# Child Dedication



## heartoflesh (Apr 26, 2005)

I wasn't sure what section to place this in, so please feel free to move it. 

Our church does child dedication, and we have a newborn that we'll be dedicating sometime this year. I have a couple of questions about this.

Is there a Biblical mandate for this?

Is there any connection between dedication and covenant children?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 26, 2005)

From our studies (and I admit that my knowledge is limited) there is no biblical basis for it, in a sense. Hannah "dedicated" Samuel...that is what Baptists use...but it's not the same. From what I've been told, Baptists use "dedications" as a means of replacing the dedication part of paedobaptism without the water since they hold to believer's baptism (hubby and I were raised baptist)


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 26, 2005)

....and, Hannahs son was circumcised on the 8th day, i.e. the sign was faithfully placed (as it should be today).

So, ultimately, the dedication is no less a slap in the face of God. in my opinion, it places a larger condemnation upon the child.

[Edited on 4-26-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## heartoflesh (Apr 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ....and, Hannahs son was circumcised on the 8th day, i.e. the sign was faithfully placed (as it should be today).
> 
> So, ultimately, the dedication is no less a slap in the face of God. in my opinion, it places a larger condemnation upon the child.
> ...




So I shouldn't do it?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



I wouldn't; God didn't command it, did He? And for the record, being a literalist, one would have to abandon their child to the priest/pastor, as Hannah did!

[Edited on 4-26-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Philip A (Apr 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> So I shouldn't do it?



Check out Richard Barcellos' pamphlet _Baby Dedications Ancient and Modern_. He is a confessional Reformed Baptist who argues against it. The pamphlet is available from CVBBS.


----------



## heartoflesh (Apr 26, 2005)

thanks


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 26, 2005)

I agree with Philip. Barcellos is a very sound Baptist source!

Do you know what they call baby dedications?














Dry baptisms!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 26, 2005)

Sneak a bottle of water into the service with you and make it a real dedication! :bigsmile:


----------



## Presbyrino (Apr 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> And for the record, being a literalist, one would have to abandon their child to the priest/pastor, as Hannah did!



Also, no record of an infant dedication in the NT. 

This is something that always confused me about my old, dispensationalist, church (Calvary Chapel), that performed baby dedications. They always cited the passage in 1 Samuel as support for the practice of infant dedications. But according to their interpretation scheme, the infant "dedication" of Samuel occured under the old dispenstaion of Law and should technically have no place in the age of Grace.


----------



## govols (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Philip A_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> ...



Is there an online copy anywhere?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sntijerina_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Steve,
Not trying to hijack the thread, but could you expound upon how you believe the _law_ has 'no place' in the church today?

Have I misinterpreted what you said? If so, please forgive me.


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 27, 2005)

> Also, no record of an infant dedication in the NT.



And in all due respect, no record of an infant baptism in the NT. (Writing for the minority.)


----------



## Presbyrino (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Scott,
> Steve's talking about Calvary Chapel beliefs there...





Sorry, I wasn't clear, but I was reffering to Calvary Chapel/Dispensationlists beliefs.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 27, 2005)

Scott,
Steve's talking about Calvary Chapel beliefs there...

Bob,
You well know that we will argue that "household baptisms" quite properly assume an OT covenant theological background. "Household" has to be redefined under credo- presuppositions to _exclude_ infants.


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 27, 2005)

> You well know that we...... assume



Yes, I am well aware that the arguments for paedo-baptism are grounded in the doctrine of 'assuma scriptura'.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 27, 2005)

Oh ho!
2 can play that game, Mr. Credo-Redefinitas!


----------



## heartoflesh (Apr 27, 2005)

At our church the baby dedication encompasses the following:

1) Introducing the child to the congregation

2) The parents vow to raise the child in a godly fashion, read them the Word of God, bring them to church, etc.

3) The congregation gathers around the family, lays hands on them, and the pastor prays for them.

What specifically is in error about any of this?


----------



## govols (Apr 27, 2005)

Maybe it would be better to name it "A vow of godly rearin"?

My church does the same thing.

My church has no mandate in doing this though or do they believe that Bible dictates it as so.

[Edited on 4-27-2005 by govols]


----------



## heartoflesh (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by govols_
> Maybe it would be better to name it "A vow of godly rearin"?
> 
> My church does the same thing.
> ...



Right-- it's more of a "parental duty confirmation" than anything else. My pastor has brought up the Samuel thing, which I feel is an attempt to present it as a Biblical mandate. I find this is unneccessary. Why not just quote Ephesians 6:4?


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 27, 2005)

Two questions:

Is it an option? If so, why?

Is it in line with the RPW?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> At our church the baby dedication encompasses the following:
> 
> 1) Introducing the child to the congregation
> ...



It's not biblical...............


----------



## heartoflesh (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> ...




That's a little vague.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Apr 27, 2005)

Rick, one of the main problems and inconsistencies I see in it I explained throughout this thread.



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Is it in line with the RPW?



Good point.


----------



## Puritanhead (Apr 27, 2005)

*I\'m still a believer in \"Believer\'s Baptism\"*



> _Originally posted by sntijerina_
> Also, no record of an infant dedication in the NT.



In fairness, there is no explicit record of infant baptism in the NT either. Paedobaptists make the inference largely based on the Roman soldier mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles who had his whole family baptized. As I Reformed Baptist, who was raised a Congregationalist (which also held to believer's baptism), I will readily admit I have heard some extremely asinine and absurd arguments, some profoundly Arminian, for believer's baptism. Nonetheless, the case for infant baptism has never has watertight as Presbyterians make it out to be. Our Lord Jesus Christ didn't get an infant baptism did he? That's right... he was baptized by submersion in the river Jordan and at a pretty ripe age. Even if I were to ever accept the proposition of infant baptism, I could never accept there is some inherent wrong in _believer's baptism_ as so many Presbyterians would have me believe.


