# Credobaptist belief in only one baptism



## Particular Baptist (Apr 2, 2010)

One thing that I've been asking myself is: 

*Does a person who has been baptized by a confession of faith and by immersion need to be rebaptized later if they feel that their conversion took place later on in life? Does this baptism become un-baptism or no-baptism if the person is regenerated later on in life after the ordinance has been done?*

Personally, I believe that when I was baptized at age 16 I wasn't truly converted until I had been in college and then fell in love with the scriptures and desired a life of holiness that I hadn't desired before. The problem that bothered me at first when I came to this realization was whether I should be baptized again. After prayer and much reading, I don't believe that my baptism was undone by my conversion later on in life. I nowhere find that anyone who underwent a Trinitarian baptism was rebaptized. I could be mistaken, it's just that I've seen so many people who, when they believe that they've not experienced conversion until after their baptism they get rebaptized and rebaptized, which, in my opinion, diminishes the finality and the meaning of baptism. I've wrestled the baptism issue alot in the past as well, in regards to paedo and credo, and I still find myself in the credo camp but with a belief that a person should only be baptized once after a confession of faith.


----------



## Herald (Apr 2, 2010)

Baptism is a sign of the thing signified. Even if administered to an unbeliever, baptism still is that sign. If you came to faith in Christ after your baptism, that does not nullify the promise contained in baptism. It may have been improperly applied, based on finite knowledge, but it does not need to be reapplied. Focus on the promise.


----------



## buggy (Apr 2, 2010)

Herald said:


> Baptism is a sign of the thing signified. Even if administered to an unbeliever, baptism still is that sign. If you came to faith in Christ after your baptism, that does not nullify the promise contained in baptism. It may have been imroperly applied, based on finite knowledge, but it does not need to be reapplied. Focus on the promise.


 
Is that a unified position among Reformed Baptists and is there confessional support? 
Erm, I may be devil's advocate here, but if baptism carries the promise, even if not properly applied, then won't that be a case for paedobaptism? Because none of us know whether the infant will grow up to profess faith in Christ or reject Him... that's God's bidding...

(Lol, I don't believe in infant baptism but I'm just asking. )


----------



## Herald (Apr 2, 2010)

buggy said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > Baptism is a sign of the thing signified. Even if administered to an unbeliever, baptism still is that sign. If you came to faith in Christ after your baptism, that does not nullify the promise contained in baptism. It may have been imroperly applied, based on finite knowledge, but it does not need to be reapplied. Focus on the promise.
> ...



LTL,

No. It does make a case for paedobaptism. Baptism is a _sign _of the promise. The promise is contained in the Gospel, based on what Christ accomplished through His death and resurrection. Baptism is an illustration of that promise. When a new believer is baptized they are applying the sign to the body through water, but the promise itself was applied through regeneration when they were sealed with by the Spirit of God. That is why baptism does not need to be re-applied. With our lack of perfect knowledge we do not know if a person was saved or unsaved when they were baptized. If they announce years later that they think they weren't saved and want to be re-baptized, I would counsel them against it. I suppose some pastors or elders may administer baptism again if they felt the conscience of the person requesting it was been tormented over the issue. Personally, I would not do so. 

As far as the 1689 LBC, it does not address re-baptism. It provides a concise and detailed commentary on the significance of baptism.


----------



## White Knight (Apr 2, 2010)

Having been down this road myself fairly recently. I looked at it from a gnostic point of view. The more I learned, made me doubt all the more. How I could not have known this great truth or that great truth and been saved. Long story short, it only proved all the more that God's grace is great indeed. Anyway, I'm not an anabaptist.


----------



## rbcbob (Apr 2, 2010)

I think that there can be a biblical case made for baptizing someone who merely got wet on an earlier, mistaken supposition of conversion.

Acts 2:38 38 Then Peter said unto them, *Repent,* and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 19:3-5 3 And he said unto them, *Unto what then were ye baptized?* And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard this, *they were baptized* in the name of the Lord Jesus.

We have done so in our church, both because the one coming to the realization that that had not previously undergone believer's baptism in an act of conscious obedience to the NT command, as well as a desire to reinforce that only believer's baptism is biblical baptism.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 2, 2010)

Look what happens in Galatians 3 when you put verse 7 behind verse 29.

Galatians 3:26-29, 7 KJV
[26] For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
[27] For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
[29] And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
[7] Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

This seems to say that only those of faith are in covenant.

It seems to clearly teach also that only those who have come to faith are baptized. Would that not mean that you should be baptized after you are sure you have come to faith regardless of what your background is?

It seems if one really believes tht baptism only happens after one has come to faith then whatever may have happened before regardless of ritual was not indeed baptism because baptism seems to be an outward sing on an inward state of the heart. It is a personal and public sign of a real commitment to live for Christ under this formula. It seems to be an intimate agreement between God and the person being baptized.


----------



## JumpingUpandDown (Apr 2, 2010)

> Baptism is a sign of the thing signified. Even if administered to an unbeliever, baptism still is that sign. If you came to faith in Christ after your baptism, that does not nullify the promise contained in baptism. It may have been improperly applied, based on finite knowledge, but it does not need to be reapplied. Focus on the promise.



Bill, Thanks so much for your response! I've also wondered about this for a long time. To me it seems like a pretty strong argument for paedobaptism so I'm surprised to see you take this stand. I made a profession (at least said the magic prayer) when I was 5 and was baptized then, but when I look back on my life I think I would place actual regeneration within the last two years. 
The first Reformed Baptist church we attended took the position that my first baptism probably is not valid, but I don't feel that being re-baptized is an option.


----------



## Herald (Apr 2, 2010)

Brother Bob,

Interesting point to consider. The only wrinkle in the John 19 example is that that their initial baptism was not trinitarian in nature. Had it been trinitarian I don't think they would have baptized in Acts 19.


