# Credobaptism = Arminianism?



## heartoflesh (Jul 6, 2005)

This was implied inanother thread, but I didn't quite understand the argument and thought I would pursue it more here. 

1) Unless I'm missing something, don't both Paedos and Credo baptize adult believers (who were not baptized as infants)?


2) If the answer to question #1 is yes, do not such baptisms follow a prfession of faith by the recipient?

3) What makes one Arminian and the other not?

~Rick


----------



## Augusta (Jul 6, 2005)

To clarify for Rick. Yes if you have a new adult convert you baptized them. As for covenant families there is no need to wait for a profession but do as our forefathers did who also believed in Christ the Rock (1 Cor 10:3-4) and give our children the sign. To wait for a profession seems to leave your children dangling outside of the covenant and the blessings that come from it. If an unbelieving spouse is sanctified by union with an elect spouse, how much more their children. The whole shebang of calling, regeneration, sanctification is God's work. We don't have any job accept to abide in Him and what He has given. I see nowhere that we are to wait for our children to have some age of accountablility as if they can account for anything. It is all God's work and to His glory. 

We receive only and add nothing accept our faith which is also a gift. God is completely sovereign in all of it. Pastors are never called to separate the wheat from the tares and then baptize them. God will separate them in the end. We are actually told not to.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 6, 2005)

Baptism is what God says about a man, not what a man says about God.

When God Sovereignly gives a child to Christian parents, God has made a statement about that child. God has said that child is in covenant with Him. Baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant God initiated with the child. In baptism, God says, "This child is mine!" "I am his/her God!"

It is no different with adult baptism. There is a confession beforehand, but the baptism is NOT the confession itself. Rather, the profession tells us that God has Sovereignly put that person into covenant with Himself (much like the birth of a child to Christian parents lets us know that God has put the child into covenant with Himself). Once we know that God has made this declaration, we baptize the person. In baptism, God says, "This person is mine!" "I am his/her God!" It is a sign and seal of the covenant God initiated with the person.

In fact, I go even farther than some of the paedobaptists on this board. I side with Dr. McMahon and Scott Bushey regarding presumptive regeneration. . . . When we baptize an adult, it is because we _presume_ that person regenerate, because of his/her profession. When we baptize an infant, it is because we _presume_ that infant regenerate, because of the faith of his/her parents. 


To sum up:

1) We baptize both adults and infants when it is clear that they are in covenant with God.

2) We baptize both adults and infants based on presumptive regeneration. 

(NOTE: even if a person disagrees with point #2, point #1 still stands firm.)


Either way, we baptize adults and infants for the same reasons.


----------



## Philip A (Jul 6, 2005)

It's always dangerous to take a part as representative of the whole. I could just as easily say:

Paedobaptism=Romanism

but the cause of truth would be served no better.

Now obviously Paedobaptism is not Romanism, but there are plenty of folks out there for whom their only experience of paedobaptism is of the Romanist sort. As such they often view paedobaptism (the whole) as if it were exhaustively defined by Rome's aberration of it (the part).

In the same way, the only experience many of our dear Paedobaptist brethren have had with credobaptism is of the Arminian sort, so it is easy for them to thing of credobaptism (the whole) as exhaustively defined by the SBC's (or whoever else's) aberration of it (the part).


----------



## Augusta (Jul 6, 2005)

Rome thinks it is a work they must perform too. I would actually equate their version with the arminian version. The root problem is trying to insert an human work into a sovereign work of God. Reformed theology, biblical theology, says we are cups to filled. It is a monergistic work of God through and through. Credobaptism is making it synergistic again. It goes against everything that reformed theology stands for. It is basically giving the ministers of God a litmus test for the covenant sign. This is unprecedented anywhere in scripture.

It's like when arminians confuse a general call to imply that we have have the ability to answer. Baptists take the general call and do the same. When the call goes out "believe and be baptized" they take that as an implication that belief must follow baptism. It is not letting scripture interpret scripture. It boils down to the same mistake arminians make. A profession means nothing. Whether God puts His sign on you effectually and ordained you before the foundations of the world is what counts and we will never know who is who until the end.


----------



## heartoflesh (Jul 6, 2005)

Traci, thanks for your reply, but I'm not talking about children. I'm specifically referencing the following quote you made (and I'm not trying to pick on you, but I do want to understand your meaning, especially since it was applauded by Joseph, who seems like a scholarly kind of guy):



> credobaptism is just repackaged arminism. It is taking the sinners prayer and moving it someplace else. It is giving us a work that doesn't even work. (many unsaved are baptized I have witnessed it over and over in my arminian church, look at these mega-churches baptizing people left and right).



The part that confused me here was why it was wrong for the mega church to be baptizing people "left and right". You say that the people were "unsaved", but besides wondering how you would know this, wouldn't this be an argument against the discernment of this particular church, and not credobaptism itself. 

By the way, I don't have any axe to grind in all of this-- I am a credo only by default, and I am still learning. It just seems hard to believe that someone as staunchly Calvinistic as Charles Spurgeon could be a credobaptist if it is nothing more than "repackaged Arminianism".


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Philip A_
> It's always dangerous to take a part as representative of the whole. I could just as easily say:
> 
> Paedobaptism=Romanism
> ...



 to Traci and Joseph. The problem with Baptism is not so much WHEN a person baptises, but WHY a person baptises. Do we baptise because of something a person has done?...or do we baptise because something God has done? 

The misunderstanding that Joseph points out is correct, that baptism IS what God decleres about man, not what man declares concerning God. This is the same with Arminianism and Romanism. Both make this flaw, yet baptise at different times (one padeo, other credo).


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 6, 2005)

Since baptism is a sign and seal of regeneration (et al), if one says that baptism is something that man says about God (instead of something God says about man) it could be argued that these people are implicitly saying the same thing about what baptism signifies (regeneration etc.) which is exactly what Arminianism and Romanism do with regeneration.

Baptists don't do this explicitly, but implicitly they do, but through a faulty view of what baptism is.


----------



## Augusta (Jul 6, 2005)

Mostly it is the litmus test part of it. That a profession must follow baptism. This is to me like the sinners prayer. If you say it you have done something toward your salvation. With professions it is the same, you are waiting for you children to become accountable for what? Is it a work of God or man? It is an added human element. Arminianism adds a human element. So does credobaptism.

I believe God chose children to be circumcised on the 8th day because He was making a statement that it is His domain. Just as in the case of Jacob and Esau: for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls.

[Edited on 7-6-2005 by Augusta]


----------



## heartoflesh (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> Mostly it is the litmus test part of it. That a profession must follow baptism. This is to me like the sinners prayer. If you say it you have done something toward your salvation. With professions it is the same, you are waiting for you children to become accountable for what? Is it a work of God or man? It is an added human element. Arminianism adds a human element. So does credobaptism.



Perhaps this is what I'm not understanding. Is it the _profession_ that is the key difference between the Credo/Paedo adult baptism? Excuse my ignorance, but I am new to all of this. Do adult Paedo's not have any kind of "profession" when they get baptized?


----------



## john_Mark (Jul 6, 2005)

Okay, nice reading all of the Baptists' posts here while we were allowed here. Now that we are really Arminians we can't hold to the statements' of faith so we will all be banned. Take care and choose more wisely the next discussion boards you join! :bigsmile:

[Edited on 7-6-2005 by john_Mark]

[Edited on 7-6-2005 by john_Mark]


----------



## john_Mark (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Since baptism is a sign and seal of regeneration (et al), if one says that baptism is something that man says about God (instead of something God says about man) it could be argued that these people are implicitly saying the same thing about what baptism signifies (regeneration etc.) which is exactly what Arminianism and Romanism do with regeneration.
> 
> Baptists don't do this explicitly, but implicitly they do, but through a faulty view of what baptism is.



Arminianism and Romanism don't say these actions signify regeneration, in my opinion. 

Rather:
The Arminian says believe in order to become regenerate and the Romanist says to be baptised (as an infant) to become regenerate. These positions clearly illustrate that man does something for God in order to receive something from God. Monergism vs. synergism.


----------



## heartoflesh (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> If one is a reformed baptist he can easily argue that God's grace is the *cause* of the profession.



That's exactly what I've been pondering for the last 15 minutes. I'm really struggling to figure out where folks are coming from here, and I'm concluding there's alot of assumptions/presuppositions being made.


----------



## just_grace (Jul 6, 2005)

*Baptism...*

I always thought it was a very simple * outward sign towards heaven *that you have repented and believe in God for the forgiveness of sins and of a new life given through Jesus Christ.

Why do you complicate things?


----------



## Augusta (Jul 6, 2005)

Rick, the point is why wait for a profession from your children. Is it their confession of faith that puts them in the covenant or is it God. We know the wheat and tares grow together anyway. So why this waiting for a profession from a child of Christian parents when this is unprecedented in scripture. Especially if the profession is likely to be a false one. So it doesn't work anyway.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Augusta_
> ...



I think I see where the communication link is broken here . . .

Yes, adults have to give a profession of faith whether they are baptized in a Baptist church or Presbyterian church. That particular fact is not different either way.

But the Baptists (and please correct me if I'm wrong) consider the baptism ITSELF to BE a confession . . . essentially the person saying, "Yup, I am choosing to be united with Christ's death and resurrection."

The Paedos (like me) would require a confession. But that is only their ground for realizing the person is now a covenant member. --- The baptism ITSELF is NOT considered a confession by the person being baptized. . . . The baptism is not considered to be anything that person is saying about his/her relationship with God. Rather, because it is recognized that God has put that person into covenant with Himself, the baptism is administered, demonstrating what God Himself has said about that person.

Like Jeff stated so well: "The problem with Baptism is not so much WHEN a person baptises, but WHY a person baptises. Do we baptise because of something a person has done?...or do we baptise because something God has done? "


----------



## heartoflesh (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> Rick, the point is why wait for a profession from your children. Is it their confession of faith that puts them in the covenant or is it God. We know the wheat and tares grow together anyway. So why this waiting for a profession from a child of Christian parents when this is unprecedented in scripture. Especially if the profession is likely to be a false one. So it doesn't work anyway.



I understand the argument about children, but that's not what I'm addressing. I want to know what the difference is between credo/paedo for adult baptism. Is there any difference? Is it the profession part? Is this what is Arminian?


----------



## just_grace (Jul 6, 2005)

*Our children...*

Jesus told us to take no thought for tomorrow, food , clothing, etc etc, do you think that God's love for us omits our inmost feelings and concerns, is God Good or not. 

O you of little faith...

Praise His name...


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> I understand the argument about children, but that's not what I'm addressing. I want to know what the difference is between credo/paedo for adult baptism. Is there any difference? Is it the profession part? Is this what is Arminian?



Like I said in my post above, the baptist considers the adult baptism to BE a confession. The paedobaptist does NOT consider an adult baptism to BE a confession.

The baptist thinks: "Here is JoeBob being baptized as a public confession of his faith in Christ."

The paedo should think: "Here is God baptizing JoeBob into covenant with Himself."


