Re-Baptism - Page 3

Hippo · #81 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Mike, I have no problem calling a WCF Presbyterian church a true church. I don't believe your view of baptism rises to that of heresy. And by the way, I believe there is only one type of heresy; damnable heresy. There is error that does not rise to the level of heresy. That is why I can smile favorably on my Presbyterian brethren.

But would withold communion from such presbyterians?

DMcFadden · #82 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 03:34 PM

Mike,

As I indicated in some of my posts here and on another thread, Baptists are horribly inconsistent on this and many other things. Stepping outside the tiny world of confessional Baptists for a moment, EVERY Baptist pastor I ever met believed that Presbyterians (particularly evangelical as opposed to liberal ones) and Baptists share most of their theology in common and we are indeed brethren in Christ. As I noted, my last church only permitted transfer of membership of Baptists to our congregation. Those from other traditions (paedo or credo), joined our congregation by "Christian experience" (= profession that they were Christians and that they had been baptized somehow and somewhere). This would not be exactly true for confessional Baptists who take their doctrine of baptism somewhat more seriously. However, recognize that we ALL accept the validity of other people's Christian experience even when we have even greater theological disagreements with them than this one over baptism. Billy Graham is a hero of mine, flaming Arminian that he is notwithstanding. Same with Tozer. I praise the Lord for the ministry of Chuck Smith in Calvary Chapel, but have GRAVE reservations about the "charismatic movement" (cf. some of Rich's strong observations in various posts about the situation overseas).

tcalbrecht · #83 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Tom,

Anabaptists hold to a body of theological belief that is repudiated by confessional baptists. While confessional Baptists share a similar view on the proper recipients of baptism (namely, believers), we radically depart from their larger theology.

Bill,

No argument there, but that is not how we started down this trail. In my comments I have attempted to focus on the matter of rebaptism (of infants and/or by immersion) as it is practiced by both Baptists and Anabaptists.

How many different ways to I have to agree with you that Baptist and Anabaptist are not identical in all areas?

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

And to answer your question, the confessional Baptist view of baptism departs from Anabaptists in scope. Anabaptists held a more socialistic and separatist view of their existence. Confessional Baptists view baptism through the larger prism of scripture and are bound together by a codified system of beliefs; something that cannot be said about Anabaptists.

I appreciate what you are saying, but difference in scope does not necessarily equal difference in substance. On the matter of rebaptism of infants, the views are not materially different. And frankly the similarity enforces the view that confessional Baptists have a deficient view of the covenant, much like the Anabaptists.

So, allow me to say it one more time, just for the record, Baptists and Anabaptists are not identical in all areas. But in the area of the rebaptism of infants (which is a denial of the confessional position of Westminster) they are no different.

North Jersey Baptist · #84 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 03:41 PM

Mike,

I would point you to chapter 30 of the 1689 LBC for the details on Baptist requirements and observance of the Lord's Supper.

I know Baptist churches have different opinions on this. In this Baptist elders opinion, the main qualification to partake of the Lord's Supper is being a believer who is not living in unrepentant sin. I do not want to approach the Lord's Supper with a rigidity that the Lord did not intend. I suppose I would have two views towards those who participate. If you are a member of our church and you are not in unrepentant sin, you are to participate. If you are visiting with us and are Presbyterian, you would still be welcome to participate. If you intend to become a Baptist this issue will become moot. if you stay as an attender (but not a member) the elders will have to address this issue with you. It may result in your not being able to participate if you decide to attend for an extended period without applying for membership.

North Jersey Baptist · #85 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 03:46 PM

Quote:

So, allow me to say it one more time, just for the record, Baptists and Anabaptists are not identical in all areas. But in the area of the rebaptism of infants (which is a denial of the confessional position of Westminster) they are no different.

Presbyterians and Papists are no different in their view of trinitarian baptism. So? Does this mean you believe in prevenient grace and a perverted soteriology? Anabaptists practice believers baptism. Confessional Baptists practice believers baptism. That is the end of the similarity. Our reasons for and the ramifications of depart from there, just as you would buck against being associated with the Papists because you both baptize infants.

All this makes me wonder what your point is.

tcalbrecht · #86 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

All this makes me wonder what your point is.

