# Infant Baptism????



## Romans922 (Feb 26, 2006)

A few questions. I am trying to understand this further as well as be able to clarify for someone else.

1) If I was baptized as a RC, why should I not be rebaptized? I understand the things about the minister has to be ordained and that I have to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit; but why is that so, and why is that the only criterion? 

When a protestant who doesn't see my baptism in the RC church as valid because he is a priest, part of the catholic church, and it was done in order to take away original sin to give me salvation; then I ask, how is my baptism then valid?

2) What are the blessings and curses of having your baby baptized? What are the differences between infant baptism and leading your child to Christ and then baptizing them, in terms of blessings? That is, does a child receive more blessings by being baptized as an infant rather than leading them to Christ and then having them baptized?

3) What is the parent's roles in infant baptism? Are they a representative for the child?


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 27, 2006)

Can anyone help?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> Can anyone help?



Andrew,

Most all of these questions have been discussed at length.

Have you searched the list archives?

rsc


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 27, 2006)

Andrew,

There is no such thing as rebaptism. Either you are baptized or you aren't.

There are arguments on both sides, as to whether a former RC should be baptized. The old Reformers argument is no, the rite is to be done properly and with the correct intention. To suggest that the performer (a possibly unbelieving priest) affects God's work is to adopt the Donatist position. The contrary argument says that by now Rome is no true church at all in any sense, having no ministry or Word/gospel or sacraments or discipline at all, and so their baptism is more akin to Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses.

You need to read the old Reformers' arguments and see if you think they are still applicable today. Do you think that Rome's additions to biblical baptism and to intent invalidate the core doctrine? I think the issue is cloudy, and not crystal clear. And I think that the old Reformers were correct, at least for their own circumstances and context.

For now, accept the view your elders counsel, and if you become a pastor you will have the opportunity to participate in a sessional decision on your church's handling of the matter. The PCA leaves that action up to a session.

Are there differences in blessings? I think that depends in greater part upon the quality of instruction that a particular church gives to its young people, and not so much on the rite itself. I think an unbaptized child who ought to be baptized is still blessed by God in much the same way as a baptized infant. He does not receive, however, the mark that is his by right. Its not that he would be blessed more, rather his loss is one of privation.

It is also true that baptized and unbaptized children alike are cursed in much the same way. The Reformed Baptist youth rebel is no less under judgment for rejecting the covenant--his not having received the external mark of the covenant notwithstanding--than the Presbyterian youth rebel who despises the covenant and the knowledge (if he was instructed in it) that went with it.

The parents do not "stand in" for the child, or take believer's vows for an infant in covenant baptism. They come as Abraham did in obedience to God's command, and present the child to God, through his church and ministry, for baptism. Baptism in the Presbyterian mold is not about what we do or did, but what God does and is doing. In this sense baptism of a helpless baby is the most ideal picture or representation of the work of God in salvation.

The parent makes vows _for themselves_. They affirm that what they do they are doing believing it is in accordance with the command of God. They promise to fulfill the will of the Lord as revealed in his Word for their child. They invoke God's judgment against themselves of they fail to do due diligence in rearing their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.


----------



## TRR (Feb 27, 2006)

Romans922,

First of all, I am a Baptist on a Presbyterian Forum discussing infant baptism with a Roman Catholic (at least from your post I think you are). Now, that in itself is worthy of praise and/or a close guard by the Moderators.

You stated:


> 1)If I was baptized as a RC, why should I not be rebaptized? I understand the things about the minister has to be ordained and that I have to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit; but why is that so, and why is that the only criterion?


I think there are three issues here. 1) Being baptized as a RC, Baptist, Presbyterian or whatever does not necessarily have anything to do with one's salvation. By that I mean one is not a child of God merely because he/she had water contact in whatever form. One might be but the act of water baptism is not salvific causation. 2) the person adminstering the water baptism neither validates nor invalidates one's water baptism as a result of having become a believer. In fact, the Acts doesn't identify who baptized the thousands of newly converted Christians as a result of them having believed. We can 'assume' it might have been the Apostles only or the Apostles plus many, many, many disciples. 3) why is it that we must be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Because that is what the God of the redeemed has commanded, "_Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit_", Matthew 28:19.



You stated:


> When a protestant who doesn't see my baptism in the RC church as valid because he is a priest, part of the catholic church, and it was done in order to take away original sin to give me salvation; then I ask, how is my baptism then valid?


As a protestant, I don't see your baptism as invalid on the basis of who administered the baptism. One's water baptism is valid on the basis of a valid belief and repentance, having been truly redeemed of/by God. Water baptism does not take away original sin or give salvation. Forgiveness and Salvation come only through having been reconciled against the Father's wrath by the blood of Christ and being regenerated by the Holy Spirit when He circumcizes one's heart. All the water in creation will not cleanse the stain of sin or appease the Father's wrath.



You stated:


> 2) What are the blessings and curses of having your baby baptized?


None. Unless a person is born-again you will not see the kingdom of God and since Scripture gives us no command whatsoever to baptise our infants, there can be no curse for not doing so.



You stated:


> What are the differences between infant baptism and leading your child to Christ and then baptizing them, in terms of blessings? That is, does a child receive more blessings by being baptized as an infant rather than leading them to Christ and then having them baptized?


In terms of blessings, well, if one's child receives water baptism as a result of having been truly born-again, the blessings come from their salvation, not their water baptism. If one's child receives water baptism and is not truly born-again then what blessings does Scripture tell us can be expected? None.



You stated:


> 3) What is the parent's roles in infant baptism? Are they a representative for the child?


The only salvific representative anyone has is Jesus. Any attempt to replace Jesus as your representative for salvation is the same as an attempt to replace the very salvation ONLY Jesus Himself gives.


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Romans922_
> ...



Yes, I found one for the first question but not the others.


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TRR_
> Romans922,
> 
> First of all, I am a Baptist on a Presbyterian Forum discussing infant baptism with a Roman Catholic (at least from your post I think you are). Now, that in itself is worthy of praise and/or a close guard by the Moderators.
> ...



If you didn't see my signature, it says that I am a member of a PCA church. I am not RC by any means. I was raised in the RC church though. 

Thanks for everyone's thoughts, I would love to hear other's thoughts also.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 27, 2006)

I completely agree with Bruce.

You can sense a difference immediately in the way that Sam and Bruce talk about the sacrament. To Sam, the issue of the validity of Baptism is very existential: Baptism "...is valid on the basis of a valid belief and repentance...." I'm not sure what this means. Does this mean that if, at the time of one's original baptism, one concludes that his faith was false he must conclude the original baptism was not valid and must be re-baptized until it sticks? What about later when one undergoes the doubt that oft times wrack some believers: "Did I really believe then? I'm so sinful. Am I realy saved? I better get re-baptized." In fact, this "personal belief" criterion is one of the reasons why some believers in Arminian Churches get baptized over and over and over again.

To equate Baptism to "...an outward sign of an inward reality..." makes the rite far too personal and subject to subjectivity  in my estimation.

I think Bruce's advice is very good to work with your Session on it. One of the great things about God-ordained authority is that, in matters where you're not sure like this, there is Grace and "protection" to be found in the authority of a Session who rules on the matter. They are given the authority to be binding in such cases and I think you honor God by following their lead because it is a bit sticky.

For my part, I tend to view the Roman Catholic Church as still a Church that affirms the major creeds. That said, as has been said by others, I view the RCC as an adulterous spouse. Still married to Christ on one level by her Trinitarian Confession and claim to be in Christ but constantly lifting up her skirt and playing the harlot to idols. Nevertheless, when she baptizes a child into Christ in the name of the Trinity I think that is binding. I'm not dogmatic about it but I do think it's still valid. If the RCC lost all Ecclesiastical authority the moment she first adulterated herself then there would have been no baptized believers or ministers at the time of the Reformation. This is a great mystery to me but I still tend to think of the baptisms as valid and binding and one that unites the person to Christ - unfortunately to his peril because they turn him into an adulterer as well.

Bruce made an interesting observation regarding the non-baptism of Baptist believers' children. Fascinating Bruce. I agree they are still in the New Covenant in spite of their parents' disobedience in the matter. I think you could even use Moses' son or the Israelites' children in the wilderness as examples to support this idea. We're all saved by Grace but I believe Baptists will have to answer for how they witheld a right from their children some day.

I think there is a REAL blessing for obeying the command to baptize our children:

We're obeying God.

When our kids are born they take our name. What a blessing it is for a child, who is born into our household, takes our name. He has no choice but grace is never by choice anyway. When we withold our name from a child, he is a bastard. He doesn't go around bragging that "My Dad won't give me his name...." Children who don't take their father's name are not blessed at all by such callousness. 

In like fashion, Baptism gives the child the early and lifelong right to point to his Baptism and call himself by the name "Christian." Those that rebel against it will surely be judged for it and will shirk every effort to be associated by a name they hate. Just as if they hate their own earthly father and want to change his name, they may do the same with the heavenly right they've been graced with. 

The abuse, however, does not make the rule. I think some might inadvertantly argue that the Prodigal son would have been better off the whole time if he was a bastard without his father's name until he proved himself worthy to be his son by taking his father's name. It is his sonship that he remembers, by Grace, when he turns back to his father.

Of course, what about the blessing for children who never know a day when they did not love the Lord? What a blessing to call God as your own. Saying "I am a Christian" is a tremendous blessing. Being able to pray, at a young age, to call on the name of the Lord as YOUR God is a tremendous blessing. We must never withold that right until the child has satisfied us that they're not Pagans, outside the family, but may be treated as children in our faithful household.

[Edited on 2-28-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> Thanks for everyone's thoughts, I would love to hear other's thoughts also.



I think Bruce's answer is good. That would be your standard answer from your session too I imagine. Is there anything in particular about this issue you want clarified which Bruce didn't cover?


----------



## TRR (Feb 28, 2006)

Bruce,

I´m truly not attempting to be unnecessarily argumentative but I would like to better understand your view of water baptism so please don´t take my questions as anything other than that.


You stated:


> There is no such thing as rebaptism. Either you are baptized or you aren't.


Obviously this is an area where we disagree. It seems as though you treat water baptism (for any reason, even no reason) as a valid Biblical water baptism. Do you believe the unregenerated who are baptized, having made a false profession (or even NO profession) of faith to be a Biblical baptism? Can you show any example from Scripture where anyone was baptized (as a believer) who did not have a profession of faith or as an unbeliever with no concern for a professed belief in Jesus?



You stated:


> There are arguments on both sides, as to whether a former RC should be baptized. The old Reformers argument is no, the rite is to be done properly and with the correct intention.


And the correct intention is what? Is water baptism nothing more than a mere human ceremony (rite) with no Scriptural command or Salvific significance? 



You stated:


> To suggest that the performer (a possibly unbelieving priest) affects God's work is to adopt the Donatist position. The contrary argument says that by now Rome is no true church at all in any sense, having no ministry or Word/gospel or sacraments or discipline at all, and so their baptism is more akin to Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses.


I agree with you on the Donatist position, however, would you accept the water baptism of a Mormon by Mormons in a Mormon church as a valid Biblical water baptism?



You stated:


> I think an unbaptized child who ought to be baptized is still blessed by God in much the same way as a baptized infant. He does not receive, however, the mark that is his by right. Its not that he would be blessed more, rather his loss is one of privation.


To what "˜mark´ and what "˜right´ do you refer and what do you mean by a "˜loss´ (of what?) is one of "˜privation´ (in what sense privation)?



You stated:


> It is also true that baptized and unbaptized children alike are cursed in much the same way. The Reformed Baptist youth rebel is no less under judgment for rejecting the covenant--his not having received the external mark of the covenant notwithstanding--than the Presbyterian youth rebel who despises the covenant and the knowledge (if he was instructed in it) that went with it.


With the fact that "œ_baptized and unbaptized children alike are cursed_" I agree. However, if you are basing the condemnation of a "˜willful´ rejection of the New Covenant merely because they refuse to be baptized I disagree. Perhaps you are referring to something other than the Father´s wrath which is eternal condemnation when using the words "˜judgment´ and "˜condemnation´? If not then Scripture is quite clear that ALL are born into condemnation, so rejecting or not rejecting what you are referring to is irrelevant. 

