Willem van Oranje
Puritan Board Junior
Sorry to dissapoint you, but that's exactly what I am saying. John the Baptist was regenerate in the womb. I don't think he's the only one.
infant baptism same concept as infant dedication?
- Thread starter thistle93
- Start date
- Status
Sorry to dissapoint you, but that's exactly what I am saying. John the Baptist was regenerate in the womb. I don't think he's the only one.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
But your premise is faulty; you claim that paedobaptists go beyond Scripture, but that is merely an assumption on your part. Also keep in mind that the default confession of this board is the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is a paedobaptistic document. You may not agree with the WCF on this point, but please tread lightly in this area.
Also keep in mind that this is not a baptism thread (per the OP), so let's try to steer clear of that area as much as possible. I think the main question of the OP has been answered a thoroughly as possible (i.e., in covenant theology infant baptism and infant dedication are not the same concept), so perhaps this thread has gone about as far as it can w/o entering the baptism realm. But perhaps there can be more discussion on the latter portion of the OP, which seems to consider whether rejection of infant baptism but acceptance of infant dedication is a consistent substitute in a Reformed perspective of covenant theology.
Nathan,
My "experiential" evidence of serving and teaching many at a Baptist Church for years was a trust in their own baptisms as a sign they had been "born again". By your anecdotal standard, it would appear that decisional Baptism is anti-Scriptural. I can't remember the last time I've run into a person baptized as a child who believes he's saved solely because he was baptized in a Church.
In fact, which theological principle more naturally leads to presumption concerning baptism:
1. The paedo view: Baptism is not administered on the basis of the Church's judgment that the person is saved but as a ministerial declaration of Promise.
2. The credo view: Baptism is administered because the Church is confident that the person is saved. It is not to be administered unless the Church is sufficiently confident of regeneration.
Forget about silly anecdotes but focus on principle. By Confession, Baptist Churches ground the basis of baptism upon the disposition of the individual. Reformed Confessions, in contrast, view Baptism as declarative of something promissory outside of the individual.
My "experiential" evidence of serving and teaching many at a Baptist Church for years was a trust in their own baptisms as a sign they had been "born again". By your anecdotal standard, it would appear that decisional Baptism is anti-Scriptural. I can't remember the last time I've run into a person baptized as a child who believes he's saved solely because he was baptized in a Church.
In fact, which theological principle more naturally leads to presumption concerning baptism:
1. The paedo view: Baptism is not administered on the basis of the Church's judgment that the person is saved but as a ministerial declaration of Promise.
2. The credo view: Baptism is administered because the Church is confident that the person is saved. It is not to be administered unless the Church is sufficiently confident of regeneration.
Forget about silly anecdotes but focus on principle. By Confession, Baptist Churches ground the basis of baptism upon the disposition of the individual. Reformed Confessions, in contrast, view Baptism as declarative of something promissory outside of the individual.
Willem van Oranje
Puritan Board Junior
Agreed, except in that case I mentioned where the Holy Ghost has indicated as much. I'm all for not presuming regeneration in the womb, but I also don't want to presume an unregenerate state in the womb. That seems to be what you're doing.
Yes, in faith that God will fulfill his promise, as the Canons of Dort teach.
It seems a lot for you to presume what is and is not the "normative state" of the birth of one of God's elect. Romans 3:23 and Ephesians 2:1 do not support this presumption. They would be just as true of someone who had been born regenerate.
My contention is that when you teach your children to pray "Our Father" and catechize them, you are treating them as disciples, not mission fields. If you were more consistent with your view, you would not teach them these things. You would just be evangelizing them. But I am thankful for this inconsistency of Baptists. Have you ever told your children that Jesus died for them?
---------- Post added at 02:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:51 PM ----------
Absolutely, and it's evidence that God is fulfilling his covenant promise. Do you really think that the children of believers are no more likely to die as Christians than the children of unbelievers?
And where exactly is your evidence for this? Baptism is indeed a Sacrament of Jesus Christ intended to support our faith and give us assurance of salvation. The Reformed Christian looks back to his baptism, whenever performed, and thinks, "just as I was baptized with water in the name of the Holy Trinity, so God will pardon me all my sins for faith in Christ." Baptism is a great blessing, and it also brings with it the covenant obligations of lifelong faith and obedience on the part of the person baptized.
