Re-Baptism

[calgal]

Back on topic, what would you say to an adult who came to faith and was from a line of atheist/agnostics/unitarians/mormons/jw's? I think it is reasonable to accept a Catholic baptism but not a mormon or jw baptism.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Back on topic, what would you say to an adult who came to faith and was from a line of atheist/agnostics/unitarians/mormons/jw's? I think it is reasonable to accept a Catholic baptism but not a mormon or jw baptism.

I think you want this thread. http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/what-baptism-valid-34023/

And here is an older discussion...

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/roman-catholic-baptism-poll-do-over-25009/

 

[servantofmosthigh]

The heresy they share in common is the requirement for rebaptism of those not baptized by immersion or baptized as infants.

That is hardly heresy.

According to Schaff (as noted by Dr. McMahon), "All the Reformers retained the custom of infant baptism and opposed rebaptism as heresy." (History of the Christian Church, vol. 7, The German Reformation, p 607)

Granted, this opposition was in the historical context of the Anabaptist controversy, but there is no difference between rebaptism of an infant by a Baptist vs. rebaptism of an infant by an Anabaptist.

As a Reformed Baptist, I want to be first to echo our pedobaptist brothers' sentiments that re-baptism IS heresy because it symbolizes the baptism of the Holy Spirit in the new believer. Therefore, Baptists do not re-baptize anyone. Period!

The question then becomes, "Why baptize those who were baptized as infants, baptized by sprinkling, baptized in baptistic churches (e.g. Church of Christ, Charismatic, etc.) or baptized in non-evangelical churches (e.g. Mormon, Catholic, etc.)?

The answer is as follows:
1. Concerning infant baptism: Because Baptists believe regeneration precedes faith, and faith precedes baptism of the Holy Spirit, profession of faith can only be done by a genuine believer, and then water baptism follows their profession of faith. Infant baptism is, consequently, considered invalid because it breaks away from the order of salvation (regeneration, faith, baptism). Therefore, as a Baptist pastor, I baptize anyone baptized as infants because I do not consider their infant baptism as baptism. Instead, they merely took a bath when they were an infant.

2. Concerning sprinkling: Because Baptists believe water baptism ties with the total baptism of the Holy Spirit rather than our Presbyterian brothers' view of water baptism tied to the blood of the Lamb (e.g. Exodus passover of the Holy Spirit by sprinkling blood on the doorposts), only total immersion baptism is recognized as valid baptism, whereas sprinkled baptisms are, again, recognized as merely "got wet with a squirt gun."

3. Immersed Baptisms by Baptistic (but not Baptist) churches. This is one of the point of contentions between the IMB and other Southern Baptists. Many Southern Baptist churches would gladly accept immersed baptisms from a Church of Christ, Charismatic, Pentecostal, etc. Personally, I have a problem with this. If I'm going to accept anyone's baptism, I would prefer to accept the pedobaptisms of any Presbyterian brother here than accept the credobaptisms of someone coming from a Church of Christ or Assembly of God church. But since I cannot accept pedobaptism as legitimate baptisms, I am one of the few who support the IMB's decision to also throw out credobaptisms of any "Baptistic but not Baptist" churches. I think my position would upset some of my Sovereign Grace brothers.

4. Baptisms in non-evangelical churches. Catholic baptisms are accepted in Presbyterian churches, but for the same reasons as stated above, are not accepted in Baptist churches. And any other baptisms in any non-evangelical church (e.g. Mormons, JW, Buddhism, etc.) are all illegitimate baptisms because, again, as explained above, regeneration precedes saving faith, and faith precedes baptism. Anyone baptized in a non-evangelical church, I will need thorough convincing that someone was regenerated and received saving faith from hearing, for example, Mormom doctrine.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Given the comments here, I took some time to rethink my position, do some reading from Calvin and others on the subject, and see if I can reconcile my views with the views expressed by many in this forum.

I have concluded the following:

The Reformed Churches have traditionally recognized three marks of a true Church:
- Faithful gospel preaching
- Proper administration of the sacraments
- Proper administration of church discipline

Anti-paedobaptistic churches deny the historic Reformed understanding on point 2 since they (a) generally deny that baptism is a sacrament as defined by Westminster, (b) fail to properly administer the sacrament since they deny it to their own covenant infants, and (c) for the most part require the rebaptism of members who were baptized as infants in other denominations (thus effectively denying the catholic nature of Christ’s church).

