not understand how any writer with even the most superficial education about confessional tradtions and how they work could think for one minute that one can legitimately give equivalent weight to a Confession and the opinions of a writer within that tradition who did not participate in the Confession's drafting. Rev. Winzer has charged that cb's must hold his view of whom cb's may or may not recognize as brethren or else we are inconsistent with the LBC. Although some Baptists have held the view in question, it is only when that view can be shown to be specifically taught in the Confession or shown to be GNC thereof that cb's will be *necesarily obliged* to maintain it on pain of Confessional inconsistancy if we don't. But as I have shown and Bill has effectively seconded, the way the LBC addresses the matter of baptism and the visible church leaves Baptists free to accept pb's as brethren and visible saints. 

I don't think Rev. Winzer would even try to justify, as having confessional weight, the opinions of Presbyterians who came after the Confession by more than a century (Dagg wrote around 200 years after the LBC was written). And I think that if anyone tried to propound such a misjudgement here, (e.g., posting an assertion that Charles Hodge's opinions, highly respected though Hodge is, are necessarily of Confessional obligation for Presbyterians), he would be rightly cried down by a host of Presbyterian moderators, ministers and laymen.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> In the thread on points of difference between paedo and antipaedobaptists it seems the design of baptism was becoming confused. In an attempt to rescue brotherly relations with paedobaptists while disowning their baptism, the antipaedobaptist brethren began altering the design of baptism. Whereas Christian theology recognises that "profession of faith" is more than mere words but includes a visual renouncing of the world and following Christ through baptism, the antipaedobaptists began arguing that profession of faith and baptism are two distinct things.
> 
> I have started this thread to discuss this particular point, and do not desire to discuss any other point.
> 
> I am going to begin by quoting the antipaedobaptist theologian, John L. Dagg, to prove that antipaedobaptists also maintain that baptism is part of a profession of faith. The quotation is taken from Manual of Theology, vol. 2, chapter 1.
> 
> I ask my antipaedobaptist friends to explain why Dagg's theology is correct or incorrect. If correct, how can they still accept antipaedobaptists as professing believers? If incorrect, what biblical considerations repudiate his claims? What antipaedobaptist theologians contradict his claims?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *profession* of renouncing the world, and devoting ourselves to Christ, might have been required to be made in mere words addressed to the ears of those who hear; but infinite wisdom has judged it better that it should be made *in a formal and significant act*, appointed for the specific purpose. *That act is baptism*. The immersion of the body, as Paul has explained, signifies our burial with Christ; and in emerging from the water, we enter, according to the import of the figure, on a new life. We put off the old man, and put on the new man: "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ."
> 
> The place which baptism holds in the commission, indicates its use. The apostles were sent to make disciples, and to teach them to observe all the Saviour's commands; but an intermediate act is enjoined, the act of baptizing them. In order to make disciples, they were commanded, "Go, preach the gospel to every creature." When the proclamation of the good news attracted the attention of men, and by the divine blessing so affected their hearts, that they became desirous to follow Christ, they were taught to observe his commandments, and first to be baptized. *This ceremony was manifestly designed to be the initiation into the prescribed service*; and every disciple of Christ who wishes to walk in the ways of the Lord, meets this duty at the entrance of his course.
Click to expand...


Rev. Winzer, how came you to overlook Dagg's own careful disagreement with your conclusion that cb's are forced to reject pb's as brethren? Could it be perhaps that you were too eager to justify your charge?

For Dagg has also said, a mere two paragraphs below your cited statement that as



Dagg Manual said:


> ... the divine goodness may pardon disciples who fear to make public profession, so it may, *and we rejoice to believe that it does pardon those, who ... mistake the manner of doing it. *


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Rev. Winzer, how came you to overlook Dagg's own careful disagreement with your conclusion that cb's are forced to reject pb's as brethren? Could it be perhaps that you were too eager to justify your charge?
> 
> For Dagg has also said, a mere two paragraphs below your cited statement that as
> 
> 
> 
> Dagg Manual said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... the divine goodness may pardon disciples who fear to make public profession, so it may, *and we rejoice to believe that it does pardon those, who ... mistake the manner of doing it. *
Click to expand...