----------



## heartoflesh (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> ...



An interesting delineation, but not one I think most people are aware of, credo or paedo, when they are baptized. I also fail to see where the credo view is akin to Arminianism. Again, why couldn't God be **the cause** of my choosing to be baptized?

I understand the differences in understanding the nature of covenants, but we can't just throw the "A' word around whenever we feel like it.


----------



## Philip A (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> But the Baptists (and please correct me if I'm wrong) consider the baptism ITSELF to BE a confession . . . essentially the person saying, "Yup, I am choosing to be united with Christ's death and resurrection."



JOSEPH, YOU ARE WRONG!!!

(at least in part  )

Remember your own words: "please correct me if I'm wrong".



This is the crux of why this whole discussion is one of the most ridiculous I have seen:

What is going in is that a number of paedobaptists, who seem to have only had experiences in WACKED-OUT ARMINIAN Baptist churches, are assuming that the Arminian view of credobaptism is the ONLY view of credobaptism, i.e. taking the part as representative of the whole.

Let me explain. Off the top of my head I can think of at least three different views of baptism within the credo camp:

1. wacked-out Arminian Baptists - The view you are arguing against, i.e., they consider baptism itself to be a confession.

2. not so wacked out Arminian Baptists, and some Calvinistic Baptists - they consider baptism to be a testimony of what has ALREADY happened to them. For the Calvinistic Baptist, it is a _testimony_ of what God has done _monergistically_ in their lives.

3. The confessional Reformed (Particular) Baptist view -


> "Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be *unto the party baptized, a sign* of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life." - 2LBCF XXIX:1



There are other positions out there, but those are the ones that I can think of at the moment.

Notice that for the confessional Reformed Baptist, _baptism is a sign to him_, it is _not_ his confession. Notice also that the WCF uses the same exact phraseology, "to be unto him a sign".

So, here's how it is:

The paedo says: "All baptists at all times and in all places believe XYZ about baptism."

The confessional RB says, "no, actually, I do not, and neither does my confession."

The paedo should think: "Oops! Sorry!"

[Edited on 7-6-2005 by Philip A]


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Jul 6, 2005)

Joseph, you said, "The paedo should think: 'Here is God baptizing JoeBob into covenant with Himself.'" Are you claiming that the Scripture indicates that God is the subject of *water* baptism (i.e., the baptizer) and man the object (i.e., the batpized)? I thought minsters of the gospel baptized (WCF 28:2b ?  Just trying to understand your point.

Also, what gets one into the covenant? Is one in the covneant prior to baptism? If so, upon what basis? There are varying views on this so I am just wondering what view you hold. You said: "The Paedos (like me) would require a confession. But that is only their ground for realizing the person is now a covenant member. --- The baptism ITSELF is NOT considered a confession by the person being baptized. . . . The baptism is not considered to be anything that person is saying about his/her relationship with God. Rather, because it is recognized that God has put that person into covenant with Himself, the baptism is administered, demonstrating what God Himself has said about that person." So one becomes a covenant member then is bapitzed? Earlier, you said, "When God Sovereignly gives a child to Christian parents, God has made a statement about that child. God has said that child is in covenant with Him. Baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant God initiated with the child. In baptism, God says, "This child is mine!" "I am his/her God!""

So, if I understand you correctly, covenant membership precedes water baptism. Am I understanding you correctly?


----------



## Philip A (Jul 6, 2005)

Go back and read Paul Manata's posts.

You might not remember him, but Paul was very active on this board a while back. He and I went round and round in some very edifying discussions on the subject. I can affirm that he is one of the most sound of my Presbyerian brethren that I know of, a brother in the Lord whom I respect greatly, even though we disagree on a few points. You could learn much from him.

But my point is, even Paul Manata can see through all the straw in this thread!


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 6, 2005)

Hey, Paul, what if your new girlfriend doesn't agree...???? lol... <singing> Paul's got a girlfriend... Paul's got a girlfriend...


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Jul 6, 2005)

Paul, is that pic you or Derek Webb smoking a pipe? If DWebb, I now know where he gets his raspy voice from.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rich Barcellos_
> So, if I understand you correctly, covenant membership precedes water baptism. Am I understanding you correctly?



Yes, but in the same sense that a person was a covenant member prior to receiving circumcision. Even though the infant was already a covenant member before circumcision, in Gen. 17, God called circumcision itself the "covenant". So there is a powerful tie between sign and that which is signified. To use a very fallible analogy, the covenant membership is the wedding, and the baptism is the consummation. In one sense, we can and should distinguish the two. But in another sense, we don't really want to seperate the two radically from each other, and we might very well feel that a couple isn't "fully married" if they go through the ceremony but then remain abstinent. (Please just accept that as a VERY rough analogy. . . .I probably should come up with a better one.)

So I'm ok with distinguishing covenant membership and covenant sign, just as long as we don't drive a wedge between them.

Are they covenant members before circumcision/baptism? Yes.
But is the circumcision/baptism itself the "covenant"? Yes.

The tie is so tight that bad stuff happens when we try to pull them apart.


----------



## Augusta (Jul 6, 2005)

The whole point is why don't credo's baptize their children? Because they want a profession, they want a human agreement. This is why I say it is like arminianism repackaged or at least moved. They still want that human assent. If the sign isn't the the thing signified but just a sign WHY leave your children without it. Why not give it to them in faith that God will save them if you diligently train them, that God might use that means of your training, to save the child's soul.

Does baptism have any benefits at all? Yes it obviously has something or God wouldn't command it. Why wait for human assent?? Why? With all the scripture that speaks of households being saved, with all of the OT, with everything, why do baptists need human assent. This smacks to me of not truly believing in God's promises and in His absolute sovereignty in salvation. If you need your child to grow up and assent to a covenant sign, something commanded by God, to me its like waiting until they are old enough to pray the sinners prayer. Is God sovereign or not. No to mention He never says anything of the sort in scripture. It is implied, just like free will is implied in places but explicitly denied elsewhere.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Jul 6, 2005)

*God the baptizer*



> _Originally posted by Rich Barcellos_
> Joseph, you said, "The paedo should think: 'Here is God baptizing JoeBob into covenant with Himself.'" Are you claiming that the Scripture indicates that God is the subject of *water* baptism (i.e., the baptizer) and man the object (i.e., the batpized)? I thought minsters of the gospel baptized (WCF 28:2b ?  Just trying to understand your point.



Joseph, what do you mean by God baptizing into covenant? I think I know what men water baptizing men means, but I do not know what you mean by God baptizing JoeBob into covenant. And into what covenant are you speaking?


----------



## pastorway (Jul 6, 2005)

Joseph has confused water baptism and spirit baptism it seems. He has also confused what puts one in covenant with God and when.



Phillip


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 6, 2005)

Rick,

In arminianism they would say, "no we too believe it is all by s. grace" BUT man's agency of faith is the factor that swings the person into the category of saved or not saved. Hence, the overall effectual saving of a man is man's effort and this ends up being the definitive nature of their view of grace though they speak duplicity.

Concerning "believers baptism". It is not so much a strictly spoken theological point because many reformed baptist and calvinistic leaning baptist affirm theologically sovereign grace full tilt. I think it is more of a practical outworking of the doctrine of "believers only" baptism. It is the "only" part that separates how the credo community Vs. the Paedo community view baptism. Now, you'll find abberations in all denominations but strictly speaking, assuming a baptism into Christ, Holy Trinity formula and so forth, and looking only at adults on both sides - a Paedo baptist would never rebaptize and would consider such a sin. Yet, a credo would. Again, we are speaking only of adults here and not even entering infants into the frey. The most obvious question is why so?

I think this is how it comes about, that is the view that it is arminian or man centered I think would be a better term. It is all in the emphasis of the sign and the "direction of communication" if you will. In most baptist churches, even calvinistic leaning ones (not necessarily formal Reformed Baptist), the emphasis is on the sign being "MY" profession of faith effectually making it MY sign. Though it includes this that ought not be the emphasis for it for it is God's sign and promise, not mine. That makes all the difference in the world in how one views baptism. If it is primarily "MY" sign and "MY" obedience, primarily, then the communication is earth to heaven rather than heaven to earth - law rather than gospel.

Remember when I said opening that arminians would affirm sovereign grace but the last "tidbit" that is effectual is man's will - hence making the overall power man's or man centered and not a tidbit at all. Likewise, this is what happens in the Credo position and why re-baptisms occur. Because the individual is resting in themselves and the baptism that is validated by their perception of possessing or not possessing faith prior to a baptism event. Thus, credo-baptism ultimately, the deciding over all factor, lies in the validity of the perception of the faith of man. 

Now many will play word games at this point and say that if real faith was not present then the first baptism was invalid and hence any "re-baptism" is not really "re-baptism" but rather the first valid baptism. But that doesn't help ward off the man-centered argument, rather it supports and blatantly states it.

One can caveat it that faith is a gift as any good calvinistic baptist would and hence it ultimately is not man centered. But that doesn't help either because it is the struggling christian's perception of "when" he/she could affirm this faith, pre or post first baptismal event, which can be difficult if struggles with sin arise or one has had a very strong encounter with the Law. Baptism is still under this scheme defined by the perception of faith, it rests on man and not God. Baptism then becomes a work to be done. That is why a second, third or forth baptism occurs.

The thing to remember is that fundamentally the credo's "believer's baptism" differs from the paedo's "believer's baptism" not in that both require profession and so forth from adults (in that they are similar), but the essential primary meaning of baptism, the effectual meaning of it if you will that overtakes its over all doctrine (just like the arminian's view of Sov. Grace and man's will over taking the real view of the doctrine of salvation).

Maybe that helps, maybe not.

Larry


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 6, 2005)

If water baptism is not the sign of the covenant membership to a Baptist, then why re-baptize?


----------



## pastorway (Jul 6, 2005)

not to chase rabbits......but,

what do you mean by "re-baptize"? 

If one has not been Scripturally baptized then it is not a re-baptism at all. 

Baptism happens once. Yes, you may have been dunked or sprinkled according to some formula, but if you have not met the Scriptural requirements then whatever has happened you have not been baptized in the first place.

Phillip


----------



## Puddleglum (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> The whole point is why don't credo's baptize their children? Because they want a profession, they want a human agreement. This is why I say it is like arminianism repackaged or at least moved. They still want that human assent.



Yes, _some_ credos do think like that. Typically arminian ones. 

More reformed credos would say that they're looking to see proof of God's work in their children's life - just like they (and paedos) do with any adult who wants to join the church. When someone makes a profession of faith, the elders look at their life to see if there's proof of God's work. What the person does isn't what saves them - it's demonstrating what God has done. A credo views baptism as being linked with a profession of faith. 

Not sure if that helps clarify or not . . .


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 7, 2005)

Phillip,

It is not a rabbits trail but straight to the issue.

That is the whole point, baptism ends up finding validity and "existance" if you will based upon man - hence man's sign and not God's.

We can play word games about re-bapized or dunked again all day long, but the reality is - is that a ritual actually took place and from the believers only perspective its validity ultimately rests in the man and not in the promise of God.

A reformed church rests/grounds the sign in God's promise. So that if a struggling Christian thinks rightly or wrongly that he/she was baptized before real faith (not speaking of infants her but adults) then one would celebrate God fulfilling what the sign signified and not in essence repeat the sign as a human work.

