# Calvary Chapel Baptisms...



## faydawg67117 (Feb 3, 2006)

Are they valid? 
Did some of you who left Calvary Chapel or other denominations get rebaptised when you became reformed? If so why?


----------



## VictorBravo (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't know anything about their doctrine, but if it was baptism after a profession of faith, I wouldn't see why it would be invalid.

I did get "rebaptized" myself, but it was after a lot of prayer and thought. My parents, both unbelievers, had me baptized as an infant in an apostate Methodist church. When I came to faith, I decided what had happened before was not at all consistent with orthodoxy, so like the Ethiopian Eunich, I sought to be baptized.

Vic


----------



## ANT (Feb 3, 2006)

I was baptized by 2 men who were leaders at Calvary Chapel Ft. Lauderdale in a lake by immersion at Quiet Waters Park (Deerfield Beach, FL.) I believe it was a valid baptism for the reason it was administered in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I have never questioned or doubted the authority of the baptism.

Although ... a few years after I was baptized I did wonder. Not because it was performed by Calvary Chapel, but because one of the two men who baptized me had an extra-marital affair with a woman he was counceling. After that he came before the congregation and stepped down. I struggled for a little while, but then read some writings by John Knox and a few other well known reformed authors who were raising questions about whether the Catholic church's baptisms were valid. 

It is still effectually applied to the receiver (I believe as Knox did) as long as it is administered Biblically (despite method ... although I now agree with the Presbyterian method of baptism) as instructed in the Word. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 3, 2006)

If it was a trinitarian baptism, then I would say its valid (if someone disagrees with me on that point, that's ok. I won't debate it here).


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> If it was a trinitarian baptism, then I would say its valid (if someone disagrees with me on that point, that's ok. I won't debate it here).



Agreed. They can be out there at times, but probably less so than many A/G, etc.

Right, Anthony. Baptism isn't invalidated if the man doing the baptizing apostasizes, etc.


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 4, 2006)

I was baptized catholic, I didnt get rebaptized.


----------



## Greg (Feb 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



I also agree. I was baptized in a Calvary Chapel in the same manner. Neither have I questioned the validity of it.




> _Originally posted by ANT_
> I was baptized by 2 men who were leaders at Calvary Chapel Ft. Lauderdale in a lake by immersion at Quiet Waters Park (Deerfield Beach, FL.)



Hey Anthony,

I was also baptized in Quiet Waters Park back in 1993. When did you attend CC?


----------



## ANT (Feb 4, 2006)

I was baptized @ Quiet Waters in Feb. '96.

I attended in '96, '97, and '98. I was there when they were in the little warehouse (off McNab Rd.) before they made the move to the one across the street. (They had like 4 or 5 warehouses they were using at the time.) I was a youth leader for a year with the high school students. I was also there at the time when they bought the new property they are currently in now. I attended at the new building for a short time before I moved to Clearwater, FL.




[Edited on 2-4-2006 by ANT]


----------



## faydawg67117 (Feb 4, 2006)

Can anybody baptise?
In other words; could Joe Shmoe take his son and dunk him in the bathtub, would that be a valid baptism?
I ask becuase I'm questioning my own baptism. It was a powerful thing but I know we can't always go on emotions.
The heart of my questions have to do with ordination and the role it plays in baptism. Does it matter if the person was/is ordained and in what manner they were?

[Edited on 2-4-2006 by faydawg67117]


----------



## ANT (Feb 4, 2006)

I'm just wondering, who baptized you? Was it a church leader in a Calvary Chapel? Was it a layman? 

Did the person who baptized you administer it in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?






[Edited on 2-4-2006 by ANT]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 4, 2006)

Two articles that may help:

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

http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs3/cotvorcb/cotvorcb.html


----------



## ANT (Feb 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Two articles that may help:
> 
> http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs3/citpcia/citpcia.html
> ...



I have read the 2nd links article on the Romish baptisms. It was very good.


----------



## faydawg67117 (Feb 4, 2006)

I'm just wondering, who baptized you? Was it a church leader in a Calvary Chapel? Was it a layman? 

Did the person who baptized you administer it in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

I was baptised by the Pastor and assistant Pastor of the Calvary Chapel I went to. I was also baptised in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I'm just confused as to whether or not an unordained man can administer baptism since CC pastors and leaders don't seem to be biblically ordained. This quote helps though...

The true visible Historic Christian Church of all the ages -- as distinct from heretical or schismatic sects -- has always recognized the validity of triune baptism, even when administered by various overly-rigoristic schismatic groups such as separatistic Novatianists and Donatists

I'd be interested in hearing from someone who does not believe that Roman baptism is valid but believes CC is and why they think it differs.

Thanks for the replies.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by faydawg67117_
> I'm just wondering, who baptized you? Was it a church leader in a Calvary Chapel? Was it a layman?
> 
> Did the person who baptized you administer it in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
> ...



See this thread.

This link may take you to one post in the thread, but thence you can scroll up and see the beginning etc.

