Baptism, re-baptism, and church membership

Status
Not open for further replies.
...and, according to your Confession, God cares most about the externals in the ordinance?

Come on over and eat some twinkies and Sprite for communion then.

Just sticking to the issue of baptism, externals do matter in some ways and not so in other ways.

Examples of where externals do not matter:
  • baptized in a river, swimming pool or church baptismal does not matter
  • baptized going forward face-first or backwards doesn't matter

Examples of where externals can questionably matter:
  • baptized in Gatorade instead of water
  • baptized in a shower or bathtub where only a handful rather than the entire church body could witness

Examples of where externals DO matter:
  • self-baptized instead of by another person (an ordained pastor/elder)
  • baptisms by any parachurch organization
  • baptisms by any non-evangelical church or organization

So, yes, externals do not matter, can matter, and do matter. The common agreement that Paedobaptists and Credobaptists have are on matters not related to mode and manner. Where the disagreement lies is in mode (infant vs. believer's) and manner (sprinkled or immersed).
 
Last edited:
Rich, baptism by immersion is representative of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. That is why mode is important to Baptists.

And there is not a piece of Scriptural support for this connection. Hence immersionists nullify God's ordinances by their human traditions.
 
We all follow some sort of formula don't we Rich. Baptizing in water, for instance, instead of a dip in jello. We also baptize in the name of the Trinity.

Our respective formulas just differ as to what makes or breaks the deal (i.e. how much leeway is possible before we count the exercise not as baptism bt as not merely irregular but invalid altogether).

If you jump on the baptists for being too picky on the externals, make sure you remember this the next time you argue for wine instead of grape juice in the Lord's supper or even juice at all instead of orange drink or Fanta Orang soda. Insistance on bread and wine sounds so formulaic, after all, doesn't it?

I think the difference here is more subtle than that.

For one thing, the difference between an adult with a false profession and a child with no verbal profession is really no difference from the standpoint of the requirement for a true profession.

Water was used for both and a minister performed the baptism for both.

In fact, the Baptist will even have to acknowledge that an "improperly baptized" person demonstrates every fruit of regeneration and the blessing of God.

It really boils down to, externally, was the person's mental capacity added to the baptism and was the person completely immersed in the water. It's not a distinction between monkeys and men or jello and water.

This idea that "...we want to be obedient to the Word..." carries a problem if it is acknowledged that those baptized as infants grew to be God-fearing Christians. In other words, why has God blessed their "disobedience"? There is no such parallel in Scripture. To repudiate circumcision in the OT wasn't about the type of cut that was administered to the tip of the penis but about the fact that there was a circumcision but, most importantly, whether that person was being discipled and was a disciple of the Living God.

And so, I ask again, how does the Baptist avoid the notion that it's more important that a person had the minimal mental acuity for the event or that was sufficiently wet given the admission that the profession can be all messed up and blessing is present in those that didn't pass the oral exam or only got sprinkled?
 
Matthew, really? That is rather ad hominem of you. Not something I usually expect.

R.C. Sproul (no Baptist, I might add) wrote:

Christian baptism, which has the form of a ceremonial washing (like John's pre-Christian baptism), is a sign from God that signifies inward cleansing and remission of sins (Acts 22:16; 1 Cor. 6:11; Eph. 5:25-27), Spirit-wrought regeneration and new life (Titus 3:5), and the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit as God's seal testifying and guaranteeing that one will be kept safe in Christ forever (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:34,14). Fundamentally, baptism signifies union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-7; Col. 2:11, 12) and this union with Christ is the source of every element of our salvation (1 John 5:11, 12). Receiving the sign of baptism in faith assures those baptized that God's gift of new life in Christ is freely given to them. At the same time, it commits them to live in a new way as disciples of Jesus.
I would quote our confession to you but it would serve little purpose since you are not beholding to it. I'm also not trying to convince paedobaptists. I'd be just as happy if this serves to encourage and fortify the faith of my Baptist brethren.
 
Rich, baptism by immersion is representative of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. That is why mode is important to Baptists.

