# Baptists Who Deny Rebaptism?



## Robert Truelove (Apr 13, 2007)

I am trying to do a study on Baptists who, while believing in credo-baptism, rejected re-baptism...that is, though they believed that the improper mode and subject was in view in infant baptism...it was still baptism none-the-less and should not be repeated again after the person makes a profession later in life.

Does anyone have a list of Baptists in the past who held to this position?


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Apr 13, 2007)

Try John Bunyan; the 'early Anababaptists' of teh 16th cent. accepted non-immersion.


----------



## Herald (Apr 13, 2007)

Mmmmm...I don't know of Baptists from the past but I believe John Piper was considering a radical departure from other Baptists on this matter.

You can read Piper's article *HERE.*


----------



## Robert Truelove (Apr 13, 2007)

Piper was/is in favor of graciously received paedobaptists into membership BUT would rebaptize those who wanted it. 

I am looking for any of Baptist persuasion who would be against rebaptism even in the case of those baptized as infants. 

You see, it is one thing to say that we should not baptize infants, it is another to say that the baptism of infants is no baptism at all.

From past studies, it seemed that there were some baptistic men in the past who believed in creedo-baptism but would deny that people baptized as infants should be rebaptized (even say it is wrong to rebaptize) because, though they disagreed regarding time and mode, they still regarded it as baptism. 




BaptistInCrisis said:


> Mmmmm...I don't know of Baptists from the past but I believe John Piper was considering a radical departure from other Baptists on this matter.
> 
> You can read Piper's article *HERE.*


----------



## Herald (Apr 13, 2007)

Robert, I would be one of those Baptists who believes that paedobaptism is not baptism at all since it does not follow a credible profession of faith. Thus I would not consider a baptism after a credible profession as re-baptism since I do not consider the first baptism scriptural, thus invalid. 

You cited your past studies. What Baptists did you come up with in your past studies who you would consider paedobaptism valid?


----------



## Robert Truelove (Apr 13, 2007)

I have read that John Bunyan held this position but I am unable to confirm it and this is one of the reasons for this thread. I'm fairly sure he was for the reception of infant baptized members into the church without requiring rebaptism (though less clear that he saw the baptism as valid, though done in error).

The question at hand is not whether it is right to baptize infants, but if it is wrong and done anyway, should it not still be considered as baptism and not to be repeated (since baptism should only be done once)?

In my own thinking as a paedobaptist (though a former baptist), the fact that baptists put off the baptism of covenant children until a profession is made is not nearly so egregious as rebaptism. I wonder what the course of the Reformation would have been had the anabaptists argued against paedobaptism yet would receive infant baptism as true baptism (though done in error)? 

If I may use the Lord's Supper for a comparison...The use of grape juice in place of wine is clearly unbiblical. Furthermore, the bread is to be broken in its administration if this sacrament is to follow the biblical pattern. In many churches both grape juice and pre broken bread is used (chicklet bread). Though this is in violation of the Scriptures, I do not see this error to nullify the fact that it is still the Lord's Supper (though this is no use to condone error). Furthermore, when an unbeliever takes the Lord's Supper, it is still the Lords Supper that is received (not a snack...though not effecacious), else those partaking wrongly in Corinth would not have been getting sick and dying.

I think it all comes down to where one draws the line. The problem for Baptists is that the typical view of baptism (the baptism of infants is no baptism at all), results in the fall of the visible church for more than 1000 years (some baptists invent fictional church history in attempt to overcome this). However, if a Baptist held that infant baptism were still baptism, though done in error, they would avoid the problem of making Jesus to be a liar and overthrowing the Christian faith (Matthew 16:18).

I am interesting to know if other Baptists in history have recognized this? If such a view ever became accepted among Baptists, I think it would have a radical effect on baptist/paedobaptist relations and could work towards bringing Baptists and Paedobaptists together.




BaptistInCrisis said:


> Robert, I would be one of those Baptists who believes that paedobaptism is not baptism at all since it does not follow a credible profession of faith. Thus I would not consider a baptism after a credible profession as re-baptism since I do not consider the first baptism scriptural, thus invalid.
> 
> You cited your past studies. What Baptists did you come up with in your past studies who you would consider paedobaptism valid?


----------



## Philip A (Apr 13, 2007)

prespastor said:


> I am interesting to know if other Baptists in history have recognized this? If such a view ever became accepted among Baptists, I think it would have a radical effect on baptist/paedobaptist relations and could work towards bringing Baptists and Paedobaptists together.



This was one of the threads that I started pulling on as a Baptist. I came to the point where I couldn't deny outright the validity of an infant baptism, even though I objected to it as being in error. Then again, it wasn't more than six months after coming to that conclusion that I became a paedobaptist outright.

So yes, the effect could be radical indeed!


----------



## Poimen (Apr 13, 2007)

Philip A said:


> This was one of the threads that I started pulling on as a Baptist. I came to the point where I couldn't deny outright the validity of an infant baptism, even though I objected to it as being in error. Then again, it wasn't more than six months after coming to that conclusion that I became a paedobaptist outright.
> 
> So yes, the effect could be radical indeed!



Phil:

Since I am a paedobaptist like you I am not challenging your beliefs but I am interested in hearing how you could hold to the conviction that infant baptism was in error but not invalid. Was it similar to the Reformers conviction that the baptism of Rome was valid even thought the priest who administered it may have been in error?


----------



## Philip A (Apr 13, 2007)

Poimen said:


> I am interested in hearing how you could hold to the conviction that infant baptism was in error but not invalid.



Because I was being inconsistent  Really I had come to the point where I was seeing baptism as something different than what most baptists see it as being; I was coming to understand the nature of the sacraments _as_ sacraments and as means of grace, as being a work of God through his ministers as opposed to being man's work of profession, etc. Perhaps even holding paedobaptism to be "error" is the wrong way to describe the point I had come to. I remember saying once at the time that I thought infant baptism was "irregular" but not "invalid".

The position was really just a halfway house on the way back home to Heidelberg


----------



## Poimen (Apr 13, 2007)

Philip A said:


> The position was really just a halfway house on the way back home to Heidelberg



 

"back home to Heidelberg' I like that!


----------



## Philip A (Apr 13, 2007)

Poimen said:


> "back home to Heidelberg' I like that!



Or "running home to Mother". My wife and I take vows a week from this Lord's Day.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Apr 13, 2007)

Robert,




> You see, it is one thing to say that we should not baptize infants, it is another to say that the baptism of infants is no baptism at all.



That’s a great question and I know one Baptist, my closest friend and a pastor/elder, at least that holds that very position, but I cannot get him to breach the illogic of it all. 

One has to hold that infant baptism is NO baptism at all or you cannot sustain the position at all, it’s a matter of “what baptism is” or “how it comes to be”. Once you do hold that infant baptism is no baptism at all then you’ve admitted and proved the fact that Baptism is rooted not in the objective name of God, God’s work or the Gospel its self but in fact the subjective and secondary causes and ultimately the work man. In one view baptism is a GIFT from God and hence Gospel and its link to promise (its independent of faith just like the Gospel is, the Gospel is still the Gospel even if it enters the ear of a rejecter). However, when you disconnect it and make it linked in the receptacle of faith itself you make baptism an effect or badge of faith, to wit, “no faith” = “no baptism” (Baptist/Anabaptist). Reformed (and Lutheran fundamentally) would say “Gospel/promise” = “baptism”. This is the core root difference in the view of baptism. Linking it to “faith” itself effectively on the psychological and spiritual level removes the name of God from it, because you cannot appeal to it and hence cannot appeal to the name of God “written upon you” in baptism. It’s like circumcision, when Abram received the sign of circumcision in Gen. 17, he was also given God’s name hence his name change, “Abraham”. If baptism is only really baptism when faith is really and truly there then faith becomes the reality of baptism. Then, in trial, one must seek out faith, faith in faith, by way of faith itself or secondary causes such as “fruits”. The whole mind is turned inward to the self rather than outward to Christ, where baptism belongs. This takes baptism OUT of Christ rather than conceived IN Christ, and hence the whole terror of “rebaptism”. Contra to this is the reformed/Lutheran, in time of trial one appeals to baptism, or rather the name of God which IS baptism, and particular the name of Jesus written upon one, the name that means “He will save them from their sins”. This is the strong Gospel against suffering and trial and persecution of the devil. It makes a huge difference. BUT only the eyes of faith will SEE baptism as utterly objectively God’s name and Gospel and eschew it as faith and seen by sight (the effects of faith).

larry


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Apr 13, 2007)

As a former Paedobaptist (and an ardent one, too) I believe it was right for me to get baptized - in obedience to the Scriptural command. It took a lot of convincing, though. 

The Anabaptists (and that term was used as a convenient label to wrongly lump together all those who were opposed to the RC Church and the Magisterial Reformers) rejected the label of being Re-baptizers. There only is one baptism!