Furthermore, from a believers only perspective what was the invalid cermony introduced into worship if the professing believer was false for you just said it would not be baptism.

In Humility,

Larry


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> not to chase rabbits......but,
> 
> what do you mean by "re-baptize"?
> ...




It is this type of "logic" that really messes with people's thinking, and ends up causing many to be dunked multiple times. My own cousin, Curt, was baptized as an infant, then dunked as an adult. But then a few years later, he questioned whether he was "really saved" when he was dunked the first time, so he got dunked again. That's 3 baptisms (or at least two, to a baptist). I know of other people with similar stories. 

This introspective navel-gazing nonsense is unbiblical, and is spiritually damaging. 

There are many people who go through spiritually low points in their lives. Then they come out on the other side, and get close to the Lord again. Sometimes these people question whether they were "really saved" earlier. (Sometimes this happens to be true, but certainly not always.) If they feel like they weren't "really saved", then they feel like their baptism didn't count, so they do it again. and again. and again.

If THAT type of rebaptism doesn't picture man-centered Arminian thinking, I don't know what does. People get so focused on their own navel, determined to "get their baptism right".

On the contrary, baptism signifies a person's membership in the visible church. And since regeneration only happens once, water baptism (which signifies regeneration) should also only happen once. Getting dunked (or sprinkled) over and over again sends the message that a person can be regenerated over and over again, which is Arminian nonsense.

If I were a minister, and a person came to me out of an Arminian church, and had been baptized 20 years ago, but only claimed to truly be "saved" 6 months ago, I would accept the 20-year-old baptism. In fact, I would accept a Roman Catholic baptism. It doesn't matter what the baptizer believes. And it doesn't matter what the heart-state of the baptizee is. What matters is the baptism. The same went for circumcision in the Old Testament. Nobody did (or could!) get "re-circumcized" because they felt like they weren't "really saved" when it first occurred.

Baptism is like circumcision. You don't do it twice. (ouch!)

According to baptists, the great majority of Christians throughout history were never baptized. Poor old Luther, Calvin, Ames, Sproul, Kennedy, etc. What nonsense.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 7, 2005)

WCF
CHAPTER XXVIII.
Of Baptism.

VI. *The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered*; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinancy the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.

VII. The sacrament of *Baptism is but once to be administered to any person. *


----------



## heartoflesh (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> WCF
> CHAPTER XXVIII.
> Of Baptism.
> ...




And no good Calvinistic Baptist disagrees with this (except for the "infants" part). It is only straw flying around that is trying to convince everyone that they really hold some other position.

[Edited on 7-7-2005 by Rick Larson]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jul 7, 2005)

Just an FYI here...

Joseph has done the best job explaining the credobaptism position to me here than anything else I've read or listened to!


----------



## Augusta (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puddleglum_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Augusta_
> ...



Jessica, the point I am making about children and adults is that no man knows another mans heart, only God does. I do not know my childrens hearts yet and they are 7,7,9 &10. I don't think I will ever KNOW. God does know. He sovereign and I need to leave it in His hands, as it is His domain not mine and not even their's. I am trying to usurp His dominion over my children at that point. Denying them something commanded by God because of something I think it needs human agency, human blood pressure taking, to decide if this person or that should be baptized. 

Thank you Larry for explaining it much better than I did. I may have bumbled it a bit and made mincemeat out of it.

[Edited on 7-7-2005 by Augusta]


----------



## Puddleglum (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> Jessica, the point I am making about children and adults is that no man knows another mans heart, only God does. I do not know my childrens hearts yet and they are 7,7,9 &10. I don't think I will ever KNOW. God does know.



True - we can't see someone else's heart. And it's not my job to try to do so - there's a place for it, but that's the elder's job, my job is to trust their judgment (like it or not!). 



> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> Denying them something commanded by God because of something I think it needs human agency, human blood pressure taking, to decide if this person or that should be baptized.



Okay, I think I can sort-of see how, from the paedo perspective (which says that God commands you to baptize your kids, and doesn't link baptism & profession), how requiring a profession from your kids first seems like adding works. 

So I guess the real questions are (1) whether or not God does command that, and (2) when should a profession be required prior to baptism . . . cause I think it's the difference in answers to those questions, which cause there to be a difference in whether or not you think that requiring a profession from your kids is adding works to the equation or not. 

But that's just restating the old paedo v. credo debate . . . 



> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> I may have bumbled it a bit and made mincemeat out of it.



I appreciate you participating, because the guys who post several-page-long, 15-point arguments tend to totally lose me! (Okay, that's a bit of an exaggeration!) And I think that I may well be better at making mincemeat of the whole thing than you are!


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Jul 7, 2005)

If Credos are Ariminian because they require a profession of faith prior to baptism, would that make all non-paedocommunion paedobaptists Arminian as well, since they require a profession of faith prior to taking the supper?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rich Barcellos_
> If Credos are Ariminian because they require a profession of faith prior to baptism, would that make all non-paedocommunion paedobaptists Arminian as well, since they require a profession of faith prior to taking the supper?



Not remotely.

The administration of the Lord's Supper is not merely tied to covenant membership. It is tied to the ability to examine one's self (1 Corinthians 11:28).

Communion is not tied directly to regeneration. A child may be truly regenerate for years before giving a profession of faith, or coming of age to the point where we think he is able to examine himself. 

Since regeneration does not guarantee that a person should be immediately admitted to the Lord's Supper, there is nothing "Arminian" about requiring a profession of faith prior to partaking. 

Baptism signifies regeneration and covenant membership. There is no requirement for someone to "examine" himself before being baptized. So we are dealing with apples and celery. (But both are very tasty and nutritious!)


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...



Rick, are you sure that "no good Calvinistic Baptist disagrees" that "efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered"?

In other words, if you decide that you weren't really regenerate until about a year ago, but your baptism was 10 years ago, would most Baptists accept that baptism? Or would they say that it was "no baptism at all" because you were unregenerate at the time? My experience with Baptists has been the later. But if you know otherwise regarding most other Baptists, then I am very happy to hear that. 

But if I am correct, most Baptists DO disagree that the "efficacy of baptistm is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered". Instead, I would argue that Baptists believe the timing is *critical* . . . they would say that if you were baptized while unregenerate, then you "weren't baptized at all."


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 7, 2005)

. . . imagine the popularity of the Baptist mentality in the Old Testament:

"I see, sir, but I'm sorry. That doesn't count. You weren't regenerate when that happened, so you were not really circumcised at all. . . ."


----------



## Augusta (Jul 7, 2005)

Sometimes these guys can go over my head and I am looking up words, some of which are not in the dictionary.




I am a big picture person. I can look at the details, and do alot, by I am ever aware of the whole scheme of things. And if a detail throws the scheme out of whack I notice. 

To me believers baptism throws the flow and harmony of the covenants and God's sovereignty out of whack. (that my version of a theological term ) It just makes so much more sense to me that God foreknew us from the beginning of time. He really already has us marked or set apart for Him. In an eschatological (learned that one in a seminary course where the prof used it every other word



) sense when we give the sign is insignificant. Temporally before our conversion we were wicked and unsaved right? Eschatologically we are set apart. 

Even now we are not glorified yet or sinless we are "in Christ" in an eschatological sense even while yet on earth because He is before the throne on our behalf as our head testifying "these are mine." 

That brings up the whole headship matter. This is another big part of Covenant theology. In the OT whatever your covenant head did you did. The women are never counted when they give the number of Israelites doing this or that. It is always and the tribe of Dan was 100,000 men. The men and their male children were circumcised. Why are the women never mentioned? They are one flesh with their husbands. They are under the authority of their head so this is a no brainer to the Israelite. Their female children, the same. 

Headship has not changed in the NT. God has not changed in the NT. His plan of redemption has not changed except it is now fulfilled. Is not the NC effective to all those elect in the OT who were given the sign when they were 8 days old? Or perhaps only for Abraham since he was of an age of accountability. Why the change? Because it is _implied _ in the command believe and be baptized. Just as it is _implied _ in that same command that we have the ability then to do so. Alas we know from other _explicit _ scripture we do not.

All of the types in the OT shed light and illuminate the things they represent in the NT. The circumcision/baptism, manna and water in the wilderness/the Lords supper, the sacrifice for sin/Jesus as our sacrifice, the marriage between a man and woman/Christ and His bride the church, Adam as our head/Christ as our head, David as prophet, priest, and King/Christ as our prophet, priest and King. It is seamless.


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 7, 2005)

... imagine the popularity of the Paedobaptist mentality in the Old Testament:

"It's OK, people, even though God will kill us if we do something we aren't suppose to do, we can go ahead and add a practice not revealed to us in this covenant."


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> 
> All of the types in the OT shed light and illuminate the things they represent in the NT. The circumcision/baptism, manna and water in the wilderness/the Lords supper, the sacrifice for sin/Jesus as our sacrifice, the marriage between a man and woman/Christ and His bride the church, Adam as our head/Christ as our head, David as prophet, priest, and King/Christ as our prophet, priest and King. It is seamless.



That is a very good point. A lot of people recognize that the NT sheds light on the OT. But unfortunately, not so many realize that the OT sheds light on the NT.

The Bible is ONE book, and EVERY chapter sheds light on every other chapter. As you said, it is "seamless."



. . . and I agree with you: credobaptism (especially when it causes multiple baptisms of the same person) throws the whole flow and unity of Scripture "out of whack". (That phrase should definitely be an accepted theological term . . . it's very clear!) :bigsmile:


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Theological Books_
> ... imagine the popularity of the Paedobaptist mentality in the Old Testament:
> 
> "It's OK, people, even though God will kill us if we do something we aren't suppose to do, we can go ahead and add a practice not revealed to us in this covenant."



You have that backwards. We didn't "add" anything. We simply *continue* the age-old practice of covenantal child-inclusion that has been practiced for thousands of years.

Rather, YOU are the ones who have *removed* a practice from the church, even though you have *no Scriptural command* to do so. 

There is no passage of Scripture that says, "Your children are no longer automatically included in the covenant along with their parents. Now that Christ has come, Christians aren't supposed to think that way anymore. God only deals with individuals now, not their families."

Even if there was no New Testament support for infant baptism (and there is a great deal of it), I would still be required to baptize my children. Children were already included in the covenant, and God never put a stop to it. Unless you can point to a Scripture which says God has quit including children in the covenant along with their parents, then you are the one who is presuming to go outside God's clear commands.

The burden of proof is on you, my brother.


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 7, 2005)

Ummm... unfortunately I think you missed the facetiousness of my post, and then you assumed it was an argument. I guess your original post was not facetious, which saddens me. If a flippant remark such as yours was not facetious, then I am dissappointed in your tactics. I was just having fun.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 7, 2005)

Brother Myers, I certainly was not trying to upset you. I apologize for coming across that way.

Why did you think I was being "flippant"? I obviously did intend to be humorous, but I was trying to make a valid point at the same time. 

I really do think that "re-baptism" is as silly as "re-circumcision" would be.