And there is not a piece of Scriptural support for this connection. Hence immersionists nullify God's ordinances by their human traditions.

On the contrary:

Romans 6:3-4 / Colossians 2:12

*sigh... Looks like I'll be in the discussion after all...
 
Matthew, really? That is rather ad hominem of you. Not something I usually expect.

R.C. Sproul (no Baptist, I might add) wrote:

Christian baptism, which has the form of a ceremonial washing (like John's pre-Christian baptism), is a sign from God that signifies inward cleansing and remission of sins (Acts 22:16; 1 Cor. 6:11; Eph. 5:25-27), Spirit-wrought regeneration and new life (Titus 3:5), and the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit as God's seal testifying and guaranteeing that one will be kept safe in Christ forever (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:34,14). Fundamentally, baptism signifies union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-7; Col. 2:11, 12) and this union with Christ is the source of every element of our salvation (1 John 5:11, 12). Receiving the sign of baptism in faith assures those baptized that God's gift of new life in Christ is freely given to them. At the same time, it commits them to live in a new way as disciples of Jesus.
I would quote our confession to you but it would serve little purpose since you are not beholding to it. I'm also not trying to convince paedobaptists. I'd be just as happy if this serves to encourage and fortify the faith of my Baptist brethren.

Your quote does not establish what you argued above. Yes our baptism signifies our union with Christ in His death and resurrection but the argument does not follow that we should have a mode where we're being buried in a "watery grave" and brought back out so people can see a re-enactment of the event signified. That's an idea inserted into the text.
 
Rich, baptism by immersion is representative of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. That is why mode is important to Baptists.

And there is not a piece of Scriptural support for this connection. Hence immersionists nullify God's ordinances by their human traditions.

On the contrary:

Romans 6:3-4 / Colossians 2:12

*sigh... Looks like I'll be in the discussion after all...

Again, you're inserting a view that Paul has mode in mind. In fact, pressed too hard, it argues that the mode itself is what unites us to Christ. Baptism signifies these things but faith is the instrument of union with Christ in His death and resurrection. The idea that, by being immersed, we're "buried with Christ" carries with it the idea that the ordinance itself confers union with Christ.
 
Matthew, really? That is rather ad hominem of you. Not something I usually expect.

Bill, there was no ad hominem either by way of argument or abusive. I drew a conclusion on the basis that immersion as a mode is not tied to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ in Scripture. But for you to say that I personally have acted less than your usual expections is an ad hominem abusive.

Quoting Sproul to the effect that baptism unites to Christ in His death, burial and resurrection is irrelevant, because you haven't established a Scriptural connection between mode and what baptism signifies. Moreover, Jesus wasn't buried by being immersed; and baptism also signifies the "outpouring" of the Holy Spirit.
 
And there is not a piece of Scriptural support for this connection. Hence immersionists nullify God's ordinances by their human traditions.

On the contrary:

Romans 6:3-4 / Colossians 2:12

*sigh... Looks like I'll be in the discussion after all...

Again, you're inserting a view that Paul has mode in mind. In fact, pressed too hard, it argues that the mode itself is what unites us to Christ. Baptism signifies these things but faith is the instrument of union with Christ in His death and resurrection. The idea that, by being immersed, we're "buried with Christ" carries with it the idea that the ordinance itself confers union with Christ.

You are correct in saying that we (Baptists) are viewing that Paul has mode in mind because what better way symbolizes this? Not sprinking, but immersion. But Baptists do not interpret this to mean that baptism is itself the union with Christ, but that it is the symbolism of the union that came through faith.
 
On the contrary:

Romans 6:3-4 / Colossians 2:12

*sigh... Looks like I'll be in the discussion after all...

Again, you're inserting a view that Paul has mode in mind. In fact, pressed too hard, it argues that the mode itself is what unites us to Christ. Baptism signifies these things but faith is the instrument of union with Christ in His death and resurrection. The idea that, by being immersed, we're "buried with Christ" carries with it the idea that the ordinance itself confers union with Christ.

