What do we think about Tim Keller?

[Baptist Renegade]

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.

And such would lend credence to the position of many Baptist congregations who accept nothing else aside from a Baptist baptism!

I would not accept a Roman Catholic baptism due to the fact that they believe their baptism (administered by the Roman Catholic Church) is "Regenerative" meaning they believe that baptism literally washes away your sins and makes you "Christian." Presbys and other reformed folk do not believe paedobaptism to confer any sort of grace but merely puts them "in the covenant." I disagree with such a position but would relegate such to "Intra-Varsity Debate" where we could enjoy some lively discussion over a few pints or so!

I see that Illinoisguy has also chimed in with some information so this would make for some good discussion. If a candidate for membership came from a PCA or OPC background, I would probably accept his or her baptism without question barring any constitutional verbiage in the particular church of which I was serving. If they were PCUSA, I believe I would have to inquire further.

 

[Baptist Renegade]

Yes, I meant to document it, but my desktop temporarily went on strike. Here is the documentation:

PCA Position Papers: Baptism - Appendix P - Report of the Study Committee on Question Relating to the Validity of Certain Baptisms (1987)

www.pcahistory.org

"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.

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 such a case, they would have to agree with Baptists that their prior "baptism" was no baptism at all! Baptists don't believe in "Re-baptism" either, just that any baptism prior to an actual saving faith (regeneration) is no baptism at all.

I can appreciate the desire not to get into any erroneous or "Donatist" thinking but I would not accept any "baptism" that was thought to be "regenerative" (saving) in nature.

If on the on the other hand, one was to come to me and tell me that they were baptized by immersion by Dave Hyles or some other unregenerative reprobate of his ilk, I would accept such as being valid (unlike the Donatists) due to the fact that it was performed for the right reason under the right circumstances and having nothing to do with the administrator. Simple nuff?

 

[illinoisguy]

Many Baptist churches would not accept Presbyterian baptisms for various reasons, including that they are mostly administered by sprinkling. That would be my position. Some groups, like the Free Presbyterians (Ian Paisley) baptize by immersion as well as sprinkling, but such a church would not be regarded by strict Baptists as being of "like faith and practice" since immersion is optional, so they would not accept immersions from such a group.

Yes, Renegade, you are correct that most of us strict fundies would accept an immersion by an administrator who turned out to be unsaved, as long as that administrator was duly authorized by a church of like faith and practice. In that regard, we are in agreement with the Roman Catholic position on that issue, as opposed to the Donatists in that controversy which goes back to the 4th Century in North Africa.

Going back to the RC baptisms in Arizona that were declared to be null and void, that brings up an interesting point. According to RC doctrine, infants are saved, regenerated, born again, whatever we call it, as a result of a valid, properly administered infant baptism. However, no RC church member can be sure that his/her baptism was valid, with the priest using the proper verbiage. If the priest stumbled over the words and got it wrong, then the baptism was invalid and the "baptizand" was not saved!!! The improperly baptized church members in Arizona were invited to seek proper baptism and get it right, but what if some of them died before they had the chance to get it taken care of? According to RC doctrine, they must have gone to hell. OOPS!

Not only that, but according to RC doctrine, the priest must have the proper "intention" when performing the baptism, or else it is not valid. How does that baby know, after he grows up, that his baptism was valid and that he is saved? There is no way for him to know that. Cardinal Bellarmine said, "No one can be certain, with the certainty of faith, that he has received a true sacrament, since no sacrament is performed without the intention of the ministers, and no one can see the intention of another." (Works, Volume I, p. 488)

Former RC priest Joseph Zacchello wrote, "This teaching implies that no Roman Catholic, be he priest or laymen, can ever be sure that he has been properly baptized, confirmed, absolved in confession, married, received holy communion or extreme unction. . . .

"Suppose a child is baptized by a priest who lacks the proper intention. The baptism is then of no avail, and the child grows up a pagan. If he should enter a seminary and be ordained a priest, his ordination will be invalid. All the thousands of masses he says, all the sacraments he performs, will likewise be invalid.

"If he becomes a bishop, the priests he ordains and the other bishops he consecrates will have no such power. If by chance he should become pope, the Roman Catholic Church would then have as 'Vicar of Christ' and 'infallible' head a man who was not even a Christian to start with!"
(Secrets of Romanism, p. 110)

 

[Ransom]

PCA Position Papers: Baptism - Appendix P - Report of the Study Committee on Question Relating to the Validity of Certain Baptisms (1987)

Aha. I was aware of that, but also the minority report with the dissenting opinion, and I was under the impression that it was more in line with mainstream PCA thinking. Not that I have a dog in the fight on either side, of course.

