Circumcision of the heart

[Young_Genevan_Zoomer]

Q98 appears to rule out an ex opere operato view rather clearly.

Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them.[1]

I just realized that we were looking at different sites while discussing. That's why we had different numbers on the question. Anyway, to continue our discussion, I would like to point out that the Confession and Catechism state that Baptism is a means of grace that saves through faith in Christ and with promises attached. Perhaps my prior wording also added some ambiguity to my intent or meaning.

 

[Ploutos]

I just realized that we were looking at different sites while discussing. That's why we had different numbers on the question. Anyway, to continue our discussion, I would like to point out that the Confession and Catechism state that Baptism is a means of grace that saves through faith in Christ and with promises attached.

I think I see your point - however, it sounds like you are attributing virtue to the act of baptism itself, which the posted excerpts clearly disagree with. Am I understanding you correctly / Could you clarify?

 

[Young_Genevan_Zoomer]

I think I see your point - however, it sounds like you are attributing virtue to the act of baptism itself, which the posted excerpts clearly disagree with. Am I understanding you correctly / Could you clarify?

Yes Brother, I apologize for any confusion earlier. My belief is that baptism is what saves us, just like 1 Peter 3:21 and how Moses was brought into the Ark through water and sealed into it by God. We are now saved through baptism, in the sense that the water represents our entrance into the Ark of Christ as a sign and seal of our salvation. It is not the mere act of baptism that saves us, but rather the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ that makes these signs a means of grace.

 

[Ploutos]

Yes Brother, I apologize for any confusion earlier. My belief is that baptism is what saves us, just like 1 Peter 3:21 and how Moses was brought into the Ark through water and sealed into it by God. We are now saved through baptism, in the sense that the water represents our entrance into the Ark of Christ as a sign and seal of our salvation. It is not the mere act of baptism that saves us, but rather the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ that makes these signs a means of grace.

Is the actual physical act of baptism part of the requirement for salvation, in your view?

 

[Young_Genevan_Zoomer]

Is the actual physical act of baptism part of the requirement for salvation, in your view?

It stands to reason that an individual who denies baptism is unlikely to be saved; in short, yes, however someone who does not have access to the sacrament or is ignorant to the sacrament is spared.

 

[dsanch1120]

I not only watch my Brother in Christ Redeemed Zoomer but am often in communication with him and other people in the Theology community on YouTube and Instagram.

I would simply urge caution then and recommend a priority of learning at the feet of a seminary-educated, older and wiser minister and reading the "old dead guys" yourself. RZ has a lot of good things to say, but he has made problematic statements and seems to hold somewhat Barthian views as well.
Even a few years ago most of my "theological learning" came from YouTube channels and discussions with my friends. It's now switched to discussions with elders and older saints as well as reading. The latter is far better than the former.

 

[Young_Genevan_Zoomer]

I would simply urge caution then and recommend a priority of learning at the feet of a seminary-educated, older and wiser minister and reading the "old dead guys" yourself. RZ has a lot of good things to say, but he has made problematic statements and seems to hold somewhat Barthian views as well.
Even a few years ago most of my "theological learning" came from YouTube channels and discussions with my friends. It's now switched to discussions with elders and older saints as well as reading. The latter is far better than the former.

Oh yes, this was no means an endorsement or defense of RZ and I much prefer theological readings over YouTube discussions but yes I will heed your advice. Thank you Brother!

 

[Logan]

Summarized from Hodge:

Proposition 1: The visible church is a divine institution
God has ordained his people to be together in worship, and he has prescribed certain conditions of membership and rules for exclusion to this visible body.

Proposition 2: The Visible Church does not consist exclusively of the regenerate
Matthew 13:24-30, we will always have a mixed body which is why it is so helpful to make a distinction between the visible and invisible church

Proposition 3: The commonwealth of Israel was the visible church.
Acts 7:38, Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,13 etc.

