D
Deleted member 12919 by request
Guest
This seems like an overstatement. At this very moment I have no clue whether I was regenerate at the time of my baptism.
How Ought Baptists To Consider Their Children?
- Status
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
If you don't think you were regenerate (or didn't know), why did you seek baptism?
D
Deleted member 12919 by request
Guest
As best as I can reminder it, because I was seeking to be obedient as a “follower of Christ.”
As my assurance ebbs and flows, must I get baptized again accordingly?
Ben Zartman
Puritan Board Junior
Perhaps you didn't understand the nature and meaning of baptism--perhaps you still don't.
It has nothing to do with your current assurance: it has to do with your profession. Properly, one seeks baptism when one has repented of his sins and believed in Jesus. Properly, it is administered by a church who believes that profession of faith, and puts their stamp on it. What to do if a person realizes they were baptized before their conversion is up to the individual churches: some re-baptize, others hold you to that declaration that you made earlier--it's irregular, but mercifully whether we were baptized rightly or wrongly doesn't affect our salvation. And surely multitudes have been wrongly baptized, not baptized, multi-baptized, and every other variation throughout history who are still safe in Jesus' arms.
However, if you waffle between knowing and doubting whether you're saved, it begs the question: where are you looking? Are you looking to Christ? If so, why a lack of assurance? If not, how can you ever presume to be saved at all? Look to Christ, don't take your gaze away, and you will find no place for doubt.
D
Deleted member 12919 by request
Guest
I wasn’t so much making a personal statement about my assurance as trying to use an example where having to know that you’re regenerate before baptism occurs could be an issue.
As I mentioned earlier I think, I know someone who’s been baptized three or four times, because it’s always based on self-knowledge. If they have doubts about their previous baptism again, will it then be number five?
There are many people who have no idea about the moment that they were saved. What are they supposed to do when looking back at their baptism if it occurred in the same general timeframe as their conversion?
As I mentioned earlier I think, I know someone who’s been baptized three or four times, because it’s always based on self-knowledge. If they have doubts about their previous baptism again, will it then be number five?
There are many people who have no idea about the moment that they were saved. What are they supposed to do when looking back at their baptism if it occurred in the same general timeframe as their conversion?
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
The bar for baptism isn't "I know I am regenerate" it's "my claim of belief is credible".
D
Deleted member 12919 by request
Guest
That’s not what it seemed like you were saying before. My mistake.
Romans678
Puritan Board Freshman
I lovingly and respectfully disagree.
The bar for baptism is "God's Promise to bless all the families of the world through Abraham is credible, so here is a sign to signify His promises."
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
Even confessional paedobaptism requires a credible proffession, or claim of belief. Its just once removed from most recipients.
WCF 28.4: Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.
Sovereign Grace
Puritan Board Sophomore
No. I see no command for rebaptism in the Bible.
Ben Zartman
Puritan Board Junior
This is not the confessional Baptist position. But in your signature you claim to be Baptist.
What are you, really?
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Junior
5 pages in.. where is this thread going?
I understand the original Q and belive a sincere motive behind the inquiry; a self-professed Baptist initiated the thread. But I can't help but wonder if a better phrasing for the question might have asked how DO Baptists consider their children in relation to the church?, and left it primarily to Baptists to answer and defend. In saying this, I am not criticizing the tone of the thread, or any contributor. I think (in spite of many words, 5pp worth) transgression has made little appearance, Prv.10:19.
The issue of "ought" is exactly correlated in our circles to debate over 1) what the Bible teaches, and 2) what our Confession(s) declare is agreed-upon with respect to biblical teaching, thus limiting the debate to arguments within certain bounds on certain topics. There are other places existing for more wide-ranging exchanges, so at the PB we're happy with the forum we have and its rules of decorum. Baptism is one topic where confessional differences make for a jousting arena. There is disparity on the issue of "ought."
The original Q was deliberately set forth in the general Baptism subforum, so that non-Baptists might also chime in. This has allowed some non-Baptists with Baptist backgrounds to (hopefully) offer some edifying content as to their own wrestlings with similar uncertainties. Hence, I judge the setting for the original Q was not misplaced.
Still, the wording of the Q could (and may have) incite some incautious non-Baptist responses. Baptists and non-Baptists alike have a habit of judging the "inconsistencies" of the other side's position. "It seems to me, you should conclude this as a result of your commitment to that." Sounds good, to the person comfortably settled within the bounds of his own convictions. The man who was challenged, however, sees none of the alleged fatal inconsistencies; his foundation and reasoning seem secure to him.
In the present case, I think a non-Baptist (especially one who was never Baptist) should be extra cautious when advising a Baptist on the "oughts" of his theological conclusions. I've explained elsewhere: thoughtful practice of baptism flows from prior certainties, from axioms and intermediate conclusions. Conversing with someone entertaining doubts about his current beliefs re. baptismal practice requires investigation into why these doubts are arising.