Can you show me where Scripture states water baptism is a sign of being in the New Covenant or a sign of anything? 



You stated:


> The parents do not "stand in" for the child, or take believer's vows for an infant in covenant baptism. They come as Abraham did in obedience to God's command, and present the child to God, through his church and ministry, for baptism. Baptism in the Presbyterian mold is not about what we do or did, but what God does and is doing. In this sense baptism of a helpless baby is the most ideal picture or representation of the work of God in salvation.


It appears as though you are stating water baptism is salvific representation. This is very strange since Scripture nowhere speaks of salvation being represented by anything other than the actuality of The Spirit circumcising one´s heart. This is clearly the "˜sign´ of circumcision Abraham received BEFORE he was circumcised. In addition to this, are you stating that every single Jew who descended from Abraham who was physically circumcised was redeemed by Christ without exception?



You stated:


> The parent makes vows for themselves. They affirm that what they do they are doing believing it is in accordance with the command of God. They promise to fulfill the will of the Lord as revealed in his Word for their child. They invoke God's judgment against themselves of they fail to do due diligence in rearing their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.


Where does God command parents to make vows to themselves for their infants/children by having their infants/children baptized in order to "œ_rear their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord_"? Can children be reared in the nurture and admonition of the Lord apart from water baptism? Tell me something. If I, as a Reformed Baptist, do not have my children baptized but still raise them _"œin the nurture and admonition of the Lord"_ as well as you or even better, are my children saved or under God´s condemnation?


----------



## TRR (Feb 28, 2006)

SemperFideles,

You stated:


> You can sense a difference immediately in the way that Sam and Bruce talk about the sacrament. To Sam, the issue of the validity of Baptism is very existential: Baptism "...is valid on the basis of a valid belief and repentance...." I'm not sure what this means. Does this mean that if, at the time of one's original baptism, one concludes that his faith was false he must conclude the original baptism was not valid and must be re-baptized until it sticks? What about later when one undergoes the doubt that oft times wrack some believers: "Did I really believe then? I'm so sinful. Am I realy saved? I better get re-baptized." In fact, this "personal belief" criterion is one of the reasons why some believers in Arminian Churches get baptized over and over and over again.


If by your use of the word "˜existential´ that the validity of Baptism is based on a valid belief and repentance, I will allow Jesus to respond; Acts 2:41, 3:18, 9:18, 10:47. Since it was indeed very existential to Jesus why should it not be the same for believers? 

Can you show me from Scripture where water baptism is NOT associated with belief? If not, then one must agree that water baptism is always associated with belief. Now, if water baptism is always associated with belief and this belief is assumed to be a true belief, we can conclude that a false belief is NOT the prerequisite as shown in all the above texts. On the other hand, if water baptism is associated with a false belief or NO belief at all then it really doesn´t matter who is baptized or for what reason, at least so far as Scripture is concerned. The caricature of "˜_until it sticks_´ speaks for itself since Scripture doesn´t speak for it. Furthermore, doubting one´s salvation was never mentioned in my post (or any) with respect to re-baptisms. 

Your statement; "œ_In fact, this "personal belief" criterion is one of the reasons why some believers in Arminian Churches get baptized over and over and over again_" is absolutely false. The reason why Christians outside paedo-Baptist churches are baptized more than once is because they want to obey Jesus by being Scripturally baptized as a result of a "˜true´ profession of faith. Abraham was not circumcised apart from a true profession of faith and the thousands in the Acts all were baptized as a result of a true profession of faith and I challenge you to show me from Scripture where water baptism is commanded apart from a true profession of faith. The _"personal belief" criterion_ you falsely imposed upon another´s belief is actually a _"˜false belief´ criterion_. I don´t know if you are concerned if anyone makes a false belief in Christ or not but Christ Himself does. 



You stated:


> To equate Baptism to "...an outward sign of an inward reality..." makes the rite far too personal and subject to subjectivity in my estimation.


I´m not sure I either understand your statement or believe you´ve made such a statement. Bruce actually stated water baptism is a outward sign, although he did not include the "˜of an inward reality´ part (and neither did I). Frankly, I´m a bit confused as to why you think your view of Covenantal inclusion is _far too personal and subject to subjectivity_. Are you implying that your view of the outward sign of Covenantal inclusion doesn´t include an inward (circumcised heart) reality? If not, please tell me from Scripture what the importance of water baptism is. Furthermore, nothing I´ve stated is based on subjectivity. My explanation of "˜believer´s baptism´ is based on the objective truth of Scripture and plainly quoted from Scripture. Can you show me an objective statement from Scripture commanding infants, children, (or anyone) to be baptized as Covenantal members solely on the basis of their water baptism?



You stated:


> Bruce made an interesting observation regarding the non-baptism of Baptist believers' children. Fascinating Bruce. I agree they are still in the New Covenant in spite of their parents' disobedience in the matter. I think you could even use Moses' son or the Israelites' children in the wilderness as examples to support this idea. We're all saved by Grace but I believe Baptists will have to answer for how they witheld a right from their children some day.
> 
> I think there is a REAL blessing for obeying the command to baptize our children:
> 
> We're obeying God.


If you are referring to Bruce´s comment; "œ_It is also true that baptized and unbaptized children alike are cursed in much the same way. The Reformed Baptist youth rebel is no less under judgment for rejecting the covenant--his not having received the external mark of the covenant notwithstanding--than the Presbyterian youth rebel who despises the covenant and the knowledge (if he was instructed in it) that went with it_" then I will ask you the same question I asked Bruce. Are you stating as a fact of Scripture that anyone who is not baptized as an infant, child (or whatever) is under the eternal condemnation of the Father based solely on the fact they are either not baptized or simply refuse to be baptised? If so, please show me from Scripture the objective statements to support such a view.

Now, if someone is in the New Covenant whether they are baptized or not, why then must one be baptized to be in the New Covenant? Furthermore, where does Scripture objectively state that water baptism brings one into the New Covenant and where does Scripture objectively command parents to have their children baptized?

Please correct me If I´m wrong but doesn´t the writer of Hebrews plainly state that ALL those who wandered in the wilderness who came out of Egypt died in UNBELIEF (except for Joshua and Caleb)? Is this the comparison you want as an example to support Bruce´s idea? And why did they all die in UNBELIEF even though they were all circumcised? Because they sought Covenantal union with Christ NOT by faith (true salvific faith, that existential thing very important to God) and their circumcision meant absolutely nothing without true Biblical faith/belief.



You stated:


> When our kids are born they take our name. What a blessing it is for a child, who is born into our household, takes our name. He has no choice but grace is never by choice anyway. When we withold our name from a child, he is a bastard. He doesn't go around bragging that "My Dad won't give me his name...." Children who don't take their father's name are not blessed at all by such callousness.


I´m really not trying to be rude but a child being a bastard simply because he/she doesn´t have our name is just not true and this is a very poor defense for a paedo-baptist view.



You stated:


> In like fashion, Baptism gives the child the early and lifelong right to point to his Baptism and call himself by the name "Christian."


This is not true. Not one single fallen creature has any "˜right´ to salvation and absolutely nowhere does Scripture claim our salvation is focused on our water baptism or that we are Christians merely because we have been baptized. If one´s salvific focus is on anything or anyone other than Christ and Christ alone, then one is trusting in a false salvation. Can you show me from Scripture where the ungodly have a "˜right´ to be called a Christian merely because they have been baptized? 

I´m sorry for sounding so forceful but this is just simply a false view of salvation considering the fact that it is not found anywhere in Holy Scripture.


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 28, 2006)

Everything has been helpful, thanks guys. Feel free to continue to comment on the questions, if any have further clarification to make.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 28, 2006)

I agree with Semper Fideles.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TRR_
> Bruce,
> I´m truly not attempting to be unnecessarily argumentative but I would like to better understand your view of water baptism so please don´t take my questions as anything other than that. You stated:
> 
> ...


Sam,
----If you truly were "improperly baptized," then you weren't baptized, period. You just got wet. To speak of "rebaptism" is a misnomer. We shouldn't talk like that. That is my point. I think the problem with your position is that it makes baptism an _equitable,_ 50-50 affair. The church has to get it right and the person has to get it right equally, or else it isn't true. Frankly, baptism isn't about me identifying with the church, but about what God does to me when he saves me. And that is objective, not subjective.

---No I don't think that _anything_ called baptism by somebody is baptism. But yes, if the _baptism_ is proper, being extrinsic and objective, _submitted to_ and not based on subjectivism at all, then it makes no difference his subjective mental "reason" or lack thereof within his mind as he submits to it. Here, of course, we differ because you make profession to be of _the essence_ of baptism. Confessional presbyterians do not.

--Unregenerate people are baptized all the time. The first question to be asked is: "why did this happen?" And only then, "was the baptism still proper?" and "what should be done?"
Did it happen because the church just baptizes anyone who walks in off the street and asks for it? Bad.
Did it happen whether a man is indifferent or actively opposes it? Bad.
Did it happen because a person had an interest in the covenant? OK.
Does it happen when a person makes a false profession? OK. Every time this happens, is the church "making a mistake?" Nonsense.
If the baptism was proper, then it was biblical. And if biblical, then to done only once, inasmuch as salvation is "only once." 

Hence the issue between us. Because you view profession as of the essence of baptism, if you agree that the church conducted a valid baptism, but that it "didn't take" because of the subjective response of the person, then logically you have to believe in "rebaptism," at least from the standpoint of the church. They conducted a biblical baptism all right, but apparently it had no significance.

What do you do with a person who was saved, then baptized, backslid and thought he was never saved in the first place, thinks he really gets saved, is baptized again, (repeat as often as necessary), later realizes that he was probably saved either at the first or sometime in the middle but before the "last" time? Which one of his baptisms was the real thing? How many biblical baptisms occured here?

---I understand you to be asking for any Scripture regarding either (a) anyone who is baptized without a profession, or (b) a (known) unbeliever baptized without interest in any profession. As for (b), neither of us commends such a baptism in any case, nor should we expect to find the apostles or the early church in Acts performing baptisms that they know are contrary to the will of God. Silence on this issue will not alone tell us whether all or any improper baptisms are also invalid baptisms. That is an answer you must look for in a _theology_ of baptism, and not simply from a study (limited as it is) from the _practice_ recorded in Acts.

As for (a), I think you well know there are no undisputed examples to which I can point. It is common knowledge that credo-baptists make no allowances for "household baptisms" in Scripture.

I will, however, mention Acts 16:33-34, regarding the Phillipian Jailer. We are told in verse 34, in no uncertain terms, that the jailer rejoiced and believed (and a profession is properly presumed, though nowhere stated in as many words). His rejoicing was evidently infectious, for his house also rejoiced (following the natural reading of the Greek word-order). "He having believed" is nominative, singular, masculine, and its only antecedent is, again, the jailer.

So, we know the Jailer believed, but all else in inference. In essence we learn nothing at all concerning the actual faith of the family members, but make a good guess that at least some of them were born again along with the Jailer that night, as they responded to the Word preached (v. 32). Yet all who were *his* were baptized (v. 33). Very covenantal, even Roman-patriarchical, language.

The ASV (1901) is the most literal translation of this passage among the common versions. I suggest a careful perusal of it. The new ESV also gives a fairly unbiased rendering.

But though household baptisms are mentioned repeatedly in Scripture, the credo-baptist will not allow that any of these households ever contained husbands, wives, extended family, bond-servants, having young children who must have been included in the "all". Why? Because they have already excluded baptism except by profession. Here in Acts 16, that "profession-requirement" is certainly assumed, and not demonstrated from the text itself.


> You stated:
> 
> 
> > There are arguments on both sides, as to whether a former RC should be baptized. The old Reformers argument is no, the rite is to be done properly and with the correct intention.
> ...


