# The Consequences of Sinning in Baptism



## Phil D. (Feb 1, 2022)

I suppose this thread is a subjective off-take of another current thread that concerns some of the practical implications of differing views on baptism.

However, my question concerns the spiritual or eternal consequences of how one sees and practices baptism.


Confessional Reformed Paedobaptists believe that to neglect the baptism of infants is a great sin.
Reformed Baptists don't typically use the same language, but those who reckon people only baptized as infants as not being truly baptized in essence have to believe infant baptism (or neglecting baptism upon profession) is a great sin.

So, again, what are the spiritual or eternal consequences of those believers deemed to be sinning in their practice of baptism?

I can't recall off-hand seeing any theologians deal directly with this specific aspect of the topic. If anyone can direct me to where this is addressed by reputable theologians I would appreciate it. I would also be interested in other PB members' (especially any pastors or scholars) thoughts on the matter.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager (Feb 1, 2022)

I am just speculating, but I wonder if (for the Presbyterian/Continental view) it might be helpful to see how different commentators handle the passage in Exodus about Moses neglecting to circumcise his son.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 1, 2022)

De Jager said:


> I am just speculating, but I wonder if (for the Presbyterian/Continental view) it might be helpful to see how different commentators handle the passage in Exodus about Moses neglecting to circumcise his son.


No commentary I've seen on that passage addresses this topic. For instance, the only thing Calvin mentions with regard to baptism is to refute the notion that the passage somehow makes allowance for women to baptize.


----------



## A.Joseph (Feb 1, 2022)

I’m just going with my gut instinct, but the idea of me, a Christian with all that entails, not baptizing my beloved children is unthinkable. It’s a promise to them and myself that we are recipients of God’s grace and mercy…. His Living Word.


----------



## De Jager (Feb 1, 2022)

The view of Matthew Henry:

*1. The sin of Moses, which was neglecting to circumcise his son*. This was probably the effect of his being unequally yoked with a Midianite, who was too indulgent of her child, while Moses was too indulgent of her. Note, (1.) We have need to watch carefully over our own hearts, lest fondness for any relation prevail above our love to God, and take us off from our duty to him. It is charged upon Eli that he _honoured his sons more than God_ (1 Sa. 2:29); and see Mt. 10:37. (2.) Even good men are apt to cool in their zeal for God and duty when they have long been deprived of the society of the faithful: solitude has its advantages, but they seldom counterbalance the loss of Christian communion.

2. God's displeasure against him. He met him, and, probably by a sword in an angel's hand, sought to kill him. This was a great change; very lately God was conversing with him, and lodging a trust in him, as a friend; and now he is coming forth against him as an enemy. *Note, (1.) Omissions are sins, and must come into judgment, and particularly the contempt and neglect of the seals of the covenant; for it is a sign that we undervalue the promises of the covenant, and are displeased with the conditions of it. He that has made a bargain, and is not willing to seal and ratify it, one may justly suspect, neither likes it nor designs to stand to it. (2.) God takes notice of, and is much displeased with, the sins of his own people. If they neglect their duty, let them expect to hear of it by their consciences, and perhaps to feel from it by cross providences: for this cause many are sick and weak, as some think Moses was here.*


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Feb 1, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> I’m just going with my gut instinct, but the idea of me, a Christian with all that entails, not baptizing my beloved children is unthinkable. It’s a promise to them and myself that we are recipients of God’s grace and mercy…. His Living Word.



See, language like this doesn't help the credobaptist come to the paedobaptist view.

If you say that baptism is *a promise to them* that *we* are recipients of God's *grace and mercy*, are you saying that you children are *saved* because you believe and they are your children?

If you don't believe that, then in what way is Baptism any kind of promise that you are recipients of God's grace and mercy?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## De Jager (Feb 1, 2022)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> See, language like this doesn't help the credobaptist come to the paedobaptist view.
> 
> If you say that baptism is *a promise to them* that *we* are recipients of God's *grace and mercy*, are you saying that you children are *saved* because you believe and they are your children?
> 
> If you don't believe that, then in what way is Baptism any kind of promise that you are recipients of God's grace and mercy?


