The Baptist View of Baptism Destroys the Meaning of Baptism

[Albion]

Well, I can offer this one addition thought after all. One of the persons I referred to explained to me the theological POV underlying her decision (which seemed to me in line with the Baptistic idea of ordinances rather than sacraments, baptism as a symbol of something already done, etc. etc.), and also explained that she had been a member for many years and that the stance was not unusual among Baptists.

I do not take it, therefore, that what she very firmly stated was misunderstood by me or that it came from someone who did not know her own church and its theology very well.

 

[fhansen]

The Reformed view of baptism captures the meaning of baptism much better. Seeing an infant who has no ability to repent and believe be baptized testifies to us that regeneration is an act of God alone which does not require man's participation.

But this just renders baptism ineffective then, or pretty much worthless because the infant won't necessarily be regenerated anyway. In the past, baptism was always considered to be Christ's will. As with other human actions God isn't bound to require that action in every case, but expects obedience to His commands to the extent that we love Him, have knowledge of His will, and are physically capable of obeying it.

 

[Tree of Life]

But this just renders baptism ineffective then, or pretty much worthless because the infant won't necessarily be regenerated anyway. In the past, baptism was always considered to be Christ's will. As with other human actions God isn't bound to require that action in every case, but expects obedience to His commands to the extent that we love Him, have knowledge of His will, and are physically capable of obeying it.

Baptism is effective even in the cases when the baptized infant is never regenerated. That's because its efficacy does not consist in its ability to regenerate, but in its ability to assure the faithful that they are, indeed, regenerate. Baptism is not a private event, but a public event. All faithful observers benefit from the baptisms they observe.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

I suspect that most Baptist conventions expect members to be baptized for all the reasons you know. But the question asked was if there are any churches in which members refuse baptism, period, and the church is all right with that.

I personally have known a few Baptists who fit the description and had discussions with them about it, but of course there are so many different Baptist conventions, etc. that the answer may depend upon which one they belonged to. One of these people was SBC as I recall, but that is all I can add.

I've been in two FEBCC churches and one KBC church. It wasn't just that the denominations wanted people to participate in the ordinances. The people themselves were so dedicated.

 

[His student]

Baptism is a sign and seal of regeneration. Regeneration is a saving act of God wherein man is totally passive. God removes the heart of stone and gives him a heart of flesh. Man cannot regenerate himself nor participate in his own regeneration. Baptism is an outward sign of regeneration. That is its meaning...............

I don't believe that baptism is primarily a sign and seal of regeneration as you say it is although the fact that one has been regenerated may well be a part of what is signified by baptism.

Baptism signifies one's death to the old world you were originally born into and the rebirth into the Kingdom of God.

That birth into the Kingdom finally comes about through the hearing and acceptance of the Word of God.

"... you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God." 1 Peter 1:23

It does not come about through regeneration - even though (apparently from the scriptures) one must be so regenerated by God's Spirit before he or she can be born again by understanding the gospel preached to them and responding to that Word.

Your life in this world was not generated through your birth. Your birth was the inevitable result of your having been generated beforehand. That was an act shrouded in secrecy and mystery. Likewise is your spiritual "regeneration".

Your birth, on the other hand - was a time of rejoicing for everyone concerned.

Likewise should it be with your spiritual birth. It's should appropriately be open and laid bare for the world to see.

"for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." Romans 10:10

It is the same with the rebirth by being "born again" as the Lord puts it as it was for your original birth. There is a reason why He chose that metaphor.

Baptism is primarily a picture of the rebirth process – not of regeneration.

It symbolizes repentance (or death to the things of the old world) - our lives being hidden in Christ through His death – identification with the resurrection of Jesus Christ showing His sacrifice being acceptable to God – and our coming forth into a new world as a completely blood washed child of God - never again to die in our spirit.

I suppose that there is nothing inherently wrong with infant baptism - since apparently whole families were baptized in the N.T. record (such as the case of the Philippian jailer and his family).

But such infant baptism cannot adequately show forth the time when one is born again by the living and abiding Word of God. For that to be the case - there must have been personal time when the person believed the Word, died to the old world, and began a new life in the Kingdom of God.

Thus - IMO - re-baptism is not only appropriately allowed. It is desirable in the life of every truly born again Christian.

I suppose the Lord will have to sort us all out when He comes again for judgment.

But it has been my experience that - having been an active elder for many years in the lukewarm (to be charitable) Presbyterian Church and having taken a strong stand against the errors of the Catholic church for most of my life - many of those baptized as infants in the so called church never do come to the point of being born again.

But that's probably a subject for another thread.

 

[Tree of Life]

Baptism is primarily a picture of the rebirth process – not of regeneration.

 

[His student]

No reason to scratch your head.

I was very clear.

Many Christians are imprecise when it comes to understanding and explaining what the Lord meant by being "born again".

He chose that symbol for a reason and we need to be precise in explaining why He chose it and how to apply it in our doctrine concerning salvation.

As a theologian who generally subscribes to and teaches what is known as Reformed theology - I believe that one must be regenerated by the Spirit before he or she can believe and be saved.

I see that you too are "Reformed". It won't do for us to be vague about the mechanics of salvation - vis-a-vis regeneration and it's relationship to being born again by hearing and believing the gospel.

All too often we are confronted with "straw men" when we are accused of believing that one is saved by our election and regeneration alone. That simply isn't true and your presentation in some ways plays right into those false charges.