A Baptist and a Congregationalist were driving to a picnic one summer and saw all these kids running around in the sprinkler. The Baptist said, "Sheesh! Those kids have a pool in the backyard for crying out loud! What's wrong with them?" The Congregationalist replied, "I think their family belongs to one of those _hydrophobic_ denominations..." The Baptist inquired, "Are they Methodists?" The Congregationalist replied, "Nah... they're Presbyterians."


Now, if only my Reformed Baptist church would use real "Communion Wine"-- we would get it _all_ right.
:bigsmile:

[Edited on 4-27-2005 by Puritanhead]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 27, 2005)

> And in all due respect, no record of an infant baptism in the NT. (Writing for the minority.)



There's no examples of believer's-only baptism in the NT, either.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> From our studies (and I admit that my knowledge is limited) there is no biblical basis for it, in a sense. Hannah "dedicated" Samuel...that is what Baptists use...but it's not the same. From what I've been told, Baptists use "dedications" as a means of replacing the dedication part of paedobaptism without the water since they hold to believer's baptism (hubby and I were raised baptist)



Schaeffer calls them waterless baptisms!


----------



## turmeric (Apr 27, 2005)

Jesus was baptized AND circumcised! Hmmm...!


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by govols_
> Maybe it would be better to name it "A vow of godly rearin"?
> 
> My church does the same thing.
> ...



We do to. See BCO 56-5. Of course we baptize them first.


----------



## Puritanhead (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> ...



You guys act as though-- we negate the baptism ordinance altogether the way you talk. So called _dedication_ whether declared in front of a congregation or between God and man in private, is nothing more than a family expressing its commitment to raise a child "in fear and admonition of the Lord." If you want to hold people in fault for that... than so be it.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Apr 27, 2005)

Let's not let this become a baptism debate...



> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> So called _dedication_ whether declared in front of a congregation or between God and man in private, is nothing more than a family expressing its commitment to raise a child "in fear and admonition of the Lord." If you want to hold people in fault for that... than so be it.



But would you likewise acknowledge that in your system, you cannot really have any grounded hope that the raising of them in that way is doing any good, any more than a simple Gospel presentation to a random person would on any given day? If not, read the thread I linked above.

Also, how would any of you answer Fred's question about the RPW?


----------



## govols (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > And in all due respect, no record of an infant baptism in the NT. (Writing for the minority.)
> ...



Acts 16:31 - 34
Acts 18:8


----------



## govols (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by govols_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Philip A_
> ...



Anyone know of one? I don't want to pay $4 for shipping of a $1.50 pamphlet. :bigsmile:
Is there an online copy anywhere?

[Edited on 4-27-2005 by govols]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 27, 2005)

> Acts 16:31 - 34
> Acts 18:8



Professions of faith baptisms, not *believers* baptisms.

Back on topic...


----------



## govols (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > Acts 16:31 - 34
> ...



Geesh, you *young* gun, you weren't on topic to begin with.


----------



## heartoflesh (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Also, how would any of you answer Fred's question about the RPW?



I don't know how to answer it, because I have such a hard time understanding the concept. I never know what is allowed and what is not. Is telling the congregation you intend to be a godly parent to your child wrong? Is the congregation laying hands and the pastor praying wrong? I don't understand.


----------



## doulosChristou (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> Our church does child dedication, and we have a newborn that we'll be dedicating sometime this year. I have a couple of questions about this.
> 
> Is there a Biblical mandate for this?



Nope.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by govols_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



I wasn't saying that *you* needed to get back on topic, I was saying that we *all* needed to get back on the topic, per the moderator's suggesstion, nay command, above this dialogue. Such a *wise old man* as yourself should surely be aware of the sin of assumptions and jumping to conclusions with others, most especially with other believers, knowing that it is always best to assume one meant no harm with words of which we are not immediately sure as to the nature of their context and intent upon our first reading.


----------



## Philip A (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by govols_
> Anyone know of one? I don't want to pay $4 for shipping of a $1.50 pamphlet. :bigsmile:
> Is there an online copy anywhere?



NO, NO, NO, you are thinking about it all wrong! You _need_ to get a hold of the $1.50 pamphlet, so you _must_ order additional books in order to make the $4 shipping worthwhile!

(I am always looking for excuses to buy more books, I'd be all over this one!)

But sadly, no, it is not available online that I have found.

[Edited on 4-27-2005 by Philip A]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



No, I'm not...I'm just saying that baptists basically tried to "split" covenantal baptisms...kinda the "have your cake and eat it too thing". They don't want to baptize infants, but yet they still want SOME symbol of bringing them into the church community.

However, here is one major difference I see between dedications and covenant/household baptisms...In dedications, only the parents promise to be responsible to raise up the child in the knowledge of Christ---in covenantal/household baptisms, the ENTIRE congregation makes this same promise...the congregation participates in holding the child and family responsible. I've seen how this plays out in both arenas later in the child's young life...and there is a difference.

(sheesh, I'm starting to sound like a paedo-baptist! Hubby would be proud)


----------



## Puritanhead (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> No, I'm not...I'm just saying that baptists basically tried to "split" covenantal baptisms...kinda the "have your cake and eat it too thing". They don't want to baptize infants, but yet they still want SOME symbol of bringing them into the church community.
> 
> ...



