# Baptism



## Scott (Jun 11, 2004)

This is an interesting article:
http://www.stlukesrec.org/dunlap2.html

There is alot in there worthy of discussion. What do you think about this statement:

[quote:c3fa992f23]
But for the theological descendents of Calvin (especially English Puritanism), it was a different story. Undue speculation on the eternal counsel of God in election led to a devaluation of the sacraments as objective means of grace altogether. Viewing sacraments as vehicles or instruments of grace was held to be suspect, even though the language was occasionally still employed. What was important to this whole new generation of &quot;reformed&quot; Christians was determining whether one was within the company of the eternally elect. Baptism could not tell you that. Communion could not tell you that. In fact, the only certain indications of one's &quot;elect status&quot; (according to some) were the subjective evidences of one's election: the sincerity of faith and its requisite fruition (i.e., good works). Moreover, these &quot;evidences&quot; were oftentimes judged against a qualitative standard too rigorous for all but those whose faith approached Olympian proportions. At best, the sacraments are consigned to the role of &quot;acted parables,&quot; designed merely to excite faith. The focus of personal assurance is shifted from the objective signs of God's grace to the subjective evidences of one's conscience.6 Whereas Luther, when pained with oppressive doubts of his status in Christ, could rest assured in the objective fact of his baptism, a whole new generation of Protestants were being taught, at least implicitly, to distrust the objective outward signs as inherently deceptive in terms of personal assurance. 
[/quote:c3fa992f23]

Related in footnote 7, which is about a topic of embarasment to fans of American Puritans:

[quote:c3fa992f23]
An illustration of the absurdity of the subjectivist model can be seen in the Half-Way Covenant theology of 18th century New England Puritanism. The second generation of New England Puritans did not happen to share the religious zeal of the first generation who had fled England. As a result many of the second generation were denied full communicant status in their churches. Yet their children were still admitted to baptism based on the fact that they themselves had been baptized. Thus they were considered to be in the covenant &quot;half-way.&quot;
[/quote:c3fa992f23]

Scott


----------



## Scott (Jun 11, 2004)

A Presbyterian church I used be be a member of had kids give a public testimony of how God saved them - basically sounded like a conversion story. It was done when they became communicant members. I always was uncomfortable with this. Anyway, it seems a bit like the halfway covenant.

Scott


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 12, 2004)

[quote:941d5007e0]But for the theological descendents of Calvin (especially English Puritanism), it was a different story. Undue speculation on the eternal counsel of God in election led to a devaluation of the sacraments as objective means of grace altogether. Viewing sacraments as vehicles or instruments of grace was held to be suspect, even though the language was occasionally still employed. What was important to this whole new generation of &quot;reformed&quot; Christians was determining whether one was within the company of the eternally elect. Baptism could not tell you that. Communion could not tell you that. In fact, the only certain indications of one's &quot;elect status&quot; (according to some) were the subjective evidences of one's election: the sincerity of faith and its requisite fruition (i.e., good works). Moreover, these &quot;evidences&quot; were oftentimes judged against a qualitative standard too rigorous for all but those whose faith approached Olympian proportions. At best, the sacraments are consigned to the role of &quot;acted parables,&quot; designed merely to excite faith. The focus of personal assurance is shifted from the objective signs of God's grace to the subjective evidences of one's conscience.6 Whereas Luther, when pained with oppressive doubts of his status in Christ, could rest assured in the objective fact of his baptism, a whole new generation of Protestants were being taught, at least implicitly, to distrust the objective outward signs as inherently deceptive in terms of personal assurance.[/quote:941d5007e0]

:no::thumbdown::no:

I like what the Anglicans have to say about this. This should be a true statement: [b:941d5007e0]You are saved because you are baptized, unless you fall away.[/b:941d5007e0] Election is hidden. And as the Anglicans said, we are tired of &quot;fruit-searchers.&quot; If we search for our fruits, we are essentially looking for an element of [i:941d5007e0]our working[/i:941d5007e0] out of salvation. Are we really to look for our sanctification for evidence of being saved? Or are we to look to Christ and the blessedness and efficaciousness of his baptism whereby we died and rose with Christ?

In Christ,
Paul


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 13, 2004)

[quote:89e39f3b3c]
You are saved because you are baptized, unless you fall away. 
[/quote:89e39f3b3c]

This statement is nonsense.

