Is "Reformed Baptist" an oxymoron?

Status
Not open for further replies.

slshaw

Inactive User
Is \"Reformed Baptist\" an oxymoron?

Now that I've got your attention...;)

I came to the Reformed Faith out of a Baptist background. Consequently, I was slow to accept covenant baptism. However, I finally did so, in part, because I could not answer the following question:

If regeneration is completely of God, then why does the sacramental sign of that grace depend upon an act of man? That is, "Believers' Baptism" requires something of me before I can be baptized. Why?

This is not an attempt to convert anyone. I truly just want to have a discussion on this issue.

Thank you,
Scott Shaw

[Edited on 11-2-2005 by slshaw]

[Edited on 11-2-2005 by slshaw]
 

john_Mark

Puritan Board Freshman
Would you rethink the perspective of your question in light of being asked the following?

If regeneration is completely of God, then why does the sacramental sign of that grace depend upon an act of man? That is, the "Lord's Supper" requires something of me before I can partake. Why?
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Snowflake
Originally posted by slshaw
If regeneration is completely of God, then why does the sacramental sign of that grace depend upon an act of man? That is, "Believers' Baptism" requires something of me before I can be baptized.

I never liked this line of reasoning. I believe it may be rhetorically potent, but it is nonetheless substantively lacking. It may have legitimacy if we baptized only infants. As testimony to the relative lack of evangelistic fervor in Reformed circles, infant baptism is by far the most common application of baptism... thus it is easy to think of baptism only in terms of infant baptism.

To demonstrate the errant nature of your line of reasoning, this point only needs to be considered from a perspective of parity between Baptists and Presbyterians. This equality is found in the baptism of (previously unbaptized) converts to the Christian faith.
Does our baptism of converts in any way undermine our position that regeneration - or any other aspect of our salvation - is solely of God? No. Do we make baptism into nothing more a man-centered response because we demand a credible profession of faith prior to baptizing a new convert? No. In like manner, neither does reformed credobaptism.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
In Colossians 2:11 circumcision is regeneration I believe. It doesn't require faith. In verse 12 we are baptized and raised in Him through faith. Faith is active in Baptism where it isn't in regeneration or being circumcized by God. Faith is a result of regeneration. Being brought into Christ or justification is by faith. By faith we are brought into union with Christ. That is in his death, burial, and resurrection.

(Col 2:11) In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,

(Col 2:12) having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.


Why is a person examined for Church membership and the Lord's supper? We Reformed Baptist believe that Baptism should be entered the same way. Is there a sure fire examination process? The answer is No for all of the cases mentioned above. Only God knows the heart. But with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
 

Steve Owen

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by slshaw
Now that I've got your attention...;)

I came to the Reformed Faith out of a Baptist background. Consequently, I was slow to accept covenant baptism. However, I finally did so, in part, because I could not answer the following question:

If regeneration is completely of God, then why does the sacramental sign of that grace depend upon an act of man? That is, "Believers' Baptism" requires something of me before I can be baptized. Why?

Believers' baptism is not a 'sacramental sign', it is an ordinance of God. We do it because the word of God commands it both by precept and example.

Martin

[Edited on 11-2-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
 

Larry Hughes

Puritan Board Sophomore
Ben,

I think Scott's point is similar to what Luther rightly observed of the anabaptist of his time though stated different. If baptism is a sign of the Gospel & not a Law/obedience sign, which it is (gospel), and if a "credo" only position is maintained and the infant side of the witness were hypothetically lost altogether, then at length the witness of baptism as a gospel sign is lost, since application to infants who can do nothing more than receive (how the Gospel is "had"). In other words the Gospel significance of baptism is not "lost" in a simultaneous credo/infant church but it is lost ultimately in a credo only church.

What he seems to be getting at is the significance of baptism and that is pure unconditional non-meritorious free gift received ala the Gospel and this witness is maintained in the dual adults profession/infants pure reception witness, but it is not at length maintained in an adult only situation (in that paradigm only). And this is experimentally proven at length because of the rebaptism issue that many baptist suffer in their walks of the faith.

