Yes, as we do accept the validity of others water baptism IF was done as a believers baptism, but the "disputed" one would be say as infant baptism in catholic or lutheryn church , as would then expect a believers baptism as would not accept validity of first one , That would just be in were seeking membership
What do we think about Tim Keller?
- Thread starter Devout_Christian
- Start date
This was pretty much Martin Luther's thinking as well even though he believed you could actually fall from grace.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 12,863
- Reaction score
- 3,335
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
The phrase "We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone" is commonly attributed to Luther--and it's certainly consistent with his theology.
And yet the person who said that, more or less verbatim, was actually Calvin, in response to the Council of Trent.
I wish the reader to understand that as often as we mention Faith alone in this question, we are not thinking of a dead faith, which worketh not by love, but holding faith to be the only cause of justification. (Galatians 5:6; Romans 3:22.) It is therefore faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone: just as it is the heat alone of the sun which warms the earth, and yet in the sun it is not alone, because it is constantly conjoined with light.
--John Calvin, Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote, Canon 11. Source
--John Calvin, Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote, Canon 11. Source
Good catch! Eph 4:5 says "one Lord, one faith, ONE BAPTISM (for emphasis, not shouting) and some use this as criticism towards Baptists who will often "Re-Baptize" those who were baptized as babies or whatever. We can get into semantics over what makes a baptism valid but I believe the "One Baptism" part should be taken seriously and a church should carefully examine all Baptism candidates and knock off all of the "Dunking and Re-dunking" (Pray a prayer, get dunked, have doubts, pray another prayer, get dunked again, etc.) And I am thinking specifically of bus kids who often made a game out of "getting dunked" every week! It also begs the question as to whether God is actually into everyone always jumping around from church to church. You usually "Transfer by letter" so the new church understands you were previously baptized and left in good standing. Some churches keep good records while others do not.
I would mostly agree with Augustine's definition of a sacrament being an "Outward visible sign of an inward and invisible grace" and I guess we could argue over the terminology (ordinances vs sacraments). I am a Baptist so I therefore use the term "Ordinance" but have no problem with some of my reformed friends using "Sacrament" so long as it is biblically defined. Being a good Baptist, I am duty bound to accept (for membership purposes) only baptism by immersion but personally, I have no problem with someone who was "sprinkled" or "poured" under the right conditions (Presby, Lutheran, Dutch Reformed, etc. not raised in the church coming to faith as an adult = believer's baptism). By recognizing their baptism (even if I disagree with the mode), I am recognizing that they were, in fact, baptized by a legitimate local NT Church having proper authority to baptize!
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 12,863
- Reaction score
- 3,335
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Which is why I went with "sacrament, properly defined." Calvin believed in two sacraments, baptism and the Lord's supper--the same things we would call "ordinances." would agree with Augustine that a sacrament was an outward sign. It was not (as Catholics and other sacramentalists would say) the means of receiving justifying grace, but a badge or a mark testifying to God's grace that one has received.
By calling those rituals "ordinances," we emphasize that we are doing something that is commanded, over and against the Catholic view that they are objective means of receiving grace. Calvin was trying to tread a line between erroneously confusing the symbol and the substance (making the sacraments themselves the source of grace) and completely separating them (making the sacraments mere testimonies or memorials). I think Calvin more or less had it right. The water or Eucharistic elements don't confer grace in and of themselves, but I'm not sure we can say nothing supernatural happens when we partake of them.
I agree in theory with the so-called "age of accountability" in so as one is consciously aware of the "things which are clearly seen" along with Rom 5:13 and 7:9. What I would adamantly disagree with is setting a definitive "age" at which such takes place. This is different one from another. I was quite aware of my "sin" at an early age (preschool) but I did not understand the Gospel and come to a saving faith until I was 18. I was baptized at 20 but even then I didn't fully understand the implications so I did not take it as seriously as I probably should've.
Our church does not baptize children either but we are also not in a hurry to baptize anybody. Our Pastoral leadership baptizes two, maybe three times a year and baptismal candidates go through training sessions taught by the pastor where he uses the time to thoroughly examine those who are presenting themselves for baptism. I fully agree with and appreciate this approach. It is not that we would not baptize a child and teens are often baptized. Its just that you should take the time to ensure the child truly has their faith settled and when a child can give a clear testimony regarding the hope that is in them, I would not forbid them from being baptized. My daughter "Professed Christ" at the age of four and we were in a Church that encouraged kids to get dunked! 20/20 hindsight, I really wish we would've waited until she was more "settled" in her faith and it was HER IDEA (her desire) to be baptized.