You are saved because you are elected, and have the righteousness of Christ's active and passive obedience imputed to you, not because you were baptized.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Romans 5:1-2 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Galatians 2:16 &quot;knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. 

Let's be sure we do not mess up the Gospel.

Baptism is a fruit of salvation, not a cause or instirument of it.
It is a sign and seal, not the thing itself.


----------



## Ianterrell (Jun 13, 2004)

[quote:4c32c52c6b][i:4c32c52c6b]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:4c32c52c6b]
[b:4c32c52c6b]You are saved because you are baptized, unless you fall away.[/b:4c32c52c6b] [/quote:4c32c52c6b]

Steve Schissel says the same thing. I dunno I keep thinking of what Paul says &quot;circumcision is nothing, uncircumcision is nothing&quot;. Matt's right. We are saved by grace, not the signs of grace.


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 13, 2004)

What's wrong with saying that the signs of grace are assurance of grace?

[quote:26b5f41113]You are saved because you are elected, and have the righteousness of Christ's active and passive obedience imputed to you, not because you were baptized.[/quote:26b5f41113]

Sure, you are saved because of all kinds of things: election, regeneration, faith and repentance etc. etc. Election is just the first step, right? Baptism is our assurance of all that. What is wrong with saying that, given I understand that election is initiated by God? I don't think the Christian life is some sort of suspence movie whereby we look around the corner to see if we are elect. Baptism should be the witness to that: our assurance that we have died and rose with Christ.

Paul

[Edited on 6-13-2004 by rembrandt]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 13, 2004)

[quote:733bf40648][i:733bf40648]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:733bf40648]
What's wrong with saying that the signs of grace are assurance of grace?

[quote:733bf40648]You are saved because you are elected, and have the righteousness of Christ's active and passive obedience imputed to you, not because you were baptized.[/quote:733bf40648]

Sure, you are saved because of all kinds of things: election, regeneration, faith and repentance etc. etc. Election is just the first step, right? Baptism is our assurance of all that. What is wrong with saying that, given I understand that election is initiated by God? I don't think the Christian life is some sort of suspence movie whereby we look around the corner to see if we are elect. Baptism should be the witness to that: our assurance that we have died and rose with Christ.

Paul

[Edited on 6-13-2004 by rembrandt] [/quote:733bf40648]

Paul,
I have to be honest with you. The more you talk, the more confused you seem to be. One is not saved because of &quot;all kinds of things&quot;. There are different fruits of regeneration and conversion, but none of these fruits actually [i:733bf40648]save[/i:733bf40648]. 

Election, you say, is &quot;[i:733bf40648]the first step[/i:733bf40648]&quot;. These are not steps per se. To assume there are steps, shows that men are not justified by faith alone, but by a step, a work. Is it possible that you have misunderstood the ordo salutis to be seen as steps [i:733bf40648]men[/i:733bf40648] take in their salvation?

You also say:
&quot;Election is just the first step, right? Baptism is our assurance of all that.&quot;

Unless one is an adult when baptised, how could the gift of repentance be seen in an infant?

You add:
&quot;given I understand that election is initiated by God?&quot;

Initiated??? This is an ordination; a decree.........Initiated sounds as if God starts the process of salvation and men take the baton and run with it, complete the process.

Phil 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

[Edited on 6-13-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 13, 2004)

[quote:3766107cef]Paul, 
I have to be honest with you. The more you talk, the more confused you seem to be. One is not saved because of &quot;all kinds of things&quot;. There are different fruits of regeneration and conversion, but none of these fruits actually save.[/quote:3766107cef] 

Each one implies/assumes God's eternal decree of election. So yes, I think I could say that regeneration etc. is a part of salvation.

[quote:3766107cef]Election, you say, is &quot;the first step&quot;. These are not steps per se. To assume there are steps, shows that men are not justified by faith alone, but by a step, a work. Is it possible that you have misunderstood the ordo salutis to be seen as steps men take in their salvation?[/quote:3766107cef]

Um no. Of course I didn't mean that they are steps that [i:3766107cef]men[/i:3766107cef] take. They are ordered by God! And yes I do understand the ordo salutis. Not all of it is completed at the same time, much of it is wrought out in history (while we are alive), so what is wrong with saying that each is a step? Is not each part God's outworking of his grace in us? And if all these don't happen at the same time, then it could be said to be a [i:3766107cef]process[/i:3766107cef] sovereignly determined in his eternal decree.