----------



## dudley (Apr 2, 2010)

rbcbob said:


> I think that there can be a biblical case made for baptizing someone who merely got wet on an earlier, mistaken supposition of conversion.
> 
> Acts 2:38 38 Then Peter said unto them, *Repent,* and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
> 
> ...



I think individual circumstances should merit consideration. I am now a Reformed Protestant and a Presbyterian. However I was baptized by immersion in a Reformed Baptist church on Reformation Sunday. October 25th, 2009. I had left the Roman catholic church in 2006. I was an Episcopalian for a while and then made an affirmation of faith as a Presbyterian in 2007. My Presbyterian congregation and session accepted my rc baptism. However about a year ago I began to question the validity of my rc baptism for the following reasons. 

RC in their baptism do not communicate the covenant promises and therefore it is just an outward act or ritual, which has no meaning. Therefore it is not valid. 

I believe that Roman Catholicism is an antichristian system that uses biblical words filled with false meaning. Although Rome says she agrees with the old creeds of Christianity she adds unbiblical ideas to it.

Baptism is a sacrament/ordinance of the Church. I believe The RCC is not a church. Therefore, their baptism is not valid. 

I asked to be baptized as a Protestant in the Presbyterian church. I had been a communing Presbyterian for over 2 years. My congregation elders presented my request to the session but they also declined my request saying they accepted my rc baptism. I joined a Reformed Baptist congregation last summer and was baptized by immersion on this past reformation Sunday, October 25th 2009. I also was then welcomed to the ordinance of the Lords Supper later in the service the same day.

In December I returned to the Presbyterian church I accept as my primary confession the Westmister Confession of faith but I also accept the LBC now.


----------



## Iconoclast (Apr 2, 2010)

Sometimes someone can have an over active conscience. Each period of growth in grace may seem as if they were recently converted. A discerning elder may be helpful to discover what is taking place with the person.
If someone is certain they were not a believer when they were baptized, then it was not really believer's baptism. If that is the case then God converts them and they desire baptism that would be fine.
It is not unbelievers baptism, but believers baptism. 
Some over eager baptist parents want to baptize small children the first time they say the name Jesus. Then during the teen years, or perhaps college time that same child shows they were not saving united to Christ.They cast off that false ,fleshly confession and drift off as prodigal's.


----------



## lynnie (Apr 2, 2010)

Dudley, I don't think there was anything that bothered me in the PCA like the acceptance of RCC baptisms, even when a person wasn't comfortable with it and wanted to be rebaptized as a believer.

_RC in their baptism do not communicate the covenant promises and therefore it is just an outward act or ritual, which has no meaning. Therefore it is not valid. 

I believe that Roman Catholicism is an antichristian system that uses biblical words filled with false meaning. Although Rome says she agrees with the old creeds of Christianity she adds unbiblical ideas to it.

Baptism is a sacrament/ordinance of the Church. I believe The RCC is not a church. Therefore, their baptism is not valid. _

RCC #1213 Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."

Its like saying taking their mass is just fine, even if what they really believe about what is happening is the error of transubstantiation. So how is their baptism just fine, if what is happening is supposedly regeneration?

Creeps me out. Me and half my PCA Sunday School Class when this one came up. Our pastor did his best but I doubt most of us were convinced.


----------



## dudley (Apr 2, 2010)

Lynnie,

Thank you for your support and understanding.


----------



## student ad x (Apr 2, 2010)

Nevermind - debate forum .......... my apologies


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 3, 2010)

I think I would consider the situation and the advice on an Elder should be sought out. 

Sometimes a faith is weak but it is still faith. One should consider why they were baptized in the first place. I explain my true baptism and why my first dunking was no baptism at all in an older post. I link to it below. 


Here is John Tombes Catachism question 34. He was not a particular Baptist but he was a credo Puritan. 



> Question 34 of Tombes Short Catechism about Baptism.
> 
> * What is the chief end of Baptism?*
> 
> _To testifie the Repentance, Faith, Hope, Love, and Resolution of the Baptized to follow Christ, Gal. 3.27. Rom. 6.3,4. 1 Cor. 15.29. calling upon the Name of the Lord, Acts 22.16._



Here is a link where I explained my thoughts concerning my re-baptism.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/transfer-members-what-baptism-do-you-accept-20242/#post254445

I would have added a bit more to the answer as to testifying of a persons being in union with Christ in his death, buria,l and resurrection by faith alone, in Christ alone, by Grace alone. 


By the way you can purchase John Tombes book by Mike Renihan again. Some copies have resurfaced. I have a blog on Genesis 17 that is copied from the book here. 
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/john-tombes-genesis-17-7-71/

This is a very good price also. 

SGCB | Book Search

This is a very important work in my opinion. One of the best books on the topic.


----------



## lynnie (Apr 3, 2010)

PurCove, I read your link and the (official Presbyterian position) response to you. I'd be with you. I might be wrong, but here is what I just don't understand.

I thought the entire point of paedo baptism is covenantal theology. It is all about the promises of God to children of believers. Reformed doctrine is covenantal theology.

So if a baby has two RCC parents who are not believers, not saved....well, where exactly is the faith of the parents and the promise and the covenant? It isn't there. So saying "father, son and holy ghost" is like the magic words that somehow make the baby in the covenant people?

If you told me that your parents got born again in the RCC and knew and walked with the Lord ( many of them did, I knew quite a few that got marvelously saved during the catholic charismatic renewal, but they all eventually came out), and you told me that your born again believeing parents had you baptized as a baby, and you were not sure if you need to be rebaptized, then I could with a clear conscience take the paedo position and say that your parents were Christians, in the covenant, and you are already baptized. This is fully in line with covenant theology, even if the parents still attended in the RCC at the time, or still do. Plenty of catholics are saved.

But if your parents were not saved, I just don't get the Presbyterian position. How do covenant promises apply to a baby whose parents are heathen, even if you say the trinitarian formula over the baby? 

