Presbyterian-ism

The Wesminster Confession of Faith on Baptism,

Chapter 28:
Of Baptism​

28:1 Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ (Mat_28:19), not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church (1Co_12:13); but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace (Rom_4:11 with Col_2:11, Col_2:12), of his ingrafting into Christ (Rom_6:5; Gal_3:27), of regeneration (Tit_3:5), of remission of sins (Mar_1:4), and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life (Rom_6:3, Rom_6:4). Which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world (Mat_28:19, Mat_28:20).
28:2 The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto (Mat_3:11; Mat_28:19, Mat_28:20; Joh_1:33).
28:3 Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary: but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person (Mar_7:4; Act_2:41; Act_16:33; Heb_9:10, Heb_9:19-22).
28:4 Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ (Mar_16:15, Mar_16:16; Act_8:37, Act_8:38), but also the infants of one or both believing parents, are to be baptized (Gen_17:7, Gen_17:9 with Gal_3:9, Gal_3:14, and Col_2:11, Col_2:12, and Act_2:38, Act_2:39, and Rom_4:11, Rom_4:12; Mat_28:19; Mar_10:13-16; Luk_18:15; 1Co_7:14).
28:5 Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance (Luk_7:30 with Exo_4:24-26), yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it (Act_10:2, Act_10:4, Act_10:22, Act_10:31, Act_10:45, Act_10:47; Rom_4:11); or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated (Act_8:13, Act_8:23).
28:6 The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered (Joh_3:5, Joh_3:8); yet notwithstanding, 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 (Act_2:38, Act_2:41; Gal_3:27; Eph_5:25, Eph_5:26; Tit_3:5).
28:7 The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person (Tit_3:5).

Hope this helps.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

No, Col. 2 was addressed to adult Christians who were dead in trespasses and sins. Col. 2 is not merely the basis for infant baptism, it’s the basis for all baptism. Remember, the church was in a stage of infancy and the Christian family had not had a chance to develop; infants had not had a chance to grow up. Paul could not write letters to infants. How did uncircumcised people come to Jehovah under the old covenant? They became spiritual Jews and were circumcised after being converted to the faith. The fact that they were circumcised as adults did not void the command to circumcise children as infants. Trespasses and sins are not imputed to infants and small children. Baptism of infants would not require the same circumstances as baptism of adults. Lost adults must repent from a lost state that infants are not in.

No, think, infants are already saved, you said you believed that yourself. Like I said, Presbyterians have a different interpretation of baptism; it’s the sign of the new covenant as circumcision was for the old. Well, maybe OSAS is a faulty belief and wouldn’t apply here. I’m not saying everything any denomination believes in is true. Cumberland Presbyterians, who are not Calvinists, believe that once a person believes in Christ, he would never “want” to fall from grace, not that he couldn’t. I guess God knows something about the future that we don’t know.

Just because baptism is referred to as “circumcision without hands” does not mean hands are not used in baptism., it simply means that the physical act of circumcision is not carried out anymore.

Nothing, it’s true that the new birth is the spiritual equivalent of circumcision and baptism is the symbol of new birth for the Christian adult. But remember, infant Jews were circumcised.

 

Paul wrote letters to Christian churches and those churches were either baptizing infants or they weren't.

I agree that the full issue of salvation is being addressed in Col 2. If the statement is applied to infants THEN they are getting saved via the process shown in Col 2 to take someone who is dead in tresspasses and sins and to grant them forgiveness.

If what you are saying is that the language of Col 2 can not possibly be applicable to infants - then I agree.

I agree -- therefore Col 2 does not apply to them since that is what it deals with.

Maybe there is some text that deals with the process of baptims for those NOT lost in tresspasses and sin? If so -- what is it?

Agreed - so once again - no need for the Col 2 solution to a problem that infants don't have.

But that leads to a problem for Presbyterians - -how does a SAVED infant become lost??

I thought you guys were OSAS all the way!

You are the first guy I have seen on this board (outside of a few select Arminians) who would dare admit that OSAS is not correct.

Most of my Arminian brethren on this board cling to OSAS no matter how it contradicts the Arminian position.
(And that includes Bro Bob who in my opinion is a saint)

So I am shocked that a Calvinist would come to understand that OSAS is wrong!