Fair enough--- I really think that debates on baptism are like beating a dead horse. Sure, both sides can point to the three or four scholarly books from both sides of the fence... and say that ends the baptism debate, but does it really?


In person, I have been of the mindset to set people straight when they make straw men arguments whether it's naive baptists that I have heard that proclaim Presbyterians believe in baptismal regeneration... or a Methodist who scoffs at Baptists because they think "droves of water" can save them. I kind of get tired of it all-- the non-sense-- the misrepresentation-- and the dogmatism over it all. Both sides make implicit arguments to upheld their view of baptism and there is no explicit pronouncement that vindicates either Presbyterians or Baptists-- 

This baptism-dedication thread is worn out In my humble opinion... and it's been played like a broken record. I cannot help but to tell jokes when people start to dwell on it.

[Edited on 4-27-2005 by Puritanhead]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> However, here is one major difference I see between dedications and covenant/household baptisms...In dedications, only the parents promise to be responsible to raise up the child in the knowledge of Christ---in covenantal/household baptisms, the ENTIRE congregation makes this same promise...the congregation participates in holding the child and family responsible. I've seen how this plays out in both arenas later in the child's young life...and there is a difference.



Actually, in the Assemblies of God church in which I grew up, the dedications always included the same promise by the congregation. Is that not the norm that most current or former credobaptists here have observed in dedications?


----------



## heartoflesh (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Actually, in the Assemblies of God church in which I grew up, the dedications always included the same promise by the congregation. Is that not the norm that most current or former credobaptists here have observed in dedications?




Yes, the congregation is asked to help keep the parents accountable, to pray for them, etc.

[Edited on 4-27-2005 by Rick Larson]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 27, 2005)

Rick,
The error is when they try and force the idea and contrast it with what Hannah did w/ Samuel.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 27, 2005)

sorry...not where I've been (Methodist, IFB, and SB)


----------



## heartoflesh (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Rick,
> The error is when they try and force the idea and contrast it with what Hannah did w/ Samuel.



I accept that as an error, but am not sure that the whole idea has to be thrown out because someone has the wrong application. I can see where things like dramas, CCM worship, Powerpoints and the ilk are a brazen violation of RPW, but I'm having a hard time seeing how having a congregation hold a family accountable to Ephesians 6:4 with some prayer involved is.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



It is much more than that. We believe that baptism is the sign and seal of the New Covenant and represents induction into the Visible Church. I see you are a Baptist, so this would be a point of disagreement between us. I was once as you. Study the covenants. I don't think you will long remain a Baptist, if you do.


----------



## Puritanhead (Apr 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...Study the covenants. I don't think you will long remain a Baptist, if you do.



I forget that circumcision somehow proves the vitality of infant baptism.


----------



## Puritanhead (Apr 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> So called _dedication_ whether declared in front of a congregation or between God and man in private, is nothing more than a family expressing its commitment to raise a child "in fear and admonition of the Lord." If you want to hold people in fault for that... than so be it.





> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> But would you likewise acknowledge that in your system, you cannot really have any grounded hope that the raising of them in that way is doing any good, any more than a simple Gospel presentation to a random person would on any given day? ...



Uh-ugghhh Nooooooo-oh... we're just begging the question here.


----------



## Puritanhead (Apr 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Professions of faith baptisms, not *believers* baptisms.



All needless semantic games... no where is the cliche "infant baptism," "profession of faith baptism," or "believer's baptism" found in the Bible... so it's all very trivial...


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 28, 2005)

All smugness aside, I understand your paedo arguments but I keep getting caught up on the close association of repentance and baptism in the NT.

I believe there is a covenant relationship between the visible church and it's children but that the sign of the covenant is the invisible Holy Spirit.

I was baptized as a baby by paedo-baptists into the church and kissed the bishops ring when I was 12 to confirm my place in the church. At 15 I renounced the RCC and was immersed in a tank in the Baptist church after giving a public profession of my faith. I guess I'm IN no matter what.

My two grown daughters were dedicated but never baptized and are now living in utter rebellion. Lord willing I will be having young children soon and this will be an issue I need to come to a conviction on. So far all I can see is that 'good and necessary consequence' does not guarantee 'orthodox consequence'.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 28, 2005)

Protestant paedo baptism is very different from RCC infant baptisms...the reason being that the Protestant don't view it as part of salvation, the RCC does. Protestant paedo/covenant/household baptisms are to show the children are part of the covenant community. The baptists don't believe you can be part of that community till you profess faith. However, if Israel was our example, then there were both believers and unbelievers in the community and you raised the child AS THOUGH they would have faith IN HOPES THAT they will have faith (did I state that right?). Just as ALL children were circumcised in the OT...that did not make them all spiritually Jewish.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 28, 2005)

Moving to Baptism Forum


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 28, 2005)

In the dedications at our church the congregation would stand and recite the church convenant which committed us all to a covenantal non-saving relationship to the child.
It seemed sufficient and intrinsic arguements can be made from the scriptures. I'll see if I can find the text of the covenant.


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 28, 2005)

Found it:

Our Covenant
Having received salvation by the grace of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, we covenant:
* to keep the commandments of God, sustained in the faith of Jesus Christ.
* to meet for worship on the Sabbath and to support the program of the church.
* to give in service to God a fair proportion of our time, abilities, and material possessions in the belief that these are given to us as a trust from God.
* to watch over each other for good and to pray for each other to the intent that we may grow in wisdom and spiritual understanding.