This is just my view, and I don't pretend to speak for all reformed everywhere:

I think it could be better phrased "God's promises of grace and mercy in the gospel are sealed upon them". I certainly do not believe, when I baptize my child that "God has promised that this specific child, in the final analysis, will be saved", but that the gospel promises are really and truly made unto them, to be received with a hearty faith. Without a real and personal faith, the content of the promises will not be realized in the life of that child. That's why I would pray for the Holy Spirit to work a true and living faith in the hearts of my children - so they can embrace the promises of the gospel.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Feb 1, 2022)

They are part of the church. I want them included and raised under the Living Word. That can never be taken away from them. It is sealed with their baptism. I don’t see why we must view this for what it may not do. It is our testimony before God and man that they are included in the administration of the Word & Spirit. …

They are called. They are separate. They are blessed. How privileged we are. It should be celebrated. I believe God is honored when we offer our own, who we do not own, up unto to Him. That they may be used by Him for a Godly and honoring purpose. Our whole household should be offered up. Everything in our midst. All that we are accountable for. We give to Him that they will be received. But in a very special way, the children with whom He has blessed us. …

_“Then were there *brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray*: and the disciples rebuked them. *But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them*, and departed thence.”_


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Feb 1, 2022)

De Jager said:


> "God's promises of grace and mercy in the gospel are sealed upon them"



What does this _mean_ though? I read your whole post, I know what you're saying at every other point. But _this_ phrase I've quoted, to me, has no meaning at all.

What does it mean for "God's promises of grace and mercy" to be "sealed upon" someone?


----------



## LilyG (Feb 1, 2022)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> What does this _mean_ though? I read your whole post, I know what you're saying at every other point. But _this_ phrase I've quoted, to me, has no meaning at all.
> 
> What does it mean for "God's promises of grace and mercy" to be "sealed upon" someone?



Whatever the meaning, Paul views Abraham's circumcision similarly, both for those who had already showed true faith, and of those who were expected to show such in the future.

"He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised, but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised." (Romans 4:11-12)


----------



## Romans678 (Feb 1, 2022)

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
Acts 2:37‭-‬41 ESV

Baptists and Presbyterians: what is the promise of God Peter is referring to here?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## De Jager (Feb 1, 2022)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> What does this _mean_ though? I read your whole post, I know what you're saying at every other point. But _this_ phrase I've quoted, to me, has no meaning at all.
> 
> What does it mean for "God's promises of grace and mercy" to be "sealed upon" someone?


Hi Sean,

Thanks for the question, it's a good one and an important one. With respect to "God's promises of grace and mercy" - I mean all the promises of God's covenant that have been unveiled ever since Genesis 3:15 - for example, that God would send a redeemer, that he would bless Abraham, that he would send the Holy Spirit, that he would forgive sins....including explicit promises of salvation like what Paul quotes in Romans 10:11 and what Peter quotes in 1 Peter 2:6. If I had to summarize them, I would have to call them the "promises of the gospel". They are so numerous, I can't list them all!

As for them being "sealed upon" someone - I view the sacrament as a seal - an authenticating mark. This is based on Romans 4:11-12 where circumcision is described this way. The seal of a king would be placed upon a document to provide further "proof" that it was legitimate. So when the promises of God are "sealed" on someone, he is condescending to our level and providing a further "proof" that the promises are for real - that he really means it. The natural question then, is to whom or upon what should receive this seal? How does God apply this authenticating mark? We believe that it is in the application of baptism to believers and their households.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans678 (Feb 1, 2022)

Jason F. said:


> Those the Lord calls to Himself will be justified and sanctified. Not just Jews (you and your children), but Gentiles (all who are far off) as well.



So you agree children aren't negated from this promise? 

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## De Jager (Feb 1, 2022)

Jason F. said:


> What do you mean by "sealed upon them" though? The gospel promises are really and truly made to ANYONE who will receive them with hearty faith.


I mean in the same way that they were sealed upon Isaac when he was circumcised. God made covenant promises to Abraham and his seed, and then placed the seal of the covenant on him and on his seed. He literally placed the seal of his covenant on their bodies.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 1, 2022)

De Jager said:


> I mean in the same way that they were sealed upon Isaac when he was circumcised. God made covenant promises to Abraham and his seed, and then placed the seal of the covenant on him and on his seed. He literally placed the seal of his covenant on their bodies.


Same way that they were sealed upon Ishmael. 

The seal of sacraments is a guarantee IF THEY REPENT AND BELIEVE THE PROMISES FOR THEMSELVES they will receive the promises. That's what a seal is.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans678 (Feb 1, 2022)

We fence the baptistery like it's the Lord's Supper. What in the world are we doing here? [emoji2357][emoji2357][emoji2357]

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 1, 2022)

Jason F. said:


> Yes, but now the offer is universal. Repent and believe the gospel and you will be saved. It's erroneous to say that baptism is exactly to the New Covenant what circumcision was to the Old. We should be using the New Testament to interpret the Old, not vice versa.


Actually, we use Scritpure to interpret Scripture. That's the reformation principle. Which means OT to interpret the NT and NT to interpret the OT. You can't interpret Revelation for example without the OT. It's impossible. 
1. Both are a sign
Circumcision: Gen. 17:10-11; Rom. 2:28-29, 4:11
Baptism: Implication of Romans 4:11-12; Col. 2:11-12; Titus 3:5; Gal. 3:27. Also since,
signs point to a spiritual reality, see all the things signified below.

