# Re-Baptism



## tcalbrecht

toddpedlar said:


> Benjamin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a read through will show that it was the general belief amongst the Reformed that the Bible taught infant baptism, and not only adult baptism as the Anabaptists taught, a sect that was condemned as heretics by the Reformed people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should recognize, though, that the Anabaptists who were condemned as heretics must not be confused with later baptists who compiled the London Confessions. In many cases about the only thing they shared in common with the London baptists is their credobaptismal practice. * In order to promote the doctrine of paedobaptism it is really quite bad form to call out credobaptists because of the heresies of the Anabaptists. * This would be like saying that since Muslims are monotheists, and Muslims follow a false religion, that monotheism is false.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

tcalbrecht said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benjamin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a read through will show that it was the general belief amongst the Reformed that the Bible taught infant baptism, and not only adult baptism as the Anabaptists taught, a sect that was condemned as heretics by the Reformed people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should recognize, though, that the Anabaptists who were condemned as heretics must not be confused with later baptists who compiled the London Confessions. In many cases about the only thing they shared in common with the London baptists is their credobaptismal practice. * In order to promote the doctrine of paedobaptism it is really quite bad form to call out credobaptists because of the heresies of the Anabaptists. * This would be like saying that since Muslims are monotheists, and Muslims follow a false religion, that monotheism is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The heresy they share in common is the requirement for rebaptism of those not baptized by immersion or baptized as infants.
Click to expand...


That is hardly heresy.


----------



## toddpedlar

tcalbrecht said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benjamin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a read through will show that it was the general belief amongst the Reformed that the Bible taught infant baptism, and not only adult baptism as the Anabaptists taught, a sect that was condemned as heretics by the Reformed people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should recognize, though, that the Anabaptists who were condemned as heretics must not be confused with later baptists who compiled the London Confessions. In many cases about the only thing they shared in common with the London baptists is their credobaptismal practice. * In order to promote the doctrine of paedobaptism it is really quite bad form to call out credobaptists because of the heresies of the Anabaptists. * This would be like saying that since Muslims are monotheists, and Muslims follow a false religion, that monotheism is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The heresy they share in common is the requirement for rebaptism of those not baptized by immersion or baptized as infants.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying it's not a problem, Tom - just saying that it's inappropriate to paint all credobaptists as "Anabaptists", a name which, when used by Calvin and other early Reformers, meant something very specific - and something which does not properly represent many groups of credobaptists.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

The wading pool is getting deeper...


----------



## tcalbrecht

Daniel Ritchie said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> 
> The heresy they share in common is the requirement for rebaptism of those not baptized by immersion or baptized as infants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is hardly heresy.
Click to expand...


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

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


----------



## tcalbrecht

toddpedlar said:


> I'm not saying it's not a problem, Tom - just saying that it's inappropriate to paint all credobaptists as "Anabaptists", a name which, when used by Calvin and other early Reformers, meant something very specific - and something which does not properly represent many groups of credobaptists.



You will note I was not painting with a broad brush. I know that most Baptists do not entertain all the excesses of the Anabaptists. 

However, in the area of rebaptism there is really no difference between the two camps. While internally consistent, nevertheless, the credobaptist view wrt rebaptism is anomalous wrt the Reformed faith as it is historically understood.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

tcalbrecht said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> 
> The heresy they share in common is the requirement for rebaptism of those not baptized by immersion or baptized as infants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is hardly heresy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Schaff (as noted by Dr. McMahon), "All the Reformers retained the custom of infant baptism and opposed rebaptism *as heresy*." (_History of the Christian Church, vol. 7, The German Reformation_, p 607)
> 
> Granted, this opposition was in the historical context of the Anabaptist controversy, but there is no difference between rebaptism of an infant by a Baptist vs. rebaptism of an infant by an Anabaptist.
Click to expand...


They were wrong to believe that mere rebaptism was heresy. It may have been an error - and I believe it was - but it is not heresy.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Daniel Ritchie said:


> They were wrong to believe that mere rebaptism was heresy. It may have been an error - and I believe it was - but it is not heresy.



Your opinion is noted, but it is not historically inappropriate to identify rebaptism as heresy (in this case, error of a fundamental sort with strikes at the very nature of the covenant).


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

tcalbrecht said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were wrong to believe that mere rebaptism was heresy. It may have been an error - and I believe it was - but it is not heresy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion is noted, but it is not historically inappropriate to identify rebaptism as heresy (in this case, error of a fundamental sort with strikes at the very nature of the covenant).
Click to expand...


If someone believes that their baptism was not legitimate, then I do not see why they should be labeled a "heretic" for being re-baptized.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Daniel Ritchie said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were wrong to believe that mere rebaptism was heresy. It may have been an error - and I believe it was - but it is not heresy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion is noted, but it is not historically inappropriate to identify rebaptism as heresy (in this case, error of a fundamental sort with strikes at the very nature of the covenant).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone believes that their baptism was not legitimate, then I do not see why they should be labeled a "heretic" for being re-baptized.
Click to expand...


Hmmm. Is baptism an ordinance of the individual or of the Church? I didn't know that individuals got to make those types of decisions.

In fact, they do not. If I move to some remote and desolate portion of the US where there are no confessionally Reformed churches, and I visit with the local (credo)Baptist church and seek to bring my membership there, 99.9% of the time I will be told that I may join by being rebaptized (by immersion) or may not formally join. 

Likewise, in every consistent Reformed church, if a person presents himself for membership and seeks to be rebaptized because they somehow believe their infant baptism was deficient, any pastor worth his salt will try to dissuade the individual from this course of action. Rebaptism is unnecessary, and convenantally and confessionally inconsistent. BTW, I speak as one who sought rebaptism as a young Christian at a confessional Presbyterian church and was never dissuaded from doing do. 

Besides, it is not necessarily the person seeking rebaptism that is the heretic, as much as the person performing the rebaptism. Those who purport to teach these matters will suffer the greater condemnation. 

People who might seek rebaptism need to be counseled from the Scriptures and confessions why this is not a good idea.

BTW, this is very off topic. I would be happy to continue the discussion in another thread in an appropriate forum.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

*Are Re-Baptizers Heretics?*

This follows on from a discussion in another thread.

I really do not understand how you can call people who re-baptize, because they believe infant baptism was illegitimate, heretics. Surely they are not, on their view, being re-baptized at all?


----------



## Hippo

By saying that people are heretics you are seeking to expel them from the Church, this is a really serious step to take and prevents any form of communion with them.

If you read the Bible a credobaptist position is a possible interpretation, the teaching of the early church is also not decisivie on the point and if people believe in credobaptism in faith then I would not even say that it is sinful, let alone heretical.

In my humble opinion a charge of heresy should be used with care.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

See this thread for the alternative view to what Mike and I have argued:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f121/ca...formed-if-they-dont-affirm-five-points-33989/


----------



## tcalbrecht

"The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered unto any person." (WCF 28:7)


----------



## Hippo

tcalbrecht said:


> "The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered unto any person." (WCF 28:7)



The question is not whether the position is confessional.


----------



## Dwimble

Galatians220 said:


> ...A very learned minister, one whom I deeply respect, recently told me that my "covenant line" came from my great-grandfather, a ruling elder of a Presbyterian church and apparently, from what I know of him, a 5-point Calvinist...



A bit off topic, but that starts to sound awfully like, "we're of our father Abraham" to me. Although ministers making statements like that may be well-meaning, and although the statements may be intended in some way other than the impression they give, they still make me cringe every time I hear them. It's almost enough to make me go credo.


----------



## Pilgrim

Dwimble said:


> Galatians220 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...A very learned minister, one whom I deeply respect, recently told me that my "covenant line" came from my great-grandfather, a ruling elder of a Presbyterian church and apparently, from what I know of him, a 5-point Calvinist...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A bit off topic, but that starts to sound awfully like, "we're of our father Abraham" to me. Although ministers making statements like that may be well-meaning, and although the statements may be intended in some way other than the impression they give, they still make me cringe every time I hear them. It's almost enough to make me go credo.
Click to expand...


It certainly confirms me in my credo views. The old line about God having no grandchildren popped into my head immediately.

