IMB & Baptism on True Baptism

seekingpurity047 · #31 23rd August 2006, 10:04 PM

Well, even so, I'm still contemplating the whole baptism thing. Like... I am a baptist, but I'm not really against infant baptism per se. THe one thing I can confirm is that you must be baptised

(not to be saved, but to obey the commandment of Jesus Christ).

To the glory of God,

Randy

CCWoody · #32 24th August 2006, 12:34 AM

Originally Posted by Bernergirl

Infant baptism, etc. he called "an unbeliever getting wet."

And circumcision for an OT Jew was an unbeliever getting cut.

But, really, nobody can say with any certaintity that believers baptism is NOT an unbeliever getting wet.

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

Cajun Huguenot · #33 24th August 2006, 01:18 AM

CCWoody is correct. I have known many people who have walked an aisle, been baptised, played with religion for a while and then left that faith.

We don't know whether the infant or the "believer" is truly among those that are called to eternal life. God alone knows the heart. There are plenty of people in both groups that leave the faith never to return. That is not the point.

Baptism is a covenant sign that God gives to his people in the New Covenant, just as circumcision was a covenant sign that God gave to His people in the Old Covenant.

Baptism is "a one time only deal" I have known Baptists who have been baptised several times because they fall into sin and decide that they were not a Christian when they were baptised before. This (IMHO) shows a grave lack of understanding about baptism.

Baptism is God's mark on us, just as circumcision was God's mark on O.C. believers.

Q:Were all old Covenant members of God's people saved?
A: No, not even close.

O.C. people are called on time and again to have circumcised hearts (be true, repentent believers). IF they repented they were not to be re-circumcised

, and we are to remember our baptism, and not repeat our baptism again and again.

Calvin, Luther, Bucer, Knox, Cranmer, Tyndale, and countless other Reformers of the 16th century were baptised as infants, in the Medieval Catholic Church. None of them were re-baptised and they were horrified by the rebaptisms of the ana-baptists. They saw important and dangerous theological implications of such thinking.

I love my Baptist brethren (my dad is a deacon in a Southern Baptist Church) but I think the Reformers were correct in their understanding of Baptism. Don't be so quick to throw the paedo-baptised baby out with the immersionists' water

.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

Imblessed · #34 26th August 2006, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by Cajun Huguenot

CCWoody is correct. I have known many people who have walked an aisle, been baptised, played with religion for a while and then left that faith.

We don't know whether the infant or the "believer" is truly among those that are called to eternal life. God alone knows the heart. There are plenty of people in both groups that leave the faith never to return. That is not the point.

Baptism is a covenant sign that God gives to his people in the New Covenant, just as circumcision was a covenant sign that God gave to His people in the Old Covenant.

Baptism is "a one time only deal" I have known Baptists who have been baptised several times because they fall into sin and decide that they were not a Christian when they were baptised before. This (IMHO) shows a grave lack of understanding about baptism.

Baptism is God's mark on us, just as circumcision was God's mark on O.C. believers.

Q:Were all old Covenant members of God's people saved?
A: No, not even close.

O.C. people are called on time and again to have circumcised hearts (be true, repentent believers). IF they repented they were not to be re-circumcised , and we are to remember our baptism, and not repeat our baptism again and again.

Calvin, Luther, Bucer, Knox, Cranmer, Tyndale, and countless other Reformers of the 16th century were baptised as infants, in the Medieval Catholic Church. None of them were re-baptised and they were horrified by the rebaptisms of the ana-baptists. They saw important and dangerous theological implications of such thinking.

I love my Baptist brethren (my dad is a deacon in a Southern Baptist Church) but I think the Reformers were correct in their understanding of Baptism. Don't be so quick to throw the paedo-baptised baby out with the immersionists' water .

Coram Deo,
Kenith

Kenith,

I see your point. After being raised in a faith that believes in a spiritual baptism and doesn't do a water baptism.......I've been more than a little confused about the whole baptism issue. I was baptised a couple of years ago, after much prayer and consideration of my motives for it.

I've been really confused by the number of baptists who are more than willing to re-baptise anyone who wasn't baptised as a believer, who refuse to be called an ana-baptist!!! I just don't understand that at all.

I think any baptism done in an (active) christian household(be it lutheran, or RCC, or whatever) is a perfectly valid baptism. Infant, sprinkling, whatever.

