Are Baptism and the Lord's Supper sacraments and "means of grace"?

[steadfast7]

While an omission does not necessarily imply a positive affirmation of the opposite, it does imply that the confessors did not want to confess what they left out. At the very least, they created ambiguity which is one step removed from fully confessing together with the WCF.

 

[Herald]

Bill, the second sentence does not follow from the first. The confession would have to include an exclusive statement of some kind in order for an exception to be required. The mere omission of a word is no grounds for an exclusive assertion.

Matthew, it seems like a glaring omission. I mean, if the framers of the 1689 LBC had intended to convey the idea that baptism is a sign and seal, why would they not copy the WCF, seeing as many portions of the 1689 are verbatim quotes of the WCF? While the omission of a word does not necessarily make an exclusive statement, in the case of 29.1 it certainly does allow the exclusive assertion of baptism being a sign to stand on its own.

How does the "mere sign" terminology fit in with 30.1 of the confession when viewed in the light of the antipaedobaptist commitment to the affinity and analogy of baptism and the Lord's supper? 30.1 appears to suggest something more than a "mere sign" viewpoint.

While baptism and the Lord's Supper are both ordinances, there is not a one-to-one correlation between the two. Baptism is administered once. The Lord's Supper is administered often; the partaking thereof requiring a continual personal examination (1 Cor. 11:28). It is also a communal ordinance, whereas baptism is administered only to the one being baptized. When 30.1 says, "The supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by him the same night wherein he was betrayed for...confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof, their spiritual nourishment, and growth in him, their further engagement in, and to all duties which they owe to him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other" it speaks to the uniqueness of this ordinance without reference to baptism or connecting the two in any way. Indeed, if the confirming aspect of the Lord's Supper was intended to be communicated in 29.1 (re: baptism), 29.1 would have been a perfect place to say so.

 

[KMK]

Bill, the second sentence does not follow from the first. The confession would have to include an exclusive statement of some kind in order for an exception to be required. The mere omission of a word is no grounds for an exclusive assertion.

Matthew, it seems like a glaring omission. I mean, if the framers of the 1689 LBC had intended to convey the idea that baptism is a sign and seal, why would they not copy the WCF, seeing as many portions of the 1689 are verbatim quotes of the WCF? While the omission of a word does not necessarily make an exclusive statement, in the case of 29.1 it certainly does allow the exclusive assertion of baptism being a sign to stand on its own.

An omission, or addition or change of a single word does not necessarily indicate a departure in essential theology. It could be a clarification of some nuance.

For example:

WCF 11:1 Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies;[1] not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them,[2] they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.[3]

LBC 11:1 Those whom God effectually calls, he also freely justifies,1 not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous;2 not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone;3 not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness by faith,4 which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.5

Puritans were all agreed on the doctrine of Justification, but the Baptists decided to emphasize the active and passive parts of Christ's obedience. This in no way implies that the Westminster Divines denied the active obedience of Christ.

There may have been a controversy among Particular Baptists over whether Baptism and the Lord's Supper were means of grace or not, but it cannot be proven by a mere word change in the 1689. Are there any historical sources?

 

[KMK]

Obadiah Sedgwick also used the word 'ordinances' when discussing the means of grace.

Fourthly, if the Spirit be given unto us to make the Ordinances effectual unto us, then his presence should not take us off from Ordinances, but the Spirit is given to make the Ordinances effectual, they are so farre life unto us, as the Spirit gives life unto them: 2 Cor 3:16. The Bowels of Mercy Sealed

 

[Herald]

Bill, the second sentence does not follow from the first. The confession would have to include an exclusive statement of some kind in order for an exception to be required. The mere omission of a word is no grounds for an exclusive assertion.

Matthew, it seems like a glaring omission. I mean, if the framers of the 1689 LBC had intended to convey the idea that baptism is a sign and seal, why would they not copy the WCF, seeing as many portions of the 1689 are verbatim quotes of the WCF? While the omission of a word does not necessarily make an exclusive statement, in the case of 29.1 it certainly does allow the exclusive assertion of baptism being a sign to stand on its own.

An omission, or addition or change of a single word does not necessarily indicate a departure in essential theology. It could be a clarification of some nuance.

