Thread: Why I am now a Baptist

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

I don't really think this is an issue as female children were considered part of the visible church in the OT and there is additional revelation in the NT that females are to be baptized (i.e. Lydia).

Suit yourself!

I intend too.

I can tell from your avatar!

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by KMK

Suit yourself!

I intend too.

I can tell from your avatar!

Daniel, I'm on my mobile device so I can't easily find a comment you made about making baptism and idol. I thought about that comment and believe it to be a wise and insightful statement. Baptism is not an unimportant topic but it can become more important than it should. It is a sign, not substance. Neither Baptists or Presbyterians are saved by water baptism. The differences between the two sides are well established. We have a better opportunity to sway a brother on a point of doctrine or practice who is already in our theological camp than to labor one who isn't. I wonder whether we should place a greater emphasis on sanctification for purpose of godliness. So long as our doctrinal distinctives are not heretical I now question the time spent in arguing and debating foundational principles. I am not saying the topic (and ones like it) should be repressed, just kept in balance.

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Daniel, I'm on my mobile device so I can't easily find a comment you made about making baptism and idol. I thought about that comment and believe it to be a wise and insightful statement. Baptism is not an unimportant topic but it can become more important than it should. It is a sign, not substance. Neither Baptists or Presbyterians are saved by water baptism. The differences between the two sides are well established. We have a better opportunity to sway a brother on a point of doctrine or practice who is already in our theological camp than to labor one who isn't. I wonder whether we should place a greater emphasis on sanctification for purpose of godliness. So long as our doctrinal distinctives are not heretical I now question the time spent in arguing and debating foundational principles. I am not saying the topic (and ones like it) should be repressed, just kept in balance.

From The Soul Winner by C.H. Spurgeon:

It is because God blesses men through the churches that we desire to see them prosper, and not merely for the sake of the churches themselves. There is such a thing as selfishness in our eagerness for the aggrandisement of our own party; and from this evil spirit may grace deliver us! The increase of the kingdom is more to be desired than the growth of a clan. We would do a great deal to make a Paedobaptist brother into a Baptist, for we value our Lord's ordinances; we would labour earnestly to raise a believer in salvation by free-will into a believer in salvation by grace, for we long to see all religious teaching built upon the solid rock of truth, and not upon the sand of imagination; but, at the same time, our grand object is not the revision of opinions, but the regeneration of natures. We would bring men to Christ and not to our own peculiar views of Christianity. Our first care must be that the sheep should be gathered to the great Shepherd; there will be time enough afterwards to secure them for our various folds. To make proselytes, is a suitable labour for Pharisees: to beget men unto God, is the honourable aim of ministers of Christ.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by KMK

This is the heart of the matter, IMO. How much emphasis one places on the arguments from silence against the paedo view determines, to a great degree, which direction you take. For the credo, they are overwhelming. For the paedo they are inconsequential. (Perhaps I am overstating the case somewhat)

Where is the silence? We have clear examples of individuals being baptised on the basis of their parents being included in the covenant -- Old Testament (Noah's family and Israel in the Red Sea) and New Testament (household baptisms).

With all due respect, Rev Winzer, can it really be that 'clear' if so many godly men have disagreed on this issue for hundreds of years?

Besides I was specifically refering to the argument from silence brought up by Daniel that goes something like this: The thought of not granting the covenant sign to infants 'would have been unthinkable to those brought up in the Hebraic mindset.' Therefore, if credo baptism were true we should expect there to be some discussion about it in the NT.

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by KMK

This is the heart of the matter, IMO. How much emphasis one places on the arguments from silence against the paedo view determines, to a great degree, which direction you take. For the credo, they are overwhelming. For the paedo they are inconsequential. (Perhaps I am overstating the case somewhat)

Where is the silence? We have clear examples of individuals being baptised on the basis of their parents being included in the covenant -- Old Testament (Noah's family and Israel in the Red Sea) and New Testament (household baptisms).

