Alive in Christ
Puritan Board Freshman
Do you deny that Christ is spiritually present in the elements (Lord's Supper)?
Isn't a denial of the validity of infant baptism also a denial of Sola Gratia?
- Thread starter Alive in Christ
- Start date
- Status
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
Every Reformed person believes that Christ is spiritually present in the Lord’s supper.
Do you believe that every person who has been baptized has had their sins forgiven by God?
Alive in Christ
Puritan Board Freshman
No, there are false converts. An infant with a believing parent is not a convert. It is God who forgives sins, not water. Baptism is the mode by which God removes the imputed guilt of Adam (but not the nature), with the promise of a future sanctification (victory over sin) and salvation (freedom from presence of sin). It is a covenant promise, but of course it is conditional - if we depart Christ, and our lifestyle of blatant sinning ends in our physical death, then we have proven ourselves false. The Lord knows those who are His. Adult or infant, it's the same.
Last edited:
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
So baptism removes the guilt of original sin for everyone it is given to?
Alive in Christ
Puritan Board Freshman
No. God removes the guilt of original sin to all who respond to the Gospel in faith, along with their children. Baptism is the mode by which God does this. And God can (and does) do this apart from water baptism.
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
Ok so does anyone who is baptized NOT get the guilt of original sin removed?
Alive in Christ
Puritan Board Freshman
Yes, I do not hold to the ex opperato (Catholic) view of baptismal regeneration. It is not the baptismal waters that save. It is God who saves. There are false converts. Baptism is just the mode God uses (born of water and spirit). But God can and does save apart from baptism, and not everyone who is baptized is saved.
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
Good deal.
Maybe you do have the same view of Baptismal Efficacy as Reformed Baptists after all.
Maybe you do have the same view of Baptismal Efficacy as Reformed Baptists after all.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
We don't know that the infants of believers are themselves unbelieving, any more than a Baptist church knows that the people they are baptizing are believing (unless they have the fabled, legendary regeneration goggles). Two Baptistic assumptions are at work in these discussions so far: 1. Infants cannot believe. Psalm 22:9, Matthew 19:14 (the word is brephos, meaning infant), and Luke 1:41 teach that "infants cannot believe" is a false assumption. 2. The two sacraments work exactly the same way. One perennial Baptistic objection to infant baptism is that it leads inevitably to infants at the Lord's Supper. As Matthew Winzer has already pointed out, only baptism is initiatory. Initiatory grace requires absolutely zero prerequisites in the person initiated, even if, in the case of infants, a prerequisite faith on the part of at least one parent (1 Corinthians 7) is necessary. However, as 1 Corinthians 11 tells us, the Lord's Supper has prerequisite self-examination as a condition, lest people partake unworthily. Is strengthening grace ever offered conditionally in the Scripture? All the time. Witness God's promise of blessing for obedience in Deuteronomy, for one massive example. Infants, however, are not capable of self-examination. The two sacraments therefore have different kinds of grace (neither of which are regenerating). They work differently. Baptism works without any action required in the infant. The same cannot be said of the Lord's Supper.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Doctor
Hello Jim @TheInquirer , in post #14 you said,
“Then why place the sign on unbelieving infants that you have no certainty will come to saving faith?”
This is the principle: The children of the promise are counted as the offspring, and not the children of the flesh. But we raise and instruct all the children born to us who believe in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, for we cannot tell which are those of the promise, or of the flesh, so “For the sake of the elect children among them, all are baptized.” This was the way of Abraham, and of the Jews — with the sign of the covenant — and it is our way in the new covenant. The Lord will reveal the genuine and the false by their fruit.
“Then why place the sign on unbelieving infants that you have no certainty will come to saving faith?”
This is the principle: The children of the promise are counted as the offspring, and not the children of the flesh. But we raise and instruct all the children born to us who believe in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, for we cannot tell which are those of the promise, or of the flesh, so “For the sake of the elect children among them, all are baptized.” This was the way of Abraham, and of the Jews — with the sign of the covenant — and it is our way in the new covenant. The Lord will reveal the genuine and the false by their fruit.
Last edited:
There is currently a growing “reformed” movement with people practicing very young children (basically infants) partaking of the Lords Supper which is part of why I brought it up. It's not something I brought up purely for theoretical reasons.
When you say initiatory grace requires zero prerequisites in the person initiated does that translate to baptism requires zero prerequisites in the person initiated? Certainly at least for an adult there are prerequisites: (Acts 8:36-38- And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.) (Acts 10:47- Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?)