Me too, but I also like the way that RC Sproul put it saying it is not the "Perseverence of the Saints but the Perseverence of God!" God is the one who keeps you from falling and if you "Didn't do nothin' to get it, you certainly can't do nothing to lose it" but if you are truly God's, you will also have his mark of "ownership" on you meaning that God ain't about to let his children run around all crazy like all of the other Hellions in the world!
I have also had discussions with rabid anti-Calvinists during my seminary time where they look at passages in Romans and Ephesians in light of "Corporate Election" where God supposedly "Elects his Church" but not necessarily the individual believers in the church (their words, not mine!) and I answered back saying if you are going to be consistent, perhaps you should also adopt the "Governmental Theory of Atonement" whereby the atonement is applied to all who are "in the church" but you can also freely leave the same way you came in! Someone (Ransom, I believe) said that Arminians who believe they can fall from grace are more consistent in their position than such "OSAS, Free-Willy Babtists!"
Suffer the little children to come to Him, and forbid them not.
And that we did. We were also in a culture where we got them "dunked" as soon as we could. I call this practice into question.
Perhaps you are a "Paedobaptist" who would baptize their baby whether they wanted to or not? Not going to debate this but simply point out that such brings about its own issues (I.E., presuming to be "elect" simply beause you are in the 'covenant' rather than making one's calling and election sure).
On the other side, there are far too many in Baptist Churches who think they are "saved" simply because Once upon a time, they "Prayed a Prayer" and were later dunked and have no biblically based tangible evidence of a genuine conversion!
Both need to be better addressed and rightfully confronted.
Think still some confusion on my side for how Reformed Non Baptists see the Sacraments, as they tend to be using verbiage and terms and descriptions that seem to be granting to them some measure of some kind of effectual gracing, as still cannot get from my reformed friends difference in sight of god in a spiritual sense between a baptized and non baptized infant?
Our church has the new member take a 6 hour welcome to our church, going over by laws, theology, membership etc, and also have interviews by elders as to their confession of faith in Christ now
Ah, good ole Elect in the Son: A Study of the Doctrine of Election by Robert Shank!
God only knows how many folks were sprinkled or dipped as a baby, or alter called as an adult and yet still died lost in their sins
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 12,863
- Reaction score
- 3,335
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
I assume that Reformed people other than Reformed Baptists (e.g. Christian Reformed, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, etc.; those in the Calvinist/Geneva tradition) follow John Calvin on the issue. He taught that there is no danger to the child of Christians if baptism is withheld; they are still within God's covenant promise. Calvin was no baptismal regenerationist, and in response to their teaching, he says,
We nowhere read of [Christ] having condemned him who was not yet baptised.... By assenting to their fiction, we should condemn all, without exception, whom any accident may have prevented from procuring baptism.... Let them now consider what kind of agreement they have with the words of Christ, who says, that “of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 19:14). (Calvin, Institutes IV.16.26.)
Baptism is the sign of regeneration, but not itself the means of regeneration, which is the Holy Spirit:
Therefore, as to baptise with the Holy Spirit, and with fire, is to confer the Holy Spirit, who, in regeneration, has the office and nature of fire, so to be born again of water, and of the Spirit, is nothing else than to receive that power of the Spirit, which has the same effect on the soul that water has on the body. (Institutes IV.16.25).
Rather, the sin is in withholding baptism to infants: "it is not less applicable to children than to those of more advanced years, and that, therefore, they cannot be deprived of it without manifest fraud to the will of its divine Author" (Institutes IV.16.8).
We would notdoubt their salvation, but in order to be a member, would require adult baptism
Which highlights difference between reformed Baptist and other reformed, as we see the New Covenant only instituted and valid with those who are actually in the NC, based upon them having received Jesus as savior and lord thru faith in him , and thus qualified for water Baptism
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 12,863
- Reaction score
- 3,335
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Other reformed are consistent in that they see the New Covenant as an extension of the Old, and hence baptism is for New Covenant children in the same way as circumcision was for Old Covenant children.
The logic is actually sensible. I happen to disagree with it. (Sorry, folks who thought I was Presbyterian. I attended a United Church of Canada in my early teens before they all went super-liberal, but I never absorbed their theology.)
As Baptists, we see the New Covenant as spiritual rather than physical; as circumcision was the sign of inclusion in the Old Covenant following one's physical birth, baptism is the sign of inclusion in the New Covenant following the new birth. We're consistent, too, just in a different (and more correct) way.
I don't know about "adult" baptism but we would certainly want their baptism to follow a legitimate profession of faith.
The subject of baptism can get convoluted and if one was a Presbyterian, I would be curious to know whether they would accept Roman Catholic Baptism as being legitimate (actually looking for an answer here)?
