# Practical benefits of the Baptism ceremony



## Wretched Man (Jan 23, 2020)

I'll preface by stating as a self-identified reformed Baptist attending an OPC, the various comments and condemnations I hear regarding my disagreement with infant baptism do not go unheeded. I have had great conviction over whether I am neglecting my children by not accepting infant baptism for them and spent quite some time wrestling with this subject.

Setting aside covenant theology interpretations and circumstantial evidence in scripture of infant baptism, I would like to address the practical benefits of the ceremony itself. Needless to say, the ceremony itself is not the true Baptism, but a sign of it. That said... I believe it is safe to say the Baptismal ceremony commanded by Christ for us to execute is an _act._

As an act, would anyone disagree that there is _practical value_ to it? Is it not more than just a formality or means to convey a message?
Presuming there is practical value to the Baptismal ceremony, what is it? I personally view it primarily in the form of a vow that facilitates conviction for the person making their profession of faith in front of a congregation who can hold them accountable.
Whatever practical values you ascribe, is there a tension or forced dichotomy of practical benefits when you administer this ceremony to some who are infants (unable to comprehend, participate, or recollect the ceremony) and others who are adults?
While my Presbyterian brethren claim I am neglecting my children by not baptizing them as infants, I worry the true neglect is depriving them of the opportunity to later receive the ceremony with proper conviction, acceptance, and participation.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 23, 2020)

Rom 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 
Rom 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Wretched Man (Jan 23, 2020)

Romans922 said:


> Rom 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
> Rom 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.


Yet Paul condemns the practicality of circumcision, as it being apart of the law (as emphasized just prior to these verses in Romans 2, later in chapter 3, and elsewhere such as Galatians 5:2) which no one is able to keep. He goes on from your quoted verses later in 3:21 to stress faith over works... "_But_ _now_..._through faith_". Are we to replace one impractical ceremony devoid of faith with another?


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 23, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> Yet Paul condemns the practicality of circumcision, as it being apart of the law (as emphasized just prior to these verses in Romans 2, later in chapter 3, and elsewhere such as Galatians 5:2) which no one is able to keep. He goes on from your quoted verses later in 3:21 to stress faith over works... "_But_ _now_..._through faith_". Are we to replace one impractical ceremony devoid of faith with another?



Look, you said you wanted to focus on the practical issue of giving the sacramental sign to a child/infant or let's say for someone who doesn't have faith (since many adults/teenagers are baptized who don't have saving faith). So at least to me you didn't want to talk about the doctrine of infant baptism so much as what are the practical benefits of it. Not a bad question. So using Scripture to interpret Scripture, what better place to go then to see what is perhaps more clear to everyone and that is the covenant sign of circumcision that was applied to the Jews under the Abrahamic Covenant? Given the following similarities of both physical and spiritual circumcision and physical and spiritual baptism (below), it seems quite relevant in answering your own question of the practical benefits of baptism (not just infant baptism, but the plain sign of the covenant promise of baptism) that one quote Romans 3:1-2. Now, of course, that includes a context of Romans 2 and what follows 3:1-2. But it's quite clear that there is some benefit to covenant signs. And given that the Abraham covenant sign of circumcision was applied to males both adult and infants, then it too applies here to your question concerning the practicality of applying water baptism to adults and infants.


*Circumcision and Baptism (see this link for Scripture references)*
1. Sign and Seal of the Covenant of Grace
2. Union with Christ
3. Symbolizes Regeneration
4. Remission of sins
5. Obliges recipient to walk in newness of life
6. Initiates membership in the covenant community
7. Given to entire households
8. Mere outward reception of the sign is of no benefit
9. A great sin to contemn or neglect
10. Can be saved without it
11. Permanent/to be administered only once
12. Given to offspring
13. Given to non-elect in the covenant community

Further, Paul doesn't condemn circumcision's practicality. He's condemning the use of circumcision as some sort of special standing for the Jews who rejected Jesus Christ and didn't believe. To them, circumcision is a judgment. And just the same for those who believe in the command of infant baptism, those who are baptized but reject Christ and do not believe they are condemned and judged for it. The same as those adults and teenagers who are baptized upon their fake profession of faith...they are condemned and judged all the more.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 23, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> I'll preface by stating as a self-identified reformed Baptist attending an OPC, the various comments and condemnations I hear regarding my disagreement with infant baptism do not go unheeded. I have had great conviction over whether I am neglecting my children by not accepting infant baptism for them and spent quite some time wrestling with this subject.
> 
> Setting aside covenant theology interpretations and circumstantial evidence in scripture of infant baptism, I would like to address the practical benefits of the ceremony itself. Needless to say, the ceremony itself is not the true Baptism, but a sign of it. That said... I believe it is safe to say the Baptismal ceremony commanded by Christ for us to execute is an _act._
> 
> ...


1. The WCF just says what it says. Either you agree with it, or you don't; but it's no shock to find Presbyterians agreeing with its expressions. Under most situations, yours being an exceptional arrangement, a bald statement about whether neglecting a command is a "great sin" or not would hardly be controversial. And in your case, it is seldom brought out to wave in your face at church, I'm almost certain. That tells me they'd rather you were there, and conforming to conscience; than going elsewhere with less access to the means of grace.

2. Practical benefits. Certainly the Presbyterian admits a practical value; in some venues, what we claim as a _practical value _would strike some Baptists as "too close to Romanism" for their taste. Our view is hostile to Rome's, but we do regard baptism as a means of grace; and so too do we regard the ancient prescription given to Abraham, and continued in the nation of Israel, regarding the application of the covenant sign of the former ages.

We also take vows, in conjunction with baptism. Sometimes those vows are taken by an adult convert. And with children, we expect a believing parent (and member) to take vows. Moreover, later on when communing at the Table is appropriate for a child baptized in infancy, we obtain public vows by them for themselves.