Yes it is "commanded" of us to take, which is the only way to communicate something to be done, but just because it is commanded/precepted does not mean that command/precept is its significance at all, that is a superficial look at it and not understanding its real significance nor precept. Just as a doctor prescribing (commanding/precepting) medication - it is necessary in order to instruct "what to do", one can't just read someone's mind, but the necessary command/precept of medicine is not the medicines purpose or significance at all. Likewise with baptism.

That's why men like Calvin and Luther, and reformers of that time, could say when Satan assaulted them with doubt they could simply point to their baptism and say, "No I've been baptized." Not meaning ex opere operato as in Rome, but to that which baptism points to - the Gospel, baptized into Christ's death and ressurection AND that strengthens faith (baptisms purpose). It also operates in the one baptized but yet professing to point out what they are denying to them, it becomes an echoing of the Gospel they cannot escape without apostasizing altogether. The credo only position looses both of these powerful witnesses to the Gospel. If Satan attacks with doubt some credo's wander off into "rebaptism" and torment, doubting and doubting, faith is weakened at length. OR also under the credo only position if one wonders off the baptism is lost altogether because it was always tied to their credibility in the first place.

There is a tremendous difference of the view of baptism under the adult/infant paradigm versus the adult only paradigm. That's why ultimately Lutheran's and Reformed both view it as a sacrament or gracious means of grace and Baptist and Anabaptist position views it as an ordinance to be obeyed.

Ldh
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Snowflake
Originally posted by Larry Hughes
In other words the Gospel significance of baptism is not "lost" in a simultaneous credo/infant church but it is lost ultimately in a credo only church.

Not necessarily.

What he seems to be getting at is the significance of baptism and that is pure unconditional non-meritorious free gift received ala the Gospel and this witness is maintained in the dual adults profession/infants pure reception witness, but it is not at length maintained in an adult only situation (in that paradigm only).

You can't help making this primarily about infants, can you? Baptism is indicative of a free, unconditional, non-meritorious gift regardless of when we say it should be given.
Quit the subterfuge: When we baptize an adult, is it any less a sign of "pure conditional non-meritorius free gift" than when it is given to children. You seem to indicate (by virtue of how you argue) that the freeness of grace is inherently better demonstrated in infant baptism than in the baptism of a new convert. I reject this outright.

Yes it is "commanded" of us to take, which is the only way to communicate something to be done, but just because it is commanded/precepted does not mean that command/precept is its significance at all, that is a superficial look at it and not understanding its real significance nor precept. Just as a doctor prescribing (commanding/precepting) medication - it is necessary in order to instruct "what to do", one can't just read someone's mind, but the necessary command/precept of medicine is not the medicines purpose or significance at all. Likewise with baptism.

Ok? I wasn't discussing the command to baptize. I was questioning the notion that baptism is somehow more meaningful when we baptize infants than when we baptize new converts. In the baptism of a new convert the freeness of God's grace is just as clearly manifest as when we baptize an infant. That is all I'm saying.

That's why men like Calvin and Luther, and reformers of that time, could say when Satan assaulted them with doubt they could simply point to their baptism and say, "No I've been baptized." Not meaning ex opere operato as in Rome, but to that which baptism points to - the Gospel, baptized into Christ's death and ressurection AND that strengthens faith (baptisms purpose). It also operates in the one baptized but yet professing to point out what they are denying to them, it becomes an echoing of the Gospel they cannot escape without apostasizing altogether. The credo only position looses both of these powerful witnesses to the Gospel.

Again, not necessarily. You keep trying to subtedly bring it back to infants. So, one can't have the thoughts of Luther or Calvin apart from having baptism given as an infant? Come on. Don't get me wrong: I'm not minimizing the validity or significance of infant baptism. But infant baptism is no clearer an image of God's sovereign saving work than immersion is of dying and being raised.

