WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
If water baptism is not the sign of the covenant membership to a Baptist, then why re-baptize?
Credobaptism = Arminianism?
- Thread starter heartoflesh
- Start date
- Status
not to chase rabbits......but,
what do you mean by "re-baptize"?
If one has not been Scripturally baptized then it is not a re-baptism at all.
Baptism happens once. Yes, you may have been dunked or sprinkled according to some formula, but if you have not met the Scriptural requirements then whatever has happened you have not been baptized in the first place.
Phillip
what do you mean by "re-baptize"?
If one has not been Scripturally baptized then it is not a re-baptism at all.
Baptism happens once. Yes, you may have been dunked or sprinkled according to some formula, but if you have not met the Scriptural requirements then whatever has happened you have not been baptized in the first place.
Phillip
Puddleglum
Puritan Board Sophomore
Yes, some credos do think like that. Typically arminian ones.
More reformed credos would say that they're looking to see proof of God's work in their children's life - just like they (and paedos) do with any adult who wants to join the church. When someone makes a profession of faith, the elders look at their life to see if there's proof of God's work. What the person does isn't what saves them - it's demonstrating what God has done. A credo views baptism as being linked with a profession of faith.
Not sure if that helps clarify or not . . .
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
Phillip,
It is not a rabbits trail but straight to the issue.
That is the whole point, baptism ends up finding validity and "existance" if you will based upon man - hence man's sign and not God's.
We can play word games about re-bapized or dunked again all day long, but the reality is - is that a ritual actually took place and from the believers only perspective its validity ultimately rests in the man and not in the promise of God.
A reformed church rests/grounds the sign in God's promise. So that if a struggling Christian thinks rightly or wrongly that he/she was baptized before real faith (not speaking of infants her but adults) then one would celebrate God fulfilling what the sign signified and not in essence repeat the sign as a human work.
Furthermore, from a believers only perspective what was the invalid cermony introduced into worship if the professing believer was false for you just said it would not be baptism.
In Humility,
Larry
It is not a rabbits trail but straight to the issue.
That is the whole point, baptism ends up finding validity and "existance" if you will based upon man - hence man's sign and not God's.
We can play word games about re-bapized or dunked again all day long, but the reality is - is that a ritual actually took place and from the believers only perspective its validity ultimately rests in the man and not in the promise of God.
A reformed church rests/grounds the sign in God's promise. So that if a struggling Christian thinks rightly or wrongly that he/she was baptized before real faith (not speaking of infants her but adults) then one would celebrate God fulfilling what the sign signified and not in essence repeat the sign as a human work.
Furthermore, from a believers only perspective what was the invalid cermony introduced into worship if the professing believer was false for you just said it would not be baptism.
In Humility,
Larry
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
It is this type of "logic" that really messes with people's thinking, and ends up causing many to be dunked multiple times. My own cousin, Curt, was baptized as an infant, then dunked as an adult. But then a few years later, he questioned whether he was "really saved" when he was dunked the first time, so he got dunked again. That's 3 baptisms (or at least two, to a baptist). I know of other people with similar stories.
This introspective navel-gazing nonsense is unbiblical, and is spiritually damaging.
There are many people who go through spiritually low points in their lives. Then they come out on the other side, and get close to the Lord again. Sometimes these people question whether they were "really saved" earlier. (Sometimes this happens to be true, but certainly not always.) If they feel like they weren't "really saved", then they feel like their baptism didn't count, so they do it again. and again. and again.
If THAT type of rebaptism doesn't picture man-centered Arminian thinking, I don't know what does. People get so focused on their own navel, determined to "get their baptism right".
On the contrary, baptism signifies a person's membership in the visible church. And since regeneration only happens once, water baptism (which signifies regeneration) should also only happen once. Getting dunked (or sprinkled) over and over again sends the message that a person can be regenerated over and over again, which is Arminian nonsense.
If I were a minister, and a person came to me out of an Arminian church, and had been baptized 20 years ago, but only claimed to truly be "saved" 6 months ago, I would accept the 20-year-old baptism. In fact, I would accept a Roman Catholic baptism. It doesn't matter what the baptizer believes. And it doesn't matter what the heart-state of the baptizee is. What matters is the baptism. The same went for circumcision in the Old Testament. Nobody did (or could!) get "re-circumcized" because they felt like they weren't "really saved" when it first occurred.
