Are Differing Views on Baptism Worth Dividing Over?

[Apologetic_Warrior]

It seems the primary dividing line between various Reformed believers (Presby - Baptists especially) pertains to views of Baptism. Forgive me, but I have never understood, why the differences are so important, so as to divide over, to forsake unity among fellow Reformed believers. So I ask the question, please explain to me, help me understand, why or why not?

Also, are there any other alternatives that could be enforced to preserve unity? For example, simplifying the doctrine to the point of agreement. Kind of like the "Apostle's Creed".

 

[amanneredfool]

Lot's of emotion involved when folk begin discussing the covenant of grace, the children of believing parents and baptism.

 

[Hammster]

Most of the folk I've crossed paths with that believe in paedobaptism understand that we see things differently. And while it's fun to gave a lively debate, there is certainly no need to divide.

However, I have noticed a small, bit seemingly growing, faction among some that basically want to kick credos out of the reformed camp over this and other issues. Since we don't agree whole-heartedly with Calvin on ecclesiology, we shouldn't even call ourselves reformed. They see reformed baptist as almost an oxymoron. It's a bit troubling.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Most of the folk I've crossed paths with that believe in paedobaptism understand that we see things differently. And while it's fun to gave a lively debate, there is certainly no need to divide.

However, I have noticed a small, bit seemingly growing, faction among some that basically want to kick credos out of the reformed camp over this and other issues. Since we don't agree whole-heartedly with Calvin on ecclesiology, we shouldn't even call ourselves reformed. They see reformed baptist as almost an oxymoron. It's a bit troubling.

I think you nailed a couple of the problems, one not directly related to baptism though. Confessional Presbyterians, agree and adhere to WCF, and (Calvinistic) Confessional Baptists, agree and adhere to LBC. I have not done an in-depth study and comparison of them on the issue of Baptism, but I imagine they differ.

I guess it does present a problem...just how strictly, to what extent, and with how much authority will we cling to our confessions?

Personally, I am not of the mindset one must agree with Calvin 100% to be a Calvinist, or to be Reformed...the term did not even originate with Calvin. Perhaps another issue is in what people consider to be the "majors" and the "minors" of the faith. If it gives you any comfort, not to boast or anything, but I am a Presbyterian who lovingly and wholeheartedly embraces my Reformed Baptist brothers and sisters in Christ. I prefer to keep my focus on areas where we have agreement.

 

[JustAsIam77]

Paul said to mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine we have learned and avoid them. Rom. 16:17

I agree with you AW, I think this is one of those issues not worth dividing over.

 

[drjean]

For the most part, no, no reason. Only when someone skips the confession to Jesus and goes directly to baptism for salvation is a divide for me. Most people who did become baptized as part of their salvation experience will share (upon questioning) that they accepted Christ first (genuine salvation) and then were told they had to be baptized.

 

[heymikey80]

The problem is that differing views on baptism often go along with differing views on the construction and organization of the church.

Baptist churches generally follow a modern idea of the church, one which is largely based on John Locke's idea of shifting alliances forming separate organizations.

Presbyterian churches often have to follow that line from a practical view, but theologically Presbyterianism doesn't see church that way.

In modern times Presbyterian churches have (I think rightly) concluded that credobaptism is not a view worth dividing over -- but it does continue to be a variant viewpoint with the Confession.

Baptist practice tends to emphasize the difference by not accepting infant baptism as a baptism, even among adults who were baptized as infants.

 

[JM]

Yes, I believe it is. The proper administration of the ordinances are marks of the church. If a church fails to administer the ordinances according to scripture, this goes both ways as Reformed Christians believe Baptists are wrong for not baptizing infants, they suffer from a lack of discipline.

The comment about Locke is simply not true. Baptists do not follow Locke who was about 10 years old when the 1644 London Baptist Confession was penned. Those who penned the 44' were around to sign the 89' as well. That dog don't hunt. There are many groups in history, some pronounced heretical by Roman state churches, that believed what Baptists believe concerning the church.

 

[heymikey80]

Locke's Religious Toleration: 1689

"I say it is a free and voluntary society. Nobody is born a member of any church; otherwise the religion of parents would descend unto children by the same right of inheritance as their temporal estates, and everyone would hold his faith by the same tenure he does his lands, than which nothing can be imagined more absurd. Thus, therefore, that matter stands. No man by nature is bound unto any particular church or sect, but everyone joins himself voluntarily to that society in which he believes he has found that profession and worship which is truly acceptable to God."

London Confession: 1689

"Such saints willingly consent to walk together according to the appointment of Christ, giving themselves up to the Lord and to one another, according to God's will, in avowed subjection to the ordinances of the Gospel."