In light of the fact that apparently Southern Presbyterians and those influenced by their thought (e.g. the 1845 Old School G.A.) are the only major Reformed or Presbyterian group to reject Roman Catholic baptism, I wonder what this minister would say in a case where all of the person's known ancestors were Roman Catholics and there is no "covenant line" to point to? Typically the argument that one hears is that such baptisms are "irregular but not invalid," with the fact that circumcision was obviously unrepeatable given as justification for baptism being unrepeatable.


----------



## Zenas

I think your poll is fatally flawed because it doesn't distinguish between what one thinks of re-baptizers, and baptizers doing so because the first one wasn't considered valid. 

Re-baptizing implies a recognition of the first, but a need or doctrine that dictates a Baptism must be done again, even though the first one holds some measure of validity.

The other type aren't re-baptizers at all, but only baptizers who do so visibly again for the express purpose that the first baptism was no baptism at all, ergo no baptism has ever occured. 

Re-baptizers, in my book, are heretics. Baptizers doing so because the first batpsm was no baptism are not. 

I think those affirming the heresey of the latter is one you would take issue to, and to that one you have my answer.

As the poll asks, whether re-baptizers are heretics are not, I answer yes.


----------



## Hippo

Zenas said:


> I think your poll is fatally flawed because it doesn't distinguish between what one thinks of re-baptizers, and baptizers doing so because the first one wasn't considered valid.
> 
> Re-baptizing implies a recognition of the first, but a need or doctrine that dictates a Baptism must be done again, even though the first one holds some measure of validity.
> 
> The other type aren't re-baptizers at all, but only baptizers who do so visibly again for the express purpose that the first baptism was no baptism at all, ergo no baptism has ever occured.
> 
> Re-baptizers, in my book, are heretics. Baptizers doing so because the first batpsm was no baptism are not.
> 
> I think those affirming the heresey of the latter is one you would take issue to, and to that one you have my answer.
> 
> As the poll asks, whether re-baptizers are heretics are not, I answer yes.



Good points here. 

I would have to say that if one accepted a first baptism but repaptised anyway then that would be heretical. 

I do not think that the question envisaged such a situation, but the terminology allows for such an understanding and renders the polls results fairly useless.


----------



## Ivan




----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

Zenas said:


> I think your poll is fatally flawed because it doesn't distinguish between what one thinks of re-baptizers, and baptizers doing so because the first one wasn't considered valid.
> 
> Re-baptizing implies a recognition of the first, but a need or doctrine that dictates a Baptism must be done again, even though the first one holds some measure of validity.
> 
> The other type aren't re-baptizers at all, but only baptizers who do so visibly again for the express purpose that the first baptism was no baptism at all, ergo no baptism has ever occured.
> 
> Re-baptizers, in my book, are heretics. Baptizers doing so because the first batpsm was no baptism are not.
> 
> I think those affirming the heresey of the latter is one you would take issue to, and to that one you have my answer.
> 
> As the poll asks, whether re-baptizers are heretics are not, I answer yes.





For these reasons, I voted "Not Sure." There is some ambiguity to this question, and what needs to be sorted out first is: "What is true baptism?"

If one accepts the papist "baptism" as valid, then there is no reason to "rebaptize." 

However, if the papist baptism is seen as the pagan ritual it is, and thus is no true baptism, then one who is Scripturally baptized, (even though he he was once a recipient of the "so-called papist baptism)," is not being re-baptized, but is in truth being baptized for the FIRST time!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

*The Wading Pool is not for debate...*

OK Gents, I feel like I set up a kiddie pool in my backyard for my little kids and the big kids started running around in it so my little kids couldn't play.

Stripped all the "re-baptism is heresy" debate out of the Wading Pool and moved it here.


----------



## Zenas

Sorry, I didn't see it was in the wading pool area. (I still think we should call it the Baptismal for laughs). 

This is definatly a question for the Baptism forum.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

Zenas said:


> Sorry, I didn't see it was in the wading pool area. (I still think we should call it the Baptismal for laughs).
> 
> This is definatly a question for the Baptism forum.




This IS the baptism forum....isn't it?


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

OKay, never mind. I see what happened.


----------



## DMcFadden

Unless the rules of the Puritan Board are changed so as to disallow adherents to the 1689 LBCF, the catagorizing of "Baptists" as "heretics" (along with the Anabaptists of the 16th century) would be a contemptible libel, not an accurate label. Remember that when the Presbyterians were racing all the other lemmings jumping off the cliff to become unitarians in the 18th century, it was those pesky Baptists who held to Calvinism.


----------



## Ivan

DMcFadden said:


> Unless the rules of the Puritan Board are changed so as to disallow adherents to the 1689 LBCF, the catagorizing of "Baptists" as "heretics" (along with the Anabaptists of the 16th century) is a contemptible libel, not an accurate label.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I didn't see it was in the wading pool area. (I still think we should call it the Baptismal for laughs).
> 
> This is definatly a question for the Baptism forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This IS the baptism forum....isn't it?
Click to expand...


Just to clarify, this thread began as a reaction to a discussion in the wading pool. I moved a bunch of posts from a thread there to this thread. The parties debating this issue in the wading pool know what I'm talking about.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

Semper Fidelis said:


> Presbyterian Deacon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I didn't see it was in the wading pool area. (I still think we should call it the Baptismal for laughs).
> 
> This is definatly a question for the Baptism forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This IS the baptism forum....isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just to clarify, this thread began as a reaction to a discussion in the wading pool. I moved a bunch of posts from a thread there to this thread. The parties debating this issue in the wading pool know what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...


Yes. I figured that out after I posted this note. Hence my next post (#26) of this thread. Sorry, I was temporarily confused.


----------



## Pergamum

Again, the word "heretic" should be used sparingly and only for those who deserve it.


Calling a Christian brother a heretic is a grave offense and is even worse than the supposed "heresy" of wrong baptism.


We should love all those that are Christs, even if they disagree with us.


----------



## Herald

I am not going to participate in a baptism discussion but I am also not going to tolerate credobaptism being referred to as heresy. The 1689 LBC is one of the accepted confessional requirements for PB membership. Heresy is not an accepted qualification for membership. Debate baptism all you want but cease and desist referring to credobaptism as heresy. This is not a request.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

DMcFadden said:


> Unless the rules of the Puritan Board are changed so as to disallow adherents to the 1689 LBCF, the catagorizing of "Baptists" as "heretics" (along with the Anabaptists of the 16th century) would be a contemptible libel, not an accurate label. Remember that when the Presbyterians were racing all the other lemmings jumping off the cliff to become unitarians in the 18th century, it was those pesky Baptists who held to Calvinism.



I know this is sort of "technical" but it sort of goes to the problem of labels. I wasn't certain how useful this discussion was when it came up.

The exact rule is that we're not supposed to call another man to repent of a sin if he is holding to his Confession on this board.

It sort of goes without saying that adherence to a particular Confession implies that another Confession is in error about the nature of the Sacraments.

The real question here is whether that error is properly labelled heresy or not. If it is then the discussion cuts both ways. In other words, if the label sticks then it is appropriate for an LBCF adherent to label the Sacraments as heresy (and some clearly do).

I don't necessarily have a problem with the discussion but we do still have a rule that we'll be bogging down the discussion with a "You need to repent of your heresy..." tit for tat. It might seem like a silly thing to allow for us to allow people to come to the conclusion that a particular activity is heresy but to not allow them to actually apply the label to a particular individual but I think there's a difference between defining error on the one hand and the work of the Church courts to convict of an error on the other and there is a difference.

I've made my opposition to the credo understanding of Baptism very plain in other threads. I think, as an ordinance of the Church, it undermines the nature of the Gospel by centralizing the ordinances in the will of man. But I also recognize that the Baptist is doing so because they believe it is a logical conclusion from their understanding that God only Covenants with the Elect. On the one hand, the Reformed Baptist fully affirms that the benefits of union with Christ flow only to the Elect just as the Presbyterian. On the other hand, I believe they err severely in their understanding of the Covenant of Grace and how God has visibly manifested His plan of redemption in time and space and announces His promise to His people and provides Word and Sacrament for the conversion and building up of His Elect toward His Holy ends.

