Somehow you still seem to think that an interpretation of scripture is not scripture. You continue to repeat the claim that it is a mere interpretation, a mere argument; that is not what the Reformed are saying. The interpretation is scripture because it is a good and necessary inference from scripture. You cannot continue to say that the Reformed have come up with a third category in between infallible explicit statements of scripture and fallible applications of scripture, called “arguments” or “interpretations” which are sort of quasi-fallible, but only for people who believe in the argument. I am not sure why you continue to argue this, but that is essentially what you are doing. Your argument revolves around the principle that only explicit statements of scripture are scripture; everything else is an “interpretation” or an “argument” as you continue to put, making it appear that these arguments or interpretations are only of limited authority, and therefore not fully binding, except upon the one who propounds it.

In the first post, I pointed to a few examples of Christian doctrine which are based upon inference from the text of scripture, which are binding doctrines upon all Christians. What will you do with the doctrines of the Trinity, the doctrine of the two natures of Christ, and the practice of women participating in the Lord’s Supper? Will you say that these doctrines are binding only for those who propound these interpretations but not for those who don’t?

Now, for your argument about baptism. I don’t know of any Reformed people who argue that baptism confers faith or even covenant status upon a believing adult or infant child. Baptism externally and visibly seals an individual into the covenant. It does not mean that a person is saved or elect. Baptism has been instituted by Christ himself to mark out his covenant people externally and is necessary only in the sense of it being a required precept of covenant inclusion, not a required means. The thief on the cross is an example of this. Jesus told him that he would be with him TODAY in paradise; that man was saved and included in the covenant, yet, the man was not baptized before he died. That indicates to us that baptism is not necessary for salvation, it is necessary duty because Christ commands it for ordinary circumstances. The Reformed have not argued it differently. Lutherans, Anglicans, Roman Catholics and others argue for baptismal regeneration, which would seem to make it a requirement for salvation and that would seem to tie God’s hands a bit. However, they have arguments which get around that problem.

If your problem with the Reformed doctrine of infant baptism is that it imposes a limitation on the sovereignty of God in saving his elect, you should be relieved of that because no one is arguing for such a limitation. Certainly you will agree that there have been millions upon millions of infant children of believers who have died either before birth or during birth and never were baptized. Would that mean none of them are going to heaven since they were not baptized? Certainly not! Baptism is not a means of salvation, and we must assume that God is free to act apart from the normal means of grace in extraordinary situations.

As I conclude, I come back to the beginning; for this discussion to go anywhere, you need to defend your position that only explicit statements of scripture are infallible and binding and that “interpretations” or “arguments” are not. If you don’t we have nowhere else to go. I would be interested to see how you defend your position though.

Thanks for engaging me in discussion.

Grace and peace,

Pastor John

I am sorry to say that you have entirely misread my argument, and have thus set up a “straw man” in your response. Henceforth, I will attempt to clarify my position as simply as possible.

First, you say I claim that “only explicit statements of scripture are scriptural and authoritative.” Where, in my initial statement, is this claim to be found? Rather, I said that such interpretations are “incomplete at best” and such logical (human) inferences are “precarious”, that is, not secured absolutely and with certainty. I also admitted that “you ARE certainly, as you say, “warranted” and “justified” in doing so (i.e. attempting such an interpretation).” However, as I go on to say, “your very own language presupposes interpretation. Again, as you put it, “The Reformed ARGUE that the command to baptize covenant children is IMPLICIT (not explicit) in the command to circumcise covenant children in Genesis 17″, and “the practice of infant baptism under the new covenant is WARRANTED and JUSTIFIED.” Your argument for infant baptism is, as you admit yourself, an argument; that is, an unique interpretation of specific passages within the Bible. To be sure, this is not at all my claim, this you yourself have unknowingly admitted in your careless use of language.

Thus, “claim #1″, as you so aptly put it, is not really a claim at all. I only wished to point out your misuse of language. That is, while you originally said “Failure to baptize the children of believers is a gross and serious violation of scripture”, you ought to have said: “Failure to baptize the children of believers is a gross and serious violation of the Reformed INTERPRETATION of scripture.” In other words, you are entitled to your interpretation of scripture, as is often necessary (thus I do not deny that logical inferences may be used); however, you should acknowledge (in your language usage) that such an inference presupposes interpretation. This is a basic hermeneutical principle.

