Child Dedication

[Philip A]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Larry Hughes]

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]

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]

Can you answer my question, Philip?

 

[Larry Hughes]

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]

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]

Can you answer my question, Philip?

 

[Larry Hughes]

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]

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]