# Calling all Westminsterians (and TFU brothers as well)



## Lowlander (Oct 21, 2022)

1) What do you see as the fatal flaw in Confessional Baptist covenant theology?

2) How does the reformed view get this correct?

3) How is the Covenant of Grace *not* as Baptists believe it to be?


----------



## Polanus1561 (Oct 21, 2022)

If infants were not baptised no doubt you would hear Jewish Christians despairing and Jews who want to stir up trouble bring that up in Acts.

And it would also be raised in Acts 15.

But the silence on that is deafening.

If infants were not baptised, as one theologian would say, Pentecost was a day of excommunication of the Jewish children - in principle. Surely, one Jewish believer would have raised that up and caused it to be an issue of the early church.

This is one of the strongest of many arguments.
A historical deafening silence.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Oct 21, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> 1) What do you see as the fatal flaw in Confessional Baptist covenant theology?
> 
> 2) How does the reformed view get this correct?
> 
> 3) How is the Covenant of Grace *not* as Baptists believe it to be?


I don’t know about _one_ fatal flaw. I would say baptists confuse the nature of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants in a number of ways. They also see the OT covenants as “pointing” to the covenant of grace, not as dispensations of it.

I think one of the biggest points to consider is that God made a covenant with Abraham as a _believer_ and to his children. It was not to Abraham as a Hebrew.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager (Oct 21, 2022)

I would put this thread in the Paedo-Baptism answers forum.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Oct 21, 2022)

So moved.


----------



## Zach (Oct 21, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> So moved.


Isn't that technically a second?

Reactions: Funny 5


----------



## Lowlander (Oct 22, 2022)

De Jager said:


> I would put this thread in the Paedo-Baptism answers forum.





Jeri Tanner said:


> So moved.


Though I’m asking the questions to paedobaptists, I actually wouldn’t mind Baptist responses to any answers I get.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 22, 2022)

Moved to general Baptism discussion forum. Everyone play nice.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 3


----------



## Polanus1561 (Oct 22, 2022)

@Lowlander I am sure you would find many threads here in the past to help you think through things.


----------



## Lowlander (Oct 22, 2022)

John Yap said:


> @Lowlander I am sure you would find many threads here in the past to help you think through things.


Definitely, but I can’t interact with those threads like I hope to with this one. But yes, thank you for the reminder brother.


----------



## jwright82 (Oct 22, 2022)

John Yap said:


> If infants were not baptised no doubt you would hear Jewish Christians despairing and Jews who want to stir up trouble bring that up in Acts.
> 
> And it would also be raised in Acts 15.
> 
> ...


Normally you don't argue from historical silence, we weren't there we don't know what happened. But it is some pretty strong evidence. You would consider that some hoopla would have happened whenever it was started but it doesn't seem to be the case.


----------



## Lowlander (Oct 22, 2022)

John Yap said:


> If infants were not baptised no doubt you would hear Jewish Christians despairing and Jews who want to stir up trouble bring that up in Acts.
> 
> And it would also be raised in Acts 15.
> 
> ...


Is this similar to the burden of proof being upon Baptists regarding how a millennia-old covenant structure (household inclusion) could be changed without mentioning the change?


----------



## Lowlander (Oct 22, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> I don’t know about _one_ fatal flaw. I would say baptists confuse the nature of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants in a number of ways. They also see the OT covenants as “pointing” to the covenant of grace, not as dispensations of it.
> 
> I think one of the biggest points to consider is that God made a covenant with Abraham as a _believer_ and to his children. It was not to Abraham as a Hebrew.


Could you expand on the Abrahamic/Mosaic confusion?


----------



## Polanus1561 (Oct 22, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> Is this similar to the burden of proof being upon Baptists regarding how a millennia-old covenant structure (household inclusion) could be changed without mentioning the change?


Yes. And the presupposition is that the book of Acts and the Epistles would be the perfect place to look for this debate since there were so many arguments including discussion on the scope of circumcision and covenant badges etc.

If I were a Jew wanting to convince Jews not to turn to Christianity, I would argue that their covenant is too radical, their children do not have the covenant sign and nothing outwardly distinguishes them from pagans. I would tell them they are forsaking Abraham and not circumcising their children is horrific (Gen 17), Moses was almost killed for it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## J.L. Allen (Oct 22, 2022)

I think this article is one of the best articulations I've read. https://philosophical-theology.com/2020/09/22/infant-baptism-defended-part-1/

By the way, it says part 1, but there isn't a part 2.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 22, 2022)

Item #1 seems (possibly) intended to summon from Presbyterian thread participants a parallel response to the thesis of Jeffery D. Johnson's book: _The Fatal Flaw: the fatal flaw of the theology behind infant baptism _(Fwd by Tom J. Nettles).

