Re-baptism by any other name is still "re-baptism"

[servantofmosthigh]

It must give you great assurance to know that, for certain, you now attend a Church with a membership that is entirely regenerate. What confidence!

I'm not sure what your sarcasm is for, brother. This is what Baptists have always called, "Believer's Baptism." We baptize ONLY true believers of the Lord who have and can publicly profess Christ. Of course, that is assuming that Believer's Baptism is being administered properly rather than in a fashion to where the majority of the SBC churches are witnessing today of the fruits of improper administration of Believer's Baptism.

As well, Regenerate Church Membership has been one the major sections that make the 1689 BCF different from the 1646 WCF. Presbyterians never believed in Regenerate Church Membership, whereas Baptists have. (Compare WCF Ch.25 and 1689 Ch.26.6).

Which is the irony to Presbyterianism. On one hand, Presbyterianism believes in the Covenant of Grace - that baptism of infants bestows salvation to them, but then when it comes to the church membership, they recognize that although all are baptized, there coexists both children of God and children of Satan co-mingling as members together.

Sarcasm to drive home a point. I could simply note, that given your 27 years in the PCA, you demonstrate remarkable ignorance of the WCF. Were you catechized? If so, would you point me to the section of our Confessional documents that allows a child or an adult to presume upon their baptism? How about the portion that allows the Church Officers to "baptize and forget"? I might as well present the several SBC Churches that I've known as a demonstration of the fault of a "once saved, always saved" mentality that attends a regenerate Church membership to drive home my point. Your "experience" does not a Confessional understanding make.

I further find your ascription of any member of a Church, not under Church discipline, as a "child of the Devil", to be impiety of the highest order. Would you care to cite one example in the Epistles where the writer ascribes that term to a person still within the Church? Why didn't Paul say that of many in Corinth? To me, it represents a dangerous presumption that you know the very mind of God (His hidden things). Not only do you seem to know who the Elect are, but you are able to label the Reprobate as well. Tell me, where do you get that right from the Scriptures?

Further, just when I get through being castigated for "misrepresenting" a Baptist position on the notion of "baptizing the regenerate", we get someone who revels in it. It actually helps clarify the issue - at least that the idea is propagated.

I'm curious. How do you explain the baptism of Judas? His baptism was under the direct gaze and authority of the Man who instituted the New Covenant. None of the Apostles were re-baptized so they clearly received the baptism of Jesus. Why did Jesus permit His ordinance to be placed on a man He clearly knew was un-regenerate, forever polluting the "example" to His Church that none but the regenerate should be baptized.

How about Simon the Sorceror? Regenerate? Why was he made a disciple?

Given the lack of a Christ-like sweet tone being conveyed and the inflammatory word choice, I will respond to you in private.

 

[tcalbrecht]

I didn't like the way I originally had written that paragraph as I sounded too combative. So I editted it, but it seems that during my editting, you had responded to it. Most especially, I wanted to delete that last sentence because I saw it as further diverging (another rabbit), and it was more of personal observation from handful of churches I've been a part of rather than about Presbyterianism as a whole.

But since you did post a request for a response, I'll go ahead and oblige. Not answering the rhetorical statement itself (would answering a "yes, I wasn't surely being serious" mean anything?), remember that the WCF and Presbyterianism never held to the doctrine of Regenerate Church Membership. Belief in Christ is not a prerequisite to becoming a member of a Presbyterian church. Of the many Presbyterian churches that I have been a member in (and I've been in many when my father was in the Army changing to new duty stations), none asked for any profession of faith, salvation testimony or the such. If we wanted to become a member, we simply ask the church secretary, and we were enrolled. That's it. Sometimes we had to attend new members class that explained some of the doctrines, as well as unique polities within the particular church, but on the whole, none asked about our spiritual nature in Christ.

So do you believe that Presbyterians as a whole do not care about a credible profession of faith, or is it now just isolated to the churches (whatever denom they have been) that you have direct experience?

But I'm skeptical. You originally said (before editing), "someone who openly admits not being a Christian but desires membership are granted membership nonetheless" in these Presbyterian churches.