My husband went through this years ago and decided to get rebaptized even though his parents had him baptized as a baby in the liberal Lutheran church. He did not believe either parent knew the Lord, and neither parent was part of the covenant people. I certainly won't put Lutherans in the same boat as the RCC, and I don't know if he was right or wrong ( over 35 years ago and before he went to WTS), but the point is......


Isn't infant baptism related to the parents being in covenant with God? Not saying three magic words? So if the parents are not saved, I just don't get it.

I know this is confessional board and I am not trying to say I am right here, but I would sure like to understand why I am wrong if I am wrong. For all you Presbyterians out there, the PCA is full of people like me who just don't get it.


----------



## Grace Alone (Apr 3, 2010)

Lynnie, many of us were baptized as infants in liberal mainline churches with unbelieving parents. We (my husband and I) have never been asked to be rebaptized because we were told that baptism relies on God's faithfulness and not that of the humans involved. I am satisfied with God's sovereign ability to plan the events of my life and that my baptism was valid from HIS point of view.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 3, 2010)

I have a feeling that paedo baptism is a leftover practice from the idea of baptismal regeneration. I don't know who is at fault for that, but that is the only way it is really consistant. The way I am starting to see it is that for calvinistic soterilogy to be consistant believers baptism is the only way. Macarthur brought that point up in his debate against Sproul.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 3, 2010)

DD2009 said:


> I have a feeling that paedo baptism is a leftover practice from the idea of baptismal regeneration. I don't know who is at fault for that, but that is the only way it is really consistant. The way I am starting to see it is that for calvinistic soterilogy to be consistant believers baptism is the only way. Macarthur brought that point up in his debate against Sproul.


 
That may be the way you "feel," David, but that is completely wrong. You know full well that no Reformed paedo holds to anything close to baptismal regeneration. The Reformed practice (e.g., in Geneva) was radically different from the Roman Catholic practice of the day, which involved not only baptismal regeneration, but blessing of the water, exorcism of the child, the admittance of godparents, private services, etc. In fact, there is one case in the records of Geneva during the time of Calvin where a father was disciplined for whisking away his child in secrecy to another (Roman Catholic) city for a baptism; although the child had received a Reformed baptism in Geneva, he did not "feel" it was valid precisely because it was so radically different, and wanted to cover his bases by getting the child baptized in the RC manner instead.

The only similarities I see between Roman Catholic infant baptism and Reformed infant baptism are the use of water and the subjects. But the same could be said for Mormons (or insert your favorite cult) and Baptists, since both of those groups use water and baptize adults only. But that would be a dumb argument on my part -- similarity does not imply "sameness," and it is a logical fallacy to insist that it does.

I would encourage you to read the sections in Calvin's _Institutes_ on infant baptism, found in book 4. Most of the questions and concerns you have expressed have been dealt with long ago. You may not find the answers satisfactory, but it should be comforting to know that the questions have been raised and dealt with by men far wiser than you or I.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 3, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> > I have a feeling that paedo baptism is a leftover practice from the idea of baptismal regeneration. I don't know who is at fault for that, but that is the only way it is really consistant. The way I am starting to see it is that for calvinistic soterilogy to be consistant believers baptism is the only way. Macarthur brought that point up in his debate against Sproul.
> ...


 
That was one of the arguments that John Macarthur presented against Sproul, that the reformation wasn't completed until people were consistant with their soteriology and got rid of the idea of paedo baptism. The way he presented it made a lot of sense.

Looking back at it we see that Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, all teach a form of baptismal regeneration. The Reformed/Presbyterian group is the only one that still does paedo baptism but does not teach baptismal regeneration. Macarthur claims this is because they simply didn't go far enough in reforming. He believes Calvin was in error here and should have been consistant regarding sola fide and baptism. I'll re-read Calvin on the matter and see if there is something Macarthir is missing. But he really did make a good point. Sproul didn't refute it. He seemed a bit surprised by the allegations really.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 3, 2010)

If that is what MacArthur actually said, then he is making a sweeping generalization. All of those groups do not view baptism the same way (e.g., there were multiple groups within the Anglican church historically -- Puritans being one of those groups, and they certainly did not hold to baptismal regeneration; the Anglo-Catholic group was a different matter), and all are not squarely in the "baptismal regeneration" camp. In some cases, if they hold to that today, it is because those groups (at least in their mainline form) have been eaten up with liberalism and will believe anything that gives comfort, no matter if it is false. Furthermore, they are not all "Reformed," which is part of the problem. That is in many ways MacArthur's problem too. He holds to the 5 solas/points and such, but he is not Reformed, and the Reformed Baptists on this board would tell you the same thing. He rejects covenant theology in favor of a dispensational model, and that colors the way he looks at things like the sacraments. It could be that Sproul was "surprised" because MacArthur was so "wrong" in his allegation. It sounds more like a "guilt by association" fallacy than anything else.

If we were to follow MacArthur's line of reasoning, one would have to say that to be "truly Reformed" one would have to be an dispensationalist!


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 3, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> If that is what MacArthur actually said, then he is making a sweeping generalization. All of those groups do not view baptism the same way (e.g., there were multiple groups within the Anglican church historically -- Puritans being one of those groups, and they certainly did not hold to baptismal regeneration; the Anglo-Catholic group was a different matter), and all are not squarely in the "baptismal regeneration" camp. In some cases, if they hold to that today, it is because those groups (at least in their mainline form) have been eaten up with liberalism and will believe anything that gives comfort, no matter if it is false. Furthermore, they are not all "Reformed," which is part of the problem. That is in many ways MacArthur's problem too. He holds to the 5 solas/points and such, but he is not Reformed, and the Reformed Baptists on this board would tell you the same thing. He rejects covenant theology in favor of a dispensational model, and that colors the way he looks at things like the sacraments. It could be that Sproul was "surprised" because MacArthur was so "wrong" in his allegation. It sounds more like a "guilt by association" fallacy than anything else.
> 
> If we were to follow MacArthur's line of reasoning, one would have to say that to be "truly Reformed" one would have to be an dispensationalist!