2. Both are a seal
Circumcision: Rom. 4:11
Baptism: See all the things promised (sealed) in the meanings below. Also see the
implication of what is sealed in Rom. 4:11-12; 2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:13, 4:30; 2 Tim. 2:19.

3. Both initiate into membership in the covenant community
Circumcision: Gen. 17:14; 21:4; Lev. 12:3
Baptism: Eph. 2:11-13; 1 Cor. 12:13

4. Both symbolize (language of ‘sign’) regeneration
Circumcision: Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4
Baptism: John 3:5; Col. 2:11-12; Tit. 3:5

5. Both point to cleansing from defilement
Circumcision: Jer. 4:4
Baptism: 1 Pet. 3:21; Acts 22:16; 1 Cor. 7:14

6. Both are for those who are holy or “set apart” by a parent’s relationship to God
Circumcision: Ezra 9:2; Is. 6:13
Baptism: 1 Cor. 7:14

7. Both point to union with God
Circumcision: Deut. 30:6; Gal. 3:16,29; Gen. 17:7,8; Col. 2:11
Baptism: Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:1-8

8. Both point to the need for an inner spiritual experience, namely spiritual circumcision
and spiritual baptism
Circumcision: Rom. 2:28-29; Jer. 4:4; Col. 2:11
Baptism: 1 Pet. 3:21; Col. 2:12

9. Both were placed on whole households
Circumcision: Gen. 17:10,23-27
Baptism: Acts 16:15,33; 1 Cor. 1:16

10. Both were a sign and seal of the covenant of grace
Circumcision: Gen. 17:9-14; Deut. 30:6; Rom. 4:11
Baptism: Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12

11. Both point to remission of sins
Circumcision: Deut. 30:6; Col. 2:13
Baptism: Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Col. 2:11-13

12. Both oblige the recipient to walk in newness of life
Circumcision: Gen. 17:9; Deut. 10:12-16
Baptism: Rom. 6:3-4

13. Neither one saves or benefits a person automatically (ex opera operato)
Circumcision: Jer. 9:25-26; Rom. 2:25-29
Baptism: Acts 8:13-24; Heb. 6:4-8; 10:29

14. People can be saved without either one
Circumcision: Rom. 4:10; Luke 1:44,47 before circumcision (v. 59); so too Jer. 1:4-5
Baptism: Luke 23:43; Acts 10:2-47

15. It is a sin to neglect this sign
Circumcision: Gen. 17:14; Ex. 4:24-26
Baptism: Luke 7:30

Reactions: Like 8 | Love 1 | Informative 2 | Edifying 2


----------



## Romans678 (Feb 1, 2022)

Jason F. said:


> Yes, but now the offer is universal. Repent and believe the gospel and you will be saved. It's erroneous to say that baptism is exactly to the New Covenant what circumcision was to the Old. We should be using the New Testament to interpret the Old, not vice versa.



Just throw away the entire OT while you are at it. This ain't it, brother.

The Passover unveils the mercy God and continues in the Lord's Supper. The priesthood of old unveils the tireless intercession of Christ Jesus our Lord in the most Holy of Holy Places above. The Throne of King David points the dominion Christ possess over the the entire realm of existence.

I wonder how Christ viewed the OT below:

"And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself."
Luke 24:25‭-‬27 ESV

Or how about this oldie but goodie:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 5:17‭-‬20 ESV

This is probably the second or third time I've repeated this question in multiple boards now, but I'll shoot for three:

If the Passover was the progenitor of the Lord's Supper, what was Baptism represented as in the OT?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Romans678 (Feb 1, 2022)

Romans678 said:


> Just throw away the entire OT while you are at it. This ain't it, brother.
> 
> The Passover unveils the mercy God and continues in the Lord's Supper. The priesthood of old unveils the tireless intercession of Christ Jesus our Lord in the most Holy of Holy Places above. The Throne of King David points the dominion Christ possess over the the entire realm of existence.
> 
> ...


My grammar is horrible [emoji2357]. Forgive me y'all.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Taylor (Feb 2, 2022)

Jason F. said:


> Stopped reading here. This isn't a charitable statement to make.


Brother, in my estimation, you have recently been guilty of the same, such as when you said infant baptism is "antithetical to the message of the gospel that God will save those whom he chooses to regardless of culture or genealogy." While I responded with only a head-scratching emoticon at first, I found such a statement to be shockingly uncharitable and misrepresentative of the Reformed position on infant baptism.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Romans678 (Feb 2, 2022)

Jason F. said:


> Stopped reading here. This isn't a charitable statement to make.