I consider all points serious, but (c) especially since rebaptizers are not just rebaptizing "apostates", but often fellow acknowledged believers from orthodox, Reformed denominations. John Piper recognizes the seriousness of this issue, but apparently could not convince his congregation of the rightness of his position.

Some anti-paedobaptists also consider paedobaptized believers as "unrepentant sinners", a charge I find just as significant and divisive as a charge of heresy. (See Mark Dever’s views.) Which is worse, being called an unrepentant sinner or a heretic? See 1 John 3:8.

It has been expressed here that anti-paedobaptists are not really "rebaptizing" since they do not view baptism of infants or baptism by sprinkling as valid baptisms. But isn't this the same position as that of the Anabaptists who were condemned as heretical by the Protestant Reformers?

I am also now fully convinced that wrt the validity of Roman Catholic baptism, Calvin, Hodge, Westminster, et al got it right and Thornwell, Gerstner, et al got it wrong. Remember, the Westminster Assembly was long after Trent, so the distinction of Gerstner regarding the RC church’s pre-Trent/post-Trent apostate status is artificial wrt the Standards. Westminster was fully aware of Trent’s (now formal) error yet did not call for the rebaptism of her children.

Infant baptism is true baptism according to Scripture and the historic testimony of the Church esp. as outlined in the Reformed confessions, and not to be undone by the rebaptism of anti-paedobaptists, whose views are error/heterodox/heretical. I realize this comment strikes at the ecumenical spirit of the PB, but it is certainly consistent with the primary Confession of the board, Westminster (whose child I am).

An article I found helpful was one written by Dr. F.N. Lee on the subject of baptismal views within the PCA, quoted in part here:

We have been looking at Calvinism on the validity of triune baptisms even when administered in the Roman Catholic Church. Significantly, not just every Lutheran leader but also every Reformed theologian affirmed the unrepeatability of 'Romish baptism.' Thus: Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer, Henry Bullinger, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, John Knox, Guido De Bres, Peter Datheen, Francis Junius, and many others.

Calvin wrote his Institutes -- to prove that the Reformers were not Anabaptists. He approved of the antirebaptism taught by the Romish Council of Trent. He opposed Rome's ritualistic additions to baptism, and her ex opere operato theory. Yet he asserted the validity of all triune baptisms, even when administered by heretics (such as Anabaptists and Romanists). For he insisted that Rome, impure and dilapidated indeed, was still part of the Christian Church -- even in spite of her being oppressed for many centuries by the papal antichrist. Hence, he decisively rejected the Catabaptists' rebaptizing of all converted Ex-Romanists previously "baptized in the papacy." Institutes IV:15:16. And he enjoined Knox to do the same.

Knox did so. He too regarded not the Romanists but the Anabaptists as "the enemies most to be feared." Indeed, he and his Scottish associates clearly declared that "we damn the error of the Anabaptists." While indeed condemning Rome as 'the false Kirk' in the First Scots Confession, in the First Book of Discipline the Knoxians provided for the utilization of rehabilitated Ex-Romish former priests -- as 'Precentors' and 'Readers' in the Reformed Church of Scotland!

In the fifteen-sixties, the Belgic Confession in Holland and the Heidelberg Catechism in Germany and the Second Helvetic Confession in Switzerland were all anticatabaptist. By 1576, Romanists and Protestants had universally agreed to recognize one another's baptisms. The Second Book of Discipline of 1578 and the Second Scots Confession of 1580 are officially anticatabaptist. So too are the decisions of: the 1581 Dutch Synod of Middelburg and the French Reformed Church; the 1615 Irish Articles; the 1618f Synod of Dordt; and the 1643f Westminster Standards.

Of the British Westminster divines, George Gillespie and Samuel Rutherford are known to have been officially anticatabaptist. So too were Cocceius and Wendelin in Germany; Turretin and Pictet in Switzerland; and Marckius, Riissen, Mastricht and De Moor in Holland. The British Puritans John Owen, David Dickson and Matthew Henry -- and Jonathan Edwards in America -- all seem to have been so. Indeed, there is no trace of any catabaptism at all among American Calvinists -- until the fateful 1845 General Assembly of the declining PCUSA.

There, under the influence of 'Great Awakening' theology on the one hand and ever increasing snipings from Baptists on the other, even the great Thornwell capitulated to catabaptism -- and for a time dragged also the General Assembly of the PCUSA with him. Asserting that even tiny covenant children should be regarded as "baptized unbelievers" and "enemies of God" ( Collected Writings IV:348), he abandoned the doctrine of the Westminster Assembly's Directory that God's covenant children "are Christians and federally holy before baptism."