You point out that in your view, baptism is *primarily* a public "vow that facilitates conviction for the person making their profession of faith." This would be a difference between what is primary for you, and what is primary for our view.

We regard baptism as *primarily *a public declaration by God, through the church (so, an institutional act, moreso than an individual act), whereby certain declarations (promises) are made unto faith--whenever, wherever that faith shows itself, not once but many perhaps thousands of times in a man's life. It is a gospel promise: that God will cleanse his believer from all sin, even you [enter name here] as by faith you take hold of his promise. In testimony of this promise, God's mark or branding of ownership is applied; externally the instrument is pure water.

Now, since the Body of Christ is single, every baptism one attends is affirmation of the concept, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." We are duty bound (WCL.167) to improve each person his own baptism "when we are present at the administration of it to others." We may not recall the time of administration of that baptism to ourselves; however none of us remembers his literal birthday either; but many times rejoices over the fact of it.

Just so, not everyone (even adults) has a clear memory of his reception of baptism. But vastly more important than the memory is _the substance of the divine promise _being claimed in the present moment. Anyone who rests solely in the fact he was baptized, and does not unite that act with the faith of which it was intended to be a witness, is deluded.

There is no necessary "tension or forced dichotomy" between those baptized young or old, because the validation of baptism to the Presbyterian is not grounded in either the personal affirmation or the (un)reliability of human memory. Baptism's validity is grounded in the divine promise of the gospel, and the memorial of it is typically accessed through the testimony of external witnesses, especially the official record of the church together with those who participated/observed.

I may remember passing my driver's test, and even getting my DL. But those memories do not "count" when I get stopped and am asked to produce evidence that I am driving with permission. My private, individual word may be true (and for some, the assertion is a lie), but is not on account of that self-serving testimony of value in a traffic stop; or elsewhere where proof of my identity is made by producing the item. A DL is a _prima facie, _third-party evidence that I am who I say, and I'm entitled to drive the public roads.​
I'm not aiming to reduce or eliminate the value you have placed on the personal witness often associated _immediately _with baptism; nor downplay the worth of the memory. But memory fades, and sometimes is lost. And yet, nothing baptism affirms is really lost in the mists of the mind.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## Wretched Man (Jan 23, 2020)

Romans922 said:


> Look, you said you wanted to focus on the practical issue of giving the sacramental sign to a child/infant or let's say for someone who doesn't have faith (since many adults/teenagers are baptized who don't have saving faith). So at least to me you didn't want to talk about the doctrine of infant baptism so much as what are the practical benefits of it. Not a bad question. So using Scripture to interpret Scripture, what better place to go then to see what is perhaps more clear to everyone and that is the covenant sign of circumcision that was applied to the Jews under the Abrahamic Covenant? Given the following similarities of both physical and spiritual circumcision and physical and spiritual baptism (below), it seems quite relevant in answering your own question of the practical benefits of baptism (not just infant baptism, but the plain sign of the covenant promise of baptism) that one quote Romans 3:1-2. Now, of course, that includes a context of Romans 2 and what follows 3:1-2. But it's quite clear that there is some benefit to covenant signs. And given that the Abraham covenant sign of circumcision was applied to males both adult and infants, then it too applies here to your question concerning the practicality of applying water baptism to adults and infants.
> 
> 
> *Circumcision and Baptism (see this link for Scripture references)*
> ...


I asked about the practical benefits of _baptism_ - not circumcision. You of course want to presuppose circumcision is a replacement for baptism.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 23, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> I asked about the practical benefits of _baptism_ - not circumcision. You of course want to presuppose *circumcision is a replacement for baptism*.


That is incorrect. 

At the same time there seems to be a close association of the meaning behind circumcision and baptism in Colossians.


Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 
Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;


----------



## Wretched Man (Jan 23, 2020)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> That is incorrect.
> 
> At the same time there seems to be a close association of the meaning behind circumcision and baptism in Colossians.
> 
> ...


Well I asked about baptism and he responds with benefits o


Contra_Mundum said:


> 1. The WCF just says what it says. Either you agree with it, or you don't; but it's no shock to find Presbyterians agreeing with its expressions. Under most situations, yours being an exceptional arrangement, a bald statement about whether neglecting a command is a "great sin" or not would hardly be controversial. And in your case, it is seldom brought out to wave in your face at church, I'm almost certain. That tells me they'd rather you were there, and conforming to conscience; than going elsewhere with less access to the means of grace.
> 
> 2. Practical benefits. Certainly the Presbyterian admits a practical value; in some venues, what we claim as a _practical value _would strike some Baptists as "too close to Romanism" for their taste. Our view is hostile to Rome's, but we do regard baptism as a means of grace; and so too do we regard the ancient prescription given to Abraham, and continued in the nation of Israel, regarding the application of the covenant sign of the former ages.
> 
> ...


Did you forget taking your wedding vows?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 23, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> Did you forget taking your wedding vows?


My ex-wife evidently did 20 years ago.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 23, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> Well I asked about baptism and he responds with benefits o


The benefits are the same as the tree remains the same. 


Rom 11:16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
Rom 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
Rom 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
Rom 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
Rom 11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Rom 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

I believe the benefits of the covenant signs are the same in all administrations. They identify us to a people and give us the benefits of dwelling with and being under the protections of that membership.


----------



## Wretched Man (Jan 23, 2020)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> My ex-wife evidently did 20 years ago.


I’m sorry, I meant to reply to the other guy who mentioned the loss of memory as somehow a discrediting to the value of oath taking. The point I was making is I view wedding vows similarly to Baptism vows. We are in part professing our acceptance and loyalty to God. This, at least for me, served me with a helpful source of lasting conviction (for both my marriage and with God). I hope my children will some day experience similar convictions, as helped by this sacrament/ordinance.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 23, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> I asked about the practical benefits of _baptism_ - not circumcision. You of course want to presuppose circumcision is a replacement for baptism.



