Dabney on Immersionists

[Blueridge Believer]

I believe we could all learn a great deal from brother Bunyan:

http://www.siteone.com/religion/baptist/baptistpage/Portraits/print/print_bunyan.html

What may seem like a question for church historians and no one else is whether Bunyan was really a Baptist at all. The answer is important to modern Christians as you will see. There can be no doubt that Bunyan had little use for denominational titles. He once said:

"As for those titles of Anabaptists, Independents, Presbyterians, or the like, I conclude that they come neither from Jerusalem nor from Antioch, but rather from hell and Babylon, for they naturally tend to division."4

In fact, it would probably be safer to call Bunyan a baptist rather than a Baptist. He was baptized as a believing adult and often taught that baptism should be administered only to those who had heard and embraced the gospel. At the same time, Bunyan did not believe that either baptism or the Lord's Supper should divide true Christians. "Instead of accenting the differences … he emphasized the fundamentals of the faith which all true believers shared. He defended the gospel as the basis of Christian unity … When he involved himself in controversy, he did so because he saw a challenge to the gospel itself."5 Bunyan was a baptist in the sense that he held to what became the foundational tenets of Baptists. He was committed to God's Word first and foremost; he held to a congregational form of church government; and he strongly emphasized justification by faith alone.

Bunyan certainly was in sympathy with the Particular Baptists in his firm grip on the Doctrines of Grace. We, of what is sometimes called the Reformed Faith, could learn much from John Bunyan. He was far more interested in God's glory and man's salvation than he was in restrictive denominational tags.

By the time of Bunyan’s death in 1688, eleven editions of The Pilgrim’s Progress had been published with over 100,000 copies in print. He left a legacy of many other great books and poems. None of these, however, are his greatest legacy to us. Bunyan’s greatest gift to the church was his demonstration that the Doctrines of Grace are not static or cold. The gospel is not predestination - it is Christ! Grace is how God brings us to Christ. Above all Bunyan loved Christ. He preached Christ and exalted Christ.

"There was first and foremost in John Bunyan a deep personal love for his Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ ... Bunyan's books are full of Christ - His welcome, His unshakable truth, his advocacy for sinners ... His preaching and writing were Christ-centered, and it was this that carried men's hearts captive to Christ. If our present day preachers and theologians had the same emphasis a very different spirit would prevail in both the Church and the State." 6

 

[Kevin]

Bringing this back around to Larry. I am looking at Acts 19:1-5 brother and noticed that the disciples of John were baptized twice. Circumcized once probably, Baptized unto repentance under John the Baptist, and then Rebaptized in Christ by Paul. Wow!

What a title.... 'Paul the Rebaptizer'.

Many "first-generation" christians would have been baptised 2 or possibly many times. They could have received the "baptism of repentance", "lepers baptism", or any one of the many other OT baptisms.

Would they could only receive one time was Christian Baptism.

 

[Larry Hughes]

Randy,

I hope you realize you've not helped your cause at all by this parcel of Scripture, in fact it wars against you.

John's Baptism was not the same baptism, that's the difference and thus hardly a "rebaptism". And note well, the subsequent Christian baptism did not in anyway nullify John's baptism as a "non-baptism". This hardly supports the baptistic issuance of "rebaptism" on the basis of a first real and true baptism "not being baptism" at all. In other words it ‘existed’ as real, true and valid for reasons other than the receiver.

If we set up the escape proof situation an adult immersed but doesn't really have faith at the same church, same pastor, etc...then later really comes to faith do you "rebaptize", and this is an extremely valid situation I've seen numerous times; then either way a baptist looks at it he has a manifest problem with a person baptized the first time. How so?

1. Looking at it from the reformed/Lutheran point of view the baptism is valid because of the name of God and Word of God. Baptism, comes into "being" or "reality", if you will, based objectively on that and not on the person's faith, the giver of the baptism (true or false pastor). The sacrament is objectively real without these being true (i.e. faith or no faith). So, from the ref./luth. perspective if the baptist "rebaptizes" he has mocked God's name and Word and in effect said, by way of the visible ceremonial witness of the second "baptism" said, "God's name means nothing nor His promise". For to say, the first time, "I baptize you IN THE NAME OF the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit", is another way of saying I give this gift to you by the authority of whose name is attached to it (the Great Commission).

Or

2. Looking at it from the baptistic point of view the baptist must realize from HIS OWN theological stance that he in fact in some point and time, under the first baptism, gave God's name under a vain ceremony. He said at that point and time, "I baptize you IN THE NAME OF the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit". Now this is not true since the first baptism, #1, is true and valid, but the baptistic doctrine on this is internally problematic on its own grounds.

That’s the difference. Baptism to a ref. or luth. is utterly objective to the receiver based upon the name, power, and strength of God. It is not to the Baptist. The Baptist will say to his dying breath “do not trust in your baptism, stuck in a Roman understanding as a work of man and thus defending against it (this would be correct). However, the proper address is to address Rome’s poisoning of it not throwing out its biblical reality altogether. By being stuck on Rome’s understanding the Baptist sadly misses a great part of the Cross, this is very very sad, I’ve been there. But in reality to the “ear”, if you will of those understanding it say as ref. or even luth. understand it, to say, “don’t trust in your baptism”, is saying by exact equivalent, “don’t trust in the name of God nor the promise of God”, which of course is unbelief. AND that’s why the two can never come together. The Gospel cannot be surrendered no matter how much we agree on the naked Word itself. And secondly, for the same reasons, the ref./luth. see baptism as a Gospel aid to faith, not secondary badge after the fact and not a hindrance to faith (rebaptism).