----------



## heartoflesh (Apr 28, 2005)

Let's leave the baptism debate for the baptism forum, shall we? (oops, Fred beat me!!)

What about child dedication? How does this conflict with RPW?

Consider my previous quote:



> ....I can see where things like dramas, CCM worship, Powerpoints and the ilk are a brazen violation of RPW, but I'm having a hard time seeing how having a congregation hold a family accountable to Ephesians 6:4 with some prayer involved is.



[Edited on 4-28-2005 by Rick Larson]


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



I know you thought you just scored a point, but in your levity you accurately stated my position (although I probably would NOT have used the word "vitality.")

Consider the following:

1. Baptism is the sign and seal of the New Covenant, of which children are a part. Consider the teaching of Paul in Romans 4 and 6 and Galatians 3. The Bible clearly teaches continuity and correspondence between the Old and New Covenants and their signs.

2. Notice that children were included in the covenant with their parents under the Old Covenant in Genesis 17. Ishmael received the sign of the covenant along with Abraham and his whole household.

3. Have you ever read Col. 2:11-12? This is perhaps the most explicit statement in all of Scripture that is not only the New Covenant sign and seal but a direct correspondent to circumcision.

4. Consider the milieu of Acts 2. Who were all the converts that day? Jews. Jews expected their children to receive the sign and seal of the covenant. IPeter clearly makes reference to Joel 2, casting the events of Pentecost as the inaugural event of the New Covenant. If Peter had forbad the converts from giving the sign of the New Covenant to their children ( and they would have expected it!), one is forced to wonder why no explanation was offered as to why they could not. One is forced to conclude that no such restriction was laid down.

To bring this reply back on thread, I would say Baptists want so badly to have some outward symbol of their faith in God's grace towards their children, that they have manufactured "dedications" out of thin air. It is, as Schaeffer says, a waterless baptism.


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 28, 2005)

The RWP is a shovel that can be used to cultivate a fertile soil where true worship can grow and thrive, it can also be used to cut, separate and tyrannize fellow workmen. I am a supporter of the RWP as a tool for worship but it didn't come with very precise instructions on how to use it.

I firmly believe a dedication service may be performed in a manner that glorifies God and does not rob the service of true worship. In the strictest sense, it's not biblical but neither is the pew I sat in, the number of hymns selected, the order of events in the service, the color of the carpet in the sanctuary but it was vacuumed which I believe was more God honoring than had it been dirty.


----------



## heartoflesh (Apr 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ....I would say Baptists want so badly to have some outward symbol of their faith in God's grace towards their children, that they have manufactured "dedications" out of thin air. It is, as Schaeffer says, a waterless baptism.



This is merely an accusation of motives, and ultimately not helpful. I can see where this is a meaningless question for Paedos. To steal an analogy from Fred--- it's like asking Phil Jackson what he thinks his chances are of his team getting to the Super Bowl. 

So, what do you Credos out there think?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> All smugness aside, I understand your paedo arguments but I keep getting caught up on the close association of repentance and baptism in the NT.



There is a close associate of repentance and circumcision in the OT, dear one!

*Repentance and Forgiveness
Deut 30:1 "œAnd when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the Lord your God has driven you, 2 and return to the Lord your God, you and your children, and obey his voice in all that I command you today, with all your heart and with all your soul, 3 then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you, and he will gather you again from all the peoples where the Lord your God has scattered you. 4 If your outcasts are in the uttermost parts of heaven, from there the Lord your God will gather you, and from there he will take you. 5 And the Lord your God will bring you into the land that your fathers possessed, that you may possess it. And he will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers. 6 And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.*




> I believe there is a covenant relationship between the visible church and it's children but that the sign of the covenant is the invisible Holy Spirit.



*Isaiah 44:3 For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants.

Isaiah 59:21 "œAnd as for me, this is my covenant with them," says the Lord: "œMy Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children's offspring," says the Lord, "œfrom this time forth and forevermore."*

Even the Holy Spirit is covenantally promised to offspring. So, to recap, we have your ideas, in opposition to paedobaptism, of:

1. Baptism ties-in closely with repentance
*- Circumcision ties-in closely with repentance*

2. Holy Spirit is the sign of the covenant
*- The Holy Spirit is promised to the offspring of the covenantally faithful*

Looks like everything lines up to me. Just thought I'd give you something to think about, unless you have already, then I apologize. Grace and peace!

[Edited on 4-28-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 28, 2005)

Rick, honestly we weren't trying to divert the thread...it happens because, from my understanding, the concept of dedications branched off of infant baptism. And I stated that I was a baptist to show that my "accusation" of "motives" was actually how I had believed. I'm sorry if I was taken wrong somewhere along the line.


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 28, 2005)

I agree with you Gabriel, and thank you for those verses. Where we disagree or the puzzle piece that is still missing is where water baptism or in your case, sprinkling becomes the visible sign of the invisible covenant.

I can see the correlations and similarities and shadows and types and arch-types.

I believe baptism to be a public profession of repentance and turning to Jesus. That you will now be associated with the Lord Jesus and his teachings. That you have a vital connection with Christ. However, I must admit this is based mainly in my own history and sentiment and I will continual to study the paedo arguments. I appreciate your patience and guidance.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> I agree with you Gabriel, and thank you for those verses. Where we disagree or the puzzle piece that is still missing is where water baptism or in your case, sprinkling becomes the visible sign of the invisible covenant.
> 
> I can see the correlations and similarities and shadows and types and arch-types.
> ...