For example:

WCF 11:1 Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies;[1] not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them,[2] they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.[3]

LBC 11:1 Those whom God effectually calls, he also freely justifies,1 not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous;2 not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone;3 not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness by faith,4 which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.5

Puritans were all agreed on the doctrine of Justification, but the Baptists decided to emphasize the active and passive parts of Christ's obedience. This in no way implies that the Westminster Divines denied the active obedience of Christ.

There may have been a controversy among Particular Baptists over whether Baptism and the Lord's Supper were means of grace or not, but it cannot be proven by a mere word change in the 1689. Are there any historical sources?

Ken, I wasn't questioning whether Baptists view the ordinances as a means of grace, but rather whether Baptists view baptism as a sign and a seal. I believe, by omitting the word "seal" from 29.1, the framers of the 1689 LBC knew full well they were making a departure from the paedobaptist view.

 

[KMK]

Ken, I wasn't questioning whether Baptists view the ordinances as a means of grace, but rather whether Baptists view baptism as a sign and a seal. I believe, by omitting the word "seal" from 29.1, the framers of the 1689 LBC knew full well they were making a departure from the paedobaptist view.

Gotcha. That seems to be the general consensus among RBers.

 

[Reformation Monk]

I just stumbled on this thread and it is extremely interesting concerning a discussion I've been having with a long time good friend of mine who is my prayer partner. We meet regularly and he has been a Presbyterian for a long time, but he is always very openminded as to what the Scriptures say.

So now that I've told him that my views of baptism have changed and that I'm joining a RB Church, he of course has interred into quite a lengthy dialog with me as we have been exploring the Scriptures afresh to try to discern them in this area.

So it is extremely interesting that we as of today are now on the point of contention of who are the members of the body of Christ and exactly what does the "means of grace mean."

He of course is citing from the WCF and I have been taking a closer look at the Baptist Confession.

Anyway I was actually thinking a lot on this topic earlier today before I saw this thread..... pretty awesome.

Here were some of my personal thoughts...... stemming from one of his comments towards one of my positions.

Should the infants of believers be included in the New Covenant Community? Is the New Covenant sign of baptism offered to believers and their descendants?

As a Reformed Baptist do I withhold my children from the body of Christ, from the church until they profess belief?

My friend of course is a little discomforted with this idea. He is pretty perplexed that I've gone in that direction through Scripture.

Anyway, again this made me think of where exactly does the theological concept of "means of grace come from?"

I concluded that a "means of grace" is exactly what it says; any means by where regenerate truth is conveyed to an individual by the Holy Spirit.

So I would have to conclude that a means of grace would primarily have it's focus on saving grace. But of course there is also common grace communicated.

Anyway.... This brought me to an interesting question as I have been a Presbyterian for many years.

Do we look at the Sacraments/Ordinances as pretty much the same as Preaching? So in other words; do we look at the Church as a whole a vehicle through it's whole organic make up as a means of grace whereby it's members ( who can be either regenerate or unregenerate ) are consistently being offered saving truth?

Yeah I know that probably didn't make much sense.

I guess what I was trying to get at is that I believe that the Paedo's do have a pretty good reason if they put a strong emphasis in the Sacraments/Ordinances as being a continual means of saving grace to the visible church who is made up of both regenerate and unregenerate members. Visible and invisible church.

So, whereby, a child who starts to enter into an age of reason and starts to think about what it meant for them as an infant to be baptized; this becomes a means of grace for them, because it still communicates saving truth.


But............

The only problem with this whole theory is that for me personally, the New Testament describes baptism for believers in where it represents dying with Christ and being raised up with him in newness of life.

A child looking back on a baptism given to them while they were in a state of non-understanding, to me, can not apply this type of meaning to them.

Which brings me back to the question of how effectual are baptism and the Lords supper as a means of saving grace compared to the proclamation of the word?

I know that I'm all over.... just sharing my thoughts..... please correct me where I've totally slaughtered sound doctrine.

 

[KMK]

Which brings me back to the question of how effectual are baptism and the Lords supper as a means of saving grace compared to the proclamation of the word?

Dr. Jim Renihan makes an excellent point in the lecture linked before in regards to an important semicolon.