It is my understanding that anyone coming into the Presbyterian Church and is "Of Age," they will be baptized under the same circumstances as one who presents themselves for baptism in a Baptist Church. I would therefore be inclined to accept such a baptism if they were to later affilliate themselves with a Baptist congregation but of course there is the issue as to the mode. Presbys baptize either by pouring or immersion so is it important that I inquire of the "Mode" of baptism or should it be if they don't tell me, neither should I ask? I am speaking from a personal standpoint here and am duly bound to whatever our Church Constitution has to say on the matter.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 12,863
- Reaction score
- 3,335
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Generally, Presbyterian denominations--I'm thinking in particular of the CREC, OPC, and PCA--would accept any Trinitarian water baptism, because the validity of the sacrament depends on the Word and the Spirit rather than the orthodoxy of the minister. There may be some local sessions within those denominations that would reject Roman Catholic baptisms because the Roman church is apostate.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2019
- Messages
- 1,376
- Reaction score
- 608
- Points
- 113
The Presbyterian Church in America (conservative, not to be confused with the liberal Presbyterian Church USA) recommends against acceptance of Roman Catholic baptisms, even though they are Trinitarian:
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 12,863
- Reaction score
- 3,335
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Interesting. Can you document that? (It looks like you meant to.) I was under the impression that the PCA's official position was that baptism was a once-for-all sacrament, and thus any valid baptism--something like Trinitarian, performed with water, with the minister intending it to be Christian baptism--was not to be redone.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2019
- Messages
- 1,376
- Reaction score
- 608
- Points
- 113
Yes, I meant to document it, but my desktop temporarily went on strike. Here is the documentation:
"In its historical survey, the Committee found that with one exception the General Assemblies of American Presbyterian churches where making a judgment on the matter have taken the position of non-validity for Roman Catholic baptism. . . .
"Just as we have not received members by letter of transfer from the Roman Catholic Church because we do not believe it to be a true church, so we should not receive its baptism, which we acknowledge admits one into the visible church (Westminster Confession of Faith, xxviii, 1) as a true and valid baptism. . . .
"That the Assembly adopt the following recommendations with respect to Roman Catholic baptism: A. that the General Assembly counsel that the baptism of those churches that have so degenerated from the Gospel of Christ as to be no churches of Christ (cf., Westminster Confession of Faith, xxv, 5; e.g., Unitarian, Mormon, Roman Catholic) is not to be regarded as valid Christian baptism . . . "
The question of re-baptism poses a dilemma for Presbyterians, Lutherans, Roman Catholics and other denominations - in theory, yes, they regard baptism as a once-for-all sacrament, not to be redone. In practice, they sometimes reject baptisms that are non-Trinitarian or otherwise defective, which require a do-over. A few years ago, there was a big fuss among the Roman Catholics in Arizona who felt that they had to re-baptize some of their own parishioners, because the RC priest who originally baptized them had spoken the wrong formula.
www.fox10phoenix.com
Over the centuries, Roman Catholics have derided Baptists as "Ana-baptists" for requiring a re-baptism of those baptized as infants or in another denomination. However, in certain circumstances, RCs as well as Presbyterians have sometimes re-baptized, in apparent contradiction to their own principles against re-baptism.
"In its historical survey, the Committee found that with one exception the General Assemblies of American Presbyterian churches where making a judgment on the matter have taken the position of non-validity for Roman Catholic baptism. . . .
"Just as we have not received members by letter of transfer from the Roman Catholic Church because we do not believe it to be a true church, so we should not receive its baptism, which we acknowledge admits one into the visible church (Westminster Confession of Faith, xxviii, 1) as a true and valid baptism. . . .
"That the Assembly adopt the following recommendations with respect to Roman Catholic baptism: A. that the General Assembly counsel that the baptism of those churches that have so degenerated from the Gospel of Christ as to be no churches of Christ (cf., Westminster Confession of Faith, xxv, 5; e.g., Unitarian, Mormon, Roman Catholic) is not to be regarded as valid Christian baptism . . . "
The question of re-baptism poses a dilemma for Presbyterians, Lutherans, Roman Catholics and other denominations - in theory, yes, they regard baptism as a once-for-all sacrament, not to be redone. In practice, they sometimes reject baptisms that are non-Trinitarian or otherwise defective, which require a do-over. A few years ago, there was a big fuss among the Roman Catholics in Arizona who felt that they had to re-baptize some of their own parishioners, because the RC priest who originally baptized them had spoken the wrong formula.
Arizona Catholic priest resigns over wrongly-used word during baptism; what you should know about the mix-up
A priest has resigned from a Catholic church in Phoenix after it was determined he incorrectly performed thousands of baptisms for decades by changing one word.
Over the centuries, Roman Catholics have derided Baptists as "Ana-baptists" for requiring a re-baptism of those baptized as infants or in another denomination. However, in certain circumstances, RCs as well as Presbyterians have sometimes re-baptized, in apparent contradiction to their own principles against re-baptism.