Proposition 4: The church under the New Dispensation is identical to that under the old
"The Apostle expressly teaches that Gentile converts, coming to Christ by faith, are under the terms of the Abrahamic Covenant. Therefore that covenant is not abolished. They are 'the seed;' they are the 'children of Abraham.' they are 'the true Israel.' (Romans 4:12-17; Matthew 3:9; Galatians 3:7). Indeed, the 'seed' to whom the promises were made, never was, at any time, strictly coincident with the lineal descendants of Abraham. Ishmael, Keturah's children, Esau, though circumcised, were no part of it. Every heathen proselyte was. See Genesis 17:12, 13; Exodus 12:48; Deuteronomy 23:8. Gentiles were always, as truly (not as numerously) as now, a part of this seed."

Proposition 5: The terms of admission into the church before the Advent were the same that are required for admission into the Christian Church.
1. A credible profession of faith in the true religion
2. A promise of obedience,
3. Submission to the appointed rite of initiation
"Every sincere Israelite really received Jehovah as his God, relied upon all his promises, and especially upon the promise of redemption through the seed of Abraham. He not only bound himself to obey the law of God as then revealed, but sincerely endeavored to keep all his commandments. Those who were Israelites only in name or form, or as the Apostle expresses it, were 'Jews outwardly' made the same profession and engagement, but did so only with the lips and not with the heart. If any from among the heathen assayed to enter the congregation of the Lord, they were received upon the terms above specified, and to a place equal to, and in some cases better than that of sons and of daughters. If any Israelite renounced the religion of his fathers, he was cut off from among the people. All this is true in reference to the church that now is. The Christian Church requires of those whom it receives into membership in visible communion, nothing more than a credible profession of faith, the promise of obedience to Christ, and submission to baptism as the rite of initiation. There has, therefore, been no change of the terms of admission to the Church, effected by the introduction of the Gospel."

Proposition 6: Infants were members of the Church under the Old Testament Economy

Proposition 7: That there is nothing in the New Testament which justifies the exclusion of the children of believers from membership in the Church.
"If children are to be deprived of a birthright which they have enjoyed ever since there was a Church on earth, there must be some positive command for their exclusion, or some clearly revealed change in the conditions of membership, which renders such exclusion necessary.

Proposition 8: Children need, and are capable of receiving the benefits of redemption

 

[Logan]

Summarized from Randy Booth's Children of the Promise:

Baptism and Circumcision both:
1. Are initiatory rites (Gen 17:10-11; Mat 28:19; Act 2:38-39; 8:12-13)
2. Signify an inward reality (Rom 2:28-29; Col 2:11-12; Phil 3:3)
3. Picture the death of the old man of sin (Rom 6:3-7; Col 2:11-12)
4. Represent repentance (Jer 4:4; 9:25; Lev 26:40-41; Act 2:38)
5. Represent regeneration (Rom 2:28-29; Tit 3:5)
6. Represent justification by faith (Rom 4:11-12; Col 2:11-14)
7. Represent a cleansed heart (Deu 10:16; 30:6; Isa 52:1; Act 22:16; Tit 3:5-7)
8. Represent union and communion with God (Gen 17:7; Exo 19:5-6; Deut 7:6; Heb 8:10)
9. Indicate citizenship in Israel (Gen 17:4; Gal 3:26-29; Eph 2:12-13; 4:5)
10. Indicate separation from the world (Exo 12:48; 2Co 6:14-18; Eph 2:12)
11. Can lead to either blessings or curses (Rom 2:25; 1Co 10:1-12; 11:28-30)

Typically reasons against baptizing children, would have also been reasons for not circumcising children, yet we know they were circumcised. Thus one would have to conclude that if we are not to baptize children then this is a drastic change in how children are considered. This would have had some comment in the New Testament. But there is none. Paedobaptists come at it from an assumed view of continuity until proven otherwise, Credobaptists from an apparently assumed discontinuity until proven otherwise.

 

[Ploutos]

It stands to reason that an individual who denies baptism is unlikely to be saved; in short, yes, however someone who does not have access to the sacrament or is ignorant to the sacrament is spared.