Bear in mind that it is not an issue of either/or, rather one of both/and. No Presbyterian denies that the Bible teaches baptism for new converts. It's just that we believe the Bible also teaches baptism for the children of believers.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 28, 2005)

The biggest difference for me was understanding that in one camp, Baptism is a sign of *my* faith and *my* act of obedience and *my* new birth, whereas in the Reformed view, it is *God's* baptism and *God's* work. The difference is significant, in my opinion - one view is essentially man-centered.


----------



## Theological Books (Apr 28, 2005)

Then it is safe to assume the baptism of an adult (by a presbyterian) is man-centered, too.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 28, 2005)

Not if he was never in the covenant community to begin with....


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



Nowhere is the term "Trinity" found in the Bible either . . . so it must be "very trivial" too . . .


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 28, 2005)

> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> > The biggest difference for me was understanding that in one camp, Baptism is a sign of *my* faith and *my* act of obedience and *my* new birth, whereas in the Reformed view, it is *God's* baptism and *God's* work. The difference is significant, in my opinion - one view is essentially man-centered.
> 
> 
> ...



No . . . baptism is a sign of God's work, not man's work, period. It doesn't matter whether the recipient of baptism is an adult or infant. In *both* cases, it signifies what God has done, and not what the man/infant has done. Baptism has the same significance in both cases.

For a deeper look into this, I highly recommend Pierre-Charles Marcel's book, "The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism" :

click here to see the book on Amazon.com


In Christ,
Joseph

[Edited on 4-28-2005 by biblelighthouse]

[Edited on 4-28-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 28, 2005)

What Gleason said.


----------



## Theological Books (Apr 28, 2005)

My point, Mr. Gleason, is that if credobaptism (as understood by a Reformed Baptist, for instance, whose doctrine of baptism is identical to a paedobaptist's doctrine of baptizing an unchurch newly professing Christian) is man-centered, so is the paedobaptist's baptism of an adult. We seem to forget Reformed Baptists and Paedobaptists practice the same, identical baptism and theology thereof for adults. However, maybe Mr. Martini is speaking of those non-reformed baptists who do not believe baptism is a means of grace for those who are baptized? Or those Baptists--non-reformed Baptists--who argue differently than Reformed Baptists?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 28, 2005)

Mr. Myers, do you belive adult baptism is the first act of obedience of a new Christian and part of their public profession of faith?


----------



## Theological Books (Apr 28, 2005)

This is what I believe about baptism:

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church;[2] but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.[8]

1. Matt. 28:19
2. I Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27-28
3. Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12
4. Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:5
5. John 3:5; Titus 3:5
6. Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; 22:16
7. Rom. 6:3-4
8. Matt. 28:19-20

II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto.[9]

9. Acts 8:36, 38; 10:47; Matt. 28:19

III. Dipping [or immersion] of the person into the water is not necessary [but the most proper, as per men like John Calvin; but baptism [can be] rightly [though irregularly] administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.[10]

10. Heb. 9:10, 13, 19, 21; Mark 7:2-4; Luke 11:38

V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it;[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]

13. Gen. 17:14; Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38; see Luke 7:30
14. Rom. 4:11; Acts 10:2, 4, 22, 31, 45, 47
15. Acts 8:13, 23

VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] 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 as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.[17]

16. John 3:5, 8
17. Rom. 6:3-6; Gal. 3:27; I Peter 3:21; Acts 2:38, 41

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

18. Rom. 6:3-11

And:

I. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with Him, in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Him;[1] of remission of sins;[2] and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.[3]

1. Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27
2. Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16
3. Rom. 6:4

II. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.[4]

4. Mark 16:16; Acts 2:41; 8:12, 36-37; 18:8

III. The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, wherein the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.[5]

5. Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 8:38

IV. Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.[6]

6. Matt. 3:16, John 3:23

Now, universally (whether from the paedo or credo camp), I do believe baptism is a ceremonial law to which one must submit upon a profession of faith (wether true or false), in order that one might enter into covenant with God, specifically the New Covenant, as commanded by God.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 28, 2005)

You contradicted yourself at least a dozen times by quoting both confessions, brother. That simply isn't possible to believe both. Which do you believe?


----------



## turmeric (Apr 28, 2005)

Why can't you believe parts of both - the 1689 Baptist confession was taken in large part from the WCF.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> Why can't you believe parts of both - the 1689 Baptist confession was taken in large part from the WCF.



Because one says it is a sign and seal of the CoG, the other doesn't.

One says it is for adult believers alone, the other doesn't.

One says immersion is not necessary, the other says it is required and exclusively to be done.

etc ...


----------



## Theological Books (Apr 28, 2005)

I think there is some confusion. Let's define a "contradiction." A contradiction is where A is both A and Not A. Simply because the LBC of 1689 does not call it a sign and seal, it does not mean one cannot believe it is a sign and seal and that which is covered in the LBC of 1689. It isn't mutually exclusive. The LBC of 1689 would have to say (in substance, if not in accident): "Baptism is not a sign and seal, but rather is..." The LBC of 1689 is not written in such a way where "sign and seal" is exclusive of the language of the LBC of 1689.

As for "believers" alone, that is a blatant mispresentation of the LBC of 1689, and one that should be noted. It says the ordinance is for those who profess faith and repentance. It does not say it is for the elect (or true believers), alone. So from now one we can leave that straw man out of the equation. The Divines were a bit more thoughtful than that.

