# Baptism, re-baptism, and church membership



## toddpedlar

I'd like to know from the credo-baptists among us why the following sort of thing occurs today in the modern church. These are not hypothetical cases, but real situations I know about, and am considering responding to by contacting the pastors and/or individuals involved - but wanted to flesh out the discussion here first.

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

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

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

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


----------



## Pergamum

Many churches would say that a person "baptized" as an infant was not truly baptized at all because the carrying-out of the baptism was too far from the NT example and thus there would be no "RE-baptism" invovled, only a Biblical baptism. Many churches would require baptism as a pre-requisite for membership.


----------



## Wannabee

Excellent observation Pergamum.

Todd, the answer to your question is probably too varied to answer with any sense of being "absolute." For instance, many "reformed" Baptist churches recognize infant baptism for membership, but don't encourage it. However, a church that might seem sort of in-between would be Dever's church, where, if I remember right, believer's baptism is required for membership. At GCC (MacArthur) they state that someone has to be baptized as a believer, but have allowed for paedo membership when the applicants can express their position well. I've had this discussion with many who claim that "you're making it harder to join your church than it is to get saved" when you require believer's baptism. And many SBC or other mainline Baptist churches probably can't articulate their reasoning well, but do it because "that's just the way it's done." It's a complicated challenge, especially among the covenantal Baptists as they pursue doctrinal correctness and graciousness. The variance is probably most pronounced within the SBC as you have churches such as Sam Waldron's and Rick Warren's in the same denomination.

I'll share what we do. First, I think it's inconsistent for a Baptist church to allow membership for anyone who hasn't professed Christ first. From a credo point of view, it is the first act of obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ. To fail to do so is to act out in rebellion and "prove" one's condition (unrepentant, proud and disobedient). Some disagree, and I'm not trying to persuade now so much as explain (per your request).
To join our church one has to be baptized as a believer. As Pergy mentioned above, we would consider infant baptism as a nice dedication, but not consistent with the scriptural mandate to baptize. For those who say we make it harder to join our church than it is to get saved, I would agree. We all have criteria that limit who can join in order to avoid divisiveness and protect the flock God has entrusted to us. We have to draw lines somewhere. It's an unfortunate result of our depravity as well as our lack of understanding of God's Word (some more accurately in certain areas than others). 
For clarity, while our church firmly embraces the solas and TULIP, we are not a LBC church. We would be in substantial agreement, but not covenantal in a historical (systematic) sense.

There is another aspect to this that I'll hit on briefly because it's seldom brought up. Baptism is an essential part of the Gospel. When we witness to someone we often leave it out, simply trying to get them to see their sin and repent. Of course, when you only have a few minutes it can be difficult to get any further than that. But when we have any extensive witnessing interaction with an individual, as a baptist, baptism should be an integral part of our witness as it portrays the death of the old man and the birth of the new; the death to self and life for Christ.

I hope that helps Todd, and that I haven't muddied the waters any. Blessings to you in your pursuit.


----------



## Herald

Todd, not trying to dodge the tough question here. RB's consider an infant baptism to be invalid. We belive in baptism upon a credible profession of faith. Therefore we would require a new member to be baptized in a valid manner. We do not consider this re-baptism but baptism being properly administered the first time. This is pretty standard practice for all Baptists, not just RB's.


----------



## KMK

toddpedlar said:


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



I assume that in this scenario, the person knows for a fact that they were baptized as an infant? Honestly, most of the people I deal with are not even sure. This is probably due to the fact that many paedo denoms do not stress baptism as a 'sign' and 'seal' the way PB paedos do. Honestly, I have never had a person come to me and say, "I know for sure I was baptized as an infant and I have the certificate to prove it." This leaves the Baptist church in a tough spot because no one knows for sure whether this person was baptized or not. It is my counsel in those situations to go ahead and baptize. 

In addition, how do any of us know for sure that a person is correct when they say they have or have not been baptized? With everyone church hopping these days, and all of the 'bathtub baptisms', it is impossible for a pastor to know if he is indeed 'rebaptizing' someone unless its his own kids.

Sheesh! (Sorry this turned into a rant but it is a problem that I am dealing with right now)


----------



## Pilgrim

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Todd, not trying to dodge the tough question here. RB's consider an infant baptism to be invalid. We belive in baptism upon a credible profession of faith. Therefore we would require a new member to be baptized in a valid manner. We do not consider this re-baptism but baptism being properly administered the first time. This is pretty standard practice for all Baptists, not just RB's.



Agreed, Bill. Any "Reformed Baptist" type church (as described in one of the above posts) that accepts infant baptism or sprinkling is unconfessional. In most Baptist churches that aren't liberal or doctrinally indifferent, inquiry is generally made of those presenting themselves for membership. Those who were sprinkled, whether as infants or adults are baptized. There should be no difference between SBC, RB or really any other kind of Baptist. But in some aspects of Baptist life, there's been about as much of a downgrade in ecclesiology as there has been in soteriology. I have noticed a tendency among some Calvinistic Baptists, particularly younger ones, to adopt Bunyan's view that differences on baptism shouldn't be a bar to church membership or communion. In that respect some of the non-Calvinistic Southern Baptists are more confessional than some of the so called "Reformed Baptists" in their midst on this issue. 

Various independent churches and some "Bible Churches" will sometimes be indifferent on the issue from a consistent Baptist perspective. These churches are baptistic in that they typically only practice immersion of professing disciples, but some of them will accept into membership people who were sprinkled, etc. if they do not want to be immersed.


----------



## DMcFadden

Todd,

One of the problems with asking a specific question about an autonomous movement is that one size does not fit all as it would in a confessional Reformed church. 

However, that being said . . .

I served on staff in a Baptist church (150 attendance), pastored a Baptist church for a seven years (110 average attendance) and was senior pastor of another one for a decade (525 attendance) that accepted members in three ways . . .
a. Baptism upon a credible profession of faith.
b. Transfer of membership from another BAPTIST (any stripe) church.
c. Christian Experience

In the first one, one had to be baptized as a believer (therefore compelling a prospective member to repeat their infant baptism). In the last two, that was not necessary. In other words, a person who was a member of another Christian denomination (regardless of whether they were credo or paedo) could join our congregation on the basis of declaring that they had been baptized AND had been a member in good standing in a congregation of "like faith." In practice, this meant pretty much a green light for any evangelical coming from any evangelical denomination (including Presbyterian, Congregational, and Free Methodist where paedo baptism was practiced).

Does any of this make sense? No! Either you believe there is one valid candidate for baptism or you don't. My last churches simply wanted to be sure that a person had been baptized + had a credible confession of faith. Since church membership was taken to establish the second, the "irregularity" of the first was passed over.

Please understand, however, that outside of the SBC and many Reformed groups, denominationalism is not usually a big issue. Even in my "mainline" denomination of origin, here in So. Cal. less than 5% of the candidates for ordination were trained at a "Baptist" school. Most were either graduates of Fuller (and therefore mainly taught by Presbyterians of one stripe or another), Talbot (and thoroughly dispensational or progressive dispensational), or Bethel (SD). In my judicatory, we were more concerned with the "Evangelical" identity, not Baptist identity. If a person was an evangelical in conviction, had been baptized, and had a credible confession, they were OK regardless of their former church's practice on baptism.

Of the many anomalies inherent in this situation, try this one. If you are screening for an evangelical, then you are generally looking for agreement on the "fundamentals." In this respect, a conservative Presbyterian has more in common with an evangelical Baptist than the Baptist would with a fundamentalist Baptist! Yet, even the fundamentalist Baptist would share an ecclesiology quite close to the evangelical Baptist and they would both be pretty far in their sacramentology from the Presbyterian.


----------



## DMcFadden

I thought of an addendum to my last post. Since WWII, denominational identity has suffered greatly. My particular mainline group at the time (ABCUSA) scored lowest on surveys of the importance of denominational identity. Part of this was due to the Baptist practice of autonomy. However, that is not the whole story since the SBC has a VERY high sense of identity verging on a sectarian mindset. 

The ABC has always been a group more conservative in the hustings than in the hierarchy. When I did a 500+ page M.A. in Organizational Management in the 90s, my research (systematic random sample of 1,400 pastors with a 49% response rate on a 180 question inventory), showed that the vast majority of pastors held to middle of the road evangelical views on most subjects (including the hot button ones). This tended to depress attendance at the almost universally progressive (to outright heretical) seminaries sponsored by the denomination. Not having a shared theological educational experience, functioning in a post-denominational milieu, and spending a good bit of time professing "I am a Baptist, but not THEIR kind of Baptist," probably contributed to the sloppy practice with regard to membership.

In theory, the Baptist view of the church should require transfer of membership only from credo-baptist bodies. In practice, it does not always work out that way for the reasons identified in this post and the previous one. Furthermore, the tendency for evangelical candidates for ordination to attend interdenominational schools does much to pluralize, relativize, and privatize attitudes toward the "right" kind of baptism. When your teachers and fellow students are co-religionists from a variety of traditions, insisting on your own group having the "right" way to do anything is a harder sell.

In my opinion, these reasons all help explain why some evangelical churches are more "open"/indifferent to the charismatic movement, women in ministry, acceptable eschatological variations, and emerging/emergent church trends. When your identify is shaped in a multi-traditional educational institution and you are prone to think in terms of the five fundamentals, you will be more inclined to see variation in areas not included in the core.