 It's not uncharitable and unloving to shed light on a view that deems the OT near irrelevant in the interpretation of the NT. This sentiment is NOT shared by NT writers. Scripture is not a barreling train going 10,000 MPH from Genesis to Revelation. It is an perfectly crafted tapestry with perfectly interwoven colors and shapes that share unity, order, and beauty in the fabric. 

Dear brother, it's ok if you don't read it. I read your comments without complaining. I think you could do the same for me.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Tom Hart (Feb 2, 2022)

Jason F. said:


> It's erroneous to say that baptism is exactly to the New Covenant what circumcision was to the Old. We should be using the New Testament to interpret the Old, not vice versa.





Romans678 said:


> Just throw away the entire OT while you are at it.





Jason F. said:


> Stopped reading here. This isn't a charitable statement to make.


@Jason F.,

Given that this is a confessionally Reformed discussion board, I’d say your comment (“We should be using the New Testament to interpret the Old, not vice versa”) warrants some pushback. Don’t be offended, but that’s about as un-Reformed a statement as one could make.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Feb 2, 2022)

Tom Hart said:


> @Jason F.,
> 
> Given that this is a confessionally Reformed discussion board, I’d say your comment (“We should be using the New Testament to interpret the Old, not vice versa”) warrants some pushback. Don’t be offended, but that’s about as un-Reformed a statement as one could make.



How is this any different than Augustine saying “The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed."?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jason F. (Feb 2, 2022)

I've deleted my posts. Some were poorly worded, and I apologize for not properly conveying the intended message.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Feb 2, 2022)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> How is this any different than Augustine saying “The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed."?


I’d say it’s very different, actually. Are you asking me to walk you through it?


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 2, 2022)

De Jager said:


> [M. Henry] Omissions are sins, and must come into judgment, and particularly the contempt and neglect of the seals of the covenant; for it is a sign that we undervalue the promises of the covenant, and are displeased with the conditions of it. He that has made a bargain, and is not willing to seal and ratify it, one may justly suspect, neither likes it nor designs to stand to it. (2.) God takes notice of, and is much displeased with, the sins of his own people. *If they neglect their duty, let them expect to hear of it by their consciences*, and perhaps to feel from it by cross providences: for this cause many are sick and weak, as some think Moses was here.



I guess I'm not too surprised there haven't been many responses to the actual question asked in the OP. I can see how various answers could pose some awkward difficulties, and therefore risks painting a respondant in a bad light. But, nonetheless, I think the question is both valid and an important one to consider. Church history is a certain witness to that.

The issue of conscience, in the context quoted above, does get to the next level of my question.

Presumably, both Reformed paedos and credos genuinely regard the Bible as God's infallible and inerrant Word, the final rule for all of worship and life. They both sincerely study the doctrine of baptism. In then acting according to the light God has given them, I don't see how it could be said that either is contemning or neglecting the doctrine of baptism. Moreover, *they are both acting in good conscience* (cf. 1 Pet. 3:21). Yet in coming to considerably different understandings on the matter, they both can't be right - at least in the realm of tangible sacramental practice. And, therefore, according to the basic definition of sin (flawed, or missing the mark), one party is sinning.

So, again, what are the spirtual consequences for the erring party (and those in their orb)? Any brave takers? Pastors?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol (Feb 2, 2022)

Phil D. said:


> So, again, what are the spirtual consequences for the erring party (and those in their orb)? Any brave takers?


Phil (ignoring your love for Chick-Fila which gives you a huge bias), would this not be the standard answers for the consequences of sin in general?


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 2, 2022)

Smeagol said:


> Would they not be the standard answers for the consequences of sin in general?


Sure, yet what, more specifically, would you have in mind?


----------



## Romans678 (Feb 2, 2022)

Jason F. said:


> I've deleted my posts. Some were poorly worded, and I apologize for not properly conveying the intended message.


It's OK brother. I'm a literal barbarian (I was Army for 6 yeads) so I tend to be pretty blunt with my approach. We're family and sometimes we get on each other's nerves from time to time. Iron sharpens iron.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Romans678 (Feb 2, 2022)

Romans678 said:


> It's OK brother. I'm a literal barbarian (I was Army for 6 yeads) so I tend to be pretty blunt with my approach. We're family and sometimes we get on each other's nerves from time to time. Iron sharpens iron.
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


*years

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Smeagol (Feb 2, 2022)

Phil D. said:


> Sure, yet what, more specifically, would you have in mind?


Phil in my mind it would really fall into what God sees fit or NOT fit to give or retract in spiritual blessings. I hope that makes sense. In other words, it could be any number of spiritual setbacks or none at all depending on the providence of God.

