Infant Baptism

[Gabriel]

There are a few different denoms that are considered Reformed. Even some non-denoms are Reformed. :wave: Knight! One of the differences that usually come up is infant baptism and believers baptism.

We, in the PCA, believe in infant baptism as a sign and seal of the covenant made by God toward His chosen and as a sign of our understanding of our duty as part of the family of God to help in the raising up of our children. We do not believe it washes sin away, nor do we find it necessary as a completion of or a part in salvation. Additionally, we believe that once is enough. If a person has been baptised as a child, there is no need to re-baptize once a confession of faith is made. Assuming, of course, that the baptism was performed in a Christian church.

Thoughts, comments?

[Knight]

Hi Gabe.....

Our church does not practice infant baptism. (Bear in mind that this church used to be Baptist.) We believe that baptism is the first command to those who have placed faith in Christ.

We do hold baby dedications (We dedicated our daughter, along with 14 other babies, back in March. :)) These, from what I've come to understand are very similar to infant baptisms in the PCA though without the water.

For those who do not hold to baptismal regeneration (ie: baptism contributes to or is required for salvation) this is mostly a matter of opinion.

PS: The nice thing about being Reformed Non-denominational is that I get to post in two different forums. :D

[Bulldog]

I agree with the OPC/ PCA view of infant baptism. It is a sign of the covenant (like circumcision) and a sign of faith for adult believers.

Here is a good link from the OPC:

http://opc.org/new_horizons/NH00/0007c.html

[Grace_Alone4gives]

Having been weary of infant baptism and it's purpose or point in the past, I decided to embark on a study of why certain denominations baptise infants. There are many reasons I came across, and I found that it is done for different reasons in a variety of denominations ie: Catholics differ from Wesleyan's who differ from Lutherans and so on. The one view that touched me the most and convinced me the most was Covenantal Theology, which baptises babies (unless your baptist) as a sign and seal of the N.Covenant, paralleling circumsicion etc....
Needless to say - because of my study, my 2 children were baptised when babies, and my 3rd baby (born 3 weeks ago) will be baptised next month. WHat a wonderful blessing!

[Gabriel]

Whoops, double post!

[Gabriel]

Congratulations on the new baby HTD!! http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/13/13_4_4.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001) Consider this the first official CF baby shower!! We just found out a week ago that we are pregnant! Due date, December 27!

[Grace_Alone4gives]

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[LynneClomina]

Having been weary of infant baptism and it's purpose or point in the past, I decided to embark on a study of why certain denominations baptise infants. There are many reasons I came across, and I found that it is done for different reasons in a variety of denominations ie: Catholics differ from Wesleyan's who differ from Lutherans and so on. The one view that touched me the most and convinced me the most was Covenantal Theology, which baptises babies (unless your baptist) as a sign and seal of the N.Covenant, paralleling circumsicion etc....
Needless to say - because of my study, my 2 children were baptised when babies, and my 3rd baby (born 3 weeks ago) will be baptised next month. WHat a wonderful blessing!
i dont totally understand.... does this baptism "save" the babies???

[Gabriel]

i dont totally understand.... does this baptism "save" the babies???
No. It is a sign of God's covenant with His people. Just as circumcision was. Here is an excellent link about Infant Baptism and a knowledge filled website. http://www.thirdmill.org/worship_qa_answer.asp/file/qna27.qna

[Bulldog]

It's important to seperate the Reformed view of infant baptism and the Catholic view of baptism. Catholics baptise infants because they believe baptism regenerates them, Reformed baptise infants because it is a sign of the coveneant.

[LynneClomina]

interesting article. but i would think that the sign of the new covenent would be circumsicion of the heart, rather than baptism......

[Bulldog]

Do you take that from where Paul says that a true Jew is one circumcised on the inside?

[LynneClomina]

yeah, that a true jew is one who has had the circumsicion of the heart. ie. all believers are those who are under the covanent of abraham....

[Bulldog]

But was circumcision not physically administered to infants?

Here's a post I made in another thread where I ried to show the conncection between circumcision and baptism:

]Genesis 17:9-11
And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
This [is] my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

It was also administered to infants (except for females, by it's very nature):

Genesis 17:11-14
And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which [is] not of thy seed.

However, I do agree with you that, baptis is useless without faith, but so was circumsision, although it was also administered to infants:

Romans 4:9-12
[Cometh] this blessedness then upon the circumcision [only], or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which [he had yet] being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which [he had] being [yet] uncircumcised.

Paul shows us that baptism is parrallel to circumcision:

Colossians 2:1112 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

[LynneClomina]

i'd take colossians 2:11-12 to mean the baptism into "faith" kinda - where when you believe you are immersed into Christ as opposed to water...

:sigh: maybe too much for me sluggish brain today.....

[Bulldog]

This is a good link you might want to look at.


http://opc.org/new_horizons/NH00/0007c.html

[ArchaDl]

Catholics baptise infants because they believe baptism regenerates them, Reformed baptise infants because it is a sign of the coveneant.
What do you mean by regenerate? :scratch:
My church (African Dutch Reformed) usually uses infant baptism with two main spritual reasons. One : The sign of the covenant. and Two : That everybody is born in sin and that baptism is used on babies to wash away that sin and give them a clean start.

Further its also seen as a command to the parents that they educate their children and let their children be educated further so they can be saved.

[Grace_Alone4gives]

What do you mean by regenerate? :scratch:
My church (African Dutch Reformed) usually uses infant baptism with two main spritual reasons. One : The sign of the covenant. and Two : That everybody is born in sin and that baptism is used on babies to wash away that sin and give them a clean start.

Further its also seen as a command to the parents that they educate their children and let their children be educated further so they can be saved.
My church, also Reformed and Dutch, do not baptise to remove anything, but as a covenant sign and seal only. I dont think baptism removes sin...In the OT circumsicion never removed sin...they gave sacrifices for that. In the same way, baptism is a sign - like circumcision - and repentance and faith in Chrst removes the sin...like the sacrifices. - Christ being the ultimate sacrifice.

[Bulldog]

What do you mean by regenerate?

Regeneration is the act where the Holy SPirit gives a lowly sinner, wh would never come to Christ on his won, new desires. Regeneration is precedent to faith.

[ChiRho]

[QUOTE=LynneClomina]i'd take colossians 2:11-12 to mean the baptism into "faith" kinda - where when you believe you are immersed into Christ as opposed to water...

How do you arrive at that conclusion? Is this a case where Scripture is bent to fit doctrine?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[Covenant Heart]

yeah, that a true jew is one who has had the circumsicion of the heart. ie. all believers are those who are under the covanent of abraham....Hi Lynne!

Sorry if this is a repeat (we did not refer to the link). But your reference to "circumcision of the heart" is entirely Biblical. Paul uses this expression in Ro 2:28-29 where he says that "a man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit."


In reformed theology, baptism is a picture-symbol of the Spirit's work.

It may help to recall the gospel promise. God promises to give his Spirit to cleanse and adopt all who believe on his Son, Jesus Christ. Baptism is a picture of just that. Just as surely as water washes filth from the body, so the Spirit applies the blood of Christ for the cleansing of all those who trust him.

Baptism is God's promise to save all who believe. Blessings!

Covenant Heart

[theseed]

Here is an article from a Calvinist who was once paedobaptist, but made a switch to credobpaptism. It is a legnthy one written by someone with a PhD :sorry:

Anyways, it only discusses infant baptism, and not mode. And he states up front that Calvinism is obvious from Gen. to Rev., and that his thorn was baptism.

He is real thorough in explaining why 9 arguments are questionable in regards to infant baptism.

http://www.founders.org/library/malone1/malone_text.html

[theseed]

Regeneration is the act where the Holy SPirit gives a lowly sinner, wh would never come to Christ on his won, new desires. Regeneration is precedent to faith.
Litterally, it means to give life again. Hence, Adam and Eve were generate until they sinned, then they became degenerate--with exception that they maintained faith in God, and with God establishing a covenant with them (Gen. 3)--we can assume that God regenerated thier spirit.

[Grace_Alone4gives]

Here is an article from a Calvinist who was once paedobaptist, but made a switch to credobpaptism. It is a legnthy one written by someone with a PhD :sorry:

Anyways, it only discusses infant baptism, and not mode. And he states up front that Calvinism is obvious from Gen. to Rev., and that his thorn was baptism.

He is real thorough in explaining why 9 arguments are questionable in regards to infant baptism.

http://www.founders.org/library/malone1/malone_text.htmlAnd here is an article from a former Credeobaptist turned paedeobaptist. Keep in mind that this author used to write papers and apologetics on why infant baptism was wrong - but now refutes his prior beliefs. This is a refutation of his previous writings. This is just one statement from him - if you click on 'back to covenant theology and baptism' after reading this - you will see his other writings. Very well done.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/MyRetraction.htm

[Covenant Heart]

...The reformers propounded infant baptism to a man as is evident in the confessional documents that they forged. But however important soteriology is to the the reformed interpretation of our undoubted Christian faith, it is neither the essence nor theological centerpiece of that faith whether considered from an historical, confessional or theological standpoint.

