New Baptism Debate

[hells_unicorn]

I don't think Sola would say that though. I think there's equivocation going on here.

Sure he wouldn't put it in those exact words, but the entire premise behind "exclusive credobaptism" is attaching some regenerative significance to works. Attaching salvation to an outward confession is equally as absurd as the straw-man he keeps introducing of those who baptize infants believing that the outward sign of washing is what regenerates.

I don't feel in any way obligated to lend credence to an erroneous view of baptism that had no precedent in history prior to 1537. None whatsoever.

[Eagles' Wings]

Anyone who thinks that they can personally sift out every deceitful person by simply waiting until they get older and then Baptizing them after they've become more adept liars does not understand the problem of sin and has no business having an opinion on how baptism should be administered.

This is the dilemma I'd had in the past. I remember reading from a PRC pastor who said, believers mustn't worry about having children for fear they may not be elect. Children of believers are considered in the covenant of grace.

[Sola_Fide]

I do believe that God sometimes uses baptism as a means to bring someone to faith (this obviously makes sense only if you believe in baptizing infants) however, I don't think baptism can ever regenerate WITHOUT faith.

The New Covenant signs of baptism and the Lord's Supper are not given in the expectation that people will respond in faith. They are given to the people who have already been granted faith (or make the profession of faith...there are always false confessions). This is the difference between the Old Covenant and the New. The Old Covenant was based on lineage. The New Covenant is based on faith.

[Sola_Fide]

Again, this is talking about Christ as mediator, this is Christ solely as savior. Christ's office of mediator pertains to more than just his church. For example:

1 Timothy 2:5 - For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. (I don't see him only being the mediator of elect Christians here, in fact, a command is given that "supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;" in the preceding verses. Granted, your rejection of the concept of common grace would probably lead you to imagine away what most of this chapter is saying.)

Hebrews 1:2 - Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds. (This is what is cited in the WCF regarding Christ's status as being heir to all things and whom through all was created, not just the elect).

Acts 17:31 - Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. (Since it is Christ whom judges the world, his task as mediator goes beyond his church to include all of mankind, and indeed all of mankind will be raised up for judgment day. Clearly, Christ's role as mediator goes WELL BEYOND election)

I really suggest going through the WCF on the topic of Christ as mediator and consider all of the scriptures cited in support of this position rather than constantly harping over your own private interpretation of Hebrews 8, which is only talking about his role as the Savior of his Church. You can read it at this link.



And since your continuing point is that Baptism has to ONLY be administered to those who are regenerate, how will you know anyone's heart? Again, but this logic, we should all become Quakers and give up on baptizing by water entirely.



Christ was the mediator as the Son of God in the Old Covenant, it was simply through types and shadows in the OT ceremonies. The outward signs changed and the new covenant has given us the fullness of Christ, but His intercession is for all of his Church, which includes the Old Testament saints. There is no lack of continuity between the Old and New Testament, not a single iota.

This....I can't even begin to describe how this is wrong. I mean...drawing universalism out of 1st Timothy 2??? Are you an Arminian? I think you need to reexamine your faith if this is what you believe. FF, did you read this?

[erowe1]

Covenants do not pertain to election. Covenants can be broken, and they can also be reformed. This happened periodically throughout the Old Testament when Israel fell under judgment as a nation. The building of the 2nd Temple is among the most auspicious examples of a covenant being reformed, and several relevant passages included in the Book of Chronicles is also where the Reformed Catechisms take their position regarding exclusive psalmody done A Capella.

Being a covenant breaker does not declare one as being reprobate, but all reprobates are, by nature, covenant breakers. The covenant of works given to Adam, though broken, is still inherent in the nature of creation and the source of its curse and man's condemnation. All who lived on earth (except Christ) share in the breaking of this covenant by reason of both original and actual sins, and this alone does not speak to being reprobate or being elect.

And how does any of this have to do with baptism?

Notice that you didn't answer my questions in that quote:

What does "in some sense in the covenant" mean?

Does the Bible ever give us the terms of this covenant anywhere?

[erowe1]

We (covenant parents) certainly don't consider any of our children reprobate.

But you said it is possible for "covenant parents" (whatever that means) to have a reprobate child and then you said you agree with the Heidelberg Confession when it said that it is not possible.