I'm not sure what "tactics" I'm using that upset you. But turning you off was certainly not my attention, my brother. Please forgive my many failings and imperfections. I didn't intend to upset you at all.


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Brother Myers, I certainly was not trying to upset you. I apologize for coming across that way.
> 
> Why did you think I was being "flippant"? I obviously did intend to be humorous, but I was trying to make a valid point at the same time.
> ...



Joseph, I appreciate your apology (especially the tenderness of your heart, which is most encouraging), but I do not think you have sinned against me (or anyone). I thought your statement was funny, actually, but I thought that was your sole intent. My statement was meant to be funny as well. I thought we were epitomizing the theological considerations in a stereotypical, yet false, manner. In other words, a paedobaptist (anachronistically speaking) would never say what I said in the Old Covenant period. Do you really think the mentality of the Baptist (anachronistically speaking) in the OC would question the circumcision of all the males of Abraham's seed? I guess I just do not understand your understanding of Baptists, or at least confessional Baptists.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Theological Books_
> 
> Joseph, I appreciate your apology (especially the tenderness of your heart, which is most encouraging), but I do not think you have sinned against me (or anyone). I thought your statement was funny, actually, but I thought that was your sole intent. My statement was meant to be funny as well. I thought we were epitomizing the theological considerations in a stereotypical, yet false, manner. In other words, a paedobaptist (anachronistically speaking) would never say what I said in the Old Covenant period. Do you really think the mentality of the Baptist (anachronistically speaking) in the OC would question the circumcision of all the males of Abraham's seed? I guess I just do not understand your understanding of Baptists, or at least confessional Baptists.



I was just pointing out that I think re-baptism is as silly as the thought of re-circumcision.

But no, I do not think any Baptist who has read Genesis 17 would question the circumcision of all the males of Abraham's seed. 

I just have to wonder why Baptists think that baptism is somehow an entirely different ball of wax. Both signify faith, regeneration, covenant membership, etc. If God wanted people born into the covenant in the OT, then where in the NT did He change His mind?

(As for the "mentality of the Baptist" in the Old Testament . . . well, I don't know if anyone had that mentality in the Old Testament. So I'm not sure what to say there.) --- I think the Baptist mentality is relatively new . . . My personal theory is that baptistic thinking was introduced into the early church because of the widespread doctrine of baptismal regeneration. But it's just a theory.



I doubt that any OT guys tried to encourage "re-circumcision" . . . . but if any of them did, I wish they had recorded some of the conversations on tape . . . if they had, I'm sure the MP3s would be all over the internet by now . . .


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 7, 2005)

Just so you know, I disagree with the re-baptism of almost any person. If someone was baptized (valid and regular/irregular) as five year old, but become convinced he/she was not a believer until age 18, I would say his/her baptism is still valid, though irregular, and it is now effectual as accompanied by faith. So, I wouldn't have that person re-baptized, nor would I encourage it or allow it in my congregation; rather, quite the opposite.


----------



## Augusta (Jul 7, 2005)

Then why are you a baptist Myers? Honestly if it was effective for the 5 year old and you wouldn't rebaptize him, why not your infant children in obedience and hope they will be regenerate when they are grown?


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> Then why are you a baptist Myers? Honestly if it was effective for the 5 year old and you wouldn't rebaptize him, why not your infant children in obedience and hope they will be regenerate when they are grown?



Because I do not believe baptism is to be applied to the children of NC members for the sole purpose of them being children of NC members. In other words, I do not believe baptism of infants is mandated by God in the NC, nor is it necessitated by proper covenant theology. I believe the subjects of the Christian baptism are to be those who hear the word and respond. That's the simple answer.


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 7, 2005)

> I'm going to try and anticitpate the answer Meyers will give. I don't think his qualm in this instance is specifically with infant baptism, per se. Rather, I assume it has to do with baptismal mode. Meyers probably believes that if immersion has not occurred, then baptism has not occurred. Am I right? --- And if I am right, then would you accept infant baptism performed by the Greek Orthodox Church, since they practice infant baptism via immersion?
> 
> This thread is getting quite interesting. I love it!



Brother, you have **GOT** to stop assuming things about Baptists, or at least about **ME**.  I agree with John Calvin. While immersion is the most proper and correct mode, it is not the only valid mode. I have four categories of baptism: valid, invalid, regular, irregular. The sprinkling of that five year old, premised upon his response to the preached Word, would be valid but irregular. The sprinkling of an infant would be invalid and irregular. The immersion of an infant would be invalid by regular. The immersion of a professing believer would be valid and regular. Etc., etc., etc.

Now, please, do not think I would not be gracious toward a brother who was baptized as an infant (invalid and irregular). For instance, if Sinclair Ferguson wanted to join my church as a Baptist minister, yet he was baptized only as an infant, I would allow him to join and partake of full membership (though not allowed to hold office). I would try to persuade him he was not baptized at all, but would allow his concience to take an exception to the church's overall doctrinal position. I think this grace, charity, and appeal to conscience is necessary.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Theological Books_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Augusta_
> ...



But all you've said above just implies that you think infant baptism is "irregular" . . . much like the baptism of an unregenerate 5-year-old would be "irregular". 

*** You think the baptism of unbelievers is not warranted. But if an unregenerate 5-year-old was baptized, you *would not* make him get rebaptized, because his faith would make the baptism effective for him. You would just say he had an "irregular baptism" and move along.

*** You think infant baptism is not warranted. And if an unregenerate infant was baptized, you *would* make him get rebaptized, because his faith would *not* make the baptism effective for him? Why wouldn't you just say that he too had an "irregular baptism" and move along?

That sounds terribly inconsistent to me. Apparently a 5-year-old's baptism as an unregenerate person is more effectual than a 5-month-old's baptism as an unregenerate person. Apparently the more recent a baptism is, the more effective it is. I don't get it.

Imagine two 20-year-olds asking for baptism simultaneously. Both are newly regenerate, as far as you know. One of them was baptized as an infant. The other one was baptized at the age of 5.

Why exactly would you make one get rebaptized, but not the other? 

Why do you call one "irregular but effective", but the other one "totally ineffective"? What's the big dichotomy here?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 7, 2005)

Joseph, while I of course agree with your position, I must say I think you're misunderstanding what Myers is saying. From his perspective, the difference between the two scenarios is not age, but the presence of a profession of faith. Notice that he said,



> _Originally posted by Theological Books_
> The sprinkling of that five year old, premised upon his response to the preached Word, would be valid but irregular.



If the Baptist claim that a profession of faith is required for baptism is correct (which I agree it is not), then it would not be inconsistent for him to reject the five-month-old's, but accept the five-year-old's, since even though it was later discovered that the the five-year-old was unregenerate at the time, it would still have been validly administered in the Baptist view because it followed a profession of faith.


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Joseph, while I of course agree with your position, I must say I think you're misunderstanding what Myers is saying. From his perspective, the difference between the two scenarios is not age, but the presence of a profession of faith. Notice that he said,
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## heartoflesh (Jul 7, 2005)

Again, as I stated earlier, I am not committed to either camp, Paedo or Credo, and find arguments on both sides compelling, the Paedo perhaps even more compelling. Regardless, I have yet to be convinced that the Credo view is somehow akin to Arminianism, which was accusation made, and the purpose of this thread. There have been implications that the credo view somehow implicitly contains a sliver of synergism in it, (unconscious synergism at that), which I still don't completely understand, but this should not by any means be equated with Arminianism, a term which signifies a well-defined set of doctrines and viewpoints. I'm just saying that we should choose our words carefully, making sure they are accurate representations of what we mean, or else they lose their meaning completely.


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 7, 2005)

> If the Baptist claim that a profession of faith is required for baptism is correct (which I agree it is not)...



You do believe that is necessary for the unchurched, just not for children born into a home where the parents are NC members. You and I believe the same thing, but you add (or I take away) the inclusion of children of members of the NC.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Theological Books_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



Ok . . . I think that helps . . . I think I am starting to understand (though without agreeing).


Let me see if I understand where you are coming from (regarding "validity", not "irregularity"):


1) You do not think a person must be regenerate for their baptism to be valid.

2) You do not think the minister/layman doing the baptizing has to be regenerate or have proper intentions for the baptism to be valid.

Thus, an unregenerate layman could baptize an unregenerate 5-year-old, and it would still be a "valid" baptism.

However:

3) You DO think that the person RECEIVING the baptism must make a profession of faith for the baptism to be valid.


Have I understood you correctly? --- Are you basically saying that the baptism is made effectual by man, and not by God?

If so, then I hold to what I said earlier about credobaptism implying Arminianism. Baptism is a sign and seal of faith and regeneration. And you are telling me that the recepient of baptism has the power to render his/her baptism either effectual or ineffectual, based on his/her profession. Thus, what does this imply? It implies that regeneration itself is conditioned upon the recepient. It implies that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is made effectual by man, and not by God.

Remember, baptism is a sign, and a sign *signifies* something. And our signs should match our doctrines.

I'm just saying that I think your doctrine (thankfully) contradicts your sign.




[Edited on 7-7-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 7, 2005)

> Ok . . . I think that helps . . . I think I am starting to understand (though without agreeing).
> 
> 
> Let me see if I understand where you are coming from (regarding "validity", not "irregularity"):
> ...



As to (1), correct, I do not think a person must be regenerate in order for their baptism to be valid. As to (2), I do not think a baptism administered by anyone not an officer in the church is valid. So, if a 13 year old girl baptizes her friend (another 13 year old girl) in a lake (whether sprinkling or immersion) in the name of the Triune God, that is not a valid baptism, and I would not accept it as a minister. As the second part, correct, the baptizing officer does not have to be a true believer for it to be valid (i.e. Donatism). So, let us say that my grandfather (who baptized me, and who was an ordained minister in the SBC) was not a true believer either (A) when he performed the ceremonial law or (B) was and never will be a believer. That baptism is still valid.



> However:
> 
> 3) You DO think that the person RECEIVING the baptism must make a profession of faith for the baptism to be valid.
> 
> ...



In regard to (3), yes. Baptism is made effectual by faith alone, not by man. Baptism, in and of itself, is not effectual. So, yes, in one sense, unless that personally and volitionally rests and trusts in Christ, that baptism will not be made effectual salvifically. And, without faith, baptism is effectual in the manner of a curse. So, you may want to use another word than "effectual," for I'm not sure you are asking me the right question, or the question that might best fit your objection. I believe God can (and does) use infant baptisms for his elect because of his graciousness and mercy, but that is in spite of their invalid baptism, not because of it. But because God can (and I believe does) use the invalid baptism, that does not excuse it. It is still and improper use of God's ceremonial law, in my opinion.



> *If so, then I hold to what I said earlier about credobaptism implying Arminianism.* Baptism is a sign and seal of faith and regeneration. And you are telling me that the recepient of baptism has the power to render his/her baptism either effectual or ineffectual, based on his/her profession. Thus, what does this imply? It implies that regeneration itself is conditioned upon the recepient. It implies that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is made effectual by man, and not by God.



