OK; but that's a parenthesis explaining how baptism is a figure. We still have baptism itself naturally related to the OT example.
- Status
OK; but that's a parenthesis explaining how baptism is a figure. We still have baptism itself naturally related to the OT example.
InevitablyReformed
Puritan Board Freshman
One more thing. Would you say that a individualistic interpretation of this text (baptism is the response of an individual toward God post-repentance) does not necessarily rule out a covenantal view (head of household believes--family gets baptized)? If not, why not?
I know Rev. Winzer will give a good answer to this but I want to tack on another idea to give you something to "chew on".
An individualistic sense of Baptism is really an individualistic sense of discipleship from a family perspective.
That we are commanded to train our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord is inescapable. Were it not in the Epistles, I am almost certain that many Baptists would deny this is a responsibility of parents because it really fits very poorly with an individualistic sense of discipleship.
The fact is, however, that it is impossible to train at all without reference to the God you serve. An adult who refuses to be trained is in a much different circumstance than the child who must be trained.
It is impossible then, for a child to not have his eyes and ears exposed to the Gospel by that Christian parent and, immediately, that places the child under obligation. He has heard. As I've studied Hebrews recently I have become increasingly concerned that too many place little emphasis on how perilous it is for those that have "tasted" of heavenly things to fall away from them.
Make no mistake about, even if a Baptist father refuses to acknowledge that his child is a disciple, his children will be judged as disciples some day.
The real question will be whether or not you'll be able to say that you were not guilty of their blood if you neglect to be earnest about their discipleship while they are in your charge. God is gracious not to leave us alone for that work but binds that child, life and death, to the Church that administers the means of Grace for their conversion and perfection in sanctification just as it does for all of us who are likewise needful.
I think the two could be tenuously maintained, but not without emptying baptism of its significance as a sealing ordinance of God. In this case it would be nothing more than a bare sign of profession, and the whole family being baptised signifies that the household now professes Christ. But this interpretation leaves no place for regarding baptism as certifying the benefits of regeneration through Christ, which is contrary to the apostle's express statement concerning the saving power of the resurrection of Christ; besides the fact that it leaves the initiative with man and makes man his own benefactor.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
The concept of a Christian family does not seem to fit in with Baptistic thinking; I am not saying Baptists deny such a concept, but it is hard to see how it is consistent with their approach.
InevitablyReformed
Puritan Board Freshman
Thanks for the responses gentlemen. Good night.
Daniel
Daniel
Hope you have a good night's rest, and thankyou for the calm discussion.
Matthew I have understood 1 Pet. 3:21 to be referring to spiritual baptism, "...not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God of a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
I am cautious about extrapolating doctrine from Mark 16:9-20 because of the well known textual arguments. If the argument is that water baptism is to be administered immediately following conversion, and its application is a first sign of obedience to Christ, then I would agree with it as a "means of grace." Anything beyond that would seem to fail compared to the rest of scripture.
If the context of 1 Pet. 3:21 doesn't confirm a reference to water baptism, I don't know what will.
The last twelve verses of Mark are a part of the reformed canon of Scripture. WCF 28:4 and LBC 29:2 both reference Mark 16:16 to establish the point that those who profess faith in Christ are to be baptised. The former deducing it as a non-exclusive connection, the latter falsely implying that it is a non-negotiable condition.
Matthew, I am not saying that the 1 Pet. 3:21 does not refer to water baptism. I was saying that it had been my understanding that it wasn't. But let's say it does refer to water baptism. Please give me your explanation of the salvific nature of water baptism.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Rich, of all people, you have been a member of a Baptist church where you should know that Baptists do NOT neglect evangelism and discipleship of children. Indeed, credo baptists often do so much Bible reading, Sunday School going, VBS attending, mid-week program promoting, Bible memorization programs, reading to them at night, purchasing Bible based and Christian themed DVDs, etc. that their children make a profession of faith as early as 3 or 4 years old. While baptism is typically delayed for some time after this (don't ask me to explain that one!), those kids are raised as believers.
And, while this raises a whole host of other problematic issues, I have seen young children receive communion on the basis of their profession of faith.