Frankly - although I believe on biblical grounds in allowing infant baptism - the Baptist view of what is symbolized by baptism is more accurate that that of many Reformed. I say "many" because a great many in Reformed churches, as with many Roman Catholics, haven't the foggiest idea why they subscribe to what they supposedly do.

 

[Tigger45]

No not at all. It is far more than a symbol. But it only benefits those who have faith. Those who do not believe in Christ cannot benefit from the sacraments.

Seems to me that faith is a gift of God Ephesians 2:8 yet an infant may not have the mental capacity to believe.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

Seems to me that faith is a gift of God Ephesians 2:8 yet an infant may not have the mental capacity to believe.

So you equate faith with intellectual assent?

 

[Tigger45]

So you equate faith with intellectual assent?

Absolutely not, that's 'why' faith is a gift of God and not necessarily accompanied by intellectual assent. Therefore an infant, anyone with mental limitations or any of us with our fallen and darkened state of being can't conceive of the things of God by our own abilities.

 

[fhansen]

Baptism is effective even in the cases when the baptized infant is never regenerated. That's because its efficacy does not consist in its ability to regenerate, but in its ability to assure the faithful that they are, indeed, regenerate. Baptism is not a private event, but a public event. All faithful observers benefit from the baptisms they observe.

Ok? I'm not sure how that works. Baptism is of benefit for the observers? And it assures us of regeneration even if it involves one who we can't be sure has been regenerated?

 

[Tree of Life]

Ok? I'm not sure how that works. Baptism is of benefit for the observers?

Yes. It is certainly also to the benefit of the one baptized, but they cannot realize the benefit until they are old enough to think about the meaning of baptism.

And it assures us of regeneration even if it involves one who we can't be sure has been regenerated?

Yes. It assures all the regenerate that they are regenerate.

 

[His student]

....... That's because its efficacy does not consist in its ability to regenerate, but in its ability to assure the faithful that they are, indeed, regenerate.

It assures all the regenerate that they are regenerate.

Actually that's the problem with the general idea of baptism without a personal confession of faith - in whatever so called church it is practiced.

I.e. - many have come to consider themselves to be among those regenerated when there has been no reason exhibited in their life that they have been so regenerated.

 

[Tree of Life]

Actually that's the problem with the general idea of baptism without a personal confession of faith - in whatever so called church it is practiced.

I.e. - many have come to consider themselves to be among those regenerated when there has been no reason exhibited in their life that they have been so regenerated.

Baptism does not encourage unregenerate people to think that they are regenerate simply because they are baptized. Rather, it encourages regenerate people to think that because they believe they are indeed regenerate.

 

[fhansen]

Yes. It is certainly also to the benefit of the one baptized, but they cannot realize the benefit until they are old enough to think about the meaning of baptism.

Yes. It assures all the regenerate that they are regenerate.

Ok, well, I'm sure that's some benefit to having that reassurance. But as far as the efficacy of baptism it sounds like you're saying that it may or may not mean anything to the baptized infant. Wouldn't regeneration take place prior to and with or without baptism in your view?

In Catholic teaching salvation is both an individual and a corporate thing. Acts 16 comes to mind as well as Col 1:24, etc. The faith of the community is said to fill in for the infant until they're old enough to consider the baptismal vows-and ultimately see how well they live them and a life of faith out for themselves-or not.

 

[Tree of Life]

Ok, well, I'm sure that's some benefit to having that reassurance. But as far as the efficacy of baptism it sounds like you're saying that it may or may not mean anything to the baptized infant. Wouldn't regeneration take place prior to and with or without baptism in your view?

Regeneration takes place with or without baptism but not necessarily prior to. For most baptized infants their regeneration will take place much later in life.

In Catholic teaching salvation is both an individual and a corporate thing. Acts 16 comes to mind as well as Col 1:24, etc. The faith of the community is said to fill in for the infant until they're old enough to consider the baptismal vows-and ultimately see how well they live them and a life of faith out for themselves-or not.

I don't have any problem with that.

 

[His student]

Baptism does not encourage unregenerate people to think that they are regenerate simply because they are baptized. Rather, it encourages regenerate people to think that because they believe they are indeed regenerate.

To those who have been born again - knowledge of their rebirth through believing the Word of God includes the doctrine which says that they have been regenerated prior to that rebirth.

No so with baptism. Many are baptized who have never been regenerated - let alone show the fruit of that regeneration by their being being born again.

What makes all the difference is in the definition of what it means to "believe".

Many "believe" on Christ who have not experienced been born again. To them baptism symbolizes something which may not have happen (regeneration) rather than something which they know has happened because it happen consciously through believing in and resting in the gospel (being born again).

 

[GodsGrace101]

Baptism is a sign and seal of regeneration.

Regeneration is a saving act of God wherein man is totally passive. God removes the heart of stone and gives him a heart of flesh. Man cannot regenerate himself nor participate in his own regeneration. Baptism is an outward sign of regeneration. That is its meaning.

But baptists say that only adults may be baptized because only adults have the ability to understand the gospel, repent, and believe. This emphasizes not God's monergistic action in regenerating a person, but man's response to God and his participation in his salvation.

The Reformed view of baptism captures the meaning of baptism much better. Seeing an infant who has no ability to repent and believe be baptized testifies to us that regeneration is an act of God alone which does not require man's participation.

So DM, what exactly are you saying?
That every baby that is baptized is going to heaven?

 

[Tree of Life]

So DM, what exactly are you saying?
That every baby that is baptized is going to heaven?

Not at all.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Not at all.

Oh. Ok. That explains everything.