As noted, I am finished. Please respect that and cease personally addressing questions to me. The very paragraph from which you quote goes on to refute you. If you continue to read on you may learn more about the admonitory nature of water baptism, which you so willingly called into question in the other thread. Nobody denies forgiveness for those who disobey, as I have alluded to in paragraph 2 of post #15. If you choose to ask more undicerning questions I will simply ignore you.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rev. Winzer, how came you to overlook Dagg's own careful disagreement with your conclusion that cb's are forced to reject pb's as brethren? Could it be perhaps that you were too eager to justify your charge?
> 
> For Dagg has also said, a mere two paragraphs below your cited statement that as
> 
> 
> 
> Dagg Manual said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... the divine goodness may pardon disciples who fear to make public profession, so it may, *and we rejoice to believe that it does pardon those, who ... mistake the manner of doing it. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As noted, I am finished. Please respect that and cease personally addressing questions to me. The very paragraph from which you quote goes on to refute you. If you continue to read on you may learn more about the admonitory nature of water baptism, which you so willingly called into question in the other thread. Nobody denies forgiveness for those who disobey, as I have alluded to in paragraph 2 of post #15. If you choose to ask more undicerning questions I will simply ignore you.
Click to expand...


If you are going to ignore someone, ignore him. but if you misread someone, and the result is muddied waters, I won't refrain from attempting to siphon out the mud. 

Let's recap the bidding.
You are making a charge that cb's must on our own premises deny recognition of pb's as brethren or member of the visible church or be guilty of inconsistency with our foundations. 

In support of that charge, you are adducing a late author within a confessional tradition as equally authoritative with the Confessional document and you are ignoring my rejoinder that you simply should know better than to attempt such an elementary error. 

Now I am not not out to alter the design of baptism, as I have said at least once before, and in any case my opinions aren't the issue. The truth or falisity of your charge is the point. And your attempt use Dagg simply won't do for your charge clearly lacks Dagg's support.

It is not only that Dagg plainly denies your charge in the excerpt I cited. When the rest of the paragraph states that wb "... was manifestly designed to be the initiation into the prescribed service; and every disciple of Christ who wishes to walk in the ways of the Lord, meets this duty at the entrance of his course", your case is not helped thereby. For even if baptism is a required duty to be met at the entrance to the Christian course, (and I affirm that it is), dereliction of a duty can only force a someone, in this case Dagg, to deny status of brother and fellow membership in the visible church, if Scripture, or Confession says that given committing sin x causes a professor to forfeit those priveleges. But neither Scripture nor LBC makes such a claim with reference to wb. And neither does Dagg. 

And if there is anything else in the remainder of the chapter in which this citation appears or the following chapter on local church order that supports your charge, you should have cited it, rather than merely alleging it. After all as the old joke reminds us, while I might be able to deny the allegations, I would not be able to deny the alligators (any citations that support your charge.) Not that it would have helped you much. For by subsequently dening what he has previously affirmd, Dagg (on your hypothesis that his later material contains material that supports your charge, which hypothesis I reject) is a self-contradictory author, unworthy for anyone to base an an argument on. And while the remainder of this chapter sets up the next, in which Dagg writies extensively on local church order, nowhere, in either chapter does he mention the visible church, which, as I noted in post 21, is the church in question:



Timmopussycat post #21 said:


> Let us be cautious here. Your original charge was a denial that cb's could accept pb's as members of the _visible_ church, not as members of particular _local _churches. The two are not the same thing. One may deny membership of local churches to pb's without denying that they are truly members of the visible church.



(As I have shown before the LBC leaves open the possiblity of recognizing pb churches as true local churches yet in error on the point of wb).

Nothing in these two chapters on baptism and church order supports your idea that Dagg would deny pb's recognition as brethren or as members of visible churches.

And yes, I saw your quote that



armourbearer said:


> ... I'm sure he is not suggesting that baptism is necessary for salvation; but he does seem to be saying that baptism is necessary for discipleship.