---Correct intention=to actually render a person baptized and brought into the visible church. The question regarding RC baptism at this point is: "Does all the extra stuff that RCs import into and accrete upon baptism (e.g. washing away original or additional sins), so dislocate the core of baptismal significance that it is rendered null and void?" This the early Reformers denied, realizing that if it were so (at least at the time, the 16th century) then for over 1000 years there had been basically no church at all in the world, or at least no public witness in all the christianized kingdoms of Europe, Byzantium, the Middle East, North Africa--everywhere that the errors of baptismal regeneration (in some form) had been taught.

---No, baptism is not just a human rite. I am a confessional presbyterian minister, and have had to subscribe to a settled doctrine of baptism that is both Scriptural in support (whether you, brother, agree with such support marshalled or not), and which relationship to salvation is very carefully defined, to exclude error in either direction.

I am not being sharp with you here, but may I suggest that you read the Westminster Confession, chapters 27-28, & Larger Catechism 161-167, in order to familiarize yourself with the presbyterian's theology of baptism?


> You stated:
> 
> 
> > To suggest that the performer (a possibly unbelieving priest) affects God's work is to adopt the Donatist position. The contrary argument says that by now Rome is no true church at all in any sense, having no ministry or Word/gospel or sacraments or discipline at all, and so their baptism is more akin to Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses.
> ...


---It was the Reformers' position that stood with the larger church against a Donatistic position. The sentence quoted really belongs with the above quote.

---The contrary (to the Reformers') position is a chronological argument. It states that Rome today is more far gone into apostasy, and the true church has now had an established position--the Protestant witness--for nearly 500 years; times have changed, and Rome is no different from any other _cult_. NO, I do not accept a cult's baptism as valid. But whether Rome is _in fact_ a cult, or worse, another religion entirely, is a matter for profound reflection and not a toss-of-the-head consideration.


> You stated:
> 
> 
> > I think an unbaptized child who ought to be baptized is still blessed by God in much the same way as a baptized infant. He does not receive, however, the mark that is his by right. Its not that he would be blessed more, rather his loss is one of privation.
> ...


---The mark is God's seal, the sign of ownership or right, and it signifies also certain privileges or protections to be enjoyed by whatever thing or person is so sealed. We teach that as circumcision was the seal of God's right under the Old Covenant, so now baptism is the seal under the New. As physical circumcision and the identity it related was the right of every son of Abraham, so too baptism is the right of every New Covenant child.

---The "loss" of not being baptized, when one should be, is "privation" _in the sense_ that the privileges of membership or of enjoyment are not publicly set forth and acknowledged, the individual may not be informed himself as to the true nature of his privileges (like a person ignorant of his citizenship), an absence of appreciation of his privileges. All this may be true, while a person (a child, for example) nevertheless enjoys much of his birthright.

If I refused to tell my child that she was an "American", at least until she was 18, and able to make a decision whether to keep or renounce his/her citizenship, I would have deprived him/her in some way, all the while she was enjoying the blessings of liberty. Likewise, I can provide my child access to the preached Word, the fellowship of the saints, prayer, etc.--most of the means of grace--all the while denying him/her the seal, the knowledge that access to all these are his/hers by right.

_It is no more likely that a baptized child is more likely to presume upon the grace of salvation being offered unto him/her through the means of grace, and reject the covenant into which he/she was born, than an unbaptized child is._ In fact by withholding baptism, to which God attaches promises, the rest of the means of grace are called upon to do extra duty for a time, to fill in for an absent baptism. If baptism is what presbyterians believe, then actually we expect the unbaptized children will be the more likely to fall away, out of neglect.

Thankfully, in the grace of God, baptism not being nearly as important as the preached Word (1 Cor. 1:14-17), where even unbaptized children sit under the Word regularly they are converted with much the same frequency as those who are baptized. Both quality and quantity of orthodox teaching is determinative (from the "ordinary means" standpoint).


> You stated:
> 
> 
> > It is also true that baptized and unbaptized children alike are cursed in much the same way. The Reformed Baptist youth rebel is no less under judgment for rejecting the covenant--his not having received the external mark of the covenant notwithstanding--than the Presbyterian youth rebel who despises the covenant and the knowledge (if he was instructed in it) that went with it.
> ...


---I think the word "alike" in my comments is is sufficiently equative of both sides. It was my intention to push the baptismal difference into the background. They both reject the covenant. And I say the unbaptized child is still in covenant externally whether it is acknowledged or not. Presbyterians don't baptize their children to bring them into covenant, but to acknowledge that God has already brought them into a covenant relation to himself (not necessarily salvific) by sovereignly placing them into a believing family and church.

---Reject God's covenant, and you fall under judgment, period. Hopefully (prayerfully) such rejection is not permanent and especially not spiritual, while there is still room for repentance (see Heb. 6:4-8). Unlike most credo-baptists, confessional presbyterians believe the New Covenant (like the Old) has both a visible (church) and invisible (spiritual) aspect or component. Will the true believer who rejects the visible church suffer in this life? You bet. Will the false believer who rejects the spiritual Kingdom--even if he remains in the visible church--suffer eternally for spurning the internal aspect of the covenant? Absolutely.

---Baptism a sign of the New Covenant? How about Mt. 28:19? John 3:5, Acts 2:4, 38; Heb. 10:22, 29. Compare with Ez. 36:25-27, 11:19, 37:14; Is 59:21; Jo. 2:28ff.


> You stated:
> 
> 
> > The parents do not "stand in" for the child, or take believer's vows for an infant in covenant baptism. They come as Abraham did in obedience to God's command, and present the child to God, through his church and ministry, for baptism. Baptism in the Presbyterian mold is not about what we do or did, but what God does and is doing. In this sense baptism of a helpless baby is the most ideal picture or representation of the work of God in salvation.
> ...


---Actually Scripture teaches that "salvific representation" of baptism, see Titus 3:5-6.

---What seems strange to me is that you speak of a "representation" that is "actual" and also quite invisible. How is that representaional? The sign represents the thing signified. Circumcision outwardly was supposed to indicate a circumcised heart. That it often did not was through the fault of the people (as Heb. 8:8 plainly states). God did not give saving grace to them _on the basis of circumcision,_ any more than he gives saving grace today _on the basis of baptism._ So, of course I do not consider all those cut-of-the-foreskin prior to Christ as being saved. In fact the majority of them were not, as Rom. 9:29 plainly states.


> You stated:
> 
> 
> > The parent makes vows for themselves. They affirm that what they do they are doing believing it is in accordance with the command of God. They promise to fulfill the will of the Lord as revealed in his Word for their child. They invoke God's judgment against themselves of they fail to do due diligence in rearing their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
> ...


---Parents make vows not to themslves but to God, before the gathered church as witnesses.

---Look, we don't need an explicit command to take a vow of any kind. All we need is the command of God to do such and such. And if we acknowledge the obligation to God before men, that's a vow, pure and simple. We believe it's God's command to baptize our covenant children. They are coming into the church publicly, and we are acknowledging that God expects certain things of us as parents.

As far as "by baptism", well we think the Bible is pretty clear that we are to baptize our children, despite the absence of a verse that says "thou shalt baptize thy children." It is a necessary inference, which being logically demanded (by definition) has the same full force of any explicit command. God expected the children of believers included in his people (externally) under the Old Covenant. He tells us the same word he told Abraham (Gen. 17:7: "the promise is to you and to your children" (Acts 2:39). Jesus said of the infants: "of such is the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:16). 

Nothing under the New Covenant administration has changed the definition of who is identified with the People of God. It is professing believers and their children. We don't judge people's hearts to determine whether they are fit candidates for baptism. We follow the objective, visible indicators as God has prescribed them. God says "include your children with the sign," so we do.

---Of course you can rear your children, and fulfill the command to rear them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. I think you are leaving something out by not giving them the sign of baptism, but the blessing is not of such an order as they cannot be blessed apart from it. In fact, you can well probably do a better job of it than me. Certainly I need a heaping helping of God's grace to sanctify my sinful efforts to the benefit of my children. However good a job either one of us do, it isn't we who make the difference in our children's eternal destiny. It's God (thank God).

But God attaches his promises to ordinary means. So we are bound to do our duty toward our children, and believe that God will work through those Spirit-filled duties to bring our children into fellowship with himself.


Sam, I don't expect you to just fall in line and adopt presbyterian convictions and practice. You are presently convinced othewise. But you aked why we do what we do, so I expect a fair hearing. You must obey the dictates of your conscience, held captive to the Word of God. As must I. "Let each man be convinced in his own mind." But either one of us can be in error, and both of us can't be right. So study the matter. It is imperative upon us both to grow in every grace (2 Pet. 3:18).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 28, 2006)

Bruce,

Sincerely brother. I LOVE reading your stuff.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 1, 2006)




----------



## TRR (Mar 6, 2006)

Bruce,

Thank you for responding, I really appreciate your time, especially when you know we have disagreements. I also apologize for the delay in responding to you but many things have caused the delay. If you have already responded to others who might have questioned your initial response to me and do not desire to repeat yourself I will understand.

I think you have misunderstood something I stated or perhaps I did not state it clearly. I agree with you that one who is "˜improperly baptized´ is not baptized at all, period. That has been the grounds of disagreement with paedo-baptism. And if one is talking about nothing more than a mere human action of "˜_getting someone wet_´ then I also agree this is no baptism of which the Bible refers. However, I disagree with you that my position makes baptism an _equitable_, 50-50 affair. How can it when I clearly stated that a person who is baptized apart from a Biblical profession of faith did not have a Biblical baptism. There is nothing _equitable_ in what I stated, one is either Biblically baptized as a result of a Biblical profession of salvific faith, having been truly converted, or one is baptized (gotten wet, or whatever one wants to call it) without any true Biblical profession of faith.

It seems to me the paedo-Baptist view is the one guilty of an _equitable_, 50-50 affair. Is the infant being baptized saved? Unless you can conclusively state that the person is then you obviously do not know. That should be a given. So, you only have a 50-50 chance the person is saved. Now, if you are stating that one is truly saved because of the water baptism then one is most definitely going against Scripture. 



You stated:


> ---No I don't think that anything called baptism by somebody is baptism. But yes, if the baptism is proper, being extrinsic and objective, submitted to and not based on subjectivism at all, then it makes no difference his subjective mental "reason" or lack thereof within his mind as he submits to it. Here, of course, we differ because you make profession to be of the essence of baptism. Confessional presbyterians do not.


I´ve been very clear with the Biblical evidence for baptism of believers only Bruce. The Scriptures I used are crystal clear in this matter so I think I have shown the _objective_ evidence from Scripture. Nothing I´ve stated anywhere has even the remotest association of _subjectivity_ with regards to believer´s baptism. However, I still don´t know what you refer to as a _proper baptism_ other than the words _extrinsic and objective_ which have no objective understanding without a Biblical application or example. Is baptizing an infant or anyone who makes no profession of faith a _proper baptism_ and is the baptism of one who does make a profession of faith not a _proper baptism_? Granted, and as I have already stated, people make false professions of faith. I am not referring to this group. I am referring to the group who make a genuine profession of faith just as those thousands of converts did in the Acts.

I do not make profession the _essence_ of baptism. I make it no more or less than what Scripture makes it. I have no Biblical authority to do otherwise and to do so is false teaching. However, I do agree with Scripture that those who were baptized made a profession of faith and I can only assume it was a true salvific confession. I do not see any situation in the entire New Testament writings where any person received water baptism apart from a confession of faith and since you didn´t present any, as I asked, I can only conclude you also do not find any. The essence of water baptism is "˜obedience´, not salvation or Covenantal inclusion.



You stated:


> --Unregenerate people are baptized all the time. The first question to be asked is: "why did this happen?" And only then, "was the baptism still proper?" and "what should be done?"
> Did it happen because the church just baptizes anyone who walks in off the street and asks for it? Bad.
> Did it happen whether a man is indifferent or actively opposes it? Bad.
> Did it happen because a person had an interest in the covenant? OK.
> ...


Yes, as I stated, unregenerate people are baptized all the time, including infants and children. So, why did it happen? Well, some of my Baptist Brethren are wrong when it comes to inducing a presumptive regeneration, thus inducing a false (improper) water baptism, but paedo-baptists are no less guilty of precisely the same.

