If you haven’t listened to this podcast, you should. I did last night. I do believe they pointed out the difference between Lutheran and Reformed understanding of baptism. The Reformed do not believe that baptism in and of itself, is “salvific” (think I’ve heard that word before!). But hopefully someone from RF will chime in and offer their expertise. For now, I can say you were absolutely right to put up the red flag.

Does the book or the Reformed Forum site give any info about the differences between Reformed Presbyterian infant baptism and say, that of the Lutherans? My suspicion is that there may be differences, but curious about looking into this. I say that because I attended my nephew’s baptism at an ELCA Lutheran church (a denomination I disagree with very much!), and after they had administered the baptism, the pastor said, “Now Jackson has been sealed with the Holy Spirit forever” and went on to indicate that this was his salvation. RED FLAG! I am a Southern Baptist and am, in much of my theology, reformed, so I am patiently listening to the reformed side of the issues. Thanks!

I just finished a study of Keller’s on Mark (King’s Cross). It was like a study of the gospel according to Jesus, CS Lewis, Franz Kafka, Camus, and Kierkegaard.

I guess I’m just a dyed-in-the-wool credo, but I still love the reformed forum broadcasts. God bless you.

David

It’s Genesis 1-11 and not simply the events you mentioned that is in view. I have been walking these paths for over 30 years. Too many of my acquaintances over the years who have given up Genesis 1-11 (or never really embraced it, in the first place) have gone on to give up more ground. “Reason” and “Science” tell us that a virgin birth, the recreation of a body part, resurrection from the dead after several days are logically and physically impossible. I’m holding out that the God who raised His Son from the dead did create in six literal days about 6000 years ago just as He communicated in Genesis. Many (most?) Reformed scholars argue that the findings of modern science demand a re-calibration of the interpretive endeavor in Genesis 1-11. There are quite a few creation scientists who would argue otherwise. Drs. Snelling, Reed, Faulkner, Brown, etc., etc., etc., just don’t count in the eyes of OECists. Are the scientists at ICR and who are involved with the Creation Research Society blind? Ignorant? Nuts? Deceived? Deceivers?

I direct you to Chapter 1 of the WCF. It’s a much sounder statement of the doctrine of Scripture than the Chicago Statements. Read it. Outline it. Examine the proof texts. Read some commentaries on this chapter.
Check out this link. It contains an appendix from the recent book, Coming to Grips with Genesis.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/affirmations-denials-christian-worldview
It contains affirmations and denials that I think very few Reformed scholars in our main seminaries and colleges would be willing to endorse. I have examined the Chicago Statements on Inerrancy and Hermeneutics. The Affirmations and Denials ring hollow after
reading the explanatory documents. Do your own research. Google away. Check out Explaining Inerrancy (Geisler & Sproul).
I am of the mind that there were possibly two driving forces behind ICBI and the Chicago Statements. I think ICBI earnestly sought to address the assault on the Bible. Second, I think there was a fear among Evangelical scholars that in response to a.) Harold Lindsell’s book, The Battle for the Bible, and b.) the growing YECist movement, taking Genesis 1-11 as actual historical fact and a recent creation would become not just a test of inerrancy, but also a test of orthodoxy.

At the AIG link, the only Presbyterians I recognize are David Hall and Joseph Pipa.

Are you looking for an interesting Phd topic? Research the dynamics of the conflicted relationship between OECists and YECists during ICBI. Another project would be to identify the seemingly strong and clear statements in the Chicago Statements on creation and science(which seem to almost demand a literal, historical approach to Genesis 1-11) and then trace out how these strong statements are explained away with qualification upon qualification. Upon reading the ICBI Statements almost 30 years, I was encouraged and hopeful. Then I read the ancillary documents. There seemed to me to be too much equivocation.

A real and present crisis persists in Evangelical and Reformed (especially Reformed) circles regarding the doctrine of Scripture (sufficiency, authority, supremacy). It is having a stultifying effect in Reformed campus ministries and Reformed colleges and seminaries. A crisis in the area of revelation is a crisis at the very foundation of Christianity. Pray that God would raise up a generation of prophetic voices to call the Church, especially the Reformed orbit, back to her grounding, a call that brings about repentance in the highest levels of Reformed Christendom.
jo

And if your point in all this discussion is to illustrate to us that we have a a fault in our hermeneutics because there is variance, then yes, you made your point. Thank you.

But I will point out to you that you can include the Baptist brethren in this group as well in regards to calling out error in their hermeneutics based on variance of practice with baptizing children. Ask a group of Baptist pastors if they will baptize a 4 yr old who confesses to be a Christian and the answers will vary. Many have a set age of 12 even though no age of qualified profession is found in scripture. Others may not have an age 12 qualification, but will say he is too young even though Christ says himself the faith of a child is valid. Is this variance any less Biblical than the OPC example? There is still a variance, and if there is a variance….