With all due respect, Rev Winzer, can it really be that 'clear' if so many godly men have disagreed on this issue for hundreds of years?

Besides I was specifically refering to the argument from silence brought up by Daniel that goes something like this: The thought of not granting the covenant sign to infants 'would have been unthinkable to those brought up in the Hebraic mindset.' Therefore, if credo baptism were true we should expect there to be some discussion about it in the NT.

Good point Ken. It obviously is not "thus says the Lord" thing.

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Daniel, I'm on my mobile device so I can't easily find a comment you made about making baptism and idol. I thought about that comment and believe it to be a wise and insightful statement. Baptism is not an unimportant topic but it can become more important than it should. It is a sign, not substance. Neither Baptists or Presbyterians are saved by water baptism. The differences between the two sides are well established. We have a better opportunity to sway a brother on a point of doctrine or practice who is already in our theological camp than to labor one who isn't. I wonder whether we should place a greater emphasis on sanctification for purpose of godliness. So long as our doctrinal distinctives are not heretical I now question the time spent in arguing and debating foundational principles. I am not saying the topic (and ones like it) should be repressed, just kept in balance.

I could not agree with this post more. If I spent more time reading the Bible, rather than arguing about what is in it, I think my time would be much better served.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Daniel, I'm on my mobile device so I can't easily find a comment you made about making baptism and idol. I thought about that comment and believe it to be a wise and insightful statement. Baptism is not an unimportant topic but it can become more important than it should. It is a sign, not substance. Neither Baptists or Presbyterians are saved by water baptism. The differences between the two sides are well established. We have a better opportunity to sway a brother on a point of doctrine or practice who is already in our theological camp than to labor one who isn't. I wonder whether we should place a greater emphasis on sanctification for purpose of godliness. So long as our doctrinal distinctives are not heretical I now question the time spent in arguing and debating foundational principles. I am not saying the topic (and ones like it) should be repressed, just kept in balance.

I could not agree with this post more. If I spent more time reading the Bible, rather than arguing about what is in it, I think my time would be much better served.

Agreed. Shame on me for studying God's Word for the sole purpose of glorifying myself by winning an argument. How disgusting.

Thanks to this reminder, I will redouble my efforts to treat God's Word (which He has magnified above His own name) with proper reverance. After all, is it not possible that paedos and credos are both wrong???

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Daniel, I'm on my mobile device so I can't easily find a comment you made about making baptism and idol. I thought about that comment and believe it to be a wise and insightful statement. Baptism is not an unimportant topic but it can become more important than it should. It is a sign, not substance. Neither Baptists or Presbyterians are saved by water baptism. The differences between the two sides are well established. We have a better opportunity to sway a brother on a point of doctrine or practice who is already in our theological camp than to labor one who isn't. I wonder whether we should place a greater emphasis on sanctification for purpose of godliness. So long as our doctrinal distinctives are not heretical I now question the time spent in arguing and debating foundational principles. I am not saying the topic (and ones like it) should be repressed, just kept in balance.

I could not agree with this post more. If I spent more time reading the Bible, rather than arguing about what is in it, I think my time would be much better served.

Agreed. Shame on me for studying God's Word for the sole purpose of glorifying myself by winning an argument. How disgusting.

Thanks to this reminder, I will redouble my efforts to treat God's Word (which He has magnified above His own name) with proper reverance. After all, is it not possible that paedos and credos are both wrong???

This is a perfect example of what the Jews call an "Arguement for the sake of Heaven". The Glorification of God vs the demonizing or dehumanizing of the oppenent. The former being the goal..

Brethren, please don't misunderstand. I am in no way saying that baptism is not a worthy topic for discussion or even debate. It is. But when the body of work in that regard regularly lacks grace and turns personal, both sides lose even if one wins.

Originally Posted by KMK

With all due respect, Rev Winzer, can it really be that 'clear' if so many godly men have disagreed on this issue for hundreds of years?

