What the Reformed Confessions Teach About Baptism

[Highlyfavored]

HF:

I don't know enough about your particular situation to call you a heretic. I would say that you are following in the tradition of the heretics.

Well WB lets look at what you said:

It is always heretics who hate creeds and tradition.

Now lets look at what I said:

James your post is all too true. This wrestling will continue to occur until all traditions are seriously and truly weighed. I'm convinced that all traditions found within the "Church" are empty.

Now I may be going out on a limb here (... NOT), but I'd say this is a lot of doublespeak.

[Forester07]

Forester:

What of Collosians 2:11-12? Doesn't Paul equate the spiritual significance of each?

Colossians 2:11-12 In Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in the baptism, in Him y o u were also raised with Him through faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead.

What about all the passages that describe what each are? Here is a quote from a pamphlet by Herman Hoeksema.

I stated that the Sign of the New Covenant as far as I can determine from Scripture is the Cup during the Lords Supper. You believe that the sign of the New Covenant is Baptism and you use Colossians 2:11-12 as your proof text for this. Lets look at Colossians 2:11-12 closely please.

First, lets clarify that nowhere in the text does Paul equate Baptism as the sign of the new covenant. Second notice that Paul is listing what has been done to the new believer in Christ. 1. the circumcision of Christ. 2. Buried with Him in Baptism. 3. Raised with Him through faith. 4. Made alive with Him. Where is Paul saying the baptism is the new circumsion. Paul is going through a list. When Paul is talking about circumcision he is showing how we have the circumcision of the heart and so we no longer need to circumcise the flesh since it was tied with the nation of Israel. Read all of Galatians on this. The next thing that New Believer experience is Baptism with Christ. Wildboar you are connecting two things that are not connected in the text. Your interpretation of the text would have Paul stating and repeating the same thing just in different words. Where is the justification within the text to interprete it this way. Show me your exigesis of this text and the other texts I quoted in me previous posts.

As for your quote of Hoeksema here are my comments.

My next observation is that circumcision and baptism, though differing in form, are essentially the same in meaning.
Also this proposition I consider important, a necessary link in the chain of this single argument for infant baptism. The objection baptists love to make against the baptism of infants is not a scriptural one, but rather one they draw from their own mind.

He states that baptism and circumcision of the heart are essentially the same in meaning. I'd agree with this statement at some level. However, where as phycial circumcision is the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant where is it stated that Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant. Just because the meanings are the same doesn't mean the sign transfers as well. Paul speaks of the circumcision of the heart and baptism as two different things. They are not the same thing. Look at what Hoeksema says next "a necessary link in the chain of this single argument for infant baptism." ha ha this is what I'm saying once this false link is exposed then infant baptism falls away. His whole interpretation is geared to prove infant baptism.

Look at these verses.

Rom 2:25-29 For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

Circumcision of the heart is what matters to God and this is done by the Holy Spirit. I fully believe this is done to all the elect of God. However where is this metioned at the Sign of the New Covenant? Paul definately mentions a spiritual circumcision. I'm not denying this in any way. I am not denying baptism in any way. All i'm saying is that your connection of circumcision and baptism is not a biblical one. It is forced by Covenant Theology as a way to justify Infant baptism. When Paul talks about circumcision of the heart and then talks in other places about Baptism he is not talking about the exact same thing. Try to replace circumcision in some of these verses. Remember, circumcision and baptism might be close in meaning but they are not the exact same.

Rom 6:4 We were buried therefore with him by Circumcision into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Col 2:12 having been buried with him in Circumcision, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Lets try the reverse

Phi 3:3 For we are the real baptism, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh--

Isn't it clear they are not the same word and have vastly different meanings. Col 2:11-12 is listing what the new believer experiences.

1. Circumcision of the heart - The sanctifying of the heart to God. This is something that is not seen.
2. Baptism - Representation of Christ's death

John Gill says it better than I can

The apostle goes on to observe how complete and perfect the saints are in Christ; that they are not only circumcised in him in a spiritual sense, and the body of the sins of their flesh is put off, and removed from them, in allusion to the cutting off and casting away of the foreskin in circumcision; but that they and all their sins were buried with Christ, of which their baptism in water was a lively representation: Christ having died for their sins, was laid in the grave, where he continued for a while, and then rose again; and as they were crucified with him, they were also buried with him, as their head and representative; and all their sins too, which he left behind him in the grave, signified by his grave clothes there; and baptism being performed by immersion, when the person baptized is covered with water, and as it were buried in it, is a very significant emblem of all this; it is a representation of the burial of Christ, and very fitly holds him forth to the view of faith in the state of the dead, in the grave, and points out the place where the Lord lay; and it is also a representation of our burial with him, as being dead to sin, to the law, and to the world, by him. This shows now, that baptism was performed by dipping, or covering the whole body in water, for no other form of administration of baptism, as sprinkling, or pouring water on the face, can represent a burial, or be called one; and this is what many learned interpreters own, and observe on this place:

To end it here I just want to state that you haven't given me any good reason to say baptism is the sign of the New Covenant. Even if Baptism and Circumcision meant the exact same thing. (Which they don't) there is no place that states the sign shifts from Circumcision to Baptism. In my previous post I cited three different verses showing that the Cup during the Lord's Supper is the sign of the new covenant. Show me how my exegisis is wrong please.

James

[Kentucky Kid]

Wildboar quote: "It is always heretics who hate creeds and traditions".......KK: "a saved heretic for Christ">>>>>>>>>>KK

[wildboar]

I should have been clearer in my first statement. Elsewhere I have more clearly defined what a heretic is but I obviously can't expect everyone to remember everything that I've said. A heretic is someone operating within the church and trying to draw people away from the church or to their own teaching.

However, Scripture is full of creeds. Some of the facilitators on this board have toyed with the idea of making their own creed. Many here have selected a particular group of confessions in their profile that they believe are accurate. To say "I don't believe in creeds" is to make a creed. People can't take any of the surveys on this board if they are opposed to creeds. People can't participate in any theological discussion if they are anti-creed. So, to say you don't believe in creeds and to continue to participate on this board is a contradiction. If you don't believe in creeds you have to be an agnostic if you want to be consistent.

[wildboar]

Forrester:

It's all about grammar.

circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in the baptism, in Him y o u were also raised with Him through faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Read it carefully, the statements are all descriptive of what it means to be circumcised with a circumcision without hands.

[unhingedsquare]

Forrester:

It's all about grammar.



Read it carefully, the statements are all descriptive of what it means to be circumcised with a circumcision without hands.

Leave it to St Paul to throw facts at us. I am not sure why folks, who quote St Paul all over the place about the gift of salvation by grace through faith, cannot see what is said in Colossians 2 & Titus 3 5-7.

Common sense to our eyes see a sinner applying water to another sinner. One is tempted to ask: "So what?" The scripture here and in other places are very clear. Look at who drives the verbs in Baptism. Col 2 "raised with Him through faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead." & in Titus 3 "he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;6Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour"


Baptism is God's powerful work for us not our feeble attempt to obey.


May the Name of Jesus evermore be praised. Amen †

[Highlyfavored]

Leave it to St Paul to throw facts at us. I am not sure why folks, who quote St Paul all over the place about the gift of salvation by grace through faith, cannot see what is said in Colossians 2 & Titus 3 5-7.

Common sense to our eyes see a sinner applying water to another sinner. One is tempted to ask: "So what?" The scripture here and in other places are very clear. Look at who drives the verbs in Baptism. Col 2 "raised with Him through faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead." & in Titus 3 "he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;6Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour"


Baptism is God's powerful work for us not our feeble attempt to obey.


May the Name of Jesus evermore be praised. Amen †

Why is it that so many get hung up on the terms baptize, baptized and baptism? Does it take a genius to see that those words simply mean in most cases: identified with, imersed into, to become part of or grafted in?

Actually I think it's something a child can see.

Unhinged, I'm not trying to poke a barb. I just don't see why this is the answer of many churched individuals. If one looks at:

Rom 6:1-23, (MKJV)1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin so that grace may abound? 2 Let it not be! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father; even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Do you actually think that everybody the apostle was talking to here was necessarily dunked or sprinkled? This is talking about our position and identification with Christ not some form of water baptism.

[Brandan Kraft]

Baptism generally means Holy Spirit baptism in the New Testament - NOT water baptism.