Baptism is like circumcision. You don't do it twice. (ouch!)
According to baptists, the great majority of Christians throughout history were never baptized. Poor old Luther, Calvin, Ames, Sproul, Kennedy, etc. What nonsense.
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
WCF
CHAPTER XXVIII.
Of Baptism.
VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinancy the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.
VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered to any person.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
Of Baptism.
VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinancy the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.
VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered to any person.
heartoflesh
Puritan Board Junior
And no good Calvinistic Baptist disagrees with this (except for the "infants" part). It is only straw flying around that is trying to convince everyone that they really hold some other position.
[Edited on 7-7-2005 by Rick Larson]
ReformedWretch
Puritan Board Doctor
Just an FYI here...
Joseph has done the best job explaining the credobaptism position to me here than anything else I've read or listened to!
Joseph has done the best job explaining the credobaptism position to me here than anything else I've read or listened to!
Augusta
Puritan Board Doctor
Jessica, the point I am making about children and adults is that no man knows another mans heart, only God does. I do not know my childrens hearts yet and they are 7,7,9 &10. I don't think I will ever KNOW. God does know. He sovereign and I need to leave it in His hands, as it is His domain not mine and not even their's. I am trying to usurp His dominion over my children at that point. Denying them something commanded by God because of something I think it needs human agency, human blood pressure taking, to decide if this person or that should be baptized.
Thank you Larry for explaining it much better than I did. I may have bumbled it a bit and made mincemeat out of it.
[Edited on 7-7-2005 by Augusta]
Puddleglum
Puritan Board Sophomore
True - we can't see someone else's heart. And it's not my job to try to do so - there's a place for it, but that's the elder's job, my job is to trust their judgment (like it or not!).
Okay, I think I can sort-of see how, from the paedo perspective (which says that God commands you to baptize your kids, and doesn't link baptism & profession), how requiring a profession from your kids first seems like adding works.
So I guess the real questions are (1) whether or not God does command that, and (2) when should a profession be required prior to baptism . . . cause I think it's the difference in answers to those questions, which cause there to be a difference in whether or not you think that requiring a profession from your kids is adding works to the equation or not.
But that's just restating the old paedo v. credo debate . . .
I appreciate you participating, because the guys who post several-page-long, 15-point arguments tend to totally lose me! (Okay, that's a bit of an exaggeration!) And I think that I may well be better at making mincemeat of the whole thing than you are!
Rich Barcellos
Puritan Board Freshman
If Credos are Ariminian because they require a profession of faith prior to baptism, would that make all non-paedocommunion paedobaptists Arminian as well, since they require a profession of faith prior to taking the supper?
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Not remotely.
The administration of the Lord's Supper is not merely tied to covenant membership. It is tied to the ability to examine one's self (1 Corinthians 11:28).
Communion is not tied directly to regeneration. A child may be truly regenerate for years before giving a profession of faith, or coming of age to the point where we think he is able to examine himself.
Since regeneration does not guarantee that a person should be immediately admitted to the Lord's Supper, there is nothing "Arminian" about requiring a profession of faith prior to partaking.
Baptism signifies regeneration and covenant membership. There is no requirement for someone to "examine" himself before being baptized. So we are dealing with apples and celery. (But both are very tasty and nutritious!)
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Rick, are you sure that "no good Calvinistic Baptist disagrees" that "efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered"?
In other words, if you decide that you weren't really regenerate until about a year ago, but your baptism was 10 years ago, would most Baptists accept that baptism? Or would they say that it was "no baptism at all" because you were unregenerate at the time? My experience with Baptists has been the later. But if you know otherwise regarding most other Baptists, then I am very happy to hear that.
But if I am correct, most Baptists DO disagree that the "efficacy of baptistm is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered". Instead, I would argue that Baptists believe the timing is critical . . . they would say that if you were baptized while unregenerate, then you "weren't baptized at all."
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
. . . imagine the popularity of the Baptist mentality in the Old Testament:
"I see, sir, but I'm sorry. That doesn't count. You weren't regenerate when that happened, so you were not really circumcised at all. . . ."
