I understand RB confusion on sign/seal/paedo - Page 3

Daniel Ritchie · #81 (**permalink**) 06-17-2008, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Matthew and Daniel, I have purposefully kept my silence in both active baptism threads, but I need clarification from the both of you on this. Are you proposing a hypothetical based on the natural consequence of an elect infant not being in the visible church under the Baptist schema, or are you saying that Baptists are actively and materially consigning their children to damnation by not applying the sign of baptism? And because I'm a rather simple guy from North Jersey, please try and be direct in your answer.

The Reformed Anabaptist schema, being a mix of Anabaptist and Reformed traditions, has little systematic coherence when it comes to the subject of the visible church. Usually they say that the child's election is with God and leave it there. The result is salvation by election apart from means of grace; and because the salvation is separated from means of grace, the church is left without any means of discerning the child's salvation. So the practical result is one of considering the child as belonging to the outer darkness unless God invisibly intervenes to save him. Basically, the church has relinquished the keys of the kingdom of heaven with respect to those who have not come to years.

Indeed the keys of the kingdom passage is rendered somewhat meaningless if we are supposed to believe that millions of people will be in heaven who were not in the visible church.

North Jersey Baptist · #82 (**permalink**) 06-17-2008, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Matthew and Daniel, I have purposefully kept my silence in both active baptism threads, but I need clarification from the both of you on this. Are you proposing a hypothetical based on the natural consequence of an elect infant not being in the visible church under the Baptist schema, or are you saying that Baptists are actively and materially consigning their children to damnation by not applying the sign of baptism? And because I'm a rather simple guy from North Jersey, please try and be direct in your answer.

The Reformed Anabaptist schema, being a mix of Anabaptist and Reformed traditions, has little systematic coherence when it comes to the subject of the visible church. Usually they say that the child's election is with God and leave it there. The result is salvation by election apart from means of grace; and because the salvation is separated from means of grace, the church is left without any means of discerning the child's salvation. So the practical result is one of considering the child as belonging to the outer darkness unless God invisibly intervenes to save him. Basically, the church has relinquished the keys of the kingdom of heaven with respect to those who have not come to years.

Matthew, Reformed Anabaptist? Please help me out here. I may have just heard a term for the first time. Are there Anabaptists who consider themselves Reformed?

armourbearer · #83 (**permalink**) 06-17-2008, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Matthew, Reformed Anabaptist? Please help me out here. I may have just heard a term for the first time. Are there Anabaptists who consider themselves Reformed?

Bill, a part of dogmatic and practical theology is the examination of traditions. The practice of rebaptising is developed from the Anabaptist, not the Reformed, tradition. Hence the name. Perhaps it will inspire rebaptisers to look more closely at the source of their praxis. Blessings!

North Jersey Baptist · #84 (**permalink**) 06-17-2008, 08:21 PM

So, I'm an Anabaptist now? Okay, Matthew. Well leave the discussion at this point.

Semper Fidelis · #85 (**permalink**) 06-17-2008, 08:50 PM

I need to create a {sigh} icon. One of my "problems" is that I want to try to help people understand things but James White rightly notes that it's really easy to type something in error and takes a lot of writing to explain what was wrong with what was just typed. Now, the issue here, is that I don't expect you to bow the knee and agree with my position but you haven't even begun to understand my position based on your responses. If you've claimed to study the Reformed Confessions on this but I can't see it in your responses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Houston E.

I'll try to tie my responses to Rev.Winzer and Rich into one post.

Quote:

If she is of years she can speak for herself. But we're to open our mouths for the dumb, and that includes infants; the poor souls are shut out of Christ's kingdom because they cannot speak.

And for me, this is where the inconsistency begins (as we see in each of your conclusions). Baptist's are accused time and again of being "individualistic" in their thinking, not looking at it from the familial context. We've been told that we can't apply NT passages where Paul includes our children because to do so would be to count them as disciples, and to be a disciple is equated with salvation, etc....
Yet, the sign here is refused, because she is "of years".

I don't know if it was selective reading or not but did you actually catch that I stated that there might be a case where the wife should not be baptized and the part where Rev. Winzer stated that she could "speak for herself"? Where in my presentation did I ever state that a woman has to be held down to have baptism administered against her will? I stated that baptism is for disciples and, as I said, a woman who is willing to submit to the authority and teaching of the Church is a disciple - even if she might not yet be fully convinced. In some cases, she might be convinced enough to be willing to be taught. That there is no inconsistency here is apparently obvious to several Presbyterians but you express bewilderment that you're being accused of not understanding our view of discipleship. Well, read for yourself Brother.

