# Dabney on Immersionists



## Pilgrim (Nov 25, 2006)

Immersionists unchurch all



> Only a part of the Immersionists have the nerve to assert this consequence. But their dogma involves it; and it is justly pressed on all.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Nov 25, 2006)

"The just mind replies to such a dogma, not only with a firm negative, but with the righteous indignation of an incredulus odi."

While I agree with this entirely: Good luck not getting beat to death in today's neo-victorian, politically correct, ecuminical society, that is to say not getting persecuted verbally for attempting this, especially the later part. 

Sometimes inter-denominational ecumincalism is nothing more than caving in on the truth, period, (and I'm not speaking about the laity who are taught) and no amount of lipstick can turn that pig into a beautiful woman. Because, while the 'high end' theologians who live and breath this stuff on a daily basis can distinguish the subtle differences, such 'ecumenical' peace treatise appear to the laity as nothing more than a form of "the difference really doesn't matter when all is said and done."

To this I give my hats off to the Lutherans for the most part who historically stand stronger and cave in less.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 25, 2006)

Larry Hughes said:


> "The just mind replies to such a dogma, not only with a firm negative, but with the righteous indignation of an incredulus odi."
> 
> While I agree with this entirely: Good luck not getting beat to death in today's neo-victorian, politically correct, ecuminical society, that is to say not getting persecuted verbally for attempting this, especially the later part.
> 
> Sometimes inter-denominational ecumincalism is nothing more than caving in on the truth, period, (and I'm not speaking about the laity who are taught) and no amount of lipstick can turn that pig into a beautiful woman. Because, while the 'high end' theologians who live and breath this stuff on a daily basis can distinguish the subtle differences, because such 'ecumenical' peace treatise appear to the laity as nothing more than a form of "the difference really doesn't matter when all is said and done."



Excellent post, Larry, although I'm not sure if I quite get the "neo-Victorian" reference. I am inclined to agree with your observations on inter-denominational dialogue, that those who aren't as attuned to nuances tend to think this is a matter of indifference, and we in the west certainly live in a doctrinally indifferent age. The other extreme is blind prejudice and unthinking adherence to tradition. 

I have little doubt that (and this is another symptom of our doctrinally indifferent age) most if not all of the Baptists on this board and elsewhere today will say "we don't believe in that Trail of Blood and Baptist Brider nonsense" but as Dabney said, it is basically the logical conclusion of the Baptist position since it has been almost universally recognized that baptism marks the entrance into the visible church. If immersion is the only baptism, then the inescapable conclusion is that paedobaptist churches are no churches at all. Bunyan took the different view that baptism was not necessary to enter the visible church, that a profession of faith was sufficient. Although it appears to be magnanimous, I submit that the Bunyan position has no scriptural warrant.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 26, 2006)

I am going to make some angry with this comment, but I often think some people make baptism an idol. I've seen more focus on it than on Christ many, many times. And no, I am not just talking about here on the PB.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 26, 2006)

trevorjohnson said:


> So...
> 
> 
> the article is written by an anti-immersionist telling us about the terrible doctrine that the immersionists believe in?
> ...



You mean similar to how you have recently been representing theonomists and Presbyterians in general in the best light?  




> As a Baptist I recognize that things can be done in an irregular way and still be valid. If one was baptized improperly, that baptism still may count as a valid baptism - though it was not by immersion.



If you mean here what I think you do, then you are not an immersionist although no doubt that mode is your preference. One can be an antipaedobaptist and not be an immersionist. 

The doctrine that the ONLY valid baptism is immersion is basically the _sine qua non_ of Baptist thought and to my knowledge is reflected in every Baptist confession ever written since the 1644 London Baptist Confession if not prior to that. But there seems to be a willingness among some in Baptist churches today to allow some leeway here, perhaps especially among those who have embraced the doctrines of grace. 

Do you believe someone who was baptized by pouring or sprinkling and believes that to be a valid baptism can join a Baptist church without being immersed? Would it matter to you whether the baptism was when they were an infant or not? Or would you only be willing to accept those who are baptized after a profession of faith? 



> Just like I can believe that a church can be highly irregular and still be a church. There can be erring churches.... a church which errs and recovers from error, and then errs again and recovers from error falls in and out of error - it does not fall in and out of church-dom (i.e. well, it was a church last week, now it is not..wait, it is a church again).
> 
> The same principle applies. We would of course wish that all believed as we do, but we have never doubted that Presbyterians belong to real churches and most of us would say that Presbyterians has real baptisms.



Who do you mean by we? I can only assume that it is the Baptists with whom you are familiar. However, the idea that Presbyterians do not belong to real churches has a long and distinguished pedigree in Baptist thought, (and not just Landmark) although they of course recognized that there were true Christians in paedobaptist churches. I doubt that, however charitable they may be, that most Baptists (meaning those holding to Baptist principles, not merely someone who happens to belong to a Baptist church) would say that Presbyterians have real baptisms. (I am also curious to know whether brother. Moore would say this.) Do you really mean to say that someone baptized as an infant (which would include most who are raised in the Presbyterian church) has a real baptism? 

As far as I know, you are not a Southern Baptist. But if you will recall, the IMB controversy last year was in part over whether _immersions_ performed by non baptists (such as Presbyterians) were to be considered valid for the purposes of commissioning someone as an IMB missionary. (The IMB had ruled that missionaries had to be immersed in a baptistic church that held to eternal security.) I seriously doubt that those (including some associated with Founders) who were crying Landmarkism would argue that sprinklings are valid albeit irregular. But this seems to be what you are saying here.



> Which, is often more than you all will do for us (see all the Baptist churches are not real churches threads)....



You ALL? Me thinks a little more caution is in order in imputing the statements of some to every non-baptist on this board.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 26, 2006)

houseparent said:


> I am going to make some angry with this comment, but I often think some people make baptism an idol. I've seen more focus on it than on Christ many, many times. And no, I am not just talking about here on the PB.



You are probably right. Anything can be an idol. Calvin said that the mind is an idol factory. This can include the doctrines of grace as well. How many people have we seen who can find nothing else to talk about?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 26, 2006)

I just wonder how much more good we could ALL do if the mode and methods of baptism weren't fought over as if it were the only issue Christ will judge us on. Please don't think I am picking on this thread, this has been going on for so, so, so, SOOOOO long and I have grown pretty tired of it. We have some very strong , wise, and dedicated Christians on this board who I think could find so much more to discuss that would be edifying and uplifting to all who post here. 

Bottom line:

Many here disagree on the methods and mode of baptism, lets move on.

Sorry to sound so grumpy.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 26, 2006)

houseparent said:


> I just wonder how much more good we could ALL do if the mode and methods of baptism weren't fought over as if it were the only issue Christ will judge us on. Please don't think I am picking on this thread, this has been going on for so, so, so, SOOOOO long and I have grown pretty tired of it. We have some very strong , wise, and dedicated Christians on this board who I think could find so much more to discuss that would be edifying and uplifting to all who post here.
> 
> Bottom line:
> 
> ...



I respect how you feel, Adam. There are times when debates turn me off as well. But I refer you to the heading for the Baptism forum, which I can see at the top of the page as I type this: 



> This forum is for those who desire to DEBATE and DISCUSS. All others please refrain from this Forum.



You may also want to refer to the Forum Guidelines for Covenant Theology

I post things like my blog post and in this thread today in the naive hope that someone may be actually be convinced by my feeble efforts. I agree with you that this is not a salvation issue, but are we to take the position that it doesn't matter at all? 

I understand that such debates are often unfruitful and unfortunately sometimes unedifying. But as the guidelines state, this forum is for those who wish to debate and discuss these issues, and others are asked to refrain from posting in this forum due to the often divisive nature of these debates.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 26, 2006)

Ok, good points and I wasn't trying to "growl" you or say you were breaking any rules. I am literally just tired of this debate. When you click "todays posts" I tend not to pay attention to what forum they are in. I guess I just have to avoid this one huh?

...Sigh

Thanks!


----------



## Larry Hughes (Nov 26, 2006)

Thanks Chris,

By “neovictorian” I was referencing the fact that the Victorian age was kind of the precursor to “politically correct” speech we see today rather than not mincing words for the sake of “kind society”. It is why men like Luther and Calvin sound harsh to us, when in fact they are dealing with life and death issues and do not have time for such foolishness.

Adam,

The debate is not a small one. It is wrong if it is taken as a “my law on baptism is better than your law on baptism”. If that is how it is being debated, then I agree with you and it is not only tiresome but wrong. 

However, if the debate is seeing baptism as Gospel versus another law, then the debate is not only valid but demanded for the sake of the Gospel. Because at the end of the day what is at danger here is the Cross of Christ and the faith, hope, and peace of the conscience of God’s people.

Think of it this way: If a thing was given to us by God to strengthen our faith in the Gospel due to our constant proclivity toward weakness in really believing the naked Gospel for us and only parts of it are important to hold to versus not other aspects of it, and then later on a group or person takes the “other aspects” of it and make it a “new law”, a must do or its not real; what do you think that does to the soliloquy of the conscience of the believer for which this grace was given in the first place? And secondly, who began setting up this “new law” in the first place?

In baptism some things are necessary not so much unto a “law” but to maintain the Gospel in it. For example the name of God, the Trinity. If you remove that then what do you have? Nothing. However, to suddenly insert mode as the only real valid mode, where no such assertion is ever made, is to make it a new law and obscures the Gospel. The fact that it obscures the Gospel in baptism ought be enough to war against it and stand firm in the one faith, one Lord, one Spirit, one body and one baptism to all. Note how something that is otherwise indifferent, mode, is made not indifferent by requiring one mode above other modes. A thing indifferent to baptism is then made a thing of primacy and simultaneously a thing prime to baptism, the name of God, is slowly hidden as prime. This is the subtle trickery of the devil, to hide the real issue by keeping a “non-issue” at the front. As long as there exists this insistence of one mode, then there exists a deception that hides the Cross by its very existence. To cave in to the one mode would be to validate it as a prime thing and that cannot be done.

So, again if the debate is “my law is better than yours” then it is wrong. But if it is “your hiding the Gospel and here is how”, then it is right to debate and defend. We are called to defend the Gospel.

Trever,

Pause just one second and look at your entire language and consider the conscience of the believer, then maybe, per chance, you will recognize the great harm an “immersionist only” position has on the believer by making it an ‘implied’ law rather than the giving of the Gospel; and then understand what the article was getting at, to wit; to cause doubt upon a persons baptism, God’s name and particularly to the laity this causes several harms. Your “soft” terms are not so soft as they intend to be.

Things are black and white, not the fuzzy language you offer.

“As a Baptist I recognize that things CAN be done in an IRREGULAR (a not so disguised way of saying “wrong”) way and still be valid. If one was baptized IMPROPERLY (the disguise begins to come off a bit here), that baptism still MAY (implied may not because it either IS or IS NOT, no middle ground) count as a valid baptism – THOUGH IT WAS NOT BY immersion (once again the disguising language takes of its mask)”

The sum total of your communication regardless of the “couched” terms mingled throughout is this; immersion is the only real true and valid baptism and if you really want to be sure, for what blood bought Christian does not, you better get immersed. Ergo if “I’m a real Christian this I will do.” In short “doubt the Gospel”. This is the devil’s attack from day one of the Reformation regarding baptism and the sacraments, to cause them to be nothing to the conscience of the believer in his time of need under suffering.