That I did why? Even as a baptist someone can see the parallel of what I provided before and the connections that were made by the link I shared. You don't have to agree with it being a replacement, you should still be able to see the similarities between the two as covenant signs. All covenant signs have practical benefits, passover, circumcision, Lord's supper, baptism. They all have practical benefits for all recipients. That's all I'm saying. And if Passover and the Lord's supper are so similar, and Circumcision and Baptism are so similar according to God's word then there are helpful things to learn about them. Even as Randy quoted Colossians 2 - they communicate the same things in the application of them. The practical benefits are communicated by Scripture. 

Besides this, have you spoken to your OPC pastor? He's the best one who is going to help you with this question. It's much easier to engage a person in direct communication sitting together, and besides this you will be doing this in that congregation. I encourage you to go sit with him and discuss these things.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Wretched Man (Jan 23, 2020)

Romans922 said:


> That I did why? Even as a baptist someone can see the parallel of what I provided before and the connections that were made by the link I shared. You don't have to agree with it being a replacement, you should still be able to see the similarities between the two as covenant signs. All covenant signs have practical benefits, passover, circumcision, Lord's supper, baptism. They all have practical benefits for all recipients. That's all I'm saying. And if Passover and the Lord's supper are so similar, and Circumcision and Baptism are so similar according to God's word then there are helpful things to learn about them. Even as Randy quoted Colossians 2 - they communicate the same things in the application of them. The practical benefits are communicated by Scripture.
> 
> Besides this, have you spoken to your OPC pastor? He's the best one who is going to help you with this question. It's much easier to engage a person in direct communication sitting together, and besides this you will be doing this in that congregation. I encourage you to go sit with him and discuss these things.


I’m trying to avoid getting into covenantal arguments because I don’t feel mature enough in my understanding yet to properly speak to it (I have several books to tackle from both sides).

Simply stated, I see tremendous practical value (beyond just signs which are also valuable) in the oath taking element - i.e. Romans 10:9 - of Baptism. And I just can’t understand why we would want to remove that from this ordinance.

We have an incoming pastor who I intend to speak with on this and membership. The main reason why I joined this board actually was to get my head around this and prepare for that conversation. Unfortunately I have to say, so far the comments from the paedobaptism side on here have been highly discouraging... and I am beginning to reconsider attending the OPC church.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 23, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> Did you forget taking your wedding vows?


You'll have to clarify what you may be getting at. I wrote a longish post addressing your questions, and I tried to do so in a respectful manner.

A one-liner rejoinder that a) quotes the whole thing and b) asks what seems like an unrelated question (vows analogy?) doesn't seem to me to have done any serious interaction with my attempt.

I'm pretty sure you are treated respectfully at the OPC church you attend. Here, you asked the questions, maybe ones you've avoided there. Different people, with different personalities and styles have offered responses. How you choose to respond to one or all is up to you.


Wretched Man said:


> I’m sorry, I meant to reply to the other guy who mentioned the loss of memory as somehow a discrediting to the value of oath taking. The point I was making is I view wedding vows similarly to Baptism vows. We are in part professing our acceptance and loyalty to God. This, at least for me, served me with a helpful source of lasting conviction (for both my marriage and with God). I hope my children will some day experience similar convictions, as helped by this sacrament/ordinance.


I guess this is related?

I really don't think you followed my answer, where I went through your post and offered some perspective. TL/DR, I guess...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 23, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> I’m trying to avoid getting into covenantal arguments


You will find yourself lacking then because the signs are based upon Covenantal understanding. That is true for the Baptist and the Reformed Christian. The issue that turned me was coming to grips with the whole of scripture and the Covenants. 

"As a Reformed Baptist, whenever I would debate issues concerning church membership and baptism I viewed the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant to be different substantially. Since the New Covenant was purely an Administration of the Covenant of Grace it had a different membership make up than the Mosaic Covenant. The New Covenant membership was made up of those who were truly regenerate or Elect."....

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...nced-republication-and-mosaic-covenant-study/


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 23, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> so far the comments from the paedobaptism side on here have been highly discouraging



May I ask why that is so maybe I/we are just talking past you and not addressing exactly what you are asking.


----------



## Wretched Man (Jan 23, 2020)

Contra_Mundum said:


> You'll have to clarify what you may be getting at. I wrote a longish post addressing your questions, and I tried to do so in a respectful manner.
> 
> A one-liner rejoinder that a) quotes the whole thing and b) asks what seems like an unrelated question (vows analogy?) doesn't seem to me to have done any serious interaction with my attempt.
> 
> ...





Contra_Mundum said:


> You'll have to clarify what you may be getting at. I wrote a longish post addressing your questions, and I tried to do so in a respectful manner.
> 
> A one-liner rejoinder that a) quotes the whole thing and b) asks what seems like an unrelated question (vows analogy?) doesn't seem to me to have done any serious interaction with my attempt.
> 
> ...


It's a simple question. Sometimes I think in your quest to uphold an old Roman Catholic tradition, you guys get so bogged down in a game of mental gymnastics, you lose the forest for the trees. Our Lord provided us a valuable ordinance to act upon when we repent and believe. Acts 2:38. Why must I be accused by my Presbyterian "brethren" of great sin by desiring my children to _experience_ this?

How many times must I have to explain to people I'm witnessing to that their infant baptism didn't save them? Does your side not realize how misleading this is to people? I become more and more convinced the practice of infant baptism is propelled by our great accuser who relishes in the confusion it causes and avoidance of sound conviction for most people who are raised to rest on their infant baptism laurels.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 23, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> It's a simple question. Sometimes I think in your quest to uphold an old Roman Catholic tradition, you guys get so bogged down in a game of mental gymnastics, you lose the forest for the trees.



hey hey now brother. Is this necessary? You said you are still studying this issue, but then you use ad hominem? Are we really upholding an old papist tradition? You are accusing us and all presbyterians and other reformed people of doing mental gymnastics, but you said above you don't feel mature enough to discuss. Why not step back and try to understand our view fully before you respond with attacks? Though even the attacks I'm sure won't go very far on this board.