As I have freely admitted in manifold threads, I am no knee-jerk defender of things Baptist. Made up sacraments (e.g., infant dedication), delays between "accepting" Christ and experiencing Christian baptism, and the obvious problem of the Baptist assumption that a child is a non-believer despite the fact that in practice Baptist kids are treated much like Presbyterian kids give me fits. However, neither am I willing to pretend that Baptist "practice" is all that different from Presbyterian "practice" with regard to raising children in church.
Bill, I gave you that explanation when I said it is as a "sign" that baptism saves. It signifies and seals the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit in applyingthe death and resurrection of Christ to the elect. The church, by administering the sign, looks to the Spirit of God to work this grace according to His own sovereign will. The person is thus received as a member of the catholic visible church, which is the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, and is instructed, exhorted, and warned in the Lord.
Matthew, have patience with me. Your original answer confused me. I'm not as bright as you, brother. New Jersey public schooling is a burden I must carry for the rest of my adult life. When you said, "They are saved by baptism as a sign" I didn't understand your comment. I agree that baptism is a sign, but understand that the sign does not save. The sign signifies salvation. I simply wanted clarification of your statement.
Agreed Dennis but all this does is serve to highlight what is confessed on the one hand and practiced on the other. It makes sense for a free will Baptist to do all of these things but it doesn't really fit within a context that the children are presumed to be unregenerate until they prove otherwise. In other words, if they are, for all intents and purposes treated like disciples then why does everybody go out of their way to confess that they are not disciples? Since you're loathe to admit that they should be treated like disciples then what do you think the difference is between a disciple and a disciple?
I already noted in this thread that this activity goes on but it is really done "informally". That is to say that the Church sort of accidentally does it because (and rightly so) it would seem a terrible thing to all to simply ignore these little ones who happen to be tagging along with Mom and Dad every Sunday. If their status before God was really as some have argued here in the past, it would be more consistent to drop them off at a pagan friend's home on Sunday until such a time as they confess Christ.
But, as it is, the discipleship of children is generally vague. Pilgrim was very critical of the WLC 167 on improving your baptism which, for all intents and purposes, is the Book of Hebrews in a nutshell with all its warnings to persevere. Presbyterians are deliberate in their means of Grace for all in the congregation. All disciples are identified for what they are and the idea of "striving together" includes the child. We have catechisms designed for the old and the young in our Confessional documents.
Further, this points to a confusion in discipleship at large, which I alluded to earlier when initially answering Houston E's question. Baptists tend to view discipleship beginning at a definitive conversion with the sign designed to mark that conversion. One might get the impression that, in all of this, I deprecate the necessity for conversion. God forbid. The reason I find that model defective, however, is that it leads to presumption about conversion. If the baptized are the converted then there is not this need to fear lest any be found to be unbelieving. In fact, discipleship is a process and baptism simple marks the definitive point where the visible Church marks out that person as one who should be coming to Christ in faith and doing everything within its means to give to that disciple what he needs toward that end. Yes, God alone elects but the Church is visibly earnest toward that end with all disciples. Neither the oldest nor the youngest baptized member should become slack but all should be considering how they might stimulate one another toward love and good works, not forsaking the assembling together as some are in the habit of doing and all the more as they see the Day approaching.
Thus, Dennis, while I agree with you that the activity exists, it is really outside the boundaries (Confessionally) of where the Church actually "exists" since the children are not members of the Church, there is no formalized sense of how that should look since none of the passages in Scripture that teach about Covenant parenting apply any more, and, in fact, the discipleship of adults itself is undermined by a presumption born of a sign that grants far too much confidence to the Church and the individual that definitive conversion has taken place in the baptized.
Bill, I think we have been down this road before -- the visible church only has the sign to go by. If a person is not baptised he is visibly outside the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. Even if he ise regnerated inwardly by the Holy Spirit, and is therefore a member of the invisible church, there is no way for the visible church to recognise him as one of God's people except by baptism.
Matthew, perhaps it is the way you word things or the way I am reading what you are saying. The way you have just phrased your explanation is something I can agree with. Even in Baptist circles a professor will not be admitted into fellowship without obedience through baptism. I am approaching this from a distinctively Baptist slant since this thread is geared that way. Too many Baptist churches have pushed baptism into the realm of the unimportant. Even our church was there at one time, going months after a profession before baptism was administered. We've changed that practice, thank God.
