Re-Baptism

[Pilgrim]

This is true about the Presbyterian tradition. What I had in mind was moreso the continental Reformed tradition, which I understand tends to be more restrictive in this area and unlike most Presbyterian churches, have confessional membership, etc.

I would be interested to hear from brethren in (Dutch) Reformed churches to see if there is much difference.

I would too. It is possible that I may not be remembering previous interactions accurately and/or that the views expressed may not have been representative of that tradition as a whole.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

There are people on this board who don't view Baptist churches as being "true churches" either and wouldn't allow Baptists to come to the table.

The last time this was argued out it became apparent that they are a very small minority and not representative of the general Presbyterian tradition.

This is true about the Presbyterian tradition. What I had in mind was moreso the continental Reformed tradition, which I understand tends to be more restrictive in this area and unlike most Presbyterian churches, have confessional membership, etc.

I've noticed the same thing. It's interesting to me what the Presbyterians seem to be more "serious" about (at least in terms of discussion here) than the Dutch Reformed and vice versa. Usually its Presbyterians who are the sole champions for certain RPW things but then Dutch Reformed tend to make us look like we're softees when it comes to Baptism.

 

[Pilgrim]

The last time this was argued out it became apparent that they are a very small minority and not representative of the general Presbyterian tradition.

This is true about the Presbyterian tradition. What I had in mind was moreso the continental Reformed tradition, which I understand tends to be more restrictive in this area and unlike most Presbyterian churches, have confessional membership, etc.

I've noticed the same thing. It's interesting to me what the Presbyterians seem to be more "serious" about (at least in terms of discussion here) than the Dutch Reformed and vice versa. Usually its Presbyterians who are the sole champions for certain RPW things but then Dutch Reformed tend to make us look like we're softees when it comes to Baptism.

I haven't studied the issue much but I've seen it argued that this is perhaps in part explained by the historical circumstances around the time of the English Civil War.

 

[tcalbrecht]

I believe the Federal Vision is Heresy. What do you think Tom? Or would you rather just call it error?

Is this the post?

Anyway, since the Federal Vision controversy is contemporary, how 'bout we use something a bit more 17th century.

The Canons of Dordt were written to specifically combat the heresy of Arminianism. I would contend that the legitimate errors of the Federal Vision are heresy in the same sense as Arminianism.

However, if you read Dordt they simply speak with language like "the Synod rejects the errors of those … ." I would speak similarly of the legitimate errors of FV.

I believe the Protestant Reformers saw the novelties of the (Ana)Baptists in much the same light, charging that such views were heresy in the sense that they deviated from the historic views of the Church on things like paedobaptism and immersionist baptism.

A legitimate question might be, where do we draw the line of error -> heresy -> damnable heresy? I think we would agree that things like Unitarianism are damnable heresies. I might suggest the same is true of Pelagianism. What about Arminianism? Are all Arminians damnable heretics or just garden-variety heretics? What about dispensationalism?

I’m not trying to evade your question unless you are trying to box me into a corner.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

That is where I first posted a question? And Yes, I would like a specific answer I guess.

Which do you consider to be a heresy that doesn't cling to a confession? The credo or the FV?

I agree that dispensationalism is outside and heresy and should be repented of. I do not believe it puts one completely outside of being redeemed. I believe that semi-pelagianism is the same. It should be repented of. I also believe the FV should be repented of. What thinkest thou? What are the legitimate errors of the FV in your thinking Tom. I specifically mentioned the efficacy of Baptism since that was the topic in this thread. Should the FV's doctrine concerning the efficacy of Baptism be repented of?

I guess we need a doctrine of heresy. One which notices variant levels of degree and teaching. But I think that tends to confuse issues somewhat when the word is used alone.

 

[tcalbrecht]

That is where I first posted a question? And Yes, I would like a specific answer I guess.

I’d prefer the discussion in some other context besides Federal Vision.

Which do you consider to be a heresy that doesn't cling to a confession? The credo or the FV?