Let me re-write it in a way that may show what you are saying to a person baptized in another mode and perhaps you will see what you are communicating to them and see why it is anti-gospel and anti-cross at the end of the day:

“If one “believes” improperly, that “belief” still may (implied may not) count as a valid belief - though it was not “true belief”. The sum of which is “I don’t know and cannot be assured. The devil’s real intent.

Perhaps that helps.

Because baptism is viewed as a promise, inheritance and gift FROM God and NOT just an empty badge whereby it may be blasphemously repeated mocking God. To view baptism as GOD’s WORK in spite of the receiver of it versus baptism as man’s work that can be repeated is really two different religions at the end of the day on the issue of the sacraments and not a thing of indifference. Baptism, as with all sacraments, is given for faith not to be the devil’s instrument against faith. Baptism is the real giving of the name (authority) of God thus we baptize in the name of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit – not in the name (authority) of the receiver, not in the name (authority) of faith, and certainly not in the name (authority) of a particular mode. To give God’s name is no trifling matter. Ironically those who rebaptize violate the third commandment and end up using the name of God in vain. How so? By explicitly “rebaptizing” in an open ceremony and worship to all eyes beholding, this says, that the prior true and real baptism and giving of God’s name in that was nothing at all, in fact worthless, pointless and useless and what really counts is a man’s profession of faith, not the name of God. That’s the real witness of “rebaptism”.

However, foisting a false singular mode (the singularity is false not the specific mode) as “the only mode” or “proper mode” in turn causes to the conscience of the already truly baptized trusting in Christ alone and the baptism He gave them to (i.e. the baptized covenant children and those by other modes, if they encounter Baptist and baptistic types) believer to doubt God’s grace toward them. That is to say doubt the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the devil’s goal realized. And then to go seeking by sight something within them that assures God’s grace toward them rather than the cross to which their real and true baptism was based upon and not their faith weak, strong or non-existent before hand. When the Christian in the best position is the one not seeking anything in himself and sees himself worse a sinner day by day. Why? Because he is fixing all the more under this suffering unto the Cross of Christ, God graciously not letting him see himself improving and thereby all the more clinging strongly to the Cross of Christ all the more. In short blessed is the man who does not see himself better but more the sinner and clinging more unto the Cross, or “blessed are the poor in spirit, hungering and thirsting after righteousness”.

The Baptist position forces, through that view of baptism, one to look at faith to have assurance or faith rather than the object of saving faith the Cross of Christ to which baptism must point and rest. And thus looking for assurance is not saving faith but having faith in faith, that is a baptism that points to faith is manifestly saying, trust in faith to which “baptism” points for assurance. This is why rebaptisms occur be it in regards to mode or when it was given.

That’s the issue at hand, the Gospel to a person, and not a thing of indifference.

Blessings in Christ’s grace to you,

Ldh


----------



## Herald (Nov 26, 2006)

Dabney writes:



> All parties are agreed, that baptism is the initiatory rite which gives membership in the visible Church of Christ.



Question: Can a person be born again without being a member of the visible church?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 26, 2006)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Dabney writes:
> 
> 
> 
> Question: Can a person be born again without being a member of the visible church?




Better yet, can a person who is not a child of Abraham by faith truly be a true member of Christ's body?



> (Jer 31:31) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
> 
> (Jer 31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
> 
> ...




Now concerning Baptism and circumcision.... and the true Covenant children of Abrahams faith.

God wrote through Paul, "For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision *avails anything, but a new creation"*l 6:15 ). Nor does He say this because baptism is the replacement for circumcision. Paul never makes this argument in Galatians (or anywhere else!) and at the meeting at Jerusalem to discuss circumcision, bapism is not so much as mentioned. Why didn't the Apostles simply say, "The Gentiles Christians don't need to be circumcised because they've already been baptized"? Because baptism and circumcision are two very different things. Circumcision was for the physical descendants of Abraham; baptism is for the spiritual descendants- those who are of faith (Gal 3:7 ). Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 

Ishmael was not a Covenant child in the since of being in Christ. Ishmael was very firmly out of His covenant. Ishmael was rejected. 'And Abraham said to God, "Oh, that Ishmael might live before You!" Then God said: "No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him. "' Gen 17:18-19 (NKJV)

Baptism is meant for those of faith who are regenerate. True members in the body of Christ are alive and not dead in faith. Babes in Christ should be baptized. Babes who have a confessing faith that is.

Concerning the immersion issue.... The Greek word is actually used in varying ways in the Septuagint. I am more inclined to think immersion is the biblical picture of being burried.

You may think I am ecumenical in the fact that I don't limit myself to accept only Baptist's as my brothers and that I do not consider all others cut off. But so be it. My brothers are my brothers and we do have the same father who loves us. He paid an aweful high price for us to love one another.

Randy


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 26, 2006)

Larry Hughes said:


> The Baptist position forces, through that view of baptism, one to look at faith to have assurance or faith rather than the object of saving faith the Cross of Christ to which baptism must point and rest. And thus looking for assurance is not saving faith but having faith in faith, that is a baptism that points to faith is manifestly saying, trust in faith to which “baptism” points for assurance. This is why rebaptisms occur be it in regards to mode or when it was given.
> 
> That’s the issue at hand, the Gospel to a person, and not a thing of indifference.
> 
> ...



Some of what you say may happen here Larry. But I believe you are setting up a straw man in most cases. My hope is not in my faith even though it is a reality in my justification as it is in everyones. Without having faith in Christ and His work we have nothing. So it really isn't faith in faith. It is an understanding that we are justified because of our faith in the Person and Work of Christ. If you want to propose a faith in faith scheme go the Word Faith movement. My baptism points me to the facts that I by faith am hid in Christ's burial, my sins are burried with Him, and I am risen with him in newness of His ressurection.


----------



## Herald (Nov 26, 2006)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Dabney writes:
> 
> 
> 
> Question: Can a person be born again without being a member of the visible church?



I asked this question for a reason. The answer is either:

1. Yes. It is possible to be born again an not be part of the visible church.

-or-​
2. No. In order to be a part of the visible church you must be baptized _in addition_ to being born again.

If the correct answer is #2, then it is possible to have believers in Jesus Christ who are not part of the church. They came to faith in Christ but were never scripturally baptized. The result? No church for them. Sounds fishy to me. I am not downplaying baptism. As a Baptist I hold to the position that all believers should be baptized quickly (almost hastily). But is it the baptism that makes them part of the church, or was it believing with faith? And if the answer is the former, does only an "approved" baptismal method bring you into the church?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 26, 2006)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> I asked this question for a reason. The answer is either:
> 
> 1. Yes. It is possible to be born again an not be part of the visible church.
> 
> ...




Some of you are not going to like my answer but I would have to say yes. I became a Christian by reading the scriptures in a Navy barracks. I know I believed upon Christ and His work for me. I am sure He justified me and forgave me of my sin because I called upon Him. But God in His providence joined me to a group of believers within a few weeks. I had almost no Christian influence in my life up to that point.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 26, 2006)

houseparent said:


> I just wonder how much more good we could ALL do if the mode and methods of baptism weren't fought over as if it were the only issue Christ will judge us on. Please don't think I am picking on this thread, this has been going on for so, so, so, SOOOOO long and I have grown pretty tired of it. We have some very strong , wise, and dedicated Christians on this board who I think could find so much more to discuss that would be edifying and uplifting to all who post here.
> 
> Bottom line:
> 
> ...




I'm with you brother. The whole thing is getting silly now in my opinion.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 26, 2006)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> I asked this question for a reason. The answer is either:
> 
> 1. Yes. It is possible to be born again an not be part of the visible church.
> 
> ...



It seems to me that you may be conflating the invisible and visible church, equating being born again with being a member of the visible church. There are members of the visible church that aren't members of the invisible (true) church and vice versa. 

The questions you ask are not either/or. Yes it is possible to be born again and not a member of the visible church. But Baptism has almost universally been recognized as the initiatory sign into the visible church. To join a church of practically any denomination, you have to be baptized, whether there or having been validly baptized previously. Again, I quote Dabney: 



> All parties are agreed, that baptism is the initiatory rite which gives membership in the visible Church of Christ. The great commission was: Go, and disciple all nations, baptizing them into the Trinity. Baptism recognizes and constitutes the outward discipleship. Least of all, can any Immersionist dispute this ground. Now, if all other forms of baptism than immersion are not only irregular, but null and void, all unimmersed persons are out of the visible Church.


----------



## Herald (Nov 26, 2006)

I recognize only one church: _the church._ It consists of all born again believers. Now, as to visible and invisible.... I suppose one can say that baptism brings a believer into membership (fellowship) with a local body of believers. If that local body is termed the "visible" church, then I can understand the term. I'm not sure I understand the premise that underscores what Dabney wrote, but I would concur that unless a person is scripturally baptized they cannot become a member of most Baptist congregations. I am leaning more towards Piper's position though. I would probably not demand that a previously paedo baptized individual go through the waters of baptism again. But if a person has never been baptized, I would require them to be immersed.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 26, 2006)

Blueridge reformer said:


> I'm with you brother. The whole thing is getting silly now in my opinion.



You need to stay out of this forum then.  

Chris even quoted this in case you need it re-iterated:


> This forum is for those who desire to DEBATE and DISCUSS. All others please refrain from this Forum



I'll delete any more comments like this.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 26, 2006)

> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > Again, I quote Dabney:
> ...



Dabney is correct in his assesment if you are a Baptist who believes Immersion is the only valid authorized way to biblically baptize anyone. I would also go one step further adding to his assesment that one must be confessional (or confessing faith) for admittance into the visible Church of Christ. Ditto to the Visible / Invisible clarification Chris.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 26, 2006)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> I recognize only one church: _the church._ It consists of all born again believers. Now, as to visible and invisible.... I suppose one can say that baptism brings a believer into membership (fellowship) with a local body of believers. If that local body is termed the "visible" church, then I can understand the term. I'm not sure I understand the premise that underscores what Dabney wrote, but I would concur that unless a person is scripturally baptized they cannot become a member of most Baptist congregations. I am leaning more towards Piper's position though. I would probably not demand that a previously paedo baptized individual go through the waters of baptism again. But if a person has never been baptized, I would require them to be immersed.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 26, 2006)

trevorjohnson said:


> Larry...
> 
> ALso, I have never looked back on my baptism for assurance. I do not think that hardly any baptists who believe in sovereign grace do.
> 
> We only look back to the time in which we knowingly were brought to a saving knowledge and committance to Christ. Really, besides a few Lutherans, I have never heard someone's baptism being held up as evidence of assurrance and if any Presbyterians do, I hope that they don't presume on their own regeneration due to their parents, but own Christ for themselves.



It is not a "Presbyterian" or "Lutheran" thing to remember our baptism but a Christian thing:

Romans 6:3-7


> 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
> 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been freed from sin.


Paul reminds them of the signficance of their baptism - not what _they_ decided to do but what was sealed to them. As they are then identified with Christ in their baptism, they are to walk in newness of life as Christians.

Also:


> COL 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead





> 1CO 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.





> GAL 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.


That passage in Galatians was a very significant reminder to some Gentiles who were questioning their Covenant status.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 26, 2006)

http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs5/sis/sprinkle.html


----------



## Herald (Nov 26, 2006)

Scott - my point is not whether sprinkling or immersion is the correct mode of baptism. We are going to disagree on baptism. I'm fine with that. I was more concerned with the visible/invisible church thing. See my previous comments.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Nov 26, 2006)

> Some of what you say may happen here Larry. But I believe you are setting up a straw man in most cases. My hope is not in my faith even though it is a reality in my justification as it is in every ones. Without having faith in Christ and His work we have nothing. So it really isn't faith in faith. It is an understanding that we are justified because of our faith in the Person and Work of Christ. If you want to propose a faith in faith scheme go the Word Faith movement. My baptism points me to the facts that I by faith am hid in Christ's burial, my sins are burried with Him, and I am risen with him in newness of His ressurection.