"I see, sir, but I'm sorry. That doesn't count. You weren't regenerate when that happened, so you were not really circumcised at all. . . ."
Augusta
Puritan Board Doctor
Sometimes these guys can go over my head and I am looking up words, some of which are not in the dictionary.
I am a big picture person. I can look at the details, and do alot, by I am ever aware of the whole scheme of things. And if a detail throws the scheme out of whack I notice.
To me believers baptism throws the flow and harmony of the covenants and God's sovereignty out of whack. (that my version of a theological term
) It just makes so much more sense to me that God foreknew us from the beginning of time. He really already has us marked or set apart for Him. In an eschatological (learned that one in a seminary course where the prof used it every other word
) sense when we give the sign is insignificant. Temporally before our conversion we were wicked and unsaved right? Eschatologically we are set apart.
Even now we are not glorified yet or sinless we are "in Christ" in an eschatological sense even while yet on earth because He is before the throne on our behalf as our head testifying "these are mine."
That brings up the whole headship matter. This is another big part of Covenant theology. In the OT whatever your covenant head did you did. The women are never counted when they give the number of Israelites doing this or that. It is always and the tribe of Dan was 100,000 men. The men and their male children were circumcised. Why are the women never mentioned? They are one flesh with their husbands. They are under the authority of their head so this is a no brainer to the Israelite. Their female children, the same.
Headship has not changed in the NT. God has not changed in the NT. His plan of redemption has not changed except it is now fulfilled. Is not the NC effective to all those elect in the OT who were given the sign when they were 8 days old? Or perhaps only for Abraham since he was of an age of accountability. Why the change? Because it is implied in the command believe and be baptized. Just as it is implied in that same command that we have the ability then to do so. Alas we know from other explicit scripture we do not.
All of the types in the OT shed light and illuminate the things they represent in the NT. The circumcision/baptism, manna and water in the wilderness/the Lords supper, the sacrifice for sin/Jesus as our sacrifice, the marriage between a man and woman/Christ and His bride the church, Adam as our head/Christ as our head, David as prophet, priest, and King/Christ as our prophet, priest and King. It is seamless.
To me believers baptism throws the flow and harmony of the covenants and God's sovereignty out of whack. (that my version of a theological term
) It just makes so much more sense to me that God foreknew us from the beginning of time. He really already has us marked or set apart for Him. In an eschatological (learned that one in a seminary course where the prof used it every other word
Even now we are not glorified yet or sinless we are "in Christ" in an eschatological sense even while yet on earth because He is before the throne on our behalf as our head testifying "these are mine."
That brings up the whole headship matter. This is another big part of Covenant theology. In the OT whatever your covenant head did you did. The women are never counted when they give the number of Israelites doing this or that. It is always and the tribe of Dan was 100,000 men. The men and their male children were circumcised. Why are the women never mentioned? They are one flesh with their husbands. They are under the authority of their head so this is a no brainer to the Israelite. Their female children, the same.
Headship has not changed in the NT. God has not changed in the NT. His plan of redemption has not changed except it is now fulfilled. Is not the NC effective to all those elect in the OT who were given the sign when they were 8 days old? Or perhaps only for Abraham since he was of an age of accountability. Why the change? Because it is implied in the command believe and be baptized. Just as it is implied in that same command that we have the ability then to do so. Alas we know from other explicit scripture we do not.
All of the types in the OT shed light and illuminate the things they represent in the NT. The circumcision/baptism, manna and water in the wilderness/the Lords supper, the sacrifice for sin/Jesus as our sacrifice, the marriage between a man and woman/Christ and His bride the church, Adam as our head/Christ as our head, David as prophet, priest, and King/Christ as our prophet, priest and King. It is seamless.
Theological Books
Puritan Board Freshman
... imagine the popularity of the Paedobaptist mentality in the Old Testament:
"It's OK, people, even though God will kill us if we do something we aren't suppose to do, we can go ahead and add a practice not revealed to us in this covenant."
"It's OK, people, even though God will kill us if we do something we aren't suppose to do, we can go ahead and add a practice not revealed to us in this covenant."
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
That is a very good point. A lot of people recognize that the NT sheds light on the OT. But unfortunately, not so many realize that the OT sheds light on the NT.