Which is it?

[erowe1]

Anyone who thinks that they can personally sift out every deceitful person by simply waiting until they get older and then Baptizing them after they've become more adept liars does not understand the problem of sin and has no business having an opinion on how baptism should be administered.

Who here said anything about anyone needing to sift out deceitful people?

If you baptize an unsaved person who makes a false confession of faith, then the responsibility for that is on the person who made the false confession. But if you baptize an unsaved person who made no confession of faith at all, then it becomes you who is the deceiver.

[Eagles' Wings]

But you said it is possible for "covenant parents" (whatever that means) to have a reprobate child and then you said you agree with the Heidelberg Confession when it said that it is not possible.

Which is it?

I am still learning the many nuances of what it means to be Reformed. Please consider reading this article.

http://heidelblog.net/2015/05/heidel...hams-children/

[erowe1]

I am still learning the many nuances of what it means to be Reformed. Please consider reading this article.

http://heidelblog.net/2015/05/heidel...hams-children/

Thank you for sharing that. But I don't see him addressing what, to me, is the biggest problem in that quote from the Heidelberg Catechism, which is that, as I understand it, it does say that the children of believers are redeemed from sin. His own position, which he outlines, contradicts that, and he never explains how to interpret the catechism in a way that allows for the children of believers not to be saved.

[Christian Liberty]

Sure he wouldn't put it in those exact words, but the entire premise behind "exclusive credobaptism" is attaching some regenerative significance to works. Attaching salvation to an outward confession is equally as absurd as the straw-man he keeps introducing of those who baptize infants believing that the outward sign of washing is what regenerates.

I don't feel in any way obligated to lend credence to an erroneous view of baptism that had no precedent in history prior to 1537. None whatsoever.

you don't have to give credence to it, but you do need to actually understand what he's trying to say. He would say that you should attempt to only baptize believers, and he would deny that the children of believers are covenant members or part of the visible church. I think that's an error. But he's not saying that everyone who is given water baptism is actually saved any more than we are.

The New Covenant signs of baptism and the Lord's Supper are not given in the expectation that people will respond in faith. They are given to the people who have already been granted faith (or make the profession of faith...there are always false confessions). This is the difference between the Old Covenant and the New. The Old Covenant was based on lineage. The New Covenant is based on faith.

I would distinguish between baptism and the Lord's Supper here. The latter requires a personal confession (1 Corinthians 11) while the former does not for a covenant child.

This....I can't even begin to describe how this is wrong. I mean...drawing universalism out of 1st Timothy 2??? Are you an Arminian? I think you need to reexamine your faith if this is what you believe. FF, did you read this?

Yeah, I read it. I think he's arguing for common grace but not universalism. I'm not fully understanding the implications of everything else he is saying. @Hells_Unicorn, what's the difference between Christ as mediator and Christ as intercessor? I don't quite get it.

[Eagles' Wings]

Thank you for sharing that. But I don't see him addressing what, to me, is the biggest problem in that quote from the Heidelberg Catechism, which is that, as I understand it, it does say that the children of believers are redeemed from sin. His own position, which he outlines, contradicts that, and he never explains how to interpret the catechism in a way that allows for the children of believers not to be saved.

Thank you for reading it. I will have to check into the original intent of this catechism question, because the language does imply that the child is saved.

[Christian Liberty]

Thank you for reading it. I will have to check into the original intent of this catechism question, because the language does imply that the child is saved.

I'm not sure on the Heidelberg specifically but I know most Presbyterians would say that covenant baptism and salvation are closely related but not absolutely related. On the other hand, salvation and personal, God-given faith are directly and clearly related. So, I'd say that if a covenant child dies while too young to understand the gospel for themselves, we should assume that they are in heaven. On the other hand, if they apostasize that obviously means they never had personal salvation, but they are cut off from the olive tree.

[Christian Liberty]

Which, I'll note, is the SAME olive tree the Jews were in. Which refutes the whole "the New covenant has nothing in common with the old" idea.