I don't think I would call the Reformed Baptist practice heresy because they retain the understanding of Christ's atoning sacrifice and that God only blesses the Elect with the benefits that union with Christ confer on the basis of faith alone. I would call their visible ordinances error and continue to try to remind them that they're not achieving the goal they believe by disobeying God in how He has ordained the visible administration of His Covenant.

On the other hand, if re-baptism is on the basis of a soteriology that is no Gospel at all then that is a different matter altogether. In my mind, it's not the act that's nearly as important as what the persons performing the act think they're about. I have no problem calling the Anabaptists, and others like them, heretics.


----------



## Pergamum

I would like to see documentation that the "radical" anabaptists of the reformation era associated rebaptism with salvation. It appears that they were merely trying to offer due obedience to the Word and not associating right baptism with salvation...at least most of them (there were a lot of groups). i.e. they were not Campbellites.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

tcalbrecht said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were wrong to believe that mere rebaptism was heresy. It may have been an error - and I believe it was - but it is not heresy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion is noted, but it is not historically inappropriate to identify rebaptism as heresy (in this case, error of a fundamental sort with strikes at the very nature of the covenant).
Click to expand...

Well if you view the New Covenant as a Covenant made only for those who are like precious faith and children of faith who are called sons of Abraham than you are incorrect. The Covenant sign is for those who are children of Abraham in the faith as Galatians says. The Covenant Children are spiritual children of Christ.


----------



## Pilgrim

I voted no in this poll, but should have thought it out more. At this point I would be unable to answer one way or another because there are so many variables with regard to what is valid baptism as well as the practice of some Arminian churches that will baptize over and over. I heard a pastor tell a story about a pastor friend of his from years ago who said his son had been baptized so many times that he knew every tadpole in the county!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

If you want to charge heresy I would have to state that the practice of infant baptism in the early church for the sake of necessity would be the beginning of the downward trend. *Anabaptists were actually sprinklers and not necessarily emersionists.* They had a lot of other problems. The most major was that they promoted uprisings with the governing authorities. In fact when the Confessional Calvinistic Particular Baptists were accused of anabaptist heresies this anti authoritarianism was high on the list. To refute that they were not heretics they started compiling a confession which turned into the 1644 and later the 1646 LBCF. And plus the Particular Baptists of this era were not necessarily inclined to make someone renounce their infant baptism to become a member in their congregations.


----------



## Pilgrim

PuritanCovenanter said:


> If you want to charge heresy I would have to state that the practice of infant baptism in the early church for the sake of necessity would be the beginning of the downward trend. Anabaptists were actually sprinklers and not necessarily emersionists also. They had a lot of other problems. The most major was that they promoted uprisings with the governing authorities. In fact when the Confessional Calvinistic Particular Baptists were accused of anabaptist heresies this antiauthoritarianism was high on the list. To refute that they were not heretics they started compiling a confession which turned into the 1644 and later the 1646 LBCF. And plus the Particular Baptists of this era were not necessarily inclined to make someone renounce their infant baptism to become a member in their congregations.



Randy, do you have a source for the Particular Baptists not making someone renounce their infant baptism to become a member in their congregations? Perhaps I misunderstand you. Are you referencing the Bunyan view? That view certainly isn't represented in the London Baptist confessions. Submitting to immersion following a profession of faith is renouncing infant baptism and other sprinklings that may have preceded it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> Baptists shared with Lutherans, Zwinglians, and Calvinists, their protest against the totalitarianism of the papacy and their zeal to recover the spirituality of the Church. They were Calvinists standing within the covenant theology expressed in the Westminster (putting aside paedo baptism). On the other hand, the General Baptist (which were mostly pelagian) were originally English separatists or Puritans who broke with the Church of England, which they regarded as a false church, perverted by error. Their sectarian spirit and point of view was carried over into their church life. On the other hand the Particular Baptists arose out of a non-Separatist independency. They were Congregational in polity but more ecumenical in spirit. They did not renounce the Church of England as being entirely corrupt. T*hey sought to maintain some bond of unity between themselves and Christians of other Communions. Among these Particular Baptists were those who were willing to admit into its membership, without rebaptism, those of other communions.*
> 
> p.22 A History of the Baptists By Robert G. Torbet
> Kenneth Scott Latourette did the forward to the book.


The above is taken from Torbets History of the Baptists.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

One more thing. I have a good book by J. H. Thornwell I believe where he refutes RC Baptism as invalid. Thus he would say that rebaptism is essential also. Is he a heretic? Some Presbyterian's on this board agree with him. Some believe that RCC baptism is legit.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

PuritanCovenanter said:


> One more thing. I have a good book by J. H. Thornwell I believe where he refutes RC Baptism as invalid. Thus he would say that rebaptism is essential also. Is he a heretic? Some Presbyterian's on this board agree with him. Some believe that RCC baptism is legit.



I agree with Thornwell. I recall a debate a while back in which someone tried to argue that baptism by a priest was valid, but baptism by a midwife was not. This is ridiculous, as they both work for a synagogue of Satan. The RCC is not part of the visible church, its baptism is no more valid than that of a man standing on a street corner throwing water over people in the name of the Trinity.

A converted RC who is baptized in a Protestant church is not being rebaptized, but baptized, as they have not received the sacrament in the first place.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Daniel Ritchie said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more thing. I have a good book by J. H. Thornwell I believe where he refutes RC Baptism as invalid. Thus he would say that rebaptism is essential also. Is he a heretic? Some Presbyterian's on this board agree with him. Some believe that RCC baptism is legit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Thornwell. I recall a debate a while back in which someone tried to argue that baptism by a priest was valid, but baptism by a midwife was not. This is ridiculous, as they both work for a synagogue of Satan. The RCC is not part of the visible church, its baptism is no more valid than that of a man standing on a street corner throwing water over people in the name of the Trinity.
> 
> A converted RC who is baptized in a Protestant church is not being rebaptized, but baptized, as they have not received the sacrament in the first place.
Click to expand...


So say you. And I would agree somewhat and even go farther than you and say that about those who were baptised as infants period. We are going to disagree. *But the charge of heresy is a bit overboard in my estimation. It does call for repentance. *


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more thing. I have a good book by J. H. Thornwell I believe where he refutes RC Baptism as invalid. Thus he would say that rebaptism is essential also. Is he a heretic? Some Presbyterian's on this board agree with him. Some believe that RCC baptism is legit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Thornwell. I recall a debate a while back in which someone tried to argue that baptism by a priest was valid, but baptism by a midwife was not. This is ridiculous, as they both work for a synagogue of Satan. The RCC is not part of the visible church, its baptism is no more valid than that of a man standing on a street corner throwing water over people in the name of the Trinity.
> 
> A converted RC who is baptized in a Protestant church is not being rebaptized, but baptized, as they have not received the sacrament in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So say you. And I would agree somewhat and even go farther than you and say that about those who were baptised as infants period. We are going to disagree. *But the charge of heresy is a bit overboard in my estimation. It does call for repentance. *
Click to expand...


With the bold bit  wholeheartedly; if you are going to call alleged re-baptizers - who, according to their own views, are not even rebaptizing - heretics, then where do you stop. We may as well call everyone a heretic because we all believe something that is unbiblical (whether we are aware of it are not).


----------



## Houston E.




----------



## Semper Fidelis

I deleted the poll on this thread and re-named it. Tom didn't initiate this thread but his name appeared with the thread and a poll started by another because posts from another thread were moved here. My apologies to Tom for associating his name with the poll. I need to protect his name per the 9th Commandment. I also don't think a poll or the previous title served the sensitivity of the subject.