Yes, as for immersion *exclusively*, that is the exception I take, but I do not believe that is the language of the LBC of 1689. I didn't catch that in my "editing" (as you can see it was sloppy). I did edit those instances in the WCF that speak of infants, so that the two would not contradict one another. Good catch. I missed that. However, the LBC of 1689 does not state the affusion or sprinkling is invalid. One can say immersion is correct for the due (that is regular and valid) administration, but sprinkling and affusion can be irregular, yet valid administrations. Do you understand that nuance? I believe that is well within the bounds of the LBC of 1689. One can accept an irregular mode, such as sprinkling, of a professing believer. Regular/Valid and Irregular/Invalid were common categories in the 17th century, so I believe it is well within the bounds of accepting the sprinkling/affusion. I believe you are wrongly inserting words/ideas into the LBC of 1689, such as "exclusively." This, of course, is contingent upon one's view of subscriptionism and interpretation. I believe I am well within the bounds to allow for sprinkling/affusion of a professing believer.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 28, 2005)

The confessions, I would assume, were written to show what those confessing their faith positively believe, and in a sufficient and inclusive manner. For that reason, I find it somewhat erroneous to believe the LBCF allows for baptism to be a "sign and seal of the CoG" when it does not state this to be the case (no doubt intentionally?), especially being such a major distinction in regards to the sacrament/ordinance of baptism.

I still think you are somewhat undermining the authorial intent of the LBCF's view on baptism. However, if you don't consider yourself a 'subcriber' to the LBCF, that's just fine with me. I'm just saying, you are not in agreement with the traditional, confessional (as outlined by the 1689) Reformed Baptist view of baptism - which is again fine - that's all.


----------



## Puritanhead (Apr 28, 2005)

Sitting idle in amusement.


----------



## Theological Books (Apr 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> The confessions, I would assume, were written to show what those confessing their faith positively believe, and in a sufficient and inclusive manner. For that reason, I find it somewhat erroneous to believe the LBCF allows for baptism to be a "sign and seal of the CoG" when it does not state this to be the case (no doubt intentionally?), especially being such a major distinction in regards to the sacrament/ordinance of baptism.
> 
> I still think you are somewhat undermining the authorial intent of the LBCF's view on baptism. However, if you don't consider yourself a 'subcriber' to the LBCF, that's just fine with me. I'm just saying, you are not in agreement with the traditional, confessional (as outlined by the 1689) Reformed Baptist view of baptism - which is again fine - that's all.



No, you are correct. Those who penned the LBC of 1689 purposefully intended to change/substract/alter the language in certain circumstances. I do subscribe tot he LBC of 1689 (personally), but I said it depends on one's view of _subscriptionism_. For instance, the WCF is CLEARLY written from an infralapsarian position, but suprlapsarians can adhere to the WCF without contradiction. So, even though the Divines purposefully used such language to favor infralapsarianism, one can still adhere to supralapsarianism and subscribe to the WCF. The same is true with tri-covenantal theology as compared to bi-covenantal theology. While the WCF may be inclined toward bi-covenant theology (or even tri-covenantal theology), one can still adhere to tri-covenant theology (or bi-covenant theology if the opposite is true).

Again, you have YET to prove--only assert--that the portions of the WCF contradict (do you agree upon the definition of contradiction set forth in the previous post?) the portions of the LBC. I liken your hermeneutics to those who claim Scripture contradicts itself if it mentions different events in the same narrative (or rearranges the order) from different authors. Simply because one narrative includes (or leaves out) a portion of an event not recorded in the other, it doesn't mean they contradict one another. I'm sorry, but I fail to see your case or any substantiation of your assertions.

You are also assuming one can ONLY believe what is positively asserted in the confession, meaning one cannot elaborate or add to without contradicting what is positively stated. The confessions were not penned in such a manner. That, too, is a false perception of subscriptionism. For instance, I can say the sacraments are a "means of grace," but the LBC of 1689 does not use that language. Benjamin Keach, though, does call them "means of grace." However, I (or Benjamin Keach) am NOT contradicting the LBC of 1689 if I employ that language and meaning. I hope you're starting to see what I'm saying. Saying baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace does not contradict what the LBC of 1689 teaches about baptism. It merely elaborates upon the sacrament. Again, I think you misunderstand the intention and subscription to confessions.

One can logically adhere to the portions about which I spoke in the both confessions.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 28, 2005)

There really isn't any need to get bent out of shape over one's view of subscriptionism, is there? Have a good night, brother.


----------



## Theological Books (Apr 29, 2005)

No, brother, and I hope I didn't seem as if I was "bent out of shape." I tried to be as "emotionless" (for lack of a better term) as possible in my dialogues. Forgive me if I wasn't, or if I seemed "upset." I simply wanted you to prove your assertions. But, have a good night as well, brother.


----------



## heartoflesh (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Rick, honestly we weren't trying to divert the thread...it happens because, from my understanding, the concept of dedications branched off of infant baptism. And I stated that I was a baptist to show that my "accusation" of "motives" was actually how I had believed. I'm sorry if I was taken wrong somewhere along the line.



No problem, Colleen. That wasn't your quote I was referring to, though.


----------



## Puritanhead (Apr 30, 2005)

I apologise for sounding at all condescending... i'm tongue-in-cheek a lot of times and easy-going being a southern boy-- i don't want to come across the wrong way... hindsight is 20/20

i just think this a dead horse and worn out topic... granted, i could just stay off of it...


some of my best jokes about baptists anyway--


----------



## Larry Hughes (May 8, 2005)

> The biggest difference for me was understanding that in one camp, Baptism is a sign of my faith and my act of obedience and my new birth, whereas in the Reformed view, it is God's baptism and God's work. The difference is significant, in my opinion - one view is essentially man-centered.



