| Pages: 1 2 |
MartinMarprelate
Predestined
Posts: 634
Registered: 4/20/2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: Surfeited
|
![[*]](./images/perspective/default_icon.gif) posted on 4/24/2006 at 05:03 PM |
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by swedgeworth
Presumptive Regeneration (as some specifically define it) doesn't have to be the case, so much as the free offer of the gospel.
Do we really tell a person that "Jesus Christ might have died for your sins?" (I know plenty of people think it, but still...)
|
You don't need to do that. You should tell him that Christ has died for sinners such as him and if he will come to Christ, He will not turn him away
(John 6:37 ). If and when he comes, you may tell him that God has loved him since the foundation of the world (Jer 31:3 ).
I feel very strongly about liturgies like those above. I was baptized as a baby using a similar formula and grew up believing that God loved me just
as I was and Jesus had died for me though I was no more born again than a dog. I was conversion-proof for years until God opened my heart. I thought
it was open already. God forgive me, I had all three of my children christened the same way.
'That which is born of the flesh is flesh.' Always has been (Gen 5:3 ), always will be. To tell children otherwise is like
sending them to hell with a pocket-full of promises. I'm sorry to use such strong words but they're true! Of course God can
overrule, as He did with me, but that is no excuse. It's not the infant baptism I object to so much (though that's wrong!); it's the teaching.
'Ye must be born again.'
Do you people know how utterly and distgustingly liberal and apostate those two denominations are? How can you take your teaching from such people?
I'm sorry. You can throw me off now if you want. But I had to post this. It's not a parlour game or an intellectual exercise. There are eternal
destinies at stake.
Steve
[Edited on 4/24/0606 by MartinMarprelate]
Finished Here
www.marprelate.wordpress.com
'Now this is the Name by which He will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS'
'....... Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God- and righteousness and sanctification and redemption'
|
|
|
SolaScriptura
Debtor
Posts: 146
Registered: 4/18/2006
Location: Clarksville, IN
Member Is Offline
Mood: done here
|
| posted on 4/24/2006 at 05:09 PM |
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by MartinMarprelate
It's not a parlour game or an intellectual exercise. There are eternal destinies at stake.
|
Steve, in these types of debates it is helpful to be reminded that there are heaven and hell consequences to what we believe and do with those
beliefs.
|
|
|
Kaj_Munk
Spiritually Minded
Posts: 276
Registered: 4/22/2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: Trenchant
|
| posted on 4/24/2006 at 05:21 PM |
|
|
Steve all bits of liturgy come with a whole set of ideas. The teaching that Christ has laid down his life for the church, by which I mean all those
united to him by baptism, cannot be accompanied by a sluggard's doctrine of presuming a static ontology of "savedness". A good response to
corporate savedness is always a call to press on towards obedience at every turn, knowing at the same time that it is God who maintains and energizes
faith into obedience. So we still must WORK OUT our SALVATION with fear and trembling.
On the other hand a Christian tradition which teaches that being "saved" is a state of grace will naturally force the adherent to question his or
her residence within such a state. Frustration can and does result and the indivual may never feel that they have reached the starting line much less
began to approach maturity. This seems to be underlined by a religious methodology of uncertainty.
So your concern is understandable, but I think you are overstating the case of your own position.
Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal: have mercy on us.
|
|
|
swedgeworth
Predestined
Posts: 782
Registered: 4/19/2006
Member Is Offline
|
| posted on 4/24/2006 at 05:47 PM |
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by MartinMarprelate
| Quote: | Originally posted by swedgeworth
Presumptive Regeneration (as some specifically define it) doesn't have to be the case, so much as the free offer of the gospel.
Do we really tell a person that "Jesus Christ might have died for your sins?" (I know plenty of people think it, but still...)
|
You don't need to do that. You should tell him that Christ has died for sinners such as him and if he will come to Christ, He will not turn him away
(John 6:37 ). If and when he comes, you may tell him that God has loved him since the foundation of the world (Jer 31:3 ).
