(To explain why this is controversial: A Greek note - the very word "baptism" is a transliteration of the Greek "baptizo," which would be literally translated "immersion." That is why we technically ought not even use the term "baptism" to describe the sprinkling of infants. Beyond that is the New Testament precedent of baptism taking place after repentance. But I digress...)
Piper explains the change by saying that the elders decided that they did not want to make the requirements for membership in their local church different than the requirements for membership in the universal church - a sentiment which I understand. They have also been clear that, while the requirements for membership in the church do not include believer's baptism, they do include fruits of repentance (in other words, "regenerate chuch membership.") Additionally, the requirements for an elder are more stringent and do include agreement with the theological teachings of the church, including believer's baptism as the biblical teaching.
It's an interesting argument. What do you think?
UPDATE: Matt Hall has posted a helpful response on his blog.
27 comments:
I am definately not a theologian, but it sounds like the first step in compromise to me.
Finally, a baptist making a little more sense.
Are you talking about me or Piper making sense?
:)
I'm glad to have you, but I do wish you anonymous posters would at least leave a name...
You got me there.
Hey, do you believe immersion is the only valid form of baptism?
Alex... Where did you read about this? I would love to get to read about it further.
For what it is worth, I do not think that this is a good idea. We are not adding requirements to the gospel by asking people to be baptized by immersion. We are merely asking them to be obedient to what we understand the Bible to teach.
Now, I can't get into the heart of the person who said " Finally, a baptist making a little more sense" to see his/her intention, but this is a similar comment as often comes in light of issues such as baptism--and this issue is in a spirit of division, not in the unifying Spirit of Christ. I'm in full agreement with Scott on this issue, and good discussion and argumentation in love over such issues is both edifying and healthy, but the degradation that comes from all sides on this and similar issues is not a show of the power of the gosple of the kingdom to this world; rather, it is a display of the power of the flesh.
Scott - the announcement came in Piper's "Fresh Words" email - send me an email and I'll send it to you.
Sean - I believe that believer's baptism by immersion is the biblical model throughout the NT. I think that it is possible, in very rare circumstances where water isnt availble or when there are health conditions, to practice baptism by other means, but it is not desirable.
I was just trying to get at alex's goat. (where ever that thing ran off too.) I am also open to good brotherly dialogue on this issue. Which I think is very fun even if we don' sway one another. I'd be glad to start a discussion about Baptism and it's meaning on my own blog if you all want. I need to break it in. And I don't want to overrun alex's blog.
Cheers!
Like I said on my blog, immersion is not the mode of baptism, immersion is baptistm. Or better yet, baptism is immersion. This makes no sense and it reaks of compromise.
To say that since baptism is not required to "join" the universal church it should not be a requirement to join the local church is absurd. Must one leave an adulterous relationship to be saved? Does the practicing homosexual have to change his lifestyle to become a Christian -- to "join" the church universal?
If not, then certainly we shouldn't ask them to do so to join the church - according to this argument.
Alex,
Where do you stand on this? Since I don't have any access to ask Piper, I will ask you, what are the requirements to get into church universal? Piper is redefining this, but someone in the church down the road may define it even more loosely. I appreaciate Piper's desire to be embrassing, but the practicality of how it works may make all the difference between a right move and a wrong move.
Question: is immersion a "litmus test" for identifying a true believer? Being a member of the "church universal" (i.e., being saved) is, & should be, I 'spose, a primary requirement to become a member of a local church body. However, seems to me that it's okay for a local church to desire or require specific "steps" to join in membership. Immersion has never been required to become a member of the Body of Christ; that doesn't mean it couldn't or shouldn't be to become a member of a specific church (if they, as a group, wish to require it). Personally, I agree w/ Alex: immersion is the "proper" or most accurate of method of baptism.
Our church just dealt with something similarly, and found a midway point (it cost us two families, though). We are an EFree church; typically, EFCA churches don't require baptism for membership, a la Piper's, but our church, with its Baptist roots, always required immersion for membership. Since, though, we have people from a lot of different backgrounds, we made a change, to allow people baptized as believers (I agree with "stuarts", personally, but won't quibble over the word) by another mode to become members (retaining baptism as a "for believers only" thing). "Infant baptism" we liken to baby dedication, suggesting that its motives are great, but "it ain't baptism". Further, we will only immerse new believers. It can be a thorny deal, whatever way you go, but I've found that living in the north and attracting folks across a denominational spectrum to our "Community" church raises questions I never faced as a Southern Baptist down in God's country...
Immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up. Thus Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, "[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [baptizo] before dinner." They did not practice immersion before dinner, but, according to Mark, the Pharisees "do not eat unless they wash [nipto] their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves [baptizo]" (Mark 7:3–4a, emphasis added). So baptizo can mean cleansing or ritual washing as well as immersion.
A similar range of meanings can be seen when baptizo is used metaphorically. Sometimes a figurative "baptism" is a sort of "immersion"; but not always. For example, speaking of his future suffering and death, Jesus said, "I have a baptism [baptisma] to be baptized [baptizo] with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!" (Luke 12:50) This might suggest that Christ would be "immersed" in suffering. On the other hand, consider the case of being "baptized with the Holy Spirit."
In Acts 1:4–5 Jesus charged his disciples "not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, ‘you heard from me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’" Did this mean they would be "immersed" in the Spirit? No: three times Acts 2 states that the Holy Spirit was poured out on them when Pentecost came (2:17, 18, 33, emphasis added). Later Peter referred to the Spirit falling upon them, and also on others after Pentecost, explicitly identifying these events with the promise of being "baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 11:15–17). These passages demonstrate that the meaning of baptizo is broad enough to include "pouring."
Calvin took exactly the same view - as did most of the Reformers. The Bible speaks of 'one baptism'. As long as it performed by a Trinitarian church the Reformers considered it valid. Going further an insisting on re-baptism, I have long taught, is to go against the Bible itself.
What most Baptists can't understand is that 'water baptism' is purely external is is somehting done 'to' the prospective church member (which includes our convenant children - denying they are treated as members ispure theological hypocrisy). It is not about personal belief at all - though, in an adult, plainly it ought to be.
We're getting way off topic here (the topic,. to remind us, is the new policy at Piper's church - is it appropriate or not?). I didn't mean to get into the age-old theological debate about the nature and mode of baptism. But... I'll try to be brief...
Leaving aside the issue of mode (though I remain fully persuaded that baptism is properly by immersion - Sean you should talk to the Eastern Church on that):
What is baptism about if not personal belief? Why does baptism in Scripture always seem to follow repentance? Why does Jesus, in his final commission, command baptism for those who become disciples? Sure baptism is an external sign, a pictorial presentation of the Gospel as worked out in a person's life: dying to sin and being raised to new life in Christ, just as Jesus was crucified, buried, and raised to life. The convert is thus publicly expressing his identification with Christ. While it is, therefore, an external symbol, it surely has significant meaning for the one baptized. It is a significant "marker" in that person's life, and further symbolizes their union with the Body of Christ (the Church), who have similarly been baptized.
Frankly Calvin is entitled to his view, I just happen to think he was wrong on this point. The concept of "rebaptizing" someone sprinkled in infancy doesn't even make sense. In other words, they may have been sprinkled, they may have participated in a nice religious ceremony that was meaningful for a lot of people (most notably the parents), but it wasn't baptism.
Having learned a bit more about Bethlehem's position, they are saying that such people can be welcomed into membership, but they will be taught about baptism with the hope that, at some point, they will come to share the church's conviction on this matter and submit to being baptized. In their view, they are not affirming such a person's view of baptism by welcoming them into membership, just removing that as a hindrance to the membership covenant.
Lastly, as an aside: What do you mean when you say children are treated as members? For what its worth, I would argue that a consistent ecclesiology would not count children as members (that is, children who have not repented of sin and come to faith in Christ and been baptized). By that I mean they shouldn't participate in the Lord's Supper or have a vote in congregational decisions. Are you arguing something more than that?
You ask what is baptism about if not personal belief.
I think you know my answer to this.
Covenant membership.
Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.
This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ"—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.
Anyway, sorry to overrun your blog.
I've enjoyed the disscussion though as well as finding other peoples blogs through this one.
Sean,
The fact that circumcision and baptism are alike is not debated between credo- and paedobaptists. The question is how they are alike. Paul indeed compares the two, but does this mean that they can be related in every way? HOW did Paul intend to relate the two?
