# Re-baptism by any other name is still "re-baptism"



## Kevin

I refrained from posting this in an other thread because my comment was not germain to the OP, however... 

I just want to point out that "re-baptism" IS "re-baptism"!

The common dodge of calling re-baptism a *non re-baptism* since the first one is no baptism at all, but what we are doing is a *true* scriptual baptism. This is the logical fallacy of "begging the question".

I know we all like to claim that our practice is the "biblical way". I refer to the practice of infant baptism as the "biblical practice" in conversations & sermons. 

However it is more than a little disingenious to claim that we are not engaged in "re-baptism" when in fact there can be no other name for the practice. It is fair game to claim that the previous baptism is nul, or irregular, or heretical, but claiming that it never happened is just silly.

Just my  about a personal pet pieve.


----------



## Pergamum

Kevin: Aren't you begging the question too?

If a Baptist believes that baptizomai means "dip" and is to be done for believers only, then a sprinkling of an infant is not a dipping at all and thus cannot be called a baptism. We should NOT therefore call such a thing re-baptism at all bt merely true baptism because we are to only have one faith and one baptism.


Whether it is your personal pet peeve or not, you are also engaged in trying to win the argument through winning the terminology and so many baptists will not accept your pet peeve and could put forth their own pet peeve of presbyterians calling non-baptism baptism. A mere sprinkling by any other name is just dousing your baby after all and bears no resemblance to the explicit examples of the New Testament. 

Rantizo in the NT, if I am not wrong here, refers to blood but never water and especially not the waters of baptism in the NT.


----------



## Kevin

Pergy,

Baptism is a theological term used in the christian religion to refer to a variety of rituals.

My point is that the game of definition that we all play with the term does little to advance either understanding of each other or the scripture.


----------



## Pergamum

I think this "game" is essential since presbyerians call the Greek word for Dipping as something other than dipping.

Do bread and wine mean bread in wine or are they merely the technical designations for a theological term, that we can exchange for coke and potato chips? Many of the reformed push for wine in communion instead of grape juice (a tight interpretation of the permissible elements) and yet advocate a loose interpretation of the correct administration of the other ordinance - baptism. This does not appear consistent.


----------



## Kevin

You know of course that the word has several meanings of which "dip" is one?

My point is this; try to prove that "dip" is the correct definition. Don't pretend that only a handful of evangelicals posses the sacrament of baptism & the entire rest of the church (militant & triumphant) is just splashing water about.


----------



## Pergamum

dip, immerse or fully cover in water seems to be the jist of the word.

The Presbyterians have guarded soteriology better than any branch of Christianity and I thank God for you all. Ecclesiology is a lesser doctrine. Credobaptists are not a handful but the majority of Christianity, credobaptism and immersionism IS the majority view of Christians today.


----------



## Kevin

Pergamum said:


> dip, immerse or fully cover in water seems to be the jist of the word.
> 
> The Presbyterians have guarded soteriology better than any branch of Christianity and I thank God for you all. Ecclesiology is a lesser doctrine. Credobaptists are not a handful but the majority of Christianity, credobaptism and immersionism IS the majority view of Christians today.



Only if you count the west, and ignore the east. And ignore all of those in heaven.


----------



## holyfool33

I never had that problem I was baptized a Mormon so I *had* to be rebaptized because the first baptism was scriptural. My pastor never tried to say that I was not being rebaptized. Because I had been baptized before but unscripturally so I needed to be rebaptized


----------



## servantofmosthigh

Kevin said:


> I refrained from posting this in an other thread because my comment was not germain to the OP, however...
> 
> I just want to point out that "re-baptism" IS "re-baptism"!
> 
> The common dodge of calling re-baptism a *non re-baptism* since the first one is no baptism at all, but what we are doing is a *true* scriptual baptism. This is the logical fallacy of "begging the question".
> 
> I know we all like to claim that our practice is the "biblical way". I refer to the practice of infant baptism as the "biblical practice" in conversations & sermons.
> 
> However it is more than a little disingenious to claim that we are not engaged in "re-baptism" when in fact there can be no other name for the practice. It is fair game to claim that the previous baptism is nul, or irregular, or heretical, but claiming that it never happened is just silly.
> 
> Just my  about a personal pet pieve.



If I were a Presbyterian (I once was for 27 years of my life), I would wholeheartedly agree with you because infant baptism IS baptism from that perspective.

Now that I'm a Baptist (for the recent 11 years of my life), I wholeheartedly disagree with you because infant baptism IS NOT baptism from this perspective.

I hope this helps... Maybe not... I'm retiring from this subject... There's more important matters to discuss. Kevin, if you think I'm rebaptizing your former Presbyterians joining our church, well, the only thing I can say is: I'm not...


----------



## toddpedlar

Pergamum said:


> dip, immerse or fully cover in water seems to be the jist of the word.
> 
> The Presbyterians have guarded soteriology better than any branch of Christianity and I thank God for you all. Ecclesiology is a lesser doctrine. Credobaptists are not a handful but the majority of Christianity, credobaptism and immersionism IS the majority view of Christians today.



I know this has gone round and round and round on other threads, but baptizo is simply not EXCLUSIVELY immerse - perhaps the use is predominantly immerse, but there are other usages. 

If it's only "immerse" then why did the Didache, the earliest (or among them) of church documents, prescribe pouring as a perfectly good alternative to immersion?


----------



## smhbbag

> However it is more than a little disingenious to claim that we are not engaged in "re-baptism" when in fact there can be no other name for the practice. It is fair game to claim that the previous baptism is nul, or irregular, or heretical, but claiming that it never happened is just silly.



So if you use a paedo definition of baptism, then the credobaptist perspective is silly? Is this news?


----------



## Pergamum

toddpedlar said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> dip, immerse or fully cover in water seems to be the jist of the word.
> 
> The Presbyterians have guarded soteriology better than any branch of Christianity and I thank God for you all. Ecclesiology is a lesser doctrine. Credobaptists are not a handful but the majority of Christianity, credobaptism and immersionism IS the majority view of Christians today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know this has gone round and round and round on other threads, but baptizo is simply not EXCLUSIVELY immerse - perhaps the use is predominantly immerse, but there are other usages.
> 
> If it's only "immerse" then why did the Didache, the earliest (or among them) of church documents, prescribe pouring as a perfectly good alternative to immersion?
Click to expand...




Hmmm...Todd the Didache says also to do it in running water and in warm water and views pouring not so much as an alternative but as an exception if you don't have either cold or warm water...ie. lack of water entirely it seems(sort of like Jesus stating the ideal of marriage but the exception of divorce)....

Here is the transaltion:


_Now about baptism, baptize this way: after first uttering all of these things, baptize "into the name of the Father and of the son and of the holy Spirit" in running water. But if you do not have running water, baptize in other water. Now if you are not able to do so in cold water, do it in warm water. Now if you don't have either, pour water three times on the head, "into the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the holy Spirit." Now before the ritual cleansing, the baptizer and the one being baptized should fast, and any others who are able. Now you will give word for the one who is being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.

But do not let your fasts be with the hypocrites. _


----------



## Pergamum

Furthermore, the Didache seems to speak of immersion as the priority and ideal, since sprinkling is spoken of as a clear "last ditch" exception. 


Finally, you are right baptizo does not always mean explicitly immersion or dipping but can also refer to a ritual washing or bathe...best done by....err.....immersion or dipping.


----------



## Pergamum

p.s. by Ad 100 or so when the Didache was written baptismal regeneration was already creeping in. We can only draw so much out of this pious fraud.


----------



## Archlute

The discussion regarding the meaning of the term "baptizo" has already run its course several times on this board, if I remember correctly. Each time, the four volume work by Dale on the use of that term as found in Classical, Jewish, Biblical, and Patristic writings has been pointed out. Having read them, I think that they do a pretty good job of showing what you can pick up in even a single lexicon such as that by Liddell-Scott-Jones, namely, that "baptizo" and its cognates have been used to display a variety of actions other than dipping/immersing/etc. There really can be no argument against this understanding once the sources have been studied.


----------



## Pergamum

Adam:

So what I am hearing you saying is, "Anyone that knows anything knows that we have already decided that the baptists are stupid. So don't waste our time because it is already proven."


----------



## Archlute

If you'd like to read it that way.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> Adam:
> 
> So what I am hearing you saying is, "Anyone that knows anything knows that we have already decided that the baptists are stupid. So don't waste our time because it is already proven."



I think a more charitable reading would be that the insistence in this thread that to Baptize means only to immerse cannot be established by the lexical studies.



Pergamum said:


> ...a sprinkling of an infant is not a dipping at all and thus cannot be called a baptism.



Or perhaps you meant to imply that paedobaptists were "stupid"?


----------



## Pergamum

Yes, alternative meanings besides immerse can be given for baptizo...

There is dipping,

There is the ritual washings....which I would guess would be easiest done by immersion.


There is dyeing....and immersing something in dye usually works better than sprinkling or pouring dye on something.

There is the sense of something being totally covered up, as in Nebadchadnezzar's case of being baptized with the dew of the morning if I remember right.

Submersion, wetting and purifying might also be alternate meanings...



Listen... the OP was a pet peeve which was adequately answered. No need to fight the same old tired battle again.


----------



## toddpedlar

Pergamum said:


> Furthermore, the Didache seems to speak of immersion as the priority and ideal, since sprinkling is spoken of as a clear "last ditch" exception.
> 
> 
> Finally, you are right baptizo does not always mean explicitly immersion or dipping but can also refer to a ritual washing or bathe...best done by....err.....immersion or dipping.



except in the case of dining couches...


----------



## toddpedlar

Pergamum said:


> p.s. by Ad 100 or so when the Didache was written baptismal regeneration was already creeping in. We can only draw so much out of this pious fraud.



Yes, enough to know that pouring was an acceptable alternative.


----------



## Pergamum

There are exceptions to marriage too, but whole denominations do not get divorced and argue for divorce as an acceptable alternative. There is a difference between an alternative and an exception in dire straits. The Diache allowed pouring as an exception when water was not available. Why are we drawing teachings from the Didache anyway? How do you sprinkle someone with running water?

I am withdrawing. 

This thread began as a rant and a pet peeve and can only go further downhill.....

Good day gentlemen and God bless.


----------



## toddpedlar

We're not drawing any teachings, but insight into how people in the early church understood that the verb "baptizo" could be undertaken.

Seems that pouring was an option (whether the sect who the Didache comes from was heretical or not isn't all that important) to satisfy what was meant by 'ritual washing', er, baptizing.


----------



## servantofmosthigh

Pergamum said:


> There are exceptions to marriage too, but whole denominations do not get divorced and argue for divorce as an acceptable alternative. There is a difference between an alternative and an exception in dire straits. The Diache allowed pouring as an exception when water was not available. Why are we drawing teachings from the Didache anyway? How do you sprinkle someone with running water?
> 
> I am withdrawing.
> 
> This thread began as a rant and a pet peeve and can only go further downhill.....
> 
> Good day gentlemen and God bless.



Brother, may I offer some encouragement and peace in this...

Adam Myer's argument is based on the Presbyterian view of the matter. His argument and presupposition are laid in a way that places Baptists in a defensive posture, not in a way that could take into account Baptist history, ecclesiology and theology on this subject.

In other words, he's referring to historical lexicons that the Magisterial Reformers (paedobaptists) had embraced but English Baptists had denounced only on the issue of Baptism because the English Baptists had viewed that the Magisterial Reformers were dead wrong on this matter by not tying Baptism to the reforming of the entire church.

So I just want to encourage you to not be flustered because you felt you couldn't respond adequately. Given the way Myer laid his conclusive argument _(There really can be no argument against this understanding once the *sources* have been studied)_, it does not give Baptists a fair way of answering because he's referring to the sources that Baptists had rejected on the topic of Baptism from the start.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> This thread began as a rant and a pet peeve and can only go further downhill.....



I don't understand how you have done anything but contribute to the degeneration of dialogue here. Whatever the motive of Kevin was, it seems a bit duplicitous to quote on the one hand that "baptism can mean only this..." and then get bent out of shape when person presents a refutation that says it cannot be established. In other words, you got angry that Adam was as forceful about the opposite of what you have asserted so forcefully.