There is no 'one' Paedobaptist view (this is often overlooked), and brethren on both sides of the ecclesiastical fence (let it be kept - but low enough to shake hands) need to remember with Luther that their conscience is bound to the Word of God. 
The issue is sensitive and mutual verbal abuse ought to be avoided. 

Baptist Churches - if consistent and faithful to Scripture - cannot have an unbaptized membership. Why is it wrong to disobey Christ's command? What is objectionable to following the pattern of the New testament Church? 

Paedobapists, if they complain about being excluded (and who does the excluding one may ask?), may be respectfully reminded that men like C H Spurgeon or Lloyd-Jones would not be admitted to the ministry. 

I think that disagreement will remain – but let it be in love. In NT times there never was an argument over infant baptism; notice however the issue of 're-baptism' in Acts 19! 

I think that as heirs of the Reformation we may – indeed we must - stand together against a common enemy. 

Incidentally, I am glad about Calvin's Paedobaptist position – it's stopped me from putting him on a pedestal.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Apr 13, 2007)

As a Baptist do you realize you can never be sure when you see a baptism that you are actually seeing baptism? Since baptism is completely dependant upon the faith of the subject in order for it to be baptism, and since you have no idea whether the subject really has faith or not; you have no idea if you are ever truely witnessing baptism.

According to typical Baptist beliefs, all baptisms are only potential baptisms. 

This is further complicated by the amount of rebaptisms that seem to happen among Baptists. I would say that around half of the sincere Baptists I know have been baptized more than once (and baptized multiple times based upon a profession each time).

Rebaptisms among professing believers is a problem that should cause Baptists to seriously rethink their understanding of baptism. 



Dieter Schneider said:


> As a former Paedobaptist (and an ardent one, too) I believe it was right for me to get baptized - in obedience to the Scriptural command. It took a lot of convincing, though.
> 
> The Anabaptists (and that term was used as a convenient label to wrongly lump together all those who were opposed to the RC Church and the Magisterial Reformers) rejected the label of being Re-baptizers. There only is one baptism!
> 
> ...


----------



## Coram Deo (Apr 13, 2007)

Not in my Reformed Baptist Circles, most and if not do not baptize until after 17 for a credible profession of faith... So there is no rebaptism in my circles...

We find the rebaptizing a problem in baptist churches that baptize too YOUNG. When a child can make a profession of faith, but not a credible one since they are toss to and fro by every wind of doctrine, good or bad by their parents or others.

We will insist on baptising those who come to us from Paedobaptist circles, not rebaptizing since their infant baptism is not a baptism to us...

Michael




prespastor said:


> As a Baptist do you realize you can never be sure when you see a baptism that you are actually seeing baptism? Since baptism is completely dependant upon the faith of the subject in order for it to be baptism, and since you have no idea whether the subject really has faith or not; you have no idea if you are ever truely witnessing baptism.
> 
> According to typical Baptist beliefs, all baptisms are only potential baptisms.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pilgrim (Apr 14, 2007)

prespastor said:


> I am trying to do a study on Baptists who, while believing in credo-baptism, rejected re-baptism...that is, though they believed that the improper mode and subject was in view in infant baptism...it was still baptism none-the-less and should not be repeated again after the person makes a profession later in life.
> 
> Does anyone have a list of Baptists in the past who held to this position?



The only Baptists at present I've seen argue for something like this are basically liberals whose primary goal was ecumenism. 

As for Baptists in the past, I think it would be a very short list indeed. If there are any who held this position, I don't see how they could really be considered Baptists.


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Apr 14, 2007)

prespastor said:


> As a Baptist do you realize you can never be sure when you see a baptism that you are actually seeing baptism? Since baptism is completely dependant upon the faith of the subject in order for it to be baptism, and since you have no idea whether the subject really has faith or not; you have no idea if you are ever truely witnessing baptism.
> 
> According to typical Baptist beliefs, all baptisms are only potential baptisms.
> 
> ...



With due respect - baptism is on the profession of faith, and yes, we may get it wrong, see Acts 8. But the command is biblical!


----------



## Chris (Apr 14, 2007)

> I have read that John Bunyan held this position but I am unable to confirm it



If you have e-sword on you rcomputer, download the STEP volume of John Bunyan's works here, install it, and open it up from within e-sword.

(warning: sometimes you'll have to try several times for the download link to work. )

Use the pull-down menu to select the article entitled:

*DIFFERENCES IN JUDGMENT ABOUT WATER BAPTISM, NO BAR TO COMMUNION:
OR,
TO COMMUNICATE WITH SAINTS, AS SAINTS, PROVED LAWFUL.*

A sample thereof: 



> IN ANSWER TO A BOOK WRITTEN BY THE BAPTISTS, AND PUBLISHED BY MR. T. Paul AND MR. W. KIFFIN, ENTITLED, 'SOME SERIOUS REFLECTIONS ON THAT PART OF MR BUNYAN'S CONFESSION OF FAITH, TOUCHING CHURCH COMMUNION WITH UNBAPTIZED BELIEVERS.'WHEREIN THEIR OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS ARE ANSWERED, AND THE DOCTRINE OF COMMUNION STILL ASSERTED AND VINDICATED. HERE IS ALSO MR. HENRY JESSE'S JUDGMENT IN THE CASE, FULLY DECLARING THE DOCTRINE I HAVE ASSERTED.
> BY JOHN BUNYAN.



Hope this helps.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Apr 14, 2007)

It’s hard to just neutrally analyze this without emotions arising, but that’s what I’d like to do. I’ve done it on both sides of the fence, even while I was a Baptist I did have to honestly ask myself these questions to at least ‘see’ the difference. So…

Moving the age out in baptism is irrelevant to the issue, its like the old arguments about the universe being self created by a series of infinite other prior universes backward into infinity – it just delays answering the obvious question infinitely. I’ve seen men and women “rebaptized” post 20, 30 and 40 who for some reason or another didn’t think they were baptized at 20, 30 or 40 due to some struggle about faith, sin, etc… It’s an inescapable out come of the doctrine which roots it in “faith” rather than the objective name, promise and Gospel of God. On this point baptism is entirely viewed different and is altogether different. Either baptism IS only if faith IS, or baptism IS objectively due to the name, promise and Gospel of God. No amount of wrangling can escape this very central point and the outcome it brings with it in faith and practice.

My wife and I were talking about this the other day, since she grew up around “faith movements” and fundamentally on the level of “essence” the view that baptism is only baptism, it comes about to BE, if faith is present is really functionally no different than word of faith. Now, a word before I proceed, I say that not to be controversial or “name” calling at all, but rather examining its function and reality neutrally. Scientifically speaking you try to neutralize the emotions and say, “what do really have here”. The essence of any WoF is IF you believe it you can “speak” it into being and if not then you do not have faith. If faith does not precede a thing then a thing is not ontologically speaking. That is the essence of WoF when all the fat is boiled off of it. That is no different at the essential functional level of credo baptism, in fact that is its very definition, it IS baptism IF you have faith and IF not then NO baptism. Ironically the same inward struggle attends thoughts of rebaptism as does WoF, “do/did I really have faith”.

That’s entirely different than saying baptism is because it is God’s name, promise and Gospel even if an utter unbeliever receives it or comes to true faith later in life. One need not even enter the realm of infants but adults only who have or have had a “rebaptism”. Those of some Baptist strains that would never rebaptize an adult, and I’ve run into them don’t solve the dilemma simply by saying they’d never rebaptize. On what basis? If one cannot answer that then one has a baseless doctrine that is purely arbitrary. Of those strains, which my friend is, then do they look upon a fellow Baptist baptized twice at a much older age and say, “Your second baptism (the rebaptism) I do not recognize but your first I do.” See even within its own paradigm it is riddled with problems. One Baptist church recognizing the first baptism only of an adult immersed and not their second or third or etc… and another church only recognizing the most recent dip in the water. But if one says, “I would never examine it that far and just let sleeping dogs lay”, well you really don’t have a doctrine of baptism but an arbitrary “grey area” about baptism and that is perilous, even unconscionable in leading the sheep.

And the point that you don’t really know if you are seeing a baptism in a Baptist church is valid because you never can tell. So, you are always looking at that person, did the really convert and so forth. Opposed to that is the infant baptized who can do nothing but receive the promise, name and Gospel of God. Sadly, truly, it is that not all churches practice infant baptism. Because infant baptism is the most wonderful and pure testament to absolute grace. It says, "It’s done." It doesn’t say, after this if you do something, then you’ll be saved. It says, "You’re OK now before you ever could do a thing," not because you did something or thought something or figured something out, but you’re OK now because Jesus says so and so here is the Lord’s name…trust it.