Thornwell also relinquished the teaching of the Westminster Confession (28:7) that "baptism is but once to be administer to any person" (cf. too the Larger Catechism 167). Also, his view that some Romish misrepresentations of God are worse than those of "modern Hindoos" (C.W. III:373) betrays bigotry.

Charles Hodge and others stoutly resisted Thornwell's baptismal imbalance. So too did Drs. W.G.T. Shedd and A.A. Hodge. Indeed, by 1875, the Northern PCUSA had all but repudiated the catabaptism of 1845. After the death of Thornwell in 1862, even in the Southern PCUS, Dabney (d. 1898) did not endorse the deceased Thornwell's catabaptism. By 1882, the PCUS had reversed itself on the (in)validity of Campbellite baptism. Indeed, in the twentieth century, it de facto returned to Calvin's view on the validity of Romish baptism.

Anticatabaptist Reformed theologians since Thornwell's time onward, include: Heinrich Heppe in Germany; the Dutchmen Gravemeijer, Kuyper, Bavinck, and Berkouwer; the Free Church of Scotland's William Cunningham and 'Rabbi' Duncan; the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland's Cameron, MacIntyre, Beaton, Macfarlane, Macqueen and Maclean; the American Calvinists Warfield, Berkhof, McIntire, Buswell, Hoeksema, and Boice; Heyns (and all other Reformed theologians absolutely) in South Africa; and the Reformed Ecumenical Synod worldwide.

http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs3/citpcia/citpcia.pdf

 

[Herald]

Given the comments here, I took some time to rethink my position, do some reading from Calvin and others on the subject, and see if I can reconcile my views with the views expressed by many in this forum.

I have concluded the following:

The Reformed Churches have traditionally recognized three marks of a true Church:
- Faithful gospel preaching
- Proper administration of the sacraments
- Proper administration of church discipline

Anti-paedobaptistic churches deny the historic Reformed understanding on point 2 since they (a) generally deny that baptism is a sacrament as defined by Westminster, (b) fail to properly administer the sacrament since they deny it to their own covenant infants, and (c) for the most part require the rebaptism of members who were baptized as infants in other denominations (thus effectively denying the catholic nature of Christ’s church).

I consider all points serious, but (c) especially since rebaptizers are not just rebaptizing "apostates", but often fellow acknowledged believers from orthodox, Reformed denominations. John Piper recognizes the seriousness of this issue, but apparently could not convince his congregation of the rightness of his position.

Some anti-paedobaptists also consider paedobaptized believers as "unrepentant sinners", a charge I find just as significant and divisive as a charge of heresy. (See Mark Dever’s views.) Which is worse, being called an unrepentant sinner or a heretic? See 1 John 3:8.

It has been expressed here that anti-paedobaptists are not really "rebaptizing" since they do not view baptism of infants or baptism by sprinkling as valid baptisms. But isn't this the same position as that of the Anabaptists who were condemned as heretical by the Protestant Reformers?

I am also now fully convinced that wrt the validity of Roman Catholic baptism, Calvin, Hodge, Westminster, et al got it right and Thornwell, Gerstner, et al got it wrong. Remember, the Westminster Assembly was long after Trent, so the distinction of Gerstner regarding the RC church’s pre-Trent/post-Trent apostate status is artificial wrt the Standards. Westminster was fully aware of Trent’s (now formal) error yet did not call for the rebaptism of her children.

Infant baptism is true baptism according to Scripture and the historic testimony of the Church esp. as outlined in the Reformed confessions, and not to be undone by the rebaptism of anti-paedobaptists, whose views are error/heterodox/heretical. I realize this comment strikes at the ecumenical spirit of the PB, but it is certainly consistent with the primary Confession of the board, Westminster (whose child I am).

An article I found helpful was one written by Dr. F.N. Lee on the subject of baptismal views within the PCA, quoted in part here:

We have been looking at Calvinism on the validity of triune baptisms even when administered in the Roman Catholic Church. Significantly, not just every Lutheran leader but also every Reformed theologian affirmed the unrepeatability of 'Romish baptism.' Thus: Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer, Henry Bullinger, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, John Knox, Guido De Bres, Peter Datheen, Francis Junius, and many others.

Calvin wrote his Institutes -- to prove that the Reformers were not Anabaptists. He approved of the antirebaptism taught by the Romish Council of Trent. He opposed Rome's ritualistic additions to baptism, and her ex opere operato theory. Yet he asserted the validity of all triune baptisms, even when administered by heretics (such as Anabaptists and Romanists). For he insisted that Rome, impure and dilapidated indeed, was still part of the Christian Church -- even in spite of her being oppressed for many centuries by the papal antichrist. Hence, he decisively rejected the Catabaptists' rebaptizing of all converted Ex-Romanists previously "baptized in the papacy." Institutes IV:15:16. And he enjoined Knox to do the same.

