The design of baptism

[MW]

In the thread on points of difference between paedo and antipaedobaptists it seems the design of baptism was becoming confused. In an attempt to rescue brotherly relations with paedobaptists while disowning their baptism, the antipaedobaptist brethren began altering the design of baptism. Whereas Christian theology recognises that "profession of faith" is more than mere words but includes a visual renouncing of the world and following Christ through baptism, the antipaedobaptists began arguing that profession of faith and baptism are two distinct things.

I have started this thread to discuss this particular point, and do not desire to discuss any other point.

I am going to begin by quoting the antipaedobaptist theologian, John L. Dagg, to prove that antipaedobaptists also maintain that baptism is part of a profession of faith. The quotation is taken from Manual of Theology, vol. 2, chapter 1.

I ask my antipaedobaptist friends to explain why Dagg's theology is correct or incorrect. If correct, how can they still accept antipaedobaptists as professing believers? If incorrect, what biblical considerations repudiate his claims? What antipaedobaptist theologians contradict his claims?

The profession of renouncing the world, and devoting ourselves to Christ, might have been required to be made in mere words addressed to the ears of those who hear; but infinite wisdom has judged it better that it should be made in a formal and significant act, appointed for the specific purpose. That act is baptism. The immersion of the body, as Paul has explained, signifies our burial with Christ; and in emerging from the water, we enter, according to the import of the figure, on a new life. We put off the old man, and put on the new man: "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ."

The place which baptism holds in the commission, indicates its use. The apostles were sent to make disciples, and to teach them to observe all the Saviour's commands; but an intermediate act is enjoined, the act of baptizing them. In order to make disciples, they were commanded, "Go, preach the gospel to every creature." When the proclamation of the good news attracted the attention of men, and by the divine blessing so affected their hearts, that they became desirous to follow Christ, they were taught to observe his commandments, and first to be baptized. This ceremony was manifestly designed to be the initiation into the prescribed service; and every disciple of Christ who wishes to walk in the ways of the Lord, meets this duty at the entrance of his course.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

In the thread on points of difference between paedo and antipaedobaptists it seems the design of baptism was becoming confused. In an attempt to rescue brotherly relations with paedobaptists while disowning their baptism, the antipaedobaptist brethren began altering the design of baptism. Whereas Christian theology recognises that "profession of faith" is more than mere words but includes a visual renouncing of the world and following Christ through baptism, the antipaedobaptists began arguing that profession of faith and baptism are two distinct things.

Reverend Winzer,

Can you give me a link to where this happened? I quit following the thread. In fact I didn't know anyone could do this? It wouldn't matter if it was paedo or anti-paedo in my understanding. There is some profession of faith and renouncing the world tied to both positions as far as I understood it. In the paedo camp this would be done by the believing parents as in the anti-paedo position it would be done by the confessing disciple.

I think I draw this kind of conclusion in answering Brian in this post to his question in the credo only forum. Especiallly when I quote the anti-paedobaptist John Tombes.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f123/please-supply-understanding-55157/#post713004

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

BTW, I am about to log off for a few days. So I might not be able to respond much. It is late here and I usually don't participate till late Sunday night.

Have a great Lord's day.

 

[MW]

Randy, see especially pages 3, 4, 6 of this thread:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/paedo-vs-credo-main-point-contention-54965/index6.html

 

[Pergamum]

If correct, how can they still accept antipaedobaptists as professing believers?

One professes with the mouth before they profess their faith more fully in baptism.

I know of no baptist who would doubt a Presbyterian's salvation due to lack of "proper" baptism.

An incomplete profession (i.e. a verbal profession without the profession of faith in baptism) is still a profession. A paedobaptist is still a professing believer; they just lack one form of this profession, i.e. believer's baptism.

 

[MW]

One professes with the mouth before they profess their faith more fully in baptism.

So are you rejecting Dagg's statement that profession is not "mere words," but also "a formal and significant act?" It would appear that you are separating words and act in two stages whereas Dagg makes them two parts of the one profession.

 

[Heidelberg1]

Clarification Please

Hi Reverend Winzer,

If correct, how can they still accept antipaedobaptists as professing believers?

I am not sure I understand your question here. Shouldn't your question read, "If correct, how can they still accept paedobaptists (who were themselves baptized as babies) as professing believers?"

