Arminian Dispenationalists may be in error but

[etexas]

Oh no, Double baptism! Someone will call you to repentance soon enough.

Chuckle. I knew I was leaving myself open! Be kind to the Anglican.

 

[Herald]

1689 LBC on Baptism:

Chapter 29: Of Baptism
1. 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; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.
( Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2;12; Galatians 3:27; Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:4 )

2. 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.
( Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36, 37; Acts 2:41; Acts 8:12; Acts 18:8 )

3. 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.
( Matthew 28:19, 20; Acts 8:38 )

4. Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance. ( Matthew 3:16; John 3:23 )

I am positive that particular Baptists of the 17th century would have denied membership to an individual who was baptized as an infant. I would agree that this has been the custom of most Baptist churches since the 17th century and up until today. But can a Baptist church retrain its strong stand on credo-baptism while not insisting that a paedo believer be immersed in order to partake of the Lord's Supper and for membership? I believe the answer is "yes." While this may be inconsistent with historical Baptist practice, I do not believe it is inconsistent with scripture.

Baptism is required of all who claim faith in Christ. The credo is baptized upon a profession of faith while the paedo is baptized into the covenant community. I am making a case, as a Baptist, that the evidence of a changed life eliminates the need to be immersed for someone that has been baptized as an infant. While I may be in agreement with John Piper, I certainly would be in a distinct minority among Baptists. I am fine in my own skin with this view, and I do not believe it underminds credo-baptism.

Allow me expand further on my view. If brother Rich were to attend our church and desired to partake of the Lord's Supper, I would gladly allow him to do so. The only requirement being that he had been baptized and was not abiding willful or gross sin in his life. If brother Rich desired to join our fellowship I believe it would be necessary for him to learn our doctrinal distinctives which would include the observance of the sacraments. If the elders concured that brother Rich displayed evidence of his faith, I see no reason for requiring him to be baptized by immersion. He would need to understand our position on credo baptism and would be barred from teaching against it. If Rich desired a teaching ministry he would have to agree with credo-baptism, not just be understanding of it.

My church does not require that a believer be immersed in order to partake of the Lord's Supper. We just require that they be baptized. As far as membership requirements re: baptism, I cannot speak for my other elders. I lean more towards Piper's position and am going to bring this issue up at our next elders meeting.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich - my church does not require a believer to be immersed in order to partake of the Lord's Supper, although we do require that they have been baptized.

Bill,

That's a decision your Church made. I didn't say the practice was uniform. You need to admit that you are the exception and not the norm.

The irony, Adam, is that you don't want us to be challenge others for believing something is sin but then you're calling all the Baptists on this board sinners for barring others from the Table because you don't think they should be doing that.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Do not both sides of this debate believe this? I think you've already told me that they do. So if this is the case, wouldn't ever single baptism thread turn into "Repent!" "No, you repent!" demands? Isn't that silly and immature?

Firstly, one thing I think could be really helpful in clarifying the nature and implications of this issue is this discussion , started by a Baptist, that took place here a couple years back. Although there was some debate, I think the general consensus throughout the discussion (by both the paedos and the credos) helped to illustrate the biblical and ecclesiastical necessity and wisdom of considering the other side on the sacramental issues to be in sin.

I think a key thing to remember is that it is the Church that has the ultimate authority (and responsibility) to pronounce a believer as being in need of repentance. In light of that, how is the Church to go about deciding which acts warrant a call to repentance? That is where the confessional documents come in, and the Church should then call sin whatever those documents call sin - since the the very purpose the confessions serve, by definition, is to record what the Church confesses. (In light of that, WCF 28.5 "Although it be a great sin to condemn or neglect his ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it.") As such, unless or until the confessions are changed, the Church as a whole cannot but call people to repentance who practice the sacraments differently, or else the confessions are meaningless, pick-and-choose documents altogether, and we end up in low-church broad evangelicalism or else PCUSA-style "confessionalism."

An acknowledgment that a different practice of the sacraments is a sin (and thus, by definition, warrants a call for repentance, and even church discipline) does not mean, however, that believers practicing such should or will be viewed or treated as second-class citizens in the Church. In an earlier thread, Fred Greco excellently explained that in light of this whole issue of baptism, sin and repentence:

I will say this: if you view neglecting to baptize your children as a sin, and all good paedobaptists should view it that way, then you must of necessity "discipline" a member of your church is not baptize his children. Now before everyone gets all bent out of shape, let me remind you that my good friend Phillip Way (a good Baptist minister) completely agrees with me on the issue of baptism in sin. He is perfectly willing for me to say that for a Baptist not to baptize his children is a sin, because that is the case from my perspective. In the same way I am perfectly willing for him to say that I am sinning by baptizing my children. There is no way around it. But just because it is a "sin" does not mean that it is an unpardonable sin or a sin that bars Fellowship.