Then I think you are using "effectual" in the wrong manner. For instance, what I have stated is PERFECTLY in line with the paedobaptist doctrine of the baptism of professing converts. However, there is no causal connection between Arminianism and the paeodbaptist/credobaptist view of unchurhed conversion baptism. You are confusing "valid" with "effectual," most likely, which, again, misses the point. I believe you are completely misunderstanding what I'm saying, though you may be able to apply this to others, but I have found nothing that warrants your conclusion about me or anyone else on this thread.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Theological Books_
> *I do not think a baptism administered by anyone not an officer in the church is valid.* So, if a 13 year old girl baptizes her friend (another 13 year old girl) in a lake (whether sprinkling or immersion) in the name of the Triune God, that is not a valid baptism, and I would not accept it as a minister. As the second part, correct, the baptizing officer does not have to be a true believer for it to be valid (i.e. Donatism). So, let us say that my grandfather (who baptized me, and who was an ordained minister in the SBC) was not a true believer either (A) when he performed the ceremonial law or (B) was and never will be a believer. That baptism is still valid.



For starters, I'll respond to this statement of yours. FAR MORE than your requirement of a profession of faith, I think this statement of yours is problematic. You are saying that God cannot baptize someone, except through an ordained officer of the church. Thus, a person's baptism is rendered "invalid" because of *man*.

Earlier, you made a point to let me know your agreement with John Calvin regarding baptism (except for paedobaptism itself, obviously).

John Calvin agreed with you that a layman should not administer the sacraments. However, he *strongly* was opposed to the idea that an improper administrator of the sacraments could thereby render them "invalid". See a quote from Calvin, regarding the improper circumcision of the son of Moses:



> "œCertainly the child was not duly circumcised; and still it is plain from the event, that the ceremony thus rashly performed pleased God; for it is immediately added, that "˜He let him go.´ For thus I interpret, that the scourge of God ceased or was removed, because he was pacified by the repentance both of Moses and of Zipporah, although it was improper in itself."



As a friend of mine pointed out, this is an important passage, because it shows that Calvin made a distinction between a proper administration of sacraments and the actual performance of them. 

Calvin also said:



> "œNow, suppose what we have determined is true - that a sacrament must not be judged by the hand of the one by whom it is ministered, but as if it were from the very hand of God, from which it doubtless has come. From this we may then infer that nothing is added to it or taken from it by the worth of him by whose hand it is administered. Among men, if a letter is sent, provided the handwriting and seal are sufficiently recognized, it makes no different who or of what sort the carrier is. In like manner, it ought to be enough for us to recognize the hand and seal of our Lord in his sacraments, whatever carrier may bring them."



Here is more of what John Calvin had to say about the administration of the sacraments:



> 1. "œLet it suffice then, to have been baptized in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit -- *whatever may have been the ignorance or impiety of those who administered baptism to us. Man is merely the hand. It is Christ alone Who truly and properly baptizes.*"
> 
> 
> 2. "œ*It matters not to me whether he who performs the baptism is a diabolical man -- or even the devil.*"
> ...




Martin Luther also had something to say about lay-baptism. Although improper, it is still valid:



> "œSuppose a group of earnest Christian laymen were taken prisoner and set down in a desert without an episcopally ordained priest among them. And suppose they were to come to a common mind there and then in the desert and elect one of their number"¦and charge him to baptize, say mass, pronounce absolution, and preach the gospel. Such a man would be as truly a priest as though he had been ordained by all the bishops and popes in the world. This is why *in cases of necessity anyone can baptize and give absolution. This would be impossible if we were not all priests.*"




And for a voice from the early church, let's hear from Augustine:



> "œThough it be usurped without necessity, and given by any man to another, that which is given cannot be said not to be given, though it may be truly said to be unlawfully given"¦No devout soldier ever violates the royal stamp, though it be usurped by a private men: for though some by stealth and in a clandestine way set the royal stamp, not to the public money, but their own; yet the money so stamped, when they are either punished or pardoned for their offense, having the royal standard upon it, it is not defaced, but through into the king´s treasury."




I am not saying that lay-baptisms are proper. But it is a huge mistake to say they are not valid baptisms at all. The early church and the reformers understood this important distinction very clearly.





[Edited on 7-7-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 7, 2005)

> > *I do not think a baptism administered by anyone not an officer in the church is valid.* So, if a 13 year old girl baptizes her friend (another 13 year old girl) in a lake (whether sprinkling or immersion) in the name of the Triune God, that is not a valid baptism, and I would not accept it as a minister. As the second part, correct, the baptizing officer does not have to be a true believer for it to be valid (i.e. Donatism). So, let us say that my grandfather (who baptized me, and who was an ordained minister in the SBC) was not a true believer either (A) when he performed the ceremonial law or (B) was and never will be a believer. That baptism is still valid.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, this is off topic about your accusations and assesments of what I believe. Regardless, see the 1846 ruling by the Presbyterians, which Hodge dissented (in a minority report), denied the validity of Rome's baptism, even though it was trinitarian. Historically, Rome's baptism was considered invalid because of whom and organization in which the person was baptizing. Do not confuse Calvin's historical reasons regarding baptism (i.e. coming out of Rome) with the 21st century of concerning what is valid or invalid.

For instance, Mormons may baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but it is not valid. I would not accept a trinitarian baptism from a Mormon.

What you are *NOW* discussing is the objectivity of the covenant and adminstration of baptism. This has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation or your use of Arminianism. In other words, while this is a worth-while discussion, it is a red herring.



> See a quote from Calvin, regarding the improper circumcision of the son of Moses:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, but do we see God threatening to kill the 13 year old girl if she does not baptize her friend? This has no bearing on the situation, and it is off topic of your accusations and assesment of by baptist theology. 



> Calvin also said:
> 
> 
> 
> > "œNow, suppose what we have determined is true - that a sacrament must not be judged by the hand of the one by whom it is ministered, but as if it were from the very hand of God, from which it doubtless has come. From this we may then infer that nothing is added to it or taken from it by the worth of him by whose hand it is administered. Among men, if a letter is sent, provided the handwriting and seal are sufficiently recognized, it makes no different who or of what sort the carrier is. In like manner, it ought to be enough for us to recognize the hand and seal of our Lord in his sacraments, whatever carrier may bring them."



Again, Calvin is not addressing the issue about which I was speaking. Calvin's historical situation is much different than our present day situation. He doesn't answer the questions addressed in our context.



> Here is more of what John Calvin had to say about the administration of the sacraments:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again, this is not equitable. I, too, do not think it matters whether or not the person baptizing is a believer or not, which I have already answered.



> I am not saying that lay-baptisms are proper. But it is a huge mistake to say they are not valid baptisms at all. The early church and the reformers understood this important distinction very clearly.



And I would say you are ignorning the historical setting of the reformed men coming OUT OF ROME.

Regardless of ANY of this, your accusation of the Baptist being Arminian is clearly without any justification.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Theological Books_
> 
> 
> > If the Baptist claim that a profession of faith is required for baptism is correct (which I agree it is not)...
> ...



Exactly.



> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Have I understood you correctly? --- Are you basically saying that the baptism is made effectual by man, and not by God?
> 
> If so, then I hold to what I said earlier about credobaptism implying Arminianism. Baptism is a sign and seal of faith and regeneration. And you are telling me that the recepient of baptism has the power to render his/her baptism either effectual or ineffectual, based on his/her profession. Thus, what does this imply? It implies that regeneration itself is conditioned upon the recepient. It implies that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is made effectual by man, and not by God.



I see this as basically a straw-man against the Baptist position. Remember that the Supper is also a sacrament that signifies our monergistic salvation in Christ, yet none of us here believe in administering it without a profession of faith - hence, if credobaptism's requirement of an action on the part of man renders what it is signifying as Arminianistic in any way, then we had better all become paedocommunionists to avoid the same error with regard to what the Supper is signifying.

My underlying point is that the error of credobaptism is not rooted in a misunderstanding of the doctrines of grace in any way, but rather in a misunderstanding of how God has chosen to apply those doctrines to His people throughout redemptive history (i.e. Covenant Theology). Thus, searching for a link to the former will not get to the real heart of the error in credobaptism, but will only turn its adherants further away from paedobaptism by creating straw-men of their views.

Regarding the ecclesiological requirements for a valid baptism, here is one past thread on that issue that may shed some light on the current discussion, and could possibly be resurrected.


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 7, 2005)

> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> > Have I understood you correctly? --- Are you basically saying that the baptism is made effectual by man, and not by God?
> >
> > If so, then I hold to what I said earlier about credobaptism implying Arminianism. Baptism is a sign and seal of faith and regeneration. And you are telling me that the recepient of baptism has the power to render his/her baptism either effectual or ineffectual, based on his/her profession. Thus, what does this imply? It implies that regeneration itself is conditioned upon the recepient. It implies that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is made effectual by man, and not by God.
> ...


----------



## Augusta (Jul 7, 2005)

Chris, I disagree that this line of thinking leads straight to paedocommunion. We actually have scriptural warrant that explicitly states the a person should examine themselves before that sacrament. 

Not the same with baptism. They make the same mistake In my humble opinion as, arminians do, with a general call to believe and be baptized. Like arminians insist that this means we have the ability to because of what is implied. Baptists do the same but say in means we have to believe first. They base it all on implication. There is no explicit command to discontinue covenant heads from exercising their authority as that covenant head to bring their whole family with them into the covenant. In fact it is upheld in many places. It flies in the face of all that we understand about headship. 

Why the statement about a man is head of his house as Christ is head of the church? (Eph 5:23) Why 1 Cor 11? Why is the woman subject to her husband and if her how much more their children. They are viewed as a unit throughout scripture. Even the Phillipian jailer was told before they even went to his house the he would be saved with his household if he believed. 

This thread was titled very badly. I have not said that baptists are arminian, I have said that their arguments are based on the same mistake of scriptural interpretation. Not interpreting scripture with scripture. No looking at the NT in light of the OT. Pitting implicit scripture against explicit scripture. And it is appearing that they need some kind of human assent. This was not necessary in the OT. The women had no sign given them at all. Only future male "heads" were given it and that when they were babies and could give no assent. I don't believe even servants had to assent to anything they were just circumcised because they were of that household. 

No one has engaged these arguments that I am aware of. I know I am not a student at a seminary or anything but I think I can read scripture with understanding thank the Lord. And if anything I have said is incorrect I hope someone would tell me. 

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Augusta]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> Chris, I disagree that this line of thinking leads straight to paedocommunion. We actually have scriptural warrant that explicitly states the a person should examine themselves before that sacrament.



I am seeing your point, but I still think it is an incorrect analysis of the Baptist view. Your above sentence is part of my point: We believe the Supper signifies a salvation that is monergistic in nature, yet _because_ we see a specific command of examination before reception, we _therefore_ require that action on the part of men before administering the sacrament, all the while affirming that it is signifying a monergistic salvation. Likewise, Baptists believe as much as any of us that baptism signifies a regeneration that is monergistic in nature, yet _because_, unlike us, they believe that there is also a specific command of a profession of faith before all baptisms, they _therefore_ require that action on the part of all persons before administering the sacrament, all the while affirming that it is signifying a monergistic regeneration.