Baptistic believers agree with us as we confess that the Scriptures are the word of God, that they are the only infallible rule of faith and practice for the believer. They agree with us when we affirm the necessity of a living faith in Jesus Christ. But agreement in such areas would not warrant our posting padeobaptist links and text on the Baptist forum as that would disrespect our baptistic brothers (and sisters). This we will not do. For that reason, it is proper to ask that antipadeobaptist links and text not be posted here but on the baptistic board. Of course anyone can post on the general forum. Blessings!

Covenant Heart

[A. believer]

...
Baptistic believers agree with us as we confess that the Scriptures are the word of God, that they are the only infallible rule of faith and practice for the believer. They agree with us when we affirm the necessity of a living faith in Jesus Christ. But agreement in such areas would not warrant our posting padeobaptist links and text on the Baptist forum as that would disrespect our baptistic brothers (and sisters). This we will not do. For that reason, it is proper to ask that antipadeobaptist links and text not be posted here but on the baptistic board. Of course anyone can post on the general forum. Blessings!

Covenant Heart
So does that mean that Reformed Baptists can only discuss their credobaptist views on the Baptist forum and not on the Reformed Forum? Then what about their Reformed soteriology? They can only discuss that here? That's just silly. I liked it when we were plain old P/R/E.

[Bulldog]

So does that mean that Reformed Baptists can only discuss their credobaptist views on the Baptist forum and not on the Reformed Forum? Then what about their Reformed soteriology? They can only discuss that here? That's just silly. I liked it when we were plain old P/R/E.

I believe that Reformed Baptists can speak about anything (rules Pending) in here. This forum is reformed, and RB's are reformed.

[theseed]

For that reason, it is proper to ask that antipadeobaptist links and text not be posted here but on the baptistic board. Of course anyone can post on the general forum.
Yes, this is a theolgoy board, and not a denominational board, so baptism can be argued in light of reformed soteriology.

[theseed]

And here is an article from a former Credeobaptist turned paedeobaptist. Keep in mind that this author used to write papers and apologetics on why infant baptism was wrong - but now refutes his prior beliefs. This is a refutation of his previous writings. This is just one statement from him - if you click on 'back to covenant theology and baptism' after reading this - you will see his other writings. Very well done.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/MyRetraction.htm
My article is much longer, 47 Pages to be exact :D

[theseed]

For that reason, it is proper to ask that antipadeobaptist links and text not be posted here but on the baptistic board.

The link I posted was not anti-paedobaptist, and as you will note, not all Calvinist/reformed believe infant baptism to be scriptural.

[BBAS 64]

The link I posted was not anti-paedobaptist, and as you will note, not all Calvinist/reformed believe infant baptism to be scriptural.
Good Day, The seed

I am in agreement with you on this point. One being a Calvinist does not require a belief that infant Baptism is Biblical. Great Link too by the way.

Bill

[Grace_Alone4gives]

Although I am padeobapist, as the majority may be on this forum...I understand that many here are not, and have no problem with a debate or discussion regarding infant baptism. I do not believe it to be disrespectful to post sites with a credeobaptistic view, as being Reformed does not require you to hold to any baptism view. The Seed, feel free to post your view...I welcome it as I am sure you do mine.

[theseed]

Although I am padeobapist, as the majority may be on this forum...I understand that many here are not, and have no problem with a debate or discussion regarding infant baptism. I do not believe it to be disrespectful to post sites with a credeobaptistic view, as being Reformed does not require you to hold to any baptism view. The Seed, feel free to post your view...I welcome it as I am sure you do mine.
I'm credobaptist of course. But my intention was not to debate or discuss but simply provide some information that could help Gabriel in his search. And that was the most relevant link I had for someone of reformed theology.

I know that when I was researching the Calvinism/Arminiasm debate, I read arguments from both sides.

And I suppose I may have came off rudely though when I said the article was 47 pages and I apologize to all :)

I managed to squeeze the article down to 20 pages, front and back, 10 point Times New Roman font with .5 inch margins :D

[theseed]

Although I am padeobapist, as the majority may be on this forum...I understand that many here are not, and have no problem with a debate or discussion regarding infant baptism. I do not believe it to be disrespectful to post sites with a credeobaptistic view, as being Reformed does not require you to hold to any baptism view. The Seed, feel free to post your view...I welcome it as I am sure you do mine.
I noticed that you see infant baptism as coventanental--you may be interested in reading the first part of the article I posted.

[Grace_Alone4gives]

Theseed,

I used to lean towards the credeobaptist view - but through research and such, I am now pedeobaptist. I too, always study things from both sides - hearing both sides out. I do not believe in discussing things if you do not know the other view well. KWIM?
I will take a look at the link - sounds interesting. At the same time, please sift through the link I provided. If anything, you may like the website - it is strictly Reformed and touches on many subjects, not only baptism., (which I am not trying to change your view on) ;)

[Grace_Alone4gives]

May I also add, on a side note.....I do not believe that baptism saves anyone. I baptise my children not to save them, but as a covenant sign.

[theseed]

Theseed,

I used to lean towards the credeobaptist view - but through research and such, I am now pedeobaptist. I too, always study things from both sides - hearing both sides out. I do not believe in discussing things if you do not know the other view well. KWIM?
I will take a look at the link - sounds interesting. At the same time, please sift through the link I provided. If anything, you may like the website - it is strictly Reformed and touches on many subjects, not only baptism., (which I am not trying to change your view on) ;)
Ok, I will :) when I get the time.

[Covenant Heart]

Our request is not asked from a lack of charity but with a desire to preserve it. Neither denominational loyalties nor personal vendettas are at issue. The issue is that the classical dogmatic systems of reformed theology and our reformed confessions are not arbitrary list of ideas that are more or less biblical. It is rather that our confessions embody patterns of teaching that are lifted from Scripture and are carefully correlated in ways that interpret the whole of Christian existence at every point.

So the famed five points have never been solely or even primarily the basis for identifying one as holding reformed faith. In a confessionally reformed denomination such as the one in which this member is deeply privileged to be an elder, this would never be disputed. The reason is that it is a virtual truism in such churches that the Canons do not stand by themselves as THE confession of the church. The Canons were a confessional latecomer; they exist to clarify disputed points in the full confession of reformed faith as set forth in the Belgic Confession, the Second Helvetic and the Scots Confessions of Faith, the Heidelberger, Geneva Catechism and other such statements.

In reformed faith, sacraments relate closely to the temporal administration of grace, to the way that God deals with his people, and establishes and maintains his church. The sacraments relate to our view of God’s peoples in two testaments and our hermeneutical approach to the Scriptures. They relate to our philosophy of ministry, to our practice of specifically reformed spirituality, and to our view of the believer’s relationship to the world. They certainly relate to eschatology. We have debated this with Seedy already. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as mere ordinances represent a theology that is alien to the reformed interpretation of our Christian faith. If this is not grasped, we will soon be fighting the same philosophical battle on these and other fields not here named over and over and over again. The discussion of reformed distinctives will seem uncharitable, and the board will become "reformed" in name only. You can learn this now or later. We prefer now.

In his Institutes of the Christian Religion (4-1-9), John Calvin wrote:

"...wherever we see...the sacraments administered according to Christ’s institution, there it is not to be doubted a church of God exists." It is important to understand that this is no idiosyncrasy of Calvin’s. When they address the marks of the church, the confessions that the reformers framed concur with Calvin that the sacraments–including infant baptism–is a necessary mark without which there can be and is no true church.

The Second Helvetic Confession in Chapter 20 on Holy Baptism states:

"God separates us from all strange religions and peoples by the symbol of baptism...We condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that newborn infants of the faithful are to be baptized."The Confession of Rochelle (also called the Gallican Confession) states in Article 28:

"There can be no Church where the Word of God is not received, nor profession made of subjection to it, nor use of the sacraments."To that, we must add Article 35 as it states:

"...upon the authority of Jesus Christ...the children of believing parents should be baptized."The Belgic Confession of Faith, Article 29 on "The Marks of the True Church, and Wherein it Differs from the False Church" also teaches this doctrine. It says:

"...we ought diligently...to discern from the Word of God which is the true Church, since all sects which are in the world assume to themselves the name of the Church...Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself. – If it maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ."

"As for the false Church, it ascribes more power and authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit itself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does it administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in His Word."Beside this we place the words of Belgic Confession, Article 34 "Holy Baptism." It says that as

"...Christ shed His blood no less for the washing of the children of believers than for adult persons...they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that which Christ has done for them."

"We detest the error of the Anabaptists who... 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."John Calvin, Heinrich Bullinger, Peter Martyr Vermigli, Wolfgang Musculus, other reformers plus their confessions concur that without baptism (including infant baptism), no true church exists. How is antipadeobaptism compatible with reformed theology when the 16th century magisterial reformers and the confessions that they bequeathed to us indicate that the absence of baptism (including infant baptism) is a mark of the false church? Will we have our confessions or not?

Without being uncharitable, hard questions must sometimes be asked. If antipadeobaptic posts may stand, can we reply with the words of our own confessions–that religious bodies refusing to administer the sacrament are not true churches at all, but are false churches, that they are sects which mistakenly take to themselves the name "church?" Can we affirm our confessions as they despise the error of those who condemn the baptism of the infants of believers? Can we declare with our confessions that such churches refuse to submit themselves to the yoke of Christ?