I have a copy of this book, however I cannot find it right this moment. Thus, I have to "borrow" (risking inaccuracy) second-hand a summary of the book's thesis, which I expand and paraphrase as follows:
The New Covenant, with its attendant sign of baptism, is *unconditional*, whereas the Sinai Covenant (but in practice the whole Old Testament form of religion) is *conditional*. Ergo, advocates of infant baptism ERR when they allege essential continuity between the form of religion--including internal as well as external aspects--both prior to and after Christ's incarnation. Continuity is vitiated by a fundamental difference in the kind of covenant basis for religious expression.​
As with most books on baptismal theology from any side of the debate, the offering has a primary audience closer to its own convictions than any from the contrary side, who it might seek to persuade. It is exceeding difficult to not assume what should and must be proved; and the more effort that has to be plowed into establishing by reasoned argument agreed upon postulates, the longer the book and the more involved the case-to-be-made gets.

Perhaps one way to respond to both that book's thesis and the OP request for a comparative "fatal flaw" in the Baptist covenantal perspective is: to challenge the book's thesis (as I have put it above) with a contrasting claim:
There is no difference in the essential (beneath the visuals) form of true religion, whether the time in view is prior to or after Christ's incarnation. There is but one covenant (of grace) across multiple administrations; the New Covenant is the continuation and (yea more) the fulfillment of an original covenant expression made with Abraham. Ergo, opponents of infant baptism ERR when they overlook or minimize the unity of the covenant of grace; while not distinguishing Abraham from Moses.​
I am not pretending to unpack the entire logic of the Presbyterian position contained in that claim, any more than I'm attempting to dismantle the book-length defense of the first thesis. Someday, perhaps, there is a book review (also not a dismantling) in the offing that could appear in the pages of _The Confessional Presbyterian. _Each thesis is predicated upon its own set of axioms and arguments that give it stability; and also make it largely impervious to anything other than an internal critique (i.e. challenging the consistency of its premises).

But I think the two theses seen in contrast can serve advocates of both sides, when they compare the claims made. They reveal something of the distinctive priorities belonging to each. It could lead to new combined rejoicing in what both sides actually agree on, even as they come to meet on shared ground from very different starting points.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Lalo (Oct 23, 2022)

I believe that among confessional baptists there are different positions and they may vary a lot... so it would be hard/unfair to mention just one fatal flaw for all of them... I believe though that the trendy view today is the _1689 federalism_ led by Barcellos, the Renihans et.al. These are some of the views I do not agree with: 

1. "...How then do Old Testament believers take part in the covenant of grace, since the Old Testament’s covenants reveal but do not apply the covenant of grace?" to read more about it see this
2. Their way to define and see the biblical covenants seem to me is a bit odd...e.g: some say that the AC was a dichotomous covenant; they make a too strong contrast/difference between promise and covenant and so on... I do not see many of their definitions and nuances as biblical but as careful definitions to fit their covenantal model whose final purpose is to deny infant baptism.

Historically... if sneaky paedobaptists corrupted the apostolic practice of only (professing) believer's baptisms... we see no a single historical data of such a supposedly "distortion"/imposition/dispute. What we see is the opposite: the only-believers-baptism position reading of Scriptures was a novelty and practically unheard of for 1500 years.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart (Oct 23, 2022)

John Yap said:


> And it would also be raised in Acts 15.
> 
> But the silence on that is deafening.


That's interesting. As I read the chapter (don't skip the first few verses), the silence is deafening in the other direction.

I guess one of us must be wearing some really good noise canceling headphones.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Oct 23, 2022)

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> That's interesting. As I read the chapter (don't skip the first few verses), the silence is deafening in the other direction.
> 
> I guess one of us must be wearing some really good noise canceling headphones.


I don’t understand the insinuation. Anyway I didn’t post in this thread to engage in debate, but just to state my opinion. Have a good week ahead.


----------



## Lowlander (Oct 23, 2022)

Are unbelieving children of believers in the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace at the same time?