Since we have now established that claim # 1 is actually your claim, not mine, let us examine what you deem to be claim # 2. I admit I was not as clear on this point as I may have been. Nonetheless, you assert that I claim that my “experience invalidates the Reformed argument for infant baptism.” First, my appeal is never to myself, it is to God, as I said: “These things the Lord has taught me” and “Hitherto the Lord my God, who is a living God, has convicted me unto baptism.” Also, I admit that my evidence is “anecdotal” and a matter of “personal revelation” (thus I do not contend that it invalidates the Reformed doctrine, only that I have accepted it as definitive for myself). In fact, I conclude in my summary that “propounding infant baptism is… an interpretation of scripture”, and that “you are entitled to proclaiming your doctrine.” My modus operandi was thereby rhetorical. My concern was to challenge you, through description and sarcasm, to think about what it means to be baptized, and further, what it means to become a Christian (or, as Kierkegaard put it, “Whether Christianity Exists”, that is, whether it is possible to become a Christian within Christendom).

Therefore, it is quite misleading to say that I make an appeal to authority to invalidate the Reformed doctrine of baptism. My appeal is only ever to God, that is, I have faith that God has revealed to me the meaning of MY baptism (Note Bene: this does not at all invalidate the Reformed argument for baptism). Moreover, you have unwittingly forgotten your own appeal to authority, that is, your appeal to the doctrines and interpretations of John Calvin. What makes John Calvin the ultimate authority? Thus your position has become increasingly precarious. Hermeneutically speaking, you have become twice-divorced from God’s word. Not only must His word pass through your interpretive filter, it must first pass through Calvin’s interpretive filter (and then through your interpretive filter). You have therefore been twice-removed from God, which warns of human construction and idolatry.

Now that I have cleared up my previous views, let us discuss the issue from another angle. Since it must be admitted that we cannot be CERTAIN of what God says of baptism – that is, it is not clear whether credobaptists or paedobaptists are more justified in their respective logical inferences from scripture – we must pursue a different line of argumentation. Our understanding of baptism will inevitable be determined by how we define baptism, and vice-versa. If, as you argue, we should be baptized as infants, this baptism is to be a sign of covenantal inclusion (as the male children of Israelites were circumcised to signify their external membership in God’s people). However, this is only an external sign of the covenant, not a guarantor of true faith, and not the covenant itself (for certainly true faith is not dependent upon a sacrament). For example, the Old Testament records many Israelites who turned from God and were punished, showing that their hearts were not truly set on serving God. So while all male Israelites had the sign of the covenant performed on them in a once off ceremony soon after birth, such a signifier was external only and not a true indicator of whether or not they would later exhibit true faith in Yahweh. Baptism, on your view, is to be understood only as an external sacrament which signifies the covenant between each individual and God (as it is in the Old Testament). This is justified. However, if you say that all who are to be included in the covenant must be baptized (as infants), you unduly limit the Lord our God Himself. Does not God’s covenant transcend a human sacrament? Certainly it does. If, you say, it does not, you have unwittingly limited God’s covenant to human behavior and signs (and thus unduly limited God, falling again into a form of idolatry). As it is revealed in the New Testament, both Jew and Gentile are now blessed, and thereby included in God’s covenant (whether there is an outward sign or not). As it is said in Genesis 12:3, “in thee [Abraham] shall all families of the earth be blessed.”

Now, for my own part, I do not define baptism as a sign of the covenant. I understand baptism as a sign of repentance – hence “Repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:38) – and, thus, a commitment through faith (sola fide). The covenant is presupposed and requires no external sign (though, I do not object to such a sacrament). I should qualify that baptism (adult) also is nothing in itself; it is a sign, that is, a human sacrament. It is, I believe, a proclamation of faith. Whether one is truly faithful is determined by God, and God alone.

