Church Fathers and Baptismal Regeneration
- Thread starter AV1611
- Start date
- Status
According to different sources I have read there were various teachings. The need to be baptized for the forgiveness of sin was one unbiblical teaching as well as baptismal regeneration.
Amazing Grace
Puritan Board Junior
It depends on whose side one puts them on. Those who deny BR will find quotes supporting their position and those who believe in br will do the same. All in all they did believe in br....
The early church fathers certainly believed in baptismal regeneration. It can be argued that the reformed churches did too (although their doctrine of baptismal regeneration differed significantly from Rome). Cornelius Burgess, one of the assessors at the Westminster Assembly, and the convener of the committee that wrote the confession's chapter on baptism, argued this is his book entitled "Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants, Professed by the Church of England, According to the Scriptures, the Primitive Church, the Present Reformed Churches, and Many Particular Divines Apart". (The nice thing about long titles is that you can see the outline of the entire book in them.)
Cornelius Burgess, one of the most prominent and respected divines at Westminster, would probably be considered unorthodox (if not heretical) in most confessional Presbyterian churches today because of his view of baptismal efficacy.
I'm considering republishing his book. As far as I know its been out of print since 1629 and is only available in a PDF image of the original (part of Early English Books collection). If anyone is interested in a reprint, please contact me.
Cornelius Burgess, one of the most prominent and respected divines at Westminster, would probably be considered unorthodox (if not heretical) in most confessional Presbyterian churches today because of his view of baptismal efficacy.
I'm considering republishing his book. As far as I know its been out of print since 1629 and is only available in a PDF image of the original (part of Early English Books collection). If anyone is interested in a reprint, please contact me.
JohnOwen007
Puritan Board Sophomore
Dear AV,
The general consensus in ECF scholarship is that baptismal regeneration was universally believed. The great proof text was John 3:5 "unless one is born of water and spirit". A good summary is found in the work of J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines. He is fairly reliable.
Of course, not all ECF speak about it. However, when they do they are pretty clear. The first occurrence of the teaching is found in Barnabas. The first extended treatment is that of Justin Martyr.
You won't find any of the ECF saying that baptism is simply a sign alone. Protestants have been reading the ECF for years and haven't found anything convincing (especially when put in their context).
As far as I can find it the first people to say that baptism doesn't actually save you (from sin) were people like Walter Brute and his Lollard counterparts. This was the early 1400s.
It's an uncomfortable truth we just have to accept.
God bless brother.
The general consensus in ECF scholarship is that baptismal regeneration was universally believed. The great proof text was John 3:5 "unless one is born of water and spirit". A good summary is found in the work of J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines. He is fairly reliable.
Of course, not all ECF speak about it. However, when they do they are pretty clear. The first occurrence of the teaching is found in Barnabas. The first extended treatment is that of Justin Martyr.
You won't find any of the ECF saying that baptism is simply a sign alone. Protestants have been reading the ECF for years and haven't found anything convincing (especially when put in their context).
As far as I can find it the first people to say that baptism doesn't actually save you (from sin) were people like Walter Brute and his Lollard counterparts. This was the early 1400s.
It's an uncomfortable truth we just have to accept.
God bless brother.
Thanks for the responses thus far. Is it possible to determine whether they held to an ex opere operato view of baptismal efficacy, i.e. disounting "worthy reception" (by/through faith)? From my reading of St. Augustine he would hold that baptism takes away original sin. That poses the question in my mind, is Augustine saying that the water does that or that the Spirit of God does that through the water.
Are we able to determine what the ECF meant by "regeneration". Calvin understood it to be lifelong if I am not mistaken.
My biggest problem with saying tha baptism regenerates is the even if it were true then that must mean circumcision regenerated in the OT but then what did before Genesis 17?
Random thoughts, I know, but I need to get back to my essay.
Are we able to determine what the ECF meant by "regeneration". Calvin understood it to be lifelong if I am not mistaken.
My biggest problem with saying tha baptism regenerates is the even if it were true then that must mean circumcision regenerated in the OT but then what did before Genesis 17?
Random thoughts, I know, but I need to get back to my essay.
JohnTombes
Puritan Board Freshman
There are a few more things to consider when reading the ECFs on the topic. 1. They were all too often influenced by Neo-Platonism's belief that what men do on the earth is mirrored by the gods (or God in Xity) in heaven. 2. They applied two issues from Acts 2, via their incipient Platonism, to the efficacy of baptism. 3. Those twin issues are remission (forgiveness) and regeneration. So, early on there were two efficacies enjoined to the act of baptism: that it regenerated and/or that it brought forgiveness. The remission can be incomplete or complete. Constantine put off baptism until late in life so he could have a plenary forgiveness, even though baptized by a heretic (the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia). Augustine seems to have taught that baptism washed away the effects of original sin.