I feel very strongly about liturgies like those above. I was baptized as a baby using a similar formula and grew up believing that God loved me just
as I was and Jesus had died for me though I was no more born again than a dog. I was conversion-proof for years until God opened my heart. I thought
it was open already. God forgive me, I had all three of my children christened the same way.
'That which is born of the flesh is flesh.' Always has been (Gen 5:3 ), always will be. To tell children otherwise is like
sending them to hell with a pocket-full of promises. I'm sorry to use such strong words but they're true! Of course God can
overrule, as He did with me, but that is no excuse. It's not the infant baptism I object to so much (though that's wrong!); it's the teaching.
'Ye must be born again.'
Do you people know how utterly and distgustingly liberal and apostate those two denominations are? How can you take your teaching from such people?
I'm sorry. You can throw me off now if you want. But I had to post this. It's not a parlour game or an intellectual exercise. There are eternal
destinies at stake.
Steve
[Edited on 4/24/0606 by MartinMarprelate] |
I can see that you and I are gonna be on different sides of this debate, because I have your exact opposite story. I was raised in a revivalistic
Baptist church, where I was taught to introspect myself weekly. This was quite problematic, for whenever I looked to my heart I did not see Christ,
but rather just my own deceptive heart. It wasn't until I was told that my heart was bad, and that I should look away from it and to Christ that I
finally understood what salvation is all about. I see the visible figures that Christ gives to his Church as just a way to do this. When I see
baptism, I don't see people doing "works," but rather I see God promising His covenant.
On to the issue at hand. I am not up to speed on those respective churches and their current fidelity. The French liturgy is enjoying a bit of
popularity here in the States, and quite frankly I was under the impression that it bears some continuity with the Huguenot church. I see that both
the French and the Scottish have been revised, so I can't comment on how much they have retained historicity or perhaps have been innovated.
However, I can give you Calvin on the Sacraments which I think expresses what I believe to be significant about Baptism:
| Quote: |
From the Form of Administering Baptism Composed For the Use of the Church of Geneva
All these graces are bestowed upon us when he is pleased to incorporate us into his Church by baptism; for in this sacrament he attests the remission
of sins. And he has ordained the symbol of water to figure to us, that as by this element bodily defilements are cleansed, so he is pleased to wash
and purify our souls. Moreover, he employs it to represent our renovation, which consists, as has been said, in the moritfication of our flesh, and
in the spiritual life which it produces to us.
Thus we receive a twofold grace and benefit from our God in baptism, provided we do not annihilate the virtue of the sacrament by our ingratitude. We
have in it sure evidence, first, that God is willing to be propitious to us, not imputing to us our faults and offences; and, secondly, that he will
assist us by his Holy Spirit, in order that we may be able to war against the devil, sin, and the lusts of our flesh, and gain the victory over them,
so as to live in the liberty of his kingdom, which is the kingdom of righteousness.
Seeing then that these two things are accomplished in us by the grace of Jesus Christ, it follows, that the virtue and substance of baptism is
included in him. And, in face, we have no other laver than his blood, and no other renovation than his death and resurrection. But as he
communicates his riches and blessings to us by his word, so he distributes them to us by his sacraments.
Treatises on the Sacraments pg. 114,115
|
And also:
| Quote: | From the Mutual Consent of the Churches of Zurich and Geneva as to the Sacraments
18. The Gifts Offered to All, but Received By Believers Only.
It is true indeed that Christ with his gifts is offered to all in common, and that the unbelief of man not overthrowing the truth of God, the
sacraments always retain their efficacy; but all are not capable of receiving Christ and his gifts. Wherefore nothing is changed on the part
of God, but in regard to man each receives according to the measure of his faith. (217) |
PS- I think your reading of John 3 proves problematic.
