Rebaptism question

Status
Not open for further replies.
tcalbrecht

tcalbrecht

Puritan Board Junior
How does the confessional Baptist view of baptism as outlined in the LBCF differ in substance from the Anabaptist view (esp. rebaptism of infants or rebaptism by immersion) that was denounced by the Protestant Magisterial Reformers?
 
Great question. I am not sure I can give you an adequate answer. I am not so sure it is different in substance as per the need for a credible confession of faith. Credo Baptism is denounced by the Reformers per their insistence that infant baptism is biblical. We view Covenant Children differently than the Reformers who hold to a view of Covenant Children of the Old Testament.
 
One other comment Tom. I find it surprising that you haven't studied this before. I read a book about the Anabaptists and Particular Baptists called Battle for the Church by David Gay. BTW, he has been published by BOT so he isn't an off the wall guy necessarily. In the book he comments a lot about the political situation through out history and he comments on how these relationships between politics and the Church played out.

He makes some good observations about how the State determined and prosecuted heresy. In the early days of the Church the state just persecuted the Church. Then when Augustine was converted the State took a different role. Some would argue that the spirit of Rome started playing a major take over of the church back then. In other words the Roman pagan religions started creeping in. I actually appreciate some of John Robbins thoughts on this but I digress. The state became the determiner of truth.

Even though it is argued rather affectively that there is no evidence for paedo-baptism till Origen and really noted that the doctrine of necessity brought it on in Augustines time, many still want to believe that baptism was done based upon a covenantal basis for children. I am not telling you anything you haven't heard before. You have been around for a long time.

Now getting back to the supposed heresy of the anabaptists. I want to remind you that it was a crime against the state for Credo (or anabaptist) to refuse to baptize infants. It is primarily on those grounds that they were persecuted. They were harshly treated, killed, and their properties siezed and families broken up.

The anabaptists had many different strings of thought. Some were very heretical and anarchist. Not all of them were. So when a person was labelled with the anabaptist label you had much to fear whether you were orthodox or not. That is primarily why the 1644 LBCF was drafted. It was to refute the notion that these credo baptists were heretical. And I believe they proved themselves to not be considered in the line of the heretical radical reformation of some. Thus they had a place in the fellowship of the Church during that time.

So when you use the term anabaptists and heresy together, as you seem to like to do, I would also like to remind you that the FV, which is closer to home, is more heresy than any credo doctrine of the 1689. I think you know what I am referring to. Tom, is the FV heresy? What about their view of Baptism?

When one labels something anabaptist I think it is rather unkind unless someone claims the title. The New Covenant Theologians claim their heritage is from the Anabaptists. There is a lot of different understandings to the label. The governments feared the anabaptists for a different reason than the church. I am just wondering why this was brought up by you. You have been around a long time. I just figured your question has some relation to the last thread this subject was discussed in.
 
Last edited:
PuritanCovenanter said:
One other comment Tom. I find it surprising that you haven't studied this before. I read a book about the Anabaptists and Particular Baptists called Battle for the Church by David Gay. BTW, he has been published by BOT so he isn't an off the wall guy necessarily. In the book he comments a lot about the political situation through out history and he comments on how these relationships between politics and the Church played out.
Click to expand...

Does the author address specifically the subject of my question from a theological/confessional perspective?
 
I don't remember the antitrinitarian remarks about the contradictory wills between the Father and the Son. Maybe Andrew Meyers would. He read it after I did. He may be referring to Jesus saying, "not my will but thine be done."

I don't remember him calling the Presbyterian's apostate either. He did have some cutting remarks about Perkins and others but said they were proclaiming the Gospel. He seemed to have more of a criticism of the Church and State connections. As in how the Lutherans, Presbyterian's, and Anglicans fell in line too closely with the World's Governments and depended upon them to much. I think he missed the point of God's providence in all that happened historically.

I think the review is just a bit overboard as David Gay was in my opinion. But that is just my opinion. Do you want to read it. I will send it to you. It is hard to get.