Ask a question of a different perspective and you will get a different perspective. Were you thinking you'd get a response that was Baptist in nature?

Now you want the answer to your question then honestly and humbly try to understand the answers you get, and if they don't make sense, ask follow up questions to try to make sense of what is being said.



> How many times must I have to explain to people I'm witnessing to that their infant baptism didn't save them?


No one here believes that, and anyone who has been baptized and believes that whether in baptist or reformed churches has misunderstood the meaning (and yes even some baptists believe this).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Wretched Man (Jan 23, 2020)

Romans922 said:


> hey hey now brother. Is this necessary? You said you are still studying this issue, but then you use ad hominem? Are we really upholding an old papist tradition? You are accusing us and all presbyterians and other reformed people of doing mental gymnastics, but you said above you don't feel mature enough to discuss. Why not step back and try to understand our view fully before you respond with attacks? Though even the attacks I'm sure won't go very far on this board.
> 
> Ask a question of a different perspective and you will get a different perspective. Were you thinking you'd get a response that was Baptist in nature?
> 
> ...


I've been on this board for a little over a week and have seen at least a dozen attacks on Reformed Baptists for being in "great sin" over their disagreement with infant baptism. I came on here to understand your side, open-minded to your position, yet whenever I ask questions, people get snippy with me.

I'm sorry I ever joined this blog. Sadly the deeper I go into reformed theology, the more division I experience. It's sad and I hope you all reflect on that. I'm done here.

Reactions: Like 1 | Sad 1


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 23, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> How many times must I have to explain to people I'm witnessing to that their infant baptism didn't save them?





Wretched Man said:


> I've been on this board for a little over a week and have seen at least a dozen attacks on Reformed Baptists for being in "great sin" over their disagreement with infant baptism. I came on here to understand your side, open-minded to your position, yet whenever I ask questions, people get snippy with me.



Well brother, that probably is because a baptist brother asked a question on this very topic... https://puritanboard.com/threads/do-you-believe-it-sin-to-neglect-baptism-of-infants.101107/ And here's another one started by what appears is a baptist brother looking for a critique: https://puritanboard.com/threads/cr...heology-and-biblical-theology-renihan.100676/

Here's another one: https://puritanboard.com/threads/communing-non-members.101068/ and another from a baptist brother: https://puritanboard.com/threads/help-me-understand-paedobaptism-as-a-credobaptist.101076/

We don't have baptism debates all the time, but when they come up they come up in clumps usually because other threads are started off a beginning thread. But again this is a confessional board, and that's what the WCF says. If you would've come 2 weeks ago, there were probably no baptism debates whatsoever going on. They come up in clumps. Now no other baptists are getting any more upset than normal on what the WCF says because we all know here that there are people who hold to the WCF and also the LBC. We disagree on the issue. We might even make fun of each other here and there but we move on.

No one on this thread has gotten snippy with you. You may be reading that into what we are saying, but we are merely attempting to answer your question.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 23, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> It's a simple question. *Sometimes I think in your quest to uphold an old Roman Catholic tradition*,





Wretched Man said:


> Why must I be *accused by my Presbyterian "brethren" of great sin* by desiring my children to _experience_ this?





Wretched Man said:


> *How many times must I have to explain to people I'm witnessing to that their infant baptism didn't save them?* Does your side not realize how misleading this is to people?


Nathan, 
I can appreciate the zeal you have to understand the significance of God's ordinances. I do not know you as you do not know me. All we are trying to do here is to help you understand our position. I hope you discover that you do not fully understand your Reformed brothers concerning this topic. It is something I had to learn about also. I didn't grow up in the Church and my only experience of Church growing up was Roman Catholic (my next door neighbors were Roman Catholic) and Campbellite Independent Christian Churches (Church of Christ types). Both of these groups believed that baptism saves (justifies) them even though one will baptize babies and the other won't. 

Reformed Baptist and Reformed Theologians do not believe that baptism makes anyone justified before God. I imagine that many will need to be told that as we share our faith with others. I have been around Presbyterians for the Past many years and I know a lot of people who grew up in Reformed Churches. I don't know a single kid who grew up in these Churches who believed that they were justified before God because they were Baptized. I do know that they hold their Covenant sign to be very important to them because their parents had them baptized and they were discipled and lead to a faith that did justify them before God. They were considered members of the Covenant Community by baptism and that Community became responsible for their nuture and admonition to love the Lord and seek his face. They count their infant baptism to be a very real witness of what Christ did for them and how he took them and placed them into his body here on earth. That is what circumcision did back in the Old testament as it signified membership in Israel and Baptism does the same for us in the New Covenant. If a person was refused circumcision in the Old Covenant they were not allowed to be Covenant members in National Israel. The same is true for the Church today. If you are not baptized you can not share in the blessings of being a member of the physical Church on earth. Now you may be justified and confess Christ as your saviour and not be baptized. But that would be sinful because Christ told the Church to go and baptize and make disciples. To neglect that is sinful. 

Gotta go right now. Someone just stopped by


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 23, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> It's a simple question. Sometimes I think in your quest to uphold an old Roman Catholic tradition, you guys get so bogged down in a game of mental gymnastics, you lose the forest for the trees. Our Lord provided us a valuable ordinance to act upon when we repent and believe. Acts 2:38. Why must I be accused by my Presbyterian "brethren" of great sin by desiring my children to _experience_ this?
> 
> How many times must I have to explain to people I'm witnessing to that their infant baptism didn't save them? Does your side not realize how misleading this is to people? I become more and more convinced the practice of infant baptism is propelled by our great accuser who relishes in the confusion it causes and avoidance of sound conviction for most people who are raised to rest on their infant baptism laurels.


That's truly an amazing response. And this will probably be my last interaction. It was not a "simple question," as a _follow up _to my reply--and I did answer you specifically. It was a non sequitor, at least so far as it made any sense to me.