You have invented an extreme view that you created to show the ugliness of what you want to be false. Baptists do not baptize just anyone who walks off the streets and asks for it. Assuming this is true, when it isn´t is "˜Bad´. Baptists do not baptize anyone who is indifferent or opposes it. Assuming this is true, when it isn´t is "˜Bad´. Baptists do not baptize anyone who has an interest in the covenant and neither does Scripture command such. Assuming either is not OK. Baptists do, however, baptize people who make false professions. Are you implying Presbyterians don´t? In fact, paedo-baptists baptize one who has NO profession at all and is incapable of doing so. Now, that is what I call indifference. As I already stated, some of my Baptist Brethren are wrong for baptizing those who have no true confession of faith but I see no difference between this and the paedo-baptist who does exactly the same thing.



You stated:


> Hence the issue between us. Because you view profession as of the essence of baptism, if you agree that the church conducted a valid baptism, but that it "didn't take" because of the subjective response of the person, then logically you have to believe in "rebaptism," at least from the standpoint of the church. They conducted a biblical baptism all right, but apparently it had no significance.


Again, not true. Scripture views water baptism as the reasonable consequence of a profession of faith. I am just merely agreeing with Scripture. I respectfully remind you that I asked for Scriptural evidence where water baptism is associated with anything other than the profession of faith of a redeemed person and I have not been shown any. Does that not suggest something? I never agreed or even remotely inferred a church conducted a "˜valid baptism´ or that it "˜didn´t take´ because of the subjective response of the person. This is your assumption of my view and I have clearly shown this to be a false assumption and I never stated they conducted a biblical baptism but it had no significance. 



You stated:


> What do you do with a person who was saved, then baptized, backslid and thought he was never saved in the first place, thinks he really gets saved, is baptized again, (repeat as often as necessary), later realizes that he was probably saved either at the first or sometime in the middle but before the "last" time? Which one of his baptisms was the real thing? How many biblical baptisms occured here?


Bruce, you may invent all the imaginary potential scenarios you want to prove your point but having to invent these scenarios and imposing assumption upon assumption should compel you to think why you must invent them in the first place. However, if your scenario has any validity then it must have an equal validity with your own view. If an infant is baptized, whom you know is not regenerated, unless you are espousing "˜presumptive regeneration´, which is nowhere found in Scripture, what then do you do with that child who grows into an adult and has exhibited nothing but contempt for God? Did you perform a "˜valid baptism´ or did you just get the infant "˜wet´?

The question, as it was structured, is a "˜straw-man´ argument, and a bad one. Your first statement is that this person was indeed truly "˜saved´. Then you proceed to make this person "˜not saved´. Then you proceed to have this person so confused he doesn´t know if he was saved. Then you have this person knowing he was saved. You can take this type of reasoning on and on and accomplish nothing but an intended assumption.



You stated:


> ---I understand you to be asking for any Scripture regarding either (a) anyone who is baptized without a profession, or (b) a (known) unbeliever baptized without interest in any profession. As for (b), neither of us commends such a baptism in any case, nor should we expect to find the apostles or the early church in Acts performing baptisms that they know are contrary to the will of God. Silence on this issue will not alone tell us whether all or any improper baptisms are also invalid baptisms. That is an answer you must look for in a theology of baptism, and not simply from a study (limited as it is) from the practice recorded in Acts.
> 
> As for (a), I think you well know there are no undisputed examples to which I can point. It is common knowledge that credo-baptists make no allowances for "household baptisms" in Scripture.
> 
> I will, however, mention Acts 16:33-34, regarding the Phillipian Jailer. We are told in verse 34, in no uncertain terms, that the jailer rejoiced and believed (and a profession is properly presumed, though nowhere stated in as many words). His rejoicing was evidently infectious, for his house also rejoiced (following the natural reading of the Greek word-order). "He having believed" is nominative, singular, masculine, and its only antecedent is, again, the jailer.


If the Phillipian jailer believed, don´t you think he at least professed "˜what he believed´? Don´t you think his rejoicing was in "˜what he believed´? I find no reason to conclude anything other than the fact that his rejoicing was in what he believed which would have manifested itself as his profession of faith, namely that Jesus is the Messiah who died for him and has raised him from death to eternal life. I think we can both agree with this (I hope).



You stated: continuing:


> So, we know the Jailer believed, but all else in inference. In essence we learn nothing at all concerning the actual faith of the family members, but make a good guess that at least some of them were born again along with the Jailer that night, as they responded to the Word preached (v. 32). Yet all who were his were baptized (v. 33). Very covenantal, even Roman-patriarchical, language.


Agreed and we may also assume that if anyone other than the Jailer was saved, they were saved precisely the same way and that they also professed a belief just as the Jailer did.



You stated: continuing:


> The ASV (1901) is the most literal translation of this passage among the common versions. I suggest a careful perusal of it. The new ESV also gives a fairly unbiased rendering.
> 
> But though household baptisms are mentioned repeatedly in Scripture, the credo-baptist will not allow that any of these households ever contained husbands, wives, extended family, bond-servants, having young children who must have been included in the "all". Why? Because they have already excluded baptism except by profession. Here in Acts 16, that "profession-requirement" is certainly assumed, and not demonstrated from the text itself.


Repeatedly? The only clear mention of household baptisms are found in Acts and 1 Cor. 1 which is so vague I wouldn´t dare use this text as a defense of paedo-baptism and as you stated, the limited study found in _Acts_ is insufficient to draw any credible conclusion for the support of infant baptism. 

It is not true Bruce that the credo-baptist will _not allow that any of these households ever contained husbands, wives, extended family, bond-servants, having young children who must have been included in the "all"_. Perhaps those with whom you´ve had contact have but I´ve never known any credo-baptist who believed there were no _husbands, wives, extended family, bond-servants, having young children who must have been included in the "all"_. What we reject is the insertion by assumption that infants and small children were baptized with NO profession of faith. Why? Because you´ve still shown no Scriptural example of anyone being baptized apart from a profession of faith and even your own admittance testifies to this fact.

You stated, to my question what the "˜correct intention´ of baptism is:


> ---Correct intention=to actually render a person baptized and brought into the visible church.


What you are clearly espousing here Bruce is baptismal regeneration on the basis of presumptive regeneration of which neither has any Scriptural defense. So, the question will remain basically the same, where does Scripture teach us that the intended will of God regarding water baptism is to bring an infant into the body of Christ which is comprised of ONLY the redeemed? Are you stating that each and every infant who is baptized is regenerated who will NEVER depart from God? You stated that a _proper baptism_ must be _extrinsic and objective_. Upon what "˜objective´ standard is presumptive regeneration founded? Is there a clear and distinct text of Scripture that is the "˜objective´ standard? Salvation deals with that which is internal (the circumcised heart) but you stated a _proper baptism_ is _extrinsic_, (external) and assumes a circumcised heart if one is actually brought into the body of Christ.



You stated:


> The question regarding RC baptism at this point is: "Does all the extra stuff that RCs import into and accrete upon baptism (e.g. washing away original or additional sins), so dislocate the core of baptismal significance that it is rendered null and void?" This the early Reformers denied, realizing that if it were so (at least at the time, the 16th century) then for over 1000 years there had been basically no church at all in the world, or at least no public witness in all the christianized kingdoms of Europe, Byzantium, the Middle East, North Africa--everywhere that the errors of baptismal regeneration (in some form) had been taught.


Well, if one is forcing baptismal significance to make the body of Christ what it is then one could just as easily say until Pentecost NO church ever existed wherein the body of Christ existed. The Reformers are not the infallible word of God and they should never replace the clear testimony of Holy Scripture. In fact, this is precisely the crux of the matter which necessitated the Reformation in the first place. Rome was indeed replacing the testimony of Holy Scripture with their own traditions, including infant baptism.

If you think baptismal regeneration is a false teaching, why then do you espouse the same when you claim an infant is in a salvific relationship with Christ and actually in the body of Christ as His redeemed on the basis of water baptism? Have I misunderstood you on this point?



You stated:


> ---No, baptism is not just a human rite. I am a confessional presbyterian minister, and have had to subscribe to a settled doctrine of baptism that is both Scriptural in support (whether you, brother, agree with such support marshalled or not), and which relationship to salvation is very carefully defined, to exclude error in either direction.


Bruce, I would be more than glad to give any Scriptural support you marshal an honest investigation. I will not allow my credo-baptist view to create a presupposed opposition to whatever you present from Scripture. However, you haven´t presented anything from Scripture that defends water baptism bringing one into a salvific covenantal relationship with Christ. That´s all I´ve asked anyone to do and I´ve tried to be very polite in the process. Furthermore, what error has been avoided by baptizing someone into the body of Christ who has no profession of faith and no certainty that this person will ever have a profession of faith and no Scripture authority for baptizing anyone into a Covenantal relationship with God? 



You stated:


> I am not being sharp with you here, but may I suggest that you read the Westminster Confession, chapters 27-28, & Larger Catechism 161-167, in order to familiarize yourself with the presbyterian's theology of baptism?


I have and I cannot agree with them on the grounds that Scripture plainly does not defend the view presented in these chapters or the Larger Catechism. It is not that I intend not to be convinced as you are probably thinking, on the contrary, if I am in error I want to be convinced. I have made major theological changes in my past. I was an Independent Fundamental Baptist, steeped in Pre-millennial Dispensationalism and KJVonly for nine years of my Christian life. I made major changes to Calvinism because I demanded the Scriptural support from Scripture, not one´s traditions. 

I´m still curious if you would _accept the water baptism of a Mormon by Mormons in a Mormon church as a valid Biblical water baptism?_



You stated:


> ---The mark is God's seal, the sign of ownership or right, and it signifies also certain privileges or protections to be enjoyed by whatever thing or person is so sealed. We teach that as circumcision was the seal of God's right under the Old Covenant, so now baptism is the seal under the New. As physical circumcision and the identity it related was the right of every son of Abraham, so too baptism is the right of every New Covenant child.


First of all, physical circumcision was not a salvific sign of possession. Abraham received the sign of salvific possession before he was circumcised. A great many of the exiting Israelites were not circumcised but were still counted among the Israelites who were in a covenant status with God and the writer of Hebrews makes it clear that even those Israelites who exited Egypt ALL died in unbelief because they did not seek a salvific relationship with Christ according to faith, but of works even though they were circumcised. So, to say those who died in unbelief had a salvifically "˜related identity´ because of their circumcision is simply not correct.

Secondly, all I asked was "œ_Can you show me where Scripture states water baptism is a sign of being in the New Covenant or a sign of anything_" and nothing has been presented. 



You stated:


> If I refused to tell my child that she was an "American", at least until she was 18, and able to make a decision whether to keep or renounce his/her citizenship, I would have deprived him/her in some way, all the while she was enjoying the blessings of liberty. Likewise, I can provide my child access to the preached Word, the fellowship of the saints, prayer, etc.--most of the means of grace--all the while denying him/her the seal, the knowledge that access to all these are his/hers by right.


I think I understand what you are implying but the comparison is way off base. Nationalistic citizenship cannot ever by compared to a relationship with God. Furthermore, a salvific relationship with God is something that cannot ever be renounced but one´s nationalistic citizenship can.



You stated:


> It is no more likely that a baptized child is more likely to presume upon the grace of salvation being offered unto him/her through the means of grace, and reject the covenant into which he/she was born, than an unbaptized child is.


I´m sorry Bruce but I´ve no idea what you mean by this. I´ve no idea what "˜covenant´ you are referring to in which one is "˜born´ (naturally?). It is rather obvious that an infant will not presume upon the grace of salvation, as the paedo-baptist claims, being offered in water baptism but the parents and others most definitely are presuming this, correct? 



You stated:


> In fact by withholding baptism, to which God attaches promises, the rest of the means of grace are called upon to do extra duty for a time, to fill in for an absent baptism. If baptism is what presbyterians believe, then actually we expect the unbaptized children will be the more likely to fall away, out of neglect.


