I was speaking with a Presbyterian friend the other day who told me the story of his conversion. As he spoke he related an incident that caught my attention. He said something like this: “Earlier in my life I only thought I was saved. But later on when I was converted I knew for a fact that I was.”

I ought to have asked him how he knew because when I was a Lutheran we emphasized baptismal regeneration in direct response to such things. For instance, one may think he is born again, but some time later has a powerful spiritual experience wherein he says, “Previously I only thought I was saved. I was only fooling myself because now I know I am saved.” Obviously this experience can be replayed any number of times. In opposition to such a Lutheran would hold that he knows he is saved because of his baptism; that the sacrament is objective, God-worked, and has nothing to do with how he feels or what he experiences.

So how would a Presbyterian or a Baptist respond to this? How does reformed theology avoid the trap of “experience” or “feeling” when speaking of regeneration without falling into a theology of baptismal regeneration and ex opere operato?

__________________
Kevin Guillory
Pastor
Redeemer Christian Congregation
Baltimore, MD

I don't interpret Scripture. Scripture
interprets itself. And in the process ...
Scripture interprets me!

Repentance is an experience last time I checked, as is conversion.

My wife was told by the Lutherans that she was a child of God. I have also had Presby friends that had themselves convinced that they were covenant children in good standing with God even though they lived like the devil.


If you have not repented and believed, both of which can evoke some feelings and are both experiences, then there is no salvation Some who have been saved as little children cannot remember when they first believed, but they certainly know that they beleive now and are repentant.

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

Baptism is an objective sign of proclamation; an open declaration of God's promised signed, sealed and delivered. For baptism assures us that we belong to God's people to whom, corporately, the promises are declared. However there are also curses for those who reject those promises. So truly not every baptized individual experiences what baptism signifies. For the promise must be received by faith.

Thus if we distinguish between the sign and the thing signified we avoid the pitfalls of subjective experience guiding our assurance and objective statements individually appropriated without faith and true repentance.

Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 66

__________________
Rev. Daniel Kok
Pastor of Grace Reformed Church (URCNA)
Leduc, Alberta CANADA
Church Blog

"there is no creature, either in heaven or on earth, who loves us more than Jesus Christ"
Belgic Confession, Article 26

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Poimen is on it.

Anyone who says he believes his water baptism saved him, and so lives like the devil, doesn't believe in his baptism at all. He doesn't hold onto his baptism by faith, because a faithful reflection would drive him away from sin. That he embraces sin proves he doesn't believe the promise--or the WARNING--of baptism.

For the true reformed believer who needs assurance of God's saving grace to him, he has the sign of God's promise, baptism. It's as real a reminder as the rainbow is a reminder of another of God's promises. We see, we remember, we believe.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

I would like a citation from Scripture that signifies that we belong to God's people because we are baptised. Just asking.....



That is true whether one is baptised or not. Reject Christ and you are cursed already.


I never placed my faith in baptism after I developed a living faith in Christ. I did identify myself as one who believed I was in union with Christ by my Baptism though.

[quote=Poimen;400139]

Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 66

So does baptism seal us in Christ? Where does the scripture say that baptism seals us in the promise of the Gospel? Or am I reading the Catechism incorrectly?

I have never read the Heidelberg Catechism. Sounds foreign to me. Sorry. I guess I should read it.

__________________
R. Martin Snyder (Moderator)

1689er
Harmony Baptist Church (Member)
PuritanCovenanter MSN Blog
PuritanCovenanter's MySpace Page

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Here's a prooftext from the original WCF: 1Co 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

But Poimen wrote that baptism was a "sign" for "assurance that we belong," that is, it needs faith to be effective.
So, is there any difference between the person who is beaten with many stripes, and one beaten with few?
No one should place faith in a bare sign, or a churchly act. He should place faith in the God who promises using the sign. What do you believe the rainbow means? Do you "believe" in the rainbow, or in the God who attached a promise to it? Poimen doesn't seem to be saying anything different.
Yes.
Col. 2:11-12.
Rom 6:5.

Randy:

I telepathically moved Bruce to write these answers down to your questions so please accept them as my personal thoughts (though somehow they came out way better than they were originally conceived!).