I would answer that we do accept paedobaptists as professing believers. Even Dagg would, if I am right in reading the two paragraphs leading up to your quote. Dagg Volume 2 Chapter 1

The LBCF stays clear of "a profession of faith" language, calling baptism an ordinance that signifies among other things -- fellowship with Christ in Christ's death and resurrection, a sign of our being ingrafted into Christ, a sign of the remission of sins, and a sign of our walking in newness of life. It further clarifies by saying that only professing believers should receive the sign, but it does not call it a profession of faith.

London Baptist Confession of Faith

Chapter 29 Of Baptism

Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him;3 of remission of sins;4 and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.5

3 Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27
4 Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16
5 Rom. 6:4

Paragraph 2. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.6

6 Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36,37, 2:41, 8:12, 18:8

I do not know of a verse in the Bible that calls baptism a profession of faith. The closest is in 1 Peter 3:21 where it is called "as an appeal to God for a good conscience."

Baptist theologians like Dagg, as all theologians do, offer their works as private opinions for the edification of the church. It is the Confessions of Faith that define what churches publicly profess for faith and practice.

Sincerely,

 

[MW]

I am not sure I understand your question here. Shouldn't your question read, "If correct, how can they still accept paedobaptists (who were themselves baptized as babies) as professing believers?"

Yes, thankyou for making explicit what was implicit in the question.

I would answer that we do accept paedobaptists as professing believers. Even Dagg would, if I am right in reading the two paragraphs leading up to your quote. Dagg Volume 2 Chapter 1

Would you be willing to show (a) where Dagg does this, and (b) How it accords with Dagg's definition of profession as not mere word but also formal and significant act? If we do not have the formal and significant act how can we be said to have a profession? If we haven't been "initiated into the prescribed service," how can we be said to be carrying on the divine service?

The LBCF stays clear of "a profession of faith" language, calling baptism an ordinance that signifies among other things -- fellowship with Christ in Christ's death and resurrection, a sign of our being ingrafted into Christ, a sign of the remission of sins, and a sign of our walking in newness of life. It further clarifies by saying that only professing believers should receive the sign, but it does not call it a profession of faith.

Two points. (1.) If a sign represents something by divine ordinance, doesn't the lack of the sign mean something as a result of the same divine ordinance? Otherwise it is not really a sign but a mere teaching illustration. (2.) The LBC states that those who profess faith are visible saints, "and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted" (26:2). On this basis there should be no reason why a paedobaptist (only baptised as an infant) shouldn't be received into membership. Yet the brethren who reject our baptism also reject us for membership. Please explain why.

I do not know of a verse in the Bible that calls baptism a profession of faith. The closest is in 1 Peter 3:21 where it is called "as an appeal to God for a good conscience."

That is sufficient of itself; but the three proof texts in the LBC proving baptism is a sign (Col. 2, Gal. 3, Rom. 6) make this plain.

Baptist theologians like Dagg, as all theologians do, offer their works as private opinions for the edification of the church. It is the Confessions of Faith that define what churches publicly profess for faith and practice.

So are you rejecting Dagg's teaching as "not Baptist?"

 

[Pergamum]

One professes with the mouth before they profess their faith more fully in baptism.

So are you rejecting Dagg's statement that profession is not "mere words," but also "a formal and significant act?" It would appear that you are separating words and act in two stages whereas Dagg makes them two parts of the one profession.

I need not divide one's profession into stages, but I could say that one can have an incomplete profession versus a fuller and more complete profession if one merely professes with words and does not follow in believer's baptism as a more formal profession.

To add to Dagg, I would think that a well-lived life even after a verbal profession and subsequent baptism would even be a more complete profession still yet.

Did the above make sense? One's profession of faith begins by verbal confession, shown forth more fully by baptism and then evidenced by the changed life.

 

[Grillsy]

One professes with the mouth before they profess their faith more fully in baptism.

So are you rejecting Dagg's statement that profession is not "mere words," but also "a formal and significant act?" It would appear that you are separating words and act in two stages whereas Dagg makes them two parts of the one profession.

I need not divide one's profession into stages, but I could say that one can have an incomplete profession versus a fuller and more complete profession if one merely professes with words and does not follow in believer's baptism as a more formal profession.

To add to Dagg, I would think that a well-lived life even after a verbal profession and subsequent baptism would even be a more complete profession still yet.

Did the above make sense? One's profession of faith begins by verbal confession, shown forth more fully by baptism and then evidenced by the changed life.

