Question for Reformed Credobaptists

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Reformed1

Puritan Board Freshman
I continue to battle with Paedobaptism vs. Credobaptism in my mind. I will, however, be returning to an OPC church that I worshipped at before. I've already told the Pastor that I'd like to talk to him more about this. I've recently listened to Bill Einwechter's defense of Credobaptism and it is, in my opinion, the best defense I've ever heard for the position. I still, however, continue to battle in my mind over it. I will be listening to Bahnsen's defense of Paedobaptism soon.

One of the problems I have with Credobaptists, however, is that they do not view the baptisms of Paedobaptists as valid. I will concede that this is a logical conclusion of their position, but I have a problem with it nonetheless. My question is this: as a Credo, would you withold the Lord's Supper from a Paedo since they do not have a valid baptism? I've heard many Baptists address this question already, but I'm interested in what some on this board will say.

My problem is this, if you answer yes than you would (logically) have to hold the position that you would have witheld the Lord's Supper from the Reformers. Even if you say no, than you would have to say that nobody ever had a valid baptism (including the Reformers) until the English Puritans came on the scene (I already know that Credos will make the argument that the Early Church was a Credo Church). I know that it would be a fallacy to reject the Credo position based on this reason alone, but it does cause me to second guess it when I think about it. I find it hard to believe that Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Knox, Owen & Edwards did not have valid baptisms. It seems a little too extreme for me (no I'm not postmodern :D).

[Edited on 11/04/2004 by Reformed1]
 
Rick,

I hear you brother, logical inconsistancies like this one are a problem. If you get a good answer I'd like to see it my self.

find it hard to believe that Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Knox, Owen & Edwards did not have valid baptisms
Click to expand...

It is a bit hard to swallow isn't it! Especially when in former calvinistic SB churches I've attended the same person's you mentioned, and moderns like RC, Sinclaire, et al., teachings are allowed into, accepted and taught in the same churches. Yet, there's that Infant sprinkling/Lord's Supper thing for these same teachers.

Usually the answer is that though on paper and in doctrinal teaching of baptism to their people (that is they would never allow a lay person the same courtesey as say an RC Sproul) this is their position (no Lord's Supper to invalid baptisms/infant sprinkling), in practice they would not deny them the Lord's Table. Yea, unfortunately it is a punt, but that's the answer I've gotten - for better or worse.

Good Luck (ooppps, bad calvinist, bad calvinist!),

Larry
 
Thanks Larry. It is really hard to swallow. I just can't get that out of my mind. If I ever become a Credo, how then can I say that Edwards, Van Til, Bahnsen, Sproul, Hodge & every other Presbyterian you can think of did not have valid baptisms (and in some churches would not be allowed the Lord's Supper)? This is one thing, if I remember correctly, that Einwechter was getting at. I'm sorry, but I can't swallow this bullet.
 
My pastor uses that same argument (historical argument).

My take on it..... in good conscience, I would accept the paedobaptism as legit, provided their confession of faith is legit. I understand the system they were baptised in and though I disagree with the position, I truly do believe, based on credible profession of faith, that this person is a part of the body of Christ.

Of course, I've already been put on notice by my pastor that I need to have a much better defense of credobaptism in order :D But it really hasn't been a major issue for me over the past month or so.
 
Our church sides with John Bunyan, who taught that baptism is not required for access to the Table. We also find no Scriptural proof that "baptism is the door to the church." One does not have to be baptized in order to join our church. If you are saved then you are already in the body. (we do encourage baptism, but more on that in a minute).

Back to the question at hand: In our church, to partake of the table, you must examine yourself, first to see that you are in the faith (make your calling and election sure) , and then so that the Holy Spirit might convict and convince you of any undealt with sin. If you profess faith in Christ and are not under discipline from our church or any other, then you are free to partake of the Table with us. That means that any believer (not under discipline) who worships with us is able to participate with us in communion.

I would not ask a person baptised as an infant to be baptised to join our church either. as I stated, we do not require baptism for church membership. If you are convinced that you were baptized when sprinkled as an infant, then upon profession of your faith you may join our church. If you conclude, as we believe, that infant baptism is not a valid baptism, then we would gladly baptize you by immersion. And also on this point, if you have been baptized as a believer by a mode other than immersion, we would not require you to be immersed.