If Satan attacks with doubt some credo's wander off into "rebaptism" and torment, doubting and doubting, faith is weakened at length. OR also under the credo only position if one wonders off the baptism is lost altogether because it was always tied to their credibility in the first place.
This is not a necessary conclusion for one to arrive at by being a credobaptist. What does baptism mean for the person baptized as an adult in a Reformed church? Whatever we say or do to teach them about what his/her baptism means can also be employed in a credo church. Period.

There is a tremendous difference of the view of baptism under the adult/infant paradigm versus the adult only paradigm.

This is only true when one does as you have, which is to put all the emphasis on what baptism represents from the perspective of an infant. Have you ever seen a non-infant baptized in a reformed church on basis of their profession? Have you? What does baptism mean to that person? Everything you've said above - everything - only applies to infants who are baptized. However, when we baptize an adult it carries the same picture of God's saving grace as when we baptize an infant. Baptism - in both cases - is grounds for the same confidence, obligation, etc...

That's why ultimately Lutheran's and Reformed both view it as a sacrament or gracious means of grace and Baptist and Anabaptist position views it as an ordinance to be obeyed.


We believe that it is an ordinance too. We just say more than that...
Yes, it is common for credobaptists to deny that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are means of grace. However, it is not a necessary rejection! I know of lots of baptists who view the two as means of grace. (Heck, just look at Wayne Grudem's theology text!)
What you've shown me is that you take an example - albeit a common one - and seem to think that it is the necessary position.

The bottom line is that when we limit our discussion to what baptism means when we baptize an adult, suddenly we find that the grounds upon which we baptize, the meaning it conveys, etc... is not at all too different from what reformed baptists would argue for. I truly think that this scares or intimidates many in our camp.
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by john_Mark
Would you rethink the perspective of your question in light of being asked the following?

If regeneration is completely of God, then why does the sacramental sign of that grace depend upon an act of man? That is, the "Lord's Supper" requires something of me before I can partake. Why?


The Lord's Supper doesn't require any more of a Christian than baptism does. Communion is just as much a sign of union with Christ as is baptism. You can't be saved without regeneration (signified by baptism). But you cannot be saved without partaking of the blood and body of Christ, either (cf. John 6:53)! (And that is of course signified by the Lord's Supper.) Barring tiny children from the table is just as atrocious as barring them from the font. Either way, you imply that they are outside the covenant, and are therefore "too young" to be saved by grace.
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by SolaScriptura

What he seems to be getting at is the significance of baptism and that is pure unconditional non-meritorious free gift received ala the Gospel and this witness is maintained in the dual adults profession/infants pure reception witness, but it is not at length maintained in an adult only situation (in that paradigm only).

You can't help making this primarily about infants, can you? Baptism is indicative of a free, unconditional, non-meritorious gift regardless of when we say it should be given.
Quit the subterfuge: When we baptize an adult, is it any less a sign of "pure conditional non-meritorius free gift" than when it is given to children. You seem to indicate (by virtue of how you argue) that the freeness of grace is inherently better demonstrated in infant baptism than in the baptism of a new convert. I reject this outright.

I have to agree with Larry.

Infant baptism DOES inherently DISPLAY the sign of a "pure unconditional non-meritorius free gift" better than adult baptisms of ANY kind.

Please note my emphasis of the word "DISPLAY". Of course I am NOT saying that there is an ACTUAL difference in the grace given by God to the adult. And of course the adult being baptised should realize this.

But symbols have to SYMBOLIZE something. And what is a better SYMBOL of Calvinism than the symbol of regeneration being given to a helpless infant, based on nothing but the free grace of God alone?

Does an adult receive just as much free grace? Yes, but their baptism doesn't DISPLAY this truth as well. Hopefully our theology will fill in the gaps in such cases. But in the case of an infant, this facet of the theology is virtually built into the act itself . . . after all, everybody knows the infant didn't DO anything to deserve baptism. It MUST be by unmerited favor.

Saying that one DISPLAYS grace better than the other, symbolically, is not the same as saying that one actually *contains* more grace than the other. Those are two different things.



[Edited on 11-3-2005 by biblelighthouse]
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Snowflake
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
I have to agree with Larry.

