1976 CRC \"Service of Baptism\" - Any Paedo Defenders?
Here are the relevant portions, with some points of concern highlighted.
Now, I really want to read this with as much grace as possible. So instead of blasting away from the start, I'll just ask questions of those who do not view this statement as rank heresy (and I assume there are some, since we have CRC ministers here).
1) Does this leave any room whatsoever for a properly-baptized individual to be anything but saved? That is, does it acknowledge the possibility of a baptized covenant member being non-elect? If so, where in the text is this allowed for?
2) If the answer to 1 is 'yes,' and this doesn't teach that all the properly baptized are guaranteed salvation (a big if), then how is that non-elect individual "assured by Christ Himself that He washes us in his blood from all our sins" by virtue of his baptism?
This is NOT a paedo/credo issue. Do NOT debate the validity of paedobaptism here. This thread is for the analysis of this statement to determine what, in fact, it teaches. I am after the author's original intent in 1566, but moreso the intent of the CRC as they adopted this updated translation of that statement.
Basically, I'd like one solid reason that I can grasp onto in order to not charge the CRC with teaching outright heresy on this point. But if it says what I thought it did, after my first (and second, and tenth) readings of the text....the there is no other label possible. In every possible light I can think of reading it, it denies the gospel.
I know of more than one Reformed Presbyterian who has come into contact with this and has been outraged. And rightly so, In my humble opinion.
So please, someone explain how all of those descriptions of baptism do not, in actuality, give a guarantee of salvation to the recipient. Gracias.
Oh, the entire text can be found here: http://www.crcna.org/whatweoffer/resources/synodical/liturgy/baptism76b.asp
[Edited on 10-8-2005 by smhbbag]
Here are the relevant portions, with some points of concern highlighted.
Second, baptism is a sign and seal that our sins are washed away through Jesus Christ. For this reason we are baptized into the name of God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Our baptism into the name of God the Father is his assurance to us that he makes an everlasting covenant of grace with us and adopts us as his children and heirs. Therefore, he surrounds us with his goodness and protects us from evil or turns it to our profit.
When we are baptized into the name of the Son, we are assured by Christ himself that he washes us in his blood from all our sins. Christ joins us to himself so that we share in his death and resurrection. Through this union with Christ we are liberated from our sins and regarded as righteous before God.
Baptism into the name of the Holy Spirit is the assurance that the Spirit of God will make his home within us. While living within us, the Spirit will continually work to strengthen and deepen our union with Christ. He will make real in our lives Christ's work of washing away our sins. He will also help us each day to live the new life we have in Christ. As a result of his work within us, we shall one day be presented without the stain of sin among the assembly of the elect in life eternal.
Now, I really want to read this with as much grace as possible. So instead of blasting away from the start, I'll just ask questions of those who do not view this statement as rank heresy (and I assume there are some, since we have CRC ministers here).
1) Does this leave any room whatsoever for a properly-baptized individual to be anything but saved? That is, does it acknowledge the possibility of a baptized covenant member being non-elect? If so, where in the text is this allowed for?
2) If the answer to 1 is 'yes,' and this doesn't teach that all the properly baptized are guaranteed salvation (a big if), then how is that non-elect individual "assured by Christ Himself that He washes us in his blood from all our sins" by virtue of his baptism?
This is NOT a paedo/credo issue. Do NOT debate the validity of paedobaptism here. This thread is for the analysis of this statement to determine what, in fact, it teaches. I am after the author's original intent in 1566, but moreso the intent of the CRC as they adopted this updated translation of that statement.
Basically, I'd like one solid reason that I can grasp onto in order to not charge the CRC with teaching outright heresy on this point. But if it says what I thought it did, after my first (and second, and tenth) readings of the text....the there is no other label possible. In every possible light I can think of reading it, it denies the gospel.
I know of more than one Reformed Presbyterian who has come into contact with this and has been outraged. And rightly so, In my humble opinion.
So please, someone explain how all of those descriptions of baptism do not, in actuality, give a guarantee of salvation to the recipient. Gracias.
Oh, the entire text can be found here: http://www.crcna.org/whatweoffer/resources/synodical/liturgy/baptism76b.asp
[Edited on 10-8-2005 by smhbbag]