----------



## DMcFadden

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Baptists shared with Lutherans, Zwinglians, and Calvinists, their protest against the totalitarianism of the papacy and their zeal to recover the spirituality of the Church. They were Calvinists standing within the covenant theology expressed in the Westminster (putting aside paedo baptism). On the other hand, the General Baptist (which were mostly pelagian) were originally English separatists or Puritans who broke with the Church of England, which they regarded as a false church, perverted by error. Their sectarian spirit and point of view was carried over into their church life. On the other hand the Particular Baptists arose out of a non-Separatist independency. They were Congregational in polity but more ecumenical in spirit. They did not renounce the Church of England as being entirely corrupt. T*hey sought to maintain some bond of unity between themselves and Christians of other Communions. Among these Particular Baptists were those who were willing to admit into its membership, without rebaptism, those of other communions.*
> 
> p.22 A History of the Baptists By Robert G. Torbet
> Kenneth Scott Latourette did the forward to the book.
> 
> 
> 
> The above is taken from Torbets History of the Baptists.
Click to expand...


Among Northern Baptists, Torbet is considered the gold standard for Baptist history.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Daniel Ritchie said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more thing. I have a good book by J. H. Thornwell I believe where he refutes RC Baptism as invalid. Thus he would say that rebaptism is essential also. Is he a heretic? Some Presbyterian's on this board agree with him. Some believe that RCC baptism is legit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Thornwell. I recall a debate a while back in which someone tried to argue that baptism by a priest was valid, but baptism by a midwife was not. This is ridiculous, as they both work for a synagogue of Satan. The RCC is not part of the visible church, its baptism is no more valid than that of a man standing on a street corner throwing water over people in the name of the Trinity.
> 
> A converted RC who is baptized in a Protestant church is not being rebaptized, but baptized, as they have not received the sacrament in the first place.
Click to expand...




Were Calvin and Luther and reformers rebaptized? Wait, we went through this in recent past. 

Ill just say thank goodness my salvation is not dependant upon sacraments. I will caution you again though Daniel. This vien of thought is very close to the Donatist heresy. Tred lightly here on this subject. SOme here have said it is not. But it certainly is a mirrored image of it. Administering and receiving the sacraments do not belong to individuals, but come from God to the church. The hand that dip or plunge, the person who gets wet provide absolutely no efficacy whatsoever


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more thing. I have a good book by J. H. Thornwell I believe where he refutes RC Baptism as invalid. Thus he would say that rebaptism is essential also. Is he a heretic? Some Presbyterian's on this board agree with him. Some believe that RCC baptism is legit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Thornwell. I recall a debate a while back in which someone tried to argue that baptism by a priest was valid, but baptism by a midwife was not. This is ridiculous, as they both work for a synagogue of Satan. The RCC is not part of the visible church, its baptism is no more valid than that of a man standing on a street corner throwing water over people in the name of the Trinity.
> 
> A converted RC who is baptized in a Protestant church is not being rebaptized, but baptized, as they have not received the sacrament in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were Calvin and Luther and reformers rebaptized? Wait, we went through this in recent past.
> 
> Ill just say thank goodness my salvation is not dependant upon sacraments. I will caution you again though Daniel. This vien of thought is very close to the Donatist heresy. Tred lightly here on this subject. SOme here have said it is not. But it certainly is a mirrored image of it. Administering and receiving the sacraments do not belong to individuals, but come from God to the church. The hand that dip or plunge, the person who gets wet provide absolutely no efficacy whatsoever
Click to expand...


Calvin and Luther belonged to a scandalously corrupt church, but Rome was still a true visible church until Trent. Therefore, they did not need to be re-baptized. Yes, our salvation is not dependent upon the sacraments, but that is not the question being discussed here.

I will ask you this question: Is baptism valid if a man stands in the street and throws water over people in the name of the Trinity? If not, why not?


----------



## toddpedlar

tcalbrecht said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying it's not a problem, Tom - just saying that it's inappropriate to paint all credobaptists as "Anabaptists", a name which, when used by Calvin and other early Reformers, meant something very specific - and something which does not properly represent many groups of credobaptists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will note I was not painting with a broad brush. I know that most Baptists do not entertain all the excesses of the Anabaptists.
> 
> However, in the area of rebaptism there is really no difference between the two camps. While internally consistent, nevertheless, the credobaptist view wrt rebaptism is anomalous wrt the Reformed faith as it is historically understood.
Click to expand...


Totally agreed.

(and I wasn't saying you in particular were painting with a broad brush... I was referring to the initial posting that I replied to, wherein I believe a 'too broad' brush was applied)


----------



## KMK

tcalbrecht said:


> "The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered unto any person." (WCF 28:7)





> WCF 29:3 The Lord Jesus has, in this ordinance, appointed His ministers to declare His word of institution to the people, to pray, and bless the elements of bread and *wine*, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use



Do you believe that those who partake with grape juice are 'heretics'?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Do not be silly KMK. That is even hardly the point being made.


----------



## KMK

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Do not be silly KMK. That is even hardly the point being made.



How so?


----------



## tcalbrecht

I suspect many folks are getting overworked by the word "heresy". Heresy simply means error. The notion of rebaptism was an error wrt the Reformed churches of the 16th and 17th centuries. It still is in most Reformed churches since rebaptizers would not be permitted to hold office or teach their error. 

Please note that I did not say rebaptism was a damnable heresy.


----------



## KMK

tcalbrecht said:


> I suspect many folks are getting overworked by the word "heresy". Heresy simply means error. The notion of rebaptism was an error wrt the Reformed churches of the 16th and 17th centuries. It still is in most Reformed churches since rebaptizers would not be permitted to hold office or teach their error.
> 
> Please note that I did not say rebaptism was a damnable heresy.



Then you would say that the belief that the cup should contain grape juice is 'heresy'.

Would you also say that the belief that the Pope is the Antichrist is 'heresy'?

If so, then I think you have so diluted the word 'heresy' that it basically has no meaning at all. If you mean 'error' why don't you just use the word 'error'?


----------



## Hippo

tcalbrecht said:


> I suspect many folks are getting overworked by the word "heresy". Heresy simply means error.



I we should not get worked up about heresy then why not just call it error? the word loses its use if that is all it means.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Hippo said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect many folks are getting overworked by the word "heresy". Heresy simply means error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I we should not get worked up about heresy then why not just call it error? the word loses its use if that is all it means.
Click to expand...


Why cause needless offence among the brothers by using an inflammatory word like heresy?


----------



## refbaptdude

Oh but Tom the church you are a member of does not mind pulling clip art from the website of the heretical church that I pastor

Covenant Reformed Baptist Church - Warrenton, VA

Covenant Reformed Church

Heresy is like a cancer(2 Tim 2:17). It starts as a little clip art on your website and before you know it, you are rebaptizing folk.


----------



## Pergamum

tcalbrecht said:


> I suspect many folks are getting overworked by the word "heresy". Heresy simply means error. The notion of rebaptism was an error wrt the Reformed churches of the 16th and 17th centuries. It still is in most Reformed churches since rebaptizers would not be permitted to hold office or teach their error.
> 
> Please note that I did not say rebaptism was a damnable heresy.



Heresy is more than error. Damnable heresy is redundant. Therefore, say error instead of heresy because heretics are assumed to be damned and to call an erring brother who is still a brother a heretic is uncharitable.


----------



## Houston E.

Pergamum said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect many folks are getting overworked by the word "heresy". Heresy simply means error. The notion of rebaptism was an error wrt the Reformed churches of the 16th and 17th centuries. It still is in most Reformed churches since rebaptizers would not be permitted to hold office or teach their error.
> 
> Please note that I did not say rebaptism was a damnable heresy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heresy is more than error. Damnable heresy is redundant. Therefore, say error instead of heresy because heretics are assumed to be damned and to call an erring brother who is still a brother a heretic is uncharitable.
Click to expand...


----------



## Herald

tcalbrecht said:


> I suspect many folks are getting overworked by the word "heresy". Heresy simply means error. The notion of rebaptism was an error wrt the Reformed churches of the 16th and 17th centuries. It still is in most Reformed churches since rebaptizers would not be permitted to hold office or teach their error.
> 
> Please note that I did not say rebaptism was a damnable heresy.



Tom, someone who purports heresy is a heretic. Therefore, if we believe a brother is in error about a point of doctrine should we call him a heretic? Your choice of words is poor. Think about it. If I made a post calling paedos heretics, I would expect to be jumped on. Heresy may be akin to error, but it is more than just a simple misunderstand. It is false teaching that strikes at the core of the faith. It is worthy of excommunication, and in persistent and extreme cases leads to anathema (Galatians 1:8). 