It is clear as day that eight souls, not one, were saved by water, relative to which water baptism is a like figure, 1 Pet. 3:20, 21. It is clear as day that the "fathers" which inherited the promised land were "baptised in the sea" as "children which had no knowledge," 1 Cor. 10:1, 2; Deut. 1:39. And while it is true that household baptisms have been made controversial by a specious line of reasoning which suggests that whole households just happened to believe in order to be baptised, it is also clear as day that these households were baptised as households and not as individuals making up the household, in continuity with what the Old Testament teaches concerning household salvation.

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

It is a sign, not substance. Neither Baptists or Presbyterians are saved by water baptism.

They are saved by baptism as a sign, Mark 16:16; 1 Pet. 3:21. It may not be "grace" in and of itself, but it is still a "means of grace."

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by KMK

With all due respect, Rev Winzer, can it really be that 'clear' if so many godly men have disagreed on this issue for hundreds of years?

It is clear as day that eight souls, not one, were saved by water, relative to which water baptism is a like figure, 1 Pet. 3:20, 21. It is clear as day that the "fathers" which inherited the promised land were "baptised in the sea" as "children which had no knowledge," 1 Cor. 10:1, 2; Deut. 1:39. And while it is true that household baptisms have been made controversial by a specious line of reasoning which suggests that whole households just happened to believe in order to be baptised, it is also clear as day that these households were baptised as households and not as individuals making up the household, in continuity with what the Old Testament teaches concerning household salvation.

And this in no way contradicts "If she is of years, she can speak for herself"? Or is "household" taken to mean children only?

Originally Posted by Houston E.

And this in no way contradicts "If she is of years, she can speak for herself"? Or is "household" taken to mean children only?

Asked and answered. We don't force baptism on unwilling recipients.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Houston E.

And this in no way contradicts "If she is of years, she can speak for herself"? Or is "household" taken to mean children only?

Asked and answered. We don't force baptism on unwilling recipients.

Agreed.
So when you speak of the household baptisms, do you affirm that all members of that household were baptized? Or is it possible that a spouse refused?

Originally Posted by Houston E.

So when you speak of the household baptisms, do you affirm that all members of that household were baptized? Or is it possible that a spouse refused?

There is no point speculating. I suppose there is a bare possibility that individuals may have refused, but holy writ gives no indication of such. We have a warrant from the word of God to baptise households as households, and that is really all that matters.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Houston E.

So when you speak of the household baptisms, do you affirm that all members of that household were baptized? Or is it possible that a spouse refused?

There is no point speculating. I suppose there is a bare possibility that individuals may have refused, but holy writ gives no indication of such. We have a warrant from the word of God to baptise households as households, and that is really all that matters.

Thank you Rev.Wizner. BTW, I consider it an honor to be able to dialogue with you.

Originally Posted by Houston E.

Thank you Rev.Wizner. BTW, I consider it an honor to be able to dialogue with you.

It is a great blessing to me to find brethren of a like mind who receive the Scriptures as their only rule of faith and life. The interaction on this board has taught me alot about the practical implications of Philippians 3:15, 16.

Rev. Winzer,

I'm having some difficulty with your interpretation of 1 Peter 3:21 (I've looked at your interpretation of this text from another thread as well, or maybe it was this one, I dunno, this one is pretty darn long). I just can't seem to get around what seems very obvious to me. That is, Peter is giving a definition of baptism that goes something like this: "baptism is an answer to God for a good conscience." This seems to coincide nicely with the repent and be cleansed of John's baptism (BTW, please stop me and correct along the way). So, if the above is the case--how does that fit with baptism as quasi replacement for circumcision (sign/seal)? I've just been having a hard time with the covenantal paedo view lately and this text seems to be swinging me towards credo (to be perfectly honest).

Thanks in advance.

In Christ,

Daniel

Originally Posted by InevitablyReformed

Peter is giving a definition of baptism that goes something like this: "baptism is an answer to God for a good conscience." This seems to coincide nicely with the repent and be cleansed of John's baptism (BTW, please stop me and correct along the way).

