Re-Baptism - Page 2

PuritanCovenanter · #41 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

One more thing. I have a good book by J. H. Thornwell I believe where he refutes RC Baptism as invalid. Thus he would say that rebaptism is essential also. Is he a heretic? Some presby's on this board agree with him. Some believe that RCC baptism is legit.

I agree with Thornwell. I recall a debate a while back in which someone tried to argue that baptism by a priest was valid, but baptism by a midwife was not. This is ridiculous, as they both work for a synagogue of Satan. The RCC is not part of the visible church, its baptism is no more valid than that of a man standing on a street corner throwing water over people in the name of the Trinity.

A converted RC who is baptized in a Protestant church is not being rebaptized, but baptized, as they have not received the sacrament in the first place.

So say you. And I would agree somewhat and even go farther than you and say that about those who were baptised as infants period. We are going to disagree. But the charge of heresy is a bit overboard in my estimation. It does call for repentance.

Daniel Ritchie · #42 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

One more thing. I have a good book by J. H. Thornwell I believe where he refutes RC Baptism as invalid. Thus he would say that rebaptism is essential also. Is he a heretic? Some presby's on this board agree with him. Some believe that RCC baptism is legit.

I agree with Thornwell. I recall a debate a while back in which someone tried to argue that baptism by a priest was valid, but baptism by a midwife was not. This is ridiculous, as they both work for a synagogue of Satan. The RCC is not part of the visible church, its baptism is no more valid than that of a man standing on a street corner throwing water over people in the name of the Trinity.

A converted RC who is baptized in a Protestant church is not being rebaptized, but baptized, as they have not received the sacrament in the first place.

So say you. And I would agree somewhat and even go farther than you and say that about those who were baptised as infants period. We are going to disagree. But the charge of heresy is a bit overboard in my estimation. It does call for repentance.

With the bold bit

wholeheartedly; if you are going to call alleged re-baptizers - who, according to their own views, are not even rebaptizing - heretics, then where do you stop. We may as well call everyone a heretic because we all believe something that is unbiblical (whether we are aware of it are not).

Houston E. · #43 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 09:39 PM

Semper Fidelis · #44 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 10:48 PM

I deleted the poll on this thread and re-named it. Tom didn't initiate this thread but his name appeared with the thread and a poll started by another because posts from another thread were moved here. My apologies to Tom for associating his name with the poll. I need to protect his name per the 9th Commandment. I also don't think a poll or the previous title served the sensitivity of the subject.

DMcFadden · #45 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Quote:

Baptists shared with Lutherans, Zwinglians, and Calvinists, their protest against the totalitarianism of the papacy and their zeal to recover the spirituality of the Church. They were Calvinists standing within the covenant theology expressed in the Westminster (putting aside paedo baptism). On the other hand, the General Baptist (which were mostly pelagian) were originally English separatists or Puritans who broke with the Church of England, which they regarded as a false church, perverted by error. Their sectarian spirit and point of view was carried over into their church life. On the other hand the Particular Baptists arose out of a non-Separatist independency. They were Congregational in polity but more ecumenical in spirit. They did not renounce the Church of England as being entirely corrupt. They sought to maintain some bond of unity between themselves and Christians of other Communions. Among these Particular Baptists were those who were willing to admit into its membership, without rebaptism, those of other communions.

p.22 A History of the Baptists By Robert G. Torbet
Kenneth Scott Latourette did the forward to the book.

The above is taken from Torbets History of the Baptists.

Among Northern Baptists, Torbet is considered the gold standard for Baptist history.

Amazing Grace · #46 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

One more thing. I have a good book by J. H. Thornwell I believe where he refutes RC Baptism as invalid. Thus he would say that rebaptism is essential also. Is he a heretic? Some presby's on this board agree with him. Some believe that RCC baptism is legit.

I agree with Thornwell. I recall a debate a while back in which someone tried to argue that baptism by a priest was valid, but baptism by a midwife was not. This is ridiculous, as they both work for a synagogue of Satan. The RCC is not part of the visible church, its baptism is no more valid than that of a man standing on a street corner throwing water over people in the name of the Trinity.

A converted RC who is baptized in a Protestant church is not being rebaptized, but baptized, as they have not received the sacrament in the first place.

Were Calvin and Luther and reformers rebaptized? Wait, we went through this in recent past.

Ill just say thank goodness my salvation is not dependant upon sacraments. I will caution you again though Daniel. This vien of thought is very close to the Donatist heresy. Tred lightly here on this subject. SOme here have said it is not. But it certainly is a mirrored image of it. Administering and receiving the sacraments do not belong to individuals, but come from God to the church. The hand that dip or plunge, the person who gets wet provide absolutely no efficacy whatsoever

Daniel Ritchie · #47 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

One more thing. I have a good book by J. H. Thornwell I believe where he refutes RC Baptism as invalid. Thus he would say that rebaptism is essential also. Is he a heretic? Some presby's on this board agree with him. Some believe that RCC baptism is legit.

I agree with Thornwell. I recall a debate a while back in which someone tried to argue that baptism by a priest was valid, but baptism by a midwife was not. This is ridiculous, as they both work for a synagogue of Satan. The RCC is not part of the visible church, its baptism is no more valid than that of a man standing on a street corner throwing water over people in the name of the Trinity.

