"It is amazing that any true evangelical Calvinist would ever quote John Wesley with approval, either in speech or in writing," wrote the late Rev. J.P. MacQueen, London. "He bitterly hated and rejected Calvinism, while he taught a theory of justification practically identical with sanctification. His apologists have tried to persuade their readers that Wesley's Sacramentalism was 'merely an Oxford phase, and that it disappeared when he entered upon active evangelistic effort.'

Before you remarry, please check into whether your last 3 divorces were biblical and you are free to remarry in the Lord.

God recognizes the marriage covenant even between non-Christians and therefore just because one is not a Christian does not allow one to break the covenant, nor refuse to covenant in marriage to avoid adultery and fornication.

"Thanks for your post. I don't agree with you about infant baptism but I still enjoyed your post...AND ***before*** anyone is baptized as a believer by immersion they ought to make certain they have truly ***met the Lord in the new birth in the Holy Ghost.***"

Let's look at Christ's example himself:

"Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. ***And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:*** (Matt.3:13-16).

Michael, are you saying that it is not possible to be Baptized first, and receive the Holy Spirit second?

"I am sorry to break it to you but the WCF is not the Bible. In the Bible, immersion means immersion. That does not take a rocket scientist to figure out."

Can you please share with me the verse that says immersion means immsersion?

Nobody needs to be a rocket scientist to know it does not exist in Scripture, but I would like you to prove it to me that it does exist.

Michael, is it possible a Christian can be saved without baptism? Can you show me in Scripture where your support for rebaptism comes from, or is this another innovative practice you have developed?

You are a master at innovation in worship, doctrine, discipline and government without Scripture warrant. Maybe you could show me clearly where anyone has been rebaptized in Scripture, and where baptism was required for salvation.

I could not agree more. The point was that the fastest growing denominations are still Baptists, Pentecostals and Mormons, but the Presbyterian churches as they continue to fall apart, I firmly believe it is because of these Romish doctrines as well. As the Sermon contines below:

"This is a more cruel and dangerous Babylon for which we must ever be on guard and must come out from her and out from all her daughters (Revelation 18:4). God’s people though enslaved in this spiritual Babylon experienced a great deliverance at the time of the Protestant Reformation, ***but have since that time been ever so gradually drawn back to this mystery Babylon, not so much by formally uniting with her (although more and more churches are lining up to discuss how this may be achieved), but by adopting so many of her poisonous teachings and practices.***

***I submit to you that the Church of Christ has since the Reformation returned in varying degrees to that Babylonian captivity from which she was redeemed by her Savior.*** The saddest part about the present Babylonian captivity is that Israel of old knew that she had been led into captivity, ***whereas the Church of this age has no idea that she is in captivity.***"

"She has enslaved the souls of men by her abominable doctrine, worship and government (Revelation 18:13). Note that she is the mother of harlots which implies that she has daughters (various Churches that have introduced to varying degrees the whore’s doctrine, her worship, and her government into their Churches): for example her abominations into their doctrine (a man-centered salvation), into their worship (man-inspired hymns, use of instruments into worship, images and pictures of Christ, Christmas and other so-called holydays) and into their government (the tyranny of binding the consciences of men with the mere dictates of the pope). This is a more cruel and dangerous Babylon for which we must ever be on guard and must come out from her and out from all her daughters (Revelation 18:4)."

"I am a former and never to be again Roman Catholic and what you say is at best utter nonsense to me or worse incredibly offensive as Roman Catholicism is utterly allien to fundemental Biblical faith.

Perhaps you have not realized either that the Roman Catholic (False) Church is infamous for pushing infant baptism falsely believing it ensures a child will grow up and come to salvation in the Catholic Religion which is utterly difference from believing in believers baptism (by immersion)"

This is such a bunch of religious propaganda. I would encourage everyone to study the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on baptism, and then compare to the Reformers. Then look carefully at the Baptists and their heretical teachings by twisting and turning the Scriptures to support their views of Roman Catholic doctrine.

The Second Helvetic Confession, “We condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that newborn infants of the faithful are to be baptized. For according to evangelical teaching, of such is the Kingdom of God, and they are in the covenant of God. Why, then, should the sign of God's covenant not be given to them? Why should those who belong to God and are in his Church not be initiated by holy baptism?” (Chapter 20, Of Holy Baptism.)

Samuel Rutherford, “It is clear that infants have their share of salvation, and by covenant it must be...And this promise made to Abraham belongs to them all…” (The Covenant of Life Opened, 1642(?), Pages 83, 104-105)

A. A. Hodge, “But baptism does not ordinarily confer grace in the first instance, but presupposes it.” (Outlines of Theology, Page 629.)

I think it helps because Preachers and Ministers are what Almighty God chose to bring the Good News to the World. There are some that believe that any minister or preacher that is dead historically is worthless to our generation, and usually this is an Arminian, Baptist mindset. It is growing however globally and usually by those modern ministries that do not want history to be told (except through their own voice or video clip).

The source documents can bring both Christian and non-Christian to a knowledge and understanding of the truth, and much of what is written in historical church testimony is contained in the revealed Word of God by means of Prophecy. Thus, the modern prophetical teachers use weekly TV programs, newspaper headlines and current events to define the Scriptures. This is a modern error as all history is God's revealed will for mankind.

The best history lies in the source documents of the authors themselves, and should not be the basis to define Scripture, but is a good aide and help for Christians and non-Christians alike.

"The most extensive classic Christian CD library ever (on 90 CDs)! (The best of the Puritans, Covenanters, Reformers, Baptists, Presbyterians, et al.)