Todd, hope that helps.


----------



## Pilgrim

DMcFadden said:


> I thought of an addendum to my last post. Since WWII, denominational identity has suffered greatly. My particular mainline group at the time (ABCUSA) scored lowest on surveys of the importance of denominational identity. Part of this was due to the Baptist practice of autonomy. However, that is not the whole story since the SBC has a VERY high sense of identity verging on a sectarian mindset.
> 
> The ABC has always been a group more conservative in the hustings than in the hierarchy. When I did a 500+ page M.A. in Organizational Management in the 90s, my research (systematic random sample of 1,400 pastors with a 49% response rate on a 180 question inventory), showed that the vast majority of pastors held to middle of the road evangelical views on most subjects (including the hot button ones). This tended to depress attendance at the almost universally progressive (to outright heretical) seminaries sponsored by the denomination. Not having a shared theological educational experience, functioning in a post-denominational milieu, and spending a good bit of time professing "I am a Baptist, but not THEIR kind of Baptist," probably contributed to the sloppy practice with regard to membership.
> 
> In theory, the Baptist view of the church should require transfer of membership only from credo-baptist bodies. In practice, it does not always work out that way for the reasons identified in this post and the previous one.
> 
> Todd, hope that helps.



Thanks for this post, Dennis. I was just going to chalk up your practice to being on the left coast as well as being ABCUSA.  You have provided us with some helpful background that explains this practice among many baptistic churches. Although I didn't post it in this thread, I have long thought that, as you noted, this practice of receiving unbaptized members is due to the churches involved having more of a generic evangelical identity than a Baptist one. Some churches of this persuasion have Baptist in the name and some don't. I would be quite surprised if there aren't some Southern Baptists churches who do this too. 

It is unfortunate that there was no "Conservative Resurgence" in the ABCUSA. Do you think the polity was somewhat to blame? Is it more "top down" than the SBC is? If I'm not mistaken, a lot of conservatives left the Northern Baptists in the 1930's during the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy as well, similar to the OPC leaving the PCUSA. 

Also, to some the SBC may seem to have a sectarian mindset. I agree that it has a high degree of identity compared to the mainlines. But there is a lot of handwringing today over the lack of denominational identity among the "Younger Southern Baptists" that we see constant reference to in the Baptist Press, the blogs and elsewhere. Some of this lack of identity in my opinion is not helpful as I noted earlier. One symptom of this perceived lack is a "Baptist Identity" movement that seems to be largely coming out of Southwestern Seminary. 

The perception of the SBC is largely in the eye of the beholder. Obviously it is a diverse group, including everything from Rick Warren to landmarkists. Many of the indy/fundy viewpoint still view the SBC as being only marginally better than the ABCUSA. I met a woman recently who is a member of a SBC in Mississippi. She told me the rest of her family is Missionary Baptist and views them as being "liberal" for belonging to a Southern Baptist church.


----------



## Hippo

I can see why Baptist churches would not see infant baptism as baptism and would require a believers baptism for membership or communion. Such a position is logical and consistent with their teachings.

What I have a difficulty with is requiring a baptism by immersion where the persons previous baptism was as an adult on profession of faith but by sprinkling. 

Is this inisistance (rather than a strong preference) on immersion widespread or even universal?

Can this practice be defended as anything other than sectarian?


----------



## Pilgrim

Hippo said:


> I can see why Baptist churches would not see infant baptism as baptism and would require a believers baptism for membership or communion. Such a position is logical and consistent with their teachings.
> 
> What I have a difficulty with is requiring a baptism by immersion where the persons previous baptism was as an adult on profession of faith but by sprinkling.
> 
> Is this inisistance (rather than a strong preference) on immersion widespread or even universal?
> 
> Can this practice be defended as anything other than sectarian?



It is often regarded as sectarian by non-Baptists, but from the Baptist point of view there is no baptism unless it is by immersion.


----------



## Hippo

Pilgrim said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see why Baptist churches would not see infant baptism as baptism and would require a believers baptism for membership or communion. Such a position is logical and consistent with their teachings.
> 
> What I have a difficulty with is requiring a baptism by immersion where the persons previous baptism was as an adult on profession of faith but by sprinkling.
> 
> Is this inisistance (rather than a strong preference) on immersion widespread or even universal?
> 
> Can this practice be defended as anything other than sectarian?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is often regarded as sectarian by non-Baptists, but from the Baptist point of view there is no baptism unless it is by immersion.
Click to expand...


Firstly how widespread is this position and secondly why is the mode seen as of critical importance, without the possibility of differing interpretations?


----------



## Wannabee

The significance of identifying with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection. We are buried together with Christ and raised to walk in the newness of life. These are necessarily lost if one is not immersed (submerged, if you will).


----------



## Herald

Hippo said:


> I can see why Baptist churches would not see infant baptism as baptism and would require a believers baptism for membership or communion. Such a position is logical and consistent with their teachings.
> 
> What I have a difficulty with is requiring a baptism by immersion where the persons previous baptism was as an adult on profession of faith but by sprinkling.
> 
> Is this inisistance (rather than a strong preference) on immersion widespread or even universal?
> 
> Can this practice be defended as anything other than sectarian?



If Baptists are true to what they believe they will insist on baptism by immersion of professed believers. Sectarian? I have to interpret your use of that word as pejorative. I prefer to view our view of baptism as scriptural. Arguable? On the PB, certainly!


----------



## toddpedlar

Thanks, my baptist brothers. This is helpful. I'm going to be talking to the people I mentioned anonymously, and we'll see how the discussion goes. I fear the church involved isn't being consistent in their application ... that is it seems they do accept baptisms of individuals regardless of whether they were as infants or as professors for the purpose of membership, but will baptize a person who is currently a member of the church (based in part on that previous baptism) previously baptized as an infant if they believe they are being called to do so as an act of obedience to Christ. 

Such language makes me shudder.


----------



## toddpedlar

By the way, just to be clear - I have NO problem whatsoever with a baptist congregation being consistent with their principles and requiring professor-baptism of those who would be members. This is only treating baptism with the respect it deserves and being consistent with what they profess true baptism to be. 

My problem is with those who seem not to have any real doctrine of baptism and hence slosh back and forth all over the place when it comes to performing (or not performing) it.


----------



## KMK

Speaking from the Baptist Pastor's position, in the modern Amercan church, you simply have to take people at their word and do what you have to do with fear and trembling that you will be held to an account. Someone could tell me that he was baptized and be mistaken. Someone could tell me that he had not been baptized and be mistaken. There is no way to find out what the truth is. Therefore, most of us would err on the side of caution and baptize and ask the Lord to forgive any irregularities.

As to immersion, I confess that I do not agree with those who believe that baptism upon profession by affusion needs a 'do over'.

The LBC says, "Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance."

I take this to mean that on my end, as a Pastor, it is required of me to immerse. A man who has been sprinkled may have an 'irregular' baptism but I don't think it makes sense to 'rebaptize' in such a case because of the importance of baptism being a 'one-time' event.

Please correct me if I am in error!


----------



## Hippo

KMK said:


> Speaking from the Baptist Pastor's position, in the modern Amercan church, you simply have to take people at their word and do what you have to do with fear and trembling that you will be held to an account. Someone could tell me that he was baptized and be mistaken. Someone could tell me that he had not been baptized and be mistaken. There is no way to find out what the truth is. Therefore, most of us would err on the side of caution and baptize and ask the Lord to forgive any irregularities.
> 
> As to immersion, I confess that I do not agree with those who believe that baptism upon profession by affusion needs a 'do over'.
> 
> The LBC says, "Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance."
> 
> I take this to mean that on my end, as a Pastor, it is required of me to immerse. A man who has been sprinkled may have an 'irregular' baptism but I don't think it makes sense to 'rebaptize' in such a case because of the importance of baptism being a 'one-time' event.
> 
> Please correct me if I am in error!



To me your position makes sense.

I can understand an insistance that a profession of faith is required for a baptism to be valid, I can also understand why immersion is seen to be the desirable mode but I still do not understand why what is seen as an irregular mode renders the baptism void.


----------



## jogri17

If I was a consistent credobaptist i would say I believe in membership is for indivdual believers not families. So the husband and wife are taken into membership separately and interviewed separately. Kids would have the same thing. And the baptism would have to have occured by immersion (unless a extreme circumstance prevented it like a medical reason or a extreme fear of water) after a credible profession of faith.


----------



## Herald

KMK said:


> Speaking from the Baptist Pastor's position, in the modern Amercan church, you simply have to take people at their word and do what you have to do with fear and trembling that you will be held to an account. Someone could tell me that he was baptized and be mistaken. Someone could tell me that he had not been baptized and be mistaken. There is no way to find out what the truth is. Therefore, most of us would err on the side of caution and baptize and ask the Lord to forgive any irregularities.
> 
> As to immersion, I confess that I do not agree with those who believe that baptism upon profession by affusion needs a 'do over'.
> 
> The LBC says, "Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance."
> 
> I take this to mean that on my end, as a Pastor, it is required of me to immerse. A man who has been sprinkled may have an 'irregular' baptism but I don't think it makes sense to 'rebaptize' in such a case because of the importance of baptism being a 'one-time' event.
> 
> Please correct me if I am in error!



