What the Reformed Confessions Teach About Baptism

[wildboar]

I am trying to compile all of the Reformed/Presbyterian/Anglican confessions I can find to compare what the teach concerning the meaning of baptism. I have attached a file which shows what I have so far. Unfortunately in some cases I have had to rely on confessions as they are quoted by other works. One of the more interesting ones I came across was what is referred to by Cornelius Burges as "The Confession of the Palatine" and by Schaff as "The Confession of Elector Frederick III of the Palatine." If anyone knows where I can get an English translation of this full document I would be very appreciative. Schaff says it can be regarded as an explanatory appendix to the Heidelberg catechism. Burges notes that it is more than a private confession since it was included in the "Harmony of Confessions." I'm guessing he is referring to the work by Theodore Beza and others in which rather than writing a new common Protestant Confession they thought it would be better to arrange the existing authoritative confessions by topic. SWRB prints a revised edition of this work with some additional confessions but unfortunately the revised edition omits the confession of Frederick. Here's what Burges quotes from the work (I've modernized the spelling):

Touching the force and efficacy of holy baptism, I believe and confess that our children (forasmuch as they also are included together with us in the covenant before spoken of) when they are baptized into the Articles of the ancient and catholic faith (as in them also they ought to be trained up and instructed) are made partakers as well as we of the bloody death of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of all other good things which in that his death he hath procured: and that in this manner; viz.: that as they receive the outward seal, to wit the holy Sacrament, the elementary water from the Minister of the word externally in the body; so also together and at once by Christ they are washed with his blood in their souls; that is to say, they are internally baptized, and are regenerated anew as new creatures by the Holy Ghost.

[Nicholas Heath]

I am trying to compile all of the Reformed/Presbyterian/Anglican confessions I can find to compare what the teach concerning the meaning of baptism. I have attached a file which shows what I have so far. Unfortunately in some cases I have had to rely on confessions as they are quoted by other works. One of the more interesting ones I came across was what is referred to by Cornelius Burges as "The Confession of the Palatine" and by Schaff as "The Confession of Elector Frederick III of the Palatine." If anyone knows where I can get an English translation of this full document I would be very appreciative. Schaff says it can be regarded as an explanatory appendix to the Heidelberg catechism. Burges notes that it is more than a private confession since it was included in the "Harmony of Confessions." I'm guessing he is referring to the work by Theodore Beza and others in which rather than writing a new common Protestant Confession they thought it would be better to arrange the existing authoritative confessions by topic. SWRB prints a revised edition of this work with some additional confessions but unfortunately the revised edition omits the confession of Frederick. Here's what Burges quotes from the work (I've modernized the spelling):

sounds like a fancy way of affirming baptismal regeneration....

[Kentucky Kid]

Wildboar: I don't have time to read the file you posted, but the quote from Burges was enough for me to disern the doctrines proposed as: 1) baptismal regeneration: that the work of baptism ushers in salvation 2) presumptive regeneration: that just because the child is baptised it is saved which is salvation by works 3) salvation by proxy: that since the child's parents are saved, they are saved also by the work of baptism which is works-salvation. God clearly tells us that in the everlasting covenant "all shall know me" (Hebrews 8:12). They will not know God by the Roman Catholic "SACRAMENT" of baptism which the Reformed confessions hold to; one comes to know God in the everlasting covenant by the Holy Spirit revealing Christ to them: "NOT by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to HIS MERCY he saved us, by the WASHING OF REGENERATION, and the RENEWING OF THE HOLY GHOST; Which he SHED ON US ABUNDANTLY through JESUS CHRIST our Saviour; That being JUSTIFIED BY HIS GRACE, we should be made heirs ACCORDING TO THE HOPE OF ETERNAL LIFE" (Titus 3:5-7; emphasis mine). Away with Rome's baptism!!!!!!!!!!.............look to Christ and HIS WORK!!!!!!!.........KK

[Highlyfavored]