I would encourage you to develop greater clarity here. Reformed confessional theology of all stripes denies any inherent efficacy in the act itself for any sacrament. The only thing effectual unto salvation is the work of Christ through the Holy Spirit. Nor can the call to obedience in the wake of salvation be worded in such a way that the act of baptism becomes a de facto prerequisite or part or salvation. Can disobedience to the baptismal command be a sign of unbelief? Sure. Tread carefully before going farther than that.

 

[Young_Genevan_Zoomer]

I would encourage you to develop greater clarity here. Reformed confessional theology of all stripes denies any inherent efficacy in the act itself for any sacrament. The only thing effectual unto salvation is the work of Christ through the Holy Spirit. Nor can the call to obedience in the wake of salvation be worded in such a way that the act of baptism becomes a de facto prerequisite or part or salvation. Can disobedience to the baptismal command be a sign of unbelief? Sure. Tread carefully before going farther than that.

I understand your point, but compared to other Confessional Presbyterians, my language of the Sacraments as a means of salvation is even stronger than that of my own. I would like to point out the Scots Confession to defend my stance on this matter. Nevertheless, have a blessed day, brother!

 

[Northern Crofter]

I understand your point, but compared to other Confessional Presbyterians, my language of the Sacraments as a means of salvation is even stronger than that of my own. I would like to point out the Scots Confession to defend my stance on this matter. Nevertheless, have a blessed day, brother!

Please provide a quote. I don't know of any place in the 1560 Scots Confession that in any way describes the sacraments as a means of salvation.

 

[Ed Walsh]

While it is true that Baptism is correlated with circumcision, how does this assertion serve to nullify the Credobaptist position

Greetings Young Baptist,

Since you posted this under Baptism in general rather than, Credo-Baptism Answers, where and I am not allowed to participate as a Pedo-Baptist. I will give just one short answer that has often been on my mind, and I will be polite and then leave it alone. If you'd rather not entertain pedo input I'm sure the moderator would move this to the Credo-Baptist answers forum for you if you so chose.
~~~~~~~

Following is an answer I gave to Ben zarkman on this subject from 2017:
~~~~~~~

Ben Zartman said:
In the New Covenant you are member ONLY by the New Birth

1 Samuel 16:7

But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.

