Monday
Jul232012
Basics of the Reformed Faith -- Baptism
Monday, July 23, 2012 at 02:47PM 
The next installment of my series on basic doctrine has been posted on the Westminster Seminary California blog.
Here's the link: Click Here
Monday, July 23, 2012 at 02:47PM
Reader Comments (27)
Credo-baptists need to recognize that all the Reformed confessions (which define what it means to be Reformed) teach and defend paedo-baptism.
Granted, there are Calvinists who hold to Credo-baptism, but technically there is no such thing as a "Reformed" baptist. Note: the London "Baptist" Confession.
I suggest you take a look at Richard Muller's essay, "How Many Points?" You can find it here: http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/how-many-points/
You will be getting your buddy Pastor Ken Jones worked up to a Miami Heat when you say that there is no such thing as a Reformed Baptist!
You are mistaken and sadly in error if you believe that a foundational element of Reformed Theology includes the extra-biblical teaching of infant baptism. Or church-state unity as the original WCF taught. These elements of a certain view of Reformed Theology reflect the half-step from Rome by those who hold to these views and merely reinforce the need for all to be reminded of the need for Semper Reformanda!
Ken and I have had that discussion for many years. Its friendly and Ken doesn't like it much, but it is hard to claim to be "Reformed" while rejecting something taught in all the Reformed confessions as a mark of the church.
Manfred:
I learned a long time ago that it is a waste of time and energy to attempt to dialogue with someone who is so convinced he's right, that he regards his own unsupported assertions as compelling arguments for the truth of his position. Assertions are not arguments.
So, go in peace--nothing more I can say to you.
Maybe because I haven't been a part of a church for so long, I don't mind not being included in the Reformed tradition. I remember when R.S. Clark still had his blog that he posted some things on this; I ended up being convinced. Perhaps I am not representing him well, but from what I remember his argument was that to be Reformed you have to have participated in the development and promulgation of Reformed doctrine (specifically in official church meetings and decisions). Anglicans and Congregationalists did participate and can rightly be included in the Reformed tradition. Since Baptist did not participate (or perhaps more accurately were not included) in the doctrinal formulations of the Reformed tradition or accept them (i.e. Westminster Confession, etc.), then they are not Reformed.
Based on the aforementioned, I once asked a question on the White Horse Inn blog which never got an answer. IIf I remember correctly in an interview by R.S. Clark with Michael Horton, Horton mentioned that a patriarch of Constantinople had once made the Canons of Dordt binding on Eastern Churches; this came to an end after a Roman Catholic assassinated the patriarch. So based on the way Dr. Clark defined a Reformed Christian, could it be said the the Eastern Orthodox were at one time a part of the Reformed tradition? I don't see why not.
I think the way some ministries have been accepting of Baptists has led to this confusion; so some Reformed Christians do bear some fault for misleading Baptists.
But to my fellow Baptists, I say cheer up. You don't have to defend a tradition which was theocratic and which still has some theocrats (I remember R.S. Clark using this description, and rightly so), jailed fellow Baptists, and killed some heretics and witches. The Reformed tradition was not one where religious liberty was valued for a long time; it has evolved from this stance of the Reformers.
I know a Christian very well (I don't want to use his name) that did a study on church history. After his study he became Eastern Orthodox. His study challenged me to do a study on the Orthodox tradition, which I did by reading the writings of the Bishops and the Fathers.
In a nutshell, they are even more against Reformed theology than Rome is. They feel that they formed their teachings from the church fathers as handed to them from the Apostles. They teach that their tradition gave us the books of the Bible about 250-300 years after Christ rose from the dead. In other words, their tradition (along with Rome-until the split of the East and West) is the true faith handed down from the apostles.
They teach that the doctrine of justification is a new teaching of the Reformers that was unheard of until the Reformation.
In my study, I just finished reading all of the Roman catechism as well. (I know, I am a BORING GUY!) I did the study just to get a feel for church history and for educational purposes.
The Orthodox haven't changed their theology, and will not change their theology. They are not open to anything "new" like Lutheran or Reformed or any other type of theology. They certainly will not accept the "Canons of Dort" as from the church fathers.
I know a Christian very well (I don't want to use his name) that did a study on church history. After his study he became Eastern Orthodox. His study challenged me to do a study on the Orthodox tradition, which I did by reading the writings of the Bishops and the Fathers.
In a nutshell, they are even more against Reformed theology than Rome is. They feel that they formed their teachings from the church fathers as handed to them from the Apostles. They teach that their tradition gave us the books of the Bible about 250-300 years after Christ rose from the dead. In other words, their tradition (along with Rome-until the split of the East and West) is the true faith handed down from the apostles.
They teach that the doctrine of justification is a new teaching of the Reformers that was unheard of until the Reformation.
In my study, I just finished reading all of the Roman catechism as well. (I know, I am a BORING GUY!) I did the study just to get a feel for church history and for educational purposes.
The Orthodox haven't changed their theology, and will not change their theology. They are not open to anything "new" like Lutheran or Reformed or any other type of theology. They certainly will not accept the "Canons of Dort" as from the church fathers.