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart (Oct 23, 2022)

John Yap said:


> I don’t understand the insinuation. Anyway I didn’t post in this thread to engage in debate, but just to state my opinion. Have a good week ahead.


Just highlighting that arguing from silence is a poor argument (as was already pointed out).. I'm sure there's some fancy Latin phrase for that logical fallacy.

Also, the silence can actually be argued both ways. To that point, I have a humorous memory of a brother in my church who, after a sermon on Acts 15, walked into the room in which I was and loudly exclaimed "where's the water??" (he was, of course, not in support of infant baptism). I just like that memory and your post reminded me of it. Sorry for the vague insinuation!


----------



## Claudiu (Oct 23, 2022)

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> Just highlighting that arguing from silence is a poor argument (as was already pointed out).. I'm sure there's some fancy Latin phrase for that logical fallacy.


Not fancy - just basic latin: argumentum ex silentio.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 24, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> Are unbelieving children of believers in the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace at the same time?


1) An unbeliever is "in Adam." A believer is "in Christ." The two do not mix. This is fundamental.

2) There are two ways of being in covenant: substantially and administratively. Ideally, each participant will possess both the substantive or internal relationship of the covenant, and the administrative or external (visible) relationship. The fact that some people show themselves to have only a superficial connection to Christ through his church is a reality of living in the world before the Second Coming.

3) Describe the "unbelieving child" you have in mind. Does anything short of a informationally detailed, rationally coherent, self-conscious embrace of a fully worked out soteriology qualify as _unbelief? _At the other end of the spectrum, is the standard for faith such belief content as may be found in a bare-bones gospel tract presentation? Does a quick "sinner's prayer" make a disciple or a Christian? Aren't some very young children sat weekly in a Sunday School class possibly the purest _disciples_ anywhere to be found, absorbing biblical truth like sponges? Children are natural _believers._ The issue for religion is the truth content and value of what they are taught to believe. And as Christians we invoke the indispensable Spirit for efficacy.

4) Calvin astutely observed that all of us Christians are still partly _unbelievers_ all our lives. We contend with our faithless flesh daily through the grace given us to believe. We repent constantly, and are renewed in faith through perseverance. True members of Christ's body don't oscillate between belonging to the covenant of grace and the covenant of works. When we are faithless, he remains faithful, 2Tim.2:13. Therefore, those whom he claims as his, on account of election, are forever counted as belonging to his covenant of grace. He knows them that are his, 2Tim.2:19. We, however, only know what we can see. Baptism is a visible sign telling us to regard such disciples as (so far as we know) his covenant people, who we pray will endure to the end and be saved.

I hope this is helpful.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 24, 2022)

Hello Elijah @Lowlander , you asked,

1) What do you see as the fatal flaw in Confessional Baptist covenant theology?
2) How does the reformed view get this correct?
3) How is the Covenant of Grace *not* as Baptists believe it to be?

For #1 I would say (as 1689 Federalists and some others believe), that the LORD made two covenants with Abraham, one a spiritual, and one a temporal / physical. 

For #2 these two posts may help: #73 https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...l-theology-renihan.100676/page-3#post-1233969 [Taylor's post 32 is here] 

#75 https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...l-theology-renihan.100676/page-3#post-1234315

In fact, the entire thread may be edifying to you: Critique of Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology and Biblical Theology (Renihan)

I think #3 is covered in the above. Please note, there is a divergence among Reformed Baptists, some holding a more traditional view of the Covenant of Grace in the OT, and others alleging various covenants. 
​

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Polanus1561 (Oct 24, 2022)

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> Also, the silence can actually be argued both ways. To that point, I have a humorous memory of a brother in my church who, after a sermon on Acts 15, walked into the room in which I was and loudly exclaimed "where's the water??" (he was, of course, not in support of infant baptism). I just like that memory and your post reminded me of it. Sorry for the vague insinuation!



Do you see _any_ strength in my 'from silence' argument? (Admitting yes does not mean admitting my view is right and your view is wrong). ... Any strength at all? Does the fact that the early church baptized children not give weight to what I think happened in Acts?

Let me grant that a Baptist has strength in his own 'from silence' argument when he says no recorded, clear child baptisms gives strength to his view.

Unless your presupposition is "Only recorded acts are permissible in the debate." Then of course, rightly and according to your presupposition, you would dismiss my view immediately.


----------



## Taylor (Oct 24, 2022)

Here’s how I navigate this issue, presented as a syllogism:

P1: I am always right.
P2: I am Presbyterian.
P3: Presbyterians are pædobaptist.
C: Pædobaptism is right.