I can see that.

Pilgrim · #87 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hippo

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hippo

Do Baptists therefore believe that members of paedobaptist churches are not part of the visible church, as surely baptism is a necessery entry requirement into such a church?

If so how can Baptists share fellowship (say on a bulletin board) with paedobaptists?

Mike, the only issue that confessional Baptists have with paeobaptists is the disposition of children, not those who profess faith. If you are a member of a true church and profess faith in Jesus Christ, confessional Baptists would consider you a member of the visible church regardless of how you were baptized.

Thanks for this, I still find it difficult to see how a church that does not (in your view) baptise is in fact a true church, however it would be disengenuous to argue that you should not take a position that I agree with just because I find it to possibly be inconsistent.

There are people on this board who don't view Baptist churches as being "true churches" either and wouldn't allow Baptists to come to the table.

armourbearer · #88 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

There are people on this board who don't view Baptist churches as being "true churches" either and wouldn't allow Baptists to come to the table.

The last time this was argued out it became apparent that they are a very small minority and not representative of the general Presbyterian tradition.

Pilgrim · #89 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

There are people on this board who don't view Baptist churches as being "true churches" either and wouldn't allow Baptists to come to the table.

The last time this was argued out it became apparent that they are a very small minority and not representative of the general Presbyterian tradition.

This is true about the Presbyterian tradition. What I had in mind was moreso the continental Reformed tradition, which I understand tends to be more restrictive in this area and unlike most Presbyterian churches, have confessional membership, etc.

armourbearer · #90 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

This is true about the Presbyterian tradition. What I had in mind was moreso the continental Reformed tradition, which I understand tends to be more restrictive in this area and unlike most Presbyterian churches, have confessional membership, etc.

I would be interested to hear from brethren in (Dutch) Reformed churches to see if there is much difference.

Pilgrim · #91 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

This is true about the Presbyterian tradition. What I had in mind was moreso the continental Reformed tradition, which I understand tends to be more restrictive in this area and unlike most Presbyterian churches, have confessional membership, etc.

I would be interested to hear from brethren in (Dutch) Reformed churches to see if there is much difference.

I would too. It is possible that I may not be remembering previous interactions accurately and/or that the views expressed may not have been representative of that tradition as a whole.

Semper Fidelis · #92 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

There are people on this board who don't view Baptist churches as being "true churches" either and wouldn't allow Baptists to come to the table.

The last time this was argued out it became apparent that they are a very small minority and not representative of the general Presbyterian tradition.

This is true about the Presbyterian tradition. What I had in mind was moreso the continental Reformed tradition, which I understand tends to be more restrictive in this area and unlike most Presbyterian churches, have confessional membership, etc.

I've noticed the same thing. It's interesting to me what the Presbyterians seem to be more "serious" about (at least in terms of discussion here) than the Dutch Reformed and vice versa. Usually its Presbyterians who are the sole champions for certain RPW things but then Dutch Reformed tend to make us look like we're softees when it comes to Baptism.

Pilgrim · #93 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The last time this was argued out it became apparent that they are a very small minority and not representative of the general Presbyterian tradition.

This is true about the Presbyterian tradition. What I had in mind was moreso the continental Reformed tradition, which I understand tends to be more restrictive in this area and unlike most Presbyterian churches, have confessional membership, etc.

I've noticed the same thing. It's interesting to me what the Presbyterians seem to be more "serious" about (at least in terms of discussion here) than the Dutch Reformed and vice versa. Usually its Presbyterians who are the sole champions for certain RPW things but then Dutch Reformed tend to make us look like we're softees when it comes to Baptism.

I haven't studied the issue much but I've seen it argued that this is perhaps in part explained by the historical circumstances around the time of the English Civil War.

tcalbrecht · #94 (**permalink**) 06-30-2008, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

I believe the Federal Vision is Heresy. What do you think Tom? Or would you rather just call it error?

Is this the post?

Anyway, since the Federal Vision controversy is contemporary, how 'bout we use something a bit more 17th century.

The Canons of Dordt were written to specifically combat the heresy of Arminianism. I would contend that the legitimate errors of the Federal Vision are heresy in the same sense as Arminianism.