Your response to my post? To be even more forceful in insisting that the word can _only_ mean what you said it could mean.


----------



## tcalbrecht




----------



## Kevin

Just to be clear... 

I avoided commenting in any other thread so as to not derail any conversation that was taking place about the diferences we have over the doctrine of baptism.

However, begging the question is never a good form of argument. To say that "we don't rebaptise, because no one but us knows how to baptise" may make you feel good, but it is not a legitimate argument.

Please, by all means, disprove Dale, overturn the entire rest of christendom, explain Hebrews chapter 9, show why the septuigent was wrong, but (please) don't just say "I'm right because you are wrong".


----------



## Kevin

Pergamum said:


> Kevin: Aren't you begging the question too?
> 
> If a Baptist believes that baptizomai means "dip" and is to be done for believers only, then a sprinkling of an infant is not a dipping at all and thus cannot be called a baptism. We should NOT therefore call such a thing re-baptism at all bt merely true baptism because we are to only have one faith and one baptism.
> 
> 
> Whether it is your personal pet peeve or not, you are also engaged in trying to win the argument through winning the terminology and so many baptists will not accept your pet peeve and could put forth their own pet peeve of presbyterians calling non-baptism baptism. A mere sprinkling by any other name is just dousing your baby after all and bears no resemblance to the explicit examples of the New Testament.
> 
> Rantizo in the NT, if I am not wrong here, refers to blood but never water and especially not the waters of baptism in the NT.



Sorry I did not respond to this sooner.

No, I am not begging the question. To "beg the question" means to assume what is in dispute. What is in dispute is "re-baptism", if in your definition of the terms you define away you opponents position you have begged the question.

I have not done that. I disagree with your view & I will (& have) argued against it, but that is not the same thing at all.


----------



## servantofmosthigh

Kevin said:


> Just to be clear...
> 
> I avoided commenting in any other thread so as to not derail any conversation that was taking place about the diferences we have over the doctrine of baptism.
> 
> However, begging the question is never a good form of argument. To say that "we don't rebaptise, because no one but us knows how to baptise" may make you feel good, but it is not a legitimate argument.
> 
> Please, by all means, disprove Dale, overturn the entire rest of christendom, explain Hebrews chapter 9, show why the septuigent was wrong, but (please) don't just say "I'm right because you are wrong".



Kevin, allow me to answer this by use of an example.

Let's say that I want to change my U.S. citizenship to another country, but in order to do so, I need to serve in their military. I inform them that I've already served in the military of my country, but while they do accept some countries' military service as fulfilling theirs, they do not recognize the U.S. military service as fulfilling theirs. Thus, in order to become a citizen of their country, I must serve in their military. If not, I should remain in the U.S. or consider another country.

Likewise, as a paedobaptist, you may feel your baptism is legitimate. But if for some reason you wish to join my church, you will need to be baptized according to our ecclesiological standard because we do not recognize your church's baptism. In your view, it's rebaptism. In our view, it's not. Now, if you don't like it, stay in your church. Don't come to my church. Or consider another church that's open to your baptism.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

servantofmosthigh said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be clear...
> 
> I avoided commenting in any other thread so as to not derail any conversation that was taking place about the diferences we have over the doctrine of baptism.
> 
> However, begging the question is never a good form of argument. To say that "we don't rebaptise, because no one but us knows how to baptise" may make you feel good, but it is not a legitimate argument.
> 
> Please, by all means, disprove Dale, overturn the entire rest of christendom, explain Hebrews chapter 9, show why the septuigent was wrong, but (please) don't just say "I'm right because you are wrong".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin, allow me to answer this by use of an example.
> 
> Let's say that I want to change my U.S. citizenship to another country, but in order to do so, I need to serve in their military. I inform them that I've already served in the military of my country, but while they do accept some countries' military service as fulfilling theirs, they do not recognize the U.S. military service as fulfilling theirs. Thus, in order to become a citizen of their country, I must serve in their military. If not, I should remain in the U.S. or consider another country.
> 
> Likewise, as a paedobaptist, you may feel your baptism is legitimate. But if for some reason you wish to join my church, you will need to be baptized according to our ecclesiological standard because we do not recognize your church's baptism. In your view, it's rebaptism. In our view, it's not. Now, if you don't like it, stay in your church. Don't come to my church. Or consider another church that's open to your baptism.
> 
> Hope this helps.
Click to expand...


I do want to note an irony here for Baptists to remember as somebody just got a lot of face shots recently.

Essentially what Will stated was that infant baptism is no baptism at all. Just Remember not to get too bent out of shape the next time a Dutch Reformed person makes a similar remark about your ordinances.

The difference between Presbyterians and Baptists, perhaps, is that we see _one_ Kingdom of Christ and not your Kingdom and our Kingdom.

This is why we recognize your baptisms as legitimate. Either we're citizens in the same Kingdom or we are not.


----------



## Kevin

Thank you brother Will, for stating the diference so clearly.

In your view those (hundreds of millions of) followers of Christ who were baptised as infants are part of some other kingdom. (Perhaps they are mormons?)

I do not object to you holding this view & I am willing to consider you my brother in Christ, my objection is to pretending that there is no other view (that can explain the biblical & theological questions).

For the record I was not baptised as an infant but upon my "credible profession of faith". TWICE. First at age 4, and again at age 14.


----------



## servantofmosthigh

Semper Fidelis said:


> I do want to note an irony here for Baptists to remember as somebody just got a lot of face shots recently.
> 
> Essentially what Will stated was that infant baptism is no baptism at all. Just Remember not to get too bent out of shape the next time a Dutch Reformed person makes a similar remark about your ordinances.
> 
> The difference between Presbyterians and Baptists, perhaps, is that we see _one_ Kingdom of Christ and not your Kingdom and our Kingdom.
> 
> This is why we recognize your baptisms as legitimate. Either we're citizens in the same Kingdom or we are not.



Your extension of accepting Baptist's baptism into your church is warmly appreciated, Rich. And know that personally, I wish I could do the same for you and all pedobaptist brothers here. But my conviction as a Baptist on our view of Baptism from Scripture prevents my personal desires to be accommodated. I hope you can see that.

I don't recall specifically, but I remember hearing an audio of where someone asked a question to Ligon Duncan and Mark Dever of why if Mark Dever was to join Ligon Duncan's church that Mark Dever would be accepted immediately, but if Ligon Duncan was to join Mark Dever's church that Ligon Duncan would be rejected until he was baptized by immersion. And Mark Dever's response was that that is the conviction Baptists have stood on for centuries. And Ligon Duncan's response was that he would not ask Mark Dever to change lest he begins to compromise his convictions. And it is because of his strong convictions that he loves Mark Dever, and vice-versa.

So let's continue to walk together in Christ for the advancement of the Gospel. Yes, we differ on baptism. Yes, one side is more open to the other, while the other side cannot by virtue of Gospel conviction. But let both sides be understanding of each other and exemplify the true baptism of the Holy Spirit in word, deed and conduct.


----------



## Barnpreacher

servantofmosthigh said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do want to note an irony here for Baptists to remember as somebody just got a lot of face shots recently.
> 
> Essentially what Will stated was that infant baptism is no baptism at all. Just Remember not to get too bent out of shape the next time a Dutch Reformed person makes a similar remark about your ordinances.
> 
> The difference between Presbyterians and Baptists, perhaps, is that we see _one_ Kingdom of Christ and not your Kingdom and our Kingdom.
> 
> This is why we recognize your baptisms as legitimate. Either we're citizens in the same Kingdom or we are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your extension of accepting Baptist's baptism into your church is warmly appreciated, Rich. And know that personally, I wish I could do the same for you and all pedobaptist brothers here. But my conviction as a Baptist on our view of Baptism from Scripture prevents my personal desires to be accommodated. I hope you can see that.
> 
> I don't recall specifically, but I remember hearing an audio of where someone asked a question to Ligon Duncan and Mark Dever of why if Mark Dever was to join Ligon Duncan's church that Mark Dever would be accepted immediately, but if Ligon Duncan was to join Mark Dever's church that Ligon Duncan would be rejected until he was baptized by immersion. And Mark Dever's response was that that is the conviction Baptists have stood on for centuries. And Ligon Duncan's response was that he would not ask Mark Dever to change lest he begins to compromise his convictions. And it is because of his strong convictions that he loves Mark Dever, and vice-versa.
> 
> So let's continue to walk together in Christ for the advancement of the Gospel. Yes, we differ on baptism. Yes, one side is more open to the other, while the other side cannot by virtue of Gospel conviction. But let both sides be understanding of each other and exemplify the true baptism of the Holy Spirit in word, deed and conduct.
Click to expand...


Sounds to me, in the case of Dever and Duncan, that one is more interested in his baptist beliefs and the other is more interested in being biblical.


----------



## Barnpreacher

joshua said:


> Actually, it sounds like both of 'em are off. Why would Duncan _not_ ask Mark Dever to change his convictions if Duncan believed Dever's Baptism beliefs were anything less than Biblical? Of course, that's only assuming that Duncan did _indeed_ say such a thing.



I was thinking more in terms of Duncan accepting Dever's baptism, not necessarily what problems would arise from a credo joining a paedo congregation.


----------



## Pilgrim

joshua said:


> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> servantofmosthigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your extension of accepting Baptist's baptism into your church is warmly appreciated, Rich. And know that personally, I wish I could do the same for you and all pedobaptist brothers here. But my conviction as a Baptist on our view of Baptism from Scripture prevents my personal desires to be accommodated. I hope you can see that.
> 
> I don't recall specifically, but I remember hearing an audio of where someone asked a question to Ligon Duncan and Mark Dever of why if Mark Dever was to join Ligon Duncan's church that Mark Dever would be accepted immediately, but if Ligon Duncan was to join Mark Dever's church that Ligon Duncan would be rejected until he was baptized by immersion. And Mark Dever's response was that that is the conviction Baptists have stood on for centuries. And Ligon Duncan's response was that he would not ask Mark Dever to change lest he begins to compromise his convictions. And it is because of his strong convictions that he loves Mark Dever, and vice-versa.
> 
> So let's continue to walk together in Christ for the advancement of the Gospel. Yes, we differ on baptism. Yes, one side is more open to the other, while the other side cannot by virtue of Gospel conviction. But let both sides be understanding of each other and exemplify the true baptism of the Holy Spirit in word, deed and conduct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me, in the case of Dever and Duncan, that one is more interested in his baptist beliefs and the other is more interested in being biblical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, it sounds like both of 'em are off. Why would Duncan _not_ ask Mark Dever to change his convictions if Duncan believed Dever's Baptism beliefs were anything less than Biblical? Of course, that's only assuming that Duncan did _indeed_ say such a thing.
Click to expand...


They are both simply acting in regard to their convictions. It's ridiculous to say one is more interested in being biblical and the other more interested in "his baptist beliefs." This issue is not as big of a deal for someone like Duncan as opposed to say, F.N. Lee unless the credo were to become disruptive. I do seem to recall this "conversation," perhaps on the T4G blog.


----------



## Barnpreacher

Pilgrim said:


> They are both simply acting in regard to their convictions. It's ridiculous to say one is more interested in being biblical and the other more interested in "his baptist beliefs." This issue is not as big of a deal for someone like Duncan as opposed to say, F.N. Lee unless the credo were to become disruptive. I do seem to recall this "conversation," perhaps on the T4G blog.