Wildboar: I don't have time to read the file you posted, but the quote from Burges was enough for me to disern the doctrines proposed as: 1) baptismal regeneration: that the work of baptism ushers in salvation 2) presumptive regeneration: that just because the child is baptised it is saved which is salvation by works 3) salvation by proxy: that since the child's parents are saved, they are saved also by the work of baptism which is works-salvation. God clearly tells us that in the everlasting covenant "all shall know me" (Hebrews 8:12). They will not know God by the Roman Catholic "SACRAMENT" of baptism which the Reformed confessions hold to; one comes to know God in the everlasting covenant by the Holy Spirit revealing Christ to them: "NOT by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to HIS MERCY he saved us, by the WASHING OF REGENERATION, and the RENEWING OF THE HOLY GHOST; Which he SHED ON US ABUNDANTLY through JESUS CHRIST our Saviour; That being JUSTIFIED BY HIS GRACE, we should be made heirs ACCORDING TO THE HOPE OF ETERNAL LIFE" (Titus 3:5-7; emphasis mine). Away with Rome's baptism!!!!!!!!!!.............look to Christ and HIS WORK!!!!!!!.........KK

KK this is great.

Charles, I'm not going to debate you about this. Everything that I see you write seems to continually embrace tradition and churchianity. Even under your avatar "adherent to tradition". I don't understand why you decide to hold to the traditions of men ie. church fathers, confessions, things of this nature, as though they were our authority. I understand the importance of what has gone on before us and how we have got to where we are, but either way these things were just written by other men with no more authority than anyone else. What gives them any kind of authority? And why shouldn't I question their words and motives? Man is sinful. Also, giving these traditions a precedence above scripture is a false gospel.

Matthew 15:7-9 (NASB)
7 "You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you:
8 'This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far away from Me.
9 'But in vain do they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'"

My prayer for you is that you would ditch the garbage, however I seriously wonder if you ever have embraced the gospel in the first place. If you have, consider that the traditions of man are not where one finds God. It's not where the apostles or first century church found Him.

Galatians 3:1-3 (NASB)
1 You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?
2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?
3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

[unhingedsquare]

Traditions and church teaching is only false when it runs counter to scripture. Taking a look at what the Word says about baptism is how to examine which traditional understanding is correct. If one looks at baptism as the work of God, and not the work of man, the questions on the efficacy are answered. The denial that baptism is a means whereby God has determined to deliver faith is as old as the one affirming it.

Looking at scripture alone according to these verses:

makes disciples (Matthew 28:19)
saves (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21)
brings forgiveness/washes away sin/cleanses/takes away guilt (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5; Hebrews 10:22)
causes us to be born again (John 3:5; Titus 3:5)
crucifies the old man, buries him, and causes the baptized one to be raised up as a new creation of God (Romans 6:3-6; Colossians 2:11-12)
makes us members of Christ's body (1 Corinthians 12:13)
gives us the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38-39; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Titus 3:5-6)
clothes us with Christ (puts on His righteousness!) (Galatians 3:27)

Some will say they cannot believe that sort of teaching. It is really no more fantastic than to believe God can deliver faith by the preaching of the Word of God. Romans 10:17 No one would ever rightly say he or she came to faith thanks to the proclaimer of the Gospel but rather God used that to bring faith.

We have a Sovereign Lord and do not have the ability to tell Him who to do His work and give His gifts. So it is the baptism of the Bible which the reformed confessions teach not that of Rome. Quite similar to the Lutheran confessions. It is always a temptation to limit what God has proclaimed and ordained to make it easier to grasp.

May His Name evermore be praised. †

[Highlyfavored]

Traditions and church teaching is only false when it runs counter to scripture. Taking a look at what the Word says about baptism is how to examine which traditional understanding is correct. If one looks at baptism as the work of God, and not the work of man, the questions on the efficacy are answered. The denial that baptism is a means whereby God has determined to deliver faith is as old as the one affirming it.

Looking at scripture alone according to these verses:

makes disciples (Matthew 28:19)
saves (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21)
brings forgiveness/washes away sin/cleanses/takes away guilt (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5; Hebrews 10:22)
causes us to be born again (John 3:5; Titus 3:5)
crucifies the old man, buries him, and causes the baptized one to be raised up as a new creation of God (Romans 6:3-6; Colossians 2:11-12)
makes us members of Christ's body (1 Corinthians 12:13)
gives us the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38-39; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Titus 3:5-6)
clothes us with Christ (puts on His righteousness!) (Galatians 3:27)

Some will say they cannot believe that sort of teaching. It is really no more fantastic than to believe God can deliver faith by the preaching of the Word of God. Romans 10:17 No one would ever rightly say he or she came to faith thanks to the proclaimer of the Gospel but rather God used that to bring faith.

