The WCF ch 28

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I believe it is a sign and seal - but not of salvation.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Fred,
But you still have to deal with all the devines; this is what they ascribed to. I know you don't agree. Did you read the quotes that I posted in the beginning of the thread? You don't want to go there again do you?

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Most of the Testimony is re-saying what the WCF says. The main places where it differs (well, if you want to say it differs.. that's up for debate I think) is on areas about worship (i.e. no instruments and EP).

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

What about Presumptive Financial Success? Health/Wealth baby!!

 

[Scott Bushey]

Matt,
But for you to be consistant, w/ your PR view, and your idea of faith, you would have to submit to the idea as the WCF states:

Ch 28

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into thevisiblechurch;[2] but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,

[Edited on 2-20-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[fredtgreco]

Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, (Matt. 28:19) not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; (1 Cor. 12:13) but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, (Rom. 4:11, Col. 2:11–12) of his ingrafting into Christ, (Gal. 3:27, Rom. 6:5) of regeneration, (Tit. 3:5) of remission of sins, (Mark 1:4) and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. (Rom. 6:3–4)



[Edited on 2/20/2005 by fredtgreco]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
What about Presumptive Financial Success? Health/Wealth baby!!

:bigsmile:

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Fred,
But you still have to deal with all the devines; this is what they ascribed to. I know you don't agree. Did you read the quotes that I posted in the beginning of the thread? You don't want to go there again do you?

Read the quotes, been there, almost ordered the T-Shirt. They don't support PR.

Especially look at the Bradford quote you provided. It is explicitly PE.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Fred,
But you still have to deal with all the devines; this is what they ascribed to. I know you don't agree. Did you read the quotes that I posted in the beginning of the thread? You don't want to go there again do you?

Read the quotes, been there, almost ordered the T-Shirt. They don't support PR.

Especially look at the Bradford quote you provided. It is explicitly PE.

Bradford writes:

ohn Bradford, "In baptism is required God's election, if the child be an infant, or faith, if he be of age." (The Writings of John Bradford, Banner of Truth Trust, Carlisle, 1979, Volume 2, Page 290)

I agree. Thats the shortest quote that was presented. Everyone knows that for someone to be regenerated, they have to be first elected.

 

[fredtgreco]

No mention of regeneration here:

The Second Helvetic Confession, "We condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that newborn infants of the faithful are to be baptized. For according to evangelical teaching, of such is the Kingdom of God, and they are in the covenant of God. Why, then, should the sign of God's covenant not be given to them? Why should those who belong to God and are in his Church not be initiated by holy baptism?" (Chapter 20, Of Holy Baptism.)

Or here:

The Heidelberg Catechism, "Q74: Are infants also to be baptized? A74: Yes, for since they, as well as their parents, belong to the covenant and people of God, and through the blood of Christ both redemption from sin and the Holy Ghost, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents, they are also by Baptism, as a sign of the covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, as was done in the Old Testament by circumcision, in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is appointed. (Lord's Day 27)

Or here:

The Belgic Confession, "Therefore we detest the error of the Anabaptists, who are not content with the one only baptism they have once received, and moreover condemn the baptism of the infants of believers, who we believe ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as the children in Israel formerly were circumcised upon the same promises which are made unto our children. And indeed Christ shed His blood no less for the washing of the children of believers than for adult persons; and therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that which Christ has done for them; as the Lord commanded in the law that they should be made partakers of the sacrament of Christ's suffering and death shortly after they were born, by offering for them a lamb, which was a sacrament of Jesus Christ. Moreover, what circumcision was to the Jews, baptism is to our children. And for this reason St. Paul calls baptism the circumcision of Christ." (Article 34

Or here:

Benjamin Warfield, "All baptism is inevitably administered on the basis not of knowledge but of presumption and if we must baptize on presumption the whole principle is yielded; and it would seem that we must baptize all whom we may fairly presume to be members of Christ's body." (The Polemics of Infant Baptism, The Presbyterian Quarterly (April, 1899), Page 313

Or here:

Thomas Goodwin, "The children of godly parents are called the inheritance of the Lord, because he is the owner of them as his elect and chosen, among whom his possession and his peculiar people lie...The children of believing parents, at least their next and immediate seed, even of us Gentiles now under the Gospel, are included by God within the covenant of Grace, as well as Abraham's or David's seed within that covenant of theirs." (Works, Volume 9, Page 426-427)

 

[Scott Bushey]

Fred,
Just because PE it is not mentioned in these particular quotes does not necessarily imply that they didn't embrace the discipline. Regeneration is not conversion and conversion is not regneration. You ascribe to PE; how is PR any worse? I mean, truly, how much difference is there between election and regeneration? As an infant, regeneration could not be measured. Again, it all comes down to the level of faith one has. You say, "I will believe my children are elect". If they never come to faith, what will you say? "I guess they were not elect"? If my childre fail to come to faith, I will say, "I must hold to the idea that God is never unfaithful. My children have broken His covenant and are cursed."

2Co 1:20 For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Fred,
Just because PE it is not mentioned in these particular quotes does not necessarily imply that they didn't embrace the discipline. Regeneration is not conversion and conversion is not regneration. You ascribe to PE; how is PR any worse? I mean, truly, how much difference is there between election and regeneration? As an infant, regeneration could not be measured. Again, it all comes down to the level of faith one has. You say, "I will believe my children are elect". If they never come to faith, what will you say? "I guess they were not elect"? If my childre fail to come to faith, I will say, "I must hold to the idea that God is never unfaithful. My children have broken His covenant and are cursed."

2Co 1:20 For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

Scott,

We've had this discussion before at least 3 times. You know why I think there is a large difference betweeen PE and PR.

My point with the quotes was not that they contradict PR, but that you had offered them as proof of PR, saying - interact with the quotes. It doesn't make prove point to list large amounts of unrelated quotes.

Have a good Lord's Day. I'm off to Tchula!

[Edited on 2/20/2005 by fredtgreco]

 

[Scott Bushey]

You too. Drive safe.