IMB & Baptism on True Baptism

[seekingpurity047]

I am a member at a Baptist Church now, but I was baptized at a non-denominational charismatic church by immersion. The Baptists saw it as valid.

Even though I may be a baptist, I'm not that extreme when it comes to baptism. However, I do believe that the Roman Catholic baptism to be invalid (I guess the same would go with eastern orthodox) seeing as most of that has turned into family tradition rather than raising them in the faith.

However, I'm still trying to figure out what my position on baptism is. I'm pretty open to infant baptism now, as I'm open to the Baptist position. I'd have to say that I agree with John Piper on his motion to allow paedobaptists to be members without having to be re-baptized (I'm assuming that these people were probably of the presbyterian church or christian reformed or the like). Of course, I would support the re-baptism of a Roman Catholic person who was saved later on in life and not raised in a christian home.

To the glory of God,

Randy

 

[seekingpurity047]

Nope. Assemblies of God is definitely Trinitarian. I used to be one! You're thinking of the Oneness Pentecostals. They go by that name, and there are many others, so confusion is understandable.




I guess I would be another. I always thought paedo-baptism was strictly a Catholic thing. It's only in the last few years that I've been exposed to covenant theology. I'm not 'converted' to paedo-baptism (yet, maybe!) but I'm no longer opposed, either.

Seems like we are in the same boat, GD.

 

[Imblessed]

I am a member at a Baptist Church now, but I was baptized at a non-denominational charismatic church by immersion. The Baptists saw it as valid.

Even though I may be a baptist, I'm not that extreme when it comes to baptism. However, I do believe that the Roman Catholic baptism to be invalid (I guess the same would go with eastern orthodox) seeing as most of that has turned into family tradition rather than raising them in the faith.

However, I'm still trying to figure out what my position on baptism is. I'm pretty open to infant baptism now, as I'm open to the Baptist position. I'd have to say that I agree with John Piper on his motion to allow paedobaptists to be members without having to be re-baptized (I'm assuming that these people were probably of the presbyterian church or christian reformed or the like). Of course, I would support the re-baptism of a Roman Catholic person who was saved later on in life and not raised in a christian home.

To the glory of God,

Randy

I'm still questioning the validity of the RCC infant baptism myself. I would encourage a re-baptism if that person had been baptised as an infant but not raised in a christian home(I know there are a lot of non-practicing catholics out there who baptise their kids because "they're supposed to" but never really step foot in a catholic church after that.....) However, if the person had been raised in the Catholic faith--going to mass regularly and all that, but then became Baptist, I'm not sure that a re-baptism is necessary, if that same person is ok with it. I know there are quite a few former Catholics in our church, and most of them have elected to be baptised as believers. I guess I'd have to say it's a personal decision.

 

[Bernergirl]

In my baptism class, there was a number of people who were baptized as infants, but felt that they had accepted Jesus much later in life and wanted to do a believer's baptism now that they really were believers. The instructor/elder himself had been baptized at age seven (and almost drowned in the process because the lady who baptized him didn't know just how to do it - we had a pre-baptism instruction to make sure that didn't happen for any of us... ) and hadn't really known what he was doing. He stressed the point, however, that once you are a believer and have been baptized, that's it. Baptism is a one time only thing. Infant baptism, etc. he called "an unbeliever getting wet."


My cousin says her BF has been baptized three times.

 

[arunma]

I am a member at a Baptist Church now, but I was baptized at a non-denominational charismatic church by immersion. The Baptists saw it as valid.

Even though I may be a baptist, I'm not that extreme when it comes to baptism. However, I do believe that the Roman Catholic baptism to be invalid (I guess the same would go with eastern orthodox) seeing as most of that has turned into family tradition rather than raising them in the faith.

However, I'm still trying to figure out what my position on baptism is. I'm pretty open to infant baptism now, as I'm open to the Baptist position. I'd have to say that I agree with John Piper on his motion to allow paedobaptists to be members without having to be re-baptized (I'm assuming that these people were probably of the presbyterian church or christian reformed or the like). Of course, I would support the re-baptism of a Roman Catholic person who was saved later on in life and not raised in a christian home.

This brings up an interesting issue. What about a Roman Catholic or Orthodox who was infant baptized and raised in a religious home? Would you say that this baptism is valid?