In the first place, I went into detail that Presbyterians also take vows in connection with baptism. YOU never mentioned in your OP a connection you have made mentally with marriage vows. Your only mention of that was in a much later post. You are entitled to make a connection between one set of vows you have taken and another set. I may make a similar connection between the vows I took when I became a communicant, and my wedding vows. But simply analogizing from one set to another is not probative of the validity of said connection.

I explained why Presbyterians find grounding the validity of baptism in human words and memories less sure (not worthless) than grounding the validity in gospel promises. Brother, if you are in a wreck, and forget you took your vows, and that you are married--stories about such incidents are rare, but they happen--you are still married, even if you don't remember doing it. The other witnesses were there, the marriage certificate attests to it, the pictures. Your precious memory doesn't validate the marriage. Some people have even deluded themselves into "memories" of a marriage that never took place!

********************
Your belief that our views are simply papist leftovers is false, but that's what you were catechized to think. Obviously, you believe we are operating in "great sin" too. I don't know why you would object to the fact that we've confessed this position for 400yrs, when you turn around and tar us with Rome's brush.

This is the same Rome that killed our fellows by the tens of thousands in France and the Netherlands especially, and in other countries. Your unkindness is noted.

You believe baptism is primarily what YOU do, as you say again, "to act upon when we repent and believe." Baptism fundamentally _obedience; _whereas our opinion is that baptism is fundamentally _reception._ Baptism either fundamentally LAW or fundamentally GOSPEL. Take your pick.

How many times do people need to be told that their _Baptist Church Baptism _doesn't save them? Oh, that's a corruption of Baptist teaching? Well, so's the view that IB has already saved them. See, it works both ways.

Just because someone added a "profession of faith" on the day of their baptism didn't make that claim to true faith and election any more certain. Does the correlation of huge Baptist numbers, and the pernicious effects of "decision-conversion" typical in that stream, mean that the Devil loves to have so many hell-bound Baptists resting on their baptisms-and-vows?

Think about it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Wretched Man (Jan 23, 2020)

Romans922 said:


> Well brother, that probably is because a baptist brother asked a question on this very topic... https://puritanboard.com/threads/do-you-believe-it-sin-to-neglect-baptism-of-infants.101107/ And here's another one started by what appears is a baptist brother looking for a critique: https://puritanboard.com/threads/cr...heology-and-biblical-theology-renihan.100676/
> 
> Here's another one: https://puritanboard.com/threads/communing-non-members.101068/ and another from a baptist brother: https://puritanboard.com/threads/help-me-understand-paedobaptism-as-a-credobaptist.101076/
> 
> ...


You guys are probably right and I likely overreacted. It also doesn’t help that I’ve been trying to engage in this over my cellphone while at work... 

I think I probably need to take a break from this in any case. Needless to say, it’s been quite difficult and isolating for me as a reformed baptist.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Jan 23, 2020)

Didn’t the Reformers accept infant baptism? Isn’t infant baptism confirmed all the way back to the early church? I never understood the basis and the argument against infant baptism. The Bible doesn’t propose an age requirement to my knowledge.
*A Brief Defense of Infant Baptism *
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/a-brief-defense-of-infant-baptism/


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Jan 23, 2020)

A.Joseph said:


> Isn’t infant baptism confirmed all the way back to the early church?



Not even remotely close, no.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 23, 2020)

Nathan, we who have baptized our kids are not trying to be Catholics, nor do we all believe you are committing a great sin. I, for one, believe you are displaying godliness by seeking to better understand baptism and examining whether or not it is right to have your children baptized. The issue is complex, and it would be impractical for any of us to expect you to change your mind quickly. In fact, it would probably be foolish of us to urge you to change your mind quickly. The topic deserves in-depth study, and when you make the switch we want your mind to be convinced and your conscience to be clear.

I am a paedobaptist by conviction, currently in a Baptist church. So I know something of the many-sided issues involved, especially the difficulty of honoring God and conscience while at the same time submitting to one's elders who see things differently. And I am highly appreciative of how the elders in my church recognize that difficulty as well, and how they are concerned for my overall spiritual well-being and my conscience even as they enforce their beliefs. It sounds like you are in an OPC church where elders are patient and have that concern for you as well, and that is something to be thankful for. I trust that in return you are remaining teachable. It sounds like you are.

I will give you one answer (out of many good answers) to your question about the benefits of a child having been baptized. It is this: Baptism gives a child a great reason—the best reason!—to continue growing in the faith.

I teach a lot of Bible lessons, mostly to Baptist kids. I find they don't have a great answer to the question, "Why do you read the Bible and pray and try to practice faith and obedience to God?" In other words, "Why do you act like a disciple?" Baptist kids usually have self-based answers. If they think they are converted, they might say, "Because I've decided to be a Christian." Or else, they might say, "Because it's good for me" or "Because I want to believe someday." And if I'm thinking like most Baptists I know, I can't really come up with an answer for them that's much better.

But if I'm in front of a group of baptized, Presbyterian kids, I have a great and God-based answer to why they should act like a disciple: "Because God has declared that you are part of his family and a disciple of Jesus." Notice that I didn't pronounce them saved. But I did pronounce them to be disciples_ by the declaration of God_. This is a big part of what happens in baptism, and it makes a difference in how a young disciple goes about the task of discipleship. God's official claim on his life, pronounced through the church, means the duty is greater. The responsibility is greater. Also the help is greater. The confidence is greater. The joy is greater. The honor is greater. 

It means discipleship is not a self-improvement program for that child, but a calling from God, who has placed his mark of belonging on that child.

