Why can't believers baptism be construed as monergistic for Reformed baptists?

[Jacque_Pierre22]

Lutherans often say that the reason why they baptize infants is also because it's monergistic, since babies can't rationally believe according to Calvinists. However, Lutherans still would say that receiving the Lord's Supper is also something God does for us, but babies don't receive communion. By the same logic then , babies should take communion in Lutheranism but they don't. But what I was thinking was that, rather than seeing Baptism as a work, why don't baptists emphasize baptism as a monergistic act of justification or sanctification? Also why do Lutherans have a problem with people being baptized multiple times while communion is a weekly occurrence? I'm interested in what Reformed baptists think.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

I'm maybe not quite either "reformed" enough or "baptist" enough, though I'm accepted among various English baptists and miscellaneous "reformed", so I'd like to have a go. From what I've read, according to some (though not all) of the EO, the three "initiatory" sacraments have been in a mess (due to essentialism), and more so in the West, since before Augustine.

While we all have common Trinitarian baptism, "communion" is not analogous between one assembly or denomination and the next. But would people in all traditions not think that the jewish and christian communion ceremony was envisaged as being celebrated (if at all) more than once? Baptism to the Holy Trinity is an entry into a life fully began right away. I imagine reformed baptists as well as Lutherans, would hint along these lines, perhaps without pondering the implications however.

I think an essentialist view of the baptism ceremony (and "communion") clashes with some of the tenets that have got added onto monergism. I see that quite a lot of protestants generally fail to distinguish prior works (in the sole effort of flesh) from subsequent works (Holy Spirit strengthened) - and devalue the fruits, not only in the lives of children from christian families deemed below baptising age or "allowed to be born again age", but all adults too.

If this is a pitfall whatever one's sacramental practices, but commonly reinforced by the ways doctrine is presented, Lutherans may see a weakness in reformed baptists and reformed baptists one in Lutherans. This pitfall is however surely the cause of thinking the "kingdom of heaven" is not among us but only in future dispensations.

 

[9Rock9]

Lutherans often say that the reason why they baptize infants is also because it's monergistic, since babies can't rationally believe according to Calvinists. However, Lutherans still would say that receiving the Lord's Supper is also something God does for us, but babies don't receive communion. By the same logic then , babies should take communion in Lutheranism but they don't. But what I was thinking was that, rather than seeing Baptism as a work, why don't baptists emphasize baptism as a monergistic act of justification or sanctification? Also why do Lutherans have a problem with people being baptized multiple times while communion is a weekly occurrence? I'm interested in what Reformed baptists think.

Well, baptism is described in the Bible as a one time event, while we are told to observe communion repeatedly. Baptism is meant to signify one's entrance into the covenant, whether salvation occurs at or before baptism is the point of contention between denominations. To be baptized multiple times would be relaying a foundation.