Baby Belief Before Baptism, by Nigel Lee

[Scott Bushey]

Excellent paper from Dr. Lee

http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs7/bbbb/index.html

Baby Belief Before Baptism - Contents
15 April 2002 [PDF format only at this stage.] Chapter Title Sections Format Size
Title Page
Foreword
Preface
Scriptual Prooftexts
The Reformed Confessions
Table of Contents
Synopsis
Usual Order of Sources Discussed HTML PDF 183k
I The Bible on Covenant Baby Belief Before Baptism 1-62 HTML PDF 616k
II Baby Belief Before Baptism in the Ante-Nicene Church 63-145 HTML PDF 716k
III Baby Belief from Nicea to the Reformation 146-256 HTML PDF 961k
IV John Calvin on Baby Belief before Baptism 257-389 HTML PDF 1059k
V Baby Belief from Knox till the Westminster Standards 390-483 HTML PDF 823k
VI Belief within Babies from Westminster till Today 484-662 HTML PDF 1301k
VII Conclusion: Christianity's Baby Belief Before Baptism 663-668 HTML PDF 51k
Epilog 669-677 HTML PDF 125k
Bibliography
Index of Sections
About the Author

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Luke 1:13 But the angel said to him, "œDo not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. 14 And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, 15 for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.

Should we take this account as a common occurance or unique? Why?


By the way, thanks for the link, Scott, that paper looks pretty good.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Gabriel,
Read it. He has posted a plethora of historical quotes that are alligned w/ Westminster and what they believed on the matter.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Luke 1:13 But the angel said to him, "œDo not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. 14 And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, 15 for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.

Should we take this account as a common occurance or unique? Why?


By the way, thanks for the link, Scott, that paper looks pretty good.

Most people believe this is extraordinary. However, if the devines thought along these lines when thet penned the WCF (most on this board believe that the confession speaks against this being typical) then why would the devines have made the quotes that I have posted as well as the historical accounts provided by Dr. Lee? The quotes are there. The key would be to prove historically that the devines did not understand it the way this age does.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

I think the attitude of American individualism and a subjective faith experience does a lot of damage to Covenant Theology in general, and in particular, a more "objective" view of the visible Church as we find in paedobaptism and in presumptive regeneration.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Presbyterians need to read that paper. Its really good.


"The great Rev. Dr. George Gillespie, one of 'the Scottish Presbyterian Commissioners at
Westminster, was accustomed approvingly to cite a whole string of Reformed authorities --
Calvin, Bullinger, Beza, Ursinus, Hommius, the Belgic Confession, the Decrees of Dordt, Pareus,
Walaeus and others. Speaking of infant baptism, he himself added307 that "the sacrament is not
a converting but a confirming and sealing ordinance..., to seal unto a man that interest in Christ
and in the covenant of grace which he already hath. The sacraments do not give any grace, but
do declare and show what God hath given."

[Edited on 6-10-2005 by webmaster]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by webmaster
"The great Rev. Dr. George Gillespie, one of 'the Scottish Presbyterian Commissioners at
Westminster, was accustomed approvingly to cite a whole string of Reformed authorities --
Calvin, Bullinger, Beza, Ursinus, Hommius, the Belgic Confession, the Decrees of Dordt, Pareus,
Walaeus and others. Speaking of infant baptism, he himself added307 that "the sacrament is not
a converting but a confirming and sealing ordinance..., to seal unto a man that interest in Christ
and in the covenant of grace which he already hath. The sacraments do not give any grace, but
do declare and show what God hath given."

Well, this seems to insinuate we have to presume both election and regeneration.

 

[D Battjes]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Originally posted by webmaster
"The great Rev. Dr. George Gillespie, one of 'the Scottish Presbyterian Commissioners at
Westminster, was accustomed approvingly to cite a whole string of Reformed authorities --
Calvin, Bullinger, Beza, Ursinus, Hommius, the Belgic Confession, the Decrees of Dordt, Pareus,
Walaeus and others. Speaking of infant baptism, he himself added307 that "the sacrament is not
a converting but a confirming and sealing ordinance..., to seal unto a man that interest in Christ
and in the covenant of grace which he already hath. The sacraments do not give any grace, but
do declare and show what God hath given."

Well, this seems to insinuate we have to presume both election and regeneration.

SOme did exactly that, but I do not believe it is warranted nor needed.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

This is the position of the Church since the early church, and obviously the Reofrmed Church. Its OK that you don't believe it, you are just going to have to justify why you are dissenting from accepted doctrine, and will have to overthrow thier exegesis.

Have you read through the paper?

 

[D Battjes]

Originally posted by webmaster
This is the position of the Church since the early church, and obviously the Reofrmed Church. Its OK that you don't believe it, you are just going to have to justify why you are dissenting from accepted doctrine, and will have to overthrow thier exegesis.

Have you read through the paper?

'


I am in the process Matt.

I do not believe it was a dogmatic statement whether to confess PE/PR. ANd if it was, it only shows that men are and can be fallible.

I am not speaking of infant baptism here.