Knox did so. He too regarded not the Romanists but the Anabaptists as "the enemies most to be feared." Indeed, he and his Scottish associates clearly declared that "we damn the error of the Anabaptists." While indeed condemning Rome as 'the false Kirk' in the First Scots Confession, in the First Book of Discipline the Knoxians provided for the utilization of rehabilitated Ex-Romish former priests -- as 'Precentors' and 'Readers' in the Reformed Church of Scotland!

In the fifteen-sixties, the Belgic Confession in Holland and the Heidelberg Catechism in Germany and the Second Helvetic Confession in Switzerland were all anticatabaptist. By 1576, Romanists and Protestants had universally agreed to recognize one another's baptisms. The Second Book of Discipline of 1578 and the Second Scots Confession of 1580 are officially anticatabaptist. So too are the decisions of: the 1581 Dutch Synod of Middelburg and the French Reformed Church; the 1615 Irish Articles; the 1618f Synod of Dordt; and the 1643f Westminster Standards.

Of the British Westminster divines, George Gillespie and Samuel Rutherford are known to have been officially anticatabaptist. So too were Cocceius and Wendelin in Germany; Turretin and Pictet in Switzerland; and Marckius, Riissen, Mastricht and De Moor in Holland. The British Puritans John Owen, David Dickson and Matthew Henry -- and Jonathan Edwards in America -- all seem to have been so. Indeed, there is no trace of any catabaptism at all among American Calvinists -- until the fateful 1845 General Assembly of the declining PCUSA.

There, under the influence of 'Great Awakening' theology on the one hand and ever increasing snipings from Baptists on the other, even the great Thornwell capitulated to catabaptism -- and for a time dragged also the General Assembly of the PCUSA with him. Asserting that even tiny covenant children should be regarded as "baptized unbelievers" and "enemies of God" ( Collected Writings IV:348), he abandoned the doctrine of the Westminster Assembly's Directory that God's covenant children "are Christians and federally holy before baptism."

Thornwell also relinquished the teaching of the Westminster Confession (28:7) that "baptism is but once to be administer to any person" (cf. too the Larger Catechism 167). Also, his view that some Romish misrepresentations of God are worse than those of "modern Hindoos" (C.W. III:373) betrays bigotry.

Charles Hodge and others stoutly resisted Thornwell's baptismal imbalance. So too did Drs. W.G.T. Shedd and A.A. Hodge. Indeed, by 1875, the Northern PCUSA had all but repudiated the catabaptism of 1845. After the death of Thornwell in 1862, even in the Southern PCUS, Dabney (d. 1898) did not endorse the deceased Thornwell's catabaptism. By 1882, the PCUS had reversed itself on the (in)validity of Campbellite baptism. Indeed, in the twentieth century, it de facto returned to Calvin's view on the validity of Romish baptism.

Anticatabaptist Reformed theologians since Thornwell's time onward, include: Heinrich Heppe in Germany; the Dutchmen Gravemeijer, Kuyper, Bavinck, and Berkouwer; the Free Church of Scotland's William Cunningham and 'Rabbi' Duncan; the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland's Cameron, MacIntyre, Beaton, Macfarlane, Macqueen and Maclean; the American Calvinists Warfield, Berkhof, McIntire, Buswell, Hoeksema, and Boice; Heyns (and all other Reformed theologians absolutely) in South Africa; and the Reformed Ecumenical Synod worldwide.

http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs3/citpcia/citpcia.pdf

Tom, I have absolutely no problem with a paedobaptist holding to his convictions about baptism, without apology. I do the same. I have no problem that you think we are in error. Guess what? I think paedobaptists are in error. Do I think your error rises to the level of heresy? No. If I look at the WCF as one expression of doctrinal thought, I give God the glory for its framers. Baptists and Presbyterians are like minded on many points of doctrine. Our areas of unity outshine our disagreements. In fact, they should prove the orthodoxy of our beliefs, even if we disagree on baptism.

You can try all you want to pin the Anabaptist label on confessional Baptists and I will smack that charge down every time. I can happily participate on the PB knowing the stark differences I have with my Presbyterian brethren (and yes, I call them brethren) on baptism. I don't know the "some" you mention in your post but most Baptists on this board hold their Presbyterian brethren in the highest esteem. We believe the majority of the Presbyterians on this board reciprocate.