Have you ever thought that perhaps in regard to their convictions that one is biblical and one isn't? I know that makes my baptist brethren awfully nervous sometimes.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

servantofmosthigh said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do want to note an irony here for Baptists to remember as somebody just got a lot of face shots recently.
> 
> Essentially what Will stated was that infant baptism is no baptism at all. Just Remember not to get too bent out of shape the next time a Dutch Reformed person makes a similar remark about your ordinances.
> 
> The difference between Presbyterians and Baptists, perhaps, is that we see _one_ Kingdom of Christ and not your Kingdom and our Kingdom.
> 
> This is why we recognize your baptisms as legitimate. Either we're citizens in the same Kingdom or we are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your extension of accepting Baptist's baptism into your church is warmly appreciated, Rich. And know that personally, I wish I could do the same for you and all pedobaptist brothers here. But my conviction as a Baptist on our view of Baptism from Scripture prevents my personal desires to be accommodated. I hope you can see that.
> 
> I don't recall specifically, but I remember hearing an audio of where someone asked a question to Ligon Duncan and Mark Dever of why if Mark Dever was to join Ligon Duncan's church that Mark Dever would be accepted immediately, but if Ligon Duncan was to join Mark Dever's church that Ligon Duncan would be rejected until he was baptized by immersion. And Mark Dever's response was that that is the conviction Baptists have stood on for centuries. And Ligon Duncan's response was that he would not ask Mark Dever to change lest he begins to compromise his convictions. And it is because of his strong convictions that he loves Mark Dever, and vice-versa.
> 
> So let's continue to walk together in Christ for the advancement of the Gospel. Yes, we differ on baptism. Yes, one side is more open to the other, while the other side cannot by virtue of Gospel conviction. But let both sides be understanding of each other and exemplify the true baptism of the Holy Spirit in word, deed and conduct.
Click to expand...


There is unity, Will, but the analogy you drew about "two countries" denies this unity. If your analogy is accurate then there is no fellowship if we belong to different Kingdoms. I'm suggesting that you use better analogies to make the distinction if you concede that a man can be a believer and be baptized outside of your Church.


----------



## Pilgrim

Barnpreacher said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are both simply acting in regard to their convictions. It's ridiculous to say one is more interested in being biblical and the other more interested in "his baptist beliefs." This issue is not as big of a deal for someone like Duncan as opposed to say, F.N. Lee unless the credo were to become disruptive. I do seem to recall this "conversation," perhaps on the T4G blog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever thought that perhaps in regard to their convictions that one is biblical and one isn't? I know that makes my baptist brethren awfully nervous sometimes.
Click to expand...


It is obvious that one is biblical and that the other isn't. Or perhaps there could be some error on both sides. But both cannot be right. I don't know what about that would make a Baptist nervous.


----------



## Barnpreacher

Pilgrim said:


> It is obvious that one is biblical and that the other isn't. Or perhaps there could be some error on both sides. But both cannot be right. I don't know what about that would make a Baptist nervous.



Chris,

If a credo would make a paedo be re-baptized before joining their church then obviously they (credo's) believe their (paedo's) baptism is unbiblical. Hence, that gets into the "two kingdoms" that Rich is talking about. But yet a lot of baptists want to just say, "It's o.k. if we don't necessarily agree on baptism. Let's just get along in the advancement of the kingdom." It's inconsistent. I've said this about the baptist conviction since I began studying this whole baptism issue out.

You can say the same about the paedo, but he's not asking the credo to be re-baptized if he joined a paedo church now is he?


----------



## servantofmosthigh

Semper Fidelis said:


> There is unity, Will, but the analogy you drew about "two countries" denies this unity. If your analogy is accurate then there is no fellowship if we belong to different Kingdoms. I'm suggesting that you use better analogies to make the distinction if you concede that a man can be a believer and be baptized outside of your Church.



The "two countries" analogy is in reference to two different ecclesiolastical bodies, not two different kingdoms.

Consider another analogy. Let's say that I've been employed for 10 years with AT&T. I'm now deciding to work for Coca-Cola. Let's say Coca-Cola requires all new employees to undergo drug-testing. I tell them that AT&T made no such requirements of their employees. Coca-Cola says that if I wish to be employed by them, I must. Whereas, if a Coca-Cola employees wishes to join AT&T, there is no requirement for drug-testing.

The difference is not that the "two countries" analogy or the "two companies" analogy represent two different kingdoms, but that they represent two different local church bodies under different ecclesiology.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

servantofmosthigh said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is unity, Will, but the analogy you drew about "two countries" denies this unity. If your analogy is accurate then there is no fellowship if we belong to different Kingdoms. I'm suggesting that you use better analogies to make the distinction if you concede that a man can be a believer and be baptized outside of your Church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "two countries" analogy is in reference to two different ecclesiolastical bodies, not two different kingdoms.
> 
> Consider another analogy. Let's say that I've been employed for 10 years with AT&T. I'm now deciding to work for Coca-Cola. Let's say Coca-Cola requires all new employees to undergo drug-testing. I tell them that AT&T made no such requirements of their employees. Coca-Cola says that if I wish to be employed by them, I must. Whereas, if a Coca-Cola employees wishes to join AT&T, there is no requirement for drug-testing.
> 
> The difference is not that the "two countries" analogy or the "two companies" analogy represent two different kingdoms, but that they represent two different local church bodies.
Click to expand...


I don't want to get into a debate about analogies but there are many defects in your nation and employee analogies given what baptism _signifies_ according to even the LBCF much less the WCF.


----------



## servantofmosthigh

Semper Fidelis said:


> I don't want to get into a debate about analogies but there are many defects in your nation and employee analogies given what baptism _signifies_ according to even the LBCF much less the WCF.



The analogies are in response to the originator of this thread charging that baptists who use the argument of paedobaptism as illegitimate baptism are guilty of fallacious argumentation. So I was using the analogies as simply to illustrate that from the Baptist church standing on the biblical basis of baptism, the argumentation is legitimate. If a pedobaptist does not agree with it, then do not consider joining a Baptist church. But if one does want to join, then they must be willing to accept the ecclesiological differences. And the biggest ecclesiological difference between Presbyterians and Baptists have always been, from the start, Baptism.


----------



## Pergamum

Rich:

"face shots"? Are you for real?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> Rich:
> 
> "face shots"? Are you for real?



It's an expression Perg.

I've just always found it interesting that some Reformed denominations are criticized for being exclusive or restrictive in some of their beliefs.

Typically, for instance, Dutch Reformed tend to be historically exclusive about what they consider to be true Churches and there is a normal uproar here when that is articulated and Baptist Churches are referred to as "sects".

Conversely, the elephant in the living room is Baptist Churches who don't recognize the baptism in Reformed Churches at all. In other words, unless a person is baptized in the Credo Church then no baptism has occurred at all and zero participation in the life of the Church is possible. In other words, for all intents and purposes, the person was not baptized in a valid Church.

I understand it for what it is as a conviction on the Baptists' part and I'm simply pointing out that Baptists ought to be self-aware of what they are really confessing and not be shocked and appalled at others when they express a similar conviction about the nature of their Ecclesiastical Bodies. You don't see a line of Presbyterians lining up in outrage that Will is saying that a person isn't baptized according to his view but a recent thread by a Dutch Reformed brother on another topic pointing out a historic conviction in the Dutch Reformed tradition drew a lot of heat.


----------



## Archlute

servantofmosthigh said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are exceptions to marriage too, but whole denominations do not get divorced and argue for divorce as an acceptable alternative. There is a difference between an alternative and an exception in dire straits. The Diache allowed pouring as an exception when water was not available. Why are we drawing teachings from the Didache anyway? How do you sprinkle someone with running water?
> 
> I am withdrawing.
> 
> This thread began as a rant and a pet peeve and can only go further downhill.....
> 
> Good day gentlemen and God bless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, may I offer some encouragement and peace in this...
> 
> Adam Myer's argument is based on the Presbyterian view of the matter. His argument and presupposition are laid in a way that places Baptists in a defensive posture, not in a way that could take into account Baptist history, ecclesiology and theology on this subject.
> 
> In other words, he's referring to historical lexicons that the Magisterial Reformers (paedobaptists) had embraced but English Baptists had denounced only on the issue of Baptism because the English Baptists had viewed that the Magisterial Reformers were dead wrong on this matter by not tying Baptism to the reforming of the entire church.
> 
> So I just want to encourage you to not be flustered because you felt you couldn't respond adequately. Given the way Myer laid his conclusive argument _(There really can be no argument against this understanding once the *sources* have been studied)_, it does not give Baptists a fair way of answering because he's referring to the sources that Baptists had rejected on the topic of Baptism from the start.
Click to expand...



I find this a bit humorous for two reasons (although I do appreciate your attempt to back up a brother who may feel that he is in a bit of a corner):


1st - I have been a Baptist for majority of my life, only changing positions on the sacraments at the age of 27 after a tremendous amount of struggle and study, and I first attended a Baptist seminary for several years before transferring to one that was confessionally Reformed. That is to say, I know Baptist history, ecclesiology, and theology at least as well as most Baptists. In fact, I studied Baptist ecclesiology under Jim Renihan at WSC as an elective credit just for kicks. Well, it was more serious minded than that, really, and it was a well-presented course, although I must say that it ultimately failed to persuade me to return to the Baptist position.

2nd - I was not referring to the lexicons used by the Magisterial Reformers, nor do I even know where I could find one (if anyone knows, I would think it a great patch of reading material)! I was referring, first of all, to the work by Dale, which is a late 19th century work (nearly early 20th century), and second of all to modern lexicons such as LSJ/LN/BDAG that are today used by every well-schooled churchman whether he be a Baptist, Presbyterian, or what have you. The one that was referenced in particular (LSJ) is not an ecclesiastical lexicon at all, but a Greek-English lexicon for use in studying a broad range of Greek literature. It does assist, however, in showing the various uses of a Greek term in documents outside of Holy Scripture (although it includes references to Scripture also) in the years preceding, concurrent with, and following upon the writings of the New Testament.


Again, I admire your defense, but I do not think that your analysis here is quite as accurate as that for which you would have hoped


----------



## servantofmosthigh

Archlute said:


> I find this a bit humorous for two reasons (although I do appreciate your attempt to back up a brother who may feel that he is in a bit of a corner):
> 
> 1st - I have been a Baptist for majority of my life, only changing positions on the sacraments at the age of 27 after a tremendous amount of struggle and study, and I first attended a Baptist seminary for several years before transferring to one that was confessionally Reformed. That is to say, I know Baptist history, ecclesiology, and theology at least as well as most Baptists. In fact, I studied Baptist ecclesiology under Jim Renihan at WSC as an elective credit just for kicks. Well, it was more serious minded than that, really, and it was a well-presented course, although I must say that it ultimately failed to persuade me to return to the Baptist position.
> 
> I was not referring to the lexicons used by the Magisterial Reformers, nor do I even know where I could find one (if anyone knows, I would think it a great patch of reading material)! I was referring, first of all, to the work by Dale, which is a late 19th century work (nearly early 20th century), and second of all to modern lexicons such as LSJ/LN/BDAG that are today used by every well-schooled churchman whether he be a Baptist, Presbyterian, or what have you. The one that was referenced in particular (LSJ) is not an ecclesiastical lexicon at all, but an English-Greek lexicon for use in studying Classical Greek literature. It does assist, however, in showing the broader use of a Greek term in documents outside of Holy Scripture (although it includes references to Scripture also) in the years preceding, concurrent with, and following upon the writings of the New Testament.
> 
> Again, I admire your defense, but I do not think that your analysis here is quite as accurate as that for which you would have hoped



I was interpreting your statement of "Classical, Jewish, Biblical, and Patristic writings" as referring to Reformation period writings or prior. Dale and LSJ are definitely not patristic writings. I was thinking that you were referencing them as secondary sources to draw some kind of primary patristic source. So thanks for the clarification.

In which case, if your concluding argument that the sources to be studied that levels out any argumentation against paedobaptism are the "Classical, Jewish, Biblical and Patristic writings" of the Reformation period, then my earlier rebuttal stands. But if your concluding argument about the sources that somehow level out any argumentation against paeodobaptism as referring to Dale, LSJ, BAGD, and other more modern and contemporary reference works, I find your conclusion faulty. Yes, I agree with you that LSJ has more of a Presbyterian bent, but so is Berkhof's Systematic Theology.

As for your personal testimony of struggle and identity, I'm sorry to hear about that. My testimony is the exact opposite. I had grown up in the PCA denomination for 27 years of my life. My father remains a non-Christian. And his biggest argument against Christianity is "too many hypocrites." And growing up in a Presbyterian church where all members have been baptized and partake of the Lord's Supper but are mixed with both regenerates and unregenerates, I merely took it as an assumption that that is just part of what a church body is about. But after understanding the Baptist concept of Regenerate Church Membership and the close link Baptism has to Regenerate Church Membership, and consequently Lord's Supper has with Church Membership and Baptism, the entire relationship fit.