I try to mention this covenant obligation incurred at baptism whenever I'm speaking with someone who I know has been baptized. I've found it to be a good conversation starter with Catholics and Orthodox, among others. "Are you living in light of your baptism into the Holy Trinity?", I ask.
Riley, I could have supplied an exhaustive list of verses that indicate man is born in a state of enmity with God. I thought brevity would suffice. I stand by what I consider to be the clear teaching of scripture that it is normative for mankind to be born unregenerate.
God is the God of all; whether Christian or not. That said, what do you know in regards to what I taught my daughter to do? As the father, I am the one who prayed during family worship. I allowed my daughter to witness the Christian life and hear the Gospel in the home and at church. Cornelius is an example of a man who, In my humble opinion, did not know God but prayed to him. If a Christian parent allows their child to pray I have no problem with that. It's not like there is some paradigm that must be followed. Let a child learn to call upon the name of the Lord and understand the significance of such an act. May the Holy Spirit impress upon the heart of a young one the need to reconcile with the God their parents worship and who they are being taught to pray to. Neither Presbyterians or Baptists have exclusivity in this area.
In the end I keep coming back to scripture. What does scripture plainly teach?
Willem van Oranje
Puritan Board Junior
I'm still looking for one verse, any verse, which states, as you say, that it is normative for God's elect to be born unregenerate. I don't find in Scripture that we are given any indication of whether the elect are more frequently born regenerate or unregenerate. Therefore, I contend that the answer to this question remains hidden in the mind of God.
This is true, but not all have a right to call him, "our Father", and to pray to him as a loving Father. Only those who have been adopted in Christ have such a relation to him.
I don't know. Forgive me if I was being presumptuous. It's just that every Christian parent I've ever known treats his or her children as disciples in practical terms. That's the point I was trying to make. Spurgeon wrote his Catechism. You haven't used Catechisms?
So you mean that it might not be required for a Christian parent to teach his children to pray? This is the first I've ever heard this from a Christian. If that's your position, it is very consistent with the Baptist view of the children of believers. But I truly hope that you are not consistent in this way.
That's what I want to go to. The Scriptures plainly teach that there is promise for the children of believers under the New Covenant. In order to take a contrary position, one would have to ignore the restatements of the promise (e. g. Acts 2:39) and read into the New Testament a removal of the promise, which sadly leaves one with something less than a "new and better covenant."
Riley, I am going to focus on this one statement of yours. Every person born into this world is born in sin. Romans 3 is perfectly clear on that.
Additionally...
The scripture is crystal clear; all of mankind is brought forth in iniquity. This is even true of the elect who come to faith some time after their birth.
Paul is addressing adult Ephesian believers who are included in his statement on predestination in Eph. 1:5. These individuals were formally enemies of God even though they were predestined for adoption as sons (Eph. 1:5). Paul goes on and describes himself as one of those who followed the prince of the power of the air (Eph. 1:3) prior to his conversion. Certainly Paul was elect, no? So, the scripture clearly teaches that even the elect, prior to their conversion, were sinners and aliens; they were transgressors of God's law and worthy of judgment.
The only exception to this immutable biblical truth is in the area of elect infants dying in infancy. I concur that elect infants dying in infancy go to be with Christ. But we are not sure of the spiritual state of every infant who dies in infancy. As I said earlier, we hope in God's mercy and trust the child who dies infancy will go to be with him. But if a child does not die in infancy scripture is clear that they are born sinners until such time as they are converted. I honestly don't know why this is such a hard concept for a paedobaptist to accept.
Mushroom
Puritan Board Doctor
Wow! Loving this thread! What bold and irrefutable defenses of the covenant promises of our loving God exemplified in the sacrament of baptizing the children the Lord has given His people!
And this coming Lord's Day there is to be, by God's wondrous grace, the baptism of FIVE - count 'em - FIVE covenant children at my Church. A family has been granted the faith to trust those covenant promises, and are following the example of the Philippian jailer. Our interim Pastor performs the best baptisms I have ever witnessed, so I know that many tears of joy will flow. I'm so looking forward to this! Praise God!
