Re-baptism by any other name is still "re-baptism"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thank you brother Will, for stating the diference so clearly.

In your view those (hundreds of millions of) followers of Christ who were baptised as infants are part of some other kingdom. (Perhaps they are mormons?)

I do not object to you holding this view & I am willing to consider you my brother in Christ, my objection is to pretending that there is no other view (that can explain the biblical & theological questions).

For the record I was not baptised as an infant but upon my "credible profession of faith". TWICE. First at age 4, and again at age 14.
 
I do want to note an irony here for Baptists to remember as somebody just got a lot of face shots recently.

Essentially what Will stated was that infant baptism is no baptism at all. Just Remember not to get too bent out of shape the next time a Dutch Reformed person makes a similar remark about your ordinances.

The difference between Presbyterians and Baptists, perhaps, is that we see one Kingdom of Christ and not your Kingdom and our Kingdom.

This is why we recognize your baptisms as legitimate. Either we're citizens in the same Kingdom or we are not.

Your extension of accepting Baptist's baptism into your church is warmly appreciated, Rich. And know that personally, I wish I could do the same for you and all pedobaptist brothers here. But my conviction as a Baptist on our view of Baptism from Scripture prevents my personal desires to be accommodated. I hope you can see that.

I don't recall specifically, but I remember hearing an audio of where someone asked a question to Ligon Duncan and Mark Dever of why if Mark Dever was to join Ligon Duncan's church that Mark Dever would be accepted immediately, but if Ligon Duncan was to join Mark Dever's church that Ligon Duncan would be rejected until he was baptized by immersion. And Mark Dever's response was that that is the conviction Baptists have stood on for centuries. And Ligon Duncan's response was that he would not ask Mark Dever to change lest he begins to compromise his convictions. And it is because of his strong convictions that he loves Mark Dever, and vice-versa.

So let's continue to walk together in Christ for the advancement of the Gospel. Yes, we differ on baptism. Yes, one side is more open to the other, while the other side cannot by virtue of Gospel conviction. But let both sides be understanding of each other and exemplify the true baptism of the Holy Spirit in word, deed and conduct.
 
I do want to note an irony here for Baptists to remember as somebody just got a lot of face shots recently.

Essentially what Will stated was that infant baptism is no baptism at all. Just Remember not to get too bent out of shape the next time a Dutch Reformed person makes a similar remark about your ordinances.

The difference between Presbyterians and Baptists, perhaps, is that we see one Kingdom of Christ and not your Kingdom and our Kingdom.

This is why we recognize your baptisms as legitimate. Either we're citizens in the same Kingdom or we are not.

Your extension of accepting Baptist's baptism into your church is warmly appreciated, Rich. And know that personally, I wish I could do the same for you and all pedobaptist brothers here. But my conviction as a Baptist on our view of Baptism from Scripture prevents my personal desires to be accommodated. I hope you can see that.

I don't recall specifically, but I remember hearing an audio of where someone asked a question to Ligon Duncan and Mark Dever of why if Mark Dever was to join Ligon Duncan's church that Mark Dever would be accepted immediately, but if Ligon Duncan was to join Mark Dever's church that Ligon Duncan would be rejected until he was baptized by immersion. And Mark Dever's response was that that is the conviction Baptists have stood on for centuries. And Ligon Duncan's response was that he would not ask Mark Dever to change lest he begins to compromise his convictions. And it is because of his strong convictions that he loves Mark Dever, and vice-versa.

So let's continue to walk together in Christ for the advancement of the Gospel. Yes, we differ on baptism. Yes, one side is more open to the other, while the other side cannot by virtue of Gospel conviction. But let both sides be understanding of each other and exemplify the true baptism of the Holy Spirit in word, deed and conduct.

Sounds to me, in the case of Dever and Duncan, that one is more interested in his baptist beliefs and the other is more interested in being biblical. :2cents:
 
Actually, it sounds like both of 'em are off. Why would Duncan not ask Mark Dever to change his convictions if Duncan believed Dever's Baptism beliefs were anything less than Biblical? Of course, that's only assuming that Duncan did indeed say such a thing.

I was thinking more in terms of Duncan accepting Dever's baptism, not necessarily what problems would arise from a credo joining a paedo congregation.
 
Your extension of accepting Baptist's baptism into your church is warmly appreciated, Rich. And know that personally, I wish I could do the same for you and all pedobaptist brothers here. But my conviction as a Baptist on our view of Baptism from Scripture prevents my personal desires to be accommodated. I hope you can see that.

I don't recall specifically, but I remember hearing an audio of where someone asked a question to Ligon Duncan and Mark Dever of why if Mark Dever was to join Ligon Duncan's church that Mark Dever would be accepted immediately, but if Ligon Duncan was to join Mark Dever's church that Ligon Duncan would be rejected until he was baptized by immersion. And Mark Dever's response was that that is the conviction Baptists have stood on for centuries. And Ligon Duncan's response was that he would not ask Mark Dever to change lest he begins to compromise his convictions. And it is because of his strong convictions that he loves Mark Dever, and vice-versa.

So let's continue to walk together in Christ for the advancement of the Gospel. Yes, we differ on baptism. Yes, one side is more open to the other, while the other side cannot by virtue of Gospel conviction. But let both sides be understanding of each other and exemplify the true baptism of the Holy Spirit in word, deed and conduct.

Sounds to me, in the case of Dever and Duncan, that one is more interested in his baptist beliefs and the other is more interested in being biblical. :2cents:
Actually, it sounds like both of 'em are off. Why would Duncan not ask Mark Dever to change his convictions if Duncan believed Dever's Baptism beliefs were anything less than Biblical? Of course, that's only assuming that Duncan did indeed say such a thing.