May I ask what Presbyterian churches these were that would admit confessed unbelievers into their membership? Did it really happen that some fellow walked up to the church secretary and said, "Hey, I’m a rank unbeliever. Will you enroll me in your church?" And they responded, "Sure, no problem"?

 

[MW]

But the truth is that wheat and tares are together in the visible church.

The parable doesn't teach this is an accident to be avoided where possible, but a deliberate policy to be adopted lest the true wheat be destroyed. The fanciful ideal of a regenerate church memebership in fact serves to discriminate against those who are yet to bring forth the fruit of regeneration for human inspection.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Man, I have missed these threads!

 

[Herald]

Man, I have missed these threads!

Doug, DO pass Go. We will send you your $200. Resist.

 

[Pilgrim]

Your writing is a little unclear, so I am not sure how you find the conclusion faulty. You didn't really do anything more than to make a bare assertion with that one. As well, I did not say that LSJ had a presbyterian bent, I said that it was not intended as an ecclesiastical document at all, so again, your writing is a little unclear to me.

As to your false hope that some sort of "believers only" baptismal concept will clear up all of the woes from your past - brother, I hate to break it to you, but you are going to be sadly disappointed. I must tell you with all honesty that I have met far more false professors in the credobaptist congregations that I had attended than I have in conservative Reformed churches.

One of the things that drew me to the Reformed in the first place was the stark difference in seriousness and holy profession/act that I observed there, which was completely lacking from any baptistic fellowship that I had ever attended. To this day, some of the worse cases of hypocrisy and apostasy that I have witnessed and had the sorrow to engage against have been in credobaptists congregations. The practice of the administration will not change the reality of unregenerates coming into the church. I have seen some of the most "sincere" and vigorous adult testimonies be followed in later years by the most vicious denials of Christ, the most devastating cases of habitual adultery against spouse and children, deception and theft within church leadership, etc. You cannot hide from it by changing the application of baptism - sinners are sinners!

As for your father, and please don't take this too hard as I have said the same thing regarding my own father who also hides and sulks in his sin under the pretense of having been hurt by the church, I would tell him that he needs to grow up and get over it. If he had any love of Christ at all in his heart, he would realize that a) Christian love covers a multitude of sins, b) worshipping God among sinners is more important than rejecting God until you find the "perfect church" that will never hurt you, and c) he is a sinner just like the rest, and every sinner saved by grace was once a hypocrite also -maybe even a hypocrite who was saved while sitting in a church service!

The Anabaptists attempted to purify the church by overturning what they held to be a false application of baptism, and there was far more craziness going on in their circles than practically anywhere else during the reformation. It is not a "proper view of baptism" that will save any church from itself - it is only the work of the Holy Spirit among God's people.

Btw, I will assume that your "Children of Satan" statement was directed at the true hypocrites in the church and not the baptized children. If it was also directed at all baptized children, it just goes to confirm that which Rich has been stating on several recent threads, namely, that the baptist view of baptism does serious harm against the nurture and discipleship of the children of believing families. I have seen as much when baptists refuse to let their children pray, because they are (as I have heard several put it) "little pagans". That view is a sin against the Church, and is certainly not the view of either Christ or his apostles. They are rather seen as blessed and holy to God.

Concerning the Lexicons, please check your original posting with the latest statement as inconsistencies exist and possibly improved writing style in the original posting might be needed for better clarity.

As for the breaking of bad news of who has the more unregenerate members, I can attest to the contrary. Being involved with CHBC and now planting a church, and also witnessing ARBCA churches, I can say that the greatest and sweetest joy has been being involved and seeing first-hand the fruits of practicing Regenerate Church Membership.

As for your father, I can't comment on how you relate and respond to your father.

As for the Anabaptists, I'm not sure how they came into the picture here. We've been comparing Reformed Baptists (with general reference to the wider Baptist churches) to the Presbyterians. So I'm not sure what the purpose was that you brought them up.

