# those who were baptised when 'unregenerate'



## satz (Jun 16, 2005)

If a grown adult were to make a confession of faith, be baptised, while unregenerate and later 'truly' become a christian, would his first baptism be valid?

A more practical example. Say someone makes a confession of faith and is baptised. He then goes on to live a worldly life for a period of time before repenting . Lets say this person is unsure as to if he was truly saved at first, then backslid, or if he was not saved at all till later.

How would you consel this person if he was thinking about the validity of his baptism?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 16, 2005)

mark,
Disciple's are to be baptized. So, based upon the idea that he did make a confession of faith, the first baptism was sufficient. 

As far as his moment of regeneration, only God knows. The fact that he repented is obvious fruit. Whether or not it is _real_ repentance and not just his conscience, again, only God knows.

The WCF ch 28 states:

VII. The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.[18]

18. Rom. 6:3-11

[Edited on 6-17-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## satz (Jun 17, 2005)

Scott,

thanks for that...

to take an extreme example, if someone were to be baptised for some spurious reason, say to impress a girl in church, if he later truely converted, would that first baptism be valid?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 17, 2005)

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


----------



## satz (Jun 17, 2005)

"to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, "

Let me see if i understand properly...

is the WCF saying that as long as a man is elect than his baptism his effectual?

Or that as long as man come to true faith in Christ, then his previous baptism, even if it occured when he lacked saving faith would be counted as valid?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 17, 2005)

If a man is elect, his baptism is effectual in being a sign and seal of his salvation.

If a man is not elect, his baptism is effectual in being a sign and seal of his condemnation.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jun 17, 2005)

Would you accept an RC infant baptism as legit ?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 17, 2005)

> II. The outward element to be used in the sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, *by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto*.



What do you think?


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jun 17, 2005)

Well, an RC Priest who believes the council of Trent in regard to justification wouldn't qualify then. 

1. He's not a minister of the gospel, since the canons of Trent in the 6th session reject forensic justification. He's a minister of ANOTHER gospel.

2. Since he's not a minister of THE gospel, he's not lawfully called, Trinitarian baptism or not.

Now I know R.C. Sproul has said that HE would accept an RC baptism.... but I'm asking... would you ?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jun 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> Well, an RC Priest who believes the council of Trent in regard to justification wouldn't qualify then.
> 
> 1. He's not a minister of the gospel, since the canons of Trent in the 6th session reject forensic justification. He's a minister of ANOTHER gospel.
> ...



I would. The sacrament of baptism has to do with what God says about a person, not what the human administrator of the baptism had to say about the person. If we don't accept RC baptisms because of the presumably unregenerate state of the priests, then we need to not accept many other baptisms as well, in every case that we think the administrator of the baptism was probably unregenerate. Many on this board believe that Arminians are trusting in "another Gospel". Should we therefore disallow all baptisms performed by Arminians? Are all Nazarene, Assembly of God, and Methodist baptisms therefore "out"? I think not.

Here are some quotes from John Calvin:



> What the minister intends to do, is of little consequence to us"¦.Let it suffice then, to have been baptized in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit -- whatever may have been the ignorance or impiety of those who administered baptism to us. Man is merely the hand. It is Christ alone Who truly and properly baptizes





> It matters not to me whether he who performs the baptism is a diabolical man -- or even the devil





> We hold the ordinance of God to be too sacred to depend for its efficacy on man. Even if it were then to be that Judas or any other epicurean contemner of everything sacred is the administrator -- the spiritual nourishment of the body and blood of Christ [in the Sacrament] are conferred through his hand just as if her were an angel come down from heaven





> So it is with Baptism; it is a sacred and immutable testimony of the grace of God, though it were administered by the devil, though all who may partake of it were ungodly and polluted as to their own persons. Baptism ever retains its own character, and it never contaminated by the vices of men



Now, make no mistake: John Calvin did not _approve_ of baptisms being performed by laymen or unregenerate ministers. However, Calvin distinguished between what man does properly or improperly, and what God Himself does when a sacrament is administered. He said that Zipporah (the wife of Moses) was wrong to administer the sacrament of circumcision to their son. However, he said that it was still considered a "valid" circumcision in the sight of God. Similarly, Calvin spoke elsewhere about the Lord's Supper:



> If some Epicurean, inwardly grinning at the whole performance, were to administer the Supper to me according to the command of Christ and the rule given by Him, and in due form -- I would not doubt that the bread and the cup held forth by his hand are pledges to me of the body and blood of Christ.



I agree with John Calvin. The efficacy of sacraments should be viewed according to God's actions, rather than according to man's missteps. I myself was baptized as an Arminian in a Nazarene church, long before I learned about God's Sovereignty in salvation. I don't know whether the pastor who baptized me is regenerate or not. And neither does the value of my baptism depend on it. The same goes for everyone who was blessed with baptism as an infant. It doesn't matter whether they were regenerate as infants, or not until much later . . . their baptisms are still good.


----------