[Sola_Fide]

This is patently false and a product of Renaissance Humanist thought via the Anabaptists. Election is from eternity by God the Father (John 6:44), it equally pertains to anyone saved at any time throughout history (1 Thessalonians 4:15, the meaning of "prevent" in this passage in the KJV means "go before"). We are charged to spread the gospel throughout the world (Matthew 28:19), and we are warned that there will be those within the church who will not be saved (1 John 2:9; Titus 1:16; Matthew 7:21-23; 2 Corinthians 11:13-15; Jude 1:4; 2 Peter 2:1; Romans 16:18).

Anyone who thinks that they can personally sift out every deceitful person by simply waiting until they get older and then Baptizing them after they've become more adept liars does not understand the problem of sin and has no business having an opinion on how baptism should be administered.

First, Reformed Baptists and Anabaptists have different views of baptism.

Secondly, you never answered the main point of my post. Hebrews 7:25 says:

Hebrews 7:25

Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

You are contending that there are people who come to God through the New Covenant that Jesus is not able to save. How can you hold this position when Hebrews 7, 8, 9, and 10 make the opposite argument...that it is His intercession that ensures their salvation?

[Sola_Fide]

Sure he wouldn't put it in those exact words, but the entire premise behind "exclusive credobaptism" is attaching some regenerative significance to works. Attaching salvation to an outward confession is equally as absurd as the straw-man he keeps introducing of those who baptize infants believing that the outward sign of washing is what regenerates.

I don't feel in any way obligated to lend credence to an erroneous view of baptism that had no precedent in history prior to 1537. None whatsoever.

I completely reject baptismal regeneration as a damnable heresy. There is no basis at all for saying the baptist position even comes close to that. Rather, it was the Westminster confession that inferred baptismal regeneration, which was from Rome.

In ALL the instances of baptism in the New Testament, the people professed faith FIRST (or rejoiced in the Word preached to them, etc) and THEN we're baptized.

Secondly, since all of the instances of baptism in the New Testament are credobaptistic, my understanding of baptism is several centuries older then yours. Your view of baptism is a hold over from Rome, not apostolic Christianity.

[Christian Liberty]

I completely reject baptismal regeneration as a damnable heresy. There is no basis at all for saying the baptist position even comes close to that. Rather, it was the Westminster confession that inferred baptismal regeneration, which was from Rome.

In ALL the instances of baptism in the New Testament, the people professed faith FIRST (or rejoiced in the Word preached to them, etc) and THEN we're baptized.

Secondly, since all of the instances of baptism in the New Testament are credobaptistic, my understanding of baptism is several centuries older then yours. Your view of baptism is a hold over from Rome, not apostolic Christianity.

The WCF does not teach baptismal regeneration. I don't think you do either, but let's not misrepresent the WCF.

I don't agree that every form of baptismal regeneration is damnable though. I WOULD say that claiming that water baptism is absolutely essential for salvation is damnable. But not all who believe in a type of 'baptismal regeneration" would hold to that.

[Sola_Fide]

The WCF does not teach baptismal regeneration. I don't think you do either, but let's not misrepresent the WCF.

I don't agree that every form of baptismal regeneration is damnable though. I WOULD say that claiming that water baptism is absolutely essential for salvation is damnable. But not all who believe in a type of 'baptismal regeneration" would hold to that.

Baptismal regeneration, every kind, is heretical because it replaces (or adds to) the atonement of Jesus as the sole basis of a man's salvation.

By the way, the WCF says "grace is conferred in baptism". Do you believe that?

[Sola_Fide]

Hey FF, the WCF says baptism is a "seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, or remission of sins".

Oh really? Baptism is a "seal"??? No, baptism is a sign. The Holy Spirit is a seal.

Ephesians 1:13

When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.

You see how these incorrect interchanges of baptism and regeneration are present in the WCF?

[Christian Liberty]

By the way, the WCF says "grace is conferred in baptism". Do you believe that?

Yes, but it depends on what you mean by that. The WCF also says that grace is not so tied up in baptism that it is impossible to be saved without it.

Hey FF, the WCF says baptism is a "seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, or remission of sins".

Oh really? Baptism is a "seal"??? No, baptism is a sign. The Holy Spirit is a seal.

I think baptism is a seal but I'm not sure you understand what the WCF means by that.

[Sola_Fide]

Yes, but it depends on what you mean by that. The WCF also says that grace is not so tied up in baptism that it is impossible to be saved without it.