Randy,

My reply not with standing it is good to hear from you again, it always is. Believe it or not you always remain in my thoughts and prayers.

It is no straw man at all. Do rebaptisms occur, yes, hence no straw man they are quite real. Why where you rebaptized if baptism is rooted in the word of God and His name? Make no mistake about it, this is always the crux of the issue. Was the first baptism real, was it from God or from men? If you answer no, then you’ve proven my point. If you answer yes, then you’ve refuted yourself. It really boils down to seeing it as a work of God versus a work of man. That really is the crux of the issue. If you see it as a work of God, God giving His name to you, then baptism IS baptism regardless of who receives it, real faith or hypocrite or later real faith. IF you see it as a work of man, even by secondary proofs or evidences, then you will not see baptism as real unless the work is done in the man first. You state some what correctly in formula that “my baptism points me to the facts that I by faith am hid in Christ’s burial and etc…” But it is not “your” baptism but God’s, His name is given in the baptism not yours or mine. Secondly, though you formulate it correctly after the fact, why did you get rebaptized? If this is true, then you never had grounds to be “rebaptized” in fact any rebaptism is false altogether. 

The sacraments, were given FOR faith not against it. Such a view of baptism, based upon the possession of faith, will not with stand the assaults of the devil for one second. Why? Because the devil can easily without breaking a sweat under cut effortlessly ALL those precious secondary causes that one basis their “possession of true faith” upon. This is why faith must not look secondarily at secondary causes but the cross of Christ no matter what. Because a faith rooted in secondary causes, fruits, can always be cut to shreds by the devil’s accusations. It goes like this: One basis their baptism upon the possession of faith. However, “how do I know I have real faith that is that I really trust Christ alone?”, one assumes secondary causes. So one goes to searching for this to prove the possession of faith whereby so called real baptism may be had. Once one is satisfied by some unknown mystical assessment of the purity of such secondary causes, one will then be “rebaptized”. Yet, the devil if he wishes can slaughter all of these. All he has to do is call into question the sincerity of the heart or ‘was it enough’ upon the secondary causes of faith or faith itself. Then, that second false baptism falls and onto another devil’s baptism number three or four or etc… The devil can play this game of baptismal “ping pong” mocking God and terrorizing the believer all day long.

That is entirely a different religion than viewing baptism as objective just as the Gospel is. Thus, if one is baptized objectively, that is it is real because of God’s name, promise, Gospel, Cross and Word then it matters not one wit if I really possess saving faith or not. I need not go searching secondary causes. In fact the joyous release of this Gospel objectively in baptism gives one strength objectively against the devil, especially during his assaults. If I’ve sinned egregiously even stunning myself to doubt my Christianity, such a baptism objectively understood drives me immediately back to the Cross, where baptism is real not in my faith, to true repentance, contrition, and true restoration of that very faith I doubted I previously had.

At the end of the day that’s two different religions concerning the sacraments. To this point Martin Luther observes concerning suffering and the proper use of the sacraments versus the devil’s voice, “The devil says: The Word commands that you should believe God. Why then do you put your faith in the water. The water is nothing. It is only a sign. There is no word there, no command, but only water which a cow drinks. When Satan's word is believed, all comfort is lost, and again he has achieved his purpose of destroying faith.”

Blessings,

Ldh


----------



## Larry Hughes (Nov 26, 2006)

Tever,



> Can I work with them and act like our differences are small (or would that also belittle this Gospel ordinance)? In am imperfect world what do I do and how do I labor besides brothers who differ?



I don’t think there is a problem in laboring together concerning the Word of Gospel, just sacraments. I’ve never said otherwise. But on the point of the sacraments the Gospel must stand. It is a sad reality of the ill seed the devil has sewn among us. In a since I am thankful to the error of the Baptist, it drove me deeper to the Cross and the Gospel than I would have ever gone on my own.



> ALso, I have never looked back on my baptism for assurance. I do not think that hardly any baptists who believe in sovereign grace do.



Of this I have no doubt, it is a baptistic profession. Sovereign grace would include understanding baptism as sovereignly based upon God’s name and not ceremony that can be mockingly repeated based upon something else. Sovereign grace, the Gospel, IS in baptism. To deny sovereign grace in baptism is to deny 1. The Gospel in baptism and 2. Admit it to be a work of man rather than a work/gift objectively rooted FROM God. In fact Rome would differ little with you on this very point.



> We only look back to the time in which we knowingly were brought to a saving knowledge and committance to Christ. Really, besides a few Lutherans, I have never heard someone's baptism being held up as evidence of assurrance and if any Presbyterians do, I hope that they don't presume on their own regeneration due to their parents, but own Christ for themselves.



A few quotes on assurance from baptism:

“Every one must, I think, clearly perceive, that all arguments of this stamp are mere perversions of Scripture. The other remaining arguments akin to these we shall cursorily examine. They object, that baptism is given for the remission of sins. When this is conceded, it strongly supports our view; for, seeing we are born sinners, we stand in need of forgiveness and pardon from the very womb. Moreover, since God does not preclude this age from the hope of mercy, but rather gives assurance of it, why should we deprive it of the sign, which is much inferior to the reality? The arrow, therefore, which they aim at us, we throw back upon themselves. Infants receive forgiveness of sins; therefore, they are not to be deprived of the sign. They adduce the passage from the Ephesians, that Christ gave himself for the Church, "that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word," (Eph. 5: 26.) Nothing could be quoted more appropriate than this to overthrow their error: it furnishes us with an easy proof. If, by baptism, Christ intends to attest the ablution by which he cleanses his Church, it would seem not equitable to deny this attestation to infants, who are justly deemed part of the Church, seeing they are called heirs of the heavenly kingdom. For Paul comprehends the whole Church when he says that it was cleansed by the washing of water. In like manner, from his expression in another place, that by baptism we are ingrafted into the body of Christ, (1 Cor. 12: 13,) we infer, that infants, whom he enumerates among his members, are to be baptised, in order that they may not be dissevered from his body. See the violent onset which they make with all their engines on the bulwarks of our faith.” 

- John Calvin, Infant Baptism Defense

“For if we were incorporeal (as Chrysostom says), He would give us these very things naked and incorporeal. Now, because we have souls engrafted in bodies, He imparts spiritual things under visible ones.”
- John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 4.14.3
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.
- Nicene Creed
How is it signified and seal unto you in holy baptism that you have part in the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross?
Thus, that Christ has appointed this outward washing with water and added the promise that I am washed with His blood and Spirit from the pollution of my soul, that is, from all my sins, as certainly as I am washed outwardly with water, by which the filthiness of the body is commonly washed away.
- Heidelberg Catechism, Q/A 69
The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.
- Westminster Confession 28.6

[The sacraments] are visible signs and seals of an inward and invisible thing, by means whereof God works in us by the power of the Holy Spirit. Therefore the signs are not empty or meaningless, so as to deceive us. For Jesus Christ is the true object presented by them, without whom they would be of no moment.
- Belgic Confession Art 33
Neither does this baptism avail us only at the time when the water is poured upon us and received by us, but also through the whole course of our life.
- Belgic Confession Art 34
. . . the truth and substance of baptism is comprised in [Jesus Christ]. For we have no other washing than in His blood, and we have no other renewal than in His death and resurrection. But as He communicates to us His riches and blessings by His word, so He distributes them to us by His sacraments.
- John Calvin, 1542 Baptismal Exhortation



> Of course, I think you Presbyterians are wrong - there is a reason that I am a Baptist. But recognizing that some things are primary and some things are secondary is important. You all are so right on so many other issues...AND the task before us is so gigantic, why should I try to kill a brother by friendly fire when their are plenty of targets out front who are true enemies of the Cross?



I use to be a Baptist by the way, so I don’t come at this from one side. This is a non argument trying to defend an error position when somebody rises up to defend the Gospel in Baptism by claiming that discussion of the Sacraments is always divisive, a ‘let us teach only those doctrines which bring us together’ war cry. All doctrines of the Gospel are important especially the Word and the Sacraments.



> Perhaps what I am saying is, Yes you are wrong, but not very much - not enough to part fellowship. We differ a little and I must hold to my own guns, but I still want to fellowship as much as possible.



You see I’m not disagreeing with fellowship, but I must when you force me to concede the Gospel, friend or foe, in the sacraments part company. It is like this and similar to what Luther correctly said; if you ask me for my cloak, to love you and help you, you have it without reservation, however when you ask me (in this case concerning the Gospel in baptism) to surrender the Cross ‘this way’ I must battle on the issue. For both my soul and your own and others for that matter that hear and listen. It’s not a matter of “me being right and you being wrong”, I could care less about that, that is not EVER what I’m going for. For that matter I wish you could give me the Gospel in great strength to encourage me back. I give you this Gospel in baptism not to destroy your faith or my brother Baptist, but in hopes that they will see and rejoice deeply that God indeed baptized them and not they themselves (the first time for many). 

I teach my children even at this early age and they affirm back to me as they are able to articulate (they are very young so our catechism is short and simple), “Who died on the cross?” They answer, “Jesus”. Then I say, “Why did Jesus die on the cross” and they reply, “for my sin”. Then I ask, “What is sin”. They reply, “Selfishness”, the closest thing to inward turning and lovelessness (against the Law) they understand and that I can communicate to them at this age. Then I say, “How do you know that Jesus died for YOU on the cross?” Then they answer, “Because God baptized us, mommy and daddy and Anna and Ashlynn by Pastor.” Their language is very limited at this point, but their understanding is growing with their language. This every night. Then I teach them to pray the Lord’s prayer calling upon the name of the Lord to Whom was given them in Holy Baptism, saying, “our Father”. Now one outside of the church and faith cannot say, “Our Father”, pagans cannot call God “Our Father”. This too I teach them. And I teach them the importance of the term “Our” in “our Father”, that this is not just some “individualistic” prayer but a prayer with and for all the saints around the world alive and a sleep, that the “our” is “us” one body in one Lord in one baptism under one God’s Holy name. Thus, they pray for the saints and themselves as “us” (our), not me the individual. 

In other words I preach and teach faith INTO their hearts by the Word and by the Word attached to the baptismal waters they received, rather than imply that they must “live by sight” and seek after some vain conversion experience later in life that is neither here nor there and more likely than not a deception of the devil unto works. God never promised to be in an “experience” later in life, but He did not only promise to be in the Sacrament of baptism but gave His HOLY name to the same thing. Thus, I cannot for the sake of the children given me, the Gospel itself and the baptism God gave them, say, “Now kids your trusting in the Cross of Christ and knowing it is yours because it was delivered to you through the promise attending baptism TO YOU specifically is wrong.” To do so would cause them to stumble in unbelief and Jesus says THAT would be better if one where dropped in the sea with a milestone hung upon their neck. I would rather ME suffer doubts in the Gospel in Word and baptism than for my children by some inane baptistic teaching empting the sacrament of its Gospel.



> After salvation there are a great deal of expectations - none of which we can hold up as assurances: We are saved, then are baptized, then find a local fellowship and then can partake of the Lord's supper. We read the Scripture and pray and etc..... but I point to Christ only and always as my assurance, never baptism.