[Edited on 4/24/0606 by swedgeworth]
|
|
|
biblelighthouse
Super Administrator
Posts: 3419
Registered: 4/16/2006
Location: Omaha, Illinois
Member Is Offline
Mood: full of hope
|
| posted on 4/24/2006 at 06:38 PM |
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by SolaScriptura
| Quote: | Originally posted by MartinMarprelate
It's not a parlour game or an intellectual exercise. There are eternal destinies at stake.
|
Steve, in these types of debates it is helpful to be reminded that there are heaven and hell consequences to what we believe and do with those
beliefs. |
Steve, you don't have to worry about being banned for saying things like that. You are not attacking Ben, or me, or anyone on this board. Rather,
you are just strongly defending something that you believe is the truth. Amen to that! Keep up the good work. I think you are doing a good job of
arguing your side strongly, without attacking those of us who strongly disagree with you. As long as you are patient with us, and we are patient with
you, everything will be fine.
You said, "I . . . grew up believing that God loved me just as I was and Jesus had died for me though I was no more born again than a dog."
Well, that certainly is problematic and scary!
And it is no different from the states of a lot of adults in Baptist churches. They were not taught that they were Christians since the moment of
infant baptism, to be sure. But they *were* taught that they were Christians since the moment they walked down the aisle and prayed the sinner's
prayer. After that, they're told that they're eternally secure, and have nothing to worry about (except a possible small "loss of rewards" here
or there). --- Unconverted people like this are walking around by the million, Steve! And they are just as blind to their need of salvation
as you were.
The solution is not to refrain from infant baptism. The solution is not to quit preaching eternal security (or perseverance of the saints).
The solution IS to continually remind ALL Christians of ALL ages that they must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved. And we must remind ALL
of them that true faith always results in good FRUIT. --- A renewal of this type of teaching is what is needed to wake people out of their slumber,
whether they be spiritually blind Anglicans, or spiritually blind Baptists.
We need to stop placing our salvation-confidence in some memory of faith we believe we exercised. We need to DAILY place our salvation-confidence in
Christ alone. Introspection of our memories can't guarantee our salvation. Present trusting in Christ does guarantee our salvation.
|
|
|
Kaj_Munk
Spiritually Minded
Posts: 276
Registered: 4/22/2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: Trenchant
|
| posted on 4/24/2006 at 06:44 PM |
|
|
Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal: have mercy on us.
|
|
|
rabbisaul
Debtor
Posts: 117
Registered: 4/21/2006
Location: Grande Prairie, AB
Member Is Offline
|
| posted on 4/25/2006 at 07:28 PM |
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by SolaScriptura
Steve, I agee with you in that I think these are terribly unfortunate liturgies:
They are beautifully written pieces that powerfully play on the emotions as they verbalize the hopes, dreams, and desires of every Christian parent...
but doctrinally they are a wash: They deny fundamental points of Calvinistic soteriology.
[Edited on 24-4-0606 by SolaScriptura] |
Ben, I suggest you should check out early "Calvinist" liturgies before you so readily assume these are so inconsistent with Calvinism. Maybe it's
the current common spin that is an ahistorical twist on Calvin. You can scarcely find stronger baptismal language than is present in the early
Reformed baptismal liturgies. Check out Hughes Oliphant Old's The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite in the 16th Century (if I'm
remembering the title correctly) for more.
[Edited on 4/26/0606 by rabbisaul]
Tim Gallant
Elder, Christ Covenant Church
(sponsored by Christ Covenant Langley to join the CREC)
Grande Prairie, Alberta
|
|
|
SolaScriptura
Debtor
Posts: 146
Registered: 4/18/2006
Location: Clarksville, IN
Member Is Offline
Mood: done here
|
| posted on 4/25/2006 at 08:03 PM |
|
|
Tim, if you've read much Augustine you'll agree with Warfield when he says that Augustine's ecclesiology was at odds with his soteriology.
Likewise...
I've read enough Calvin to say that I am firmly convinced that his sacramentology is inconsistent with his soteriology.
That said, I am not surprised if this language is found in many early Reformed liturgies. The point is that it is inconsistent with Calvinistic
soteriology.
Oh, and regarding these liturgies: I'm more than convinced that the assurance of salvation they implictly give contributed to the near absolute
demise of any real significant evangelical presence in Western Europe.
One more thing: I concur with Joseph... the solution isn't to forsake infant baptism, it is to call people to faith...
