IMB & Baptism on True Baptism

I was baptized as an infant, I guess because my parents were believers. I don't think I need to get baptized again.

IMO, this is just a matter of faith in practice, and thus should be left up to a person's conscience. If a person sincerely believes that his infant baptism was invalid, then - go for it! Otherwise, why make a big fuss about it?

It occurs to me that if another church considers my believer's baptism invalid simply because the church that administered it does not teach eternal security, then they're rejecting my claim to be a believer as well. To claim otherwise would require some "creative" logical process to support it.

__________________
Lying is the basic fault line in the foundation of the soul, putting all the superstructure in jeopardy. All the believability a person has, his very integrity, totters on the shifting sand of one lie. Deceit holds hostage all other virtues.
Robertson C. McQuilken

It is a violation of the Westminster Confession of Faith to be re-baptized:

--------------

WCF 28:7 The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person

(Tit.3:5).



WLC Question 177: Wherein do the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper

differ?

Answer: The sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ, in that Baptism

is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our

regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the

Lord's Supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to

represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to

confirm our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years

and ability to examine themselves.

---------------

I friend of mine posted his message:

All the Reformation dogma on baptism
is the same whether you're looking at
the Belgic Confession ("Continental
Calvinism") or the Westminster Confession
(Scottish Calvinism).

Even the 2nd. Helvetic Confession -meant
as a bridge between Lutheranism and
Calvinism- contains the same doctrine.

This that baptism represents what
God does for us instead of something
we do for God.

Thus, baptism isn't primarily a demonstration
of our faith ...as the Southern Baptist BFM
has it !

That makes baptism about what we do.

It ain't.



Acts 2:38-39 describes baptism as being a
"promise".

It ain't a promise we make to the Lord. But
a promise of salvation He makes to the Elect.

Therefore, as this passage explains, the
promise of baptism is made to ALL of the
Elect ...even covenant children not yet
granted Saving Faith.

"For the promise is for
you and your children
and for all who are far
off, as many as the
Lord our God will call
to Himself" (NASB)

N.B., not 'as many as accept Jesus'.

The Bible nowhere talks about
salvation in terms of us accepting
Christ, or our making a decision
for Christ !

It's "call to Himself".

In salvation, God accepts us ...NOT the
other way around !


From the Calvinist (Reformed and/or
Presbyterian) viewpoint, it's an
Acts 2:38-39 thing: Baptism is a
"promise" God makes to the Elect.
What matters most being our Election
...NOT so much our profession of faith.

If the person isn't elect, then baptism
is totally meaningless for them.

Whereas, if the person is Elect, then
the "promise" God makes in baptism
carries over to when they're eventually
converted.

(Posted by Datar at)