/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

the latter

>>638209

There is no single event which saves you forever. If you stop collaborating with divine grace at any time, you're back to square one.

>It is well known that sacramentum comes from sacrando (i.e., "to consecrate" and "to initiate") as juramentum from jurando, testamentum from testando. With the ancient authors of the Latin language it signifies two things. (1) The "money" or the pledge deposited by two parties to a suit with the ponyiffs in a sacred place, with which he was mulcted who had lost his cause as a punishment of an unjust litigation (as Varro observes). (2) An "oath" which was taken only when some sacred deity was invoked. Hence sacramento contendere (with Cicero) means "to affirm by a solemn oath"; sacramento interrogari, sacramento teneri, etc. But it is used peculiarly to denote a military oath by which soldiers bound themselves by a certain rite and prescribed words to the state and the magistrate, that they would strenuously perform what the emperor had commanded and would not desert the military standards. Hence the phrase obligare sacramento. Hence in the old glosses sacramentum is a military oath. Tertullian: "We were called to the militia of God, even then when we responded to the words of the sacrament". The word, having been transferred from military affairs to sacred uses, was employed by ecclesiastical writers to signify any mystery or sacred and not obvious doctrine. Hence everywhere in the fathers you will find the sacrament of the Trinity, of the incarnation, and of faith, and in general the whole Christian religion comes under this name. In this sense, the word is used in the Vulgate wherever the word "mystery" occurs (1 Tim 3:16, Eph 1:9; 5:32.) "the sacrament of the seven stars" (Rev 1:20); "the sacrament of the Beast" (Rev 17:7). More strictly it is taken for a sacred sign or external symbol which exhibits one thing to the sense, another to the mind. In this sense Augustine says "Signs, when they pertain to divine things, are called sacraments". At length and by various degrees, it most recently came to signify a sign and seal of the covenant in Christ, instituted by God in the Church. Again, sacrament in this sense is taken either for external signs or rites simply, or for the internal thing signified; or to embrace both the external and internal thing, the sign and thing signified complexly, in which sense it is here considered by us.

>In defining a sacrament, we follow Paul, who, speaking of circumcision, says it is a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith (Rom 4:11). This is a generic definition and is rightly ascribed to the species. Therefore, this torch throwing its light before us, we say: "The sacraments are the signs and seals of the grace of God in Christ". Or, a little more explicitly, sacred visible signs and seals divinely instituted to signify and seal to our consciences the promises of saving grace in Christ and in turn to testify our faith and piety and obedience towards God.

In Protestantism, the former.

That's why I don't get some denominations that practice adult baptism, since baptism is part of salvation. Children are deemed sinless and pure in spirit, but what if someone who's of age has a baptism scheduled for the weekend and gets in a fatal car accident a day before?

>>638326

keyword: Baptism by desire

>>638326

Once saved always saved

>>638209

>Does baptism have saving effects and make us Christians?

Which baptism? 1 peter 3:21

>The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

>>638330

Which saved? Saved by grace as pertaining to the elect romans 11:5-6?

>Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

>And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Or are you talking about saved from eternal death? Which although available no one has married Christ until revelation 19 after they wash their robes/get bapitized in the Holy Ghost in revelation 7:14.

>>638213

>back to square one

Not true at all. You won’t have to do anything again to regain God’s love

>>638209

Paul was immersed in water to have his sins washed away (acts 22:16). Peter told the sinful jews asking "what shall we do" to be immersed in water for the forgiveness of sins (acts 2:38).

Baptism is the act through which God forgives our/washes away our sins.

Baptism having "saving effects" is generally called "baptismal regeneration" by Protestants. This doctrine is taught not only by the Catholic and Orthodox churches, but also by many of the confessional Protestant churches, as I will show below from their confessional documents. Even the Presbyterian doctrine is not really all that different from the Catholic doctrine of baptism (in re) versus baptism of desire.

Catholics (Council of Trent)

>Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified; lastly, the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one's proper disposition and co-operation. 

 https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html

Eastern Orthodox (Confession of Dositheus)

>Decree 16

>We believe Holy Baptism, which was instituted by the Lord, and is conferred in the name of the Holy Trinity, to be of the highest necessity. For without it none is able to be saved, as the Lord says, “Whoever is not born of water and of the Spirit, shall in no way enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens.” {John 3:5} And, therefore, baptism is necessary even for infants, since they also are subject to original sin, and without Baptism are not able to obtain its remission…

http://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html

Lutherans (Augsburg Confession)

>Article IX: Of Baptism.

>Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God's grace. They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism.

 http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article9

Anglicans (XXXIV Articles)

>XXVII. Of Baptism.

>Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, '''whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God."'

http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html

Presbyterians (Westminster Confession)

>VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

As far as the biblical evidence, I'm not going to bother quote mining, but there are numerous relevant passages, and they all speak of baptism as regenerating, saving, conferring remission of sins. People who deny this (e.g. Baptists) have to say ridiculous ad hoc things like places that talk about baptism are not really talking about the sacrament of baptism (even though baptism is clearly meant to anyone without an agenda), but a waterless spiritual baptism. I'll just post the Lutheran Satire video (I don't like a lot of their videos, but the argument here is basically correct).

https://youtu.be/JwxHzo0QVYY

Finally, the Creed, which should be normative for all Christians says, "I believe… in ONE baptism for the forgiveness of sins."

>>638209

No, it's the second one

>>638529

>>638620

>Even the Presbyterian doctrine is not really all that different from the Catholic doctrine of baptism

That means you don't understand Reformed sacramentology (understandable), see >>638257 for a Reformed definition of the term sacrament which should give you a basic idea of some differences with Romish doctrine.

>Westminster Confession

The Reformed explicitly deny that sacramental efficacy is ex opere operato and instead believe they confer grace through faith (this alone constitutes a major difference with baptismal regeneration). The way in which a sacrament confers the grace promised (sanctification, justification, etc.) is no different than the way in which the preaching of the gospel confers it. It is not the baptism itself, whether the rite, the water, the minister or anything else in the sacrament which confers it, but the promise being exhibited. Hence, in baptism there is a twofold promise; "I will save you" and "You are saved", faith in which promise brings the promised grace. The confession itself says

<The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

>>638716

I don't think I have interpreted the Westminster Confession. I think your mistake is assuming there is one "the Reformed" view, and that the Westminster Confession must necessarily reflect that. The more plain reading of your quote is that there is nothing intrinsic to the outward act of baptism, but that God has made the sacrament an instrument of Grace so that the Holy Spirit operates through the Sacrament. What it says is that through baptism, the grace signified is really conferred. I am not alone in beliving the WCF teaches baptismal regeneration. See, for example,

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/does-the-wcf-teach-baptismal-regeneration.36278/

>Romish

Unless you are either deliberately trying to be obnoxious or a gnome, you should use the word Catholic, especially when the Catholic doctrine is not exclusive to the Roman or Latin Church.

>>638526

>regain God’s love

>Implying God stops loving humans at any point

It is a supernatural sacrament that washes your soul so that you can be a Christian. That is why the apostles baptized whole households.

>>638775

What is God's wrath?

>>638753

>I think your mistake is assuming there is one "the Reformed" view

There is. Roman Catholic sacramentology has always been strictly rejected. There has never been a debate between two men claiming to be Reformed on the topic of baptismal regeneration. There has never been any claim of difference amongst them.

>and that the Westminster Confession must necessarily reflect that

I'm just recognizing the historical context of the confession, which also allows me to accurately interpret other parts of the confession which plainly contradict baptismal regeneration.

>The more plain reading of your quote is that there is nothing intrinsic to the outward act of baptism

That would be the plain reading if the context was a Roman Catholic speaking, but these men are Calvinists, and there's no doubt what they meant. They are denying that there is absolutely anything in the sacrament itself which confers grace, any more than there is something in the words of the gospel which confer grace. Plus, how does this section end? "a promise of benefit to worthy receivers". Who are the worthy receivers? Believers.

<Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word.

<The sacraments of the Old Testament in regard to the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new.

<Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

<The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.

<The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to Him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.

<That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ's body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense, and reason; overthrows the nature of the sacrament, and has been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yes, of gross idolatries.

<Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

<Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament; yet, they receive not the thing signified thereby; but, by their unworthy coming thereunto, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Him, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table; and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto.

These sections are all incompatible with your understanding of that one section.

>See, for example

You should read the rest of the posts for a correction of his misunderstanding and yours.

>>638839

Reproof. Spare the rod spoil the child.

>>638938

The "refuting" posts don't refute the claim that the WCF teaches a Calvinist form of baptismal regeneration. The first post quotes the first paragraph of the WCF, which says baptism is a "sign" of grace, ignoring the relevant statement that baptism confers the grace that it signifies. The second post posts about the LBC, but we are discussing the Presbyterian WCF, not the Baptist LBC.