To this day, I still witness to my father the Gospel message. But he had been personally hurt in very deep emotional ways by church members who were unregenerate. And this is the biggest thorn that Presbyterianism has to deal with - children of Satan within its own ranks. And infant baptism as a sign of the covenant is nothing more than a false ticket of assurance of assuming salvation when it had not been granted.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

servantofmosthigh said:


> As for your personal testimony of struggle and identity, I'm sorry to hear about that. My testimony is the exact opposite. I had grown up in the PCA denomination for 27 years of my life. My father remains a non-Christian. And his biggest argument against Christianity is "too many hypocrites." And growing up in a Presbyterian church where all members have been baptized and partake of the Lord's Supper but are mixed with both regenerates and unregenerates, I merely took it as an assumption that that is just part of what a church body is about. But after understanding the Baptist concept of Regenerate Church Membership and the close link Baptism has to Regenerate Church Membership, and consequently Lord's Supper has with Church Membership and Baptism, the entire relationship fit.
> 
> To this day, I still witness to my father the Gospel message. But he had been personally hurt in very deep emotional ways by church members who were unregenerate. And this is the biggest thorn that Presbyterianism has to deal with - children of Satan within its own ranks. And infant baptism as a sign of the covenant is nothing more than a false ticket of assurance of assuming salvation when it had not been granted.



It must give you great assurance to know that, for certain, you now attend a Church with a membership that is entirely regenerate. What confidence!


----------



## servantofmosthigh

Semper Fidelis said:


> servantofmosthigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for your personal testimony of struggle and identity, I'm sorry to hear about that. My testimony is the exact opposite. I had grown up in the PCA denomination for 27 years of my life. My father remains a non-Christian. And his biggest argument against Christianity is "too many hypocrites." And growing up in a Presbyterian church where all members have been baptized and partake of the Lord's Supper but are mixed with both regenerates and unregenerates, I merely took it as an assumption that that is just part of what a church body is about. But after understanding the Baptist concept of Regenerate Church Membership and the close link Baptism has to Regenerate Church Membership, and consequently Lord's Supper has with Church Membership and Baptism, the entire relationship fit.
> 
> To this day, I still witness to my father the Gospel message. But he had been personally hurt in very deep emotional ways by church members who were unregenerate. And this is the biggest thorn that Presbyterianism has to deal with - children of Satan within its own ranks. And infant baptism as a sign of the covenant is nothing more than a false ticket of assurance of assuming salvation when it had not been granted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must give you great assurance to know that, for certain, you now attend a Church with a membership that is entirely regenerate. What confidence!
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what your sarcasm is for, brother. This is what Baptists have always called, "_Believer's_ Baptism." We baptize ONLY true believers of the Lord who have and can publicly profess Christ. Of course, that is assuming that Believer's Baptism is being administered properly rather than in a fashion to where the majority of the SBC churches are witnessing today of the fruits of improper administration of Believer's Baptism.

As well, Regenerate Church Membership has been one of the major sections that distinguishes the 1689 BCF from the 1646 WCF. Presbyterians never believed in Regenerate Church Membership, whereas Baptists have. (Compare WCF Ch.25 and 1689 Ch.26.6).

Which is the irony to Presbyterianism. On one hand, Presbyterianism believes in the Covenant of Grace - that baptism of infants bestows salvation to them, but then when it comes to the church membership, they recognize that although all are baptized, there coexists both children of God and children of Satan co-mingling as members together.


----------



## Herald

servantofmosthigh said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> servantofmosthigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for your personal testimony of struggle and identity, I'm sorry to hear about that. My testimony is the exact opposite. I had grown up in the PCA denomination for 27 years of my life. My father remains a non-Christian. And his biggest argument against Christianity is "too many hypocrites." And growing up in a Presbyterian church where all members have been baptized and partake of the Lord's Supper but are mixed with both regenerates and unregenerates, I merely took it as an assumption that that is just part of what a church body is about. But after understanding the Baptist concept of Regenerate Church Membership and the close link Baptism has to Regenerate Church Membership, and consequently Lord's Supper has with Church Membership and Baptism, the entire relationship fit.
> 
> To this day, I still witness to my father the Gospel message. But he had been personally hurt in very deep emotional ways by church members who were unregenerate. And this is the biggest thorn that Presbyterianism has to deal with - children of Satan within its own ranks. And infant baptism as a sign of the covenant is nothing more than a false ticket of assurance of assuming salvation when it had not been granted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must give you great assurance to know that, for certain, you now attend a Church with a membership that is entirely regenerate. What confidence!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your sarcasm is for, brother. This is what Baptists have always called, "_Believer's_ Baptism." We baptize ONLY true believers of the Lord who have and can publicly profess Christ. Of course, that is assuming that Believer's Baptism is being administered properly rather than in a fashion to where the majority of the SBC churches are witnessing today of the fruits of improper administration of Believer's Baptism.
> 
> As well, Regenerate Church Membership has been one the major sections that make the 1689 BCF different from the 1646 WCF. Presbyterians never believed in Regenerate Church Membership, whereas Baptists have. (Compare WCF Ch.25 and 1689 Ch.26.6).
> 
> Which is the irony to Presbyterianism. On one hand, Presbyterianism believes in the Covenant of Grace - that baptism of infants bestows salvation to them, but then when it comes to the church membership, they recognize that although all are baptized, there coexists both children of God and children of Satan co-mingling as members together.
Click to expand...


Let me take a brief break from pounding those nails into my skull.

Will, Rich's sarcasm is directed at _what seems to be_ your perfect knowledge that Baptist regenerate membership means that all Baptists are regenerate. Credobaptism is administered to those who profess Christ. It is our earnest hope and expectation that they are saved. But the truth is that wheat and tares are together in the visible church.

I'll now go back to my nails...


----------



## servantofmosthigh

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Let me take a brief break from pounding those nails into my skull.
> 
> ...
> 
> I'll now go back to my nails...



Make sure to wear a safety helmet.


----------



## Archlute

servantofmosthigh said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find this a bit humorous for two reasons (although I do appreciate your attempt to back up a brother who may feel that he is in a bit of a corner):
> 
> 1st - I have been a Baptist for majority of my life, only changing positions on the sacraments at the age of 27 after a tremendous amount of struggle and study, and I first attended a Baptist seminary for several years before transferring to one that was confessionally Reformed. That is to say, I know Baptist history, ecclesiology, and theology at least as well as most Baptists. In fact, I studied Baptist ecclesiology under Jim Renihan at WSC as an elective credit just for kicks. Well, it was more serious minded than that, really, and it was a well-presented course, although I must say that it ultimately failed to persuade me to return to the Baptist position.
> 
> I was not referring to the lexicons used by the Magisterial Reformers, nor do I even know where I could find one (if anyone knows, I would think it a great patch of reading material)! I was referring, first of all, to the work by Dale, which is a late 19th century work (nearly early 20th century), and second of all to modern lexicons such as LSJ/LN/BDAG that are today used by every well-schooled churchman whether he be a Baptist, Presbyterian, or what have you. The one that was referenced in particular (LSJ) is not an ecclesiastical lexicon at all, but an English-Greek lexicon for use in studying Classical Greek literature. It does assist, however, in showing the broader use of a Greek term in documents outside of Holy Scripture (although it includes references to Scripture also) in the years preceding, concurrent with, and following upon the writings of the New Testament.
> 
> Again, I admire your defense, but I do not think that your analysis here is quite as accurate as that for which you would have hoped
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was interpreting your statement of "Classical, Jewish, Biblical, and Patristic writings" as referring to Reformation period writings or prior. Dale and LSJ are definitely not patristic writings. I was thinking that you were referencing them as secondary sources to draw some kind of primary patristic source. So thanks for the clarification.
> 
> In which case, if your concluding argument that the sources to be studied that levels out any argumentation against paedobaptism are the "Classical, Jewish, Biblical and Patristic writings" of the Reformation period, then my earlier rebuttal stands. But if your concluding argument about the sources that somehow level out any argumentation against paeodobaptism as referring to Dale, LSJ, BAGD, and other more modern and contemporary reference works, I find your conclusion faulty. Yes, I agree with you that LSJ has more of a Presbyterian bent, but so is Berkhof's Systematic Theology.
> 
> As for your personal testimony of struggle and identity, I'm sorry to hear about that. My testimony is the exact opposite. I had grown up in the PCA denomination for 27 years of my life. My father remains a non-Christian. And his biggest argument against Christianity is "too many hypocrites." And growing up in a Presbyterian church where all members have been baptized and partake of the Lord's Supper but are mixed with both regenerates and unregenerates, I merely took it as an assumption that that is just part of what a church body is about. But after understanding the Baptist concept of Regenerate Church Membership and the close link Baptism has to Regenerate Church Membership, and consequently Lord's Supper has with Church Membership and Baptism, the entire relationship fit.
> 
> To this day, I still witness to my father the Gospel message. But he had been personally hurt in very deep emotional ways by church members who were unregenerate. And this is the biggest thorn that Presbyterianism has to deal with - children of Satan within its own ranks. And infant baptism as a sign of the covenant is nothing more than a false ticket of assurance of assuming salvation when it had not been granted.
Click to expand...


Your writing is a little unclear, so I am not sure how you find the conclusion faulty. You didn't really do anything more than to make a bare assertion with that one. As well, I did not say that LSJ had a presbyterian bent, I said that it was not intended as an ecclesiastical document at all, so again, your writing is a little unclear to me.

As to your false hope that some sort of "believers only" baptismal concept will clear up all of the woes from your past - brother, I hate to break it to you, but you are going to be sadly disappointed. I must tell you with all honesty that I have met far more false professors in the credobaptist congregations that I had attended than I have in conservative Reformed churches. 

One of the things that drew me to the Reformed in the first place was the stark difference in seriousness and holy profession/act that I observed there, which was completely lacking from any baptistic fellowship that I had ever attended. To this day, some of the worse cases of hypocrisy and apostasy that I have witnessed and had the sorrow to engage against have been in credobaptists congregations. The practice of the administration will not change the reality of unregenerates coming into the church. I have seen some of the most "sincere" and vigorous adult testimonies be followed in later years by the most vicious denials of Christ, the most devastating cases of habitual adultery against spouse and children, deception and theft within church leadership, etc. You cannot hide from it by changing the application of baptism - sinners are sinners!

As for your father, and please don't take this too hard as I have said the same thing regarding my own father who also hides and sulks in his sin under the pretense of having been hurt by the church, I would tell him that he needs to grow up and get over it. If he had any love of Christ at all in his heart, he would realize that a) Christian love covers a multitude of sins, b) worshipping God among sinners is more important than rejecting God until you find the "perfect church" that will never hurt you, and c) he is a sinner just like the rest, and every sinner saved by grace was once a hypocrite also -maybe even a hypocrite who was saved while sitting in a church service!

The Anabaptists attempted to purify the church by overturning what they held to be a false application of baptism, and there was far more craziness going on in their circles than practically anywhere else during the reformation. It is not a "proper view of baptism" that will save any church from itself - it is only the work of the Holy Spirit among God's people. 

Btw, I will assume that your "Children of Satan" statement was directed at the true hypocrites in the church and not the baptized children. If it was also directed at all baptized children, it just goes to confirm that which Rich has been stating on several recent threads, namely, that the baptist view of baptism does serious harm against the nurture and discipleship of the children of believing families. I have seen as much when baptists refuse to let their children pray, because they are (as I have heard several put it) "little pagans". That view is a sin against the Church, and is certainly not the view of either Christ or his apostles. They are rather seen as blessed and holy to God.


----------



## DMcFadden

On the PB it is appropriate to deal with issues theologically. So far the positions for both views have been argued on biblical and theological grounds. However, it might also be interesting to look at it from an organizational intentionality angle. Viewed programmatically and organizationally (rather than theologically), both Presbyterians and Baptists attempt to deal with the practical pastoral problems inherent in their systems. 