Larry


----------



## Herald (Apr 14, 2007)

Pilgrim said:


> The only Baptists at present I've seen argue for something like this are basically liberals whose primary goal was ecumenism.
> 
> As for Baptists in the past, I think it would be a very short list indeed. If there are any who held this position, I don't see how they could really be considered Baptists.



Chris, amen. I am sure that we can find Baptists who did not believe in the rebaptism of those who were baptized as infants. But even if they existed they were not normative. In other words, one could not make a case against Baptists by finding a few rebels in the ranks.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Apr 15, 2007)

Absolutely, “rebels” as you put it do not make the case from ANY point of view, we agree in the principle, though the content we do not. That much and that much alone we are in accord.

For those who see the Gospel in Baptism and give it to their children, they MUST defend it completely and without caving in. Else what have they given their children but an “iffy” thing, this is why the reformed should exercise great care in too much ecumenical maneuvering. It’s not a loveless rejection of others as Christians but at the end of the day a rejection of the doctrine that is in of and in the direction of unbelief that is to be utterly rejected. Else I endanger my children by making it “not too big of a non-essential deal”. Because, from the paedeo side to not teach your children baptism and show them the Gospel in it, that God gave them His name and promise and to make it “non-essential” such that they can be wooed into a baptistic thinking is tantamount to wandering off into unbelief not deeper into belief. It is from that paradigm a rejection of Christ in Baptism, not a move toward Him. It is a move away from faith, trust, and a leading into works, not toward faith. I’m not saying it leads such that you’ll be lost, but it is an extracting away of a gift that should be yours for your faith.

It’s never an issue of “command” but of “Gospel”. Baptist typically see it as law and as such that language attends every way it is defended. But in reality it is Gospel. Is it commanded? Yes, but why? It’s commanded because it is Gospel (receive and trust this), not because it is Law (do this and live). The nuance, if we can use that word, is subtle, but it is the difference between the visible expression of the Kingdom of heaven and a false expression of the will of man. It’s the difference of RECEIVING from heaven and trying to CLIMB up to heaven. The error the Judiazers made regarding circumcision was to reverse its reality from Gospel(receiving) to law (if I do this), and this is the exact same error both Rome and the later baptistic positions have fallen upon. It’s a degradation of baptism not a raising up of it, just like circumcision to the Judiazers became. For both root it not in the name, promise or Gospel of God but either in the “doing itself” or “faith itself”. Fundamentally the outcome is “works” either way and effects of it, whether it be rebaptism, rededication, indulgences, pilgrimages or promise keepers is fundamentally the effects of doctrinally emptying the sacraments of Grace and seeking out grace in other things that require “my doing”. But the sacraments are an, “eat this food and live”, type of command and not an, “I’ll kill you if you don’t”, type of command. One person is “hearing” God with ears of faith and hearing mercy, the other is “hearing” God with ears of natural wisdom and hearing “command”. We command our young children to eat their food, but not because we will ‘cut them loose’ if they disobey, rather so that they will eat and be healthy and live. That’s what a good father does, and we are fundamentally evil, so much all the more our heavenly Father who is not evil at all but rather perfectly good.

Our children must be taught the Gospel in baptism and to stand by it without doubt or waiver, so that they cannot be seduced away from the Cross into a ceremony that is no baptism at all but a vanity. If that requires them, and us, to be laughed at, or scoffed at by others, which happens, then so be it, the foolishness of the Cross brings that with it constantly.

Again, that is not the rejection of others as Christians, NOT AT ALL, but a rejection of a crucial doctrine to the faith concerning the Sacraments. Otherwise we communicate to our children, “well it’s not that big of a deal”, and that is to cause a little one to stumble. To defend it though, is to give an answer for the HOPE (certain expectation) that we have.

L


----------



## Herald (Apr 15, 2007)

> For those who see the Gospel in Baptism and give it to their children, they MUST defend it completely and without caving in. Else what have they given their children but an “iffy” thing, this is why the reformed should exercise great care in too much ecumenical maneuvering. It’s not a loveless rejection of others as Christians but at the end of the day a rejection of the doctrine that is in of and in the direction of unbelief that is to be utterly rejected. Else I endanger my children by making it “not too big of a non-essential deal”. Because, from the paedeo side to not teach your children baptism and show them the Gospel in it, that God gave them His name and promise and to make it “non-essential” such that they can be wooed into a baptistic thinking is tantamount to wandering off into unbelief not deeper into belief. It is from that paradigm a rejection of Christ in Baptism, not a move toward Him. It is a move away from faith, trust, and a leading into works, not toward faith. I’m not saying it leads such that you’ll be lost, but it is an extracting away of a gift that should be yours for your faith.



Larry - I completely understand your point of view. I would _*expect*_ a paedo to be able to defend their position. Not only that, but they should take it seriously. Your theological system demands it. I don't have to be a paedo to see how central your baptismal stance is to your view of the covenant.



> It’s never an issue of “command” but of “Gospel”.



For the credo baptism is "gospel" to the degree that it is a public proclamation of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is not "gospel" in a salvific sense, for water baptism does not contain the power to save. 



> Baptist typically see it as law...





> Is it commanded? Yes...



What is the difference between your use of the word 'law' in reference to Baptists (credos) and 'commanded' for Presbyterians (paedos)? The only difference I can find is your positioning of Baptists as wrong and Presbyterians as right. It must be that because both camps agree that baptism is a requirement of the Christian church. We disagree on what it signifies and how it is applied, but not on the need for it. Your explanation of why it is commanded only serves to defend the paedo position.

The rest of your post is a cogent polemic on they 'why' of paedo baptism. Since I have no desire to debate the substance of either position (there is nothing new under the sun on this issue), I am content to accept your 'why.'


----------



## Larry Hughes (Apr 15, 2007)

Bill,

You DO really think through things thoughtfully, and I always appreciate that!



> Larry - I completely understand your point of view. I would expect a paedo to be able to defend their position. Not only that, but they should take it seriously. Your theological system demands it. I don't have to be a paedo to see how central your baptismal stance is to your view of the covenant.



Sure, I agree and would expect the same, understanding and formerly having been credo myself. That’s why when I was asked and in the process of becoming an elder at a credo church and found myself changing on this position I had to step down and not do it. Spurgeon himself actually makes this very point concerning leadership in groups. It would have been wrong for me to stay and have that issue and why “ecumenical” gatherings are limited.



> For the credo baptism is "gospel" to the degree that it is a public proclamation of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is not "gospel" in a salvific sense, for water baptism does not contain the power to save.



This is to confuse the Gospel completely. Surely you see, because I know you are a strong thinker, that you are contradicting yourself completely here? Surely you see that. You say that baptism is Gospel in that it is a public proclamation of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. You say it well! You speak of baptism’s objective reality JUST like I would. But herein lay the contradiction. You say that IS baptism, but then you say that if baptism is given to an infant then it is not baptism, or that baptism did not occur. There IS no such thing as “rebaptism”. It goes back to the ENTIRE start of this posting’s initial question as it is one thing to say it is not right to baptize a child and quite another to say that a child has not received baptism. You cannot have it both ways. Baptism cannot pop in and out of being like Schrödinger’s cat at the whim and wishes of your mind. It is either truly and utterly objective in and of itself or it is not, there is NO middle ground at all to be had for these two ideas are complete logical oppositions, being and not being, true and false, A and not-A. So you cannot say, “it (baptism) is a public proclamation of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ” and then say, “the infant did not receive baptism” as if the infant makes it false or that ANY unbeliever makes it false or can do so. And it is not inconsequential that Jesus did not, AT ALL, sit a 20 year old on his lap and say, “For as such are the kingdom of God and if you would enter you should become like one of these.” The ENTIRE baptistic witness in “believers only” is also counter to the witness of Gospel. Jesus is getting to the crucial heart of the Gospel, its ONLY for the dead, the least and the nothings, when you stop vainly pretending you can do anything in preparation to receive, even stopping doing your doing to try to stop and BE like an infant, thus dead can you only, finally and at last receive grace. For in the Gospel God truly shows Himself to BE God, creating out of nothing. He deals with dead things that are not, to make them be, he doesn’t work with material first.