Have you ever read Stander & Louw's "Baptism in the Early Church?"
Mike
Have you ever read Stander & Louw's "Baptism in the Early Church?"
Mike
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
Calvin used the term regeneration differently than we do today. When you read Calvin he includes the effectual call, justification and sanctification when he talks about regeneration. It was the latter reformers that started to make the various distinctions. In fact in the Standards, the effectual call is synonomous with regeneration.
Who were right?
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
I would say that none of them were wrong it was just the definitions that were in use at the time. Hodge makes note of this in his Systematic. In my humble opinion, as the Reformed faith grew, the latter reformers became more precise in their use of terms as the situation dictated. The same can be said of covenant theology. We can see the foundations of covenant theology in the ECF and have seen continued refinement up through today.
How folks in the past used certain terms may end up being quite different than how we use them today. That is why we need to be very careful not to read 21st century terminology and ideas back into 16th and 17th century mindsets. The previous comments about Burgess is an example. I have heard this before about Burgess but there are those who would dispute that he believed in BR. In fact some in the Reformed faith have tried to use Burgess and his comments as leverage to prove that the Standards teach BR or at least allows for it, which it doesn't.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
Not only this, but it is important to bear in mind that when the Reformers used the term, they weren't talking about the mere application of water, but the entire sacrament: the sign, the thing signified, and the sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified. In other words, none of the Reformers divorced the sign from the thing signified. Furthermore, Calvin at least was quite careful to say that without faith and the Holy Spirit's regenerating power, you didn't have the complete sacrament.
Burgess, Westminster, and Baptismal Regeneration
Here goes...
Burgess believed in baptismal regeneration. That much is absolutely not disputable. Read him for yourself:
http://www.trinity-pres.net/essays/ht-burges-baptism.pdf
I would say that the WCF teaches a form of baptismal regeneration similar (if not identical) to Burgess. That shouldn't be surprising considering Burgess' role in drafting the chapter on baptism. The confession speaks about the efficacy of baptism, and it asserts that the grace offered is *really conferred*. That's pretty clear to me. True it makes a few statements to clarify various aspects about the efficacy of baptism. (E.g. its possible to be saved without being baptized etc.) Of course, if the confession taught what the majority today claim, those clarifying statements wouldn't be necessary. They could simple have said: baptism has no efficacy, and they would have been done with the matter. When they say that "grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed to it . . .", what they are clearly implying is that yes, grace and salvation are annexed to it, but that they are not absolutely inseparable. Had they believed as many of us do, that statement would have been completely unnecessary. There's no need to spell out the exceptions to a rule unless you first accept the rule. The rule in this case being the efficacy of baptism.
I do think the confession is very clear about baptismal efficacy and leaves little room for the sacramentalism which is so popular today.
Here goes...
Burgess believed in baptismal regeneration. That much is absolutely not disputable. Read him for yourself:
http://www.trinity-pres.net/essays/ht-burges-baptism.pdf
I would say that the WCF teaches a form of baptismal regeneration similar (if not identical) to Burgess. That shouldn't be surprising considering Burgess' role in drafting the chapter on baptism. The confession speaks about the efficacy of baptism, and it asserts that the grace offered is *really conferred*. That's pretty clear to me. True it makes a few statements to clarify various aspects about the efficacy of baptism. (E.g. its possible to be saved without being baptized etc.) Of course, if the confession taught what the majority today claim, those clarifying statements wouldn't be necessary. They could simple have said: baptism has no efficacy, and they would have been done with the matter. When they say that "grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed to it . . .", what they are clearly implying is that yes, grace and salvation are annexed to it, but that they are not absolutely inseparable. Had they believed as many of us do, that statement would have been completely unnecessary. There's no need to spell out the exceptions to a rule unless you first accept the rule. The rule in this case being the efficacy of baptism.
I do think the confession is very clear about baptismal efficacy and leaves little room for the sacramentalism which is so popular today.
If this is what the word 'baptism' means, (the sign, the thing signified, the union between the two) then we all believe in baptismal regeneration, right?
Can you explain this a little more?