I am not completely closed off to the idea of infant Baptism. I have not studied the issue in-depth. But I am very much opposed to the idea of baptismal regeneration or teaching that Baptism removes some part of our guilt. As far as I see the clearest passages in the New Testament show that Baptism was administered only to those who had believed and therefore were already justified before God (there guilt had already been taken away). In the same way that Abraham was justified by faith and imputed righteousness before he was ever circumcised.
Post automatically merged:
If Baptism in the New Covenant conveys regeneration or some portion of our forgiveness of sins this would also raise some major issues in my current understanding. For one thing from what I understand a major part of the argument for infant baptism has to do with its continuity with circumcision in the Old Testament. If this holds true, and it is also true that Baptism conveys regeneration or removes our guilt, was this also the case with circumcision? Then what about all the women under the Old Covenant who obviously were not circumcised? How was their guilt removed? Also, I also find it hard to reconcile the fact that clearly adults in the New Covenant were required to have faith before they were Baptized. But as far as I know under the Old Covenant servants in the household were circumcised whether they had faith or not. These areas of discontinuity make it unclear in my mind that I can conclude that because the male children were circumcised under the Old Covenant that all children of believers should be baptized in the New Covenant.
Last edited:
Alive in Christ
Puritan Board Freshman
It seems very similar in principle to eternal security. We confess that our salvation is assured, even though only God knows those who are His. We claim this for ourselves by faith, but understand the promises of God come with conditions. The Jews made the mistake of putting way too much stock in the fact that they were physically descended from Abraham. Solomon made the mistake of thinking he was guaranteed to be the physical ancestor of the Christ, and God cut him out, opting for Nathan. The Catholics make the mistake of thinking because they are the successors of the early Roman church, that somehow that makes them the true church. And the "once saved always saved" people make the mistake of thinking that because God promises final salvation to those who come to Christ, they can live however they want. These are the kind of assumptions that end in destruction, because God is not mocked. Yet at the same time, God wants us to profess our eternal security in Christ, because He promises it for His people. The only ultimate guarantee we have is that God finishes every work He begins. That doesn't necessarily mean He began anything in any one of us - it is something we take on faith. So the Jews circumcised in faith, just as Christians baptize in faith.
Short article - please read:
Baptismal Regeneration? - Theopolis Institute
Every year, one of my students presents on a section of Calvin’s Antidote to the Council of Trent , and I’m impressed again with how Calvin responds to Trent’s claims about baptism. The first decree of the fifth session includes this statement: “Whosoever asserts that this sin of Adam, which is...
theopolisinstitute.com
Last edited:
The author of that article is one of the main proponents of the federal vision which is heretical. They also are the very ones I was concerned about when I mentioned the growing movement toward paedocommunion.
That is honestly where I feared you were coming from all along.
And also explains your more recent post on eternal security.
Post automatically merged:
That is honestly where I feared you were coming from all along.
Post automatically merged:
And also explains your more recent post on eternal security.
Alive in Christ
Puritan Board Freshman
Suspicion rots the brain, brother. You have me figured wrong...I explained my position adequately, so time to give up that bone. And I couldn't care less about that website author. The information and quote concerning Calvin was the focus. And nothing I said concerning eternal security was wrong. Perhaps you could offer elaborations rather than mere allusions.
Last edited:
Beware this source. Federal visionism is more a denial of sola gratia than any variant of credobaptistry. Adherents maintain that covenant members remain in covenant by continuing in good works and that continuing in good works is a cause of salvation. This is a consequence of the way they believe all baptized children are covenant members in exactly the same way, and so the reprobate must fall away from membership by their works.It seems very similar in principle to eternal security. We confess that our salvation is assured, even though only God knows those who are His. We claim this for ourselves by faith, but understand the promises of God come with conditions. The Jews made the mistake of putting way too much stock in the fact that they were physically descended from Abraham. Solomon made the mistake of thinking he was guaranteed to be the physical ancestor of the Christ, and God cut him out, opting for Nathan. The Catholics make the mistake of thinking because they are the successors of the early Roman church, that somehow that makes them the true church. And the "once saved always saved" people make the mistake of thinking that because God promises final salvation to those who come to Christ, they can live however they want. These are the kind of assumptions that end in destruction, because God is not mocked. Yet at the same time, God wants us to profess our eternal security in Christ, because He promises it for His people. The only ultimate guarantee we have is that God finishes every work He begins. That doesn't necessarily mean He began anything in any one of us - it is something we take on faith. So the Jews circumcised in faith, just as Christians baptize in faith.
Short article - please read:
Baptismal Regeneration? - Theopolis Institute
Every year, one of my students presents on a section of Calvin’s Antidote to the Council of Trent , and I’m impressed again with how Calvin responds to Trent’s claims about baptism. The first decree of the fifth session includes this statement: “Whosoever asserts that this sin of Adam, which is...