Much like Christ's comparison of himself to bread, Paul did not intend for the comparison of baptism to circumcision to mean that the two items are identical, or even similar in every way. Colossians 2:11-12 seems to compare circumcion with baptism ONLY as the removal of flesh for the purpose of living to God. The correlation that Paul is emphasizing, in other words, is not who should be circumcised/baptized or at what age, but rather the death of the believer to his old flesh and his raising to new life.
How did Paul intend to relate the two?
I will have to stick with the historical interpretation which the Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed Churches hold to. Which was also the view of the early church fathers directly succeding the apostles.
"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).
Again I feel bad for discussing this on someones website that might not want it discussed here.
If you want you come over to my blog and discuss it further.
Or we can keep going here.
oops, that was a quote from augustine in case you were wondering. i forgot to put that in there.
Sean, we were discussing Col 2:11-12, which you brought up. Was that quote regarding that text, or just Augustine's general view of baptism?
I found another great quote of Augustine about baptism, too:
"For a long time my [adult] friend suffered from a high fever and lay unconscious in a sweat that looked like death. When they despaired of his recovery, he was baptized. He knew nothing of this himself, and I paid little attention to the fact of his baptism. I assumed that his soul... would not be affected by something done to his body while he was unconscious. But it turned out very differently." (The Confessions of St. Augustine, Book IV, Chapter 4)
Would you agree with Augustine's view of baptism in this case?
Excellent question. There is a lot involved here with both of our understandings of baptism.
Aquinas had this to say in summa theologica on the 12 article of baptism.
Objection 3: Further, the use of reason is suspended in madmen and imbeciles more than it is in one who sleeps. But it is not customary to baptize people while they sleep. Therefore it should not be given to madmen and imbeciles.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Confess. iv) of his friend that "he was baptized when his recovery was despaired of": and yet Baptism was efficacious with him. Therefore Baptism should sometimes be given to those who lack the use of reason.
Reply to Objection 3: A person should not be baptized while asleep, except he be threatened with the danger of death. In which case he should be baptized, if previously he has manifested a desire to receive Baptism, as we have stated in reference to imbeciles: thus Augustine relates of his friend that "he was baptized while unconscious," because he was in danger of death (Confess. iv).
Given the catholic view of baptism at the time and right now. ie. that it is truly efficatious in the remission of sins and saves us. I would have to say that I agree with what Augustine did because of such a dire situation.
It shouldn't be used as a rule of baptism but I think it was in line with orthodoxy.
Just like the thief on the cross wasn't baptised at all and still Christ allowed him to be in heaven with him that day. This is not necessarily a rule to go by but throught the grace of God it happened.
That is what I came up with so far. But that is a very good quote to discuss regarding baptism and I will look into this further.
"regenerate chuch membership"
what does that mean? How do we know objectively if someone is "regernerate"? How can we make regeneration (something spiritually subjective) a requirement for membership in the Church (something objective) - we can't read peoples hearts. Church membership has been treated as an objective matter through out Church history - until the later 1700-1800's in America. Not until the 1800's did theologians begin to focus on individual election for Church membership - over against objective signs like Baptism.
The New Covenant community is defined by baptism, not by somehow searching peoples hearts to know wether or not they are truly 'elect'. Modern day Baptists and some presbyterians have completely missed the mark with regard to this issue.
I remember being a baptist. I remember the huge shift -almost a worldview shift- when I embraced a Covenantal view of infant baptism and paedo-communion. Now that I've studied these issues in-depth for the last 3 years, I cannot believe the Church has gotten so far off track. It's so simple. Read the great reformers like Luther, Bucer, Calvin, Huss, read the Church fathers. Were they all wrong to practice paedo-baptism for over a thousand years? And the early Church clearly practiced paedo-communion, it's stated very clearly in many early Church documents describing worship. Was the Church defiled within 100 years of Christ's resurrection? The Orthodox Church still to this day practices paedo-communion. Our Old Testament fathers practiced paedo-communion when they fed their covenantal Children the passover meal. Children should not be allowed to the Lords table after they have performed the required WORKS, or passing a Christian IQ test. The Catholic Church in the west practiced paedo-communion for over 1200 years before the Roman Church outlawed it. It wasn't until the reformation that it was re-established by Huss and his Churches in Europe - and thank God someone had the back bone to stop requiring works before our Children could recieve grace - that's all backwards. And so is baptist theology regarding baptism and the Lords supper.