This member does not care to be put in the position of having to say such things. But if we cannot speak the words of our own confessions that the reformers themselves bequeathed to us, in what sense is the board devoted to the reformed confessional system? Will we be allowed to speak the conviction of our confessions in good faith or not? Can we be confessionally reformed on all the points of our confession or not?

That members with eclectic beliefs be invited to post both on the baptistic and reformed boards on the basis of theological affinity is more than equitable. Whereas a soteriological board already exists, that suggestion is extremely generous. There is also a newly formed board for baptistic distinctives, issues and concerns. Antipadeobaptist posts belong there.

We will not negotiate our reformed confessions our ecclesiology. The question is called.

We call for a moderator ruling.

Blessings!

Covenant Heart

[theseed]

That members with eclectic beliefs be invited to post both on the baptistic and reformed boards on the basis of theological affinity is more than equitable. Whereas a soteriological board already exists, that suggestion is extremely generous. There is also a newly formed board for baptistic distinctives, issues and concerns. Antipadeobaptist posts belong there.

You say that we are antipadeobaptist, then that would mean that you are anticredobaptist. Reformed theology is just that, theology, it is not Scripture and the word of God, but only based on the word of God.

The name of this forum is Semper Reformanda which means "always reforming", therefore, we are right to qustion the theology and confessions of any men.

Because men are fallible bu scripture is infallible.

The only way to enter the New Covenant is by a regenerated heart, which is marked by faith in Christ. Faith is the means of entering the New Covenant, not baptism (Jer. 31).

Don't you know that many are Baptists because they hold to reformed theology?

[LynneClomina]

Our request is not asked from a lack of charity but with a desire to preserve it. Neither denominational loyalties nor personal vendettas are at issue. The issue is that the classical dogmatic systems of reformed theology and our reformed confessions are not arbitrary list of ideas that are more or less biblical. It is rather that our confessions embody patterns of teaching that are lifted from Scripture and are carefully correlated in ways that interpret the whole of Christian existence at every point.

So the famed five points have never been solely or even primarily the basis for identifying one as holding reformed faith. In a confessionally reformed denomination such as the one in which this member is deeply privileged to be an elder, this would never be disputed. The reason is that it is a virtual truism in such churches that the Canons do not stand by themselves as THE confession of the church. The Canons were a confessional latecomer; they exist to clarify disputed points in the full confession of reformed faith as set forth in the Belgic Confession, the Second Helvetic and the Scots Confessions of Faith, the Heidelberger, Geneva Catechism and other such statements.

In reformed faith, sacraments relate closely to the temporal administration of grace, to the way that God deals with his people, and establishes and maintains his church. The sacraments relate to our view of God’s peoples in two testaments and our hermeneutical approach to the Scriptures. They relate to our philosophy of ministry, to our practice of specifically reformed spirituality, and to our view of the believer’s relationship to the world. They certainly relate to eschatology. We have debated this with Seedy already. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as mere ordinances represent a theology that is alien to the reformed interpretation of our Christian faith. If this is not grasped, we will soon be fighting the same philosophical battle on these and other fields not here named over and over and over again. The discussion of reformed distinctives will seem uncharitable, and the board will become "reformed" in name only. You can learn this now or later. We prefer now.

In his Institutes of the Christian Religion (4-1-9), John Calvin wrote:

It is important to understand that this is no idiosyncrasy of Calvin’s. When they address the marks of the church, the confessions that the reformers framed concur with Calvin that the sacraments–including infant baptism–is a necessary mark without which there can be and is no true church.

The Second Helvetic Confession in Chapter 20 on Holy Baptism states:

The Confession of Rochelle (also called the Gallican Confession) states in Article 28:

To that, we must add Article 35 as it states:

The Belgic Confession of Faith, Article 29 on "The Marks of the True Church, and Wherein it Differs from the False Church" also teaches this doctrine. It says:

Beside this we place the words of Belgic Confession, Article 34 "Holy Baptism." It says that as

John Calvin, Heinrich Bullinger, Peter Martyr Vermigli, Wolfgang Musculus, other reformers plus their confessions concur that without baptism (including infant baptism), no true church exists. How is antipadeobaptism compatible with reformed theology when the 16th century magisterial reformers and the confessions that they bequeathed to us indicate that the absence of baptism (including infant baptism) is a mark of the false church? Will we have our confessions or not?

Without being uncharitable, hard questions must sometimes be asked. If antipadeobaptic posts may stand, can we reply with the words of our own confessions–that religious bodies refusing to administer the sacrament are not true churches at all, but are false churches, that they are sects which mistakenly take to themselves the name "church?" Can we affirm our confessions as they despise the error of those who condemn the baptism of the infants of believers? Can we declare with our confessions that such churches refuse to submit themselves to the yoke of Christ?

This member does not care to be put in the position of having to say such things. But if we cannot speak the words of our own confessions that the reformers themselves bequeathed to us, in what sense is the board devoted to the reformed confessional system? Will we be allowed to speak the conviction of our confessions in good faith or not? Can we be confessionally reformed on all the points of our confession or not?

That members with eclectic beliefs be invited to post both on the baptistic and reformed boards on the basis of theological affinity is more than equitable. Whereas a soteriological board already exists, that suggestion is extremely generous. There is also a newly formed board for baptistic distinctives, issues and concerns. Antipadeobaptist posts belong there.

We will not negotiate our reformed confessions our ecclesiology. The question is called.

We call for a moderator ruling.

Blessings!

Covenant Heart

there are a LOT of ppl on the reformed board who do not belong to a "reformed" church, perse, who do not follow any specific types of confessiong or ecclesiology, who are calvinistic. this forum is not for only those who are in "reformed" churches - it's for anyone who has an affinity for reformed style theology - and that includes any calvinists, whether they baptise infants or not. they are not "invited" to post on our thread out of a sense of kindness to some lesser cousins, they are equal members on this forum. and there needs to be a flow of love, kindness, and bearing with each other when there are doctinal differences, not confrontation and belittlement, such as tha people belong to a "false" church or are not really christians. this is in complete accordance with the rules of CF that are already in place.

[seawolf_48]

I have many dear Brother and Sister Friends that aren't PadeoBaptist, and claim that you don't need to be to be Reformed. The same with the sabbath. I really enjoy A.W. Pink and John Piper and their Cavlinistic preaching and teaching, and even some of their covenant theology. But if you don't understand that our children are part of the covenant, then you might be missing a big part of what Covenant Theology is all about.

For example:

If you lived in 27 AD and had a three year old boy whom you circumsized on the eighth day, and right after Christ was crucified your second son was born. You are a believer in Christ and want your second son to be part of the covenant people like your first son. But now you must wait until he personnally excepts Christ before he is a part of God's covnenant people.

Some Facts:
1) Baby dedication is not in the Bible like the Baptist use.
2) 90% of the Church in America is made up of Children of Believers. Where the gosple is spreading it is different, but still 90% are under 20 years old.
It would seem that a very small amount of children would become covenant breakers.
3) Many verses where the whole family was baptised in acts and the epistles. Most families have children.
4) Col. 2:11-14 link circumcision and baptism in some sort of union. I've made up my mind about what they teach, so must you.
5) Covenant Theology must be revealed by the Holy Spirit, every Spiritual truth is only known thru the enlightenment of the Spirit. If you don't see it, pray that Christ would reveal the Full Covenant Blessing to you.

[Gabriel]

seawolf,

I just checked out your profile and after accidently challenging you to an arcade game I saw that you are from Redeemer. We use some of their lessons that are available online. Good stuff!

[Grace_Alone4gives]

I have many dear Brother and Sister Friends that aren't PadeoBaptist, and claim that you don't need to be to be Reformed. The same with the sabbath. I really enjoy A.W. Pink and John Piper and their Cavlinistic preaching and teaching, and even some of their covenant theology. But if you don't understand that our children are part of the covenant, then you might be missing a big part of what Covenant Theology is all about.

For example:

If you lived in 27 AD and had a three year old boy whom you circumsized on the eighth day, and right after Christ was crucified your second son was born. You are a believer in Christ and want your second son to be part of the covenant people like your first son. But now you must wait until he personnally excepts Christ before he is a part of God's covnenant people.

Some Facts:
1) Baby dedication is not in the Bible like the Baptist use.
2) 90% of the Church in America is made up of Children of Believers. Where the gosple is spreading it is different, but still 90% are under 20 years old.
It would seem that a very small amount of children would become covenant breakers.
3) Many verses where the whole family was baptised in acts and the epistles. Most families have children.
4) Col. 2:11-14 link circumcision and baptism in some sort of union. I've made up my mind about what they teach, so must you.
5) Covenant Theology must be revealed by the Holy Spirit, every Spiritual truth is only known thru the enlightenment of the Spirit. If you don't see it, pray that Christ would reveal the Full Covenant Blessing to you.
I see it the same way. If you do not believe in Cov. Theology....that is fine. But if you do...it seems to be lacking somewhat if you do not include the children of believers. Why would they be originally included in the days of Abraham, only to be 'severed off' in the days of Christ and afterwards?

[Bulldog]

I have many dear Brother and Sister Friends that aren't PadeoBaptist, and claim that you don't need to be to be Reformed. The same with the sabbath. I really enjoy A.W. Pink and John Piper and their Cavlinistic preaching and teaching, and even some of their covenant theology. But if you don't understand that our children are part of the covenant, then you might be missing a big part of what Covenant Theology is all about.

