Infant Baptism????

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by MeanieCalvinist
SemperFidelis,

You can correct me if I am wrong here but you seem very antagonistic in your responses to Sam. I do not understand your need to go into personal attacks against the "Reformed Baptists." From what I see and you can correct me if I am wrong, Sam is just trying to interact and reason from the Scripture with you concerning this matter. I also understand that many times our personal convictions can blind us in our interactions.(I know this from personal experience).
However, I have seen no response to the questions that Sam has posted concerning believer baptism. I am hoping to get a clear understanding of why you hold to the beliefs you do. I am always willing to be conformed by the word of God. Again, I have really enjoyed the many discussions on this issue and would be willing to even change my own position on this matter IF, I could find clear biblical evidence.

This is why I have been intently reading this discussion. BTW, we all have our presups. We have to start from somewhere; My presup is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures ALONE are the Word of God and the only authority concerning our faith and practices.

Please take that time to answer Sam's questions, I am very interested in hearing what you have to share from the Scriptures.

In Christ,

MeanieCalvinist

PS. No I am not a Charles Finney Fan :scholar:
Antagonistic? No. Impatient? Yes.

Sam joined this forum as this thread was beginning. This is not Sam's thread. Look at the original post. The question was from a Presbyterian to the group asking for some opinions. I gave mine. Sam jumped in as one of his first posts and posted "signature" Baptistic theology regarding the sacrament.

I responded by making general observations showing the differences in basic assumptions regarding the nature of the sacrament. From there, Bruce began to answer more detailed questions from Sam (mind you, outside the intent of the OP). Bruce thought Sam was asking questions to try to understand the Presbyterian position but then Sam began to parse his explanation and use the thread as an opportunity to put forward a full-orbed discussion of why he is a Reformed Baptist.

As I have explained, ALREADY, I am not interested in dealing with ALL of Sam's misconceptions regarding the Scripture. Call them presuppositions, call them axioms, call them a priori beliefs - call them whatever you want - there is just too much to undo. It simply does not do to take on the Scriptures as he has presented them. He's gone far down the road in forming his conclusions about what they mean before he gets to them. He says he has not but his interpretational grid blinks like a big neon light for many of us who have been interacting with each other for a while.

So, No, I will not answer Sam's questions. This forum is certainly a great place to go to learn and interact with one another but it is a bit rude to hijack another man's Original post and then insist that people give a full-orbed critique of how you understand and interpret the Scriptures. If Sam or you want to start your own thread and ask the group to work some of the issues raised then be my guest. I would recommend you first look to see if some of the ideas have been debated vigorously within the first page of threads (as many have). I also recommend taking on fewer, rather than many, issues at a time. Most conclusions are connected to a few core assumptions.

As for myself, I've tried to "discipline" myself not to keep too many plates spinning. I have a profession, after all, that keeps me pretty busy and a family to look after. The "Let's discuss every reason why I'm a Reformed Baptist" threads lead down too many rabbit holes. I have engaged aggressively on the Piper thread to stick to one point as much as possible but you can see how much baggage is brought to bear even on 7 verses of the Bible.

Finally, for you and Sam, my point regarding Narratives and neo-Pentacostalism is a very important one for you both to consider. Neo-Pentecostals will point to the narratives in Acts to show that, in ever instance, Baptism of the Holy Spirit follows Christian Baptism. They use the same argument from Narrative that Sam uses (Show me an example of baptism by the Holy Spirit that doesn't come long after the actual baptism). The challenge "Are you a neo-Pentecostal" was meant to cause some reflection on the value of Narratives to form Systems of Doctrine.

[Edited on 3-10-2006 by SemperFideles]
 
SemperFideles,

I am not here to debate, and completely understand your frustrations.
I guess it is hard to really read the tone of a person over the keyboard. Thank you for clarifying a few things. I also understand what you mean concerning neo-Pentacostles using of narratives and making them the normatives. I am going to leave you with one thought, and I am not asking for a response. I believe Christ made it clear in the Great Commision that we are to make disciples and to Baptize them in the name of The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To me becoming a disciple precedes the baptism. Now, what I have seen in the narrative is that a confession of faith always precededs baptism in the NT.