LBC 14:1 The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts,1 and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word;2 by which also, and by the administration of baptism and the Lord's supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God, it is increased and strengthened.

The presence of the semicolon, instead of a comma, after "ministry of the Word", demonstrates that the Particualr Baptists considered the ministry of the Word to be the primary means of grace and all others secondary. And, indeed, that is the teaching of Scripture.

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

In fact, all other means of grace, including the sacraments, are useless without the Word. The Lord's Supper has no meaning without the words, "This is my body...", for example.

 

[MW]

While the omission of a word does not necessarily make an exclusive statement, in the case of 29.1 it certainly does allow the exclusive assertion of baptism being a sign to stand on its own.

This only means that a subscriber can deny that it is a seal and still be confessional. The omission does not exclude the sealing idea to the point that the subscriber would need to issue an exception.

Indeed, if the confirming aspect of the Lord's Supper was intended to be communicated in 29.1 (re: baptism), 29.1 would have been a perfect place to say so.

This is "filling in the gaps" rather than "expounding the doctrine." On the basis of comparison between the chapters numerous claims could be made which were never intended by the authors.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Here were some of my personal thoughts...... stemming from one of his comments towards one of my positions...

Anyway, again this made me think of where exactly does the theological concept of "means of grace come from?"

I concluded that a "means of grace" is exactly what it says; any means by where regenerate truth is conveyed to an individual by the Holy Spirit.

So I would have to conclude that a means of grace would primarily have it's focus on saving grace. But of course there is also common grace communicated.

Anyway.... This brought me to an interesting question as I have been a Presbyterian for many years.

Do we look at the Sacraments/Ordinances as pretty much the same as Preaching? So in other words; do we look at the Church as a whole a vehicle through it's whole organic make up as a means of grace whereby it's members ( who can be either regenerate or unregenerate ) are consistently being offered saving truth?

Yeah I know that probably didn't make much sense.

I guess what I was trying to get at is that I believe that the Paedo's do have a pretty good reason if they put a strong emphasis in the Sacraments/Ordinances as being a continual means of saving grace to the visible church who is made up of both regenerate and unregenerate members. Visible and invisible church.

So, whereby, a child who starts to enter into an age of reason and starts to think about what it meant for them as an infant to be baptized; this becomes a means of grace for them, because it still communicates saving truth.

You have a poor understanding of what a "means of grace" is and, consequently, the relationship of a sacrament to the spiritual reality it is intended to signify and seal. What you believe you are rejecting in the WCF's view of grace bears no relationship to the way the Bible or the WCF understands it. You are speaking of grace as some sort of substance in your description above. What you've "walked away" from is not the WCF but your own misunderstanding of what the WCF confesses.

I exhorted on John 6 last Sunday: http://www.hopeofchrist.net/2011/07/the-living-bread-from-heaven-john-6/

Interestingly enough, the problem with the blindness of the Jews is that every time Christ tries to draw a "sacramental" relationship between bread or manna and His own person, the carnal mind keeps getting fixated on the bare sign. Bread is bread. manna is manna. Bodies are bodies. John 6 is a textbook case where Truth is being communicated via the sign, the sign is even being explained, but the audience (being carnal) misses the whole point. It does not, however, change the facts of the case as Christ has revealed them. To some, who are given spiritual perception, the reality of the event is communicated. Unless a man be drawn by the Father, the sign falls on blind eyes. What is intended to lift one's spiritual apprehension to the provision of Christ remains a mere carnal object. Bread is bread or it is just a "bare sign". God cannot seal anything spiritually to such a person because it has not been given.

I would also point out that, by your reasoning, nothing that was signified by God in John 6 was of any spiritual value to John in his recollection of the event (even though it appears that not even he understood these things at the time they occurred as with many of Christ's signs). Furthermore, because it happened in the past, nothing that Christ did can have any spiritual value for us. Christ would have to perform all of His historical work in the present (after we've been regenerated) for any sign to have spiritual benefit to us. If the standard is that all that God signifies and seals has to be present historically to our mature minds then even the Cross of Christ and His Resurrection bear no spiritual significance unless they be re-presented to our mature minds and not merely by believing upon what God accomplished historically and finally.