----------



## Augusta (Jul 7, 2005)

What about the fact that their views rest solely on implied scriptural interpretation? Am I right on that? Its there a verse that I don't know about or overlooked? Not to mention that they ignore the headship of the man in a family unit. Chris do you yourself think that headship has any implication toward this argument? Am I wrong on that?


----------



## pastorway (Jul 7, 2005)

the amount of assumptions and straw flying around in this thread have left me searching long and hard for the Credo position and not finding a bit of it anywhere........

Sadly, the credo position being argued against is not a position that I as a credo am familiar with. 

For future reference, it helps to understand and be able to articulate the opponents position before you criticize it and call those who hold to it all sorts of derrogatory theological names.

Phillip



Phillip


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> *What about the fact that their views rest solely on implied scriptural interpretation? Am I right on that? Its there a verse that I don't know about or overlooked?* Not to mention that they ignore the headship of the man in a family unit. Chris do you yourself think that headship has any implication toward this argument? Am I wrong on that?



I am certain I am reading this paragraph incorrectly, Augusta. Please, would you elaborate upon it and phrases like "implied scriptural interpretation"?


----------



## Augusta (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> the amount of assumptions and straw flying around in this thread have left me searching long and hard for the Credo position and not finding a bit of it anywhere........
> 
> Sadly, the credo position being argued against is not a position that I as a credo am familiar with.
> ...



Phillip, I stated above the following:



> This thread was titled very badly. I have not said that baptists are arminian, I have said that their arguments are based on the same mistake of scriptural interpretation.



I did not title this thread, someone else did. There are no straw men here. 

My main points are:

1. Believer's baptism is based on implied scriptures only and ignores other explicit passages that apply and this LIKE the mistake arminians make. 
2. It completely overlooks covenant headship as described in Eph 5:23 and 1 Cor. 11.
3. They add human assent which is unprecedented to the sign of the covenant, which is LIKE when arminians add human assent to salvation.
4. Believer's baptism is inconsistent with OT believer's and their practice when we all know they are all saved in the same way we are. 

I think these are valid arguments. And it would be nice if you gave your take on them as I would like to hear it. I never meant to call anyone names theological or otherwise. So please don't take your ball and go home.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> What about the fact that their views rest solely on implied scriptural interpretation? Am I right on that? Its there a verse that I don't know about or overlooked? Not to mention that they ignore the headship of the man in a family unit. Chris do you yourself think that headship has any implication toward this argument? Am I wrong on that?



I agree that their view's foundations involve implications, but ours certainly do as well, and which one is correct is a consequence of what the proper hermeneutic is, and how it is applied.* Along those lines, the reason they require a profession on the part of man before baptizing is because their hermeneutic and application of it lead them to believe that there is a command to do so, just as we all agree that there is such a command for the Supper. And in light of that, the regeneration they see signified in their baptism is just as mongeristic as is the salvation we all see signified in the Supper. I have yet to see any real evidence that a compromise of monergism is at the heart of the matter.

(*Note: I am not saying that Baptists cannot consistently follow the hermaneutic of Covenant Theology at all, as I believe they can to a certain extent. Even so, I think all the Baptists here would agree that there is certainly a difference in the hermeneutic we are using, in that the paedobaptists believe that the burden of proof is on the one who would discontinue the covenantal inclusion of children, while the credobaptists believe that the burden of proof is on the one who would take the continuity of the covenants and from there automatically assume that New Covenant children should be baptized.)

I definitely agee that headship has immense relevance to the topic, and while I naturally agree with you that they do not practice all the proper biblical results of that headship (since I believe doing so would include baptizing their children), to say that they ignore it seems like yet another straw-man.



> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> the amount of assumptions and straw flying around in this thread have left me searching long and hard for the Credo position and not finding a bit of it anywhere........
> 
> Sadly, the credo position being argued against is not a position that I as a credo am familiar with.
> ...



Phillip, have I in particular misunderstood your position in any way in this thread? If so, please point out to me where I have, as that is the last thing I want to do.


----------



## Augusta (Jul 7, 2005)

Mr. Myers, what I am saying is that you will hear from arminians all kinds of verses that imply we have the ability to follow Jesus, or we have the ability to repent. This is because they see verses with a general call going out to repent and follow Jesus. These verses may imply that but we know from other very explicit scripture that we do not have a natural ability to repent or follow Jesus without a working of the Holy Spirit first. 

My point is that believers baptims folks seem to do the same thing. They see believe and be baptized as proof that we must believe before we can be baptized. Which is why they exclude little children or babies. Yet we know that in the OT this was not the practice of those in covenant with God. You gave everyone the sign. This was I believe a no-brainer to them in that day because of federal headship.

The same way we all fell in Adam our federal head, and the same way we are saved through our new head Christ, is the same way our earthly fathers are our heads in the family structure. In fact Eph 5:23 even states that our earthly fathers are the head of the wife like Jesus is the head of the church. 1 Cor. 11 go into detail about the creational order of headship. Thus not only the women and children but even a bought servant of the household of an Israelite male was circumcised. 

To leave all this out and ignore it basically and go by an implication in scripture is a big mistake. I don't think it was ever explicitly layed out in language we would like because it was a no-brainer then. What the father did had repercussions on the whole family. Our modern culture has blinded us to this truth of scripture and subjection to the head of household as practiced historically.


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 8, 2005)

> Mr. Myers, what I am saying is that you will hear from arminians all kinds of verses that imply we have the ability to follow Jesus, or we have the ability to repent. This is because they see verses with a general call going out to repent and follow Jesus. These verses may imply that but we know from other very explicit scripture that we do not have a natural ability to repent or follow Jesus without a working of the Holy Spirit first.



While I appreciate your kindness and respect by calling Mr. Myers, please, if you're going to call me anything (especially if it is craphead or butthole  ), call me Bradford. So, what "other very explicit scripture" is there regarding infant baptism? If it was that "very explicit," do you think this would be such a divide? In other words, what is "specific" may be relative, for right or wrong reasons (though there is only one correct view, of course). Your hermeneutic guides your infant inclusion as does our hermeneutic guides our "infant exclusion." We all agree what circumcision was (confessional Christians). We all agree what baptism is (confessional Christians). We all agree to whom circumcision was to be applied (confessional Christians). We all agree there is continuity and discontinuity from the OC to the NC (as confessional Christians). But what is the difference between us applying the same baptism to the unchurch converted and the children of NC members based solely on them being children of NC members? I would say exegesis, which then directs our hermeneutic (though sometimes it is the other way around, for right or wrong). What is so explicit about your view that we do not see?



> My point is that believers baptims folks seem to do the same thing. They see believe and be baptized as proof that we must believe before we can be baptized. Which is why they exclude little children or babies. Yet we know that in the OT this was not the practice of those in covenant with God. You gave everyone the sign. This was I believe a no-brainer to them in that day because of federal headship.



Tell me, in the Old Testament, was there a command to repent and believe prior to circumcision so that circumcision could be applied (i.e. to those grafted into Israel)? And, you didn't give everyone the sign, but only males. I simply want to keep this discussion as on-target as possible without language that implies something that isn't true. Little exagerations such as that can really fluff up one's position. How are you conflating "federal headship" with the application of the sacrament? In the OT, if a husband is grafted into Israel, so is the wife, even if the wife does not believe. *THAT* is OT and first century greco-roman headship. (For instance, picture the movie "The Godfather," and you have the picture of the greco-roman headship of the grandfather, or oldest living male. What he said was law, regardless of anyone's agreement. The servants of the engrafted alien were also deemed members of Israel, with or without their consent or actual belief. Surely this is not the federal headship you are espousing?)



> The same way we all fell in Adam our federal head, and the same way we are saved through our new head Christ, is the same way our earthly fathers are our heads in the family structure. In fact Eph 5:23 even states that our earthly fathers are the head of the wife like Jesus is the head of the church. 1 Cor. 11 go into detail about the creational order of headship. Thus not only the women and children but even a bought servant of the household of an Israelite male was circumcised.



Yes, but all husbands--Christians or Muslims or Atheists--are heads of their wife. Paul is telling us to be the head of the wife in the Christian-moral example of Christ the head of the church. Headship of the family exists with or without Christ being present, or the Christian faith being present. Paul is merely telling the husbands, as Christians, to be the head of the household in a Christian manner. This is why it is a "creational order." It is the same reason a marriage of pagans is a genuine, true marriage from the divine perspective. It is the same reason pagans having headship over their wives and family. They merely pervert how the headship is to be performed. I'm having a hard time seeing your correlation between the necessity of headship and the necessity of baptism. I think you are reading a bit too much into family headship, and I don't know how this is Arminian, or like an Arminian hermeneutic. I might as well say all paedobaptists who do not adhere to theonomy are using an Arminian hermeneutic because no Scripture explicitly says the case-laws are no longer binding.



> To leave all this out and ignore it basically and go by an implication in scripture is a big mistake. I don't think it was ever explicitly layed out in language we would like because it was a no-brainer then. What the father did had repercussions on the whole family. Our modern culture has blinded us to this truth of scripture and subjection to the head of household as practiced historically.



Hmmm... you mean an implication like: "Though all the other covenants commanded the inclusion of infants, if it was included, yet this one does not, we can 'imply' it continues, even though it is not stipulated?" I actually think *YOU* are making implications of Scripture in order to justify *YOUR* view. Do you see how easy that is to say? It is another thing to prove, though, which you have not done. Your implications regarding infants in the OT--though no clear, explicit Scripture exists in the documentation of the New Covenant writings--is driving *YOUR* hermeneutic. No where does Scripture teach the civil-case laws are abrogated in a "very explicit scripture." If it were that explict, there wouldn't be theonomists. However, they go upon an "implication of Scripture" from the OT to the NT (or OC to the NC). And, trust me, even your ideal view of "head of household" for Christian families in the 21st century is _nothing_ compared to the actual head of household policies in the OT or in first century Rome. There are principles that are universal, to be sure, and I'm not denying that. But being a head of the house is not unique to the cult, but is a general creation mandate unto the cult and the culture. We simply have a different way (unperverted way) of doing it in the cult based upon special revelation.

Anyway, I still fail to see your argument of correlation between head of household and baptism, or baptism and Arminianism. I think I am more confused by your position, which I think makes my reply even more confusing. I'm not sure how to address your points, or, rather, how your points reflect on the Arminian position of exclusion of infants.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jul 8, 2005)

Ok all, right now I have no solid opinion as I am pretty new to this study. However, may I please explain how someone *MIGHT* see credo similar to Arminianism? There simply are many, many, many credo believers who insist that baptism is a person's testimony of their position in Christ.

Does that or does that not sound Arminian?

Now, I am not saying that the credo position is Arminianism. All I am saying (as an observer of this conversation) is that to some it could look that way. I simply understand why they may see it that way.


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Ok all, right now I have no solid opinion as I am pretty new to this study. However, may I please explain how someone *MIGHT* see credo similar to Arminianism? There simply are many, many, many credo believers who insist that baptism is a person's testimony of their position in Christ.
> 
> Does that or does that not sound Arminian?
> ...



