Can a Reformed/Calvinist be a Credobaptist?

[Striver]

That's my question: can a Reformed/Calvinist be a Credobaptist?

I'm not asking this with the intention of turning it into a debate over paedo vs credo. I came across a couple schools of thought within Reformed/Calvinist circles that say you cannot be truly Reformed or Calvinist unless you also accept the church governance and paedobaptism of the WCF and other confessions. For those of you who are of this persuasion, is this a true statement?

Thanks.

 

[ALoveDivine]

Well I believe what the bible says over the views of any particular confession of faith. The bible clearly says that baptism, by immersion, is for repentant believers only. I can find no scriptural justification for infant baptism whatsoever.

The whole point of the reformation was to return to the true principles of the Christian faith as revealed in scripture. As soon as the 'reformed' faith deviates from this and starts holding to doctrines of men, it ceases to be truly reformed. A genuine reformed theology out to base itself firmly and completely upon the word of God alone.

 

[AMR]

There is no restriction on a "5-point Calvinist" for either view.

For the label "Reformed", the traditional and historical view has always been paedo-baptistic.

Can Baptists Be Reformed?

 

[Nova Scotian Boy]

I agree with AMR on this one.

 

[Anoetos]

Ditto AMR

 

[AMR]

The bible clearly says that baptism, by immersion, is for repentant believers only. I can find no scriptural justification for infant baptism whatsoever.

Start here and consider the good and necessary consequences of what we can infer from Scripture.

 

[Striver]

Very enlightening on the subject, thanks. I had always considered Reformed = Calvinist in my mind, maybe as type of default. Many of the people I have talked with and the articles I read suggested similar, but there seems to be some confusion on that subject probably on my end as well as within certain aspects of Reformed or Calvinistic believers. The above article is more in line with what I have read/heard lately.

I don't really quibble with reasonable church government where there is Scriptural justification, but I am unable to accept the position of paedobaptism. I don't think it worth debating or rehashing here out of respect for the forum rules and brothers and sisters in Christ. My goal was just to answer original questions. I truly doubt I'll ever leave the Baptistic fold on that one.

Appreciate the straight answer to my question, fellas!

 

[twin1954]

Start here and consider the good and necessary consequences of what we can infer from Scripture.

The link does a disservice to ther Baptist view. It misrepresents the Baptist view altogether. The Baptist view is that baptism is a picture of and identifying with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Age of accountability, or whatever they called it(Age of discretion), has no bearing on Baptist thought concerning baptism.

"Good and necessary consequence" has given us more than just the error of infant baptism.

 

[DeaconDean]

There is no restriction on a "5-point Calvinist" for either view.

For the label "Reformed", the traditional and historical view has always been paedo-baptistic.

Can Baptists Be Reformed?

I add:

Are Baptists Reformed?

I was educated in Reformed Theology by Dr. James Willingham, Phd., D. Minn.

While I agree to most of what the Reformers taught, in the case of baptism and the Lord's Supper, I do not.

The Reformers sprinkle for baptism just like the Catholic Church does. They brought this unscriptural practice with them from Catholicism. At the time of the Reformation, and even today, the Reformers admitted that immersion was the practice of the churches in the New Testament, but they sprinkle for baptism anyway. Reformed people tell us that sprinkling is as good as dipping for baptism, but Baptists ask, "Will you please show us that in the Scriptures?" The Reformers practice infant baptism. They brought this with them from the Catholic Church. Reformed people say all Christian parents should have their babies sprinkled. Baptists ask, "Will you please show us that in the Scriptures?" There is not a trace of infant baptism to be found in the New Testament. Scriptural, New Testament baptism is adult baptism. Nothing more clearly departs from the New Testament model than infant baptism. Baptists rejected these errors, and insist on believers baptism and baptism by immersion only, and we will not accept sprinklings or baptisms of infants as scriptural baptisms. Baptists demand that those who come desiring to join us from Reformed denominations which practice these errors be rebaptized or scripturally baptized.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[koalabear1987]

While I agree to most of what the Reformers taught, in the case of baptism and the Lord's Supper, I do not.

Do you maintain the 5 points of Calvinism?

 

[DeaconDean]

Do you maintain the 5 points of Calvinism?

Yes, I adhere to the T.U.L.I.P. outline.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

There is no restriction on a "5-point Calvinist" for either view.

For the label "Reformed", the traditional and historical view has always been paedo-baptistic.

Can Baptists Be Reformed?

Bingo!

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

While I agree to most of what the Reformers taught, in the case of baptism and the Lord's Supper, I do not.

I still love you and accept you as a brother in Christ, and a Calvinist worth reading and listening to. I respect our differences (which I've been on both sides of) and refuse to allow them to effect our fellowship. We have too much in common to get all caught up in what little we disagree on. That's how I feel about the differences between Presbyterians and Calvinistic Baptists. I can feel just as "at home" sitting in Calvinistic Baptist Church as I can sitting in Presbyterian Church.