 

[KMK]

Given the comments here, I took some time to rethink my position, do some reading from Calvin and others on the subject, and see if I can reconcile my views with the views expressed by many in this forum.

I have concluded the following:

The Reformed Churches have traditionally recognized three marks of a true Church:
- Faithful gospel preaching
- Proper administration of the sacraments
- Proper administration of church discipline

Anti-paedobaptistic churches deny the historic Reformed understanding on point 2 since they (a) generally deny that baptism is a sacrament as defined by Westminster, (b) fail to properly administer the sacrament since they deny it to their own covenant infants, and (c) for the most part require the rebaptism of members who were baptized as infants in other denominations (thus effectively denying the catholic nature of Christ’s church).

I consider all points serious, but (c) especially since rebaptizers are not just rebaptizing "apostates", but often fellow acknowledged believers from orthodox, Reformed denominations. John Piper recognizes the seriousness of this issue, but apparently could not convince his congregation of the rightness of his position.

Some anti-paedobaptists also consider paedobaptized believers as "unrepentant sinners", a charge I find just as significant and divisive as a charge of heresy. (See Mark Dever’s views.) Which is worse, being called an unrepentant sinner or a heretic? See 1 John 3:8.

It has been expressed here that anti-paedobaptists are not really "rebaptizing" since they do not view baptism of infants or baptism by sprinkling as valid baptisms. But isn't this the same position as that of the Anabaptists who were condemned as heretical by the Protestant Reformers?

I am also now fully convinced that wrt the validity of Roman Catholic baptism, Calvin, Hodge, Westminster, et al got it right and Thornwell, Gerstner, et al got it wrong. Remember, the Westminster Assembly was long after Trent, so the distinction of Gerstner regarding the RC church’s pre-Trent/post-Trent apostate status is artificial wrt the Standards. Westminster was fully aware of Trent’s (now formal) error yet did not call for the rebaptism of her children.

Infant baptism is true baptism according to Scripture and the historic testimony of the Church esp. as outlined in the Reformed confessions, and not to be undone by the rebaptism of anti-paedobaptists, whose views are error/heterodox/heretical. I realize this comment strikes at the ecumenical spirit of the PB, but it is certainly consistent with the primary Confession of the board, Westminster (whose child I am).

An article I found helpful was one written by Dr. F.N. Lee on the subject of baptismal views within the PCA, quoted in part here:

We have been looking at Calvinism on the validity of triune baptisms even when administered in the Roman Catholic Church. Significantly, not just every Lutheran leader but also every Reformed theologian affirmed the unrepeatability of 'Romish baptism.' Thus: Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer, Henry Bullinger, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, John Knox, Guido De Bres, Peter Datheen, Francis Junius, and many others.

Calvin wrote his Institutes -- to prove that the Reformers were not Anabaptists. He approved of the antirebaptism taught by the Romish Council of Trent. He opposed Rome's ritualistic additions to baptism, and her ex opere operato theory. Yet he asserted the validity of all triune baptisms, even when administered by heretics (such as Anabaptists and Romanists). For he insisted that Rome, impure and dilapidated indeed, was still part of the Christian Church -- even in spite of her being oppressed for many centuries by the papal antichrist. Hence, he decisively rejected the Catabaptists' rebaptizing of all converted Ex-Romanists previously "baptized in the papacy." Institutes IV:15:16. And he enjoined Knox to do the same.

Knox did so. He too regarded not the Romanists but the Anabaptists as "the enemies most to be feared." Indeed, he and his Scottish associates clearly declared that "we damn the error of the Anabaptists." While indeed condemning Rome as 'the false Kirk' in the First Scots Confession, in the First Book of Discipline the Knoxians provided for the utilization of rehabilitated Ex-Romish former priests -- as 'Precentors' and 'Readers' in the Reformed Church of Scotland!

In the fifteen-sixties, the Belgic Confession in Holland and the Heidelberg Catechism in Germany and the Second Helvetic Confession in Switzerland were all anticatabaptist. By 1576, Romanists and Protestants had universally agreed to recognize one another's baptisms. The Second Book of Discipline of 1578 and the Second Scots Confession of 1580 are officially anticatabaptist. So too are the decisions of: the 1581 Dutch Synod of Middelburg and the French Reformed Church; the 1615 Irish Articles; the 1618f Synod of Dordt; and the 1643f Westminster Standards.

