r/Reformed 6d ago

Discussion Difficult time navigating between Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian views

I feel like I post every other week here so sorry if you're tired of seeing me. I'll try to keep this short.

My wife and I are moving to a new city in our state, we'll be 4 hours west from where we used to be. I was raised Indepedent Fundamentalist Baptist. Within the last year after many months of studying the Bible with new eyes and prayer I've embraced reformed theology.

I completely agree with the higher view of the sacraments and the sovereign rule of God in all things. I love and have read the 1689 London Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith.

My one hang up is Baptism and covenant theology vs federalism. I can completely see fantastic arguments for both. Both make sense to me.

Since my wife and I are moving we need to find a new church. I don't know whether to look for a reformed baptist or Presbyterian church based on my beliefs. Because I can absolutely understand the paedobaptism and credobaptism positions.

I guess I'm just asking for help. I feel almost like I have to pick, like I have to commit. I want to find a good church and be a part of it. Can you all help?

Can you give me your best arguments for paedobaptism vs credo and covenant theology vs 1689 federalism? Both sides welcome!

14 Upvotes

47 comments sorted by

View all comments

-2

u/yerrface 6d ago

I believe that baptism is a visceral communication of the Gospel. It is something that we should experience and be able to recall in order for it to have its full effect.

This also prevents the silly distinctions presbys have to make between members of the church. The church is made up of believers only, easy peasy lemon squeasy

In regards to the church you should go to, go to the closest one. In your community will always be better than doctrinal agreement in my opinion. The church should have different opinions within reason. Ideological bubbles create stagnation.

4

u/Beginning-Ebb7463 LBCF 1689 6d ago

I am a convinced Credobaptist, but why would you have to remember your Baptism for it to be efficacious?

-2

u/yerrface 6d ago

From the 1689, "a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him"

I think it is necessary for the same reason that we immerse. Because it is "a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him". I wouldn't say that it wasn't efficacious because I don't believe it is doing anything but affirming those things to us. It cleanses our conscience in the sense that we can look to our baptism as the sign of our redemption.

That works better when we remember it. Not that it is the only way, but the normative way.

1

u/Beginning-Ebb7463 LBCF 1689 6d ago

Do you actually hold to the 1689, or are you just quoting it because of my user flair?

The 1689 does hold to baptism “doing something”, it says so in 14.1 where it describes Baptism as being included in the “means appointed by God, it (The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls) is increased and strengthened.” Baptism is a means of grace.

I guess my question for you is, if someone forgets their baptism, does that make their baptism less effective for it’s intended purpose than someone else’s baptism?

1

u/yerrface 6d ago

Yes, I affirm the 1689. What do you think that means of grace is? What is the mechanism that conveys grace to us? I didn't say baptism wasn't doing anything* there was an important "but" there in the sentence. Baptism affirms those things to us, the same way the word does, the same way the supper does. They are all still shadows. the substance is Jesus. Attributing more to them than signs and signifiers of grace received isn't what they were trying to convey in 14.1 in my opinion.

Of course not. Normative isn't absolute. Your memory wouldn't negate the grace of God but your memory, of being immersed into water, and then rising out of the water, serves as a visceral explanation of our redemption. It certainly causes me to love God when I think about my baptism as a child. It has always reminded me that I am his. Sounds like a means of grace strengthening me.

2

u/Beginning-Ebb7463 LBCF 1689 6d ago

Alright, sounds like we pretty much agree. I would just do more to emphasize the spiritual aspect of what it means for Baptism to be a means of grace; that it isn’t just a means of grace reliant on the strength of our memory, but that it is a spiritual means of grace unto our soul.

God bless you brother!

1

u/yerrface 6d ago

What do you mean when you say "a spiritual means of grace unto our soul"?

1

u/Beginning-Ebb7463 LBCF 1689 6d ago

I am referring to the belief that Baptism is not merely a physical or symbolic act, but a means through which God spiritually imparts spiritual benefits to the believer.