Hi Ben,
The problem is that we do not know who has been born again. Many tares will grow up in the Church along with the wheat.
In verse 7 from 1 Samuel above, Samuel is not being rebuked by the Lord for his looking only at the outward appearance. Rather, the Lord is stating what the case is between men and men. We do NOT know what is in another man's heart. Period.
~~~~~~~

It just seems like two different of religion from the Old Testament to the New Testament. The rules seem to be the same but the truth kind to Simply are not supported by the rules that you put forth to decide if somebody's the True Believer or not. You don't know who they are. I don't know who they are. And nobody's going to know until that Day.

 

[Acts 16]

I was thinking that if baptism is the new circumcision, doesn't that destroy baptismal regeneration? After all, the act of circumcision never saved anyone.

 

[Ed Walsh]

I was thinking that if baptism is the new circumcision, doesn't that destroy baptismal regeneration? After all, the act of circumcision never saved anyone.

Couldn't resist. -

‭1 Peter 3:21-22 KJV‬
[21] The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: [22] who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

 

[TheInquirer]

1 Peter 3:21-22 KJV‬
[21] The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: [22] who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

So baptism here is connected to “the answer of a good conscience toward God” and salvation - who then should receive this mark?

Random point - I find it interesting that both Credobaptists and Reformed Paedobaptists baptize upon profession of faith - one the faith of the parents (in case of an infant) and the other the one being baptized. Both parties have to deal with the question of whether the faith of the professor(s) is genuine.

I should ask in the paedo only forum but I will ask here - if the faith of the parents in paedo churches is found to be false (i.e. they apostatisize), does it nullify the baptism of the child? (Honest question, never come across the answer so I am curious).

 

[Ploutos]

I should ask in the paedo only forum but I will ask here - if the faith of the parents in paedo churches is found to be false (i.e. they apostatisize), does it nullify the baptism of the child? (Honest question, never come across the answer so I am curious).

Since this happened to me, I can affirm that no, it does not nullify it. The question of adult baptisms I will answer shortly when time permits.

 

[clawrence9008]

So baptism here is connected to “the answer of a good conscience toward God” and salvation - who then should receive this mark?

Random point - I find it interesting that both Credobaptists and Reformed Paedobaptists baptize upon profession of faith - one the faith of the parents (in case of an infant) and the other the one being baptized. Both parties have to deal with the question of whether the faith of the professor(s) is genuine.

I should ask in the paedo only forum but I will ask here - if the faith of the parents in paedo churches is found to be false (i.e. they apostatisize), does it nullify the baptism of the child? (Honest question, never come across the answer so I am curious).

This is the context of that verse: “…when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…” (1 Pet. 3:20-21).

All of Noah’s household were in the ark and were “saved” through the “baptism” of the floodwaters. However, were all the members of Noah’s household elect? No, they weren’t, as we see from Ham’s sin against his drunken father Noah and the resulting curse against his son Canaan (Gen. 9:22-26). All in the household received the administration of the covenant promises to Noah, but not all in the household received the substance. Peter says that NT baptism is the antitype of Noah’s “baptism” in the floodwaters, and thus it follows that the same principle of outward administration vs. inward substance is true in NT baptism.

Peter’s description of baptism denies the sacerdotalism of Rome that states that baptism works ex opere operato (“not as a removal of dirt from the body”); it is only truly effective when the person baptized has both the sign and the spiritual reality that is being signified. Col. 2:11-12 — which explicitly state that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign and seal of the NC administration of the covenant of grace — also put forward a similar idea: “having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.” However, just because baptism only saves when accompanied by faith does not mean that infants of believers should not be baptized as members of the visible church; for God has said “the promise is for you and for your children” (Acts 2:39).

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I should ask in the paedo only forum but I will ask here - if the faith of the parents in paedo churches is found to be false (i.e. they apostatisize), does it nullify the baptism of the child? (Honest question, never come across the answer so I am curious).

I will forego the prior Q (as rhetorical), and set forth a doctrinal response to this latter.