So, rather than allowing a sacrament determine who is included in the covenant, or who is truly saved, let us, with the utmost humility (assuming we are absolutely unworthy of salvation), allow God, in all His mercy and judgement, determine who is to be saved. For my part, though I accept God’s mercy, I stand in front of Him with “fear and trembling”, fully conscious of my depravity and wretchedness, and utterly guilty of my salvation.

Lord, I pray only that your mercy remain with me; this, I know, is dependent on You alone, not upon sacraments, signs, or any thing of this world.

With Love,

Nicholas of Smithville,

A Servant of the Lord

“Obj. 1. No doctrine is to be received which the Scriptures do not teach expressly, nor by example. But the Scriptures do not teach the doctrine of infant baptism by any command or example. Therefore, it is not to be received by the church.

Ans. We deny the minor proposition: for we have the express command, “Baptize all nations,” which includes the children of the church. There are, also, instances recorded in the Scriptures where whole families were baptized by the Apostles, without any intimation that the infant members of these families were excluded. “Lydia was baptized and her household.” The Philippian jailor “was baptized and all his household.” “I baptized also the household of Stephanas.” (Acts 16: 15, 33. 1 Cor. 1: 16.) To this answer the following objections are brought forward:

Obj. 1(a). But Christ does not expressly command that infants should be baptized.

Ans. Neither does he expressly say that adults, men, women, citizens, husbandmen, fullers, and other artizans, such as the Anabaptists for the most part are, should be baptized. He commands that all who are included in the covenant and church of God should be baptized, of whatever age race, sex, or rank they may be. Nor is there any necessity that there should be an express reference to every age and rank in general laws and commands; because what is thus enjoined, is binding upon a whole class, and so includes all the separate parts which are comprehended in it. The-Anabaptists themselves do not exclude women from the Lord’s Supper and yet they have no express command, nor example for this practice in the Scriptures. We have a general command in relation to baptism: for it is said, Go, and teach all nations, baptizing &c. This command requires that all who are disciples should be baptized. But infants are disciples, because they are born in the church, and are taught after their manner. Peter, likewise, commands the same thing when he says, “The promise is unto you and your children; therefore be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus”; “Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” (Acts 2: 39; 10: 47.) Paul teaches the same thing when he says that we are circumcised in Christ, and buried with him by baptism. Therefore, our baptism has taken the place of circumcision, which substitution is equal to an express command.”

http://www.us.archive.org/GnuBook/?id=commentaryofzach00ursiuoft#407

Since you did not include your name in the post, I will call you re-baptized, given that you were re-baptized as an adult.

If I am understanding your post correctly you have 2 main claims: one, logical inferences from scripture don’t have the same authority as explicit statements of scripture, and two, your experience invalidates the Reformed argument for infant baptism.

Let’s take claim #1 first. Setting aside the Protestant principle of Biblical interpretation that an inference from scripture, based upon good and necessary consequence, is scripture itself, let’s work with your principle, that only explicit statements of scripture are scriptural and authoritative. On your own presuppositions, you would deny the Trinity, you would deny the Chalcedonian definition’s statement concerning the relationship of the natures of Christ within the one divine person of Christ, you would deny women the right to take part in the Lord’s Supper, and you would invalidate one of your own arguments against infant baptism, namely, that “self-transformation” is the condition of baptism. On one of your own presuppositions, which is only explicit statements of scripture are authoritative and binding for faith and practice, you must deny the four doctrines listed above, because not one of them rests upon an explicit statement of scripture; rather, they are all based upon good and necessary inference from the text of scripture (except the last one, “self-transformation” is the condition of baptism, which is inference from scripture, although it is not a sound inference from scripture). So, if that is your argument against infant baptism, that it is invalid because it is an inference from scripture, and therefore lacks authority, then just say that. But realize, by saying that, you are rejecting every doctrine that is based upon good and necessary inference from scripture.

Now, let’s take claim #2 on. Your own experience validates what true baptism is (that functions as the warrant of your argument). The claim with respect to infant baptism is that it’s wrong and unbiblical. The evidence or support for the claim is you got baptized and were an atheist until your adult years, and everyone you know in the Reformed church you grew up with is a hypocrite. Your argument is an appeal to authority. You are the authority on baptism. Your experience is what establishes whether a particular doctrine of baptism is sound or not, and by necessary inference, all other doctrines, since you have argued that at least one doctrine must be based on your authority. I am interested to hear your explanation for why you are the authority which provides the validation for baptism and all doctrine, but so far it has only been asserted, not demonstrated.