But I do understand that we are not the norm for Reformed or Bapitst churches.

Phillip
 
Pastorway,

Thanks for the reply. That's actually encouraging to here! I actually just read that about Bunyan and wondered if others follow suite today. You are right its not the norm, I had a good SB brother say that Bunyan was not a good baptist, tongue and cheek, "sort of".

Very encouraging way to handle it!

Larry
 
That's nice that your church doesn't follow the 'anabaptist' methodology, Pastor Way. Interesting to hear, and it is rare, as you say.
 
My question is this: as a Credo, would you withold the Lord's Supper from a Paedo since they do not have a valid baptism?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't. Especially if they have a good testimony in Christ.

Where does Scripture tie the two together? I have communed with many paedos. We share a common testimony and bond in Christ death, burial, and resurrection. We are commanded to do it in His rememberance. Where is baptism assigned here as a prerequisite? Yes, I do believe one must follow Christ into baptism. But seriously where in scripture are the two attached? Maybe I am ignorant. It wouldn't be the last time.
 
Randy,

I'm not sure it is other than an inference to membership into the church. But I've seen it on paper (by-laws) and taught in almost every baptist church I've attended (about 5 or 6). The LBCF merely states "worthy receivers" and leaves it open ended. Likewise the SB-F&M attaches it (Lord's Supper) to "church membership" which explicitly makes immersed adults necessary, else "church membership" in their context is an empty term.

However, most by-laws state it explicitly. And it was indeed one of the arguments Bunyan had against his fellow baptist. So, the concept (immersed adults only can partake) is more usual than not. Furthermore, it was a recent issue in John Piper's church for which he and his elders considered the situation, since persons like Sinclaire, Packer and others frequently speak/teach at his conferences. So, again it is more the norm than not.

Though, like I said in actual practice it is rarely outwardly enforced.

Ldh
 
RC Sproul was told he had to get baptized before they'd let him speak at the Shepherds' Conference. However, since he's ordained, they said he could do it himself. He asked if taking a shower was good enough. He was told that immersion was the only acceptable method. I hear it was the first bath he'd had in years.






Don't quote me. It's a joke guys. C'mon.
 
Originally posted by Wannabee
RC Sproul was told he had to get baptized before they'd let him speak at the Shepherds' Conference. However, since he's ordained, they said he could do it himself. He asked if taking a shower was good enough. He was told that immersion was the only acceptable method. I hear it was the first bath he'd had in years.






Don't quote me. It's a joke guys. C'mon.
Click to expand...
:lol::lol::lol:
 
Originally posted by Wannabee
RC Sproul was told he had to get baptized before they'd let him speak at the Shepherds' Conference. However, since he's ordained, they said he could do it himself. He asked if taking a shower was good enough. He was told that immersion was the only acceptable method. I hear it was the first bath he'd had in years.







Don't quote me. It's a joke guys. C'mon.
Click to expand...


:lol::up:

[Edited on 6-19-2005 by Joseph Ringling]
 
Thanks everyone for your responses. Pastorway, I'm encouraged to see the stance that your church takes. However, as you stated, it is not very common. I too will begin to read more of Bunyan :). This is still a difficult thing for me. I guess the problem for me still, however, is that even if Baptists don't deny a Paedo the Lord's Supper, in large part they will regard their baptism as invalid. However, on the flip side, a Paedo may disagree with a Baptist's mode and yet still regard their baptism as valid. So I'm still left with a dilemma. I'm still not ready to say that the baptisms of my heroes in the faith are invalid. =( Someone may say that I need to look to Scripture and not to anything else, and I agree with that. But I'm still seeing the Credo view as a little extreme for I feel it isolates a portion of the Church that has the only "valid" baptism while leaving other Giants in the faith out of the loop. That is not meant as an offense to my Credo brethren. I'm simply posting my thoughts. If someone can correct me, I'm open to it. Remember, I'm not on either side right now :D
 
Joe,

Funny!


Rick,

Someone may say that I need to look to Scripture and not to anything else, and I agree with that
Click to expand...