Reactions: Funny 6


----------



## Phil D. (Oct 24, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Here’s how I navigate this issue, presented as a syllogism:
> 
> P1: I am always right.
> P2: I am Presbyterian.
> ...


As convincing an argument as any...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Oct 24, 2022)

Phil D. said:


> As convincing an argument as any...


Personally, I find it both convincing and impregnable. It’s interesting, if you start with my first premise, every argument is automatically sound.


----------



## Lowlander (Oct 24, 2022)

Contra_Mundum said:


> 1) An unbeliever is "in Adam." A believer is "in Christ." The two do not mix. This is fundamental.
> 
> 2) There are two ways of being in covenant: substantially and administratively. Ideally, each participant will possess both the substantive or internal relationship of the covenant, and the administrative or external (visible) relationship. The fact that some people show themselves to have only a superficial connection to Christ through his church is a reality of living in the world before the Second Coming.
> 
> ...


Thanks, brother. I’ll have to go through this when I have time.

For sake of the discussion, let’s say it is a month old, unregenerate (from God’s perspective) baby.

Technically, are they in the CoW substantially, and in the CoG administration?


----------



## Lowlander (Oct 24, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Elijah @Lowlander , you asked,
> 
> 1) What do you see as the fatal flaw in Confessional Baptist covenant theology?
> 2) How does the reformed view get this correct?
> ...


I’ll have to look later. Thank you.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 24, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> Thanks, brother. I’ll have to go through this when I have time.
> 
> For sake of the discussion, let’s say it is a month old, unregenerate (from God’s perspective) baby.
> 
> Technically, are they in the CoW substantially, and in the CoG administration?


"Technically" might better be expressed as "Speculatively." This is the realm of pure theory. We have an artificial child, which we have reduced to a single descriptive essence. I hear you saying, "I want to know concerning this representative child the way God knows."

Perhaps (speculating; we have no supervision of the independent moves of the Spirit, Jn.3:8) God has already begun a lengthy process of spiritual transformation in the one-month old child, with eternal blessedness in view. If God's elect, it will begin sometime by the due use of ordinary means. In baptism, as Presbyterians we know one thing for certain: God makes a visible _claim _on this infant person. He makes that claim in connection with the outward profession of the parent, a profession that states in part: "I belong to God."

Because God claims the parent _in toto, _everything that belongs to him belongs to God; and in biblical terms children belong to their parents. God does not ordain baptism for one's house, car, or monogrammed luggage; but ever since Abraham he has placed a special claim on image-bearing possessions (typically children) of his covenanted image bearers. He wants his Name on them also.

What is the point? That the baptism men perform or submit to isn't the spiritual reality to which it points, but is the sign _designed_ to so point. Water baptism is the _claim. _A baptized person--of any age--has a claim placed on them, designating them as individuals who ought to be regarded as God's covenant possession. So, the covenant of grace is _claiming _that one-month old child, and his regenerate STATUS (if it could be known) is irrelevant. This is how the Presbyterian sees the matter.

All we know is the administration. Even in regard to adults, for baptism and profession, we simply take in some additional evidence being offered suitable to the person. We act not on the secret things but on what is revealed. We don't ask: "Has this person truly passed from death to life _from God's perspective." _We don't get to know things the way God knows. Someone who has nothing more than a said-faith is still in his sin, still bound to Adam and the claims of the covenant of works. But we still baptize the man who makes the profession, because we can't see the heart or future evidence beyond today. It is not for us to harbor doubts, supposing he may be substantially bound to works--rather like *hopelessly* attending a wedding when we're aware many marriages fail.

God's claim is announced in the man's baptism. He actually speaks through his church; not effecting spiritual reality by means of its work, but making _meaningful_ even powerful statements. The administration, though visible, is not without weight or significance precisely _because_ it is divine in origin, and has a God ordained connection with the spiritual realm. Thus it is highly offensive and wicked to despise his gracious covenant claim, exactly what Heb.6:4ff warns against. It isn't "just" administrative covenant connection that's in view; but as God's administration, it is a most serious claim.