[quote:3766107cef]Initiated??? This is an ordination; a decree.........Initiated sounds as if God starts the process of salvation and men take the baton and run with it, complete the process.[/quote:3766107cef]

&quot;Initiated&quot; is not a good word? You don't think God initiated salvation? Who did initiate it then? 

I don't know about you guys. You take whatever I say in the worst possible way.

Paul


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 13, 2004)

Paul explains:
&quot;Um no. Of course I didn't mean that they are steps that men take. They are ordered by God! And yes I do understand the ordo salutis. Not all of it is completed at the same time, much of it is wrought out in history (while we are alive), so what is wrong with saying that each is a step? Is not each part God's outworking of his grace in us? And if all these don't happen at the same time, then it could be said to be a process sovereignly determined in his eternal decree. &quot;

Ok. Understood. And for the record, I have defended you in our administrative meetings here on PB. It is possible that you are you are not being clear enough in your statements.

[Edited on 6-13-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Craig (Jun 13, 2004)

I doubt that the Puritan understanding of baptism cause them :
[quote:ee0082f06a]
to distrust the objective outward signs as inherently deceptive in terms of personal assurance. 
[/quote:ee0082f06a]
I don't think deceptive is the right word at all. When you look at baptism (especially infant baptism) you see it as something you did NOT do. It was applied to you...just as God sovereignly applies regeneration within us. 

It's really strange....I agreed wholeheartedly with you guys (Scott B. and Webmaster) in how you refuted Rembrandt...I am not sure how you affirm presumptive regeneration and explain the biblical understanding at the same time 


[quote:ee0082f06a]
&quot;Initiated&quot; is not a good word? You don't think God initiated salvation? 
[/quote:ee0082f06a]
Initiated, Supplied, and Applied. Baptism doesn't initiate regeneration, although it is a precursur and a declaration of the Gospel to prepare the recipient....you know, the way Peter explained it in 1 Peter 3


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 13, 2004)

[quote:e47f5cfc9f]Initiated, Supplied, and Applied. Baptism doesn't initiate regeneration, although it is a precursur and a declaration of the Gospel to prepare the recipient....you know, the way Peter explained it in 1 Peter 3[/quote:e47f5cfc9f]

Just so you know, I said &quot;ELECTION is initiated by God.&quot; And of course &quot;supplied and applied.&quot;


----------



## Craig (Jun 13, 2004)

[quote:8fd43ef7e3]
Just so you know, I said &quot;ELECTION is initiated by God.&quot; And of course &quot;supplied and applied.&quot;
[/quote:8fd43ef7e3]
Glad you're still affirming those things.


----------



## Scott (Jun 14, 2004)

What are people's thoughts on the half-way covenant, which is mentioned in FN 7?

Scott


----------



## Scott (Jun 14, 2004)

Matt wrote: &quot;You are saved because you are elected, and have the righteousness of Christ's active and passive obedience imputed to you, not because you were baptized.&quot;

Matt, I think you are using &quot;saved&quot; to mean &quot;justified.&quot; And I think you are understanding &quot;saved by baptism&quot; to mean that baptism is an instrument of justification. If so, I agree with what you are saying. Faith is the alone instrument of our justification. 

Yet, it is entirely appropriate to say that baptism saves or is effectual to salvation. Here are two passages from the Bible:

[quote:88811a6820]
. . . this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand--with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him. 1 Peter 3.
[/quote:88811a6820]

[quote:88811a6820]
Mark:16:15-16: He said to them, &quot;Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
[/quote:88811a6820]

The Larger Catechism says that the sacraments are effectual means of salvation:

[quote:88811a6820]
Q. 161. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered, but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they are instituted
[/quote:88811a6820]

Saying baptism saves is equivalent to saying the preaching of the Word saves. To say the Word saves does not mean that justification is not by faith alone, as if the Word and faith were separate instruments of justification. Most modern Reformed don't have a problem saying the latter (the Word saves) although there seems to be alot of resistance to saying the former (the sacraments save).