Sin can cause separation from God. Sin can cause lack of prayer, lack of bible study, more temptation to be disobedient in other areas and more prone to other sins. However, at the same time those same things can occur for other reasons (think Job). So the answer would/could be the same as one who abuses the table.

I am not trying to dodge an answer, but rather trying to be careful because the what/how/when, regarding temporal judgements for sin, is not my lane.


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 2, 2022)

Smeagol said:


> I am not trying to dodge an answer, but rather trying to be careful because the what/how/when, regarding temporal judgements for sin, is not my lane.


I can appreciate your response (...considering you're a Popey's Chicken Sandwich fiend...).

I think Henry's notion about having to endure a "cross providence", though cautious in proposing it, is a stretch in the context of baptism performed differntly yet in good conscience. I mean, does anyone really want to say that either paedos or credos enjoy fewer divinely ordered trials or strictures? How would such even be quantified, let alone demonstrated?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 2, 2022)

I believe that we are authorised from scripture to say that those who neglect to baptise their children are committing a great sin; I do not believe that we can really say much other than that.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 2, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I believe that we are authorised from scripture to say that those who neglect to baptise their children are committing a great sin; I do not believe that we can really say much other than that


OK, but that's not really the question under consideration. Credos typically feel the same way about the paedo position.


----------



## Ethan (Feb 2, 2022)

I don’t believe consequences for sin are quantifiable from a creaturely perspective.


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 2, 2022)

Ethan said:


> I don’t believe consequences for sin are quantifiable from a creaturely perspective.


But even in that case, if there's nothing observable, how is there a consequence?


----------



## Ethan (Feb 2, 2022)

Phil D. said:


> But even in that case, if there's nothing observable, how is there a consequence?


If there is something observable, who am I to determine what sin it is the result of? I sin a lot.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Romans678 (Feb 2, 2022)

Ethan said:


> I don’t believe consequences for sin are quantifiable from a creaturely perspective.


Agreed. There are probably consequences far beyond our comprehension. We may not see the effects for several generations. 

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 2, 2022)

Ethan said:


> If there is something observable, who am I to determine what sin it is the result of? I sin a lot.


I would largely agree, although I tend to think in circumstances involving "great" sins the consequences can generally be discerned (cf. Psalm 38:3-5). I know that's been the case in my life before.


----------



## Romans678 (Feb 2, 2022)

Ethan said:


> If there is something observable, who am I to determine what sin it is the result of? I sin a lot.


>>>SHAME ON YOU!
Just kidding [emoji16].

God's grace over my own sin is impossibly un-quantifiable. The depths of His love for His people are immeasurable. His blood shed hath covered a multitude of sins that dwarfs time and space itself. God is good!

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 2, 2022)

Phil D. said:


> OK, but that's not really the question under consideration. Credos typically feel the same way about the paedo position.



But it is an answer to the question under consideration; you have been given an answer, though perhaps not one to your satisfaction.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 2, 2022)

I am getting up in my years now. I have seen a lot of things. What are the consequences of Adultery? The Consequences of sinning because of a doctrine declaring a Union with Christ are ... I don't know. I have seen a lot of things in life and we have it pretty good right now. We need to focus on our Unity more than the things that can cause division. Just my insight and opinion here.

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 1


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 2, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> But it is an answer to the question under consideration; you have been given an answer, though perhaps not one to your satisfaction.


Fair enough. I just think your answer is posed in an ideological manner that ignores the parity of the spiritual implications in potential relation to both positions on baptism - which is more specifically the question I'm asking...


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 2, 2022)

Going back to Phil D's OP – and I am probably known here on PB as a staunch, unvanquished defender of paedobaptism against those who oppose our view – I see the anti-paedos as _*in error*_ rather than *in great sin*.

Here we are, friends, nearing the end of this age, with the forces of antichrist slowly circling our camp, plotting our being silenced – and, failing that, _destruction_ – and what are we doing? going after one another! Like the heathens in the OT who sought to attack Jerusalem and the LORD turning them against one another to their utter ruination, and the Jew's victory through God's intervening mercy and grace.

There are many "Reformed Baptists" (i.e., Doctrines of Grace baptists – for a genuinely _Reformed_ distinctive is the full continuity of the command to circumcise the infants as a mark of the covenant and the command to baptize the NT infants, seeing as we, "if [we] be Christ's, then are [we] Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" -Gal 3:29); to continue, there are many "Reformed Baptists" who are godlier than we paedos in many respects, and I would think it would behoove us to accord them the liberty of conscience to err even while in good faith before Christ _in_ their error, and thus not under a sense of condemnation. Their view makes sense to them and they hold to it. The LORD will sort us out when we stand before Him.

In the meanwhile, I will, in my own congregation, as an under-shepherd of THE Shepherd, welcome credos as full members so long as they – from the heart – honor our views and not disturb our peace in our communion with Christ by undermining our standards, thus remaining with us in the peace of God in which we stand.