Gabriel,

I agree with you - it is significant. Regardless of what the Confessions of faith say. For the logical extension of the practice behind the baptistic view of baptism inevitably leads this way and in fact has led this way as we all too well see today. The evidence is crystal clear regardless of what the confession says. The clear undeniable evidence of this is "œrebaptisms. We can bandy words and confessions and get into theological hair pulling fights all day long. However, the reality is that the reason persons in REAL LIFE practice "œrebaptizism"œ in baptistic churches is the necessary logical outcome of their doctrine on baptism. Even if we remove the mode argument AND the infant issue "œrebaptism" occurs in baptistic churches for reasons due to its logical extension. We must ask why or otherwise play the ostrich and stick our heads in the sand. The reason one "œgets rebaptized" is that one views the sign primarily as "œmy faith, my act of obedience, my new birth, my sign". Which makes it a Law sign rather than a Gospel sign (a to do and to do right rather than trust and faith in Christ alone), which in and of itself is a serious problem. Rather than be pointed to Christ to Whom the sign points and belongs, the conscience is pointed to self and the timing/mode of the sign as the significance. We can pretend this is not what is meant but reality reveals otherwise.

The logic is quite simple in the Christian´s mind, "œI´m not sure I was saved/regenerate when I was baptized, ergo I must be rebaptized (or baptized for the first time when we play word games with the principle, though the principle remains the same). No one would be "œrebaptized" if they understood the sign to be God´s promissory sign for such would be casting dispersion upon the Word and Promise of God.

It is not that both baptist and reformed both baptize professing adults as such, it is the restriction of timing/mode that makes the doctrine inconsistent internally and biblically. Again, look to where the conscience is being pointed to Christ alone or to when and how I was baptized?

ldh


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 8, 2005)




----------



## Philip A (May 9, 2005)

You guys are too funny. 

If I painted all paedo's with a brush as broad as you are using, you would both be Romanists.


----------



## Larry Hughes (May 9, 2005)

Then, humbly I ask, explain rebaptisms rather than throw out an ad homenem mockery to cover the issue. I truly am not trying to broad brush here, rather get at the doctrine and its apparent inconsistency within the credo camp. It is the doctrine that is being examined not those adhering to it. But generally the answer always is some form of "avoiding the question". (Crickets and frogs) If the doctrine is true then it should stand the test of scrutiny.

On the surface both credo and paedeo baptist seem to baptize adults similarly and that upon a profession of faith. Upon this we appear to agree. But upon careful examination adult baptism is not viewed similarly between the two camps. We could ask a question this way to arrive at the difference; "œIf an already baptized member (we will assume mode is acceptable for sake of avoiding any inconsequential red herring diversions) comes back to the church and states that they don´t believe they were regenerate prior to baptism, or even emphatically says they were originally false in their profession prior to baptism, then what would be the response of each type of church (I.e., credo Vs. paedeo) concerning baptism?"

The response reveals the difference of the view not only concerning of infants but of adults and by extension baptism altogether. The category of baptism in the credo camp is drastically different than the category of baptism in the paedeo camp.

Yours In Christ,

ldh

[Edited on 5-9-2005 by Larry Hughes]

[Edited on 5-9-2005 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 9, 2005)

You baptists are too funny. 

If I painted all credo's with a brush as broad as you are using, you would be a Wesleyan.


----------



## turmeric (May 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> You baptists are too funny.
> 
> If I painted all credo's with a brush as broad as you are using, you would be a Wesleyan.



These bananas have been re-baptised and have experienced a second work of grace as well! 

[Edited on 5-9-2005 by turmeric]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 9, 2005)




----------



## Philip A (May 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Then, humbly I ask, explain rebaptisms rather than throw out an ad homenem mockery to cover the issue.



That's the whole point Larry, why should I explain a doctrine that I don't hold to? You are assuming that, because baptists in your experience practice rebaptism, that therefore all baptists, myself included, practice it as well. Your brush is too broad.

Or to put it another way, I agree with your criticism of that view of baptism that is prevalent in modern Baptist churches. But I am still nevertheless a baptist, or more precisely, an anti-paedobaptist.

Does this make sense to you?

[Edited on 5-9-2005 by Philip A]


----------



## turmeric (May 9, 2005)

Okay, maybe you could explain, at least for my education, the difference between the view which Larry is critiquing and your credo position. BTW, I haven't worked it all out in my mind yet.


----------



## Philip A (May 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> Okay, maybe you could explain, at least for my education, the difference between the view which Larry is critiquing and your credo position. BTW, I haven't worked it all out in my mind yet.



I do not believe that "rebaptism" is necessary in the test case that Larry describes in his most recent post.


----------



## turmeric (May 9, 2005)

So you believe in "believers' baptism" once. That makes sense. But what about Larry's point that basing it on the person's obedience, et cetera, takes away from the God-centered view of redemption?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 9, 2005)

If you believe in any rebaptism _at all_, you are in error (Tit 3:5). Just because you don't think a "believer's baptized" person should be rebaptized doesn't necessarily mean you don't believe in the error of rebaptisms, as I'm quite sure you would object to accepting the infant baptism of another denomination as valid within your local, autonomous congregation. Right?

[Edited on 5-9-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## turmeric (May 9, 2005)

Who you callin' credo? I'm in the PCA! My congregation regularly wets infants!


----------



## Larry Hughes (May 9, 2005)

Philip,

Fare enough, because I don't want to be broad brushing, again it is the doctrine we are examining. 