Remember that cuts both ways. To make it generic and not offend ANY camp look at it this way. You are the "seeker of a biblical truth" on a subject which has two opposing views A and B. Both camps have great scholarship and both camps have history. Both camps honestly, too, seek the truth and are not malicious in their views. Both camps outside of this particular truth issue have TREMENDOUS contributions to the faith on other aspects/issues. So, that you have firm right to believe that in both camps historic figures HAVE "Studied and shown themselves to be approved..." on much of the faith.

Having said that - for camp B to assert "study Scripture and not men" would be a true and valid statement when and ONLY when taken as a whole to both camps. But to assert it to support their side of the controversial issue at hand (the one you are seeking clarity on), even if only implicitly done so or as a defense in the argumentation, is wrong and is the logical fallacy of a false appeal to authority. Which basically appeals to authority on one's side over a controversial subject among equal authorities.

All that to say that "study scripture and not men" cuts both ways.

Also, be aware of the inherent genetic fallacy that often arises from the misuse of this very statement - which attacks not the arguement but where it came from or who it came from. E.g., "Carl Sagan said the sky is blue, but that cannot be true because he was an atheist."

I hope that helps,

Ldh
 
Please forgive my ignorance, but do most Baptist churches teach that you must undergo a "believer's baptism" to share in communion?
 
Rick

Everyone keeps insisting that baptist churches do require this, and I don't doubt that many do. However, I have never been to one that did!

JH
 
I looked up the C&MA position, and it just states "baptism is not required for salvation, but is encouraged".

So I assume at my church you could partake of communion without being baptized.

[Edited on 6-23-2005 by Rick Larson]
 
My experience with Reformed Baptists is that they require believer's baptism to be a member. If you're a visitor, and a member of Presbyterian church, they'd let you partake of the Lord's Supper, though.

From the church constitution of my old church (a reformed baptist one - you might be familiar with it, Jonathan):

"Membership is open only to those who have received Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, and have publicly expressed their faith in Him through the ordinance of believer's baptism. However, in exceptional circumstances a person may be accepted into membership without having been baptized as a believer, provided that they can explain to the satisfaction of the Elders their reasons for not being baptised, and provided that they meet all the other requirements of membership expressed herein."

You did have to be a member of the church (unless you were visiting and a member elsewhere) to take part in the Lord's Supper.


And from the church constitution of the reformed baptist church sort-of near where I now live:

About membership: "Any person exhibiting adult maturity shall be eligible for membership who, in the judgment of the elders, has a credible profession of repentance toward God and faith in Christ, manifests a life transformed by the power of Christ, has been baptized as a believer, expresses substantial agreement with the Confession and Constitution of this church, intends to give wholehearted support to its ministry and submit to its government and discipline, and is not under the biblically warranted corrective discipline of a church."

About the Lord's Supper: "In order to maintain the purity of this ordinance, the policy of this church is that only believers who are members in good standing of a true church (i.e., a church holding to the basic tenets of evangelical Christianity) are permitted to partake of the elements of the Lord's Supper. If a visitor wishes to partake of more than one Lord's Supper, he must consult with the elders.

Church membership is a duty of every Christian (except in extraordinary cases). The New Testament does not envision Christ's disciples living in any other way than joined together in local congregations, in which they are formally committed to the body and under the oversight of its elders. Christians who are able to be members of a true church, but who will not do so, are walking in a disorderly way and are not eligible to partake of the Lord's Table. In this policy we have the same standard as for our members, should they walk in a disorderly way."

(from www.oldpaths.cc)
 
I think any Baptist, however, would say that a Presbyterian who is "converted" should be rebaptized. As Ligon Duncan said: "Historically, Baptists have not acknowledged other baptism than immersion. And therefore if you have received some other form of baptism, and you desire to join a Baptist church, and especially a Reformed Baptist church, immersion will be required. Now that is not because Reformed Baptists are just being mean and nasty and picky. It is because of their very theology of baptism that that is required, so there are definitely ecclesiastical divides on this issue. And it is an important one to study."

I still find this hard to believe in. How can we now write off the baptisms of 80% of our forefathers in the faith as "invalid?" This makes me lean more and more towards a Paedo view. Perhaps I can pose the question in this way. Would a Reformed Credobaptist be comfortable knowing that they would not have extended full membership to John Calvin if he were around today (or if they were around back then)?
 