They are both simply acting in regard to their convictions. It's ridiculous to say one is more interested in being biblical and the other more interested in "his baptist beliefs." This issue is not as big of a deal for someone like Duncan as opposed to say, F.N. Lee unless the credo were to become disruptive. I do seem to recall this "conversation," perhaps on the T4G blog.
 
They are both simply acting in regard to their convictions. It's ridiculous to say one is more interested in being biblical and the other more interested in "his baptist beliefs." This issue is not as big of a deal for someone like Duncan as opposed to say, F.N. Lee unless the credo were to become disruptive. I do seem to recall this "conversation," perhaps on the T4G blog.

Have you ever thought that perhaps in regard to their convictions that one is biblical and one isn't? I know that makes my baptist brethren awfully nervous sometimes.
 
I do want to note an irony here for Baptists to remember as somebody just got a lot of face shots recently.

Essentially what Will stated was that infant baptism is no baptism at all. Just Remember not to get too bent out of shape the next time a Dutch Reformed person makes a similar remark about your ordinances.

The difference between Presbyterians and Baptists, perhaps, is that we see one Kingdom of Christ and not your Kingdom and our Kingdom.

This is why we recognize your baptisms as legitimate. Either we're citizens in the same Kingdom or we are not.

Your extension of accepting Baptist's baptism into your church is warmly appreciated, Rich. And know that personally, I wish I could do the same for you and all pedobaptist brothers here. But my conviction as a Baptist on our view of Baptism from Scripture prevents my personal desires to be accommodated. I hope you can see that.

I don't recall specifically, but I remember hearing an audio of where someone asked a question to Ligon Duncan and Mark Dever of why if Mark Dever was to join Ligon Duncan's church that Mark Dever would be accepted immediately, but if Ligon Duncan was to join Mark Dever's church that Ligon Duncan would be rejected until he was baptized by immersion. And Mark Dever's response was that that is the conviction Baptists have stood on for centuries. And Ligon Duncan's response was that he would not ask Mark Dever to change lest he begins to compromise his convictions. And it is because of his strong convictions that he loves Mark Dever, and vice-versa.

So let's continue to walk together in Christ for the advancement of the Gospel. Yes, we differ on baptism. Yes, one side is more open to the other, while the other side cannot by virtue of Gospel conviction. But let both sides be understanding of each other and exemplify the true baptism of the Holy Spirit in word, deed and conduct.

There is unity, Will, but the analogy you drew about "two countries" denies this unity. If your analogy is accurate then there is no fellowship if we belong to different Kingdoms. I'm suggesting that you use better analogies to make the distinction if you concede that a man can be a believer and be baptized outside of your Church.
 
They are both simply acting in regard to their convictions. It's ridiculous to say one is more interested in being biblical and the other more interested in "his baptist beliefs." This issue is not as big of a deal for someone like Duncan as opposed to say, F.N. Lee unless the credo were to become disruptive. I do seem to recall this "conversation," perhaps on the T4G blog.

Have you ever thought that perhaps in regard to their convictions that one is biblical and one isn't? I know that makes my baptist brethren awfully nervous sometimes.

It is obvious that one is biblical and that the other isn't. Or perhaps there could be some error on both sides. But both cannot be right. I don't know what about that would make a Baptist nervous.
 
It is obvious that one is biblical and that the other isn't. Or perhaps there could be some error on both sides. But both cannot be right. I don't know what about that would make a Baptist nervous.

Chris,

If a credo would make a paedo be re-baptized before joining their church then obviously they (credo's) believe their (paedo's) baptism is unbiblical. Hence, that gets into the "two kingdoms" that Rich is talking about. But yet a lot of baptists want to just say, "It's o.k. if we don't necessarily agree on baptism. Let's just get along in the advancement of the kingdom." It's inconsistent. I've said this about the baptist conviction since I began studying this whole baptism issue out.

You can say the same about the paedo, but he's not asking the credo to be re-baptized if he joined a paedo church now is he?
 
There is unity, Will, but the analogy you drew about "two countries" denies this unity. If your analogy is accurate then there is no fellowship if we belong to different Kingdoms. I'm suggesting that you use better analogies to make the distinction if you concede that a man can be a believer and be baptized outside of your Church.

The "two countries" analogy is in reference to two different ecclesiolastical bodies, not two different kingdoms.

Consider another analogy. Let's say that I've been employed for 10 years with AT&T. I'm now deciding to work for Coca-Cola. Let's say Coca-Cola requires all new employees to undergo drug-testing. I tell them that AT&T made no such requirements of their employees. Coca-Cola says that if I wish to be employed by them, I must. Whereas, if a Coca-Cola employees wishes to join AT&T, there is no requirement for drug-testing.

The difference is not that the "two countries" analogy or the "two companies" analogy represent two different kingdoms, but that they represent two different local church bodies under different ecclesiology.
 
There is unity, Will, but the analogy you drew about "two countries" denies this unity. If your analogy is accurate then there is no fellowship if we belong to different Kingdoms. I'm suggesting that you use better analogies to make the distinction if you concede that a man can be a believer and be baptized outside of your Church.

The "two countries" analogy is in reference to two different ecclesiolastical bodies, not two different kingdoms.

Consider another analogy. Let's say that I've been employed for 10 years with AT&T. I'm now deciding to work for Coca-Cola. Let's say Coca-Cola requires all new employees to undergo drug-testing. I tell them that AT&T made no such requirements of their employees. Coca-Cola says that if I wish to be employed by them, I must. Whereas, if a Coca-Cola employees wishes to join AT&T, there is no requirement for drug-testing.

The difference is not that the "two countries" analogy or the "two companies" analogy represent two different kingdoms, but that they represent two different local church bodies.

I don't want to get into a debate about analogies but there are many defects in your nation and employee analogies given what baptism signifies according to even the LBCF much less the WCF.
 