Paedo-baptists will always have the problem that Roman Catholics have of avoiding religious nominalism despite the fact of infant entrance into the community. Catholics deal with it through confirmation while good Reformed churches seem to put much more stress on the third use of the law and the "experimental Calvinism" typical of the Puritans. Most of the strict Reformed groups also emphasize church discipline in ways that free churches have generally long since forgotten (except for a rare bird like MacArthur). Is it a fail safe method for quality assurance? No, Jesus spoke of the wheat and the tares.

Credo-baptists grew out of an environment of Christian nominalism in faith and attributed it to the problem of the composition of the church. If we just insist that you can't get into the community without at least giving a credible profession, perhaps that will purify the church. So a regnerate membership became the goal, safeguarded by believer's baptism. But, with the Baptist practice of performing baptisms at younger and younger ages (sometimes as young as 4 to 6), you must wonder if it is not more of a delayed infant baptism than adult "credo baptism."

Both systems attempt to be "biblical." They both seize upon themes and verses that make sense, at least on an unbiased "common sense" first reading of the text. And, both struggle to resolve a pastoral problem of hypocrisy and false professors in a disciplined and "biblical" manner. 

The law of non-contradiction convinces me that while both may be wrong, they cannot both be right. Hence, along with CT, my reading list for the next few months includes both paedo and credo books.


----------



## toddpedlar

servantofmosthigh said:


> I'm not sure what your sarcasm is for, brother. This is what Baptists have always called, "_Believer's_ Baptism." We baptize ONLY true believers of the Lord who have and can publicly profess Christ. Of course, that is assuming that Believer's Baptism is being administered properly rather than in a fashion to where the majority of the SBC churches are witnessing today of the fruits of improper administration of Believer's Baptism.
> 
> As well, Regenerate Church Membership has been one the major sections that make the 1689 BCF different from the 1646 WCF. Presbyterians never believed in Regenerate Church Membership, whereas Baptists have. (Compare WCF Ch.25 and 1689 Ch.26.6).
> 
> Which is the irony to Presbyterianism. On one hand, Presbyterianism believes in the Covenant of Grace - that baptism of infants bestows salvation to them, but then when it comes to the church membership, they recognize that although all are baptized, there coexists both children of God and children of Satan co-mingling as members together.



Which is exactly how the Kingdom of God on earth is described in Scripture. 

If you only baptize true believers, then what happens to your understanding of the perseverance of the saints when one of your members apostatizes? Perhaps it's never happened in YOUR church, but it happens ALL THE TIME in both credo- and paedo- baptistic churches. You might AIM to baptize true believers, i.e. the elect and regenerate, only, but that does NOT guarantee that it is so, and experience shows us that you are making a demonstrably false claim if in fact it is your contention that you IN FACT only baptize the elect.


----------



## servantofmosthigh

Archlute said:


> Your writing is a little unclear, so I am not sure how you find the conclusion faulty. You didn't really do anything more than to make a bare assertion with that one. As well, I did not say that LSJ had a presbyterian bent, I said that it was not intended as an ecclesiastical document at all, so again, your writing is a little unclear to me.
> 
> As to your false hope that some sort of "believers only" baptismal concept will clear up all of the woes from your past - brother, I hate to break it to you, but you are going to be sadly disappointed. I must tell you with all honesty that I have met far more false professors in the credobaptist congregations that I had attended than I have in conservative Reformed churches.
> 
> One of the things that drew me to the Reformed in the first place was the stark difference in seriousness and holy profession/act that I observed there, which was completely lacking from any baptistic fellowship that I had ever attended. To this day, some of the worse cases of hypocrisy and apostasy that I have witnessed and had the sorrow to engage against have been in credobaptists congregations. The practice of the administration will not change the reality of unregenerates coming into the church. I have seen some of the most "sincere" and vigorous adult testimonies be followed in later years by the most vicious denials of Christ, the most devastating cases of habitual adultery against spouse and children, deception and theft within church leadership, etc. You cannot hide from it by changing the application of baptism - sinners are sinners!
> 
> As for your father, and please don't take this too hard as I have said the same thing regarding my own father who also hides and sulks in his sin under the pretense of having been hurt by the church, I would tell him that he needs to grow up and get over it. If he had any love of Christ at all in his heart, he would realize that a) Christian love covers a multitude of sins, b) worshipping God among sinners is more important than rejecting God until you find the "perfect church" that will never hurt you, and c) he is a sinner just like the rest, and every sinner saved by grace was once a hypocrite also -maybe even a hypocrite who was saved while sitting in a church service!
> 
> The Anabaptists attempted to purify the church by overturning what they held to be a false application of baptism, and there was far more craziness going on in their circles than practically anywhere else during the reformation. It is not a "proper view of baptism" that will save any church from itself - it is only the work of the Holy Spirit among God's people.
> 
> Btw, I will assume that your "Children of Satan" statement was directed at the true hypocrites in the church and not the baptized children. If it was also directed at all baptized children, it just goes to confirm that which Rich has been stating on several recent threads, namely, that the baptist view of baptism does serious harm against the nurture and discipleship of the children of believing families. I have seen as much when baptists refuse to let their children pray, because they are (as I have heard several put it) "little pagans". That view is a sin against the Church, and is certainly not the view of either Christ or his apostles. They are rather seen as blessed and holy to God.



Concerning the Lexicons, please check your original posting with the latest statement as inconsistencies exist and possibly improved writing style in the original posting might be needed for better clarity.

As for the breaking of bad news of who has the more unregenerate members, I can attest to the contrary. Being involved with CHBC and now planting a church, and also witnessing ARBCA churches, I can say that the greatest and sweetest joy has been being involved and seeing first-hand the fruits of practicing Regenerate Church Membership.

As for your father, I can't comment on how you relate and respond to your father.

As for the Anabaptists, I'm not sure how they came into the picture here. We've been comparing Reformed Baptists (with general reference to the wider Baptist churches) to the Presbyterians. So I'm not sure what the purpose was that you brought them up.

As for the giving false assurance to baptized children of believers facilitating better nurture and discipline than teaching the children that their assurance of salvation rests on their own profession of Christ and not on any baptism of grace is the most dangerous deceit that the Presbyterians must shake out of. The danger with the Presbyterian concept of Covenant of Grace baptism is giving false assurance to children of believers when none was granted to them from the beginning. Election is not hereditary, nor is election granted through baptismal regeneration. Yet while Presbyterians profess to deny baptismal regeneration, in practice they are. I spoke with Ligon Duncan about this once, and he admits that that is a growing concern that he has to constantly debate and warn his fellow Presbyterian brothers about. And he admits that he is in the minority on this issue. The wider Presbyterian circle appears to practice and believe in baptismal regeneration of infants while professing with the mouth that they deny that doctrine. This is the greater danger to the children. A friend of mine (a former OPC elder who graduated from Greenville Presbyterian Seminary with a MDiv and Knox Presbyterian Seminary with a MA Missiology, and is currently a Reformed Baptist missionary) shared with me that that was one among many reasons he chose to leave Presbyterianism and join the Reformed Baptist - the issue that he had seen first hand the hypocrisy and duplicity that exists where one on hand, the OPC denies baptismal regeneration, but on the other hand, they encourage their children that they have been saved through the covenant of grace through baptism.


----------



## tcalbrecht

servantofmosthigh said:


> As for the breaking of bad news of who has the more unregenerate members, I can attest to the contrary, and respond with, "No, I am not and will not be disappointed." But I have been greatly disappointed with churches who allow openly professed unregenerates into church membership books. The difference between the two is that in the Regenerate Church Membership, all are professors of Christ. *In the Presbyterian concept of church membership, someone who openly admits not being a Christian but desires membership are granted membership nonetheless.*



Surely you are not being serious.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

servantofmosthigh said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> servantofmosthigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for your personal testimony of struggle and identity, I'm sorry to hear about that. My testimony is the exact opposite. I had grown up in the PCA denomination for 27 years of my life. My father remains a non-Christian. And his biggest argument against Christianity is "too many hypocrites." And growing up in a Presbyterian church where all members have been baptized and partake of the Lord's Supper but are mixed with both regenerates and unregenerates, I merely took it as an assumption that that is just part of what a church body is about. But after understanding the Baptist concept of Regenerate Church Membership and the close link Baptism has to Regenerate Church Membership, and consequently Lord's Supper has with Church Membership and Baptism, the entire relationship fit.
> 
> To this day, I still witness to my father the Gospel message. But he had been personally hurt in very deep emotional ways by church members who were unregenerate. And this is the biggest thorn that Presbyterianism has to deal with - children of Satan within its own ranks. And infant baptism as a sign of the covenant is nothing more than a false ticket of assurance of assuming salvation when it had not been granted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must give you great assurance to know that, for certain, you now attend a Church with a membership that is entirely regenerate. What confidence!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your sarcasm is for, brother. This is what Baptists have always called, "_Believer's_ Baptism." We baptize ONLY true believers of the Lord who have and can publicly profess Christ. Of course, that is assuming that Believer's Baptism is being administered properly rather than in a fashion to where the majority of the SBC churches are witnessing today of the fruits of improper administration of Believer's Baptism.
> 
> As well, Regenerate Church Membership has been one the major sections that make the 1689 BCF different from the 1646 WCF. Presbyterians never believed in Regenerate Church Membership, whereas Baptists have. (Compare WCF Ch.25 and 1689 Ch.26.6).
> 
> Which is the irony to Presbyterianism. On one hand, Presbyterianism believes in the Covenant of Grace - that baptism of infants bestows salvation to them, but then when it comes to the church membership, they recognize that although all are baptized, there coexists both children of God and children of Satan co-mingling as members together.
Click to expand...


Sarcasm to drive home a point. I could simply note, that given your 27 years in the PCA, you demonstrate remarkable ignorance of the WCF. Were you catechized? If so, would you point me to the section of our Confessional documents that allows a child _or_ an adult to presume upon their baptism? How about the portion that allows the Church Officers to "baptize and forget"? I might as well present the several SBC Churches that I've known as a demonstration of the fault of a "once saved, always saved" mentality that attends a regenerate Church membership to drive home my point. Your "experience" does not a Confessional understanding make.

I further find your ascription of any member of a Church, not under Church discipline, as a "child of the Devil", to be impiety of the highest order. Would you care to cite one example in the Epistles where the writer ascribes that term to a person still within the Church? Why didn't Paul say that of many in Corinth? To me, it represents a dangerous presumption that you know the very mind of God (His _hidden_ things). Not only do you seem to know who the Elect are, but you are able to label the Reprobate as well. Tell me, where do you get that right from the Scriptures?

Further, just when I get through being castigated for "misrepresenting" a Baptist position on the notion of "baptizing the regenerate", we get someone who revels in it. It actually helps clarify the issue - at least that the idea is propagated.

I'm curious. How do you explain the baptism of Judas? His baptism was under the direct gaze and authority of the Man who instituted the New Covenant. None of the Apostles were re-baptized so they clearly received the baptism of Jesus. Why did Jesus permit His ordinance to be placed on a man He clearly knew was _un_-regenerate, forever polluting the "example" to His Church that none but the regenerate should be baptized.

How about Simon the Sorceror? Regenerate? Why was he made a disciple?


----------



## servantofmosthigh

tcalbrecht said:


> servantofmosthigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for the breaking of bad news of who has the more unregenerate members, I can attest to the contrary, and respond with, "No, I am not and will not be disappointed." But I have been greatly disappointed with churches who allow openly professed unregenerates into church membership books. The difference between the two is that in the Regenerate Church Membership, all are professors of Christ. *In the Presbyterian concept of church membership, someone who openly admits not being a Christian but desires membership are granted membership nonetheless.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely you are not being serious.
Click to expand...


I didn't like the way I originally had written that paragraph as I sounded too combative. So I editted it, but it seems that during my editting, you had responded to it. Most especially, I wanted to delete that last sentence because I saw it as further diverging (another rabbit), and it was more of personal observation from handful of churches I've been a part of rather than about Presbyterianism as a whole.

But since you did post a request for a response, I'll go ahead and oblige. Not answering the rhetorical statement itself (would answering a "yes, I wasn't surely being serious" mean anything?), remember that the WCF and Presbyterianism never held to the doctrine of Regenerate Church Membership. Belief in Christ is not a prerequisite to becoming a member of a Presbyterian church. Of the many Presbyterian churches that I have been a member in (and I've been in many when my father was in the Army changing to new duty stations), none asked for any profession of faith, salvation testimony or the such. If we wanted to become a member, we simply ask the church secretary, and we were enrolled. That's it. Sometimes we had to attend new members class that explained some of the doctrines, as well as unique polities within the particular church, but on the whole, none asked about our spiritual nature in Christ.