For example:

If you lived in 27 AD and had a three year old boy whom you circumsized on the eighth day, and right after Christ was crucified your second son was born. You are a believer in Christ and want your second son to be part of the covenant people like your first son. But now you must wait until he personnally excepts Christ before he is a part of God's covnenant people.

Some Facts:
1) Baby dedication is not in the Bible like the Baptist use.
2) 90% of the Church in America is made up of Children of Believers. Where the gosple is spreading it is different, but still 90% are under 20 years old.
It would seem that a very small amount of children would become covenant breakers.
3) Many verses where the whole family was baptised in acts and the epistles. Most families have children.
4) Col. 2:11-14 link circumcision and baptism in some sort of union. I've made up my mind about what they teach, so must you.
5) Covenant Theology must be revealed by the Holy Spirit, every Spiritual truth is only known thru the enlightenment of the Spirit. If you don't see it, pray that Christ would reveal the Full Covenant Blessing to you.

Good points.

I was dedicated as a baby, but I do not understand why it is done.

It is said that you don't baptise infants because they cen't understand, then why dedicate them if they cannot understand.

[Gabriel]

Infant Baptism is equal to circumcision. It is a recognition of the covanent between God and man. Also, it is the parent's and the congregation's outward recognition of our responsibility to raise our children up in tha adminition of the Lord.

[theseed]

I was dedicated as a baby, but I do not understand why it is done.

It is said that you don't baptise infants because they cen't understand, then why dedicate them if they cannot understand

Because baptism and dedication are not the same thing. Baptism is a sign that you belong to Christ, circumcision was also a sign that you had a circumcised heart. Circumcision was the way to enter the Old Covenant, while the New Covenant is wrought by regeneration which only God does

[Grace_Alone4gives]

Because baptism and dedication are not the same thing. Baptism is a sign that you belong to Christ, circumcision was also a sign that you had a circumcised heart.Dedication is just that - dedication. However, baptism, be it infant or adult, is much - much more. It is a sign and seal of the New Covenant we have in Christ Jesus. An outward sign of an inward grace - if that makes any sense. It does not save, but it does so much more than 'symbolize'.


Circumcision was the way to enter the Old Covenant, while the New Covenant is wrought by regeneration which only God does

So nobody was regenerated in the OT. Am I reading your statement correctly?

Also, if infants and children could enter the covenant prior to the New Covenant - why could they not now? Are you implying that no one had faith in the OC? Abraham did. And because of this, he received the sign of the OC - circumcision - and because he believed - his sons were also circumsized. Would it not be the same today? Why would God all of the sudden 'cut off' (no pun intended) the children from him in the NT when he welcomed them in the OT? Does not make sense to me. I do not find scripture anywhere that staes God made a stipulation in his covenant.

[theseed]

But if you don't understand that our children are part of the covenant, then you might be missing a big part of what Covenant Theology is all about.

You can still understand Covenant Theology and be credobaptist. Are all children part ofo the covenant or only some? Do all believers children believe? Are all those who are called Israel actually Israel? No. Because of God's Election (Rom. 9.6-8).

Baptism marks that one is in the New Covenant, but they must be regenerated before they enter that covenant. So, for an infant to be baptised, may be done errringly since we don't know that they are regenerate.

1) Baby dedication is not in the Bible like the Baptist use.

This is true, dedication does not make one part of the New Covenant, nor does it mean that one is regenerate. It only means that one will commit to raising thier children under the Lordship of Christ. Can you show hermeneuticallly that baby dedication is not biblical, as some do with baby baptism?

2) 90% of the Church in America is made up of Children of Believers.

There is a difference between infants and children

3) Many verses where the whole family was baptised in acts and the epistles. Most families have children.

Such as Cornelius household? They all were believers. And Peter said they could be be baptized unless they had recieved the Spirit (Acts 10.47). A link I posted below discusses the house of Lydia, the Philippian jailer, Stephanas, and Crispus.

Also, the "household" argument is inconclusive at best, as many paedobaptist agree.


4) Col. 2:11-14 link circumcision and baptism in some sort of union. I've made up my mind about what they teach, so must you.

Yes, the Circumcision of Christ, not the circumcision of Abraham. Also, the mark of the circumision of Christ is being "made alive" or born again (2.14). So baptism is linked with regeration here, and regeneration is linked with the New Covenant (Jere. 31.33).


5) Covenant Theology must be revealed by the Holy Spirit, every Spiritual truth is only known thru the enlightenment of the Spirit. If you don't see it, pray that Christ would reveal the Full Covenant Blessing to you.

I do see it. And a credobaptist Covenant theologist explains his hermeneutics here in this online booklet (47 pages).

http://www.founders.org/library/malone1/malone_text.html

[Grace_Alone4gives]

Are all children part ofo the covenant or only some? Do all believers children believe? Are all those who are called Israel actually Israel? No. Because of God's Election (Rom. 9.6-8).

Were all of the circumsized children of Isreal believers??? Did Abrham know which of his sons would believe and which ones would not? No, but he circumsized them regardless, because of the covenant made with God.

Also, the "household" argument is inconclusive at best, as many paedobaptist agree.
I agree, however, it is just as silly to ASSUME there WERE NOT any children or infants in the house...is it not?

[theseed]

It is a sign and seal of the New Covenant we have in Christ Jesus. An outward sign of an inward grace - if that makes any sense. It does not save, but it does so much more than 'symbolize'.

Yes, and we should be in that Covenant before we get baptized. And because of God's election to grace, not all are. One must be regenerate to take part in the Covenant (Jere. 31.33, Col. 2.13)

So nobody was regenerated in the OT. Am I reading your statement correctly?

So nobody was regenerated in the OT. Am I reading your statement correctly?

The Abrahamic Covenant was entered by circumision, the New Covenant is entered by faith in Christ. Faith is the evidence of regeneration</FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>

[BBAS 64]

Infant Baptism is equal to circumcision. It is a recognition of the covanent between God and man. Also, it is the parent's and the congregation's outward recognition of our responsibility to raise our children up in tha adminition of the Lord.
Good Day, Gabe


I do not see how Infant Baptism is the same as circumcision, circumcision was by the faith of Abram.

Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Certainly Abram son Ismeal {sp} did not share the faith of his Father, nor did many Jews share the Faith of Abram. If the convenat is not reconized is it therefore less a covenat. The new covent is the covenat of blood based on the Gospel of Christ.

So, if one does not reconize that responsability which I agree we have as his children. Then we skip that responsibilty? How does circumsion relate that responsibilty to the OT people.

Peace to u,

BBAS

[theseed]

Were all of the circumsized children of Isreal believers??? Did Abrham know which of his sons would believe and which ones would not? No, but he circumsized them regardless, because of the covenant made with God.

Was belief required to be in the Covenant? No, but it is in the New Covenant.

I agree, however, it is just as silly to ASSUME there WERE NOT any children or infants in the house...is it not?

Cornelius' Household (Acts 10:22; 11:12,14)

The account of Peter's preaching the gospel to Cornelius' household does not support infant baptism. Peter did preach the gospel to the whole household, and "all" the household was saved. How do we know that? Acts 10:44 and 11:15 state as much. The Holy Spirit fell upon them "all" and led them to repentance and faith (11:17,18). In fact, Peter explicitly stated in 10:47 that he baptized only those who "received the Holy Spirit as we did." This extension of Pentecost to the Gentiles clearly defined who was baptized. There is no mention of infants in the household, but only those who were "listening to the message" (10:44). Infants are capable of being regenerated by God (e.g., John the Baptist), and some may have been present. But they are not able to listen to the gospel and to "speak with tongues and magnify God" (Acts 10:46). Only the people who did this received baptism as a sign of the Abrahamic "promise" of the Spirit (Gal. 3:14). I conclude that the episode in Cornelius' household not only does not support infant baptism but is also a strong indicator for disciples'/confessors' baptism.

Lydia's Household (Acts 16:15)

The case of Lydia is inconclusive. Where was Lydia's husband? She may not have been married at all. Only women are mentioned at the riverbank. And it appears that she and her household were baptized at the river before she took Paul back to her house. This opens the probability that only women were in her household (every member of which was probably at the riverbank with her) and that she was an unmarried or widowed businesswoman. Even if this is not entirely accurate, there is no mention of infants or older children in her household. Even many paedobaptists hold this instance of household baptism as inconclusive for their position.

Philippian Jailer's Household (Acts 16:30-34)

The account of the Philippian jailer is probably the best possibility for including infants in the household baptism. All his household was baptized, but it is wrong to apply the promise of verse 31 to the "covenantal baptism" of the household based upon the jailer's faith. This is clearly demonstrated in the following verses, where it is recorded that Paul and Silas preached the gospel to "all who were in his house" (v. 32) and that "all his household" (v. 34) believed in God with him.