I wouldn't say Dagg is saying that wb is necessary for discipleship. He is saying it is a duty that ought to be done, but he is not saying that without it being done, discipleship is impossible. 

May I note, however, that you seem to be missing a necessary consequence of your former clause? If Dagg is not saying (as you agree he is not) that wb is necessary for salvation, and if there is no salvation that does not result in the saved one's becoming a child of God, as all here would agree, then once someone has (probably) entered upon salvation, he must (on LBC premises) be regarded as having become a child of God with consequent right to the status of Christian brother and member of the visible church, contrary to your charge. So Dagg, by direct testimony against your charge, by a good and necessary consequence analysis from another statement that contradicts your charge and by writing nothing that speaks for your charge, has surely removed himself from being cited in favour of your charge. 

It seems to me you have just repeated the noteworthy scholarly error that I last saw made by Greg Bahnsen when he cited Mayer in support of his own idea that the word usually translated "or" in Matt. 5:17 could be legitmately translated "and" in that verse. However examination of Meyer reveals that Meyer contradicts Bahnsen, for he wrote that the word for "or" "... never stands for kai (“and”) … but is always distinctive. Here (i.e., Matt. 5:17), to abrogate one or the other…”. I had hoped I would not see another example of this sort of thing. The mistake of citing an authority who turns out not to support your argument is simply indefensible and ought not to be defended. I believe you can do better. 

You made the original charge: if it is right, a radicial rethinking of Chrisitan fellowhip is immediately necessary for many people here, if you are wrong, ought you not to withdraw the charge ASAP? The one thing It seems to me you ought not do in these circumstances is retire from the debate while leaving your charge to stand. I suggest that so doing will create more problems than it will solve.


----------



## MW

Tim, as far as I'm concerned, I'm not inclined in the slightest to discuss anything with an individual who continually stipulates how others ought to frame their discussions, especially when he shows "visible signs" that he doesn't understand the points which are being discussed. I can only pray God gives you grace to humbly study the subject with a view to learning the truth.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Tim,

Rather than continually trying to put a blocking position forward, you might want to look at the OP. You have been shadow-boxing an opponent other than Rev. Winzer in this thread.

Matthew never stated, in the OP, that Dagg was the LBCF view. He, rather, asked RB's to interact with Dagg's statement and either agree with the theology therein or disagree with it.

How about you stop debating what you believe Matthew should have stated and just cut to the chase because this is about whether or not you agree with Dagg. If you do not then clearly posit that he is wrong. Demonstrate, historically, that the framers of the LBCF had another view in mind. I'm not interested in what _you_ think the LBCF means in some sort of deconstructionist hermeneutic that detaches the meaning from objective, original intent but, if Dagg is wrong, then demonstrate that the original authors believed otherwise.

If you're not prepared to do this, then stop contributing to this thread.


----------



## timmopussycat

Semper Fidelis said:


> How about you stop debating what you ... cut to the chase because this is about whether or not you agree with Dagg. If you do not then clearly posit that he is wrong.



(I now think I made a mistake in an earlier post in this thread when I took exception to one of Dagg's statements. In hindsight my exception is not to Dagg's own statement the clear intent behind it, but to any attempt to take that statement and use it as a justification for something that Dagg himself did not intend.)

I would agree that Dagg's statements throughout this section are either Confessional in themselves or else attempts to bolster the confession by providing additional evidences for points the confession makes. Where Dagg does the former I agree with him. On the latter I agree with his conclusions while in a couple of places noting that I would make the same points in other ways. 



Semper Fidelis said:


> Demonstrate, historically, that the framers of the LBCF had another view in mind. I'm not interested in what _you_ think the LBCF means in some sort of deconstructionist hermeneutic that detaches the meaning from objective, original intent but,



It is not my opinion but an objective fact that the LBC's framers did remove the clause "not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;" (together with the reference to 1 Cor. 12:13 which the WCF uses to justify the point) when they derived the LBC from the WCF Removing these two items together argues that they made those changes with deliberate intent. The obvious explanation is that the framers did not intend to inConfessionate that clause and I am presently researching Baptist commentary on the Confession to see how the change in inConfessionated material has been historically understood. 