 

[ac7k]

Ok, I am just a layman... new to reformed circles... and not sure how elementary or advanced of a discussion this is, but here are my thoughts.

I was always taught as a Baptist, that the word Sacrament meant that it conveyed grace... whereas an ordinance is an outward expression of the grace that has already been attained.

I usually would use the analogy of the wedding band. The wedding band symbolizes my commitment to my wife, but in out itself, is not my commitment to my wife.

I always thought that Christ was our "means of grace" and anything in addition to his work on the cross, was works on our part towards salvation.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Ok, I am just a layman... new to reformed circles... and not sure how elementary or advanced of a discussion this is, but here are my thoughts.

I was always taught as a Baptist, that the word Sacrament meant that it conveyed grace...

You were taught poorly by whoever taught this. A word is defined by its use.

A Roman Catholic use of sacrament is the idea of "conveying" or infusing grace through the working of a work. Grace is a substance in such a schema.

The WCF presents the sacraments as follows:

CHAPTER XXVII.

Of the Sacraments.

I. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him: as also to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word.

II. There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.

III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

IV. There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the gospels, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord: neither or which may be dispensed by any but a minister of the Word, lawfully ordained.

V. The sacraments of the Old Testament, in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the New.

I. notes that sacraments, in the spiritual sense, represent Christ and his benefits and our interest in him. This is how one needs to understand the idea of "grace". Not that some sort of substance is conveyed but that Christ and his benefits and our interest in Him are given us through physical means.

III. further notes that nothing is conferred simply by the working of the works but that the sealing of Christ and his benefits and our interest in Him are the sovereign work of the spirit.

As above, John 6 is a perfect example where God does something "signficant" to raise our eyes from the sign to something spiritual He is confirming in and through it but it is of no profit to the mind of flesh.

Hence, on the one hand it is incorrect to say that the definition of a sacrament is that "grace is conveyed" because there's nothing magical about a sacrament that calls God down to the altar that He may do our bidding and give us grace. On the other hand, we are weak and God has been pleased to instituted visible signs of His grace such that there's much more going on in a Sacrament then our minds remembering something Christ did in the past. Through God's spirit, God raises our spiritual senses through our physical senses such that the eating of bread and drinking of wine or the washing of the body communicates something to our spiritual senses right now and is not merely an exercise in our mental recollection.

 

[Herald]

This only means that a subscriber can deny that it is a seal and still be confessional. The omission does not exclude the sealing idea to the point that the subscriber would need to issue an exception.

What you're missing in all of this is viewing the confession in light of historic Particular Baptist belief and practice. In his A Treatise on Church Order, John L. Dagg wrote the following in his refutation on infant baptism, "But the supposed seal of God's covenant is neither in his flesh, nor in his memory, and his conscience has no Scriptural release from the personal obligation of a baptismal profession." Dagg was not arguing that baptism was a seal only if administered upon profession; he was disputing the paedobaptist view of the physical ordinance as seal. Dagg held to the orthodox Baptist belief that the seal of God is by the Spirit at regeneration. Now, there may be some Particular or Reformed Baptist over the years who has taught that baptism is sign and seal, but I am not aware of them, and I firmly convinced they are in a distinct enough minority to be considered fringe. However, even leaving historic Particular/Reformed Baptist belief and practice aside, the confession is not ambiguous on baptism being a sign only.

 

[Reformation Monk]

Hence, on the one hand it is incorrect to say that the definition of a sacrament is that "grace is conveyed" because there's nothing magical about a sacrament that calls God down to the altar that He may do our bidding and give us grace. On the other hand, we are weak and God has been pleased to instituted visible signs of His grace such that there's much more going on in a Sacrament then our minds remembering something Christ did in the past. Through God's spirit, God raises our spiritual senses through our physical senses such that the eating of bread and drinking of wine or the washing of the body communicates something to our spiritual senses right now and is not merely an exercise in our mental recollection.

Which is where I believe there is a difference of opinion between the WCF adherents and RB's.

Which was the intent of the OP I thought; which is also why he expressed that he wanted to try to keep this within the RB community.

I don't personally agree with your definition of the sacraments and I certainly don't believe that the "means of grace" is some kind of "substance."

In Acts 2, the people who "heard" Peter had their hearts "pricked" or quickened. This was the Holy Spirit working super naturally through normal natural means.