 

[DeaconDean]

I still love you and accept you as a brother in Christ, and a Calvinist worth reading and listening to. I respect our differences (which I've been on both sides of) and refuse to allow them to effect our fellowship. We have too much in common to get all caught up in what little we disagree on. That's how I feel about the differences between Presbyterians and Calvinistic Baptists. I can feel just as "at home" sitting in Calvinistic Baptist Church as I can sitting in Presbyterian Church.

Please don't misunderstand me.

My mother's father, John F. Sanders Sr., was a ruling elder in Glenwood Assocated Reformed Presbyterian Church here in Charlotte, No. Carolina for over fourty years. He was also a dispensationalist.

A lot of what I know I owe to this great and humble man.

As far as I have been able to find out, John Calvin never rejected his Catholic baptism.

And as far as I know, the Presbyterian method of Communion, as far as I was told, is similar to the Lutheran belief (Consubstaniation), except that Presbyterians do not believe that a measure of grace is metted out upon partaking of communion.

I read an article where it was said Presbyterians believe that Christ is spiritually present in the bread and wine, but, where Lutherans believe grace is imparted, Presbyterians don't.

This is in my opinion, nothing more than consubstaniation "lite".

All the elements of Lutheranism, but without the grace.

And that, I cannot accept.

Now don't hold me to that, I may well be entirely wrong.

If I have misunderstood and this means that Christ is present in the sevice rather than the elements, then I do owe this area a big apology.

But as a Baptist, I cannot adhere to prado-baptism. Its just not according to my convictions.

I always said that if I could not be a Baptist, the next best thing would be Presbyterianism.

I can adhere to the tenats of the T.U.L.I.P. outline, and still maintain my Baptist integrity.

Most of the giants of Baptist theology held to the T.U.L.I.P. outline.

If I have over-stepped my bounds, please forgive me.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[AMR]

And as far as I know, the Presbyterian method of Communion, as far as I was told, is similar to the Lutheran belief (Consubstaniation), except that Presbyterians do not believe that a measure of grace is metted out upon partaking of communion.

Lutherans and Presbyterians are very different on their views of the presence of the Lord at the Supper.

 

[DeaconDean]

Lutherans and Presbyterians are very different on their views of the presence of the Lord at the Supper.

I'm not gonna argue with you brother, I know what happens to people here who argue with the chaplians.

I said that I read an article stating that Presbyterians viewed the Lord's Supper in the fashion as Lutherans do, Christ is spiritually present.

I think I also said:

I may well be entirely wrong.

And just one question:

It is stated at PresbyterianMission.org that Communion "seals" our redemption:

Through the sacraments God seals believers in redemption

What do Presbyterians believe about Communion? Presbyterians Today Magazine Mission and Ministry Presbyterian Mission Agency

I thought my redemption was signed, sealed, and delivered by Jesus' precious shed blood for me.

Now I learn that communion seals my redemption?!?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Eddie L]

I thought my redemption was signed, sealed, and delivered by Jesus' precious shed blood for me.

Now I learn that communion seals my redemption?!?

God Bless

Till all are one.

Dean, you're taking the explanation too far. The article very clearly states that the sacraments are an outward sign, bringing to memory the reality of God's promises to believers.

If we are united to God through faith, and the sacraments provide -- through a visible sign -- a means for our faith to grow, then they are sealing our redemption by holding us fast to God. They are not works. They are not requirements. They are simply very graphic and physical pictures of the promises of God that become a means of grace to help us visualize and cement our faith to God in Christ.

If you attempt to see what the article is communicating, instead of trying to find some combination of words that in another context could mean something different, then you'll see that Presbies do not think of sacraments as works.

 

[DeaconDean]

Dean, you're taking the explanation too far. The article very clearly states that the sacraments are an outward sign, bringing to memory the reality of God's promises to believers.

If we are united to God through faith, and the sacraments provide -- through a visible sign -- a means for our faith to grow, then they are sealing our redemption by holding us fast to God. They are not works. They are not requirements. They are simply very graphic and physical pictures of the promises of God that become a means of grace to help us visualize and cement our faith to God in Christ.

If you attempt to see what the article is communicating, instead of trying to find some combination of words that in another context could mean something different, then you'll see that Presbies do not think of sacraments as works.

With all due respect, my granfather was a ruling elder in the Presbyterian church, my mother was born, raised, baptized, and catechized in the Presbyterian church, so as Lynard Skynard said "I know a little" about Presbyterianism.

And myself admitted how many times already:

I may well be entirely wrong.

Now where did I meantion it (Communion) being a work?

The statement was made:

I believe that Christ is spiritually present in the Eucharist. I believe that there is grace imparted because the Lord has given us the chance to partake in His supper and that is spiritually strengthening.