Anyway, I agree with you that any infant baptism that isn't followed up by genuine Christian upbringing is meaningless. It isn't just the Catholics, either. Here in Minnesota, Lutheranism is ubiquitous. But unfortunately, it has also become more culture than religion. A lot of people are baptized in the Lutheran church by semi-believing parents, and then not raised as Christians. I would consider such a baptism to be likewise worthless.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

This brings up an interesting issue. What about a Roman Catholic or Orthodox who was infant baptized and raised in a religious home? Would you say that this baptism is valid?

This is a good question. A number of my fellow Reformed friends and brethren here South Louisiana were baptised in the Roman Catholic Church. (As was Calvin, Luther and all the Reformers) My best friend, a number of members at Bethel PCA church in Lake Charles, La. (myself included) were baptised in the Roman Catholic Church.

I would NOT submit to re-baptism, because it would be a denial of my baptism.

Anyway, I agree with you that any infant baptism that isn't followed up by genuine Christian upbringing is meaningless. It isn't just the Catholics, either. Here in Minnesota, Lutheranism is ubiquitous. But unfortunately, it has also become more culture than religion. A lot of people are baptized in the Lutheran church by semi-believing parents, and then not raised as Christians. I would consider such a baptism to be likewise worthless.

Were Old Covenant Jew's, who were brought in homes that were only margianly Jewish, still recognised as Israelites? Outwardly yes.

I believe baptism is a covenant action that changes ones status forever. It is like marriage. If you get married, whether your "really meant it" or not does not matter, you still remain marrried.

Before the covenant ritual of marriage you are single; after the ceremony you are married and will never be single again. You may be divorced or widowed, but you will never be "single" again.

Baptism is a serious covenant act.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[AndOne]

Okay - I may be going out on a limb here (thats where the fruit is though) - but I stand with the Free Presbyterian Church (www.freepres.org/main.asp) on this issue. From their articles of faith:

"Baptism -- The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, under Christ the Great King and Head of the Church, Realizing that bitter controversy raging around the mode and proper subjects of the ordinance of Christian baptism has divided the Body of Christ when that Body should have been united in Christian love and Holy Ghost power to stem the onslaughts and hell-inspired assaults of modernism, hereby affirms that each member of the Free Presbyterian Church shall have liberty to decide for himself which course to adopt on these controverted issues, each member giving due honor in love to the views held by differing brethren, but none espousing the error of baptismal regeneration."

 

[Bernergirl]

But unfortunately, it has also become more culture than religion. A lot of people are baptized in the Lutheran church by semi-believing parents, and then not raised as Christians. I would consider such a baptism to be likewise worthless.

I'd have to say you hit the nail on the head there. For example, my aunt was baptized as an infant in the Lutheran church, then raised in a churchless home by an athiest father and a... well I don't know what Grandma considers herself. My aunt is now pagan.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Okay - I may be going out on a limb here (thats where the fruit is though) - but I stand with the Free Presbyterian Church (www.freepres.org/main.asp) on this issue. From their articles of faith:

"Baptism -- The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, under Christ the Great King and Head of the Church, Realizing that bitter controversy raging around the mode and proper subjects of the ordinance of Christian baptism has divided the Body of Christ when that Body should have been united in Christian love and Holy Ghost power to stem the onslaughts and hell-inspired assaults of modernism, hereby affirms that each member of the Free Presbyterian Church shall have liberty to decide for himself which course to adopt on these controverted issues, each member giving due honor in love to the views held by differing brethren, but none espousing the error of baptismal regeneration."

Hey Behe,

That is a very interesting statement. I likely agree with them. I do believe that the Church needs to say what it believes to be biblical about baptism, but I do not believe that lay members must hold to that position (though they must have a trinitarian baptism) to be a member.

At Bethel, where I came to my understanding of Reformed Christianity, all officers had to agree to the Westminster Standards to be ordained to office, but this was not required of Church members.

We are Presbyterian, but it is Christ's Church and not our church. We can not restrict membership in Christ Church that He did not place there. To be an officer you must not only repent and believe on Christ Jesus, but you must also be sound in doctrine. Therefore officers, have agree with the correctness of paedobaptism, but you do not need to adhere to this view to be a member and come under the authority of the elders.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[AndOne]

Hiya Kenneth -

Yea - it is interesting indeed. They are a seperate denomination than say the PCA or PCUSA - so I'm fairly certain that this would not affect positions within church leadership...

 

[seekingpurity047]

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]

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]

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]

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........

 

[lmnop9876]

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]

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_]

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]

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]

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]

God bless!