This is how I see the Ordinances of God as in their function.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Hence, on the one hand it is incorrect to say that the definition of a sacrament is that "grace is conveyed" because there's nothing magical about a sacrament that calls God down to the altar that He may do our bidding and give us grace. On the other hand, we are weak and God has been pleased to instituted visible signs of His grace such that there's much more going on in a Sacrament then our minds remembering something Christ did in the past. Through God's spirit, God raises our spiritual senses through our physical senses such that the eating of bread and drinking of wine or the washing of the body communicates something to our spiritual senses right now and is not merely an exercise in our mental recollection.

Which is where I believe there is a difference of opinion between the WCF adherents and RB's.

Which was the intent of the OP I thought; which is also why he expressed that he wanted to try to keep this within the RB community.

I don't personally agree with your definition of the sacraments and I certainly don't believe that the "means of grace" is some kind of "substance."

In Acts 2, the people who "heard" Peter had their hearts "pricked" or quickened. This was the Holy Spirit working super naturally through normal natural means.

This is how I see the Ordinances of God as in their function.

My point is that your description of the Reformed PB view of the Sacraments was very poor. Thus, it is hard for me to accept that you disagree with something you do not understand well enough to accurately describe.

For example, James White on Thursday's Dividing Line was playing a Calvary Chapel pastor who grossly misrepresented the Reformed view of soteriology. The man stated that he disagreed with the Reformed view but never demonstrated with his words that he had even apprehended what the Reformed confess concerning such matters.

BTW, this is in the Baptism forum and I am free to respond to misunderstandings posted by any party.

 

[MW]

What you're missing in all of this is viewing the confession in light of historic Particular Baptist belief and practice. In his A Treatise on Church Order, John L. Dagg wrote the following in his refutation on infant baptism, "But the supposed seal of God's covenant is neither in his flesh, nor in his memory, and his conscience has no Scriptural release from the personal obligation of a baptismal profession." Dagg was not arguing that baptism was a seal only if administered upon profession; he was disputing the paedobaptist view of the physical ordinance as seal. Dagg held to the orthodox Baptist belief that the seal of God is by the Spirit at regeneration. Now, there may be some Particular or Reformed Baptist over the years who has taught that baptism is sign and seal, but I am not aware of them, and I firmly convinced they are in a distinct enough minority to be considered fringe. However, even leaving historic Particular/Reformed Baptist belief and practice aside, the confession is not ambiguous on baptism being a sign only.

We were in fact examining the confession itself, not its interpretation in Particular Baptist history. To return to the point of discussion -- "sign only" is your gloss on the confession. The addition of "only" adds exclusivity to the statement of the confession. To then require a subscriber to note an exception to the confession because he does not hold to the sign only concept is to bind a man's conscience to your extra-confessional gloss.

 

[Herald]

Matthew, the confession does not stand by itself. It was written for this very purpose:

(to)...recommend to their perusal the confession of our faith, which confession we own, as containing the doctrine of our faith and practice...

Obviously there was a common doctrine held to by Particular Baptists before the confession was written. It certainly continued after the confession was written. The confession does not exist in a vacuum. I believe most Particular Baptists have rightly esteemed it since its ratification and publication in the matter of baptism and all that pertains to that specific ordinance. It would strain credulity indeed, if so many Particular Baptists, over five centuries, have bound their consciences in viewing baptism as a sign only of the thing signified.

You would accuse us of "gloss" because the preponderance of Baptists are convinced the omission of baptism as a seal indicates exactly that. That the overwhelming majority of Particular Baptists have held to the sign-only view either renders the confession mute on the topic or confirms their understanding of it. Were you a Baptist, I suppose the additional proofs I am able to provide may hold sway with you. As it is you're not. I'll leave it at that.

 

[MW]

Were you a Baptist, I suppose the additional proofs I am able to provide may hold sway with you. As it is you're not. I'll leave it at that.

So you are saying, It takes one to know one. If so, it is historical theology at its worst.