Superficial reasoning means that he likely has little principled cause to doubt; he's really a convinced Baptist whose curiosity of the paedobaptist position has temporarily made him unsteady. On the other hand, he may inadvertently have a mixed set of axioms and faulty steps of reasoning therefrom that are actually bringing him to the point of choosing to be more consistent, one way or the other. The Baptist way may be his destination, only more firmly rested on an understanding of what properly leads there; or possibly the P&R way will result, again as a clear conclusion from a firm grasp of those theological postulates.
Clearly, there are Baptist-consistent answers to the original Q, which replies (when good) reveal their connections to deeper facts, or to the "network" of interlocking ideas, values, and presuppositions that make serious Baptists what they are. And, there are those who themselves (once with similar questions) were moved to a different pattern of stability in the Faith, and are now capable of communicating in love to address the same Q. It isn't true that no one else has reason to speak to the Q, but these folk especially should guard against the habit of imposing "ought" on another, absent a basis in him for that duty.
The issue of "ought" is exactly correlated in our circles to debate over 1) what the Bible teaches, and 2) what our Confession(s) declare is agreed-upon with respect to biblical teaching, thus limiting the debate to arguments within certain bounds on certain topics. There are other places existing for more wide-ranging exchanges, so at the PB we're happy with the forum we have and its rules of decorum. Baptism is one topic where confessional differences make for a jousting arena. There is disparity on the issue of "ought."
The original Q was deliberately set forth in the general Baptism subforum, so that non-Baptists might also chime in. This has allowed some non-Baptists with Baptist backgrounds to (hopefully) offer some edifying content as to their own wrestlings with similar uncertainties. Hence, I judge the setting for the original Q was not misplaced.
Still, the wording of the Q could (and may have) incite some incautious non-Baptist responses. Baptists and non-Baptists alike have a habit of judging the "inconsistencies" of the other side's position. "It seems to me, you should conclude this as a result of your commitment to that." Sounds good, to the person comfortably settled within the bounds of his own convictions. The man who was challenged, however, sees none of the alleged fatal inconsistencies; his foundation and reasoning seem secure to him.
In the present case, I think a non-Baptist (especially one who was never Baptist) should be extra cautious when advising a Baptist on the "oughts" of his theological conclusions. I've explained elsewhere: thoughtful practice of baptism flows from prior certainties, from axioms and intermediate conclusions. Conversing with someone entertaining doubts about his current beliefs re. baptismal practice requires investigation into why these doubts are arising.
Superficial reasoning means that he likely has little principled cause to doubt; he's really a convinced Baptist whose curiosity of the paedobaptist position has temporarily made him unsteady. On the other hand, he may inadvertently have a mixed set of axioms and faulty steps of reasoning therefrom that are actually bringing him to the point of choosing to be more consistent, one way or the other. The Baptist way may be his destination, only more firmly rested on an understanding of what properly leads there; or possibly the P&R way will result, again as a clear conclusion from a firm grasp of those theological postulates.
Clearly, there are Baptist-consistent answers to the original Q, which replies (when good) reveal their connections to deeper facts, or to the "network" of interlocking ideas, values, and presuppositions that make serious Baptists what they are. And, there are those who themselves (once with similar questions) were moved to a different pattern of stability in the Faith, and are now capable of communicating in love to address the same Q. It isn't true that no one else has reason to speak to the Q, but these folk especially should guard against the habit of imposing "ought" on another, absent a basis in him for that duty.
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
@Contra_Mundum
Wonderfully put, Bruce, as is customarily the case, though perhaps even better than usual!
Peace,
Alan
Wonderfully put, Bruce, as is customarily the case, though perhaps even better than usual!
Peace,
Alan
Romans678
Puritan Board Freshman
I'm Reformed.
Ben Zartman
Puritan Board Junior
Should your signature not reflect that? Usually here when someone is attending a church they are at odds with confessionally, they will indicate that in their signature. Otherwise how can the baptist or paedo only subforums be policed?
Your trumpet is giving an uncertain sound.
Romans678
Puritan Board Freshman
No it isn't. My signature reflects my current confessional subscription and the fellowship I attend.
Within the last two years, the reality of God's Covenant promises carried over from OT to NT and the historical Reformed view has been a relatively new discovery for me. It may be easy for some people to just walk away from their church brethren, but not for me.
I hope that I don't have to leave my church right away after growing in knowledge of confessional Reformed doctrine. We've been going there for over a decade. They are my brothers and sisters and I love them.
Romans678
Puritan Board Freshman
@Ben Zartman I'd be happy to talk with you about my experiences in the last few years if you'd like. It'll at least put personality to my profile. Nuance and sincerity is quite difficult to convey over keys on a keyboard. We fail to do that often and I'm guilty as charged.
Ben Zartman
Puritan Board Junior
But you're saying things that are against your confessional subscription. There are Reformed confessions that more closely align with your stated views--why not amend your signature to reflect that? Many here state a confessional subscription that is different from the one of the church they're attending.