How can you guys be ahead of most of my fellow Arminian brethren when it comes to figuring out the problem with OSAS??!!

That is huge if you ask me.

BTW - Adam knew God and yet chose sin. Lucifer knew God and yet chose rebellion - if SINLESS perfect beings can make a bad choice - isn't it entirely possible that a fallen sinful human Christian might find a reason to choose rebellion even after having been saved?

Notice the example given in Matt 18 regarding "forgiveness revoked"??
In John 15 we have branches IN Christ taken out and burned in the fire.
In Romans 11 we have branches IN Christ being warned to "FEAR for if He did not spare THEM then neither will he spare you".

Seems like OSAS gets challenged both in the Gospels and in the NT text of the Apostolic letters if you ask me.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Looks like full gospel salvation for the repentant believer to me.

I did not find a single case of sprinkling water in baptism in those texts where Baptism is defined as the the opening definition that you gave above.

I did not find even one case of an infant being baptized in all those texts.

And this is significant since before the cross we had BOTH circumcision AND baptism being practiced at the same time. I.e. one did not replace the other. This is true even in Acts 16:1-3.

That would certainly be true IF you held to the opening statement in your definition for Baptism as being the full and complete meaning of baptism.

But if you sliced up that opening definition into tiny segements of which some small set was to be applied at infant baptism and the rest at some other time then you would NEED more than one Baptism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I'm a Calvinist, and I don't believe in OSAS. I believe in the perseverance of the saints.

As far as I understand it, OSAS states that once you "get saved" then you can sin all you want to and still stay "saved". No matter whether you kill a dozen people or you renouce Christ and become a Muslim, if you once in your life time made a profession of Christ you are saved. OSAS is basically fire insurance. That's not the historic Reformed view. I think it's safe to say that it is not even a Christian veiw.

Perseverance of the saints, according to the WCF, states that someone truly born of the Spirit can not totally, nor finally fall from the state of grace: but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, be eternally saved. Futher, the perseverance of the saints depends not upon thier own free will but upon the immutability of the decree of election flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father, upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ, the abiding of the Holy Spirit, and of the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace , from all which arises also the certainty and infallibility thereof. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevelancy of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of thier preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time, continue therein, whereby the incur God's displeasure and grieve His Holy Spirit, come to be deprived of some measure of thier graces and comforts, have thier hearts hardened and thier consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgements upon themselves. (WCF chapter 17)

That's a far cry from "sin to your hearts content because your saved." I didn't include any of the Scripture references because of time, but each of those points are supported by Scripture. OSAS has no Scriptural ground to stand on, yet the classic Reformed view of pereverance of the saints does have a lot. I'd also say it (OSAS or antinomianism) has nothing to do with Calvinism whatsoever, because it has no historical ties to the Canons of Dort, John Calvin, the WCF, or the Reformed faith, nay, even the Bible at all and above all the rest. The antinomians were exactly who Paul was citing in Romans 6 :1-2.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

Great points Bob. I can't answer right this second though. If we get slow at work I will try to, if not I'll get to it when I get off. I can say that mode of baptism discussed in the confessions is verified in the OT. As well as baptism of believers and thier children. I will look into as I have time.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

While most Christian denominations practice infant baptism, not all share the same meaning. Chemnitz (who is Lutheran) and those of us who are Presbyterian may share some of the same views, but we may not.

Both Presbyterians and Baptists agree (I think) on several issues regarding baptism. One, we would agree that baptism in and of itself, does not save. We are saved by grace through faith in Christ alone. Two, baptism is a sign of salvation. Three, we both believe in “believer’s baptism.” However, we would define this as believers and their children. Listed below are some questions and answers from a reformed faith perspective.

1. In the NT, when nonbelievers came to saving faith and joined the fellowship of believers, what happened? They were baptized.
2. Why? Baptism is the sign of salvation in the NT.
3. In the OT, when nonbelievers came to saving faith and joined the fellowship of believers, what happened? They were circumcised.
4. Why? Circumcism is the sign of salvation in the OT.
5. Who was circumcised? The believers and their household.
6. Did household include children? Yes.
7. In the OT, when believers had children, what happened? They were circumcised.
8. When were they circumcised - after they reached an “age of decision”? No, they were circumcised as infants.
9. Who came up with this idea? God commanded Abraham to do this.
10. Going back to question one, in the NT, when nonbelievers came to saving faith and joined the fellowship of believers, what happened? They and their whole household were baptized – given the sign of salvation, consistent with OT practices.