We are not “saved” as you say, then baptized. That is to miss what salvation is altogether. I understand your not pointing to baptism because in your view and your statement admits it, baptism is the work of man not the work/gift of God. Given that view, then it is understood. But when baptism is rooted in the name, promise and Gospel of God which the Scriptures clearly state explicitly, then to trust in it is not wrong. It is only wrong to trust in it if you view it as a work of man (Rome and credo). Your reacting to Rome not Scripture on the view of baptism and we agree there.



> I am not saying that God counts a wrong practice as right because you believe that it is right. But God certainly did not give much info on the mode of baptism and the most info we have can only make us lean in certain directions.



If you insist on going down the aisle of mode, then yes, and in short ALL the OT references pointing forward to baptism are not of the immersion but of sprinkling and dipping. This is how the Scripture EXPLICITLY, not rationalizing an event, but explicitly speaks. The writing and words are as plain as writing and words can possibly be. Only rationalizing events leads to an immersionist point of view and at that bad rationalizing. When the NT references are cross referenced with their OT counter part (the Eunice for example in Isaiah) it is “sprinkle the nations”. The Holy Spirit was POURED OUT upon (all four Gospels and Acts). The OT church in the desert according to Paul was baptized by passing UNDER and BETWEEN, staying dry, the cloud and the Red Sea. Noah and his family was baptized according to the Apostle Peter by floating over the waters of baptism. Christ calls HIS baptism on the cross a baptism. Not one single word of “immersion” is found in the Scriptures concerning baptism. When it is all said and done the Word SAYS one thing and immersionist only derive secondarily from rationalization another. That being said, I’m not an “only” mode person. I think immersion is fine, I was immersed as an adult. Immersion is just as fine as any other mode, no better and no worse. I make the argument only to prove the point of the falsehood of an “only” method, an only method that cannot even stand on explicit proof words from the Word itself.

Whew! I gotta go now, unfortunately sleep calls me. Don't take this discussion the wrong way, in the end I hope we both are more deeply encouraged in the Gospel with both hold dearly. 

Do take care brother!

Blessings in Christ’s grace to you always,

Ldh


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 26, 2006)

Larry Hughes said:


> Randy,
> 
> My reply not with standing it is good to hear from you again, it always is. Believe it or not you always remain in my thoughts and prayers.



Thanks brother. I hope you are encouraged as much as I am, and have you in my thoughts also.



Larry Hughes said:


> It is no straw man at all. Do rebaptisms occur, yes, hence no straw man they are quite real. Why where you rebaptized if baptism is rooted in the word of God and His name? Make no mistake about it, this is always the crux of the issue. Was the first baptism real, was it from God or from men? If you answer no, then you’ve proven my point. If you answer yes, then you’ve refuted yourself. It really boils down to seeing it as a work of God versus a work of man. That really is the crux of the issue.



When I mentioned the strawman I was refering to your comments about having faith in faith. That is why I mentioned the justification by faith issue. That is why I instructed you to those who really have faith in faith, the Word Faith movement. The confessional Baptist has his faith in the person and work of Christ as you know. The 1689 is good at explaining this issue of faith and assurance.



Larry Hughes said:


> If you see it as a work of God, God giving His name to you, then baptism IS baptism regardless of who receives it, real faith or hypocrite or later real faith. IF you see it as a work of man, even by secondary proofs or evidences, then you will not see baptism as real unless the work is done in the man first. You state some what correctly in formula that “my baptism points me to the facts that I by faith am hid in Christ’s burial and etc…” But it is not “your” baptism but God’s, His name is given in the baptism not yours or mine. Secondly, though you formulate it correctly after the fact, why did you get rebaptized? If this is true, then you never had grounds to be “rebaptized” in fact any rebaptism is false altogether.



Many people do things in the name of the Triune God. Does that make everything authentic that is done in the name of God. Can there be a baptism done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost that is not from God? I think so. Especially if it's doctrine is scewed and heretical. I remember the arguments of passive participation in baptism. Yes, Baptism is of God and ordained by God but we still are particpants of the baptism.

There are those who gather in Christ's name and call it a church. It is Christ who is building his Church. We are co laborers. Even though this is a fact some would argue that the Baptistic or anything other than Presbyterian church is not a legitimate Church even though they gather in His name. Therefore their argument is not the same or identifiable or agreeable with yours if you look fully into it. Not all things done in the Name of God are done by God. What level is this done or discerned at varies from person to person. Look at F. N. Lee's comments on Baptists 




Larry Hughes said:


> The sacraments, were given FOR faith not against it. Such a view of baptism, based upon the possession of faith, will not with stand the assaults of the devil for one second. Why? Because the devil can easily without breaking a sweat under cut effortlessly ALL those precious secondary causes that one basis their “possession of true faith” upon. This is why faith must not look secondarily at secondary causes but the cross of Christ no matter what. Because a faith rooted in secondary causes, fruits, can always be cut to shreds by the devil’s accusations. It goes like this: One basis their baptism upon the possession of faith. However, “how do I know I have real faith that is that I really trust Christ alone?”, one assumes secondary causes. So one goes to searching for this to prove the possession of faith whereby so called real baptism may be had. Once one is satisfied by some unknown mystical assessment of the purity of such secondary causes, one will then be “rebaptized”. Yet, the devil if he wishes can slaughter all of these. All he has to do is call into question the sincerity of the heart or ‘was it enough’ upon the secondary causes of faith or faith itself. Then, that second false baptism falls and onto another devil’s baptism number three or four or etc… The devil can play this game of baptismal “ping pong” mocking God and terrorizing the believer all day long.



Larry, the devil can be allowed to make mince meat of anyone dispite their view of Baptism. My faith is not based upon what baptistic ritual has been perfomed on me or anthing else that is symbolic. It is based upon the Person and Work of Christ and His Word. The Symbols do point to the truths concerning His Person and Work but my faith is built up by His word. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.

(Joh 3:18) He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

My faith is based upon the work of Christ for sinful man and what his word claims. Faith and Belief is a part of that equation. He that doesn't have faith or believe in Christ is not justified, even those who have been baptized in the name of the Triune God.


----------



## Herald (Nov 26, 2006)

Larry,

Your post was far too long to quote entirely. I appreciate your view on rebaptizing. Being a Baptist, I will agree that it has been (and will continue to be) a problem in many Baptist churches. I like what you had to say about whose baptism is was. A person is being baptized in the name of God, not themselves. That does add clarity to the discussion.

I do believe in believers baptism. But what does that term mean? Can any of us be assured that a person is born again? It is possible that a person can fool an entire church until the day they day? It sure is possible. But that's not the point. I am not called to understand the persons soul condition. My confidence may be high, but there is no ironclad method of proving whether a person being baptized is actually born again. Being a bullet point type of guy, let me list my view on this issue:

1. If a person is a new believer I deem it necessary for them to baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

2. If the person had been baptized previously, yet without repentance or faith being observable in their life, I would want to know as much about their previous church involvement as possible. If the church that baptized them was a true church, then I would not ask them to be re-baptized. The baptism was in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, not in the name of the person being baptized. In this I would include those who were paedo baptized but wanted to join my church. 

3. If the previous baptism was in a church that is not a true church, then I would consider their baptism not a baptism at all. A false church is one that denies the gospel and other essential Christian doctrines. To deny these things means that Christ does dwell in that church and therefore no baptism took place. I would require that person to receive their true and real baptism. 

Larry, I'm not your normal Baptist, but this is how I see things.


----------



## bob (Nov 27, 2006)

Our church practices believer's baptism by immersion, although we are rather weak baptists in that we embrace Bunyan's position on the subject. While I prefer immersion as the mode, I am not so dogmatic on this issue as to reject a baptism admistered by virture of a differing mode.

I understand the frustration that some have expressed over the lengthy debates on baptism. We should desire to study the Scriptures and implement a biblical view and practice in every area of our lives. Thus we cannot deny the importance of careful study and research. We also understand that there can only be one truth - and it is our duty to mine the Word to uncover it. When we have become convinced that our theology is correct, it is also our duty to defend it and promote it. Hence such forums as this.

Having said all this, we must realize that after the stinging rebuke and argumentation has settled and minds continue to be at odds with each other that we are finite and sinful people that are commanded to love one another. While not undermining the importance and value of sound doctrine, the lost man observes and recognizes our loyalty to Christ as they see us loving one another. 

While we cannot allow love to undermine and ignore the value of truth, we must exhibit a love that is willing to cover a multitude of sins. We all have a tendency to create little compartments or boxes in which we would like to place all of Christendom. While these compartments and boxes are good and even necessary, love should compel us to recongnize that sometimes things fall outside of our parameters and that not only do these things exist, but they even work!

I suppose we attribute this to the mercy and grace of God, who is able and willing to accomplish great things by people that love and serve Him; warts, follies, and imperfections notwithstanding. On this particular issue, while we recognize that one position is correct and the other not, who is going to deny that God in His grace and mercy has performed wonderful works through the faithful preaching and working of both paedobaptists and credobaptist?

As we read through the Scriptures we read about the saints of old, whose lives, habits, and actions were not always squeaky clean. Thanks be to God who uses foolish men to accomplish great and mighty things.

I've always marveled at the example of Whitefield in regard to Wesely, who, in spite of endless bickering over the reformed view of salvation, was willing to answer one who asked him if he thought he would see Wesley in heaven, by replying that he didn't expect to see them, considering that he viewed Wesley as such a godly man that he would be too far advanced in the ranks of heaven to be able to see him. 

So we study the Scriptures so that we can defend and teach the truth as we perceive it, praying for unity among the body of Christ, while striving to not think more highly of ourselves than we ought to think while and being willing to esteem others better than ourselves. We must embrace with the same tenacity that we defend our perception of truth our duty to love one another, always thanking God for his mercy and grace as he deals with His children.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 28, 2006)

Bringing this back around to Larry. I am looking at Acts 19:1-5 brother and noticed that the disciples of John were baptized twice. Circumcized once probably, Baptized unto repentance under John the Baptist, and then Rebaptized in Christ by Paul. Wow!

What a title.... 'Paul the Rebaptizer'.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 28, 2006)

I believe we could all learn a great deal from brother Bunyan:

http://www.siteone.com/religion/baptist/baptistpage/Portraits/print/print_bunyan.html

What may seem like a question for church historians and no one else is whether Bunyan was really a Baptist at all. The answer is important to modern Christians as you will see. There can be no doubt that Bunyan had little use for denominational titles. He once said: 

"As for those titles of Anabaptists, Independents, Presbyterians, or the like, I conclude that they come neither from Jerusalem nor from Antioch, but rather from hell and Babylon, for they naturally tend to division."4 

In fact, it would probably be safer to call Bunyan a baptist rather than a Baptist. He was baptized as a believing adult and often taught that baptism should be administered only to those who had heard and embraced the gospel. At the same time, Bunyan did not believe that either baptism or the Lord's Supper should divide true Christians. "Instead of accenting the differences … he emphasized the fundamentals of the faith which all true believers shared. He defended the gospel as the basis of Christian unity … When he involved himself in controversy, he did so because he saw a challenge to the gospel itself."5 Bunyan was a baptist in the sense that he held to what became the foundational tenets of Baptists. He was committed to God's Word first and foremost; he held to a congregational form of church government; and he strongly emphasized justification by faith alone. 

Bunyan certainly was in sympathy with the Particular Baptists in his firm grip on the Doctrines of Grace. We, of what is sometimes called the Reformed Faith, could learn much from John Bunyan. He was far more interested in God's glory and man's salvation than he was in restrictive denominational tags.