Second, as to power. If you believe the Gospel has power as Paul says it does, then water baptism has power. I’m not talking about regenerative baptism here, there’s a BIG difference. But the fact that the name, promise and Gospel of God is in or annexed to the water. Therein lay its power just as the Word’s of Gospel have power unto life. The Gospel as Word may bounce off of many, as the parable of the seed sown plenteously shows forth, but that doesn’t mean that the Gospel is without power. And here is the crucial point about the Gospel, that is Good News, you have not really HEARD the Gospel, that is Good News, until you have heard the FOR ME/YOU in it. It is NOT Gospel, even if you state “Christ Crucified” all day long until the “FOR YOU” Christ did this is heard. This IS THE VERY WITNESS of the Holy Spirit with your Spirit that you are adopted, the FOR YOU, has COME TO YOU. And to this point the Gospel IS in Baptism and IS power unto life, it is not dead stagnant water as humanism and worldly wisdom would have it be. In baptism the crucial Gospel FOR YOU, COMES TO YOU, that is the Gospel, promise and name of God IS put ONTO YOU, it is FOR YOU and it comes providentially TO YOU. The adult is drawn by the Word of God to BE baptized and thus the Gospel comes in Word and Water TO YOU. The child is given that same Gospel in water and grasps the Word later, but the TO YOU/FOR YOU part of the Gospel is there. But make no mistake about it, one has not heard the Gospel until the FOR YOU is SPECIFICALLY there, YOU by person and name. Until then one has only heard ABOUT the Gospel the way an unbeliever hears of it. There’s always “Christ’s blood” in the water of baptism and it can be rejected to greater peril, but it is always there. But only faith will see this, naked reason cannot nor will receive it as the Gospel can ONLY be received by faith, PURE naked faith ALONE. We are not talking about incredible faith, but faith that COMES into being out of nothing as Paul speaks in Romans by the message given in both Word and Sacrament TO THE MAN.

Thus, water baptism does indeed contain the power to save. The ‘once in time’ idea of salvation, salvation experience, is a Greek philosophy annexed into Christian thinking. For Scriptures speak of salvation as I was, am and will be saved. The Christian thus never leaves their baptism and the tension of faith, if so, they’ve left faith. That’s why Paul appealed to it so much and especially in time of suffering and persecution and during times when Christians where wrestling with sin (something a Baptist would NEVER do, a Baptist typically sets off to some kind of working, and truth be known so to many in the reformed churches that have lost it in spite of confessions). When all else seems, by sight, to be contrary to God’s promise and name, experience, emotions, outward persecution and suffering from the devil, inward persecution and suffering from the devil, struggles with sin one can go back to the EVER crucial FOR ME. This is why Paul BOLDLY states time and time and time again that you have been baptized. Because when one is suffering and persecution is abounding it appears, God has abandoned me. The tendency is to head right back to fallen religion and think, “there’s something I must do”, that’s how fallen religion functions, it reads the tea leaves of life and says, “God must be guiding/punishing me to move me this way”. But in reality in such times we go back to God’s promise, Gospel and name and at the point to which it was given TO ME in the waters of baptism. Baptism is God’s signature upon your body, and at the end of all things when judgment comes, God will call to witness this water given. For time and space, to the chagrin of the humanist and worldly wisdom, is no problem for God. He can call His lements forth as witness and testimony any time He pleases. So, He will call his water forth in which the name of Jesus was written upon you and it will stand FOR YOU. But if someone rejects this name, Jesus, even in the baptismal waters of baptism, nothing else is left for them. That very rejection will witness against them, as God has given it and you reject it point blank, this is the ONLY unforgivable sin by its very nature. It’s as Paul said, “It’s not as if the Word of God has failed.” To those who reject they reject upon their own foolishness to do so. But to those who appeal to that name and we can do so BOLDLY, all that is in the name of God is there for you and particularly the name of Jesus. You can pray the Lord’s prayer, Our FATHER, because you are baptized. Children of believers can pray to God and finish in Jesus’ name because the promise is to them as well in the waters of Baptism. Otherwise one is lying to one’s child if you teach them to say, “in Jesus name” anywhere in prayer and then turn around and do not give them that very name FOR THEM in Baptism. You are teaching a contradiction if that is what you are doing.



> What is the difference between your use of the word 'law' in reference to Baptists (credos) and 'commanded' for Presbyterians (paedos)? The only difference I can find is your positioning of Baptists as wrong and Presbyterians as right.



No, categorically not, the second sentence (Note: I’m not being short just answering the question because understanding, at least, is what I’m after). That is not at all what I mean, I’ve labored time after time to avoid and have said EXPLICITLY numerous times that it is NOT an issue of “one group” being right and “one group” being wrong (my law is better than your law). I think, but am not sure because I can’t read your thoughts nor desire to wrongly assert by presumption what you are or are not thinking, but I think this is a point that is crucial to the understanding/misunderstanding. But assuming this to be part of the issue I’ll attempt to answer. And this goes to the WHOLE Gospel understanding of it, truly. I do not set the definition to defend paedo baptism then go hunting it out in Scripture, rather it is a CORE issue of ‘what IS the Gospel’. Keep that in mind, because in EVERYTHING I say, I’m leaping off of that very point, ‘what IS the Gospel’. I am not, honestly, saying, “I believe in Paedeo, and therefore how can I build up my argument. It comes rather through the Cross, and what IS the Gospel at its core. It’s why Herman Sasse, a Lutheran, was correct in saying, on the level of just looking at “systems” could say, ‘get the sacraments wrong and you will get everything else incorrect in Scripture. Now, again, from a most neutral point of view what he says is absolutely true. Because what he is getting at is how one grasps the Gospel at its most fundamental level. So, one has to go back not to, “how can I defend the system I’m in”, be it credo, paedeo reformed, paedeo Lutheran, RC or the variants of credo, but the Gospel itself. What IS the Gospel and how do you hear/receive it.

So, it is commanded, in the broadest 50,000 foot view we both see it as commanded (skip for now to whom we each think it is commanded to go to, adults/infants, set that aside so we can analyze it), the words are given “to baptize” that is a “command”. Right? On that superficial level we agree 100%, God is saying “DO something”. But why is it commanded? Because to reverse the direction of worship in practice and policy is perilous creating false religionist with a “christian” name. It is the very thing the Jews did and the WHOLE point of Stephen’s sermon upon which he was martyred and for that matter the purpose behind James’ letter. You have to realize that the term “command” can be right or wrongly used. What baggage do we add to it that is not there? Because words mean things, and one single word can have an entirely different meaning between two people by adding or deleting only one fundamental “thought element” to it - to which entire sentences, paragraphs, lines of thinking, doctrines and etc…are sequentially developed, like an arrow only “off a teeny bit” in angle at the firing point, but ENTIRELY off when it misses the target (sin lay here). Do you see that in principle at this point because that is also crucial?

Let’s examine this point a bit before going on. Larry’s Parable of the Parent and the two children:

E.g. Go back to what I said about telling our children to eat food. That is a “command” at the superficial level upon which we all agree. We are saying “DO” something. But again we ask, “Why?” If we take the word “command” here and person X attributes the base thought element to command “or else I will punish/harm you”, like drill sergeant or tyrant, a punishment for “not DOING the eating”, while person Y attributes to “command” a loving “not because if you don’t I’ll punish you for not doing but rather I love you and you need to eat to live, so EAT!”. That is two different understandings of “command” and that’s ABSOLUTELY crucial to grasp. Here we are not having a doctrine first and annexing supports to build upon that doctrine, rather we are going to the root of what builds the doctrine in the first place. In this example we shall label “A Doctrine of Eating Food” that leads to a doctrine of “Who The Parent Is”. That’s on the parent end, but which type of parent is it? Type X’s view or type Y’s view? The parent is “revealing” themselves to the child, BUT how is the child receiving that revelation (this goes to having a true God versus an idol from our receiving/hearing end, and reason will develop the idol while faith, which comes forth from the Cross revelation of God, “Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father”, reveals). Remember we DON’T seek after God, He seeks after us and as such we are merely on the receiving end of the kind of God that He IS, and His revelation of His ‘back side’, the Cross, is the God we know IS savingly. Back to the parent analogy: Now, on the receiving or hearing end of that command the child knows rightly or wrongly the parent? Right! If a child hears the “command” as person X does he has a VERY different picture of his/her parent than a child that hears the “command” as person Y does. An arminian view of God is different than a “calvinistic” view of God and thus two different God’s from the end of grasping the revelation. Similarly the Credo view of God, in the Sacraments, is a different view of God than the paedeo view of God and at the end of the day two diametrically opposing views and thus two different god’s on this point, from the point of view of the understanding of the revelation. That’s manifestly obvious. If child X has a “person X” understanding of command, then they view the parent very differently, even diametrically opposed to a child with “person Y’s” understanding of the term command. Child X then might eat for fear because of their perception of the command as “do this and do it rightly or I’ll punish you”, and hence from that seemingly tiny understanding builds in their own mind an ENTIRE doctrine about their parent. Likewise does child Y from that understanding, but only one is truly THE parent. Now, both children have a doctrine of the parent, but their doctrines, from the children’s view of the revelation, is diametrically opposing. We are still only at the realm of revelation, what is revealed to us. The child cannot ascend to the parent’s level but the parent must condescend to the child’s level to “reveal” themselves to their child. Child X has a very opposing doctrine of the parent than does Child Y and Child X will at length “preach” a different parent than Child Y (you see this very clearly with the parable of the prodigal and the two sons). 