However, if you read Dordt they simply speak with language like "the Synod rejects the errors of those … ." I would speak similarly of the legitimate errors of FV.

I believe the Protestant Reformers saw the novelties of the (Ana)Baptists in much the same light, charging that such views were heresy in the sense that they deviated from the historic views of the Church on things like paedobaptism and immersionist baptism.

A legitimate question might be, where do we draw the line of error -> heresy -> damnable heresy? I think we would agree that things like Unitarianism are damnable heresies. I might suggest the same is true of Pelagianism. What about Arminianism? Are all Arminians damnable heretics or just garden-variety heretics? What about dispensationalism?

I’m not trying to evade your question unless you are trying to box me into a corner.

PuritanCovenanter · #95 (**permalink**) 06-30-2008, 03:24 PM

That is where I first posted a question? And Yes, I would like a specific answer I guess.

Which do you consider to be a heresy that doesn't cling to a confession? The credo or the FV?

I agree that dispensationalism is outside and heresy and should be repented of. I do not believe it puts one completely outside of being redeemed. I believe that semi-pelagianism is the same. It should be repented of. I also believe the FV should be repented of. What thinkest thou? What are the legitimate errors of the FV in your thinking Tom. I specifically mentioned the efficacy of Baptism since that was the topic in this thread. Should the FV's doctrine concerning the efficacy of Baptism be repented of?

I guess we need a doctrine of heresy. One which notices variant levels of degree and teaching. But I think that tends to confuse issues somewhat when the word is used alone.

tcalbrecht · #96 (**permalink**) 06-30-2008, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

That is where I first posted a question? And Yes, I would like a specific answer I guess.

I’d prefer the discussion in some other context besides Federal Vision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Which do you consider to be a heresy that doesn't cling to a confession? The credo or the FV?

But if you insist …

To my knowledge, no self-identified Federal Visionist has been judged out of accord with a Confession in the area of baptismal efficacy by any church court. While the LBCF is an acceptable creed as far as membership in this board, it is not a confession what I can maintain as orthodox on all counts. And while a Federal Visionist may at some point be unwelcome from teaching their view on baptism in a Westminster church, so would every adherent to the LBCF for the same reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

I agree that dispensationalism is outside and heresy and should be repented of. I do not believe it puts one completely outside of being redeemed. I believe that semi-pelagianism is the same. It should be repented of. I also believe the FV should be repented of. What thinkest thou? What are the legitimate errors of the FV in your thinking Tom. I specifically mentioned the efficacy of Baptism since that was the topic in this thread. Should the FV's doctrine concerning the efficacy of Baptism be repented of?

I do not claim to be expert in the matter of Federal Vision, that is why I switched to speak of Arminianism. Whether the anti-FV folks have correctly characterized the FV on the matter of baptismal efficacy is the subject of some debate. It seems to me that the views of many of those identified with FV are closer to the claims of Westminster on the matter of baptism than those who hold to the LBCF. In addition, if the FV-types who are in disagreement with Westminster came along and modified the Westminster Confession to support their novel views, they would be in a similar position to the framers of the LBCF in their day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

I guess we need a doctrine of heresy. One which notices variant levels of degree and teaching. But I think that tends to confuse issues somewhat when the word is used alone.

I agree, but others here do not, saying that damnable heresy is redundant.

Semper Fidelis · #97 (**permalink**) 06-30-2008, 08:50 PM

Lane "Yoda" Baggins made an interesting point in a recent interview that Reformed Churches will likely get along a lot better with the FV when they're not in our Presbyteries or Synods insisting that they are Confessional and trying to re-work Reformed theology from within Reformed bodies. I obviously have serious problems with their views of Covenant and how one is united to Christ but once they're outside of Reformed Churches then it will be less problematic.

But, once they stop calling themselves Reformed, their views on what baptism confers are really not much different than the Anglican or Lutheran views. I believe it is error but the more serious error of the FV is, as noted, a view of justification that tries to shoehorn sanctification into its definition. Obedience is equated with trust and it is no longer a laying hold of Christ and His righteousness alone as instrumental to our justification.

Of course, with any theology, it is sort of impossible to separate one error from another and the baptismal view cannot be fully divorced from their view of justification.