Of the British Westminster divines, George Gillespie and Samuel Rutherford are known to have been officially anticatabaptist. So too were Cocceius and Wendelin in Germany; Turretin and Pictet in Switzerland; and Marckius, Riissen, Mastricht and De Moor in Holland. The British Puritans John Owen, David Dickson and Matthew Henry -- and Jonathan Edwards in America -- all seem to have been so. Indeed, there is no trace of any catabaptism at all among American Calvinists -- until the fateful 1845 General Assembly of the declining PCUSA.

There, under the influence of 'Great Awakening' theology on the one hand and ever increasing snipings from Baptists on the other, even the great Thornwell capitulated to catabaptism -- and for a time dragged also the General Assembly of the PCUSA with him. Asserting that even tiny covenant children should be regarded as "baptized unbelievers" and "enemies of God" ( Collected Writings IV:348), he abandoned the doctrine of the Westminster Assembly's Directory that God's covenant children "are Christians and federally holy before baptism."

Thornwell also relinquished the teaching of the Westminster Confession (28:7) that "baptism is but once to be administer to any person" (cf. too the Larger Catechism 167). Also, his view that some Romish misrepresentations of God are worse than those of "modern Hindoos" (C.W. III:373) betrays bigotry.

Charles Hodge and others stoutly resisted Thornwell's baptismal imbalance. So too did Drs. W.G.T. Shedd and A.A. Hodge. Indeed, by 1875, the Northern PCUSA had all but repudiated the catabaptism of 1845. After the death of Thornwell in 1862, even in the Southern PCUS, Dabney (d. 1898) did not endorse the deceased Thornwell's catabaptism. By 1882, the PCUS had reversed itself on the (in)validity of Campbellite baptism. Indeed, in the twentieth century, it de facto returned to Calvin's view on the validity of Romish baptism.

Anticatabaptist Reformed theologians since Thornwell's time onward, include: Heinrich Heppe in Germany; the Dutchmen Gravemeijer, Kuyper, Bavinck, and Berkouwer; the Free Church of Scotland's William Cunningham and 'Rabbi' Duncan; the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland's Cameron, MacIntyre, Beaton, Macfarlane, Macqueen and Maclean; the American Calvinists Warfield, Berkhof, McIntire, Buswell, Hoeksema, and Boice; Heyns (and all other Reformed theologians absolutely) in South Africa; and the Reformed Ecumenical Synod worldwide.

http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs3/citpcia/citpcia.pdf

Could you clarify what you mean by 'heresy'? According to Gal 5, those who 'do' heresies shall not inherit the Kingdom. Is that what you believe about the credos on PB?

 

[Houston E.]

Infant baptism is true baptism according to Scripture and the historic testimony of the Church esp. as outlined in the Reformed confessions, and not to be undone by the rebaptism of anti-paedobaptists, whose views are error/heterodox/heretical. I realize this comment strikes at the ecumenical spirit of the PB, but it is certainly consistent with the primary Confession of the board, Westminster (whose child I am).

I don't get it...
There's been 2-3 mods and an admin speak against the charge of heresy (unless referring to anabaptists), and yet, here we are again.

 

[DMcFadden]

tcalbrecht wrote:

Infant baptism is true baptism according to Scripture and the historic testimony of the Church esp. as outlined in the Reformed confessions, and not to be undone by the rebaptism of anti-paedobaptists, whose views are error/heterodox/heretical. I realize this comment strikes at the ecumenical spirit of the PB, but it is certainly consistent with the primary Confession of the board, Westminster (whose child I am).

Houston E wrote:

I don't get it...
There's been 2-3 mods and an admin speak against the charge of heresy (unless referring to anabaptists), and yet, here we are again.

Tom,

Reviewing my own participation in this thread renders it inappropriate that I act with the authority of a moderator at this point, particularly with another moderator (ouch!). However, I would like to remind you that the admins take the rules quite seriously and that they apply to all of us. Those who subscribe to either the WCF or LBCF have an equal right to participate in this forum. Your persistent use of words like "heresy" and "heterodoxy" are unjustified, unwelcome, and utterly inappropriate. The first time could be an error of ignorance; the second offense might be a pardonable error. Continuing to do it sounds more like attempting to bait your brethren. Is that your purpose? Or have I missed something?

Claiming that the original meaning of "heresy" is merely divisiveness, constitutes an illegitimate totality transfer. One might as well argue that when someone calls you a "nice" person it is really an insult since the word "originally" meant an ignorant person! That heresy began with the idea of being divisive misses the point that today it carries another set of connotations that are instrinsically insulting and "fighting" words.

