Originally Posted by Pilgrim
William,

It may be true to various degrees in your denomination and in the sister denomination to which you referred. However, the OFFICIAL position of the Continental Reformed Churches can be found in the Form for the Baptism of Infants. Additionally, there are Dutch Reformed denominations, e.g., the PRC (Protestant Reformed Church) who reject the Kuyperian doctrine, although Kuyper surely didn't invent it but simply re-introduced it and made it popular once again, but who in practice are consistent with it. Lastly, there are Presbyerians who likewise hold to this view. THE END

Yes you colorized the parts that someone who holds that baptism is saving would also colorize. So I think we most look at thru it a different light. This first statement along with the three forms of unity clearly teach that the of the form of administration of baptism is not teaching baptismal regeneration and it is not the OFFICAL doctrine of “Churches of the Dutch tradition.”

The beginning of the form of administration says:
Quote
First: That we with our children are conceived and born in sin, and therefore are children of wrath, so that we cannot enter into the kingdom of God, except we are born again. This, the dipping in or sprinkling with water teaches us, whereby the impurity of our souls is signified, that we may be admonished to loathe ourselves, humble ourselves before God, and seek for our purification and salvation apart from ourselves.

I might add that the PRCA is only a small denomination of about 6000 members and baptismal regeneration is not their OFFICIAL position either. Neither is it the OFFICAL position of the Heritage Reformed Church founded by Joel Beeke.

So the teaching that baptism is saving and typical among “Churches of the Dutch tradition” is not a accurate statement.


Have a good Lord’s day,
William