----------



## Hippo

servantofmosthigh said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> servantofmosthigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for the breaking of bad news of who has the more unregenerate members, I can attest to the contrary, and respond with, "No, I am not and will not be disappointed." But I have been greatly disappointed with churches who allow openly professed unregenerates into church membership books. The difference between the two is that in the Regenerate Church Membership, all are professors of Christ. *In the Presbyterian concept of church membership, someone who openly admits not being a Christian but desires membership are granted membership nonetheless.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely you are not being serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't like the way I originally had written that paragraph as I sounded too combative. So I editted it, but it seems that during my editting, you had responded to it. I wanted to delete that last paragraph because I saw it as further diverging (another rabbit), and it was more of personal observation from handful of churches I've been a part of rather than about Presbyterianism as a whole.
> 
> But since you did post a request for a response, I'll go ahead and oblige. Not answering the rhetorical statement itself (would answering a "yes, I wasn't surely being serious" mean anything?), remember that the WCF and Presbyterianism never held to the doctrine of Regenerate Church Membership. Belief in Christ is not a prerequisite to becoming a member of a Presbyterian church. Of the many Presbyterian churches that I have been a member in (and I've been in many when my father was in the Army changing to new duty stations), none asked for any profession of faith, salvation testimony or the such. If we wanted to become a member, we simply ask the church secretary, and we were enrolled. That's it. Sometimes we had to attend new members class that explained some of the doctrines, as well as unique polities within the particular church, but on the whole, none asked about our spiritual nature in Christ.
Click to expand...


In the Free Church I had to take membership vows and be examined by the elders, my trust in Christ was the key question.

Do Baptists actually believe in the "doctrine of a regenerate church membership"? Even in the light of the comments made on such a position do you affirm it?


----------



## servantofmosthigh

Hippo said:


> In the Free Church I had to take membership vows and be examined by the elders, my trust in Christ was the key question.
> 
> Do Baptists actually believe in the "doctrine of a regenerate church membership"? Even in the light of the comments made on such a position do you affirm it?



Not all Baptists. Definitely those who hold to the 1689 BCF do. As well, Founder's Ministry has been for the last two SBC conferences been pushing the issue of Regenerate Church Membership to pass for resolution. It finally did this year, but had to be toned down alot. You can visit the Founder.org blog site and read more on this matter.

But Regenerate Church Membership has always been a historic Baptist distinctive, particularly among the Reformed Baptist side.


----------



## Hippo

servantofmosthigh said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the Free Church I had to take membership vows and be examined by the elders, my trust in Christ was the key question.
> 
> Do Baptists actually believe in the "doctrine of a regenerate church membership"? Even in the light of the comments made on such a position do you affirm it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all Baptists. Definitely those who hold to the 1689 BCF do. As well, Founder's Ministry has been for the last two SBC conferences been pushing the issue of Regenerate Church Membership to pass for resolution. It finally did this year, but had to be toned down alot. You can visit the Founder.org blog site and read more on this matter.
> 
> But Regenerate Church Membership has always been a historic Baptist distinctive, particularly among the Reformed Baptist side.
Click to expand...


Is it not more a doctrine of "people who claim to be regenerate membership"? Which is very different from a regenerate membership.


----------



## servantofmosthigh

Semper Fidelis said:


> servantofmosthigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> It must give you great assurance to know that, for certain, you now attend a Church with a membership that is entirely regenerate. What confidence!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your sarcasm is for, brother. This is what Baptists have always called, "_Believer's_ Baptism." We baptize ONLY true believers of the Lord who have and can publicly profess Christ. Of course, that is assuming that Believer's Baptism is being administered properly rather than in a fashion to where the majority of the SBC churches are witnessing today of the fruits of improper administration of Believer's Baptism.
> 
> As well, Regenerate Church Membership has been one the major sections that make the 1689 BCF different from the 1646 WCF. Presbyterians never believed in Regenerate Church Membership, whereas Baptists have. (Compare WCF Ch.25 and 1689 Ch.26.6).
> 
> Which is the irony to Presbyterianism. On one hand, Presbyterianism believes in the Covenant of Grace - that baptism of infants bestows salvation to them, but then when it comes to the church membership, they recognize that although all are baptized, there coexists both children of God and children of Satan co-mingling as members together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sarcasm to drive home a point. I could simply note, that given your 27 years in the PCA, you demonstrate remarkable ignorance of the WCF. Were you catechized? If so, would you point me to the section of our Confessional documents that allows a child _or_ an adult to presume upon their baptism? How about the portion that allows the Church Officers to "baptize and forget"? I might as well present the several SBC Churches that I've known as a demonstration of the fault of a "once saved, always saved" mentality that attends a regenerate Church membership to drive home my point. Your "experience" does not a Confessional understanding make.
> 
> I further find your ascription of any member of a Church, not under Church discipline, as a "child of the Devil", to be impiety of the highest order. Would you care to cite one example in the Epistles where the writer ascribes that term to a person still within the Church? Why didn't Paul say that of many in Corinth? To me, it represents a dangerous presumption that you know the very mind of God (His _hidden_ things). Not only do you seem to know who the Elect are, but you are able to label the Reprobate as well. Tell me, where do you get that right from the Scriptures?
> 
> Further, just when I get through being castigated for "misrepresenting" a Baptist position on the notion of "baptizing the regenerate", we get someone who revels in it. It actually helps clarify the issue - at least that the idea is propagated.
> 
> I'm curious. How do you explain the baptism of Judas? His baptism was under the direct gaze and authority of the Man who instituted the New Covenant. None of the Apostles were re-baptized so they clearly received the baptism of Jesus. Why did Jesus permit His ordinance to be placed on a man He clearly knew was _un_-regenerate, forever polluting the "example" to His Church that none but the regenerate should be baptized.
> 
> How about Simon the Sorceror? Regenerate? Why was he made a disciple?
Click to expand...


Given the lack of a Christ-like sweet tone being conveyed and the inflammatory word choice, I will respond to you in private.


----------



## tcalbrecht

servantofmosthigh said:


> I didn't like the way I originally had written that paragraph as I sounded too combative. So I editted it, but it seems that during my editting, you had responded to it. Most especially, I wanted to delete that last sentence because I saw it as further diverging (another rabbit), and it was more of personal observation from handful of churches I've been a part of rather than about Presbyterianism as a whole.
> 
> But since you did post a request for a response, I'll go ahead and oblige. Not answering the rhetorical statement itself (would answering a "yes, I wasn't surely being serious" mean anything?), remember that the WCF and Presbyterianism never held to the doctrine of Regenerate Church Membership. Belief in Christ is not a prerequisite to becoming a member of a Presbyterian church. Of the many Presbyterian churches that I have been a member in (and I've been in many when my father was in the Army changing to new duty stations), none asked for any profession of faith, salvation testimony or the such. If we wanted to become a member, we simply ask the church secretary, and we were enrolled. That's it. Sometimes we had to attend new members class that explained some of the doctrines, as well as unique polities within the particular church, but on the whole, none asked about our spiritual nature in Christ.



So do you believe that Presbyterians as a whole do not care about a credible profession of faith, or is it now just isolated to the churches (whatever denom they have been) that you have direct experience?

But I'm skeptical. You originally said (before editing), "someone who openly admits not being a Christian but desires membership are granted membership nonetheless" in these Presbyterian churches.

May I ask what Presbyterian churches these were that would admit confessed unbelievers into their membership? Did it really happen that some fellow walked up to the church secretary and said, "Hey, I’m a rank unbeliever. Will you enroll me in your church?" And they responded, "Sure, no problem"?


----------



## MW

North Jersey Baptist said:


> But the truth is that wheat and tares are together in the visible church.



The parable doesn't teach this is an accident to be avoided where possible, but a deliberate policy to be adopted lest the true wheat be destroyed. The fanciful ideal of a regenerate church memebership in fact serves to discriminate against those who are yet to bring forth the fruit of regeneration for human inspection.


----------



## Calvibaptist

Man, I have missed these threads!


----------



## Herald

Calvibaptist said:


> Man, I have missed these threads!



Doug, DO pass Go. We will send you your $200. Resist.


----------



## Pilgrim

servantofmosthigh said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your writing is a little unclear, so I am not sure how you find the conclusion faulty. You didn't really do anything more than to make a bare assertion with that one. As well, I did not say that LSJ had a presbyterian bent, I said that it was not intended as an ecclesiastical document at all, so again, your writing is a little unclear to me.
> 
> As to your false hope that some sort of "believers only" baptismal concept will clear up all of the woes from your past - brother, I hate to break it to you, but you are going to be sadly disappointed. I must tell you with all honesty that I have met far more false professors in the credobaptist congregations that I had attended than I have in conservative Reformed churches.
> 
> One of the things that drew me to the Reformed in the first place was the stark difference in seriousness and holy profession/act that I observed there, which was completely lacking from any baptistic fellowship that I had ever attended. To this day, some of the worse cases of hypocrisy and apostasy that I have witnessed and had the sorrow to engage against have been in credobaptists congregations. The practice of the administration will not change the reality of unregenerates coming into the church. I have seen some of the most "sincere" and vigorous adult testimonies be followed in later years by the most vicious denials of Christ, the most devastating cases of habitual adultery against spouse and children, deception and theft within church leadership, etc. You cannot hide from it by changing the application of baptism - sinners are sinners!
> 
> As for your father, and please don't take this too hard as I have said the same thing regarding my own father who also hides and sulks in his sin under the pretense of having been hurt by the church, I would tell him that he needs to grow up and get over it. If he had any love of Christ at all in his heart, he would realize that a) Christian love covers a multitude of sins, b) worshipping God among sinners is more important than rejecting God until you find the "perfect church" that will never hurt you, and c) he is a sinner just like the rest, and every sinner saved by grace was once a hypocrite also -maybe even a hypocrite who was saved while sitting in a church service!
> 
> The Anabaptists attempted to purify the church by overturning what they held to be a false application of baptism, and there was far more craziness going on in their circles than practically anywhere else during the reformation. It is not a "proper view of baptism" that will save any church from itself - it is only the work of the Holy Spirit among God's people.
> 
> Btw, I will assume that your "Children of Satan" statement was directed at the true hypocrites in the church and not the baptized children. If it was also directed at all baptized children, it just goes to confirm that which Rich has been stating on several recent threads, namely, that the baptist view of baptism does serious harm against the nurture and discipleship of the children of believing families. I have seen as much when baptists refuse to let their children pray, because they are (as I have heard several put it) "little pagans". That view is a sin against the Church, and is certainly not the view of either Christ or his apostles. They are rather seen as blessed and holy to God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerning the Lexicons, please check your original posting with the latest statement as inconsistencies exist and possibly improved writing style in the original posting might be needed for better clarity.
> 
> As for the breaking of bad news of who has the more unregenerate members, I can attest to the contrary. Being involved with CHBC and now planting a church, and also witnessing ARBCA churches, I can say that the greatest and sweetest joy has been being involved and seeing first-hand the fruits of practicing Regenerate Church Membership.
> 
> As for your father, I can't comment on how you relate and respond to your father.
> 
> As for the Anabaptists, I'm not sure how they came into the picture here. We've been comparing Reformed Baptists (with general reference to the wider Baptist churches) to the Presbyterians. So I'm not sure what the purpose was that you brought them up.
> 
> As for the giving false assurance to baptized children of believers facilitating better nurture and discipline than teaching the children that their assurance of salvation rests on their own profession of Christ and not on any baptism of grace is the most dangerous deceit that the Presbyterians must shake out of. The danger with the Presbyterian concept of Covenant of Grace baptism is giving false assurance to children of believers when none was granted to them from the beginning. Election is not hereditary, nor is election granted through baptismal regeneration. Yet while Presbyterians profess to deny baptismal regeneration, in practice they are. I spoke with Ligon Duncan about this once, and he admits that that is a growing concern that he has to constantly debate and warn his fellow Presbyterian brothers about. And he admits that he is in the minority on this issue. The wider Presbyterian circle appears to practice and believe in baptismal regeneration of infants while professing with the mouth that they deny that doctrine. This is the greater danger to the children. A friend of mine (a former OPC elder who graduated from Greenville Presbyterian Seminary with a MDiv and Knox Presbyterian Seminary with a MA Missiology, and is currently a Reformed Baptist missionary) shared with me that that was one among many reasons he chose to leave Presbyterianism and join the Reformed Baptist - the issue that he had seen first hand the hypocrisy and duplicity that exists where one on hand, the OPC denies baptismal regeneration, but on the other hand, they encourage their children that they have been saved through the covenant of grace through baptism.
Click to expand...