Now, let us say it’s of the same family and child X and child Y have the same parent (like one God only for both Jew and Gentile and all mankind, Paul’s point in Romans 1-3). Thus, even within the same family child X and child Y have two different views of the parent built upon the one fundamental thing they understand about “command”. One has a more or less tyrannical view built upon the perceived austere nature of the parent and the other understands the parent as loving them in the giving of commands. Let’s go a bit further, the parent is in reality loving, or person Y’s understanding, that is THE real parent and it is revealed ultimately at the point in which the parent sacrifices themselves for the raising of their children (paralleled with Jesus on the Cross for analogy). Then, when we come back down to the child’s understanding of the revelation we see that not only does child X have a diametric view of “the parent”, the doctrine of the parent is opposing to child Y’s doctrine of the parent, but now we see that child X has honed a fictional view of the parent via his/her doctrine. That is to say an idol of the parent. Child X is still “flesh” understanding God and thus honing an idol, built mind you on its understanding of the attributes of the parents, but it understands the attributes WRONGLY and legally. It’s relationship is pure legal, there is no familial relationship ultimately (again the Parable of the Prodigals point). So, when child X hears the “command” “to eat”, being flesh, he/she is hearing something ENTIRELY different than child Y’s hearing, being spirit (to hold the analogy) of the same command “to eat”. Child Y understands that “command” is to live because if you don’t eat you won’t live, not a death sentence or punishment “just for not eating”. This is, by the way, how the Gospel child begins to TRULY love the Law of God, it is no longer a legal task needing performance, but the return of the relationship to God as Father via the Son who died for me. This is to begin to LOVE God’s law truly at the level of the heart, many blather and bluster like a hard wind about “loving God’s Law” but only fake it in a legal sense and a mouth confession, but they have not really love the Law as David speaks in the Psalms via Christ in the Gospel relationally to the true nature of the Law, they only pretend to “love it” with their mouths. Anyway, child Y understands it so to speak as a loving plea, “eat so you will live dear”. Child Y, as child of God IN Christ who first and foremost is HAD by the Gospel alone, HEARS the filial call of the command, rather than the “servants” order (See Paul in Galatians), child of law versus child of promise. Another note of point: The law child ALWAYS laughs at, persecutes the promise child AT the point of promise, that is that the child of promise is trusting IN the promise without final consummation – herein lay ALL true persecutions by sword, inward struggle or simple laughing at. Child X hears it as fear of punishment or hope of reward, “eat and I’ll reward the eating or punish the not eating”, the food itself is really irrelevant to child Y, the child of law and like the credo view of baptism, and to be honest the way some paedeo’s interpret what they think they understand about baptizing infants (we see this with Rome for example). Child X misses the ENTIRE point of what IS life, the food itself but that it must be eaten and this must be COMMUNICATED in the form of “command”, but what “command” means is two different religions. Child X thinks the life consists within the obedience to “DO the eating” or that death attends the “not DOING the eating”, and do it rightly. He misses the entire point of the life given him and the gift given him and before him, a banquet of life (like the sacraments). He thinks if he doesn’t do the eating he will die, not because he doesn’t take in food that gives life, but because he will receive punishment for not doing it. There’s an infinite difference between understanding the “doing” to be a form of life and the substance itself as a gift to life, again Stephen’s entire point in his sermon. Child Y understands that the parent is giving food as a GIFT because the parent is loving to them AND is already a PARENT to them, not a master, thus they are CHILDREN and not SLAVES. Thus, the parent’s “command” is a GIVING of a gift so that they WILL live by the GIFT itself and that life is NOT rewarded to them, no punishment for not or reward for the eating ITSELF, on the basis of them actually DOING the eating. Child X is living by the Law, or thinks he is and is flesh, sin nature, Cain, child of law, outside of Christ, Mount Sinai, Ishmael, son of Hagar. Child Y is living by grace and is Spirit, Abel, the new nature, child of promise/gospel, IN Christ, Mount Calvary, Isaiah and son of Sarah. Child X doesn’t really trust the parent but only fears the parent’s retribution. Child Y TRUSTS the parent, and herein lay true faith versus false faith claiming to be faith. Where has God revealed Himself that we may know Who He is? The Cross! And from here alone we either understand God as a loving parent. Otherwise we pretend we be IN Christ and build up an idol of God as a tyrant, which is ultimately an idol. Man attempting to understand God through His majestic essence cannot help but hone an idol for himself. Man first seeks to make himself god, then when that doesn’t work, he makes of God’s majestic qualities an idol. ALL idols of all time come from these two sources that ultimately are the effects of sin, now YOU can see the true depravity of the sin nature and its most insidious works.

So, understanding “command” is crucial, in our discussion on this because it is built upon how you think you understand God to be as revealed. The unfaithful are those who understand things only outside of Christ, the majestic naked qualities of God. Thus, for them there is only the severity of God and are thus pushed to do or not do something out of fear of punishment and hope of reward. This can press men to fly planes into buildings, a severe extreme of that idolatrous doctrine. But those INSIDE of Christ, they see the Father as Father and as such revealed through Christ as Jesus said, “…you have seen the Father…” Those IN Christ understand the mercy of the severity of God’s wrath driving them to the Cross nakedly. Those outside of Christ ONLY see the severity of it and thus begin to work their way, falsely, to heaven.

So it’s NOT a polemic built to support the position, but the position arises fundamentally on the doctrine of God and Christ crucified. Men do not naturally trust in the grace of God AT ALL, and I mean AT ALL. This is why Jesus DID NOT hold up an adult as the model of “conversion”.

Blessings always,

Larry


----------



## Herald (Apr 15, 2007)

> This is to confuse the Gospel completely. Surely you see, because I know you are a strong thinker, that you are contradicting yourself completely here? Surely you see that...It goes back to the ENTIRE start of this posting’s initial question as it is one thing to say it is not right to baptize a child and quite another to say that a child has not received baptism.



Larry - my position is simple. Because I believe paedo baptism is wrong, I don't believe it is baptism at all. I won't deny that you may sprinkle your infant and that you believe it is baptism, but I don't agree with you. Since I am firm on my position that a valid baptism takes place upon a credible profession of faith, I don't see my supposed contradiction. In fact, I'm surprised that you do. I know you disagree with my credo position, but I was hoping you would see the consistency in my position.



> But make no mistake about it, one has not heard the Gospel until the FOR YOU is SPECIFICALLY there, YOU by person and name.





> Until then one has only heard ABOUT the Gospel the way an unbeliever hears of it. There’s always “Christ’s blood” in the water of baptism and it can be rejected to greater peril, but it is always there.





> Thus, water baptism does indeed contain the power to save.



Larry, I am left nearly speechless. If I reading you accurately, you're saying that unless a peson has experienced the "FOR YOU" (i.e. baptism), they have never obeyed the command of the gospel (repent and believe). You very carefully wrote, " I’m not talking about regenerative baptism" as if the act of baptism saves by itself. But being a larger part of the "FOR YOU", you seem to be stating that baptism is the conduit of the gospel and, therefore, it saves. I don't believe there is a negative adjective strong enough in the English language to articulate my opposition to your understanding. 

I have always believed that with some paedo's there was an underlying belief that would call into question the salvation of Baptists (or other credo denominations). I have poked and prodded in order to have a spade called a spade. In reponse I have seen more dance moves than at a ballet. No paedo wants to come out and categorically state that credos are not saved. They've come close, but they always dance around it. I suppose that comes from an adversion to state the obvious. Once we start questioning whether a person is in Christ, there is nothing left to the imagination and fellowship will quickly dissolve. But I don't know what else to take from your position. Your post was long and is a bit difficult to digest. I hope that I am taking you in context.



> That’s why Paul appealed to it so much and especially in time of suffering and persecution and during times when Christians where wrestling with sin (something a Baptist would NEVER do, a Baptist typically sets off to some kind of working, and truth be known so to many in the reformed churches that have lost it in spite of confessions).



Larry, you're caricature of Baptists dissapoints me. Please don't presume to tell me what I would *never *do. In fact, be careful in mixing the words "never" and "typically" in the same sentence. They contradict each other. I wrestle with sin daily. I don't turn to any work in order to earn favor with God. My wretchedness is before me constantly. My hope is in the promise of God and the finished work of Christ at Calvary. In that sense, yes...I appeal to a work, but not mine, the work of Christ. 

The remainder of your post goes on, and I am not interested in debating it. I've laid out my case for credo baptism in other threads and I have promised myself that I will no longer enter into an endless back-and-forth on the two positions. But you've said some thing that deeply concern me. At the core or which is whether credos are saved...in Christ.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Apr 18, 2007)

> Larry - my position is simple. Because I believe paedo baptism is wrong, I don't believe it is baptism at all.





> Since I am firm on my position that a valid baptism takes place upon a credible profession of faith, I don't see my supposed contradiction.