As for the giving false assurance to baptized children of believers facilitating better nurture and discipline than teaching the children that their assurance of salvation rests on their own profession of Christ and not on any baptism of grace is the most dangerous deceit that the Presbyterians must shake out of. The danger with the Presbyterian concept of Covenant of Grace baptism is giving false assurance to children of believers when none was granted to them from the beginning. Election is not hereditary, nor is election granted through baptismal regeneration. Yet while Presbyterians profess to deny baptismal regeneration, in practice they are. I spoke with Ligon Duncan about this once, and he admits that that is a growing concern that he has to constantly debate and warn his fellow Presbyterian brothers about. And he admits that he is in the minority on this issue. The wider Presbyterian circle appears to practice and believe in baptismal regeneration of infants while professing with the mouth that they deny that doctrine. This is the greater danger to the children. A friend of mine (a former OPC elder who graduated from Greenville Presbyterian Seminary with a MDiv and Knox Presbyterian Seminary with a MA Missiology, and is currently a Reformed Baptist missionary) shared with me that that was one among many reasons he chose to leave Presbyterianism and join the Reformed Baptist - the issue that he had seen first hand the hypocrisy and duplicity that exists where one on hand, the OPC denies baptismal regeneration, but on the other hand, they encourage their children that they have been saved through the covenant of grace through baptism.

I don't know that I would characterize it as duplicity or hypocrisy. Maybe inconsistency and holding to a position that leads to confusion, as I have noted in previous threads. For an example from the latest issue of the OPC magazine "New Horizons" of what I think Will is probably getting at, see
here for the article "Parenting the Baptized."

I ask, if little Johnny is expected to do what brother. Dennison expects him to (i.e. live as one dead to sin) because he is a "covenant child," then why keep him from the table?

 

[Pilgrim]

It is obvious that one is biblical and that the other isn't. Or perhaps there could be some error on both sides. But both cannot be right. I don't know what about that would make a Baptist nervous.

Chris,

If a credo would make a paedo be re-baptized before joining their church then obviously they (credo's) believe their (paedo's) baptism is unbiblical. Hence, that gets into the "two kingdoms" that Rich is talking about. But yet a lot of baptists want to just say, "It's o.k. if we don't necessarily agree on baptism. Let's just get along in the advancement of the kingdom." It's inconsistent. I've said this about the baptist conviction since I began studying this whole baptism issue out.

You can say the same about the paedo, but he's not asking the credo to be re-baptized if he joined a paedo church now is he?

Some Baptists look askance at those cooperating with paedos in conferences like T4G, etc. Some paedos aren't interested in that kind of cooperation with Baptists either since in their view it tends to undermine confessionalism in favor of fellowship around the Five Points. It comes down to whether you think proper baptism is of the esse (essence) or the bene esse (well being) of the church. What you appear to be saying is consistent with the Dabney piece from his systematic theology that I used to post on my blog where he argues that immersionists unchurch all and that they all might as well be Landmarkists whether they accept the "odious consequences" or not.

 

[servantofmosthigh]

So do you believe that Presbyterians as a whole do not care about a credible profession of faith, or is it now just isolated to the churches (whatever denom they have been) that you have direct experience?

But I'm skeptical. You originally said (before editing), "someone who openly admits not being a Christian but desires membership are granted membership nonetheless" in these Presbyterian churches.

May I ask what Presbyterian churches these were that would admit confessed unbelievers into their membership? Did it really happen that some fellow walked up to the church secretary and said, "Hey, I’m a rank unbeliever. Will you enroll me in your church?" And they responded, "Sure, no problem"?

That's why I had editted that posting. I realize I was drawing a strawman argument. As for what Presbyterian churches I know of and was inferring from, if you wish to know, please PM me.

 

[Herald]

Your writing is a little unclear, so I am not sure how you find the conclusion faulty. You didn't really do anything more than to make a bare assertion with that one. As well, I did not say that LSJ had a presbyterian bent, I said that it was not intended as an ecclesiastical document at all, so again, your writing is a little unclear to me.

As to your false hope that some sort of "believers only" baptismal concept will clear up all of the woes from your past - brother, I hate to break it to you, but you are going to be sadly disappointed. I must tell you with all honesty that I have met far more false professors in the credobaptist congregations that I had attended than I have in conservative Reformed churches.