By the time of Bunyan’s death in 1688, eleven editions of The Pilgrim’s Progress had been published with over 100,000 copies in print. He left a legacy of many other great books and poems. None of these, however, are his greatest legacy to us. Bunyan’s greatest gift to the church was his demonstration that the Doctrines of Grace are not static or cold. The gospel is not predestination - it is Christ! Grace is how God brings us to Christ. Above all Bunyan loved Christ. He preached Christ and exalted Christ. 

"There was first and foremost in John Bunyan a deep personal love for his Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ ... Bunyan's books are full of Christ - His welcome, His unshakable truth, his advocacy for sinners ... His preaching and writing were Christ-centered, and it was this that carried men's hearts captive to Christ. If our present day preachers and theologians had the same emphasis a very different spirit would prevail in both the Church and the State." 6


----------



## Kevin (Nov 28, 2006)

puritancovenanter said:


> Bringing this back around to Larry. I am looking at Acts 19:1-5 brother and noticed that the disciples of John were baptized twice. Circumcized once probably, Baptized unto repentance under John the Baptist, and then Rebaptized in Christ by Paul. Wow!
> 
> What a title.... 'Paul the Rebaptizer'.



Many "first-generation" christians would have been baptised 2 or possibly many times. They could have received the "baptism of repentance", "lepers baptism", or any one of the many other OT baptisms.

Would they could only receive one time was Christian Baptism.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Nov 28, 2006)

Randy,

I hope you realize you've not helped your cause at all by this parcel of Scripture, in fact it wars against you.

John's Baptism was not the same baptism, that's the difference and thus hardly a "rebaptism". And note well, the subsequent Christian baptism did not in anyway nullify John's baptism as a "non-baptism". This hardly supports the baptistic issuance of "rebaptism" on the basis of a first real and true baptism "not being baptism" at all. In other words it ‘existed’ as real, true and valid for reasons other than the receiver.

If we set up the escape proof situation an adult immersed but doesn't really have faith at the same church, same pastor, etc...then later really comes to faith do you "rebaptize", and this is an extremely valid situation I've seen numerous times; then either way a baptist looks at it he has a manifest problem with a person baptized the first time. How so?

1. Looking at it from the reformed/Lutheran point of view the baptism is valid because of the name of God and Word of God. Baptism, comes into "being" or "reality", if you will, based objectively on that and not on the person's faith, the giver of the baptism (true or false pastor). The sacrament is objectively real without these being true (i.e. faith or no faith). So, from the ref./luth. perspective if the baptist "rebaptizes" he has mocked God's name and Word and in effect said, by way of the visible ceremonial witness of the second "baptism" said, "God's name means nothing nor His promise". For to say, the first time, "I baptize you IN THE NAME OF the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit", is another way of saying I give this gift to you by the authority of whose name is attached to it (the Great Commission).

Or

2.	Looking at it from the baptistic point of view the baptist must realize from HIS OWN theological stance that he in fact in some point and time, under the first baptism, gave God's name under a vain ceremony. He said at that point and time, "I baptize you IN THE NAME OF the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit". Now this is not true since the first baptism, #1, is true and valid, but the baptistic doctrine on this is internally problematic on its own grounds.

That’s the difference. Baptism to a ref. or luth. is utterly objective to the receiver based upon the name, power, and strength of God. It is not to the Baptist. The Baptist will say to his dying breath “do not trust in your baptism, stuck in a Roman understanding as a work of man and thus defending against it (this would be correct). However, the proper address is to address Rome’s poisoning of it not throwing out its biblical reality altogether. By being stuck on Rome’s understanding the Baptist sadly misses a great part of the Cross, this is very very sad, I’ve been there. But in reality to the “ear”, if you will of those understanding it say as ref. or even luth. understand it, to say, “don’t trust in your baptism”, is saying by exact equivalent, “don’t trust in the name of God nor the promise of God”, which of course is unbelief. AND that’s why the two can never come together. The Gospel cannot be surrendered no matter how much we agree on the naked Word itself. And secondly, for the same reasons, the ref./luth. see baptism as a Gospel aid to faith, not secondary badge after the fact and not a hindrance to faith (rebaptism).

To me it’s not a ever an “anger” or “I’m right and your wrong” thing but an issue over the Gospel itself. I hold dear to men like Spurgeon and would be the first to admit that the BEST GOSPEL preachers I’ve ever read are OLD Baptist and Lutherans, not to mention Luther and Spurgeon to say the least – few reformed, save Calvin and some early early reformers preached the sweetness of the Gospel such as these did – that’s of course a non-exhaustive reading on my part though. My advice would always be find the man cutting the Law and Gospel straight and who GIVES you Christ, even if I had no choice but return to a Baptist church for lack of that elsewhere. I’ve given my wife standing orders should something ever happen to me; teach the kids the Gospel in their baptism, never let them be rebaptized and rebuke for their souls sake anyone who advises them so as if rebuking the devil’s words himself; but if things should change and the preaching change from solid Law/Gospel with Gospel/grace given the last word and you don’t know where to go among the plethora of churches out there, default to a confessional Lutheran church for the odds are greater they maintain this and of course evaluate ANY preaching on this if for nothing else. Nothing less than your souls are at stake.

Because the issue is the Gospel I can’t lay it down even unto death. To do so would be tantamount to denying the Gospel on the issue of the Sacraments. And I did come from a baptistic background even though I was an atheist most of my adult life.

Though I can never give in on the doctrine in this, Gospel, it never divides us in the sense of brotherhood and I look forward to that day in heaven when we will both, all, no longer have ANY issues between us that our flesh and/or the devil has blinded us all too, and I have many Redwood size planks in my eye I assure you!

Yours always In our Lord,

Larry


----------



## Larry Hughes (Nov 28, 2006)

Trever,

I hope you get to feeling better!!!

L

Bill,

Believe it or not my closest brother, friend and co-worker is exactly where you are. We discuss this frequently, so it puts a smile on my face, a happy one!



> I do believe in believers baptism. But what does that term mean? Can any of us be assured that a person is born again? It is possible that a person can fool an entire church until the day they day? It sure is possible. But that's not the point. I am not called to understand the persons soul condition. My confidence may be high, but there is no ironclad method of proving whether a person being baptized is actually born again. Being a bullet point type of guy, let me list my view on this issue:



Agreed.



> Larry, I'm not your normal Baptist, but this is how I see things.



You certainly are not, and I know of one more just like you wrestling with it!

Those points are good but what do you do with the baptized adult in the "right way" and assumed timing but later isn't? And don’t you see you are designing baptism as a “post faith” reality not an objective reality FOR faith. And by doing so, baptism is of no avail to the struggling Christian. And all the sacraments are for faith, baptism is not a lie, it is not a seal of a lie based on the faith of the person receiving. This is one of the reasons Luther correctly observed that is we stop baptizing infants, baptism will LOOSE its witness UNTO the Gospel. And at length it does in ALL “believers only” churches as it becomes the ‘badge of faith’ rather than the name and promise of God. It ends up attaching, due to the doctrine to “faith” and faith must some how be “proved” by evidences, but all evidences are falsifiable by the devil. 

It’s similar to an apostate taking the Lord’s Supper, why does he eat and drink unto wrath? If a Baptist viewed the Lord’s Supper the same way he viewed baptism he would have to say that an apostate CANNOT possibly drink or eat unto wrath since its based upon faith he must have first and not objectively upon BEING the Lord’s body and blood. Conversely if the Baptist understood baptism the way he really understands the Lord’s supper, it is objectively real and true, “IS”, based upon God’s Word or another way of saying “God’s Word” is “His Promise”, then he’d never ever have grounds for rebaptism and would only REALY do a baptism in the case of a first one being from a false church as you say (e.g. Mormonism).

But every single sign and sacrament ever given in Scripture is not based upon other things but upon the Word of God, His name, His promise and so forth…objectively real…from heaven. Faith if you understand it correctly is really a reflexive thing and not a primary thing, to truly TRUST nakedly and alone in a thing, is utterly reflexive. From this reflexive thing will issue forth fruits, but the faith itself is absolutely fixed singularly upon its object (Christ and Him crucified) or else it itself no longer “IS”. And it is Christ and Him crucified FOR YOU, if one doesn’t HEAR the “FOR ME” one has not really HEARD the Good News, just about it. It’s only truly GOOD NEWS for you if it is FOR YOU, and again baptism delivers this TO YOU. How do I know I’m saved? My good works, heavens no, they are either too few for my taste, too sin tainted or I glory in them so much as to make them self-righteous. How do I know for SURE! I AM baptized by God and all that baptism contains I trust as it has come TO ME and that IS faith. I cannot engender faith by my strength or reason and especially not from my life, but when I hear of Christ crucified for me and know He has baptized me, and I eat and drink the bread and wine, I am called by the Gospel by the Spirit and that is faith.

It is similar to this: faith that talks about faith and believing and so forth is not saving faith, but he who speaks of the crucified Lord, the Gospel, THAT is faith talking. Yet, faith doesn’t speak of itself.

I hope that helps or at lest makes some better sense.

Blessing to you in Christ our Lord,

Larry


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 28, 2006)

Larry Hughes said:


> Because the issue is the Gospel I can’t lay it down even unto death. To do so would be tantamount to denying the Gospel on the issue of the Sacraments. And I did come from a baptistic background even though I was an atheist most of my adult life.
> 
> Though I can never give in on the doctrine in this, Gospel, it never divides us in the sense of brotherhood and I look forward to that day in heaven when we will both, all, no longer have ANY issues between us that our flesh and/or the devil has blinded us all too, and I have many Redwood size planks in my eye I assure you!
> 
> ...



 If this were a discussion about NASCAR or Motocross it might not be a hill I was willing to die on. How can I not get passionate about the Covenant of Grace when it is my very breath. It is as if someone is saying "You shouldn't be too passionate about your children."

Make no mistake about it - this is all about my faith in the Gospel and my responsibilities as a Covenant head of my household. I can think of no greater thing to be passionate about.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 28, 2006)

Larry Hughes said:


> Randy,
> 
> I hope you realize you've not helped your cause at all by this parcel of Scripture, in fact it wars against you.
> 
> ...



I know Larry. I was just messin with ya. John's baptism was not done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It's purpose was totally different. I was just trying to get your goat brother. We actually had this discussion a long while back if I remember correctly. We have been doing this for a few years now. Man time flies. It is good to be sparring with you again.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Nov 29, 2006)

Aaaahhh Randy I can always count on you for a good razzing!!! You got me! I thought it seemed a bit obvious at first then I thought, "well I've blind sided myself MANY times on some of the simplest issues."


----------



## Larry Hughes (Nov 29, 2006)

Trever,

I apologize for the length up front, but this is about the shortest I could chop it on short notice. I hope you find this helpful (and to others as well) or at least something to ponder, because I do not detect in you (nor others here on this issue, particularly on this post) a recalcitrant personality, rightfully cautious and thoughtful but not recalcitrant. Rather one who loves and desires the purity of the same Gospel we all love and need. I’ve been on both sides of the aisle, if you will, and have run into those who just ‘want to be right do or die’ in both camps, rather than reveal the Gospel for the glory of God and faith, hope and love of all of His people. When we make it an argument of “my law is better than your law” we all do tend to show our true tendency to be directly objectionably to such – that is the flesh’s immediate reaction to law, true or false, immediate repugnance. Say “don’t touch” and the first thing we do is touch just to show our fallen sovereignty! The Gospel, however, always opens the way to gracious love and charity these being the true nature of the Law. So to that end it is the direction from which I hope to approach.