The "answer" is in fact an "interrogation which demands an answer." Baptism is not itself the answer, but what requires the answer. If we look at the text in context, God established His covenant with Noah, and on that basis the household was figuratively "saved by water." The salvation signified in baptism required that the eight souls respond to God with a good conscience. Ham, in fact, did not, and suffered the curse of God's covenant; but that did not forbid him from being figuratively saved by water.

Concerning John's baptism, nowhere does he say, "Repent in order to be baptised." The words of the text intend a connection, not a condition.

It is important to be clear about how we should approach the doctrine of salvation. It is altogether of grace. God establishes His covenant with man. He is the inititator and the benefactor; all human participation in God's covenant is always one of reception. Man is the beneficiary. If we lose sight of this fundamental point then not only baptism but every doctrine of the Christian faith will be brought into doubt and confusion.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by InevitablyReformed

Peter is giving a definition of baptism that goes something like this: "baptism is an answer to God for a good conscience." This seems to coincide nicely with the repent and be cleansed of John's baptism (BTW, please stop me and correct along the way).

The "answer" is in fact an "interrogation which demands an answer." Baptism is not itself the answer, but what requires the answer. If we look at the text in context, God established His covenant with Noah, and on that basis the household was figuratively "saved by water." The salvation signified in baptism required that the eight souls respond to God with a good conscience. Ham, in fact, did not, and suffered the curse of God's covenant; but that did not forbid him from being figuratively saved by water.

Concerning John's baptism, nowhere does he say, "Repent in order to be baptised." The words of the text intend a connection, not a condition.

It is important to be clear about how we should approach the doctrine of salvation. It is altogether of grace. God establishes His covenant with man. He is the inititator and the benefactor; all human participation in God's covenant is always one of reception. Man is the beneficiary. If we lose sight of this fundamental point then not only baptism but every doctrine of the Christian faith will be brought into doubt and confusion.

Rev. Winzer,

Thanks for the quick response. So, let me ask you this: Is it impossible/wrong to separate what seems to me to be a definition of baptism in the NT from the Noah story that precedes it? In other words, do you see Peter's parenthesis as necessarily linked to verse 20? I hope that you do not see these questions as silly. I am truly trying to understand.

Daniel

Originally Posted by InevitablyReformed

Thanks for the quick response. So, let me ask you this: Is it impossible/wrong to separate what seems to me to be a definition of baptism in the NT from the Noah story that precedes it? In other words, do you see Peter's parenthesis as necessarily linked to verse 20? I hope that you do not see these questions as silly. I am truly trying to understand.

Of course they're not silly; you may be inevitably reformed, but not without means.

What gives the impression that verse 21 is a parenthesis? Given what was said in verse 16 about "having a good conscience," it would appear that verse 21 is essential to his exhortation. That would make verse 20 an Old Testament illustration of the point. My own view is that the water is figurative of "being put to death in the flesh" with Christ, and the salvation by water represents being quickened in union with the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This leaves baptised persons is a figurative already/not yet situation, and compelled to live answerably to their baptismal obligations while they are in the world awaiting the resurrection. If this view is correct, there is no place for a parenthesis in the exhortation, but every verse is contributory to it. Blessings!

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by InevitablyReformed

Thanks for the quick response. So, let me ask you this: Is it impossible/wrong to separate what seems to me to be a definition of baptism in the NT from the Noah story that precedes it? In other words, do you see Peter's parenthesis as necessarily linked to verse 20? I hope that you do not see these questions as silly. I am truly trying to understand.

Of course they're not silly; you may be inevitably reformed, but not without means.

What gives the impression that verse 21 is a parenthesis? Given what was said in verse 16 about "having a good conscience," it would appear that verse 21 is essential to his exhortation. That would make verse 20 an Old Testament illustration of the point. My own view is that the water is figurative of "being put to death in the flesh" with Christ, and the salvation by water represents being quickened in union with the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This leaves baptised persons is a figurative already/not yet situation, and compelled to live answerably to their baptismal obligations while they are in the world awaiting the resurrection. If this view is correct, there is no place for a parenthesis in the exhortation, but every verse is contributory to it. Blessings!

