# Church Fathers and Baptismal Regeneration



## AV1611

Did the ECF teach baptismal regeneration or is is simply a confusion over language?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

According to different sources I have read there were various teachings. The need to be baptized for the forgiveness of sin was one unbiblical teaching as well as baptismal regeneration.


----------



## Amazing Grace

AV1611 said:


> Did the ECF teach baptismal regeneration or is is simply a confusion over language?



It depends on whose side one puts them on. Those who deny BR will find quotes supporting their position and those who believe in br will do the same. All in all they did believe in br....


----------



## onemaster

The early church fathers certainly believed in baptismal regeneration. It can be argued that the reformed churches did too (although their doctrine of baptismal regeneration differed significantly from Rome). Cornelius Burgess, one of the assessors at the Westminster Assembly, and the convener of the committee that wrote the confession's chapter on baptism, argued this is his book entitled "Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants, Professed by the Church of England, According to the Scriptures, the Primitive Church, the Present Reformed Churches, and Many Particular Divines Apart". (The nice thing about long titles is that you can see the outline of the entire book in them.)

Cornelius Burgess, one of the most prominent and respected divines at Westminster, would probably be considered unorthodox (if not heretical) in most confessional Presbyterian churches today because of his view of baptismal efficacy.

I'm considering republishing his book. As far as I know its been out of print since 1629 and is only available in a PDF image of the original (part of Early English Books collection). If anyone is interested in a reprint, please contact me.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear AV,

The general consensus in ECF scholarship is that baptismal regeneration was universally believed. The great proof text was John 3:5 "unless one is born of water and spirit". A good summary is found in the work of J. N. D. Kelly, _Early Christian Doctrines_. He is fairly reliable.

Of course, not all ECF speak about it. However, when they do they are pretty clear. The first occurrence of the teaching is found in Barnabas. The first extended treatment is that of Justin Martyr.

You won't find any of the ECF saying that baptism is simply a sign alone. Protestants have been reading the ECF for years and haven't found anything convincing (especially when put in their context). 

As far as I can find it the first people to say that baptism doesn't actually save you (from sin) were people like Walter Brute and his Lollard counterparts. This was the early 1400s.

It's an uncomfortable truth we just have to accept.

God bless brother.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## AV1611

Thanks for the responses thus far. Is it possible to determine whether they held to an _ex opere operato_ view of baptismal efficacy, i.e. disounting "worthy reception" (by/through faith)? From my reading of St. Augustine he would hold that baptism takes away original sin. That poses the question in my mind, is Augustine saying that the water does that or that the Spirit of God does that through the water.

Are we able to determine what the ECF meant by "regeneration". Calvin understood it to be lifelong if I am not mistaken. 

My biggest problem with saying tha baptism regenerates is the even if it were true then that must mean circumcision regenerated in the OT but then what did before Genesis 17? 

Random thoughts, I know, but I need to get back to my essay.


----------



## JohnTombes

There are a few more things to consider when reading the ECFs on the topic. 1. They were all too often influenced by Neo-Platonism's belief that what men do on the earth is mirrored by the gods (or God in Xity) in heaven. 2. They applied two issues from Acts 2, via their incipient Platonism, to the efficacy of baptism. 3. Those twin issues are remission (forgiveness) and regeneration. So, early on there were two efficacies enjoined to the act of baptism: that it regenerated and/or that it brought forgiveness. The remission can be incomplete or complete. Constantine put off baptism until late in life so he could have a plenary forgiveness, even though baptized by a heretic (the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia). Augustine seems to have taught that baptism washed away the effects of original sin. 

Have you ever read Stander & Louw's "Baptism in the Early Church?"

Mike


----------



## wsw201

> Are we able to determine what the ECF meant by "regeneration". Calvin understood it to be lifelong if I am not mistaken.



Calvin used the term regeneration differently than we do today. When you read Calvin he includes the effectual call, justification and sanctification when he talks about regeneration. It was the latter reformers that started to make the various distinctions. In fact in the Standards, the effectual call is synonomous with regeneration.


----------



## AV1611

wsw201 said:


> Calvin used the term regeneration differently than we do today. When you read Calvin he includes the effectual call, justification and sanctification when he talks about regeneration. It was the latter reformers that started to make the various distinctions. In fact in the Standards, the effectual call is synonomous with regeneration.



Who were right?


----------



## wsw201

AV1611 said:


> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calvin used the term regeneration differently than we do today. When you read Calvin he includes the effectual call, justification and sanctification when he talks about regeneration. It was the latter reformers that started to make the various distinctions. In fact in the Standards, the effectual call is synonomous with regeneration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who were right?
Click to expand...


I would say that none of them were wrong it was just the definitions that were in use at the time. Hodge makes note of this in his Systematic. In my humble opinion, as the Reformed faith grew, the latter reformers became more precise in their use of terms as the situation dictated. The same can be said of covenant theology. We can see the foundations of covenant theology in the ECF and have seen continued refinement up through today.

How folks in the past used certain terms may end up being quite different than how we use them today. That is why we need to be very careful not to read 21st century terminology and ideas back into 16th and 17th century mindsets. The previous comments about Burgess is an example. I have heard this before about Burgess but there are those who would dispute that he believed in BR. In fact some in the Reformed faith have tried to use Burgess and his comments as leverage to prove that the Standards teach BR or at least allows for it, which it doesn't.


----------



## greenbaggins

Not only this, but it is important to bear in mind that when the Reformers used the term, they weren't talking about the mere application of water, but the entire sacrament: the sign, the thing signified, and the sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified. In other words, none of the Reformers divorced the sign from the thing signified. Furthermore, Calvin at least was quite careful to say that without faith and the Holy Spirit's regenerating power, you didn't have the complete sacrament.


----------



## onemaster

*Burgess, Westminster, and Baptismal Regeneration*



wsw201 said:


> How folks in the past used certain terms may end up being quite different than how we use them today. That is why we need to be very careful not to read 21st century terminology and ideas back into 16th and 17th century mindsets. The previous comments about Burgess is an example. I have heard this before about Burgess but there are those who would dispute that he believed in BR. In fact some in the Reformed faith have tried to use Burgess and his comments as leverage to prove that the Standards teach BR or at least allows for it, which it doesn't.



Here goes...



Burgess believed in baptismal regeneration. That much is absolutely not disputable. Read him for yourself:
http://www.trinity-pres.net/essays/ht-burges-baptism.pdf

I would say that the WCF teaches a form of baptismal regeneration similar (if not identical) to Burgess. That shouldn't be surprising considering Burgess' role in drafting the chapter on baptism. The confession speaks about the efficacy of baptism, and it asserts that the grace offered is *really conferred*. That's pretty clear to me. True it makes a few statements to clarify various aspects about the efficacy of baptism. (E.g. its possible to be saved without being baptized etc.) Of course, if the confession taught what the majority today claim, those clarifying statements wouldn't be necessary. They could simple have said: baptism has no efficacy, and they would have been done with the matter. When they say that "grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed to it . . .", what they are clearly implying is that yes, grace and salvation are annexed to it, but that they are not absolutely inseparable. Had they believed as many of us do, that statement would have been completely unnecessary. There's no need to spell out the exceptions to a rule unless you first accept the rule. The rule in this case being the efficacy of baptism.

I do think the confession is very clear about baptismal efficacy and leaves little room for the sacramentalism which is so popular today.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## KMK

greenbaggins said:


> Not only this, but it is important to bear in mind that when the Reformers used the term, they weren't talking about the mere application of water, but the entire sacrament: the sign, the thing signified, and the sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified. In other words, none of the Reformers divorced the sign from the thing signified. Furthermore, Calvin at least was quite careful to say that without faith and the Holy Spirit's regenerating power, you didn't have the complete sacrament.



If this is what the word 'baptism' means, (the sign, the thing signified, the union between the two) then we all believe in baptismal regeneration, right?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KMK

onemaster said:


> I do think the confession is very clear about baptismal efficacy and leaves little room for the sacramentalism which is so popular today.



Can you explain this a little more?


----------



## onemaster

KMK said:


> onemaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do think the confession is very clear about baptismal efficacy and leaves little room for the sacramentalism which is so popular today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain this a little more?
Click to expand...