For the Presbyterian, priority falls on the speech that belongs to God; or put differently, on the testament of the church acting/speaking in Christ's stead. What is being said in baptism? God promises to save all who put their trust in him alone, are cleansed of their sins, and united to Christ the Mediator; which gospel-declaration is symbolized by the sacrament of baptism. God's speech is not nullified if the professors involved in a baptism turn away from faith in Christ. That God made that promise by name through his church to a particular baptized individual in the context of his kingdom administration, in no wise makes him a captive to the baptized one irrespective of the outcome of his (said) faith.

As 1Pet.3:21 says, baptism is an "answer," a reply/response when considered from the standpoint of the recipient, a secondary speech coming from man (following the dialogical principle). That answer comes both at the hour of personal baptism, and repeatedly as baptism is improved by the recipient. Hence, though an infant does not personally respond (that we can tell) at the hour of his baptism, he must in due time confess Christ and take up the duties of a mature Christian, and partake in the privilege of the Table sacrament. He should make use of his baptism, particularly as he comes to the Table and when he participates (by observation or otherwise) in the baptisms of all others he witnesses.

When a baptized person apostatizes, in the Presbyterian reckoning he is still baptized. Our theology does not reconsider whether he was, properly, a candidate for baptism; and then conclude (as he persists in unbelief) that being an improper candidate he was not in fact baptized. Rather, though he was an improper candidate, he was at that time still, in fact baptized. In the same way, and for the same basic reason, the infant who was baptized by professing believers who later abandoned the faith still possesses the record of God's witness, his public claim to "ownership" and the imposition of his Name on that property.

Regardless of who one is, or the status of his personal faith, or when he was baptized--the act of despising a gospel declaration, not the words only but also the demonstration and exhibition of the mercy of God in tangible, sensible form by baptism--this is an atrocity. It is a public execration of God's stamp of ownership. Yes, every created thing has an indelible mark from the Creator; but a baptism is a step further. It has the character of God's open declaration to all that he is the Redeemer, that he would redeem everyone who belongs to his company, everyone who publicly takes his sign-and-seal and bears his Name. Some people hate their country in their hearts; others burn their country's flag on camera.

A child who was baptized on account of the supposed faith of one-time professors, now bears that claim. He should not repudiate it, but affirm it all his life, just as he should if he for the first time and on his own account presented himself for baptism as a mature person. How sweet to know, if later in life, that one taken from the church by parents who turned back, should he return on his own he will say that God had not only known him from before the creation of the world: he also marked him as his property long prior to this late return, only now acknowledged after such a space.

 

[Ploutos]

So baptism here is connected to “the answer of a good conscience toward God” and salvation - who then should receive this mark?

Random point - I find it interesting that both Credobaptists and Reformed Paedobaptists baptize upon profession of faith - one the faith of the parents (in case of an infant) and the other the one being baptized. Both parties have to deal with the question of whether the faith of the professor(s) is genuine.

I wanted to address this separately because I don't believe this is an accurate understanding of the paedobaptist view. At least, it does not line up with my understanding. Maybe my understanding is flawed, and if so, I hope another wiser paedobaptist will set me straight.

In the paedobaptist view it is not ever about profession of faith for adults or children. There is one rationale and that is the covenant promises made by God - granted, it is made to those who have professed faith, and their children. But it is not about the profession of faith. It is a sign and seal of initiation into the covenant promises made by God to his people and in the paedobaptist view this holds true for an adult who professed faith two weeks ago as well as for an infant who was born two weeks ago.

 

[Acts 16]

Couldn't resist. -

‭1 Peter 3:21-22 KJV‬
[21] The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: [22] who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

Are you arguing that water baptism saves?

 

[Ed Walsh]

Are you arguing that water baptism saves?

I'm not arguing at all.
I'm just trying to have some fun.

Consider -- Water baptism Is never a thing unto itself in Scripture. It is always tied up in what it represents, and not the representative itself. Is that not correct?

And that's why our Confession makes it clear that nobody who is not then present in the room may be allowed to partake. That means no more running to the nursery for a little afterthought of Jesus.

John Calvin taught that the Lord's Supper cannot exist apart from preaching.

 

[Acts 16]

Consider -- Water baptism Is never a thing unto itself in Scripture. It is always tied up in what it represents, and not the representative itself. Is that not correct?

But the thing it represents is what saves. It's important to make this distinction because many people claim that the physical act is salvific.

 

[erickinho1bra]