And this coming Lord's Day there is to be, by God's wondrous grace, the baptism of FIVE - count 'em - FIVE covenant children at my Church. A family has been granted the faith to trust those covenant promises, and are following the example of the Philippian jailer. Our interim Pastor performs the best baptisms I have ever witnessed, so I know that many tears of joy will flow. I'm so looking forward to this! Praise God!
littlepeople
Puritan Board Freshman
Praise God indeed!
thistle93
Puritan Board Freshman
Funny you say we cannot presume one way or the other but right here this is exactly what you are doing. That means every baby ever born is regenerate. Because leaping and kicking is what babies do in the womb. I know because my wife is due in one week. Ask her how much babies like to move. Many of your points on the other areas have been helpful and informative but this one is just not.
For His Glory-
Matthew
---------- Post added at 11:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 AM ----------
Hi! Maybe I should be a bit clearer. In a way our whole life is an act of worship.When I say it is not an act of worship, it is not at the same level of importance as things clearly given as commands for worship in Scripture (singing,giving,praying,preaching,Lord's Supper, baptism). We actually do the baby dedication after the end of the worship service, just so people do not get confused.
For His Glory-
Matthew
---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 AM ----------
All that has been said has been very insightful, though I think we have gone down a few rabbit holes. I agree that while infant dedications are not implicitly directed in Scripture the idea behind them is clearly given in Scripture. It is a covenant act, just as marriage is a covenant act. The vow is "Do you take this man/woman", "I do". Even though promise is between husband and wife it is ultimately a covenant to God. Same with infant dedication. The vow is "Do you promise to raise your child in the knowledge of God", "I do". Promise is between parent/congregation to child but again ultimately it is a covenant to God. My point was not that this somehow this mirrors circumcision in the OT but rather that it shows that those who practice believers baptism can still have a covenantal view of their children and influences how they raise their children. I know we will not all come to an agreement on this thread. But let us be humble and charitable to one another as the whole body of Christ. For His Glory- Matthew
What these Scriptures demonstrate is that all men are born into Adam. That is axiomatic. It really says nothing about the point at which God acts sovereignly upon an individual and regenerates. This is a spiritual act that does not depend on the person's willing. It also does not mean that the person conceived somehow escaped being "conceived in sin". No Reformed confession denies the imputation of Adam's guilt to all men apart from Christ.
I think the discussion is confusing regeneration with fruit. If God were to regenerate an individual in the womb then the seed of faith is going to look differently for someone who lacks the capacity to speak or articulate that faith. Faith, properly speaking, is not to be confused with confession or intellectual capacity but is a gift implanted as God condescends to show mercy and gift an individual with the same.
I'm not one to argue for the timing of regeneration in any life as I believe it speaks where God has not spoken. Where I see Baptist theology erring on this point is conflating understanding or confession with faith itself rather than recognizing that the timing or operation of these things is completely unknown to all but God. It's not, in the end, an argument that some children escape having Adam's guilt and corruption imputed to them but being dogmatic about the timing of God's grace to superabound in that person's life. There seems to be a hidden premise that regeneration must immediately precede understanding or confession and that is an unwarranted conclusion from the Scriptures. We simply do not know the timing of such things and to state otherwise contradicts our Lord's direct teaching on such things (John 3).
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
Matthew, I don't think he is saying this simply because John leaped in his mother's womb, but because Luke 1:15 says, "he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb."
Rich, I'm not sure where you see this error in my argument. My point to Riley is that scripture makes it clear that everyone is born in sin. Outside of the subject of elect infants dying in infancy, every person who eventually comes to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ makes the change from sinner to saint. I pointed out that even Paul saw that dichotomy in himself (Eph. 2:3). For that reason we cannot presume upon the spiritual state of an infant other than what scripture is clear about. While the timing of God in calling his elect to faith is a mystery to us, the only evidence we have to support such an inward change is external. But external evidence really wasn't being argued here. Baptism is a sign, not a seal. It's application (or not) does not ensure salvation. I know that you know that. I'm simply adding it to keep the conversation I had with Riley in context.
Willem van Oranje
Puritan Board Junior
Not a seal? If this is the Baptist position, this is a deep, fundamental difference between Baptists and the Reformed on what baptism is. It goes beyond our discussion of who the proper subjects are. For us, baptism is primarily a testimony from God for and regarding the person baptized. For Baptists, it is mainly a testimony of the person being baptized.