In other words, the confession clearly teaches that through baptism the Holy Ghost "really confers" the grace promised. The grace promised it defines to include remission of sins and regeneration (among others).

Perhaps that confusion lies with my using the word Sacramentalism to describe the prevalent view today. This word has undergone a curious inversion of its definition. It once referred to people who held to a very low view of the efficacy of the sacraments (thats the way I was using it and the way Burgess uses it). Now its often used in exactly the opposite sense.

In any case, I think the majority today (as I perceive it anyway) are out of step with what the confession actually says.

HTH


----------



## Christusregnat

onemaster said:


> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here goes...
> 
> 
> 
> Burgess believed in baptismal regeneration. That much is absolutely not disputable. Read him for yourself:
> http://www.trinity-pres.net/essays/ht-burges-baptism.pdf
> 
> I would say that the WCF teaches a form of baptismal regeneration similar (if not identical) to Burgess. That shouldn't be surprising considering Burgess' role in drafting the chapter on baptism. The confession speaks about the efficacy of baptism, and it asserts that the grace offered is *really conferred*. That's pretty clear to me. True it makes a few statements to clarify various aspects about the efficacy of baptism. (E.g. its possible to be saved without being baptized etc.) Of course, if the confession taught what the majority today claim, those clarifying statements wouldn't be necessary. They could simple have said: baptism has no efficacy, and they would have been done with the matter. When they say that "grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed to it . . .", what they are clearly implying is that yes, grace and salvation are annexed to it, but that they are not absolutely inseparable. Had they believed as many of us do, that statement would have been completely unnecessary. There's no need to spell out the exceptions to a rule unless you first accept the rule. The rule in this case being the efficacy of baptism.
> 
> I do think the confession is very clear about baptismal efficacy and leaves little room for the sacramentalism which is so popular today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pardon Emoi, but this sounds like FV clap trap. Trinity Pres is part of the FV gulag (see Trinity Presbyterian Church ~ Birmingham, Alabama).
> 
> Mr. Moderator, would you please remind this man of the agreement he took upon entering the Puritan Board?
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...


----------



## onemaster

Christusregnat said:


> Mr. Moderator, would you please remind this man of the agreement he took upon entering the Puritan Board?
> 
> Cheers,



Sir,

Cornellius Burgess was an assessor at the Westminster Assembly. The fact that the PDF of one of his most famous books happens to be hosted on a website associated with a FV man is completely irrelevant to the contents of that book (which is what we are discussing). Doctor Burgess predated the FV movement by nearly four centuries. I assure you he was not involved with it in any way.

I'd be willing to put the book on a different server if that would make you feel better about it.


----------



## greenbaggins

KMK said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only this, but it is important to bear in mind that when the Reformers used the term, they weren't talking about the mere application of water, but the entire sacrament: the sign, the thing signified, and the sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified. In other words, none of the Reformers divorced the sign from the thing signified. Furthermore, Calvin at least was quite careful to say that without faith and the Holy Spirit's regenerating power, you didn't have the complete sacrament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this is what the word 'baptism' means, (the sign, the thing signified, the union between the two) then we all believe in baptismal regeneration, right?
Click to expand...


I think I would put it this way (a bit tentatively): if the sign and the thing signified are both present, then regeneration has occurred. Or, if the thing signified is present without the sign being present, then regeneration has occurred. For the thing signified is the cleansing of sin by the blood of Jesus. Of course, for that to happen, God-given faith must be present. The problem here is that baptismal regeneration has only negative connotations in today's evangelical circles. Therefore, I don't really like using the term. The bare rite of baptism does not confer regeneration. Only the thing signified does that. Baptism as a sign is a sign of that. It says, "regeneration is in Christ. Go that way." Of course, if we go that way, it is only because the Holy Spirit has directed us in that way. Hopefully, this hasn't confused any of the issues.


----------



## Christusregnat

Hello All,

Just to clear up what the Confession says, instead of just guessing:

So, there are a few points to be made. First, this comes in the context of the broader sacramentology of the WA:

III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments _rightly used_, is not conferred by _any power in them_; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of _him that does administer _it: but upon the _work of the Spirit_, and the _word of institution_, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to _worthy receivers_.

Sacramental efficacy is a three-legged stool. First, we're told what the legs of the stool ARE NOT: (1) the sacrament itself has no power, (2) the minister who administers it has no power. Then we are told what those legs ARE: (1) God's divine, sovereign work by the Spirit "the _work of the Spirit_", (2) The Word of God's explanation of the gospel "the _word of institution_" and the "precept authorizing the use thereof," and "a promise of benefit", and (3) The subjective response: it being "rightly used", and the promise being made to "worthy receivers".

Now to the section on Baptism:

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only _for _the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also _to be _unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.

Notice, this merely states the intention of baptism; that is, what it is "to be" to everyone who receives it. This DOES NOT say what "IT IS" to everyone who receives it. Recall the point above about "worthy receivers" and "rightly receiving".

II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.

The element and the lawful calling of the administrator.

III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.

We're not baptists.

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.

Our children are holy.

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

Two errors are rejected: one is that of reducing the Holy Spirit to the church's servant. The wind blows where it wills. Not all who receive baptism are undoubtedly regenerated (Chrysostome's view). The other error rejected is that a person must be baptized to be saved (Augustine's view). None of the errorists are named (as, if I'm not mistaken, they never are by the Assembly), but their errors are repudiated.

VI. The _efficacy of Baptism _is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by _the right use _of this ordinance, the grace promised is _not only offered_, but _really exhibited_, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) _as that grace belongs _unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in _His appointed time_.

Again, baptism is a three-legged stool: The "right use", the "conferring by the Holy Ghost" and the "counsel of God" in "His time" (the third leg of Scripture being mentioned above as the "word of institution"). Notice again, only those predestinated unto life according to God's counsel enjoy the actual conferrence of grace by God's Spirit.

VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.

Again, rejecting anabaptism.



Cheers,


----------



## greenbaggins

Christusregnat said:


> Hello All,
> 
> Just to clear up what the Confession says, instead of just guessing:
> 
> So, there are a few points to be made. First, this comes in the context of the broader sacramentology of the WA:
> 
> III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments _rightly used_, is not conferred by _any power in them_; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of _him that does administer _it: but upon the _work of the Spirit_, and the _word of institution_, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to _worthy receivers_.
> 
> Sacramental efficacy is a three-legged stool. First, we're told what the legs of the stool ARE NOT: (1) the sacrament itself has no power, (2) the minister who administers it has no power. Then we are told what those legs ARE: (1) God's divine, sovereign work by the Spirit "the _work of the Spirit_", (2) The Word of God's explanation of the gospel "the _word of institution_" and the "precept authorizing the use thereof," and "a promise of benefit", and (3) The subjective response: it being "rightly used", and the promise being made to "worthy receivers".
> 
> Now to the section on Baptism:
> 
> I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only _for _the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also _to be _unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.
> 
> Notice, this merely states the intention of baptism; that is, what it is "to be" to everyone who receives it. This DOES NOT say what "IT IS" to everyone who receives it. Recall the point above about "worthy receivers" and "rightly receiving".
> 
> II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.
> 
> The element and the lawful calling of the administrator.
> 
> III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.
> 
> We're not baptists.
> 
> IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.
> 
> Our children are holy.
> 
> V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
> 
> Two errors are rejected: one is that of reducing the Holy Spirit to the church's servant. The wind blows where it wills. Not all who receive baptism are undoubtedly regenerated (Chrysostome's view). The other error rejected is that a person must be baptized to be saved (Augustine's view). None of the errorists are named (as, if I'm not mistaken, they never are by the Assembly), but their errors are repudiated.
> 
> VI. The _efficacy of Baptism _is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by _the right use _of this ordinance, the grace promised is _not only offered_, but _really exhibited_, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) _as that grace belongs _unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in _His appointed time_.
> 
> Again, baptism is a three-legged stool: The "right use", the "conferring by the Holy Ghost" and the "counsel of God" in "His time" (the third leg of Scripture being mentioned above as the "word of institution"). Notice again, only those predestinated unto life according to God's counsel enjoy the actual conferrence of grace by God's Spirit.
> 
> VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.
> 
> Again, rejecting anabaptism.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,



I would hope that any who subscribe to the WCF would agree with this. Of course, not everyone on the PB is paedo-baptist by a long shot. Adam, who did you have in mind who was "just guessing?"