Given the murderous intent of our mortal adversaries, it is but godly-fitting we welcome into our spiritual house our Baptist brethren, that they have access to the One who is the Refuge of His precious flock, amidst the ravagers roaming the wastelands of this world. In some areas of the world there are very few sound Reformed refuges, and I would not exclude from the Table a Baptist brother.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 2 | Amen 2


----------



## Taylor (Feb 2, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Going back to Phil D's OP – and I am probably known here on PB as a staunch, unvanquished defender of paedobaptism against those who oppose our view – I see the anti-paedos as _*in error*_ rather than *in great sin*.
> 
> Here we are, friends, nearing the end of this age, with the forces of antichrist slowly circling our camp, plotting our being silenced – and, failing that, _destruction_ – and what are we doing? going after one another! Like the heathens in the OT who sought to attack Jerusalem and the LORD turning them against one another to their utter ruination, and the Jew's victory through God's intervening mercy and grace.
> 
> ...


Edifying as always, Mr. Steve. Thank you, brother.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## JH (Feb 2, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> – and I am probably known here on PB as a staunch, _unvanquished_ defender of paedobaptism against those who oppose our view –


Let another man praise thee, and not thine own lips.


----------



## Ethan (Feb 2, 2022)

Steve is known here on PB as a staunch, _unvanquished_ defender of paedobaptism against those who oppose our view

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 2, 2022)

I like Steve. He's a good ole boy. I mean Old Man. lol

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 2, 2022)

Hello Jerrod, it wasn't meant as self-praise, but to show that, despite unwavering and effective defense of the paedo view (i.e., I am not "soft" on the credo view), I will not reckon their position as sin. When I think of such godly men as Al Martin, Alistair Begg, John Bunyan, Charles Spurgeon etc – all with fine-tuned consciences in the presence of our King and High Priest – I recoil at the thought of standing against such saints in condemnation. If we *do* stand so, it would mean disfellowshipping them, excommunicating them! That's just not right.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 2 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 3, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Going back to Phil D's OP – and I am probably known here on PB as a staunch, unvanquished defender of paedobaptism against those who oppose our view – I see the anti-paedos as _*in error*_ rather than *in great sin*.
> 
> Here we are, friends, nearing the end of this age, with the forces of antichrist slowly circling our camp, plotting our being silenced – and, failing that, _destruction_ – and what are we doing? going after one another! Like the heathens in the OT who sought to attack Jerusalem and the LORD turning them against one another to their utter ruination, and the Jew's victory through God's intervening mercy and grace.
> 
> ...



Thanks, Steve. I've always admired your candor and ability to articulate things so well.

Flip the baptismal positions with their accompanying implications in your statements, and your sentiments largely reflect my own. I too will continue to advocate for what I believe is correct doctrine, yet I differ from most Baptists in that I refuse to consider many who were baptized as infants as being unbaptized in the ultimate sense. I believe theirs' is an irregular and unintended practice of baptism (both subjects and mode), but true faith and a good conscience are much more important and acceptable to God (1 Peter 3:21). Historically there have been a few Baptists that have shared my view, with Bunyan probably being the most notable. ...On the other hand, I've been implicated as being too liberal, among other sordid things, for holding this position...

Of course our views also put us is in a minority within our respective camps, and one prickly issue raised is that they don't fully align with what is stated, or pretty plainly implied in our respective confessions. What are your thoughts on that problem?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 3, 2022)

Phil, what in my confession (3FU, but you may include the WCF and Catechisms) states or implies such I am not in alignment with in this matter of baptism and Baptists?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 3, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Phil, what in my confession (3FU, but you may include the WCF and Catechisms) states or implies such I am not in alignment with in this matter of baptism and Baptists?



Steve, you said: "I see the anti-paedos as _*in error*_ rather than *in great sin*."

WCF 28.4-5. 4. states: "Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also *the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized*. 5. *Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance*..."

On my side, the 89'LBCF 29:2, 4 says: "*Those who do actually profess repentance towards God*, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, *are* *the only proper subjects* of this ordinance. ... Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is* necessary to the due administration* of this ordinance."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Romans678 (Feb 3, 2022)

Phil D. said:


> Steve, you said: "I see the anti-paedos as _*in error*_ rather than *in great sin*."
> 
> WCF 28.4-5. 4. states: "Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also *the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized*. 5. *Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance*..."
> 
> On my side, the 89'LBCF 29:2, 4 says: "*Those who do actually profess repentance towards God*, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, *are* *the only proper subjects* of this ordinance. ... Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is* necessary to the due administration* of this ordinance."