Now, in fairness to the best Baptists—those who are Reformed-minded, or those who know the importance of being "gospel-driven"—some Baptists manage to come up with similar-sounding answers. But I think even the best Baptist answers are not as rich as the Presbyterian answer. I had my kids baptized not only because I believed it was correct according to Scripture, but because I wanted them to have that certainty that God's mark and his calling was upon them. How can one be a disciple without it?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Andrew35 (Jan 24, 2020)

The OPC church my Baptist family attended "mistreated" us with a cake when we left. :'( Never felt more at home in a church. Though they couldn't convince us of covenant baptism. That would take the Reformed Baptists and the Lutherans. (It's complicated.)


----------



## De Jager (Jan 24, 2020)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Not even remotely close, no.


Augustine would disagree with you. I would think he would be in a position to comment on what the ancient church believed. But that is only a secondary support for the practice, anyway.

"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond."

https://heidelblog.net/2018/07/augu...ostolic-and-universal-practice-of-the-church/

As for the practicality of it. The baptism of a person does not have to benefit that person RIGHT THEN for it to be beneficial in the long run. The same goes for any sacrament. Sometimes we don't see the immediate fruit of obedience to God. One major way that baptism is practical is that it aids in the assurance of the free offer of the gospel. A baptized person can ask the question: is God willing to save sinners? They can answer: yes, yes he is 1) because the Bible testifies to it and 2) God has confirmed his testimony through the visible sign of baptism. Baptism teaches us that God is in the business of saving sinners, period. That should be great comfort to ANYONE who watches the sacrament, Baptist or reformed.


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 24, 2020)

@Wretched Man, I've been a member of this board for nearly 8 years, and I've never seen a Baptist complain that the folks here are unfriendly to their denomination--we have Baptist moderators for crying out loud. An assertion of the paedobaptist position is not a personal attack on Baptists.

If anything, your statement about paedobaptists seeking to maintain a Roman Catholic tradition is a personal attack on paedobaptists, insofar that it implies that our claim to hold our position theological and not historical grounds is false. Do you think we're being disingenuous when we say that we understand the Scriptural system of doctrine to include the baptism of infants?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Wretched Man (Jan 24, 2020)

TylerRay said:


> @Wretched Man, I've been a member of this board for nearly 8 years, and I've never seen a Baptist complain that the folks here are unfriendly to their denomination--we have Baptist moderators for crying out loud. An assertion of the paedobaptist position is not a personal attack on Baptists.
> 
> If anything, your statement about paedobaptists seeking to maintain a Roman Catholic tradition is a personal attack on paedobaptists, insofar that it implies that our claim to hold our position theological and not historical grounds is false. Do you think we're being disingenuous when we say that we understand the Scriptural system of doctrine to include the baptism of infants?


Multiple people on other threads have repeatedly stated those with Baptist views on infant baptism are in _great sin_. Call it what you want, but accusing me of being in great sin feels rather personal. Perhaps that carried over to this thread as they were on "Paedobaptist-response-only" threads and I was rebuked when I merely posed questions (which I later deleted).

I joined this board to discuss views and gain theological understanding. I have spent many hours (and will continue) studying covenant theology and the various arguments Paedobaptists use to support their views. I actually was a paedobaptist being raised Catholic and attending PCA churches for many years, but after exhaustive studying through Scriptures, praying, and questioning myself, I simply don't buy it.

I'm sorry if I ruffled feathers on this board. I will continue my theological pursuit elsewhere.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 24, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> Multiple people on other threads have repeatedly stated those with Baptist views on infant baptism are in _great sin_.



This is due to two things:

1) There is a thread on this very topic: https://puritanboard.com/threads/do-you-believe-it-sin-to-neglect-baptism-of-infants.101107/

2) This is language from the Westminster Confession of Faith and this is a Confessional board:



> 5. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,a yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it,b or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.c
> 
> a. Luke 7:30 with Exod 4:24-26. • b. Acts 10:2, 4, 22, 31, 45, 47; Rom 4:11. • c. Acts 8:13, 23.



What do you want people to say if that's their confession? Are any other baptists taking this personally? There are plenty of baptists on the PB, but none are taking it personally. Many presbyterians and baptists on this board, in real life, are great friends. In other words, I encourage you to stop taking it personally, and work to understand our view and why we believe this. If God commands it (as we believe) and it's a sacrament, then of course it is a great sin to neglect it. You'd say the same thing, for example, about the Lord's supper. If a professing Christian neglects partaking in the Supper that Christ has commanded us to partake in, that's a great sin. You'd agree, would you not?


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 24, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> Multiple people on other threads have repeatedly stated those with Baptist views on infant baptism are in _great sin_.


Brother, that's the language of the Westminster Confession. You shouldn't be surprised when a Presbyterian agrees with his own statement of faith. Nor should you take it personally. A consistent Baptist would think that I've sinned by having my children baptized, but you won't find me getting in a tizzy over a Baptist being consistent with his own doctrine.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Wretched Man (Jan 24, 2020)

Romans922 said:


> This is due to two things:
> 
> 1) There is a thread on this very topic: https://puritanboard.com/threads/do-you-believe-it-sin-to-neglect-baptism-of-infants.101107/
> 
> ...


You make good points and perhaps I am overly sensitive to that language in the WCF as I consider seeking membership in the OPC. The irony is I suspect most people attending Presbyterian churches have never read through the WCF nor really understand reformed theology. Yet people like me who have ready through and agree with over 95% of the confession are accused of being in great sin.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 24, 2020)

This is not a specific response to anyone/any post. Repeating something I left in the other recent thread:

Let it be be recognized that WCF 28.5 refers to the *whole doctrine of baptism *explained in the full four paragraphs above it.

Baptism (for Presbyterians) _includes_ infants in the doctrine; and the expression "a great sin" does not only refer to the contemning and neglect of the baptism of infants, but a _general contemning and neglect_ of the holy ordinance of baptism.

I think the Baptist brethren would largely agree with the contention that despising or disregarding a divine appointment (disagree with us as they may on the proper subjects) is properly sinful.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 24, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> Yet people like me who have ready through and agree with over 95% of the confession are accused of being in great sin.


