Re-Baptism

tcalbrecht · #1 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benjamin

Just a read through will show that it was the general belief amongst the Reformed that the Bible taught infant baptism, and not only adult baptism as the Anabaptists taught, a sect that was condemned as heretics by the Reformed people.

You should recognize, though, that the Anabaptists who were condemned as heretics must not be confused with later baptists who compiled the London Confessions. In many cases about the only thing they shared in common with the London baptists is their credobaptismal practice. In order to promote the doctrine of paedobaptism it is really quite bad form to call out credobaptists because of the heresies of the Anabaptists. This would be like saying that since Muslims are monotheists, and Muslims follow a false religion, that monotheism is false.

The heresy they share in common is the requirement for rebaptism of those not baptized by immersion or baptized as infants.

Daniel Ritchie · #2 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

Quote:

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benjamin

Just a read through will show that it was the general belief amongst the Reformed that the Bible taught infant baptism, and not only adult baptism as the Anabaptists taught, a sect that was condemned as heretics by the Reformed people.

You should recognize, though, that the Anabaptists who were condemned as heretics must not be confused with later baptists who compiled the London Confessions. In many cases about the only thing they shared in common with the London baptists is their credobaptismal practice. In order to promote the doctrine of paedobaptism it is really quite bad form to call out credobaptists because of the heresies of the Anabaptists. This would be like saying that since Muslims are monotheists, and Muslims follow a false religion, that monotheism is false.

The heresy they share in common is the requirement for rebaptism of those not baptized by immersion or baptized as infants.

That is hardly heresy.

toddpedlar · #3 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

Quote:

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benjamin

Just a read through will show that it was the general belief amongst the Reformed that the Bible taught infant baptism, and not only adult baptism as the Anabaptists taught, a sect that was condemned as heretics by the Reformed people.

You should recognize, though, that the Anabaptists who were condemned as heretics must not be confused with later baptists who compiled the London Confessions. In many cases about the only thing they shared in common with the London baptists is their credobaptismal practice. In order to promote the doctrine of paedobaptism it is really quite bad form to call out credobaptists because of the heresies of the Anabaptists. This would be like saying that since Muslims are monotheists, and Muslims follow a false religion, that monotheism is false.

The heresy they share in common is the requirement for rebaptism of those not baptized by immersion or baptized as infants.

I'm not saying it's not a problem, Tom - just saying that it's inappropriate to paint all credobaptists as "Anabaptists", a name which, when used by Calvin and other early Reformers, meant something very specific - and something which does not properly represent many groups of credobaptists.

VirginiaHuguenot · #4 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 09:46 AM

The wading pool is getting deeper...

tcalbrecht · #5 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

The heresy they share in common is the requirement for rebaptism of those not baptized by immersion or baptized as infants.

That is hardly heresy.

According to Schaff (as noted by Dr. McMahon), "All the Reformers retained the custom of infant baptism and opposed rebaptism as heresy." (History of the Christian Church, vol. 7, The German Reformation, p 607)

Granted, this opposition was in the historical context of the Anabaptist controversy, but there is no difference between rebaptism of an infant by a Baptist vs. rebaptism of an infant by an Anabaptist.

tcalbrecht · #6 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

I'm not saying it's not a problem, Tom - just saying that it's inappropriate to paint all credobaptists as "Anabaptists", a name which, when used by Calvin and other early Reformers, meant something very specific - and something which does not properly represent many groups of credobaptists.

You will note I was not painting with a broad brush. I know that most Baptists do not entertain all the excesses of the Anabaptists.

However, in the area of rebaptism there is really no difference between the two camps. While internally consistent, nevertheless, the credobaptist view wrt rebaptism is anomalous wrt the Reformed faith as it is historically understood.

Daniel Ritchie · #7 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

The heresy they share in common is the requirement for rebaptism of those not baptized by immersion or baptized as infants.

That is hardly heresy.

According to Schaff (as noted by Dr. McMahon), "All the Reformers retained the custom of infant baptism and opposed rebaptism as heresy." (History of the Christian Church, vol. 7, The German Reformation, p 607)

Granted, this opposition was in the historical context of the Anabaptist controversy, but there is no difference between rebaptism of an infant by a Baptist vs. rebaptism of an infant by an Anabaptist.

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.

tcalbrecht · #8 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 03:48 PM

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).

Daniel Ritchie · #9 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 03:53 PM

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.

tcalbrecht · #10 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 04:19 PM

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.

Daniel Ritchie · #11 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 04:25 PM

This follows on from a discussion in another thread.

I really do not understand how you can call people who re-baptize, because they believe infant baptism was illegitimate, heretics. Surely they are not, on their view, being re-baptized at all?

Hippo · #12 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 04:50 PM

By saying that people are heretics you are seeking to expel them from the Church, this is a really serious step to take and prevents any form of communion with them.

If you read the Bible a credobaptist position is a possible interpretation, the teaching of the early church is also not decisivie on the point and if people believe in credobaptism in faith then I would not even say that it is sinful, let alone heretical.