The only seal is that of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:13; Eph. 4:30). Baptism is a sign and sign only. Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians differ on this language in our respective confessions.
As far as disagreeing with the Reformed, well, who said that all the Reformed were paedobaptists?
Last edited:
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
For what it's worth, the language of "sign and seal" is taken from Romans 4:11 -- "he [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised..."
Tim, for the sake of context, thank you for pointing that out. I believe the framers of the 1689 LBC considered the Pauline passages on the seal of the Spirit as indicating that it is the seal of the believer.
Willem van Oranje
Puritan Board Junior
There is an internal and an external seal, and the latter points to the former.
There is an internal seal (the Spirit) and an external sign (baptism). We disagree.
Willem van Oranje
Puritan Board Junior
I am kind of envying Abraham right now, who had "a seal of the righteousness of the faith" that he could see and feel. You know, something he could look back on when Satan tempted him to doubt God's mercy toward him. That is, if we are now in under the New Covenant left without any external seal.
Riley, as a Baptist I can look at the sign of my salvation (baptism) and rejoice. I know that I have been sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, given as a pledge of my future inheritance. I wrote about this last year.
Of Road Signs and Baptism
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
Bill, since circumcision was a sign and seal, and (if I am understanding you correctly), you are saying that baptism is only a sign, then is baptism is somehow lesser of an ordinance than circumcision?
Tim, if anything, baptism is a greater ordinance than circumcision. Circumcision was applied to males only based on national identity. It was not a sign of faith, either of the covenant community or the individual. Baptism is sign of the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is applied to those who confess faith in Christ (the Baptist position of worthy recipients). I understand why paedobaptists view baptism as both sign and seal. It makes sense, from your perspective, since you hold to a continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
Since circumcision existed prior to national Israel, it cannot simply be a sign of national identity. And since circumcision is specifically called a sign and seal, while baptism is considered to be only a sign by Baptists, it would seem to be lesser in at least that particular sense. I know you do not agree that it is, but I wanted to know if I was clear on what you were saying.
Austin
Puritan Board Freshman
A few thoughts:
1) It seems that the 1st recorded instance of someone equating the sacraments of Circumcision & Baptism was the Apostle Paul:
Colossians 2:11-14 -- "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."
2) The difference in terminology between Baptists & Reformed Christians, while often overlooked, points us to a major part of our differences. That is, Reformed Christians have "Sacraments" while Baptists have "Ordinances." An ordinance is a law, something one does b/c it is commanded. Sacraments are "signs & seals," promises by God to do something which is a myserty (Gk, "musterion"), that is, something which we understand only in part which, though formerly not understood (e.g. Circumcision as a testimony to Christ's redemption) is now revealed (e.g. Baptism as the NT fulfillment of the OT sacramental promises), and which points to a miraculous work of God the HS.
In other words, Baptists do not have sacraments. The Lord's Supper is a memorial. Period. We do it to remember Christ (note the nearly ubiquitous etching on Baptist communion tables), because He said so. Baptism is me obeying God's command to bear witness to what He & I have accomplished-- namely, my salvation. (After all, it points to my obedience to the Law by exercising faith. And never forget that to exercise faith is an act of obedience to the Law. [Interesting Master's thesis: "How does a Baptist view of baptism lead almost inevitably to Arminianism?"]) Baptism is therefore a sign, but not a seal. After all, the subtext of Baptist 'sacramentology' is not monergism, but cooperative grace.
By contrast, Reformed Christians do indeed have sacraments. We resist the popish & Eastern errors which make it magical, but we embrace the mysterious nature of God's sovereign promises, and revel in the fact that He has made promises to us & to our children, and look with eager expectation to the fulfillment of the sacramental promises in our children.
3) Yes, Reformed folk DO believe that our children are Christians. We believe that as those who share Abraham's faith (cf. Gal. ch. 3) we are sons & daughters of Abraham, citizens of the Commonwealth of Israel, and heirs of the Covenants of Promise (cf. Eph. ch.2). As such, we inherit the Sacrament of Circumcision as reinterpreted into the Sacrament of Baptism (which signify & seal the same things to Covenant children). Therefore, we eagerly look for the salvation of our children as promised by God to the elect of every age. HOWEVER, we do not presume regeneration. Even in the OT there was no presumption of regeneration (though perhaps this is edging into an anachronistic argument). Rather, every Covenant child is commanded to obey, and Covenant parents are commanded to teach their children "the way that they ought to go, that even when they are old they will not depart from it." Deut 6 is therefore a command to Covenant parents.