Rev. Winzer,

The parenthesis that I was referring to is how it is constructed in my NKJV: "There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurection of Jesus Christ."

Don't know if that helps clarify what I meant. Thanks again.

Daniel

Originally Posted by InevitablyReformed

The parenthesis that I was referring to is how it is constructed in my NKJV: "There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurection of Jesus Christ."

OK; but that's a parenthesis explaining how baptism is a figure. We still have baptism itself naturally related to the OT example.

One more thing. Would you say that a individualistic interpretation of this text (baptism is the response of an individual toward God post-repentance) does not necessarily rule out a covenantal view (head of household believes--family gets baptized)? If not, why not?

Originally Posted by InevitablyReformed

One more thing. Would you say that a individualistic interpretation of this text (baptism is the response of an individual toward God post-repentance) does not necessarily rule out a covenantal view (head of household believes--family gets baptized)? If not, why not?

I know Rev. Winzer will give a good answer to this but I want to tack on another idea to give you something to "chew on".

An individualistic sense of Baptism is really an individualistic sense of discipleship from a family perspective.

That we are commanded to train our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord is inescapable. Were it not in the Epistles, I am almost certain that many Baptists would deny this is a responsibility of parents because it really fits very poorly with an individualistic sense of discipleship.

The fact is, however, that it is impossible to train at all without reference to the God you serve. An adult who refuses to be trained is in a much different circumstance than the child who must be trained.

It is impossible then, for a child to not have his eyes and ears exposed to the Gospel by that Christian parent and, immediately, that places the child under obligation. He has heard. As I've studied Hebrews recently I have become increasingly concerned that too many place little emphasis on how perilous it is for those that have "tasted" of heavenly things to fall away from them.

Make no mistake about, even if a Baptist father refuses to acknowledge that his child is a disciple, his children will be judged as disciples some day.

The real question will be whether or not you'll be able to say that you were not guilty of their blood if you neglect to be earnest about their discipleship while they are in your charge. God is gracious not to leave us alone for that work but binds that child, life and death, to the Church that administers the means of Grace for their conversion and perfection in sanctification just as it does for all of us who are likewise needful.

Originally Posted by InevitablyReformed

One more thing. Would you say that a individualistic interpretation of this text (baptism is the response of an individual toward God post-repentance) does not necessarily rule out a covenantal view (head of household believes--family gets baptized)? If not, why not?

I think the two could be tenuously maintained, but not without emptying baptism of its significance as a sealing ordinance of God. In this case it would be nothing more than a bare sign of profession, and the whole family being baptised signifies that the household now professes Christ. But this interpretation leaves no place for regarding baptism as certifying the benefits of regeneration through Christ, which is contrary to the apostle's express statement concerning the saving power of the resurrection of Christ; besides the fact that it leaves the initiative with man and makes man his own benefactor.

That we are commanded to train our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord is inescapable. Were it not in the Epistles, I am almost certain that many Baptists would deny this is a responsibility of parents because it really fits very poorly with an individualistic sense of discipleship.

The concept of a Christian family does not seem to fit in with Baptistic thinking; I am not saying Baptists deny such a concept, but it is hard to see how it is consistent with their approach.

Thanks for the responses gentlemen. Good night.

Daniel

Originally Posted by InevitablyReformed

Thanks for the responses gentlemen. Good night.

Hope you have a good night's rest, and thankyou for the calm discussion.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

It is a sign, not substance. Neither Baptists or Presbyterians are saved by water baptism.

They are saved by baptism as a sign, Mark 16:16; 1 Pet. 3:21. It may not be "grace" in and of itself, but it is still a "means of grace."

