In The Westminster Larger Catechism A Commentary by Johannes G. Vos page 473 8. he says:
" To be baptized, in the true sense and use of baptism, involves union with Christ and faith in Christ. By faith in Christ the believer is adopted into God's family. Thus baptism is a sign and seal of adoption."
The language used here seems a little ambiguous. When I was a Baptist I certainly thought so. I also thought that there was a certain amount of equivocation going on also. Now I believe that Baptism is Regeneration and the sign of Regeneration/Baptism is the Application of water. However most Presbyterians don't talk the way that I am. Can someone tell me why that when we talk of Baptism that we don't simply say that we mean Regeneration? And the sign of Regeneration also called Baptism is the Application of Water. Are we so affraid of being associated with Baptismal Regeneration that we shy away from the natural language? I think that if we used this language it would be very helpful.
" To be baptized, in the true sense and use of baptism, involves union with Christ and faith in Christ. By faith in Christ the believer is adopted into God's family. Thus baptism is a sign and seal of adoption."
The language used here seems a little ambiguous. When I was a Baptist I certainly thought so. I also thought that there was a certain amount of equivocation going on also. Now I believe that Baptism is Regeneration and the sign of Regeneration/Baptism is the Application of water. However most Presbyterians don't talk the way that I am. Can someone tell me why that when we talk of Baptism that we don't simply say that we mean Regeneration? And the sign of Regeneration also called Baptism is the Application of Water. Are we so affraid of being associated with Baptismal Regeneration that we shy away from the natural language? I think that if we used this language it would be very helpful.