Ken, I loathe the word re-baptize in the context you used. You are either scripturally baptized (by mode and administration) or you are not. If you are not baptized by an ordained minister of the gospel via immersion you are not scriptural baptized. Therefore, you need to be scripturally baptized for the first time. Not only will this result in a scriptural baptism but it will also maintain the continuity of the ordinance and protect it from abuse. Compromise in one aspect of baptism will eventually lead to more compromise. This is why I am pleased the elders in John Piper's church opposed his recommendation.


----------



## jogri17

North Jersey Baptist said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking from the Baptist Pastor's position, in the modern Amercan church, you simply have to take people at their word and do what you have to do with fear and trembling that you will be held to an account. Someone could tell me that he was baptized and be mistaken. Someone could tell me that he had not been baptized and be mistaken. There is no way to find out what the truth is. Therefore, most of us would err on the side of caution and baptize and ask the Lord to forgive any irregularities.
> 
> As to immersion, I confess that I do not agree with those who believe that baptism upon profession by affusion needs a 'do over'.
> 
> The LBC says, "Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance."
> 
> I take this to mean that on my end, as a Pastor, it is required of me to immerse. A man who has been sprinkled may have an 'irregular' baptism but I don't think it makes sense to 'rebaptize' in such a case because of the importance of baptism being a 'one-time' event.
> 
> Please correct me if I am in error!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ken, I loathe the word re-baptize in the context you used. You are either scripturally baptized (by mode and administration) or you are not. If you are not baptized by an ordained minister of the gospel via immersion you are not scriptural baptized. Therefore, you need to be scripturally baptized for the first time. Not only will this result in a scriptural baptism but it will also maintain the continuity of the ordinance and protect it from abuse. Compromise in one aspect of baptism will eventually lead to more compromise. This is why I am pleased the elders in John Piper's church opposed his recommendation.
Click to expand...

Really? I did not hear about this! Go John Piper's Church and go Piper for submitting to it!


----------



## DMcFadden

Hippo said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking from the Baptist Pastor's position, in the modern Amercan church, you simply have to take people at their word and do what you have to do with fear and trembling that you will be held to an account. Someone could tell me that he was baptized and be mistaken. Someone could tell me that he had not been baptized and be mistaken. There is no way to find out what the truth is. Therefore, most of us would err on the side of caution and baptize and ask the Lord to forgive any irregularities.
> 
> As to immersion, I confess that I do not agree with those who believe that baptism upon profession by affusion needs a 'do over'.
> 
> The LBC says, "Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance."
> 
> I take this to mean that on my end, as a Pastor, it is required of me to immerse. A man who has been sprinkled may have an 'irregular' baptism but I don't think it makes sense to 'rebaptize' in such a case because of the importance of baptism being a 'one-time' event.
> 
> Please correct me if I am in error!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To me your position makes sense.
> 
> I can understand an insistance that a profession of faith is required for a baptism to be valid, I can also understand why immersion is seen to be the desirable mode but I still do not understand why what is seen as an irregular mode renders the baptism void.
Click to expand...


Again, as my post points out, there is no uniformity among Baptists. Even before the advent of the 1689, Baptists were not immersionists. That came later and was referenced (codified?) in the LBCF.

Along with Ken, during my pastoral days (also prior to my discovery of confessionalism!), I did not see the necessity of a "do over" for the one baptized upon profession of faith regardless of mode. And, since my last two churches allowed transfer without re-baptism, it was not an issue there either.


----------



## DMcFadden

toddpedlar said:


> My problem is with those who seem not to have any real doctrine of baptism and hence slosh back and forth all over the place when it comes to performing (or not performing) it.



I'm not sure that your characterization, Todd, captures the reason for the practice. It is not that some Baptists do not have a doctrine of baptism, which they surrender willy nilly in the face of expedience. Rather, for them it tends to be MERELY an act of obedient identification, not a sacramental act. 

If one had a covenant view of baptism (either Reformed or Reformed Baptist), it would matter supremely whether the baptism was credo or paedo. Indeed, I find it more difficult to understand Piper and others who, if it were left up to them, would try to have their cake and eat it too. 

But for those with a pretty dehydrated ordinancial view of the rite, greater latitude might be understandable, albeit still pretty weird. If you had gone to school with people who held every view imaginable of baptism, and if your church only focused on the five fundamentals, and if you had a theology of baptism that said it was non-efficacious in any respect and it only served as a kind of check-off on the spiritual "to do" list for the day, you might find the latitudinarian practice more understandable. Take it to the other extreme. RC folks believe it to be ESSENTIAL to salvation. You can bet they would not tolerate any significant degree of divergence. Baptists are on the other end of the polarity. Some flakiness should be expected.


----------



## Hippo

Now I found this interesting: 

Immersion was then still the prevailing mode in England, and continued till the reign of Elizabeth, who was herself baptized by immersion.
Schaff, Philip ; Schaff, David Schley: History of the Christian Church. Oak Harbor, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997

You have got to love Logos for pulling up some odd facts during a search.


----------



## Herald

DMcFadden said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking from the Baptist Pastor's position, in the modern Amercan church, you simply have to take people at their word and do what you have to do with fear and trembling that you will be held to an account. Someone could tell me that he was baptized and be mistaken. Someone could tell me that he had not been baptized and be mistaken. There is no way to find out what the truth is. Therefore, most of us would err on the side of caution and baptize and ask the Lord to forgive any irregularities.
> 
> As to immersion, I confess that I do not agree with those who believe that baptism upon profession by affusion needs a 'do over'.
> 
> The LBC says, "Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance."
> 
> I take this to mean that on my end, as a Pastor, it is required of me to immerse. A man who has been sprinkled may have an 'irregular' baptism but I don't think it makes sense to 'rebaptize' in such a case because of the importance of baptism being a 'one-time' event.
> 
> Please correct me if I am in error!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To me your position makes sense.
> 
> I can understand an insistance that a profession of faith is required for a baptism to be valid, I can also understand why immersion is seen to be the desirable mode but I still do not understand why what is seen as an irregular mode renders the baptism void.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, as my post points out, there is no uniformity among Baptists. Even before the advent of the 1689, Baptists were not immersionists. That came later and was referenced (codified?) in the LBCF.
> 
> Along with Ken, during my pastoral days (also prior to my discovery of confessionalism!), I did not see the necessity of a "do over" for the one baptized upon profession of faith regardless of mode. And, since my last two churches allowed transfer without re-baptism, it was not an issue there either.
Click to expand...


Dennis, well that's the point about confessionalism, isn't it? The LBC codified the proper administration and mode of the ordinance. I won't call for the lynching of Baptist ministers who accept prior sprinkling, but I would describe them as unconfessional.


----------



## Herald

Brother Dennis,

Just to clarify, I mean no disrespect to you. You are an encouragement to my faith and have challenged me by your words here on the PB. I suppose the larger issue for me is Baptists that are ashamed to be Baptists. I would rather a Baptist go Presbyterian than to straddle the fence between both camps. I've seen the sparks fly when Baptists are actually called to subscribe to the confession they identify with. We're going through this right now in my church as we are vetting the ramifications of adopting the 1689 LBC as our doctrinal statement. The next few months should be interesting indeed.


----------



## DMcFadden

Pilgrim said:


> It is unfortunate that there was no "Conservative Resurgence" in the ABCUSA. Do you think the polity was somewhat to blame? Is it more "top down" than the SBC is? If I'm not mistaken, a lot of conservatives left the Northern Baptists in the 1930's during the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy as well, similar to the OPC leaving the PCUSA.



Polity, sure. But, more corporate culture than polity. Because the ABC had a long tradition in the 20th century of liberal leadership, there was a pretty strong indoctrination in the ethos of "live and let live," it's the "Baptist way." Even very conservative pastors did not want to be viewed as "fundamentalists" or legalists. And, unlike the SBC, there were frankly no conservatives willing to take political power in their hands ala Pressler and Patterson. ABC conservatives gave the money and grew the churches but generally did not want to get their hands dirty with denominational "politics." 

Following the departure in the 30s of the now GARB and the exodus in '47 of the Conservative Baptists, the rules of procedure for our national meetings were skewed in tamer and tamer terms that militated against any significant political upheaval. Then, when a judicatory in WV threatened to use a referendum process to canvass the entire denomination in the early 90s, the leaders rewrote the rules again to make it virtually impossible to upset any apple carts through normal political channels.


----------



## toddpedlar

DMcFadden said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> My problem is with those who seem not to have any real doctrine of baptism and hence slosh back and forth all over the place when it comes to performing (or not performing) it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that your characterization, Todd, captures the reason for the practice. It is not that some Baptists do not have a doctrine of baptism, which they surrender willy nilly in the face of expedience. Rather, for them it tends to be MERELY an act of obedient identification, not a sacramental act.
Click to expand...


I guess I should have been more careful in my remarks. It does
seem that these folks I'm referring to have this mentality... but
because of the openness to accepting baptism of any kind as valid,
it can get worse... because then any baptism of a person who was
previously baptized (credo or paedo) is, by necessity, a re-baptism
(since the church affirmed the initial baptism the person had, credo or
paedo). If the individual suddenly comes to the conviction
that their infant baptism is invalid, they may ask for and receive
baptism by immersion. 