I need to get JV Fesko's book on baptism because, to me, the Reformed position on baptism seems very similar to the Lutheran position.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong please, but when I read:

WLC 161: How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?​

Answer: The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered, but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they are instituted.1​

1. 1 Pet 3:21; Acts 8:13; cf. Acts 8:23; 1 Cor 3:6–7; 12:13

WLC 165: What is Baptism?​

Answer: Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ has ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost1, to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself2, of remission of sins by his blood3, and regeneration by his Spirit4; of adoption5, and resurrection unto everlasting life6; and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church7, and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord’s.8​

1. Mt 28:19
2. Gal 3:27;
3. Mk 1:4; Rev 1:5;
4. Titus 3:5; Eph 5:26;
5. Gal 3:26–27;
6. 1 Cor 15:29; Rom 6:5;
7. 1 Cor 12:13;
8. Rom 6:4

I can but only think what they are saying is that:

1. The act of baptism does not save ex opere operato​

2. The act of baptism does not save because of one's piety or intentions (apart from the Spirit)​

3. The act of baptism DOES save by the work of the Holy Ghost and the blessing of Christ in it​

​

The Lutheran Small Catechism says a similar thing:

What benefits does Baptism give?​

It works forgiveness of sins, rescues from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.​

How can water do such great things?​

Certainly not just water, but the word of God in and with the water does these things, along with the faith which trusts this word of God in the water. For without God’s word the water is plain water and no Baptism. But with the word of God it is a Baptism, that is, a life-giving water, rich in grace, and a washing of the new birth in the Holy Spirit, as St. Paul says in Titus, chapter three: “He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by His grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying.” (Titus 3:5–8)​

One big difference between the two seems to be that the Lutheran Small Catechism actually includes an element of faith in the baptized for the sacrament of baptism to be on of the "effectual means of salvation." Therefore, I see it agreeing with the WLC in that it also teaches (in different words) that:

1. The act of baptism does not save ex opere operato​

2. The act of baptism does not save because of one's piety or intentions (apart from the Spirit)​

3. The act of baptism DOES save by the work of the Holy Ghost and the blessing of Christ in it (through faith)
​

Am I off here or is this correct?

 

[Theoretical]

I need to get JV Fesko's book on baptism because, to me, the Reformed position on baptism seems very similar to the Lutheran position.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong please, but when I read:





I can but only think what they are saying is that:

1. The act of baptism does not save ex opere operato​

2. The act of baptism does not save because of one's piety or intentions (apart from the Spirit)​

3. The act of baptism DOES save by the work of the Holy Ghost and the blessing of Christ in it​

​

The Lutheran Small Catechism says a similar thing:


One big difference between the two seems to be that the Lutheran Small Catechism actually includes an element of faith in the baptized for the sacrament of baptism to be on of the "effectual means of salvation." Therefore, I see it agreeing with the WLC in that it also teaches (in different words) that:

1. The act of baptism does not save ex opere operato​

2. The act of baptism does not save because of one's piety or intentions (apart from the Spirit)​

3. The act of baptism DOES save by the work of the Holy Ghost and the blessing of Christ in it (through faith)​

​

Am I off here or is this correct?

Sign and seal langauge means that the washing itself is not the means by which these things are done - that's done entirely by the Spirit internally. But baptism is a visual, and physical sign that the Spirit has done this washing in the person, whether they are a professing adult or a covenant child.

Belgic confession, from Article 34
Therefore He has commanded all those who are His to be baptized with pure water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,3 thereby signifying to us, that as water washeth away the filth of the body, when poured upon it, and is seen on the body of the baptized, when sprinkled upon him, so doth the blood of Christ, by the power of the Holy Ghost, internally sprinkle the soul, cleanse it from its sins, and regenerate us from children of wrath unto children of God.4 Not that this is effected by the external water, but by the sprinkling of the precious blood of the Son of God,5 who is our Red Sea, through which we must pass to escape the tyranny of Pharaoh, that is, the devil, and to enter into the spiritual land of Canaan.

Therefore the ministers on their part administer the sacrament and that which is visible,6 but our Lord giveth that which is signified by the sacrament, namely, the gifts and invisible grace; washing, cleansing, and purging our souls of all filth and unrighteousness;7 renewing our hearts and filling them with all comfort; giving unto us a true assurance of His fatherly goodness; putting on us the new man, and putting off the old man with all his deeds.8