In other words, the confession clearly teaches that through baptism the Holy Ghost "really confers" the grace promised. The grace promised it defines to include remission of sins and regeneration (among others).
Perhaps that confusion lies with my using the word Sacramentalism to describe the prevalent view today. This word has undergone a curious inversion of its definition. It once referred to people who held to a very low view of the efficacy of the sacraments (thats the way I was using it and the way Burgess uses it). Now its often used in exactly the opposite sense.
In any case, I think the majority today (as I perceive it anyway) are out of step with what the confession actually says.
HTH
Christusregnat
Puritan Board Professor
Here goes...
Burgess believed in baptismal regeneration. That much is absolutely not disputable. Read him for yourself:
http://www.trinity-pres.net/essays/ht-burges-baptism.pdf
I would say that the WCF teaches a form of baptismal regeneration similar (if not identical) to Burgess. That shouldn't be surprising considering Burgess' role in drafting the chapter on baptism. The confession speaks about the efficacy of baptism, and it asserts that the grace offered is *really conferred*. That's pretty clear to me. True it makes a few statements to clarify various aspects about the efficacy of baptism. (E.g. its possible to be saved without being baptized etc.) Of course, if the confession taught what the majority today claim, those clarifying statements wouldn't be necessary. They could simple have said: baptism has no efficacy, and they would have been done with the matter. When they say that "grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed to it . . .", what they are clearly implying is that yes, grace and salvation are annexed to it, but that they are not absolutely inseparable. Had they believed as many of us do, that statement would have been completely unnecessary. There's no need to spell out the exceptions to a rule unless you first accept the rule. The rule in this case being the efficacy of baptism.
I do think the confession is very clear about baptismal efficacy and leaves little room for the sacramentalism which is so popular today.
Pardon Emoi, but this sounds like FV clap trap. Trinity Pres is part of the FV gulag (see Trinity Presbyterian Church ~ Birmingham, Alabama).
Mr. Moderator, would you please remind this man of the agreement he took upon entering the Puritan Board?
Cheers,
Sir,
Cornellius Burgess was an assessor at the Westminster Assembly. The fact that the PDF of one of his most famous books happens to be hosted on a website associated with a FV man is completely irrelevant to the contents of that book (which is what we are discussing). Doctor Burgess predated the FV movement by nearly four centuries. I assure you he was not involved with it in any way.
I'd be willing to put the book on a different server if that would make you feel better about it.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
I think I would put it this way (a bit tentatively): if the sign and the thing signified are both present, then regeneration has occurred. Or, if the thing signified is present without the sign being present, then regeneration has occurred. For the thing signified is the cleansing of sin by the blood of Jesus. Of course, for that to happen, God-given faith must be present. The problem here is that baptismal regeneration has only negative connotations in today's evangelical circles. Therefore, I don't really like using the term. The bare rite of baptism does not confer regeneration. Only the thing signified does that. Baptism as a sign is a sign of that. It says, "regeneration is in Christ. Go that way." Of course, if we go that way, it is only because the Holy Spirit has directed us in that way. Hopefully, this hasn't confused any of the issues.
Christusregnat
Puritan Board Professor
Hello All,
Just to clear up what the Confession says, instead of just guessing:
So, there are a few points to be made. First, this comes in the context of the broader sacramentology of the WA:
III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.
Sacramental efficacy is a three-legged stool. First, we're told what the legs of the stool ARE NOT: (1) the sacrament itself has no power, (2) the minister who administers it has no power. Then we are told what those legs ARE: (1) God's divine, sovereign work by the Spirit "the work of the Spirit", (2) The Word of God's explanation of the gospel "the word of institution" and the "precept authorizing the use thereof," and "a promise of benefit", and (3) The subjective response: it being "rightly used", and the promise being made to "worthy receivers".
Now to the section on Baptism:
I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.
Notice, this merely states the intention of baptism; that is, what it is "to be" to everyone who receives it. This DOES NOT say what "IT IS" to everyone who receives it. Recall the point above about "worthy receivers" and "rightly receiving".
II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.
The element and the lawful calling of the administrator.
III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.
We're not baptists.
IV. 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.
Our children are holy.
V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
Two errors are rejected: one is that of reducing the Holy Spirit to the church's servant. The wind blows where it wills. Not all who receive baptism are undoubtedly regenerated (Chrysostome's view). The other error rejected is that a person must be baptized to be saved (Augustine's view). None of the errorists are named (as, if I'm not mistaken, they never are by the Assembly), but their errors are repudiated.
VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.