I'm not suggesting you leave your church: I'm suggesting that for the sake of clarity on this forum you align your signature with your views.
We all have very little information to work with when interacting with others here, and the signature is an important data point in processing answers and making replies. Your signature says one thing: your statements another. The sound is uncertain.
If you want to take this up privately I'm glad to receive a PM from you, lest we derail this thread, though ambiguities like these may just be why the OP had to ask his question.
retroGRAD3
Puritan Board Senior
This would be the difference between credo and paedo.
Mr. Great-Heart
Puritan Board Freshman
Just to provide a concrete example of what I think you're trying to convey, here is an excerpt from one PB member's signature: Currently Baptist by membership but affirming the Three Forms of Unity
So @Romans678, for you this might be "....affirming WCF", or whatever the appropriate statement would be. As Ben is trying to highlight, this would alleviate the real confusion/conflict between the posts you make on this topic and your current signature.
As was already pointed out, it's not actually a confessional paedo statement. But to be charitable to our brother, I'm sure it was not meant as an absolute general statement and no doubt he would qualify it.
Last edited:
Romans678
Puritan Board Freshman
What does my signature say? Honestly, I'm on mobile so it's hard for me to tell.
(Hint: If you turn your phone sideways, it might show signatures. At least that works on iPhone.)
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
@Romans678; @Ben Zartman
To be fair to both parties, I can see that Ben, since Anthony's signature indicates that he is a Baptist, may have assumed that Anthony's confessional subscription reflected that.
However, that should not be assumed, at least in my view, since Anthony makes clear that the church he is in is an SBC, a non-confessional association of churches. If one goes to Anthony's Member's page (under "About"), one will see quite readily that Anthony subscribes to the WCF. His church obliges no confessional identity as does the PB; thus, it is not a safe assumption that his confessional identity is Baptistic when his membership is not in a confessional church.
Peace,
Alan
To be fair to both parties, I can see that Ben, since Anthony's signature indicates that he is a Baptist, may have assumed that Anthony's confessional subscription reflected that.
However, that should not be assumed, at least in my view, since Anthony makes clear that the church he is in is an SBC, a non-confessional association of churches. If one goes to Anthony's Member's page (under "About"), one will see quite readily that Anthony subscribes to the WCF. His church obliges no confessional identity as does the PB; thus, it is not a safe assumption that his confessional identity is Baptistic when his membership is not in a confessional church.
Peace,
Alan
ccravens
Puritan Board Freshman
I'm struggling to see the problem here, which was answered a few posts later than the above quote. I will chalk it up to my ignorance, but this seems like looking for a solution without a problem. I can't envision a scenario where I would be overwrought in trying to decide whether I told my kids "our God" or "my God." How about "Perhaps God will have mercy on us." Or explain to them that God has had mercy on us by sending his son to be a propitiation for our sins: "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
I hope my words did not give offense; if so, I apologize.
Romans678
Puritan Board Freshman
Yes sir you are correct! My current fellowship subscribes to the 1689 LBCF and are loosely affiliated with the SBC. We are more Founders than Southern Baptist.
I love my church. They provided the safety we needed with expository preaching, plurality of elders, and confessional standards. A very solid foundation to help us leave Pentecostal Charis-mania for good.
I don't know where we'd be if it wasn't for PBC. I'd probably be doing backflips off of the pulpit or something.
retroGRAD3
Puritan Board Senior
Correct, I was not making a confessional statement. I was pointing out the statement is a general difference between the two positions.
Mr. Great-Heart
Puritan Board Freshman
Wouldn't it be safe to assume an SBC church agrees with the Baptist Faith and Message, an excerpt of which states "baptism is the immersion of a believer"? And the members of the church, likewise? I appreciate what you are saying about the About page, but I'll just raise my hand and say maybe I'm the only one, but I generally do not click into a user's profile.
I would guess the point of the information PB requires we all put into our signatures is, at least in part, so that we have that pertinent information underneath each post the user makes. As it's not a current requirement (clarifying confessional affiliation if different than your church's) for signatures, our brother is certainly within his freedom to keep it as is. Perhaps, if not already considered, it should just be a future consideration for the admins of the forum.
Edit: I actually tried clicking into someone else's profile (not Romans678) and got an error message saying that the person limits who can see their profile. Another reason to emphasize the content of our signatures.
Last edited:
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
As I understand PB requirements, Jake, all members must identify (a) specific Reformed confession(s) to which they subscribe. Since the SBC subscribes to no Reformed confession, the PB member who is an SBC member but provides no Reformed confession in his signature leaves us informed and we must have recourse to his member's page.
I am not sure in the case of a PB member who belongs to an SBC congregation that the Baptist Faith and Message has any particular standing. It is not a Reformed confession and members of the SBC, as I understand it, need not affirm it: it's a statement of what the church and not necessarily its members believe.
This is why I looked where I did to see to what he subscribed and saw that it was not a Reformed Baptist confession but the WCF.
Peace,
Alan
- Status