The Bible is ONE book, and EVERY chapter sheds light on every other chapter. As you said, it is "seamless."
. . . and I agree with you: credobaptism (especially when it causes multiple baptisms of the same person) throws the whole flow and unity of Scripture "out of whack". (That phrase should definitely be an accepted theological term . . . it's very clear!) :bigsmile:
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
You have that backwards. We didn't "add" anything. We simply continue the age-old practice of covenantal child-inclusion that has been practiced for thousands of years.
Rather, YOU are the ones who have removed a practice from the church, even though you have no Scriptural command to do so.
There is no passage of Scripture that says, "Your children are no longer automatically included in the covenant along with their parents. Now that Christ has come, Christians aren't supposed to think that way anymore. God only deals with individuals now, not their families."
Even if there was no New Testament support for infant baptism (and there is a great deal of it), I would still be required to baptize my children. Children were already included in the covenant, and God never put a stop to it. Unless you can point to a Scripture which says God has quit including children in the covenant along with their parents, then you are the one who is presuming to go outside God's clear commands.
The burden of proof is on you, my brother.
Theological Books
Puritan Board Freshman
Ummm... unfortunately I think you missed the facetiousness of my post, and then you assumed it was an argument. I guess your original post was not facetious, which saddens me. If a flippant remark such as yours was not facetious, then I am dissappointed in your tactics. I was just having fun.
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Brother Myers, I certainly was not trying to upset you. I apologize for coming across that way.
Why did you think I was being "flippant"? I obviously did intend to be humorous, but I was trying to make a valid point at the same time.
I really do think that "re-baptism" is as silly as "re-circumcision" would be.
I'm not sure what "tactics" I'm using that upset you. But turning you off was certainly not my attention, my brother. Please forgive my many failings and imperfections. I didn't intend to upset you at all.
Why did you think I was being "flippant"? I obviously did intend to be humorous, but I was trying to make a valid point at the same time.
I really do think that "re-baptism" is as silly as "re-circumcision" would be.
I'm not sure what "tactics" I'm using that upset you. But turning you off was certainly not my attention, my brother. Please forgive my many failings and imperfections. I didn't intend to upset you at all.
Theological Books
Puritan Board Freshman
Joseph, I appreciate your apology (especially the tenderness of your heart, which is most encouraging), but I do not think you have sinned against me (or anyone). I thought your statement was funny, actually, but I thought that was your sole intent. My statement was meant to be funny as well. I thought we were epitomizing the theological considerations in a stereotypical, yet false, manner. In other words, a paedobaptist (anachronistically speaking) would never say what I said in the Old Covenant period. Do you really think the mentality of the Baptist (anachronistically speaking) in the OC would question the circumcision of all the males of Abraham's seed? I guess I just do not understand your understanding of Baptists, or at least confessional Baptists.
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
I was just pointing out that I think re-baptism is as silly as the thought of re-circumcision.
But no, I do not think any Baptist who has read Genesis 17 would question the circumcision of all the males of Abraham's seed.
I just have to wonder why Baptists think that baptism is somehow an entirely different ball of wax. Both signify faith, regeneration, covenant membership, etc. If God wanted people born into the covenant in the OT, then where in the NT did He change His mind?
(As for the "mentality of the Baptist" in the Old Testament . . . well, I don't know if anyone had that mentality in the Old Testament. So I'm not sure what to say there.) --- I think the Baptist mentality is relatively new . . . My personal theory is that baptistic thinking was introduced into the early church because of the widespread doctrine of baptismal regeneration. But it's just a theory.
I doubt that any OT guys tried to encourage "re-circumcision" . . . . but if any of them did, I wish they had recorded some of the conversations on tape . . . if they had, I'm sure the MP3s would be all over the internet by now . . .
Theological Books
Puritan Board Freshman
Just so you know, I disagree with the re-baptism of almost any person. If someone was baptized (valid and regular/irregular) as five year old, but become convinced he/she was not a believer until age 18, I would say his/her baptism is still valid, though irregular, and it is now effectual as accompanied by faith. So, I wouldn't have that person re-baptized, nor would I encourage it or allow it in my congregation; rather, quite the opposite.