Now back to the matter of "discipline". Discipline takes all sorts of forms, the problem is what many think of discipline, they only think of trials and excommunications. But actually pastoral counsel, admonition and rebuke are just as much discipline as charges and trials. The difference is one of degree not of kind. So I would in fact discipline a member of my church who failed to baptize his children, but for me, that would take the form of admonition and rebuke not charges and trials. Why? You might ask. Is because I view it to be a more serious sin not to join and be a member of the church and to fail to baptize one's children. To be very honest with you I would be more except with my session if they permitted a person to be a "visitor" for two years and then if they allowed a Baptist to join the church. I would encourage the Baptist to join the church, with the knowledge that he was going to be subject to preaching, teaching, and encouragement that would continually and directly contradict his beliefs on baptism.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Rich, at no point was I ever talking to you. I had been trying to admonish the poster who kept going on, and on, and on, and on, and on about her need of repentance. I thought the point had been made a little harshly and that once was certainly enough. I was slightly annoyed with you ok'ing it, and I was annoyed at what you told me Piper believed, but honestly short of those issues I was never addressing you directly.

 

[Herald]

As such, unless or until the confessions are changed, the Church as a whole cannot but call people to repentance who practice the sacraments differently, or else the confessions are meaningless, pick-and-choose documents altogether, and we end up in low-church broad evangelicalism or else PCUSA-style "confessionalism."

Chris - in principle I agree with you. In my previous post I quoted and excerpt from the 1689 LBC on the matter of baptism. I believe an argument can be made on allowing paedos to join a Baptist church. Maybe I see the LBC as slightly ambiguous on this matter. That is why I believe a Baptist can remain firmly credo while embracing a brother who was baptized as an infant.

 

[ReformedWretch]

1. You thanked him for pointing out how strange it is for you to be wondering why somebody would be claiming to be 100% correct in what they CONFESS.

In a baptists vs. Presbyterian debate, yes. Because it leads to

2. You thanked him for pointing out that we shouldn't be calling people to renounce their confession.

It's fine to debate and answer questions in regard to why each believes what they do, but it's pointless to demand repentance as each side can do that. You say they shouldn't always do so, but I see no other way every debate can end but that way once you allow either to do it even once.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Wow....

All I've been saying is that when Presbyterian's and Baptists debate baptism there is no real reason to allow either side to call the other side sinners in need of repentance. That would lead to "I know you are but what am I" child like responses. This is also why I am a fool for venturing into the baptism board. I won't make that mistake again.

 

[Me Died Blue]

The irony, Adam, is that you don't want us to be challenge others for believing something is sin but then you're calling all the Baptists on this board sinners for barring others from the Table because you don't think they should be doing that.

I think this illustrates why this issue, at its heart, can't simply be dismissed as an issue of how we as believers treat each other. That certainly can (and often does) become an issue in the midst of these discussions, but it is not the issue at the heart of the question of sin and repentance with respect to baptism. That is because, as the above illustrates, it is impossible to truly be "neutral" on the issue with regards to who is in sin.

So it is not a personal issue, or even one of charity. It is a doctrine issue, and the churches on both sides have historically confessed and maintained the doctrine that the neglect of biblical sacramentology (as understood and confessed by the credo churches on the one hand, and the paedos on the other) is itself a sin; and the doctrinal issue of whether or not they are correct on that need not be viewed as uncharitable viewing of people on either side.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich, at no point was I ever talking to you. I had been trying to admonish the poster who kept going on, and on, and on, and on, and on about her need of repentance. I thought the point had been made a little harshly and that once was certainly enough. I was slightly annoyed with you ok'ing it, and I was annoyed at what you told me Piper believed, but honestly short of those issues I was never addressing you directly.

I understand that Adam. I'm not angry with you. CH never addressed Susita, he was actually addressing another. Could he have been more subtle about his insistence? Perhaps. What I became more concerned about was the notion that some have that the issue was Confessionally ambiguous and if we had any right to be insistent. I think you really need to cool down and re-read this thread later and try to see what I'm driving at. Forget that we're talking about Baptism and look at this as an issue of Truth and whether we have any way to be insistent.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I think this illustrates why this issue, at its heart, can't simply be dismissed as an issue of how we as believers treat each other. That certainly can (and often does) become an issue in the midst of these discussions, but it is not the issue at the heart of the question of sin and repentance with respect to baptism. That is because, as the above illustrates, it is impossible to truly be "neutral" on the issue with regards to who is in sin.

So it is not a personal issue, or even one of charity. It is a doctrine issue, and the churches on both sides have historically confessed and maintained the doctrine that the neglect of biblical sacramentology (as understood and confessed by the credo churches on the one hand, and the paedos on the other) is itself a sin; and the doctrinal issue of whether or not they are correct on that need not be viewed as uncharitable viewing of people on either side.

