Credobaptist belief in only one baptism

[Particular Baptist]

One thing that I've been asking myself is:

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

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

 

[Herald]

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

 

[buggy]

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

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

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

 

[Herald]

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

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

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

LTL,

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

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

 

[White Knight]

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

 

[rbcbob]

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

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

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

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

 

[Osage Bluestem]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JumpingUpandDown]

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

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

 

[Herald]

Brother Bob,

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

 

[dudley]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Iconoclast]

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

 

[lynnie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dudley]

Lynnie,

Thank you for your support and understanding.

 

[student ad x]

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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

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


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

Question 34 of Tombes Short Catechism about Baptism.

What is the chief end of Baptism?

To testifie the Repentance, Faith, Hope, Love, and Resolution of the Baptized to follow Christ, Gal. 3.27. Rom. 6.3,4. 1 Cor. 15.29. calling upon the Name of the Lord, Acts 22.16.

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

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


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

This is a very good price also.

SGCB | Book Search

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

 

[lynnie]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

 

[Grace Alone]

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

 

[Osage Bluestem]

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

 

[Marrow Man]

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

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

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

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

 

[Osage Bluestem]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Marrow Man]

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

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

 

[Osage Bluestem]

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

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

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

 

[Marrow Man]

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

 

[Osage Bluestem]

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

 

[lynnie]

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

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

 

[Marrow Man]

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

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

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

This section from the ARP Directory for Public Worship might be helpful:

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

 

[lynnie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Marrow Man]

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

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

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

 

[Iconoclast]

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

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

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

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

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

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

It sounds a little bit like this:

The Half-Way Covenant was a form of partial church membership created by New England in 1662. It was promoted in particular by the Reverend Solomon Stoddard, who felt that the people of the English colonies were drifting away from their original religious purpose. First-generation settlers were beginning to die out, while their children and grandchildren often expressed less religious piety, and more desire for material wealth.

Full membership in the tax-supported Puritan church required an account of a conversion experience, and only persons in full membership could have their own children baptized. Second and third generations, and later immigrants, did not have the same conversion experiences. These individuals were thus not accepted as members despite leading otherwise pious and upright Christian lives.

In response, the Half-Way Covenant provided a partial church membership for the children and grandchildren of church members. Those who accepted the Covenant, and agreed to follow the creed and rules of the church, could become church members without claiming a spiritual experience. These half-members could not vote on any issues within the church, although all members could participate in the sacrament of the Supper. Crucially, the half-way covenant provided that the children of holders of the covenant could be baptized in the church.

Puritan preachers hoped that this plan would maintain some of the church's influence in society, and that these 'half-way members' would see the benefits of full membership, be exposed to teachings and piety which would lead to the "born again" experience, and eventually take the full oath of allegiance.[citation needed] Many of the more religious members of Puritan society rejected this plan as they felt it did not fully adhere to the church's guidelines, and many of the target members opted to wait for a true conversion experience instead of taking what they viewed as a short cut.

Response to the Half-Way Covenant may have sown the seeds for the First Great Awakening in the 1730s, launched by Stoddard's grandson Jonathan Edwards. Along with Calvinist evangelist George Whitefield, Edwards preached that God is "in the now" and that there must be an "urgent call for languid will," in response to the half-hearted will that the Half-Way Covenant allows.

[edit] References
Ahlstrom, Sydney A Religious History of the American People v. 1, Yale Press, 1965. Chapter 10: Tensions in the New England Way
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-Way_Covenant"
Categories: History of Christianity in the United States
Hidden categories: All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements from October 2009Views
ArticleDiscussionEdit this pageHistoryPersonal tools
Try BetaLog in / create accountNavigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Search
Interaction
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact Wikipedia
Donate to Wikipedia

 

[lynnie]

MM...thanks.

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


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

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

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


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

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

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