It's either an obvious sign of the thinking of the times, or Locke's idea.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Yes, I believe it is. The proper administration of the ordinances are marks of the church. If a church fails to administer the ordinances according to scripture, this goes both ways as Reformed Christians believe Baptists are wrong for not baptizing infants, they suffer from a lack of discipline.

I can only speak for myself, but I've been on both sides of the fence on baptism. I spent most of my years as a Christian with a "believer's baptism" view, and administered by "immersion". I understand the importance of baptism, however I believe there are ways a minister could keep the peace with people holding either view. Some Churches hold baptism ceremonies in the Church, but in my experiences of baptism, both times I was baptized outside Church walls, the first time at 8 years old dunked in a private swimming pool, the second time at 21 or 22 years old in a public lake, and besides the pastor, just family as witnesses from what I can remember (one of my cousin's daughter also baptized on the same day).

I think it is ok for Presby's and Baptists to think the other is wrong on the issue, but it doesn't have to be an open argument, it can be a silent disagreement, and administered by a minister in harmony with their view, in private or public outside of Church walls.

The mark of the Church should be love for God and neighbor, and especially fellow believers in Christ. Another important mark of the Church should be progressive sanctification in the life of a believer (brought about by God the Holy Spirit, the work of God the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers). Another mark should be humility, which involves spiritual warfare with one's own pride and sin.

As far as I know, both Baptists and Presby's believe that baptism, though an act of obedience, and commanded by the Lord, is also symbolic, and by that I mean, neither Baptists nor Presby's believe as the Lutherans do, that it is "the cause of salvation", aka "baptismal regeneration", which is not to say the Lord our God could not regenerate a person through the act of baptism, but that no man can force the hand of God to spiritually regenerate a soul through a physical act, the choosing of (and time of) salvation belongs still to God.

 

[JM]

It's either an obvious sign of the thinking of the times, or Locke's idea.

lol, which is it? You are trying to cause doubt in this area of doctrine by creating a false dilemma and reading into history what isn't there. We can rule out that it isn't Locke's idea by reading the following:

First London Baptist Confession of Faith - 1643

33. Jesus Christ hath here on earth a manifestation of His spiritual kingdom, which is His Church, whom He hath purchased and redeemed to Himself as a peculiar inheritance; which Church is a company of visible saints, called and separated from the world by the word and Spirit of God, to the visible profession of faith of the gospel, being baptized into that faith, and joined to the Lord, and each other, by mutual agreement in the practical enjoyment of the ordinances commanded by Christ their head and king. Matthew 11:11; 2 Thessalonians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 1:2; Ephesians 1:1; Romans 1:7; Acts 19:8, 9, 26:18; 2 Corinthians 6:17; Revelation 18:4; Acts 2:37, 10:37; Romans 10:10; Matthew 18:19, 20; Acts 2:42, 9:26; 1 Peter 2:5.

35. And all His servants of all estates are to acknowledge Him to be their prophet, priest and king; and called thither to be enrolled among His household servants, to present their bodies and souls, and to bring their gifts God hath given them, to be under His heavenly conduct and government, to lead their lives in this walled sheepfold, and watered garden, to have communion here with His saints, that they may be assured that they are made meet to be partakers of their inheritance in the kingdom of God; and to supply each others wants, inward and outward; and although each person hath a propriety in his own estate, yet they are to supply each others wants, according as their necessities shall require, that the name of Jesus Christ may not be blasphemed through the necessity of any in the Church and also being come, they are here by Himself to be bestowed in their several order, due place, peculiar use, being fitly compact and knit together according to the effectual working of every part, to the edifying of itself in love. Acts 2:41, 47; Isaiah 4:3, 1 Corinthians 12:6, 7, etc.; Ezekiel 20:37, 40; Song of Solomon 4:12; Ephesians 2:19; Romans 12:4, 5, 6; Colossians 1:12, 2:5, 6, 19; Acts 20:32, 5:4, 2:44, 45, 4:34, 35; Luke 14:26; 1 Timothy 6:1; Ephesians 4:16.
​

We also know that freedom of conscience was found in history before the formation of the English Baptists and Locke. A quick reading of the historic Mennonite and Anabaptist confessions and writings will prove this. I haven't gone back further then Martin Luther but will try to do so when time permits.

Martin Luther:

“Unless I am convinced by Scripture or by clear reasoning that I am in error – for popes and councils have often erred and contradicted themselves – I cannot recant, for I am subject to the Scriptures I have quoted; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. It is unsafe and dangerous to do anything against one’s conscience. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. So help me God. Amen.”