Again Bruce, I think you are relying on far too many "˜straw-men´ to justify the paedo-baptist view. I would still like to see from Scripture where God Himself clearly states what those "˜_promises_´ are that are attached to water baptism. Furthermore, from "˜_what_´ are you assuming an unbaptized child will fall away? Salvation? What makes you think a child is saved merely because they had water on their skin? No Jew was ever saved because they had their skin circumcised and as you have attempted to make a comparison between physical circumcision and physical baptism why now would you make such an extreme departure from the same line of reasoning? I wasn´t baptized as a child but I was saved as an adult and like Abraham, PRIOR to anything in the flesh. 



You stated:


> Thankfully, in the grace of God, baptism not being nearly as important as the preached Word (1 Cor. 1:14-17), where even unbaptized children sit under the Word regularly they are converted with much the same frequency as those who are baptized. Both quality and quantity of orthodox teaching is determinative (from the "ordinary means" standpoint).


I´m still confused with your reasoning Bruce. If, as you stated, baptism is not nearly as important as the preached Word (with which I agree), why then do you place salvific importance on baptism when you know for a fact that the preached Word doesn´t always produce salvation in everyone who hears the preached Word? 

Your statement; _"œ where even unbaptized children sit under the Word regularly they are converted with much the same frequency as those who are baptized"_ is quite a broad assumption and a contradiction. You stated baptized children are brought into a salvific relationship with God, not because they hear preaching, but merely because they are baptized. Now you state unbaptized children are converted without being baptized merely because they sit under preaching. No disrespect intended Bruce, but I am beginning to not be able to follow your reasoning. However, don´t misunderstand me, I know proclaiming the gospel (preaching) is the power of God that leads to salvation.

In fact, I thought Scripture made it plainly clear that those who received conversion (salvation) did so according to God´s own pleasure of saving those whom He alone elected from before creation (Eph. 1). However, your statement; _Both quality and quantity of orthodox teaching is determinative (from the "ordinary means" standpoint)_ is stating the determining factor of one´s salvation is the quality of preaching and the quantity of preaching yet you also stated that one is saved merely because they have been baptized.



You stated:


> ---I think the word "alike" in my comments is is sufficiently equative of both sides. It was my intention to push the baptismal difference into the background. They both reject the covenant. And I say the unbaptized child is still in covenant externally whether it is acknowledged or not. Presbyterians don't baptize their children to bring them into covenant, but to acknowledge that God has already brought them into a covenant relation to himself (not necessarily salvific) by sovereignly placing them into a believing family and church.


I think this is where the real issue of paedo-baptism exists. No disrespect intended, but your paedo-baptist view has been confusing and contradictory. Your statements above show why. You have a dualistic view of the New Covenant without any Scriptural defense. You force circumcision to be replaced with baptism without any Scriptural defense. You´ve stated that the water baptism of an infant/youth is "œ_to actually render a person baptized and brought into the visible church_ without any Scriptural defense. Perhaps you view the body of Christ (the visible church) being comprised of both regenerate and unregenerate but, again, no Scriptural defense is available to show the body of Christ being comprised of the unregenerate. No Scripture even remotely infers a dualistic view of the New Covenant, in other words, Scripture does not teach us anywhere that one is brought into the New Covenant apart from having the law of God written on their (circumcised) hearts or that the unregenerate can be brought into the New Covenant externally but not internally. This may indeed be what Presbyterians, paedo-baptists or whatever believe but is also most definitely what Scripture does not teach. 

On what grounds do you know God has brought someone into a covenant relation to Himself PRIOR to the water baptism you administer?



You stated:


> ---Reject God's covenant, and you fall under judgment, period. Hopefully (prayerfully) such rejection is not permanent and especially not spiritual, while there is still room for repentance (see Heb. 6:4-8).


What "˜judgment´ are you referring to Bruce? Are you referring to eternal condemnation of some other type of judgment? Please, be a bit more specific with your statements. And what do you mean by "˜not spiritual´? Are you implying the salvation can be something other than "˜spiritual´ or covenant fellowship with God can be something other than "˜spiritual´. How does an infant reject God´s covenant Bruce? Doesn´t Scripture clearly teach of the Father´s wrath (Romans) which is eternal condemnation of in which ALL (including ALL those infants you baptize) are under the Father´s wrath? Is there now some kind of secondary judgment other than the Father´s wrath that might not "˜spiritual´? 

Bruce, you are misinterpreting Hebrews 6:4-8 as most people do. Verse 4 clearly states something that is impossible to do and continues with stating who it is with whom it is impossible. Those who have been enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, made PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY GHOST, tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come are those who have been saved. The unregenerate do not partake of the Holy Spirit and are certainly not enlightened. That is why they are still in darkness. Verse 6 plainly states what it is that´s impossible for them to do; "˜fall away´ and be renewed again. This is precisely what Jeremiah 32:40 states; _"I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that *they will not turn away from Me*_. God´s word plainly states that those who are a covenantal relationship with God will NOT turn away (reject) Him. Both Hebrews 6 and Jeremiah 32 clearly state the contrary to your view that a person can reject the covenant and fall under judgment.



You stated:


> Unlike most credo-baptists, confessional presbyterians believe the New Covenant (like the Old) has both a visible (church) and invisible (spiritual) aspect or component. Will the true believer who rejects the visible church suffer in this life? You bet. Will the false believer who rejects the spiritual Kingdom--even if he remains in the visible church--suffer eternally for spurning the internal aspect of the covenant? Absolutely.


Again, you offer no Scriptural defense for this view and no explanation as to what the visible church is versus the invisible church. Unless you redefine what the church is (the body of Christ, comprised of His elect who have been redeemed) then the terms visible and invisible just simply refer to the church (visibly) present among us on earth and the church (invisibly) among us in heaven. What other church do you know about in Scripture Bruce? Furthermore, how can a "˜true believer´ (one who is already in the church, body of Christ) reject it? What are you talking about? 



You stated:


> ---Baptism a sign of the New Covenant? How about Mt. 28:19? John 3:5, Acts 2:4, 38; Heb. 10:22, 29. Compare with Ez. 36:25-27, 11:19, 37:14; Is 59:21; Jo. 2:28ff.




Mt.28:19 doesn´t state anything about baptism being a sign of the New Covenant. It says we are to baptize them (the nations, people) and make them disciples. What do you think happened in Acts? They are the people who were baptized who were truly converted and ALL with a confession of faith.

John 3:5 doesn´t state anything about baptism being a sign of the New Covenant. 

Acts 2:4 doesn´t state anything about baptism being a sign of the New Covenant. In fact, all it talks of is speaking in tongues, not baptism.

Acts 2:38 doesn´t state anything about baptism being a sign of the New Covenant but it does clearly state one must repent and be baptized. Do those infants you baptize do this? But still, no mention of baptism being a sign of the New Covenant is made.

Heb. 10:22 doesn´t state anything about baptism being a sign of the New Covenant. However, it does speak of having a "˜FULL ASSURANCE OF FAITH´ (a profession of faith/belief). How many infants do you know of who have had a "˜FULL ASSURANCE OF FAITH´ merely because they were baptized?

Heb. 10:29 doesn´t state anything about baptism being a sign of the New Covenant. In fact, what it does state is that the blood of the covenant is what has sanctified us and anyone who replaces this with (whatever) is mocking the blood of Jesus by despising the work of the Holy Spirit.

Ez. 36:25-27 (and the comparison texts) don´t state anything about baptism being a sign of the New Covenant. It does, however, state that those upon whom GOD (not man) sprinkles clean water (Jesus/Salvation, not water baptism) God will put a new spirit within them by taking away the stony heart and replacing it with a heart of flesh (life). Verse 27 also states that those same people will be caused by God to walk in His statutes and keep (obey) His judgments. Again, this is precisely what Jeremiah 32:40 clearly states; "œ_And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me_". As you can clearly see, there is NO mention of water baptism being a sign of the New Covenant and also that those who are truly in a Covenantal relationship with God will NEVER depart from Him which clearly shows they cannot reject the covenant and be under any judgment than that which they are already under unless they are the redeemed of God of whom will NEVER suffer the Father´s wrath.

Jo. 2:28ff doesn´t state anything about baptism being a sign of the New Covenant because there is no Jo. 2:28.



You stated:


> ---Actually Scripture teaches that "salvific representation" of baptism, see Titus 3:5-6.


Actually, Titus 3:5-6 do not state water baptism is a representation of salvation. These texts; _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; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;_ speak of how we are saved, i.e., _the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man_ in verse 4. The washing of regeneration Bruce is the work of the Holy Spirit wherein He renews us with that new heart having been circumcised spoken of in all those texts you thought were referencing water baptism as a sign of being in the New Covenant.



You stated:


> ---What seems strange to me is that you speak of a "representation" that is "actual" and also quite invisible. How is that representaional? The sign represents the thing signified. Circumcision outwardly was supposed to indicate a circumcised heart. That it often did not was through the fault of the people (as Heb. 8:8 plainly states). God did not give saving grace to them _on the basis of circumcision_, any more than he gives saving grace today _on the basis of baptism_. So, of course I do not consider all those cut-of-the-foreskin prior to Christ as being saved. In fact the majority of them were not, as Rom. 9:29 plainly states.


Perhaps I did not clarify what I stated. This is what I stated;_Scripture nowhere speaks of salvation being represented by anything other than the actuality of The Spirit circumcising one´s heart. This is clearly the "˜sign´ of circumcision Abraham received BEFORE he was circumcised_. Salvation is not a "˜thing´ one can touch, feel, hear, smell, etc., and by this I think you know what I mean. However, the fact of Salvation is known by its representative actions such as how you view water baptism versus a Spiritual circumcision which is the Biblical view. We cannot see the circumcision made without hands but Jesus told us we can known them (the Elect) by their fruits and water baptism is not once mentioned among those fruits.

Your statement, "œ_ Circumcision outwardly was supposed to indicate a circumcised heart_" is not true. Nowhere does Scripture equate physical circumcision with Spiritual circumcision. Clearly, Abraham was Spiritually circumcised BEFORE he was physically circumcised. The Mosaic Covenant act of physical circumcision was never intended by God to produce salvation or be the evidence of salvation and the very text of Hebrews you cited clearly proves this. Don´t you think God knew the fault was in the dead heart of the individual instead of His law before He created the covenant with them? There was no more a "˜presumptive regeneration´ by circumcision anymore than by water baptism. In fact, your statements are still very confusing. First you state circumcision was supposed to indicate a circumcised heart, then you stated it did not always happen, then you stated it never happened (God did not give saving grace to them _on the basis of circumcision_). But now you state that saving grace is not given on the basis of baptism which is in stark contradiction to your previous statement that baptism actually (literally) brings one into a Covenantal (salvific) relationship with God. 



Your initial post stated:


> The parent makes vows for themselves. They affirm that what they do they are doing believing it is in accordance with the *command of God*. (emphasis mine)


To that I asked:


> Where does God command parents to make vows to themselves for their infants/children by having their infants/children baptized in order to "œrear their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord"?


Your only responsive defense of what you claim is a Biblical command is, "œ_Parents make vows not to themslves but to God, before the gathered church as witnesses._" I see no command of God in this statement. But then you stated, "œ_Look, we don't need an explicit command to take a vow of any kind_". So, is what you stated a command or not? Obviously, you are now stating it isn´t. Then you state, "œ_All we need is the command of God to do such and such_". OK, what is the "˜such and such´ with reference to what you claim is a command of God found in Scripture? However, you then state, "œ_We believe it's God's command to baptize our covenant children_". OK, but still, where is the command found in Scripture? Why is this so difficult to answer?



You stated:


> As far as "by baptism", well we think the Bible is pretty clear that we are to baptize our children, despite the absence of a verse that says "thou shalt baptize thy children."


OK, just how is something "˜pretty clear´ based on an "˜absence´ of what is "˜pretty clear´?



You stated:


> It is a necessary inference, which being logically demanded (by definition) has the same full force of any explicit command. God expected the children of believers included in his people (externally) under the Old Covenant. He tells us the same word he told Abraham (Gen. 17:7: "the promise is to you and to your children" (Acts 2:39). Jesus said of the infants: "of such is the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:16).