I don't want to get into a debate about analogies but there are many defects in your nation and employee analogies given what baptism signifies according to even the LBCF much less the WCF.

The analogies are in response to the originator of this thread charging that baptists who use the argument of paedobaptism as illegitimate baptism are guilty of fallacious argumentation. So I was using the analogies as simply to illustrate that from the Baptist church standing on the biblical basis of baptism, the argumentation is legitimate. If a pedobaptist does not agree with it, then do not consider joining a Baptist church. But if one does want to join, then they must be willing to accept the ecclesiological differences. And the biggest ecclesiological difference between Presbyterians and Baptists have always been, from the start, Baptism.
 
Rich:

"face shots"? Are you for real?

It's an expression Perg.

I've just always found it interesting that some Reformed denominations are criticized for being exclusive or restrictive in some of their beliefs.

Typically, for instance, Dutch Reformed tend to be historically exclusive about what they consider to be true Churches and there is a normal uproar here when that is articulated and Baptist Churches are referred to as "sects".

Conversely, the elephant in the living room is Baptist Churches who don't recognize the baptism in Reformed Churches at all. In other words, unless a person is baptized in the Credo Church then no baptism has occurred at all and zero participation in the life of the Church is possible. In other words, for all intents and purposes, the person was not baptized in a valid Church.

I understand it for what it is as a conviction on the Baptists' part and I'm simply pointing out that Baptists ought to be self-aware of what they are really confessing and not be shocked and appalled at others when they express a similar conviction about the nature of their Ecclesiastical Bodies. You don't see a line of Presbyterians lining up in outrage that Will is saying that a person isn't baptized according to his view but a recent thread by a Dutch Reformed brother on another topic pointing out a historic conviction in the Dutch Reformed tradition drew a lot of heat.
 
There are exceptions to marriage too, but whole denominations do not get divorced and argue for divorce as an acceptable alternative. There is a difference between an alternative and an exception in dire straits. The Diache allowed pouring as an exception when water was not available. Why are we drawing teachings from the Didache anyway? How do you sprinkle someone with running water?

I am withdrawing.

This thread began as a rant and a pet peeve and can only go further downhill.....

Good day gentlemen and God bless.

Brother, may I offer some encouragement and peace in this...

Adam Myer's argument is based on the Presbyterian view of the matter. His argument and presupposition are laid in a way that places Baptists in a defensive posture, not in a way that could take into account Baptist history, ecclesiology and theology on this subject.

In other words, he's referring to historical lexicons that the Magisterial Reformers (paedobaptists) had embraced but English Baptists had denounced only on the issue of Baptism because the English Baptists had viewed that the Magisterial Reformers were dead wrong on this matter by not tying Baptism to the reforming of the entire church.

So I just want to encourage you to not be flustered because you felt you couldn't respond adequately. Given the way Myer laid his conclusive argument (There really can be no argument against this understanding once the sources have been studied), it does not give Baptists a fair way of answering because he's referring to the sources that Baptists had rejected on the topic of Baptism from the start.


I find this a bit humorous for two reasons (although I do appreciate your attempt to back up a brother who may feel that he is in a bit of a corner):


1st - I have been a Baptist for majority of my life, only changing positions on the sacraments at the age of 27 after a tremendous amount of struggle and study, and I first attended a Baptist seminary for several years before transferring to one that was confessionally Reformed. That is to say, I know Baptist history, ecclesiology, and theology at least as well as most Baptists. In fact, I studied Baptist ecclesiology under Jim Renihan at WSC as an elective credit just for kicks. Well, it was more serious minded than that, really, and it was a well-presented course, although I must say that it ultimately failed to persuade me to return to the Baptist position.

2nd - I was not referring to the lexicons used by the Magisterial Reformers, nor do I even know where I could find one (if anyone knows, I would think it a great patch of reading material)! I was referring, first of all, to the work by Dale, which is a late 19th century work (nearly early 20th century), and second of all to modern lexicons such as LSJ/LN/BDAG that are today used by every well-schooled churchman whether he be a Baptist, Presbyterian, or what have you. The one that was referenced in particular (LSJ) is not an ecclesiastical lexicon at all, but a Greek-English lexicon for use in studying a broad range of Greek literature. It does assist, however, in showing the various uses of a Greek term in documents outside of Holy Scripture (although it includes references to Scripture also) in the years preceding, concurrent with, and following upon the writings of the New Testament.


Again, I admire your defense, but I do not think that your analysis here is quite as accurate as that for which you would have hoped :)
 
Last edited:
I find this a bit humorous for two reasons (although I do appreciate your attempt to back up a brother who may feel that he is in a bit of a corner):

1st - I have been a Baptist for majority of my life, only changing positions on the sacraments at the age of 27 after a tremendous amount of struggle and study, and I first attended a Baptist seminary for several years before transferring to one that was confessionally Reformed. That is to say, I know Baptist history, ecclesiology, and theology at least as well as most Baptists. In fact, I studied Baptist ecclesiology under Jim Renihan at WSC as an elective credit just for kicks. Well, it was more serious minded than that, really, and it was a well-presented course, although I must say that it ultimately failed to persuade me to return to the Baptist position.

I was not referring to the lexicons used by the Magisterial Reformers, nor do I even know where I could find one (if anyone knows, I would think it a great patch of reading material)! I was referring, first of all, to the work by Dale, which is a late 19th century work (nearly early 20th century), and second of all to modern lexicons such as LSJ/LN/BDAG that are today used by every well-schooled churchman whether he be a Baptist, Presbyterian, or what have you. The one that was referenced in particular (LSJ) is not an ecclesiastical lexicon at all, but an English-Greek lexicon for use in studying Classical Greek literature. It does assist, however, in showing the broader use of a Greek term in documents outside of Holy Scripture (although it includes references to Scripture also) in the years preceding, concurrent with, and following upon the writings of the New Testament.