(and I'd add) we should avoid the use of terminology that gives false assurance.
By physical birth the children of believers are entitled to the protection, oversight, instruction, and governance of the visible church... not to
assurance of salvation. 
[Edited on 26-4-0606 by SolaScriptura]
|
|
|
rabbisaul
Debtor
Posts: 117
Registered: 4/21/2006
Location: Grande Prairie, AB
Member Is Offline
|
| posted on 4/25/2006 at 10:11 PM |
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by SolaScriptura
Tim, if you've read much Augustine you'll agree with Warfield when he says that Augustine's ecclesiology was at odds with his soteriology.
|
Or maybe Warfield was hammering Augustine's doctrine out of shape by his own presuppositions. Perhaps Augustine had a better sense of holding
together the tensions than Warfield did.
| Quote: |
Likewise...
I've read enough Calvin to say that I am firmly convinced that his sacramentology is inconsistent with his soteriology.
|
I'm glad you admit that's your position.
| Quote: |
Oh, and regarding these liturgies: I'm more than convinced that the assurance of salvation they implictly give contributed to the near absolute
demise of any real significant evangelical presence in Western Europe.
One more thing: I concur with Joseph... the solution isn't to forsake infant baptism, it is to call people to faith...
(and I'd add) we should avoid the use of terminology that gives false assurance.
By physical birth the children of believers are entitled to the protection, oversight, instruction, and governance of the visible church... not to
assurance of salvation.
[Edited on 26-4-0606 by SolaScriptura] |
But nobody thinks that it is physical birth which grants entitlement to the children of believers. It is the promise of God. And those promises are
not false assurance; nor are they in competition to the call to faith. To the contrary, it is precisely a high, robust covenantal ecclesiology that
can provide a sound basis for that call to faith without descending into revivalistic conversionism. Paul appeals to what God has already
given, and on that basis calls for a response of faith and obedience. That is the recurrent biblical pattern.
The bottom line is that you don't want to abandon infant baptism, but your position entails the demise of it. It's pretty much historically
demonstrated that infant baptism will always come under question in circumstances where it is thought to be ineffectual.
Tim Gallant
Elder, Christ Covenant Church
(sponsored by Christ Covenant Langley to join the CREC)
Grande Prairie, Alberta
|
|
|
SolaScriptura
Debtor
Posts: 146
Registered: 4/18/2006
Location: Clarksville, IN
Member Is Offline
Mood: done here
|
| posted on 4/26/2006 at 03:30 AM |
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by rabbisaul
But nobody thinks that it is physical birth which grants entitlement to the children of believers. It is the promise of God. And those promises are
not false assurance; nor are they in competition to the call to faith. |
Actually, the ground is the covenant of God. By "physical birth" I was making reference to the PCA's BCO 6.1... physical birth is not the ultimate
ground, but the sufficient ground since their birth occurs within a covenantal context. Yes, those promises are false assurance - in fact, to
call them promises is, I believe, sin because we make God out to be a liar. Jesus doesn't mediate for everyone who's been baptized. Heck, he
doesn't mediate for every professing Christian! He mediates for the elect... he died for the elect... etc., and the only ground we have to give
assurance (tentatively) that one is among the elect is if they meet the condition of faith (Rom 10:9-10).
| Quote: | | To the contrary, it is precisely a high, robust covenantal ecclesiology that can provide a sound basis for that call to faith
without descending into revivalistic conversionism. Paul appeals to what God has already given, and on that basis calls for a response of
faith and obedience. That is the recurrent biblical pattern. |
I believe you are incorrect. I believe what you are advocating is nothing other than hyper-covenantalism. When Paul appeals to what has been
given it is because he is writing and addressing 1st generation, missionary converts. The very nature of justification by faith requires confession of
faith, without which there is no hope of assurance.
| Quote: | | The bottom line is that you don't want to abandon infant baptism, but your position entails the demise of it. It's pretty
much historically demonstrated that infant baptism will always come under question in circumstances where it is thought to be ineffectual.
|
I believe you are verifiably wrong... but, in the happenchance that I'm the one who is wrong, then so are the Standards, as my position is entirely
in line with the Standards:
WSC 88 Q.What are the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption?