 

[steadfast7]

I'm trying to step back and look at this in macro. It seems to me the differences lie in how specifically the Baptist and paedobaptist are able to name the relationship between the sign and the thing signified. Paedobaptists are able to be more general and bold about the assertion that baptism is both sign and seal because they do not seek to correspond the sacrament with particular individuals receiving them as elect. Baptists are more concerned to make the right correspondence (while allowing for some error), so seal (authentication) is left out. Would that sound right?

 

[Herald]

I'm trying to step back and look at this in macro. It seems to me the differences lie in how specifically the Baptist and paedobaptist are able to name the relationship between the sign and the thing signified. Paedobaptists are able to be more general and bold about the assertion that baptism is both sign and seal because they do not seek to correspond the sacrament with particular individuals receiving them as elect. Baptists are more concerned to make the right correspondence (while allowing for some error), so seal (authentication) is left out. Would that sound right?

Dennis, actually the reason why Baptists view baptism as a sign is because the sealing work of God's covenant is accomplished by the Holy Spirit at the point of regeneration.

Ephesians 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-- having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

So, the seal comes first, through the agency of the Spirit, then comes baptism which is a sign of that seal.

 

[Grimmson]

I'm trying to step back and look at this in macro. It seems to me the differences lie in how specifically the Baptist and paedobaptist are able to name the relationship between the sign and the thing signified. Paedobaptists are able to be more general and bold about the assertion that baptism is both sign and seal because they do not seek to correspond the sacrament with particular individuals receiving them as elect. Baptists are more concerned to make the right correspondence (while allowing for some error), so seal (authentication) is left out. Would that sound right?

Dennis, actually the reason why Baptists view baptism as a sign is because the sealing work of God's covenant is accomplished by the Holy Spirit at the point of regeneration.

Ephesians 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-- having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

So, the seal comes first, through the agency of the Spirit, then comes baptism which is a sign of that seal.

Yep, That exactly our position.

 

[Herald]

Were you a Baptist, I suppose the additional proofs I am able to provide may hold sway with you. As it is you're not. I'll leave it at that.

So you are saying, It takes one to know one. If so, it is historical theology at its worst.

No, Matthew. I'm making the point that you are so locked in your opinion of what Reformed and Particular Baptists believe about their own confession that it makes me question your motives. Is it historical theology to cite such men as Benjamin Keach and William Kiffin, both signatories to the 1689 LBC, as being on record that baptism is a sign only of the thing signified? Those are some of the additional proofs I am able to provide. The 1689 LBC is not a republication of the WCF. There are notable differences between the two confessions and those differences exist for a reason. The framers of the 1689 held to baptism being a sign only. Why then would they leave it intentionally ambiguous so as to allow subscribers to differ with a core and defining Baptist doctrine? Answer: it was not left ambiguous. The omission of baptism being a seal in 29.1 was purposeful.

 

[KMK]

John Gill on Rom 4:11 sums up the RB perspective on baptism as a 'seal'.

It may be inquired whether circumcision being called a seal, will prove that baptism is a seal of the covenant? I answer, that circumcision was only a seal to Abraham of a peculiar covenant made with him, and of a particular promise made to him, and was it to be admitted a seal of the covenant of grace, it will not prove baptism to be such; since, as has been observed, baptism does not succeed it in place, in time, and use; and could this be allowed that it succeeds it, and is a seal of the righteousness of faith, as that was, it can only be a seal to them that have both faith and righteousness, and not to them that have neither; it would only at most be a seal to believers. But, alas! not ordinances, but other things more valuable than they, are the seals of the covenant, and of believers; the blood of Christ is the seal, and the only seal of the covenant of grace, by which its promises and blessings are ratified and confirmed; and the Holy Spirit is the only earnest, pledge, seal, and sealer of the saints, until the day of redemption. The apostle uses the word "seal" concerning circumcision, it being a word his countrymen made use of when they spoke of it, thus paraphrasing on So 3:8...

I have never read any of the Particular Baptists contradict Gill on this point.