Theological Books
Puritan Board Freshman
Because I do not believe baptism is to be applied to the children of NC members for the sole purpose of them being children of NC members. In other words, I do not believe baptism of infants is mandated by God in the NC, nor is it necessitated by proper covenant theology. I believe the subjects of the Christian baptism are to be those who hear the word and respond. That's the simple answer.
Theological Books
Puritan Board Freshman
I'm going to try and anticitpate the answer Meyers will give. I don't think his qualm in this instance is specifically with infant baptism, per se. Rather, I assume it has to do with baptismal mode. Meyers probably believes that if immersion has not occurred, then baptism has not occurred. Am I right? --- And if I am right, then would you accept infant baptism performed by the Greek Orthodox Church, since they practice infant baptism via immersion?
This thread is getting quite interesting. I love it!
Brother, you have *GOT* to stop assuming things about Baptists, or at least about *ME*.
I agree with John Calvin. While immersion is the most proper and correct mode, it is not the only valid mode. I have four categories of baptism: valid, invalid, regular, irregular. The sprinkling of that five year old, premised upon his response to the preached Word, would be valid but irregular. The sprinkling of an infant would be invalid and irregular. The immersion of an infant would be invalid by regular. The immersion of a professing believer would be valid and regular. Etc., etc., etc.Now, please, do not think I would not be gracious toward a brother who was baptized as an infant (invalid and irregular). For instance, if Sinclair Ferguson wanted to join my church as a Baptist minister, yet he was baptized only as an infant, I would allow him to join and partake of full membership (though not allowed to hold office). I would try to persuade him he was not baptized at all, but would allow his concience to take an exception to the church's overall doctrinal position. I think this grace, charity, and appeal to conscience is necessary.
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
But all you've said above just implies that you think infant baptism is "irregular" . . . much like the baptism of an unregenerate 5-year-old would be "irregular".
*** You think the baptism of unbelievers is not warranted. But if an unregenerate 5-year-old was baptized, you would not make him get rebaptized, because his faith would make the baptism effective for him. You would just say he had an "irregular baptism" and move along.
*** You think infant baptism is not warranted. And if an unregenerate infant was baptized, you would make him get rebaptized, because his faith would not make the baptism effective for him? Why wouldn't you just say that he too had an "irregular baptism" and move along?
That sounds terribly inconsistent to me. Apparently a 5-year-old's baptism as an unregenerate person is more effectual than a 5-month-old's baptism as an unregenerate person. Apparently the more recent a baptism is, the more effective it is. I don't get it.
Imagine two 20-year-olds asking for baptism simultaneously. Both are newly regenerate, as far as you know. One of them was baptized as an infant. The other one was baptized at the age of 5.
Why exactly would you make one get rebaptized, but not the other?
Why do you call one "irregular but effective", but the other one "totally ineffective"? What's the big dichotomy here?
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Joseph, while I of course agree with your position, I must say I think you're misunderstanding what Myers is saying. From his perspective, the difference between the two scenarios is not age, but the presence of a profession of faith. Notice that he said,
If the Baptist claim that a profession of faith is required for baptism is correct (which I agree it is not), then it would not be inconsistent for him to reject the five-month-old's, but accept the five-year-old's, since even though it was later discovered that the the five-year-old was unregenerate at the time, it would still have been validly administered in the Baptist view because it followed a profession of faith.
If the Baptist claim that a profession of faith is required for baptism is correct (which I agree it is not), then it would not be inconsistent for him to reject the five-month-old's, but accept the five-year-old's, since even though it was later discovered that the the five-year-old was unregenerate at the time, it would still have been validly administered in the Baptist view because it followed a profession of faith.
Theological Books
Puritan Board Freshman
heartoflesh
Puritan Board Junior
Again, as I stated earlier, I am not committed to either camp, Paedo or Credo, and find arguments on both sides compelling, the Paedo perhaps even more compelling. Regardless, I have yet to be convinced that the Credo view is somehow akin to Arminianism, which was accusation made, and the purpose of this thread. There have been implications that the credo view somehow implicitly contains a sliver of synergism in it, (unconscious synergism at that), which I still don't completely understand, but this should not by any means be equated with Arminianism, a term which signifies a well-defined set of doctrines and viewpoints. I'm just saying that we should choose our words carefully, making sure they are accurate representations of what we mean, or else they lose their meaning completely.
- Status