I want to stick with the adult for a moment because these are real life situations, not mere hypotheticals. So who receives baptism once? Professor regenerate and professor unregenerate, or regenerate believer only? If you say regenerate believer only then what do you do in a case when the person themselves say, "I wasn't really saved when I was first baptized but now I am?" Which profession do you trust? Then do you say, "That is wonderful your first baptism has been graciously now realized?" Else do you rebaptize?

But if you say the former then how does this differ from the argument made by those who baptize children of believers who do not possess faith before baptism?

Or alternatively, and this would be the exception to the rule among bapstics, is it baptism of professors only regenerate/unregenerate (profession being primary) with no rebaptism period? But again how is this different?

Any of these rebaptisms are man centered ulitimately.

Ldh


----------



## Philip A (May 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> But if you say the former then how does this differ from the argument made by those who baptize children of believers who do not possess faith before baptism?



Because the case for the latter does not stand on the legitimacy of baptizing unregenerate professors. All it would do would be to remove one of the commonly used arguments against the practice, but it would not therefore warrant it.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 9, 2005)

Can you answer my question, Philip?


----------



## Larry Hughes (May 9, 2005)

> Because the case for the latter does not stand on the legitimacy of baptizing unregenerate professors. All it would do would be to remove one of the commonly used arguments against the practice, but it would not therefore warrant it.



I agree whole heartedly the case is NOT made by this. No disagreement there, the covenant argument makes the case. I'm not making a case for infant baptism. That's why I stayed with adults only. Once again we are looking at the baptistic doctrine itself and if it is similar to paedo in the adult realm, and this to see how one views ultimately their baptism. 

I'll restate the question plainly so there are no misgivings: Do you EVER rebaptize an adult that was baptized as an adult, and we will even give it immersion, who was baptized by a Christian church? The question boils down to that and that alone! And we will even ignore the fact that regeneration is not even detectable infallibly (for that is common to all denominations).

We are examining the view of baptism. If you say yes then manifestly it is a man centered view of baptism because it rests and finds its meaning not a little, not some but entirely on the validity of the recepient. Esle there is never a warrant for it. For if it rested on God as God's sign and God's promise then such would be manifestly casting doubt on the sign of God signifying what God promises.

Ldh


----------



## Philip A (May 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> I'll restate the question plainly so there are no misgivings: Do you EVER rebaptize an adult that was baptized as an adult, and we will even give it immersion, who was baptized by a Christian church?



No.

And by the way, I'm not quite as particular about mode as you might think.



> And we will even ignore the fact that regeneration is not even detectable infallibly (for that is common to all denominations).



No need to ignore it, I would be a fool to think otherwise.



> For if it rested on God as God's sign and God's promise then such would be manifestly casting doubt on the sign of God signifying what God promises.



Have you read Meredith Kline's oath and ordeal articles on the Puritan's Mind main site? I can't agree in full to your reasoning here in this last bit, but Kline will do a much better job than Iof explaining why.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 9, 2005)

Can you answer my question, Philip?


----------



## Larry Hughes (May 10, 2005)

> For if it rested on God as God's sign and God's promise then such would be manifestly casting doubt on the sign of God signifying what God promises.
> 
> 
> Have you read Meredith Kline's oath and ordeal articles on the Puritan's Mind main site? I can't agree in full to your reasoning here in this last bit, but Kline will do a much better job than Iof explaining why.



I've actually read this before. Specificially where, I'll check it out, apparently I've missed something. Unless your talking about the whole oath/ordeal as in some receive blessing while hypocrits receive cursing (both having received the sign). If that is the case that has nothing to do with the point regarding REbaptisms. For it is one thing to receive the covenant sign and be a hypocrit already "signed" and then in the end receive greater cursing in that context (in covenant). Quite another to question a second time God's promise via reissuing the sign (rebaptism). And a second, third, etc... rebaptism by definition rejects the prior ones (though I don't believe most laity themselves mean this when they've been wrongly tought by teachers). But back to the point, if the baptism view is from "its God's sign" view, then any rebaptism is in essence casting doubt on God's promise by "asking again" via the sign, "give it to me again." If the baptism view is from "its man/my sign" view, then any rebaptism is in essence merely me saying, "I promise I really mean it this time here's my obedience for You Lord to prove it." (i.e. works salvation and NOT grace which relinquishes especially my works) 

No doubt you are the acception to the rule of the baptistic, even the reformed baptist. I've found a few who are not "particular" about the mode, though they argue as if they are. But I've never, personally, run into a baptist who did not agree that the timing of baptism was essential - hence rebaptisms.

So, and I don't want to put words into your mouth, you are saying that timing is not essential to baptism? And you are saying you would never rebaptize? What then is essential such that your understanding differs from infants, professionism? Is that what "validates" a candidates being issued baptism - his/her profession. If so this is still a man centered view of baptism for its warrant rests in the receipant. And it is highly individualistic, actually it is singularly individualistic.

Again, none of this a positive argument for infant baptism as previously stated, but an examination of this doctrine's consistency/inconsistency.

ldh


----------



## Theological Books (May 13, 2005)

As a Reformed Baptist I do not believe the timing of baptism is necessarily tied to the timing of the operation of the Spirit. For instance, if a child professes at age 5 (or whenever) and is subsequently baptized, but then *insists* that he/she was not converted (as in a [bad] theology of conversionism--thanks pietists and revivalists!) until the age of 17, I would tell that child the baptism of age 5 is effectual upon the time faith in Christ alone is exercised. So, I would not "rebaptize" that person. As a Baptist, I even believe that, in the grace of God, the invalid application of baptism can be/is used by God even upon that child's exercise of faith some weeks, month, years later.

[Edited on 5-13-2005 by Theological Books]


----------