A "˜_necessary inference_´ has been used to defend anything one wants to be true Bruce. Perhaps you truly believe there is a "˜_necessary inference_´ but Bruce, why wouldn´t you rather use the clear, literal and plainly stated texts of Scripture to defend your view? Wouldn´t that make much more sense? I do not disregard the "˜proper´ use of "˜_necessary inference_´ but when "˜_necessary inference_´ is blatantly contradicted by the complete absence of what you claim is "˜_necessary inference_´, I cannot accept that as a valid Biblical defense. 

Bruce, Gen 17:7 does more to discredit the paedo-baptist view than defend it. If one thinks there is a relationship between physical circumcision and physical baptism then using Gen. 17:7 "˜correctly´ demands an equal application of precisely what happened and how it happened in Gen. 17:7. Once one departs from the logical sequence and priority of events, the only "˜_necessary inference_´ one has is purely designed to defend their own view with no Scriptural defense whatsoever. Abraham was made righteous by God before he was circumcised, clearly showing the circumcision had no part of his salvation. Furthermore, If God does not circumcise the dead heart of an individual all the cutting of skin or water baptisms are in vain and mean absolutely nothing to God. 

You seem to be overlooking some very important facts of the covenant of which you use to defend infant-baptism. Verse 7 clearly states (no "˜_necessary inference_´ needed) this covenant is an *everlasting* covenant. That means it never ends Bruce. Verses 10-14 actually define what the covenant is:


10. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
12. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
13. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
14. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
I hope you understand that physical circumcision, not physical baptism, is the "˜clear´ command, not a "˜_necessary inference_´. Of course, you are inferring and assuming that water baptism replaced physical circumcision, again with no Scriptural example, text or authority for so doing, only a "˜_necessary inference_´ to defend your paedo-baptist view. But why would you use an inference when a clear statement is used? You are also taking an eternal covenant and making it a replaced covenant when you baptize instead of circumcising your infants which in and of itself violates the covenant. Furthermore, you will have to do some really nifty explaining why what you call a "˜covenant child´ grows up not being a "˜covenant child´ who later receives water baptism as a result of having become a "˜covenant elect person´ via regeneration and profession of faith who still rejects what you claim is obedience to the eternal covenant that really isn´t eternal. If this person is "˜cut off´ from his people, how do you people treat this person who is now truly the Elect of God? Now, what authority does the Abrahamic Covenant have over the New Covenant Bruce and why?

You also misuse Acts 2:39 with the same intention of justifying infant baptismal inclusion into the Abrahamic Covenant, or is that the New Covenant? Really, which is it? However, the text clearly states, _ For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even *as many as the LORD our God shall call*._ Did you overlook the emphasis Bruce? The promise is not to those who cut the foreskin or place water on babies. The covenant promise is for *as many as the LORD our God shall call*. And what is stated just two verses later but, _they that gladly received his word were baptized_. How many infants do you know "˜gladly received His word and were then baptized? Furthermore, the promise was not restricted to their children, it was promised to ALL, even those who were afar off, *WHOM THE LORD CALLED*. 



You stated:


> Nothing under the New Covenant administration has changed the definition of who is identified with the People of God. It is professing believers and their children. We don't judge people's hearts to determine whether they are fit candidates for baptism. We follow the objective, visible indicators as God has prescribed them. God says "include your children with the sign," so we do.


Well Bruce, I think you have made this far more confusing and contradictory than could be imagined. After all I´ve stated about "˜professing believers´ being the definition of who is identified with the People of God and your disagreements with this, you now state precisely what I´ve been stating all along and what you have been rejecting. The only difference is that now you include the children of professing believers as the People of God with no qualification of "˜believing´ and you use Acts 2:39 as a proof text in spite of the text´s clear understanding that *as many as the LORD our God shall call* is the qualifying proof of who the People of God are. This is clearly why Jesus said no one can come to Him unless the Father "˜calls´ them. If the paedo-baptist thinks one has come to the Son apart from the Father´s calling, then one is replacing the text of Holy Scripture with their own tradition. Do you agree?

Baptists don´t judge people´s hearts either Bruce to determine whether they are fit candidates for baptism, this is why many who make false professions are treated as though they are true believers when they are not. However, you should have no problem with this since this is precisely what the paedo-baptist does. The difference is that at least the credo-Baptist has "˜something´ to consider such as a profession of faith while the paedo-baptist has only "˜_necessary inference_´. Those thousands baptized in Acts 2 did not use "˜_necessary inference_´ as a defense for their baptism Bruce. 

You stated:


> We follow the objective, visible indicators as God has prescribed them. God says "include your children with the sign," so we do.


Actually, you don´t because there is no _"˜objective´ visible indicators as God has prescribed them_ the moment you employed the use of "˜_necessary inference_´. One doesn´t need an inference when one has an objectively visible indicator. And I won´t ask where God says "_include your children with the sign_" because we both know it exists nowhere except in what you call "˜_necessary inference_´.



You stated:


> ---Of course you can rear your children, and fulfill the command to rear them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. I think you are leaving something out by not giving them the sign of baptism, but the blessing is not of such an order as they cannot be blessed apart from it. In fact, you can well probably do a better job of it than me. Certainly I need a heaping helping of God's grace to sanctify my sinful efforts to the benefit of my children. However good a job either one of us do, it isn't we who make the difference in our children's eternal destiny. It's God (thank God).


I will employ "˜_necessary inference_´ and "˜assume´ you think my children are saved even though you did not respond to that part of my question. If so, it seems to me the only difference is that you are under the impression that water baptism for an infant under your view receives special promises mine do not. I think it would have been very beneficial to have included just what those blessings are and where in Scripture they can be found or if they are only by "˜_necessary inference_´ assumed.



You stated:


> Sam, I don't expect you to just fall in line and adopt presbyterian convictions and practice. You are presently convinced othewise. But you aked why we do what we do, so I expect a fair hearing. You must obey the dictates of your conscience, held captive to the Word of God. As must I. "Let each man be convinced in his own mind." But either one of us can be in error, and both of us can't be right. So study the matter. It is imperative upon us both to grow in every grace (2 Pet. 3:18).


And I don´t expect you to just fall in line and adopt Baptist convictions and practice since you are presently convinced otherwise. But then, I am not promoting Baptist convictions and practice. I gave you a fair hearing. I agree with some of what you stated but not with all of what you stated. I asked for Scriptural text to defend your views and not a single text you used actually states what you claim they state. I did not come to this conclusion based on my opposition to paedo-baptism but based on the clear text of Scripture. Being "˜convinced in one´s own mind´ doesn´t refer to being convinced that something is true because one "˜assumes´ it is true. It means we are to be convinced that a correct handling of Scriptures leads a reasonable minded person to no other conclusion than precisely what Scripture makes abundantly clear. We are to be convinced by our own understanding of a correct interpretation, not a tradition demanded by others.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 6, 2006)

{MODERATOR} Sam - we need you to check the signature requirements and comply to them. We need your church listed where you are a member. Check those requirements. Thanks.


----------



## TRR (Mar 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> {MODERATOR} Sam - we need you to check the signature requirements and comply to them. We need your church listed where you are a member. Check those requirements. Thanks.


I apologize for the oversight and have corrected it.

Thanks


----------



## Steve Owen (Mar 7, 2006)

Great stuff, Sam! 
Well done! 

Martin


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 7, 2006)

Sam,
I started to respond, once again, to your every question, to try to give you something useful. I actually wrote for hours. Just answering your queries line by line. I got pretty far actually through your long post. But for a number of reasons, I don't think I'm going to post a more substantial reply than this.

You do not understand _my_ paedo position, a fairly standard one in Reformed circles. You and I do not share a set of defintions with which to speak, seriously handicapping our communication. You seem to think that I can hold to baptismal regeneration (a serious doctrinal error), and still hold the WCF and be a minister in good standing in the PCA.

So, my recommendation is to study the WCF further, and disabuse yourself of the outlandish idea. _B-R actually came up *so many times* in your post, I found myself reacting to more and more comments with annoyance, instead of thoughtfully._ Even now I resist the urge to just rip the most egregious blatant misrepresentations. However I realize I'm not going to help you much that way, if indeed I can help you at all, which was after all my intention from the outset.

Sometimes we're better off just acknowledging our present biases and trusting God to clear them up in his good time, if that is necessary. I'm not really very open to being moved on this issue. My convictions are well-studied. I don't get into debate much on this issue for those reasons. Too quickly it degenerates into "scoring points." I originally responded to your request that I clarify some of my statments. I ended up in a partisan mode--not the place I wanted to be. Sorry.

You are quick to assert that you have been guided fairly by Scripture and right reason, but my position is hidebound by tradition. Case in point, my appeal to a cumulative case, and good and necessary consequence. First you question my use of GNC, then you acknowledge that it is useful and indispensible sometimes, then you assert that my position is arbitrary, as I choose a less "straightforward" interpretation.
1) My interpretations may be more complicated than yours, but I think my presuppositional web is simpler. I certainly recognize the web of underlying assumptions you are bringing to the table, and from my view, yours is more complicated than mine. So I see no advantage to that supposed "more straightforward" claim of yours.
2) Your admission in the middle is fatal. You appreciate GNC when you find it needful, but when you don't you say, "Well you can just prove anything that way." _So the whole paragaph is mere rhetorical fluff._ I worked my way through just that paragraph, line by line for 10-15 minutes, until I was suddenly convicted of how poorly I had stewarded my time over the previous hours. 

Bottom line, I do not have the time to address the "shotgun blast" of issues, particulary the exegetical ones that must be addressed one at a time, painstakingly. So Sam, before we get deep into a "useless argument" (2 Tim. 2:23) let's just call it quits.
2 Pet. 3:18, a prayer for both of us.

[Edited on 3-7-2006 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Sam,
> I started to respond, once again, to your every question, to try to give you something useful. I actually wrote for hours. Just answering your queries line by line. I got pretty far actually through your long post. But for a number of reasons, I don't think I'm going to post a more substantial reply than this.
> 
> ...



I thought about responding to Sam myself but you cut to the issue of why I refrained even though I usually have the energy. I think the convenient use of inference when it suits is a good example (Of course the Phillipian jailer's family must have professed because, _a priori_, Baptism must follow profession).

There are so many presuppositions front-loaded into the post that it takes too much time (and really each deserves its own thread) to peal back and refute the notions. Sam, seriously, spend a couple of weeks reading through our Confession and reading why Calvin agrees with us. Honestly, I'm becoming increasingly puzzled as to why Reformed Baptists even want to associate themselves with Calvin when his exegesis of so many key passages of Scripture is just totally pointed in the wrong direction.

I'm trying to keep focused on these debates because they always degenerate back to the presuppositions even though the issue of the thread is not about them (only the regenerate are in the New Covenant, baptism is for professed believers only, only immersion is valid,...). I would just invite readers to watch the thread on Pipers' "refutation" of Infant Baptism to see how something as simple as the exegesis of Gal 4:22-28 ends up with so much baggage piled up into a text even though it doesn't fit within the context. It simply does not do to keep approaching the text with the meaning defined before the text is even read.

[Edited on 3-8-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## TRR (Mar 7, 2006)

SemperFideles,


You stated:


> I thought about responding to Sam myself but you cut to the issue of why I refrained even though I usually have the energy. I think the convenient use of inference when it suits is a good example (Of course the Phillipian jailer's family must have professed because, _a priori_, Baptism must follow profession).


I also think _the convenient use of inference when it suits is a good example_ of using it incorrectly. As I stated, I have no problem with using _necessary inference_ correctly but when it is used to construct a defense apart from what the Bible says then I think it is being used incorrectly and when _necessary inference_ is employed when there is the clear and distinct words of Scripture available, what purpose does it serve to use _necessary inference_?



You stated:


> There are so many presuppositions front-loaded into the post that it takes too much time (and really each deserves its own thread) to peal back and refute the notions.


Then just point out one.



You stated:


> Sam, seriously, spend a couple of weeks reading through our Confession and reading why Calvin agrees with us. Honestly, I'm becoming increasingly puzzled as to why Reformed Baptists even want to associate themselves with Calvin when his exegesis of so many key passages of Scripture is just totally pointed in the wrong direction.