Bill, Blessed be God for helping you to reform. I wonder now if you will be able to see the implications of not baptising children -- that they are thereby left destitute of salvation from the visible church perspective, and so consigned to outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Amazing Grace
Puritan Board Junior
I never knew the kingdom of God was = to the visible church = baptism. Am I understanding this correctly? I certainly hope I am....SO before I heartly disagree with this, Ill wait for clarification..
I never knew the kingdom of God was = to the visible church = baptism. Am I understanding this correctly? I certainly hope I am....SO before I heartly disagree with this, Ill wait for clarification..
Read more carefully. What Confession do you subscribe to, precisely, Nicolas?
Amazing Grace
Puritan Board Junior
I never knew the kingdom of God was = to the visible church = baptism. Am I understanding this correctly? I certainly hope I am....SO before I heartly disagree with this, Ill wait for clarification..
Read more carefully. What Confession do you subscribe to, precisely, Nicolas?
3FU Richard. What am I supposed to read in them?
Part II: The Sacraments: Baptism
Lord's Day 26 (Q & A 69 70 71)
Lord's Day 27 (Q & A 72 73 74)
Lord's Day 26
Baptism
Q & A 69
Q. How does baptism
remind you and assure you
that Christ's one sacrifice on the cross
is for you personally?
A. In this way:
Christ instituted this outward washing^1
and with it gave the promise that,
as surely as water washes away the dirt from the body,
so certainly his blood and his Spirit
wash away my soul's impurity,
in other words, all my sins.^2
^1 Acts 2:38
^2 Matt. 3:11; Rom. 6:3-10; 1 Pet. 3:21
Q & A 70
Q. What does it mean
to be washed with Christ's blood and Spirit?
A. To be washed with Christ's blood means
that God, by grace, has forgiven my sins
because of Christ's blood
poured out for me in his sacrifice on the cross.^1
To be washed with Christ's Spirit means
that the Holy Spirit has renewed me
and set me apart to be a member of Christ
so that more and more I become dead to sin
and increasingly live a holy and blameless life.^2
^1 Zech. 13:1; Eph. 1:7-8; Heb. 12:24; 1 Pet. 1:2; Rev. 1:5
^2 Ezek. 36:25-27; John 3:5-8; Rom. 6:4; 1 Cor. 6:11; Col. 2:11-12
Q & A 71
Q. Where does Christ promise
that we are washed with his blood and Spirit
as surely as we are washed
with the water of baptism?
A. In the institution of baptism where he says:
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father
and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit."^1
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,
but whoever does not believe will be condemned."^2*
This promise is repeated when Scripture calls baptism
the washing of rebirth^3 and
the washing away of sins.^4
^1 Matt. 28:19
^2 Mark 16:16
^3 Tit. 3:5
^4 Acts 22:16
*Earlier and better manuscripts of Mark 16 omit the words "Whoever believes and is baptized . . . condemned."
Lord's Day 27
Q & A 72
Q. Does this outward washing with water
itself wash away sins?
A. No, only Jesus Christ's blood and the Holy Spirit
cleanse us from all sins.^1
^1 Matt. 3:11; 1 Pet. 3:21; 1 John 1:7
Q & A 73
Q. Why then does the Holy Spirit call baptism
the washing of rebirth and
the washing away of sins?
A. God has good reason for these words.
He wants to teach us that
the blood and Spirit of Christ wash away our sins
just as water washes away dirt from our bodies.^1
But more important,
he wants to assure us, by this divine pledge and sign,
that the washing away of our sins spiritually
is as real as physical washing with water.^2
^1 1 Cor. 6:11; Rev. 1:5; 7:14
^2 Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:27
Q & A 74
Q. Should infants, too, be baptized?
A. Yes.
Infants as well as adults
are in God's covenant and are his people.^1
They, no less than adults, are promised
the forgiveness of sin through Christ's blood
and the Holy Spirit who produces faith.^2
Therefore, by baptism, the mark of the covenant,
infants should be received into the Christian church
and should be distinguished from the children
of unbelievers.^3
This was done in the Old Testament by circumcision,^4
which was replaced in the New Testament by baptism.^5
^1 Gen. 17:7; Matt. 19:14
^2 Isa. 44:1-3; Acts 2:38-39; 16:31
^3 Acts 10:47; 1 Cor. 7:14
^4 Gen. 17:9-14
^5 Col. 2:11-13
Article 34
The Sacrament of Baptism
We believe and confess that Jesus Christ,
in whom the law is fulfilled,
has by his shed blood
put an end to every other shedding of blood,
which anyone might do or wish to do
in order to atone or satisfy for sins.