Oh, I'm sure you and just about every other paedobaptist on this site will disagree with me.

Infant baptism DOES inherently DISPLAY the sign of a "pure unconditional non-meritorius free gift" better than adult baptisms of ANY kind.

Wow. So God basically rips off those whom he calls in adulthood? He gives them a covenant sign which is less picturesque than when He gives it to an infant! He's shortchanged adult converts! ... Give me a break.

Of course I am NOT saying that there is an ACTUAL difference in the grace given by God to the adult. And of course the adult being baptised should realize this. But symbols have to SYMBOLIZE something. And what is a better SYMBOL of Calvinism than the symbol of regeneration being given to a helpless infant, based on nothing but the free grace of God alone?

This smacks of the same partisan sentimentality that is found in baptist circles when they argue for immersion on the basis of how "much better" it symbolizes certain spiritual realities. :down:

Does an adult receive just as much free grace? Yes, but their baptism doesn't DISPLAY this truth as well.

Wow. Where's that in the Bible? Anyway... I beg to differ. Perhaps you just love babies more than I do... but when I see a wretched sinner who has been gripped by the Holy Spirit and brought to repentance, I see that baptism as displaying the soveriegnty, power, mercy and love of God - apart from that wretch's efforts, because that miserable cur's life was only lived in hatred of God. In fact, I would say that it displays the truth of the freeness of God's grace in crystal clear fashion.

Hopefully our theology will fill in the gaps in such cases. But in the case of an infant, this facet of the theology is virtually built into the act itself . . . after all, everybody knows the infant didn't DO anything to deserve baptism. It MUST be by unmerited favor.

I'm not denying that the freeness of God's grace is demonstrated in the baptism of infants. Of course it is. But it isn't demonstrated moreso than in the baptism of adults. God doesn't shortchange adult converts by giving them a sign that doesn't PERFECTLY and CLEARLY demonstrate the unmerited and free grace of God given to them.

Saying that one DISPLAYS grace better than the other, symbolically, is not the same as saying that one actually *contains* more grace than the other. Those are two different things.

At the objective level, perhaps. But definitely not at the subjective level.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by john_Mark
Would you rethink the perspective of your question in light of being asked the following?

If regeneration is completely of God, then why does the sacramental sign of that grace depend upon an act of man? That is, the "Lord's Supper" requires something of me before I can partake. Why?


The Lord's Supper doesn't require any more of a Christian than baptism does. Communion is just as much a sign of union with Christ as is baptism. You can't be saved without regeneration (signified by baptism). But you cannot be saved without partaking of the blood and body of Christ, either (cf. John 6:53)! (And that is of course signified by the Lord's Supper.) Barring tiny children from the table is just as atrocious as barring them from the font. Either way, you imply that they are outside the covenant, and are therefore "too young" to be saved by grace.

Yes it does. That is why every branch of Western Christendom has been united behind the idea of a credible profession of faith before communing. If you are right - then we must chuck all discipline out the door. There is no reason to bar ANYONE from the table, since the most wicked and profane sinner shows just as much fruit of union with Christ as an infant. Bringing tiny children to a sacrament that is a sustaining sacrament and shoving it down their unthinking, unprofessing throats is as foul as Adam's eating the forbidden fruit.

The more that I hear these ridiculous (unbiblical, clearly unconfessional and unhistorical) arguments for paedcommunion, the more I see that it is near the foundation of all errors in modern "Reformed" circles regarding justification and the covenant.

May God protect His Church from such "consistency."
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by SolaScriptura
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
I have to agree with Larry.

Oh, I'm sure you and just about every other paedobaptist on this site will disagree with me.

No Ben, this paedobaptist will not. Keep up the good work brother!
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
The whole argument for paedocommunion is based on emotion, it seems. "Why do you hate little kids?!?"

Uhh, I don't.