Actually, I´m really not a big fan of John Calvin and never stated I was and not once did I quote Calvin for any defense of my view(s), however that doesn´t mean I disagree with everything he taught and believed. Frankly, I think John Calvin would agree with me that Scripture must have the paramount importance in this or any issue. It was on the basis of Scripture that I presented my view so if you can, on the basis of Scripture, show me where I´m wrong I will give it an honest investigation. 

Also, Reformed Baptists don´t associate themselves with Calvin as much as you seem to think we do.



You stated:


> I'm trying to keep focused on these debates because they always degenerate back to the presuppositions even though the issue of the thread is not about them (only the regenerate are in the New Covenant, baptism is for professed believers only, only immersion is valid,...).


Then I assume you believe unregenerate people are members of the New Covenant in spite of what Jeremiah clearly stated that God will place a NEW heart within them (new meaning something other than the dead heart the unregenerate have). Can you explain how a NEW heart is the same dead heart if the unregenerate are in the New Covenant and please show, as I asked Bruce, any text of Scripture where water baptism did not follow a profession of faith. By the way, I never stated anything about "˜only immersion is valid´.



You stated:


> I would just invite readers to watch the thread on Pipers' "refutation" of Infant Baptism to see how something as simple as the exegesis of Gal 4:22-28 ends up with so much baggage piled up into a text even though it doesn't fit within the context. It simply does not do to keep approaching the text with the meaning defined before the text is even read.


My response to Bruce has nothing to do with Piper´s article. I thought you were _trying to keep focused_.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TRR_
> You stated:
> 
> 
> ...


I already did. 

Confession must precede baptism is one of you presuppositions.

Others:
2. The New Covenant consists only of the Elect
3. Baptismal efficacy is primarily associated with the response of the believer.

among others.



> Also, Reformed Baptists don´t associate themselves with Calvin as much as you seem to think we do.


Then why call yourself Reformed? I mean, I love reading Calvin because his writings comport so closely to the Scriptures. If I thought he had whole chapters in Galatians and Romans wrong in his commentaries I wouldn't trust him for much of anything else. It's just a strange love-hate relationship you guys have with him.



> You stated:
> 
> 
> > I'm trying to keep focused on these debates because they always degenerate back to the presuppositions even though the issue of the thread is not about them (only the regenerate are in the New Covenant, baptism is for professed believers only, only immersion is valid,...).
> ...


Can I get a Presuppositional AMEN!! 


> Can you explain how a NEW heart is the same dead heart if the unregenerate are in the New Covenant and please show, as I asked Bruce, any text of Scripture where water baptism did not follow a profession of faith. By the way, I never stated anything about "˜only immersion is valid´.


Yes I can. For the reasons already enumerated, I will not.



> You stated:
> 
> 
> > I would just invite readers to watch the thread on Pipers' "refutation" of Infant Baptism to see how something as simple as the exegesis of Gal 4:22-28 ends up with so much baggage piled up into a text even though it doesn't fit within the context. It simply does not do to keep approaching the text with the meaning defined before the text is even read.
> ...


I will demure to the judgment of other readers as to why I brought this in to the conversation. It fits with the flow of what I was saying to Bruce.


----------



## TRR (Mar 8, 2006)

SemperFideles,

You stated my response to Bruce had _so many presuppositions front-loaded into the post that it takes too much time (and really each deserves its own thread) to peal back and refute the notions_. After asking you to point out one, you listed the following as presuppositions I´m assuming you think are my defense instead of Scripture:

You stated:


> 1. Confession must precede baptism is one of you presuppositions.


Do you know what a presupposition is (and I don´t mean that sarcastically)? The reason I ask is because the word can have different definitions but it is usually used to denote one is supposing something is true (or false) before discovering the evidence if it is true (or false). In this case I will assume you are stating that I am presupposing Confession must precede baptism before (or in the absence of) any evidence to prove this. Perhaps you did not notice but I quoted Scripture every time a profession of faith was made when water baptism followed. I also asked to be shown any Scripture that showed an example of where water baptism was administered apart from one having a confession of faith and none was ever presented. Considering the fact that I used Scripture to prove the point that Confession was always stated prior to water baptism and never apart from it then your assumption that I am using a presupposition is false. One does not need to presuppose what is clearly stated in Scripture. Now, I am presupposing Scripture is true in this respect.



You stated:


> 2. The New Covenant consists only of the Elect


Again, if I am presupposing something is true before I have discovered any evidence to prove it is true then you are correct. However, if you had read my response to Bruce carefully you would have seen where I, again, quoted Scripture concerning the recipients of the New Covenant but I will cite them here again. 


 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD But *this shall be the covenant* that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, *I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people*, (Jeremiah 31:31-33)
Are the people of God those who have been baptized or those who have the law of God written in their hearts?


 Behold, I will gather them out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them again unto this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely 
And they shall be my people, and *I will be their God And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever*, for the good of them, and of their children after them And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that *they shall not depart from me*, (Jeremiah 32:38-40).
Do the people of God have the law of God written on their "˜dead´ hearts or the "˜new´ heart? 


Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ, According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love, Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself, That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him, In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will, That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ, (Ephesians 1:3-12)
Is the covenant of which Jeremiah prophesied a different covenant than of what Paul spoke? If not, then they are the same covenant. 

So, I did not presuppose only the Elect are in the New Covenant, I discovered the information from Scripture. Of course, one can deny Jeremiah is speaking of the New Covenant in which infants are baptized and one can deny Scripture speaks of creating a new heart in the people of God to both establish and distinguish them as the people of God (the Elect) and one can deny that Paul is addressing ONLY the Elect people of God in Ephesians 1, but to do so requires one to deny some very specific and exact statements of God.



You stated:


> 3. Baptismal efficacy is primarily associated with the response of the believer.


And the problem with this is what? Did you not read the Scriptures I cited? Can you answer the same question I asked Bruce about showing any example in the New Testament writings where water baptism was administered apart from a confession of faith? Furthermore, you did not read my statements carefully. I never stated Baptismal efficacy is "˜primarily´ associated with the response of the believer. I clearly stated not a single text of Holy Scripture even remotely hints at water baptism apart from a prior confession of faith. If one has nothing to confess, why then would you want to baptize that person? I did not presuppose a confession of faith prior to every example of water baptism, I garnered that from the literal word of Scripture. 



To my question:


> Also, Reformed Baptists don´t associate themselves with Calvin as much as you seem to think we do.


You stated:


> Then why call yourself Reformed? I mean, I love reading Calvin because his writings comport so closely to the Scriptures. If I thought he had whole chapters in Galatians and Romans wrong in his commentaries I wouldn't trust him for much of anything else.


Do you have a rule-book that states one must be a follower of John Calvin in order to be Reformed? Was John Calvin the first and/or only Reformer? Is John Calvin the epitome of everything right concerning Holy Scripture?



I asked:


> Can you explain how a NEW heart is the same dead heart if the unregenerate are in the New Covenant and please show, as I asked Bruce, any text of Scripture where water baptism did not follow a profession of faith. By the way, I never stated anything about "˜only immersion is valid´.


To which you replied:


> Yes I can. For the reasons already enumerated, I will not.


The problem with your reply is that you did not answer my questions. Nothing you stated in your (false) enumerations answered the question of _how a NEW heart is the same dead heart if the unregenerate are in the New Covenant_ or where any _text of Scripture shows water baptism did not follow a profession of faith_. Obviously, you think you did. So be it.

'Editing was to correct the mispelling of SemperFideles'

[Edited on 3-8-2006 by TRR]


----------



## MeanieCalvinist (Mar 8, 2006)

I have really enjoyed reading this post so far...
However, I hope that it stays on track with the topic being addressed.

In my opinion, the subject concerning baptism has nothing to do with whether a person is "Reformed" or not. There are great men of God on both sides of the fence concerning this issue. Volumes of works have been written on this particular subject. I think Calvin was a great man on God and did much for the Church. When I think about Calvin the first thing that comes to mind is his teachings concerning the work of the Holy Spirit. 


Anyway, I just do not want this thread to turn into a debate over who is "truly reformed" and who is not between the Reformed Bapists and the Presbyterians. 

With that being said, I look forward to reading what y'all have to share on this important issue.

In Christ,

MeanieCalvinist


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 8, 2006)

Sam,

Yes I understand what presuppositions are. I use that term purposefully because I believe Baptists approach the verses just like you did with the conclusion/system already in mind. It is an imprecise use of the term but very deliberate.

Hey Sam: Can you give me an example of a Baptism in Scripture where Baptism by the Holy Spirit does not occur by some delay and the laying on of Apostolic hands? If we're going to form our theology by Biblical narrative then we need to consistent. I assume you must be neo-Pentecostal?

Regarding "rule books", you miss my point again. You really ought to learn to read more carefully. A silly complaint.

I did answer your questions: read more so you'll learn more about what we believe. In previous posts you were reminded that much of what you're talking about has been addressed over and over. If you're too busy to read and understand what is written elsewhere then I will not answer it here. Each point in turn.


----------



## TRR (Mar 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by MeanieCalvinist_
> I have really enjoyed reading this post so far...
> However, I hope that it stays on track with the topic being addressed.
> 
> ...


MeanieCalvinist,

I completely agree with you and have every intention of remaining focused as possible on the original issue. Granted, there might be times when a slight change of course will be necessary but I think we should refrain from the issue you mentioned.

Thanks,


----------



## TRR (Mar 9, 2006)

SemperFidelis,

You stated:


> Yes I understand what presuppositions are. I use that term purposefully because I believe Baptists approach the verses just like you did with the conclusion/system already in mind. It is an imprecise use of the term but very deliberate.


I went to great lengths in my response to Bruce using Scripture and my explanation to you regarding what a presupposition is and why my statements having come directly from Scripture cannot possibly be considered a presupposition and yet you still refused to accept what I stated as not being a presupposition and since you did not object to anything I stated from Scripture on the basis of a false or faulty hermeneutic, I can only conclude that no matter what I state you will consider it a presupposition. So be it.



You stated:


> Hey Sam: Can you give me an example of a Baptism in Scripture where Baptism by the Holy Spirit does not occur by some delay and the laying on of Apostolic hands?


No, as I understand your question.

You also remarked "œ_If we're going to form our theology by Biblical narrative then we need to consistent_". I agree completely and have been doing just that, but where is the Biblical narrative associated with your statements to me:


Confession must precede baptism is one of you presuppositions.

Others:
2. The New Covenant consists only of the Elect
3. Baptismal efficacy is primarily associated with the response of the believer.

You stated:


> I assume you must be neo-Pentecostal?


No. Just as I stated in my response to Bruce and my accompanying website in my signature clearly states I am Reformed Baptist. In fact, you even remarked how those "˜Reformed Baptists´ call themselves "˜Reformed´ referencing my response to Bruce. This is also something that doesn´t need to be part of this particular discussion concerning paedo-Baptism. So far as I´m concerned, it ends here.



You stated:


> Regarding "rule books", you miss my point again. You really ought to learn to read more carefully. A silly complaint.


It should be pointed out that it was YOU who brought up the "˜silly´ idea that I should not call myself Reformed since I don´t agree with John Calvin on paedo-baptism and since YOU, not I, were using this as a "˜plumb line´ (rule) for being truly Reformed, I merely asked the most obvious question. Of course it was "˜silly´ but I responded to a "˜silly´ statement. However, I will not respond to this line of discussion with you again since it does nothing but interfere (unnecessarily) with the issue at hand.

Can we please get this back on track with more seriousness? The criticism is really not necessary.


----------



## MeanieCalvinist (Mar 9, 2006)

SemperFidelis,

You can correct me if I am wrong here but you seem very antagonistic in your responses to Sam. I do not understand your need to go into personal attacks against the "Reformed Baptists." From what I see and you can correct me if I am wrong, Sam is just trying to interact and reason from the Scripture with you concerning this matter. I also understand that many times our personal convictions can blind us in our interactions.(I know this from personal experience). 
However, I have seen no response to the questions that Sam has posted concerning believer baptism. I am hoping to get a clear understanding of why you hold to the beliefs you do. I am always willing to be conformed by the word of God. Again, I have really enjoyed the many discussions on this issue and would be willing to even change my own position on this matter IF, I could find clear biblical evidence.