“It is with the Word that we must fight, by the Word we must overthrow and destroy that which has been set up by violence. I will not make use of force against the superstitious and unbelieving… liberty is the very essence of Faith… I will preach, discuss and enlighten; but I will constrain none, for Faith is a voluntary act… I have stood up against the pope, indulgences and papists, but without violence or tumult. I put forward God’s Word; I preached and I wrote – this was I all I did, the Word did all… God’s Word should be allowed to work alone… it is not in my power to fashion the hearts of men… I can get no further than the ears; the hearts I cannot reach. And since I cannot pour faith into their hearts, I cannot, nor should I, force anyone to have faith. That is God’s work alone, who causes faith to live in the heart… we should preach the Word, but results must be left solely to God’s good pleasure.”

It should now be obvious that Locke was influenced by the Reformation and non-conformists and not the other way around.

 

[heymikey80]

The issue wasn't involved in freedom of conscience, but in the construction of the church.

Locke's point was that common consent set the boundaries on the organization, and the London Confession consisted churches on that basis as well. Then that the organizations persuade each to their causes. This is entirely reflected in the methods of English Baptists today, yes.

Now if you happen to have something that would address the statements, that'd be great. Otherwise, claiming that it's an attempt to do something different from what was intended, trying to imply an agenda that the assertion does not have -- pointing one finger points three at yourself.

 

[JM]

First London Baptist Confession of Faith - 1643

33. Jesus Christ hath here on earth a manifestation of His spiritual kingdom, which is His Church, whom He hath purchased and redeemed to Himself as a peculiar inheritance; which Church is a company of visible saints, called and separated from the world by the word and Spirit of God, to the visible profession of faith of the gospel, being baptized into that faith, and joined to the Lord, and each other, by mutual agreement in the practical enjoyment of the ordinances commanded by Christ their head and king. Matthew 11:11; 2 Thessalonians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 1:2; Ephesians 1:1; Romans 1:7; Acts 19:8, 9, 26:18; 2 Corinthians 6:17; Revelation 18:4; Acts 2:37, 10:37; Romans 10:10; Matthew 18:19, 20; Acts 2:42, 9:26; 1 Peter 2:5.

35. And all His servants of all estates are to acknowledge Him to be their prophet, priest and king; and called thither to be enrolled among His household servants, to present their bodies and souls, and to bring their gifts God hath given them, to be under His heavenly conduct and government, to lead their lives in this walled sheepfold, and watered garden, to have communion here with His saints, that they may be assured that they are made meet to be partakers of their inheritance in the kingdom of God; and to supply each others wants, inward and outward; and although each person hath a propriety in his own estate, yet they are to supply each others wants, according as their necessities shall require, that the name of Jesus Christ may not be blasphemed through the necessity of any in the Church and also being come, they are here by Himself to be bestowed in their several order, due place, peculiar use, being fitly compact and knit together according to the effectual working of every part, to the edifying of itself in love. Acts 2:41, 47; Isaiah 4:3, 1 Corinthians 12:6, 7, etc.; Ezekiel 20:37, 40; Song of Solomon 4:12; Ephesians 2:19; Romans 12:4, 5, 6; Colossians 1:12, 2:5, 6, 19; Acts 20:32, 5:4, 2:44, 45, 4:34, 35; Luke 14:26; 1 Timothy 6:1; Ephesians 4:16.
​

We also know that freedom of conscience was found in history before the formation of the English Baptists and Locke. A quick reading of the historic Mennonite and Anabaptist confessions and writings will prove this. I haven't gone back further then Martin Luther but will try to do so when time permits.

Martin Luther:

“Unless I am convinced by Scripture or by clear reasoning that I am in error – for popes and councils have often erred and contradicted themselves – I cannot recant, for I am subject to the Scriptures I have quoted; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. It is unsafe and dangerous to do anything against one’s conscience. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. So help me God. Amen.”

“It is with the Word that we must fight, by the Word we must overthrow and destroy that which has been set up by violence. I will not make use of force against the superstitious and unbelieving… liberty is the very essence of Faith… I will preach, discuss and enlighten; but I will constrain none, for Faith is a voluntary act… I have stood up against the pope, indulgences and papists, but without violence or tumult. I put forward God’s Word; I preached and I wrote – this was I all I did, the Word did all… God’s Word should be allowed to work alone… it is not in my power to fashion the hearts of men… I can get no further than the ears; the hearts I cannot reach. And since I cannot pour faith into their hearts, I cannot, nor should I, force anyone to have faith. That is God’s work alone, who causes faith to live in the heart… we should preach the Word, but results must be left solely to God’s good pleasure.”

It should now be obvious that Locke was influenced by the Reformation and non-conformists and not the other way around.

You are missing the point mikey. Locke is speaking about freedom of conscience just like the quotes from Luther and confessions I posted...so if you have something else to add, that'd be great, otherwise stop reading into Locke what you want to see and stop ignoring the obvious.

 

[heymikey80]

[/FONT]


You are missing the point mikey. Locke is speaking about freedom of conscience just like the quotes from Luther and confessions I posted...so if you have something else to add, that'd be great, otherwise stop reading into Locke what you want to see and stop ignoring the obvious.