I don't know that I would characterize it as duplicity or hypocrisy. Maybe inconsistency and holding to a position that leads to confusion, as I have noted in previous threads. For an example from the latest issue of the OPC magazine "New Horizons" of what I think Will is probably getting at, see 
here for the article "Parenting the Baptized." 

I ask, if little Johnny is expected to do what brother. Dennison expects him to (i.e. live as one dead to sin) because he is a "covenant child," then why keep him from the table?


----------



## Pilgrim

Barnpreacher said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is obvious that one is biblical and that the other isn't. Or perhaps there could be some error on both sides. But both cannot be right. I don't know what about that would make a Baptist nervous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> If a credo would make a paedo be re-baptized before joining their church then obviously they (credo's) believe their (paedo's) baptism is unbiblical. Hence, that gets into the "two kingdoms" that Rich is talking about. But yet a lot of baptists want to just say, "It's o.k. if we don't necessarily agree on baptism. Let's just get along in the advancement of the kingdom." It's inconsistent. I've said this about the baptist conviction since I began studying this whole baptism issue out.
> 
> You can say the same about the paedo, but he's not asking the credo to be re-baptized if he joined a paedo church now is he?
Click to expand...


Some Baptists look askance at those cooperating with paedos in conferences like T4G, etc. Some paedos aren't interested in that kind of cooperation with Baptists either since in their view it tends to undermine confessionalism in favor of fellowship around the Five Points. It comes down to whether you think proper baptism is of the esse (essence) or the bene esse (well being) of the church. What you appear to be saying is consistent with the Dabney piece from his systematic theology that I used to post on my blog where he argues that immersionists unchurch all and that they all might as well be Landmarkists whether they accept the "odious consequences" or not.


----------



## servantofmosthigh

tcalbrecht said:


> So do you believe that Presbyterians as a whole do not care about a credible profession of faith, or is it now just isolated to the churches (whatever denom they have been) that you have direct experience?
> 
> But I'm skeptical. You originally said (before editing), "someone who openly admits not being a Christian but desires membership are granted membership nonetheless" in these Presbyterian churches.
> 
> May I ask what Presbyterian churches these were that would admit confessed unbelievers into their membership? Did it really happen that some fellow walked up to the church secretary and said, "Hey, I’m a rank unbeliever. Will you enroll me in your church?" And they responded, "Sure, no problem"?



That's why I had editted that posting. I realize I was drawing a strawman argument. As for what Presbyterian churches I know of and was inferring from, if you wish to know, please PM me.


----------



## Herald

Pilgrim said:


> servantofmosthigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your writing is a little unclear, so I am not sure how you find the conclusion faulty. You didn't really do anything more than to make a bare assertion with that one. As well, I did not say that LSJ had a presbyterian bent, I said that it was not intended as an ecclesiastical document at all, so again, your writing is a little unclear to me.
> 
> As to your false hope that some sort of "believers only" baptismal concept will clear up all of the woes from your past - brother, I hate to break it to you, but you are going to be sadly disappointed. I must tell you with all honesty that I have met far more false professors in the credobaptist congregations that I had attended than I have in conservative Reformed churches.
> 
> One of the things that drew me to the Reformed in the first place was the stark difference in seriousness and holy profession/act that I observed there, which was completely lacking from any baptistic fellowship that I had ever attended. To this day, some of the worse cases of hypocrisy and apostasy that I have witnessed and had the sorrow to engage against have been in credobaptists congregations. The practice of the administration will not change the reality of unregenerates coming into the church. I have seen some of the most "sincere" and vigorous adult testimonies be followed in later years by the most vicious denials of Christ, the most devastating cases of habitual adultery against spouse and children, deception and theft within church leadership, etc. You cannot hide from it by changing the application of baptism - sinners are sinners!
> 
> As for your father, and please don't take this too hard as I have said the same thing regarding my own father who also hides and sulks in his sin under the pretense of having been hurt by the church, I would tell him that he needs to grow up and get over it. If he had any love of Christ at all in his heart, he would realize that a) Christian love covers a multitude of sins, b) worshipping God among sinners is more important than rejecting God until you find the "perfect church" that will never hurt you, and c) he is a sinner just like the rest, and every sinner saved by grace was once a hypocrite also -maybe even a hypocrite who was saved while sitting in a church service!
> 
> The Anabaptists attempted to purify the church by overturning what they held to be a false application of baptism, and there was far more craziness going on in their circles than practically anywhere else during the reformation. It is not a "proper view of baptism" that will save any church from itself - it is only the work of the Holy Spirit among God's people.
> 
> Btw, I will assume that your "Children of Satan" statement was directed at the true hypocrites in the church and not the baptized children. If it was also directed at all baptized children, it just goes to confirm that which Rich has been stating on several recent threads, namely, that the baptist view of baptism does serious harm against the nurture and discipleship of the children of believing families. I have seen as much when baptists refuse to let their children pray, because they are (as I have heard several put it) "little pagans". That view is a sin against the Church, and is certainly not the view of either Christ or his apostles. They are rather seen as blessed and holy to God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerning the Lexicons, please check your original posting with the latest statement as inconsistencies exist and possibly improved writing style in the original posting might be needed for better clarity.
> 
> As for the breaking of bad news of who has the more unregenerate members, I can attest to the contrary. Being involved with CHBC and now planting a church, and also witnessing ARBCA churches, I can say that the greatest and sweetest joy has been being involved and seeing first-hand the fruits of practicing Regenerate Church Membership.
> 
> As for your father, I can't comment on how you relate and respond to your father.
> 
> As for the Anabaptists, I'm not sure how they came into the picture here. We've been comparing Reformed Baptists (with general reference to the wider Baptist churches) to the Presbyterians. So I'm not sure what the purpose was that you brought them up.
> 
> As for the giving false assurance to baptized children of believers facilitating better nurture and discipline than teaching the children that their assurance of salvation rests on their own profession of Christ and not on any baptism of grace is the most dangerous deceit that the Presbyterians must shake out of. The danger with the Presbyterian concept of Covenant of Grace baptism is giving false assurance to children of believers when none was granted to them from the beginning. Election is not hereditary, nor is election granted through baptismal regeneration. Yet while Presbyterians profess to deny baptismal regeneration, in practice they are. I spoke with Ligon Duncan about this once, and he admits that that is a growing concern that he has to constantly debate and warn his fellow Presbyterian brothers about. And he admits that he is in the minority on this issue. The wider Presbyterian circle appears to practice and believe in baptismal regeneration of infants while professing with the mouth that they deny that doctrine. This is the greater danger to the children. A friend of mine (a former OPC elder who graduated from Greenville Presbyterian Seminary with a MDiv and Knox Presbyterian Seminary with a MA Missiology, and is currently a Reformed Baptist missionary) shared with me that that was one among many reasons he chose to leave Presbyterianism and join the Reformed Baptist - the issue that he had seen first hand the hypocrisy and duplicity that exists where one on hand, the OPC denies baptismal regeneration, but on the other hand, they encourage their children that they have been saved through the covenant of grace through baptism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know that I would characterize it as duplicity or hypocrisy. Maybe inconsistency and holding to a position that leads to confusion, as I have noted in previous threads. For an example from the latest issue of the OPC magazine "New Horizons" of what I think Will is probably getting at, see
> here for the article "Parenting the Baptized."
> 
> I ask, if little Johnny is expected to do what brother. Dennison expects him to (i.e. live as one dead to sin) because he is a "covenant child," then why keep him from the table?
Click to expand...


Chris,

I just finished reading William Dennison's article. What I liked about it is that Mr. Dennison transcends the theological stand on paedobaptism and deals with the practicum. How does it *really *work out in everyday life. A few thoughts, with comments.

Mr. Dennison is exposing what he considers to be a practice by paedo parents that is inconsistent with paedo theology. 



> Perhaps in this situation a more biblical approach of covenantal discipline is that of the parent who uses the rod in the quest to remove the _total depravity_ from the child, driving him to see his need for Christ. (The rod is like a tutor to drive the child to a crisis event of receiving Christ and making a profession of faith.) In this model, the parent views the child as a depraved sinner outside the domain of Christ until he makes a profession of faith. Until that day of profession, the parent expects the child to live within the pervasive domain of sin. Over and over, _*I have heard parents who live out of this model and justify their children's unrighteous behavior by declaring that since their children are totally depraved, "boys will be boys, and girls will be girls."*_
> _*But that model is a synthesis of Reformed principles and a baptistic view of children. *_In other words, as the Reformed doctrine of total depravity is applied, the practical mentality is to view infant baptism as the Baptist views infant dedication and to view adult profession of faith as the Baptist views adult baptism.



He now seeks to discuss the remedy.



> But this mentality undermines the biblical and Reformed understanding of the covenant. Although the Reformed doctrine of total depravity must be maintained, in my experience it has been used too often by Reformed parents to excuse and justify ungodly behavior by their children. *Parents would be better served by reviewing some distinctives about the covenant from Scripture and noticing how faithful the language of the Westminster standards is to the teaching of Scripture *(esp. WCF 28.1; LC 165, 167; SC 94).





> Here is the heart of a "covenant consciousness." Our children have been baptized into Christ's death, and they are to walk "in newness of life," in the power of Christ's resurrection (6:3–4). Specifically, baptism is the sign and seal of the privileges and benefits of the covenant of grace in Christ's death and resurrection (WCF 28.1; LC 165, 167; SC 94). Paul is talking about living out of the gift of grace (6:1). In fact, the covenant of grace has reached its high point in Christ's death and resurrection—God's incredible gift of redemption to sinners (6:4). Baptism is a visible sign and seal of union with Christ (6:5).


But are these children actually born again? The sign is applied and the parent must assume that they have a regenerate child in their home. But is that a known fact? Dennison descibes the fictional "Johnny" this way:



> Johnny is to be living his baptism—living daily as one who is dead to sin (Christ's cross) and alive to righteousness (Christ's resurrection).


Why would he not say, "live his faith"? Could it be that neither theological system (credo or paedo) can guarantee that a child is regenerate? Therefore, the paedo cannot point to faith in the life of the child, because it may not be resident. The paedo points to baptism which is the sign of the covenant and pray that faith will be manifested and evidenced at a later date. It's either an assumption of regeneration or a hope of regeneration. At least that's the way it seems.

Dennison continues:



> _*With this understanding of "covenant consciousness," parents train their children to live their baptism.*_ This life in covenant with God is predicated upon the ministry of the ascended Christ in the heavenly places through his Spirit (cf. Eph. 1:3; 2:6; Col. 3:1–4). This redemptive life begins with the decretive will of the Father in heaven, and it is accomplished by the condescending work of the Son, who is now ascended as the Holy Spirit applies the benefits of Christ to the elect children of God (Christ's church). _*The covenantal gift starts in heaven so that our covenantal children can go to heaven; you must start in heaven in order to end up in heaven.*_


Are these children living their baptism because they already are positionally in heaven, or are they to live their baptism as a precursor to eventual regeneration?

Lastly:



> Even within the covenantal environment of the Reformed world, it can be appalling to see the delinquent lifestyles that are permitted, rationalized, justified, denied, and even encouraged. Indeed, Scripture conveys the realistic circumstances of the church's continual journey in this world: there will be covenant breakers. Depravity will raise its head. Even so, parents need to be reminded of the seriousness of their covenantal oath, which was taken at baptism, to raise their child in the fear and admonition of the Lord—to raise their child to confess and to live their baptism.