----------



## Christusregnat

onemaster said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Moderator, would you please remind this man of the agreement he took upon entering the Puritan Board?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sir,
> 
> Cornellius Burgess was an assessor at the Westminster Assembly. The fact that the PDF of one of his most famous books happens to be hosted on a website associated with a FV man is completely irrelevant to the contents of that book (which is what we are discussing). Doctor Burgess predated the FV movement by nearly four centuries. I assure you he was not involved with it in any way.
> 
> I'd be willing to put the book on a different server if that would make you feel better about it.
Click to expand...



The agreement to which I referred was that when you signed up for the PB, you agreed to inform the moderators if you came to embrace any of the FV positions, and voluntarily exit the list. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I believe that the posts you have previously made (regardless of the Burgess link) do (at least in some points) reflect FV teaching.

However, that I may not falsely accuse you, please clarify your understanding of the covenant as it relates to election, baptism, etc. For instance, can someone be elect at one point in their life, and later become non-elect? Is there such a thing as an invisible church composed of all of the elect througout all ages? Do we continue in our justification by faithful obedience? Can justification be lost? Does justification by faith include any form of faithfulness on our part?

Hopefully, those questions will help me to avoid giving any offense, or accusing you of being associated with the FV. Forgive me if I have, indeed accused you falsely.

Godspeed,


----------



## Christusregnat

greenbaggins said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would hope that any who subscribe to the WCF would agree with this. Of course, not everyone on the PB is paedo-baptist by a long shot. Adam, who did you have in mind who was "just guessing?"
Click to expand...



Greenbaggins,

I was referring to this quotation:

"I would say that the WCF teaches a form of baptismal regeneration similar (if not identical) to Burgess. That shouldn't be surprising considering Burgess' role in drafting the chapter on baptism. The confession speaks about the efficacy of baptism, and it asserts that the grace offered is *really conferred*. That's pretty clear to me. True it makes a few statements to clarify various aspects about the efficacy of baptism. (E.g. its possible to be saved without being baptized etc.) Of course, if the confession taught what the majority today claim, those clarifying statements wouldn't be necessary. They could simple have said: baptism has no efficacy, and they would have been done with the matter. When they say that "grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed to it . . .", what they are clearly implying is that yes, grace and salvation are annexed to it, but that they are not absolutely inseparable. Had they believed as many of us do, that statement would have been completely unnecessary. There's no need to spell out the exceptions to a rule unless you first accept the rule. The rule in this case being the efficacy of baptism."

There was a brief snippet, but no contextualization.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## wsw201

Onemaster,

I attempted to read the book you linked but unfortunately, as with most facsimilies, its not very legible plus may Elizabethan english is not all that great either! I speak Texan! So unfortunately I was not able to get through it.

Be that as it may, I would refer you back to Greenbaggins post regarding the union between the sign and the thing signified. The Church has not divorced the two. The church does not baptize pagans nor does Baptism make a pagan a Christian. The Church baptizes based on a profession of faith. Therefore one must already be a believer before they can be baptized (I am speaking of adults and those who can make a credible profession, not infants). But it is not the Churches position to presume upon the activity of the Holy Spirit especially regarding baptism, which is why the Standards in section 6 on Baptism notes that "*The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.*" 

In addition if baptism actually regenerated someone, which would mean that they were among the elect, then Simon Magus is actually in heaven right now and that baptism is an admission into the *invisible *church rather than the *visible *church.

Regarding FV, it is quite true that some of the proponents of FV use BR to advance their views on peadocommunion and for other issues. 

At this point I will make the assumption that you are not an advocate of FV since you are aware of the rules of this board.


----------



## VictorBravo

Christusregnat said:


> The agreement to which I referred was that when you signed up for the PB, you agreed to inform the moderators if you came to embrace any of the FV positions, and voluntarily exit the list. *Perhaps I am mistaken, but I believe that the posts you have previously made (regardless of the Burgess link) do (at least in some points) reflect FV teaching.*
> However, that I may not falsely accuse you, please clarify your understanding of the covenant as it relates to election, baptism, etc. For instance, can someone be elect at one point in their life, and later become non-elect? Is there such a thing as an invisible church composed of all of the elect througout all ages? Do we continue in our justification by faithful obedience? Can justification be lost? Does justification by faith include any form of faithfulness on our part?
> 
> Hopefully, those questions will help me to avoid giving any offense, or accusing you of being associated with the FV. Forgive me if I have, indeed accused you falsely.
> 
> Godspeed,



Moderation

Christregnant, I don't know what you saw, but as of this posting, Onemaster had posted a total of 5, all on this thread related to Burgess, except for one on a humor thread.

Let's keep the thread on subject. This is not the place for one member to serve as an interogator of another.


----------



## onemaster

I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition... 



Christusregnat said:


> For instance, can someone be elect at one point in their life, and later become non-elect?



No.



Christusregnat said:


> Is there such a thing as an invisible church composed of all of the elect througout all ages?



Yes.



Christusregnat said:


> Do we continue in our justification by faithful obedience?



No.



Christusregnat said:


> Can justification be lost?



No.



Christusregnat said:


> Does justification by faith include any form of faithfulness on our part?



No.

How did I do? Did I pass the test , or will I be burned at the stake ? 

Its very unfortunate that the Biblical doctrine of baptismal efficacy taught by Burgess and the other reformers of his time (as he demonstrates in his book), have been largely surrendered to the FV camp. These doctrines were part of the orthodox reformed tradition centuries before the current controversies were ever dreamed up.


----------



## AV1611

onemaster said:


> These doctrines were part of the orthodox reformed tradition centuries before the current controversies were ever dreamed up.



Leaving aside FV and all that; how are you, and how did Burgess, define regeneration and how did he explain baptism as being regenerating?


----------



## onemaster

AV1611 said:


> onemaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> These doctrines were part of the orthodox reformed tradition centuries before the current controversies were ever dreamed up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leaving aside FV and all that; how are you, and how did Burgess, define regeneration and how did he explain baptism as being regenerating?
Click to expand...


Good question. This is key I think. It seems that modern Calvinists tend to think of regeneration as something that happens in a single moment of time when a person is converted. Burgess, and the others, viewed it as more of a lifelong process of walking in newness of life. For them is was definitely something more comprehensive that encompassed the entire Christian life.

Burgess believed that elect infants "ordinarily" received the Holy Ghost at the moment that they were baptized to be a sort of first principle of regeneration that would later come to fruition when they were effectually called by the word at a later time. He concerns himself mainly with elect infants who live to years of age. He acknowledges (as does the confession) that God may work in other ways as he sees fit. For instance, infants who die in infancy may be regenerated by some extraordinary means without baptism. But the ordinary case, for elect infants who live to years of discretion, is to receive initial regenerating grace and remission of sins at the time of baptism.

I suggest reading it for yourself as I could never do justice to it with my explanations.


----------



## Christusregnat

onemaster said:


> I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition...
> 
> 
> 
> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> For instance, can someone be elect at one point in their life, and later become non-elect?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there such a thing as an invisible church composed of all of the elect througout all ages?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can justification be lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does justification by faith include any form of faithfulness on our part?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> How did I do? Did I pass the test , or will I be burned at the stake ?
> 
> Its very unfortunate that the Biblical doctrine of baptismal efficacy taught by Burgess and the other reformers of his time (as he demonstrates in his book), have been largely surrendered to the FV camp. These doctrines were part of the orthodox reformed tradition centuries before the current controversies were ever dreamed up.
Click to expand...