To me it’s not a ever an “anger” or “I’m right and your wrong” thing but an issue over the Gospel itself. I hold dear to men like Spurgeon and would be the first to admit that the BEST GOSPEL preachers I’ve ever read are OLD Baptist and Lutherans, not to mention Luther and Spurgeon to say the least – few reformed, save Calvin and some early early reformers preached the sweetness of the Gospel such as these did – that’s of course a non-exhaustive reading on my part though. My advice would always be find the man cutting the Law and Gospel straight and who GIVES you Christ, even if I had no choice but return to a Baptist church for lack of that elsewhere. I’ve given my wife standing orders should something ever happen to me; teach the kids the Gospel in their baptism, never let them be rebaptized and rebuke for their souls sake anyone who advises them so as if rebuking the devil’s words himself; but if things should change and the preaching change from solid Law/Gospel with Gospel/grace given the last word and you don’t know where to go among the plethora of churches out there, default to a confessional Lutheran church for the odds are greater they maintain this and of course evaluate ANY preaching on this if for nothing else. Nothing less than your souls are at stake.

Because the issue is the Gospel I can’t lay it down even unto death. To do so would be tantamount to denying the Gospel on the issue of the Sacraments. And I did come from a baptistic background even though I was an atheist most of my adult life.

Though I can never give in on the doctrine in this, Gospel, it never divides us in the sense of brotherhood and I look forward to that day in heaven when we will both, all, no longer have ANY issues between us that our flesh and/or the devil has blinded us all too, and I have many Redwood size planks in my eye I assure you!

Yours always In our Lord,

Larry

 

[Larry Hughes]

Trever,

I hope you get to feeling better!!!

L

Bill,

Believe it or not my closest brother, friend and co-worker is exactly where you are. We discuss this frequently, so it puts a smile on my face, a happy one!

I do believe in believers baptism. But what does that term mean? Can any of us be assured that a person is born again? It is possible that a person can fool an entire church until the day they day? It sure is possible. But that's not the point. I am not called to understand the persons soul condition. My confidence may be high, but there is no ironclad method of proving whether a person being baptized is actually born again. Being a bullet point type of guy, let me list my view on this issue:

Agreed.

Larry, I'm not your normal Baptist, but this is how I see things.

You certainly are not, and I know of one more just like you wrestling with it!

Those points are good but what do you do with the baptized adult in the "right way" and assumed timing but later isn't? And don’t you see you are designing baptism as a “post faith” reality not an objective reality FOR faith. And by doing so, baptism is of no avail to the struggling Christian. And all the sacraments are for faith, baptism is not a lie, it is not a seal of a lie based on the faith of the person receiving. This is one of the reasons Luther correctly observed that is we stop baptizing infants, baptism will LOOSE its witness UNTO the Gospel. And at length it does in ALL “believers only” churches as it becomes the ‘badge of faith’ rather than the name and promise of God. It ends up attaching, due to the doctrine to “faith” and faith must some how be “proved” by evidences, but all evidences are falsifiable by the devil.

It’s similar to an apostate taking the Lord’s Supper, why does he eat and drink unto wrath? If a Baptist viewed the Lord’s Supper the same way he viewed baptism he would have to say that an apostate CANNOT possibly drink or eat unto wrath since its based upon faith he must have first and not objectively upon BEING the Lord’s body and blood. Conversely if the Baptist understood baptism the way he really understands the Lord’s supper, it is objectively real and true, “IS”, based upon God’s Word or another way of saying “God’s Word” is “His Promise”, then he’d never ever have grounds for rebaptism and would only REALY do a baptism in the case of a first one being from a false church as you say (e.g. Mormonism).

But every single sign and sacrament ever given in Scripture is not based upon other things but upon the Word of God, His name, His promise and so forth…objectively real…from heaven. Faith if you understand it correctly is really a reflexive thing and not a primary thing, to truly TRUST nakedly and alone in a thing, is utterly reflexive. From this reflexive thing will issue forth fruits, but the faith itself is absolutely fixed singularly upon its object (Christ and Him crucified) or else it itself no longer “IS”. And it is Christ and Him crucified FOR YOU, if one doesn’t HEAR the “FOR ME” one has not really HEARD the Good News, just about it. It’s only truly GOOD NEWS for you if it is FOR YOU, and again baptism delivers this TO YOU. How do I know I’m saved? My good works, heavens no, they are either too few for my taste, too sin tainted or I glory in them so much as to make them self-righteous. How do I know for SURE! I AM baptized by God and all that baptism contains I trust as it has come TO ME and that IS faith. I cannot engender faith by my strength or reason and especially not from my life, but when I hear of Christ crucified for me and know He has baptized me, and I eat and drink the bread and wine, I am called by the Gospel by the Spirit and that is faith.

It is similar to this: faith that talks about faith and believing and so forth is not saving faith, but he who speaks of the crucified Lord, the Gospel, THAT is faith talking. Yet, faith doesn’t speak of itself.

I hope that helps or at lest makes some better sense.

Blessing to you in Christ our Lord,

Larry

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Because the issue is the Gospel I can’t lay it down even unto death. To do so would be tantamount to denying the Gospel on the issue of the Sacraments. And I did come from a baptistic background even though I was an atheist most of my adult life.

Though I can never give in on the doctrine in this, Gospel, it never divides us in the sense of brotherhood and I look forward to that day in heaven when we will both, all, no longer have ANY issues between us that our flesh and/or the devil has blinded us all too, and I have many Redwood size planks in my eye I assure you!

Yours always In our Lord,

Larry

If this were a discussion about NASCAR or Motocross it might not be a hill I was willing to die on. How can I not get passionate about the Covenant of Grace when it is my very breath. It is as if someone is saying "You shouldn't be too passionate about your children."

Make no mistake about it - this is all about my faith in the Gospel and my responsibilities as a Covenant head of my household. I can think of no greater thing to be passionate about.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Randy,

I hope you realize you've not helped your cause at all by this parcel of Scripture, in fact it wars against you.

John's Baptism was not the same baptism, that's the difference and thus hardly a "rebaptism".
Yours always In our Lord,

Larry

I know Larry. I was just messin with ya. John's baptism was not done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It's purpose was totally different. I was just trying to get your goat brother. We actually had this discussion a long while back if I remember correctly. We have been doing this for a few years now. Man time flies. It is good to be sparring with you again.