Seriously we are going to have our afternoon service in about an hour and I need to get a short nap.... in short: read Bruce's points.

Pastors Bruce and Daniel,

I probably should have waited till tomorrow for this so I will pick this up tomorrow. I will say this as a heads up and take off on this tomorrow. When ever the Spirit is spoken of in 1 Corinthians 12 -14 I believe it is speaking of those who are in Christ and born from above. They are equipped for ministry and when you mention the word sealed I am thinking of the way Ephesians uses it. We are sealed unto the day of Redemption.

I will pop in later but don't really want to get to serious discussing this today.

As you probably notice I usually take the weekends off.

Thanks for your patience with my understanding.

Randy

I was baptized at the local Baptist mega-church under Adrian Rogers. That lasted about a month and a half. It was back to heathenry with me for another 2 and a half years or so.

Sure I "thought" I was saved. When God called me to true repentance and faith, I came to understand just how damned I was, or am if I be a goat.

Baptism does nothing and, if properly understood, shouldn't present an issue as to one's salvation. You will know them by their fruit.

__________________
Andrew DeShazo, Deacon, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Memphis, TN
"All of us stumble in many ways, but if anyone is never at fault in what he says, then he is mature, able to control his whole body."(James 3:2)

by Contra_Mundum:

Bruce, would please clarify what baptism you were talking about? The baptism of the thread seems to be water baptism, whatever the mode or significance. 1 Corinthians 12:13 is the baptism of the Spirit, through regeneration. Water baptism is not specified or implied.

*Bold emphasis mine.

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Grace Baptist Church
Anne Arundel County, Maryland

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I along with Randy and Bill would like to see a discussion of 1Cor 12:13-18
and Romans 6:1-6. The reality spoken of is Spirit Baptism,as actual and true of those the text is speaking of. This is an area that is often not discussed in depth.
It is not speaking of a "promise" but of actual regenerate persons. Some commentaries try to explain it away,but you can tell when you read them they are missing the key part of the verses that speak about the power of sin actually being broken, that they have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine. Not if they someday obey it.

__________________
Anthony D'Arienzo
Sunday School Teacher
Hope Reformed Baptist Church:
Medford, N.Y.

Guys,
This is where the discussion grinds to a halt, all the time, every time. Hate to say it. But it's true.

It isn't "simple" for our side to talk about baptism. Because, in passages like 1 Cor. 12, our first question is NOT "what kind of baptism is this--is it Spirit baptism, or is it water baptism?" As if getting that right, will then help us then to interpret the passage properly. That's what I would call the "simple" approach, and its simply inadequate.

Our first question comes along well before we come to that passage, and it makes answering that question irrelevant, or at least a matter of little interpretive significance to Paul's thrust. Here it is: what is the relationship between what Holy Spirit does to baptize an individual, and the behavior of the church? How do these two things--one done in the invisible, eternal, eschatological reality; the other done in history, in a world that is visible, temporary, and passing away--speak together with respect to one reality?

One's manner of coming at the question in part determines the kind of answer he will get, or expect to get. Or as I have written, and as I recently read RSC writing the same thing: Is baptism fundamentally Man's speech, or God's? My testimony, or God's testimony? We Reformed and Presbyterian say, decisively, the latter.

As a human institution, the church can say something that later it retracts. We don't err when we baptize the "wrong" person, as long as we spoke for God in a human and fallible, yet divinely authorized way. Nevertheless, Holy Spirit may speak where the church does not, and the church may speak where Holy Spirit does not. But we know that when God does speak pro nobis, he never takes it back.

1 Cor. 12 is a useful passage to show how a "simple" view of baptism (see my 2nd paragraph) is inadequate to address the passage. For what sounds profoundly spiritual at the beginning of the chapter, sounds just as profoundly mundane at the end of the chapter, in discussing the BODY, the SOMA of the church, and its membership. So, to answer Bill, I disagree that v13 is only relevant to the mystical body. It also describes that body in its visible, earthly expression.

Bruce,

My first question is not the mode of baptism in 1 Corinthians 12:13. I know very well what it says. But for the purpose of this thread I asked you what type of baptism Paul was writing about. Why? Bob's OP was about water baptism. I assume this because he referred to it as a sacrament. Randy asked the following question:

You responded with:

Because of that exchange I wanted to clarify what type of baptism you were referencing. That was my only intent.