Thanks Onemaster. The beating will continue until morale improves 

Adam


----------



## Christusregnat

victorbravo said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The agreement to which I referred was that when you signed up for the PB, you agreed to inform the moderators if you came to embrace any of the FV positions, and voluntarily exit the list. *Perhaps I am mistaken, but I believe that the posts you have previously made (regardless of the Burgess link) do (at least in some points) reflect FV teaching.*
> However, that I may not falsely accuse you, please clarify your understanding of the covenant as it relates to election, baptism, etc. For instance, can someone be elect at one point in their life, and later become non-elect? Is there such a thing as an invisible church composed of all of the elect througout all ages? Do we continue in our justification by faithful obedience? Can justification be lost? Does justification by faith include any form of faithfulness on our part?
> 
> Hopefully, those questions will help me to avoid giving any offense, or accusing you of being associated with the FV. Forgive me if I have, indeed accused you falsely.
> 
> Godspeed,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moderation
> 
> Christregnant, I don't know what you saw, but as of this posting, Onemaster had posted a total of 5, all on this thread related to Burgess, except for one on a humor thread.
> 
> Let's keep the thread on subject. This is not the place for one member to serve as an interogator of another.
Click to expand...


Mr. Moderator,

Thanks for the update. As you may have noticed, my mistake was subsequently corrected. I realized that I may have presumed to much, and Onemaster very kindly responded.

Thanks,

Adam


----------



## wsw201

HERE is an interesting article written by Andy Webb on this issue. His comments are primarily directed to FV'ers but it is very pertinent to this discussion.


----------



## onemaster

wsw201 said:


> But it is not the Churches position to presume upon the activity of the Holy Spirit especially regarding baptism, . . .


Neither is it for the church or presume upon the INACTIVITY of the Holy Spirit. Burgess would say that we should with the judgment of charity presume baptized infants to be regenerated and engrafted into Christ. This differs from FV teaching who say that they actually are--this is the judgment of charity (as he calls it) only.



wsw201 said:


> In addition if baptism actually regenerated someone, which would mean that they were among the elect, then Simon Magus is actually in heaven right now and that baptism is an admission into the *invisible *church rather than the *visible *church.



If baptism automatically regenerated everyone who was baptized, this would be the case. Burgess, and the confession, are only concerned with the elect (those to whom the grace belongeth).



wsw201 said:


> At this point I will make the assumption that you are not an advocate of FV since you are aware of the rules of this board.



Thanks


----------



## Scott

Onemaster: What is your understanding of the state of justification of an adult unbeliever who hears the Word and places faith in Christ but has not yet been baptized? Justified, not justified, or something else? Thanks


----------



## Christusregnat

onemaster said:


> Good question. This is key I think. It seems that modern Calvinists tend to think of regeneration as something that happens in a single moment of time when a person is converted. Burgess, and the others, viewed it as more of a lifelong process of walking in newness of life. For them is was definitely something more comprehensive that encompassed the entire Christian life.
> 
> Burgess believed that elect infants "ordinarily" received the Holy Ghost at the moment that they were baptized to be a sort of first principle of regeneration that would later come to fruition when they were effectually called by the word at a later time. He concerns himself mainly with elect infants who live to years of age. He acknowledges (as does the confession) that God may work in other ways as he sees fit. For instance, infants who die in infancy may be regenerated by some extraordinary means without baptism. But the ordinary case, for elect infants who live to years of discretion, is to receive initial regenerating grace and remission of sins at the time of baptism.
> 
> I suggest reading it for yourself as I could never do justice to it with my explanations.



Onemassuh,

I think your assertion is right about the different definitions given to the term "regeneration" in older and newer writings. The question then arises, if some of the Church Fathers, some of the Reformers, and some modern Calvinists have differing definitions of the term regeneration, which definition is biblical? I realize that using a non-biblical term in theology is perfectly legitimate, but using a biblical term in theology, and then giving a divergent definition from what scripture gives is somewhat misleading.

That said, where in Scripture would one find the term regeneration used of a life-long process (such as sanctification, growth in grace, etc.)? I'm too lazy to read Burges , so please explain, if you will. I can only recall regeneration being used in two contexts: one of the immediate work of God upon the soul in bringing to new life, and one of the restoration of the heavens and the earth at Christ's second coming.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## wsw201

As I had noted, I was not able to get through the Burgess link. But it would appear to me that what you are advocating is not Baptismal Regeneration per se but Presumptive Regeneration??


----------



## Scott

> Neither is it for the church or presume upon the INACTIVITY of the Holy Spirit. Burgess would say that we should with the judgment of charity presume baptized infants to be regenerated and engrafted into Christ. This differs from FV teaching who say that they actually are--this is the judgment of charity (as he calls it) only.


This is an interesting statement. Can you elaborate on this presumption and the judgment of charity? Thanks


----------



## Amazing Grace

Christusregnat said:


> That said, where in Scripture would one find the term regeneration used of a life-long process (such as sanctification, growth in grace, etc.)? I'm too lazy to read Burges , so please explain, if you will. I can only recall regeneration being used in two contexts: one of the immediate work of God upon the soul in bringing to new life, and one of the restoration of the heavens and the earth at Christ's second coming.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam




I do not think it is there Adam. This is one reason I lean towards immediate Spirit regeneration without means not tied to any sacrament.


----------



## Amazing Grace

wsw201 said:


> As I had noted, I was not able to get through the Burgess link. But it would appear to me that what you are advocating is not Baptismal Regeneration per se but Presumptive Regeneration??


 Wayne:

or perhaps a new acronym. PBRE "Presumptive Bapstismal Regeneration of ELect"


----------



## Christusregnat

Amazing Grace said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> That said, where in Scripture would one find the term regeneration used of a life-long process (such as sanctification, growth in grace, etc.)? I'm too lazy to read Burges , so please explain, if you will. I can only recall regeneration being used in two contexts: one of the immediate work of God upon the soul in bringing to new life, and one of the restoration of the heavens and the earth at Christ's second coming.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think it is there Adam. This is one reason I lean towards immediate Spirit regeneration without means not tied to any sacrament.
Click to expand...


The Jury is still out... 

I'm waiting to hear from mah homie OneMassuh.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## onemaster

Christusregnat said:


> I think your assertion is right about the different definitions given to the term "regeneration" in older and newer writings. The question then arises, if some of the Church Fathers, some of the Reformers, and some modern Calvinists have differing definitions of the term regeneration, which definition is biblical? I realize that using a non-biblical term in theology is perfectly legitimate, but using a biblical term in theology, and then giving a divergent definition from what scripture gives is somewhat misleading.
> 
> That said, where in Scripture would one find the term regeneration used of a life-long process (such as sanctification, growth in grace, etc.)? I'm too lazy to read Burges , so please explain, if you will. I can only recall regeneration being used in two contexts: one of the immediate work of God upon the soul in bringing to new life, and one of the restoration of the heavens and the earth at Christ's second coming.



Good questions. I found regeneration used in two places in my Bible:



> Matthew 19:28
> And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
> 
> Titus 3:5
> Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;



Burgess, of course, viewed the washing of regeneration in Titus 3:5 as a direct reference to baptism.

Calvin Institutes, Book 3, Chapter 3 has some interesting statements on regeneration. It seems like he almost equates regeneration and repentance. 

I'm not sure if any of this provides a definitive answer about the Biblically correct definition of regeneration.


----------



## Christusregnat

onemaster said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think your assertion is right about the different definitions given to the term "regeneration" in older and newer writings. The question then arises, if some of the Church Fathers, some of the Reformers, and some modern Calvinists have differing definitions of the term regeneration, which definition is biblical? I realize that using a non-biblical term in theology is perfectly legitimate, but using a biblical term in theology, and then giving a divergent definition from what scripture gives is somewhat misleading.
> 
> That said, where in Scripture would one find the term regeneration used of a life-long process (such as sanctification, growth in grace, etc.)? I'm too lazy to read Burges , so please explain, if you will. I can only recall regeneration being used in two contexts: one of the immediate work of God upon the soul in bringing to new life, and one of the restoration of the heavens and the earth at Christ's second coming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good questions. I found regeneration used in two places in my Bible:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew 19:28
> And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
> 
> Titus 3:5
> Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Burgess, of course, viewed the washing of regeneration in Titus 3:5 as a direct reference to baptism.
> 
> Calvin Institutes, Book 3, Chapter 3 has some interesting statements on regeneration. It seems like he almost equates regeneration and repentance.
> 
> I'm not sure if any of this provides a definitive answer about the Biblically correct definition of regeneration.
Click to expand...