One of the things that drew me to the Reformed in the first place was the stark difference in seriousness and holy profession/act that I observed there, which was completely lacking from any baptistic fellowship that I had ever attended. To this day, some of the worse cases of hypocrisy and apostasy that I have witnessed and had the sorrow to engage against have been in credobaptists congregations. The practice of the administration will not change the reality of unregenerates coming into the church. I have seen some of the most "sincere" and vigorous adult testimonies be followed in later years by the most vicious denials of Christ, the most devastating cases of habitual adultery against spouse and children, deception and theft within church leadership, etc. You cannot hide from it by changing the application of baptism - sinners are sinners!

As for your father, and please don't take this too hard as I have said the same thing regarding my own father who also hides and sulks in his sin under the pretense of having been hurt by the church, I would tell him that he needs to grow up and get over it. If he had any love of Christ at all in his heart, he would realize that a) Christian love covers a multitude of sins, b) worshipping God among sinners is more important than rejecting God until you find the "perfect church" that will never hurt you, and c) he is a sinner just like the rest, and every sinner saved by grace was once a hypocrite also -maybe even a hypocrite who was saved while sitting in a church service!

The Anabaptists attempted to purify the church by overturning what they held to be a false application of baptism, and there was far more craziness going on in their circles than practically anywhere else during the reformation. It is not a "proper view of baptism" that will save any church from itself - it is only the work of the Holy Spirit among God's people.

Btw, I will assume that your "Children of Satan" statement was directed at the true hypocrites in the church and not the baptized children. If it was also directed at all baptized children, it just goes to confirm that which Rich has been stating on several recent threads, namely, that the baptist view of baptism does serious harm against the nurture and discipleship of the children of believing families. I have seen as much when baptists refuse to let their children pray, because they are (as I have heard several put it) "little pagans". That view is a sin against the Church, and is certainly not the view of either Christ or his apostles. They are rather seen as blessed and holy to God.

Concerning the Lexicons, please check your original posting with the latest statement as inconsistencies exist and possibly improved writing style in the original posting might be needed for better clarity.

As for the breaking of bad news of who has the more unregenerate members, I can attest to the contrary. Being involved with CHBC and now planting a church, and also witnessing ARBCA churches, I can say that the greatest and sweetest joy has been being involved and seeing first-hand the fruits of practicing Regenerate Church Membership.

As for your father, I can't comment on how you relate and respond to your father.

As for the Anabaptists, I'm not sure how they came into the picture here. We've been comparing Reformed Baptists (with general reference to the wider Baptist churches) to the Presbyterians. So I'm not sure what the purpose was that you brought them up.

As for the giving false assurance to baptized children of believers facilitating better nurture and discipline than teaching the children that their assurance of salvation rests on their own profession of Christ and not on any baptism of grace is the most dangerous deceit that the Presbyterians must shake out of. The danger with the Presbyterian concept of Covenant of Grace baptism is giving false assurance to children of believers when none was granted to them from the beginning. Election is not hereditary, nor is election granted through baptismal regeneration. Yet while Presbyterians profess to deny baptismal regeneration, in practice they are. I spoke with Ligon Duncan about this once, and he admits that that is a growing concern that he has to constantly debate and warn his fellow Presbyterian brothers about. And he admits that he is in the minority on this issue. The wider Presbyterian circle appears to practice and believe in baptismal regeneration of infants while professing with the mouth that they deny that doctrine. This is the greater danger to the children. A friend of mine (a former OPC elder who graduated from Greenville Presbyterian Seminary with a MDiv and Knox Presbyterian Seminary with a MA Missiology, and is currently a Reformed Baptist missionary) shared with me that that was one among many reasons he chose to leave Presbyterianism and join the Reformed Baptist - the issue that he had seen first hand the hypocrisy and duplicity that exists where one on hand, the OPC denies baptismal regeneration, but on the other hand, they encourage their children that they have been saved through the covenant of grace through baptism.