No, you're missing the point, JM. Locke is also speaking about how churches are organized, just like the quotes from Locke that I posted, and his view is not shared with Luther or the quotes you've posted ... so if you have something else to qualify my point that'd be great, otherwise start reading Locke for what he said and stop ignoring the obvious.

 

[JM]

Again, which is it? Was it Locke following the thought of the Baptist or the Baptist following Locke? You are drawing a false conclusion, a very weak and pathetic conclusion. The Anabaptists 100 years before thought voluntary church membership as well...according to you conclusion this means that what you are alluding to is incorrect at its premise. You have also not given a reference for your quote and have taken it out of context considering the other points in article 26.

Would you like to see people forced into a church and commanded by the magistrate to worship? Is that biblical? Of course it isn't. Locke could not have invented the idea. I get what you're driving at, that Baptist doctrine is a product of the Enlightenment, but you haven't made a convincing argument. You have made no argument at all! Posting two quotes and claiming "Baptists follow Locke" is just bad logic for I know of no Reformed church that forces Christians to attend its services.

A more effective argument could be made that Dispensationalism is the red headed step child of Reformed "covenant child" doctrine made so popular during the 1800's...since both believe and teach, considering the timing both doctrines came into prominence, that child of believers are covenant child by virtue of birth. Would you force an unbelieving child of believing parents to attend a church when they are adults? Your posts are pointless since we both know the answer to that question.

 

[heymikey80]

Again, which is it? Was it Locke following the thought of the Baptist or the Baptist following Locke? You are drawing a false conclusion, a very weak and pathetic conclusion. The Anabaptists 100 years before thought voluntary church membership as well...according to you conclusion this means that what you are alluding to is incorrect at its premise. You have also not given a reference for your quote and have taken it out of context considering the other points in article 26.

Again shy of the point.

I couldn't care less whether it's Locke's point or the anabapists' point. I said it was Locke's idea simply to distinguish it.

Who cares which hit on this idea? As long as it wasn't Jesus' idea of the church' organization, then it's not the organization of Jesus' church.

And extremism about concepts of the church that are equally unBiblical doesn't help the anabaptists. That's just missing the excluded Christian concept of church.

So, please: demonstrate that this concept of the church is how Jesus wants His people subdivided. Please go on.

 

[JM]

So, please: demonstrate that this concept of the church is how Jesus wants His people subdivided.

You are a shifty one.

Baptist churches generally follow a modern idea of the church, one which is largely based on John Locke's idea of shifting alliances forming separate organizations.

You made this assertion and I responded and you have not proved it. Are you now retracing it?

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Yes it's a big deal. I believe that baptism is an outward symbol of an inward reality done as a public profession of faith in Christ. I personally believe that infant baptism is nothing but a waste of water and time. But the Presbyterians think it promises the kid salvation which is really no better than claiming that baptism regenerates like the Romans and Lutherans claim. So, it is a huge division.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Yes it's a big deal. I believe that baptism is an outward symbol of an inward reality done as a public profession of faith in Christ. I personally believe that infant baptism is nothing but a waste of water and time. But the Presbyterians think it promises the kid salvation which is really no better than claiming that baptism regenerates like the Romans and Lutherans claim. So, it is a huge division.

Interesting, I am a Presbyterian, and believe in infant baptism, but I do not believe it is a guarantee that when the infant becomes an adult, they will be saved (any more than a circumcised Israelite child would live in the promised land, or that circumcision of children guaranteed they would have the faith of Abraham). I once had the same misconception though, and I imagine there are some Presbyterians whom have grown up to believe that, but I do not, and have not come to that conclusion from my readings on the subject in Scripture, Confessions, or in writings by giants of the faith. I have found baptismal regeneration in Lutheran writings though, and written plain as day.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Interesting, I am a Presbyterian, and believe in infant baptism, but I do not believe it is a guarantee that when the infant becomes an adult, they will be saved (any more than a circumcised Israelite child would live in the promised land, or that circumcision of children guaranteed they would have the faith of Abraham). I once had the same misconception though, and I imagine there are some Presbyterians whom have grown up to believe that, but I do not, and have not come to that conclusion from my readings on the subject in Scripture, Confessions, or in writings by giants of the faith. I have found baptismal regeneration in Lutheran writings though, and written plain as day.

If one doesn't believe baptism does something then there is no reason to baptize an infant. If it doesn't do anything then why not let each individual decide if he wants to be baptized or not? The Westminster confession (the one the Presbyterians confess)claims that baptism holds a promise of grace and a real exhibition of it.

VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.[17]

Basically I think this is just an area where the Presbyterians and all of the other Protestant churches still clinging to infant baptism simply didn't reform enough to be on par with scripture.

Westminster Confession of Faith