Again, baptism is a three-legged stool: The "right use", the "conferring by the Holy Ghost" and the "counsel of God" in "His time" (the third leg of Scripture being mentioned above as the "word of institution"). Notice again, only those predestinated unto life according to God's counsel enjoy the actual conferrence of grace by God's Spirit.
VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.
Again, rejecting anabaptism.
Cheers,
Just to clear up what the Confession says, instead of just guessing:
So, there are a few points to be made. First, this comes in the context of the broader sacramentology of the WA:
III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.
Sacramental efficacy is a three-legged stool. First, we're told what the legs of the stool ARE NOT: (1) the sacrament itself has no power, (2) the minister who administers it has no power. Then we are told what those legs ARE: (1) God's divine, sovereign work by the Spirit "the work of the Spirit", (2) The Word of God's explanation of the gospel "the word of institution" and the "precept authorizing the use thereof," and "a promise of benefit", and (3) The subjective response: it being "rightly used", and the promise being made to "worthy receivers".
Now to the section on Baptism:
I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.
Notice, this merely states the intention of baptism; that is, what it is "to be" to everyone who receives it. This DOES NOT say what "IT IS" to everyone who receives it. Recall the point above about "worthy receivers" and "rightly receiving".
II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.
The element and the lawful calling of the administrator.
III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.
We're not baptists.
IV. 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.
Our children are holy.
V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
Two errors are rejected: one is that of reducing the Holy Spirit to the church's servant. The wind blows where it wills. Not all who receive baptism are undoubtedly regenerated (Chrysostome's view). The other error rejected is that a person must be baptized to be saved (Augustine's view). None of the errorists are named (as, if I'm not mistaken, they never are by the Assembly), but their errors are repudiated.
VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.
Again, baptism is a three-legged stool: The "right use", the "conferring by the Holy Ghost" and the "counsel of God" in "His time" (the third leg of Scripture being mentioned above as the "word of institution"). Notice again, only those predestinated unto life according to God's counsel enjoy the actual conferrence of grace by God's Spirit.
VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.
Again, rejecting anabaptism.
Cheers,
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
I would hope that any who subscribe to the WCF would agree with this. Of course, not everyone on the PB is paedo-baptist by a long shot. Adam, who did you have in mind who was "just guessing?"
Christusregnat
Puritan Board Professor
The agreement to which I referred was that when you signed up for the PB, you agreed to inform the moderators if you came to embrace any of the FV positions, and voluntarily exit the list. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I believe that the posts you have previously made (regardless of the Burgess link) do (at least in some points) reflect FV teaching.
However, that I may not falsely accuse you, please clarify your understanding of the covenant as it relates to election, baptism, etc. For instance, can someone be elect at one point in their life, and later become non-elect? Is there such a thing as an invisible church composed of all of the elect througout all ages? Do we continue in our justification by faithful obedience? Can justification be lost? Does justification by faith include any form of faithfulness on our part?
Hopefully, those questions will help me to avoid giving any offense, or accusing you of being associated with the FV. Forgive me if I have, indeed accused you falsely.
Godspeed,
Christusregnat
Puritan Board Professor
Greenbaggins,
I was referring to this quotation:
"I would say that the WCF teaches a form of baptismal regeneration similar (if not identical) to Burgess. That shouldn't be surprising considering Burgess' role in drafting the chapter on baptism. The confession speaks about the efficacy of baptism, and it asserts that the grace offered is *really conferred*. That's pretty clear to me. True it makes a few statements to clarify various aspects about the efficacy of baptism. (E.g. its possible to be saved without being baptized etc.) Of course, if the confession taught what the majority today claim, those clarifying statements wouldn't be necessary. They could simple have said: baptism has no efficacy, and they would have been done with the matter. When they say that "grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed to it . . .", what they are clearly implying is that yes, grace and salvation are annexed to it, but that they are not absolutely inseparable. Had they believed as many of us do, that statement would have been completely unnecessary. There's no need to spell out the exceptions to a rule unless you first accept the rule. The rule in this case being the efficacy of baptism."
There was a brief snippet, but no contextualization.
Cheers,
Adam
wsw201
Puritan Board Senior
Onemaster,
I attempted to read the book you linked but unfortunately, as with most facsimilies, its not very legible plus may Elizabethan english is not all that great either! I speak Texan! So unfortunately I was not able to get through it.