Matthew I have understood 1 Pet. 3:21 to be referring to spiritual baptism, "...not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God of a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

I am cautious about extrapolating doctrine from Mark 16:9-20 because of the well known textual arguments. If the argument is that water baptism is to be administered immediately following conversion, and its application is a first sign of obedience to Christ, then I would agree with it as a "means of grace." Anything beyond that would seem to fail compared to the rest of scripture.

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Matthew I have understood 1 Pet. 3:21 to be referring to spiritual baptism, "...not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God of a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

I am cautious about extrapolating doctrine from Mark 16:9-20 because of the well known textual arguments. If the argument is that water baptism is to be administered immediately following conversion, and its application is a first sign of obedience to Christ, then I would agree with it as a "means of grace." Anything beyond that would seem to fail compared to the rest of scripture.

If the context of 1 Pet. 3:21 doesn't confirm a reference to water baptism, I don't know what will.

The last twelve verses of Mark are a part of the reformed canon of Scripture. WCF 28:4 and LBC 29:2 both reference Mark 16:16 to establish the point that those who profess faith in Christ are to be baptised. The former deducing it as a non-exclusive connection, the latter falsely implying that it is a non-negotiable condition.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Matthew I have understood 1 Pet. 3:21 to be referring to spiritual baptism, "...not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God of a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

I am cautious about extrapolating doctrine from Mark 16:9-20 because of the well known textual arguments. If the argument is that water baptism is to be administered immediately following conversion, and its application is a first sign of obedience to Christ, then I would agree with it as a "means of grace." Anything beyond that would seem to fail compared to the rest of scripture.

If the context of 1 Pet. 3:21 doesn't confirm a reference to water baptism, I don't know what will.

The last twelve verses of Mark are a part of the reformed canon of Scripture. WCF 28:4 and LBC 29:2 both reference Mark 16:16 to establish the point that those who profess faith in Christ are to be baptised. The former deducing it as a non-exclusive connection, the latter falsely implying that it is a non-negotiable condition.

Matthew, I am not saying that the 1 Pet. 3:21 does not refer to water baptism. I was saying that it had been my understanding that it wasn't. But let's say it does refer to water baptism. Please give me your explanation of the salvific nature of water baptism.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

An individualistic sense of Baptism is really an individualistic sense of discipleship from a family perspective.

That we are commanded to train our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord is inescapable. Were it not in the Epistles, I am almost certain that many Baptists would deny this is a responsibility of parents because it really fits very poorly with an individualistic sense of discipleship.

The fact is, however, that it is impossible to train at all without reference to the God you serve. An adult who refuses to be trained is in a much different circumstance than the child who must be trained.

It is impossible then, for a child to not have his eyes and ears exposed to the Gospel by that Christian parent and, immediately, that places the child under obligation. He has heard. As I've studied Hebrews recently I have become increasingly concerned that too many place little emphasis on how perilous it is for those that have "tasted" of heavenly things to fall away from them.

Make no mistake about, even if a Baptist father refuses to acknowledge that his child is a disciple, his children will be judged as disciples some day.

The real question will be whether or not you'll be able to say that you were not guilty of their blood if you neglect to be earnest about their discipleship while they are in your charge. God is gracious not to leave us alone for that work but binds that child, life and death, to the Church that administers the means of Grace for their conversion and perfection in sanctification just as it does for all of us who are likewise needful.

Rich, of all people, you have been a member of a Baptist church where you should know that Baptists do NOT neglect evangelism and discipleship of children. Indeed, credo baptists often do so much Bible reading, Sunday School going, VBS attending, mid-week program promoting, Bible memorization programs, reading to them at night, purchasing Bible based and Christian themed DVDs, etc. that their children make a profession of faith as early as 3 or 4 years old. While baptism is typically delayed for some time after this (don't ask me to explain that one!), those kids are raised as believers.

And, while this raises a whole host of other problematic issues, I have seen young children receive communion on the basis of their profession of faith.