Dennison waits until the end of his article to agree that depravity can be present in children. He calls them "covenant breakers." He seems to write it from the position that these "covenant breakers" are not normative in covenant families, but exceptions. At least that is how I understand the tenor of his article.


----------



## MW

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Why would he not say, "live his faith"? Could it be that neither theological system (credo or paedo) can guarantee that a child is regenerate? Therefore, the paedo cannot point to faith in the life of the child, because it may not be resident. The paedo points to baptism which is the sign of the covenant and pray that faith will be manifested and evidenced at a later date. It's either an assumption of regeneration or a hope of regeneration. At least that's the way it seems.



Why single out infants? This is true for all individuals who are baptised. Regeneration is God's work, not man's. And the reason why one is urged to live his baptism is simply because the NT speaks of baptism as pointing to a living union with Christ.


----------



## Herald

> Why single out infants?


I'm not. Dennison's article was on how to parent "covenant children." I was only responding to his slant.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

servantofmosthigh said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> servantofmosthigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your sarcasm is for, brother. This is what Baptists have always called, "_Believer's_ Baptism." We baptize ONLY true believers of the Lord who have and can publicly profess Christ. Of course, that is assuming that Believer's Baptism is being administered properly rather than in a fashion to where the majority of the SBC churches are witnessing today of the fruits of improper administration of Believer's Baptism.
> 
> As well, Regenerate Church Membership has been one the major sections that make the 1689 BCF different from the 1646 WCF. Presbyterians never believed in Regenerate Church Membership, whereas Baptists have. (Compare WCF Ch.25 and 1689 Ch.26.6).
> 
> Which is the irony to Presbyterianism. On one hand, Presbyterianism believes in the Covenant of Grace - that baptism of infants bestows salvation to them, but then when it comes to the church membership, they recognize that although all are baptized, there coexists both children of God and children of Satan co-mingling as members together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarcasm to drive home a point. I could simply note, that given your 27 years in the PCA, you demonstrate remarkable ignorance of the WCF. Were you catechized? If so, would you point me to the section of our Confessional documents that allows a child _or_ an adult to presume upon their baptism? How about the portion that allows the Church Officers to "baptize and forget"? I might as well present the several SBC Churches that I've known as a demonstration of the fault of a "once saved, always saved" mentality that attends a regenerate Church membership to drive home my point. Your "experience" does not a Confessional understanding make.
> 
> I further find your ascription of any member of a Church, not under Church discipline, as a "child of the Devil", to be impiety of the highest order. Would you care to cite one example in the Epistles where the writer ascribes that term to a person still within the Church? Why didn't Paul say that of many in Corinth? To me, it represents a dangerous presumption that you know the very mind of God (His _hidden_ things). Not only do you seem to know who the Elect are, but you are able to label the Reprobate as well. Tell me, where do you get that right from the Scriptures?
> 
> Further, just when I get through being castigated for "misrepresenting" a Baptist position on the notion of "baptizing the regenerate", we get someone who revels in it. It actually helps clarify the issue - at least that the idea is propagated.
> 
> I'm curious. How do you explain the baptism of Judas? His baptism was under the direct gaze and authority of the Man who instituted the New Covenant. None of the Apostles were re-baptized so they clearly received the baptism of Jesus. Why did Jesus permit His ordinance to be placed on a man He clearly knew was _un_-regenerate, forever polluting the "example" to His Church that none but the regenerate should be baptized.
> 
> How about Simon the Sorceror? Regenerate? Why was he made a disciple?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given the lack of a Christ-like sweet tone being conveyed and the inflammatory word choice, I will respond to you in private.
Click to expand...


Sir,

You may consider your "tone" to be sweet but your words are anything but Christ-like in the posts I responded to.

1. You accused Presbyterians of baptizing people and leaving them to presume upon their baptism calling it a "dangerous deceit". This is either spoken out of ignorance or is a gross mischaracterization.

2. You claim that Presbyterians teach children that they are saved on the basis of their baptism. Ignorance or gross mischaracterization?

3. You called baptized men and women "children of Satan".

4. You claimed that you have a regenerate Church membership in contrast to Presbyterians that tolerate unregenerate members.

I scarcely have enumerated the number of offensive and erroneous statements in your posts and, amazingly, you come after me as being un-Christlike for challenging you?

This forum is for debate and discussion. _Honest_ debate and discussion. If you take up your sword here and wield it in an irresponsible manner and you get stung then don't start whining about it by claiming that someone else broke the rules.

You may leave the field if you don't want to be held accountable for irresponsible rhetoric.


----------



## MW

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Why single out infants?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not. Dennison's article was on how to parent "covenant children." I was only responding to his slant.
Click to expand...


Your response broadened the terms of reference in the article. Here is your question: "Could it be that neither theological system (credo or paedo) can guarantee that *a child* is regenerate?" The "guarantee of regeneration" is no part of paedobaptist practice.


----------



## Herald

If I broadened them it was to make a point. I understand that paedos cannot guarantee their children are regenerate. It was interesting watching Dennison's criticism of paedo parents who treat disobedient children as if they are depraved. But the fact is, he doesn't know that they aren't depraved. He then went into his "covenant children" thing, which is fine. I think the article underscores the practical aspect of Christian parenting. We just don't know. Considering all the physical, emotional and cognitive changes a child goes through, it is difficult to identify the evidence of a regenerate heart. It actually can sneak up on a parent. We live with our children daily and a certain amount of acclamation can take place. Preceptible change can sometimes take longer when you're around someone all the time.


----------



## MW

North Jersey Baptist said:


> It was interesting watching Dennison's criticism of paedo parents who treat disobedient children as if they are depraved.



I think the point is that they (and we) ARE depraved, and hence the need for them (and us) to develop a covenant consciousness of salvation in Christ.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> (Rom 10:8) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
> 
> (Rom 10:9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
> 
> (Rom 10:10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
> 
> (Rom 10:11) For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.



Confession for the Credo is important and it signifies that a work is happening.


----------



## Archlute

servantofmosthigh said:


> Concerning the Lexicons, please check your original posting with the latest statement as inconsistencies exist and possibly improved writing style in the original posting might be needed for better clarity.



Will, you are being a serious knucklehead on this point. I don't need to be told what I wrote in my first post, I should know - I wrote it! The words "church" "presbyterian" "ecclesiastical" etc. aren't even found there, so the initial confusion that _you_ had on that issue is something that you need to admit. Just fess up and admit that you were attempting to use a false argument regarding the "tainted sources" of the Magisterial Reformation, and got caught. It won't surprise me. As I said before, having once been a Baptist, and having studied at a Baptist seminary, I am fully aware of some of the false historical claims that are used to attempt to discredit Reformed exegesis/theology/theologians/you-name-it. Fess up.




> As for the breaking of bad news of who has the more unregenerate members, I can attest to the contrary. Being involved with CHBC and now planting a church, and also witnessing ARBCA churches, I can say that the greatest and sweetest joy has been being involved and seeing first-hand the fruits of practicing Regenerate Church Membership.



Great. So it's "my word against your word". That's fine. However, your reiterating of the fallacy that you practice "Regenerate Church Membership" instead of calling it for what it is, namely, professing church membership, is a tad irritating also. Would you really like to say that the people who I saw baptized and who later renounced Christ (verbally, no less) were really regenerate or that they were merely professing. You must hold that they were regenerate, using your terminology, and then of course that would make you an Arminian in your theology.



> As for your father, I can't comment on how you relate and respond to your father.



You are avoiding the thrust of that issue by still hoping to use your father's rebellion as an excuse for leaving paedobaptist churches. Hurt Christians who are real Christians, regardless of where the hypocrites may be found, will still return to the church.



> As for the Anabaptists, I'm not sure how they came into the picture here. We've been comparing Reformed Baptists (with general reference to the wider Baptist churches) to the Presbyterians. So I'm not sure what the purpose was that you brought them up.



Anabaptists are directly related to the post, because you have been attempting to use the same argument as they, namely, that if we can only overthrow the baptism of infants we can come up with a pure church full of only regenerate folk. You can deny that they are related ecclesiastically, but they are related by line of argumentation. Your argument is an Anabaptist argument, and that is why the comment is relevant.




> As for the giving false assurance to baptized children of believers facilitating better nurture and discipline than teaching the children that their assurance of salvation rests on their own profession of Christ and not on any baptism of grace is the most dangerous deceit that the Presbyterians must shake out of. The danger with the Presbyterian concept of Covenant of Grace baptism is giving false assurance to children of believers when none was granted to them from the beginning. Election is not hereditary, nor is election granted through baptismal regeneration. Yet while Presbyterians profess to deny baptismal regeneration, in practice they are. I spoke with Ligon Duncan about this once, and he admits that that is a growing concern that he has to constantly debate and warn his fellow Presbyterian brothers about. And he admits that he is in the minority on this issue. The wider Presbyterian circle appears to practice and believe in baptismal regeneration of infants while professing with the mouth that they deny that doctrine. This is the greater danger to the children. A friend of mine (a former OPC elder who graduated from Greenville Presbyterian Seminary with a MDiv and Knox Presbyterian Seminary with a MA Missiology, and is currently a Reformed Baptist missionary) shared with me that that was one among many reasons he chose to leave Presbyterianism and join the Reformed Baptist - the issue that he had seen first hand the hypocrisy and duplicity that exists where one on hand, the OPC denies baptismal regeneration, but on the other hand, they encourage their children that they have been saved through the covenant of grace through baptism.



There are so many erroneous assertions, unproven assumptions, and mis-characterizations in that paragraph that I won't even attempt to give it serious engagement. Shortly, however, I do not believe that you ever were a real Presbyterian (although you may have been in attendance), because you do not seem to grasp their theology in the least. The Westminster Standards make none of the claims regarding which you are making complaint. We certainly do not believe in baptismal regeneration, nor in assurance of election based on being born into a Christian home. I have never met any minister, or otherwise, in the PCA who holds those claims. We call our children to faith and repentance just as you, _but_ we are also more faithful to the Scriptures in acknowledging their status of being holy in the eyes of God, and blessed by the spirit of Christ to be in our home. 

I used to not believe the claims of other Presbyterians that some Baptists treat their kids as little pagans and no different than the world, but the more I speak to men such as yourself, the more I have to believe that there are actually men who would love to bring this destructive theology into their church an homes. I didn't speak like you have on the subject of children, even when I was a baptist. That is of course, because I had never heard Christ or the apostles speak this way of children. In fact, although you will deny it and say that Christ was speaking of "spiritual babes", the Lord Jesus condemned men such as yourself who would place a stumbling block before His children. 

Pastors such as yourself do a disservice to the Church as a whole by being either unschooled in your theology, or if that is not the case, by intentionally misrepresenting the theology of other branches of the Church. If you want to debate what Presbyterians believe, debate their doctrinal standards, not your own anecdotal perception of what you think to be their theology.


----------



## Barnpreacher

Pilgrim said:


> Some Baptists look askance at those cooperating with paedos in conferences like T4G, etc. Some paedos aren't interested in that kind of cooperation with Baptists either since in their view it tends to undermine confessionalism in favor of fellowship around the Five Points. It comes down to whether you think proper baptism is of the esse (essence) or the bene esse (well being) of the church. What you appear to be saying is consistent with the Dabney piece from his systematic theology that I used to post on my blog where he argues that immersionists unchurch all and that they all might as well be Landmarkists whether they accept the "odious consequences" or not.



Chris,

Thank you for that post, brother. I can honestly say I am trying to come to a conclusion as to whether or not this is the logical conclusion for immersionists. Obviously credo's are going to say it isn't, and some paedo's (such as Dabney) are going to say it is. I am trying to become fully persuaded in my own mind.


----------



## tcalbrecht

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Confession for the Credo is important and it signifies that a work is happening.



But there is no guarantee that you are ever baptizing a regenerate person.


----------



## toddpedlar

tcalbrecht said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Confession for the Credo is important and it signifies that a work is happening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But there is no guarantee that you are ever baptizing a regenerate person.
Click to expand...


Yes - all one has is good reason to baptize, no more... a credible profession is all one is able to see, but is reason enough to apply the sign.


----------