Again, I admire your defense, but I do not think that your analysis here is quite as accurate as that for which you would have hoped :)

I was interpreting your statement of "Classical, Jewish, Biblical, and Patristic writings" as referring to Reformation period writings or prior. Dale and LSJ are definitely not patristic writings. I was thinking that you were referencing them as secondary sources to draw some kind of primary patristic source. So thanks for the clarification.

In which case, if your concluding argument that the sources to be studied that levels out any argumentation against paedobaptism are the "Classical, Jewish, Biblical and Patristic writings" of the Reformation period, then my earlier rebuttal stands. But if your concluding argument about the sources that somehow level out any argumentation against paeodobaptism as referring to Dale, LSJ, BAGD, and other more modern and contemporary reference works, I find your conclusion faulty. Yes, I agree with you that LSJ has more of a Presbyterian bent, but so is Berkhof's Systematic Theology.

As for your personal testimony of struggle and identity, I'm sorry to hear about that. My testimony is the exact opposite. I had grown up in the PCA denomination for 27 years of my life. My father remains a non-Christian. And his biggest argument against Christianity is "too many hypocrites." And growing up in a Presbyterian church where all members have been baptized and partake of the Lord's Supper but are mixed with both regenerates and unregenerates, I merely took it as an assumption that that is just part of what a church body is about. But after understanding the Baptist concept of Regenerate Church Membership and the close link Baptism has to Regenerate Church Membership, and consequently Lord's Supper has with Church Membership and Baptism, the entire relationship fit.

To this day, I still witness to my father the Gospel message. But he had been personally hurt in very deep emotional ways by church members who were unregenerate. And this is the biggest thorn that Presbyterianism has to deal with - children of Satan within its own ranks. And infant baptism as a sign of the covenant is nothing more than a false ticket of assurance of assuming salvation when it had not been granted.
 
Last edited:
As for your personal testimony of struggle and identity, I'm sorry to hear about that. My testimony is the exact opposite. I had grown up in the PCA denomination for 27 years of my life. My father remains a non-Christian. And his biggest argument against Christianity is "too many hypocrites." And growing up in a Presbyterian church where all members have been baptized and partake of the Lord's Supper but are mixed with both regenerates and unregenerates, I merely took it as an assumption that that is just part of what a church body is about. But after understanding the Baptist concept of Regenerate Church Membership and the close link Baptism has to Regenerate Church Membership, and consequently Lord's Supper has with Church Membership and Baptism, the entire relationship fit.

To this day, I still witness to my father the Gospel message. But he had been personally hurt in very deep emotional ways by church members who were unregenerate. And this is the biggest thorn that Presbyterianism has to deal with - children of Satan within its own ranks. And infant baptism as a sign of the covenant is nothing more than a false ticket of assurance of assuming salvation when it had not been granted.

It must give you great assurance to know that, for certain, you now attend a Church with a membership that is entirely regenerate. What confidence!
 
As for your personal testimony of struggle and identity, I'm sorry to hear about that. My testimony is the exact opposite. I had grown up in the PCA denomination for 27 years of my life. My father remains a non-Christian. And his biggest argument against Christianity is "too many hypocrites." And growing up in a Presbyterian church where all members have been baptized and partake of the Lord's Supper but are mixed with both regenerates and unregenerates, I merely took it as an assumption that that is just part of what a church body is about. But after understanding the Baptist concept of Regenerate Church Membership and the close link Baptism has to Regenerate Church Membership, and consequently Lord's Supper has with Church Membership and Baptism, the entire relationship fit.

To this day, I still witness to my father the Gospel message. But he had been personally hurt in very deep emotional ways by church members who were unregenerate. And this is the biggest thorn that Presbyterianism has to deal with - children of Satan within its own ranks. And infant baptism as a sign of the covenant is nothing more than a false ticket of assurance of assuming salvation when it had not been granted.

It must give you great assurance to know that, for certain, you now attend a Church with a membership that is entirely regenerate. What confidence!

I'm not sure what your sarcasm is for, brother. This is what Baptists have always called, "Believer's Baptism." We baptize ONLY true believers of the Lord who have and can publicly profess Christ. Of course, that is assuming that Believer's Baptism is being administered properly rather than in a fashion to where the majority of the SBC churches are witnessing today of the fruits of improper administration of Believer's Baptism.

As well, Regenerate Church Membership has been one of the major sections that distinguishes the 1689 BCF from the 1646 WCF. Presbyterians never believed in Regenerate Church Membership, whereas Baptists have. (Compare WCF Ch.25 and 1689 Ch.26.6).

Which is the irony to Presbyterianism. On one hand, Presbyterianism believes in the Covenant of Grace - that baptism of infants bestows salvation to them, but then when it comes to the church membership, they recognize that although all are baptized, there coexists both children of God and children of Satan co-mingling as members together.
 
Last edited:
As for your personal testimony of struggle and identity, I'm sorry to hear about that. My testimony is the exact opposite. I had grown up in the PCA denomination for 27 years of my life. My father remains a non-Christian. And his biggest argument against Christianity is "too many hypocrites." And growing up in a Presbyterian church where all members have been baptized and partake of the Lord's Supper but are mixed with both regenerates and unregenerates, I merely took it as an assumption that that is just part of what a church body is about. But after understanding the Baptist concept of Regenerate Church Membership and the close link Baptism has to Regenerate Church Membership, and consequently Lord's Supper has with Church Membership and Baptism, the entire relationship fit.