I don't know that I would characterize it as duplicity or hypocrisy. Maybe inconsistency and holding to a position that leads to confusion, as I have noted in previous threads. For an example from the latest issue of the OPC magazine "New Horizons" of what I think Will is probably getting at, see
here for the article "Parenting the Baptized."

I ask, if little Johnny is expected to do what brother. Dennison expects him to (i.e. live as one dead to sin) because he is a "covenant child," then why keep him from the table?

Chris,

I just finished reading William Dennison's article. What I liked about it is that Mr. Dennison transcends the theological stand on paedobaptism and deals with the practicum. How does it really work out in everyday life. A few thoughts, with comments.

Mr. Dennison is exposing what he considers to be a practice by paedo parents that is inconsistent with paedo theology.

Perhaps in this situation a more biblical approach of covenantal discipline is that of the parent who uses the rod in the quest to remove the total depravity from the child, driving him to see his need for Christ. (The rod is like a tutor to drive the child to a crisis event of receiving Christ and making a profession of faith.) In this model, the parent views the child as a depraved sinner outside the domain of Christ until he makes a profession of faith. Until that day of profession, the parent expects the child to live within the pervasive domain of sin. Over and over, I have heard parents who live out of this model and justify their children's unrighteous behavior by declaring that since their children are totally depraved, "boys will be boys, and girls will be girls."
But that model is a synthesis of Reformed principles and a baptistic view of children. In other words, as the Reformed doctrine of total depravity is applied, the practical mentality is to view infant baptism as the Baptist views infant dedication and to view adult profession of faith as the Baptist views adult baptism.

He now seeks to discuss the remedy.

But this mentality undermines the biblical and Reformed understanding of the covenant. Although the Reformed doctrine of total depravity must be maintained, in my experience it has been used too often by Reformed parents to excuse and justify ungodly behavior by their children. Parents would be better served by reviewing some distinctives about the covenant from Scripture and noticing how faithful the language of the Westminster standards is to the teaching of Scripture (esp. WCF 28.1; LC 165, 167; SC 94).

Here is the heart of a "covenant consciousness." Our children have been baptized into Christ's death, and they are to walk "in newness of life," in the power of Christ's resurrection (6:3–4). Specifically, baptism is the sign and seal of the privileges and benefits of the covenant of grace in Christ's death and resurrection (WCF 28.1; LC 165, 167; SC 94). Paul is talking about living out of the gift of grace (6:1). In fact, the covenant of grace has reached its high point in Christ's death and resurrection—God's incredible gift of redemption to sinners (6:4). Baptism is a visible sign and seal of union with Christ (6:5).

But are these children actually born again? The sign is applied and the parent must assume that they have a regenerate child in their home. But is that a known fact? Dennison descibes the fictional "Johnny" this way:

Johnny is to be living his baptism—living daily as one who is dead to sin (Christ's cross) and alive to righteousness (Christ's resurrection).

Why would he not say, "live his faith"? Could it be that neither theological system (credo or paedo) can guarantee that a child is regenerate? Therefore, the paedo cannot point to faith in the life of the child, because it may not be resident. The paedo points to baptism which is the sign of the covenant and pray that faith will be manifested and evidenced at a later date. It's either an assumption of regeneration or a hope of regeneration. At least that's the way it seems.

Dennison continues:

With this understanding of "covenant consciousness," parents train their children to live their baptism. This life in covenant with God is predicated upon the ministry of the ascended Christ in the heavenly places through his Spirit (cf. Eph. 1:3; 2:6; Col. 3:1–4). This redemptive life begins with the decretive will of the Father in heaven, and it is accomplished by the condescending work of the Son, who is now ascended as the Holy Spirit applies the benefits of Christ to the elect children of God (Christ's church). The covenantal gift starts in heaven so that our covenantal children can go to heaven; you must start in heaven in order to end up in heaven.

Are these children living their baptism because they already are positionally in heaven, or are they to live their baptism as a precursor to eventual regeneration?

