Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie  Quote:
Originally Posted by tcalbrecht Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie They were wrong to believe that mere rebaptism was heresy. It may have been an error - and I believe it was - but it is not heresy. | Your opinion is noted, but it is not historically inappropriate to identify rebaptism as heresy (in this case, error of a fundamental sort with strikes at the very nature of the covenant). | If someone believes that their baptism was not legitimate, then I do not see why they should be labeled a "heretic" for being re-baptized. |
Hmmm. Is baptism an ordinance of the individual or of the Church? I didn't know that individuals got to make those types of decisions.
In fact, they do not. If I move to some remote and desolate portion of the US where there are no confessionally Reformed churches, and I visit with the local (credo)Baptist church and seek to bring my membership there, 99.9% of the time I will be told that I may join by being rebaptized (by immersion) or may not formally join.
Likewise, in every consistent Reformed church, if a person presents himself for membership and seeks to be rebaptized because they somehow believe their infant baptism was deficient, any pastor worth his salt will try to dissuade the individual from this course of action. Rebaptism is unnecessary, and convenantally and confessionally inconsistent. BTW, I speak as one who sought rebaptism as a young Christian at a confessional Presbyterian church and was never dissuaded from doing do.
Besides, it is not necessarily the person seeking rebaptism that is the heretic, as much as the person performing the rebaptism. Those who purport to teach these matters will suffer the greater condemnation.
People who might seek rebaptism need to be counseled from the Scriptures and confessions why this is not a good idea.
BTW, this is very off topic. I would be happy to continue the discussion in another thread in an appropriate forum.