When reacting against Rome concerning this issue, we are in 100% accord. But don’t let Rome’s false teaching cover up the truth by thrusting you to the other extreme. A 50,000 foot view of this issue of baptism and Rome can be helpful. It is always good to remember that the fundamental demonic error introduced into the church was to cover up the Gospel at every turn, in Word and in the Sacraments. That’s what the magisterial reformers discovered. Rome did this at both levels, they attempted to destroy the Gospel in the Word by redefining what the “gospel” was but yet called it “gospel”, hence Paul’s dire warning against those with another gospel. It will subtly mask itself so as to fool many, not an overt denial of it. Those “close” to the truth but not of the truth are the most dangerous vipers. Similarly, Rome covered up the Gospel in baptism and the Supper. In baptism they made it a work of man by teaching it as such and thus it could never be trusted in fully. Just like anything of a man does as I believe Randy pointed out very well in an early post. The principle of trusting in works of man however applied is what we all repulse at when salvation is considered.

There is an exceedingly egregious error many make though at this point. That is that the Roman Catholics actually trust and find assurance IN their baptism. That’s where the reply often comes, “Rome thinks baptism as a work saves”. Yet, NOTHING could be further from the truth, that’s why the ENTIRE system of penance and indulgences developed behind baptism – BECAUSE they DON’T find rest and assurance in their baptism and needed more ‘works’ to ‘fill up the tub of grace’. The start in works and continue in works, that’s the problem. That’s why Luther and later Calvin put so much effort in showing the comfort and assurance that actually comes from baptism as Gospel/promise. It is a complete mistake to say Luther and Calvin’s views on baptism was a vestige carry over from Rome’s view, NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, could be more opposing than the two views. When it comes down to ‘finding assurance’ and strengthening faith via baptism the irony is – is that the two groups that don’t is the two groups most opposed to each other, Rome and Credo doctrine on this. The common error is both see it, albeit from a differing angle, as a work of man. The RC, thus, having no problem with a starting ‘work from man’ causing grace embraces it but never really has faith in it or is assured by it. The Credo eschewing all works of man (this part is correct) eschews baptism, stuck on the Roman error of it, BECAUSE like Rome he/she still views it as a work of man. This really is the common link on Rome and Credo views of baptism. Calvin and Luther are truly in opposition to both here in that a man CAN find aid, strength and assurance from baptism. BECAUSE the commonality among them is that it is a work of God based upon HIS Word, HIS promise and HIS name. Baptism is objective to man just like the Gospel, it is outside of him in its reality. On this issue, baptism as a work of man versus baptism as a work of God, on one side of the table we have Rome and all Credistic type understandings and on the other side Luther and the later Reformers.

Satan’s deception on this is so simple and yet so very insidious. All the devil really did was this; he said through the church’s doctrine over time, so that it seeped in slowly and unnoticed, “Baptism is not God’s Work but man’s work.” That was it and from that has tormented the individuals of the church of Rome and many “believers only” congregations and even others that at least wonder about it. That’s how the devil attempted to mask and ruin the Gospel in baptism. Fundamentally, that’s all it took to mask the Gospel in the sacrament of baptism. Just a few words turned around a bit. It’s nothing new but another form of, “Hath God really said…”. “Hath God really said, promised, given His name to you in baptism?” That’s it in a nut shell. 

If he can alter subtly the definition of the “gospel” in Word so as to proffer another gospel as THE Gospel, he can also EASILY alter subtly the Gospel in baptism so as to make baptism something unhelpful to the believer and another gospel or even law in baptism. He did this by claiming baptism a ‘work of man’, as such, on Rome’s side so it could not be trusted and from this arose the works and indulgences. Satan achieved his goal. On the other side the reaction against baptism as Rome taught it, was correct initially, but then it went too far under the devil’s lie and the answer was not to over throw its Gospel and make it another subtle form of works or badge of faith whereby it cannot be trusted in. For baptism was given FOR faith, Paul has no problem in numerous places in pulling out baptism to encourage a persecuted church and suffering people and a sin struggling people, in fact appeals to it and its Gospel. But the over reaction, blinded by the Romish deception, still achieve the devil’s goal, eschewing the Gospel in the sacrament of baptism so that it is of NO help to the faith, hope and love of the believer, ESPECIALLY under suffering and persecution. Rather the right correction was to put the Gospel back into the baptism, it is God’s work and not man’s and to trust in God’s work and name is to trust in HIM alone for salvation, “deliverance is of the Lord alone” (Psalm 3). His name IS salvation and His name attends and makes baptism baptism, not prior or subsequent faith. The problem arising in circumcision from the Judiazers was similar, they had changed its Gospel import to a works of man import. That’s why Paul in some places of Romans can say circumcision viewed that way is nothing, but circumcision connected to the Gospel is of great value. He’s not contradicting himself his correcting, like Luther, Calvin, et. Ali. the incorrect doctrine on the sacrament.

I am assured He will save me, how, by His Word of Gospel and His name given to me very specifically in baptism. Baptism is how I and my children have His name, His authority, the power of life thereof, and able to call upon Him. This I am sure of in spite of myself and in spite of every experience of trial, temptation, suffering and persecution I will meet in this life. This is why Paul could recall baptism to aid the suffering church, not because it was a work of man, but a work of God. It is similar to when Jesus made mud of the dirt with His spittle to heal the blind man. There was nothing inherently magical or healing in the dirt, it’s just a piece of creation, it was not due to a man’s working, but that GOD took it up into holy use. He was showing as God He can take anything and use it to His saving purpose. He could have just as well used a leaf and wiped his eyes with it or blew breath at him. When God takes a thing up into His use and attaches His name to it – it is no loner ordinary, secular or vain but holy, sacred and hallowed. To say no assurance can be had or to not trust in holy Baptism is to call it vain, ordinary and secular and by extension the name of God. When God took up a jaw bone of an ass and through His servant smote his enemies the point was not Samson or the jawbone but that God lifted them up with His arm and hand, as it were, and used them at that moment to strike His enemies. He could strike a nation with a feather and destroy it if He wished. All of creation is at His beckon grasp for His use outside of its ordinary function, this testifies to Him BEING GOD. If you or I picked up a jaw bone of an ass and went over to Iraq right now to smite the enemies of the US, we’d just end up dead real quick, because God has not picked us up unto holy use in that way! 

Thus, baptism is powerful with the Word attached and His name attached, it communicates the Gospel and Paul says the Gospel is the power unto life. But if you only understand it as a kind of secondary work or badge secondary to faith or obedience of man for something else, then Satan has one on that ground and taken from you a powerful weapon God has actually given you. A weapon of assurance! Never forget the devil’s attack in all its clever forms is primarily against the Gospel and the faith and assurance and expectation that gives the believer!

Part II

Now on to the main point concerning the term “Rantizo”.

One of the things all of us as Christians need to be careful of is reading into Scripture something that is not there. In principle we all agree to that. It is a most tempting human thing to do, not just in the Scriptures but also in any literature, research or similar documentation. I even see it a lot in the scientific field, it is very hard to be purely objective, scientist who like to pride themselves with ‘objectivity’ actually succumb to being subjective all the time. It is particularly difficult for us in modern America or of that mindset to read something as large as the Scriptures that spans thousands of years over multiple cultures with multiple terms of a culture very foreign to us by time, space and culture. We see this difficulty even in just a few hundred years when trying to understand what the original reformers meant in much of their writing, a mere 500 years ago one continent away and less culturally foreign yet somewhat.

Even closer to home, if I write something to you or vice versa, it is difficult for either one of us to fully grasp how the other is using a term or speaking about a thing. Sometimes, to a fault, that’s why I tend to write a lot in terms of volume, I’m trying to cover every angle to “get across” how I speaking of a thing. And if you’ve ever labored to look a government statues and regulations, legal documents of today, there is a reason they are so large – the definition section alone is voluminous in order to try to capture the intent of the use and likely references other regulations and their definitions (I deal with that a lot), and still people argue over intent of the law versus letter of the law.

I belabor this point to really focus on the principle at hand and perhaps show how this is done, at least something to ponder.I’ll try to stick with the one Isaiah reference the Eunice is speaking about. 

When one reads back to that reference, even in the original language, and finds the term “Rantizo” and concludes that is not baptism, how was that “mentally” derived? That’s question at hand. Step one: If one already assumes the term “baptism” MUST mean “immersion”, then one reads that reference and finds the term “Rantizo”, then one does indeed arrive at the idea that that is neither immersion nor baptism. Why? Because one already has brought into the situation that baptism = immersion. I think that’s easy enough to see. 

But how did one arrive at the idea that baptism = immersion? That’s the next question. For the most part one arrives at that from the very “rationalizing” of the Scriptures I mentioned before. The “going down and coming up” statements and so forth. Is it possible this speaks of immersion? Possibly, but does that necessitate it? No. Is it possible its just describing in normal language a normally experienced situation of physics of the creation? Yes.

Side bar to show the flawed character of using this particular argument: In college in my hydro grad courses we had to do field projects and papers as part of the grade. I’m very familiar hydraulics, geology and physics, it’s my main field of study. My senior year myself and two fellow students (Nic and James) had a project in which part of the data gathering involved obtaining stream flow measurements. This, in short, involved taking a perpendicular traverse along a straight section of stream and taking a certain number of discrete measurements along that linear traverse with a current meter. A little basic calculus and “boom” flow is calculated for that moment in time at that stream’s base flow. So, one of us, me because I didn’t mind getting wet and could swim the best if necessary, would take the measurements while I would yell back to James the values and Nic would record them in the data log. James and Nic never once entered the water and I never entered water higher than my chest (1. it’s too dangerous and 2. you cannot measure if you cannot stand up to hold the meter vertically into the water). When we wrote up the paper and gave it later in class we spoke of how we took the measurements. It is obvious but important to grasp is a small but big fact concerning why we use the language we use and find this also the case in the Scriptures. By physics ANY flowing water in a land situation is at the lowest topographic point on the land locally, this is of necessity of physics and gravity to have flowing water. That sounds obvious and is but there is a reason I bring it out. Correctly describing the process of measuring in our presentation and paper we would narrate, “We (Nic, James and myself) would go down into the stream…take the measurements and then come back up…”. Now was I describing, implying or trying to affirm we were immersed? No, that’s simply how normal language would speak of such narrating the action taking place. None of us were immersed. I was partially in the water, even chest high at times, and neither Nic nor James so much as wetted their boots. This is why I say beware of rationalizing the Scriptures, first, and second doing it badly.

Plugging this back into the main point: 

Is it possible it has absolutely nothing to do with a mode? Absolutely. So, these alone force us to conclude that we cannot at this point (and all similar rationalizing arguments), formulate a dogmatic doctrine or injunction or ‘law’ or ‘precept’ that we then next insert INTO the term “baptism” itself, whereby we then subsequently compound the error by assuming that an OT reference that neither uses the term “baptism” in the original language nor indicates the mode as “immersion”, but rather as “sprinkling the nations” is thus not speaking of baptism. Why? Because we would have fouled the definition of baptism in our minds from the beginning and are now asserting a thing that is not true by necessity nor clarity. In short one is looking at the wrong thing concerning baptism and thereby missing “where it is” in the OT and even other NT references.