You are correct in saying that we (Baptists) are viewing that Paul has mode in mind because what better way symbolizes this? Not sprinking, but immersion. But Baptists do not interpret this to mean that baptism is itself the union with Christ, but that it is the symbolism of the union that came through faith.

Understood but the point is that you can't just quote Romans 6:3-4 and say: "What better symbolizes this?"

Baptism signifies more than burial and resurrection. As Matthew noted, it also symbolizes the outpouring of the Spirit.

Why, for instance, is pouring then not a more apt mode especially since this is the only evidence we have of the mode of baptism in the Acts? Namely, that the Holy Spirit was poured out on those who received the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
 
*sigh... Looks like I'll be in the discussion after all...

Will, the thread is all yours. I'm taking a mental health break for awhile. I'm going to pound 3" nails in my skull. It should be more satisfying. :lol:
 
Here is a 3" nail for the exclusive immersionist's idealogical coffin. In John 13, Peter made the same mistake of laying undue stress on mode, when he asked not only that his feet be washed but every part of him. Our Lord taught him that he that is washed only needs to have his feet washed and is cleansed in every part. The believer is thoroughly washed in the sufferings and obedience of Jesus Christ; the water is but a symbol, and therefore only needs to be applied to one part of the person in order to represent his cleansing all over.
 
Again, you're inserting a view that Paul has mode in mind. In fact, pressed too hard, it argues that the mode itself is what unites us to Christ. Baptism signifies these things but faith is the instrument of union with Christ in His death and resurrection. The idea that, by being immersed, we're "buried with Christ" carries with it the idea that the ordinance itself confers union with Christ.

You are correct in saying that we (Baptists) are viewing that Paul has mode in mind because what better way symbolizes this? Not sprinking, but immersion. But Baptists do not interpret this to mean that baptism is itself the union with Christ, but that it is the symbolism of the union that came through faith.

Understood but the point is that you can't just quote Romans 6:3-4 and say: "What better symbolizes this?"

Baptism signifies more than burial and resurrection. As Matthew noted, it also symbolizes the outpouring of the Spirit.

Why, for instance, is pouring then not a more apt mode especially since this is the only evidence we have of the mode of baptism in the Acts? Namely, that the Holy Spirit was poured out on those who received the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

The Acts 2:23 reference to the Pentecost that Christ poured out the Holy Spirit to the church has no significance to individual baptism, but if it did, then yes, Christ's pouring of the Spirit to the church wasn't just small drops on the rooftops of the church, but completely busted the doors open and saturated the entire body. What better symbolizes the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the believer that isn't just small drops on the rooftops of our hair, but completely saturates the entire body?

Acts 10:44-45 is one of the best passages that illustrates God's gift of salvation to all nations, Jews and Gentiles, through the Holy Spirit. The gift of salvation is a complete total pouring. What a better way of illustrating this complete pouring of the Holy Spirit's role in the redemptive work of salvation than immersion - the complete outpouring on the entire body (not just a few strands of hair on the head).

Romans 5:5 is also another passages where baptism by immersion best illustrates the complete love of God poured into the hearts of believers. Sprinkling seems to symbolize that just a small dab of God's love was given. But total immersion symbolizes that God's complete love has not just filled but overflows out of the heart of the believer to share abundantly with others.

Now, I realize you may not agree with me or the Baptist perspective/interpretation on these passages. But I thank you for asking the question. And let us all remind ourselves that this difference in Baptism (aside from anyone who believes in Baptismal Regeneration) are not grounds for us to lose ourselves. And whether we've been sprinkled or immersed, let's demonstrate the baptism of the Holy Spirit in us toward others around us.
 
Alas, another baptism thread degenerates. Wasn't this about Todd wanting clear answers? Sigh....
Understood but the point is that you can't just quote Romans 6:3-4 and say: "What better symbolizes this?"

Baptism signifies more than burial and resurrection. As Matthew noted, it also symbolizes the outpouring of the Spirit.