Now whether or not the above explanation of their intent behind the change accurate or not, we also have to consider whether that the change of wording in the LBC may be enough at the practical level to render it impossible to use the Confession to force Baptists to regard wb as the necessary rite for the admission of the party baptised into the visible church. 

Even if the framers did not intend this result, the change they made to the clause may achieve such a result despite their intent. For in the final analysis, when one comes to enforcing legal documents, original intent is not primary. In practice, *that which is legislated by the words of the legislation as written *takes precedence. 

(I learned this in an interesting way: the Orchid Lady and I are now some $900 richer because she is one of the very few Canadian taxpayers to beat the Canadian tax courts without legal assistance. What happened was that she claimed a deduction that taxpayers who met two stated criteria were ineligable for. While her situation was described by one of those criteria, she was not in the position described by the other, and she applied for the deduction. The moment the Canada Revenue Agency disputed the deduction on the grounds that one of those criteria applied to her, I knew that we would win and two years later we did. 

Why? because the two criteria which disallowed claiming for the deduction are separated in the legislation by the word "and" not the word "or." I was able to argue that the presence of the word "and" rather than the word "or" separating the disallowing conditions, was sufficient in itself to show that whatever the legislators intended, the legislators as written only enforces ineligability on taxpayers meeting both criteria and that my wife only met one. The judge not only agreed, she awarded us court costs. ;-) ) 

In the same way, even if the LBC's framers did not intend to deConfessionate this clause, the resultant effect of their change is to remove any possibility of enforcing the missing clause as a matter of Confessional obedience among Baptists as, with the clause removed, nothing remaining in the LBC from which that point may be necessarily enforced. 



Semper Fidelis said:


> if Dagg is wrong, then demonstrate that the original authors believed otherwise.



I have given reason above for why I believe that the framers of the LBC intended to deConfessionate the missing clause from the WCF on baptism.
Their change argues that they did not want to make wb the necessary entrance into the visible church, and I do not see Dagg disagreeing with this. So I don't believe that Dagg is wrong.



Originally Posted by Matthew in the OP said:


> I ask my antipaedobaptist friends to explain why Dagg's theology is correct or incorrect. If correct, how can they still accept antipaedobaptists as professing believers? If incorrect, what biblical considerations repudiate his claims? What antipaedobaptist theologians contradict his claims?



Dagg himself seems to think that cb's can accept pb's as professing believers when he writes

[quote =Dagg Manual] 
... the divine goodness may pardon disciples who fear to make public profession, so it may, and we rejoice to believe that it does pardon those, who ... mistake the manner of doing it. [/quote]

What Dagg says elsewhere will not be incosistent with this, *if and only if* Dagg, while identifying wb as only a required duty (although a very important one) for a Christian, yet does not advocate it as the means by which the Christian enters the visible church. And upon examination, this is what we find. Dagg never claims that baptism effects entrace to the Christian life, but always talks about it as a duty obliging Christians who have entered that life. 

So one may accept both the correctness of Dagg's theology and the propriety of accepting pb's as brethren and fellow members of the visible church.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> I have given reason above for why I believe that the framers of the LBC intended to deConfessionate the missing clause from the WCF on baptism.
> Their change argues that they did not want to make wb the necessary entrance into the visible church, and I do not see Dagg disagreeing with this. So I don't believe that Dagg is wrong.



OK, I'm going to make three comments. My comments are what they are and I'm just going to ignore any attempt to tell me how they should be.

First, technically the LBC is following the Savoy's revision and revising it further. The LBC follows the Savoy in omitting the phrase of "admission," not because it is a paedobaptist distinctive, but because the doctrine of the catholic visible church necessarily follows from it. Acquaintance with the Presbyterian-Independent controversy will reveal this was a major debating point. The omission is therefore traceable to a distinctive view of the church, not baptism.