If, too, it is seen by these churches as an act of obedience only,
do you think it may be that some people will wind up 'doing it again'
if they feel the need? After all, if it's only an act of obedience, and
not a mark of entrance into the visible church, then... all bets seem to
be off!


----------



## DMcFadden

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Brother Dennis,
> 
> Just to clarify, I mean no disrespect to you. You are an encouragement to my faith and have challenged me by your words here on the PB. I suppose the larger issue for me is Baptists that are ashamed to be Baptists. I would rather a Baptist go Presbyterian than to straddle the fence between both camps. I've seen the sparks fly when Baptists are actually called to subscribe to the confession they identify with. We're going through this right now in my church as we are vetting the ramifications of adopting the 1689 LBC as our doctrinal statement. The next few months should be interesting indeed.



Disrespect? Disrespect? DISRESPECT!?! I felt no disrespect. Just beware you New Joisey so-and-so, Guido is coming for YOU!

Actually, no offense taken. My point was that I ignorantly followed the procedures of my congregation, my congregation more concerned to be evangelical than Baptist, PRIOR to my becoming aware of the confessions in any meaningful way (my polity profs always said that Baptists were a non-creedal people and so we never did much reading of any confessions, including the LBCF).

BTW, it was never a case of permitting an UNbaptized person into the congregation but of allowing an irregularly baptized person to be admit upon profession of faith and testimony of a prior baptism. Still weird, I grant you.


----------



## DMcFadden

toddpedlar said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> My problem is with those who seem not to have any real doctrine of baptism and hence slosh back and forth all over the place when it comes to performing (or not performing) it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that your characterization, Todd, captures the reason for the practice. It is not that some Baptists do not have a doctrine of baptism, which they surrender willy nilly in the face of expedience. Rather, for them it tends to be MERELY an act of obedient identification, not a sacramental act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I should have been more careful in my remarks. It does
> seem that these folks I'm referring to have this mentality... but
> because of the openness to accepting baptism of any kind as valid,
> it can get worse... because then any baptism of a person who was
> previously baptized (credo or paedo) is, by necessity, a re-baptism
> (since the church affirmed the initial baptism the person had, credo or
> paedo). If the individual suddenly comes to the conviction
> that their infant baptism is invalid, they may ask for and receive
> baptism by immersion.
> 
> If, too, it is seen by these churches as an act of obedience only,
> do you think it may be that some people will wind up 'doing it again'
> if they feel the need? After all, if it's only an act of obedience, and
> not a mark of entrance into the visible church, then... all bets seem to
> be off!
Click to expand...


I agree with you, Todd. For anyone with a robust understanding of baptism, allowing a "felt need" to determine a re-do is incoherent. For a Baptist you should decide to go one way or the other. Either you are saying that infant baptism was *not* a valid baptism (in which case paedo baptists should *not* be admitted without believer's baptistm) *OR *the infant baptism is valid (in which case "believer's" baptism is a sinful abuse of a biblical ordinance established by Jesus to fit the sentimental whims of a 21st century person.

My observations regarding the "isness" of today's variations were intended to be purely descriptive, not trying to offer a prescriptive word. I hope my use of "weird," "illogical," and "incoherent" signaled that fact.


----------



## Pilgrim

DMcFadden said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brother Dennis,
> 
> Just to clarify, I mean no disrespect to you. You are an encouragement to my faith and have challenged me by your words here on the PB. I suppose the larger issue for me is Baptists that are ashamed to be Baptists. I would rather a Baptist go Presbyterian than to straddle the fence between both camps. I've seen the sparks fly when Baptists are actually called to subscribe to the confession they identify with. We're going through this right now in my church as we are vetting the ramifications of adopting the 1689 LBC as our doctrinal statement. The next few months should be interesting indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disrespect? Disrespect? DISRESPECT!?! I felt no disrespect. Just beware you New Joisey so-and-so, Guido is coming for YOU!
> 
> Actually, no offense taken. My point was that I ignorantly followed the procedures of my congregation, my congregation more concerned to be evangelical than Baptist, PRIOR to my becoming aware of the confessions in any meaningful way (my polity profs always said that Baptists were a non-creedal people and so we never did much reading of any confessions, including the LBCF).
> 
> BTW, it was never a case of permitting an UNbaptized person into the congregation but of allowing an irregularly baptized person to be admit upon profession of faith and testimony of a prior baptism. Still weird, I grant you.
Click to expand...


While this mentality would seem to be less common in the Southern Baptist Convention, it does appear to be evident in the way that many churches practice the Lord's Supper. 100 years ago I think close communion would have been the norm for most Baptist churches, but many today practice what amounts to open communion, meaning that they let people come to the table who in their view haven't been scripturally baptized. While this is perhaps becoming the norm today, it really is a rather novel idea in church history. But that's probably a discussion better left another thread.


----------



## KMK

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Ken, I loathe the word re-baptize in the context you used. You are either scripturally baptized (by mode and administration) or you are not. If you are not baptized by an ordained minister of the gospel via immersion you are not scriptural baptized. Therefore, you need to be scripturally baptized for the first time. Not only will this result in a scriptural baptism but it will also maintain the continuity of the ordinance and protect it from abuse. Compromise in one aspect of baptism will eventually lead to more compromise. This is why I am pleased the elders in John Piper's church opposed his recommendation.



We might disagree on whether my view is unconfessional (if that is what you are implying).



> 28:1. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world.
> 
> 28:2. These holy appointments are to be *administered *by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.
> 
> 29:4. Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due *administration *of this ordinance.



The confession deals with the proper administration of the sacrement but falls short of declaring that irregular baptisms are to be set at nought. After all, Bunyan recognized both.

Notice the difference in tone when the confession deals with the Lord's Supper:



> 30:8. All ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table, and cannot, without great sin against him, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto; yea, whosoever shall receive unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment to themselves.



The confession is pretty darn clear that in the case of the ignorant and ungodly, the sacrement is not only void but worthy of punishment!

I just wonder, if in the case of a new Christian who doesn't know any better and submits to his Presbyterian church elders in being sprinkled upon profession, that we should just assume that it is not indeed 'a sign of fellowship with Christ'.

I assure you my stance is not based on a desire to skirt the confession but adhere to what it says and not go beyond.


----------



## KMK

toddpedlar said:


> I guess I should have been more careful in my remarks. It does
> seem that these folks I'm referring to have this mentality... but
> because of the openness to accepting baptism of any kind as valid,
> it can get worse... because then any baptism of a person who was
> previously baptized (credo or paedo) is, by necessity, a re-baptism
> (since the church affirmed the initial baptism the person had, credo or
> paedo). If the individual suddenly comes to the conviction
> that their infant baptism is invalid, they may ask for and receive
> baptism by immersion.
> 
> If, too, it is seen by these churches as an act of obedience only,
> do you think it may be that some people will wind up 'doing it again'
> if they feel the need? After all, if it's only an act of obedience, and
> not a mark of entrance into the visible church, then... all bets seem to
> be off!



I think the confession provides a safeguard against this in that the focus is always upon the administrator of the sacrement and never on the 'receiver' of the sacrement.

Also, 29:2 brings repentance, faith and obedience together as one prerequisite.



> 29:2 Those who do actually profess *repentance *towards God, *faith *in, and *obedience *to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.



In other words,, one must not only desire baptism out of obedience, but also out of repentance and faith as well. If a man says, "I want to be rebaptized out of a new found sense of obedience." The pastor should ask what about repentance and faith? If the man says, "I already had those things," then the pastor says, there is no need for another baptism.

If baptism is a sign of our 'fellowship with Him in His death, burial and resurrection', then it is a sign of our sanctification as well. By definition we are all going to be growing in repentance, faith and obedience. The fact that we grow is confirmation of the event to which that original baptism was a sign! To be baptized over and over really cheapens what the sign signifies.

BTW, these disagreements that we Baptists have over the proper subjects, timing, mode and administration are not totally different than the Presbyterians and there disagreements over RC baptisms.


----------



## DMcFadden

Pilgrim said:


> While this mentality would seem to be less common in the Southern Baptist Convention, it does appear to be evident in the way that many churches practice the Lord's Supper. *100 years ago I think close communion would have been the norm for most Baptist churches, but many today practice what amounts to open communion, meaning that they let people come to the table who in their view haven't been scripturally baptized. * While this is perhaps becoming the norm today, it really is a rather novel idea in church history. But that's probably a discussion better left another thread.



Wow! What an insightful observation! While the ABC would have a varied track record with regard to admitting members who had been baptized as infants or by other means than immersion, almost all ABC congregations would practice "open communion." 

As you indicated, this amounts to admitting someone to the table who had not been baptized (according to the implications of Baptist theology, if not the univesal practice).