 

[Larry Hughes]

Aaaahhh Randy I can always count on you for a good razzing!!! You got me! I thought it seemed a bit obvious at first then I thought, "well I've blind sided myself MANY times on some of the simplest issues."

 

[Larry Hughes]

Trever,

I apologize for the length up front, but this is about the shortest I could chop it on short notice. I hope you find this helpful (and to others as well) or at least something to ponder, because I do not detect in you (nor others here on this issue, particularly on this post) a recalcitrant personality, rightfully cautious and thoughtful but not recalcitrant. Rather one who loves and desires the purity of the same Gospel we all love and need. I’ve been on both sides of the aisle, if you will, and have run into those who just ‘want to be right do or die’ in both camps, rather than reveal the Gospel for the glory of God and faith, hope and love of all of His people. When we make it an argument of “my law is better than your law” we all do tend to show our true tendency to be directly objectionably to such – that is the flesh’s immediate reaction to law, true or false, immediate repugnance. Say “don’t touch” and the first thing we do is touch just to show our fallen sovereignty! The Gospel, however, always opens the way to gracious love and charity these being the true nature of the Law. So to that end it is the direction from which I hope to approach.

When reacting against Rome concerning this issue, we are in 100% accord. But don’t let Rome’s false teaching cover up the truth by thrusting you to the other extreme. A 50,000 foot view of this issue of baptism and Rome can be helpful. It is always good to remember that the fundamental demonic error introduced into the church was to cover up the Gospel at every turn, in Word and in the Sacraments. That’s what the magisterial reformers discovered. Rome did this at both levels, they attempted to destroy the Gospel in the Word by redefining what the “gospel” was but yet called it “gospel”, hence Paul’s dire warning against those with another gospel. It will subtly mask itself so as to fool many, not an overt denial of it. Those “close” to the truth but not of the truth are the most dangerous vipers. Similarly, Rome covered up the Gospel in baptism and the Supper. In baptism they made it a work of man by teaching it as such and thus it could never be trusted in fully. Just like anything of a man does as I believe Randy pointed out very well in an early post. The principle of trusting in works of man however applied is what we all repulse at when salvation is considered.

There is an exceedingly egregious error many make though at this point. That is that the Roman Catholics actually trust and find assurance IN their baptism. That’s where the reply often comes, “Rome thinks baptism as a work saves”. Yet, NOTHING could be further from the truth, that’s why the ENTIRE system of penance and indulgences developed behind baptism – BECAUSE they DON’T find rest and assurance in their baptism and needed more ‘works’ to ‘fill up the tub of grace’. The start in works and continue in works, that’s the problem. That’s why Luther and later Calvin put so much effort in showing the comfort and assurance that actually comes from baptism as Gospel/promise. It is a complete mistake to say Luther and Calvin’s views on baptism was a vestige carry over from Rome’s view, NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, could be more opposing than the two views. When it comes down to ‘finding assurance’ and strengthening faith via baptism the irony is – is that the two groups that don’t is the two groups most opposed to each other, Rome and Credo doctrine on this. The common error is both see it, albeit from a differing angle, as a work of man. The RC, thus, having no problem with a starting ‘work from man’ causing grace embraces it but never really has faith in it or is assured by it. The Credo eschewing all works of man (this part is correct) eschews baptism, stuck on the Roman error of it, BECAUSE like Rome he/she still views it as a work of man. This really is the common link on Rome and Credo views of baptism. Calvin and Luther are truly in opposition to both here in that a man CAN find aid, strength and assurance from baptism. BECAUSE the commonality among them is that it is a work of God based upon HIS Word, HIS promise and HIS name. Baptism is objective to man just like the Gospel, it is outside of him in its reality. On this issue, baptism as a work of man versus baptism as a work of God, on one side of the table we have Rome and all Credistic type understandings and on the other side Luther and the later Reformers.

Satan’s deception on this is so simple and yet so very insidious. All the devil really did was this; he said through the church’s doctrine over time, so that it seeped in slowly and unnoticed, “Baptism is not God’s Work but man’s work.” That was it and from that has tormented the individuals of the church of Rome and many “believers only” congregations and even others that at least wonder about it. That’s how the devil attempted to mask and ruin the Gospel in baptism. Fundamentally, that’s all it took to mask the Gospel in the sacrament of baptism. Just a few words turned around a bit. It’s nothing new but another form of, “Hath God really said…”. “Hath God really said, promised, given His name to you in baptism?” That’s it in a nut shell.

If he can alter subtly the definition of the “gospel” in Word so as to proffer another gospel as THE Gospel, he can also EASILY alter subtly the Gospel in baptism so as to make baptism something unhelpful to the believer and another gospel or even law in baptism. He did this by claiming baptism a ‘work of man’, as such, on Rome’s side so it could not be trusted and from this arose the works and indulgences. Satan achieved his goal. On the other side the reaction against baptism as Rome taught it, was correct initially, but then it went too far under the devil’s lie and the answer was not to over throw its Gospel and make it another subtle form of works or badge of faith whereby it cannot be trusted in. For baptism was given FOR faith, Paul has no problem in numerous places in pulling out baptism to encourage a persecuted church and suffering people and a sin struggling people, in fact appeals to it and its Gospel. But the over reaction, blinded by the Romish deception, still achieve the devil’s goal, eschewing the Gospel in the sacrament of baptism so that it is of NO help to the faith, hope and love of the believer, ESPECIALLY under suffering and persecution. Rather the right correction was to put the Gospel back into the baptism, it is God’s work and not man’s and to trust in God’s work and name is to trust in HIM alone for salvation, “deliverance is of the Lord alone” (Psalm 3). His name IS salvation and His name attends and makes baptism baptism, not prior or subsequent faith. The problem arising in circumcision from the Judiazers was similar, they had changed its Gospel import to a works of man import. That’s why Paul in some places of Romans can say circumcision viewed that way is nothing, but circumcision connected to the Gospel is of great value. He’s not contradicting himself his correcting, like Luther, Calvin, et. Ali. the incorrect doctrine on the sacrament.