We can see this kind of inductive error even in the realm of secular science. When by the inductive data pieces the conclusion for evolution is made. Is it possible using the induced data to arrive at evolution? Sure, you can link it up that way for a while and arrive there. But evolution is basically, when all said and done, a snow ball effect that started off by nothing more than a very small error at a very very very base level. Similarly is the age of the earth issue. Then, like a bullet that is only off a half degree at the beginning, a mile later, is entirely off target and arrives from creationism through deism finally to atheism (Darwin started out a seminarian). This fundamentally is what happens with the baptistic views both on mode and “who” is baptized, without belaboring that here. I’m just going for the principle of introducing error and its snowball effect or arrow effect, if you will, for now in this one single situation.

Thus, when someone else says; “Don’t you understand that baptism prophesied in the OT in which the Eunice was reading in Isaiah says, “He will sprinkle the nations”, the Eunice was of the nations or gentiles and this Good News came to him, and shows that mode is NOT the issue, not even on the radar. Rather the process of cleansing identity with the One who cleanses from sin, the water and the blood, is the primary idea behind baptism. THAT process and not a MODE is one of the primary Gospel things baptism is, captures and needs to communicate for the glory of a merciful God Who was crucified for sinners AND the healthy faith, hope and love of ALL the saints during their suffering on this earth. That’s what’s being communicated here, revelation of the Christ”. When this is said it is stunning that a returning reply is, “I don’t see the word ‘baptism’ in the original language there so it cannot be referring to baptism”. Is it not painfully obvious that this shows itself for what it is, nothing. In sum, on one side is communicated the Gospel and what the Christ did for His people and for their faith, hope and love to strengthen that and show the mercy of God and to see what the Eunice saw, for heavens sake, that made him go away singing joyously! Then on the other side all one is saying is, “The mode is blah blah blah.” The mode by itself is nothing, it is minutiae and empty wrangling at best and Gospel/cross obscuring at worst because it cast a legalistic thing to determined and done for comfort and assurance (false), and not a Gospel to be received for comfort and assurance (true). And this has been brought about by little more than; 1. Rationalizing the scriptures and 2. Bad rationalizing at that. It is a form of what Jesus warned the Pharisees against, those super exegetes of accuracy on words, “You search the Scriptures and think that by them you have life, but it is these which continually bear witness of Me.” Or in Luther’s summation, “It’s, the Scriptures, all about Christ, every word of it.” That is either directly or indirectly it all reveals Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit is not concerned with communicating to us in that and similar passages “a mode” that we may pick up on by rationalizing and thus loose our sight of the Cross, but bearing witness to the Christ whose blood was spilled for sinners and was prophesied continuously from the beginning.

Now I’ve stuck to this one passage to avoid an inordinate volume of writing, but we could EASILY apply this principle in other places where “immersion” is derived from other forms of rationalizing of the scriptures. Surely one can see the distraction of taking a text that is singularly and immediately bearing witness to the Cross and the Gospel and redirecting it to “a mode”. Surely, one can see the misdirection going on there. Surely, one can see the devil’s hand and intent there because the slight of hand misdirects the eye from the Cross. 

Was the Eunice indeed joyously singing because he was immersed or that he was one of the “sprinkled nations” with the water and blood of Christ which he just read of, the Gospel in Word and sacrament received (delivered to the man)? And note very well in that passage of Isaiah that it says, “HE will sprinkle the nations”, HE will do it, not that it is a man’s work. That is to say, “HE will baptize the nations”, it is not a man’s work! Hence, the real Great Commission. NOW that is Gospel!

If I could possibly sum it up very shortly: It would be akin to telling a man starving to death and about to die seated at a feast freely before him that will save his life but yet enforcing upon him that he must look to the use the salad fork instead of the dinner fork to save his life. When it’s the eating that will do so.

Blessings, 

L


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 29, 2006)

> I know Larry. I was just messin with ya. John's baptism was not done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It's purpose was totally different. I was just trying to get your goat brother. We actually had this discussion a long while back if I remember correctly. We have been doing this for a few years now. Man time flies. It is good to be sparring with you again.





Larry Hughes said:


> Aaaahhh Randy I can always count on you for a good razzing!!! You got me! I thought it seemed a bit obvious at first then I thought, "well I've blind sided myself MANY times on some of the simplest issues."



Acts19 Thread

Now do you remember? I looked up the thread. It was March of 2005.

Gotcha. It has been a few years ago. I am lucky I remembered it. I knew it would get your goat since you rementioned the rebaptism stuff. 

[edit addition]
Since you keep mentioning the faith issue I want to give an illumination to my earlier post above. 

I have been accused of this faith in faith thing before by Federal Visionists. My response to this charge is that faith is a very important issue in soteriology. We are justified by faith. 

Therefore having been justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Romans 5:1

I think a better way of putting your charge would be what kind of faith is it?
What is the faith based upon? What is the object of faith? And where does this faith come from and end up taking us to?

I can't say that I know to many people who have faith in faith, so to speak. The only people I can actually lay that charge to who claim Christ is the Word Faith movement of Mary Baker Eddy, Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland and their disciples.

Love ya brother, 
Randy


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 29, 2006)

One more thing Larry. My faith comes from Christ. It isn't something I posses from myself. It isn't based upon my baptism. It is based upon the person and work of Christ. I received it from Christ through the proclamation of His Word. I am kept by Christ not the rememberance of my baptism. If your faith is kept by your baptism I would recommend you place your faith in something else. I am not sure that is what you are saying but that is something the Federal Visionist are placing their faith in also. That is their baptisms. 

(Rom 10:17) *So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.*

(Heb 12:1) Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,

(Heb 12:2) *Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;* who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Nov 29, 2006)

Randy,

I do want to be real clear here. I don't in ANYWAY doubt that your trust is in Christ FOR YOU. You hear the Gospel very clearly, that I'm certain of. NEVER do I want to communicate that to you or any Christian. If I've given THAT impression then I owe you a very very humble apology! I want to build up our faith, NOT tear it down.

When I discuss 'rebaptism' its strictly for the purpose of strengthening faith, I had to address this with my wife's own multiple ones. I told her, "When you come to the point of seeing that baptism is God's work objectively to you and sans your faith in and of itself, and you had multiple baptisms, the thing to NOT do is say to yourself, 'oh my gosh what have I done I must be lost'. Rather, give thankful prayer for this great Gospel work and turn from the other 2, 3, etc..., joyous Gospel repentance not legal doubting repentance. I stayed in tormented limbo myself on whether or not to be rebaptized for about 5 or 6 years myself. So, I understand the struggle one falls into.

You strengthen my faith, you should know that.

grace and peace always be yours in GREAT abundance, love you brother!

Larry


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 29, 2006)

I am rereading through the Thread Larry and want to pic a spot to reply and ask questions. I think I already know your answers but....




> The sacraments, were given FOR faith not against it. Such a view of baptism, based upon the possession of faith, will not with stand the assaults of the devil for one second. Why? Because the devil can easily without breaking a sweat under cut effortlessly ALL those precious secondary causes that one basis their “possession of true faith” upon. This is why faith must not look secondarily at secondary causes but the cross of Christ no matter what.



After these words you seem to attempt to define secondary causes like faith in faith or baptizing someone based upon a recognized faith that someone has scrutinized to be real after much self examination, which can actually be a false faith in the end, thus they figure it was invalid the times before and the need to get rebaptized. Which then is sin according to you.

You mentioned my Rebaptism and I obviously didn't respond. But think I will after I make some observations.

Let me first say that I hate hypothetical situations because people can hypothetically argue their way out doing anything they should probably do based upon hypothetical situations. I personally dont' know very many people who have been rebaptized and I don't push the issue. That being said let's push on.

I posted this before. Many people do things in the name of the Triune God. Does that make everything authentic that is done in the name of God. Can there be a baptism done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost that is not from God? I think so. Especially if it's doctrine is scewed and heretical. I remember the arguments of passive participation in baptism. Yes, Baptism is of God and ordained by God but we still are particpants of the baptism. I have some contention about what you wrote on the Isaiah passage. The sprinkling of the passage is purely a speculative interpretation. The Hebrew is Nazah and has spirit for its root and means expiate. So He expiates the spirit upon the nations. Or the sprinkling is cleansing as the blood is sprinkled upon the altar and the people for cleansing. I don't believe this is a specific reference to Christian baptism as much as it is a reference to Christ paying for the sins of all nationalities.

I read what you wrote on the Lord's Supper. I will also contend that the Lord's Supper can be done in an unlawful matter as you noted btw. Does everyone who partakes of the LORD's Supper partake in a worthy manner? Of course not, that is why we give the warnings and bar unbelievers and unrepentant persons from the table. It is a sacrament that God has done also. If the ordinances are attended with heresy I would say that they are unlawful also. Just because something is done in the name of Christ is not necessarily of Christ. Let me reexplain futher again.

There are those who gather in Christ's name and call it a church. It is Christ who is building his Church. We are co-laborers. Even though this is a fact some would argue that the Baptistic or anything other than The Confessionally correct Reformed church is not a legitimate Church even though they gather in His name. Therefore their argument is not the same nor identifiable nor agreeable with yours if you look fully into it. Not all things done in the Name of God are done by God according to these guys. What level is this done or discerned at varies from person to person. Look at F. N. Lee's comments, or Scott's and Matthew's comments on Baptist Pastors and Baptists in General. 

Now let me explain my rebaptism. You may conclude that I have crucified the Son of God afresh as F. N. Lee has accused me of but I know you would be wrong because I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. I am convinced of Christ's Justifying work for me.

I believe I was baptized in a heretical way. I was told if I chose to be baptized God would forgive and cleans me from all of my past sin. I also understood that I needed to attend the Lord's Supper for a weekly recleansing from sin. This is Heresy and not biblical Christianity. I partook in this heresy. Baptism and the Lord's supper became a what can I do to keep myself cleansed from sin and acceptable to God pursuit. My faith was in the action of these ordinances themselves. I miserably failed at this and sunk into deeper sin. 

In 1981 I set myself to try to read the scriptures. I had attempted this before but couldn't understand a word of it. I read through the four gospels in no time flat. God became real in a different way to me. I was alive in my heart and the Word of God became very real and living to me. When I understood that I couldn't do anything to earn my salvation I elated. God justifies sinners and gives faith. 

I looked to my earliear baptism as heretical and saw it as void. It was not Christian baptism. Just like the Catholics view of salvation in Christ is heretical so was my view of baptism. They both where not of God. Now is Christ and his salvation heretical? No, but the Roman catholic view of Christ and salvation are and will not stand in heaven. I also believe that this can be true of other doctrines. 

Here is a push for a different passage not many consider. I have considered it before and have been encouraged in it and discouraged. Check this out.



> (Luk 7:29) (When all the people heard this, and the tax collectors too, they declared God just, having been baptized with the baptism of John,
> 
> (Luk 7:30) but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.)



notice that seemingly attachment between the purpose of God, declaring God just, and baptism in these verses. It is John's baptism btw. Can there be a confessional factor in declaring God is just by our obedience and submission to his will in baptism?

Well, that is kinda why I wanted to be baptized again. I was baptized under a heretical view and wanted to share God's testimony of saving me from sin by His free grace. That was not done in my first baptism. It was more of a confession and pronouncement of God's work on my behalf. I know I was not blaspheming God in any way by being rebaptized. I was declaring salvation is of the LORD and renouncing an heretical view of baptism.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Dec 2, 2006)

> Let me first say that I hate hypothetical situations because people can hypothetically argue their way out doing anything they should probably do based upon hypothetical situations. I personally dont' know very many people who have been rebaptized and I don't push the issue. That being said let's push on.



To clarify: The situations I’m thinking of are far from hypothetical, I happen to know NUMEROUS folks and have observed myself rebaptisms. So, I’m NOT coming from a hypothetical at all but REAL situations. I simply take the REAL situations and put them into hypothetical language to analyze that’s all. It’s a habit as a scientist to observe a real phenomena then kind of restate it in a neutral hypothetical way. Sorry about the confusion there!