So, if I comprehend the credo-baptist understanding, baptism is just an early part of sanctification?

 

[MW]

Did the above make sense? One's profession of faith begins by verbal confession, shown forth more fully by baptism and then evidenced by the changed life.

Yes, but this doesn't appear to add to Dagg; it detracts from him if I am reading him correctly. You are saying the words can exist on their own as a profession, whereas he says the words might have existed on their own but infinite wisdom has judged better of it by joining a significant act.

 

[Pergamum]

So are you rejecting Dagg's statement that profession is not "mere words," but also "a formal and significant act?" It would appear that you are separating words and act in two stages whereas Dagg makes them two parts of the one profession.

I need not divide one's profession into stages, but I could say that one can have an incomplete profession versus a fuller and more complete profession if one merely professes with words and does not follow in believer's baptism as a more formal profession.

To add to Dagg, I would think that a well-lived life even after a verbal profession and subsequent baptism would even be a more complete profession still yet.

Did the above make sense? One's profession of faith begins by verbal confession, shown forth more fully by baptism and then evidenced by the changed life.

So, if I comprehend the credo-baptist understanding, baptism is just an early part of sanctification?

I never said that.

 

[Grillsy]

I need not divide one's profession into stages, but I could say that one can have an incomplete profession versus a fuller and more complete profession if one merely professes with words and does not follow in believer's baptism as a more formal profession.

To add to Dagg, I would think that a well-lived life even after a verbal profession and subsequent baptism would even be a more complete profession still yet.

Did the above make sense? One's profession of faith begins by verbal confession, shown forth more fully by baptism and then evidenced by the changed life.

So, if I comprehend the credo-baptist understanding, baptism is just an early part of sanctification?

I never said that.

Okay then, I misinterpreted. Since "faith is shown more fully by baptism and then more fully by changed life", I wanted to read that as part of sanctification.

 

[Pergamum]

Did the above make sense? One's profession of faith begins by verbal confession, shown forth more fully by baptism and then evidenced by the changed life.

Yes, but this doesn't appear to add to Dagg; it detracts from him if I am reading him correctly. You are saying the words can exist on their own as a profession, whereas he says the words might have existed on their own but infinte wisdom has judged better of it by joining a signifant act.

I am saying that profession can be verbal. If one is not baptized "properly" and yet professes Christ, then I count them a Christian on the basis of their profession. Of course, I would wish that they would follow with proper baptism afterwards.

A fuller profession would be a verbal profession followed by baptism.

The fullest profession would be confession of faith, baptism, and then a life lived out in faith.

It seems that Dagg is saying that baptism ought to happen and that mere profession is incomplete if one stays unbaptized. He seems to be stressing the importance of baptism, not suggesting that we charge those baptized "improperly" as being unsaved.



Your thoughts?

-----Added 11/7/2009 at 01:23:42 EST-----

So, if I comprehend the credo-baptist understanding, baptism is just an early part of sanctification?

I never said that.

Okay then, I misinterpreted. Since "faith is shown more fully by baptism and then more fully by changed life", I wanted to read that as part of sanctification.

Hmmm, I guess I can see why you would conclude that. A fuller profession would accompany fuller sanctification I guess.


But, I am not ready to jump into a major baptism thread. Rev. Winzer brings up a good point about Dagg and I want to merely answer that and then get some shut-eye.

 

[MW]

I am saying that profession can be verbal. If one is not baptized "properly" and yet professes Christ, then I count them a Christian on the basis of their profession. Of course, I would wish that they would follow with proper baptism afterwards.

Remember, I'm concerned with those who say paedobaptists (baptised as infants) are not baptised. You seem to be saying we are baptised, only the baptism was not administered properly? Would you be able to clarify this point for me. Dagg's connection of verbal profession with significant act is only relevant if we are not actually baptised in the antipaedobaptist view. If we are actually baptised then it doesn't pose a problem.

It seems that Dagg is saying that baptism ought to happen and that mere profession is incomplete if one stays unbaptized. He seems to be stressing the importance of baptism, not suggesting that we charge those baptized "improperly" as being unsaved.

Yes, I'm sure he is not suggesting that baptism is necessary for salvation; but he does seem to be saying that baptism is necessary for discipleship.

 

[Heidelberg1]

So are you rejecting Dagg's teaching as "not Baptist?"

No, not at all. I am just saying that all his opinions are not necessarily confessional. BB Warfield embraced theistic evolution. That does not make that position Presbyterian. The Westminster Standards defines Presbyterian faith.