That WCF 28.4-5. 4. is pretty cut and dry. I have to look at some more commentary on this ASAP.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 3, 2022)

I've always found it a happy inconsistancy that in many cases paedos and credos will share the Lord's Supper together, putting primacy on the fact that both are blood-bought by Jesus Christ and beloved of Our Father, wheras such grace would be diffictult to reconcile if one party deems the other as truly unbaptized, and the next deems the other to be unrepentant of a great sin.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 3, 2022)

Sometimes it takes 30 years to come to the right doctrine and practice. LOL  Patience is a good thing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 3, 2022)

Phil D. said:


> I suppose this thread is a subjective off-take of another current thread that concerns some of the practical implications of differing views on baptism.
> 
> However, my question concerns the spiritual or eternal consequences of how one sees and practices baptism.
> 
> ...



I think we must leave the consequences in God's hands and acknowledge our own limitations. It's clear in Scripture, that the Father disciplines his sons, and yet in a situation where two sons disagree on what the Father commands, it's better to be charitable in light of the honest disagreements over baptism that have gone on for hundreds of years. Yes, there is discipline from God for the one who is in the wrong, but who are we to judge what that discipline looks like? Are there more sick or dying people in Baptist vs. Presbyterian churches like in Corinth (1 Cor. 11:30)? Are there more lampstands being removed in one vs. the other (Rev. 2:5)? You certainly could not tell by comparing their histories. Both are familiar with trials and apostacy. 

So when they agree on 90% or more of the Christian faith, especially the cardinally clear doctrines (i.e. Scripture, Trinity, Christology, justification, etc.) it's best to take an approach of charity. We cannot ignore the fact that both paedo-baptism and credo-baptism are built on a more comprehensive interpretations of Scripture and covenant theology, and such comprehensive changes take more time to work out, especially when they were nurtured within godly communities for a long time. I know for myself, it took years to make that transition from credo to paedo, because I had been taught my whole life before that paedo was wrong by sincere and godly people, and I could not break from that upbringing and experience lightly until I could see it clearly in the Word and be willing to accept the cost. 

That is in part why Presbyterians (at least in the OPC and PCA) for a long time now have not required communicant members to subscribe to their Confessions of Faith, only officers. They recognize members need time to grow in understanding. And that charity is usually extended to Baptists who join their churches as well. It may be a great sin to neglect baptism, but not one which requires emergency confrontation to save their soul, in light of their sincere desire to follow the Lord and his Word and bear fruit accordingly. In other words, they are in general following the right path, so we can wait for the more comprehensive implications to fall into place in due time. And I have witnessed that patient transition occurring in my own pastoral ministry. 

I do not know how many Reformed Baptists would take the same approach of charity. But I imagine some would. 

My two cents...

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 3, 2022)

Puritan Sailor said:


> I think we must leave the consequences in God's hands and acknowledge our own limitations. It's clear in Scripture, that the Father disciplines his sons, and yet in a situation where two sons disagree on what the Father commands, it's better to be charitable in light of the honest disagreements over baptism that have gone on for hundreds of years. Yes, there is discipline from God for the one who is in the wrong, but who are we to judge what that discipline looks like? Are there more sick or dying people in Baptist vs. Presbyterian churches like in Corinth (1 Cor. 11:30)? Are there more lampstands being removed in one vs. the other (Rev. 2:5)? You certainly could not tell by comparing their histories. Both are familiar with trials and apostacy.
> 
> So when they agree on 90% or more of the Christian faith, especially the cardinally clear doctrines (i.e. Scripture, Trinity, Christology, justification, etc.) it's best to take an approach of charity. We cannot ignore the fact that both paedo-baptism and credo-baptism are built on a more comprehensive interpretations of Scripture and covenant theology, and such comprehensive changes take more time to work out, especially when they were nurtured within godly communities for a long time. I know for myself, it took years to make that transition from credo to paedo, because I had been taught my whole life before that paedo was wrong by sincere and godly people, and I could not break from that upbringing and experience lightly until I could see it clearly in the Word and be willing to accept the cost.
> 
> ...



Thank you, pastor, for your willingness to respond. I agree with a lot of what you said and, as a Baptist, recipricate your sentiments of charity toward others with whom we disagree on baptism. The only thing I might point out is that if, as you suggest, neglecting infant baptism may in fact be a great sin, then I think my previous comments on there being a happy inconsistancy would have some bearing on your willingness to commune with credos.