I was in your shoes for many years. I was a member of the Church I am currently a member at in the late 80's. I was a Reformed Baptist then. When I got married I left to become a member of a Calvinistic Baptist Church where I was a member for over a decade. After my divorce I left that Church to regain some of my spiritual equilibrium. The divorce was really rough on me and my 3 boys. We ended up going to a PCA church plant for a while. I was never forced to believe in paedo baptism. I tried to understand the paedo position but was conflicted and confused by differing Covenant Theological views even by supposed Reformed Theologians. Thankfully this issue was never crammed down my throat nor forced upon me and my sons. My sons were all baptized by their Papaw in the Baptist Church he was ordained in based upon their profession of belief at an early age. 

In 2010 I started to see that the language I was using concerning the covenants was being used differently than how I understood it. We were using the same terminology but defining things differently. It took me many years to figure that out. I am kind of slow sometimes. Like Pooh bear, I am a bear of very little brain with some fluff stuck in my ear. Take your time and grow in your conviction. I know guys who have changed from Paedo to Credo only. Just remember to be loving since we are all brothers.

One more thing. This is an internet forum and attitude and emotion are difficult to perceive. So try to take everything read here with a grain of salt when it comes to trying to perceive attitude. Yes, we can be persnickety but that doesn't mean we don't care or are being unloving.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K (Jan 24, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> I'm sorry if I ruffled feathers on this board. I will continue my theological pursuit elsewhere.



Or... you could recognize that some comments were an attempt to defend the confessions rather than a personal attack that was all about you, and that it is not uncommon on a theological message board to encounter people who are quick to make theological assertions but perhaps not so attuned to the nuances of doing so in a way that is pastorally helpful and sensitive. Most of us have failed that way at some point.

Certainly, you also should be speaking to the leaders at your local Presbyterian church about this. But despite our faults here, it is unlikely you will find a better online community for walking through this issue than the community on this board. If you can come in with a thick enough skin, you can probably learn something.

And as you surely should have noticed, not every paedobaptist here would take the language of Westminster and apply it to you in your situation. Internally, we have been debating the wisdom and appropriateness of that. Also, several of us have attempted to be helpful and pastoral toward you, and to assume the best about you and your motives, while still affirming what we believe. If you are willing to listen and learn, I think you can find help here.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Jan 24, 2020)

De Jager said:


> Augustine would disagree with you. I would think he would be in a position to comment on what the ancient church believed.



If you were to ask Augustine why infants ought to be baptized, he would give you a reason that you certainly do not agree with, and he would tell you that this also came from the ancient church. Not too impressed with the argument being made here.


----------



## De Jager (Jan 24, 2020)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> If you were to ask Augustine why infants ought to be baptized, he would give you a reason that you certainly do not agree with, and he would tell you that this also came from the ancient church. Not too impressed with the argument being made here.



I don't think anyone is or should argue that paedobaptism is biblical because the ECF did it. That isn't the question: the question is - is this a practice that goes back to the early church?

I fully admit that the ECF had weird understandings of things. I don't hold my reformed convictions because the ECF also baptized. But we must also realize that St. Augustine_ is_ in fact a historical source that we need to reckon with. Even if he didn't know_ why_ people should baptize infants that in no way reduces his credibility in terms of using his eyes and observing a practice, and his historical credibility in terms of telling us the historicity of that practice. It's like Pliny making the observation of early Christians singing hymns. Do we think that Pliny understood the theology of the hymns? Not likely. However that doesn't mean he couldn't use his eyes and ears and make the observation "these people are singing hymns". And we don't question his testimony because he didn't understand the theology. 

This misunderstanding of baptism by the early church simply does not imply that infant baptism is wrong any more than the misunderstanding of baptism among current churches in the south makes credo-baptism wrong. As far as I am concerned, the testimony of the ECF only tells that this was a common practice in the early church, at least in the time of Augustine.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 24, 2020)

Agreed Izaak. Even formulations of the Trinity were better understood and developed more precisely a few centuries after Christ.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Jan 24, 2020)

De Jager said:


> ... But we must also realize that St. Augustine_ is_ in fact a historical source that we need to reckon with.



Sure, if he had been present in the primitive church to observe that infant baptism was taking place, I'd be all ears. But the fact is that Augustine comes from 350 years after the primitive church and we have no one from the primitive church who mentions the practice of infant baptism at all.

Again, when the question asked is "Isn’t infant baptism confirmed all the way back to the early church?", I am still 100% confident in my answer: No, certainly not.


----------



## De Jager (Jan 25, 2020)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Sure, if he had been present in the primitive church to observe that infant baptism was taking place, I'd be all ears. But the fact is that Augustine comes from 350 years after the primitive church and we have no one from the primitive church who mentions the practice of infant baptism at all.
> 
> Again, when the question asked is "Isn’t infant baptism confirmed all the way back to the early church?", I am still 100% confident in my answer: No, certainly not.



Your certainty is admirable. I guess it depends on what you need to see before something is "confirmed", and also what one means by the "early church". 

But I fail to see how someone needs to be alive to witness something before we take their claim seriously. Do we really think that Augustine made up the quote out of thin air? He could have. But it is not very likely. 

There also seems to be mention of the practice by those living before Augustine as well. (Origen, and in the Apostolic Tradition attributed to St. Hippolytus). We also don't read much if at all of a controversy due to the introduction of the practice.

Ultimately I know this won't convince you but I am convinced things are not quite as "certain" as you make them sound.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 25, 2020)

Add to this that Augustine had access to far more resources than we do. It goes without saying either he was no dunce.... to say the absolute least. And Origen about 100 years before made a similar claim. Augustine was born about the distance of time from the death of the apostle John as today is from the Revolutionary War. That's not much.