Bill, you simply cannot say it is objectively based in the Gospel itself then turn around and say it is based upon faith present only, that should be obvious to you. This is the CRUX of the issue you must be able to answer, else you admit yourself baptism is not the Gospel, promise or name of God given. If I write a check to you and sign my name to it, for checks are nothing but promissory notes with authorizing signature (similar to baptism) and a kind of earthly sacrament given to promise a reality greater, is that check real if you do or don’t believe it? That’s what you are faced with. You would never answer to me that such a check is only valid if a reasonable profession of faith in its promise is in the receiver upon its being given to them. Nor would such a check’s authority not be real if given to an infant, child or mentally handicapped person. That is as obvious as it gets. Is it baptism based on the Gospel, promise and name of God or is it only baptism in the presents of faith. You say the later, YOU SAY THAT, not me, so why are you upset that I repeat it back to you in perfect clarity? I perfectly understand that position, but that stance has implications, it means that ultimately it’s not based upon the Gospel because the END reality what makes baptism BAPTISM for the Credo is the “faith” part not the Gospel, not the promise, and not the name of God, but the receivers faith. But faith itself is not the Gospel, nor does faith itself consist in power, the Gospel and name of God DO. It’s really very very very simple. It’s either:
Baptism IS if faith IS and only then, or baptism IS if God’s Gospel (good news), name and promise IS. I can hardly make it more clear than that. If I ask you, “is there a baptism existing if the recipient, adult or child, doesn’t possess faith?” You would and have already said “no”, ergo by your OWN LIPS/WORDS, the essence of baptism for the credo is faith, ultimately it is faith not the faith creator, the Gospel, that makes baptism baptism. Why you are upset about that I don’t understand because that IS the stated explicit position of the credo doctrine on baptism and the VERY WORDS OF YOUR OWN MOUTH. You say it yourself, here let me quote it, “I am firm on my position that a valid baptism takes place upon a credible profession of faith”. Did you mean something else, because I’m confused? That means no faith, no baptism, that’s the negative of what you are saying else you have no position against the Paedeo what-so-ever, no faith = no baptism is what you just said. Again, therefore, the essence of baptism, that which makes it baptism is that baptism = faith. Let’s look at it another way. You say the Gospel is there right? But if an unbeliever, even more one unable to “profess” credibly, adult or child, is baptized then you say, “No baptism.” What does “no baptism” mean according to YOUR OWN DEFINITION? You don’t disagree with me at all there in fact you state it explicitly, I hear you very clear. So if said unprofessing person is baptized, assuming no faith because that’s the presumption behind a non-credible profession of faith, no faith you say, SO “no baptism” which is another way of saying, “no Gospel” given in that act of water administration. Right? If you say the Gospel is in baptism then baptism is there if and only if faith is there, then when there is no faith there is no baptism and hence there cannot be any Gospel. The essence then of baptism belongs not to Gospel but to faith in the Credo view. See, it’s as clear as the noon day sun, no faith = no baptism and by credo definition that means, no faith = no Gospel in that act of water administration in the name of God. Similarly, no faith = no baptism, ergo, no faith = no name of God actually given in such an act. Similarly, no faith = no baptism, ergo, no faith = promise of God in such an act. Why? Because you say no faith = no baptism. It is that simple. So, no faith, even in an adult means when a Baptist pastor, under credo policy, baptizes said hypocrite in the “name of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit” it is a vain ceremony, right? No faith, no baptism ergo no name of God, no Gospel and no promise given. That would be the very definition of a vain ceremony, pointless, since after all faith is not there, in this example. Therefore, credo baptism is rooted in an idea of faith or worse a credible profession of faith (assuming faith not proving it) and that = baptism and that ALONE means baptism, Gospel, name of God and promise. One might even go as far to say that you’ve utterly made baptism utterly pointless and at best a secondary tiny thing to do and that ultimately you’ve annexed the name of God, the Gospel and the promise to faith itself, because that’s the only time it’s real, or “valid” as you say. It would be more accurate to say that, “I baptize you in the name of your profession of faith”, because faith is what makes it real for the credo doctrine. For without said faith, and only a credible profession at that, there is no baptism given/issued/enacted, no Gospel given/issued/enacted, no name of God given/issued/enacted and no promise given/issued/enacted. It practically proves itself. Now I perfectly understand your position, I don’t doubt your personal commitment to the idea right or wrong, personal vigor toward something only means a man, any man, me included, just has zeal for a thing right or wrong, it does not prove the truth of a thing. I was an atheist and I was perfectly zealous and sure of it once. But don’t become upset because the position has implications that are plain as the blue sky.



> I know you disagree with my credo position, but I was hoping you would see the consistency in my position.



Bill, I believe your desires on this and I perfectly understand the position, but its inconsistency is why I don’t believe it, not just because I’m trying to prove infant baptism. 2+4=6 is true because its true and 2+4=13 is false because it’s inherently inconsistent and false as is 2+4=22. The reason I do not affirm 2+4=13 is because it is false, the same reason I don’t affirm 2+4=22 and don’t consider 2+4=22 as an “alternative” truth to 2+4=6 even while I affirm 2+4=13 as being false.
Quote:
But make no mistake about it, one has not heard the Gospel until the FOR YOU is SPECIFICALLY there, YOU by person and name. 
Quote:
Until then one has only heard ABOUT the Gospel the way an unbeliever hears of it. There’s always “Christ’s blood” in the water of baptism and it can be rejected to greater peril, but it is always there. 
Quote:
Thus, water baptism does indeed contain the power to save. 



> Larry, I am left nearly speechless. If I reading you accurately, you're saying that unless a peson has experienced the "FOR YOU" (i.e. baptism), they have never obeyed the command of the gospel (repent and believe).



You may or may not have heard me wrong, I think its your paradigm as to why you are not hearing me right because of your position and that is part of the challenge and difficulty in us speaking. Yes, if you have not heard the “FOR YOU” in the Good News you really have not heard the Gospel as Gospel FOR YOU. That’s obvious! But where you may have heard me wrong is that it can ONLY be in baptism, that’s not what I’m saying. BUT it goes back to you not really seeing the Gospel IN baptism first and without faith, but for faith. Because it is not insignificant that Baptism is ON YOU specifically, even before you can profess, that is the delivering of the Gospel TO THE MAN as opposed to a general hearing of it. But if you don’t “HEAR” if FOR ME, then no, you haven’t heard the Good News, you’ve only heard about it intellectually and at a distance. That too is obvious for the essence of saving faith, which you tout, is the “trust into” the Good News, and the trust comes from the FOR ME specifically as opposed to another. If you and I are in debtors prison for life and then you are promised your debts paid of and the promise comes to you specifically, that is “Bill your debts are paid off”, earthly good news, and I hear about it, I’ve just heard about some good news but it is not good news TO ME because I’m still in debt forever. Then if that good news comes to me, “Larry your debts are paid off”, then and only then have I heard the good news and it is for me. It comes to me without me doing a thing as ONLY the Gospel can. If you could understand this you would understand why Jesus really said “children are of the kingdom of God” and not adults. 



> I have always believed that with some paedo's there was an underlying belief that would call into question the salvation of Baptists (or other credo denominations).


No, you are thinking about it from YOUR paradigm and that’s your difficulty and why you think you hear me alluding to Credo’s not being saved. NOTHING could be further from the truth, absolutely NOTHING. The entire position prohibits that entirely. I’m not sure how to bridge that, until you “see it” you simply won’t see it, because your in that paradigm. If you “saw it” you wouldn’t be in that paradigm and you’d understand. Right now I’m not sure what more I could do to bring that out?

Quote:
That’s why Paul appealed to it so much and especially in time of suffering and persecution and during times when Christians where wrestling with sin (something a Baptist would NEVER do, a Baptist typically sets off to some kind of working, and truth be known so to many in the reformed churches that have lost it in spite of confessions). 



> Larry, you're caricature of Baptists dissapoints me. Please don't presume to tell me what I would never do. In fact, be careful in mixing the words "never" and "typically" in the same sentence.



Did you even read the sentence! “IT” meaning baptism is what they appealed to. Would you in your sin struggles appeal to your baptism? Would you say, “No Satan, I am baptized”. If you say, “yes”, then on that absolute point I stand corrected. To THAT I said “never”, I don’t know of any Baptist who would agree with that, but you are correct, I don’t have endless knowledge, just what I’ve read and been told, perhaps there is a Baptist that would say that. So if so, there exists one then it was an overstated assumption. Then next I said “typically”, in such situations a Baptist sets off to working, not universally but typically meaning “most”, some do as you said you do, thus the “typically” and not universally as before. And this is true, even some, not all, but some Baptist recognize this very thing. If I don’t believe I’m saved, the struggle of faith, if Satan is day and night preaching your damnation, that’s the real sin struggle, real suffering, real demonic persecution, not me struggling with ‘my sins’, and then the devil preaches “See God has abandoned you”, typically some new maneuver is made unto some work be it experiences, some sudden ‘clean up’ of life or some renewed vigor, then rebaptism occurs. The crux of rebaptism is works, not faith. I know that sounds harsh but it is the reality. Listen to most rebaptism testimonies and you’ll hear that.