However, I'm still not sure about my stance with people being baptised in a non-christian household. I wouldn't say they had to be re-baptised, but I don't think I'd say no if that person really wanted to be re-baptised. I'd just encourage them to really think about their motives first....

I just don't know........

pjw · #35 11th October 2006, 02:32 AM

baptism is the work of God, no matter what congregation it is performed in. so long as it is performed with water in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, with the understanding and belief that these three are one God through whom alone we can be saved, and with the intention to bring the person into the Christian Church, then it is a valid Christian baptism.

cajunhillbilly · #36 15th October 2006, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by pjw

baptism is the work of God, no matter what congregation it is performed in. so long as it is performed with water in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, with the understanding and belief that these three are one God through whom alone we can be saved, and with the intention to bring the person into the Christian Church, then it is a valid Christian baptism.

I actually talked to a Roman Catholic priest who had a sincere believe in Jesus as his Lord and Savior who felt the same way. I would agree with that. When I first professed faith in Christ I had grown up in a Methodist church. It was very liberal, so I sought for a strong Bible-believing church. I ended up ata CMA church. Great church with solid expositional preaching. Though I had been baptised as a baby, they convinced me to be rebaptised. I have since come to believe that my infant baptism was legitimate and that I really did not need to be rebaptized. I now attend a SBC congregation, but could not join because I could not accept their view on baptism. I attend because I work on Sundays and they have a Saturday evening service.

Jon_ · #37 22nd December 2006, 09:23 PM

Originally Posted by HiredGoon

I believe the OPC accepts any Christian, trinitarian baptism performed by an ordained minister.

The pastor at my current church (OPC) included Catholic baptism as being "Christian, Trinitarian," and "performed by an ordained minister." I was quite surprised by this. I want to ask him more about it, but I'm not sure how to approach the subject.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

HiredGoon · #38 22nd December 2006, 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by Jon_

The pastor at my current church (OPC) included Catholic baptism as being "Christian, Trinitarian," and "performed by an ordained minister." I was quite surprised by this. I want to ask him more about it, but I'm not sure how to approach the subject.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Yes, that was the position of my OPC pastor when we were going over the WCF. I believe it is a fairly common view in the PCA as well. However I know there are many Reformed Christians today who disagree. Historically the Reformed have been against rebaptism, and generally have a long standing belief that the efficacy of baptism is not tied to the minister performing the sacrament nor the time it is administered. As far as I can tell from my historical studies most of the Reformers believed Roman baptism to be valid. And it was not until the 19th century that some American Presbyterians declared it invalid.

Calvin Institutes (Book IV, 15.16)
"By this consideration, the error of the Donatists is effectually refuted, who made the force and value of the sacrament commensurate with the worth of the minister. Such are our modern Katabaptists, who strenuously deny that we were properly baptized, because we received the rite from impious idolators in the papacy; and they are therefore ferocious for re-baptism. We shall, however, be sufficiently guarded against their nonsense, if we remember we were baptized not in the name of any man, but in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and therefore baptism is not of man, but of God, no matter by whom it was administered."

This article is helpful on this subject.

Cajun Huguenot · #39 23rd December 2006, 12:22 AM

Originally Posted by Jon_

The pastor at my current church (OPC) included Catholic baptism as being "Christian, Trinitarian," and "performed by an ordained minister." I was quite surprised by this. I want to ask him more about it, but I'm not sure how to approach the subject.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Hello Jon,

I have mentioned several times before, my own Baptism is Roman Catholic as ar the Baptisms of a number of my Reformed friends. I know many Catholics who became one form or another of Credobaptist and they are all rebaptistised, but those that I know who have become Reformed have not been rebaptised.

All the magisterial reformers -- Luther, Melancthon, Zwingli, Calvin, Bucer, Beza, Cranmer, etc... were all Baptised by priests of Rome and none were rebaptised and all were VERY hostile to Anabaptists notions about the need for rebaptism.

The Baptists error on Baptism is also a great one, but none deny that it is real. They take it out of the sacraments and means of grace, and still we accept it. I think we should accept both.

As y'all know, I am PCA.

That is my two cents,
Kenith

JWA · #40 18th February 2007, 01:29 AM

God bless!