First, what would make someone a minister of the word as opposed to what would disqualify a person? Second, what constitutes “lawfully ordained.”

Thanks,
Jeff Downs

By virtue of being children of believing parents they are, because of God’s covenant ordinance, made members of the Church, but this is not sufficient to make them continue members of the Church. When they have reached the age of discretion, they become subject to obligations of the covenant: faith, repentance and obedience. They then make public confession of their faith in Christ, or become covenant breakers, and subject to the discipline of the Church.

PCA Book of Order 56-4.j

I am not a paedobaptist, much less of paedobaptist officer, so take my comments for what they are worth… but I assume the “age of discretion” is on a sliding scale left to the “discretion” of church officers. If they feel Butch has entered this “age of discretion” and does not profess faith, then I assume they would consider him apostate/covenant-breaker, and thus not baptize him.

I sympathize with your concern that what churches do with children like this reveals inconsistencies in their continuity hermeneutic. I don’t see an “age of discretion” followed by profession of faith to ever be a requirement for national Israel/membership in the Old Covenant.

We have not been to seminary. We differ over inerrancy. It seems that when one gives up a literal Genesis 1 account and a literal Noaic flood and tower of Babel such things as the feats of Samson have fallen into myth as well. If reason and science are the infallible interpreters of Scripture then all is no more than the old “heilsgeschichte”.

Again I appeal to Stephen and Jon et all to respond to Jon’s last post.

a student

Sincerely, Richard

Thanks. I recently finished reading Kingdom Prologue and have been reading some on 2K theology, natural law and intrusion ethics. Your posts are helpful for understanding the distinctives in the thought of Kline and how & where this fits into this landscape.

Since you were baptized with water in the name of the Triune God as an infant [as was I] your first baptism is your baptism. God in his amazing grace brought the promise of the gospel signified in that baptism into reality later in your life.

It is my understanding of historic catholic and Reformed doctrine, that the baptizer does not invalidate baptism. An invalid baptism would be one without water and/or without the name of the Triune God.

I don’t think I’m going to convince you by this response, but I feel it necessary to point out that I don’t think your argument is with paedobaptism specifically, but rather with covenant theology as a system. David’s answer was spot on from a covenantal context – “Butch” would be baptized for being part of a covenant household. There is no “age of accountability” in the Scriptures, yet there does appear to be some point in time in the life of each child born into a covenantal home (that is, a home where at least one parent is a believer) where they go from being born holy unto the Lord to being responsible for their own faith. Is “Butch” past that age? Hard to say in your example, but from a covenantal perspective, the proper question is whether he’s still under his father’s authority. If he is, then he should be baptized. If he is not, then he should make a confession since he is not part of a household of faith.

I’d also add that you need to revisit your presupposition that “the NT qualification for baptism … is ‘if you believe with all your heart, you may (be baptized).” Is that a good and necessary inference from one text? Might I recommend that rather than debate people on this thread who may or may not be qualified or able to expound on hypothetical exceptions to God’s ordinary means of salvation, you study such books as “Jesus Loves the Little Children: Why We Baptize Children” by Rev. Daniel R. Hyde? CTC just interviewed him on the last podcast and I’m in the process of reading his book, in which he accomplishes the phenomenal and gracious task of deconstructing the Baptist perspective that children are to be excluded from the sacrament of baptism.

Sincerely, Richard

So you would baptize 10 year old, unbelieving, covenant child Butch?

Surely you know that Presbyterians confess WCF 7.6: “There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.”

It’s not difficult. Children have membership in the visible church by virtue of parental authority (i.e., if one or both parents is a believer), and therefore, in their case a credible profession of faith is not required for (non-communicant) membership.

Steve

the author argues that the people are nevertheless in the visible covenant community of God.

1. The author does not argue that point, he assumes it – since it is quite obvious the people he is referring to are part of the Christian/church community.

2. But you’re taking that a step further and assuming he believes they are covenant members because of your commitment to an outer/inner covenant. This is nothing more than assuming what you’re trying to prove.

This would mean that Hebrews 2:1 , 3:12 ( notice the reference is to “brothers”), 4:1, 4:11, etc. would all have to be taken sarcastically.

I don’t think you understand the argument. There is no reason to believe those passages have to be taken sarcastically, because, as we’ve already agreed, the author does not know who is and who is not elect and therefore true “brothers”. He thus addresses them by their profession. This is entirely irrelevant to his address to someone who has abandoned that profession. If you haven’t read White’s essay, please refrain from attempting to refute it. It’s unhelpful to the discussion. White says that John 15 and Romans 11 are not sarcastic, and he gives reasons why. I don’t believe he addresses Gal 5:4.

Since my point was to discuss the Hebrews passages, since Camden threw it down as a direct challenge, I’d like to remain focused on those (and I would love to get a response from Camden, since he’s the one who asked how I could possibly understand the passages, and I have given an adequate understanding). I’d be happy to discuss those other passages at another time.