Quote:

Semper Fidelis;422708]Far be it for me to speak for Rev. Winzer on this. I appreciate his answer. I agree that baptism signifies salvation but I assume that he would agree with me that baptism does not confer salvation nor is one baptized because they are saved already. This is sort of why I was asking the question.
As I noted earlier in the thread, and elsewhere, the primary confusion that Baptists have in the discussions on baptism is believing, as Rev. Winzer so aptly put it, that because they have special revelation about the nature of the elect they have special revelation about the recipients of baptism.

I never claimed that. I said I had no way of knowing who the elect were in my congregation. Yes, we know of John the Baptist because of special revelation.

I knew why you were asking. I only used that word to point out that there was an adult member in my family that had not expressed faith. However, on the whole "saved/unsaved" issue because I've noticed that you do bring that up on occasion...do you consider yourself "saved" at this point in time? Or do you use other language for description?

Well, you introduced the idea of "unsaved spouse" and when I asked for clarification, you wrote words to the effect that I was speaking of saved/unsaved with respect to the basis for baptism. Just to be explicit:

1. Baptism signifies salvation.
2. The recipient of baptism might not be saved eternally.
3. A disciple is the proper recipient of baptism.
4. A disciple might not be saved eternally.

By the way, I do consider myself saved but you are moving from the realm of the work of the visible Church at this point in the conversation to a question of my personal understanding of the Scriptures.

By noting what the purpose and significance of baptism is and that those who are baptized are not necessarily saved eternally shouldn't give you the impression that a person may not have assurance of their salvation. Again, the asking of the question reveals that you have not studied our Confessions very well as you have claimed to do.

I will also add that though the person baptized may not be saved and that the sign does not confer salvation, we believe that the Sacrament of Baptism is a real announcement of the Promise of God and it does really confer the grace signified to those that are Elect. In other words, I look back to my baptism because the Promise of God to save all who trust in Him is announced to me there. My faith waxes and wanes but, by two Immutable things (a God who cannot lie and His Oath), I have full assurance of my salvation on the basis of God's Promise announced at my baptism.

Quote:

Given Rev.Wizner's responses above, it seems that paedos get pretty close to saying the same thing. In the paedo case, the information on the individual is that they are from a parent(s) that has expressed faith. Wait! How do we truly know that though given we have no way of knowing who the elect are and we can't say if they are "saved" or "unsaved"? See you have to say the above about the parent(s) in order to baptize the child. "We are baptizing this child because we just discovered something inside this parent(s) that impels us to recognize the parent(s) conversion and union with Christ."

Again, I don't know what Confession you're reading. Where did you ever see me state that a parent has to be thought of as elect in order for them to present their children for baptism? They have to be disciples. As I have already noted, a disciple is not necessarily elect.

Quote:

You're implying that mature fruit is regeneration...I don't believe there was mature fruit coming from those to whom Peter said, "38 Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." It was expression of faith, which falls pretty early in the Ordo Salutis and definitely before sanctification.

When I spoke of "mature fruit" I was thinking of conversion as one of those fruits because, sometimes, a person can be a disciple for a long time before conversion. Whether it's "early" in the ordo salutis is immaterial anyhow as the ordo is given to note logical priority but time is immaterial. As you agree with below, Judas was a disciple (baptized by Christ). He did not express the fruit of conversion. He should have born fruit even as Christ condemned the Pharisees for not bearing it. I also think of mature fruit in terms of understanding as well as the young are trained in the fear and admonition of the Lord, one of the fruits of that training is a mature understanding.

Quote:

Once again, you're painting with a very large brush. Scripture speaks of those called disciples who were not in Christ. Was not Judas called a Disciple? However, for paedos, that baptized child is considered to be "in Christ" until deemed otherwise. The child has been given a sign that, as Rev.Wizner said earlier, is a "practical affirmation of their salvation" and removes them from being "consigned to the outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth." So if that is the case, then why refuse that child communion at the Lord's table?

Because you've missed the point again. The point of Rev. Winzer's wording is that being outside the visible communion of the Saints is equivalent to being consigned to outer darkness. If you took stock of the profound necessity that the means of Grace in the visible Church serve toward our spiritual life in the Gospel then this would not seem terribly foreign. To be cut off visibly from the people of God is to be cut off from where God visibly nurtures His own. Only an un-Biblical, individualistic view would see the Church as optional to God's elective purposes for an individual.