Bruce, what are you going on about? The passage is about spiritual gifts; where they come from, their purpose and how they are to function in the body. Baptism is not an issue, except (v. 13) to remind the saints that it is by the Spirit that we are part of the body. IMHO the rest of your post is slanted to respond to an argument of what type of baptism is being taught in 1 Cor. 12:13. As I stated previously, I am quite at peace with what the passage teaches.

Bruce, if you're describing the physical outworking of spiritual gifts (which is what the chapter, and following, is about), I concur. But Spirit baptism is "mystical", or better, invisible as displayed in regeneration.

Bill,
I don't think I was clear enough in my response. Sorry about that. And it was not just to respond to you that I wrote, but also to Randy and to Anthony. Your direct question is did respond to at the end.

I too am not addressing mode of baptism-sprinkling, dunking, etc.

"What TYPE of baptism is Paul writing about?" i.e Spirit or water, is what I was trying to address.

And what I said was: I don't think, the Presbyterian doesn't think, it much matters how one answers that question. Personally, I don't think Paul was self-consciously separating or distinguishing those ideas in his head when he wrote those words. From the God-ward vantage point, all is perfect and effectual what the Spirit does when he baptizes; and Paul is representing that perfect work of God under the imperfect actions of the church, when he says "We are all baptized into one body."

Some of you are questioning (or just wondering about) my, and the Westminster divines, usage of 1Cor12:13 as a prooftext for the notion that (water) baptism joins one to the (visible) church, because this passage allegedly says nothing about water, but is only addressing spiritual matters. But from the standpoint of WCF ecclesiology, the question is: has the church, in following the Lord's commands for this imperfect era, done its duty in representing the perfect?

If so, then Paul can be (and I say is) speaking about the Spirit's work, but as it is represented by the tangible church that we see right here in front of us. Holy Spirit's act joins us to the invisible church; the church's act joins us to the visible church. Which tangible outworkings of gift-giving seem to me to be the point of that chapter.

I don't think baptists, generally, operate on the basis of the same ecclesiology. They do not think of water baptism as joining them to anything, but as a personal witness. They view "the church" almost entirely under the aspect of the "spiritual" and invisible, even going so far as sometimes to say that the church on earth is really just a society of professors.

So, I said, I am quite certainly and self-consciously, bringing presuppositions to the text--as does everyone--in this case, presuppositions about ecclesiology. It is not a question of bringing "nothing" to the text, and somehow letting it speak in a "bare" fashion, that we then reverentially submit to. It is part of a complex, and we all have, therefore, a harmonized or unharmonized theology. The texts shape our theology, even as we come at them from an established position. If the tensions get too strong, hopefully we will have the sense to "give in" in favor of the truth.

Peace.

Bruce, thanks for your clarification. I am curious as to how Presbyterian ecclesiology effects the exegesis of the text. From an exegetical standpoint I don't see how water baptism can even be alluded to in 1 Cor. 12. If I understand correctly you see an inherent bond between the mystical of 1 Cor. 12:13 and water baptism, in that water baptism is a sign of the first. If that is true then that understanding is as much hermeneutical as it is ecclesiological, and therein resides the systemic separation between Baptists and Presbyterians. I'm fine with that. This dialog (for me) has nothing to do with agreement as much as it does definition in terms. IMHO that is half the battle in our baptism dicsussions on the PB.

Generally, you're right. To use your term, most Baptists view baptism as a "personal witness", although here is what the 1689 LBC says regarding baptism:



It seems to me the language of the LBC transcends the "personal witness" view that most modern, non-Reformed Baptists, hold to. Water baptism is a sign of our bond with Christ (and therefore, the body of Christ; the church). A Presbyterian would view water baptism as entrance into the visible church. A Baptist can appreciate this view for we require water baptism as a requirement of church membership. But we would view baptism, not as a sign of visible church membership, but of invisible church membership based on a credible profession of faith. It is the perponderence of non-Reformed Baptist churches that view water baptism simply as a "personal witness." I hope I've proven that the LBC teaches differently.