Scott


----------



## Scott (Jun 14, 2004)

For what it's worth, my experience in PCA churches has been that the attitudes described in the quote from the article are not only common but a strong majority view (at least in the churches I have been involved with). It also sounds similar to the idea of the halfway covenant. 

Many people look for the children to exhibit a &quot;decision,&quot; which is seen as the real turning point in the child's life, as opposed to their baptism. Often, other devices will be used to record this decision, like a card or sign or something, to exhibit the decision, as if baptism were not a sufficient sign.

The events where children give their testimonies amount to children sounding more like pagans having seen the light than baptized Christians describing the process of sanctification. In all, for all the fights over infant baptism, there seems to be little difference in the practical outworking between this kind of practice and creedo baptism. Many Reformed functionally treat their children as pagans needing to convert to Christ. 

What are others' experiences?

Scott


----------



## Scott (Jun 14, 2004)

[quote:899576833a]
Baptism is a fruit of salvation, not a cause or instirument of it. It is a sign and seal, not the thing itself.
[/quote:899576833a]

I am not sure what you are saying here, although I expect we agree. I agree that it is not the thing iteself. However, a sacrament is something supernatural. It has two parts to it, an outward sign and an inward grace attached to the sign. Larger Catechism 163:

[quote:899576833a]
Q. 163. What are the parts of a sacrament?
A. The parts of the sacrament are two; the one an outward and sensible sign, used according to Christ's own appointment; the other an inward and spiritual grace thereby signified.
[/quote:899576833a]

And you will notice that 1 Peter 3:21 (&quot;baptism saves&quot is a proof text for this. So, it is a sign and seal and this sign and seal confers grace to the recipient. 

Notice also WCF 28.6, which says that baptism &quot;confers&quot; grace:
[quote:899576833a]
The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.
[/quote:899576833a]

Scott


----------



## kceaster (Jun 14, 2004)

I think that is an important distinction to be made. Baptism is not the application of water ONLY. Baptism is not the words of faith spoken by either the one being baptized or the one performing the baptism - ONLY.

Baptism is what the Spirit does, not what we do.

I am not saying that God does not care about the sign any more than we could say that He didn't care about those who were circumcised in the flesh. If it was only in the flesh, He cared enough to destroy them for their disobedience. If it was in the flesh and in the spirit, He cared enough to preserve their souls. If it was only in the spirit, as would be with Elect infants before the 8th day, Elect women, and Elect little girls, the Elect deformed, or perhaps even those who were Elect in their acknowledgment of God as the fountainhead of all, but were not cut in their flesh (Nebuchadnezzar), He cared enough to preserve their souls as well.

Baptism is the same. The thief on the cross was baptized, but without the water sign.

In terms of what baptism - the water rite - does, we need to be careful that we do not exalt it to a place of salvific attributes. Baptism does save, but not the mere outward act. Baptism by the Holy Spirit, being born of water, be washed, being purified, is what commends us to God. Without the Spirit, we are both merely wet, but genuinely cursed, if the Spirit does not improve it in us.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Scott (Jun 14, 2004)

KC:

The Spirit is definitely who gives baptism its efficacy. I think that the baptism of Jesus is a good illustration of this, with the Spirit descending on Him at His baptism. This is an illustration for us. The Spirit hovering over the waters of creation is also a typological illustration of the Spirit's role in baptism.

Scott


----------



## A_Wild_Boar (Jun 20, 2004)

[quote:8f4deeb91f][i:8f4deeb91f]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:8f4deeb91f]
Baptism is our assurance of all that. What is wrong with saying that, given I understand that election is initiated by God? I don't think the Christian life is some sort of suspence movie whereby we look around the corner to see if we are elect. Baptism should be the witness to that: our assurance that we have died and rose with Christ.

Paul

[Edited on 6-13-2004 by rembrandt] [/quote:8f4deeb91f]

I dont knowabout that.

I know many baptized people that are way more than likely in Hell right now.(mostly family) Living without a care in the world as if there were no God. They were baptized as infants too, some later in life, only to live as the enemy would have them, even cursing Gods name continually.

I dont think Baptism is a seal in any sense, unless that seal is faulty. Maybe I dont understand the definition of &quot;seal&quot; when folks speak of it in this sense.

[Edited on 6-20-2004 by A_Wild_Boar]


----------