 
If you want to hear their debate let me know and I'll send it to you.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 3, 2010)

Sure thing. Send me a PM with the link. But keep in mind that anyone starting this debate from a non-covenantal perspective is starting from an non-Reformed position. At least RBs understand the importance of the covenant, even if we might disagree with the nature of the covenant.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 3, 2010)

Ok. I sent it. There are three links. I hope they work. I took them out of my email and out them in the PM.


----------



## lynnie (Apr 3, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> Sure thing. Send me a PM with the link. But keep in mind that anyone starting this debate from a non-covenantal perspective is starting from an non-Reformed position. At least RBs understand the importance of the covenant, even if we might disagree with the nature of the covenant.




Well yes, but hence my question. If parents are not in the covenant and therefore the infant baptism was not done in faith nor was the baby part of the visible covenant people, and now the adult wishes to be baptized and does not regard the RCC baptism as valid, why do Presbyterians forbid that? It seems like a disconnect with covenantal theology to me. I am not against paedo, I am against calling paedo baptism by non believers in the works righteousness of the RCC valid. Makes no sense but I'm open to understanding why I am wrong, if I am. I don't see how in light of Romans and matters of conscience, Dudley should have been forbidden baptism when his parents were not in the covenant, not was his church. How is that Reformed? How is that covenantal?


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 3, 2010)

Lynnie, I would think this would be somewhat akin to the Donatist controversy of the early church. The Donatists were schismatics who insisted that if a baptism (among other things) was conducted by a minister who had "betrayed" the faith in some way (such as turning over the Scriptures to the authorities during a time of persecution), this made the baptism invalid. Augustine answered the Donatists by insisting that the validity of baptism does not depend upon the personal character of the one who administers it. This has generally been the historical position of the Christian church since.

In our modern day, we would equate this to someone who discovered that his baptism (or marriage or whatever) was conducted by a minister who later apostatized from the faith. Does that make it invalid? No. The validity of the baptism does not ultimately come from man but from God. Yes, it should be performed by an ordained minister and, yes, it must be joined in faith by the one receiving it, but it is God who unites us to Christ through faith alone -- we do not unite ourselves.

Donatist-type thinking would lead to much second-guessing and defeat in the life of the Christian. We would not only be examining ourselves, but anyone else who was involved in the baptism. We would never be sure if the baptism was "proper" because we could never know the heart of the one performing it (or the heart of our parents), etc. Furthermore, it seems to be a distraction from Christ, who is our baptism and our assurance and the ground of our salvation.

This section from the ARP _Directory for Public Worshi_p might be helpful:



> In the administration of baptism, the emphasis is on God’s bringing people into covenant relationship with Himself. Baptism is not primarily a means through which one signifies a commitment to Christ. The baptism of children is not intended as a sign of
> their parents’ faith. Nor is it an act of dedication by the parents, giving up their child to God and seeking from God a blessing upon their child. All these things may accompany baptism, as our response to God. Nonetheless, the primary focus must be on God’s
> initiative to establish a covenant with His people: marking them as His own, assuring them of the truth of His promises, and calling them to covenant faithfulness.


----------



## lynnie (Apr 3, 2010)

_We would never be sure if the baptism was "proper" because we could never know the heart of the one performing it (or the heart of our parents)_

MM, I appreciate the reply. Certainly, if a child is baptized by parents in the covenant, God honors their faith and it doesn't really matter if the minister later turns out to be suspect or even heretical. 

But when a person has parents who clearly do not believe ( I can't tell you how many mass going RCCs I've met who are full blown heathens and don't believe any of it) or who throw a royal fit because junior has left the catholic church and all that jazz; the parents totally rejecting truth, well, I've known a lot of those juniors. They all got rebaptized. None of their parents were Christian. The parents were not in the covenant. It is obvious. Late teen/adult kids can tell when their parents are rejecting the gospel.

I was thinking about Edwards today. He was forced out of his church because he insisted that the sacrament of communion was for believers only. Sacraments are for the covenant people. Sure, you might not always know who is part of the invisible church or not, but if there is no evidence at all of conversion, Edwards was right to say no sacrament.

So if there is no evidence of salvation and faith in the parents, how can the PCA say the baptism is valid? This just makes no sense. Maybe back then a lot of believers were still in the RCC and so they wanted to assume the best? But today, if somebody is sure his parents are not saved, I just don't see how rebaptism can be denied. The parents were never in the covenant in the first place. If you allow sacraments without evidence of being in the covenant, you make the mistake of Edward's opponents. 

Maybe it should not happen quickly and the elders should go talk to the parents or something. But it seems like it ought to at least be an option. I don't speak just for myself; when this came up at PCA church there was significant resistance to the offical position in class. Just sayin. But thanks.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 3, 2010)

Lynnie, if you are only talking about RCs, that presents a slightly different problem, and it has to do with whether Rome is considered to be a true church. That is not the same thing as saying there are no Christians who are RCs (there are; I know of at least one person who came to faith in Christ in a RCC -- witnessed to by a little old nun no less -- but she left the RCC as soon as she could, and she is PCA today interesting enough), but whether they are capable of administering a valid sacrament to begin with. This is a different question than dealing with the "faith" of the parents. I believe I once read an article by Ligon Duncan who stated they handle this on a case by case basis at First Pres Jackson. The final decision is left to the Session, but if the person does not believe the Roman one to be valid, they will readminister. Remember, this issue was a big deal in the 19th century in the Northern and Southern Presbyterian churches, with Charles Hodge and James Thornwell takikng opposite sides.

My point, though, is that we must not view the validity of our baptism as depending on someone else. It is God who initiates the covenant. We must, of course, be joined by faith in Christ. The situation I do not want happening is having a parent present a child for baptism, that parent later apostizing in some way, and then the child (who later professes faith in Christ publicly) question his own salvation because of the unfaithfulness of the parent.