And I even came in on your side saying:

So as long as you cling to:

my belief that Christ is spiritually present in the Eucharist

Outside of Cathoicism, you will not be accepted in quite a few of the Protestant faiths.

​

​

And I was told:

Ah, unsure about the "impart" distinction, but Presbyterians believe grace is actually conferred in the sacraments. It is not conferred by the elements, but by the Spirit.

So it is true that, as far as I have been told by a certain member here in this area, that a measure of grace is metted out each time we partake in communion.

Please, please, don't misunderstand me. I am just going off what I read, and what I have personally been told in this area, by members I know, love, and respect, that area of the Reformed Presbyterian faith.

And here again, with certian exceptions, I have said over and over again, I could have been a Presbyterian if it weren't for their convictions on baptism and communion.

I don't believe or accept "sprinkling" for baptism, nor do I accept the "spiritual presence" in the elements of communion, and I do not accpt or believe that we receive a measure of grace from partaking in communion.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry I disturbed the peace and harmony of this thread with my Reformed Baptist views.

I shall now excuse myself and just ask that you good people forgive my shortcomings.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Eddie L]

Dean,

If you don't believe there is any spiritual value (strengthening, the receipt of grace, etc.) in Water Baptism and Communion, then what do you think those two things are for?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Please don't misunderstand me.

My mother's father, John F. Sanders Sr., was a ruling elder in Glenwood Assocated Reformed Presbyterian Church here in Charlotte, No. Carolina for over fourty years. He was also a dispensationalist.

A lot of what I know I owe to this great and humble man.

Thank you for sharing, the only Presbyterian heritage I know of, in my family is that my mom attended a local PCUSA Church as a teenager, and had a bad experience there. According to my mom, she got saved in a Baptist Church. She has always been a fine example of how to live the faith to me.

Presbyterian and dispensational....interesting combination....Covenential dispensationalism?!

As far as I have been able to find out, John Calvin never rejected his Catholic baptism.

And as far as I know, the Presbyterian method of Communion, as far as I was told, is similar to the Lutheran belief (Consubstaniation), except that Presbyterians do not believe that a measure of grace is metted out upon partaking of communion.

I read an article where it was said Presbyterians believe that Christ is spiritually present in the bread and wine, but, where Lutherans believe grace is imparted, Presbyterians don't.

This is in my opinion, nothing more than consubstaniation "lite".

All the elements of Lutheranism, but without the grace.

And that, I cannot accept.

Now don't hold me to that, I may well be entirely wrong.

I won't hold you to it, I recommend reading or perhaps re-reading in your case, book IV Chapters 14 - 17 of Calvin's Institutes.

subsections of Chapter 17:

"12. Second part of the chapter, reduced to nine heads. The transubstantiation of the Papists considered and refuted. Its origin and absurdity. Why it should be exploded.

13. Transubstantiation as feigned by the Schoolmen. Refutation. The many superstitions introduced by their error.

14. The fiction of transubstantiation why invented contrary to Scripture, and the consent of antiquity. The term of transubstantiation never used in the early Church. Objection. Answer.

15. The error of transubstantiation favoured by the consecration, which was a kind of magical incantation. The bread is not a sacrament to itself, but to those who receive it. The changing of the rod of Moses into a serpent gives no countenance to Popish transubstantiation. No resemblance between it and the words of institution in the Supper. Objection. Answer.

16. Refutation of consubstantiation; whence the idea of ubiquity.

17. This ubiquity confounds the natures of Christ. Subtleties answered.

18. Absurdities connected with consubstantiation. Candid exposition of the orthodox view.

19. The nature of the true presence of Christ in the Supper. The true and substantial communion of the body and blood of the Lord. This orthodox view assailed by turbulent spirits."

I can provide quotes from the sub-section if desired.

If I have misunderstood and this means that Christ is present in the sevice rather than the elements, then I do owe this area a big apology.

But as a Baptist, I cannot adhere to prado-baptism. Its just not according to my convictions.

I understand where you're coming from, I've only been a paedobaptist for a few years, believed as you do for most of my life, and I respect the disagreement.

I always said that if I could not be a Baptist, the next best thing would be Presbyterianism.

I really appreciate that, and in the same way, in the past, I've thought to myself if I cannot be a Presbyterian, the next best thing would be Calvinistic Baptist.

I can adhere to the tenats of the T.U.L.I.P. outline, and still maintain my Baptist integrity.

Most of the giants of Baptist theology held to the T.U.L.I.P. outline.

If I have over-stepped my bounds, please forgive me.

I have a great deal of respect and appreciation for Calvinistic Baptists, especially the giants, like C.H. Spurgeon....oh that the Church had a Spurgeon today...

I don't feel you've over-stepped my brother, God bless and keep you in Jesus name, and everybody said....