While the NT does not specifically mention the inclusion of infants in these households, there is no mention of exclusion as well. Since the practice for the past 4000 years was to include infants and children in the sign of the covenant, we would fully expect to see some statement in the NT that specifically excluded them if there was to be a difference in practice going forward. Instead, we find no such directive.

In fact, when Peter is preaching at Pentecost, he uses almost the same language that God used when He spoke to Abraham -- for this salvation is to you and to all who believe. Actually, it doesn't say that. It says "to you and to your children."

In our Presbyterian church, when nonbelievers come forward with a public profession of their faith and join our local fellowship, what happens? They and their household are baptized. When believers are blessed with a child, what happens? The infant is baptized. We believe both are in agreement with the Scriptures.

 

Bob, please read carefully the few lines you quoted above from my post. I'm trying to answer your question,"are all presbyterians calvinists?" The answer is no, Cumberland Presbyterians are not Calvinist. They took issue to that doctrine in the Westminster Confession way back in the nineteenth century and drew up the Cumberland Presbyterian Confesion of Faith. You can find it on the internet.

 

If infants are saved via baptism or just saved-because-infants-are-saved or if they are saved-because-their-parents-are-presbyterian then when you say they are then lost as adults and need to become Christians... they can not be OSAS as infants NOR can they be "persevering" since infant-hood.

True?

BTW - in my view OSAS holds true for both the 4-point and 5-point Calvinist model. You describe 4-point calvinism as OSAS (which is probably the purest form of it - I have to admit) - sadly many of my Arminian brethren on this board believe in that form of OSAS no matter how blatantly it contradicts the Arminian model!


I would argue 5-point Calvinism is also OSAS in the way that it retro-deletes assurance for those who do not persever. (A kind of negative-OSAS if you will).

It is OSAS in that it is limited to those who persevere. (And of course even as an Arminian I would have to agree that those who persevere are in fact saved all the way through that experience).

The "inverse-OSAS" part of 5 point calvinism comes in when you retro-delete assurance for the guy who claims to be saved today but then fails to persevere 10 years from today so that you are always left with a pure OSAS list. The pure Arminian model would agree with you that ten years from today he is not saved... we just would not retro-delete PAST assurance or the PAST saved-state from groups that did not persevere in order to preserve the OSAS group.

Which takes us back to the infant Baptism question and ANY text used to compare baptism to circumcision that results in the person "being saved".

In Christ,

Bob

 

That gets me to my question about OSAS and perseverance when it comes to infant baptism. How can infants be engaging in the "sign of salvation" and be lost -- or and then "later fail to persevere in their infanthood salvation"??

 

Circumcision in the OT was not a sign of salvation or baptism. Hence when John came along he baptized those who had already been circumcised.

However it was certainly a ritual - an "outward form" and it pointed to a spiritual reality according to Paul in Romans 2 - it pointed to circumcision of the heart done at the point of the new birth where the sinner comes to Christ and repents and is then born again.

Your answer seems to argue that you DO consider it right to think of infants as fully saved THEN as becoming lost and of needing to be saved again.

Very interesting given the way people fall on their swords around here to defend a kind of OSAS that argues that once you are saved God would not ALLOW such a thing to happen to you because you are "Family".

OR is there TWO kinds of family - TWO kinds of "saved" in the Presbyterian system?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Two words: Covenant theology.

Like I've been saying there's a lot more to Presbyterian/Reformed theology than just the five points of Calvinism.

If you've never read up on covenant theology, I'm really suprised. It seems you're well versed in Catholicism and Arminianism. But it's not totally out of the realm of thought, because I'd never heard of it till about a year ago. Volumes of books have been written about it though. It's worth reading up on.

If you read up on those things, I'll tell you, you'll have a better understanding of Presbyterian/Reformed stuff than basing all your opinions on it by what laymen such as myself say on here.

They're all over the internet to read and download for free.

That is if you're like me and have no spare change to buy books. :laugh:

Soli Doe Gloria,
Dustin

P.S. I'd suspect that most of this issue is hermaneutics (sp). The way you read the Bible has a lot of effect on what you think it says.