I'm going to start a new thread: Regeneration: New & Old

Hope to see you there!

Adam


----------



## NaphtaliPress

*PDF file of Burges*

Hi John. Welcome to PB. I suspect that the PDF file of the Burges work you reference has been posted on that site without permission of the owner, Proquest (owners of Early English Books Online). It is clearly theirs as it has the old Bell and Howel authorship in the about file information. The terms of use of EEBO is as follows:


> You will use the Products solely for your own personal or internal use. You will not publish, broadcast or sell any materials retrieved through the Products or use the materials in any manner that will infringe the copyright or other proprietary right of ProQuest or its licensors. You may not use the Products to execute denial of service attacks nor may you perform automated searches against ProQuest's systems to the extent such searches unduly burden ProQuest's systems (including, but not limited to automated "bots" or link checkers). You may print and make copies of materials retrieved through the Products only as permitted below. You represent and warrant to ProQuest that you will not use the Products or any material retrieved from the Products to create products or perform services which compete or interfere with the publications and services of ProQuest or its licensors.
> You may create printouts of materials retrieved through the Products via on-line printing, off-line printing, facsimile, or electronic mail. All reproduction and distribution of such printouts, and all downloading and electronic storage of materials retrieved through the Products shall be for your own internal or personal use. Downloading of all or parts of the Products in a systematic or regular manner so as to create a collection of materials comprising all or part of the Products is strictly prohibited whether or not such collection is in electronic or print form. Notwithstanding the above restrictions, this paragraph shall not restrict your use of the materials under the doctrines of "fair use" or "fair dealing" as defined under the laws of the United States or England, respectively.


All that to say, I wouldn't make it available elsewhere without the permission of Proquest. 


onemaster said:


> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How folks in the past used certain terms may end up being quite different than how we use them today. That is why we need to be very careful not to read 21st century terminology and ideas back into 16th and 17th century mindsets. The previous comments about Burgess is an example. I have heard this before about Burgess but there are those who would dispute that he believed in BR. In fact some in the Reformed faith have tried to use Burgess and his comments as leverage to prove that the Standards teach BR or at least allows for it, which it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here goes...
> 
> 
> 
> Burgess believed in baptismal regeneration. That much is absolutely not disputable. Read him for yourself:
> http://www.trinity-pres.net/essays/ht-burges-baptism.pdf
> 
> I would say that the WCF teaches a form of baptismal regeneration similar (if not identical) to Burgess. That shouldn't be surprising considering Burgess' role in drafting the chapter on baptism. The confession speaks about the efficacy of baptism, and it asserts that the grace offered is *really conferred*. That's pretty clear to me. True it makes a few statements to clarify various aspects about the efficacy of baptism. (E.g. its possible to be saved without being baptized etc.) Of course, if the confession taught what the majority today claim, those clarifying statements wouldn't be necessary. They could simple have said: baptism has no efficacy, and they would have been done with the matter. When they say that "grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed to it . . .", what they are clearly implying is that yes, grace and salvation are annexed to it, but that they are not absolutely inseparable. Had they believed as many of us do, that statement would have been completely unnecessary. There's no need to spell out the exceptions to a rule unless you first accept the rule. The rule in this case being the efficacy of baptism.
> 
> I do think the confession is very clear about baptismal efficacy and leaves little room for the sacramentalism which is so popular today.
Click to expand...


----------



## danmpem

AV1611 said:


> Thanks for the responses thus far. Is it possible to determine whether they held to an _ex opere operato_ view of baptismal efficacy, i.e. disounting "worthy reception" (by/through faith)? From my reading of St. Augustine he would hold that baptism takes away original sin. That poses the question in my mind, is Augustine saying that the water does that or that the Spirit of God does that through the water.
> 
> Are we able to determine what the ECF meant by "regeneration". Calvin understood it to be lifelong if I am not mistaken.
> 
> My biggest problem with saying tha baptism regenerates is the even if it were true then that must mean circumcision regenerated in the OT but then what did before Genesis 17?
> 
> Random thoughts, I know, but I need to get back to my essay.



I'm no ECF scholar, but didn't Augustine's view of baptism change over the time of his life?


----------



## onemaster

> It is clearly theirs as it has the old Bell and Howel authorship in the about file information.



Where do you see that?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

onemaster said:


> It is clearly theirs as it has the old Bell and Howel authorship in the about file information.
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you see that?
Click to expand...

Go to "File" > "Document Properties" > "Description". I also checked the copy at EEBO and the title page matches exactly including the number in heavy script.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

onemaster said:


> Cornelius Burgess, one of the assessors at the Westminster Assembly, and the convener of the committee that wrote the confession's chapter on baptism...



John,
What is your source on this? C. Burges was on the special committee to do a first draft of a confession; but this work was later divided between the three grand committees and the second grand committee were assigned the chapter on Baptism and they were responsible for wording changes upon debate and any recommitting (at least on my quick look at Mitchell & Struthers I did not see any subsequent special committee assigned the work). Dr. Burges was on the first grand committee.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

onemaster,

1. You need to update your Signature per the board requirements.
2. I would not presume to be so "smug" about what is and isn't denied according the the Confessions here. I don't play games, flaming Scots aside, with people who come into this board and presume to correct the group about the _real_ Confessional understanding. I frankly found your statement that the Confessions teach Baptismal Regeneration to be quite facile.
3. The Reformed Confessions universally confess a _distinction_ between the sign and the thing signified. They also clearly affirm that the grace conferred is not tied to the actual announcement of the Promise during its administration:


> VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;16 yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.17


In other words, the grace that is promised in the sign may be conferred at a _later time_. The Sacrament itself has complete efficacy in this case, however, because the Minister does not _confer_ grace in the administration of the Sacrament but announces the promise of God. 

Frankly, you initial statement reveals somewhat Baptistic thinking in conflating the sign with the thing signified even for the elect. The Confessions do _not_ teach that, for the Elect, regeneration is annexed to Baptism. That the Promise is announced during Baptism makes the sign and thing signified inexorably joined in terms of the relationship between Promise and fulfilment but that does not make Baptism the instrument of regeneration.

This relationship between the sign (Promise) and thing signified (actual union with Christ) can be seen from the Heidelberg:


> Question 69. How art thou admonished and assured by holy baptism, that the one sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is of real advantage to thee?
> 
> Answer: Thus: That Christ appointed this external washing with water, (a) adding thereto this promise, (b) that I am as certainly washed by his blood and Spirit from all the pollution of my soul, that is, from all my sins, (c) as I am washed externally with water, by which the filthiness of the body is commonly washed away.
> 
> Question 70. What is it to be washed with the blood and Spirit of Christ?
> 
> Answer: It is to receive of God the remission of sins, freely, for the sake of Christ's blood, which he shed for us by his sacrifice upon the cross; (a) and also to be renewed by the Holy Ghost, and sanctified to be members of Christ, that so we may more and more die unto sin, and lead holy and unblamable lives. (b)
> 
> Question 71. Where has Christ promised us, that he will as certainly wash us by his blood and Spirit, as we are washed with the water of baptism?
> 
> Answer: In the institution of baptism, which is thus expressed: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost", Matt.28:19. And "he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned.", Mark 16:16. This promise is also repeated, where the scripture calls baptism "the washing of regenerations" and the washing away of sins. Tit.3:5, Acts 22:16. (a)
> 
> Question 72. Is then the external baptism with water the washing away of sin itself?
> 
> Answer: Not at all: (a) for the blood of Jesus Christ only, and the Holy Ghost cleanse us from all sin. (b)
> 
> Question 73. Why then does the Holy Ghost call baptism "the washing of regeneration," and "the washing away of sins"?
> 
> Answer: God speaks thus not without great cause, to-wit, not only thereby to teach us, that as the filth of the body is purged away by water, so our sins are removed by the blood and Spirit of Jesus Christ; (a) but especially that by this divine pledge and sign he may assure us, that we are spiritually cleansed from our sins as really, as we are externally washed with water. (b)
> 
> Question 74. Are infants also to be baptized?
> 
> Answer: Yes: for since they, as well as the adult, are included in the covenant and church of God; (a) and since redemption from sin (b) by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult; (c) they must therefore by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, be also admitted into the christian church; and be distinguished from the children of unbelievers (d) as was done in the old covenant or testament by circumcision, (e) instead of which baptism is instituted (f) in the new covenant.