To this day, I still witness to my father the Gospel message. But he had been personally hurt in very deep emotional ways by church members who were unregenerate. And this is the biggest thorn that Presbyterianism has to deal with - children of Satan within its own ranks. And infant baptism as a sign of the covenant is nothing more than a false ticket of assurance of assuming salvation when it had not been granted.

It must give you great assurance to know that, for certain, you now attend a Church with a membership that is entirely regenerate. What confidence!

I'm not sure what your sarcasm is for, brother. This is what Baptists have always called, "Believer's Baptism." We baptize ONLY true believers of the Lord who have and can publicly profess Christ. Of course, that is assuming that Believer's Baptism is being administered properly rather than in a fashion to where the majority of the SBC churches are witnessing today of the fruits of improper administration of Believer's Baptism.

As well, Regenerate Church Membership has been one the major sections that make the 1689 BCF different from the 1646 WCF. Presbyterians never believed in Regenerate Church Membership, whereas Baptists have. (Compare WCF Ch.25 and 1689 Ch.26.6).

Which is the irony to Presbyterianism. On one hand, Presbyterianism believes in the Covenant of Grace - that baptism of infants bestows salvation to them, but then when it comes to the church membership, they recognize that although all are baptized, there coexists both children of God and children of Satan co-mingling as members together.

Let me take a brief break from pounding those nails into my skull.

Will, Rich's sarcasm is directed at what seems to be your perfect knowledge that Baptist regenerate membership means that all Baptists are regenerate. Credobaptism is administered to those who profess Christ. It is our earnest hope and expectation that they are saved. But the truth is that wheat and tares are together in the visible church.

I'll now go back to my nails...
 
I find this a bit humorous for two reasons (although I do appreciate your attempt to back up a brother who may feel that he is in a bit of a corner):

1st - I have been a Baptist for majority of my life, only changing positions on the sacraments at the age of 27 after a tremendous amount of struggle and study, and I first attended a Baptist seminary for several years before transferring to one that was confessionally Reformed. That is to say, I know Baptist history, ecclesiology, and theology at least as well as most Baptists. In fact, I studied Baptist ecclesiology under Jim Renihan at WSC as an elective credit just for kicks. Well, it was more serious minded than that, really, and it was a well-presented course, although I must say that it ultimately failed to persuade me to return to the Baptist position.

I was not referring to the lexicons used by the Magisterial Reformers, nor do I even know where I could find one (if anyone knows, I would think it a great patch of reading material)! I was referring, first of all, to the work by Dale, which is a late 19th century work (nearly early 20th century), and second of all to modern lexicons such as LSJ/LN/BDAG that are today used by every well-schooled churchman whether he be a Baptist, Presbyterian, or what have you. The one that was referenced in particular (LSJ) is not an ecclesiastical lexicon at all, but an English-Greek lexicon for use in studying Classical Greek literature. It does assist, however, in showing the broader use of a Greek term in documents outside of Holy Scripture (although it includes references to Scripture also) in the years preceding, concurrent with, and following upon the writings of the New Testament.

Again, I admire your defense, but I do not think that your analysis here is quite as accurate as that for which you would have hoped :)

I was interpreting your statement of "Classical, Jewish, Biblical, and Patristic writings" as referring to Reformation period writings or prior. Dale and LSJ are definitely not patristic writings. I was thinking that you were referencing them as secondary sources to draw some kind of primary patristic source. So thanks for the clarification.

In which case, if your concluding argument that the sources to be studied that levels out any argumentation against paedobaptism are the "Classical, Jewish, Biblical and Patristic writings" of the Reformation period, then my earlier rebuttal stands. But if your concluding argument about the sources that somehow level out any argumentation against paeodobaptism as referring to Dale, LSJ, BAGD, and other more modern and contemporary reference works, I find your conclusion faulty. Yes, I agree with you that LSJ has more of a Presbyterian bent, but so is Berkhof's Systematic Theology.

As for your personal testimony of struggle and identity, I'm sorry to hear about that. My testimony is the exact opposite. I had grown up in the PCA denomination for 27 years of my life. My father remains a non-Christian. And his biggest argument against Christianity is "too many hypocrites." And growing up in a Presbyterian church where all members have been baptized and partake of the Lord's Supper but are mixed with both regenerates and unregenerates, I merely took it as an assumption that that is just part of what a church body is about. But after understanding the Baptist concept of Regenerate Church Membership and the close link Baptism has to Regenerate Church Membership, and consequently Lord's Supper has with Church Membership and Baptism, the entire relationship fit.

To this day, I still witness to my father the Gospel message. But he had been personally hurt in very deep emotional ways by church members who were unregenerate. And this is the biggest thorn that Presbyterianism has to deal with - children of Satan within its own ranks. And infant baptism as a sign of the covenant is nothing more than a false ticket of assurance of assuming salvation when it had not been granted.

Your writing is a little unclear, so I am not sure how you find the conclusion faulty. You didn't really do anything more than to make a bare assertion with that one. As well, I did not say that LSJ had a presbyterian bent, I said that it was not intended as an ecclesiastical document at all, so again, your writing is a little unclear to me.

As to your false hope that some sort of "believers only" baptismal concept will clear up all of the woes from your past - brother, I hate to break it to you, but you are going to be sadly disappointed. I must tell you with all honesty that I have met far more false professors in the credobaptist congregations that I had attended than I have in conservative Reformed churches.

One of the things that drew me to the Reformed in the first place was the stark difference in seriousness and holy profession/act that I observed there, which was completely lacking from any baptistic fellowship that I had ever attended. To this day, some of the worse cases of hypocrisy and apostasy that I have witnessed and had the sorrow to engage against have been in credobaptists congregations. The practice of the administration will not change the reality of unregenerates coming into the church. I have seen some of the most "sincere" and vigorous adult testimonies be followed in later years by the most vicious denials of Christ, the most devastating cases of habitual adultery against spouse and children, deception and theft within church leadership, etc. You cannot hide from it by changing the application of baptism - sinners are sinners!