That said, there is the awful reality of Heb 6 & 10 hanging over all Covenant children who never exercise faith.
4) I do not believe that a Baptist can be Covenantal in the same sense that a Reformed Christian can be. The views of the relationship between the OT & NT are too divergent. Reformed folks believe in the fundamental CONTINUITY between the 2 dispensations of the Covenant of Grace. Baptists believe in a fundamental DISCONTINUITY between them. Indeed, it seems that it is almost impossible for a Baptist to adhere to a bi-covenantal structure of redemptive history (i.e. works in Adam, grace in Christ). Rather, a tri-covenantal structure seems necessary (Pre-fall, OT, NT). After all, each of the "three" has its own 'sacraments,' its own laws, its own telos, and never the thrain shall meet.
5) Consequently, there is no real correspondence (on a theological level) between a Baptist dedication and a Reformed baptism, at least as children are concerned. Indeed, due to the fact that Reformed folk have sacraments and Baptists have a sectarian rite, or ordinance, of baptism, I would say that the fundamental differences in ultimate theological significance of the two makes them quite distinct such that there is no correspondence.
I'm sure that both sides would agree, however, that we DO have the same 'sacraments.' We each view the other as inadvertantly doing the right thing, however inconsistently.
After all, does not the Reformed teaching that to neglect baptizing our children is a grave sin? And do not Baptists see the baptism of children as sadly errant?
We have mutually exclusive views on the relationship between the testaments, the sacraments, ecclesiology (arising from these differences), and the place of children in God's economy.
Sorry to be so long-winded, but that's my stab at addressing the OP.
Shalom,
1) It seems that the 1st recorded instance of someone equating the sacraments of Circumcision & Baptism was the Apostle Paul:
Colossians 2:11-14 -- "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."
2) The difference in terminology between Baptists & Reformed Christians, while often overlooked, points us to a major part of our differences. That is, Reformed Christians have "Sacraments" while Baptists have "Ordinances." An ordinance is a law, something one does b/c it is commanded. Sacraments are "signs & seals," promises by God to do something which is a myserty (Gk, "musterion"), that is, something which we understand only in part which, though formerly not understood (e.g. Circumcision as a testimony to Christ's redemption) is now revealed (e.g. Baptism as the NT fulfillment of the OT sacramental promises), and which points to a miraculous work of God the HS.
In other words, Baptists do not have sacraments. The Lord's Supper is a memorial. Period. We do it to remember Christ (note the nearly ubiquitous etching on Baptist communion tables), because He said so. Baptism is me obeying God's command to bear witness to what He & I have accomplished-- namely, my salvation. (After all, it points to my obedience to the Law by exercising faith. And never forget that to exercise faith is an act of obedience to the Law. [Interesting Master's thesis: "How does a Baptist view of baptism lead almost inevitably to Arminianism?"]) Baptism is therefore a sign, but not a seal. After all, the subtext of Baptist 'sacramentology' is not monergism, but cooperative grace.
By contrast, Reformed Christians do indeed have sacraments. We resist the popish & Eastern errors which make it magical, but we embrace the mysterious nature of God's sovereign promises, and revel in the fact that He has made promises to us & to our children, and look with eager expectation to the fulfillment of the sacramental promises in our children.
3) Yes, Reformed folk DO believe that our children are Christians. We believe that as those who share Abraham's faith (cf. Gal. ch. 3) we are sons & daughters of Abraham, citizens of the Commonwealth of Israel, and heirs of the Covenants of Promise (cf. Eph. ch.2). As such, we inherit the Sacrament of Circumcision as reinterpreted into the Sacrament of Baptism (which signify & seal the same things to Covenant children). Therefore, we eagerly look for the salvation of our children as promised by God to the elect of every age. HOWEVER, we do not presume regeneration. Even in the OT there was no presumption of regeneration (though perhaps this is edging into an anachronistic argument). Rather, every Covenant child is commanded to obey, and Covenant parents are commanded to teach their children "the way that they ought to go, that even when they are old they will not depart from it." Deut 6 is therefore a command to Covenant parents.