 

[KMK]

Thomas Helwys:

Furthermore, you frame your consequence with these words as infants were sealed with the seal of he covenant under the law, so they must be sealed with the seal of the covenant under the gospel. We demand of you, is washing with water a seal? If it is a seal, it is a seal in the flesh. Where then is the print or impression of it? It has none, therefore, it cannot be a seal...If you will examine the New Testament throughout, you will find no seal, nor none sealed, but those that believe, "who are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise," (Eph 1:13) by which in the Holy SPirit "we are all baptized into one body" (1 Cor 12:13). There is but "one spirit, one baptism, and one body," (Eph 4:4,5) whose holy seal of the spirit infants cannot have. The life and Writings of Thomas Helwys; Early, Early; pg. 282

 

[KMK]

Dagg:

The theory is, that baptism takes the place of circumcision; but how can this theory annul the express command of God? We need authority for changing the form of the seal, as great, and as express, as that by which the original form was institute; but we look for it in cain in the Holy Scriptures. Instead of finding an express precept for changing the form, or an express declaration that it has been changed, we find decisive proof, that the inspired apostles did not understand baptism to be a new form of the old seal. They discussed the question, whether gentile converts ought to be circumcised, and they decided in the negative; but they did not so decide, on the ground that baptism had taken the place of circumcision, and rendered the continued use of the old form unnecessary. Manual of Theology; Vol 1; pg. 192

Reformed Baptists do not agree with Westminster that baptism is a 'seal' of the NC. However, generally, Reformed Baptists do agree with Westminster that baptism is a 'means of grace' and a 'sacrament'.

 

[MW]

No, Matthew. I'm making the point that you are so locked in your opinion of what Reformed and Particular Baptists believe about their own confession that it makes me question your motives. Is it historical theology to cite such men as Benjamin Keach and William Kiffin, both signatories to the 1689 LBC, as being on record that baptism is a sign only of the thing signified? Those are some of the additional proofs I am able to provide. The 1689 LBC is not a republication of the WCF. There are notable differences between the two confessions and those differences exist for a reason. The framers of the 1689 held to baptism being a sign only. Why then would they leave it intentionally ambiguous so as to allow subscribers to differ with a core and defining Baptist doctrine? Answer: it was not left ambiguous. The omission of baptism being a seal in 29.1 was purposeful.

Bill, I haven't offered an opinion on "their own confession." The point I have made in this thread with respect to "your own confession" is that the requirement of an exception is not warranted by the confession itself. It is your gloss. Should you demonstrate from extra-confessional sources that this gloss is shared by particular baptists then you will have shown that this is an extra-confessional gloss -- that is all.

I dislike your method of "owning the confession" to the point that it excludes impartial interpretation from those who do not "own the confession." One main purpose of a confession is full disclosure of beliefs. The idea that some hidden hand shake is needed in order to understand it is simply cultish. This is an historical document and should be interpreted accordingly. As such it is an item of public domain.

As noted earlier, if the omission is purposeful, one must still explain the actual purpose before leaping to a specific conclusion.

I think you might need to go back and rethink your strategy with respect to the "seal" argument. You seem to think that the "Spirit-seal" is exclusive to particular baptists. Some research on the matter would reveal that this is the Reformed teaching. See WCF 12.1, "sealed to the day of redemption." The sacramental seal is of an entirely different nature. There is no justification for setting the two in exclusive contrast.

 

[MW]

John Gill on Rom 4:11 sums up the RB perspective on baptism as a 'seal'.

I think the appendix to the confession would be more to the point, but it clarifies the subject by quoting a paedobaptist member of the Westminster Assembly on the subject, thereby demonstrating that the difference doesn't lie in the interpretation of Romans 4:11.

The appendix also states,

If our brethren do suppose baptism to be the seal of the Covenant which God makes with every believer (of which the Scriptures are altogether silent) it is not our concern to contend with them herein; yet we conceive the seal of that Covenant is the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ in the particular and individual persons in whom he resides, and nothing else, neither do they or we suppose that baptism is in any such manner substituted in the place of circumcision, as to have the same (and no other) latitude, extent, or terms, then circumcision had.

The appendix also appears to be extra-confessional but it demonstrates that at least some of the first subscribers did not understand the disagreement in the way it is being presented in this thread.

 

[KMK]

John Gill on Rom 4:11 sums up the RB perspective on baptism as a 'seal'.

I think the appendix to the confession would be more to the point, but it clarifies the subject by quoting a paedobaptist member of the Westminster Assembly on the subject, thereby demonstrating that the difference doesn't lie in the interpretation of Romans 4:11.