Also, I don't remember that being the reason Jonathan Edwards was forced out of Northampton. The issues of the halfway covenant were mostly settled by that time. The issue that got him removed was his calling out parents for lack of discipline of their children from the pulpit (I believe two boys had gotten ahold of a midwife's book and caused quite a stir). Of course, there were probably those who still harbored resented Edwards because of the halfway covenant issues.


----------



## Iconoclast (Apr 3, 2010)

lynnie said:


> _We would never be sure if the baptism was "proper" because we could never know the heart of the one performing it (or the heart of our parents)_
> 
> MM, I appreciate the reply. Certainly, if a child is baptized by parents in the covenant, God honors their faith and it doesn't really matter if the minister later turns out to be suspect or even heretical.
> 
> ...


 
It sounds a little bit like this:


> The Half-Way Covenant was a form of partial church membership created by New England in 1662. It was promoted in particular by the Reverend Solomon Stoddard, who felt that the people of the English colonies were drifting away from their original religious purpose. First-generation settlers were beginning to die out, while their children and grandchildren often expressed less religious piety, and more desire for material wealth.
> 
> Full membership in the tax-supported Puritan church required an account of a conversion experience, and only persons in full membership could have their own children baptized. Second and third generations, and later immigrants, did not have the same conversion experiences. These individuals were thus not accepted as members despite leading otherwise pious and upright Christian lives.
> 
> ...


----------



## lynnie (Apr 3, 2010)

MM...thanks.

_ I believe I once read an article by Ligon Duncan who stated they handle this on a case by case basis at First Pres Jackson. The final decision is left to the Session, but if the person does not believe the Roman one to be valid, they will readminister._


I really appreciate knowing about this. We had been led to think that the PCA always holds the RCC trinitarian baptism to be valid, and were not aware exceptions are made. Nice to know they would readminister. If you are paedo Covenantal theology, the parents' faith matters.

_ The situation I do not want happening is having a parent present a child for baptism, that parent later apostizing in some way, and then the child (who later professes faith in Christ publicly) question his own salvation because of the unfaithfulness of the parent._

hum......yeah. Complicated subject. 

_
Remember, this issue was a big deal in the 19th century in the Northern and Southern Presbyterian churches, with Charles Hodge and James Thornwell takikng opposite sides._

Don't know any of that history but sounds interesting.

Icono.....really nice quote. Thanks.


----------



## Grace Alone (Apr 3, 2010)

Lynnie, I do not believe that paedo-baptist reformed churches require rebaptism for membership if there is a question about whether the parents were really true believers. In fact, when we have joined churches, that question has never come up. They just ask if you have been baptized. I asked this question before and was told that the faith of the parent is not the issue. The baptism is "effective" because it is God's sign that the child is in the covenant community. We know that all who are in the visible church are not true believers. But for those infants who do eventually have faith, they do not have to be rebaptized based on whether the parents were believers or not.

Edited to add: I am not speaking of RCC. I am referring to protestant churches.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 3, 2010)

Lynnie, seconding what Janis said, I did not mean to insinuate that Reformed churches would rebaptize. The default practice is strictly no rebaptisms. The question comes in with regard to RC baptisms, regardless of the faith of the parents in those situations.

Here is a link to the Ligon Duncan article I mentioned (actually a sermon, or more properly the Q & A session with the congregation after a sermon). Here is the relevant section:



> Question: In my own family, my brother-in-law has recently become a Christian and we had this discussion, I guess about a month ago, and I have had it with several other people as well. So that is why I am seeing this. One of my friends is from the north and so they have come from Catholic families where they now recognize that neither their parents are believers nor probably was the priest who administered baptism to them. How do you respond to that?
> 
> Good question, and thank you for raising it. This question was raised last century especially and you need to understand that even under Old School Presbyterians there were two views. In the northern Presbyterian church, Charles Hodge argued that all Roman Catholic baptism ought to be accepted as legitimate Christian baptism. In the southern Presbyterian church, James Henley Thornwell argued that it should not be accepted as Christian baptism. And in the PCA, in order to avoid the controversy, we have left that up to local sessions, so we split the difference as usual. Basically what we said is, that we will leave that up to the local session to determine on a case-by-case basis.
> 
> ...


----------



## lynnie (Apr 3, 2010)

MM, what a fascinating post, thanks so much. That is what I love about the PB; so many people can find pertinent links for so many things. Very helpful. I'll go with Thornwell.

Well, I still think though, that to try and persuade people of paedo baptism based on covenantal theology, and then turn around and say that no faith in the parents isn't an issue, makes no sense, although I guess you can say that in retrospect God knew you would end up saved so he had your heathen parents get you baptized? Too tired to think but interesting subject, thanks.

Janis, this never came up in my PCA. Anybody I know who got rebaptized did it as a Baptist, like my husband who was a Lutheran baby. I never heard of anybody non RCC background in a paedoReformed church who wanted rebaptism. But I know of PCUSA congregations, where the doctrine is so straight from hell itself, that I could picture somebody thinking it was every bit as bad as the RCC. My PCA rebaptized a UPC guy (Pentecostals who deny the trinity). I could even see a Federal vision kid someday deciding that the FV was not a true church. I can see that this could get really complicated.


----------



## Grace Alone (Apr 3, 2010)

lynnie said:


> MM, what a fascinating post, thanks so much. That is what I love about the PB; so many people can find pertinent links for so many things. Very helpful. I'll go with Thornwell.
> 
> Well, I still think though, that to try and persuade people of paedo baptism based on covenantal theology, and then turn around and say that no faith in the parents isn't an issue, makes no sense, although I guess you can say that in retrospect God knew you would end up saved so he had your heathen parents get you baptized? Too tired to think but interesting subject, thanks.
> 
> Janis, this never came up in my PCA. Anybody I know who got rebaptized did it as a Baptist, like my husband who was a Lutheran baby. I never heard of anybody non RCC background in a paedoReformed church who wanted rebaptism. But I know of PCUSA congregations, where the doctrine is so straight from hell itself, that I could picture somebody thinking it was every bit as bad as the RCC. My PCA rebaptized a UPC guy (Pentecostals who deny the trinity). I could even see a Federal vision kid someday deciding that the FV was not a true church. I can see that this could get really complicated.