I will need to finish my reply to you after the Sabbath. I have a busy couple of days of ministry coming up.

Blessings,

 

[Pergamum]

I am saying that profession can be verbal. If one is not baptized "properly" and yet professes Christ, then I count them a Christian on the basis of their profession. Of course, I would wish that they would follow with proper baptism afterwards.

Remember, I'm concerned with those who say paedobaptists (baptised as infants) are not baptised. You seem to be saying we are baptised, only the baptism was not administered properly? Would you be able to clarify this point for me. Dagg's connection of verbal profession with significant act is only relevant if we are not actually baptised in the antipaedobaptist view. If we are actually baptised then it doesn't pose a problem.

It seems that Dagg is saying that baptism ought to happen and that mere profession is incomplete if one stays unbaptized. He seems to be stressing the importance of baptism, not suggesting that we charge those baptized "improperly" as being unsaved.

Yes, I'm sure he is not suggesting that baptism is necessary for salvation; but he does seem to be saying that baptism is necessary for discipleship.

Many baptists would assert that a thing can be improperly done but still "count." For instance, if one is immersed but their head doesn't go under, then this baptism is irregular but valid.


I would favor, however, this following view below:

That those whose mode is irregular (sprinkling or pouring) might still have valid baptism, if the intent of the baptism was to show their death to their old life and rebirth to new life in Christ, as per Romans 6, i.e. a baptism after a profession of faith.

However, baptism as an infant (i.e. not improper mode but improper subject) seems to be another matter.

So, I would say that the mode is less important than the issue of the subject.


So, yes, if I had to state the fact barely without trying to offend, I would say that Presbyterians who were baptised as babies were not really baptized at all, since their baptism is not closely enough linked to their dying to their old life and rising to a new life. However, they verbally profess Christ and I count them as brothers. All aspects of their visible profession, however, are incomplete (or at least done out of order).


Does this agree with Dagg? Also, what are the weaknesses of this view, since this is one aspect of "Baptist" doctrine for which I am sometimes less than fullly satisfied (since the marks of the church are said to be where true preaching is present and the ordinances are rightly administered, this would mean that baptists must say that presbyterian churches are not really true churches and vice versa, but it is clearly evident that there are many solid baptist and pesby churches despite their disagreement on these ordinances).

 

[MW]

So, yes, if I had to state the fact barely without trying to offend, I would say that Presbyterians who were baptised as babies were not really baptized at all, since their baptism is not closely enough linked to their dying to their old life and rising to a new life. However, they verbally profess Christ and I count them as brothers. All aspects of their visible profession, however, are incomplete (or at least done out of order).

This seems to me to be more consistent with the antipaedobaptist position than the attempt to separate profession and baptism. So, basically, from an antipaedobaptist perspective, those who have made a profession of faith but were only baptised as infants are still unbaptised and have an incomplete profession of faith which disqualifies them for membership in a "Baptist" Church. Thankyou for taking the time to clarify this.

 

[timmopussycat]

In the thread on points of difference between paedo and antipaedobaptists it seems the design of baptism was becoming confused. In an attempt to rescue brotherly relations with paedobaptists while disowning their baptism, the antipaedobaptist brethren began altering the design of baptism. Whereas Christian theology recognises that "profession of faith" is more than mere words but includes a visual renouncing of the world and following Christ through baptism, the antipaedobaptists began arguing that profession of faith and baptism are two distinct things.

I have started this thread to discuss this particular point, and do not desire to discuss any other point.

Missed a necessary point in my first answer to this. As the cb referred to in the above, I had no intention of alterning the design of baptism as per the LBC: I misread Matthew as referring to wb alone rather than wb as a sign of an inward reality.

I am going to begin by quoting the antipaedobaptist theologian, John L. Dagg, to prove that antipaedobaptists also maintain that baptism is part of a profession of faith. The quotation is taken from Manual of Theology, vol. 2, chapter 1.

I ask my antipaedobaptist friends to explain why Dagg's theology is correct or incorrect. If correct, how can they still accept antipaedobaptists as professing believers? If incorrect, what biblical considerations repudiate his claims? What antipaedobaptist theologians contradict his claims?