The appendix also states,

If our brethren do suppose baptism to be the seal of the Covenant which God makes with every believer (of which the Scriptures are altogether silent) it is not our concern to contend with them herein; yet we conceive the seal of that Covenant is the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ in the particular and individual persons in whom he resides, and nothing else, neither do they or we suppose that baptism is in any such manner substituted in the place of circumcision, as to have the same (and no other) latitude, extent, or terms, then circumcision had.

The appendix also appears to be extra-confessional but it demonstrates that at least some of the first subscribers did not understand the disagreement in the way it is being presented in this thread.

Thanks for this, Rev Winzer. It is not my concern to contend with my paedo brothers upon something that is not truly a controversy.

BTW, what is the origin of the appendix to the 1689?

 

[KMK]

And now from the "Just When You Thought You Had It Figured Out" Department, here is a quote by M'Crie that Rev Winzer posted on an older thread found here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f122/baptism-sign-seal-new-covenant-36625/

Be pleased, then, to mark the sense in which we understand the word seal as applied to baptism. The term is used in three senses in Scripture. The first is in the sense of security, as when a person seals a letter. "The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his." (2 Tim. ii. 19.) The second is in the sense of distinction, as when a merchant puts his seal on his goods to appropriate and distinguish them. "In whom after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise." (Eph. i. 13.) The third is in the sense of confirmation, as when a seal is affixed to a charter or bargain. "And because of all this we make a sure covenant, and write it; and our princes, Levites, and priests, seal unto it." (Neh. ix. 38.)

Now, in applying the term seal to the ordinance of baptism, it is not either in the first or second senses here noticed that we are to understand it. It is not used in the sense of securing the person, or of distinguishing him from others. Baptism is not an assurance of salvation to any, or a pledge of sonship. In this sense it is the Spirit alone that is the seal of God's people. It is in the third sense only, namely, in that of the confirmation of a deed, that we use the term in relation to baptism. It is the seal which God has been pleased to append to the charter of his covenant. It is not like the signet which Pharaoh put on the hand of Joseph as a badge of distinction, or like the ring put on the hand of the penitent prodigal in token of acceptance; it is rather like the signet by which King Ahasuerus sealed the letters which saved the Jews from destruction.

Thus, while baptism viewed as a symbol has a relation to the grace of the covenant, viewed as a seal it stands related to the covenant itself. We must carefully distinguish between the grace of the covenant, and the covenant of grace. Baptism is the sign, but it is not, properly or directly, the seal of regeneration; it symbolizes the blessing, but it seals the covenant. By keeping this distinction in view, you will save yourselves from a world of confusion. By not attending to it our views have been sadly misrepresented. The distinction is very obvious. As a symbol, the ordinance addresses itself to the senses; as a seal, it appeals to faith. As a symbol, it is a badge of distinction from the world; as a seal, it stands related, not to the person, but to the covenant. A seal implies something spoken or written; and the design of baptism as a seal, is to confirm the faith of the Church in God's written Word, in his everlasting covenant with her. It is the visible pledge added to the verbal promise. And where is the inconsistency of supposing that God may ratify his word by an outward symbol? Has he not "confirmed his promise by an oath, that by two immutable things, wherein it was impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation?" And why not also confirm it by a seal? All bonds and covenants are thus confirmed, and God never made a covenant yet without a seal. The tree of life was the seal of Adam's covenant, the rainbow was the seal of Noah's, circumcision was the seal of Abraham's, and baptism is the seal of Christ's.

In accordance, therefore, with the very design of a sacrament, as well as with the uniform doctrine of the primitive church and of our reformers, we maintain that baptism is not merely a symbol of spiritual grace, but is the seal of God's holy covenant. And remember it is God's seal. It is not the baptizer's, nor the baptized's, but God's only. Its validity is independent of man's act. God delivers the promise signed and sealed, presenting it to all, and saying, "Here is my salvation: behold the seal of the King!" And there it stands, sealed and sure, whether we accept or reject it. "If we believe not, he abideth faithful; he cannot deny himself."

BTW, M'Crie's Lectures in their entirety are available here: http://books.google.com/books?id=u8...&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Herald]

Ken, Thomas M'Crie was a Presbyterian, no?