From Theopedia

Contents 1 Article on Baptism 2 Something of note 3 Up for review 4 Baptism, Church, and Fire

Article on Baptism

For a longer article on Baptism by Pastor David Chancellor please see the Baptism Discussion page. JordanBarrett 13:59, 7 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Something of note

... worth perhaps adding. Acts 19:1-5 shows that there is an important distinction between John's baptism and the post-Pentecost Christian baptism. -Aaronshaf 21:31, 12 March 2006 (EST)

Up for review

I removed:

1 Peter 3:20-22 (note Peter says this baptism now saves you)

This appears to be implying that baptism is supposed to save you (the comment, not the passage). I'm curious, Robwar0100, why you see this as strongly (or strongly enough) supporting a baptism that saves. Thanks. JordanBarrett (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2006 (PDT)

---

We have been having exactly this same debate in our parish concerning the Catechism. We catechize our children every week after our Fellowship Dinner and before Psalm Singing from the Heidelberg Catechism and this month we are going over the parts about the Sacraments.

Of course we want to protect the infinite value of Christ's precious passion and atonement. We rest on nothing less and nothing more than Jesus perpetual and perfect and entirely pleasing obedience to the Father in both life and death. Why then does Christ give us the Sacraments and why does the Bible use such words as "there is an antitype which now saves us?" I am sure the Catechism and the Reformers were sensitive to this as well:

Question 72. Is then the external baptism with water the washing away of sin itself?

Answer: Not at all: for the blood of Jesus Christ only, and the Holy Ghost cleanse us from all sin.

Question 73. Why then does the Holy Ghost call baptism "the washing of regeneration," and "the washing away of sins"

Answer: God speaks thus not without great cause, to-wit, not only thereby to teach us, that as the filth of the body is purged away by water, so our sins are removed by the blood and Spirit of Jesus Christ; but especially that by this divine pledge and sign he may assure us, that we are spiritually cleansed from our sins as really, as we are externally washed with water.

Baptism is "a sign and a seal" as we are used to hearing. As Calvin says, God does not give us an empty sign but anexxes the reality of the sign to us. The reality of the sign is Christ and the Good news. As Lutherans are want to say, Sacraments are the Gospel made visible and tangible.

Calvin's Geneva Catechism has much to say concerning Sacraments:

Master. - What is a Sacrament?

Scholar. - An outward attestation of the divine benevolence towards us, which, by a visible sign, figures spiritual grace, to seal the promises of God on our hearts, and thereby better confirm their truth to us.

Master. - Is there such virtue in a visible sign that it can establish our consciences in a full assurance of salvation?

Scholar. - This virtue it has not of itself, but by the will of God, because it was instituted for this end.

and again Calvin writes:

Master. - Do you think that the water is a washing of the soul?

Scholar. - By no means; for it were impious to snatch away this honour from the blood of Christ, which was shed in order to wipe away all our stains, and render us pure and unpolluted in the sight of God. (1 Pet. i. 19; 1 John i. 7.) And we receive the fruit of this cleansing when the Holy Spirit sprinkles our consciences with that sacred blood. Of this we have a seal in the Sacrament.

Master. - But do you attribute nothing more to the water than that it is a figure of ablution?

Scholar. - I understand it to be a figure, but still so that the reality is annexed to it; for God does not disappoint us when he promises us his gifts. Accordingly, it is certain that both pardon of sins and newness of life are offered to us in baptism, and received by us.

Master. - Is this grace bestowed on all indiscriminately?

Scholar. - Many precluding its entrance by their depravity, make it void to themselves. Hence the benefit extends to believers only, and yet the Sacrament loses nothing of its nature.

Master. - Whence is Regeneration derived?

Scholar. - From the Death and Resurrection of Christ taken together. His death hath this efficacy, that by means of it our old man is crucified, and the vitiosity of our nature in a manner buried, so as no more to be in vigour in us. Our reformation to a new life, so as to obey the righteousness of God, is the result of the resurrection.

Master. - How are these blessings bestowed upon us by Baptism?

Scholar. - If we do not render the promises there offered unfruitful by rejecting them, we are clothed with Christ, and presented with his Spirit.

and so on... Of course we must admit there is a diversity of opinion within the pal of Reformed Orthodoxy. The predominate view in today's evangelicalism is that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are "mere" memorials. In my mind the Sacraments are not something we do in obediance. Rather, they are something Christ does to us and with us. We are passive. We are Baptized into Christ and we are fed. The grace of Baptism is no a magic grace but rather a means of grace given to us by a loving Lord to focus our hearts on our true salvation and to assure us we are loved and elect of God. --Ryan Close 18:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Baptism, Church, and Fire

The part that says that Reformed Christians Baptize their infant children "not to make them members of the Church but because they are already members of the Church" is probably an over generalization. I will study the confessions tonight but I am sure that when I have my children baptized it is because I believe that if I don't they have not been made a member of the "visible church" and I don't believe there is Biblical warent from withholding this covenantal privilege from them since they are declared holy in the New Testament. baptism is the mark of a member of the "visible church" so I don't see how infant children of believers can be refered to as members of the church before baptism. The point is that they aught to be members and therefore we baptize them.

Membership in the "invisible church" is based on the secret election of God and is therefore unknown to us. Besides, the Westminster Confession says that even elect are not actually regenerated and justified until the Holy Spirit causes them to be born from above. So unless we are trying to say that infant children of believers are *all* regenerated from the womb like John the Baptist, then I don't understand what we are trying to say.

Lastly, what is this part about a "baptism of fire?" The New Testament says there is "one baptism" and so does the Creed. I have heard some talk of a "baptism of blood" where in a believing Christian who would have otherwise be baptized is mrtyered before he has the opportunity is therefore baptized in blood and lacks nothing that any other baptized believer has been give by Christ. --Ryan Close 19:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The Gallican Confession, Article 35, does state that baptism grafts the recipient into Christ. Of course, Calvin was only the start of Reformed theology (at least, a founder), and many things which are strongly insisted upon today, such as limited atonement, are not clear from his writings (or the Gallican confession, which I understand he was not the sole author). I'm not sure if many today would adopt Calvin's terminology. (By the way, Schaff's book Bibliotheca Symbolica Ecclesiae Universalis: The Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes is available through [books.google.com books.google.com]; page 379 contains Article 35.) I don't think Calvin actually believes in baptismal regeneration. Perhaps someone can correct me if this is not Calvin's statement per se, but it certainly describes a large contingent of Reformed theology. --Alex Woehr 21:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)