tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post6680806628976308219..comments2024-03-29T06:46:24.700+01:00Comments on The Ugley Vicar: Federal Vision and Baptism: insights or deja vu?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-18399913641010530162009-03-17T06:14:00.000+01:002009-03-17T06:14:00.000+01:00Hi John Foxe,When you write:"from one who sees bap...Hi John Foxe,<BR/><BR/>When you write:<BR/><BR/>"from one who sees baptism as the sign and seal of the covenant, but rejects paedocommunion (which requires an ability to understand the meaning of the sacrament)"<BR/><BR/>I need to say that its not that simple nor apparent. For one thing, there is good exegetical evidence that the thing which is apprehended in 1 Cor. 11 is the Body of Christ (the church) not the sacramental elements themselves. Also, nearly everyone in my circles (High Churh Calvinists) administer communion to weaned children who are able to be be instructed as they take. This is a far cry from those who utilize intinction for infants. BTW I learned this position from the head of the OT department when I was a seminary student at the PCA denominational seminary, CTS. Paedocommunion has very broad minority support in the PCA. <BR/><BR/>Pax,<BR/><BR/>GarrettAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-34447084044627176302009-03-17T06:06:00.000+01:002009-03-17T06:06:00.000+01:00Thanks for this post John. Good insights.Thanks for this post John. Good insights.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-28563546835230945912009-03-10T15:05:00.000+01:002009-03-10T15:05:00.000+01:00That is undoubtadly right RoBut Baptism and Commun...That is undoubtadly right Ro<BR/><BR/>But Baptism and Communion are external signs which hold us accountable. If we take them without meaning them or with hypocracy etc. that would be quite serious wouldn't it.<BR/><BR/>It's interesting for me having worked in Peckham, very diverse and Baptising formerly Muslim families - whole lot in a pool - family conversion, to Tranmere, white working class - everyone assumes that they are Christian, because they are Baptised, or just white for that matter. So in Peckham, infant or adult baptism was quite a dramatic testimony. Here it really has been undermined by those who do it for the "done thing" whilst larking around in the service and laughing at the questions adn even the water being poured on the Baby's head.<BR/><BR/>So breaking with a religion is still an issue for families. There are still questions to ask about covenant community of the Church and the family, isn't there?<BR/><BR/>I take John Foxe's comment about Communion, but Presbytarians don't insist on an understanding at the time of Baptism. I'm still agnostic on it, but following parrallel with Passover and circumcision - I find Paedo-communion quite persuasive.<BR/><BR/>Darren Moore<BR/>TranmereDarrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08361261497867599745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-58991731690875625342009-03-08T23:11:00.000+01:002009-03-08T23:11:00.000+01:00May I bring an experiential perspective on baptism...May I bring an experiential perspective on baptism to bear on the debate? I come to Christ from a Zoroastrian background. For my family, the crucial and decisive break with my old religion came with my baptism. Why? Because in baptism, I PUBLICALLY turned from my old faith to Christ. My experience of baptism will be understandable to all from a background in another religion. <BR/><BR/>I suggest that the experiences of those of other religions may illuminate the NT practice (after all the NT is written in a religiously plural context). NT baptism saves precisely because in it the candidate turns away from, to quote the early church liturgy, "the Devil & all his pomp" (the early church liturgy alludes to the NT belief that Satan stands behind pagan religions, since a "pomp" was an idol procession through the streets). Further the baptismal candidate confesses Christ as Lord (Romans 10:9). It is this pledge of a good conscience that saves, not the water which cannot wash away moral filth (1 Peter 3:20-21). The water is merely symbolic of the confession made at baptism which does save. <BR/><BR/>Ro Mody.<BR/><BR/>PS. My take of 1 Peter is based on Karen Jobes' commentary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-45514394716554913002009-03-05T23:07:00.000+01:002009-03-05T23:07:00.000+01:00Dear John,from one who sees baptism as the sign an...Dear John,<BR/><BR/>from one who sees baptism as the sign and seal of the covenant, but rejects paedocommunion (which requires an ability to understand the meaning of the sacrament) here is the summary document from some US covenantal presbyterians (the PCA) rejecting various errors linked with the Federal Vison.