Look at the later posts.

<The late David F. Wright, certainly no slouch, says yes.

And below

<We can open up this question further by noting the opinion of a well-respected scholar of Reformation theology, David F. Wright (University of Edinburgh; a ruling elder in the Church of Scotland). He writes,

<What then about the efficacy of baptism according to the Westminster Confession? Its central affirmation seems clear: "the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost" (28.6). It is true that a variety of qualifications to this assertion are entered…But these qualifications serve in fact only to highlight the clarity of the core declaration, which is set forth as follows in the preceding chapter on sacraments in general:

<niether doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution; which contains…a promise of benefit to worthy receivers (27.3).

<The Westminster divines viewed baptism as the instrument and occasion of regeneration by the Spirit, of the remission of sins, of ingrafting into Christ (cf. 28.1). The Confession teaches baptismal regeneration. (from "Baptism at the Westminster Assembly" in The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century, volume 1, ed. by J. Ligon Duncan III, Mentor 2003:168-9)

Also

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/cornelius-burges-view-of-baptismal-regeneration.79392/

>>638979

>The "refuting" posts don't refute the claim that the WCF teaches a Calvinist form of baptismal regeneration

But, I did

>The first post quotes the first paragraph of the WCF, which says baptism is a "sign" of grace, ignoring the relevant statement that baptism confers the grace that it signifies

No less egregious than you ignoring the relevant statement that it confers such grace through faith.

>The second post posts about the LBC, but we are discussing the Presbyterian WCF, not the Baptist LBC.

The text quoted is the same. The person's point was that if the Westminster taught baptismal regeneration in chapter 28 article 1, the text would have been fundamentally altered by the Baptists.

>Look at the later posts.

>And below

It doesn't matter who said it, it's wrong. It wouldn't matter if they said the Westminster Confession teaches Arianism either, it still wouldn't be true.

>Also

The person still rejects baptismal regeneration. Read the thread, it says he held that baptism is concurrent with regeneration in elect infants. The fact they are being baptized in that moment would therefore be a mere coincidence.

Also

<And that it is faith laying hold of the promises in baptism (a right use of this ordinance) wherein its efficacy is discovered.

>But, I did

Did you personally make both those posts under different accounts?

>No less egregious than you ignoring the relevant statement that it confers such grace through faith.

It doesn't matter whether faith is an instrument of grace, as it is in Lutheranism, Catholicism, etc., but whether it is the sole instrument of grace.

>The text quoted is the same. The person's point was that if the Westminster taught baptismal regeneration in chapter 28 article 1, the text would have been fundamentally altered by the Baptists.

I didn't say that p. 1 taught baptismal regeneration. It is p. 5 that teaches baptismal regeneration, and that was not included in the LBC. You might was well argue that the WCF does not teach infant baptism.

<The person still rejects baptismal regeneration. Read the thread, it says he held that baptism is concurrent with regeneration in elect infants. The fact they are being baptized in that moment would therefore be a mere coincidence.

Seems like a big coincidence that regeneration occurs always simultaneously with baptism. I guess God didn't get the memo that baptism does not have any salvific effects whatsoever.

>And that it is faith laying hold of the promises in baptism (a right use of this ordinance) wherein its efficacy is discovered.

Again, whether faith is necessary is not disputed. The question is whether regeneration is tied to baptism, and the WCF's answer is yes for the elect.

>>639072

>Did you personally make both those posts under different accounts?

I used a comma

>I didn't say that p. 1 taught baptismal regeneration

I know, but the OP of that thread you linked did

>You might was well argue that the WCF does not teach infant baptism.

Absolutely preposterous and contemptible nonsense. I don't know why you're pressing this so hard, what's next, the confession teaches transubstantiation?

>Seems like a big coincidence that regeneration occurs always simultaneously with baptism

Tell it to Burges.

>The question is whether regeneration is tied to baptism, and the WCF's answer is yes for the elect

Well that sure shows the very same disrespect for the immediate, greater and historical contexts of the confession you have maintained all thread, but also abject ignorance of Reformed soteriology. The position you attribute to the confession is strictly incompatible with Calvinism, and indeed the confession itself. This is because in Calvinism faith is impossible without the pre-existence of regeneration, so faith cannot be tied to the efficacy of baptism if regeneration is itself tied to baptism. Let's look at another relevant section you will no doubt ignore

<This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.

.