John UK wrote: The oft-quoted Mr Calvin has some very unusual beliefs concerning Colossians 2:12. In fact, the baptismal regeneration Mr Calvin espouses is now shown to get worse......there is more.
Well done and many blessings to you John, on getting Calvin's name correct.
John UK wrote: "Buried with him, in baptism. He [Paul] explains still more clearly the manner of spiritual circumcision -- because, being buried with Christ, we are partakers of his death. He expressly declares that we obtain this by means of baptism..." J.C.
John. Do you Baptists understand the concept of "spiritual Circumcision" (or circumcision of the heart)? That is what Calvin is dealing with here. Not flesh circumcision. Quote; "He says that we obtain this through Christ, so that unquestionably an entire regeneration is his benefit. It is he that circumcises the foreskin of our heart, or, in other words, mortifies all the lusts of the flesh, not with the hand, but by his Spirit. Hence there is in him the reality of the figure." JC
Quote; "bear in mind that outward circumcision is here compared with spiritual, just as a figure with the reality" JC
"With reference to the alleged pattern of baptism in Romans 6:2-6 and Colossians 2:11-12 as being that of burial and resurrection, a careful analysis of these passages will show that Paul‚Äôs basic thesis is the believer‚Äôs union with Christ in his crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection as the antidote to antinomianism. Baptism by immersion does not modally reflect our crucifixion with Christ, which is one of the four aspects of our union with Christ which Paul mentions in the Romans passage. Murray is right when he affirms:
It is arbitrary to select one aspect [of our union with Christ, namely burial] and find in the language used to set it forth the essence of the mode of baptism. Such procedure is indefensible unless it can be carried through consistently. It cannot be carried through consistently here [since baptism by immersion does not and cannot visually reflect our being hung on the cross with Christ, which is as much an aspect of our union with Christ in the passage as our burial with him] and therefore it is arbitrary and inva1id
It should be noted too that Christ was not "buried" at all in the sense that the Baptist mode of baptism requires. That is to say, his body was not placed under the ground." (R.L.Reymond)
Jim. Your 4/5ths Calvinism leads to Arminianism. As history records.
"Amyraut claimed that his views were in accordance with the Word of God, the theology of John Calvin and the Canons of Dordt (1618-1619), to which he as a French Reformed minister subscribed. This also was false as his critics, both then and now, have pointed out. Martin I. Klauber states, ‚ÄúThe majority of Reformed theologians ‚Ä¶ rejected his system as the first step towards Arminianism‚ÄĚ (‚ÄúTheological Transition in Geneva,‚ÄĚ in Carl R. Trueman and R. S. Clark [eds.], Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment [Great Britain: Paternoster, 1999], p. 258, n. 5). The orthodox in the French Reformed Church and outside it called for his discipline but the French synods failed to deal with the problem properly. The slide of his students, his disciples and the French Reformed Church further and further into Arminianism has been well documented" (Rev A.Stewart)
As for immersionism - No where does the Bible record dooking and depth to prove your argument or anybody else's. Immersionism comes from the Anabaptist heretics of the 16th century and that is historic fact too. As I have already said depth is irrelevant so admit it immersion is irrelevant too.
Jim Lincoln wrote: 1. While IHCC does all of its baptisms by immersion....
2. It is good that the FPC recognizes the falsehood of the Popish Baptism
1. The immersion ideology is unbiblical and unprovable from Scripture. It is an invention of the Anabaptist heretics from 1521. Depth of water is irrelevant except when Baptist hypothesis is applied to these modern aberrations on the mode and rite.
2. So says Jim Lincoln who supports the Roman Catholic sympathising heretics of Westcott, Hort and their modern versions. Then there is Jim's Arminian leanings (amyraldianism) which lends itself to RCC salvation by works. So who is the real popish sympathiser Jim? Have you immersionists got to the stage of "immersionist regeneration" yet? Must be pretty close. Or can you admit that immersion is unnecessary?