By the way, claim #2 contradicts claim #1, which is that only explicit statements of scripture are binding and authoritative for doctrine and practice, since claim #2 states that you are the one who determines which doctrine and practices are valid, and not explicit statements of scripture.

For anyone who is interested in what the Reformed argument for infant baptism is, you can read a summary of it in Heidelberg Q & A 74 and Belgic Confession 34, both of which are conveniently located on the web site.

Grace and peace,

Pastor John

However, your very own language presupposes interpretation. As you say: “The Reformed ARGUE that the command to baptize covenant children is IMPLICIT (not explicit) in the command to circumcise covenant children in Genesis 17″, and “the practice of infant baptism under the new covenant is WARRANTED and JUSTIFIED.” Your argument for infant baptism is, as you admit yourself, an argument; that is, an unique interpretation of specific passages within the Bible. To be sure, all this you yourself have already admitted.

If, with humility and sincerity, you had reflected upon the precariousness of your own position, instead of saying: “Failure to baptize the children of believers is a gross and serious violation of scripture”, you may have said: “Failure to baptize the children of believers is a gross and serious violation of the Reformed INTERPRETATION of scripture (that is, according to your own view of scripture; since, it is clear that no passage is to be found which concedes your point with apodictic certainty). Once you admit this point, which you already have done implicitly, and as is implied in your language, only then may we proceed with a fruitful discussion concerning God’s Word – and not the transitoriness of your own word.

With regard to critical exegesis concerning this particular sacrament, I only say that it is incomplete at best. As in the above example, such arguments are not based solely upon the revealed Word, as Rev. John explicitly contends (but implicitly denies), but upon precarious human inferences as to what God is trying to communicate.

Thus, I am left only with anecdotal evidence as to the meaninglessness of infant baptism. I myself was baptized as an infant in the Christian Reformed Church. To be sure, I ‘believed’ in God, Christ, and the central tenets of Christian faith (as formalized by the Reformed Church). However, as an adult I denied the Lord, denied Christ, and became a staunch atheist (or, better, a Nietzschean). From this experience I had discovered my ’secret atheism’, which, before Christ, had unconsciously plagued me my entire life. In the twenty-second year of my life the Lord, in His charity, revealed Himself to me, offering a gift. As I reached out to accept, He demanded of me one one thing: that I lose myself and take up the cross; that I die to self in order that I be reborn in Christ. Henceforth, and for the first time, I renounced my sin (chief among them, my despair). Hitherto the Lord my God, who is a living God, has convicted me unto baptism. This, He says, is to be done as symbolization of my death and birth in Christ, and as a testament to all that I have accepted from my Lord, my God the gift of His Love – His Son Christ Jesus. The Lord made clear to me that my previous baptism, while certainly a dedication of a child to the Lord by the church, was no more than this. In the best case scenario it was not a transformation in Christ, in the worst case scenario it was a mere sprinkling of water upon the head. I sprinkling devoid of significance lest the follower has been verily transformed in Christ. These things the Lord has taught me.

To be sure, my story is a story of personal revelation. However, the point is not lost. We must continually ask ourselves what it means to become a Christian, a follower of Christ. The self-transformation, the transformation in Christ – in a short, the becoming Christian – is always a precondition for baptism, and concomitant with baptism. This does not even require that we deny the doctrine of election, for only God knows who is elect. For our own part, being finite and subject to temporality, we can only know when we have been, through God’s mercy and charity, transformed in Christ (like Paul and Saint Augustine, among countless others, who were radically transformed in Christ).