I can see why it is offensive for a paedo-baptist to see a Baptist insist upon believer's baptism of one who entered into a covenant baptism. Frankly, as admitted in other threads, I am reconsidering my own position on these matters, due in part to the arguments by people like you on the PB. In my pre-confessional days, I pastored a church where the policy called for accepting paedo-baptists and other evangelical Christians not from Baptist churches based on their declaration of "Christian experience" without rebaptism. Still, as Bill and some others have observed, that is not coherent nor consistent with what Baptist claim to believe. For this reason (and a whole bunch more), I am reconsidering my understanding of the Bible's teaching on baptism and subscription to the LBCF (possibly in favor of the WCF?).

My point is that as long as BOTH confessions are acceptable for membership on this board, it seems particularly poor form to name call one another. Kim Riddlebarger makes a helpful point in his discussions about amillennialism and dispensationalism. Bad mouthing either side does not move the discussion along, whether it is the dispensationalist claiming that amil eschatology is Roman Catholic or the source of antisemitism or the amillennialist accusing the dispensationalist of having a fictional science fiction eschatology.

 

[pilgrim3970]

Back on topic, what would you say to an adult who came to faith and was from a line of atheist/agnostics/unitarians/mormons/jw's? I think it is reasonable to accept a Catholic baptism but not a mormon or jw baptism.

 

[servantofmosthigh]

Anti-paedobaptists

Just a symmantical matter, but we credo-baptists like to be referred to what we stand FOR (confessional and creedal). I'm sure our pedobaptists also like to be called "pedobaptists" for what they stand FOR (infant baptism). Putting the "anti" in front of a word can create unnecessary emotional heat and friction that can detract from the main issue of the debate itself (e.g. a credobaptist calling someone an anti-credobaptist, or a pedobaptist calling someone an anti-pedobaptist).

Just using the term "anti" as a prefix to any word can be unnecessarily explosive against the group of people or organization that the word describes. It's a form of name-calling that often can generate childishness by the person saying it or by those reacting against it.

OK, back to our healthy discussion...

 

[tcalbrecht]

I don't think I've seen a answer to a simple question, how does the confessional Baptist view of baptism as outlined in the LBCF differ in substance from the Anabaptist view (esp. rebaptism of infants) that was denounced as heresy by the Protestant Reformers?

 

[tcalbrecht]

Tom,

Reviewing my own participation in this thread renders it inappropriate that I act with the authority of a moderator at this point, particularly with another moderator (ouch!). However, I would like to remind you that the admins take the rules quite seriously and that they apply to all of us. Those who subscribe to either the WCF or LBCF have an equal right to participate in this forum. Your persistent use of words like "heresy" and "heterodoxy" are unjustified, unwelcome, and utterly inappropriate. The first time could be an error of ignorance; the second offense might be a pardonable error. Continuing to do it sounds more like attempting to bait your brethren. Is that your purpose? Or have I missed something?

b. Confessional Subscription: Officially, the Puritanboard is governed by the Westminster Standards and will acquiesce to them in ultimate matters of any controversies on the Puritanboard. Some of our moderators are Baptist and hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (LBCF). Others hold to the Three Forms of Unity (Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dordt).

Dennis,

The board rules do not suggest any equity between the WS and the LBCF (or 3FU) for that matter. It is the WS that govern the board, although members who hold other confessional positions are welcome to participate.

While this thread had it roots in another forum, it’s my understanding that the Baptism forum was set up to discuss these matters in a more spirited atmosphere.

Claiming that the original meaning of "heresy" is merely divisiveness, constitutes an illegitimate totality transfer.

I don’t think that was my argument.

I can see why it is offensive for a paedo-baptist to see a Baptist insist upon believer's baptism of one who entered into a covenant baptism.

As I pointed out, some of those who hold the confessional Baptist view regard paedobaptists as "unrepentant sinners". Indeed, as you seem to understand that is the consistent confessional view if you are a Baptist. Is an unrepentant sinner any more worthy of inheriting eternal life than someone who holds a heretical view? Is 1 John 3:8 less severe that Gal. 5:20? The terms may sound different but the effect is the same.

BTW, I still view the legitimacy of a construct which allows for degrees of heresy, e.g., garden variety heresy and damnable heresy (ala 2 Peter 2:1).

If you can enjoy the company of "unrepentant sinners", then I think we can all get along just fine.

My point is that as long as BOTH confessions are acceptable for membership on this board, it seems particularly poor form to name call one another.