If we can get back to an effort to understand, as this thread attempted to start out doing, Rich has a valid observation. We can't take this verse and say, "See, there it is." This verse is included in our comprehensive understanding as credos. However, on its own, it does not make the case plain. It has to do with the Analogy of Faith, exegesis of various texts and a systematic understanding of baptism. All of these conspire together to help us understand baptism.

The problem with what I expect Todd is facing, and what many Baptist churches face, is that they do NOT have a comprehensive understanding of baptism. Though, from a Baptist perspective, the doctrine of baptism seems blatantly simple, a thorough understanding is helpful, and needed for those who proclaim Christ from a credo understanding. This is missing in most Baptist preachers that I have met, so is not clearly understood in their churches.
 
If we can get back to an effort to understand, as this thread attempted to start out doing, Rich has a valid observation. We can't take this verse and say, "See, there it is." This verse is included in our comprehensive understanding as credos. However, on its own, it does not make the case plain. It has to do with the Analogy of Faith, exegesis of various texts and a systematic understanding of baptism. All of these conspire together to help us understand baptism.

The problem with what I expect Todd is facing, and what many Baptist churches face, is that they do NOT have a comprehensive understanding of baptism. Though, from a Baptist perspective, the doctrine of baptism seems blatantly simple, a thorough understanding is helpful, and needed for those who proclaim Christ from a credo understanding. This is missing in most Baptist preachers that I have met, so is not clearly understood in their churches.

And I would charge Presbyterians of the same lack of thorough exegesis and understanding of baptism from a comprehensive ecclesiological role of the holistic church concept that includes Lord's Supper, Salvation, church membership, etc., whereas it is Baptist ecclesiology that makes the best argument and biblical case on this. And I have yet to find a Presbyterian pastor or elder that has a clear understanding of this.

So where does this line of argument lead us beyond heated emotions?
 
Last edited:
Will, you're derailing it again. I didn't make these comments to prove anything against Baptists. I AM a credo. Swinging the discussion around against Presbyterians doesn't help the conversation at all.

The line of discussion that I put forward leads to a need for credo churches to not only take a position, but understand their position more thoroughly. I've only been involved in two churches that truly understood why they were credo. I've been in several that could offer a simplistic argument. But so much is missed in this. Again, I think this is what Todd is facing. The situation at hand reveals an incomplete and, hence, inconsistent understanding of baptism.
 
Will, you're derailing it again. I didn't make these comments to prove anything against Baptists. I AM a credo. Swinging the discussion around against Presbyterians doesn't help the conversation at all. The line of discussion that I put forward leads to a need for credo churches to not only take a position, but understand their position more thoroughly. I've only been involved in two churches that truly understood why they were credo. I've been in several that could offer a simplistic argument. But so much is missed in this. Again, I think this is what Todd is facing. The situation at hand reveals an incomplete and, hence, inconsistent understanding of baptism.

OK, brother. No heated emotions intended or derailment was intended by anyone.

So to answer you properly, I don't think a proper answer can be given for this reason. The two sides are viewing the issue from two completely different perspectives to such a degree that the other is clearly illogical and deficient if attempting to fit the framework of the previous side's argumentation. In other words, the Baptist argument will fail if attempting to fit the Presbyterian logic, and the Presbyterian logic utterly fails when lined up to Baptist logic.

And where Todd and many others are struggling is in trying to piece together and resolve the apparent differences of the two logics and trying to explain one in accordance to the standards of logic in the other. And so long as anyone remains in that position, they will find only disappointment that the other side's arguments fail.
 
Last edited:
Good observations, Will. I hope I didn't come across as "heated." It was intended as a gentle nudge.
As an interesting side note, it's good for us to remember that our Presbyterian brethren agree that believer's baptism is appropriate where no prior baptism has taken place. Keeping this in mind can often help to narrow the discussion.

Perhaps it would help to simply remind ourselves that Todd's desire was to help in a situation that showed a Baptist church that is inconsistent in its understanding of baptism. The last paragraph is particularly pertinent.
I'd like to know from the credo-baptists among us why the following sort of thing occurs today in the modern church. These are not hypothetical cases, but real situations I know about, and am considering responding to by contacting the pastors and/or individuals involved - but wanted to flesh out the discussion here first.