There is a translation problem with this text that needs to be examined. J. A. Alexander (Acts) agrees that v. 31 is simply a promise of salvation by faith to the jailer and his household upon belief by both. Verse 34 is more complicated. The NASB, NIV, KJV, Williams, and Beck translations indicate that the faith which was shared by his whole household was the basis for their rejoicing: "having believed in God with his whole household." However, the participle is masculine, singular and seems to describe the faith of the jailer: "He greatly rejoiced with his whole household, having believed [that is, the jailer] in God." The emphasis seems to be that the household rejoiced with him because he had found faith (RSV, NEB).

Even if the latter interpretation is correct, we still have the problem of infants rejoicing. It is true that infants can detect and participate in joy in a household. But can infants rejoice because they realize their father has found faith in God? This may well be the basis for the whole household's rejoicing. However, because of the context in preaching the Word to all in the house and because all were resultingly baptized, I believe their rejoicing was the same as the jailer's rejoicing–the evidence of a new-found faith and redemption expressed in the joy of the Holy Spirit's regeneration. Because they all heard the gospel, were baptized, and rejoiced, it is a legitimate conclusion that they all believed. He and his "whole household" were baptized because they all believed. Can infants hear the Word and respond in faith? No. If infants were present, for which there is no proof, the context denies that they were baptized. In fact, the context suggests that no infants were present. This case of household baptism actually lends support to confessors' baptism.

Crispus' Household (Acts 18:8)

A related case which supports the same conclusion concerns the household of Crispus. Here is a definite account concerning baptism in which the whole household, along with Crispus, believed in the Lord. It should also be noted that in the same verse, the other Corinthians who were baptized had first believed. It seems clear that the whole household first believed and then were baptized. This case also positively supports confessors' baptism within households.

Stephanas' Household (1 Cor. 1:16)

The last household baptism mentioned in the New Testament is that of Stephanas by Paul. The thrust of this text is that the baptized believers were in division and controversy over who baptized them. It seems they were capable of knowing who baptized them, thus excluding infants. Further, 1 Cor. 16:15 describes the "household of Stephanas" as having devoted themselves for ministry to the saints. Infants cannot self-consciously devote themselves in such a way. Yet even if this does not prohibit infants in the household of Stephanas, the most that can be said is that we do not know if infants were present. At best, this account is inconclusive for infant baptism.

In summary, the accounts of Lydia's and Stephanas' households are inconclusive, while the accounts of Cornelius', Crispus', and the jailer's households actually point to conscious belief and regeneration before baptism. Therefore, I conclude that the weight of the household baptisms leans toward confessors' baptism.

[seawolf_48]

To the seed

You are my Brother and Christ chose you with me before the foundation, we have much more in common than in what we disagree about. In saying that, we are just discussing some pretty contravercial points of the Christian Reformed Faith, and I will agree to disagree. I was a Baptist since dirt was made, but now I see it differently.

Some of my best loved authors on covenant theology like Pink, Devers, Spurgeon, and Piper, all are credo-baptist, but I think that some pretty smart guys also believed like I do, that infants/children are part of the Covenant before they confess Christ as there savior (Calvin, Luther, Zwingle, Isaac Watts, etc. and they didn't blindly except paedobaptism from the Catholic Church) Can the children walk away from the faith? Yes. If they die before a certain age (4-7 years, there is no concrete year) are they saved, yes! Do they need to be baptised to be part of the covenant family, no, but we Presbyterians want to show the whole world and universe that these children belong to Christ and the Church. Believers baptism (credo-baptism) is done for non-christians recieving Christ at later ages.
It's all a matter of seeing the connection between the Covenant of Abraham with faith and circumcision, and the gentiles being believers according to the same faith that Abraham had. We are now children of Abraham! Gal 3:14,26-29; Gal 6:16; Eph 2 11-22. One covenant, one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Your in Christ

[theseed]

Seawolf
I will agree to disagree too. But I hope that atleast you will consider that the credobaptist position has a significant amount of validity.

Abraham's Covenant, thought, is different from Christ. With Christ, we get the circumcision of Christ, not the circumcision of Abraham (Col. 2?).

In Acts, we find many examples of where people were baptized after they made a confession of faith.

We are children of Abraham, we are the Seed, but Christ is the Seed too, and we are in Christ.

Yes, children who die in childhood are part of the elect, however, not all children are elect, because not all adults are elect and all adults are children at some point. But that is another thread altogether.

With that said, I will stay on the credobaptist side.

Have good day :wave:

[seawolf_48]

To the seed

I Agree, bro, Have a great day, and day of the Lord!

[Wrigley]

There are a few different denoms that are considered Reformed. Even some non-denoms are Reformed. :wave: Knight! One of the differences that usually come up is infant baptism and believers baptism.

We, in the PCA, believe in infant baptism as a sign and seal of the covenant made by God toward His chosen and as a sign of our understanding of our duty as part of the family of God to help in the raising up of our children. We do not believe it washes sin away, nor do we find it necessary as a completion of or a part in salvation. Additionally, we believe that once is enough. If a person has been baptised as a child, there is no need to re-baptize once a confession of faith is made. Assuming, of course, that the baptism was performed in a Christian church.

Thoughts, comments? I am a member of a URC, and we believe as your church does.

[Covenant Heart]

We are not anticredobaptists. Within this year, this member’s church received a woman who was raised in a non-Christian home. Upon public profession of Christ, she was sprinkled with water as the sign of her initiation into the covenant. And the head organist in this same church is a convert from Judaism. We rejoice in the credobaptisms of all our members not baptized as infants.

Nor are we opposed to debate. Before our Brethren friend, folk_rocker_42, went berserk and got his own thread deleted, Seedy sparred with us on reformed eschatology (recall our "Gospel Age Millennium and the Great Commission" post). BUT NOTE–that was on a general debate forum.

One point should put beyond dispute that the Canons of Dort alone do not define reformed faith. The Canons make not one reference to "justification by faith" or "justified by faith." It is mentioned in the French Confession (Article 20), Belgic Confession (Art 22) and the 2nd Helvetic Confession (Arts 12, 15). It is also the battle cry of the reformation. The Canons of Dort mention it not once. So if the "five points" define reformed theology, then "justification by faith" must stand with other doctrines that some consider debatable–as infant baptism, so-called a-millennial eschatology and reformed ecclesiology. How is a board "reformed" if justification by faith is not a given?

If a Roman Catholic member who adheres to St. Augustine’ doctrine of grace posts that we are severed from Christ because we break fellowship from his Vicar and the Church of Rome–do we let that stand? If (as some say) reformed theology has no church doctrine (read the confessions, people), on what basis can we hinder that? So long as one holds St. Augustine’ doctrine of grace, they must be allowed to post on our own board that we are severed from Christ’s church. Yet we are to believe that the Canons of Dort are THE definitive reformed confession??? That won’t do!

If premises that our reformed confessions declare to be marks of a false church are held as open questions, then the most knowledgeable, consistent and contentiously reformed CF members are denied a home exactly because they subscribe to the confessions of the magisterial reformers. That won’t work; and people who can’t grasp that really need to ponder what this says about the depth and accuracy of their perception of classical reformed dogmatics. For whether considered in a confessional, historical or theological light, reformed faith necessarily entails far more than the famed "five points" set down in this late-comer to the reformed confessional family.

The Huguenots published the French Confession (prepared under Calvin’s eye) in 1559–a full 60 years before synod met to consider the Arminian remonstrance! By 1563, the Belgic and 2nd Helvetic Confessions and the Heidelberg Catechism had all been published. Had Arminius’ followers not prepared their 1610 remonstrance, the Canons would not have been written to this day! Does that mean there would be no reformed theology? Reformed churches across Europe were using these confessions for nearly six decades before anyone heard of the "five points."

Calvin himself never heard of the "five points!" He died 55 years before the Canons were written! Yet we are to believe that this one latecomer to the reformed confessional family, the Canons of Dort are THE criterion by which reformed theology is to be defined??? Was Calvin not reformed? Those who can’t see the problem here may not be the ones that we want to define our theology.

"Particular-Baptist" theology changes very significantly the way that the "five points" are held. Dr. John Gill illustrates this problem. He surely claimed the five points! He even intensified the third point saying not merely that satisfaction was efficient for the elect only, it was also sufficient for the sins of the elect only. This radical sense of election let Gill see the entire order of salvation as taking place in eternity. Justification and adoption were now external acts of God. All that took place in time was the enactment of the decree. So now, no temporal order of grace was needed. As a result, the sacraments could be seen as mere ordinances. Baptism was administered only to adults and then merely to show than that God’s external decree had been executed in them.

The logic of such theology is to see God’s electing grace an unmediated bolt from the blue. No one knows where it may strike. On Gill’s terms, grace and salvation can occur just as easily on a desert island. This view of election offers precious little consolation that one is elect whether by sharing in the covenanting community (including the voluntarily gathered church) or on the basis of belief or conduct. Always one may ask if one has sufficiently repented with sufficient sincerity.

Very different is the unconditional election and irresistible grace of the five points of the Canons of Dort. Reformed theology not only identifies God’s grace as unmerited, it also locates the primary working of that grace specifically in the covenanting community. Addressing the untimely death of infants sired by believing parents, the Canons of Dort in Head 1, Article 17 say:

"...the will of God from His Word...testifies that the children of believers are holy...in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they together with the parents are comprehended. Godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children...(Gen. 17:7; Acts 2:39; I Cor. 7:14)."