I suggest you just quite taking for granted what your Baptist professors teach you, and start reading outside of your comfort zone. Be sure before you seperate your children from God and break the covenant by refusing them the waters of Baptism and the Table of the Lord. It's not YOUR table, and it's not YOUR water, they're GOD'S covenantal rites. And clearly the Covenant has always included and will always include our Children. Not only this the obvious biblical paradigm, but it is obvious to see in the Church.
I remember taking to Dr. Wellum about some of these issues, and just slaming him into the ground with the objectivity of the Covenant. He hardly knew what to say and couldn't defend his position. It is clear that in the NT there are Church members who LOOSE their covenantal status, or, run the risk of loosing there communion in the Church (God's covenant people). Passages such as John 15, Romans 11, 1 Cor 10, Heb 10 and 6, and plenty of other show clearly that real apostacy is possible for people who were really connected to Christ Covenantally. But this only makes sense if the covenant is OBJECTIVE and that entrance, or inclusion, is based on objective rites like baptism. In other words, someone can be a true covenant member without reference to their heart 'regeneration', or election, and can loose their covenantal connection through apostacy. If "true" covenant membership is only for the "elect" than how can you have passages that cleary teach that people can be IN the covenant and then be CUT out of the covenant? Were they not "Really" in the covenant? If not, why does it say they were "IN" the vine? Why does hebrews teach that they participated in the promised holy spirit, being enlightened? Makes sense to me that THE NEW COVENANT OPERATES IN THE SAME WAY AS THE OLD WITH RESPECT TO COVENANT MEMBERSHIP BEING OBJECTIVE AND BASED ON VISIBLE , OBJECTIVE, RITES (ie., Baptism and the Lords supper, like passover and circumcision). It makes sense to me that God has continued with the pattern of EVERY OTHER COVENANT, THAT OUR CHILDREN OUR INCLUDED IN THAT COVENANT WITH US! The modern view of "subjetive" covenent membership (based solely on election and "regeneration") is a novelty that was unheard of in the Church even during the reformation. Speaking of regeneration Calvin clearly tought that we can know we are Children of God, "Because I am baptized in the name of God the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."(Strasbourg catechism) Not becuase I was "born again" at summer camp. (The typical baptistic answer) Baptism, for the reformers, was the rite of inclusion in the covenant and as Calvin said, "Hence, both pardon of sins and newness of life are certainly offered and received by us in baptism." Calvin also teaches, "We must realize that at whatever time we are baptized, we are once for all washed and purged for our whole life."
I could go on. Of course one might ask, who cares about calvin? My point is that Baptists cannot find a voice in the Church historical, even in the reformation - outside of the heretical ana-baptists.
But, have it your way. According to you, the Glory of the New Covenant is that God hates our children because they are not his, and thus they are his enemies. Have it your way, don't teach your children how to pray, otherwise you will be praying with pagans - which is unbiblical. Have it your way; part of the Glory of the New Covenant is that God doesn't bless our children with covenantal grace as in the Old Testament.
Baptists have cut out from the new covenant one of the greatest prophetic promises regarding the coming of the new COvenant age - the inclusion of our children with us for at thousand generations! Read the prophets for goodness sake!
I can't continue. I have to go. I'm depressed just thinking about baptist theology. I pray that you one day read and listen to someone outside of the baptist world.
sorry about all the typos, It's to late...I need to go to bed.
I don't mind theological discussion, but posts dripping with arrogance bother me. (For example, Sean and I disagree on many things, but we talk as friends who respect each other).
That said, a few brief thoughts (I have neither the time nor the inclination to go point by point. Besides, frankly, we'd just go back and forth forever and I've got other things to do).
* Regenerate church membership is, as I suspect you know, the idea that the proper members of a local church are those who have been awakened by the Spirit to the reality of sin and have trusted in Christ alone for salvation. Thus they have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit (made alive, as opposed to being dead in sins).
* You're right, I have never ever in all my life and studies read a book by a non-Baptist. I just drink the kook-aid they serve at the seminary. (Come on. I bet you didn't know that for a couple years I attended a presbyterian church.)