That said, there is the awful reality of Heb 6 & 10 hanging over all Covenant children who never exercise faith.
4) I do not believe that a Baptist can be Covenantal in the same sense that a Reformed Christian can be. The views of the relationship between the OT & NT are too divergent. Reformed folks believe in the fundamental CONTINUITY between the 2 dispensations of the Covenant of Grace. Baptists believe in a fundamental DISCONTINUITY between them. Indeed, it seems that it is almost impossible for a Baptist to adhere to a bi-covenantal structure of redemptive history (i.e. works in Adam, grace in Christ). Rather, a tri-covenantal structure seems necessary (Pre-fall, OT, NT). After all, each of the "three" has its own 'sacraments,' its own laws, its own telos, and never the thrain shall meet.
5) Consequently, there is no real correspondence (on a theological level) between a Baptist dedication and a Reformed baptism, at least as children are concerned. Indeed, due to the fact that Reformed folk have sacraments and Baptists have a sectarian rite, or ordinance, of baptism, I would say that the fundamental differences in ultimate theological significance of the two makes them quite distinct such that there is no correspondence.
I'm sure that both sides would agree, however, that we DO have the same 'sacraments.' We each view the other as inadvertantly doing the right thing, however inconsistently.
After all, does not the Reformed teaching that to neglect baptizing our children is a grave sin? And do not Baptists see the baptism of children as sadly errant?
We have mutually exclusive views on the relationship between the testaments, the sacraments, ecclesiology (arising from these differences), and the place of children in God's economy.
Sorry to be so long-winded, but that's my stab at addressing the OP.
Shalom,
Augusta
Puritan Board Doctor
Are you saying here that it is the seal of the believer to himself of his salvation?
Last edited:
Austin
Puritan Board Freshman
I'm saying it's a seal in two fashions:
1) to the cosmos, it proclaims that the recipient belongs to Christ, just as it did in the OT era. It proclaims that the Lord has a propriety in this person, and therefore this person has a responsibility to obey Christ by trusting in Him. It also proclaims to the principalities & powers that this person is God's; therefore making that person a more especial subject of spiritual warfare-- both pro & con.
2) to the believer (the Covenant child who exercises faith in obedience to God's law), it is a concrete testimony that before I knew the Lord, He knew me. Before I knew of my sin, He had provided for its removal. Apart from my good works (even faith) I have all the promises of the Covenant applied to me by Christ.
Using these senses of the proclamation, the believer is able, like Luther, to say to the tempter, "Begone from me, for I am a baptized Christian." In other words, apart from my works, whether good or ill, I belong to Christ. Therefore I Jn 3 applies to me: "If my heart condemns me, God is greater than my heart & knows all things." Namely, He knows that I am not saved or accepted by my works, faith, regret, etc, but only and always through Christ. Baptism is an objective marker to the recipient that he belongs to Christ. And to the person who grows into the promise by exercising faith (however minuscule), it is an objective testimony that "nothing can separate me from the love of God."
1) to the cosmos, it proclaims that the recipient belongs to Christ, just as it did in the OT era. It proclaims that the Lord has a propriety in this person, and therefore this person has a responsibility to obey Christ by trusting in Him. It also proclaims to the principalities & powers that this person is God's; therefore making that person a more especial subject of spiritual warfare-- both pro & con.
2) to the believer (the Covenant child who exercises faith in obedience to God's law), it is a concrete testimony that before I knew the Lord, He knew me. Before I knew of my sin, He had provided for its removal. Apart from my good works (even faith) I have all the promises of the Covenant applied to me by Christ.
Using these senses of the proclamation, the believer is able, like Luther, to say to the tempter, "Begone from me, for I am a baptized Christian." In other words, apart from my works, whether good or ill, I belong to Christ. Therefore I Jn 3 applies to me: "If my heart condemns me, God is greater than my heart & knows all things." Namely, He knows that I am not saved or accepted by my works, faith, regret, etc, but only and always through Christ. Baptism is an objective marker to the recipient that he belongs to Christ. And to the person who grows into the promise by exercising faith (however minuscule), it is an objective testimony that "nothing can separate me from the love of God."
- Status
Similar threads