I am assured He will save me, how, by His Word of Gospel and His name given to me very specifically in baptism. Baptism is how I and my children have His name, His authority, the power of life thereof, and able to call upon Him. This I am sure of in spite of myself and in spite of every experience of trial, temptation, suffering and persecution I will meet in this life. This is why Paul could recall baptism to aid the suffering church, not because it was a work of man, but a work of God. It is similar to when Jesus made mud of the dirt with His spittle to heal the blind man. There was nothing inherently magical or healing in the dirt, it’s just a piece of creation, it was not due to a man’s working, but that GOD took it up into holy use. He was showing as God He can take anything and use it to His saving purpose. He could have just as well used a leaf and wiped his eyes with it or blew breath at him. When God takes a thing up into His use and attaches His name to it – it is no loner ordinary, secular or vain but holy, sacred and hallowed. To say no assurance can be had or to not trust in holy Baptism is to call it vain, ordinary and secular and by extension the name of God. When God took up a jaw bone of an ass and through His servant smote his enemies the point was not Samson or the jawbone but that God lifted them up with His arm and hand, as it were, and used them at that moment to strike His enemies. He could strike a nation with a feather and destroy it if He wished. All of creation is at His beckon grasp for His use outside of its ordinary function, this testifies to Him BEING GOD. If you or I picked up a jaw bone of an ass and went over to Iraq right now to smite the enemies of the US, we’d just end up dead real quick, because God has not picked us up unto holy use in that way!

Thus, baptism is powerful with the Word attached and His name attached, it communicates the Gospel and Paul says the Gospel is the power unto life. But if you only understand it as a kind of secondary work or badge secondary to faith or obedience of man for something else, then Satan has one on that ground and taken from you a powerful weapon God has actually given you. A weapon of assurance! Never forget the devil’s attack in all its clever forms is primarily against the Gospel and the faith and assurance and expectation that gives the believer!

Part II

Now on to the main point concerning the term “Rantizo”.

One of the things all of us as Christians need to be careful of is reading into Scripture something that is not there. In principle we all agree to that. It is a most tempting human thing to do, not just in the Scriptures but also in any literature, research or similar documentation. I even see it a lot in the scientific field, it is very hard to be purely objective, scientist who like to pride themselves with ‘objectivity’ actually succumb to being subjective all the time. It is particularly difficult for us in modern America or of that mindset to read something as large as the Scriptures that spans thousands of years over multiple cultures with multiple terms of a culture very foreign to us by time, space and culture. We see this difficulty even in just a few hundred years when trying to understand what the original reformers meant in much of their writing, a mere 500 years ago one continent away and less culturally foreign yet somewhat.

Even closer to home, if I write something to you or vice versa, it is difficult for either one of us to fully grasp how the other is using a term or speaking about a thing. Sometimes, to a fault, that’s why I tend to write a lot in terms of volume, I’m trying to cover every angle to “get across” how I speaking of a thing. And if you’ve ever labored to look a government statues and regulations, legal documents of today, there is a reason they are so large – the definition section alone is voluminous in order to try to capture the intent of the use and likely references other regulations and their definitions (I deal with that a lot), and still people argue over intent of the law versus letter of the law.

I belabor this point to really focus on the principle at hand and perhaps show how this is done, at least something to ponder.I’ll try to stick with the one Isaiah reference the Eunice is speaking about.

When one reads back to that reference, even in the original language, and finds the term “Rantizo” and concludes that is not baptism, how was that “mentally” derived? That’s question at hand. Step one: If one already assumes the term “baptism” MUST mean “immersion”, then one reads that reference and finds the term “Rantizo”, then one does indeed arrive at the idea that that is neither immersion nor baptism. Why? Because one already has brought into the situation that baptism = immersion. I think that’s easy enough to see.

But how did one arrive at the idea that baptism = immersion? That’s the next question. For the most part one arrives at that from the very “rationalizing” of the Scriptures I mentioned before. The “going down and coming up” statements and so forth. Is it possible this speaks of immersion? Possibly, but does that necessitate it? No. Is it possible its just describing in normal language a normally experienced situation of physics of the creation? Yes.

Side bar to show the flawed character of using this particular argument: In college in my hydro grad courses we had to do field projects and papers as part of the grade. I’m very familiar hydraulics, geology and physics, it’s my main field of study. My senior year myself and two fellow students (Nic and James) had a project in which part of the data gathering involved obtaining stream flow measurements. This, in short, involved taking a perpendicular traverse along a straight section of stream and taking a certain number of discrete measurements along that linear traverse with a current meter. A little basic calculus and “boom” flow is calculated for that moment in time at that stream’s base flow. So, one of us, me because I didn’t mind getting wet and could swim the best if necessary, would take the measurements while I would yell back to James the values and Nic would record them in the data log. James and Nic never once entered the water and I never entered water higher than my chest (1. it’s too dangerous and 2. you cannot measure if you cannot stand up to hold the meter vertically into the water). When we wrote up the paper and gave it later in class we spoke of how we took the measurements. It is obvious but important to grasp is a small but big fact concerning why we use the language we use and find this also the case in the Scriptures. By physics ANY flowing water in a land situation is at the lowest topographic point on the land locally, this is of necessity of physics and gravity to have flowing water. That sounds obvious and is but there is a reason I bring it out. Correctly describing the process of measuring in our presentation and paper we would narrate, “We (Nic, James and myself) would go down into the stream…take the measurements and then come back up…”. Now was I describing, implying or trying to affirm we were immersed? No, that’s simply how normal language would speak of such narrating the action taking place. None of us were immersed. I was partially in the water, even chest high at times, and neither Nic nor James so much as wetted their boots. This is why I say beware of rationalizing the Scriptures, first, and second doing it badly.