* "Children should not be allowed to the Lords table after they have performed the required WORKS, or passing a Christian IQ test." You're right, no works and no IQ test at the table. But spiritual regeneration is required - the Lord's table is for those who have identified with Christ.
* What, then, of someone raised in a Christian home, presumably a default member of the covenant, who apostasizes the faith? What of their baptism, what of their participation in communion? Was it just not efficacious? Perhaps the Spirit just couldn't hang on to these elect children, despite the sacraments?
* I will most assuredly pray with my son and teach him to pray, teach him the Scriptures, etc. But I will not do this because I presume that he is already in the covenant. I will do these things with the hope and prayer that the Lord will show him the Truth and that he will come to believe at the right time. I will pray with my son but also for him, knowing that he too will bear the marks of the fall and a sinful nature. (BTW - I'm confident that God doesn't hate him - do you believe that God hates - as the term is commonly understood in modern parlance - those outside the covenant? Do you?)
I'm confident that, no matter what I say, you will believe that you have "slammed me to the ground" or something. I'll be another notch in your theological debate belt if you want - I don't really care. You have a voractious appetite for "head-knowledge," but your tone and demeanor makes me ask, sincerely: Where is your heart?
I too am weary of this...
I know that when other claim to be more learned than you on a given issue, it seems like arrogance. I'm not arrogant, I'm just ticked off that baptist won't even allow those who are infant baptized to be members, yet will allow that those who are infant-baptized are Christians. Or, some baptists, like Dr. Wellum, go as far as to say that non-baptistic churches are not TRUE Christians Churches. Then when you challenge them on the issue of baptism they prove that they've hardly studied the issue. (of course this is not allways true, but often is)
*You wan't to pretend that your children are in the covenant in the way you live - praying with them, teaching them to pray etc. But Theologicaly being forced by logical necessity to hold that until they are 'regenerate' they are enemies of God, and that their prayers are not heard by God.
This is the kind of contradiction that just saddens me. Like Moses who refused to circumcise his son, you have broken the Covenant.
*I know what regenerate church membership means. I just cannot come to understand how you know FOR SURE that someone has been regenerate and is thus a part of the body of Christ, the covenant community, and is to be allowed into membership in the Local church. This invisible subjective experience is unkown to us. (Except in so far as one is baptized, as scripture constantly makes reference to baptism as the point of regeneration, knewness of life, etc. as the reformers taught.)
*How do you know that a Child has been regenerate? And how then can you allow them to come to the table. They may say they believe (in which case, in baptists churches the are still not allowed to participate), but you don't know they're hearts. What if they really don't believe? Justine writes in 150 that ALL present recieved the Lords supper, and early Church orders of service tell us that the "nursing infants" recieved communion also. On top of that you have the type of passover recieved by children, and you have Paul teaching that the exlusion of folks in the Church from the Eucharist is a sin for which some in Corinth were dying.
*Your questions regarding infant-baptism are expected questions. I suggest you read Doug Wilon's "reformed is not enough." or Dr. Peter Leitharts "the preisthood of the plebs: a theology of baptism". You know, some folks who aren't baptists. Baptism is always efficacious, but does not produce persevering faith and faithfulness to the covenant. A Child baptized must make their election and calling sure by remaining in the Church, and holding firm the faith. Of course, if they refuse the faith, they must be excommunicated. Does this mean they were never really covenant members? In my view, according to scripture, NO.
What I'm talking about here is covenantal soteriology. Something that we have lost site of completely in the Modern american Church, which our platonic categories of "election" and rampant individualism. I obviously don't have time to get into Biblical Covenantal soteriology at this point. But I could suggest that you read papers to be found here http://www.honres.org/theologia and get ahold of the Auburn Avenue pastors Conference tapes titled, the "federal vision" at http://www.cmfnow.com
Alex, I don't believe that I have slammed you to the ground. We haven't had a discussion yet. Trust me, I'm not that arrogant. (However, with Wellum, I really did slam him - in fact is was kind of funny to see even the most prominent Calvinistic baptists attempt to make sense out of the apotacy passages in a way that denies the existance of true apostacy)
You ask, where is my heart? I'll tell you. My heart is torn as I see baptists who haven't studied outside their comfort zone (about %99 of baptists) rejecting folks who were infant-baptized and having no good case for it. For those who theologically reject their children and yet, live as though their Children are loved by God in the covenant.