Again, I am not looking for a response. I am just sharing a few thoughts..

P.S. As a fromer Army Ranger; I thank you for your service to this great country! :handshake:

In Christ,

MeanieCalvinist

[Edited on 3-10-2006 by MeanieCalvinist]

[Edited on 3-10-2006 by MeanieCalvinist]

[Edited on 3-10-2006 by MeanieCalvinist]
 
You can sense a difference immediately in the way that Sam and Bruce talk about the sacrament. To Sam, the issue of the validity of Baptism is very existential: Baptism "...is valid on the basis of a valid belief and repentance...." I'm not sure what this means. Does this mean that if, at the time of one's original baptism, one concludes that his faith was false he must conclude the original baptism was not valid and must be re-baptized until it sticks? What about later when one undergoes the doubt that oft times wrack some believers: "Did I really believe then? I'm so sinful. Am I realy saved? I better get re-baptized." In fact, this "personal belief" criterion is one of the reasons why some believers in Arminian Churches get baptized over and over and over again.

To equate Baptism to "...an outward sign of an inward reality..." makes the rite far too personal and subject to subjectivity in my estimation.

And

There is no such thing as rebaptism. Either you are baptized or you aren't"¦etc"¦


Rich & Bruce,

Those were wonderful Gospel and strengthening posts on this very issue. I thank you for such strengthening of the faith of myself and believers. And I would hope on this post that this wouldn´t be lost for the sake of just arguing. This really becomes in my humble estimation the crux of the issue for the health of the souls of the brethren. It´s not about being right or wrong but the missed blessing and wonderful condescension that our heavenly Father, Christ and Holy Spirit make to our weaknesses in Word and Sacraments. And this is true not only of baptism but of the Lord´s Supper and even "œfaith" itself. If you make a thing a "œLaw", just another "œto do" then naturally I must somehow get it right in order to have peace with God (or so I falsely think). The "œgetting it right" (works) becomes the deadly emphasis and actually to the danger of one´s soul. Thus the issue becomes, "œHow do I do this, and when shall I know?" The emphasis falls on "œme" to DO and we are back to works salvation at least implicitly though explicitly we would state "œjustified by faith alone". It becomes a disconnect between what we profess to believe and what we functionally believe. Anyone can formulate and state "œjustification by faith alone", but functionally what is true? Lost in this process, however it comes about, is the fixing of our eyes upon Christ Who alone is the "œAuthor and Finisher of our faith", the Root and source of all things faith, hope and love for us.

He is contained in, how this is denominationally - aside, Word and Sacrament (the Word/message itself or the Word/message annexed to the Sacraments gives them their only and real power as it is attend by the Holy Spirit). The Sacraments are not devoid and empty of Christ AS Christ, that very Gospel whereby we are initiated and sustained into the faith. It is very powerful to know that "œI" did not baptize myself but that God came to me in providence. I know more baptized myself than did I seek after God in the Gospel"¦it all came to me, though the agency of men and myself where moved to do this. From our perspective we tend to miss this majestic sovereignty of God in providence. This was the exact confusion Israel had over circumcision, they made it law/works over what it really was Gospel/gift. But if I think even to the slightest degree that I did it, then of course I cannot rest in it. Here we see the difference in wrongly or rightly understanding both the Word and the Sacraments; and whether or not they become false hope and/or terror to us (law/works) Vs. initiators and strengtheners to true faith (Gospel/gift).