As for your father, and please don't take this too hard as I have said the same thing regarding my own father who also hides and sulks in his sin under the pretense of having been hurt by the church, I would tell him that he needs to grow up and get over it. If he had any love of Christ at all in his heart, he would realize that a) Christian love covers a multitude of sins, b) worshipping God among sinners is more important than rejecting God until you find the "perfect church" that will never hurt you, and c) he is a sinner just like the rest, and every sinner saved by grace was once a hypocrite also -maybe even a hypocrite who was saved while sitting in a church service!

The Anabaptists attempted to purify the church by overturning what they held to be a false application of baptism, and there was far more craziness going on in their circles than practically anywhere else during the reformation. It is not a "proper view of baptism" that will save any church from itself - it is only the work of the Holy Spirit among God's people.

Btw, I will assume that your "Children of Satan" statement was directed at the true hypocrites in the church and not the baptized children. If it was also directed at all baptized children, it just goes to confirm that which Rich has been stating on several recent threads, namely, that the baptist view of baptism does serious harm against the nurture and discipleship of the children of believing families. I have seen as much when baptists refuse to let their children pray, because they are (as I have heard several put it) "little pagans". That view is a sin against the Church, and is certainly not the view of either Christ or his apostles. They are rather seen as blessed and holy to God.
 
On the PB it is appropriate to deal with issues theologically. So far the positions for both views have been argued on biblical and theological grounds. However, it might also be interesting to look at it from an organizational intentionality angle. Viewed programmatically and organizationally (rather than theologically), both Presbyterians and Baptists attempt to deal with the practical pastoral problems inherent in their systems.

Paedo-baptists will always have the problem that Roman Catholics have of avoiding religious nominalism despite the fact of infant entrance into the community. Catholics deal with it through confirmation while good Reformed churches seem to put much more stress on the third use of the law and the "experimental Calvinism" typical of the Puritans. Most of the strict Reformed groups also emphasize church discipline in ways that free churches have generally long since forgotten (except for a rare bird like MacArthur). Is it a fail safe method for quality assurance? No, Jesus spoke of the wheat and the tares.

Credo-baptists grew out of an environment of Christian nominalism in faith and attributed it to the problem of the composition of the church. If we just insist that you can't get into the community without at least giving a credible profession, perhaps that will purify the church. So a regnerate membership became the goal, safeguarded by believer's baptism. But, with the Baptist practice of performing baptisms at younger and younger ages (sometimes as young as 4 to 6), you must wonder if it is not more of a delayed infant baptism than adult "credo baptism."

Both systems attempt to be "biblical." They both seize upon themes and verses that make sense, at least on an unbiased "common sense" first reading of the text. And, both struggle to resolve a pastoral problem of hypocrisy and false professors in a disciplined and "biblical" manner.

The law of non-contradiction convinces me that while both may be wrong, they cannot both be right. Hence, along with CT, my reading list for the next few months includes both paedo and credo books.
 
I'm not sure what your sarcasm is for, brother. This is what Baptists have always called, "Believer's Baptism." We baptize ONLY true believers of the Lord who have and can publicly profess Christ. Of course, that is assuming that Believer's Baptism is being administered properly rather than in a fashion to where the majority of the SBC churches are witnessing today of the fruits of improper administration of Believer's Baptism.

As well, Regenerate Church Membership has been one the major sections that make the 1689 BCF different from the 1646 WCF. Presbyterians never believed in Regenerate Church Membership, whereas Baptists have. (Compare WCF Ch.25 and 1689 Ch.26.6).

Which is the irony to Presbyterianism. On one hand, Presbyterianism believes in the Covenant of Grace - that baptism of infants bestows salvation to them, but then when it comes to the church membership, they recognize that although all are baptized, there coexists both children of God and children of Satan co-mingling as members together.

Which is exactly how the Kingdom of God on earth is described in Scripture.

If you only baptize true believers, then what happens to your understanding of the perseverance of the saints when one of your members apostatizes? Perhaps it's never happened in YOUR church, but it happens ALL THE TIME in both credo- and paedo- baptistic churches. You might AIM to baptize true believers, i.e. the elect and regenerate, only, but that does NOT guarantee that it is so, and experience shows us that you are making a demonstrably false claim if in fact it is your contention that you IN FACT only baptize the elect.
 
Your writing is a little unclear, so I am not sure how you find the conclusion faulty. You didn't really do anything more than to make a bare assertion with that one. As well, I did not say that LSJ had a presbyterian bent, I said that it was not intended as an ecclesiastical document at all, so again, your writing is a little unclear to me.

As to your false hope that some sort of "believers only" baptismal concept will clear up all of the woes from your past - brother, I hate to break it to you, but you are going to be sadly disappointed. I must tell you with all honesty that I have met far more false professors in the credobaptist congregations that I had attended than I have in conservative Reformed churches.

One of the things that drew me to the Reformed in the first place was the stark difference in seriousness and holy profession/act that I observed there, which was completely lacking from any baptistic fellowship that I had ever attended. To this day, some of the worse cases of hypocrisy and apostasy that I have witnessed and had the sorrow to engage against have been in credobaptists congregations. The practice of the administration will not change the reality of unregenerates coming into the church. I have seen some of the most "sincere" and vigorous adult testimonies be followed in later years by the most vicious denials of Christ, the most devastating cases of habitual adultery against spouse and children, deception and theft within church leadership, etc. You cannot hide from it by changing the application of baptism - sinners are sinners!