Last edited:
Alive in Christ
Puritan Board Freshman
I didn't realize that, as I am not familiar with the website. I wholeheartedly reject federal vision. In my defense, I earlier posted (#30) a section taken directly from Calvin's Antidote. Evidently no one noticed it or paid attention to it. So after a quick google search I found very concise article which I thought would be a quick, simple read. I wasn't aware that the website authors are knee deep in serious error, so thanks for letting me know - I will mark and avoid.
Alive in Christ
Puritan Board Freshman
I just thought of something very interesting and I thought I would float it out here:
If God justified Abraham, in faith, through circumcision based on the efficacy of the future one sacrifice of Jesus Christ: and if God did not withhold His love from His elect before they ever came into being, how is it that God cannot use the means of grace that is baptism to confirm and seal an infant, based upon his divine foreknowledge, through a future faith yet to be revealed? This is the hope and legacy of every loving parent who is in Christ.
If a parent belongs to Jesus Christ, then they should give their little ones to Jesus Christ. And Jesus Himself instructed us to bring them to Him. I think the problem is that we have such a low view of baptism. The reaction I got when mentioning a classically reformed understanding of BR (and on Puritan Board of all places) is indicative of this. I think much of this attitude is explained as a reaction to Catholicism and her heresies concerning it. But don't throw the baby out with the baptismal waters. The early church clearly understand Matthew 19:14 in the context of baptism. There is really good historical evidence of this. And when our Lord says, "for of such is the kingdom of God", He is referring to all of us. Adult, infant, there is no difference. We are all beloved, elect children who belong to our Lord Jesus Christ.
If God justified Abraham, in faith, through circumcision based on the efficacy of the future one sacrifice of Jesus Christ: and if God did not withhold His love from His elect before they ever came into being, how is it that God cannot use the means of grace that is baptism to confirm and seal an infant, based upon his divine foreknowledge, through a future faith yet to be revealed? This is the hope and legacy of every loving parent who is in Christ.
If a parent belongs to Jesus Christ, then they should give their little ones to Jesus Christ. And Jesus Himself instructed us to bring them to Him. I think the problem is that we have such a low view of baptism. The reaction I got when mentioning a classically reformed understanding of BR (and on Puritan Board of all places) is indicative of this. I think much of this attitude is explained as a reaction to Catholicism and her heresies concerning it. But don't throw the baby out with the baptismal waters. The early church clearly understand Matthew 19:14 in the context of baptism. There is really good historical evidence of this. And when our Lord says, "for of such is the kingdom of God", He is referring to all of us. Adult, infant, there is no difference. We are all beloved, elect children who belong to our Lord Jesus Christ.
Last edited:
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
Scripture expressly says he received circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised, Rom. 4:11. However, his children were circumcised, and this no doubt represented putting off the sins of the flesh because God requires it again and again. So far as the elect are concerned there is no reason why circumcision might not have been the time when God did this. But Abraham's example shows it is not "tied" to that moment. Indeed, David, Jeremiah, and John the Baptist had experience of the grace of God from the womb.
This is the key qualifier in Calvin's doctrine of baptismal regeneration. It only concerns elect infants. In the title of Cornelius Burges' treatise, it is the regeneration of elect infants that the Reformed argue for. And baptism does not become anything more than a sign and seal. There is no sense in which the Romish doctrine is accepted where baptism itself becomes the mechanism for effecting regeneration. If you keep with "sign" language and use words like "represent" you will be on safe ground.
Alive in Christ
Puritan Board Freshman
Yes, and God saves us apart from baptism, but "apart" doesn't mean that the thing is absent. I am not arguing ex opere operato baptismal regeneration. God is the one who justifies and sanctifies us in this life, and does so apart from anything we ourselves can work; and He operates through the sacraments, made efficacious by grace, through a future or current faith, in the finished work of Christ. Old Testament Israel or New Testament church, the nature of salvation does not change - the very core of covenant theology. Circumcision or baptism - one Israel. And the promise is for us, and our children.
Alive in Christ
Puritan Board Freshman
But I do think it is interesting that Calvin presented a view, albeit scaled back from that of Luther, of baptismal regeneration. I still really don't understand the pushback I received. I still maintain that the popular reformed view of baptism and the sacraments in general is far too low. The reformers held a far higher view. But we are all brothers here and I am content to let the matter die.
pgwolv
Puritan Board Sophomore
For anyone else wanting to read more on Calvin's view as discussed here on the PB, see:
and
and
Alive in Christ
Puritan Board Freshman
Cotton Mather (post #5 in the first thread linked above) responded very well:
I would also like to add that Luther's view of BR was not as drastic from Calvin's as it might at first appear. It actually fits within the framework of Luther's view on single predestination, the nature of the atonement, and the eternal security (or lack thereof) of the believer. Understand in that context, his view isn't nearly as shocking. It's real easy to get baptism wrong when you are wrong in your soteriology.
pgwolv
Puritan Board Sophomore
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
You're missing the point entirely.