As I have freely admitted in manifold threads, I am no knee-jerk defender of things Baptist. Made up sacraments (e.g., infant dedication), delays between "accepting" Christ and experiencing Christian baptism, and the obvious problem of the Baptist assumption that a child is a non-believer despite the fact that in practice Baptist kids are treated much like Presbyterian kids give me fits. However, neither am I willing to pretend that Baptist "practice" is all that different from Presbyterian "practice" with regard to raising children in church.

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Matthew, I am not saying that the 1 Pet. 3:21 does not refer to water baptism. I was saying that it had been my understanding that it wasn't. But let's say it does refer to water baptism. Please give me your explanation of the salvific nature of water baptism.

Bill, I gave you that explanation when I said it is as a "sign" that baptism saves. It signifies and seals the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit in applyingthe death and resurrection of Christ to the elect. The church, by administering the sign, looks to the Spirit of God to work this grace according to His own sovereign will. The person is thus received as a member of the catholic visible church, which is the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, and is instructed, exhorted, and warned in the Lord.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Matthew, I am not saying that the 1 Pet. 3:21 does not refer to water baptism. I was saying that it had been my understanding that it wasn't. But let's say it does refer to water baptism. Please give me your explanation of the salvific nature of water baptism.

Bill, I gave you that explanation when I said it is as a "sign" that baptism saves. It signifies and seals the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit in applyingthe death and resurrection of Christ to the elect. The church, by administering the sign, looks to the Spirit of God to work this grace according to His own sovereign will. The person is thus received as a member of the catholic visible church, which is the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, and is instructed, exhorted, and warned in the Lord.

Matthew, have patience with me. Your original answer confused me. I'm not as bright as you, brother. New Jersey public schooling is a burden I must carry for the rest of my adult life. When you said, "They are saved by baptism as a sign" I didn't understand your comment. I agree that baptism is a sign, but understand that the sign does not save. The sign signifies salvation. I simply wanted clarification of your statement.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

An individualistic sense of Baptism is really an individualistic sense of discipleship from a family perspective.

That we are commanded to train our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord is inescapable. Were it not in the Epistles, I am almost certain that many Baptists would deny this is a responsibility of parents because it really fits very poorly with an individualistic sense of discipleship.

The fact is, however, that it is impossible to train at all without reference to the God you serve. An adult who refuses to be trained is in a much different circumstance than the child who must be trained.

It is impossible then, for a child to not have his eyes and ears exposed to the Gospel by that Christian parent and, immediately, that places the child under obligation. He has heard. As I've studied Hebrews recently I have become increasingly concerned that too many place little emphasis on how perilous it is for those that have "tasted" of heavenly things to fall away from them.

Make no mistake about, even if a Baptist father refuses to acknowledge that his child is a disciple, his children will be judged as disciples some day.

The real question will be whether or not you'll be able to say that you were not guilty of their blood if you neglect to be earnest about their discipleship while they are in your charge. God is gracious not to leave us alone for that work but binds that child, life and death, to the Church that administers the means of Grace for their conversion and perfection in sanctification just as it does for all of us who are likewise needful.

Rich, of all people, you have been a member of a Baptist church where you should know that Baptists do NOT neglect evangelism and discipleship of children. Indeed, credo baptists often do so much Bible reading, Sunday School going, VBS attending, mid-week program promoting, Bible memorization programs, reading to them at night, purchasing Bible based and Christian themed DVDs, etc. that their children make a profession of faith as early as 3 or 4 years old. While baptism is typically delayed for some time after this (don't ask me to explain that one!), those kids are raised as believers.

And, while this raises a whole host of other problematic issues, I have seen young children receive communion on the basis of their profession of faith.

As I have freely admitted in manifold threads, I am no knee-jerk defender of things Baptist. Made up sacraments (e.g., infant dedication), delays between "accepting" Christ and experiencing Christian baptism, and the obvious problem of the Baptist assumption that a child is a non-believer despite the fact that in practice Baptist kids are treated much like Presbyterian kids give me fits. However, neither am I willing to pretend that Baptist "practice" is all that different from Presbyterian "practice" with regard to raising children in church.