In summary, propounding infant baptism is, at best, an interpretation of scripture, not scripture per se. Moreover, while many in the Reformed Church still believe they are Christian by virtue of being born Christian (that is, by virtue of being baptized) or by being born in a Christian community, such tenets are abhorrent to the Lord our God. Also abhorrent to God is mere belief in the tenets of Christianity. As Saint Peter saith: “So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead” (James 2:17) and “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe – and shudder.” So, as faith and action cannot be separated, so belief and faith cannot be separated. Rev. John, though you are entitled to proclaiming your doctrine, you would do well to ask yourself this one question: “What does it mean to become a Christian?” For my own part, Christianity is few and far between in the Reformed Church in my community. To be sure, all the members therein were baptized as infants; however, this is where many of their convictions end, and, sadly, infant baptism (though unconscious) is their only and last connection to Christ. So, herein lies the value of infant baptism: that those who take part in the sacrament may be assured of their salvation, so that they may henceforth ignore the word of the Lord, perform their arbitrary and selfish daily rituals, and do – as is abundantly evident in my own community – whatsoever they desire. I do not take salvation for granted. I pray continually that the Lord might have mercy on my wretched soul. I pray earnestly that He may embrace me. These things I do not expect, for I trust the Lord’s mercy and judgement. My concern is only the impossible task of becoming a Christian.

May God open your heart and fill it with abundant joy.

With love,

A servant of the Lord

Thank you Dr. Boersma and theopedia.com for this information.

Let me point out something else as well, the church may preach the gospel faithfully and convert very few people. Isaiah the prophet preached with almost no results. Jesus preached for a few years and had many of his “converts” turn away. We don’t get the sense from the New Testament that Paul converted thousands upon thousands of people; instead, it seems that Paul preached to perhaps thousands upon thousands, but a small percentage of those were actually converted.

I don’t condone laziness, and if that is the reason why some Reformed churches don’t grow and don’t baptize more adults, then shame on them. But, I will not agree to the position which you propose which is that as long as a church has results it justifies their disobedience to God’s commands and excuses the preaching of a false gospel. It sounds to me like you have more in common with the Rick Warren’s, Joel Osteen’s, and Bill Hybels’ of this world than you do with the apostle Paul and the word of God.

You draw a simplistic contrast between a Reformed church which merely “offers a weekly reading of the Belgic Confession” with a Baptist church which “offers gospel preaching.” I am unaware of a Reformed church which simply reads the Belgic and that is it. Beyond that, if the Baptist church preaches Arminianism, its not preaching the gospel anyway. Just because it talks about Jesus from the Bible does not mean it preaches the gospel of the Bible; Jehovah Witnesses even do that, and by the way, they make a lot of adult converts, and hold to “believers baptism only” as you and other Baptists do. Perhaps you will want to praise them.

As I read the Institutes, I understand that infant baptism is only efficacious for the children of believers. This allows multiple generations to enter the covenant family without professing any faith. In effect it’s very similar to Catholic baptism, as the sacrament of baptism saves rather than faith. You may well argue that the Reformed Church is different, but I counter that this very thing has caused once vital Reformed denominations – Congregationalists and Presbyterians – to gentrify and disintegrate.

As for Arminianism, it is a false gospel. Churches that preach Arminianism are false churches because they preach false gospels. Paul says in Galatians 1:8, “if we or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed.” My friend, you need to take Paul’s words very seriously. False gospel’s are accursed and those who preach them are accursed as well. We are not authorized to form a truce with those who blaspheme Christ by preaching what is so blatantly contrary to scripture.

By the way, I am not reading Owens, I am reading Calvin.

Do you really believe what you have just said? That Baptists, Methodists and Nazarenes are not a part of the “true church” because they do not use the Belgic or Westminster confession? And if so what do you find “true” about the “church” known as the UPC that I was raised in?

Despite parting ways with Whitfield and fulminating against the five points, Wesley argued for a truce – an agreement to disagree – between Arminian and Reformed. As I heard Packer say once when asked whether C.S.Lewis was Arminian or Calvinist: “In theory he was a Calvinist”. Please read more Baxter and less Owens.

I understand that you were regenerated later in life, but that does not negate the fact that you were a part of the covenant, by baptism, before you believed unto salvation. The baptism you received as an infant in the Presbyterian church was valid and should not have been repeated after your adult conversion experience.