We do not state that a child is "in Christ" in the sense of being united to Christ simply by being baptized. Nevertheless, in the same way you don't go around playing "Duck, duck, goose" with visible professors, we don't walk around with a wary eye trying to pin the tail on the reprobate members of our congregation. We hope for all disciples or we would simply cease to pray for their conversion knowing that it was hopeless in certain cases.

As for the Table, on the one hand you tell me that you don't expect "mature fruit" of disciples and then you wonder why we don't let every disciple join the Table. The answer is that they're not yet mature enough.

Where have I ever argued that every disciple is as mature as every other disciple? The Table belongs to the mature, understanding disciple. You don't have a category for these but don't import your understanding of disciple and overlay it on mine and then accuse me of inconsistency.

Quote:

They are in Christ until deemed otherwise. But deemed by who and upon what basis? It is only after an examination by the Elders that the child then be allowed to participate in communion. (And this is the trap FV's fall into because they are trying to be consistent.) You refuse them because they cannot examine themselves (1 Cor.11), but how do we know that if the only knowledge of regeneration that we can have comes from special revelation? Or if we can't presume profession? So it seems you look at them in the same way as Baptists.
They must display evidence of their regeneration in order to be truly in the church.

I warn you of not importing Baptistic thinking into our Sacramentology and you repeatedly do so.

Examination is not a process of determining regeneration. It is a process of looking for fruit and for understanding but, in the end, every Session will admit that their judgment of a member's fitness is a fallible one. Further, we are not "just like the Baptists" in this point other than we both agree that we are fallible in our determiniation of looking for fruit.

In our case, we believe that a child's participation as a disciple trains and prepares them for maturity in discipleship. In your case, a child has no status until they become full-fledged baptized members and can participate in all mature ordinances. You actually train chilren in the Church but it's outside the ordinances and formal work of the Church since the children are not members thereof.

Quote:

Here you admit that they are Christ's disciples. Are they "in Christ"? So, why refuse them communion again?

I already answered this.

Quote:

All that said, I am not an elder in Christ's Church. There are a variety of circumstances where, if the spouse of a believer presented herself to the Church to be baptized, it would be appropriate to baptize if she expressed willingness to be taught the things of God. If the spouse refused to submit to the teaching of the Church then she would be disqualified from baptism. It might be unsatisfactory for the Baptist who is looking to speak definitively of the heart of the person baptized but that is only because of the defect in thinking on the significance of this. Baptism is given to disciples. Discipleship does not imply a finished work.

And this is where you and Rev.Wizner seem to come to different conclusions. You would baptize, he would not. Yet, both of you point to the fact that there has to be something expressed on her part. What about the fact that she is the spouse of someone who is saved and considered "holy" just as our children are? What about the familial context?

We obviously disagree on how that passage is to be interpreted in the first place. The unbelieving spouse is said to be sanctified by the believing spouse while the child is said to be holy. On the other hand, as already noted, a disciple is one who is to be trained in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Scripture commands that our children be trained - they are disciples. Adults cannot be compelled to be disciples.

Quote:

Agreed that discipleship does not imply a finished work. Salvation is a process and is not completed until are reunion with the Father.

Well, it's good to see we agree on something.

Quote:

Even the father of the epileptic admitted honestly to Christ that he sort of believed but needed help with his unbelief. Chris has repeatedly asserted some sort of presumption in our theology in this and other threads but, as has been demonstrated, the only parties that dangerously presume upon their profession are the RB's. If they took stock of the unbelief that yet resides in their hearts they might not be so sure that baptism should point within them but would be seeking a more comforting, and Biblical, sacramentology, that kept the significance of the Sacraments upon God's work and His promises.

It seems that your thinking of Baptists is one of "I'm baptized and that means I'm saved". That is placing ones faith in a sign and not in what the thing signifies. I think I've shown that both sides have to presume upon profession.

The nature of the presumption is materially different. I think much of that is demonstrated already.

Blessings!

Rich

Daniel Ritchie · #86 (**permalink**) 06-18-2008, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

So, I'm an Anabaptist now? Okay, Matthew. Well leave the discussion at this point.

Bill, just to clarify, I would not apply the term "Anabaptist" to a Reformed Baptist.

Daniel Ritchie · #87 (**permalink**) 06-18-2008, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Perhaps I was too hasty in assuming that no one here points to baptism for assurance since a punctiliously strict subscriptionist Presbyterian minister and a RP published author have now told us that unbaptized children are to be regarded as consigned to the outer darkness on account of their unbaptized state.

In relation to the above comment, let me just state that the views which I express either on the Puritan Board, the Reformed Covenanter blog, and my published books do not necessarily represent the views of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland of which I am a member in good standing.