> But you've said some thing that deeply concern me. At the core or which is whether credos are saved...in Christ.



Bill, I really don’t appreciate that kind of unreliability and emotional “turning of the tables” in an analysis to avoid the obvious. Its very disingenuous of you to say that of me for I NEVER have said such a thing and have gone to great great great lengths to disavow such a thing. Furthermore, I’ve went to great lengths to remove the emotional component of things and said I’m analyzing words and the doctrines therein for this VERY PURPOSE, I cannot help if they have consequences.

And finally, here’s irony, in your paradigm you hear me saying Baptist are or may not be saved, which is absurd from the paradigm I’m speaking, but you don’t see that so I accept that for now, its really all I can do. However, looking only from your paradigm, let’s pretend, PRETEND MIND YOU lest you accuse me with an “AAAHAAA I thought so”, from YOUR paradigm’s grasp of baptism, so pretending right now that’s what you hear me saying. How does that feel? Seriously, I’m setting this up and asking for a reason. Does that strengthen your faith or make you feel hurt? I would think the later. Just keep thinking how that feels, even any anger it raises up, any hurt you feel, any doubts it raises, any despondency, etc… Now, you are getting a mere trivial taste of the awful demonic Christless, Gospeless, making people doubt their Lord’s Gospel, name and promise to them and upon them, in summation doubting they are Christains, at best sub-christians or needing to do something more, maybe we will maybe we will not accept them into fellowship, maybe we will maybe we won’t let them take the Lord’s table, they need to be rebaptized by immersion, that you foist upon children and later adults baptized so, truly baptized into the Gospel, name and promise of God. And they don’t even have to join your church, it is enough that the doctrine exists at all, it’s enough that the devil sets forth ANYTHING that says, “has God really given that to you”. Because ALL the devil’s doctrines are fundamentally made to cause doubt that God has given forgiveness of sins to me while in this life. For in this life all we have is Gospel in Word and Sacrament, and the faith it causes, strengthens and sustains. Jesus doesn’t come up to me and you today like he did Mary and say, “Bill, your sins are forgiven you”. Those sweet words we cannot hear today from the sweet incarnate lips of Jesus, but he left us his gifts of Word and Sacraments for that sweet “Bill, YOUR sins are forgiven you, see here’s my name on you in the water and MY blood is in the water, its not JUST to somebody else out there but TO YOU BILL FOR YOU, I, I GOD, put the water on you, not YOU and not my writing instrument your pastor”. “Larry, YOUR sins are forgiven you, see here’s my name on you in the water and MY blood is in the water”

Bill, I said at the out set I was removing emotional charge from this and analyzing the words and doctrines, which I did at length, great length to set it all up. All you managed to do, and I’m not angry even now or the least bit upset by pointing it out, my goal is GOSPEL for the brethren and their faith strengthened, but all you managed to do in your jumps and assumptions was to neither consider, nor answer, some of the obvious things and then proceed to charge me with saying Baptist are not saved, bam slam the door with emotions. When I never said such a thing at all.

Think about my opening. I’m not being “mean” about your position, I’m repeating it back to you and its consequences, that’s all. But words have to be used here and we need to quite dancing around the obvious sometimes to seriously look at things, get past the emotions as much as we can.

May Christ Always Bless You and Your Family With Grace Overflowing,

Larry


----------



## Hungus (Apr 18, 2007)

I am a bit late to the discussion but until I formally join the OPC here I suppose I am still a Baptist who would deny re-baptism. I Would also refuse to baptize someone who had been baptized before. My reasoning comes from a credo thought that goes something like this. Just because someone was baptized before and then later it was found that their profession was false should we then re-baptize them? I would say no and for the same reason I say no to re-baptizing paedo baptized persons.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Apr 18, 2007)

Robert,

I'm not being hard here, honestly, what is the "reason" you wouldn't? You never really said why you would not rebaptize them, the reason. 

You said, "Just because someone was baptized before and then later it was found that their profession was false should we then re-baptize them?" Asking a question. Then gave, "I would say no and for the same reason I say no to re-baptizing paedo baptized persons.", but that reason doesn't appear to be apparent.

And I don't think any baptist would take that position and say they are still baptist. I think baptist would agree on that.


Blessings,

Larry 

PS: Welcome!


----------



## Herald (Apr 19, 2007)

> Bill, you simply cannot say it is objectively based in the Gospel itself then turn around and say it is based upon faith present only,



I don't believe you truly understand the credo position. Baptism (for the credo) is a visible proclamation of the gospel, made possible by the actual act of baptizing a believer. Baptism does not stand alone. It must be administered to an individual. Disagree with it, debate it, rail against it, but that is how we see it. 

Additionally, the faith of the believer is not in baptism. The faith of the believer is in the Lord Jesus Christ. The salvific work was done by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, not by water, but by faith. 



> You may or may not have heard me wrong, I think its your paradigm as to why you are not hearing me right because of your position and that is part of the challenge and difficulty in us speaking. Yes, if you have not heard the “FOR YOU” in the Good News you really have not heard the Gospel as Gospel FOR YOU. That’s obvious! But where you may have heard me wrong is that it can ONLY be in baptism, that’s not what I’m saying. BUT it goes back to you not really seeing the Gospel IN baptism first and without faith, but for faith. Because it is not insignificant that Baptism is ON YOU specifically, even before you can profess, that is the delivering of the Gospel TO THE MAN as opposed to a general hearing of it. But if you don’t “HEAR” if FOR ME, then no, you haven’t heard the Good News, you’ve only heard about it intellectually and at a distance. That too is obvious for the essence of saving faith, which you tout, is the “trust into” the Good News, and the trust comes from the FOR ME specifically as opposed to another. If you and I are in debtors prison for life and then you are promised your debts paid of and the promise comes to you specifically, that is “Bill your debts are paid off”, earthly good news, and I hear about it, I’ve just heard about some good news but it is not good news TO ME because I’m still in debt forever. Then if that good news comes to me, “Larry your debts are paid off”, then and only then have I heard the good news and it is for me. It comes to me without me doing a thing as ONLY the Gospel can. If you could understand this you would understand why Jesus really said “children are of the kingdom of God” and not adults.



Dude, I need a graduate course just to weed through your metaphors. I am not saved because of FOR YOU's, FOR ME's or TO ME's. I am saved by the the application of the blood of the New Covenant in forgiving my sins (Mathew 26:27). I am saved by the completed work of Christ on the cross (John 19:30) and the imputing of His righteousness to my account (Romans 4:24) on the basis of the gift of faith (Ephesians 2:8). 



> No, you are thinking about it from YOUR paradigm and that’s your difficulty and why you think you hear me alluding to Credo’s not being saved. NOTHING could be further from the truth, absolutely NOTHING. The entire position prohibits that entirely. I’m not sure how to bridge that, until you “see it” you simply won’t see it, because your in that paradigm. If you “saw it” you wouldn’t be in that paradigm and you’d understand. Right now I’m not sure what more I could do to bring that out?



So now it is a battle of paradigms? Amazing how you are so convinced of your paradigm.



> Would you in your sin struggles appeal to your baptism? Would you say, “No Satan, I am baptized”.



I would never appeal to my _water_ baptism. Why? Because the forgiveness that Christ secured for my sins was paid for in blood, His blood. I would not appeal to my faith, for my faith was not mine to begin with but a gift from God (Eph. 2:8). No, not by baptism nor by faith, but by Christ alone. 



> The crux of rebaptism is works, not faith. I know that sounds harsh but it is the reality.



I answered this already in a previous post. Shall I quote it for you?

_by BaptistinCrisis:




I don't turn to any work in order to earn favor with God. My wretchedness is before me constantly. My hope is in the promise of God and the finished work of Christ at Calvary. In that sense, yes...I appeal to a work, but not mine, the work of Christ.

Click to expand...

_


> “Bill, YOUR sins are forgiven you, see here’s my name on you in the water and MY blood is in the water, its not JUST to somebody else out there but TO YOU BILL FOR YOU, I, I GOD, put the water on you, not YOU and not my writing instrument your pastor”.



Larry, somewhere in this exchange is a fundamental disagreement on what baptism is. You seem to believe that baptism has some sort of salvific quality. I've read your posts and have a difficult time understanding what it is that you're saying. I'm given to brevity so forgive me if lost the meaning of what you wrote. I see nothing..._nothing_ salvific about water baptism. As I have said numerous times, my salvation was paid for in blood.