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 4, 2006)

For what it's worth,

Many of the core group that formed our congregation (Oceanside URC) were ex-Calvary chapel. We did not "re-baptize" (as if it were possible) any of them.

Re-baptism, strictly speaking is impossible. Either one is baptized or he is not. One can only be circumcised once, after that whatever it is, it isn't circumcision. To be sure, Paul speaks to a different question, but his way of thinking is instructive, when he says that those who think circumcision (or baptism) justifies should go the whole way and castrate (drown?) themselves! 

We should think this way because, _pace_ to all my Baptist friends, baptism and circumcision are linked as testimonies of Christ's death and resurrection in Col 2:11-12. _Ergo_, if the first is a baptism, the second administration of water is no baptism. 

Holifield's discussion of the 17th century controversy between the English Baptist Tombes and Blake and others on this point (_ The Covenant Sealed_ Yale Univ Press, 1974) is fascinating. Tombes account of this passage was not credible. It was special pleading. Even Richard Baxter, who was quite tempted to become a Baptist, and who held some quasi-Baptist views (as well as a very confused doctrine of justification!) was disappointed by the weakness in Tombes' exegesis and thus remained a paedobaptist. 

Anyway, since the Donatist controversy  the Western church has recognized irregular baptisms as valid. Most Reformed folk have followed this approach.

rsc


----------



## Steve Owen (Feb 4, 2006)

Dr Clark wrote:-


> To be sure, Paul speaks to a different question, but his way of thinking is instructive, when he says that those who think circumcision (or baptism) justifies should go the whole way and castrate (drown?) themselves!


Not quite so funny when one remembers that several Anabaptists were indeed drowned by their fellow-Christians (?), excused by means of this very perverted logic.

He continued:-


> We should think this way because, pace to all my Baptist friends, baptism and circumcision are linked as testimonies of Christ's death and resurrection in Col 2:11-12. Ergo, if the first is a baptism, the second administration of water is no baptism.



I agree with the second part of this: if one baptism is valid then a second one is no baptism at all. In the very first Anabaptist baptism, George Blaurock did not ask Conrad Grebel to 're-baptize' him, he, _'Besought [him] for God's sake to baptize him with the true Christian baptism upon his faith and knowledge.'_

Without wishing to get into long discussions of Col 2:11-12, may I ask this: if circumcision and baptism are effectively the same thing, how is it that at the Jerusalem meeting in Acts 15, which was to discuss circumcision, baptism was never so much as mentioned?

BTW, readers wishing to know about Tombes discussion with Blake are no longer dependent upon Holifield, but can go to the source by reading, *Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes* by Mike Renihan (B & R Press).

Martin


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Dr Clark wrote:-
> 
> 
> ...



I wasn't thinking of actually drowning anyone, as I hold to the two-kingdoms. Christendom was a giant mistake. The abuses committed under Christendom, however, do not invalidate Paul's logic in re the judaizers. If circumcision is good, then emasculation must be better.

I'm a little surprised that you want to identify with the Anabaptists. This puzzles me. When I press Baptists, who trace their roots to the 1620's et seq., they do not like to connect themselves to the Anabaptists who were so theologically disreputable -- I don't think a single one of the many leaders affirmed the Reformation doctrine of justification _sola gratia, sola fide_ unequivocally and most overtly denied it because they feared, with the papists, that it would lead to immorality. Further, they were, most of them not only moralists but mystics and even the most moderate (Menno) had a heretical Christology (denying Jesus took his humanity from the Virgin, but rather passed through her like train through a station). 

Yet, they will, as you do, in the next breath identify themselves with the Anabaptists. I first saw this in an essay by the historian at Southwestern, who in his books denies any substantive connection between Baptists and Anabaptists, but in an article attacking the Calvinists in the SBC appealed to the very same images to which you appealed. Roger Nicole gave him a good talking-to, in print, for that.

Am I right that Modern Baptists are really more ambivalent about the Anabaptists than they let on?

As to drownings etc, remember that C P Clausen showed decades ago that only about 3000 such killings can be documented in the entire period. However much the Marxists have succeeded in making the Anabaptists sympathetic representatives of the downtrodden proletariat, image is not fact. Even if we multiply Clausen's figure 10x it is dwarfed by the number of Calvinists who were slaughtered for the gospel in the same period (no less than 65,000 by a very conservative estimate). 



> Without wishing to get into long discussions of Col 2:11-12, may I ask this: if circumcision and baptism are effectively the same thing, how is it that at the Jerusalem meeting in Acts 15, which was to discuss circumcision, baptism was never so much as mentioned?



The judaizers were not challenging the connection between the two (which, btw, is indirect via Christ's "circumcision" on the cross, which by our union with him, becomes for us a "hand-less" circumcision. Hence, for Paul baptism and circumcision point prospectively [circumcision] and retrospectively [baptism] to the same historic event. Sometimes, paedobaptists, in their enthusiasm to refute our Baptist friends, misstate the connection. It is quite strong, but not direct as much as mediated through Christ). They were requiring circumcision, despite its fulfillment in Christ's cruciform circumcision (outside the city as the sin-bearer!) as a requirement for church membership and (as we also learn elsewhere) for justification. So the question on the table at the Jerusalem synod was not the relations between type and anti-type but covenant and justification. This Synod, unlike some, managed to get it right, praise God.