<BR/><BR/>http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-church/federal-vision-the-issue-for-this-generation<BR/><BR/>Much of what Colin Buchanan writes I can agree with. In particular presbyterians, unlike anabaptists, would share the idea that the church is mixed and we need to exhort people not to rest in the fact that they have been baptised but to ensure that faith in God's covenantal promises accompanies their baptism.<BR/><BR/>In Christ,<BR/><BR/>John Foxe.<BR/><BR/>PS Part of the problem with the FV is over-objectivising the God's covenant promises in baptism and failing to distinguish between the sign of the covenant and the reality to which it points which must be received in a faith.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-75745816603156937892009-03-05T18:52:00.000+01:002009-03-05T18:52:00.000+01:00Ros,that's right, I was agreeing with him in not b...Ros,<BR/>that's right, I was agreeing with him in not being an FV-ist. I just didn't agree with him much when we were at Oxford<BR/>hth<BR/>TimTim Goodbodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02725035540031649887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-49198643635787627472009-03-05T18:06:00.000+01:002009-03-05T18:06:00.000+01:00Tim, I may be misunderstanding what you are meanin...Tim, I may be misunderstanding what you are meaning to say but just to be clear, Mark Thompson is not in any way an FV-proponent.<BR/><BR/>Ros Clarke<BR/>CambridgeRoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02669423378438380019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-68863780665535557102009-03-05T16:29:00.000+01:002009-03-05T16:29:00.000+01:00Thanks Marc, I've changed my tune on this in t...Thanks Marc, I've changed my tune on this in the last few years. I used to say "In Baptism the child gets wet", to prevent the idea of anything "magic" happening.<BR/><BR/>The Puritans used to bang on about the sin of ingrattitude, which I think if very helpful. So if you are Baptised, or enjoy any other benifits of being part of the Church, but reject the gospel message you are more accountable/worse off.<BR/><BR/>So I now say (this isn't perfect), think of Baptism as signing a contract between you and God. You can pull the wool over my eyes, but not his. Do you really want to sign up to this? What do you think will happen if you break the contract? & so on - proving quite fruitful, so far.<BR/><BR/>Darren Moore<BR/>TranmereDarrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08361261497867599745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-35384715846013882862009-03-05T14:13:00.000+01:002009-03-05T14:13:00.000+01:00Dear John,thank you very much for this clarificati...Dear John,<BR/>thank you very much for this clarification, as I was beginning to worry that I agreed with some the FV stuff (and I am certainly not used to agreeing with Mark Thompson but could get used to it!)<BR/>I think +CB is yer man when it comes to this. I have a copy of "A case for infant baptism" if you would like to borrow it for a while.Tim Goodbodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02725035540031649887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-38378714232215921842009-03-05T09:15:00.000+01:002009-03-05T09:15:00.000+01:00John, thank you for that. It looks like Bishop Col...John, thank you for that. It looks like Bishop Colin is well-worth reading on the subject.<BR/><BR/>I believe there's some variety amongst the FV types. The movement has sometimes been tagged "covenantal objectivism" and, as I'm sure you will have gathered, some of what they want to say about baptism is that it admits one to an objective covenant with Christ or to the covenant in its objective aspect. In other words, as you and Bishop Colin put it, the baptised are obliged to live out their baptsim. Baptism does not, of course, make someone eternally elect or garuntee their perseverence and final salvation, but it is a real change of status: the baptised are members (objectively speaking) of the visible / historical church and have the right to come to the Lord's Table unless excommunicated and so on. Baptism gives real privileges. <BR/><BR/>Baptism is not a nothing and I don't think we want to say things like, "We're not doing anything here today [to this baby we're going to baptise]. We're just getting him wet" - which is the kind of thing I've sometimes heard from fellow Conservative Evangelicals. I reckon as evenagelicals we often emphasise what baptism is *not* (through a fair enough fear of RC Baptismal Regeneration) and its very helpful to be encoraged to think about what it *is*.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Marc Lloyd<BR/>EastbourneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com