The issue of infant salvation turns not on "age of accountability" theory (which Calvin rejected–Ro 5:14) but on their unconditional inclusion in the covenant of grace by election with their parents.

We read that the marks of the church have no relevance to the five points. How odd! As they discuss our irresistible conversion to God, the Canons of Dort in Heads 3/4, Article 17 say:

"...the...operation of God by which we are regenerated… by the holy admonitions of the gospel, under the influence of the Word, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical discipline."

What earlier reformed confessions declare to be marks of the church–the Word, the sacraments and church discipline–the Canons of Dort identify as the means by which God’s grace irresistibly works in the manner of our conversion. So clearly, synod saw that the marks of the church ARE relevant to reformed soteriology. Anyone who has actually read the Canons of Dort [i]knows that.

Spurning the marks of the church as early confessions define them, we can hardly embrace them where the Canons of Dort apply them as the manner by which God irresistibly converts the elect. "Particularistic-Baptists" do have A doctrine of irresistible grace. But it most assuredly is not THE irresistible grace of the five points of the Canons or of the confessions that the reformers gave us.

Moreover, the Canons of Dort also present the grace that works irresistible for our perseverance specifically in the marks of the church–the word, sacrament and church discipline. The reformed doctrine of perseverance is declared this way in Head 5 Article 14 of the Canons of Dort:

"As it has pleased God...to begin this work of grace in us, so He preserves, continues, and perfects it by the hearing and reading of His Word, by meditation thereon, and by the exhortations, threatenings, and promises thereof, and by the use of the sacraments."

How then does God preserve and perfect his saints? It is by his work of grace by his Word, by its exhortations, threatenings and promises (those being the content of ecclesiastical discipline–Act 20:31; 1Co 4:14; 2Co 2:1-8; 13:2; 2Th 3:15; 1Ti 5:20; 2Ti 2:14; Ti 2:10; etc.) and the sacraments.

So the unconditional election, irresistible grace and perseverance of the Canons are ministered in the covenanting community that is defined by the marks of the church (including infant baptism), and they are ministered by those marks. Denying the administration of grace as so defined by the Canons of Dort is not upholding reformed theology. One may do this and still have A doctrine of unconditional election, A doctrine of irresistible grace and A doctrine of perseverance. But these most assuredly are not the unconditional election, the irresistible grace and the perseverance of the five points of the Canons of Dort as they expound the theology of our reformed confessions.

We read that the essence of reformed faith is defined not by the earlier confessions but solely by the doctrines of the Canons of Dort. How odd! In the concluding remarks to the Canons we read:

"...this synod of Dort in the name of the Lord pleads with all who devoutly call on the name of our Savior Jesus Christ to form their judgment about the faith of the Reformed churches...on the basis of the churches’ own official confessions and of the present explanation...which has been endorsed by the unanimous consent of the members of the whole synod, one and all."

Again, anyone who cares enough actually to bother reading the Canons knows that they define "the" faith of the Reformed churches in reference to earlier "official confessions" and the Canons together. That–so says the synod and Canons of Dort–is "the faith of the Reformed churches."

Members open to participation apart from subscription to the reformed confessions already are rejecting parts of the Canons which (as they show) alters significantly how we hold our faith. If the Canons are not accepted in totality, it then becomes necessary to rule which parts are critical to reformed faith. The Canons are 22 pages long and have four Heads (Heads 3 & 4 are combined) each of which has articles and a "Rejection of Errors" section. There are in all 59 articles and 34 "Rejection of Errors" paragraphs. Have non-subscription advocates any plan for deciding which articles and paragraphs are essential to reformed faith and which should be ruled inoperative? Does their plan also say who will decide this and on what basis said decisions are to be made?

That isn’t about to happen! Even if it did, we would still have something very different than Dort. If we reject the Dort doctrine of the manner in which God’s grace works to convert and preserve the elect irresistibly, the churchly covenant in which that grace works, and the official confessions that the Canons clarify and by which they define reformed faith–then just exactly how "reformed" are we? To what extent are we in actually agreement with the theology of Dort? And not having read the Canons, how would we know whether or to what extent we do agree with that theology?

Our earlier post listed representative areas of dispute with those who in their own sense embrace the Canons of Dort–God’s work among his people, hermeneutics, philosophy of ministry, practice of spirituality, eschatology, etc. Unless participation is based on subscription to the theological system of the magisterial reformers, this board will only recreate and rehash those same, core, philosophical debates in context of these and other unnamed issues. In the process, the board itself will degenerate inexorably into a general forum where no doctrine is safe. Even the Canons of Dort will be open for debate. Indeed those who resist subscription show already that they do not hold the Canons of Dort to the same meaning or effect as synod that wrote them.

The direction in which non-subscription takes us is this: The one standard for forum participation will be the acronym "TULIP" when "TULIP" is defined by second rate (at the very best) writers who (like some here) show that they have never actually read the Canons. And if "TULIP" on their definition has some similarity reformed faith, it will be a version of "Calvinism" that no reformer, no reformed confession or denomination, and no competent reformed historian or dogmatician or professor of theology has ever held. Indeed this brand of "Calvinism" would have seen our CF members ejected from Geneva had they arrived there anytime in the mid 16th or 17th century.

We are not discussing "two ways" to be reformed. This is like comparing gold to fools gold. These two theological systems bear some similarities. But analyzed for the core truths of the churchly marks that give the five points their import and only one is found to be genuine. Now more than ever, the church needs a stable and cogent theological system in which the great doctrines of God stand forth with beauty and glory. Reformed theology does this. In contrast is an eclectic collage of beliefs in which some semblance to the Canons of Dort exists as a mere soteriological eccentricity. Why would anyone committed to reformed faith receive that?

Will there be a reformed board? In a word–"not without our confessions."

On other CF boards not for general debate, theological affinity is requisite for full participation. Do the same here. All the reformers and the confessions that address the issue make the sacrament, including infant baptism, an essential marks of the church. All the reformers and our confessions agree that God lays infant baptism upon us and that the neglect of it is a serious sin. Challenges to this and other doctrines as summed in the confessions of the magisterial reformers belong on open boards or on the board reflecting the theological affinity of the post. They do not belong on a board that is designated for reformed faith.

Antipadeobaptist posts belong on the Baptist forum or on an open board. Soteriological posts belong on the soteriological board or the board of member affinity. So also, full participation on a reformed board expects subscription to the classical reformed dogmatic systems as they are set forth in the confessions of the magisterial reformers. Without this, the CF structure means naught.

We are glad to wait patiently for a ruling that participation on the reformed board requires subscription to reformed theology as defined by the confessions of the magisterial reformers.

As we wait, we suggest that CF members ponder this final question:

Who is more qualified to define reformed faith–the synodical delegates who wrote the Canons of Dort, or CF members who list exceptions to the Canons without so much as having read them?

Blessings!

Covenant Heart

[LynneClomina]

:sigh:

CH, there are a lot of people on this forum who have never had a chance to LEARN all the details of full blown "reformed" theology. so teach us, please (in short posts), dont throw us out on our coattails.

when it comes down to theology, if all one understands is that TULIP is true, it's enough to make you almost a pariah on the other forums!!!! and here you want us out, too?

also, there are reformed baptists - are they not allowed to post here becuase of the infant/believers baptism issue??? according to you, are they not reformed?

dividing the boards into general (note GENERAL) theological bents was to allow like minded people to have discussion, not do oust everyone who doesnt believe in every single detail that YOU do.

someone who believes the basic tenets of the Catholic Church but doenst know them all isnt ousted from OBOB for not having all their doctrine down pat. i would hazard a guess that a Catholic who though that baptism biblically should be by immersion would be allowed to debate that issue, because fundamentally, they are Catholic.

btw, i am personally learning alot about infant baptism, covanent style, that is very convincing - you would have had me out of the room so that i could not debate the issue at all? i dunno, i'm more in the mind of converting "heretics", than burning them.

[Knight]

Lynne,

Excellent post.

Here's another question. Since when did infant baptism become an essential doctrine of the Reformed faith?

[Grace_Alone4gives]

Lynne,

Excellent post.

Here's another question. Since when did infant baptism become an essential doctrine of the Reformed faith?
It is not. :)

post away.....:wave:

[Knight]

HTD,
Thanks.

Just trying to provide a little perspective on what has historically been a hotly debated topic.

[theseed]

And not having read the Canons, how would we know whether or to what extent we do agree with that theology?

Through careful discussion.

Will there be a reformed board? In a word–"not without our confessions."

Sola Scriptura is one of the slogans of the reformation is it not? Which means that all you citations, confessions, and canons are ultimately irrelevant. What matters is what we find in the Bible.

The came of this forum is Semper Reformanda which means always reforming. This is another theme of the Reformation. Reformist beleieve that we are fallible, even in Christ, and that we must look to be sanctified and conform to Christ. Since we are not perfect, those confessions and cannons that are not part of Scipture may not be perfect, therefore warrent question.


Antipadeobaptist posts belong on the Baptist forum or on an open board. Soteriological posts belong on the soteriological board or the board of member affinity. So also, full participation on a reformed board expects subscription to the classical reformed dogmatic systems as they are set forth in the confessions of the magisterial reformers. Without this, the CF structure means naught.