I agree, many can sound Arminian, but maybe that is because many Baptists _are_ Arminian? And those of us who are new to these ideas might think Presbyterians sound like Roman Catholics because they baptized their babies? I can listen to a Methodist, who is a paedobaptist, and derive all sorts of conclusions about paedobaptists. The main-line presbyterian church--the PCUSA--does not speak on behalf of our fellow PCA and OPC brothers on this board. The mainline Dutch reformed church--the CRC--does not speak on behalf of our fellow URC brothers on this board. Also, there are many baptistic churches who are labeled "Baptist," such as John MacArthur, who are not Baptist, but have baptistic tendencies. Some Baptists, such as John Piper, are five pointers, but their sacramentology is the furthest thing from understanding them as "means of grace." Other men are simply non-denominational who hold to the Saddleback form of mission statement and simply baptize those who profess because it is a confession to the world. (NOTE: These same people most likely dedicate their babies to the Lord on the Sabbath, which is nothing more than a dry baptism.) But these people confuse the issues we are discussing. These people are not to be confused with those who claim to be "Reformed Baptists." So, next time someone is speaking on behalf of Baptists as if he is a Baptist, consider that maybe some time in the future your friends will talk to a PCUSA minister. Consider the sources and know the differences, and consider the doctrines espoused from the different vantage points.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 8, 2005)

Paul,

You make a really good point.

So, my question is this: Are you saying that Reformed Baptists generally _don't_ believe that credobaptism is part of the baptizee's profession of faith?

If not, then I may switch over and side with you on this thread.

But it has been my assumption (perhaps misinformed) that Reformed Baptists are no different from other Baptists in that way. I thought looking at baptism as a "profession" was ubiquitous in credobaptistic theology.

But if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jul 8, 2005)

> I thought looking at baptism as a "profession" was ubiquitous in credobaptistic theology.



Yep, I believe that's been the belief of all or most who've posted in this thread against the cedo position.



> Paul,
> 
> You make a really good point.
> 
> ...





I believe Pastor Way implied that this was not the belief of reformed baptists. Did he elaborate on what the belief actualy was? If so, I will have to look again.



> So, if we don't like it when people say these types of things then instead of trying to show how our reformed credo brothers fit into the arminian camp, to win cheap emotional points, let's show how these types of arguments are not worthy of Christian scholarship.



Point taken.


----------



## john_Mark (Jul 8, 2005)

I believe someone has already pointed out what the 1689 LBC says about Baptism which is what a Reformed Baptist holds to. If the arguments and allegations are soley concerning Reformed Baptist's then why not quote the 1689 and go about arguing from these actual stated beliefs?

If we are not speaking soley about Reformed Baptists then quote the BFM2000 and take issue with the official SoF from the largest Baptist organizaiton?

This approach makes more sense and seems to provide a clearer starting point.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 8, 2005)

> I see this as basically a straw-man against the Baptist position. Remember that the Supper is also a sacrament that signifies our monergistic salvation in Christ, yet none of us here believe in administering it without a profession of faith - hence, if credobaptism's requirement of an action on the part of man renders what it is signifying as Arminianistic in any way, then we had better all become paedocommunionists to avoid the same error with regard to what the Supper is signifying.
> 
> My underlying point is that the error of credobaptism is not rooted in a misunderstanding of the doctrines of grace in any way, but rather in a misunderstanding of how God has chosen to apply those doctrines to His people throughout redemptive history (i.e. Covenant Theology). Thus, searching for a link to the former will not get to the real heart of the error in credobaptism, but will only turn its adherants further away from paedobaptism by creating straw-men of their views.



Chris,

I see your point here. And agree that this does not make a positive argument in the least for infant inclusion - covenant is the way.

But I would caveat it a bit. Because we confuse "examination" concerning the Lord's Table as well. The Lord's table is FOR the strengthening of weak faith and one's dissatisfaction with one's Christian growth. No one is forbidden the table on account of weak faith and dissatisfaction but is rather the reverse - the table is exactly for such.

Taking this back to the believer's only position. It is the one whose faith is weak and struggle/dissatisfaction with one's Christian growth that the credo position damages. The Table is for feeding the Christian and baptism is looking toward faith. But making baptism in essence are reward for faith/growth (seeking fruit/regeneration) the very situation the struggling Christian is grappling with - which is the practical outworking of the credo position - is to set up an infinite wall to the Christian by way of "believers baptism". ANY time we set up rewards for "my" work, it will fail.

Keep in mind that those who are damaged by this are those with the tenderest and most raw of consciences, those who have caught a glimpse of the Law's real force. That's why they struggle with it.

To others: There is a way to build a straw man that is done so by merely asserting that one's opponent is building a straw man. That is the easiest straw man to knock down.

Ldh


----------



## Puddleglum (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> . . . the word "profession" needs to be defined since it is being used in an *Arminian* sense of the word. If we are to presume that professing adults are making a true profession (which we all should) then, *as *reformed* Christians, we think this profession is due to *God's* regenerating work in the sinner. So, *even if* the reformed baptist assumed that baptism is part of one's profession, this doesn't get you to Arminainism*, unless you assume that they view professions in the same way as an Arminian.



YES!  

The credo is requiring a profession for the SAME reason that the paedo requires a profession when adults get baptized. 

I think Traci touched on the "real" difference when she said:



> 2. It completely overlooks covenant headship



The issue isn't so much about what a profession is (or how a profession relates to salvation), but whether a child of Christian parents need to make a profession before being baptized - and this is where the covenant stuff comes in.  The credo says that a child of Christian parents is as out of the covenant as the non-believing neighbour. For either to be baptized, they must make a profession of faith. The paedo says that the child is part of the covenant because of his/her Christian parents, and thus doesn't have to profess to be baptized. That's why I think the difference is more one of who is in the covenant, than what a profession is.


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 8, 2005)

OK, so, even though paedobaptists and credobaptists agree precisely on the baptism of the converted (the unchurched, non-members, un-baptized), yet Baptists deny the inclusion of infants, Baptists are Arminians? Is that where we are at, now? So, the problem of Arminianism is not their view and practice of the baptism which is identical the Presbyterian, but the lack of including infants?


----------



## Philip A (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Paul,
> 
> You make a really good point.
> ...



Joseph,

That is what we have been trying to tell you since the second page of this thread. Perhaps you missed some posts.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Philip A_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...




No, I just didn't get that clearly from the posts.

But from your post, I'll assume that is the case.

Thank you!


I'm glad to hear that not quite all baptists look at baptism as a "profession".


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Jul 8, 2005)

"Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life" (2nd LCF 29:1). I think some RBs do not use the language of "seal" with baptism due to 2 Cor. 1:22 and Eph. 1:13.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 8, 2005)

As usual Paul's logic is rock solid.

So that neither myself or others misunderstand, because not even the baptist here have made it real clear:

1. What is the baptist/credo position on "Who is baptized". We already know infants, adults are the Q, because there is a difference between the two camps concerning re-bap./a second dip/pick your term. Some say profession, some say "truly saved/regenerate" (which is theory rather than actual application)

Because it seems that the disconnect lies within the inability to fulfill the theory. In science there is a huge difference in actually being able to "measure" a thing & therby asert something, And not being able to measure a thing with certainty - aserting something based on probability/possibility.

Thus re-bap. arises from this...or so it seems.

Thanks,

Ldh


----------



## Puddleglum (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> What is the baptist/credo position on "Who is baptized".



I was going to type up a response, but then I figured that Richard's approach of quoting the 1689 was probably a clearer and more accurate way, so



> 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. ( Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36, 37; Acts 2:41; Acts 8:12; Acts 18:8 )
> 
> 1689 LBC: Chapter 29: Section 2


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 8, 2005)

I think I´m getting what Joseph got just a couple of posts ago. I went for a drive and thought it out. A casual drive is a nice thinking place.

I think I see the difference between typical Baptist baptism and formerly called Reformed Baptist. What complicated it form me is that by name there are about three major categories of baptist that I know at least personally. 1. Arminian type, 2. Calvinistic (affirm the TULIP) type SB and 3. Formerly named "œReformed" Baptist. One and two view baptism very similarly and teach it very similarly, at least those I´ve run into in this area.

And I see what Chris and Paul were laboring in this being a dead in. Thanks, guys for your patience, it has to be frustrating when someone is not "œgetting it" and barking up the wrong tree. I apologize to you for that.

And to Philip and some of the other R. Baptist, I apologize too because I think I just got why what I was saying was "œpigeon holing" you with the general baptist community. That too must have been frustrating. You have to admit at least around here, maybe Texas is different, you are in the minority of minority on this. I do really apologize and hope you will forgive me for slinging the brush so broad.

My epiphany, so to speak, concerning this argument. It finally hit me that it really does boil down to the covenant argument. That the Ref. Bap. does not view or rest (in theory) their baptism primarily upon a profession of faith (arminian bap. & TULIP SB), though it (profession) is connected. 

In theory baptism is viewed as valid only if applied to those truly regenerate, these are to the RB really and only in covenant and thus receive the sign. The false professors who happen to receive a baptism rite and later fall away are viewed as never having been in covenant and since only those truly in covenant receive the sign - their "œbaptism event" is considered false or invalid, hence not really a baptism at all. The problem still remain with the struggler who is not sure, and not the "œclear cut" cases though. In theory this sounds and is consistent. But cannot be in practice (below).

In practice, however, true and flawless "œdetection" for a lack of a better word of a regenerate person is not possible 100% of the time. And seeking it at least teeters on passing judgment when conditions for seeking it are not met (this is a valid hazard). Later open rejectors that have had a baptism event are a simple cases and the minority report. But it is the struggler (or even the returning rejector) who presents the problem with the theory, since the heart cannot be seen and secondary causes in this case cannot guarantee the theory. This explains the sometimes over zealous search for fruit (esp. by the introspecting person struggling, in this sense the RB position is no different than the other AB and TULIP SB) - they are merely attempting to apply the theory as best they can, yet short of 100%. This is where we can tip over into paving a "œlegal pathway"œ. They wouldn´t call a second baptismal event baptism due to their definition of "œreal baptism". BUT the one struggling and seeking a "œsecond event" introspects and introspects attempting to find assurance in fruits that "œtell him" he is now "œreally saved" and can be baptized "œfor the first time". Rather than redirecting him back to Christ where true faith is and true assurance is. Basically the theory and practice cause an inherent conflict.

The Paedeo community for adults does the same thing in baptizing the first time adults, but their view of covenant is more biblical in the sense of what we see throughout OT/NT. In that any covenant can contain both adherents and breakers of the covenant who equally receive the sign and the sign depends not on only those obedient to the covenant but includes both. So, that when they baptize adults they may examine them reasonably. Yet, if an adult baptized falls away, then returns the sign is not given again. Or if one is struggling they are not sent to wrestle with looking at their faith and fruit, but sent back to Christ and the promises.

I have to say that understanding the RB position better, if I indeed have, both helps me at least understand their position rather than be frustrated, yet it strengthens my faith in the paedeo position more. I now see why so many defending it labor the covenant argument more. I see why many state that ultimately the baptist position, RB or otherwise is still a form of dispensational. I don´t mean that as a cut down, but that I see why it is stated. 