The Bible makes it clear we are not to pray with sinners and pagans, which you must by necessity admit that your children are utnil they are regenerate (which you will never know, because your not God). And yes, in a sense I believe that God's hates pagans.
So, what I'm saying is that your rejection of part of the body of Christ (those infant baptized) from membership saddens me, but someone who has spent years studying scripture you ought to know better, so I'm more mad than sad at that point. Kind of like Christ getting mad when those who should know better deny and mislead children - they should have a milstone thrown around their neck..etc.
That's where I'm coming from. It's not personal. I think that pipers church is going in the right direction here.
Name is Kent,
Sorry this is long and I'm using someones blog space but I couldn't help myself.
I am a Baptist and I have attended a well-known Presbyterian seminary with mostly Presbyterian professors. However, I have never heard such vitriolic language towards Baptists. We disagree on baptism, so we agree to disagree while at the same time praying for the other to come to our understanding of what scripture teaches. We do this with conviction and out of a love for truth. We don't say that paedo's are not saved nor do we say that they are not in the invisible church. However, we must, by the conviction of our conscience, impose upon our local church what we believe to be biblical. If we do not then it shows a lack of conviction. Many of my Presbyterian brothers share strongly their convictions on paedobaptism and they try to convince me of their view. I commend them for caring enough about me to try and set me straight but so far they have not changed my mind. As far as reading outside the Baptist world. I studied for my master's outside of the baptist world and yet I'm still convinced that the credo view is correct. Perhaps you should step outside Dr. Wellums world and into the world of Baptist scholars. For one thing, in Col 2:11-12 Paul is not comparing circumcision with baptism he's saying they don't need to be physically circumcised because it's been replaced by spiritual circumcision. The comparison, therefore, is not with physical circumcision and physical baptism, it's with physical circumcision and spiritual circumcision. That's Paul's whole point. He's telling them to get out of the world of rituals. I'm very fond of the paedo view so please don't act as if you're having to baby sit us through the discussion. The great thing about the new covenant is it is truly eternal. Unlike the old covenants which required Israel to be perfectly obedient the new covenant is kept perfectly by Christ and that perfect obedience is imputed to those who repent and believe. Not to those who have Christian parents. That's why Jesus says we have eternal life and we believe we can't lose it. Not only does he obtain it for us but he gives us the faith to believe. That's when we're now circumcised with a circumcision made without hands. Made by who you may ask? The Holy Spirit! WHat is the seal of this or sign of this happening, not baptism which is only a profession that we are following Christ. Nowhere in the NT does it say that baptism is the sign or seal. Paul says in Ephesians that we've been sealed with what? The Holy Spirit. Once someone has been sealed with the Holy Spirit, it cannot be undone because as Paul says neither death nor life (our slow and sad sanctification) can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus. Jesus said that noone can snatch His sheep out of His hand. He also says that all (elect) that the Father gives to Him they all will come and He will lose none. So can someone be in the new covenant and then lose their standing in it? Absolutely not, all truly reformed people believe that. You say that we should read the theologians of history well I have and they believed in semper reformatum. This means that the church should always be reforming. Luther and Calvin we're up to their elbows in protecting the gospel and soteriology and they did not have time to reform everything. But as the church continues down the road we should always teach because we believe ourselves, not because our daddies believed it. However, Calvin and Luther were wrong on many things (although I love and respect them both). For instance they considered anyone saying the sun was the center of the universe a heretic and even said that the bible taught the earth was the center of the universe. Oh how they were wrong and it did great harm to the church. Now the world will hear nothing of the church if "scientists" disagree, how sad. So let us always be reforming and not go back in time merely because they were closer to the apostles. Jude wrote his epistle because there was already the deterioration of the gospel. As a matter of fact most of the epistles were defending the gospel and it was only 30-70 years after the cross. We believe in credo baptism because it is what the NT teaches in greatest form and our conscience is convinced by this as Luther's was when he nailed the 95 thesis. We, as baptists, guard our children from thinking they are in the covenant because the new covenant is based upon personal, individual repentance and faith in Christ. John the Baptist believed this that's why he preached repent and show fruit of repentance to Jews that were already circumcised. Anyway, I'm tired and done for now.
Post a Comment