The profession of renouncing the world, and devoting ourselves to Christ, might have been required to be made in mere words addressed to the ears of those who hear; but infinite wisdom has judged it better that it should be made in a formal and significant act, appointed for the specific purpose. That act is baptism. The immersion of the body, as Paul has explained, signifies our burial with Christ; and in emerging from the water, we enter, according to the import of the figure, on a new life. We put off the old man, and put on the new man: "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ."

The place which baptism holds in the commission, indicates its use. The apostles were sent to make disciples, and to teach them to observe all the Saviour's commands; but an intermediate act is enjoined, the act of baptizing them. In order to make disciples, they were commanded, "Go, preach the gospel to every creature." When the proclamation of the good news attracted the attention of men, and by the divine blessing so affected their hearts, that they became desirous to follow Christ, they were taught to observe his commandments, and first to be baptized. This ceremony was manifestly designed to be the initiation into the prescribed service; and every disciple of Christ who wishes to walk in the ways of the Lord, meets this duty at the entrance of his course.

[/QUOTE]

Dagg is not the LBC and his statements have no confessional weight. Moreover his claim lacks Scriptural support.

 

[MW]

Dagg is not the LBC and his statements have no confessional weight. Moreover his claim lacks Scriptural support.

He references two passages of Scripture, and the first one (Gal. 3:27) is the same passage the LBC appeals to for its definition of baptism as a sign of fellowship with Christ. In this respect his view is closer to the confessional position than the one which insists on interpreting such passages as referring to spiritual baptism.

 

[timmopussycat]

I am not sure I understand your question here. Shouldn't your question read, "If correct, how can they still accept paedobaptists (who were themselves baptized as babies) as professing believers?"

Yes, thankyou for making explicit what was implicit in the question.

I would answer that we do accept paedobaptists as professing believers. Even Dagg would, if I am right in reading the two paragraphs leading up to your quote. Dagg Volume 2 Chapter 1

Would you be willing to show (a) where Dagg does this, and (b) How it accords with Dagg's definition of profession as not mere word but also formal and significant act? If we do not have the formal and significant act how can we be said to have a profession? If we haven't been "initiated into the prescribed service," how can we be said to be carrying on the divine service?

Two points. (1.) If a sign represents something by divine ordinance, doesn't the lack of the sign mean something as a result of the same divine ordinance? Otherwise it is not really a sign but a mere teaching illustration. (2.)

Now as previously noted I don't accept Dagg as authoritaive for cb's. That said, a sign may represent something as a result of the same divine ordinance yet circumstances may arise where the sign may be biblical (cb ex hypothesi) but the divine reality to which it points (regeneration and union with Christ) may not be there. Yet in particular cases, cb's may rightly observe that although the sign may not be biblical, the reality to which the sign is meant to point is also shown to be present by other valid signs.

The LBC states that those who profess faith are visible saints, "and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted" (26:2). On this basis there should be no reason why a paedobaptist (only baptised as an infant) shouldn't be received into membership. Yet the brethren who reject our baptism also reject us for membership. Please explain why.

Let us be cautious here. Your original charge was a denial that cb's could accept pb's as members of the visible church, not as members of particular local churches. The two are not the same thing. One may deny membership of local churches to pb's without denying that they are truly members of the visible church.

Now the LBC makes the point that some local churches are vulnerable to error. If pb is an error, cb's must attempt to correct it and if it is plain teaching of Scripture, cb's must deny membership in a cb only local church (Bunyan's church and those who follow his line are exceptions here but they are few and far between.)

I do not know of a verse in the Bible that calls baptism a profession of faith. The closest is in 1 Peter 3:21 where it is called "as an appeal to God for a good conscience."

That is sufficient of itself; but the three proof texts in the LBC proving baptism is a sign (Col. 2, Gal. 3, Rom. 6) make this plain.

Baptist theologians like Dagg, as all theologians do, offer their works as private opinions for the edification of the church. It is the Confessions of Faith that define what churches publicly profess for faith and practice.

So are you rejecting Dagg's teaching as "not Baptist?"

It is one Baptist's opinion. One man's opinion is not necessarily authoritive and, when unsupported by Scripture should never be taken as such.

 

[MW]

Yet in particular cases, cb's may rightly observe that although the sign may not be biblical, the reality to which the sign is meant to point is also shown to be present by other valid signs.

The LBC only speaks of baptism and the Lord's supper as "signs." Not sure where you are discovering other signs from.

One may deny membership of local churches to pb's without denying that they are truly members of the visible church.