Lol! Yes, it could get complicated! I have been thinking about this the whole time in light of my own experience being baptized in a Methodist church. But it is also true that our first two children were baptized in the PCUSA while we were still spiritually blind. In fact, who knows if there were any Christians present including the ministers?! But no one has suggested that they be rebaptized other than the Calvinist Baptist pastor of our daughter's church.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 4, 2010)

One thought here since it has been touched on. I use to say the same thing John MacArthur use to say about Presbyterians not reforming enough. The Reformed Presbyterian view of paedo Baptism is thoroughly reformed in thought and so far away from Roman Catholicism and the early Churches doctrine of necessity that I don't see how it can't be reformed enough. I do think it is unbiblical via who is baptized in scripture and who we are commanded to baptize. I also believe the Credo Only position is the correct one based upon Covenant Theology and who is a member in the Covenant of Grace. And we can discuss this till we are blue in the face. After all, it does say go and baptize making disciples. Just a side note.... *It doesn't say make disciples first and baptize them in Matthew 28*. Believe me. I know the arguments. At the same time, I am solidly a Credo only Baptist. You can find this out reading my blog. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/

I am not sure it is problem of Reforming enough. That is all I am saying. I tend to think it is more of hermeneutically understanding the Bible correctly. Charges of not Reforming Enough just clouds the issue and sounds like ad-hominem. Just my humble opinion.

BTW, I am not a fan of John MacArthur. He gets too many other issues wrong from a Covenantal perspective and our Baptism is based upon our Covenantal understanding of Union in Christ.


----------



## lynnie (Apr 4, 2010)

_But it is also true that our first two children were baptized in the PCUSA while we were still spiritually blind. In fact, who knows if there were any Christians present including the ministers?! But no one has suggested that they be rebaptized other than the Calvinist Baptist pastor of our daughter's church.  _

I was thinking about all this last night falling asleep- yeah I must be crazy - and about the discussion above of RCC baptisms. I was thinking about the liberal Anglicans Lloyd-Jones had to deal with, who baptized babies, and also denied the virgin birth, miracles, atonement, and resurrection. At least the RCCs believe in all of that even if they add a whole lot of extras to their gospel. So if you think a RCC baptism is not valid, how can a liberal mainline denomination baptism be valid when they are even less of a true church than the RCC ( if the parents have no faith) ? 

I think I'll leave this discussion to better minds than my own, plenty of them out there. Thanks for all the interesting discussion and history though.


----------



## dudley (Apr 4, 2010)

*sprlling*

Pastor Tim, I thank you for the post above and agree with you on the post *"We have recently had some converted Roman Catholics join at First Pres, who strongly felt that on a theological basis that they had not received Christian baptism and they wanted to receive baptism in the Presbyterian church and on that basis, the session honored that particular request." * Pastor Tim, that is exactly why I requested to be Baptised as a Protestant in the Presbyterian church under true covenant theology and faith. I said I think individual circumstances should merit consideration. My request was denied so that is why I was baptsed in the Baptst church on Reformation Sunday last October. As I said above I am a Presbyterian and believe in peado baptism as long as it is performed under true covenant thology.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 5, 2010)

Herald said:


> Brother Bob,
> 
> Interesting point to consider. The only wrinkle in the John 19 example is that that their initial baptism was not trinitarian in nature. Had it been trinitarian I don't think they would have baptized in Acts 19.



On Acts 19, I think it is interesting to bear in mind the comments of John Gill:


> Ver. 5. When they heard this, etc.] That is, the people to whom John preached, his hearers; when they heard of the Messiah, and that Jesus was he, and that it became them to believe in him: they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; not the disciples that Paul found at Ephesus, but the hearers of John; for these are the words of the Apostle Paul, giving an account of John’s baptism, and of the success of his ministry, showing, that his baptism was administered in the name of the Lord Jesus; and not the words of Luke the Evangelist, recording what followed upon his account of John’s baptism; for then he would have made mention of the apostle’s name, as he does in the next verse; and have said, when they heard this account, they were baptized by Paul in the name of the Lord Jesus: the historian reports two things, first what Paul said, which lies in (Acts 19:4,5) then what he did, (Acts 19:6) where he repeats his name, as was necessary; as that he laid his hands upon them, which was all that was needful to their receiving the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, having been already baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus: which sense is the more confirmed by the particles men and de, which answer to one another in verses 4 and 5, and show the words to be a continuation of the apostle’s speech, and not the words of the historian, which begin in the next verse. Beza’s ancient copy adds, “for the remission of sins”.



In other words, whether you see a rebaptism in Acts 19 or not is dependent on where you close the quotation. And that is not a position dictated by dogmatic presuppositions, for the credo-Baptist Gill does not see a rebaptism.


----------



## Particular Baptist (Apr 5, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> If that is what MacArthur actually said, then he is making a sweeping generalization. All of those groups do not view baptism the same way (e.g., there were multiple groups within the Anglican church historically -- Puritans being one of those groups, and they certainly did not hold to baptismal regeneration; the Anglo-Catholic group was a different matter), and all are not squarely in the "baptismal regeneration" camp. In some cases, if they hold to that today, it is because those groups (at least in their mainline form) have been eaten up with liberalism and will believe anything that gives comfort, no matter if it is false. Furthermore, they are not all "Reformed," which is part of the problem. That is in many ways MacArthur's problem too. He holds to the 5 solas/points and such, but he is not Reformed, and the Reformed Baptists on this board would tell you the same thing. He rejects covenant theology in favor of a dispensational model, and that colors the way he looks at things like the sacraments. It could be that Sproul was "surprised" because MacArthur was so "wrong" in his allegation. It sounds more like a "guilt by association" fallacy than anything else.
> 
> If we were to follow MacArthur's line of reasoning, one would have to say that to be "truly Reformed" one would have to be an dispensationalist!