We have a Sovereign Lord and do not have the ability to tell Him who to do His work and give His gifts. So it is the baptism of the Bible which the reformed confessions teach not that of Rome. Quite similar to the Lutheran confessions. It is always a temptation to limit what God has proclaimed and ordained to make it easier to grasp.

May His Name evermore be praised. †

You can chop this and slice this and dice this any way you want, it's still is baptismal regeneration.

If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

I see no evidence of baptismal regeneration in the scriptures. This has been debated here. You can traditionally wrap this and say God does this all you want, it still has no power. Baptism is simply an outward showing of an inward reality. Something that a regenerate believer will desire, not something that makes the believer regenerate. If the "believer" is unregenerate before baptism, how does he ever get the gumption to be baptized in the first place? And if it's tradition or religion that gives him this gumption, it is simply the works of man again. If we go here, we might as well go back to Rome.

[Whammer]

Traditions and church teaching is only false when it runs counter to scripture. Taking a look at what the Word says about baptism is how to examine which traditional understanding is correct. If one looks at baptism as the work of God, and not the work of man, the questions on the efficacy are answered. The denial that baptism is a means whereby God has determined to deliver faith is as old as the one affirming it.

Looking at scripture alone according to these verses:

makes disciples (Matthew 28:19)
saves (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21)
brings forgiveness/washes away sin/cleanses/takes away guilt (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5; Hebrews 10:22)
causes us to be born again (John 3:5; Titus 3:5)
crucifies the old man, buries him, and causes the baptized one to be raised up as a new creation of God (Romans 6:3-6; Colossians 2:11-12)
makes us members of Christ's body (1 Corinthians 12:13)
gives us the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38-39; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Titus 3:5-6)
clothes us with Christ (puts on His righteousness!) (Galatians 3:27)

Some will say they cannot believe that sort of teaching. It is really no more fantastic than to believe God can deliver faith by the preaching of the Word of God. Romans 10:17 No one would ever rightly say he or she came to faith thanks to the proclaimer of the Gospel but rather God used that to bring faith.

We have a Sovereign Lord and do not have the ability to tell Him who to do His work and give His gifts. So it is the baptism of the Bible which the reformed confessions teach not that of Rome. Quite similar to the Lutheran confessions. It is always a temptation to limit what God has proclaimed and ordained to make it easier to grasp.

May His Name evermore be praised. †

I, and others here at the forum who hate the doctrine of "baptismal regeneration"............hear you loud and clear. You can proof text and twist the scritpure all you want, you still have not obviously read the many things already discussed on the forum about baptism.
If I were going to place my confidence in a "sign" or a "type" or a "shadow" as to having some eficacy, rather than water baptism, I would pick animal sacrafices. They seem to have more relevancy than water baptism. You assume that almost every time the word "baptism" is used in the NT that it refers to water.......let me just say I think you are totally blind here as word of caution to you.
Just because the baptism of John (water baptism) that the apostles used in the name of Jesus in the early part of the 1st century, is a valid temporal picture of death and new life (Rom. 6:1-5...water is never mentioned here either though)does not make it a saving or efficatious thing. The animal sacrafices were instituted by God Almighty also and they never saved a single soul, never cleansed anyone from sin .. Heb. 10:1-4...same as "water baptism".............physical circumcism which was commanded by God for all Isralites never saved a single jew.
Only the blood of Christ washes away sin.......and He doesnt need the water he created on earth to help Him......period! That my friend is blasphemy and I think you come dangerously close to "trampling the blood" and insulting the Spirit of Grace in holding to this pernicious doctrine that water baptism is the means of regeneration (Heb. 10:19-31)
Do you think that because in this section of Hebrews that God uses the word sprinkled in verse 22, and "pure water" (oh maybe some holy water like the RC reprobates would teach) which is a testimony to the "Holy Spirit" that water baptism has a place in the context of this entire chapter? It is crystal clear to the elect that the blood of Jesus is all that cleanses.........the Holy Spirit applies this blood in His baptism........not by a man dunking a man in water, which could never be any more than a type or shadow of the good thing that came............namely Jesus and all His work.
You can talk the way you did in your post, and all in the name of Christ too............but the Holy Spirit's words thru paul in 1 Cor. 1:17 and its whole context is clear............water baptism is NOT THE GOSPEL, NOR IS IT PART OF SALVATION!
You can save yourself alot of posting and quit trying to convince me and others that water baptism saves.............it is false, this is a lie.
Just because you are entitled to your opinion does not mean you should be allowed to push this agenda any further IMHO here at this forum.
As you have already made clear in that history if full of those who hold to your false doctrine, you can find many places on the internet where you will be in "like-minded" company even now, but I do not believe it is here