According to the LBC visible sainthood makes one eligible for membership in particular congregations. If one is a visible saint in the antipaedobaptist's eyes there is nothing to forbid congregational membership.

 

[timmopussycat]

Dagg is not the LBC and his statements have no confessional weight. Moreover his claim lacks Scriptural support.

He references two passages of Scripture, and the first one (Gal. 3:27) is the same passage the LBC appeals to for its definition of baptism as a sign of fellowship with Christ. In this respect his view is closer to the confessional position than the one which insists on interpreting such passages as referring to spiritual baptism.

If you are trying to split a wedge between me and the LBC over signs of fellowship with Christ, I believe I have already mentioned that I accept the Confession's position. My denial that water baptism was meant in such passages was a (badly expressed, I know) denial that water baptism (on its own, apart from the realities to which the sign points) was what initiates one into membership in the visible church. It is the realities to which the sign points, regeneration and union with Christ, that intiate one into membership in the visible church, and the sign of baptism (in the case of professing converts) actually takes place after the realities to which the sign refers to have occurred.

 

[MW]

If you are trying to split a wedge between me and the LBC over signs of fellowship with Christ, I believe I have already mentioned that I accept the Confession's position. My denial that water baptism was meant in such passages was a (badly expressed, I know) denial that water baptism (on its own, apart from the realities to which the sign points) was what initiates one into membership in the visible church. It is the realities to which the sign points, regeneration and union with Christ, that intiate one into membership in the visible church, and the sign of baptism (in the case of professing converts) actually takes place after the realites to which the sign refers to have occurred.

So do you agree with Dagg's Scriptural reference afterall?

 

[timmopussycat]

Yet in particular cases, cb's may rightly observe that although the sign may not be biblical, the reality to which the sign is meant to point is also shown to be present by other valid signs.

The LBC only speaks of baptism and the Lord's supper as "signs." Not sure where you are discovering other signs from.

To avoid equivocation, let me use the word "indicators" instead of "sign". The sign of baptism is meant to point to realities of which it is a sign. Those realities are the believer's "fellowship with [Christ], in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life". The presence of these realities is not proven solely by the sign of water baptism. (If wb was the sole proof of the presence of these realities in someone's life, the churches could never accept as brother in Christ or member of the visible church any adult convert who had not been baptized. In such cases both pb's and cb's use indicators given by othr Scriptures to discern the presence of these realities before we baptize adult converts. In addition, cb's so use them not only to justify baptizing adult converts, but to recognize, among those individuals "baptized" pb, genuine Christian brothers and sisters.

One may deny membership of local churches to pb's without denying that they are truly members of the visible church.

According to the LBC visible sainthood makes one eligible for membership in particular congregations. If one is a visible saint in the antipaedobaptist's eyes there is nothing to forbid congregational membership.

Although there is nothing in the confession to forbid particular local church membership to the pb directly, "particular congregations" (26:2= local churches, not visible church) are left free to judge pb an error that effectively denies that a pb believer is truly "walking together according to the appointment of Christ" (2:6) with the rest of the particular congregation.
This is the position of the majority of cb churches but there have been and are exceptions.

 

[MW]

I continue to be amazed at the inventive faculty people can bring to Christian theology. We now have indicators to go along side of signs.

Are there any "Baptists" who would like to respond in terms of historically accepted terms and definitions?

 

[timmopussycat]

If you are trying to split a wedge between me and the LBC over signs of fellowship with Christ, I believe I have already mentioned that I accept the Confession's position. My denial that water baptism was meant in such passages was a (badly expressed, I know) denial that water baptism (on its own, apart from the realities to which the sign points) was what initiates one into membership in the visible church. It is the realities to which the sign points, regeneration and union with Christ, that intiate one into membership in the visible church, and the sign of baptism (in the case of professing converts) actually takes place after the realites to which the sign refers to have occurred.

So do you agree with Dagg's Scriptural reference afterall?

I never denied it. What I deny is two things: I disagree with the bolded sentence by Dagg in your original post

This ceremony was manifestly designed to be the initiation into the prescribed service; and every disciple of Christ who wishes to walk in the ways of the Lord, meets this duty at the entrance of his course.

and your conclusion that anything by Dagg must be necessarily authoritative for Baptists.

-----Added 11/8/2009 at 11:44:47 EST-----

I continue to be amazed at the inventive faculty people can bring to Christian theology. We now have indicators to go along side of signs.