Lastly:

Even within the covenantal environment of the Reformed world, it can be appalling to see the delinquent lifestyles that are permitted, rationalized, justified, denied, and even encouraged. Indeed, Scripture conveys the realistic circumstances of the church's continual journey in this world: there will be covenant breakers. Depravity will raise its head. Even so, parents need to be reminded of the seriousness of their covenantal oath, which was taken at baptism, to raise their child in the fear and admonition of the Lord—to raise their child to confess and to live their baptism.

Dennison waits until the end of his article to agree that depravity can be present in children. He calls them "covenant breakers." He seems to write it from the position that these "covenant breakers" are not normative in covenant families, but exceptions. At least that is how I understand the tenor of his article.

 

[MW]

Why would he not say, "live his faith"? Could it be that neither theological system (credo or paedo) can guarantee that a child is regenerate? Therefore, the paedo cannot point to faith in the life of the child, because it may not be resident. The paedo points to baptism which is the sign of the covenant and pray that faith will be manifested and evidenced at a later date. It's either an assumption of regeneration or a hope of regeneration. At least that's the way it seems.

Why single out infants? This is true for all individuals who are baptised. Regeneration is God's work, not man's. And the reason why one is urged to live his baptism is simply because the NT speaks of baptism as pointing to a living union with Christ.

 

[Herald]

Why single out infants?

I'm not. Dennison's article was on how to parent "covenant children." I was only responding to his slant.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm not sure what your sarcasm is for, brother. This is what Baptists have always called, "Believer's Baptism." We baptize ONLY true believers of the Lord who have and can publicly profess Christ. Of course, that is assuming that Believer's Baptism is being administered properly rather than in a fashion to where the majority of the SBC churches are witnessing today of the fruits of improper administration of Believer's Baptism.

As well, Regenerate Church Membership has been one the major sections that make the 1689 BCF different from the 1646 WCF. Presbyterians never believed in Regenerate Church Membership, whereas Baptists have. (Compare WCF Ch.25 and 1689 Ch.26.6).

Which is the irony to Presbyterianism. On one hand, Presbyterianism believes in the Covenant of Grace - that baptism of infants bestows salvation to them, but then when it comes to the church membership, they recognize that although all are baptized, there coexists both children of God and children of Satan co-mingling as members together.

Sarcasm to drive home a point. I could simply note, that given your 27 years in the PCA, you demonstrate remarkable ignorance of the WCF. Were you catechized? If so, would you point me to the section of our Confessional documents that allows a child or an adult to presume upon their baptism? How about the portion that allows the Church Officers to "baptize and forget"? I might as well present the several SBC Churches that I've known as a demonstration of the fault of a "once saved, always saved" mentality that attends a regenerate Church membership to drive home my point. Your "experience" does not a Confessional understanding make.

I further find your ascription of any member of a Church, not under Church discipline, as a "child of the Devil", to be impiety of the highest order. Would you care to cite one example in the Epistles where the writer ascribes that term to a person still within the Church? Why didn't Paul say that of many in Corinth? To me, it represents a dangerous presumption that you know the very mind of God (His hidden things). Not only do you seem to know who the Elect are, but you are able to label the Reprobate as well. Tell me, where do you get that right from the Scriptures?

Further, just when I get through being castigated for "misrepresenting" a Baptist position on the notion of "baptizing the regenerate", we get someone who revels in it. It actually helps clarify the issue - at least that the idea is propagated.

I'm curious. How do you explain the baptism of Judas? His baptism was under the direct gaze and authority of the Man who instituted the New Covenant. None of the Apostles were re-baptized so they clearly received the baptism of Jesus. Why did Jesus permit His ordinance to be placed on a man He clearly knew was un-regenerate, forever polluting the "example" to His Church that none but the regenerate should be baptized.

How about Simon the Sorceror? Regenerate? Why was he made a disciple?

Given the lack of a Christ-like sweet tone being conveyed and the inflammatory word choice, I will respond to you in private.

Sir,

You may consider your "tone" to be sweet but your words are anything but Christ-like in the posts I responded to.

1. You accused Presbyterians of baptizing people and leaving them to presume upon their baptism calling it a "dangerous deceit". This is either spoken out of ignorance or is a gross mischaracterization.

2. You claim that Presbyterians teach children that they are saved on the basis of their baptism. Ignorance or gross mischaracterization?