But if you insist …

To my knowledge, no self-identified Federal Visionist has been judged out of accord with a Confession in the area of baptismal efficacy by any church court. While the LBCF is an acceptable creed as far as membership in this board, it is not a confession what I can maintain as orthodox on all counts. And while a Federal Visionist may at some point be unwelcome from teaching their view on baptism in a Westminster church, so would every adherent to the LBCF for the same reason.

I agree that dispensationalism is outside and heresy and should be repented of. I do not believe it puts one completely outside of being redeemed. I believe that semi-pelagianism is the same. It should be repented of. I also believe the FV should be repented of. What thinkest thou? What are the legitimate errors of the FV in your thinking Tom. I specifically mentioned the efficacy of Baptism since that was the topic in this thread. Should the FV's doctrine concerning the efficacy of Baptism be repented of?

I do not claim to be expert in the matter of Federal Vision, that is why I switched to speak of Arminianism. Whether the anti-FV folks have correctly characterized the FV on the matter of baptismal efficacy is the subject of some debate. It seems to me that the views of many of those identified with FV are closer to the claims of Westminster on the matter of baptism than those who hold to the LBCF. In addition, if the FV-types who are in disagreement with Westminster came along and modified the Westminster Confession to support their novel views, they would be in a similar position to the framers of the LBCF in their day.

I guess we need a doctrine of heresy. One which notices variant levels of degree and teaching. But I think that tends to confuse issues somewhat when the word is used alone.

I agree, but others here do not, saying that damnable heresy is redundant.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Lane "Yoda" Baggins made an interesting point in a recent interview that Reformed Churches will likely get along a lot better with the FV when they're not in our Presbyteries or Synods insisting that they are Confessional and trying to re-work Reformed theology from within Reformed bodies. I obviously have serious problems with their views of Covenant and how one is united to Christ but once they're outside of Reformed Churches then it will be less problematic.

But, once they stop calling themselves Reformed, their views on what baptism confers are really not much different than the Anglican or Lutheran views. I believe it is error but the more serious error of the FV is, as noted, a view of justification that tries to shoehorn sanctification into its definition. Obedience is equated with trust and it is no longer a laying hold of Christ and His righteousness alone as instrumental to our justification.

Of course, with any theology, it is sort of impossible to separate one error from another and the baptismal view cannot be fully divorced from their view of justification.

 

[DMcFadden]

Unless we are two-faced, weak willed, Barney Fife types, we all think that our views are 100% correct, which definitionally makes anything else an "error" from our perspective. So whether we are talking about baptism, eschatological schema, polity, the atonement, justification, or the deity of Christ, whoever does not agree with us will be an errorist.

I'm actually learning to appreciate Tom's strong defense of truth in the face of all comers. However, at some point, it seems to me that there needs to be a hierarchy of hills on which one would chose to die. The deity of Christ, substitutionary atonement, justification by faith, inerrancy of the Bible, etc. are all hills that would make wonderful graveyards for me (in my opinion).

However, as much as you guys want to make baptism integral to your system, that is just not a hill worth dying on for me (yet anyway). Today, on the plane from L.A. to get to Arkansas, I read Waldron's rejoinder to MacArthur's "manifesto" at last year's Shepherd's Conference and part of Riddlebarger's "Case for Amillennialism." Yes, they are convincing and quite persuasive. Both of them argue for the amil view on the basis of Reformed covenantal arguments. Both are Calvinists. However, one is credo and one is paedo.

I think Rich is onto something. When you have the FV "outside the camp" as it were, you can treat them as brothers in error. When they are professing to be what you are, it is more problematical. Unfortunately, the Puritans (from whence our name, duh) hailed from the paedo and credo sides of the aisle. My guess is that as long as we both participate in this same board, we will continue to annoy the crud out of each other.

 

[Herald]

My guess is that as long as we both participate in this same board, we will continue to annoy the crud out of each other.

You think?