Secondly, there is no "visible church" in the LBC, but particular congregations. The Savoy has tentatively allowed the teaching of the "visible church" with the qualification that it doesn't possess officers and ordinances. The London Confession goes further and omits the phrase altogether. So there is no formal entrace into the visible church simply because there is no visible church organisation. (Dagg's Manual will explain this point further for those interested in consulting his view of local and universal church. He explicitly states that the visible church is devoid of organisation.) Given that there is no catholic visible church in the LBC (or there is no visible organisation to the catholic visible church), baptism simply cannot serve to mark entrance into it.

Thirdly, Dagg explicitly states the "Calvinistic Baptist" view that baptism is the significant act of profession and of introduction to Christian discipleship. He also states that baptism is a ceremony necessary for admission into the church and that the church consists of baptised persons only. Numerous other "Calvinistic Baptists" can be adduced to establish the point that profession-baptism is necessary for visible church communion.

I reiterate, the point is not that antipaedobaptists are obliged in principle to reject paedobaptists (or those baptised as infants) as Christian brethren or brethren in Christ; the point is that their principles require them to consider those baptised as infants as lacking a proper profession of faith. Pergamum has already established that the antipaedobaptist looks upon professors who only have infant baptism as possessing an incomplete profession. Unless there is something in "Baptist" theology to contradict this point then the thread has already served its purpose.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Hence, Tim, if Matthew is presenting a historically accurate case (which you have not presented any historical case at all), it proves the point about sound hermeneutics and the necessity to determine original intent. A document cannot be understood simply by referring to how the reader responds to it or how he can escape original intent because a clause was omitted. I believe you need to go back and do some research, as Matthew has done, to determine why the clause was removed rather than assuming you can do whatever you want with the sentences of the Confession independent of what the intent was when the Confession was written.


----------



## Heidelberg1

armourbearer said:


> First, technically the LBC is following the Savoy's revision and revising it further. The LBC follows the Savoy in omitting the phrase of "admission," not because it is a paedobaptist distinctive, but because the doctrine of the catholic visible church necessarily follows from it. Acquaintance with the Presbyterian-Independent controversy will reveal this was a major debating point. The omission is therefore traceable to a distinctive view of the church, not baptism.
> 
> Secondly, there is no "visible church" in the LBC, but particular congregations. The Savoy has tentatively allowed the teaching of the "visible church" with the qualification that it doesn't possess officers and ordinances. The London Confession goes further and omits the phrase altogether. So there is no formal entrace into the visible church simply because there is no visible church organisation.



Forgive me Reverend Winzer, 

I know you want to be done with this thread. 

I am a little confused by your statements above. It seems to me that the LBCF does confess an invisible church (#1) and a visible church (#2). 



> LBCF Chapter 26
> 1. The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
> 
> 2. All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.



It seems that the LBCF states that there is a visible church, individuals who profess the faith of the gospel and are living their lives that do not contradict their profession. The LBCF states that the congregations should be constituted of such. 

The reason why Confessional Baptists do not admit as members of their church those who have not been baptized as believers and and have not been baptized by immersion, is because that form of baptism is contra-confessional. 



> LBCF Chapter 26: 8. A particular church, gathered and completely organised according to the mind of Christ, consists of officers and members; and the officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church (so called and gathered), for the peculiar administration of ordinances, and execution of power or duty, which he intrusts them with, or calls them to, to be continued to the end of the world, are bishops or elders, and deacons.
> 
> LBCF Chapter 29: 2. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.
> 
> 4. Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.



I do not believe that baptism is designed to be a statement of faith, but rather is to be a sign to the one who professes faith. Brethren, if I am wrong here, please correct me.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Words are important here, friend. The Confession does not say "visible Church" but "particular Congregations". It may seem indifferent to you but it is no mistake that the language was used.


----------



## MW

Heidelberg1 said:


> I am a little confused by your statements above. It seems to me that the LBCF does confess an invisible church (#1) and a visible church (#2).



It says "visible saints," not "visible church." 