A converted RC who is baptized in a Protestant church is not being rebaptized, but baptized, as they have not received the sacrament in the first place.

Were Calvin and Luther and reformers rebaptized? Wait, we went through this in recent past.

Ill just say thank goodness my salvation is not dependant upon sacraments. I will caution you again though Daniel. This vien of thought is very close to the Donatist heresy. Tred lightly here on this subject. SOme here have said it is not. But it certainly is a mirrored image of it. Administering and receiving the sacraments do not belong to individuals, but come from God to the church. The hand that dip or plunge, the person who gets wet provide absolutely no efficacy whatsoever

Calvin and Luther belonged to a scandalously corrupt church, but Rome was still a true visible church until Trent. Therefore, they did not need to be re-baptized. Yes, our salvation is not dependent upon the sacraments, but that is not the question being discussed here.

I will ask you this question: Is baptism valid if a man stands in the street and throws water over people in the name of the Trinity? If not, why not?

toddpedlar · #48 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

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.

Totally agreed.

(and I wasn't saying you in particular were painting with a broad brush... I was referring to the initial posting that I replied to, wherein I believe a 'too broad' brush was applied)

KMK · #49 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

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

Quote:

WCF 29:3 The Lord Jesus has, in this ordinance, appointed His ministers to declare His word of institution to the people, to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use

Do you believe that those who partake with grape juice are 'heretics'?

Backwoods Presbyterian · #50 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 01:48 PM

Do not be silly KMK. That is even hardly the point being made.

KMK · #51 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Do not be silly KMK. That is even hardly the point being made.

How so?

tcalbrecht · #52 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 06:09 PM

I suspect many folks are getting overworked by the word "heresy". Heresy simply means error. The notion of rebaptism was an error wrt the Reformed churches of the 16th and 17th centuries. It still is in most Reformed churches since rebaptizers would not be permitted to hold office or teach their error.

Please note that I did not say rebaptism was a damnable heresy.

KMK · #53 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

I suspect many folks are getting overworked by the word "heresy". Heresy simply means error. The notion of rebaptism was an error wrt the Reformed churches of the 16th and 17th centuries. It still is in most Reformed churches since rebaptizers would not be permitted to hold office or teach their error.

Please note that I did not say rebaptism was a damnable heresy.

Then you would say that the belief that the cup should contain grape juice is 'heresy'.

Would you also say that the belief that the Pope is the Antichrist is 'heresy'?

If so, then I think you have so diluted the word 'heresy' that it basically has no meaning at all. If you mean 'error' why don't you just use the word 'error'?

Hippo · #54 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

I suspect many folks are getting overworked by the word "heresy". Heresy simply means error.

I we should not get worked up about heresy then why not just call it error? the word loses its use if that is all it means.

Daniel Ritchie · #55 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hippo

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

I suspect many folks are getting overworked by the word "heresy". Heresy simply means error.

I we should not get worked up about heresy then why not just call it error? the word loses its use if that is all it means.

Why cause needless offence among the brothers by using an inflammatory word like heresy?

refbaptdude · #56 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 07:39 PM

Oh but Tom the church you are a member of does not mind pulling clip art from the website of the heretical church that I pastor

Covenant Reformed Baptist Church - Warrenton, VA

Covenant Reformed Church

Heresy is like a cancer(2 Tim 2:17). It starts as a little clip art on your website and before you know it, you are rebaptizing folk.

Pergamum · #57 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

I suspect many folks are getting overworked by the word "heresy". Heresy simply means error. The notion of rebaptism was an error wrt the Reformed churches of the 16th and 17th centuries. It still is in most Reformed churches since rebaptizers would not be permitted to hold office or teach their error.

Please note that I did not say rebaptism was a damnable heresy.

Heresy is more than error. Damnable heresy is redundant. Therefore, say error instead of heresy because heretics are assumed to be damned and to call an erring brother who is still a brother a heretic is uncharitable.

Houston E. · #58 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

I suspect many folks are getting overworked by the word "heresy". Heresy simply means error. The notion of rebaptism was an error wrt the Reformed churches of the 16th and 17th centuries. It still is in most Reformed churches since rebaptizers would not be permitted to hold office or teach their error.

Please note that I did not say rebaptism was a damnable heresy.

Heresy is more than error. Damnable heresy is redundant. Therefore, say error instead of heresy because heretics are assumed to be damned and to call an erring brother who is still a brother a heretic is uncharitable.

North Jersey Baptist · #59 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

I suspect many folks are getting overworked by the word "heresy". Heresy simply means error. The notion of rebaptism was an error wrt the Reformed churches of the 16th and 17th centuries. It still is in most Reformed churches since rebaptizers would not be permitted to hold office or teach their error.

Please note that I did not say rebaptism was a damnable heresy.

Tom, someone who purports heresy is a heretic. Therefore, if we believe a brother is in error about a point of doctrine should we call him a heretic? Your choice of words is poor. Think about it. If I made a post calling paedos heretics, I would expect to be jumped on. Heresy may be akin to error, but it is more than just a simple misunderstand. It is false teaching that strikes at the core of the faith. It is worthy of excommunication, and in persistent and extreme cases leads to anathema (Galatians 1:8).

You can say what you intend to say without inflaming tensions.