In the realm of baptism, Rich hit it on the head, "œ"¦valid on the basis of valid belief and repentance"¦etc"¦". Anyone who has gone through these fiery trials IMMEDIATELY knows what this means be it baptism or "œfaith" itself. This is why "œRe-"œ everything under the sun is done by the struggling Christian rather than returning to the Word, Baptism and the Lord´s Table. IF a teaching has taken these away from the believer as Gospel, then naturally when they need strengthening they turn to other things or make these "œto dos" (works) in order to be assured of salvation. But as those who know this and have gone through this, no peace with God is to be had, OR some are deceived and think that by these works (even through otherwise true things like baptism, circumcision under the Jews) or some works attached under the guise of "œfruits to the faith" or "œevidence" that they are saved. But what are both the terrorized not trusting in and the falsely secure trusting in? The former have under terror lost Christ and seek for works to bring them peace, hence "œre-"œ everything, nothing but burdens and works. The later are falsely secure without Christ (though they might use his name and doctrinal formulations) and secure in their "œfruit" as if it is fruits of faith, so they think. But the Word and Sacraments, these things were graciously given to us FOR our faith not against it in terror OR false security. One can falsely rest in some "˜do´ extracted from the Word, Baptism or the Supper if one makes a "œwork" or "œlaw" of any of these, even if it is only implicit or functionally (the disconnect between doctrine and reality). It is different to see the Sacraments as a "œwork", "œlaw" or "œprecept" to do BECAUSE of "œfaith" (which is upside down) Vs. Gospel, Good News, Gifts FOR faith which is giving the gift as meant.

The minute we think, even if it is implicit to our thinking, that we had anything to do with anything (sacraments or repentance and faith) or it is dependant upon us, even "œfaith", then comes the terror, "œDid I do enough, did I really and truly believe/repent, etc"¦". For then we have turned from faith fixed on Christ alone to a false faith that even might call itself "˜faith´. I thoroughly believe this is one of the devil´s greatest deceptions and this based upon the fact that above all he is not so much worried about our gross sins but that we would not nakedly trust in Christ but blind men that they would not believe. If you wonder why believers struggle so much in love and true good works, it´s because Christ is not strongly proclaimed as Christ. One´s preaching primarily precepts and naked exhortations as emphasis or main diet IS the reason Christians are so weak and lacking, one gotten it backwards and stumbled over the Stumbling stone. At the base of it is a complete miss understanding of what initiates, sustains and strengthens true faith and the true fruits arising there from. It is a complete upside down flip of the whole of the Christian faith.

E.g. In today´s understanding it is wrong to say to someone who may begin to see their fallen selves and ask us, "œWhat shall I do?" and reply, "œYou must believe or just believe in Christ." We have to consider today´s language and the way we use it. This is where - call it what you will, arminian, pelagian, semi-pelagian or suffice it to say the fallen man who desires to "œdo" something to save himself - really reveals itself because a "œto do" is still being requested. No, one must boldly and literally proclaim Christ FOR them, it is literally a proclamation to them of the NEWS, the Good News, "œTHIS has happened FOR YOU." That´s to give the Gospel without condition. It is wrong in our own minds to ponder, "œNow is he/she regenerate now that I may give the Gospel". Why? Because the Gospel is that means in which the Holy Spirit literally calls INTO being that which does not exist "œAS THOUGH IT DOES". That´s why God CALLS by NEWS (via use clay pots), "œas though it does exist" (Romans 5 & 8). THE GOSPEL IS THE CALL, not something else and not even "œbelieve". Faith is NOT the Call, the Gospel is the Call, whereby faith is CAUSED into being as the Holy Spirit works. The preacher´s work (Proclaimer) is to give the Gospel to the hearer, the Holy Spirit ALONE works as He wills and without the voyeurism of men into His business of regeneration. When we try to "˜ferret´ out the heart or spiritual status of a men/women we are manifestly delving into the eternal council of God and THAT is both sin and deadly to those we speak to and ourselves, and in the process we never GIVE them the Good News whereby they might be saved. Why? Because we are to busy trying to help God do His work. The answer to "œWhat shall I do?" is not another "œto do", especially this false faith that I must engender from within, but rather; "œFreely I´ve been given, freely I give, Here is the free gift". It is to prepare a feast for a starving man and say, "œeat lavishly and live", not "œnow if you repent and believe rightly/enough first then you may eat and live". The free gift, the Gospel, itself creates its own receptacle, life, true saving faith (naked trust in it/the Good News).

However, when we ponder in such a fashion, to wit; "œDid I believe/repent enough, rightly, timing and etc"¦" We´ve missed the Good News altogether and have defined and begin seeking a "œfaith" that is not faith at all. And why not since it is no longer FIXED on Christ alone the Author AND Finisher of our faith. And this Christ in whom alone we must fix our eyes is in the Word and Sacraments as Gospel and gift, hence grace alone.

Grace and peace,

Larry
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top