We believe in what has just fallen from the lips of the Rev. W. Walters respecting the Baptists of this country. "From the beginning," says Locke, "they were the friends and advocates of absolute liberty--just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty." The claim which we make to have been the first expositors and advocates in modern times of religious liberty, is based on the surest foundation, and is capable of the most satisfactory proof." Instead of exalting believer's baptism above measure, we say in the words of our honourable and Rev. brother Noel, "It is not separation from the church of Rome, or from the church of England, nor a scriptural organization, nor evangelical doctrine, which can alone secure our Savior's approbation." They who speak of infant baptism as a putting of the child's name in a will by the parent, need to be reminded of God's prerogative, and of the character of His government as revealed in the words; "All souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die." Who, believing this testimony, can also believe that unbaptized infants are "sucking pagans," while those kindly baptized through parental influence are sucking Christians?That last line pretty much sums it up. To make the Old Covenant the New Covenant is to be inconsistent in the view of the perfection of Christ's work.
12 Fresh Ways to Read Your Bible in 2025
13 hours ago
8 comments:
"And that is the reason why in Baptism we truly receive the forgiveness of sins, we are washed and cleansed with the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, we are renewed by the operation of his Holy Spirit.
And how so? Does a little water have such power when it is cast upon the head of a child? No. But because it is the will of our Lord Jesus Christ that the water should be a visible sign of his blood and of the Holy Spirit. Therefore baptism has that power and whatsoever is there set forth to the eye is forthwith accomplished in very deed." J. Calvin
"That the Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved from His own work, namely, that God sanctifies many of them who have been thus baptized, and has given them the Holy Ghost."
M. Luther
Howdy Anonymous,
Please do not feel you need to remain anonymous here. In my opinion, Reformed and Lutherans are friends of the Reformed Baptists.
Thanks for the quotes.
I agree water is the visible sign that Christ has commanded. It is just that though. The debate is about who should receive the sign.
Calvin's views are unique in history. Plus it assumes an inference from previous covenatal signs given to children.
Christ did not command children to be baptized. The Apostles did not do so. Only disciples are commanded to be baptized. This is the nature of the New Covenant as opposed to previous covenant administrations.
As for Luther, he proves to much. Don't you think? Are we really going to say God sanctifies and gives the Holy Spirit to our children even if they fall away? Are we going to say they are New Covenant breakers when Christ took their place on the cross?
Of course I know that there will then come the external covenantal applications in which we treat everyone as in the covenant verses the reality that only God knows, but that again is part of the debate.
Again, thanks for the quotes.
A Child's Catechism and The Sacrament of Baptism
"1) My child, are you a Christian in fact as well as in name?
Yes, my father.
2) How is this known to you?
Because I am baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
3) How did you come into this communion of the church?
Through baptism.
4) What is this baptism?
It is the washing of regeneration and cleansing from sin."*
God uses the “stuff of earth” in which to apply His grace. Christ applies his death for the forgiveness of our sins through the waters of baptism. For those who insist that sacraments are "useless inventions of man" maybe this quote will be helpful to bring understanding:
“God uses means and instruments which he himself sees to be expedient, that all things may serve his glory, since he is Lord and Judge of all. He feeds our bodies through bread and other foods, he illumines the world through the sun, and he warms it through heat; yet neither bread, nor sun, nor fire, is anything save in so far as he distributes his blessings to us by these instruments. In like manner, he nourishes faith spiritually through the sacraments...”
*J.Calvin
Good quote anonymous. Just seems to me that this is a great example of putting the cart before the horse.
This is like teaching a child the children's catechism, getting them to say the sinner's prayer, and voila, they are Christian.
This also sounds like baptismal regeneration, even though I know you would qualify it in covenantal thinking.
Could this not be said of preaching?
2) How is this known to you?
Because I listened to the preaching of the Gospel in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
3) How did you come into this communion of the church?