I do think the book did justice exposing the tyranny of the Church and Government over some biblically orthodox credo's. They were guilty by association of the term anabaptists. The term has to many historical issues tied to it other than baptism. Some anabaptists even were wife swappers. They literally tried to share all things in common from what I understand. So when the term was bantered around it took on all the excesses of the different groups combined from the rebellions to weird theologies. That was why the Baptists in London wrote a confession in 1644 to clarify that they were orthodox. I can't remember the clergy's name off the tip of my mind that wrote a tract against them but I believe it was a Presbyterian who slandered the London Baptists and gave them cause to write the 1644 and amending 1646 LBCF.

BTW, one major critique I had of the book was similar to this review.

Gay’s inept and unscholarly use of his mainly secondary sources is most frustrating. Page after page is filled up with quotes to back up Gay’s own words without his giving source or author or stating whether he or his source has replaced so much original information by lines of dots.
Click to expand...

The book was done in a terrible way. He was too scathing in his analysis. For someone who believed that God is Sovereign over the affairs of man, he sure seemed to take that away from the picture in my opinion. The book was as irritating as it was enjoyable to have something to read that was interesting. A real love hate relationship almost.

By the way you still haven't answered my questions on the FV and baptism's efficacy. Which do you consider to be a heresy that doesn't cling to a confession? The credo or the FV?
 
PuritanCovenanter said:
By the way you still haven't answered my questions on the FV and baptism's efficacy. Which do you consider to be a heresy that doesn't cling to a confession? The credo or the FV?
Click to expand...

It's my understanding that such comments are not appropriate in this forum. Questions are asked but only credos may answer.
 
tcalbrecht said:
PuritanCovenanter said:
By the way you still haven't answered my questions on the FV and baptism's efficacy. Which do you consider to be a heresy that doesn't cling to a confession? The credo or the FV?
Click to expand...

It's my understanding that such comments are not appropriate in this forum. Questions are asked but only credos may answer.
Click to expand...

I have asked it elsewhere but you didn't answer then. It may have been in a moderators forum. We are the only two interacting here so I don't see any problem asking you for a clarification here. Do you want me to ask you somewhere else? I am asking for clarification about what you think.
 
PuritanCovenanter said:
I have asked it elsewhere but you didn't answer then. It may have been in a moderators forum. We are the only two interacting here so I don't see any problem asking you for a clarification here. Do you want me to ask you somewhere else? I am asking for clarification about what you think.
Click to expand...

I'll see if I can find your original question and respond there.
 
An interesting note:

“Spurgeon insisted also that Christ required the churches to baptize those only who professed faith in Christ. The Tabernacle practiced "strict membership"--they admitted to membership those regenerate persons who had been immersed after a profession of faith. Some Baptist churches practiced "open membership," allowing unimmersed believers to join. Spurgeon insisted, however, on "having none but persons who had been baptized in the membership of the Church.... He would rather give up the pastorate than admit any man to the Church who was not obedient to his Lord's command." Christ commanded those who believed in him to submit to immersion. Spurgeon made obedience to this command a condition of membership because this was the apostolic practice.”
- Wills, Gregory A. ; The ecclesiology of Charles H. Spurgeon: unity, orthodoxy, and denominational identity;
 
refbaptdude said:
An interesting note:

“Spurgeon insisted also that Christ required the churches to baptize those only who professed faith in Christ. The Tabernacle practiced "strict membership"--they admitted to membership those regenerate persons who had been immersed after a profession of faith. Some Baptist churches practiced "open membership," allowing unimmersed believers to join. Spurgeon insisted, however, on "having none but persons who had been baptized in the membership of the Church.... He would rather give up the pastorate than admit any man to the Church who was not obedient to his Lord's command." Christ commanded those who believed in him to submit to immersion. Spurgeon made obedience to this command a condition of membership because this was the apostolic practice.”
- Wills, Gregory A. ; The ecclesiology of Charles H. Spurgeon: unity, orthodoxy, and denominational identity;
Click to expand...

Steve,

Do you know where (if anywhere) this article by Wills can be found? I see that apparently it was originally published in the BHHS Journal but that issue is out of print.

Edit: It looks like I've found it here.
 
Last edited:
PuritanCovenanter said:
We view Covenant Children differently than the Reformers who hold to a view of Covenant Children of the Old Testament.
Click to expand...

I know this is off subject but is there technically any Covenant children in your view? Basically what I'm asking is on what grounds do you in your credo view call any of your children COVENANT children?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top