I think baptism is a seal but I'm not sure you understand what the WCF means by that.

Grace is conferred at baptism? Are you kidding me? What verse says this?

Edit:

Hey FF, I found your verse. But I didn't find it in the Bible, I found it in the Catholic Catechism:

1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification.

[Sola_Fide]

I think baptism is a seal but I'm not sure you understand what the WCF means by that.

Baptism is not a seal, it is a sign. Baptism doesn't seal one for anything, because it is not salvific. The Holy Spirit is a seal. I just posted the verse for you.

[Christian Liberty]

Grace is conferred at baptism? Are you kidding me? What verse says this?

Edit:

Hey FF, I found your verse. But I didn't find it in the Bible, I found it in the Catholic Catechism:

If you're really trying to compare Roman Catholicism to the WCF, I don't know what to do for you.

Baptism is not a seal, it is a sign. Baptism doesn't seal one for anything, because it is not salvific. The Holy Spirit is a seal. I just posted the verse for you.

Baptism seals one in the visible covenant just like circumcision did, see Genesis 17.

I agree that its not salvific. It is closely tied with salvation but not absolutely so.

[Sola_Fide]

If you're really trying to compare Roman Catholicism to the WCF, I don't know what to do for you.

Why is that? There was all kinds of latent sacramentalism in the Reformation.

Baptism seals one in the visible covenant just like circumcision did, see Genesis 17.

I agree that its not salvific. It is closely tied with salvation but not absolutely so.

Why do you believe that when the Bible says that the Holy Spirit is the seal? It is regeneration, it is faith, that is the seal. Why would you believe something that's not Biblical?

Furthermore, the New Covenant is "not like" the Old. Over and over again, the writer to the Hebrews makes this plain. Using Old covenant passages to explain the New covenant signs is totally backward. The Old Covenant was a national covenant based on lineage. That is why the signs were given to ALL the people (elect and non elect) and children. The New Covenant is a covenant with the elect based on faith, NOT lineage. That is why the signs are given only to the ones who profess faith.

[Christian Liberty]

Why is that? There was all kinds of latent sacramentalism in the Reformation.

I don't think all sacramentalism is wrong. This is where baptists overshoot and end up letting people slip into Rome for lack of balance.

[erowe1]

I don't think all sacramentalism is wrong. This is where baptists overshoot and end up letting people slip into Rome for lack of balance.

What do you mean by "sacramentalism," and what do Baptists overshoot about it?

[Sola_Fide]

I don't think all sacramentalism is wrong. This is where baptists overshoot and end up letting people slip into Rome for lack of balance.

Why not? Do you think baptismal regeneration and transubstantiation is wrong? Martin Luther believed that. Infant baptism is also sacramentalism. It is attaching some kind of grace or magical power to the sacraments when they are simply signs.

[Theocrat]

This is one of the best debates on infant baptism vs. believers baptism.

Gregg Strawbridge won that debate. James White got upset during the cross-examination, and he still would not answer Strawbridge's question. That's one thing I've noticed about White in these baptism debates; he avoids answering certain questions when he gets trapped by his opponents.

[erowe1]

This is the dilemma I'd had in the past. I remember reading from a PRC pastor who said, believers mustn't worry about having children for fear they may not be elect. Children of believers are considered in the covenant of grace.

I've encountered multiple Protestants who were told, not just as parents, but for themselves, that they needn't doubt their salvations because they were baptized as infants.

Those who believe this seem to think they've just been Christians their entire lives and that what Paul says in Ephesians 2:1-5 just doesn't apply to them.

[Sola_Fide]

Gregg Strawbridge won that debate. James White got upset during the cross-examination, and he still would not answer Strawbridge's question. That's one thing I've noticed about White in these baptism debates; he avoids answering certain questions when he gets trapped by his opponents.

What question did he not answer? I'll try to answer it.

[Theocrat]

What question did he not answer? I'll try to answer it.

White avoided Strawbridge's question at the 1:48:46 mark. It was a simple "Yes, or No" Question, but I think White did not want to answer it because of its implications, given that White admitted that he allows so-called unbelieving children to sing songs and recite The Lord's Prayer, even though they are not regenerated (by Baptist reckoning).