Having abolished circumcision,
which was done with blood,
he established in its place
the sacrament of baptism.
By it we are received into God's church
and set apart from all other people and alien religions,
that we may be dedicated entirely to him,
bearing his mark and sign.
It also witnesses to us
that he will be our God forever,
since he is our gracious Father.
Therefore he has commanded
that all those who belong to him
be baptized with pure water
in the name of the Father,
and the Son,
and the Holy Spirit.^76
In this way he signifies to us
that just as water washes away the dirt of the body
when it is poured on us
and also is seen on the body of the baptized
when it is sprinkled on him,
so too the blood of Christ does the same thing internally,
in the soul,
by the Holy Spirit.
It washes and cleanses it from its sins
and transforms us from being the children of wrath
into the children of God.
This does not happen by the physical water
but by the sprinkling of the precious blood of the Son of God,
who is our Red Sea,
through which we must pass
to escape the tyranny of Pharoah,
who is the devil,
and to enter the spiritual land
of Canaan.
So ministers,
as far as their work is concerned,
give us the sacrament and what is visible,
but our Lord gives what the sacrament signifies—
namely the invisible gifts and graces;
washing, purifying, and cleansing our souls
of all filth and unrighteousness;
renewing our hearts and filling them
with all comfort;
giving us true assurance
of his fatherly goodness;
clothing us with the "new man" and stripping off the "old,"
with all its works.
For this reason we believe that
anyone who aspires to reach eternal life
ought to be baptized only once
without ever repeating it—
for we cannot be born twice.
Yet this baptism is profitable
not only when the water is on us
and when we receive it
but throughout our
entire lives.
For that reason we detest the error of the Anabaptists
who are not content with a single baptism
once received
and also condemn the baptism
of the children of believers.
We believe our children ought to be baptized
and sealed with the sign of the covenant,
as little children were circumcised in Israel
on the basis of the same promises
made to our children.
And truly,
Christ has shed his blood no less
for washing the little children of believers
than he did for adults.
Therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament
of what Christ has done for them,
just as the Lord commanded in the law that
by offering a lamb for them
the sacrament of the suffering and death of Christ
would be granted them
shortly after their birth.
This was the sacrament of Jesus Christ.
Furthermore,
baptism does for our children
what circumcision did for the Jewish people.
That is why Paul calls baptism
the "circumcision of Christ."^77
^76 Matt. 28:19
^77 Col. 2:11
without the least respect or view to sin, has predestinated the greatest part of the world to eternal damnation; and, has created them for this very purpose; that in the same manner in which the election is the fountain and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and impiety; that many children of the faithful are torn, guiltless, from their mothers' breasts, and tyrannically plunged into hell; so that, neither baptism, nor the prayers of the Church at their baptism, can at all profit by them;" and many other things of the same kind, which the Reformed Churches not only do not acknowledge, but even detest with their whole soul.
Unless I am reading these wrong, I do not see that equation at all
My brother, I still do not share your view of infants/children and the visible church, apart from saving faith. As for baptism as the entrance into the visible church; having been properly explained, I have always believed that. But I do understand how you believe the children of Baptist's are left destitute. My child was born rich. She was born to parents that, while imperfect, knew they were bought with a price. We dedicated ourselves (not by ceremony) to raising her with the knowledge of God, expecting His rich hand of mercy to gloriously save her. As possible as it is for any parent to know, we have seen the evidence of faith in her life. She was baptized and has/is growing into a young woman of quality and faith. Anecdotal? I suppose, to some. Destitute before baptism? Actually, destitute before faith. I consider it a more terrible thing to be associated outwardly with the children of God, but not to know Him inwardly.
God bless you, brother. Have a blessed Lord's Day.
For my Baptist brethren,
It is not a strange thing for Baptists to state that baptism enters the one receiving it into the visible church. How many Baptist pastors/elders/deacons would receive a individual for membership that has not received or refuses to be baptized? Therefore, baptism enters the individual into membership in the visible church. It does not grant admission into the invisible church which is the true body of Christ.
