elnwood
Puritan Board Junior
KMK,
I made it clear in a different thread that some of the Particular Baptists did hold to the sacramental understanding of the ordinances. Your citations of Keach and Collins show this, and thanks for that reminder. However, what Keach and Collins wrote is NOT the confession, and in the LBC, WCF Chapter 27 was removed in its entirety.
We must not think that the Particular Baptists were united on this issue. Likely, they were divided on this issue, as we are divided today. Hence this discussion!
So while Keach and Collins may have been able to affirm WCF Chapter 27, other Particular Baptists probably could not have. But all of us Baptists can agree on the nature of Baptism and the Lord's Supper as "ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world" -- and that's probably why that was put into the Confession, and not WCF Chapter 27, or even a slightly modified version of WCF Chapter 27.
--
Pastor Wallace,
Thank you for sharing your knowledge of Calvin and his sacramental views. I understand now how he viewed Baptism as not effectively sealing until it is received by faith.
However, I do not understand why it is necessary to view baptism as a "means to salvific grace." When "means of grace" is used, it refers to salvific grace -- that was the way Luther used it, and seems to be the way Calvin used it.
So, on one hand, I can view baptism as strictly something Jesus told us to do in obedience in order to signify regeneration.
Or, I can go a step further and say that the Holy Spirit works salvific grace through baptism, even though it is not tied to the moment of administration, nor will it be effective for the non-elect.
I have trouble making the next step for a number of reasons.
1) I don't see it as altogether necessary. I feel like I rest on solid Scriptural ground and in conformity with the LBC without it.
2) It seems like a doctrine left over from and modified from Roman Catholicism, as Dennis alluded to. It gets rid of the idea that salvation is tied to the moment of administration or by virtue of the one administrating it, but keeps the idea of that it actually conveys salvific grace.
As Baptists, we largely see infant baptism as a holdover from Roman Catholicism. Non-salvific "covenantal" infant baptism was never articulated as such until Zwingli formulated it against the Anabaptists. In the same way, the idea of Baptism and the Lord's Supper conveying salvific grace apart from the moment of administration was not articulated until the time of the Reformation.
3) I don't see any solid Scriptural support for it. Quotes from Renihan, Spurgeon, Keats, Collins, Calvin are nice, but I would like some Scriptural support. I did ask for it in the first post, but so far not a single reference to Scripture has been cited in support of it. That should tell us something. By all means, let us debate, but let us debate based on a proper exegesis of Scripture.
I made it clear in a different thread that some of the Particular Baptists did hold to the sacramental understanding of the ordinances. Your citations of Keach and Collins show this, and thanks for that reminder. However, what Keach and Collins wrote is NOT the confession, and in the LBC, WCF Chapter 27 was removed in its entirety.
We must not think that the Particular Baptists were united on this issue. Likely, they were divided on this issue, as we are divided today. Hence this discussion!
So while Keach and Collins may have been able to affirm WCF Chapter 27, other Particular Baptists probably could not have. But all of us Baptists can agree on the nature of Baptism and the Lord's Supper as "ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world" -- and that's probably why that was put into the Confession, and not WCF Chapter 27, or even a slightly modified version of WCF Chapter 27.
--
Pastor Wallace,
Thank you for sharing your knowledge of Calvin and his sacramental views. I understand now how he viewed Baptism as not effectively sealing until it is received by faith.
However, I do not understand why it is necessary to view baptism as a "means to salvific grace." When "means of grace" is used, it refers to salvific grace -- that was the way Luther used it, and seems to be the way Calvin used it.
So, on one hand, I can view baptism as strictly something Jesus told us to do in obedience in order to signify regeneration.
Or, I can go a step further and say that the Holy Spirit works salvific grace through baptism, even though it is not tied to the moment of administration, nor will it be effective for the non-elect.
I have trouble making the next step for a number of reasons.
1) I don't see it as altogether necessary. I feel like I rest on solid Scriptural ground and in conformity with the LBC without it.
2) It seems like a doctrine left over from and modified from Roman Catholicism, as Dennis alluded to. It gets rid of the idea that salvation is tied to the moment of administration or by virtue of the one administrating it, but keeps the idea of that it actually conveys salvific grace.
As Baptists, we largely see infant baptism as a holdover from Roman Catholicism. Non-salvific "covenantal" infant baptism was never articulated as such until Zwingli formulated it against the Anabaptists. In the same way, the idea of Baptism and the Lord's Supper conveying salvific grace apart from the moment of administration was not articulated until the time of the Reformation.
3) I don't see any solid Scriptural support for it. Quotes from Renihan, Spurgeon, Keats, Collins, Calvin are nice, but I would like some Scriptural support. I did ask for it in the first post, but so far not a single reference to Scripture has been cited in support of it. That should tell us something. By all means, let us debate, but let us debate based on a proper exegesis of Scripture.