The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Infant Baptism Question

Of course, I would beg to differ with you on the very nature and content of the Gospel which the Reformers preached as was and will forever be that which the Apostles preached and which is the power of salvation to all who believe. It is the gospel which Paul fought with all his strength to guard, especially against those who would pervert it by adding to grace and element of works. (cf. Gal 1:6-9; 2:1-19)

This is truly a nonsensical argument which the Roman State Church has used countless times to bring disrepute upon the pure and biblical doctrine of the Perseverance/Preservation of the Saints. And, it has been shown to be fallacious countless times and that it is but a roughly assembled strawman that has no semblance to what the Reformed Faith teaches. The truth of the matter is, the biblical teaching is that IF a man is truly justified by grace through faith, then good works will of necessity follow and exhibit that faith. (cf. Rom 6; Matt 7:22, 23; Lk 6:46; Eph 2:8-10; Phil 1:11, 12; et al and The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XIII - "Of Sanctification")

To be more accurate, the Belgic Confession, Article XXIX, on the true marks of the Church uses the phrase, "pure administration". Be that as it may, what the phrase means is that both baptism and the Lord's Supper are to be administered according to the biblical warrant; i.e., by an ordained clergy and to those who are qualified to partake of them and according to a right understanding of them. This would exclude such things as baptismal regeneration and transubstantiation.

A refutation of the view that immersion is the primary acceptable mode of administering baptism can be found here: The Token of the Covenant.

I know without question what the spiritual state of my parents are due to the fact that they categorically deny any need of Christ and/or salvation. If that isn't a warrant to judge them, then pray tell, what is? Further, to the Church is given the right to discipline those within its membership according to what they can "see" outwardly, including excommunication, which is a pronouncement that the individual is deemed to be outside the camp and has no part in the family of God; i.e., he/she is for all intents and purposes no warrant to be accepted as a believer. Such judgment is never to be understood as one that knows God's eternal decree for any individual in regard to salvation. However, this does not preclude the injunctions that men are to judge other men in regard to the fruit of their alleged profession of faith. It's unfortunate that the Roman Church has failed miserably to discipline not only its laity but especially its clergy who have openly defied and denied the official teachings of the church to which they are members and serve.

You are certainly entitled to your whimsical opinions about what I understand and/or don't understand. But what I do know is that I understand sufficiently that it is a fatal step into apostasy to distort the covenant of grace whereby one intermixes faith and works in order to be justified. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scold.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,