It is not a strange thing for Baptists to state that baptism enters the one receiving it into the visible church. How many Baptist pastors/elders/deacons would receive a individual for membership that has not received or refuses to be baptized? Therefore, baptism enters the individual into membership in the visible church. It does not grant admission into the invisible church which is the true body of Christ.
Amazing Grace
Puritan Board Junior
NJB: Do Baptists believe that the Visible Church = the kingdom of God? I asked this question before, Rich pointed me to the confessions, but I obviously need a better answer. I honestly did not know they were equal, and I am not saying this to be wise or unbiblical. Many who say Lord Lord can enter the visible church, yet not enter the Kingdom of God, by baptism or profession or any other rubric.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
No, not in the way you seem to be getting at. To say that the visible church is an exact representation of the invisible church (which I assume must be what you mean by "kingdom of God") is Romish.
Nicolas, Baptists believe the kingdom is entered into through conversion, not baptism. The visible church is no more the kingdom of God than a guest in your home is part of your family. That said, our lack of perfect knowledge as to who is saved requires us to consider a baptized and professed believer to be part of the invisible church. Obviously they would be part of the visible church if they are in fellowship with a local body.*
*See chapter 26 of the 1689 LBC
Amazing Grace
Puritan Board Junior
What I am getting at is in response to Winzer's statement: The person is thus received as a member of the catholic visible church, which is the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, where I understnad the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ to mean the Kingdom of God spoken about by Christ. WHich he[winzer] says is entered upon by baptism into the visible church.
I believe the visible church is an instrument of the Kingdom of God. But I deny it IS the kingdom of God. To quote Augustine: "Many whom God has, the Church does not have. And many whom the Church has, God does not have." My fear is if this is the case, than anyone who finds fault with the visible church, is finding fault with God Himself. That is repugnant to me. Now the church is a vessel to bring people into the Kingdom of God, but not to bring them into the visible church as far as I see scripture speaking. John 3 says only those born anew, from above can see the Kingdom of God, which is within you.
I dont know, perhaps I am just confused.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
Relieve your confusion and come on over to our side, brother. The water's fine here.
I never knew the kingdom of God was = to the visible church = baptism. Am I understanding this correctly? I certainly hope I am....SO before I heartly disagree with this, Ill wait for clarification..
I never knew the kingdom of God was = to the visible church = baptism. Am I understanding this correctly? I certainly hope I am....SO before I heartly disagree with this, Ill wait for clarification..
Read more carefully. What Confession do you subscribe to, precisely, Nicolas?
3FU Richard. What am I supposed to read in them?
...
Unless I am reading these wrong, I do not see that equation at all
The Belgic Confession of Faith, Article XXVIII
Every One Is Bound to Join Himself to the True Church
The Visible Church is the Invisible Church worked out in time. On cannot work without the other. If one only had the invisible church, people would be chosen, but never come to repentance/faith, for then one embarks into the visible church. It is this relationship that makes the denial of one, detrimental to and tantamount to denying the other.
This is not to say that there isn't tares growing with the wheat. But during the already/not yet, this must be the case. There are exceptions to visible church=invisible church, but that is the rule by which we are to judge, and the kingdom God has established.
The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXV
Of the Church
Nicolas, you are nibbling around the edge. You're almost there.
The visible church is not the goal of any Christian. The visible church is nothing more than a categorization. It's a term that allows us to describe a group that claims to be part of another group (the invisible church). Of course, this is a distinctively Baptist position. I do not claim to speak on behalf of Presbyterians. The Presbyterian view of the kingdom of God is rooted in their covenantal understanding. I acknowledge and respect that understanding, yet disagree. In order to save time flipping through countless passages, give attention to the dichotomy of views on Jeremiah 31 and the New Covenant. The Baptist and Presbyterian views of the New Covenant are a microcosm of the larger covenantal disagreement between both camps.
In defense of Matthew Winzer, he is a most eloquent voice for the Presbyterian point of view and I deeply respect his scholarship and ability to articulate what he believes. My only problem with some of his words is my ability to understand them. I am not his equal in grammar or communicative skills, but I am honored to be his equal in Christ.
- Status