By believing in the Gospel that was preached.
In the end I would have to ask, did you understand any of the preaching?
All of this ASSUMES the sign is given to children due to the hermeneutic of good and necessary inference which is neither good nor necessary.
It also assumes the nature of the New Covenant is the same as the Old. It is here that I must go with Owen's exegesis of Hebrews 8.
Anonymous,
Another point that needs to be understood, that for the Reformed Baptist, baptism can not be separated from the message. So in your view, baptism can be a means of entering the covenant all by itself. It needs no Gospel, Communion, or church discipline.
Again, for the RB, the Gospel is proclaimed, then it is believed and one becomes a disciple, then one is baptized since baptism is tied with the message proclaimed, then one enters into communion with the saints and partakes of communion.
Therefore, Baptism is for disciples alone.
Since infants neither hear the gospel, believe the gospel, able to take communion or be in the New Covenant by Christ's substitutionary and High Priestly work through the normal means of faith, then they are not disciples. And since nothing stated in the New Covenant says that the New Covenant sign must be given to infants...
Therefore they are not to receive the New Covenant sign of baptism.
"Therefore, Baptism is for disciples alone.
Since infants neither hear the gospel, believe the gospel, able to take communion or be in the New Covenant by Christ's substitutionary and High Priestly work through the normal means of faith, then they are not disciples. And since nothing stated in the New Covenant says that the New Covenant sign must be given to infants...
Therefore they are not to receive the New Covenant sign of baptism."
So Luther and Calvin are wrong regarding infant baptism, But your particular theology is correct. You say: "In my opinion, Reformed and Lutherans are friends of the Reformed Baptists." But how can that be if we have such variant views of the writings of our founders? Who is correct, the Lutheran/Calvin view of baptism (based on their writings) or a RB view 500 years later? Why is your view of baptism correct, but Luther's is not. Do you propose to have insight over Scripture that the founders lacked?
Howdy again Anonymous,
I am beginning to wonder if you are a RC that is really attempting to argue the sufficiency of Scripture. If so, this has been answered many times before.
1) "But your particular theology is correct"
a) Why is arguing from Scripture always met by those who deny Sola Scriptura as an argument as if I am putting forth my own personal opinion above Scripture or the Confessions?
b) This statement seems to also imply that I am making myself a new Pope and that I think my opinion is infallible.
c) Do you believe what you believe (whatever it is you believe) to be correct? In other words, is it a crime to believe what I believe to be correct.
Could you imagine if I went around and said, I think baptism for disciples alone is wrong, but I am going to believe anyway. Kind of silly, isn't it?
2) "So Luther and Calvin are wrong regarding infant baptism"
I would say, "yes" they were wrong, but I believe they were inconsistent in following their own hermeneutical methodology, not heretical.
3) "Reformed and Lutherans are friends of the Reformed Baptists." But how can that be if we have such variant views of the writings of our founders?"
Because where we agree is so foundational that simply because we disagree at points does not mean the unifying principles and interpretations mean "no fellowship". Our unity is far greater than many within Rome's communion. RCs often repeat myths that what Rome teaches today has always been what is taught. Not true. Many also think RCs are all in step together. Not true.
4)"RB view 500 years later"
The LBCF that is commonly used dates from 1677/89. There is also the first LBC of 1644/46. Where does this 500 years thing come in? Also our 1689 Confession reads almost word for word like the Westminster in order to attempt to show unity.
5) "Do you propose to have insight over Scripture that the founders lacked?"
Again, simply because men disagree, has nothing to do with Scripture's sufficiency. Why does Luther or Calvin have to be infallible in order to be good and faithful men in church history?
God Bless
BTW: if you are not RC, then you are still assuming a fallacious argument. Luther and Calvin do not have the same view of infant baptism. Although on the surface they agree at many points, Calvin's view is unique in church history. I would simply refer you to Book 4 of Calvin's Institutes.
Post a Comment