This is why I have been intently reading this discussion. BTW, we all have our presups. We have to start from somewhere; My presup is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures ALONE are the Word of God and the only authority concerning our faith and practices.

Please take that time to answer Sam's questions, I am very interested in hearing what you have to share from the Scriptures.

In Christ,

MeanieCalvinist

PS. No I am not a Charles Finney Fan


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by MeanieCalvinist_
> SemperFidelis,
> 
> You can correct me if I am wrong here but you seem very antagonistic in your responses to Sam. I do not understand your need to go into personal attacks against the "Reformed Baptists." From what I see and you can correct me if I am wrong, Sam is just trying to interact and reason from the Scripture with you concerning this matter. I also understand that many times our personal convictions can blind us in our interactions.(I know this from personal experience).
> ...


Antagonistic? No. Impatient? Yes.

Sam joined this forum as this thread was beginning. *This is not Sam's thread*. Look at the original post. The question was from a Presbyterian to the group asking for some opinions. I gave mine. Sam jumped in as one of his first posts and posted "signature" Baptistic theology regarding the sacrament.

I responded by making general observations showing the differences in basic assumptions regarding the nature of the sacrament. From there, Bruce began to answer more detailed questions from Sam (mind you, outside the intent of the OP). Bruce thought Sam was asking questions to try to understand the Presbyterian position but then Sam began to parse his explanation and use the thread as an opportunity to put forward a full-orbed discussion of why he is a Reformed Baptist.

As I have explained, ALREADY, I am not interested in dealing with ALL of Sam's misconceptions regarding the Scripture. Call them presuppositions, call them axioms, call them _a priori_ beliefs - call them whatever you want - there is just too much to undo. It simply does not do to take on the Scriptures as he has presented them. He's gone far down the road in forming his conclusions about what they mean before he gets to them. He says he has not but his interpretational grid blinks like a big neon light for many of us who have been interacting with each other for a while.

So, No, I will not answer Sam's questions. This forum is certainly a great place to go to learn and interact with one another but it is a bit rude to hijack another man's Original post and then insist that people give a full-orbed critique of how you understand and interpret the Scriptures. If Sam or you want to start your own thread and ask the group to work some of the issues raised then be my guest. I would recommend you first look to see if some of the ideas have been debated vigorously within the first page of threads (as many have). I also recommend taking on fewer, rather than many, issues at a time. Most conclusions are connected to a few core assumptions.

As for myself, I've tried to "discipline" myself not to keep too many plates spinning. I have a profession, after all, that keeps me pretty busy and a family to look after. The "Let's discuss every reason why I'm a Reformed Baptist" threads lead down too many rabbit holes. I have engaged aggressively on the Piper thread to stick to one point as much as possible but you can see how much baggage is brought to bear even on 7 verses of the Bible.

Finally, for you and Sam, my point regarding Narratives and neo-Pentacostalism is a very important one for you both to consider. Neo-Pentecostals will point to the narratives in Acts to show that, in ever instance, Baptism of the Holy Spirit follows Christian Baptism. They use the same argument from Narrative that Sam uses (Show me an example of baptism by the Holy Spirit that doesn't come long after the actual baptism). The challenge "Are you a neo-Pentecostal" was meant to cause some reflection on the value of Narratives to form Systems of Doctrine.

[Edited on 3-10-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## MeanieCalvinist (Mar 9, 2006)

SemperFideles,

I am not here to debate, and completely understand your frustrations. 
I guess it is hard to really read the tone of a person over the keyboard. Thank you for clarifying a few things. I also understand what you mean concerning neo-Pentacostles using of narratives and making them the normatives. I am going to leave you with one thought, and I am not asking for a response. I believe Christ made it clear in the Great Commision that we are to make disciples and to Baptize them in the name of The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To me becoming a disciple precedes the baptism. Now, what I have seen in the narrative is that a confession of faith always precededs baptism in the NT.

Again, I am not looking for a response. I am just sharing a few thoughts..

P.S. As a fromer Army Ranger; I thank you for your service to this great country! 

In Christ,

MeanieCalvinist

[Edited on 3-10-2006 by MeanieCalvinist]

[Edited on 3-10-2006 by MeanieCalvinist]

[Edited on 3-10-2006 by MeanieCalvinist]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Mar 10, 2006)

> You can sense a difference immediately in the way that Sam and Bruce talk about the sacrament. To Sam, the issue of the validity of Baptism is very existential: Baptism "...is valid on the basis of a valid belief and repentance...." I'm not sure what this means. Does this mean that if, at the time of one's original baptism, one concludes that his faith was false he must conclude the original baptism was not valid and must be re-baptized until it sticks? What about later when one undergoes the doubt that oft times wrack some believers: "Did I really believe then? I'm so sinful. Am I realy saved? I better get re-baptized." In fact, this "personal belief" criterion is one of the reasons why some believers in Arminian Churches get baptized over and over and over again.
> 
> To equate Baptism to "...an outward sign of an inward reality..." makes the rite far too personal and subject to subjectivity in my estimation.



And 



> There is no such thing as rebaptism. Either you are baptized or you aren't"¦etc"¦




Rich & Bruce,

Those were wonderful Gospel and strengthening posts on this very issue. I thank you for such strengthening of the faith of myself and believers. And I would hope on this post that this wouldn´t be lost for the sake of just arguing. This really becomes in my humble estimation the crux of the issue for the health of the souls of the brethren. It´s not about being right or wrong but the missed blessing and wonderful condescension that our heavenly Father, Christ and Holy Spirit make to our weaknesses in Word and Sacraments. And this is true not only of baptism but of the Lord´s Supper and even "œfaith" itself. If you make a thing a "œLaw", just another "œto do" then naturally I must somehow get it right in order to have peace with God (or so I falsely think). The "œgetting it right" (works) becomes the deadly emphasis and actually to the danger of one´s soul. Thus the issue becomes, "œHow do I do this, and when shall I know?" The emphasis falls on "œme" to DO and we are back to works salvation at least implicitly though explicitly we would state "œjustified by faith alone". It becomes a disconnect between what we profess to believe and what we functionally believe. Anyone can formulate and state "œjustification by faith alone", but functionally what is true? Lost in this process, however it comes about, is the fixing of our eyes upon Christ Who alone is the "œAuthor and Finisher of our faith", the Root and source of all things faith, hope and love for us. 

He is contained in, how this is denominationally - aside, Word and Sacrament (the Word/message itself or the Word/message annexed to the Sacraments gives them their only and real power as it is attend by the Holy Spirit). The Sacraments are not devoid and empty of Christ AS Christ, that very Gospel whereby we are initiated and sustained into the faith. It is very powerful to know that "œI" did not baptize myself but that God came to me in providence. I know more baptized myself than did I seek after God in the Gospel"¦it all came to me, though the agency of men and myself where moved to do this. From our perspective we tend to miss this majestic sovereignty of God in providence. This was the exact confusion Israel had over circumcision, they made it law/works over what it really was Gospel/gift. But if I think even to the slightest degree that I did it, then of course I cannot rest in it. Here we see the difference in wrongly or rightly understanding both the Word and the Sacraments; and whether or not they become false hope and/or terror to us (law/works) Vs. initiators and strengtheners to true faith (Gospel/gift).

In the realm of baptism, Rich hit it on the head, "œ"¦valid on the basis of valid belief and repentance"¦etc"¦". Anyone who has gone through these fiery trials IMMEDIATELY knows what this means be it baptism or "œfaith" itself. This is why "œRe-"œ everything under the sun is done by the struggling Christian rather than returning to the Word, Baptism and the Lord´s Table. IF a teaching has taken these away from the believer as Gospel, then naturally when they need strengthening they turn to other things or make these "œto dos" (works) in order to be assured of salvation. But as those who know this and have gone through this, no peace with God is to be had, OR some are deceived and think that by these works (even through otherwise true things like baptism, circumcision under the Jews) or some works attached under the guise of "œfruits to the faith" or "œevidence" that they are saved. But what are both the terrorized not trusting in and the falsely secure trusting in? The former have under terror lost Christ and seek for works to bring them peace, hence "œre-"œ everything, nothing but burdens and works. The later are falsely secure without Christ (though they might use his name and doctrinal formulations) and secure in their "œfruit" as if it is fruits of faith, so they think. But the Word and Sacraments, these things were graciously given to us FOR our faith not against it in terror OR false security. One can falsely rest in some "˜do´ extracted from the Word, Baptism or the Supper if one makes a "œwork" or "œlaw" of any of these, even if it is only implicit or functionally (the disconnect between doctrine and reality). It is different to see the Sacraments as a "œwork", "œlaw" or "œprecept" to do BECAUSE of "œfaith" (which is upside down) Vs. Gospel, Good News, Gifts FOR faith which is giving the gift as meant.

The minute we think, even if it is implicit to our thinking, that we had anything to do with anything (sacraments or repentance and faith) or it is dependant upon us, even "œfaith", then comes the terror, "œDid I do enough, did I really and truly believe/repent, etc"¦". For then we have turned from faith fixed on Christ alone to a false faith that even might call itself "˜faith´. I thoroughly believe this is one of the devil´s greatest deceptions and this based upon the fact that above all he is not so much worried about our gross sins but that we would not nakedly trust in Christ but blind men that they would not believe. If you wonder why believers struggle so much in love and true good works, it´s because Christ is not strongly proclaimed as Christ. One´s preaching primarily precepts and naked exhortations as emphasis or main diet IS the reason Christians are so weak and lacking, one gotten it backwards and stumbled over the Stumbling stone. At the base of it is a complete miss understanding of what initiates, sustains and strengthens true faith and the true fruits arising there from. It is a complete upside down flip of the whole of the Christian faith.

E.g. In today´s understanding it is wrong to say to someone who may begin to see their fallen selves and ask us, "œWhat shall I do?" and reply, "œYou must believe or just believe in Christ." We have to consider today´s language and the way we use it. This is where - call it what you will, arminian, pelagian, semi-pelagian or suffice it to say the fallen man who desires to "œdo" something to save himself - really reveals itself because a "œto do" is still being requested. No, one must boldly and literally proclaim Christ FOR them, it is literally a proclamation to them of the NEWS, the Good News, "œTHIS has happened FOR YOU." That´s to give the Gospel without condition. It is wrong in our own minds to ponder, "œNow is he/she regenerate now that I may give the Gospel". Why? Because the Gospel is that means in which the Holy Spirit literally calls INTO being that which does not exist "œAS THOUGH IT DOES". That´s why God CALLS by NEWS (via use clay pots), "œas though it does exist" (Romans 5 & 8). THE GOSPEL IS THE CALL, not something else and not even "œbelieve". Faith is NOT the Call, the Gospel is the Call, whereby faith is CAUSED into being as the Holy Spirit works. The preacher´s work (Proclaimer) is to give the Gospel to the hearer, the Holy Spirit ALONE works as He wills and without the voyeurism of men into His business of regeneration. When we try to "˜ferret´ out the heart or spiritual status of a men/women we are manifestly delving into the eternal council of God and THAT is both sin and deadly to those we speak to and ourselves, and in the process we never GIVE them the Good News whereby they might be saved. Why? Because we are to busy trying to help God do His work. The answer to "œWhat shall I do?" is not another "œto do", especially this false faith that I must engender from within, but rather; "œFreely I´ve been given, freely I give, Here is the free gift". It is to prepare a feast for a starving man and say, "œeat lavishly and live", not "œnow if you repent and believe rightly/enough first then you may eat and live". The free gift, the Gospel, itself creates its own receptacle, life, true saving faith (naked trust in it/the Good News).

However, when we ponder in such a fashion, to wit; "œDid I believe/repent enough, rightly, timing and etc"¦" We´ve missed the Good News altogether and have defined and begin seeking a "œfaith" that is not faith at all. And why not since it is no longer FIXED on Christ alone the Author AND Finisher of our faith. And this Christ in whom alone we must fix our eyes is in the Word and Sacraments as Gospel and gift, hence grace alone.

Grace and peace,

Larry


----------