[Whammer]

You can chop this and slice this and dice this any way you want, it's still is baptismal regeneration.

If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

I see no evidence of baptismal regeneration in the scriptures. This has been debated here. You can traditionally wrap this and say God does this all you want, it still has no power. Baptism is simply an outward showing of an inward reality. Something that a regenerate believer will desire, not something that makes the believer regenerate. If the "believer" is unregenerate before baptism, how does he ever get the gumption to be baptized in the first place? And if it's tradition or religion that gives him this gumption, it is simply the works of man again. If we go here, we might as well go back to Rome.

Good post brother, I was also thinking of Acts 10:44-48, which though is just indicitive of the time it is written in, before a drop of water itself was even considered, or ever hit one of these new disciples, they were regenerated and filled with the Holy Spirit.

UHS, when you are re-reading that passage in Heb 10, consider that the "blood" of the covenant is not the "water" of the covenant, nor is it both included.

[wildboar]

Wildboar: I don't have time to read the file you posted, but the quote from Burges was enough for me to disern the doctrines proposed as: 1) baptismal regeneration: that the work of baptism ushers in salvation 2) presumptive regeneration: that just because the child is baptised it is saved which is salvation by works 3) salvation by proxy: that since the child's parents are saved, they are saved also by the work of baptism which is works-salvation. God clearly tells us that in the everlasting covenant "all shall know me" (Hebrews 8:12). They will not know God by the Roman Catholic "SACRAMENT" of baptism which the Reformed confessions hold to; one comes to know God in the everlasting covenant by the Holy Spirit revealing Christ to them: "NOT by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to HIS MERCY he saved us, by the WASHING OF REGENERATION, and the RENEWING OF THE HOLY GHOST; Which he SHED ON US ABUNDANTLY through JESUS CHRIST our Saviour; That being JUSTIFIED BY HIS GRACE, we should be made heirs ACCORDING TO THE HOPE OF ETERNAL LIFE" (Titus 3:5-7; emphasis mine). Away with Rome's baptism!!!!!!!!!!.............look to Christ and HIS WORK!!!!!!!.........KK

I did not argue for the truthfulness or lack of truthfulness of what I posted. I wanted to make it available since people are unfamiliar with many of the confessions I refer to. I generally think it is a good idea to read what people actually post and the articles that they are attaching before critiquing them. But what do I know?

If you had read the confessions you would have noticed similarities as well as differences between them. The bulk of them do allow for baptismal regeneration while also allowing for different views. For instance, there were some at the Westminster Assembly such as Burges who promoted baptismal regeneration while others were completely opposed to it. The WCF is worded in such a way that both could sign on in good conscience. A small number of reformed confessions do teach baptismal regeneration pretty explicitly in a reformed sense. It is interesting that at least initially the Calvinists and Lutherans argued over the Lord's Supper but really didn't argue over baptism. I was really hoping to find a resource where I could read the whole confession of Frederick and that was my primary reason for posting it here as well as a number of other forums. Unfortunately nobody has been able to point me to the resources. A number of people have condemned it or pointed me to something that really has nothing to do with it but oh well. Anyhow, none of the confessions are teaching what you assume they are teaching.

I'll adress your statements you made above.

1. This is true if understood accurately.

2. This is false. What Burgess and the reformed confessions are teaching is that God ordinarily chooses to regenerate elect children at the time of baptism thereby tying the sign to the thing signified. The confessions are not teaching that every child who is baptized is regenerated--only the elect and they are not even teaching that the elect are always regenerated at baptism.