When a family desires to join a baptist church - is inquiry always made about the baptisms of the family? I.e. were they baptized as infants, professors, whatever? I assume that if they are accepted as members either a) the church recognizes infant baptism of those so baptized as valid or b) the church accepts into membership those that it does not view as having properly been baptized. I'm particularly interested in knowing the difference between Reformed baptists and those who are involved in the SBC, or other baptist wings of the church that don't confessionally hold to the LBC.

Supposing situation a) above... what if a person who joined the church desired later to be baptized as an act of obedience, because personally they viewed their earlier infant baptism to be invalid. How would such a person be counselled in this case?

It seems to me that a proper view of church membership must include, in any case, the acceptance of the baptism of the proposed member - or include the baptism of that proposed member as an act of joining the church. Is that consistent with most baptist practice (esp. in "Reformed baptist" circles)? Could a member be accepted if the church viewed him as unbaptized - and... if he was viewed as baptized, would a "new" baptism ever be performed under any circumstances?

I hope the discussion is profitable - not just because of what I've run across but for the understanding about modern baptist (and Reformed baptist) practice for those of us who are steeped in paedobaptism personally and just haven't the experience with various kinds of credobaptist practices.

If someone notices an inconsistency in our church, I would hope that they would bring it to our attention. We might disagree, but at least it would give us an opportunity to study and pray about it.
 
I hope I didn't come across as "heated."
I didn't see it as heated. Only that the way you communicated your concerns, I was questioning if anything fruitful could result from it beyond heated emotions and that the other side could make equal claims toward the previous side.

But in communicating that, if I had come across being guilty of heated emotions and derailing the thread, forgive me as that was certainly not my intent either.
 
And I would charge Presbyterians of the same lack of thorough exegesis and understanding of baptism from a comprehensive ecclesiological role of the holistic church concept that includes Lord's Supper, Salvation, church membership, etc., whereas it is Baptist ecclesiology that makes the best argument and biblical case on this. And I have yet to find a Presbyterian pastor or elder that has a clear understanding of this.

So where does this line of argument lead us beyond heated emotions?

Will,

Let me understand, is what you are saying that Presbyterians obviously lack a thorough exegesis, etc and clear understanding of the issues otherwise they would be Baptists?

Isn't that a bit disingenuous?
 
And I would charge Presbyterians of the same lack of thorough exegesis and understanding of baptism from a comprehensive ecclesiological role of the holistic church concept that includes Lord's Supper, Salvation, church membership, etc., whereas it is Baptist ecclesiology that makes the best argument and biblical case on this. And I have yet to find a Presbyterian pastor or elder that has a clear understanding of this.

So where does this line of argument lead us beyond heated emotions?

Will,

Let me understand, is what you are saying that Presbyterians obviously lack a thorough exegesis, etc and clear understanding of the issues otherwise they would be Baptists?

Isn't that a bit disingenuous?

No, it was merely a demonstration to reciprocate the same line of bad logic being presented by the brother to whom I was responding to show that such a method of argumentation doesn't do anything but cause emotional heat. But he clarified himself, and I had misread his post. So please don't read into it. Thanks.
 
I find it illogical that Baptists conflate their position on credobaptism with a position on the mode of baptism. The arguments and consequences of those arguments for each position are very different but they are presented as an inevitible logical package.

As has been pointed out the insistence (rather than the strong preference) on mode is very hard to defend, either theologically or historically.

The rather counterintuitive conclusion that arises is also that Baptists have a rather low (in a theological rather than a moral sense) view of baptism.

A Presbyterian would not accept anyone who has not been baptised as a member of the Church, baptism is so important it is not optional. A Baptist does not accept that a presbyterian has been baptised but still accepts that person as a member of the Church.

For a Baptist the administration of baptism is subjective (was it a real profession of faith, did the baptised really feel repentant, was the water deep enough?) wheras for a presbyterian it is an objective fact.