Plugging this back into the main point:

Is it possible it has absolutely nothing to do with a mode? Absolutely. So, these alone force us to conclude that we cannot at this point (and all similar rationalizing arguments), formulate a dogmatic doctrine or injunction or ‘law’ or ‘precept’ that we then next insert INTO the term “baptism” itself, whereby we then subsequently compound the error by assuming that an OT reference that neither uses the term “baptism” in the original language nor indicates the mode as “immersion”, but rather as “sprinkling the nations” is thus not speaking of baptism. Why? Because we would have fouled the definition of baptism in our minds from the beginning and are now asserting a thing that is not true by necessity nor clarity. In short one is looking at the wrong thing concerning baptism and thereby missing “where it is” in the OT and even other NT references.

We can see this kind of inductive error even in the realm of secular science. When by the inductive data pieces the conclusion for evolution is made. Is it possible using the induced data to arrive at evolution? Sure, you can link it up that way for a while and arrive there. But evolution is basically, when all said and done, a snow ball effect that started off by nothing more than a very small error at a very very very base level. Similarly is the age of the earth issue. Then, like a bullet that is only off a half degree at the beginning, a mile later, is entirely off target and arrives from creationism through deism finally to atheism (Darwin started out a seminarian). This fundamentally is what happens with the baptistic views both on mode and “who” is baptized, without belaboring that here. I’m just going for the principle of introducing error and its snowball effect or arrow effect, if you will, for now in this one single situation.

Thus, when someone else says; “Don’t you understand that baptism prophesied in the OT in which the Eunice was reading in Isaiah says, “He will sprinkle the nations”, the Eunice was of the nations or gentiles and this Good News came to him, and shows that mode is NOT the issue, not even on the radar. Rather the process of cleansing identity with the One who cleanses from sin, the water and the blood, is the primary idea behind baptism. THAT process and not a MODE is one of the primary Gospel things baptism is, captures and needs to communicate for the glory of a merciful God Who was crucified for sinners AND the healthy faith, hope and love of ALL the saints during their suffering on this earth. That’s what’s being communicated here, revelation of the Christ”. When this is said it is stunning that a returning reply is, “I don’t see the word ‘baptism’ in the original language there so it cannot be referring to baptism”. Is it not painfully obvious that this shows itself for what it is, nothing. In sum, on one side is communicated the Gospel and what the Christ did for His people and for their faith, hope and love to strengthen that and show the mercy of God and to see what the Eunice saw, for heavens sake, that made him go away singing joyously! Then on the other side all one is saying is, “The mode is blah blah blah.” The mode by itself is nothing, it is minutiae and empty wrangling at best and Gospel/cross obscuring at worst because it cast a legalistic thing to determined and done for comfort and assurance (false), and not a Gospel to be received for comfort and assurance (true). And this has been brought about by little more than; 1. Rationalizing the scriptures and 2. Bad rationalizing at that. It is a form of what Jesus warned the Pharisees against, those super exegetes of accuracy on words, “You search the Scriptures and think that by them you have life, but it is these which continually bear witness of Me.” Or in Luther’s summation, “It’s, the Scriptures, all about Christ, every word of it.” That is either directly or indirectly it all reveals Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit is not concerned with communicating to us in that and similar passages “a mode” that we may pick up on by rationalizing and thus loose our sight of the Cross, but bearing witness to the Christ whose blood was spilled for sinners and was prophesied continuously from the beginning.

Now I’ve stuck to this one passage to avoid an inordinate volume of writing, but we could EASILY apply this principle in other places where “immersion” is derived from other forms of rationalizing of the scriptures. Surely one can see the distraction of taking a text that is singularly and immediately bearing witness to the Cross and the Gospel and redirecting it to “a mode”. Surely, one can see the misdirection going on there. Surely, one can see the devil’s hand and intent there because the slight of hand misdirects the eye from the Cross.

Was the Eunice indeed joyously singing because he was immersed or that he was one of the “sprinkled nations” with the water and blood of Christ which he just read of, the Gospel in Word and sacrament received (delivered to the man)? And note very well in that passage of Isaiah that it says, “HE will sprinkle the nations”, HE will do it, not that it is a man’s work. That is to say, “HE will baptize the nations”, it is not a man’s work! Hence, the real Great Commission. NOW that is Gospel!

If I could possibly sum it up very shortly: It would be akin to telling a man starving to death and about to die seated at a feast freely before him that will save his life but yet enforcing upon him that he must look to the use the salad fork instead of the dinner fork to save his life. When it’s the eating that will do so.

Blessings,

L

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I know Larry. I was just messin with ya. John's baptism was not done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It's purpose was totally different. I was just trying to get your goat brother. We actually had this discussion a long while back if I remember correctly. We have been doing this for a few years now. Man time flies. It is good to be sparring with you again.

Aaaahhh Randy I can always count on you for a good razzing!!! You got me! I thought it seemed a bit obvious at first then I thought, "well I've blind sided myself MANY times on some of the simplest issues."

Acts19 Thread

Now do you remember? I looked up the thread. It was March of 2005.

Gotcha. It has been a few years ago. I am lucky I remembered it. I knew it would get your goat since you rementioned the rebaptism stuff.

[edit addition]
Since you keep mentioning the faith issue I want to give an illumination to my earlier post above.

I have been accused of this faith in faith thing before by Federal Visionists. My response to this charge is that faith is a very important issue in soteriology. We are justified by faith.

Therefore having been justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Romans 5:1

I think a better way of putting your charge would be what kind of faith is it?
What is the faith based upon? What is the object of faith? And where does this faith come from and end up taking us to?

I can't say that I know to many people who have faith in faith, so to speak. The only people I can actually lay that charge to who claim Christ is the Word Faith movement of Mary Baker Eddy, Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland and their disciples.

Love ya brother,
Randy

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

One more thing Larry. My faith comes from Christ. It isn't something I posses from myself. It isn't based upon my baptism. It is based upon the person and work of Christ. I received it from Christ through the proclamation of His Word. I am kept by Christ not the rememberance of my baptism. If your faith is kept by your baptism I would recommend you place your faith in something else. I am not sure that is what you are saying but that is something the Federal Visionist are placing their faith in also. That is their baptisms.