Blessings,

Larry


----------



## pastorway (Jul 8, 2005)

> baptism is viewed as valid only if applied to those truly regenerate, these are to the RB really and only in covenant and thus receive the sign. The false professors who happen to receive a baptism rite and later fall away are viewed as never having been in covenant and since only those truly in covenant receive the sign - their "œbaptism event" is considered false or invalid, hence not really a baptism at all.



Now you've got it!!!



> I see why many state that ultimately the baptist position, RB or otherwise is still a form of dispensational.



Ahhh - then you lost it again.

Even paedos see a little discontinuity between the covenants (different signs, etc) so seeing discontinuity does not make one automatically dispensational.

Phillip


----------



## Puddleglum (Jul 8, 2005)

Larry,

I think you're getting it!  

One thing with the TULIP baptists, is that some do refer to themselves as "reformed", blurring the line between them, and the confessional RBs. And there are a lot of people somewhere between the two. But on the whole, putting Baptists into 3 categories can be quite helpful, at least, it's helped me before! 

A minority of a minority - yes. And RBs in paedo churches are even more so . . . 

On the introspection stuff . . . I feel what you're saying. And I appreciate your concern - both after reading your explanation of your journey on one of the other baptism threads the other week, and personally. But I don't think that paedos are exempt from this - there is still a question of how do you know that you are truly regenerate, not just outwardly a covenant member? How do you that your faith is enduring faith, not the "temporal faith" that was mentioned in one of the other threads going on right now? Being paedo doesn't get rid of these sorts of questions, even if paedos do have a bit more objectivity than credos. In the end, BOTH paedos and credos have to be pointed back to Christ. I don't think that a Christ-ward orientation is contradictory to either position. But if becoming paedo has helped point you towards Christ, than I am glad that you became paedo.


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 8, 2005)

> My epiphany, so to speak, concerning this argument. It finally hit me that it really does boil down to the covenant argument. That the Ref. Bap. does not view or rest (in theory) their baptism primarily upon a profession of faith (arminian bap. & TULIP SB), though it (profession) is connected.
> 
> In theory baptism is viewed as valid only if applied to those truly regenerate, these are to the RB really and only in covenant and thus receive the sign. The false professors who happen to receive a baptism rite and later fall away are viewed as never having been in covenant and since only those truly in covenant receive the sign - their "œbaptism event" is considered false or invalid, hence not really a baptism at all. The problem still remain with the struggler who is not sure, and not the "œclear cut" cases though. In theory this sounds and is consistent. But cannot be in practice (below).



 lol I bang my head because I feel as though I have made important and obvious statements in this thread in order to avoid this view (at least as I hold it). However, I am only doing so out of humor, because I know most Baptists (even "Reformed Baptists") may not agree with me, but I can sleep well at night knowing that.

Now you need to make a fourth category of Baptists, or make a division between the types of Reformed (confessional) Baptists. This particular Baptist (no pun intended) does *NOT* believe baptism is only "valid" if the person receiving it is regenerate during the time it is received (I introduced the terms "valid" and "regular" for a whole other reason). Let's say there are three types of people who are baptized:

1. Elect and regenerate at time of baptism.
2. Elect and unregenerate at time of baptism (regenerated at a later date necessarily because of God's election).
3. Reprobate and unregenerate at time of baptism (never regenerated because of God's reprobation).

Now, let's say I dunk this sucker who is #3. The baptism is still valid. That person, by virtue of baptism, has entered into the New Covenant (as separate from the CoG, which is entered into only through faith alone). This person, from the divine perspective, is a member of the New Covenant. However, only if this baptism is accomapnied by faith will it be efficacious unto salvation (in a manner of speaking of the means of grace in sanctification). This baptism will be efficacious unto greater condemnation if the sacrament is never accompanied by faith. It is valid either way for #3. Let's say I dunk a #2 candidate. The baptism, prior to personal faith, is valid, and that person is in the New Covenant, but it is not effectual unto salvation until this elect does have faith. Once this person has faith, the effectiveness of the sacrament is applied to him. The baptism prior to his faith is still "valid" (keeping in mind the distinctions of valid, invalid, regular, or irregular as discussed above). Person #1, when dunked, has the efficacy of baptism when applied with the accompaniment of the preached word because he already has faith. ALL THREE BAPTISM ARE VALID, but only two will salvifically efficacious, while the third (#3) will only be efficacious in a condemning manner. None of these three are ever to be baptized "again," if they are valid/regular or valid/irregular (to the exclusion of what I suggested regarding invalid/regular and invalid/irregular). Regardless of the person's faith at the time of baptism, the baptism is valid and the person is in covenant with God (much like the reprobate in Israel through circumcision, regardless of faith). Now, please, do not confused "valid" with "efficacious" in how I'm speaking.



> In practice, however, true and flawless "œdetection" for a lack of a better word of a regenerate person is not possible 100% of the time. And seeking it at least teeters on passing judgment when conditions for seeking it are not met (this is a valid hazard). Later open rejectors that have had a baptism event are a simple cases and the minority report. But it is the struggler (or even the returning rejector) who presents the problem with the theory, since the heart cannot be seen and secondary causes in this case cannot guarantee the theory. This explains the sometimes over zealous search for fruit (esp. by the introspecting person struggling, in this sense the RB position is no different than the other AB and TULIP SB) - they are merely attempting to apply the theory as best they can, yet short of 100%. This is where we can tip over into paving a "œlegal pathway"œ. They wouldn´t call a second baptismal event baptism due to their definition of "œreal baptism". BUT the one struggling and seeking a "œsecond event" introspects and introspects attempting to find assurance in fruits that "œtell him" he is now "œreally saved" and can be baptized "œfor the first time". Rather than redirecting him back to Christ where true faith is and true assurance is. Basically the theory and practice cause an inherent conflict.



All of this applies to the dangers of paedobaptists who baptize the unchurched. This is a warning to us ALL, not merely Baptists. Paedobaptists can and do the same things with the converted, unchurched members. Both of us--paedo's and credo's--must be on guard against this.



> The Paedeo community for adults does the same thing in baptizing the first time adults, *but their view of covenant is more biblical in the sense of what we see throughout OT/NT.* In that any covenant can contain both adherents and breakers of the covenant who equally receive the sign and the sign depends not on only those obedient to the covenant but includes both. So, that when they baptize adults they may examine them reasonably. Yet, if an adult baptized falls away, then returns the sign is not given again. Or if one is struggling they are not sent to wrestle with looking at their faith and fruit, but sent back to Christ and the promises.



I beg to differ.  I, as a Reformed Baptist, believe the New Covenant can and does contain non-elect who are truly in covenant with God through baptism. If, as a Reformed Baptist, a congregant falls away and comes back again, the sign is not to be given again, but we pray it is finally sealed with true faith.

Now, unfortunately, I think I am extremely rare as a Reformed Baptist, but, Lord willing, that will change as Reformed Baptist systematic and covenant theology is *FINALLY* developed.


----------



## pastorway (Jul 8, 2005)

> the New Covenant can and does contain non-elect who are truly in covenant with God through baptism.



that has never been the reformed baptist view, not even in a minority sense. It is not a baptist view at all in any sense.

Phillip


----------



## Puddleglum (Jul 8, 2005)

LOL. Yes, then you have Myers!  

(Yes, I do appreciate the distinctions that Myers is bringing up). 

Question for him . . . 

Why aren't you a paedo? 
The RB argument that I've heard has been along the lines of what Larry has described, except that I have heard people call the "wetting" of non-Christians "baptism", even though they would re-baptize. 

(I had another question, but totally forgot it . . . oh well!)


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> 
> > the New Covenant can and does contain non-elect who are truly in covenant with God through baptism.
> ...



It will be, Lord willing!!! In fact, the beauty of this is both paedos and credo's can adhere to it and differ to whom the sacraments are to be administered.  Frankly, RB covenant theology is totally anemic because it hasn't been developed AT ALL (relative to paedobaptist CT). It does not conflict with the 2nd LBC of 1689, either. So, I think I am well within the bounds of confessional subscriptionism.


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puddleglum_
> LOL. Yes, then you have Myers!
> 
> (Yes, I do appreciate the distinctions that Myers is bringing up).
> ...



I'm not a paedo for the sheer reason my conscience is not persuaded by the Word of God to baptize children of New Covenant members solely on the basis of them being children of New Covenant members. I believe, exegetically, biblical theologically, and systematically, baptism is to only be applied to those who profess faith and repentance upon hearing the preached word of God. It's really that simple for me. I do not buy the paedobaptist covenantal argument because I deny the necessity of continuity based upon covenant theology.

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Theological Books]


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 9, 2005)

Nevermind. 

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Theological Books]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 9, 2005)

> the New Covenant can and does contain non-elect who are truly in covenant with God through baptism.



You lost me here. Though I agree with this affirming infant bap. I agree with Phillip, because if you really believe this then I admit my stupidity in failing to see what then distinguishes this type of bap. from a padeo - sheer disdain for bap. children???

Jessica,

Thanks. I must point out that - that struggle was not the mover for me. It was a non-commentary study of the Biblical covenants. That started the ball rolling for me. Calvin & others came much later. So, I can honestly say men did't "influence" me in the way that accusation is often stated.

You are right though we can make a work out of anything. Firm assurance is as Luther & Calvin said - objectively in the pure gospel - Christ crucified & risen. Where ever you find yourself struggling be it straight doubts, feelings, lack of satisfaction with your Christian growth, not able to "see" fruit, the Law strongly thundering - flee fast back to the cross where peace & joy are truly found. And guess what? Those will be two fruits of the Spirit!

Blessings to all, 

L


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 9, 2005)

> You lost me here. Though I agree with this affirming infant bap. I agree with Phillip, because if you really believe this then I admit my stupidity in failing to see what then distinguishes this type of bap. from a padeo - sheer disdain for bap. children???



Sure... "sheer disdain for bap. [infants]," or sheer disdain for using any sacraments improperly, or sheer disdian for disobeying God's moral and ceremonial laws, etc.


----------



## Augusta (Jul 9, 2005)

I say God is not the author of confusion....so since the baptists are a little confused they should come on over to the paedos side and have a tall frosty one.


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> I say God is not the author of confusion....so since the baptists are a little confused they should come on over to the paedos side and have a tall frosty one.



If a tall frosty one is a reward and motive, it better be very tall and very frosty.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Theological Books_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Augusta_
> ...



Frappe, anyone?


----------



## Augusta (Jul 9, 2005)

When all else fails.....


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 9, 2005)

WB,

You are too clever for me chief. Thanks for the info.

L


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> WB,
> 
> You are too clever for me chief. Thanks for the info.
> ...



I'm sorry, Larry, but I didn't now how to answer that question. It is not a flippant, arbitrary decision on my part, and my reasons are not merely for spite or disdain or personal preference.


----------



## Peters (Jul 19, 2005)

> Now, unfortunately, I think I am extremely rare as a Reformed Baptist, but, Lord willing, that will change as Reformed Baptist systematic and covenant theology is *FINALLY* developed.



You are not alone, brother


----------