Just consider the argument I presented, which I think is a faithful summary of the argument that R.S. Clark makes. Although, I think the issue is one of definition and not so much an argument. By definition, the Reformed affirm infant baptism.
Even on Sola Scriptura, I think you will find people in disagreement about what that means. Read someone like Keith Mathison in "After Darkness Light" where he criticizes John MacArthur. Call up James White on his radio program and ask him about he differs with Keith Mathison on Sola Scriptura.
Trust me on this. Kim Riddlebarger knows more about Reformed theology than anyone--that includes B.B. Warfield, Calvin or Berkhof.
Don't agrue with him on this. To quote Dirty Harry, "A man has got to know his limitations." He also knows more than just about anyone else on anything else that is theology.
I know that Eastern Orthodoxy is different. Maybe you need to listen to the interview R.S. Clark did with Michael Horton on Eastern Orthodoxy to understand what I'm saying. I think it is at wscal.edu.
Kim,
It's good to hear you are feeling better.
As a firm believer in believer's baptism I do think I would be persecuted by the magisterial reformers and might have run with the radicals, though I vigorously disagree with more than a couple of their points of doctrine.
Sola Scripture should be easily defined, while the application of and interpretation of Scripture leaves us the room for our sinful minds to see less than clearly.
The best way to learn about what Rome or the Orthodox teach is the hard way--study their writings.
While I highly respect R.S. Clark, it is better to go to the sources themselves. If we want to know what Lutherans teach (which I am) you have to read the Book of Concord. The Dutch Reformed--"The Three Forms of Unity" etc.
You are misunderstanding me. If you read any of R.S. Clark's posts and interactions when he had a blog, perhaps you would understand what I'm saying. Dr. Horton mentioned in the aforementioned interview that a patriarch of Constantinople at a certain time in the past imposed the Canons of Dordt upon those churches over which he had authority; some time later the Canons of Dordt were thrown out and even condemned I think. So, my question whenever I meet a Reformed theologian or scholar of some sort, particularly R.S. Clark, would be the following: Can the Eastern Orthodox or some segment of it from the past be considered a part of the Reformed tradition based on what R.S. Clark has said? It is not a challenge or a rhetorical question, it is an honest question.
Another issue related to confessions is that they don't always provide the clarity that they supposedly offer. If you have followed some debates among the Reformed, you will find that they do not always even agree on what the Westiminster Confession says at times. An example would be of the sections that touch upon creation; you will hear some say that the confession speaks of a literal six days and related things which requires a young Earth view, while others say no and that it allows for an old Earth view. Again, R.S. Clark has mentioned these debates, and probably mentions it in his book dealing with what it means to be Reformed, "Recovering the Reformed Confession".
I hope to hear that you are going back to church soon.
Regarding the six days of creation account. How old the universe is is never mentioned in the Bible. We are commanded to look at the "Book of Nature", Romans 1 for such answers.
The problem with the six days of creation account is that you have dry land and vegetation on day three, but luminaries on day four. God makes a case for the natural order of creation in Gen. 2:5. Also, as a young earther you have man created on day six, just two days after the stars.
In looking at the "Book of Nature" it does not make too much sense that man is created within two days of the stars when starlight appears to reach us after 15 billion years, also supernovas. If the universe is created with the appearance of age and supernovas take about 15 billion years for us to see, that would mean that God is tricking us after challenging us to look at the "Book of Nature" for such answers.
I lean towards the "Framework" theory that Pastor Kim and others endorse. As a Lutheran, I find it mind boggling that such brilliant theologians as we have can defend a young earth view so vehemently when the Bible doesn't tell us if we have a young or old earth.
How many folks are being kept away from the Gospel by using a Fred Flinstone young earth view?
We should rejoice in the findings of science and not be afraid of them proving that the universe may be 5 trillion years old. Let us allow the scientists to do science and the theologians to do the Bible. God is the author of both and does not send us conflicting views. If time and accurate science determine the universe is trillions of years old--praise God for His creation. We don't need to run for cover in trying to defend the ridiculous.
If folks prefer to be Fred Flinstone (young earthers) that is fine, but at least leave open the possibility of an old earth to save face.
I used to be young earth until I spent many hours studying the issue. While the Bible doesn't tell us how old the universe is, God commands us to look for such answers in the "Book of Nature" in Romans 1 and Psalm 19.
While we can't be certain, the evidence is overwhelming for old earth. One thing that we have to remember is if we are adamant in defending either view when the evidence leans towards the other view we are commiting scientific heresy. In that case we are no better than the evolutionist's in telling a lie just to protect our pet views.
I don't want to commit scriptural or scientific heresy. This is a secondary issue that Christians should not divide over. Like Pastor Kim once told me, some folks actually confuse the creation account with the Gospel.
I thought I would chime in, since the conversation seems to be fairly productive/informative.
I am a young earther, who is digging in his heels to what seems to be pretty convincing evidence for the old-earth side. Not that I am opposed to an old-earth, I just have always set my heart on a young earth. I thought that this HAD to be the biblical definition, and that I would be unfaithful to God and His Word if I believed anything otherwise.