90 SWRB CDs In Total, Containing The Best Of Classic and Contemporary Christian Books (PDFs), MP3s, and Videos on Puritanism, the Reformation, the Covenanters (Gillespie, Rutherford, Durham, Manton, Cameron, Renwick, Love, et al.), the Westminster Divines (Gouge, Twisse, Henderson, Caryl, Burgess, et al.), the Puritans (Watson, Owen, Flavel, Sibbes, Brooks, Charnock, Edwards, et al.), Baptists (Spurgeon, Pink, Bunyan, et al.), Presbyterians (Calvin, Knox, Triall, Boston, Miller, Dabney, Thornwell, et al.), Calvinism and the Calvinists (Hodge, Henry, the Erskines, Shedd, et al.), the Reformers (Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Bullinger, Foxe, Bradford, Beza, Perkins, et al.), the 1599 Geneva Bible (retype set and searchable), Classic Puritan and Reformation Commentaries, and Much, Much More!"

Knowledge will make a difference!

MurrayA,

Can you please clarify for me one thing?

Do you believe Baptism is a sign and seal of the promises contained in the Covenant of Grace for infants, and their parents, or do you believe that only believers can be baptized upon profession of faith?

"Now I am NOT a baptismal regenerationist, but these texts do clearly indicate the link between baptism and salvation."

This is a slippery slope that leads to the Angelican NT Wright view on how baptism and salvation is linked.

There is no link outside of the promises contained within the Covenant of Grace. The promises offered in the Covenant of Grace to the infants of believing Parents creates great hope in their salvation, but saving faith comes only by God's free gift and when that takes place sufficiently only He knows for sure.

The Second Helvetic Confession, “We condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that newborn infants of the faithful are to be baptized. For according to evangelical teaching, of such is the Kingdom of God, and they are in the covenant of God. Why, then, should the sign of God's covenant not be given to them? Why should those who belong to God and are in his Church not be initiated by holy baptism?” (Chapter 20, Of Holy Baptism.)

"Upon receiving this work, I immediately went to the bibliography (not the table of contents) to check Malone’s sources. Bibliographies tell us the mind of the author quite quickly. I found the bibliography lacking. This is going to be a “covenantal” book helping the Christian church understand the covenant sign of baptism. I would figure his “extensive” bibliography would include the best covenantal works to date. I was sorely disappointed. He did not have any of Owen’s works except from volume 6 of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is a tragedy. Owen takes great care in explaining Covenant Theology in his Works. He does not include “The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man” by Herman Witsius, which is simply the best book on Covenant Theology ever written."

"...On the back Dr. Albert Mohler says, “Fred Malone has written one of the most important books on baptism to appear in at least two hundred years…”

I know you have an excellent learning spirit about you and know how difficult this subject is historically. A couple points.

1) We definitely believe that new believers are required to be baptized so we have no disagreement with you. We call it believers baptism, not adults baptism which some commonly use. We believe a young child or teenager can believe and be baptized. It is not required they be an adult first. I think we would agree here.

2) Baptism is a sign and seal that signifies the outward administration of the Covenant of Grace. The two kinds of people to receive baptism are the elect (as in #1 above) and infants (but only through one or both covenanted and Christian Parents). We believe infants and small children are to be covenanted into the Visible Church, but there is no regeneration that takes place. Like circumcision of infants, they were part of visible chosen people of God, but circumcision was not a guarantee of regeneration or salvation.

I don't have time or the patience to get into this subject matter with you. My original post was clear in the context of my entire writings on the matter of using Scripture to interpret Scripture, rather than using historical testimony to interpret Scripture. I'm not going to get into a big he said she said with you on what I mean by what I say. We are talking over and past each other on this simple belief I have, and it is a waste of both our time to discuss.

In regard to Presbyterianism, I never said, "And are you really saying that such sessions are somehow inspired to arrive at the right conclusion?" You see, this is another waste of my time.

I would never teach independency, and for you to imply that I said that sessions somehow are inspired to arrive at the right decision is independency.

There are a lot of good books out there on the difference between Independency and Presbyterianism. The entire fundamental reason for a Presbyterian form of church government is to have the right of appeal, because we DO NOT teach that a Session is inspired to always be right in their decision.

"Even supposing, then, that it were yielded to our Baptist brethren that the design of the apostle is to teach the mode of baptism: by comparing it to the burial of Christ, it would by no means serve their purpose. There was not in fact any such subterranean immersion, if the expression may be allowed, as they imagine. The body of the Saviour was evidently laid in a stone cell, above ground, in which no earth came in contact with it, and in which, when the stone which closed up the door was taken away, the body was distinctly visible. In short, the burial of Christ no more resembled the modern interment of a dead body among us, than the depositing such a body, for a time, in an apartment in the basement story of a dwelling house, the floor of which was either not sunk below the surface of the earth at all, or if any, not more than a few inches; admitting of free ingress and egress as a common inhabited room."

The point DB is attempting to make from Romans 6:3-4 is not the best way to interpret Scripture with Scripture. If one reads Samuel Miller, in the Section 6 I quoted below, they will see a detailed exegetical review of those passages which appears more accurate in the context of what Paul was discussing.

Samuel Miller writes:
"6. As a further objection to the doctrine of our Baptist brethren in relation to the mode of baptism, let us examine some of the figurative language of scripture which refers to this ordinance, and especially certain passages on which they are accustomed to place their greatest reliance for the support of their cause. Perhaps no passages in scripture have been more frequently and confidently pressed into the service of baptism by immersion than those that are found in Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12. In the former we find the following: "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Corresponding with this, in Colossians 2:12, the following passage occurs: "Buried with him in baptism,..."