(Rom 10:17) So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

(Heb 12:1) Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,

(Heb 12:2) Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

 

[Larry Hughes]

Randy,

I do want to be real clear here. I don't in ANYWAY doubt that your trust is in Christ FOR YOU. You hear the Gospel very clearly, that I'm certain of. NEVER do I want to communicate that to you or any Christian. If I've given THAT impression then I owe you a very very humble apology! I want to build up our faith, NOT tear it down.

When I discuss 'rebaptism' its strictly for the purpose of strengthening faith, I had to address this with my wife's own multiple ones. I told her, "When you come to the point of seeing that baptism is God's work objectively to you and sans your faith in and of itself, and you had multiple baptisms, the thing to NOT do is say to yourself, 'oh my gosh what have I done I must be lost'. Rather, give thankful prayer for this great Gospel work and turn from the other 2, 3, etc..., joyous Gospel repentance not legal doubting repentance. I stayed in tormented limbo myself on whether or not to be rebaptized for about 5 or 6 years myself. So, I understand the struggle one falls into.

You strengthen my faith, you should know that.

grace and peace always be yours in GREAT abundance, love you brother!

Larry

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I am rereading through the Thread Larry and want to pic a spot to reply and ask questions. I think I already know your answers but....

The sacraments, were given FOR faith not against it. Such a view of baptism, based upon the possession of faith, will not with stand the assaults of the devil for one second. Why? Because the devil can easily without breaking a sweat under cut effortlessly ALL those precious secondary causes that one basis their “possession of true faith” upon. This is why faith must not look secondarily at secondary causes but the cross of Christ no matter what.

After these words you seem to attempt to define secondary causes like faith in faith or baptizing someone based upon a recognized faith that someone has scrutinized to be real after much self examination, which can actually be a false faith in the end, thus they figure it was invalid the times before and the need to get rebaptized. Which then is sin according to you.

You mentioned my Rebaptism and I obviously didn't respond. But think I will after I make some observations.

Let me first say that I hate hypothetical situations because people can hypothetically argue their way out doing anything they should probably do based upon hypothetical situations. I personally dont' know very many people who have been rebaptized and I don't push the issue. That being said let's push on.

I posted this before. Many people do things in the name of the Triune God. Does that make everything authentic that is done in the name of God. Can there be a baptism done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost that is not from God? I think so. Especially if it's doctrine is scewed and heretical. I remember the arguments of passive participation in baptism. Yes, Baptism is of God and ordained by God but we still are particpants of the baptism. I have some contention about what you wrote on the Isaiah passage. The sprinkling of the passage is purely a speculative interpretation. The Hebrew is Nazah and has spirit for its root and means expiate. So He expiates the spirit upon the nations. Or the sprinkling is cleansing as the blood is sprinkled upon the altar and the people for cleansing. I don't believe this is a specific reference to Christian baptism as much as it is a reference to Christ paying for the sins of all nationalities.

I read what you wrote on the Lord's Supper. I will also contend that the Lord's Supper can be done in an unlawful matter as you noted btw. Does everyone who partakes of the LORD's Supper partake in a worthy manner? Of course not, that is why we give the warnings and bar unbelievers and unrepentant persons from the table. It is a sacrament that God has done also. If the ordinances are attended with heresy I would say that they are unlawful also. Just because something is done in the name of Christ is not necessarily of Christ. Let me reexplain futher again.

There are those who gather in Christ's name and call it a church. It is Christ who is building his Church. We are co-laborers. Even though this is a fact some would argue that the Baptistic or anything other than The Confessionally correct Reformed church is not a legitimate Church even though they gather in His name. Therefore their argument is not the same nor identifiable nor agreeable with yours if you look fully into it. Not all things done in the Name of God are done by God according to these guys. What level is this done or discerned at varies from person to person. Look at F. N. Lee's comments, or Scott's and Matthew's comments on Baptist Pastors and Baptists in General.

Now let me explain my rebaptism. You may conclude that I have crucified the Son of God afresh as F. N. Lee has accused me of but I know you would be wrong because I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. I am convinced of Christ's Justifying work for me.

I believe I was baptized in a heretical way. I was told if I chose to be baptized God would forgive and cleans me from all of my past sin. I also understood that I needed to attend the Lord's Supper for a weekly recleansing from sin. This is Heresy and not biblical Christianity. I partook in this heresy. Baptism and the Lord's supper became a what can I do to keep myself cleansed from sin and acceptable to God pursuit. My faith was in the action of these ordinances themselves. I miserably failed at this and sunk into deeper sin.

In 1981 I set myself to try to read the scriptures. I had attempted this before but couldn't understand a word of it. I read through the four gospels in no time flat. God became real in a different way to me. I was alive in my heart and the Word of God became very real and living to me. When I understood that I couldn't do anything to earn my salvation I elated. God justifies sinners and gives faith.

I looked to my earliear baptism as heretical and saw it as void. It was not Christian baptism. Just like the Catholics view of salvation in Christ is heretical so was my view of baptism. They both where not of God. Now is Christ and his salvation heretical? No, but the Roman catholic view of Christ and salvation are and will not stand in heaven. I also believe that this can be true of other doctrines.

Here is a push for a different passage not many consider. I have considered it before and have been encouraged in it and discouraged. Check this out.

(Luk 7:29) (When all the people heard this, and the tax collectors too, they declared God just, having been baptized with the baptism of John,

(Luk 7:30) but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.)

notice that seemingly attachment between the purpose of God, declaring God just, and baptism in these verses. It is John's baptism btw. Can there be a confessional factor in declaring God is just by our obedience and submission to his will in baptism?

Well, that is kinda why I wanted to be baptized again. I was baptized under a heretical view and wanted to share God's testimony of saving me from sin by His free grace. That was not done in my first baptism. It was more of a confession and pronouncement of God's work on my behalf. I know I was not blaspheming God in any way by being rebaptized. I was declaring salvation is of the LORD and renouncing an heretical view of baptism.