However, after reading an article entitled "PCA Geologists on the Antiquity of the Earth" in Modern Reformation's issue on Cannon Formation, I began to see both sides of the arguement and accepted that there may be some credit to the idea of an old earth, and that it did not have to interfere with the gospel, since it did not propose to conflict with Scripture, but to substantiate it.
Even after all of this influence, I am finding that old "habits" die hard. I find myself always questioning the old-earthers, even though I know that their intentions are not ungodly. So my response to you is in honest exploration and with the utmost respect out of a mind desiring to know the truth and believe what is--distinguishing between what is not as evidence, reason, and logic is presented.
So first, how do you think the ancient fathers of the faith--the patriarchs, Moses, prophets, and even the Apostles interpreted the creation account? If they interpreted the earth as relatively young, couldn't we explain the creation of the stars as a supernatural "setting in place," whereby God created them with their light already falling on the earth?
Is there anything in Jewish tradition or ancient history that speaks to any of this, lending credit to the idea that the Jewish worldview maintained a young earth, which would include Paul, Peter, and other Scriptural authorities? Or is this agruement totally crazy?
Quite a few questions, I know, but I would love to hear your thoughts on them.
Thank you,
Chris Jager
Tillamook, OR
Great to hear from you! I am getting ready for work, so in a hurry. Good questions. I am not an expert, but I study like crazy.
First of all, the Apostles did not teach young earth because the Bible does not teach young earth or old earth. It teaches us to look at the "Book of Nature" (Rom. 1) to find the answers.
Seeing that God commands us to look at the "Book of Nature", if archaeology and science are finding the universe old, (perhaps 5 trillion years old), and starlight is at least 15 billion years old, then there can not be conflict a between what God has told us about the age of the universe (nothing) and the evidence of science (which God has asked us to look at for answers).
If a person took a "young earth" viewpoint. It would mean that God is tricking us with a universe created with an appearance of age. In other words, what we are looking at is not really what our eyes are seeing. God is the author of Scripture and science. He is not the author of confusion.
The Gen. creation account cannot be a chronology because the creation account goes against the natural order that God has established. (Such as vegetation on day three before sunlight and stars on day four.) Could God have created dry land before sunlight? Sure. But he chooses to stick with His natural order of creation as found in Gen. 2:5
Two great works to read in the Framework theory are by Lee Irons, "The upper Register" and the best one is by Meredith G. Kline, "Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony."
You can google those and also a sermon that Pastor Riddlebarger did at CRC on this website in favor of the Framework theory. It should be noted that Hank Hanegraaff also leans Framework.
Hugh Ross has great stuff along with the great Ken Samples on the "day age" theory. This can be found on the "Reasons to Believe" website. On this website they list a bunch of great Christian scholars that are now "old earch." you can read their findings as well.
Regarding the church fathers; I studied the Eastern Orhodox writings, and they have a bunch of stuff from the church fathers and they pretty much leave it up to science. I just finished reading all of the catechism of Catholic chuch (just for educational reasons) and they also don't address the age of the universe stuff, and leave it to science as well.
The problem with the 24 hour viewpoint is that it forces you into a chronology of the Gen. account against the natural order of creation. It also forces you into dogmatically defending a young earth viewpoint--even to the point of making up stuff to fit your arguments.
What matters? The historical Adam. And, that God created the universe from nothing. God is the first cause. He is uncaused. He is the uncaused first cause. Gen. 1:1 is the first cause. Could it be 7,000 years ago? Or perhaps, 5 trillion years ago. The Bible doensn't tell us. We have to look at the "Book of Nature" for the answers to the question.
Sola Fide,
Third, we must distinguish between the sign (water) and the thing signified (the forgiveness of sin). The Scriptures do speak of baptism as “the bath of regeneration” (Titus 3:5) and tied to the “forgiveness of sin” (Acts 2:38 ff; 22:16), without also teaching that the water of baptism is the means of regeneration. Regeneration is everywhere attributed to the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit (John 3:3-8; Titus 3:5; 1 Corinthians 2:14) and not to the mere presence of the sign itself–the water of baptism, as if the sign somehow magically binds God to act. That being said, we must be very careful not to reduce baptism to mere external sign, or deny that anything at all is signified and sealed unto the one baptized. Claiming God’s covenant promise by faith, we believe with all our hearts that the baptized adult or child of a believer is indeed regenerate and has been washed in the blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins.
I'm having trouble understanding how my kids could be regenerate simply by baptizing them. What am I missing? I came from a dispensational background, and have recently begun to embrace the truths of reformed/covenant theology, the scripture interprets scripture hermanutic, and an amil view of eschatology. But I'm struggling with child baptism and what that really means. It makes sense of passages that talk about households being baptized, but what about folks that are baptized and participate in covenant blessings ,but then fall away from Heb 6. My kids could fall away, right? But if truly saved - an act of God before the foundation of the world by election (love that truth!), they will persevere in faith.
I need more direction on what baptism is and what the covanent relationship entails, because it appears that being in covenant is one thing, being saved is another.
Jeff