3. You called baptized men and women "children of Satan".

4. You claimed that you have a regenerate Church membership in contrast to Presbyterians that tolerate unregenerate members.

I scarcely have enumerated the number of offensive and erroneous statements in your posts and, amazingly, you come after me as being un-Christlike for challenging you?

This forum is for debate and discussion. Honest debate and discussion. If you take up your sword here and wield it in an irresponsible manner and you get stung then don't start whining about it by claiming that someone else broke the rules.

You may leave the field if you don't want to be held accountable for irresponsible rhetoric.

 

[MW]

Why single out infants?

I'm not. Dennison's article was on how to parent "covenant children." I was only responding to his slant.

Your response broadened the terms of reference in the article. Here is your question: "Could it be that neither theological system (credo or paedo) can guarantee that a child is regenerate?" The "guarantee of regeneration" is no part of paedobaptist practice.

 

[Herald]

If I broadened them it was to make a point. I understand that paedos cannot guarantee their children are regenerate. It was interesting watching Dennison's criticism of paedo parents who treat disobedient children as if they are depraved. But the fact is, he doesn't know that they aren't depraved. He then went into his "covenant children" thing, which is fine. I think the article underscores the practical aspect of Christian parenting. We just don't know. Considering all the physical, emotional and cognitive changes a child goes through, it is difficult to identify the evidence of a regenerate heart. It actually can sneak up on a parent. We live with our children daily and a certain amount of acclamation can take place. Preceptible change can sometimes take longer when you're around someone all the time.

 

[MW]

It was interesting watching Dennison's criticism of paedo parents who treat disobedient children as if they are depraved.

I think the point is that they (and we) ARE depraved, and hence the need for them (and us) to develop a covenant consciousness of salvation in Christ.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

(Rom 10:8) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

(Rom 10:9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

(Rom 10:10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

(Rom 10:11) For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Confession for the Credo is important and it signifies that a work is happening.

 

[Archlute]

Concerning the Lexicons, please check your original posting with the latest statement as inconsistencies exist and possibly improved writing style in the original posting might be needed for better clarity.

Will, you are being a serious knucklehead on this point. I don't need to be told what I wrote in my first post, I should know - I wrote it! The words "church" "presbyterian" "ecclesiastical" etc. aren't even found there, so the initial confusion that you had on that issue is something that you need to admit. Just fess up and admit that you were attempting to use a false argument regarding the "tainted sources" of the Magisterial Reformation, and got caught. It won't surprise me. As I said before, having once been a Baptist, and having studied at a Baptist seminary, I am fully aware of some of the false historical claims that are used to attempt to discredit Reformed exegesis/theology/theologians/you-name-it. Fess up.

As for the breaking of bad news of who has the more unregenerate members, I can attest to the contrary. Being involved with CHBC and now planting a church, and also witnessing ARBCA churches, I can say that the greatest and sweetest joy has been being involved and seeing first-hand the fruits of practicing Regenerate Church Membership.

Great. So it's "my word against your word". That's fine. However, your reiterating of the fallacy that you practice "Regenerate Church Membership" instead of calling it for what it is, namely, professing church membership, is a tad irritating also. Would you really like to say that the people who I saw baptized and who later renounced Christ (verbally, no less) were really regenerate or that they were merely professing. You must hold that they were regenerate, using your terminology, and then of course that would make you an Arminian in your theology.

As for your father, I can't comment on how you relate and respond to your father.

You are avoiding the thrust of that issue by still hoping to use your father's rebellion as an excuse for leaving paedobaptist churches. Hurt Christians who are real Christians, regardless of where the hypocrites may be found, will still return to the church.

As for the Anabaptists, I'm not sure how they came into the picture here. We've been comparing Reformed Baptists (with general reference to the wider Baptist churches) to the Presbyterians. So I'm not sure what the purpose was that you brought them up.

Anabaptists are directly related to the post, because you have been attempting to use the same argument as they, namely, that if we can only overthrow the baptism of infants we can come up with a pure church full of only regenerate folk. You can deny that they are related ecclesiastically, but they are related by line of argumentation. Your argument is an Anabaptist argument, and that is why the comment is relevant.