Well, there you go, Todd. More reasons to suspect contemporary Baptist practice. It is riddled with enigmas, contradictions, and incoherency! Man, am I glad that the Reformed camp doesn't have any of these pesky problems. All they have are a few *minor and insignificant* dust-ups (e.g., Clark vs. Van Til, Theonomy vs. Klineans, FV vs. non-FV, EP vs. Hymns, RPW vs. NPW, Amil vs. Post-mil, Supralapsarian vs. Infralapsarian, PCUSA vs. PCA, Women deacons vs. No women deacons, Home school vs. Non home school, TR vs. CT, Presuppositional vs. Classical Apologetics, etc.).


----------



## MW

DMcFadden said:


> [Man, am I glad that the Reformed camp doesn't have any of these pesky problems.



We have intramural debates, but nothing of the nature which consigns a large number of our brethren to outer darkness.


----------



## DMcFadden

toddpedlar said:


> If, too, it is seen by these churches as an act of obedience only,
> do you think it may be that some people will wind up 'doing it again'
> if they feel the need? After all, if it's only an act of obedience, and
> not a mark of entrance into the visible church, then... all bets seem to
> be off!


 
Outside of confessional Baptists (a VERY small sliver of the credo pie), Baptist practice does not lend itself to taking baptism with much integrity. Frankly, in many evangelical credo baptist churches (Baptist and otherwise), ordained pastors are not the only ones who baptize. Other staff members (male and female, ordained and lay) and even the parents of a child do the actual baptizing. So, "all bets seem to be off" would not be an unusual conclusion. Several of my friends officiated at re-baptisms for people who said that they didn't feel anything special from their earlier CREDO baptism!

("You ask me how I know he lives . . . he lives within my heart . . .")


----------



## Pilgrim

KMK said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ken, I loathe the word re-baptize in the context you used. You are either scripturally baptized (by mode and administration) or you are not. If you are not baptized by an ordained minister of the gospel via immersion you are not scriptural baptized. Therefore, you need to be scripturally baptized for the first time. Not only will this result in a scriptural baptism but it will also maintain the continuity of the ordinance and protect it from abuse. Compromise in one aspect of baptism will eventually lead to more compromise. This is why I am pleased the elders in John Piper's church opposed his recommendation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We might disagree on whether my view is unconfessional (if that is what you are implying).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 28:1. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world.
> 
> 28:2. These holy appointments are to be *administered *by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.
> 
> 29:4. Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due *administration *of this ordinance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The confession deals with the proper administration of the sacrement but falls short of declaring that irregular baptisms are to be set at nought. After all, Bunyan recognized both.
> 
> Notice the difference in tone when the confession deals with the Lord's Supper:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 30:8. All ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table, and cannot, without great sin against him, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto; yea, whosoever shall receive unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment to themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The confession is pretty darn clear that in the case of the ignorant and ungodly, the sacrement is not only void but worthy of punishment!
> 
> I just wonder, if in the case of a new Christian who doesn't know any better and submits to his Presbyterian church elders in being sprinkled upon profession, that we should just assume that it is not indeed 'a sign of fellowship with Christ'.
> 
> I assure you my stance is not based on a desire to skirt the confession but adhere to what it says and not go beyond.
Click to expand...


Bunyan's view was unconfessional. He was opposed in his view by several of the more prominent signatories of the 1689.


----------



## Herald

> The confession deals with the proper administration of the sacrement but falls short of declaring that irregular baptisms are to be set at nought. After all, Bunyan recognized both.



Ken,

While I have a great deal of respect for Bunyan, I place more weight on the confession. Individuals speak for themselves and may/may not be right on an issue. The 1689 LBC only gives a _positive _command for the proper administration and mode for the ordinance of baptism. Since there is a clear positive command it would be in keeping with the confession to emphasize such in all cases. Please don't dismiss my earlier comment, when I said (about proper administration and mode):



> Not only will this result in a scriptural baptism but it will also maintain the continuity of the ordinance and protect it from abuse. Compromise in one aspect of baptism will eventually lead to more compromise.



Regarding your citing of the Lord's Supper:



> ...whosoever shall receive unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment to themselves.



The recipient of baptism is adjoining himself to the visible church and giving testimony of being in the invisible church. They are not partaking of the mystery; the body and blood of the Lord. A strong negative command was necessary (regarding the Lord's Supper) because it dealt with individual behavior of a Christian, _who was_ partaking of the mystery. There is no call for a new believer to examine themselves prior to baptism because baptism is supposed to be administered immediately after a credible profession. It is not based on what the new believer does or does not do. 



> I just wonder, if in the case of a new Christian who doesn't know any better and submits to his Presbyterian church elders in being sprinkled upon profession, that we should just assume that it is not indeed 'a sign of fellowship with Christ'.



With all due respect to my Presbyterian brethren, this scenario is not germane to Baptists. If the new Chrsitian is in a Presbyterian church and has submitted to Presbyterian baptism, that is a Presbyterian issue. If this person decides to leave the Presbyterian church and become a Baptist, he should be required to be scripturally baptized.


----------



## KMK

North Jersey Baptist said:


> The 1689 LBC only gives a _positive _command for the proper administration and mode for the ordinance of baptism. Since there is a clear positive command it would be in keeping with the confession to emphasize such in all cases.



I agree, and as an administrator, I immerse when I baptize. But for the layman who was sprinkled upon profession, does that mean that his baptism was not ever a sign of fellowship with Christ? Has he been missing out on the blessings of the sign in the years proceeding his sprinkling because the mode was incorrect?


----------



## Herald

KMK said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1689 LBC only gives a _positive _command for the proper administration and mode for the ordinance of baptism. Since there is a clear positive command it would be in keeping with the confession to emphasize such in all cases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, and as an administrator, I immerse when I baptize. But for the layman who was sprinkled upon profession, does that mean that his baptism was not ever a sign of fellowship with Christ? Has he been missing out on the blessings of the sign in the years proceeding his sprinkling because the mode was incorrect?
Click to expand...


Ken, mmmm. What do you make of this drive-by comment earlier in this thread?



> We have intramural debates, but nothing of the nature which consigns a large number of our brethren to outer darkness.



You asked an interesting question:



> Has he been missing out on the blessings of the sign in the years proceeding his sprinkling because the mode was incorrect?



No. Even if the mode is incorrect it doesn't necessarily follow that an adult convert is missing out on anything. He should be enjoying the fellowship of the saints, the preaching of the word and communion with Christ and the saints in the Lord's Supper. Pastoral counsel and church discipline are there in order to keep the individuals walk with Christ healthy. I quoted Matthew Winzer's quip because the same question can be asked of the children of Baptists. Are they missing out on the blessings of the sign? If they are raised in a home where the parents model Christ, and are consistently exposed to the word of God, what blessing are they missing? I know what the Presbyterian would say, but the Baptist should be able to say (confidently) that their children have the blessing of hearing the gospel, which prayerfully and hopefully will blossom into regeneration by the same Father who calls all of us through Christ Jesus our Lord.


----------



## Barnpreacher

What about very sick individuals that cannot be immersed? I once baptised an elderly lady that weighed about 60 lbs because of the cancer that ate at her body. She paniced as I went to immerse her and I never did put her all the way under. Was that an unscriptural baptism?


----------



## Herald

Ryan,

The confession states:



> Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.




I would consider dipping not to be full immersion (all of the body under the water). Baptist practice is immersion but what you did for this dear sister would be perfectly acceptable In my humble opinion.


----------



## MW

Barnpreacher said:


> Was that an unscriptural baptism?



If mode is essential to the validity of a baptism, then yes, according to the Anabaptist view any individual not immersed is not baptised, be they Baptist, Presbyterian, Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, or Methodist.


----------



## Stoker

Do those who sprinkle view immersion as a valid form of baptism?


----------



## MW

Stoker said:


> Do those who sprinkle view immersion as a valid form of baptism?



On first recipients of Trinitarian baptism immersion is considered valid; however it is considered unnecessary as a mode.


----------



## servantofmosthigh

Stoker said:


> Do those who sprinkle view immersion as a valid form of baptism?



I'm not sure about all paedobaptists, but the PCA, PCUSA and OPC do.


----------



## FenderPriest

Pergamum said:


> Many churches would say that a person "baptized" as an infant was not truly baptized at all because the carrying-out of the baptism was too far from the NT example and thus there would be no "RE-baptism" invovled, only a Biblical baptism. Many churches would require baptism as a pre-requisite for membership.



Not to respond to late in the discussion, but this was my own conviction when I joined a Baptist church, and it was the counsel I received from the Elders. I joined in associate membership with the Reformed Baptist church, and then upon by baptism I became a full, card-holding member of the church with voting rights. My baptism was not a re-baptism, but a Biblical baptism. 

I figured that since the original scenario described was my own situation, that it might help if I replied. Anyhow - carry on.


----------



## toddpedlar

KMK said:


> In other words,, one must not only desire baptism out of obedience, but also out of repentance and faith as well. If a man says, "I want to be rebaptized out of a new found sense of obedience." The pastor should ask what about repentance and faith? If the man says, "I already had those things," then the pastor says, there is no need for another baptism.



So what if the person decides that he really didn't
believe before, and was repenting of his whole past? 
He was previously baptized as a professor, but rejects
his older profession, and wants to be baptized again
because he now considers his faith genuine? Should such
a person be rebaptized, each time he comes to a serious
questioning of his prior faith and baptism? Can this go
on and on ad nauseum?

btw, I don't mean to be impertinent with this question - I'm
trying to be quite serious with the question and find out 
what one would do in such a case...