 

[Larry Hughes]

Let me first say that I hate hypothetical situations because people can hypothetically argue their way out doing anything they should probably do based upon hypothetical situations. I personally dont' know very many people who have been rebaptized and I don't push the issue. That being said let's push on.

To clarify: The situations I’m thinking of are far from hypothetical, I happen to know NUMEROUS folks and have observed myself rebaptisms. So, I’m NOT coming from a hypothetical at all but REAL situations. I simply take the REAL situations and put them into hypothetical language to analyze that’s all. It’s a habit as a scientist to observe a real phenomena then kind of restate it in a neutral hypothetical way. Sorry about the confusion there!

I posted this before. Many people do things in the name of the Triune God. Does that make everything authentic that is done in the name of God.

Excellent point of order. This is the difference, God commanded it, that is baptism in His name, its not random thing. It’s like this: If you were a king who had authority over a realm, then your name and order given to a thing via other people is the EXACT same thing as you doing it. Another way to look at it in a modern understanding might be this: If the President of the US or the Gov. of your/my state issues that something be given in the name of the Pres. Or Gov., like a pardon, they issue you it through agencies and not directly themselves. But it has the same weight as them doing it. To baptize IN THE NAME of God is the same as giving the authority of God. Doing ‘other things’ in the name of God not so authorized are illegitimate, those would be works of man. This is an excellent question because it gets to the crux of is it God’s work or man’s. God has given His name to baptism, He has NOT given His name to charisma or conversion experiences or other such fairly modern religious (that is to say non-Christian) phenomena. That’s why baptism can be trusted correctly understood, it is the giving of the name, promise and word of God. It answers the question, “How can I know it is for me.” “It” being justification, Christ crucified, the Gospel rather than in general. THIS aids faith and strengthens it rather than destroys or falsifies it because one is trusting NOT in a man’s work unto baptism, but God’s work and promise in baptism and the Word (Gospel).

Compare the following: ALL Christians wonder in the deep struggle within “am I really saved” or some form of that doubt. Doubt is not unbelief but the middle battle ground between belief and unbelief. Unbelief is sin but doubt is not and always ‘co-exists with faith’ in this life due to flesh, the devil and the world that battle us. This is in part our suffering since faith desires to be realized. We suffer that which we hang onto only by promise in the future eschatologicaly. Faith via the Gospel tells us one thing and our experiences tell us another. This is the battle ground of the devil and God and in part the suffering a Christian goes through – in short – “am I really saved”. Now we all “hear” the general Gospel call but EVERYONE asks themselves, ‘is it for me’, especially under strong accusation from the devil, because experience is warring against faith (faith is a tension). So, the Christian desires something “TO THEM” a particular TO THE MAN and specifically TO THEM in order to KNOW THIS IS FOR ME. Those who look to secondary causes, fruits, are doing nothing more than looking for ‘signs’ of “God working in them”. So for persons saying they trust the naked Word alone in reality are not telling the truth. The whole idea of looking for secondary causes, profession by the mouth of faith and “fruits” IS looking to OTHER things and manifestly NOT trusting in the naked Gospel alone. ALL men desire something to give them assurance that Christ is FOR ME specifically. So, they look to “do I really possess saving faith” (this is a kind of faith in faith or assurance in faith, not the gross kind of faith in faith we see in deceivers like Hinn, but an assurance in ‘do I really possess saving faith’ IS a kind of faith in faith) and/or they look to or for “fruits of faith” (the secondary causes). The first problem here is that ALL of these can be faked, even a man can fool himself, so this is no help to real saving faith. The second and more important point is that God has NEVER promised in these things, given authority unto them or given His name to them, nor His body, nor His blood. Now, this is where the sacraments, correctly understood as Gospel come in, particularly I will focus on baptism what we are discussing. While men can fake their faith and fruits of faith fooling even themselves thus thinking they are sincere, and while hypocrites can be baptized, the one thing that CANNOT be faked NOR changed is that God has GIVEN His promise, authority and name to baptism. It is objective and real on those grounds. It “exists” or is “to be” or “comes into being” by this and NOT when faith is really in the one receiving it. If I write you a check for 10,000 dollars and I’m willing and capable of doing that (sorry I really can’t thought!!!), and you receive it but don’t really believe it – its your own folly. But the check is real NOT because you ‘have’ faith but because the signature on it is my name and authority to give what it states. Thus, is baptism. It is real because of the name of God and the authority there unto NOT because of the possession of faith itself. Faith itself is secondary to baptism just like it is secondary to the Gospel because baptism is really the visible Gospel in another form of COMMUNICATION to the senses (means). At the end of the day you must realize that WORDS written or spoken are nothing more than MEANS themselves. They are parts of the creation, ink molecules, air molecules, formed and energized to communicate a message. Baptism is similar to this but needs the words to do this as well. The difference is baptism comes TO THE MAN specifically. It answers that question, “How do I know God’s will and salvation is FOR ME.” Answer: I am (present tense) baptized. Thus, the help to faith.

Can there be a baptism done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost that is not from God?

No, you are misunderstanding the authority, it does not rely upon the receiver or giver. The giver can be an apostate pastor. The intent must be unto the Gospel.

It boils down to is baptism God’s work or man’s. The answer to that question reveals the true or false understanding of baptism. Secondly, you cannot change the Gospel in the sacraments any more than you can in the Word JUST because men abuse it and men are liars. The Gospel IS for the sheep, in spite of the hypocrites. You are in essence, not you particular but men, are always trying to repair and change the gift of God to HIS people to in essence ‘assure’ that false liars do not falsely be assured. In one sense the answer to that is simple, it does not matter. The gifts are for the children of God and are not to be ‘adjusted’ due to liars, the devil and hypocrites. When you do so you poison the gifts from our Father to us. In a sense our duty is not to protect the hypocrite but the believer. This is how the Gospel gets alter A LOT. People are so afraid the definitive hypothetical hypocrite will be falsely assured they end up preaching another gospel altogether and loose the gospel just the same. In essence this is what happened between Rome and the later Credistics. They correctly recognize the error of Rome but threw out the Gospel in the Sacraments in an over correction, ending up with just as vain a view on baptism as Rome had. Paul actually answers this very charge concerning circumcision and the Word, “What if some did not believe…let God be true though every man a liar.” He didn’t mince words and he did ‘adjust’ the objective realities to ‘protect’ the liar/hypocrites.