Finally, thank you to Wayne Wylie for pointing out, correctly, the early use of the term regeneration that later theologians distinguished in more detail. You cannot merely port your language into Calvin. You have to read his definitions much more carefully before you conclude that he taught Baptismal Regeneration.


----------



## onemaster

> What is your source on this? C. Burges was on the special committee to do a first draft of a confession; but this work was later divided between the three grand committees and the second grand committee were assigned the chapter on Baptism and they were responsible for wording changes upon debate and any recommitting (at least on my quick look at Mitchell & Struthers I did not see any subsequent special committee assigned the work). Dr. Burges was on the first grand committee.



 I think you are correct. He was on the first committee. I'm trying to track down where I read that he was convener of the other committee. Hmmm....


----------



## MW

A case can be made that the ECFs adopted the sacramental language of the NT Scriptures and didn't teach baptismal regeneration per se. As Lane has pointed out, the Reformed also adopt the same sacramental language where they refer to the sign accompanied by the thing signified. From a believer's point of view it is an undisputed fact that "baptism doth also now save us," 1 Pet. 3:21; but then it is immediately clarified that this baptism does not consist in the bare application of water. It is only the water representing the resurrection of Christ (objectively) and bringing forth the answer of a good conscience (subjectively) that saves us. 

On the subject of Cornelius Burges, please note the title of his book -- the regeneration of ELECT infants. As one reads the work it becomes transparent that he has a specific regeneration in mind which is not the full regeneration implied in being born again by the incorruptible seed, that this is the Sovereign work of the Holy Spirit and therefore not infallibly tied to the moment of baptism, and that this deposit of regeneration only applies to the case of the elect.

Burges' concern was to show that infant baptism is not a mere ritual without any significance until the individual comes to faith. Personally I think it is dangerous to speak of the efficacy of baptism in anything other than objective terms, and I much prefer the position of those theologians who speak of subjective benefit only being applied to the case of those whose baptism is looked upon from the perspective of faith (William Cunningham and James Bannerman are especially helpful in this regard). But as far as Burges' printed opinion is concerned, it falls within the spectrum of reformed orthodoxy because it does not tie the efficacy of baptism to the moment of administration, it refers only to the beginnings of regeneration, and connects baptismal efficacy to the work of the Holy Spirit in the elect alone.


----------



## onemaster

> You need to update your Signature per the board requirements.



I was careful to do that before my first post.



> I would not presume to be so "smug" about what is and isn't denied according the the Confessions here. . .



Sorry. I didn't mean to be smug.



> In other words, the grace that is promised in the sign may be conferred at a _later time_.



Or, the point may be that the regeneration first initiated in baptism continues for the entirety of the Christian life. That's what Burgess clearly taught. And he apparently though he had the backing of other divines (John Calvin included) and the other reformed confessions of his time.



> The Confessions do _not_ teach that, for the Elect, regeneration is annexed to Baptism.



Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to just say that then? It says no such thing. Rather, the wording implies the opposite when it says that grace and salvation are not _inseparably_ annex unto baptism. Annexed unto--yes; Inseparably annexed unto--no. In other words, God has appointed baptism as his ordinary instrument of initial regeneration, but he himself is not tied to it but free to work how and when he pleases.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

onemaster said:


> You need to update your Signature per the board requirements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was careful to do that before my first post.
Click to expand...




> Or, the point may be that the regeneration first initiated in baptism continues for the entirety of the Christian life. That's what Burgess clearly taught. And he apparently though he had the backing of other divines (John Calvin included) and the other reformed confessions of his time.


It matters not what Burgess thought or taught as an individual even if I grant your point (which I do not). We don't form Reformed theology by quoting our favorite authors in a "quote mash" to form our favorite Reformed brew, re-define the Confessions according to our scheme, and then announce to the rest: "You guys are not really Reformed...."



> Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to just say that then? It says no such thing. Rather, the wording implies the opposite when it says that grace and salvation are not _inseparably_ annex unto baptism. Annexed unto--yes; Inseparably annexed unto--no. In other words, God has appointed baptism as his ordinary instrument of initial regeneration, but he himself is not tied to it but free to work how and when he pleases.



It says precisely what I said. Are you really having trouble reading the sentence? Let me make it more explicit:


> ...*the grace promised* is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, *in His appointed time*.17



The Sacrament of Baptism is _not_ the instrument of regeneration. It says no such thing. It says it is a sign thereof and is related to it as sign is to the thing signified. The efficacy of Baptism is found in the Promise of God, which always "Yes" and "Amen".

Consider, carefully, how you proceed. I'm really not interested in your re-definitions of the Confession. Your response will determine your continued participation on this board. You've received adequate correctives to your faulty views in this thread, though it is quite apparent that you have a fairly ensconced view prior to coming here. You have very clearly stated that which the Confessions deny and try to re-define them to suit your view. I don't allow this sort of game playing here.


----------



## onemaster

> It matters not what Burgess thought or taught as an individual even if I grant your point (which I do not). We don't form Reformed theology by quoting our favorite authors in a "quote mash" to form our favorite Reformed brew, re-define the Confessions according to our scheme, and then announce to the rest: "You guys are not really Reformed...."



One of the major points of Burgess' book, which you are free to read for yourself, was that his doctrine was the doctrine of the Church of England, other Reformed Divines (including Calvin, Bucer, etc.), and the other reformed churches. It was not his private opinion, but was considered thoroughly orthodox by other Calvinists at the time (not to mention the Church Fathers).



> It says precisely what I said. Baptism is _not_ the instrument of regeneration. It says no such thing. It says it is a sign thereof and is related to it as sign is to the thing signified.



Are you saying that the confession teaches that baptism is a bare sign that does not confer the grace signified?


----------



## fredtgreco

onemaster said:


> The Confessions do _not_ teach that, for the Elect, regeneration is annexed to Baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to just say that then? It says no such thing. Rather, the wording implies the opposite when it says that grace and salvation are not _inseparably_ annex unto baptism. Annexed unto--yes; Inseparably annexed unto--no. In other words, God has appointed baptism as his ordinary instrument of initial regeneration, but he himself is not tied to it but free to work how and when he pleases.
Click to expand...



You have this exactly backwards. The not tying of grace to baptism is to allow for the Biblical view that grace can come apart from baptism, not that baptism can bring some kind of grace that is not for the elect. That is the whole point of the phrase:

_"to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto"_

The grace that is _"offered, really exhibited, and conferred"_ is only for the elect, namely, those to whom that grace belongs.

I'm really tired of folks trying to mix magic in with the water, and then claiming to be the ones who are really Reformed or Westminsterian. Rev. Winzer's post above hits the nail on the head solidly.

I would suggest that the "observers" in this thread look at that, and ignore OneMaster's typical sacramentalistic gymnastics.


----------



## fredtgreco

onemaster said:


> It matters not what Burgess thought or taught as an individual even if I grant your point (which I do not). We don't form Reformed theology by quoting our favorite authors in a "quote mash" to form our favorite Reformed brew, re-define the Confessions according to our scheme, and then announce to the rest: "You guys are not really Reformed...."
> 
> 
> 
> One of the major points of Burgess' book, which you are free to read for yourself, was that his doctrine was the doctrine of the Church of England, other Reformed Divines (including Calvin, Bucer, etc.), and the other reformed churches. It was not his private opinion, but was considered thoroughly orthodox by other Calvinists at the time (not to mention the Church Fathers).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says precisely what I said. Baptism is _not_ the instrument of regeneration. It says no such thing. It says it is a sign thereof and is related to it as sign is to the thing signified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that the confession teaches that baptism is a bare sign that does not confer the grace signified?
Click to expand...


Baptism only confers grace to the elect. Period. End of story. It does not confer some kind of half-way, "initial" "temporary" or other kind of grace. It actually conveys condemnation for the non-elect.