3. They are not teaching salvation by proxy but taking the promises in Scripture seriously. The Bible teaches that God ordinarily saves households--does he always? No, nobody on this earth that I know of teaches that every person who is baptized automatically goes to heaven.

I would really be interested in a meaningful discussion on this issue but in order for that to take place people are going to have to argue against what those in the reformed camp who teach some form of baptismal regeneration are actually teaching rather than some phantom.

Square has posted a number of relevant Scripture passages and I agree with his statement about how it seems foolish that many in the churchworld are willing to acknowledge that God works through the preaching as an instrument but for some reason he can't work through sacraments as instruments. The logical conclusion of the ant-instrument position would be to stop preaching the Gospel altogether. We wouldn't want to be guilty of works-righteousness at all. The fact is that those Calvinists and Lutherans who have a high view of the sacraments teach that God speaks through the minister in the preaching of the Gospel and that God baptizes. There's nothing worthy at all of being called works-righteousness there.

HF:

Charles, I'm not going to debate you about this. Everything that I see you write seems to continually embrace tradition and churchianity. Even under your avatar "adherent to tradition".

If you're not going to debate me then why post at all? Is this one of those statements that people say that go without saying?

What it says under my avatar is "Adherent to Tradition I". By saying that I'm distinguishing myself from those who adhere to "Tradition 2, 3, and 4" and also modern evangelicalism which adheres to tradition 0. I've explained this in other threads and these labels further explained in books by Mathisn and Oberman. It all has to do with how we view the relationship between Scripture and tradition. As you posted, Scripture does speak of tradition negatively, but in other places as you didn't notice it speaks of tradition positively. I have posted these passages a number of times so I won't bother you with them again. The position of Scripture and the early church fathers is that of "Tradition 1" in which Scripture is the final authority but that it can only be rightly understood within the context of the regula fidei. It does not teach that tradition is another authority as Tradition 2 and which became popular in some of the later church fathers or Tradition 3 as the modern RCC does and teach that the church today is the final authority. Tradition 0 with its complete disregard for tradition is foreign to Scripture and the church fathers but became characteristic of some in the anabaptist movement and has gained popularity in modern individualistic America. Its strongest promoters are Arminians.

I have never promoted putting tradition above Scripture and these constant mischaracterizations and slanders are laughable and I don't know how you expect to persuade me with them.

[MCoving]

Traditions and church teaching is only false when it runs counter to scripture. Taking a look at what the Word says about baptism is how to examine which traditional understanding is correct. If one looks at baptism as the work of God, and not the work of man, the questions on the efficacy are answered. The denial that baptism is a means whereby God has determined to deliver faith is as old as the one affirming it.

Looking at scripture alone according to these verses:

makes disciples (Matthew 28:19)
saves (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21)
brings forgiveness/washes away sin/cleanses/takes away guilt (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5; Hebrews 10:22)
causes us to be born again (John 3:5; Titus 3:5)
crucifies the old man, buries him, and causes the baptized one to be raised up as a new creation of God (Romans 6:3-6; Colossians 2:11-12)
makes us members of Christ's body (1 Corinthians 12:13)
gives us the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38-39; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Titus 3:5-6)
clothes us with Christ (puts on His righteousness!) (Galatians 3:27)

Some will say they cannot believe that sort of teaching. It is really no more fantastic than to believe God can deliver faith by the preaching of the Word of God. Romans 10:17 No one would ever rightly say he or she came to faith thanks to the proclaimer of the Gospel but rather God used that to bring faith.

We have a Sovereign Lord and do not have the ability to tell Him who to do His work and give His gifts. So it is the baptism of the Bible which the reformed confessions teach not that of Rome. Quite similar to the Lutheran confessions. It is always a temptation to limit what God has proclaimed and ordained to make it easier to grasp.

May His Name evermore be praised. †

You know in reading your post, it seems to me that you almost put baptism at a higher authority than Christ Himself. It is Christ and His blood that saves us, and cleanses us.. and makes us right and pure before God. It is not water baptism. For example in my own life.. this is great, this is why I can tell that water baptism is just a tradition by churches. And when I read the Scripture it testifies that Christ saves us not water baptism, water baptism is nothing at all... it has no power. Its just something people do to show others they are serious about following God. Here's why I know it has no power.. I was first baptized when I was a baby in an episcipal church. Did that do anything for me?? No! I wasn't converted then.. my parents arent, that church teaches a false Gospel. Baptism was only because they told my parents to, and they held to the idea it would save me, or that there was some power in it. And of course I believed them...