> I posted this before. Many people do things in the name of the Triune God. Does that make everything authentic that is done in the name of God.



Excellent point of order. This is the difference, God commanded it, that is baptism in His name, its not random thing. It’s like this: If you were a king who had authority over a realm, then your name and order given to a thing via other people is the EXACT same thing as you doing it. Another way to look at it in a modern understanding might be this: If the President of the US or the Gov. of your/my state issues that something be given in the name of the Pres. Or Gov., like a pardon, they issue you it through agencies and not directly themselves. But it has the same weight as them doing it. To baptize IN THE NAME of God is the same as giving the authority of God. Doing ‘other things’ in the name of God not so authorized are illegitimate, those would be works of man. This is an excellent question because it gets to the crux of is it God’s work or man’s. God has given His name to baptism, He has NOT given His name to charisma or conversion experiences or other such fairly modern religious (that is to say non-Christian) phenomena. That’s why baptism can be trusted correctly understood, it is the giving of the name, promise and word of God. It answers the question, “How can I know it is for me.” “It” being justification, Christ crucified, the Gospel rather than in general. THIS aids faith and strengthens it rather than destroys or falsifies it because one is trusting NOT in a man’s work unto baptism, but God’s work and promise in baptism and the Word (Gospel). 

Compare the following: ALL Christians wonder in the deep struggle within “am I really saved” or some form of that doubt. Doubt is not unbelief but the middle battle ground between belief and unbelief. Unbelief is sin but doubt is not and always ‘co-exists with faith’ in this life due to flesh, the devil and the world that battle us. This is in part our suffering since faith desires to be realized. We suffer that which we hang onto only by promise in the future eschatologicaly. Faith via the Gospel tells us one thing and our experiences tell us another. This is the battle ground of the devil and God and in part the suffering a Christian goes through – in short – “am I really saved”. Now we all “hear” the general Gospel call but EVERYONE asks themselves, ‘is it for me’, especially under strong accusation from the devil, because experience is warring against faith (faith is a tension). So, the Christian desires something “TO THEM” a particular TO THE MAN and specifically TO THEM in order to KNOW THIS IS FOR ME. Those who look to secondary causes, fruits, are doing nothing more than looking for ‘signs’ of “God working in them”. So for persons saying they trust the naked Word alone in reality are not telling the truth. The whole idea of looking for secondary causes, profession by the mouth of faith and “fruits” IS looking to OTHER things and manifestly NOT trusting in the naked Gospel alone. ALL men desire something to give them assurance that Christ is FOR ME specifically. So, they look to “do I really possess saving faith” (this is a kind of faith in faith or assurance in faith, not the gross kind of faith in faith we see in deceivers like Hinn, but an assurance in ‘do I really possess saving faith’ IS a kind of faith in faith) and/or they look to or for “fruits of faith” (the secondary causes). The first problem here is that ALL of these can be faked, even a man can fool himself, so this is no help to real saving faith. The second and more important point is that God has NEVER promised in these things, given authority unto them or given His name to them, nor His body, nor His blood. Now, this is where the sacraments, correctly understood as Gospel come in, particularly I will focus on baptism what we are discussing. While men can fake their faith and fruits of faith fooling even themselves thus thinking they are sincere, and while hypocrites can be baptized, the one thing that CANNOT be faked NOR changed is that God has GIVEN His promise, authority and name to baptism. It is objective and real on those grounds. It “exists” or is “to be” or “comes into being” by this and NOT when faith is really in the one receiving it. If I write you a check for 10,000 dollars and I’m willing and capable of doing that (sorry I really can’t thought!!!), and you receive it but don’t really believe it – its your own folly. But the check is real NOT because you ‘have’ faith but because the signature on it is my name and authority to give what it states. Thus, is baptism. It is real because of the name of God and the authority there unto NOT because of the possession of faith itself. Faith itself is secondary to baptism just like it is secondary to the Gospel because baptism is really the visible Gospel in another form of COMMUNICATION to the senses (means). At the end of the day you must realize that WORDS written or spoken are nothing more than MEANS themselves. They are parts of the creation, ink molecules, air molecules, formed and energized to communicate a message. Baptism is similar to this but needs the words to do this as well. The difference is baptism comes TO THE MAN specifically. It answers that question, “How do I know God’s will and salvation is FOR ME.” Answer: I am (present tense) baptized. Thus, the help to faith.



> Can there be a baptism done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost that is not from God?



No, you are misunderstanding the authority, it does not rely upon the receiver or giver. The giver can be an apostate pastor. The intent must be unto the Gospel.

It boils down to is baptism God’s work or man’s. The answer to that question reveals the true or false understanding of baptism. Secondly, you cannot change the Gospel in the sacraments any more than you can in the Word JUST because men abuse it and men are liars. The Gospel IS for the sheep, in spite of the hypocrites. You are in essence, not you particular but men, are always trying to repair and change the gift of God to HIS people to in essence ‘assure’ that false liars do not falsely be assured. In one sense the answer to that is simple, it does not matter. The gifts are for the children of God and are not to be ‘adjusted’ due to liars, the devil and hypocrites. When you do so you poison the gifts from our Father to us. In a sense our duty is not to protect the hypocrite but the believer. This is how the Gospel gets alter A LOT. People are so afraid the definitive hypothetical hypocrite will be falsely assured they end up preaching another gospel altogether and loose the gospel just the same. In essence this is what happened between Rome and the later Credistics. They correctly recognize the error of Rome but threw out the Gospel in the Sacraments in an over correction, ending up with just as vain a view on baptism as Rome had. Paul actually answers this very charge concerning circumcision and the Word, “What if some did not believe…let God be true though every man a liar.” He didn’t mince words and he did ‘adjust’ the objective realities to ‘protect’ the liar/hypocrites.




> Now let me explain my rebaptism. You may conclude that I have crucified the Son of God afresh as F. N. Lee has accused me of but I know you would be wrong because I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. I am convinced of Christ's Justifying work for me.



I don’t know about FNL, but I like to distinguish between those who did it blatantly and those due to lack of knowledge. The former disdain baptism, the later, like yourself, me in the past and others really desire to know the truth and if any of us did (like my dear wife) it was not unto malicious intent but ignorance. I want to make that clear, because we ALL do things we think scripture says then later learn and repent from it. That’s the reason I say true Gospel repentance, that is joyous and cheerful, not a legal repentance. So, I would not throw or do not intend to throw a flame the way Lee does.



> I believe I was baptized in a heretical way. I was told if I chose to be baptized God would forgive and cleans me from all of my past sin. I also understood that I needed to attend the Lord's Supper for a weekly recleansing from sin. This is Heresy and not biblical Christianity. I partook in this heresy. Baptism and the Lord's supper became a what can I do to keep myself cleansed from sin and acceptable to God pursuit. My faith was in the action of these ordinances themselves. I miserably failed at this and sunk into deeper sin.



Then all that was needed was to correct the false teaching to strengthen your faith. Because it’s not YOUR WORK as you explained, baptism or the Lord’s Supper, but God’s. You don’t DO these things to MERIT or EARN forgiveness, rather they are GIVEN TO YOU to assure you that YOU HAVE forgiveness. It goes back to the continuous battle we experience internally for the faith. Because our faith lives in tension with our life’s experiences. Thus, Paul says, “The life that I live in the flesh I LIVE BY faith.” That is against what experience tells me as the flesh, devil and world WAR against faith, the senses, the experiences to the contrary, I LIVE BY continual TRUST in Christ Who gave Himself for me. And baptism and the Lord’s Supper help me to know and remember this, they help assure me it is FOR ME in spite of everything else that says in some way “it is not for me”.

Your story is manifestly admitting you viewed baptism as man’s work and thus rejected it. And your saying, “I believe…”, not I know from the objective teachings of Scripture.

Quote:
(Luk 7:29) (When all the people heard this, and the tax collectors too, they declared God just, having been baptized with the baptism of John,

(Luk 7:30) but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.) 

The point of this verse is that the Pharisees are rejecting the baptism because it is real objectively in the first place, not because it depends upon them believing it. That’s why they can reject it in unbelief…they DON’T believe it’s objective reality, THAT is what they are rejecting. To put it another way; if I don’t believe and I rejected your first baptism, what would I be rejecting if what you argue is true? Nothing, I would be rejecting a ‘nothing’ and this of course would be non-sense. It’s rather telling, and as a former atheist I can personally say this, that the reason unbelievers reject baptism is because they in a sense detect its objective reality, ironically better than the Baptist. The entire reason I rejected baptism for 32+ years was I knew its objective reality in identity with Christ and the name of God, I DIDN’T want it. I was not rejecting a “nothing” or the concept of faith itself. If baptism is subjectively real, that is only upon the one possessing faith, then it is fleetingly existing. When an unbeliever rejects baptism, he/she is rejecting A THING not a NOTHING. He’s not rejecting the ‘possession of faith’, he’s rejecting the object of faith. And the object of faith is what is seen for the reality of baptism, not faith itself.




> Well, that is kinda why I wanted to be baptized again. I was baptized under a heretical view and wanted to share God's testimony of saving me from sin by His free grace. That was not done in my first baptism. It was more of a confession and pronouncement of God's work on my behalf. I know I was not blaspheming God in any way by being rebaptized. I was declaring salvation is of the LORD and renouncing an heretical view of baptism.



I’m certain you sincerely you mean that, and the reality of your final true faith is WONDERFUL, I encourage that, please realize that, NEVER DOUBT THAT. However, the action does not declare that. Because the events must be taken as a whole not isolated packets. You are attaching words, testimonial, that does not match up with the visible testimony or reality. What the visible events say, which you do not really want them to say, is this: The first baptism was false BECAUSE I didn’t have faith, ergo, baptism is based and real based upon the possession of faith. I was baptized a second time to be consistent with this and this too testifies to the reality that baptism is rooted and based upon faith, and in reality “MY” faith. This is the testimony THIS gives. The viewer sees THIS. The viewer is then thrust upon looking to YOUR faith and not the cross, the focus is on YOU and not the Gospel and baptism IS pointing to and testifying to FAITH or “God’s work in you”. BUT, the Gospel, which is what we are to testify to and not us, IS NOT ABOUT US OR GOD’s work IN US. IT is about the Cross of Christ. YOUR faith and God’s work in YOUR life as wonderous as it is TO YOU is of absolutely NO heavenly or earthly good to anyone. They must see the Cross of Christ not “how I’ve been changed or delivered or saved”. The testimony must be singular both in Word and Sacrament. The testimony must NOT be baptism is pointing to faith, but baptism is pointing to Christ, the name of God, the promise of salvation, the assurance of it, the blood and the water, the cleansing of the blood is as CERTAIN as the water that pours over the body, the name of God is SURE salvation, the authority of God is certain unto salvation. That’s the testimony of visible baptism. Baptism is not just FOR the receiver but the viewers as well: It says, “Here is salvation”. NOBODY becomes baptized for ANY OTHER REASON than to be saved. It is nonsense to speak of baptism in any other way. Baptism is not a false testimonial lie, it is truth because it is rooted in the objectivity of the Word of God and the Name.

Blessings always,

Larry


----------



## Larry Hughes (Dec 6, 2006)

Trever,

Goodness, you don't have to apologize to me in the work you are doing.

I'm blessed to call you and Randy and Bill my brothers!!!

Truly,

Larry


----------