As for the giving false assurance to baptized children of believers facilitating better nurture and discipline than teaching the children that their assurance of salvation rests on their own profession of Christ and not on any baptism of grace is the most dangerous deceit that the Presbyterians must shake out of. The danger with the Presbyterian concept of Covenant of Grace baptism is giving false assurance to children of believers when none was granted to them from the beginning. Election is not hereditary, nor is election granted through baptismal regeneration. Yet while Presbyterians profess to deny baptismal regeneration, in practice they are. I spoke with Ligon Duncan about this once, and he admits that that is a growing concern that he has to constantly debate and warn his fellow Presbyterian brothers about. And he admits that he is in the minority on this issue. The wider Presbyterian circle appears to practice and believe in baptismal regeneration of infants while professing with the mouth that they deny that doctrine. This is the greater danger to the children. A friend of mine (a former OPC elder who graduated from Greenville Presbyterian Seminary with a MDiv and Knox Presbyterian Seminary with a MA Missiology, and is currently a Reformed Baptist missionary) shared with me that that was one among many reasons he chose to leave Presbyterianism and join the Reformed Baptist - the issue that he had seen first hand the hypocrisy and duplicity that exists where one on hand, the OPC denies baptismal regeneration, but on the other hand, they encourage their children that they have been saved through the covenant of grace through baptism.

There are so many erroneous assertions, unproven assumptions, and mis-characterizations in that paragraph that I won't even attempt to give it serious engagement. Shortly, however, I do not believe that you ever were a real Presbyterian (although you may have been in attendance), because you do not seem to grasp their theology in the least. The Westminster Standards make none of the claims regarding which you are making complaint. We certainly do not believe in baptismal regeneration, nor in assurance of election based on being born into a Christian home. I have never met any minister, or otherwise, in the PCA who holds those claims. We call our children to faith and repentance just as you, but we are also more faithful to the Scriptures in acknowledging their status of being holy in the eyes of God, and blessed by the spirit of Christ to be in our home.

I used to not believe the claims of other Presbyterians that some Baptists treat their kids as little pagans and no different than the world, but the more I speak to men such as yourself, the more I have to believe that there are actually men who would love to bring this destructive theology into their church an homes. I didn't speak like you have on the subject of children, even when I was a baptist. That is of course, because I had never heard Christ or the apostles speak this way of children. In fact, although you will deny it and say that Christ was speaking of "spiritual babes", the Lord Jesus condemned men such as yourself who would place a stumbling block before His children.

Pastors such as yourself do a disservice to the Church as a whole by being either unschooled in your theology, or if that is not the case, by intentionally misrepresenting the theology of other branches of the Church. If you want to debate what Presbyterians believe, debate their doctrinal standards, not your own anecdotal perception of what you think to be their theology.

 

[Barnpreacher]

Some Baptists look askance at those cooperating with paedos in conferences like T4G, etc. Some paedos aren't interested in that kind of cooperation with Baptists either since in their view it tends to undermine confessionalism in favor of fellowship around the Five Points. It comes down to whether you think proper baptism is of the esse (essence) or the bene esse (well being) of the church. What you appear to be saying is consistent with the Dabney piece from his systematic theology that I used to post on my blog where he argues that immersionists unchurch all and that they all might as well be Landmarkists whether they accept the "odious consequences" or not.

Chris,

Thank you for that post, brother. I can honestly say I am trying to come to a conclusion as to whether or not this is the logical conclusion for immersionists. Obviously credo's are going to say it isn't, and some paedo's (such as Dabney) are going to say it is. I am trying to become fully persuaded in my own mind.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Confession for the Credo is important and it signifies that a work is happening.

But there is no guarantee that you are ever baptizing a regenerate person.

 

[toddpedlar]

Confession for the Credo is important and it signifies that a work is happening.

But there is no guarantee that you are ever baptizing a regenerate person.

Yes - all one has is good reason to baptize, no more... a credible profession is all one is able to see, but is reason enough to apply the sign.