----------



## Herald

toddpedlar said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words,, one must not only desire baptism out of obedience, but also out of repentance and faith as well. If a man says, "I want to be rebaptized out of a new found sense of obedience." The pastor should ask what about repentance and faith? If the man says, "I already had those things," then the pastor says, there is no need for another baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what if the person decides that he really didn't
> believe before, and was repenting of his whole past?
> He was previously baptized as a professor, but rejects
> his older profession, and wants to be baptized again
> because he now considers his faith genuine? Should such
> a person be rebaptized, each time he comes to a serious
> questioning of his prior faith and baptism? Can this go
> on and on ad nauseum?
> 
> btw, I don't mean to be impertinent with this question - I'm
> trying to be quite serious with the question and find out
> what one would do in such a case...
Click to expand...


Todd, that is a _*great *_question. If a professed believer was scriptually baptized and then fell away from he faith, followed by renewed repentance; I would oppose re-baptism. There is much to consider. Did they really fall away, or are they described by this part of the confession:



> 1689 LBC 17:3
> 
> And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God's displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.




Their wandering from Christ may necessitate a public statement to the fellowship, but I would not ask them to be baptized again.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I have a question that sort of jumped out at me during this discussion that I'd like to ask of the credo-baptists.

It occurs to me that re-baptism is almost exclusively an issue of externals. The recipient was too young or a profession wasn't made or the mode was improper. It seems to boil down that God will not be pleased with it because the formula was not followed. I don't want to sound crass but I can't think of another way of putting it.

Further, some have agreed that a person who was immersed as an adult and professed and went through all the "externals" need not be re-baptized if he later discovers the true Gospel. In other words, I was baptized as an adult in an Arminian Church and didn't really understand the Gospel but I'd likely not be required to be re-baptized in most congregations.

How do you escape this issue that this seems to boil down to externals when an adult can have a false profession that can be "repaired" but need not be re-baptized but if the "formula" for administration was not present then it is not a valid baptism?


----------



## KMK

Semper Fidelis said:


> I have a question that sort of jumped out at me during this discussion that I'd like to ask of the credo-baptists.
> 
> It occurs to me that re-baptism is almost exclusively an issue of externals. The recipient was too young or a profession wasn't made or the mode was improper. It seems to boil down that God will not be pleased with it because the formula was not followed. I don't want to sound crass but I can't think of another way of putting it.
> 
> Further, some have agreed that a person who was immersed as an adult and professed and went through all the "externals" need not be re-baptized if he later discovers the true Gospel. In other words, I was baptized as an adult in an Arminian Church and didn't really understand the Gospel but I'd likely not be required to be re-baptized in most congregations.
> 
> How do you escape this issue that this seems to boil down to externals when an adult can have a false profession that can be "repaired" but need not be re-baptized but if the "formula" for administration was not present then it is not a valid baptism?



First, the confession deals with administration. It lays out instuctions for the administrator. As a pastor, I am confessionally bound to baptize anyone upon a profession of repentance, faith and obedience to Christ. If a person was already baptized based upon such a profession then it matters not, from an administrator's pov, whether that profession was genuine. The baptism has already been done and needs to be done only once. The confession does not say, "Those who do _genuinely _ profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance." The confession says, "Those who do _actually _ profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance."

In addition, there are no instructions regarding a 'do over' in the confession, nor the Bible, so I would avoid such things.

Rich, don't Presbyterian churches deal with the same issues? Do you ever have a man who was baptized as an adult come back 20 years later with a new sense of obedience and ask to be baptized again?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

KMK said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question that sort of jumped out at me during this discussion that I'd like to ask of the credo-baptists.
> 
> It occurs to me that re-baptism is almost exclusively an issue of externals. The recipient was too young or a profession wasn't made or the mode was improper. It seems to boil down that God will not be pleased with it because the formula was not followed. I don't want to sound crass but I can't think of another way of putting it.
> 
> Further, some have agreed that a person who was immersed as an adult and professed and went through all the "externals" need not be re-baptized if he later discovers the true Gospel. In other words, I was baptized as an adult in an Arminian Church and didn't really understand the Gospel but I'd likely not be required to be re-baptized in most congregations.
> 
> How do you escape this issue that this seems to boil down to externals when an adult can have a false profession that can be "repaired" but need not be re-baptized but if the "formula" for administration was not present then it is not a valid baptism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, the confession deals with administration. It lays out instuctions for the administrator. As a pastor, I am confessionally bound to baptize anyone upon a profession of repentance, faith and obedience to Christ. If a person was already baptized based upon such a profession then it matters not, from an administrator's pov, whether that profession was genuine. The baptism has already been done and needs to be done only once. The confession does not say, "Those who do _genuinely _ profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance." The confession says, "Those who do _actually _ profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance."
> 
> In addition, there are no instructions regarding a 'do over' in the confession, nor the Bible, so I would avoid such things.
Click to expand...


I don't see a response to the question. It only seems to confirm that the important thing is the externals to the event.



> Rich, don't Presbyterian churches deal with the same issues? Do you ever have a man who was baptized as an adult come back 20 years later with a new sense of obedience and ask to be baptized again?


Well, sure, but mode or age or profession is not what makes a baptism valid according to the WCF.


----------



## toddpedlar

Semper Fidelis said:


> I have a question that sort of jumped out at me during this discussion that I'd like to ask of the credo-baptists.
> 
> It occurs to me that re-baptism is almost exclusively an issue of externals. The recipient was too young or a profession wasn't made or the mode was improper. It seems to boil down that God will not be pleased with it because the formula was not followed. I don't want to sound crass but I can't think of another way of putting it.
> 
> Further, some have agreed that a person who was immersed as an adult and professed and went through all the "externals" need not be re-baptized if he later discovers the true Gospel. In other words, I was baptized as an adult in an Arminian Church and didn't really understand the Gospel but I'd likely not be required to be re-baptized in most congregations.
> 
> How do you escape this issue that this seems to boil down to externals when an adult can have a false profession that can be "repaired" but need not be re-baptized but if the "formula" for administration was not present then it is not a valid baptism?



This was exactly my question that I just posted this morning. Thanks for asking it so much more cogently!


----------



## toddpedlar

KMK said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question that sort of jumped out at me during this discussion that I'd like to ask of the credo-baptists.
> 
> It occurs to me that re-baptism is almost exclusively an issue of externals. The recipient was too young or a profession wasn't made or the mode was improper. It seems to boil down that God will not be pleased with it because the formula was not followed. I don't want to sound crass but I can't think of another way of putting it.
> 
> Further, some have agreed that a person who was immersed as an adult and professed and went through all the "externals" need not be re-baptized if he later discovers the true Gospel. In other words, I was baptized as an adult in an Arminian Church and didn't really understand the Gospel but I'd likely not be required to be re-baptized in most congregations.
> 
> How do you escape this issue that this seems to boil down to externals when an adult can have a false profession that can be "repaired" but need not be re-baptized but if the "formula" for administration was not present then it is not a valid baptism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, the confession deals with administration. It lays out instuctions for the administrator. As a pastor, I am confessionally bound to baptize anyone upon a profession of repentance, faith and obedience to Christ. If a person was already baptized based upon such a profession then it matters not, from an administrator's pov, whether that profession was genuine. The baptism has already been done and needs to be done only once. The confession does not say, "Those who do _genuinely _ profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance." The confession says, "Those who do _actually _ profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance."
> 
> In addition, there are no instructions regarding a 'do over' in the confession, nor the Bible, so I would avoid such things.
> 
> Rich, don't Presbyterian churches deal with the same issues? Do you ever have a man who was baptized as an adult come back 20 years later with a new sense of obedience and ask to be baptized again?
Click to expand...


As a elder and member in the PCA from 92 to 03, that never once came up that I was aware of... it's hard to imagine such a question ever occuring in those circles (except by fairly recently-transitioned ex-baptists, perhaps)


----------



## toddpedlar

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Todd, that is a _*great *_question. If a professed believer was scriptually baptized and then fell away from he faith, followed by renewed repentance; I would oppose re-baptism. There is much to consider. Did they really fall away, or are they described by this part of the confession:



But what if their original profession was credibly false, and they 
were now coming to what appears to be a new discovery of truth, and a new faith and repentance?


----------



## KMK

Semper Fidelis said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question that sort of jumped out at me during this discussion that I'd like to ask of the credo-baptists.
> 
> It occurs to me that re-baptism is almost exclusively an issue of externals. The recipient was too young or a profession wasn't made or the mode was improper. It seems to boil down that God will not be pleased with it because the formula was not followed. I don't want to sound crass but I can't think of another way of putting it.
> 
> Further, some have agreed that a person who was immersed as an adult and professed and went through all the "externals" need not be re-baptized if he later discovers the true Gospel. In other words, I was baptized as an adult in an Arminian Church and didn't really understand the Gospel but I'd likely not be required to be re-baptized in most congregations.
> 
> *How do you escape this issue *that this seems to boil down to externals when an adult can have a false profession that can be "repaired" but need not be re-baptized but if the "formula" for administration was not present then it is not a valid baptism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, *the confession *deals with administration. It lays out instuctions for the administrator. As a pastor, I am confessionally bound to baptize anyone upon a profession of repentance, faith and obedience to Christ. If a person was already baptized based upon such a profession then it matters not, from an administrator's pov, whether that profession was genuine. The baptism has already been done and needs to be done only once. The confession does not say, "Those who do _genuinely _ profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance." The confession says, "Those who do _actually _ profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance."
> 
> In addition, there are no instructions regarding a 'do over' in the confession, nor the Bible, so I would avoid such things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see a response to the question. It only seems to confirm that the important thing is the externals to the event.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, don't Presbyterian churches deal with the same issues? Do you ever have a man who was baptized as an adult come back 20 years later with a new sense of obedience and ask to be baptized again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, sure, but mode or age or profession is not what makes a baptism valid according to the WCF.
Click to expand...