Good point Gabe. Actually, because I love kids - especially my own 4 - I won't invite them to judgment for unworthily partaking.
 

pastorway

Puritan Board Senior
yep - that is a very frightening point. IF the paedocommunionist is wrong and the church is right throughout history (not a very big if) then the paedocommunionist is feeding his child JUDGMENT all the while thinking he is partaking of a means of grace.

:eek:

[Edited on 11-3-05 by pastorway]
 

matthew11v25

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
But you cannot be saved without partaking of the blood and body of Christ, either (cf. John 6:53)!

Curious. Really. Does John 6 actually refer (in context of) to the Lord's Supper? I know that James White argues that it is not in the context of the Lord's Supper.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by matthew11v25
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
But you cannot be saved without partaking of the blood and body of Christ, either (cf. John 6:53)!

Curious. Really. Does John 6 actually refer (in context of) to the Lord's Supper? I know that James White argues that it is not in the context of the Lord's Supper.

James White would be correct, as Calvin pointed out centuries before him:

Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man. When he says, the flesh of the Son of man, the expression is emphatic; for he reproves them for their contempt, which arose from perceiving that he resembled other men. The meaning therefore is: "Despise me as much as you please, on account of the mean and despicable appearance of my flesh, still that despicable flesh contains life; and if you are destitute of it, you will nowhere else find any thing else to quicken you."

The ancients fell into a gross error by supposing that little children were deprived of eternal life, if they did not dispense to them the eucharist, that is, the Lord's Supper; for this discourse does not relate to the Lord's Supper, but to the uninterrupted communication of the flesh of Christ, which we obtain apart from the use of the Lord's Supper. Nor were the Bohemians in the right, when they adduced this passage to prove that all without exception ought to be admitted to the use of the cup. With respect to young children, the ordinance of Christ forbids them to partake of the Lord's Supper; because they are not yet able to know or to celebrate the remembrance of the death of Christ. The same ordinance makes the cup common to all, for it commands us all to drink of it, (Matthew 26:27.)

54. He who eateth my flesh. This is a repetition, but is not superfluous; for it confirms what was difficult to be believed, That souls feed on his flesh and blood, in precisely the same manner that the body is sustained by eating and drinking. Accordingly, as he lately testified that nothing but death remains for all who seek life anywhere else than in his flesh, so now he excites all believers to cherish good hope, while he promises to them life in the same flesh.

Before modern paedocommunionists, it was Papists in their desire to find transubstantiation that saw the Lord's Supper in John 6. But since the Supper had not yet been instituted, and since in all other references to the Supper, the term "body" is used instead of "flesh," and since coming and eating and drinking is used in John 3, 4 and 5 metaphorically of believing (true manna, woman at the well, etc), it ought to be soundly rejected.
 

Puritan Sailor

Puritan Board Doctor
I think it's also helpful to place John in context historically. He wrote later than the rest, and so he was around to see some of the abuses developing in the Lord's Supper. He really anticipates the error of transubstantiation in John 6 and I think makes a preemptive strike. It is faith in Christ, not faith in a meal that saves and nourishes us. That Calvin quote was good Fred.
 

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
The whole argument for paedocommunion is based on emotion, it seems. "Why do you hate little kids?!?"

Uhh, I don't.

For the record, I do not make any emotional appeal to the paedoeucharist argument.

And I think credos are reformed and love their kids as well.

I think people make way more of an issue over the sacraments than there needs to be. I am simply convicted by the scriptures that I should bring my children. No big deal. I have said before, it is not a single issue determination for me as I am seeking a new church home.

But, having said all that, I do not see how anyone cannot see the Lord's supper, and the manna supper in the wildreness in John 6.

I think manna is a better image of the Eucharist anyway. God feeding His people, at His table, in the wilderness, following deliverance from bondage, right after baptism in the Red Sea, that He Himself performed.

[Edited on 11-3-2005 by Saiph]
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Amen, Mark! Thank you for your excellent post.

I too love the connection between the Lord's Supper and the Manna in the wilderness. As you have posted before, it was the Red Sea baptism that gave God's people (including tiny children) the right to the manna . . . which is specifically called "spiritual food" by Paul in 1 Cor. 10, linking it to the Eucharist sacrament just as much as he had linked the Red Sea crossing to baptism a few verses earlier. The connection is crystal clear.