You can say what you intend to say without inflaming tensions.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I believe the Federal Vision is Heresy. What do you think Tom? Or would you rather just call it error?


----------



## calgal

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


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

calgal said:


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



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

And here is an older discussion...

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


----------



## servantofmosthigh

tcalbrecht said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> 
> The heresy they share in common is the requirement for rebaptism of those not baptized by immersion or baptized as infants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is hardly heresy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Schaff (as noted by Dr. McMahon), "All the Reformers retained the custom of infant baptism and opposed rebaptism *as heresy*." (_History of the Christian Church, vol. 7, The German Reformation_, p 607)
> 
> Granted, this opposition was in the historical context of the Anabaptist controversy, but there is no difference between rebaptism of an infant by a Baptist vs. rebaptism of an infant by an Anabaptist.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## tcalbrecht

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

I have concluded the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



> We have been looking at Calvinism on the validity of triune baptisms even when administered in the Roman Catholic Church. Significantly, not just every Lutheran leader but also every Reformed theologian affirmed the unrepeatability of 'Romish baptism.' Thus: Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer, Henry Bullinger, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, John Knox, Guido De Bres, Peter Datheen, Francis Junius, and many others.
> 
> Calvin wrote his _ Institutes_ -- to prove that the Reformers were not Anabaptists. He approved of the _ antirebaptism_ taught by the Romish Council of Trent. He opposed Rome's ritualistic additions to baptism, and her _ ex opere operato_ theory. Yet he asserted the _ validity_ of all triune baptisms, even when administered by heretics (such as Anabaptists and Romanists). For he insisted that Rome, impure and dilapidated indeed, was still part of the Christian Church -- even in spite of her being oppressed for many centuries by the papal antichrist. Hence, he decisively rejected the Catabaptists' rebaptizing of all converted Ex-Romanists previously "baptized in the papacy." _ Institutes_ IV:15:16. And he enjoined Knox to do the same.
> 
> Knox did so. He too regarded not the Romanists but the Anabaptists as "the enemies most to be feared." Indeed, he and his Scottish associates clearly declared that "we damn the error of the Anabaptists." While indeed condemning Rome as 'the false Kirk' in the _ First Scots Confession_, in the _ First Book of Discipline_ the Knoxians provided for the utilization of rehabilitated Ex-Romish former priests -- as 'Precentors' and 'Readers' in the Reformed Church of Scotland!
> 
> In the fifteen-sixties, the _ Belgic Confession_ in Holland and the _ Heidelberg Catechism_ in Germany and the _ Second Helvetic Confession_ in Switzerland were all anticatabaptist. By 1576, Romanists and Protestants had universally agreed to recognize one another's baptisms. The _ Second Book of Discipline_ of 1578 and the _ Second Scots Confession_ of 1580 are officially anticatabaptist. So too are the decisions of: the 1581 Dutch Synod of Middelburg and the French Reformed Church; the 1615 _ Irish Articles_; the 1618f Synod of Dordt; and the 1643f _ Westminster Standards_.
> 
> Of the British Westminster divines, George Gillespie and Samuel Rutherford are known to have been officially anticatabaptist. So too were Cocceius and Wendelin in Germany; Turretin and Pictet in Switzerland; and Marckius, Riissen, Mastricht and De Moor in Holland. The British Puritans John Owen, David Dickson and Matthew Henry -- and Jonathan Edwards in America -- all seem to have been so. Indeed, there is no trace of any catabaptism at all among American Calvinists -- until the fateful 1845 General Assembly of the declining PCUSA.
> 
> There, under the influence of 'Great Awakening' theology on the one hand and ever increasing snipings from Baptists on the other, even the great Thornwell capitulated to catabaptism -- and for a time dragged also the General Assembly of the PCUSA with him. Asserting that even tiny covenant children should be regarded as "baptized unbelievers" and "enemies of God" (_ Collected Writings_ IV:348), he abandoned the doctrine of the _ Westminster Assembly's Directory_ that God's covenant children "are Christians and federally holy before baptism."
> 
> Thornwell also relinquished the teaching of the _ Westminster Confession_ (28:7) that "baptism is but once to be administer to any person" (cf. too the _ Larger Catechism_ 167). Also, his view that some Romish misrepresentations of God are worse than those of "modern Hindoos" (C.W. III:373) betrays bigotry.
> 
> Charles Hodge and others stoutly resisted Thornwell's baptismal imbalance. So too did Drs. W.G.T. Shedd and A.A. Hodge. Indeed, by 1875, the Northern PCUSA had all but repudiated the catabaptism of 1845. After the death of Thornwell in 1862, even in the Southern PCUS, Dabney (d. 1898) did not endorse the deceased Thornwell's catabaptism. By 1882, the PCUS had reversed itself on the (in)validity of Campbellite baptism. Indeed, in the twentieth century, it _ de facto_ returned to Calvin's view on the validity of Romish baptism.
> 
> Anticatabaptist Reformed theologians since Thornwell's time onward, include: Heinrich Heppe in Germany; the Dutchmen Gravemeijer, Kuyper, Bavinck, and Berkouwer; the Free Church of Scotland's William Cunningham and 'Rabbi' Duncan; the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland's Cameron, MacIntyre, Beaton, Macfarlane, Macqueen and Maclean; the American Calvinists Warfield, Berkhof, McIntire, Buswell, Hoeksema, and Boice; Heyns (and all other Reformed theologians absolutely) in South Africa; and the Reformed Ecumenical Synod worldwide.
> 
> http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs3/citpcia/citpcia.pdf


----------



## Herald

tcalbrecht said:


> Given the comments here, I took some time to rethink my position, do some reading from Calvin and others on the subject, and see if I can reconcile my views with the views expressed by many in this forum.
> 
> I have concluded the following:
> 
> The Reformed Churches have traditionally recognized three marks of a true Church:
> - Faithful gospel preaching
> - Proper administration of the sacraments
> - Proper administration of church discipline
> 
> Anti-paedobaptistic churches deny the historic Reformed understanding on point 2 since they (a) generally deny that baptism is a sacrament as defined by Westminster, (b) fail to properly administer the sacrament since they deny it to their own covenant infants, and (c) for the most part require the rebaptism of members who were baptized as infants in other denominations (thus effectively denying the catholic nature of Christ’s church).
> 
> I consider all points serious, but (c) especially since rebaptizers are not just rebaptizing "apostates", but often fellow acknowledged believers from orthodox, Reformed denominations. John Piper recognizes the seriousness of this issue, but apparently could not convince his congregation of the rightness of his position.
> 
> Some anti-paedobaptists also consider paedobaptized believers as "unrepentant sinners", a charge I find just as significant and divisive as a charge of heresy. (See Mark Dever’s views.) Which is worse, being called an unrepentant sinner or a heretic? See 1 John 3:8.
> 
> It has been expressed here that anti-paedobaptists are not really "rebaptizing" since they do not view baptism of infants or baptism by sprinkling as valid baptisms. But isn't this the same position as that of the Anabaptists who were condemned as heretical by the Protestant Reformers?
> 
> I am also now fully convinced that wrt the validity of Roman Catholic baptism, Calvin, Hodge, _ Westminster_, et al got it right and Thornwell, Gerstner, et al got it wrong. Remember, the Westminster Assembly was long after Trent, so the distinction of Gerstner regarding the RC church’s pre-Trent/post-Trent apostate status is artificial wrt the Standards. Westminster was fully aware of Trent’s (now formal) error yet did not call for the rebaptism of her children.
> 
> Infant baptism is true baptism according to Scripture and the historic testimony of the Church esp. as outlined in the Reformed confessions, and not to be undone by the rebaptism of anti-paedobaptists, whose views are error/heterodox/heretical. I realize this comment strikes at the ecumenical spirit of the PB, but it is certainly consistent with the primary Confession of the board, Westminster (whose child I am).
> 
> An article I found helpful was one written by Dr. F.N. Lee on the subject of baptismal views within the PCA, quoted in part here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have been looking at Calvinism on the validity of triune baptisms even when administered in the Roman Catholic Church. Significantly, not just every Lutheran leader but also every Reformed theologian affirmed the unrepeatability of 'Romish baptism.' Thus: Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer, Henry Bullinger, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, John Knox, Guido De Bres, Peter Datheen, Francis Junius, and many others.
> 
> Calvin wrote his _ Institutes_ -- to prove that the Reformers were not Anabaptists. He approved of the _ antirebaptism_ taught by the Romish Council of Trent. He opposed Rome's ritualistic additions to baptism, and her _ ex opere operato_ theory. Yet he asserted the _ validity_ of all triune baptisms, even when administered by heretics (such as Anabaptists and Romanists). For he insisted that Rome, impure and dilapidated indeed, was still part of the Christian Church -- even in spite of her being oppressed for many centuries by the papal antichrist. Hence, he decisively rejected the Catabaptists' rebaptizing of all converted Ex-Romanists previously "baptized in the papacy." _ Institutes_ IV:15:16. And he enjoined Knox to do the same.
> 
> Knox did so. He too regarded not the Romanists but the Anabaptists as "the enemies most to be feared." Indeed, he and his Scottish associates clearly declared that "we damn the error of the Anabaptists." While indeed condemning Rome as 'the false Kirk' in the _ First Scots Confession_, in the _ First Book of Discipline_ the Knoxians provided for the utilization of rehabilitated Ex-Romish former priests -- as 'Precentors' and 'Readers' in the Reformed Church of Scotland!
> 
> In the fifteen-sixties, the _ Belgic Confession_ in Holland and the _ Heidelberg Catechism_ in Germany and the _ Second Helvetic Confession_ in Switzerland were all anticatabaptist. By 1576, Romanists and Protestants had universally agreed to recognize one another's baptisms. The _ Second Book of Discipline_ of 1578 and the _ Second Scots Confession_ of 1580 are officially anticatabaptist. So too are the decisions of: the 1581 Dutch Synod of Middelburg and the French Reformed Church; the 1615 _ Irish Articles_; the 1618f Synod of Dordt; and the 1643f _ Westminster Standards_.
> 
> Of the British Westminster divines, George Gillespie and Samuel Rutherford are known to have been officially anticatabaptist. So too were Cocceius and Wendelin in Germany; Turretin and Pictet in Switzerland; and Marckius, Riissen, Mastricht and De Moor in Holland. The British Puritans John Owen, David Dickson and Matthew Henry -- and Jonathan Edwards in America -- all seem to have been so. Indeed, there is no trace of any catabaptism at all among American Calvinists -- until the fateful 1845 General Assembly of the declining PCUSA.
> 
> There, under the influence of 'Great Awakening' theology on the one hand and ever increasing snipings from Baptists on the other, even the great Thornwell capitulated to catabaptism -- and for a time dragged also the General Assembly of the PCUSA with him. Asserting that even tiny covenant children should be regarded as "baptized unbelievers" and "enemies of God" (_ Collected Writings_ IV:348), he abandoned the doctrine of the _ Westminster Assembly's Directory_ that God's covenant children "are Christians and federally holy before baptism."
> 
> Thornwell also relinquished the teaching of the _ Westminster Confession_ (28:7) that "baptism is but once to be administer to any person" (cf. too the _ Larger Catechism_ 167). Also, his view that some Romish misrepresentations of God are worse than those of "modern Hindoos" (C.W. III:373) betrays bigotry.
> 
> Charles Hodge and others stoutly resisted Thornwell's baptismal imbalance. So too did Drs. W.G.T. Shedd and A.A. Hodge. Indeed, by 1875, the Northern PCUSA had all but repudiated the catabaptism of 1845. After the death of Thornwell in 1862, even in the Southern PCUS, Dabney (d. 1898) did not endorse the deceased Thornwell's catabaptism. By 1882, the PCUS had reversed itself on the (in)validity of Campbellite baptism. Indeed, in the twentieth century, it _ de facto_ returned to Calvin's view on the validity of Romish baptism.
> 
> Anticatabaptist Reformed theologians since Thornwell's time onward, include: Heinrich Heppe in Germany; the Dutchmen Gravemeijer, Kuyper, Bavinck, and Berkouwer; the Free Church of Scotland's William Cunningham and 'Rabbi' Duncan; the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland's Cameron, MacIntyre, Beaton, Macfarlane, Macqueen and Maclean; the American Calvinists Warfield, Berkhof, McIntire, Buswell, Hoeksema, and Boice; Heyns (and all other Reformed theologians absolutely) in South Africa; and the Reformed Ecumenical Synod worldwide.
> 
> http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs3/citpcia/citpcia.pdf
Click to expand...


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

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


----------



## KMK

tcalbrecht said:


> Given the comments here, I took some time to rethink my position, do some reading from Calvin and others on the subject, and see if I can reconcile my views with the views expressed by many in this forum.
> 
> I have concluded the following:
> 
> The Reformed Churches have traditionally recognized three marks of a true Church:
> - Faithful gospel preaching
> - Proper administration of the sacraments
> - Proper administration of church discipline
> 
> Anti-paedobaptistic churches deny the historic Reformed understanding on point 2 since they (a) generally deny that baptism is a sacrament as defined by Westminster, (b) fail to properly administer the sacrament since they deny it to their own covenant infants, and (c) for the most part require the rebaptism of members who were baptized as infants in other denominations (thus effectively denying the catholic nature of Christ’s church).
> 
> I consider all points serious, but (c) especially since rebaptizers are not just rebaptizing "apostates", but often fellow acknowledged believers from orthodox, Reformed denominations. John Piper recognizes the seriousness of this issue, but apparently could not convince his congregation of the rightness of his position.
> 
> Some anti-paedobaptists also consider paedobaptized believers as "unrepentant sinners", a charge I find just as significant and divisive as a charge of heresy. (See Mark Dever’s views.) Which is worse, being called an unrepentant sinner or a heretic? See 1 John 3:8.
> 
> It has been expressed here that anti-paedobaptists are not really "rebaptizing" since they do not view baptism of infants or baptism by sprinkling as valid baptisms. But isn't this the same position as that of the Anabaptists who were condemned as heretical by the Protestant Reformers?
> 
> I am also now fully convinced that wrt the validity of Roman Catholic baptism, Calvin, Hodge, _ Westminster_, et al got it right and Thornwell, Gerstner, et al got it wrong. Remember, the Westminster Assembly was long after Trent, so the distinction of Gerstner regarding the RC church’s pre-Trent/post-Trent apostate status is artificial wrt the Standards. Westminster was fully aware of Trent’s (now formal) error yet did not call for the rebaptism of her children.
> 
> Infant baptism is true baptism according to Scripture and the historic testimony of the Church esp. as outlined in the Reformed confessions, and not to be undone by the rebaptism of anti-paedobaptists, whose views are error/heterodox/heretical. I realize this comment strikes at the ecumenical spirit of the PB, but it is certainly consistent with the primary Confession of the board, Westminster (whose child I am).
> 
> An article I found helpful was one written by Dr. F.N. Lee on the subject of baptismal views within the PCA, quoted in part here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have been looking at Calvinism on the validity of triune baptisms even when administered in the Roman Catholic Church. Significantly, not just every Lutheran leader but also every Reformed theologian affirmed the unrepeatability of 'Romish baptism.' Thus: Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer, Henry Bullinger, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, John Knox, Guido De Bres, Peter Datheen, Francis Junius, and many others.
> 
> Calvin wrote his _ Institutes_ -- to prove that the Reformers were not Anabaptists. He approved of the _ antirebaptism_ taught by the Romish Council of Trent. He opposed Rome's ritualistic additions to baptism, and her _ ex opere operato_ theory. Yet he asserted the _ validity_ of all triune baptisms, even when administered by heretics (such as Anabaptists and Romanists). For he insisted that Rome, impure and dilapidated indeed, was still part of the Christian Church -- even in spite of her being oppressed for many centuries by the papal antichrist. Hence, he decisively rejected the Catabaptists' rebaptizing of all converted Ex-Romanists previously "baptized in the papacy." _ Institutes_ IV:15:16. And he enjoined Knox to do the same.
> 
> Knox did so. He too regarded not the Romanists but the Anabaptists as "the enemies most to be feared." Indeed, he and his Scottish associates clearly declared that "we damn the error of the Anabaptists." While indeed condemning Rome as 'the false Kirk' in the _ First Scots Confession_, in the _ First Book of Discipline_ the Knoxians provided for the utilization of rehabilitated Ex-Romish former priests -- as 'Precentors' and 'Readers' in the Reformed Church of Scotland!
> 
> In the fifteen-sixties, the _ Belgic Confession_ in Holland and the _ Heidelberg Catechism_ in Germany and the _ Second Helvetic Confession_ in Switzerland were all anticatabaptist. By 1576, Romanists and Protestants had universally agreed to recognize one another's baptisms. The _ Second Book of Discipline_ of 1578 and the _ Second Scots Confession_ of 1580 are officially anticatabaptist. So too are the decisions of: the 1581 Dutch Synod of Middelburg and the French Reformed Church; the 1615 _ Irish Articles_; the 1618f Synod of Dordt; and the 1643f _ Westminster Standards_.
> 
> Of the British Westminster divines, George Gillespie and Samuel Rutherford are known to have been officially anticatabaptist. So too were Cocceius and Wendelin in Germany; Turretin and Pictet in Switzerland; and Marckius, Riissen, Mastricht and De Moor in Holland. The British Puritans John Owen, David Dickson and Matthew Henry -- and Jonathan Edwards in America -- all seem to have been so. Indeed, there is no trace of any catabaptism at all among American Calvinists -- until the fateful 1845 General Assembly of the declining PCUSA.
> 
> There, under the influence of 'Great Awakening' theology on the one hand and ever increasing snipings from Baptists on the other, even the great Thornwell capitulated to catabaptism -- and for a time dragged also the General Assembly of the PCUSA with him. Asserting that even tiny covenant children should be regarded as "baptized unbelievers" and "enemies of God" (_ Collected Writings_ IV:348), he abandoned the doctrine of the _ Westminster Assembly's Directory_ that God's covenant children "are Christians and federally holy before baptism."
> 
> Thornwell also relinquished the teaching of the _ Westminster Confession_ (28:7) that "baptism is but once to be administer to any person" (cf. too the _ Larger Catechism_ 167). Also, his view that some Romish misrepresentations of God are worse than those of "modern Hindoos" (C.W. III:373) betrays bigotry.
> 
> Charles Hodge and others stoutly resisted Thornwell's baptismal imbalance. So too did Drs. W.G.T. Shedd and A.A. Hodge. Indeed, by 1875, the Northern PCUSA had all but repudiated the catabaptism of 1845. After the death of Thornwell in 1862, even in the Southern PCUS, Dabney (d. 1898) did not endorse the deceased Thornwell's catabaptism. By 1882, the PCUS had reversed itself on the (in)validity of Campbellite baptism. Indeed, in the twentieth century, it _ de facto_ returned to Calvin's view on the validity of Romish baptism.
> 
> Anticatabaptist Reformed theologians since Thornwell's time onward, include: Heinrich Heppe in Germany; the Dutchmen Gravemeijer, Kuyper, Bavinck, and Berkouwer; the Free Church of Scotland's William Cunningham and 'Rabbi' Duncan; the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland's Cameron, MacIntyre, Beaton, Macfarlane, Macqueen and Maclean; the American Calvinists Warfield, Berkhof, McIntire, Buswell, Hoeksema, and Boice; Heyns (and all other Reformed theologians absolutely) in South Africa; and the Reformed Ecumenical Synod worldwide.
> 
> http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs3/citpcia/citpcia.pdf
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Houston E.

tcalbrecht said:


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



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


----------



## DMcFadden

*tcalbrecht wrote:*


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



*Houston E wrote:*


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



Tom,

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

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

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

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


----------



## pilgrim3970

calgal said:


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


----------



## servantofmosthigh

tcalbrecht said:


> Anti-paedobaptists



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

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

OK, back to our healthy discussion...


----------



## tcalbrecht

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


----------



## tcalbrecht

DMcFadden said:


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






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



Dennis,

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

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



DMcFadden said:


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



I don’t think that was my argument.



DMcFadden said:


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



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

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

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



DMcFadden said:


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



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

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


----------



## tcalbrecht

servantofmosthigh said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-paedobaptists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a symmantical matter, but we credo-baptists like to be referred to what we stand FOR (confessional and creedal). I'm sure our pedobaptists also like to be called "pedobaptists" for what they stand FOR (infant baptism). Putting the "anti" in front of a word can create unnecessary emotional heat and friction that can detract from the main issue of the debate itself (e.g. a credobaptist calling someone an anti-credobaptist, or a pedobaptist calling someone an anti-pedobaptist).
> 
> Just using the term "anti" as a prefix to any word can be unnecessarily explosive against the group of people or organization that the word describes. It's a form of name-calling that often can generate childishness by the person saying it or by those reacting against it.
> 
> OK, back to our healthy discussion...
Click to expand...


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

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


----------



## tcalbrecht

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Tom, I have absolutely no problem with a paedobaptist holding to his convictions about baptism, without apology. I do the same. I have no problem that you think we are in error. Guess what? I think paedobaptists are in error. Do I think your error rises to the level of heresy? No. If I look at the WCF as one expression of doctrinal thought, I give God the glory for its framers. Baptists and Presbyterians are like minded on many points of doctrine. Our areas of unity outshine our disagreements. In fact, they should prove the orthodoxy of our beliefs, even if we disagree on baptism.
> 
> *You can try all you want to pin the Anabaptist label on confessional Baptists and I will smack that charge down every time.* I can happily participate on the PB knowing the stark differences I have with my Presbyterian brethren (and yes, I call them _brethren_) on baptism. I don't know the "some" you mention in your post but most Baptists on this board hold their Presbyterian brethren in the highest esteem. We believe the majority of the Presbyterians on this board reciprocate.



Bill,

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

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

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

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


----------



## Herald

Tom,

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

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


----------



## Hippo

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

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


----------



## Herald

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



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


----------



## Herald

Hippo said:


> Do Baptists therefore believe that members of paedobaptist churches are not part of the visible church, as surely baptism is a necessery entry requirement into such a church?
> 
> If so how can Baptists share fellowship (say on a bulletin board) with paedobaptists?



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


----------



## Hippo

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do Baptists therefore believe that members of paedobaptist churches are not part of the visible church, as surely baptism is a necessery entry requirement into such a church?
> 
> If so how can Baptists share fellowship (say on a bulletin board) with paedobaptists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike, the only issue that confessional Baptists have with paeobaptists is the disposition of children, not those who profess faith. If you are a member of a true church and profess faith in Jesus Christ, confessional Baptists would consider you a member of the visible church regardless of how you were baptized.
Click to expand...



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


----------



## Herald

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


----------



## Hippo

North Jersey Baptist said:


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



But would withold communion from such presbyterians?


----------



## DMcFadden

Mike,

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


----------



## tcalbrecht

North Jersey Baptist said:


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



Bill,

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

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



North Jersey Baptist said:


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



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

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


----------



## Herald

Mike,

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

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


----------



## Herald

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



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

All this makes me wonder what your point is.


----------



## tcalbrecht

North Jersey Baptist said:


> All this makes me wonder what your point is.



I can see that.


----------



## Pilgrim

Hippo said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do Baptists therefore believe that members of paedobaptist churches are not part of the visible church, as surely baptism is a necessery entry requirement into such a church?
> 
> If so how can Baptists share fellowship (say on a bulletin board) with paedobaptists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike, the only issue that confessional Baptists have with paeobaptists is the disposition of children, not those who profess faith. If you are a member of a true church and profess faith in Jesus Christ, confessional Baptists would consider you a member of the visible church regardless of how you were baptized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for this, I still find it difficult to see how a church that does not (in your view) baptise is in fact a true church, however it would be disengenuous to argue that you should not take a position that I agree with just because I find it to possibly be inconsistent.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## MW

Pilgrim said:


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



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


----------



## Pilgrim

armourbearer said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are people on this board who don't view Baptist churches as being "true churches" either and wouldn't allow Baptists to come to the table.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The last time this was argued out it became apparent that they are a very small minority and not representative of the general Presbyterian tradition.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## MW

Pilgrim said:


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



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


----------



## Pilgrim

armourbearer said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is true about the Presbyterian tradition. What I had in mind was moreso the continental Reformed tradition, which I understand tends to be more restrictive in this area and unlike most Presbyterian churches, have confessional membership, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be interested to hear from brethren in (Dutch) Reformed churches to see if there is much difference.
Click to expand...


