With all due respect to Dr. Mohler, I’d argue that baptism is a doctrine that is “constitutive of the church.” As a visible sign and seal of entry into the external covenant communinty, who is baptized literally constitutes who is in the church (at least for Reformed folks). This strikes me as a very Baptist way of looking at the sacraments, which is all well and good for him, as a Baptist; but for the Presbyterian his argument seems to be “if you accept that we are both brothers in Christ, you must lay aside (or render unimportant) your convictions regarding the sacraments.” Perhaps I’m proving his point about having religious liberty because I’m being so picky, but for a lot of people, the Reformed doctrines on the sacraments are a large reason why they are Reformed and *not* Baptist. I don’t think it’s wise to act like these differences are unimportant or only the result of our religious liberty today. People died for these differences in history. Just my 2¢ 🤷♂️
TheNatedogg56 your two cents worth is not worth two cents because you missed his basic point. His point was: biblical convictions plus religious freedom equals denominations. The biblical convictions are indeed convictions. They are not unimportant to be set aside, but a more fundamental thing binds us together, that is the gospel. People in the same denomination, even the same local church may have different biblical convictions, but they still hold to the same gospel. If you say that only those who believe exactly as you do are the only true Christians, then you are heterodox. But of course you don't believe that, you just missed his point. His point is not a Baptist way of thinking or a Reformed way of thinking, but a gospel way of thinking.
"As a visible sign and seal of entry into the external covenant communinty, who is baptized literally constitutes who is in the church (at least for Reformed folks). " Not just a sign Natedogg. See my separate post on this thread.
Sir, while your assertion that baptism is "a visible sign and seal of entry into the external covenant community," is straight out of Calvin's "Institutes," if you mean to assert that only those who have undergone the physical act of immersion into water are the ones who gain entrance into this covenant community, then this contradicts the notion that baptism is a visible sign, and thereby goes too far... Calvin argued that baptism is indeed an outward sign, but it is more than just a mere outward "performance" if you will. He compared it to the oath of office that a soldier might take before his commanding officer - the speaking of the words of the oath may be a necessary outward "performance," but this performance was simply a reflection of an inner commitment and submission. And if we are to remain Biblical in our convictions against the notion that justification follows sanctification, then it is not the physical act of baptism that places one into the church body, but rather, it is the inner working of God; the "immersion" into Christ, not the immersion into water. It is this common submission that unites us all into one church, despite our differences on the minor issues, and when there are differences on the major, soteriological issues, despite their name, they are excluded from the church catholic. That was Dr. Mohler's point.
For the algorithm
With all due respect to Dr. Mohler, I’d argue that baptism is a doctrine that is “constitutive of the church.” As a visible sign and seal of entry into the external covenant communinty, who is baptized literally constitutes who is in the church (at least for Reformed folks).
This strikes me as a very Baptist way of looking at the sacraments, which is all well and good for him, as a Baptist; but for the Presbyterian his argument seems to be “if you accept that we are both brothers in Christ, you must lay aside (or render unimportant) your convictions regarding the sacraments.”
Perhaps I’m proving his point about having religious liberty because I’m being so picky, but for a lot of people, the Reformed doctrines on the sacraments are a large reason why they are Reformed and *not* Baptist. I don’t think it’s wise to act like these differences are unimportant or only the result of our religious liberty today. People died for these differences in history.
Just my 2¢ 🤷♂️
TheNatedogg56 your two cents worth is not worth two cents because you missed his basic point. His point was: biblical convictions plus religious freedom equals denominations. The biblical convictions are indeed convictions. They are not unimportant to be set aside, but a more fundamental thing binds us together, that is the gospel. People in the same denomination, even the same local church may have different biblical convictions, but they still hold to the same gospel. If you say that only those who believe exactly as you do are the only true Christians, then you are heterodox. But of course you don't believe that, you just missed his point. His point is not a Baptist way of thinking or a Reformed way of thinking, but a gospel way of thinking.
"As a visible sign and seal of entry into the external covenant communinty, who is baptized literally constitutes who is in the church (at least for Reformed folks). "
Not just a sign Natedogg. See my separate post on this thread.
Sir, while your assertion that baptism is "a visible sign and seal of entry into the external covenant community," is straight out of Calvin's "Institutes," if you mean to assert that only those who have undergone the physical act of immersion into water are the ones who gain entrance into this covenant community, then this contradicts the notion that baptism is a visible sign, and thereby goes too far... Calvin argued that baptism is indeed an outward sign, but it is more than just a mere outward "performance" if you will. He compared it to the oath of office that a soldier might take before his commanding officer - the speaking of the words of the oath may be a necessary outward "performance," but this performance was simply a reflection of an inner commitment and submission. And if we are to remain Biblical in our convictions against the notion that justification follows sanctification, then it is not the physical act of baptism that places one into the church body, but rather, it is the inner working of God; the "immersion" into Christ, not the immersion into water.
It is this common submission that unites us all into one church, despite our differences on the minor issues, and when there are differences on the major, soteriological issues, despite their name, they are excluded from the church catholic. That was Dr. Mohler's point.