Then I was introduced to the protestant teachings, or the church where my friend went a conservative baptist church. Where i learned that the water doesn't do a thing, it doesn't hold some power like at the episcipal church, its just a testimony. So I got rebaptized because I asked Jesus into my heart, it wasn't just a ritual or something I did anymore at church like the episcipals (which is very close to catholic teaching). But even then was I converted? Did the baptism do anything for me? Wash me of my sins? Cleanse me? Take me out of darkness into light? NO! I was still under a false teaching... yeah they were right in that baptism doesn't hold any power, yet they require it after someone says the sinners prayer and accepts Jesus. The require it for membership into their church. Bla! Yet they are fooled in thinking that people on their own free will can accept Jesus or decline Him.

Okay now in March God opened my eyes to the truth. That He is the one who saves me, converts me, changes my life around. It has nothing to do with me. At that time of conversion is when the Holy Spirit comes in me, and begins to change my life. This is what I think the Bible is teaching when it talkes about baptism.. not water but the Holy Spirit. The cross is what is pointed out to me.. that Christ finished everything at the cross. Baptism with water now has really no significant meaning, I could do it but its just an act.. there's nothing tied into it... hence people its JUST WATER. I believe more in the baptism of the holy spirit.. that the holy spirit teaches us, convicts us, we experience at conversion a changing from darkness to light. But we all know that our salvation is done and finished at the cross. Christ died for us.. He did it all! He was perfect for us, He himself was even baptized... then He sent the Holy Spirit to us.. there's nothing in Scripture after all Jesus had done that tells us we have to be baptized by water to be saved! That's blasphemy!

Here the wonderful verses about Christ's perfect life and sacrifice on the cross for us.. and how He accomplished it all for us, and saved us. A child of His is saved and treated just the same as another, it has nothing to do with whether that child was ever baptized by water.

Rom 5:8-10, (NASB)
8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

Now does that say that we shall be saved by water baptism?? No! But it says that we shall be saved by HIS life. Not our life.. nothing that we do saves us, or cleanses us, or makes us holier or does anything. But only does His life and His blood do anything. We are justified by His blood, we are saved by His life. So it isn't our life that does anything for us.. it isn't our water baptism, it isn't our breaking of bread, it isn't any of our traditions that does anything. It is Christ's life.. he was baptized by John, He lived that perfect life, He broke the bread and drank the wine, He died on the cross and shed His blood, He lived that life for us that we could never live. The things we do, whether thats water baptism, breaking of bread.. its just all in remembrance of what Christ has accomplished for us. Its only to remember, its an act we do to remember. Nothing more. We dont even have to do it! Christ asks us to partake of the bread and wine to remember Him.. but their is no power in it, there's no power in water baptism, there's no power in confessions, there's no power in any of those traditions!! Period! It is Christ, He accomplished and lived it all for us.

I hope and pray that the people on here that don't see that, that their eyes will be opened to the fact that Christ accomplished it all and lived it all for us, for He was perfect not tainted with sin like all of us.

Mary

[Kentucky Kid]

Bro Wildboar: I'm sorry- I don't know how to take your post or quote and put it here. So I'm responding to your post #9 on this thread. I was critiquing your quote- I never was critiquing the file you recommened because I have no interest in it. I was critiquing what you quoted- which I read. WB: I am very familar with the "Reformed Confessions". I have studied them to great lengths. But I am not of the "Reformed faith"; the Reformed Faith which mainly derives it's origins from the Reformation was trying to "reform" the Roman Catholic system. To the best of my limited knowledge, RC is the whore of Revelation 17; it has killed many of our brothers and sisters in Christ. It is from the kingdom of darkness. I personally believe from my limited knowledge that the Reformed faith has brought many of the whore's teachings into "Christendom" through her confessions. So I was just critiquing the quote of Burgess. I can't help you with your need to collect the material you requested. But WB your quote of Burgess had nothing to do with your requested data. You posted it, and I was critiquing it. I also disagree with your statement "God ordinarily regenerates the elect @ water baptism". There is no verse in the Bible to support this. One of my callings here on earth is to battle Rome, and where ever she rears her whorish head I will stand and oppose her. That is why I said what I said. I used to wonder why those of the Reformed faith who say they believe that the imputation of Christ's righteousness to them is the ONLY ground of their salvation have to have all these Roman Catholic teachings; but I have just left it with the Lord. The thread stated: "What the Reformed Confessions teach about baptism".....well other than the Baptist confessions, I believe the other confessions teach Roman Catholicism. So I felt this thread was "open game" to respond to the threads statement at the top: "What the Reformed Confessions teach about baptism". If all you wanted was your resources, then you should have stated that. I'm not trying to be mean; I'm defending what I believe about God's Word against the whore of Rev. 17......KK