I would too. It is possible that I may not be remembering previous interactions accurately and/or that the views expressed may not have been representative of that tradition as a whole.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pilgrim said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are people on this board who don't view Baptist churches as being "true churches" either and wouldn't allow Baptists to come to the table.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The last time this was argued out it became apparent that they are a very small minority and not representative of the general Presbyterian tradition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is true about the Presbyterian tradition. What I had in mind was moreso the continental Reformed tradition, which I understand tends to be more restrictive in this area and unlike most Presbyterian churches, have confessional membership, etc.
Click to expand...


I've noticed the same thing. It's interesting to me what the Presbyterians seem to be more "serious" about (at least in terms of discussion here) than the Dutch Reformed and vice versa. Usually its Presbyterians who are the sole champions for certain RPW things but then Dutch Reformed tend to make us look like we're softees when it comes to Baptism.


----------



## Pilgrim

Semper Fidelis said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last time this was argued out it became apparent that they are a very small minority and not representative of the general Presbyterian tradition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is true about the Presbyterian tradition. What I had in mind was moreso the continental Reformed tradition, which I understand tends to be more restrictive in this area and unlike most Presbyterian churches, have confessional membership, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed the same thing. It's interesting to me what the Presbyterians seem to be more "serious" about (at least in terms of discussion here) than the Dutch Reformed and vice versa. Usually its Presbyterians who are the sole champions for certain RPW things but then Dutch Reformed tend to make us look like we're softees when it comes to Baptism.
Click to expand...


I haven't studied the issue much but I've seen it argued that this is perhaps in part explained by the historical circumstances around the time of the English Civil War.


----------



## tcalbrecht

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I believe the Federal Vision is Heresy. What do you think Tom? Or would you rather just call it error?



Is this the post?

Anyway, since the Federal Vision controversy is contemporary, how 'bout we use something a bit more 17th century.

The Canons of Dordt were written to specifically combat the heresy of Arminianism. I would contend that the legitimate errors of the Federal Vision are heresy in the same sense as Arminianism.

However, if you read Dordt they simply speak with language like "the Synod rejects the errors of those … ." I would speak similarly of the legitimate errors of FV.

I believe the Protestant Reformers saw the novelties of the (Ana)Baptists in much the same light, charging that such views were heresy in the sense that they deviated from the historic views of the Church on things like paedobaptism and immersionist baptism. 

A legitimate question might be, where do we draw the line of error -> heresy -> damnable heresy? I think we would agree that things like Unitarianism are damnable heresies. I might suggest the same is true of Pelagianism. What about Arminianism? Are all Arminians damnable heretics or just garden-variety heretics? What about dispensationalism?

I’m not trying to evade your question unless you are trying to box me into a corner.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

That is where I first posted a question? And Yes, I would like a specific answer I guess. 

Which do you consider to be a heresy that doesn't cling to a confession? The credo or the FV?

I agree that dispensationalism is outside and heresy and should be repented of. I do not believe it puts one completely outside of being redeemed. I believe that semi-pelagianism is the same. It should be repented of. I also believe the FV should be repented of. What thinkest thou? What are the legitimate errors of the FV in your thinking Tom. I specifically mentioned the efficacy of Baptism since that was the topic in this thread. Should the FV's doctrine concerning the efficacy of Baptism be repented of?

I guess we need a doctrine of heresy. One which notices variant levels of degree and teaching. But I think that tends to confuse issues somewhat when the word is used alone.


----------



## tcalbrecht

PuritanCovenanter said:


> That is where I first posted a question? And Yes, I would like a specific answer I guess.



I’d prefer the discussion in some other context besides Federal Vision.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> Which do you consider to be a heresy that doesn't cling to a confession? The credo or the FV?



But if you insist …

To my knowledge, no self-identified Federal Visionist has been judged out of accord with a Confession in the area of baptismal efficacy by any church court. While the LBCF is an acceptable creed as far as membership in this board, it is not a confession what I can maintain as orthodox on all counts. And while a Federal Visionist may at some point be unwelcome from teaching their view on baptism in a Westminster church, so would every adherent to the LBCF for the same reason.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> I agree that dispensationalism is outside and heresy and should be repented of. I do not believe it puts one completely outside of being redeemed. I believe that semi-pelagianism is the same. It should be repented of. I also believe the FV should be repented of. What thinkest thou? What are the legitimate errors of the FV in your thinking Tom. I specifically mentioned the efficacy of Baptism since that was the topic in this thread. Should the FV's doctrine concerning the efficacy of Baptism be repented of?



I do not claim to be expert in the matter of Federal Vision, that is why I switched to speak of Arminianism. Whether the anti-FV folks have correctly characterized the FV on the matter of baptismal efficacy is the subject of some debate. It seems to me that the views of many of those identified with FV are closer to the claims of Westminster on the matter of baptism than those who hold to the LBCF. In addition, if the FV-types who are in disagreement with Westminster came along and modified the Westminster Confession to support their novel views, they would be in a similar position to the framers of the LBCF in their day.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> I guess we need a doctrine of heresy. One which notices variant levels of degree and teaching. But I think that tends to confuse issues somewhat when the word is used alone.



I agree, but others here do not, saying that damnable heresy is redundant.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Lane "Yoda" Baggins made an interesting point in a recent interview that Reformed Churches will likely get along a lot better with the FV when they're not in our Presbyteries or Synods insisting that they are Confessional and trying to re-work Reformed theology from within Reformed bodies. I obviously have serious problems with their views of Covenant and how one is united to Christ but once they're outside of Reformed Churches then it will be less problematic.

But, once they stop calling themselves Reformed, their views on what baptism confers are really not much different than the Anglican or Lutheran views. I believe it is error but the more serious error of the FV is, as noted, a view of justification that tries to shoehorn sanctification into its definition. Obedience is equated with trust and it is no longer a laying hold of Christ and His righteousness alone as instrumental to our justification.

Of course, with any theology, it is sort of impossible to separate one error from another and the baptismal view cannot be fully divorced from their view of justification.


----------



## DMcFadden

Unless we are two-faced, weak willed, Barney Fife types, we all think that our views are 100% correct, which definitionally makes anything else an "error" from our perspective. So whether we are talking about baptism, eschatological schema, polity, the atonement, justification, or the deity of Christ, whoever does not agree with us will be an errorist.

I'm actually learning to appreciate Tom's strong defense of truth in the face of all comers. However, at some point, it seems to me that there needs to be a hierarchy of hills on which one would chose to die. The deity of Christ, substitutionary atonement, justification by faith, inerrancy of the Bible, etc. are all hills that would make wonderful graveyards for me (in my opinion). 

However, as much as you guys want to make baptism integral to your system, that is just not a hill worth dying on for me (yet anyway). Today, on the plane from L.A. to get to Arkansas, I read Waldron's rejoinder to MacArthur's "manifesto" at last year's Shepherd's Conference and part of Riddlebarger's "Case for Amillennialism." Yes, they are convincing and quite persuasive. Both of them argue for the amil view on the basis of Reformed covenantal arguments. Both are Calvinists. However, one is credo and one is paedo. 

I think Rich is onto something. When you have the FV "outside the camp" as it were, you can treat them as brothers in error. When they are professing to be what you are, it is more problematical. Unfortunately, the Puritans (from whence our name, duh) hailed from the paedo and credo sides of the aisle. My guess is that as long as we both participate in this same board, we will continue to annoy the crud out of each other.


----------



## Herald

> My guess is that as long as we both participate in this same board, we will continue to annoy the crud out of each other.



You think?


----------