And my point was not to call someone a name for the sake of calling them a name. This whole matter was a reaction to the fact that I equated the Anabaptist and Baptist views of baptism as materially identical, and that the Anabaptists were condemned as heretics by the Protestant Reformers.

The only response was that we shouldn’t call one another heretics on this board, which, if you read the thread was never my intent. And I never called anyone to repent of any particular heresy.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Anti-paedobaptists

Just a symmantical matter, but we credo-baptists like to be referred to what we stand FOR (confessional and creedal). I'm sure our pedobaptists also like to be called "pedobaptists" for what they stand FOR (infant baptism). Putting the "anti" in front of a word can create unnecessary emotional heat and friction that can detract from the main issue of the debate itself (e.g. a credobaptist calling someone an anti-credobaptist, or a pedobaptist calling someone an anti-pedobaptist).

Just using the term "anti" as a prefix to any word can be unnecessarily explosive against the group of people or organization that the word describes. It's a form of name-calling that often can generate childishness by the person saying it or by those reacting against it.

OK, back to our healthy discussion...

I understand, but since paedobaptists also baptize based on profession of faith the terminology credo-/paedo- is not exactly symmetrical for the purpose of this discussion.

Anti-paedobaptist is meant to emphasize the Baptist point of departure from the Protestant Reformers as typified by the Westminster Confession.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Tom, I have absolutely no problem with a paedobaptist holding to his convictions about baptism, without apology. I do the same. I have no problem that you think we are in error. Guess what? I think paedobaptists are in error. Do I think your error rises to the level of heresy? No. If I look at the WCF as one expression of doctrinal thought, I give God the glory for its framers. Baptists and Presbyterians are like minded on many points of doctrine. Our areas of unity outshine our disagreements. In fact, they should prove the orthodoxy of our beliefs, even if we disagree on baptism.

You can try all you want to pin the Anabaptist label on confessional Baptists and I will smack that charge down every time. I can happily participate on the PB knowing the stark differences I have with my Presbyterian brethren (and yes, I call them brethren) on baptism. I don't know the "some" you mention in your post but most Baptists on this board hold their Presbyterian brethren in the highest esteem. We believe the majority of the Presbyterians on this board reciprocate.

Bill,

Again, if you reread my messages you will see that I have not tried to equate Baptists and Anabaptists in all areas, nor have I tried to refer to Baptists as Anabaptists.

However, perhaps you can take a stab at my question: how does the confessional Baptist view of baptism as outlined in the LBCF differ in substance from the Anabaptist view (esp. rebaptism of infants) that was denounced as heresy by the Protestant Reformers?

And as far as mutual respect and ability to work together, I'll note that Mark Dever has a respectful view towards his paedobaptist brethren in spite of the fact that he considers them "unrepentant sinners". Your views on baptism, no matter how erroneous, do not diminish my love and affection for y’all.

Perhaps it is a testimony to God’s grace in your lives since I do not think I would last very long on an officially Baptist message board.

 

[Herald]

Tom,

Anabaptists hold to a body of theological belief that is repudiated by confessional baptists. While confessional Baptists share a similar view on the proper recipients of baptism (namely, believers), we radically depart from their larger theology. The polygenesis of Anabaptist roots results in their theology being all over the map. Their descendants today, mostly Brethren and Mennonite types, prove the jello-like consistency of Anabaptist thought and theology. Anabaptists are not confessional. Reformed Baptists are. If you force the conversation into the micro (our technical view of baptism), I can see where you would want to place us in the Anabaptist mold. If you look at confessional Baptists in the macro, you will be hard pressed to reach the same conclusion.

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

 

[Hippo]

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

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

 

[Herald]

The board rules do not suggest any equity between the WS and the LBCF (or 3FU) for that matter. It is the WS that govern the board, although members who hold other confessional positions are welcome to participate.

That is true. I respect the WCF and if an administrator or board owner uses it to settle a conflict of views that is his prerogative. But I am not bound to agree with the WCF and will regularly and consistently argue against the credo position as being heretical, whether it be (in your estimation) damnable or garden variety.

 

[Herald]

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

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

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

 

[Hippo]

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

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

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

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

 

[Herald]

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

 

[Hippo]

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

But would withold communion from such presbyterians?

 

[DMcFadden]

Mike,

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

 

[tcalbrecht]

Tom,

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

Bill,

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Herald]

Mike,

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

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

 

[Herald]

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

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

All this makes me wonder what your point is.

 

[tcalbrecht]

All this makes me wonder what your point is.

I can see that.

 

[Pilgrim]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MW]

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

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

 

[Pilgrim]

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

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

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

 

[MW]

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

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