A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption, are his ordinances, especially the word, sacraments,
and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.
WSC 91 Q.How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of
Christ, and the working of his spirit in them that by faith receive them.
WCF 28.6 The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, not withstanding, by the right
use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or
infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.
We don't need to hold to hyper-covenantalism to affirm the importance of infant baptism. In fact, and I am sure of this: a commitment to
evangelical religion is necessary to keep the church from falling into moralism and ultimate apostasy.
Our children do need to be converted. That isn't "revivalism." Some chafe at that truth of conversion because to their
hyper-covenantal ears it sounds like we're saying that our children are outside the covenantal community. No... what we're saying is, as Jesus says,
we must be born again! Only the faulty notion of presumptive regeneration inoculates us from the significance of the need for rebirth. Conversion is
the turning to God that occurs exclusively when a sinner is effectually called. For some of us this conversion occurs at such a young age they don't
ever recall it. For some of us, we do.
[Edited on 26-4-0606 by SolaScriptura]
|
|
|
swedgeworth
Predestined
Posts: 782
Registered: 4/19/2006
Member Is Offline
|
| posted on 4/26/2006 at 04:23 PM |
|
|
I think you are gonna need to define what it means to convert, what it means to be born again, and what regeneration means. I do not think the way
you seem to be using them is really all that Biblical.
|
|
|
MartinMarprelate
Predestined
Posts: 634
Registered: 4/20/2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: Surfeited
|
| posted on 4/27/2006 at 04:18 PM |
|
|
I've been away on business for a few days.
This is just to say that I appreciate the forbearance of this board.
Steven wrote:-
| Quote: |
I can see that you and I are gonna be on different sides of this debate, because I have your exact opposite story. I was raised in a revivalistic
Baptist church, where I was taught to introspect myself weekly. This was quite problematic, for whenever I looked to my heart I did not see Christ,
but rather just my own deceptive heart. |
Brother, I'm not about to defend what goes on in every Baptist Church. You need to distinguish between Arminian and liberal Baptist churches and the
1689 Confession ones. Whilst we are called to examine ourselves (2Cor 13:5 and most of 1John), it is so that we may find our sufficiency in
Christ.
| Quote: |
On to the issue at hand. I am not up to speed on those respective churches and their current fidelity. The French liturgy is enjoying a bit of
popularity here in the States, and quite frankly I was under the impression that it bears some continuity with the Huguenot church.
|
The French Eglise Reformee which is the main Presbyterian Church in France has existed in its present form only since 1938. In 1972, it gave
up all pretense of being evangelical and is now thoroughly mixed and liberal. The best of them would be Barthians and the worst Unitarians  . The Church of Scotland is no better. The two liturgies have a modern
'touchy-feely' essence about them, quite apart from the dire theology, and I would be surprised if they were more than 20 years old.
There may be other, more evangelical Presbyterian churches in France, but if there are, I am not aware of them. I'm told that there is a lot of
church planting going on there at present, but it is mostly Pentecostal or 'General' Baptist. There are a few Reformed Congegational and Baptist
churches here and there.
Blessings to all,
Steve
Finished Here
www.marprelate.wordpress.com
'Now this is the Name by which He will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS'
'....... Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God- and righteousness and sanctification and redemption'
|
|
|
Klev
Sojourner
Posts: 1
Registered: 6/11/2010
Member Is Offline
|
| posted on 6/11/2010 at 08:43 PM |
|
|
Infant Baptism
Hi Joseph,
Thanks for a great article on baptism, especially the link between circumcission and baptism. I admit, I've been wrestling with this whole debate of
infant baptism verses immersion baptism.
Someone once commented that circumcission was administered to the Jewish males (very much male dominated culture), so running the parallel between
circumcission and baptism, where does this leave the female Christians?
Looking forward to hearing from you.
|
|
|
| Pages: 1 2 |
|