Getting back to the one-month old child, who may be wholly unregenerate or may have already the beginning of his salvation conveyed to him on the earliest whispering breezes of the Spirit's mighty gusting to come. God administratively claims him, we baptize him, the baptism stands for the claim and "is" the claim of the covenant of grace. We are duty bound to go to battle with any other claims, be they substantive or administrative. In due season, through the Spirit's personal ministry and his church instruments, we desire to see such a child soon singing Christ's praises, understanding his need of such a Savior, praying to so august a Person who has stooped to claim him, and believing in the Lord Jesus for his entire and only hope of redemption. May he never willfully challenge that covenant claim so early staked to him.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Lowlander (Oct 25, 2022)

Contra_Mundum said:


> "Technically" might better be expressed as "Speculatively." This is the realm of pure theory. We have an artificial child, which we have reduced to a single descriptive essence. I hear you saying, "I want to know concerning this representative child the way God knows."
> 
> Perhaps (speculating; we have no supervision of the independent moves of the Spirit, Jn.3:8) God has already begun a lengthy process of spiritual transformation in the one-month old child, with eternal blessedness in view. If God's elect, it will begin sometime by the due use of ordinary means. In baptism, as Presbyterians we know one thing for certain: God makes a visible _claim _on this infant person. He makes that claim in connection with the outward profession of the parent, a profession that states in part: "I belong to God."
> 
> ...


Thank you for the clarification. I’ve got the big multi-contributor Covenant tome on order. I’m hoping it will answer a lot of my questions.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Oct 26, 2022)

jwright82 said:


> Normally you don't argue from historical silence, we weren't there we don't know what happened. But it is some pretty strong evidence. You would consider that some hoopla would have happened whenever it was started but it doesn't seem to be the case.


*Amen! Amen!  Amen!*


----------



## Hugues Pierre (Oct 26, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> 1) What do you see as the fatal flaw in Confessional Baptist covenant theology?
> 
> 2) How does the reformed view get this correct?
> 
> 3) How is the Covenant of Grace *not* as Baptists believe it to be?


Hello @Lowlander, 

It seems to me that the fatal flaw of the Confessional Baptist covenant theology lies in the negation of the distinction between _substance_ and _administration_. In fine, for 1689 federalism, the covenant of grace is synonymous of redemption, and so wholly invisible. The covenant of grace is pure substance. In this way the ordinances instituted by God lose all objective aspect because they are necessarily dependent on the inward regeneration.


----------



## Lowlander (Oct 26, 2022)

Hugues Pierre said:


> In this way the ordinances instituted by God lose all objective aspect because they are necessarily dependent on the inward regeneration.


Could you expand on this?


----------



## Polanus1561 (Oct 26, 2022)

Does the Baptist view on baptism not say to children, 'You will receive the sign only when you possess the thing signified'? But is that how God's economy typically works? Does not God usually give promises to exhort the people to appropriate promises by faith? A picture of that is the conquest of the Promised Land.

The Presbyterian's view on baptism says to children, "This is God's objective promise, objectively sealed to you, to be appropriated by faith'. It is the most personal gospel promise for that child. The child's life onwards is to be dominated by the calls to appropriate that promise; through parents and through preaching. They are set apart from the world with that sign, and set apart from the world as they enjoy the benefits of being in the covenant community who are to labor in the means that the child might believe in the promise.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager (Oct 26, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> Could you expand on this?


I'm sure the brother will respond but I will chime in too with my understanding.

This actually gets down to the difference between why we call it a sacrament and baptists call it an ordinance.

An ordinance is something that you do, if for no other reason than because God has told you to do it. Notice how many Baptists describe baptism as a "step of obedience". You will note that the reformed do not view it merely this way. Yes, being baptized is a step of obedience, but that's not all it is. On the contrary, the word sacrament denotes an oath or pledge. We call it a sacrament because we believe God is testifying to something, is telling us something, is promising something, etc. during the Lord's supper and baptism.

Yes, we believe that these are, at minimum, ordinances...we do them because Christ has commanded them...but we go farther than that. They are not just ordinances, they are sacraments. We view baptism and the Lord's supper to be pronouncements of God to his people, to strengthen their faith. And does not that make sense? Otherwise, what is the purpose of these things? They simply become ceremonies that we do simply because God has told us. But they are meant to give us a visible picture of spiritual things, to strengthen our faith, and this based on the promises of God (that is why we cannot divorce the sacraments from the preaching of the word, as do the Roman Catholics).