----------



## Romans678 (Feb 3, 2022)

Puritan Sailor said:


> I think we must leave the consequences in God's hands and acknowledge our own limitations. It's clear in Scripture, that the Father disciplines his sons, and yet in a situation where two sons disagree on what the Father commands, it's better to be charitable in light of the honest disagreements over baptism that have gone on for hundreds of years. Yes, there is discipline from God for the one who is in the wrong, but who are we to judge what that discipline looks like? Are there more sick or dying people in Baptist vs. Presbyterian churches like in Corinth (1 Cor. 11:30)? Are there more lampstands being removed in one vs. the other (Rev. 2:5)? You certainly could not tell by comparing their histories. Both are familiar with trials and apostacy.
> 
> So when they agree on 90% or more of the Christian faith, especially the cardinally clear doctrines (i.e. Scripture, Trinity, Christology, justification, etc.) it's best to take an approach of charity. We cannot ignore the fact that both paedo-baptism and credo-baptism are built on a more comprehensive interpretations of Scripture and covenant theology, and such comprehensive changes take more time to work out, especially when they were nurtured within godly communities for a long time. I know for myself, it took years to make that transition from credo to paedo, because I had been taught my whole life before that paedo was wrong by sincere and godly people, and I could not break from that upbringing and experience lightly until I could see it clearly in the Word and be willing to accept the cost.
> 
> ...



This is it.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## De Jager (Feb 3, 2022)

At the end of the day, there will be many baptists and paedobaptists in heaven, praising God for all eternity, and all having many, many sins being forgiven by God. And I guarantee that some of the forgiven sins will be those we committed in ignorance (for both sides). I love and appreciate the Baptists on this forum. Sometimes I can't help myself, I just get fired up. I'm that way about a lot of things.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1


----------



## iainduguid (Feb 3, 2022)

If our credo-baptist brothers are in great sin, it is well for them that in Jesus we have a great savior, who came to save sinners (Matt. 1:21). I myself am in need of just such a savior, so I am not ashamed to call them brothers. That is not to lessen the significance of a proper understanding of the sacraments in the least. We should all study to grow in our understanding of these beautiful gifts that the Lord has given us to strengthen our faith in his promises. On the last day, however, I doubt that my greatest sins will be points where I was confused in my doctrine; it is far more likely that they will be situations where I plunged ahead knowingly into selfish, self-promoting and unloving actions. May God have mercy on us all.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 2


----------



## Nomos (Feb 3, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Phil, what in my confession (3FU, but you may include the WCF and Catechisms) states or implies such I am not in alignment with in this matter of baptism and Baptists?



You can include Article 34 (last paragraph) of the Belgic Confession:

"Therefore we detest the error of the Anabaptists, who are not content with the one only baptism they have once received, and moreover condemn the baptism of the infants of believers, whom we believe ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as the children in Israel formerly were circumcised, upon the same promises which are made unto our children. And indeed Christ shed his blood no less for the washing of the children of the faithful, than for adult persons; and therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that, which Christ hath done for them; as the Lord commanded in the law, that they should be made partakers of the sacrament of Christ's suffering and death, shortly after they were born, by offering for them a lamb, which was a sacrament of Jesus Christ. Moreover, what circumcision was to the Jews, that baptism is for our children. And for this reason Paul calls baptism the circumcision of Christ."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Nomos (Feb 3, 2022)

Phil D. said:


> So, again, what are the spirtual consequences for the erring party (and those in their orb)? Any brave takers? Pastors?



A Baptist church that requires and enforces baptism as a condition for participation in the Supper would prohibit anyone baptized as a child (which would include the entirety of the fathers of the Reformed tradition). I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'spiritual consequence', but suspect that this would qualify.

Those within the Reformed tradition (with rare exception), would never ordain a Baptist to the office of elder.

That's about the extent of the consequences that come to my mind.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 3, 2022)

iainduguid said:


> however, I doubt that my greatest sins will be points where I was confused in my doctrine; it is far more likely that they will be situations where I plunged ahead knowingly into selfish, self-promoting and unloving actions. May God have mercy on us all.


AMEN!!! No one is exempt here Dr.


----------



## pgwolv (Feb 4, 2022)

Puritan Sailor said:


> I do not know how many Reformed Baptists would take the same approach of charity. But I imagine some would.


Our church's policy is that one cannot become a member without being baptised according to our Confession, i.e. upon a credible statement of faith. They can be adherents, though, and the only thing from which they are excluded are voting during Church meetings (although they may comment and give input) and becoming Church officers. They are welcome at the Lord's table, etc. This was me and my wife's status for six or so years (having been baptised as infants in the Dutch Reformed Church), until we became convicted to be baptised as professors of the faith.

For example, one of our adherents is a beloved brother and Reverend from the Presbyterian Church (I am not familiar with the distribution of Presbyterian denominations in South Africa, and whether there even are more than one). He left that denomination because of their ordination of homosexual presbyters. He truly is a beloved brother, and even preaches at our Church from time to time. I deeply respect the position our congregation has taken in this matter, and I believe it is one of the ways in which Christ builds His church despite the differences between believers.


----------