> All you managed to do, and I’m not angry even now or the least bit upset by pointing it out, my goal is GOSPEL for the brethren and their faith strengthened, but all you managed to do in your jumps and assumptions was to neither consider, nor answer, some of the obvious things and then proceed to charge me with saying Baptist are not saved, bam slam the door with emotions. When I never said such a thing at all.



In my defense my exact words were:

_by BaptistinCrisis:




If I reading you accurately...

Click to expand...

_
I didn't know for certain, but that is what I took out of your previous post. Larry, again...I am given to brevity. I'm a sound-byte kind of guy. Give it to me plainly. That said, I still have no idea of what you think about credos in regards to being in Christ.



> ...words have to be used here and we need to quite dancing around the obvious sometimes to seriously look at things,



Ummm...yeah. Care to use my mirror?


----------



## Larry Hughes (Apr 20, 2007)

I'll admit one thing you do see it but it gets confused somewhere in the system. Maybe one day I'll try to diagram our two positions, I'm big on visual aids to help!!! Words sometimes for me to can be hard to sustain all at once, a good visual can be a great help. I might do that and we can tweak the visual for each other, then sit back and say, well at least this is correct.



> I don't believe you truly understand the credo position. Baptism (for the credo) is a visible proclamation of the gospel, made possible by the actual act of baptizing a believer. Baptism does not stand alone. It must be administered to an individual. Disagree with it, debate it, rail against it, but that is how we see it.



Bill, yes this is exactly how I did and do understand it and it doesn’t change the crux of the difference one bit, in fact it accentuates it. The “made possible by the actual act of baptizing a believer” and “not stand alone” is the crux, you do see that part because you state it very clearly. By doing this, making baptism dependant upon the believer, you set the Word dependant upon the believer not the Word (Gospel) itself. Baptism depends on the Word of God, not man nor man with or without faith. It would be absurd to say the Gospel, “Christ crucified”, is only “Christ crucified” if an actual believer heard it, just as absurd that a ‘tree only falls in a woods if an observer is there to hear…else no tree falls’. But we do at LEAST see the difference very clearly.



> Additionally, the faith of the believer is not in baptism. The faith of the believer is in the Lord Jesus Christ. The salvific work was done by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, not by water, but by faith.


You mean object of the faith of the believer is Christ’s work and Christ Himself FOR the believer. The work was done by Christ and THAT work, the sin of the believer and the righteousness of Christ was then imputed to the believer. The ONLY work done that saves was Christ’s the rest is just carrying it out in time and space.


> Dude, I need a graduate course just to weed through your metaphors. I am not saved because of FOR YOU's, FOR ME's or TO ME's. I am saved by the the application of the blood of the New Covenant in forgiving my sins (Mathew 26:27). I am saved by the completed work of Christ on the cross (John 19:30) and the imputing of His righteousness to my account (Romans 4:24) on the basis of the gift of faith (Ephesians 2:8).



Quick laugh break…”dude”…you and I are of the same generation that’s for sure, I’ve not heard that in a while…

Now back to serious business, without taking ourselves too seriously!

These are not metaphors first of all. Secondly, your confounding things all over the place. You are saved by, as you allude to in the middle ‘the completed work of Christ…” and that saving work is imputed, accounted, to you (thus the FOR YOU that you so vehemently deny and then turn around and say you believe, unless that imputation is not TO YOU (FOR YOU) Bill and some other guy) AND you are not “saved” on the basis of faith (another confusion) faith receives this by coming into being by the gift of the Gospel itself, faith is not the basis of your salvation but the result of the Divine message (the Gift which carries ALL gifts with it) and the mysterious working of the Holy Spirit (the part we are NOT to pretend to work through making a so called fictional in this world “believers only” church that has not, does not and never will exist until the second coming of Jesus Himself). Your “causes” and “ands” confound things. I never said you are saved BECAUSE of the “for you”, your drawing my words into your mélange. If you are not trusting if you don’t know it’s for you that is the very essence of unbelief, “I find it (Jesus work, not my work, not another work, but Jesus’ work) FOR ME.” Perhaps this helps: If an unbeliever says to you, “Jesus is fine FOR YOU to believe/trust in, but not FOR ME”, then I think you’ll understand it.



> So now it is a battle of paradigms? Amazing how you are so convinced of your paradigm.



This is just emotions speaking here. First, yes, I am absolutely and utterly convinced of infant baptism, to deny it in the sacrament would be to deny the Cross. It would be, in the case of the sacrament of baptism, equivalent to denying the Gospel, again in that sacrament in particular. The reason I'm convinced without doubts is not "great argumentation, but seeing Christ in it, that's why credo arguments are of no avail...its that strong (and I'm not being mean, NOR trying to be Larry is right, just trying to explain why credo arguments are that weak to me. When you see the Cross there you can't be robbed of it, even unto laughter or death). Paradigm is a perfectly good word to use, it’s a descriptor of a system it was not being used to “draw battle lines”. It’s an analogy tool nothing more, I didn’t realize it would upset you. I was trying to get away from standard hot button terms like “you Baptist, credo, etc” Vs. “you paedeos, etc…” nothing more. You damn if I use those terms and you damn me when I honestly try to steer clear of them. If I used a more mathematical highly neutral language would that be better? Something like X and Y which stands for? Paradigm is not an insult I use and used it both ways, its just systematic language that’s all.



> Quote:
> Would you in your sin struggles appeal to your baptism? Would you say, “No Satan, I am baptized”.
> I would never appeal to my water baptism. Why? Because the forgiveness that Christ secured for my sins was paid for in blood, His blood. I would not appeal to my faith, for my faith was not mine to begin with but a gift from God (Eph. 2:8). No, not by baptism nor by faith, but by Christ alone.



Then please tell me why you were upset when I said that in the previous post? The very point I was making by saying the universal “no” Baptist would….. To which you proceeded to inform me not to “presume to” to say what you would do and to “be careful with absolutes and non absolutes. By the way, “the forgiveness that Christ secured for my sins…”, I don’t suppose that was “FOR YOU” was it. And if Baptism is the Word of death and resurrection of Christ why would you not trust it, again double speak.



> Larry, somewhere in this exchange is a fundamental disagreement on what baptism is. You seem to believe that baptism has some sort of salvific quality. I've read your posts and have a difficult time understanding what it is that you're saying. I'm given to brevity so forgive me if lost the meaning of what you wrote. I see nothing...nothing salvific about water baptism. As I have said numerous times, my salvation was paid for in blood.



Bill, I’d never get upset when you say you don’t understand because I’ve been unclear…goodness no…if you asked me to clarify I’d do it a thousand times for you or as much as my pea brain would afford me. I try my best and sometimes it’s not clear I have no doubts. We don’t disagree with our salvation being paid for in blood, it’s a matter of you not and me seeing blood in the water. That’s about as short as I can express it.



> I didn't know for certain, but that is what I took out of your previous post. Larry, again...I am given to brevity. I'm a sound-byte kind of guy. Give it to me plainly. That said, I still have no idea of what you think about credos in regards to being in Christ.



Gotcha. My apologies. Let me say it plainly Baptist ARE IN Christ. Perfectly! Perfect doctrine padeo or Baptist or some where in between does not save one single person. When I argue strongly for the FOR YOU, I mean that even unto the Baptist who was baptized, IT CAME TO YOU FOR YOU. That’s why I gave you the personal example of you (Bill) about baptism at the end, to make that perfectly clear. My drive or zeal for this if you will is not to “win an argument” or say “my law is better than your law” or “God is more pleased with me than you”, NEVER! But to help us all have, me included, the richness of the Gospel and how it is found in the sacraments. I’ll try one of my cheap parables:

You and I, two in debt starving bums, are invited into this rich Kings house. He’s a perfect King. Now we enter into a room and there’s a banquet before us, a feast of the BEST food and drink. The King has not revealed himself yet. So, we sit and wait and are intimidated after all we are worthless bums and starving to death. Finally, I understand that the King meant for us to eat that food, so I sit down and start eating it and it is GREAT and filling me. You are shocked and say, “What are you doing, he’s a stern King”. Once in a while I wonder if you are right and I’ve been wrong. But I’m starving so I eat and you roll your eyes at me and fear for us. The King finally comes in and with a strong voice says, “Why are you eating my food?” Sheepishly I look up and say, “My Lord I was hungry and thought you prepared the food for us having invited us in.” Then he looks at you and says, “Why didn’t you eat I did prepare it for you?” Finally, you relax and we eat together, all is joy and we are saved. 

That’s why I argue for baptism and in larger the sacraments. Not to say “your way is wrong” but “SEE, taste and eat the Lord is Good and better than you presently understand.” Free grace, for all of us, is terrifying in one sense. It means just what it means and it is impossible on our own to ‘just believe it’, it is THAT terrifying to our Old Man, mine included.

Blessing always my brother and there is NO hard feelings AT ALL between us, KNOW that for certain,

Larry


----------