 

[Baptist Renegade]

Many Baptist churches would not accept Presbyterian baptisms for various reasons, including that they are mostly administered by sprinkling. That would be my position. Some groups, like the Free Presbyterians (Ian Paisley) baptize by immersion as well as sprinkling, but such a church would not be regarded by strict Baptists as being of "like faith and practice" since immersion is optional, so they would not accept immersions from such a group.

Paul Chappell will not accept any other baptism aside from a "Baptist" baptism and such a position keeps the "baptismal waters" stirring in every service.

The crazy thing about it though is that he probably wouldn't consider someone's baptism in a Charismatic or non-denominational setting (believer's baptism by immersion) as being "illegitimate so he would need to answer the question as to why he is "Re-Baptizing someone who has already been baptized?" I know that he would argue that it is in the name of "doctrinal purity" but is it scriptural to baptize someone who has already been baptized? If not, what does this say of said "doctrinal purity" of which he is trying to maintain?

Note also that I am speaking of a legitimate baptism that proceeds a genuine profession of faith, not any "dunkings" or whatever that may have occurred prior to such a conversion!

Perhaps someone could ask him and report back here? If I ever see him around, perhaps I will ask him myself! It would be interesting to hear his answer if he were gracious to give us one. I do believe this is a legitimate question that anyone in a pastoral or church leadership position ought to be asking!

 

[illinoisguy]

There are many conservative Baptist churches with a policy that they will not accept baptisms from any group that they do not recognize as a true church. To be specific, if they would not grant one of their own members a "letter of good and regular standing" to dismiss that member to join another church that is charismatic or otherwise questionable, then they will not accept baptism from such a church.

It would be inconsistent for them to say "we accept baptisms from that church, thus signifying that we recognize them as a true church" but then turn around and say "we do not approve of our members transferring to that church because we do not recognize them as a true church."

We may or may not agree with such a policy, but we can respect the fact that these churches are just trying to be consistent with their own convictions. These churches are accused of just trying to run up their baptismal statistics, and in some cases that is absolutely true, but not in all cases.

 

[JesusFan]

There are many conservative Baptist churches with a policy that they will not accept baptisms from any group that they do not recognize as a true church. To be specific, if they would not grant one of their own members a "letter of good and regular standing" to dismiss that member to join another church that is charismatic or otherwise questionable, then they will not accept baptism from such a church.

It would be inconsistent for them to say "we accept baptisms from that church, thus signifying that we recognize them as a true church" but then turn around and say "we do not approve of our members transferring to that church because we do not recognize them as a true church."

We may or may not agree with such a policy, but we can respect the fact that these churches are just trying to be consistent with their own convictions. These churches are accused of just trying to run up their baptismal statistics, and in some cases that is absolutely true, but not in all cases.

The thorny issue in that case would be reformed churches, as they do uphold trinity, Gospel, just differ on view of water baptism mode and when to use it

 

[Baptist Renegade]

There are many conservative Baptist churches with a policy that they will not accept baptisms from any group that they do not recognize as a true church. To be specific, if they would not grant one of their own members a "letter of good and regular standing" to dismiss that member to join another church that is charismatic or otherwise questionable, then they will not accept baptism from such a church.

It would be inconsistent for them to say "we accept baptisms from that church, thus signifying that we recognize them as a true church" but then turn around and say "we do not approve of our members transferring to that church because we do not recognize them as a true church."

We may or may not agree with such a policy, but we can respect the fact that these churches are just trying to be consistent with their own convictions. These churches are accused of just trying to run up their baptismal statistics, and in some cases that is absolutely true, but not in all cases.

I know things tend to get convoluted here and I was not insinuating any "ulterior motive" on Chappell's part. I do believe he is acting according to his conscience and have no reason to think otherwise.

But as you are saying here and based upon my own observations, I would acknowledge a PCA Presbyterian church long before I would acknowledge most "Charismatic" churches as being a legitimate "Church." If I had to choose between a PCA Presbyterian and an "A of G" congregation, I would go PCA without hesitation.