[Whammer]

Baptism generally means Holy Spirit baptism in the New Testament - NOT water baptism.

absolutely correct, but WB and UHS, even though presented with cogent/biblical arguments have still remained blind to this truth, they still believe the act of water baptism on mans part is efficacious and totally necessary to the genuine christian experience...............sad

Anyway they slice it up and play the prooftext game, it is still adding a righteous act of man to the work of Christ..........as if the Triune God needed anything we do to make justification occur.........this doctrine of "baptismal regeneration" fits into the catergories paul talks about in Gal. 1:1-9.............a false gospel, adding our "filthy rags work" to Christ's already perfect accomplished work...........any way, same ole same ole

[EnglishRose]

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

Dear Mary, I agree with all you have written. Baptism in water does not save us, only Christ. I was, like most here, sprinkled as a baby in the Church of England, but it does not mean a thing! Once brought to Christ, I saw, by the grace of God, that "religion" was false and so were all the traditions of men, and separated from the lot. I am wondering now what is thought of this festive season coming up - the "Christ-mass" as nothing has thus far been mentioned of it, unless I've missed it. Its another great tradition..... ourselves, and the christians we know here, do not have anything to do with it. Having said that, we think on the miraculous Birth of Christ all the year round, without which we would have no salvation.
But as Christ was certainly not born on the 25th December, and its a pagan god's birthday, and the Lord will not share His glory with anyone, should we not give much thought to these things.

Yours, in Christ, English Rose

[lionovjudah]

But as Christ was certainly not born on the 25th December, and its a pagan god's birthday, and the Lord will not share His glory with anyone, should we not give much thought to these things.

Yours, in Christ, English Rose

Not one more second of thought Rose!!

We celebrate it tree and all. Nativity scene on porch. We love the holiday. We give to those in need and if it causes you to stumble, dont worry about it. For me, I give it no holy pronounce ment other than a focus on Christ.

For me, I could care less about the pagans. What a better way to steal the thunder from the pagans than worshipping Christ on their 'special' day.

[Brandan Kraft]

Before a discussion on the issue of Christmas is continued, please someone start a new thread if one would like to see a discussion on it. Otherwise, just ignore this message. Thanks.

[MCoving]

Baptism generally means Holy Spirit baptism in the New Testament - NOT water baptism.

I agree with that.. actually I knew that before when I was in the protestant movement. Course they wanted you to be baptized for membership.. that baptism was an outward testimony that you were following Christ and made him Lord in your life. But many verses in the Bible were referred to as the Holy Spirit baptism which I see as what happens at conversion. "baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death" Baptized into Jesus Christ just seems to me to mean immersed into Christ or just brought into Him that Christ is united with us and thus we died with Him and rose with Him so that we could be with God. Something like that... I dont think that all baptism words in the Bible mean the submersion of water.

Mary

[Lynn]

Forrester:

It's all about grammar.



Read it carefully, the statements are all descriptive of what it means to be circumcised with a circumcision without hands.

Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Wouldn't you think that if baptism had anything in it that determined the eternal abode of the soul that Jesus would have at least mentioned it when He spoke on such an important subject as condemnation?

It is interesting to note the descriptive statement that Jesus made here didn't even mention baptism. He simply said the believer is not condemned, while the non-believer is already condemned.

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Here Jesus said he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

I see no problem with that.

However I don't see in His next statement anything that leads one to think that a believer who is not baptized is already or shall be damned.

He simply said a nonbeliever is damned.

On the baptizing part of what Jesus said we could go back to John the Baptist baptizing folks.

Before John would baptize the Pharisees and Sadducees he demanded that they bring forth fruit meet for repentance.

In other words he demanded that they be believers before he would baptize them.

Baptism is a work, and works only follow grace, they never preceed it.

Lynn

[Robert R. Higby]

There is a question about whether Mark 16:9-20 was part of the original book of Mark; it is missing from some earliest manuscripts. Others have a different shorter ending after verse 8.

The ending in most of our Bibles came to be widely accepted by the late second century, however, the manuscript evidence is crucial. The fact that the majority of manuscripts contain the verses does not prove anything, since these were copies of other accepted manuscripts. Antiquity is crucial.

In light of this, I propose that Mk. 16:16 should not be used to establish any doctrine.

I certainly agree with Greg on the points he defended in this thread! There is more to be discussed on this subject but perhaps it would be fruitful to defer it to a later point in time. --Bob

[Robert R. Higby]

I should have also expressed appreciation for the contribution of James (Forester) on the issue of the covenants. This has been my own position for many years.

[MCoving]

Hey! Not to really start this discussion over again, and its pry already been given in this thread but I found a good verse recently, as I have time to go through my Bible since there's still no work for me since there's snow outside. But its cool when you read things on the forum, discuss them, then when going through Scripture see your thoughts and others affirmed.

Two verses one on examining everything and one on baptism:

Acts 17:11- For they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so

Acts 11:16- John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.

When the Bible talks of baptism its not just by water!!! I thought that was cool anyways, and remembered these discussions.. that baptism is by the the Holy Spirit as well.

Mary