How do I escape the issue you bring up? I stick to the confession.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

...and, according to your Confession, God cares most about the externals in the ordinance?


----------



## Herald

Rich, baptism by immersion is representative of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. That is why mode is important to Baptists. Baptism following profession is the other component that is distinctively Baptist. There is no need to defend these views since they are explained adequately in the confession.

I quoted an excerpt from the 1689 LBC about individuals who once professed faith and then spent a period of time away from the Lord. To keep it germane to the discussion, I'll post it again:



> 1689 LBC 17:3
> 
> And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God's displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.




It is difficult for any minister to make the call as to whether a individuals profession was real or not. The only tangible we have to go on is the evidence of faith. I would gravitate towards the generosity contained in 17:3 of the LBC and welcome them back to the fold and _not _question their baptism. Baptism is not a formula, and if the letter and spirit of the confession is considered, it need be thought of in that way. As a minister of the gospel, I would err on the side of grace.


----------



## Wannabee

Good observations Rich.

For a Baptist to be consistent there really is no such thing as "rebaptism." But your observations bring up an interesting quandary that some can find themselves in, usually because of incosistencies in regard to their perception on baptism. It's not a matter of a formula but, rather, obedience. For the Baptist baptism is an act of obedience and identification. If one was "dunked" as an unbeliever then it wasn't truly baptism. It's a matter of an obedient heart, not a formula, mantra, etc. 
The challenge is in discerning what is the truth. This gets back to something I mentioned earlier, that we fail to include baptism in the Gospel. It's usually tacked on after we "get" someone to repent, pray, profess or whatever. However, for the Baptist (and I would think paedos as well) it's an integral and inseparable aspect of the Gospel. 
If someone applied for membership in our church then we would begin the process, which includes a testimony. Based on this testimony and subsequent interview we would decide whether or not to grant membership. This is based on credible profession (a clear understanding of the Gospel) and the applicant's baptism according to Scripture (granting a credo understanding). If they are convinced that they were baptized accordingly, I would not question their conviction as long as their testimony revealed a clear understanding of salvation.
On the other hand, if someone later was convicted that their profession and baptism were not genuine and desired to be baptized, neither would I refuse them. We would study the doctrine together so as to avoid the "ad nauseum" example Todd brought up. This is usually the result of poor teaching, leading to a poor and insufficient understanding of baptism. One question I ask is, "Are you willing to die for Jesus Christ." The death to self that baptism signifies may require us to renounce our physical life for His glory, and they need to understand the reality and significance of this. These things, hopefully, serve to help avoid the "insurance policy" profession.


----------



## Pergamum

We all follow some sort of formula don't we Rich. Baptizing in water, for instance, instead of a dip in jello. We also baptize in the name of the Trinity. 

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

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


----------



## Pergamum

Semper Fidelis said:


> ...and, according to your Confession, God cares most about the externals in the ordinance?



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


----------



## servantofmosthigh

Pergamum said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and, according to your Confession, God cares most about the externals in the ordinance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on over and eat some twinkies and Sprite for communion then.
Click to expand...


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

Examples of where externals do not matter:

baptized in a river, swimming pool or church baptismal does not matter
baptized going forward face-first or backwards doesn't matter

Examples of where externals can questionably matter:

baptized in Gatorade instead of water
baptized in a shower or bathtub where only a handful rather than the entire church body could witness

Examples of where externals DO matter:

self-baptized instead of by another person (an ordained pastor/elder)
baptisms by any parachurch organization
baptisms by any non-evangelical church or organization

So, yes, externals do not matter, can matter, and do matter. The common agreement that Paedobaptists and Credobaptists have are on matters not related to mode and manner. Where the disagreement lies is in mode (infant vs. believer's) and manner (sprinkled or immersed).


----------



## MW

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Rich, baptism by immersion is representative of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. That is why mode is important to Baptists.



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


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> We all follow some sort of formula don't we Rich. Baptizing in water, for instance, instead of a dip in jello. We also baptize in the name of the Trinity.
> 
> Our respective formulas just differ as to what makes or breaks the deal (i.e. how much leeway is possible before we count the exercise not as baptism bt as not merely irregular but invalid altogether).
> 
> If you jump on the baptists for being too picky on the externals, make sure you remember this the next time you argue for wine instead of grape juice in the Lord's supper or even juice at all instead of orange drink or Fanta Orang soda. Insistance on bread and wine sounds so formulaic, after all, doesn't it?



I think the difference here is more subtle than that.

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Herald

Matthew, really? That is rather ad hominem of you. Not something I usually expect.

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



> Christian baptism, which has the form of a ceremonial washing (like John's pre-Christian baptism), is a sign from God that signifies inward cleansing and remission of sins (Acts 22:16; 1 Cor. 6:11; Eph. 5:25-27), Spirit-wrought regeneration and new life (Titus 3:5), and the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit as God's seal testifying and guaranteeing that one will be kept safe in Christ forever (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:34,14). _* Fundamentally, baptism signifies union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection *_(Rom. 6:3-7; Col. 2:11, 12) and this union with Christ is the source of every element of our salvation (1 John 5:11, 12). Receiving the sign of baptism in faith assures those baptized that God's gift of new life in Christ is freely given to them. At the same time, it commits them to live in a new way as disciples of Jesus.


I would quote our confession to you but it would serve little purpose since you are not beholding to it. I'm also not trying to convince paedobaptists. I'd be just as happy if this serves to encourage and fortify the faith of my Baptist brethren.


----------



## servantofmosthigh

armourbearer said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, baptism by immersion is representative of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. That is why mode is important to Baptists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is not a piece of Scriptural support for this connection. Hence immersionists nullify God's ordinances by their human traditions.
Click to expand...


On the contrary:

Romans 6:3-4 / Colossians 2:12

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


----------



## Semper Fidelis

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Matthew, really? That is rather ad hominem of you. Not something I usually expect.
> 
> R.C. Sproul (no Baptist, I might add) wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christian baptism, which has the form of a ceremonial washing (like John's pre-Christian baptism), is a sign from God that signifies inward cleansing and remission of sins (Acts 22:16; 1 Cor. 6:11; Eph. 5:25-27), Spirit-wrought regeneration and new life (Titus 3:5), and the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit as God's seal testifying and guaranteeing that one will be kept safe in Christ forever (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:34,14). _* Fundamentally, baptism signifies union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection *_(Rom. 6:3-7; Col. 2:11, 12) and this union with Christ is the source of every element of our salvation (1 John 5:11, 12). Receiving the sign of baptism in faith assures those baptized that God's gift of new life in Christ is freely given to them. At the same time, it commits them to live in a new way as disciples of Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> I would quote our confession to you but it would serve little purpose since you are not beholding to it. I'm also not trying to convince paedobaptists. I'd be just as happy if this serves to encourage and fortify the faith of my Baptist brethren.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Semper Fidelis

servantofmosthigh said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, baptism by immersion is representative of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. That is why mode is important to Baptists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is not a piece of Scriptural support for this connection. Hence immersionists nullify God's ordinances by their human traditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary:
> 
> Romans 6:3-4 / Colossians 2:12
> 
> *sigh... Looks like I'll be in the discussion after all...
Click to expand...


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


----------



## MW

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Matthew, really? That is rather ad hominem of you. Not something I usually expect.



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

Quoting Sproul to the effect that baptism unites to Christ in His death, burial and resurrection is irrelevant, because you haven't established a Scriptural connection between mode and what baptism signifies. Moreover, Jesus wasn't buried by being immersed; and baptism also signifies the "outpouring" of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## servantofmosthigh

Semper Fidelis said:


> servantofmosthigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is not a piece of Scriptural support for this connection. Hence immersionists nullify God's ordinances by their human traditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary:
> 
> Romans 6:3-4 / Colossians 2:12
> 
> *sigh... Looks like I'll be in the discussion after all...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you're inserting a view that Paul has mode in mind. In fact, pressed too hard, it argues that the mode itself is what unites us to Christ. Baptism signifies these things but faith is the instrument of union with Christ in His death and resurrection. The idea that, by being immersed, we're "buried with Christ" carries with it the idea that the ordinance itself confers union with Christ.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Semper Fidelis

servantofmosthigh said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> servantofmosthigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary:
> 
> Romans 6:3-4 / Colossians 2:12
> 
> *sigh... Looks like I'll be in the discussion after all...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're inserting a view that Paul has mode in mind. In fact, pressed too hard, it argues that the mode itself is what unites us to Christ. Baptism signifies these things but faith is the instrument of union with Christ in His death and resurrection. The idea that, by being immersed, we're "buried with Christ" carries with it the idea that the ordinance itself confers union with Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct in saying that we (Baptists) are viewing that Paul has mode in mind because what better way symbolizes this? Not sprinking, but immersion. But Baptists do not interpret this to mean that baptism is itself the union with Christ, but that it is the symbolism of the union that came through faith.
Click to expand...