Gabriel, with all due respect, how in the world does your comment fit into this discussion. Neither I nor Mark have said that non-paedocommunionists hate their children. In fact, I agree with mark that baptists love their children too. My argument (and Mark's) is from Scripture, not emotion. I have no problem barring my children from the table if Scripture says that I should. But Scripture does NOT say so . . . in fact, it says the opposite! Most (but not all) protestants have consistently taken 1 Corinthians 11 completely out of context on this point. Paul NEVER intended to cut off children from the Lord's Table. That wasn't even his point there.


Fred, I agree that PC is unconfessional. (But so is denial of the Pope as antichrist, for that matter . . . so is singing anything but Psalms . . . but I digress.) I just simply think the confessions are wrong at the point of paedocommunion. The reformers and puritans had too many issues on their plate to deal with this issue as carefully as they should have. They had to argue with the RC church concerning sola fide, sola scriptura, church government, indulgences, and numerous other major things, not to mention arguing baptism with anabaptists. However, at that particular point in time, paedocommunion was practiced neither by the RC church (for the most part), nor by anabaptists. So what reason did the protestants have to *seriously* study paedocommunion, other than the occasional meeting with an EO person here or there? It just wasn't a big enough issue to bubble to the surface at that time. But now the church does have the bandwidth to really focus on this, and many many Christians are embracing paedocommunion based on *biblical* arguments. (For example, have you read Tim Gallant's book, "Feed My Lambs"?



Everybody, John 6 is not about the Lord's Supper. Rather, the Lord's Supper is about John 6. I agree that Jesus was NOT saying that communion is a necessary prerequisite to salvation. However, who can deny that the sacrament of communion is a perfect picture of what Christ talks about in John 6? The parallel is crystal clear. And it becomes even clearer once we realize that, in John 6, Jesus was speaking during the season of the passover.

My original PC comment in this thread was simply intended to draw a parallel. Myriad paedobaptists have argued that denial of infant baptism *implies* that infants cannot be regenerated. I agree. Well, John 6:53 shows that the "partaking of Christ's body and blood" is basically just another phrase for "one who is regenerated". A non-regenerated person cannot be "saved". Likewise, a person who doesn't partake of Christ's body and blood (in the John 6:53 sense) cannot be "saved". Thus, *if* paedobaptists are valid in saying that infants should be baptized because regeneration is open to them, then likewise, paedocommunionists are valid in saying that infants should be communed because regeneration is open to them.
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by pastorway
yep - that is a very frightening point. IF the paedocommunionist is wrong and the church is right throughout history (not a very big if) then the paedocommunionist is feeding his child JUDGMENT all the while thinking he is partaking of a means of grace.

True.

But that sword cuts both ways, Pastor Way.

If paedocommunionists are correct, and only a minority of the church has been right throughout history (not a very big if), then the anti-paedocommunionist is actually PROFANING the Lord's Supper by contradicting the clear statement in 1 Corinthians 10:17 . . . unlawfully barring fellow members of Christ's body from the table, all the while thinking he is obeying God by "fencing the table".
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by Rick Larson
And where does any of this "what if you're wrong"..... "no...what if YOU'RE wrong" get us?

Rick,

That is why we have a Church and confessions. So it is actually, "what if the Church is wrong" "no what if these couple of people are wrong"
 

wsw201

Puritan Board Senior
{Mod ON}

We need to stick to the subject of this thread which is not peadocommunion.

If anyone wants to discuss that issue, they need to piggy back one of the numeruous peadocommion threads or start another one.

{MOD OFF}
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Rick Larson
And where does any of this "what if you're wrong"..... "no...what if YOU'RE wrong" get us?

It doesn't get us anywhere. That was my point.

PBs think baptists withold grace from their children.
Baptists think PBs are making the church impure.

PCs think baptists and PBs withold grace from their children.
Baptists and PBs think PCs are bringing judgment to their children.