I know that the PCA would acknowledge my "Baptist Baptism" just fine but what about the Reformed Baptists (1689 rather than WCF)? Would a Reformed Baptist congregation recognize a PCA Presby baptism if the mode were by immersion (which is often an option)? I am thinking they likely would but I guess I am a little more "lib-rul" in my thinking that the legitimacy of the church should take precedence over their mode of baptism and yes, I also acknowledge that I would probably never put such thinking into practice in any Baptist church of which I am affilliated.

 

[illinoisguy]

There is a wide spectrum of policies among Baptists, with regard to what baptisms should or should not be accepted. "Alien immersion" is the technical term for baptisms that are not regarded as acceptable, but few Baptists talk about it any more. We may regard the policies of some churches as too narrow, but we should accept their right to set their own standards (not that we have any choice - each congregation is an autonomous, sovereign entity). I cannot speak for Reformed Baptists, but the one Reformed Baptist preacher that I know personally would accept Presbyterian baptism.

 

[Baptist Renegade]

There is a wide spectrum of policies among Baptists, with regard to what baptisms should or should not be accepted. "Alien immersion" is the technical term for baptisms that are not regarded as acceptable, but few Baptists talk about it any more. We may regard the policies of some churches as too narrow, but we should accept their right to set their own standards (not that we have any choice - each congregation is an autonomous, sovereign entity). I cannot speak for Reformed Baptists, but the one Reformed Baptist preacher that I know personally would accept Presbyterian baptism.

I have heard discussion among Presby's and Reformed Baptists that the two could actually have "communion" one with another if the subject of baptism was settled. I have heard some lectures on "Refnet" concerning this.

I started another thread on this subject entitled "Alien Baptism." Perhaps the conversation should continue there?

 

[JesusFan]

I know things tend to get convoluted here and I was not insinuating any "ulterior motive" on Chappell's part. I do believe he is acting according to his conscience and have no reason to think otherwise.

But as you are saying here and based upon my own observations, I would acknowledge a PCA Presbyterian church long before I would acknowledge most "Charismatic" churches as being a legitimate "Church." If I had to choose between a PCA Presbyterian and an "A of G" congregation, I would go PCA without hesitation.

I know that the PCA would acknowledge my "Baptist Baptism" just fine but what about the Reformed Baptists (1689 rather than WCF)? Would a Reformed Baptist congregation recognize a PCA Presby baptism if the mode were by immersion (which is often an option)? I am thinking they likely would but I guess I am a little more "lib-rul" in my thinking that the legitimacy of the church should take precedence over their mode of baptism and yes, I also acknowledge that I would probably never put such thinking into practice in any Baptist church of which I am affilliated.

We would respect the immersion by the PC, as would see them as being a legit NT church , but if they had infant baptism, would not see that as a legit one

 

[JesusFan]

There is a wide spectrum of policies among Baptists, with regard to what baptisms should or should not be accepted. "Alien immersion" is the technical term for baptisms that are not regarded as acceptable, but few Baptists talk about it any more. We may regard the policies of some churches as too narrow, but we should accept their right to set their own standards (not that we have any choice - each congregation is an autonomous, sovereign entity). I cannot speak for Reformed Baptists, but the one Reformed Baptist preacher that I know personally would accept Presbyterian baptism.

Accepted as long as was done when adult

 

[Baptist Renegade]

We would respect the immersion by the PC, as would see them as being a legit NT church , but if they had infant baptism, would not see that as a legit one

This is what I was thinking and this would be my position as well.

And so long as my "Baptist buddies" aren't lurking about, I would turn a blind eye in regards to the mode so long as it is not brought up.

If I were a PCA elder, I would actively counsel new converts to always choose baptism by immersion. Think of along the lines of obtaining a Commercial Drivers License to drive an 18-Wheeler. If you have the "Automatic" restriction, it will be sufficient to get your foot in the door with most trucking companies but if you get a "Real" CDL where you have to demonstrate the ability to drive a standard transmission, this will allow you to drive anywhere for whoever you want to and whatever they may happen to have!

Therefore, a CDL with an "Automatic" restriction = Baptism by sprinkling/pouring (restricted to Presbys, Dutch Reformed, Etc.)

An unrestricted CDL (able to drive a manual transmission, AKA a "Real Trucker") = Baptism by immersion (Accepted by most Baptists (the ones that matter anyway) in addition to the entire reformed community).

 

[Ransom]

If I were a PCA elder, I would actively counsel new converts to always choose baptism by immersion.