> BTW, readers wishing to know about Tombes discussion with Blake are no longer dependent upon Holifield, but can go to the source by reading, *Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes* by Mike Renihan (B & R Press).



Thanks for this. I was just emailing with his brother Jim about this. He didn't mention, however, that it was published. Mike and I were in Oxon together. I remember discussing his topic, so I was wondering if it was out. 

In his post, Mike says that Holifield's account is accurate and fair. 

Sorry about diverting the thread.

rsc


----------



## Steve Owen (Feb 4, 2006)

> I'm a little surprised that you want to identify with the Anabaptists.



I quoted George Blaurock only to show that even the Anabaptists or _Wiedertaufer_, 're-baptizers' did not believe that they were, in fact, re-baptizing, but rather baptizing for the first time in the Biblical manner. I gladly identify with the Anabaptists in their non-conformity and their resistance to sacralism and the State Church. I admire them for their perseverance unto death. I do not associate myself with their theology, though some of them, like Felix Manz and Matthew Sattler were executed before they had had time to articulate fully their theological stance.

I think 3,000 executions is quite enough.

I still think it strange that at a meeting called to consider circumcision, baptism is not so much as mentioned. Unless, of course, the two are quite different things. 

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Greg (Feb 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> Without wishing to get into long discussions of Col 2:11-12, may I ask this: if circumcision and baptism are effectively the same thing, how is it that at the Jerusalem meeting in Acts 15, which was to discuss circumcision, baptism was never so much as mentioned?



I'm fairly new to the study of Covenant Theology, but if I may interject something here, and be corrected if I'm wrong. The _physical administration_ of water baptism wasn't the issue being discussed here. Baptism had already been expressly commanded and established as a perpetual sign for the Church under the New Covenant by Christ Himself. 

Rather, the issue was the _physical act_ of circumcision as the covenant sign, and whether the Gentiles were to be required to be circumcised and to circumcise their children as were the Jews?

The _administration of a covenant sign_ was a given, as it has always been since the covenant with Abraham. The _use_ of a covenant sign hadn't been nullified under the NC. The question was whether or not the Gentiles were to continue the covenant sign of _circumcision_. Since they already had baptism, should they be required to circumcise? If baptism and circumcision represented the same thing, and baptism had already been explicitly commanded by Christ under the NC, the most natural question would have been in regards to the continuance of circumcision. A mention of baptism in the context of what transpired in Acts 15 isn't required.


----------



## Puritanhead (Feb 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ANT_
> I was baptized by 2 men who were leaders at Calvary Chapel Ft. Lauderdale in a lake by immersion at Quiet Waters Park (Deerfield Beach, FL.) I believe it was a valid baptism for the reason it was administered in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I have never questioned or doubted the authority of the baptism.



Is it a valid baptism if alligators are in the Florida lake?
:bigsmile:


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ANT_
> ...





This kind of thing is not unheard of. I heard a Baptist pastor recently talk about pastoring a country church in which there was no baptistry. So they had to use a pond. He said before he would go in the water, the deacons would take sticks and check the pond for turtles, snakes, etc.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 5, 2006)

> Is it a valid baptism if alligators are in the Florida lake?
> :bigsmile:



A practical reason for effusion? 

rsc


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 5, 2006)

Dr. Clark wrote:


> Many of the core group that formed our congregation (Oceanside URC) were ex-Calvary chapel. We did not "re-baptize" (as if it were possible) any of them.


What?! Calvary Chapels in Southern CA?!  There are more Calvary Chapels than Starbucks in the Temecula area. Their Bible college was my turnaround point for my 6 mile runs on the weekends when I lived in Murrieta.

I agree that a person ought not to be re-baptized simply because they were baptized in a Calvary Chapel. I do believe, however, that there are issues with _who_ baptizes under that system.

Since the system eschews membership and any other form of Biblical Church polity, the ministers are essentially self-ordained. Pastors are answerable to nobody within the body once they begin their franchise. In Chuck Smith's book about what Calvary Chapel believes he eschews the Pastor being a part of a body of Elders as being "...their lackey". Those that approach a more biblical form of Church government do so because their pastor decides to and not because anyone can move him to.

It does lead to the question: who can baptize legitimately and what is signified when somebody else does it willy nilly. I remember going to a friend's house where he baptized his son in his swimming pool. On a trip to Israel with his Calvary Chapel group, the pastor re-baptized a bunch of people who wanted to be baptized in the Jordan (fits in with the thread on Superstition in the Theology forum).

Certainly Christ's blood covers sin but what is the significance when folks are playing with strange fire with respect to a Biblically commanded sacrament?


----------