As for your father, and please don't take this too hard as I have said the same thing regarding my own father who also hides and sulks in his sin under the pretense of having been hurt by the church, I would tell him that he needs to grow up and get over it. If he had any love of Christ at all in his heart, he would realize that a) Christian love covers a multitude of sins, b) worshipping God among sinners is more important than rejecting God until you find the "perfect church" that will never hurt you, and c) he is a sinner just like the rest, and every sinner saved by grace was once a hypocrite also -maybe even a hypocrite who was saved while sitting in a church service!

The Anabaptists attempted to purify the church by overturning what they held to be a false application of baptism, and there was far more craziness going on in their circles than practically anywhere else during the reformation. It is not a "proper view of baptism" that will save any church from itself - it is only the work of the Holy Spirit among God's people.

Btw, I will assume that your "Children of Satan" statement was directed at the true hypocrites in the church and not the baptized children. If it was also directed at all baptized children, it just goes to confirm that which Rich has been stating on several recent threads, namely, that the baptist view of baptism does serious harm against the nurture and discipleship of the children of believing families. I have seen as much when baptists refuse to let their children pray, because they are (as I have heard several put it) "little pagans". That view is a sin against the Church, and is certainly not the view of either Christ or his apostles. They are rather seen as blessed and holy to God.

Concerning the Lexicons, please check your original posting with the latest statement as inconsistencies exist and possibly improved writing style in the original posting might be needed for better clarity.

As for the breaking of bad news of who has the more unregenerate members, I can attest to the contrary. Being involved with CHBC and now planting a church, and also witnessing ARBCA churches, I can say that the greatest and sweetest joy has been being involved and seeing first-hand the fruits of practicing Regenerate Church Membership.

As for your father, I can't comment on how you relate and respond to your father.

As for the Anabaptists, I'm not sure how they came into the picture here. We've been comparing Reformed Baptists (with general reference to the wider Baptist churches) to the Presbyterians. So I'm not sure what the purpose was that you brought them up.

As for the giving false assurance to baptized children of believers facilitating better nurture and discipline than teaching the children that their assurance of salvation rests on their own profession of Christ and not on any baptism of grace is the most dangerous deceit that the Presbyterians must shake out of. The danger with the Presbyterian concept of Covenant of Grace baptism is giving false assurance to children of believers when none was granted to them from the beginning. Election is not hereditary, nor is election granted through baptismal regeneration. Yet while Presbyterians profess to deny baptismal regeneration, in practice they are. I spoke with Ligon Duncan about this once, and he admits that that is a growing concern that he has to constantly debate and warn his fellow Presbyterian brothers about. And he admits that he is in the minority on this issue. The wider Presbyterian circle appears to practice and believe in baptismal regeneration of infants while professing with the mouth that they deny that doctrine. This is the greater danger to the children. A friend of mine (a former OPC elder who graduated from Greenville Presbyterian Seminary with a MDiv and Knox Presbyterian Seminary with a MA Missiology, and is currently a Reformed Baptist missionary) shared with me that that was one among many reasons he chose to leave Presbyterianism and join the Reformed Baptist - the issue that he had seen first hand the hypocrisy and duplicity that exists where one on hand, the OPC denies baptismal regeneration, but on the other hand, they encourage their children that they have been saved through the covenant of grace through baptism.
 
As for the breaking of bad news of who has the more unregenerate members, I can attest to the contrary, and respond with, "No, I am not and will not be disappointed." But I have been greatly disappointed with churches who allow openly professed unregenerates into church membership books. The difference between the two is that in the Regenerate Church Membership, all are professors of Christ. In the Presbyterian concept of church membership, someone who openly admits not being a Christian but desires membership are granted membership nonetheless.

Surely you are not being serious.
 
As for your personal testimony of struggle and identity, I'm sorry to hear about that. My testimony is the exact opposite. I had grown up in the PCA denomination for 27 years of my life. My father remains a non-Christian. And his biggest argument against Christianity is "too many hypocrites." And growing up in a Presbyterian church where all members have been baptized and partake of the Lord's Supper but are mixed with both regenerates and unregenerates, I merely took it as an assumption that that is just part of what a church body is about. But after understanding the Baptist concept of Regenerate Church Membership and the close link Baptism has to Regenerate Church Membership, and consequently Lord's Supper has with Church Membership and Baptism, the entire relationship fit.

To this day, I still witness to my father the Gospel message. But he had been personally hurt in very deep emotional ways by church members who were unregenerate. And this is the biggest thorn that Presbyterianism has to deal with - children of Satan within its own ranks. And infant baptism as a sign of the covenant is nothing more than a false ticket of assurance of assuming salvation when it had not been granted.

It must give you great assurance to know that, for certain, you now attend a Church with a membership that is entirely regenerate. What confidence!

I'm not sure what your sarcasm is for, brother. This is what Baptists have always called, "Believer's Baptism." We baptize ONLY true believers of the Lord who have and can publicly profess Christ. Of course, that is assuming that Believer's Baptism is being administered properly rather than in a fashion to where the majority of the SBC churches are witnessing today of the fruits of improper administration of Believer's Baptism.

As well, Regenerate Church Membership has been one the major sections that make the 1689 BCF different from the 1646 WCF. Presbyterians never believed in Regenerate Church Membership, whereas Baptists have. (Compare WCF Ch.25 and 1689 Ch.26.6).

Which is the irony to Presbyterianism. On one hand, Presbyterianism believes in the Covenant of Grace - that baptism of infants bestows salvation to them, but then when it comes to the church membership, they recognize that although all are baptized, there coexists both children of God and children of Satan co-mingling as members together.

Sarcasm to drive home a point. I could simply note, that given your 27 years in the PCA, you demonstrate remarkable ignorance of the WCF. Were you catechized? If so, would you point me to the section of our Confessional documents that allows a child or an adult to presume upon their baptism? How about the portion that allows the Church Officers to "baptize and forget"? I might as well present the several SBC Churches that I've known as a demonstration of the fault of a "once saved, always saved" mentality that attends a regenerate Church membership to drive home my point. Your "experience" does not a Confessional understanding make.