I hope that you will be willing to reconsider the decision you have made to leave the true church. Failure to baptize the children of believers is a gross and serious violation of scripture.

“The Reformed baptize based upon the command of God to administer the sign and seal of the covenant to the children of the covenant.”

I was born and raised a Presbyterian. I understand the implications of covenant theology which permit the baptizing of infants. But I did not become a believer while in the Presbyterian church, and Jesus commands his followers – not infants – to be baptized. Following his command, I was finally and really baptized as an adult.

I suggest that you listen to more of the textual sermons and catechetical sermons on the web site in order to get an informed perspective on what Reformed theology is about. Then, we can have a more fruitful discussion and hopefully unravel your misconceptions.

Thanks for engaging us.

Pastor John

2. I view early Calvinism as a system of organization which was very successful in creating robust Reformation governments. Yet through 400 years of history, what took place at Dortmund appears to me to be only a minor schism within Calvinism. 100 years after, Arminian Calvinism flourished – under Wesley (read Calvinism Calmly Considered for his refutation of all 5 Points), the Baptists and later under revivalists and the Holiness movement – and the Gospel was preached. The purer strain of Puritan Calvinism – Congregationalism – apostasized into Universalism, Unitarianism and the like. Gospel preaching died out in favor of dry dogma. Eventually even the dogma itself disappeared.

3. The Synod used logic to interpret scripture for unscriptural purposes. Infant regeneration is never mentioned in scripture, though it can be reasoned out by torturing Paul’s predestination passages. But why go to that trouble? I expect that in the 1600’s it was useful politically for creating the monolithic Protestant state churches. It’s hardly useful for that purpose today.

Thanks for the post. Please don’t give up on what you’re looking through on the site.

(1) That God is unchangeable (“immutable”) is one of His glorious, fundamental, identifying characteristics. It is true of Him in general– “God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?” (Numbers 23); and it is true of Him as it relates to Him saving His elect– “they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48).

(2) I wonder which “branch of Christianity” you are referring to. Although the details of the Canons are not confessed except by the Reformed and the Presbyterians, its predestinarian substance is prominent in many even competing historic Christian traditions (eg, the Augustinian strand of Roman Catholicism, the Martin Luther-ish strand of Lutheranism), ALL which ground the doctrine in God’s immutable will .

(3) If you have a problem with “assigning God a will,” your problem IS with Ephesians 1. I mean it says what it says, right? “he predestined us. . .in accordance with his pleasure and will”; “And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ”; “having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will.” His will, His will, His will. There is a difference between basely interpreting God’s will, which open theism and Arminian does, and then there is another whole level of interpretive dysfunction that denies the very obvious category, or assigns it such and entirely different meaning as to render it nonsense, which you have done.

(4) Hard to defend your denial of Christianity as a legal system (depending on what you mean by it) when God gives us laws and will judge us someday, and when the bibical language describing our salvation is forensic (eg, “justification”). We also oppose legalistic interpretive systems and manmade moral rules. But not all systems of doctrine and moral rules are manmade. Some are biblical. As an example, the apostles systematize various parts of OT and even NT Scripture all the time into a coherent ideas. Hey, even your post is a mini-interpretive system, one I trust you do not think is legalistic.

(5) We do believe that all sinners may be saved if they ask for it. The only ones who will truly understand and acknowledge their sin, and flee to Christ alone for their salvation (“ask for it”), will be the elect, whom God has made alive out of their cold, dead heart to see their need and see their only hope.

amk

Foremost I reject the Dortian interpretation on Eph. 1.. What it says, is that we shall be grateful to God for our personal gifts aside from the salvation. The talk of “predestination” cannot be interpreted literally according to our limited human understanding, it fails logically if we are assigning God a “will”, free or otherwise.

Lastly: I reject the notion that Christianity is a legal system. It’s a “moral” system pinpointing for us how “things work” in a deeper meaning, but all development of moral, is a matter of personal spiritual seeking, not to be imposed upon us by any external legalist interpretation system. Only the salvation is by an external force, and that external force is God.

Me: Lutheran catholic, single predestination (the elect only), all sinners may be saved if they ask for it.

I think they are very related in my opinion.