The bottom line is that we are ALL sincerely trying to obey God with all of our hearts.

Baptists really believe they are being obedient to God.
Paedobaptists really believe they are being obedient to God.
Paedocommunionists really believe they are being obedient to God.

We just need to be patient with each other. (I seriously need to take my own advice here!)

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph




[Edited on 11-3-2005 by biblelighthouse]
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by wsw201
{Mod ON}

We need to stick to the subject of this thread which is not peadocommunion.

If anyone wants to discuss that issue, they need to piggy back one of the numeruous peadocommion threads or start another one.

{MOD OFF}


Oops! I just saw this post after I made my last post. Sorry. OK, no more paedocommunion on this thread.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
Originally posted by Saiph


But, having said all that, I do not see how anyone cannot see the Lord's supper, and the manna supper in the wildreness in John 6.

I think manna is a better image of the Eucharist anyway. God feeding His people, at His table, in the wilderness, following deliverance from bondage, right after baptism in the Red Sea, that He Himself performed.
:up:
 

Larry Hughes

Puritan Board Sophomore
Ben,

My post, though I should have known better by now, was not meant to raise hairs. I'm not going to engage in a "I'm trying to convince you" or beat up on you argument here - I love my baptist, Lutheran and other brothers unconditionally and the same at least as much as a sinner under grace can.

I was merely restating what Luther and Calvin and many other reformers state about baptism's witness to help clarify the issue - its not a new issue at all. And there is no subterfuge (ploy, trick or deception) here and to assert so boarders on sheer slander. I'm not "tricking" anyone on the position.

Randy, one of my dearest brothers on here, and whom we both have strong disagreeing positions and we have discussed this issue to the nth degree, rather vigorously at times, but I doubt he is suddenly surprised and saying to himself, "You know that darn ole tricky Larry, he's deceptively sneaking in pro-infant baptism".

In order to state the two positions I have to use the word "infant" somewhere. And of course one position comes back to infants otherwise there would be no difference at all. Would another word meaning the same be preferrable? I'll use it but the positions are still the same none-the-less.

What Luther, et ali...where getting at was seeing them in their individual paradigms. Hypothetical if only "this pardigm" were the reality and existing. In other words at length if credo only "won the day" so to speak could the Gospel witness of baptism be maintained? And their answer was no categorically. Bromiley argues much the same. The infant being baptized better synmbolizes the utter reliance of faith upon the superior. Nothing says utter dependance like an infant child.

It is an examination of "what if" this paradigm were only real and not the other. Now in reality both co-exist today. I've seen this in my wife's family reaction to our children, they cannot grasp why an infant that cannot profess a reality is baptized or later will not be rebaptized upon profession. They don't see that the signs reality depends not at all upon the receiver. To them it is an action of the will of the adult. I'm not speaking of reformed baptist here but the others. At length this adult only baptism has become generationally just that and has lost its Gospel significance. And they get baptized over and over again.

I hope I've clarified better for you. I'll back out now because I can see where this is going real fast.

ldh
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
Originally posted by slshaw
Now that I've got your attention...;)

I came to the Reformed Faith out of a Baptist background. Consequently, I was slow to accept covenant baptism. However, I finally did so, in part, because I could not answer the following question:

If regeneration is completely of God, then why does the sacramental sign of that grace depend upon an act of man? That is, "Believers' Baptism" requires something of me before I can be baptized. Why?

This is not an attempt to convert anyone. I truly just want to have a discussion on this issue.

Thank you,
Scott Shaw

[Edited on 11-2-2005 by slshaw]

[Edited on 11-2-2005 by slshaw]

Scott,
Did we answer your question?

As both baptism and communion are ordainances of Christ we Baptist believe they are both entered into by faith and confession. I gave an answer above why I don't tie circumcision and baptism together. Hope your question was answered.


And Larry,

You wouldn't be deceptive enough to slip something in. You are to honest and loving. If it needs said you will say it.

Be Encouraged Brother, Randy

[Edited on 11-3-2005 by puritancovenanter]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top