Heidelberg1 said:


> I do not believe that baptism is designed to be a statement of faith, but rather is to be a sign to the one who professes faith. Brethren, if I am wrong here, please correct me.



It must be a statement of faith because it is "an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be ... a sign..."

"Unto the party baptized" is not presenting a more individualistic and subjective view, seeing it is an adaptation of the phraseology used in the Westminster and Savoy. It is simply the way of pointing out that the specific individual who has been baptised now possesses the sign of fellowship with Christ. Hence the language reiterates the Westminster and Savoy statements concerning baptism being a significant profession of faith.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have given reason above for why I believe that the framers of the LBC intended to deConfessionate the missing clause from the WCF on baptism.
> Their change argues that they did not want to make wb the necessary entrance into the visible church, and I do not see Dagg disagreeing with this. So I don't believe that Dagg is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I'm going to make three comments. My comments are what they are and I'm just going to ignore any attempt to tell me how they should be.
> 
> First, technically the LBC is following the Savoy's revision and revising it further. The LBC follows the Savoy in omitting the phrase of "admission," not because it is a paedobaptist distinctive, but because the doctrine of the catholic visible church necessarily follows from it. Acquaintance with the Presbyterian-Independent controversy will reveal this was a major debating point. The omission is therefore traceable to a distinctive view of the church, not baptism.
Click to expand...


Quite right, the Savoyards and the Baptists do share a distinctive view of the church in contrast to the WCF. 



armourbearer said:


> Secondly, there is no "visible church" in the LBC, but particular congregations. The Savoy has tentatively allowed the teaching of the "visible church" with the qualification that it doesn't possess officers and ordinances. The London Confession goes further and omits the phrase altogether.



Although the term "visible church" is not mentioned in the LBC, 26:2 " All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted" effectively provides such a definition. For this except identifies who visible saints are. Since it refers to "all persons throughout the world" who are "visible saints" wouldn't such a group define the "visible church" by definition? Or to put it another way, can "visible saints" be denied recognition by fellow visible saints, that they are brethren and fellow members of the visible church, even though the visible church has no formal organization or entrance ceremony peculiar to it? 



armourbearer said:


> So there is no formal entrace into the visible church simply because there is no visible church organisation. (Dagg's Manual will explain this point further for those interested in consulting his view of local and universal church. He explicitly states that the visible church is devoid of organisation.) Given that there is no catholic visible church in the LBC (or there is no visible organisation to the catholic visible church), baptism simply cannot serve to mark entrance into it.
> 
> Thirdly, Dagg explicitly states the "Calvinistic Baptist" view that baptism is the significant act of profession and of introduction to Christian discipleship. He also states that baptism is a ceremony necessary for admission into the church and that the church consists of baptised persons only. Numerous other "Calvinistic Baptists" can be adduced to establish the point that profession-baptism is necessary for visible church communion.



Nobody is denying that cb's routinely deny local church membership to pb's. 
Pb's do it to us too, and the wedge is caused by both sides' theologies and will be there until or unless both change their minds. I'm with Dagg on both points, at least for now (I happen to be wrestling with a burden that Bunyan may have been on to something when he believed that both could fellowship together. But even if I wind up agreeing with Bunyan on that, such a fellowship would be so hard to keep united that it will likely prove the better part of wisdom not to try.) Dagg, however, is referring specifically to local churches when he makes his points. Does Dagg ever deny pb's recognition as members of the visible church? I haven't seen it, if he does. And if he does, he contradicts himself, as I have shown.



armourbearer said:


> I reiterate, the point is not that antipaedobaptists are obliged in principle to reject paedobaptists (or those baptised as infants) as Christian brethren or brethren in Christ;



Thank you for making this clear. It is because your initial post did not do so that I reacted as I did.



armourbearer said:


> the point is that their principles require them to consider those baptised as infants as lacking a proper profession of faith.



Stated this way, the point is not news.


----------



## Notthemama1984

PBs deny membership to CBs? I have never heard of such, but if this is true, it is a sad shame.


----------