First of all, Tim, you must understand that you’re view of baptism did not find definition until the 1500s. Infant baptism was always practiced with the idea of baptismal regeneration in mind. I think that it is no coincidence that the man that helped to spark the Reformation, St. Augustine, both in the lives of Luther and Calvin, also held to infant baptism and baptismal regeneration. Those who point out the error of Tertullian, who also believed in baptismal regeneration though thought it should be done later in life, fail to point out the fact that Origen, who held to infant baptism, also believed in baptismal regeneration. You’re definition of the effects of infant baptism did not come till Zwingli in the 1500s and later Calvin. So, you are correct that the Puritans didn’t hold to baptismal regeneration, but that doesn’t take away what MacArthur stated and simply seeks to take the argument elsewhere. While we can see how the Puritans viewed infant baptism, we can also see how infant baptism came about and whether those who practiced it earliest believed in baptismal regeneration. 
Second of all, you’re utter carelessness in regards to MacArthur’s theology is deplorable. I know that many of you on here disagree with MacArthur on many issues, as do I, but to say that he cannot know what a ‘Reformed’ believer ,as yourself, would believe or in what context your understandings of infant baptism were formed. I get VERY tired of many on this bored who just lambast this man just because he holds a different view of eschatology than us, or because of how he views Israel in relationship to the church. To attack this as something which would bar him from discussing baptism with a ‘Reformed’ paedobaptist brother is simply weak and saddening. MacArthur rejects infant baptism because it is NO WHERE to be found in the Bible. You will NEVER find it in the Bible. He brilliantly states that it’s one thing to have disagreements over things that are found in scripture but quite another to have them over things which are nowhere to be found. He also vividly illustrates that baptism and circumcision do not mean the same thing. Just do a search through the Bible of every time that circumcision is used and you will find that it signifies depravity and a need for cleansing and purity. Baptism signifies a believers union with Christ, repentance, and a washing away of that depravity. They are two totally different signs. 
I’m not sure if MacArthur discussed this, but can you tell me why Melchizadek was never circumcised? A man who is probably the closest representation of Christ, both a priest and a King (in Jerusalem) whom Abraham gives a tenth of all he has, isn’t circumcised, does this mean that he is not to be incorporated into the Abrahamic Covenant? If circumcision was a seal of the Covenant of Grace why wasn’t it given to other believers such as Melchizadek, Lot, and Shem, who was still alive at this time? 
Also, how can you say that Gen. 17 is the Covenant of Grace with circumcision, then simply change the sign with baptism and change those who receive the sign and the time when the receive the sign. The covenant of circumcision is an everlasting covenant, you cannot change the sign but keep the substance, you cannot pick and choose which you will take from this chapter and which you will insert then paste in and then take out.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 5, 2010)

Particular Baptist said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> > If that is what MacArthur actually said, then he is making a sweeping generalization. All of those groups do not view baptism the same way (e.g., there were multiple groups within the Anglican church historically -- Puritans being one of those groups, and they certainly did not hold to baptismal regeneration; the Anglo-Catholic group was a different matter), and all are not squarely in the "baptismal regeneration" camp. In some cases, if they hold to that today, it is because those groups (at least in their mainline form) have been eaten up with liberalism and will believe anything that gives comfort, no matter if it is false. Furthermore, they are not all "Reformed," which is part of the problem. That is in many ways MacArthur's problem too. He holds to the 5 solas/points and such, but he is not Reformed, and the Reformed Baptists on this board would tell you the same thing. He rejects covenant theology in favor of a dispensational model, and that colors the way he looks at things like the sacraments. It could be that Sproul was "surprised" because MacArthur was so "wrong" in his allegation. It sounds more like a "guilt by association" fallacy than anything else.
> ...


 
Spencer, a few things to note. First, I would appreciate watching your tone when you speak with someone who is a pastor. I shall not cry "offense" in this case, but the tone in your post above is less than respectful. If you think I'm being disrespectful of John MacArthur, let me assure you that I think him to be a fine Christian pastor, a faithful man who is simply wrong in his view of the covenant. In fact, on another thread I commented that his book _The Gospel According to Jesus_ was one of the first I read as a new Christian and had a tremendous impact on my life. I am also hoping to see him at the Together for the Gospel conference later this month. I have no problem with him being associated with the Reformed camp, nor do I think him ignorant of Reformed theology (a very disingenuous reading of what I posted in its own right). Furthermore, if we are talking about history, you would have to at least consider your own views as being somewhat of an historical novelty itself. The question, of course, is not whether they were practiced, but whether they are biblical.

To say that something is not mentioned in Scripture, therefore it is to be excluded, presents many problems and is a bad hermeneutic. By that account, women cannot come to the Lord's Supper, since it's not mentioned anywhere. By that account, Timothy was never baptized in the book of Acts (since it's not mentioned anywhere), although his circumcision is recorded. The Reformed hermeneutic, at least from a Westminsterian standard is this: "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, _or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture_." Now, you may disagree about the good and necessary consequence part, but that is a different matter. To simply say it doesn't appear therefore it may be discarded is bad exegesis, and the history of the church itself is against you in the matter.

If you have specific questions about covenant theology, I would suggest you start a thread on that matter, as the questions you ask at the end are somewhat off topic. Also, there is a recent PB thread dealing with recommendations of books on covenant theology; I would encourage you to read that as well if you have questions on the matter. For example, to the best of my knowledge, the relationship between circumcision and baptism is not really a point of disagreement between Baptists and Presbyterians (judging by some of the statements I've read from Reformed-minded Baptists); it's the application of the sign, etc. where the difference lies.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 5, 2010)

Good grief, Spence. You might as well say that your own theological definition of baptism doesn't get any bona fide historical traction until the anabaptist era, the same century!