Agreed Dennis but all this does is serve to highlight what is confessed on the one hand and practiced on the other. It makes sense for a free will Baptist to do all of these things but it doesn't really fit within a context that the children are presumed to be unregenerate until they prove otherwise. In other words, if they are, for all intents and purposes treated like disciples then why does everybody go out of their way to confess that they are not disciples? Since you're loathe to admit that they should be treated like disciples then what do you think the difference is between a disciple and a disciple?

I already noted in this thread that this activity goes on but it is really done "informally". That is to say that the Church sort of accidentally does it because (and rightly so) it would seem a terrible thing to all to simply ignore these little ones who happen to be tagging along with Mom and Dad every Sunday. If their status before God was really as some have argued here in the past, it would be more consistent to drop them off at a pagan friend's home on Sunday until such a time as they confess Christ.

But, as it is, the discipleship of children is generally vague. Pilgrim was very critical of the WLC 167 on improving your baptism which, for all intents and purposes, is the Book of Hebrews in a nutshell with all its warnings to persevere. Presbyterians are deliberate in their means of Grace for all in the congregation. All disciples are identified for what they are and the idea of "striving together" includes the child. We have catechisms designed for the old and the young in our Confessional documents.

Further, this points to a confusion in discipleship at large, which I alluded to earlier when initially answering Houston E's question. Baptists tend to view discipleship beginning at a definitive conversion with the sign designed to mark that conversion. One might get the impression that, in all of this, I deprecate the necessity for conversion. God forbid. The reason I find that model defective, however, is that it leads to presumption about conversion. If the baptized are the converted then there is not this need to fear lest any be found to be unbelieving. In fact, discipleship is a process and baptism simple marks the definitive point where the visible Church marks out that person as one who should be coming to Christ in faith and doing everything within its means to give to that disciple what he needs toward that end. Yes, God alone elects but the Church is visibly earnest toward that end with all disciples. Neither the oldest nor the youngest baptized member should become slack but all should be considering how they might stimulate one another toward love and good works, not forsaking the assembling together as some are in the habit of doing and all the more as they see the Day approaching.

Thus, Dennis, while I agree with you that the activity exists, it is really outside the boundaries (Confessionally) of where the Church actually "exists" since the children are not members of the Church, there is no formalized sense of how that should look since none of the passages in Scripture that teach about Covenant parenting apply any more, and, in fact, the discipleship of adults itself is undermined by a presumption born of a sign that grants far too much confidence to the Church and the individual that definitive conversion has taken place in the baptized.

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

When you said, "They are saved by baptism as a sign" I didn't understand your comment. I agree that baptism is a sign, but understand that the sign does not save. The sign signifies salvation. I simply wanted clarification of your statement.

Bill, I think we have been down this road before -- the visible church only has the sign to go by. If a person is not baptised he is visibly outside the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. Even if he ise regnerated inwardly by the Holy Spirit, and is therefore a member of the invisible church, there is no way for the visible church to recognise him as one of God's people except by baptism.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

When you said, "They are saved by baptism as a sign" I didn't understand your comment. I agree that baptism is a sign, but understand that the sign does not save. The sign signifies salvation. I simply wanted clarification of your statement.

Bill, I think we have been down this road before -- the visible church only has the sign to go by. If a person is not baptised he is visibly outside the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. Even if he ise regnerated inwardly by the Holy Spirit, and is therefore a member of the invisible church, there is no way for the visible church to recognise him as one of God's people except by baptism.

Matthew, perhaps it is the way you word things or the way I am reading what you are saying. The way you have just phrased your explanation is something I can agree with. Even in Baptist circles a professor will not be admitted into fellowship without obedience through baptism. I am approaching this from a distinctively Baptist slant since this thread is geared that way. Too many Baptist churches have pushed baptism into the realm of the unimportant. Even our church was there at one time, going months after a profession before baptism was administered. We've changed that practice, thank God.