 

[MW]

Chris - in principle I agree with you. In my previous post I quoted and excerpt from the 1689 LBC on the matter of baptism. I believe an argument can be made on allowing paedos to join a Baptist church. Maybe I see the LBC as slightly ambiguous on this matter. That is why I believe a Baptist can remain firmly credo while embracing a brother who was baptized as an infant.

So did John Bunyan. As a Presbyterian I can't allow unbaptised persons to partake of communion -- decency and order. If I were Baptist I would have to regard a person baptised in infancy as unbaptised. Hence if I were a Baptist I could not allow a person baptised in infancy to partake of communion until they were baptised upon profession of faith. All praise and thanks to the Lord that I am not a Baptist! I am also thankful when I see Baptists disowning their own unbiblical tenets.

 

[ReformedWretch]

I think both sides believe they have a right to be insistent and unless the PB takes a stand one way or another there is no way one side can truely be. I'm all for the board taking a stand on the issue! I always have been, but then the Baptism forum would be closed and a large part of our posts are found there.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Wow....

All I've been saying is that when Presbyterian's and Baptists debate baptism there is no real reason to allow either side to call the other side sinners in need of repentance. That would lead to "I know you are but what am I" child like responses. This is also why I am a fool for venturing into the baptism board. I won't make that mistake again.

Adam,

If I believed that's all that CH had said then I would agree with you. You said much more than this and this was the need for the dialogue on Confessionalism.

 

[ReformedWretch]

All praise and thanks to the Lord that I am not a Baptist! I am also thankful when I see Baptists disowning their own unbiblical tenets.

No offense Reverend, and it may be because I seldom venture into Baptism discussions, but I've not seen baptists make these type of bold claims here. If they have I am sorry and take back what I've said except that I have not personally seen it. (I won't either, as I have learned a hard lesson here).

 

[etexas]

To the Holy Land with all of ya! If you cats did what I did......you could have communion with almost anyone!

 

[ReformedWretch]

All I've been saying is that when Presbyterian's and Baptists debate baptism there is no real reason to allow either side to call the other side sinners in need of repentance. That would lead to "I know you are but what am I" child like responses. This is also why I am a fool for venturing into the baptism board. I won't make that mistake again.

Adam,

If I believed that's all that CH had said then I would agree with you. You said much more than this and this was the need for the dialogue on Confessionalism.

Fine, then I apologize for going on too much in an attempt to explain what I was saying. The statement above is all that I ever meant to express.

 

[Herald]

All praise and thanks to the Lord that I am not a Baptist!

Matthew - you're in my prayers. There's still hope for you yet.

 

[Herald]

So it is not a personal issue, or even one of charity. It is a doctrine issue, and the churches on both sides have historically confessed and maintained the doctrine that the neglect of biblical sacramentology (as understood and confessed by the credo churches on the one hand, and the paedos on the other) is itself a sin; and the doctrinal issue of whether or not they are correct on that need not be viewed as uncharitable viewing of people on either side.

Chris - so it really comes down to what Adam alluded to earlier. Both sides believe the other is in sin. Both sides are beyond convincing and are rock-solid in their belief. Fine. So the next question to ask is, "Is continued dialogue profitable?" I'm not suggesting the subject itself does not merit discussion, but whether discussion between credos and paedos (that are completely convinced of their position) is warranted. To be sure there have been more than a few PB'ers that are wavering on the baptismal issue. But most are pretty set and are not likely to be swayed.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Ok, I exposed my personal beliefs/feelings right now in regard to baptism. in my opinion that's another subject. All I wished to express (at this time) was my belief that calling one another to repentance seems silly only because it can go back and forth and back and forth adnausium.

Ad to the fact that I "relate" to Susita in this subject made me more "defensive" rather than simply stating what my first paragraph explains here and leaving it at that.

Right now I am a credo, and I don't wish to really discuss that here, not until I at least speak to my pastor about it. I say this now because it's obviously been exposed. But, the bottom line of this entire episode is still my belief that the call to repentance between baptists and Presbyterian's in the baptism forum could get stale, and immature very quickly.

I may be in an extreme minority with that opinion thus why I should indeed stay out of the baptism forum unless and until I change my mind.

 

[MW]

Matthew - you're in my prayers. There's still hope for you yet.

"Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt!"

 

[ReformedWretch]

Chris - so it really comes down to what Adam alluded to earlier. Both sides believe the other is in sin. Both sides are beyond convincing and are rock-solid in their belief. Fine. So the next question to ask is, "Is continued dialogue profitable?" I'm not suggesting the subject itself does not merit discussion, but whether discussion between credos and paedos (that are completely convinced of their position) is warranted. To be sure there have been more than a few PB'ers that are wavering on the baptismal issue. But most are pretty set and are not likely to be swayed.