You said God justified Abraham through circumcision.
But circumcision had nothing, zero, zip, nada to do with Abraham’s justification.
You’re literally turning Paul’s whole argument in Romans 4 upside down.
Alive in Christ
Puritan Board Freshman
Brother, that was a poor choice of words. I simply meant that circumcision was the means through which God promised a future salvation. Being apart from works doesn't mean that works are not present, and being apart from circumcision doesn't mean that circumcision is not present. Just as we are saved and then comes the good works (the latter being a sign of the former), faith comes and then the promise. But let's not forget that circumcision was very much a sign of the promise, as is baptism, and the promise is for both us and our children. I do not see how anyone can deny applying this promise to their children and remain theologically consistent in regards to covenantalism. This is why I joke that the difference between a Presbyterian and a Baptist is that the Presbyterian reads BOTH testaments.
But being apart from works does mean works have absolutely no role in justifying us before God. And being apart from circumcision means circumcision had absolutely nothing to do with Abraham’s justification which is the entire point of that section of Romans 4.Brother, that was a poor choice of words. I simply meant that circumcision was the means through which God promised a future salvation. Being apart from works doesn't mean that works are not present, and being apart from circumcision doesn't mean that circumcision is not present. Just as we are saved and then comes the good works (the latter being a sign of the former), faith comes and then the promise. But let's not forget that circumcision was very much a sign of the promise, as is baptism, and the promise is for both us and our children. I do not see how anyone can deny applying this promise to their children and remain theologically consistent in regards to covenantalism. This is why I joke that the difference between a Presbyterian and a Baptist is that the Presbyterian reads BOTH testaments.
Although temporary believers and other unregenerate men, may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favor of God and in a state of salvation, which hope of theirs shall perish;[1] yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, may in this life be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God,[2] which hope shall never make them ashamed.[3]It seems very similar in principle to eternal security. We confess that our salvation is assured, even though only God knows those who are His. We claim this for ourselves by faith, but understand the promises of God come with conditions. The Jews made the mistake of putting way too much stock in the fact that they were physically descended from Abraham. Solomon made the mistake of thinking he was guaranteed to be the physical ancestor of the Christ, and God cut him out, opting for Nathan. The Catholics make the mistake of thinking because they are the successors of the early Roman church, that somehow that makes them the true church. And the "once saved always saved" people make the mistake of thinking that because God promises final salvation to those who come to Christ, they can live however they want. These are the kind of assumptions that end in destruction, because God is not mocked. Yet at the same time, God wants us to profess our eternal security in Christ, because He promises it for His people. The only ultimate guarantee we have is that God finishes every work He begins. That doesn't necessarily mean He began anything in any one of us - it is something we take on faith. So the Jews circumcised in faith, just as Christians baptize in faith.
Short article - please read:
Baptismal Regeneration? - Theopolis Institute
Every year, one of my students presents on a section of Calvin’s Antidote to the Council of Trent , and I’m impressed again with how Calvin responds to Trent’s claims about baptism. The first decree of the fifth session includes this statement: “Whosoever asserts that this sin of Adam, which is...
This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope, but an infallible assurance of faith,[1] founded on the blood and righteousness of Christ revealed in the Gospel;[2] and also upon the inward evidence of those graces of the Spirit unto which promises are made,[3] and on the testimony of the Spirit of adoption, witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God;[4] and, as a fruit thereof, keeping the heart both humble and holy.[5]
How do these statements mesh with your view that only God knows who are his and that we take our eternal security on faith but we may very well be mistaken? I’m not saying that we can’t be deceived. But I’m curious to know more about your comparison between baptism and eternal security. And what conditions are you speaking of when you say the promises of God are conditional?
Alive in Christ
Puritan Board Freshman
Brother, this is tricky stuff. Works do actually have a role. The Bible says that we are saved unto good works, and that faith without works is dead. Yes, the initial justification that we receive is apart from works. But it is revealed through works, and we are judged according our works, on the day when everything is made known, and our works will show forth our faith. So to say that works play no role in our justification may be true on the surface, but to say they play no part in our ongoing sanctification and final salvation is just as wrongheaded as saying that the sacraments play no role in the administration of God's grace, in my opinion. Lastly, it is not exactly a settled issue in scholarly circles whether or not Calvin limited his view of BR to infants alone. There are actually conflicting sources. Burgess, the Divine who believed this, was a godly but fallible man. I am not saying he is wrong. I just wanted to point this out.
- Status