Originally posted by Reformed1
I still find this hard to believe in. How can we now write off the baptisms of 80% of our forefathers in the faith as "invalid?" This makes me lean more and more towards a Paedo view. Perhaps I can pose the question in this way. Would a Reformed Credobaptist be comfortable knowing that they would not have extended full membership to John Calvin if he were around today (or if they were around back then)?
Click to expand...

This is really a very pragmatic argument though. I understand the sentiment, and tend to share it. However, considering sola fide, we could make the same argument about Rome for at least 800 years prior to the Reformation. The challenge isn't over salvation, it's over a proper understanding of baptism and agreement for membership. It seems like a very individualistic thing in regard to churches. :2cents:
 
Joe, I've thought about that myself. However, the argument would be made that Rome departed from the teaching of the Fathers (not to mention Scripture). With Rome, it's pretty easy to see how she departed from the roots she claims such high fidelity towards. However, not the same can be said of the Reformers and baptism. I'm still finding it hard to believe that I (as a Baptist pastor for example) would have to come to terms with the fact that I would tell John Calvin, Greg Bahnsen, John Murray, Van Til etc to get rebaptized if they wanted to join my church (hypothetically speaking, of course). To me it seems that I'm gleaning what I like from them with my right hand while slapping them with my left (that's a pretty harsh analogy, I know). Again, this seems too extreme for me.
 
I appreciate what you're saying Rick,

There is a tension here that is tough to address. However, regardless of how we "feel" about it, Scripture first. If I have studied out the passages and my convictions are firm in regard to the clear teaching of Scripture, then the tradition and history of men is merely a check and balance, to affirm or challenge me, however, never to compell me. To think that the great reformers had it all right is beyond naive, it's irresponsible. In fact, the way that some worship the divines and reformers would have them rolling over in their graves. They would denounce such behavior as idolatry.
On the flip side, one better be sure of his convictions in the face of such testimony and not refute it lightly. It's a tremendous battle. But we have to own our convictions for ourselves, not blindly lean on the faith and understanding of others.

I obviously have no trouble fellowshipping and ministering with PBs. However, as my convictions stand, I would be compelled to require believer's baptism for all members. If they were unwilling it would show me two things. One, that becoming a member of our church wasn't that important to them. The obvious follow-up to that is number two, a matter of pride. I don't think that anyone here denies that believer's baptism is scriptural. The tension is in the Scriptural warrant for infant baptism. CB=no, PB=yes. So, why not identify one's self with Christ in believer's baptism?

Think about this. Do you expect your children to follow in your footsteps? Or, would you rather they stood on your shoulders and reached new heights? I often tell my boys to watch me closely. In areas that I shine, praise God and hold on to those things. In areas I need improvement, note it, pray about it, and strive to be better. In areas that I fail utterly, vow to not be like me. Take the meat and spit out the bones. It gives them a higher plane to start from.
Same goes for a pastor. He's not only striving for the growth and maturity of the church. It he's worth his salt he's preparing the church for the next guy, so that they can grow to new heights. This is how we should look to our predecessors. They were giants. However, they had much to overcome and reveal that we don't. We don't have to overcome the abesence of the solas. We don't have to overcome Rome. We have a host of obstacles, but they've illuminated much Scripture for us so that we can stand on their shoulders as we continually study and strive to know God's Word.

So, the CB would say that you are right in your analogy, however, we also perceive that the reformers didn't finish the job. They overcame much, but baptism isn't one of them. In fact, it can be shown that part of Calvin's struggle with baptism lied in his ecclesiology, which obviously was flawed. He wanted "reform." What was needed was a complete destruction and rebuild.
 
Joe, what you're saying reminds me a lot of the distinction between Semper Reformata and Semper Reformanda, and the rightful place of each. More on that below.

Originally posted by Wannabee
This is how we should look to our predecessors. They were giants. However, they had much to overcome and reveal that we don't. We don't have to overcome the abesence of the solas. We don't have to overcome Rome. We have a host of obstacles, but they've illuminated much Scripture for us so that we can stand on their shoulders as we continually study and strive to know God's Word.
Click to expand...