I not only think it's unprofitable, I think there is a clear bias here toward one side and it would be wise to just make that side the official stance of the PB.

 

[Herald]

I not only think it's unprofitable, I think there is a clear bias here toward one side and it would be wise to just make that side the official stance of the PB.

Adam - the problem with making paedo baptism the official stance of the PB is that it would force all us credo's to resign our membership. If you tell me that I must be a paedo in order to remain a member of the board then I will have to leave. Defacto, the majority opinion is paedo. That is because the majority of PB'ers are Presbyterian. Me thinks they are amply represented.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Chris - so it really comes down to what Adam alluded to earlier. Both sides believe the other is in sin. Both sides are beyond convincing and are rock-solid in their belief. Fine. So the next question to ask is, "Is continued dialogue profitable?" I'm not suggesting the subject itself does not merit discussion, but whether discussion between credos and paedos (that are completely convinced of their position) is warranted. To be sure there have been more than a few PB'ers that are wavering on the baptismal issue. But most are pretty set and are not likely to be swayed.

Bill,

Unless there is a man holding a gun to your head, you don't have to participate in the Baptism forum. I know you can't resist it though!

Seriously, one of the reasons it's important is that, even for the "sides", it educates on the reasons for their Confessions. I also believe it helps to expose weakness in lame argumentation from both sides.

Presbyterians would need it just for ourselves to protect against the un-Confessional misunderstandings of many.

I don't believe it's a matter of wavering or not wavering. I've actually never engaged in dialogues believing that somebody was going to have a Damascus experience from my participation there.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Adam - the problem with making paedo baptism the official stance of the PB is that it would force all us credo's to resign our membership. If you tell me that I must be a paedo in order to remain a member of the board then I will have to leave. Defacto, the majority opinion is paedo. That is because the majority of PB'ers are Presbyterian. Me thinks they are amply represented.

Yes, I know that's the problem so I guess we all just go on calling one another to repentance. Here's the thing though, if I am a confused credo seeking counsel and am told to repent in order to see the truth, and I repent and ask God to help me and my mind does not change...then what? The reverse is also true. If I am paedo and ask for the Credo position to be explained to me and am told to repent, and do so, yet still do not see it, what does that say?

I said this some time ago, does it not have to lead one to eventually say one is reprobate, unable to repent because if repentance is all that stands between you and "understanding" and you still do not understand, then what? You have not and possibly cannot repent.

Right?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Yes, I know that's the problem so I guess we all just go on calling one another to repentance. Here's the thing though, if I am a confused credo seeking counsel and am told to repent in order to see the truth, and I repent and ask God to help me and my mind does not change...then what? The reverse is also true. If I am paedo and ask for the Credo position to be explained to me and am told to repent, and do so yet still do not see it, what does that say?

I said this some time ago, does it not have to lead one to eventually say one is reprobate, unable to repent because if repentance is all that stands between you and "understanding" and you still do not understand that what? You have not and possibly cannot repent.

Right?

Adam,

Again, if CH had simply continually posted "Repent!" your argument might have more force. I think you're being very unfair to him by repeating this accusation. He laid out several lengthy arguments. "Repent" was at the end of the "Why".

Whenever we teach something against Scripture it is a sin. Yet we tell each other all the time on this board that somebody's view of Scripture is faulty and not merely on the Baptism forum. Such misunderstandings need to be repented of and when I hear I am teaching or holding something that is against the Word of God, I don't view it with any less gravity than being told I need to repent.

I mean, seriously, you have Presbyterians on one side saying: "The Scriptures teach this..." and every time a Baptist says the Scriptures teach otherwise the implied understanding is: You're teaching error. It's implied. It's understood. If I agreed with them then I would repent.

We'd have to close every forum on this board if we couldn't challenge people with things they might need to repent of.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Ok, but how is my conclusion wrong?

I said this some time ago, does it not have to lead one to eventually say one is reprobate, unable to repent because if repentance is all that stands between you and "understanding" and you still do not understand that what? You have not and possibly cannot repent.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

You don't have to be reprobate to be yet unperfected. We are simultaneously just and sinners. Regeneration does not perfect our minds. I don't believe Baptists have to gain capacity in order to understand and embrace Covenant theology.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I would also add that simply believing the Scriptures on this one issue doesn't solve all of our problems. As I've pointed out before, Baptists and Presbyterians live out our faith very similarly but it's more a matter of our Confession lining up with our practice in some cases.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Ok, so if I continue to study and pray and cannot be swayed to paedobaptism I'll will be able to freely admit that here without retribution or damaging my reputation? I am pretty close to making such a stance and have been for some time. I've prayed and studied this issue since my arrival to the PB and I cannot be swayed in my mind, spirit, or conscience the way I almost immediately was in my eschatology that I had held to for over 20 years!