----------



## onemaster

> The grace that is _"offered, really exhibited, and conferred"_ is only for the elect, namely, those to whom that grace belongs.
> 
> I'm really tired of folks trying to mix magic in with the water, and then claiming to be the ones who are really Reformed or Westminsterian. Rev. Winzer's post above hits the nail on the head solidly.
> 
> I would suggest that the "observers" in this thread look at that, and ignore OneMaster's typical sacramentalistic gymnastics.



Fred, where have I ever said that baptism confers grace to anyone but the elect? That is entirely something that you imagined. I happen to agree with what Rev. Winzer's said as well.


----------



## DTK

I think that Rev. Winzer's comments about the views of the ECFs on baptism, in pointing out that they adopted the sacramental language of the NT, is an accurate description of them. It is certainly true that they did, as the Reformed after them, hold to the sacramental union of the sign and the reality. I'm not convinced from my reading of many of their works, not only from the Eerdmans set, the FC set, and the ACW set, but from many of their exegetical commentaries, that it could be successfully argued that they did not believe in baptismal regeneration, though I appreciate the expressed sentiment by Rev. Winzer otherwise. I think their language often goes beyond that of the sacramental language of the NT. Far too often they linked baptism with justification itself, something never affirmed in the NT. Their instances of affirming this latter sentiment (justification by baptism) are simply myriad in number. And the general consent was that it was absolutely necessary for salvation.

I have found the treatment of E. Brooks Holifield's _The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Sacramental Theology in Old and New England, 1570-1720_ helpful to the subject of the preceding discussions, so I thought that I would post some of his comments in his attempt to understand Calvin, the Puritans, and Burges and Ward in context. Though both Samuel Ward and Cornelius Burges held to forms of baptismal regeneration, their views differed from one another. Burges, as it has already been noted, believed that the efficacy of baptism applied only to elect infants and that its effects was lasting, while Ward believed that baptism conveyed to infants a grace that was "provisional and only of temporary effect." Another difference was that Samuel Ward believed baptism to be the means for the ablution of original guilt (read original sin) in infants.

*E. Brooks Holifield:* Nevertheless, Calvin had difficulty integrating baptism into his theology. He did not join Luther in seeking the Word “in” the water and instructed his readers to look beyond “the visible element.” He repeatedly cautioned that baptism was of benefit only to the elect; he repudiated emergency baptism; and he denied that the sacrament was necessary for salvation. In fact, Calvin emphasized so strongly the freedom of God in election that secondary means of salvation were superfluous. The ground of election was hidden in the Divine Will: we must “always at last return to the sole decision of God’s will, the cause of which is hidden in Him.” Calvin frequently wrote as though that detracted in no way from the sacrament, but elsewhere he acknowledged that he was not prepared to “bind the grace of God, or the power of the Spirit, to external symbols.” Many received the sign, but the Spirit was bestowed on none but the elect. Since the sacrament had no efficacy without the Spirit, the reality of baptism, Calvin acknowledged, would be “found only in a few.” E. Brooks Holifield, _The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Sacramental Theology in Old and New England, 1570-1720_ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), p. 16. 

*E. Brooks Holifield:* The tension emerged clearly in Calvin’s doctrine of infant baptism. Since faith was necessary for the perfection of baptism, and since infants could not demonstrate faith—only the elect among them would ever persevere in it—why baptize infants at all? In the 1536 edition of the _Institutes_ Calvin joined Luther in attributing some kind of faith to infants, but he dropped that idea after 1539. He supported infant baptism by various appeals to Scripture, noting the apostolic practice of baptizing families and Jesus’ command that infants be brought to him. But Calvin’s main argument for infant baptism was based on the covenant motif, which first became prominent in his sacramental theology in the 1538 edition of the _Geneva Catechism_....But though baptism “engrafted” children into the visible church, it did not actually place them within the covenant. It simply testified that they had been “born directly into the inheritance of the covenant.” Since the inheritance was ultimately destined only for the elect, how could one say the testimony was reliable? Calvin confessed that many children of faithful Christians would “thrust themselves out of the holy progeny through their unbelief.” So even if infants were, as Calvin often argued, baptized for future repentance and faith, the sacrament itself offered no assurance that a child would in fact believe. E. Brooks Holifield, _The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Sacramental Theology in Old and New England, 1570-1720_ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), pp. 16-17.

*E. Brooks Holifield:* In adopting Calvin’s baptismal doctrine, however, the Puritans also inherited the characteristic Reformed ambivalence about external sacraments. Salvation, after all, rested ultimately on the unconditioned election of a Deity who was “Father and the God of all the elect, and only the elect.” The ministers criticized any suggestion that the sacrament conferred saving grace, or removed the stain of original sin, or justified the baptized infant, just as they denied that baptism was necessary for salvation. E. Brooks Holifield, _The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Sacramental Theology in Old and New England, 1570-1720_ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), p. 46.

*E. Brooks Holifield:* The vocabulary of the sacramentalists revealed their intention: to elevate baptism by combining two theological traditions, Reformed orthodoxy and medieval scholasticism. To speak of the Christian life in terms of potency, or form, and actualization, or matter, was to appropriate scholastic imagery. “Initial grace” was a Reformed adaptation of the medieval _gratia prima_, also given to children in baptism. Baxter recognized later the similarity between “seminal grace” and the scholastic notion of infused habits. *Burges* and *Ward* carefully inserted the older language into their orthodox Calvinism, but they could not entirely eliminate the incommensurabilities. The medieval language depicted the Christian pilgrimage as a gradual development, approximate to salvation in ascending stages and levels of growth, nourished by sacramental grace from beginning to end. Earlier Reformed theologians spoke of progressive sanctification after the effectual call, and they argued about preparatory development in adults prior to the experience of saving grace, but the sacramentalist language seemed to depict the whole of a man’s spiritual life, from infancy to glorification, as an unbroken continuum beginning with baptism. The problem was to combine that vocabulary with a traditional Puritan notion of genuine conversion as a specifiable experience, restricted to the elect, moving them into a new sphere of life, discontinuous with their past. Puritan theology often consisted of the artful manipulation of images, and *Burges* and *Ward* accordingly proposed a sacramental theology based on medieval images of salvation as a new creation.
Few of their Puritan contemporaries shared their vision, however, and the initial response was therefore hostile. When *Ward* first published his ideas around 1627, a close friend, John Davenant, advised that he not “sett that controversy on foot,” and when *Burges* published his treatise he complained that he received for his effort nothing but “clamors, slanders, and revilings without end or measure.” E. Brooks Holifield, _The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Sacramental Theology in Old and New England, 1570-1720_ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), pp. 85-86.

*E. Brooks Holifield:* Most Puritan theologians believed that baptism did not seal an absolute covenant of grace, since that would entail either the regeneration of all who were baptized or the restriction of baptism to the elect. They distinguished a conditional and an absolute covenant, and administered a baptism that was efficacious only on the condition of future faith. E. Brooks Holifield, _The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Sacramental Theology in Old and New England, 1570-1720_ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), p. 92.

DTK


----------



## Semper Fidelis

onemaster said:


> Are you saying that the confession teaches that baptism is a bare sign that does not confer the grace signified?



After all I just wrote on the subject of the Promise of God in the Sacrament, I must assume you are being purposefully obstinate and pugilistic to ask this question.

Farewell.


----------



## JohnOwen007

armourbearer said:


> A case can be made that the ECFs adopted the sacramental language of the NT Scriptures and didn't teach baptismal regeneration per se.



The case may be made, but In my humble opinion it's far from convincing. The ECF so very clearly tied the actual moment of regeneration and forgiveness with the historical action of baptism itself. This is undeniable.

We just have to admit the ECF taught baptismal regeneration no matter how uncomfortable it is.


----------



## MW

JohnOwen007 said:


> The case may be made, but In my humble opinion it's far from convincing. The ECF so very clearly tied the actual moment of regeneration and forgiveness with the historical action of baptism itself. This is undeniable.
> 
> We just have to admit the ECF taught baptismal regeneration no matter how uncomfortable it is.