Now let me explain my rebaptism. You may conclude that I have crucified the Son of God afresh as F. N. Lee has accused me of but I know you would be wrong because I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. I am convinced of Christ's Justifying work for me.

I don’t know about FNL, but I like to distinguish between those who did it blatantly and those due to lack of knowledge. The former disdain baptism, the later, like yourself, me in the past and others really desire to know the truth and if any of us did (like my dear wife) it was not unto malicious intent but ignorance. I want to make that clear, because we ALL do things we think scripture says then later learn and repent from it. That’s the reason I say true Gospel repentance, that is joyous and cheerful, not a legal repentance. So, I would not throw or do not intend to throw a flame the way Lee does.

I believe I was baptized in a heretical way. I was told if I chose to be baptized God would forgive and cleans me from all of my past sin. I also understood that I needed to attend the Lord's Supper for a weekly recleansing from sin. This is Heresy and not biblical Christianity. I partook in this heresy. Baptism and the Lord's supper became a what can I do to keep myself cleansed from sin and acceptable to God pursuit. My faith was in the action of these ordinances themselves. I miserably failed at this and sunk into deeper sin.

Then all that was needed was to correct the false teaching to strengthen your faith. Because it’s not YOUR WORK as you explained, baptism or the Lord’s Supper, but God’s. You don’t DO these things to MERIT or EARN forgiveness, rather they are GIVEN TO YOU to assure you that YOU HAVE forgiveness. It goes back to the continuous battle we experience internally for the faith. Because our faith lives in tension with our life’s experiences. Thus, Paul says, “The life that I live in the flesh I LIVE BY faith.” That is against what experience tells me as the flesh, devil and world WAR against faith, the senses, the experiences to the contrary, I LIVE BY continual TRUST in Christ Who gave Himself for me. And baptism and the Lord’s Supper help me to know and remember this, they help assure me it is FOR ME in spite of everything else that says in some way “it is not for me”.

Your story is manifestly admitting you viewed baptism as man’s work and thus rejected it. And your saying, “I believe…”, not I know from the objective teachings of Scripture.

Quote:
(Luk 7:29) (When all the people heard this, and the tax collectors too, they declared God just, having been baptized with the baptism of John,

(Luk 7:30) but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.)

The point of this verse is that the Pharisees are rejecting the baptism because it is real objectively in the first place, not because it depends upon them believing it. That’s why they can reject it in unbelief…they DON’T believe it’s objective reality, THAT is what they are rejecting. To put it another way; if I don’t believe and I rejected your first baptism, what would I be rejecting if what you argue is true? Nothing, I would be rejecting a ‘nothing’ and this of course would be non-sense. It’s rather telling, and as a former atheist I can personally say this, that the reason unbelievers reject baptism is because they in a sense detect its objective reality, ironically better than the Baptist. The entire reason I rejected baptism for 32+ years was I knew its objective reality in identity with Christ and the name of God, I DIDN’T want it. I was not rejecting a “nothing” or the concept of faith itself. If baptism is subjectively real, that is only upon the one possessing faith, then it is fleetingly existing. When an unbeliever rejects baptism, he/she is rejecting A THING not a NOTHING. He’s not rejecting the ‘possession of faith’, he’s rejecting the object of faith. And the object of faith is what is seen for the reality of baptism, not faith itself.

Well, that is kinda why I wanted to be baptized again. I was baptized under a heretical view and wanted to share God's testimony of saving me from sin by His free grace. That was not done in my first baptism. It was more of a confession and pronouncement of God's work on my behalf. I know I was not blaspheming God in any way by being rebaptized. I was declaring salvation is of the LORD and renouncing an heretical view of baptism.

I’m certain you sincerely you mean that, and the reality of your final true faith is WONDERFUL, I encourage that, please realize that, NEVER DOUBT THAT. However, the action does not declare that. Because the events must be taken as a whole not isolated packets. You are attaching words, testimonial, that does not match up with the visible testimony or reality. What the visible events say, which you do not really want them to say, is this: The first baptism was false BECAUSE I didn’t have faith, ergo, baptism is based and real based upon the possession of faith. I was baptized a second time to be consistent with this and this too testifies to the reality that baptism is rooted and based upon faith, and in reality “MY” faith. This is the testimony THIS gives. The viewer sees THIS. The viewer is then thrust upon looking to YOUR faith and not the cross, the focus is on YOU and not the Gospel and baptism IS pointing to and testifying to FAITH or “God’s work in you”. BUT, the Gospel, which is what we are to testify to and not us, IS NOT ABOUT US OR GOD’s work IN US. IT is about the Cross of Christ. YOUR faith and God’s work in YOUR life as wonderous as it is TO YOU is of absolutely NO heavenly or earthly good to anyone. They must see the Cross of Christ not “how I’ve been changed or delivered or saved”. The testimony must be singular both in Word and Sacrament. The testimony must NOT be baptism is pointing to faith, but baptism is pointing to Christ, the name of God, the promise of salvation, the assurance of it, the blood and the water, the cleansing of the blood is as CERTAIN as the water that pours over the body, the name of God is SURE salvation, the authority of God is certain unto salvation. That’s the testimony of visible baptism. Baptism is not just FOR the receiver but the viewers as well: It says, “Here is salvation”. NOBODY becomes baptized for ANY OTHER REASON than to be saved. It is nonsense to speak of baptism in any other way. Baptism is not a false testimonial lie, it is truth because it is rooted in the objectivity of the Word of God and the Name.

Blessings always,

Larry

 

[Larry Hughes]

Trever,

Goodness, you don't have to apologize to me in the work you are doing.

I'm blessed to call you and Randy and Bill my brothers!!!

Truly,

Larry