I further find your ascription of any member of a Church, not under Church discipline, as a "child of the Devil", to be impiety of the highest order. Would you care to cite one example in the Epistles where the writer ascribes that term to a person still within the Church? Why didn't Paul say that of many in Corinth? To me, it represents a dangerous presumption that you know the very mind of God (His hidden things). Not only do you seem to know who the Elect are, but you are able to label the Reprobate as well. Tell me, where do you get that right from the Scriptures?

Further, just when I get through being castigated for "misrepresenting" a Baptist position on the notion of "baptizing the regenerate", we get someone who revels in it. It actually helps clarify the issue - at least that the idea is propagated.

I'm curious. How do you explain the baptism of Judas? His baptism was under the direct gaze and authority of the Man who instituted the New Covenant. None of the Apostles were re-baptized so they clearly received the baptism of Jesus. Why did Jesus permit His ordinance to be placed on a man He clearly knew was un-regenerate, forever polluting the "example" to His Church that none but the regenerate should be baptized.

How about Simon the Sorceror? Regenerate? Why was he made a disciple?
 
As for the breaking of bad news of who has the more unregenerate members, I can attest to the contrary, and respond with, "No, I am not and will not be disappointed." But I have been greatly disappointed with churches who allow openly professed unregenerates into church membership books. The difference between the two is that in the Regenerate Church Membership, all are professors of Christ. In the Presbyterian concept of church membership, someone who openly admits not being a Christian but desires membership are granted membership nonetheless.

Surely you are not being serious.

I didn't like the way I originally had written that paragraph as I sounded too combative. So I editted it, but it seems that during my editting, you had responded to it. Most especially, I wanted to delete that last sentence because I saw it as further diverging (another rabbit), and it was more of personal observation from handful of churches I've been a part of rather than about Presbyterianism as a whole.

But since you did post a request for a response, I'll go ahead and oblige. Not answering the rhetorical statement itself (would answering a "yes, I wasn't surely being serious" mean anything?), remember that the WCF and Presbyterianism never held to the doctrine of Regenerate Church Membership. Belief in Christ is not a prerequisite to becoming a member of a Presbyterian church. Of the many Presbyterian churches that I have been a member in (and I've been in many when my father was in the Army changing to new duty stations), none asked for any profession of faith, salvation testimony or the such. If we wanted to become a member, we simply ask the church secretary, and we were enrolled. That's it. Sometimes we had to attend new members class that explained some of the doctrines, as well as unique polities within the particular church, but on the whole, none asked about our spiritual nature in Christ.
 
Last edited:
As for the breaking of bad news of who has the more unregenerate members, I can attest to the contrary, and respond with, "No, I am not and will not be disappointed." But I have been greatly disappointed with churches who allow openly professed unregenerates into church membership books. The difference between the two is that in the Regenerate Church Membership, all are professors of Christ. In the Presbyterian concept of church membership, someone who openly admits not being a Christian but desires membership are granted membership nonetheless.

Surely you are not being serious.

I didn't like the way I originally had written that paragraph as I sounded too combative. So I editted it, but it seems that during my editting, you had responded to it. I wanted to delete that last paragraph because I saw it as further diverging (another rabbit), and it was more of personal observation from handful of churches I've been a part of rather than about Presbyterianism as a whole.

But since you did post a request for a response, I'll go ahead and oblige. Not answering the rhetorical statement itself (would answering a "yes, I wasn't surely being serious" mean anything?), remember that the WCF and Presbyterianism never held to the doctrine of Regenerate Church Membership. Belief in Christ is not a prerequisite to becoming a member of a Presbyterian church. Of the many Presbyterian churches that I have been a member in (and I've been in many when my father was in the Army changing to new duty stations), none asked for any profession of faith, salvation testimony or the such. If we wanted to become a member, we simply ask the church secretary, and we were enrolled. That's it. Sometimes we had to attend new members class that explained some of the doctrines, as well as unique polities within the particular church, but on the whole, none asked about our spiritual nature in Christ.

In the Free Church I had to take membership vows and be examined by the elders, my trust in Christ was the key question.

Do Baptists actually believe in the "doctrine of a regenerate church membership"? Even in the light of the comments made on such a position do you affirm it?
 
In the Free Church I had to take membership vows and be examined by the elders, my trust in Christ was the key question.

Do Baptists actually believe in the "doctrine of a regenerate church membership"? Even in the light of the comments made on such a position do you affirm it?

Not all Baptists. Definitely those who hold to the 1689 BCF do. As well, Founder's Ministry has been for the last two SBC conferences been pushing the issue of Regenerate Church Membership to pass for resolution. It finally did this year, but had to be toned down alot. You can visit the Founder.org blog site and read more on this matter.

But Regenerate Church Membership has always been a historic Baptist distinctive, particularly among the Reformed Baptist side.
 
In the Free Church I had to take membership vows and be examined by the elders, my trust in Christ was the key question.

Do Baptists actually believe in the "doctrine of a regenerate church membership"? Even in the light of the comments made on such a position do you affirm it?

Not all Baptists. Definitely those who hold to the 1689 BCF do. As well, Founder's Ministry has been for the last two SBC conferences been pushing the issue of Regenerate Church Membership to pass for resolution. It finally did this year, but had to be toned down alot. You can visit the Founder.org blog site and read more on this matter.

But Regenerate Church Membership has always been a historic Baptist distinctive, particularly among the Reformed Baptist side.

Is it not more a doctrine of "people who claim to be regenerate membership"? Which is very different from a regenerate membership.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top