I do not think that paedobaptists such as myself should get too worked up on this subject as we have no problem with believers baptism as being valid and the mode of baptism is of limited importance, there is also historical acceptance of their position. It is much more a problem for Baptists and how they are able to have fellowship with those they see as unbaptised. However it is an important point and it is unsatisfactory to just repeat what a confession says.
 
I do not think that paedobaptists such as myself should get too worked up on this subject as we have no problem with believers baptism as being valid and the mode of baptism is of limited importance, there is also historical acceptance of their position. It is much more a problem for Baptists and how they are able to have fellowship with those they see as unbaptised. However it is an important point and it is unsatisfactory to just repeat what a confession says.

Egggs actly!!!!
 
A Presbyterian would not accept anyone who has not been baptised as a member of the Church, baptism is so important it is not optional. A Baptist does not accept that a presbyterian has been baptised but still accepts that person as a member of the Church.

Allow me to make a point of clarification on this matter. Currently, Baptists are divided on this issue about our relationship with paedobaptists desiring to join Baptist churches. One group of Baptists want to have the attitude of the Presbyterians of recognizing paedobaptism as legitimate baptism and, consequently, accepting them into membership. Another group of Baptists remain firm to the historical doctrinal position Baptists have always stood on from the beginning by not recognizing paedobaptism as legitimate, and thus until they are baptized by professed believers, are not considered members but mere visitors or guests.

I haven't run into the scenario you give where a church rejects paedobaptism but nonetheless accepts them into church membership. If such Baptist churches and groups do exist, they are definitely in the wrong.

Please note one thing. Many Baptist churches today are in terrible shape on this issue of baptism and church membership. Which is why the SBC had an annual meeting earlier this month to discuss the issue of Regenerate Church Membership. Much of the historical and theological foundations have been lost as a result of pragmatism, church growth movement, liberalism, etc. So Founder's Ministry, 9Marks, and other Reformed Baptist ministries are calling all Baptists back to the biblical and historically Baptist roots.

If you wish to see a true model of historic Reformed Baptist ecclesiology of baptism and its implication to church membership, please visit an ARBCA church or CHBC in D.C. Any other Baptist church, including many associated with Founders Ministry, are in various stages on this.
 
A Presbyterian would not accept anyone who has not been baptised as a member of the Church, baptism is so important it is not optional. A Baptist does not accept that a presbyterian has been baptised but still accepts that person as a member of the Church.

Allow me to make a point of clarification on this matter. Currently, Baptists are divided on this issue about our relationship with paedobaptists desiring to join Baptist churches. One group of Baptists want to have the attitude of the Presbyterians of recognizing paedobaptism as legitimate baptism and, consequently, accepting them into membership. Another group of Baptists remain firm to the historical doctrinal position Baptists have always stood on from the beginning by not recognizing paedobaptism as legitimate, and thus until they are baptized by professed believers, are not considered members but mere visitors or guests.

I haven't run into the scenario you give where a church rejects paedobaptism but nonetheless accepts them into church membership. If such Baptist churches and groups do exist, they are definitely in the wrong.

Please note one thing. Many Baptist churches today are in terrible shape on this issue of baptism and church membership. Which is why the SBC had an annual meeting earlier this month to discuss the issue of Regenerate Church Membership. Much of the historical and theological foundations have been lost as a result of pragmatism, church growth movement, liberalism, etc. So Founder's Ministry, 9Marks, and other Reformed Baptist ministries are calling all Baptists back to the biblical and historically Baptist roots.

If you wish to see a true model of historic Reformed Baptist ecclesiology of baptism and its implication to church membership, please visit an ARBCA church or CHBC in D.C. Any other Baptist church, including many associated with Founders Ministry, are in various stages on this.

You misunderstand my point, it is not that baptists accept paedobaptists as members of their church (which as you say would be a minority position) but that they accept paedobaptists as members of the visible Catholic Church. I would not equate a single Baptist church with "The Church".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top