You seem to adhere to the doctrine of men more than The Scriptures. All those people are mere men (1 Cor. 3). Reformed Theology is just that--theolgy. It is not a denomination, but a set of beliefs.

We are glad to wait patiently for a ruling that participation on the reformed board requires subscription to reformed theology as defined by the confessions of the magisterial reformers.

You demand that only those who adhere to the doctrine of those men be allowed to debate on this subforum. But what about THE BIBLE? Some of us adhere to Reformed Theology found in The Bible.

Who is more qualified to define reformed faith–the synodical delegates who wrote the Canons of Dort, or CF members who list exceptions to the Canons without so much as having read them?

God, the person who wrote The Bible.

[Covenant Heart]

Our post has been delayed unduly as this member’s aged parents have for the past several weeks visited in what will likely be their last visit in these United States.

Dear Lynne:

Your post touches the heart. Some would never guess that writing has clues as to where one has walked. More than one has concluded that this member doesn’t know squat. For the honour that your good words bestow, we thank-you. Concerning teaching, we can give some time to offer perspective, encourage theological reflection and to suggest paths for study. Debate is different. And while we indicate our openness to it, we will not do so regularly. Debate eats time; we must pick stands wisely. We will share regularly and debate occasionally. But we have no plans to mix the two on an ongoing basis.

Basically, you invite us to draft a policy solution. But some questions forbid easy answers. And while forum design obviously reflects intention, that intention is not always obvious. This member devotes too little time here for that! Good work doesn’t happen quickly, and your questions beg time for reflection.

As for throwing you out on your coattails or making forum exiles–no. Reformed polity doesn’t work that way. And we have neither means nor inclination to do so. We have no more or less say than any other member. We support fully the work of our moderators and owner. And as this question admits no easy answer, we shouldn’t envy them!

This member is not the standard of reformed faith. Reformed faith is defined by our confessions, by the reformers who wrote them, and by a tradition of the writings of a handful of the very best reformed minds in each generation. Seen in this light, "TULIP" reduces reformed faith to a mere shell and then forbids correction. An illustration may help.

Thomas F. Torrance’ "Mediation of Christ" traces mediation between God and Israel in covenant history to show how Christ’s two natures fulfill perfectly the divine and human sides of the covenant. He shows how the incarnation shapes the idea of revelation, sin and atonement, vicarious suffering and reconciliation in God’s plan to restore shalom, and how all this converges at the Lord’s Table. But Lynne–we kid you not–if T.F. Torrance posted his thesis on the sacrament here, do you know what he would find? He would find a post that read in essence:

"1Co 11:24 says it’s a memorial–go find a Bible church, man!"

And people would agree.

And if he said that beyond memorial, the reformed view of the Table includes covenant renewal (Ex 24:8), thanksgiving, forgiveness, the eschatological hope of the heavenly feast (Mat 26:26-29), atonement (Mar 14:12), spiritual nourishment (Joh 6:35), and proclamation (1Co 11:24), what then? At that point, Professor Torrence–once Head of Christian Dogmatics at Edinburgh and Moderator of the Church of Scotland–would here find a post that read in essence:

"No, it’s a memorial–you don’t understand reformed theology, man!"

And again, people would agree.

A bit much? From Calvin and the confessions (including the Canons), we define reformed faith through the lips of the reformers themselves. Yet all is undone with a post that says as much as "no–you’re wrong."

And again, people agree.

So one has to ask, "what is the point of doing quality work." If the words of Calvin, the reformers, Bavinck, Vos, Torrence or Kline (a former teacher of this member) are brushed aside with an hand sweep, if they cannot define accurately the parameters of reformed theology, what could this member possibly add to the subject? In this context, "reformed faith" means very little. It has become a shell. Please don’t read this as sarcasm. It’s just that even if we had time and inclination for ongoing debate (which we don’t), why bother doing good work?

Infant baptism never became a key reformed doctrine. It was reformed doctrine from the start. All the reformers and all our confessions affirm infant baptism. Unless the confessions define what reformed faith is, that faith will defined by general concensus. What is left will have no meaningful resemblance to classical reformed dogmatics. Reformed faith will become everything (and therefore nothing) at the same time.

As we show, this problem emerges in ecclesiology (churchly doctrine), eschatology (amillennial end of the age), sacraments, the relationship of the testaments, Christian spirituality, the cultural mandate, etc. On a dozen issues, we can redebate our core, philosophical differences with non-reformed theology endlessly. But what is the point of having to do that on a reformed board? Isn’t that why we have general fora?

A doctrinal baseline is needed. And in reformed churches the baseline has always been our confessional standards. That is how and where the churches of the reformation declare their faith. It is in reference to the confessions that doctrines either conform to or dissent from reformed theology. As for "general theological bent," that concerns the degree to which one’s faith is in accord with the system of doctrine set forth in the confessions–rather than to specific doctrines.

If confessional subscription and forum participation are divided, any member can post anything their heart desires. But by the same token, you have no reformed board. To have a reformed board means at the very least that the confessions which define the reformed faith are the doctrinal baseline by which the reformed faith is here defined.

To ask questions is one thing, but to offer Malone’s position as a way of holding reformed theology is absurd! Mr. Malone can’t point to one reformer or confession that holds his view of church, sacraments or covenant. Nor can readers. Questions are fine. But to proffer an alien theology as a form of reformed faith? To that, we will never agree.

As to how much latitude (dissent) from reformed doctrine is allowed–we will abide gladly by whatever rules the moderators/owner devise for participation based on the same principles that apply to other parts of the forum–(the Roman Catholic, Charismatic boards, etc.). But in any case, reformed theology is not a soteriological position. Reformed theology is an interpretation of the whole of our Christian faith and life in which soteriology is but one of many vital aspects.

Blessings! Covenant Heart

[Covenant Heart]

Seedy: First, we ask how we would know whether or not we agree with the theology of Dort if we have not read the Canons.

You reply, "through careful discussion."

We mean no disrespect, but it is embarrassing to credit this proposition with a reply. How can we have careful discussion of the Canons if we have not read them? That's silly! If we do not read the confessions, everything that we know about them is by definition hearsay. How does this differ from a pooling of ignorance? Would you tell members to derive their knowledge of Scripture "by careful discussion?" No. And if members who seem familiar with our confessions are censured for subordinating Scripture to manmade doctrines, again–to what extent do you actually agree with our theology?
Second, you say: "Sola Scriptura is one of the slogans of the reformation is it not? Which means that all you citations, confessions, and canons are ultimately irrelevant. What matters is what we find in the Bible."

In reply: All of life is confessional. You say that the "confessions and canons are ultimately irrelevant." That has confessional import. Now it may not be officially adopted by your church (although we wouldn’t put it past some). But it does confess what you sincerely believe. It guides your response to our words. So your words that the "confessions and canons are ultimately irrelevant" function for you as a confessional article of faith.

But to confess, "confessions are ultimately irrelevant" must mean that this article is itself "untimately irrelevant." That is a self-negating premise. We’ll simplify. Suppose you say that "all confessions are ultimately irrelevant." We may ask, "does that include the statement you just confessed." In that vein, "Sola Scriptura" is also a brief, confessional statement. If all confessions are irrelevant (as you say), then "Sola Scriptura" (which guides and functions as a confessional article) must be irrelevant also.

That some 50 confessional statements were bequeathed to us in the first 150 years of reformation history might suggest to you that you’ve never really grasped how the reformers held the confessions, the five solas and Scriptures. We really would not care to think them too stupid to see the contradiction.

Third, we are familiar with Semper Reformanda, and human fallibility not at issue. Confessions have been changed to bring them into greater conformity with the word of God. The Belgic Confession no longer condemns Anabaptists as seditious persons. And Westminster Conf. chap 31 states in article 3 that "all synods or councils, since the Apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice." But then on your confession (above), that also is "ultimately irrelevant."

You say, "you seem to adhere to the doctrine of men more than the Scriptures."

Really? Well, as Belgic Confession of Faith, Article 5 states, "we receive all these books [the 66], and these only, as holy and canonical, for the regulation, foundation, and confirmation of our faith."

Or is that "ultimately irrelevant" also?
You say that "Reformed theology is just that–theology. It is not a denomination, but a set of beliefs."

We are not aware of having referred to any one denomination in this regard. Provide the URL and we will correct the post. As for a "set of beliefs," this shows a woeful misunderstanding both of our confessions and of reformed philosophy of truth. First, confessional statements are not a "set of beliefs" in the sense of listing things that we believe to be true. Rather, they lift Biblical patterns of teaching from Scripture and put them on paper in a way that holds these motifs in their Biblical balance and relationships. Confessions integrate all major parts of our doctrine into a coherent system. They also seek to bring together and balance all the Biblical witness on a subject.

That is why when your Anabaptist forefathers were debating whether to live in communes and pondered Sabellius’ heresy (no Trinity), John Calvin was defining the threefold office of Jesus Christ (prophet, priest and king) and developing the theory of vicarious atonement.

As for the Bible, we replied already with Belgic Confession, Article 5. But we add Westminster Confession, chap 1, article 10. "The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."

But alas–that is "ultimately irrelevant."