The trail of blood, or any version thereof of baptist history, is complete bunkum. So guess what? Both sides end up having to face the fact that we have to deal with a common church history that messes up the theology of baptism early in the life of the NT church. For you to say that IB was "always" practiced with BR in mind only poisons the well of the extra-biblical record. That's why we all go back to the Bible for our definitions and practical defenses.

At least for the specific history of the Reformed view, you should acquaint yourself with Hughes Oliphant Old's _The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite in the Sixteenth Century,_ rather than as it seems from your post, simply imbibing a view of the relevant history from those who dissent.

"We can see how [it] came about." No, actually you can interpret the remains and the records to favor your position, and so can the other side. Because I can see how YOUR baptismal theology "came about," does that make it wrong? Of course not, and you shouldn't use a form of argument that you aren't prepared to put up with against your own side.

MacArthur actually stated a few years ago that if Calvin had reformed properly he would have been Dispensational. That was at his Shepherd's Conference. So, he's opened himself up to the criticism that "he doesn't really understand" some of the positions he takes issue with. Since the doctrine of Trinity isn't mentioned in Scripture, I guess that means its just a tempest-in-a-teapot too?

If you think its OK to lump people together in practice, based on the outward form of things instead of the variety of the theology behind it (but it takes TIME to read and understand those things...), then don't complain if you get tarred with the brush, because most of "baptizing" cultists and unitarians, etc, borrow from the immersionist tradition. If you don't appreciate that connection, and think it is entirely illegitimate, then you have some idea of what it is like to have to listen to people who think we simply carry-over the Roman practice. How ignorant.

I hope you understand that Reformed folks (speaking narrowly) simply do theology differently than your tradition. There are similarities, great; but you do not read the Bible the same way we do. So when you say that IB isn't in the Bible, enough said. You read the Bible in such a way that it isn't there. We read the Bible in such a way that it is undeniably there. What are we going to do? How about stop writing "it isn't there" over and over and over, as if the mantra were convincing.

You say circumcision and baptism signify different things. OK, we say they signify (at the basic level) the very same things. What could be more contrary than that? We read the relevant texts differently.

Not that its relevant, but how do you know Melchizedek _wasn't_ circumcised? It isn't as if the text of Genesis mentions it one way or another. Since when does silence on an irrelevant subject constitute evidence against something else? Anything you propose on the topic becomes a hypothetical conjecture.

Your reading of Genesis17 makes its own assumptions. Look, instead of saying: "I understand your position just fine," try expressing it sympathetically, and ask a reliable exponent of that position to read it and go over it, and tweak it and clarify, until you've agreed on the understanding. And then go forth to dismantle it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 5, 2010)

Particular Baptist said:


> Second of all, you’re utter carelessness in regards to MacArthur’s theology is deplorable. I know that many of you on here disagree with MacArthur on many issues, as do I, but to say that he cannot know what a ‘Reformed’ believer ,as yourself, would believe or in what context your understandings of infant baptism were formed. I get VERY tired of many on this bored who just lambast this man just because he holds a different view of eschatology than us, or because of how he views Israel in relationship to the church. To attack this as something which would bar him from discussing baptism with a ‘Reformed’ paedobaptist brother is simply weak and saddening. MacArthur rejects infant baptism because it is NO WHERE to be found in the Bible. You will NEVER find it in the Bible. He brilliantly states that it’s one thing to have disagreements over things that are found in scripture but quite another to have them over things which are nowhere to be found. He also vividly illustrates that baptism and circumcision do not mean the same thing. Just do a search through the Bible of every time that circumcision is used and you will find that it signifies depravity and a need for cleansing and purity. Baptism signifies a believers union with Christ, repentance, and a washing away of that depravity. They are two totally different signs.


 

You need not get tired of those who criticize JM. JM has already exhibited major misunderstandings about the theology of those who are Reformed. Especially in his diatribe against everyone who claimed to be a Calvinist and wasn't dispensational Premil. Do you know about this? Samuel Waldron responded to JM's major misunderstandings in a book 'MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto'. JM is not beyond criticism. 

We also disagree with him because he does eisegesis concerning his dispensational Pre mil view every now and again. You ought to read his Commentary on Hebrews 6. He does a pretty good job but inserts the Premil dispensational doctrine in his commentary in that chapter which has nothing to do with the millennium. 

BTW, circumcision and baptism are closely linked together in the New Testament in Colossians 2:11,12. So to say they just pull this teaching out of thin air is a gross misunderstanding. I am a credo only guy and find some of your charges baseless. 

I would also recommend if you want to discuss things here you should tone down your attitude. 

BTW, I agree with you concerning King Mel. I also agree that the covenant of circumcision was more than the covenant of grace. But you do have to admit that the Covenant of Grace is a part of it. To deny this is to deny that you are an heir as a child of Abraham. Since JM doesn't understand the Bible Covenantally, he by sheer nature of hermeneutic would not understand the Bible holistically. Therefore he looses touch with the Covenant of Grace and the Church which has existed in Christ since Adam and Eve. The Bride of Christ is one. Christ is not a polygamist. If Isreal and the Church are not one then this leads to many other problems. JM is problematic.


----------



## KMK (Apr 5, 2010)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I would also recommend if you want to discuss things here you should tone down your attitude.


 
This Baptist agrees. If it's a fight you want, you might just get it on PB, and most will not be as gentle as Rev Buchanan.

--------------------

And by the way, no one on PB 'lambasts' JM. Many disagree with him on many things but also recognize the good he has done for Christ's kingdom. The fact that you (and others) consider any disagreement with JM to be 'lambast' only belies an over-inflated view of his theology.


----------