So simply put, if the meaning and validity of the Lord's supper and baptism derive in God's pronouncements (objective), rather than in our spiritual state (subjective), then there is no question as to the validity of a particular sacrament. If an unregenerate minister happens to administer baptism to an unregenerate person (child or adult), it is still a valid baptism, because it is GOD saying "I wash sinners in the blood of Christ. I regenerate and baptize by the Holy Spirit., etc".

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Hugues Pierre (Oct 26, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> Could you expand on this?


For an example, some Baptists say that if you have been baptised when you were still an unbeliever (even an adult unbeliever) so you must be baptised again. The validity/reality of the baptism is dependent upon the reality of a true conversion. The same thing is true for the ministry. 

Maybe not all baptists will agree with this view. But to admit that baptism can be valid and true without genuine faith is to admit that, in some sens, the new covenant is larger than only regenerated people.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Lowlander (Oct 26, 2022)

Thanks for the responses. More to think through.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Hugues Pierre (Oct 27, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> Thanks for the responses. More to think through.


You welcome. Have a good meditation on these things!


----------



## Lowlander (Oct 27, 2022)

Hugues Pierre said:


> For an example, some Baptists say that if you have been baptised when you were still an unbeliever (even an adult unbeliever) so you must be baptised again. The validity/reality of the baptism is dependent upon the reality of a true conversion. The same thing is true for the ministry.
> 
> Maybe not all baptists will agree with this view. But to admit that baptism can be valid and true without genuine faith is to admit that, in some sens, the new covenant is larger than only regenerated people.


I’ve struggled before with the Baptist inner experience of questioning my salvation at the moment of my baptism. And there’s no way to “solve” the problem; so in practice my baptism is actually a “useless” ordinance with regards to my spiritual edification. Instead, it’s a question mark; an uncertainty; and even a discouragement.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Oct 27, 2022)

De Jager said:


> we call it a sacrament and baptists call it an ordinance.



Point of order: Historically, Confessional Reformed Baptists had no problem calling the sacraments, sacraments.

Yes, it's true that the 1689 calls them "ordinances" (and they _are_ ordinances), but the actual men who wrote / edited the 1689 Confession also used the terms "ordinances" and "sacraments" interchangeably in their other writings. If you read the 1689 Confession's _descriptions_ of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, it's sacramental.

The ONLY reason that Confessional Baptists used the term "ordinances" in the Confession was to appease those who had a faulty Romanist view what "sacrament" means. That's still a stumbling block today for some who come over from the RCC.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## Hugues Pierre (Oct 27, 2022)

Lowlander said:


> I’ve struggled before with the Baptist inner experience of questioning my salvation at the moment of my baptism. And there’s no way to “solve” the problem; so in practice my baptism is actually a “useless” ordinance with regards to my spiritual edification. Instead, it’s a question mark; an uncertainty; and even a discouragement.


I am sorry to hear that. This happens when the human commitment to God becomes the fundamental feature of the baptism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Lowlander (Oct 27, 2022)

Hugues Pierre said:


> I am sorry to hear that. This happens when the human commitment to God becomes the fundamental feature of the baptism.


I also know someone who has been baptized three (maybe four?) times.

Reactions: Sad 2


----------



## Romans678 (Oct 29, 2022)

Hugues Pierre said:


> I am sorry to hear that. This happens when the human commitment to God becomes the fundamental feature of the baptism.


This is where the rubber meets the road for me. Is baptism merely a man's public profession and declaration to God, or is it God's own profession and declaration to man? What is the pattern of God's consecration throughout the entire Bible, not just the New Testemant? Who did He consecrate and make holy for His purposes and why? These are all questions I have while studying the Word and reading these threads.


----------



## Hugues Pierre (Oct 29, 2022)

Romans678 said:


> This is where the rubber meets the road for me. Is baptism merely a man's public profession and declaration to God, or is it God's own profession and declaration to man? What is the pattern of God's consecration throughout the entire Bible, not just the New Testemant? Who did He consecrate and make holy for His purposes and why? These are all questions I have while studying the Word and reading these threads.


These are good and important questions, indeed. It's easier to see baptism as a means of grace when the Lord's promise and commitment is first considered. May the Lord bless you in the consideration of these things.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Oct 29, 2022)

Perhaps the Baptist hermeneutic is that once the age of covenant promises looking forward (OT) is over (in the New Testament), so also goes away the notion that the sign means objective promise which is to be subjectively apprehended. And also add to the mix, the view that the seed principle is no longer necessary once the Promised Seed of Abraham has come.

(Not all baptists may agree with the above)

Reactions: Like 1


----------