Are there any "Baptists" who would like to respond in terms of historically accepted terms and definitions?

If you deny the reality of other indicators of regeneracy besides the sign of wb, on what grounds can pb's possibly receive into membership any "unbaptized as infant" adult converts from unChristian homes?

 

[MW]

If you deny the reality of other indicators of regeneracy besides the sign of wb, on what grounds can pb's possibly receive into membership any "unbaptized as infant" adult converts from unChristian homes?

Their request to be baptised as a sign that they have renounded the world and are resolved to follow Christ.

 

[Brian Withnell]

If you are trying to split a wedge between me and the LBC over signs of fellowship with Christ, I believe I have already mentioned that I accept the Confession's position. My denial that water baptism was meant in such passages was a (badly expressed, I know) denial that water baptism (on its own, apart from the realities to which the sign points) was what initiates one into membership in the visible church. It is the realities to which the sign points, regeneration and union with Christ, that intiate one into membership in the visible church, and the sign of baptism (in the case of professing converts) actually takes place after the realites to which the sign refers to have occurred.

Excuse me for jumping in the middle here, I have a question that for understanding what you are saying is pivotal. When you say "visible church" do you mean by that what I and other WCF followers would call the "invisible church"? My way of thinking is that the visible church is the church in this age that one sees presently ... not the church in all eternity which is pure and devoid of false professors of faith. If the realities are what initiates membership in the visible church, then the reality is that no person in the visible church is a false member, and their is no difference between your use of visible church and my use of invisible church.

My use of visible church include all those that profess faith in Christ (and of course from a PB perspective) and their children. I see the visible church as marred in the sense that there tares among the wheat, but that it will be purified (the tares removed from the wheat) on the day of the Lord. Do I catch your meaning correctly?

 

[timmopussycat]

I continue to be amazed at the inventive faculty people can bring to Christian theology. We now have indicators to go along side of signs.

Are there any "Baptists" who would like to respond in terms of historically accepted terms and definitions?

Matthew, the LBC does not say that wb is a sign that God mandates his church to require before it can recognize someone as a brother or member of the visible church. Instead, the LBC says that "Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life."

The only person specifically identified by the LBC to whom wb is a sign is "the party baptized" and it signifies that party's preexisting fellowship with Christ" etc.

Now the NT either gives other grounds by which God intends the church to recognize the probable presence of "preexisting fellowship with Christ" etc. before wb takes place in the adult convert from paganism, or it does not. Both pb's and cb's believe it does, and it is on the basis of these grounds that both of us baptize adult converts who were never baptized as infants.

So if you baptize an adult convert do you recognize before doing so that this candidate has met the Scriptural grounds for being recognzed as one who has, probably if not absoutely, "come into a preexisting fellowship with Christ" etc.? If you do, why are those grounds (which are present in many adult pb's) insufficient for us to recognize you as brethren and fellow members of visible churches. If you don't what additonal ground do you look for before you know you may in good conscience baptize a previously unbaptized adult convert?

-----Added 11/9/2009 at 09:28:28 EST-----

If you are trying to split a wedge between me and the LBC over signs of fellowship with Christ, I believe I have already mentioned that I accept the Confession's position. My denial that water baptism was meant in such passages was a (badly expressed, I know) denial that water baptism (on its own, apart from the realities to which the sign points) was what initiates one into membership in the visible church. It is the realities to which the sign points, regeneration and union with Christ, that intiate one into membership in the visible church, and the sign of baptism (in the case of professing converts) actually takes place after the realites to which the sign refers to have occurred.

Excuse me for jumping in the middle here, I have a question that for understanding what you are saying is pivotal. When you say "visible church" do you mean by that what I and other WCF followers would call the "invisible church"? My way of thinking is that the visible church is the church in this age that one sees presently ... not the church in all eternity which is pure and devoid of false professors of faith. If the realities are what initiates membership in the visible church, then the reality is that no person in the visible church is a false member, and their is no difference between your use of visible church and my use of invisible church.

My use of visible church include all those that profess faith in Christ (and of course from a PB perspective) and their children. I see the visible church as marred in the sense that there tares among the wheat, but that it will be purified (the tares removed from the wheat) on the day of the Lord. Do I catch your meaning correctly?

I do not mean invisible church. See the LBC for how it defines the visible saints in LBC 26:2,3. Those paragraphs leave open the possiblility that a pb can be recognized as a visisble saint even though he is in error on the particular question of baptism.