Conversely, if I were a Baptist elder, I probably wouldn't quibble over the quantity of water the PCA used to baptize an adult convert. We're in basic agreement theologically when it comes to credobaptism. Even though my own church would consistently practice immersion, I'd be satisfied with an alien baptism that water was used and the candidate sincerely believed he had received Christian baptism. We agree that the rite is a symbol, not literally efficacious to wash away sins, so the quantity of symbolic water is neither here nor there.

(Similarly, I wouldn't quibble over grape juice instead of wine for communion: I don't see how grape juice instead of red wine does violence to the symbol of shed blood: the colour, it seems to me, is more significant than the alcohol content. And Calvin even used red vs. white wine as an example of a Christian liberty issue.)

 

[Baptist Renegade]

Conversely, if I were a Baptist elder, I probably wouldn't quibble over the quantity of water the PCA used to baptize an adult convert. We're in basic agreement theologically when it comes to credobaptism. Even though my own church would consistently practice immersion, I'd be satisfied with an alien baptism that water was used and the candidate sincerely believed he had received Christian baptism. We agree that the rite is a symbol, not literally efficacious to wash away sins, so the quantity of symbolic water is neither here nor there.

(Similarly, I wouldn't quibble over grape juice instead of wine for communion: I don't see how grape juice instead of red wine does violence to the symbol of shed blood: the colour, it seems to me, is more significant than the alcohol content. And Calvin even used red vs. white wine as an example of a Christian liberty issue.)

I agree with you 100% but I was also trying to make a joke here that only "Truck Drivers" could possibly understand in regards to automatic vs. standard transmission trucks corelating a "real truck driver" with with a Christian who has had a "real baptism!" I was thinking there may be one or two here that would get the joke but perhaps it was a "Swing and a miss" that went over everyone's head?

I drove trucks for a short time during Covid (2020/2021). I was a "Real Trucker" who drove a "Real Truck" (10-Speed Manual)!

If there are any "Reformed Baptist Truck Drivers" here, they'd probably spew their coffee and say "Yeah! Right on!

 

[Ransom]

I agree with you 100% but I was also trying to make a joke here that only "Truck Drivers" could possibly understand in regards to automatic vs. standard transmission trucks corelating a "real truck driver" with with a Christian who has had a "real baptism!" I was thinking there may be one or two here that would get the joke but perhaps it was a "Swing and a miss" that went over everyone's head?

No, I got it. I just took it as an analogy rather than a joke.

You're right that if everyone practiced immersion by default and we didn't have to worry about the more liturgical traditions with their aspersions and affusions, it would eliminate half the controversy from the get-go. I just took the opposite tack of not sweating the details; as Augustine argued against the Donatists, it's God's thought that counts as to whether a baptism is "real."

 

[JesusFan]

This is what I was thinking and this would be my position as well.

And so long as my "Baptist buddies" aren't lurking about, I would turn a blind eye in regards to the mode so long as it is not brought up.

If I were a PCA elder, I would actively counsel new converts to always choose baptism by immersion. Think of along the lines of obtaining a Commercial Drivers License to drive an 18-Wheeler. If you have the "Automatic" restriction, it will be sufficient to get your foot in the door with most trucking companies but if you get a "Real" CDL where you have to demonstrate the ability to drive a standard transmission, this will allow you to drive anywhere for whoever you want to and whatever they may happen to have!

Therefore, a CDL with an "Automatic" restriction = Baptism by sprinkling/pouring (restricted to Presbys, Dutch Reformed, Etc.)

An unrestricted CDL (able to drive a manual transmission, AKA a "Real Trucker") = Baptism by immersion (Accepted by most Baptists (the ones that matter anyway) in addition to the entire reformed community).

Just would have been nice if the translators of the kjv would have stuck to Immersion as water baptism, but their view on baptism caused it to be mistranslated there

 

[Baptist Renegade]

Just would have been nice if the translators of the kjv would have stuck to Immersion as water baptism, but their view on baptism caused it to be mistranslated there

I guess that's what a Babtist gets for insisting on using a Bible translated by a bunch of "Baby Sprinklers!"

 

[JesusFan]

I guess that's what a Babtist gets for insisting on using a Bible translated by a bunch of "Baby Sprinklers!"

Or like when non calvinist complain that the Esv was a "calvinist bible edition"

 

[Ransom]

Just would have been nice if the translators of the kjv would have stuck to Immersion as water baptism, but their view on baptism caused it to be mistranslated there

I do love watching the mental gymnastics the fundamentalist Baptists have to do to maintain that the translation of baptizo is divinely inspired and infallible.