But if it's our burden of proof to show they argued for paedobaptism for the reasons we do, then we may also ask to see the Augustinian era credobaptists who argued for late baptism on the basis that:

1) No infants are mentioned as baptized in the NT
2) The New Covenant is new in such a way that those who are not regenerate are excluded, thus no one not professing--infant or non--should be baptized

Perhaps the EC did not think of paedobaptism from a full blown covenantal stance, yet I am not aware of anyone in that time opposing infant baptism on the grounds that credobaptists do today.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Jan 25, 2020)

De Jager said:


> Your certainty is admirable.



My certainty that something isn't certain? Ok....



> I guess it depends on what you need to see before something is "confirmed", and also what one means by the "early church".



Early Church = Apostolic and immediate post-Apostolic age.

For something to be "confirmed" back to the Apostolic and post-Apostolic age would require some kind of witness, either human, archaeological, SOMETHING rather than the nothing that we currently have for the first 180 - 200 years of church history.



> But I fail to see how someone needs to be alive to witness something before we take their claim seriously. Do we really think that Augustine made up the quote out of thin air? He could have. But it is not very likely.



No one said Augustine had to have made it up. I am certain (hehe) that Augustine sincerely believed (as you do) that infant baptist is of New Testament era origin. But just at my job where I have been for 20 years for example, I am well aware of practices that are innovations since I started which newer employees have told me with a straight face "this is how it has always been done", and I know better. 



> There also seems to be mention of the practice by those living before Augustine as well. (Origen, and in the Apostolic Tradition attributed to St. Hippolytus). We also don't read much if at all of a controversy due to the introduction of the practice.



Origen... oh boy.



> Ultimately I know this won't convince you but I am convinced things are not quite as "certain" as you make them sound.



You're convinced that my certainty about the lack of certainty of infant baptism is certainly superior to my certainty about the lack of certainty? OK...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager (Jan 25, 2020)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Early Church = Apostolic and immediate post-Apostolic age.
> 
> For something to be "confirmed" back to the Apostolic and post-Apostolic age would require some kind of witness, either human, archaeological, SOMETHING rather than the nothing that we currently have for the first 180 - 200 years of church history.



I have to be honest - I found your post contained a lot of snarkiness. Forgive me if I instigated that, brother, but I did find it distasteful.

You are obviously a very passionate baptist. Ultimately we won't settle and shouldn't settle this based on church history or lack thereof. We both know that there were some things that happened in the early church that we certainly don't practice or believe today. If we are to practice something we must be convinced by the scriptures.

But I would like to ask, what is the "apostolic age"? Certainly up to AD 95-100 when John died. What then is the "immediate post-Apostolic age"? Who defines that? What is your standard? 50 years? 100 years? You speak of the "immediate post-Apostolic age" like it is a category defined by historians. In the "Apostolic Tradition" attributed to St. Hippolytus (170-235 AD) we have the explicit mention of the baptism of small children. That's ~100 years after the death of the last apostle. Is that in the "immediate post-apostolic age" or beyond it?? It is a genuine question. Also is it not interesting that we also do not find a plethora of writings debating the practice? That is also surely significant it it was indeed an intrusion of a non-apostolic practice into the church. But of course I am sure you believe that there was no debate because it didn't exist. And we will just go in circles.

I think our respective stances on this issue are going to colour our reading of the history if not a little bit than a lot. I mean, a reformed person would say that IB or at least the basis for it is clearly implied in Acts 16 which is pretty early in church history . A baptist would say that it implies nothing.

I pray that you would have a good day and that God would comfort you with the things signified in the physical sign of baptism - the washing away of your sins by the blood of Christ, the renewal of the Holy Spirit, and being united to Christ in His death and resurrection.

Regards,

Izaak


----------



## Wretched Man (Jan 25, 2020)

All, I regret posting this thread. I should have realized this had been a hotly debated topic. I sincerely did not intend to stir division and apologize for any inappropriate comments I may have made.

I attempted to delete this thread, but can’t figure out how to... can anyone provide me instruction for how to remove it or may a moderator do so?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 25, 2020)

Moderating:

At this stage I will not delete the thread. I request that all remember that there are people from all walks of life on the Puritanboard. We represent different countries, different Reformed traditions, and all of us have our own unique personalities. In the truest sense this diversity is a good thing. Prov 27:17 "_As_ iron sharpens iron, So a man sharpens the countenance of his friend." As a man from "down under" it has been a blessed learning curve to learn from my beloved brethren in countries thousands of miles from me.

But equally we must remember the scriptural requirement to be loving and gracious to our fellow brethren. Phil 4:5 "Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. *The Lord is at hand*". 1 Cor 13:4-7 "Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; *it is not arrogant or rude. *It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. *Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
*
I am not perfect with my own comments. I am a sinner who can get irritated quickly. I appreciate the difficulty one may have when someone disagrees. Here is my suggestion if you are having a difficulty with a post. You will notice at the right hand side of the screen a "*more options*" icon. Push that rather than the "post reply" icon. This gives you an opportunity to check your message for spelling and grammar errors. More importantly, it gives you time to consider if your message complies with Phil 4:5, and 1 Cor 13:4-7. Then press the "*preview" *icon. This gives you another opportunity to check these things. Sometimes I press preview more than once if I want to check my message even more thoroughly. After all, what we post affects all who read it.

Then, before you push the "reply to thread" icon, ask yourself if you can truly say to your opponent:
"*May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope*." Rom 15:13

This verse in Romans has been especially precious to me this year. May we all meditate on the above verses and become true models of Christian love one to another.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Wretched Man (Jan 25, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Moderating:
> 
> At this stage I will not delete the thread. I request that all remember that there are people from all walks of life on the Puritanboard. We represent different countries, different Reformed traditions, and all of us have our own unique personalities. In the truest sense this diversity is a good thing. Prov 27:17 "_As_ iron sharpens iron, So a man sharpens the countenance of his friend." As a man from "down under" it has been a blessed learning curve to learn from my beloved brethren in countries thousands of miles from me.
> 
> ...


Fair enough. I appreciate everyone’s thoughts and have much to consider and many books to read.

Reactions: Like 4


----------