Confessions will be used; the question is whether the confessions that hold are those of the reformation or such as "no creed but Christ, no book but the Bible, no law but love" as the non-reformed oft confess. We also agree that "what matters is what we find in the Bible." As confessions go, we have to tell you that we find those of the reformation (above) much more helpful.
Again, if the confessions are ultimately irrelevant, so is the doctrine that they articulate. As Seedy includes the Canons in his confessional disclaimer, we feel vindicated for saying that without the confessions, even the Canons will be lost and reformed faith reduced to a shell. We see at least as much cause to spurn as "irrelevant" the recommendation that we spurn as "ultimately irrelevant" the collective wisdom of great teachers of past generations without even reading them!

We have no problem whatsoever with Seedy's issue of conscience on these things. Indeed we commend him for it in the spirit of the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 20 which states that God has left the conscience free from the doctrines and commandments of men. But to say that our confessions (and by extention their theology) are ultimately irrelevant, to hold as an open question the Biblical commitment those who hold the confessions, that (we believe) breaks from reformed faith. Why would such a one post here? If all confessions are "ultimately irrelevant" (save that one), why would we bother to read them or to give them "careful discussion?"

If that unsettled readers, consider this before granting squatters’ rights. What will you do when, with Seedy’s logic, a Wesleyan says that the five points are not Biblical and hold us as outcasts on our own forum? If granted, Seedy’s argument must cut both ways. Do you want a reformed forum or not? We have Seedy’s answer. You have ours. We continue to wait for our moderator/owner.
Blessings!

Covenant Heart

[theseed]

We mean no disrespect,

Who is the "we" stuff? You are the only one making this an issue.





But to confess, "confessions are ultimately irrelevant" must mean that this article is itself "untimately irrelevant." That is a self-negating premise. We’ll simplify. Suppose you say that "all confessions are ultimately irrelevant." We may ask, "does that include the statement you just confessed." In that vein, "Sola Scriptura" is also a brief, confessional statement. If all confessions are irrelevant (as you say), then "Sola Scriptura" (which guides and functions as a confessional article) must be irrelevant also.


Your argument is invalid because even my confessions are ultimatelly irrelevant. You say that Sola Scirptura is a confession, and that may be. However, all cofessions must come from Scirpture, so ultimatley only Scripture is relevant--God's word.

We both agree on Sola Scriptura, so we can start form there.


Why would such a one post here? If all confessions are "ultimately irrelevant" (save that one), why would we bother to read them or to give them "careful discussion?"


So that we may learn.


Why would such a one post here? If all confessions are "ultimately irrelevant" (save that one), why would we bother to read them or to give them "careful discussion?"


And only 5 points make up the entire reformed theoogy? :confused:


We have Seedy’s answer. You have ours. We continue to wait for our moderator/owner.
Blessings!

No moderator here sees reason to step in. It is been over a month since you first posted here.

And why should we hold to the Canons of Dort, even though they should be invalidated? Would that not contradict the philosophy of reformation?

We can discuss doctrine or we can not. If you force people in this forum to hold to the entire canon of Dort, then what would be left?

You speak of the Canons as if they are infallible. If you want to discuss this, then discuss it. If you don't like me posting credobaptist links, then PM the moderators.




Isaiah 40
6 The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field:
7 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass.
8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

[frumanchu]

Let me say (NOT as a moderator, but as a fellow Reformed brother) that I agree Scripture is the ultimate authority in this debate. The historic creeds and confessions do not possess equal authority over our consciences and convictions. They DO however provide valuable insight as to the historic understanding of the content of the faith.

I see the issue of paedo vs credo to be a secondary matter...an issue of Reformed tradition vs Reformed faith. There are many other secondary matters which members of the Reformed community disagree on: eschatology, covenant theology vs dispensationalism, sacramentology to a degree, worship methods, etc. We should feel free to discuss and debate these issues amongst ourselves, but at the end of the day we affirm the authority of Scripture above all else, the doctrine of justification by faith alone, the sovereignty of God in election, and many other truths.

As a paedobaptist who was formerly credobaptist, I do not have any problem personally with discussion and debate of this matter so long as neither side makes it a test of faith or holds his or her brother or sister in contempt over the matter.

Scripture is our authority, history our tutor. Come, let us reason together.

[Grace_Alone4gives]

Let me say (NOT as a moderator, but as a fellow Reformed brother) that I agree Scripture is the ultimate authority in this debate. The historic creeds and confessions do not possess equal authority over our consciences and convictions. They DO however provide valuable insight as to the historic understanding of the content of the faith.

I see the issue of paedo vs credo to be a secondary matter...an issue of Reformed tradition vs Reformed faith. There are many other secondary matters which members of the Reformed community disagree on: eschatology, covenant theology vs dispensationalism, sacramentology to a degree, worship methods, etc. We should feel free to discuss and debate these issues amongst ourselves, but at the end of the day we affirm the authority of Scripture above all else, the doctrine of justification by faith alone, the sovereignty of God in election, and many other truths.

As a paedobaptist who was formerly credobaptist, I do not have any problem personally with discussion and debate of this matter so long as neither side makes it a test of faith or holds his or her brother or sister in contempt over the matter.

Scripture is our authority, history our tutor. Come, let us reason together.
What made you switch views...out of curiosity. I am also paedeo.

[frumanchu]

What made you switch views...out of curiosity. I am also paedeo.
Two things mainly: my increased exposure to and understanding of Covenant Theology, and my increased knowledge of church history.

[Zorobabel]

As the scripture says, I believe in immersion.

[LynneClomina]

As the scripture says, I believe in immersion.
so, do you immerse babies or do you immerse believers only?

[Grace_Alone4gives]

so, do you immerse babies or do you immerse believers only?Thgis was not directed at me...but I'll answer anyway.
We babtise babies. We usually spinkle. HOWEVER - we do have a baptism tank..and would 'dunk' a babe if asked. My son is getting baptised in 2 weeks...I was asked if I would like him 'dunked'. As I do not believe the mode matters...I chose to spinkle, as I did with my other 2 children. My dh was sprinkled as a believer (no tank back then), and I was fully immersed. I believe all of us HAVE been baptised!!! Praise God!

[rnmomof7]

Mod hat on.

I am coming to this discussion a bit late, but I have a general comment to make.

Calvinism is not a religion, it is not a "church" it is a doctrine that seeks to give all the glory to God and none to man. We are in reality a diverse group .

Within Calvinism we have many different positions on things like eschatology or the sacraments ( ordinances as our Baptist family would say.) These are non essentials to our salvation .

All of those differences are welcome here in this forum for discussion , as long as we remember that was are all family in Christ if you accept covenant theology or not .

I am a Bible presbyterian , but I am not a padeo baptist. I live in peace with my credo-baptism church family , I hope that we can all accept that Baptism does not save, and that it is an outward sign of a change, then discuss it from there.

Peace to my reform family

RN

Edited because I said I was a credo baptist , I meant to say I am not a padeo baptist

[frost]

Greetings.

In regards to infant baptism I hear people saying things like, "it's a sign of the covenant," or, "it's a seal of the covenant." What exactly does this mean in a tangible way? In other words, does baptism DO anything at all for the person being baptized? Does that baby get something non-baptized babys don't get? Since the baby is obvioulsy unaware of what's going on, it seems more of a ritual for the parents. I'm not trying to be combative here, but I just don't see what it really accomplishes. Adult baptism, however, is completely different. There a person makes a decision to follow Jesus' command to be baptised. With infants, it's the parents making the decision. Just my 2c.

blessings...

[Grace_Alone4gives]

Mod hat on.

I am a Bible presbyterian , but I am not a credo baptist. I live in peace with my credo-baptism church family , I hope that we can all accept that Baptism does not save, and that it is an outward sign of a change, then discuss it from there.

Peace to my reform family

RNDont you mean that you are not a padeo baptist?!?;)

[theseed]

All of those differences are welcome here in this forum for discussion , as long as we remember that was are all family in Christ if you accept covenant theology or not .

I accept covenant theology, even though I'm a credo-baptist. Simply not the same interpretation of the Scriptures :pray:

[theseed]

Greetings.

In regards to infant baptism I hear people saying things like, "it's a sign of the covenant," or, "it's a seal of the covenant." What exactly does this mean in a tangible way? In other words, does baptism DO anything at all for the person being baptized? Does that baby get something non-baptized babys don't get? Since the baby is obvioulsy unaware of what's going on, it seems more of a ritual for the parents. I'm not trying to be combative here, but I just don't see what it really accomplishes. Adult baptism, however, is completely different. There a person makes a decision to follow Jesus' command to be baptised. With infants, it's the parents making the decision. Just my 2c.

blessings...
A sign means it represents things to come, while a seal means it represents what has come, such as the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as a seal of promise.

now, in this forum (Reformed), we don't believe that baptism has any special meaning other than a symbol. We don't believe that grace is infused through the water and that the Holy Spirit works with it instantaneously as Catholics and Lutherans do.

[rnmomof7]

Dont you mean that you are not a padeo baptist?!?;)


Yea I mistyped

[cygnusx1]

Bump!!!

this thread has some good points ....

[Iosias]

No. It is a sign of God's covenant with His people. Just as circumcision was

They why was Ishmael circumcised? See Gen 17:21 :)

[Iosias]

Who would argue that the blood of Christ and the Spirit of God are the seals of the Covenant as opposed to baptism?