[wildboar]

The quote from Burgess was itself a quote from the confession of Frederick III which is what I was trying to and now have attained. As for the other statements. The Baptist churches also came out of the RCC and hold some common doctrines such as the Trinity as well. The Baptist confessions in general do not differ all that much from the WCF except on the sacraments. The teaching of the Reformed Churches on the sacraments is not only significantly different from the Baptists but also from the RCC. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what the RCC actually teaches about baptism:

Holy Baptism holds the first place among the sacraments, because it is the door of the spiritual life; for by it we are made members of Christ and incorporated with the Church. And since through the first man death entered into all, unless we be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, we can not enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as Truth Himself has told us. The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water; and it is indifferent whether it be cold or hot. The form is: I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. We do not, however, deny that the words: Let this servant of Christ be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; or: This person is baptized by my hands in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, constitute true baptism; because since the principal cause from which baptism has its efficacy is the Holy Trinity, and the instrumental cause is the minister who confers the sacrament exteriorly, then if the act exercised by the minister be expressed, together with the invocation of the Holy Trinity, the sacrament is perfected. The minister of this sacrament is the priest, to whom it belongs to baptize, by reason of his office, In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or deacon, but even a layman or woman, nay, even a pagan or heretic can baptize, provided he observes the form used by the Church, and intends to perform what the Church performs. The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all sin, original and actual; likewise of all punishment which is due for sin. As a consequence, no satisfaction for past sins is enjoined upon those who are baptized; and if they die before they commit any sin, they attain immediately to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God.

Here is what the Reformed churches teach in the Belgic Confession:

. Therefore he has commanded all those, who are his, to be baptized with pure water, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost": thereby signifying to us, that as water washes away the filth of the body, when poured upon it, and is seen on the body of the baptized, when sprinkled upon him; so does the blood of Christ, by the power of the Holy Ghost, internally sprinkle the soul, cleanse it from its sins, and regenerate us from children of wrath, unto children of God. Not that this is effected by the external water, but by the sprinkling of the precious blood of the Son of God; who is our Red Sea, through which we must pass, to escape the tyranny of Pharaoh, that is, the devil, and to enter into the spiritual land of Canaan. Therefore the ministers, on their part, administer the sacrament, and that which is visible, but our Lord gives that which is signified by the sacrament, namely, the gifts and invisible grace; washing, cleansing and purging our souls of all filth and unrighteousness; renewing our hearts, and filling them with all comfort; giving unto us a true assurance of his fatherly goodness; putting on us the new man, and putting off the old man with all his deeds. Therefore we believe, that every man, who is earnestly studious of obtaining life eternal, ought to be but once baptized with this only baptism, without ever repeating the same: since we cannot be born twice. Neither does this baptism only avail us, at the time when the water is poured upon us, and received by us but also through the whole course of our life;

Also, RCC doctrine teaches that the thing signified is only dependent upon the proper form being read. The Reformed churches teach that the thing signified is only worked in the elect and through faith.

Most Reformed Churches do not teach baptismal regeneration but I believe the teaching if properly understood to be Scriptural.

Acts 22:16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'

John 3:2-5 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him." 3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" 5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

There is a reason why the early church fathers had such a strong consensus on this issue well before the RCC--the reason is the Scriptures.