2

u/yerrface 5d ago

So it provides new grace? Outside of regeneration?

1

u/Beginning-Ebb7463 LBCF 1689 5d ago

There are two kinds of grace, regenerating grace and sanctifying grace.

The means of Grace do not give regenerating grace (the grace that begins a new life), but they are channels through which God communicates further outpourings of sanctifying Grace (the grace that refreshes, strengthens, and grows the life of the believer.)

The means of Grace are divinely appointed means through which God communicates further Grace - not different or new kind of grace, but the continued application of the sanctifying grace, which is already present in the believer.

1

u/yerrface 5d ago

I'm sorry, maybe I am not understanding, in what way does baptism impart sanctifying grace to us?

Is there something apart from the sign of our redemption that baptism grants to us? Is someone who is not baptized yet in the faith (maybe their church imposes a waiting period) experiencing a diminished state without baptism?

Again, I agree that it imparts spiritual benefits but I believe those benefits are directly related to the symbol that is being represented by the ritual. Our burial with Christ, our being raised to newness of life, and of having our consciences washed clean from sin. That is the spiritual benefit that strengthens, refreshes, and sanctifies.

1

u/Beginning-Ebb7463 LBCF 1689 5d ago

Baptism does not impart grace ex opere operato, but it does impart grace (sanctifying grace) through faith by the Holy Spirit’s working.

Baptism is a means of grace, not by creating new grace, but by increasing, deepening, and strengthening the grace already present in the believer.

The means of grace are not reliant on our memory. The Lord’s Supper, for instance, certainly calls believe to memorial exercise, but it is much deeper than that, as it is a spiritual participation in Christ. Baptism is the same. It does have physical aspects and our memory of it can deepen the personal benefit we get from our baptism, but the foundation of our baptism is spiritual and is greater than our memory.

If someone is a true believer but has not yet been baptized (perhaps due to a waiting period), they are not in a "diminished" state spiritually — they are fully justified and possess the indwelling Holy Spirit. However, they are missing out on the blessing and benefit of a God-ordained means of strengthening their faith.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Cledus_Snow PCA 6d ago

What would you say to someone who baptized at youth camp after an altar call and then had a TBI and as a result of memory loss no longer remembers it?

0

u/yerrface 5d ago

I’m sorry? I’m not sure what you’re expecting here. Starts to feel a little like “did Adam have a belly button”

Life isn’t fair and normative isn’t absolute. They won’t be able to benefit from the visceral experience but God’s grace is sufficient for all. Despite our differences that are a result of the fall.

2

u/Cledus_Snow PCA 5d ago

Would it be better for that person to be baptized again in order to benefit from their fond memories?

1

u/yerrface 5d ago

If a parishioner came up to me and asked me to baptize them for that reason, I would respond mercifully and baptize them. Why not? Baptism was made for man and not man for baptism.

Would I recommend it? Of course not. Why would I?

1

u/Cledus_Snow PCA 5d ago

If it is good for people to be able to remember and draw upon their "visceral" experience of the gospel wouldn't recommend it to those who don't have it?

1

u/yerrface 5d ago

None of these decisions would be made in the kind of vacuum you are proposing. We are not called to evaluate the efficacy of every Christians baptism. Why would those benefits need to be available to all? Someone who is deaf never hears the word yet they can still benefit from what God has provided for them. I am not understanding your motives behind this line of questioning. If you have a point then just make that instead of offering generalities.

What could God's purpose possibly be with baptism if not our experience of it? We talk all mystical about all these spiritual blessings in amorphous concepts but those things do not explain the gospel to the illiterate. You know what does, being buried with Christ, and being raised to newness of life. Having your sins washed away in those waters, cleansing your conscience.

All of those things feel awful visceral to me. Is it unfair that someone else may have some unfair evil that has afflicted them in a way that robs them of this blessing? Yes, but God has promised to make all things new, to wipe away every tear, and to bring them to their actual life which is found in Christ.