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

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

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


----------



## Herald

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



Will, the thread is all yours. I'm taking a mental health break for awhile. I'm going to pound 3" nails in my skull. It should be more satisfying.


----------



## MW

Here is a 3" nail for the exclusive immersionist's idealogical coffin. In John 13, Peter made the same mistake of laying undue stress on mode, when he asked not only that his feet be washed but every part of him. Our Lord taught him that he that is washed only needs to have his feet washed and is cleansed in every part. The believer is thoroughly washed in the sufferings and obedience of Jesus Christ; the water is but a symbol, and therefore only needs to be applied to one part of the person in order to represent his cleansing all over.


----------



## servantofmosthigh

Semper Fidelis said:


> servantofmosthigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're inserting a view that Paul has mode in mind. In fact, pressed too hard, it argues that the mode itself is what unites us to Christ. Baptism signifies these things but faith is the instrument of union with Christ in His death and resurrection. The idea that, by being immersed, we're "buried with Christ" carries with it the idea that the ordinance itself confers union with Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct in saying that we (Baptists) are viewing that Paul has mode in mind because what better way symbolizes this? Not sprinking, but immersion. But Baptists do not interpret this to mean that baptism is itself the union with Christ, but that it is the symbolism of the union that came through faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understood but the point is that you can't just quote Romans 6:3-4 and say: "What better symbolizes this?"
> 
> Baptism signifies more than burial and resurrection. As Matthew noted, it also symbolizes the outpouring of the Spirit.
> 
> Why, for instance, is pouring then not a more apt mode especially since this is the only evidence we have of the mode of baptism in the Acts? Namely, that the Holy Spirit was poured out on those who received the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...


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

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

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

Now, I realize you may not agree with me or the Baptist perspective/interpretation on these passages. But I thank you for asking the question. And let us all remind ourselves that this difference in Baptism (aside from anyone who believes in Baptismal Regeneration) are not grounds for us to lose ourselves. And whether we've been sprinkled or immersed, let's demonstrate the baptism of the Holy Spirit in us toward others around us.


----------



## Wannabee

Alas, another baptism thread degenerates. Wasn't this about Todd wanting clear answers? Sigh....


Semper Fidelis said:


> Understood but the point is that you can't just quote Romans 6:3-4 and say: "What better symbolizes this?"
> 
> Baptism signifies more than burial and resurrection. As Matthew noted, it also symbolizes the outpouring of the Spirit.



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

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


----------



## servantofmosthigh

Wannabee said:


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



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

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


----------



## Wannabee

Will, you're derailing it again. I didn't make these comments to prove anything against Baptists. I *AM *a credo. Swinging the discussion around against Presbyterians doesn't help the conversation at all. 

The line of discussion that I put forward leads to a need for credo churches to not only take a position, but understand their position more thoroughly. I've only been involved in two churches that truly understood why they were credo. I've been in several that could offer a simplistic argument. But so much is missed in this. Again, I think this is what Todd is facing. The situation at hand reveals an incomplete and, hence, inconsistent understanding of baptism.


----------



## servantofmosthigh

Wannabee said:


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



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

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

And where Todd and many others are struggling is in trying to piece together and resolve the apparent differences of the two logics and trying to explain one in accordance to the standards of logic in the other. And so long as anyone remains in that position, they will find only disappointment that the other side's arguments fail.


----------



## Wannabee

Good observations, Will. I hope I didn't come across as "heated." It was _intended_ as a gentle nudge. 
As an interesting side note, it's good for us to remember that our Presbyterian brethren agree that believer's baptism is appropriate where no prior baptism has taken place. Keeping this in mind can often help to narrow the discussion.

Perhaps it would help to simply remind ourselves that Todd's desire was to help in a situation that showed a Baptist church that is inconsistent in its understanding of baptism. The last paragraph is particularly pertinent.


toddpedlar said:


> I'd like to know from the credo-baptists among us why the following sort of thing occurs today in the modern church. These are not hypothetical cases, but real situations I know about, and am considering responding to by contacting the pastors and/or individuals involved - but wanted to flesh out the discussion here first.
> 
> When a family desires to join a baptist church - is inquiry always made about the baptisms of the family? I.e. were they baptized as infants, professors, whatever? I assume that if they are accepted as members either a) the church recognizes infant baptism of those so baptized as valid or b) the church accepts into membership those that it does not view as having properly been baptized. I'm particularly interested in knowing the difference between Reformed baptists and those who are involved in the SBC, or other baptist wings of the church that don't confessionally hold to the LBC.
> 
> Supposing situation a) above... what if a person who joined the church desired later to be baptized as an act of obedience, because personally they viewed their earlier infant baptism to be invalid. How would such a person be counselled in this case?
> 
> It seems to me that a proper view of church membership must include, in any case, the acceptance of the baptism of the proposed member - or include the baptism of that proposed member as an act of joining the church. Is that consistent with most baptist practice (esp. in "Reformed baptist" circles)? Could a member be accepted if the church viewed him as unbaptized - and... if he was viewed as baptized, would a "new" baptism ever be performed under any circumstances?
> 
> I hope the discussion is profitable - not just because of what I've run across but for the understanding about modern baptist (and Reformed baptist) practice for those of us who are steeped in paedobaptism personally and just haven't the experience with various kinds of credobaptist practices.



If someone notices an inconsistency in our church, I would hope that they would bring it to our attention. We might disagree, but at least it would give us an opportunity to study and pray about it.


----------



## servantofmosthigh

Wannabee said:


> I hope I didn't come across as "heated."


 I didn't see it as heated. Only that the way you communicated your concerns, I was questioning if anything fruitful could result from it beyond heated emotions and that the other side could make equal claims toward the previous side.

But in communicating that, if I had come across being guilty of heated emotions and derailing the thread, forgive me as that was certainly not my intent either.


----------



## tcalbrecht

servantofmosthigh said:


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



Will,

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

Isn't that a bit disingenuous?


----------



## servantofmosthigh

tcalbrecht said:


> servantofmosthigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I would charge Presbyterians of the same lack of thorough exegesis and understanding of baptism from a comprehensive ecclesiological role of the holistic church concept that includes Lord's Supper, Salvation, church membership, etc., whereas it is Baptist ecclesiology that makes the best argument and biblical case on this. And I have yet to find a Presbyterian pastor or elder that has a clear understanding of this.
> 
> So where does this line of argument lead us beyond heated emotions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will,
> 
> Let me understand, is what you are saying that Presbyterians obviously lack a thorough exegesis, etc and clear understanding of the issues otherwise they would be Baptists?
> 
> Isn't that a bit disingenuous?
Click to expand...


No, it was merely a demonstration to reciprocate the same line of bad logic being presented by the brother to whom I was responding to show that such a method of argumentation doesn't do anything but cause emotional heat. But he clarified himself, and I had misread his post. So please don't read into it. Thanks.


----------



## Hippo

I find it illogical that Baptists conflate their position on credobaptism with a position on the mode of baptism. The arguments and consequences of those arguments for each position are very different but they are presented as an inevitible logical package.

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Barnpreacher

Hippo said:


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



Egggs actly!!!!


----------



## servantofmosthigh

Hippo said:


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



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

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

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

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


----------



## Hippo

servantofmosthigh said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Presbyterian would not accept anyone who has not been baptised as a member of the Church, baptism is so important it is not optional. A Baptist does not accept that a presbyterian has been baptised but still accepts that person as a member of the Church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to make a point of clarification on this matter. Currently, Baptists are divided on this issue about our relationship with paedobaptists desiring to join Baptist churches. One group of Baptists want to have the attitude of the Presbyterians of recognizing paedobaptism as legitimate baptism and, consequently, accepting them into membership. Another group of Baptists remain firm to the historical doctrinal position Baptists have always stood on from the beginning by not recognizing paedobaptism as legitimate, and thus until they are baptized by professed believers, are not considered members but mere visitors or guests.
> 
> I haven't run into the scenario you give where a church rejects paedobaptism but nonetheless accepts them into church membership. If such Baptist churches and groups do exist, they are definitely in the wrong.
> 
> Please note one thing. Many Baptist churches today are in terrible shape on this issue of baptism and church membership. Which is why the SBC had an annual meeting earlier this month to discuss the issue of Regenerate Church Membership. Much of the historical and theological foundations have been lost as a result of pragmatism, church growth movement, liberalism, etc. So Founder's Ministry, 9Marks, and other Reformed Baptist ministries are calling all Baptists back to the biblical and historically Baptist roots.
> 
> If you wish to see a true model of historic Reformed Baptist ecclesiology of baptism and its implication to church membership, please visit an ARBCA church or CHBC in D.C. Any other Baptist church, including many associated with Founders Ministry, are in various stages on this.
Click to expand...


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


----------