But unfortunately, we still do have to overcome the absence of even something as basic as the Solas, particularly in contemporary evangelicalism. Even in current Reformed circles, justification is the new hot topic of innovation and controversy. Furthermore, in the church in which I was raised was a relatively conservative church for the Assemblies of God. Yet most of the members wouldn't be able to give a one-minute talk on Sola Scriptura, may never have even heard of Soli Deo Gloria, and would have a lot of trouble clearly explaining the differences between the other three Solas. And that is why Semper Reformata is so important to keep focused on, and while we should certainly be consistent with Semper Reformanda at all times, all-too-often that focus seems to come at the expense of the former.

Originally posted by Wannabee
So, the CB would say that you are right in your analogy, however, we also perceive that the reformers didn't finish the job. They overcame much, but baptism isn't one of them. In fact, it can be shown that part of Calvin's struggle with baptism lied in his ecclesiology, which obviously was flawed. He wanted "reform." What was needed was a complete destruction and rebuild.
Click to expand...

For one thing, I have actually heard it commented by many historians that in the Reformation, Luther and his followers generally kept all they didn't have to throw out, while Calvin and his followers generally leaned more toward throwing out all they didn't have to keep. Furthermore, the Calvinist Reformers did throw out Rome's doctrine of baptism, as our doctrine of paedobaptism has as much to do with theirs as our doctrine of Lordship Salvation has to do with their doctrine of justification by works.

Continuing from my above mention of Semper Reformata and Semper Reformanda, I often get the impression that many Reformed Baptists think they are the only ones truly carrying on the latter, while Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed believers are only carrying out the former in many ways. I think that is an over-generalization that is incorrectly assumed simply from the fact that we do not believe Reformed paedobaptism to be one of the things that needed more reforming after the Reformation. But we certainly agree with you in following Semper Reformanda in addition to Semper Reformata. One of the best examples of that is the fact that some of the most staunchly confessional Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed theologians of our day are Van Tillian in their apologetics.
 
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Joe, what you're saying reminds me a lot of the distinction between Semper Reformata and Semper Reformanda, and the rightful place of each. More on that below.
Click to expand...

My latin is rusty. Actually, I know how they are translated but what do you mean by them?
 
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Joe, what you're saying reminds me a lot of the distinction between Semper Reformata and Semper Reformanda, and the rightful place of each. More on that below.
Click to expand...

My latin is rusty. Actually, I know how they are translated but what do you mean by them?
Click to expand...

I simply mean them as I have heard them used in the past, as "Always Reformed" and "Always Reforming," respectively. The former is usually used to essentially mean faithfully and consistently holding to the historic, confessional Reformed faith as understood by men like the Reformers and Puritans, and the latter is of course what makes that standard different in principle and nature from, say, Rome's standard.
 
Joe, I appreciate your responses. I'm not saying that I'm heading over to the Paedo side simply because Calvin was a Paedo, however. The original intent of my post was to find out from Baptists if they felt comfortable knowing that they would have rejected membership in their churches to the Reformers if they were around today. I did get an answer from you and I thank you for your honesty. I still think it is extreme. I am not implying that I'm going to end up a PBer simply because the Reformers were. I recognize the huge fallacy and irresponsibility in that. However, I am recognizing how extreme the Baptist view is in my opinion. Again, I know you could rip that logic to shreds (it doesn't come down to my opinion but Scripture). I'm a staunch child of the Reformation and tout Sola Scriptura as much as the next Calvinist. However, I can't help but think how extreme the credo view is. "Nobody else has a valid baptism except us Baptists" We've just stripped our Fathers in the Faith of their sign and seal of the New Covenant. Again, I know it comes down to what Scripture says, but that view makes me want to visit Scripture one more time...

[Edited on 11/04/2004 by Reformed1]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Question for/from Reformed Baptist
Replies
9
Views
2K
Preach
P
B
  • Locked
Were there any credobaptists in the early church?
2
Replies
52
Views
8K
Scott Bushey
Scott Bushey
A
  • Locked
Questions for "Reformed" credo-baptists
Replies
19
Views
3K
JohnV
JohnV
W
  • Locked
14 Questions for Reformed Baptists
Replies
23
Views
3K
WrittenFromUtopia
W
Herald
  • Locked
  • Poll
Question for Paedos
2 3
Replies
65
Views
8K
Herald
Herald
Back
Top