[GraceAmbassador]

The quote from Burgess was itself a quote from the confession of Frederick III which is what I was trying to and now have attained. As for the other statements. The Baptist churches also came out of the RCC and hold some common doctrines such as the Trinity as well. The Baptist confessions in general do not differ all that much from the WCF except on the sacraments. The teaching of the Reformed Churches on the sacraments is not only significantly different from the Baptists but also from the RCC. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what the RCC actually teaches about baptism:



Here is what the Reformed churches teach in the Belgic Confession:



Also, RCC doctrine teaches that the thing signified is only dependent upon the proper form being read. The Reformed churches teach that the thing signified is only worked in the elect and through faith.

Most Reformed Churches do not teach baptismal regeneration but I believe the teaching if properly understood to be Scriptural.

Acts 22:16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'

John 3:2-5 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him." 3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" 5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

There is a reason why the early church fathers had such a strong consensus on this issue well before the RCC--the reason is the Scriptures.

W.B.:

With the quote above, are you openly admitting that you accept these scriptures to mean that baptism saves and washes away sins, and that you believe water baptism is a condition for regeneration thus going even farther than most confessions teach?

Most Reformed Churches do not teach baptismal regeneration but I believe the teaching if properly understood to be Scriptural.

I don't want to argue this issue since you know my position already; I just want to certify your position clearly to avoid unfairness. If your position is that baptism regenerates and/or is required for the washing of sins or for salvation, then I will treat all your other positions under this light, something akin to the way I treat the Campbellites (follwers of A. Campbell and not one addicted to canned soup).

Please advise.

Milt

[wildboar]

GA:

I believe that God ordinarily regenerates at the time of baptism. I do not hold to an absolute necessity of water baptism but the sacraments are not empty.

[Highlyfavored]

GA:

I believe that God ordinarily regenerates at the time of baptism.

Does this mean that if it's the second saturday during a new moon that He wont honour it?

I do not hold to an absolute necessity of water baptism but the sacraments are not empty.

Galatians 3:1-3 (MKJV)
1 O foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was written among you crucified?
2 This only I would learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing of faith?
3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, do you now perfect yourself in the flesh?

[GraceAmbassador]

GA:

I believe that God ordinarily regenerates at the time of baptism. I do not hold to an absolute necessity of water baptism but the sacraments are not empty.

Thanks! Sorry if I sound overly baptistic, but what happens with those ELECT who die BEFORE they get sprinkled? I am sure you have a perfectly logical answer within your own set of beliefs, so I prefer that you reflect on my question with no need to answer me.

Milt

[Brandan Kraft]

Does this mean that if it's the second saturday during a new moon that He wont honour it?

Thanks Greg. It appears that the transformation of Charles is complete. At one time on this forum he was a card carring member of the PRC working his way into their seminary. He seemed SOLIDLY calvinistic. Our first real conflict was over the matter of duty-faith. He has spiraled down ever since, embracing federal visionism and the doctrines which it ultimately espouses such as baptismal regeneration. The sacraments are not empty he says. I am sorry to see this happen to Charles, but this is the path he ultimately desired. I have hope that one day for his sake that he awakens to the truth.

Brandan

[wildboar]

I am far less FV driven and becoming far more appreciative of 16th and 17th Century Reformed theology. I think that the FV have called people back to the high sacramental view of Reformed theology before men like Edwards and Dabney cheapened the sacraments. I don't agree what all the people in the FV teach regarding the sacraments. Regardless of what anyone may think there is nothing unCalvinistic about what I have posted. The document I posted, if anyone would even care to read it before judging it, contains several references to catechisms written by Calvin himself. I reallly don't see what business anyone has who denies the transmission of original sin and declares that James is antichrist determining who is Calvinistic.

[Brandan Kraft]

I reallly don't see what business anyone has who denies the transmission of original sin and declares that James is antichrist determining who is Calvinistic.

Fallacy! I technically am not a Calvinist although I mostly align myself with supralapsarian "calvinism." Technically I'm a high grace predestinarian! But that doesn't mean I cannot say one is not a calvinist. I have the freedom and the ability to say one is an arminian or pelagian or an open theist. That doesn't necessarily mean that I'm right either. But I have the freedom to determine who is Calvinist or not. You may not like it and disagree with me, but your argument is a complete fallacy.

[wildboar]

BK:

Okay, fine. Show me from the Reformed Confessions that my position is not confessionally sound and Calvinistic. I attached a document with plenty of them. What you will find historically is that it is the Arminians who denied any real meaning to the sacraments.