The Lutheran confessions teach that the Spirit works through the water directly, that everyone who is baptized is regenerated but non-elect can and do reject real salvation (it's essentially Saved population theoretically >100% of elect at any one time but only elect are ultimately saved). It is literally that faith is given to the child (or adult for that matter) via the baptism itself. And yes, that language of faith and the Word being physically represented is what they believe.

Both are Protestant views, which is why there are similarities that you've outlined, but also very real differences. The 39 Articles split the baby so to speak by taking a view closer to but not fully on the Lutheran side on Baptism and staunchly on the Calvinistic side on the Lord's Supper.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I was hoping @Contra_Mundum would weigh in and he didn't disappoint.

I will simply add that the Presbyterian view sees one, not multiple, Mediator of the Covenant of Grace. This is Christ.

There were Sacraments in the OC that were more in number but they all had the same sign/seal aspect to them. The Baptist position makes OC circumcision an ethnic marker and divorces the Sacrament from the Covenant of Grace. The scriptures don't make this error and everywhere annex the "seal" of circumcision with the physical sign. It even distinguishes between those who have the sign only and have never been sealed with the graces signified. It is clear that it was the Holy Spirt who would provide the graces signified even as the people were called to faith based on the Promise of the Covenant received in their flesh.

It is strange to me that any time a Baptist sees "hear change" or other language associated with baptism or circumcision that they believe they have caught the Presbyterian in some sort of dilemma because the Presbyterian position is scriptural with respect to distinguishing the sign from the graces signified (seal). We always insist that is is up to the Spirit, according to His Sovereign pleasure to seal the graces signified. He gives faith and unites us to Crhsit. He did so in the OC and does so in the NC.

As noted, baptism replaces circumcision as both the outward sign of participation in the Kingdom as well as a sign of all that the Spirit will provide to those sealed (union with Christ and salvation). The Baptist makes faith some sort of thing that we "do" retrospectively, and baptism is intended to represent our faith and obedience based on the idea that the professor is, in fact, born again. This creates a problem with the ordinance because as soon as faith is whon to be false, it is assumed that the person was never baptized. Baptism is never effected if the person did not have faith at the time of baptism, and there is no "promissory" sense that baptism is God's speech and promise - only a sense that the person baptized has true faith. There is no analog in the OC compared to the NC. The believer circumcised in the OC (even if they were circumcised on profession) could not be "re-circumcised" or "truly circumcised" if it was shown that they were never circumcised in the heart. They were somehow called to the same kind of transformation (a new heart) but physical circumcision somehow never represented this sin the OC (according to Baptist theology).

The bottom line is that Baptist theology creates a jumbled mess in terms of the way that circumcision, circumcision of the heart, and baptism are employed to speak to the same realities as it was for the congregation in the OC who "believed the Gospel" and the congregation now who has received the fullness of what was signified - the same and only Mediator.

 

[cthorn14]

This creates a problem with the ordinance because as soon as faith is whon to be false, it is assumed that the person was never baptized. Baptism is never effected if the person did not have faith at the time of baptism.

This is a major problem. With God's help, and through a diligent striving to make my calling and election sure, I can be assured that I am in the state of grace so long as it's called 'today'. However, I see no way of obtaining assurance that I was in that same state the day I was baptized. After all, a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties before he becomes a partaker of infallible assurance. If the sign is merely a badge of the thing signified, lack of baptismal assurance is unavoidable.

I think this leads to an unhealthy emphasis on testifying to a specific 'crisis' conversion experience in some evangelical circles. Sadly, a fair number of these experiences are spurious, and in many other cases the new believer remains weak for some time. The 'promissory' sense mentioned above seems necessary for assurance to accompany the ordinance.

 

[Ed Walsh]

There were Sacraments in the OC that were more in number but they all had the same sign/seal aspect to them. The Baptist position makes OC circumcision an ethnic marker and divorces the Sacrament from the Covenant of Grace. The scriptures don't make this error and everywhere annex the "seal" of circumcision with the physical sign. It even distinguishes between those who have the sign only and have never been sealed with the graces signified. It is clear that it was the Holy Spirt who would provide the graces signified even as the people were called to faith based on the Promise of the Covenant received in their flesh.

Yesterday, I began to share an experience I had some time ago regarding baptism. But I deleted it.
~~~~~~~