Be that as it may, I would refer you back to Greenbaggins post regarding the union between the sign and the thing signified. The Church has not divorced the two. The church does not baptize pagans nor does Baptism make a pagan a Christian. The Church baptizes based on a profession of faith. Therefore one must already be a believer before they can be baptized (I am speaking of adults and those who can make a credible profession, not infants). But it is not the Churches position to presume upon the activity of the Holy Spirit especially regarding baptism, which is why the Standards in section 6 on Baptism notes that "The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time."
In addition if baptism actually regenerated someone, which would mean that they were among the elect, then Simon Magus is actually in heaven right now and that baptism is an admission into the invisible church rather than the visible church.
Regarding FV, it is quite true that some of the proponents of FV use BR to advance their views on peadocommunion and for other issues.
At this point I will make the assumption that you are not an advocate of FV since you are aware of the rules of this board.
I attempted to read the book you linked but unfortunately, as with most facsimilies, its not very legible plus may Elizabethan english is not all that great either! I speak Texan! So unfortunately I was not able to get through it.
Be that as it may, I would refer you back to Greenbaggins post regarding the union between the sign and the thing signified. The Church has not divorced the two. The church does not baptize pagans nor does Baptism make a pagan a Christian. The Church baptizes based on a profession of faith. Therefore one must already be a believer before they can be baptized (I am speaking of adults and those who can make a credible profession, not infants). But it is not the Churches position to presume upon the activity of the Holy Spirit especially regarding baptism, which is why the Standards in section 6 on Baptism notes that "The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time."
In addition if baptism actually regenerated someone, which would mean that they were among the elect, then Simon Magus is actually in heaven right now and that baptism is an admission into the invisible church rather than the visible church.
Regarding FV, it is quite true that some of the proponents of FV use BR to advance their views on peadocommunion and for other issues.
At this point I will make the assumption that you are not an advocate of FV since you are aware of the rules of this board.
Moderation
Christregnant, I don't know what you saw, but as of this posting, Onemaster had posted a total of 5, all on this thread related to Burgess, except for one on a humor thread.
Let's keep the thread on subject. This is not the place for one member to serve as an interogator of another.
I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition... 
No.
Yes.
No.
No.
No.
How did I do? Did I pass the test
, or will I be burned at the stake 
?
Its very unfortunate that the Biblical doctrine of baptismal efficacy taught by Burgess and the other reformers of his time (as he demonstrates in his book), have been largely surrendered to the FV camp. These doctrines were part of the orthodox reformed tradition centuries before the current controversies were ever dreamed up.
No.
Yes.
No.
No.
No.
How did I do? Did I pass the test
, or will I be burned at the stake ? Its very unfortunate that the Biblical doctrine of baptismal efficacy taught by Burgess and the other reformers of his time (as he demonstrates in his book), have been largely surrendered to the FV camp. These doctrines were part of the orthodox reformed tradition centuries before the current controversies were ever dreamed up.
Leaving aside FV and all that; how are you, and how did Burgess, define regeneration and how did he explain baptism as being regenerating?
Good question. This is key I think. It seems that modern Calvinists tend to think of regeneration as something that happens in a single moment of time when a person is converted. Burgess, and the others, viewed it as more of a lifelong process of walking in newness of life. For them is was definitely something more comprehensive that encompassed the entire Christian life.
Burgess believed that elect infants "ordinarily" received the Holy Ghost at the moment that they were baptized to be a sort of first principle of regeneration that would later come to fruition when they were effectually called by the word at a later time. He concerns himself mainly with elect infants who live to years of age. He acknowledges (as does the confession) that God may work in other ways as he sees fit. For instance, infants who die in infancy may be regenerated by some extraordinary means without baptism. But the ordinary case, for elect infants who live to years of discretion, is to receive initial regenerating grace and remission of sins at the time of baptism.
I suggest reading it for yourself as I could never do justice to it with my explanations.
Christusregnat
Puritan Board Professor
I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition...
No.
Yes.
No.
No.
No.
How did I do? Did I pass the test
Its very unfortunate that the Biblical doctrine of baptismal efficacy taught by Burgess and the other reformers of his time (as he demonstrates in his book), have been largely surrendered to the FV camp. These doctrines were part of the orthodox reformed tradition centuries before the current controversies were ever dreamed up.
Thanks Onemaster. The beating will continue until morale improves
Adam
Christusregnat
Puritan Board Professor
Mr. Moderator,
Thanks for the update. As you may have noticed, my mistake was subsequently corrected. I realized that I may have presumed to much, and Onemaster very kindly responded.
Thanks,
Adam
- Status
Similar threads