If one is not reading a developed doctrine back into the naive use of language, then it can be granted that they taught a "baptismal regeneration" of sorts. But actual "regeneration" in the fathers is not the later concept of an infusion of life and grace, but the living of a moral life; and given the fact that conversion was a pre-requisite to adult baptism, and that there was no practical distinction between noumenal and phenomenal converts, then their manner of attributing to baptism the full effects which accompany conversion is perfectly reasonable. One must also remember that the writers who speak of the "effects" of baptism also freely refer to the void of baptism when not accompanied with new life. So it is clear that they do not teach the doctrine of baptismal regeneration as that term is now understood in divinity.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Rev. Winzer,

What about salvation and regeneration outside of the Church. If I remember correctly the ecf didn't think that was possible. They may have thought along the lines of prevenient grace up to the point of a believers baptism but many of the ecf closely connected the forgiveness of sin to baptism and that you couldn't have forgiveness until you were baptised. And you couldn't receive this on the outside of the church. 

From the books I have read on baptism and the early church ..... and let me just say I was depressed at how far the doctrine of baptism had fallen and didn't seem to represent biblical baptism.... the ecclesiology had the keys to the kingdom, one couldn't be alive in Christ outside of the church, baptism was the instrument of washing away sins and restoring one to God and bringing one into the church. Thus regeneration was closely associated with baptism more closely than you may want to acknowledge. It was more closely associated in the ECF than I would like to acknowledge. But the truth is.... baptismal regeneration and baptism and the remission of sin are tied together in the ECF.


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> What about salvation and regeneration outside of the Church. If I remember correctly the ecf didn't think that was possible. They may have thought along the lines of prevenient grace up to the point of a believers baptism but many of the ecf closely connected the forgiveness of sin to baptism and that you couldn't have forgiveness until you were baptised. And you couldn't receive this on the outside of the church.



Given the emphasis on the cohesiveness of the church it is understandable why they would say that. If there is only one church, and only the church has the message of forgiveness, and there is a strict discipline requiring baptism of all converts, then it stands to reason that there is no salvation apart from baptism. It is only when division and a breakdown of discipline emerges that it becomes necessary to qualify this belief.


----------



## AV1611

An interesting discussion. I think that it is safe to say that the writings of the ECF allow for a great deal of anachronism. In my reading of the Fathers I have frequently found myself asking "what are they actually saying?" as at times their wording is not completely clear. To say that St. Augustine taught that the water of baptism regenerates is easy to maintain if you ignore his definition of a sacrament as being a _visible sign of an inward grace_. It seems that he certainly taught that the Spirit of God worked through the waters of baptism but then that is foundational sacramentology. 

I did some reading of Calvin last night and in brief it seems to me that he argues for an objective presentation of Christ in baptism that, when recieved with faith, conveys that which it signifies, arguing that "we never have naked and empty symbols, except when our ingratitude and wickedness hinder the working of divine beneficence". 

Such a view could only be held if he viewed regeneration as a life long process. 

It is interesting to think about Calvin's view of the Lord's supper. In that Christ is really held forth objectively and recieved by all who eat with faith. 

The Geneva Catechism:

*M. You think, then. that the power and efficacy of a sacrament is not contained in the outward element, but flows entirely from the Spirit of God?
S.* I think so; _viz.,_ that the Lord hath been pleased to exert his energy by his instruments, this being the purpose to which he destined them: this he does without detracting in any respect from the virtue of his Spirit. 

*M. How, then, and when does the effect follow the use of the sacraments?
S.* When we receive them in faith, seeking Christ alone and his grace in them.

*M. Whence is Regeneration derived?
S.* From the Death and Resurrection of Christ taken together. His death hath this efficacy, that by means of it our old man is crucified, and the vitiosity of our nature in a manner buried, so as no more to be in rigor in us. Our reformation to a new life, so as to obey the righteousness of God, is the result of the resurrection.

*M. How are these blessings bestowed upon us by Baptism?
S.* If we do not render the promises there offered unfruitful by rejecting them, we are clothed with Christ, and presented with his Spirit.

*M. What must we do in order to use Baptism duly?
S.* The right use of Baptism consists in faith and repentance; that is, we must first hold with a firm heartfelt reliance that, being purified from all stains by the blood of Christ, we are pleasing to God: secondly, we must feel his Spirit dwelling in us, and declare this to others by our actions, and we must constantly exercise ourselves in aiming at the mortification of our flesh, and obedience to the righteousness of God.

*M. If these things are requisite to the legitimate use of Baptism, how comes it that we baptize Infants?
S.* It is not necessary that faith and repentance should always precede baptism. They are only required from those whose age makes them capable of both. It will be sufficient, then, if, after infants have grown up, they exhibit the power of their baptism.

*M. Can you demonstrate by reason that there is nothing absurd in this?
S.* Yes; if it be conceded to me that our Lord instituted nothing at variance with reason. For while Moses and all the Prophets teach that circumcision was a sign of repentance, and was even as Paul declares the sacrament of faith, we see that infants were not excluded from it. (Deuteronomy 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4; Romans 4:11.)

*M. But are they now admitted to Baptism for the same reason that was valid in circumcision?
S.* The very same, seeing that the promises which God anciently gave to the people of Israel are now published through the whole world.

*M. But do you infer from thence that the sign also is to be used?
S. *He who will duly ponder all things in both ordinances, will perceive this to follow. Christ in making us partakers of his grace, which had been formerly bestowed on Israel, did not condition, that it should either bemore obscure or in some respect less abundant. Nay, rather he shed it upon as both more clearly and more abundantly.

*M. Do you think that if infants are denied baptism, some thing is thereby deducted from the grace of God, and it must be said to have been diminished by the coming of Christ?
S. *That indeed is evident; for the sign being taken away, which tends very much to testify the mercy of God and confirm the promises, we should want an admirable consolation which those of ancient times enjoyed.

*M. Your view then is, that since God, under the Old Testament, in order to show himself the Father of infants, was pleased that the promise, of salvation should be engraven on their bodies by a visible sign, it were unbecoming to suppose that, since the advent of Christ, believers have less to confirm them, God having intended to give us in the present day the same promise which was anciently given to the Fathers, and exhibited in Christ a clearer specimen of his goodness.
S.* That is my view. Besides, while it is sufficiently clear that the force, and so to speak, the substance of Baptism are common to children, to deny them the sign, which is inferior to the substance, were manifest injustice.

*M. On what terms then are children to be baptized?
S. *To attest that they are heirs of the blessing promised to the seed of believers, and enable them to receive and produce the fruit of their Baptism, on acknowledging its reality after they have grown up.


----------



## Amazing Grace

JohnOwen007 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> A case can be made that the ECFs adopted the sacramental language of the NT Scriptures and didn't teach baptismal regeneration per se.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The case may be made, but In my humble opinion it's far from convincing. The ECF so very clearly tied the actual moment of regeneration and forgiveness with the historical action of baptism itself. This is undeniable.
> 
> We just have to admit the ECF taught baptismal regeneration no matter how uncomfortable it is.
Click to expand...


Brother Marty:

Why would this be uncomfortable? THe ecf's quickly departed from certain points of apostolic doctrine, and BR is one of them. 

Justin Martyr (First Apology; ca 155 A.D.)

As many are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to live accordingly, are instructed to entreat God with fasting...then they are brought by us where there is water, *and are regenerated in the same manner in which we ourselves were*...For Christ also said :"'Unless you be born-again, you cannot see the kingdom of God".


St. Irenaeus Fragment 34 
And dipped himself," says [the Scripture], "seven times in Jordan." It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; *being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes*, even as the Lord has declared: "Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven 


Council of Mileum II Canon 3 [-]
[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers? wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ?Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned? [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration


But you will perhaps say, 'What does the baptism of water contribute toward the worship of God?' In the first place, because that which has pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so . . . you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus has the true prophet [Jesus] testified to us with an oath: "Verily, I say to you, that unless a man is born again of water . . . he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Recognitions of Clement 6:9 [A.D. 221]).


Cyprian

[l]t behooves those to be baptized . . . so that they are prepared, in the lawful and true and only baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God . . . because it is written "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (Epistles 72 [73]: 21 [A.D. 252]).


There are so many examples.


----------