But, here it is again.

I was leaving our meeting place parking lot when I started thinking about baptism.
Here's how that went.

I was baptized in an Assembly of God church. I thought it went wonderfully. I had been taught that my baptism was all about my public testimony that I would work for God. I was proud and didn't know it. I loved the praise of men, fully convinced I deserved all of it.
Would you say that I got a perfect baptism? Neither did I.

Being quite dissatisfied with my performance, I headed out to the model serving God. I am now thinking about 50 years ago, still rolling out of the lot.

The confusion about baptism made me feel very uneasy. Can I? Should I look into this?

Then! A new thought came into my mind and began to grow. I remember I had another baptism shortly after my birth. But what of it? It was a Roman Catholic baptism. I became more and more convinced that this obscure little ritual was, in God's Holy secrecy. He showed me (in later years, reflection) that all He did for me that Day was forever and ever. Amen.

Tears are running down my cheeks as I write. My wife just asked me what I was doing. As I turned to answer her, it was apparent I had been very emotional. So, I said the obvious. I am crying.
~~~~~~~~~

OK, it was just an experience. Do you know that there will come a time when there will be peace and harmony between the paedo and credo? I know it will work. And please don't begin to think there is no solution.

Ed

 

[TheInquirer]

I will simply add that the Presbyterian view sees one, not multiple, Mediator of the Covenant of Grace. This is Christ.

Who sees more than one mediator of the Covenant of Grace? I am not familiar with those who would hold such a view unless I am not understanding your descriptors.

It even distinguishes between those who have the sign only and have never been sealed with the graces signified. It is clear that it was the Holy Spirt who would provide the graces signified even as the people were called to faith based on the Promise of the Covenant received in their flesh.

Yet females in the OC never bore that sign, what sign did they receive as being a part of the Covenant of Grace?

It is strange to me that any time a Baptist sees "hear change" or other language associated with baptism or circumcision that they believe they have caught the Presbyterian in some sort of dilemma because the Presbyterian position is scriptural with respect to distinguishing the sign from the graces signified (seal).

Is "hear change" a mistype or maybe a term I am not understanding? I wish to understand your claim here.

We always insist that is is up to the Spirit, according to His Sovereign pleasure to seal the graces signified. He gives faith and unites us to Crhsit. He did so in the OC and does so in the NC.

It is the "order of operations" we have a dispute with - sign is meant to follow that which the Spirit has already done in our view of course.

As noted, baptism replaces circumcision as both the outward sign of participation in the Kingdom as well as a sign of all that the Spirit will provide to those sealed (union with Christ and salvation).

I am not familiar where baptism in the New Testament points forward to a potential future reality rather than one that has already occurred. Again, the dispute is on the order of the sign given in relation to the thing signified. Of course we disagree that baptism is functioning the same way circumcision did.

The bottom line is that Baptist theology creates a jumbled mess in terms of the way that circumcision, circumcision of the heart, and baptism are employed to speak to the same realities as it was for the congregation in the OC who "believed the Gospel" and the congregation now who has received the fullness of what was signified - the same and only Mediator.

Of course we disagree on this point as well as I believe giving New Covenant signs to those who are clearly unregenerate to be a mistake but that certainly shouldn't be a surprise.

If we go back to the key passage of Acts 2, look at the promise, the commands, and who was actually baptized:

"37 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?” 38 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. 39 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.” 40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. - Acts 2:37-41

Only those who received the gospel message received the sign of baptism. It says nothing of their children receiving it, those who were "far off" receiving it, nor those in the crowd who did not receive the message receiving it. We could also talk about which "call" is being referred to in v.39 (but that's for another thread).

Baptism is additionally linked with the command of repentance and an implied faith in Jesus Christ (baptized into his name) in v.38. Why split those two commands and assume that baptism is functioning like circumcision and given to one who cannot yet demonstrate any sign of repentance? Later in Acts when we see entire households baptized, I see no exegetical reason whatsoever that this pattern set forward in this passage has been deviated from in any way - repetence and faith in the gospel message given as requirements for those being baptized.

One of my main complaints that I have kept to myself until now is that over the years when this passage is cited on this board I have seen over and over again the phrase "for you and for your children" cited as justification for infant baptism yet the rest of the details of the passage are completely left out. There may have been many reasons for this, but it is a mistake to rip a phrase from its context in that way as justification for a view - it doesn't seem to be an honest treatment of the passage even if no dishonesty is intended (I am making a statement about appearance, not intent and thus not accusing anyone of dishonesty but communicating what it looks like to someone of another view).

I have other issues with circumcision being linked with baptism but that is probably for another thread to avoid clutter and tangents in this one.

How sweet to know, if later in life, that one taken from the church by parents who turned back, should he return on his own he will say that God had not only known him from before the creation of the world: he also marked him as his property long prior to this late return, only now acknowledged after such a space.

Bruce, I am having trouble understanding the view that Jesus marks those who are his through baptism before He ever applies the Spirit to them through regeneration and those who might never be regenerated. Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[Phil D.]

The bottom line is that Baptist theology creates a jumbled mess

Vary tactfully put, Rich... Besides, I blame the Benedictines - and overly imperious nomenclators...