Imho a charge of heresy should be used with care.

Daniel Ritchie · #13 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 04:56 PM

See this thread for the alternative view to what Mike and I have argued:

Can a person be considered "Reformed" if they don't affirm the five points?

tcalbrecht · #14 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 05:31 PM

"The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered unto any person." (WCF 28:7)

Hippo · #15 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

"The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered unto any person." (WCF 28:7)

The question is not whether the position is confessional.

Dwimble · #16 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galatians220

...A very learned minister, one whom I deeply respect, recently told me that my "covenant line" came from my great-grandfather, a ruling elder of a Presbyterian church and apparently, from what I know of him, a 5-point Calvinist...

A bit off topic, but that starts to sound awfully like, "we're of our father Abraham" to me. Although ministers making statements like that may be well-meaning, and although the statements may be intended in some way other than the impression they give, they still make me cringe every time I hear them. It's almost enough to make me go credo.

Pilgrim · #17 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dwimble

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galatians220

...A very learned minister, one whom I deeply respect, recently told me that my "covenant line" came from my great-grandfather, a ruling elder of a Presbyterian church and apparently, from what I know of him, a 5-point Calvinist...

A bit off topic, but that starts to sound awfully like, "we're of our father Abraham" to me. Although ministers making statements like that may be well-meaning, and although the statements may be intended in some way other than the impression they give, they still make me cringe every time I hear them. It's almost enough to make me go credo.

It certainly confirms me in my credo views. The old line about God having no grandchildren popped into my head immediately.

In light of the fact that apparently Southern Presbyterians and those influenced by their thought (e.g. the 1845 Old School G.A.) are the only major Reformed or Presbyterian group to reject Roman Catholic baptism, I wonder what this minister would say in a case where all of the person's known ancestors were Roman Catholics and there is no "covenant line" to point to? Typically the argument that one hears is that such baptisms are "irregular but not invalid," with the fact that circumcision was obviously unrepeatable given as justification for baptism being unrepeatable.

Zenas · #18 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 07:07 PM

I think your poll is fatally flawed because it doesn't distinguish between what one thinks of re-baptizers, and baptizers doing so because the first one wasn't considered valid.

Re-baptizing implies a recognition of the first, but a need or doctrine that dictates a Baptism must be done again, even though the first one holds some measure of validity.

The other type aren't re-baptizers at all, but only baptizers who do so visibly again for the express purpose that the first baptism was no baptism at all, ergo no baptism has ever occured.

Re-baptizers, in my book, are heretics. Baptizers doing so because the first batpsm was no baptism are not.

I think those affirming the heresey of the latter is one you would take issue to, and to that one you have my answer.

As the poll asks, whether re-baptizers are heretics are not, I answer yes.

Hippo · #19 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenas

I think your poll is fatally flawed because it doesn't distinguish between what one thinks of re-baptizers, and baptizers doing so because the first one wasn't considered valid.

Re-baptizing implies a recognition of the first, but a need or doctrine that dictates a Baptism must be done again, even though the first one holds some measure of validity.

The other type aren't re-baptizers at all, but only baptizers who do so visibly again for the express purpose that the first baptism was no baptism at all, ergo no baptism has ever occured.

Re-baptizers, in my book, are heretics. Baptizers doing so because the first batpsm was no baptism are not.

I think those affirming the heresey of the latter is one you would take issue to, and to that one you have my answer.

As the poll asks, whether re-baptizers are heretics are not, I answer yes.

Good points here.

I would have to say that if one accepted a first baptism but repaptised anyway then that would be heretical.

I do not think that the question envisaged such a situation, but the terminology allows for such an understanding and renders the polls results fairly useless.

Ivan · #20 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 07:14 PM

Presbyterian Deacon · #21 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenas

I think your poll is fatally flawed because it doesn't distinguish between what one thinks of re-baptizers, and baptizers doing so because the first one wasn't considered valid.

Re-baptizing implies a recognition of the first, but a need or doctrine that dictates a Baptism must be done again, even though the first one holds some measure of validity.

The other type aren't re-baptizers at all, but only baptizers who do so visibly again for the express purpose that the first baptism was no baptism at all, ergo no baptism has ever occured.

Re-baptizers, in my book, are heretics. Baptizers doing so because the first batpsm was no baptism are not.

I think those affirming the heresey of the latter is one you would take issue to, and to that one you have my answer.

As the poll asks, whether re-baptizers are heretics are not, I answer yes.

For these reasons, I voted "Not Sure." There is some ambiguity to this question, and what needs to be sorted out first is: "What is true baptism?"

If one accepts the papist "baptism" as valid, then there is no reason to "rebaptize."

However, if the papist baptism is seen as the pagan ritual it is, and thus is no true baptism, then one who is Scripturally baptized, (even though he he was once a recipient of the "so-called papist baptism)," is not being re-baptized, but is in truth being baptized for the FIRST time!